Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening ladies and gentlemen and I would like to welcome uh everybody here who is assembly and those on watching on YouTube via YouTube uh to the Winchester uh zoning board of appeals uh October meeting held here in the Francis P. Hicks room, Winchester Town Hall, Winstead, Connecticut. Uh, present tonight, I'm Aubrey English, board chairman. Uh, present. Also tonight are members Maryanne Marino, Ellie Gun, Paul Mitchell, and Ryan Horvy. And tonight, we would also like to welcome our newest alternate member, Mr. Tom Cook. Welcome aboard. We thank you for

Thank you. Thank you for uh uh giving up a night out of your month to come and be with us and to help serve your town as well too. So

uh for those who um may not be familiar with the procedures and how we uh conduct these meetings here, uh each application will be called uh accordingly. The applicant will come forward and uh present their application to the board. the board members will then have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant uh and or their representative that may be here as well. Uh after such time I will then open the meeting to a uh uh the public forum here to any members of the public who are uh in be seated in the audience to ask any questions of the applicant. And um as for for uh and just as a procedural matter, I would ask that all uh comments or questions be directed to the chair and the chair will then disperse the question to the appropriate person as well too. Uh once the public forum is closed, uh the motion will be read into the record. Uh discussion will be have amongst the board members after the uh applicant has their final word uh for their application. And once that is all done, discussion is had amongst the board. A vote will be taken and you will have uh the option or you will have your decision this evening either yay or nay. So um and um so with that

question you ask the chairman questions and then

yes but yes in other words don't speak to the don't speak in other words I don't want I don't want there to be you know any debate going back and forth between you know uh um in the applica excuse me, the applicant or the other member of the public as well, too. It's more or less a matter of order, too. We're not going to have you guys going back and forth and debating each other. We're the board here. You're presenting the matter before us. I have no problem using this gavl to just basically put order to keep regular order as well too. So, um is there any other questions before we begin hearing? None. I will go ahead and uh call up GBA application GBA 2511 uh variance for 207 Perch Rock Trail.

Uh what go are you are you with the application? I mean I'm home. Okay. Yeah. If you'd have a seat and I just would ask if you would just kind of tap that microphone to until you see green so we can hear you. Hit the microphone. There you go. Yeah. Right there. Have a seat. Or did do I'm Kathleen Frell. I'm the homeowner. Okay. Miss Frell, did you have did you have a comment before we began or No. Okay. Uh why don't you go ahead and u Yeah. Name address for the record and go ahead and tell us about your application.

Kathleen Frell, 207 Perch Rock Trail. And I am looking to um increase the depth of my deck by um did we say one or two? Two feet. What what seems to be the uh issue that has brought you before us tonight here tonight for the variance?

Um it's just it's not um I didn't think when I um I thought it was going to be more of a walkway, but after moving into the house, it's really more of an access point for me. So, I can't really safely put a chair there. I also have windows that open up. So, um for example, I do a lot of babysitting for the neighbors kids. So, I have to be careful when they're coming. And I have to make sure windows are closed because they're right at the height where they can catch a window. So just to have a little bit more safe, comfortable passage. Okay, that's it. Okay. Um, any members of the board have a question for Miss Ferrell. Any questions?

Um, the egress in and out. Is there more than just um that entrance? There's one in there's uh one in the back of the house, right? Uh if you go up to the um end of the driveway to the back, you can come in the house that way. And then the front is on that patio head that deck. Yes. Yeah. There's another entrance in the front. It's kind of a all glass sun kind of an area. So I didn't really think it was going to be anything more than a just come into the house. But um you know, I like to sit out there and I really can't even put a chair out there because it's it's right at the edge of the edge of the deck. Yeah. I have one question.

What when um when the deck was was built, was this the original size of the deck?

No, like I said, it was originally built to be just kind of a walkway because I didn't really think I'd be sitting out there. I thought it was just going to be like a transport area, you know, if I have to come in the front of the house. And then um not realizing that the windows that I put in are they're pretty sizable windows. They're casement windows. And um didn't realize that until we almost caught a little one on the corner of their chin. And then I so we keep those I I say we it's just me. I keep the windows closed. And then when I realized, oh, this might be kind of a nice place to sit and watch the world go by. Um I really couldn't move on my chair because I didn't have a lot of wiggle room. It was so It was 36 inches in the beginning. It's just not like if you get any kind of a decent type chair and I'm not talking like big long furniture. I'm talking just two chairs on either side.

So the deck is only four feet now. It's Yeah, it's just I can't tell from the thing. Is [clears throat] it four feet in the house? Okay. Yeah. So, like I said, it was really more of just a a passageway and then I realized, you know, I'd really rather maybe sit out there. I mean, it's not going to be big enough to put tables or anything. It's really just I'm hoping to make it just big enough to put, you know, like an adult-siz chair. So I guess from our perspective the the hard the hardship in this particular instance is that the the the design of the deck was too small in the beginning when it was constructed and and now realizing after living I had no railing on it since it was built and that's the other thing I want to get a decision one way or the other so that I can either so you can finish it up.

Yeah. Cuz so right now like I really get nervous if anyone's even coming up and down because there's no railing on it. So, so the hard the hardship of it is that it's it was designed too small in the beginning basically. Correct. That was me. I understand. Um there's the um and I'm just looking here. Does that go to like a an entrance to your house as well too? It's the front that's the front entrance there. Yeah. So, so in other words, let me just just ask a question. Say for example, you had an emergency situation and you need an ambulance needed to get a stretcher up there. Would it be smart to go in the back? Because they probably at this point in time there'd be a difficulty. So, it' be kind of a safety issue.

It would be hard. Uh they wouldn't really I don't think I don't think they'd be able to turn it enough to get it in. They would probably have to be very creative or go that but that's in the condition the deck's in now. Yeah. It's just be tough. If it was if it was enlarged or something, would this would this eliminate the problem, too? Yeah. If it Yeah. If we didn't if if I left it the way it is now with no railing, they could maybe extend the gurnie over to like turn it into the house. But if if you didn't approve it and we put the I put a railing up, they'd have to go in the back of the house. Okay. All right. I can show you a picture if you want. I submitted some, but I have some on my phone. If that helps you visualize it.

Um, anyone need to see a picture or No, I drove by. Okay. So, currently there's a step up, right? stairway up and you turn around and and go into the front of um that's getting eliminated, right? Well, I don't know. Yeah, I'm just asking because I want to understand where the steps will go. Steps are um on the side of the deck. So, you walk up and you turn around and you go up, turn around and then go into the house. Okay. So, the stairs will remain where they are. They're the stairs will remain where they are. Um the front of it is gonna come out. Yeah. We have any Oh, go ahead.

I just have one question. Is this becoming more conforming or less conforming the the addition of the deck to the current rules become less less conforming? This addition the the deck I know it's minor, but the deck the So the addition of the deck which she's asking for is becoming less conforming. She's getting closer to her front property line, which is 99 is what the correct. She had a she already had a variance originally for the 119 and now it's going to be 99 to the front property line. And the reason for the variance is is safety or or just I'm just asking to is the reason that's part of it. Yeah.

The reason for the variance is safety and the previous design doesn't meet your your needs particularly. it it doesn't meet the needs because it it's not safe right now. Like without a railing, it wouldn't be safe for little ones or even as as I age in place, it would probably not be something that I would be comfortable using. Um that extra foot just gives you enough to have like just a decent size chair without worrying about going over the edge or even hitting a railing if a railing were to be put up. I just haven't put a railing up yet because I had a feeling I'd probably have to ask for a variance. No, I got it. Yeah. Do we have any more questions from the board?

Does it does not impede public safety any any in any way from anybody being closer to the road or anything like that? No, it's actually when you look at it like it's 9 ft 9 in from the true property line, but there's probably another 15 feet of natural earth from the road not being in the same spot it was originally. So, not that that means that you can build closer to the physical street, but when you look at it, it doesn't look like it's 9 ft from the road, you know? Yeah. It looks further, right? Yeah. Yeah. Because it's not 9 ft to the side of the road, it's 9 ft to the setback.

When was the original variance approved? Um, that was in um 2023. January 2023. I I think I seem to recall that now. Was back at that time if if this is the same uh one of this is the same variance that I recall here too. Wasn't the time your the uh the the the porch very um or the deck at the time or the walkway very rotted out. Oh, that was Yeah, it was you couldn't even it was just falling apart. They didn't use pressuretreated wood. It was Yeah, you couldn't even You couldn't even use that. I recall I recall that now because I asked the same question.

And it was also like this. They didn't build the the stairs to code. I I don't know who did it, but it was the pitch wasn't right. It was Okay. Yeah. All right. I have a question for the board. Um, do we need to show on on this um like others do like an architectural drawing showing safety guardrails and handrails and footings and things like that? Or is this I mean, I think that's a building official. Okay. You know, when she pulls their permits, the building official will make sure that's all the code. Okay. They'll have to make sure that it's the code. Okay. Any other

Yeah, that's what I was driving at with my question about when it was approved because uh she got a permit to put it in as is with the windows as they are and somehow that was deemed to be the code. Well, this is before my time so but what it was deemed to be code? Well, I'm just because now we're talking about it being a safety issue, but it's a safety issue caused by I think it's more of a safety issue when you look at actual space to maneuver if there was an emergency. Well, right. But that's not what I'm driving at. What I'm driving at is that this project was approved

and it was built and it wasn't called out as a safety issue at the time. the deck part was called out as a safety issue because I don't remember who it was but one of the gentlemen on the board brought up the point you brought up and I don't remember recall who it was but said that this this would be a safety issue if there were an emergency and that would have been it would have been you. Yeah. So we didn't I don't believe we took the windows into consideration at that point in time. It was really more the access the physical walking access path that was the only thing that was

Yeah. The the issue was back if I if I recall there too that that just the deck itself was so rotted out. It was so unsafe to walk on there and if you needed to get like a stretcher or if like a fire crew needed or they need any other public safety unit needed access needed access it would be a safety issue as well for them as well. Right. But it sounds like the current safety issue isn't that it's rotting. It's that the windows when open uh make it impossible for someone to walk around them. They don't make it impossible. They make it cautionary. So the extra foot would allow for the windows to be open and not have to really maneuver worry about maneuvering around a window. So that current excuse me that current depth is four feet now.

