Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pool Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose front-yard pool; planning board denies variance after debate over permits and fence height
Summary
Homeowner Kurtis Bronston sought a variance to keep a nearly finished pool located in what staff and neighbors considered the front yard; neighbors cited fence height, sightlines and property values while the owner said he relied on contractor guidance; the board denied the variance (final vote 3–1).
A front-yard swimming-pool variance request touched off one of the meeting’s most contentious exchanges on June 11, as neighbors and Planning Board members debated whether the homeowner or the county process bore responsibility for the construction that proceeded without the required variance.
Homeowner Kurtis Bronston told the board he obtained a building permit in February, began work in March and had invested substantial funds in the pool before staff told him a variance was likely required when inspectors later observed the location. He said the lot’s orientation and two drain fields constrained where the pool could be built, and he described himself as an attorney who relied on a licensed contractor.
Neighbors said the pool and a six- to eight-foot privacy fence create sightline and safety concerns, that the fence exceeds permitted front-yard heights, and that the construction has harmed property values. Several neighbors asked why work was not stopped and requested enforcement or remedial action. Staff said there had been miscommunication: during initial review staff considered the placement a side-yard installation but later determined the installation more clearly met the code’s front-yard definition, prompting the variance route.
Board members expressed sympathy for the homeowner but also concern about precedent and staff oversight. One member said the county had multiple opportunities to stop the work and questioned how inspections and permitting proceeded. A motion to approve the variance failed to gain majority; a motion to deny passed 3–1.
The board’s denial leaves the homeowner with options that could include removal of the pool, an appeal or litigation. Planning staff and the board noted that the July 16 Board of Commissioners public hearing calendar will include items from this meeting, where final actions on some cases are taken.
