Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Webster Groves board approves variance allowing swim spa at 28 Elm Place
Summary
On July 9 the Webster Groves Board of Adjustment granted a 2.5-foot setback variance for a swim spa at 28 Elm Place, citing lot shape and easements that limit placement. A neighbor objected citing historic-district rules; the board voted 5-0 to approve.
The Webster Groves Board of Adjustment on July 9 voted unanimously to grant a variance allowing a swim spa at 28 Elm Place to remain 2.5 feet from the west side property line, relaxing the 5-foot accessory-structure setback required by city code.
City planner Evan Winkler told the board the property lies in the Central Webster Historic District and is unusually shaped, roughly 7,900 square feet, at the end of a cul-de-sac. He said the lot includes a 20-foot Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) easement and a diagonal easement; the owners built a detached garage that required a stormwater swale and detention area, which, Winkler said, limited where additional structures could be placed. “The swim spa is setback at 2 and a half feet from the side yard,” Winkler said while explaining the request under municipal code section 53.078(n).
Applicant John Piazza, who identified himself as the property owner, told the board the combination of easements, the position of the permitted garage and the required swale left the owners with limited placement options. Piazza said a former staff member, Prashant Peoples, emailed that zoning approval would allow the project to proceed and that inspections had been completed for other parts of the renovation. “We thought we were doing everything according to the book,” Piazza said, adding that affected neighbors Emily and Chase had signed a support statement.
Neighbor Ellen Sprick, who said she lives at 16 Elm Place, testified against the request, citing the historic-district setting and what she described as prior rule noncompliance at 28 Elm Place, including the detached garage. “I would not be in favor of it,” Sprick said, and questioned why the swim spa could not be placed closer to the house.
Board members debated whether the owners had created their own hardship by building the garage and required swale or whether the lot’s shape and the presence of the MSD easement constituted an exceptional hardship under the variance standard. Acting city attorney Peter Buntregger advised the board that a staff email cannot itself grant a variance but that the circumstances surrounding that email and the site constraints could be considered in assessing hardship. “The email itself can’t grant a variance,” he said.
After discussion, board members said the lot configuration, easements and stormwater requirements supported the requested relief. Randy Sprague moved approval of docket 24-39; the motion was seconded and the board voted 5-0 to approve the variance. The chair told the applicants to see city staff during regular business hours for next steps.
The board also confirmed there will likely be no August meeting and then adjourned.
