Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting for Thursday, May 21st, 2026. The time is 6.31. In attendance, go around the horn. Richard Korsmeyer.

Sylvia Rakowska-Council. Russell Fogg.

Nick Fulton. Kip Cotsen, Chair. Acting Chair.

Amy Hewitt, Clerk. Michaela Pearson. Katzen Tracy, Adjutant.

Eric Knapp, land use coordinator and CEO.

And we're going to be opening a public hearing, public voting session. What? Public hearing. You're reading every word and I shouldn't. To those who are applicants here, we'd like to facilitate efficient review. What you need to pay attention to is the evidence, showing us evidence. that an unusual and necessary hardship exists based on strict application of zoning regulations due to some peculiar condition of the property itself, and that condition does not generally affect other properties in the district. Whether any reduction in legal preexisting nonconformity is proposed, that evidence that the variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual hardship and allow reasonable use of the property, that present evidence that the variances requested are in harmony with the intent and purpose of zoning regulations and the comprehensive plan of zoning. And for coastal site plan review applicants, we have to address this Connecticut DEP comments and applications reviewed by town engineer or address comments from there. So we'd like to open case 26-1, 302 Ferry Road. That would be applicants Melissa Knapp and William Conrad. Come up here. Yeah, come on up. You just need to be close enough to one of the speakers.

Do you need to make sure you say who's being seated?

Oh, yeah. Seated tonight is going to be me, Michaela Pearson, Russ Fogg, Nick Fulton, and Rich Korsmaier. That's what I've got. Does this sound right to you guys?

Thank you. Okay.

If you would present your application.

Yeah. What am I giving your name?

My name is William Conrad. I'm the owner of 302 Ferry Road. You guys are maybe familiar with it. It's right off of, right on Ferry Road there, the band house or the former library house. I obtained a roofing permit to do the roof and make it hopefully look a little less like a pizza hut. Heroic effort. And in doing so, we discovered on the back dormer that there was a skylight there, there was some rot. And my builder called me and said, we've got to reframe this, but it's a good opportunity to extend. Basically, there's can show you pictures but it's basically a dormer on the back and there was a roof like this so he said we could just extend the the peak of the roof about six feet and flatten out the one the back of the roof to create a true dormer and put a window in there what would be the only window on the second floor it's a funky house so that's the good picture for illustrating what you're trying to do yes um we have a chance to look at that one yeah the one where a pencil a pen's

gets about how the roof line is going to change.

The roof line has changed. So I'm here to beg forgiveness and ask permission. So he sits on the zoning board of his town and he said, this isn't going to be a zoning issue because I'm not going outside the footprint. I'm not changing the square footage. Little did he know it's a pre-existing non-conforming. So we did the work. We submitted the building at the permit, the drawings, and then it flagged zoning. And that was in November. Not so fast forward, here we are. So all it is is literally taking, it's sort of doing this. If you took this and went back six feet, that's all I've done is just make the roof flush with the existing knee wall so I can place a window there. My neighbor to the right, Ken Klein, He said he can't even see it. My neighbor behind me definitely cannot see it. It doesn't create any sort of inconvenience or burden for my neighbors. And it's just anything I do on that house is going to flag you guys because the whole thing is non-conforming. So it's a very subtle change that improves the house but makes the upstairs have a window and some light. I think that loft, I don't know if any of you have been in it, but I think that was sort of added late or whatever. It's a little bit funky. So, yeah, I was trying to – I thought I was doing the right thing by doing the building obviously, and then it flagged zoning. So this is my first time through this. I apologize for that. I'm just trying to sort of do the right thing now and hoping you can be understanding of what I did and understanding of what I'm trying to do.

It's just the one dormer? There's nothing corresponding on the other side of the house?

No, nothing facing the road. It's all in the back of the house.

So it's only this piece? That's all we're talking about here?

That's it. Yeah, there's a teeny little existing dormer on the back that was like, I don't know if it's hard to describe, but it was like this, and the roof came like this, and I just went like that. Doesn't change the footprint. There was already a skylight there, right? There's a skylight there already, yeah. So it's basically, yeah, just... I took the roof line and went like that. And there's a knee wall here that existed, so I did this.

Asking Eric. Eric, did it change the floor area?

