Zoning Board of Appeals - August 26, 2025 Regular Meeting

001There we go. We're great. This time is now 7:00 p.m. Uh, tonight is Tuesday, August 26, 2025, 7 p.m. I will call the regular meeting of the town of Winchester zoning board of appeals to order. uh at the located in the P. Francis Hicks room, Winchester Town Hall, 338 Main Street, 2nd floor, Winstead, Connecticut. Um present tonight are myself, Aubrey English, U and members Ellie Gun and Marian Marino, Paul Mitchell and Ryan Hy. Um, for those of you ladies and gentlemen who are here tonight who have uh not uh ever seen or participated uh in a u zing board meeting, we got a nice crowd tonight here. Glad you all glad you're all welcome. Uh the way this works is um we I will call each of the application individually one by one. Uh it'll

002be a it'll be a hearing. applicant will ask their question will uh present their application to the board. Board members will have an opportunity to answer ask questions and I will then open the uh forum up to a public and to a public hearing and to where any member of the public uh can offer their uh ask questions uh of the uh applicant uh or of the application or make any comments. And uh for purposes of um regular order here, I would just that ask that any members of the public who wish to address um this would just ask answer the questions or comments directly to the chair and I will make sure that it's dispensed up properly. Excuse me. Upon uh completion of the public hearing, I will close the hearing uh public hearing

003and give the applicant the final say as to uh for their application. um their closing argument and then the motion will be read. Discussion will be had among the board members and there will be a vote um in favor or denying the application. Um unlike most other boards where it's majority only um to have your application uh confirmed or approved has to be by four affirmative votes. We have five members here tonight. So you you could uh afford to lose at least one member uh one vote. Uh so that being said, I will go ahead and uh open the uh open the meeting here with the first application. ZBA number 25-8, a variance for 229 West Wakefield Boulevard. And if you will please state your name and address for the record. >> Yes, my name

004is Alison. I am attorney for Richard. I'm here on behalf of crime with Anderson. Our business address. >> Okay. One one second ma'am. Could I just ask you just to tap that over to green here? So yeah, we can we can hear you. We can we can uh hear your comments as well or for the people who are listening on uh uh YouTube as well too. No problem. Do you want me to repeat that? >> You don't have to. No. >> No. >> You're you're you're you're the attorney representing the applicant, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Robert Clobella. I am a senior project manager with Haley Ward. I'm also a licensed professional engineer in the state of Connecticut. I'm here today representing Paula and Richard Knight on their application

005for a variance to provide a recreational storage facility and a deck in front of their house at 229 West Wakefield. So I'm presenting the plans and I'll discuss um what the improve the second improvements will be and what we've done to try to minimize the attack. So what you have on the screen right now is existing conditions. Um so all this gray area that you see going around the house here, all that gray area is asphalt currently. All of that's going to be removed. This deck I mean sorry the shed uh in the northern corner is also being removed and it's being replaced with a smaller shed. So it's so the applicant is here today and they're seeking a um 11.38 southwest sideyard setback of 6.2 and the front yard set back 29.5 ft for

006the shed. So on the next bed is the proposed design. The shed itself is only gets us with 320 square ft. It's not a very big shed. Um and the applicant proposes to put a deck uh over the top of uh the storage. Here's the interesting part about the deck. The deck is conforming because it's greater than 20 ft from the front yard and greater than 9 ft from the sideyards. And in the HLD district, that's that's part of the regulations. You can have a deck within 20 ft of front or rear yard depending on which where you have deck or within 9 ft of the side. So the storage building that he's uh creating is going to be positioned completely underneath the deck. So he's basically building the three walls into the hillside. And

007uh we do have architectural for this project. One of the other things that we're doing at this site is uh for one thing we're increasing decreasing the impervious surface and I'll show that soon. Um, we also are decreasing the sideyard by the shed by making the shed smaller. And we have pretty decent storm water management system, which they really haven't had. And if anybody's driven by this area, they know that these two catch basins right here in the road are never really handling the water. This one here, the outlet pipe is always underwater. This one here on the other side of the street, pipe is clogged that goes up the road this way and discharges over by Pratt's house where they also have a storage facility out in front of their yard. Um, so one

008of the things that we were doing is to try to infiltrate the water back into the ground so it doesn't have uh I spoke with Jim Rollins after the weapons meeting which we were at. we've only been accepted at the wetlands meeting because they can only accept your application the first month and then next month they act on it. So, um I noticed that Jim during the post session was having a discussion with the commission about u solving the water problem that they have because they have a problem of water sitting there all the time. And uh he asked if we would work some of our project into this to kind of make things better for the whole area so that doesn't sit there. So, next page is the impervious surface above. We're not decreasing

009it by much, but we are decreasing it. Above is uh the old house with all the asphalt that was around it and the larger shed. And then there's the smaller shed with no asphalt around the building, all that glass. And it actually became less. So we decreased it not by much but it has been decreased and uh we also took the steps of ensuring that storm water quality was wasn't an issue. These are the project details we have control going. So we're decreasing this sideard. This side will set back in the corner. We have to set that table here. So this is the zoning information table. The lot size isn't changing. The lot width isn't changing. The minimum front yard is 58 ft. Existing is 48.8. The while the deck is allowed because it's 20.5

