Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Okay, it is 6:30 and we're calling to order the zoning board appeal regular meeting for Thursday, March 19th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. Okay. And in attendance we have Eric Nav language coordinator Kathleen Tracy Kayla Pearson Stephanie Michelle Amy Huitt Clark Nancy Hutchinson Kip Cotson Nick Fton and just walking in the door Sylvia Rowka Council.

Okay great and Russ Fog is absent. So um so before we start the public hearing, I'd just like to always remind applicants to facilitate facilitate an efficient review. Please present the evidence that an unusual and unnecessary parking exist

based on strict application of the zoning regulations due to some peculiar condition of the property itself and that the condition does not generally affect other properties in the district. Whether any reduction in legal pre-existing nonconformity is proposed. The evidence that the variance requested are the minimum to ne minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual hardship and allow reasonable use of the property. The evidence the variance requested are in harmony with the intent interprets of the zoning regulations and the comprehensive plan of zoning. And for applications with the coastal site plan review application, please address the Connecticut D comments. For applications reviewed by the tenant engineer, please review address his comments and his report. and for proposals within the concerts conservation zone, please address the comments from the Connecticut River Gateway Commission. So, the first case that we're going to hear is a continued case. It was continued from January and February public hearings. It's case 25-13C 125 shore road requesting variances for demolition of existing structures and construction of a new fever compliant dwelling in ground pool and detached garage within the Connecticut River and Tyler water areas on RU40 lot in the AE actually 11 uh flood zone blender mountain LLC present. So the members seated for this case are going to be the same members that were here present for both the January and the February hearings. That's myself, Kip Codson, Stephanie Micha Pearson, and Nick Bolton. And as previously noted, several variances are being requested. Sections 4.3.1 title waters protections in the conservation zone. No building or other structure including drainage structures, septic systems and wells shall extend within less than 100 ft of the mean high tide line as defined by the Connecticut River Connecticut sorry Connecticut general statutes of the Connecticut River or any of its tributaries

associated wetlands and 4.10.3 conservation zone requirements connectic river setbacks. No building or other structure shall be constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, extended, or moved or structurally altered within 100 feet of the coastal jurisdiction line as defined in the Connecticut River Connecticut general statutes of the Connecticut River or any of his tributaries or associated wetlands. And um I guess it's your turn now, Joe. Good evening. For the record, Joe Ren, professional engineer of Indigo. Yeah, you you I forgot to say you you submitted new plans as of March 13th, correct? Okay, thank you.

Y uh and supplements thereafter as well. Uh of Indigo and Old Sabbrook. Um just house some housekeeping items. You may or may not have this, but fresh off the press, we have an updated health approval. And then I don't think it's on the website, but it says is approved complies with requirements of section 19-13 of the Connecticut public health code. Yes. Just because of the changes to the site plan. We just got the I know Nancy inquired about that. So we four bedroomedroom single family dwelling. I guess you want to put that put it over on this side. Same as the one last time. It was just updated for the updated plans. That's all. Okay. Great. Thank you.

And we're not labeling it because it's sorry. It was submitted ahead of time, right? Okay. Yay. And then we also submitted to you the revised first two sheets of the ZBA application because of the

the setbacks um got better, more conforming. Um so we updated those numbers as well. Um so the applicant um one of which uh Michael Auster is with us this evening again. Um he's very intimately familiar with the design of the house. Since the architect can't be here if there any questions related to the actual house. He's the master. Uh also with us is John Cunningham who is the landscape architect. Um just to expand a little bit more on the proposed landscaping and the proposed improvements that we have with the removal of invasives and also the um even though it's on the separate parcel but owned by the same entity uh three acres of the marsh uh with the fragmitees removal as we discussed last time as well.

Yeah. I just want to make sure what so conditions of approval that were agreed in the past were follow up on buffer plantings for three to ensure establishment. Yes, John talked about that. I'll talk a little bit more and pursue application to be allowed to remove fragmitees in if three acres of wetlands. Is that I don't know the exact quote from all Okay. So, so remove fragmitees in wetlands on adjacent property to be purchased by applicants. Does that capture it? The three acres is adjacent and then it's about I think an anchor of ours is maybe a quarter of this wetland. Okay. Okay. A little bit more than three years. I just want to make sure we captured accurately what you agreed to last time. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. You can just say all fragmitees on the subject applicants property. Okay.

So, we don't have a number associated with if it's 3.1 or 3.7 or 2.8 or whatever. It's just the fragmitees in the marsh on the applicant's property. No one else's property. Um, so we submitted those revised pages of the application. So, you have that. Um, the site plan was adjusted to uh to the new reduced house footprint. Um, what you don't see on here are the house volumes, and that's what we're going to talk most about because when we left last time, that was the sticking point, the volume of the structure within the 100 foot setback. So, we brought in a second architect and had them do a threedimensional volumetric analysis of the structure. um specifically focused on the structure, the proposed structure that's within the 100 foot area and we submitted those um as well to you. Um so you should

I think that hasn't gone to everybody yet, but it was I saw it submitted I think some it got forwarded to me sent it out. Yep,

Craig did send out to everybody. Okay, good. Okay, so you have the digital images of that and then we provided paper copies to the Tom as well. So without further ado, I think it's appropriate that we talk about the volume reductions because they're substantial. And we heard the gateway commission first and then the first go around, then we shrunk it for the second goound. And now we're on our third go around. We even took a even a bigger bite out of it. So these analyses compare the last proposed when we present it to you this last month compares that application to this newest application. We don't go back to the first one, but there's even more of a reduction from the first one. So this up here was the former scheme, the previous scheme. You can see the the blocks of the house. there was this taller gable end piece here um in the center and then those uh these taller pieces and what happened is that just all came down and retracted backward. So you could see the the new proposed scheme here. Um hole is adjusted slightly. Um the biggest change is right in the center. That taller gable piece is now now come down with a flat roof and it's very um squat if you will. And then you can see that this has been re um reduced as well that lake projecting in this direction. A point that Michael made to me before is that because we're in the flood zone, this bottom section here, which is not a crawl space, by the way, um for flood reasons, the floor is above the elevation 12. There are no enclosed areas below this. Uh it's just filled in. They're solid walls. There's no uh crawl space. There's no basement.

But so there's but there's that's one of the questions I'm going to have when we get to the plans is that but there's foundation walls that go around. Yes. And so, and that's winter, but it's not But so the inside and the outside are two different levels. Yes. So, how does that Don't you need if you're in the AE flood zone, you need to have flood vents only if you have an enclosed space. There's no enclosed space that you can get into. But the that you get into, but the the foundation walls are enclosing a space. Mhm. That doesn't count.

Nope. Only a space that you can enter into has to be vented. So, this is just fill. It's just volume of fill. Um, do we have a cubic yard amount for how much fill there is? I didn't see that in there.

No, but it's not required in a coastal environment. So compensatory storage is never something that's required in a coastal environment because it's attached to all the oceans in the whole world and it's infatestimal. Um and and an inland environments if you have an inland um flood zone along Ka River, you know, where it's not title um that's different. So like up in Middletown, if we do a project up in Middletown, we have to show, okay, if we're filling this much, then we're going to excavate this much. So we balance the amount in the flood zone.

So down here on the shoreline, you very rarely see storage on any application because it's not required in coastal coastal flood zone. I wasn't thinking so much comp compensatory storage. I just I thought that I I haven't really seen a plan that looks like this one before. That's why I was questioning it. Well, so some other plans are like this. You have your foundation wall, but then folks will add more fill on the outside to cover up that wall. Or they have a wall and then there's a there's a flood gate between the inside and the outside, right? But if you had a floodgate here, it would just go into the dirt, right? There's no inside. There's no inside. Yeah.

It's just there to get him out of the flood. In in the female world, it's only the enclosed space. Any enclosed space that you could crawl into, get into has to be vented. Okay. I just haven't seen people fill this in so that it's fills higher than the outside area. You Well, it has to be at this level to be up above the flood level. So, it's You saying that people would generally bring in fill to hide the wall? Is it You would bring in more fill to hide the wall. That's that's your foundation wall. We all have it on all of our houses, but it's covered up with dirt. So, if we added dirt here, we'd be bringing in hundreds of more cubic yards of fill to cover that up.

But they chose to just connect to the natural grade out there and not add additional fill. Okay? And it doesn't doesn't have like doesn't disrupt the hydraology because you're connected to the ocean and that little solid block of permeable stuff doesn't matter. You can't measure the amount that it would change. It's trillions and trillions and trillions of gallons of water the ocean

and we're, you know, we're up close to the the fringe of the flood zone, too. We're up um, you know, elevation 8 storm Sandy didn't even really bring brought the elevation of the water just about up to that level in this area. Um, so you would need something bigger than Sandy to even get up into that area at those elevations. Um, but yeah, that's it's it's similar to a building built on a slab where you back fill the foundation and then put the slab on and build your structure from there. Similar to that, it's just you you're just able to see some of the wall because they're matching the existing contour of the ground and not adding more dirt. So you're you're going to say this FEMA compliant,

safe, same sentence and doesn't have an impact environ a negative environmental impact. Correct. The engineer's letter uh when he reviewed it for FEMA, he said two things. He said one, it's good. It meets FEMA because everything's all the floor levels are above 12 where it's supposed to be the FEMA plus one. And he did bring up about the crawl spaces in that letter. So now the crawl spaces are gone. There are no crawl spaces. So there's nothing to vent and nothing for water to get into that has to get back out of. Well, there are crawl space, but they're above 12 ft. There's no there's no crossroads. There's no there's no space below the floor level on the house.

I'm just I'm going to confuse you. What may be confusing is there are different floor levels inside the house. The lowest floor level saying Mike want to come up for I'm saying you're saying that crawl space is above. So Chris is still labeling crawl space but that's not crawl space. That's just all filled up. So that's old. You want to correct that on that? So, we've got it documented because there's lots of cra spaces. There's

cra. Yeah. Well, because the the natural grade is at eight for most of it and we're not allowed to build a floor below 12. So, right. So, the lowest floor is 12. And so, between the natural grade and 12 is all solid, right? So, this is not a it's not a cross lab. No slab here. or I was just making sure it was the updated plan. Yeah, this is the floor and below there, this is all tilt. There is no crawl space. We'll redline that. That's a scrier's error on the architect. Yeah, but it's in multiple spots.

Yeah, we'll scrap space. That's why I was concerned about what's going on here. It's a good By the way, you can even the garages at 12. Yeah, I know. I can see that. I could see at 12 and then there's crawl space above 12. What you're saying is you got to fill that in too. There there could be crawl space above 12. That's what I'm saying. So I'm just saying I don't think there is, right? There's no crawl space, but I'm just saying it could be. It would still be FEMA compliant. Wouldn't have to be vented if it was above 12. Anything that's at 12 or above doesn't have to be vented because the flood you need this space for like air conditioning ducks or anything.

Um from 11 to 12 and a half I think there might be uh ducks and you're not allowed to do anything below 12 11ow it's the 11 plus the one yeah the 11 plus the one and so the one would be where the where the duct would be and so we brought the floor up to 12 and a half to allow 18 inches per duct. Okay. So, let's just So, the elevation is 12. This is filled up to 12, but then above that there is a crawl space for for ducks. Yeah. Yes. For things above 12. I just make sure they're all talking about the same thing. So, the difference is there's no crawl space below the flood.

That's what I'm saying. There's no potentially habitable space below the flood that has. So, that would may mean you don't have to have any venting. from FEMA's perspective on that. Correct. Because it's above 12. Your flood level is here. The plus one is here. The flood water is never going to make it up that high. So no open accessible space below 12. So just clarify. So it's not that there are no crawl spaces. It's below 12 and none below. None below 12. Okay. Okay. Because let's

There's so many things changing all the time. I want to make sure we know what we're talking It's so it's I mean do you really call that a crawl space? It's only what like a two foot area. Um it might be three from 12 to the floor bottom of the foundation. But that would just be for Yeah. So the Okay. So we're Yeah. The floor is 15.5. So it's three and a half total. So and then you got your floor thickness. So yeah, it's a small it's like a two and a half foot space. Okay. You're correct. There are spaces but none below 12. I just want to clarify. Yeah. Okay.

So the ones the ones that I were talking about is nothing that is FEMA would be interested in. So everything's above 12. Um everything below 12 is filled in uh solid, okay, with dirt. So there's no way the water could get into any space and need to be vented to outside to any space. And it's strong enough to take on waves and stuff. It's not the V. It's not in the B zone. It's V zone just means it's above 3 foot. Um Vzone means velocity and waves. A zone is still water. Not coastal AE zone. No, it's means it's

coastal AE is limo you're talking about. And this is not Limwell. I think we need to clarify that. Um the if you have Jeff's letter probably says it on there. It's the it's an AE flood zone. Yeah.

There are no there are no waves. Um it would have to be designed it would have to be designed for wave velocity if it was either a Lima or a Vzone. And it's neither. It's a ae zone. We we have the note on our plan, but you can refer to the engineers letter for this AE1 zone. Yeah. On the same a coastal A. It's a coastal A zone, correct?

There's no difference. Co coastal AE is is limmoir limited to moderate wave action. Yes. So that means less than three foot wave. I mean there's never but this is not limoir. Limo. So you have V zone. That's the highest. Yeah. Then you have Limo which is limited to moderate waves. Yeah. That's not this. The next step down is straight A. I've never heard that metal one. We've always had just a Yeah, one or the other. Yeah, Leno. So, it's it's tricky in a lot of different areas. Um, Silia, is that something we have?