It did. The floor area isn't really an issue on this application. And again, as I wrote in my original memo, it is very far off to the side of the property. It's hard to do anything there that would not require a variance. Much of the property is covered with wetlands. The only issue that sort of held it up for an extra month here was it was an issue because it is in the flood zone about whether the amount of work that had been done, including this work, put them over 50%. There was a lot of negotiation with the building official. The building official now agrees that they are under the 50%. So at this point, you're able to go forward with the variance application.

Right. So he doesn't have to meet any FEMA compliance?

He does not need to elevate the structure to FEMA compliance because he has not triggered the substantial improvement test at this point in time. He is, again, it took a lot of work, the new appraisal on his part, recalculating how much work had been done. Again, the building official is now satisfied that the work does not trigger the substantial improvement test.

So that's a change from your memo.

My original memo said that there was a lot of issues with that. There has been a lot of new paperwork that is in the file that addresses this. At this point, there is a memo in the file from the building official saying that he is satisfied with the calculations and believes that the substantial improvement test has not been triggered.

And anybody have any thoughts or theories about how we would frame justification for granting the variance just because it's minimal change or it's insufficient concern about what he's done there? Well, yes.

And I think you could also talk about the fact that the house sits in the extreme corner of the property and much of the land is wetlands, and there would be no real conforming place to be able to do this.

Okay. Okay. It doesn't give you extra potential egress or not? No.

It's just a teeny little existing kind of tiny little sitting room, I guess you'd call it. But you did put a window in, right?

I haven't put it in. I just stopped every time. Are you going to put a window in? Yes. Because that actually does increase egress, potential egress then. There was a skylight in that.

There was a skylight.

There was two big skylights right there, yeah. Skylight form. Fire departments like to see an extra place to leave the building if that's possible. Oh, so is there like a... Is that true?

It is true. It doesn't really factor necessarily to your variance, but I mean, to the extent that he has no way to escape out the second floor should he need to.

On the other side, there is a deck.

But if you're in one corner of the house upstairs and there's a fire, having that window might make it easier for you to survive.

It Yes, it would be another way.

I'm not trying to plead the case.

You can jump out at anyone you want.

Anybody have any additional ideas here? It's a very minor thing, I suppose.

Yeah, okay. It's public hearings.

No, I'm going to ask you. I was just making sure that the board was clear. Anybody attending tonight's meeting? want to make comment on this either for the application or against. Okay, doesn't look like there's any public comment.

We have to close public hearing.

We're about to.

I know there's a little cheat there. He's been given a whole set of instructions. Yeah, no, I'm not sure I'm on board on this instruction. Of course, yeah, there we go.

Okay.

Okay, does the applicant vote? there's a thing about amending the, the, um, ZO determined the variance to 8.8.8 rare setback is not required for the proposed dormant. Yes. And that you also D do need 9.3.1, which is no enlargement of a non-conforming structure, unless in large portion complies with regulations. If you, you were asking you if you would agree with those amendments to the, um, The submission to the application.

I'm not sure I understand it, but. Sure.

You're not actually in your rear setback. So your application asks for your setback variance. You don't need one. However, there's a separate category of regulation that says if there's a non-conforming structure and you're making it any bigger, then that requires a separate variance to expand a non-conforming structure. So what the memo is asking is, do you agree to drop the variance for the rear setback, but add the variance for expanding the non-conforming structure? That's what he's asking you if you agree to do.

I agree to do that.

Okay, fine.

That makes life much easier. And is, Eric, are you? Would you have a clue about when it says ask Secretary to read correspondence into record? Is there any particular item here?

Well, I think the one that was particularly, you know, I did mention is the building officials correspondence that just indicates that he agrees that we're now...

Under the 50%?

Yeah, I mean, it's up to you whether you want to read it. I've sort of related its contents here, but if you want to actually read it.

Okay, as long as there's some clarity around the table about that, I think we're okay, yes?

I know the reappraisal is in the file.

All of the paperwork regarding the FEMA calculations has made it into the file at this point. The file now has all of that paperwork included in the file, okay?

Okay. Okay.

And this isn't scripted this way, but it's time to, would anyone like to make a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved.

So moved. Who said? McKayla. McKayla. Second it. Second it. Nick.

Nick. Perfect.

