Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Darien. It is Wednesday, September 16th. If you could just make sure your phones are silenced, that would be great. We're going to take the meeting agenda in order. We're going to start with Wilder and his group on 40 Arrowhead Way. There's one continuance and then a few other just general business matters. We will deliberate tonight. So if you share your What is it called? What are you sharing with us? Your gripe, your variance. We will deliberate this evening, so you will hear tonight whether it's moving forward or not. All right, so to begin, we will start with calendar number 15-2026, the application of Wilder Gleason of Gleason & Associates on behalf of Judy Scavone and Todd Slotkin to allow the construction of a covered porch at 40 Arrowhead Way.

Good evening. Thank you for being here. You've seen this before this year, and as a result of the last go-round, we have a new architect, Scott Races, and Todd and Judy Slotkin are with us. They're in the front row here. Recent history, you denied a variance in calendar 3, 2026 for this property. That involved a porch at the end of the master bedroom wing. And in that application, the Slatkin sought approval of a variance of 23 feet in lieu of 40, front yard setback, 17 feet into the setback. So it was a significant encroachment. It was denied, lack of hardship, alternates available with reduced variance, particularly in the center of the property, which is something you guys suggested. I looked at the Vimeo. And you suggested they explore construction in the center. And so this new application places the development exactly where you suggested. But for topographic and architectural reasons, it makes sense to have the eight and a half foot encroachment which we're seeking. This is the survey with limited topography. But let me start first. The first thing you notice is it's a triangular lot. Very unusual. It's not your usual rectangle. You've got Arrowhead Way on one side and then on this side you've got Winding Road. And that creates close to two-thirds of the perimeter is subject to a front yard setback of 40 feet. you lose all this strip all the way around.

See the setback going in here. And the last variance was out here and came 17 feet in.

So what we have is In addition, it's important to note, the building, the first floor of the house is at elevation 61. It's slightly above the elevation here, the top elevation. Here's the 61-foot contour, and then we come down, and right here it's 60. So this is relatively flat, and the house was built in the flat area where the zoning setback allowed it. And then it's very steep. I've got to stop touching that, sorry. On this side, you can see the contour lines are very close. That means it's steep. It is very steep. You have a 60-foot contour here, the dark one. Then there's a 55 running through here that runs right into the driveway, the upper driveway. So that's 55. That's basically where the garage entrance is. And then you have 60 here, and that's going to carve down in here. And then it gets down to 46 in here. This end at the tip is downhill considerably from the driveway up here. We don't know the exact measurements, but I think it's at least a 15-foot drop from here down to here. Probably more like 17, 18, possibly 20. So you have a topographic hardship. It slopes steeply. This driveway here was constructed with two retaining walls. You have this one that you see here and then a higher one up here. Each of them is like six feet tall. And that was necessary to get a parking area near where the house was located. The garage is down here. So you have topography affecting things. You don't, although it looks like you've got a lot of room, you really don't if you want to add to this house where it was placed. The original house was constructed in 2004. And it was, the architect was the dean of the Yale School of Architecture, Deborah, I've forgotten her name, in any event, It is actually a very, it has a shallow depth. It's not like you have a corridor and a room off the corridor and then a room on the other side that you would normally see in a more normal layout. So the house, I don't mean to offend the Slotkins, but it's kind of like a train. You go from one room to another and from one car to another because there's no central circulation. And because of this shape, The other thing that's going on is there's no family room. And while there are other rooms that might say, oh, that could be a family room when you look at the plan, they're just not big enough. And the only level space is up in here, and that's very close to the setback, and in here, in the center, where you guys said we should build. So Scott Braces, the architect, took a look at this and he said, What we really need is we need a family room here. And that will connect the kitchen to the living area. And then you need some outdoor living space that's accessible to that family room. So he has a porch. It's just a straight roof porch. And that porch encroaches 74 square feet into the living area. the over the setback line. But it's an eight and a half foot encroachment, not 17. We've halved it. And it's, if you look at it, the house, the way it's laid out, there's a corner here and it really, Could we comply? Yeah. I mean, we can always comply. You could shave this corner off, and it would look awful. It would be horrendous, and it would leave you with essentially an outside area that you can barbecue in, but it doesn't function as a porch.

If you shave that off, Walter, do you know what the dimensions of that porch would be?

I would have to ask Scott, but there is... It would be about 10 feet deep. Not even. Scott, you've got to come up here.

I'll tell you to come up, Scott, if you could.

And just state your name for the record.

Thank you. Scott Raisis. Did you get that, Karen?

For your last name, please.

Raisis. Spell that, please. R-A-I-S-S-I-S. Thank you.

And Scott, how big, if you were to comply entirely and just had that deck within, that orange goes away, what would the deck be?

It would be about 10 feet deep. Okay, by 12 feet? By 19. I believe the dimension is 19 from this outside corner of the proposed family room to the existing dwelling. That perpendicular dimension would be about 19, 18 and a half feet.

Okay, 18 and a half by nine. And what is the dimension there that's shown?

this dimension here.

The finished deck as you're proposed is... Am I missing it? Is it on here?

Including the...

Sorry. The full proposal.

You know what? Let's... Where's that? Am I jumping ahead, Wilder? I'm sorry. You're not here? Go. No, no, no.

Go to the next sheet.

So this whole thing here is 23 by 19?

No, no, no. It's 23 by 19.

Okay. There. I don't know if it's...

So you're 9 foot 8 on the horizontal.

That's the 9 foot 8 encroaching.

And then you're 23 feet 3 inches. And again, as Wilder said, this is just open air. The only thing that's encroaching into the setback is 16 inches of roof structure. That's about it. So there's no walls here or anything. It's all open structure. It's just this roof plane and that column. That's it. Very minimal.

And neighbor-wise, who are we looking at on this corner?

Nobody. Nobody sees anything. All right. We're up above them by 15 feet. Okay. We're screened by a row of our providing, and I have some pictures of that. Okay. And so far as we know, no neighbor has any concerns about this.

You know, I remember this application. I was on this. And I remember we asked the question, like, is denying this going to prevent them from enjoying their house? That was kind of the big debate. And we said it would. It would not. I think what you've come up with here, I think, is a fantastic solution. I think it flows with the House much better than what they had proposed before. I hope they think that's the case. I mean, we'll see what the rest of the committee does, but I think you've done a really nice job.

Thank you. I'm going to send the bill tomorrow.

