Punta Gorda board tables pool‑setback variance near seawall, asks for site‑specific engineering study

The Punta Gorda Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday voted unanimously to table a variance request from Lawrence and Shantel Hopkins that would place an in‑ground pool and enclosure substantially closer to a seawall than Punta Gorda’s 20‑foot setback requires.

Rachel Berry, zoning official for the record, told the board the applicants had reduced their initial request and were now seeking a 13.5‑foot reduction to allow the pool cage to sit 6.5 feet from the seawall rather than the 20 feet required under Punta Gorda code chapter 26, section 16.1.

Berry said staff remained concerned about seawall integrity and noted three of the variance approval criteria had not been definitively satisfied, including whether the reduction would be detrimental to public welfare and whether the requested reduction was the minimum necessary.

Lawrence Hopkins, who identified himself as a property owner at 64 Sable Drive, said the swimming pool is an ADA‑related accommodation and asked the board either to approve the variance with appropriate engineering conditions or to table the hearing and direct a site‑specific engineering analysis rather than deny the request “based on generalized concerns.”

Rachel Berry read an email from Brian Clemens, the city engineer, who wrote that he did not feel a reduction should be allowed because the municipality’s shortest dead‑man tie‑back design is approximately 19 feet from the seawall, that reduced setbacks leave less room for future seawall replacement, and that structures placed closer to a failing seawall could be at greater risk.

Contractor testimony addressed construction methods near tie‑backs. The contractor stated the design would use stem walls and careful excavation and said, “the wall should still stay up,” but acknowledged the work requires care to avoid severing tie‑backs and that repairs would be made if necessary. Board members pressed the contractor on whether severing tie‑backs could compromise seawall stability.

Several board members questioned the documentary record supporting the applicant’s ADA claim, noting that the application had initially listed a larger pool footprint and that the applicants said they were willing to reduce the deck or cage size. One member said that raised questions about whether the submitted medical documentation established the pool dimensions were the minimum necessary for therapeutic use.

After extended discussion about who bore the burden to produce site‑specific evidence, members agreed tabling the application would allow the applicant to return with an engineering study addressing seawall impacts. The motion to table specified that the applicant provide the engineering analysis; board members also discussed whether both parties should rely on the same licensed engineer but did not adopt a firm requirement beyond a licensed engineer’s report. The board voted unanimously to table the request pending receipt of the study.

Next steps: the application was tabled; the Hopkinses were told to provide a site‑specific engineering report showing the pool construction would not compromise seawall integrity if they wish the board to reconsider the variance.