and it's come over to our house.
So, are we ready?
Okay. So, we're going we're going to follow this order. We're going to speak our members. So, we have Maria Greenhouse, Bill Rogers, Kathleen, and Lee. So, that gives us the four members we need to mail.
Am I missing something? Right. Do we have a quorum? Yes, we have a
forum but do you have you know no alternates you need to
we do have one alternate that could be here Jeff Ballad I don't see him
so I will just be honest with you or if you want to explain more than I have I was chair anyways your odds improve the more people you have we have five people tonight you have
better odds of
passing this than with four because with four you actually need all four of us to yes, right? Whereas if you had five, you get one person say no and four people say yes and you get you wet. So do you wish to proceed?
Yeah, I guess we should chat about that. I I do we have any indication as to whether your alternate is going to be
I tried calling him multiple times tonight and I got and we have another alternate that's in California. No, I'm sorry. She's on vacation somewhere. I'm not sure and one full time is in California. So we are it. Okay.
I could try calling the other alternate again.
Correct me if I'm wrong. the members can catch up.
They can they can recording and review the minutes and all the materials. so I I suppose we could perhaps move this is what I would suggest. we move forward with the presentation perhaps.
yeah. I mean, we're Yeah. So, you're here and willing to
But again, we could delay the vote,
right? We could we could close the hearing or even leave it open and just delay the vote until there's a full complement of the board because, as they mentioned, we do need four of the five regardless of whether there's a quorum. It's not just a majority of who's here. We do four of the five. So, it is
usually recommended to go forward with a full vote of five. So, so I would be happy to do the presentation tonight because there might be some open issues that I have discussed with the town attorney anyway.
and then we can decide whether to close or just continue the hearing to the next meeting
when perhaps we could do the vote.
Yeah.
Okay. So, can I ask a question on that?
Sure. Does that mean that the vote happens automatically at the next meeting that at the next scheduled meeting if as long as we have a
No, we have 65 days from today or you have the board has 65 days from today to render to render a decision.
Well, 65 days from the close of the public hearing,
right? 65 days from the close of public hearing,
right? So,
and we could keep it open technically probably for a month. So I guess my question is vote the vote doesn't have have to happen in an official
the vote does not have to happen in March if that's what you're asking
it has to happen at a regular meeting but it doesn't have to happen necessarily at the next
I understand okay thank you
have some time
okay so knowing that yeah want to
yes great okay I'll introduce
if there's something you want me to pull up on the screen I can
well it's got paper copies in of them. So if I need something, I'll I'll shout it out. Okay.
And I I'll I'll post. Would you give me your name again, please?
Yes. I was just going to do that. So I'm attorney Dory Riser. I'm from Kahan Kinsky Capistella Law Firm in Verman. I'm a land use attorney. I represent Christine Gomes, the owner of the subject parcel. we have made an application for variances as you probably saw in the application materials. And the variances would allow the construction of a single family home on a parcel that Christine just recently acquired. It's a 0.43 acre parcel. Now, there would be a contemplated lot adjustment with an adjacent parcel. The adjacent parcel is at 52 fol. And the adjacent parcel is owned by Christine and her husband. It's not there's no unity of title necessarily here, which is important because there's no formal merger of these two lots. Are you familiar with the merger concept?
I I did that myself. So,
okay.
So, I guess all right, let's keep going on. So, so the, so, and I don't want to like dumb this down too much, but just really briefly, merger is a provision in your zoning regulations that says if you have adjacent land, if you own and say same people own adjacent parcels and one of the parcels is nonconforming, then the zoning merges that into the adjacent parcel to make the parcel more conforming. it's not it doesn't really change record title which is interesting but it does for zoning purposes say these are going to be treated as two pieces. We don't have that situation here because again 52 which is bas which is a conforming lot which has a house on it that is owned by Christina and her husband
Manny. This parcel which was more recently acquired to 0.43 four and three acres is the parcel we're looking for the variances for. That was acquired just by Christine. The fact that they're husband and wife does not change the law that it is still no unity of title. It has to be the exact same ownership. because right now Manny doesn't have any interest in the parcel that's being affected by even though he's married to the owner, he doesn't have any record title interest in the parcel that's being affected by the variances. So so there's two adjacent parcels. We would like to effectuate a lot line adjustment between the two to make the
nonconforming lot the 0.43 acres that Christine recently acquired more conforming. and and we're going to get into all of that. I don't know if you recall I was before you in November of this past year on the Rockefeller application. We talked about this concept of which was kind of new. knew it was something that you weren't that familiar with this concept of typically for variances you need a hardship right something unique about the land that takes away topographic something unique specific to that land that takes away all useful use if you don't grant the hardship I'm sorry grant the variance here there's an exception to that rule which you know again is hard to grasp at time because you're so it's so drilled into your head you need to find a hardship you need to
find a hardship But the adults rule, which we talked about a little bit in November, and I'm going to have to put some more information on the record just because we have to make sure there's a complete record for this, talks about an independent ground for granting variances. You don't need to find a hardship. You just need to prove that you're making a nonconforming us or law more conforming. Okay? So, that's a separate round. And that's really what we're here to talk about tonight. We're we've got this variance request to have a variance of the lot size and the lot width because we still don't have enough land to make it a conforming lot, but we have enough land to make it a more conforming lot. And as you can see from the map that was submitted, you know, the bulk of the land that's being added to it is down by the road frontage. and and based on the plan that's been submitted, we can have it engineered to have a house that complies with all the other zoning requirements with regard to setback. There's no front, rear, or side setback issues. It's really just the lot is still non-conforming from a minimum lot area and a minimum width requirement. so so that's the nature of the variances that are before you. Now the milliondoll question for you tonight is is was this 043 acre lot legally created? Is it a legal nonconforming bot? Because that's what adulson applies to. If you have a legal conformity, then you can make it again more conforming without the finding of a hard traditional hardship. and so typically in order to determine if a parcel is a legal
non-conforming parcel, you have to go back to the regulations in place when the parcel was created. Did it comply with the regulations or not? So, I'm going to give you just a little bit of title back on this property. This parcel 0.43 acres was part of land that was acquired by Shirley Broadley in 1951. Okay. She acquired three pieces and they were lots shown on Do you want to maybe throw up that Andover Lake property plan for just for a moment?
