Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Okay, here we go. Okay, we're we're calling to order the zoning board of appeals regular meeting for Thursday, October 16th. It's at 6:32 now. Um, and present we have Kathleen Tracy, alternate, Michaela Pearson, alternate Stephanie Michel, Nancy Hutchinson, chair, Kim Conson, Stevens, Sylvia Ruska, Council, Eric Naval, coordinator and CEO.

Absent is Russ Fog, alternate Brian Cole, and ZBA clerk Amy Amy Huitt. So seated for today's meeting um will be myself, Kip Codson, Stephanie Mikl, Steve Dixs, and Kathleen Tracy. So um to facilitate an efficient review, I'd like to give some instructions to the applicants. Um, please present the evidence that an unusual and unnecessary hardship exists based on strict application of the zona regulations due to some peculiar condition of the property itself and that the condition does not generally affect other properties in the district. Also, 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 variances requested are in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations in the comprehensive plan of zoning and for coastal site plan review applications please address the Connecticut D comments and for applications reviewed by the town engineer please address comments in the engineers report. So the first case tonight is case 25-10 15 Liberty Street. They're requesting variances to construct an addition over the existing attached garage in street set line setback on a non-conforming R10 lot in the AE12 flood zone. Mary Joseph and Maryanne Dorio Dioro okay Dioro applicants the variances requested are sections 8.87 87 minimum street set pack 25 ft required 9.31 no enlargement of a non-conforming structure unless enlarged portion complies with the regulations. Um and just to clarify um the town uh building official determined that the original plan submitted exceeded the 50% substantial improvement threshold in a

flood zone. So on October 9th, the applicant submitted revised plans and cost estimates stated October 8th, October 5th, respectively. So with that, uh, please present your application.

Good evening. Um, for the record, my name is Joe Ren, professional engineer of Indigo and Old Sabra. Um, as Nancy just eloquently mentioned, uh, this was on the agenda for last month, too. But there were some um current con construction cost uh estimates that were that needed to come in to show that the uh improvements that were being made to this house since it's in the flood zone were below the 50% threshold uh of FEMA and a substantial improvements whether or not the house had to be fully lifted uh fully lifted to FEMA or not. So since the last meeting um the estimates were done uh they were reviewed with the town. They came in over the 50% actually. Um so Dave Noey is here with us. He's the project architect. He worked hard to work with the applicants who are also with us over here pink and black here. um uh in that row uh that the Oreo. So worked hard with them to tear down what was being proposed, remove the proposed second floor and this all just happened very recently. Remove the second floor, redo the estimates, represent those estimates to town hall. Uh the building official um confirmed that now we are below the 50% threshold.

They did. I haven't seen that communication. It should be in the file. If not, I can certainly off and I think Eric mentioned it in his staff review. You want I it I know that I know that you submitted a revised updated cost estim I I numbers are accurate and therefore below the 50%. Okay. Um so I don't know that I got something specifically writing from him to that effect. basically came in and said, "Yes, these are accurate figures." So, but you're you're stating that for the record.

I am stating for the record that I did speak to Mark Whan, the building official. He reviewed the updated plans and the updated figures associated with the plans and concurs that the new figures accurately reflect the cost that he anticipates in being and that figure is is below the 50% figure. Thank you very much.

Okay. So with that, usually I like to go through the site plan first and then into the building plan. But because of how this kind of panned out, I would like Dave to go through the the new building plans and show you the differences that he made from the original application, show you how he he pulled down the house and how we we pulled it in. And we even um need less uh variances than we originally asked for because there's no second story and our limited second story. So let Dave show you the house. Well, that's a confusion because you said that you eliminated the second story, but the plans say there's a second story. So, it's a little confusing. So, I really appreciate you explaining that.

Yes. Yeah. So, that's why I want to clear that up. The site plan still shows that because there wasn't even time after this was done. We just got a day or two ago from the building official confirmation. So, we just got that approval to say yes, fine. You can go forward. So, this still shows that. So, we we can cross that off. But that's why I wanted Dave to show you the plans, the building plans that have been updated and he could leave those with you as an exhibit as well. Yeah, we're going to need to have that. Yeah. So, is that what we've seen by email? I guess I don't think I I don't think we've seen this so far. Okay. This is new. So, this is an exhibit. Yes.

Yeah. So, I have this. Yeah. That's why I wanted him to go through that first to show you the changes. You want to do this or you want Yeah. Do you want me to put these up or do you want me to hold uh Why don't you put it up? Slide it in the middle or Okay. I want Can people see it better if it's here? No, but it's better if it's up and then slide it toward the middle. No, thank you. Great. So, to start um all right, I guess I'll briefly explain what we initially had for the plan and then what we changed. So, initially we were going to have a set of stairs that came up the back here. Yeah.

To a story above the existing garage. And that was going to become Can I ask what's the date of this plan? This plan. This is 10:08. I think that's the old number of the original submission. Okay. I want to make sure we're 72. That's the That's a safe plan. You need to be You need to I should probably Why don't I put today put today's date on this? Well, let me just I'll just make sure that we're all looking at the same thing. Yeah. Yeah. A little confusing cuz we also have something else in here.

Yeah, that that's I finally the right direction here. Okay, that's February 8th. That's That's not the current. This is This is all That's old. That's all. Okay. But that's old. That's Yeah, that's all. None of it looks like that. So, this is that's existing. Yeah. But it's dated the 10th October 8th. So, is is it changed from October 8th? Let me just see what you have there. Oh, no. We have the correct one. That's the new version. So, this is what was emailed around yesterday.

Yesterday, then we're good. Okay. All right. Yeah. So, that's the updated plan that we're presenting tonight. But I don't think we have that. No, you don't have this All right. So, we're going to this put this back in the folder. Now, I'm in O. And we're going to make this. Is it You have more than one copy. Yeah, that's the same same copy. So, this is exhibit one. Do I have to note anything on that? What that is? I will. Just a second. Okay. Exhibit one. And it's today's date is 16. 16. Do I have to note anything on that?

Yeah, we're just about to put it. Uh, we're going to say for the record that Why don't you describe what it is? Uh this is a diagrammatical building section through the through the new um I don't want to call an addition but through the new roof line. It's an elevation drawing right? Uh section section. So it shows top of walls um ceiling heights and then that this attic space is in fact below 6 ft. Okay. So that aligns with the plans that were submitted on the ETH. Yep. that aligns with these these new plants that you have in it there as well. All right. Thank you very much. That's a good question.

I know. So, this is Yeah, I wanted to show this. This is part of what we want to explain to you guys. Okay. In terms of what we're doing. Thank you very much. Yep. No problem. It might be helpful, too, because that's what's proposed now. What was proposed before might be helpful. I don't think I have those. Okay. They they have that. That's this. Well, we just want to look at what's just look at what you're want. So, what this is for

Okay. All right. Good. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So, yeah, in general, what we're proposing to do is take the existing garage space. There was a small portion back here that was a bedroom and a bathroom.

So, basically taking the garage in that existing bedroom bathroom and and making it living space. So, we've converted that garage in keeping the existing foundation um building a floor, you know, structural wood joists and a floor plan. Um and then a new bathroom, a new bedroom, and then an office space. So, we've essentially taken that existing footprint and made it all livable. Uh, and then we what we did is we took away what was going to be a room above above that. So, we took that space out. Existing right now is two bedroom two bathroom uh bathrooms. There's existing now one and a half one and a half.

One and a half. And it's going to go to You would like it to go to Oh, it's one and a half. It's still one and a half. It's still one and a half. We are Yeah, we would have a washer and dryer here, but yeah, one and a half baths. Okay. Guess it's keeping same number of rooms. It's just the space is wider taking over the garage space. Correct. Yeah. What we did is we increased this family room, living room area. So that gets larger. Um this bedroom gets a little bit more usable. Mhm. And then now there's an office playroom in here. And that's you're fine with the condition that that's stay open space, not a bedroom. this here. Oh, this. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Um, so again, we took away bathroom count stays the same or expands. Bathroom count stays the same. Bedroom house stays the same. Y So it's four bedrooms, one half bath before and after. Y plus an office. That's the addition. That's the additional legislate confirmed they don't consider that office space a bedroom because I'm not you revised this recently. I don't really look like I can see cuz Yeah, but I there's there's a 5ft cased opening on that with no door, right?

Yeah. So, it looks like they're maintaining the condition. Yeah. So, the condition was floor plans from 360 design dated 1 145 with a renovation date 2125. I guess show an office on the first floor. The office shall not have a door or barn enclosure style door and must remain with a 5-ft opening. Okay, which is what it shows on and a and a walk through shall be required prior to additions of a certificate of completion occupancy. Uh yeah, I guess so the point is if we made a condition that you get final lesl health department approval based on this plan that would be an okay condition to enforce. Yeah, absolutely.

Okay. Yep. So, so that's our intention here on the first floor. We're going to have a gabled roof above this space. And again, we took out a dormer and we took out staircases that were going to go up there. Um, and then as a result, the elevations um essentially just a turned gable towards the street side that goes all the way back. We, you know, there's no windows up here. Um, we just have louver vents, so it's really a straightforward space. This is truly an attic. I know there was some questions about that. Um, and that's why I have this exhibit A.

So, the exhibit A shows that this space here has a ceiling height of 511 and 3/4. Um, and that's at the steepest. That's at the highest point. Yeah. So, it just goes from there down. And it's really for storage of really fishing rods and summer summer stuff that the owners have a lot of. Okay. So, that's very helpful that access No, it's not. That's I'm sorry. access point. This would be like a pull down set of stairs, like an attic access. Uhhuh. Yeah. Where's that access? Um, it it'll just be on the first floor as like a pull down attic stair somewhere. Probably in this room in this area. Okay. Okay.

All right. That answered my biggest question. So, thank you for providing this and making that explanation. Thanks. Um, I guess I don't want to interrupt your conversation, but this is so we'll just say that exhibit one is the elevation crosshatch of the new area crosssection. Cross-section. Okay. Showing that the new So, it's not a it's staying one story, correct? Yep. Because you're not it's not above 6 ft. That's right. So, it's not a half story. It's not a one. So that gets back to your plan because your plan listed as one and a half stories and

that was that's previous that has not been updated but it will be updated of course and so a condition of approval would be that you have an updated plan with an updated zoning table that reflects yeah really the only change is this dormer goes away because we're working more or less on the same footprint of the house the footprint of the house isn't changing so that dormer goes way and that's really the only change. So the the zoning table like you said showed dimensions to the dormer but that that will come. Yeah. I do have one other question though. So you need you have three street setbacks. Mhm. And one rear setback.

Mhm. So the rear setback and front setback exceeds the 50ft width of the property. Um, so did they overlap in this case? They may have, but you drew it as 12 feet instead of 30 feet. Uh, let's ask Eric. So I I asked a lot with three fronts. Is it a other yard setback or is it a rare yard setback? Um, well, let's let me look at my rags here and give you definitive answers. Corner lots are a little more clear. Having roads on three sides are a little unique. Okay. So, my first

So, two sides are a problem. I mean, in this case, two are overlapping. Mhm. Liberty Street, I think. Yeah. And and uh I believe Yeah. Liberty Street is a town road. It says I have it here, Eric. Oh, okay. What section? It's sec It's definition 219 yard minimum required Rio. Okay. I but again it talks about the corner lot. A yard between any principal building and rear lot line existing the full length of the lot between the lot side lines measured by the minimum horizontal distance between any such building and rear lot line or in the case of a corner lot a similar yard. You got it?