It is something you have. I I can go upstairs and sort of print a copy of this portion of the flood zone to see Yeah. Where the limo is? Haven't come across it. Yeah,

I it it treats AE zones as VE for many of your flood zone regulation purposes. So if this were in the limb law and I happen to check if Joe's representing it, it's not. It's not. But if this were in the limb law, you would not be able to use structural fill here because you do have moderate wave action and they don't want the wave action to be eroding the fill that's been put in place. So again, it's it is a category that expands your high hazard flood zone further inland than is otherwise covered by your VE zone. and all along the Connecticut coastline. Um the Limoa is a very big deal because again it covers area that is only in the AE but is still covered by your high hazard regulations. So if you look if you look in your own zoning regulations um limo is called out as a separate category for high hazard. So,

okay. And when your engineer reviewed it, he would have pointed out that it was limo and that it needed to be designed for Vzone standards and it would have to be designed to be on peers instead of on the zone standards. But we have two sets of regulations. There's the um there's a special flood hazard areas and then be zone is a coastal high hazard area. I just I'm just trying to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Okay. We are. And they would never when the you know if this went for building permit and the building official reviews it they would never get a be able to get a permit to build that if he knew it was in the wrong flood zone.

Um so what flood zone? So you're saying this is not in the coastal AE flood zone? It is in the AE. It's just not in the Limwa portion of the A course according to Joe. Let me these are the limited Oh, that's with the when it's up to foot and a half weight. So, okay, that I understand. I didn't Let me take a minute. I'm going to go upstairs. I'm going to print out the portion of this flood zone just so we can all see exactly where that limo is here. I I just didn't hear it pronounced that way before. Limited moderate wave action. The acronym is Limo. I didn't heard that. We We don't know that. I'm surprised we haven't come across that yet in project. It's mostly like shorefront properties. This is too far inland, I think.

No, I know it's not. I know it's not lia or limited wave action because that's foot and a half waves and lower, but I thought that it is still a special flood hazard area. It is. Okay. Yeah. And it's designed accordingly. So, all the floors are above the 12. And you'd agree that the the uh engineers that are looking at the plans when it's time to get bill improvements would catch that and say, "All right, can't do what you're asking." Well, your engineer reviewed it already back in December, this application, and he didn't bring up Lima. No, no, I wasn't trying to bring up Limo either. I was saying it's a coastal AE, not

I think you're I think you might be getting coastal AE and Limo interchanged, maybe. I mean, we're in a coastal environment. Yes, it's an AE zone. Yes. So you can kind of marry the two together, but they're no this doesn't get designed for wave action any purpose at all lower than foot and a half waves. Um no no waves. Not that it matter it does it doesn't really matter because it doesn't it doesn't change anything.

Um and again they still have to get a building permit after zoning approved. The thing is, I've talked to the building inspector in the past before and he says if someone comes to him with an architectural plan that's been certified by an architect, it says it's FEMA compliant, then he just um I would like to talk to him about that. He has to review make sure that it's consistent with FEMA regulations and the building the current building code. So, he shouldn't rely on whether it's my plan or someone else's plan, he shouldn't rely on those plans. He should do the research himself to make sure he's looking at the right flood zone. I'm just saying an architect could say, "Hey, it's in an AE8 zone when it's in a VE14 zone. He needs to know the difference."

Okay. But any Lima project has to get designed the Vzone standard. So I don't even really know why they have a limo because it they should just make it all Vzone because you have to design the same. I we're just termited moderate wave action. That's all I So you have the LI for limited and then the M moderate wave W actually um but we're not in that zone where we're or landward of the AE line. So we're a design project and you're within like five feet of the high velocity flood zone.

Uh we're that corner of the house is close to the D zone but it's not in I understand. Okay, move back the volumes now. Um, so this is the comparative analysis was before. This is after. You can see everything was brought down. So the big numbers here and to look at are prior to the last last go around we had 45,442 cubic feet of structure. um waterword of the 100 foot line. So the 100 foot line is the represented by this kind of vertical curtain. The 50 foot line is represented by this blue vertical curtain. So again we don't have anything in the 50 the area between the 50 and the 100 had that structure in there. And at the last meeting the concern was the amount of structure volume in that zone. So with the new scheme, the roof lines brought down dimensions uh shortened and retracted um pulled away um from the 100 foot line. It went down to 31,476 cubic feet for reduction of almost uh 14,000 a little bit more than 14,000 cubic feet which represents about 31% reduction.

So what percentage of the dwelling is in the 100 foot setback? because I I calculated it's about 70%. We we spent a lot of time on just focusing between the 50 and the 100. So we didn't I don't think we know that number. It's less than half because the garage u has more volume and the courtyard we raised up with the sold. Um so um I I believe it's less than considerably less than half. Well, I was just saying the dwelling itself, the detached garage, I wasn't counting. So it looks like still more than half of it is

well this one is taller and over here there are two floors which which were brought back behind this line. So everything on this side of the line is um one story or one level and flat roof and brought approximately 4T down lower to the ground. Okay. So um so in terms of of the volume the you you'll see in the third image which is from the water. Yeah. It looks very flat and very low especially compared to how it was before and I I think that'll clarify what you're thinking because then you'll you know it it looks like a sliver when you're looking from the water. So did we lose some height?

Yeah because everything was made flat and everything was brought lower at least uh four feet. All right. So that's why we're talking about volume. Yeah. So at the last meeting, I'm not sure if you were here at the last um so at the last meeting the the biggest discussion and the biggest question was about the volume. We were talking a lot about the setbacks. Um which we updated on

smaller listen. So smaller, retracted, but the big thing was the volume, the vertical volume. And we were asked to really look at that, quantify that, try to shrink that down as much as possible. And that's what they did here. Again, that's that 31% reduction. Now, that again, that doesn't go back to the first iteration that had even more volume in there. So, it's probably closer to like a 40 or 50% reduction from what was initially uh proposed to you. But this just compares the latest plus the last version.

I guess the question still comes up and we've talked about this before is like if you didn't have this courtyard, wouldn't more of the dwelling just be outside of the of the 100 foot setback. But yes, it's smaller. I guess the other question was not just the vinyl, but in the setback, but like could you just move the building out of the setback? Well, then we wouldn't be able to fit the garage and um we wouldn't be able to fit the pool and it would be close enough to the road. I was actually standing there just an hour ago admiring it and the road is rather noisy, especially this time of year when you don't have as much greenery to block it and so

I can understand the desire, but I guess that it's still, you know, that's not really a hardship for the land itself, right? Well, you asked us to reduce it as much as we can relook at it. 31% additional reduction I think is very substantial. So I think we listened to gateway, we listened to you both times, we came back and with a substantial reduction. Um this second sheet shows um the perspective view of just the of the heights itself. And you can see that all of those sections were substantially brought down to salvage colors. I'm not sure. Push that up so we can see the very top.

Yeah. Right there. This is so this beige and pink is the kind of 100 foot curtain anyway. So this is behind that's the garage behind the curtain. So our focus is between the blue curtain and the pink curtain. Right? So it's this gray area here that was before. And then again here are the two curtains. So you can just behind the curtain you can just see that peak of the garage. But this right here is so much more squat. And what's in this 50?

But where's the grade? Where's the what the the curtain? You don't really see what you're saying. I'm not sure. We don't see through the curtain. So in a section, you have to show the we're showing the 50 foot line and the 100 foot line, but in a section, you wouldn't see the line unless we made vertical, right? So that's why I keep calling it a curve. I think the top of blue is approximately see that there's that solid that solid fill for the next 14. Okay. Um the other one these other ones show it better but it's giving all the difference perspective.

This is approximately from the water. So it was about a 15 degree angle. Okay. So, if you're in the water in a kayak at a lower elevation and you're kind of looking up the slope at the elevation 8 to where the house intersects, this is what was there before. Um, this volume and again from that perspective from that angle, this is what you're seeing now. So, roof lines really brought down. Um, and then looking up that 8 ft, this is perspective of what you would see from there. Can you see the pool from the water? You could see the pool from the other side. So you see it from navigable because it's on the board.

So all these perspectives are looking at it right from basically the west to the east. I see what you're saying. And the pool is here. So you'd be looking at

from the big marsh here from north to south. So, and and it's, you know, there's a little bit of slope there, but it's generally close to the elevation of the grade, so you can't I mean, can you see the pool from the water? No, because it's flat and it's level with the ground. Um, but it is it is there. It is closer than 100 ft. Uh, and if you had a drone or you went up above there, you can look down and see it. But from the level of the water, you can't see the water. And real realistically my read on that whole acreage there I live sort of nearby is nobody's headed up in that part of the marsh. I mean you're going a lot of traffic up and down black hole but what you could notice of that there's property from black hole probably nothing but or at least some insignificant amount of structure.

Yeah, there's an extended what in order to see what the views you're showing you got to take at most some small kayak or canoe up in there. say the same thing to get more which we do. We do kayak back there. I mean the shape of it, it comes down here, but you have this big inlet here before the marsh. So, we are on this side, too.

Well, I'm not totally sure about that. If you look at the location plan, you can see the the site and you can see the open water areas and all the rest of that is marsh. Um, so you're not throwing a kayak in the Mars. You're just going in these navigable water areas. So if you get up in this creek, Yes. But then you're a thousand feet away from the site. This is 1 in equals 1,000 ft. And that's probably about an inch to the site there. That's right. And you're looking through you're looking through um very tall. Yeah. you wouldn't see it. Important thing to know if I may over here

so from the water you're looking up um the the pool the top of the pool is is just below there. But this is not exactly what you see because of John's uh plantings in the landscape which is around the entire perimeter and further out. So it's going to block a lot of us. I I think you'll you'll maybe see parts of it peeking through, but through the the landscape, you'll really just see like a little like pancake on top. And just to throw this conversation on the table. So, we're sure we're looking at we're trying we're asking about varying regulations. Whenever I get that inner dialogue going, I want to consider what the intent of the regulation is. Why does that regulation exist? And does this in some ways violate the intent of the regulation? And for me, the 100 foot 50 foot I mean a lot of that seems to be couched in language around safety and and environmental impact. I don't see either of these those as being that significant in the plan you're showing me.

Yes. Improve the environmental impact. Yeah. The D said that D said that it's better for the environment if we let them do this. Yes. according to D.

I guess I'm worried about safety, too, because that's where I might because it's not just the coastal Connecticut River gateway, it's also the coastal boundary. And we've had feedback in the past where the the DPS told us they don't like significant increases in living space in the flood zone. And then we're moving the building 50 foot closer to the VE flood zone and you're only a few feet away from it. And it's like it's it's also a question of safety and is it the best you know it's not just view it's the whole plan you know flood zone coastal uh boundary and

you you don't have you don't have a FEMA compliant building there right now though. That's not very Yeah. And I know I you're exactly right. They're they're making a proposal. It's an idealized proposal. We could shape it. We could help them decide how to think about how to do this so that we do have the safety considerations high on our menu. Um,

and I think the other thing too is is is that the minimum required to alleviate the hardship and the hardship is there's a limited area for building on the lot, but it's still most of that space is used by a garage and a courtyard. And so most the entire so the majority of the dwelling is in the setback 50t closer to the flood zone. And Excuse me. Raise your respect. Not a majority of the bottle. I Because you've changed the volume. I couldn't understand that. Yeah.

Yeah. We I mean we we've done what we've been asked to multiple times and they've really taken tens tens of thousands of cubic feet of volume out of that to make it the minimum necessary. But you know the real mention one thing really quickly. The V line. Keep in mind we're um isn't that about 6 feet to 7 ft of elevation? and we're starting at 12. We're not start lower. So even though um we we are a little bit closer to it, we're we're quite a bit higher as well. Sorry, Joe. I think the whole thing is filled right now. Anyway, I think it was built on Phil, but I want to make a point on your application

um to describe the proposed reductions in legal pre-existing um nonconformities. Um perhaps the first two, but C through D, the setbacks along the marsh, you're comparing them to the shed. The shed is no longer there. So we're not allowed to even consider those. No, we're allowed to consider the shed, but the point is the shed 120 foot. Once it's gone, it's gone. We're not to consider something that's gone. I think they has the right to rebuild it. is right to replace it. Replace it. Yeah. You like for like he could put the same shed back,

right? So, how much compensation he should get for losing the shed is something for you to weigh, but um you know, he he does have the right theoretically if to stop abandoning the use to put the shed back where it was. Even when it's gone, it's gone. I thought when it was gone, it was gone. No. the question, you know, and Sophia can sort of jump in here. I mean, in recent years, there's a question of abandonment versus discontinuence. And if the use was never abandoned, it just discontinued, do they have the right to resume it?

Unless they intend to abandon it. So, and again, how long it's been gone, whether the site is that the the area has been irrevocably committed to some other use um are all issues of intent of the the property owner here. So, it's hard to say for sure what the intent of the property owner was. And if it wasn't abandonment, the law is presently sort of leaning towards saying it was merely discontinued and couldn't be resumed at a later date. discontinued. You can level it and take it away and that's just called discontinuing.

Well, I I agree with everything that Eric said. Um I don't I just don't understand at all to say like if you take it if you tear it down, it's no longer there. You tear it down. Tearing it down doesn't necessarily mean you don't intend to rebuild it. Tear it down because it's old, you don't like it, it's dangerous.

Whatever. It's dangerous. You could tear it down. Um, so unless you have a an overt intent that is should be an actual intent, it could be illustrated in a number of different ways. The other aspect of it is is if there the burden would be on the town or the person who's saying that it is abandoned to prove that it would be abandoned, not the other way around. So once you have something unless you so for example if someone came in and said I'm removing that shed to get something um you know they reduced the non-conformity by eliminating the shed and in exchange for that they they got a variance or they permanently put something else there something like that that would show that it's not going back or they expressly say I'm I'm abanding then that's that's official but you can't assume that because someone took it down that they're permanently intending and never putting it back. So it it says on the plans recently removed

shed. That's all it is. And there's no plan to build it back. There doesn't need to be a plan. The assumption is that they it's a constitutional right. If you have a non-conformity, you have a constitutional right. So absent you saying I'm not I'm not going to have my constitutional right from this point forward, you have it. So, the presumption is in favor of the constitutional right as long as it's a legal pre-existing non-conformance and that is on the old assessor's card. It's not on the current assessor's card, but I did check it was on the old there was a permit for the old even if it's there longer than three years of existing for me anyways.