You're going to send the bill? We hate to deny this stuff, but honestly, like, every time we do, like, you guys come back with better stuff. This is much better. This makes sense with the plan.

So, okay, keep going. It's a very unique house. Yeah, it is. And the only reason why we, you know, came here this evening was because we didn't really want to stop that porch there. because it just would look awkward yeah it just would look not nice and it also it would it would minimize the function of the space i mean the space is there to become an outdoor living space that is an extension of the family room a covered patio if you will if we reduce it to within the setbacks it then just becomes a porch which is fine again everybody has porches everybody can live with a porch so We always approach these things. We're trying to just do the minimal possible to obviously appease our clients and make sure that everybody's satisfied.

And do you have the numbers on exactly what the encroachment piece is? Yeah. Just exactly the dimension. Nine and a half by?

Well, let's go back to the point. This is a. This is a. It's how much square foot. This is four. Go back to it. I have a question. No, I want to give you. Well, it's. looking north and then looking east, it's 15 feet.

So it's roughly 74 feet square feet. It's exactly 74 square feet. Okay, thanks, Joe.

That's what we need to know. One more architectural thing about the location of the column and the porch is that when you look at the floor plan, which is somewhere in there, if you were to reduce the porch to comply within the setback, you would hit visually, you would be at one of those three windows. And that doesn't look good with the rest of the architectures. In the same way on the side with the new family room, if you reduce that, you would then kind of kill the entrance to that new family room. So in terms of layout, there's not a whole lot of choices for where that column is going to fall. So that it works for the house, because there is also the way the house is designed with the different planes.

We don't have a 3D view, but it looks great. It looks better in 3D. You don't have a 3D in your sink. Scott, you don't have a 3D. You made a comment about this elevation, why it was important to have this roofline extend all the way to this corner. Well, I think this gentleman is right on. Yeah, as Hervé said, particularly with the shed dormer here,

There's a lot going on on the house.

And there's not that many houses with notable architects in Darien, so this is one of them. So we have to try to stay within the overall aspirations.

Good.

Notable.

Matt, you got any questions?

No, that sounds great. How does this compare in terms of the... encroaching on the setbacks versus the previous plan? Is it seriously different?

The encroachment last time was a request was for a 23-foot variance, 17 feet into the 40-foot setback. Okay. And we're at 8 1⁄2. Okay. So we have to. 9 feet 7. No, no, we're not 9 feet. This dimension is 9 feet 7. Oh, right. Because it's on the diagonal. And if I get it in... It's not working.

I feel like it's about a third of what we had before. Yeah. About a third.

I'm going over here. There you go. There we go. One more. One more. There. See? This dimension here is 8 and 1 half.

While it would be fair to say it's about a third of what you asked for before.

The area I can't speak to, but I know it's way less.

A significant reduction of what you proposed.

The vast majority. This is 7% of our addition, including the family room. It's 16% or 17% of the covered patio. It's not like we're pigs here. We're taking a little...

The minimum adjustment. The hardship that I see... You can see the lot. Look at the shape of the lot.

Not only the shape of the lot, but you start with two-thirds of the perimeter abuts the street, which gives you the 40-foot setback. We're working with that. We're really working hard with that. The lot is triangular, not rectangular, so you don't have that you know, rear yard and side yard setback that you get, which gives you a little room to breathe. We've got 40 feet on every side and then it's the more rigorous rear yard setback. So, um, the property's deeply sloped with a house at the top of the highest elevations. The original house was placed in the corner and it's got limited deaths to it, constraining, um, the future development, it's like that train. You go from one room to another to another and you don't have the flexibility of circulation that you really want with kitchen, living, family room space. And Scott has done a brilliant job of fixing that.

And Scott, the access to the porch, is it through a family room now? Yes. Okay, that makes a lot of sense.

Well, it's through the family room, and there's a small little study that it also accesses. So there's a nice little circulation loop between the kitchen, the family room, and the small study.

I think that was an issue before, too. I don't think the connection point was good. There was nothing.

So I'm trying to refresh my memory on the prior application. So I think the reason for the initial request for a new outdoor space is that there's two current outdoor rooms. or there's the porch in the front of the house, and there's the one off the master bedroom. That's correct.

The proposed was off the, yeah, the master bedroom.

On the first one, I believe. So there's currently one on top of the master bedroom here.

I think that.

That's just that terrace. Okay. With a, with shaves and barbecue and. Yes. I see. No, there are two. Yeah, there's the one, there's the one in the front, which was too visible from the street. Right. that other than through the master. Correct, through the master. It's an entertaining space, because it's often better. I mean, obviously, you could walk around to the side of the house. No, yeah, I'm just trying to remember the original. And so, yeah. I lost my train of thought. And the other thing that came up was, if I remember, the entrance. The actual entrance is on to the right here, where there was mention last time of people mistaking the actual entrance as coming up through the stairs up from the patio. Okay.

Yeah. These stairs here, people kind of go this way, where the entrance is. The entrance is over here, but it looks like, coming out of the driveway, it looks like that's where, yeah.

So this gives you some sense of the topography. I'm up four or five feet, three or four feet from the road. The entrance is behind us. I'm taking a picture. Here's the garage, looking up the house. The retaining walls for the driveway, upper driveway, are over here, screened by landscaping. But if you walk out to the site, you will see that.

And one of the other reasons why, you know, we can... out towards the front of the house because we wanted to kind of maintain that edge of the grade there so that all of a sudden you didn't have like four feet of foundation because you can see here the grade starts really slowly.

We'll demonstrate that in a second. So here's a picture looking up and you can see I'm not even at the winding road. We're looking up you can see the rock ledge and that's a 10 foot difference right there. And then this is the upper level where the addition is going. If you look over here you see how the grade falls away and that's right at the patio level and what Scott did came out to here and brought it across to what would be the corner of this room. And there's a nice flat area there, so he's working beautifully with the grades. And then we go here, and this is where the former application was, that terrace that's off the primary bedroom. I think there's a fireplace in there or something like that. In any event, This addition is coming off of this downspout corner.

Makes sense. To her best point, the lines.

