Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies Walsh family request to reduce rear pool setback in Boca Raton

Planning & Zoning Board of the City of Boca Raton · June 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Boca Raton Planning & Zoning Board on June 5 denied a request by the Walsh property owner to reduce the required 10‑foot rear pool setback to 7 feet, a 3‑foot variance. Staff recommended denial and the motion failed on roll call, 1‑6.

The Boca Raton Planning & Zoning Board on June 5 rejected a request to reduce the rear pool setback at 77 Southeast Olive Way, voting 1‑6 after staff recommended denial.

Pam Kitchen, a zoning officer with the City of Boca Raton, told the board the applicant sought a 3‑foot variance from the 10‑foot rear pool setback to allow a new pool on a trapezoid‑shaped lot. Kitchen said the property’s 25‑foot rear yard and a recent home balcony addition meant there is space to locate a reasonably sized pool without a variance and that adjacent lots show similar constraints, undercutting claims of unique hardship.

Marissa Smith, the contractor on the project, and John Walsh, the property owner, said the existing ‘bean‑shaped’ pool is outdated and the proposed design better fits the yard and neighbors’ patterns. Smith said a recently approved balcony and associated slab would bring the house closer to the proposed pool, and that best practice recommends 5 feet between pool and foundation for structural integrity; she noted Florida building code does not set a mandatory house‑to‑pool setback but recommends a 4‑foot wet deck and a 10% obstruction allowance.

Board members questioned whether other options existed, including relocating the pool closer to the house; Kitchen confirmed that with the home’s 25‑foot setback there was room to shift the pool back. After public testimony was closed with no speakers, the board moved and seconded approval, but the motion failed on roll call (Yes: Mitchell; No: Solon; Morgan; Dornblazer; McDermott; Ritchie; Chair Savelle). The packet materials showed staff analysis including prior permits (existing pool permit BP0400004991; new permit BPR202403058) and the staff recommendation to deny.

Because this was a quasi‑judicial matter, participants had been sworn; the denial means the applicant may revise plans or pursue other options permitted by code. No appeal or next procedural step was recorded during the meeting.