Zoning Board Denies Pool-Rental Violation Appeal

Planning and Zoning · Meeting of August 3, 2026

Newington's Zoning Board of Appeals denied a homeowner's appeal of a pool-rental violation. The board upheld a notice Zoning Enforcement Officer Eric Hinckley issued July 14 against Christopher Barissa of 82 Pfister Drive, who rented his backyard pool through Swimply.com. Hinckley said he "just can't find a regulation that it fits within" Newington's rules for the R-20 zone, and the violation carries a $150-per-day fine.

Neighbor Michelle Klatt described "underage kids with beer in their hands" at a July 3 party, while Barissa's father, Al Barca, testified the pool was built for his late wife's cancer therapy and said "it's not a business." Commissioner Lucas said the activity was "an ongoing public disturbance" dating to 2020. A motion to delay the decision 30 days died for lack of a second before the board voted to deny the appeal.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 1,942 words

Source: the Planning and Zoning meeting of August 3, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

Checked against the record: before publication this article was automatically compared with the meeting transcript. It was corrected where it differed.

The Full Article

Setting the Stage: Petition ZBA-26-6

Christopher Barissa of 82 Pfister Drive asked the Newington Zoning Board of Appeals to overturn a notice of violation that Zoning Enforcement Officer Eric Hinckley issued on July 14, 2026. The notice cited sections 1.2.1 and 3.4.4 of the town's zoning regulations and accused Barissa of operating an unpermitted business, renting his private backyard pool through the website Swimply, in an R-20 single-family residential zone. The case reached the board after residents along Pfister Drive submitted a signed complaint to the town clerk's office around July 10; a second complaint, with an attached police report, followed July 29. The question before the board: should it sustain Barissa's appeal and overturn Hinckley's finding, or deny the appeal and uphold the violation. Town counsel told the board that Connecticut General Statute 8-7-4 requires four of five concurring votes to overturn a zoning enforcement officer's decision, a high bar members returned to throughout the night.

The Appellant's Case

Barissa testified that the rental arrangement is "not a business. It's a hobby, if anything, to make a couple extra bucks to pay for the opening and closing of my pool, electricity, landscaping, things like that." He said the property remains residential in character: no structural changes, no signage, no walk-in traffic, and reservations are prearranged through the Swimply platform rather than open to the public. He said bookings run from 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., that no renter has stayed past 10 p.m., and that he does not personally handle payments, which flow through the website. Under questioning, he acknowledged he had never applied for a variance or special permit and said he did not realize the activity might violate zoning rules. Commissioners noted the Swimply listing allows up to 15 guests per reservation and has drawn 212 reviews over roughly six to seven years. Neighbor Michelle Klatt told the board the listing charges $50 an hour for up to five guests plus $10 an hour for each additional guest, a detail Barissa did not dispute directly.

The Zoning Enforcement Officer's Findings

Eric Hinckley, identified in the hearing as the town's zoning enforcement officer, testified that he located Barissa's Swimply listing after receiving the residents' complaint and researched whether pool rentals fit any permitted use. Under section 1.2.1, he said, an R-20 lot may be used only for a single-family detached dwelling or accessory uses customarily associated with one; he found nothing resembling a pool-rental business. He then examined section 3.4.4, which allows certain home occupations and professional offices, such as appliance repair, music or dance instruction, or small professional offices, by special permit through the Planning and Zoning Commission, subject to conditions including a cap effectively limiting simultaneous clients and a requirement that no evidence of the business be visible from outside the home. "I just can't find a regulation that it fits within within Newington regulations," Hinckley said. He added that the fine for the violation is $150 per day, separately appealable to the town's citation hearing officer, and that an unresolved issue with the violation letter's form meant it did not specify a correction window beyond a reference to "72 hours" buried in a separate line, a gap one commissioner flagged as "confusing."

Commissioners also questioned the town's attorney about liability if a guest were injured or drowned. The attorney, who was not identified by name in the hearing and is described in the transcript only as the town's representative, said municipalities generally carry no liability for incidents on private property; liability would fall to the homeowner, potentially implicating whether Barissa's insurance is a personal or commercial policy. Barissa said he carries an "umbrella" personal policy, not a commercial one.

Public Comment in Support

Barissa's father, Al Barca, who said he spends nine months of the year in Florida and summers at his son's house, testified that the pool was built about seven years ago so his late wife could swim for therapy during cancer treatment, on the advice of doctors at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa. "She got an additional year out of that, thanks to the, I'm convinced," he said, noting his wife died in October. He said rental income was intended only to cover the roughly $500 to open and $500 to close the pool each season, plus electricity and chemicals. "If it was a business, he wouldn't be," he said, trailing off before adding his son "doesn't need the money." One commenter compared the arrangement to seasonal businesses such as ice cream trucks, prompting Barca to argue the pool rental is not "a true business" in the same sense.

Public Comment in Opposition

Eight residents, most from the Pfister Drive and Vista Drive area, spoke against the appeal. Jim Regan, who lives on the same street, said the neighborhood "watches out for each other" and raised concerns about "excess noise," groups walking through private property, suspected underage drinking, marijuana odor, public urination and e-bikes "driven in an unsafe manner." He questioned whether Barissa's father, as a part-year Florida resident, should weigh in on a Newington hearing, and warned the board that at least seven other Newington neighborhoods have similar pools and could face the same pressure if the appeal succeeded.

