Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

All right. Um, I'm calling to order the zoning board of appeals regular meeting for Thursday, September 18th, 2025. Um, the time is 6:30 p.m. And roll present, we have Brian roll. Brian Hope, alternate, Pearson, alternate. Kip Codson, Nancy Hutchinson, chair. Stephanie Mccl, Russell Fog, Captain Tracy, alternate. Eric Depp, zoning enforcement officer.

And absent is Steve Dicks, member and also our DVA clerk. So, this is our secretary. She's going to help keep track of everything. Um, so seated for today's meeting will be myself, Kip Codson, Stephanie Mikl, Russf Fog, and Michaela Pearson. Okay. Now, before we uh open the public hearing, I think the board would needs to consider two administrative motions to delay the opening of the public hearings for two cases deemed by the CEO to be incomplete. Did you want to say something? Do you want me to say something?

No, we'll start with 15 Liberty. Um 15 Liberty is a uh property that's in the flood zone. Um they proposed improvements that do not involve elevating the structure. I asked for proof that they were not going over the substantial improvements number or 50% of the value of the structure. Um we did not receive evidence regarding that. Um, I don't believe that this board should be considering a application in a flood zone without proof that they're going to be able to stay underneath the substantial improvements figure. Um, and therefore, um, I did not prepare a memo and I I believe the matter is not ready to go forward. So, that's 15 Liberty. So with that, I would like to make a motion to delay the opening of the public hearing for case 25-105 Liberty Street to the October 16th, 2025 regular meeting, the meeting hall, Memorial Town Hall, 52 Lime Street, Old Nine, Connecticut. Would anybody like to second that?

I'll second it. How was Kip? All those in favor? I opposed none. Abstaining none. The motion passing 5 to 0 to 0.

Okay, that brings us to 70 C spray. Um 70C Spray has not received final approval from Ledgelight Health District. My understanding is that Cheryl Hos is from Ledgeite. It's meeting with Joe next Tuesday at 2:00 if I'm not mistaken to go over remaining issues. Um in speaking with Cheryl directly today, she indicated she had concerns regarding the substantial amount of drainage issues on site and where that drainage was going to go in protection in relation to the septic system. Um, as a result, again, she has not signed off on this uh legislative district approval. Um, the board has established a policy uh after a particular application last year of not acting on or not taking up applications that do not have final legislate approval. Um, so I would strongly encourage this matter not go forward tonight until we know from legislate whether they're going to be able to get their approval or not. So with that, I'd like to make a motion to delay the opening of the public hearing for case 25-12C 70C spray to the October 16, 2025 2025 regular meeting hall, Memorial Town Hall, 52 Line Street, O line, Connecticut. Would anyone like to second that motion?

Second. Okay, I heard Russ first. Okay. All those in favor?

I opposed. None. Abstaining. None. The motion pass unanimously. 5 to 0 to 0. Okay, with that administrative stuff out of the way, uh we're going to move ahead to the public hearing. Uh and before we start the public hearing, I usually give instructions to applicants to help facilitate an efficient review. Please present the evidence that an unusual and unnecessary hardship exists based on the strict application of the zoning regulations due to some peculiar condition of the property itself and that the condition does not generally affect other properties in the district. also that the evidence that the variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual hardship and allow reasonable use of the property. Uh to indicate whether any reduction legal pre-existing non-conformity is proposed and the evidence that the variances requested are in harmony with the intent purpose of zoning regulations and the comprehensive plan of zoning. So with that, we'd like to go on to case 25-1150 Boston and Post Road was requesting variances to demolish the existing detached garage and construct a house addition with an attached garage in the street line and other property line setback increase in lot coverage on a non-conforming RU40 lot. Philip and Susan Beckman applicants. So this is a nonconforming structure on a non-conforming RU40 lot. The variances requested are the 8.8.7 8.7 minimum street setback 50 ft required 8.8.9 minimum slide setback 35 ft required 8.8.11 8.11 maximum building structure coverage maximum 10% of lot area and 9.3.1 no enlargement of non-conforming structure unless the enlarged portion complies with the regulations and just as an information the plans uh have obtained inland wetlands administrative permit approval as of August 6th uh 2025. So with that I

leave it to you to present to the board and thank you for all your work. Thank you. Uh before I get started, those other two applications were also ours. I just want to add just a a brief a little color to that. So the one with um 15 Liberty Street, the applicant had a major neck decompression surgery. So he's been a little sidetracked. Um so not able to focus with a contractor to come up with that estimate. So no delay in anybody's part. Obviously that took precedence over getting the 50% numbers done. So they're working on that now. now that he's recovering working as a contractor. The other one, um, we just received Cheryl's comments on Tuesday. Um, and I asked her if she could meet Wednesday, but she couldn't meet until next week. So, we had no chance to try to resolve before this meeting. So, I just want to let you know it's not applicant's fault. It's not our fault. We're just working with the uh, Legal Health District to

Thank you. get you what you need before the next meeting. Thank you very much. Um, so for the record, I see you passed something out. Is this an exhibit? That is an exhibit. That's from Denise uh Vandasel, who's the project architect, and she'll review that when she presents after me. Okay. Okay. We'll just label it because you've handed it out. I'll just label it as exhibit one.

Sure. For the record, Joe Ren, professional engineer of Indigo, uh in Old Sabbrook. Um so, the first of two applications that we have for you tonight is uh the one that is up here. This is um for Phil and Susie Beckman who are with us tonight with their daughter and fiance. Can I say husband's husband? So congratulations.

So they will be um living uh in this house hopefully with uh the proposed improvements. Um also Denise Dosel is here. She's the project architect. And then a second row on the right side is Caroline who helped um put the plan and the application together. She works at my office just so you know all the faces. Um so this property is at 50 Boston Post Road. We've all driven by it a million times. Um some smaller homes uh in this general area. The current situation is there's a small rectangular home here uh with a a little bumpout on the west side and then there's a small detached garage there as well highlighted also in yellow on the west side. Uh what's being proposed is to remove that little bump out on the west side and the detached garage uh and construct this addition. Um, in constructing this addition and working with all the parameters on this this project, we're able to improve the setback uh conformity on the west side because of the angle of the house, how it's slightly, you could probably see it on the plan. Um, it's slightly angled to the street just a little bit. So, extending that line up just gets a couple of inches closer to the street line on that side. uh effectively as you drive by it appears to be we're not going out 10 ft so you're not really going to be able to tell the difference. It's basically in line with the front of the house. Um in doing this obviously we do eliminate some coverage those yellow pieces but we do add a little bit of coverage and that is one of the variances uh going just over the the 10% to 10.7%. Um, this property is in the RU40 zone, so we're supposed to have an acre of land.

Um, and we only have 12,649, that looks like 849, uh, so we have less than a third of the required property. So, if this of course was an R40, a real R40 lot, um, the house would be able to be much bigger and we wouldn't need a variance for coverage. So since the lot is small um we are uh asking for that coverage variance um as a percentage of the small lot area. Uh in addition to that there are inland wetlands back here. Uh we do have a 100 ft inland wetlands buffer. We have that line shown on here kind of goes through uh the house the existing house in the proposed addition. As Nancy mentioned we do have um staff administrative weapons approval for this. Uh we also I don't think Nancy mentioned the health approval. There is an existing septic system back here that we are reusing. We did do a little bit of work and some soil testing there and that has been approved. Uh there is a health approval to this particular project.

