Everybody ready?
Okay. So, we're going to bring our meeting to order.
Public hearing. Our public period order. Okay. So, we are application number 25 VBA. Sweden seeking a variance. And so now it's time for us to hear from the African. Shall I take it over? Okay, wonderful. my name is Lori Riser. I'm the Kahan Prince Capistella. I'm a land use attorney. I'm representing Steven Rockefeller and I have Andrew Bushnell who prepared the plans here with us as well. before I get into it, we can either show this the plan on the screen which is kind of small and busy or we have a few fulls size prints of the plan that we had submitted and perhaps be easiest for me to pass them around for everyone to share and look at. Would that be
trying to get on the strategic
roots? Maybe I'm sorry.
Yeah, I'm not here. The order is right.
Mr. We should probably know which board members are present. Oh, sure.
Sorry.
Okay.
So, board members present, Fred Oliver,
Joan Ross,
Jeffrey Valard, Ballard,
Captain Skork, and Michael.
Pass the other ones already.
Okay. So we have we have four regular and two organizing being recorded.
We have poor regular member. No, three regular members. Me, Julia, and Kathy.
Okay. And and there are two alternates. Correct.
Three alternates. What are you, Jeff?
I'm an alternate.
Okay. So then we I'm not an alternate.
Oh, okay. I'm sorry. So Michael was a regular. We have new people. So I don't
Okay, that's all right. So what did the command?
We have how many pool members?
Four and two.
Two. Okay. Thank you.
That's right. Got some new members on board. is
o now that you have the plan in front of you, I'd like to just walk you through it and orientate you as to where we are and talk about what the proposal involves. so my client is the owner of 45 and 47 Lakeside Drive. And you can see that on the plan. 45 is the lot on the left and 47 is the lot that's more long and rectangular on the right. they're on you know in between Lakeside Drive and Andover Lake and they are both separate lots at this point and there is an existing house on each of the lots at this point. My client and his family live in 47 and 45 is presently used as a rental property. What they propose to do is to merge the two lots. Now, the two lots in and of themselves are each undersized. They're they're smaller than what the zoning regulations require. I assume you have a lot of those on Andover Lakes. That's very common with lake properties. What my client would like to do is merge the two lots to one, thereby increasing getting rid of one non-conforming lot and increasing the size of the resulting lot to not conforming, but certainly more conforming. It's it's still not large enough. We don't have enough space to make it large enough the actual regulations, but it will become more conforming. when the two lots become one, the plan is to eliminate the house on 45 Lakeside Drive, which is again that longer, narrower rectangular lot there. Eliminate that house. and along with that, the walkways will be eliminated. and my client would like to
add an addition to the house that Vena's family lives in. the addition you can see on the plan, it's marked proposed addition. It's got a 1,180 square ft in size. Now, this addition is at the closest point 36.45 ft from the lake. Now the existing house that is not being touched and not being changed and is protected as a legal non-conforming structure is 9.64 ft presently from the edge of the lake. So this addition is further back from the lake than the actual houses. and my client also would like to build, you could see it on the plan as well, a proposed wood shop area that is up in the area of what is still presently 45 Lakeside. and it's it's labeled proposed shop and it shows the
impervious area as 832 square feet. That will be a personal use workshop only. He doesn't intend to have any commercial operations running out of there. He's not using it as a home occupation. He's not using it for rental purposes. It will be for storage such as a boat. it will have exercise equipment in it. It will have a hopefully a slop sink because it's going to be a workshop. It'll be hobby space. so that's what's proposed for right there. We've situated it so it's directly adjoining the existing paved driveway that serves the house that's coming down and that's presently on that lot. so there is no I'll tell you what's not changing. The existing house at 47's
not changing. The existing garage at 47's not changing. Okay. and so those are not changing. So, what we're doing is eliminating a non-conforming lot, merging it into another adjacent non-conforming lot, and we're eliminating an a lot of existing nonconformities, and we're going to talk mostly about that tonight. I know with variances, and some of you are new members, some of you have been here. variances, you're usually talking about hardship, right? You know what that term is? It's you need a legal hardship that's unique to the land in order to justify the granting of variance. That's normally what you're here looking at. We're not even going to really use that word
tonight. Tonight we're talking about a reduction in nonconformities because there's a whole line of cases that stand for the proposition that an independent basis for granting a variance is you don't have to find a hardship but you have to prove you're reducing existing nonconformities and making the parcel more conforming. It's called the Adulson exception and it's based on a line of cases that again started in about 1988 and again say if you are reducing nonconformities that is an independent basis for granting a variance. Now the adults case dealt with replacing one existing non-conforming use with another. a variance was granted to replace a non-conforming use with another non-conforming use that was more conforming, closer to what the overall zone wanted. In that case, it was going from an existing foundry use to a car repair shop. So they the courts held after the after the variance was upheld, the courts upheld it saying that's that's making the property more conforming. We're going in the right direction. So sometimes this line of cases stand for replacing one non-conforming use with another. It's also used extensively to support the granting of variances of your bulk area regulations, your setbacks. So, if you are changing a property and you are if you have an existing property and you're doing something that's still not quite conforming, but let's say you're moving a structure, you're renovating a structure and you're making instead of 10 feet from the sideyard, you're making it 15 feet and let's say there's a 20 sideyard that is reducing a setback nonconformity. Again, the the adults cases and a whole line of cases that
follow support that again it's a reduction in nonconformity whether it be with regard to a setback or a use and and it's an independent ground for granting the variances. I have a number of cases and I don't want to bog you down with case sites and case details, but I can certainly provide you information if you want, but there are a number of cases that support the granting of a variant when you are consolidating nonconforming lots to support a development. So there are cases that say if you have three non-conforming lots and they're undeveloped and there's and you want to develop on them if you're if you still need a variance to develop but you're making it two more conforming lots and so you reduce the extent of the variances you need they support that there's a line of cases that go again you consolidate non-conforming lots reduce them in number to have a more compliant development whether it's 3 to two to one here two to one All right, we're doing two non-conforming knots into one and eliminating a number or or reducing a number of existing nonconformities. so let's go through what the non-conformities are that we're going to improving. I had given you a summary of non-conformities as part of the application. I don't know if you all have it there in front of you. It was revised on September 24th, but I'm just going to take you step by step through them. So, let's talk about 47 lakeside first. We know that that lot is presently non-conforming with regard to lot area. It's nonconforming with regard to lot width. The existing garage on it, which is staying the same, is non-conforming
with regard to the front yard. The existing house is non-conforming with regard to the year rear yard. I had mentioned that at its closest point, it's only 9.64 ft from the lake. and the sideyard, the sideyard right now, this is nonconforming with regard to the sideyard. the existing garage is 7.65 ft. So, and the coverage is non-conforming. It's more than 12%. So, there's a lot of non-conformities there, right? 45 independent and on his own before the merger has a lot of non-conformities too with regard to area width the rear and side yard with regard to the existing house there and coverage. Well, when we combine these two parcels as being proposed right now, our lot area is still going to be non-conforming. We still don't have the required 60,000 square ft, but gosh, I bet there's not too many properties on Andover Lake that actually have that that that minimum square footage, but we're getting more conforming because we add the two properties together. Now, we're at 26,890 square ft. Lot width. Once these two lots, it becomes totally conforming. We have a conforming lot width, which is 200 feet. Okay. the front yard again the existing garage is not changing. So that nonconformity stays untouched and stays the same. So this isn't that the merger doesn't affect that at all. Okay.
That stays blessed as it is. It's not being changed at all. Okay. there is another front yard nonconformity. We already have one. Remember, we already have the garage that's 32.76 from the center line of the road with the prop addition of the proposed workshop that will be within that same front yard too, but not quite as close. we're showing it here on as 43.46 ft from the center line and it's required to be 50 feet. So, although it's still in the front yard like the existing garage is, it's further back than the existing garage, then we're at 43.46 ft. I know that there was a note in a comment in your zoning agent's memo about can that be moved to a more conforming location, at least maybe
pushed back to meet the 50 ft. I believe we can accommodate that. So if the the reason we put it here is again it's directly adjacent to the paved patio. But if you felt more comfortable with us pushing it back to the 50 ft from center line I believe we can as a condition of approval if you see fit revise the plan accordingly to make that happen. Excuse me. Just for the record Mark a question for you. If that happens, will it will it encroach on the set back to Andover Lake or
No, it's outside of the setback to Andover Lake because the Andover Lake setback the rear is 75. I I don't think we would be within the 75t rear yard setback.