All those in favor of closing the public hearing?

Aye.

Opposed? Abstaining? Unanimous. So public hearing is closed. Voting in favor? Everybody.

Yeah, I got it. It's okay. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. So we're going to review the rules for deliberation. You're done for the evening. Okay. And then, sorry, I'm sorry. What's the process from here? No, you're just going to hang out here if you want to. Yeah. While we have a conversation, we'll make a vote on that in the next short span of time. Okay. And then.

And theoretically, when you put in the paper, there's a 15-day appeal period. If you don't believe that anyone's going to appeal, you're free to take action within the next 15 days to finish whatever work is not yet finished on the site, okay?

Okay, all right. Thank you very much for your time. Okay, so just reviewing the rules of public hearing being closed and we're in the open voting session. Only voting members may participate in deliberations. No new information to be introduced after the close of public hearings. Members may ask staff or ZBA attorney procedural questions. Okay, so let's have a conversation about how we want to frame what you're thinking. What are you guys thinking? How do we want to frame this?

It really seems unobjectionable.

Okay. Yeah.

I agree, it's a minor change.

Okay, and those are all solid. Do we need to frame it into a name hardship or unusual hardship location? Yes.

Yeah, no, I'm just saying. I think Eric articulated that the lot's undersized, it's irregularly shaped, the house is already in the setbacks, and there's no change that can be made to this structure.

And the wetlands, too. And the wetlands.

So there you go.

Yeah, we're good.

Let Amy catch up here.

I just want to make sure I capture everything. Thanks. OK, so we're saying that the unusual hardship is the lot shape and size.

The fact the house is already in the setback and that there are wetlands on the property and that this house cannot be improved in any way without causing further impact on the setbacks. There's no conforming location to conduct improvements.

And there are no proposed reductions of legal pre-existing nonconformities. Minimum variance, I think we all agreed that there's not much that's been done here that has any impact in the neighbors' property. There are no conditions that anybody suggested for approval, so I think we passed that. And I think we all agree, we all seem to be projecting that this is in harmony with the intent and purpose of zoning regs comprehension plan.

Anything else anybody thinks needs should go on record for this?

Good. Okay. So someone's going to make this motion if they wish to grant the requested variances to sections 8.7, 8.8.9, and 8.3.1 to allow construction of a dormer on a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming RU40 lot located within the AE11 flood zone. Connecticut River Conservation Zone and Coastal Boundary Per Survey, prepared by Angus MacDonald and Associates, and dated on November 6, 1981. The floor plan submitted by the applicant with the application and the elevations prepared by Young Designs Unlimited LLC and dated December 18, 2025, signed and stamped by the ZBA chair. We did not come up with any conditions. I just want to make sure that we have the correct sections, because there was... Yeah, it's the two, there were three 8.8s, and now there's only two of them. It's 9.3. Yeah, I think we got the right ones. Thank you. Okay. So I think it's time to vote then. We need a motion. Does anybody want to give a motion? Yeah. I'll make a motion. Somebody's got to make the motion, my bad.

Okay.

I'll make a motion. Russ? Russ, Russ?

Well, either way. Okay. I moved the we. You already stated the language, and I said so moved.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. And Russ seconded them, we'll say. Okay. Okay, all those voting in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion passed unanimously.

So... Thank you very much.

Thank you.

OK, so we're going to move forward to our second case for the night.

Yeah. Do we need to enter those? Sorry, is it too late to enter these as submit as submissions?

I think we ended these out exactly what in the file.

Okay.

It's just a paper copy there in the final.

So we're going to open a case 26 5 C 3 site for circle. The applicants proposed the demolition of the existing 3 bedroom dwelling construction of a new FEMA compliant 4 bedroom dwelling. on the same footprint and a deck within the 50 foot title wetland buffer. Coastal site plan review application was also submitted. This is Brandon and Jessica Seckel, Seckey? Seckey. That's enough. Applicants. Okay.