Dirk DeBoer, of 66 Pfister Drive, said he contacted the town by email in 2020 when the rentals began and was told there was no ordinance addressing the practice. He said the online listing had encouraged renters to park in a Metropolitan District Commission access driveway next to Barissa's property, that multiple rental groups can visit in a single day during hot weather, and that rentals continued the day after the notice of violation was delivered.

Rose Lyons, of 46 Alton Drive, testified by phone, comparing the case to past disputes over doggy day cares and home-sharing rentals and asking whether Barissa's rental income is reported to the IRS and disclosed to his insurer. Michelle Klatt, who lives next door at 78 Vista Drive, described a July 3 gathering as "insane," saying, "The underage kids with beer in their hands, whether you knew them or not, it was going on." She said she had been reluctant to call police because she is "non-confrontational" but had reported incidents to Swimply directly on more than one occasion. Jonas Roberts, a schoolteacher on Vista Drive, said the neighborhood sees heavy foot and stroller traffic from a nearby apartment complex and business, and urged the board to minimize additional vehicle traffic. Two residents from outside the immediate neighborhood, Lucy of the Pheasant Run neighborhood and Matt Rossi of 17 Franklin Circle, said they feared a ruling for Barissa could invite similar rental operations elsewhere in town; Rossi noted the Swimply listing is titled "the resort" and said heavy booking volume "sounds like a business name."

The Deliberation and the Vote

In rebuttal, Barissa said the most-cited incident, a large July 3 gathering, was a personal party for a friend's son, not a paid rental, and that "99 percent" of complaints concerned his personal guests rather than renters. He offered to lower the maximum party size from 15 to five people. Hinckley, in closing, reiterated that zoning does not regulate noise, parking or private gatherings among friends and family, only the underlying use: "There are no regulations in regards to how many friends and family you can have over your house for a wedding or a pool party." He said his opinion remains that a profitable, recurring monetary exchange makes the activity a business under town regulations.

Commissioners debated whether to decide the matter that night or continue it 30 days to the board's next meeting, which one member called "a compromise." A motion to table drew no second and died. One member argued that delaying would be "an affront to the people who have opposed the situation," noting the number of Pfister Drive residents present. The board proceeded to a roll-call vote on a motion to deny the appeal and uphold Hinckley's violation. Commissioner Lucas offered the board's stated reasoning: "This is an ongoing public disturbance that's been going on for five years... We've seen by the photo evidence that these are well in excess of 15 people." A second commissioner, identified in the transcript only as Michael, added that the exchange of money establishes the activity as a business regardless of its seasonal nature. The motion carried on a roll call in which all audible votes were cast in favor of denial; the full individual vote count was not clearly captured on the recording. The town's attorney told the board Barissa may appeal the decision to Connecticut Superior Court, which would stay any zoning enforcement action, including the daily fine, while that appeal is pending.

Two Routine Variance Approvals

Earlier in the work session, the board unanimously approved two unrelated variance requests with no significant debate. For 98 Thornton Drive, the board granted a 3.2-foot variance reducing the required west side-yard setback from 10 feet to 6.8 feet for a second-story addition, and a 0.2-foot variance reducing the front-yard setback to 34.8 feet for a bay window. For 259 Robbins Avenue, after commissioners revised the draft motion's wording during the meeting, the board granted a 9.7-foot variance reducing the required rear-yard setback from 30 feet to 20.3 feet, allowing removal of an existing 13.5-by-13.5-foot deck and construction of a two-story addition with an elevated deck walkway connecting to the existing garage. Both votes passed by unanimous roll call with no public opposition. The board also approved its July 2 meeting minutes without discussion.

WHO WAS THERE

Board members present and voting during roll calls, by name as stated in the hearing: Commissioner Lucas; a commissioner identified only as Michael; a commissioner identified only as April; a commissioner identified only as Peter; a commissioner identified only as John; and commissioners whose surnames were announced inconsistently during roll calls, including Kolachowski/Kolakowski, Gormley, Bishan, Donnelly and Lupus, along with a presiding chair referred to as both "Dunning" and "Noem" in different roll calls. An unnamed member described as an alternate was discussed as ineligible to vote on at least one motion.

Staff and counsel: Eric Hinckley, Zoning Enforcement Officer for the Town of Newington, testified under oath. An attorney representing the town advised the board on procedure and liability but was not named in the hearing.

Applicant and witness: Christopher Barissa, 82 Pfister Drive, the appellant. Al Barca, Barissa's father, testified in support.

Public commenters in opposition: Jim Regan, Pfister Drive; Dirk DeBoer, 66 Pfister Drive; Rose Lyons, 46 Alton Drive (by phone); Michelle Klatt, 78 Vista Drive; Jonas Roberts, Vista Drive; Lucy, Pheasant Run neighborhood (by phone); Matt Rossi, 17 Franklin Circle.

ORGANIZATIONS AND DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

Swimply.com — the short-term pool-rental platform through which Barissa listed and booked his pool; central to the dispute over whether the activity constitutes a business.

Newington Zoning Regulations, sections 1.2.1 and 3.4.4 — cited by Zoning Enforcement Officer Hinckley as the basis for the notice of violation; 1.2.1 limits R-20 zone uses to single-family dwellings and accessory uses, while 3.4.4 governs home occupations and professional offices requiring a special permit.

Connecticut General Statute 8-7-4 — cited by the town's attorney as the statute requiring four of five concurring votes to overturn a zoning enforcement officer's decision on appeal.

Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) access driveway — referenced by neighbor Dirk DeBoer as a right-of-way he said renters were directed to park in, adjacent to Barissa's property.

Newington Police Department — referenced in connection with a police report attached to the second resident complaint and officers' response to a large party at the property.