Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

I have 6:30. All right. Um, excuse me. Hello. It's 6:30. It's 6:30. We're calling to order the zoning. Please stop talking. Hello, guys. Hello. Um, I'm calling to order the zoning board of appeals regular meeting for Thursday, May 15, 2025. Um it's at 6:30 and roll call around the table. We'll start with Eric Gang is coordinator. Michael Pearson alternate Kathleen Tracy alternate Russell Fog member Stephanie Meal member Nancy Hutchinson chair Kip Catson is on his way but he's not here for the first case anyway so it's okay. Steex member Bri Alter Sia Rcasta Council. Okay. And absent is Amy Hwitt, RZBA clerk. Um and uh just to let anybody know who's here for 307 Swan Avenue that the opening of that public hearing has been delayed until the June meeting. So if you're here for that meeting, you can you can take off. All right. We have uh so therefore we have one continued case and three new cases today. And to facilitate efficient review, uh please I'd ask the applicants to please um present the evidence that an unusual and unnecessary hardship exists based on strict application of zoning regulations due to some particular condition of the property itself and that the condition does not generally affect other properties in the district. Second, that the evidence that the variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the usual hardship and allow reasonable use of the property. and also whether any legal any reduction in legal pre-existing non-conformity is proposed. Also, the evidence that the variances requested are in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations

and the comprehensive plan of zoning. And for applications with a zone coastal site plan review, please address the Connecticut DEP comments. And for projects in the conservation zone, please address the Connecticut River Gateway comments. So with that, we're going to start with our first continued case, which is case 25-2C9 Caukins Road. Request variance is to construct a new two-story single family dwelling with septic system well on an unimproved R10 lot and an AE11 coastal flood zone located in the conservation zone within 100 ft of the mean high tide line, the coastal jurisdiction line, and title wetlands. A coastal site plan review application was also submitted. This case is continued from the April 17th ZBA meeting at which eight exhibits were submitted by the applicant including a new site plan and revised zoning table. Additional application applicant submission since the April meeting was a May 7th letter from the Connecticut River Gateway Commission responding to the revised April plans. Uh a May 9th letter from attorney Macaulay describing additional revisions to the application revised plans with updated zoning table to be submitted soon. And yesterday we received new site plans, floor plans, and elevations dated May 8th through 12th. And they were just received yesterday. So seated for this case, because it's a continued case, is myself, Stephanie Mikl, Steve Dixs, Brian Cole, Michaela Pearson, who were all present at the April 17th uh ZBA meeting. And the revised list of new variances requested are to sections. This is a new one. 4.3 no structures within 50 feet of a title wetlands. There was a little confusion if it's section 4.3 or 4.2.12 but we can clarify that during the meeting. Um then also section 4.3.1 in the conservation zone no building or other structure including drainage structure septic systems and

wells shall be extended within less than 100 ft of the main high pan of connect river kinetic river or any of the tributaries associated wetlands 4.10.3 10.3 kg river setbacks uh need to be at least need to be at least 100 ft away from the coastal jurisdiction line. Uh removed from the requested variances are building height uh 4.10.7 because they've revised plans are less than 35 ft high. Uh 4.10.8 no cutting of vegetation within 50 ft of coastal jurisdiction line to maintain reperior vegetative buffer. A new variance to section 8.6 6 uh 30 ft from front set back from a narrow street. 8.85 maximum stories 1.5 stories maximum and 8.86 maximum height 25 ft maximum. I think that's all the answers. Let me just see. Yes. Okay. So, with that introduction, I'd like to ask applicants to please come up and present their revised plans. Uh oh, and also today we got um Oh, that's right. No, never mind. Okay. Nope. Okay. Good afternoon, evening. Hello. Yeah, thank you. How are you? Um I'm just here to present the revisions to the site plan which um unfortunately were only completed because the architect had some delays and so that got the site plan delayed. So, you should have received the site plan. Okay. You haven't? Yes. Okay. So, I have a very small version of it that I'm going to work off of. Yeah. I did want to mention that I noticed as I was reading your letter and the revised table and the there seems to be some differences in the height and the one

thing I was going to one thing I was going to point out. Okay. Okay. So, um based on the delay in getting the architectural drawings, my communications with my client, I was under the impression that the base the first floor elevation would be reduced to 14. Apparently, it was reduced instead of 2 1/2 ft to 14, it was reduced 1 foot to 15. That's what I thought. Okay. Just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Right. So that was me working off of communications and not having had the advantage of looking at the plan because it wasn't completed yet. As long as we're all on the same page. Yeah. So it's reduced one foot. So the height and the particular elevation is one foot reduced. Right. Okay. Great. And in fact, I think the height overall was reduced more than 1 foot because there was a reduction in the uh at at last month's hearing, you had raised the issue that perhaps the attic space might qualify as a half story. Yeah. And so the plans were revised to ensure that the maximum peak height was below 6 ft. I think it's 5.10. I couldn't find that on the plan. Yeah, as long as we agree what it is because I think I was confused because the zoning table said 34 something. The the height on the measurements on this elevation said on one side it was 32.2 on one side it was 34.2. So I thought if everything was 33 as long as we come up with a number that we all agree on. Part of the problem is is that the plans go by feet and inches. And I think the um zoning table might be, you know, 40 something feet instead of No, I think and the zoning table says that they figured out the zoning from the lowest natural grade, not the average natural grade, six feet, right? But it's now that they've moved it back five feet,

it's average, it's six feet on one side and seven feet on the other side. So I think it I think it's just a question of how it was measured. And I I think we're I believe it was measured from six, right? Instead of the average. So it makes the height actually a little bit lower, right? Correct. Okay, good. All right. We're on if we're on the same page. Okay. So, um, what we failed to request last month was the wet, um, 50 ft buffer area of the title wetlands. I thought it was 4.3, but I don't know if it's 4.2 whatever it was. I think it's 4.2.12. 4.2.12. Yes. Okay. So, as long as we cler that, too. 4.2.12. Just going to Great. 12. Okay. So, that's been added because the septic system and I believe bring this up. This is a revised um plan that has all these lines in it with the distances that are different colors so that it would be easier for you to see. Thank you. Um I don't know if Fern dropped this off for you. We did get copies that were dropped off. They should be in the package, I hope. But yeah, it it's probably here. Yep, I see them there. Okay, so um this is the wetlands title wetlands line. Yeah. And the septic is at just about 50 ft for the edge of this field. Now, this area of disturbance, however, is closer to, you know, is less than 50 feet by however wide that section is. So, we've still included this variance. Thank you. Right. Um, you're welcome. Um, this distance, let's

see, this is Can people see this or they know from their own plans? Yeah. Yeah. I think it's it's not that different than last month's except for the position of the house. Correct. Maybe. Yeah. Thank you. Of course. You're very kind. I don't even know if it's going to help from people for people from far away cuz the writing is so small. But the lines are big and thick. Can't hurt. Thank you very much. Thank you. Um, thank you. So, this line here is the tidal wetlands line and this is the 50ft distance u marked here. This is also marked, but this is 55.5 ft. But again, there's a little area of disturbance that's going to happen around the edge of, you know, during the installation process and then it'll all be covered over. So, that was we kept that on there. The house is Let's see. The house is Well, if this is 53, I'm gonna guess that this is probably within the This is the deck part of the house. You can see the actual house is here. Yeah. Right. Oh, yeah. This might is that that's the 50 foot from the wetlands. Yeah. Okay. So, it does cut through right there, but it's better than it was before, right? only because we've eliminated uh the bumpout that was here and pushed it back as far as we could uh without violating the regular setbacks. Yes, we did violate the the narrow road narrow road, but um we've pushed that back. Okay. Any other questions about that?

No. Um Okay. So the mean high water mark is this line here. And so this now the distance from here to the deck uh is shown as 95.7 ft almost outside now of the mean high water. And of course this is above grade because it's from the first floor which is now raised because of the flood zone. So really this distance argu this is a 12. No, how wide is the deck? Not wide longwise but deep. I don't know. I don't think she changes. I think it's still 12 feet. 12 feet. Okay. So, it's out the the footprint of the building then is outside and maybe just the support posts of the deck are in the That's good. Title uh in the title uh the high water buffer. Um the septic is still in the high water. It's 93 ft to the edge here, but that can't move any further. That isn't fixed because of the location of the wells. As we addressed at last month's meeting, um the CJL, the coastal jurisdiction line, is this red line and this I believe this brown line is the No, that's 50 ft from the coastal. Yeah, this is 50 ft for the riparian buffer. Mhm. So again, that goes Oh, good. You're outside. We're outside of the riparian buffer for the structure, but not the septic. But the septic is can't is can't be moved as far as it can go. Um, as far as the 100 ft buffer, that's taking us all the way out to the actual I mean front setback, right? Goes out all the way to the front set back. So basically, if I understand,

you've minimized as much as possible the environmental impacts. It's either we approve this or we don't prove anything at all, which is not right. We moved as far from the natural resources on this property or of the town that we can um while still maintaining sort of a reasonable distance from the front yard for the safet safety of the people in the home and for the people who might be driving. I don't know what but um and it's um the footprint is fairly modest in that it's not um been expand it's it's a modular design so it's probably the minimum you can get in this and maintain that maybe 1,000 square foot footprint you know I think that's you've done a lot to improve it that that's good right and you're constrained by both the septic and the border on the other side and what the width of that building can be. Right? There is a setback here, a 12 foot setback from the side, 25 ft in the front. Um, you have your separation from the and we have the separation from the really you've squeezed it into the only available area, right? Um there was um you know there's there's no real ability to well there there was no real ability to add a garage structure here but that was sort of not a a great alternative because a it created more impervious surface on on the lot and um I think you it increased the bulk right by tucking the the garage and the parking of underneath the existing footprint. Um, it minimizes the impact it minimizes the impact on the rest of the the property of and and reduces the the flow and it still makes reasonable use of of the space underneath the car underneath the

house for which gets to the other question we had before about the height. Correct. Which is that your rationalization now is that it's minimizing impact to the site because you're not making a separate structure for a garage. It's safer for off street parking. That's right. Pulls the street park people off the street and allows them to park. And so it's And you've lowered it as low as you can do and still have it be functional used as those are all my concern about the garage is that it was described as a slab. So it's not imper I mean it is impervious. Correct. But the whole house is it's underneath the existing structure. So the house itself is also impervious but so it's not increasing the imperous surface. Well the water could run under and soak in. Well they are actually have um a system to collect the rain water from the roof and divert it to a rain garden. Mhm. But you also changed the driveway to a pvious crush stone. It is now labeled as they intended always. It just wasn't labeled that way to be crushed stone. Yeah. And it is in it is in the AE flood zone. So that is acceptable. I believe the board should have received the revised version of the um coastal boundary review from DEP where he corrects his interpretation of what um zone it's in. Yeah. So in that vein, you know, on that sort of topic and somewhat related, um the boundary between the two zones, right? Yeah. It was pretty close. Yeah. Right. So it was an honest mistake on the part of the engineer at DP because it was so sort of close and and so there was some consideration given to that in

