Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

is 6:31 and we're calling to order the meeting for regular meeting of the ZVA for Thursday, April 17th. Um and present we have Michaela Pearson alternate Stephanie Amy Huitt clerk Nancy Hutchinson chair Steve Dixs Brian Cole alternate Sylvia Rowka council and absent is Kathleen Tracy alternate Russ Fog member and apparently Kip Cottson member so uh but we have five so that's good. All right. So, um, and also Eric Nap, our our land use coordinator, Zo, is not here. So um the first case on the so before we start the public hearing I usually uh remind the applicants of the need to present the evidence that an unusual and unnecessary hardship exists based on strict application zoning regulations due to some peculiar condition of the property itself and that the condition does not generally affect other properties in the district. The evidence that the variance requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual hardship and allow reasonable use of the property. whether any reduction in legal precency non-conformity is proposed. The evidence that variances requested are in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations in the comprehensive plan and zoning. And for coastal site plan review applications, please address the Connecticut D comments. And for those in the gateway, please address the gateway comments. So with that, uh, the first case is 25-2C9 Caukins Road. Request branches to construct a new two-story single family dwelling with septic system and well on an unimproved R10 lot in the AE11 coastal flood zone located in the conservation zone within 100 ft of the main high tide line, the coastal jurisdiction line, title and title

wetlands coastal site plan review application was also submitted. have David and Stephanie Olsen applicants. So now the floor is yours. Please come up and present. I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Susanna McCauley. I'm here on behalf of the applicants, David and Stephanie Olsen, who are the owners of Nine Caukins Road. uh they're requesting a number of variances all set forth in the application in connection with the development of their lot uh as a single family dwelling use which is a permitted use and I just thought I would um go through a couple of things uh that uh I'm going to bring this a little bit closer. Is that okay for everybody? is um just want to sort of walk through the the lot a little bit and then we'll get into the application. So um sorry everybody can see this from where you are. Um the lot is located in an R10 district. It's got a um requirement of a minimum of 10,000 square feet. This has in excess of 37,000 uh square feet. So it's meets that requirement. Um, the lot itself is about 125 feet by 300 feet. And there's a few things I want to point out about the lot that are relevant to the discussion about the variances and why they're being requested. So, the first thing I want to point out about the lot is it has frontage on Caukins Road. Caukins Road uh has a right of way that's less than 50 ft. So it qualifies as a narrow street which requires an extra 5 ft of front setbacks maybe aware. So um I also want to point out um the very relevant locations of several

wells on neighboring properties. There's one here, there's one here and there's one here. Sorry, one here, here, and here. And they create this you know, 75 foot arc that they they can't put the septic system in anywhere. And so because they're all overlapping arcs, the um only permitted location of the septic proposed septic system is in this location on the plan. It it can't be shifted in any direction because of these arcs that go around. Um and they create this unique hardship for our lot. Um, the other thing I want to point out on here, which will likely be maybe easier on the other side because it's colorcoded, but I'll just show it to you on this side first, is the location of the um the mean high watermark because this is Marsh here. Um, the Connecticut uh coastal jurisdiction line on the river, the CJL line, those um those two lines are relevant because there's buffers uh associated with those lines that restrict development in those areas. So, I just want to point those out to you just so that you know they're there and when I go through the variances that we're requesting, you'll be able to know that that's and there's also marked on there the title wetlands, right? There's a title wetlands uh line as well. And that is not as easy to see because I think let's see have it marked on my plan. Okay, so on the other side of the application there's this nice colorcoded um map and I will point out that um the engineer has provided a small version of this in triplicate here um as part of

these packets with his letter and it's in this um Steuart Angus McDonald Stewart Fairbank letter. It's on attached to it a smaller version of this that you can you can look at but it also has um the title the 25 foot title review line is this yeah the uh I guess the question is even on this oh this is a non-colored map I'll show oh here's the colored Right. You said death by 11. So it's not one of the big pieces. This could be it. Yeah. A big version of it maybe. Oh yeah, these are better. I think this is better. This is the big version. So I guess the one question I have just from this even just looking at these plans in detail which are hard to read. I agree. Is it it's it it only talks about a 25 ft setback from the wetlands and it normally it's 50 ft I believe because of uh I'm going to look in the my regulations which is the 4.2.12 4.2 But it's clear to see the arcs here. That's very helpful, right? The arcs of the um well the distance is 75 foot arcs. Yep. I see. I guess my question is

I had a question even before this colored version. You know, it's only talking about ft. So let's see 4.2.12 you say? Yeah. 50 ft of any there's a second part on what oh no building or other structure including drainage shall be newly constructed or enlarged or extended within 50 ft. So, I I reviewed this with Eric and um you know, I think he was saying that 100 feet is more strict than 50 ft, but uh I guess I'm just I'm just trying to understand. So, this I guess where I'm coming from is like you you can't what's more important uh staying away from the environmental setbacks or staying away from the street? I guess. Yeah, that's true. That's the question. And so the applicant has opted to comply with the the setbacks, the front yard and the sideyard setbacks. And it's, you know, the proposed um footprint here is pushed as far into the corner as it can go. Right. I understand to be as far away from the natural resources um in an attempt to you know protect those over the I just just I'll clarify because that's really what we're talking about here right trying to stick something in that's very difficult position. Um, but anyway, I didn't mean to interrupt your That's okay. presentation, but just I noticed that there's this is only 25 feet and you know it's Why isn't it more and this is the red line is is the coastal ch. No, that's I don't know what this looks like. Yes. Can I ask you to just

verbalize what you're pointing to? Okay. So, we're looking at this new brought in today. Oh, we need to make this an exhibit because it's new. Was the whole packet? The whole packet new. So, we need a label on it. Right. Right. So, each item so um so there's a whole pile in this package. Well, so these I'm going to just in first just a second. I um I mean what's new? Right. So, so some of the information that I've provided to the board today and on this exhibit is new because originally the applicant was going to request a variance of the 35 foot conservation zone max height and that was part of the original application. the um applicant has worked with the engineer and the architect to remove that variance and to get the building below the 35 foot. That's helpful. Right. So that variance has come off. So rather than keep it on the old application, we've updated the applica the the um zoning table. Well, oddly enough, the zoning table didn't get updated because it got done after the architect finished the plans. But these are the new um elevations showing the reduced height. What is it? Um it is less than it is 33t 2 in on one side and 34.2 on the other. So my question is, is that height measured from the natural natural from

natural grade slightly? Well, the natural grade is up here down to here, right? So that's because of the the old plants, it looked like the measurement was from the Yeah, I think he has it on the zoning table. Let's see. uh natural grade six feet, right? Because the survey has five feet going underneath the building. Anyway, uh six feet is out here. I think six feet is here. It might be this also. Six. No, no, that's proposed. They want to bring in fill and make the new pipe six feet. So this is the proposed building of the more they're going to bring in. So the current natural grade right through the middle of the building is five feet. Here's four feet. Here's five feet. Here's six feet. And this is what they're proposing to bring in fill to make it six feet. So the height isn't natural grade is above five feet. Okay, that's the um that six foot line was the line that the engineer identified as the um natural grade on the plan. So that's the grade that's being implemented. It's not the actual natural grade. I think the grade that's being the the top of the pad is 7 feet, right? So that's two feet above natural grade. And that was one of my questions. Why is pad two feet above natural grade? And then you have above that the 30 something feet. I think maybe because the uh because the I think the grade is multiple areas. Right. Right. It's

