Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Don't forget. Okay. Okay. Okay. [Music] [Applause] Okay. Okay. It is 6:30 and we're calling to order the zoning board of appeals regular meeting for Wednesday, June 18th, 2025. Um, and roll call present. We have Eric Napus coordinator. Katherine Tracy alter Stephanie Mel Amy Hwitt clerk Nancy Hutchinson chairs altern. Okay. Um so absent is Steve Dixs, Russ Fog, and alternate Michaela Pearson. Um so seated for today's meeting will be uh the five members present, Steve Dixs, oh no, sorry, uh myself, Nancy Hutchson, Kim Codson, Stephanie Nickel, Brian Co, and Kathleen Tracy. Okay, so we're moving on to the agenda, the the start of the public hearing. And at the start of the public hearing, I always give people some helpful instructions to facilitate efficient review. So, please present the evidence that an unusual and unnecessary hardship exists based on strict application of zoning regulations due to some peculiar condition of the property itself and that the condition does not generally affect other properties in the district. The evidence that the variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual hardship and allow reasonable use of the property. whether any reduction in legal pre-existing non-conformity is proposed and the evidence that the variance requested are in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations in the comprehensive plan of zoning. And we have one case today uh and that is case 25-5

307 Swan Avenue who requests variances to allow construction of a 29x4 foot detached garage with half bath on a C30 lot with existing three-bedroom year-round dwelling. Frank Glitching applicant. The uh the opening of the public hearing was delayed from the May 15th, 2025 CPA meeting at the applicant's request. Uh yesterday, the applicant's attorney, Danielle Burkery, submitted a letter addressed to land use coordinator ZEO NAP dated June 17, 2025, which provides additional information related to the application and responses to the uh Zo NAPS review memo to the board. Um the variance requested by the applicant is to section 9 8.9.7 minimum setback from the street line minimum of 30 ft required in the C10 district as adjusted per section 8.6 narrow street rightway an additional 4.25 ft resulting in a total required street setback line from north lane of a total of 34.25 ft. Uh the CEO in his memo to the board dated April 29th, 2025 refers to the definition of accessory structure in the zoning regulations. Section 3.2.2 accessory building or structure. A building or structure in addition to the principal building which is clearly subordinate to and customarily incidental to and located on the same lot as the principal building and which is in character with the neighborhood. And he indicated that at least one other variance would be required. Section 7.1E, accessory buildings shall not occupy more than the area of the building coverage of the principal building to which they are accessory. And so based on the additional information submitted by the applicant yesterday, does the ZO care to revise the variances that would be required? Um,

I will let the applicant make their case as to whether they believe this is a smaller building or not. I still believe it's a larger one. The other issue is based on the memorandum that was submitted there is a question as to whether this is accessory to this site or is accessory to 75 swan. If it is accessory to 75 swan then they would need a different variance which is 7.1A which requires the accessory use to be on the same lot as the primary use. So I think the applicant will need to clarify that uh as well. Okay. So we're not going to address which applicant variances are required at this point in time. We're going to go to the applicant and let them clarify. Okay. So um usually I ask them if you application but I think we need more information to answer that question. Yes. And we can provide as much information you would like. Okay. As much as we have anybody we have most of it if not all of it. So good evening. For the record, as you know, Joe Run PE uh indigo and old Sabbrook uh with us. I did I just have one more question. Um I I I did skip a step. So, usually I do ask if just want to ask still. Usually I do ask at that point if they plan to amend their application. Do you think I should do that now or wait till after the presentation? Well, I suppose it doesn't have to come now. Okay. Okay. Usually we do it. It's not accessory to 75 Swan. 75 Swan's small lot strictly residential rig south of Route One. Correct. It's another property they own. It's a different property. Has nothing to do with this. That's where I reside. Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, we'll let you present now. Just we've got so much last minute information. We're just trying to make sure we're all on the same page. Yeah. Most of it was with the original application. And there's some clarifications uh based on Eric's memo and so forth that were provided. But again, Joe Ren uh Vindigo and Old Sabbrook uh with me

this evening, Frank Ling and his wife uh front row and then Danielle Burkery and her associate uh also here. Um so since this was continued or tabled at last month's meeting, we did send out a new round of mailing. So we provided all that um confirmation to the to the town staff. the site location. And this is kind of an interesting one. It's a little different than what we normally are talking about up here. So, we're on Swan Avenue, but we're north of Route One. We are not in a residential zone, even though many of the buildings over there are residential, but there is a good, fairly dense mixture of garages uh in that area, too. It is in the C30 zone. It's in the commercial zone. It's not in the residential zone. um this particular property. So this is on the corner of Swan Avenue. Just to clarify though that in C10 in C10, you still can have the principal use be residential. That's one of the uses. So it's in a C10 district, but one of the uses can be residential. Okay. Okay. Um that's that's fine. And you also can have a garage in the C10 zone, right? It's more of an appropriate use in that in that particular zone. So, the property is located at the corner of Swan Avenue, which is to the west, and then North Lane, which most of you don't know because it's a pretty narrow gravel road, and it just runs parallel to the railroad tracks. So, facing to the north, you're looking at railroad tracks and then trees beyond this. Uh, also the northeast corner, there's Sound View Avenue. So, we're surrounded by three streets. So, this property has three street setbacks. Now in old lime as you know we have to determine if the streets are private or public and if it's a public road uh then we have to apply the

narrow street setback uh which does apply to north lane um we have all of that in the table there sound view avenue um is also a town road so we got the wider set back on that side um let's see and uh street line set back on North Lane is 35 and then Swan Avenue is also uh 35 ft as well. Um so if you look at foot seven under our table it says narrow street setback. So it applied to all three streets. So severely restricting from three sides this particular property. Um on this map highlighted in yellow is are the setback lines. So you can see that this we have this narrow band here. house is more than half outside of that course. And then it's a it's a large lot, right? So we're 15,000 square ft where we only need 10,000. So it's more than 50% what's required in the zone, but it's this L shape and it has three frontages. So when you apply everything on this side, you only get this strip, maybe a foot wide. Um so that that's obviously clearly the hardship for the setback. We did initially it wanted to be a little bit further to the east but since we had that narrow street setback we made it conform on the east side but as you can see there's no way to make it conform on the north side. Yeah. Actually this building can't go anywhere on the lot. Any building of any normal reasonable dimensions can't go on the lot without needing a variance. These two strips here are the septic system. So you can't even uh you know without affecting the septic system you can't add on to the existing house. You can't build anything in this area. That's where the existing functional septic system is all in that zone. So for the location on the lot facing the railroad tracks away from other things and uses.

That's the the best location and that's where um the applicant would like to build this garage. The initial garage was larger. We tailored it back. Um Frank would love a larger garage. Um but we came up with this size to be smaller than the house uh initially. So that your rags mentioned smaller in coverage. Uh we do clearly show that here. We have these coverage tables and you can see that the coverage of the garage is less than the coverage of the house. I I did ask some questions about that because if you go just measuring from the scale of the the site plan or you go by measuring what from the assessor's table, it does look like it's still larger. Nope, we this is all measured in CAD from the A2 survey. So this is as accurate get much more accurate than the assessor information. So on the old line coverage tables in the bottom left corner we have the um existing building coverage at um uh 1413 and that's the total of the house and the sheds. Obviously we take the sheds out. So the house is 1292.0 according to that table. And then if you slide over to the right for the proposed we have the proposed garage and that's 1260. So we're 32 ft left. Yeah, Texas are doesn't that's not as accurate as an A2 survey. But I'm saying if you measure it's a lot different. If you measure just take a ruler and measure the survey and say what this it is. Still can't do it as accurate. Is that okay? We're 32 ft less. That's what we're providing. That's what we're proposing. Okay. Well, we have a survey. We have an A2 survey which is what you require. a site plan fully dimensioned um done to the standards that why are these numbers

different than just measuring off the the map? Can you measure how accurately can you measure with a scale? I'm saying but even even if you just measured this is this is roughly 4 in by 3 in with and then with a section cut out of it roughly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I I just Yeah. But So you're saying your measurements are more precise than it's the engineer plan. Yes, absolutely. The most precise measurement. Some sometimes usually we go by the A2 survey, but you're saying that that's some other measure. Oh, this is the A2 survey based on the A2 survey. You said you were going on the assessor card. No, I said and I'm measuring from the actual graph of this taking a measure ruler with this scale and measuring here and calculating. But you're not measuring to the hundth of a foot with a No, no, I'm not measuring the 100th foot. Exactly. You're measuring maybe to the nearest foot, which is approximate. Okay. And you're saying so this CAD number is from what? So the existing condition is from the A2 survey. Yeah. that we have the proposed condition is from our site plan. Mhm. Uh done in AutoCAD 20 29 by 40 plus the ease. Okay. I'm sorry. What is a A2 survey? Uh class A2 survey is the boundary precision uh required by the state of Connecticut uh for a boundary survey and is required by your regulations for a ZBA site plan. So a standard survey with a guy out there measuring. you're saying um but to a certain class of precision I think that's class I'm not a surveyor but it should be like one in 5,000 or something like that it's very precise in in the in the table I don't think this is contested you're saying this I mean this is 20 by 40 on the thing which is what

we're 29 yeah 29 by 40 my bad okay no I got it 11 but that's right that does calculate to 11 That's 1160. 1160. No, we're saying no one's arguing what proposed. They're saying the measurement of the actual existing current. Anyway, so the the the zoning enforcement officer assessor's table and my measurements didn't seem to agree with these numbers, but you're saying that these are more accurate than any of those other numbers. There's nothing more accurate than a class A2 survey. It was done by a licensed land surveyor, not us. We're not surveyors. Uh the reference map is up here in the general note. Um the other thing of you're measuring to the eaves. I'm measuring to the structure of the building. Maybe that's the difference. Um the eaves on the house are actually more. So no, but it says existing house two eaves, right? Is it 1292? So maybe that's the difference because I'm measuring to the building, not to the eaves cuz the eaves can extend 12 in beyond the building. Okay. Mhm. I think that's the difference we were facing is one is measuring of the building structure itself and one is measuring to the east. That's what it says on on here. So I think we are talking apples and oranges. I don't know which do we need to go by. But the key idea both are measures saying because this has to be smaller than the existing structure that it is an accessory on the property too. That's important. Can I just just because I want to make the record clear without having to dig through a lot of documents. He's reading the transcript. Can we just articulate Joe just read what he has on his survey what the square footage is. I don't know that you've articulated what the assessor card says andor what Eric has said. I say what many differences there are between the two.

