Zba - Regular Meeting

I could do that. Good evening. This is the Bridgeport Bon, excuse me, zoning board of appeals, November 12th, 2025. I'm going to give you the commissioners and there's only four. So, if you want to stay, that's fine. If not, let me know because in order to get approved, you have to have all four, but normally it would be five. So, it's it's entirely up to you. Just let me know. So, I'll give you the commissioners. To my right is Edward H Williams. To my left is Eric Johnson and Paul Miller. And I'm Robin Shepard, the chairman. Um, item number one, AK Beverage LLC at 1923 Boston Avenue, the seeking of variance of section 10.10.2 to allow grocery beer sales within 750 ft of a protected use in the MX2 zone. Hi, good evening. Uh Danny Porco, Atlantis Management Group. Uh if possible to readjourn to this summer meeting?

Yes. Yes. Great. Thank you. Item number two, Stormhaven LLC, 61 Anchorage Drive, is seeking a variance of section 3.170.3E for the maximum allowable height and section 3.170.3F for the maximum floor area to legalize the existing two- bay detached garage in the N3 zone. chairs, members of the board, uh Chris Russo with Russo Rizzio LLC, offices at 10 Saskco Hill Road, uh in Fairfield here on behalf of the applicant, um the property owner at 61, uh Anchorage Drive. Here on a property some of you may be familiar with. Uh this is uh Mary Jane Foster's old house if if you remember that name. Uh I know it well. My older brother actually grew up across

the street at 30 Anchorage Drive. Um but the uh subject property here an 61 Anchorage Drive. It's located in the N3 zone uh and contains an existing uh two and a half story single family dwelling on the north side of the street. You can see right here's the dwelling. The lot is extremely oversized uh for this zone. The requirement is a minimum of 9,000 square feet. The site contains over 66,000 uh square feet, making it more than seven times uh the minimum lot area. Um the house C building type uh only requires 75 uh feet of frontage. This site has over three times that. Um, so it's always stood as this very large and and open lot um with this house uh you know very pretty house that's in the front towards Acreage Drive. I'll show you some some pictures that I have. Um and that has meant it's also significantly under coverage. Um with what is being proposed in the application the coverage would be 17.36% and 65% is permitted in this zone. So, it's way, way, way under coverage. Just to give that to you in raw numbers for this site, that's another 31,831 square feet in sight coverage permitted as of right on the site. So, basically 32,000 extra square feet just in sight coverage. Um, that's not even floor area because there's no floor area restriction. The restriction is height, which is two and a half stories. So I I mean you could you could have a a massive um massive building here on this property uh given its size. Um some of you may know uh this property was on the

market for a while. Uh I can tell you personally I fielded a lot of calls about subdividing this property um in into three separate lots. Um luckily my client bought this property to keep it as one piece uh and lived there uh with his wife and kids. Um it was a house of property that needed some TLC. Uh no doubt and my client has invested heavily uh to do that. And one of the challenges that faced him was maintaining that look and feel uh of the original structure. Uh the structure is not in the historic district, but knowing Black Rockck my whole life, if you know Black Rockck, uh it's safe to say that this is one of the iconic properties uh in that neighborhood. um and and the dwelling as well. Um so again, it needed some upgrading, but rather than create an attached garage, which obviously can be done um uh given the amount of coverage that's available, um he opted to uh detach the garage and keep that kind of original look of the structure. They added a beautiful porch. I'll show you the a wraparound porch um that you can see. um but separated the garage from from the dwelling. Um so the dwelling could just sit there nicely with its character uh separated. Um again, it could be attached, but it would end up adding just more bulk. I mean, you could fit a 16c car garage on on this property, but all it does is adds more bulk and essentially blocks people's view more. Um but all he all they needed was a twocar garage. Pretty standard. Uh it's located in the rear yard. Uh you can see right here your your regulations require um that detached structures like that be uh located in the rear yard. So it's

