Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies backyard pool setback variance in Nottingham Trace
Summary
The commission denied a variance request for a pool at 7108 Armscote after members said alternate layouts exist and granting a variance could set an unwanted neighborhood precedent; the motion failed 2–1.
The New Albany Planning Commission on Jan. 21 voted 2–1 to deny a variance request that would have allowed a pool’s water’s edge to sit 10 feet from a property line, five feet inside the 15‑foot setback in a section of the New Albany Country Club.
Staff explained the request for 7108 Armscote and walked commissioners through three alternative pool orientations the applicant provided. Staff noted option 3 would meet setback requirements, option 2 would reduce the encroachment to three feet, and option 1 (which eliminates a variance) would place the pool close to a corner of the house and raise potential safety concerns. Staff warned that granting the variance could set a precedent for similar encroachments in the subdivision.
Applicant Steve Kidwell (Prime Outdoor Living) told the commission safety and structural constraints — a basement wall and a retaining wall on the lower side of the lot — make his preferred orientation safer and easier to access. Property owner Corey Height said existing Arborvitae screening will remain, described the planned pool as modest (about 14 by 30 feet) and said neighbors contacted in advance voiced no opposition.
Commission discussion focused on the Duncan‑factor test for variances: whether special circumstances unique to the parcel exist, whether granting the variance would alter neighborhood character, and whether alternatives exist that avoid special privilege. One commissioner said the owner purchased the lot aware of setback requirements and that the problem can be solved by another layout. Another commissioner said the variance would confer an advantage not available to other neighbors.
A motion to approve failed; the commission recorded one vote in favor and two votes to deny, and the variance was not granted.
The transcript records the commission’s reasoning that alternate conforming configurations exist and that approving the variance could alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and commissioners specifically cited concern about setting a precedent in this zoning district.