Yeah, and it just fits beautifully in my view. And this is the view from the patio down to Winding Lane. And look at the trees. You can't see Winding Lane. In fact, I was there and there were a bunch of kids Driving their butt riding their bikes up and down couldn't see them could hear them, but couldn't say I hate kids Well, you know, it's just the best This is a very private secluded well landscapes property and I'm confident not because they don't like kids but In fact, the reason they're doing this is they have a growing family. They have two sons who live in Brooklyn who are producing grandchildren, and we need to find room for them. That's great. Wonderful.

I'm going to write that for record producing. Do you want to make any other comments as the architect? I think it sells itself.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer.

All right. Randy, Jana?

No, this seems like a big improvement over the last one. Okay.

Great. And I think there's hardship, and we've got the minimal adjustment here. I really think. Okay. Todd and Judy and Scott have done a really good job. So it made my job easier.

Yes. Did a nice job. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to be heard on this application? Nope. Okay, going once, going twice. I think that was a record-breaking, that was as short as you've ever been.

Well, you know, PowerPoint helps. It shorted me out.

And that closes the hearing from 40 Arrowhead Way. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We're moving on to the second application of the evening. That's calendar number 16-2026. The application is Phil Candido on behalf of Michael Michaud. to allow the construction and repair of an existing non-conforming detached garage with a minimal increase in overall height and volume at 142 near water. This is ironic, but I'm going to recuse myself of this. Phil Candido is one of my agents. I work with him every day. I love Phil, but I don't want to comment on this. So I'm going to step out and turn it over to you to drive the questions and process on this one. OK. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Mr. Chair, for now, and members of the board. My name is John Lydon of the Law Office of John Lydon in Stanford, and I'm representing the owner of the property. I don't know if that last comment meant there's a cap on presentation time, but I intend to live within those bounds, as the board has. more questions this property was the subject of a planning zoning application in 2023 granted by that board and there's been construction that's been ongoing since that point in time we're here today because of Building running a foul building code because the project was not properly permitted At the point in time it was stopped so we're here to ask you to prove variances that would allow what was constructed to remain and I have a couple pictures of Thank you The staff report, I believe, covers our situation very well, and I just thought those pictures might supplement the pictures in the report. The variances requested are for a front setback of 20.1 feet rather than the 40 required. And we've also approached your 50% limit on restoration of non-conforming use. Variance was granted for this property in order for the home to be constructed and I don't know folks are familiar with it But similar I guess to the last property it's on a steep slope and there's a significant ledge outcropping on the central southern portion of the property toward the front and So you really can't construct a traditional footprint with a garage to the side because of the physical characteristics of the lot. It's also significantly undersized, so the norm setbacks create a greater constraint on the development site because of the size of the lot. The variance is granted, garage and home are constructed, decades go by, the home's reconstructed, the approval's granted from planning and zoning, and the general contractor found a garage that was rotting. And one of the reasons I showed, and one of the pictures was actually from the 2023 application, For a reason that's inexplicable, the garage roof was pitched toward the ledge. And I think that's pretty clear in that picture. So there's nowhere for it to go but back into the garage. So considerable rock took place over decades and it was basically done when we got there. So to solve the problem, the existing roof was raised by about 11 inches at its peak. So it was a very minimal increase in the roof. You'll see that there was a roof overhang three sides of the garage two of them are visible in one of the photos and those are removed as a result of the rehab so I think most likely coincidentally but nonetheless we reduce the front setback encroachment because we carved it back approximately two feet as a result. But we went up. And because we're in a footprint that is inside the setback, we trigger the need for the variance application. So there's a pitch now that flows to the rear. So the peak increases 11 inches or so. It decreases as it moves along the rear of the garage. And the result I showed the other picture is the water runs into a landscaped area that's got shrubbery and dirt instead of an impervious driveway. And there's underground piping that captures that and it ties into our drainage system. So the result is better for maybe saying public health and safety is a stretch, but for the structure of the garage and to reduce mold and rot. And although our current estimates are under the 50% limit, we haven't finished all the work yet. Prices increase, and we're $295 below the limit. So staff thought I believe it was prudent and can comment if I'm misstating. We've also got a gravel floor of our garage, which most people don't have, so we'd like to put a slab on it. That would no doubt put us over the edge. 295 dollars with which we have to work so we're keeping that request on the table so that we don't run a foul and come back here asking for a 180 dollar variance at some point in time so I believe that sums it up and we'd request so so we believe the variances are minimal they're the minimum necessary to provide the relief requested and aesthetically we think it's an improvement from what was there and i reached out in the 2023 application i had conversations that was a little more you know call it controversial but we worked with one of the neighbors on landscaping and had other conversations with neighbors this one I made calls to those with whom I spoke before and the reaction was sort of like we just hope you get this done so there was no sense of opposition that I gathered and I've been regularly checking with Mr. Quarna and haven't heard of any letters or comments or calls either so Thank you.

Can you walk me through the 50% of the estimated cost? It's because it's an accessory structure that we're not in terms of the entire project, which is $8,000. which seems like a pretty low value for, I mean $60,000 for an entire garage actually seems very low too, but why aren't we framing this in terms of the cost of the entire house?

I didn't argue, but instead of it being a gross price, it's limited to that garage is how the staff calculated it.

Yeah, so basically because the way that regulation works is that Based on, it's because the structure is non-conforming. So if they, and this is a value, I should say, that we get from the tax assessor card, in terms of the 16,000 and change, I think is what. Just on the garage? The garage itself. Not the house? Yeah, thankfully it just breaks it down based on just the accessory structure. So if they do more than 50%, that kind of triggers that, the need for the variance. Because they're so close to it, And for the minimum work that they're going to be doing, it's just, I think, as you were saying, prudent to be able to just go here first, just in case any more issues with it show up, in terms of the condition of the garage and other things as well.

Have you considered getting rid of the garage and putting it underneath the house?

I don't know if you've seen the site. It's ledge there. To the right, it's more, I don't have that picture, but it's more pronounced. Physically, I'm not a construction person, so I don't want to misstate the facts, but it'd be quite an undertaking.

There's no place else to put this garage as part of the house? No.