Um, and the owner of the property could go tomorrow and take out a permit and put it right back. But I think but I think Stephanie's right if you want to walk through the the reductions and nonconformity. So it's a street set line sign line sign line sign line sign line sign line sign line sign line sign line sign line sign line. The set the the street setback line setback line the rear setback line is mainly that 120 foot square foot shed which is very much small but um you won't allow us to put one there brand new without a No no no I know I know I understand but I'm saying but how big it is comparing comparing the removal of that versus a a big dwelling it's understood

yeah I remember that argument because this is mostly being carried not so touch on it. That's strict defining a hardship here. So the language about minimum necessary gets a little fuzzy around that. We're talking about compensating for the decrease in pre-existing nonconformities and generating a FEMA compliant outcome. Those are the two things that are in my head bouncing around loudest about when I'm trying to consider this is up here. So we're eliminating the front. We're eliminating side. We're not just

making them better by a couple inches. We're eliminating those. And then the other big piece of it that we mentioned before, all that pink area is currently asphalt between the 50 and the 100 foot area. And below that area is a septic system. Um, and all of that is coming out. The septic system is outside the 100 foot area. We're get we're going to a crush stone driveway. So even though it's not technically a structure and D said this in their letter too, removing those couple thousand square feet of asphalt and relocating the septic out are two big things that yes, they're not structures, but for safety and health and the environment, you have to consider.

Yeah. And for what you're throwing in front of me, my review of it would be heavily weighted towards listening to what the DP is saying about this because that's when I'm just looking at it as a newbie. I'd say, "Okay, is this going to be the things you're asking?" I'd be nervous that they would have a negative environmental impact and professional evaluation says, "No, it' be good for the property." So, I'm going to sit there and think about it that way and see if you know how that influences my body. The other thing I guess that's the thing I keep coming back to. keep saying that that the DP is very supportive of it, but I think when I when I read the D, it's like it's like uh they normally wouldn't approve.

They they said we normally wouldn't be in favor of like three or four times. Okay. The applicant is requesting variance from the 100 foot title water protection area and the 100 foot connect river setback in order to construct a new FEMA compliant fourbedroom dwelling detached garage inground pool patio terrace new well and full compliance subject system. While we generally cannot support significant variances from coastal resource setback setbacks in this case the variances will increase the distance from the river over that which currently exists. And I'm saying the only thing that's closer to the river than this dwelling and this pool is that 120 square foot shed.

They're looking at the driveway because they hate impervious. And they're looking at the septic. Yeah. But how much more impervious will we have with the house now? But that goes that goes to drainage. So you have reduced runoff.

1.5 or whatever inches of rain. We could get two inches of rain. Our our default setting here as members of the board would be to have high consideration for the D's professional evaluation of this. And you're right, read through it tightly, make sure they're saying what he's presenting they're saying. But if they are actually saying it's an overall net positive and they support this plan, I'm just that I'm taking the environmental part and make it a positive rather than a negative. The D requirement for drainage is whatever your increase in impervious is, they want you to retain 1.3 that was one inch before. Recently they increased that by 30% to 1.3 in. So we have a drywall and we're bringing that excess impervious into that drywall. So we're retaining and that's again DP reviewed that we're retaining the excess impervious. Um and even more than that we have even more than 1.3. it's probably closer to 1.6 or two uh of the extra inches for of the 1.3 from the extra impervious area on site. So, we're consistent with actually extra than what the D requires for storm water runoff. And the one thing that we haven't talked a lot about yet um is this buffer that's elective. It's not required by anything. This landscape buffer we measured at this time and it's over 10,000 square feet. So it's it's nearly a quarter acre that we're transforming lawn that can be fertilized and put pesticides on to this buffer that John Cunningham designed that has all native and indigenous plantings. I mean how how much of an improvement is just that over what's there today? Um regardless adding, you know, a little bit of this is dry laid stone patio. This is a pool that catches water. any runoff, any um excess rainwater that goes there, goes to the drywall and goes

into the ground. You know, for this piece of the building that's in the 50 to 100 area, you have 10,000 square feet. The house is not even 4,000 total square feet on all floors. This is 10,000 square feet of new buffer that has native plantings. I mean, just that in itself, I think heavily offsets anything that's going up. I guess I I feel like I'm a little hesitant about the connected D comments because this is a new reviewer and for years we had comments from Marcy Balant and she would tell us specifically that they don't like significant living area expansion in coastal flood zones. And I just that's why I'm coming at this from a safety perspective. the coastal area management plan. It's like

so the house is 100% safe. It's 100% FEMA compliant. It's also 50 feet closer to the VE flood zone the the but 50 ft. If we have a storm that's up that high, you're not going to be living in the house at that time. Half of old line will be underwater. All right. Well, anyway, thank you. Our house is below 12. No, it's not. The floor is in the zone and then it has a basement as well, which is basement had to be filled in. got it. Again, we know that house is not FEMA compliant, but if the question is more to me is like, can you put a FEMA compliant building that's less intrusive on the 100 foot set?

We we've gone through this question multiple times and they've gone back to the table and drastically reduced what they had proposed. So, and they've spent hours and days on, you know, bringing a second architect, you know, doing this volumetric analysis and showing a 31% decrease in the volume. So, we think that it's the smallest and most minimum that that they can live with and that would work for the for ZBA and show that this this middle drawing, forgive me,

that's the height that you're allowed to build. Um, so you could make a threetory structure uh in that like quart it's like a quarter of a circle. It's curved. It's not exactly um I think that's a lot more visible um from everywhere uh including including the river. Um and and that's how you would get the same amount of square footage if you do repair the

had is that the this question that Eric's brought up as well. It's like the extent of fill that's being brought in. So this is that is that dangerous to get you know fill running the pool breaks or something else the the the gets washed into the wetlands.

Um so the pool is like your concrete foundation right? So the pool it's all reinforced concrete. It's not going to break and flood. Um the any overflow goes to saltwater pool. Any overflow goes to the dry well. We have that connected through there uh as well. So there's no discharge to the marsh. It will all be professionally maintained the pool. There's not going to be any u back flushing of pool equipment into the marsh or anything like that. Self-contained saltwater pool. What's that? The other way.

Yeah. And that's the other thing. You know, we have that buffer all the way through there. Right now, everything just washes down the lawn, carries everything that's on the lawn with it, creates that invasive band that's around the edge of the marsh again, and then the fragies after that. So, any runoff that does make it down the hill will hit this, probably sit there, get treated with nutrient uptake in that 10,000 square feet before it could ever get to the marsh. Right now the the runoff goes unimpeded right directly into the marsh. This acts as kind of a speed bump if a very large speed bump if you will for the water to get down and just slow down the zero velocity and just kind of sit there and get treated in there before it ever could find its way into the marsh. Lots of times D recommends these type buffers. We've had to implement them. Um, but right from the beginning, Michael will tell you that we advised them to do that because we knew it would be something that was looked at as a benefit and they went over and above um, you know, what I even imagine. Sometimes people will try to do like a 5ft strip or just like a 10-ft linear strip and throw some grasses in there, but this is a and John will talk about that in a couple of minutes, but it's a very intensive buffer, 10,000 square feet.

Okay, I have another question. Um, what how many bedrooms does this house have? Four. It only has two listed on the the uh architectural plans and it has two offices and a den. Um, yeah, there there are two. And then on the second floor, which has two small rooms that are not within the 50 to 100 ft area, those will be two studies that could double as as bedrooms, but they won't have that. So, it is four bedrooms. Okay. So those per the health code

ledge light treats certain rooms as bedrooms even if they're not labeled as such. Ledge light has its own categorization for what a bedroom would be and therefore the septic would need to accommodate and and so even though it's not marked as a bedroom that is four bedrooms for ledge light purposes it's considered a bedroom.

That helps clarify the confusion I had because I didn't see it labeled on the plans but said that there were four bedrooms. Okay. Well, I applaud you taking the volume down. My big concern though was the um area the ground area like pulling it back. You know, the front and side setback to me were not important. You said you didn't want to you didn't want it any closer to the road solely because of the noise. um which does not have anything to do with like any minimum incursion into the

zone because we didn't want it to be burden. This just with with some older relatives we have and some injuries we have. It would be practical for us, but somebody Okay. Um, so I'm not sure when the gateway 100 foot setback came into play. I didn't look that up and and your regulations, but it's fairly recent, right? Probably in the past 15 years maybe. Yeah. 20 15 20 years.

So just use 15 years for an example. 20 years ago, someone could have came in and built this perfectly conforming. didn't even need a barren. Um so since since then these lines were added 1500 ft severely encumbered this property. So that's the real hardship. Um so the way I look at it is yes resolve a longstanding sideyard setback is you resolve and eliminate your front setback and get into here. Yes, these were implemented but you know look look at this property. It's before you were able to use all of this all the way up to the marsh. Now with these things implemented, now you only have this little triangle. And that's a classic case of a hardship that someone had this building 20 30 years ago. They could have built all of this.

They're buying this. This is their choice whether the land was encumbered. I think that's inconsequential. It's it's actually not. It's actually legal definition of a hardship. Um, is that legal definition of hardship, Silia? It's an encumbrance of the property. It is frequently articulated hardship that they've implemented new regulations that didn't exist before. That they implemented new regulations that didn't exist before when they have pre-existing use. Yes. So, the argument that Joe is making is a frequently utilized argument. Um, and it's up to you to determine whether it floats. So the hardship is a judgment call at the end.

I mean it's a the change on the the regulations affected the land right in in some negative way. Um so it you've you've heard this argument many times before as well. Um so I'm not going to say it isn't and I'm not going to say it is. It's sort of a a mixed bag there. It's a justifiable argument. So, I understand why you was making I can understand it if if it's if it removes your ability to use the property, but there is an existing use of the property now and that can continue to be is that well that that would be a taking if you eliminated the use. That would be a taking.

I'm not saying it's a taking. I'm saying it really restricted this property from having all this area available. Now, it just has this area. So, it's a severe encumbrance to the property just because that regulation was implemented. And we we see this a lot. All the all the gateway towns, all the nine towns in the lower Tanker River Valley, um there are some houses that are 200 years old and that sit in that buffer. So, if they want to do anything on the back side, Gateway still says no. But

we can't move the house. We can't have the pool in front of the house right in the driveway. Um, so it's it's you know it's a hard it's a hard thing. So they do it does encumber a lot of properties but I think with the what we tried to do here from the beginning is we knew we were in the 100 foot area. We knew we had to come to you for a variance. We knew we had to go to gateway but we implemented all these other things to balance that. So we made a FEMA compliant house. We made the driveway pvious. We pulled the septic system out more than 100t away where it's only about 50 feet away or less now. Um, yes, those other structures were removed, but we added 10,000 square feet of newly planted area that you would never have there otherwise. You just have

So, I guess there's a question I have. So, with the with the criteria that we must follow what's the harmony with the intent and purpose of zoning regulation, the comprehensive plan of zoning. Okay. So, doing something that's not allowed but trying to compensate it with other benefits is that kosher legally. I mean that's your reduction. That's the definition of your reduction of non-conformities. No, no, but it's not but it's not reducing non-conformance like putting in buffers um and the fragmmites it's a benefit

to offset something that would not normally be allowed. So the I think it's important you've got three different you've got like a mixed bag of things here. So yes,

if if this if if Joe's sole reason for the variance was to be FEMA compliant because it's going to be FEMA compliant, the minimum necessary goes more into that, right? It so you're you're right to think that when you've got like a different combination of things that he's going here. So the and because we're because we're talking about deep and because we're talking about all the the things that go in that the the buffer is relevant. I mean the fact that deep normally rejects these kinds of things but in this case they're saying but in this case is is sort of emblematic of the whole process right they're taking a look at everything the purpose of why they do it. They're not just saying they're not just taking the narrow view of what is the gross floor area and if it's bigger we don't like it. They're taking a broader view of the whole thing. a comprehensive look at the whole thing, which is essentially what you do as well, and how does it fit? So, if they weren't doing all these other things, they probably would have given you the standard letter that you got.

But it matters, right? Because it's going to the purpose that they're ultimately looking to serve. So, if we're just talking about gross floor area, then that's that circumstance. There are points where you could add so many positive things that it could alleviate the the risk here. And you're not just adding pretty things and nice things that are helpful. From what I'm hearing from deep, you're actually substantive material things that improve it. So it's not just, you know, fancy bells and whistles. Actual substantive material things that improve it. So much so that deep is giving you a positive opinion,

right? It's not ridiculous to I I know we're supposed to be focused on fully on zoning, but Deeps is doing this kind of thing is you got a pvious driveway, impervious driveway, you've got a septic that is out in that zone. Pulling those out is reducing Oh, we we don't get to call them pre-existing nonconformities, or do we? I'm using the same logic, I'll be honest. There features about the current state of this property that are suboptimal. We'd like, you're saying we're going to remove those features and make it a more um attractive, more healthy, you know, a better

site. I I I'm paying attention to that. The DP seem to be sponsoring that.

The way we like to look at all projects are what's the overall uh comparison in the end to what you have today and what we're presenting in front of you. We think it's in our opinion that this is environmentally superior to what's there now. Um you have a you have a FEMA compliant house. You have drainage that you don't you you don't have now. You have a septic out of the 100 foot. You have a pvious driveway from the big impervious driveway that you have there now. You you have this 10,000 square foot native planted buffer that you don't have now. The grass goes right into the marsh. you have an applicant who is willing to remove all the invasives and check and and maintain that for a minimum of three years and then also even though it's not it can't be really part of the application but he's also committed if he owns the property to remove the invasive fragmitees from 3 acres of marsh. So with all those things combined we think that the overall plan is far superior than what's out there today. Do you think that would help the natural a traditional river scene? Getting rid of all those invasives and putting in that

yes buffer.

