Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

the only thing on the agenda. So, you calling to order the meeting of the zoning board meeting, Thursday, January 15th. Oh, did we? Okay. Okay. January 15, 2026, 6:30 p.m. Uh, in attendance we have Nick Fton, Kip Codson, Nancy Hutchinson, Stephanie Mel, Michaela Pearson, Kathleen Tra alternate, Eric Gap is coordinator,

and absent is Russ Bog and alternate Richard Korsmeer and our ZBA clerk Amy Hitt. So that's it. So seated for today's meeting will be myself, Pip Godson, Stephanie Ml, Michelle Male Pearson, sorry uh and Nick Fton. All right. And uh for the start of public session public hearing, I usually start off with instructions to the applicant. So to facilitate an efficient review, please present the evidence that an unusual and necessary hardship exists based on strict application of zoning regulations due to some peculiar condition of the property itself and that the condition does not generally affect other properties of the district. Whether any reduction in legal pre-existing non-conforming is proposed. The evidence that the variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the hard unusual hardship and allow reasonable use of property. and the evidence that the variance requested are in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations of the comprehensive plan of zoning. And for coastal site plan review applications, please address the Connecticut D comments. And for applications reviewed by the town engineer, please address comments in his report. The first and only case on the public hearing today is case 25-13 C 125 Shore Road requesting a variance. Varianc is for demolition of existing structures and construction of a new FEMA compliant dwelling inground pool and detached garage within the Connecticut River and Tidal Water area on an RU40 lot in the AE correction AE1 flood zone Thunder Mountain LLC applicant the var several variants requested to sections 4.3.1 pile of water protection in the conservation zone no building or other structure including drainage structures cific wells shall extend within less than 100 ft of the mean high tide line as defined by the connected general

statues of the connect river or any of its tributaries or associated wetlands and 4.10.3 10.3 conservation zone connected river setbacks. No building or other structure shall be constructed reconstructed in large or moved or structurally altered within 100 ft of the coastal jurisdiction line as defined in Connecticut general statutes of the Connecticut River or any of its tributaries or associated wetlands. Um and today the board received an upset updated set of plans and you're going to speak to that. Okay.

Um, and regarding the Connecticut River setback variances, the report board received a letter dated January 7th from the Connecticut River Gateway Commission requesting a continuence of today's public hearing to allow the commission commission an opportunity to review at its January 22nd meeting and respond with comments. This letter is also shared with the applicants. Um and the town engineer submitted a FEMA compliance review dated J December 31st 2025 and a coastal site review application was also submitted for review Connecticut D for comments and the comments were received today. You can start now.

Thank you. For the record, Joe Ren, PE of Indigo in Sabra. Uh, with us this evening, we have the potential property owner, Michael Oster, uh, there. And then next to him is Ray Malinowski, who works in my office. And then is it Scott? Scott is Michael's friend that lives in Ovine as well. Is the owner of the property not you're representing owner? Is he a potential owner's property? He's contract purchaser. Oh, I see. Yeah. And there was a letter submitted with the original application allowing them authorization to submit applications. As that I didn't understand what that meant. Okay.

Yeah. Because they're contract purchaser uh subject to certain land use approvals and so forth which we already have some um and then potentially if they receive the approvals to build the house that they dream to uh they will of course move on to purchase the property and construct the house with the proper. Okay.

That's that clarification. Another clarification is Nancy mentioned um coastal site plan review by D. We did get comments today. Um you have those in front of you. I see a few of them along there. Those comments are favorable. Um, if you read through there, they are happy with us, and I'll go through the details of removing all the paved driveway, relocating the septic system out of the 100 foot review area, um, removing some buildings um, that recently have been removed from the property that were there very close to the wetlands, adding landscaping and so forth, um, using proper ENS controls. They they list it all in their in their review. We can go into a little bit more detail momentarily. Um some other housekeeping things. Um Nancy uh did a wonderful review. I want to employ you at our company to review plans because she even in my review I didn't pick up on it. So the surveyor had the CJL line at elevation 2.6 which is correct for Long Island Sound portions of old line but as you get up into the river it goes up to 2.9. So yeah it's 3/10. Um so it makes the line a little bit different, couple feet different in some areas. Um so what we did since the 100 foot buffers rely on that CGL from a starting point, uh we just updated the plans accordingly in the first um the first uh page of the application just so everything is consistent. So we brought a bunch of these sets for even so you have full copies of the plans and it's you know again it's very very minor the line just moved because it's only three pence in elevation so it moved very a very small amount

um but to get the numbers correct we did that for NY's request awesome catch on so this is a question I just had in general so it's a couple jurisdiction line I understand but I I guess my question is if The regulation says from the coastal jurisdiction line or the type of tributaries or any of its wetlands. Should a tree 100 foot back from the wetlands or from the council jurisdiction? So your your 50 foot offer

specifically says from the wetlands whichever is closer. Um so there since the wetlands is closer all across here the 50 foot is directly from the wetlands. The other one is read and I read it and we've always applied this in old line from the CGL for the 100 foot ones because it says in there it still has the old language and this will probably be corrected with the new regulations coming out. It still says the mean high tide line. We used to call the CJL coast of jurisdiction line the high tide line HTL. Um that went away in 2013 after the storms. They replaced that with CJL. And as I read that regulation and as it's been applied before, it says the coast well the mean high tide line which is the coastal jurisdiction line of the Connecticut River or its tributaries or its wetlands. So I take that to mean it's the CJL

the CJL of the wetlands not the wetlands themselves. Yes. Because like here, right? We have uh look up here like it's the water. This is like a tributary and then we have the wetlands off of that.

So the CJL of the river of the actual Connecticut River is way over here right on the river itself. This is its associated tributaries and wetlands. So then there's a CG relevant to all of that too. So that's how it's been applied and approved in the past. That's how we read this particular regulation. If you read the 50 foot buffer, it specifically says in there, whichever is closer, it's wetlands or the the closer resource, whichever is closer. And there this 50 foot buffer is from that title wetlands. The 100 foot buffer is from the CGL. Okay. And you're you okay with that, Eric? I'm okay with that. Yeah. Okay. That's just want to make sure.

Yep. No uh no no worries there. Um, we understand that uh we got the letter from Gateway. They meet next week. So, they meet after your meeting this week. They meet next Thursday night before Thursday. So, they didn't have a chance to review this at their meeting. They've reviewed it at a staff level, but they haven't reviewed it at their meeting yet. So, they're asking for continuance. Um, we're okay with that. We understand that. Um we're not a lot of times they have any conditions and that we they have recommendations that we make as conditions. So it's important to have that reviewed.

Yeah. So they actually they did a preliminary review. You might have that documentation and your your information there. They sent us some information. They were looking for further uh information. They wanted some some coloring shown on the plans. They wanted the they wanted the plan like at a larger scale cleaned up so they could really see what's going on in the buffer. Um looking at, you know, a fully detailed site plan like this is a little busy for them. Oh, I was wondering why you had that extra colored picture there. Yeah. So, so we did this. So, now that we're on this topic, I'll just show you. They wanted us to really bold in color the hund the 50 foot and the 100 foot.