A couple of little elements to this. I think it started... When I went there and I noticed the enhancement of the nonconformity by raising the height, which is this photo, which actually is the photo I took, because you can see where the existing siding was and where the line of the roof was, and it just went up. And I asked to stop because this was not filed that way. It was not in the permit. Then we looked at the cost, and the cost the contractor gave was lowball. not enough for what he was doing. He was fixing the rot, but then he created an entirely new structure. So there was a disconnect. So we kind of came clean with a lot of the numbers and getting things underway. The case of the 50% is pretty tricky because most of the 50% for something that's non-conforming means you're doing a repair in kind. You're not enhancing the nonconformity when you're doing the 50%. You're fixing it. You're fixing as is. So it's written so that if a tree falls or damages or is rotten beyond safety, then you're repairing it, but you're making it the same as it was. In this case, it's not, no matter how little the change in height and how beneficial it is to the architecture or the drainage and all that, it is an enhancement of the nonconformity in volume. Now he's, he and the, sorry, the contractor and the client and his clients have reduced some of the setback by pulling back the overhang so it's a much more cubic square volume, so it doesn't stick out towards the road as much, but it still is animal than what the garage was just being repaired for 50% of its value.

Was it originally submitted in the original plans that the garage would remain as is? Or that it would just be modestly...

There was no scope of work except just repairing in kind. this is radically different than the house is radically different than what was there the house is the house is a whole different thing yeah the garage was part of the permit as being kept and repaired as it was just to make sure it functioned so there was no no change in height in the original building permit uh the way it was filed and approved for the whole house and the whole project okay our footprint is the same so this

put out which is kind of tricky so we're being asked to prove the additional volume right as well as the ability to go beyond the fifty percent correct so the garage cost they're saying is eight thousand dollars no that's fifty percent so

I have a street cart here.

I think by the time they do the concrete slab, they're going to be beyond the 50%. So I think that's, to me, the 50% really should come in play because they're not reproducing the exact same garage. So, okay. And they're going to be making it much better for the cost that's appropriate. And, you know, I don't know.

The house is on the market for a very large sum of money, which doesn't read at all with the garage costing $16,000, $20,000. There's a huge disconnect here. Huge. Yeah.

I see it. They've got exactly the same footprint. They had to repair the roof. They're raising the roof 11 inches. They're getting rid of all the overhangs. It's almost a non-issue to me. They're not doing anything. They shouldn't even be here by book.

In the past, we've... We tend to approve things which are maintaining existing non-conforming structures if it's maintenance.

This is not maintenance, though. This is a brand new garage.

No, the four walls are still there. The door's still there. They're just raising the roof a little bit to fix the pitch so the water drains to the back instead of to the side.

We can ask more questions, I think.

So the door is remaining the same?

Yeah, so what you're getting is how much of this is repair versus have you just rebuilt the garage structure on the same footprint?

Correct.

Well, from what I've been told, but I believe it, it was rotten. They're not, they try to live within that.

Even if it was rotten and you went to replace it, you're still exceeding the 50% in value, most likely.

They presented numbers, and I guess to the point of the question earlier about, geez, this thing's low, my gut is no one ever paid attention to their tax assessment on their garage or would be motivated to increase it. But it's minimal relative to the value of the main structure. So... They get hit with a rotting garage. Whichever word you want to use, repair it. And there's an artificially low limit. I wasn't part of the initial process, but apparently the submission initially had very low numbers. They were told, come on, give us more real numbers that had been run through the building department. So I think there's a vetting process. And we're very close, but again, to the point of all the questions and the practical nature, if we go over because a cost estimate was in the months that this is going on has gone up just a little bit. We're over the 50% and there's not much to finish. So we're not going to go much over because it got stopped in the state that you see in the report. It's almost done. So we're asking to allow us to finish and the 50% variance would give us the ability to put in a slab.

To the 50% variance, you mean the variance on 50%?

we're not going to come to the extent we go over, it's going to be minimal. I see.

And what's being changed? Overhang is being taken out, and then the pitch of the roof is being slightly changed.

I see. So what happens if we say no? And what happens if we say no to just the 50% threshold? Is it just no slab, but you can finish the work on the garage? And what happens if we say no variance? Staff anticipated... That's what I'm asking. What are the, you know... Well, yeah.

There was a thought that even the demolition costs could exceed the 50% was referenced in the report. So it could be very stuck.

I think in this case it's maybe more of a... official recording of the fact that there has been a enhancement or a change of the non-conformity that this board understand is beneficial to the property in general but there's not really much else that can be done than than just finishing this project so it's not there's not a whole lot of choice that's what i'm asking is is the is the decision or the difference between being able to complete the work correct or not okay well it seems like to me it's taking down the garage

It seems like, to me, it would be taking down the garage.

But then there would be no place to – you would be parking – because of the steep site, you would have two cars parked in the front yard without a garage, which is also zoning noncompliant. So you're supposed to provide a garage where there was a garage. And if you can't – the only other way you can put a car is in the rear yard, not in the side yard setback. In the rear yard, you can have a permanent parking space per zoning regulation, but not in the front yard. And that the front yard is the only place you could park two cars for this house because of the ledge. So it's like that garage is needed. needs to be approved to be a little bit taller and a little different than it was.

That should have gone through planning and zoning.

We knew they were going to change the scope of the roof. It would have been part of an application, or at least it would have been in the original permit, but it wasn't filed that way. It was missed. Maybe at the time they didn't pay enough attention to the garage and pay attention to the house. They found it was more rotten than they thought it was, and they really... 1950s and you're building a house in 2026?

I'm like, it's a big stretch for me.

Sounds like about fixing the slope in five years, you've got a rotten garage again.

Let's go back again to the parking spaces again. So you can park a car in the back of the house, and that takes care of one spot, and then you would be forced to put one car out on the road? Is that the problem?

The zoning regulation is such that you cannot park in the front yard or the side yard in an area, but you can park in your required setback in the rear yard, or in your yard as it says. In this case, you can't because you can't get to it. There's ledge on both sides. The whole house is up on a cliff. So you cannot drive to the back and have a compliant parking space in the rear of the house. So you're left with having the garage where it is and taking the garage away would make the situation non-compliant because you're supposed to keep the garage. I mean, the zoning requires that you have a place off street to park your car.

Does it require it to be a garage?

Then you'd get a variance of zoning or parking requirements, section 930, where you have to park your cars off street. And then you'd have to get a variance to put your car in the front. So you'd have a car in the front instead of a garage.

So can they fit two cars in this garage?

It's kind of a little tricky, but I think somewhat. It's pretty hard.

Over the years, one of their sons went to college with my son. They did used to keep two cars in that garage.

I think you can maneuver two cars in there.

There's only one door, though.

The door is a little on the wide side, so I don't know if they can squeeze in it. It looks like a potentially one and a half.

Is the plan to have a two-car garage?

