07/21/2011 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

backfill the space. Mr. Ullrich said it would be stored in the owners' apron and it will take approximately three days to complete. Mr. Meder said if the pool materials are properly broken up, reused and compacted properly it is exempt material in accordance to state laws. The proposal states that only 2 feet below grade along the top of the pool wall be broken up dropped to the bottom of the pool. Mr. Ullrich said once the material is pushed to either end of the pool it is crushed and a 4 foot square hole is jack hammered at each end. Ms. Sabo noted the additional contract which states the pool and all building materials could be removed in accordance to code for additional funds. Mr. Meder asked if the concrete patio around the pool would be removed and what would be done with the materials. Mr. Ullrich said the patio slab and wooden deck would be removed and taken off site and grass planted in its place. Mr. Mitchell said he is concerned for the stability of the work proposed and future land use. Any future work would require soil borings and other expensive costs trying to find the footers and making sure the sunroom was and would not be adversely affected. Mr. Mitchell said if the variance is granted he requested a condition to have detailed engineer drawings submitted clearly stating all work to be done and a listing of all materials to be removed. Mr. Meder noted that the top 2 feet around the pool was minimal compared to the concrete and wood decking which must be removed from the site. He would like the condition to have the Building Official request a representative from the County Health department present several times to ensure the backfill is clean exempt materials and does not fall into the category of hazardous waste. Mr. O'Malley said it would be the contractor's responsibilities to have the county verify the conditions of the approval. Ms. Nader aslced if once the backfill is completed would it accommodate future structures or if something would be recorded with the County Recorder so all future owners would be aware of the conditions of the site. Mr. Ullrich said he did not believe it was necessary to have the County inspect the backfill. Mr. Klesh said he did not think the county should be involved nor should there have to be anything recorded or the health department involved. Mr. O'Malley said he would discourage the members from requiring any recordings of deeds or easements as it is a private property matter. Mr. Pappotto said he is concerned over the proximity of the pool and house walls to each other and the backfill content not being clear for any future owner. He would agree that if all the walls and reusable materials of the pool were crushed to make reusable and used as baclcfill then he would not object. However, only if the area is buildable once backfill is completed. Ms. Nader advised the hoineowner that due to the proximity of the pool to the home a construction engineer should be consulted. She noted that it was the owner's responsibility to ensure the structural stability of the home and surrounding structures. If approved there should be 3 rows of holes drilled along the bottom of the pool to ensure drainage. Mr. Meder said there is a hole in the ground now that is not filled and is hazardous. He would like to see the pool backfilled with clean fill and something in writing from the county health department pertaining to the backfill. If the work is done accurately as submitted and amended with the material being approved by the county he has no objections. Ms. Sabo is concerned that there was not enough evidence presented to justify the request and did not want to see such precedent set without justification. Mr. Meder moved, seconded by Ms. Nader, to grant Ronald Klesh of 29540 Huntington Drive a variance as amended to bury debris from swimming pool demolition, Section 1365.01 with the following conditions: 2