We we balance that with the low pieces of the house, removing that volume out of there, keeping it close to the ground. Again, you're you're hundreds of yards from navigable water with fragmitees right now and you increase in elevation. So, we think that a boater out at water level would be hardressed to know that this piece of the house that's 70 feet away is not 100t away. You can't tell the difference. And environmentally, it's superior. So, for all of those reasons, um we think it's far far superior. And D agrees. And just because that analyst isn't someone we're familiar with doesn't mean they're 22 years old right out of college. I I don't know who that person is, but that has to get reviewed and signed off by their supervisor. They any letter at D goes right up through the top and then comes down before it gets published. And some that's why it takes 35 days. I also appreciate that you did take to heart what we said uh at our last meeting that we suggested that anything you could do to um do some some reductions and to make it sort of you know closer to conforming um and I feel like you've really made an effort to do that. So

thank you. And it's 30 it's more than 30%. It's not like 10% or it's a significant change. Yeah. Yeah. And that's to be commended. They prefer the last plan.

Well, of course, you know, but less was a reasonable still half the height that you would be allowed to build originally. Now it's that's a third of the height, right? It's one story. So with all of those things overall with all that it's it's our strong opinion that it's far superior that either what's there now or what someone else could propose on the site even if they worked in the buildable area and built up two and a half stories 35 ft tall see more bulk see more height from the river. Um we think that this plan is as good as it can get. So just so for help for our discussion

could you very succinctly say what is your hardship or legal alternative to hardship why you think this is the minimum or balance for things how it's in align with 10 um so can we just we got in the recording everything I just said just capture that so I don't have to repeat it because it's an overall improvement and then we talked a lot about the hardship with the incumbrance of the property um in there and then overall adding all these extra things and getting a letter from D saying that they agree that this was environmentally

that's more the bal that's the balance it makes it more intent on I want to get back to hardship so the hardship is reductions in legal pre-existing nonconformity

uh so we have it written here um so we'll just read what's in the application um so the variances are request that allow uh the demolition of an existing non-conforming house um and non-conforming shedding gazebo were re recently removed and the construction of a new FEMA compliant dwelling in ground pool detached garage and associated improvements partially within the Connecticut River and title wetlands setbacks all existing non-conforming yard setbacks will be eliminated um and all other zoning dimensional criteria i.e the coverage, GFA, height, and yard setbacks will all be met. So, that's part of it right there. We meet all the zoning dimensional setbacks except these kind of arbitrary 50 and 100 foot um setbacks from the coastal jurisdiction line. Um we meet everything else including right from the get-go, one of the goals was to keep this the house less than 4,000 square feet. Um not that we couldn't propose a house more than 4,000 ft. We had plenty of room with the GFA percentage, but planning and zoning that requires a special permit. So, we figured, okay, go into Gateway, go in the ZBA, if we go in with a 5,000T house, it just doesn't set off well, right?

Yeah. So, they kept it under 4,000. Consens hardship.

So, strict application of the zoning regulation will result in unusual hardship. Subject properties in a regularly shaped lot, right? have a triangle. It's not a square or rectangle is adjacent to extensive tidal wetlands along its longest side approximately 425 ft of the property is adjacent to title wetlands with that coastal jurisdiction line. So if the coastal jurisdiction line was just over here, we would probably meet everything. But it follows that whole entire um hypotenuse of the triangle if you will. Um due to our U40 yard setbacks combined with the Connecticut River and tidal water setbacks, approximately 94% of the lot is encumbered by restrictive setbacks. So there's 6% of the lot that's buildable without a variance,

which is 2600 square.

Um I haven't done that number, but it's 6% of the buildable area, not over the table lot area. Um the existing house was built in 1926 and the lot was created prior to zoning regulations being adopted including all the yard and the resource set up effects. And to supplement that what I had said before is say 20 years ago early 2000s you could build on all of that. Um I'm not even sure if the 50 foot setback that was kind of before my time um but you could build on all of it. Now you could only build on that 6%. So everything you have has to be there. Um so it really restricted this property substantially by um 80 90%.

Right. But that in itself if as long as you have space left to build then it's not that you you can have a partial in the setback but you're you're really mainly coming back to you have very little hardship. You have some hardship, but you're extending more than the hardship requires, but you're offsetting that with other benefits.

Yep. Which which I'll get into as we continue um through this um since you asked. So, the unusual hardship is not shared by others. The lot is unique to the irregular shape and proximity to extensive title wetlands coupled with this extremely small area of conforming land 6% outside of all yard and resource setbacks. Um the proposed reductions in legal pre-existing non-conformities. We talked about these earlier. Um but just to reiterate, the house the existing house is way up here now where it's supposed to be here. So that's there's good portion of that house that's in the front yard setback. That is completely eliminated. The sideyard setback, the existing house and deck are here about halfway into the setback. That is completely eliminated with this plan. We talked about the shed in the gazebo being within the 50 uh in the 100 foot areas um and also within the shed within the 35 foot property line. If you proposed yes, it's a small shed, but if you propose that today, you would need a variance. You pro if you propose this today, you would need a variance. So,

yep. I'm just saying I'm trying to balance the extent of the reductions in nonformity with the extent of the proposed increases. I just Yes. So all of that together realize it you your hardship is very limited building area on the lot but you're not using most of that area for your dwelling and you small reductions and legal pre-existing non-conformity where you have extensive but you're trying to offset all that with the alignment intent purposes only regulations because of the additional benefits you're going to provide to the lot.

Correct. And I I wouldn't consider these small eliminations of non-conformity. If we came in and proposed that to you, you would think there were lower lower right hand corners where the two setbacks meet, right? The side and the front setback. Yeah. Where where you're building you're building right up to the limit there. So all that disappeared and he has to build away from that

and he went he went into the past the 50 on a chunk of it. the pool I guess less impressed with because D didn't mind it so much. It's prefers it to what's currently there. So I I I think from a environmental point of view after the DP report I I don't think it's a big consideration in my deliberations here the safety part they're the ones that are mostly managing the burden of that that he's paying for this he's going to live there if it's ridiculous and you know does meet DP if it's sort of you know that component of what might be the intention of the 50 and the 100 there compliant at least

as far as the visual impact wise I don't I'm not greatly alarmed with what you're doing it it would be easier if you all fit in that little triangle but that's a little triangle doesn't have to all fit in there but most of it fit in there Sylvia you did at our last meeting you had a great description for me and hardship I don't know if you remember this you talked about hardship how you could you end up in a situation where you pick and choose a hardship. You kind of touched on it just a moment ago. Do you remember any of that that dissertation you gave us on our show? I don't remember how it's to balance the benefits with the cost.

Well, I think it came up in the context of of Nancy was talking about the minimum necessary and I I was cautioning about using that terminology with the because I think there's three different things going on here. So there's three yes you're good

three things that are potentially independent justifications in general generally speaking for variances whether they are in this case I'm not opining I'm just saying that generally these are categories that you can opine and it came up in the context of whether the minimum necessary applies so minimum necessary applies we're talking about FEMA is it the minimum necessary to meet FEMA so if we're talking about that as a sole decision that is terminology that you should have in your head when we're talking about hardship. Minimum necessary also comes up in hardship. Minimum necessary doesn't come up in reductions in non-conformity. So because this is the mixed bag, we got to be a little careful with whether you're you're applying is this amenum necessary across the board because Joe's offering different reasons and different combinations. So it it gets complicated.

But in the past you've said reductions in legal nonconformity. Is there a net reduction?

So, and and I think Joe has acknowledged this. Um, it's up to you to determine whether or not a net reduction generally speaking. So, not in sense of quantity necessarily, right? It's it's a generally overall because, you know, it's not apples to apples that we're comparing. So generally overall, so the courts essentially have said that you you balance it and and they give some discretion to to the to the board to balance all those things because just reducing 5T here and gaining 5T here may not be the equivalent depending on what you're doing. So in this in this circumstance and again Joe's tackled that whether the and you're absolutely right that whether you're taking some you're eliminating the the the front setback is that sufficient enough to justify some of the others that is entirely within your discretion. That's not a yes or a no answer. That's really where you're weighing it. Um in this case you're weighing it in addition to the regular stuff, the setback, the trade-offs, those kinds of things. In addition, you're weighing the environmental context, the deep letter, all of those things in combination. So, I I understand you so want to sort of break up the hardship with the is it consistent with the comprehensive planning, zoning, is it

those things all sort of get mashed up into the same bag in this particular case. um because because they go to the purpose and the when I say the word material I say they're they're not just it's not just a prettier application it's not just an your or or proposal it's not just a more aesthetically pleasing proposal what you're hearing from deep is from a material the purpose of that deep serves right why we have these regulations why we have these setbacks they're for a purpose they're not just an arbitrary line that you just draw for hahas they serve a purpose right so when deep's looking back and saying what is my purpose? They're not looking at they're less looking at the technicalities and more looking at the general overall purpose. So, what I'm suggesting to you is in this application, what Joe is offering you is some material substantive things that force you to look at what is the purpose as opposed to the technicality. Not diminishing the regulations as technicality, but just to give you the position between the two.

That's helpful.

Yeah. One other point too. So say if you know the house and the patio and the pool just say I don't know what the exact number is but say if that was like 2500 square f feet. Okay. Um we're taking out 2,000 square ft of driveway uh in that buffer. We're putting drylaid uh patio back where the water can absorb into the ground. Both of these are drylaid. Yes, we do have some roof in there. We're providing drainage for that roof. And then the biggest argument here is that if we had again assume that 2500 square f feet, we're improving this area that's most sensitive and closest to the marsh 10,000 square feet of that. So four times the amount, four or five times the amount. And we're improving that buffer from a straight um lawn that gets fertilizer and pesticide to an indigenous buffer with real plantings that can provide habitat. There's nothing there now. It's just grass. It's maintained grass. So, um, we keep going back about the building in here and last time was specifically we talked about the dimensional increases that we were making and originally the closest thing was like 54 feet or something and now it's like I think the pool corner is like 60 and the house is like 68 or 70 feet. So we've we've retracted a lot of that, but the focus last time was the building volume. Now you don't have any more twostory volumes in the 100 foot area. Your only twotory volumes are outside the 100 foot area in that buildable triangle. So we've we've kept the the the bulk the major bulk of the building outside of the 100 ft for the purpose and the intent of the regulation. Um, but that balance in the buffer is is really, we don't talk about it a lot, but that landscape buffer is substantial. There's there's zero habitat for birds and owls and um, you

know, mammals at all going the grass right into the marsh. And now they have that. They have shade cover, they have food, uh, they have leaves and branches and and could actually make habitat there versus what's there today. Okay.

Um, and then the uh, fragmite and the marsh. So the last thing just to answer um NY's last question is the last piece of this gets into the um the purpose intent of the OAM regulations and not adversely affect the comprehensive plan of zoning. So a we have FEMA compliance, right? The house is not FEMA compliant right now for many reasons. It's not zoning compliant for many reasons. The new house is fully FEMA compliant um health code compliance. So all of that septic system that doesn't meet today's health code is down in this area. Now it's up here. We have health approval. Full health compliance uh there. Um all the building fire and safety codes will be met with the new structures. The structure that's 100 years old does not meet building fire and safety codes. Um enhancements

comfortable with a a condition of approval being uh fully FEMA compliant. It already is. Sure. I know. I'm just saying but in case there's some I didn't see anything certified on the architectural plan to say it's certified and it's compliant. So, it has to be reviewed by either an engineer or a building official. Yeah. You can't get a building permit. Yeah. I know. But I'm saying you don't even want to put on the land use records that you have this variance unless unless it's been shown to be compliant.

But you're fine with that. And and I just want to add a quick editorial comment about what our board's done. I think our board's really hardworking. We're trying to do the right things here. And I think that a lot of the hesitancy here is because we give a damn about what's going on and we've pulled you away from an earlier plan that probably wasn't as good for the property and the town in general as the current plan. And that's because a bunch of people stood up and said, "Hey, let's be more let's be careful and cautious and think about what we can do within this plan to to give the best outcome for the owner and and for the plan for the town."

Correct. And you have an applicant who went to Gateway who heard Gateway who has gone to you three times now um and heard you and listened and really pulled down those substantial differences in the building. You know the other thing too is because the gateway, we talked about this last time, the gate line does not like this, but they haven't seen the no newer plan. They don't like anything in the 100 foot line. So even if it was even if it was one foot tall in the 100 foot line, they they still would say no.

Um so if they had to choose, they would like this better because it's less volume um and it's less height in that 100 foot zone, but it's still structure in the 100 foot. And uh I think they also mentioned something about uh view of uh glass light pollution or not illumination. I don't know something. Yeah. So we discussed that last time. So um non-reflective glass on the back side of the house. Or does it say that in the plans or say or you say make that a condition of approval? You can make that a condition of approval. I don't I don't know if that makes sense. I just kind of No, no,

yeah. I mean, we're all trying to work together to try and make sure the outcome sort of optimal, however you want to, but all those things that we've said, it's fine to put that as a condition because we would do that anyway, including the money for the additional creative, right? Right. We talked about that last time. That was something that was there. I know we did talk about some of that stuff with Chris. I don't know if it ended up making it making it specific. Um, so yes, non-reflective glass so the birds don't see themselves and crash into the glass. Um, and then all the light, we already said this at the last meetings, but the lighting will be minimum needed for safety and secure and it's all dark sky compliant

and all dark sky, all with tops all shining down. No, no big spotlights shining out to the river. Yeah. Uh, I don't know if that's written or that's called out specifically in the plan, but as a condition of approval, we Okay, we have a great question. Just just

just to finish out those things to get them in the record even though they're in here. So, we talked about building fire safety code and then enhancements to storm water runoff volume quality and landscaping diversity which we talked a lot about tonight. um elimination reduction of several existing um zoning non-conformities specifically side and front yard elimination of those um and then enhancement of subject property value of surrounding property. So all of those things mentioned are consistent with the plan of zoning and the purchasing zoning. The only last question I have then is it just the extent of the fill that's being put on the site. There's no way that that fill can be washed into the wetlands because it's surrounded by all structures.

Yeah. The So there's no fill outside of this footprint, right? So that's what we didn't want to do. So there's fill around the pool though. Yeah. There's fill around the pool that's necessary there. Um there's a substantial distance. And then again, we have this 10,000 square feet of buffer that's like a speed bump. I like to whale. Um, it's not really it's a inverted. A swale is kind of like a a shream, right? This is like a speed bump. So, it'll be, you know, just a three, four inches higher than the grass, right? But it's a speed bump. So, the water accumulates, you know, any runoff accumulates along the edge and it has to infiltrate through that native buffer before it ever could hit the marsh. Right now, it's unimpeded right into the marsh.