Andrew, can you confirm that for me?
I thank you.
Yeah, I think we're still far enough away. so so again, so that's the front yard. Now, the rear yard setback with the lot merger and the proposal in front of you. Again, we're not changing the existing house at 47, which is 9.64 ft from the lake. We're not changing that. That stays the same. That's that's blessed, if you will, under your, you know, current regulations to stay exactly how it is. Now, the addition, I said, is going to be an addition. It is within the Andover Lake setback. but it's further away than the existing houses at 47. So, it's more conforming. and it's going to be pushed to 36.45 ft back from the lake. let's see. The sideyard. We're going to be getting rid of one sideyard violation because remember I mentioned the house at 47 presently violates the sideyard to 45. But when we merge those two lots, that goes away. But we will still And by the way, the sideyard violation on 45 where the existing house is, that goes away because that house is coming down. There will still be a sideyard encroachment for the proposed workshop. That is going to be 14 just under 15 ft
from the sideyard. 14.94 ft based on this point. Okay. And it is further from the sideyard than the house at 45 that's going to be coming down. that was only 12.41 ft. So this is further away this. So we've got an increased sideyard setbackard than what was previously on this parcel. Okay. and the coverage is going to be slightly reduced. Not a ton, but slightly reduced. it's going from 25.24 down to 25.14. Okay. So there's a slight reduction in coverage too. So I I I I don't want to belabor it, but the reason I'm going through all the reduction in nonconformities is because that's the basis that we're asking you to grant this variance on. Again, not your traditional hardship. We are saying because of the reduction in nonconformities and in one case a complete elimination of non-conformity. We're we're completely eliminating the lot with nonconformity and I guess if you say we're completely eliminating some nonconformities with regard to 45 because now all that's being subsumed into 47 that is our basis for requesting this variance and I think that there's
extensive case law that gives you discretion to review those reductions and use that as a basis for a decision. Now I will tell you the case law also says any reduction in nonconformities can support a variance. You don't have to demonstrate that it's the most reduction you could possibly achieve. I mean you know so any reduction in of nonconformities is enough. So we don't have to be looking at like well what are the other alternatives? Can you reduce it more? Can you move it a little bit more? Can you can you shrink the coverage a little bit more? that's not where the cases go. They say if we're reducing it, that that's a that's a basis right there. and the last thing I want to touch on is and this was there's a new memo from your zoning agent dated today and and he says he also wants you to consider whether whether the addition constitutes an increase in the existing nonconformity with regard to the dwelling at 37. and he cites the section 4.1.4 of your regulations that talks about if a structure is nonconforming with respect to setbacks it can't be enlarged or expanded in a way such to increase the size or volume of the nonconformity. that is again that's a section of your regulations we're asking for a variance from. We're asking for a variance of two things. that section increasing a nonconformity, but we're also asking for a variance of of your setbacks, your your general setbacks because all based on this reduction or elimination of
nonconformities. There's one case in specific I want to just reference to you and it's a fairly new case. It came out in July of 2024 and I've lectured on it and since the materials that I use for my lectures. It's called Bernstein vers West VBA and it's kind of on point to Wayne's most recent comment. in that case I can hold on.
Sorry.
That's fine. that stuff. In that case, a variance was upheld where an existing sideyard nonconformity was reduced. So, here we're talking about, so we had a sideard sideyard non-conformity. What they wanted to do in that case was do an addition. They were expanding the structure within the sideyard, but no closer to the actual lot line. Okay? So, so let's say the setback was they let's say they were 10 ft from the lot line. They were expanding within the setback, but no closer than what had already existed to the lot line. Kind of what I'm talking about here. And the court evaluated strictly the distance between the structure and the side property line rather than the volume of the overall structure within that area. So again and the concept of an addition being added. So so the volume of intrusion if you will in the setback increased but the
overall setback didn't increase and the court held there that even though the volume of the structure in the area would increase from what it had been the overall distance to the side property line was being reduced. Again your reduction in nonconformity and there they upheld the granting of the variance. again that was out of Westbrook in 2024. so so I I think there's extensive case law to support what we're asking of you. and I'm hoping that I've presented all of that in in an understandable manner. If you have any questions regarding the improvements, uses of it, locations of it, the law, please feel free to ask me and we can obtain those now,
Mr. Oh, sorry. Go ahead,
okay, I have some questions.
I just had one thing. Riser finished her presentation. Would you also discuss with the board the harmony requirement? It's an element of variances
in harmony with the comprehensive plan. Yes, I will. So, so, so variances, as your town attorney is talking about, variances are typically you would need a hardship and you would also need to prove that they're in harmony with the overall comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan is isn't your plan of conservation and development. It's what's the layout? What's the pattern of development that's happening in the surrounding area? and again, we're away from hardship now. we're talking about reduction and non-conformities, but the element of of conformity with your comprehensive plan is still it's still something to be considered. So, you want to look at what's happening here as it relates to what the development is like in the surrounding area. Okay. What are the other properties in the surrounding area look like? Well, we know most of the properties are undersized, right? This
is up in Andover Lake. most of them are under size and non-conforming with regard to size. That probably also then is non-conforming with regard to lot width. That's also probably non-conforming with regard to lake setbacks, maybe front road set, you know, from the center line of the road and sideyard setbacks. I can't tell you what all of the exact setback non-conformities might be on the surrounding property, but I bet you see them often. I bet you see people coming in here often to talk about them. And I'm sure there's been a number of variances that have been granted or existing non-conformities that exist in the Andover Lake area. And based on that and and and how this property works itself into the overall pattern of development up at the lake, we don't think there's anything that that's being done here that is out of keeping with what's happening up at the lake. So based on that I think you can find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's consistent with the pattern of development you see out there.
Did that fairly answer your question?
so I'm not a lawyer. I had a little, you know, the required to in this position, but I have a case that states holding under applicable zoning regulations proposed expansion of second floor of non-conforming house on non-conforming law, expansion of second floor was not permitted even though setbacks would be more conforming. So the fact that reducing setbacks I don't think gives you a blank slate.
Can you tell me the name of that case because I think I think I know it. I just want to make sure
versus zoning board of appeals 291.
I'm sorry. Which one was the first name?
Loom.
That sounds familiar to me. I think that case and Mark, attorney France, correct me if I'm wrong. I think that case when it talked about even though it was a reduction, it wasn't less offensive. And that's really there's a couple of interesting cases that came out about that as to is this really less offensive. It's a I think that's a superior court case. and there are a couple of superior court cases and I say that because it's not binding precedent. But I say that because there's a couple superior court cases where they said you know is it really less offensive to have this second story or to have the setback where it was? And if if I'm thinking of the right case, I think there were some neighbors who were complaining in that case who didn't like the second story because they said it created a direct line of sight into their bedrooms and they said they felt that was an intrusion. so that's Do you remember this case?
I I for the record, Mark Brands, I remember that case, but I don't think it's this one. And let me But let me back up. You read it kind of fast. It was talking about a second floor.
It was, but I but I'm just the general principle. I'm just a layman, but to me, the general principle
you know, the fact that they were reducing setbacks didn't allow them to, you know, override maybe like our section 42. Let me just conf the an increase a vertical increase in some towns a vertical increase within the required setback in some towns is an expansion of the nonconformity other it is it depends on your local regulation but the I would say that this comes into the harmony requirement right I mean they're proposing a workshop with a it's not a full second floor but a second floor you can certainly consider Sure. Sorry.
In addition,
the addition of the workshop.
No, I was talking about the workshop. Okay. The the workshop has a stairway. It appears to have a second floor of some kind. Okay. That's something you can consider in determining whether the the total variance is commensurate with the reduction in nonconformity. But a variance by its by its nature is something that allows something prohibited by the zoning regulations. So whether they're going out or up, they still need a variance if that helps. Yeah. Well, so I feel like I mean you know our committee will discuss it and come to a decision but as far as like the addition on the house which is increasing the space of existing nonconformity which is you know our regulations say is prohibited without but I feel like we should have what is the unique hardship that is the addition
Yeah,
they're they're not I mean Triny Raj is correct that this reduction in nonconformity is a valid basis for a variance even without hardship. And the book you're reading from discusses the Yosson case. I I know it's there because
well could be but there you know and do my job.
