Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Pool Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newburgh ZBA deadlocks on Rock Tavern homeowners’ request to install private pool in cluster development
Summary
Homeowners Ross and Donna Hubert asked the Zoning Board of Appeals to interpret the code to allow a 16-by-32 inground pool in a cluster development. The board split 3–2 on a motion to permit a pool for detached single-family homes that meet code; the motion failed for lack of the four favorable votes required.
Acting Chairman Darrell Bell presided as Ross and Donna Hubert of 29 Wildwood Drive, Rock Tavern, asked the Town of Newburgh Zoning Board of Appeals on March 27 for an interpretation to allow a 16-by-32 inground pool in their R-3 cluster development.
The Huberts told the board they meet dimensional and setback requirements and sought a code interpretation after Code Compliance would not process their application because pools are listed as accessory uses for single-family homes in columns C-1 through C-3 of the bulk table, not for D (cluster) uses. Ross Hubert said the pool is “for our kids” and noted the family has a one-year-old and a two-year-old.
Board Attorney David Donovan and Code Compliance officer Joseph Mattina explained the technical basis for the initial denial: the bulk table treats accessory swimming pools under the single-family categories and does not explicitly list them for D-3 cluster developments. Mr. Donovan said the code is silent on some cluster issues and suggested the omission may be an historical oversight rather than an explicit prohibition.
Board members debated the precedential effect of ruling in favor of the Huberts. Ms. Rein and others warned approval could prompt many similar requests; some members suggested narrowly limiting any favorable ruling to detached single-family homes that meet all pool code requirements to reduce unintended consequences.
After closing the public hearing, Ms. Rein moved to approve the application “for a detached single-family home in a cluster development that meets all other applicable requirements” (the approval would apply only to the pool and not to sheds). Mr. Eberhart seconded. On roll call the board voted: Eberhart — Aye; Hermance — No; Bell — Aye; Masten — No; Rein — Aye. The motion received three affirmative votes and failed because the board requires four favorable votes for a binding interpretation.
Mr. Donovan told the Huberts they may request a revote within 30 days or pursue legislative clarification from the Town Board. The public hearing record closed at 7:26 p.m.
The ZBA did not adopt any new rule at the meeting; the applicants said they would request a revote and could return to the board with additional information or seek a Town Board clarification.
