Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

7:30. Uh, roll call. Liam Johnson here. Lyn Colligan here. Tom Scrapino here. Uh, Lisa Harkler here. And Phil Gorio is excused. And we also have present with us uh Tim Hill, CBA attorney via Zoom. Uh, can for businesses to review and approve the November 19th, 2025 minutes. Can I get a motion? I'll I'll make a motion. I'll second it. All in favor? I I

Okay. So, we have two applications to discuss today at our work session. Uh, the first one is 82 Smith Street. Lynn is recusing herself. We'll give her a minute. [laughter] [clears throat] Um, okay. Leave open. Uh Christina, we've had no written correspondence. Correct on these?

All right. So, we have 82 Smith Street. So, they're looking to convert an existing basement to a one-bedroom accessory dwelling unit. Um and they need a area variance for the lot size. So, correct here. So, this one to me seemed uh pretty straightforward. Um, they are using the existing basement, which I I think is is a good thing because they're not expanding the footprint of the property at all. Uh there there is an exterior staircase for access and they are updating the IIA um which can accommodate up to four bedrooms. So that that's acceptable cuz with the addition of the bedroom downstairs, there will be two bedrooms. And I also I know we brought up uh the fact that the driveway was a little close to the road and was small. We want to make sure that it could accommodate

three cars. Three cars. And they are making it wider and deeper. So it's going 10 ft deeper and it's going to be um uh 30 by 20 feet deep. Right. Um, does anyone have anything on this one? Feedback, thoughts? No, I did get to watch the Zoom meeting. I was not here last week. Um, I did watch the meeting and I got a chance to speak to a couple of you and um, you know, I think the fact that it's adding one bedroom, the IIA system is there. Uh, you know, the lot could afford a a bigger

house. Yep. you know, so I I have zero problem bunch feedback. Uh, no, it's I think it's the best way to correct the the problem from a onebedroom to a twobedroom staying in the footprint. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Uh Tim, are we missing anything on this that you can think of? Uh, no. I mean on um we go through the you know checklist um uh the one thing would be you know they I think it's a 38% variance in terms of the yes it is significant

so let's um let's go to the worksheet Okay. Uh whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. No. No. Why not? Because they're using the existing footprint. And the only thing that's really gaining in space that you would see is the width and the length of the driveway, right? could be done regardless. Yep. Yeah.

I think just might want to note um I think the applicant had indicated that um with respect to impact or neighborhood character. This is adjacent to a horse farm. But I think the you know prior rationale of the board on other applications does not necessarily take into you know that as a necessary benefit um or something that you know weighs in favor um because you know you never know what the future use of an adjacent parcel is and its protected status is you know not a waiver of the zoning regulations. Okay, that's good to know. Um, thank you. Uh, whether the benefits sought by the applicant could be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. I mean, they could not have

they could not have an accessory dwelling unit. No. Um, or they could build something else on the property and not use the basement. But there's a cost factor involved with that. Correct. So, what do we want to say to this? No. I would say no. Not feasible. Cuz you ain't feasible to put another addition on that house. Yeah. And if that's what they want to do, they're they are constrained by the square footage, right? cuz a lot small

whether the requested variance is substantial. I'm going to say yes to this one. Um they have the lot. So we need a variance of 11,917 square foot of the lot size which is significant. What is it? 11,000 11,917 17. Thank you. Yep. So, it is a very small lot. Um, yeah.

Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood? I would say no. Now they are um making the impact better by putting in the IIA. Yeah.

Uh were they alleged difficulty with self-created? Yes, I would say. Yes, cuz they they're wanting to put in Yeah. which is a bad thing. Yeah.

Communitywide but um so then okay this is [clears throat] where the double negatives come in. So do we agree that the benefit to the applicant does not outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood and therefore the variance request is denied or the benefit of the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community? We are looking to approve this one. Yes, the second. So it would be the second one.

Yes. Nice. Anything that Tim? No, I think that's it. There's no conditions for anybody, right? There's I think there was discussion of there was discussion about a be sorry uh parking but I don't think that's a matter for the you know imposition of a condition

and I know we also just to reconfirm that having an ADU requirement is that it has to be rented year round so we don't need to put any conditions in regard to that the there okay I'll go get Lynn Okay, the next application we have is 29 Terry Drive, Woodward. Um, this this application um has to do with a sideyard and rear yard setbacks for pool and pool equipment. um this situation. So the applicant was saying that they believe it the pool was mistakenly put in the wrong place due to the staking of the property when the pool was being built. So we have a very small sideyard setback for the pool uh which is8 ft. So, it's right on that 20ft um setback. And then the pool equipment is a little bit larger. They need a rear yard set back of 6.9 ft

um and then a sideyard variance for 4.7 ft. So, looking at this, it it does to me seem like there it just might have been staked incorrectly for the pool. the pool equipment is a little bit more intrusive. Um, and I know we talked about having the we brought it up with the owners or the the applicant about moving the pool heater equipment and they had thought about it, but they didn't want to have to do that. And I'm thinking it might actually be a little bit more um cost effective and yeah not not as cost effective to move that pool equipment involved um considering is a small variance but I'm open to what you guys think on this application.

