Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

You can go ahead and

ask Chuck. There we are.

All right. Uh, good evening to welcome you to the February 10th, 200 26 zoning board of appeals regular meeting. I'd like to introduce the board. Um to my left we have Steve Biskoff. Um that's correct. I got that right. Dennis Crow um regular member as well. My name is Richard Gilbert. I am the regular member and the chair. We have uh John Zire who's regular member and we have Dylan Stella who's a regular member and then down at the end there we have Kit Wilcox who's alternate member. Um so four votes are needed foration to be approved in accordance with state statutes. A simple majority is not sufficient. All actions taken will be by roll call. Um, our zoning officer will read the legal notices advertised at the source after I go through these things instructions. Um, after the applications have been read, anyone who wishes to withdraw or postpone his or her applications, free to do so. If there are no if there is no one who wishes to draw or postpone, we will go forward with the applications in the order in which they appear on the agenda. For each application, the applicant or his or her representative um will list uh they can then state his or her name and address for the record nature and reason for the appeal. The applicant may screen share all application materials for request assistance from staff. Any and all exhibits, plans or pictures shown to the board are considered exhibits. All exhibits must be provided in PDF or paper to staff. After the presentation is made by the applicant questions from members

of the board and take questions from the audience, any shall raise their hand in the Zoom format and wait to be called on. Uh after questions, those speaking in favor of the application may raise their hand and be heard and then those in opposition may raise every hand and be heard. Please be sure to state your name and address before you speak. Um, following any comments by board or public, the applicant will have opportunity for closing and the public portion of the application will be closed and the board will deliberate. On closing of the public hearing, no new correspondence or comments can be received by the board. In most instances, we will make our decision immediately after each hearing. We may state a hearing reserve or call the land east all by mail and all decisions are published. So at this time I'll ask our zoning officer uh to read the bills to be presented tonight. Legal notice zoning board of appeals, Madison, Connecticut. Notice is hereby given that the board will hold a public hearing, February 10th 6th, beginning at 7 p.m. in meeting room A, Town Campus, 8 Campus, Madison, Connecticut 064. This is a hybrid meeting and attendees may also join via Zoom webinar through either the webinar link or call in information www.zoom. us webinar ID 920272103 password 388818 or call in at 1665588656 the following applications will be heard 26-117 Buffalo Bay map 12 lot 40 zone R3 smeor variance request to section 2.17 to allow a 30 setback to the critical

coastal resource for is required this application which includes a coastal site. Copies of these applications are available for inspection at the land use office. Further details on how to participate in the webinar are posted on our website at www.mmadisonct.org. Correspondence can be submitted to the land use office to landm.org or dial 2032455631 for expanded this 20th day of January 2026. Maria Pollah CEO land use official. This was published twice in the source once on January 29th and once on February 25th 26. Thank you, Maria.

This time I'd like to ask the applicant for uh application 26-1 117 Buffalo Bay if you could start talking.

Thank you. I'm Michael Sals. I live at 85 Fair Street in Guilford. Uh and I'm here for the applicant Helen Mayor. Um tonight I will be actually joining rather than joined by uh u both Helen who will be somewhere out there. Uh Chuck Mandel Thomas u who will talk about the engineering issues. uh uh Katie Gallardo who is the uh with Commander Horn Architects uh who is the project architect and she will talk about the really the from the architectural end uh just so you have a sense of it uh that part of the project um and uh uh and then Helen is again watching from I know she's here u so with that being said what it is we're looking for actually uh this invariance as the notice read this is section 2.17 uh this has to do with the setback from a critical coastal resource um of to allow 30.1 ft rather than 50 presently there it doesn't have 30.1 ft uh so we're actually looking for a variance in order to reduceformity helps. Uh, and to that end, if if uh uh if Katie is here somewhere.

Mhm. Uh if we could have her explain the project.

So, she's a panelist. I'm working on it. Sorry. Video. There we go. Hi. So, the house that we're building for Helen or intending to build is just supposed to be um a Can you just state your I'm sorry. Can you state your name again and and your firm? Sure. Um I'm Kate Gagliardo. I work for Vanderhorn Architects.

Thank you. Um, we're just hoping to um design a a thoughtful improvement to the existing house. Um, it's meant to be a safer and more resilient home for Helen. Um, while remaining consistent with the character and the charm of the current surrounding community. Um, we're not looking to to change the look or really even the size. Um, it should sit pretty similar to what is there. Um, just more sound. Do we have an image of what's there?

Sorry, Katie. No, that's okay. I can't see anything. Do you want me to talk about what's up there? I think Maria can share her screen. I think I think she has photos.

Oh, it's all separate renderings. Okay. Oh, the one that is there are coming. There should be They're all separate renderings. I know there were renderings for the proposed, but there were I believe in the package there was existing photos. They're all separate. So, you have to let me know which which one you'd like to see. Okay. If we don't find it fast, this is they're all separate. So, okay. This is I think going to be a and they're not labeled 100% like so this

can tell you what this is and and frankly it's enough to say that that the existing is similar to this although in in some level of disrepair given its age and construction and when Helen first acquired it her hope was to to to bring that up to snuff given the requirements that have you know developed around it and like often happens that was impossible. But her desire and plan was to make it feel uh as much as possible like like what was there and what is in that part of Buffalo Bay. And Katie, can you come back? Can I what?