Presenting would be. Good evening everyone. For the record, Joe Renz, professional engineer of Indigo in Old Saybrook. I was going to bring it up on the screen, but this, this plan has,

prettier colors on it so it would have just been black and white up there um plus i didn't have the password i need to get that something at some point but should i interrupt and just do the the variances that were the regulations were absolutely just get on the record yeah i was not performing structure in a non-conforming r10 blot located in the ae 12 flood zone the variances requested are two sections uh 10.1.5 maximum height 24 feet 12.2.2, no building or other structures, including drainage structures, septic system and wells, shall extend within less than 50 feet the mean high navigable waters on any tidal water course or associated tidal wetlands. And 12.1.12b, no buildings or other structures, including drainage structures, septic system and wells, shall be newly constructed and large or extended within 50 feet of any tidal wetlands. And do we, Eric, are we saying that we need 4.4.1? It's listed on my script.

No enlargement.

Yeah. It's a tear down rebuild. So as a tear down rebuild, you know, we're not enlarging a non-conforming structure.

Okay. So we're going to cross that out then and say that's not here. Okay. It's a tear down rebuild. Okay.

So we had that one as 12.1 with the new regs now.

We moved regs. But in any event, if you're a care down rebuild, you're not expanding a non-conforming structure. Okay. Okay?

Yep. That's fine. Okay. So I think we have the logistics of the application. Good? We're good? I think we're good.

Okay. Okay. So, yes, I already introduced. So the property is at 3 Cypress Circle. It's at the end of the cul-de-sac here. The house is shown in brown. So there's an existing house there. It's just a small 18-foot high house that is in a flood zone and is not FEMA compliant. So the proposal, can you see okay? The proposal is to remove that, but build a brand new house on the exact same footprint, actually on the same foundation.

That's the existing house you're showing?

It's existing and proposed because we're building in the same location, same footprint, same foundation. However, we have to make it taller because of FEMA compliance. So hence the height variance. If the house, as we always plan... And we always advise the architects in old lime, if the house is sitting on the ground, it's 24 feet. It's up eight point whatever decimal feet because of the FEMA flood zone and with the drive under garage there as well. So we have full FEMA compliance, all the mechanical, electrical, including the electric meter, everything is above flood now. It's fully 100% FEMA compliant. There are flood vents on the lower level, the lower flood level, and those are all included on the architectural plans. Your consulting engineer did review this. He asked for a dry well for drainage since the proximity of the tidal wetlands, which we've included. And in your correspondence, there is an email or a letter from Mr. Jacobson saying that he reviewed and approved this plan. So the proposal is to rebuild the house on the same foundation, add a deck on the back with steps down. There is a rare shed and that rare shed will remain. The septic system is here and that's going to remain as is, doesn't need to be changed. We showed a V100A area. We have a health approval that's also in your packet there. There is a well on this property that's right in this corner and that is not changing either. They're using that same well. The tidal wetlands here are highlighted in green. The blue is the 50-foot setback. So you can see the corner of the house is within that 50-foot setback. And since we're building on the same foundation, we're not getting any closer, but we're not getting farther away. The one thing that we did improve is they were able to shrink the eaves a little bit. So we have actually 30.9 to the eave existing. And then the proposed, it's the opposite way. It's 30.5. So it does get, the eave gets 0.4 or about five inches closer there, just for standard eaves around the corner of the house. The deck is 32.4 feet here, and it's not any closer than the house is. It's a little further away than the existing corner of the house. And then the height, as I mentioned before, we're going above the 24 foot maximum only because of FEMA compliance. Everything else, I guess the last piece would be the second page and just we get into our hardships. I think I already discussed number two, so we'll go right into number three. The subject property is adjacent to extensive tidal wetlands. All of this green line, it's about 245 feet. All of that is tidal wetlands there. along the property line, approximately 245 feet. Due to the R10 yard setbacks combined with that tidal wetland buffer, approximately 57.5% of the lot is encumbered by restrictive setbacks. The existing house was built in 1972 in its present location. This lot was part of an approved subdivision. The new house is proposed to be constructed on the existing foundation, as we had mentioned earlier. The lot is unique due to its proximity to extensive tidal wetlands and its small area of conforming land, about 42.5% of the lot, less than half, based on all of the yard setbacks, so the pink and then in combination with the blue, which is the 50-foot tidal wetland center. The existing house was originally constructed in its present location, and its existing foundation will remain and be reused for the new construction. Number five, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing FEMA non-compliant structure and construct a fully FEMA compliant dwelling by elevating the finished floor above the design flood elevation. The project eliminates the nonconformity related to flood zone. Furthermore, by maintaining the existing footprints, there will be no further increase in lot coverage or further encroachment into the tidal well and setbacks other than that little eave that I had mentioned earlier. The height variance is only necessary due to compliance with FEMA. And lastly, how we're in harmony with the purpose and intent of O-line zoning and the comprehensive plan. A, we now have FEMA compliance, which we do not presently have. We have health code compliance with the B-100A area as shown on here. The new building, of course, will meet all current building fire safety codes along with FEMA. And then D, the enhancement of the subject property value and its surrounding properties all all comes together. So with that, it's one of our more straightforward applications. Does anyone have any questions?