Yeah. You can open the windows, but but that area is four feet deep, correct? And then and you're adding a foot to it. Two feet. [clears throat] So it's going to be six feet wide, which is a lot more stable in my mind. Right. Right. I guess I'm just trying to understand how it got approved and built in a way that was then [laughter] I don't think it we're so I guess I guess the hardship we're discussing like like wait no go ahead. So the hardship is is is [clears throat] in fact self-inflicted by design of of the of the deck.

Yes. So, so that that is the the hardship and we need to decide whether that that is [snorts] acceptable to grant the variance if that makes sense to everybody else on the board and it doesn't impose like a safety or public hazard or anything like that. And and just to clarify too, you're looking at just extending the boards. You're not even adding concrete peers or anything. You're just modifying what you already

No, I what I am going to do because um my contractor um Sean Kinsman, he's local. So, um, we'll probably since you're going to have to sister Joyce, um, sister Joyce up to like two feet. For me personally, I know you can go you can use the existing techno post. I personally would feel more comfortable. I mean, they're 200 bucks a pop. I'd feel more comfort doing the drill the No, I'm going to hire technopost to come. Yeah, they did the original. But, but you're not you're not pouring concrete or anything.

No, no, no, no. That's the whole purpose of technopost. Yeah, there's no other structure. No. All right. Any further questions? This time I'll open this hearing to many members of the public who wish to ask any questions uh of the applicant or wish to offer any comment in favor or in opposition. Any members of the public? Any members of the public? Last and final call. Any members of the public wish to speak to this application? Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing uh portion of this hearing and M. Fellow, I'll go ahead and give you the last word.

That's going to depend on what you say. [laughter] My last word could go either way. In other words, I'm inviting you if you have any final uh any final thoughts you wish to have to for have anything for have this board to consider. We beat this horse to death. We know. Yeah. It's just up to you now, sir.

Okay. All right. Thank you, ma'am. And I'll go ahead and uh close the hearing. And um I will go ahead and read the following motion into the record. Uh motion to grant variances per section 3D5C of the zoning regulations for application ZBA 2511. Add additional 2 ft of decking with the following request for variance. front yard variance of 40.1 ft from existing 11.9 ft setback to a proposed 9.9 ft setback. Do we have a second? Second.

Motion has been made in a second. Do we have any discussion? Discussion. Uh hearing no discussion. I'll go ahead and uh call for a vote of the full sitting members here. All me all all those in favor. All oppose. Okay. Three to two. Unfortunately, um, Mr. Frell, um, and one thing I did forget u to bring up at the beginning of the meeting here, um, the application has to have four affirmative votes to uh to pass and with the there still being a three to two majority there did not have the four votes to to pass. So unfortunately, we cannot approve the application at this time.

Can I ask why? What are you two opposing? Well, no, these two. I was just cur Well, once once the once once the hearing is closed, we can't have any further discussion on that, too. I mean, you I mean, you can feel free to come to to um revoke, you know, come before us again here if you have any revisions or to uh But how do we know what to revise if we don't know why it's being turned down? Well, like I say, um I would I would say look, we can we can get um Yeah, I just I I I don't think we can have

We don't have to do it now. I'm just curious. I I don't know what to fix if I don't know why it's being turned down. So, is there a forum? Is there an opportunity at some outside of this forum? So, something we we can fix. Well, you'll have to you'll have you can discuss it here in the in the building office as well, too. Just just I mean once the hearing is closed there, we can't have any further discussion on that there. Okay. But yeah, you feel free to talk with Shane in the building office and and and go over uh options for us going going for the future. Okay. So, you'll survey these two and find out what the No, we can we'll have a we can have a discussion. You, me, Jeff, and the land use office, but they're the ones that said no.

But it's a variance. So, there's got to be something that they could advise you how to approach this in another variance type way. They need to justify the answer or their rationale for it. Building committee can help you to try to find another solution to what you want to do. But if I've done everything the way the town has asked, I can't make things up to do it again. I'm just explaining how No, I know. I just we should be able to [clears throat] have a forum to understand what is the concern is so we can adjudicate the the concern because I I'd be happy to try and adjudicate it. I just don't know what the concerns are of the two folks. I'm sorry. Yeah.

Yeah. You'll have again you'll have to just talk with Shane about that as well too in the building office here. But here the we've closed we've closed the hearing. The decision the decision has been made. So okay. Interesting.

Okay. We are now moving to application number GBA 25-9 variance for 504 East Wakefield Boulevard. Applicants are please welcome to come forward and take the seat up at the table. Yes. I I signed my Oh. Oh, I Yeah,

I did. I'm sorry about that. I missed it. That's why I That's fine. See my good. Okay. Nice. Okay. [clears throat] Are we about ready or we still?

Yeah. Go ahead.

Okay. Um and uh I will preface this hearing and u I will just make the following remarks here that understandably from the last meeting we had on this issue here too I understand there's passion on both sides of of of the issue as well too I will just remind all uh persons in the audience to please just direct comments to the chair we're not going to be arguing back and forth you know amongst each other here we are a sitting board, you're addressing us, okay? We're the decision makers. We're the policy decision makers on this board as well, too. Okay? So, all comments, please make before us. And if I feel if I also um see that uh points are just continuing to be made and remade and remade one way or the other, I will have no problem just saying let's get to the point here because we we you know, we were here for two hours last time on this one this one issue here as well, too. So, I have no problem. Like I say, just speak your uh to have you state your case. Uh but we should do it in a more timely manner. That's all we'll say as far as that goes. You may go ahead and you may go ahead, sir.

I'm Sean Stanziel, 504 East Wakefield Boulevard. Kyle Case, professional engineer on the project for KCC. Excuse me. Could you speak up? I have a hard time hearing you. No problem. Kyle Casease, a professional engineer on for the project, KCC Consulting.

We're our proposal is to remove our garage and attach it to the home. Previously, we went in front of the ZBA and the Inland Wetlands. Um, we listened to everyone's concerns and we met with Jeremy, Jeff, and Shane. and under all their advisement, we made some changes to our property. Each aspect of this project has improved the situation. We are now there's a non-conforming garage that we are removing and attaching it to our house. We're improving the distance from the property line from each uh neighbor on the north and south side. Um we we've improved the impervious surface and we feel that the project now meets all the requirements per the letter that Jeremy had sent sent the board for the adden um revision um plan. So the and the project previously had an approval in 2022 that met all the requirements of the variance as well and special exception. Is there any questions that anyone has?

I'll let this if this does that conclude your initial presentation the case. Did you want to add on to that?

I'll take you through what we're proposing to do in a more detailed manner. So up on the screen now is the existing condition here. So we have the existing garage, existing house, um existing driveway, existing shed. That that's pretty much the only thing that really is the only thing that's going to stay. The shed's going to stay in the same location as will the the existing well, which is down by the garage, and the existing um sewer grinder pump. So it's gives you a feel for existing conditions. And this is our new proposal. So, previously we had the the garage in line with this corner of the house. We've shifted it further to keep it further away from the property line than it currently is in its current position. The southern side of the property, we've also shrunk the entire struct the the structure has shrunken to move that further away from the property. And all these setbacks that we were trying to meet were from the previously approved variance application in application 21-5261. So to go through the zoning table here, the existing lot is 13,100 ft and that's not going to change the lot widths 50. That's remaining consistent. The front yard is going to since we're removing the garage is going to grow from 67 to 111.7 ft. Uh the minimum sideyards currently approved under the previous variance was 2.1 ft from the north side and nine feet from the south side. And we've adjusted those have become less non-conforming by a half a foot on the north side and almost three and a half feet on the southern side. The rear yard setback was

previously granted to be 31 feet and we're 32.2 ft to the the deck and over 40 feet to the the house structure. The building height is approximately going to be 26 feet plus or minus um based on the average height from the the walkout basement to the the average roof height which is slightly higher than what the previous approval um approved. The house plans that weren't non-conforming at that point either still isn't the impervious coverage. Um, so you granted 15%, the previous approval they had LI measures which we're also going to incorporate and I can watch you do that [laughter] in a minute was 35% and this one comes in at 34.6%. So we're improving that condition as well. And then the accessibility structure is 9 ft currently 3.1 ft and proposed to be increased to 3.2 feet. So slightly better but better for our imperous surface. We have our infiltration trench down below the the retain the stairs to the the lower portion of the the rear yard. That's going to take runoff from the house. Um then we also we're also going to utilize pvious pavers for the the walkways down to the the lower patio and to the the stairs that go up to the deck. So that that gets us a little bit of relief from the [clears throat] the runoff. And lastly, like the the driveway currently just runs down along the house. If we were to look at the existing plan, I can bring back there way. It's graded all runs down and then just all runs right down into the the lake. The the proposed driveway is to be graded

away from the northern from the north to the south. at 1% and it's going to all that. It's not a structural um improvement technique. There's no you're not building anything for it. But the storm water manual allows you to use sheet flow, which is just water draining off a hard surface onto a a lawn surface, which is what we're going to have here. So, it's it's called a non-structural um low low impact development technique. So that's what we're utilizing for a lot of the driveway runoff. It'll be able to filter through the grass down. And then we have stone rip wrap stone slopes on each side, but that'll also capture more of the the contaminants as it makes its way down towards the lake. And then here's a compare here's our comparison of the impervious surface showing what's staying and what's what's going. So the lake wall is staying. It's just being altered as to where the stairs are. The shed is staying. The big reduction comes from the driveway. You're reducing that by a considerable amount, 33% or so. The existing walkways and patios are also a slight slight reduction. The house is is growing, but not by as much as it seems because the garage is being attached to it. So that that increases but the the net is a is a decrease from existing and previous prior approvals. This is our erosion and sediment control plan just showing how we're going to handle the runoff during the course of the project. [snorts] We have our construction access temporary stockpile. We have our erosion control matting and temporary seating and straw waddle check dams. And this just brings you through our ENS

