Neighbors Squabble Over Future Use Of Residential Pool

June 30, 2009 by Charlotte Adinolfi

A proposal for an in-home business received public backlash Monday night during a Planning and Zoning public hearing.
On June 22, Joanne S. and Kenneth Newtown received pushback from their neighbors to their special permit application to run an in-home business for private swimming lessons. Equipped with an enclosed pool in their backyard, certified swim coach Joanne Newton, with the aid of Cheshire attorney Anthony Fazzone, presented the plans for the proposed in-home business.
Newton served as a swim instructor for the YMCA backyard program, Fazzone explained, which utilized backyard pools in the community for several years. This program was run until the state changed the regulations concerning the use of backyard pools for swim lessons. Recently, the state has changed these regulations back to what they once were when the YMCA conducted the service. Under the state’s new regulations, Newton’s pool would be eligible to be used to give swim lessons.
According to Fazzone, Newton would give 30-minute, one-on-one lessons. If the special permit were approved, Newton plans to connect her house to the pool structure with a vestibule, which would allow the pool structure and the house to be considered one building.
Remaining true to planning and zoning regulations, this connection would have to be done since the in-home business must exist within the dwelling unit of the applicant. Fazzone noted that the total finished space of the dwelling area was measured to be roughly 5,709-square feet, while the pool enclosure measured approximately 1,712-square feet. According to regulations, no more than 25 percent of the area, including the pool, can be used specifically for the in-home business. As such, the Newton’s agreed to section off a portion of the area for “family use” only, narrowly meeting the requirements.
Newton added that there were plans for a shower and changing area within the enclosure and assured Commission members that the glass and metal structure surrounding the pool met Town standards. While not a requirement, she told the Commission that she would be willing to have Chesprocott Health District test the pool to assure health standards are met.
Some neighbors voiced their opposition to the permit, citing noise and traffic issues as major concerns. Dr. Peter W. Bauer was the first to speak against the special permit. Bauer has lived at his current address for 47 years, which sits a few lots away from the Newton’s residence. Bauer presented the Commission with a petition, signed by 23 residents, asking for the permit to be denied based on four criteria: the business would not be conducted in the “dwelling area,” but rather in an accessory building; the business would create “objectionable” conditions that would adversely affect the residential character of the area; the floor plan proposed would exceed the 25 percent requirement; and, finally, that there would not be enough off-street parking for the residential and business use.
Another neighbor, John Mulvaney, also presented a number of reasons that the permit should be denied and urged the commission members to make a visit to the site of the proposed in-home business and assess the “massive structure.” Lighting, he stated, would most likely be needed for lessons and would create issues since it would be visible to the neighbors as a result of the glass pool enclosure. Mulvaney was also concerned with the foot and car traffic that he believed would increase, an increase in noise due to yelling and whistles utilized in lessons, and the property value of the surrounding lots decreasing. He characterized the application as “ridiculous.”
“Since the structure surrounding the pool is glass, the lessons can be seen while they are being taught and are visible from all angles,” commented Mulvaney. “This is so far off the intention of the regulations it’s laughable to me. It’s a shell game with the square footage.”
Fazzone explained that the pool cover is retractable, uncovering 34 feet of the pool and leaving a remaining 20 feet covered. He noted that this would allow the pool to be vented when necessary.
“I do not think noise is an issue. The pool would probably be closed during December, January, and February and maybe some time during the months before and after these three,” said Fazzone. “There will be one person getting swim lessons, not a bunch of kids.”
Fazzone stressed the time the pool would be utilized for lessons and that there would only be one child being taught by Newton at any time in the pool, which he said would result in little to no increase in noise level.
Although Newton received strong opposition to her special permit request from neighbors, Linda Sparks, a Cheshire resident who has hired Newton as a swim instructor in the past, gave her support and encouraged the Commission members to vote for Newton’s proposal.
“Joanne is almost militant about one child in the pool at a time for safety. I have asked her to teach both my children at once, but she refuses for safety reasons,” commented Sparks.
She also stated that Newton is calm and gentle with the children and has never heard her raise her voice.
The Commission decided to table the application until the next public hearing, which will take place on July 13.
Before then, the Commission plans to visit the site and consider placing restrictions on the permit in regards to hours of operation, with which Newton stated she was amenable.