010ft from this is only going to the building under it is also going to be 20.5 ft. So that's looking for sideyard variance. Um the minimum sideyard is uh 35 ft. Uh we are staying the same uh decreasing it and decreasing it again. So we're decreasing the sideyard in two areas and keeping it the same at one. Um minimum rear yard is the same. Nothing's going to change. Uh minimum building height is the same. That's not going to change. Uh what is going to change is the entryway. Uh, they used to enter zoom out. Sorry. Oh, that went away. Yeah. >> Come on. >> Sorry, my glasses don't go that. >> Yeah. Sorry, Aubrey. I'll put it back. All right. So, this was the old entrance right here. And the new entrance. This is on

011the next page. Sorry about this. Got to be careful with that control. Uh, so in the new entrance, so you're going to come up the stairs, go across here, one step down onto the grass, one step up onto the deck, across this platform, and into the new entrance of the house, which was the original entrance years ago. Um, oh, so one of the other things we did, just to let you know that we looked at other alternatives, was one, could we put it behind the house, and that was kind of not a possibility because the grades there are really, really steep. In some instances, they're one and a half to one. And uh we thought about putting it across across the street, but you're not allowed to have an accessory structure without having a primary

012structure on that lot. So we couldn't put it across the street besides it would take up all the recreational area. So this is a place for them to store only recreational for use at the lake. And there is uh quote there is um some verbiage in our regulations about recreation facilities. Um and as far as the hardship goes, I was going to turn that over to Allison because that's what the what what our applicant hired them for is to >> prepare the documented hardship. >> So the the hardship here exists in part due to the slope as Rob just mentioned as well as the property being split by the town road. It It's not a hardship that is personal to the Knights. It would affect any owner of the property due to, you know, obviously

013the slope and the and the road not changing with a change of ownership. Um, and so there does exist a legal hardship for the granting of the variance. And as Rob mentioned, there's not really an alternate location where this storage could be put on their property. Um, and so that's that's the real basis of the legal hardship we're claiming here. >> Um, oh, I just wanted Oh, you already we already looked at the impervious coverage, the details. This bio detention swell is going to really help with what Jim is looking to do. So, but we're open the floor to questions from the board. >> Any questions from the board? >> Could you restate that hardship? Just restate it. Sorry. Yeah, the hardship exists due to the slope as well as the public road that splits

014the two parcels and so there's not really anywhere else on the property that this storage can be constructed. >> Is it two parcels or one parcel? >> It's one parcel, but the road is >> or one deed. >> I believe it's one deed. I'll double check because I have the deed was attached to the letter that attorney Grab submitted in the record and I believe it is just one deed but I'll double check here. The other problem with putting it across the street is uh the groundwater level there is extremely high. It's probably in below the ground. Like we said, the outflow pipe of the storm water pipe that that's a town pipe, town basin, that outflow pipe is always below water. >> Robert, is it okay if I ask a question? >> Absolutely. >>

015Okay. Um Rob, could you just go through again uh what you're doing in conjunction with Department of Public Works to help with the >> water? We Jim had said so he asked for the plants so he could look at them because they're getting ready to put an under drain in over there and I thought and we the only comment that came out of wetlands during our application uh process was that they were looking for footing. So I said to I thinking about this after Jin left and I said why don't we have instead of just a plain footing drain that comes down we come off the ends and make it a complete current drain because he says he's having trouble with groundwater. So if we can intercept as much of the ground water as possible

016as it's coming down tie into his under drain. Okay, >> then it would be wonderful because we can reduce what's the problem that's exist and in the winter it's even more of a problem. So it's his under drain you were referring to when you said bioell. >> That's up at the upper >> our bio swell is here. >> Okay. >> This is to collect water that's coming down off this hillside on this one and a half to one slope. And the what we're doing here is infiltrating that water. Got it. >> Into the ground prior to releasing it. And not only that, we have a raised yard drain in there. So the water can actually fill up in there and sit there for a while while it filters. And if it just gets too high,

017it'll just go down the drain and to a per another perforated pipe and you know just keep infiltrating into the ground as >> So essentially this would fall under L. >> Yes, that's our good. >> That's our L. The bio retented soil is our L. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Feature for this for this application. >> Should I say two? >> Oh, the only attached one to it. >> Yeah, there's separated There's 229 West Wakefield and then there's just West Wakefield which is the waterfront parcel. So the row being in the middle isn't really a hindrance to something on one of the parcels is all I just wanted to confirm that the um the other question I have is what are we actually building? Is it walls? >> No, I got I have that. Sorry about

018that. This is uh this is the the the smaller shed that's going to replace the other shed. And this is stone with keystone. It's got a nice look to it. Architect did a good job. And this is what client's looking to do. Here's the deck that it's it's interesting because I haven't had one of these where you know the deck portion of this is is allowed by regulation whereas the storage area that they're trying to create underneath is in the front yard and you know we need a barrier for that and we did try all the different locations across the street behind the house left right you know but the pad's already there we didn't want to do have any more disting That pad's already there. So, we're not really >> So, it's not like

