08/08/2001 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 6 Chair Schaps asked if any portion of the fence could be six foot. Mr. Smyser replied it could be six -foot up until the 30 foot set -back line, and then it had to drop down to 4 feet. Chair Schaps asked why a six -foot fence was so much better than a four -foot fence. Mr. Ramsay stated children could more easily climb a four -foot fence, and a six -foot fence would be more protection. Chair Schaps replied that the main issue was that the pool had to be well supervised, and it did not matter what type of fence was placed around it. Mr. Corson asked about placing a net over the pool to keep children out. Mr. Smyser replied that would be less obstructive. Mr. Ramsey replied they had not considered that option, but he did not have any objection to it. Ms. Lane stated she would like to see the pool moved to the opposite corner of the lot. Mr. Smyser replied the problem was the grading if it was moved to the other corner. He stated this would have to be something the City Engineer would have to look at. He indicated he could not make a recommendation to spend the City's money to move the pool and this would have to be a Council decision. Bob Ranallo, 6643 Ruffed Grouse Road, agreed that this was an unfortunate situation. He indicated the first concern was the placement of the pool. He presented pictures of where the pool presently sits with respect to his property. He asked if the pool was in an appropriate location for a pool. Chair Schaps asked if he understood that Mr. Ramsay had a right to have a pool in his backyard. Mr. Ranallo indicated he did have that understanding, and did not have an issue with a pool in the Ramsay's back yard, but he did not like the location of where the pool was Ken , 6654 Ruffed Grouse Road, stated his home was across the street and indicated the pool was literally in the Ranallo's front yard and while he realized Mr. Ramsay had the right to a pool in his backyard, it should be moved. If an error was made by the City, the error had to be corrected. The bottom line was that the pool was in the wrong spot. He asked if the City had any strict requirements for pools, as they had for decks. Mr. Smyser clarified building permit applications for decks did require drawings because that was part of the State Building Code, but there was no such requirement for pools, so the City did not require the same level of detail as would be required for decks, but this would not be a bad idea to consider. Mr. Rafferty stated this was a difficult situation and he did not believe there was enough information to even go forward to the City Council, and he requested that all of the information be verified in writing. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny the 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court request for variance, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6 -0.