East Manchester board denies pool variance after neighbors raise storm‑water and sinkhole concerns

The East Manchester Zoning Hearing Board denied a variance request from applicant Kristen Delinger to install an in‑ground pool, citing unresolved storm‑water and geologic concerns raised by neighbors and the board’s technical reviewers.

At the hearing the applicant’s representative, Jerry G., described changes to a revised site plan, saying, “we reduced decking by approximately 92 square feet” and that the proposal adds “a stone infiltration pit to collect the storm water from not just the pool area but also the concrete patio.” He also said, “the rain water from a 2‑year storm event is 3 in and we have the capacity in the pool to collect five without it overflowing.”

Township engineer Byron Trout, who reviewed multiple plan iterations, told the board the concept met the ordinance’s intent but that permit‑stage engineering would be required. “We would require a perk test,” he said, explaining the township will verify infiltration capacity and the depth to any limiting zone to ensure runoff infiltrates downward rather than moving laterally into neighboring properties. Trout noted the township typically requires verification two feet below the bottom of the proposed infiltration structure.

Downslope neighbor Elizabeth Dunar of 155 Silver Maple Court presented photos and described existing runoff and past foundation damage in the development. Dunar told the board the applicant’s yard slopes into her backyard and said the project remained about 6.2 percentage points over the allowed impervious coverage for a variance. “The risk to my home's basement and foundation from land disturbance and water runoff above and below the ground is a huge concern to me,” she said, and asked the board to weigh the neighborhood’s history of sinkholes and soil conditions.

Board members and staff discussed technical details the hearing record did not yet resolve: top‑of‑wall elevation (~382), bottom‑of‑wall (~380), neighboring grade (~378), a typical retaining‑wall height of about 2½ feet above grade, and whether a clay liner would be required adjacent to the infiltration pit. The board heard that final details — including whether the pit would include overflow piping, exact stone sizing, wrapping details and footer construction for the retaining wall — would be provided only at the permit review stage.

After testimony closed a board member moved to approve the variance and another seconded; the board then voted and the chair announced that the variance was denied. The chair said the board’s written decision will follow.

What happened and why it matters: The board’s action leaves the applicant without a zoning variance for the proposed pool. Reviewers said the plan as shown could meet ordinance intent but that site‑specific testing and permit‑stage engineering (including infiltration testing and limiting‑zone verification) would be required to protect neighboring properties. Neighbors urged caution because of local sinkhole history, steep local slopes and reported past basement damage.

Next steps: The board said it will issue a written decision. If the applicant wants to proceed she may revise the proposal, conduct the required geotechnical/perk testing and resubmit, or seek other mitigation measures that address the board’s and neighbors’ concerns.