Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Holly Hill approves first reading of ordinance to ease pool-screen setback limits, amid neighbor concerns
Summary
On first reading the commission approved Ordinance 30-96 to allow qualifying pool-screen enclosures to match a pool's 5-foot rear setback under specified design standards; one commissioner voted against the measure citing proximity to neighboring property.
The Holly Hill City Commission approved, on first reading, Ordinance 30-96 to amend the city's Land Development Regulations so certain pool-screen enclosures may follow a pool's existing 5-foot rear setback when they meet design standards.
Josh Steele, the city's senior planner, told the commission the ordinance clarifies an inconsistency in the code that currently classifies pool screen enclosures larger than 300 square feet as accessory structures and, in some districts, forces a 30-foot rear setback even when the pool itself can sit five feet from the property line. Under the proposed amendment, qualifying enclosures would be allowed at the same five-foot rear setback as the pool so long as they meet limits on height, screening and extension beyond the water's edge.
Steele described the standards the ordinance would require: generally limiting enclosure height (staff cited 12 feet as a maximum for some elements during discussion), requiring that roofs and sides be screened to preserve light and visibility, and limiting any enclosure's extension beyond the water's edge to a set distance (staff mentioned seven feet in examples). The ordinance preserves a minimum five-foot distance from the rear property line in all cases.
Commission discussion focused on whether similar relief should apply to side-yard setbacks, and on neighbors' concerns that a five-foot clearance can feel very close on older, tightly spaced lots. One commissioner said five feet "seems awfully close" for some neighborhoods stacked close to property lines. The board also noted that side-yard setback rules operate differently across zoning districts and are not part of this amendment.
A motion to approve the ordinance on first reading carried 4'to'1, with one commissioner recording a nay vote. The transcript did not record a date for a second reading within the meeting record.
The ordinance text as read on the floor referenced amendments to sections of the code (transcript cites 1-14-742 and 1-14-761) and staff said the Board of Planning and Appeals recommended approval during their February meeting.
