Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Okay. Good to go. But I can send you all. Okay. So, I guess we'll call order. We're going to uh start our meeting for November 20th uh 2025. Um starting at 6:30 p.m. Um present will be will roll around the corner like we usually do. Michaela Pearson, excuse me. Nicholas Milton, Kathleen Tracy, alternate. Stephanie Mele, Amy Hwitt, clerk. Uh, Kip Conson, acting chair. Russell Fog, Richard Corsmeer, alternate.

Sylvia Rcasta, council. Eric Napsi, enforcement officer. Okay. Um, I am requested to ask the newly seated elected members if they have been uh sworn in by the town clerk. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Group. Great. Okay. Okay. And we're all set on who's being seated for this case or do we need to make that clear? Well, you you have at this point four regular members. you. So for the first one, you can seat whoever you want. For the second one, which is Russ was here last meeting and you have listened to the tape. I listen to the tape. Yes.

Okay. Then you're going to say that on the record when we get there. So you can seat Russ for both or you can seat someone else for the first one? No. Russ, you're happy to take the vote? Yes. Okay. All right. So Russ is seated for post. Seated. Yes. Okay.

Okay. Okay. To facilitate efficient review, please present, this is me, the evidence that an unusual and unnecessary hardship exists based on strict application of zoning regulations due to some peculiar condition of the property itself and that the condition does not generally affect other properties in the district. The evidence that the variance requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual hardship and allow reasonable use of the property. Note whether there are any reduction of legal pre-existing nonconformities proposed. Note that the evidence that the variances requested are in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations and comprehensive plan of zoning. Um and for coastal site plan review applications, we'll have to read the DEP comments. Um, and if applications have been reviewed by a town engineer, we'll read those comments in the engineers report. So, first case of the evening will be 2512 C70 Sea Spray Road.

Okay. No. Okay. I'm reading it right there. Oops. Okay. So, yeah, my bad. Okay. No, it's got to be 1214. So, it is backwards. Got it reversed. Sorry. Sorry. My bad. do that.

Uh, sorry to have gotten your hopes up on that one. Um, okay. So, the first case that we'll hear this evening is 25-141 Hartford Avenue, uh, in kind reconstruction on a concrete foundation of one of two existing non-conforming dwellings located on a non-conforming lot in the Sound View Village district. Um, Daniel and Lori Traerico, applicants. um if we could have the representation step forward. I'll read the variances that are requested and then you come up and make your case. Uh variance requested are 513 7.7.8 rear yard setback 10 ft required 5137.9 side yard setback 6 ft required 9.0.7 voluntary demolition of a non-conforming building. However, as section 9.07 has been deleted from old line zoning regulations, the applicant has agreed to remove the request for this variance and um secretary will read correspondence into

yeah I don't know what that is. Do we do we have any new we have no new correspond so and then open public comment at the end. Okay. So, we're in the um part of the evening where you guys are going to present to us uh the case for granting variances.

Okay. Uh good evening and welcome for those of you who are new. Um my name is Brendan Shy. I'm uh the attorney for uh excuse me, Dan and Lori uh Triricar Rico who are the owners of the property at 41 Hartford Avenue. Um with me is uh Dave Noey who from 360 Design Plus who is the architect on the project. Um as indicated from the uh introduction um this is a request to rebuild uh one of the two structures on the property at 41 Hartford Avenue. Um, if you've seen the property, it's somewhat unusual because uh it's a it's a relatively narrow lot, not inconsistent with others in the neighborhood, but there are actually two structures on the house on the property. Um, uh, and the one on the left is the one that we are seeking to rebuild. Um the existing um structure has it rests on the foundations or pure foundations which are crumbling. Uh we have some pictures that Dave will go over with you in a moment. Um so we're going to replace those uh pier foundations with a poured concrete foundation to make it safer. But then otherwise and we'll have to obviously be demolishing the the house as it is there now. But we on the new foundation will replace that building uh like for like essentially same exact footprint, same height and um same dimensions as what is currently there. Um uh I wanted just for the record I do

have I know that you already have uh in your uh file a uh the correspondence. I have another another letter that we just received this week that I thought I would add to the record and I'm not seeing it now. So, um I guess I'll No, I do have it. I just stapled it to the wrong thing. This you don't think we have in our folder. So, I know you don't because I submitted the other letters that we received. Do we have a copy that you could give us? So, we enter it as Indeed I do. Uh and I've got I'll make this exhibit number one. Sounds right. Yeah. Okay. I don't know if you needed mult. Keep me on track. Everybody's helping me.

Did you need multiple copies? Um, yeah, you could ask members if they want or you want to read that in. Yeah. What does it say? What does it say? One. Um, I'm happy to read it. Um, I know later on you'll usually review other comments. Uh, yeah. But, uh, in this case, uh, this is from, uh, Maria. Oh, yeah. We could delay this till later. Okay. This is one of the supporting letters. Yes, it's a letter. We'll make sure remind us to read that.

Sure. Um, so the variances that we're requesting, as you're mentioning, I'm I'm withdrawing the request for uh a variance from the non-existing regulation, which is 9.07. Uh, thanks to Eric Knap for pointing that out to me. Um but the other two are just simply for the sideyard and the rear yard uh behind uh the uh adjacent to the left side building if you will. Um as part of uh we well first off to to rebuild in its current place we would be rebuilding the foundation and the structure within the setback. And so while what's there is a legal nonconformity because it was grandfathered, um I I felt that we needed variances if we were going to put a new foundation in uh and new structure even if it's in the exact same location. So um that way would be by way of a variance it would be a legal nonconformity. Um, so it's a little bit of a legal uh distinction, but I think it I felt it was important to uh to request that. So there's no doubt about it going.

Okay. So if I heard you clearly, not to be too interrupting, but it you're just putting a new improved version of what already exists there in the same location just cuz the other one's falling apart. Indeed. Okay. If you read my memo, they're basically because they're now going essentially down because you're going from here to a foundation, they're increasing the amount of volume in the setback except usually it's higher. This case it's lower. Okay. But threedimensionally there's now more how how deep is the slab then? Uh the building's raised up approximately 3 ft. Okay. And we'll go we'll go down the minimum 42 in to grade. So

Okay. You know, the basement will be six or seven feet from the bottom of the joist to the slab. So, you will have at least a crawl space. Yeah. Yeah. But six feet under six feet, are you saying? Um, it would probably be a hair over, but below grade.

Yeah. Um, so as I've said in the application, the hardship that we're facing here is the fact that the house is on a sh on literally on shaky foundation. Uh, and uh, replacing it is is obviously going to be necessary. There are a number of code violations already existing. Um, uh, so those are somewhat self-evident. Um the what we are also proposing to do is remove a rear deck that is um at the back of the property that is literally right on the property line. Um so by eliminating that we'll add at least 3 ft um to the rear yard uh setback. Um and uh the only other thing I just wanted to add was that we do have our B100A approval from Ledgeite Health District. Um but in reviewing this with ledgeite um the replaced foundation and structure would have been viewed uh by ledgeite as requiring a new separate septic system from what is there. So that each of the buildings would each have to have their own septic. And currently they share the two buildings share the same septic. But in working with Ledgeite on this, they agreed that if we were to as part of this plan design a connection between the two buildings such as a small breezeway and covered breezeway that um the health district would consider it one structure and therefore we would be able to continue to use the single septic rather than having to be having to

How long have the homeowners own this property? Uh they have owned it since I'll tell you uh more than 20 years, right? No. Um actually they um well that was actually from the from the uh card trustee. Yeah. Uh they have owned it since um in one form or another since 2004. Yeah, that's more than So these houses were supposed to be connected in 2005. What's

No, the houses were originally built in 1940. Well, the the plans by 360 whatever they said you have to connect them as shown in the 2005 plans. Um they asked us connect to connect them per our new plans. So I can show you um this is the new house they're looking to rebuild and then this is the existing structure. And then as part of as part of building this new house, a requirement would have been to put in a whole new septic system which would not have fit on the site. Um so we connected it here in the buildable area uh via breezeway and that was a re recommendation from legislate.

A demand condition a conditioner. Um yeah, can I answer that question for you? I'm sorry. Now, when you say when you say a breezeway, that's not um it doesn't have walls, right? It's just it's an open air. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. And our our F so allowable here is 40% and we're um with the breezeway we're at 20.09. So, we're well below um F. And then as Brenda was saying, um this small area in the back where this staircase is now that's going to be removed. Um making that from a zero setback to I think it's 3.9. 3.8. So that's one one movement in the right direction. And why put it in the exact same place instead of moving it up? Moving it more forward this way. Yeah.

Um mostly because of the septic system. So you can see our tanks are here. Um we're very close and then also to not really not shadow this other little little house here. Isn't the topography also very slanted? Yeah, it is slightly slanted towards the front towards the road.

The other thing that I pointed out in the application too is that the um uh the sound view district also has had a preference for maintaining what's there. that's been a priority for for the community. So, um to be yeah, offsetting the houses and placing them in in slightly different uh locations was I think it was also going to create a visual uh discrepancy with what what is currently there and what is existing in addition to the fact that it would be interfering with the septic. Is the other house also like 1933 or is that a new one? Yeah, it's it's also in

gonna be there forever. What's that? Will be there forever. Yeah, but nothing. Um yeah, I mean this house is built on brick peers now which are be you know the mortars all deteriorating that um the floor joists are 2x6 floor joists. The rafters are 2 by sixes as well. Um, I saw the canopy or whatever you called it on the plans and then there was also the arrow saying that the two homes would be connected in the future. Is that a plan to make one home? Oh, that that's got to be now in the future. That's a breeze. That's the breezeway. Well, you have both the breezeway and then connected in the future on the plans that I have

and we have It should just be one breezeway that's connected now. would be parted as part of this approval. Um yeah, finance approval.

