Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homeowner with lot on Farmington–Burlington line seeks pool setback variance; wetlands noted
Summary
Peter Sedevandemi told the Farmington Inland Wetlands Commission that his lot at 94 Alpine Drive is bisected by the Farmington–Burlington town line, constraining placement of an in‑ground pool; the commission accepted the wetlands application for review, required erosion controls and found the proposal not a significant activity, continuing final action to the next meeting.
Peter Sedevandemi, the homeowner at 94 Alpine Drive in Unionville, told the Farmington Inland Wetlands Commission that his lot is "bisected by the town lines of Farmington and Burlington," leaving only one feasible area for an in‑ground pool and prompting him to seek a zoning variance for rear and side setbacks.
Sedevandemi said the zoning board granted the variance and that recently mapped wetlands at the rear of the property limit alternate siting. He provided owner photographs of the yard and explained the pool would occupy the most level part of the backyard; commissioners and staff placed the proposed construction roughly 120–140 feet from the mapped wetland area and confirmed a single tree inside the fenced yard would be removed.
Commissioners asked technical questions about slope and runoff. Staff described the lot as having a gentle but continuous slope of roughly 8–10 percent toward the wetlands. Commissioner Mark Simpson advised that "any type of removal of water from the pool is sensitive to the wetlands" and that pool water should not be drained toward the wetlands. The applicant said construction spoil would be removed from the site except for material needed for grading.
The commission moved to accept the wetlands application for the record, appointed Alana Carveth to sit for an absent commissioner and discussed erosion‑control requirements. The board agreed it could require silt control and hay‑bale backing; the chair told the applicant the town would inspect erosion control before construction begins. The commission also voted that a sidewalk was not needed for this application and found the proposal "not a significant activity," meaning the matter will be continued to the next meeting for a final vote.
The commission asked the applicant to work with town staff and to attend the next meeting in case commissioners had additional questions. No binding permits were issued at the meeting; the actions recorded were acceptance of the application for processing, the imposition of erosion‑control conditions to be verified by town staff, and scheduling the matter for a future vote.
What happens next: the application was accepted for review and will return to the commission at a future meeting (applicant was told to attend). The commission required erosion controls and advised the applicant to coordinate with town staff before construction.