No you you talking a corner lot. This is not a corner lot. So I think we're going to go with the fact that the other one would be a a a sideyard setback then. So, why isn't that a double corner a lot? Yes, it's very confusing because extra there's another example coming up soon where you have a rear yard and not side yard. Yeah. You know, I I mean, ultimately, again, as you're seeing here, with three fronts of 25 and then a rear yard of 30, you're going to have nothing left in the center. So, nothing

to give the fourth wall. In essence, 12 would be, you know, equivalent to what any other lot has on at least two other sides here. So, I'm I'm comfortable saying that that that is a 12T setback as opposed to a 30ft set back. Um, again, otherwise you you end up with nothing. So, in old lime, cuz I know Nancy, I know the application that Nancy is talking about. So in old lime, a true corner lot like that one on C-spray, your regulations say if you have a true corner lot, then you have two other ones. So one is a side and the one with the longest frontage. The opposite of the one with the longest frontage is a rear yard for a corner lot.

The one the it's the the rear yard is opposite the longest the longest. Not that the longest front, it's the front whatever the front is. If it's two fronts on a corner lot. So there's a shorter one and a longer one. The address that would make sense. Yeah, actually the usually the address is on

the yard between any principal building and the lot front edge line extending the full width of lot and lot sidelines measured by minimum distance. Yeah. And in the case of a corner lot, a similar yard extending along all streets, no point shall be required. The front lot be less than the width of the whatever. So, but I guess at a corner lot, the rear Oh, yeah. The rear yard is extending across the side of the lot opposite the street on which the principal building has its street address or is otherwise designated front of the lot. Right. Not necessarily the distance, but it's like what is the street address? Yep. And on that one C spray and it's off spray, right?

Whenever the front is most likely the longest, here you don't really have a true what's your opposite of a street line because you have three of them. Right. Right. Right. So, but you you want this to be rear. Is that true? No, I'm just side and that's what because I have three fronts. They're saying the the fourth side is a side. Okay. What are we talking about? I mean this is you guys are staying I understood within the same footprint. Correct. Okay. Correct. So it's just a question of Yeah. Higher in the same footprint. Is it Are are you requesting a variance from your rear yard or your side? That's really all we're talking about. Yeah. Right. I we just want to make it legal.

Well, the sideyard doesn't need a variance because it's not in the sideyard. It would be if it's a rear yard. But if if whatever the zoning enforcement officer says it is I'm comfortable with calling it a sideyard at this point in time. So I Thank you. Okay. So then, yeah, it is only the flat yard. Why is it I mean just to be I mean I mean if the address is Liberty, why isn't it a backyard? If the address is Liberty because it's not a corner lot. Because it's not a corner lot. It's it's lot with three fronts. It is not All right. It's not really addressed in the regulations. So it's his interpretation. That's not covered in the car. you for undetermined.

Still I whatever you read about the address but that would be the corner. I have another lot in town that's literally in the center of a culde-sac and every side of that is front. Sure is. Um so wow that's a fun one. Okay but it's your call. My call on this is that we can treat that as a side yard for purposes of type. Thank you. I just want to be consistent. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. It's it's unique. So anyway, so then if you update this plan, you going to get rid of this. It's essentially the dormer just goes away and then any dimensions to that dormer. Where's the where's the Oh, this is the shed that's disappearing. That's over the property. That's correct. Okay.

So that's and then you're going to change this to be one story instead of one and a half stories. Correct. And you do have a disappearing shed. Those are one a nonconforming shed on a and one they're putting in reduction of a pre-existing non-conforming. Yes. As a shed. Yep. We're we're putting in a new shed, but we're making the new shed eliminating. That's better. It's elimination of a nonconformity. That shed is a conforming shed given its size and distance from the property. The new the new one is the old one was not. That's correct. So, you're you're losing the non-conforming shed. You're putting in a conforming shed that does not need a variance. Okay.

And the only other reduction that's in here too, I don't need to go through all this. I think we discussed most of everything that's described in here already, but because the roof line is changing, we're bringing in that wide e right on the front. So, we're still doing that with the new roof line. So, that say that again. Dave can Dave can review it. The the eve is the overhang is ch is being shortened here. So we get more of a distance from the street line on this side and the Liberty side to the actual edge of the E which counts as the closest part of the building in this case because the house is nonform. Okay, thank you. So that's the other reduction you probably could. Yeah, we had reduced the um

so the there's a deep sophet here which used to exist over that garage portion and as a rake, you know, on a rake side of the house, we've reduced that drastically because it's going this way. Yeah. So, this will be about a 3 in overhang versus what was I think it was over a foot. I think it was like 14 to 16 in existing. Yep. Yeah. So, that's listed in under section 5. That's listed going from 13.0 to 13.9. So almost is that on the Liberty side? It's on the Liberty side of the house. Thanks. And our F hasn't changed, right, John? On this project,

right? Yeah, because there's no second floor. No change in footprint and no second floor. There was a change in F before in the previous application, but no longer. Okay. You're going to give me the updated version of that table there that now we're going to address the we'll we'll update this cycle. He's going to do the whole cycle. We'll put this off. We'll do a revision and we'll update that. That's what we're looking for. Make sure the table's updated to move for one. We'll get you and that'll be condition on approvals that we submitted this updated. Yeah, we'll get that to you this week. That's okay. Very simple for us to do. We just All this was fresh. Yeah. So, you're going to give a plan to Eric that this what you're describing tonight? Yep. That's the thing will be okay.

Yeah. Because Nancy needs to sign that version of the plan. Yeah. It'll be revision too. Um because this was revision one and then just with the eliminated dormer and then the updated zoning table assuming the dormer is gone. Everything else stays the same. Except yeah and the floor floors. Okay. Yeah, the floor area since there's no second floor. So if there are no other questions, I have some letters of support. I actually just have a question. Okay, just out of curiosity. Um, we've been focused on the building. Um, is the What is the plan for cars for vehicles? I know it's a pretty large size lot, right?

Yeah. I drove past it earlier. So, yeah. So, so I was just wondering what So, the owner is here too, but we do have the driveway. Okay. That is 25 ft wide, so you could easily fit three cars across u which will be normal for the house. And then we also had uh this area here before that we were actually widening the driveway um with crushed stone um oh I'm sorry opposite. So the driveway currently is even wider than the 25 ft and we were removing some of that impervious as Oh okay. Um so we have we have fairly deep you know all the way through

the up to the property line is almost the length of a car and then we have this extra length. There's not really enough for two deep unless they're smaller cars, but we do have enough for three across. Okay, terrific. And um I think one other point is that your your applicants understand that with the cost that you have now that if there's any additional improvements or storm damage repairs within the next 5 years and that combined with our current costs that they will have to make their house FEMA compliant. Correct. They are aware of that in the next 5 years. They haven't maxed it out. there is some left so they haven't maxed it out to the 50%.

But I'm just saying but if it does in the next five years combined with these costs they understand that you you you know that. Okay. Just so you're aware. Okay. We'll make sure. Thank you for that clarification. Um but yeah that was a big discussion with them about you know getting the estimate getting it FEMA compliant so that you can review it in that regard that if anything happens and it puts you over that threshold at that time the house has to be elevated. Okay. Just want to make sure everyone everyone is aware. Okay. Um so letters of support. Um I know that you had one or two of these cuz they were forwarded to me by the town. So I just want to make sure that you have them. So there's one from

Josephine Eminent Aminian. Josephine a minion. Um do you have that one? It's just a brief email. Uh, it's short enough. I'll just read it. It's an email. Um, there's so it says to the tunnel lime za. We are Josephine and Ronald. Say it again. A minion. Okay. Um, I don't know why these are always hard to pronounce people's names. And we we don't get Smith or Johnson or anything like that. Um, we live in the file, so it's good that you're reading it.

We live at 16 Liberty Street. Our neighbors of 32 years are Maryanne and Joseph Dioro who are with us this evening. We're are fully supportive of the renovations they are proposing. We have reviewed the plans and welcome the improvements. It will enhance our neighborhood and our property values. Thank you, Joseph and Ron Emman. Close enough. And that address is 16 Liberty Street. Okay, that's there's a copy of that one. Um, I'll just mark this in the exhibit just in case. Yeah, I know that you had Eric's letter already and we talked about most of that stuff throughout. Um, we have another one. Wait a second. Exhibit

Oops. Number two is a letter of support from Josephine and Ron and and Minian. Yeah. Okay. So, we're going to add that to the file. I I didn't see it in the file, so that's good. You read that. Thank you. Um there's another one that I know that you don't have cuz it just came in today. So this one is Anthony and Lindsay Leutus. Le Judas um address 42 Washington Avenue. Old line. So that would be where Yep.

Washington Avenue was here. Uh this is 54 next door. So are they you take a right first. Okay. They walk by our house every day.

Okay. to whom it may concern. We are writing this letter on behalf of Joe and Mary Dioro. Thank you for having a name I can pronounce. Um in favor of the plans they have um and intend to bring to life their home at 15 Liberty Street right around the corner from our house. As local homeowners, we always like the idea of beautifification as it does increase neighborhood value overall in the beach communities, especially as yearrounders can appreciate any kind of improvements to people's personal property. We remodeled our home in 2013 and still receive compliments and gratitude from our own surrounding neighbors allowing them to commence work and bring their vision to life only benefit our neighborhood overall. They are great stewards of this area during the summer and their growing family deserves it. Bo and Lindsay.

Okay. So, this is exhibit three for you. Now, the next one I have I know you have a copy of the handwritten one. Yeah. Okay. And this is the most unique letter I've seen. Yeah. In my 21 years of doing this. Um, okay. Here's another. So, I don't have to read it because you do have a hard copy in your file. Was emailed directly to the town. Um, but there is no one by this name in the town of I couldn't find it either. Wow. She did her research. I couldn't find it either. So, Columbus Avenue, there's no number Columbus Avenue. Yeah.

Um, so we don't know exactly where this these people live, but googling that name, and it's a very unique name, is a major league baseball player on the Toronto Blue Jays. Um, so we don't know the legitimacy or anything of this, but we found it very interesting. Was this just dropped off at the town hall? Um, do you know cuz I I couldn't find this name either. The information is not even accurate. They're talking about an extra bedroom. It was it was dropped off to in person at the front. So, yeah, it sounds like it was based on the original plans that had the second floor and so forth. And

we don't know the address. We don't know the person that wrote it, the author. I mean, I can't imagine that a MLB player would draft the letter handwritten. Um, so I don't know. I mean, take it for what it's worth, but Yeah. Okay. We just like to know where next to the house it is. It can't define where that is. Yeah, we don't. It's Columbus Avenue is what's written on here. We don't Columbus Avenue is a long north south road and we don't know where it is. Okay. But we have that in the file. We don't need to add it. Do Do we need to read it in our record? It's one thing you might want to know that they're claiming they're adding another bedroom. One of the complaints that's not

well over the garage the second floor you know that was the old letter above the garage which is which is now it's going to be an attic right. Yeah. Okay. 5 foot 11 and 3/4. All right. Thank you very much. Um, okay. The, um, I think in the application, I think the only thing we really, I think we understand the the hardship, but I'll just for the record, I'll just read this into it.

Um, strict application to the regulations would not allow the addition to be constructed. Again, the application was written originally and submitted originally with the original plans. Um, so the addition is the changed roof line. Okay. Um the subject property is surrounded on three sides by streets including two town roads. Liberty and Columbus are town roads according to the town road list. Um so the Columbus Avenue setback increases from 25 to 30 ft due to its width. Um and uh let's see the due to it substandard rightway width of 40 ft versus 50 ft. Li Liberty Street H or yeah Liberty Street has a 50 foot already. So that doesn't have to be increased. But Columbus is 40 foot wide. So we get an extra 5 ft on our side. No variances on that side, but it's just a point of u point of information. Additionally, approximately 83% of the lot is encumbered by three street line setbacks and the one other yard setback. So, as we talked about before, you take away that yard set back and three streets and you're left with only 17% of the land um available um that can be built on without a variance.

17% 17%. Yeah, 83% is encumbered.

