Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

So now we can see us and Steve should be able to hear us. Yes, I can hear you fine. Awesome. Sorry I can't be there. So I'll just start following.

So uh uh good evening everyone. I'd like to call the committee meeting call to order the January 13, 2026 regular zoning board of appeals meeting. Um, like to introduce the board actually get maybe get well. Sorry, I didn't know you last name. We have Kit Wilpax who's an ultimate member. We have Steve Bishop on TV who's a regular member. We have Dylan Stella who's a regular member. Um, John Zer who's regular member and Sam Dennis

Dennis Crow regular member and my name is Richard Gilbert. Okay. Um, just to like to remind uh everyone of a few things. Um, four votes four votes are needed for an application to be approved. Um any and all items used in the presentation as exhibits uh are considered exhibits and will be rem retained in the file. After the applicant's presentation is made, uh the board will ask questions they may have and then the audience may have questions that they have. Um after that discussion, we'll ask for anyone to speak in favor in or against the applicant. uh presenters and audience members who are speaking are asked to give their name and address the first time they speak and then just their name any subsequent time they speak. Um once the application's been heard and we've had all those things, we'll close a public hearing and have the board go into deliberations. Um uh at that time we can't take any additional testimony from the audience nor can we ask questions. Um and then usually we'll make a decision right then and there uh if we don't continue. Um so um I'd like to ask our our zoning officer.

We have to do the elections first. Oh, we're going to do that too. Sorry. Yes. So elections. So why don't we go to election of officers of nomination? I would I would nominate Steve Bishop as chairman.

So do we have discussion? Are you are you Yes. What's your opinion on that? You want my opinion on it? Yeah. That's what he's asking. Yeah.

I mean, it's a matter of time management. I mean, I literally work 70 hours a week and travel 30% of the time. So, it's a matter of availability. I certainly goal is to make all the meetings. I don't mind helping out and being there, but if if this is something you guys want me to do, I would do it. I just realized that I probably missed, you know, a few meetings a year. So, is that a yes or no? Can nominate somebody else if you don't if if you don't think it would work.

Yeah, I think it's important for the person who's chairman to be present all the time and I don't know if I have that ability. Okay. Okay. So, you want to withdraw the nominations. Okay. So, Steve's nomination is officially withdrawn. Okay. Johnson. In that case, I'd like to nominate Rich Gilbert. I'll second that. Okay. Any

any discussion? And I'm willing to do it. I I'll I'll be here. present as Steve said. So, uh, thank you, Dennis. Thank you, Steve. Uh, do you want to vote? All in favor? Any oppose? Okay, that passes unanimously. And can I get a uh nomination for vice chair? Anybody? I'll take it. You'd like to take it. You're volunteering to do that? Yeah, as a vice chair. Yes.

All right. I'll nominate the be the vice chair. I'll second that. Um discussion. All in favor? I oppose. That passes unanimously. Okay. So, we have our election of officers done. So we can move on to the public portion into the full list of Yeah. So at this time I I'll I'll ask our zoning officer Maria Patulla if you'd be willing to read the um applications for tonight.

Yes. Um, a legal notice, Madison Zoning Board of Appeals, Madison, Connecticut. Notice is hereby given that the board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 700 p.m. in meeting room A, Town Campus, 8 Campus Drive, Madison, Connecticut 0643. This is a hybrid meeting and attendees may also join via Zoom webinar through either the webinar link or call in information below. www.zoom. us webinar ID 920 02702103. password 388818 or call in 16465588656. The following applications will be heard. 25-0897 Hartford Avenue, map 12, lot 77, zone R4, owners Alan Julius Swerworkski, trustee of the Alan Julius Swerski, 2020 revocable trust, UAD January 22nd, 2020 and Sandra Green Sworkski, trustee of the Sandra Green Sorski 2020 revocable trust UAD January 22nd, 2020 as tenants in common variance request to section 2.17 to allow a 43.5 ft setback to the critical coastal resource where 50 ft is required. Application includes a coastal site. Copies of these applications this application are available for inspection at the land use office. Further details on how to participate in the webinar posted on the Madisontown website www.mmadisonct.org. All written correspondence can be submitted through the land use department via email to land use atmisonct.org. Dial 203245-5631 for assistance. dated as 18th day of December 2025. Maria Vullis the CEO land use official. This was published twice in the source on January 1st 2026 and January 3 2026. You Maria so like to uh call the whoever