Can you rejoin us? We we put up an image of of the one of the renderings of the house. Yes, I see. It's the front view, the uh driveway approach of the new design. Um, as you can see, it's a Gambrell shingle style. Uh, like Michael said, very similar to what is there currently. Was there an existing photo? Um, I don't know if they're on your server. Do you know?

I didn't think there was. There's baseline south, north, east, west, north, west side, and the site plan. Those seven views are the proposed design. Um, Chuck, can you speak to if any existing photos are I I thought they were uploaded, but I'll tell you, I can barely tell the difference between the new house and the old house. I mean, that's a back view. same same um long porch along the shore. Um just an improved version.

Maria, on the vision card, there is a photo. If you could pull the vision card that would give the board a sense of uh what it looked like. I said it's very similar to what's being proposed. The most significant difference is that the current house is closer to the critical coastal resource. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah, that's fairly good photo of it. Very similar to what's being proposed. Yeah, similar front entry. Yeah. I mean, even down to the style of the trim, we try to be in keeping with what's there. And I can tell you because I I know Helen is a gardener and so the frankly the landscaping and the and the and the planting in the new house will will u be probably more more significant and appropriate than what you've just seen in the renderings. Okay. Anything else we should know about the building or the project or any other brief reason you could tell us why we couldn't use the old one? Uh I know that the old one needed um a substantial amount of work structurally as well. And so the cost to try to make the old one work and the logistics of trying to make the old one work far outweighs um starting from scratch.

Thanks Chuck, you're there, right?

Yeah, I'm here. So Chuck Mandel, agent for the applicant, Helen Mayor. So a couple of things. So this will be a total uh demo of the existing structure. Uh the existing house is uh 18.7 feet away from the coastal jurisdiction line where we need 50. Uh we're proposing to move the house approximately 11.4t to the north. Uh just to move it a little further away from the beach, but as not to impose on the neighbors to the north. Uh the sight lines will be the same. The closest neighbor is about 125 feet to the west and to the north it's about uh let's see what we got about 237 feet away from the north. So visually uh there won't be any difference. Uh we also did retested the soils. Uh the soils are very good but we didn't know what the existing septic system was. So Helen decided to scrap the old one. It was probably non-compliant too deep in the ground. uh where we do have a new code compliant septic system uh that has been approved by the health department. We received a letter from deep from Jason Hail. It was all positive. Uh this is in uh we're keeping in line with the coastal resiliency of the shoreline by putting in this new structure. We're totally in an X zone. There's area of no flooding, but FEMA is notoriously known for changing flood lines every so often. Um I suspect they will change uh in the next five years. Uh but we will still be in the exone area of no flooding. In regards to storm water mitigation, the previous structure had no uh had no provisions for storm water and we are capturing 100% of the uh first flush for storm water as shown by two rain

gardens uh to the north of the proposed structure. Those I gather also have an effect on where we have to locate the house. Well, as I stated earlier, yeah, we wanted to keep the house fairly consistent, but we are moving it uh we are making it less non-compliant, right? But in other words, it could make it slightly more non-conforming, but then you'd lose the rain gardens, the rain gardens and the neighborhood uh the I believe the sight lines would change. So anything else about the site that we should know? This is a pretty straightforward application.

Right. The soils are well drained. We foresee no problem with uh any

So thank you Chuck. probably the next question someone might have has to do with hardship which you always ask and in this case where we're reducing uh nonconformity that gets us in the door uh and then the next question is whether it's reasonable and consistent with the policies of the town and its capital rates in the neighborhood uh which we think is more than uh advancing both neighbor harmony uh hearing guidelines and views uh and finally uh improving hardening and and the next round of of of resiliency. So the we couldn't think of a base we hadn't touched on this. We rarely are this lucky uh to have an application building. Can we uh see the statement the uh uh statement about the hardship that we submitted? Let me see that.

Can you get that, Maria? Is that the best for you? That, by the way, is a typo. Um, because it does talk about increasing the I just learned this today. Um, increasing the the setback uh to 30 32.6 ft. It's really, as all the documents suggest is is in fact 30.1 and as the application asked 30.1. It was just a type book, but didn't want anyone to be misled. That's where it was. The 30 points. It's really 30.

I wanted to point that out that it was 32.6 ft, but that's not what you're asking for. 30 30.1. All the documentation is 30.1. That was a typo, I believe.

What's that? Yeah. Could could you just briefly mention that the precautions you taking construction wise like you have the silt fences and the uh

Yeah. Yeah. Chuck Mandel again, I can address that. So, if you look at the plan, we're showing silt fence surrounding almost the entire property. We're also proposing an orange construction fence. Uh the reason for that is that keeps debris from blowing around. Just another safety precaution, keeps the workers off the adjacent sites. Uh we're also proposing on the south side along the uh coastal jurisdiction line, we're proposing straw waddles, which are tubes filled with a mulch that uh lay right on the ground. So we have a triple protection uh on the site. Thank you. Yep.