that you know it's not that the home isn't required to be built to ve I think standards right but so it's built to AE standards but um the additional height may benefit and provide some additional safety and and protection to the structure and the so if I recall last time it was four and a half feet higher than necessary now you've reduced it a foot three and a half feet and the extra foot and a half of that 3 and 1/2 ft is related to making it more be flood zone like because that's one foot above the structural support needs to be 1 foot above the base flood elevation correct so then it's a difference of 2 ft to allow it to be used as a garage off parking. Okay. Just making sure all on the same page. Does someone else have any questions about that? The changes that they've made since last time. Um I thought that we had asked that the size of the deck be reduced to reduce the nonformity last time and it doesn't look like that was done. I don't remember that. But uh that's a good thing. And I think the I think Steve had asked a question what's the functional size of the deck and it well I was concerned with the surface of the material below the deck making sure it's stable and also removable. So if it gets flooded etc. So the size of the deck is the deck is raised off the ground so it's up in the air. It's up in the air. But you need to stabilize the soil whatever below so that you don't erosion and other effects you know from the storm. I don't know what efforts are made to stabilize the I think gravel is fine. Yeah. So there's if there was some getting to your point about uh if it's elevated and not on the ground, if there's something underneath it to stabilize the ground so it's not

eroded, that would be address mostly your concern. Yes. Okay. Okay. So basically gravel under the deck or crush stone something. Yeah. Okay. So the house is on slab and not it's not pilings, right? It's just not ae flood zone. So they don't need that. They need and they do have flood vents all the way around, right? The architectural drawings show well this doesn't have the architectural drawings on it, but the um architectural drawings did from last month and also this month have flood vents. Um they're shown uh in they're all the way around either all the way around orb. Yep. Flood vents. I saw that. Yeah. And and sometimes they're on the inside. Okay. All right. So I guess that addresses the D comments to make sure that it complies with all AE1. Maybe D, but gateway also talked about like dark sky lighting. And I see you have two fixtures on the plans and they were both listed as dark sky. Are they um planning on more lighting because all that design needs to be Sure, there will be lighting, but these um these are the types of fixtures that they were in intending to use and I think the lighting plan will come as part of the So getting to Stephanie's point because the the the Connecticut Gateway hasn't reviewed this updated plan. uh you'd like a decision today. Would you be acceptable to say that as a condition of approval that the um that is submit an you know prior uh that they provide a landscaping plan retaining as many existing native

non-invasive trees as vegetation as possible and provide a lighting plan that is dark side compliant to the gateway for review. We would be able to provide that when the site when they're completed and when they're ready to be Right. Right. I'm saying so as a condition of approval of the variance to say that you would get we will submit them for review review don't need to say uh for for they don't approve though also the landscape the land the landscape said that you did I mean at the time of the application it would be referred to gateway by me so submit to me gateway referral I guess and gate gateway does not have a veto they Commissioner will give a report back regarding those commissions here. So, so what would you say is a condition of approval to say the the buying of the gateway commission for the landscape plan and lighting? How would we word that or we don't word that anywhere? Well, I I'm not sure you necessarily need or want to give Gateway veto over the final plan or a consulting agency, but certainly um consult with Yeah, consult with Gateway and respect their their comments regarding landscaping and dark sky. Is that sufficiently strong a recommendation? I don't know what your thoughts down there, Silia. No, I think they should comply. I don't think this should be a recommendation. Well, the problem is consider it doesn't come back to you, right? So, if Gateway says after the fact, I want X, Y, and Z. There's no forum for them to say that and there's no form, but they could comply with it. Whatever Gateway says. Yes. But you're also don't know what gateway is going to say. And there's so to consult with the gateway on the final landscaping and lighting plans. Is that

The applicants are more than happy to provide a landscape plan and a lighting plan for the zoning the the land use officers review and if that requires a referral that's okay perfectly reasonable and right so so we don't need it as a condition of approval of variance or would well what's the alternative can we say that we are going to defer this until we have gateways input. Why isn't it just sufficient to prepare the plans? I mean, why do we have to put a value on it? It would seem to me if we require that they provi provide maybe based on comments provided by gateway that should be sufficient and we look at that and they say, look, it seems okay to me. I I'm I know that the applicants are are willing to prepare a plan that addresses the concerns that the gate that the gateway commission has already raised. That's that's what I think we're getting at because they don't have the final yes or no decision, but we but we don't have a lighting plan to review. I don't know if that's a requirement of the application for variance. It's not on. So, Gateway asks for lots of things. Um, uh, they're not necessarily all relevant to your specific considerations. Um, so to the extent you want to work with Gateway or acknowledge those things, I think, you know, asking that they be consistent with Gateway's recommendations, the the the struggle that I think both Eric and I are having is one, there needs to be some finality with your decision as opposed to ambiguity. Um, and because the the applicant, if there's something that Gateway says that the applicant's not willing to do, where are we with the

fields? When do they get to discuss that? does gateway functionally get to impose something that voids your decision. So, it's problematic to to to sort of say that we're also not really at a stage where like a fully developed lighting plan or landscape for what we're talking about exists. Um, you know, it would be one thing if it was in existence and they just needed to double check it. We're a little further away from that. So I think as always when we're talking about the conditions of any kind much less gateways are they relevant to your decision-m like would you deny this application if it didn't have a lighting plan consistent with gateways recommendations? Yeah the same thing which is and the landscape evaluation of the unique hardship return on whether they have a landscaping plan or a lighting. Yeah. We can we can uh stipulate that it has to be a dark sky lighting plan and that is according to the state. Right. Well, that's that's a specific thing that I think is understandable, not ambiguous that yes. Um to give a landscaping plan that they review and that's a little too much back and forth. Um so dark sky I think is a typical thing. Again, I'm not sure that it would change your decision. So, let me let me just throw out a possible wording because this is what I was thinking about ahead of time. It's like provide a landscaping plan retaining as many existing native and non-invasive trees and vegetation as possible, which was the recommendation of the gateway. Provide a lighting plan that is dark sky compliant. And so, I think if we put that makes me happy. Okay, that's why I was trying to draft something that got to Sylvia's point that they're not the deciders, but we want to incorporate their guidance and you very willingly want to work with them, but we want to come to a decision here so you can get to the point where you can get enough detail to have those things be compliant. Yes. Okay. So we'll just I

want to circle these two things and you would agree to those as potential yes reason uh conditions of approval. Absolutely. And while we're talking about conditions so they so that a a construct so a reg uh I don't know uh condition approval that construction comply with all FEMA and building code requirements including height and foundation vents. I just I don't need to say that that last part. Yeah. Right. I think that has to Yeah. I'm just saying. But we have had people come and show plans in there. Don't don't have to be really Yeah. I think you're I think it's in every It's in the owner's best interest to be compliant with the regulations. And the only last thing I was thinking about maybe is that uh obtain final health department approval after additional test pits and inspections completed because in the L legislate health district approval they said was conditional on additional test pits except yeah that's why here was that that was a common occurrence when yes it is common but it just means that it still means that you got to get the final approval. Okay, great. And uh I think the only other thing I was thinking of um I don't know what this means, but the Connecticut D said there may be a title wetland permit required from Connecticut D. I didn't know what that was. I don't I the engineer is not okay. I I think I'll leave that I don't believe that there is anything separate from your jurisdiction anyway. I don't think that that affects your evaluation. I just wanted to ask, but it was on the checklist that he had. I understand, but since they're not doing a dock or anything that's low coastal jurisdiction, I don't think there's anything that's within Deep's jurisdiction to to the last thing I was thinking of too is I didn't know do we need to submit

updated plans and zoning table with correct aggre consistent first floor elevation and overall average height or are we all agreed that it's 15.5 and 33.2 2 or something like that. It's for certain 15.5 and 332 332 because one side was measured from the 6T average grade. What was okay? As long as we have that, we're agreeing that that's what that is and we have the final plan that says that that I can stamp and sign, then we're done. the the engineers plan doesn't have Oh, wait. The engineers plan has it on the zoning table. Yeah, it's it still says 34 something. No, 34. So, that was my concern. The the the elevations did not match the site plan, which did not match the letter. Um, it has 34.16 ft. I don't know what that is in feet and inches, but 34, not 33. Right? So it has, but he does the math here at the bottom. If you look at the asterisk, he said that he does it from the lowest average grade, not he the lowest grade, not the average grade, which means the average grade height is lower because it's higher on one end than the other. Oh, so you just just making it 33.2 feet or 33.2 on the zoning table. Yes, we'll send it in. Whatever the math is. Yeah, exactly. whatever the math is, but the correct math on the because on the elevations it has it on one side it says 34, the other side it says 32, so the average is 33. Okay, then um you've you've addressed most of my questions from last time and the board's question from last time. Does anybody else have any other questions they would like um addressed?

Is there anything on the plan that does show the attic maximum attic height? Do you have any I couldn't find anything in the new plans. So the um the elevations look like it it doesn't have it doesn't have it marked but you could scale cuz you know it was like 155 for the first floor and then the I have 248 which is like you know the 8 and 1/2t floor 8 and 1/2 in floor it's like an extra foot there. I'm not well that's I think that I think the thickness of the floor relates to the contain the the modules the modular components have a floor base and a ceiling base and when they put them together. Do you have a draw? This is drawn to scale. If you just had if you just had a measure Oh, there you go. What is this? You might want to mention what you're looking at. And we're looking at a cell phone picture of the heights of each floor and the attic area. And the attic area is 1 5' 1 and 1/2 in high. And I can submit that with the revised zoning data plan. Thank you. So that would be exhibit 10. Exhibit 10 when it comes. Does anybody want because you've referenced it so I want to you'll get the physical copy and mark it. Exhibit exhibit 10. Okay. We're up to 10. Does anybody want to get dark? Anyway, you guys want to see it because David will Yeah. And I I think also we could tell cuz this is drawn to scale. We could measure. But anyway, but that's good. So, it's clearly two stories, two and a half stories. Good question, Stephanie. Um

I Any other question? I think you addressed my questions. Anyone have any questions? I think You've also uh explained why is the two story versus one and a half story because you're you're pulling in the less impact on the site. So it just squinching the footprint that makes and it's a modest footprint to begin with and allows them to make better reason more reasonable use of and it's nice that you have the rain garden. Okay. So, I think if we're agreed on the conditions of approval and no one has any other questions, but we'll open up to public comments. Would anybody like to speak uh in favor of this application? Would I like to speak in opposition to this application? Would anybody just comment on this application? No. Okay. No public comments. So with that in mind, um, and we've clarified the the variance for to 4.2.12 instead of 4.3. Okay. All right. So would anybody like to make a motion to close the public hearing for case 25-29 Caukins Road? I'll make the motion. Okay. Who's first? That was Steve made the motion and Michaela made the motion. A second the motion. Sorry. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? None. All those abstaining? None. The motion passed from Nassie 5 to 0 to zero. Okay. The public hearing is now closed. Thank you very much for and I think the the board really appreciated your effort to work in minimizing the environmental impacts and taking the feedback. Okay, public hearing is now closed. Only voting members may participate in

deliberations. So that's the five members that were here last time. No information be introduced at the close of public hearing. Uh but members may be able to ask the ZBA attorney and staff for um procedural questions. So usually before we make a motion we 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 make a motion. So I think um we talk about hardship. So I think that the hardship they have is that basically the entire property is in the environmental setback. Uh but um environmental setback Okay. Uh I think there's no reduction of legal pre-existing non-conformity because nothing exists. I think it is the minimum variance to address the hardship because they've minimized the impact environmental impact. I'm just giving uh Stephanie a chance to capt capture this. They've incorporated input of the gateway and the Connecticut D and the board. Um, they've agreed to one, two, three, four conditions of approval. I'll just read them again so people know. Obtain final health department approval after additional test pits and inspections completed. Construction to comply with all FEMA and building code requirements. uh provide a landscaping plan retaining as many existing native invas non-invasive species and veget non excuse me noninvasive trees and vegetation as possible and provide a lighting plan that is dark supply compliant. Okay, you don't have to write all those down because I have them down. Um, I think it's in harmony with the intent purpose of zoning regulation because they really have minimized the the potential for environmental impacts as much as possible and they've