I'm just going by the survey. Survey shows this is four feet. This is five feet. This is six feet. No, this is the proposed. This is the U. It doesn't mark that very well, but see here's where it varies off. So, this is this natural I Yeah. And this is what they're proposing to build up onto the building. Okay. So, 35 ft from 33.2 two feet from five feet. So you can you can go by the elevations. So if the elevation natural grade is five feet and what's the natural what's the elevation of this? Oh, here. So this is So they're measuring this 33.2 two feet from the top of the elevation, seven feet, which is the slat, which is well, so it's two feet above the natural two inches. Oh, two feet. No, two inches. No, no, no. The 33 feet from the 7 foot natural of the top of the garage slab, which is at 7 ft, which is 2 feet above the natural elevation. Right. So, I'm I'm glad you brought it down, but I'm just trying to make sure that we're talking about the same numbers. When you're talking elevation, it's above natural grade, not what you're Okay. So, so what I think you're saying is that if the natural grade is considered five Yeah. and then the slab is at seven. Yeah. So, and then you're so 33 feet from seven gives we need another there's another two feet there. So, it's really two inches over, right? But it's close. It's close. It's slightly over the I'm not going to argue over two inches. I just want to make sure we're

talking just personally. There's a whole board here and some people may take a I just want to make sure everybody's on the same page. And when we're talking about height, I guess my question is so the finished floor is 26 ft. No, this is the finished version of the second floor. Oh, the second floor. Yeah. And then this is Is this really two stories or two and a half stories? Two. So, what's up here? Is any of this six feet above? I'm going to have you look at this because I don't know what's up here. So, this roof line. Mhm. Right. So, this distance, how much of this like what's up here? Right. This is the second, this is a full second floor, right? But then the ceiling is probably here. And there's I don't know. Is that where the ceiling is? Yes. Yes. So I guess my question is a lot of times people get confused because you you're saying you have two stories, but an attic that has anything over six feet is also considered can be a half story. Okay. Unless it's more than 50% the story below it. Got I guess so. And the question is why do you need two stories instead of one and a half stories but also why do you need half stories versus two stories? So, um I'm going to address the need for the two stories. Um I this is not I I have no idea what's in this space. I don't know what the architect has planned for there or what is in there. If it's just rafters, if it's vated, I don't know what it is. The raptors are vaulted. Those are the options depending on Right. I guess because it's modular, right? Nancy, can we just have the Jonah say his name for the record? Oh, sorry. Oh, David Olson.

Sorry. I guess there was I had a number of questions. I don't want to get all the questions out at once, but I guess anyway, I just I was curious curious about the height and the elevations and the you know the the regulations are one and a half stories. Yes. You're asking for two stories and the question is is it actually two and a half stories? Corre that is now the question. Yes. Well, we'll have to address that because I don't this was I didn't I wasn't under the um impression that this was would be considered two and a half stories only because I I don't think there's any there's nothing under there. Well, I guess the question even if it's I just even if it's nothing even if it's not levelable space it's part of the requirements. Mhm. And so if anything above the ceiling rafters to the rafters of the under the roof is greater than six feet, that's a that's considered like an attic and a half story if it's anything. I wonder what that is. Sorry, I can pull it up if you want, but I guess I'm just, you know, part of what I said in the beginning is like what is your hardship and align purposes only regulations and addressing the comments of the various groups, but then is it the minimum to allow reasonable use and I had that question. So, I just wanted to bring it up and see if you had the answer. I know it's hard because you're the attorney and you're not the engineer or the architect, right? So I I'm giving you I I realize that this is difficult for you and I'm not trying to make it difficult, but this app No, I appreciate it. Completely reasonable. So here's what I'm going to say. Um I did bring up, you know, the some of the qualities and characteristics of this lot. And I'm going to try to address all of these questions as I go forward. So you know, feel free obviously to stop me again if

you have other questions, but I do have a plan to address all of this. Okay. And um I just wanted to sort of before I dig into the actual variances themselves, I was just sort of laying out the groundwork and putting it in context for the for the board members so that they just some of the things you mentioned see questions on. Right. So I bring up the coastal jurisdiction line and I bring up the high water mean high water line because I know that there are buffers associated with that which there is proposed development in and so I just wanted to make sure everybody's aware that those buffers yeah they're important are important right so um I would like to sort of go down my zoning table variance table and sort of touch each one of those sections and just proceed that way if that's okay. Um that's great. So the you're talking the one that's dated 4225. Yeah. Well, that one they're relative they're the only difference is is that this number has changed and that's the height the maximum height number because we've reduced the house. Everyone has this one, right? I have that one. Yeah. That was Can I ask if we could just clarify before we keep going the packet that was submitted if we can articulate what each piece is of the packet? So that we So are we numbering them? Exhibit one. Yes. Okay. So exhibit one. Is that the letter from the engineer? Exhibit one. Okay. We haven't had a chance to read this yet, but we'll get it into the record. And then next one. Oh, and here's the new table. Hey, here's the revised exhibit two. And that table is through. Oh, is this just one thing or two things? It was revised 41624. Okay. And here's a small version of

exhibit of exhibit three. The one that we have is from this is the various this is the various table revised. That's exhibit two and it's stated 416 2025. And then here's a small small and large versions of the colored veneers showing the eleant lines. What did he call it? Demonstration plan. Okay. A demonstration plan. So we need to this. This is exhibit four. What was So four is the large plan. And there's two versions. Do we do the name of both the large and the small? I just Excuse me. Not necessarily. Just the small version. Okay. Okay. So, should this be 32? There's a large and small version of three to the extent we need to keep a record for bill purposes. Yeah, that would be helpful. Okay. So, the small one is exhibit three. We're just trying to help our clerk out here. Thank you. Okay. So, so one was the letter from the engineer. Two was the updated zoning table revised 416 2025. And then exhibit three is a small version of the engineers demonstration demonstration plan which is a colored site plan and the large version is exhibit four. I see the table the new table. We don't we didn't get that. No the only change was the height reducing the height. Um, and this is these are my responses for the um application and I had to change it because it's less than 30. I changed the height. Okay. So, exhibit 55 is a revised amended application attachment.

Attachment. You got that? Got it. Okay. And then and then this this is exhibit six. It's the revised elevation drawings. So can you verbally tell us what can we just get them all in first Steve? We're getting confused. Exhibit six. Did you get that? Revised elevation drawings. And this is just a copy of the map. the revised site plan showing and it has a re it has this was already submitted but this table hasn't been updated so so we won't we won't call this an exhibit because we've already got this you already have this right I'll take this all right so that is exhibit six exhibits if I counted correctly and there should be in here oh more right this is just the floor plans this hasn't changed so I'm going to take this away because the floor pins is the interior. Right. The last thing is the u my response letter to the gateway commission. So that's exhibit seven. My handwriting is terrible. Sorry. Exhibit seven. And it seems to be there's a clip something else. Um those are the images that are referenced in the letter. Okay. So these letters be read into them? Yeah, we're going to definitely have to read them into the record. Okay. Okay. So then exhibit seven is the Connecticut River Gateway response letter to to the gateway connect the response to the K River gateway commission which is three pages and then there's one two images associated with it referenced in the letter that are attached. Can all

be one exhibit? Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. So, we have seven exhibits and we have to get everybody on board with all of them. All right. All right. So, you're going to go through all this material and explain what you Yes. what you changed or what you added. The the only change that we made was the reduction of the height of the building, but that necessitated changing the zoning data table and changing the responses to my um variance application and providing a new elevation drawing. This has been provided today to assist the the commission members or board members to be able to see better all these buffers and these lines that are very complicated. Just go back the elevation. How did you do that? Did you lower the whole building down or did you change roof lines? What what were the changes? If I understand brought it down, she just lowered the first floor or the pitch. She originally lowered the um second floor um and then you needed further lowering. So she was able to change the pitch so that it came low. My understanding is okay. So the other question is is that related to the height is What we've been told from our attorney is that you can get a an alternative to legal hardship for elevation of height over 24 feet is if it's the minimum required to meet FEMA requirements. So I guess that's where Eric got mentioned in his notice is that elevated properly apparently Um, is do we have double duty the tape recorder recorder in whatever going on here? Yeah, we're just relying on this. So I guess my question is talking to

height as well. So this is the elevation is 165 first finished first floor and the LHSM is at the lower height of the I guess structural member member. So if it's AE1 it needs to be 1 foot above that. So I guess the question is is that the minimum required to meet FEMA requirements? So um it's my so this is the engineer has explained this to me. Yeah, that the um the regulations the FEMA regulations y are currently under discussion. I don't know whatever governmental body was doing that. So there is discussions to increase the requirements for the um base flood elevation requirements. And so in anticipation of proposed changes, the engineer is or the um architect and engineer are are um building in some extra space to comply with the upcoming or soon to be. So I guess yeah. So the question is is so so 16. So this is AE1 flood zone. AE1. So that means the first floor elevation needs to be 1 foot above 8 12. That's right. So it's 4 and 1/2 ft higher than that. That's correct. We have to go by regulations now. Also, are we talking about NAFTA 88? Is that the standard that we're talking about? Can you repeat that? NFT8 because it is being revised, but it's not being revised anytime soon. It was supposed to be 2018 and it's

