Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Officials approve allowing small pools or similar structures in side yards after debate over privacy fencing
Summary
Officials voted to allow placement of small pools or similar structures in side yards provided all setback rules are met. Members debated whether a solid privacy fence or landscaping should be required; the motion passed by a 4–2 roll call.
A local planning panel voted to allow small pools or similar structures to be placed in side yards, with members insisting existing setback rules remain in force and disagreeing about whether a privacy fence should be mandated.
The motion to approve the change was moved and seconded at the meeting and prompted questions about appearance and neighbor impacts. "Is this equal to the home?" asked Mr. Harper, seeking clarification about whether the structure could align with the front-to-back facade. Panelists discussed limiting placement to rear corners in some cases and whether a privacy fence or landscaping should be required for sideyard installations.
Supporters said side placement could suit neighborhoods with rear-entry garages and larger lots, and repeatedly noted the ordinance would not waive any required setbacks. One member summarized the regulatory backstop: as long as a structure "meet[s] all setbacks," it remained permissible under the draft language.
Opponents cautioned that a universal privacy-fence requirement could impose an unnecessary burden on rural property owners without nearby neighbors. A member said a solid privacy fence might be excessive in low-density contexts and recommended allowing open fencing in some rural settings.
During the procedural sequence, a member indicated they would retract their second if the motion did not include a privacy-fence requirement; that second was later re-made and the chair called the roll. The recorded roll call produced two "no" responses and four "yes" responses, and the motion was approved.
The measure, as approved, keeps standard setback requirements in place and permits sideyard placement under those constraints. The panel did not adopt a uniform requirement that all sideyard installations be screened by a solid privacy fence; members signaled staff will need to clarify how the rule applies in rural versus suburban lots.
The discussion did not specify an implementation date; staff and the chair did not announce a separate timeline for any ordinance publication or effective date at the meeting.