Yep.

Um what's highlighted on this map in blue are the setbacks. Um, so you could see the shape and the position and the s the small size of those setbacks. And you can see the home um built decades ago is almost completely outside of the setbacks. The um the addition and also the detached garage completely outside or I should say in completely in the setback. Um so there's really no way to avoid that with uh construction. So we try to make things the minimum amount necessary um to get a reasonably sized addition um that suits the applicant's needs. Um so the application that we provided on the first page it lists the variances. I'll just go through those quickly. Um so obviously as I had mentioned before the front setback is the street line setback is all the way here in this front blue line. So clearly we're well into that um street line setback firmly. Um the porch is 25.6 and um that's this porch here. Um and that will remain but not change. The main portion of the house uh will remain and uh the closest the house currently is is 30.9 to the front sub the front property line. The closest this addition like I had mentioned before putting it in that same plane is 30.4 um here to that street line. So it's.5 um closer than the existing just because of the nature of the the angle. Um we have the other line setback which is 8.8.9 and that is on the western side. Um there the existing is 12.8 8 ft and we

are proposing uh 15.6 ft. So about 2.8 ft almost 3 3T betterment on that side. But again you can see where the 35 ft set back is. So the garage is completely in that the detached one. We're bringing it back down a little bit more closer to um conformance. uh the coverage we're allowed 10% in the R40 zone and as you know how old lime zoning regulations are uh as the properties get larger the percent of the cover allowed coverage goes down because of obvious reasons. So, an R40 zone on a 40,000t lot, 10% of that you can get 4,000 square ft of coverage and be conforming. Since the lot area is existing, non-conforming, and it's only less than a third of what's uh what's there, the coverage goes out to 10% of that. So, instead of that 4,000, we get 1,285 or so square ft um to to conform to coverage. And um it's close to that since we're just 10.7 uh over. I think it's 1376 or 1378 uh square ft that is being proposed. So um just a bit over to get this addition. And I know Denise worked very hard with the applicants to not make the house any bigger and make it the minimum size that that suits uh the needs of the applicant. Um and lastly we have of course 9.3.1 which is no enlargement of an existing non-conformity. Um so we have everything outside the setbacks on these sides and uh we're changing that and uh expanding that in that area. So of course that applies.

May I ask um the blue line is that the buildable? What is that? Those are the setbacks highlighted setbacks. Um so we have believe it's 50T uh front yard here. Yeah. 35 foot sides and then of course we have the rear too that comes in. Um and it's not highlighted on here but the 100 foot line for the wetlands comes right through the house as well. But you've got approval for that. Yeah. Yeah, we got the approval for that but it's just another restriction on the property and then we have the septic system here um you know for for encroaching in that direction.

Um we have those other restrictions to consider. So on the second page of your application, um number two is variances requested to allow. Um that one is the proposed variances are requested to allow the applicant to demolish the existing non-conform conforming detached garage and construct a modest house addition including an attached garage and roof modifications. The improvements will require two setback variances and one coverage variance, but will conform to the building height 29 ft versus 35 ft. 6 foot lower than the height allowable and GFA only a net of 113 square ft of GFA is proposed to be added uh to the structure. Uh number three strict application to zoning regulations um would not allow the modest addition to be constructed as proposed. The house was built in 1952 so 70 plus years ago

uh in its current 70 plus uh in its current location. Uh since the house is uh nearly entirely in current street and sideyard setbacks, any addition to the house or roof modifications would require variances. Obviously, the subject property is just 93.3 ft wide. And I didn't say 93 ft plus 93.3 ft wide and setbacks are 35t on each side. So 70 ft of the width uh are restricted setbacks. So 70 minus the 933 we have 23.3 which is represented by that width of the blue lines there uh in between. Um that's the existing house is uh 30.9 ft to the street line where 50 ft uh street line setback is required. More than 94% of the lot is restricted by front side and rear setbacks. Um so this little piece here represents about 6% of the property. The rest is restricted by setbacks and that's about 94%. So that's very substantial. Additionally, the majority of the property is encumbered by the 100 foot wetland review area, which we already went over. Um, combining the upland review area with the property setbacks, essentially 100% of the property is encumbered because you can see um the line comes there. So, it's just that little teensy triangle that's in the existing house. If we were out of the 100 foot review area out of all the building setbacks, we would have that little tiny piece which is

so basically you're saying if you move try to stay within the setbacks, you'd actually be encroaching more closely on the wetlands uh toward toward the septic system and toward the wetland. Yes. So the wetland is here. There's a gray area. So as you come back this way, it would be right toward the wetland. two conflicting needs to stay in this try to balance because part of the addition here is within the 100 ft. Yeah.

Um it's just not much closer to the existing wetlands and hence the the reason approval of that and not having to go to the wetlands board. It was just administrative uh review. The Caroline went to the sitewalk up there. We had an application and they said we don't need to see this. It's it's minor enough. So they allow air. Right. Because you have an existing garage that's almost as close. Exactly. So that's why we tried not to again all the conflicting issues here. We try not to encroach the wetlands much more and we tried to make that setback better there. And it's it's it's a kind of marriage, no pun intended, it's kind of a marriage of all the conflicting uh restrictions.

Yeah. Septic weapons zoning setbacks coverage. Um, so now I figure out where I left off here. Um, so the subject property, this is this section is almost done here. It's in the RU40 zone. A lot area of 12849 only 32% of the minimum required. So as I mentioned about a third, a little less than a third. Um, and the width we already talked about 2 93.3 is only about 62% of the 150 ft minimum. Um, and then the DOT rightway between the edge of the road and the front property is approximately 23 ft. So, the house appears to meet the setback from the edge of the road.

So, it's about 30 ft back and it's this this section here between the property line and the edge of Route 1 is about 23 ft. So, it appears that the house is 50 ft back. Yeah. Um, you don't see the property line when you drive by. So as you're driving by, this appears to be 50 ft back, but really it's 30 from the property line and 20th Street. That we take that into consideration. Yeah, of course it makes it makes sense, right? Because it does thwart the meaning of the regulation. The regulation it looks like it would be the regulation

and that's why it was important to mention that there because the combination of the two puts us right puts us right there. Actually a little bit more than 50 ft. Um number four, the unusual hardship. So as a uh a after mentioned uh number three above the lot is unique since the small grossly non-forming lot of record that is 94% encumbered by yard setbacks and nearly entirely 100% when combined with the uh wetlands review area when compared to other RU40 lots in the district. The subject lot is exceptionally small which substantially reduces coverage and gross floor area allowances. Uh on a conforming 40,000 foot RU40 lot, approximately 6,000 square feet of GFA and 4,000 square feet of building coverage would be permitted. However, since the area is only 12849, as we mentioned before, only 1927 ft of GFA max and 1285 ft of building max coverage are allowed without variances. Number five, almost done here. Number five, uh reductions and pre-existing non-conformities. Um a the southwestern sideyard as we mentioned before will be increased 12.8 to 15.6 ft for proposed reduction of about 2.8 ft and that's representing the difference between the yellow edge there and the the proposed dark edge B. Uh although not a reduction of non-conformity the proposed addition will align uh with the existing front house wall with the street levels. Um and again I just go down that it appears to be 50 feet back um with the edge of the road. And then lastly, the proposed work will enhance the neighborhood, increase property values in the vicinity. Of course, with the new renovations, the proposed yard setback variances will not extend closer to property lines. Uh as described above, additionally, the southwest sideyard setback non-formity will be improved. The septic system was

recently replaced with a much more code compliant system. Um, due to all of these factors, the project is in harmony uh with the purpose and intent of the zoning regulations and will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan of zoning. Um, so the homeowner who also sits on the ZBA board and has some familiarity with this um, uh, put together this. And we know that ZBA doesn't set any precedence, but it's good to look at the harmony of the area and of the neighborhood. Um, so we highlighted on here. Um, it's a little GIS print out and it just shows coverages of surrounding properties. Um, and it shows, uh, existing conditions, of course. Uh, 50 Boston Post Road is about 1378. Um, but houses around it are 2,00500, 1900, uh, 1,800,600. Um so the proposed uh coverage fits right into or is even on the small end of that we could snip that out. So what we're seeing is that that this would still be the most modest house dwelling in the neighborhood.