Yeah. um again from the wetlands and then from the CJL and then highlight things like this right now the the pink is all a um no yellow on this plant just remember last one um so we have red and we have blue so hopefully those colors are good um but here the red is a fully existing pave drive

um so all of that is being removed and you could see the majority of that is within the 50t and within the 100 just a little piece of it is outside the 100 ft. So that's like um something like 2,000 square ft of asphalt that's being removed. The new driveway will connect to the same apron, but all of it on the property will be crushed up and D mentioned that in their coastal site plan review as well, changing that to a pvious surface from an impervious surface. So that is one of the main things. The other thing is that we highlighted the septic tank uh here. Uh there's no there are no records of where the leeching fields are. But with the existing house being here, the septic tank here and the slope going this way, obviously the leeching fields are downhill of the tank. Um so it flows by gravity probably wholly or partially under the driveway. So the septic leeching area and the tank are within the 100 ft of the coastal jurisdiction line as well. So another thing that was done on this plan is we have the new septic system, septic tank leeching system outside beyond the 100 foot line. So we pulled the septic system out of there. We pulled uh we made the driveway um impervious from impervious. Um there were two buildings that were recently removed. There was a shed here close to the wetlands as you can see. Um the wetlands aren't the green. The wetlands are this marsh symbol up here. Um, and then also there was a a gazebo there that was um uh just a little over 200 square feet uh that was removed recently and that shed was approximately 124 square ft located right there and that's been removed. Um the green on here is not existing. That is a proposed landscaping buffer. So the existing

trees will remain and then this landscaping buffer will be um implemented. I believe we submitted a copy of the landscaping plan to you as well. John Cunningham um from TEC landscape did a uh a coastal appropriate uh title wetland fringe appropriate buffer throughout there that are a mix of trees uh and shrubs and grasses and so forth. Um and you can see that you know at a um this is a 10 scale plan. You can see that the buffer is you know very substantial maybe close to 20 ft wide here and he just made it you know irregular instead of just parallel to to that edge. Um, so that provides, it's not necessarily required, but when DP looks at a plan like this, when gateway looks at a plan like this, when your board looks at a plan like this, we like to not see that mode grass right up to the edge of the wetlands because what happens over time is the lawn gets bigger and bigger and the wetlands get smaller and smaller. So with the buffer provides like a hard stop. So it provides that it preserves that edge of the title wetlands and then any storm water runoff over the lawn has to filter through that area too before it gets to the title wetland. So from a water quality perspective uh very very beneficial. And then there is a um there's like a shad blow proposed there. There's another tree proposed in this location just to um when we we went to a zoning commission meeting preliminarily um because we um were thinking initially that we were going to have to go in front of them since the house may be more than 4,000 square feet. We would need a special permit for that. But the house um Michael working with his architect worked very hard to keep the buildings down just below 4,000 square feet. So

392. Um but it's they're below uh 4,000 square feet. So we don't need the special permit. And that's not really to avoid that level of review. It's just to obviously there's a special permit in place to try to keep structures more than 4,000 square ft down. Um so not only to avoid that but also to be more consistent with the regulations uh at the same time. Um so the variances obviously that are necessary for this project only are the title water protection and the coastal resource buffers. Can I ask you could you go back to that other It's easier to see that one. Yes.

My main question is like this plan looks like it's a beautifully designed plan if you were worried about a 50 foot setback. Mhm. But it doesn't look like it really is the minimum required to meet the 100 foot setback. It's like it's very spread out. It's lots of one level living. You got the giant courtyard in the middle. It just seems like if you had wanted to try to be more respective of the 100 foot setback, there could be some design changes.

So, a couple things there. And Michael has heard that before when we first started. So, initially the the the building wanted to be even closer to the wetlands and even maybe a little bit more spread out. The very first thing that we used was the 50-ft buffer as a guide. So there's there's some stuff driveway shed that was recently there in the 50oot buffer. There's no landscape buffer right now. So they added the landscape the shed has been gone. The driveway has been changed to pvious. So we feel that we've improved the 50ft part. Now, as a tradeoff, they've designed this house so it's you'll see on on the cross-sections and the rendering it momentarily that the majority of the pieces of the house are are low. They're not, you know, maximum 35 ft um all the way around adding all this bulk and mass uh to the river generally lower profile. So in order to get the square footage on a lower profile some singlestory phases of the house um it spreads out into those areas. Now the value of this property obviously it you know it's not a it's not an inexpensive property. The value of the property are you know the views and the relationship with the marsh and the distant river and so forth. Um so they um this is very very important to them to have these spaces here. without that the project doesn't work for them and they would have they wouldn't proceed with it. Um so they've designed the house this way. Um again listening to us to pull it back from the 50 and improve the 50. We are adding some areas in there. Again we're removing all of this driveway, this impervious driveway. Yes, they're adding the pool and the raised patio and they're adding these two pieces of the house um that aren't in there. Now, we do have the former

gazebo, the former shed. Uh, again, in the driveway, um, but there is, um, additional coverage area. Uh, we have a little table here down in the bottom right. There is an additional coverage area in the 100 foot, and that's essentially what we're asking for the variance. No, in the middle section like that courtyard area. Mhm. I mean, like if you had more house there instead of out in the 100 foot setback. I guess it just it seems like again it's not really designed to try to stay out of the 100 foot setbacks.

Um I I would have to I would agree with you. Um I can't disagree with you because there's more building in there now than there than there is today. And this is a major design element that we talked about all along the way. And I think Gateway made an initial comment on that too. But we tried to do our best job in offsetting that additional um building within the 100 foot area by a few things. Number one, completely vacating the 50-oot area with anything impervious. adding the buffer, landscape buffer with coastal appropriate shrubs and grasses that aren't that isn't there now. Um and then also um this may be hard to see, but shaded in light brown here is all the existing house and deck. And that existing house and deck, yes, is just outside the 100 foot buffer, but it's only outside the 100 foot buffer because it's way into the front yard and the sideyard setback. Um, so it's nonconforming here on this side and it's nonconforming here to the sideyard. So what we did is we brought the house up into that corner. We made it conforming. So we eliminated the front yard non-conformity. We eliminated the sideyard nonconformity. Started there rather than back here. And obviously that inched everything toward uh that buffer. So we feel that we have with this plan we feel that we have a very good balance of

um improvements because of the reduction of pvious improvements because the septic is further away improvements because we have that landscape buffer and then other improvements because we are outside of uh any zoning setback. The only variances that we're requesting are the gateway uh the 200 foot setbacks. Uh like we said before 100 foot gateway coastal resource setbacks. We are not we don't need a uh variance for floor area. We don't need a coverage variance and we don't need any setback variance for zoning dimensional setbacks. The other very important thing here is that we are in a flood zone. So the current house is not flood compliant at all. Not FEMA compliant. the proposed detached garage and and the house are FEMA compliant.