Yeah. No, there's no intention other than that breezeway to connect anything other than other than that and it's the existing that's I'm sorry. Yeah. So you can see here that's the connection. um and actually kind of creates a nice little open space between the two houses. And then there's these existing um you know, portions of the of the building that come off for storage. So yeah, I mean the goal of the homeowner really is is just to really rebuild what's there, make it um modern in in the sense of how how it's structured. um bring it up to today's standards really is the goal.

Kind of safer actually based on what they said about the foundation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I have a picture here if you want this for an exhibit. Um this is really what it's on now. Just that those brick those very small brick peers. Oh, okay. A quick look and sh Yeah. Okay. And those are at just the corners and a few street. No, it's a whole wall or is it just No, it's just individual. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Two. So, of course, now there's no crawl space or anything. Yeah. It's just a dirt under dirt floor.

Yeah. Yeah. These are the two tiny houses, right? Whatever happens with the adjustments relative to grade is not going to impact. There's we don't have any issues with the height. No. Um allowable height allowable is 27. Maximum height 27. We're at 20 ft. Okay. So, and the intention is to keep the same ridge height.

Okay. So, we're happy. We we as I we mentioned at the opening of the hearing, uh we did receive a lot of positive responses from the neighbors uh who felt that this was in fact consistent with what either they're already trying to do with their properties and also want to see happen elsewhere in the neighborhood. And as I mentioned, exhibit one is another letter of support that we received just today. So, Uh so if I don't know if there are any other questions you want to read that letter. Yeah, I'll read read that in if you think that's we think that's the right one.

Yeah. Yeah. Um so responding from neighbors I have Maria Greenslade. Maria Greenslade about 41 Hartford Avenue. I don't see her address on this but she's co-executive of the estate. Mario Marina. I am writing as co-executive of the state of Mario Marina uh who owns property on Hartford Avenue. We are in It's a what? 44.

44. Okay. So, near neighbor. Uh we are in receipt of a letter explaining the comprehensive renovations proposed 41 Hartford Avenue. We have no objection to the proposed renovations. We ourselves completed renovations to improve the property and make the structure safe. Uh such projects continue to enhance the beauty of the shoreline and Hartford Avenue. So that's Maria Green Slade. Okay. So do we want to flash the um elevations in front of us? Yeah.

Take a peek. Yep. So, the existing house is here. We actually eliminated one bedroom. So, we went from a two-bedroom to onebedroom home. Okay.

Um, just from a functionality standpoint for the owner. Um, so you come in. So, you come in, you have the living room here, the kitchen, and then, you know, functional bedroom and bathroom. So the the footprints approximately 600 square f feet. So it's it's you know very minimal home. Um and then these are all elevations. Again, you know, it's literally the same house with some new siding on it, new windows. Everything just kind of freshened up but with a basement. With the the basement and the canopy. Yeah. And the canopy.

But it's a single it's a single floor. So they're putting in a use that a six foot basement. Yeah. I mean we have to see because you know the water table over here is kind of questionable. Um and this existing this existing floor is approximately 3 ft above grade. So if we go down our our 42 in you know maybe 6'6 just enough for storage and mechanicals. So you think you can get a 6'6 basement in there from lower table? I I think we can because of the that floor being as high as it is from grade and they are up you know that that that's that's true. That's true. They're right at the edge of the um the flood plane right there. So

and then um if you want to see the existing house so this is existing and you can see that it's pretty much the same you know the same form same massing. Um they have the two bedrooms now. Um family room and kitchen. So we basically just we took the same footprint and just reorganized it to work for the owner's needs. Basically you're reducing it from two bedrooms to one. Right. Y

uh anybody have any other questions to ask at this point? Okay. Uh we'll open to public comment. Is there anyone present who would like to make a comment uh for or against this application? Any comments at all? Okay. Hearing none. Um do we want to do I have a motion to uh close the public hearing then? I move to close public hearing. Second. Okay. Uh no. So you want to do a first motion? Who's seated? She's not seated. I am seated. Oh, you are? Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I heard not seated. Okay.

We didn't really make that clear in the beginning. Who was seated? I heard not seated. Okay. That has listened to the tape has I was actually present for the other. So, and Nancy asked for me. Yeah. Okay. Because I'm the experienced alternate. Oops. Yeah. So, I made that motion. Okay. and rest seconded it. Yeah. Um all those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. None.

Okay. Uh so motion passed unanimously. Uh public hearing is closed. So we're going to have a quick conversation together about what needs to be considered to uh vote on this. Uh anybody want to lead on this? Anybody have any sort of initial sort of comments? Well, I think it's all it's safety upgrade, modern building, better materials uh from the foundation up really and and a reduction of um bedroom, so less subtle use. Yeah, I know that my neighbors also, I mean, I'm down the street more, but I walk by the house every day. And I think that this is here, you know, it's good for the neighborhood.

It's good for the neighborhood, and it's good for them. And I think um really I don't think these variances are, you know, cutthroat. I think they're pretty st, you know, reasonable for what they want to do. And for the safety and, you know, the old building, I think it's Yeah, why not? Let's do it. Okay. Okay. Um I just have a couple questions to get your, you know, how Nancy usually goes here. So unusual hardship, you guys have a couple. also the lot, you know, and and the location of the uh septic, you know, so and and also the setback. Wait again. I know. Go ahead. Yeah.

And they're changing, you know, the setback in the back. They're going from zero to, you know, adding at least a setback by eliminating, you know, the porch back there. So, sorry. That's a question number two for you. That's not you got reduction in the back deck, right? Yeah. DC has a slot for that too. Production is illegal pre-existing. Yeah. So, got it. And the lot is the way it is and we are reducing some pre-existing small lot, right? And you know what what we have to worry about here is uh what changes are being made and the changes seem minimal. Minimal.

Well, that's that's number three, which is is this the minimum variance to address the hardship and allow reasonable use? Yep. I think we would say we'd agree on that. Okay. Is it in harmony with the intent and purpose of the regulations and we did not propose any conditions for this application. So I think we're all in agreement on that. I mean because the ledge health district has their own stuff like it can't be any higher than it is now and all that. Right. Well, they're not asking for it to be if if they were coming in with a higher proposal, they would need to make that clear now because the variance is saying it will be no higher in the setback that it is now. Right. Right. So, same bridge line.

So, per usual, you're going to be signing off on the plans as presented and those plans show a building no taller than it is now. But I'm just saying the things that Leed Light Health District has put their conditions. Yeah, they have their own conditions of approval. You don't need to worry about that because they're going to need to meet legislates conditions whether or not you put that in your motion either way. Well, partly because we have new people just trying to Yeah. clarify spread that out. Okay. So, in harmony with intent and purpose of zoning rags, do you guys have any comments? Yeah. And I think with some of the evidence of that is we have uh we have no complaints from neighbors and and a positive one from myself too. Neighbors.

Okay. the evidence presented during public hearing. Do I read that ma'am or Yeah, you heard about the the safety issues there regarding, you know, obviously the existing house is going to fall down unless you guys replace it. So there's a sense that you want safer houses in the neighborhood. That's what's struck me the most. It's like, you know, the safety issue. Yeah. And a big big storm comes through when it lifts that thing off its foundations and starts scattering it around the neighborhood as bad for everybody. including you know the residents you know Dan and Lauri we like these people we don't want them to

be saying you didn't like them to be okay that just rough

okay can I just can I just read through this to make sure I captured everything you guys said currently okay so in usual hardship there are two houses on a small lot and uh the location of the septic is was also considered an a hardship. Um proposed reduction in legal pre-existing non-conformity. The setback is being updated. I'm sorry. The setback is being improved by eliminating the back porch. All words smith. Um minimum variance to address hardship and allow reasonable use. I'm going to take that out because you guys just said yes. Uh no agreed conditions of approval of Yeah. And then um in harmony with intent and purpose of the zoning regs. supported by the neighbors uh including a uh letter of support submitted today. Uh and the house will be updated to become safer for the residents. Is that

I just have one comment that um I think instead of saying two houses on the same lot, it should say two structures. Two structures. Okay. Yeah. Cuz it's going to be conjoined into a single structureish. Yes. Right. Okay. Two structures. Okay. So, two structures on a small lot. Yeah. and the location of the septic. Okay. And I'm going to ask if someone will support this motion. I'll read it and uh you can declare that you've supported this motion made this motion to grant to grant uh well, do we have to close? You've already closed the public hearing. Yeah. But we don't have to close this the deliberations. No, you're the only the end of year deliberations will be the votes. Okay.

Okay. So there's anyone would like to make a motion to grant uh the requested variances to section 51378 and 51379 to allow reconstruction of a concrete foundation of one of two existing non-conforming dwellings located on a non-conforming lot in the Sound View Village District per site plans and floor plans and elevations prepared by 360 Designs Plus LLC and dated September 3rd, 2025 and stamped and signed by the ZBA chair. Make a motion.

And just let me add this. The applicant uh the two conditions which are written in already was the applicant needs to comply with all conditions listed in the legislate health district approval memo dated October 6th, 2025. And the applicant needs to submit revised plans to the Greek modifications. I stretch that out. There were not. My bad. Okay. So, so then we do we do have a condition then we're going to use what? Does that sound correct? You don't need that condition, but if you want to include it, you you can. Okay, my bad. Yeah, let's just not She already had it. Not just not include it. You they're going to need to comply with legislate whether or not you make it a condition of approval.

Well, they they do. They currently do. Correct. Not only it's not anticipated unnecessary. The plans already say that they're they're sort of stating what already exists. My bad. I was just reading off the script. No. And I think I think those are listed to just make sure you're considering those things and to say if there's any changes or so I think it's a placeholder for the thought um as opposed to what technically needs to be written in the conditions. Yeah. And so now ending and asking if anyone would like to make that motion. I'll make the motion. Russ made the motion. Seconded. Second. Okay. Um Okay. So, all those in favor I I

opposed. Hearing none. Motion mo motion passes unanimously. Okay. See this is going in here. This is going in here. This is going here.

