Board approves retractable pergola enclosure at 10 Bernadette Court with runoff mitigation condition

The Springfield Township Board of Adjustment voted to approve a use and coverage variance for 10 Bernadette Court, allowing the installation of a retractable pergola that will fully enclose the property’s heated 18-by-36 pool.

Applicant Kate Fox testified that the structure is intended to make year-round supervised swimming possible for her family and to limit wildlife and debris. "I'm from Hawaii, and swimming is a big part of my culture and life," Fox said, explaining that a locked, enclosed pergola would let her toddler have safe, supervised access.

Board members questioned how the enclosure would affect lot and building coverage and pressed for specifics on drainage. Planner/staff commentary noted that the pool itself does not count as lot coverage but that a closed roof would increase runoff and therefore the new roof structure raises the paper lot-coverage percentage. The planner referenced the township accessory-structure provision (section 35-15.5b), which requires separation between accessory and principal structures and sets mitigation expectations for increased impervious area.

Derek Liu, who was sworn and testified about the site, said the pergola would be retractable and that the current guttering drains to a creek behind the property. "We have a drainage system where it would angle into... a pipe that goes to the creek behind the house," Liu said. Board members requested that the applicant work with an engineer to reconcile runoff and to submit a mitigation plan if required; the board stated that mitigation would be required for any added coverage over roughly 200 square feet.

Members also asked about snow loads; Fox said the vendor — which operates in the Northeast — is confident the structure will be designed to handle local snow loads, and staff noted that a building permit review would confirm required snow-load design. The board added a condition that if township work ever requires relocation of existing pool equipment now located in a municipal drainage easement, the applicant would be responsible for relocation costs.

After discussion, a motion to approve the application with the two conditions (engineer-approved mitigation plan and applicant-responsible relocation cost for pool equipment in the easement) carried by roll call: four yes, three no.

The board’s action requires the applicant to obtain a building permit and to satisfy any mitigation work required by the engineer before final approvals.

The transcript shows public questioning focused on runoff to a nearby creek and the height and material of the proposed roof; the board concluded with conditions intended to minimize downstream impacts.