So the assessor's card I think says 11:05 and the calculations from measuring is 11:22. That's what I got, not 1292. [Applause] Anyway, so anyway, but I'm not talking about the house, not the eaves. We are fine with a condition that it's confirmed that the proposed structure is smaller than the house. I mean, we have the age survey. It's measured very precisely. Um, we can I don't think the applicant would be opposed to that condition. That's what our initial intent was. Okay. Thank you. That's I was clarifying that. That's why the garage got smaller. Initially we wanted a larger garage and we got smaller so it was less less than the house. So that's where we came up with the 12. Okay. Less footprint than the house but still taller. Um but your regulations don't say that your reg. Um the height is also in the table and yes the house is 17.5 ft plus or minus uh the garage is 23 ft.2 2 plus or minus um but it is separated by a large distance. It's not standing right next to um this is almost like two lots put together. This distance is very far. That's this is 1 in equals 10 ft. That's probably 70 ft or so apart. Yeah. No, I understand. I think you've been very clearly expressing the hardship is the setbacks and there's no other place to put a garage. I guess the question is just what we're going to talk about today is you know is it the minimum required to address the hardship and but I think we clarified that you are going to ensure that it is smaller footprint than the house. Yeah that that's what we're already testifying to but we

absolutely can have a condition that that's rechecked. We could have the surveyor go back out give you a sheet that shows this is precisely to the tenth of a square foot. Um okay existing conditions that's not a problem. And do we calculate from the ease or from the size of the building? Um you calculate from the size of the building. But that said again there's there's more to the definition than strictly just square footage. I mean it it talks about um clearly subordinate to and customarily incidental to. So merely being smaller in square footage isn't the only thing you should be evaluating whether you're determining it's accessory. So I when we get there I would encourage you to go back and read your definition of accessory structure to see whether you believe this is an accessory structure to the main structure. Okay. So another thing in addition to that and when Danielle comes up after me she's going to talk more about that part of this and her letter and so forth. Okay. Um, but th that that regulation mainly is written for and it's, you know, I know you're rewriting your regulations and I know it's going to be more clear than the regulations from the last 30 40 years. Um, but that's clearly written for a residential property. Um, we have a commercial property here which allows multiple buildings. It's in the commercial district, but it's a residential property. in a commercial zone, but it but the regs are written in a commercial district because you have more than one commercial building in a commercial zone that is being used for a shopping center or other purpose. You can have more than one principal building in a commercial zone for commercial purposes. You have a residential use and therefore to say that you can have more than one primary use in a residential use I think is a misinterpretation of the regs. Obviously, I will let the attorney argue to the cont. Yeah, we're not we're not proposing another primary use. There's no commercial operations and that should

be clarified too. There's no commercial operations uh proposed out of this. It's strictly uh Frank is a a car guru collector. Um so he just wants a place to place his collectibles. He's not working on cars for other people. He's not storing cars for other people. Personal use only. Personal use only. So it's it's incidental to what you say is a non-conforming residential use in the C. It's a conforming use. That's the problem. It residential use is allowed in the zone, but because you're using it residentially, you should evaluate the other uses as if the property is being used residentially, not commercial. So still what I said, it's incidental to the residential use. Okay. Well, we'll just move on, get some more information. Okay. Um, so we talked about three streets. We talked about the C10. We talked about it's 15,000 square ft. So it has the lot more than the lot area that's required. Um, the proposed conditions. We talked a lot about the garage um driveway that goes out the north lane here. There are garage doors on the front of that. So um, the width of the driveway accommodates those garage doors. Frank did talk to public works about that. They are fine with that. um the driveway in that location in that width. So, we're okay there. Um he does have uh this concrete area around the garage. What's the purpose of that? Right. Oh, you when you when you speak, you have to come up and and uh say your name. Oh, I'm covering the reporter. Sorry. Thank you. I'm Frank Ocean. Um I wanted to be able to pull up next to the garage door. I'm handicapped. I can't walk very well. Um, and get out of my vehicle and go into the side door of the garage rather than opening up a great big overhead door. But that it's going around all sides and you only have a

door on one side. Correct. I I want to be able to park a motorcycle out there and work on it, clean it, type of thing. Washing them, cleaning them, just waxing them. Um, but just to have area around there. So that that's no zoning. We're not asking for a variance for that. We have total ground coverage. We're we're under in this zone you get 60%. We're proposing 25%. So we're well under the ground coverage. And plus, even though it's not necessarily required, we've added underground storm water infiltration system here where the roof water and the runoff off of that would be collected in a swale here to this yard drain and the yard drain would infiltrate that storm water into the ground. that's helpful in that area. So, that's the feature that we have to accommodate that extra coverage that we're proposing. Even though we're less than half of what's allowed in the zone, um obviously it's the right thing to do and we don't want to push, you know, any extra water off to any neighbor or any street. So, we've included these concrete galleries uh surrounded by crush stone with that yard drain in that location. Okay. Thank you very much. I just just hadn't seen that before. 8 to 10 feet of concrete around the outside. Yeah, it drain it drains to this side. There's a swale. It drains to this side and all carries it. You can see the grate to drain arrows. It all carries it down to that inlet uh that it's on the surface of the ground with the grate and it goes underground to the infiltration. Okay. And it's far enough away from the septic system. Of course, I have a couple motorcycles and I like to be able to pull them into the garage with this apron here if if I didn't the grass. And I and I have a small rollup door here. Yeah. And I plan on parking in through this way. Okay. And then this side is where I was going to

be able to park my vehicle I drive up to. Like I live down the street, but to come up to the garage, I want to be able to park the car on the side of the building. Okay. I was wondering what that other little garage door was for the lawn mower in there. I've got a riding tractor that will be able to put the lawn mower into there. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. And I'll have cars parked in other parking slots inside the garage. So, I can't get a a lawnmower next to the vehicle to get in and out of there or motorcycle. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Um, in the garage, is this a a sink and toilet? So that's connected to a new septic tank and added to the existing leeching field. And as you saw in the application, that's uh that was previously approved by um by Ledge Light. Yep. And the state the soil conditions um the soil conditions on the side are are really conducive to that. They're they're sand and grally soils with good percolation rates. So um before we get to Danielle, I just wanted to go over the the narrative parts of the application. We already went who's going to go over the actual structure of the building. You or Danielle. Um I could show you the building. Jerry or Fusco is not here this evening, but I could actually show you that. We'll do that. We'll do that last. We'll do that next. Yep. That go through this first. Um so just jump to number three cuz we talked a lot about number two already. Uh subject lot conforms to lot area in the C10 zone, but it is an irregularly shaped lot with three road frontages. Due to the three road frontages, all three are town roads and subject to the narrow street posision uh provision and other yard setbacks. Approximately 89% of the lot area is restricted from building without a variance. That doesn't include the subject system area. That's only the 11% is within that yellow area. And you can see that you can't build anything bigger than like 11 or 12 ft in there. Um,

so due to the location of the existing house and septic system, the garage can only be placed in the northeast corner. As we talked about before, due to the narrow street provision, all setbacks narrowly overlap and there is essentially no buildable area. The subject lot is uh this is number four. Now, the subject lot is unique as it is an irregularly shaped L-shaped lot and has three town road frontages. Again, subject to the narrow street division. The property also has a railroad rightway directly across North Lane to the north. Again, you mentioned that that up here, this is all Amtrak. I noticed when I was there, there's like a little bridge there on the railroad track and it's a big pipe coming out under it. What is that? Do you know? It's just drainage under the railroad, right? I believe it's water from the wells from old line water shoreline cuz it goes right to where you're going to put your garage. As long as it's not going to problem. No, it comes right out of there and I think it turns to the uh east. Oh, good. Okay. Well, there's fire hydrants and stuff. Okay, good. Good. I didn't want you to have hit a problem with a big giant pipe. Thank you for that. It was a great observation. We were obviously out at the light out at the property. We did see that. Um this shouldn't be in there. So, the garage is set up a little bit higher uh than the than the street itself. Um, so you know, we have some, it's pretty flat, but we have some pitch out toward the road and out to this area. So, the runoff goes mostly from the driveway down to the the infiltration system. Um, just to continue on, the lot area exceeds the minimum required in the zone, but due to the shape and three road frontages with narrow street provision, the buildable area is extremely restricted. Um number five, there is only one dimensional setback variance requested for the proposed garage. Since the existing house is not proposed to be altered in any way, there are no proposed reductions in non-conformity. Um and lastly, uh number six, the requested

variance will allow the proposed garage to be construct constructed in the location shown. The property is in the commercial C10 zone and the proposed garage would be permitted on an on a regularly shaped conforming C10 building lot. There are no coverage or GFA or height variances requested. Additionally, there are other similar structures in the neighborhood. Therefore, the project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the comprehensive plan of zoning. And we did submit this yesterday. Uh this graphic here, we highlighted in yellow. This is just a print out of the GIS map. We highlighted in yellow four structures within the very close proximity of the proposed location. I said three, whatever. Um yeah, we have four Well, there's three properties, yes, but uh four buildings. So, we have a garage down in the southwest. Um and that's 36x 42. We have one in the northeast that's 34x 50 um with has two floors. It's almost 4,000 square ft total. Um, and then there's one down on Route uh one uh that is 38 by 52 uh looks like one story. So it's about 2100 square feet. So there are we'll call it three. We identified that commercial building on Route 1, but if we're looking at just garages, we show the three. They're all substantially um larger than this. If we're proposing the uh 1,260 square ft, we have uh 2100 4,000 and um This garage is larger as well at over 50. Both all three of those are commercial properties with commercial principal uses like one's the police station, one's uh as a application we talked about before it's uh near um it's a commercial building and there's I

guess my question is and then the the numbers that you are saying there are not footprints they're the total square footage of areas right so um Well, some of them are some of them. This one here and actually two of them are one floor. We're showing the 1500 and the 2100. The 4,000 one is two stories. The 34 by 50. Um, it's two stories. So, we show the whole thing. But even if you cut that in half, it's 2,000 square ft. It's more than one and a half times, right? For a commercial property. They're not accessory structures for a residential dwelling. But anyway, we're we're just showing that this will fit in with the Harmony because this is an L-shaped lot for passes by that don't know this is one L-shaped lot. It looks like it's on its own lot just like this northeast one does. No one knows where the property line is. They you drive by North Lane and really no one else does. But if you drive by North Lane, you might think the property line's here and you have cuz these are over 60 70 ft apart if not more. Um so they look like separate structures. It's not right next to it hulking over it. It's away from it and it looks like it's on its own lot. Okay. So, we think it's in meets the spirit and harmony of the area and of the regulations and the comprehensive plan. Um, so you asked about the building plan. So, the garage was larger when we started. It was taller when we started. um the second floor um loft up here. This was like a full height, right? Full height loft. We looked at the floor area of that. Frank uh unwillingly write made changes to shrink the footprint of the garage, shrink the floor area, make the attic