Yeah. But but but but in terms of the the total volume of building that they're proposing as compared to what they're eliminating, that is something you are allowed to consider in reviewing this variance. That's that is proper I
but they don't have to show hardship or that's not the basis of their application and they're allowed to do that. And and that's the reason I had mentioned that relatively new Bernstein case because that was a very onpoint specific case that held even though the volume of the structure is increasing within the setback. If the setback itself is not increasing and if it's being diminished then the court upheld the granting of a variance in that case. So, so that's just something for you to consider as well.
Okay. So, I will present to So, I I just feel like you're reducing and I agree it's great to reduce the nonconformities, but then you're adding a non Well, you said maybe you would push back the workshop so we don't add that nonconformity to that lot, right? because you're trading you're you're reducing some of the sideyard nonconformities, but then the shed is too close to the road. And then we're extending the lakeside nonconformity even though it's less than the original house, but it's new. So, you're creating more nonconformity there. So, when when does it become a wash? I I don't know. Well, and I would say
that's a legitimate part you'd ask.
Yeah, I think so, too. But I would say it's it's a wash with regard to coverage because we're really we're minutely decreasing the coverage from where the existing is. But I want you to keep in mind that with regard to the lake, so the existing house which can is protected is staying is 9.64. The house that's coming down is 42.55 ft. That's that's within the lake setback, the 75 ft lake setback. And that's a whole house structure that's coming down. We are proposing to add the addition in which is actually slightly smaller in footprint than the structure that's coming down and that's going to be 36.45 ft. So it's we're stepping back, right? We're stepping back from the closest point. Not quite as far back as the house that's coming down. We are replacing the house that's coming down with the addition, but we are still significantly further back. And I think
footprint-wise, the existing house that's coming down is 13 just over 1300 square foot. And the footprint of the existing addition is is 1180 square ft.
And how big is the what's the square footage of the workshop?
The square footage of the workshop is 300 832 square ft. And again, if need be, we can push that and slightly realign it so that it's you know, beyond the 50 foot setback. We we put it there so not to have to extend any pvious or impervious driveway extending further to it. It's just directly, you know, kitty corner and adjacent to the existing driveway. specific.
Sure.
Hi, I'm very new here. also not an attorney.
was just wondering the Jane Austin case.
it it it appears that the court upheld it because it
had an overall reduction of nonconformity. So like there must have been like a scorecard kind of type deal. So I think that's what I'm sorry. I think that might be what you're touching on is like it's like how how can we score
the the overall reduction of nonconformity versus what is being also then replaced with new nonconformity
and that's what I tried to lay out for you with the summary of non-conforming to show you the situations where you know I I clearly know this is being eliminated with the lot. There's one, two, three, four, five, five non-conformities being eliminated with the lot merger because they all relate to the house at 45 and that lot. and then when I did the combined parcels and I took you through, okay, the lot area is more conforming. The lot width now is totally conforming. And then the the front yard is more conforming than the existing garage at 47. The rear yard is more conforming than the existing house at 47. And the sideyard is more conforming. The sideyard for the the shed, the woodshed is more conforming than the house that's being taken down. So that's further back than what's existing, you know, condition right now. So I I I tried to lay it out kind of as a scorecard. So you could balance it all out and say, you know, as long as we're not creating nonconformities that didn't exist, which I don't believe we are because so many nonconformities existed, right? Then it's something for you to evaluate. And and and I do want to to remind you the cases we say it's not eliminate them to the greatest extent you possibly can or reduce them to the greatest extent you probably can possibly can. There is a basis in law
that as long as they are being net reduced that is sufficient basis for under under the Adolfson line of cases or adults I'm sorry if I'm pronouncing it wrong for granting the variance. So, does that argue that any decrease in nonconformity, regardless of how it's balanced with an increase in nonconformity, removes the necessity of the hardship argument,
any decrease in non in in an elimination or reduction in nonconformities, yes, eliminates the hardship
requirement. So then, okay, that seems that seems to indicate that we're out of business then because it seems like anyone could a little tweak onto their house and say, "Well,
you know,
if you have an existing non-conforming situation, you don't always, right? I mean, yeah, I'm here to certain."
Yeah. So, that that's the whole point of that argument. seems like it almost invalidates the purpose of even having of even trying to rule on zoning variances on the lake because
let me clarify one thing for you. there if you're creating a nonconformity that didn't previously exist,
that's a problem. You can't be creating all these new nonformities and there's some cases that talk about that. But I don't believe we're creating a non new nonconformities here because again we already have a front yard non-conformity. We already have a sideyard non-conformity. We already have a rear yard non-conformity. It's not like let's say this was completely compliant with regard to rear yard and like said back before and now all of a sudden we're you know we've reduced to other non-conformities but now we're encroaching in the rear yard. We we're not creating a brand new nonconformity. So so that's a little differentiation also. That still gives you some control there to make sure people don't try and come in and get creative. Say, "Oh, well, we're doing better here, but now we're totally creating all these other problems." again, you've got to look at the big picture and overall what exists for non-conformities. Make sure you're not creating a new con non-conformity and are you making those existing nonconformities better? I I would argue that if you treat both lots as separate you are create with the proposed workshop you're creating a new non-conformity
with regard to the set well currently the setback from the center line but also the sideyard neighbor at 43
well and I would just counter by saying there is an existing sideyard nonconformity with regard to the house that's there right now and this is further back
new structure Well, it's just whether
because you said you you said new structure.
Yeah. You Yeah. However, if you had this house and I wanted to take down the house and rebuild a house, I could do it up to that sideyard still. I I could still build up to the existing encroachment and that footprint. So So just because I'm building a woodshed in a house further back, I don't think that really changes anything. I I I can I can hear your point with regard to the front yard on 45 itself. There's no front yard setback right now. That's a non-conformity. But again, we can fix that. We can move that out. but the sideyard setback right now that's protected and grandfathered is what is that? bear with me please.
Well, the shop is 14.94, but I don't see the
house itself is
12 something. Yeah. 12.41 41 ft off. So, so we're further back than the existing sideyguy guard non-conformity that's protected and you know we have a vested right in maintaining if we want it. So by how much so and I know you went through this and I discount the the proposed addition on 247
how much does that encroach into any any set of racks
that the only setback it encroaches into is the rear yard setback and then that's a 75 ft setback from the lake and the closest point the closest corner of this of the of the addition is 36.45 ft and it's kind of on an angle. So the furthest point is 49.47 ft.
So it's supposed to be So it's supposed to be 75 and asking for roughly 50
between 36 and 50 whereas again the existing house which is protected.
Right. So the addition so we're talking about the the adding nonconformities.
Right. Right.
So that's Yep. So it varies between 36 and 50.
So how would this play out if there was no addition and no garage that no new building? How would that play out in terms of
well my client wouldn't be merging the two lots and losing a rental income to not have that? they would they would just say status quo then and you'd have two existing non-conforming lots that are vastly undersized and vastly non-conforming more so than this plan proposes. I mean, I I do believe with all sincerity going from the current condition with two houses on small lots and the existing setback encroachments to one house a bit bigger now. but with the associated setback encroachments, it's it's an overall more conforming lot. You're further from the required property lines. I think it's a better plan. It's a It's definitely This one lot is definitely more conforming than the two separate standalone lots as they are today. I have a question. I'm trying to wrap my head around this. This is my first time here. in the if the plan is built out as proposed, there'll be the house
with an addition an existing garage
with one corner closer to the road than probably is generally allowed. Correct.
The existing garage. Yeah, that's saying the same. That's correct.
And the proposed shop
is a little further back from the road, but that would remain. And the only thing that will come out of this is the entire house on the second lot. Correct.
Yes. The house on the second lot would come out.
So in the end there would be three buildings on the double lot.
Three buildings. And right now you have three buildings on the on two lots. So So same amount of structures.
Yeah.
Okay.
So it's Yeah, it's the same number of structures. Yeah.
And and one more thing that I could I would like to add with all of these proposed changes, we will now actually be also having a code compliant septic system. The health department's been involved and we don't have that now, right? so so right now with all these changes where there there's going to be a significant improvement to the health code compliance issue as as well,
right? That's a great thing, but that's not in our purview.
No, it's not. But when you when you know it's a benefit goes into the overall evaluation is is what you've got status quo with the two separate lots now better than what this proposal is. Does this become a better fit for the lake and more compliant with your regulations? I think it's something to be you know
factored in.
Yeah. so my one of my concerns is just with the the size of the structure. So if we look at square footage on the lot
which plays into say pollution in the lake and things like that, we're talking about adding on 674 square ft of
impervious coverage.
I'm sorry. How much did you say?
674. So you have the the existing the house that's slated to be torn down.
Man, someone might want to check on that.