justified each variance they're requesting and they're very close to being outside those limits on some of those environmental factors. So I think they're in harmony with the purpose zoning potent purpose zoning regulations. They have anything I think to add. I think you could reference the the location of the existing wells limits. Ah that's right. Okay. Location. That's one of the hardships. Location of existing right here. Yeah. Location of existing wells limits location of septic and structure. Okay. Yep. All right. So and the final uh reason is the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated by the board and within the public hearing and voting sessions. So with that in mind, would anybody like to make a motion to grant with conditions the requested varianes to section 4.2.12 4.3.1 4.10.3 4.10.8.6 6 8.8.5 and 8.8.6 to allow construction of a new two-story single family dwelling with septic system and well on an unimproved R10 lot in the AE11 coastal flood zone located in the conservation zone within the 100 ft of the coastal jurisdiction line and title wetlands for the site plan including rain garden prepared by Angus McDonald Gary Sharp and Associates Incorporated. Revision date May 8th, 2025 and the floor plans and elevates

prepared by Seabird Architects and dated May 9th, 2025 and May 12th, 2025 respectively and stands inside by the CVA chair. But aren't we getting you're going to be getting revised plans? But but isn't that going to be one of the conditions that submit revised plan? That's actually what I was I was going to interject and add. We didn't I don't think you articulated revisions to your conditions if I Okay. I maybe I didn't read it out. I had written down here. Submit plans updated plan zoning table with correct accurate decision first floor elevation and overall height above average grade 15.5 and 33.2. So how many total conditions would be so that' be 1 2 3 4 five sorry not four. So, can I just um you were also I mean it was referenced as an exhibit during exhibit 10, but I think you want in your file the the measurements that you were specifically relying on the measurements that you saw on the phone that those be submitted. That's exhibit. Oh, okay. Oh, so that's that's not considered an exhibit because you already saw it. It's a condition you're referenc to submit also to submit the data that is in exhibit 10. also submit hard copy of exhibit 10. Well, and I think what Sophie's saying is that you're making your decision based on the information contained in that exhibit 10, which you don't physically have a copy yet. So, I think that she's looking for you to indicate that the numbers you're using, the 15.5 and the 33.2, whatever that number, are based on exhibit 10 submitted during the course of the public hearing. The same way that you you referenced the site plan and the elevations, you're also including in that batch whatever the document is exhibit 10. So submit updated plans zoning table with correct accurate consistent first floor elevation and overall height average

height above grade 15.5 and 33.3 and exhibit as presented in exhibit 10. Yeah, but that exhibit 10 doesn't say all those things. Exhibit 10 just showed that the attic was less than six feet tall. So I didn't see what exhibit 10 looked like. So it's hard for me to reference. Yeah. Yeah. It was just it was just the crosssection of the house with the height of the below first floor, the height of the first floor, the height of the second floor, and the height of the attic. That was all it was. So I I think you can just condition that the the um pursuant to the cross-section that isn't exhibit 10. But it doesn't talk about elevation at all. No, it's not the only thing you're referencing. I guess what Sylvia is saying is that just indicate that submit exhibit 10. And this is supporting document in your in your decision here that basically she's saying that not only are these other things part of part of your decision making but also the information contained in exhibit 10 was part of the decision part of the reason you came to the decision you did. Should we say what is in exhibit 10? I mean it could come exhibit 10 could look different when we see it. Put on the record that the applicant is going to be submitting a physical copy of exhibit 10. M um you're you're you I believe you sort of read the the the numbers and the figures that were on exhibit 10. My reason for saying that you should either put it put it in as the condition is because it sounded to me that you were essentially relying on what those figures were. So for example, if those figures were 5T more than what you saw in reality or if they're built five feet more than what you saw, I'm going to guess you're going to have a problem and you may have made a different decision. Well, I actually I think to me it was a nice add-on, but you you also have the elevation drawings. If you took the scale and just measured it, you could probably see it was less than six feet

tall. So, I wasn't really concerned about it, but it was nice to see the numbers laid out. I guess the question is, does does the height of the attic Yeah. being less than 6 ft, is that something that is material to your decision-m? It shows that it's two two stories rather than two and a half stories. Okay. So, so if you make it if you make it a condition, it's integral to your decision. Okay. If it's sort of just information to me it was added information because we already have a zoning table that says it's two stories. Okay. So it's just evidence of confiring that it is two stories. So then then that's fine. That's fine. Meaning what? Then you don't then if if it's just evidence of something that you think is already in the documentation. Yes, I think so. It was just supplemental information. Okay. So then the five conditions are the submitting the revised plan zoning table with correct accurate consistent first floor elevation and overall height above average grade 15.5 and 33.2 the the ledge light health department condition the field condition and the two gateway conditions. All right I think I'm all set with that if everyone else is. Okay. So, going back to I read the motion up to the conditions, but I've reviewed the conditions again. I don't think I need to read them again. Okay. And then the coastal site plan review application is approved because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and does include all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts on both coastal resources and future water dependent uses. That's the last part of the the motion. So, would anybody like to make that long motion? Okay. Michaela got there first. Michaela, you got Michaela and seconded by Steve.

Okay. Any all those in favor? I. All those opposed? None. All those abstaining? None. The motion passed finally five to zero to zero. I want to thank you very much. You really did an excellent job to try to minimize the impact and work with so many different groups to support your plan. Yeah, I bet. Thank you very much. Um, all right. I think that was motion was made by Michaela. This is lost. Oh, this is Michaela. Yeah, I seem to have an extra one. Who seconded it? Steve. Okay, just the opposite. Why do I have an extra line here? I have to close the public comment. So, this one everybody voted here to close. To close that. Yeah. Okay. Five is your zero. Yeah. Okay. It's not easy to follow this. I got it. I got it. All right. Thank you very much. All right. All right. So, thank you for that. So, moving on. We're going to the uh now the next part of the agenda, new public hearings. Um next on the agenda and seated for this case will be the five uh five full members, myself, Kip Cotson, Stephanie Nichols, Steve Dixs, and Russ Bach. Okay. The first case is case 25-3-1 Lville Road. Request grantes to to lot frontage requirements for two new single family dwellings to be constructed on two conforming RU 80 parcels located on a deed right away that intersects flat rock road. Old line affordable housing commission is the applicant. The variance is request the

variance one variance requested is section 8.2.1 2.1 minimum of 25 ft of lot frontage. So with that, would the applicant please come up and present your case? Please introduce yourself. Good evening, Madam Chairman, board members and alternates. Mr. Nap, attorney been a while. I'm sorry. My name is Mike Kerry. I'm with the law firm Susman Shapiro will burn and gray in Greenberg in New London and we represent the applicant in this matter the u old line affordable housing commission. Um my partner Jack Collins is town attorney for the town of old line. We are not here in that capacity tonight. We're here in the capacity maybe we are in that capacity. We're in the capacity as of town attorney representing the affordable housing commission on this application. We are not representing you. We don't purport to represent you. Um we do not represent the old lime land use agencies and boards. So I just thought I'd make that clear at the outset. Um I don't have uh a lot to say here at the beginning. Uh I I will introduce who I'm with. I'm with Fred Fenton who is chairman of the affordable housing commission. And actually I'd be glad if they want to come up and sit here. Yeah, they're welcome to come up if you want. Just introduce yourself. Everything's recorded. Fred and Mike Foliano is with us. um past chairman of the affordable housing commission and I think it's safe to say the uh primary shepherd of this project uh to date from inception well maybe not from inception but uh for quite a while uh till now and he's a

repository of information if if there are questions that uh we can't answer um also with us is Tom Medaf who I suspect is known to you all uh civil engineer and surveyor who has uh prepared uh the the application and the plans and support of the application. Um I' I'd like to before I start just give the the board a copy of uh some minutes from a town meeting on April 15, 2024, if I might. So, this is exhibit one. Um I guess it is. Yes. Mr. METAF will have some plans, but they're the same plans that are in your application. Just blown that are in your packet, I think. Is there how is it? Is there multiple copies? Okay, coming around the table. I have not. Yeah, I'm just going to mark this as exhibit one and put in the file. I'll pass these up. This is a copy of a location map that I'll refer to when I speak. And then this is already in the file. Mhm. Yes, it is. Yeah. So, this both both of these are in the file. This is the minutes are in the file. No, I don't think so. No, no, no. I didn't think so. Okay. Do you want to Okay, we'll put one copy in. I don't know if I have copies for everybody just here. It's pretty abbreviated. Yeah, let's get that in there. The purpose in giving you the minutes may m um is simply to uh have in the record the fact that the town meeting uh on April 15, 2024 transferred or approved the transfer of control of the uh three parcels of McCulla property that we're dealing with here. Um that that parts of which I think are the

subject of the variance application. Um, and it's through this uh control that the affordable housing commission I believe has the authority to make and uh press the you know and present this application to you tonight on behalf of the town. Frankly, um I think the application is pretty clear in terms of what's being requested here and why. Um Mr. Metaf will will show you in document documentary form what's involved. We're only asking for one variance, not on this one. Um, and that's uh the the when the town acquired the McCulla property in 2019, um, as I recall and understand, there was a uh the the McCulla's um had I don't know if it was insisted, but we're certainly eager to have a couple several parcels of that property set aside and devoted to single family housing, affordable housing. Um and the affordable housing commission is uh trying to um to meet that goal. Um and part of the re part of the process of meeting the goal will be to uh apply for subdivision um of course we couldn't have a subdivision approved um if we don't have a variance from the frontage requirement. The parcels that would be created here do not have frontage on a town road. um really could not have frontage on a town road. Can I ask because I was brought up like it says in the applicate that it cannot be made into a town road or a private road. And why is that? Mr. Metav, can I address that? It would be the the the geome geometry of the right of way. And just to um I think you're

all familiar with the the area of the property down at the end of Flat Rock Hill Road. And just um on the small one I showed you that's got the color. The the red line is Flat Rock Hill Road here. This piece actually connects over here. Get it all on the map. So there's a uh these two park properties here are the affordable housing lots that were uh approved if you will I think probably 30 years ago. They were approved on a right of way, 50 foot wide right ofway that these two parcels fronted on. At the time of that division, um the regulations didn't require frontage on a road. They just simply required frontage on a right of way. So thus the right of way that is owned by the town. to improve that to a town road. There's uh geometry standards within the uh subdivision regulations and the road ordinance that prohibit this from becoming a town road and that it doesn't have an adequate area um at the end for a turn called the sack. Yeah. So just simply put the geometry of this the constraints of this don't allow that to become a town road. How about just a private road? Does it have to be same thing? Same thing. Any kind of road. Any kind of road. Okay. Now the the the access to this it will be a driveway 15t wide driveway will have all the functionality except for pavement. It'll have all the functionality. it will be reviewed and approved by the uh going through the subdivision process uh by the planning commission which will refer it to the fire marshal and if they refer to the consulting engineer. So I think I

can relate to you folks there'll be assurances that there will be adequate access to these properties. It's just it's a driveway. It's not a road. Okay. It's not a terminology. Okay. And right now they're not planning to pave it uh at this point. It could be paved in the future. It it could be, but at this point, no. I I don't see a need for it to be paved. So, who would be responsible for like plowing it? The four the four properties. Uh if if an agreement can't be made um among the four of them, there's a state statute for the last 10 or 12 years. I think it's section 47-42 small F, no parenthesis. um that that sort of imposes uh maintenance requirements on commonly shared drive on common driveways. Okay. Um and I can't remember whether it uh sets a certain proportion based on the number of lots or based on some other factor, but the the statute will address this if uh the access. It was a big snowstorm, they'd still have access because they'd be required to plow. Yeah. And I assume the the lots that are already there are further up than we're going. These lots are going. They're not. Oh, the ones that we're engaging are further up. Further up than the two that are there now. Yes. Okay. So, we'll have to go. They've obviously been doing something over the last, but that would be addressed with the fire marshall and all that sort of stuff that make sure there's access to the subdivision process and the planning commission. Okay. So, we don't have to worry about that. No. And we can't even frankly get to the planning commission unless we have this. They're they're going to handle any issues about safety, egress, and all that. I think so. But and that's my, you know, they usually do. Yes. I mean, there was previous uh construction off of short short hills and all that right nearby and and it was about egress and two points of egress and all that. Somebody handles that. It's not us. So, you're here just for the question about frontage on a rightway versus a road.