So we unless there are more questions of any of us. Yeah. Is there any reason why you couldn't put it back? Yeah. What I mean number one because we could build it where it is uh you know as opposed to moving it at all is a matter of right. two, those rain gardens are in the way. Well, one another thing would be would be consistent with the neighborhood. There's a tennis court right to the north. So, the structure would be almost on top of the tennis court with the lighting. Um, and you potentially could block the view to the house to the north. But the answer is that it could be built 50 ft back.

But but but on the other hand, it could also be built another 12t or 14 ft closer to the critical coastal resource on the same footprint. Same footprint. Exact same. I'm going to have to size it. Yeah. But it's not size. It's footprint. Correct. Footprint's definitely different. So, but it still complies like the

it Yeah. So, I have a question. Um, there's a that from what I the way I interpret that drawing on there, it's not it doesn't meet the sideyard setback is what I think I see. It doesn't have to. It doesn't have to. Accessory structures don't have to meet the sideyard setback. They're one to one 45 degree angle from the That's That's right. 45. All right. So that So So if it's 12 ft high, it 12 feet off. It's 10 ft high. Only has to be 10 ft off. Okay. That's how far off?

I don't I don't Unless Jack, you know, but I don't have it. It's written scale. Well, let's see. It is not It's going to be 9.7 feet away from this propert. Okay. So, unless it's 9.7 feet high. No, it could be it could be as and it could be as close as six feet because of the drip edge. So it Okay, it's fine. Okay. Yeah. All right. Then just and that dimension's on the plan 9.7. You just educate me. What's that line that goes through the rain gardens and then down to the shed? What is that line?

So those are the uh Yeah, Chuck Mandel. Those are the uh drainage structures. So there's going to be something that that's the piping that's going to capture the water uh for the roof leaders. Okay. And that and that piece at the very end of what is that like a leachy or similar to a leech if you run. Oh yeah. So yeah, that uh cyan that's the that's the leech field. Okay. So you see the tank and then the uh system itself. All right. And then the septic system is the blue area in the upper left of the new proposed dry. Correct.

So I have a I have a question if if nobody minds. Um I do to that question that Steve had. You can absolutely demolish the building by right put it back in the same exact footprint, same exact spot. You would not be decreasing your nonconformity to the critical coastal resource. Correct. So moving the building, you're you're making that better. But Chuck, the rain garden, as you saying, you move it closer. The rain garden is serving as the storm water that we need to have, right? That is correct. So we that is in our regulations toide storm water management and that's how they're doing it is through the rain gardens. So when you move it the house closer, now you're getting rid of the storm water that's required

which is which is required. Okay. Am I is my am I understanding that correctly, Chuck? That is correct. Uh storm there are new storm water requirements for 2024 manual, I believe. Thank you for that. Yeah. So that's what the rain that's how they're managing storm water on the property is by those rain gardens with those the leaders. Yeah. So on cheat two, we get into the plantings and the depths of those rain gardens. They're bio actually they're right. rain gardens are bio retention areas. So that's better detail of the plantings and the contours.

Uh Kit Wilcox board member um one question. uh is the accessory building. It's not beholden to the 70s. Therefore, it's not also beholden to the gold 50 that we're busy dealing with here either. It can stay within that range. No. Yeah. It doesn't I don't think it matters. It's it's under 200 square ft. So, a building like that could It doesn't require a building permit. So, just making sure I'm understanding. Yeah. I don't I don't know if that's a in this capacity a proposed or is that a for sure thing or because there isn't one currently there, right?

Oh, yeah. There there there is a small shed there now. Um Okay. But anything under 200 is is actually invisible to zoning.

Hi, recent member to the board used to be doing this in Guilford. So there's slight variations and right we've met um so I'm trying to catch up with certain things that Madison does as far as it goes. Uh but then as far as the rain guards go and everything like that the idea of bumping them farther is not feasible. In essence, if we took the entire driveway and just shifted it 10 ft north and therefore we could build the whole building for instance 10 ft north and such that is would negate the effects of the rain garden and such. Not necessarily. It would not.

So if they were in theory everything could still move up 10 ft closer and given the distance to all the neighbors everything it shouldn't necessarily affect any of their eyesights. It shouldn't necessarily hugely impact the vast majority stuff, but it would at least bring us from 30 ft down to like 40 ft in theory could work. It also infringes the tennis courts and all of that and puts the lights of those in our house. There's no tennis courts property. They're right next door. That's the next thing. The tennis court is directly to the north. So then we're back to why not leave it where it was. where where we had there's a tenn that's right there.

Tennis court right there. Y okay. So how in that case do we have a how far down in essence do the tennis court lights show to be able to see what the I mean is the house as close as it possibly can get to the tennis courts without being afflicted by the light since that seems to be the major issue of getting close to it. It's not it's not the only issue. It's how it all sits on the site and how it all works together and whether it's in the end uh preferable or not to leaving it where it is. Uh because they were that Helen originally was going to just keep that house.