Yeah. So I guess it gets the whole thing too is like is this the minimum? So if you're 4 and a half feet higher than what is required to meet FEMA current regulations, that's a question that we have to struggle with. Right. Well, here's I mean I'm saying it right. Yeah. Okay. Here's the discussion. Um I am I I do have a plan to to respond to all of these. Um one of the things we discussed with the architect was um you know the the this is a you know a height for a garage based on this this under the house storage area. It's going to be and so you know could this be lowered anymore? Have you looked at the adjusting the fill elevation is one way of doing that. Well, that would I think there's only one foot of fill. Yeah. But again, I mean, just to bring the whole thing down. I don't know. I'm not clear on how the fill relative to the total height. I mean, we're talking about pure elevation from natural ground surface is what Nancy is saying. We're four feet above what that is. Correct. More than that. So the point is if this if the face is 5 feet and the finished floor you need to be you need to be 11 feet plus one that's 12 12 ft that would be around here but the finished floor elevation is 4 and 1/2 ft more than that and so I guess the question is you know we just need we we can't propose to you why you might be able to right there to say that But I just trying to understand what it is. Right. So um the

under the the space under the under the struct the dwelling itself is sort of bottom floor is um you know designed to has been designed to meet the you know to be able to park a car under here so that the cars are not on the road or on the sideway. I mean that's my understanding. Right. This is supposed to be a garage and it's storage space for the utilities or whatever that goes down there. You're saying because Do you have Do you have any more information about the um It's about 7 and 1/2 ft above what your new base is, right? It's from 7t to 14. Yeah, seven. It's about It's just about the minimum I think an 8 foot about 7 and 1/2 ft. 7 and 1/2 ft to that bottom member. Right. So that was getting back to the question of whether you wanted to lower the elevation of the fill so that you could but drop the whole house down and maintain some more space. But I don't know if that's even possible with the the difference here that you're talking about of four feet. Yeah. So can you get a usable garage and drop the house down four feet? Not four feet. You can't get a usable garage, but some some amount. Yeah, some amount. Do you do you happen to know if um you've had a conversation with Peggy about that? Is Peggy the architect? Peggy is the architect. Oh, thank you. She we had talked about different ways of lowering the height when it was above 35. She she could probably shrink down that lower half the garage. I I think every little bit is helpful when you're talking about something so right different than what's required because I mean 24 ft we have a lot of people in

town who want to raise their house and make it wonderful but the point is what we're told is the alternative to hardship is the minimum required to meet fees and so anything over that especially when you're not able to reduce any non-conformities because you have nothing there now you're starting from scratch So you should try to be as compliant as possible, right? which part of um part of the attempt to comply with the buff, you know, moving outside of the buffer zones was to shrink the footprint of the structure to a size that um you know, was a very modest less than 1,000 square feet, which is, you know, in in an effort to um back away from the buffer areas as much as possible, right? They've made use of their, you know, they have some amount of ground coverage, total ground coverage that's permitted in the in the um our tent district and they have shrunk it down to onethird of what's permitted in an attempt not to put structures into their um into the buffers. And so, you know, by shrinking that they're they're, you know, trying to reduce these um they're not non-conformities at this point, but they're, you know, trying to reduce the impacts and minimize and try to get to the minimum amount, the minimum variance required to put a structure here that's a modest, you know, thousand square foot on each Yeah. each floor. Less than a thousand square feet actually on each floor. And um did you I'm sorry. I know I read it somewhere but I guess I didn't write it down. What is the square footage of the house you're claiming the whole home? This

is well I think that the square footage that the gateway references that's where you probably saw it in the gateway letter report. It says it's like 29,000, but that's including the the um garage, which is not livable space. It's more than 6 feet tall. Well, right. Maybe because Right. Except for that it's in it's in a flood zone, so it's not livable space. Not livable space. But I think that the question is that's where it comes up to the the zoning enforcement offer to decide whether if it's in closed space counts as floor area or not. even if it's not a liveable story. But again, he's not okay. So that could be 29,000 I mean 2900 square feet within the structure, but as far as livable dwelling home, it's you know going to be less than 2,000 square feet. Yeah. So, let me ask another question the zoning enforcement officer brought up is that the calculation of coverage and floor area, the percentage that's allowed is based on the the part of the lot that was not wet. So, did you get that? That's been recalculated on the plant. It is on your um zoning data table. Let's see. The new one or the old one? It's on it was on the one that was submitted earlier. Um because it says right there Floria is 2940 square feet, right? And so if you cut off from my view it looked like 125 ft 125 maximum is 25 and it's 18 and a half. But what is the Oh, and here is you're saying the lot size ah without wetlands is 1500 15,000. Yeah. Okay. That was not a that I don't that was I don't think it was I don't think

it was I think you're correct. So this is a new exhibit. No, this was submitted um settle date on it. So it's part of the record before today. It's part of the record before today. Let me see. Does it say revision date? I revisions 4825. So I don't think we have that. It's pretty new. Yeah. 4825 cuz this one is Yep. This is the one that was submitted. So this is a new exhibit. This is exhibit eight now. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Keep in track. I'm sorry. Can you can you read those those numbers in the calculation again? So anyway, so the the total square footage of the lot including the part that's in wetlands is 37,82039. But if you remove the wetlands, the square footage is 15,850 in R10 lot anyway. So anyway, so that means the 2900 square 2940 square ft adds up to 18.5% floor area which is acceptable. Yeah, the 25% is and then the coverage is 1387 which the question someone else was asking. The coverage is 8.8%. And then this is the question we had number of stories it's greater than one and a half but is it two or two and a half? The reason I asked that too is that if you look at the floor

plans there's this box over the stairway that makes it look like a pull down. It makes it look like a pull down steps. Oh, but here's the stairs. Here's the hallway. Here's this box. What is the left? I'm not sure actually. Um I would assume it's a pull down judging by that. Yeah, that's what it looks like, right? For like an attic space. Yeah. Okay. And so what I guess my question is what for that attic space, we'll call it the attic space. What is So if anything's over six feet, anything over six feet makes it a half story unless it's more than 50% lower then it's a whole story. But if it was four, then right, it doesn't Well, it doesn't qualify as a half story because like a crawl space, right? And that's I I'll just text the architect to ask clarify the actual space above that but you know what's about right because I think it's it's it's hard because you've given us the garage area you've given us the first floor you g the second floor but you haven't given us any information above that right my understanding would be that of just guessing that she wasn't assuming that would be livable or usable space other than a crawl space yeah but attic space because it's bulk it's not just livable space because livable space I mean the absolute minimum livable space of two stories is 1,200 square feet but we're not going to make you go there but I think we're we don't you know that would want to be reasonable but the point is you're making a pretty big structure in a R10 district and so we're just trying to make sure that you're not going more

than you need to be reasonable makes sense Okay. So the question is how big how much space is there in that upper part of the above the the ceiling or above the so if you look at the elevations here this is 26 ft 30 so that means the difference between here and here I I don't know how you revis this the way that um was 36 feet 201 right so she's lower that I so the wall will be this will be overhanging so it'll actually be almost like what do you Nancy can we just try to verbalize what what you're we're looking at the the new the new floor plans the new the new elevation exhibit exhibit six we're just trying to get some understanding of yeah it looks like you did bring it down so it might be less than six feet but we just need some clarification on that sure and you did you text her to say Do you know how much the I did space? What is the Yeah, the that's a lot less than last time. The original Yeah, she brought it down significantly. So, you know, obviously we're idling it. We can't really tell, but I can find out. Yeah, that would be helpful because I do think the revised plans bringing it down is a significant improvement, but we're just trying to clarify. Sure. And tighten it up. Yeah. Can I also ask just because I I may have missed it. So, have we have we reduced that? What is the number that the current proposed height is? Did we say it was 35 or 35.2? Right now it's 33.2 from the slab. The slab, but the slab is around 2 feet above natural. Question is, is there is that a variance or is that not a variance? Is is not sure. Yes. Just I would clarify. I would say let's

