The applicant’s attorney opened the discussion by presenting a brief overview of the situation, which had evolved into litigation. As part of the resolution, the board was presented with various exhibits, including a color rendering of the previously approved pool plan, a revised plot plan, and a photo of the property from the street. The professional engineer representing the applicant testified that the revised location complied with all setback requirements and would result in a lower lot coverage than permitted by ordinance. The board was assured that the pool would not be visible from the street due to the property’s topography and existing dense vegetation.

Addressing environmental concerns, the professional engineer outlined measures for soil erosion control and emphasized the use of grass and landscaping to ensure silt would not enter the nearby river. The board inquired about the discharge of chlorinated water, with the engineer providing assurances that construction measures, including the use of silk fences during construction, would be in place to minimize any potential impact.

The attorney for the objecting neighbor expressed gratitude for the cooperation from the applicant’s representatives, confirming that they had reviewed the proposed changes and had no objections to the exhibits or the credentials of the professional engineer.

The board engaged in a discussion about the technical aspects of the relocation. The applicant addressed concerns about the drainage, stating that the natural topography facilitated water collection and drainage towards the river, mitigating potential flooding issues. The engineer reiterated that the planning proofs from the original application remained applicable and the proposed changes had addressed all concerns raised during the original application.

The board also considered the correct notification of neighbors and any potential agreements or disagreements with the proposed plan. The engineer stated that from a planning and engineering perspective, the relocation of the pool was neutral, meaning it neither improved nor deteriorated the current status, hence the term “wash.”

The discussion further involved the board’s review of the pool’s new location, particularly its proximity to the river. The board members sought assurances that the environmental impacts would be minimal and that the pool’s construction would not exacerbate soil erosion or silt movement into the river. The engineer’s testimony emphasized the incorporation of all necessary measures into the soil erosion control plan to address these concerns comprehensively.