Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Pool Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves side‑yard variance for 12×22 pool at 31 Green Lake Drive with drainage, fencing conditions
Summary
The Smithfield Zoning Board of Review approved a variance allowing a 12‑by‑22 side‑yard pool at 31 Green Lake Drive, citing the lot’s lakefront constraints; approval was conditional on engineering sign‑off, required fencing and routing any waste/drain toward the street.
The Smithfield Zoning Board of Review on March 3 approved a variance permitting a 12‑by‑22 pool to be installed in the side yard of 31 Green Lake Drive, imposing conditions to prevent any discharge toward the adjacent lake.
The board voted to approve case 26‑001 after hearing from the applicants’ attorney and the homeowner about site constraints and from the pool contractor about construction and water‑management plans. Timothy Kane, attorney for the owners, said, "this is an application to construct a pool in a side yard," and described the lot as a lakefront parcel that leaves limited options for pool placement. Homeowner Steven Jackson told the board the property’s back line and proximity to the lake make locating the pool elsewhere “basically impossible,” and the applicants proposed a 12‑by‑22 (288‑square‑foot) pool.
The contractor representing the applicants, Frank D'Andrea of Lakeside Swimming Pools, told the board the company has built "just under 300 swimming pools in the town of Smithfield alone" and described plans to remove and reinstall an existing wrought‑iron fence during construction and to add a locked partition fence between the pool and the lake. On questions about a saltwater system and filter backwash, he said pool salinity is low and "there isn't gonna be any discharge of of water from the pool itself," and offered to install a dry well for backwash if the town preferred.
Board members pressed for explicit, documented controls on any winterizing or backwash discharge and asked for the permanent routing of any waste/drain away from the lake. During deliberation a member asked that the record require the engineering department’s items be satisfied, include the pool dimensions as 12 by 22, and specify that the waste/drain pipe be routed toward the street; the motion passed with no recorded opposition.
The board’s approval was conditional: the motion requires compliance with the final engineering report, installation and maintenance of the protective fencing described at the hearing, and that any discharge or waste piping be routed away from the lake toward the street. The board also recorded that two other cases on the agenda were continued to April 1, 2026, because counsel or parties were unavailable. The board closed the meeting to the public and adjourned.