You're one of one of one of the bottom even though the percent coverage is Oh if you're going to speak you have to come up and introduce yourself. Phil Beckman come closer. Come closer. Phil Beckman owner the uh there the one that is the smallest one is on the corner of u right there. here. I don't know what the road is, but right across the street. Black wall. Yes, black wall. Um, and looking at it, it's it's uh pretty dilapidated. It could probably use a refurbishment like I'm trying to do. So, all right. So, some other uh housekeeping items here. Uh, we have Eric's letter. I don't have to read it. I believe you all received it. You all able to review that.

Um, so a lot of the points that I just made were kind of mirrored in that letter. So, thank you, Eric. Um, did you have more than one of this one or just one? We I just We just have one more. Oh, okay. Cuz we like to keep one for the file. Yeah, just so we can keep that one for exhibit. I think we got to Thank you so much. Those are black and white color. Well, that's the one that's going in the file. That's the one going in the file. Anybody else like to copy this? I'd like to look at it. Yeah. Pass it down. Um so so while you are reviewing that uh exhibit we have two letters of support.

Okay. [Applause]

Just keep the color one for the record. 13. So, when you're ready, just let me I'll go over the letters of support. Okay.

So, this is exhibit number two cuz we number the other one already. Yeah. Really helpful. Every application came with one comparison. Sometimes depends on what variances are being requested, but often get a sense of of the nature of it. Sorry folks, but this this application I really like that what I I've mentioned before is we have the 20 and the 30 visually. Um on paper, yes, it's only 30, but you know, that was very impactful uh and helpful. So, I'm glad that we actually can ask about the um I'm just confused about the existing the stone drive, the curved driveway. So, that's their nano and it's going remain. Yeah.

Okay. And so you're adding the other piece up there. This here come the new. Okay. Um and so is that in the town right away there that Kirk drives? Uh this is it's actually in the state right away. Yes. The state right away. Existing condition. Yeah. Okay. Now they have two paved aprons. So it's an existing condition. So it'll be allowed to remain. It's an existing condition. Okay. If this became like a sports bar, then I would probably change it. The the surface is going to be something permeable. The we have crush stone drive and that's what I'm working. If

I could add Phil Becker again, um the the circular drive, if you look at most of the properties on Route One, they're all circular drives because you can't back out of the driveway, right? But so the state is okay with that because it's pre-existing. Yeah. I haven't even approached the state, but I'm assuming that we don't have to go to DOT because we're not proposing to do anything within the state right of way. If we're proposing to change or alter or add one of those, I mean, we have to go to the state. But yeah, dealing with the DOT and all of our state roads around here, as long as it's an existing condition and the use is staying the same, then they would allow it to change. As soon as you change the use, all Um, so we have two letters of support. Um, so I'm just they're relatively short. Read them.

I know. I'm going to give you copies once. Okay. Okay. So, yeah, I'm just saying we don't have them in the file yet. I don't remember seeing them. Um, they send them into ZDA. Do you know, Phil? I uh sent them to um your website the night before last. Okay. I I Oh, yeah. Looks like they are there. Okay. I just haven't seen them yet. So, go ahead with me. I want to make sure they're in the Looks like they're in Kit. Both of them are file. He'll read it to us. Yeah, I'll read it. So, it's part of the record, of course. Um, so 48 bus just have to help me with their name because I can't read the signature. Oh, uh,

Christine and Troy Barb. Barbados. Okay. And they're here. Okay. Thank you. Um, it just I got the B, but after the B. So, um, so there they are. Here, um, that's I can't read it. Should we write it on there? Yes. Yeah. So, you're going to have to spell it. It's B A R. B A T as in R O. B A R B A T B A T O O. Barbados. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And Christine, right? Yeah. Christine. Okay. And this is going to be Walsh, I think. Right. That's Sam and Donna Walsh.

W A L S S H. Okay, just want to make sure for the clerk. Totally agree. Okay, go ahead.

Okay, so the first one 48 Boston Post Road line. They're in a butter to 50 Boston Post Road. The application Mr. Beckman has shown the construction and site plans for the proposed changes for the house at 50 Boston Post Road. Moving the garage almost 3 ft away from our property line is significant change in my perspective. Reducing the expanse of the footprint seems to only enhance the ver visual aesthetics of the house on such a small lot. The four lots in the media vicinity 48 50 52 and 54 are all significantly undersized for the area. The Beckman's are doing an excellent job of creating a house that would both support a family and maintain the character of the neighborhood. I view these changes as enhancing property values in the area. I fully support the veterans proposed exchanges signed Christine Bartado.

Say it again. Okay. Close. Or okay. Um so the second one uh this is uh 41 Boston Post Royal Lime across the street from 50 Boston Post Road. What's on this map? Where is it? Uh across the street. 41. This is 45. Yeah. So this is the subject property. So it's one of those two. The one on the corner or the next one over? It's it's the one on the left as you're looking across the street from D. This one. This one. So the So there are three of them between the roads. The one in the middle. Sorry. Um this is 50. It's this one. Yep. The one in the middle.

That's the Walshes. God's put 41. Okay.

Awesome. I have seen the plans for proposed changes to the house at 50 Boston and Post Road and would like to provide my support for this project. I understand that the lateral expanse of the house is being reduced. I view this as no small feat. As it is now, the house is extremely modest and on a very small lot. Any efforts to reduce lateral expansive structure seems like a worthwhile endeavor and should be viewed positively by the board. I think they mean the width from the detached garage to the other edge of the house is coming in by almost 3 ft. Um, as one of the smallest lots and homes in the neighborhood, it seems like there wouldn't be too much room for improvement. The Beckman seem to be making a good faith effort to respect zoning while providing for a reasonable use of their property. Again, I support the proposed changes changes at 50 Boston Post Road and hope the ZBA approves the changes. Um Sarah Walsh and what's the other name?

Donna. Sarah and Donna Walsh. Okay. Samuel. Sam. Samuel. Okay. I got you. And Phil Beckham. Again, I did speak to uh Mr. Ditmire at 39. Um Boston Post. He's the bigger lot here. I spoke to him. I didn't have uh he didn't have a letter with him or time. So he he did give me a verbal that he was supportive. Thank you very much. And there's no known opposition that we know of. Um so without further ado, unless you have any questions for me, I'll let Denise go through the architectural plans and that exhibit that she handed out.

