New Albany zoning board tables request to put pool in utility easement after neighbor objection

The New Albany Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 27 voted 4–1 to table a variance request that would let a homeowner place a swimming pool and patio partly inside a 20-foot utility easement and within the required 15-foot pool setback at 7503 Ogden Woods Boulevard.

City planning staff introduced application 862025 and said the applicant, James Roth, seeks two variances: (1) to reduce the code‑required 15‑foot setback for pools and associated equipment from side and rear property lines, and (2) to allow the pool and patio to extend into an existing 20‑foot rear utility easement. Planning staff advised the board that no utilities currently run in the easement and recommended a hold‑harmless agreement if the board approves any encroachment, similar to an agreement the property owner executed after a prior 2020 patio variance.

Why it matters: granting a variance that permits construction in a utility easement can create a precedent for similar encroachments on neighboring lots and could affect future utility access. Neighbors also said the proposed pool would come close to shared property lines and could affect property values.

At the hearing, Roth and his designer said the proposed pool follows the line of an existing patio that previously received a variance, that screening and landscape enhancements are part of the plan, and that several nearby homeowners have signed letters supporting the project. Roth said the lot’s configuration and the home’s placement leave limited room in the backyard and that the design was intended to create a seamless extension of the existing hardscape.

Neighbor Jason Lee, who lives at 7514 Phelps Close, read a prepared statement opposing the variance and cited local ordinance language, arguing that the applicant had not shown the special conditions or hardship required to justify relief. ‘‘The applicant has not demonstrated any special conditions or hardship in building a swimming pool,’’ Lee said, asking the board to deny the request so zoning standards remain enforceable and to avoid creating precedent.

Board members pressed staff and the applicant for precise measurements and context. Planning staff clarified that the pool patio area would be about 11 feet from the rear property line and that the proposed work would result in roughly a 9‑foot encroachment into the setback in one location. Staff also recalled a 2020 approval for an expanded patio on the same property and an earlier variance related to an accessory structure; the board reviewed whether those earlier approvals meaningfully distinguished the current request.

Multiple members suggested the parties try to negotiate a redesign. The chair proposed that the applicant and the opposing neighbor meet, ideally with the project designer, before the next meeting to try to resolve concerns about placement, screening and safety features such as fencing and automatic pool covers that the applicant said would be included.

Outcome and next steps: the board formally moved to table application 862025 to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Nov. 24 to allow time for neighbor discussions and potential redesign. The motion passed 4–1 by roll call. The board also voted to accept a neighbor’s letter into the record.

Votes: The motion to table application 862025 passed with four votes in favor and one opposed; the meeting minutes from Aug. 25 were approved earlier in the session by unanimous vote. The board is expected to revisit application 862025 at its Nov. 24 meeting unless the applicant withdraws or the parties reach a premeeting agreement.