So that's a question. So I guess going back a little bit. So the you are outside 50, you're out of the V, you're not in the V flood zone. That's correct. But moving the building closer to the water, you're actually getting is that that's a decreasing safety because now you go into the category 2 hurricane inundation area versus right now you're in a category three hurricane hurricane inundation area. Um so

I guess the thing is it's not just it's not just numbers, it's also safety. You're moving much closer to the V. So the house is getting clo a little bit closer to the marsh. Yes. Um but it's it's up in elevation. So even the highest hurricane in the 100redyear flood zone, the flood waters will not reach the floor of this house. The flood waters um will inundate this house uh over its floor because it's sitting too low. These are up higher so that the hurricane water, even though it's a closer to the marsh, it's up higher in elevation so that the flood water does not reach it. And that's why it's FEMA compliant. Your flood engineer looked at it and said it is FEMA compliant as well.

I guess I I I have a little question about that because the first floor elevation of the existing house is 12 feet. Yep. And the first core elevation of the lower level on that house is also 12 feet. Um it's really made more materially getting rid of a basement because not allow basement in the flood zone and it's made more.

So the um existing house, let's see where that um call out is. Yes, where the first floor elevation is 12.6. You're right. But the all the flood materials, all the mechanicals, furnace in the basement, all that type stuff. Having a basement, all of this stuff does not mean FEMA. No, I understand. I'm just saying it's not it's not it's not FEMA compliant, but it's not lower than what you're building now.

The existing house is not level. Yes. If I said it was lower before, then um it's more or less the same elevation plus or minus. Again, we tried to make all the all the height works and keep everything as low as possible while still meeting FEMA plus the town one foot of course. Um, you are right. The floor elevation of the house says 12 point you know 12 and change but again the pieces that you know the basement furnace in the basement all that just No, I understand. I just move the mat out is good. Yeah, it's it's I guess I just it just seems like you're you're moving closer to the VE flood zone. you're moving closer to the water.

You're in the hurricane two inundation area versus you got hurricane three inundation area. I just and you've got this courtyard in the middle where you could use that more space for something else. I guess it just it gets to the question is are this is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship?

We we feel it is because the balance of the overall project. So, uh, we've been looking at all these projects. We've been advised by attorneys to look at these projects is look at the overall improvement on the overall property, right? So, um, all of this in here, you know, regardless if this is moving a little bit closer, it still meets and exceeds FEMA regulations, right? It's FEMA compliant. The existing house is not FEMA compliant regardless if it's, you know, 20 or 30 feet closer or not. Um I don't know where that category 2 and three line is, but it doesn't matter because even a category 5 hurricane, this is FEMA compliant for that highest available hurricane. All the improvements, again, I listed them several times, but you know, adding trees, adding the buffer, reducing the impervious, completely vacating the 50- foot buffer we feel the and and eliminating the existing zoning variances and the non-FEMA compliance, non-health compliance, fixing all correcting all those items. We feel the overall balance for the site does meet that minimum criteria.

We like things to be FEMA compliant. I guess things, you know, you could build a FEMA compliant building almost entirely out of the setback. Well, that would be a little challenging. We'd have to fit everything in this area right here. I wouldn't have a problem with you moving into the front setback, side setback versus being closer to the marsh. Um, you know, I guess it's I guess it's somewhere over this next month. It is very close. You have a very wide rightway there. There's another 20 ft between the your property line the road.

So, I would, you know, I would beg to differ. Obviously, everyone has a different opinion because we wouldn't have any any zoning setback, you know, we'd be eliminating those. So if we're if we're doing that, is that the minimum necessary? You know, if we move it up this way 10 ft and away 10 feet, are we really gaining anything? Um, you know, we're not we're still in the A zone. We have all of this buffer. We're not even D reviewed the application and you have their comments there and they're actually supporting. I actually disagree with some of their comments, but they said that I haven't heard that one yet. That's a new one. Yeah, it says

while we generally cannot support Well, let's read the the summary of recommendations. The applicant is requesting variances from the 100 foot title water protection area and the 100 foot negative river setback in order to construct a new FEMA compliant fourbedroom dwelling detached garage and inground pool patio terrace well and code compliant septic system. or we generally cannot support significant variances from the coastal resource setbacks. In this case, the variances will increase the distance from river over which they currently exist. The only thing that's really increased the distance is that shed and the gone which is gone. So we don't consider what's gone.

No, no, no. But they could re if it was. It's not in rebuild it. They could but it's not in the assessment report. Whatever. I'm not going to get in worry about a 2020 120 foot shed. But the thing is it is much closer than the existing house. Uh it is closer than the existing house. Uh I'm not sure where this statement that

the paved driveway is the closest thing on the property other than the shed and it's 2,000 square feet. So I wouldn't say that's minimal. I think that's pretty significant. And they they agree with that. I mean they they don't take cam reviews lightly. I've seen a lot of camera reviews in my time so far and on this project you know again from day one Michael will tell you um you know these these this buffer is very expensive to put in right they may ask you to do that anyway

they could but you could say no or you could do a lesser one um that this is part of the application going in it's a proactive thing versus a reactive thing um remove you know they could pave the driveway they could say we don't brush stone. We want to pave our driveway and have that in there too. So they, you know, going to impervious. The other thing or from impervious to Pervious, the other thing that I hadn't mentioned yet is we added a dry well. So there's uh 500 and some odd extra square feet of impervious overall on the site um for the roof areas and so forth. And most of it's back now. Um but be due to that we added a dry well which they also mentioned in their letter there to take some of the roof water and infiltrate it into the ground. The other the other runoff from the property infiltrates into the the grass and then again gets filtered through this buffer ever before making it to the uh the tidal wetlands. Um and then with the pvious driveway too we sign substantially reduce runoff uh off that impervious area there. So the storm water quality um and runoff volume are either equal or better than the existing condition because of those features.

So I think I read so despite this 2,000 square foot driveway impervious you're still increasing imperousness by over a th00and square feet. Um whatever the overall number is your storm water calculations here say 1,022. So, 122 square feet and but that includes the pool as well, which is a little crazy, but it's impervious. Yeah, I disagree with it being impervious because it doesn't run off. It gets captured there and any overflow goes to the drywall. So, it doesn't run off onto the property, but because it's considered as coverage, we include it in there. Mhm.