I can do that.
bear with one second. Here we go. Dang it.
Super. Okay. So, I'm gonna scroll so you can
So, it I won't touch the screen, but we're looking down at this plasma right here. You see where it says 53, 54, 55, and red pointing there. So, in 1951, Shirley acquired lots 54 55 and the southerntherly 50 ft of lot 53. Okay. The southerntherly 50 feet of lot 53 is a parcel that's under consideration right now. So she acquired three pieces, owned them in 1951 and then in 1954 she sold the neighboring two of the lots I should say. two of the lots which is lots 54 and 55 to O'Brien. Okay. I I don't know that that they're still in the name of O'Brien, but that was in 1954 and she retained for herself just southerntherly 50 ft of lot 53. So at in 1954 this piece was effectively created as a standalone piece. Okay. So now we have to decide well was that legal? Did it comply with the regulations or was it illegally created law? Again, the million-dollar question. And I say that because all of the due diligence that we have done, and my client has done a lot. I mean, she she hired an attorney to purchase the property. She had a title search done on the property. She acquired title insurance upon the property. she evaluated everything that was available to her in order to determine could she use this property. and she found, okay, going back to 1954,
this was a piece of land owned by somebody. I should be able to do something with it. So, we checked the zoning regulations. Well, what did they say in 1954? Guess what? No one's got a record of the zoning regulations in 1954. The first set of zoning regulations that we can find through the building office or the town clerk's office is 1956 after this parcel was already created. So, I am going to go on record to say I recognize the case law says it is the burden of the landowner and applicant to demonstrate and establish a legal non-conform a legal nonconformity. It's our burden. In this instance, because of the town's failure to have adequate records back to 1950 when zoning was first adopted, it is nearly impossible for us to do that. The only way we can
do it is through inference. Okay? So, we are doing everything a reasonable due diligent landowner could do to try and establish this. And because we couldn't definitively establish it, we came to you and said, "We're we're we need your assistance on this variable." Because in 1956, the regulations did say that that the zone requires a 40,000 foot zone and 200 ft of lavler, which clearly this parcel doesn't have. Again, that post dates when the parcel was created as a 43 acreage. When it was created, you can see from this map, it's about 50 feet long the road. It's about 370 ft in depth. Okay. So, so, so 1956, the regulations say you need this minimum lot area and you need this minimum lot of it. It also goes on to say though in those regulations that if you don't have that lot area and lot width, so on
smaller lots, you can still build a permitted use on it as long as you comply with all the other regulations and you don't own adjacent land. Well, we know Shirley Riley didn't own adjacent land in 1956 because she had already conveyed it away. Okay. And we know now that we can build a lot on this without violating the other setbacks because you have a site plan that demonstrates that the dislotment adjustment. Okay. So the quandry is if we can establish to your satisfaction that this is a legal non-conforming use then the case law is very clear under adults that I don't need to prove applicant doesn't need to prove a traditional hardship. We just need to demonstrate a reduction in nonconformities. And that reduction in nonconformities is going from a lot that has 50 ft of width to 80 ft of width. And it's going from a lot that's only 18,700 square ft size to just over 25,000 square feet in size. You can see that on the zoning table on the map that's in front of you. So I think there's or I hope there's no question that this lot is becoming more conforming with the regulations. The only question is does Adolfson apply because is this illegal non-conforming law? So so let's talk a little bit about that. Again, 1956 is the first version that we're able to find through the town's records of the zoning
regulations. And in that, it does reference in 1956 that there was a public hearing held to amend the zoning regulations. So, it certainly contemplates that there were regulations in place. Okay. And and your zoning regulations right now for purposes of establishing a non-conforming use, say zoning started in 1950. this is seems to contemplate that yes, there were zoning rights in 1950 and they were amended in 51 and maybe in 52 too and then here we have 1956 but but again penalizing the applicant for not being able to track down town records that town can't even track down is a hard stretch. So based on all that and what I'm going to give you for inferential information, I'm hoping we will start with the premise that you know what there's enough there in fairness to conclude that this is a legal non-conforming law and therefore this aden. So again, in 1956, there was a public hearing held that contemplated repealing a section of the zoning regulations. And you have these, I think, in your packet. wait, didn't you pass out the zoning rags in your
packet? So, so I'm reading from from documentation that your agent had prepared and shared with all of you and I found also in the town of Art's office. this section repealed it says article 3 zone A section 4. and and the reason I'm talking about that is because I think from this we can conclude that zone A is probably the relevant section that applied to to this parcel at the time because here it talks about how they're going to measure setbacks 25 feet from the high I'm sorry 50T from the high water line of Andover Lake. So again, all I can do to connect the dots is come up with some inferences as to what might it have been in 1954. So I'm thinking zone A, if we're talking about setbacks of Mandover Lake, that's probably the zone that would have applied to this parcel. It goes on in this section to talk about they're repealing section seven. Okay. Repealing the and adopting in its place a regulation that says that the minimum lot area will be 1 acre with a minimum width of 200 f feet. So So I'm going to pause there. It says more but I'm going to pause for a minute. So to me they're saying, okay, if in 1956 we're repealing whatever it previously said and establishing this minimum lot area and width, I'm thinking it either wasn't established before or it was different. Otherwise, why repeal it? Again, all I can do is make reasonable inferences because nobody has these darn regulations to know for sure. But if they're repealing it and adopting a minimum law area and width, it would stand to reason it's different than what was previous. The section then goes on to also what's
