Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Conditional Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves conditional-use permit for enclosed pool house at 4790 South 5500 West
Summary
The Hooper City Planning Commission approved a conditional-use permit for an enclosed pool house and attached addition at 4790 S. 5500 W. Commissioners and staff discussed pool-safety fencing, impervious-surface limits and an irrigation easement; a neighbor raised concerns about possible damage to a buried irrigation pipe.
The Hooper City Planning Commission on April 10 approved a conditional-use permit for an enclosed pool house and attached addition (1,730 square feet as filed) at 4790 South 5500 West.
Staff described the structure as an enclosed pool with electric service and no plumbing shown on the application. Applicant Bryce Clark told the commission the structure is intended to reduce dust and insect intrusion, prolong the swimming season and improve energy efficiency; Clark said he plans a fence around most of the property and that three sides of the fence were under construction with the front fence to follow, but he could not guarantee the front fence’s completion date.
Commissioners and staff focused on safety and code compliance. Staff noted the city’s pool-fence standard requiring self-closing, self-latching gates or an alternate method that prevents unsupervised access; commissioners queried whether bay-style garage doors on the enclosed pool would meet the ordinance when left open for ventilation. Clark told the commission the bay doors would be used for air flow when the pool is occupied and that the structure will be locked when not in use.
A nearby resident, Kurt Campbell, spoke at the public hearing and said an existing prescriptive irrigation easement runs along the north side of Clark’s property and that heavy construction equipment could damage a buried irrigation pipe. Campbell said he wanted confirmation that any damage would be repaired by the party that caused it. Clark and staff responded that the applicant planned to use contractors familiar with the site and that, as with any private improvement, damage to private facilities would be a private civil or insurance matter; staff reminded residents the planning commission’s authority on the conditional-use permit does not extend to private easement enforcement.
Staff also noted an internal impervious-surface review flagged the site near a local threshold; Clark said his final paving plan should keep him within allowable limits but acknowledged the inspector’s concern. Commissioners recommended that building permits and the building inspector ensure setbacks, sewer lateral clearances and impervious-surface limits are enforced.
On the motion to approve the conditional-use permit, the commission approved the application by voice vote. The permit was approved with the expectation the applicant will comply with building permit conditions, address the city’s pool-fencing requirement or provide equivalent safety measures accepted by staff, and meet sewer-lateral and impervious-surface requirements before final inspection.
The commission’s approval will allow Clark to proceed with building permits; staff said any unresolved construction or easement disputes would be addressed through normal permitting and enforcement channels or private civil remedies.