So there was nothing wrong from a an aesthetic or or you know desire point of view to leaving it right there. Uh but if you're as she was in the position of having to replace it you where and with very able architects as you see um why not see what they could do

and and here where uh we are making a meaningful uh reduction in non-conforming and the only non-conforming is that everything else on this project is totally deported everything. and let me let me add something, Michael. So, in addition, we're mitigating storm water and we have a brand new septic system also, which none of that had to be done.

And I appreciate everything that's been done as far as I can tell from looking at the plans and everything and it looks fantastic and I'm a little jealous of some of the aspects of it and such and whatnot. Um but also it's that basis that us trying to understand exactly what the unique hardship is to this particular piece of property.

The reduction of nonconformity by itself without any uh but if it's meaningful you know 2 in and you know and and a and a scoop of sand. No. Uh but when you're doing something like at this level uh that passes get you past the threshold of is there a hardship and then you go to to the normal or more conventional considerations of of uh the variance which is how it fits with the neighborhood dog all of those things u that we have dealt with in states

uh as a matter of fact so u our choices are aware it is or do this not under take it or leave it. Uh but but but that's why I'm trying to inquire making sure fully understanding and appreciating why it is that whatever stopping at 30.1 as opposed to getting to for instance the typo of 32.6. Well they started they started there in their analysis.

Oh slipp going well that was whoever typed it included. couldn't be mild. Um, I wouldn't want to suggest that. Uh, the point is it started at a point of being totally performing with everything in the world and then things move as you start figuring out how to make it all work. Um, it's it's it's not an inexpensive project. So if you're going to do all that,

you might as well, you know, run the balance and make it do as much, you know, good as you can for that side of something. And that's where they ended up. And again with with, you know, with with engineers and architects and first job was to make it fit and make it right. So you're saying that following long if you move a house other than 10 feet back because of the well without changing a lot of stuff including those rain gardens. But the point is is that because it's you've got the no one has gone out with a lightning because it's obvious they're there. It's been winter. Uh and uh this is the place that was ideal of new places to put this house. Um and so the the then and she knows that it was ideal where it was before uh because she tried it out a little while. Um in fact, she initially spent a lot of time working with that house in that building to figure out how to keep it. that was her first desire. Um, so the answer is, you know, I I don't know why she would want to move into a place she doesn't want. Uh, when she could have it be in a place that she doesn't want, and if that, you know, entails some architectural changes that she would have lived in it like a place. you know, it's not that she's getting a McMansion in return for for doing what she's doing here. Uh, and in fact, the other thing to note in terms of the critical resource is that our friends indeed have looked at this project and

they like it balances other their own their has nothing to do with our zoning and zoning is a preference. You could move to they don't want to your choice. No, but it also has to do with the teeth requirements. So they may have more than one and they don't know they're not always consistent. But in this case, there's one explicit whether or not there's more than one. Yeah, it's not uncommon to vary. I mean, there are lots of variances for for I've got for critical social resources. And as a reminder, we are here for CAM also. So we're actually

CAM and it will have to go back to planning and zoning too or another close to I think you Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Just so I just so I understand your position right the legal grounds for the variance is like the legal part of it is just a reduction in like there isn't like a unique aspect of the property that by itself just variance it's just a reduction

no I mean the property is such that the the ideal place to put this house is where it's go is where they proposed to put it the second position in which they would want it is where um and and where they don't want it is further north and they don't have to put it there. But the the on the legal side just by itself the reduction of nonconformity it's not just a meaningful reduction that satisfies the requirement of being part all by itself. anything more exotic. um as a matter of fact so and that's that this board has has for years frankly um that in my in cases I've manif side here.

Okay. I do want to see the report though at some point which the petite um thing please

while we're doing that um anybody else in the audience um there is somebody that was raising their hand but I I don't think the question anything to do with the application But we sing a second. Everybody that's

Can everybody see that or do I need to read it? You can zoom in on it if you want. You don't need to read it out loud. I don't think everybody seen So it's at the third paragraph there that says the post activity does not that says the post activity does not adversely impact coastal resources adversely impact coastal resources system policies. system policies. Any other questions from initial

Any other questions from initial questions from the board before we go to questions from the board before we go to the public? the public? So it's at the third paragraph there Not right now. Possibly something may come up later. Um, great. There's someone raising their hand. Um, well, there's not anybody raising their hand. There's somebody who's messaging. Um, whoever's in the meeting, if you'd like to speak in favor or against, uh, you can go ahead if that's what you're here for.

They raised their hand. They could speak. They just messaged like five different questions which I don't we don't question answer through the message app. So if somebody wants to speak they could. So whoever's in the meeting please if if you have a question you want to speak up. Okay we have Markski. Mark if you could state your name and address for the record and ask your question. Hi can you hear me? Yes. Hi, it's uh Mark Rowski. I'm at 113 Buffalo Bay uh next door to the applicant.

Okay.

