4:45The primary focus of the meeting was the variance application submitted by Andrea Otis, who requested permission to reduce the shoreline buffer for a pool on a waterfront lot. Staff planner Ali Keane presented the details, explaining that while the Land Development Code typically requires a minimum setback of five feet for pools, properties with engineered seawalls can have reduced setbacks. However, the property in question does not have a seawall; it features riprap, leading to the need for a variance.

20:23The board engaged in a discussion around the variance, addressing the standards set by the Land Development Code. The dialogue encompassed the technical and regulatory aspects of riprap versus seawalls, with questions about the historical reasoning behind allowing different setbacks for seawalls compared to riprap. Board members delved into the structural integrity of riprap and its ability to withstand erosion, especially after recent hurricanes. The homeowner confirmed that the riprap, reinforced with various sizes of rocks, held up well during the storms.

One board member highlighted the concept of “reasonable use” of residential properties, arguing that having a pool aligns with typical single-family properties in the area. This member proposed that the property might not require a variance for reasonable use, given its alignment with standard residential expectations. The conversation explored whether the configuration of the pool could be altered to meet setback requirements without a variance. It was suggested that rotating the pool 90 degrees towards the house could potentially align with the required setbacks, though re-engineering would be necessary.

35:18The meeting also included a discussion around a related variance request involving a dock and a house addition. The applicant highlighted discrepancies with property lines that were clarified after a county inspector’s visit, necessitating adjustments to the dock’s proposed location. The board considered the improvements made to the property, including the installation of riprap for erosion control, and plans to install pilings under the pool to prevent settling.

The applicant underscored the importance of accurately determining property lines, particularly with the statement, “My dock would be starting in the middle of my lawn.” This highlighted the necessity of the variance request to align with true property boundaries. The board reviewed the five standards guiding variance requests, recognizing unique conditions affecting the property that justified the variance. A board member articulated, “I don’t think that we consider the fact that the flow of traffic in the home and the configuration of the home, you know, in my opinion that is creating a need.” This rationale was bolstered by acknowledgment of the property’s inability to accommodate a seawall.

Ultimately, the board expressed unanimous agreement to approve the variance, citing the conditions of the property and new data presented as warranting the decision. A roll call vote confirmed the board’s support for the motion.