is going to do the presentation for um application 25-897s Avenue. Hello, I'm Russell Camping with CK Architects 131 Boston Street in Guilford. I'm here with Sandre and um and Alan Schworski, the owners and I'm expecting Jim Freddy. Um he's here. So he'll do the CAM study. He's the civil engineer at Cruscolo and associates um that will come after the variance portion of the of the hearing. Um analyst now if you'd like. Okay. So he's there. So, can you um pull up um the plan set, the architectural plan set?

So, the Swines um have owned the home since 2005 and they're looking to basically do uh an improvement that sort of sets it up for it to be better for them to be able to occupy through the later years as well as be in a good position to pass to the kids in later life. And uh the um house basically consists of two portions. There's a back portion here. If you can go to the next page actually on the site plan, it's probably best. Um there's an existing portion here and then an existing portion here. This was built in 2012 as a twostory guest house. It has two bedrooms in it with a first floor um guest suite that um is important to the overall success of the project, but it was built in 2012. that meets all of current zoning as well as as building code requirements, etc. It's up to energy code and such. So, this is an asset that we don't want to have to deal with or take down. And then the rear portion was built in 1895. There's been improvements over the years, but it's all set on kind of a substandard foundation with really access underneath. There's a hole in the middle you can go down through the floor in, but for the most part, it's it's not in it's built as a cottage from 19 I'm sorry, 1895. um and uh is is really um not in a position to really be upgraded to the next 50 years or so of life. So, we're proposing to take down the older portion that's on the water side and leave the 2012 portion which is well constructed and worth keeping. To orient you, this is the coastal area. Um and there's a beachfront here, the water. Then there's a steep slope that comes up which is called an escarment and then a flat portion that's at a fairly high grade about 24 ft above sea level. So, we're out of the FEMA zone. We're not having any trouble associated with that. We've done our research in this area and found a co-compliant location for a 5-bedroom septic system that's replacing a very old um dry well system that's on that portion of the of the site. And then in Irene, there was some beach erosion um like this whole escarment actually had some trouble along those

lines and they made some improvements and hardened it with a sort of a rip wrap lower course that um actually made it survive sandy with no damage. Um and there is a cabana deck and staircase down to the water that was previously approved all all kosher and and fully compliant. So the area of concern right now is associated with actually a change that occurred. So the way that the EP recognizes the coastal area is an escarment that is natural is measured from the bottom of the escarment. That's what actually the um the uh previous improvements and such were were um ruled under. Once there's um a modified escarment, once you do any modification to that escarment with um the rip wrap enforcement, it goes to the top of the slope. So the coastal setback from the critical coastal resource moved to the top of the slope when they made those improvements after Irene. And so from the top of the slope to the house, it actually moved the line into the existing house footprint. Now, there is a clause in the zoning that allows you to modify the second story within the 50ft setback, but you have to keep the exact same footprint. You can't modify the footprint of the house within that area. And really, that was very constraining to the way it was laid out, especially since there the existing footprint actually is is has a porch on this side that's only.9 ft off of the side property line. Very non-conforming. We wanted to bring both of the side setbacks into conformity. This one's about a foot over. So the new proposal that we're presenting brings the whole property into conformity with the two side setbacks feeling that that is kind of a prop that's a proper um um direction to go with this for access for sight lines for building safety. Um but we really didn't feel we could pull back the 5 1/2 ft or 6 and 1/2 ft to bring us out of the coastal setback. So the suggestion was we pursue the uh variance for this one aspect of the project. Um, now to to sort of speak to the hardship

