Calling a planned pool-and-patio overly large in that it would encroach on two setbacks as originally proposed, zoning officials have instructed a Bayberry Road man to re-think the project and land on something more reasonable.
Plans for 179 Bayberry Road call for a 16-by-36-foot pool and L-shaped patio off the back of the 2005-built, 6,000-square-foot house. A special permit is needed for the project because, as originally conceived, it would encroach on 35-foot-setbacks (see page 58 of the Zoning Regulations here, 2-acre zone) by about four feet on the northern side for the length of the pool-and-patio, and by about eight feet on the eastern side, according to plans filed with the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Original plans for a proposed pool and patio at 179 Bayberry Road.
Homeowner Matthew Savino told the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 4 that the patio is sized to accommodate outdoor seating and a grill, and the pool placed away from the 2.5-story house so that it can get as much natural light as possible.
ZBA member John Kriz called Savino’s request “a big ask.”
“You just want a large patio,” Kriz said at the meeting, held in the Sturgess Room at the New Canaan Nature Center.
A satellite image of 179 Bayberry Road.
“How much patio do you need?” he said, suggesting that Savino pull the project down within the backyard setback and shift it away from the eastern side yard setback. “This is still a very substantial patio. It is a large ask. You still get the sun because the pool is extending out beyond the house.”
Ultimately, the ZBA denied Savino’s request to encroach in the northern setback and conditioned the eastern side encroachment for the pool, so long as the size of the pool itself remained as originally drawn.
Savino noted that five neighbors, including those whose properties would abut the proposed pool and patio, had signed letters of support. His 1.03-acre lot sits the 2-acre zone and, since much of the property is restricted by wetlands, the home itself was positioned up against the required 50-foot rear setback.
Savino in his application asked the ZBA to apply 1-acre zone setbacks (25 feet) to his property for this project.
ZBA Secretary Jeanne Rozel disagreed with Kriz, saying, “I don’t think it’s such a big ask and I don’t think it affects the neighbors.”
To Kriz’s suggestion that the whole combined structure come down out of the setback on the northern side, Rozel said: “I think it would be a little crowded if you did that.”
Kriz replied: “I do not see it as crowded at all.”
He added: “To say we should give them more space because everyone deserves a large pool—that doesn’t strike me as a good reason.”
ZBA member John Mahoney, an alternate who was seated at the meeting as Chairman Carroll Yanicelli was absent, said Savino’s hardship was a combination of self-created and part of the land.
“I understand that the lot is undersized and the challenge of the wetlands, and I would be inclined to grant the variance,” Mahoney said. “I think what I am struggling with is not so much the challenges of the property but to go eight or 10 feet over one setback line and five over another—it’s a fairly big encroachment, and the only way you can rationalize the size of the ask is to ignore the fact that the property is in the 2-acre zone.”
He added: “I am sympathetic and I want you to be able to enjoy the house, but I am struggling with both the size and dimension [of the pool and patio].”
Savino later in the meeting offered to shift the patio down and out of the rear yard setback, but Kriz pointed out that even with such a concession, the pool itself would encroach on two setbacks at the northeast corner.
“I see it as a very small give,” he said.