Laserfiche WebLink
to the required 10 -foot side yard setback for the pool and associated deck, with 5 feet, 6 inches <br />proposed. <br />The applicant stated the existing pool was too small for family use and that the expansion would <br />not negatively impact neighboring properties. It was noted that nearby neighbors had been <br />consulted with no objections. The applicant also explained that the placement of the pool deck <br />was chosen to maintain privacy, as relocating it would overlook an adjacent property despite <br />existing fencing. <br />Staff clarified that all accessory structures, including the pool deck and shed, count toward lot <br />coverage under updated code standards adopted in 2021. Discussion included whether relocating <br />the deck could eliminate the side yard variance, though the applicant maintained the current <br />placement best preserved privacy. <br />Mr. Ammons made a motion to approve case 410-2026; John Gannon; 24816 Tara Lynn Dr.; <br />seconded by Ms. Galateanu. <br />Motion passed: 3-0 <br />412-2026; Wasem Tarshah; 5500 Bradley Rd. <br />The applicant proposed installing a horseshoe -shaped driveway, requesting one variance to allow <br />a second driveway curb cut, as code permits only one curb cut per residential lot and two were <br />proposed. <br />The applicant stated the request was based on safety concerns and accessibility needs, explaining <br />that visibility when backing out onto the road was limited and that a circular driveway would <br />allow vehicles to exit more safely. It was also noted that frequent in -home medical visits for a <br />family member with a disability required easier access for larger vehicles, caregivers, and <br />emergency services. <br />Staff indicated that Engineering reviewed the proposal and, if approved, required the driveway <br />apron to be centered between a light pole and storm manhole, constructed to city standards, and <br />include replacement of the existing sidewalk to meet thickness requirements. It was also noted <br />that any proposed walkway must be included in the construction plans. <br />The Board discussed compliance with Engineering requirements, and the applicant <br />acknowledged understanding -of the conditions. No additional concerns were raised during <br />questioning. <br />Mr. Ammons made a motion to approve case 412-2026; Wasem Tarshah; 5500 Bradley Rd.; <br />seconded by Ms. Galateanu. <br />