Um so I I appreciate that the applicant is proposing improvement over the existing conditions and including moving the house further from the critical coastal resource and and upgrading the storm water and the septic systems. My concern is the precedent of allowing a new construction at 30 feet when 50 ft is required. Just if a variance is granted in this case, it just becomes difficult to deny similar requests along the coast uh and in Buffalo Bay. Um, I am planning to to build a home actually next door and in this neighborhood and and planning to design it in compliance with the regulations. So, I I just see as the the concern is just maintaining just the integrity of the the regulations that have been put in place here.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Can I address that though if you'd like?

Yeah, Mark. I um um Dennis Pro is speaking here in case you I don't see but um we have we have certain criteria that we have to go by and it's not just the zoning and and social resources. It's it's also uh to the to the point of the applicant it it is a significant reduction in nonconformities. That's one of the issues that has been brought up as legal justification for um for per for variance to this still non-conforming but it's less non-conforming. So, so we we have to weigh that against the other requirements such as those who have mentioned the fact that there are alternatives for but then again the question becomes are they required to do more and we'd have to take all that into account and I appreciate your perspective that you would with new construction have to have complete compliance as opposed to uh this application saying well it's less non-compliance. So, uh I appreciate your your um concern, but the precedents on that issue have already been set and so that's one of the considerations we have to grapple with here. So, but but thank you. That's a very good input to have.

No, no, thank you. And that that's helpful context. the just um the tennis court just so everyone knows there there are no lights on the tennis court just um just having lived there for the last 5 years there's there's no nobody's there at night there's no lights thank you thank you anybody else in the uh audience just um Nina Livingston who's asking questions but I raising not raising her hand. Yeah. So, Nina would Oh, now she's raising her hand. Okay. Hold on. Nina.

Yeah. Go ahead, Nina. If you can state your name and address, please. Hi. Thank you. I didn't I didn't actually see a way to join with audio in this version of Zoom. I think I only work. Um so, uh I'm just another neighbor and um I do have some questions. I can you state your address, please? My address, 106 Buffalo Bay, although I I actually live in New Mexico now and only spend part of the year there, so the house is some of the time. Um Okay, thank you.

Uh so that um I did put some questions in the chat. I do appreciate that there the sort of general style of the house is to be maintained. It's sort of sad that it won't be seed or shingle. It looked like it was going to be some kind of like composite um material in like a shingle style, but I appreciate that that is probably um you know, more efficient over time. It will be it will be shingle.

Okay. Okay, that's great. You know, so some of these are maybe just my not, you know, knowing how to look at architectural renderings. I looked at what I could see on the town website uh remotely, but I did the you know I have the the questions that I put there in the chat. I was wondering about um the swimming pool. It looked like there was going to be a swimming pool on the water side of the house sort of within the you know um closer to the water than the house will be. And I wondered will that be fenced? And do you have any architectural renderings that show what that is going to look like on the exterior? It didn't seem to show in in the the rendering that you showed earlier in the hearing.

It's not that's not really relevant to this application. So, it would it wouldn't they don't need to have that for a variance application. Building code hands up.

Interesting. Okay. Um I was curious about how much farther to the west the house will be. I was trying to tell by looking at those comparison drawings. It doesn't look like it's going to be hugely. It looks like it might be a little bit farther west. So the reason I'm asking is there's a lot of space around our houses there that is um kind of just grassy open area that that of which we you know have a lot of mutual enjoyment and access to the water there. I get it that there are these like narrow access ways but honestly no one knows where those lines are exactly. Um so I wondered is the house going to be much further to the west or how much farther? If Chuck Mandel, it's approximately going to be seven feet closer.

Seven feet, interestingly. Okay, that's that's But that but there's also that right ofway that goes between the lots, right? Yes, I understand that. But it really What's

So that's 20 So that's 20 feet right away. So you and we are still conforming. The only uh zoning variance we're asking for is the critical coastal resource. all the other uh setbacks are actually within uh the zoning and in fact the house is actually uh for section 2.9 all the yards have been increased because the house is over 3,000 square feet so for every 100 square feet over 3,000 the the yards are increased by one foot I believe that's true right Maria yes which brings the setback lines in

correct Correct. So, it's more restrictive. Okay. And do I was asking when the construction is going to occur? Is that known?

I'm not aware the build the builder's not here. Maybe maybe as soon as possible. But that's whatever is possible in this environment.

Um, right. And and you know, I I think um I do understand Mark's concern about if his house will have to have a different setback than this house. Um and I don't really know because Mark, I know that the house that was there on the property before you had it, I don't know how much setback that one had. Will you be will you be grandfathered into that setback as well? We're not speaking to his application. We don't know what his plans are for 113 Buffalo Bay. Yeah.

But they the setbacks the zone setbacks requirements um including in the coastal zone are all the same. So they would have to follow the same setbacks in this whole neighborhood in this whole zone for front side, rear floor area coverage. And in this instance, the 50-foot set back to the critical coastal resource is part of the bulk standards for this area. So yes, he would either any house in this neighborhood has to follow all the regulations or seek relief by variance such as this application tonight. So if that house that he's building doesn't meet the 50 foot setback, um you know, then yes, he would have to. But every every law is different. So I, you know, some lots may be able to arrange septic and storm water and houses differently and may need no setback, may need more, may need less.