019three sided concrete walls. It's >> No, it's just going to have a stone. I don't know whether it's concrete with a stone veneer or it's or if it's actually going to be made of stuff, but >> the only utilities in there are electricity for lights. >> Yeah. I right now I don't know if they were even thinking about putting electricity in there. So, one of the other Yeah. So, they weren't going to put electricity in there. Was it building? >> You said they were or were not. >> Not. As far as I know, they they're they're not if they I don't know if they're going to or not. I haven't discussed it with them, but they didn't show anything. He had drawn up a interesting plan of how he so he has he drew up

020lawn chairs here and he tried to minimize his space. So he drew a little floor plan. I don't have it here but he drew his paddle boards in their length and his kayaks in their length and he tried to minimize see if I can hang them this way I can. So he tried to make it as small as possible. He made it small enough to meet the minimum size for deck 400 square feet. You say this shed is is smaller than the one that's currently there now. Is it was it >> No, the the other shed, this this shed back here, this existing shed >> Uhhuh. >> is getting replaced by this smaller shed, which is going to push it further away from the sideyard and just make it smaller. The other one's in bad

021condition. >> We have any other questions from the board? hearing. None. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. And if if there's any members of the public uh who wish to speak to this application, uh please step forward, identify yourself, name, address, and uh ask your question or make your comment to the chair. Any members of the public? >> Can I speak just in general, not specifically about this application? >> It has to be to this application. Um uh for for for the public hearing there. Um um I I can welcome some general comments towards the end to the end of the meeting if that's all right. Um any other any comments regarding this application from the public? Lastly, any uh comments uh any public comments? Hearing none from the public. Uh I will

022enter into the record the following uh two communications that were attached to this application. Uh couple of neighbors. First one dated May 10th, 2025 to whom it may concern. I have looked over the site plan proposed for 229 West Wakefield Boulevard Richard Knight and do not see any concern as a neighbor. The end result with its carefully chosen architecture would be a complement to the surrounding neighborhood signed uh Steven A. Smiggle 301 West Wakefield Boulevard, Winston, Connecticut 06098. Phone number attached. Uh the second one, um we were notified by our neighbors at 229 West Wakefield Boulevard of their plans to replace shed and to put storage in front of their house with a deck above it. We see no issues to the blueprint. He has showed us as long as it doesn't block our view.

023Signed, George Corbin, 227 West Wakefield Boulevard, Winston, Connecticut. And those into the record. Um, hearing no other further comments from the public, I'll go ahead and close the public comment and give you guys the final uh final support. So, one of the documents I produced for this application is on the screen right now, call it attachment B. This is a West Wakefield Boulevard yard encroachments throughout that neighborhood. Um just so you know that I mean one of the things that we have to pro app prove for variance is that we're coincidental with uh the neighboring properties that we're we're keeping in uh with the with what everybody else has. So if you look at all the yes's under front yard encroachments on Westfield Boulevard and such as the nature of the lake, it's just smaller

024lots built at at a time when the regulations weren't 35 ft for or 50 feet for a front yard or you know 35 ft for a side yard. Most of these buildings that are on this list have been there for a very long time as was this one. And so that's why they're almost all existing non-conforming now because of the change of the regulations. in 2017. So if you look at this list, we're in keeping with what's going on, especially just two doors over. There's almost the only thing it doesn't have above it is the death. And there's almost a yes almost on every property on front yard encroachments and almost a yes on every property from 100 to 434 or 4 Yeah, 434. But just so you know we understand that we are also

025uh keeping in line with the outline in in variance application in our regulations. And like she mentioned, we we tried the different places and we found what we thought was the most suitable place, the smallest building that we could possibly build to to house what he needed. um and tried to minimize any impact to the area. And we're also going to be working to try to improve the storm water quality in the area. >> That's it. All set. >> Okay. Uh that I will close the application hearing on this and uh read the following motions. Motion to the record. Motion to grant variances per section 3D5C of zoning regulations for application ZBA 25-8. Construct a storage shed with an open deck above the roof with a northeast side yard setback of 11.38 ft. Uh southwest

026side yard setback of 6.2 feet and a front yard setback of 29.5 ft. We have a second. >> Second. >> Motion been made in second. Any discussion? >> Just as this earlier, but by definition, storage facility versus garage versus a deck over a structure. I guess I'm a little confused as to what we're actually looking at in this instance. Well, it's a unique uh construction. I don't think our rags have a specific spot for a storage with a deck above. That being said, both are allowed. Uh so there's no prohibition on combining the two as long as they meet the regulations or whatever variances they may grant in the regulations. I don't know if that helps you, but >> yeah, it's not something that >> really if they decide to turn it to condition space,

027does that change any of this? if it's insulated and wired and plumbed. >> Uh well, the question about electricity I don't think would make a difference. Uh but if it were made livable space, then >> that's what I'm asking. >> Yeah, that that would make a difference. Right now, this is just for storage. Uh our regulations do specifically call out in some instances that uh sheds cannot be used to house people or livestock. It's, you know, just for stuff. Uh and that I think is what this application is really. from like a zoning standpoint, it being living space or non-living space is not applicable or is applicable if this >> Oh, it would be applicable, but that's not what they're asking for here >> because this this came up in another instance. What happens when