And that right away is going to have the scrutiny of many other groups and officials after us. Yes. Yes. To make sure that it's safe, right? It's along a road. It says 850 ft long this right away. Yes. How far down is it? I mean, is it at the end? Like, is that the end of the rideway and that's where the lights are? Yeah. And I think on that small Yeah. I mean, yeah. I just wasn't So, um, this can point it out. Yeah. So, Flat Rock Hill Road. Maybe I can um Flat Rock Hill Road comes down here and dead ends. Here's the highway which shows on the map here. So the highway comes along here. So this is at the end of Flat Rock Hill Road. There's an existing driveway that comes off of that and the driveway extends up here, comes up here and comes into the second lot. So the driveway comes up and it hooks into this parcel here. That's the pink thing on the on the That's correct. That's a driveway. It ends here. What we would be doing, I'm sure that the through the subdivision process, we will have to make um this portion of the driveway a portion of the driveway wider 15 ft and then extend the driveway another probably 200 f feet um to get to our parcels. That would be most likely 15 feet wide. Okay. So, so it's how do we get to the 25 foot requirement? Well, that's both of these lots have 25 ft of fronting on the right of way. So, it it's perpendicular to the road. That's correct. The driveway will come up and

at some point will split and go to each lot. Okay. And that's going to be the extent of it. It doesn't ride along the center of division meeting properties and add some more properties later or not. No, the configuration of this prohibits that. Yeah. This is the end of the road. Not not only that, but the the the property of which this is a park is subject to a conservation easement or deed restrictions to maintain it as open space in perpetuity. So, okay. That's one of the reasons you can't do the turnaround, I believe. And that that that property is all subject to the conservation restrictions. The the total parcel is 81 acres plus or minus, you know, encompasses the yellow that you see on the plan. Actually has a a tongue that goes out to Whipper Road and that is all deed open space with all kinds of restrictions on it. So, okay. So this this was this is a very unique situation. We use all the storm water management water issues relative to this road. That would be through the subdivision process with the again if it goes to a consultant um consulting engineer. Um, so basically we're here only to on the zoning requirement which is which has changed since this was first started which is said that it has to be a public or probably road instead of a rideway and all the safety management water access issues will all be addressed during the subdivision portion or other town officials after this. Correct. So this is a very unique situation because there is no other way to access this property because of the deed restrictions and this is uh something that's been long-term planned. Correct. Okay. Apparently was a real goal of

being and uh so that the deed itself creating the open space has some very uh interesting cutouts for these these parcels. I was I was involved in just these the development of the first two lots um with Dave which you probably all know him. He's a great guy. Um and I know Dave bearish. Oh Dave Mala I thought you said a fire marshal. Okay. And he's all right too. I don't want to say and and I know it at the time with that 50 foot rightway with a mindset at that time that you could have frontage on the right of way. Right. You know, Dave, he'd always talked about another couple of lots out there, but the regulations changed. And the the Affordable Housing Commission has a a memorandum of of understanding uh from early 2025 with Habitat for Humanity of Eastern Connecticut Affordable Housing Partnership. Um and part of that agreement is that the two units will be subject to affordable housing uh restrictions. Um such that u 30% or less of the total income received by a household that qualifies as low income. um the cost of ownership including mortgages, branded taxes, insurance, and utilities that in total consumes 30% or less than total income received by a household that qualifies as low income. Um based on household income of 80% or less, in other words, these are the standards set out in Connecticut statutes. and the uh the uh Affordable Housing Commission and Habitat for Humanity has every intention that these restrictions will be permanent. Um and as I understand it, the Habitat for Humanity will administer those uh

restrictions going forward to ensure that they're complied with um for as long as they apply. um our application I think especially in the narrative part talks about your the require your standards for dealing with variances and I think um makes a good argument that uh that there is hardship um in part because the purposes of the frontage requirement can be fully accomplished in this case uh by allowing the uh use of the private rightway um for Ringress and egress and access to the properties. Um I would also before I turn this over to Mr. Medcaf um indicate that uh your staff report from April 2, 2025 uh seems to me to not raise any objections um and uh find that there you know this is a very unique situation not one that you have to worry about turning up uh very often. Um, and also points out, as has been pointed out tonight, that the requirement of frontage uh didn't exist when this project was originally envisaged. Um, so with that, I'll I'll be ready to answer any questions you may have uh obviously, but uh I turn this over to Mr. metap just if there's anything left to be discussed in terms of the physical layout. I'd be happy to, you know, talk more on the on just the layout. Um I think kind of alluded to it. Yeah. Um the one thing that um and I'm I believe it it's come to you, but I'll submit it. Um with the initial submission, we didn't have a letter from Ledgelight Health District. We've gotten that. Okay. You got it. So that's just want to make sure that's part of the record. It is part of the record and um I'd be have unless there's any questions. I really don't. I just want to see if I can

summarize and articulate. So the hardship is a very unique situation of a town long-term town project where the regulations change midstream but the intent and purpose of those regulations will be maintained by the followon of the subsequent subdivision and official reviews. Correct. Yep. The purposes of the finance requirement will be fully met here. Okay. We we we believe um even even on the private rightaway. Okay. So just if you agree with that I and we also we also talked about in the application um that uh the development of of affordable housing is uh a substantial public interest or is recognized as a substantial public interest of the state of Connecticut. Um, and I think the accomplishment or the uh adding to the town's ability to try to add affordable housing here um furthers that that public interest uh in a substantial way um and again I think militates in favor of finding hardship and uh granting the variance. Okay. Um, so I I I didn't have any other questions. Anybody have any other questions? It's officially Whipper property because of the little cutout that goes out to Whipple. It's actually sort of flat rock. Really? Yeah. It's 130-1. Yep. No, I just noticed that lot the address. I guess active subdivisions the the uh the two affordable housing lots now they have I think it's 97 Flat Rock Hill Road. Okay. So that those I assume they'll have a Flat Rock Hill Road. I mean they better. Okay. Okay. So this is a continuation of

a long-term town plan where the this the zoning regulations changed midstream but the purpose is being addressed by subsequent reviews and officials and it's in alignment with 10 purposes zoning regulations in terms of and the plan of conservation development in terms of developing where where do you put a affordable housing into that conversation because it it seems to fit in there but I think it's just in terms of I think we just FEMA it's a separate thing I think other it's like it's also in align with the plan of conservation development to improve affordable housing in the townable line. Yeah, that's kind of sounds like the right place. Would you call it conservation and development is again to be in harmony with the town regulations here. This is sort of in harmony with the the overall which is the death. So I think we've got three things. The hardship, the alignment tent and purpose of zoning regulations, and the alignment with the plan of conservation and development. Those are three good reasons. I think I see Silia nodding. Okay. Oh, before we get any further, I also noted there was an application as a request for the board to weigh the application fee due to this being a town for a town land and town purpose. Correct. I think I think it was probably paid, wasn't it? So, it's been it's being asked to wave. You guys have asked to wave it. Okay. So, I guess my question to the board is would I think this is a reasonable request. That's a town property for a town project. Town paying the town. Exactly. Would anybody like to make a motion to wave the variance application fee for case 25-3130-1 Whipple Road? So, Kip and Russ. Kip and Russ. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? None. Abstaining. None. Motion passed unially 5 to 0. So your fee has been waved. Okay. Now let's open up to the public comment. If you have

nothing else to present, we're going to open up for public comment. Okay. Would anybody like to speak in favor of this application? Would anybody like to speak oppose this application? Would anyone like to comment on this application? Okay. With no public comments, thank you very much. You did a very good job and good luck with your project. So now we're going to Would anybody like to make a motion to close the public hearing for case 25-31 130-1 Whipper Road? So moved. That was a kip moved. We're here. Anyone like to second that? Second. Russ. All those in favor? I opposed none abstaining. None. The motion passed nicely 5 to 0. Okay. The public hearing is now closed. As before, only voting members may participate. In this case, that's Steve, Kip, myself, Stephanie, and Russ. No new information introduced after the close of public hearing. Members may be asked the staff or procedural questions, and the board discusses the evidence presented during the public hearing. Potential conditions of approval agreed by the applicant. I don't think we had any at this time. And potential reasons for granting or denying the variances. So, I think we discussed the unus the unusual. This is a very unique situation. I think I think so. It's a uh it's a continuation of a long-term town project where the variance the regulations changed midstream. The however the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations will be fulfilled by subsequent reviews by the subdivision group and town officials. And it's in alignment with the tenant purpose of the it's in sorry it's in alignment with the plan of town plan conservation development to improve affordable housing in old line. Okay. What are you doing there

Stephanie? I got some just remind me I can write it up later. Yeah. Okay. So I think um and uh the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing or voting session. So with that in mind, would anybody like to make a motion to grant the requested variance to section 8.2.1 to allow construction of two new single family dwellings on two conforming RU80 lots located on a deed right that intersects Flat Rock Hill Road per the exhibit map prepared by Thomas E. Medaf P Ls and Richard W. Gates LS and dated February 14th, 2025 and stance by the ZBA chair. Motions that was Russ and Steve Russ and Steve was seconded. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? None. All those abstaining none. The motion pass 5 0. Thank you very much and good luck for your plan. Sorry. So here, no conditions. Yeah. Why is that there? Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's all there. Thank you very much. So the next case is case 25-3C 72 Corino Avenue. request variances to elevate existing dwelling on no uh on conforming R10 lot located in the VE13 AE12 coastal flood zones. A coastal site plan review application was also submitted Thomas and Ashlin Larson applicant. This is a non-conforming structure on a on a conforming R10 lot. Varianes requested are sections 8.86 maximum height 24 ft maximum added on

May 15th was 8.87 87 street setback 25 ft required and 9.3.1 no enlargement of a nonhome restructure unless large portion complies with regulations. Um I just want to say of note I I didn't see anywhere on the zoning table the the building lot coverage. So maybe you'll touch on the lot coverage. Yes, we can we can speak to that. Yeah. Coverage by structure cover lot coverage because you say ground coverage but you don't say structure coverage. Yes, we have we have we have both. Great. Thank you. I like that. Okay. And we we received KGA D recommendations today. Did you receive them? Uh yes, we did. Correct. Yep. Okay. Great. So, we don't need to make that an exhibit because we've already got it in the record. Okay. So, with that in mind, you have the floor. I'm David Noi from 360 Design. With me is Mike Noey. Um Marjorie, the attorney, unfortunately, was able to attend tonight. Um she's in another hearing. So, um, as you stated, this is for 72 Corsino A. Um, we're seeking a variance to elevate the house to meet, um, FEMA regulations. Um, currently we're in a VE13 zone. Um, plus the town's 1 ft, uh, freeboard. Uh, the variances we're seeking is 8.8.6, which is a bridge height um, variance. Uh required is 24, existing is 30 foot7 and we're looking to go to 36 foot 6. Um we're also looking 8. Is that written in your table? Um I have in my notes. Yeah, we got it. I think we have an annotation. I give want to give this first exhibit cuz I I think that was confusing to me. I think we kept getting tables and they didn't have or didn't have the same thing. So that's an updated um Oh, this is new bulk area.