being replaced. says, "But a dwelling may be erected in this zone on a lot having an area or with less than that required in the regulations provided that such lot has been duly recorded by deed prior to the date of this regulation and all the other regulation requirements are met with." To me, again, by inference, that contemplates that there could have been a smaller lot requirement in place before then. Because if they're talking about if you have a smaller lot, you can still build on it. They must have had some reason to believe there could be smaller lots in the area. Again, the I I wish I could sit here and definitively say this is a lot of record because there's no question clearly when it was created in 1954, it complied with the regulations. But I can't and I'm honest with you. I'm being as honest as I can with you. But I think that based on the lack of town records, based on how the revisions came about in 1956, a reasonable person could conclude that either this minimum lot area and with initially came into place in 1956 when this was adopted or it was something different and perhaps lesser. Okay. What that lesser might have been, I don't know. I I would like to say that again my client has done whatever due diligence a person can possibly do under the circumstances. We can't create records where they cannot be found. and we do have the burden to prove to you but really that burden to prove to you that this is a legal non-conforming law. Our burden is to establish that there's
substantial evidence for you to reach your determination. substantial evidence is is there something reasonable and rational in the record before you that can help you make that conclusion. So what I have just explained to you, what I have just said, how I've come to my reasoning, how we've done everything. We're looking at everything. We're looking at the text of what was amended in 1956 to try and back into what might have been there previously. I think under all of these circumstances, it's fair to conclude and start from the premise that in 19 before when this lot was created as a standalone parcel, we should deem it to be a non-conforming lot because we can't prove otherwise. There's absolutely nothing to prove otherwise. And in proving definitively that it was is impossible. Okay? But we've done as much due diligence as we can. So with that in mind, I'm going to bring you just to get it on the record because again, I know we've already talked about this in a prior context of a hearing,
but if we establish to your satisfaction that this is a lot of record, then rather than finding a traditional hardship, a independent basis for granting a variance is a reduction in nonconformities. And if you are able to find that this lot with a lot adjustment is becoming more conforming with regard to lot area and lot width than it previously was at 50 ft in width and what did I say in area 18,000 or so square feet in area. It's becoming more conforming than under Adolf. You the courts have helped. It's all the way up through the Connecticut Supreme Court that a reduction in nonconformities is a valid dependent basis for granting a variance.
But it's it's not in the law that we have to. I just want to make sure that every
nothing that says in the law that because we had a
reduction in non-performance that we must approve it. You're not saying that.
It's still for you to determine. Is it consistent with the comprehensive plan?
I understand that.
Yeah. and is it in harmony with, you know, the neighborhood and in furtherance of public health and welfare,
right?
so I I town attorney would probably say you don't absolutely have to grant it, but it is a independent basis that the courts will uphold if you choose to grant it.
Right. Okay. I just want to make sure that everybody here because you're giving a lot of legal
Yes. that they understand by board members that is not binding that we have to approve it. It just means that there is precedent I guess we call it.
There's a basis.
There's a faith. Absolutely.
So
and there may also be other reasons to not have a group as well. This is
well there may be but I think based on the plan we can tell that we can have a code compliance system. There can be utilities available for it that it can comply with all the other setbacks. And I want to talk about harmony with the neighborhood. consistency with the comprehensive claim. So, so we're talking about increasing the 43 acre portion to.57 acres. Does that fit into the neighborhood? Does that work? Is it out of character and whack with what you see going on there? Well, I would submit not significantly by any means because excuse me, the resulting lot will be 0.57 acres. and when I go on your GIS and I do a survey of a solar road
and what you've got there, you've got a range. You've got a range of anywhere from, actually down the road closer to Lake Road, you've got it a couple of a lot that's 035 acres. I'm sorry, 0.35 acres. and that's down at 19 basa. You've got a 4 acre lot at 9A. You've got 42 acres at 20 basis. You've got 47 acres at 80 basa. So you have at least four. I just pointed out
38.5%.
Yes. So you have five at least lots developed upon on the same road within I mean none of them are more than 1,200 ft away that are small in size. You also have some that are larger. you have some points almost 8 acres across the street.9 acres across the street. My client's and her husband's remaining land will be 1.7 acres. So you do have some larger lots but you certainly have some smaller even smaller than proposed here. and and the house that's being proposed the the footprint on it obviously would have to comply with setback requirements. So, it couldn't be a, you know, a McMansion out there because you wouldn't have space to. So, it'll be a house that is similar in size to a lot of what's already existing out there as well. So, because it's a comparable use, single family use, because the lot's not assumed for what you already have in the area, I think you can make a finding that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and the character of the surrounding area. We have submitted at least two one
email and one letter in in the records of neighbors who are in support of this application and have no objection which I think is important. so so I think that that's also reflective of being you know consistent and in harmony with the neighborhood. I think they've already had it. Do you already have those?
I don't have those letters but
hat's okay. Oh,
okay.
