05/06/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. Shiels was sworn in. She purchased an 18 foot pool in March and the store/installer did not advise her as to what her lot could accommodate. The request for a 15 foot pool was the recommendation of the building inspector to minimize the size and number of variances needed. She submitted a new drawing and asked if the entire garage or just the shed was an accessory structure or if they should have been given more square footage credit for the open property on either side of the enclosed porch which would give her an additiona1320 feet. The new plan shows the placement of the 18 foot pool which is what she owns. She believes she only requires a 70 square foot variance. Mr. Mitchell said the main concern is not the area square footage but making sure the side and rear yard setbacks are met and that the pool is not too close to the garage or pool's mechanical equipment. Looking at the new drawing, the 18 foot pool will only be 2 feet from the garage and the mechanical equipment requirements for distance from the pool would not meet setback requirements. Mrs. Shiels said she could move the pool closer toward the home to meet the distance from the garage. Mr. Mitchell noted that the dimensions on the original diagram and the new plan are not consistent. Mrs. Shiels said she believed her drawing was accurate not the first drawing submitted and her plan shows the 18 foot pool. A brief discussion ensued pertaining to information provided by the pool company which was inaccurate and whether or not the applicant would be able to change her order to a 15 foot pool which she was not sure of. The installer said she was required to pull the permit and the city when contacted advised that the installer was required to pull permits. Mr. Lopez asked if there was something that could be done to require any business which sells pools to post the city codes pertaining to installing pools and size requirements. Mr. Gareau said the board could forward a memo to City Council or the Mayor asking the matter be looked into or addressed under business regulations or some other method. However that would also open up other topics such as fencing, patios and lighting requirements as well. Mr. Lopez said he would not be comfortable acting upon the request without making sure the dimensions of the lot are accurate and the owner knows if the pool company will let her go with the 15 foot pool without penalties. Mr. Mitchell said that an 18 foot pool would not fit in the applicant's backyard even with variances due to the required distances from other structures, side, rear, and mechanical setbacks. The largest size pool that could be installed with a variance is a 15 foot pool. The board asked if Mrs. Shiels wished to continue the case using her original submittal and Mrs. Shiels said an 18 foot pool was purchased not a 15 foot one, the inspector change the plan to show a 15 foot pool. Ms. Rudolph said if the side areas are considered the 15 foot pool variance could be smaller if they proceed with the 15 foot pool. Mr. Mitchell said the inspector had no knowledge that a pool had been purchased and his suggest'ion for the 15 foot pool was based on the pool size which could possibly fit the yard with the variance and the inspectors dimensions should be used for all calculations. If the 15 foot pool is granted he would like a condition placed upon the variance prohibiting any further accessory structures being installed. The building department is willing to work with the homeowner in addressing the pool company for the 15 foot pool. Board members agreed that they were not comfortable acting upon the request without the issue of additional coverage and accurate lot dimensions. Mr. Gareau advised that as new documents were submitted the board was within their right to table the matter until further information is 4