Board grants 13-foot side-yard variance for Pleasant Valley pool, contingent on legal sign-off

The Pleasant Valley Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant a 13-foot side-yard variance to a property owner seeking to install a 20-by-32-foot in-ground pool, but made the approval contingent on the town legal department confirming the board can lawfully grant more than the variance that was advertised. The board approved the motion by majority vote, with one member opposing.

The variance request was brought by Mr. Malik, who said he had a full property survey after last month’s meeting and discovered the pool as designed would extend farther toward the western property line than he first believed. The board’s deliberations centered on whether the measured setback should include the pool apron and the pool’s perimeter fence, which affects whether the owner needs a 9-, 11- or 13-foot variance.

Board members agreed the parcel is somewhat unique and that, if the apron and fence count as part of the pool structure, the larger variance would be necessary to allow the planned deep end and a 4-foot surround. Opponents cautioned that advertising and notice to neighbors should match the relief granted: several members said the application had been advertised for a 9-foot variance and that expanding the grant risks procedural challenge.

Chair moved the motion to grant a 13-foot side-yard variance conditioned on legal approval of deviating from the advertised amount; the motion was seconded and carried by roll call. The meeting record shows the board asked the town attorney for a quick opinion; the chair told the applicant the approval stands if counsel confirms it, and that a special meeting and additional advertising would be required if counsel finds the board cannot grant more than advertised.

Mr. Malik acknowledged the board’s landscaping condition and said he planned to add privacy screening regardless: “I appreciate the recommendation, but something I was planning on doing anyway,” he said, referring to the screening the board had sought as a condition of the variance.

The board also reviewed the standard five variance criteria on the record — neighborhood character, alternative methods, substantiality of the variance, environmental impact and whether the difficulty was self-created — and found no adverse effect on nearby properties but agreed the requested area variance would be substantial. Members discussed practical implications (apron width, fence placement and measurement points) and asked staff to obtain legal guidance promptly to avoid delaying construction.

The board instructed staff to contact the town legal department for a ruling; if counsel approves the larger variance, no further hearing will be required. If counsel disapproves, the board said the applicant will be notified and a special hearing will be scheduled so the applicant can re-advertise or adjust the proposal. The meeting subsequently moved on to other agenda items and approved prior minutes before adjourning.