I'd say the two inches makes it a varian. It makes it a variance. Yeah. Definitely makes it a variance. Um but but the question is the natural grade. Yeah. Yeah. What are we working with? Because if you're asking for less of a variance and obviously the height is one of the things factor that makes it a different application, right? So you could adjust the elevation to meet you get rid of two in I think the two in is not going to be a problem. You're controlling the elevation of your fill. You haven't put it in there yet. So you say the fill shall be right at a certain elevation so that we meet our height requirements. And I'm just ballparking when I say because a five foot elevation line goes right through the middle of the house, right? Probably a little bit high, a little bit lower, but it's on average around five, but somebody could measure it and calculate it, get the actual average. Yeah, exactly. Um, so, um, the applicant is obviously willing to work on getting rid of 2 in to make sure that that is at least at least the two in as far as this height, this four and a half feet. There's still this 4 and 1/2 ft that we're contending with, right? So, separate height issues. The the first height issue would potentially resolve the need for two variances. Yes. Yes. Um the second height issue is that just the question is at the minimum necessary to meet FEMA. That's correct. So but there you know there might be some rationale you can say to I'm not going to give you rational but but I but there may be some rational you can give why that is good or you know you know but anyway I'm just saying we can't do that for you. to elude question might be why do we need the fill in that location I mean what it's

what's its purpose in terms of structural integrity or drainage or some other factors is there some other way of modifying the foundation fill so you meet they're building it up that you meet your objectives with at a lower elevation so that's so I think they're going to go back and look at the height of overall structure versus natural But then the question is the the height of the first floor is is is it the minimum required to meet the FEMA requirements or some other rationale for why you need it to be four and a half ft higher than that. Well, but you know you could say I'm not going to say but I think you can say sometimes there are justifications why there's ultimately a need to have that. Right. Well, the the the idea is to not disturb so much and to not d have to dig down into the existing grade to disrupt, right? But then that's that's gets the height the overall height. But then this well that also gets to the 12 foot, right? If if this were to be excavated out to reduce the height of the and that that would be disruptive to the Yeah. I don't think it could meet FEMA compliance and could in a basin would be like a basin. But anyway, so anyway so um again that's a it's a it's a good question for you to to think about um you know then it could be but I didn't mean to interrupt you but no it's very helpful to have these discussions. Yeah. So I why don't you continue where you were trying to go because then we still have other things to cover. So, so, um, the first variance that I was going to address, but we've just addressed so many of them now, um, was, uh, section 4.3.1, which is the 100 foot buffer from the high water mark. Yeah. The high

water line. Yeah. Right. Does someone have that table that she gave us? The new Oh, this it is the old one. Oh, this is too. It still says greater than 35 ft. Here. It does. Right. This is um 4.3.1 is Oh yeah. Okay. I'm just saying but we were talking about the height and this is less than 35 ft. But that's it's greater than it's by 2 in greater. Okay. So you were trying to make it less than but the the value says greater than. So maybe a typo. Oh it's a typo. I want to say clarify that you're but it isn't. It is greater than 35 ft. Well, we're we're going to get measurements of that cuz I'm we're ballparking the actual native natural elevation. So, is it 2 in more or less? We don't know. But sorry, you're modifying. Well, the the height, the max height is 35 and it's less than 35 ft. So, but that symbol means greater than. I thought less than. It's shaped like an L. Okay. I thought it points at the small amount. Am I Am I Am I saying it wrong? No, I think you're right. You're correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Cuz I was confused. All right. Okay. So, so we exhibit two to make the less than. Okay. Got it. Oh, two. Okay. Okay. Now, let's go back to 4.3.1. So 4.3.1 restricts the um development of the lot within the uh 100 foot buffer of the mean high water line. Um you can see the mean high water line is here and there is a calculation

on the plans 87 9 ft to the edge of the deck and this is the mean high water line. Great. And that includes septic system right I'm just trying to visualize that this is 87.9 ft there is also a portion of the septic system and I think if we look at the colorcoded one um this line is let's see oh here this line is the mean high water line oh it doesn't it has 87.9 and then it has 93 f feet from the mean high water line. So we are within the buffer zone here. Three feet is what? The distance from the mean high water high water line to the edge of the septic system. That a portion of the septic system is within the buffer a corner of it and then a portion of this deck. Now it doesn't have the full Oh, you know what? I think this red line here is the 50t from the wetland. because it looks like it parallels this line. So, anything between here and here is is upper. Can people see that? Yeah, there there is a line from the from the wetlands to the north end of the septic that says 50 ft. Yeah, there it is. 50 ft. Mhm. Okay. There's a lot of uh a lot of lines. Yep. So, what are we saying? From the wetlands to the septic is 50 ft. And from the high uh water line to the septic is 93 and to the edge of the decking here is 87.9 and you're

positioning it because of wells to the other side. So, this can't move it farther north. So, that's only the septic system, but she's also pointing out the structure itself. So yes, the septic system is exactly in that spot and it cannot be put any place else. That is as far away from anything it can be because there's wells. Right. Right. Um which which leaves the only place really for the structure to be sort of in this area because this area is taken by the by the septic system. And so this is really the only location to site the the dwelling. How about if you just move if it wasn't the narrow street in 25 it would have five there would be five extra feet to play with and you could move five feet because there that's radius for the septic system not Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the house could move into the front yard setbacks. That seemed a little counter to I I would you know didn't know what Yeah, exactly. I think I guess to Eric's point you go one way or the other sort of but I guess in one half dozen on the other. No, I don't think it is. I think I think it would be preferable to pull the house off the wetlands. Absolutely. as far as possible. And I mean, if we're going to do a variance of something, I would rather the sort of man-made variance of setback rather than the natural problem of the wetlands. Um, especially because it's the narrow road makes it the next and the septic is so close to the wetlands too. So, um, if everything well, it's outside of the 50 foot buffer, right? But still I mean just practical step right outside but and again but that can't be moved that but we're talking the structure even if

the house moves. No you can't move it if the h that's the problem is that this is a big thing. So that that you've got pretty much inflexible but I guess my view too is like you've got you're very close to the the coastal jurisdiction line. You're you're very close to wetlands. you're you're very within 50 ft of the wetlands. You're you've got your high velocity flood zone sea rising just seems part of the purpose of the zoning regulations to help improve health and safety. So I would feel like you're safer closer to the street than closer to the high velocity flood zone. But that's just a thought. I don't know if other people would think that. And I kind of view that the street is there with sea rise and stuff. You you know you talked about identifying FEMA flood zones. You know what what's better for the safety of the you know the people living there. I guess the first setback, the safety issue there is I don't know how many people drive up and down this road, but putting the house closer to the road is also a safety issue. It's pretty low, but it's still I don't if it's 25 ft, it's still pretty far away. Sure. Yeah. That's But so this so the variance would be from the narrow street regulation rather than the setback regulation that gets you five feet. Yep. I think originally it was designed that way until someone said, "Oh, no, there's a five foot extra, you know, narrow street regulation." Right. But yeah, so I'm sure it could get shifted. It was I think it was already put there and then they shifted it over to comply with I think from your own safety perspective it just seems being a little further

away from the flood zones and a little higher up on higher ground would probably be safer for you and your So can we see a change in elevation if we do that? Maybe for because that puts us back. Um, this is a six. This is a That's five. I think that's that's a six. This is a six. This is a six. This is a six. That's five. This is a six. That's a five. This a six. This is four. Right. Look, this right here is a six. That's a five. Yeah, that's a six. It's a six. Well, then where's five? I don't. Oh, here's five. Five is up here. Five is here. Yeah. Okay. Then this is six. And there's another six over here. So maybe it goes up and down. Maybe a six. That's a six. That is definitely You're right. That's a five right there. Five. I don't know what that means. I don't know what this is. It's a lot, right? So, in either way, it sounds like it's a favorable shift from a height perspective, right? Well, yeah. So, then two the two inches wouldn't be necessary anymore. I mean, it wouldn't be a Yeah, right. But we're still right. Well, that's from the overall 35 ft, but we still have to deal with the um minimum 5T six feet. Yeah. Well, I mean, if the ground goes up, your space to the elevation of your first floor goes down. Correct. So, you have less head room that garage when you move it towards the rope. Yes. And I think the other thing too is you're you need less fill to make sure the the basement is at six feet, right?

