Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies variance for after-the-fact pool installed in utility easement
Summary
After hearing testimony from the homeowner’s attorney and code enforcement, the North Bay Village Commission denied a variance request for a backyard pool placed inside a utility easement. Commissioners cited failure to meet hardship criteria and noted outstanding fines and code enforcement implications.
The North Bay Village Commission voted to deny a variance request for a swimming pool that was installed within a utility easement at a Treasure Drive property after the owner installed the fiberglass pool without permits and was cited.
Applicant counsel Michael J. Snyder described the pool’s dimensions and the owner’s interactions with code enforcement, and asked for relief so the homeowner could obtain after-the-fact permits. Snyder said the owner had spent roughly $30,000 on the pool and that additional compliance costs and magistrate fines had already accrued.
Code enforcement testified that an inspector observed a crane setting the pool and advised the owner to stop; later visits found the pool installed. Staff also identified setbacks and building-code spacing that the installation appeared to violate. The code officer reported that outstanding fines had grown to an amount the attorney estimated in the mid-five figures.
Commission discussion focused on the variance criteria required under the village code, public-safety exposure if a pool is within an easement near overhead utilities, and appropriate mitigation if the commission elected to approve. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to the owner’s circumstances, but that the application did not meet the objective hardship criteria the code requires.
Mayor (chairing) summarized the staff and planning analysis: “I don’t see how the criteria for a hardship are met,” and after a motion and roll-call vote the commission denied the variance (vote result recorded as 4–1). Commissioners who voted for denial cited public-safety risk (electrocution concerns in the event of downed lines), the need to maintain consistent permitting standards, and the fact code enforcement had previously issued stop instructions.
The decision leaves the owner subject to the special magistrate process for mitigation and fines; staff noted the lien recorded on the property will remain until fines are paid in full or otherwise mitigated.
What happens next: The property owner will continue the administrative process with the special magistrate to resolve fines and to seek any subsequent approvals if he chooses to relocate or remove the pool.