And fertilizer causes spread time and other things. So, feeds the fragites, too. and you've already gotten legislate health department approval. It's the only and the update that I gave you earlier. Yeah, we don't need to take that as a condition. So, I think that's everything. I think we've answered all the questions. John Cunningham is here. He did make the trip up from Madison. Do you have any questions related to You did a good job presenting last time. Thank you. There's there's no real changes to the the buffer. I just did drop the new development on my plan, but the buffer remain the same and the plan. So, nothing's changed. Oh, I see you. You have a plan that shows the new structure. Yeah. Okay. We submitted that.

Yeah. We've only seen little tiny versions of it so far. Okay. That's good. Just one of with you two standing here. What's going to regrow where the fragmitees are? Are you trying to establish cattail marshes again? That's a good ask me a question. So, um, someone on the board asked about does the fragmitees look. I don't think they look good. I think they block a lot of view or into the marsh. Yep. In Madison, we're doing it for general residence. You can put this same buffalo in. You might have to come closer. Once again, John Bunningham CDC landscape design. That's a good question. So, if you have flag Mighties and it's 8t tall, yeah, you can't see 10 feet tall. Yeah.

Here's general's residents. They can't see the marsh. The stuff that's behind the fragmitees is terrific. It's all different native grasses that grow right on the edge. That's what looks really good. I have private clients just like Michael's going to have that want to look out into the marsh and not be blocked by that fragmitees. Yeah. Yeah. Because that's happened in old Lima a bunch. The Duck River Cemetery used to be all cattails. You could look up in there and see the bridge and it was beautiful. behind Chapman Shopping Center, you could see all the waterways that infiltrated that area there. Now the Fragmite is 10 feet tall. You can't see anything except for that initial image of the wall of fragmitees that's blocking your view.

Correct. And our Fragmitees proposals for three years. That's they all habitat people, they're state licensed also, just so you know. Uh they've asked if they want if they we wanted them to eliminate other invasives. Okay, there's nothing poisonous about an invasive, but I think everyone would rather see a native piece of marsh material growing than Japanese note. That's the other monster. Remove it from land on what we can and then all habitat will take it from there with the fragmitees which we cannot physically remove. That has to be done by a state license agency and that's all happen.

Okay. And all of that is three years. So yeah, the fragmite is three-year process, right? Remove it, come back. Yeah, we knocking it down.

And we'd be we'd be we're welcome to say it's a threeyear fragmitees removal that we're originally going to sign on to. It might be a proposal that Michael and his wife might want to move on for 20 years because they might not like the fragmitees. The fragmitees will come back in if you stop the proposal or if you stop treating. Okay. We'd like to put in the buffer planning. I'd love to do the buffer planning. If the timing is right, you obviously have to put in the larger pieces of material before you put in the smaller the plugs and everything else. The plug should go in in the spring. It might be like larger material in the fall and plugs in the in the spring, which I I think the town would be okay with that. We we also said on record that we're going to use an all organic fertilizer. We're not going to bring a lot of chemical into this property. So we've already said that in record at the last week.

I don't think we can make that a condition of approval. Sure you can. No, because if it's got to be forever then someone Well, you can you can make I mean just say a minimum of three years. If they propose a three-year plan, then for that three-year period, they you can hold them to that commitment for that period. And that's we're all organic at the residents of Madison or General's residence. We can't use any chemicals. Okay. But that's because it has a three-year limit on it. I'm just saying yeah approval. So I just want to make sure that before we go into a discussion we have the exact wording that would be appropriate for a potential condition of approval. So, do you want to try to capture it?

The uh so your conditions of approval you've agreed upon are the structure must be fully FEMA compliant. Uh nonreflective glass will be installed and the lighting must be dark sky friendly, dark sky compliant say. And then also we talked about follow up on buffer plantings for three years to ensure established and then you we can't say that you take out the fragm. I understand is that we said application to be allowed to remove fragmitees in wetlands owned by the applicant because that's state or federal regulation that that limits your ability to do that.

Well, you have a state license to eliminate fragritis with a certain chemical which all habitat has. I'm not exactly sure where Michael's property goes into the marsh. I'm not sure how far out it is. It goes uh that's what I mean. So he can hire I believe all habitat. I'm not an expert in it. I think to remove it and I'm hoping the fragmitees would not get to the end the limit of his property. So they'd be removing it on his property.

Part of what we discussed last time was that some of this is below the coastal jurisdiction line. And being below the coastal jurisdiction line, it's sort of out of our jurisdiction here. It's in D's jurisdiction at that point in time. So you're not able to bind D to what they're able to approve. Ultimately, again, they're willing to make that commitment to you. You can write it into your record here that they will take best efforts to get D approval to to put the remove the fragmitees. That's about as best as you're going to be able to do. I want to make sure we capture the wording while we're still discussing if any make best efforts to remove fragmitees on property. Well, toain three years. Yeah. obtaining necessary approvals to to remediate the fragments.

I would I would also add that you're going to remove invasives for three years. My company's been out tagging at a big big project in Guilford. We're tagging it's inland inland wetlands, but we're tagging invasives that have moved back. He's not. So, they're in there right now taking everything out. So, we do the same thing here. It's our buffer planning. We don't want invasives coming back in. We'd remove them. Okay. So, that's good. But let let's make sure Amy has exactly what you want. The property does go all the way as well. Yes. Yeah. So Eric, what you said was make best effort to obtain necessary approval to remove fragites and other invasive species

and other invasive species. Yes. Just add that other from the mar owned by the applicant. Yeah. We should specify add that. Okay. All the money in Connecticut. Let Amy say what she's got. Okay. Feeling a lot of pressure to get. All right. Uh so we've said make best effort to obtain necessary approval to remove the fragmitees and other invasive species from the adjacent title marsh owned by the applicant for three years. Over. Yeah, you can put you can put a minimum of three years. minimum of three years. Okay.

Eric, you're the one who has to enforce it. Are you? Yeah. I mean, am I going to go out there and sort of inspect the fertilizer before it goes in? Probably not. But certainly to the extent that they are making this commitment. If I receive word that for whatever reason that that they are not meeting it, I can certainly ask for verification of of this sort of thing. So, I I I'm comfortable with the language is drafted. So, I think I think we're as good as we're going to get. And I saw I mean it says, you know, that they will go for the approval. It doesn't say that they will do it. Is that does that

I don't know. I don't know what you know saying what I will try to get a loan. I will absolutely try to get that loan. Well, that mean I'll take out the loan. That's the reasonable point to seek and and procure. So, if you best efforts to get it, not just to apply. That's okay. That's fine. If if the property owner is willing to commit to that that's fine. So again imple and implement and implement statement I mean we go through this in all the towns. So we presented the plan I'm just saying planting town of Madison the town of Guilford town of Brford Stony Creek they go and check that the property's been planted

the way that we present. Oh, I will definitely capture in the wording that that it's to best effort to obtain approval and implement. Yes. And realistically, it's not because we're forcing you to do that. You volunteer to do that because it improves your view. You don't have that 10 foot wall is because we'll make best efforts to get it to procure it to complete it. That's why we're saying that. Yeah. They just the only caveat is they have to have the approvals in order to do it. Right. Right. Right. Their best effort doesn't get those approvals and they can't do the work. So as long as Can you read it one more time?

Make best effort to apply, obtain approval and implement plan to remove fragmitees and other invasive species from adjacent title marsh owned by the applicant for a minimum of three years. Good. That's good. I don't know if Kip's question got answered, which was the one about would you pull out inv Yeah. What's going back in? Right. You didn't get it answered.

Yeah, because they did it by Great Island Marsh along 156 and there was a year where there was a comeback of of of uh cattails and I just about lost my mind. I was so happy about that. You lost that huge wall of you know cuz cattails are good for muskrats, ducks and everything. You really liven up a marsh once you've taken I mean fragmitees are almost like a ecological so yeah so what does it happen you just take it out and it just naturally bounce back or you just No that's what's on the plant list

oh but no she frages the native grasses that are in the marsh if you if you I'm a kayaker also you take the kayak out into that marsh you're going to see four or five different smaller grasses that are growing closer to the water frag doesn't go all the way out there the frag stays the buffer. So I guess the answer to the question is once you take away it'll happen. Yes. Other other native grasses will have a chance to reestablish because the fragmitees blocks everything out. Takes all the nutrients so all the new grasses will be able to thrive, recede, and then replant themselves. We're not we're not replanting anything in the marsh. Yeah. Um we're just letting the native

naturally reestablish. That's why you remove invasives or you hope that natural material moves back in. Okay. I'm just thinking about time frames here. Eric, did you have any questions or concerns about the application that you think we should discuss? No, I think you've heard as much as you need to hear and I think you're you're in the best position you can be to make a decision on it. I I don't have any further comments at this time. One Nancy, one thing I would one final thing I'd like to just ask John. So when John goes out and inspects every 3 years to make sure things are healthy, the invasives aren't moving in, he'll provide a report to Eric

once a year for those three years. So Eric knows he has a record of what's going on and he also has um confirmation that that did happen. So I want to add to the and provide a annual report. Provide annual report. Yes, provide annual reports. And you could do that for the minimum of three. That's helpful. Thank you.

Yeah, I guess I can see a lot of pros and cons. I think I'm still a little scared about some of that hill right next to the flood zone, but um I think it's You say it's not going to be washed away because you have the buffer. Well, what if you think about it, any kind of fill that's being brought in for the house or the pool or the terrace or anything, it's going to be contained. Okay? If there is an area where it's not contained by construction, it can't be left as filler soil. Cannot leave undisturbed soil to erode. So, it is going to we we haven't even started working on the house yet. It's going to have a ground cover or some form of plant material that's not going to allow any erosion. So I could say right here tonight there's not going to be any brush.

Okay. Because it it's all going to be taken care of. Now this this part along here right in front of the pool areas part that it's like a couple feet of fill right here that does nothing seems to be containing. That's probably that's probably going to be some low to medium depending on how tall I want it to get. But some form of plant material that's going to have root mass that's going to not allow any erosion. But it will not be just soil. Okay. So, it's not marked here, but that's it's not marked because I haven't started working on the house yet. But there's not going to be any undisturbed area that would erode on this property. It's essentially there'll be a lawn there or something. Yes. If there might be some grass, which is a ground cover. That's right, John.

Which is what's currently there. And there's a septic correct system underneath it. If that eroded away, the grass eroded away there. Rip out the septic. No, just on the outside there. here. All this fill is sort of blocked by other structures, but that fill is is sort of like exposed. That's only like a foot and a half of fill, right? It goes from like elevation eight to nine and a half. And elevation 8 is higher than where Storm Sandy got in this area. So, it would have to be a monumental storm that we haven't had in almost 15 years to get up to that height. As long as it's your house, your safety, your pool, you're you're comfortable with that. These are good questions. Okay.

The pool wall will probably be thicker than the foundation wall to have. That's what I didn't realize. Yeah. With all the the weight of the water in there pushing up. I just finished one in a in a big velocity zone in Madison pool. The gunnet pool sits on top of the ground. The wall. The pool is 14 inches thick. So, it's not it's not going there. Okay. Now, we're building walls and bringing fill back in. The same thing we're kind of doing here, but all the material is contained. Okay. Okay. All right. I'm thinking the course of time here. Yeah. Does anybody have any other questions or things that they want to discuss before someone proposes that we close the public hearing for? I had one question. Go ahead.

Um when you were talking about the the first two proposals, you had a AC pad and the third proposal, you have no distance to an AC pad. Outside of the 100 foot. Is that why? Yeah. notched out the house right outside the 100 foot line with the Thanks. That's that's a good detail. Thank you. Amy reminded me would anyone like this open that for public comment? I always forget that. I just heard it so you didn't have to get but you deserve the credit because I always forget to Good.

Would anybody like to speak in favor of this application? oppose this application or just comment on application hearing. No public comment. All right. Um, so would anybody like to make a motion to close the public hearing for case 25-13? Okay. Who was that? Michaela. Stephanie. All those in favor? I I

opposed. None abstaining. None. Motion passed unifially five to zero to zero. Okay. Now the public hearing is closed and only voting members may participate in deliberations. No new information may be introduced after the close of the public hearing, but members may able to ask our attorney and our uh CEO uh for procedural questions. And before we get into making a motion, we'd like to board discuss the evidence presented during the public hearing, potential conditions of approval agreed by the applicant and potential reasons for granting or denying the variance prior to making a motion. So I think we've discussed this quite a bit during the meeting, but we need to concisely summarize this. I think um in terms of the unusual hardship, I heard that there was a very limited building area on the property because of the setback in conferences and there is some reductions in legal pre-existing nonconformity that are being proposed

that capture the hardship. I think and I think going back to something that Sylvia was saying earlier that DP has weighed in saying that they believe that ecologically that they are improving the site and that that weighs towards granting it here even though it is in the buffer area they usually try and protect. Yeah. No, I we're going to get there. I just have the hardship first. We have a list. Yeah. Because those are the two conflicting sort of things that are bouncing around in my mind when we're talking about going past the 50 out toward the 100. And you're saying, "All right, I'm past the 100, out toward the 50." And you're saying, "All right, I'm nervous if D thinks this is bad

and they don't seem to." So, right, we would need to make a motion as part of our motion that addresses the coastal uh review plan, but I will cut to that later. So I think I think you just mentioned to summarize a thing of why we think it's in harmony with intent purpose of zoning regulations is because it's supported by D. they've um provided offsetting benefits that will provide uh well that they're providing offsetting benefits. Yeah. Which is I think you have a safer building. Yeah. Overall, it's FEMA compliant, safer building.

Thanks listing type. Yeah. I keep on and e ecologically it's an improvement on the what the property does to the surrounding environment and the volunteered improvements that are not that are related to the neighboring property as well. Um the agreed conditions of approval when you finish that.