And the other thing is the pool is like elevation 16, but normally without you're building up all that fill, it would be like 8 ft. So you're putting in like 8 ft of fill and the 100 foot setback. Uh no, the pool is around elevation 11. See 16 somewhere. It has to be lower than the house is 12. So it has to be lower than their contour 11 and 12 in that area. So, it's somewhere somewhere between 11 and 12, but not equal to the floor of the house. Okay. So, you're adding only like three or four feet of

That's correct. Yeah. Those are 1 foot contours, not two foot contours. And we have 8, 9, 10, and 11 there. Go from 8 to 11. Correct. Yeah. And that's just to get it to the same level of the the courtyard, obviously, so it's not lower down. And it's also um I mean you're going from like two bedrooms and one bath to four bedrooms and two or is it two and a half baths? Uh I don't know about the number of bedrooms but it is a twobedroom or the number of bathrooms. Sorry. But it's a twobedroom and it will be a fourb. Yeah. I don't know about the numbers. Two bathrooms. It's the property code says two bedrooms.

Yeah. So, it is increasing, but all that really all that really has to do with is the septic system. We have a ledge light approval that's in your packet for the new septic system. And that septic system is now fully outside of the 100 foot area.

Um, we'll go back to that blowout plan. I figured out pretty much all about it. So the um on that gateway blowup plan there in red is the septic tank and again based on the age of the house they're probably pipe and stone leeching fields out here that you know are pretty significant area. They're usually at least 80 ft long um in that area and it's all within the the 100 to 50 foot zone. So all of that is out of there now beyond the 100 foot area approved by health code compliant. Uh, so that's also better for the groundwater quality as well, right?

Because I think the two scripts we're trying to play with as soon as I can interpret what we're conversation looks like is you've got a script about um impact on the environment and I'm trying to I mean I was not noticing that you got to slide down this you got a runoff going toward the road and toward the right there. It's that's downhill too, right? The house is on a little bit of a crest. Uh yeah, this right there is like a crest and it come to your lower right, it drops off towards a slope downhill, right? So they're moving some of the house uphill. Is that true from the original house? No.

The original house is this is this like high on the crest? Is it is it here's like 3 feet, 4T, 5T, 6T, 7T, 8T, 9 ft, 10 ft. And so this house is at like around 11 or 12 ft, but it doesn't slope off going that way at all. It It does slope off going this way. I'm saying this is not that much. It's kind of like a Yeah, it it comes up. It's pushing out rather than Yeah. This is 11 here. And then we have 12 and um going toward the garage there. 11 12

and the other script is uh flood safety. Is that is it a safer building because of what you've done? The main question is is this the variances hardship align with 10 purposes only regulations and and um consider not ex and is the minimum required to overcome the hardship. So funny is you you have a currently have a two-bedroom some number bathroom house that's totally out of the flood zone and it's totally not the flood zone I mean that that setback 100 foot setback. Mhm.

And now you're building a four bedroomedroom I don't know how many bathroom thing where at least or than half of the dwelling is in the 100 foot setback which is closer to the water close to the V flood zone. Is that really an improvement of health and safety and is the minimum? I guess that's where I'm struggling. We like FEMA compliant. We like reduction reduction of pavement impervious drywalls and front setbacks. Look at everything. It's just a linear number. Yeah. Yes. It's it's less than the 24 ft or that shiny shed which isn't even on the assessment reports.

Mhm. But it's but then you look at the building itself and it's like over half of it is in the setback and you've got this big courtyard which I'm not sure what its purpose is but is and you're very far from the street. Yes, it's good to get away from the neighbors on the side view, but is is this really the intent of the zoning regulations and is it really the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship?

Bring up one thing too. The septic system is here and the tank has to be 10 feet off of the house. So, we have that minimum to the garage there and then off the pool we have to be 25 ft. So what's that center area for? The center area is just a landscaped courtyard. It's a garden area garden. So why can't that be some of the dwelling there? I'll let Michael answer that. Just Michael.

Yeah. And I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have. So um the this is a busy road and we wanted to and I and I I'll just tell you what what was what were the drivers behind the design and why we wanted to do this. So we wanted to get away from the from the road number one.

Number two Tracy my fiance is um uh is a garden enthusiast. She's been to about 50 different countries and gardens studies that and so she likes gardens. So this courtyard is going to be like an English garden and she lived in a muse in London for for a bunch of years and that that's what she wanted to build here. The lower part that you were referring to is actually a conservatory. Um and so that's what the lower part is. So that'll that'll have stone floors or or slate floors. All the living areas will be will be raised up above it. So you'll go down a flight to get to to get to that lower area. This is the only area where it's two stories. So, wanted that conservatory. That's her dream. Wanted the the garden. That's her dream. There will be a you know a shed for her to do gardening over there. And um we're coming together in later life. She has three kids and I have three kids. And um so we this is going to be our area and this is going this area over here is going to be the the kids area. So, we wanted to have separation, wanted to have windows, wanted to capture all the views. That's why we wanted to purchase this property in the in the first place. It if you see the shape of the setback line, it's it's almost like a quarter like a quarter circle that goes this way. So, if we were to if if we were to push it back, this is the 50ft line. If we're to push it back because of this angle and the curve to a 100 foot line, it's basically here. It's this triangle effectively. and we couldn't fit the Oh, and by the way, I'm a I'm a swimmer and I swim every day and except today. I I flew in from uh from Florida so that I could

two stories right now. It's all spread out. It's only two story here. We wanted to live on one story because we have a couple of uh limitations that that make it harder for us. It's only this area that's two stories. Everywhere else is one story. Um, and so, uh, the pool was important for for me and we could not in this area here, which would be the 100 foot setback, we couldn't fit. And by the way, the 4,000t house includes the garage. So, it's closer to 3,000 ft of actually living area. We could not fit even if we didn't build a garage or built it underneath, we couldn't fit that and a pool in this area because in order to swim laps, the pool has to be long enough. thinking more about right now the house itself the dwelling right

because it is if you forget about the pool we we couldn't the only way we could fit um the size of house would be to go vertical and a we didn't want to do that b we didn't want to be closer to the road and I'm not saying that you should approve it for what we wanted to do I'm just telling you these are the drivers of the design and we wanted to live on on one story it's a lovely design if you weren't in the higher footstep back from the K River and tidal wetlands, you know, but I just want to know. Yes.

See, for us with with with the with the greatest of of respect and and love of this town because we really have gotten to to know it and we would love to to live here. It wouldn't be worth it for us given the cost of it. I don't frankly I don't think it'd be worth it for anybody to to build uh a house here and a garage here and not to have space for a pool in order to to um have the 100 foot set back. And so we we wouldn't proceed on this property. we'd have to look for for something else that would enable us to have one-story living, sort of that mid-century modern design where you where you integrate um the exterior with the interior and um and you know in order to have enough gardens. We wouldn't we just wouldn't be able to uh to fit that in.