And then as a mentioned in three above, this lot is unique since it is a small non-conforming lot of record. Has three street frontages. As we mentioned before, we haven't really seen that much, including one narrow street encumbrance and approximately, again repeating, 83% of the lot is encumbered. And before we talked about the proposed elimination, the shed that's over the property line presently will be removed. Um, so that negative distance to a property line will go away. That that non-conforming other yard setback issue will go away. the new shed being replaced is 5 ft from the line which conforms to your regulation for an 8x12 shed. Um, and the front yard on Liberty Street that because of that eve overhang as explained by Dave with that eve overhang being reduced in that area with that change in roof line that goes from 13.0 ft to 13.9 ft. So we have a.9T improvement on that side to the roof line. Okay. So, we discussed the hardship, we discussed the reduction of legal pre-existing nonconformity. Um, and you're saying this is a minimum reasonable use of the property because you're only adding an attic.

Of course, everything else you're maintaining one story. Maintaining one story. Yeah. And it's within the existing footprint. Same number of bedrooms, same number of bathrooms. Yep. Yep. Okay. And then of course the elimination of the sideyard setback and the Yeah, we got that the slight increase in All right. Um and then the conditions of approval is you get final leadite health approval based on the updated site plans which you will you'll submit an updated site plan with the revisions we discussed in the updated zoning table. Yep. Do we have another conditional approval? I don't

I don't think so. Um and we did discuss that if if it in the future exceeds 50% they'll have to raise the price. So they're aware of that. Mhm.

Um let's see. So the only other thing is um intent with and is it in harmony with intent purposes on regulations? The only thing that gives me pause is increasing living have a little space in a flood zone and working so hard to under to stay below the 50%. But I think that it's a very minor addition and it's in the same footprint and it's pretty pretty much minimum use I think for obvious what's already there is is living space. They're just removing the garage as a use and making a an attic for what the garage did for them and

and just slightly expanding the living space. So, yeah. And it's the same. This is where we get the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Same footprint. And same footprint. Okay. We're catching some of this, Stephanie. Thanks. We don't have our clerk today. And we have two letters of support from the neighbors. All right. Well, we haven't started deliberations yet, but I just make sure we all have the same page before we get um does anybody else have any questions for the applicants? I have um a chimney chimney to remain.

Um yeah, there's a chimney that comes right up. Actually, we're taking that we're taking that chimney out. I We're taking that chimney out. I'm sorry. That um cuz it was coming right up right through the middle of where that new room is. So, this and it was an existing fireplace. So that chimney wash should come out. Okay. Should that be revised or is that

I mean it shows in our drawings that those are the existing conditions. Oh, those are the existing. Yeah. And then in our proposed it goes away here. Okay. Good. All right. It is gone in your plans. Yeah. In fact, it all No, no, no. But it's also the final plans. Sure. Said the narrative said it was there. The final Okay. plans do not. Can I Yeah. Are you also decreasing imperous uh driveway? Yes. Right. Also, you said, right? So, I'm going to add that. Okay. That's a plus. You do have more parking of cars outside, but that's you have plenty of space for that, right? Okay.

So, you can still park on the property. No street parking. Yeah. All right. So, with that in mind, if no one has any more questions, would anybody like to make a motion to close? Oh, oh, God. Oh, yeah. Would anybody like to speak in favor of this application? Would anybody like to speak oppose this application? Would anybody like to just comment on this application? Okay. Now, would anybody like to make a motion to close the public hearing for case 25-105 Liberty Street? I'll make a motion. So, that's Steve.

And that was Well, I think Kim got there first. Okay. All those in favor? Wait a minute. Oh, wait. Over here. Yeah. No here. No, here it is. Yeah, I would. Okay. So, Steve Kips. Yep. Close. Okay. Okay. All those in favor? I

opposed. None. Abstaining. None. The motion passed unanimously. 5 to 0 to zero. Okay. The public hearing is now closed and the rules are that only voting members may be able to participate in deliberations. So that's the the five seated members. Um and then no new information may be introduced after the close of public hearing. Members may ask staff or ZBA attorney 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 variances before making a motion. So I think we discussed that during the case, but so the unusual hardship is three street setbacks. Only 17% of the property is buildable land.

17%. Yep. There is a an elimination of a pre-existing non-conforming with removing the the non-conforming shed and they're also reducing one side setback variance uh encroachment because of reduction of the eve that which is an alternative to unusual hardship. Um I think they are requesting the minimum variances for allow reasonable use of the property because they're keeping the same footprint. They're keeping the one story throughout and they're not adding.

Yeah, they're keeping the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms. The agreed conditions of approval are to comply. I have it written down somewhere. I can read it. I have a new site plan to be submitted.

Wait, wait, let me just let me just get the first one first. The um the applicant agrees to comply with all Ledite Health District conditions per Leslite letter dated July 25th, 2025, including the proposed first floor office to have 5 foot opening without door and to obtain final Leslie health district approval for updated plans. Okay, I've got that written down so you don't have to write that down. Um then the yes to submit updated site plans with the revisions discussed that align with the proposed new plans.

Um let's see any other conditions? No, I don't think so. The new plan

and the legislate health district approach. Um, and I think we can say that the it is in harm with the intended purpose zoning regulations again because they are using the same Ford foundation. They're having the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms. We could probably put that just in one spot. Um, and they're really only requesting one street setback variance and they have to because they have three street setbacks. Um and they have the other uh reasons are two neighbors submitted letters of support. Um and the evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing or voting session. Does anybody else does anyone agree with everyone agree with that or have anything else to add?

Just one more comment. I mean the fact that they're staying below the threshold for FEMA. Do we need to mention that at least they consider FEMA or the review of of the plans uh made sure that we we met FEMA requirements or limitations?

Well, I'm not sure you need to mention that per se. I mean, ultimately they were disqualified for you pursuing their original plan because it would have triggered the association approve of this. that are revised plans um put them underfoot, but I honestly I'm not sure that's a benefit per se in the sense that usually you guys would like houses elevated and they're deliberately doing this in a way that doesn't elevate the house. So I'm not sure that necessarily constitutes a benefit to the town of old line that they're not elevating their house in in a flood zone. And I think that we did ask during the open public hearing that they acknowledge that if they do have any increase in cost over the next 5 years that makes them trigger that 50% threshold.

It's cumulative that they will have to make the house FEMA compliant. Right. But that's part of the law and the regulations. So I don't think we need it as a condition. Okay. in harmony. In addition to what you added to what you said, I I just added that decreasing the impervious driveway and threecar parking on the property still. Specifically say three car parking. I think we didn't say that just but I think it did. Well, they I'm not sure you need to limit it to a certain number of cars. Okay. Yeah. Parking on just take it out or

decrease in decrease in impervious lead. Okay. Three car parking, I'm not sure, is a valid consideration for what you're doing here. Decrease impervious definitely is. All right. So, would that would would someone like to make a motion to grant with conditions the requested variances to section 8.87 and 9.31 to allow the construction of an addition. Oh, now I can change this. to allow the the construction of

attic to yeah allow the construction of an attic and addition and attic whatever you want to call it either way over the existing attached garage which is no longer interesting to allow you you're going to say per plant submit it's got to be per plan submit but we have to say So the description of the it's less than what they originally had. So to allow construction of additional the construction of an addict over

so the the current description of it remains the same. It's just what it is is the extent of the addition is different but the language that you have is sufficient okay to construct an addition over the existing attached garage. I think all those things are yeah because yeah because it's still true in street line setback on a non-conforming R10 lot in the AE12 flood zone per the site plans prepared by Indigo Lent design and dated July 22nd 25 as revised as will be revised so the revised as will be revised per today's discussion how do I say that have they revised

so we don't wait let me talk before you write anything let me ask instead have a Sylvia question. Take that I think you say pursuing to today's discussions but you also have revised architectural plans in front of you as well. Right. Right. I know but I'm saying to describe the site plan because normally we say the date but the date is not is is not ex correct anymore. So we say as revised per today's discussion. I just I think you need to say that the site plan is to be revised per the conditions of approval or per the individual to be revised. And do we put approved by her or you?

Well, I'll say I'm going to stamp and sign it later, but I'm going to get that. But first, I want to say I want to describe it accurately. So prepared by Indigo Land Design LLC and dated July 2nd, 2025 to be revised per we're going to leave per commitments made at today's meeting. How do we say it? So I I think the revisions to the site plan are just to make them consistent with the revised architecture. Okay. That's I don't think there's any other revisions other than the ones that are consistent with the revised architecture. Okay. To make that you already have been consistent. Okay. This is what we're going to write down. Okay. Okay.

So, this leave that. You want to leave that? Yeah. because it is dated this day to be revised to be consistent with the updated floor plans and elevations which is I have right there prepared by 360 design plus LLC and dated October 8th 2025. Yes.

And stant and signed by the ZBA chair. The conditions well the conditions are the applicant will comply with all Ledite Health District conditions per Leslite Health District letter dated June 25 20 June 25 2025 including proposed first floor office to have 5 foot opening without door and to obtain final ledge health district approval for updated plans and the other uh condition of approval is the revised site plan to be submitted to for to be stamped and signed by the ZBA chair. Okay.

So, moved it. Wait, wait, wait. I want to make sure he got it. I want to read it back. Okay. Well, you typed it. I know. But anyway. Okay. But I But uh the second condition was you changed the wording. Oh, the application. Yep. Yep. Yep. I got that there. Yep. I got it there. Okay. Okay. Take out the question mark, though. Yeah. Okay. So, would anybody like to make that motion? That's Kathleen. I'll second. That's Kip. All those in favor? I

All those opposed? None. All those abstaining? None. Motion passes unanimously. 5 0 to zero. All right. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your effort to try to to comply with the regulations as best you can. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

All right. So the next case is case 25-12C 70C Spray Road requesting variances to demolish a 16 I'm sorry to demolish an existing four bedroom dwelling in AE12 flood zone place with an elevated PMA compliant dwelling in the street line setback on a conform non-conforming R10 lot a coastal site plan review application is also submitted Deborah Boli applicant the variances requested are well I guess before you even get to this. I would just like to note that the applicants have not yet received legislate health citric approval.

So I guess I feel that usually we don't review plans that don't have legislate health district approval and I think it's per one of our regulations. I pull it up one of our procedural regulations. That's one of our regul And it's in the regular. I have to find it. I brought it with me. But anyway, but the I think it's 21 dash 21. I got it here.

Oh, I'm looking at the wrong application. Here it is. I got it.

Per regulation 21-3, the zoning board of appeals may in its discretion require any application for advance or special permit under this section to be accompanied by a certificate of director of health of town of old line that the proposed provisions of water supply and sewage sewage disposal comply with all sanatory codes rules and regulations. And I I know that you're trying very hard to get that, but as if you don't have it yet, I think it'll be best if we open the public hearing because it's been 65 days and I know you'd like to open the public hearing as well. Is that correct?

I I think we could cuz the house isn't going to change. The zoning variances aren't going to change. Um I can tell you the story about health. So yes, so that's what I'm leading up to. I think we could open it and discuss it and then if because of that regulation we have to leave it open, we'll leave it open for November. Yeah, I think we'll leave it open to November. I guess my question is does the board want to discuss it now or just continue it till November and then discuss it because I don't know if the plans will I could also tell you the story of Okay, we're the board is discussing it right now. Let me just say I'd rather hear it now because we have time and that way it'll make it less okay some the next time we hear it and it means

other people feel the same way. Well, one of the issues would be though we've got a sort of minimum of number of people here. They'd have to be here again in the November meeting for that be a feasible thing, right? If we open the public hearing. The other thing is there is an election. Mhm. Um and before the next hearing. So four members are going to change but not until January, right? No. Before the next meeting. Oh wow. Okay. So, and we're already missing one person now. So, and you know, so if we open the public hearing, but then continue it right away,

then they don't need to catch up on anything. They can just review the case and then be there to discuss the application because their terms expire November 18th and the next meeting is November 20th. Okay. So your point is if we hear of substantial issues in the case then avoids the other people. Well then avoids them but then they'd have to come up to speed and read all the read the tape. Maybe the law has changed since I was doing this but I mean my understanding of the law when I was practicing was if they were not seated when it opened they can't go back and catch up on things that happened before they were actually on the board. They got

Oh, that is that is a sticky wicket. Yeah, that's interesting. Yeah, sure. It's not just listening to the tape. True. I'm not sure that that I don't think I think the law has changed. That's fine. As long as if they receive it at the time that they need to vote, they can. However, I think I correct me if I'm wrong, Joe, but I think one of one of the what Joe is looking to do is essentially get whatever revisions or clarification concerns out in the open. And I think if if there's different bodies making a decision, I don't know whether you're getting it from the people that would be making a decision. So that's where we are.