I think it was very helpful you saying how you're trying to balance so many different conflicting needs. The wetland for a modest project that has challenges. Yeah, it does seem like you're trying your best to comply, but it anyway, let's hear what the architect has to say.

Good evening, uh, Denise Van Vessel, uh, Ky Designs is my firm here. Okay. Um, I want to go to the existing I want to point out a couple of things. So, this house currently has a uh it's just a modest smalls size cape. Um it's 1 and 1/2 stories um on a crawl space and it it does have um a small I think it's like 8 by 8 and 1/2 um kitchen extension on the side. Um, currently the mechanicals are all in the crawl space. The crawl space is very damp. Um, and so part of this project is removing them and putting them above um, floor level. Um, the um, the other thing is they have no storage. Um, so that's part of the piece of the puzzle. And lastly, the upper level doesn't the ceiling height, you know, it's it's under the sloped roof and the ceiling height is only 6'5 and 1/2 at the highest. Um, and there's no way to dormer it without a flat, literally a flat roof dormer because underneath the peak of the roof is about 8 ft. Um this line here represent which is above the ceiling framing is where your 7 foot code compliant head room is. So you know originally they wanted to put a dormer on to get more um functionality out of the upper level um to go back to

what Joe said you know expanding out um is limited. So, our option really is to go up. And to do that, we really need to replace the roof. So, um, so that's part of this. Um, so in this design, you'll see this this dash line here represents the existing roof line. So, what I'm trying to do is is do a salt box so we actually get full headroom on on the back, but from the street it's keeping that low uh you know roof line low appearance. Um

so the taller wall is the is on the back side.

Correct. Um the other the other thing is the that kitchen um little adjun that I mentioned. We're taking the wall sound but we're leaving the foundation. So we're building off of that. So, this front wall um of this enlargement of this 8 by 8 and 1/2t space um connecting to the new garage is building off of that um or behind the existing um foundation. So, that's why we're maintaining that one bump and I didn't push it back further because we weren't tearing it down. Okay. So, um, and I didn't, and so, um, it's a foot back, so I pushed the garage a foot forward again, as Joe mentioned, to align it with the front of the house instead of keeping it the one foot back. It looks too flat. So, this is how it would look from the street. Mhm.

Um, again, it's one story where basically it's it's um a living room and a 5 foot wide mud room entry and a standard 12x 24 ft onecar garage with some storage for lawn equipment and and that kind of thing. They don't have a shed, you know. This is it. So storage is really at a premium. Um and um we are are also building in some storage with some attic space, but I'm keeping the attic space, you know, um in com lower than the 6 ft. So I didn't go over my floor area.

Where'd you put the What are you doing for the sub? Is it going to be a flat slab? Are you still have a crawl space? Are you rebuilding the crawl space? We're going to try to mitigate some of the water issues in the crawl space, but we're not um we're just taking everything out of it. Okay. Where are you? But that that that's that is going to stay there. The crawl space is going to be the foundation for for the house. Yeah.

So, the first floor, we're just doing some rearrangement of some rooms. Um it's a three-bedroom house. Currently the first floor. Currently the first floor. You come in, there's a dining room that's too small really for a table, little kitchen, a living area, and then two bedrooms and a bathroom. And one bedroom again that's really limited with this bathroom looks big, but when you consider all the slope ceilings, it's not big at all up here. And that's all we could fit. You said you're taking the mechanicals out of the

Yes, we are going to locate them some of them in this area underneath the stairs on the main floor and then some above the um the new created attic space in above the living room. Okay.

Um and then um so what we want to do is create more living space above to put two bedrooms upstairs. keep one bedroom on the main floor, keep the bathroom on the main floor. Um, working from home is, you know, a big thing these days. So, we're creating um this small I'm calling it a flex room, but it's really like an office. Um, and then it it's just a small kitchen living, you know, it's not a big house. We're not trying to go huge. We're just trying to fulfill the needs

um of the clients. and again move create utility space um and you know maintain some storage. So just to summarize some things it's it's a reasonably sized house. You're you're trying to what you're doing will also improve some health and safety because you're getting stuff out of the crawl space. Correct. you're having something that's more reasonable, I think, in terms of uh the the how it's laid out. Um it's supported by the neighbors. It fits with the neighborhood. You've decreased some pre-existing nonconformities by shifting that garage over

and attaching it to the house. And and the connection between the two that is just in the front half of the house. The back half of the house has a doesn't have a roof over it. Just an open terrace. Okay. Mhm. There is a terrace back there. Now, um you can actually So, if you look at these these drawings, this one on the top is how the house appears from the street. And if you look a little bit to the left, you can that that picture next to it shows you the detached garage with the fence and the corner of the house. Um this picture all the way on the right shows the rear of the existing house

and how it appears. And then you can see that um on the bottom these two photos on the bottom that that little kitchen bumpout that's there currently that we want to build off of. Um and then you can see kind of a dangerous step condition getting into the side kitchen door. Yeah. In the other photo. And from the front view, it looks just about as as substantial as it's going to be in the final thing. It's a little bigger on the main part of the house, but that doesn't look so different. Just looks tidier instead of having a detached garage with a shaky fence in between. You've got We're just tightening it up a little bit, squeezing them together, consolidating.

Yep. So, that that kitchen um little addition on that left ends right here. So, we're just adding a couple of feet, making this a little bit wider, I think. Thank I don't really have any question. I think you explained it very very well. Does anyone else have any questions for the Not at all. Please get one clarification. You list this on your exhibit here as 50 Old Boston Post Road. This is actually 50 Boston Boston Post Road. Gotcha. Scribble. Sorry that there is an old road. There is there is an old post road. I wanted to make sure this one too.

Right. Okay. My fear was we blow the legal ordinance because it was but no actually going bus road. Okay. Okay. All right. Um I have it right over. So So if I'm summarizing things, so one of the hardships is that the existing house is almost completely already in the front setback and but you are reducing some legal pre-existing nonconformity. You're making a house that's not much bigger. It's very reasonably size. It's improving health and safety. It's supported by the neighbors. It fits with the neighborhood. Um, it's got that extenduating circumstance where the lot is so small. It's actually surrounded by wilderness.

Yeah. There's nothing. And normally we would ask, but it's sort of ridiculous to ask. Maybe I'll ask anyway. Have you tried to purchase the adjoining properties to expand the size of the lot? I I don't think Yeah, it's not going to happen. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, technically that's something and and we should ask I I think the way we there's no conditions of approval that I think we need to request. Okay. Um Nancy, just before you close, the homeowner would just like to say a very brief statement. Oh, please come up.

Hi. Um yeah, Phil Beckman again. Just Susie tells me I got to read a room. I read the room. I had everything prepared. I was going to defend my position, but I I'm good at reading a room. Um do appreciate your time. We did buy the house in 2001. Everything that you see that we planned wasn't something that we did on a whim. This has been four years in the making. So, we we've been thinking hard on this and a lot of effort went in the plants. It comes across as very well thought out and planned and and trying to balance so many different conflicting needs. I think that's where it comes across very clearly. Thanks. Hand it on.

Okay. Um, so if if no one has any other questions, then I think would anybody like to make a motion to close the open public? Oh, forgot. I always forget. But like to open up the public comment. Would anybody like to speak in favor of this application? So we have to come to come up and and announce your name for the and your your name and where you your address.