associated with this, I think we we can look at basically it's the narrowest lot in any of of the lots along the edge. We have limited front setback and access. It's such a narrow lot that we can't bring a drive in for parking. Our only parking access is direct head-on uh which is existing and that we're keeping in the front. We have to keep drainage opportunity under the new um regulations in D which has to have a setback from the septic system. So the only place for that is here and we have this asset of this 2012 building. So all of this is kind of suggesting in this particular lot we don't have the ability to just slide the whole building out of that setback. And then in relation to this rear area where where this dot dashed area here and this area here we're actually maintaining ourselves completely within the existing setback. Now this is a coastal resource setback. It's about impact potentially um on the coastal environment. It's not a bulk standard. It's actually about environmental protection. And so our building this within the footprint of the existing I think has has um certain significance here. And we're actually ending up reducing the amount of area within that uh 50oot setback by 60 ft with this new proposal. In addition to making it conforming in all other ways where it's non-conforming as it sits now, we're also obviously making improvements to the home from a vantage point of making it meet building code, which it doesn't now, making it meet energy code, which it doesn't now, improving the septic system. Um, and so I think we have a unique hardship associated with these conditions in the front that are unique to this lot that aren't shared by the adjacent lots. I think we're reasonably doing the minimum necessary to sort of alleviate that hardship to allow us to build a footprint, give these conformities back, but still have a significant improvement to justify the investment. And we're actually reducing the total lot coverage on the property by 170 ft. So that too is in addition to the environmental impact of the property is um is a

benefit to the to the request that we're making. So I think um you know from from our perspective um it's a very reasonable request. Um they've met with all of their neighbors and the neighbors are in in support of it. Um we're maintaining the existing setback. So the sight lines and sort of the adjacency of the adjacent buildings is being maintained. It's not encroaching close to the water. Um and so the net net I think is is that the benefits far outweigh this one concession that we're requesting to allow all these other things to work. All right. Right. Okay. Maria, do you have a um the lot doing the exhibit EM that shows up a lot?

Yes. That's called Sorry. The GIS map was submitted. Is that what is GIS? Yeah, that's from your your GIS. Uh the hardship information I think is right. Isn't that take photos? So, you can see how narrow this lot is compared to the adjacent lots all the way up and down. Sorry. No, this is I can make it bigger. Didn't want to do it while Russ was pointing at I have good glasses. Keep it close.

No, that's good. Thank you. So you can see really all the way down the line um you know this one is even smaller. So really they're we're the smallest on the lot by quite a bit. Most are either one and a half or or some of them as much as two or two and a half larger than us. Um so that is a real constraint on this particular property in this area.

Thank you. And and you can also see that really is an alignment that we're Jason still. Um I can show you more about the architecture of the building and how it looks from the outside. I don't know if you're interested in that. I'm just trying to be to be uh with your time. No, go ahead. Do you have more on No, I was just going to ask about the coastal cycling, but go ahead. Yeah, that's what I was going to get at is is cir. Do you want to do that at the same time or is that a separate here? Like

yeah, we can do the same thing, but what I what I'd like is, you know, the to go over, you know, just put it up there. It says what the wording is and on the uh the application. Sure. What what the hardship is and you know, and um and then the coastal site plan and basically give a summary of what's on there. Okay. Do you want to start with that? Yeah, it doesn't have to be every Yep. Do you want to start with the application? We'll go through the application, please.

Okay.