Yep. The conditions of approval structure must be fully FEMA compliant. Non-reflective glass to be installed. Lighting must be dark sky friendly or compliant. Follow up on there will be a follow-up on buffer plantings for three years to ensure they are established. You're going to make the best effort to apply, obtain approval, and implement plan to remove fragmitees and other invasive species from the adjacent title marsh owned by the applicant for minimum of three years. and a plantings inspection annual report will be provided to the ZEO for a minimum of three years. Cap to capture that.

Yeah. And I think I I I want to make sure we we're not minimizing the idea that we've established a FE FEMA compliant structure when we're done. And Oh, that was we had that that's always like a major motivator for me when I'm looking at these. That was one of the other approvals is Everybody was very diligent about saying, "All right, you know, legally that should be minimum." Yeah. But we're looking at the rest of the offsets about whether it's good for the property or not. It's good for safety. They need to add that additional condition of approval, which is the the structure to be FEMA compliant. Uh the first point, structure must be fully FEMA compliant. I'm sorry.

How did you refer the annual report? I I said the plantings inspection annual report will be provided to ZEO for a minimum of three years. I wasn't really sure what to call it. So if you have better wording my understanding it was it was more intended for the fragmitey treatments and that's an evolutionary kind of thing as opposed to the planer the buffer too. Oh, well that's why I'm looking at Eric to

I mean as a landscaping plan um you know I'm comfortable with that language and you know in the sense that usually if this were going to the zoning commission we would get a landscaping bond. We're not getting that here. Um you usually things that die off within a certain period of time would need to be replaced. That's why we have the landscaping bond. So in the absence of that this helps ensure that at least for a three-year period the landscaping plan is being met. So I think that this this works toward the goal of making sure that um the landscaping is consistent with the the plan as approval here. So are you considering the the pragmatic removal as a part of the landscaping plan?

I am but I mean here's here's the challenge Sylvia. Ultimately a lot of this is beyond coastal jurisdiction. So I may not have jurisdiction over that. So what I do have jurisdiction over is the landscaping because that is above the coastal jurisdiction and that I can regulate. So, I think that part of why I'm comfortable with this is it makes sure that what I'm looking at is actually within my power to regulate. I mean, ultimately, if the land if if they don't maintain the fragmitees plan, um I'm not sure at the end of the day that I can enforce against the fragmitees in the way that I can enforce against anything that both go jurisdiction. So I agree but to the extent that the the board is

feels some comfort in the sense that whatever the progress of the fragmitey removal will be reported to you. So you can theoretically enforce that a report wasn't given to you. Yes. So I I wasn't sure whether you felt that the planting report encompass the fragmitey aspect of it. I I I think I think based on what I I heard tonight, you know, they they understand what the what the board is looking for and if it's not in there, I I feel comfortable going back after them for it. Would you rather have I change it to landscaping inspection annual report or would you rather keep it as plantings? Um I don't care either way, but you may want to put in landscaping and fragmitey. Okay. Now, that's two different companies. Doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter. They're going to give me a report. They're going to give me a report every year for three years just detailing what we're looking at here. I don't care how many companies it is. It's going to be on them to generate a report or more than one report that demonstrates compliance. Wait a second. So you read it again. Yeah. Yeah. So for applicant per minimum of three years landscaping of fragmite inspection annual report is it fragmitees inspection or fragmite elimination

you got a pH for the fragmite right yes too my question landscaping fragmitees instead of inspection elimination landscape and landscaping and fragmite maybe it's two different things landscaping and fragmite remediation are sort of again two different let's call let's call it remediation I think that's really the best way to to characterize what we're doing here okay

so landscaping I might have to word smith a little bit landscaping and fragmitees remediation inspection annual report uh I'm going to say annual inspection report will be provided to zeo for a minimum of three But let's go with that. That's at this point we're at eight whatever we are. We still have another application a year. So I think we're we're going to be good to go here. So before we move on, I just want to in harmony with purposes supported by uh D. Uh it's a safer FEMA compliant building. There's ecological improvement to the surrounding environment. Uh and there's volunteer environmental improvements to neighboring property. Is the neighboring property part right? I thought it was just the marsh.

Well, there's this property and there's adjacent property. He owns the adjacent property which is not neighbor property. An adjacent property owned by the applicant. There we go. Got it. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Um, do we answer we did the hardship, we did the harmony, we did the we didn't specify the reductions in nonconformity, but I think we have that in the application. Um, and I think it's not the minimum to address the hardship, but it is that is offset by other improvements. offset by significant other was reductions have been made but that seems like a I think we just skip that say that because okay there significant

angel car we said limited building area of the property and we said and then we said that there would be there are also reductions in legal precis what we've just sort of Oh, you want it up here. Okay. Yeah, that's where I had it and I thought it was in the wrong place. Okay.

All right. So, with that in mind, oh, and the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing or voting session. That's always okay. With that in mind, would anybody like to make a motion to grant with conditions requested variances to section 4.3.1 4.10 10.3 to allow for demolition of existing structures and construction of a new FEMA compliant dwelling, ingground pool and detached garage within Connecticut River and pilot water setbacks and within the AE11 flood zone per the site plans by Indigo Land Design LLC and dated was dated January 12th, 2026 as revised March 12th, 2026 and the floor plans and elevations prepared by Christopher for Arald Architect and dated March 3rd, 2026 to be stamped and signed by the ZBA chair.

Oh, sorry. Was it March 13th? I think not the architectural. Oh, not just this letter or something. I think this is the variance applications. It says the 13th. It says 20. So, they're not all the same dates. So, is that what Kip saw the 13th on something too? Well, this is the the new variance application updated is is 313, but the plans are 312. This this says I usually look ahead of time 3126. This is 33 326. These two plans, those are the dates on those plans.

I saw nodding. Okay. Um March 3rd, 226 to be stamped and signed by the ZBA chair. the conditions are. We just reviewed them, but do you want to go over them again? If you would like for me to Does anybody feel it? We don't. No, we don't need the record. We're going to let the dead horse be.

Okay. Okay. And the coastal site plan review application is approved because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policy and does not and does include all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts on both the coastal resource and human use. That's the draft motion. Would anybody like to make that motion? So moved. That was Kip. Any like to second that motion? I'll second.

Michaela. Okay. What? All those in favor? I I opposed. None. None. Motion pass unanassly. Five to zero to zero. Thank you. Well, I think people appreciate your effort to really yell back and listen and and prepare. Thank you so much. All right. All right. I can wrap things up. That was something project.

All right. So, now puts this away, we're going to go on to our next case. Wait. Yeah. Right. Take a little bio break. You're not allowed to consider that though. I know. It's already done. I'm just saying. Yeah. But I feel comfortable. Okay. Because you have to think about that that property did outlive that person. You remember I didn't vote on what you said made so much sense every

I have dry eyes that are being overly overly treated dry hearing now should be able to just lift them up please We have voting issues. I put plugs today. I've had it done before, but they had to tear. I stuck it back in there.

No. I'm ready. I'm ready. All right. I like sitting. All right. We're going to start the meeting up again. Okay. I just put these down. All right. So, now moving on to the next case. Back to your pace. We went through the other case. Nancy, before we get started, just indicate that we're changing the seating seating on this one again just so we are on the record.

Correct. Correct. Correct. So, I was going to do that as soon as I introduced the case. I I haven't written down but that's a good reminder. So the next case is case 26-2 21 Brookside excuse me requesting variance to replacement of a non-conforming structure at a location approved by prior variance case 24-06 Katherine Foster applicant this is a proposal to replace the existing non-conforming structure on the non-conforming R10 lot the variances requested are to sections 8.87 87. It's minimum street setback. I have to drink a glass of water. You deserve it. Yeah.

25 ft required. 8.8.8 minimum rear setback. 30 ft required. 8.8.9 minimum slide setback. 12 ft required. And this is a question I had for Eric. It says 9.3.1 no enlargement of a non-conforming structure less enlarge. I think we can eliminate that one because the structure itself was eliminated. It's no longer there. It's no longer a non-conforming structure. It's gone. So, I think that there's no longer needed as a variance. We're starting from scratch with a basically no new structure. Well, a brand new structure rather on the site. So, does the applicant agree to amend their application to remove the regressive variance from 9.3.1? Yes, upon the advice of the zoning enforcement officer. Absolutely. Thank you.

Okay. I also just have a point of order that um on the variance application form, the owner's address does not match the property card. It says 70th Street and the property card says 79th Street. So, whatever the correct address is should be my address. Yeah, it said on the application it says 21 East 70th Street. Oh, it's in Is it 79? That's that matches the property card. So, we should just change that on the variance application. Change it where the owner's address. Oh, on the application. It says 70th. Okay. So, the applicant agrees to amend the application to change 70th to 79. Correct. Yes.

All righty. Thank you. Another Thank you. Now, this when I get to see it for this application will be uh the myself, Kip Codson, Stephanie Mickel, Michaela Pearson, and Richard Cordmire are alternate because uh Russ Bog is out and we rotate and it's his turn. Okay. All right. With that, please present your capifications.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is For the record, my name is Brendan Shy. the attorney for the applicant and I'm joined uh by uh Dave Noey from 360 Design Plus who is the architect on this project and also in the gallery uh are Rick Caulkins uh who is the builder on this project as well as Katherryn Foster who is uh the co-owner of the property. Um we're here before you today uh on bended knee because uh we um needed to come back before you to uh expand the scope of variance that you had previously granted for this property. Uh I would emphasize that nothing about this application differs from the variance that you approved in 2024. Um the we're requesting uh real well the variances and what was proposed in 2024 um was for the renovation uh and vertical expansion of a the house um uh at 21 Brookside Avenue which required three variances, setback variances um but all contained within the existing footprint of the building. Um the reason we're here today is because uh as Mr. Caukins will attest um to uh and and Mr. Noi uh was that as the construction and the renovation uh got underway, it became apparent that the

uh condition of the existing house was really beyond the what was expected as far as the necessary repairs. Um and the work continued uh the renovation work was continued uh and all inspections were called in and uh addressed by the building department. But um it became at some point the scale and scope of what of what of the original variance that you proved went beyond. uh and it ultimately the existing structure needed to be effectively completely replaced. That's partly because um the peers that support the house were um we have pictures and we'll be able to provide some testimony on this but were well beyond what we what was thought. Plus the superructure of the building on which rest that was resting on the peers was also not really joists that meet any kind of current code. they were really very dilapidated, pieced together and not safe uh for even the existing structure, let alone the replacement that was proposed.

Um again, what we're not asking for any change in what was originally approved two years ago. We're asking for you to recognize an extended extension of the scope of what actually the work would be. Um I'll just say that for the record uh before we go to Mr. Caukins and and Mr. Noi, the intent of the owners was never to do this. Uh this was not it wasn't that the owners intended to do a tear down. not really tell you about that but really that was their intent all along as will be evidenced from some of the in progress pictures every effort was made to retain the existing structure to the extent possible um but of all eventually it just became impossible to do. Secondly, um the the real mistake that was made was that when it became evident to the town that and specifically to Eric that and the zoning enforce as a zoning enforcement officer that the scope of the work was extending beyond what was originally approved for the variance. Um, uh, Eric sent an email to the owners alerting them to this fact and that was as of September of last year and that was not acted upon immediately when that email went out. Um, I think in part it was because at that same time the building department was doing was arriving for inspections and and reviewing what was actually happening in the field. And I just think the owners were just didn't appreciate the importance and significance of what Eric was communicating to them until

finally I think there was you know there was a realization that no further inspection should take place because by the building department because this we needed to come back to you.

Okay. So the owners are apologizing for uh for the fact that they did not act promptly uh on that when first advised of that and that's again why why the application but again I would emphasize that there's no change in the design that was originally approved. There's no change in the footprint. there's no change in the variances that were granted um were still everything that was originally uh anticipated and approved is still the case with this. Um the last thing I'll just say is that we have uh in the record I think you have this the staff received three letters of support from uh funding neighbors. There's a fourth actually from 24 Gorton Avenue that we received. I'm not sure it's in your record. Um,

I only saw two. One came today. Yeah, our address the addresses are for uh 24 and 26 GB. 26 and I have 24. Yeah, that's the one I believe that we we were not was not sent to the staff. Uh, it was sent to us but not to the staff. And the other two approval or uh letters of support were from 27 and 29 Brookside. Do you have copies um submit today? I I know that according to Craig uh three of those four are in the record. He received them at town hall. The one I should have made a copy of and I didn't bring.

We can should have put them on the website as well. We can probably just pull them up on the website if we can do that. So, sorry I should have actually made copies. Um, so with that, if I could got two and that Brook side. I'm sorry. That's my fault. I should have had I should have had extra copies available for you. Um, uh, at this point, I just wanted to, uh, bring, uh, Rick Cawkins, who is the builder, and have Dave Noey kind of walk through what was discovered on site.

Yeah. So, real real quick, I think I'd like to show um so after the last hearing, you know, we produced our our construction drawings for permit and as Brendan said, the intention was always to replace these peers in place um and essentially shore up the structure. I think we had talked about that during the hearing at the time. Um, so during these con, you know, as part of these construction drawings that were submitted for approval, um, like I showed, um, you want to come over here. You can see better. Oh, I'm sorry. He's going to move over.

Okay. He's seated for his stage.

Let me just see. like the last one. I know there's a pair up here. thinking back. Yeah. Sitting right here like

Yeah, that's live. This is the live one. Yeah. The foundation plan foundation.

Yeah. With all the There we go. So, as Yeah. As part of the um the packet for the permit drawings, you can see we had we had proposed to replace all these peers in place. Um and there's probably 30 of them in there. Uh and you know, in the effort with the new design and the new structure up above, we were going to we're going to try and install these through the floor underneath uh you know, some some different ways to get there. So that was always our initial goal to to produce that. Um but then as we got into the project and Rick can talk to this um you know you can see here this this picture here shows you know a brick pier a wood tree um stack stones and then a little bit of concrete over there.

