Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances first reading of ordinance requiring pool-equipment screening; attorney advises against retroactive enforcement
Summary
Ordinance 6-49, proposed to require screening of pool pumps and equipment from adjacent properties, advanced on first reading. The city attorney said the ordinance likely cannot be applied retroactively; council asked the Architectural Review Committee to refine technical language ("green barrier" and sound mitigation) before second reading.
Prospect City Council moved forward on a first reading of Ordinance 6-49 on March 17, a measure that would require pool equipment—pumps, filters, heaters and similar machinery—to be screened from adjacent properties.
The motion to give the ordinance a first reading was made and seconded, and the council voted unanimously to advance the item. Discussion centered on two topics: the ordinance’s definition of the required screening (the draft uses the term “green barrier or living screen”) and whether the regulation could be applied retroactively to already-built pools.
The city attorney advised council members that the requirement is unlikely to be enforceable retroactively. “I do not think it can be retroactive,” the attorney said, noting the typical legal balancing test and characterizing the measure as aesthetic and noise-related rather than an immediate safety mandate. The attorney said staff would supply written guidance on that point.
Council members also questioned whether a living hedge alone would provide sound attenuation. One council member who had consulted sound-engineer testimony said greenery does not reduce sound and that a separate standard may be needed if the ordinance intends to address noise in addition to visual screening. Committee members were asked to consider whether the draft should specify materials, performance standards (visual blockage and/or decibel reduction), or a timeline for compliance.
No compliance deadline or retroactive enforcement was adopted at first reading; the ARC will reconvene to refine definitions and return recommendations prior to a second reading.