It's a small two-car garage, which again, to the point of minimizing our request, we're keeping existing footprint. What about the garage door? Is that staying as it is? What are the dimensions of the garage? The opening?

Yeah.

I don't know.

Garage door is called out to be changed. Okay. That's fine.

But you can fit two cars. And there was a variance granted in 1950 for the garage. 20 by 20?

It's about 20 by 20, the garage.

Roughly, just eyeballing it. What would a new garage today be required to be in terms of? For two cars?

That's about right. If you do a full door, you'd get two cars facing in.

So we would approve, the planning and zoning would approve a 20 by 20 garage?

Yeah, the way it did, actually, this is the same footprint that they have. We're not changing the footprint.

Are there any other questions? Anybody in the audience like to be heard on this?

Next one is going to be continued. Oh, number four is?

Phyllis Lane? 81 Raymond, sorry.

Didn't we already say that at the beginning? Did I screw that up?

No, I mean.

I'm sorry. Okay, calendar number 17-2026. Jennifer Gades to allow the alteration of an existing non-conforming roof line is going to be continue to our October 21st meeting. I hope nobody's here for that. Are you here for that? No. Thank God. All right. So now you're up. Okay. Calendar number 19-2026. Brian Cordes? Cordes. Yes. To allow the conversion of a screened-in porch for year-round use. You've got 90 seconds. All right. Let's do it. All right.

Do you have mine? Yeah. Let me just give you one moment.

Come up here and state your name, and then you can move around. Okay. All right.

My name is Brian Cordes. I'm here for asking for a variance in association with our property at 10 Phillips Lane, Darien, Connecticut.

Do you live at that property?

I do. I'm the owner of the property.

It is adorable. Thank you very much. I love your house. Awesome. Thanks.

We love it too. That's partially why we're here.

This is the hardest part of the presentation.

It's impressive, though, that you can have a new album. I know, right? It's true.

For us, too.

Oh, I see what I did here. I uploaded the wrong one. It's okay.

I have printouts. That's why I have them.

We have printouts also. Yeah, that's okay.

I can show you guys as we go here. Okay. See, I'm glad. is my house oh well first of all let me tell you a little bit about just quickly about myself again my name is Brian Cordes I live at 10 Phillips Lane my wife Leanne can't be here tonight she's on a work trip so I hope this goes well because I'm sure she's gonna be watching I do have my our builder here Jamie Bettencourt he's joining in here today Two kids, Jack and Kate, Jack's in eighth grade, Kate's in sixth grade, they're both at Middlesex, and we've been living in town for almost 12 years, and we've been in this house at 10 Phillips Lane for that entire time, and we expect to be there and hope to be there much longer. So what we're looking for today is for a variance to enclose our screened-in porch. So, this is our house. This is the property, this is the aspect of the property that we're going to be talking about today. We simply want to enclose that. We are not going to be adding height. We're not going to be making it any larger. It's going to stay exactly within the footprint that it is today. We just want to enclose it. Right now it's an open screen porch. Another picture, but I think you guys kind of get the point. And if you wanna look at it closely, obviously, please, let's do that. So essentially, the house was built in 1941, which means the house as it originally constructed was, predates the current setback. So the existing home, the porch is a pre-existing non-conforming portion of the structure with respect to that current setback. The other aspect from a hardship perspective is that our lot is undersized for the zoning district. The minimum for lot are dash one. three, one-third, is that what you call it? Zone is 14,520 square feet. Our lot is 8,740 square feet. So a non-conforming lot, to this extent, represents a hardship. And we are, and again, as I said, the project is really just to enclose the current spring and porch. We will not increase the footprint, the area, the height, or the overall dimensions of the existing porch. We're not gonna change the size, the character. We think it's really just an upgrade. We've talked to a lot of our neighbors. I think you have the letters of recommendation, if we call it that. I also have copies here. We have three of those, both from either side of our house, and then another person that is right there very much nearby. That's what we're looking at. I have a plans here. Essentially to show, again, very simple job. Just enclosing the current screen and porch, putting windows in. We think it's going to be a great update and upgrade to the house overall. Much more usual space, year-round space. We're very much excited about it. And that's kind of it. I'd love any questions if you have them.

For the record, this is going to put you at 19.9% coverage, right? Yes. You can't put a light, a stair, nothing goes on.

No, that's where we are right now. We're not even asking to make it any bigger. Okay, that's perfect. We're staying exactly where we are, and we're very happy with that 19.9. That's great.

How'd you pick this builder? How do you know him?

We work with architect Jim Jamieson, if you know Jim. Jim, recommended Jim. All right. I worked together with Jim for quite a few projects around the area. Good. And some other areas.

All right, all right. What else do you guys have? Anything?

Where's the grade of the existing porch? Is that the same grade as the first floor of the house, or is it lower?

It is.

You step down to get the- Yeah, it's slightly lower, yes.

You're going to stay there? Is it on a slab now?

It's on a slab now, yeah. Okay.

If you get into this project and you find out that it's rotted, the foundation is bad, and you have to tear off the porch and start over, you have to come back to us. No problem. We will do what we can to fast track it and get it back on track quickly. But if anything changes, if this is not a simple enclosure, if it's anything more than that. Okay?

Sure. All right.

Anything you guys want to say about that?

So the encroachment right now is a foot and a half into the setback, correct? It's eight and a half to face. Yeah. Yes. And that should be 10. So that's 18 inches.

Okay. So we're 18 inches into the, so I better write that down. 18 inches into the setback. Is there a hardship on the front setback? No.

It's 29 foot one instead of 30. So it's short.

So there is a hardship on the front yard. And so if I understand correctly, the setback came to the porch.

The porch didn't come into the setback.

Absolutely. The house currently is essentially out of code. It was built before the codes were in place.

Every house in the street. It's lined up with everything. we've had neighbors do similar stuff in the past and uh that's exactly right every house in the street is the same way it's pretty lined up okay yeah you did a great job i hope your wife is watching thank you gianna all right anybody you guys good good sorry oh real quick do you mind if i can can i get the copies of those letters of support yes of course thank you uh jamie it's jamie yes did you want to say anything no good do you want to say anything about this Do you want to warn him off on the garage or any of that? Nice job. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right, so that officially closes this hearing. Thank you for your application, and we will start deliberation. Since you two guys are here, you want to do that first? We'll start with them. Let's do that. Okay. I will recuse myself from the first one and let you guys talk about near water. Go ahead, Matt.