where it should be. Um it also uh the regulations require that detached accessory structures be located 3 feet from the property line. We set back from that even further. Uh there was actually a shed there that was closer to his neighbor's property line. Uh he removed it and set the garage back farther. Uh so opting to detach also one of the benefits of it, it it puts breaks in the building mass. Um it creates view corridors in between the main house and the detached uh and the detached uh garage. Uh other properties have not done that. Uh, and you can see that on Anchorage Drive. And I want to show you one, 141 Anchorage Drive. Um, it's completely compliant. I actually did the application for this one. Um, they're not doing this property is not doing anything non-conforming. They're within the standards. But you could see on this site, and I'll show you an area too by attaching all attached. And what it does is it it's it's a one sizable building mass and it blocks your views um uh out towards the water. Um now again, it's completely conforming. No one here has any type of view easements. There's no view easements um to the water. Um, in some areas, uh, you know, like my client's property, it's nice to have it open. Um, but in other properties, the views blocked. Uh, some people have plantings. I'm going to show you some pictures. You'll see that my, uh, client's neighbor has plantings that block the view uh, partially. It's

perfectly legal. They're allowed to do that. It's their property. They can they could plant like that. And and and you know, nobody has view easements. Um, but what my clients done, I think, by breaking up the garage and the main dwelling is is, uh, you know, is is again, I think maintaining some view corridors down to the down to the water. Um, you know, I'm sure everyone wants to maintain their water views the way they are, but when you build a structure on a waterfront, you're going to impact views. It's possible not to, but again, I think my clients designed this in such a way to be considerate of that. So, how we got here, my client went through the zoning and building permit process. Um, and when he submitted the plan, he originally did have it attached, but that's when he started considering it. And he had already received his permits and thinking of, you know, it would be nice to just separate this and leave the kind of house as it is with this. You're going to see again this nice wraparound porch and keep it separated. Um, so he he altered the plan to detach it and he shared that with the building department. um which had uh issued the building permit to him and they instructed him to proceed and I I think my client re you know reasonably relied on that information and proceeded with the construction. So I just want to that um this email deated dated July 28, 2025 says Allan proceed with the alternate garage configuration as described in the additional site and building plan submitted. Please contact me if you have any questions. Um and that was from the building enforcement officer. So, I think it's reasonable. He submitted, you

know, talked about um I I actually think the the officer had come out and viewed and and looked at the site, asked about detaching it, and a plan to detach it. Building officer said, "Uh, proceed uh proceed." As it turns out, the revised plan requires variances, which is why we're here now. Um the applicant seeking two variances in order to legalize um the existing detach uh garage, which I'll I'll again I have pictures. I'll show you. Um the first is uh from the section that was read out. I won't read it because it's like 20 letters long, but it's to increase the maximum permitted number of stories for a detached garage from one and a half to two stories. Basically, because there's dormers on the second floor. Um and but again keep in mind it's in a zone that permits two and a half stories um for principal buildings. Um the second is uh again from section 3.170.3 um which is to increase the maximum permitted floor area for the detached structure to 1,344 square ft. Um, but again in context, that's on a property that could have 32,000 square feet of additional site coverage. The garage itself, again, what you see there, garage measures 24 by 28 ft. Um, the first floor is at 672 ft is used for parking. Um and includes a staircase at the rear landing to the second floor. Um so footprint wise, you know, slightly over 650 ft architecturally. Show you

So, architecturally, the garage features two bays and shed dormers on both the front and the rear elevations providing ample transparency and visual interest. I think we all know how important transparency is to this code and um you know I you could see that on the second with the dormer just to increase the transparency there on the um uh on the front again because it's legalization. I just want to say I think my client reasonably relied on the direction to proceed with the building of this structure. Um, and one thing I just wanted to note because you'll you'll look in photos and it looks like a construction site in front of the garage which is because my client was told not to proceed before this matter was resolved. So, I just want you to understand that when you're looking around, you see some of the construction um materials. Um, this application reduces a nonconformity by uh removing a shed um that was uh closer to the side property line. It was non-conforming. We've pulled the garage back to being uh conforming setback. I know you you've heard me state this before on other applications. The elimination or reduction of a nonconformity can serve as a separate basis for the granting of a variance. Um and that's what we're doing here. Um, but I do think there there's hardship here. Um, you know, I'm almost always before you asking for a variance where the regulations are requiring that my client build less and I'm requiring uh and I'm requesting a variance to be able to build more. You know, for example, I'll be here and and say that I don't have enough room on a site, so I need to request a setback variance to be able to build um into an area where the regulations don't permit. We don't have that here. We're compliant as the setback. Um, another example, a lot of times I'll for you with an undersized lie. Um, and I need a variance uh from

this board um because the regulations require less site coverage and I'm asking you for more. But again, that's not what we have here. We have this extremely kind of odd and unique situation where Then sense, but So with that area,

Perfect. So This was situation What are you?

