Board deadlocks on larger pump-house request; continues Pelican Lane variance to next meeting

A contested variance request to allow a larger pool pump house at 3 Pelican Lane was continued to the next Planning and Development Board meeting after an evenly split vote and subsequent board discussion.

Simone Kenny, planner, told the board the application sought to supersede a February 2025 variance approval that had limited placement of the pump house and restricted its height to 4 feet. The new request sought a 22.34-foot left (west) street-side setback variance from the required 25-foot street-side setback and a 1.2% lot-coverage variance for a pump house at 3 Pelican Lane; permitting had not begun and several written objections were on file.

Applicant Raymond Royer (owner, 3 Pelican Lane) said he planned a pump house that matches his home, described the structure as made of block for hurricane protection and said the proposed configuration responded to equipment needs and saltwater exposure. "I'm trying to build a structure to protect my system from saltwater, winds, you know, hail," Royer said, and told the board the pool pumps and equipment would be costly.

Neighborhood residents strongly opposed the larger pump house size. Dan O'Connell, who said he reviewed the equipment manufacturer's materials, told the board "a 4 foot pad and a 4 foot height restriction is more than sufficient for the system," and said he had an email from the manufacturer's customer-service manager supporting that position. Jackie O'Connell and other neighbors said the larger proposed structure would block sight lines at the nearby intersection and increase flooding and drainage concerns.

Board members debated whether the larger pump house was the "minimum relief necessary." One member said prior findings limited the pump house height to 4 feet and he had heard nothing to change that view; another disagreed and said the site-triangle and view arguments submitted did not justify the height limit. After a motion to approve the superseding variance was put to a roll-call vote, the board recorded a 2–2 split and the motion failed. The board then considered next steps and, after discussion about procedural implications, voted unanimously to continue the item to the next meeting to allow a fuller board to consider the request.

The board's continuation preserves the prior variance conditions for the pump house: if the superseding request fails, the earlier approval (with the 4-foot pump-house height condition) remains intact and the applicant may proceed under that prior approval. The board recorded the final continuance as unanimous by roll call. The applicant was informed there is a two-continuance limit for this application; staff noted this was the second continuance and the applicant earned "points for persistence."