Board approves 1.5-foot setback variance for Montegue Lane pool, requires equipment be relocated

The Wilmington Board of Adjustments voted unanimously Nov. 20 to grant a 1.5-foot setback variance for an in-ground swimming pool at 1810 Montegue Lane, but required that the pool’s mechanical equipment be moved so it complies with setback rules.

City staff member Catherine presented the case, telling the board the property sits in the Urban Mixed Use (UMX) legacy district and that the pool was under construction without the required pool permit. Staff said the pool encroaches into the five-foot setback that applies in this district and recommended the board consider the variance request.

Amy Schafer, speaking on behalf of the applicant, apologized for the permit confusion and said the house and pool were already constructed. Schafer said measurements differ depending on whether distance is taken to the pool’s depression or to the coping: “If it is to the edge of the coping and decking…we are at 3 feet 6 inches, so we would need a foot and a half,” she told the board, and urged that tearing out the pool would create financial hardship and drainage and erosion problems.

Board members pressed staff and the applicant on scope. A board member asked whether the advertised request covered pool equipment as well as the pool; staff replied that the request for a setback variance covered both the pool and the equipment and that it was properly advertised. Staff also emphasized that a board-approved variance would not override any non-municipal easement restrictions.

One member noted the recurring nature of pool-variance requests and criticized contractors who proceed without correct permits: “Any swimming pool company should know that there’s a permit required for a swimming pool,” the member said, saying that negligence by contractors complicates the board’s decisions. Staff said one contractor had been flagged in the city’s permitting system for extra inspections when future applications are submitted.

After deliberation, a board member moved to grant the 1.5-foot variance based on the board’s findings of fact, with the express condition that pool equipment be moved into compliance with the setback; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

The board’s approval allows the pool to remain with the specified variance, but the decision does not remove or alter any private non-municipal easement rights that might limit placement of equipment. The board recorded no further public testimony and closed the matter.