Little sticky weight there. So the important thing is we're outlining all these things in the public meeting and I think the applicant can make a decision as to how they want to proceed whether to to continue the commencement of the of the opening the public hearing to open it and make some presentation or or just open it immediately continue.

Well I think the thing is if the the other thing is we don't meet in December. So if we open it today, we can continue it for 35 days to the November meeting and then you would still have 65 days left to have an extension to January if there was still some issues that needed to be resolved. If we delay if he asked for an extent, we can't delay the opening public hearing anymore on our clock. It'd have to be his clock. And if it's his clock, then we use 35 days roughly of his clock. And then if we don't finish November then you can't get over to January.

I think you end up with the same amount of net days at the end regardless. So whether it's extent where the extensions or the lands is you amount of days either way. But I'm saying but but if he's got 65 days we've we've already used our 65 days. He's got 65 days. So if we open it and just continue the public hearing then he's got 65 days to continue the public hearing till January. If we if we He's got he's got 35 plus 65. Yeah. No, no, because if we open it today, we use 35 days. But you the 6500 87D can be placed anywhere along the process. I understand. But I'm saying this

and they use the same amount of nets either way. It's just a matter of who's whose days. It's 65 35 65 plus 65 for him. So we already used 65 of ours. Have you though? Yes, we have. who you didn't open it last month, right? This is two months. This is 65. So you go by when it was It was submitted. No, it was submitted first. It was submitted in August 8th. 35 days later, which is early September, it was received because we didn't meet 65.

So then, so then the first meeting that it could have gone to was this September meeting, but because you didn't have the health department approval, it went to the October meeting. So, we've already used up most of our 65 days. So, if you wanted to not open the public hearing, you'd have to use some of your 65 days. And if you did that and we didn't finish in November, then we don't I guess you can't make it. Oh, I see what you're saying. Cuz we can use the 35 days later. Trust me when I say you will make it there either way. There's the same total days. It's just a matter of whose days you're using. Well, one other clarification, too. The six your 65day clock doesn't start until you receive it. So, that's the September date, right? No, no, no. It's it's 35 days after October 7th,

August 7th. It's the receipt is either the first first regular meeting or 35 days after the actual submission and the submission was August 7th. So it means it was received in early September. September 11th would be 35 days after that's before your last meeting. So your clock started on September 11th. September 11th. Exactly. If September 11th was a regular meeting then yes. No, September was when it was meeting. Oh, but it was 35 days after the submission, right? That's that's where we are. So, it's it was received early September then. So, we're only days in because we're we're okay from September 11th.

No, no, there's a submission. You submitted it to the land's office. Okay. So, let's pretend there aren't any regular meetings just to make this simple. It's from your submission 35 days then. So I think the I think the statement is whatever the submission was plus 35 days takes you to September 11th. So that's that's the start and then we add 65 days from that. So right but September 11th till now is only 35 days. That's what I'm saying. When was the application? No, no, no. It was I think I think the point here. Okay. I think you're right. We're going to count from August 7th. August 7th is 35 days. September September 11th. Hang on.

When was the application submitted? It came into August. August 7th. Okay. Okay. 35 days from August 7th because there was no meeting in August. Takes us to September 11th. Yes. Okay. Receipt December 11th. 35 days from September 11th is tonight. Okay. Yes. That's what So that's 35. We can now we have another 30. We have another 30 days, but we're not meeting for another 30 days. We're meeting after that next month. We're not meeting until whatever the date is in November, but it's November 20th. I think we need a little bit of We need a little bit to get to get to November 20th.

Okay. Well, my point was is that it starts at the date of receipt, not when the application comes into starts your next regular meeting or the 35 days. So, your first initial 65day clock started on September 11th. So we're only 35 into that. So we have 30 left. That's not almost up. But Eric's point is that your next meeting is more than 30 days away from now. So we need to give you an extension by 2 days or something like that to get to November. 4 days. But anyway, that's if you don't open it tonight, right? Yeah. If they open it tonight, then it resets. If you Yeah. then it resets, then you've got 45 days from today and then you've got all your extension time on that end.

Right. So the time I think is a non-issue. I think that works. Plus, we would grant an extension if we had to. But if we opened it tonight and we heard your concerns, it gives us an opportunity to correct or change things that we need to before November. Because if we didn't hear your concerns until November, then we have no chance other than to continue to January. Yeah. These aren't the people whose concerns you'll be hearing. Well, I think the board is going to mostly be the same. No, I might not be here in November. You will be. No. No, I mean not necessarily because of the voting and we know I will not be here and those are the days they have to go to tournament games. Yes.

If you're not here for that, I might not be here for that. He coaches my kids. I guess the other the other point though is is that Okay. So you acknowledge that it's it's currently missing the LLA health district approval. So if there's any changes that need to occur after that. So we're looking at a site plan that we don't know. The house is not going to change. So you we you say then we look at the architectural plan but not the site plan. The site the the house on the site plan won't change the location.

But it it is it is reasonable to say that we steer a lot of our concerns back to you around legislate approval issues too. So, if the ledge letter comes back as something that's problematic for us, that's going to be have that'll be something we directly be interested in you correct. But remember, no one could get a building permit without a health approval. Um, I know that's in part of your regulations and I completely respect that. The story I just wanted to tell you and I know we haven't opened yet, but I think you just need to know the background information. So, we submitted this to legislate. Are we opening or not opening? We haven't decided that yet.

And if you haven't go, if there are nobody that I don't want you still getting into your presentation yet because I don't want there to be evidence that's in here, but it's not in the record. It wasn't really part of the presentation. It was just the backstory on the health approval so everybody understands where we are and what we've done since. I think we have do we have uh something submitted in the application because we we got this. It's in the we have this I I don't I don't think you want to get into any substantive review of anything in the record. I agree. Yeah. Okay. It's going to get mucky as

I'm saying you don't need to give a background or anything because everything that's happened so far that's in the record, but we know we don't have the lighthouse district approvals. Anyway, I I guess I guess I'm a little struggling with um generally don't review applications that don't have Leslie Health District approval, but we can and I have not performed a review of the application either because Yeah, we don't have a we don't have Eric's review.

Yeah. And we're not asking you to close tonight. We're not asking you to approve tonight. Just open it, hear us. We get your feedback, table it. that we already know from the beginning that we table into November. It just gives us an opportunity to hear you now, change things, come back in November, maybe we get the approval in November, maybe we don't. Um, but if we start it in November, then we're guaranteed two more months after that because there's no meeting in December. So, we But if we have a complete application in November, then we could be decided in November if there are no changes. If there are changes, then we're forced to come back. Um, right. My preference since the time doesn't matter. My preference is to open it.

And what Sylvia me said before is it doesn't matter who as long as the people that are seated went back and listened to the tapes, they can vote on it. So, okay. So, the issue about being seated at the start of the hearing does not matter anymore. Correct. Okay. Because that was something that came up in the past. But then you were saying if they weren't in um if they weren't elected and sworn in, they could not just Oh, they Well, that's right. You took that away. That's okay.

Okay. So, I guess it comes down to what the consensus. if people want to open the hearing and hear it and then you know and then continue it knowing that we still don't have the lead health district approval that there could be some changes to the site plan but uh I'm fine opening fine it you know okay at his discretion if he thinks it's the right strategy for this I suppose I'd certainly be willing to stay here for a while

I I'll listen what you had to say, but I don't usually do an in-depth review on applications that are incomplete. So, I I won't have all my comments necessarily today, but I won't be here next time either, so it doesn't matter. All right, we're going to open the public hearing for case the number 25. Yeah, 2512C.

Awesome. So, thank you for all of that discussion. I appreciate it. For the record, again, Joe Ren, professional engineer of Indigo and Old Sabbrook. Uh, again with me is David Noey, uh, 360 Design Plus, also an old Sabbrook. Um, so now that the public hearing is open, um, I can kind of tell you a little bit of backstory. So the only notion of an incomplete application is just cuz we don't have health department approval. We have a review. They talked to the state. They got back to it was a month later. It was we we didn't even have or we got the health denial like the day before the meeting last month.

So since then in that month they requested additional soil testing. They since we're changing some drainage here to accommodate the septic system. Are you pointing to what was submitted to the legislate health district or is this something that we've seen? Is this in our records yet? Has this been submitted to the ZBA? This plan, the house is all of the same. Um I'm asking what version of the plan is this? So this is dated August 7th, 2025 when you received it. Okay. Um and this revision is this revision is the latest revision, but the only thing that changed on here is the suffixes. The setting the subject

so is your question is this I'm just asking so you're describing but you're pointing to the old plan or the current plan. This is the current plan revised per legislate health district's comments. Okay. I'm I'm asking specifically do we need to mark this as an exhibit because it's something we've not received yet. You can but I'm telling you the only difference is the subject system. whether you marking we are trying to stick to the rules and this is not something that is in the file so we need to mark it as an exhibit that's fine and I can after we review it I can certainly give you this but again for your purposes the only difference is the septic system and that was the zoning table

they wanted revisions in the septic on the property correct that's what you've sent to them now and they're you're awaiting approval on these revisions Correct.

Okay. Correct. So, we got that letter right before the last meeting. That's why we continued the last meeting. We didn't open the public hearing. Now, they asked us to do some revisions. They asked us to do more soil testing, which one of those pouring morning rain days, we were out there doing soil testing out here um to accommodate that. And the other thing with this septic system, we have to be certain distances away from storm water systems, drainage systems. So we had proposed on the plan to take this existing handmade block catch basin, eliminate that one because it's on this property anyways and it should it's an association drainage system. It should be on the association property. There's no easement. There's no rate really for that. So we're eliminating that substandard catch basin. We're replacing it with a new standard catch basin um that is pre-cast concrete and is watertight. We're changing the pipe that goes from this catch basin to this catch basin with a new clean uh tight pipe so the joints don't leak at all. Um and we have to be specified distances away from that. And then we are changing out this section of pipe too again with um what they call tight pipe. So um tight gasketed joint so it doesn't leak at all. So it's improving that situation. But one of the ledgeike comments was to do the soil testing which was done. The next one was to review these drainage improvements um with the association to make sure they're on board with the improvements before they sign off on it. Um, as we all know, sores are supposed to be coming and the septic might be a move point at some point in the future, but they can't base their approval on that. So, what we did is Dave happens to know the president of Old Lime Shores. His

name is Paul Yellen. So, we had a nice on-site meeting with him. We showed him exactly what we were proposing to do. It's an improvement for the association. These pipes are old pipes. They're half filled with sediment. Um, they're leaky joints and so forth. this catch basin is a handmade block basin. It's not even on their property. So, with this plan, it's actually a drainage improvement. And he kind of condoned it at the uh um at the site meeting, but he can't vote on it. The board, the old line Beach Association board has to review it. They had a meeting last night. Their board meeting was the October 15th. Dave and then Ray from my office attended that meeting since I was at senior night for soccer. with that gentleman. Um and um they reviewed this uh thoroughly and they sent us an email which I had forwarded to the town which you may have a copy of in the

that says that they reviewed uh that and they approve those improvements uh for the drainage. So that was sent over to the meeting was last night so I had to send that over this morning to Cheryl. So she got that. Um, I told her that we met with Paul, that the approval was more than likely coming. So, obviously Monday was a holiday. Um, she really put her best effort in to try to finish the plan for this meeting, but I got an email from her today saying that she had other fires to put out within the health district so that she wasn't going to get us the letter of approval. So, we're very close. We've done everything they asked for. We got the association approval. We did the extra soil testing. We made the revisions to the septic that they that she had required in her letter. Um and now all of it meets that. Um we just need her to do her final review and approve it. So we're close. We just didn't get her letter yet.