less than six feet so that our floor area was re shrunken down and reduced so that it it wasn't it didn't appear larger than it needed to be. So adding an internal ceiling to at 5' 11 in so it's not doesn't count as floor area or second story. Mhm. The purpose of that is addic storage for car parts. No, but why add the ceiling at exactly 5' 11 in? If it was over 6 ft, it counts as floor area. It still might count as floor air cuz it's an attic and it doesn't it's less than 6 ft. So, it doesn't the attic space attic. the space between the top surface of the ceiling beams of the top story and the bottom surface of the roof rafters. Which space is not finished or otherwise capable of being usedable space? Mhm. So, but if you look at your definition of of story or gross floor area, clearly says 6 ft and greater, right? Except in the attic maybe constitute a story or half story. Can I Can you repeat that? I don't I'm not familiar with the attic attic. I guess it says the attic space the attic the space between the top surface of the ceiling beams of the top stories. So you're saying the looks one story and you're saying the top of that ceiling space to the bottom surface of the roof rafters. You're saying it's an attic. So, I'm not sure that adding a ceiling 5' 11 in in the attic makes it not count as a at least a half a story, if not a second story. If you read your other regulations, you could ask council for clarification, but if you read your regulations for story and floor, it clearly says 6 ft over. We've been doing that in town for as long as I can remember. Right. Right. But attic is specifically saying you measure that

from the ceiling to the roof rafters, not as a ceiling attic. Um, the ceiling in there. How is there more usable space? It's not usable. That's the point is the attic is measured between the roof. The is measured between the ceiling beams of the top story and the bottom of the roof rafters. So there, this is a truss. This is a truss ceiling. So that is the rafter. The top of the ceiling is the rafter. It's part of the truss. It's a pre-manufactured truss. So above that, I see you have the horizontal member and then you have angled members above that. There's no open space. So it's not so it's the ceiling is at the bottom of the truss. Correct. Right. Okay. Yeah. And if it didn't have a ceiling, then it would afford me more room upstairs, you know, stand up and and store it. That's a real convenience for me to put a ceiling on it and cap it off. My head's going to hit the ceiling, walk around. The only purpose of the truss above that is just for aesthetics. Otherwise, it would be a flat. So, the bottom of the truss is the is is where the ceiling is, correct? Yeah. I want to have heat and air conditioning. still be insulated, you know, and and encased enclosed heat and air conditioning open. You said it would have heat and air conditioning in a non-habitable space downstairs. I'm I'm putting collectible antique vehicles in there and they don't have climate control in the first floor, but not in this attic area. Correct. I mean, there there's going to be parts upstairs, right? And I'm sure that the temperature is going to carry upstairs as well. I had intended on keeping it, you know, tower up there. I did put windows up there so that I could air it out if it got ungodly hot. I see. Okay, that's helpful. I didn't mean to interrupt you when you

were talking about this ceiling. That's okay. That's what you need. Yeah, that's and you could you could see how this is in this section. You can see how the truss is it has that open space and then this is the the rest of the trust. The trusses haven't been designed or ordered yet. Um, but how trust would work there would be other members in there as well. But you can see we just have that triangular space for the top of the camp. So the bottom floor is 11 feet something in two 7 ft 2 in. So it's less than 12 ft. So it doesn't counts as only one story initially that was and then the story above it is 5' 11 in. So it doesn't count as a story. Correct. For your Yes. Frank has a a car lift and the ceiling can't be lower because the car would hit the ceiling to work underneath it. Okay. Um, and for storage. Excuse me. And for storage. The the car lift will have a vehicle on it and I can put it in the air and park another vehicle underneath it for storage just cuz I had to sh the garage down. So, and basically the reason you have the four bays is because you have so many cars. Correct. Danielle provided a list of the vehicles, the motorcycles and the collectible vehicles. And I understand that too, but a lot of times the the variances are too run with the land, not the owner. Mhm. So usually, yeah, I know like so that's how I started this is that this is an interesting one for all of us. It's different than what we're normally used to. Yeah. Right. We're normal used to houses in a flood zone and we're tearing them down and rebuilding them and asking for variances. This is different. Um, probably very unique, I would say. Um, but without further ado, I think I gave you everything that I have. Danielle would like to go through her letter that she go ahead question. Um, you had mentioned about shrinking in the effort to shrink the building down to

arrive at 29 by 40. The square footage for the house. We made it just I mean to say 25 by 40 or 22. How'd you get to 29? I needed the width for the vehicles to take. So then I went as far deep as I could and still stay less than the size of the house. You need I wanted that was going 30 foot. I mean I like round numbers but 20. I mean the average would be what maybe 20 truck would be 20 feet, right? You know, but I wanted to have a workbench and have a place to put the motorcycles and so forth, not just car storage, right? So they're they're more they're more than four cars that he's stored. Did you see the list that was provided? Yeah, I did. What are the You got you got three classics, couple a couple of bikes, two motorcycles. Yeah. Yeah. Growing my I got five cars and two bikes. Yeah. So seven vehicles we have to fit in there and then still have room for stairway and workbench tools cuz I think the the A2 Davido that's on our plan. Yeah, I'm sorry. General note number one, we always reference the class A2 survey. It's right there. 1A. Thank you. Yeah, I guess um could you go back to the to me just to say my thing right now is like you clearly have a hardship. Mhm. I think what I'm struggling with is this the minimum to address the hardship and I can understand why you want this but as Brian says you know you're you're this structure is almost entirely in setbacks and yes you can so anything you can reduce the extent of this coach setbacks would be helpful. It's like as you mentioned most garages are like say 20 to 24 ft wide. This is 29 ft wide.

So, let me talk a little bit about that because I I I didn't talk about this before. So, yes, we are close to that front property line Imaginary. You can't see that out in the field, right? So, if you're driving by on North Lane, this looks like it's set back from the street that far, which is more than what you require, right? So, we even provided you with a dimension on there for that purpose. So, right there, we have 29 ft back from the edge of the road. So when you're driving on or walking by north lane, which again not many people do ever do, um it's a very low travel roadway, but when you're on this roadway, it looks and feels that it's 29 ft away. It's not 5 ft away in your face over you. It's 29 ft away. And you know, your uh setback is 35 ft. Um so before we came to you and put the application together, the garage was wider. What was it? 44 ft or something initially 46 50 and the depth 30 by 50. So this started out as 30 by 50 and then it we slowly went to 42 and 44. We're comparing the coverages and that's how we arrived at the 40 but then we said we have couldn't really go for the four doors. You can see couldn't really go less than the 40 width to accommodate everything. So then we had to take the rest of it off of the depth of the garage. So, you can see with the four doors, we can't really go any less wide than he would lose a door. He really needs to have four doors on that frontage um for his planned use. And um so then we took a foot off the width. So, what the board is asking is yes, it's 29. Would you consider something less? But I think before we go there, I think we just let Danielle go through her letter, talk to you about that. Um, again, we're not asking for a coverage. I'm just not asking anything. I just was

curious as to how got you got to the number. No, it was a good point because it reminded me that I had to show everyone that dimension um because it's important. It's 29 ft off the road and it looks like it's 29 ft off the road. If we step this back, you know, would anyone ever know that we're 5 ft back instead of 4 ft back off the proper lane? No. Not unless they did an A2 survey and measured that correctly. Um, so what people passers by do see is this with this this distance. This is what they feel here. And this is actually more than this um and more than most structures in that whole neighborhood. Most of them are very close to the street or the road. This is actually 29 ft back from the street but only a few feet back from the property line because the right of way here is so wide. Yeah. On this side. Yeah. The truth of the matter is like that road is like so rarely used. I mean once that's why I keep saying I will walk up and I'll walk around just because I'm curious, but nobody goes there, right? It's just it's just like a it's basically a fire lane for fire trucks. I I I like to, you know, the way I'm considering it is the regulation we're asked to vary is just a setback regulation. you guys did what you could to get everything else lined up so there's no other issues. Uh, usually coverage is something we're pretty stubborn about. That isn't even close on this. So, I don't think that's a major issue. It may turn out there's another variance we have to consider later after we've had a conversation about the other issues with accessory building and whatever. But from what I've seen so far, um, you've got that working for you. You've only got a setback. um the setback uh regulation for um for narrow street setback the logic that I the only logic I can see in that is if it is has a tendency later to expand there's no way that'll ever expand that's never going to turn

into a busier wider road just a way that's impossible so I I think it's not highly relevant that that issue about the way the setback's configured on your property you have three of them and they're narrow street and I don't think any of those roads are ever going to get widened. No. You know, I lived on a road that was that was a perfect regulation for because eventually they're going to put a bigger road in there. It's a dirt road that they're going to widen and you have to worry about it. Here I don't see that and there's plenty of room for fire trucks to go by. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Many towns um are actually removing Old Saber, for example, removing the narrow street setback from the regulations. Um, and I don't know if that's part of the draft regulations or not, but um, it only applies, it was clarified a bunch of years ago, that doesn't apply to private roads, only town roads if the town ever expanded the street. But I agree with Kith that yeah, that's never going to become a highway. There's railroad all on one side and it's all existing developed there. So the traffic's never really never going to change. Is there a potential issue of the train tracks being expanded and then you would have to move? Not not that we know, but if it did come, you know, they wanted a tunnel under our town, as you know. Yeah. Yeah. I know. So, I don't know where this is ever going to end up, but you can see that there's a lot of right away with here. So, even if that did come 20, 30 ft, you know, they can't take away the Well, I guess they could. They're the federal government. They take your road and make it a train track, but we still have a lot of width. It's 29 for the edge of the road, but then we have probably 40 to that side and another, you know, 15 20 for the train track. So there's a good 60 plus feet in there. It It's right there. The train tracks and the cement things and the overpass are like right up to the road. Well, there's just put those concrete blocks in there last year and it's like 25 ft from the center of the tracks out on either side. Is there