Yep. Um, so the summary is to demolish a wateride portion of the existing structure and we're leaving 859 ft in the existing 2012 portion twotory. Um, and we're adding approximately 1895 ft² that's on the three stories of con or two and a half stories of construction on the water side to create a 5bedroom. Two of the bedrooms are in the existing. We're adding three bedrooms in the new um and there is a ramp um but it's lower than 18 in. um some storage areas, deck and outdoor shower as well as code compliant septic area and storm water drainage. That's the scope of the project. Um yeah, so there's mostly no varian so uh the variance requested is 6 and 1/2 ft relief or 43.5 ft where 50 ft is required for the coastal resource setback. That's measured from the top of the slope from the D standards. Okay. And so this is a description sort of of what I had mentioned in tropical storm Irene. There was some damage uh that was done to the escarment. We um were able to repair that but in doing so it actually changed by definition where the um setback line was being measured to. So it moved from the bottom of the slope at the edge of beach which is the resource to the top of the escarment once it was modified. This was an education that um both Jim Freddy and I had never faced. And I guess this little area which has escarments, there aren't too many escarments in in coastal Connecticut. Um we learned this and so unfortunately we were under the impression we didn't need a variance and this um all of a sudden caused us to see that we did. Um so that moved it to the top etc. steep slopes of beach. Okay. So that all sort of is the summary of that um in literal enforcement of the regulation. So, um, I say the existing non-conforming portion of the home was built in 19, uh, 1895 prior to the adoption of the Madison regulations. So, we're pre-existing, non-conforming. The

narrow lot makes it very difficult for the new home to into full conformity with the current zoning requirements. There is both environmental and accessible accessibility values to retaining the existing compliant guest house, which was built in 2012, which includes a first floor bedroom. Um, the lot the lot with only allows for pulloff parking. So that I sort of went over that that um really our only parking access is in the front. Um so we can't shift things forward and obviously the existing building that is in the front is limiting us from uh from pushing the whole structure back which we'd like to retain. Drainage structures need to be separated by 50 ft between the septic and we need those under the new code. Um and you know we're our concession is that we're 60 ft reduction in the area within the 50ft setback of lot coverage and we're um 170 ft net total lot coverage reduction so I think that is sort of speaking to a modest uh presentation of um of our request

that on that sorry when you talking about the reduction was that on the east side where you had that

mostly on the east side it's we it's sort of trading off in a couple locations but yes the vast majority of that 170 ft is on the east side where we're most non-conforming where we're only.9 ft off of the property line. But um so I'm measuring two things. The 60 ft is is taking the setback line of 50 ft and measuring how much we're reducing the area within that. And then the total is inclusive of the 60 ft plus 110 on the side. Okay. Um how are we in harmony? Um so again the reductions that we're making I think the architecture is sort of in keeping with the um cottage character of both the front building the new building is sort of respectful of that. Um on the back of that we've sort of broken the two. I mean I can show you architecturally but we we have a little connector between them so that they're sort of smaller cottage scale in keeping with the neighborhood. Um I think the overall size of the building and the square footage is very similar to the adjacent and actually the whole strip. most of them have been improved quite a bit in that area. Um and uh and really from from a protection point of view, so this coastal setback is both an environmental but also I think a protection point of view. You know, we're at 24 ft above sea level in this location. Um and the um escarment improvements really withtood um Sandy. Um so I think I think we're feeling pretty pretty good about making this investment in this location. I think it's one of the better places in town to do so.

Um and then did we miss the how I guess that's it. I guess that Yeah, that's it. Yep. All right. So, this is um getting into the coastal site plan which I'll I can have one more question. No, thank you. Keep working on this but so to understand it you're basically within the existing footprint. So, it was the moving of that coastal resource that triggered the variance. No, it's actually that the we actually spoke to Aaron and Maria and it was a little back and forth and I think you even spoke to town council. Yes.

Okay. So, the there is and this might be something to address because it's actually different from most other towns. Okay. But there is an allowance for the for the existing footprint to be maintained and for work above that existing footprint to be added to. So, this is not a bulk issue. It's not how big the house is within the setback. It's about the lot coverage and and its impacts environmentally on it. So, it doesn't have anything to do with how much we're putting above up on the second floor or third floor. And that's the way the code reads. It's all about the footprint and the lot coverage within a certain distance from from the shore. So,

had they just built a second floor over the existing foundation? So, but the determination was made. We had to actually we couldn't change the foundation, right? That was a determination. So you can't even uh lift a house and put a foundation under it without getting if you're within the 50ft setback, which is different from most other towns.