Um but you can see you know the the there's all sorts of cuts in these beams. Uh so you know that presents presents safety issues for for shoring it up during construction and replacing those peers in place. Um David before you switch that picture to um it was also pointed out that if you if you look closely in this picture there are sit tubes there uh which were meant to be used to form this and this is what was intended to be installed as the replacement. So, so I think excuse me, I I I I need to catch up with some basics here. What were you what were you planning to leave in place originally?

So, originally this the structure was going to stay here. So, the first floor would be there. The roof was going to come off. We were going to reframe the roof um you know replace the dormers that were existing um and then come down here and resupport the structure. Okay. So the idea was to leave the first floor intact with with uh you know alterations. You have moving walls and with some alterations same footprint but leave basically leave the first floor intact that you had to go in I mean I see what you need to deal with there but you're going to also leave the second floor or you're going to build a new second floor. Uh second floor framing would have been reframed would have been reframed

because it was the from the code standpoint and safety wise I think it was 2 by6 floor joist 30 30 in on center. It was an expansion of the second floor too uh dormers I think. Yeah. Second floor was going to be bigger. If I may, that was what the original variance was for to enable the second story to be instead of a quarter story as it was uh to increase it to a half story which was still compliant with our res but um but in order to do that there was additional uh internal shoring up that was was anticipated. Okay.

Because he only started in November so he's got a little background right? Yeah. Yeah, we went from a a gabled roof to a gamrell. Mhm. Uh so that's what increased the volume on the same footprint. Okay. But you're going to you were going to try to leave as much of it in place as possible. Yeah. So you ended up having to wipe out the whole thing. Well, Rick will show you. Yeah, we it didn't full swoop of

what we tried to do is, you know, address situations as they arose. And the first thing was the front of the house was at grade and building code is you have to be 18 inches above grade. So going back to David where the peers were in the front of the house which is this area here. We ended up doing um a retaining wall um across the front and down 10 foot on either side and that had a hunch in it so we could set our floor joist inside and still have concrete barrier to exterior to retain soil and maintain our 18-inch um separation from soil to meet building code. So did that thinking we could take some other things out and then what we ran into was substructure that would not support the second floor, would not support the new dormers. Um, it basically fell into a uh a code situation, you know, with Connecticut, the 502-1 where it states, and I have copies if you would like, it states that you cannot do alterations or renovations to a house, which is going to cause the substructure to fail. So, not support.

Good idea. Construction date estimate on that. The date? Yeah. When was it originally? 1900. 1900. Yeah. It was built in 1890. Okay. Okay. No, looks like so that was the applicant speaking. Yes, that was Katherine Foster, right? So, yeah, you can see here that, you know, Rick was attempting to cut in those dormers at the time um you know, prior to getting to here. So, it wasn't like they came in with um an excavator and demolished the home. It was

selectively um removed to allow for the construction. Can I just make sure I'm just looking online and these particular photographs aren't in the set that's online. So, I just want to make sure they're Yeah, we should add those to the record. Those are are new exhibits. How many photographs are there? I see one, two, seven photographs of the Yes. existing dwelling under construction. Would Would you like to submit not existing? Oh, yeah. Um original original building. Yes. The original. You just need one copy. You only need one copy for the record.

Would anybody the next one the code section that he was just referencing? You'd like to put that in the record? Okay. So I'll make this you mentioned this first. So I should make this exhibit one and we'll make the other pictures one two through eight. Okay.

I think this is another good example of init this was a brand new deck that we were attempting to keep from the beginning. Um which obviously didn't make it. So every time, you know, we we have pictures we so we took the front section off of the house here and we excavated out for the new retaining foundation and things. We had build an inspector out for our footing inspections and our steel inspections as we report.

Um thinking that we could go back in, but there was really no way to advise to get we couldn't put something under the structure because the we there was no way to hold the structure up to support it to safely get underneath it or to cut and if we cut it out the structure is gone. So, and it, you know, I would have loved to gone in there with an excavator and torn it down and we would have been in and out of there in four hours and in the dumpster. But anyway, so we systematically took down sections of the house and put the structure in and then we put the peers in and they have a line there as well. Now, why is that? Why did you do it piece by piece?

Well, we weren't trying to tear the whole thing down. That was the So you were thinking you might be able to save some if you went piece by piece by piece. I've been doing it since 1977 and I, you know, as a carpenter and as a builder as 1983. So and I have known the building inspector for years, you know, being in the same industry. So it, you know, it just got worse and worse. It it just, you know, there was nothing that could be saved. Is it safe to say you couldn't really shore this up safely? No, not at all. I'm surp I'm surprised the building didn't collapse with more than five people in it at any time. Wow.

Yeah. So, let me ask a question. So, you you ended taking it all down. So there's nothing left of what you started to do or

I guess my main question is very similar to Eric's question is like if you're starting from fresh scratch, can you change the position of the building somewhat to reduce some nonformity? Well, can I just answer that, Rick? The answer is yes in theory. Although we were trying to be true to the existing footprint. Yeah. It turned out though in the course of replacing the peers, Rick actually did place the peers in such a way that it pulled the corner of the house off the property line. If you remember the original application,

the the original design was right on the property line. That was the original footprint.3 nonconformity.

That's exactly right. And so he actually moved it slightly to get it put further back. And I mentioned this in the application. This um this is the view from the street looking in at the house. And this right here is the the front porch laying on the dirt. Um and so this is where we had started here. and I had um the surveyor come out and stake, you know, stake the property so we knew where we were and we're not putting things on other people's properties and things of that nature. And so in measuring over this front corner here was either just on or into the other the neighboring property. So when we did the pour here, I didn't want to get in trouble with the zoning officer and I, no pun intended, and I moved that corner back 12 in to make sure that, you know, what we're putting in the ground, the concrete was not over the property. I know somebody else's property. So we kind of did our best. it it by systematically taking the house down as we did it, you know, it recurred probably twice as much cost to the customer or maybe three times as much cost for than you know a demolition job.

Yeah. But but it means that you have started some of the work. So if it's not like you can just wholesale move the existing house to a new location that would be more so that that structure is no longer there right this was our first conundrum was this porch area and being on dirt and so that was the same elevation as the floor of the house. So that's why we excavated out that area and built a retaining wall, if you will, to keep the because if not, we would have had to lower the grade of the property and this grade matched up with the neighboring property. So So what's what's so what's left? What's left? What's

what's left? Yeah, the mailbox. No, but like you said, you put in a retaining wall. So that retaining wall is gone. It was a foundation that acted as a retaining wall to the soil for the elevation. So my question is could you now that you're starting from scratch, could you just like right now that building is like right on the property line and it looks like all that buildable area you have further away. Could you just move the building to more in the center of the property? Well, the answer to that is no because um it was also a condition of our variance. No, we're talking new talking.

I know, but we're keeping it as a seasonal on seasonal use on peers, which meant that we were keeping the existing septic system and to move it would have meant changing the septic system. Well, that's a good reason, but I'm saying so that's why so we we

you can't move it anywhere closer or you just can't move it in the middle. Where's this where's the limitation? Um it the the septic is and the the connections to the septic is all it's all kind of keeping that all in place. So that was the intent all along. So if we had to if we're going to move the house to a completely different spot on the lot or something that would have required, you know, whole starting over from scratch with with ledge light.

Okay. Now you you're you have in text that you moved it a foot but in the table or I'm getting it somewhere 889 side step set back 12 is required you're going from.3 ft to.3 ft you don't reflect any foot motion and second I was there today and there's a stake in the ground with the orange tape on top I assume that's the property line outside of the large maple tree.

Yeah. Right outside the tree. And um so that side of the house is boy right there. But then you have these units. I don't know if there's splits or AC or some heaters or something that actually look like more than maybe six or eight inches wide. I don't they might be over the property line. Property line flares out to the rear. So, um, so it's not a straight line right there where those condensers are mounted to the foundation or the building on the back. Um, there's actually, uh, three feet over there, a little over three feet.

I'll have to Can I Can you show this is the um original survey. This isn't the survey as it is now. So, this is the three that originally was. Um, this is not the survey as it is today. So this whole this was brought down by a foot. Oh, okay. You're saying this was our this is our original package. So from this side I'm talking about this way on this back corner here. See this is the property line here. This this upper line and then this is the house line down here. So there is three foot back there. And I think I spoke to is it Craig your assistant? Craig.

I called into Craig to ask about the location of those. Um, we're allowed half. Yeah. Yeah. You're allowed to be as close as 3 ft to the property like 75 reduction. 75% reduction. So the if it is truly 3 ft, then it meets it. We're going to need an asbuilt that shows that you are in fact where you say you are, which we do have an as. Yes. Okay. So when she goes to sign this at the end of the day there, make sure that she is signing the one that actually shows physically where things are on the ground, right? Because all we have in the record right now is your original survey.

Yep. Um which is not an accurate reflection of where things physically are on the ground today. No, I had Ken come down. So where where is that? You just don't have it with you now. But there it exists. The AS bill is exists, but you just don't have it with you now. Did Did you submit? No, it was because we were trying to make a deadline. Okay. Well, okay. Okay. I thought So, it exists and you will submit it, but it's not here now. Correct. And it will show that it's moved a foot. Yes. Because that was another question you had. Yeah, that was I mean my memo reflection. We can't move it much more than a foot, but a foot is moved, right? Okay.

Still be on the front corner here because you can see that it's a combination of very very close to that. So at some point in the application then whenever I got this I wish I could pull this up now. Um you need to reflect that in your table or in the data you're requesting it. Thank you. You're saying it's it's more than it said.3 feet and it still says.3 feet but you you're saying it's now 1.3 ft. Yeah, I mean that that's we need whatever the final number is. If you've got the asbuilt on it,

you need to amend your application so that it reflects whatever the final measured distance is that it's on that as Yeah, that's what they're talking about. Yeah, since your question, the um because that dirt was so high, Rick, you might be able to speak to this better than me, but this this portion here is on the foundation, but then it becomes pierced to the back. So, it is open up here, but to retain the soil, this was built on foundation. Am I correct? Yes.

Okay. So if I get this correct, so you're you explained that you you couldn't follow the last variance because of structural issues. You are now starting to replace the existing building with a new building and you've already set the foundation. So it's a foot further away from the property line that was.3 now it's 1.3 ft and there's an asbuilt survey which shows that. But you don't have it yet. But you will submit it because that's what I would need to sign for approval. Yes.

You're saying everything about this, you had to make some minor amendments because of foundation issues. Everything about this is going to fit the variances you already got with the plans that you had. There's just an adjustment. The architectural plans will be the same. Everything will be the same except for the location. Yep. Correct. So if you could perhaps you can make it a condition of Yes. approval that will permit that. So what what do we call it? We call it the ads built prepared by licensed surveyor. Would that be an A2 also, wouldn't it?

Yes. But I mean for your purposes, an A2 survey is going to have a whole bunch of other things that are not necessarily relevant to this application. But again, you need a survey that demonstrates the issues that are in this application have been addressed. Okay. Um, do you know the name of the surveyor by the way? Is that just capture that Kenard approval would be to submit the asbuilt survey prepared by Ken Peard in PDF form or do you want it in Well, she's going to need to sign it. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Sign. And do we need his seal on it? Yes.

He stamped it, but in the PDFs it doesn't come by. I I would love it in electronic form, too, so we can put that into our electronic record. Right. But the one that she needs to sign needs to be in paper and have his seal actually on it so that she can sign the sign. So I can he he sent the PDF to us. I can go up to his office and get a copy made. That would be great. Could you just show us the property line again? The square, rectangle, whatever. We just so this this is the northerly boundary right coming here. Yeah. Um this is our 3 ft existing. Um this is the west property line. If he's writing that then you can make an exhibit.

Yes. You're more than welcome to add. That's the southern and then that's the eastern line. Okay. And then the house. So the house as you see it now again this was the existing conditions. Yeah. So but same footprint the house was here came down. This was a deck that we attempted to save. So it's kind of like this little L shape. So the deck is going away. The deck is going away and a blue stone patio equipment's place. And where is that maple tree and the post I was looking at? Right. Right up here.

It's here. It's actually shown on the plan right there, Stephanie. It's here. And this one's got removed, right? That got removed. And this these trees were growing under they were starting to grow underneath the house. The roots. So, I don't know what the scale is, but uh it's um 20 feet per inch on a survey scale. I believe it's a 1 to 10. Is it a 1 to 10? 1 to 10. Yeah.

So, from the line the tree is not it's in from the property line. That post was just outside. Well, that there's an iron not an iron pin here and an iron pin there. And the iron pin are property line corners like you know you know survey we're talking about. Exactly. Yes, sir. That's this one. Yep. Did you want to look at this picture? Great deck. Yeah. There's the little post the um post

a little steak you're talking about. Nancy, would you mind just numbering that particular one? Yeah. All right. On the back. She's You need three. Yep. A picture is a clear picture of the house. And then um can we label this exhibit three or something? Sure. One second. This back I wrote it on the back of the house. It's hard to say it's the back. Yeah. This is

from Souththeast. Yes. Does that answer your question? It's This is the street. This is a tree. is a state the property line. But Nancy, can we just verbalize that exhibit two is the picture of the house from the street. Okay, let's get exhibit three since I'm looking at that next if you don't mind. Okay, I'll front here. That's a picture of the back of the house.

The side of the house. Okay, thank you. Let me submit this one. Yeah. Would you like this one first for purpose? Well, we're going to we're going to name them all, but you're going to get them all into us as you indicated you're going to style. We just numbered those she's referencing. So, you said that deck is going to be replaced with a blue stone patio. Yeah. Yes. Okay. So, that'll be the down. It would be on it would be on ground grade level. The reason these are going to remain on peers that part of the building's going to be on peers still is because of the height involved.