You almost have the same scenario where that pool equipment does border the Pearlman music uh property and there's really not a lot going on back there. But again, just because it's it could change. It could change. Yeah. Um but it's not it's entirely enclosed too. Yes. The pool come in is screened in, but even the yard is enclosed as well. Um

I don't think noise is an issue. And it it is tricky because there is room on this within the setbacks to have it in a conforming location. Um is 6.9 ft and 4.7 ft worth the cost to the applicant? Um considering where it's located on this property? Yeah, cuz they're blocked off from the neighbors. Mhm. Pool equipment. Yep. They're screening. They're screening. They have big trees.

I didn't have a problem with it last week and I don't seem to have one. I don't know. No. Nor do I either. Um, I did I I was I know I brought up a question because this this was installed in 2016 and it just seemed that it there was a a bit of a lag between coming here to get the variance for it for it. Representative Morvin mentioned that. Yeah,

there was a lot going on. That doesn't really change the severity of the Right. It doesn't change the situation of where the equipment is. Right. Right. Yeah.

Um, does anyone have anything else to add on this? I think we could go through the checklist and that will tell us if anything's egregious or anything. Yeah. All right. We'll go to the checklist. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. I would say no.

I agree. existence. Um there's other properties that have pools. Uh the adjacent property has a pool. Yeah. Yes, they do. It is only8 ft for the pool. Um the equipment is screened so it will block some of the noise and and will remain within the character of the neighborhood. whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. Yes, it actually could.

Yes, they can move that pool equipment. Um I don't think the moving the pool itself might not be feasible. No, [laughter] but the pool equipment could be moved. Whether the requested variance is substantial. So, we're looking at 08t, 6.9 ft, and 4.7 ft. Yep. Yeah. That, you know, that's you could break that down again in terms of the pool and the pool equipment. Um, right. Um, yeah. So, the the pool

sub is not substantial. So, the actual pool is only8 ft. So, I wouldn't consider that substantial. the pool equipment as a percentage I guess is yeah I'd say so it is yeah especially because you can put it in a conforming location. Does that make sense, Tim? Yeah, it's about on my rough math like 27%.

Okay. Okay. Yep. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? I don't believe so either. training

whether the alleged difficulty was self-created maybe the placement of it wasn't but the inaction on on alleviating the problem was I think like waiting all that time yeah I I can see how the pool might have gotten mistake incorrectly, but the the pool equipment it it just seems like that's more than a a rounding error. Yeah. Or a staking error. Yeah. So, we'll say yes.

So, I would say yes. Um, so is everyone okay with keeping the pool equipment where it is? because that seems to be the item of the most contempt here. [clears throat] I'm I'm okay with that. Of the biggest percentage of I'm I'm okay with it.

It's tricky because there is there's it's a possibility to put in a conforming location, but is the cost going to be a burden to the applicant? And if it's not really creating much of an adverse impact on the surrounding properties, they want to put the My neighbors don't didn't have no complaints against it. Yep. Right. So there's no letter saying they were bad about no correspondence, right? Correct.

Okay. All right. So let's let's go through and say um after taking into consideration the above five factors uh we find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community. So we would approve the request for the variance. Any condition? Any conditions? I mean could we say that the pool equipment has to remain cleaned or if they ever replace it, they have to put it put it in the proper sighting. Any major future repairs? Yeah. Yes, that's what I would say. I agree.

They have to bring it in there and until that time it should remain screen. Yes. Yeah. Yep. [snorts] Yep. So if it anytime it has any major repairs or needs to get replaced, it has to be moved into a conforming location. Right. That's correct. It will remain screened and remain screened until that Yep. Okay, Tim, anything we missed on this one that you can think of?

No, I think um that that that condition is fine. I just think the uh the replacement is is you know easily understood. Um, a major repair is, you know, maybe uninforceable. You could include it in. Okay. Replacement. Replacement. Okay. Great. Does anyone have anything else for the meeting? Can I get a motion to close the meeting? I'll make a motion.

Second. All in favor? I I Okay. Meeting closed at what time is it? 750. 750.