ZBA approves pool and accessory variances after board requires iron pool fence instead of masonry wall

The Bloomfield Hills Zoning Board of Appeals on June 1 approved six variances for a condominium property that would permit a front-yard pool, a pool cabana and revised perimeter fencing, but the board required the applicant to substitute the proposed masonry wall with a continuous 4-foot iron pool fence and heavy screening.

Staff introduced the application, saying the site is zoned A6 (attached residential) but is a standalone single-family unit within a site condominium. The applicant sought six variances: two to allow the pool to encroach into the 45-foot primary front-yard setback along Woodward Avenue; a variance for required front-yard depth where the site falls short of the 3× setback rule; two variances for the pool cabana (0.9-foot setback encroachment and a 6-foot reduction from the required 20-foot separation to the main building); and two linked variances for a hybrid masonry wall and open fence along Woodward that would exceed the 3-foot solid-wall allowance.

The applicant's team and their landscape consultant argued the wall and screening would address noise and safety concerns. CJ Thompson, the homeowners' landscape architect, said the property sits close to Woodward Avenue and the road grade is 3 to 4 feet higher than the lot: "the whole goal for that wall was 1, to try and reduce that noise as much as possible," he said, and described a compromise design of "a 4-foot masonry [portion] with a 12-inch aluminum topper." Michael with HRC, the project engineer, told the board the applicant had proposed leaching basins and other stormwater measures and that HRC was comfortable with the drainage plan.

Neighbors and multiple commissioners raised concerns about visibility and long-term maintenance of plantings intended to screen the wall. Lisa McInerney, a resident who said she conducted decibel testing, said normal traffic readings were about "80 decibels or higher" and that a barrier would improve safety for children in the yard. Several commissioners countered that a 4-foot wall would have limited sound-buffering effect given the grade differential and said they worried the property would be the only site on Woodward with a masonry wall, harming uniformity.

City staff and the board discussed procedure and code requirements. The city attorney/HRC representative noted that a pool enclosure is required by code and advised that denying the wall variance without an alternate pool fence could force denial of pool-related variances; the applicant's team indicated a willingness to substitute a continuous 4-foot iron pool fence to meet pool-enclosure requirements while preserving screening.

After discussion the board voted to approve the six variances as presented with the recorded modification that the brick wall be supplanted by a continuous 4-foot iron pool fence around the property, retained screening, and subject to Planning Commission approval where required for fencing. The chair announced the approval with that specification.

The board did not record a detailed roll-call tally in the public remarks; the motion included the modification on the record and the approval is conditioned on the Planning Commission's review of the fencing element.

Next steps: the applicant must secure Planning Commission approval for the fence design and comply with any conditions the Planning Commission imposes.