Okay. So, now we're going to reopen um 2512 C70 C spray. Um and we had um listened to um information on this from the last meeting. Uh all those that are who could we clarify who who will be voting on this one again Russ because he was not here last time but as a regular member needs to clarify that he did in fact listen to the tapes and get that on the record. Yes, I did. You said that already. We just making sure making on the record for this application that we're doing that. So okay. Uh, and I'll be voting. Stephanie, I was here and I'll be voting. I was here.

Okay. Okay. So, we're all clear on who's who's voting then. You good with that? Okay. Okay. So, um 70 C spray. Um I guess mostly should sketch out what we've heard already and then they inform us on the updated um issues. Of course. Please.

Uh good evening. For the record, Joe Ren, professional engineer of Indigo in Old Sabbrook. Uh, welcome to the new members. Uh, in recent memory, it hasn't been new faces on at least in a few years. So, so welcome. Um, you'll see, uh, whether you like it or not, you'll see me a little bit often. So, hopefully hopefully it's a good thing. Um, so last month we were here, we did a detailed presentation of this application and the plan itself. Uh there is a new plan which we provided to Eric and the only changes on that plan were based on Ledge Light Health Department health district's uh comments. So the only changes are related to the the septic system and it's really nothing major. So maybe the elevation is is different by an inch or two. Maybe the leeching system is uh minor. But it didn't change the house. They didn't change proposed variances. didn't change uh any any of the items that uh this board really looks into, but we did last month, if you recall, we we did not have health approval yet. Um so that's why we tabled it and we came back this month. Um I might be a little repetitive, but I'm just trying to bring the the newbies up to up to speed as well. Um so uh now that we have we resubmitted back this plan is dated uh revised through November 10th. So that's the the latest and the greatest and that is the version that Eric has that is approved now by Ledgeite Health District. So now that we have that approval now this board can move forward. Um so just in summary without going through a lot of detail um we're proposing to remove the existing house that is not FEMA compliant not zoning compliant along with the shed and the garage that are on the eastern boundary and the eastern side set back as well. um

rebuild, remove the old septic system to rebuild a new uh home that David from uh 360 Design Plus had showed you also uh last month and can show you again if you'd like. Um the new house will be FEMA compliant. Um the existing ground around the house now is 4.55 uh elevation wise and the finished floor based on FEMA uh has to go up to elevation 15.5. So it's about 11 ft or so off the ground where the floor elevation has to be. And what we demonstrated last month and David will show you again is if this house was not in a FEMA zone, it was sitting on the ground it would be 24 ft high. So he's designed a 24 foot one and a half story house but up that elevation because of FEMA. Um and he'll go through that section uh with you as well. Um all the all of the variances and everything are listed in the application. Um I don't want to be fully repetitive and go through that. Um but one little change in the application. Uh Eric just wanted us to break out uh the 8.8.7 8.7 which is the front yard setback from Sea Spray Road. We just had one line last time and we listed two variances. Eric just wanted us to break that out into two lines and just list them separately even though it's the same variance number. Uh so that's on here and you can see um that we are um expanding or or making uh the non-conformity less uh expanding the distance between the street line of C spray road uh and to the and to the uh house steps from 15 um if I can read that correctly 15 or 16 to uh 22. Um and

then the uh actual house itself on that side is going from 9.6 to 12.5. So the yellow on the plan are all the existing structures. So you can see that the the house itself, the wall of the house is 9.6 ft to that western side. And now the dark outline is the actual house. And then uh this other uh pink area here are um porches and and decks, but the outline of the house is in in the dark there. So the closest the house gets there is 12.5 or right now the closest the house is is 9.6. So we're shifting that over away from the street line by almost 3 ft. Um the other items of course the large garage that's here on the the right hand or the eastern setback and this smaller shed up in the northeast corner both are non-conforming. Both of those will be removed and since they will be removed the nonconforming setback uh issues related with them also will be eliminated. And then on this side, since the existing house is is in that uh area, we kind of held that wall on the eastern side so that we were um not introducing a new nonconformity on that side. So, we're eliminating those two and we're maintaining the house where it is in a conforming line, which is just over 30 ft from that property line. So, it's conforming on that side. um we do need we can't bring the house this way for two reasons. One is we'd be introducing a new house conformity that we don't have now. Um and two two we have subject tank we have a pump chamber and then we have leechfield that starts here and wraps around the front to here. Um, so we don't have a lot of

latitude to shift uh really no latitude to shift the house uh to the east at all. On the south side currently you can see that the um the house is the actual wall of the house is further to the south and we are just a little bit nonconforming to that front yard setback which is C lane and we are correcting that. We are eliminating that uh front setback um also. So we are we are eliminating to the stairs. Um are those the stairs in the front? The pink T there at the bottom. Right. Pink T are the new stairs. Yes.

And that is how many feet from the setback? The stairs. It's in the table. Uh C lane street line setback uh to the stairs 26.8 8 ft at the closest or we're allowed 25 to the private road. Okay. Yay.

Um so that is better. That is reduction of non-conformity or elimination really of a non-conformity. These two structures eliminations of non-conformity. We're not introducing any new ones. And then on the west side since we're pulling the house further from that front yard setback, we're making that better. So we're not making anything worse. We're not introducing anything new, any new non-formity. Um the only non-formities that we have, we're making we're improving those. We're making those better. Um the other thing, the third thing is height. So that is one that we're making more, but we're only making it higher because we're required to by FEMA. So as I um as I had mentioned before, David was very creative. one and a half story house per your regulations 24 foot height and found out what the minimum variance necessary is to put it up and make it FEMA compliant and we ended up with the height that we have which is 33 ft. Um you um have a maximum of 24 ft but of course a 24T house lifted 11 ft up in the air it just it can't work. The house would be non-livable. Um, so we've seen these before and David will show you the section on how that's, you know, that's minimum. We're not, you know, we don't have 12 feet in the garage where we only need nine. Everything is everything is minimum necessary. Um, the other thing I wanted to just repeat because it's important for this for the for the newbies, the state statute um allows you to consider variances for two things. one is a hardship based on land, based on the property itself. Um, usually should be unique. And in this case, again, it's a small it's a small lot like most are. Um, it's less than the required minimum

in the zone, but this one is a corner lot, too. So, we have two street setbacks. Um, so we have two street yard setbacks. We only have one sideyard. And because it's this corner lot, we have to choose which one is going to be the rear. And we had this discussion last time. It's usually the way the house faces and the longest frontage. So this one over here is the rear. So we have a 30ft rear setback, two 25 ft setback. So it kind of pinches us into the spot where we are. Um we have a 12t sideyard setback on the north side, which is up here, the dash line. So there is, you know, room to shift it that way. However, you can see with the driveway, the side load garage, we need that distance to be able to get the cars in and out of the garage on that side. And um the driveway is not paved. The driveway is a pvious crush stone as well. So we're keeping our impervious down as much as uh possible. So the one the second way that you can consider grant grant invariances and or uh is reduction of non-conformity. So we already talked about a lot of this but in summary um section five in the application it lists all these reductions of existing non-conformity. So we have street line setback on C spray road there's a reduction 9.6 6 to 12 ft of the house to 12 1/2 ft. Sorry. Uh street line setback. There's elimination from ceiling. Currently the closest is 19.1 ft um to the existing garage here. Um and that's being eliminated uh completely. The new one which would be the stairs those are more than 25 ft as we discussed earlier. Uh C the number of stories. Right now, it's a two-story house which is non-conforming. We're

eliminating that non-conformity as well by proposing to build back a one and a half story house to make it conforming. Um D is sideyard setback on the north. Um because this shed is only 2.9 ft or so to the north property line, that is not conforming. That's eliminated. Um, right now it's we're allowed 12 feet, we're 24 feet to the house. Lastly, the rear yard setback on this side on the east side. Um, we're only 2.9 ft again to the property line with that large garage that is being eliminated. Um, so that is the u the fifth item that we're either eliminating or improving uh the non-formity. So before I turn it over to Dave, the last last time we were here, we went through a lot of these details. Um, but then there was a discussion about the letters from the neighbor to the north. Um, and they are at this location, 64 Cray Road, last name. Um, so we've done Dave's done some work. Um, I just I printed out a GIS map and I have several copies of these. And we drew these blue lines on here to show um that from that house at 64, there are at least three ways between other structures where you can get a peak of the water. Even though there are no view easements or rights over these other properties to get it by looking between existing structures or down the street, um there are at least three opportunities to see water from the house and all three will remain with this. Dave will show you some differences in vertical bulk and so forth. Um, but I just wanted to I thought this was interesting and I

brought a few copies of this so you guys can see here. We're going to make this exhibit number one. You want someone that can last? Oh, I can

we label it B1. This is our second day. No. Okay. I think we're checking, right? Are we checking? I'm checking. We got three last night. This will be four. Four. Okay. Exhibit four. Thanks. Okay. So, then I have exhibit five for you. So, uh, David prepared this one. It's the same schematic, but he superimposed the footprint of the new house on there. So you can see that the three, you know, they're they're tight and there's no view easement that, you know, allows a 100 foot swath of land to be preserved. Um, but there are little peaks and you'll see from the ground pictures out to the water and you'll see what those look like momentarily.

Oh, you know, um, you had showed us a picture on bone. We were going to make that an exhibit. Did that ever get submitted and made? I did email that to Eric that night, but I also have a paper copy tonight. So, do we have the right exhibit numbers including that? We included that. Yeah, you have these, right? Dave, is that going to be this one? Uh, I have I have that plus. So, this is the one. Okay, guys. One of the You're talking. So, this is the picture that Joe had submitted uh via text or email. I'm sorry. That would be three from last time.