So for those reasons, we think this is extremely reasonable variance. Um, and It's frankly better for everybody in the neighborhood. And one thing I will show you is we have the signatures. also across the street.

But I think when you look at what's being proposed here and what the regulations would be driving you to do, um it's it it actually creates a greater obstruction. um uh than what we're proposing here uh uh today. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Good evening, honorable board. My name is David Codingham. I'm the design review coordinator with OPED. Um, I wrote a brief narrative um on this project and I just like to go through it. Um, the garage as constructed consists of two stories. uh that exceeds the maximum of 1 and 12 stories permitted under section 3.170.3 of the zoning regulations. Uh in addition, the accessory structure totals approximately 1,344 square ft and that exceeds the maximum allowable uh floor area of 650 square feet uh established under section 3.170.3.f. Um the proposed structure meets all applicable setback and site coverage requirements and the uh criteria that the board should consider with the requested variances uh fall under section 11.90.6 which are as follows. uh literal enforcement of the applicable zoning

regulations would result in exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship because of the unique physical conditions of the subject property. The exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship claimed results from conditions that are unique to the subject property and not generally applicable to other properties in the neighborhood or zone in which they are located. uh the exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship has not been created by the owner or a previous owner. The variance to be granted is the least deviation from the applicable regulations that is sufficient to reduce the exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship and that will allow the owner to make reasonable use of the subject property. And lastly, the variance granted will not adversely impact the neighborhood, will not impair the appropriate use or development of the adjacent property, will maintain the public welfare, and will be consistent with the general intent of the zoning code and the master plan of conservation and development. Um, that is all I have unless you have any questions for me. Thank you. I just want to pick up. People might ask when they when they read these regulations that we're asking for variances from this. What is the purpose of those regulations? Why? Why if the principal dwelling is allowed to be two and a half stories, why does the detached accessory structure have to be lower? And why is it restricted as a percentage of floor area of the

principal dwelling? Why is it reduce that? And one of the goals of that regulation is to make sure you don't have a sites, right? It's supposed to be smaller. lower not supposed to look like two felons on the property. That's why those regulations are there. There's no question. And so from an intent perspective, I don't think what what is here and what's shown on the site violates that in any way. We just again have this unusual hardship. I believe and that with the reggg build more which I I don't know if I can't remember I've had an application where it's like well if you complied with the regulations what you would need to do is build more. It's usually I come to you and it's if if the variance is denied I have to build less. So, I think it's just a a extremely unique situation from one we usually have before us. Um, but again, with that, I' uh I'd be happy to answer any questions right now.

Plumbing in the garage. I'm not sure. Yeah. I I look at that garage and I I the second story just invites being some sort of a guest house or something like that, you know. Why else would you build that as the top level garage?

You know, funny enough cottages and actually backyard cottages are are bigger um backyard cottages bigger than garages. So the rings actually allow backyard cottages, but that's not what's proposed here. And if they ever uh my client ever tried to do that or try to change it, they have to come back. That's not what you do. But oddly enough, it's a it's allowed down there. There's a lot of actually I've done a number of backyard cottages now in Black Rockck. Uh since the new regulations have been passed, this site I has the lot area for it, no doubt. Uh but um but that's not what's being proposed in this application. I think it puts a nice, you know, I mean, you've seen these garages where, you know, adding this transparency, I think, fits with what you see. I know it's something that the rags, you know, obviously promote having additional windows

to you. And it's a it's really a nice building, but my concern is this building the the garage. The garage. Yeah. Right. Did you guys seek approval from zoning before erecting the garage? Sorry. Did you seek permission from zoning before erecting that garage? The garage, the detached garage, right? So what when originally came in with a proposal that didn't Yes, I I understand that though. I understand what what what I am.

