Upper Arlington staff recommends denial and removal of unpermitted above-ground pool
Upper Arlington planning staff urges rejection of Mountview Road pool variances, citing citywide prohibitions dating to municipal founding.
The Upper Arlington Board of Zoning and Planning is scheduled to review an application Wednesday, Oct. 7, to retain an unpermitted above-ground swimming pool at 3272 Mountview Road, with municipal planning staff recommending the denial of all three requested variances and an order requiring the pool to be dismantled and removed within 30 days.
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. 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.
Decades of pool prohibitions
Upper Arlington has enforced strict limits on residential pools, noting that above-ground swimming pools have been prohibited in the community since its founding. Under city code, any swimming pool projecting more than two feet above the average finished grade is prohibited. In a staff report prepared for the board, Senior Planner Justin Milam emphasized that the city has maintained an unbroken pattern of denying variances for above-ground pools across nearly five decades.
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. 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.
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. Staff noted that while variances have occasionally been granted for surrounding patios or decking, the city has never approved a variance for an above-ground pool structure itself.
Contractor claims and requested variances
The homeowner, who purchased the Mountview Road home in October 2017, is seeking three variances under Article 6.09 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The application asks to retain a circular pool that rises five feet above grade, encroaches up to 5 feet, 6 inches into the 10-foot minimum side yard setback, and leaves two recreational structures—a play set and a trampoline—on the lot when only one is permitted.
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. Planning staff reported that no permits were ever sought. While the connecting deck under construction was dismantled over the summer following the city's enforcement order, the swimming pool remains.
Staff findings on hardship
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.
Staff concluded that those endorsements cannot override municipal zoning law. 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.
Staff also raised concerns about undermining long-standing precedent, noting that above-ground pools present aesthetic, maintenance, and safety concerns. 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.
The Upper Arlington Board of Zoning and Planning is scheduled to review an application Wednesday, Oct. 7, to retain an unpermitted above-ground swimming pool at 3272 Mountview Road, with municipal planning staff recommending the denial of all three requested variances and an order requiring the pool to be dismantled and removed within 30 days.
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. 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.
Decades of pool prohibitions
Upper Arlington has enforced strict limits on residential pools, noting that above-ground swimming pools have been prohibited in the community since its founding. Under city code, any swimming pool projecting more than two feet above the average finished grade is prohibited. In a staff report prepared for the board, Senior Planner Justin Milam emphasized that the city has maintained an unbroken pattern of denying variances for above-ground pools across nearly five decades.
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. 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.
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. Staff noted that while variances have occasionally been granted for surrounding patios or decking, the city has never approved a variance for an above-ground pool structure itself.
Contractor claims and requested variances
The homeowner, who purchased the Mountview Road home in October 2017, is seeking three variances under Article 6.09 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The application asks to retain a circular pool that rises five feet above grade, encroaches up to 5 feet, 6 inches into the 10-foot minimum side yard setback, and leaves two recreational structures—a play set and a trampoline—on the lot when only one is permitted.
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. Planning staff reported that no permits were ever sought. While the connecting deck under construction was dismantled over the summer following the city's enforcement order, the swimming pool remains.
Staff findings on hardship
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.
Staff concluded that those endorsements cannot override municipal zoning law. 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.
Staff also raised concerns about undermining long-standing precedent, noting that above-ground pools present aesthetic, maintenance, and safety concerns. 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.
How we know this
The sources and records behind this story, with the facts they support.
Board of Zoning and Planning (BZAP) Work Session · agenda
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.