Is there any two things? One would be how do you get in and out? We have to have the additional stairs. They're going to be on the stairs.

I know those those don't count for coverage, right? So there's a door. There's a door at level, and then they have the stairs inside. Oh, okay. You enter in at grade. Right. And then you go in, and then you go up. Okay. So the stairs are not exterior.

This might be misunderstanding, but the bottom floor is all breakaway, yes?

Not breakaway because it's not a V-zone, but we have flood vents. Oh, flood vents. And this is all flood-proof material, and it's all just a flood-level non-habitable space.

Okay. So non-habitable. Yes. Jacobson had a whole list of what it has to do to comply with flood zones. Right, right. Did you describe it as a garage? There is, because of the lift, you're able to get a garage door in there. Yeah, I mean, that actually is not a bad thing if you've got a lift high enough to get a car underneath there.

And it allows us to use the existing driveway, too. Since we're using the existing foundation, we can keep the existing driveway. It's nice to have the cars under the building if there's that much space.

Mm-hmm.

otherwise it's more or less dead space other than the um the flood zone entry we do have steps down obviously from the deck in the back which show on the site plan um and then the and the proposed usage for that space is you're storing on furniture off season or what what do you think uh that's a substantial space yeah it's non-habitable space um so no one could sleepy Or you could eat down there, but you can't sleep down there. And it's not conditioned space. It's kind of like an attached garage, if you will. So storage of low-value items, and that's about it. That's about all I can do. There is a floor plan, so it just shows garage over on the left side and then storage, and then you have that entry that we talked about. So you enter in. And then you go up so there's not a large staircase on the outside front elevation. So this is about as pure of a FEMA lift application as could be, yes? It's a teardown rebuild. A FEMA lift usually suggests. No, what I meant is it's essentially the same structure lifted, yeah, elevated.

I'd say the only question is that you're going from three bedrooms to four.

Yes.

And Let's Light had no issue with that. Nope, the approval should be in your packet. Yeah, I saw it, yeah.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, we have to show what's called a B100A area for four bedrooms, so we did soil testing, and we showed that in the future, because you're allowed to expand up to 50% bedrooms without expanding your septic system. We just have to show that you have room on your site to handle a four-bedroom code-compliant system in the future when it's needed. Okay.

See, anybody have any other comments or questions?

You can put the deck outside the flood zone in a different part of the house, but you know what I'm saying? It's like the deck happens to be in the flood zone. It's an extra piece. Too bad that couldn't have been attached to a different part of the house where most houses are not in a flood zone. That little corner is

Yeah, you're right. So it's horizontally it's in, but vertically it's above the flood zone. Oh, oh. So the deck is off of the raised first floor.

Okay, so it's not on the ground.

Only the steps that come down eventually touch the ground, and those are out of it. So the deck floor itself is a few feet above the flood zone. It just has to match with the interior floor layout. It just has to match the sliders.

Right.

We also have a CAM application as well, before we forget about that. And again, your engineer reviewed this for compliance. We're not increasing coverage. We're not increasing impervious. But apparently there's a new rule now with the new CAM rules that I'm just becoming privy to myself. or houses rebuilt within 500 feet, do you know this one? Within 500 feet of water or tidal marsh, tidal water, tidal marsh, that requires drainage.

So drainage runoff.

So we have a dry well here that handles the 1.3 inches of runoff from the roof. And my question to him was, yes, we've been doing this for a long time, but that's usually if we expand and we create more impervious. But now, apparently, based on Mr. Jacobson's review, if you're within 500 feet of that coastal resource, even if you're not, even if you decrease coverage, they still want you to put the drainage in for any project. Sometimes, this is a large enough lot, but sometimes in smaller lots, it's really difficult because everyone has septic systems. And you can't have the drainage in their septic system, so it gets...