I think you Okay, this these are the neighbors that are
directly that would be next to this proposed home and the neighbor that is directly across from the proposed home. and that would be Melanie
and they are both very supportive of of this. you know they know you showed them and you know where we were thinking and
just for that
I will I'm sorry for some reason I' I've thought but yes I have copies of somebody yeah we will submit that
so I mean I know I've talked a lot of legally you that's not necessarily what you are typically hearing you're used to hearing a lot more hardship kind of arguments but here this is really more of a legal issue. number one, can you reasonably conclude that this was a legal nonconforming lot when created in 1954? And number two, if so, do you feel that it warrants a variance under the Adolf exception because we are making an 18,500 square foot more conforming by bringing it up to 28,000 25,118 square ft. And then we're increasing the frontage or the width of the lot from 50
feet to 88 ft. not compliant, but we submit still more compliant. questions.
I have a good question. So, we're talking about So, your presentation is all about what you're claiming is decreasing the nonconformity. but what is the ruling on the nonconformity was in effect created by the proposal to put a house on the lot. So
well but the non-conformity wasn't created by the proposal to put a house on the block. The nonconformity irregardless of whether there's a house on the lot. The nonconformity relates to lot size and to lot width. So anything you want to do with this lot you can't build anything. You can't even put a shed on it. can't put a chicken coop on it because it's non-conforming for those purposes. So whether or not you put a house on it doesn't matter because the house itself would be fully conforming. The house would comply with front, rear, and sideyard setbacks. It would not violate the maximum lot coverage requirement. It's solely the the lot itself is unders sized regardless of whether there's a structure on it. So to use it in any
manner, a variance would be required. Would it be possible to say so there's the on the proposal there's that you know rectangle that goes from parcel B to parcel A to make it big enough to meet the setback requirements for for the proposed house. Would it be possible to make that larger to to make this whole thing conforming?
We No, there's not enough land to give from 52 Bola to make this a conforming lot. There there's just not enough land to do. We would good to god if we could would we there's just not enough land to there's yeah in order to meet the minimum lot requirements of
60,000 square feet we we can only give so much from 52 to solar which is an existing house on it which we certainly don't want to make non-conforming because it's presently fully conforming but we can still keep it fully conforming and reduce some area thereby by increasing the lot size of this undersized lot 43 acres.
Okay.
Can you talk about the septic system? Now, you said systems going to be on the other lot.
The septic system, as you can see, is in that green hash area there. And not all, but of the reserve. I think just the reserve the whole thing.
Well, it does
I think is going to be on this lot and the reserve perhaps on
this plan doesn't show the tank as far as
that square primary was that primary primary kind of primary there is behind it.
Yeah. Okay. So, so the reason that those would be on the easement on the neighboring parcel is because we did not again want to make the neighboring parcel 52 non-compliant. right now it's a fully conforming lot and in order to be conforming it needs to have 200 feet of lot width and a minimum 60,000 square feet. If we put the septic system on detitle on you know on the neighboring piece and included enough of the land so that it was part of parcel B then parcel A which is 52 would become non-compliant with regard to lot. So since parcel B is already non-compliant with regard to lot width at only 50 ft we figured let's let's keep the non-compliant lot separate. we could make it more compliant. and
even if we put the septic system on parcel B, it wouldn't become fully compliant because we still don't have the 200 ft there.
I'm sorry, Do we make the other lot less compliant?
No.
52 will stay compliant with all zoning regulations.
Minimum lot area, lot width, all setbacks, it will be completely compliant. it it will remain unaffected. It'll just be slightly smaller. And that was again the overriding goal. I think initially the surveyor and the engineer and and my clients had drawn the map to have the subject system on RC. And then when I looked at I said, "Oh guys, you know, if we do that, then we also need a variance just to have our existing house slot and you don't want to monkey around that. that's where you live. That's your house lot. We don't want to make that a non-compliant situation. Let's keep that lot protected and compliant and just do what we can to improve the zoning compliance of the adjacent bomb.
So, could I So, can you explain the reason why this
can't be up here? I can only I don't have the engineer here. I don't know if you know the answer
elevation,
right? So
so so from the health code perspective I so health department is going to be a little obviously but they're going to look at this. I think their ideal situation would be to have the septic system on the same parcel as the house, but there are exceptions to that and and Mark, our engineer, thought that he'd be able to work the health department on that. However, if the health department says no way, no how you have to relocate that subject system so it's on the lot, then I guess maybe he'll have to do some test holes back there and decide if he can do a pump system back there. But right now, this is a system that
needs to go.
The health department has witnessed the perk test and all that good stuff.
Yes.
They have not issued a B100A yet, have they?
No,
we haven't seen it. So,
so I find out, but I don't think so.
Do you know?
There's also an issue with that section. The upper part is all ledge. When I build the house, I have to get it all blasted. So the where the ridge line drops the ledge drops as well. So it may dig the deep hole in protest they went down 7 ft whatever but up on top it's you know a couple of feet can hit ledge.
I I just think the board would be interested in knowing the exact reasons why why it has to be why it can't be here not on that lot. Yeah,
we can get answers to that for purposes of granting or acting on the variance. Again, it's limited to really are we making a non-conforming lot more conforming. but you know, I I could certainly inquire and and see what
So, right now you own both of those lots.
Right now, Christine owns Par and she and her husband own 52. but at any point
he other lot could be sold.
well right now in the current configuration
it's just this the 40.43 strip. I guess we could sell that but then you're going to have someone else back here at some point saying in order to do anything with it we need a variance.
No the other lot if they sell parcel A
then then whoever comes into ownership with parcel A has someone else's on their property
that that can happen via easement. So what what I explained to your zoning agent is we will if you see fit to grant us variance, we will memorialize the septic easement on the land records. We will just like you can grant a right to a neighbor to grade onto your property or have a driveway easement on your property. This would be a septic easement on the neighboring property. So this 52 will forever be encumbered in perpetuity by an easement that allows them to maintain and repair and replace as necessary the septic system within that hash area. They will not be able to negate that in the future because it'll be a a title incumbence at that point.