Because this will get shifted back to where this is also six feet. So say in between here there might be a need to put something because we don't know what this is. It could just be that it goes higher there. But but in terms of safety I would say you're better off shifting it back. But that's up for the applicant to consider and the rest of the board to consider though. That's a good point. I also feel like we've had so much new information today, but we wanted to get as much discussion out as possible because we still haven't even read the comments to the gateway. Yeah, the gateway stuff should be addressed here, right? Okay. So revise uh so what I am hearing from the commission the board is that they would um be amenable more amenable to requesting the variance of the front setback or the narrow street the narrow street setback additional and narrow street setback just to shift it the extra five feet away and I think that I like I said I I think that was actually the original plan and they moved it so that it wouldn't be um because they were trying to keep it as far away from all of this as they could. Right. And I appreciate the setbacks but then you know the the safety factor comes in too. I think it's better for you applicant. Yeah. And yeah, we had a few things we wanted to clarify about the two and a half versus two, but you're going to get to that eventually. Well, I I don't know unless you hear

from the architect between now and but as I think there's enough things to discuss that we're probably not going to decide today, but let's try to get as much information to you as possible. That's right. Well, we can but we're here more knowledge to go what you need to provide. Okay. So, basically the other argument you made is that you've minimized the footprint or coverage uh given the constraints on the lot which is a hardship and as a result of that you you feel you need a full second story. a full second story just to um you know the the footprint has been reduced to you know very modest size. So the second story would just allow as opposed to getting a variance of a larger footprint and having more coverage on the ground. So is has the architect addressed some of the other issues such as mechanicals and other things that need to be put into the structure and could those components be in the second floor or third whatever the high elevation I guess. Yeah. And how would that affect you know the living space calculation? I mean if we have mechanical rooms or whatever they're not living space in the second floor is that subtract from the area that we floor is FL is a bulk thing, but you know, but I guess uh it I I didn't want to interrupt what you were saying. I just want to say that blurry and bulk and living space is two separate things. And I think you're trying to get at that, right? But you still need to address bulk. But I guess the thing is because the maximum of 25% is allowed doesn't mean that you need to be able to go to 25% if you have limitations on your lot. Understood.

Right. But as opposed to requesting variances to spread the footprint out, you know, they opted to do the variance of the second story. I guess okay. Um Okay. So again within the mean high within the 100 foot buffer of the mean high water mark the septic is it there because it is no cannot go. Yes. The applicants would obviously be willing to shift back. That was the original proposal before they realized they were on a narrow street and they moved it out. Um, that actually might take the footprint of the actual dwelling dwelling out of the 100 ft buffer. And what would remain are just the bases, the supports of the decking. So much smaller footprint in the buffer at the very edge of the buffer to support the deck. And is the deck the minimum size that it can be for code? Yeah. You repeat the question. I couldn't hear it. I asked if the deck was the minimum size for building code. Okay. Which I don't know what it is, but I think I'm not sure. I believe it's I don't know the code. So having a distance from the um we didn't get the um I'm sorry we didn't get the drawings before today. Um so you mean the these were submitted originally? No, I

mean like the elevations. Oh the elevations. So there were elevations submitted but they're revised as to height but not as to the deck. Okay. Right. But I didn't see those. I'm gonna show you um that this is the deck. Where's the deck? So these are the here's the deck. These are the stairs going to the deck, right? And so there's these posts, right? Nice when you have measurements. And there's also this side elevation. And this is the deck. Right. We're talking about the story. Yeah. This is the deck, right? This first story deck and a second story deck. I think there is a second story deck, but the only one that would impact the buffer is right with the house. Yeah. Right. So, and this is 12. Sorry, I missed 12. I mean, okay. that could I mean if you're looking I'm just think this piece here. Yeah. I just think anything that you pretty much anything that you can pull back you know so rather than decreasing your living area which you know is important for your comfort anything that you can pull back kind of on the edges whether it's like it doesn't look like you have a big overhang or anything but that counts for bulk. Okay. So and like the deck would too. So yeah it doesn't count for flurry but it counts for bulk. So if you can reduce the bulk, you know, even by a small amount, that would be really helpful. Sure. Sorry. Um, okay. So the buffer, if the house goes back five extra feet, it may be that the

footprint part of the house itself and just the is out of the 100 foot buffer. I don't know. I'd have to do the calculation. Right now it says it's it's like 88 ft. Yeah. So it' be at and that's about 12 he said. Okay. Or maybe this is 12. I don't know. But anyway, anything you can because as you hear from us, this is a safety environmental thing. This is not so much and you seem to have enough hardships to be able to justify some encroachment onto the front setback to preserve the research resource. Okay. So, we talked about 431, section 4.3.1 in the buffer zone and addressing moving this a little bit back. Um, maybe drawing the deck in a little tighter. Yep. Okay. Suzanne, as you're doing your calculations, if you're um just getting the dimension from the um the mean tide line to the actual house, so you have both of those dimensions. It's something that I only have the dimension from the mean tide. And when you come back, oh yes, yes, it is helpful to have those measurements right on the plan and even the elevations even even just on the um the chart. Yeah, the difference between you this is the dimension to the steps. This is the dimension to the actual house because obviously correct. That's good because right now it just says 87.9 ft. Doesn't say it's somewhat residential dwelling. Does it? So this is a question if the if the so these posts are directly underneath the deck um if and I don't know if possible but if these coasts were moved back also somehow in a different position but

still were able to like legally support the debt. Yeah. I don't see any advantage to that. I'm sorry. Okay. Well, I just so disturb less disturbance in the wetland, I guess. But the footings are so small. I mean, the the bases of those posts are So, it's the bulk of the actual deck area. That's Yeah, the deck area is But is it the is the the buffer the 100 foot? Okay. So, I'm talking about the buffer. So, the buffer is not bulk though. The buffer is location and proximity within the buffer. So if the like the deck is above the surface and so the the posts are small so the encroachment is very minimal minimal you know the minimum required to support the deck is what I understand just want to make sure we're on the same page. Um but bulk is sort of the size of the deck and the and the overhang and the Yeah. Yeah. Which does affect coverage. I bet your coverage isn't acceptable now. But the coverage is okay right now because kept it pretty tight, but it's still coverage in an area where you're not supposed to have cover. Right. Right. Well, so um the problem like we were discussing is that this location of the septic well and the septic system is dictates where this can be. And we're shifting this as far back as it can be. And it needs to be a certain distance from the house. So you can't move the house this way. Yeah. Right. And it can't be here. The house can't fit in this corner. It's like literally only can be in one location. I mean it can be shifted this way which we will do. But yeah, I guess the thing is Yeah. So as long as you have the minimum distance between the this the septic system and