I'm at 48 Boston Post. So, we've been there about 30 a little over 30 years. Nobody stays because it's too small. These guys are amazing. We want them to stay. Just let them make their house, right? And the plants are gorgeous. So, it's only going to enhance our property, so we're for it. Okay. Would anybody else like to

Would anybody else like to spake speak in favor of this application? Would anybody like to speak oppose this application? Would anybody like just a comment on this application? Okay, I think no more public comment. So now with that, would anybody like to make a motion to close the public hearing for case 20- 25-11 50 Boston Post Road? So moved. So that was Kip. Second. No, that was already Michaela. Michaela. Uh all those in favor?

Opposed? None. Abstaining none. Motion passed unassie 5 to 0 to 0. So now uh now that the public hearing is closed um the rules are that only voting members may participate in deliberations. No new information may be introduced after the close of public hearing but members may ask the staff uh procedural questions. And usually before making any motions, the board discusses the evidence presented during the public hearing, potential reasons, conditions of approval agreed by the applicant and potential reasons for granting or denying the variance of trying to make the motion. So I think usually we go through a a logical step. So what is is there an unusual hardship or a legal alternative to unusual hardship? And I think the hardship is that basically the existing house is completely in the setback. I think they can't do much about that. Yeah, they're it's a reasonable uh project than any other lot without those constraints on it.

Yep. And I think also they have uh reduced some legal pre-existing nonconformities to help offset the proposed increase in non-conformity. Um and that includes the side setback. Um I think that this is the minimum required to make reasonable use of the property because it's a very modest request and the changes are in alignment with you know existing house and the constraints on the property. Um I think it's in harmony the intent and purposes on regulations because it's um it's supported by the neighbors and improves health and safety. Um I I mentioned a few others before.

Well, and like just connecting the building with the garage means you've got a walkway through in a storm or in the winter, anything like that. That's a slight safety issue. That's improving health and safety. Yeah. All right. Um with any and then uh the other thing is that the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated articulated by the board within the public hearing voting session. So I think we've discussed some re some cons. Does everyone agree with those reasons? I don't know that I have them all written down, but you do. Yeah, I I have some of them written down, but we'll get them on the recording. Okay.

Um and so everyone agrees with that. So with that, would anybody like to make a motion to grant the requested variances to sections 8.81, 81 8.89 8.811 9.31 Make sure I got the right ones. Oh, no, no, no. It's not 8.81. It's 8.87. I thought it was wrong. Okay, I'll start again. Would I like to make a motion to grant the requested variance of section 8.87, 8.89, 8.811, 811 and 9.31 to allow the demolition of the existing detached garage and the construction of a house addition with the attached and attached garage for the site plans prepared by Indigoland Design LLC and dated June 24th, 2025 and the floor plans and elevations prepared by KV Designs LLC and dated June 1st, 2025 2025 and stamped and signed by the ZBA chair.

I'll make a motion. That was for us. That was No conditions. No conditions. No conditions. No conditions. All those in favor? Opposed? None. Staining none. Motion passed. Unity 500. Who seconded that? Kip. Kip. Thank you. So, thank you very much. I think that was a very excellent presentation. It's very clear you worked really hard on this and tried to take it a very modified a modest approach and it's very appreciative. Thank you.

All right. So with that we're going to move along to case 25-20 oh 25-13 100 mile creek road. Guys guys we still have a meeting so please be quiet. Please be quiet. Go outside.

All right. Um, so, uh, case 25-13, 100 mile creek road, requesting for answers to convert the existing dwelling that is in the street line setback and is smaller than the required minimum size into an accessory apartment in an RU40 zone. Allan Todd applicant. There's a non-conforming structure on a conforming RU40 lot. The variances to request the three variants requested are sections 7.1 accessory use shall be on the same lot as primary use. Uh section 7.8.2.1G accessory apartment shall comply with all setback and coverage requirements al as per the current zoning regulation and oh sorry period. And then there's also 7.8.2.1C which per the current zoning regulation says an accord an accessory department shall have a minimum living space of 500 square ft. However, I'm going to turn this over to um our zoning enforcement officer because he's going there's an update in the state statutes. So he's going to tell us how we can he's

well this is not a new update but the truth is that for the last four or five years the statutes have no longer allowed towns to limit the minimum house size. So you guys have a minimum house size at the moment of 800 square ft. You have a minimum accessory apartment size of 500 square ft. Neither of those is consistent with the statutes as presently written. So I don't know that you can enforce enforce a regulation that it no is inconsistent with the state statute. So I don't know that you need to grant a variance on that because I just don't know that the underlying regulation is enforceable.

So I think I I touched base with Sylvia a little bit on this and she said you as a zoning enforcement officer can decide whether you feel it needs this if you this variance and whether state statute supersedes the zoning regulations. If so, then we can say that they don't need it or or you can say that maybe they don't need to show hardship. I don't know. So, I just comfortable saying I don't believe that they need the variance because I don't believe that that regulation is enforcable. Okay. So, I think it that I think that makes things much easier.

So, if that's the case, do you based on the zoning enforcement officer's statement, would you modify your request and no longer request that variance? We always want to reduce reduce variances, but the only thing that I'm on the fence about is as of today, your regulations that are in for, you know, in force today, it's in there. So that's why we requested a variance of that. So does it hurt if we keep the variance in and then when regulations get updated next year, it just goes away because you

Well, I guess the thing is this is what I discussed a little bit with Sylvia. So I think the thing is she says it's the zoning enforcement officer's call what variances are needed. If you still request it then that means we have to apply the hardship requirements the alignment of tent purpose zoning regulation requirements but if you don't have it then we don't need to make those apply those uh considerations to that particular variant. That's fine. We're not going to argue for less varian. So again, because the building is not changing, it's not going to be the permit for this building. I'm not going to have to sign off on some future permit way whether or not the building is too small.

Then genuinely the state and the town regulations are are conflicting and I think because you're asking to construct something that that that's so in this particular case, the building is the building. the building isn't changing and it just is the number of square feet it is and I I just don't think that I'm going to need a variance for that particular section. So based on the zone enforcement officer's uh decision that you don't need 7.8.2.1C, do you agree to amend your application to remove the request for that variance? Yes. Okay. Well, that's very good. So now we're down to record that we

Yeah, we just want to put that on the record. Okay. It's also on the record that that was clarified with um ZBA console and your zoning enforcement. Yes. Okay. [Music]

So with that now you can go on to your presentation. Thank you. Again, for the record, Joe Ren, professional engineer of Indigo and uh now we have less people in the room and Caroline from my office is here and then on this side we have Alan Todd who is the owner of uh this property. Um so this is a somewhat unique uh request, right? Um we're not used to uh or the board is really not used to seeing these types of variances. and we may have done one or two over 23 years, but um uh not too too often. So, what we have here is a very large property that goes all the way back to the the wetlands in a creek that goes to the Black Paul River. It's 100 uh mile creek road. Um the property area is nearly 4 acres grows 3.94 uh acres. Um, and we have wetlands. We have the buffers shown on here for later zoning. But the real reason why we're here this evening is for this tiny little existing house that was built in 1910. Um, so 1910 is 115 I don't know how many months, but 115 years.

