Beaufort County zoning board denies variance request for pool built on deck within river buffer

The Beaufort County Zoning Board of Appeals on a unanimous voice vote denied a variance request for a pool built on the rear deck of a Harbor Island house, concluding the feature is materially different from the open, pervious deck approved in March 2023 and that granting relief would improperly confer an after‑the‑fact privilege.

Attorney Katie Tanner, representing owner Evan Carol, told the board the pool is a small “plunge” pool sitting on the deck and that the 2023 variance approved the house footprint, including the attached deck. Tanner said the county’s forms and the Community Development Code do not require a separate variance for an accessory pool and asked the board to either find no new variance was needed or to grant one so the county would remove a zoning hold and allow building codes to complete a final inspection for a certificate of occupancy. "We are simply following instructions," Tanner said, adding the filing was submitted "under protest" because the client disputes the need for new relief.

County zoning staff and several board members responded that the March 2023 approval had been for a single‑family house with an open, pervious rear deck, not a pool. A staff presenter noted that pools bring impervious surface, mechanical equipment and discharge closer to the OCRM critical line and that zoning did not approve a pool in the original variance packets reviewed by the board. Neighbors and conservation‑minded residents told the board they were concerned about impacts to marsh vegetation, turtle habitat and long‑standing public access paths.

Among public speakers, resident France Bajger reviewed public records and told the board the 2023 variance did not include a pool; she said the elevated pool likely holds more than 3,500 gallons, raised questions about geotechnical and hydrological reviews specific to the pool, and urged caution to avoid further stress on the marsh. "A hardship cannot be claimed when the condition is self‑created," Bajger said, urging the board to consider ecological risk and the appearance of after‑the‑fact approvals.

Builder David Sallall said plans he received from the original designer showed the pool and that building inspectors performed multiple inspections before a zoning hold blocked final sign‑off. He said the pool equipment is sited beside the house in the service yard, away from the critical line.

In rebuttal, Tanner reiterated that building officials had approved the pool’s engineering and that an environmental services letter in the record found no further observed alteration of the critical area. She asked the board for a clear legal explanation should it determine a variance is required and requested consideration of a temporary certificate of occupancy so the owners could move in while the dispute is resolved.

After board discussion focused on whether a pool qualifies as a distinct structure for variance purposes and whether reasonable use of the property already exists without the pool, a board member moved to deny the variance. The motion cited the scope of the March 2023 variance (an open deck), the material difference between an open deck and an impervious pool with mechanical equipment near the buffer, and the view that reasonable use of the property was not impaired by denying the pool relief. The motion was seconded and the board signaled no opposition; the variance was denied.

The board did not grant the zoning relief sought; the denial leaves the zoning hold in place and will prevent final building‑code sign‑off unless the owner pursues further administrative appeal or other relief. The record contains statutory citations and submissions from both parties; the board requested that its written decision include the factual and legal grounds supporting the denial.