By JAN LARSON McLAUGHLIN
BG Independent News
The Bowling Green Zoning Board of Appeals said “no” to a side yard pool, and “yes” to a side yard fence last week.
When considering the requests for variances, the board listened to both homeowners describe the hardships that led to their requests.
Nathan and Emily Bernath, of Dakota Court, asked for a variance to allow construction of an 18-foot by 36-foot in-ground swimming pool to be located in their side yard, instead of the rear yard where it is allowed.
Nathan Bernath spoke to the zoning board, and explained that their lot, located on a cul-de-sac, does not allow for the pool to be installed in the backyard.
“We’re trying to put it in the best spot possible,” he said, adding that the plans are to plant arborvitae around the fenced in pool. “The idea is to make it as private as possible.”
But neighbors of the proposed pool voiced their concerns, including those next door who said the pool would be very close to their front porch. Another neighbor said the condominium residents behind the Bernaths were opposed to the variance since it might require the evergreen trees between the homes to be removed.
“I have no plans on taking them down,” Bernath said.
But the neighbor said putting in a pool right next to the trees could kill the trees, and destroy the privacy that the condominium neighbors enjoy.
The zoning board discussed whether or not the variance request was based on a true “hardship.” It was suggested that the Bernaths could consider a smaller pool, or possibly remove their back patio to allow the pool there.
Zoning board member Chris Ostrowski noted that the irregular lot sizes around cul-de-sacs make it difficult to add structures to the lots.
But board member Hobart Johnson said homeowners are aware of the lot limitations when they purchase the properties.
“When you buy a lot, you know what the size of the lot is,” and homeowners have to build accordingly, Johnson said.
The zoning board of appeals was split on the variance request, with four “no” votes from Matt Bostdorff, Rose Hess, Hobart Johnson and David Pfleger, and three “yes” votes from Judy Ennis, Chris Ostrowski and Bob Waddle.
The next variance request to go before the zoning board came from John and Julie Walker, who asked for a variance to allow construction of a fence at a home in the 200 block of South Enterprise Street. The proposed 6-foot tall fence in the front yard setback would be two feet taller than allowed.
The Walkers purchased the house when their son was attending BGSU, then kept it to rent out. John Walker said it is the only rental property they own.
The taller fence on the south side of the property would offer their tenants a barrier from the neighbor to the south, who has reportedly made numerous threats to the landlords and tenants over the years.
Walker said he has stacks of police reports and in October of 2020, the owners got a civil protection order after the neighbor allegedly threatened to kill the tenants and to let his “trained fighting pitbulls” loose on them.
The past tenants were afraid, and the current family renting the house asked for the tall fence after encountering the neighbor on their move-in day.
Walker said the fence, though it won’t encircle the property, will prevent eye contact with the neighbor and his dogs.
“We feel for our tenants and we want to make sure they are safe,” Walker said.
The zoning board voted unanimously in favor of granting the fence variance.