I think it's about 2,000 square feet.
Well, from what I read
between the shop and the addition. So the existing 47 is listed at
21 07 2,17 ft.
So I have that as 1338.
Okay.
What else?
Says the existing house 47 Lakeside.
Oh, that's that's 45 40. Yes. Sorry. 45.
It's going to be torn down.
Y.
So that's 1338
according to this. Okay. And then we're talking So that's removing improper coverage. M and then we're talking adding on 832 for the workshop
and 1180 for the addition.
So that gives us a minus of 1338 and a positive of 2012.
Right.
So that's an overall increase in impervious surfaces.
But we there's actually some removal of driveway, walkway, and other impervious areas. So that's how we were able to get to the overall overall reduction in coverage. Andrew, you want to just take them through what else is coming out for impervious?
Right. So, so the I'm Andrew Bushnell with Bushnell Associates. the paved driveway is currently there now 45 is going to be taken out and replaced with perable pavers.
Okay.
And then there's that brick walkway from the 45 to the existing driveway that's going to be eliminated. that was even though it's brick constructed as impervious brick surface. So okay that's impervious. So that's that's being taken away. and I think those two if you had those in I think that would balance it out there slight decrease.
So what is your your calculation for the impervious surface with that? Well, so you're going to take another 420 off for the driveway and the walkway is 262.
Okay. So, you're talking an increase of 262. No, no, you take taking off 262 a reduction of 262 square feet of impervious area for that walkway
and then a reduction of 420 ft of impervious because of the change in the paved driveway to imperous I mean to pave.
Okay,
so that's that's another 682 square ft of impervious area. There must be more though because we are going from Oh, maybe it's just a factor of the size. I was gonna say because we're going from 25.24 back to 25.14, but we also've got a larger lot size. So, I take that.
Strike that.
Yeah.
I will say with the with the septic too, you're actually creating less sewage going from one house, two houses to one house.
Okay. So, do we have some reassurance if this goes forward that that say that permeable driveway and walkway will remain in perpetuity or you know could could someone say well I don't like this stuff I'm just going to pave it and therefore will be
well it's a condition of approval if it's shown on the approved plan and and and the the variance is tied to the approved plan if it were to be changed in the future it would be a violation so there would be zoning enforcement action
okay because I don't think it's within the town zoning laws right now for I know in some coastal areas they have they require impervious driveway for new construction and stuff.
No, there's no required
but later on
should the board approve the variance then within as far as the zoning permit process we have to go through the nutrient allocation plan and stuff like that.
okay.
But that that's not for the way I understand it, that's that's that's not for this body to
that's part of the zoning permit approval.
Zoning permit approval.
Mr. Chairman, I may rec the new workshop I seen it has a bathroom on the for on the floor plan. I assume it's going to be tied into the septic system. it it will be tied into the septic system, but we've just been advised by the health department that they won't allow us to have a full bathroom there. So, that was probably going to end up having to be changed to just being a slap sink.
Right. And what is the There's no floor plan for the second floor.
Oh, I you know what? We hadn't planned this out yet. the Can I just hand out real quick? These are full size floor plans for weaving again the reduced size. easier to go there and then these are the floor plans and writings of both the audition and the workshop. If you go to the last page, that'll that'll give you the outline for the workshop. I believe
the workshop at the very end look to that.
So you don't want to spend that time. What's that?
You want to explain to them the before we get into that, can can we just give Steve a couple minutes to just walk everyone through what the floor plans look like? Do you want to do that?
You want to start or
I I can if you like.
Yeah. I mean, go ahead. You're on a roll. Okay.
All right. So, the workshop we're at the last page of the floor plan so you can see what it looks like from the outside, the west elevation, the east elevation, north and south. The first floor is going to be really open. It's going to be for boat storage and that's going to be all the workshop area. Okay. You see where it shows a bath now? That will likely have to change based on health department approval. We're hoping to be able to at least keep a slap sink in there. I'm about to wash your hands. You know, you get dirty and you're working with a woman.
This the second floor when you go up the stairs, you can see the layout here is bigger room proposed to be primarily Oh, sorry.
No question. We're just trying to get on the right page here.
Okay, hang on. Because the tape will not pick up two people at works.
We are on B-1.0.
There you go. Okay.
Sorry.
Right. Tell me when you're there and then Okay.
So, the second floor, you can see, is a big open room, and that's really just going to be laid out as a as an exercise room. so it's it's kind of just open area now and and I know there's some sensitivity as to, you know, having whether it's an ADU or an unpermitted VBO kind of place, short-term rental there. if my client wanted to rent this out, we wouldn't be knocking down the rental property we had right now. We have no intentions of using this as a dwelling unit. it's really storage. It's personal hobby and workshop space. again, if he wanted to continue to be renting out a lakeside property, he would leave things the way things are and keep the house because he does have a full house on 45 right now for that. So,
well, is that another thing that if this goes forward would be inconspounced into the zoning on the property? Sorry.
So if this goes forward, would that be written into the property rules that say this
you would make that a condition of your
turn into unit
conditions.
Okay.
Again, tie it to your approval specifically to this plan which doesn't show any dwelling space in there.
And and the draft motion Mr. cast and I worked on this afternoon already has some language of that kind, but we can amplify that if you if that's the direction to go.
I don't know if you're at all interested in seeing the floor plans for the renderings of the addition. We have those. We can take you through them as well. They're in this packet, too.
so we can we go over the the bathroom in in workshop.
All right. So you you said that Eastern Highlands Health District wasn't going to permit the connection to the septic.
Well, yeah, they won't permit the connection because it needs to count as flow for another bedroom and they can't make the septic any bigger. So it's not that they won't permit it, it's that they can't because we can't show a bigger
but it will connect. Correct. Well, what we'd like the proposal now would be to just connect a slap sink and not have a toilet
and see where that where that goes. Just have to have a sink in there, but no toilet.
But you don't know that that's going to be allowed either.
Not 100%. No.
So, we will have to obviously modify the interior sanitary facilities to comply with whatever the health court ultimately will allow us to do. I don't expect that to change though the location of the improvements on the property. So we don't think it would necessarily impact the variance application before the poor.
Okay. Any other questions? would you like me to take you through this for the edition?
Jeff Bor was on the Four Lake Road. I'm very familiar with Steve's property and and the buildings on it. And I'm very fortunate to have a double lot on 174 Lake Road. And my question for for steam war the designers is why you know how fortunate did I other than my garage which I had to get very small for which is the same size as your your workshop to try and get it into the center of the property and and move the the proposed shop to the to the rear of the existing garage or closer to the center of the property and offset the addition towards the existing garage to increase the setback from the lake.
Yeah, grading issues.
Excuse me.
Grading issues there. You want to know that break on that?
I think I think Jeff the question you're saying is why not pull the addition further up towards the road.
Yeah. and and move the and move the the proposed workshop away from the road and away from the the the side variance to the right and put it more towards the garage.
So, we already communicated that it is an option to move it to the 50 foot center line in regard to the sideyard. when you look at the we call it the functionality, aesthetics, etc. all of that location to the existing cutaway for the driveway even though we will be replacing that with permeable papers of some kind. it just makes the most sense there and it should be within our ability or right to do so because again it is less informing or should I say more informing than the current condition
and that's Mr. Rockefeller speaking.
Yes. Yeah. Sorry. also, you know, for utility lines going to the shed, we kind of want them to line up as close as possible with the existing util utility lines that go to the house. So, if we significantly move the location of that shed, we'll probably have to be doing some some more disturbance in order to reroute those lines. I think we talked about that at one point, didn't we? So, ideally, you know, again, pushing it so it's 50 foot back, we that's that's an easier accommodation than moving it completely out of the sideyard. as I mentioned, the house itself is closer to the property line. We have a vested right to maintain that. and what we'd like to do is just swap it out. Swap out the house for this shed and make it more conforming. push it back a bit, you know, but but moving it too far into the interior of the property and closer to the existing garage makes a disconnect in the driveway.
The shop. The woodshed. I'm sorry. I call it the w wood shop. The shop.
Okay.
Sorry. Yes. The shop is what I'm referring to.
I'm looking for a shed and I don't see a shop.
Yeah.
Because the shop have those exercise
upstairs. Yep. The Yep. The workshop has the exercise on the second floor.
Yeah.
But Wayne, can we ask you some questions?
Right answer.