So they got issued so they got just so you know timeline wise they got issued a zoning permit and they got issued a building permit. Then when somebody from building came out, they said, you know, I think it really makes sense to detach this garage and uh the the the gentleman from building said you can do that and you can proceed based on that plan. So they thought because building had said to proceed that they were good to proceed. But what they didn't realize is that that also needed zoning to check it again. and repair. So, they relied on they relied on that and that's why I supplied that email because I understand what you're saying. There's a lot of times we come and people have just gone and done things and not had checks with the city, but they thought they were they thought they were okay.

So, really more than anything else, we're kind of talking about somebody from the building department misspoke a little bit and got that wasn't the end of the conversation, but I I mean I think the email is pretty clear, you know. I understand, you know, everybody, you know, some things just it just end up happening. I think they, if you look at that, I think they reasonably relied on it. Um, and uh, uh, you know, and again, I think they they were right to think in that direction of not having it attached. Um, I I I I think it's better for the site and the surrounding neighbor.

The issue I'm having is not that it's better. So, or it's not better this way. The issue I'm having here is that he went ahead and built it without the city saying giving the go ahead and according to you there's a miscommunication someone from someone from zoning said yes according to you allegedly allegedly allegedly from the email just the email

allegedly. So that's that's that's my concern. Yeah, I have I have the email there. Yeah. Yeah. So that's pretty much it. Thank you. But again, even with with with that commissioner, you know, again, I I think when you look at particularly about whether you're on the court here, this is the It would then [laughter] you're motioning like you want to see. Um but yeah,

is there anybody four? You're four. Okay. Is there anybody a guest?

Good evening.

My name is Laura Indelicotti. I'm an attorney at Wsy Rosen Questin and Curansky in Stamford and I represent the homeowners at 136 Rovers. That's Duron Amir and Cyibil Malin. I want to pick up on the issue that you left off with here. We've heard a lot about that this was a house that needed a lot and they clearly knew how to go to zoning and knew how also to go to building to get the approvals that they needed. They I suppose had a zoning approval for one plan, changed the plan, went from attached, decided it's our preference to detach it, asked for zoning, did not ask for building. I mean, sorry, asked for building, did not ask for zoning. Building sent them an email, said go ahead. Zoning clearly said problem because that's why we're here. And they didn't ask zoning until after the fact. So that's the order of events. There was no zoning approval. These are not unaware parties. They knew how to use the process and they chose not to use it to change their plan. Okay. So that I think should be absolutely clear. The next thing I really want to focus on is there's been a lot of conversation about how zoning the zoning regulations would require them to attach this to that. If you attach this to that, you have a principal structure because that's 10 ft from the side property line. So that's clearly not the workound for all you have to do to be compliant here. What the zoning regulations require to make this plan competes to be maximum 800 square ft.

Here the applicant for the variant made a choice. I had one plan. I'm going to configure it another way. I can use complant I can make compliant use of my I could build a bigger structure. I could build a compliant outuilding. I'm choosing not to. The zoning regulations and the general statutes require you to show an unusual hardship in order to be allowed a variance to the zoning regulations. A preference of building a creation of a non-compliance of the owner's own choice is not a hardship under the regulations. it cannot be the basis for granting a variance. So this is a choice. I think things that we heard uh Mr. Russo say, you know, obviously they could just build a bigger building with attached garage. Obviously they could accomplish a building that is compliant under regulations, but they chose not to. unfortunately under your regulations for variance and under the statutes that simply simply cannot um justify issuing a variance here and there's you know case law in it which I won't recite on it which I won't recite to you it's in my uh opposition letter that I sent to you but this is very well explored by the courts and I think you know the court would easily find here that there is no hardship there's no hardship because the lot is big in fact one of the cases that I cited where someone had a very old a very old establishment that was a non-conforming use for a very long time and they said, "Well, the use has been non-conforming for a very long time. Someone set it up even though they never got the variance and this property is enormous. It's 10 times the size of what I could have in this zone. So, just allow me to continue [clears throat] on." And uh the court

