Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Pool Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Watertown Board of Adjustment denies variance request for 2435 Lucas Circle NW pool fence
Summary
The Board of Adjustment voted down a request to allow an existing 4-foot wrought-iron fence and material exception at 2435 Lucas Circle NW, meaning the applicant must either install a compliant fence or await an ordinance change before a pool permit can be issued.
The City of Watertown Board of Adjustment on April 24 denied a variance request that would have allowed a 4-foot wrought-iron fence around a planned swimming pool at 2435 Lucas Circle NW instead of the 6-foot fence currently required by city ordinance.
The denial means the applicant cannot receive a building permit for the permanent pool unless the property owner installs a fence that meets the ordinance or the City amends the ordinance. Staff and the applicants discussed a proposed ordinance change that would allow a 4-foot barrier if the pool is fitted with an automatic powered safety cover meeting ASTM F1346 standards.
Brandy, a city staff member who presented the case, told the board the property already has a 4-foot wrought-iron fence that was installed in February 2022 without a building permit and that the applicants have since submitted a fence permit application. Under current city rules (moved recently from Title 11 to Title 21), “all outdoor swimming pools for which a permit is required shall be completely enclosed by a fence,” and the ordinance specifies a 6-foot fence and materials such as 9-gauge woven wire mesh or non-climbable wooden fence. Brandy said the building code and international pool-and-spa code — sections the city has not adopted in full — allow a 4-foot barrier in conjunction with certain safety measures, including an automatic powered safety cover.
Applicant Lauren Ollerud told the board she and her contractor plan to install an automatic pool cover that complies with ASTM F1346; she said the standard requires the cover to hold at least 485 pounds. Her husband, who joined by phone and identified himself as Ryan Ollerud, also spoke in favor of the variance.
Board members raised procedural and policy concerns. Several members said an individual variance would amount to “legislating by variance” and that changes to the fence requirement should be made through the ordinance-amendment process rather than by granting a property-specific exception. Staff said an ordinance amendment could move through the planning commission in May and reach city council after two hearings in June, but that schedule carries no guarantee; staff also noted that a building permit cannot be issued to start work until either the variance is granted or the ordinance is changed.
Board member Kaye moved to approve the variance “as requested”; the motion was seconded by Speier. On a roll call the motion failed, with the board recording more No votes than Yes and noting that, because only five members were present for the meeting, a unanimous affirmative vote of those five would have been required for approval of the variance. The chair announced that the request failed.
After the vote, members and staff discussed next steps for the applicants: withdraw and resubmit plans showing a compliant 6-foot fence (the fence need not be complete before construction begins so long as it is in place before the pool is operational) or pursue the ordinance-amendment route. Several board members expressed support in principle for an ordinance change that would allow a 4-foot fenced option when paired with an automatic safety cover, but reiterated that the board’s role at the meeting was to apply the current rules.
The public hearing on the variance was opened and closed the same evening; aside from the applicants, one caller (identified as Ryan Ollerud) spoke in support. No opposition speakers were recorded.
The board moved on to other business and adjourned.