Yeah. So So to clarify, so you said that she wrote you a letter initially and that you've responded to that letter. Correct. Do we have that letter in our records? I'm not sure if she submitted it. We had like eight conditions. I have like what do I have in the Leslie Health district? Yeah, the initial provisions three two conditions create three recommendations additional requirements to mix. Oh, here it is. So, it probably says something up on top of that.

Okay. It's dated September 16th. Yep. Okay. So those items in that letter is what I just explained and what we did. So now we have full shores beats association approval. We did the soil testing and we made those revisions to the septic system that they um that they required. We talked to the state, they talked to the state, we got clarifications and everything on that letter is now incorporated into this plan. And again, that's the only reason for this revision is to just update the subject system. The zoning the house is the same size, the same location, the zoning table is exactly the same. The variances requested are exactly the same as before. The only change to the septic system per that letter. Okay.

Okay. And so if she writes a letter back and approves it with conditions, we we get that letter for the next meeting. We're hoping to have that. We're hoping to have it for today. Okay. Um once we got hold on um Shor's approval last night. Um, so whether it's tomorrow or next week, it'll definitely be before that next meeting. Okay. Correct. Yeah. All right. Okay. Thank you. Um, so without any further ado, the existing site is here. This is a true corner lot. So this is the one we were referencing before. The address is 70C Spray Road. So on this side we have the rear setback. Mhm.

And then on this side we have a side or other yard set back. And then we have front the street um street setback. That's a private road. Sea spray is also private. And we have that uh front set back there as well. Um there is an existing house that's shaded in the pale yellow that you can see. Um that is nonconforming to both street setbacks. Um, and then there's also a large garage over on the eastern side, also shaded in yellow. And there's a small shed in the back corner, uh, shaded in yellow. All of those items, uh, are nonconforming. Obviously, the the shed and the large garage are fully within the rear yard setback. We are eliminating that completely. So, there's nothing within 30 ft of that side. Now, the house is conforming. Those two structures are being removed. Um so that is going to be consistent with the requirements on the north side. There's the shed is non-conforming on the north side right now but there's no proposed uh nonconformity in that side. On the west side or the sea spray roadside our front yard setback goes all the way to here. So the existing house you could see is well into that setback

and we can't eliminate it just because of the narrow width that we have left. But we improved it. You can see where the yellow is versus the pink. Um and we've improved that. We can get the number. It's in there out of the zoning table, but we went from the yellow to uh the pink. So you improved it from distance but not width. There's a longer portion of the building is in the setback. Correct. But what we did is we moved it to the north because currently um the existing house is also not conforming to C lane front yard setback and we've corrected that as well. So we've eliminated

that street line setback. We've eliminated the rear yard setback. No, nothing new. We've actually eliminated that from the side too, but nothing new in the north side. And then the front we've improved. So eliminated three sides and improved the fourth side. Is there a reason you you made the house that wide instead of a little bit narrower and longer so you wouldn't have to be as much in the street set back and because you have space on the side there? So down it's a good question. So down here we're strictly limited by the septic system. We have to be 5t away from decks and steps and we have to be 10 ft away from the house.

Then we with all this drainage, remember we have drainage along this whole east side. We have drainage along the south side. So to these catch basins, we have to be 25 ft away for the septic system. And to this new tight pipe that we're replacing, uh there's also a minimum separation distance to that. So we're as tight as we can be on this side. We do need the steps because the house, this one's in FEMA. I think we're from the north. Yeah. So I'm getting there, working my way around the house. So because of FEMA, we need a lot of steps because this is 10 ft off the ground or so. 10 11 ft off the ground

to the first floor. Yeah. So to the first floor. So we need a bunch of steps uh for access and egress out to the south. On the north side, this is where the garage is. So we have our driveway. It's a side load garage. And we have minimum distance that we need in order for a car to come in and make the turn into the garage. So with that, you could see we have very little distance left up on top just for some some small shrubs or grass, whatever it may be on that side. But we have that minimum distance we need for turning into the garage and then we have the house and then we have the septic system. So we're kind of pinned. But I guess the question obvious that

this is a crush stone. I guess my question is since you're making a brand new house, you could make the entrance to the garage from the front. So Dave will get into the house next, right? He could you could he'll discuss the uh the garage and the requests from the client and so forth um regarding that. Um it's just it has a lot to do because the house is elevated. So the garage is underneath. Um, but there were some very specific D design parameters to have the garage in the north side and be a side load, right? Yeah. I think one show that now you can.

One important part of that is looking at the site plan here um to line up these garage doors along this face. We have a really wide, as you can see, it's a wide driveway coming right out off the street. So, this way we're kind of able to tuck it back behind and not have this large curb cut coming off the front main road. to for people to back out and then into the road to get out of the driveway or I'm sorry, out of the garage. So, that was really the main reason for not. And you've got a front lawn that way, this Yeah, right now we have a front lawn to kind of keep more of that aesthetic Yeah. of the neighborhood.

Car stones around tucked to the side and that's where you want to drive in. Correct. Yeah. We chose to put that on the north side obviously. So it was I did back out of the existing driveway and it was too narrow that road. Yeah, it's a very narrow road. Very narrow. Oh, over here. Yeah. So, we're eliminating that. That driveway is going away. So is the garage. Um here we have Cray Road, but you have the ability to get in here, turn around, and go out forward rather than be forced to back out of this driveway. It's very close to the um the property line on that side, too. And there I think there's a utility pole right there. So it's very difficult to make that turn, but all of that is going away.

Yeah. The reason I asked was because some neighbors did have some objection to the ex extent into the front yard setback. So yeah, we'll talk about that um shortly when we get into that letter. But we are again remember we're pulling that back. Um I didn't print that picture, but Dave and I were out at the site. You printed the picture. Do you have So now that Nancy brought that up, we'll talk about that. So, we'll get into the um this is exhibit two. Uh so, yeah. So, that's the house there, Joe. This is standing in there in the neighbor's driveway, right? That's their house, but we had one showing that other house to the south.

Did you print that one? No. Um, so this is a picture from the from the neighbor's driveway, from Le's driveway, but it doesn't show what I wanted it to show. So when I took a picture, I have it on my phone. I can print um pass it around. I didn't This is the house. This is the street. This is their yard. This is the complaining neighbors. Okay. Yeah. So the intent of that picture is to show that the house existing is already in the path of the view. Um, and technically they don't have a view easement. Correct, John?

Yeah, there's no view easement over the property. We talk about that a lot. But we also are improving um we're improving the street line setback in that area. Yes, the house is getting taller mainly because of FEMA. Um the existing house is 23t tall. We're going with a 24T house, but it has to be up because of the flood zone. Um, and then also, I mean, this part of the house, yes, would, you know, block view from a certain way, but then this portion of the corner is an open deck. So, as that's elevated, right, you'd be able to see through that portion.

My other picture that I took is there's another house on the south side of C Lane here that from that driveway looking down that sighteline, it actually sticks more to the west than the existing house does. and we're going to the east a little bit and this house is already closer to Sea Spray Road than this house is. Um, so we feel that you a there's no view easement or rights or anything over the property and b we're making it FEMA compliant otherwise conforming to the height regulations and we're making it a little bit more conforming on that side and we can't do anything about the house to the south. So yeah, nobody nobody looks over a house that big anyway to get their view. This is looking from the neighbor's house towards the shore to the side.

Right. This is the house. Well, it's going to go up and so they're their view. It's all about Yeah. I mean, you already can't you don't you can't see past law cuz it's a vertical block right there anyway. You can't see over it and you're losing the view because Yeah. Their house is not elevated. So, they're not looking down over that house. So, basically, just to get in the record, exhibit two is a photograph looking south. Mhm. Yeah. at the house on the neighbor's property. Right. Okay. So, did you say which neighbor? I think the neighbor uh Lai is the last name and they're the direct neighbor to the north. Uh it's number I say 64 neighbor. Yeah.

64 C spray. This is looking. So, they're going to be facing the garage doors from that angle versus the rest of the people who drive by won't see that. Correct. Yep. And Dave makes a good point with a a threecar garage, you know, that would be almost the whole width of the house here of this 30 something foot wide driveway

um on that curb cut where here we just have a 12t driveway and then it opens up on the property. So, we can maintain that green as you see there. we can maintain that green along the streets down in that area. So, the house has to go up. Um, it's almost right to the conforming 24 ft right now, but it has to go up that additional just for FEMA. So, we have this is a tear down a rebuild, so we're way over the 50%. So, it has to be compliant to FEMA. There's no arguing this one for sure. Um, so it will be a FEMA compliant house. Basically, it's compliant in every way except for the height and the front setback. Correct. And you and your reductions in non-conforming are the existing garage.

That's why those are the only two variances. Building height and then street line setback on the west side. That's actually address a little bit about how you building. No, unless you want to know. We'll have Dave go through that now. I think I think it's appropriate time to go through. There was just a question about the height and how Dave worked hard to minimize the height of the build of the house. Um, obviously we can't do anything about the 10 or 11 ft off the ground for FEMA. Um, but he can show you where those critical elevations are and how we work with the roof lines to keep it in 24. So I guess this should be another exhibit. Um,

exhibit three. So say for the record what exhibit 3 is so I could it's it's another diagrammatical section um showing those those heights and how we arrived at the 24 ft. Don't spell diagrammatic. I'm just writing diagram of building. Uh it's building section. Building section building crosssection. Yeah. Of of the north part of the house or whatever. Um it's it's kind of a generic section through Oh, just showing the elevations and heights. Okay. Exhibit 3 10 16 25. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. I'll just steal this back for one second. So yeah, this diagram basically shows um from the bottom of our lowest beam which aligns with the a 13T design flood elevation. From there is our 24 ft up to the ridge. So basically what we did is we took what would typically be grade and and lifted that up to meet the FEMA the 13 ft um and then worked with our 24 ft from there up. So we're set, you know, we're set by FEMA regulations plus the 1T freeboard to meet that 13. Then we have a 14 in for beam. Yeah.

Which is pretty standard practice to run a beam around the perimeter of these columns. Um, and then one floor one foot floor system, which is a standard uh TJI floor system. Can you make it a little closer? It's really hard to see. Sorry, I was kind of So, here's our here's our 14-in beam, which is pretty standard to run that along each um column. And then the 1T floor system here, which would be TJI's, and then a 3/4 in subfloor. So what we did is we took the 24 ft from the bottom of that beam and went up.

So the base float elevation right here is 12 and you need to be 1 ft above that and then that the distance between that and this is the structural beam here or is it? Yes. Uh the bottom of this line here. Okay. So typically when we build a house, our first floor is typically two feet. From the first floor, yeah. Um, say it's hard floor. From the first floor down to the grade is typically a twoft difference. And that's our 2T here. So 2T 3/4 in.

And how what's the height from this ceiling here to the to the bottom of the rafters? Um, well, the rafters start at that floor. So they start all the way down here. I mean, but maybe the roof. Um cuz you have an 8 foot first floor. Yep. An 8ft first floor. Taller the second floor. Um so we'd be 8t on the first floor. Another 1 ft floor system. And then the pitch of these rafters. Yeah. I mean at some point we we are over the 6 ft. Obviously it starts counting. I think this is our 6ft wall and then we're going up to where it meets the ridge which is right at the 24 ft. Right. I'm just saying can I just can you make it closer?

