Pompton Lakes Zoning Board continues hearing after resident installed backyard pool without permits
October 30, 2024 | Pompton Lakes, Passaic County, New Jersey
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Pompton Lakes Zoning Board of Adjustment continued the hearing for Israel Silva (application BOA24-07) after the board identified measurement discrepancies and outstanding code and permit questions about a backyard above-ground pool installed without prior approval.
"It's a small small above ground pool. For the kids to play," Israel Silva testified when describing the structure. Board members and a contractor who joined the hearing described differences between plans previously reviewed by the building official (referred to in the transcript as "Sal") and conditions the board observed on site. The transcript records a denial letter dated in June and conflicting plan measurements that Sal reviewed, which the board said must be reconciled with current, on-site dimensions.
The board flagged three substantive compliance issues: the required side-yard/setback for pools and accessory structures (the transcript cites a 12-foot setback requirement), a question over impervious-surface lot coverage (the board cited an allowed 25% and said 29% was previously indicated on plans), and pool equipment located at or very near the property line. A contractor who spoke for the applicant said he had performed repairs and believed the pool and deck could be brought into compliance after modifications. "Everything looked to be, from my experience, up to code after some small repairs," the contractor said.
Board members instructed Silva to obtain precise measurements, supply revised drawings that show existing and proposed conditions, and consult with the building official (Sal) to clarify why Sal's original review showed different dimensions. The chair set the continued hearing for Nov. 26 at 8:00 p.m. and advised that, if approved in the future, code compliance and inspections would be conditions of any variance granted.
The applicant and his consultant agreed to return with measurements and corrected plans. The board noted that inspections and permits are required before the building department can sign off on compliance, and that the building department may withhold inspection until the board resolves any zoning variances.
"It's a small small above ground pool. For the kids to play," Israel Silva testified when describing the structure. Board members and a contractor who joined the hearing described differences between plans previously reviewed by the building official (referred to in the transcript as "Sal") and conditions the board observed on site. The transcript records a denial letter dated in June and conflicting plan measurements that Sal reviewed, which the board said must be reconciled with current, on-site dimensions.
The board flagged three substantive compliance issues: the required side-yard/setback for pools and accessory structures (the transcript cites a 12-foot setback requirement), a question over impervious-surface lot coverage (the board cited an allowed 25% and said 29% was previously indicated on plans), and pool equipment located at or very near the property line. A contractor who spoke for the applicant said he had performed repairs and believed the pool and deck could be brought into compliance after modifications. "Everything looked to be, from my experience, up to code after some small repairs," the contractor said.
Board members instructed Silva to obtain precise measurements, supply revised drawings that show existing and proposed conditions, and consult with the building official (Sal) to clarify why Sal's original review showed different dimensions. The chair set the continued hearing for Nov. 26 at 8:00 p.m. and advised that, if approved in the future, code compliance and inspections would be conditions of any variance granted.
The applicant and his consultant agreed to return with measurements and corrected plans. The board noted that inspections and permits are required before the building department can sign off on compliance, and that the building department may withhold inspection until the board resolves any zoning variances.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