standards, control narrative, and then the details for ENS. And these are the typical details for the project. Here's our per permeable PA detail, which is sized for the 1.3 inches of rain runoff that the storm water quality manual dictates. And here's elevation of the the house just showing what the the view from the lake will look like with the retaining wall. And then so we also have since I mentioned prior approval that's what I've put together here is a compilation of the two projects. So in red will be what was previously granted for the variance under 21-20 5261 and the black indicates what we're proposing this time. So if we zoom in on the house we can see that the the house is within the footprint of the prior approval. The wood deck in in the rear is essentially the same size. There is no more wood deck on the southern side of the the prop uh the structure and the covered porch is being reduced and the the garage is being shifted essentially straight back parallel with the northern property line to maintain a setback further than what is currently there. And then shows what the previous driveway looks like over in this area, which is also a benefit for safety concerns with the driveway pulling in and out of the driveway. You have a better sight line at this point with the

the new proposed driveway layout. Oops. And this was the the previous engineers site plan. That's what we're proposing. And if there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer anything. Can I ask a question? Yeah, sure. What? So, this proposal was previously approved. The proposal you're proposing right now?

No. So, there was a prior approval that granted approval for the house to be expanded. There was an proposed addition. The garage was going to stay where it was under the prior. So, the only change is moving the garage forward and you're not going closer to the adjoining neighbors. Correct. You're going just I just want to make sure I understand correctly. Um so, you're [clears throat] moving the garage to the front. You're not going any closer. And and the previous um plan that you submitted had the the garage over towards that jog. If you put the mouse over there, prior plan we submitted the garage was I think 8.7 ft from the property

and now it's moving away from the adjoining neighbor and the and the garage is basically the same size. You're reducing everything. So the garage actually got reduced as well. Uh we shrunk the the depth of the garage by a couple feet. So instead of coming out further, it got scrunched down from I think it was 22 feet to 19 and a half ft. The hardship is so you can pull in your garage, walk in your house, not pull in your garage, have to park your car, walk through a dark or whatever pathway.

I don't know if that's the hardship, not to interrupt you, but that's the one of the benefits of it, right? I think the the hardship was the lay of the land itself, the ledge, the I think we talked last time about the the differences in heights and I think you Marian actually asked them to move the property move the garage over and one of the concerns was what that did to how much they had to blast. Yeah, it's unique to that parcel. So the hardship is unique to this parcel, not to the zone.

Right. So they they they have there there's a legitimate hardship that is unique to this parcel. They have a lot of ledge on that side. They're trying to work around it. They have a garage that's close to the road. They're trying to use the garage for safety. As you get older, you want to walk it through your car to your house. I think for for things like that. I just want to be on the same page. Everybody said that's just by our by our current definitions and they're reducing the impervious coverage. received a letter from Jeremy.

Uh, may I ask a question? Absolutely. Um, will the garage stay 20.67 ft as was previously approved? In terms of its height, yeah, there is no change to the height of the garage from the previous the structure. I didn't get that answer. Would you Could you repeat that answer? Uh there has been no change to the size of the structure for height from the last time that we we met. Okay. It shifted over roughly 5 ft away from the Pollock property. This this garage

I just I saw it earlier that in the previous plans it was approved at 20.67 ft high. Well, I think that was the existing garage. that happens there today. No, that was the pre he was showing us the chart of what was approved. That garage doesn't change. That garage is there now. Right. That's not what I'm asking though. What I'm asking is is the height the same as what was approved in the last application that was approved, which was the chart that we were being shown earlier. Yes, it is. Um, and then the other question I have is you've reduced the depth of the garage, but it looks like you've expanded the width of the garage.

No, the garage stayed the same width. It just shrunk. And the reason for that is to meet all the requirements not to touch. So, here's a markup of what the proposed changes to the floor floor plan were. So we we shrunk it from 23 to to 20 foot 10 and then just shifted it six feet. So 23 is the width of the existing garage. 23 is the width of the existing garage. That stayed the same and then the depth of it was also 23 and that got reduced by two feet. Almost three feet. And the height of the house meets all the requirements now. Yeah.

We feel we met every requirement. the board had asked it and meeting with Jeremy and Shane and Jeff. So the addition does not go any closer to the adjoining neighbor in in any part of this further away. It goes further away. Yeah. So this project goes further away from the adjoining neighbor. Yeah. So he was 14 both neighbors. Both sides on both sides. Mr. Spe, did you want to add to that? I was just going to say the well doesn't have to. I'm sorry. The well doesn't have to. That was the requirement. The concern was that got broken. Okay. Uh any other questions or comments from the board?

Right. And it looks like the grinder pump stays where it is now. Yeah. And better water conservation too from from the looks of it. Yeah. We improve that more thought into that with the perable pavers for the sidewalks and still keeping that um infiltration trench plus the the runoff from the the driveway being directed to just kind of spread out over the lawn area.

And Mr. Cook, if like I should may also mention this to you as a as an alternate member to you feel free to chime in as far as the discussion on the initial questions and whatnot. uh just when the time comes for discussion on once the motion's been made and discussed if you're not being seated at that moment as a full member anything uh the discussion would just be amongst the voting members as well too. Uh but yeah, if you have any questions or comments please at the moment please feel free to chime in as well too. Do we have any other questions or comments?

Okay, hearing none at this time. May I add one more thing? Please do.

Um I I really appreciate the board at great expense. I've $30,000 into this at this point and time in meeting the the town's requirements. One request that I may ask is that I have to spend the money on my engineers. Actually, the town I have to hire an engineer to represent the town soil scientists at the request of inland wetlands and any concerns that the public has, I would ask the board consider if they're not drawn up by an engineer. I have to present everything. I couldn't come to the board with handdrawn and any concern that my engineer ha that anyone has with my engineer that it is another engineer stating that my is the only request that I have because I feel like I need to come with professional drawings that anyone that comes in and questions it it's I don't believe it's right to question a survey or an engineer that are professionals at their job and that that would be one of my requests. We we al we welcome all the representation you have by the the engineers and and surveyors and the professional expertise or knowledge that uh helps add to your case as well too. Um everything but like I say everything that is presented before us we take under advisement there too. Uh but again with we we have all all respect and all uh uh all all respect towards the and appreciation for all those who come before us. You know I I understand this this costs a great deal of money as well too completely. This this this does not escape our attention as well too. So

may I add something to that? Is that okay? Go ahead to answer you. Um uh I I guess just in the in the spirit of a public hearing that the public can you know speak. However, you know since you did do all these think uh you know measures that that is a you know hiring a professional engineer that is a professional benchmark that just speaking for myself as a board member I will look at over just a concern that's Maybe not like a a non-tangible concern where it that that's just from my perspective of of it.

Thank you. Uh anything further before we open up the public hearing. Okay. We'll give we'll give you the opportunity at the end here if you have any further remarks. Okay.

Um at this time, if there's no further questions from the board, um I will go ahead and open the public comment form of this meeting. uh of this hearing. If uh any members of the public has any questions, comments, concerns, uh please please feel free to address them before this board. Uh please address them questions and comments to the board. And again, like like I say, we will try to get your questions answered as best as possible, but we must observe regular order here. So, any members of the public who wish to speak to this application, I see three hands. I saw one that hand go up first. Please identify yourself, your name, address. Sean Pollock. I'm the next door neighbor. Your address, please. 502 East.

Thank you, sir. You have a question or comment? I like I have a presentation. Okay. You if if all three of you together, right? Yes. You [clears throat] go ahead. Go ahead. Come up and um and uh make your presentation.

Mr. Stansi, explain that. costing him a lot of money. I just want to put it on the record. I have an attorney now and I've been paying thousands of dollars also. So, I just want to make it known that the monetary hardship just doesn't fall on him. It also falls on me. I'm a retired individual and [clears throat] he works full time. So, I just wanted to make that point. Maybe I'll put this down for now. I have a couple of surveys that I wanted to show here, but before I start, I had something. I'm a little bit surprised um to hear about how much the town of Winston um tries to help all the applicants um get what they want and u I I can see that uh to some degree, but um it seems like they're bending over backwards a little bit. So before I start, I want to uh say a couple of things. Uh, first of all, when I spoke my when I spoke to my attorney this afternoon, he mentioned that for the record, I should state this.

So, this is for the record. [clears throat]

First of all, Mr. Sani mentioned that he's relying on the Adulusen case versus the ZBA in the town of Fairfield. That case has absolutely nothing to do with variances. It was a case that was related to a use variance and [clears throat] has no bearing on this application. What it was was a it was a factory that was an aluminum factory. It was closed in Fairfield, Connecticut and then afterwards an auto repair shop moved into that. These are commercial businesses. They're not residential. relying on the Adelfent case has nothing to do with this case.

And the reason is because like just to repeat it, it's not it's not a land variance. It's a use variance. It's more related to the manufacturing or whatever the problem is. So that's coming from somebody that is uh very familiar with a land use attorney, not state law. Okay, please proceed. And then also uh two of the judges in that case disagreed completely with the findings. Okay, please almost 40 years old and it's not on point.

All right. Also, there is no hardship here. Mr. Stanzial and his family were granted an approval. I think it was in 2021 to build a threebedroom house which was a large house. He was allowed to put an addition on his garage and put a second floor on there and he just keeps coming back and he wants something larger and larger and larger and it is not the same footprint. So again, there is no hardship here. Therefore, this variance should not be approved. And also I'm requesting I know it's not going to happen, but I'm requesting that the zoning board of appeals does not hear this variance request tonight for application 25-12 as it is very similar to the August application 25-10 that we heard two months ago and that was denied

and just to back that up a little that the the CGS state law specifically says and this is probably the bearings are to be granted very sparingly and only to the minimum extent necessary to allow the property owner to be the property to be used for the for the least the least intense use.

