The Zoning Board of Adjustment carried an application for an in‑ground pool at 28 Idlewyld Avenue to its Aug. 27 meeting after nearby residents objected to proposed setbacks and asked for clearer plans. Chairman (Zoning Board of Adjustment) said the board wanted revised plans and that the applicant should return next month.

The matter matters because the borough ordinance requires a 10‑foot side and rear setback for structures and accessory installations; the applicant asked to site the pool closer than those limits. The board and public questioned whether the proposed pool would fit within the narrow lot and whether changes would increase runoff or otherwise affect adjacent properties.

Applicant and board discussion
The applicant (property owner), who said they run a pool business and planned an in‑ground vinyl‑liner pool, described a layout that would place the pool approximately 8 feet from one side property line (the ordinance minimum is 10 feet) and about 4 feet from the garage where 10 feet is required. The applicant said they plan to install a white vinyl fence with a gate and to obtain required permits for the fence from the zoning officer.

Neighbor Edward Ostrowski of 30 Ottawa Avenue spoke in opposition. He said, “They want put in at 10 by 25 foot full in their yard. You got a garage? Knock down the garage. I want it 10 feet away from my property…And then they have a garage. They want put 4 feet. Come on.” Ostrowski also raised concerns about possible water runoff and the small size of the property.

Board members and staff probed alternatives. Several board members suggested reducing the pool width or rotating the pool to avoid or reduce variances; one member proposed sliding the proposed pool 1 foot to increase clearance from the garage and provide a 9‑foot setback on the neighbor side while complying with the rear yard requirement. The applicant said a custom, smaller pool could be built and that they could adjust placement to provide more separation.

Zoning officer Jeff Mishanski told the board that fence permitting is handled separately and that fence variances were not required for the applicant’s planned fence installation.

Outcome and next steps
Rather than vote on variances, the board carried the application to the Aug. 27 meeting and directed the applicant to return with revised plans addressing setback concerns and neighbor input. Chairman (Zoning Board of Adjustment) told the applicant, “We’re gonna carry this over, and you come back to us on our next meeting with revised plans.” The board announced the application would be carried without further notice to the public.

The record shows public comment and multiple board suggestions for reducing the pool size or shifting its placement; the applicant agreed to revise the proposal and return. No formal variance was granted or denied at the July 23 meeting.

Ending
The applicant should submit revised plans to the zoning office in advance of the Aug. 27 meeting so the board and nearby residents can review changes before the hearing.