So the workshop is not being called a dwelling. I don't know what the definition of a dwelling is. And if it has a bathroom, I don't know what makes it a dwelling. Somebody has to
have to have a purchase in as well. so there'll be three bedrooms on one combined lot, but only one that
I understand. Yes.
Okay. And so you can have two stories in your dwelling. And so is there any height restrictions to what we're doing with the workshop?
25 ft. Do you think the height reduction the height active height in the end? 22.
Yeah. 229.
25 ft. and we are so I'm trying to remember the numbers before but in terms of allowable lot coverage so where did this listed in that if it was not
he maximum lot coverage in the zone is 12%. The current coverage on the two lots combined is 25.47%. 47% and the proposed on the two lots combined is 25.14%. So like one zero% less
this is this is way I would say the 26 square feet difference correct
which is less than a
from existing to proposed
and within the margin of error
ight
hank you
okay I just have a I This is for one of the attorneys my my according to the interpretation of the ops and which I haven't any of us heard of that that case before any increase in nonconformity regardless of how it's balanced by any increase in nonconformity means that there is no consideration of hardship. Is that is that
is correct. All right. But what I want to what I want but I I don't want to influence the board's decision. It's not my place. Right. But a reduction in nonconformity as Riser has said is grounds the granting of a variance. Doesn't mean you have to grant the variance. You still have the harmony requirement. Do you think that on balance the reduction in nonconformity is a a public benefit sufficient to support whatever increase they're proposing? That's within your judgment. But so so attorney Riser is absolutely correct. A reduction of informity is a legal ground upon which you may grant a variance without any hardship. And it doesn't mean you have to. you're allowed to look at the plan and see whether you Attorney Riser's argument is that the the reduced coverage the the elimination of house that these are all cumulative benefits that justify what they're proposing balanced by the reduction but that's that's that's the decision for you to make
just just to clarify you said any reduction I I think the way Adoffson put it was an overall reduction if you like weight it like a sport type. That was my question earlier. It if it it made it seem at least that the decision was predicated on the fact that there was an overall reduction of nonconformity
and that's what that's what the applicant is saying. They're saying that we're reducing overall nonconformity in a number of different respects. That's their that's their position and that's that's your goal. So, does this mean that the CDA is no longer allowed to rule based on hardship? Because there's no hardship.
That's still a valid basis.
So, could this board, for example, say no hardship, therefore,
that's not the base they're claiming though.
The basis on some other on some other application, they may be basing it on hardship. These applicants aren't. So up till now because we read the state statutes that are yes we we base our rulings on unique hardship to that property and that's what we've always based our rulings on before and now we have someone coming and saying well there's this case that says that that
and I'm so pleased that that
's a problem
and I'm so pleased your town attorney is here because I do run into this issue and and lots of boards struggle with it because it's drilled into your head. You can't grant a variance unless you find a hardship. And you're right. That's what the statute. That's what the statute says. But there is a line of cases, a well-developed line of case laws. It's not based in statute. It's based on case law. And I guess peripherally the statutes and law on non-conforming uses, but it it's not specifically in the statutes, but it's it's presidential case law. It's superior court cases. It's appellet court cases. the Supreme Court cases that have said you do not need to make any showing of hardship if you are demonstrating a reduction or elimination in nonconformities whether that be use setbacks coverage what have you. So my my question is if it's as well established as your claim is why hasn't it made it into statutes tend to have this is so and then a list of exceptions. Yeah.
And so why hasn't this been that list of exceptions
because it it seems very difficult for us to make a decision.
We've always made a decision. Now you come in saying that we're not familiar with that until just now.
Yeah. And you know, we're expected to make a ruling based on something that we're just learning about tonight. That that's a problem. It it is up to the American markets. The bars the planning and zoning section of the bar association of which attorney Riser and I are both members actually drafted new legislation for the general assembly that we have submitted several years running now
that would address not only this issue but several others. For example, in floodprone areas.
you have to elevate a building.
And yet there have been cases that said that's not hardship. Well, if it's in a plugprone area and you've got to elevate it, that seems like it ought to be, but the courts have said it isn't. also Americans with Disabilities Act is not addressed in statutes. That is a that is a ground for variances that is not in statute and yet it's in the Americans with Disabilities Act state and federal. So we have tried to produce new legislation that would fix all of this and so far the general assembly simply hasn't adopted it. so I read that one of the reasons I know you wanted me here is because this is new and it's not the statute but it is in fact a ground upon which you may grant a variance. The reduction in the nonconformity is by itself without hardship a ground for for on which you may grant a variance. And I'm not I didn't say you have to, but you may. You have the authority, you have the jurisdiction, you have the discretion to look at this and say, is this on balance a benefit to the community, to the neighborhood, to the law, etc.
Okay.
Is that is that a fair statement?
Okay. So, my my can I finish my line of thinking and then I'll I'll shut so do we also have the discretion to say, "Sorry, we don't see a hardship. We're going to deny it." Is that
have we lost that discretion as a result
on this particular case? I would say
only on this case because they're not basing their application on hardship.
Okay, because we've had something before where people didn't make hardship, right? We could say you didn't make hardship.
Sorry.
Here they're saying we're not making hardship argument because we don't have to.
Correct.
Okay.
And they're right. for the town attorney. Do you have examples of case law where someone applied for variance in the same type of situation not for hardship and it was denied by a zoning board and the court upheld the zoning board rule on denying that because on on a quick search for cases precedent would indicate joining can't do anything. You know, it's like, okay, there's a non non nonconformity reduction. So, courts are going to uphold, you know, if if there if it went to a a like a a trial from like Rockefeller, the court would uphold and approve the variances essentially like overrule the zoning board denying
the variances. Let me put it
this way.
If you decide that you feel the reductions in nonconformity justify what is being proposed here and you grant the variance and a neighbor appeals, I am confident that I can win on appeal. If you deny it because you conclude that the decrease in nonconformities is not sufficient to justify what is shown here, I am confident that I can win that appeal. the board, a court is going to uphold your discretion. The only way a court is not going to uphold you is if you say there's no hardship because they're not basing their application on hardship,
right?
All right. That's the
I don't Yeah.
Okay. That's I think what I was grasling with people.
And I I listen this in maybe 40 years. I've never lost for you. Okay.
I tend to start now.
Well, here's here's the problem with my line of thinking. find both sides but probably more but but I have seen in our little
I didn't think that it was
where they allow the variance based on the reduction in the nonconformities but I think there are cases where they didn't necessarily move it because of that but I think there's a lot where they did
yes
o it's kind of
a little bit of common sense and looking at the whole picture and seeing if you feel like you know it's worth it.
Yeah. I just didn't like I'm very new here. So
yeah, why don't you ask?
Well, and this way of looking at it is new regardless of how long you've been,
right? This this is a new this is a new thing,
right? Anyway,
and I'm glad to be here, though.
There's no doubt in my mind that what they're proposing is going to be an asset to the visual look of that lake property. Why? because it's not terribly attractive in the current the way it's been developed. Removing this second house and then you'll see just these small work shop. No, the these are smaller than the house. That's what I'm leading up to. Okay. You're going to have a view about here and around this way of a lot more of the lake. And for anybody looking at it, it's going to look like a very attractive lake.
Are you sure not to get into deliberations yet public hearing?
Yeah, that's my addressical approach.
We should be addressing the applicant. No. And
all right. That'll come. Okay.
And there is there is u and somebody up here on on Zoom. I don't know who want to make sure.
Who is that?
That's Pete George in our neighbor.
Oh, okay. Okay. So, he he's
our neighbor.
Okay.
He's across the street from us.
Does he Does he wish to address the board?
Well, yes, we can certainly say he wants
Yes.
Is this a good time?
Yeah.
Okay. Hi, my name is Pete Turjan. As Kimberly said, I've lived across the street from the Rockefellers for 35 years and u they are outstanding neighbors, not just because they're wonderful people, but because everything they have done with their property over the 35 years has been a positive impact to not just the lake, but to our our street. So, anything that anything that they have done in the past, including this right now, they've always talked to their neighbors about first. Steve was over on at my property making sure that whatever they were proposing would not impact my view negatively of the lake. U, I mean, they are very sensitive to maintaining the character and beauty of this area. That's why they've lived here for 35 years. And I know they won't say it's a hardship, but I mean they have a growing family and the house that they live in does not support the family that they're in right that they have right now. And that's the need for the addition. And I'd hate to lose them as neighbors and I think this town would suffer a loss if they were to have to leave just because
they can't support their family within the confines of the house that they've lived in for more than 35 years. So that's my two cents. Thanks. Hi, I'm Kathleen Barrett. I'm also a a neighbor of the Rockefellers. I live directly across the street right next door to the urgent. and I
Are you a board member? A member of the board?