weighed in and said, "Okay, well, the lot's not conforming, not nonconforming, it's just really big. it seems there are many conforming things that you could do on the lot and you're asking us to do one that's not um that's not related to the size of the lot for for this choice. So I think that that that's relevant here and that just the fact that the lot is large doesn't mean that there are not conforming uses for which they could make reasonable use of their property. They're choosing a non-conforming one and that choice makes it not a hardship. Um, I just want to also give you guys a photo. I emailed it in. So, as you can see from this photo, before this enormous structure was built, which is the size of a small house, there was a very large and unspoiled view to the water of the neighbors um who I represent here. And as this structure started going up and their view started to disappear, they wondered whether wow, is this right? Can this happen? First, they learned there were issues with the building permits. Then they learned that it was not zoning compliant and then we learned about you know this application for the variance. While ordinarily I understand what council is saying about compliance structures obstructing views and there's nothing anyone can do about it. This is not a compliance structure and it's being put up right in the line of sight over shadowing a pool of a neighbor. And so

he's asking for a nonconformity that has a dilitarious impact on an adjacent property, a condition that forecloses the granting of a variance under the regulations. Um, so I think the only other thing I want to note, just one more thing about this email. If you go on the building department website, like right smack dab in the middle of the page for permits, it says that you must also get zoning compliance. Um, so I I really think I just want to hammer in on the fact that the the notion of ignorance here. Oh, I relied on the building department and I I didn't know. It's not a basis for the granting of the variance. it doesn't make a hardship that he built this non-conforming structure and straight from the approval that he had. But also I I don't think it's really to be credited because this is something that is easily knowable and should have been known by the applicant that they needed zoning compliance and when they went there zoning said this does not comply. A final thing I want to point out is um the zoning regulations and I spoke to zoning about this also require for um this house type that the uh halfstory and any structure be no more than 65% of the floor area of the story below it and also that dormers be no wider than 50% % of the story below it. So I think that in addition to the nonconformity specifically identified um the size is more than double what's allowed. The height is two stories when only one and a half is allowed. And also that second floor is nearly 100% of the story below. and the um and the dormers are clearly almost the

entire width of the story below. So those are f further um aspects that are non-conforming. Um that make this unacceptable. Um and the fact that principal buildings are allowed to be two and a half stories. Well, it's not it's just not a principal building. It's a detached out building. That was a choice. Okay. Um so I think that's all we have in addition to what's in our papers. And I just want to emphasize that this was a choice. Council admits it was a choice. Um and there can be no finding of a hardship on that basis. Personal preference does not authorize the granting of a variance under these against.

Okay. Turn Russ, you could do a rebuttal. First, I just want to be clear on one point. A building permit had been issued for the property. So, they were already through the process. They had been issued a building permit. At that point, he my client is talking to the building official about making change to the plans, which no construction. I mean, that happens all the time when you go through construction that you might look at something, get into something, you might be like, I want to change this. want to, you know, you you you you start to look at things and you decide you want to change it. And then he relied on that email thinking it's the city as one, you know, you know, entity and and he they they said you can proceed with it. So I I again I think it was reasonable to rely on. Uh a couple things. So one, I did hear council address one of my arguments which is regarding the reduction other thing I want to show.

See the water right here? What this practically would do the structure and and have nothing It's already built. That view, it would block the view for their other neighbor, the one that I showed you that had that nice bay window that looked out that looked straight through here. When I took that picture, I was on the other side of the garage. So, it would block this view for Council's client and then would block the view for the other neighbor as well. Now, again that would be that would be fine. It would possibly open behind it right over but that's why I tried to show this picture. Then open up this tree right in the middle. Now this is this week. you can imagine when that tree will least out what type of screen it's going to be um to the water. So to me it's it's just it's a case of cutting off your nose despite your face because you're you're eliminating a view out to the water uh by by forcing this to be

attached. Uh again I do think there is hardship here. Um there this is extremely unique in that we're not asking to build more than you could possibly build on this site. The the the garage and the use are allowed on this site. We're not asking for a non-conforming use or it's not like detached garages aren't allowed. But what it the regs would force you to do is build more pick up this building and then create an attachment and basically build more structure. And I think that's an extremely unique situation. Um and and one that really I think defies the intent of the regulations. Um and uh that that's not what the regulations are intending to do. uh in this particular situation kind of creates this inverse situation where that's what it would would end up causing. Um and I I think it's a shame because again as my client recognized maintaining the the look of that structure that you get is an iconic structure of Black Rockck Turnpike there on its own without having an attached garage and and and maintaining that openness uh that you see. Um, I I I just I think it would I think it would impinge on the character. Uh, and uh, and certainly the regs push you to try to maintain character as much as much as you can. Um, I think my client has been extremely restrained in their development of the property considering how much could be done on that property. Uh, has has has been extremely restrained. Uh and uh and again save this property which I I can tell you there was a lot of people looking at this to subdivide it kept it as one lot really keeping that openness down there