And then what we did is we took that image and then we superimposed the house over that to show. So this picture was taken from the driveway looking towards the water. Um the drive the driveway of number 64. Yeah. So we just wanted to show standing from that driveway the um the way that the house sits in relation to the the next house that's on the water. And we're in fact back a good ways from from the face of that house. So that from that vantage point, the existing house is actually blocking the view. So this is going to be exhibit six. Then the amended version of exhibit 3.

And now will you address the the measurements that they have gathered and on this image? No, not on the image, but in Oh, for the setbacks. Allow David to go allow David to go through his exhibits first and then Yeah. The new one you just gave to me with the superimposed image will be number six. Is that what we're doing? Yes. Um question Eric I have here that the uh exhibit 4 was the photo on the phone that was then emailed. Is that is that correct? Okay. It was okay. So which case everything if

So let's let's let's back up a second here. the the texted the image from the phone that is being submitted tonight. Yeah. Where is that? No, that was that was emailed last time. Okay. But you you printed out hard copies tonight, right? Where are those? That's your exhibit, I think. You you put I put it exhibit exhibit number three because it was it would have been presented at the last meeting printed and we are hearing from Amy that that was actually four at the last meeting. Yeah. Three was a building cross-section of So we're going to slide down all our numbers here.

Okay. Everything's going to get reumbered down one account for the fact that that was four at the last meeting. Okay. Okay. So the the phone picture is number four now. Yes. So again that map is five. The new David Bill Dwey photo is six and the amended photo of exhibit 4 is now seven. 567. Okay. That's what we got here now. Scribbly, but it looks good. Okay. And the case you're trying to make with this with this. You got another one? I do. But yeah. So that

Okay. The case you're trying to make is this building juts closer to the street and substantially blocks all or more of the view than your building will will with the Yeah, the existing building that's on the water goes out is much further than the house. And you can see in that image our new house is actually pushed back from the face of the existing and whether this was taller or shorter wouldn't change the view of the water. Correct. It would change a little bit of the view of the sky above where the house is right now, but not any additional blockage of the view of their view of the water. Right. Right. And the other thing to consider, if you take the existing house

where it is right now and raise it for FEMA, not make any changes, raise it for FEMA and it's 11 ft up in the air from where it is. That's it. That's it's closer to the street now. So, you're going to have that volume up higher. Okay. So, from your window is going to be blocking the view. So, there is one other one that I'd like to submit. Um, this is a superimposed image from the middle of the property looking towards the water. Okay.

Um, and the the point to show this is the new raised house superimposed over the existing house. And again also to show it's pushed back a little further from the road and um you know really doesn't impact from the ground level. Eight. That would be eight. Yeah,

this one too. Can I just clarif or I'm sorry, this is exhibit seven, right? This is the superp position on exhibit four. It does show up on the website and Joe, I don't know if you want to look over my shoulder as page 69 of the existing record just to clarify for the Yeah, because D David emailed that to Eric. This the one with the super position is already on page 69 of the record. So, I don't have a problem with keeping I'm going to write down that down what you just told me. I just want to note that what is today we labeled as seven is also page 69 of the electronic record in the town.

Okay. I'm writing that down just in case we need clarification distinction between what I'm looking at on my screen and this right they're the same that's why you emailed I just wanted to confirm so I'm I'm actually was just scrolling through and for whatever this is worth Eric this is probably more on your end I'm not seeing the one that is the image without the superimposition but just want to make sure that that ends up in the electronic record okay and we've got that label now as before talking about this one Yes, exhibit 4. I could be wrong, but electronic record. Okay. Okay. We'll make sure that

then we just had a couple other things that we wanted to reiterate from the last um meeting and that was this is being the minimum required. Um I believe you already have this as as an exhibit, correct? this uh sort of um diagrammatical. Yeah, I had the height, but vertical heights because I remember having a question about this that was sent today. Oh, today. Okay, I have Okay, so you guys do have this one. I believe so. Yeah, I got a bunch of I did it through from last time. A building cross-section of a rolling with elevation. I think that was the lady. Um I believe that was Yeah, but this was what was sent out today, right?

Yes. Okay. So, this is this is not that. No, I know that was given in last time, I believe. Yeah, I believe it did. This is from last time.

So, the um sort of the goal of this is to show that what we're trying to do is we're trying to build a 24ft high house that starts at FEMA's required elevation. um you know basically showing that this is the minimum required um to build this house. So what we did is we have our first floor elevation um we come down 1 ft for a typical floor structure and then we have 14 in for a beam and then there's a portion of you know we call them standoffs to hold the beam up and then when we take all of our siding down that puts us pretty much right at the flood elevation. um you know giving us our our proposed ridge height at the I believe 33 feet from um average grade. So that's kind of where we derive that height from you know backing into it from our design flood elevation our minimum floor system required and then our allowable um 24 ft. So, and then that's also the, you know, the intent of this image here. And I'll pass this around be number nine.

This was this was submitted today. Oh, or last night maybe. I'm not sure. Yeah. Right. Except it's already Okay. So the goal of this image is the red represents the existing ridge height,

right? So that so if we took that ridge and drew a line, we'd be here at 235 and 5/8. Then if we lift that to meet FEMA, that house would then be at 32't 4 and 7/8, which did leave us another 6 1/2 in to meet that 24 ft height restriction cuz the existing house is, you know, somewhere around 23' 6, right? Um, so that's the extra 6 in at the top. So, as you can see, essentially, if we take that existing house that's already there, and again, that's another one with um, you know, subpar structure, which we'd have a really difficult time lifting that up. I'm not even sure if it would stay together. Um, so we took that house, lifted it up to meet the FEMA requirements. U, we're essentially at the same elevation. So, we just kind of wanted to diagrammatically show that so you guys could see. You're not increasing the volume of the height.

Correct. Yeah. I mean that based on anything else except 4T. Yep. Because that ridge the top of that ridge is at the 24 ft. Yeah. So the the existing house is a twostory house. So now we have a one and a half story. So there's less second story. Bulk in the in the highest part of the house. This is Would you agree to know Kula or Oh yeah. Yeah. ornamental different. Yeah, we would definitely agree to no architectural projections above the ridge. There you go. I like that. You like that phrase? No architectural projections. Yeah, I like that. Okay. It's where egg say, so that's a good thing. Only a red vent, right?

You don't want that. the red vent cuz we do we do understand that we do want to be aware of bulk in the neighborhood and if you can keep it minimum you know for having the same building FEMA compliant we're good

yeah our first struggle was the twostory you know when you try to you tell an owner that okay you have a two-story house now you have to reduce that to a one and a half story and what does that mean and look like so that that's one of the very first challenges and David has to work with everything from top down from roof pitch. You can see the the roof pitches are fairly shallow on this. Um because if we make them steeper, the ridge is going to be higher and it's going to be more than 33 ft. Um also the interior ceiling heights, right? Um you know, they're not 12 ft than like this. Otherwise, again, we'd be way over that. So everything is, you know, minimum necessary to get a 24 ft house above FEMA. Um and that's what's demonstrated here. What's the before and after of living square footage

living? I think we had that on the charts. I was scrolling through. I just didn't see it. So, we are at I believe it was um 24.9%. F that's proposed. So, we're 21 uh 46 is proposed. Original was 1643 19.1. So, what's the square footage of now? Yeah. Um, well, F is um 2146. Okay. But that includes So, we have some covered porches. Um, yeah, we have covered porches. We did get rid of all the garages and the sheds, but we have, you know, exterior decks with covered,

right? But the garages and sheds don't count as living area. I'm just curious as to like the house the house itself. I was interested in knowing what the existing square footage is of the house. The shed and the garage do count per your definition for floor area. No, I didn't say floor area. I was curious about the living area. The living area of the house. I don't I don't know if we have that number. We we have per your definition. We have existing GFA. Let me see if 1643 and proposed GFA 2146. So there's a 500 foot increase in GFA. Um but again it's the the shed and the garage whatever those we're gaining ft in total GFA on the site.

Um but we're still uh we're allowed 25% and we're um not asking for variance for that. We're within the 25% allowed. Thank you. Y sorry we just when we calculated we just when you when you're looking at these drawings that super close one halfway the other. Yeah. It's, you know, it's just helpful to know. It's like, okay, so aside from the garages, sheds, all of that, what is, how does the house change in, right? Um, per the assessor's card,

it says that the um first floor is 560 and the second floor is 528. So approximately, 1100 or 1080 or so of existing house. Okay. I don't know how big the exist the proposed tells you is for square footage. So that that's going to require Dave to tell us much bigger the front porch is listed separately on the assessor's car. So the assessor's car breaks out the porch. Okay. Right. So the porch would count in GFA. Yes. We're just Michaela's asking as far as inside the house living space.

If the existing one is 1080, how many square feet is the living space inside the house, right? Yeah. So, I would have to subtract out the porches on this one to give you an accurate because we have covered porch too on the proposed. So, yeah, do apples. I mean, for your definition, covered porches count, sheds count, garage count. We're not talking flurry ratio. We're not talking about coverage. She just wants to know how many square feet of living area do people have inside the house. That That's what we're trying to figure out. Okay.

Because from the the drawing of super positions, this the new house looks much bigger than the old house. And I know that you're saying that it's um it's just an elevation, but you know, it's very difficult to tell from these drawings because this house looks like it has a lot more going on here than the house underneath it. That's because of the female lift. Okay. And again, they're showing if I'm reading Joe's plans right here, 1292 of house. Okay. So, the existing one is about 1080. They're going to 12292. They're about 200 f feet. That's my answer. Thank you. That's your answer. Right. Yeah. It looks It looks worse because it's

That's why it doesn't look like it's 200 ft. It looks like it's plus what's key on top of that is we meet coverage. Thank you. We meet coverage. We're not asking for variance coverage. We meet floor area. So even if it is bigger, it can be bigger within the allowable right regulations. I was asking to clarify for my sense of perception based on these submitted exhibits. Yeah. What's what's diffic when you have a picture of the existing house and then you show the higher one for FEMA, it look it covers a lot more sky. Yes.