Yeah, that can be an exhibit. Yeah, this is exhibit one then. Thank you. Yeah, we like tables. And that includes the um coverage by structure. Good. Thank you very much. Oh, good. Well, yeah. So, do we have more than one copy of this? cuz we need to Thank you. Do they have one down there? We only brought I'm sorry. That's all. Could you make a couple more? Just Yeah. Thank you so much. Thank you. Cuz we look at or we need one for the file and I need one for us to look at too. Okay. Yeah. They don't have one. They're going to make a few. really good. We take these tables very seriously. So, the most important part. Yes, exactly. So, we appreciate you updating it and giving us copies. Thank you. While we're waiting for copies, you may have just going to look over your shoulder. Yeah. You want me to keep going or you want to wait for this? This only takes a few seconds for him to make copies. I just This way I can get my paper out, too. Yeah, cuz maybe the most recent table we got didn't have as much information. It was confusing too. Sometime one table said that the most recent table we got said they're 10,8 ft versus 10, 538 ft. So there are two parcels. So this small piece here oh is owned by the same owners. So it's

all in the eyes of zoning is okay that was for the calculations that is very helpful explain why the differences we get confused when the numbers change. I think the I think the civil so I forgot to add that to the calcs. Okay. It it is on it is on the actual certified site plan. Yeah. 10538. That's why I was confused because the site plan has that number and then we got this one from the attorney and was like, "What's what?" Okay. All right. And then so the building coverage. Oh, that's You added that. So that's under 25. Yep. Okay. That's with the stairs and everything, the decks, correct? The only really added portion is stairs. Building coverage is 25. Yeah. Thank you, Eric, so much. Thank you, Eric. You guys, did they get some down there? I gave one down to Yeah, we've got enough. Okay, good. Okay. So, everybody has enough here. Yes, I think so. All right. So, did you want to walk through the table first or go through the what? Come back to your whatever you plan to present. I don't want to interrupt you. Sorry. So, our first Yeah. The first one we talked about was ridge height uh variance. that we're asking for from 30T7 to 36'6. Um second was 8.8.7 which was the front yard setback. Um the existing uh house line right now is at 25 ft which meets the setback. Um and the existing stair uh is at 21 ft. So the house will stay in the same location at the 25 ft and the the required variance would be for the new staircase at 16.8 ft. So I guess a question I had about the new staircase that looks like more than just staircase and a landing that looks like a deck.

Yep. So the reason that we had to provide a larger than normal staircase is the location of the door into the house is right here. Um the location of the electrical panel is on the corner of the house right now and required um by the electric company and electric code is that they have to be able to access that via a stair and a landing to access the uh the meter for service. Um and then also again the location of the stair of the driveway um and coming up required us to do kind of the switch back. Yeah, I guess a lot of times when people raise the house, they the entrance come from underneath the house without having to put an external staircase and and it just seems like you can put the electric panel somewhere else then doesn't have to be in the front setback. It to me it's like that's one of my biggest questions is this whole deck and stairway in the front of the house. Okay. Uh, a lot of times people like the stairway is underneath. You walk, you have this, you have a garage doors, you can have a door to the front, then you have stairs going up and you don't have to have this big deck in the front yard. Okay. Um, yeah. I mean, the existing that was partially due to the existing electrical panel being there, the electrical meter. But this is a reconstruction, not a raising of the existing house, isn't it? Uh, no, just a lift. A house lift. Oh, cuz that was my confusion because in the in the variance application says the reconstruction. Oh, it should have to read the meter, but I that's what said in the um that's the that's I think that's Ever Source's requirement. Source comes and reads our meters. It's a car street with a little flashing light. It's all done Bluetooth or something else. So, I'd

understand why that's a consideration here. He's standing on a platform with a meter no higher. So you they want to have access at some point to maintain the meter or do something. Correct. So yeah, part of the D requirements here ensure that the structures elevation, electrical, and AC units meet FEMA's regulations. So they have to be raised up and they have to be accessible via a platform uh by stairs actually. Yeah. So they so having it on a an existing deck wouldn't count. Um, you would need stairs to You would need stairs to the deck. Correct. Not back stairs. Uh, like back here. So, they need to be able to They My understand is they need to be able to come to the house without you home to access that panel. Yeah. Um, okay. We've been running into it quite a bit where we have a panel like on the side of a house, say over here, and we need to run a set of stairs up to just a platform all by itself. Yeah. is kind of I don't know if that's used showing the meter and the stairway and all that. Correct. Oh, here's the application says new construction or reconstruction of principal building. Yes. But you're saying it's lifting. It's just lifting the same structure. Oh, that was confusing cuz at first it was is it a lift or is it construction? Okay. So, so that's limiting your ability to do things. Yes. So, we're literally asking us to take this um non-compliant structure, which is low um and bring it up. Part of the reason we have to bring this up is number one, the 50% rule, cuz the structure underneath is actually having difficulty with all the high water and and flooding is really starting to erode and deteriorate some of the concrete. Ah, they've done they've done work down there to reinforce beams and there's a lot of moisture um getting into the structure underneath. So, part of it is to to

clean this up, get it up, get the air moving underneath it, put in the required flood vents um and meet FEMA requirements for for the 50% regulations. What happens with the garage? the garage. Um, so when we bring the house up, the what was the existing garage here would be infilled with floor system. Um, and then there would be garages underneath the structure. So you're planning to add more living space also, right? Correct. In the garage area, the former garage you want to make into living space, right? And then park underneath now. Yep. Yeah. So, when we bring that structure up essentially, cuz that garage has no floor, right? There would be a big hole. Um, so we're going to fill that hole in with a floor system and and there's an office in there and a couple other things as part of the existing envelope of the building. Mhm. So, it's not expanding. No, no, not the footprint. The living space is expanding. Yes, it was formerly a garage, right? The F stays the same. Okay. Um, yeah. And did you have to go up additional height because you're trying to get a garage underneath or that's the the the parking underneath is just a natural u available space for that because you lifted it the correct height. Yep. So, can you show the elevations? You probably the elevations there. Beam is 13. Um, and then we have the freeboard at 14. And then we have a 16-in beam that has to go underneath the existing floor structure. Okay. And then the just and then the existing floor puts us at I think it's 16.2 16.2 in something like that. Um above because this is VE not AE. So it has to be the you have to has to be a

foot between the base foot elevation and the and the bottom of the floor. The bottom of this the structure structure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. that horizontal member the bottom of the horizontal member has to be at 14 ft. So what is actually 162 uh top of top of the first floor? Yeah. And then this so we have a beam here is the bottom of the beam at 14. Great. We have a 16in structure to tie all these um peers together. Mhm. So they don't rack over. And then that's the existing floor system in here. And that's 13 because of female, one for us as a correct. Yeah. So basically it's the minimum height required. Right. That's what we like to hear. All right. Um and what's the drive-in under height? Is it 8 ft there or what is it total? 10 ft. No underneath. Yeah, that's right. Like those those garage doors there. Um I know it's the minimum. Just curious what that turned out to be. Uh so 5 to 14. So nine it would be nine feet to the underside of beam. Okay. So it's like an eight. Not obnoxiously high. It's what we what's what you're supposed we're supposed you're supposed to be asking for by Yeah. This 14 we can't lower that. Yeah. No, I get that. Yep. Okay. So I guess um some potential conditions of approval based on D comments, structures, elevation, electrical and AC unit to meet all FEMA VE flood zone and local flood management standards. You have no since you designed it that way, you have no problem that being a condition of approval. Yes, absolutely. Yeah. Okay. And ground level storage area to have flood vents and be designed with breakaway walls. Yeah. So we will have flood vents per They're not marked there, but they will be there. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. And then these panels will all be breakaway. We'll have the engineer structure them to break away from the pierce. Okay. In the event. What anchors the whole thing to the ground as it pierce just pierce structures. And there's no imperous concrete as a bottom slab or anything like that. Um or is there there would be a fryable slab. Okay. In the event of flooding that is intended to break up. Yeah. I think it's it ends up just the engineer designs that for us, but it ends up being I think a 3-in slab. Okay. With no rebar in it and you know and that would be that's better for the for the property because uh compared to like cut to gravel gravel. Yeah. Um well it protects some of the moisture from coming up you know just from the moisture from the ground with all the structure. Um is there any way to I'm sorry you finished that conversation. I mean, I was thinking No, no, that's good. I was just trying to get the lay of the land what we're getting there. I mean, we are aiming for safety target. It's a FEMA title for what what we're going to be talking about a lot of ways. So, I want to make sure that this is a genuine improvement in every way it can be. Correct. And a question I had is um there's a lot of you're it looks like you're making and you you had before one driveway to one garage. Now you're having a wider driveway to three garages. Is that all impervious surface? Yes, we did add to the impervious surface. We are still below the 30%, we're at 25.4, Mike. Um, ground coverage 25.2. So, we went from 20.7 to 25.2 and that was part of enlarging that driveway as impervious. Yeah. I just want to clarify, make sure we're all on the same page about calculations. Maximum floor area ratio, you said it's

21.4, but looking at the assessor's card, it looks like it's 25 cuz it's 1176 on the second floor, 1178 on the first floor, and 432 of the garage, which is 26.86, which if you divide by 1050, 538 is 25.5. So, I'm wondering are we when you're saying you're under the coverage, are we all the same on the calculations? Yeah. When we when we go out and measure the house, we calculate all this, we we often find they aren't correct with the assessor's card. Assessor's card. Okay. So, the card was overestimating. Yeah. Okay. But you're confirming though that is the numbers. Yeah. On the F. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. We measure the whole house down to half an inch and then we perimeter it to the outside of the siding. And in this case, the second story is wider than the first story. Correct. So you took that into account as well. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And that this overhang here. Yeah. Okay. I guess there's no real way to make that front deck step smaller that you could think of. I mean, we did spend time with the client trying to find other ways because, you know, we didn't want to come closer to the road. Yeah. And and it's it just looks like a deck in the front yard. You're not supposed to have a deck in the front yard. How wide is it? It's 8 by 15 at the top here. And then this this is like a walkway over to the front door. That just seems like a lot. Is it? And it's connected to the other deck. This is here. Yeah. Yeah, it does come around the corner. Okay. So, it's like a wrap around. Yeah, this part, this is existing here on the um on the east side, south side that's existing and then there's an existing

covered an existing set of stairs along the front here. So, what we've added is this section and then the portion in front of the uh in front of the electrical panel. Just to clarify, this is actually existing on the second story, but we're stacked. Yeah. So, it's not any new coverage by structure, but this first floor deck is new. And the spiral staircase goes into a cutout in the roof, correct? Which wasn't there before, but you're putting it there. That's why I thought it was a reconstruction. What we did is actually remove a portion of the roof. That's what I saw. Um, and then it's not accessible from the interior. Yeah, cuz the attic actually is below 6 ft. Yeah. So, the only way we could get up there was on an existing deck that had a spiral staircase. Okay. Would they consider making the driveway per We could ask. Oh, thank you. Um, would you guys consider My question to you would be You have to come up front. Yeah. And introduce one of my questions to you. Wait, wait, wait. you you had to say who you are and Thomas Larson 72 Christina um so one of my questions for you would be is it's under the allowable ratio um you know and we would like a a safe driveway you know what I mean we get a lot we get a lot of water down there we get a ton of flooding in that neighborhood and you put in gravel it's just unfortunately probably going to wash out well pavers pavers Wow. And it also adds to the expense of it. I think the thing is I I I guess my question would be what what what would be the benefit to you guys of that is my question. Well, it's to the environment just to have the water I mean it's you're in a lowlying area. That's true. and that the better the more water can

