Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pool Fencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves 4-foot pool enclosure at 20 Buckwood Drive, modifies earlier 6-foot condition
Summary
The Yarmouth Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously Nov. 14 to modify a 2020 variance at 20 Buckwood Drive, requiring at least a 4-foot fence around the pool (front and side) rather than the earlier 6-foot stockade on those sides; neighbors had submitted letters of support.
The Yarmouth Zoning Board of Appeals on Nov. 14 approved a modification to a 2020 variance for the property at 20 Buckwood Drive, requiring a minimum 4-foot fence around the pool rather than the 6-foot stockade the earlier decision imposed. Vice Chairman Sean Igoe presided over the hearing and announced the unanimous board decision.
Brenda Kelly, appearing for the household associated with Tim Kelly, told the board she and her family want to keep the rear 6-foot enclosure but install a 4-foot white stockade in the front and leave a 4-foot chain-link on top of an existing 4-foot wall along the side. Kelly said the pool now has an automatic cover and that some nearby neighbors told her they were not concerned about light or noise from the pool over the summer.
Igoe and other board members reviewed two written statements filed by neighbors. A letter from Christopher Reed, owner of 24 Buckwood Drive, said he had no problem with the pool and did not see a need for further changes. Candace Van Skyver, at 23 Nightingale Drive, said she attended the earlier hearing and recalled the fence was part of the original stipulations but added she had no objection to relieving the owner of the 6-foot requirement.
Board members weighed the petitioner’s request against town and state rules on pool safety. Igoe said the board would not exempt a pool from a minimum 4-foot fence: “I think the board is pretty unanimous. We’re gonna require at least a 4 foot fence,” he told Kelly. The board also noted that evidence of an automatic pool cover alone did not persuade members to eliminate a physical enclosure.
After discussion, an unidentified board member moved to approve the requested modification on the condition that a 4-foot fence fully enclose the pool area where not already fenced. The motion was seconded and carried by unanimous vote.
The board treated this action as a modification to an existing variance (not as a new variance); staff explained a 20-day appeal period begins when the decision is clocked with the town clerk and instructed the petitioner on recording the decision with the registry of deeds.