If there's too much ledge or whatever else.

Yeah, ledge or bad soil, shallow groundwater, any of that stuff. But thankfully on this site, we have really good sandy soil and we're able to do it.

Does the slab cover the entire footprint or is it just entryway?

The existing slab is there and the existing footings are in the ground and those will be reused. I'm having a little bit of a hard time understanding

defining the letters DEP.

DEP may not have been responded to. Okay, now we're just commonplace. Okay. Several times.

We had nothing from DEP. Something like this, we're probably not going to be getting something from DEP. Okay. If it's below a certain threshold.

I just don't want an efficiency in process. I want to make sure we did what we're supposed to.

Just after the new rules came out on CAMP, We actually had a seminar where DEP came and spoke, and they pretty much told us, yeah, on some of these, don't even bother sending it because we're just not sending anything back. Why? What's the reason? These are on the staff. There was a vast increase in what is going to them under the new statute. And they said they didn't give us staffing to cover the large number of increased applications. Oh, bad planning. We're just not going to respond unless it really does have some costal impact. And this one doesn't really have any coastal impact, so they just didn't have the interest in giving us any comments.

You do have final legislative health district approval for this? Yes. I did see that.

Yeah.

Well, yes. Anybody have any more questions or comments? Okay. Well, we'd like to open this open to public comment. Does anybody want to comment in favor of the application? I'm guessing the names on the sheets here. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Not, you're not. Okay. Anybody opposed to it? Okay. Any comments at all? So no comments then. I guess I'm going to ask if somebody wants to make a motion to close the public hearing.

I'll move.

Okay. Okay. Second? Second. Okay, Russ. Okay. All those in favor of closing the public hearing on this application? Aye. Opposed? None.

Abstaining?

None. Unanimous. Passed. Okay, so public hearing is closed on the case, so only voting members are participating. Deliberations, no new information. We can ask staff or attorneys procedural questions. Okay, so let's talk about what we're talking about here. You can head out. Sorry, did you kick me out? Yeah, kick you out.

I don't think that's in the statute.

Oh, if you could read that out, that would be fantastic.

I feel like I want some rescue.

I was just updating this while he was speaking. That's wonderful. Let me know what you want to change. So, unusual hardship. The property has tidal wetland buffer, and it needs to be worse. That's going fast, but between the tidal wetland buffer and setbacks about only about 58%. I'm sorry, combined with tidal buffer cover about 58% of the property. So basically 42% of the property can be built on. You guys want to add anything else or remove this?

You also generally FEMA compliance as a reason to grant a variance as well. And the property is being elevated to meet FEMA compliance requirements.

Yeah, I've got that. I've got that for, so for number two, proposed reduction, I didn't hear any proposed reduction in.

There are any proposed reductions. Actually, there was a very minor.

The Eve.

But it turned out the Eve actually was getting closer. So there is no, there's no reduction there. It doesn't sound like.

Okay. And then minimum variance to address hardship and a lot of reasonable use of property. The house, yes, the house is going to be raised to make it FEMA compliant.

And there's been no change in footprint.

No change in footprint. And then for in harmony with intent and purpose of the zoning regs and comprehensive plan on zoning, the new structure will be FEMA compliant. It will comply with all health and safety codes, and it will enhance property value.

That's lovely.

Anything you guys want to update or add?

Sounds sufficient to me. Are we okay with that?

Yeah.

Okay. And there were no conditions proposed during the conversation, so. I guess I would ask for somebody to potentially make a motion to grant the required variances to Section 10.1.5, 12.2.2, 12.1.12b to allow demolition of the existing three-bedroom dwelling and construction of a new FEMA-compliant four-bedroom dwelling on the same footprint and a deck with a 50-foot title wetland buffer per the site plans prepared by Indigo Land Design LLC and dated April 9th, 2026. And the floor plans and elevations prepared by Connecticut Valley Homes and dated April 8th, 2026, stamped and signed by the ZBA chair. No conditions to that. The coastal site plan 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 pen uses. Anybody want to make that motion?

I moved.

Russ?

Okay.

And Nick, did you get in for a second? We got a second.