So if if that happens it it probably will eventually down the road if we don't
forward far enough. what happens if say the people in parcel B don't maintain their septic system and they pollute the lot and groundwater in parcel A.
Well then parcel A52 would say you are in breach of our east the easement will say we haven't drafted it yet but it'll be it would be a private matter between the two lot owners. It's not a the town wouldn't be involved. is it's a private matter as to whether or not you're acting beyond the scope of your easement. typically this easement would say, "I, the owner of parcel A, grant to parcel B an easement over this area shown on the map for purposes of building, installing, maintaining, repairing a septic system and all associated facilities. we'll do that at our sole cost and expense in compliance with all laws and regulations and we will indemnify you for any loss or harm or damage that's a result of our actions on the property. So if their action which is actually an inaction by doing something or not doing something to the septic system causes some damage there would be recourse under the easement for them to bring a civil matter between each other and work out the damages that way. And again, it can't be transferred because it would
make lot A. So that the section that is the septic,
yeah,
that cannot be transferred in the in the land transfer because in the plot redrawing because it would eliminate conformity for partial ed. So I mean I theoretically if you wanted to condition your variance and say oh you know what even though it's going to make a non-conforming there I'd still rather that design and we'll approve your application for this these parcels with the condition that you incorporate the easement area into actually parcel B. But you again it would be a little on the unusual side to make a conforming person non-conforming. So that's why we're not presenting it necessarily that way.
So it would be legal for the board to create essentially allow the creation or not forming law.
Well, the board can condition a variance. They can put a condition on it that they find is in the public interest. And I guess if they say the public interest is to have the septic system on the parcel being served rather than the adjacent parcel, then they could do that. But in effect, what they created was a nonconformity, but blessed at the same time because they're granting the veritance.
It be a little unusual. But we might, if you're going to, if you're considering going that route, we might want to hold this open and advertise again just to be clear that the variance would be applicable to 52 and not just this parcel. probably just how was it advertised?
There was essentially be two variants with grand,
right? There would be a variance for this parcel for lot area size, which I'm not concerned about. I know we we advertise for that. I just don't know that we advertise for variance for 52. So if you're thinking along that roads, I would I if you want to be sure that there's no technical defects then maybe we would revertise to that to that end. But again, this is this is what the third proposal is. We think is the better more conforming plan, I should say. Not better, but more conforming plan.
And could you just show me again exactly where the land from the original house is going to go to the new lot? exactly where that line is.
This is land from 52 that's going to
and they're going to take that line and move it out down south and call it down.
Yes. So, so, so right now the existing lot line for the 43 acre parcel is this line right here.
Yeah. This is the original.
Okay.
And they said come out here. No, they're saying go here. No, everything north of this line is part of 62.
Yes. And it's going to go this way to end. I just make it big enough to put this there. And then this is going to be stop.
Did I? There's something at the beginning of your presentation that said regarding the legality of so transferring lots as long as you don't own adjacent property
unity of title merger. Is that what we're talking about?
so so the zoning provisions have a the zoning regulations have a merger provision in them and and if both parcels were owned in the same way by them jointly these would be deemed merged from a zoning standpoint. Okay? So they would be deemed one parcel and would have to be used for the zoning rights for as one parcel. That only applies if you have unity of title and they're owned the same way. Here we do not because Manuel Manny does not own any interest in the 43 acre. That's only Christine's name.
Is that
Yeah, there was something no about the the the land owner from 1954 when she sold lots 53 and 54 there.
All right. So when she sold that in 19 So in 19 maybe I'll just go back through my notes and we something triggers it just
so in 1951 Shirley Riley acquired lots 54 55 and the southerntherly 50 ft of 53
the southerntherly 53 50 ft of 53 is what's at issue here in 1954 Shirley conveyed off to the O'Brien that's 54 and 55 retaining just that southerntherly 50 ft that created that at 1954 as a standalone piece. It wasn't attached to anything else.
Right.
Am I still not where you want to be?
No, I'm trying to piece together when I'm there was there was something interesting wordwise. I'll go back and watch the
recording.
Okay.
Sorry. That's okay. yeah. I just at this point I I I would say what I think the narrow issues before you are. Did I give you enough information to conclude that under the facts and circumstances that exist, we can deem this to be a legal non-conforming lot. Okay. Again, those facts and circumstances being it's beyond our control to get the definitive proof you need and the best we can do is rely on some of these inferences we're making. And also kind of the idea of of fairness. I mean, I know that might not be a legal standard, but it's a practical standard here. the town the town's failure to have full complete records dating back to when zoning started is really what's putting us in
this predicament of not being able to affirm like definitively answer this for you. but I hope that there's enough there that under all of these circumstances you can be comfortable concluding it because that's step one is is this a legal non-conforming law? And if it is then again are you comfortable applying the aden rule which says we if you're making an existing non-conforming lot more conforming and still complying with you know being consistent with the comprehensive plan then then it's a grounds for granting these variances that are requested.
So I I have a theoretical fundamental question. If someone buys a non-conforming lot, does do they have the right to get a variance to put something on it? So, imagine somebody bought that little rectangular lot
independent of anything else. So, some some third party came in and I came along and bought it. I bought
Let's say it wasn't them and they didn't have land. So if they wanted to come in here and and get a variance, first of all, they they don't have the argument to say they're making it more conforming because it's already not
it's not period,
right? So they don't have that argument to say we're making this more conforming.