problem? There's understanding there's no space on the other side of North Lane, but you're saying there is space on the south side of North. Yeah, there's plenty of space on this side. We have over 40 ft from the north edge of the road to the structure. Mhm. This is 29. The road's at least 11, right? Um so 3940 ft there, but we still have a ditch on that side and then we have a stone slope up to the train track. So there's there's more distance there. We have at least 40 ft. Even if they put the railroad right along north lane, we still have 40 ft. Yeah. On the south side. Okay. Y. All right. So, with that, finally, if she's ready, good evening. My name is attorney Danielle Buri. I work at the law firm of Brener Salvin Walman in New Haven at 271 Whitney Avenue. Um, I'll stand. I'm really not quite sure how much more I have to say that we have it already flushed out. um because we really have sort of gone through this standard um the standards required you know for a variance and I I think we can all acknowledge and and and have that um you know not only is the the lot unusually shaped it has the three street frontages which you know I just don't come across uh often in my practice and you know additionally although the I understand that the residential use is um a conforming use in the zone it it Because if we are if we're to keep the residential structure with the septic in addition to this the the multiple street frontages I mean the any further development of the site is you know essentially you know null and void and we're not going to be able to do anything. Um and and I did you know as as as we talked about it uh and you know understanding that it's a large garage uh you know that Mr. has a variety of vehicles and you know most garages I don't have a garage but

most garages are you know twocar garages but here you know given his um personal circumstances uh we we were looking for a larger garage um the I think if it was just a regular standard garage I don't think you'd have any push back whatsoever. I think it's the fact that it's so large for a residential accessory structure and and that is I mean I think that's I want to call it the elephant in the room where that's that's what what we're talking about. But when we look at the variances that we're requesting and I think we're going to have to get in into that with uh Mr. NAV and and with council is to you know going off the A2 survey and the size of the the coverage for the house and the coverage for the garage we don't need a variance for the accessory use. Um this this house does not have a garage and while we're talking about you know Frank using his vehicles there um certainly the uh vehicles for the house you know could park in the garage. And you know, one of the things I I two two things I I noted in my letter. Um, you know, one was the other large garage, which is, you know, a commercial accessory use. So, it might not be apples to to apples as far as uh this structure. I think it just goes to the requirement of, you know, the variance being in harmony with the neighborhood and that while this is, you know, a larger garage than than most properties, given that it's a commercial zone, given that there are large garages in the area, it it still is in harmony with the neighborhoods. Um, and what we're also accomplishing, which, you know, at least in my practice, you know, keeping affordable small residential units, you know, throughout municipalities in Connecticut. Um, you know, right now this is this house is being rented uh $1,000 a month, which is, you know, just about what you get,

which is considered naturally um affordable uh housing. Um, and and so, you know, it's it's not ideal, but it's, you know, an irregular lot. So, Yeah, we do have a large garage. Um but but we are allowed to, you know, we maintain the affordable residential unit. Um what are the neighbors saying? That is was my third point which I forgot about. So thank you for reminding me. I I mean I usually Joe and I we have various applications. We have very angry neighbors. Um and here to the contrary, I believe three of the nearby neighbors submitted letters that I have in those should be in the recording. There's Did he get those? Yeah. I didn't see that. They're sticking out the file. They're sticking out the file. Yeah, I rearranged. My bad. This is one out by Greg that came out of It's the ones with envelopes attached to the back one attached. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I just Okay. So, the secretary, would you like to read these in the record? Let's see. From Mark and Sally an Whitewoods. More information. We are writing this letter in support of price. I'm sorry. appeal concerning his application for building a garage. We see no reason to deny his application. This is a commercial zone and we already have two neighbors with a fourcar garage. It is not out of character for the neighborhood. Sincerely, Mark and Salanne Witz retwan, sorry.

Um, I support Frank Lishings and his application to build a fourc car garage of 307 in the C10 zone. Chase 25-5. I have seen his plans and it will be a nice looking addition to the area. regards Dimmitri Tolchinski 286 Shore Road [Applause] and regarding the application for Frank Leing's garage at 307 Swan A. We have no objection and build a variance should be approved. I've been in Old Line for more than 80 years and I think that a garage in that location would be a good use of the property. Robert Sheffield 306 sound view at old line Connecticut sound where's that where's 306 oh there okay thank you thank you anybody opposed no we have no opposition just a quick uh question I guess for the attorney uh the one thing when we were going through the conversations about you know it's big space you it's going to be heated for good reason collectible cars there. Climate control is not a ridiculous thing, but um has there been any conversations about um a subsequent owner maybe trying to utilize that as living space? There is a half bath in there and that's going to be heated and cooled. How do we do we condition that? Would you be okay to conditioning it so that cannot be a habitable space? Do we need to? That would probably be a good idea. condition is fine, but it would not meet zoning and it would not meet health. Yeah. No, that's what I'm I'm just and I'm saying it might be irrelevant. Maybe condition is totally fine. Yeah. And there are similar um not to get into the other garage, but there there was a similar condition that was placed on a a nearby garage and and that

is one that Mr. Lishian would be you'd be fer it's it was in your letter. It was a no dwelling allowed in this structure and this one said heat only on the first floor but you're saying you want heat and air conditioning on upper I think the heat is on the I mean it just might rise I think is what he's saying I don't think there's piping or anything right they have regular storage facilities that are climate controlled so there's a similarity there I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't going to have ownership creep where the next owner turns it into habitable space and that we we've we've conditioned it so it doesn't turn into No I think they would probably have to if we put that condition on, come back before this board or before another board in order to to make but even without that condition, they couldn't do it without coming back this board because Yeah. Well, because legally they're willing and you know, we want to let's put it in. Yeah. I think it's just more specific to clarify what the expectations are so there's no question later. Exactly. I mean, I see the, you know, your point about these different garages in the area, but when you're driving, when I drove, you know, going by, going down north lane and coming down, I see little houses. I don't see I see a little neighborhood that is commercial C10, but it looks like just a little neighborhood with little houses. One garage, but one garage. It is such a short short road there that um I think you know these three areas were surrounded on every corner. Yeah. So if you sort of drive down the road, it's such a short road, but it's smaller than the size of the house on that property that the footprint, you know. So it's it's not any larger than a regular home, but that brand new house, bigger accessory building, not Well, I do think it's helpful that the neighbors, you know, as I said, supportive. Um, you know, Joe and I do

applications where we have neighbors that are very vocal in their opposition. Um, and I think it's unusual actually to have neighbors support a variance application. Um, I think we get more letters of support than anything else in all the cases cuz you go out normally my people are going to come out and they don't my neighbor writes this letter. Well, the neighbors the neighbors are right around this property and they said they feel that it's in harmony with the neighborhood they live in. So, yeah, I think that's the best that we can do. And if you look at the map that we provided, you just go around this little U loop and they're through right right there that are larger than this. And the other thing I wanted to draw your attention to are these color photos um that we provided in here and you could see that when looking to the southwest, just a large open space there with no building. So if you're driving by here, it just looks like a garage in this in the C10 zone and you don't know it's on the same lot by driving by. You have no idea. Yeah, really. It's hidden in the back. It's hidden in the back. That's not You're not going to see that. But even if you walked by or drove by, you think it's on its own separate lot. If you want to think in that in that realm and and there's no there's no like privacy issues and things where we should ask for plant screenings or anything cuz we've done that before. Send back issues. There's a fence here. There's a fence along this whole property. You can see it in the photos. Um it's back there. Okay. Yep. 6 foot high white vinyl solid fence with some plants in front of the along that whole skeleton. Yeah, I guess I I'm just still stuck a little bit on is this the minimum required to alleviate the hardship the setbacks and I think the only setback that we're asked for is that front yard. So the only thing that but almost the entire structures in the setbacks like it has to be I know but you could I'm I'm just a smaller thing but I guess you're saying if the only

one objects and is it really an accessory and or or subordinate or you know of the and it's and also I worry about uh you know allowing people to put accessory structures that are not on their own property where they're residing just because you own both properties. Is this an accessory structure to the property that's on 307 or is this an accessory structure? You can't put an accessory structure on on a property that's not attached. It's not accessory to anything. You can't have an accessory building accessory to a property that's not attached to the site. It's just not a thing. The whole definition of an accessory is to have two buildings on one site, one subordinate to the other. I'm saying like so other people in town can own more than one property and they say, "Well, I'm going to put an accessory structure on this other property that I own." If there's another dwelling there, even if they're not using it, they can't legally do that. Well, what's the difference here? So, in the C10 zone, if that house wasn't there, um, you know, that garage is as of right. The only thing we're discussing is that it's incidental and subordinate and accessory to that building. So, if you demolish the house, you could have a garage in the C10 zone. Well, and I would say this too, just if I before you um before you speak, ab that we we have been talking about wish listing sort of personal circumstances. Yes. and um you know that most most people wouldn't want a four bay garage um but but there is no existing garage in the house and so it is accessory despite you know the fact that he doesn't live there and and what we're talking about his specific circumstances the garage is subordinate to the residential structure and and the last thing I want to add even if you took a foot or two off the depth you can't take 10 ft off the depth it just doesn't work for them even you know it sounds like even five or 6 ft. You can't take it. But if you took a foot or two off there, when you drive by, you're not unless you're looking at paper, you're

not going to notice a difference cuz it's 29 ft off the edge of the road. If it was 30 ft versus 29, no one is going to know that without a serving. And it's not as if there's a garage, an existing garage here, and then we're adding another garage. So these car the cars for this house can park here. could they have room for any furniture's cars, right? Her her point is just that it could be and it's accessory, too. If they had people over for a birthday party, they could park three cars in that driveway. Yeah. If they wanted to. There is no on street parking on Salan Avenue. No. Yeah. for visitors company [Music] Daniel was just saying they there's nothing that prevents them from parking in front of the garage or in the garage if there's a space empty. So, I agree that every day, you know, they're going to park here um and their driveway to be close to the house, but they nothing's preventing them from being able to park there if they wanted to crank a lot. A little just I get uh attorney or ZBA feedback on this is like is that normally when we have a variance, a variance related to the hardships of the property, not the specific circumstances of an individual. where it seems like we're everything is related to and not not to put you down or anything but it's like not everybody owns seven cars and motorcycles and things like that. So it's like if other people come to us and say they want to have a much larger accessory structure because they have more stuff what we tell them is previous variances don't set any precedence and they they never work in our favor. But but I think that that goes to the question of are we asking for a variance for the size of the garage,