Most other towns will let you make a house FEMA compliant and and lift a house by right like it's in the same footprint. It's not Guilford does. Kid knows. Um, so, um, so this was a surprise to us and it might be something you want to look at because obviously you want to encourage people to bring things into conformity and if there's a foundation damage, you should allow them to repair it. But the trigger was that it had to be the exact footprint, exact foundation, and that you were just making sort of an addition of a second floor, filling in a second floor porch or something up above. That was the only by right under this. Every other one will require a variance from you. And yes, because the escortment was taken from the bottom up now to the top, put that whole new building.

Well, put the existing building with the existing building into nonformity. Whereas it was resource setback. So if that hadn't move this, no, you would have been fine if Yeah. Yeah. Take it from moved about 12 ft and we only need six and a half. So we were So if it hadn't moved that line, would we even be here tonight? I guess is my Yes. Okay. No. Okay. But that is a state um that's a state definition. And again, it's the difference between a modified startman and a and a startman. Yes. Will board member, can you take that green wrap stuff off until you finish the construction?

I don't think we want to. It it it it made us um survive, you know, made them survive um all these winter storms, but also um Sandy. So, it had a good test because it was done for our What was actually the damage of storm? What What

was a little bit of undermining um um uh of of it's a very steep I don't know if you went out to the site. It's a it's a staircase down to the water and it's it's going from what from 5t to 24T. So it's a 20ft kind of um escarment it and it's um you know it's sand and gravel it actually but there was a little bit of undermining at the back edge of the beach. Beach didn't didn't erode but at the back half of the beach where this starts up there was some undermining that storm and so they they put it's a good size rip wrap kind of um armoring on the u right in plane with the with the carbon. Um, so they had that professionally done and approved by D. It's all it's all all up and up and up. The neighbor put in uh timber retaining wall kind of um which isn't as good practice. This is kind of a a natural dispersion of the of the energy. You know, to do kind of something in a slope is a much more sort of integrated um approach. The neighbor has a very big retaining wall that they put in. We'll have to storms um which unfortunately directs energy towards their property.

Yeah, I guess we can tell you stories about the Garvin point issue. Yeah, we're going to No, we're not going to go there. Okay. Um so, do you want to move on and and move right into the camp or one more? Yep. Question about the so that this hashed area the house is going in the same footprint. What what's the hash area reduction? That's I guess that's what I'm hung up on.

So, yeah. So, the the hatch area is the original house right here. Okay. And so, it's reducing the the total area of on the property by 170 ft. The area, so this is the 50ft setback. So, this area, this area, and this area adds to 60 ft. That's the 60 ft reduction within the 50ft setback. All right, I think I got it. Thanks.

Just out of curiosity and as already mentioned, I'm trying to catch up to speed with Madison pro policies reducing the first floor back 7 ft is not an option and then having an extension as far as can't do that. No, it's the projection um of the of the footprint that would count towards that setback. So it's the projection from from looking from above if you have cantal levered or or you know something. Okay. So the base was though previously where you could build the second floor as much as you wanted. You couldn't get closer over you couldn't can lever it. It would just be in the footprint. It has to be a vertical and you know vertical of just making sure. Um but again I

in Guilford I wouldn't need this variance because I'm within the footprint of the original I would be exempt from from their critical coastal resource setback. um which is only 25 ft not 50 ft but that's another story but um no so but it's in this particular interpretation where if we touch the footprint foundation we have to yeah um so yeah we're going to coastal site I just want to see the coastal first okay Jim do you want to take that on uh yeah can you hear me? Yes.

Okay, good. Uh Jim Freddy, Chriso Engineering. I don't know. Um if Maria, you could put this our site plan up. Well, there's the survey. Yeah. Uh so is it this one? Uh it would be the next one, I think. Unless he didn't include ours with We did. It's there. which one is labeled. Um, yeah, if we go back to that, I'll show you. It's uh, uh, POV site plan. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, the notes. Not the notes. The next one. That one. There you go.