Right. Understood. Yeah. Thank you very Yes. Thank you for reiterating that. And I I look forward to meeting our new neighbor. Haven't met her, haven't heard from her yet. So I came to the hearing just because I got the notice and interested to learn more about it. Um, and welcome to the neighborhood. Thank you. Anybody else on the rand? Uh, no. That's it. Nobody has a hand raised. So, do uh any further question?

Hit your final chance. So, oh, you also want all my No, we'll ask you before we close the break. Give you a chance to take it. Um, something that Mark mentioned that was possible to see what the original go into the application be look at everything sort of says there as your initial information on regards to this project. I don't know what that Oh, the details page. job. That's it.

Thank you. I'm so used to looking at it all in the digital. Okay. Well, having been this is uh that's more than your entire

There was one that sort of described what the idea and intention was going to keep going down. Keep going down. These are all the experts in it. that.

Yeah, that's bigger. Where's the line between being able to trying to do a renovation and building in essence the idea of tearing this down as it says here and constructing a new structure versus in essence just raising an entire the idea as far as I know that if you entirely scrap building on a piece of property you're at ground zero again and building on it you're basically you now if you're now required to conform to all zoning and stuff.

Where is that line drawn in a situation like this? Cuz it says that the idea is to tear down the entire thing and do that and that that feels like that for even 15 seconds there going to be an abandoned lot that nobody's built on. In which case there are no non-conforming issues. In which case we're not trying to reduce the non-conforming. We're now talking about actually creating a nonconformity. I'm not sure. I found you.

So if I Chuck Mandel perhaps if we kept one of the walls and then started rebuilding and then found out structurally the wall was no good and ended up replacing it. I think along those lines. Is that what you're trying to talk? Yeah. I'm used to the idea that some sort of building structure you're you're trying to do uh additions whatever and everything. But that if got it as long as you do part of the structure and everything like that all your it's still considered your within the footprint. If you rip out the entire ripped out the entire foundation you've got an empty lot.

Right. The wording that starts this section off would suggest that that's going to happen. Kate, weren't you saving one of the posts on the north side there? Yeah. Okay. We could also note that there's there's a road other than the tennis courts. There's a road that leads to someone else's house. So, you'd be pushing her closer to the road. And one of the nice things about this lot is how private it is and feels. What what section what paragraph you're talking about where it says the existing all these words go right up there to the the next paragraph up I guess I think the where

so the part that says this existing home is 18 or this no right back proposed property tearing down and removal of existing bedroom homes. Five bedroom homes. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. New construction will include everything is torn down and gone and then new construction which would suggest that at one point there's going to be in essence an empty lot city and therefore it is a new construction right

and as as I was again trying to understand is I'm under the impression that that isn't so appeal to whether or not how a house is supposed to be on there you are not required P form to new zoning regulations because there was nothing new. Correct. If I can help. Go ahead. If if you if you had torn it down, cleared the lot now you're starting up.

If you're doing it as part of the whole project, hence the variance and it's still up. Uh and we come to the variance before any of it was removed. It's still there. Um and incidentally we could build it again there uh as well create if you've got 30 seconds of nothing you have to start over it's not that way and the law doesn't work

and that's just where I'm trying to understand it because I was talking to that empty lot actually go to blending zoning he can't say swat about it because there's nothing there for that was a prevailing time goes too fast, you know, 15 years ago uh or more here. That was a Maryland might have taken that position at one point and then then didn't that once it's a brand it's an empty lot.

Yeah. Well, and and try try so and again I correct me if I'm wrong, but like like attorney Salvach said, if they they could tear this down and rebuild it and this exact same non-conforming portion of the critical postal resource because that's the portion of their bulk stam that they don't comply to. Try as they might, once you have a house, it is a lot. You have a right to build back on it. try as they might with the new code requirements and storm water requirements and septic requirements. They could possibly need a variant. They could try as hard as they can to comply with everything,

but they might not comply with something. And you can't tell them they can't build something or they can put it back exactly where it was, still be non-compliant. That make sense? So, I mean, it's they're trying to build it. It's still going to be non-compliant somewhere, but it's going to be better than what it was. Yeah. And but of course, technically to put it on the same couldn't fit. This house has design on the same footprint because it has a different, you know, you'd have you have to redesign it. Right. Right. And I think it's a beautiful design

and they could build it the same exact footprint, size, shape, location, and be more impactful on the critical coastal resource than what they're asking. Yeah. So again, yeah, that's that's unfort Yeah. And Helen was was originally happy to live with the original footprint

and the original house. That's where she started and it's what she bought. And she didn't this didn't get acquired as a land sale or a tear down. She would have definitely preferred not to have torn it down. Uh which is what what is here. But it's I have never seen anyone raise for years now the idea that you can get you can fall into a trap if you if you clear the lot completely there for more than a second. uh and then then you've got to get a variance to basically you're you're bound to everything. So anything that doesn't conform in any respect requires variance um and where you are doing it at all as part of the city project uh so to speak then that you it's looked at the total unit prepared and I I mean I I haven't done one of those for a year here in Madison but but I've not long ago um where we left we literally moved the house out of where it was and put it next door.