right? So we just pretend it was a shed and it it wasn't a garage. We're not smaller. But to say Frank, you know, I don't know, he had a tractor. He had a shed. He wanted a big shed on the property and it we weren't talking about his car collection. We would still be here asking for the setback varants. So we're in the same maybe not as extensive of one but possibly not but but but storage the um basically we're not stoing a vehicle. We're not being asked to give you a very coverage at all the size massive excess of and I too because I I wasn't familiar I mean I thought where's it looks like it's far from the road. So I but I after you know working with Joe I realized that it's this what looks like a small setback but you know if so you're saying if somebody came to us in London put in a big accessory structure and they didn't have the coverage it would be like no yeah coverage those things we don't move much yeah we don't there's not much I don't understand why we have the problem because the coverage is not an issue not at all and so why are we talking about the only issue is the variance to the street right and there seems like there is a legitimate hardship to that. I don't understand why we're being well the second issue is the overall size versus the size of the house. Is it accessory? I mean just visually he can see well visually they look he made it very clear that the A2 survey or whatever the survey was that the house is smaller you know I mean he said that so I mean we have to go with facts but then say that I want to go why are we debating that why can I can I just can I say something this this because the reason we're debating is because of the ZEO has a call on what variances are required They can ask for certain variance but then the the ZEO is one

decides what variances are required. So they're asking for one. The question I asked in the beginning is do they need more than that? Do they? Oh that's we're going to ask the CEO now the presentation has been very patient. So I just talked to Frank and unwillingly um but is willing after we talk to take one more clip off the front of the garage. So, if that helps because that gives you an additional 40 square ft to be assured that it's smaller than that and it gives you another foot off the property. That's helpful. You can't make it 5 ft or 7 ft cuz the garage just doesn't work for his foot. He would rather just not build it if he had to shrink it by that much. So 1T, he can't go any less than that. Again, instead of just 32 ft under, now we're 72 ft under. So it gives you a little bit more confidence and clarity. And we're still okay with the condition that you know an affidavit is provided by the surveyor on his map that that is smaller than the proposed structure. Well, I think if you compare take 40 square feet off, we're pretty confident that so but I think then we're now we're down to the question we asked in the very beginning is what are the variances that are required and it's not our call or your call it's CEO's call given the calculations that they have now proposed I think it's clear that they are meeting 713 B rather so they would not need that variance Um so I think that they they're asking for the right variance. Um and again it is a judgment call for the board as to whether this size structure is truly accessory or not. But all E requires is to be smaller in square footage. They have given you evidence that it is smaller in square footage and again they're offered to shrink it further. So I think that we are obligated to go with the A2 survey calculations. Um and again they have

proposed a further shrinkage of the site. Um so I think that yes they are now within the 71E requirement to be smaller. So they do they do not require that variance. Okay. Okay. So that's I think I would withdraw any request that they they submit that they modify their application on that basis. So how many feet is the house and how many feet the garage without that? Well that's just have the numbers please. Those are incorrect numbers. And again, these are to the east. Our interpretation of the rights goes to the trip line, but both of them are to the east. So right now, the house is 1292 to the east. And right now the garage to the east is 1260. We're taking 1T off and 40 ft wide. So we're losing 40 square ft. So that would now put a proposed garage at 1220 versus 1260. 72 ft less. And I think if you don't go by the eaves, it goes from like 122 or 105 11:22 to 11:05 to to less than that. So which is still less than 1160. So no matter which way you calculate it. And we're okay with that condition that there's an affidate if you so choose that there's an affidate showing that it's less. But we're very confident especially with this reduction. We were confident before but now we're 40 square feet even less. Okay. So then um then the only last question I have is is the fact that this is an accessory structure not being used by the residents on the property, but you're saying they can be used by the residents on the property. Is that an issue from the zoning perspective? Again, they have their testimony is that this is not accessory to 75. It's not going to run with 75's deed. It's going to one with the deed for this property and therefore I think it has to be treated

as accessory to this property. Okay, that was my last question. All right. All right. Frank owns the property. He doesn't he doesn't rent the house and someone else owns it. He owns this property. So, it's accessory to his use. When I bought it 20 years ago, I had four lots there. There are four lots there. the houses on one end and there were three additional lots and I'd combine them all and put them together so that I would nobody would ever accuse me of trying to subdivide them and sell them off or do something different with it and that gave me the full square footage too. But I've always I I was in the storage business for like 35 years and you you mentioned storage and that's what I did and that's how I came to accumulating so much stuff and and now I retired just last August. So I need a place to put the stuff I have in storage where I no longer work. So did you say you combined four lots to 15,000 square ft? that that property is for was four individual lots when they purchased it and that's what it showed on the deed. They were all numbered separately. Wow. The deed does talk about three tracks. If you look at the deed, it's track one, two, and three. And one of those may have been two parcels without reading the words. I don't know. But but they're owned by the same person and they're I purchased it from they got legally combined. Y which is a good thing for the town. Yeah. That's over the 10,000. you know, I'm a member of the Shoreline Gateway Committee and, you know, it seems to me that, you know, this is kind of an improvement to our neighborhood and we're looking for that. So, that's another reason why I feel like, you know, let's help make this happen. So, I think if we just go through the discussion, so the unusual hardship is the the three unusually shaped yacht lot um street narrow street setbacks, right? Okay, that's a clear hardship. No one

can argue that. Give me a little slip in the middle. Okay, there's no proposed reductions of legal non-conformity. The the question is the minimum variance to address the hardship to allow reasonable use of an accessory structure. And this is where we're coming to. You've reduced it an additional foot to to make sure that it's minimum 40 feet. 40 square ft. How can I just say shed number two is within I think 7 ft of the property line but it's small. I know. Yeah. But if you were looking for a give back, but it's not a not it's not an it's not unconform and not non-conforming, right? pretty and the the coverage I think the question I think this really comes with the the minimum variance allowed hardship uh is that because it's it's way under coverage and uh right coverage shouldn't be our primary consideration in life and it be it would be under floor area as well we also stayed out of the second setback too originally it was in that other street yeah then that would good idea to stay away from. The less varianc is the better. Correct. And I like the fact that they put the drainage in, you know, even that's that's an other that's, you know, added my improved drainage. You're capturing this as I'm going through it. You bet. I got it. It was good. All right. Um, thank you. Um, but I think the thing is it's fits with the neighborhood because it's a commercial district with other similar similar structures. Even larger. Yeah. But there are different properties and stuff. Similar similar

go. All right. Um and I and I think um I think the another thing is that it's the minimum street setback that it's being uh encroached upon has a wider right ofway than normal. Would you agree? So the point is even though it's a narrow street setback, the the rightway in that area is the largest along that street. I don't know that's 29 ft or something. You mean the distance between the edge of the road and the property? Yeah, you can see the difference here. Swan is less than 10 ft and this is probably 20, right? Or more. Yeah. Same same on this. So I I this is where I'm trying to get to the intent purposes. zoning regulations. So this is the key one in my mind. Anyone offering to up the how this is in alignment with purposes zoning regulations? How this is in alignment with the intent? It's in a commercial neighborhood and you are having use that alleviates the need for him to to try and rent space somewhere else. But that that's not Well, what I'm saying is if you look at the pictures, there's a huge blank space there. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. So, it's not like it's intrusive in the sense that, oh my god, that's so close to this or that. You know, setback requirements to me are about how much you're intruding into the neighboring properties. And I can't see that at all here. No, it's not the case. I think so. It's it's um it's a C10 district and it's adjacent to the railroad track basically. Yeah. What else are you going to use this for? You're not intruding on the It's You're not intruding on any neighbors. Can I ask um those cinder blocks? Are

they marking anything particular with this garage? Oh, no. The the the track put that in. No, he's taking your Oh, yeah. I I I tried a rough ball. I bought it myself cuz I wanted to see where it was going to lay. I mean, it's not accurate. It's just a tape measure thing. Yeah. It actually needed to go uh five foot more feet to the west. Um because we originally were pulling 30 foot set back from old colony and and it's 35. Um but yeah, just to give me a visualization of how I'm going to try to pack my stuff in there. That's a good visualization. I tried to I put the car in there and I go, "Okay, I got this much more room to get a lawn mower and a couple of motorcycles in there and that kind of thing." So I think the the the key one for me was how this is in harmony with 10 purposes only regul regulations because it is a big accessory structure but I think we've captured it is that it's it's in it's in character with the C10 neighborhood and it's adjacent to the railroad tracks. So, it's really not for any other and the neighbors that responded are all favorable and it should be safe to drive through there. So, like it looks like a pinch point, but with that 29 total feet or whatnot that fire trucks could get through and what right turn if they can make the corner. Yeah. So before we close the public hearing, we're going to open up to public comments unless you want to summarize what we've captured so far because once we close the public hearing, we can't ask any more questions. You want me to read what I have for in harmony? So for in harmony with intent and purposes zoning rags, uh it fits the neighborhood uh as it is in character with the C10 district and it is adjacent to the railroad tracks and not intruding on any neighboring properties. We also have the distance between the edge of the road and the property line is 29 ft. I don't

know if I don't think we need that. No. Okay. And then the other things was that it was um added improved drainage to the property and supported by the neighbors. Supported by three neighbors. I've got that under other as I'm saying other. Yeah. Oh. Oh. And um supported by the neighbors. I think that that extra width makes all the difference to me and it should be in there. It's not 5t off the road for maybe we can capture that. We can capture that in super narrow road where the minimum variance to address the hardship is required. Is that could capture what we So right now we've got reduce the design uh an additional foot to bring the total reduction to 40 ft. Uh it is significantly under coverage and it is under floor area. And then you wanted to add um that it the distance between the the narrow road of the right of way or the property line and the road. I think you can I think you can frame it as the effective setback. Oh, okay. Due to the 40ft right ofway, the effective setback from the street line is whatever 29 ft. Well, it'll be it'll be it'll be from the property line, I think. No, from the street from the street. 29 is from the south edge of the road to the building. And now with one foot cut off, it'll be 30 ft. Correct. 30 ft. That's a nice round. Okay. So then the effective setback to the street line is 30 ft. Yeah, I'm missing something though. The only other thing I said was due to the 40 foot right away. Thank you. I knew I was missing something. And do we want to amend? Well, let just capture it before. Okay. So, the effective set back to the street line is 30 ft due to the 40 foot rightway. Okay. And we talked about the hardship already and we talked about uh neighbors approving. Oh, and the agreed

conditions of approval is reduce width one foot. Do we want to put that on the plan or this adequate for you? No. We're going to need an amended plan that shows the reduction there so that we can have her sign the amended plan with that reduced reduction. It should say the depth though, not the width. Oh, sorry. Right. The depth. Sorry. We do steps by one foot to make it how many feet 28. It'll go from 29 to 28 feet by 40. 28 by 40T. And that um ensure that the I don't think we need this. That the garage footprint is smaller than the house footprint. Correct. Do you want to keep that in there? Yeah, I'll keep it there because the Swans wants that was agreed to. So I have here Mr. Ren, I can say the applicant will ensure that the garage footprint is smaller than the house footprint. Right. I mean, we talked about having the condition of no residential use in this. Oh, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right. You know, I mean, I don't think it's necessary, but I mean, you know, it's not going to hurt. And he's agreed. I think the thing is when other when other people have accessory structures, it's a good idea to just make it clear that that they can't. That's right. That was part of the logic of how we looked at the state of Connecticut would want four units in that. Okay. No res, right? So cl clarify this. No residential use of the structure. Did we capture any other conditions that I'm we're missing? Oh, so a garage is a residential use. Oh, I don't think that's the right term. Oh, living habitable space. Y I don't know whether habitable space accomplishes it in a plan. I don't have to weather. I I think

