Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goshen ZBA grants area variance for inground pool at 13 Cedar Swamp Road
Summary
The Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals granted an area variance to allow an as-built inground pool at 13 Cedar Swamp Road to remain 25 feet from the rear property line where 30 feet is required, finding the benefit to the owner outweighs minimal detriment and imposing standard conditions.
The Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant an area variance for the property at 13 Cedar Swamp Road, allowing an existing in-ground pool to remain 25 feet from the rear property line where the code requires 30 feet.
Chairman and staff framed the decision around the five statutory factors the board must weigh. Staff summarized the record as showing "a single-family residential neighborhood" where the pool is a "typical accessory structure located in the rear yard, screened by fencing and vegetation," and recorded no public opposition on the issue prior to deliberations.
Applicant representative Jared Goldberg told the board the encroachment is 18 square feet — about 3 percent of the pool’s 570 square feet — and said relocation would require demolition and substantial disturbance. "It's 18 square feet," Goldberg said when asked to quantify the encroachment.
Board members discussed feasible alternatives, substantiality and hardship. Members noted that while the encroachment is self-created (the pool was built in place), relocation would be costly and disruptive, and the record did not show drainage, grading, septic or runoff concerns. After balancing the five factors, staff offered a motion to grant the variance and tie standard conditions to the approval, including a prohibition on expansion or intensification beyond what was presented and a requirement to comply with any planning-board conditions.
The board moved, seconded and approved the variance by voice vote. The decision references the as-built survey (revised 01/17/2023) as the basis for the permitted location of the pool. The board recorded the approval and congratulated the applicant.
The variance is subject to conditions described in the written decision (standard non-expansion conditions and compliance with other board requirements) and was tied to the life of the pool in the board’s discussion. No written vote tally was recorded in the transcript; the approval was made by voice vote.
The ZBA’s action resolves the immediate setback nonconformity for the pool; any future changes to the site that would affect setbacks or intensification must comply with relevant planning- and building-department requirements.
