Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brentwood zoning board denies pool setback variance for 309 Granny White Pike
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny a variance that would have allowed a new pool and decking to encroach on the rear setback at 309 Granny White Pike, with staff saying the statutory criteria were not met and the board citing precedent and design-created hardship.
The Brentwood Board of Zoning Appeals on May 18 denied a property owner’s request to place a swimming pool outside the rear buildable area at 309 Granny White Pike, concluding the application failed to meet state and local variance criteria.
Planning staff read a detailed report recommending denial, noting the R-1 zoning district requires a 50-foot rear setback and concluding the lot does not present an exceptional topographic condition, that the hardship was primarily design-driven, and that granting relief could impair the zoning ordinance’s intent and create precedent. "Staff recommends denial of the variance request because there is no exceptional topographic condition or other extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition to the property," planning staff said during the meeting.
Architect Terry Base, who presented for the applicants, told the board the narrow front-to-back depth of the lot (about 58 feet of buildable depth) makes fitting a house and a functional pool within the required envelope difficult without producing an unusually long façade. "I tried multiple layouts trying to make this work and make it work graciously," the architect said, arguing the retaining wall and grade changes behind the lot create practical difficulties for a rear-yard pool.
Members of the Ferdowsi family, including co-owner Amin Ferdowsi, urged the board to allow the pool in the rear because it would maximize safety and visibility for children and preserve family history. "The pool was the epicenter of our social life," Amin Ferdowsi said, describing photos and neighbor support submitted as exhibits. Architect and counsel for the family also submitted contractor estimates and design exhibits intended to show that the proposed new pool would be smaller in surface area and farther from the rear property line than the existing in-ground pool that dates to the 1970s.
Applicant attorney Sean Henry argued the lot’s slope, existing retaining wall and site conditions make it unique and that the proposed pool would be "closer to compliance" than the old pool. He also disputed staff’s characterization that the original pool had been abandoned and cited inspection and cost-estimate letters supplied by the applicant.
Board members pressed staff and counsel on alternatives, including rebuilding within the original footprint, redesigning the house to create a rear buildable area, or adding a partial addition to the structure to create compliant space. Several board members said the design of the new house left little or no rear buildable area and expressed sympathy for the family while emphasizing that the zoning criteria require more than convenience. One board member said he was concerned that "allowing for a convenience factor to build outside the building envelope would be detrimental to the zoning ordinance in Brentwood."
After deliberation a board member moved to deny the variance on the grounds that the hardship was created by the design, comparable Lot 46 had been developed without relief, and granting the variance would set an undesirable precedent; another board member seconded. The motion to deny carried; the board approved staff’s recommendation to deny the variance. The board then moved on to three accessory structure applications on the agenda.
The board’s action is limited to the variance request before it; the staff noted that questions about rehabilitation of the older pool, permitting, and code interpretation may be subject to separate administrative processes or appeals.