028when you know 6 months down the line this the structure is, you know, it's built to to meet the energy code and then six months down the line they say, you know what, actually want to put some heat in here and we want to, you know, enjoy it, you know, not maliciously, but I'm just saying, you know, enjoy it like turn it into a livable space. What would stop them at that point from doing that if it was approved here as a shed or storage and then 6 months later it's it's now like an addition or something that it's very plausible. >> That would require a whole another set of permits and a change of use. If they did that without the permits, then we would have enforcement. >> Yeah, obviously. Yeah. So, so it

029it would I guess my question is would it would it make it through would it be would it make it through that set of permits or would that be like stopped before that happened because it was approved here as a shed and not a house? >> I'd like to think it'd be stopped before it happened. Uh if they applied for the permits in the right way, we would check the record and see that they were granted. >> That's what I'm asking. The only reason I'm asking that too is just is just so because not just so every application doesn't come in as a I'm not saying this one's doing it. I'm just saying that every application doesn't come in as a shed or storage space and then you know and then it's changed and kind

030of just falls through the cracks and becomes livable space because somebody might not want like an in like a you know an ADU apartment or like an in-law or something being used like that like in certain you know areas of certain properties. That's just why I'm asking that. >> Yeah. Well, like I said, they couple paths are they'd either have to come in and try to get a permit where they get stopped or they would do it without permits where they would >> So, so at this point So, at this point, it's a no. We're only proving that it's area on the land as >> as is. That's that's correct. Okay, that's all. Thank you. >> It is there a world in which we can just put a condition on the approval that it is

031>> that not the intention of this board for this to be any like condition space or livable space? Yeah, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to do that. >> It would just have to say that it's it's being used. It would have to specify this in this point. >> And now that's exactly so if it changes then that's like a whole different thing. They have to I mean I think I think they I think the I mean just speaking from what I heard I think the applicants have made very clear their intention in this application and what they're what they're going to what they're going to use that storage facility for. That's that's what I'm going to we're going to what we're going to vote on here. But I understand also the concern

032of is upcoming applications as well too. Just to just to make clear here. >> Yeah. I mean I just asked about a condition because 10 years down the road a whole different board, whole different land use team, whole new owner if it's in the land records and it's very clear what the intention of this board was in the approval, >> right? >> And it's very popular. Every shed now becomes a a part of a house, right? >> And everything becomes because it's easier to to to do that. So are so I guess the question is are you asking to attach a condition to this as well as as future? >> I would recommend it if it pleases the other commissioners. >> I mean >> I don't see any harm in it. It creates another level

033of protection from turn it into an Airbnb >> years down the road when a new buyer takes it. >> So how would you want the language to read as far as that? I mean just the >> uh structure to remain conditioned space without zoning >> change in use. >> I guess they'll come back come back and ask for permission to change it to condition space. I mean I I mean I would say if they if they want to if they want to if they want to uh change it in the future to a livable space or anything other than the storage space that they would have to come back before this board and uh and apply for that. Right. >> But maybe the condition language is simply um it is the intention of this board

034to approve the construction of a storage shed only um and not conditioned space for living use. >> Okay. I mean again I'm I I I I mean I completely understand the I'm just I'm just questioning whether it's for this application if it's necessary since they've already specified that they are not it's not going to be used for that and and that I mean as in any other application if they wanted to um uh if they wanted to make a change in the future to that facility that they would have to come back uh before this commission and and with another application as well to to do so. Um, but I will I mean I will go with what the what the board would like what the rest of the board would like to do. >>

035Yeah. I don't know how to word it, but like you know there's there's 13 variables of what could happen there, right? So this is a deck over what I'm assuming is we're putting it in as impervious surfaces. So somebody comes back 10 years from now they want to extend the house out. They have documentation showing that this house has impervious surface. feet from the road and they ask if they can put an addition on and the next board says, "Oh, look, it's already impervious. Why not let them build up? It's already there." >> Not that that would, but we just think that's I think that's what Maryann was getting at with protecting the future state of the project from not being stuff everywhere. So, >> Jeff, do you have recommended language? >> I do not.

036>> Shame. >> It's up to you guys. I mean, like I say, I I mean, um I'm not I I if that if that's your if that's what you'd like to to have us doing, just um >> What about finishing it with the intended use of the structure is for storage and a deck above. Just simple >> with the intended use of the storage shed >> and a deck. A deck with a storage shed underneath, right? >> The intended >> rather than just the purpose coverage >> with the intended use of a deck with the storage shed underneath. the sound >> only. >> I would add the word only [Music] Okay, I'm going to reread this with the uh amended uh uh condition motion to grant variances for section 3D5C zoning regulations for application ZBA

03725-8 Construct a storage shed with an open deck above the roof with a northeast side yard set back of 11.38 ft, southwest side yard set back of 6.2 ft, and a front yard setback of 29.5 ft with the intended use of a deck with a storage facility underneath only. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion made and second by Ryan. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. All in favor? opposed. You have you have you have your project. >> Thank you. you. Moving on, we have GBA application 25-9, a variance for 734 Lake Drive. We have the applicant or applicant representative on site. Okay. For the record, my name is Robbie Pabella. I am a senior project manager with Haley Ward. I'm here today representing the applicants, Rich and Karm Nardella uh for their

