Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Denial Ramsey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies homeowner variances for pool at 409 Ramsey Lane NW
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously denied two variances requested for 409 Ramsey Lane NW — a 6% reduction to the 60% permeable-surface rule and a 6-foot reduction to the required 15-foot rear-yard setback for a proposed pool — after staff concluded the lot lacked unique hardship and residents raised water and drainage concerns.
The Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously denied two variance requests for a property at 409 Ramsey Lane NW during its Jan. 14 meeting.
The requests — one to reduce the permeable‑surface minimum to allow a pool (seeking a 6% variance to the 60% permeable‑surface requirement) and one to reduce the rear‑yard setback from 15 feet to 9 feet — were presented together because they relate to the same proposed in‑ground swimming pool. Planning staff, represented by consultant Brennan Williams, recommended denial after reviewing the zoning code criteria for variances and concluding the lot did not demonstrate the exceptional, property‑specific hardship required for approval.
Applicant representation: The applicant was not present due to illness; Johnny Bryant, identified as the applicant’s brother and contractor on site, and Angel Jordan, the pool contractor, spoke for the application, explaining that an existing RV pad and private road configuration reduce usable permeable area and that prior similar conditions exist in the gated subdivision. Jordan said removing the RV pad still would not meet the 60% permeable requirement.
Resident concerns: Several residents spoke against granting the variances. Camille Vados, who lives on Aliso Road, warned of added traffic and said she was worried about water use and the agricultural character of the village if pools are approved. Vincent Sanchez and other residents raised questions about consistent enforcement of R3 standards, including drainage and the 25‑foot setback from drainage channels.
Commission rationale and vote: Commissioners noted the difficulties of applying village standards to areas annexed from county jurisdiction and the prevalence of nonconforming development, but also emphasized that variance approval requires property‑specific factors such as unique topography or grade. With those criteria unmet in staff’s analysis, the commission voted to deny the permeable‑surface variance and then the rear‑yard setback variance (both denials unanimous). Staff advised the applicant to contact Mr. Williams for options should they wish to pursue other administrative or appellate steps.
What this means: The denials halt immediate plans to install the proposed pool at the location originally requested. The applicant may consult with village staff about redesign options (smaller pool, changed placement, or mitigation measures) or pursue other remedies described by staff.