Okay, let me let me if I may pause have you pause for just a second. The application understand that you did requesting that the this application not be heard. The application has started to be heard. So that is denied. And sec and secondly, um he does have if if if an application was rejected, he does have a right to come back and make any other changes to to as far as far as um but it's very similar. Okay. Okay. But that's what this hearing is for and this is why we are hearing this this application. I wanted to put my comments in for public record. That's for the public record. Okay. Thank you. I want to add for the public record. May I ask a question please? Well, uh, one real quick one.

You mentioned a change of use. What's the change of use? It's a residential property. Okay. It's a very good question. Okay. The Dolphinsson case had to do with the industrial um industrial section uh in Fairfield, Connecticut. Yeah. No, but we're talking about residential housing. What's the change of use? That's just it. It's this change of use. That's all I'm asking. There's no change has nothing to do with this. I don't I don't even know anything about that. I'm asking what's the change of use in this in this instance. It's a res. That's not what he was saying. We're not saying that really to be

I'm saying that there he he was relying his first opening statement was that he wants to use the Dulas case and my ears perked up when he said that. And when I spoke to my attorney this afternoon, he mentioned to me that does not apply. And I read the case a couple times and I have a copy of it and it says that is for the industrial and it was a factory that made Alunaman and they went out of business and then um somebody decided to buy the property and they took the property over and they put it as an auto repair business and it was less non-conforming and then the judge uh allowed as a variance to change. I I don't I don't know if you're you may be getting it. I don't want to be rude if you're not,

but it has nothing to do with residential. What the what our understanding of is of is after having been explained to us is that this doesn't it it doesn't have any bearing on this variance because it's it's it's called a use variance like what it's being used for is No, I understand. I'm not trying to interrupt you. His use, please. I'm not trying to interrupt you. That's what I'm talking about is reasonable use and reasonable use is that he that he should be allowed to have reasonable use of his property. He does have it because he already has a variance.

I'm asking the applicant is not asking for a change of use. Am I correct in saying that they're not asking for a change of use the cases and all that stuff I know absolutely nothing about. I'm asking the applicant this application does not they're not asking for a change of use to the current regulations that we follow. They are not asking for a change of use. all the legal stuff and if he said that it has no bearing on any of this, right? I believe that he has precedent for hardship. He's citing Adulus as a hardship case in point and they're saying that adulthus doesn't pertain because it's it's commercial versus residential and and both

industrial also. So both could be right or wrong. It's like I understand it's it's kind of like irrelevant to what we're listening to. It's not irrelevant. That was the first thing they mention. Actually, it really isn't irrelevant and it's not Well, they're not asking for a change of use currently at this meeting. We're not we're not we are not voting on a change of use. So, the on the letter from Jeff, it's it lists the adult facility exception to the hardship requirement. That is incorrect. And that's incorrect. I'm just I I understand not on point.

Okay, let me finish the exception to the hard and then it lists all a series of court hearings that followed the adulson case, right? So the very first one is the one you're speaking of as Adulson vers zoning board of appeals town of Fairfield, which is exactly what you stated. That's where it began. That's 100% accurate. It has nothing to do with what we're seeing today. Follow it further down. There are 13 cases listed here. Neighborhood association vers zoning board of appeals town of Westport. It was used in that to grant a variance for reconstruction of non-conforming house setbacks and coverage based on elimination or reduction of the nonconformities upheld where court found no adverse effect on the comprehensive zoning plan. Excuse me. The next one, Simpson Simson vers Darian zoning board. Non-conforming home, less non-conforming. It is used in multiple court hearings exactly how Jeremy handed this to us. So, yes, you are 100% right that it started the way that you're explaining it, but further on in its in its lifetime, these court hearings all followed the same thing.

I don't agree with that. That's what it said. I mean, I've got the That's They don't all because there's one that it's not all of them. I'm just I mean, they're not all going to be the same. It's exactly the I don't understand was I think the point of this is that it's it's used in multiple areas, right? It's it started in one spot and it carried through and there's a bunch of court hearings that followed the same rulings. Well, that's what you want to believe. Well, no. Okay. Okay. All all due respect, whether you agree with it or not, unless you're right to agree with agree, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, one second, please. Okay. This is showing that case law has been followed from the Adulus case in time over what's going on.

Your your your Okay, I'm just going I'm going to have to guess that you continue with your with with your statement here and continue with us.

Let me just continue and we'll probably address that later on tonight. Um, all right. Like I mentioned before previously, he was granted a variant to build the house and the house that he was granted was basically a three-bedroom house and then he had a second floor on his garage. And um I I went along with that and he had that variance for five years. Now he's coming back and he wants to make a much larger house and he wants to have a deck around it and it's not the same footprint as what he's telling us. I didn't have all that information available. Um um I asked um to get some of the surveys available and I was told they weren't available and I come here and I I see that they're right on the screen there. Uh, I really feel that uh I'm excuse [clears throat] me, I'm behind the A-ball here. But anyways, under his new design, his house is basically is 64 feet by 52 feet or 30 or over 3,300 square feet with a,000 foot deck. And this is not the same footprint. He has less than a third of an acre here at his residence in Cheshire, Connecticut. He has over 17 acres. That's 51 times the size of what size of the lot that he has here. And he wants to put the same house on that he has in Cheshure up here. Just about the same size house. So basically, if he wanted to do that, he should have bought a much larger piece of property or he should either consider putting a smaller house on that piece of property. The last time I was here, I was told that this is the way everybody has a small lot, but that isn't true. My next door neighbor to the north, the other guy on the other side of me has 130 ft on the lakefront. The

neighbor next to him has 93 feet on the lakefront. And then the lady outside of uh opposite of Wheelers Point has over 200 feet on the lakefront. And the people on Wheeler's Point have over 80 feet. And most of the 80 feet is on flat land. In this case, the 504 has a huge ledge and it's in the middle of the lot. And I figured that the only size house that he could build house and deck would probably be a 40x40. And if he kept his garage where it is, everything would work out fine. And um he he just he just doesn't have the land to put the the large house on that he wants. And the only way he could do it is if he rotates the house 90 degrees, he could go from east to west. A lot of people have done that. Even Mr. Mareno here has done that with his piece of property. Um and um so that's one of the things. The other thing was this lot was divided in 1956 uh by the previous owner. So it became a self-created hardship. He sold the lot and he sold the lot. And when [clears throat] he sold the lot, there was only a two-foot property line there and it was allowed and that and according to the regulations, if you have a self-created hardship, um you're usually out of luck. Uh in 19 I think in 20 in 2020, this this piece of property was purchased for $315,000. So if he wanted to, he probably could sell it to someone else, double his money, and and possibly look for something else. I'm not saying that that's a suggestion, but I'm saying that he doesn't really have a a big financial loss here. Um, what he needs to do is he, like I mentioned, he could either rotate the house, but I still want at least 12 or 14 feet from my property line.

Maybe it would have been a good idea if he came over and talked to me before this before he comes back with all these plans. I'd like to know where does the ZBA say that we could allow somebody to put a two to build a [clears throat] two feet away from the property line. We have been living here for 60 years and we need some type of consideration. We've been taxpayers and it's not my fault that he did not purchase a large enough land size or he changed his mind when he bought the house in 2020. He was happy with it is that all of a sudden he comes back and he says right now he wants to retire there and he wants a bigger piece of property and uh everything else like that. The other thing that I can't understand and we have never asked him is how is he going to build this house? He has a two-ft property line, two foot boundary on the north side and on the south side he has maybe like a 12ft setback and he's asking his neighbor at 522 to use his property to build on his uh to build on the 504 property line. I I've never heard of anything like this. He cannot build it from the top down. So, he has to go over to his neighbors and he has to use his property to bring the equipment over there. What happens if there's some kind of a dispute between the neighbors or something goes wrong or they're no longer friends and he's building uh building his house and that's the end of it

or one of the properties gets sold

or somebody gets sold or somebody dies. He's not going to live forever. Nobody's going to live forever. We have to think about people in the future. If this is approved and if he and if he sells his property or the person at 522 sells his property, you're going to have a problem there. Uh and sometimes their friendship just goes um just go south. So when you need your when you need your next door neighbor's property line or excuse me when you have to use your next door neighbor's property to build your house there this is a flashing red light. There's something really that has to be addressed here. The ZBA should also should not pit one person against another person. I went down there to see Shane a couple of times and I knew that she was working her, Jeremy, and Jeff and they're all pushing uh to have this thing passed. This really isn't fair, especially when they don't know our concerns.

May I ask I I think that should be admissible or removed from from this. I think we should stop that right there. Yeah. I mean, we can't disparage town employees or or talk about their intentions. Yes. No, there there has been there has been no evidence whatsoever, Mr. Pollock, as to that is brought to my attention or any any board member's attention that I've been made aware of of any impropriy or anything that they've done to to to go to to sway an applicant one way or another. Okay. So, that's unfair and I'm going to strike that from the record. Uh, as as far as that as well, too. I just asked a question.

No, no, let me let me I'm going to finish this. I'm going I'm going to ask just I mean I understand you you you got all you got a whole binder full of concerns. Okay. It took me a long time to do it. I understand. I understand. We only have so much time as well on this board as well too. So please I'm going to ask I'm going to ask that you please state for get to the point. What is your opposition to this and let's move on. Okay. Please.