just drain into the ground the better for floodings in the rest of your yard and the road you know it would be down to the road I would prefer not to so if it becomes a condition of approval or or it becomes an issue I don't believe we're asking for a variance for it at this point yeah I mean it's a 10,000t lot and you know and any of his runoff that would come from mostly the flooding events there. I mean, it's standing water all the damn whether there's a when we have flooding, we get we get 4 ft of water in our basement right now. Wow. I mean, I could show you pictures and you're right next to that little stream. Yeah. You know what I mean? So, we're just trying to do the best we can with what we got. We would hope that's storm water run. And we did and we did um in somewhere in the calculation there is storm water runoff and the difference in with that and it was very negliged if you decrease permeability it increases flow downstream faster and gives lots of people problems downstream. You're in the puddle at we're at the bottom of you're in the puddle at the bottom. It really doesn't have the same impact. That would be my So they if you look in somewhere in the I think in the um site plan there was a there was a calculation done um for the storm water. Oh the storm water runoff and and what the change would be and it would be very negligible. Okay. I think the thing is since go ahead uh for a 100redyear storm um preconstruction was 2.51 CFS post construction was 2.46 CFF with a delta of.13 CFS pre and post construction. So like with the driveway the way it is and with the driveway the way it would be correct

on the side of the lot. Um and right now it's paved. Yes. Yeah. This portion is paved here. So, we'd be adding this portion here. I think this is pretty much a standard lift minimum to accomplish that. You I and you're within your zoning regulations. Not like you're asking for more. We're not trying to trade off for something, right? Yeah. It matters by the way 813 of your eggs. It says that when you're calculating and measuring total ground coverage for a residential use off streetet parking driveway area is not counted towards Yeah, I know. Yeah. So, yeah, this is this is they're within cover. they're within range, but it was just we always ask I understand for environmental reasons if you can do make it more impervious, but I think you've it's not like we're trading off for something. It's not like you're wanting something more and you're giving up something. You have the right to cover that much. Yeah, I do think Tom makes a good point. I mean, even if we did a paver, you know, I think that's going to eventually wash away when you put the sand in between the pavers. I would think with the amount of water they get, yeah, these be refixing those pavers all the time, resetting them, rebedding them. Um, unfortunately, I think they're designed to be underwater, right? Right. And when you're down at that bottom puddle at the waterhed, the only thing you can do to save anything in your property is lift some of it up a little bit so it's not underwater. I would think you biggest concern is erosion. You know, movement of the water that can destroy whatever you got there. So that concrete would be more durable. Correct. Y Yeah. I mean, we're at elevation 4.5 here. 5.4. Wow. So, I mean, if you guys want to see what our basement looks like uh when it

floods, this is what we currently have now. Ouch. Yeah. Do we need to make that as an exhibit? We do. Now that you've showed it to us, you have to email us. You're a resident of the town surviving that episode. health and safety consequences in this health and safety issues. So Tom, you can speak. So the foundation laws are actually settling. Yeah. So our our foundation is is currently cracking. I mean this is this is what our house looks like in in a fairly normal flooding. Okay. So now we have two more exhibits. So that's great. No, I'm just saying. But you need to email them to the town to Eric or Craig. And we're going to label them exhibits two and three photographs of flooding inside and outside the house. Those would be relevant to our considerations, I think, in most people sitting here. I mean, it just shows what what you see what we're going through and why it would be nice to not have our driveway wash out as well. All right. Um, does anyone else have any more questions? Um, I actually just have a quick question for you. Um, so the sort of ponds that's in front of your house, does that raise any issues with like in the wetlands or anything like that? Uh, no. So, we're not actually in the inland wetlands uh jurisdiction. And we're referring to the one in the rear of the house. Correct. It's the rear of the house. The rear of the house. Yeah. It's a remnant from swamp. Yeah, it's not um not technically wet. It doesn't it doesn't show on our wetlands anymore. It at some point we'll try and come up on again, but as of right now, it's not it doesn't officially recognize as being a pond. Good question though. Good question. But we will we will be providing erosion control during construction to keep sediment out of out of those ponds.

So I think so that gets back to uh the conditions of approvals basically just the two of the ones from the D that we mentioned. Ensure the structure elevation electrical and AC unit meet the FEMA FD13 zone and local flood measurements. Ensure ground level storage area is has flood vents and is designed with breakaway walls. Those are both agreed to. Yep. Okay. And the do we have to say anything about the um erosion controls in construction? Do we need to say anything? To have it in there just that you're I don't know if it's standard, you know, and it'll be part of the the site plan. I think it was part of the coastal area management uh application that we submitted, right? And it's it's marked on the map, but we can we can add that, too. I I thought since it was already on the map, but we can add all three of them on. You're okay with adding it that third one? Okay. All right. Um, you answered my questions. So, this is a lift, not a reconstruction. And it's You can't really make that front deck smaller because it's not really a deck, but it is a landing and an access to the electrical because you can't move it because that's where it is. Correct. Okay. All right. And uh, did anybody else have any questions before I open up the public comments? All right. Thank you very much. Did you have anything else you wanted to mention or I think we're all set. Yeah, we're going to go to public comments now. Yeah. Anyone like to speak in favor of this application? Would you please come up and say your name and address? John, make sure you come come close enough. John Schwarz, 68 Corsino Avenue. I'm his next door neighborh and I went through this whole thing with Sandy and had to raise my house up, add 6 ft to

the foundation, move my electrical surface from one side of the house to the other where there were some existing stairs in our design. So, I'm very familiar of everything that he's going through. And I think the only part of his that's ve is that whole marsh area off to the side. It's not where the house is. the house is still AE like mine is. Well, I think that from the map of the survey, the deck is in the in the in the um VE zone and if any part of the structure is in the VE zone, the entire structure has to be V zone upgraded. Oh, I didn't Okay, I'm sorry. I read the map wrong. No, no, no, no. It's it's a good question. It's a good question. But I do support him because I went through the whole thing myself. Well, thank you very much. That's a good point. Anyone else like to speak in favor of this application? Please come up and when you come up, wait, come all the way up before you say your name and address so we can get on the recording. Josh Hazelwood, 65 Corsino Avenue. We're a neighbor. We look out over the to the front of their house. Uhhuh. And uh I like Schwarzes live in a house that was lifted. I didn't do the lifting. We bought the house after it was lifted in 17. And it's an absolute necessity to keep the neighborhood viable. And there's no place for the water to go. Yes. Impervious. Impervious doesn't matter. It's not going down. It's going sideways. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. I appreciate it. We all appreciate it. Would any of us like to speak in favor of this application? My name is Gary 19. Could you speak a little more clearly? My name is Gary Tufano on 195th Avenue. I'm actually the backyard of Tom in Ashland. So I can attest that there is a serious water condition problem there and uh lived

through many storms and floods and I think it's a necessity that he should have his house raised to prevent any foregoing problems. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We always like when neighbors come and talk. Any else like to speak in favor of this application? Would anybody like to speak to oppose this application? Would anybody like just a comment on this application? Okay, with that, thank you very much. If you have anything else to add, I think we're all set. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, with that, would anybody like to make a motion to close the public hearing for case 25-3C 72 Corsino Avenue? So moved. Steve. All those in favor? I opposed. None. Obstaining. None. The motion passively 5 to 0 to zero. Okay. Same rules apply after the close of the public hearing. Only voting members may participate. No new information be introduced and we can ask staff and ZBA attorney procedural questions and discussing the evidence presented during the public hearing and potential potential conditions of approval agreed by the applicant and potential reasons for granting or denying the variance. So I think the unjul hardship is as we've just said before legally an alternative to hard an alternative to legal hardship is the minimum required to become FEMA compliant. That's this case to a T. There's no proposed reductions in legal pre-existing non-conformity. Uh it is the minimum to address the hardship. That's they shown that with their elevations. Um excuse me. All right. The agreed conditions of approval were the three recommendations

provided by the Connecticut D in their comments to the coastal site review application which is you don't have to write these down cuz I haven't done okay ensure installation maintenance of appropriate erosion sediment control measures during and the plan period ensure that the structures elevation electrical and AC unit meet FEMA FE13 zone and local flood management standards and three ensure ground level storage area has flood vents and it's designed to with breakaway walls and those were all agreed by the applicant. Um and then the other we had support from three neighbors. That's nice. We had the images of the flood house. Excuse me. Images of the flooded house. Yeah. Yeah. We we'll put that exhibits in the minutes. But okay. Um uh and it's in harmony with the intent purposes zing regulations because it improves health and safety. Okay. Does anybody else have anything else to add? Oh, and then the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing or voting session. Anybody else have anything else to add to those reasons? Everyone's agreement. Okay. With that in mind, would I would like to make a motion to grant with conditions the requested variance of section I just wanted to clarify. So it's 8.86 8.87. Did I I'm making sure I got this table doesn't have the numbers. I want to make sure I got it right. Oh 8.86. Yes. Yes, it is right. 8.86. Thank you, Kip. 8.87. 87 and 9.31 to allow to allow elevation, not reconstruction of a non-conforming

dwelling on a conforming R10 lot located in the BE13 AE12 coastal flood zones to become VE13 FEMA compliant for the site plans prepared by RCL Thompson LLC and dated April 3rd, 2025 and the floor plans and elevations prepared by 360 Design Plus LLC. and dated March 20th, 2025 in Stanford Simon DBA chair. The conditions are I'll do them again. Ensure installation, maintenance of appropriate erosion and sedation control, sedation, sediment control measures during the planned period. Excuse me. Ensure that the structures elevation electrical and AC unit meet FEMA FE13 zone and local flood management standards and ensure ground level storage garage area has flood bands and is designed with breakaway walls. And the coastal site plan review application is approved because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and does include all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts on both coastal resources and future dependent uses. Would anybody like to make that motion? Steve I I think I heard Russ got it in Steve and second in by Russ. Okay, I heard Russ first. Okay, sorry. No matter the speed of sound. Yeah. Okay. Second. Okay. Okay. Um all those in favor? I. All those opposed? None. Obstaining none. The motion pass 5 to 0. Thank you very much and good luck with your elevated home and thank you for the updated table. We love this. All right.