We're going to do near water first.

Yeah, you want to do that? So he, um. Sure, yeah.

You want to start off? If I understand correctly, they have to have a garage there. They had to raise the roof in the garage. The garage is continually rot. It's an improvement to the drainage in the property. It's pulled in the footprint slightly. It's, you know, I think overall, I think I'm positive in this one, the project should go forward. It should continue. I don't know what a better solution would be. So I'm in favor of this one.

You and I are on opposite sides on this one. I think my view is that this is one where they shouldn't have asked for forgiveness. They should have asked for permission. It should have been part of the original plans. It's a 1950 garage. They're building a house in 2026. This should have been contemplated as part of the original plans that were submitted and approved. And to approve it at this point seems like the wrong order for it to go in. And I, you know, if it is the right size and the improvements that need to be made, that should have been approved as part of the original permitting process. That would be my view.

I think it's more of a repair than... I don't even think it should be here, so I would vote to approve it. This is a strange one.

I sort of agree with both of you. I don't know how this happened. It should have been demoing the whole how it should have been built from scratch. Yes, I know that there's ledge, but there's ways to build garage structures around ledge, into ledge. You can blast. They blast things all the time. And yeah, but I tend to think that, I don't know what the alternative is though. That's the only thing that keeps me to say I would approve this.

We just made someone move a set of air conditioners that made sense to me to stay on the other side of the house. And we told them, no, you've got to go back and get approval for that. I don't know why on the earth we wouldn't say you have to go back and do it properly for this. I mean, it just, I can't get around it.

In the case of 50 Holly, they were, they went for the approval or I guess the approval location and they got a location approved and then they put into a different location.

Yeah, this one, they said they weren't going to really do much with the garage, and that makes, I mean, just logically, this common sense makes no sense to me, that they would say, oh, we started looking at the 1950 garage and decided that we needed to put more in. It's listed for $6 million. I mean, that's part of the, I can't get past the fact that they've put a house on for $6 million, and they're saying they're spending $8,000 on a garage. It doesn't, it just doesn't, it doesn't sit right. It doesn't make sense to me.

Do we have a sense what the alternative would be, though, if they don't build a garage there? I mean, if they demo it and just have no garage.

Then the parking requirements would be part of it, too.

There's an alternative. It's to actually exactly reproduce what was there before. So bring it back to the slope that was there with proper waterproofing in the back when it hits the rock, which is less now because they have all their air conditioning there. But if they went back to the original volume with or without overhang, we don't care. But that would be, there would be no change to...

They're still going to exceed the 50%.

But the 50% only plays if you're trying to fix a structure that's non-conforming in a non-conforming location or if you're repairing it in kind. But if you're not changing the non-conformity, I think that there's no question, to Randy's point, there's no real issue, because it's no longer an enhancement of nonconformity, you're just redoing the same thing. So you're actually

Reproducing over the 50% would still apply in that case.

Just it wouldn't be a variance to the non for it would be no improvement No, there would be no enhancements and does apply to repairing a non-conforming structure The whole point of that is that you have to go back right if you can't repair it for less than 50% Then you have to go through and get approval for whatever it is you plan to do not whatever those exact construction numbers are

or you know you're getting approval for a variance and that includes the scope of the work the the cost of the work is just see if this seems to your point they should have come up up front yes saying hey we're going to need a variance for the garage correct from day one from day one because you know that's not going to match with the quality of the construction of the rest of the house

And I think that they didn't want, well, I could speculate all day long as to why that didn't happen, but I think that that was what should have happened, and I think that's part of our role here is to send people back when they don't do it the way that they're supposed to do it to begin with, and not to just say, oh, well, you should have done it, but we're gonna give you permission even though you didn't ask for it when you should have.

So what are they gonna do? Would the alternative be that we ask them to demo the entire thing and get a new appearance? for the structure?

They would need to go back to P&Z, and they would have to put forward an application, and if it doesn't comply, then they would come back and ask for a variance.

As you looked at the site, do you think there's another place that a garage could go on there?

not reachable.

I guess where it's on the site. We'd have to be weighing back in terms of parking the cars.

Back to Matt's point, they didn't contemplate this when they were originally doing the design of the house.

That's bizarre.

And they should have.

I think it was a case where the rot was just more intense than they originally anticipated.

You probably thought they were going to be able to keep that garage the way it was or just slight light repairs.

For a $6 million house, you're going to put $8,000 into a 1950s garage?

No, not me. I wouldn't do that. The building official did look at the estimate when it was around about $8,000 and said it looked reasonable in terms of what they were proposing.

I mean, $8,000 wouldn't cover the paint on the garage. That sounds extremely low to me, but.

I agree.

I don't know. Do we want to put it to a vote? Do you guys feel like you need to deliberate more? OK.

I'm not comfortable with this one.

OK. And I think we need, because we have so many recused, we need four, right? Yep. We need all four. All right. Well, we probably should put it to vote to be on the record and then go from there. Does everyone want to make a motion to approve this project as is? Excuse me, approve the variance to go above the 50% cap as is?

I'll move that we do it as is. OK.

Anybody second it? Second. All in favor? All right. So we have two votes in favor, two against. We'll send it back to P&Z. All right. All right.

OK. Let's move on to Phillips Lane. Anybody want to say anything about Phillips Lane?

No, I'm good. Good? Yeah, I'm good.

Janet? No, this one seems pretty straightforward to me. This one I don't have issues with.

You good? Yeah, no issues. Sounds fine.

All right. I'll make a motion to approve. All in favor? 5-0. All right. Sounds good. All right. Let's go to 40 Arrowhead. In my mind, this is a dramatic improvement over what we said before. They listened to us and came back. Huge reduction. This is a minimum adjustment.

Go ahead. So I agree it's a huge improvement, right? It's the minimum adjustment. It's not just a necessary that I struggle with. They don't. Need this. Need to do this.

They don't.

Yeah, they want to have a living room to create a difference.

This is why we said no to the first night.

Right. They want to have an outdoor entertainment space, right? But they don't have to. They could just not do this. Correct. And have their living room, and they'll be fine. Correct. So this one, I don't, I think it's the question. I don't think it's the question. Okay. Let me get the method test.