Yeah. You're saying this is 8 ft. Yeah. And then that's 8 ft and then it's higher than that. Why does it need to be higher than that? Um to get us the head room on the second floor. So there's like a very small attic space. It's probably 3 or 4 feet. Uhhuh. So as those all those rafters come up and we put that 8ft ceiling in there's a small triangle left and okay you know because because we are pitching the rafters from that ceiling height to in order to get enough headroom that it's usable for the story to have.

Yeah. Is the first floor and second floor ceiling heights are they the same? Because if that's to scale I can see what you're looking at. It looks larger to the floor of the attic, you know, like is that I mean like is it put a ruler to it or something? You're saying that you is it the minimum height that you need to meet FEMA compliance? So like yes, you have a second floor, but why does it need to be higher ceiling? Why why is it higher than the um maybe if I show the elevation? Could we contrast it with the existing structure? Um you've got your fe. Can I see that?

Yeah. How how is it different from taking the original structure and just female lifting that? What? Um I mean so the the massing is is much different. So like the actual house is much different. But yeah. No, but that's what I'm trying to say is when we're talking about the height issue cuz that's one of our live issues. What would it look like side by side with what you're proposing if I took the original and just why Yeah. I mean I can produce that. I can something like that.

Sorry. Sorry. Um so this is the existing house, right? And in this house for example, the second floor is here. 8t is probably approximately here. And even in this house there's that small triangle. So how tall is the house? Uh existing was 13 ft or I'm sorry 23 ft I believe. Okay. difference of like a foot. Yeah. And you're going to be 24 the structure above FEMA. Yeah. 24 from FEMA. Yeah. So it's only one foot that you're talking about differential or min. Yeah. And we're and we're also within the 24 right allowable. So we've taken what we did is we took FEMA the elevation of FEMA and worked from there up.

If this building was sitting on the ground I made this analysis on a recent application. If this building was the new building was sitting on the ground it would be 24 ft. Correct. Yeah. from the floor to the peak is 22 feet and then plus the 2 feet from the floor to the ground that they mentioned before. Okay. Okay.

So, our new house I think it might explain that a little bit that little triangle there. Um our new house is going to look like this. And so this is the sea c um sea spray side. um as that section comes up and our 8 ft is about right here. This is that small triangle. And because the the house has crossing gables like this, they come in. So there's a small triangle here that goes back to the ridge and then this small triangle that's the other side. So coming from over here back to that other intersection. So it's like a T-shape in plan. Um, so there's really actually no real usable space up there. I don't even think we're going to be able to get duct work up there to be honest with you.

Okay. Um, and to run HVAC. I think we're going to have to find ways to run it from below. And this is one and a half stories. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Because we dropped And those are garage doors on the bottom because they're on the side. But that just that's your elevation. Those breakaway walls or whatever. Breakaway walls. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I'm just looking at that and saying, "All right, well, that looks like that's where the cars are driving in, but it's not." Remember, all of that is flood space. So, really, the house is like that. Yep. No, I get that. I just that as uh as the side where the driveway comes into cuz they look like I mean, they all kind of look the same. Yeah. Yeah. There we go.

Um so, where we actually are driving in is see I don't even know. It's on this side. Yeah. On the free. Yeah. Okay. So, these these the intention on these would they'd be like an AAC panel that's trimmed out in white and then we'd clad the columns with with stone so it all look nice and finished. Okay. And you mentioned breakaway walls, but it's in the Azone. So, we just designed the Vzone standards. Yeah. I mean, technically these don't need a breakaway. Okay. But that Yeah. Yeah. And they they'll have fug vents in them as well to let the the water come in and out.

Um really the only difference with a breakaway wall is just how it's nailed into the structure. There's a lot less nails on a breakaway wall. And there's nothing any of the vents mechanical on that floor at all. Uh no, no, we have to be any above the 13. They show it on the north side. Yeah. The north side elevation shows the mechanicals on a deck that's up and there are notes all over this that say, you know, everything has to be up above the 13. And most of that's not really us. That's the FEMA stuff. And the other side, it's near the stairs on the the other side of the stair up upstairs. Yeah. We have an electrical electrical meter's going to be here. This side, right?

And of course at the bottom just storage. There'll be no living space. Garage low storage. No living space. No uh utilities. Okay. And there was a report from the engineer that said this house was FEMA compliant. So yeah,

this is a this is that lower level plan here. So it's basically going to be columns down there. Um the garage doors and really that's it. The stairs to the second floor or to the first floor. It's sort of been our general philosophy along the way that if they have an existing house with an existing structure that if they simply are saying listen we're doing some we're lifting that for FEMA compliance basically it's the same type of structure could be architecturally different but it's got the same footprintish and the same volume. What you're trying to say is if we lifted the existing board complying with FEMA, it would be the same height. Right. Right.

It actually may even be higher because as Dave will tell you, lots of times you have to add beams underneath the existing floor cuz it's not strong enough to hold itself. So sometimes that adds another foot to the weight as well. So I guess the thing you're saying is the the hardship is you're saying this is the minimum height to become FEMA compliant and be basically based on your current existing house one and a half sto 24T house sitting on the ground plus the minimum for FEMA brings it up to that that number that we're requesting. And the hardship for why you're in the front setback is because I'll go through that sheet. Yeah. Right. partly was less. So you're less on the foreign set.

Yeah. So the a little history on the whole project. Um the owners brought me in. They're they're new to the area so they're not very familiar with this flood information stuff and they said, you know, we'd like to renovate this house. The house has no drywall. Um you know, it's subpar as far as structure goes, no real kitchen. And you know, instantaneous like you're going to be way above the 50%. So, you know, lifting the house up from the get-go was, you know, that was always the plan. Um, so we had we have to lift it up no matter what. I don't this structure the way it is, I don't even think it could be lifted safely. Yeah. Because it's so deficient.

Um, and that was kind of the basis of of where it all began. And then your other alternative to um hardship is unusual hardship is the reductionism. We have several. Okay. Um, so I'll just summarize all that stuff now, but one thing that we haven't mentioned that's in the list is that the existing house is a twostory house. The new one is a bonafide one and a half story. We worked hard on that from the beginning. That's good because you're gaining more space because you're having the garage turning into living space, right? So we have, you know, bigger first floor, but the the second floor is a true house. That's under I think or just about it's just about at the

Yeah, it's not the 50%. Um so just to summarize uh proposed variances are requested and again we only have those two variances, right? Yep. The height that we just went through thoroughly and then the west side set back from Sea Spray Road. Actually the wooden Well, Eric hasn't finished his uh view yet, but you would still need the 9.3.1. Well, cuz it's not how we build. Oh, right, right, right, right, right. Okay, you're right. You're right. Sorry. My my question

will need to under the new uh CAM requirements, they may need to go to CAM even after having gone to CAM here. The zoning commission get their approval with the house when they finish here. Okay. Because the statute has now changed and what requires cam approval from the zoning commission. But we do have CAM approval. Yes. So no matter which board we go to, we have their feedback. They have their recommendation, but it still has to be approved by the board. I know Stevie would jump in and say that if I didn't say it. Yeah. I mean, their main things are we're proposing a pvious driveway just like you would like to see and also FEMA compliance and they're very happy to see that everything not FEMA compliance. Okay.

All right. Um, so the varian requested to allow the 1933 house uh existing not forming twotory four-bedroom dwelling that is not FEMA compliant. Can I ask a question right off the bat? Procedurally, since we're continuing this case and there may be different people at the other hearing, should we have them go through all this or have them do it the next? Well, I think it'd be good to make sure we're complete if they Okay, then I just want to make sure we're not wasting anybody's time. Unless he wants our feedback, you know, so if he doesn't give us feedback. Yeah. if there was something that was an obstacle or something that needed to be tweaked. One of the hardships was your drainage issue in the health department

in getting the storm water corrected and watertight. So I think that's a hardship on the lot due to the development in the area. I don't think we discussed that it was I'm not sure that's a hardship that's just a requirement going to a season house. It adjusted they had to adjust the design. Alternatively, it's actually an improvement to a non-conformity, right? I mean I just feel like it is something you had to address. It is an improvement with FEMA's an improvement correct. I think Canada is more like a improvement health and safety because we we don't and it's that's a that's a legislate health district

but that's that's proposed or actualized. We have made this change already or Yeah, that's just making sure that it hasn't actually Yeah, that's on this plan that Legite is currently reviewing. Good. Um, but it's we've used that before that even going from non FEMA compliant to FEMA compliant is a elimination of an existing nonform. No, I'll take your own word. So that it doesn't matter. That's it own independent thing. Yeah, it's not it's not because it's grandfathered in. The existing house is grandfathered in.

Yeah. You need to be become compliant if you do substantial approval. Exactly. The current house does not violate FEMA because it doesn't need to meet the substantial improvement test. Correct. All right. But anyway, yeah, I look at that differently, but just like the septic, I I look at the septic as an improvement, not because what's there now is no one really knows and we are supposed to favor improvements to the property. Public health and safety is not like a hardship, right?

So, technically, right? just get past this first sentence here. Um, so four bedroomedroom year round dwelling with um conforming FEMA regulations and town flat ordinances. The existing non-conforming shed and garage will be removed as well. Only one feature uh the computed height is proposed to become less conforming due to and I mentioned computed height there because of what we discussed we're taking almost the same height house and lifting it to FEMA. So it's how we have to compute the height. Um however all other existing non-conforming features will either become fully conforming or less non-conforming as a result of this project. And then I refer to the improvements of non-conformity below. Um strict application of the zoning regulations uh would result in unusual hardship because the lot is located in the R10 zoning district. The lot area is 8614 and is bounded on two sides by private streets. Um, due to the lot being a corner lot, in addition to the two 25- foot street line setbacks, the lot is also encumbered by a 30-foot rear yard setback. As a result, approximately 79.4% of the lot is encumbered by setbacks. For the building height, the main reason for the variance is due to the required conformance with FEMA flood regulations and town flood ordinances. If the proposed building were constructed on the ground, it would meet the 24 ft height requirements. The existing lot is a small non-performing lot of record that was created well before modern zoning regulations 1933 were implemented. Additionally, it is a corner lot and severely nearly 80% encumbered by two street setbacks and a rear setback. In addition to this landbased hardship, several existing non-conformities are proposed to be eliminated or become less nonconforming. And um that goes uh right into number

five. So the first one a um this text is getting smaller and smaller. So street line setback ca spray road is a reduction. So uh the existing is 9.6 ft to the existing house and that's being increased to 12.5 ft uh to the proposed house. So almost 3 ft there. So looking down spray road at 3t less uh vertical house there. uh street line seep on C lane that's an elimination of that existing non-conformity existing um it's 19.1 ft and 20.1 ft to the existing garage uh and proposed is 26.6 6 ft minimum to the steps, not only the house, but the actual steps that we have on the front. So, we're more than conforming to the 25 ft even to those uh steps. Uh C, number of stories elimination, right? We mentioned this before. We have existing two stories. We're going to a bonafide one and a half story.

That's big.

Okay. Um fourth or D is sideyard setback on the north. We're eliminating the 2.9 ft to the existing shed. Um, and eliminating that and proposed 24 ft to the house where 12 ft is required E or the fifth one, the rear yard setback on the east. Uh, we're again we're eliminating that. We're taking out that shed and that large garage. Uh, eliminating that where it's 2.9 ft to the existing garage and 5.5 ft to the existing shed. and we're proposed 30.3 feet to the house. So where we're less than three feet and five feet, we're going the 30 feet um on that side. Um so the the last section is just um conforming in harmony with the neighborhood. Obviously, we're going FEMA compliant. We have a code compliant septic system once that's approved. We have these drainage improvements as were mentioned before. Uh we have five reductions or eliminations of nonconformity. So we think we have fairly strong application with this one. It's the end result overall situation is much better for the community. Uh much better for this particular property. Everything is upgraded. Everything is up to code. Um and it's more conforming than the existing house. And the sort of pathway that you've taken this evening is um without having legislate approval yet, you want to get this in front of us to see if we've have any issues with what we've been presented and suggest that if we hear next time we hear from you that legislate has approved this and there's no significant things that have to be altered about the plan or do we see any deficiencies here? that we have any problems with what you're doing. Correct. Is that your p is that the path requirement?