No, I'm a member of the member of the community.
I know it's confusing at the table. It's hard for me to tell who's who. I came tonight to say exactly what Pete said, and that is that the Rockefellers have been wonderful neighbors. Their property is meticulously maintained and beautifully maintained and they've always exhibited real care for their neighbors and for the appearance of their property. And so I know you have a lot to think about as you make the decision, but I hope that you'll consider that as well. Be glad to see them move forward as soon. So thank you for that. May I speak? I'm Wendy Baylor. I'm also a neighbor of the Rockefellers and I'm totally fine with what they want to do. I appreciate what they informed me about it having the opportunity. I didn't know there was so much to, you know, to do what? And, I hope they get to do what they want. I think they deserve to. So for the neighbors, you you guys are not concerned that if
the workshop is closer to the road that it will I was thinking it might block your view of the lake if you across the street a little bit. But I mean if you're okay with that, right? Cuz right I I live by it is a beautiful property. I agree. The little house is nice too that you bought you know that property looks pretty nice too and that house is way down the front right now. So now the building will be closer to the low. You guys have any concerns?
You know, I value my neighbors and I'll be able to I'll be able to continue to see even if it blocks my view a little. I'll be able to see over and elevate them. So thank you for asking.
I I also this is Pete Turjent again. I also echo what Kathleen said and any difference you is more than offset by keeping them here. So,
and I'm right on the lake, so I don't
Yeah.
Are you Are you on the facing the lake? Are you on the right side of them or the
You're facing their house. I'm on the left. I'm 75. I just have a clarifying question for the attorneys since I want to make sure that we're doing what we're supposed to do here. so we are deliberating not based on hardship,
but whether we think that on balance the the increases and decreases in nonconformity and lease square footage and all that stuff are positive and we would grant that back. Is that essentially what
hat is? Exactly right.
Okay. So, we have the discretion to say yes or to say no. And but it's just there
and you could also condition or modify too. I mean, Attorney Riser said if you want the the shop set back 50 to 50 foot, they can do that.
they were trying to keep it farther from the lake, I think is what you said.
Yes, we'd like it as far from the lake and as close to the existing driveway as possible. But but there that's that's a commission they've offered and you may there may be others that you're thinking of. I don't know what they would be, but Okay.
Yeah.
I really don't have anything else to propose or to offer. If you have further questions, happy to answer them. we do think that and in the big global picture, the consolidation of these two smaller properties, separate houses and and all the amenities that go with it. We do think that this is more in keeping to consolidate them into one. It it's a a net more conforming situation. We believe ultimately again it's it's for you to decide does it fit in overall with the surrounding development in the area and we propose it does. We hope you'll agree. We, you know, we're glad to have the support of our neighbors in this. and, you know, having one slightly larger house for his family rather than two separate homes is is just more desirable for him. Makes sense at this point and is the the whole reason behind this consolidation.
Yes. No further comments need to be heard.
Thank you. Okay.
With the new house being better, will the septic be better?
Yes. We have to work with health department in order to have now a code compliant septic system.
So they'll and and I think the the Andrew our ser our engineer also said that there'll be less sewage going in now because you have just the one house versus two. Correct. So there will be two so two existing septic systems will be removed and then one will be put in and according to modern modern standard correct
so are they going to because remove the old septic systems and what the associated soil goes with that is that what goes along with that
remove the tanks and then whatever there are for le structures you know for structures if it's just stone I leave it
okay if there's like a eyes out or something or or fill it in. Pump it out and just fill it.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Typically, you pump it out and just crush the tank.
Yeah. If most of the time, but so the old ones will be both be removed. We're not going to call them. Okay. Any else have anything to say before we move on to our next phase? hearing.
Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you for the hearing. So close the public hearing. Yeah. Close this part. It says continue. Continue public hearing. Close your work. Okay. So close to the public hearing. Continue on to the next phase. Regular meet.
Yeah.
Mark, did you find out about that meeting?
No.
I don't know why I'm not getting the notices. I can tell you our system for a while is blocking any
group showing sex.
Yeah. Right. I'm so glad you're here. It's discussing element now here
Yeah,
I got a call. present as a reason. That's true. Yeah. how you would fold? Hold it like that.
That too, but I have that. right. So, let's do our our call to order. So, we have our new members. We have our some new members. and so, I guess we welcome and what order should I do this in? So, our new fulltime are Michael Greenhouse. Okay. And to Julia. So, welcome. and Jefferson the elected alterate. Okay. I think has been with us for a while you alternative has been with us for a while been with us for a few months now and what we need to do chair has stepped out. He's going to stay with the third but some
what do we need to do?
Seat seat see the
seat members see the members.
Okay. So we seat our new members Julia and Michael. Okay. and we need to see one alternative out of our two. Is that is that correct?
Correct. So you need five.
Okay. so do we need to make a motion to do that or how do we
the chairman? You can just designate who is the the voting the voting al whoever is not the voting voting alderman can't speak.
Okay. I'd prefer to have June because she's been with us and you know you'll have another another chance at but because of June's experience I thought it would be good to see her. Okay. And we
and then we do have this gentleman.
He's a full time.
Yes. I'm fulltime.
Yes. So we seat you and Mike and we'll see Jeff but not for tonight I guess. I don't know how we how we work how we word that but we welcome you anyway. So for the record the members fulltime members are
Julia
H E R
and Michael Green Oliver John Ross alternate seated
right
Kathleen.
Very good. so we did need to elect officers here. I'm not sure how. So because Bill is stepping down and your wife this is the first meeting after the election. So you need to you need to the chair and a vice chair.
Okay. So
kay
now leave it up to you. You're
I'd like to make a motion that we elect Oliver chair. Second. Okay. Okay, put a second that
we all did, but sure.
I mean, I wouldain abstain from that, I guess. anyone against it? Okay. All in favor?
I Okay, thanks everybody. I move to elect Bill Nixar vice, but can we do that without him here? Well, I can't tell you that, but
you probably have a right to do these thing with it quite a lot. Yes, he has.
He knows the way the committee operates and
the legalities of lots of things over these years he's been here. So, he would be a reasonable vice chair.
I think it's already for you are you interested in that?
No. So second
I move to elect Roers as our our vice chair.
I f Julia second. Okay.
Anybody against that? Okay.
So it shall be that's
all right. So our meeting schedule. Did anybody take a look at the meeting schedule? send this stack of stuff pretty soon.
It's still there. So bad.
So for the board, I I took the liberty of of proposing the traditional third Wednesday of the month. I did have a discussion with Bill prior to that. He confers.
Okay. Do we need to make the motion to do that or we just agree that they're clear third? Are we skipping December? Is that
Yeah.
This is 2026.
So it would be the third.
So So but all right. So we're scheduled for December 17th. If we get if we have
Yeah. We only need
I would motion to accept that in
Okay. Motion. Yeah. You need a motion. Okay. so do we have a motion to accept the 2026 schedule?
Finish second. Second.
Okay. Any discussion about that?
Who was the second?
Okay. All in favor?
I already get out of the way. So, any additions or changes to our agenda?
Public comment. So, anything not on this agenda that anyone wanted to break up?
That old business. Any old business? I don't think so.
No business that I'm aware of. Okay.
I I had a question being new to this whole thing. there was proposal for zone change by fish farm to do the farm the farm the venues or whatever whatever happened with that.
That's with the planning and zoning commission.
Okay.
Thank you. And they and they did adopt a new regulation,
right? That new regulation was adopted last night.
No, I mean we haven't heard.
Yeah. That to allow aggra business. I'll call generically aggra business.
I have yet I have to do some things with that regulation.
Frank is going to tell me what to do. So our new business is deliberate deliberating and acting on the application of Steven Rockefeller received from sections 11.2 and 4.1.4 Four, the end of their zoning regulations, merge dots with Indiana interested at 45 and 47 Lakeside Drive, demolish an existing residence at 45 Lakeside Drive, construct an addition to 47 Lakeside Drive, and construct a workshop. The overall proposal intends to decrease rear yard and sideyard nonconformities that currently exist. It will also require front yard and sideyard variances or a composed. So, now is our time to deliberate that. So, Jeff, sorry you're not going to be included in this, but you're too
I can speak. Correct. Daniels can't vote if he's not seated.
No. No.
So, just listen in, I guess, or whatever you want.
