Port Jefferson ZBA approves small setback variance for Waterview Drive pool, conditions updated permit

The Port Jefferson Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 26 approved a minor area variance for an in-ground pool at 5 Waterview Drive, finding the pool’s as-built 19.6-foot distance from the rear property line fell 0.4 feet short of the village’s 20-foot setback requirement. The board conditioned approval on an updated building permit and revised as-built plans to resolve fence ownership and code compliance issues.

The board opened the hearing on appeal ZB-1-26 after staff reviewed the application and noted a discrepancy between the originally permitted plan, which showed a 40-foot rear setback, and the as-built condition the board was asked to consider. Dan, a building-department staff member, said the contractor had measured to an existing fence rather than the property line and that the fence appears to extend roughly three feet beyond the property boundary, which affected setback calculations.

“On the original plan there was a 40-foot setback; the as-built survey shows 19.6 feet,” Dan said, explaining that the applicant’s survey measured to a fence line rather than the legal property line. He told the board the village requires a 5-foot (60 in) pool barrier under local code while New York State sets a 48-inch minimum.

Christopher J. Dodie, the applicant, testified he became involved after the pool was constructed and said he believed the contractor had followed approved building methods. “By the time I was involved the pool was already installed,” Dodie said, and he explained the contractor had positioned the pool to increase yard space from the house.

Staff and the applicant discussed two compliance routes: (1) surround the pool itself with a compliant 5-foot barrier that meets state and village requirements, or (2) clarify boundary/fence ownership and, if necessary, relocate or reestablish the property fence and update the building permit and plans. The board was clear that the building department would require revised plans reflecting actual conditions before final sign-off.

Neighbors who spoke were supportive. Scott Lindseay of 7 Waterview Drive and Lynn Lebert of 9 Waterview Drive told the board they had no objection to the pool’s location. The applicant also provided several written letters from adjoining neighbors stating no objection, which were entered into the record.

After reviewing the five statutory factors the board uses to consider an area variance, members characterized the shortfall as a technical, neighborhood-typical issue and not likely to produce adverse physical impacts. The chair moved to approve the variance pursuant to village code section 250-11C(3)(A), with the condition that the applicant submit an updated building permit and final as-built plans that resolve the fence and pool barrier details; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.

The board’s approval does not eliminate the applicant’s obligation to meet all building and state code requirements; Dan and the building department will work with the applicant on the revised permit and any necessary fence or barrier work. The meeting adjourned after the motion.