habitable space is going to accomplish it here. No space. We use that for flood zone purposes. Habitable space is a known intern. So I think that'll work here. A bathroom's not habitable space though. It's a half bath, just a toilet. I just need a lamp. No, we're limiting I mean the theory is by saying this cannot be used as habitable space. They can't come back later and say, "Well, it's got heat in the bathroom so we want to convert it to a guest house." They're they're saying now they will not attempt to do that in the future even if they otherwise might be able to do so. And I think by building code, they don't count bathrooms as habitable space like storage. No, I think I think we're safe is whenever the same word under as presently configured. However, my regs as currently drafted and we'll see what the next round is would allow potentially this to be a guest house, not a accessory apartment, but a guest house. Ah, okay. Because it could have a bedroom and a bathroom. Um, and that would all be all you'd need for a guest house. But we're saying under our conditions here, you're not going to come back later and try and get someone staying in there even as a guest house. This is not going to be habitable space. Okay. Okay. All right. No problem. No problem. So, we talked about hardship. We talked about the minimum variance. We talked about conditions of food. We talk intent harmony and purpose of zoning regulations and then other and then when we get to the close of the public hearing after we hear public comments the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated by the board when in the public hearing voting session. All right. So with that if you'd like to anything else otherwise I want to open up to public comments. The only thing I'd like to add is that I tried to design the outside of that garage to look more like a home from the outside when people are driving around that neighborhood. And the only thing you're going to the only people that'll be seeing those doors are Amtrak drive flyers are going back and forth. That's a good thought. You know, and it's not

any larger footprint than the little tiny house that I own on that lot. Yeah. And the other little residents that are in that area, you know, I got windows up on a second. So, that was a good folksy wrap up of the whole thing. That was That was very good. I like that, too. Little door now. Fall pots on the little concrete pad around the outside. Makes it look homey. a couple of chairs to sit out there, you know. I mean, I try to take care of the place. I take a lot of pride in my stuff and it's not going to turn into a dump. Myself personally, I like the idea that you do did deal with the permeability issues and try and make it so water. Yeah. No problem. All right. So, now I'm going to open it to public comment. Okay. When I would like to speak in favor of this application, please come up and state your name and address. And you have to come all the way up because the recorder is here. Hi, Dennis Maluso, 7 Portland Avenue, friend of Franks and Joann's for about 40 years now. Um, resident of the area. Jealous because he's got a lot that big that could support a garage or an accessory building. We both ride motorcycles. I'm really jealous because I have to try and get my bike into a tool shed. Um, I think this is a an excellent addition to the area and as Amtrak is rebuilding the tracks from New Haven in Washington DC all the way to Boston, Asella is going to go so fast they're not even going to be able to see that building at night. It's it's going to be a great addition. I'm I'm glad he's doing it. He's on it. you know, he's only got how many more years left to do do this project. So, uh, I'm in full support and a lot of people in in SU are in full support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? Thank you. Would anybody like to speak oppose this application? Would anybody like to just comment on this application? Okay, that did remind me of one thing. Did we want to? No, I don't think we want to go there. Oh, never mind. We have to um close. I know. I know. I'm just saying. Does anyone else have any comments, questions, concerns that we want to bring up? And uh if not, then I would say would anybody like to make I'll make a motion to close the comments. I'll second. Wait, wait. Close the public hearing for this case 25-5 307 Swan. We do that because sometimes we have multiple cases. All right. Okay. So moved. Okay. It was Kathleen and then Kip. No, Kathleen or that was Brian, I think. Okay. Sorry. Close the public hearing for case 25-57 Swan Avenue. All those in favor? I opposed. None. Standing none. Motion pass 5 to 0 to zero. Okay. The public hearing is now closed. So only voting members may be available may be participate in deliberations. No new information may be introduced at the close of public hearing but members may ask the DBA attorney and staff procedural questions and the board usually discusses the evidence presented during the public hearing potential conditions of approval agreed by the applicant and potential reasons for granting or denying the variance of trying to make an emotion. And I think that we've we've sort of sort of discussed that during the cate during the open public hearing. Maybe at this point in time we can just have Amy recap what we've sort of come to consensus on. Okay. So for unusual hardship or legal alternative to unusual hardship hardship, you said it was an unusually shaped lot with three narrow

street setbacks. Yeah. Um there were no pro proposed reductions in legal pre-existing nonconformity. Um minimum variance to address hardship and allow reasonable use. Uh they reduced the design an additional foot to bring the reduction to 40 total reduction to 40 ft. Oh maybe that's not the to bring the to bring the cuz it was from the additional foot 1160 to 1120 now. Yeah. So reduce the I don't do we just need to say the reduce the the width the depth the depth the depth depth is what I meant. Yeah. Yeah. Reduce the depth an additional foot to bring the I don't think we need to say that. Okay. So I've got here Oh it will make the um it'll make the depth 30 ft. Set that that much wider than it otherwise would be. Yeah, but it also mean the depth of the building would be reduced to 28 instead of 29 29 28. So the distance from the road will become 30 ft. So we do have the effective set back to the street line is 30 ft due to the 40ft ride ofway and then um we have significantly it is significantly under coverage and it's under floor area. So that's you say reduce the depth an additional foot to just what just just just say we reduce additional foot. That's easy. Yeah. Okay. And then significantly it is significantly under coverage and it's under floor area and the effective setback to the street line is 30 ft due to the 40ft right ofway. The effective setback street is increased to 30 ft because it was 29 ft now and then so the effective set back to the street

line it's increased to 30 ft how about the due to the so I don't I don't think in that particular clause you're talking about what that they gave the exit foot I think functionally speaking you're talking about that area is so wide that it is accomplishing the purpose of the regulations even though it technically doesn't. So I don't think you should be comparing it to the what the proposal was in the reduction. I think you should be comparing it to the regulation. So so I think it should be the effective um setback is 30 ft due to the 40 foot right away. So I don't think you're talking about the reduction there in that clause. Okay. She said make it two sentences. Okay. Okay. The effective set back to the street line is 30 ft due to the 40ft rideway. And we already have the first sentence is reduced the depth an additional foot. Yep. Is now 30 ft due to the 40ft setback. So two separate thoughts, right? Okay. One clause is the thought that they've offered during the course of the public hearing a reduction of the depth of the structure. We thought and the other is the fact that the effective setback is this 30 ft right so I think you have both thoughts independently reduce reduce the depth an additional foot it is significantly under coverage and it's under floor area and then the effective setback to the street line is 30 ft due to the 40ft right away I don't think you need the 30 foot the 40 just to say is now become comes 30 ft. Do you need to say because it was 40 foot right away? Well, it makes it clear. I think I think you should be talking about what it what they are building

versus what the regulation is, not it it's so I'm not going to object to putting in that they've reduced the the building depth a foot because they've accommodated some of your concerns. However, um they've also reduced it more than that based on what his original desire is from. So you're sort of starting from an arbitrary desire rather than a regulation I see or a setback or or whatever. So again, it was something that was offered to you that may have led you to your decision. So I have no problem with the reduction of the the depth to being 28 being in there. But just conceptually speaking, you're not talking like that isn't the moving target because otherwise you could theoretically say that I think originally it was going to be 30 by 50, right? So the desire the original desire versus where they are today isn't really relevant. Um the clause that talks about the effective setback is just that regardless of whether they came in here as such or whether they said it today. Yeah, it felt like the motivation was to get it. So, it was we were all convinced that the new building is smaller than the old one. So, that's how the the foot line. I think the reduction of the death was more towards the accessory structure conversation and to give you comfort that it was in fact accessory because of the size. But I'm saying I'm just trying to clarify. So the effective I'm just saying numerically how it makes the sense that the effective rightway is now 30 the effect not the right effective setback is it's not now because you're not changing it from a current condition to what it will be. Yeah. Right. So as opposed to when you're talking about reductions of nonconformities then you could talk about that like they're giving up something and then the setback is there's nothing there now. Okay. What I'm trying to say, so we're trying to

say that the effective because of the width of the rightway from North Lane, the effective setback is 30 ft, right? So like we should say it that way to the building. Yes. Like as that's the relevant setback, but is that is that minimum to address hardship and allow reasonable use? I mean, they didn't for the effective setback to the street, if I'm understand this correctly, they didn't They didn't do anything. It's We're saying it's there's 30 feet. We're saying we're saying that that makes it it's the effective setback to north's lane is 30 ft. It contributes to logic why we're allowing the variance that there is. But you say you're saying that's not that's not the minimum. It's just it's it just is you that's why you're allowing it. That that was my understanding of it. Maybe it's because that fits under harmony of intent purposes only regulations. So maybe move this whole thing, move this sentence over there. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's what you're getting at. It's the the concept of is it in line with 10 purposes on the regulations because even though this actual setback is going to be 7 feet instead of six feet, the effective setback is 30 feet because of the width of the right of way. Right. That's that's what you're getting. Thank you. Exactly. All right. So I so now we have um for minimum variance to address hardship and unreasonable use reduced the depth they reduce the depth an additional foot 228 ft wide to deep deep deep sorry sorry I keep saying that and wide and then uh significantly they are significantly under coverage and under floor area right uh agreed conditions of approval reduce the depth by 1t to make the dimensions 28 ft ft by 40 ft. Uh the applicant will ensure that the garage footprint is smaller than the house