Because you're lifting 11 ft off. That's garage underneath. We, you know, next time what we'll do is we'll take the existing house and we'll also lift that to to FEMA and then we'll compare the would be a better comparison for you. But you were doing mostly view as what you were trying to demonstrate there rather than view of water. Right. Right. Yep. Great. Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay. So with that, unless there are any questions, I just, you know, just going back to that exhibit 4, you know, looking from all the front yards down Sea Spray Road, there's a pretty wide view of the water. That is not going to change. The house is stepped back a little bit. Um, you know, the existing house is just barely in the picture. That's the taller house is the one that's close closer to the water. Um the short portion of the existing house is right over the the roof of the vehicles there and that wall of this house is even going to be further to the left on that picture. So this view with the flag pole and the water at the end of the road is going to remain unchanged from that perspective.

Any other questions? Is this where I ask about legislate approval? Well, you have a submitted letter from legislate saying that they've now approved it. So, I think you're good on that one. It did take several rounds. I think Joby testified how painful it was for him to get through the process there, but um as of late last week, I think they managed to get through Ledgelight. Um, and I think they're they should be from Ledge Light's perspective, assuming they again, Ledger was very specific in their letter that it has to be deep done exactly as proposed. So, Ledge's going to be watching carefully, but if they do it exactly as proposed, Ledge Light says it meets the code.

Okay.

We were hoping to have the approval last month and then there was some training and so forth and Cheryl was unable to finish it. So, then she finished the review. She had a couple more tweaks to the plan which we did. We had this November 10th revision, submitted it back to her and received the the final approval. Okay. So, anybody have any uh additional questions to ask at this point? Okay. So, let's open to uh public comment on this case. If there's anyone that would like to speak in favor of the application, come on up. Anyone who would like to suppose uh speak in opposition or general comment, come on up. Introduce yourself so that we have this on the record.

I'm Mike Lai. Um address Tom Lai, 64 Cray Road. Both of us.

Okay. Go ahead. Uh basically um you know we're opposed to the setback where it's going to be because it's basically going to be straight up from there and it's going to be closer to our house. It's going to block like 3/4 of our water view and that's a very deceiving photo looking down the street um from our house right now. We have a a pretty nice water view actually and the house is basically going to go right now that porch we actually look over to the water what water what water what water what water what water what water what water what water what water what water it's it's just a a one floor porch on the house and they're counting that as a living space but it's really not it's just a seasonal porch there. Um and the house is basically going to go you know straight up three stories from there and so it's and and closer to our house. So as it gets closer to our house it's actually going to block the view more. Um,

so it's going to be moved over 10 ft closer to our house on 64 C spray and it's going to be according to this 12 1/2 ft from the uh the street setback. Um, but my brother and I measured it and it's it's the existing structure right now is 15 ft. So they're actually reducing the setback uh and putting a structure that's that's going to be much much higher. So essentially blocking like we assume now if you take a picture from the end of our driveway, yeah, it's not going to probably have as much of an impact, but from our house, which is in the middle of our lot, it has a dramatic impact for our second floor view and and within our house. And um it appears to be, you know, a bigger house that's that's closer to us. So, you know, we've been there for 50 years as a family and um we would like it to be adhered to the 25- ft uh street setback for uh Sea Spray Road. Um that's that's our position. Um, I know that there's a lot of uh considerations for the uh the septic systems and what other things, but um you know that's our position. So I don't know you know

what our say has to do with it. Um but it means a lot to us.

Yeah. I mean basically where the the septic tank is on the eastern side of the property um if they move the house over that way and move the septic I mean they'd have plenty of room somewhere else for the septic. Um, it just seems like the way the septic is right now, it's basically it does put the house where it is because they can't move the house any further over that way. But if they move did move it to the east, I mean, there's a lot there's room there. Basically, it wouldn't block anybody's view. Um, and it would still and with the 25 ft set back and then they could they could have the septic maybe, you know, they'd have actually, you know, that whole front area still and maybe they could hook it around the front instead of the other side of the house, the the sea spray side. Um, it just I mean it really drastically blocks our view.

Is there anything you want to point out on the map? Yeah, if you left. Yep. I mean, you're saying if they move it this way, it would benefit you more. It would benefit. Yes. Because basically right now, I mean, these are just glimpses right here. We're looking between some houses and trees and bushes and stuff. So, that's sort of Yeah. We have to clarify what we're aiming at. We're looking at exhibit number six and we're looking at angles of view from the uh people from the Li's property and how it's impacted by the construction

because right now we actually, you know, can see right through because this is a lower porch on the Sea Spray side of the house. So, we actually look over that. We can see the water. We have a huge view and now this is basically Okay. And and what you're saying is at ground level it doesn't have that impact. But on your second floor windows it does. But even no ground level at ground level we can see over this porch. This house is pretty low right now. So basically we can see the water from the first floor of our house. Second floor you can see even more. But basically because it's just a porch here right now. You look over it. But it's going to be three it's going to basically be a three-foot structure. A three stories.

Three stories. not living. It's because part of it's you know to meet the FEMA code. I realize that. But basically it's gonna it's going to be straight up. And by moving it closer to our house that impacts the view even more. It's not two stories. It's one and a half. It's one and a half stories. Okay. One and a half stories. But still it's still 33 ft though. So it's still fairly substantial. Question the exist that the measurement of what was proposed.

It's hard to do that. But basically um you know there's room on this side of the west side of the house. If they moved the house back and had you know complied with the 25 ft from sea spray that would totally eliminate the issue that we're having. And these other views are talking about there's a big tree right here. You can see the tree actually. So, um, and you know, we really don't have, these are not really water views here, but this is a huge water, we have a very nice water view looking this way. Um so and we put it in the letter with the you know pictures that we took from our home

you know and what we we anticipate you know the new structure would be and basically would block majority of the

and I think this is inaccurate because this is taken from the street views. Yeah, just sent it in today. So number we have copies we can give everyone. Exhibit number nine and it is Oh, we came in late today. I don't know if I got it up there or not.

Two down there and two more down here. And this is out of your second story window looking at the 40. Yes. Like this is the new house. Just my little one. That's the new house.

We don't have any pictures with the old house. It was submitted to Can I see that? He said that he was I just want to make sure that the applicant has a copy of your letter. Craig emailed it to us.

So he you might be interested in this. What exhibit is this? No. I haven't seen that. the drawing. Pardon? With the drawing, which exhibit? So, we could say what they're looking at. Yeah, that's um exhibit number I'll say that's eight. I'm not sure. At number eight. So, you're looking right over the porch here now. Yes, exactly. So, we have this old, you know, and the thing is it's going to be moved. This is going to be closer to us, too, by 10.8 ft. So, it's going to it will affect the view more. This is probably just showing the setback from the road. Yeah. which was one of your concerns. So it is set back further

from whatever and stuff like that. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. Yeah, that's fine. So, but as far as the height, that's where we're really moving closer. It really does block a lot of lot of our view. Um, you know, so it's a it is a big difference. It doesn't it does. And especially moving closer to us too, that'll affect it, too. Thank you. Cuz you are where? We're right here. Yeah. Okay.

Now, are they going to be changing the ground elevations in the house? I mean, right now that Well, they've got the whole thing is to meet FEMA. FEMA. Okay. Yeah. And that's hard one for us to budge. Yeah, I know. opportunity. Does that mean ground elevation has to increase first? Okay, we're not going to have the ZBA answer those questions. If you want to ask those No problem, the applicant can respond. No problem. Thanks. So, is there a question? Um, yeah. Is the ground level on the property going to come up at all? So, we're worried about runoff because that tends to Can you come up to the tape?

Sure. Um, so all the elevations are on the plan. So first of all, height is measured from the existing grade. So that doesn't matter if you're putting 5 ft of fill or not. Height is measured from the existing where it is now. Are you bringing in So they don't allow you to put in 2 ft of fill and then count your height from there. We have to count from the lowest point. Fill is brought in for the septic system because it's required. So the septic system is mounted. We have to be 2 ft above groundwater. We have our system and then we have to cover over the system. So yes, there is a mound on the south side, not on our side. Um, on your side there's going to be a a pvious crush stone driveway and the grade is going to be approximately the same as it is today on your side.

Is this fence the property line? Yes. Yes. More or less.

Okay. Do we want to prompt any response? Yeah. No, I have some responses for sure. Is that timing for that now? Um, so number one thing I want to clarify and Stephanie asked this before is when you measure to the existing house, did you measure from the edge of the pavement? No. No. 3 ft over 3 ft in. So behind the mailbox is uh that's what indicates on the uh GIS map. GSA map. Yeah. So it has to go from the property line. So not from an imaginary line or not from the edge of the road. Yes. It's definitely not from the edge of road

the lot the the house. So you have the lower porch section, right? The lower porch section counts as a structure. It counts as the house. That is currently 9.6 ft from the property line based on the A2 survey. The current proposal is to have the wall of the house 12.5 ft. There's not going to be any part of the any wall of the house that's 12 closer than 12.5 ft to the property. So, it's actually coming in almost 3 ft to the left as you're looking down the road from your property, it's actually coming in. Now, if you take the existing house, even with that low porch that you can see over,

and you lift that to FEMA 11 ft up in the air, you're no longer seeing over that porch. So if you just take the existing house where it is what it is exactly like this and you lift that reference off actually because that one's showing their view the way they claim their view is which seems

so they did nothing else other than lift for FEMA like FEMA wants them to and the town wants them to it's obstructing that view. So with this proposal that wall you could see it there. That's where the existing house is. I don't know what exhibit this is. I know we're not supposed to be pointing and whatever. number eight. On exhibit number eight, you can see the existing house is further to the west. This is the closest wall of the proposed house. So even though there's more bulk here, which you would also have if you lifted this house, imagine that house lifted up to that same elevation, you have more on the west side that's in your viewshed. With this new house, we're pulling that back that distance. And so it's actually this structure that's in your view now from eye level is going to actually be open because we're improving the setback from the property line. We're not getting closer.