in this area. People love to walk down here and walk by here. Um and uh and I think they've done a fantastic job of maintaining it has buil have built a garage that I think is tasteful particularly in its proportion to the principal dwelling. Um and uh and for those reasons um we respectfully regrant grant what I think are extremely sensible variances and clearly if you look at the neighbor list uh and the amount of neighbors that's that's submitted in support of it. Um I I think it's clear that the surrounding neighbors agree. I understand council's client feels particularly affected. Somebody is going to be impacted when a structure is built but I reduces the impact to them uh as much as possible. Happy to answer any other questions.

Thank you very much.

Okay, this matter is closed. stupid.

Don't have no heat in it. Yeah. You know, I don't know what's going on with the city. There's no heat. There's never no heat in here. You know, we we are, you know, you turn it on for these guys, you know. We get a little I think I want to see somebody. Can we see somebody in here? My hands are cold. So, we have to agree.

We just got to agree vote on um deferring [snorts] for December. Motion. Motion to have it deferred for December. [laughter] Hello. Yes. Second December. Yeah, we should just deny them. Yeah, that one

I explain. zoning department house. I'm not so sure. At some point we were made aware that it was a detached garage and building also. So building approved the building permit for the house. They failed to notify the applicant that

the garage had to be So relax.

However, does a couple options attorney saying garage issue that half story because of the doors. So 65% is that correct? 65% of the first because the dormers so to get that down to the garage and reduce the doors. Or you could move the house attach the garage attached to the house.

I think that probably uh more than any concerns I have about neighbors views or anything like that. And I live right across the street from there. I mean I have a view of that water. my house is on those pictures. Um, so I I'm familiar with what they're talking about and so forth, but I think of more issue to us should be can we have somebody with the wherewithal to come in and build what's in excess of a million dollar structure between the house and the garage and so forth. who should have enough expertise in the building trade uh that they would that we would set a precedent that that person could come in and make a mistake and then we will correct it for them. And I don't think that the zoning board of appeals needs to be in that position. Now, I'm almost certain that if we deny the uh appeal for a variance, it's probably going to go to court, and you know, that is up to the uh parties involved. Uh but we're not the right people to be turning this around. I don't think that's just my opinion. Well, what I the way I'm looking at it, since there was a miscommunication, it's a beautiful building. You can compromise with the um with the dummers by making the domers a little smaller. They have to try to find a common ground between the both hardies. That would be my suggestion because I mean it's a nice building. nice garage and um but they went about it. There was miscommunication

and then so you're saying in essence to make the dorm small could be in compliance to be in compliance because to knock it down and to take it back and then to talk then move it

then you have to remove Based on that, I move we deny motion to deny. Amen. I'm going to have to um uphold the city's decision. We can't tell the compromise

we have to have to go back. You have to determine if there's a hardship. Okay.

And so that's what we have to consider. Sometimes you know people come in they can have a plan beautiful but it's not informance with zone regulations the only way around that get a variance that is a hardship that was a real meaning and that's what you have to all the other considerations it's is your hardship but is isn't it a hardship because They need because it's too it's too the dormers are too. No,

that's not money has doesn't come into play. It never comes into play. Yeah, money doesn't come into play. So again, I say it really shouldn't be, we really shouldn't be determining if they should make it smaller or move it or whatever. That's not our approve.

So there's a motion to deny. I second the motion. You did that. It doesn't matter because all four. So either if I say approve or he says approve, it doesn't matter because you would had to have four. We had to have four. Yeah.

Oh, that's what you're saying. Probably two. Yeah. Two kids that don't live in that neighborhood. I move we approve the second it

did a good job. You did a great job. You just got my name wrong. Yeah. Yeah. There it is. Freddy. Oh no. Yeah. right there. It's big chair.

Yeah. motion to engine.

No, it's not. I got my I got 710. So, we all

on my fast. So they can't what what can they do?