Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Macomb Township ZBA denies Yale Drive pool-setback variance
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals denied a request to place a 32-by-15-foot in-ground pool five feet from a principal structure where a 10-foot setback is required. The applicants cited a 12-foot rear sewer easement and prior variances elsewhere; the board found insufficient practical difficulty and voted 4–1 to deny.
The Macomb Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday denied a variance request that would have allowed an in-ground pool to be built five feet from the principal residence at 49543 Yale Drive.
Township planning staff said the application sought relief from section 10.0311 e f 3, which requires a 10-foot separation between a pool and the principal structure; the proposed pool would sit about 5 feet from a bump-out on the rear of the house. Staff described the pool as 32 feet by 15 feet with a brick-paver deck and noted the lot carries a 12-foot rear sewer easement. "Relief can be granted in such a fashion that the spirit of the ordinance will be observed, and public safety and welfare secured," staff told the board while also noting the setback requirement.
Residents Melissa and Frank Kioski, who live at 49543 Yale Drive, told the board their lot’s 12-foot easement and a family-room bump-out limit the usable rear yard to about 23 feet. Melissa Kioski said a 10-foot setback would leave only about 9 feet for a pool and that the couple had reviewed alternatives such as different pool types and shapes but concluded a standard in-ground pool would be impractical without variance relief. She cited prior board decisions, including a Feldman case, in which the ZBA approved similar 5-foot setbacks.
Board members pressed the applicants and staff about alternative pool designs, side-yard setbacks and differences between cited cases. Board member DeCoster said, "I don't see the practical difficulty," and other members noted differences in lot depth and configuration among prior approvals. Township counsel reminded members that past approvals are not binding and that each application must be considered on its own merits.
Chair Aaron Tuckfield moved to deny the variance for permanent parcel 0821377023, citing a lack of demonstrated practical difficulty; Board member DeCoster seconded the motion. The roll call vote was Tuckfield, DeBruin, DeCoster and Piper in favor of denial and Mazzara opposed, producing a 4–1 result. The applicants thanked the board after the vote.
The board’s denial means the applicants must either redesign the pool to meet the 10-foot setback requirement, consider an above-ground option (their homeowners association prohibits above-ground pools, the applicants said), or pursue other lawful alternatives; the minutes do not record any appeal or subsequent action.