Okay. Sorry. Okay. The opposition is that he was granted a variance and he and it's going to be very detrimental to our property over here. If you refer to the Connecticut General Statute 8-6, it says in making the decision, the zoning board must consider the public health, the safety, the convenience, the welfare, and the property values. Our property value of that house will drastically drop considerably. You cannot build, you cannot have somebody's house two feet away from your property line and that's not going to increase your value. That's one of my number one concerns is that

Let me let me let me quickly address that concern because I this this is this is the this is not the first time in a hearing that someone has been concerned about the property values. We're not we're not property assessors. We're the zoning board of appeals. Okay. I understand you may have concerns about your property values. You address that with with the assessor. Okay. We're we our job, excuse me, our job is to make sure that the zoning regulations are followed. Any right here, any variance or anything that needs to be made and everything is done by the decision of this board, we take it all into consideration. Aubrey, can I say one thing, please? Is the property going any closer to Mr. Pollock's house? Is the proposed addition moving any closer to Mr. Pollock's property?

It's going further away. So, so but But your your argument is that the pro that his proposed project is moving closer to your property line, but it's not. It's moving further away. So you keep mentioning that it keeps going 2 feet. Two feet. It's not two feet. And you keep No, but just let me speak, please. Just please, John. You've mentioned several time. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the grievance because we don't have till 11 o'clock at night to read through this. I I I understand. Right. Exactly.

We don't and we're not going to. So, so what I'm saying is that your your grievance is that you're trying that you're saying that they are trying to move their they're trying to move their house closer to yours to your property line and they are not just so we all understand they are not moving the property they're not moving the the structure closer to your property line they're moving it further away. Excuse me. Can I just I'm sorry but this is what happened last time and that's one of the reasons it took a long time. No, I mean I don't there was a lot of questions for us but not a lot of questions for the applicant. No, but I'm saying that that you're you're I'm just trying to get to the to the heart of the grievances here. The grievance that you've mentioned a couple times that he's he's moving the structure closer to your property.

He didn't say that it's I'm saying that it was the same um it's the same variance that we had in August basically.

Let's take the variances out of it. The the the h the house the house is is on the same finish, please. And then then you can do whatever you want. So, so the house as it is now is not moving any any closer or away. If they don't do this project, the house stays at the same property line as it does now. They're not moving the house. If they do this project and the additions and the things they're adding are going further away. So, no matter what happens tonight, whether whether whoever you know, if it gets voted yes or no, the structure stays in the same thing. You don't win or lose anything in that. Just so we're on the same page there. The house, just so everybody understands, the House is not moving closer to your property line.

And Aubrey, may I just suggest something before we move on? Um, I think it's important to establish in a clear way that there is a variance that's been approved and we're not here to relitigate that. That's already been approved. So, we are here only to review the uh raising of the garage and attaching it to the home and and the adjustments that they have made in order to accommodate that change because I I'm getting a little confused in listening to the argument because it sounds like there's a desire to go back to the old variance and relitigate that, but I don't think we can do that here.

No, I mean it's like again I mean our our per our purpose here as only [clears throat] board of appeals is to is to make is to decide whether each indiv individual application here comes any variance is approved or not there to um in in in conforming with the zoning regulations but each case is is individually is is individually um um discussed as well So I mean again all I understand completely there is there's plenty of case law plenty of other instances as well too and they're on all too. Okay we are discussing right now just to say what is the objection do you have to this application here just

which this application is to move the garage and shrink the size of the house farther away from this from the property line. Yeah. So that's really the only discussion we should be having is whether if there's any objection to moving the garage. The rest of it's already been passed. Right. That's the point I'm making. I already have approval for a twoft 1 in north sideard. What is what is what is the objection?

So the reason he's we brought that up is because he has that already. So that means he doesn't have a hardship. But I know you said well we don't need a hardship but we want to for the record we want to include that all the re he doesn't he has never had a hardship. He has the house has never met any of the grounds for hardship. There's there's eight grounds for hardship. If you'd like me to read them I'll be happy to do it. I think you probably know them. They're in our document here. Can I say something? They're making the house less non-conforming. No, they're not making it less non-conforming. They're making it less. They're It's still non-conforming, but it's But they're making it less. They're not making If they move the If they move the addition

closer, so let's say they move move the house just going to give an example closer to your property line. That would be more non-conforming. There therefore that could potentially be a problem. But in this case, they're not. They're making an effort to um do better water mitigation. So So the only thing we really should be discussing right now is is like um Maryanne, I'm sorry. Um, I forgot your name. Tom, I'm sorry. Um, the garage being moved and attached to the house and whether they can shrink the house, which they're doing. That's the only thing we should be discussing. All this other stuff in litigating and and and what what we feel and all that stuff should not be discussed right now. We're not talking about what we feel.

All right. Could I just go on, please? I would if you if when you go on you're basically basically stating John what is your what is your not no bottom line what is the objection to oh I I would like to show you the survey please does this does it have to do with the sorry with the 2.1 foot property line it has a lot to do with the two foot yes it does okay yes if you don't mind I'm gonna can we take a can I while he's doing that read read some stuff so it's not so I'm going I'm I'm I'm going to ask that we just proceed on with with but that's but that's the things you want and it's written down here and I don't maybe everybody's read it. I hope they have because gotten

Yeah, we're going to you know before it would be kind of unfair if you didn't hear a whole argument. Before we go any further, here's a picture of the house. I I measured it with the scale model and over here. So again, John John, I don't want to keep I want to try to save you time to get you to what is impactful. Right. So the okay the structure itself.

Okay. The house over here is 69 ft. We keep saying that this is the same variance. This is the same footprint. It isn't the same footprint. It's 69 ft here and on the front of the house is basically 58 feet and then on the side of the house over here which I can't believe it's 68 ft. May May I say that if something were to were to change that the you know he hired a professional engineer and if if something were to change off the plan then I think that would have to be you know taken up with the professional engineer. I mean I can't we can't look at your scale just

I know I measured it with this I understand and it's 68 ft over here I understand this is your this is you measuring it versus the professional engineer and the architect but it doesn't take too much common sense that if the house is 68 ft and common sense is not so common John that's the problem that's why down by the water line the um the water line is 69 ft and if you go up like 30 feet that I understand. I understand you need some field measurements, but that's that's the job of the professional engineer. If something is different, then you need to take it up with them. And the dimensions are on the site plan showing that this building is shrinking, they have to follow that.

They have to follow the site plan. That's why they hired a professional engineer. You're not allowing him to show that. We're we're going out. We have a professional survey. We have an engineered print and engineered drawings. John has the same print that we have, but he's changed the numbers on an engineered drawing to something that he feels are more accurate. No, that's only we did not have any dimensional numbers on the lines. So that's why we had to use Well, but we don't we don't need that's that's something that's outside our purview though. We are looking at a plot plan. We are looking at a previous approved variance

and we're looking at a proposed adjustment to what was already approved. So I I'm struggling to see the and I'd like to add that if there is any issue with the drawings not matching what was approved, the building department will find that. that is under their not and and I'm pretty sure you have to have a a survey done after your foundations in to make sure you're complying with the site. It happens, right? You do not have to build into everything once it's completed and the surveyor will most likely lay the stakes out for the foundation.

So, John, if the foundation is not where it's supposed to be, that that will fall under the burden of the of the surveyor um who did that. It's not the burden on us. We don't we don't lay out the foundation and the building department.

Yeah. And the building they'll like like like Tom said, when you build a foundation, they need to stake out the foundation, make sure that it matches the print, and then they'll build the house if they just if they build this if this gets approved to be built. Um any of us going out with tape measures and stuff is irrelevant. It it doesn't matter. The professional engineer, the professional survey did this already. That's why it's stamped. That's why it has a professional survey on it. And any of this discussion is irrelevant. We can't I I I just I don't feel it it it it it should be admissible. It's it's not it's it's

the point that I was making is originally they had 78 seat on the lakefront property. He went before the inland wetlands and he changed 69. So there's a big difference there of 8 and the 8 seat is over here. It's like a dog leg and you can't really build on it. So you from 69 ft all the way back here to 50 ft. And then if you divide 69 from 50 is let's rough it off at at 20 and you divide it by into quarters over here. So you lose five feet here, you lose five feet here, you lose five feet here, you lose five feet here and you end up here with 50 feet. So what I'm saying is right in the middle here, this basically is 63 feet where this red line is over here and this is He's putting his house and his house is going to be very close. It's probably 64 to 66 feet or something like this. And we only have 63 ft over here.

So you disagree with the accuracy of the survey. That's what I'm trying Timothy G. W. Yes, I am. I'm challenging him. That's correct. That's I think you should take that up in a different over here. That's not something you should be taking up at this board. We can't challenge. But I'm just trying to explain to you why. But that's not relative. That's not relative to this meeting. Nothing's relative, I guess. No, the relative whether or not you agree that the garage can get moved to the house and they can shrink the house. It's the only thing garage to be moved.

So that's your position. I think we should close on that. If he does not the the joining neighbor does not agree that we should move the garage to close to the house, attach the house and shrink the house and add in the water management um provisions. We should end the I propose that we end the public section. I I propose we do. I I just wanted to say something to take less than two minutes. We have My name is Frank Pollock.

Mr. Pollock, we have a proposal quickly on the for about about closing the uh public forum here at the moment. Um I are you making that as a motion? I'm making that as a motion that if we do not if there's no further discussion on the garage being attached to the house and shrinking the house and the um uh lessening the uh pvious coverages. If the discussion is is done with that, then we should end the public hearing and make a motion. Okay. Move on to the next person. Let them give them an opportunity. I was going to say I mean just I just want to be careful about closing that before any other members of the public would be here too.

