pique. Interactive

Upper Arlington staff recommends denial and removal of unpermitted above-ground pool

Pique Media

Published

Upper Arlington planning staff urges rejection of Mountview Road pool variances, citing citywide prohibitions dating to municipal founding.

Loading interactive…

How we know this.

The sources and records behind this story, with the facts they support.

  1. Board of Zoning and Planning (BZAP) Work Session · agenda

    upperarlingtonoh · Published October 2, 2026 · Accessed October 6, 2026

    Supporting evidence (12)
    • The case, designated VAR-57-26, was postponed from a Sept. 16 hearing and placed on the work session agenda for 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Municipal Services Center, 3600 Tremont Road.

      Read supporting passage
      Municipal Services Center, Council Chamber
    • City code compliance officials initially issued a stop work order on July 13, 2026, after discovering stacks of lumber, an unpermitted circular pool, and an unfinished connecting deck in the rear yard of the single-family property.

      Read supporting passage
      On July 13, 2026, the City's Assistant Code Compliance Officer (and now Building Inspector) observed several stacks of wood planks and pallets on the subject property.
    • Upper Arlington has enforced strict limits on residential pools, noting that above-ground swimming pools have been prohibited in the community since its founding.

      Read supporting passage
      Above-ground swimming pools have been prohibited in the community since its founding
    • The board has not considered an above-ground swimming pool variance in 29 years, since denying a request for a four-foot pool on Sept. 17, 1997, at 2170 Ridgecliff Road.

      Read supporting passage
      Denied a four-foot tall swimming pool on September 17, 1997.
    • Prior to that decision, the city rejected similar applications on June 3, 1985, and June 16, 1986, at 2762 Shrewsbury Road, where municipal officials dismissed arguments that a four-foot pool constituted a temporary use.

      Read supporting passage
      Denied a four-foot tall swimming pool on June 16, 1986, after waiting one year for a similar type variance application.
    • The city's firm stance dates back to 1979, when City Council reversed a board variance on appeal for an unlawfully installed three-foot pool at 2234 Bristol Road, reaffirming the municipal prohibition.

      Read supporting passage
      In 1979, BZAP approved the retention of a three-foot tall swimming pool that had been unlawfully installed by a previous owner.
    • The homeowner, who purchased the Mountview Road home in October 2017, is seeking three variances under Article 6.09 of the Unified Development Ordinance.

      Read supporting passage
      The home was purchased by the applicant in October 2017 after a significant renovation occurred two years prior.
    • In application materials, the homeowner stated that they trusted their contractor to secure all the necessary permits and were advised that full permits were not required because the installation was a temporary structure.

      Read supporting passage
      The applicant has indicated that they trusted their contractor to secure all the necessary permits for the above-ground swimming pool
    • While the connecting deck under construction was dismantled over the summer following the city's enforcement order, the swimming pool remains.

      Read supporting passage
      Since the summer, the deck that was being built has been deconstructed, while the above-ground swimming pool remains.
    • To support the variance application, the homeowner submitted letters from neighbors, healthcare providers, and community members detailing personal benefits the family derives from having the pool.

      Read supporting passage
      The applicant submitted supportive letters from neighbors, healthcare providers, and community members.
    • Milam wrote that variance determinations must rely strictly on objective regulatory criteria rather than personal circumstances, finding that the request satisfies none of the practical difficulty or hardship standards established in city code.

      Read supporting passage
      After examining the practical difficulty and hardship standards identified in UDO Article 4.09, it is clear that none of them are met.
    • Because the homeowner could pursue a compliant in-ground pool elsewhere on the lot, staff concluded that the application should be denied and the structure removed within 30 days.

      Read supporting passage
      For these reasons, Staff recommends that this application be denied and the above-ground swimming pool be removed within 30 days.

Share this interactive

X Facebook Reddit