that's not our call. That's the health districts. Yeah. Where's your Well, in that corner there. Okay. This itty bitty little corner. Okay. So, can I just clarify to so the coverage interplay? You were saying that the reason um you need the second story is because you don't want to increase the footprint. Um and I just want to make sure we have this on the record to Is that because you're so close to the septic system and there needs to be a certain amount of distance between the septic system? There needs to be a certain amount of distance. So, it's limited as far as how far we can encroach, how far we can spread the house footprint out from the septic, and it's all just very contained because there's that those three wells that are limiting this property uniquely. Well, it's the buffers, too. And well, and the buffers, but you know, the this location of this septic is really driving where the house can be. But I'm just we're talking about the size of the footprint of the house. So, for example, like one of the bedrooms couldn't be on the first floor to to make it a one and a half story because that would put the the footprint the actual footprint closer to the sub. You don't have enough room. There's not enough space space on the first floor on that. Well, it's the garage floor. You can't even push it over because of the bulk. You can't can lever it over either because then you have a bulk issue. I think yeah I think what um Sylvia is getting at is the footprint not the footprint the floor plan showing she's saying like could you put because right now you have on the first floor you have oops here it is you have an office you have a living dining room you have a kitchen you have a laundry mechanical room could you put a bedroom on the first floor and then make this one and a half story have two bedrooms and maybe a small

if I were the architect I could address that. So I I thought what you were making the connection is if if functionally the footprint gets larger right that's going to be too close to the septic system because of the various distances that you need from the septic to the house and so on and so forth. So I guess that's that's the question if that if that's the reason, right? So the the footprint is limited because of the location. I we can't put the h move the house I see what you're saying any further towards I mean we wouldn't be able to expand the footprint then we'd be within the required I mean we could play play this out and say okay let's say we do the follow the rule how big does the first floor have to be how far do you have to push it into the wetlands basically is what I see because those are the only directions well you can push it into the setback the five feet we're giving you know we're moving it five feet towards the road you could say well I'm not going to change the current location. We're going to increase the base. But can you meet that objective of one and a half stories by making all those changes? I think that's that's a question you'd have to answer. Well, I think what I heard the board members say was that they want the they would we're trying to get at the one and a half story issue. Okay. So, well, there's a lot of different things that are that we're trying to address at the same time. So I'm getting confused about what we're what we're addressing at the same time. So So yes, this will be mo shifted back and I what I heard the board to say was we're not increasing the size of the front, but we're moving it farther away to reduce this side and increase, you know, the the um the setback variance, you know, push it that way. There is no I I mean it was my understanding that that wouldn't if this if this was made longer. In other words, you keep the distance here and just add extra distance here to reduce. Well, what we're trying to do is get the ratio of

second story to first floor closer to one and a half. So, is that feasible or not? And there's obviously it's a compromise between footprint size and location. We have to expand the house towards the wetlands. Do we want to see that or do we want to keep it as a very confined twotory structure which is what you proposed? I guess all I'm hearing from some of the board members is I think we'd rather just shift it or then could try to reduce the try to reduce the coverage and right the the the variances required for some of the environmental setbacks right that's a trade enough but I guess the other thing too my understanding is like if you can say when you come back yep sorry we can't move it this way because he has to be 25 ft away from the septic system and That's 25 ft. That has a That's the table. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And Nancy, just just because I'm I'm looking at the the dimensions and it's slightly at an angle, so this is going to make it more complicated, but we're talking about shifting the house to the east towards the street towards the street. Um and then we're talking about an articulation as from a from a south perspective. Um could the and I'm not suggesting that this should be done. And I'm just highlighting the issue. If for example, if the house was made larger on the south side such that make it a wider like if it was a square instead of a rectangle such that the southern side of the house was more south to accommodate a bedroom there. What would be the reason such that you could have only a one one and a half story instead of a twotory? I'm going to guess your architecture engineer is going to say that would put it too close to the septic system. So, we're just looking to put that on the record if that is the or what is the reason that the footprint can't get bigger. So, not

this way because you you've already been the board's already articulated that there's a preference that nothing be moved to the west because those are the environmental buffers that we'd like to maintain. Um, and there's there's a preference that if there's going to be a shift that it be to the east, but and the shifting it to the north would be into a setback, but there's theoretically a shift to the south or a larger footprint on the south side to to eliminate the second story and 1.2. Yes. And I think just going to that if you look at this like the closest part to the septic system is here. This is a 20.5 ft. If you're shifting the house this way, then you might have more space over here to expand the first floor. I know, and this is relevant to my clients for certain, but the house is a modular home. So, there are fixed dimensions to the house, but Right. Right. So, right. in an attempt to, you know, but I Yeah, but but it does but again, if you moved five feet this way and this Well, it's something to explore for sure. Yeah, exactly. Well, I think if nothing else, we're looking for an articulation on the record that would allow the board to make decisions. Right. Right. So, so I mean that's an important consideration. It's a module home. You have certain fixed dimensions. You don't have the flexibility of just saying, "Well, let's just move this wall two feet." Mhm. You can't fit that on a trailer. So, that's an important consideration in terms of the design of the of the structure. Got to go in, you know, module units. That's a consideration at least, but Right. Yeah. So, um, we're definitely willing to explore. I mean, I don't know what the, um, I you would know better than I would about the modular components and whether they vary or 13. Okay.

So, so it's 20 what? 27 or whatever it is. That's the width of that's the max width. I mean, you have the lot you have. It's possible the lot is not available to the modular designs. You might be stuck to the stick house not stuck, you know. I mean, it is an option. Maximum width is 27, which is two units, right? Okay. Is it 27 or 27? Yeah. But something to explore. Yeah. And to respond to Yeah. when we come back. So, um, I'm still trying to get to your zoning table. All right. We're getting there. We're making We're making We're addressing things as we go. They might not have been in the order that I intended, but that's okay. All right. Okay. So, we did talk about, however, the the 100 foot buffer for the mean high. We're going to move on from that because the mean high water line, I think we've talked. Okay. So the other buff there's two other buffers that I want to just touch on. One is the riparian vegetation buffer 50 ft. Okay. So the riparian vegetation buffer will be disturbed with the installation of this septic system. The applicants have no objection to the um you know some reasonable restoration of the disturbed areas to restore the riparian uh vegetation buffer. Now you're talking about your responses to the coner gateway commission. Well, it's also yes, but also because we are in the in the riparian vegetation buffer. So, we requested a variance of that section and that's section 4108 which is part of the gateway but it also addresses the gateways concern. Now, the gateway's correspondence and report whatever was you know their concerns were can we move this? Well, I think we can now. Yeah. Move some of that back. My response

initially was no because then we're in the setback. Yeah. But if the board would agree to um consider that as a more positive variance than Yes. being in the um setback general consens, right? So um and and that may move that's another five feet. So that could theoretically move it move the house and the decking and any of their support structures out of the riparian Yeah. vegetation buffer. A lot of positives. Okay. So um that would make that go away. Yeah. Yeah. Wait, I just have a question. Was this not required to go to inland wetlands or is it just not go to them yet? It's not inland wetlands. It's title. That's what that was my Okay. Which is still a problem, but so um uh so we talked about the 100 foot buffer from the high water. We talked about the riparian vegetation buffer which could potentially go away when this house gets shifted very likely to except for the septic that will stay. Yeah, it can't be do anything about that. Um, so there will still be a need for a variance or an encroachment into the riparian vegetation, but you've now and just we're talking about the subject system. I noticed in the alleged light health district, they wanted you to dig a few more test wells. So you would be okay with a a condition of approval of whatever anything if we do approve it that it comply it be with what the legislate finally comes up with. Yeah, with the final it get is it gets final approval of the legis. Do you know David if they're doing any more test picks or test wells at the for the legisle? No, I think your approach is fine. I mean we basically put a condition that you have to secure those approvals and