footprint and the structure will have no habitable space. Yep. In harmony with intent and purpose of zoning rags. It fits the neighborhood as it is in character with the C10 district and is adjacent to the railroad tracks. Uh I got to run out of sentence here. It is not intruding on any and is not intruding on any neighboring properties. I know it's run out wordsmith it. The effective setback to north lane the north lane line is 30 feet due to the 40 foot right of way. Yeah, there you go. So, right. And then the other the other is the added improved uh drainage to and supported by three neighbors. Yeah, repealing it anyway, I suspect. So, yeah, but I'm just saying, you know, we don't know what's coming 5 years down the road. Yeah. So other added improved drainage to the property and it is supported by three neighbors and then the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reason articulated by the board with in the public hearing or voting session. Okay. Do we really want to list that they decreased by a foot like as a Well, I think you're going to have to because one of the things you're going to be asking for is version. Yeah. Okay. Right. So that's I have to stamp and sign something cuz at one level that's a trivial thing but it's a thing that we actually have to enforce here that it's yeah it's after the fact after our decision is helps people later down the road to be also why we're getting a new man after this hearing right because otherwise she'd be signing as submitted and she's not going to sign as submitted she's going to sign as amended. So, do we need to say that they need to submit new plans with the the reduction in size? Yes, you're going to need to say that because as an as a condition. Okay. All right. Let's go back to the conditions. Okay. So, reduce the ducks by one foot. Just add it to the end. At the end, say we'll say no, you just say add at the end. The

applicants will submit revised plans with the proposed modification. You may want to just make that like a standard condition going forward that just plans consistent with what the proposal is that was approved submitted for signature or something to that effect. Okay. Do you want to change that? If the applicant will submit a revised plan with the proposed modification, you want to submit it to something generic. No. We can she's saying we should always every time they modify but she said she the applicant will submit revised plans proposed modifications for sign signature by for signing by the chair or something something like that. Yeah for signature of the chair. Yeah. Okay. So then I would need to hear the conditions at least at this point. Okay. So it's reduced the depth uh by 1 foot to make the dimensions 28 by 28 ft x 40 ft. The applicant will ensure that the garage footprint is smaller than the house footprint. The structure will have no habitable space. The applicant will submit a revised plan with the proposed modification for signature of the chair. By the chair by the chair. Yeah. Are we okay? That sounds good to me. Sounds good. Okay. With that in mind, would anybody like to make a motion? Let me just walk through it. Okay. To grant with conditions the requested variance to section 8.9.7. We've decided there's no other variances. That's true. To allow construction of a now it'll be 28Tx 40ft detached garage with half bath on a C10 lot with existing three-bedroom yearround dwelling. for the site plan for the revised site plan prepared by individual land design. And what will the date be?

You can list the date now as revised. And as revised uh as revised today. Well, you you take the date off the plan and just say as as revised. Okay. Okay. Okay. So dwelling per the site plan prepared by Indigolandine LLC dated dated none dated as revised dated as okay dated dated to give whatever the date is on this plan this plan was April 2nd 2025 right and you're going to put that in right now yep as revised as revised okay revised and the floor plans and elevations now there was no name of the architect on the plans so do I have to The elevations. The elevation floor plans. There's no nothing here that says who made this. No, it's not the corner beneath my name on the 45. I thought his name was in there. No. True. True style. Jerry Carpus. [Applause] He has a date, but he didn't put his name on. No, it's a date. I have a date. Okay. I know Jerry Kapus. So, we we can indicate Jerry Kapuska. Okay. Okay. All right. So, elevates prepared by Jerry Caruska. K A R P U S K A. Did you get that? I got it. Yeah, I know. I know where it is. Okay. And it's Jerry G. Dated missed that. Okay. Oh, sorry. Got that. Got that now. And dated uh March 21st, 2025 as revised April 1st, 2025. to be stamped and signed by the CBA chair through staff. That should be as revised. Yeah. Throw that in. Oh, right. Right. Right. As revised and then I'll put today's date. No, no, no. You're going to put today's as revised. The point being is you're you're giving the date of the plan now, but you're saying it's going to be

revised. So, all right. And one of the conditions is they submit revised plans. There we go. Okay. So you're just saying leave the plan as revised. Okay. So I really don't want to ask a question. All right. So it's dated April 2nd as revised and the floor plans and elevations prepared by Jerry Kpusa. Is that also revised? No, but it's revised at the end and dated. Okay. And dated 32125 as revised. That's already in there. Okay. and then four, but you know, because it was it was dated March 31st and then it was revised April 1st and now we're revising it again. Don't don't worry about going to be irrelevant. So through through staff to clarify, I would just say dated March 31st, revised through April 1st or whatever that and again I would just I don't even think we need to go in there. You say I would you honestly I would put the date and then you should say as revised because it's going to be revised again and we don't know the date it's going to be revised because so should I put the date the most recent date April 1st 2025 not not the March we don't normally repeat multiple work agency you're just putting in when it is and when it's revised through and I think it's clear based on the context of the rest of the motion. So, I would agree with Eric and say whatever the date is, but there's two dates on the plan. April, April 1st. April 1st. April 1st, which it's not the March 31st. No, whatever the date, whatever the first the first date. So, 3 33125 as revised. 33125 as revised. Okay. Why not the most recent? I mean, they might have made revisions to that, right? the the revision dates you keep adding new revision dates. So only the last revision date is going to be the important revision date. So the you the date is the first date of the plan and

everything after that is as revised. Yeah. So if you started with one plan and you made significant changes and then you went to the meeting and have yet another, why why not go to the fact I mean legally if it's not legally why not go to the last revision because I if if that were the one she were going to sign, I would say you're right. But that's not going to be the one she's signing. She's going to sign a future one yet to be written. So this revision is irrelevant. So this revision is not for our purposes going to be the the final it's not going to be the the revision of record. So plans go with a start date and then revised through whatever your ending date is. The intermediate ones for your purposes are going to be irrelevant to the record here. This is going to be in the records. I mean, in in the file, but your your final one is going to have a a final revision date, and all the intermediate ones are not going to count to that point. Yeah. Right on. That's why that's why I stamp and sign them so we know which one we're talking about. The other way that I refer this to is that that sentence, what you're saying in that sentence is you're just titling the thing that Nancy is signing. Okay. I was that's the thing that because in that sentence, right, the the map you're titling is the thing that Nancy is signing. You're not listing the things that you saw today or the things that are in the record. Oh, cuz they're in the record. The record is obviously relevant. And Eric will look at the record to make sure that there's no other changes or whatever. But in your sentence, the what you're talking about is the thing that Nancy is signing. And the way we would refer to that is just the beginning and the end as revised. Okay. So dated March 31st, 2025 as revised to be stamped inside by the ZBAH. And then we go through the conditions that we went through. Yep.

And the conditions are I put them uh reduce the depth by 1 foot to make the dimensions 28 ft by 40 ft. Uh the applicant must show that the garage footprint is smaller than the house footprint. The structure will have no habitable space and the applicant will submit a revised plan with the proposed modification for signature by the chair. Okay, I think we're there. Okay. Okay. Would anybody like to make that motion? I saw Brian, but you second. Let's let our alternate. Brian and Kathleen. What' you say? Okay. Okay. And I second. Okay. Got that. Brian and Kathleen. Got it. Okay. All those in favor? I opposed. None. Staining. None. Motion passed me five to zero to zero. Thank you for working through a very complicated plan with and I appreciate the effort that you took to explain it all. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. All right. So now that was our only case tonight. So I'm just going to quick zoom through a few things. Um we need to Oh. Oh. Seven Champion Road. Everybody knows that that application was withdrawn. Okay. There's no old business. The new business is receipt and setting of public hearings for new applications. Case 258 C67 Center Beach Avenue to replace a 10x2 shed with a 17x 21 garage on a non-performing R10 lot in the AE12 flood zone. Coastal site plan review application was submitted. And I just wanted to mention that um we we would it's it's almost complete. The only thing missing at this point are the assessor's cards. We were promised the

assessor's cards by today. They didn't turn any come in. I'm not I'm not worried that we're not going to get the assessor cards. Okay. So I think that we can receive and schedule the public hearing for July 17th. People are okay with that. This is the camp road. No, this is a camp Champion Road was with was withdrawn. Oh, forever. Well, yes. Well, until now. Yeah. Forever is a long time. But that 20 5-7C is gone. Yes. Okay. And now, so we're going to receive and schedule the public hearing for case 25c 67 Center Beach Avenue for July. Center Beach. Now, the applicant, this is unusual, the applicant has requested the variance application fee be waved, quote, as I paid them previously, but was very unprepared for my first hearing that lasted all two minutes. And I would just like to point out that prior application withdrawn in October 2024 after extensive interactions with staff over several months, the cost of publishing public notices have been incurred and a 20-minute public hearing was held with guidance provided by the board and ZBA attorney. So, I guess the question is, does the board feel we should wave someone for being unprepared? How do you feel about it? I think Craig's already asking for the money. So, I think, you know, Craig and I are pretty much of the opinion that his lack of here is not reason for your application. Yeah, you guys still had to go all that March. Well, it's not just that. I mean, the amount of time we have spent with this man is can we measure in like double digit hours at this point in time? Who is this guy? Um, well, I don't know if we should talk about it's it's it's 67. Do we need to vote on this? I was saying so my question was did anybody want to make a motion to vote to make a wave it? And I think if no one does, I don't think we need to make a motion. Well, we've voted down. Okay. Since there's a request that's been made, I think you

should address it for transparency and other reasons. Okay. So then do we make a motion positively and then just vote against it or do we That's what we did last time. This time I don't think it should be a close motion. So I think you just say a motion is made not to wave the variance. A motion. Would anyone like to anyone to make positive? Right. Motion to wave. I make a motion we wave the fees for this case 25-HC. Y voting in favor. Oh, seconded. That was Kip. No, that was who? Stephanie. Kip and Stephanie. Okay. Voting in favor. No one abstaining. No one. Uh. Oh, I forgot. Opposed. Okay. Okay. Okay. The motion failed. Okay. We're done that. And then there's another new case, 25-948 Connecticut Road to renovate and add a half story to an existing one-story 3-bedroom dwelling located in a non-conforming R10 lot in the AE11 flood zone. It's a very complete application, I think. So, I think we need can receive it and schedule it for July 17th, 2025. Feel okay with that? What's the number of two? Just two at that point. Just two. Yeah. Okay. So then zooming along to chair update uh this is here and you've got this note from uh Craig. Uh there we need to vote regarding continued engagement of Sylvia Rakowska as DBA attorney with a $10 per hour increase in her fee for 20 fiscal year 2025 to 2026. And before I discuss it, I'd just like to preface the ZBA discussion with my perspective that based on my 10 years of interactions with land use attorneys, not just old