038property at 734 Lake Drive. What the applicant is proposing is to we're not they're not raising the house. They're only raising the second floor of the house and they're eliminating this existing shed and they're eliminating this existing garage and uh pulling putting a a new garage in front of the building that's already the house that's already there. So this is the existing condition and demolition plan. Uh, as you can see, all these patio area is being removed. All these sidewalks are being removed. The house is staying where it is. Only the second floor is being raised. The existing shed is being removed. The existing garage is being removed. And a large portion of the asphalt is being removed, which is borders here, but we'll see that on uh the impervious cover plan. Uh this project

039uh unlike most of the variances that I bring before this commission has the unique uniqueness of being able to decrease all of the existing nonconformity. So we we don't I don't always get that but you know this time we did. What you see in red and as revision to is um something that the wetlands commission asked for. It was the only comment they had was to uh spread the the roof leader and putting drain water out. Um and we took care of that and they have they received their approval uh last Thursday. So they already have their wetlands approval in place. the garage and I'll move this again. See if I can. So, the minimum lot size is is uh well, the lot size is 14,220. That's obviously not changing. The lot width is obviously

040not changing. We're decreasing the front yard by almost 30 ft. I think it's like 30.01 ft somewhere in that range or 29 ft. Um, so it's it used to be 10.61 ft. The garage was 10.61 ft up the front yard and uh the new garage will now be almost 40t off the front yard. As far as the sideyard goes, the west side shed is only 1.79 ft and uh the garage is now going to be 23.37 ft from that side. Maybe I can 5.31 ft. Uh the garage on the west side and it's going to be reduced to 26 oh sorry, let's rephrase that. It's going from 1.79 ft the shed to 5.31 feet at the garage. Uh that's a decrease of about four feet. It's going from 23.37 feet on the east side from

041the garage to 26.15 which is also another decrease of about 3.5%. Um the minimum rear yard setback is conforming. Uh so there's neither an increase or decrease there. The maximum building height is being increased by about 2 foot three in but it's still within the uh 30 foot limit and is within the zoning regulations and is conforming. As far as low impact development is concerned we're reducing the existing coverage from 48.5% to 39.5%. The last time we were here it was a little higher. We reduced uh more of the uh impervious coverage uh between now and the last time we were here. And the decks, pergas, and patios 20 foot minimum. Used to be 20.11. Now it's 25.27. Also a decrease in in um rear yard setbacks. U see the regulated wetland activity, but that's

042not what we're here for. Next page is in coverage. There it is. H too many times. Here's the impervious coverage plan. Uh also in red revision two. I had left off the words Highland Lake during the first wetlands meeting. So that was part of revision two. So that's why that revision cloud is there. Uh previously um this lot had more impervious coverage than did now. This sidewalk was continued off with a turnaround over here. Um so what you have is everything you see in light blue is this upper one is existing is existing asphalt. Everything you see in light blue down here is the proposed asphalt which is a decrease. One of the beneficials to benefits to this decrease is that there's a catch basin uh right here in the asphalt currently and by and

043being in the asphalt you know it has the ability to accept sand and grit and everything else that comes off the bottom of your cars. Um whereas we removed it and that catch basin is now going to be sitting in grass and so water that gets there will at least have an opportunity to be cleaned before it gets down the drain. You can see we reduced the asphalt by quite a bit. Looks like the building did increase a little bit. So let me look look at the table here that I created. I'll One more giving me trouble today. That's user errors today. Sorry, folks. All right. So, payment is going from existing coverage of 3,85 square ft to uh 1,380 ft. Quite a drop in 21.7% to 9.7%. buildings are going from 2,119 square feet

044to 2,841 square feet. It's only an increase of like 700 square feet. I've seen much larger increases before, but fortunately it wasn't being too aggressive with the building. Um, walks, patios, and decks are being reduced from 1315 square ft to 1147 square ft. Retaining wall steps and ramps are also being decreased from 345 to 230 ft. And utilities also being decreased does see a net net a net decrease of about almost 10%. 9%. That being said, details of the sidewalk. Um this is a construction and most these are erosion control details here. All of these so that's the erosion control narrative. All right that's the presentation. I do have a All right. I'm going to read this into the record. It's a It was submitted with the application, too. But I mean, you want me

045to read it or you want to read it? I I'll take it. >> I mean, um I don't know if it'd be necessary for me or have to read it in or if it's the pleasure of the board just to go ahead and submit this as part of the record without the reading. >> Either. I think either's fine. >> Yeah. I mean, I read it. I don't >> I read it also. I read it also. I mean, are we are we good with just uh is there objection to uh submitting it to the record without rating with that objection submitted? Um, so in there it explained I think I explained about a month or so ago. Uh, and I not only did I explain about the ad offset exception, but the entrance town planner has

046also submitted a letter with the application discussing that he he did his review and he provided a response. I don't have that here. I thought you would have it. it's all online and he uh basically said the same thing about the adult exception. It's an interesting case whereas if you're decreasing an existing nonconforming use, setback, whatever, um, and if you're making everything less non-conforming than it was prior, the board is under no obligation to receive a documented hardship. So the Adelson exception was also was actually given to me by the interim town planner and I think he wrote something to that effect in the in the package >> of his review. So you all have that letter. >> Is there objection to submitting it to the record without reading? >> No objection. >> Objection is

