Farmington Zoning Board approves variance for in‑ground pool at 94 Alpine Drive

The Town of Farmington Zoning Board of Appeals voted 6‑0 on Feb. 17 to approve a variance allowing an in‑ground pool at 94 Alpine Drive after concluding the lot’s configuration and slope limit other placement options.

The homeowner, who identified himself in the record as Peter Sedevandemi, asked the board to reduce the side yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet and the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 12 feet so he could build an approximately 20‑by‑35‑foot freeform pool with a roughly 5‑foot paver patio. In the legal notice read into the record, the applicant name was also read aloud in a different form; the committee recorded the applicant’s spoken identification at the hearing.

The applicant told the board the lot is bisected by the Farmington–Burlington town line, that the house sits far back on the Farmington side and that the proposed rear‑left corner is the only reasonably level, permanent location for a pool. “This is the only spot the only permanent spot that we are able to, to do an inground pool,” he said, and added the location proposed would be the farthest corner from nearby homes on Stephen Circle.

Commissioners and staff reviewed site photos, surveys and a satellite image. Staff confirmed sewer and water mains run toward Alpine Drive on the Burlington side and clarified that setbacks are measured to the pool coping; patios are not currently counted in setback measurements under the town’s zoning rules. A commissioner noted the chosen location is the flattest area of the yard and that moving the pool would increase excavation, retaining‑wall work and construction complexity.

A neighbor who phoned in, David Fineman of 90 Alpine Drive, asked whether changes to the approved site would require returning to the board and whether blasting for ledge would require a permit. The board and staff answered that substantive changes would require the applicant to return for further approval and that blasting would require a special permit through the Planning and Zoning Commission.

A motion to approve the variance said the applicant had demonstrated a hardship based on lot configuration and grading; the board approved the motion in a roll‑call vote with six affirmative votes. The board chair and staff said the approval will be followed by additional paperwork with the town and that the applicant’s wetlands application for work in the upland review area will be reviewed by the Inland Wetlands Commission.

The applicant must obtain any required permits, including a wetlands approval if required and a blasting permit if blasting becomes necessary. The board closed the hearing, approved the variance as presented and moved on to administrative business.