If they didn't own the adjacent land and and they just own the four3 acres and I said, "Okay, first of all, can we design a house that fits on that without any setback?" Probably not. So then the only argument is well does then I come in for a variance for setbacks and then what I would be arguing is if this is a legal non if this is a legal non-conformity lot okay that predated zoning and and was created I would say well failure to grant me a variance would basically in effect constitute a taking of my property it would mean I have zero value because I can't use it for any reasonable purpose that would be a totally different argument that that we would be coming in with.
The fact that my client does own the adjacent parcel makes it, I think, more palatable because we can design a compliant house. we just don't have enough land to make it fully compliant from a lot area standpoint. So, we can make it more compliant, just not fully compliant. So, and and not conformities are vested, right? if you have a legal nonconformity, it's a vested property right that passes on to subsequent owners. You cannot be deprived of a of a valid legal non-conforming non-conformity.
Right. But if someone knowingly buys an unconforming law, what I thought I heard you saying, then the municipality has to grant them.
No, no, no. Yeah, you'll be in a variance. There's another
they would send you a variance. They they would come before you and ask for a variance to do something on that lot. It wouldn't it would be more variances most likely than what we're asking for because they wouldn't have the additional land. They would probably need setback variances, maybe a coverage variance. Who knows what they would need, but they would need more variances than what we're asking for. And their argument would be, well, if you don't grant them, you're taking low value for my property. That's a totally different argument. and we're not going there.
Financial hardship isn't a reason for taking all value,
right? Financial hardship isn't, but there's some case law that says if you take all value and leave the land useless, then it might be enough of a financial, but again, we're not going there. where so that would be but I'm saying
it's northern like the other Well, let's make this unicorn. I I would
and just could I my client just wanted to tell you a little bit more about the research she did before she bought the property. I I alluded to it a bit, but just let's just if you don't mind sub make that statement on the record. prior to actually even getting the attorney to you know and and having the title search and doing all of those things which I was fully ready to do in doing my due diligence. I went on the T gsi, the GI GIS, sorry. And thank you. And I looked at lot size and I looked first on my road and I saw right away three properties 9, 19, and 20 that were 40, 35, and 42.42 and I said this lot is 43. So this I'm operating not with the knowledge base that all of you have which I respect very much and I appreciate my attorneys but I'm looking at that and then I walked the lot you know the lake and then I would pull up houses I think that's a little lot 23 27 24 and as you know I'm sure you're familiar with and if you pull up the map you'll see lots of lots around that lake are half the size of the lot I purchased. So then when then I thought, okay, but I'm going to then even do more of my due diligence. And what in my own mind, I hired an attorney. I got a realtor. I spoke with a woman in Florida
who owned the property, the 43, Lindsesi. She's lovely. And then I even had the title search and then and they went all the way as far as they could possibly go. So I thought I have I'm a retired teacher and I thought I have done my homework and so it was a little bit surprising to me and I was very fortunate to have attorney Dory Riser come and help me at this point. So that's kind of just to let you know where I was coming from as a just a lay person who lives around the lake and loves the lake and
well I mean we have a lot of non-conforming lots you know that those properties on the lake some of them go back to the 1920s and things are different now.
Absolutely. Absolutely. So, but this is where just to give you a little perspective of like I said I don't have the the knowledge base that that all of you have you know having done this and and understanding I'm I'm mentally running to keep up with the language this evening so I appreciate
well we are too we to look important
well you do you're doing a great job with that nailed it
put on a good show and I know and I thank you Dory for the explanations too because it does help to has someone come in and obviously lay it all out just a lot of force and some experts put on shots. I'd like to ask the attorney and I guess you consult with your with your client if we could keep this hearing open so that we have more time for this is
I mean I would recommend that anyway because we want to have a full complement of five
and I it would probably be safer to keep it open so that if that additional member has any questions when it's time to have our final meeting and then vote we can actually respond otherwise if the public hearing is closed I can't offer any more information,
right?
And this might be very simplistic and so forgive my simplicity, but drive up Plus Solar Road
and we actually state where we we kind of were proposing the houses with is kind of up from the neighbors to that are they're here with us tonight. They're they're to the left of the property beyond the driveway. And then the when you go up the road, you'll see kind of where we staked it out and we're proposing it. And you'll also see that our our home obviously my husband and I live in is up a driveway and you can't when the trees are filled you can't even see this part of
where does the driveway go for for wondering where is the driveway
for the proposing
for the snow for your existing
for the existing it's my husband can you with your finger
is it to the north of the septic just
would have to be I'm sorry. It would have to be to the north of the Sussex system.
how come the only place it could be that system like this without seeing it on the site here. Yeah, it's it's right from here post.
Oh, here it's right here.
Yeah, right there.
Look, that's it right there. And I just sw see right here right there.
Oh, okay. It's just got
So if you were to take a drive and of course the trees are bare right now, but when the trees are full, like that part of our property when we drive in and we we grab our mail, you know, from the lower part of our, you know, the driveway before we go up the hill, that piece to the left has just been woods and we don't in almost 30 years, we haven't used it. we haven't, you know, done anything with it and it's out of sight quite honestly and that whole I it's the higher elevation is where our house is. So it's kind of I'm visual so if you know I look at it that's why we had to stake it out. He had to stake it out for me because I needed to be able to see the proximity you know to like your place and to
Jill's place and to Melany's place and see where we're at.
I've got some pictures of
Oh yeah. Sure, that'd be great.
There's a picture.
There's the sign.
So that from the road where the sign is and where the house would be, you can't even see our house.
This is looking up towards 66 basil. That's 66 Bulla's driveway.
And actually, I have a the a letter of support from Jill Gold who
this is again this is up up the hill. You can barely see this gnome's house in the background there to the right. It's kind of
You can see right there.
