Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies front-yard pool request on Ridge Road amid neighborhood and safety concerns
Summary
Danbury’s Zoning Board of Appeal unanimously denied a request to install a 12-by-24 above-ground pool in the front yard at 8 Ridge Road after neighbors, elected officials and board members cited safety, drainage, visibility and neighborhood-character concerns.
The Danbury Zoning Board of Appeal voted Aug. 14 to deny a variance that would have allowed a 12-by-24 above-ground pool in the front yard at 8 Ridge Road, concluding the proposed location was incompatible with neighborhood character and raised safety and drainage concerns.
The applicant said the only available space for a pool is near the front/side of the house and proposed a deck and gate to secure access. The board asked about setbacks, clearance from neighbors’ fences and whether the proposed deck and pool would exceed sightline or height concerns.
Neighbors and neighborhood representatives opposed the request. "It's an eyesore," wrote a resident in one of two letters read into the record opposing placement of a pool in the front yard; another neighbor, Douglas Farnsworth, told the board the pool and deck would put swimmers within sightlines of adjacent homes and could reduce quality of life. Benjamin Dodo, a long-time resident, said the hardship claimed by the applicant was self-created and noted prior unpermitted activity at the property.
Paul Rotello, a city councilman representing West Terrace, told the board he shared neighbors' concerns and flagged a wider enforcement risk: commercial rentals of private pools through platforms such as Swimply, which he described as "the Airbnb for swimming pools," arguing that approving front-yard pools could invite commercial uses that burden neighborhoods.
Board members also raised practical maintenance concerns, including where pool backwash water would be discharged and whether deck construction would alter the pool’s effective height relative to neighboring fences. After public comment, the board closed the hearing and voted, by roll call, to deny the variance application. The chair recorded the denial as the board’s final action on the item.
The applicant was told the shed and detached accessory structure shown in some drawings were a separate permitting matter; the pool denial pertained only to the requested front-yard variance.