Well, the problem being is the septic systems behind the building. So, we have to be above we can't be below grade. Okay. I might have to submit a picture from that I photographed. Okay. Somehow. Can I just show you what I'm looking at? What's this? Well, I got it. Do you want me to take this off now? That's That's sort of a visual for us. But right behind this tree, that is not a property line state. That is what it should be. Yeah, that should be There should be the pipe right there. Yep. That should be the pipe. No, because the maple trees on your property

and this is almost like inside. There are two maple trees. One at a time. Wait, wait. Richard, you can't talk. Yeah, that was me. Um, for the record, that maple tree in the picture that you're referring to is not on the property. Not on the property. It's right here. So, you are correct. That is the iron pen. So, Stephanie's photograph that she's going to email to Craig is exhibit 10. Okay. Can I see past that now? Okay. What was what was your question?

So, I'm just saying it's just it's clo like you know I'm just eyeballing it. Well, no actually this if you look at this map that corner is touching the property line. This was the old existing house and that's we we you know we cited we ran a string down it even you know old Indians or whatever but uh we uh we found out that you know that it was on such close proximity I had them you know we pulled it 12 in away from that line. So that's the the property line. You can't really see in the back, but the um compressors, you said it's very close.

Yeah. I mean, the the um plans almost make it look a little distance away, I think. But the rear corner here, you got that 3 ft anyway. I don't know about 1.3. And do you want to pass it down since everybody know? Yeah. She was just saying this this corner of the property on her photograph looks like a little closer than closer than 1.3 1.3 but but it's it's hard to tell exactly property line. You said it flared out. Yeah. So that corner would be the closest corner the front. Yeah, correct. Exactly.

Y there's more more property at the front. Okay. So um so getting back to your your application so what you're asking for is new variance for the existing building except for 9.3.1 to say because it's a new building but it's going to be one foot closer oh farther away from the property line but everything else is going to be remain the same and you had to do it because of the construction difficulties. That's right. Yeah. and and and is the wording changed in the sense that it it was a a rehab of an existing property where we kept it and that's the reason why we're here. Right. That's what I thought.

The I think the I don't have it in front of me or I did have in front of me is that the the application before said the hardship was that it was a historic structure existing pre-existing in the setback. And so the point is we're not we're not changing that structure, but it's still in the setback. It's a new but the point is we can't move it further away from the property lines because of the septic system. Right. Now, can I just ask um this property is probably part of the sewer project, isn't it? It will be. So if this happens. Yeah.

Okay. Um I was under the is is it Old Colony or is it actually old colony? Okay. I was under the impression that Old Colony had already started work. They they haven't started work yet. I I I actually represent Old Colony and it has not started. Okay. Still some Okay. So, you're still going forward under the premise that you may need to have that. That's right. And it will and it will remain seasonal. Okay. Until uh until a sewer, okay, does go through. Okay. In which time will,

you know, its use will be will change. And the neighbors are okay with this without we so the hardship is the fact that you can't move it any further away from the property line because the septic system but you need to replace the building because of it structurally unsound. Correct. It's the same variance that we had asked for previously with a minor improvement from the previous one. We're just back to you because I'm just capturing save the structure. We could not schedule as we thought as we anticipated.

Okay. Sounds pretty straightforward to me. I don't Does anybody have any more questions? Does the town I mean are there any penalties or anything for I mean I could have brought an enforcement action or done whatever but I I the goal here is compliance. I I I don't want to. No, I didn't. I just hear purview was the thing. It's not a September I said this is a problem. Please address it.

Five months went by. It was not addressed. So I wrote them a letter that said, "Look, if you don't come in for a variance, I'm going to have to issue a cease and desist order." And that's what sort of prompted the the rush to come in for a variance at that point in time because they didn't want a cease and desist order. So there's no penalty beyond that other than they had to stop everything and come in here and get their approvals and you know that that that there's I guess some penalty for the fact that they they were stopped construction for some period of time but there's no there's no fine there's no nothing of that sort but again they're trying to accommodate

the goal is to achieve compliance. So as long as I'm seeing them try and achieve compliance I'm going to step back and let that happen. Um, it's only when I don't see efforts at achieving compliance that I then have to sort of escalate and then take further steps. So again, I wrote a letter saying really I met a patients take care of it. They came in, they took care of it, and then we're just going to let it happen. Okay. All right. So, you've answered my question about why you can't move it any further. Um, so no one else has any other questions. The the public public comments would like to speak in favor of this application. Somebody behind it

against this application or comment on this application. No, no, no public comments. All right. Um, so with that in mind, would anybody like to make a motion to close the public hearing for case 26-21 Riverside? Madam Chair, someone did you want to number these other pictures? You had said you they weren't referenced. No, they're submitted though. We We will We will Yeah. I didn't know if you wanted to number. We will. We will number them. We We reserved uh four through seven eight that we just hadn't done it yet. Yeah, you can put it on the table. I'll do it before we leave. Thank you very much.

And sorry about that. Yeah, we 10. Well, wasn't Oh, 10. 10. Okay. Okay. All right. So, would anybody like to make the motion to close the public hearing for case? I will move. That was Michaela. Anyone like to second that? Second. Richard. All those in favor? I

opposed. None abstaining. None. The motion passed finally 5 to 0 to zero. Again, same rules apply after the close of public hearing. So I think we've discussed the hardship is that they they can't move the building any further away from the property because the septic system. Oh yeah. And that they had to replace the building because it was structurally unsound. Yeah. All the other variances we'd already granted them. We just have to grant them that they're exempted from having to rehab the existing structure because it's it's proved not to be possible.

All right. Uh so there is a one foot reduction in legal pre-existing nonconformity on the side setback. Mr. Um the agreed conditions of approval is that they're going to submit the asbuilt plan by uh surveyor Peard. Yeah. As a signed asbuilt survey created by Mr. Ken Peard, licensed surveyor. I deliver that to the zoning office. Yes. Yes. Okay.

Uh it's in harmony with intent purposes zoning regulations because it improves safety and no. Okay, that's it. Um it's supported by the neighbors. That's the other uh reason and the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing or voting session. Okay. So with that in mind is everyone agree with that.

Okay. With that in mind would like I would like to make a motion to grant with conditions the requested variances to sections 8.8.7 8.8.8 8.8.9 8.9 not 9.3.1 to allow replacement of a non-conforming structure in location approved by prior variance. Did they have to fix that application?

We already did that during the motion. Okay. To allow the placement of a non-conforming structure in location approved by prior variance case 24-06 per the property survey prepared. Oh. Oh, this this is what I'm going to say. Then per the updated property as built survey for the updated as build survey prepared by Pard landscape land surveying we don't have a date for that yet no we don't

and the floor plans and elevations prepared by 30 360 design plus LLC and dated May 2020 20 May 22 2024 floor and a stamp and signed by the ZBA chair. And so the conditions are to submit the asbuilt as built. Yeah, you can say it again. Yeah. Um as signed as built survey created by Mr. Ken Picard licensed surveyor must be submitted to be signed to stand by the ZBA chair. Okay. I don't have any other thoughts on the motion. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the motion? But if I like to make that motion so moved. Yes. Second.

Richard. All those in favor? Opposed? None abstaining? None. The motion pass 500. Thank you. Sorry for your you had so much trouble with your house, but hopefully that's quite a looking foundation, man. That's that's as hokey as it gets. Wow. Okay. So, quickly moving on. area easier, more easily. No, it's just gone upstairs. Do you want it? Do you want it?

Okay. So, we should fold this up and put it in the case file.

All right. Um, now we're seeing setting a public hearing for new applications. Currently there's one already one new case scheduled for April 16th regular meeting which was in February that's 302 furry road uh and as of yesterday there are two as of yesterday two additional cases have been submitted for receipt and scheduling one is 181 coast road g applicants are seeking to elevate a non-conforming dwelling on a non-comming 30 lot 4t on a new foundation Uh it's appears to be a complete application. So I will receive it today and suggest that we schedule it for the public hearing um April 166. Everyone agree with that? Okay. Then there's 30 M Creek Road which was submitted just very recently. The applicants seek to expand a non-conforming structure on a nonforming RU40 lot. Uh key information is still missing. The staff is working with the applicant to complete the application. So I think we'll receive today but schedule that public hearing for the May 21st 2026 meeting. That's what I discussed that with Craig.

Yeah, they have yet to make their piece with Ledge Light. Ledge's not even sure that they're going to be able to make their piece with Ledge Light because the lot is so small and they don't have they haven't even started soils testing on it. Um so could take a while. Yeah, I I I'm not optimistic that this is actually ever going to get heard because I'm not sure they're ever going to get legislate approval, but let's put it out for May and see where we are in two months and then then take it from there. Okay. Thank you so much.

And last thing on the agenda, and I think everyone's too tired to think about it, is discuss potential ZVA recommendations for the zoning commission for the updated of the old land zoning regulations phase two. Now, I suggest it's a monumental task. So I suggest that we break it down into sections and maybe what we do is at some point in time we can either have a subgroup or breakout session to to focus mainly first on the CBA section. There's a section of regulations that affect ZBA. Yeah.

So it's really appropriate that we provide some input into that. I think that's no question about that. So I thought what I could do is I sent out some information. Let's forget most of what I sent you and then and then just focus on the section that's the ZBA section and then we can talk about people want to have it discuss at this meeting or do people want to have a little breakout session? We should have a special meeting for that. Don't you think? I I'm fine with that if other people are fine with that. Well, because these are so long and that's also so long. I mean, it just seems like if we're going to have a clear focused attention, we should have a special meeting.

Okay. So, we'll we'll try to work out a special meeting date. Um, we can do it do do it right now. Pick a date or Yeah. Oh, we're all together. Nancy, just so you know, I'm going to miss April. I'm going to be misspr. Will you be here in May? Yes. Cuz two of us are missing May. I'll be here in May. Okay, awesome. Great. Um, so let's see. We could do it. We probably if we want to do it sooner rather than later because the zoning commission is going to want our feedback sooner rather than later. I can't do that. This is something that's going to be going on for the next six, seven, eight months. So, I wouldn't worry that you're not going to get it in on time.

Okay. I also um I was I'm fairly open the week of April 6. Oh, that's right. You're you're going for all of April. I'm going from the 6th to the 19th. Okay. So, maybe like how about the last week in April? Yeah. 27th through the 30th or I can't do the 27th time commission. How about uh the 28th, 29th, or 30th of April? 30th. All three days or one of the three? I'm just

Thursday make a difference to you. They're fine by me. Nick, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. Tell me one more time. Sorry. It's the 28th, 29th or 30th. 28th is not good for me. And actually, I could probably do the 29th or the 30th, but I prefer the 30th if that's okay. 30th is a Thursday. So, so and we don't we only need a small conference room because they're not gonna have the public. Yeah, we Yeah. So, Oh, as long as we can reserve it. Yeah. Can we use what? Well, 10 is upstairs. What time would you like to start? That's what they all used to be. Say that again.

What time should we start? You can shut the meeting whenever you want. You want to start it at 6:30 again or is it 6:30 is pretty reasonable time as as long as we can get the room. And if not, we'll we'll adjust accordingly. So, tentatively, we're thinking of Thursday, April 30th at 6:30 in a small conference room and we'll adjust if needed if it's not available. Okay. Okay. Nancy, would you like me to attend? I think that would be good. Especially the section on zoning commission. I'm not selling question ZBA because it's regulations about us and we need to make sure that our

tied to that um going out to the printer tomorrow are the new regulations the phase one regulations that are effective April 1st. So some of you may want hard paper copies. Um I will have 30 of them printed out. If you would like a hard paper copy, let me know and I will get it to you. If you're okay with an electronic version, we can make that happen as well. But, um, you know, obviously I I asked for 30 copies. That is enough to give each of my zoning commission members, each of my ZBA members a paper copy if they'd like it. But I know not everybody actually would care for one. So, just let me know one way or the other or let Greg know one of the How many pages would that be?

Can we just do like section eight? 20. Um, it's 217 pages. Okay. 70, right? Not 17. 270. 270. Wow. Yeah. You know, it's the regular finder. So, so can we just do a sections? You can have whatever you'd like, but I mean the ones that I'm printing printed off. You already have 30. I have 30 full sets that I'm going to have up in my office to give to people who need them.

Take one. Yeah, I would like one too because you know when you're it's it's a temporary because it's going to be changing but when we're working I like to have a hard copy and that's fine. I understand you're you're entitled to a hard copy. If you like a hard copy you will get a hard copy. I'll just go to your office and ask for it. They'll hand it to us. That's the best way to get They're not they're just going to the printer tomorrow. So, you're you're they're not up there ready to get. What I could have G Craig do is when they come back to us from the printer, send an email around saying, "The new rigs are up in the office. If you would like one, please come by and get one or let us know because we can mail it to you, but they're going to be expensive to mail. So, I'd rather you come in and get it. We can do that." Okay.

Yeah. That sounds perfect. The other question I have is if we're going to have a special meeting, why don't we just prioritize what we're going to discuss? So, first would be the section on the ZBA, but then we would like if we have more time and we're still up to it, we want to look discuss a section on flood zones and nonconformity. That's what I What number is the flood zone? The numbers have changed. Everything's paper copy. I'm saying so I think and priorities in my mind it's the CBA section, the flood zone section, and then the um the non-conformity section because I think that's those are the ones that need the most work. Yeah. Okay. So, we'll work on it as far as we can. All right. Um

and we'll have another meeting before that meeting. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Also to discuss pages or sections we want to focus on. Yeah. Hear them out of the next meeting if I don't.

All right. So, um, that's my thoughts on the the the section on that part of the agenda. Uh, just remind people to give me a heads up if you're going to miss a meeting. Thank you, Michaela, for saying you're going to miss a meeting. Uh, and then the correspondence is basically Eric told you what that is is that the phase one has been approved starting on April 1st. And with that in mind, would anybody like to make the motion to There's no other discussion topic. If any would like to make a motion to approve or modify the minutes or approve the minutes for the uh February 2019 19th 206 meeting and no amendments just approve it. I have no amendments. I thought very good succinct job.

Anyone like to make the motion? So moved. Michaela second. Second Kip. All in favor? Obstaining opposing not sorry opposed none abstaining none motion passing as 500 and if there's nothing else would like to make motion to adjourn the meeting so moved all those I I opposed none standing none 5