Um, and it's been a small little house close to Mile Creek Road for all those years. Um, it's a little dwelling. It's it's self-contained. There's a well. There's a little septic system in the bottom. Can I ask a question? If something's over 100 years old, can is it considered historic? Not unless it's on the register, the national source, right? Just wanted to ask. Mhm. They have to apply. It could be, but okay. I just wanted to know if it was exist. Yeah, there's a whole process. You could apply for it and then you have to get approved. It's like not everybody gets approved. It has to have certain architectural features, period, details, and so forth. right now. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Um, so that's that little tiny area there. And even with that little bump in the back, it's 426 square ft. Um, so that was one of the variances, we now removed it, but because you had the 500 ft minimum, so that that is off now. We were just under that 500 ft. Um, so the other two left are 7.1 accessory and primary use. And then the other one is setbacks. And setbacks is a little easier to demonstrate. So, I'll just show that one first. So, the accessory, um, right now, this is the primary dwelling on the property. Um, and it is over the front setback. You can see the dash line coming through it. And, um, it is 41.9 ft um, where 50 ft is required. So, it's 8.1 ft over the setback line. But, of course, it was built in 1910 when there were no zoning regulations and it's pre-existing, non-conforming. So since that there is um part of your accessory dwelling zoning regulation that says if you actually propose an accessory dwelling or accessory building it has to meet all the applicable setbacks. So this doesn't meet front yard it meets sides it meets rear um by several hundred feet but it is close to the street because of its age and where it was originally constructed. Now the other the more interesting part of this is that what we're asking you to do is to consider this accessory um even though it's primary right now which would open the door for Allen to build a house a larger primary house here um which he plans to do and complete over the next 18 months correct in total complete done move in um and Eric and I had talked about I think that's in Eric's letter too that that is a condition that the house has to be not permitted but completed um within 18

months. So that's an agreed condition of approval. Yes, I think that's very important. So the agreed condition of approval if I'm clarifying is correct. A primary dwelling fully compliant with all lime zoning regulations to be constructed on the lot. You could have introduce yourself to Alan Todd. Thank you. So I just want to clarify. So if this would be an acceptable condition of approval that from reading your application I think it is a primary dwelling fully complying with old lime zoning regulations to be constructed on the lot within 18 months after the ZBA appeal period. Yes, that's constructed within 18 months. Right. Yes. That's our plan.

Right. And so that it addresses the the f the um variance related to the accessory structure without primary structure because you would have a primary structure and if you didn't have a primary structure then you lose the variance on the accessory structure. Correct. So I I think that's a really good you might want to add you might want to add constructed and completed. Oh that's fine. I mean you know maybe not all the landscaping and everything but the house co constructed and condition constructed and completed you know certificate of is not what's that what happens if it is not well then the variance expires right it's no longer structure it goes back to being a primary structure and then what

well no then they just they're back to where they are now they have a small primary structure on this huge lot are you allowed two primary structures on the same lot you're Not. That's the whole point. The whole point here is that theoretically this would be an accessory structure to a primary. If there's no primary, they're asking for an accessory without a primary. It's a problem.

So they're saying we'll build the primary, give us 18 months, and then this will be an accessory with a primary on the same lot. If they don't complete then that part of the variance will be essentially you know in violation um and will expire and then they'll basically start again. So he's committing to you 18 months and we'll be ready to to get a co on the property. And if they don't complete it, if they started and don't complete it, I guess they have an option of just removing the accessory structure or coming back to ZBA and asking permission an extension or but I'm saying like the fact that they don't

we're just changing the title that we call on this isn't going to be an overburden lot. That's a fully compliant structure that you're building. Yeah. and you're just going to say, "All right, I've already got this tiny thing. I've got a beautiful big lot. I want to build that one and just start calling that an accessory structure." It's the same darn building that's been there for 100 years. So, all we're doing is changing the designation for that. So, what's the advantage of asking now instead of once the building is built? Like somebody's living there and you're building a house in the back, why come first? So this building um proposed primary structure here is just an ad administrative zoning, but you can't have two primary structures on the same.

So even though you're building it, they would want that. That would need to go. You'd have to permit it and it has to be two. At that point, I would need to know what the other structure was and they would say, "Oh, it's an accessory apartment." And I'd say, "No, it's not because we have to go through this formalism to make it possible for them to build that." and turn this into an accessory because otherwise you have to do it or you can request a permit for a primary because otherwise there'd be two primary structures on the same lot which you can't have. So will it be a rental property then? It has been since we've owned it. It has been. You're not living in it? No. And it'll remain a rental property. Affordable housing.

You called it affordable housing. Is that

though a legal term these days? Do we need to consider that? Okay. It's not derestricted affordable housing. So, it doesn't qualify under 830G as affordable under the state's definition of affordable. That said, obviously the people who are living there, I'm guessing, have income levels that make it affordable in all but the state's definition. So, we're not getting credit for it, but it is by essentially by rental terms an affordable unit. And it does help with the whole concept of in improving more housing.

And and I know that there have been a lot of discussions at the legislative level about how to better capture some of these units that aren't restricted, but are at a price point that is considered to be affordable. because a lot of towns are saying, "Look, we have a lot of affordable housing, but it's not being captured properly because it isn't deed restricted." So, what do we do about that? Yeah. What's deed restricted mean? Cuz I'm a little foggy.

Okay. Deed restricted means that for a period of time under 830g, it's a period of 30 years. Um, you cannot either rent or sell it for higher than the affordable rate. Right? So, if say you built a brand new affordable house like that we're going to be doing on Flat Rock Hill in the near future and it's an affordable housing unit. Yeah.

At that point in time, anybody who buys it cannot buy it for a price higher than what the state says is the affordable price for 30 years. or if it's a rental unit, every time someone comes in to rent it, they have to show that their income does not exceed the the price point for income level there. So, but your case is is this a sort of de facto. It's de facto, but it doesn't affordable housing whether it's legally or not. Right. It doesn't have a deep restriction that would make it qualify under our A3, which is a showing of goodwill from the town is that you're trying to encourage some structures that

at least de facto are it it just it's just good for the town overall to have some more affordable housing. Can I ask are there tax advantages if he wanted to apply in the future? If we prove this and would there be tax advantages to him? the the value of the structure is the value of the structure. So I I mean and this is more this is more of a tax assessor issue is but I mean I don't think it's going to matter from the standpoint of frankly I don't think the structure is worth much anyway.

So I'm not sure you're going to get much change in the value of the structure based on on that. Um but that said again there are other benefits that you know that the town can provide if you give an affordable unit. I mean it ultimately

the town has an incentive to get to 10% which we're never going to get to but it's to approach 10% with a number of affordable units. um you know in the special session coming up ne next month um they're going to probably mandate that old line have 422 new affordable units and they've got to have them somewhere. Um so the town I'm sure will be creating incentives in some way shape or form to try and create these units. And if this is already available I'm sure the town will try its best to make sure that they're you know they're credited in some way. But all this is outside the scope of the day and I'm just feeling like it's respectful of people's time people's time. I think the thing is

just one other important fact associated with that. I just asked Allan and that rent is 1,500 a month. That's less than the affordable rental rate in this area right now. So it's even more affordable than the affordable required levels. Okay. Um when interest rates are high, the affordable rent levels are high. Um, and I'm just saying part of the reason we're talking about it is because you use that term in the application or in the paperwork that I read. Yeah. So, it's not, you know, it's not saying that it's a deed restricted affordable unit. It's just saying it's generally it's an affordable the generic term

resiz. But what was it 1040- There's a there's a regulation the state statute is 8-30g. Yeah. And it's not that it's not a 230G affordable unit. Okay. So we've clarified that we don't need to as commonly understood it is affordable to live there. Okay. Okay. So go ahead. Sorry. I had a question about the um there's a town right away that's um on the edge of the property and when I drove past there

um I noticed that there were some newish plantings um that make it difficult to get through there and there was also some recent uh brush that appeared to have been dumped kind of recently and I would like to make a condition of approval that that right of way be kept clear. Um, I don't think the plantings need to be removed, but that no further plantings go in. You hear that? I hear it. You're right. I Yeah. And I know that the town has not been maintaining that for many years. I didn't even know it was there until I saw it on the thing and I said, "What is that town right away?" And I went over there and saw it.