047submitted without reading. >> Nothing. I know Marian you were here two months ago but were you here? Is it alternate back? I wasn't here at that meeting. >> But um are have you received enough information here today from me? >> Do you need more? >> Oh, yeah. I've got everything >> and and I spoke with Jeremy as well. >> So, um they also did the neighbor thing. They got letters from each neighbor on each side also submitted with the application. For all three of my applications tonight, all the certified mailings were done and complete. Um >> I do have one question. I mean I I understand that ad um exception, but is there actually a condition on this lot, this property that um requires the driveway to be asphalt instead of an imper a pvious

048paving system. >> It's not a pvious system. It's just as >> No. No. Is there is there a so you know Dave and I spent a lot of time talking about pvious paving systems and some properties can't really handle it. >> This isn't a good spot. >> Okay, that was my question. >> Yeah. Okay. One of the other things too is I always like to provide some type of low impact development in my plant. So, especially when I'm working around the lake. So, I really like the idea that we're taking the clean water, which sometimes can be hot because it comes off the roof >> off the roof leaders. >> Yeah. And and we're actually when it gets to its location, we're spreading it out. One of the interesting things that happened after the meeting

049was Matt was asking, you know, is this going to be or and Jeff were asking if this is going to be something common that people are going to want to start doing around the lake. I mean, it's double filtered actually triple filtered now because the the the pipe when I spread spread the the water out, we're wrapping that pipe. Then a foot down there's another layer of filter traffic fabric. And then at the 4ft level there's another layer of filter fabric. So the water gets to cool down, gets filtered. No, no, no garbage gets into the lake. And what Matt was wondering, you know, that close to the lake, is it really going to be Well, in this case, it's triple filter. But one of the thoughts I had after we left that meeting, I'm

050going to put it in the plan, is that we can use a perforated pipe for the leader the whole way >> with stone under it and cover that. So this way we're also infiltrating as we go and even that much less water gets to the wall. Right. >> But but you answered my question which is that this property is not a candidate for a previous paving system. >> Yes. Not up there. The soils won't >> they're not as they're not well drained. >> Okay. >> We uh have any further questions, comments from the board. Okay, hearing none, I will go ahead open the public forum to this application and welcome any members of the public who wish to speak to this or speak to this application. Any members of the public? Yes. Uh yes, ma'am.

051I I saw your hand first. You you can step forward if you'd like to. >> My name is at 738 and we fully support this. >> Thank you so much. >> Yes, sir. Go ahead. >> Thank you very much. My name is Rick. We started programming on the lake. truly great years, but he's been on the 62 years. He has a beautiful home in New York. He retires. He says he's done full years. He would never do anything. I'm a little worried. respect for the lake. In fact, his property doesn't bought a Kota tractor. You know what he does with that Kabota tractor? He goes up Eastfield's everybody know 35 years I've been here. everything. I see him up there out of there, it should be for years. I would say you might know that

052pretty clear. I knew I know well. >> Thank you for your comments, Mr. Stann. Thank you. >> Go. >> Oh, you're fine. Go ahead. Hi. 26. Uh, I completely agree with this and I I can only go to what was said here. Okay. But I approve of this. >> Thank you for your comment. Appreciate the feedback, folks. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Laura Marino, 678 East Wakefield Boulevard. Although I'm not on Lake Drive, I neighbor Lake Drive and I fully support this project. Um, And I'm going to ditto what everybody is saying, but I'm going to expand it to I don't know anybody on Lake Drive that doesn't take care of the lake and go above and beyond to take care of that because it's our foundation to this town and if we lose that lake,

053we have a very high potential to lose this town. So, it's because of people like Rick and Ed and Patrick. Rick and Liz and all the neighbors that don't live up here full time. They respect this lake. They're going to take care of this lake. And again, I support everything that the Nardellas want to do on their property. >> Thank you for your comments. Again, very much appreciate the feedback from the public. That really helps matters out. uh in helping with the decision as well too. So uh do we have any other members of the public who wish to speak to this? Any other members of the public hearing? None. Um I will uh quickly read and submit to the record uh the following uh following two uh brief um emails. Uh first one says,

054"Hello ZBA members. I have reviewed the improvements to Richard and Carmel Nardella's property at 734 Lake Drive and take no exception. Uh, respectfully, Elizabeth Sen, uh, 736 Lake Drive, Winston, Connecticut. And Rob, you may have to help me with the second name of the applicant, the one 732. >> Did you get that name? >> I have the wrong. Is this the Odental? >> Yes. Odin I >> I I don't want to >> I don't know that I don't know the pronunciation myself. >> Kevin O'Donnell. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. >> Okay. Uh from Mr. Kevin O'Donnell, 732 Lake Drive. Uh hello GBA members. I've reviewed the improvements to Richard and Carmel Nardella's property at 734 Lake Drive and take no exception. Respectfully, Kevin O'Donnell, 732 Lake Drive. Uh right into the record. Um with