Lawyer, I'm sorry, but
I'm sorry. this quarter. My name is Mark M A R K. The last name is B R A N S E Br.
So, you're very familiar from the videos in my last
I I I mean that that book I'm pretty been involved in that. I do a lot of teaching stuff. Yeah. You probably seen me at the clear videos and stuff.
Yeah. I think I've been your attorney since 19 I think 84. I had a little gap in there, but I don't know if I've represented your lady stuff for a long time.
Well, thank was a very good year for me.
Sorry. 84.
Okay. So, discussion with deliberation about this application. Got some thoughts that you want to share with us. So I'm just kind of coming around because I think the whole picture it's making some things a little less egregious. I would like to see the workshop pushed back though instead of adding to me that's adding non-conforming that really isn't there right now. So I would like to stop that from happening but I think and it probably is doesn't have a lot to do with this committee, but I think the overall
having one family on the two lots is probably going to be better for the lake and the property.
that that is relevant.
So,
that is something you can consider.
Yeah. So, I'm I'm lean leaning leaning forward if they'll move the workshop back.
Okay. Why why do you want to move and drive back? Because it's it's it's a nonconformity that they're going to add if they put it as close to the road as they have on there. I mean, they're saying the other garage is already even closer. But that's no reason to put a new building in a spot where it maybe doesn't have to be nonconform they agreed they could put back a little bit of
regulations I don't think that big consideration in this application because moving to bring in a new large and there may be the need to have it closer to the road as it plans we just saw in order to allow for that to be worked out. we require them to move it and then it turns out they don't have the right amount ever for a full is they're not going to be able to put in one of the ones on that in the early days when and some of them are still on lots of small but they're very minimal and they have to be pumped very often. So rather than move that when they like need the space, you want to move it closer to the water. Right. That
is still not going to be within any limits on that side.
I don't think I don't think
that's I don't think the septic's a problem.
Yeah. No matter where you move it, Julia, I don't I don't foresee the the workshop impinging on the septic system. The septic system is going to be where the old house was,
which is closer to the water than the building.
Yeah. So if you look I don't know if you can see it on this. I would just not make any restrictions to the approval of the application regarding that because we generally have parameters for where the 76
we do all that
's under the system essentially where the
so it's essentially where the footprint of the house is this is the footprint of the house that the proposed demol it's Hard to see, but the proposal to put the septic system back together where that house was.
Okay.
And eliminate septic system that was that was for this house and and and existing septic systems for this house and this house that they're going to launch if that correct.
Can you remind me while you have that was the paved driveway at 45? Was that also slated to Yes. to be removed or stay the same.
No, they're going to
depends on the thing.
I I can but I can.
You can.
Okay. the driveway, they're going to replace it with a pvious service.
So, the driveway at 45,
which is where they're proposing to do the workshop,
is going to be replaced with a per. So, it wouldn't be such a I don't want to use the term hardship because that means something else in this, but it wouldn't be such an inconvenience to them to move that proposed workshop another 6 and 1/2 ft back if they're planning to
the proponents are agreed the proponents agree on that snow,
right?
So, I don't think that that really so I say is it Joan?
Yes. So then therefore I think that would be a reasonable thing to include in the in the if if the variance is
that's the problem I'm not
I don't I'm here to provide information
at the same time I don't necessarily see that required because it it is a reduction in
there's nothing there's nothing
nonconforming on that lot by the road. So, they're going to they're going to make that
hey're removing nonconformities on the sideyards
or lessening one and one goes away because they're joining the two lots.
I understand.
But then they're adding a nonconformity to the front.
So, it creates a new nonformity existing one
if you're treating it as its own independent lot.
Not a huge deal for
and separate from 47. Okay. I I was
Yeah, I'm seeing things similar to Joan because we're we're looking at think about your typical residential lot. You have a house and a garage and here we're talking about a lot that's going to have a house and a garage and a garage and then the workshop. So yeah, so that's where that's the trouble I'm having with this is the is really that they'll fail in with regard to you know adding on that what could be argued as a non children. I did also agree with the addition of having it be a non-dwelling classified as non-dwelling roof
and you're talking about the
workshop the proposed workshop.
Yeah,
this one
specially if they're not going to approve a bathroom there anyway.
Yeah,
exactly.
Yeah, that wouldn't get to zoning with it. But that may not be our purview. Maybe
we can we do have the right to place some and zoning would probably do their own to conditions. I find where it is. Are you afraid?
I unless when they start moving things around, you know, things might change then. Sometimes you come up with things that you didn't think were going to happen, but I think it's okay what it is.
Well, I think strictly speaking, they can't really move things around once you guys
make a decision.
Decision, right?
Okay.
Well, the same way you wouldn't move your garage around in your own yard, right? Unless you had way more money or whatever, but right now you get the bill and still that's why we need to think in the future. So yeah, I guess my what stick with me related to college is the the addition of that that workshop as well might be considered a and not or maybe it didn't have to exist. the addition on the house. Nice growing family. That's a great thing. but there's already a garage there that adding that relatively large workshop is a lot of trouble.
Well, it was it wasn't there. So, right now there's nothing there, I guess.
Correct. And I don't have any problem with the the way the layout is because it leaves all this unimpeded area for a septic area. And I suppose there's some room here, but it may not be able to be so close to a bathroom. But I like it the way it's set up now because there's this pretty uninrupted piece of property. So why move a fairly small building which was not on where it is?
Well, it's a question of do, you know, keep the building as is, ask for it to be moved or ask for it not to exist in in the first place.
I wouldn't do that. I would leave it.
Well, those are the things we can Yeah, we can do.
No, I would just put
he fact that they have it where it is. It's not according to the neighbors and getting the view of the light. So I'm just leave the approve I think they want to approve the plan as it exists.
Okay.
Any further discussions? Anyone want to make a motion in one direction? But yes, if you have that, can you put that up screen?
Mr. G did a motion for you earlier today based on the discussions that I heard tonight. I made some changes to it. It's about to go up on screen. all the time
and you'll see what I added to what he drafted. Is it red line so you can quickly see what I what I added and you obviously this is just to get you started. It is your decision and and I have it on screen so I can make any changes you want. It just you won't see it up there yet. I I I couldn't figure out how to connect my computer to that screen. All right. So I can see it and I can print it for you. But
yeah, I saw what Yeah, Wayne G. So he I I I I have some language based on what I heard you saying. So let's see see if it works. See if the technology works.
Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's I don't know why it's that filling up in red light. I can't I can't deny variance. grant partial. Those are the three overall. So either grant the barrier time being uppercut den
or grant it with some conditions. Those are
I can't read that very
and it's I don't know why it's not showing up in red either. I can I can read to you what I added.
I can read Well, I've got another
e. Oh, modified
what I gave you.
Okay.
But I can read you what I added. You can decide whether this was
this is what's it is up there on screen. This is not
his is not attorney Branch has taken what I gave you and and added some language.
Okay. So that's this is a modified version,
right? Yeah. And what what's supposed to be in red begins with this condition specifically and I'll read it out loud. This condition specifically includes but is not. So the the I'll read the prior sentence which was already there. This variance is a condition upon compliance with the plans submitted in support of the application in any statements made by the application in its application materials or presentations to the board. And by the way because in a recent case you need that should be boilerplate in every variance that you grant that sense. this condition specifically includes but is not limited to the applicant statement that there will be no occupancy transient or otherwise in the proposed workshop nor any commercial activity. This variance is also conditioned upon there being no bathroom in the workshop building but only a utility sink. Now that last sentence is I thought I heard a contest on that but not that's something we consider. This does not have anything about moving the workshop to bring it to corners at 50 ft. That's something we can add if you want it added, but I don't know whether or not because I heard division or that. Well, another option is just say no to the workshop, right? There's another option that is out there. I guess choose to go that direction. Okay. So, I I have another set of deliberations I guess. Are we feeling comfortable that we come to a decision tonight? Because another thing I saw in one of his things is that we can if we don't feel that we can make a decision push it off but do we is that also an option or do you think we can come to a decision?
Only make sure if you push it off that you have the same five members
the next meeting
otherwise you only have four
and you will be meeting in December. If I could comment to that, I think during the first we're calling this the regular meeting, so I'll call that the irregular meeting. I think my question directed toward attorney Brance regarding you know if this is denied like can it be contested and XYZ I think I was only asking that on on the basis that I just didn't know process
is you and I have
but yeah
regular members
yeah but I mean based on the presentation and I mean yeah I I get that we're just kind of hearing about these past prevident cases like tonight, but it sounds like the Connecticut would would uphold those variances being allowed. and attorney Brad said, "Yeah, I could I could win for you guys if I needed to, but I don't think that that's a reason to to deny it."