We didn't intend to to take away obliterate that right away. We move it over so they still have access but it's not in that particular footprint. It's overif over 10 feet or something. Yeah. I would just I would just like to have it on the record that that is a town right away and it should be one of the conditions of approval should be that it remains accessible. So I guess I guess my question is just legally is that like the purview of the zoning board of appeals to ensure access to right away or is that a towning right I mean

it doesn't factor into the hardship calculation say that much if he's willing to volunteer it great but you can't force him to make that a condition of approval because that doesn't factor into whether there's an inherent hardship with this site or not. But also it's a full legal process. He can't just get rid of the rightway. That that would be a town meeting and the town No, but what I'm saying is that there are new new plantings. What he wants to do is make sure as a commission's approval that he clears the right of way so that it's accessible. Okay. There is a right of way of access. I haven't taken away. I just

it's it's here instead of where it's drawn on there. This this gets back to Sylvia's point that she makes quite often sometimes we ask about approvals of approvals. Like if that is the only reason you'd be it's not it's not okay to just tack on things you want. It's if if that would be the reason that you would approve this or not then it should be included as a condition of approval. If it's if you would approve this because you think it has a hardship and it is in line with 10 purpose of the regulation, then we we shouldn't make that uh is nice to have condition of approval. I think that's what she usually tells us when we ask her question.

Alan is the property owner. He's aware of the rightway. One of the very first things he said to me, we can't, you know, put the house there. We have to keep that right away. And I think he has no problem in keeping that open for people to pass. There is a right of way and I would maintain a right ofway here. Yeah. Okay, that's good. I have a concern. Where does that rideway go to? What is that purpose? There's an adjacent property that's owned by the town. It's an old dump. Like a bottle dump. Oh, a bottle dump. I'm assuming it was somebody didn't pay taxes 100 years ago or I have no idea how it was used as a bottle dump like for glassware. Yeah,

there I cleared a lot of I cleared a lot. someone help too there. When when I bought my property, it was it was a dump at one time in the past. I took two 30 yard dumpsters of trash off my property. Wow. It's never been cleared off the town propert. Right. Okay. Right. It just still exists there. So, as long as you're aware and willing to keep it clear, I'm I'm happy. Okay. someone else.

And this is probably not our purview either. But I drove in and looked at it and all it's fine. But coming out, I thought coming out it was sort of a blind driveway cuz you're coming like up the hill and there's a stone wall and then the road is curved and like my car is a little low. It's certainly not a truck, but I thought it was, you know, to have two homes there now coming out that driveway. I I really thought it was a little blind. you would address when you build the house during so we are not pro part of this application is not a proposed house it is only to change the label of that unit that's yeah I don't know that was my only concern

it's an overview of the way I'm looking at the project it's like it is to be fair a little ridiculous to have the one of the tiniest houses in Connecticut on a on an old lime on an oversized lot you know it's that how a good house belongs there. And if we have to do this sort of flip this and that and say, "All right, that that's how you get two pro two buildings on the property. This one is going to become accessory when the other one is created." Yeah. I think I think you know they have a hardship because it's the h it's existing house is in the setback. It's it's 100 years old. It's there. You want to make use of it.

Yeah. We don't worry about the small the minimum and the and the condition. The other variance is related to the adding an accessory structure and a primary structure. But where they're agreeing to, and I see if you like the wording of this, complete construction of a primary dwelling fully compliant with the zoning regulations on the lot within 18 months of the ZVA appeal period. So I to me it's like that the two variances they're asking for they've addressed. But if anyone else has any questions or

I just want to make one additional comment to help make plate some concerns here because this is an accessory apartment. It will have to get a special permit from the zoning commission and therefore issues such as sitewide issues such as right of way can be taken up by the zoning commission when they handle the special permit application. Okay. So there is another body that's going to be looking at this after this meeting which is good. So, we're sticking to our purview of those variances, right? Everyone's okay with that? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. All right. With with does public comment,

would I like to speak in favor of this application? Oppose this application. Just comment on this application. Okay. No public comment. So, if no one has any other questions, I think we can uh ask if anyone would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. So, just one quick comment. So, we didn't go through two through six, but I think we hit on every single point during our discussion. So, I don't think we need to go through. Yeah, I think it's pretty straightforward. We just be beating a dead horse. We'll be repeating everything we just said. So, the discussion was good. It was more of like a town hall. There's no point of it. Um, so I'm glad you think that all the points have been touched upon.

Yeah, everything that we mentioned in the application I was going to as you were talking I was going down through just ask all things going the way they're they're going. When's the clock start ticking on 18 months? I would say once they get the special permit because they can't build until they get the special permit. So I think that realistically I don't want to start the clock today and have him take 2 3 months to run the zoning commission and then we'll get down to 12 months or whatever it is. So plus plus we have almost a month before this gets published in the newspaper and we're through the appeal period. That's three weeks right there. So that's why it said for the appeal period but maybe we should change from the appeal period

to said 18 months begins once special permit is granted. that that's a good because it could be two months before we get on the zoning agenda and that's another two months off of 18. So I think that's a very valid point. That's a very good point. It's not like this is not your intention is to actually construct that and then that turns that into an accessory apartment and what we're thinking about and considering lines up pretty easily around that. One one option that had was just to bulldoze that right and then build the house and he wouldn't had to come to ZBA but he chose to go this route so we can maintain that and maintain that. It looks in good shape.

So can I can I just clarify getting back to the condition of approval. So complete construction of a primary dwelling fully compliant with OM zoning regulations within 18 months of approval of this accessory special permit with approval by the zoning commission of the special permit for the accessory department. Can you get that? Can you get that by hand? Just say it slower. That's the only reason why a special Okay. Okay. Let's get this complete construction of a primary dwelling. construction. Oh, you're going to start there.

Yeah. Complete construction of a primary dwelling fully compliant with old lime zoning regulations within on the lot within 18 months of months of of the special permit granting for accessory use by the zoning commission. Special permit of accessory use. Yeah, accessory use. That's what you said. Okay. Accessory use by the zoning commission. That makes really good point, Brian. Thank you for bringing that up cuz time kicks. Yes.

Yeah. We were originally thinking about after the appeal period to get us through the next three weeks, but then because we do Eric just brought up that valid point that we need that special use permit. So, um that could be a month or two down the road. Okay. So, okay. So, now now would anybody like to make a motion to close the public hearing? One last thing because I was out of my normal like presentation here because of our town hall. So, we didn't me we didn't talk about health. So, there's an email from that's in the file from that should be in the file just stating that she really has nothing to review. There's no proposed building. This has its own system and there's that's just an email stating that

it's it's in I know it's in the file somewhere. Okay. All right. Anything else? Okay. Now, would anybody like to make a motion to close the public hearing for case 25-13 100mile Creek Road? Okay. That that was Michaela and Kip. All those in favor?