055all those uh said I will go ahead and close the public portion of the hearing and I will give you the closing argument. So the last thing I wanted to mention about this project is we did look at alternatives as I always do and one of the alternatives would have been and now this is a separately deed lot across the street so was to put the garage across the street but one of the things in our regulations I would have come to you for variance for that because uh you can't have an accessory structure without a primary structure so we we decided not to and the other one was that there's the well his well is across the street on that lot and this supplies water to the house. So I thought, well, can I

056move the well over there to over here and then go for variance for the garage across the way, right? And if you look at this drawing here, all those red circles. So this is the 25 ft setback. You can't put a well within this pipe. This is 25 foot setback where you can't put a well in this pipe. This is the 75 foot setback. You can't put a well within the grinder pump. This is a storm drain. You can't put it within 25 ft of a storm drain. You can't put it in and you can't put it within this portion within 25 ft of the lake and then over here 10 ft around the house. So there wasn't a spot left on this side where you could put a well and have the Farmington Valley

057Health District approve it. So we couldn't do that either. So I just wanted to bring that up because I hadn't during the presentation. Uh other than that, I I have no other comments. >> Okay. Uh with that, I'll go ahead and uh close the application hearing and read into the record the following motion. Motion to grant variances per section 3D5C of the zoning regulations for application ZBA2-9. Remove the existing garage and shed. Build garage in new location. Front yard setback uh 10.38 ft. West sideyard setback 29.69 ft. Southside yard set back 8.85 ft. And a 24.5% increase in imperous coverage and a house height of 2' 3 in per side Haley Ward site plan dated May 20, 2025. Revision June 25, 2025. We have a second. Second >> motion been made in second. Any discussion

058>> discussion? >> I just want to ask you guys a question. So um as you know I'm also on wetlands and I did see this application on wetlands. I voted to support it. Um I the jurisdions very different and very separate but the board of selectmen have asked me to be mindful of the fact that I'm looking at sometimes applications on both boards. So, uh, I'm happy to abstain from this or to vote on it. Uh, but I kind of want your input on that. >> Well, you say you you you just said it's a separate jurisdiction. >> Totally separate jurisdiction, but I've been asked to be mindful of that of this. >> Okay. Um, what's the pleasure of the board on this? >> I think that was totally >> I mean, see how either

059one of them could really interfere. >> I mean, I was going to say you've already already spoken to this as well too. So, um I mean I I will just say then for the record you are being mindful of what the wishes of the board of selecting then. So, um >> the only other thing is if that's going to be the case going forward, maybe you should make that known at the beginning of this rather than at this point. >> Good point. >> Okay. Any further discussion? I will go ahead and call for a vote on this application. All in favor? All >> oppose. You have your project. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, moving on. We are at ZBA application uh 25-10, a variance of 504 East Wakefield Boulevard. Believe we have the applicants present and

060any of the representatives. Please identify yourselves uh name and address for the record, please. >> Stand 504 East Wakefield Boulevard. >> Sean Stanel, 504 East Wakefield Boulevard. >> Kyle Case, licensed professional engineer, Casey Consulting to Raleigh Connecticut, >> speak up a little bit. >> Kyle Casease, licensed professional engineer, KCC Consulting Company, and I'm a two Raleigh Pine Road in Winstead, Connecticut. >> Thank you. >> You may proceed. >> I'd like to take a moment and share an overview of our project for 504 East Wakefield Boulevard and highlight the benefits for the lake in the community. It is important to note that the majority of this was approved in a 2021 through a special exception and a variance for our home's footprint, second story, and decks. At this time, we are looking to connect our garage

061to our house. In the new plan before you, we'll be eliminating the approved deck, which was to be added to the garage on the second story. We will demolish the current garage and attach a new garage to the house that sits significantly lower than our most recent approved plans in our new home plans. In fact, the new garage will be 10 ft lower than the original approved plans. At the request of the wetlands committee at the July meeting, engineer Tom Galdley was hired to review our plans. We made all the suggested revisions to our plans. These revisions are noted in the plan shared with the town and this committee. Every pitch to our property has been considered to ensure that there is no runoff to our neighbors properties. We paid for the plan to be

062reviewed with feedback from the town's requested engineer Tom Grimmaldi. In addition to our engineer style case, at the present, our property has no systems in place to manage any gutter drainage, foundation drainage, or rain water runoff. The proposed plans correct correct this by including proper infrastructure to address each of these concerns with approval from both our engineer and the town's recommended engineer. Based on the proposed plans, the seaw wall dock and docks will now be conforming with the Winstead Town ordinance and regulations. The new home will be positioned slightly farther away from the property line of our neighbor to the north than it is now, even if it may only be five or six more inches. Currently, our driveway is so close to the home of our neighbors that our mirrors are almost a foot

063away when pulling in our in our driveway. proposed plans. Our new driveway shall be 8.7 feet further away from the property line. Since our approvals in 2029, we have decided to make Winchester and Highland Lake our permanent home. And to note, the Gonzalez family, our neighbor to the south, has written a letter to support this project fully. >> So on on site on the screen now is the existing survey. You can see the existing garage in the center part of the lot, the existing house with the decks, couple retaining walls, and everything from the the garage is pitched down towards the lake, and then the driveway is right on the property line to the north side of the property. Proposal is to remove garage, house, decks, and retaining walls and leave the the shed where

064it is. And then this is the proposed site plan. Um the garage will be connected to the the northern side of the house. New driveway shifted further to the south. Everything graded at a more gentler slope and having grass established down each side of the the structure. have the the wood deck with the stairs walkway down to the up to the deck down to the patio below and then down to the the yard by the lake part of this. We have the information here. So, the lot size is 13,100 square feet. We're not changing that. We're not changing the the lot width, which is currently 50 feet. the front yard since the garage is getting pushed further back that that's actually increasing by a substantial amount. The sidey yards are both non-performing as it is.

