Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Variance Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves rear-setback pool variance for Holston Road homeowner
Summary
The Clifton Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 6-1 on Feb. 19 to grant a homeowner permission to install an enclosed pool that required multiple setback and lot-coverage variances; the board noted the site backs onto the Route 3 ramp and a neighbor supported the plan.
The Clifton Zoning Board of Adjustment on Feb. 19 approved a variance allowing Dharini Patel of 48 Holston Road to install an enclosed pool at the rear of her property, citing medical needs. The motion to approve passed 6-1 after a roll-call vote: Commissioners Robel, Eisman, O'Connor, Fucas, Vice Chair Molnar and Chairman Zucchino voted yes; Commissioner Ramo voted no.
The homeowner told the board she seeks to add an indoor pool “for the medical reason” and described family health issues that delayed earlier planning, including a family cancer diagnosis, and said the pool will be part of the house. Neighbor Snehal Sakpal, of 60 Holston Road, testified she supports the application and said she has known the family for about a year.
Board staff summarized the requested variances: a rear-yard setback of 15.7 feet where 35 feet is required; a side-yard setback of 8.63 feet where 10 feet is required; a combined setback of 20.63 feet where 24 feet is required; and lot coverage proposed at 37.8 percent where 30 percent is allowed. Commissioner Eisman moved to approve the application “with the noted that there's no impingement on the backyard of back neighbors,” and Commissioner O'Connor seconded after an initial procedural problem with one member serving in observer status.
In explaining his no vote, Commissioner Ramo said he was “not comfortable allowing the rear setback because it creates that 7% overage and coverage,” though he expressed sympathy for the family's circumstances. Chairman Zucchino noted the property backs to the Route 3 ramp and said that circumstance made the rear-yard request different than if there were a rear neighbor.
The board's approval was limited to the variances described in the applicant's plans and was granted with no additional conditions recorded in the minutes. The applicant was advised that the meeting record is being recorded and that appeal rights are available through the zoning officer.
The application record shows the matter was presented at a public hearing with testimony from the applicant and one supporting neighbor; no written objections were read into the record at the hearing.
Patel spoke first at the Feb. 19 meeting and was sworn in by the board clerk before presenting her medical justification. The board then heard a brief sequence of board questions and neighbor testimony before taking the vote.