Yes, because it sounds like your regulation require allows you to to not approve or close an application until you have that from legislate. Totally fine with that. Yeah. We just wanted your feedback. So, we have an opportunity to change. If you said, I hate this or that or something, then we know that we need to to change something. But I think we went through the height. We went through all the reductions and eliminations and non-conformity thoroughly um with you to show you that everything's a minimum necessary, minimum required. Um at least we feel that way and and get this right that we just would love to have your feedback and then just continue into November. I think the reductions of legal pre-existing non-conformity and then going from two stories to one story

are fairly compelling improved health and safety. Um, I think you, my question was more about why couldn't you go a little further north and make the change of the garage, but I think you're saying that it's more amendable to the neighborhood to have it the garage on the side than in the front rather than a really wide curb cut there and cars. It at that point they would be forced to back up onto the street and you have everybody walking to the beach in that location. That's safer. Yes. Yeah, that was my main question. Yeah,

here all the cars are afforded to be the ability to turn pull forward into the garages, the three of them. Back out. We have even have this turnout area over here. Back out and pull out forward direction safer. Of course. Yep. The apron has to be paved. Everything on the property is cushion. And the current current driveway is is pavement. So that's improving the periability. Uh this is stone, I believe, going to that garage. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I don't think there's a paved driveway. The sh eliminating the roof that was impervious. Yeah, we have more roof on the house. We're limiting that roof and eliminating that roof, but we're within coverage. We maintain coverage and floor area on this project.

Okay. So, unless health districts makes you change something from their perspective and any conditions there, we would have as conditions here. Of course. I don't see any obstacles. I don't know if that's the appropriate way to respond at this point in time. Yes. I think I mean I was going to ask about the neighbors. I mean we heard about the neighborhood. Oh yeah. When you hear the neighbors are there happy neighbors? I mean you know I mean that's a really good question. I will say that the neighbor who submitted the letter was here at the beginning of the meeting and I indicated this was not going to be going forward and therefore they left. Oh. So they would like the opportunity to be heard on this. Of course. Absolutely.

November. Did they submit a letter? The letter you have is from them, but they also wanted the opportunity to stand in front of you and be heard, right? I mean, I didn't review the detailed letters, but I didn't think we're going forward today either. Is that the Deborah Belo property? Is that that one? It's Lai 64. Mr. Little was here 2 months. He was here 7 6:30. Oh, this one. Is this it? Can we read this out loud now or not? Yeah, why not?

Okay. We're the owners of We received this notification application neighbors home at 70 Cspray. We the owners of 64 CRA which is directly next to 70 C spray. We have enjoyed living in this house since 1974. An important feature of our home was the ability to see Long Island Sound. This view is one of is of utmost importance to our family. We want a guarantee from the owner 70 spray that the new home they plan to construct would not block our lovely view. We realize that these owners must hinder

comply. However, we realize the owners must comply with the building codes. However, it must not hinder the quality of our home. It would be helpful if these people would take the time to tape off their new home's actual location. We are not opposed to the request to tear down 70 C spray, but want the opportunity to see where the home they wish to build as a replacement home on the property will be and how it would affect our long-standing Waterview. Uh if there is a question about this kind of contact me, Steve Thomas, do you have it staked out with a new where the new location is going to be?

Um it would have to be inside the existing house, but we can paint on the existing house. Some of it mean this portion. Yeah. The front the front would be again it's six feet or would I say three feet is the difference? Yeah. You said at least three feet. Um so it's where did they live in right there? Right. So that picture that we just that was that picture I was looking we were standing about right here. So are they saying they can see the water from their house or like in their yard? You have that photograph. because I don't think you can actually see it from the house, but if

the way that that house is situated, if you are in like their front yard, they definitely have a view down. I think the only place that they would actually see when we were there might have been on the second floor and it would have been like looking up. So, what I'm saying is I don't think that you can see maybe that's what they said about the second floor. But if you're here, you know what I mean? Like you're going to use this. We are here. Unfortunately,

sorry. Um, if you were closer to the road, then what I'm saying is I don't from this picture, it's impossible to tell what they what the their view is. We would need to have them maybe if they want to they can come back and put Why are we talking about views? Because I don't think views are part of a legal thing. I think because you asked about the neighbors and that's what the neighbor's concerned about. She did. I think the thing is I think the thing is right I I think the thing is because this is going to be a continued case and the neighbor is not here and the neighbor plans to be here that we hear from the neighbor next time and that that can affect your

but do we take water view into account? It's not a legal right. No, but may I just suggest that maybe these people and the neighbors maybe they could talk. It's always been helpful when the people actually talk to each other and we could paint a line in the grass where the new house would be that would be helpful. Um but if you can see this is the picture that I took from that driveway. Okay. So you can see at the end of Cray Road you could see this is the existing house right here. This is the house to the south. So you could see that house to the south is clearly closer to Sea Spray Road.

So by coming back and going up, they can't see over that roof right now. So the their best view is by that flag pole where the water is on. Is it possible before next week if this stays alive issue to make like a a a perspective sort of rendering about the existing viewpointish and the post and we need to have that picture as exhibit four the very next thing I do is email it to

but I I I think the point is what we're saying is Joe that's an actual picture as opposed to like a vibe or so you don't need to you don't need to take a screenshot. It's an actual already created photograph. I just want to make sure you nowadays with phones you can do a lot of things. I just want to make sure what we're getting is exactly what you just saw. Yes. Right. Yes. You don't think I would do? Not that you could for the record. I think that that record, but I was wondering if there are any other people who are in favor or I mean, are there any letters that were

They're very new to the neighborhood. They haven't had a chance to They haven't even I don't think lived in this house, right? They purchased it. They haven't even lived in the house. They haven't had a chance to go around the neighborhood. And um and the letters went out. They just haven't nobody's responded except yeah this is the only letter we got. You know they're not even really saying they're opposed to the project. They're just saying we're concerned about our view. But I guess the thing is they don't know where the house is where it exactly where the current house is. So they think it might be closer to the street. And this way if you showed them where it actually is. It's not closer to the street. So it wouldn't block that view that Michelle pointed out towards the water by the street that that might be helpful. I guess to Stephanie's point is if you showed it to them, they might be very helpful.

And I think the rendering I'm suggesting wouldn't just be good for us. It'd be good for your northern neighbor if they could look at that and say, "Hey, listen. This is what the view Well, I mean, the rendering is fine, but drawings are difficult to understand by a lot of people. I think the picture says the most. Yeah. And if you just basically show that building versus the new building and say, "Look, we're not let the neighbor is." I think they will take this picture that I just showed you and and superimpose the new house. Right. Right. And then I think the other thing too is cuz people don't know if you did spray paint or mark somewhere on the property where the new house is going to be, you'll see that it's further back.

We can do that. Yeah. You know, you read Lai's uh into the record, but there's another one from Lai that's maybe updated and where he's making a different bit of a statement the last paragraph. I I don't think asking for an additional 5-ft setback from C-Spay Road Sea Spray Road is unreasonable. That wasn't in the first letter. So, letter. Yeah, I was going to review that next. I have a copy of it. It was emailed to the town and I think Craig ordered it to me. I remember again. I don't think it's there. Um, does this have a date on it? I don't have a date. Do you know if we got Is this an archive or is it an exhibit?

All right. So, it's not an exhibit. I package my copy of it. You can make that an exhibit and you can read it in. Yeah. This was It's not an exhibit. It's in the file. It was already just in the file cuz broken in the record.

But anyway, so okay, I I hadn't because I didn't think we've gone over this application today. So we were recently notified that 70 C spray will be demolished and a new elevated FEMA compliant building will be built in its place as a 50-year resident of 64 C spray road. We are concerned that we will lose our water view with such a tall structure basically three stories with the current old lime SBA roadback setting. What's what's osba? O line beach association shorts beach

road setback minimum and a 25 ft town required setback from cease road. We will lose a good deal of our water view. While we realize that flooding is a big issue in our area and the new construction requires streaming compliance. We would like to ask that the home be built at least 30 ft back from the old lime sba road setback on sea spray road. I don't think asking for additional 5 foot step spray road is unreasonable. Thank you for your consideration. Thomas Lai, Michelle Low, Cynthia Le, I'm I'm not sure what this old lime SBA road setback is. It's not a it's not one of our regulations. No, it's old line shores. Yeah.

And that's their association, the old line shores. And I I don't know. They have a set of rules, you know. I mean, they their association, they have rules. I don't know what but that's not but I'm reading that as it's a private road right therefore it's the setback there is from the beach association road that's how I'm reading that letter I see okay so the the you the road itself is narrower than the right of way they are saying they want 30 feet away from the edge of the right of way when the front setback under our regulations is 25 they're asking for 30 feet instead of 25 ft for the from the front yard.

But it's what I'm saying is but if it's a rule that's related to the association, it's not our view. I don't even think they're saying it's an over association rule. They're just saying it that way. They're saying it's 25 now. We think it's not unreasonable for you for you to ask for 30. I see.

Okay. the the current house from the edge of the road is just from the edge of the road, not the property line because I think they're referring to the road, the the private road, but from the road to the existing uh house is just under it's like 19.5 ft. The the nearest from the edge of the road to the proposed house is about 22. So that's that 3ft betterment. So maybe they mistook the application to mean that we are asking for to go closer to the road versus farther away without either understanding or looking at the plan.

Well, anyway, that's something they can address at the next hearing. That'll get clarified at the from the picture that you showed me off your phone. The building would be down in that next lot that had more of a block of view. Yeah, it's more this way. It's more this way. It's down there cuz I mean I think that's vaguely compelling to me is like I'm looking for my view of the the sound and yours blocks it a little bit. The other one blocks it much more and I don't think the new profile that you're you're building will exceed what's already blocked by the the more southern prop building on the property side. The view is down this grass and down the street to the

I mean that's looking from the ground level. Is it possible that they can see over your roof? Over this floor? It's a small It's a small cape, right? I I what I think what I think they're talking about second floor. I think they're on the second floor looking over the front porch roof. But I mean, as if they even touched that if they even touched that house and lifted that up to be FEMA, they would be up above there anyway cuz the house is 23 feet high now. So, um you know, as soon as they touch that house, they're going to exceed 50%. I think I think the value of the structure was somewhere like 80,000. I mean, the value of the structure now Yeah. was so low and the house is in such disrepair.

Well, I I really think the neighbor's house to the south is a constraint. That's a control. So, yeah, but from that line of I I think we're spending a lot of time. Yeah. This is Senate's going to be addressed at the next hearing when the neighbors can be presenting. We can discuss it. And if you can do anything before then to clarify any of these confusions with them, that would be a good idea. Stephanie's point. Okay. Yeah, we'll we'll speak to the owner about that. And then we'll also do like an overlay for you guys to see what just something so that if it really doesn't have a a serious impact on your view, you can show that to us and them. Right. Yeah. Right.

Okay. So, um, so do we need to understand? Yes, we're we're getting to that in a second. Yeah. Does anyone Oh, well, anyways, the public hearing is open. Does anybody here want to speak in favor of this application and want to speak oppose this application and want to comment on this application? If no one else has any more comments or questions, would anybody like to make a motion to continue the public hearing for case 25-12 CC Spray Road to the November 20th, 2025 Z regular ZBA meeting hall, Memorial Town Hall, 52 Lime Street, O line, Connecticut. I'll make the motion.