Oh, I'm sorry. No, I mean I just I mean I just want to get any members of the public but also to do it within again timely matter get to what your initial objection is without um to what's pertinent to this relevant to this application. The only the only relevant relevance is down there too. So just ask then that I'm one one I'm sorry I'm I'm I know I'm bad about that. That's that's what that's what I'm here for. Um, are you going to withdraw? Do you withdraw your motion then for the moment or I'll draw for a motion if if under the you know that that we're going to that we're going to stay within the bounds of what we're here or stay focused on what we're here for. We I don't think we should be

then that's what talking about other subjects. That's what then that's what we will do here too. So again, not to to allow anyone opportunity, you know, to spare you to say, Mr. P, you said you had something to say. Is it relevant? Yes, it's brand new and uh brand new. Yes, it's a recent court case. No, that just came out in December. Is it relevant to

this is right on point and it's Nordstrom V versus town of S. The guy wanted to put up edition. He wanted to put up a second floor on his house and it went to a court and he lost. The judge said that you'll be able to look into the neighbor's house and their privacy will be gone. And this is exactly what's happening here with Sean. He's going to put up a threetory house, three floor house. He'll be able to look into our house. But I'm sorry again and he'll be able to

again this discussion is not about the house. The house has already been approved for that size and that height. He's already can build it right now. But what he's proposing here is to bring the house back from your property line slightly and move the garage. That's what we're talking about here at this meeting. Not the house is already approved. It's done. There's no discussion about the house. Well, it went to court and it wasn't done again, Mr.

Once again, this and and again Again, I just I members of the sport is trying to to to request as as respectfully as possible, please. Okay. The if your objection is relevant to what is being proposed in this application, in this applic [clears throat] I understand there's case law on a lot of other on a lot of other issues as well too. If it is pertinent to what is being proposed right now in this application stated, if it's anything that goes around it, we we need to we need to leave that we need to leave that away. We have got we have got to we've got to keep moving on this on this motion. We only have we only have limited time.

Okay.

So, may I address the chair? Okay. The other issue I had was the impervious coverage. And with the impervious coverage, he was having his driveway reduced. And he has he has a two-foot, excuse me, has a twocar garage, and the standard footage for a twocar garage usually is 20 ft to 24 ft. It's not uh 14 ft wide like he has. So, what he's doing is he's making his driveway thin. So, as if he has a onecar garage and then he has a turnaround. and the turnaround is very small. I have numbers showing that his um his garage, excuse me, his turnaround should be around 1,600 ft and the length of his um driveway should be close to 2200 ft. And on July, thank you.

And on that um and on that note, okay, here it is here. So his driveway is 114 ft and that driveway should be 20 ft. He only has it as 14 ft. The turn around for he has two very large trucks. They're close to 20 ft long. They're um the GMC um four-door with the uh the six foot bed. And it says u under the um calculations 40 time 40 equals 1,600 feet. That's what the turn turnaround should be in his driveway and um with the uh excuse me with the um driveway 114 ft at 20 that's 2280. So the total amount of his driveway and his turnaround should be 3,880 square ft and he only has 1710 square ft and he's using that.

Mr. Metro, go ahead. Okay. is using that to we don't control what vehicles the applicant drives. I have I didn't get I didn't finish. No, I understand that. But you mentioned that the that you mentioned that the applicant drives a certain vehicle. That's correct. We don't care. It has nothing that's not that's not part of but the point I'm making is the safety. Okay. Out of this driveway. Was there a regulation to how much driveway you need for property size? There is. It says that it says that you need exactly a certain number of driveway per the size of your property. Yes, there there is a the Winston zoning. I'm not talking I'm talking about safety out here. When he bets you don't we're not talking safety. Yes, we are talking safety.

No, we're not. We're just we're talking about what is pertinent what what is talking about this this application was brought forward there. I understand you you're going around making you're you're you're you're we need to stay focused on what the application was. Okay. Anyway, the big problem are are you understanding what I'm saying? Yes, I understand. But I'm just trying to explain one thing if you don't mind. Just give me a couple of more minutes. [clears throat]

Where he lives, it's very difficult for him to back out uh into the road. And the same thing with us. You have to turn your vehicle around and you usually drive out there. And where he lives at 504, there's a terrific blind spot going north and you can't see. So, you have to always back your vehicles out. And that's what they do. There's a school bus stop sign that says and there's a school bus stop sign right there saying that there's a blind spot over there.

And what I'm trying to say is with the size of his driveway and the size of his turnound, it's dimminimous. Now he's not going to be able to do this. He has at least four or five vehicles. His parking lot, excuse me, his driveway is usually full of full full of vehicles and he's just reducing this number so that he he gets the improper coverage reduced down to 34%. Okay, Mr. Pollock that your concern is duly noted.

Okay. I just have a question because I I must have read something wrong, but I I've done a lot of research and a lot of work looking up the state laws and trying to find the state laws. And I I feel like I probably know a lot more about the state laws than I ever did before. And I can understand if people on the board don't know a lot about the state laws. I'm not saying you don't. I'm just saying that if I was you in your shoes and I came came from a job and I it was a volunteer position, I would probably know something, but I would never have had the time to look up everything that I've been able to look up. We've been able to look up for this case because it's it's it makes a big difference to us because it's really changing the way that we live at the lake. And I don't know how how is it changing the way you're living out there?

How we're going to have a a more lack of privacy. We're gonna we already are getting the jetties already coming up and out. Uh we're gonna uh we have we'll have people looking over our deck all the time because you know and this summer we live on our deck. Excuse me. Let me try to clarify something. What you're arguing about and the fact that you're losing your privacy because the house is going to be that's one thing you can you're allowed to argue about that that is one thing that the boards have to look at is you already lost that battle. No, we did not lose that battle. We did not lose that battle. Hey Tom, I'm sorry I not the detriment.

I don't think you understand all of the ways that the I I'm right about this and if we do go to the state they will agree with me so we don't have to do that. The garage has a second story on it. So the privacy argument is actually relevant as it relates to the second story of the garage. Does does the second story meet the current regulations of like the 30 ft and all that? It does. It does. It does. But but the previously approved varants uh had a second story added to the garage much further from their home. So so this is closer to their home and so it it it is actually relevant to this application. Okay.

Because of the height you can look into windows and that's what his case was was trying to say. So here just to clarify that also. Right. So here's the the plans for the house. This is the updated plans. We never saw that. That's the other thing I'm hearing now. So great. When the house when the garage moved over the six feet, the second story of the garage, while there is a second story, there's no living space, it is considered storage. And the only room that is on your side of the property on the second story is a bedroom, which is already at that 2 whatever feet.

So the So when you look at the side of this this house, the bump out that's there is already there. So that doesn't change. This section here is the garage side which is now 14.8 ft away from your property line. These are this is all storage. So there's nobody's going to be looking through the storage. And what if they change the storage into a living space afterwards? Two years. We can [clears throat] what if what if all you want and everything. This is not what this is. Okay. Are we allowed to have taller houses next to next to uh shorter houses instead? So there you go. The end. Well, we're allowed to have taller houses next to shorter houses. The end. Okay.

Except for you can't you have to consider detriment. That's part of the detriment is is is not a a grounds for variance. Detriment is protect is protecting neighbors. I mean that that's one of the reasons principles of the zoning board. I mean to have a zoning board of appeals.

No, I know the ground the grounds for uh a variance is a hard is a hardship um that's unique to this. No, I know I said detriment is not one of the grounds for a variance. Detriment is one of the principles. It's one of the reasons why people come to the board of appeals to decide to to look at the property owner that should have some use of his property and the other neighbor that should that that can that they have any detriment. It's it's in it's there's it's in the law. I can read it to you if you want. So, John, one of the first things you said was you would want the house to be 14t away from your property. The house and the garage. That's correct.

So, the house is on off the question, right? We we're not talking the house. We're talking the garage. The garage, the addition is going to follow the same 14T 8 in off of your property line. So, anything that's different from what was already approved essentially meets what your request was of more than 14 ft away from the property line. Is that a fair statement? No, I still don't agree with with that. Uh because he still is the detriment that he's he's just two feet away from. But you had said that he could turn the whole house sideways and run the feet 70 ft long. 14. Why doesn't he do that? Why doesn't he You said that you could do that. You said 40 by 40. Make it smaller. I said 40. I said to make it smaller. 40 by or you said turn the house sideways

90 degrees. But it would be 14t from your property regardless of what anything has to change on the house. Right. 14 ft is what you I don't really know because we have so many different I was saying what you said. I don't know either. I'm just You said 14 feet was the number. So what we're looking at now is the garage that's going to actually be greater than the 14 ft that you asked for tying it to a pre-existing approval that we are not speaking on. So how far away is it going to be? 14T 8 in. Oh, the garage is 14t 8 in away from your property line. You know what though? I don't know. I'm I'm kind of really confused now because uh

I think I I think okay to to to wind this up here. I believe the members of this board are I think are understanding what your concern is. I have a lot of concerns. No I I wasn't able to read them last time but the but the applicant was able to read something that concerns that they had that reclaiming my time. Okay. Um I um I think with I think the members of this board understand the the the the nuts and bolts concern about the privacy issue being you know the property being close and and self-created hardship too. Excuse me.

The self-created hardship when the property was divided by the previous owner.

Okay. All understood. All all duly noted. Okay. So um I think if we continue if we continue talking more case law talking more this I think this is once again going to be going around around and around giving the same the same point as well too. We take your objections strenuously seriously. Okay that listen as as evident two months ago two members of this board voted down this application as well too. It's not that we're listen not listening to your concerns as well too. It's a matter of just you know getting the getting getting this application heard and discussed in a timely in a in a timely manner. Just we ask you know just for for for purposes of time is just to make sure you state your state your objection what it is and that's that's done. We have heard your objection. Okay. So I will um I will go ahead and um with us being an hour into this application as well um does any me do any members of the board feel that the objection has been heard or do we need to hear any further um from them as well too?

Okay, I feel it's been heard. Okay. All right. And once again, I do appreciate you coming and giving your presentation. And with all due respects, I mean, the members of this board, I mean, do know some things about case law as well, despite what you may be led to believe as well. You don't. I just haven't heard. I don't know what you know because how could I know that? Okay. I haven't heard it. And and and and this and and our town officials do work hard for everybody, not just I have no complaint, but I love the town officials. All people that work in the town. We're going to we're at this time we're going to go ahead and and move on and maybe give them give the speech an opportunity to answer your objection as well too. Okay.