You're moving the house closer to us which actually impedes more of the we could go as close as 12 ft off your property line. Believe it or not, we're 24t off your property. So we're double the setback on the north side. Um this happens a lot. We see it a lot. But we're required to if if if we didn't have to raise for FEMA, the house would be approximately what it is there more or less. Um this extra bulk here is because we have to lift 11 ft off the ground for FEMA. Your house is not lifted. No, it is not. Nope. Is it in the flood zone? Yes, it is. I mean, yes, it is. So, if you needed to build your house

Yeah. We would have more than 50. Yes. Right. And nobody's happy about this. I guess it's a little too editorial, but you see this all over the place and it's just the lay of the land now. Uh people are taking these cute little cottages that are sitting on the sand on the beach and now they're 10 ft in the air. And that's something we're sort of I guess required to comply with. We we have to at least consider that as a important uh zoning issue. What about what about the required 25 ft setback from Sea Spray Road? I mean, why why is that? Well, it has a pre-existing I know it is. So, when it gets modified, it doesn't have to.

Well, I mean, I know he's saying it's moving 3 ft. I'm saying it's it's actually reducing. If we said from a visual standpoint, he said he just wants to lift it to FEMA compliance. he has a pre-existing nonconformity. It'd be really hard for us to say no and have FEMA look at him and say you guys sort of can't. So if we can get any compromises, which I think do exist in this plan, that's the that's unfortunately seems to be the best that you can do in today's world. The the building has to get lifted if we are complying with FEMA.

And if you look down the future, like maybe someday you'll be in front of us saying we'd like to lift. That'll totally change your view. But the people behind you might have the same concern that you have. But you know what I'm saying? It's like FEMA has a lot to say about what's going on here. And right little by little people are doing what they're doing. And a lot of the beach areas it's the first one in this be our beach. Right. Right. But you know somebody has to be first unfortunately somebody will be after them. I mean it's 25 years from now they'll all be lifted because when you do 50%

whatever the value of the house is worth which is usually pretty low say 200,000 2004 just of the house not the land the land doesn't count as soon as you put 120 into that house then you have to lift for FEMA this high so eventually over time and that's why FEMA has that built into the program eventually over time all the houses will be lifted that do any sort of improvement yeah and and really as as stewards of a town we have to Think about a whole bunch of these properties, not yours probably, but a lot of properties are built sort of just stick in plywood and you do want the owners to improve those properties. And when they do that, then suddenly it hits the FEMA threshold and we got to lift them. I I don't think they're pretty at all.

I mean, that's me personally, but but you can't say that drives our consideration here. It's safety. Is there is there any way you think you could move it at all? So that was my ne my next response. But first of all, I just wanted to because recently we've seen pictures and photos of the Outer Banks in North Carolina

and those houses are even lifted. But you can see what happens with sea level rise and storms come in and just mother nature just takes it back. So with, you know, the the FEMA lift, it really saves. I had people um they had a house burned down and the next door neighbors burned down in a noraster in like 2010 or something and they had to rebuild the houses and now since they had a rebuild they had to be like 15 ft off the ground. They're like this is crazy. What are you doing to us? The next year we had Irene and the following year we had Sandy and they called they were the first ones to call saying thank you

for getting us up there because the cameras they watched remotely and they saw the water washing around under their house. Everything in the house was perfect. And if it was down lower, it would have been washed away. I mean, I just use that as a story, but it's a good

two years in a row after that. It really just showed everybody why we have to lift this high. I agree. They don't look the best. The house above the bottom up to the looks beautiful, but below because it's lifted off the ground, it's so high, but that's why we have to do it. Um, moving to the east, we have a couple of issues there. So, right now, we're right on the setback line, the 30-oot setback line. if we move it, we're non-compliant on that side. And that's an introduction of a new non-conformity to the house. Um that this board is supposed to consider against not introducing any new nonconformity. So, we do have the garage and the shed, but the house currently is not non-conforming on that side. So, we'd be introducing that new nonconformity. More importantly, the septic, like it said in that ledge light letter, it has to go precisely. Eric mentioned this before, it has to go precisely to the inch where it's proposed because the groundwater is very shallow there.

Um, we had clarifications from the state DPH who went back and forth with Le Ledgelight Health District. It can't go on the north side. That's where the driveway is and it would have to be raised. But more importantly on the north side, on your side, the soil, there's some fill there and the soil depths do not even meet the minimum standard um to put a code compliant septic in on the north side. On the south side, the soil the soils do meet fill. This is hilarious fill.

Yeah. Well, there's there's a couple feet of fill here. As you get closer to the other road on the other side, there's just less fill and there's more natural soil. was all done with Ledge Light and the health district and everything. It's all recorded. We went out there during high tide. We measured all the groundwater. We know precisely uh the depth of soil and we met the minimums on the south side did not meet the minimums on the north side. So that septic has to go there and the the code determines the length of it. So it has to wrap around that side and then we have the tanks on the plant on the east side. We have to be 10 feet from the house to the tank and then you have the tank and then the tank has to be certain distance to the property line down that whole eastern property line. If you all remember this from last time, there's a there's a small drainage system, neighborhood drainage system, and it's leaky. It's kind of handmade. We can't have our septic system within 25 ft of that because the septic lee will go into the drainage, which happens throughout the beach associations. um right now, but we can't create a situation that does that. So along the eastern side, we had to replace some of that with with what's called tight pipe, so the water can't get into it or the or the drainage structures. And also along is that uh sea lane along the south there along that road there are some catch basins in the road and there there's a catch basin that's an association catch basin, but it's actually on I could show you on the plan here. Um, and this is all kind of important because it plays into the whole thing. So, there's a catch basin right here that's actually on the private property and shouldn't be. Um, because of the septic system has to go here. You can see the shape of it. We can't have that within 25 ft. So, we we're relocating that catch basin to in the street where it should be. Um, and then reconnecting the pipes. And there's a pipe that goes from this catch basin to this catch basin. that pipe is also

being repa replaced with solid tight pipe. Um, and that's going to be a better mint for everyone around because no longer the leech is going to be able to sneak into that leeching system. Um, and we're meeting all the code requirements. So, we have to be 25 ft. If you look at all these dimensions, we're right, you know, 25.0 25.1. We have to be 15 for property lines and we're 15.2 15.0. Uh, we have tanks on this side. So the there's no room to shift the the house this way because then the septic would have to shift away from the house and then we get um non-compliant to the distance of the uh drainage system on the eastern side. So we as Eric read before this has to be exactly where it is. It's the really the only way with all the several iterations that we've done really the only way that that system works. So that can't change at all. Um, and again here, this yellow, that's the existing house that that were lifted. Now we're more this way.

And all the catch basin work and all that's at the homeowner's expense.

It's at the homeowner's expense. And Cheryl also, uh, rightfully so, she wanted us to go to the association and make sure they were on board with it and it's an improvement to their association drainage system. So um the president association came out and um he loved the idea brought it to the board. David was at that meeting and the board agreed that this is acceptable. Um when the sores come through if when the sewers come through um they're also upgrading drainage at that point in time. So this is kind of like temporary fix. So when they put all new in um that's what we were told by the board. They just they wanted to make sure that we weren't going to adversely affect anything that may or may not be done in the future. Um and they agreed that it would not would actually just improve the current situation.

I do have one question. That propane tank, the 500gallon propane tank that's going to be underground. Yes. How does how would how do they anchor that so it's not going to float up when that property goes underwater? Because that goes underwater quite a bit. Yep. That property. So that that's a good question. And whenever we do a round propane tank, it's a enclosed vessel, so it can float like a bobber. A septic tank could float like a bobber, believe it or not.

Um, so we have to do anti-boyancy calculations for the septic tank that are on here. Make sure the septic tank is more heavy than the water that's over it and surrounding it or what would replace it so it doesn't flow out of the ground. Similar to the propane tank that would flow if it was submerged. So there's a concrete slab poured and then stainless steel straps over the top of it holding it down the concrete slab. That's what has to be done by curious.

And then there's a it's a good question. And then there's a relief valve for the relief the pressure relief. Um for FEMA, they also have a regulation that we have to bring a 1-in PVC pipe over to the house and bring that snorkel up above the flood elevation. So if it is submerged, it can still relieve pressure. So it's pretty technical. It's to the inch. We've done everything to make it the minimum variance necessary, improve where we could eliminate where we could get a better septic system, get a better drainage system. So overall, everything is a vast improvement over what's there for today. And again, Joe, can you speak to the coastal area management application?

