Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good. Okay, I will call the meeting to order. 7:30. Uh, roll call. William Johnson here. Uh, Thomas Graffnino here. Lisa Crackler is here. Uh, Phil Jario and Lin Colligan are excused. And also present, we have via Zoom, uh, Tim Hill, ZBA attorney. Uh, first order of business is to review and approve the January 28th, 2026 minutes. Can I get a motion? I will make that motion. I'll second it. All in favor? I I

We have one application to look at this evening. 80 Cartwright Road, Pingry. I'll give you we'll give you a little brief synopsis of this one because it's been a little while. So, this applicant has an existing cottage that they are knocking down and renovating. They are building uh within the same area. It is a little bit bigger, but they're in essence replacing the existing cottage. Um, one of the reasons why they're doing this is because it lacks a foundation. Um it's half on a slab and some and some posts are holding it up for the other part. So it has some poor infrastructure. Um and the issue here that that we're looking at is that the accessory sleeping structure that they're building uh the code requires 480 square ft and they only have 270. So, they do need a variance for 210 square ft, which is almost 50% um from what is allowed by the code.

I read I I might have misunderstood it that it don't have to be 480 because you don't have a kitchen. You only got a bedroom in it and a bathroom. Um the code right here 133-7 um no the no accessory building shall have a kitchen facilities or shall be used for rental purposes. The area of any floor with accessory sleeping quarters shall not be less than 480 square ft. Yeah, but I've read it that way. But this is only a bedroom and a bathroom and a bathroom and a laundry

and a laundry. They could put it on the side of the house. They could put it on the side of the house, right? But I I understand what they're trying to do. They're just trying to It's just like a guest bedroom. Correct. And it And it's with this one, it was an already existing structure. I know part of it is that they it's not they're not keeping any of it and they are demoing it down to the foundation, right? Which to me is a brand new build. Um this one, however, it's not there's no setback issues. No.

Um which is different from other ones that we've seen this size come across our table here. And even though it's bigger, it's still going in that existing spot. Right. Yeah. So I I I did some calculations. So the current one, the current guest bedroom piece of that, it's very small on here, but it's 90.25 ft and the new guest bedroom is going to be 187 square ft. So they are increasing it, right? Which is better, more in linement with the code. Yeah. Still lacking.

I know it's still lacking double sides. Yeah. And the correct. Um and then I I have another calculation that I was looking at. My question is is uh the this not a rentable piece. Correct. If it was a rentalable space, it would have to be definitely 40. Correct. Yes. And even by town code, this cannot be used for rental purposes.

Right. That's why I don't think it's it's that bad because right it's their own use not rentable space.

Yeah. So I would just note that um the what what everybody's saying may be reasons to grant this as a variance. Um but you are working from the building inspector's denial. You know that interpretation of the code is what it is. This is not an appeal from that interpretation. Um it's a request for the variance relief from that and the result may be the same. But just to be clear, I if if there was an inclination to grant it, it would be on the basis of relaxing that not interpreting it to mean that you know the the 480 should or shouldn't be um you know included um because of the kitchen or not.

Correct. All right. I was saying to be correction. No, not not a correction. Just just clarification. Yeah. All right, we'll take it. Um I know there was some question and discussion about the laundry facility um as well. Um cuz that would if if there was no laundry that would warrant them to be able to actually increase the livable space to be more comp with the code. The applicant did say that the laundry in the main house was not in a good location, which is why they wanted to move it out into this accessory structure here. Um, I don't know if everyone

that's correct. Okay. With that said, okay. Um, what else? What else does every anyone have any other notes on this one? Any other thoughts? No. Um this there there is an attic space up in here. Um and it it's indicated that it's going to be used for storage. I guess I would just want to make sure that it would not be used space cuz it does have an outside entrance. It does.

Wasn't there something with the height in that? Uh there is. Not really. Yes. Varies from 2T to 7 ft 8 in. Right. That came up. Yeah. Does anyone have anything else on this that they want to bring up from their notes? Tim, before we go to the the worksheet, Tim, is there anything else that you think we missed on this one? No, I think you're focused on the right things.

All right, then I think um one minute we can move to the checklist. Checklist. Yep. Okay. So, this is again for an area variance, right? whether the undesirable change would be produced in character of sorry whether an undesirable change would be it's missing a word in there sorry would be produced in character so I'll add lib here yeah this uh this is actually are these different shouldn't be the the question is whether

whether granting the variance would produce Oh yeah, the printer. No, it printed funny. But anyway, whether an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. I would say no. Yep. It's it you know this this structure was already there. They are making improvements to it. Bringing up the code say bringing up the code cuz it's so old they all built it. Mhm. And what would and it was existing you know the structure was before zoning it was before zoning

whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. So I mean Punch did bring up a good point where you could add on to the house an extra bedroom if that's you know what you wanted. Um, they could also, I mean, we did bring up, you know, if they wanted to make it, they do have the space to actually make it bigger to comply with that 480 square ft. Um, but I I will say it it might become a little unbalanced in relationship to the main house. So, what do we We're not trying to make a bigger structure there. app. Mhm.

It's a little bit bigger but not a big grand. So with the benefits off the app it can be achieved by feasible alternative. What do we want to say? Yes or no here? I mean in reality it could be yes but um okay and those those things play off each other, right? So if it if it was built um in a more conforming way meaning bigger then the effect on the character of the neighborhood correct might go in the other direction. So yes right

uh whether the requested variance is substantial. I'm going to go ahead and say yes again because it is almost uh 50% um from what is allowed by code. That's how I'm basing that answer unless any anyone else has a yes I agree with you. Yes, more than 50% but also that that they did increase the size of the quarters by 50% of what was existing originally. Yep. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood? I'm going to say no.

I agree. I can't see any, you know, this was already um it was already as a guest room. It was already there. It's it's remaining against a guest room and it's it's pretty much staying in that same place. It's not going to It's Yep. uh whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Yes. Yes. Uh they want to renovate and and rebuild this structure. Um so determination uh after taking into consideration the above factors the ZBA finds that

um the benefit of the applicant does outweigh the does this is like the double negative here Tim double negative here coming into play the benefit of the application outweighs the detriment into the you know community. Yeah. Neighbor one. Okay. The second the second one.

And do we want to put any conditions on this? Do we foresee any conditions needed to be in the resolution? I can't see one especially now. You know, we talked about the the attic space, you know. Right. I don't remember from it. The septic that from that little building is I think you're going to have to put I think you might have to put IA in. I don't have a note on that. I don't either.

They're updating it. So have it would have to go into a that's existing if they have the requirement. Yeah, it's it's not the board doesn't need to impose it as a condition. Um, you know, I I think that they're restricted by the code because the only thing I would be, you know, I wouldn't want it to be kitchen or rental purposes, but the code already I think we're good there. Okay. We don't see any conditions.

Okay. All right. Does anyone have anything else that we need to discuss at this meeting? Nothing. Okay. Can I get a motion to close the meeting? I'll make that motion. I'll second it. All in favor? I. Thank you very much. Meeting adjourned at 7:44. Byebye.