Could you just ask him how he's going to build the house 2T away from the property line and then why he has to use his neighbors property to uh build a house? May May I say something? I think that's been long established that the house is not being uh built 2 feet from the property line. The house already is 2 feet from the property line. Well, he's going to have to tear it down. I mean, if he digs a seller, how's the dirt? He's has got to go down to six feet. How's the the dirt not going to cross over my

He's going to have to use correct construction practices that the town will manage, John. Yes. To do that, he's going to have to do silt fences. He's going to have to do all sorts of things that the town permits and manages. That's that's where if you have an [clears throat] objection I if this gets approved and you have an objection during that time then you could say hey you know I don't like what this is happening and and this is the reason this is the reason but but he's just to be clear to everybody he's not just building a house the house is already at the two feet you keep saying the two feet what they're what they're asking to do is to reduce the size of the house reduce the pvious coverages move the garage to the house they're reducing the size

they're reducing the size of the house yes I think that's the size of the Remember, we're working off of We're not working off of the house that's physically standing there today. The garage, you mean? No, the house.

No, the house. We are working off of the house that was already approved. So, the the original pictures that you had of the home are already approved. There's already a variance in place that was said yes to that. That was along with taking the existing garage, making the ex Well, that's what we're working off of. We're working off of the pre-approved house. So, the only thing we're looking at is the garage. Taking the garage from 14T 6 in, moving it to 14t 8 in, and moving it from 100 I'm sorry. The house is getting smaller. It is. So, the house has already been approved. The house has already been approved. It's already been approved, but I [clears throat]

So, we shouldn't be discussing that. It's already been approved. That's already That battle is already Maybe it is just for peace of mind. Right. So, so the the a pre-approval on the house was 2'1 in after you mean the footprint is get is getting smaller smaller by 5 in.

The footprint it's getting smaller by I think it was greater than 5 in because they added another 9 ft to the south north side of the property. So, they're shrinking the overall house after the fail getting denied at the last time. All this was redone. The whole house, everything was redesigned to meet some of your requests. You know, some of we had some concerns. Marian had concern on the the grinder pump. You brought up the grinder pump. He moved the garage to avoid the grinder pump problem. They are leaving the well in the same spot. They adjusted the depth of the garage. They've moved it. They've done everything that you asked them to do the last time. And they've even shrunk the main building less than what they were already approved for. So, so while yes, I I totally understand that it it's going to be a change, but what they've changed, they're doing everything that I can tell, they're doing everything they can to appease as many people as possible.

All right. So, what my my point is is that I don't under the reason I don't understand is because I don't know if we looked at the same uh thing that you looked at. Did you get something that showed that because we didn't really come up with No, this was already approved. This was already approved. Well, he did have a that was already they can do that today. There was there was an overlay that showed the the red He's talking about it right now. There was a He showed it to us on the screen that showed I didn't we we were able to get something of a of a survey, but we never we asked several times if we could have if we could have the information that he that we we didn't have the In other words, were they turned in with Yeah. The whole

it it was the whole thing was uploaded and everything that was presented to our office was shown to John. It was not shown to me. I did not see that. Sorry. Sorry, guys. It was available on open. So when was it available there? Here's if you want to look at the footprint today. I mean the house is only 48. I'm not sure and 760 54t wide. They would have to send letters and all that stuff, right? To the adjoining neighbors. They had to send Yeah. So, so just just so we're all clear like it you did you did receive a letter. You did receive the the plans. Everything if you chose not to look at them or failed to look at them is not anyone's concern. We we we and with that I think we really need to move on.

Thank you. They proposed to end the public hearing. Okay. I just would like to make the comment that that um I didn't get last time I there's a there's a proposal on the floor again once again to close the public hearing here. U do we have I mean oh one thing we have to do we do have I just we have to All right we already said it and and you know what I we're not just doing this for ourselves we're doing it for the town of Winstead because to have and I I won't go in any explanation of it because I know you don't believe me and I know you don't agree with me [clears throat] but uh okay with that with that we thank you for your we thank you for your presentation.

Thank you. um to um that was my motion.

It was it was a motion. It was a motion to close the public hearing here. Um I in in a matter of fairness that we and again I'll look for the board. I want to give the speeches an opportunity to answer what the concerns were as part of the public forum there too. Um and we'll just once that and then once that is done then we'll go ahead and close that. Is that is that is that is that acceptable to everybody? Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. So

we'll just go ahead. I'm going to invite Squeegee please back to the table and um um you guys were aware of you guys heard what the Pollock's concerns are. Um I I hopefully I got all of them in my head. The um the concern of the construction almost all the construction can be done from our property. All of it can be. My neighbor to the south, Mike Gonzalez, had given me a letter that gave full access if need be to use his property to enter mine. But we don't believe that we need to use that. But in case we do, he gave a letter that he submitted to the town that gave full access.

I can't hear him. One of the other concerns was, and I don't know that it was fully addressed, was there is already an approval for a second story over my garage that's currently there. So my garage is 14 foot 6 in away with an approval to put a second story on it. There is no change. If I do that, I'm still in if they have this concern that it would look into their home. It changes nothing my because my garage is also in the same plane as the front of their house currently. I'm just moving my garage closer um to my h or connecting it to my house. So that situation I believe doesn't change. Um

can I just ask a quick clarifying question about that? So you're saying that the existing garage is parallel to the home because I looked at the property and it didn't within a few within a few feet if you look right but it's not as Well, it's it's not as their front door and my garage door is within a couple feet distance. But I'm but what I'm saying is it's like you're going from two lineal feet of parallel structures to 20 par 20 feet of lineal feet of parallel. It's way more. It's probably 18 the feet of our garages parallel to their house currently.

Yeah. Like the distance of our garage from the street or the distance of their front door from the street. So the if there was an impact, I already we already have that approval. He had no concern with that with me putting a second story on my garage in the position that in the current situation it's in now. Um we're just connecting it to the house and we're improving the distance for them from their property line and the neighbors from the south. It just happens to be our property widens. So it makes the condition better in every situation. Okay. Have I addressed every concern?

It's just it's hard that because the house is not cited on the plan. So, we just kind of have to take your word for it. Oh, their house. Yeah. May I say something? Last time the proposal was the garage was to be over at that 2.1, right? No. Say it again. The last time we were here, it was huge. It was going to be 8 ft away. Straight off that mark. It came straight off that mark. And then so now [snorts] now it's going where

now it's going additional six feet in. And the concerns last time like the root of all the concerns that the adjoining neighbor had was that it was the garage was too close was going to be built too close to to their house.

That was the concern. So you guys went and changed your design, moved it six feet, and six feet at Highland Lake is a lot. So 6 feet, you moved it six feet away from the prep. So you took a a a good effort to appease them and keep the piece. And last time we were all here, I thought that was the that was the main issue because the other stuff doesn't really change. Like your out the house, it's a tight lot. Nothing else [snorts] really changes besides that. and and it was already approved. So we did we did add up a concern for the well and the masserator pump

and you and you made a and you made a change to to not move the well and not because that was so last time we were all here it was grinder pump well garage too close to the house and you satisfied all those AC and the AC and you move and the propane. So every every complaint that happened last time, you guys addressed appropriately and changed your design to appease the adjoining neighbor. We believe so. That that's all I have to say about this.

Okay. Any other comments on on that? Okay. Do we have any other members of the public who we have not heard from yet this evening that wish to speak to this application? Any other members of the public have yet to be heard this evening on this application? Any other members of the public who have yet to be heard this evening on this application? Hearing none, I will close the uh public comment portion of this hearing, Mr. Mr. Speciali, I will give you folks the final the final word. I hope that with our great effort to meet the demands of the town, the engineers on my end, representing the town's end and working with Shane, Jeremy, and Jeff, I hope that we met all the requirements and I hope they vote for our project.

Thank you guys very much. Okay, with that I will go ahead and close this uh the hearing and read into the record the following motion motion to grant variances per section 3D D5C of the zoning regulations for application ZBA number 25-12 application for the demolition of an existing single family home, twocar garage and associated site improvements and the construction of a new single family home with the following request for variances. Southside yard setback variance of 22.6 ft from existing 30.8 ft setback to proposed 12.4 ft setbacks and a 14.6% overage of impervious coverage in accordance with a site plan prepared by KCC Consulting LLC provided with the application dated June 25th, 2025 and revised to 10125. Is there a second?

Second. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion by seated members of the board who are eligible to vote.

Um the only thing that gives me pause because we have and Ryan brought this up at the last meeting. We have approved garages to be attached to homes before. They they've been approved before I was on this board. One was approved since I've been on this board. and the ones that I that I'm aware of are parallel to other garages um on the adjoining properties. This is parallel to living space. So that that's the only thing that kind of gives me pause on this application. Um, and I I don't know that there's like I don't have like a good solution for it except to perhaps sometimes Paul asks for uh a condition that let's say a garage's use is the garage's use and that goes into the land records so that folks can't in the future a new owner can't turn into living space or something like that. Prohibition against that. um could I think uh could abate any potential future issues of related to privacy?

I don't necessarily given the plans we have in front of us. I think this came up last time because I did mention that last time. I don't we can't like pontificate on on what's going to you know happen in the future. So I think I I think that there the garage is is is is the use of that space's garage and if it's on the plans as use of space of the garage then that's what we're approving it. We can't say that. Um and I know which application you're talking about. We did put that condition on that other application. It actually went in as a condition, didn't it, Shane? Yes, that one was detached, right? That was a standalone garage.

Standalone. That was a storage shed that we were afraid that somebody might at some point turn into an Yeah. Cuz because technically we can't we can't tell the applicants if they want to set up chairs in their garage and like you know put a TV in there like we can't say that like you can't do that. Like they they're allowed to do that. Are you talking second story or main? I'm really talking about the second story. So, and and again, I don't think you'll ever going to I I don't think you're ever going to be able to control that. You know, I I don't know how you would regulate it.