line ZBA. I find that Sylvia provides excellent, clear, and county legal guidance that is wellinformed and cost effective. She has helped the ZBA improve our processes and and engaging her proactively as legal questions arise is much less costly than the cost of an appeal. I'd like to make a motion to uh approve of that a salary increase. Okay. Second. Okay. Okay. Do do I need to I was going to make a more specific motion. Did to agree to continue engagement of attorney Row of the Arch Law Group as ZBA attorney for the fiscal year 2025 to 2026 per the terms and conditions of her letter emailed letter to the board dated June 4th, 2025. So move. Okay. Kathleen. [Laughter] Brian. Brian. Yeah. Kip. Kathleen and Brian. All those in favor. I oppose none. Abstaining none. Motion passely 5 to 0 to zero. Okay. And I just want to say the updated ABC guidance document was decerted by email June 2nd. Uh but Brian has hard copies for everybody who wants one. Yes. Did you give it out to everybody yet? Is that what this is? Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you. It looks beautiful. Okay. And then I just wanted to let people know um if people are interested because people sometimes have been asking me questions and we try to answer questions at the meetings ourselves but and we've taken some training. There's a very helpful book. It's called what's legally required by the Connecticut land use attorney Mike Zitka and it says a guide to the legal rules for making local land use decisions in the state of Connecticut. And it and it's really helpful if anybody wants it. I just want to say I have information on how you can buy it, but if you want to just borrow my copy and scan through it some way has a copy as well. You can borrow but I just wanted to offer it up to you and let

people know because sometimes you know as you get into a little bit more you have some questions and sometimes we can't answer them all at the meeting. You could have some question how can you get that? Can I get that online? Yeah. Can you email us that out? Yes, I will send the link. It costs $35 and it's all proceeds from the sale of book support the educ educational programs of the Yukon Clear's land use academy. So it's not a profit making thing. So it's really what's called what's legally required. The Yukon Clear Land Use Academy. Okay, that's good. And uh I will send a link of where to buy it to everybody. I just think it's nice to have. But if you don't want to buy it, you can borrow mine. Anybody want to borrow it today? Okay. uh correspondence and announcements notice of the zoning regulation change removed from section 5.10.3 10.3 the following special permit use permitted in the Z30 zone retail dealer station for sale of motor vehicle fuels and then um I did have going on to the meeting minutes um before we approve the minutes I did have a proposed change to the ZVA meeting minutes I know you weren't here last time so it's kind of hard to get it all right so I was going to suggest I just kind of reworked two paragraphs on page four and I was going to read it to you and see if everyone's okay with Attorney Kerry submitted exit exhibit one a copy of a special town meeting minutes dated April 15, 2024 which shows that the old lime affordable housing commission has the authority to present the variance application on behalf of the town. And then Mr. Medcaf professional engineer explained that when the lots were created there was not a requirement for a lot frontage on a town or private road and that the lot frontage on the 50ft rightway was allowed. The subdivision regulations and town road ordinance road ordinance prevent the rightway from becoming a town or private road because there is not an adequate area at the end for a turnaround. If the variance is granted,

access to the parcels will go through the town. Okay. Um if the variance is granted, access to the parcels will go through the town's subdivision review process that includes reviews by the planning commission, fire marshall, and town engineer to ensure safety and adequate access to the properties. Both lots have 25 ft of front foot front foot front foot front foot front foot front foot front foot front foot front foot front foot front foot front footage on the right of way. The property configuration and deed restrictions prohibit additional housing lots from being added later. These two lots are designed for the creation of affordable housing helping to support a town goal if people are okay with that. I was going to suggest we just it just kind of like made it a little clearer. I thought what I was before you go to the minutes I just wanted to do one thing about the regulation change. We'll get that. Oh, okay. But anyway, but I said if that if people are okay with that, I was going to suggest we make a motion to approve the May 15, 2025 meeting minutes with the amendments proposed. So moved. Stephanie second. Kip. All those in favor? I I opposed. None standing none. Motion passely 5 to 0. and you wanted to get to something about that. Yeah, you don't have to say anything. However, again, the zoning commission transmitted to you the proposed amendment to the rags, which is taking out gas stations from the C30 zone, the only zone it's permitted in. Um, if you have any comments you'd like to get back to the zoning commission regarding that proposal, this is your chance to do so. You're not required to give any comments, but again, um, they will be taking it up at their next meeting as a public hearing. So, so they're saying taking gas stations out of that zone. Yes. As as a future special permit use. The existing four gas stations in town would continue to be there as a grandfather use, but you couldn't have new gas stations beyond the four you already have. I'm good at that. So,

still in the past sometimes you've told us as a board not to comment so much, but as individuals to comment, what do you is your advice on this now? I I my vague recollection is that I may have given you like a one sentence just so that the commission knows that you looked at it and have decided to not respond. I I guess the the caveat is if the if all of you agree about an issue that the commission should review or determine or whatever else then you can comment. What I found is rarely with regulations does everyone agree exactly one with with the other and then it gets a little wonky. Yeah. Um um and sometimes it also matters whether it's a commission proposed amendment versus someone else's amendment. In this case it's a commission proposed amendment. So do you think we need to say so we I just mentioned that we got this correspondence and I didn't think we had to act on it so I didn't say anything but if you think we should act on I think you can give Eric so to the extent you don't have any comment I think you can give Eric authority to without motion just letting him know that you've reviewed it and he can let them know that there's been no comment. Does anybody have any comments? Well I kind of approve of that motion you know me too. Yeah I approve and that's two of us. Anybody? How do you guys feel about it? I haven't looked at it. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. I mean, how many gas stations do we want in our town? Are far enough? I don't know. So, I don't know the basis of this at all. So, I'm just So, I think I think you're I think you want to be thinking so if if you don't want more gas stations, I think that's more of your personal opinion as opposed to the ZBA as an agency, you Well, if we all agreed then it would be but we're not agreeing. Yeah. But but how you all agree is so it's not you're not just a random group, right? Because

you could be a group of individuals that files an a letter that says we all agree. You you're acting as the ZBA with the ZBA authority. Is it something that's relevant to the ZBA? So, for example, if they change some if the commission decided it was a good idea to change some procedures or you know eliminate the ADA reference in the zoning regulations and that affects you might have a comment because it affects us. I might suggest you have a comment because the law says something else. So, it sort of as an agency with the with the powers and the obligations that you do is there input to the commission and does it affect our official capacity? So I don't think this particular one does. So that's why I've sort of said but but I want everyone to be aware of it because if you as a individual want to comment I appreciate that and if we saw something if there was something about what was being proposed that would make our life problematic as in our duties as CDA they would want to respond as a and I think as they go through the res though it's coming to give it that be more fanfare. I think the thing is too is like since they're rewriting the regulations now and we as a board have already reviewed regulations and made individual comments that we want to discuss, we can when it gets to that level of detail, we can then discuss proposed comments and as a board say so we've submitted that to them already. No, no, no. We we it before they decided to rewrite the zoning regulations, it came up as a discussion as you know we've we've got a lot of experience reading the regulations and living with the regulations and firing the regulations that if we had any feedback for the zoning commission that we would I think Michaela put some I put some um and then we just colle collected it all and shared it with Eric and Craig. Okay. And at this point, within the next month or maybe two, you'll be getting a draft

set of rigs, which is just phase one, but a draft set of rigs that the commission will be looking to adopt. And at that point, you can look through them and get back to the commission with your thoughts on the revised rigs. I don't have them to give you yet. You'll be getting them again sometime next month or so. At that point, you guys can decide to put it on your agenda and give whatever your thoughts are back to to the commission about that. Well, I'll say this. You know, again, the uh Shoreline Gateway, we have concerns about some of the regulations because we're trying to deal with some of the regulations in that neighborhood and when we I went to the zoning board, it seems like they're like moving really very slowly or not really and they're not getting the input. And so I think as a board here, we should be proactive and give them input before it's sealed and dealed. Absolutely. I would 100% 100%. To the commissioner's defense, I will say this. We we are looking at doing this in two phases. The first phase, which is what we're finishing up now, is simply to essentially repackage the current regs in a more userfriendly format. The next phase, which will be starting when this phase is finished, will be to go to all of the different shareholders in town and get their input on what future red should look like. So yes, I agree they have not yet solicited input, but the goal was not to do that in the first phase of the process. It was to get the regs essentially operational in a new format and then go out and seek input from shoreline gateway from gateway commission in uh uh the planning commission essentially for us to go and try and have various sessions with groups in town to hear what the concerns are and then to amend

the rigs to address those concerns. So that will be phase two. It will take a year and a half, god knows how long to go through, but the goal is to s at that point solicit input and then amend the new rags to to address that. So phase one is just supposed to be create new rags to work from. Phase two is then amend those regs to address concerns such as the shoreline gateway. So what are they going to have us look at first? Just that new format. Just the new format. Okay. And if we make a a regulation in old line, whatever the state of Connecticut says takes precedent. We could say anything, but whatever the state says. Yes. Basically, in fact, one one of the issues is that our rigs not having been substantially amended in many many years are now wildly out of step with what the state compliance. So one of the what one of the things that's happening in the phase one of this is we are essentially bringing this this regs up to current requirements. Now again it may be that come tomorrow that if they sign a new law that we're going to have to amend again but at least we're trying to keep up with where things are. Um, and again, some of the variances you've been getting are not even going to be variances going forward because for instance, minimum house size is no longer something you can regulate for. Okay. So, the 800 foot one floor 1,200 you totally blown out of the rags. It's not going to be there anymore. Um, so there just things there are things in the regs like that we looked at. I don't know what the name of this is, but it's like a column of the the column thing and it's like it's ancient and it's like saying you can burn the flesh of the it's like, you know what I mean? It should be out of like Yeah. The prohibited uses table has a lot of

things that our 1950s era things. Yeah. And before that even but again we didn't have rights before then. But okay, but again it it is absolutely true that when they go through and substantively revise the regs, we we should take out things that no one will ever do in old life ever again. You're never going to have a leather factory or rendering of animals or all the other things that we have in there. So you just have goat sacrifices basically. I'm just saying. Yeah. Well, and for whatever reason when you were drafted, arcades were a very big thing. There's nothing about pinball machines and things of that sort. Obviously, we still have them. That's not good. I want to more machines. Okay. But anyway, I was I think I think we've addressed your point. There's going to be a process and I think as I've gone through all the regulations already currently haven't made comments, but we'll make it again in a new format with the new updated legal compl compliance. Okay. Three months. I'll be at a point where I can entertain a motion to assure Yes. I was just about Did you done minutes yet? We just did it. We did it. We did minute. Get the amendment. You're right. I read a statement. So Brian made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second. Kip. All those in favor? I opposed. None abstaining. None. The motion pass 0. And the time is 8:31. 8:31. Second one. Thank you once and I think we're looking forward to working with you again for another year. I was going to try and prank you and like vote against it or something like that. No, I think it was good. If anyone had a question, that's a big issue for yourself. We have a bad, you know what I mean? You ready for banking