See there? Yeah. So, you have to really go
and then there's be on the other side of the telephone pole is her driveway.
Yeah.
And then beyond the driveway down that way is there is that. So this is from the perspective of what would be the frontage of lot 52 essentially from up
lot 52 is where they live now.
Sorry from from the from lot 53 is so this is from
this picture is looking at lot 5 at the driveway
52 from from
52 from where that sign is. It's a little up here.
Can you just tell us not directly relevant to theater, but I'm curious where the septic system is for the existing house?
Yes, it's beyond in the back.
Oh, so it's say west of the existing septic system is here.
Okay.
The tank is like over here and then the septic system is all in the back. So the so the driveway was just a driveway and I had sorry yeah it's vegetable I was looking at it sideway tank is here system is in the back.
So did you have to blast out a lot of fish to make?
No it's it's so where the house is it it it's a couple of feet down but as you go down this way it it drops. So where septic system is they didn't have to do any blasting. The only time I had to do blasting was where the house was and for the underground service, power service, and where the well is to the house that has to be all blasted. And then where the where the drop is from here down here, there's nothing or it's it's below 7 ft. And where the hill is, it's all ledge. When we're building a house, it's like a quarrying. That's all you Oh, it's just rocks. So what you're saying is that ledge like all here like it will pretty much follow
pretty much. Yeah, pretty much here and then from down below there's nothing or it's deep.
Okay.
Yeah.
So it would be a little prohibited with that sub system,
right? Cuz it's all ledge up there.
There's boulders coming out of the ground there. it's all it's all ledge. Right. And somebody told me way years and years ago where the the ledge line is and it just kind of like follows where the the hill and kind of swings around where the driveway is and it just shoots down the road. I forgot who told me but a long time ago they knew.
No blast on a ledge.
But yeah.
Yeah. I want to I want to know if there's going to be blasting
because when they blasted for their house,
we weren't aware of it
in our foundation and well took a big hit.
Oh,
so we want to know if there's going to be blasting for this one.
So the foundation you wouldn't have to plaster your foundation.
No.
In the new house.
No. No. Because set I
Yeah. where it set down down way.
So the only black place if you had to put the septic system up on your land up in the back
that would be the only time that blast
for this house for this septic. No.
Okay. so if this moves forward when will that be known as far as whether you know when you get in the ground and start digging.
Well the they've we've already been told where the where the ledge line is. Okay.
Yeah. Where the ledge line and everything is. So it's it's not land.
So I hear but I hear you. I appreciate what you say. I appreciate you living. It's just 30.
So according to your knowledge of the land,
following this proposed plan would not run into problems with
That's correct. Yes.
But
yeah. No, that's I appreciate you know that
Yeah.
that we could address that because that's your concern of I need to address it. Absolutely valid.
Right. Okay.
So, if if you want to leave it the hearing open, if you have other questions, absolutely. We're happy to stay as long as you want and discuss them. But if you want to leave the hearing open till the next meeting, then we can come back.
It's up to you. That's up to the We have I'm telling you, we have no objection to that. and I think that's that's the you know, best case.
All right. So, my question is, does it have to be on the next regularly scheduled or can we make a special date? You can do a special.
Okay. My thing is I'm on the board of finance also and I will be at a board of finance meeting
on the next regularly scheduled
which is March.
I have I have a I have a meeting every single Wednesday night going out because we have budget season.
Wow. Want everybody here. So
and I want to be here. So and you're want all five people.
If the board decides it wants to do a special meeting just let me know and I'll make it and all that. Sorry. When is the next regular schedule? Is
March 7.
Oh, February. It's on the next one.
So, February 17.
February 18th, most likely.
February 18th. That's a Wednesday, right?
Yeah. I will definitely be
I know you wanted to listen.
Actually, I won't even be here. I'll be here.
I'm lucky. Now that I think about it,
be a Wednesday night.
So, you're not going to be here. So, that's not going to be here on your regular schedule. If we can do something in the next 11th so we can do something before the 11th I guess would be nice to say is you can't guarantee that there's going to be all of us
we have to notice it
well we would ask everybody here
I mean it would be best though to continue if we could continue this to a date certain would be great is there any way we could try that out I like to try and pick a date that we all know we could do this now
before fee left and notify an alternate and well hopefully Julie Hag will be back in California by then. I think she would be okay. I'll call her and then she'd always get a
we could pick a date now and then try to confirm Julie had and I think and or Joan. The only thing is the room there all math and kind of brought up on speed on everything they can watch that too. So if they go beyond a week from pay then people who are patient are likely to be dying a reasonable
right. So if you look at either the 28th or the first week of February not due Thursday the Wednesday doesn't have to be Wednesday.
It doesn't have to be Wednesday.
You just need to know that the room's available.
It could be it could be Wednesday the 4th
of February. It could be Thursday the 5th.
I can't do third. Could be Friday if you want to meet on Friday.
Yeah, fourth would be Friday.
Good for me. You said you can't do the fourth.
actually, yeah, I can't do the I'm sorry. I cannot do the fourth or the fifth. I apologize. is Tuesday the 3rd? Not
Tuesday?
I You guys already have a hearing weapons on the third.
I mean, you could do it at 6 instead of 7. Yeah.
Is that works 6:00 on the
time? 6 o'
I guess so.
I appreciate it. I'm sorry. I have a eighth grader transitioning up to 9th grade and they have so many things going on
and I apologize. I can't miss those.
Been there. I could I could do the third as long as it doesn't interfere with wetlands because I have to be here for wetlands that night.
Oh, you'll be here.
6 o'
be a long night. That's an hour long enough.
I would think an hour be long enough. it depends.