There you go. Uh, good evening, Jim Freddy, Chriscolo Engineering, 420 East Main Street in Brford. Um, incidentally to Russ's point, most of my work is in Brford and Brford's also 25 feet critical coastal resources. Um, in any event, uh, we you can see on the plan here in the circles, we labeled the, uh, critical coastal resources as they show on the on mapping um that deep um, published. Um, the shoreland, the S is the shorelands which is up above the flood zone line. So all the most pretty much all the activities up in that shoreland area. me is the modified escarments and then the coastal flood hazard area at the bottom and beaches and uh and then out in the sound um because we have to show adjacent um you have um um there was intertital flats and I forgot what the E was uh

coastal there's other coastal bluffs I guess nearby that are not have not been modified. So, um the you know just the the proposed project does not conflict with the coastal policies identified uh in the application and is therefore consistent with their intended purposes. Um there would be no potential adverse impacts to the coastal resources that would result from the project. In fact, coastal resources would be further protected by replacing the septic system with new code complying um leeching area and septic tank and um the coastal resources during construction would be protected by standard erosion control measures um that you know are typically used for these kind of jobs, silt fence and construction entrance and that sort of thing. Um, it's pretty, this is, you know, from a coastal site plan perspective, this is pretty simple because the disturbance is all really within area that's already been disturbed.

I will say we're also adding um and capturing roof drainage on the property with um two dry wells that we installed that aren't there now. Everything is running over land right now and so those are going in underneath as as part of the new requirements. Correct. Any questions? Did we have like a deep response or No. Nope. It was sent to Deep and they did not respond. I even sent them a reminder last week. Never. They never referred.

All right. Well, is there like the application to go over like the like site plan like the form? Oops. He's going to start all over again. ext.

There we go.

So, yeah, that that um the first one just lists the um coastal resources that are on or adjacent to the site. Uh if you scroll down, it's a residential neighborhood. Uh project cons, you know, there's a description of the project that Russ has already gone over. Um the roof run off into the new galleys that'll be under the driveway. Uh let's see. Again, he's these are the coastal resources and tells you which ones are on-site and offsite. Oh my. Okay.

Uh that's what I've already read there. The uh we do not conflict with any coastal policies and in their manual. Uh again, we're protected by erosion controls. Uh it's not a water water dependent use and we're not preventing any water dependent uses. Um I don't know what else is on here. Okay. Yeah. Well, this is not applicable.

Oh, not applicable. Right.

That's it. All right. That's right. It's going to the typical um trapping destruction.

Yes. And it does have an existing lawn and then planting down the escarment that is the escarment planting will all stay. There will be some disturbance for the installation of the um septic system, but for the most part most of that area is going to remain sad and u be a natural protection that sits there now between us and and the neighbor. But yes, we're planning to put up fencing beside property as well as um self fencing, you know, so protection fencing for security, but also self fencing um you know, on the on the top of the slope. Then there'll be a drive off um you know, coming in. Most of it will have to be serviced in the existing drive which already exists. What are Steve? Do you have any

I'm following this pretty good. This is good. I'm good. You Um I just I have no other questions in regards to it. So I do have a couple comments to make John. Oh yeah. Well done. Any objections from the neighbors or

Yeah. I was going to move on to that if we had any other if there's no other questions for the applicant. Maybe we can move on to the uh maybe you want to get kits you know. Well yeah. Yeah. I'll get to it right before we close. Okay. Um I think yeah of course so Maria is anybody before we even say for against and all that is anyone in the audience even there are two attendees nobody with their hand raised

okay would anybody in the audience like to speak for or against this project you can please raise your hand virtually I Yes. Anybody see for the projects that we I don't think we need to talk about for again. So, um any final questions or comments from the board? My only because I'm not seated this evening and such. I just wanted to be able to put in my two cents as far as

yeah what I've seen so far and everything and especially because it's a situation where the foundation is in need of repair and there's no way to be able to do that without going through something like this and arguably the even if you wanted to keep your home as it was you still would end up having to possibly go through this because of everything. um and the fact that the new plan actually is stating the idea of significant reduction of the nonconformities to it. This situation looks like a a issue of intensification and that's what we're all about here is trying to be able to allow them to be able to live in their house to be able to be a make it work. And we're talking about 7 ft towards a towards the coastal area which arguably got pushed back on them anyways. And apparently if we were still skilled as it were then we wouldn't have that issue cuz we only have 25 ft that we would be worrying about. Um, but because of all that and such, I don't see any issues with this. And if I were seated, I would happily approve it.