Yes, we did. Cuz the next door editor wanted it and strictly was where I was because I thought I you mentioned the idea of that. I was like, "Okay, let me clarification." So, I think I'm done with my questions. This correct? Anything else from the board? Any questions? Um any final um I I think we're we've been pretty thorough. I hope tonight and thank you again for your patience. Sure. Anybody else? Do you want to before we close the

Sure. uh Kit Wilcox board member. Um as far as Mike goes, my final thoughts on it and regrets with like I said before, I like to look at it. I think somebody has another question when we get okay before we close anything.

And but at this current juncture, unless that question greatly changes stuff, um it definitely looks like it's a going to be an improvement in regards to the shoreline. It is trying to be able to pull back. They are just to be able especially with all of the taking into account all the things that are necessary and they are extremely limited as far as where they can put the uh drainage where subjects now go and everything like that and they are trying their best to be able to condense as much as possible that you know I don't have any major issues with this u application and I probably would end up approving it myself if given the opportunity You know, don't worry. There's my last. Thank you.

A song. Oh, Mr. Gowski has uh I'm I'm sure. Don't mind me. We have nobody else to mig right now. Hold on. I I don't know. I think I silenced everybody. Unmute. Mark. Oh, hi. Can you hear me? Okay. Hi. Sorry. Yep. Um

so just so I'm clear on just the variances and just the approach here. Um, do you need to have show hardship for variance or cuz the one thing I'm just trying to understand better is if you can keep this the same house and can keep the regulations and can have the drainage in place because it's a big lot. What is the I guess just understanding the ability to get variances? Is it to have a the better view or just can you just help me understand how

either there could be a hardship that goes with the land or in the absence there can also just be a reduction in an existing nonconformity we have the discretion to grant on either of those two. The key is that discretion required right that did I say that he sense Yeah. Does that answer your question mark or you you

Yeah, I guess I guess so just as I understand it the it's nonconforming today. So it's and it's looking at do you nonconform? Is that what that's our if we can approve on it, it's going to be less in the way.

The goal is to hopefully that to make a nonconformity comply if they can't with a a legal hardship to the land. If they're reducing a nonconformity, they have the discretion to approve on a reduction. Got it. Okay. Anything else from the board? So, I'd like to motion we close the public portion of the hearing and go into deliberations. Second. All in favor? Hey, since Steve, you're in person and you get the first argument with honor.

Start with a body attest to that face. You know, I hate to be the downsayer here, but I think they could easily move this house back. I don't know. Don't give me any reason why you couldn't move the drainage or anything back to that. That was going to be a hardship. So, you know, if they want to build same house back on the same footprint, then that's their choice. And I think they have the ability to move this back. and uh and be 100% conformity. So the gas

I could hear what uh he said they used a little longer. They basically said that I think they they'd be able to move this all the way 100% conformity. It's not a small lot. I don't think the even the reduction in conformity is nice, but it's not. if they still put this back all the drainage and everything then we could go in with all the zoning regulations. I think no one gave me a reason why they couldn't move the septic

fixing all these other storm water storm water base and so based upon I think the zoning rules and everything not well I you know would like to see the uh building the new uh building moved back another 10 ft or maybe even 15 ft. Uh I understand the restrictions. Um I know that we can absolute the variance uh if there's a reduction uh in the setback and but I understand I think the house is very fitting in the neighborhood. I've looked at the old house. It looks as we have seen it's not much different than the previous house. Um so in that sense uh I think the neighborhood uh is a positive development. Uh so I was somewhat reluctant to approve it but I think we need to move forward and approve it. Dennis, you want

Well, um I agree with Steve that there's there's room to move it back. I'm not so sure that we really have the ability to simply dictate that once they satisfy the criteria that is a reduction significant reduction in bond and I think this is that it is a significant reduction in nonconformity I would much prefer to have them imply entirely but it's it's assumed it is I think it does meet criteria for the uh satisfaction of the reduction of nonconformity warranty.

Yeah. So, there definitely has been some slippery slope issues like the 401 before, but I really wouldn't say this uh case is one of them. I mean I think it's a pretty clearcut uh significant reduction of nonconformities which is one of the ground we're able to grant variance on the other being of the property which I don't think is presenting here um so just based on that you know based on the I mean the everything uh about nothing about this project is particularly offensive. Um I think it's um and there's nothing so just I mean just based on those um two facts I mean that would be enough for me to grant the variance you know there's nothing objectionable about it and we have the discretion to abuse it we have solid legal grounds so I would say just those two things are enough for me in this So yeah, I would go to Dr. Marian.