My understanding is like that little area that's out of the setbacks completely because you said 6% of the property which is I'm sorry you're talking about here. No, that that wedge of this outside all the setbacks is 2500 square feet. Oh, I'm sorry that you're talking about this part over here. No, I'm saying I'm saying Yeah. Okay. Uhhuh. Oh, so that that would be beyond the 100 foot setback and therefore compliant if we were to build it here. 25 2500 square feet. Um 5,000 foot house with garage. But I know it's not what you want, but the thing is Yeah,

was a little It's like it's like it's more than half in the 100 foot setback. It's it's it's a little bit of a struggle. I'm struggling, but that's for applicants and board members here. The not familiar enough with the wording of both of the regulations on the 100 setback. What's the intent of those? What are they trying to avoid? What's the theory here? and and would the reports from D and Coastal be a big driver on how we should look at

gateway response would be a big driver if they were more favorable to it I'd feel more favorable to it but without their comments I was kind of like they like they want to prevent degradation of the Kag River and it's tidal wetlands and they want to minimize the they want to minimize the use right

I think him building lower seems to slide toward that intent issue if that's one of the drivers is what does it look like? Do we want a three-story thing faced up that everybody sees as they drive by in a boat? No. Um, so just I'm trying to play out this issue you brought up which is a great issue. You know, you wouldn't creep as far out toward the marsh. Um, but you're saying we'd like to have a low profile as part of our intent. And if that matches somewhat, the part there that's highest is the part that's sticking out. Um, highest part is over there.

Well, this this is all with the exception of this u everything else is just one-story living and and raised raised up a little bit. And so here you're allowed, as I understand it, you're allowed to build 35 ft height with the exception of a gable roof only on this section. and a little bit on this section. Um the the ceiling height will be I think 20 feet or or maybe less than than 20 ft. And so, um, I think it's better for the view from the and and by the way, there's a there's an the angle of the of the water and the tributaries and then the Connecticut River to here would be such that a 35- ft tall story here would be far more visible than a not only is this uh less than 20 feet, this steps down, this section steps down by 5T. So, that'll be more like 15. I think it'd be helpful to show the they haven't looked at the plans yet. They haven't seen the plans yet.

Oh, okay. So, why don't you read maybe that description? Maybe go to the plans. Eric, what's your read though on what the intent of those two regs are?

Oh, well, I mean, there's there's supplemental things that we're trying to do. One of which is to keep the area around the coastal title wetlands there as least impervious as possible I would say because as was mentioned by Mr. um impervious in this area tends to cause further effect sort of downstream for lack of a better word that you know ultimately the health of the wetlands is improved by less impervious service around them due to runoff and other things. So that's that's one of the pieces. That's the 50 foot. I think the 100 foot is also as you've been discussing for the visual impact. And one of the things like for instance on 43 Smith's neck which we've been fighting about on the zoning commission side um we had them actually do a you know basically what it would look like from the water and they gave us a map and I can st a mock sort of photograph using AI of what this would look like from the water and so that's I guess Joe has that

that's why it was upside down. Okay. All right. So, I was saving this for last when this came up. Um, this is a ask I we haven't even looked at the house yet, so maybe one or two before you.

Yeah, it's a little easier to look at this, but you can look at these plans. These plans were included with your application. Michael could probably the architect, it's his birthday today, so he can't be here. Um, Michael probably explained these better than I can since he knows. I'd be happy to. So, so um this is from the north. So this is on the neighbor on the neighbor side. Here's uh Shore Road. So this is the um the garage just with a uh with you know open open roof above it. Um this is the garden shed. There's not a second level of the garage very tall.

Um the reason we did that and I could show you a photo of a New England barn that that we fell in love with and so wanted to have that roof line of a of a New England barn. an inch is going to have, if you notice, the sort of the gray weathered cedar that sort of looks like a like a a New England barn. Um, and the whole thing is going to be is going to be or would would be that way. This is a garden shed. And then this is a a little gable with um uh with a study. I I was incorrect when I said there would be no other second floor. There there would be a small second floor here, just with a a little bit of a of a study. The rest of this is the the g the guest room. So, it's sort of like a separate guest wing for the kids. Um, and then the master uh the the um the primary bedroom then would step down and uh and would be here. So, that's the part that would stick out. This is the twostory area which I'll I'll come to. Maybe this is the easiest way to to look at it. So, here's the master bedroom, which which is the part that juts out. Um, and you'll see that it steps down. Here's that little study behind it. And here's the garage. This is just one floor. There's nothing beneath it. So, it's raised up. And then you step up a few feet and and this would be a living room. But this is the conservatory and behind it is like a like a the effect of a pool, a swimming pool room uh behind that. So on the the grade level which is similar to the level of the existing house there would be just that conservatory and that and that pool room and everything else would be at this level.

Uh now now just going to this side. Oh forgive me. Chimney at the end there. I'm sorry. Chimy chimney. It's a chimney outside.

Oh right. So um so from this angle this is the front of the house. So here's the garage. Here's the the the living room. And then the chimney will um will give a fireplace for this uh this um this living room above it. So So that's just a a chimney for a fireplace for this for this living room. Um so this is from the front from the street. So the cars the courtyard over here. You'll walk through the courtyard to go to the to the house and then the pool will sort of be step down here a little bit. I mean it's it's for the view but it's also to sort of mimic how the land is going. So the courtyard and the and the pool and then the pool they intent.

Yeah, of course. So since the courtyard is elevated several feet above the natural grade is it considered as structured? It's not considered a structure. We generally try and avoid putting fill in the flood zone. Um, and that's one of the things that Jacobson had to evaluate was whether that fill was appropriate under the circumstances. But as a general rule, we try and minimize fill in the flood zone, but it's not a structure. So, it doesn't count as structure coverage. It it does not count as structure coverage in this case. No. Um, but again, depending on what it's made of, it's not even in perviews. What is it? Pavers. What's it going to be?

Oh, the curry will just be uh soil and plants. Yeah. It'll just be a garden. You might have some uh press stone walkways to to walk like that hardness park that kind of thing you've got. Okay. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I just wanted to ask about Yeah. It'll have no concrete. It'll it'll just be soil.

Um so I I I hope I I explained it well enough. Um th this is from the wetlands and the on the side. And then here's where you'll step down to um step down to the to the primary suite. This is uh the guest rooms looking at the courtyard and a and a walkth through by the way on the the site if you if you remember the site plan. So you have the the courtyard actually let me look at it from from uh from this angle. This is from the from the river. So you have the courtyard on the other side and then you have the pool and then you have the wetlands here between us and the neighbor. We would also put an orchard um with local and native, you know, fruit trees and things that would be between us and the neighbor. And so there's a pass through here to connect from the courtyard to the, you know, like a series of gardens.

Okay. So, now that you've explained the house, maybe now would be a good time to look at the AI thing.

Um, so this is, well, it's partial AI, but this is actually re a real drone photo from the river uh out beyond the marsh. And we have other different views and perspectives as well. I didn't want to bring all of them because I have to submit this to you as part of your record and you would need a whole file cabinet just to hold those. So I chose one of the more appropriate ones. Obviously the bulk of the river and the views are from this direction from that southwest direction looking into the property from the main body of the of the river and so forth. Um so this is the house that Michael just explained. Um these are existing trees back there. This tree, this tree and this shad here are trees that are proposed as part of the buffer. These trees are not there now. Those are part of the landscaping buffer. And those are um shown not full mature height, but you know, obviously once they grow a little bit, that's u more more of a permanent view from this particular southwest angle. Um, so you know, with the coloring of the house, uh, and so forth and the glass on both sides, you can see that it just doesn't really stick out like a sore thumb. It kind of blends in with the landscape with the color and the the lines of it and so forth.

