Smyrna board approves setback variance to keep homeowner’s above‑ground pool

The Town of Smyrna Board of Zoning Appeals voted in May 2026 to grant a front‑setback variance for 404 Valley View Drive, allowing an existing above‑ground pool to remain where staff said it encroached on the platted 40‑foot front setback.

The variance request was presented by town codes staff, who said the corner lot is subject to two front setbacks because it fronts two streets and that the subdivision plat requires a 40‑foot front setback (five feet greater than the current R3 standard of 35 feet). Staff said the pool had been installed without a building permit, was discovered by code enforcement, and that the homeowner subsequently applied for a permit that was denied because of the setback encroachment. The staff report cited Sections 7.08 and 7.080 of the municipal zoning ordinance and reviewed the variance criteria the board must apply.

“At the time the pool was installed it was not permitted and that led to this variance request,” said Mitch, a town staff member presenting the item. Staff noted the lot’s corner‑lot geometry creates a smaller rear yard to use and said prior, similar variance requests on comparable lots have been approved in past years. Staff also said an inspection by codes will determine whether additional permits or modifications are required to meet enclosure and safety rules.

Christy Warell of the town’s codes staff told the board the installed fence is 42 inches high and that pool enclosure requirements mean a fence would be required at minimum if the existing fence were removed or fell down. “If the fence fell down, they would be required to put another fence up around the pool at the very minimum,” Warell said.

The homeowner who spoke at the public hearing identified himself in the record as Ran Kazul of 404 Valley View Drive. Kazul said he and his family moved to the area years ago, installed the above‑ground pool without first applying for a permit because they did not think one was required, and that the pool cost about $12,000. “We have three children and grandchildren; we built the pool so we can spend time with family,” Kazul said.

With no other speakers, the board closed the public hearing. Mr. Blair moved to approve the variance; a board member seconded the motion and the chair announced the request was approved. The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally or the names of all members who voted.

Board members discussed that permitting and code inspections remain necessary steps and that pool‑enclosure requirements will be enforced as part of any follow‑up inspections. The approved variance allows the pool to remain in its current location subject to applicable permitting and code requirements.

The BZA proceeded to its next agenda item after announcing the variance was approved.