Regulate it. You know, people are going to do what they're going to do, right? I mean, and and I don't and I again, I don't I don't necessarily think that the the second story use of that is would would change the no view of what we're looking at.

Yeah. And my my concern with that other one was that it was an act it was a large shed. I think it was like just under 600 square feet. And in in Connecticut building code, you can be just under 600 square feet for a detached accessory structure. So my concern at that time was that that that structure maybe down the road because it had every characteristic of a house [snorts] that it could that could potentially all it lacked was a sewer line and then it could be used as a house. But in this particular instance they have a whole proposed beautiful house. I really don't think they're going to be spending much time in that garage for them to park their cars. I'm just hardressed to believe that they're going to be, you know, going from the deck from the beautiful lake, going to their bedrooms, going stuff to to go hang out above the garage. I just don't see that.

Suggesting that that that is these owners plan. I'm just saying that we're we're not putting any kind of protection in place for a future. We can on the interior of the house. We can't,

you know, we can't we can't do that. If it's an attached garage, we can't tell them if they want to set up a pool table in their garage, they can set up a pool table. If they want to um hang one hat in there, they can do that. We can't say anything that they want to do in the entire what the town can say is that if you have a shed and you built a shed that's so close to look like a house and then they turn into an ADU apartment, that's a different story. That was my concern then was that they could potentially, who knows? And I'm not saying that they would or wouldn't, but potentially that particular accessory structure had every characteristic to the house. In this case, this does not. This is a garage and that's it. Whatever they do in the interior, we can't we can't say anything to do with what they do in the interior. Has nothing to do with us. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I will go ahead and uh call for a vote. All in favor of this application, please signify. I

two three. One, two, three, four. All opposed. Motion's 4 to one. Application passes. Thank you very much. I do have a question as we continue on here. Um are we continuing? Well, not not with that. Oh,

not with that. This is um so we did put contingencies on other approvals. We did um 2242 24th Street was a garage that we put a contingency that they went through and wetlands for approval because of how close it was to the I don't know if we were here for that meeting. This one was in this June's meeting. Um yeah, it wasn't here in

so we we approved that with the contingency that they would follow through with the wetlands approval because of the proximity to the pond. Um, we also did 206 per truck trail which was that garage and we took the stipulation that they they couldn't put a building space on but they were building that garage at 100 foot 1 in and we had asked for inland wetlands approval to confirm the drainage the footing drains and the digging area would be within right I do remember that and I think they wasn't a contingency Could it be was it living space or was a contingency? Did that we didn't

We put a wetlands contingency on that one for their drainage for their footing drains. Paul was concerned about the footing drains on that one. Yeah. And and but did that ever happen? I know I there's a foundation there now. It did. So that did go through. Rob Kabella brought it to wetlands. They updated that and brought that with an updated plan with footing drains. But it's a good point like we should figure out some communication workflow to follow up on things like that. Is that what you're driving at? Yeah, that's kind of where So, like So, so when we put a if we if we create a contingency on an approval, how do we how does that get monitored? Like, so well, the staff, we monitor it. Okay. Well, that's what you know, just because

Yeah, I don't think that's in our Yeah, I don't think that's in our jurisdiction as just a a board. No, but if we put a contingency on something, we do need to know that it's being followed. Things are I mean, that house that was um in the during um during co we did all that concrete work the patio all the way down to the water and Maryanne said you know he needs to do some kind of followup testing early right the park know that that's going to happen I don't know if like because I think we're we're I anyone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think our function of the board is not enforcement we're not code enforcement we're just approving

oh no I understand that but we are in We're putting that contingency in place. Yeah. So, I think we have a response. I think it kind of falls unfortunately. Maybe it's Does that go in old business? Is that something that can can carry through old business on our agenda? That just is a simple statement that

staff can let us. I'll be honest, that that one um you know, we we let it sit. We gave it let the applicant make his choice because Tom Grimmaldi said he did not agree with that contingency. like you're not going to see anything different in 5 years than you're seeing now. Um we, you know, it's not up to us to come to you to remove a contingency or a condition. We put it to the applicant and said, "Hey, if you want to come before ZBA, this is what our town engineer feels." He let it sit. Um that is a harder one. That's not your normal

Which one's that one? the the one with all the concrete with coming back and doing like perk tests in five years. That's a harder one to follow. Obviously, that's a a longterm thing. Y um staff changes, right? So, that's a a more difficult one to follow, but it's also on the land records. So, if a property like that were to be sold, you would hope that a title searcher or somebody would be looking for those backup documents to meet that y those conditions of that, you know, of that permit. But that is a harder one to keep track of. That I don't I wasn't here for for that one. I'm just the ones that we've, you know, we approve it with a with some sort of a contingency that

if it even if it comes up as soon as it if it once it's done with wetlands, then it gets on gets added to the agenda as old business. Hey, they met the contingency. This one's moving forward. I think it's a really good point because even Paul brought up at the last meeting like can we know what we approved when we deferred to Tom Grimmaldi on that other application and it would be good to know what we approved because we deferred to Tom Grimmaldi. I agree with that. Well, with any like with any like a like any court case or something like like if a judge makes a ruling, you know, like uh like like say uh you know, like he releases somebody on bond or something and and they attach conditions to it. It's not necessarily up to that particular judge to say to make sure that the that the order is being carried out. It's up to like you know your law enforcement. It's up to your your your district attorneys or whatnot to assist.

So, it kind of falls into code enforcement then it has a code enforcement. That might be like Jeff's job. I'm just [laughter] I'm just saying the code the current the current code enforcement officer would have to go there and say, "Okay, you know, you did do this." Um, and and as I'm thinking about this too, I'm not sure if Winston allows ADU apartments. I'm stuck on that one thing. I do. You can do accessory apartments. You can do accessory apartments. I'm I do I don't I'm not 100% sure on Highland Lake, but yes, it's a special except that. So So in that particular instance, if they did build this out building and it was built, you know, uh to all these they have to come to planning and zoning. They would have to go to planning and zoning to change the use of it. So it'd be a special permit. Correct. Special. It would be a special exception

and it would be a public hearing and there'd be a public hearing. So at that point Yeah. And then and if it passes then then that's it. Then it passes. So I I think you know anticipating it's all great concerns we all have but it's it's we can't I don't think we can necessarily like you know project into the future. It has they have to go through all the appropriate channels. Yeah. As long as there's peace of mind that it's happening. That's all or that it's been addressed. Yeah. I totally agree with that. I'm not suggesting that we continue to stay involved in the agreed. Yeah. But but just to know if there is a short-term uh requirement like that that it loops back to us so we know what the conclusion was.

Honestly, it could be an email, right? I mean, it could just be Yeah, I guess I just don't know. We'd have to just determine our role in that. We're just whether we're we're you know, we have jurisdiction for that because I'm not sure. Just Well, we're not enforcing it. We're just All I was asking was just a follow up. just wondering if you know the contingencies that we do put in place. I mean I think it's a val valid question. Yeah. Would we have an avenue to complain like let's just say for example that we did put some kind of contingency and then like let's just say they didn't do it. Would would we meet again or would it just would it just fall onto like you know Ryan saw this and say I just [clears throat] he can he has like an avenue to make like a legitimate complaint

or would that fall onto you just walking into the into the the zoning office and just making a complaint like for example too like just a because in some towns like to even get to make to make like like in Torington for example to make a complaint about your your neighbor or something you have to make a written complaint. like to get like something enforced. So in this instance, if we did that, would there be like a creation of a like a non Why do we have to get that complicated about it? If it's something that we've put in as a contingency and want to know if it's been followed, why can't we just check with the building department and and ask the question and get an answer and be done with I don't think anything saying that you can't now though is what I'm saying.

We could always ask public record so you could do that. We're just We haven't though. I mean, Ryan asked a question about it and we Nobody knew the answer. No, I understand it's all on but open.gov is on there. So, all the all this stuff is on there and if you go and communicate with the with the town. No, I'm not saying you shouldn't. No, it's just like I It's just something that like to have. It's not like that at all.

To keep it in the records. That's all it is, right? Just so it ends up in the minutes of everything that the contingency was added. Then it goes through wetlands. wetlands has it in their minutes and then it comes back with a stamp rubber stamp saying contingencies that contingencies gone project goes through goes to the building department building department now can approve the building permit right that's kind of the process it takes the only thing that we don't have is we don't see it which maybe we don't need to see it I I don't know if we're yeah but that's that's I I totally hear what you're saying it's just do we don't have we have no jurisdiction at that point I'm not looking for jurisdiction it's just

it's just yeah it's closure but it's I I don't I I understand, but I don't think we we don't have any reason for that closure. Like we said, it's okay. If they don't do that and they don't follow, that's that's that's like their problem. Like we're removed from that. We already did our job. We Well, it's more along the lines of if it if we say that we we ask for something and then Jeff says it's not needed, that would never happen. I mean if if if ever so again we would not if we thought it wasn't needed and we had validation from a professional that it wasn't needed again it would be on the applicant to come back to you to remove that.

We wouldn't just in office remove a condition because So we assume so that's that's a simple answer too right we assume that it's 100% good and done unless we hear from it again. Yeah that's right. If we if one of your conditions were to not be met, it would come before you from the applicant. That's perfectly fine. Sorry. All right. Moving on. Did everyone get a chance to briefly look over the minutes here? I did. Any additions, corrections? If not, if so, I will entertain a motion to enter to accept the minutes of the August 26, 2025 meeting. So moved. Motion's been made. Second. Second.

Motion's been made and second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say approving the minutes. All opposed. Okay. Do we have any other correspondence? No. Anything any other business to come before this board? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. To adjourn second [laughter] Ryan first. Second. All in favor? We are ajourned. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I always love Ellie. I love your enthusiasm at adjournment. Everybody hit the mic. Thank you very much.

Yeah, the mic off. I feel horrible.