That view of the trees right in front of it. Yes, exactly. I guess. Yeah. So looking at your street view here in your package. So the house would be out here somewhere. Correct. Yes. So I'm just making sure everyone's going to see that. Yep. Right now you know the street is the water. You not see the screen page? Not in here. What page is it? That's what it is today. There's a color. I thought you meant you had a new one.

Right. So then uh so and there's orchard sort of something going on there. Is that the zone where the orchard trees are going to be the plan of landscape plan? Yeah. Near where the new septic is intending to be issued. No. Um the fruit trees are along the front or along the side the sides. So overhead these trees these trees I just saw a couple over here.

Yeah, those trees are on the side. Um actually they they actually may show here. I see four trees in a line there. They may have included them. Um they kind of blend into the landscape, but we could send this around so you could see it closer because you have to keep it anyway. That was the best photo with with some of the photos that show some of the neighbors. You'll you'll see that the neighbor, which is a newer house, two houses to the uh northeast of us, south is considerably uh considerably higher. The the new house, the new house, the large one. Yeah, exactly. The large white 131,

I think. So, yeah. Yeah, I think that's So, we we wanted to be lower than that. And it in fact, uh we're further from the from the water than than that one is. That one is pushed back and a good amount. Do the neighbors know uh what's happening? I mean, have you talked to any of the neighbors about your plan? Yeah, that neighbor 131 is one of the sellers. Oh, interesting. Yeah, they're very they're very happy. I didn't I didn't actually know that, but um I miss what you just said. The neighbor is the one who's selling the house. Well, one of the solded to Thunder Thunder Mountain sold it to Thunder Mountain.

I can give you a bit more of the background here. Ron Sweeney is the one with 131. Ron Sweeney sold it to the Nositos but took back paper and so he is very happy to be selling this house now because he gets his money back from having taken the mortgage. Okay. And I think what No was going to do if they didn't sell it to us is he was going to keep the existing house and then build a garage on the water side which would be tragic to have the garage have, you know, have the view and be seen from the I think you expand the house too. Expand the house as well.

Yeah. Because they had they had a septic design and the house was bigger, the deck was bigger and then there was a garage. The real issue at the moment though is they've done a bunch of interior work without permits exceeding 50% of the value of the structure. So they have a FEMA violation on the site at the moment. This site on this site right now. Okay. Not this applicant. Not this the existing house is in violation of the 50% rule. They did improvements without permits. They have done more than 50% of the value. The existing house would have to be elevated if they were to try and keep it. But not that they have the elevated but have to make FEMA compliant. Absolutely. Because it's already at 12 feet.

Yes. But they would need to we'll move the basement, get everything else out of all of the above out of the basement. So yeah, I mean the point being is were it not being demolished as part of this plan, there would be a whole series of things that would need to then go happen to bring it into zoning compliance. So this is the view from the river. Yes. Right. Yeah. This is that I just have a question. It's actually if you forgive me from the Blackfall River, not the Connecticut River is from the marshland. Yes. Yeah. So, um there's no way you're putting a tree right there. It's going to block your view.

Well, we we try to make it not I think that was illustrative for the type of tree, but try to make it look I think it kind of like hides the house a little bit. It's very clever. Gateway wants the view. It would have actually been a little more helpful to just be able to see the whole house without the tree that isn't there. You know, Gateway would say otherwise. No, no, no, no. I know, but but there's nothing binding you from putting the tree exactly here is what I'm saying. Yes, there is. If you approve the variance with that tree there, that tree is going there. I I think what I feel like I know there's a landscaping a lot here, but I feel like want that tree.

I'm fine with the tree. I'm saying I think that for our purposes since the tree isn't currently there that I find it a little unlikely that building a house with all these windows, you're going to put a tree right in front of your window. The point is for Gateway to sign off on it, they had to they want that tree there. So, was that stipulated by Gateway? Not yet. You don't have the report. That was kind of my question was it's we're looking at this and saying, "Okay, I kind of can't really see the house because we've planted a phantom tree there." And that's why we're leaving it open so Gateway can comment, right?

But the whole I mean the whole idea from gateway standpoint is when you are looking at it from the water, you should not be seeing the house. Yes. I I understand that. Absolutely. Yes.

So, we had this original discussion with Michael and Tracy and John Cunningham who's a landscape architect and when we went to zoning, um Eric will tell you we went in formally to zoning to get their feedback because we couldn't come to you and get preliminary feedback. It's not legal to do that, right? Um, so we went to zoning thinking that we might be over the 4,000 square feet and we explained it to them and their uh their feedback, Jane's feedback was add trees in that buffer. So we added trees in the buffer. They chose uh Michael and Tracy worked with John Cunningham and the architect to choose locations that would work for them from inside the house. We went through all of this detail initially.

And by the way, this is the master bedroom, so they don't mind having Okay. All right. This is the living area. We wouldn't want a tree locking back in. That's the living room. That actually makes sense. That has slats, you know, like you can see through it. That's not how it's going to be, though. No. No. I don't know why that's I think that's just to show where the house Yeah. It would be more like a New England barn. In other words, this would be um weathered gray cedar. There'd be a big window here and a big window here, you know, to capture the view and the light. But everything above it would be I think maybe there's a little like round window or something. Since we're talking about glassy,

we know what gateway requires. Um, first of all, gateways going to say no because they say no to all to all of these projects that have anything in the 100 foot area they say no to. So that and you know they'll have recommendations but they're you know they're going to say no to anything that's within. They haven't always said no. Maybe now.

No, now it's it's pretty stringent. There's some lawsuits going on. Um, but other things that they're concerned with, landscape buffers are very important, including trees to break up that view from to and from the river. Uh, so that has been implemented, keeping these uh four trees up here and then adding those two along there and then obviously adding more along the front and the side, but especially along the marsh. The other thing that they like is non-reflective glass. So, we already talked about that. This will be low reflective or non-reflective glass. Um, apparently birds fly into windows that have reflective glass. Um, the other thing is lighting. So, we already talked about that as well. So, all the lighting will be minimal needed for safety and security. Uh, all will be down lighting. Uh, dark sky compliant. Uh, nothing will be bright and shining out into the river. They they don't want that. Uh, Gateway doesn't want that. That's nothing not uh added at all. Not you know nothing to do with interior lighting but any outdoor lighting. There won't be any spotlight shining out toward the river at all.