Right.
Yeah. I said either way, approve or deny.
Yeah. But I don't think that that's a reason to deny it based off of what I've heard. and seeing in the plans I and and just thinking in a neighborly sense, and also driving by that property and and knowing it, I'd be inclined to approve it
with certain Okay.
So, so I would Is it too soon to make a motion? I would make a motion to approve the house edition and the work shop, but attorney Branch's wording on the new no dwelling in the workshop and I would like to require the new workshop be 50 ft from the center line of the road to comply with that. That would be my motion if anybody wants to second it. I and I would can I add to that as well that I think if it's a non dwelling structure, I don't think it's so important to condition it based on the fact that there's no bathroom there. If they can place a bathroom there out of convenience and it's tied into the modern updated septic, I don't think that that needs to be a condition of granting variance, but more so to not be used as a dwelling for transient. You know, you don't
Yeah,
I think more so. So, I'm not so concerned about if they can get approved for a bath and I don't know how that works, but if they can get approved for a bathroom, I wouldn't say no bathroom. I would I would predicate it more on
can't be dwelling.
Can't be dwelling.
Is that a consent system? We should take that out.
Well, there's no no dwelling. No commercial. Wouldn't commercial be not in the zoning clause for the lake?
Well, the this this problem is this building would exceed the size for a home occupation if it were to be used for a home occupation.
Okay. So, and but but before this hearing, long before this hearing opened, I asked attorney Riser, are you are you seeking a variance from the size of a home occupation? The answer is no, we are not because this is not a home occupation. And she's reiterated that tonight.
So, should I I I should I is your thought I should take out about the the no bathroom? Is that
doesn't concern me as much as the no dwelling? I just want to make sure it's not a door like it goes through just a whole bunch of
that makes sense.
So I'm just going to read that last sentence the language the way I've got it now and it's not on screen because again they're not connected. This condition specifically includes but does not limit it to the applicant statement that there will be no occupancy transit or otherwise in the proposed workshop or any commercial activity. This approval was also conditioned on the workshop complying with the 50 foot setback from the street. I know you're I don't know if you're together on that one, but that's
Well, I I would like my motion to include
Oh, yeah. That's right. So, that that's that's why I put it in there.
Okay. So, people can vote it down
and that motion is in agreeing to also the the addition and the workshop. So, that's that's like the whole
just I I have it as proposed except as modified. Okay. Okay. I would second that motion.
So, it's on the table.
Yeah. I would like to discuss a little bit. I I also like the idea of I think it should be an endome so many laws, but it's not like but that that the applicant voluntarily ask for a permeable pavement. I think that's a beautiful thing wherever there's water nearby. So, I would like through and the plan the plan shows that's well that's already in the plan. Okay.
Yeah, that's on the plan.
Yeah. that I put that did a compliance with the plan submitted.
Okay.
So that's already that language is already in there. It's compliance with the plan submitted.
It's not perable pavement. It's they're replacing the pulling the pavement out and replacing it with
permeable surface.
Oh, right.
Pavers.
Okay.
Does And have a definition for permeable surface? as it has a definition for impervious is it
because I know coastal towns are doing a lot
surface is per
well they also make concrete that has that's more porous than regular concrete
when they stamp it and it's solid and water can't get through it.
No, they make concrete that water can get through it but which is not we don't get to go down our road here.
They're doing a lot of that stuff in coastal areas.
Okay.
I didn't know that. That's why you have to speak. So there's a motion on the table.
So would you like to So
Will you just read the motion for us one more time to make sure you'll be on screen right?
Yep. And I am sending it to Reena.
Send it to me too. I think I can put it up on the screen.
You Oh, okay. All right. Hang on.
Yeah. I was going to have my email right open.
Oh, okay. Glorious to travel. CC rain and over. There we go. Okay. And all righty. Insert. Best course I took in high school was typing. Yeah, me too. Huh? It's not the same kind of typing.
Still the same.
Now kids just go like that.
That's the most useful thing.
Oh, it so is. Yeah.
Despite the arthritis. Okay, that did come in a second. Now,
now are we adding or changing anything to the words here? That's what it is. That's what it turns to.
Okay. So, we can follow along on this because I can't read whatever
he's going to that's that's the page. We just got over tune in here. This is what we Sorry. The red is what is the red line is what
Let me share the screen. Oh, you got it.
Oh, you're on Jim. I thought Jim was on here
or otherwise in the proposed workshop. That's what you were saying.
Any commercial activity? Yes, there's also conditional on the line with the 50 foot set on the street
from the road center line. Correct.
Road center line. Yeah, I should say.
Yeah,
actually your regulation is
here. Oh, it's
okay.
Yeah. Yeah. That's a hardship person.
How do you move? You know, it's not there yet.
Okay, then I got
Yeah, I thought they were making them. I just wanted them to
I got it. I just need
Okay. Anybody else need to read this?
It's up on the screen as big as I can make it. Yeah, if I understand that
it doesn't say center line up there. That's where I got the
are relative to center.
So, I think you guys are too.
I seconded and we're discussing and reading it again.
Okay. Does anyone have anything to say about that?
I'm ready to call a question.
Vote me. Yeah.
Vote your vote. Okay. So,
and remember, you need a supermajority.
Four four affirmative votes.
Four out of five. Four out of five.
Four affirmative votes. Yes.
Okay. So, second. So, we second the motion and then we say all is in favor. Okay. So, Julie second motion. All in favor? Okay. Nothing said no. All right.
Thank you for
that gives us the floor. Yeah. for the record, can you Michael Greenhouse? Affirmative.
And then I want Marina to
Got it.
to get it for the for the minutes.
Okay. And that final motion with the word center line is now in your clerk's box and also your seats.
Appreciate the time and consideration.
Congratulations guys. Good luck.
Thank you.
Looking for a zoning permit or wetland application. Oh yeah, we know at the beginning. We know better.
Yeah, absolutely.
Put him at the next meeting. Yeah, I think
that's
We need a majority for the for the minutes. The minutes do that.
You didn't have a meeting tonight. We didn't have a meeting left.
I just didn't get it.
Your fault.
All right.
We'll let you everyone.
Just so you know for future efforts, you don't have to have been at the meeting to vote on the minutes.
Okay. I always assume that.
Yeah. A lot of people do, but Robert, first of all, don't require it. What you're doing is you're simply in you're endorsing what they say, right? And if you have confidence in your clerk and your colleagues who are there, you can vote yes. You don't have to have been there.
All right. So, do we feel comfortable voting to adopt the September 17th minutes or do we want to put that on?
Oh, I think it
Let's do it. Okay. So, someone want to make a motion in that regard?
Okay. Le moves to accept the September 17th committance. I was tapping in.
Second.
Well, she came because she wasn't there.
Says she can.
Were Were either of you there?
You were not there.
So, you were and you would you feel comfortable seconding the minutes?
Oh, yeah. But you had to even here is that we're at the last meeting here. So,
yeah.
Okay. All in favor?
Okay. Anybody? Anybody against? Okay. So, so shity. Okay. any board? So, our next meeting assuming we have you do anything coming up that you're already knowing. Okay. So, if anything comes up December 17th, any other questions, ideas, thoughts? one thing I will bring up and maybe it's out of order a little bit, but to my knowledge after a diligent diligent search of the records, I can find no bylaws for the zoning board of appeals.
Oh,
and that is something I believe chair might want to take up in coming months.
I wish boards aren't required to have them, but most do
and it's not a bad idea. By the way, I know that Jed Larson fairly recently revised the TPZ ones.
Take a look at those. Just
Okay.
Getting started before getting
when we get there. I'll suggest that the PNZ bylaws are probably pretty
I don't know serve as boiler plate. I searched the town clerk's office.
That's why he's not here. He doesn't want to deal with this.
A lot of courts don't have it. So, don't feel alone.
Is it a law or recommendation?
It's just a It's not a good It's not a bad idea.
Do you know of any neighboring towns who have published theirs?
Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
Okay. So, we can
You're not going to reinvent the wheel.
Okay.
There's there's lots of sales you can use.
All right. All right. so, if anyone want to move to adjurnn,
I'll move to adjourn.
I'll second choice.
Thank you guys. You did well. New members and tough and you right to the frying pan with this one. Bam.