Appeals board denies Michelle Merrick’s request to move living area forward to allow pool

At a meeting of the Hurricane appeals board, the panel voted to deny a variance request from homeowner Michelle Merrick that would have moved the livable side of a proposed house forward to 20 feet to accommodate a backyard pool. Beth, a committee member, moved to deny the request on the ground that the application did not meet all five statutory criteria required for a variance; another committee member seconded the motion and the board voted in favor of denial.

Merrick, the applicant, told the board she had made design concessions — removing a patio cover, reducing the garage size and shrinking a bedroom — but said the location of a rockery retaining wall along the rear property line and the structural engineer’s advice about pool surcharge meant the pool could not be sited unless the livable portion of the house was moved forward. "And we would like to move that forward to 20 feet," Merrick said when describing the requested change.

Staff and board members questioned whether the circumstances Merrick described were unique to her lot. A staff member said the city’s records show the neighboring Lot 80’s site plan lists a 25-foot setback and warned that allegations of noncompliance have to be confirmed by survey before the board could rely on them. One committee member summarized the legal test: state law requires five findings for a variance, and the claimed hardship must be specific to the property rather than a condition shared across many lots.

During deliberations, board members repeatedly emphasized that economic hardship or design choices by the developer generally cannot alone justify a variance and that the board must find every legal element satisfied to grant relief. Beth moved that the request be denied "based on it does not meet all 5 of the criteria required for this board to grant a variance." The motion was seconded and carried.

The staff member told Merrick the board would prepare draft minutes and explained appeal options: from this administrative decision the next legal remedy would be a district-court challenge. The board also discussed follow-up administrative items, including drafting minutes and bringing chair designation to the next meeting.

The board’s decision was procedural and focused on the variance criteria in state and city law; it did not adjudicate whether any neighboring lot is noncompliant with its recorded site plan.