Yeah. I mean, that was my initial inclination, was that it would be a nice thing to have, but it's not really, I mean, we tell people they can only have a five by eight covered porch, and we're very strict about it, and we require them to stay within that, and this seems like, yes, it's an improvement maybe over what was submitted before, But it's, I mean, I understand aesthetically it doesn't look good if you have to cut it down to size. But the other option is just to not do it and just to leave the family room addition as planned and it meets the setbacks and there's no variance needed for that part. So I think I'm leaning more towards that with there's, you know, it was a good second try, but it really should be done in a way that doesn't require variance.

Okay. Randy?

I think I feel like Jenna does.

Wow, look at you guys. Okay, Matt. I think this is great. I love this plan. I feel like this is the minimum amount. I mean, a five by eight covered porch, 40 square feet is 60 square feet. I mean, and we've given variances for bigger than five by eight recently. We've done like six by 10. Like that hasn't been a problem. So for me, this falls under that category of like, It's still a patio. It's a covered patio. This isn't extra livable square footage. It's relatively small, and it's shaving the corner off of it. It's a very unusual lot. I mean, it's like 70% surrounded by a 40-foot setback on the undersized lot. The lot isn't. Yeah, the lot is flat.

So it's like, there's really- Just to try and learn, is that a significant hardship, though?

trying a lot that seems like it would be it's pretty unusual I mean like flag lots are kind of your typical case for where you have like a more of a setback and then corner lots too but but they're dealing with two front yard setbacks so that's a more significant setback they've got topography issues what would you I mean staff why don't you guys comment on this

Joe and Harvey.

Oddly shaped. I mean, you run into these a couple of times where it's a corner lot having two front yard setbacks or more strict topography that he mentioned too. Even when I drove by that address, even for this meeting, it's way up there in terms of locating anywhere else. Yeah, just topography-wise, shape-wise. It's just odd.

They've got to have a hardship. I think he defined two and a half in my mind. I don't think the topography is a huge issue because I think there were other places he could have put this. So I gave that one a half a point. But definitely, the triangle lot. I mean, the house is odd-shaped, but they chose to build it that way. I didn't give him a point for that.

I was curious about that, too, because the lodge,

The house was built the way it was. Yeah, that's their choice. So the need for a family room to create circulation is a want to have. Right. Which then creates the need to have a porch there for the want to have of a secondary outdoor space in addition to the outdoor space they have off the back of the house, which admittedly is off the bedroom. So we're supposed to say no.

We're supposed to say no to anything that doesn't prevent somebody from enjoying their home. And I think that's why we passed it out the first time. We were like, there's no way we're approving some porch that's entirely in the setback. You guys can put a porch in other locations here. And I think, actually, what they came back with makes a ton more sense than what they first proposed. However, I mean, I understand what these guys are saying. So in my mind, there are a couple things that are swinging this in the positive direction for me. They're alone and isolated up there. There are no neighbors looking at this. This doesn't bother anyone. We're talking about 74 square feet. We're not talking about... And when you think about the minimal adjustment, we try and think, well, if someone's going to go for a variance, do we let them do... three stories by a hundred, you know. No, we look for, you know, little things that make the house better. And I think when Herve made the point about designing aesthetically how it lines up, I think this lines up. Could they cut it? Yeah. Would it look ridiculous? Yeah.

The board doesn't have a hardship with aesthetics. Yeah, it does not. It doesn't. It doesn't consider it a hardship. But in this case, it really plays into the design of that house and respecting the overall ideas and concepts that this house is about. So you were asking my opinion, but that's still, yeah, is it really necessary to enjoy life in this house? No. No.

Typically the porches have either safety concerns or there's other things that you would say there's a reason why you need to have the covered porch.

Yeah, this will further the enjoyment of their house. It is not necessary for the enjoyment of their home. I don't have a problem with it. If they had had neighbors that balked at it, if they had had water runoff issues that impacted neighbors, if they hadn't landscaped around it, if this was some giant honking addition, I'd be like, meh. But I really think they've defined the hardship cleanly. and they listened to us. I think they were respectful of the board and came back with an amended plan. I'm okay with it.

I like it. I would say, I give them a half a point for that as well. Like, coming back with, like, we took your advice, we worked on this, we spent a lot of time thinking about it and building on it. We want to encourage that. We want people to actually, you know, don't just... Work with us, work with you guys, you know. Yeah, exactly. So I like that. I think that that... We've seen a lot of proposals like this before where we've initially said no, they've, you know...

put sharpen their pencils gone back to work better plan and this this gets 95 of the way there with the square footage of a covered porch so i kind of agree but you know this is what makes it an interesting board so jana's going to fight me on this one i'll have to throw down with her in the parking lot i don't know i don't know so okay so are we do you want to deliberate more you guys set in here i'm going to change my vote where where were you were you with me or with jana i was with the Did I persuade you? Randy.

I mean, I'm trying not to be so easily persuaded. I don't take any joy out of telling people no. This one is like, I think you probably should say no.

We are supposed to say no. But I think on the first pass, I agree. That was a no. We said no.

But are we teaching people to just keep coming back to us?

Well, they worked with staff.

They scaled it back.

I mean, look, that's as good as Wilder gets. Wilder is a wild man. That was pretty good. To see that little orange triangle, that's all they're asking for. I'm like, what?

I think you made me remember one that we did approve recently where it was similar. It ended up being more of an aesthetic thing to help this woman with her covered porch. Yeah. See, I was in a permissive mood that night.

Financials are not a hardship. Just because someone's like, well, I can't really afford to move, so I'm going to add a bathroom here. That's not our problem. Harvey's right. But this just makes sense, and it doesn't do any damage to anyone else. Everything else about it is right, except that little orange triangle.

Well, we've let, as Matt said, we've let six by ten... Front portions, stoops, go.

I think there had been some discussion about potentially making the standard size a bit larger.

We have, in some cases, for safety reasons. Matt, you want to make a proposal?

I can move to reject the application. Is that how we do it? Maybe someone else would like to move.

Is anyone else with Matt? Matt, number one. Okay. So we have one no.

I'll make a vote. I think I'm with Matt. Oh, okay.

We have two no's. Sorry. Okay.

Do we need to make a motion to approve and then do we need to vote formally?

So that's two no's and three I'm a yes. Yes. Yes. Three yeses, two noes. So it does not pass.

I think this is the first time in my year here that we've had any non-unanimous votes. Two and one.