Yeah. Um, Steve, I I appreciate your point. I mean, I think it's it's valid. Um, on the other hand, well, we as a group, every time somebody just does reduction, we have the privilege. Well, that's that's Well, I'm using a loose definition of opinion like I'm objectionable, right? I think like it's cuz I mean I think that I mean there could be a lot of issues like potential issues with like um property. I didn't see one in this case, right? And I mean everything about the I mean everything here seems above board and nothing. Yeah. So

that's just my

Okay. So to Steve C's point, you know, at what point do we say, okay, that's that's an induction, but you know, you got more opportunity here and you're not you're not affording yourself. And um would it behoove us to um have a continuence while we go research that particular issue? I don't I think I mean in the past I think we voted for a reduction in a project's nonconformities and I mean I I would agree. I think this is I think it's significant. Um Steve I see your point as well. Um I mean if you deny it there's always the chance that they just rebuild it the way it is. We're stuck with a house that's going to be nonconforming than if we I mean more nonconforming than if we just approved the project. So I can see validity in everybody's argument.

Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, generally it's like we we do the reduction as like a pragmatic thing because they could make the property worse. they have the legal right to but they're choosing to reduce and make a long line. So I think that's generally what we air on the side of the applicants when they you know try to reduce like this most of those small lots where they can't really do anything. So it's reduction things when they couldn't part of the hardship is they have small lot that's undersized because it's not an undersized lot. Oh yeah, but those but those were the that's why you guys do what they want.

But that's one of two the the lot constraints is one thing. The reduction nonconformities is a separate thing and and and so this obviously has the lot size to to do things of the reduction in conformities and and to that extent. Yeah. So you're saying that if it was a smaller lot, it's not necessarily you're granting on a reduction. You're granting it on the physical nonconforming small lot. They may not Right. But the applicant didn't make the argument that there's a hardship. The argument was just based on the reduction and the nonconformity. So I don't think

right that into the discussion. I don't think there was a traditional hardship being blamed at all. So yes, and I mean as far as researching I I I think you know the purpose of this board is we're you know we're representatives from the community. I don't think we need to be legal experts and obviously we're not versed like an attorney would be. I think just kind of our you know we have some discretion and we we we do have access I'd like to we do we do it gives us that ability to do

it does I just don't I think this is pretty simple that's all I don't think this is you know they're not they're not claiming any hardship they're just saying we're moving it back it's a reduction and so either we agree with that or we Oh, pretty much. Yeah,

that's that's the question. I I agree. But maybe if we were more knowledge of it exactly what the hardship sorry comes into play. Well, it's it's Do you mean the the reduction? No, I mean with with regards to the uh yeah the the reduction with regards to court bases that presidents set for what it is that constitutes r you know sufficient rationale for a reduction in quality when there are other factors such as well there's also an open room to do more and be completely

that's why why did the state come out of the but the ability to build a nice house. And this is my light my Yeah, it the question for the the attorney would not be making which it sound you may just be rephrasing it wrong. Sounding like you want the attorney to make the decision for you. You would have to have a legal question that you want to answer. Yeah. So what what is your well basically um in the absence of hardship can you can you have

precedence have precedence established that you know that that if there is opportunity for more reduction do we have the ability to say no you really need to get more reduction but I don't think that's the case I think they basically say if you have significant reduction Well, that's it. But that's basically what Richard say you on the on the the absence of a true hardship. Yeah, that's

so I'd also say look, we need a new proposal that's, you know, 10 more feet in length, right? But then we still end up with the same equation, right? Yes. So it's either 20 more feet back or nothing or keep the way it is because nothing would change, right? So legal argument as far as a legal argument is concerned. So So either we we send it back to the drawing board and say 50 ft back. you'd have to deny it to send it back and say, "Okay, you come back with another plan if you'd want to or say, "Okay, we're good with this uh you know, conformity." And that's we have the legal ability to do so. So,

the third option is just you don't need a variance. Just build on the same footprint. Yeah. Exactly. Right. No, they don't have to. They could just do it. So,

this is the as of right. Yeah, that's just So, does everyone do you want to discuss more or should we should we put it up for a vote? I don't want to force a vote if people aren't ready, but if we're ready, if we have nothing else to say, I mean, I just don't know what opinions would do. I mean, I think we just should just decide after my position. Okay. So you could um I can make a then I move deliberations and move on to uh decision.

Well, I'll make the motion for the during deliberations. Okay. Yeah, that's how we use.

Okay. So I I'm going to I'm going to make a motion that we approve uh application 26-117 Buffalo Bay to allow uh a variance to section 2.17 to allow a 30.1 foot setback. Um that variance is based on the plans as submitted and all and that all construction must conform to those plans and also we find that um the coastal site plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the coastal management act. So I get a second.

Okay. Going. So we have a second. All in favor? I I opposed. You're basing it on the reduction on the non-conform. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot to say I apologize. What's your reasoning? Yeah. Can I amend that? that uh our uh reason for our variance is based on what we mentioned non-conforming a coastal resource that's getting improved and so that was four to one then on the vote so congratulations yeah thank you

thank We got approved. Yes.

A motion to approve the January 15th, 2026 meeting. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Wonderful. I'm sorry. Who seconded? Well, someone did. I second it. Rich made the motion. Who second that motion for the minutes? Dennis state you.