You'll be here and where is it? So, it' be really the questions that Julia would have if she's here or an alternate,
right? Well, we just have to assume that one of
those with that respect, I would think I would the chair probably should reach out to to yeah everybody and say
the video was posted on YouTube. Please review it.
There you go. So, we have the four of us all confirmed. We have one permanent seat and two office. I'm sure we can get one of them to be here
if need be. and you can't or if you think it's too tight with weapons that night. I could do the second also that Monday. I don't know if you want to maybe have two dates to run by your altern who's who's
Yeah, the second two. It's up to you guys, but I just I'm available that we're going to just keep having the same meeting.
So, just in case it was ultimate Monday the 2nd
and that could be at six or seven. All right. But whatever for the third right now
and now Friday Tuesday I'll take you back. Do you want me to pull the members or you don't pull the members?
I'd rather push it off on you if you're okay with that.
You have all the right.
So if you can send out the poll to everybody for choosing the third is my responsibility. I'll do it. Yeah.
And big letter six.
Is that we get this one date? Let's go with that date. Okay.
Thank you.
All right. Are we
That's coming up pretty darn quick. I think we're good to go. If you guys want to go, we just have to go through the rest of our regular meet.
Sure. Okay.
We'll close.
Oh, so Don't close the hearing. Just continue it.
Not close this hearing. Just this part of this hearing. We now open up the second part of this. So, but thank you guys.
Thank you.
Take care.
Thank you.
Oh, before we go,
does the chair and the and the board want anything from the three attorneys prior to that meeting
in writing? February.
I have suggested to the chair that
both attorneys brief the board
for my brief on on your position. if I didn't write it because it's it's difficult to follow that would be helpful if you would be a
I would make sense
not a legal brief but a brief
summary of your arguments
ure
that'd be great I
to Wayne he could send the whole I'm calling upon my prior experience as a hearing officer if I'm in this quandry I punt and then that's what I my
is it normal to ask in well I I guess nothing is normal in any of these but as far as the septic easement would it be acceptable or reasonable
well as riser stated I mean there's easements for for drive and
yeah the town has easement
s for drainage private property
there's drainage easements from private property private property
eah I would say the answer to that question is
no Okay.
Unusual. I don't know. I would use that word.
Okay. Yeah. That that I'm saying as far as the reasoning behind the United States. That' be great.
Okay.
And I'll make sure Julia gets it.
Jack, maybe we can chat about that
offline. And
I don't know. Is it of any concern to the board the language in the easements
for the drain the subject?
No, I think that attorney Riser's statement was accurate that they there is a way to draft an easement that
okay,
you know, has teeth in it and is enforcable and all that sort.
It wouldn't be a whatever consideration for this board. That's the question I'm asking. Yeah.
No, I don't think that is
I think it is deliberatility.
Yeah, I was just thinking overall big picture when I asked the question, but it's not really hard. So,
yeah, it doesn't come in our It doesn't really come.
All right. So, you're continuing the to a special meeting tenatively to be held 26
February 6th at 6 p.m. February 3rd.
Tuesday. at 6 p.m. See?
Okay.
February 3rd, Tuesday, 6 p.m. All right.
Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.
Thank you guys.
Thanks.
All right.
That's right. This is very interesting.
Very interesting. I don't know if the rest of the guys have met. My name is John Bradley. I'm from Alamin Sage. Everyone calls me Jack. I'm here for Mark in place of Mark Grant. he couldn't be here tonight, but thank you all. I thank you for being here.
Read all this stuff and you got a beauty here.
Yeah, it's a is a beauty. So, will you be with us next time or will we?
I don't know. I don't know. But I I certainly will.
I'm going to be inviting
probably a rep somebody to represent.
All right, great.
We'll have somebody. Thank you,
Chair. No, likewise. Thank you.
So, call or you know and then we don't need to see members really okay because we have a quorum public comment there's nobody from the public here so that old business we don't have any new business and then do we have the minutes from the last waiting sent out to us
I have a copy here somebody want
I'd love to see a copy I did not review them oh I wasn't here so I'm I have scan anyways anybody want a copy of the minutes
I it. You have it. You have it.
I was not here. So, okay. So, maybe you can vote on this. This is so any any additions or changes to the agenda, folks?
public comments?
No.
Old business? There is none. new business. We've already taken care of that. and so that closes this part of the meeting. Does the board want any discussion on this?
We could we could discuss it further if you guys want to. I'll be
Are we allowed to discuss it without the application around?
No, you're not allowed to this to deliberate on this until public hearings.
Okay.
Hearing is public hearing. It's held open.
No, it's held. You're right. You're right. I'm sorry. Okay. So, we can't on that. Okay. so that is done and so that takes us to adoption of the November 19th, 2025 minutes. so
So any discussion?
No discussion. All right. So
all in favor? All right. All right. So, we approve the minutes.
Nobody abstains. Oh. Oh, yeah. Bill abstain. Okay. Sorry.
So, discussion. So, our next regular meeting is not February 18th as is listed here.
Next regular meeting. This is a special meeting. Okay. So, this next regular meeting. Does
that mean we'll have another one?
Yes. You're still a regular meeting will still occur on the on the
18th. If you have a is there business that we know this so if we're not going to be on the third
if it's not decided on the third
oh is not third they say we just put the bed to bed on the third then there may be no business
for the 18th so we don't know could be
all right but this is the only thing you have as far as you know this
all right so so our next regular meeting February 18th our next irregular meeting. We've already special meeting we've already discussed. so do we have a motion to a chair?
I make a motion. Bill makes
I'll take that and bring it around again.
Okay. chairing. Any discussion? All in favor? I
All right. Mind if I take this?
Good job, guys. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks for helping us out with this.