Yes, that was the last thing on my Eric had mentioned. Um, there is a coastal area management application. um you're going to start seeing a lot more coastal area management applications because as of October 1st the state changes their rule and any any building within the coastal zone whether it's in the flood zone or not requires a CAM application. Uh so you will see many many of these um I'm not sure how the state's going to process them all but that's to figure out. Um so for this one this application was submitted prior to that October 1 deadline so it doesn't apply. Um, but we submitted a CAM anyways because this typically wouldn't be a CAM exempt even though it's a single family new build. Um, we're more than 100 ft to Coastal Resources, but we filed a CAM application in the beginning anyways. That's for your consideration as well. Um, and things they look at generally are water quality, FEMA compliance, um, LID or low impact development features of driveways. So, what we did here is we made this driveway. It's a side load. So, we need this distance and all that for the side load garage for safe pulling in, backing out, pulling out the street forward. Um, we're required to do a paved apron between the street and the property line. Um, and you can see here that it's more than more than 3 ft from the edge of the road to the property line. It's more than 3 ft in. Um, but we're required to do that apron, but then all the rest of the driveway is going to be a pvious crush stone. So, it's not asphalt, so that's able to absorb into the ground. Um, we have the house, of course, we're eliminating these two structures. We're improving the septic system, um, taking out some of that fill, replacing it with sand. We have a code compliant septic system, which is much better than the system that's there now sitting in the groundwater. Um, and then we're also improving this drainage on the eastern

side and along the southern side. Not only to accommodate the septic system, but right now anything can get into that whether it's septic or spill, anything because it's it's very leaky handmade, you know, dry block catch basins, uh, leaky joint pipes, uh, mostly block or filled with water. So all those things combined and then on top of all that the FEMA compliance that's another you know our special flood hazard zones are a coastal resource basically and we are FEMA compliant. Who do you submit that Cam? Who does that goes to the town it's a town required application. The town refers it to the state just for their advice just advisory and the CAM stands for coastal

coastal area management man coastal area management management management. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And sometimes you'll see CSP, coastal site plan. Okay. Um when we have a a CAM that's applicable, we'll label our plan coastal site plan. CSP. CSP. And then you get your little C after your application on the agenda. Okay. That's good to know. I mean, these are new. You're saying, well, no, they always existed. However, they weren't required. They weren't required when you were building a brand new house. under the new regulations from October 1st, tear down, all tear down rebuilds are going to need a CAM application. Now, if they're not coming to ZBA, they're going to go to the zoning commission.

You you just happen to be seeing it because it's you getting this application anyway, but any order commission can review them. So, someone could come in, you know, zoning has a full agenda. Eric can say, "Okay, I'm going to give this to EBA. They have a light agenda to just look at this CAM application." So, we've already done that. has been in front of ZBA. What are you here for? No variances. Just to look at the CAM application, but yeah, it has to be by a board of commission staff cannot review and approve it. Okay, good to know. Thank you.

But I mean, they're reviewing your septic and stuff. I mean, that's legis Well, yeah, Ledge Light does that. Um, D again, they're just advisory, but they look at the project as a whole. say if we were quadrupling the size of the house, paving the driveway, putting more parking over here, um things like that, we weren't FEMA compliant. You know, I mean, the town wouldn't like that anyways, but those are the things that they're looking for. They want to make sure that it's smart development.

You know, the agency used to be called the Office of Long Island Sound Programs. It's now it's a different fancy name. The goal is to make sure that the quality of Long Island Sound is being preserved. So they're what they're trying to do is make sure that what they're doing here is not going to otherwise impair Long Island Sound. So again, from what you've heard from Mr. Ren, he's explaining how he's designed it to try and make sure that the water quality is not going to otherwise impair Long Island. But if it came upon us, we would not be evaluating all of that to say it's going to impede the water quality.

Well, that's what the K application is supposed to be doing. I mean, that's part of part of your review, part of the findings theoretically you're making tonight is that it meets the CAM goals under your under the regulations. So, you've had CAM application before. Yeah, this is not this is not a first time. What's new now is it's more much more overreaching. So, there there were exemptions before and many projects new new single family house built were exempt especially if you were more than 100 ft away from the the resource. Now, nothing pretty much nothing is exempt unless you're like putting railing on your deck, right? And and since it's anything within a thousand feet of a navigable water body,

um basically half the town is now covered by CAM applications, right? So, we're going to be getting a lot more CAM applications than we did before.

Okay. So, back to our neighbors. I think we should um our neighbors concerns David, did you just say about we tugging with the 50% rule a little bit and that's kind of this is sort of how we arrived at lifting the house and basically restructuring the whole house was, you know, we looked at the 50% which allowed us $107,000 to work on the property um to work on the house and realized really quickly that we weren't going to be able to do anything. So, I hate to give you more exhibits. But um these are some images of the inside of the house. So you can see you know very minimal structure. The kitchen is extremely dated. Um and then you know in that picture I think I've been on here the staircase does not meet code you know by width requirements by rise and run. So and you can just see like the shag carpet and all that kind of stuff. But, you know, once we started looking at what we had to do to this house to to bring it up to 2025, um, we're way way beyond the $17,000. So, right there triggers FEMA.

And, um, and the way the house is structured, you I don't even think we could lift it. So, I'm going to label both of them together as exhibit 10. All three. Yeah. Three different. And this the point of these is just to show renovation are going to bring you above the 50% value. I I don't think too many of us renovate the existing house. It's still going up 11, right? What year is the house built existing? If I were to guess 40s and 50s, it said 1933. So this is going in as exhibit number 10. three items, three photos.

Was in the house that I grew up in. So And that house was built in 1920. Okay. Um are we are we satisfied from the audience that we've had a chance to make comment? Well, there anybody else is there any way we get a copy of that photo? Um, you know, that's good to hear that it's moving further back from the setbacks. Um,

we do have one extra one here. Yeah. Is it of yours? I got the one that says I think it's number eight on my list. Is it? Oh, is it that one right on the bottom? I think the one on the bottom. That's what you I've got that one as number eight here. Yeah. Yeah. Number eight. Anybody else want? And those will all be in the record, right? Yes, they will. They'll all be in the record. Okay. What's the proposal time frame for building this house?

We have to speak to the owner. Um I don't think they're going to attempt it for the summer. So, probably September. This September to the next June. Okay. So they won't start till next I believe. I don't think they're going to because of the hammer law in the summer. So they don't have enough time to start and build the house now um before the hammer law. Usually what they'll do is wait till after Labor Day and then try to and then 7 8 months get I don't think they're attempting to make that go at it. Hopefully that's the case. Can't imagine how they would. Yeah, we we don't know. We're not saying we're not promising anything, but based on what we've seen,

anybody else want to speak? Um, I think we're okay. Are we done with comments from the room? Okay. Anybody have any follow-up questions? Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion to close the public hearing for case 2512 C7 spray? Russell. Uh, all those in favor of the motion to close public hearing. I opposed. Abstain. Uh, unanimous. Uh, public hearing is closed. So now what we've got to do is have uh make a record of the comments um of our deliberations over the case

and only voting members.

Yeah. And yeah. Oh yeah, I should read that script. Only voting members may participate in deliberations. No new information is going to be introduced after the close of the public hearing. Members may ask staff or ZBA attorney procedural questions. So those of you that are considering voting, anybody want to start a narrative on it? Anybody want to? Well, you know, it's it's complex and I really appreciate how much they have done to try to move this forward and I know it's it's it feels very expensive, but you know, beyond that, they I think they've really tried to do what they need to do to try to uh move the project forward. And I don't see how they could do it otherwise.

Yeah. I think I mean to us as a board it's typically felt sort of compelling if it's a FEMA lift right um on a property that needs rehabilitation okay the the and the issues the neighbors are totally in order we're being frustrated that this is happening but we I I think from my point of view I think FEMA is a substantial part of this case I guess the compelling part of this case for me but there are reduced nonconformities there is a reduction from two stories to one and a half. Um, yeah, they're getting rid of a couple of structures. They're doing as as much as they possibly could,

but still you can't mitigate what FEMA is requiring. You have to do what you have to do. and um and that I feel you know sorry for the neighbors and but again you know I don't know how many years or if they would come and you know maybe they're going to have the same issue at some point and it starts an epidemic of one person raises their house and then the next person raises their house and pretty soon you have an entire neighborhood that's raised up 11 ft which I guess is the goal that's an epidemic you refuse that as as a good thing yeah but it's not it's not attractive but I understand why it is well it could preserve a whole neighborhood if everybody does that. You know, you know, just historically the first cases that of these that came before the board, everybody's standing there shaking their head and saying, "All right, the the house is going to be up here,

right?" And then you get to say, "Well, if FEMA's been told that we keep saying no to that, that's an issue, right? We're sort of compelled very limited in what we can do." I think and the other piece that I I want to make I guess um do the zoning regulations say that people's views are sacred? No. Yeah. No, they're not. Connecticut does not recognize and it's something I think it's natural for us as human beings to consider and see if we can negotiate our way around an outcome that minimizes that impact. But you can't stop somebody from lifting their house FEMA compliant, right? because of

you know we want neighbors to be able to appreciate neighbors and not get along and not you know fences and things like that but you know when it comes down to putting the requirements in FEMA and or the other all the septic things and the extra money they did for the I mean that that's um that's hard hard to you know say no to that's my view sorry can we just go I'm trying to pick out you know I think we're just having a conversation and then we'll get to the script We just making sure. Are we This is me being an idiot. Are we um

do we make this conversation we're going to have right now, the strict thing about all these items as the motion or do we proceed the motion by that conversation? If you really want the technical question, you should have a motion in a second and then have discussion. But it's common practice have discussion and then get everybody's sense and then culminate into a motion with other conditions. So that's unanswered. But what have we used to be doing here? What's Nancy do with you? Does she say would anybody like a motion and then you say the hardship is that the way we do it usually? Yeah. When I take notes, I'm always on the next page and then I have to go back.

So we're discussing the uh evidence that will be used to support the motion. Um somebody's going to be asked to u make a motion granting the necessary hardships were outlined. Our logic for um possibly um granting the variance is um unusual hardship. There's a whole bunch about the property. Yeah, there's like 79% something like that is limited. Yeah, the setbacks are sort of massive. It's a pre-existing property. Um 79.4. Yeah. All right. So, the unusual hardship is that the property is uh limited. I

it's got two streets, two front street setbacks. Is that what you also heard testimony that the septic system has to be in exactly this location and it dictates Yep. Right. Yep. Location of the se setback limits options, right? Okay. So, the property is limited due to setback locations. Uh the septic requirements anything else? I mean and there as it just said there are two fronts right which also further limits your right makes it an unusual property in that sense right

um and there will be for item number two there will be substantial diminishment of pre-existing nonconformities you've got a couple of buildings and you've got a movement of uh the building away from one of the setbacks and one and a half stories versus two one and a half stories dropping of two stories dropping down to one and a half. So there were significant reductions in non-conformities. Do you want to mention the fact that there some non-conform conformities were eliminated or just reduction? Yeah, like the garage and this and the shed. I think you could just generally say that there were eliminations and and reductions and non-conformities. Got it. Okay.