intermediate steps are not relevant. Okay. But that their their letter did say that they wanted two more test holes. Right. Well, we want the current place improved system his understanding or what he told me is that's a pretty standard thing that what you understand right and and no problem but just because it it's not a solid done deal you'd be okay any condition would be based on getting that final approval of health district okay and then the remaining buffer is the buffer from the CJL the coastal jurisdiction line. Okay. So, the coastal jurisdiction line pretty much dissects their lot, the applicant's lot. Um, the buff 100 foot buffer covers all of the lot outside of maybe a strip along the front which is covered by this front yard setbacks. um as we're discovering through this discussion um you know fewer and fewer variances or or we are minimizing the variances the the CJL buffer it cannot there is no minimizing the encroachment because it covers the entire lot but for that buffer there would be no permitted use uh you know on that I mean that that buffer would has the impact of of restricting the use of this property in every way that's permitted in the in the R10 district. Okay. Um you know the the dissection of their lot by the line you know not every lot in the in the district is subject to that. is the way it cuts through this particular

lot essentially makes the the lot unusable as far as any permitted use in the district because nothing can be done in the buffer. and um you know all other you know all other mitigating steps are being taken to try to minimize the disruption to the natural resources right I think we're along the lines if you can minimize it as much as possible we understand that and we're moving as far as far away from it as much as we can yeah okay so and um you have what 45 3 ft was that to the septic and that was Yeah. What was it? To the septic. No, 45.3 is to the deck. To the deck. So that might actually increase a little. Well, yes, it'll get rid. Yeah, that'd be more than that'll be more than 50 feet then. Okay. So, I think we're on the same So, those bumpers were the first one things that I just want. And then we obviously have now talked about the height. Those were the two the the CJL I mean the gateway height has been reduced to or we're going to discuss getting it down to the amount uh to the height to to meet the gateway conservation zone requirements. We're going to speak with the architect to discuss getting the minimum required for FEMA. Yeah. And different strategies and ways to accomplish that. And um anything that to make it one and a half stories and what we can do to make it one if anything to to make it one and a half stories or the reasons why you can't and the reasons why or the reasons why we can't. Yep. Because we just we try to be consistent

with everybody and they got to give us a reason. So, for now, the reasons are that it's a a modular home and so the dimensions are somewhat fixed, but also we're going to double check about the how how much play we have between the structure and the septic. Um, you know, encroaching into the setbacks further than just the narrow street. Yeah. Five feet is another possibility. Yeah, I I think that I think you've heard us. I feel very like the board's been heard. I think you've been open to suggestions, which is very helpful. I think the intent is to try to align on what's the minimum is is really appreciated. Um but I don't think was there anything else you wanted to cover today? Um I did just want to say that the gateway that you know you might want to read read this into the record. Yeah. Our secretary can read this record um re applications for variances road. Dear commission members, thank you for your review of the variance application submitted by my clients David and Stephanie Olsen related to the development of their lot within the conservation gateway overlay zone at 9 road in old line, Connecticut. Can I can I just This is the applicant's letter, the response letter. Sorry. Since it sounds like we're going to be continuing. Yeah. As long as everybody reads the letter. We will read it over the month. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good suggestion because

there is also eight. Actually, I did have one other question while we're talking about the Snaker Gateway. They did also mention reducing imperous services. Oh yeah. I don't think there is a a pvious uh um driveway driveway. Our expectation was to just awareness. Well, then just if you can put that in writing somewhere. Oh, it's in the response. Okay. But yeah, just in your plans. I also would point out that Oh, we can add it to the plans. Yeah, add it to the plans. Um, so I I don't know if we've addressed this, but do you put stone underneath decks just because there's been no vegetation just to stabilize that surface? Under standard, but you might want to show that on the plans, too. And I had a question. Um, the first floor, it looks like stone walls with vents. There are not going to be breakaway walls. It's an flood vents in the AE flood zone. You don't need just floods. Flood vents. That's my understanding. Yeah, my understanding too. It was in the V flood zone. It had to breakway walls, but it's in the AE flood zone. Right. So, this was something that I also wanted to um draw your attention to is that the um DEP letter has it in the wrong flood zone. Oh, I just got that today. I did not get that. It's in the wrong flood zone. It's in the AE1 and the the DEP letter. D. They have it in some sort of V zone. Hold on. I'm gonna get my V is high velocity flood zone and AE is not. So they had it in the wrong one. I didn't notice. They do see they do say BE. Should correct that, right, DP? Yeah, I would have them correct that for next month. Yeah, but we need to have Deep correct it.

Well, I don't think you need to have deep correct letter because we have the survey says that it's we have other documentation. It would say E1. So, I don't if it looks like it's a typo as opposed to a substance comment because we have the survey and that's goto spot. I think that's what you're referring to. Yep, exactly. Thank you, Steve. Aren't you glad you came? All right. Um and then a last thing is u provide a lighting plan. I they are not at the point where they can provide a lighting plan but they did and I did address that and say that they are we'll read this willing to make you know reasonable efforts to do all sort of darkition that we put on the Sure. Right. They need Yeah. Okay. Okay. And then I would also ask, I mean, this was so much information and new tables and everything. If you could possibly, if you're going to write them a new letter or something, if you could submit it even a week before the meeting would be really helpful. But yes, of course, absolutely. And if you don't think you're going to get it a week before the next hearing, we can hear you in June. But the thing is, if you want to be in May, no, we'll have it. We do like we act, as you can see, we do our homework. No, I like to review stuff beforehand. So, it is it's important. All right. Thank you. All right. So, um I didn't have any other questions. Did anyone else the board? Did you want to then uh sign a consent to continue the public hearing? Let me just get that uh form out. I just got some more forms today. I tried to put all these exhibits in order, but there's I have some gaps. So, I just want to draw that to your attention. So, let's make sure we have mult. We need two and three because this

is four. Two and three. This is seven. Okay. Seven goes here. This is my copy here. You can fill that out. Six. Five. Four. We just need three and two. Here's two. If this is I think exhibit two is a new table. Oh, you got something else over here. Oh, no. I think it's the response. No, no, no. It's Is it the new updated? The new No, you have that. Oh, no, wait. You have the new plan right here as eight. Which one are you missing? Do you remember what it says? Three. The small version of the demonstration plan. It's got Oh, the small version of the demonstration plan. A and B on three. Three is a small and four is Oh, here it is. I found it. Found it. Okay. So, one, two, three. One, two, three, four. Wonderful. Okay. So, we have them all. Everything's right here. And we have and we have multiple copies. So, that's good. All right. So, I'm gonna close this up. So we need to say the date of the next meeting is April May. It's um 15th May 15th. May 15th. Yeah. Can I just say something? When you said we have three copies of the new information, but she had pulled something out of one like should we make the three copies the same? I also, just so you all know, provided digital copies of it all to Craig. But she's saying that you made an amendment to the exhibit two. You changed the less than to greater than. Yeah, I changed my less than to greater than sign. I agonized over that. Third grade, right, Nancy? The the

multiple copies I don't think you need to keep in the record to the extent somebody wants the multiple copies. It's fine. Just so it's that look right. We know which one is the one. Yep. It should be the label one, I would think. Right. So that's why I'm saying just to avoid confusion. The multiple copies can be disposed of or distributed outside of the town. Okay. So I will keep because I usually keep a copy. We'll put the clip on this and this will be all the exhibits. And what I wasn't saying that about the change. I was saying that she removed one of the maps. Like if there eight things there, they the other copies have nine things in them. But if you take them back. No, but I think the she was taking one back. Oh. Oh, I was one we already had. It was the floor plan. It may have been this the floor plan was in the same something. You put it on the chair. I remember seeing you put it down on the chair. Okay, that's a good point, Stephanie. Thank you for that. All right, so I'm going to just put these exhibits sticking up. The one with the exhibits written on them is the set. That's it. So if it doesn't have an exhibit on it, you can do whatever you I'm saying we take this out of here on the receiving end of this potentially. It's it's it's lovely when things are marked in the room, but there are things that come in after the application in between that don't get labeled with the love lle that'll end up in the file that look like they're part of the record that might not be. So my preference is if there's multiple copies of the things that came for me to take it out. Just take them out. All right. So I'm taking these two things out. You want me to take them away from? Yes. Just so a straggler doesn't get loose in there and it looks like it was something supposed to keep one because I usually keep one but I I have to remember because I've been here and heard what changed. Okay. Right. And then there's that one. There was three versions of it. And so this is the one that's marked. Okay. And then we

