The saltwater pool behind 82 Pfister Drive in Newington holds a perfect 5.0 rating across more than 200 online reviews on Swimply, an online service that allows property owners to rent their private swimming pools by the hour.
In a listing, the owner calls his pool, “The Resort.”
Neighbors, however, have other names for it.
On Aug. 6, the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals sided with neighbors who filed a complaint about a raucous pool party on their residential street.
The board voted to deny homeowner Christopher A. Barsa’s appeal of a zoning violation notice, effectively shutting down the hourly pool-rental operation.
Barsa listed his pool on Swimply — sometimes described as Airbnb for swimming pools — at $50 an hour with a cap of 15 guests. Neighbors say he began renting it in March 2020.
Since Newington’s zoning regulations don’t specifically mention private pool rentals, Barsa argued he did not commit a violation. The town, however, argued that because the regulations don’t specifically allow pool rentals as a permitted use, the activity is prohibited.
Section 1.2.1 of the Newington Zoning Regulations states plainly: “uses not stated are not permitted.”
Erik S. Hinckley, the town’s acting town planner and zoning enforcement officer, cited that section, along with Section 3.4.4 governing home occupations, when he issued a notice of violation on July 14. The notice gave Barsa 72 hours to halt all rental activity, including pulling online advertising.
Barsa appealed to the ZBA, claiming the town had no authority over his private property.
“I do NOT need a permit from the town to rent out my pool,” Barsa wrote.
He argued that Newington has permit requirements for building and maintaining pools, but no ban on hourly rentals. He said he intended to keep renting through the summer.
Testifying at last week’s hearing, Barsa told the board that renting the pool helped cover the cost of maintaining it, along with electricity and landscaping. The property, he said, still functions as a residential home.
Board members were not persuaded. In discussion before the vote, commissioners characterized the operation as a commercial business for the simplest of reasons: money changes hands and customers show up.
The complaint stemmed from an incident on July 3 when, according to neighbors, Barsa rented the pool to a group that appeared to exceed 60 attendees, most of them high school-aged. The party started around 5 p.m. and ran past 10 p.m.
Neighbors reported a stream of vehicles dropping off and picking up teenagers, groups congregating on front lawns without permission, a DJ playing explicit music for hours, a strong odor of marijuana drifting through the neighborhood, one person urinating on a tree in a neighbor’s yard, and fireworks set off in the street.
The neighbors said they objected to “a high-volume, for-profit venue within a residential neighborhood.”
The decision follows a long-running battle in Connecticut about short-term rentals.
In August 2024, the state Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that a “residence” does not require any degree of permanency, striking down short-term rental restrictions in Branford.
Lawmakers have tried repeatedly to create a statewide registry of short-term rentals. The most recent attempt, House Bill 5536, would have created a state short-term rental registry and allowed municipalities to adopt a supplemental tax on bookings.
It never came up for a vote before the session adjourned May 6.
The Connecticut Lodging Association, which wants short-term rentals brought onto the same footing as hotels, has backed the registry concept.
Meanwhile, in West Hartford, developer Mark Chu sued that town’s Zoning Board of Appeals after it upheld cease-and-desist orders against his Airbnb listings on Raymond Road.
Those debates, however, have not focused on rentals where nobody stays overnight.
Barsa’s operation specifically limits rentals to five-hour blocks, skirting the proposed state-level restrictions.
Barsa may appeal the board’s decision in Superior Court.