I opposed. None abstaining. None. The motion passed unassity five to zero to zero. Am I going too fast, Stephanie? No. Okay. Okay, public hearing is closed. Same rules apply. Um, and the board will discuss evidence presented during the public hearing, potential conditions of approval agreed by the applicant and re potential reasons for granting or denying the variance is trying to make a motion. I think we've summarized that during the the meeting that the unusual hardship is the existing dwelling is already in the setback exists in the setback. There's no proposed reduction legal non-conformity because they're making no change structure. It's the minimum either the minimum to address the hardship and allow reasonable use. Yes, it's allowing reasonable use to have an accessory structure. This is the key one. Agreed conditions of approval. Complete the construction of a primary dwelling fully compliant with the old line zoning regulations on the lot within 18 months of

on the lot. It's It's right there already. Oh, okay. Yeah, I just took that out. You just You kept the on the lot. Okay. Okay. I'll get it back. Yeah. Can I read mine? Yeah. Um to complete construction of a primary dwelling fully compliant with old lime zoning regulations on the lot within 18 months of the special permit. Granting of the special permit within 18 months of granting of the special permit of accessory use by the zoning commission

instead of uh the uh cuz we don't know what what um of a special permit of a special permit for for accessory use. Yeah. For I'll write it again. Um by the zoning commission. Yep. Okay. And I think it's intent with the the intent it's in harmony with intent purposes on regulations because it's providing more housing in old mine. We're not going to get too hung up on the word affordable.

Say low rent. Low rent. That brings me its own competition. No, no, no. Okay, we'll just say Okay, take that out. And it uh it provides what? Reasonable rent. Okay. Reasonable rent. Reason is that what you're saying? Reasonable rent. Okay. Okay. Okay.

And the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing or voting session. So with that in mind, would anybody like to make a motion to grant with conditions the requested variances to section 7.1 and 7.8.2.1G, we're not giving the one for C to allow the existing small dwelling to be converted to an accessory apartment per the site plans prepared by Indigo Land Design and dated August 7th, 2020 25.

So moved. I guess my question is we this you've the floor since the the voting since the building's not changing. Do we need to say something about the floor plan and the elevations? I don't think so. Okay, good. As and stamped and signed by the ZBA chair. The conditions are about to rewrite it,

but I'll read it. I'll read it. um to complete construction of a primary dwelling fully compliant with old lime zoning regulations on the lot within 18 months of granting of a special permit for accessory use by the zoning commission. Yes. Okay. I think that captures it. Would anybody like to make that motion? So moved. Kip second Russ all those in favor I

opposed none obstaining none the motion passely 5 to 0 to zero thank you very much good luck with your special permit all right so now we're moving on to the regular meeting what time is it 7:50

okay we'll try to get through this quickly there's no old business The new business is receipt and setting of public hearings for new applications. There's one new case has been submitted plus the two that were continued from this month. That's case 25-141 Hartford Avenue in construction on a concrete foundation of one of two existing non-conforming dwellings located on a non-conforming lot in the Sound View Village District. This application is being received today. Uh and the public hearing will be scheduled for the November 20th, 2025 uh uh CVA meeting because the application is incomplete. It's missing the legislative health district approval. Did you mean October or November?

I meant November. I shouldn't have. Yeah. So there's the two. So October will just have the two delayed cases and right now November has one new case. That's the 41 41 41 41 Hartford Avenue

and uh yeah, the Leslite Health District's complicated cuz I won't get into it. Okay. And just the update. So I I learned from uh Russ that he will not be at the November meeting. No, at the O not the October meeting. He'll be at the October meeting. I think next alternate in line is Brian because you you were the last time that Michaela did this time. So Brian's the next I would suggest that since I won't be running again that Kathleen and Michaela be primaries and I'm certainly here should somebody not Oh okay. Okay.

Okay. So that means it's Kathleen carryover effect will be more beneficial should a case go. Okay. Cuz if I'm not here then I'm That's a good point. All right. So then that's good. We talked about it. So Kathleen, are you okay for being the alternate for us at this October meeting and Michaela, your backup? And both will be your backup backup. Okay, that's good to know. All right, thank you for being so thoughtful.

Um Um and anyone else who's going to attend not be at the meeting also, please let me know. Now, the correspondence and announcement, I just sent it around an email that that Eric sent out to the chairs of the boards, commissions, and committees today about related to the zoning commission's work on updating the zoning regulations. So, I just think it's their effort to be really open, transparent, and efficient has been being supported. And just everyone has asked questions before about this. Now, there's a communication with attachments and a timeline. So, that will hopefully make everyone feel more comfortable. Townsburg Beach.

No, it's very helpful because at Shering Gateway, we get a lot of questions and we have questions ourselves. That's why I send it around. Yeah, that was great. So, they send it out to the board chairs because it's too hard to send it to everybody and then board chairs send it out to the members. So, that's good. All right. So, thank you very much for that, Eric. Now, uh then also on the agenda is adopting the 2026 states for the regular ZBA meetings. It's gonna We checked there's no holidays this year on our dates. So, it's still the third Thursday of the month except August and December and uh the uh I sent it around. Craig sent it around. But also, if anybody wants a hard copy, I think there's hard copies in the box. Okay.

I put it in my calendar already. Great job. Thank you. All right. So, then would anybody like to make a motion to approve the 2026 regular ZBA meeting dates? Some move Stephanie and Michaela. All those in favor?

I opposed. None. Obstaining. None. The motion passed unassity 5 to 0. And then also we have a documents called the official application due dates which is also prepared based on existing ZBA policy of allowing staff a twoe review period before the legal receipt to determine whether an application is complete prior to scheding the public hearing. And so Craig put that together. that was also centered around everybody. It's basically just our existing policy just put on dates. So if no one has any discussion, would anybody like to make a motion to approve the 2026 application due dates? So moved. Kip. Second. Russ. All those in favor?

I oppose. None. Standing none. Motion passely five to zero to zero. And with that, then we're moving on to the approval of meeting minutes for the July 17th, 2025 ZVA regular meeting. Does anybody have any proposed amendments to the minutes? No. Okay. So, um let's try to think who needs to vote on this. I'm not staying too. I was not there. Yeah. Okay. So, that's voting on this will be Brian. Okay. Let's see. I was there. Yeah. So, so Kathleen, Brian, Russ, Russ,

Nancy, and Kip will be the ones voting on the minutes. Okay. So, would would anybody like to make a motion to approve minutes? Okay. That was Kip. I'll second. That was Kathleen. Uh, all those in favor of those five we just named. Oh, okay. I opposed. None abstaining. None. The motion passes. No obstaining. None. No, but you weren't voting. Yeah, we're not even voting. So people voted. We're just lumps in the chair. You were there, you voted. I mean, that's the way to do it, right? The people are at the meeting. So it was Kathleen, Russ, me, Kip, and Brian. Right. Vote on those minutes.

Yeah, exactly. Who lose the pattern? So that was five to zero to zero. Um and then would anybody like to make a mo anything else before we make a motion to adjourn the meeting? No. Okay. Good. Motion to adjourn. Kip. Second. Russ. All those in favor? Opposed? None abstaining? None. Motion passes 500 and the time is 8:00 757. 757. Good job.