Second, Steve, Stephanie and Stephanie. All those in favor? I I opposed. None. Staining. None. The motion pass 5000. They have to send something. No, they do not because this is you open tonight the next hearing date because it's 35 days. You're within your 35 day period. So yeah, we don't have to. We could, but we don't have to. All right. So now we're zooming along to the regular meeting. Bye, guys. Thank you very much. It was a great day.

All right. Thank you. So anyway, to just uh no no old business, new business, the receipt and setting of public hearings for new applications. No new applications have been submitted for receipt today. Wow. Just to remind you that we did receive any new application that comes in before December 20th will be received at the November meeting and as there no meeting in December, the public hearing will be scheduled for January. So, let's just because that's our 65. There is one still convenient application. I'm just about to get to that. Yeah. I just wanted to get to the new applications first. And just a reminder, 41 Hartford Avenue was received in September and was scheduled for the November 20th ZBA meeting. So, there will be one new case.

41 Hartford Avenue. Yeah. 41 Hartford Avenue will be one new case at the November meeting plus discontinued case. Who are the people at 41? Who is it? I don't have all the information with me here. I can look it up on Okay. And then so now for the chair update. Hopefully everybody saw the ZBA annual report that was submitted to Michaela. Thank you Michaela for being patient because I was supposed to do it early September. Is it Did you email it to us? Yeah. Well, she sent it out just the submission to the annual report this week. No, no, it was the end of September. Oh. Oh. Oh, yeah. All right.

I thought it was something new. I just want to remind people the municipal elections are November 4th and the term four they're the terms of for commission uh alternates and members will be expired by uh November 18th. So anyone who's new needs to be sworn in at the town clerk's office by November 20th and uh since I'll be away on November 20th meeting I didn't know this. Well, I might be away too. Well, but I have it. If you're here, you're the acting chair. But if you're not here, Stephanie as secretary has agreed to be the backup acting. Oh, we did. Did Yes, I guess I am.

I've got a cure for East Lime to lose. Oh, I don't want Eastline to lose, but I want you here. But anyway, yeah, now it's all timing and Yeah, whatever. But anyway, I don't know. It might be good for Sylvia to be here. elected officials. Yes. And the existing if you're reelected, you realize you have to be sworn in, too. So, okay. Everybody has to Everybody new has to be sworn in by the 20th. By the 20th, everyone elected. Everyone elected. No, we're not. And we can just show up in the town clerk. We'll swear in. You don't You're term expired until 26th.

You're running, but it's staggered. So, your term expires this November. Your term expires next November because we don't have elections next year. Okay. Right. So because only every year elections it's it's these positions and all three alternates and so so anyway. So I since I'm not going to be here and your alter Oh, the current alternate but he's the um who's our alternate um Brian. Brian Brian is not running again. No, I know that. So the the us two alternates are running. I'm not She's not running as an alternate, right? Exactly. Okay. I guess I'm not trying to get into who's running for what. I'm just trying to say there are I'm the only alternate that's running

running for reelection. And then the screen was I'm the only alternate and one of them is there's there's four there's four people running. There's there's five people running for three alternate positions. You're the only one who's running for reelection. Right. Right. Okay. But I'm what I'm trying to say is

cuz I'm not going to be here and we're going to have acting chairs and um I was I'm going I'm requesting that my alternate be whoever is reelected who has the most experience and or who has taken some online courses or at least at a minimum has read the ZBA guidance document for applications. So, as the chairs, you're gonna designate who's gonna be seated in my place. So, I'm gonna go rock paper scissors. You okay with that?

But you, you know, but hopefully I and I will as a chair welcome send welcome email to anybody and I'll tell them about the training and the guidance document. But, so hopefully someone will get there before then. Um, thank you for coming. Um, so I'm available for whatever discussion you may feel necessary as well and I'll draft a template document that you can modify. Last time you left me with a beautiful pile. So I'll I'll trust you'll do that again. I mean honestly this and remember the only thing we have is Joe's leftover application and one new one. So it's not going to be that big. Okay. And I got

Can I ask just from because I'm not short of this the audio recording of today? Yeah. Is that available? Yes. It should be made available to whoever the new members promptly. We online. Will the actual recording be available? Recording is available online. How quickly? Tomorrow. Okay. Yeah. The election is not until whatever. I have to say

so fancy. As you might not have read the you might not have read the ZV annual report, but it talks about how a great job that Craig has done. He now has all the meeting materials posted beforehand and he has the audio recordings posted on the website. So it's really good and I also thank you as well and we also thank Eric as well and everyone all the board as well. Anyway, so anyway, so thank you Craig does a lovely job. We're really lucky. Okay. So anyway, Nancy, one sorry one other thing logistically. So my understanding the swearing needs to happen by November 20th and the meeting is the November 20th. Yes. So to the extent this is helpful anybody running should it might be good to let them know to watch the video and look at the materials.

I want to send once the election happens I know who's elected. I will send an email out talking about the training what needs to happen and if we need them how they can get up to speed. So I'll take care of that. Yeah. It just be a short time frame. So I just, you know, well, the election is two weeks before that. So So we've got we have from the 4th until the 20th to get them up to speed. Yeah, that sounds like a lot of time, but but I but I will I will email them as soon as communicate with them as soon as possible after the election. I will be asking for whoever is seated that isn't currently here to be making a representation on the record. Yep. That they have substantially familiarized themselves with the record.

I'll put that in a template. If you need language from me, let me know. I think we have that from the past. We do have none of the alternates sitting back here. So, perfect. He's running. Yes. All right. So, anyway, so that was the updates um and the chair updates and so there's no correspondence and announcements. Oh, you wanted to add something to discuss. I have a question. What at what point would we have to recuse ourselves that if we talk to the owner, we're friends with the owner or the is there any rules on that?

Yes. Are there plenty of stuff out there? It's not necessarily the cleanest black and white scenario. Ultimately, whether or not you recuse yourself is your decision. Someone can't force your recusal. Um, what I usually recommend is if there's a question, let's have a conversation about it. Um, and I can that's my best advice because things are nuanced. Um, you mean between the individual and you the lawyer, not as a you feel like you you may have a question, give me a call and we can talk about whether or not that's where that threshold is.

Um, because whatever I tell you, change one slight thing and it might change the opinion. So that's why I say that. So, I offer that to anyone at any point in time. Generally speaking, you want to think about if if if it's going to you're either predisposed to a decision because you really like that person that's my grandmother that took care of me. I really want to give her something she wants or if you're privy to information that you may not otherwise be privy to, you want to make sure that's on the record. Um, or if you have any sort of financial incentive or stake in the matter. Um, so just knowing someone may not be enough, but we'd have to talk a little bit more than Right. It's a small town. A lot of people say we don't know everybody. Everybody knows everybody.

Yeah. I don't mean Yeah. I didn't if I said that know them. But if you're predisposed is the thing. If you're predisposed because if you're one of the budding neighbors or is there a budding neighbor? If you're an abing neighbor and been like involved in the case, you're notified to respond. I it's it I want to say that there's no necess if you're if you're the applicant. Yeah. Right. That's a bright line rule that I can say. Um if you're the engineer that's working on the application, you're making a financial incentive and that's probably bright line rule. Um just being a neighbor,

maybe not. Um so that's why I say it gets so fact specific. Um I'm available. Let's talk about it. Um, I may ask you questions that we don't want to say in the public hearing necessarily. Um, so and I think what about my neighbors and I didn't feel like I was a conflict. I was really listening to when you bring me go by the zoning rags. You know, ultimately it's the member's decision. Okay. Right. So,

I'm happy to advise the member and give if there's concerns that I have and hopefully we get to the same place, we have an agreement about where the risk is and so on and so forth. Um, you know, if there's any doubt whatsoever, recusal isn't a bad idea. Just so that you don't taint a potential appeal, like you don't offer an appeal up, even if the court's going to say, "No, that's not a conflict." Um, or you didn't need to recuse yourself, there's always a risk, right? So, if there's any doubt, you can do that. I mean, no one's going to say you can't recuse yourself if you feel like there is. Um,

I think another point that you made that's really important too is that if you have any knowledge per se that's not in the public record that you're using to inform your decision, you need to bring it up and put it on the record. You have to do that during the public hearing. During the public hearing during deliberation applications, I I know that's I think we we we say that no new information after the closed public hearing. And we've drummed that into everyone's head. But it but it means also when you go visit the properties, if someone comes up to you, you say, "Sorry, I can't talk to you outside the public hearing." People do that a lot of times, too. Say, "Sorry, I'm just looking at the property, but I can't discuss this with you at this time." Yeah. And any discussion has to be in the public hearing.

Yeah. Exactly. It's not I won't talk to you ever on the record. No, just because just in case they feel like they're being not heard, they will be heard. It just has to be in a proper form. I I I tell people that sorry we can only talk in the public here. Yes. So the other thing is if if you think that there is a conflict or you're recusing yourself or not that should also be done in the public record. So let's put it all out in the open. Um because theoretically if someone doesn't you say I have this relationship and the person doesn't um have an opposition or say anything that theoretically they're waving any kind of objection to it. So you wait until a public hearing to recuse yourself. Well, the

I would state on the record during the public hearing. I'm recusing myself from this application. You don't necessarily need to state why. And if you're not in advance just because you're good friends with them or whatever. I mean, I suppose you could um but I think it's going to come up if you're physically sitting here. It's going to But I would think I wouldn't be here if I'm recusing myself. Well, there's nothing that there's nothing that prevents you from being in the room. No, I just feel you you wouldn't participate. You wouldn't participate, right? Even in the open hearing, they would participate. I thought from the public, you theoretically could. Would I advise that you do? Probably not because you're muddying the waters. Again, why risk an appeal? Yeah.

When you don't need to. Um I don't think you're technically muzzled. You're citizen with three rights as well. I if you want to speak, I would say please sit there so there's no Here we go. Yeah, sitting at the tables a sense of you're involved in sit in the audience and say I'm exercising my first amendment right as a neighbor or as a public citizen. Here's my personal view. This is not my capacity as a DBA member. That's okay. You don't lose your first amendment rights because you're a member. But you need to sit out there and sort of say, I'm doing this in my capacity as private citizen, not in my capacity as ZBA member.

And there's there's several online trainings that are specifically about that topic about what is recusal or whether you should recuse yourself. So you can, you know, Stephan, not Stephanie, Sylvia is a reference, but there's also some training that you could do if you want to learn a little more. But that's a really good question. Good. Thanks for that discussion. All right. If there's nothing else, would anybody like to have any amendments the proposed amendments the to the September 18th ZBA minutes? Nope. If if that's the case, would anybody like to make a motion to approve the September 18th, 2020 ZBA minutes? That was Kathleen.

Can I Was I seated? No, I I can't do that cuz I wasn't seated. Oh, I'll move it then. All right. You weren't seated? No, I don't think was seated. You don't need to be seated. You just need to be present. I was present and yeah, you can speak. Yeah. Yeah. But only five people can vote, right? Oh, right. I'm not here. So, right. So, Steve has to vote on it. If you weren't present, then that is five. Yeah. But but it's only five people can vote.

Yes. Okay. So, but the five present were Kathleen, Michaela, Stephanie, Nancy, and Kip. So, I'm not seated tonight. Does that No, but you you're here for the for the minutes. It's okay. So, so Kathleen made the motion. Who seconded it? Kayla, she's not seated, but she can still make a motion. Yes. Okay. All right. I know she can vote. If the rules were different, you could almost never approve minutes. Okay. So that was and all those the five members that were attending the meeting that was all those in favor vote I

I opposed none standing none motion passed 500 and would anybody like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting. So moved. Kip. Steve. All those in favor I 849 nine. Uh abstaining none. Motion passed 5 to 0 and it was like what did you say it was 849 Nice.