Um the tree locations are fixed of the species. Yeah. Uh there's he selected a shadow and then I'm not sure what species that is. I don't recall. Oh, it's a black bum. But I mean is it mandatory that you plant that kind of tree in that location? Well, there's a landscaping Yeah, if you make it a condition of your approval, then yes, it is. I mean, ultimately, you're the ZBA and he's coming to you for your approval. So, if your approval is it gets built as designed, then they need to build those species and they are specified. Yeah, he landscaping design that was in here somewhere. Yeah,

he chose a a shadow which is a native species and a black gum which is another native species because they do well in this type of environment with some salt improvement and so forth. By the way, we're flexible and agreeable on all those other for for us the main thing is to be further from the road to have privacy to have family sort of separate but everything else I'm I'm an environmentalist and and that's my career um clean energy and and uh clean water dissolinated water have to share that interest there's more so everything else that was requested by gateway without discussion that any fact we'll probably put more trees than are required because that's if you want to focus up.

Yeah. I mean, if you're thinking about the things that are the surfaces on the house that are facing the thing, you've got almost 180 degrees unobstructed view. You can put these 10% uh trees in five places and that'd be fine if that was a requirement. Here it is. Plant material. I have um Oh, no. That's not the last. Might be helpful. Just hold this up. You can see this submitted landscape plan and this is part of your application. So there that before they can get a certificate of occupancy that has to be per you know

depending on site conditions you know it's it's close uh any science but you know there's going to be so many whatever he has for quantities and general locations all you know they would be they would be held to that. Um, so this was submitted with the original application. You could follow around, you know, he shows the existing trees and he shows the proposed tree and shrubs. Um, and you have the shad blow, you have the black gum. Those are the the main ones we were talking about. The other items are like blueberry bushes, things like that that are a little bit lower, um, that aren't necessarily shown in here. If we showed everything at their mature height, you would even see less of them. So um we wanted to show that you know that is a it's rendered in as a black gum tree you know as it get it'll probably be planted at 12 feet tall something like that and then it will grow obviously over time and then the shad blow over here obviously will be planted maybe six feet and that will grow over time as well. All the all the species and and the quantities and the sizes are all on here as well. So again, you know, not something that you normally see with a a ZBA plan, but you know, Michael will tell you these are things we talked about up front because we knew they were going to be important moving forward.

Thank you so much. Um Ray just reminded me too, also included with your application, I had forgotten about this, but uh recently um in one of the resubmitts, we included a invasive species removal list. So, not not only are we adding a new buffer, but in that area there are a bunch of invasive species that are listed here uh existed existing and those would all be um eradicated in that buffer zone in the buffer zone. So, all of those listed invasive species that are presently on site would be eradicated uh and then that landscape plan would be installed.

So, we think, you know, we mentioned impervious area. Yes, we're in in increasing imperous area in that zone, but we have other provisions to offset that increase of impervious. And you know, I've gone through everything several times now, but the impervious or the pvious driveway and then the added drywall for the added coverage, the added thousand square feet of coverage is something that's not there right now. There is no drywall. We're not putting anything into the ground other than what naturally runs off and absorbs into the ground. We're forcing some of the roof water into this dry well with stone around it uh into beautiful sand and gravel on the site, putting that in the ground. Um so we think even with the added coverage in here, we feel that this plan that we put together actually improves like Eric mentioned before dedic degra dedigration degradation of tidal wetlands. degation

three times the right degradation degradation right of the tidal wetlands um we think that with all of this stuff that we just went through that it's it's far superior than what's there today that dry well I think it would take 1.3 in of rainfall

uh a little bit more uh so it's designed the 1.3 is the D storm water guideline it used to be an inch they increased it by 30% to 1.3 um if you look at the bottom line there, it's oversized and it handles 1.8 in uh which is obviously a half inch more than the 1.8 in of the increased impervious area on site. So the minimum required is 1.3 inches of runoff from that area and we're providing for 1.8 in. Um and then of course the the pvious driveway having crushed stone there that also is going to allow infiltration uh absorption and infiltration of runoff in those areas through the crushed stone and into the soil. And then the buffer is huge because those buffers are usually mounded a little bit, you know, with mulch and plantings. And as the water comes down the slope, it can't. Right now with the fertilization and everything on the uh manicured lawn, that ends up directly going into there. But now we're going to have this buffer that prevents that runoff with the fertilizer in it from directly going into there. So it will filter through this before it gets to TTO. So all of those things come together just like D said in their letter that it's a uh you know an overall improvement for the title wetlands and for storm water site.

Well I I I feel like we need a very thorough presentation and I feel like the information I feel like I know it's needed for the feedback. Of course. Yeah. And that's why we start off the meeting, you know, knowing months ago, I told Michael, I said, you know, of course you would love to have, you know, a decision at the first meeting, which is typical. Um, but months ago, back in November or something, I had looked at the meeting schedule and I saw that Gateway was a week after your meeting. So,

I said most likely, um, if we don't get a meeting with Gateway before, because remember, they don't have a December meeting. um their their meeting in December is really their November meeting which is like the week after Thanksgiving. So in December like this board there is no meeting. So the next meeting after that November meeting was um January 22nd which is next week after a week after your meeting. So submitting this when we did we hit this meeting we knew full well that most likely you're going to want Gateways feedback. Um and their meeting is after yours. So we were prepared and we knew that we would probably be coming back for the February.

I think you've got given us a lot to think about. I think we need a little bit more information. I think was very helpful for you explaining your thinking of what we just need to put in the context of what we're supposed to make decisions based on and having information. I don't have any questions for the applicant tonight. Not enough. But there's no waiting for next there's another case next week. So you'll be the only one I guess. Awesome. All right. Waiting. We like that. Um if no one else has any other questions. Where's my Sorry, forcing you to come back next month.

Would anybody Oh, is anyone in the public hearing this hearing? Anyone in the public like to comment on this application?

He's just joking. He's just joking. All right. So, with that in mind, uh would anybody like to make a motion to continue the public hearing for case 25-13 C25 Shore Road to the February 19th, 2025, 2026 regular meeting hall from Royal Town Hall 32 L in Connecticut. So second Kip. All those in favor? I I All those opposed?

None. All those abstaining, none. The motion pass. We now say 5 to 0. Thank you so much. We'll see you next month and hopefully you'll have a little more information and you know, you put a lot of thought into this and we're just going to try to do the best we can with what you provided. And that's a gift for you. Now you have to figure out how to fire. I've got a really frag fragmite on your invasives list or not. Yes, it is. I saw there are there are there are opposing opinions on fragmitees. I learned how to spell it tonight. Not the um Yeah. You know you remember you know Merv Roberts. Yeah.

Sure. I got huge argument talking about he says no it's not invasive. There's a there's a native fragment. Yeah. Yeah. Most of them are invasive. Yeah. These you see in the photo are invasive. I spent untold hours in the marshes around here as a kid as a high school kid. There were no fragmitees. There were none. And it was all cattail marshes. And now it's all fragmitees. 95%. It's had a huge impact on No, I know. But I I argue with him because he's a bright guy. He knew everything about all that stuff. and he said, "Yeah, there's there's a native fragmite. It's a very rare species." Yeah, I think so. Yeah, because it definitely had a huge impact.

