Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pools And Site Changes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design board urges alternatives for 75‑foot lap pool and garage changes at 30 Honey Lane
Summary
At a preliminary review for 30 Honey Lane the board asked applicants to provide alternatives and renderings after staff raised concerns that a 75‑foot lap pool extending into the side yard may conflict with historic‑district guidelines; applicants said the pool will be screened by tall hedges and the equipment would be located inside a renovated garage pending a zoning variance.
Richard A. Hammer, representing the owners of 30 Honey Lane, and Soledad Mendez of Bellwether Architects presented preliminary plans that include structural alterations to accessory buildings, a new 75‑foot lap pool and associated fencing.
Hammer noted the submission included an 1896 photograph of the property’s original garage and said the team proposes to change the garage roof from a flat profile to a traditional hip roof to improve durability and historic character. "We are proposing... to change the roof line," Hammer said, and added the intent is to repair or replace doors in kind.
Village planning staff (Billy Haczek) told the board he inspected the site and found "serious compromised structural issues" at the porch/entrance and that in‑kind replacement appeared appropriate. On the pool, Haczek reminded the board that the village’s guidelines typically place pools in the rear yard of properties in the historic district and that a 75‑foot pool that extends toward a side yard may not be consistent with those guidelines.
Architect Soledad Mendez said the owner requested a 75‑foot lap pool because his children swim and would use it for practice; she said the pool would sit partially in the rear yard and partially in the side yard but would be screened from view by a tall hedge and a new pool gate matching porch railings. A local pool builder, Gregory Gordon, told the board that side‑yard pools can work if properly screened and cited examples on Main Street.
Board members asked applicants to provide alternatives and street‑view renderings showing how the pool and garage changes would look from the public way, and they recommended the applicants explore relocating the pool to the rear yard or reducing its footprint. Board members also noted driveway turning radius and access constraints that could be affected by the proposed pool placement.
The board treated the item as a preliminary review and asked the applicants to return with alternatives, clarified materials and more detailed plans before any final determination. Applicants indicated they will seek a zoning variance to place pool equipment inside the garage.
What happens next: Applicant will revise plans and return with alternatives, renderings, and zoning‑variance materials as needed.
