Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permit Pool Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance to replace improperly permitted pool at 107 Bridal Bit Circle
Summary
A pool installed in 2021 with incorrect permitting and structural problems will be demolished and rebuilt within the existing footprint after the planning board approved a variance and required permitting steps.
Get email alerts on the Building Permit Pool Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Effingham County Planning Board approved a variance request and authorized replacement of an existing pool at 107 Bridal Bit Circle after hearing testimony that the original installation contained inaccurate permit information and construction defects.
Kimberly Bartlett, senior planner, told the board the county's pool setbacks require 10 feet from any property line and 10 feet from a dwelling. The applicants, April and Joe Anderson, represented by contractor April Ralph of Sundridge Pools, asked for reduced setbacks to allow reconstruction: they requested 5 feet from the rear property line, 2 feet from the side property line and 3 feet from the dwelling and said the project would remain in the existing footprint.
Ralph described multiple structural problems with the existing installation, which she said was permitted and completed in 2022 but contained incorrect measurements and construction defects. Ralph described a concrete deck pitched toward the house causing flooding into an enclosed rear room and an adjacent shed, low spots that collect standing water, an unstable wood retaining wall near the fence line, and a pool-step area that has sagged. "All the water is almost completely running back into their home," Ralph said, adding she had documented what she described as poor installation and, in the applicants' claim, a permit submitted with inaccurate measurements.
Ralph said the contractor who performed the original work had previously been linked in her experience to forged permit signatures; the Andersons said they were unaware the permit had been filed under the homeowner's name with incorrect data. Ralph told the board she and the Andersons plan to obtain a new regular permit to rebuild the pool and complete inspections.
The board closed the public hearing and voted to allow the applicants to replace the pool consistent with proper permitting and inspections. A subsequent second-reading motion also carried. The approval authorizes demolition and reconstruction within the existing footprint but does not waive the requirement for permits and inspections; the contractor said the project will proceed under a new permit and corrected drawings.