I heard. Oh, Richard.

Okay, so Ross and then Richard. You're outside the range. All right, yeah, so that is, we're going to be voting on that. So all those in favor of the...

Which one had discussion?

What's that again? She's asking if you want to discuss it any further. She's asking...

Yeah, I guess right after you make a motion, we can have further conversation. What do we want to say? Anybody have anything to say about it? Pretty fast, but there you go. All those in favor of the motion. All those opposed. All those abstaining. Unanimous.

Motion passed. Okay.

So, you know, the next case they have asked to be open to continue to next month. They are not presenting this evening. However, you are free to speak on it because it is public hearing and they've opened it. So if you'd like to say anything, you can give your name and speak on it. Okay.

There's no presentation. So we can make a comment or maybe a question. So to

Make sure you come up and get your name.

Let's officially say we opened the public hearing. So 26.6, 300 Mile Creek Road. There's an applicant seeking to expand a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming RU40 lot. But the public hearing will be opened and then continued until June 18th ZBA meeting at the applicant's request. So we're opening to public comment because you guys had read the notice and are

I read the notice and I also got a letter from the budding property. So I'm Mark Bruin. This is Eileen Mueller. And we're officers of the Union Hills Homeowners Association, which is a piece of land that kind of abuts in property. So the first comment we make is that we very much support what the homeowners or owners might be doing that improve the property, make it better, et cetera, safety, value, niceness, et cetera. So what they're doing... doesn't create any issues, then we're fine and supportive. It's more of a question that we just don't know what they're doing. So we just got a letter in the mail that said, hey, be aware there's changes coming. There's a thing. And I came down to the office and actually saw the plans. And it was explained to me people were very nice. And I was like, well, what does it mean? And what I got is that we don't have all the plans yet. We don't know specifically. So we just want to make sure, A, that tree line that goes right back there has all the power and all the energy and everything that goes up to our full association. And so, and so again, not knowing what they're doing is just be aware. And then this, the second thing is we weren't sure like the porch being built. We know that there's variances have to be like 10 feet within certain property lines or 15 feet or stuff like that. We weren't sure like, the variances of what they're doing if it comes up in a butts hour. So again, we're just trying to seek to understand what they're doing.

If you want to come in during regular business hours, I'm happy to spend the time to go through it with you. They want to make the deck bigger, which is projecting more into the setback, but it's still 20-something feet away from the property line, if not more. The issue they are having at the moment is that the renovations that they want to do trigger or ledge light, which is the health district's compliance, they do not have a code compliance septic system on the site now. And it's unclear whether they're able to put a code compliance septic system on the site, given the very small site they have. So at the moment, they are working with an engineer and with LedgeLight to see whether they can get a code compliance system on the site. If they can, then they will be coming forward and proceeding with the application. If they can't, they really can't do much to the house because the existing septic doesn't really allow them to do any change to the house.

Okay. And the other question we had, too. And so it sounds like, again, they're making improvements. They're going through zoning. We just weren't sure what the ask for in terms of nonconforming. Well, yeah. And so if there were then, again, if we're in like 20 feet of the property line and things like that, we're not doing anything unusual. And then we also have the fire pond there. So we're depending also what they're doing.

The house itself is not really getting much bigger. They are going off the back of the house. And again, they're only going like four or five feet off the back of the house. So the house isn't really getting much bigger. But because it is getting somewhat bigger, again, they have to go to ledge light and they need a code compliant septic system.

The patio is getting big, but the patio that they're putting, because there's no patio right now.

Yeah, but the patio is not a variance issue because the patio doesn't qualify as a structure and therefore doesn't need to meet the setbacks. So the patio isn't really what they're struggling with. The issue they're struggling with is by adding square feet to the house, they need to make the septic code compliant. And again, it is a very small lot, as you guys know. It's unclear whether they're going to be able to do that or not. And so that's why we're waiting for them to sort things out with leg light, if you would like. We only got notice of their continuance maybe yesterday, maybe even today. But if you'd like, before you show up at the Zoom meeting, you can certainly call in on the afternoon of the meeting and just say, are they going forward or are they not going forward? So you don't need to keep showing up.

And not having anything else. As you explained, it sounds like it's really not. Again, we didn't understand what was going on. We just got a letter that said, hey, show up if you have, you know, final notice.