All right. So, let me just put this paperwork away and I'll get it set up in a second. Okay, moving on. The just remind everybody case 25-5307 Swan Avenue has the applicant has requested writing the opening of this public hearing be delayed until the June 18th CBA meeting. So that's fun. Then we're moving on to case 25-6 uh 36 Homestead Circle. Could somebody ask them to be quiet, please, or close the door? Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, there's part of the noise. Yeah, really. Okay, no problem. Okay. Request after the fact variances for completed dormer that exceeded parameters approved by approved in previously granted variance. Applicants seek new variances to address this discrepancy. Judith Cassain and Kevin Dryer applicants. There's a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming R20 lot. The variances requested are to sections 8.89 minimum site setback 20 required. I think you it was requested was 9.1.3 I think it mean 9.3.1 we always go through this no enlargement of nonstruct large portion complies with regulations okay yeah okay sure uh and the zo has stated that there are some additional var required um you memo 4.3.1 and 410.3 closer than 100 ft to the coastal jurisdiction line mean high tide line and 8.810 8.10 maximum floor area and I think in the original variance you also had a variance to 4.2.12. No, that one ft of a a title wand. So, do you agree to major

application also request these variances? Um, with the exception of floor area because the dormer does not add floor. It's not a 12t ceiling height. So, there's no increase in floor. It doesn't increase. It's not one floor. It's there's no second floor. There's no increase. But it's bigger. But it's not floor area. Okay. So adding the dormer did not include increase floor. It's like what you have here just vaulted ceiling. Okay. Less than 12 ft. Okay. Oh. Yes. Thank you. The um that that little area where I put the dots. Okay. Yeah. I'll go I'll go through that and then we'll introduce the others uh as well. So that was floor area before and so adding a dormer didn't increase floor area in that part of the house. That's just a kitchen with a with a a dormer. So it raised the ceiling one floor. Um I'm saying compared to what was there originally? So there was no dormer there originally. We came in October 23 and got approved the dormer. Yes. Um that you see there now in that photograph and the other ones that we provided in the application. Oh, I see what you're saying. Cuz that was floor area already. It's doesn't change the floor area. Doesn't change the floor area. No, it's just raising the ceiling. It's always doing that. Okay. Is Eric okay with that? If if it exceeded 12t in height, though, the way old line defines it, we have to count that twice, but it doesn't exceed 12. So, you're okay with 4.3.1, 4.10.3, and 4.2.12. Yeah, th those are fine. Um, okay. We did talk about those initially. This is going to be exhibit one. Sorry. So, since we weren't getting closer to the title, um the initial discussion was to not have to include those, but those are fine to add. We are adding some square footage. Um as you know, this entire lot.

Um so, actually, that's is that a different picture than it's already in there? Yeah, it is because it's marked different and it's marked with the area that's different. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, so this is 36 Homestead Circle. Uh, Judy Cassin, Kevin Dyer, the owners are with us here and they also brought along their builder who constructed the addition that just handed you that that photograph. So, he will uh get into some details about the construction uh that occurred. Um, we discovered this. Eric asked for an asbelt. uh he asked me or my office to go out and check the improvements to make sure they were consistent with the original approval. Uh unfortunately, we discovered that one discrepancy, but at the same time, we also discovered that the deck that was rebuilt was 12 ft less than what was approved. So, we have 12 ft less structure coverage. The 19 square ft that's added for that dormer, the 1.6 ft on that side. Yeah, in green on this plan is 19 ft, but it doesn't add coverage because it's over the house already. It's on top of the roof. So, we're actually a redu slight reduction uh within that title area uh in overall coverage on the plan is actually been reduced because everything was just made a little bit smaller uh on that side. So, that that was one betterment. Um, but we did or the original dormer was supposed to not violate that north sideyard setback and since it was made 1.6 ft larger in that direction, it now violates that setback by one and a half one and 1/2 ft. Um, the the river is over here. The next door neighbor who would be the most

impacted residential neighbor can't see it uh from there. I did provide a photo there from the neighbor's perspective. We also have a letter from him which I'll read it into the record. But we did provide some photographs. Is that what this one is? Oh, view of So on the second page of photographs, we show the house at number 34 Homestead. Yeah. And then we just turn right around and we took a picture looking to the south. They're saying you can't see number 36. And this is the deck. Yeah. The idea is you can't over that little peak in the back you from you just can't visually and you have a letter saying that they're okay with it. Yeah, I have a letter which I'll I'll just read last and give you a copy of and that's from that particular neighbor there. Okay. Did you say the address just for the record? Yeah. Well, if you want I'll just read in. Yeah, that'd be easier. Now we can make an exhibit. Sure. So, this is a letter of support from a neighbor to the north. Um, I live next door to 36 Homestead Circle. I have no objection to the oversized dormer that was constructed. It is not visible from my house and has no impact on me. The changes that the owners have made have improved the neighborhood. Uh, and it's signed by uh David Scanland and Relle Scanland of 34 Homestead Circle. Okay, great. Um, oh, this this one says a witness by So 33. There was a neighbor that witnessed that. Okay. Okay, we're not that legal. But it's soft original sign. All right. This is going to be exhibit two. There's no doubt that that's from the name. We don't usually see them, but yeah, you're very diligent. Okay. You put this with the file. So, you know, obviously the hardship is the same as before. This this property

is small. It's 100% impacted by all the title uh all the title setbacks as you read into the record before. Um anything that's done on this property requires a variance at least of those title setbacks. Since that little green area there 1.6 by 15ish um was just constructed over that line. That's why we have to come back because we we violated that setback line on the north side. So that's really the only dimensional variance we're asking. We're not the drummer did not get any closer to any of the title setbacks. Actually, the deck got a little tiny bit further away uh with that reduction. Um so without further ado, I know that Judy wants to say a few words about the construction here and then the contractor Eric's request explain the constructibility and and why it grew a little bit in that direction. That would be helpful. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Anyone comes up, just speak your name for the record. I'm Judy Cassain, 36 Homestead Circle. Speak up. Sorry. I'm Judy Cassain of 36 Homestead Circle. I'm Kevin Dyer of 36 Homestead Circle. Thank you. Um, so we um we were shocked and surprised and um distressed by this. Um, we wanted just to um, I don't know, self- advocate for the kind of people we are. We um, Kevin can tell you specifics, but we've tried to improve the property before we did anything to the house. We've invested, you know, a year's worth of um, planning by Joe and uh, great expense to for the septic system. Um, that was failing. Um, it wasn't affecting our house yet, but it was polluting. So we did that by choice which then required us to put in

a new well. Um Kevin, you want to talk about the um asbestous? We uh remediated the asbestous that was in the uh attic. Um it was the granular asbestous. So we had that removed and uh we also uh on the advice of the coastal commission we put in our riparian buffer starting that which was a requirement of We love that. Thank you. First attempt. We'll see. And we removed the asphalt driveway in preparation for we haven't started any yet, but we'll put either gravel or some other permeable surface there when when we are able to spend the time to do that. Mhm. So, we're, you know, we've our home is in Glastonbury, too, and we we consider ourselves stewards of the environment. We're into bees and and all that. And so, we we we're trying to do the same thing for the for the property that we're trying to improve here. And also we both wanted to say that, you know, we we really highly respect our neighbors and they've been wonderful and uh we have very good relationships with them and we wouldn't dream of doing anything to um damage that relationship. Thank you very much. It sounds like you're really conscientious so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Now, I want to hear from the contractor. Explain this. What happened? Tell us what happened. Okay. Uh I have I I'll tell 35 years I have never built on a home where the building line ran right through the center of the home. That being said, I did measure and I think my error was um I'll present this. There's the where the old chimney was. You can see the hole in the roof. Yep. And I measured to the chimney. It was 20 ft. I said, "Oh, we're all set." And then if you see that um where the structure point is, I just write exhibit three on here. Okay. This is um a microlam here and it goes straight down to this central wall and then the

central wall is exactly where I put the dormer over. I just assumed and it was my error there cuz there's not I thought the chimney was right in line with that wall and it turned out it wasn't. So I did not intend to make that error. Although that had I known this was the situation, I think we would have asked for that 18-in variance at the beginning because structurally that's the way it had I mean it's that goes from the the beam on the roof straight down to the central wall straight down to a basement wall down to the foundation structurally. Structurally that's the way kind of had to be built. It didn't have to be built that way obviously, but it was it lent itself to the best way to do it that we would have asked for a variance for that 18 in. Would would you say that it made it safer and stronger? Yes. Okay. That's what we like. Massively uh stronger and well, I mean, it would it puts the load not on in the middle of the in the middle of a beam, but on top of a wall, and that's always that's always the way to go. And you can see we put the big micro lamps up top, the 14 in. So there was some load there. It was an inadvertent error in constructing what you thought was the safest, strongest approach. Yes. And and when I measured I measured to the chimney and if you can see the chimney and that wall aren't exactly lined up. And I thought I was fine. You know, I didn't you know when you're building and the building line goes right through the house, you're you know, who puts any thought around that? Yeah. So was the chimney removed just Yes. There's no chimney anymore. It's um it's heated with a heat pump, so no chimney required. And the chimney was massive and it went right in the middle of the house. I mean, it was like it took up I would say probably a quarter of the floor space. Oh, okay. So, it went and uh and what Joe is saying is that even though it's slightly larger, it's there's an actual decrease in the coverage on the property

because the deck is a little bit smaller. Um the the the way the deck was originally, the the staircase was out at the end of the deck and it was a big 4x4 platform. Yeah. And I put the stairs further away from the the line in into the house a little bit and so the stairs went down further away from Okay. So that was a So compared to what you had been granted, it actually you'd advertise it as a net positive. It's actually a little less impact on the property than what you were originally granted. It is absolutely environmentally so and so it's better environmentally. Environmentally it is much better safety it's much better and also the impact the neighbors is not detectable. I mean if you that's the reason for setbacks. The the the I mean the design was brilliant. I loved it. You know like when you stand in the house now you get to see the river. It's beautiful. But um my er my error was not paying close enough attention to the property line. Yeah. And even if I did, then I would have gone back to him and I would said, I wonder if we could modification for the variance because it's just so much stronger to do it that way. Okay. Are there any fines, Eric? Any fines for um not building as No, from a building code standpoint, it doesn't really matter to him. So, he signed off on it fine. He's all building code. From a zoning perspective, it I couldn't even give a seal on it because it didn't meet the um the variance that was granted by. But if you amen the variance, if you read new variants, at that point we're sort of back in business again. If you don't read the variance, then they don't. And that's where we are. But I haven't started any enforcement action. Again, the first thing I did was say, Joe, give me an asp. They came to you with a problem. are trying to remedy these situations best they can if you don't grant the

variance and figure out where to go from here. But at the moment there's no there's no penalty beyond the fact they have to hire Jock. But congratulations to you for being so conscientious and and accurate and fidious in your application of what got built compared to what was granted. Whenever I grant the zoning permit for a application that has a variance on the building permit side, it comes to me with a zoning approval. I always write right into it because there's a variance here. You will have to give me an asbuilt. So when we get to the end, I go back, I look, I say as will be required per my original approval. I got one. Joe was candid enough to say, well, looks like we don't make it and that's why we're here tonight. which coincidentally is one of the reasons why I wouldn't have tried to cheat. Yeah. So, because I knew that survey was come. So, thank you so much. Um and then also pictures. No, I'm not. These are just pictures. Um I turn 60 tomorrow, so I'd like that in the record. Happy birthday. We'll try and get you out here before midnight. So let me got a lot of different operations. Well while if no one has any question I have to open up to public comment. Would anybody like to speak in favor of this application? Any like to speak oppose this application like just comment on this application? No. No public comments. All right. Um does anybody else have any more questions for the applicant or the contractor Joe Ren for uh before we go close the public hearing? Yes. Just one last thing. Yes. So, um, when I first went out there, took pictures, I saw it. To me, you can't even tell that there's a difference at all until I physically measured and I had to measure and rememeasure and reme-measure. And that's when I determined there was an 18 inch difference in that in that direction.