Um, just just remember to like this property line just goes up, you know, this is the property line here. Yeah. Um, this property here, which is mostly marsh, is also owned by this, but it's a separate parcel. So, the fragmitees, just to be clear, it wouldn't be the whole entire marsh. It would be everything on this subject property. Clearly understood that. I didn't want to have to mighty. Yeah. All right. All right. So, so anyway, so thank you for that. We're gonna go to our regular meeting now. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. So, regular sorry, the regular meeting.

No old business. The new business is election of officers and I check the Connecticut statutes. Only regular members can vote on that. So, just let the four of us. Anybody like to nominate a chair? You. Do I get a vote? Okay. I I nominated a vice chair as Pip. So you have to say okay. Okay. And I nominate secretary as Stephanie

unless she all right. Any discussion? Okay. Would I like to make a motion to approve the nominations that are made? So moved. That was Kip. Seconded by second. Stephanie. All those in favor? I. Thank you. Thank you. All those opposed? None. Staining. None. The motion pass unassity. Five to zero. Zero. Is it um five or four? Four.

Oh, four. Right. Right. Right. Thank you. Gosh, I'm so used to saying that. And in theory, I guess 401 because he he's ineligible to vote, right? He's see vote. He's not a regular member and therefore he he cannot vote. Only regular members can vote on office. So is it really an abstension or Yeah. can't vote. It's just a zero. Zero. I think that's fine. 4 Z. Okay. I thought I voted. I was surprised to see that. All right. Receipt and setting up public hear applications. No new applications. Has this ever happened before? I don't think so. No.

All right. Uh, information items, correspondence. I just want to again welcome the new members, uh, Nick and also our new member, uh, Michaela and Richard when he's here. Um, and I just wanted to know if it has any questions about anything, just let me know or or you can ask staff for questions as well. And I just want to remind people, please give me a heads up ahead of time if you're going to miss a meeting so we can see five members. And just for the new members, please don't discuss the case with anyone outside the public hearing except for staff. You can ask technical questions. Okay.

Uh can I ask, you know, when I was knocking on doors, you know, someone said, "What's going on in ZBA?" You know, and I'm like, and I asked, you know, can I talk about that? And you talk about ZBA in general, but not as a They were saying cases they say well they're public cases you know and so the good news is I couldn't remember anything but if someone asked you a question we can't discuss a case outside of the public hearing if you'd like to know more there's information on the website you can ask staff or you can come to a meeting all right because the person I was with I don't know was somebody was like oh yeah yeah their public hearing yeah you know they're public but once it's been adjudicated then talk about

yeah so once it's been but an open public envir case that's actually oh not not an active case but cases like what have you been working on that's fine because the minutes are public there's so much detail I'm like I cannot remember one darn thing yeah please please don't discuss cases that are no no of course of course that goes without saying that goes without saying you can't change even amongst ourselves even amongst ourselves not supposed to because that's an illegal media the class yes exactly yeah right

all right And then um just maybe uh I think we've talked about this before, but we just got the referral from the zoning commission about the proposed adoption of the phase one part of the plan. I think Eric, you already discussed this with us before that this is phase one and they're going to have a phase two and at phase two they're going to ask for suggestions from other boards and commissions. And if at that time we'd like to, we could have a special meeting to discuss our thoughts and ideas that we'd like to present. But I I don't think it's quite time yet for that. But I think we would like to probably do that. I would I agree. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. I mentioned to Nancy earlier this week, I believe. Um the timeline as we're looking at it now looks like in March we are probably going to have a meeting with all of the various boards and commissions in town to try and solicit input as to what they think needs to be in there. And then probably in May, the first issue we're likely to be taking up on the new regs is flood zone. Um because that seems to be an issue that you guys here at ZBA have very strong opinions on and obviously is very important to members of the community. The thought was to have it as in May so that people in the seasonal community we might be more likely to be there. Um but again, we wanted to have it early enough that we can still get everything else sort of in line for the rest of the rest of the summer. Um the goal is over the course of this summer starting in March um to to have probably on the order of four or five gatherings of different stakeholders um who are going to aim to have at least one meeting maybe two in like the the clubhouse of one of the beach associations just so that people again are in in the neighborhood there. Um, we're hoping so that, you know, we're not going to be able obviously to make everybody's change happen, but at least that the goal is to be listening and hearing and so at least people feel that they're they're being heard and that they have a stake in what's going what's going forward here. So,

so maybe with the timing of that, maybe at our February meeting because we only have one case. Yeah. Maybe we could put that on the agendas. Yeah. everyone's input as to what we'd like to discuss as a board because we need it by March. I see. Put that in the next I thought we were going to do it tonight. We're already at 7:46. And tonight give everyone a heads up because I know that I'm I'm still going through the what they did phase one and since next meeting you're basically just going to be working on the update to whatever you heard tonight from Joe's application. You have no new applications. Yeah, should be able to get through his relatively quickly and have time next month to work on I think so. So, we'll plan on that for next month.

Okay. And then uh also just Excuse me. Are the updates available for review already? Yeah, they're on the website. Okay. Thank you. And I was emailed with the link. Yeah, Craig sent us a link. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I saw that. Thank you. And and the goal going forward for the rest of this year is in real time as things happen they will be put on that website. That website is going to be the goal is to keep it again in in you know up to date as possible so that people can just keep going there and seeing what we're doing. It's been really helpful so far. That is really guys that you know you can just go there and

it's been a team effort. I mean I um Mary Gardner Kapula who's altered on the zoning commission has worked with me on some of the materials you see on there. Some of it has come from FHI. Craig has been working on sort of keeping it looking right. So again, the thing about websites is unless you keep them current, they're rapidly of no use. So the the goal is to make sure that again it stays a current document. So and I just forgot to mention that since we now have new alternates, the rotation is going to end up being Kathleen first, Nick second, and Richard third. And we're just gonna go that rotative, right? So, next time would be Richard and then after that would be Kathy.

I mean, if so, if uh somebody doesn't show, at least I'm prepared because I was here. Right. Right. And hopefully everyone will be here that's here this month so someone doesn't have to listen to the next month. They'll be here so they don't have to listen to tape. Yeah. Okay. Great. And with that in mind, would anybody like to talk about approval of the would any like propose any amendments to the November 20th, 2025 ZBA meeting minutes? Make a motion we accept the minutes as presented. Okay. Okay. Kip, I'll second. Michaela, all those in favor? I have to abstain. Okay. So that's

So that's four yeses. One abstain. And anyone's opposing? No. Okay. So, um, the motion passed four to zero to one. Right. I get that right. That's right. Would I like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting? So move. K. And who would be second? Michaela script thing. Who's second? So good though. All those in favor I

oppos none stating none motion pass nicely 500 and we are adjourn the meeting at I have 7:49 7:49 Nine.