That's interesting. Yeah, we're usually pretty long on the sink. Yeah, this is good for you to see, Matt. We usually are all... What's the rule?

So the rule is... It has to be four. Four to pass it.

Four are to proceed. Although that's not set in stone. We can change that too.

Four out of five. We can make it three out of five. Yeah.

But a tie does not go to the runner.

Yeah. All right. So you've got that. So then other than that, a couple other quick things.

Extension of time.

Yes. There's an application for an extension of time, and it's the first request. Calendar number 4-2026. Remind me of this one, 5 Fairview Avenue?

5 Fairview.

Sorry, Joe. Joe, I need you to. I have no idea.

I was on it, I looked.

I'm sure I was. March 2026. Let's see.

Where is that?

Fairview? I think it's over behind, like, Starbucks in that area. Am I right?

One moment. Sorry.

Let me see. It's off of... Am I wrong?

I don't know.

Off of nearby Mansfield and Sedgwick.

Mansfield and Sedgwick. Yeah, I'm right.

It's kind of...

Right, off of Highland Avenue, Sedgwick, in that area, kind of behind Starbucks area.

Over by Good Wives. You've got to kind of wind your way in to find the sort of sitting in the back.

At this point at the file?

Oh, rear dormers and additions?

To the existing residence.

Do you know why they're asking for a delay?

They were really close in terms of kind of organizing everything, but it was just a hard time scheduling with the contractor. They're right up against it. I think it expires this month.

That's fine with me. I mean, we usually grant a first delay. Give them another six months. Everybody, what do you recommend? No, I'm fine. That's fine? Okay, I'll make a motion to grant an extension. Do I have a second? Second. Dyson, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Extension granted. Approval of the minutes from July 2nd. I did review those. Those do look good to me. Jana, were you here then?

Yes. I looked at it.

Okay, I'll make a motion to approve. All in favor? Second. Second, Jana. All in favor? Everyone, not Dyson.

Yeah, 4-0.

4-0, good, okay. And then the calendar, so approval of minutes from the three ZBA applications. Can I do those all in bulk, or do you want them each one-on-one?

You can do them.

okay i think you have to do them separate because i need to abstain on the third one oh okay thank you for that okay calendar number 14-2026 kelly and henry dylan at 355 west avenue i'll make a motion to approve that do i have a second janna all in favor that's randy matt one janna and randy all four Calendar number 13-2026, Oscar Pincus at 50 Holly Lane, the wonderful air conditioning unit situation. I'll make a motion to approve that. Those minutes are correct. Do I have a second? Second by Janet, Randy, Matt. We're all in favor. Thank you. And then the third one, calendar number 12-2026, corrected. Michael Devlin, what was corrected on that?

That was one where they had to go back to us just to clarify some things on the rooftop deck and the stairway down. Oh, right.

Worst submitted plans I've ever seen in my entire life. Hilarious. Okay. oh you have good thank you that should be working in the planning department oh my god okay they were hilarious okay so that yes i'll make a motion to approve those corrected plans barb i'll abstain from that janice abstaining randy at three zero that works okay adoption of the 2027 meeting schedule i haven't seen the 2027 meeting schedule yes so it was attached in there oh thanks what's good Now, are we staying with 7.30 p.m.? That's for you guys because you get off the train.

That's true.

We were going to move it to 7, but we're going to lose Kevin.

We're going to lose Kevin. It's worked in the past.

7.30 is better for me.

Is it?

It's right after maybe bedtime before the boys sneak out. How about you, Matt? Is 7.30 good? Is it from 7 or 7.30?

Okay. Wednesdays and Saturdays, we'll just try to keep it tight. How about you guys? Sorry, Karen. It's fine. It's actually working out right now. It's okay? Okay, good. So then, yeah, we'll just proceed as we can. Okay, I will sign this and submit to you. Okay, good. And then do you need me to approve this, make a motion?

Yes.

I'll make a motion to approve the 2027 meeting schedule that you all just studied in great detail. Do I have a second? Randy. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

All right.

I'll give you the final, because that one says draft on it, I'll give you, I'll email you one.

Perfect. Got it. And then I don't have any other business. Does anyone else have anything? I'm not sure I can even bring it up since it wasn't proposed in advance.

Regular meeting you can. Regular meeting I can.

If you have two-thirds. Okay. Any other business items other than you are getting reinstated?

Well, we'll see.

We'll see.

They haven't said they like me again.

I told them I liked you. I know. I appreciate that. Okay. All right.

So I do have a question. Yeah. That's. kind of outside and coming back to 142 near water. What happens now?

I was going to ask you guys. I'm refused from this. So I think they don't really have much choice, right?

So right now, as it currently stands, the estimate that they gave us is, albeit just, but is under the 50%. So they may need to speak more about tomorrow just in terms of what would be their best path forward.

Okay, in terms of planning and zoning commission versus, you know, what would the planning and zoning commission be involved in? I mean, this is an existing structure. There's no...

They should re-look at plans and decide what they want to do with that garage is what they should do. Okay. either tear it down, renovate it as is, or submit plans to redo it.

All right. Be in contact with them. Yeah.

I think we want to be in contact with them.

Just file a new building permit, I guess, would be one of the solutions. I mean, just a separate, not a part of the house.

Not a separate variance, but like a new plan for just the garage. It may not even need a variance. Depends on what they do. Yeah. Yeah.

TBD.

They may never need to see us again. OK. OK. All right, thanks, guys. Yeah, and I'll work with you on that if you need me to.

Okay, no, we're going to need to talk with Jeremy about that, how we position it, because it's a little in between things right now.

Yeah, okay, in between committees in terms of... Well, yeah, how do we manage to get that house to be closed out?

I mean, just kind of... There's just a little bit left to do, and we don't want it to be another three or four months. I know. They waited long enough. Well, they were not the fastest at building. We didn't make them wait.

It should not be like we feel bad about. That should have been done right from the beginning.

When you see that, you go, there's no way. There's no way.

I remember driving past it the other day thinking, that is like... I mean, it's lovely.

It does. Oh, no, no, no.

The house itself is beautiful, but it's just like, there is no, I mean, that garage versus the house, come on.

Yes, it is 8.46 p.m. I'll officially close this meeting. Do I have... Second, yes. Thanks. There you go.

Good.

Very official there. Thank you. That's all 5-0. Thank you guys. Thank you, Chef, for preparing us so well. Matt, thank you for being here. You bet.