You just you can't really tell. You can't see the difference. It's so Yeah. And it's very inadvertent and it it's it's if anything it's a lesser impact on the environment because of the the move moving the staircase reduction of the deck and so it's kind of the actual deck too was we noticed was about a couple inches different not as wide as it was originally. So okay well thank you very much. So if no further do would anybody like to make a motion to close the public hearing for Kate? Can I just ask a question? Yeah. Go ahead. Yes. So there's there's a primarily lawyerly distinction between a modification of a variance and and a new variance just for ease of conversation record and so forth. I would like to confirm with the property owners that they are intending to abandon the ability to increase the deck to what the current variance says. Oh yeah, we're done. That should that should be a condition maybe. No, no, no, no. Just he's just putting on the record. This is just a representation that by pursuit of this they are abandoning whatever the original footages granted, right? They're abandoning it. You're not conditioning. They're doing it willfully and intentionally. Um, yeah, that's No, no, no, no, but and I think we we'd capture because in the reasons we're going to say it's environmentally improved because of the deck is reduced by 12 square feet or whatever it is. I mean, but what about the next homeowners? They sell the house. The next homeowners come in. Nobody's going to look at the minutes to our meeting. But you're going to put in here that this basically supersedes and replaces the earlier variance. So that the earlier variance is deemed void. Okay. Okay. So that when they look at the new variants on the land records, it's going to say right on it. This again supersedes and replaces the

previous variance of whatever the volume item page is and we're going to take care of it that way. Okay. Good. Is that what you're The only clarification I have on that is the original application did have variances for the deck where this application does not have variances for the deck because we're less. So, I don't want to abandon what we got before because we did get variances for the deck. We're not asking for new ones because we're less. So, yes, we're abandoning that extra couple of inches, right? And we're not going to enlarge that. Yeah. Um, so as long as that can be clarified in the record, we want them to be able to keep the deck that's there that's smaller than the So, I guess since I'm not sure the subtleties of the legality of amendment versus modification, what are we doing? So, I think there's a new variance for that northern sideyard setback, but then there's an amendment of the variance for the debt, prank. Does that make sense? Sure, you could do it that way. Um, well, let's listen to Well, so if if we didn't have the new variance, I would say that this is just a modification because it's probably not material in all of the reasons that you already have. Because we have the new variance is why I'm probably more inclined to say that this is a new variance. Um I I think you can and I think um Eric's memo I think does a good job of sort of articulating what the difference is. So I think you can just say that the u the property owners have um have articulated their intent to abandon any additional square footage between the original variance and what's on this particular site plan because I think Joe did a good job of actually showing where the difference is on the site plan. Okay. and presume. Am I correct with that, Eric? So that means so, so the motion. So let's just while we're all talking and that all is open up, let's talk about what would the motion would sound like because usually

I have a certain standard way to do the motions and we're we're going something different now. So I say so the motion would be made to grant the requested variances. So then we said it was 4.2 2.12 4.2.3 410.3 8.8.9 not 8.810 and 9.3.1. Those are the variances that we're requesting now to address the completed dormer that exceeded parameters approved by previously granted variance per the site plans prepared by Indigo Land Design and dated March 21 31st 2025 and sanified by the CBA chair. And then we would say this supersedes or the prior variance uh granted in 2015. No, not 2015. No, what was 2023? 2023. What? 23. Would it be super the site plan supersedes? I don't think the variance supersedes because this is only a variance for that piece. Oh, so we're only granting a variance for that piece. Yes. And one of the reasons that you're granting a variance for that piece is because they've articulated their intention to abandon the additional portion of the debt that they would otherwise be entitled to. You don't have to use all those words, but okay. Cuz then I'm clarified cuz 4.2.12 since you can't expand a structure within 20 50 ft of the Twilights, but they have expanded it. So we'd still need 12.2 4.2 2.12 and the same for 4.2.4.3.2 4.10.3 we're adding 8.8.9 and then we need 9.3.1 because you're expanding a non-conforming structure. That's why I thought it might

be easier to say we're granting these variances per this site plan and it supersedes the one from before. Um, so the the the the reason I the distinction between modification and new variance is essentially whether or not you need to prove hardship. Okay. So in this case, you have a reduction that could justify yes the the the new the new uh right square. We're square there. Um and is the size of the deck just constrained by the current asbuilt plan anyway at that point? Oh, ultimately it will. Yeah. I mean, when we say as per plan submitted, you've now got the truncated deck as part of the plan. So, you're frozen there. Well, if the previous variance is not modified or amended, however, superseded, they theoretically could bump that back out because it remains on the land records between these variance. So I think you want to make clear that your reasons for granting this variance are the deck and therefore that is rec yeah abandonment of that part of the variance. they will no longer be able to to use that portion of the original variance cuz cuz we always in our var in our record of uh decision is we say the reasons and this time the reason would be uh to off the offset by the reduction of the the deck size of the deck size of the deck abandoned I thought the word abandoned it's the same functional thing that they're voluntarily choosing to do that them saying that they're have no intention of going back to the original variance, right? Because the the deck was a variance. Yep. To get the deck. So therefore, we're just so

they're reducing the size of the deck to offset and make a net reduction in nonconformity for the increase in the dormer. Can you simplify it by saying the variances granted for the deck in October 23 are replaced by this cycle as it pertains to the deck? That's what so yes, we do that. I would just appreciate that that that is the alternative to hardship, right? Because if you're doing that, I just want to articulate hardship on the record as if as opposed to if you were just doing a modification. In theory, you don't need to articulate hardship. So that's I'm just trying to put all the pieces in here. Okay. Okay. So if I'm understanding this correctly, let me say we have a a legal alternative hardship, which is a reduction in nonconformity to to offset the increase in dormer size, right? which is a net reduction in nonconformity. Yes. And then the deck size and that's for and then but okay and then and then the the minimum no conditions it's in harmony the 10 purposes zoning regulation because it improves the uh environmental impact on the property. Right. I like the safety angle that you added into your part of the discussion. But listen, it's a safer property. It's an improvement because it's an improvement because it's it's safer and more structurally sound. Okay. And then and it's supported by the neighbor. That's the other. and the evidence presented during the p public hearing. So, we're still in the public hearing. I know. I know, but I'm just I'm just I'm just I'm just making sure we're all on the same page for the reasons before we close the public

hearing. Okay. And the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing voting session. So, we have the hardship, we have align with 10 purposes on regulations and we have other which is support the neighbors and we have two reasons for the intent purposes on regulations. to two reasons it's in harmony regulations is because it reduces the environmental impact on the property because of the smaller deck and it's results in a safer and more structurally sound structure. Yeah. Okay. And then based on that then we would make a motion that lists all variances. You want to repeat your language? Sure. Variances granted in October 2023 related specifically to the deck are replaced by this latest site plan this application. So am I saying that in addition to what I have here or in replacement of so okay so okay so that so the motion so the to grant with condition to grant requested variances to section 4.2.12 4.3.2 4.2 2 10.3 8.8.9 8.9 and 9.1.3 9.3.1 sorry to address completed dormer that exceeds parameters approved and previously granted variance for the site plans prepared by Indigo land design dated March 20 31st 2025 and stand by the chair and the site plan for the previously granted variance is replaced is replaced the pre the previously granted variance for the deck is replaced by this plan, this application I would say probably the plan is part of the application. So the requested variance that I would just

okay you you probably just for clarity want to reference the number of the previous variance which is 23-13 C. Okay. Okay. So we have to help to Stephanie here. So the first part is all the same, but we're just adding the part about the the variances granted for the deck in application 23-13C and being replaced by the variances outlined in this site plan when the application in the applica site plan this application application. Okay. We we don't usually have to do this. So that's why we're learning with you along how we do this. We appreciate it all. It's very clear. It makes sense. All right. So, while we're still in the public hearing, is everyone on the same page now? Okay. Based on that, would anyone like to make a motion to close the public hearing for case whatever the heck this number is? 256. Okay. 256. 36 Homestead Circle. So moved. Kip. Second. Russ. All those in favor? I abstaining none. Uh opposed. None. Obstaining none. Motion passes nicely 5 to 0 to zero. Same rules after closing public hearing as all the other cases. I need to repeat that again. So the board has discussed the evidence presented during the public hearing and potential conditions of approval agreed by the applicant. There are none and the potential reasons for granting the variance is required to make a motion. The unusual hardship is the legal alternative to unusual hardship is the uh reduction of a

nonconformity that offsets the proposed increase in non-conformity resulting in a net reduction in non-conformity. Whatever you have there, I suppose in that one. Okay. It's in harmony with the intent purposes zoning regulation because it reduces the environmental impact on the property and it reses results in a safer and more structurally sound structure. It's also supported by the neighbor and the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing and voting session. Everyone's on the same page and agrees with those. Okay. Yay. Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion to grant the requested variances section 4.2.12, 4.3.2, 4.10.3, 8.8.9, 9.3.1 to address completed norm that exceeded parameters approved in previously granted variance for for the site plans prepared by individual land design date March 20 31, 2025 and stands with stand by the ZBA chair. The grances for the deck granted in application 23-13C are being replaced by the variances granted or by this are replaced by this application. So move. Okay. Russ second. Steve. All those in favor? I oppose none abstaining. None. The motion passed as 5 to 0 to zero. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck with your house. I know it was. We have to do everything legally so that you're nothing can happen to you, too. So, this is great. All right. Thank you so much. Give my card to your friends. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, they knew we'd need you for that one. That was We've never had that

one before, so that was a good learning experience. All right. I don't think he does. I don't think you need to stay any longer. Stay uh you can take off now. We got the regular meeting. Okay. Really quickly, really quickly. Um no old business. The new business is we have one new application we need to receive and set the uh hearing public hearing for. I can't turn this page. Okay. Case 25-7 C7 Champion Road request variances to reconstruct a non-commicing structure in an existing location on a non-coming R10 lot in the VE14 coastal high hazard flood zone to comply with current FEMA regulations. A coastal site plan review applications also submitted. So that was I think we need received that and we scheduled that for the June meeting. Okay. And uh I think that's so we have two swan yeah 307 swan. Okay. Then just a reminder to everybody the next month's meeting is on a Wednesday. Is everybody going to make it? I know Russ, you can't make because your anniversary. Yes. The what? It's It's Wednesday, June 18th. Cuz the Junth is a Thursday, which is a holiday. I'll get back to you about it. I might not be able to make it. Okay. So, this is important because we got to make sure we get enough alternate. I can make it. Okay. But I'm going to be like coming from uh Lfield. Okay. And so I'll just be here at 6:30. That's But we if we know you're coming that we know you're always here. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I'm coming. Brian, does that work for you? As far as I know. Okay, Steve, that works for you. Yeah, I hope so. Well, okay. Because if we already know Russ isn't going to be there and if we want to make sure that who's not Russ Russ and Michaela said she's not sure she I'm not sure. Okay,

but she's an ultimate. Okay, anybody once you know let me know cuz I need to make sure we have five people. Sorry. Okay, look. No, I don't have anything on my calendar, but I am so bad with getting used to digital calendars. Okay. What I'll do is I'll send a a reminder out like a week ahead of time just to remind people it's Wednesday and to confirm you for coming so we have enough people to make it. So that would be good. Okay. That was it. Uh anyone have any comments the meeting minutes for April 1725? No. Would anybody like to make a motion to approve the minutes for April 17th 2025? I'll move on. Oh, you were That's why you were seated last week. So, Michaela. Oh, wait. I'm not seated today, though. Oh, yeah. No, I was I was. Yeah, you were seated for I think for the five people who were here, let them vote. What do you think? Well, she was seated for those minute seated. That's what I think is the five people that were here last time. If they're still here, we can I can't. So, who seconded that? Maybe Stephanie. I haven't said anything yet. Okay, Stephanie. I do second. Second. Okay. All those in favor of the five people who were here last time. I I oppose. None abstaining. None. The motion passes unan 5 to 0. Would I like to make a motion to Anybody have anything that I want to add before I ask for a motion to adjourn the meeting? Okay. Anyone like to make a motion to journ the meeting? Yeah, me. Stephanie. Stephanie. And would I hear Steve? Yes. Steve. Okay. All those in favor? I oppose. None abstaining. None. Motion pass 0. And we are closing the session at 8:50. Amazed.