Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pool Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marple board approves in‑ground pool variance that exceeds impervious limit; applicant told to obtain required permits
Summary
Marple Township Zoning Hearing Board granted Daniel (Dan) Liberty a variance to install a 15.5x30-foot in‑ground pool that encroaches 5 feet 4 inches into the rear setback and raises impervious coverage to 33.61% (over the 30% limit); the board emphasized required fencing and permitting and voted 5-0.
The Marple Township Zoning Hearing Board approved a variance for an in‑ground pool at 110–112 North New Ardmore Avenue on Monday, allowing the pool to encroach 5 feet 4 inches into the 25‑foot rear‑yard setback and resulting in an impervious coverage of 33.61% (3.61 percentage points above the 30% limit). The motion passed by a 5-0 vote.
Applicant Dan Liberty told the board the proposed pool would be 15.5 by 30 feet and that his lot layout left little room to avoid a setback variance: "So basically, I want to put a pool in the backyard. It's going to be 15.5 by 30," he said at the hearing. The board reviewed accompanying application materials and neighbor letters submitted with the filing.
Board members questioned whether nearby property owners had been contacted (the applicant said some neighbors had provided letters) and discussed safety and permitting requirements. Zoning staff said pools under 500 square feet typically require a minimal grading permit rather than a full stormwater management review, and stressed that a permit will not be approved unless the pool has the required barriers: four‑foot fencing, openings no larger than four inches, and self‑closing, self‑latching gates that open outward.
Ajay commented that he personally did not feel pools should necessarily count in impervious-surface calculations but reiterated that the applicant must secure the proper permits and meet fencing and safety standards before a permit can be issued. The solicitor admitted the application and public‑notice exhibits into the record; board members did not identify outstanding objections at the hearing.
The mover for the motion to approve was the board member identified in the transcript as Speaker 7; the motion carried by unanimous voice vote, 5-0. The board emphasized that the approval was limited to the relief requested and that construction remains contingent on obtaining required permits, meeting the township’s fencing/barrier requirements, and any applicable inspections.
The board closed the hearing after addressing both applications.