There was a backhoe there. And I was like, they're digging. I just want to make sure they know that there's cable, there's power, there's telephone lines.

How before you dig stuff that's associated with that?

Because we don't know. We tried. There's a series of trees there. And at one point we explored, can we replace the trees? Mm-hmm. And literally, the power lines and everything else, because we had them out, mapped throughout that entire berm on both sides. And so I was like, okay.

And also, if they're compliant with zoning regulations, meaning the setback, as you said, is like there's still 20 feet from the property line, and they're not getting within the property line, we have to think about, They have non-compliance. They get right up within two feet of the property. When a tree falls, we have liability.

I understand.

So we're also kind of playing the opposite.

We have to spend as much time with the plans with you as you'd like to make sure that you understand what's going on.

Right.

But again, at the moment, until they can sort out their differences with Legilite, there's not much we're going to be able to do about it. Okay? Okay.

And we just wanted to understand what they were doing. We're supportive of them making improvements.

We do love having neighbors involved in this, so there's no friction further down the road. It's just people let it happen, and then they're upset about it.

Again, if they improve their property and it looks beautiful, and they can improve it, so then we'd like go for it. It's just we just didn't know what they're doing.

Okay. Before you go, can you please spell your last name?

Sure. D-E- B as in boy, R as in Robert, U as in umbrella, Y as in yellow, N as in Nancy. I usually have to kind of spell it out.

Very, very close. My last name is spelled H-U-O-T, so I totally get it. And then Eileen? Mueller, yeah.

M-U-E-L-L-E-R. Hey.

German? Do you ever use the umlaut on the U?

I don't think my husband's family ever did either. Maybe way back when.

All right. Thank you, Ben. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thanks. And since this was – do we have to do something formal to close the hearing at this point? We're not closing it. It's just open to continue. Okay. I know it was continue, and it didn't really get open. It was just continue.

It's open. Open for the next 35 days. We don't need an actual extension request. We're just leaving it open until the next meeting. And we don't have to vote on anything. No, you should be okay.

Okay. So we're done with our cases for this evening. Yes. we'd like to mention that there is no old business scheduled. The new business would include, and this is where Eric's going to be involved and share information, receipt and setting of public hearings for new applications. There appears to be listed here a an application for 54 Sill Lane, proposed renovation and expansion of a 1830 non-conforming structure on a non-conforming RU40 lock, coastal site plan, application submitted, received application and scheduled public hearing for June 18th.

At this point, this is a fairly complete application. I think it is ready to go forward next month, so you should be able to schedule it for next month.

And the one that we just passed on or And then it just says any other applications submitted by June 17. Information items, correspondence and announcements, chair update, ZBA special meeting Tuesday, June 2nd at 630 to continue ZBA discussion of suggestions to zoning commission on zoning regulation changes. So we agreed to a 630 June 2nd meeting. to continue our conversations on regulation changes suggestions. We'd like to seek to approve the ZBA regular meeting minutes from April 16th. Would anyone have any comments on that? Would anyone like to make a motion to approve the ZBA minutes from April 16th?

So moved.

Okay. And any seconded on that?

I can second it.

Can I second it or not?

Yeah, you can second it.

Yeah, I was there. Those in favor? Opposed? Abstaining?

Oh, actually, just a question. I was not at that meeting, but I did listen to the recording. Can I make the motion to approve the minutes?

Yes.

Okay. Okay.

That's why we have counsel here. We've moved forward and improved the minutes, yes? Yes. Then you're going to also do your special meeting. That's okay. So ZBA special meeting, April 30th. We have minutes from that meeting. Would anyone like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the April 30th special meeting?

Make the motion.

Okay, Russ. Anybody second that? Well, a bunch of you were there, and we're talking about the regulation, changing regulations. Okay, next second. Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Abstaining? Okay, so unanimous approval of the special April 30th meeting. And I guess we're done. Anybody want to make a motion to adjourn for the evening? Okay, Michaela? Second? I keep missing Richard on every one of these, but he didn't do that one, so we're good. Okay, so let's go for a vote on that. And all those in favor of adjourning?

Aye.

Opposed? None. Abstaining? Unanimous? Adjourning?

7.20 p.m. Gotcha.