[ back ]
Planners dunk variances for swimming pool
(by Sue Reid - October 21, 2009)
Planners dunk variances for swimming pool
By SUE REID
Solon's planning commission denied variance requests last week from a resident who installed a swimming pool without obtaining a permit. Concerns about the topography of the above-ground pool with relation to draining were cited as reasons for the denial.
Opposing the variance to permit the pool within the rear- and side-yard setbacks, as well as a variance for its location, were commission members George K. Hrabak, Roger C. Newberry, Lon D. Stolarsky and William M. Mazur. Supporting the variance requests was Mayor Kevin C. Patton.
Woodbury Drive resident Alexander Mikhalev has the right to appeal the decision to City Council. If council denies his appeal, he would have to tear down the pool and move it to a different portion of the back yard, city Planning Director Robert S. Frankland said, specifically more toward the center of the property.
Residents adjacent to Mr. Mikhalev's property had opposed the variance requests and submitted a letter to the commission stating their concerns.
Darren and Kathie Teorsky, who live on Huntington Drive adjacent to the pool, said their property lies at the base of a steep incline adjacent to the pool.
"If anything was to malfunction with this pool, the water would ultimately flood my property and most likely my home," they said.
The Teorskys asked for assurance that when Mr. Mikhalev drains the pool, that it is properly drained to the street. The Teorskys also wanted something in writing that the city would be held responsible to any water damage to their yard or home if a malfunction would occur.
Huntington Drive resident Thomas Haynish also submitted an e-mail to the planning commission asking who would be responsible for damages the pool may cause, notably since it is not within city codes.
Prosecutor and Assistant Law Director Blair Melling said the principal liability is with the pool property owner. He also said the city has no intention of assuming any kind of liability in this matter. The pool was constructed without the city's knowledge, Mr. Melling said, and without the city's approval.
"The liability will not be assumed by the city at any time," he said.
Mr. Patton wanted to make sure Mr. Mikhalev understood that. Mr. Mikhalev said he did.
Although there is no guarantee that an accident would happen, Mr. Mikhalev said the pool is secluded by a retaining wall and he plans to install a deck, which will reinforce the structure of the pool.
Mr. Stolarsky said he could not support Mr. Mikhalev's request because "if this pool should fail, it would cause harm to property and persons downstream."
Assistant Public Works Director David Hromco said that the engineering department had indicated that the drainage Mr. Mikhalev referenced would be appropriate. He said there was a drainage connection nearby he would drain to. He also said he was willing to put that in writing.
Ward Councilman Edward H. Kraus also weighed in on the issue, stating that while he would support the variance requests, he also felt that the issues of neighboring residents should be addressed. Those included the liability issue as well as the desire to have the city's engineering department review any drainage issue and submit their findings prior to the variances being voted upon.
[ back ]