And Maria, just to clarify, um, when we do deliberations, can speak, right? It's just he can't vote or No. Oh, he can't. Oh, no. He can make a comment, but he when you get the deliberations. Okay. I'm sorry. Thanks. The reason for doing it during the No, I appreciate it. Thank you. Um, any other questions from the board for the applicant before we or any other statements before we close the public portion of the hearing? Anybody? Steve, you you good? No, this is pretty straightforward. Thank you. Okay. Uh, so I'd like to motion that we close the public portion of the hearing and move to deliberation.

So move. All in favor? I don't even close. Okay. Who would um Steve, do you want to start? Yeah, I'm going to go along with uh what was just said and say, you know, that basically there's a there's a reduction I think in the overall they're building to the existing place or the existing um structure. Um I think there's a hardship with the size of the lot and um I would be in favor of approving this.

Okay, Dennis. So I too would be in favor of it. I believe that the reduction in nonconformities of the lot size or the lot coverage rather uh is mitigates in their behalf and the fact that they have uh had a uh coastal resource line move to within their footprint. Um and yet they're still backing off somewhat from that. Uh it mean it's a uh um hardship that is has been combined with as Steve puts out a very small lot with a very limited application. So I think it's really the uh movement of the vertical resource line that um put them in this situation but they're accommodating it by offering um you know offsetting reduction in non-compliance.

I agree with everything I've said so far. Uh well um I mean this is the kind of case where you know it's the reason why we have this appeals where like the enforcement of a legal technicality that would be be the case in many of our towns would lead to a a hardship for the uh applicant. Um, you know, I think everything better presented like the fact that they're reducing the amount of conformities and the coverage. Um when they were doing concessions uh I think the you know I uh I also just the fact that like just to make it a team compliance and you know the a very tricky dynamics on building on the shore you you even have some leeway there but no I would say just for the fact that they're um that they're not like increasing any amount of gourmets. It seems to be all in seems to be all in good faith. Um I would be in favor of approving this uh uh uh variance.

Thank you, John. I have nothing else to add. I'm in favor of them. Okay.

Yeah. And I agree basically what everyone else said. I nothing to add to it. So, I'll go ahead and uh I'll go ahead and make a motion. So, um uh so I'd like to motion we grant a variance to application 25-8 for 97 Hartford Avenue for section 2.17. Um and uh the reason for the variance is the reduction in the um nonconformities in particular the east and the south and also the size of the lot um causing a hardship. I'd like to also add that the variance is based on the plans as submitted and that all construction must conform to those plans and that we find that the coastal site plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the coastal management act. I get a second or uh we'll discuss it. Yeah, I'll second a discussion. Yeah, I I'd like you to add to it just what variance specifically would have to allow the 43 to have. So, sure. So, I'll amend the variance that is to allow 43.5 ft setback to critical pro coastal resource where 50 is f is required. Any other discussion? Did you second it? All in favor? I

I oppose. Uh abstaining. Steve, I didn't see your vote. Sorry. I'm I'm for it. Okay. So, it's unanimous pass. Congratulations. Yeah. I Yeah, you guys folks have that registered in two separate trusts. as tenants in college. Tenants in college. But we did we put ours in a trust, but it was a joint trust. So yeah, I shouldn't have done that. Every lawyer is a different

Don'tve. It looks nice. You'll enjoy it. Oh, thank you. So, we still business of the November. Oh, sorry. That's right. November 4th minutes. So, can I get I make a motion we approve the minutes from the November 4th, 2025 meeting. Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

I oppose as unanimously. Do we have any other official Okay. You could you could show us a little bit more about that website cuz that was our first time using it. Okay. Yeah. So, it's uh we didn't we didn't move we second.

How' we do? Hi, Steve. Hey, disconnecting you. get next to our mind.