Eliminations. Got it. And I don't know if we have to say something about how they fixed the um the leakage. You know what I mean? It's like oh the additional I mean yeah the additional leakage. Why don't you hold off on that till you get to the cam portion that's sort of a different piece of All right. That's what I was going to ask because that

let's get through the variance hardship issues and then you have separate findings you need to make for the customer. Third item of findings would be uh is this where there's a minimum um variances required to alleviate the hardship. Yeah, I think so. I think there was so much conversation about that. We did they did what they could. I mean they can't be asked to abandon uh the the size of building that they have. They diminished it in some ways and expanded in others but I think it would fit my definition of minimum for achieving this.

Yeah, agree. Um conditions of approval. We're not going to mention lead light because we already had that discussion on the previous variance. We don't need that. Um nobody came up with any conditions that we identified. Oh yes. No, no architectural projection. No architectural projection. Mr. Noi agreed to no architectural. I got I skip. So just Mr. Noi agreed to no architectural projections from the ridge at the condition of approval. which you guys are happy with. Yeah. And in harmony with intent of zoning regs, you know, I think partly what you have to think about is is safety issues and FEMA compliance is a big issue.

At least for me, biggest. Yeah. So, the structure will be FEMA compliant and health and safety. Yep. Will be improved. A a structure that is not code compliant will become code compliant. It's not just FEMA compliant. It's it's not currently code compliant across this structure. Got it.

Okay. And the evidence presented in the public hearing and reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing is part of what motivates our ideas here. Does anybody want to make a motion to grant uh with the condition of uh no architectural projections on the roof line? um the um variances of sections 8.8.6 and 8.8.7 to allow demolition of an existing four-bedroom dwelling in AE12 flood zone and replaced with an elevated FEMA compliant dwelling in the street line setback per the site plans prepared by Indigo Land Designs LLC and dated October November 10th. November 10th, sorry. Uh, and the floor plans and elevations prepared by 360 design plus LLC and dated.

I don't know those room. I've got here August 7th, 2025. Oh, and then we have the new plans. Yeah. And stamped and signed by ZBAH. Those were that we covered that on the coastal site plan that Mr. uh Ren gave us. I don't know that Mr. No's plans were updated since then. 87. Yeah. 87. Okay. So, those that's consistent. August 7th. Oh, any Go ahead. Do we have to list 887 twice because it's 8 8.6? Oh. Oh. Oh. Cuz it's two street setbacks. Yeah. Yeah. That you made.

I don't think you need to I don't think you need to list it twice in the sense that you're you're varying those sections. The application. Yeah. The application shows that and you're going to be again once again per the plan submitted. So the plan submitted is going to show where those setbacks are. Okay. Great. Okay. Anyone care to make that motion? I'll make a motion. Okay. We have a a motion. Second. We have a second. That was uh Okay.

Okay. Um all those in favor of the um variances of rating the variances. Yes. I any opposed? Abstained. Okay. Hearing no. Uh it seems to have passed unanimously. We still need the coastal site plan review. I'll say it again. Oh, coastal site plan application is approved. Um take a motion whether to approve or not, right? And we can discuss why. Okay. So that's where the um comment that I made about fixing their uh Thank you.

Okay. Coastal site plan observation is approved because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and does not and does include all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts on coastal resources and future water dependent uses. That's you just need me to read that. I need you to read that. I need someone to make that motion, but then we need Kathleen to discuss why we believe that's the case. We're going to put in the record supporting reasons why we think that's the case. Okay. Okay. So, a motion for what you just said. Okay. And then we have a we need a second. Second. Who wants a second? Second. Okay. Discussion.

Discussion. And so I I think that they in favor of that motion. Yeah. The fact that they're fixing this leakage on their property. Yep. That's nice. I mean, I think that that supports this coastal. Yeah. The septic system is going to improve engineered septic system. The drainage system around is going to improve. They're doing what they can to improve the water quality of the whole area as well as their own land. But the fact that they're lifting the house is not part of the camp.

It's not really part of the camp because it doesn't really change the water quality. What I would say is the fact that they're making the driveway impervious does matter because that's basically allowing more water to drain. Um, so I mean you have you have things that are being done that are consistent with the goals of the coastal area management act. Okay. And the motion has been made and seconded for us to approve this. So a vote comes now. Well, now would be a great time for a vote. Those voting in favor of approving the so coastal site plan review application. I I those opposed abstaining. Unanimous. Okay.

Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving. I have a request. I can never see the yellow. If you would consider maybe pink and green or something more visible from a little distance in the future, I could bring in some of those red 3D glasses. Make it 3D. That would be pretty fun. See a picture of Okay, let's see. We're still going. So, um Oh, yeah. Thank you. For old business, I have nothing for a menu for me to read because I don't know what I'm doing. Anybody have anything else going on here? Well, that now

there were four of us voting members here for the minutes. Four is passing. We could vote on minutes or do we need Yes, that's part of old business. Yeah. Okay. So, but I'm seated tonight, so there's five of us. Okay. Right. But but um Russ wasn't here. Only four of us were here to approve the minutes. We can approve you have a quorum of at least three. So yes, as long as you have just making sure you you can vote with four.

Okay. So I do have a script. So let me start on that and we'll see how to get us back in order. Uh any new cases submitted uh by November 19th we received at the November 20th CBA meeting. Guess there are none. No, but again, as it mentions, if something comes in between now and January, it will deemed automatically received. We will have to determine whether or not it's be public hearing. We'll get to that later, but this we have no new cases as of right now. So, we'll just go from there. Okay.

So, as there are no ZBA regular meetings in December, the public hearings for any new applications received by the ZBA on November 20th will be scheduled for the January 15th ZBA meeting. That's within 65 days of receipt. Any applications submitted between November 20th and December 10th will be automatically received 35 days after submission and those submitted between December 11th and January 14th will be received at the January 15th ZBA meeting. Um those applications submitted by def December 4th and and deemed complete by land use staff including LLHD legite uh when required will also have their public hearing scheduled for January 15th 2026 ZBA meeting. those applications submitted by December 4th and deemed incomplete by staff. Um, for example, missing uh legislate health department approval when required will be will have the scheduling of their public hearings delayed until February 2026 CPA meeting. Chair update, we welcome the newly elected members and alternates U. Michaela, Kathleen, Richard, and Nicholas whose terms began yesterday. Is that true?

Yeah. There you go. Well, we were sworn in on the uh 18th 19th. There you go. Also reminded first time alternates that they need that they are required to complete four hours of affordable housing land use training before their first year on the board is complete. Eric Knap, land use coordinator, can answer any questions you may have about the training. Uh and finally, special thanks to those members and alternates leaving the board, Steve Dixs and Brian Cole. Brian left a souvenir, so I'm going to read that. and he left his uh samples there that were beautiful. Oh,

yeah. Pretty good. Um, and if I um Brian asked me to read this into the record, so we're all going to find out what Brian wanted to say in his exit. Um, uh, dear fellow ZBA members, uh, as I take leave of this position on the, uh, ZBA, I wish to express a few thoughts and thanks to my fellow ZBA members. I wish to offer a heartfelt thank you for your service to our town. In particular, I want to acknowledge the chair Nancy Hutchinson and vice chair Kip Codson for their exemplary leadership and citizens of the United States at the United States with the whole line can feel comfortable knowing it's late knowing that the business of the ZBA is in good hands. To Sylvia, Eric, Amy, and Craig, I thank you for your dedication to the ZBA and for using your experience and wisdom to benefit the citizens of O line. And for those newly elected, I ask you to bring the same dedication to board that those uh as those I have mentioned, you will quickly realize that political parties nonwithstanding this board functions to do the work of the town. I think you will also come to realize that your participation in the governance of Wol is something which you may be rightfully proud. I wished you I thank the citizens of Bold for their trust in electing me ZBA two years ago. I wish you all the very best moving forward. Brian Cole sweet. That's the first exit letter I think I've ever heard of. He's very thoughtful.

Putting a bar. Okay. So, correspondence and announcements. I don't have anything. Approval of ZBA from October 16th meeting. So, I'm just make a motion to approve. So, move. Okay. So, moved. That was Michael Kayla. Okay. Yeah. Kayla and seconded by I'll second. Okay. Can I I can second these things too, right? Or not. Yeah. Okay. Whether I can or I can't. Um so um those vote to approve of the minutes. I I uh opposed. Okay. Abstain. Okay. Unanimous. What? You have some extensions because there were some people not present.

Yeah. Oh, okay. Do they count as abstains or do they count? Yeah, Russ can't vote, but he he's seated as a member. So, it will be four one. Okay. But alternates, they don't have to be mentioned or not. Is that No, no, you you have five people who can vote. Okay. One of them wasn't here last month, so we're not going to see a new alternate for this. So, 401. Okay. 401. My bad. All right. Um, and anyone make a motion to adjurnn? Well, wait, wait. Okay. start please where it says chair update. Um do we have to appoint Nancy as a chair for this new session? No, that's going to be in January.

In January. Okay. Thank you. And then what about um I I I thought I read it on this one, but I don't see it on here. Um doing the uh dates for next year. You've already done those. You did this. We did do that. I thought All right. All right. All set. Thank you. Okay. Well, I didn't want to rush this out the door, but it's time to get out the door now. Anybody want to make a motion to uh close the meeting? I make a motion. Second move and have those in favor of uh adjourning I opposed unanimous 828