also have the applicant's request for an extension which we have here. So we're So now this has been very productive for continuence not an so a continuence to continue which is does anybody else have any other questions or comments for the applicant before we make a motion to continue? Okay. Right. So with that in mind, would anybody like to make a motion to continue the case 25-2C to the May 15, 2025 CVA meet? I'll make that motion. Okay, that was seconded by Michaela. All those in favor? I opposed. None. Staining none. The motion passed unanimously. We'll see you in May. And if for some reason you don't think you're going to get us material like a week ahead of time, then please let us know and we can maybe bump move you to June. Of course. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Oh. Oh, wait, wait, wait. The public comments. Sorry. Sorry. Is that you go? So, sorry. So, we don't have a motion to make those. I'm sorry. You have a you have a motion, but you can table someone whoever made the motion can table the motion for you. I'll table the motion until the motion. Okay. Sorry. Would anybody like to speak from the public about this application? Hi, please come up and state your name and address. Megan Anderson to Debit Road. And hold on. I'm sorry. I apologize. I'm not a great public speaker. So, I wrote a letter. I'm sorry. You said you're Megan. So, Megan Me right there. Oh, thank you very much. And Henderson. Okay. Um, I'll just read what I wrote and then I need to be in exhibit two. Okay. Exhibit number nine. a pen. I have um I have lived at two dev road and two

dev road is my driveway is on the same road as where their house would be built. So right down the street for 18 years I've seen my neighborhood go through wonderful changes. When I first moved into our neighborhood quite frankly there were houses that should have been condemned. Broken windows holes in them owners who were putting toxic chemicals in their yard and their neighbor's yard. old tires all over the yard. And there was more that I could go on that I will not get into, but they were owners who didn't care about what their neighbors had to see on a continual basis. It has been a great thing to see these houses be improved by new owners who care about our neighborhood, and treat their neighbors with respect. I've known Olsson's for many years. This is a family that cares about the neighborhood they live in, upkeep their house, and treat their neighbors with respect. They have already shown this in the current neighborhood they live have lived in a line for 13 years. I live down the street from the lot. I would be driving by this house every day and would be affected by having a house on that lot. I am confident that the house that Wilson's build would be appropriate for the neighborhood and the lot. Um the the other thing and this was before I came and was listening and one of the things that came up with variances and I have a house across the street from I don't know Michaela if you've ever driven down the road lately because when you came to my house there was a house across the street that was misfit and looked like a hitch your honor and when that house was knocked down I had people say to me oh what if they built some high house I could have cared less if they built a house with 100 ft because what I looked at for years wonderful neighbors But they reached a point where they didn't care about their house anymore and they let it go. They let it purposely go into foreclosure. Very nice neighbors, but they had their reasons. So I didn't really care how high they built a house. They built a really beautiful house. I know they used to get variances. It's below the 35 ft. You look next door to them and the Dooryans lived there and I think some of you know the Doorans built the house over I believe at this point over 25 years ago. It's much higher than

the 35 ft because this 35 ft has come into existence since I built my house. I look at these two homes. I don't care that one is over 35 ft. That one is lower. They're both beautiful homes. And in seeing and talking neighbors who are saying, "I've had to lower my house, but FEMA is saying you have to go higher and this one and a half." I think it's disappointing because there's other areas that are not in our zone that I've seen build much higher homes. But my point is whether it's 35 35 and 2 in or when I look across the street, they're both beautiful homes. And I would hate to see it turn down over a matter of 2 in or 2 feet. And I don't think the neighbors who would look at it, they're not there's no ocean view. You're not taking away this beautiful ocean view. They're looking at trees. So if they see two feet left of tree or two inches left of tree below trees, don't think it's going to matter. So I hate to see the R10 zones getting smaller and smaller of what houses can build. And like I said, there are houses in this neighbor. I believe mine might be. Mine was built in 64. It's a two-story house built in 264 that are over that. And I don't think it's any detriment to the neighborhood. And I think they'd be a wonderful addition. Like I said, I was ready to leave my neighborhood because I was getting so sick of what I was looking at. House, like I said, two houses that should have been condemned. People were living in that should never have been allowed to live in. So, I'm excited to see people wanting to come to this neighborhood and build a nice house and care about what their house looks like from the outside because we all want to be able to pull into our neighborhood and see nice things. Not saying build a mansion, but a house that people care about from the inside and the outside. So, I urge you to vote yes and I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. I just want to mention that the zoning commission is in the process of rewriting all the zoning regulations. Do you have input into how they should change? Please don't. Like I said, please don't go lower. No, but we we

don't write the regulations. So, the zoning commission does give the feedback to the zoning commission. Yeah. Like I said, they're both beautiful homes and I don't see a difference in the height. And like I said, you should drive by because it's really I drove by. It's a very cute house that they did. I appreciate you letting them get their variances approved. Thank you very very much. All right. Anybody else in the public like to speak about this application? Yes, you did. Thank you. We marked it as exhibit nine. Okay. Would I need to unt again? Okay. Would you like to make a motion to continue the public hearing for 25- I would like to say that the actual Okay, whatever. I will second. Okay, the same motion. All those in favor? I all those opposed? Noneendating? None. The motion pass to Z. So, we'll see you in May or if not June. Okay. Thank you very much. really appreciate your effort, especially without your engineer and architects here. It's hard. All right. Thank you very very much. Um, all right. So, now moving on to the reg. Yes, it's Craig. I'm sorry. I forgot to mention you guys sound great first off. And the second thing is other than pushing the red button, can you just make sure you turn off the TV? I apologize. Uh, yes. Okay. I think it's the remote. There's a remote control. There's a remote control. When you guys leave, just turn off the remote. Okay. All right. And excuse me. Yeah. All right. So, just moving on. So, just moving on to the uh um the minutes. He will forever be known as B. Right. Thank you very much. All right.

So, now going on to the regular meeting. Uh there's no new um ah okay there's no old business the new business of setting uh public hearings I forgot my template today and so but we have four or five new five new cases and so I thought it was four and this would make five. No, there was one new case that came in today. Oh, today or yesterday? So, but some of them you can just receive that new one that just came in yesterday at your next Yeah. Yeah. So, I was thinking of saying that we that one would be received but not scheduled until Yeah. June and then but I think Okay. Go ahead. You can So, when did it come in? It came in less than two weeks beforehand which is our cut off but it came in yesterday the 14th. What's today's date? 17th 16th but I didn't get it until yesterday. So in either way you can you can schedule that one for June. Yeah. So anyway, so then we have one continued case and we have four other new cases. I would say one if I recall K is a basically a lift. One is related to um an application where we granted variance but they the the when they did the building they slightly didn't match the approved plans. So they're a little bit higher in a little bit in the setback on the side setback but they've also reduced the the deck a little bit. So basically it's what we want to do about that situation. And uh I don't remember what the other two are. Sorry I forgot my template. losing my mind. Anyway, so um I guess you want to just Most of them looked

fairly complete except I think we can go ahead and schedule the four because we hopefully this one will be go more quickly because it's a continued case. had a lot of discussion on it and we've done five cases before and if not we can just continue one but I think they'd like to be heard and if people are okay with that then we we'd schedule the the first four cases for the May meeting and the fifth case for the June meeting and I'll I'll give that all the information to to uh Amy to put in the minutes here. All right, with that, uh, would anybody like Oh, then no correspondence or announcements. Uh, any like to make approval of the March meeting minutes? Any comments on corrections on the March meeting minutes? I didn't have anything. Excellent job again. So, is that would anybody like to make a motion to approve the March I think it's the 7th 20th? March 20th. Okay. March ZBA meeting minutes. So moved. Stephanie. All second. Michaela. All in favor? I opposed. None. Staining. None. Motion passing absolute. Okay. And would anybody like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting? Yeah. Stephanie. Seconded. Brian. Brian got it there. Brian seconded. He got a lot of question. All right. And all those in favor? I oppos none saying none. The motion pass 500 Z 8. It's 8:15 and so I'm going to turn