065Um to the north we have 2.1 ft currently. That'll become 2.6. So gaining half a foot there. The south side 30.8 it's going to become 10.6 which is a decrease which was part of the approvals in the the previous application. Uh the rear yard setback is also becoming uh greater and the building height the garage is removed so nothing there. The existing house is going to be removed and the new house will have a elevation of 26 feet give or take. And then we get to the uh impervious coverage existing and I'm not sure what the interpretation is on with the jetty. It's outside the the property line. So without it we're at 38% existing imperous surface. That's going to increase by a percent and a half to 39 and a half, which is going

066to be mitigated by an infiltration uh system here from the the rain on the the gutters is going to be discharged there as well as to two rip wrap slopes which will give time to uh filter and clean the water. the the driveway currently sheds it half the driveway sheds down to the lake and runs down the the grade that follows along the south side of the house currently. Um with the proposed improvements of a flatter lawn yard area that's going to be turf and lawn. Uh that driveways now dis a disconnected imperous area and being filtered by the new grass medium and the accessibility structure setback. Currently, the deck was 2.9 on the north side and the the new structure will be 3.1 ft. So, we're we're gaining a little bit of positive there.

067And then the next sheet is our ENS plan where we'll we have the the grass check dams. We have ENS uh Whoops. narrative We have the standards for construction for the ENS control followed by numerous details. Got the rip wrap slope protection driveway detail construction entrance trenching. This is a detail of the the retaining wall that's going to be holding up the patio on the back side. It'll have a stone veneer, a concrete retaining wall, but stone veneer on the face of it. And then to kind of summarize the changes between what was previously appro approved and what is currently proposed. So the red is what was previously approved and the green is what we're proposing to change now. Um garage is is gone. the graings reworked, driveways relocated, and then instead of a rain

068garden, we're using the infiltration system down in this area by the the stairs. The hard the hardship on on this slide is the the width of it, the just the shape of the lot and the natural topography of the land. Trying to be able to expand the the structure to the south and the tough site to develop with the the amount of ledge present plus just the the slope of it and the the narrowness of the lot. So that's why we're here looking for setback variances on the south side. >> Uh do we have any questions from the board to this application? >> So just to clarify almost seems exactly what we just talked about, right? So, they already have an approval for a new house, but they want to take the existing garage and

069follow the existing property. So, it's almost essentially exactly what Jeremy wrote a letter on for the last property. Am I understanding this correctly? Well, no, because they're not reducing the Edson rule is uh about reducing imperous coverage, which is not what's happening here. >> Just a slight correction. Uh that rule is when you're reducing all existing nonconformities. So impervious coverage may be one of them, but it's collectively. >> Thanks. >> So if there's a if there was a decrease in impervious, it would follow the same. that one property line >> will be a decrease in impervious and all of the setbacks. >> Yeah. >> Um the thing is it is a little bit um deceiving because the according I might be wrong. You can give me the actual but but it looks like on the

070north side you have 46 lineal feet that are nonconforming and you're increasing it to 70 lineal feet that's non-conforming. And on the south side it looks like you currently have 12 lineal feet that's nonconforming and you're increasing it to 30 lineal feet that's non-conforming. So that's actually an increase in nonconformity. You know what I mean? So it's, you know, it's not the whole picture. >> Wasn't one of them was already approved, right? So there's already So you're looking at the existing house or the existing approval. >> The existing approval. Um, I have a couple other questions. Uh, the well on the north side of the neighbor's house is not cited on this plan. Um, but when I went to the property, it looks like it's very close. It looks like you're decreasing the distance between

071the grinder pump and the well down from what it is right now to 8 ft. Um and I believe that the required distance and Rob confirmed it on some of the previous is at 75. Yeah. So that's one thing um to address. The other thing is that the propane tank right now where it's placed, it looks like it's five feet from the driveway. Um and so that header part that sticks up, if someone were backing out of that driveway, they could hit it. Um, so that looks like that's probably a hazard. Um, and then I just want to clarify because I looked at the elevations and you said that you're bringing the garage down 10 ft, but the elevation uh right now looks like it's 9006.6 and on the plans it's 909. So that's 2

072and 1/2t reduction in >> so the the existing garage if you look here the floor is at 916.7. So if we we eliminate this and put it where we're proposing it it'll be 9006.6. Okay. Because on on the actual elevations, I mean, I know it says that you wrote that number there, but if you actually look at the if you look at the elevation lines on the top too, it says it's 9 like it's between 900 and >> for the proposed. You're saying >> no, the existing I think or maybe it's the previously approved that I'm looking at. I think it's the previously approved. Yeah, sorry about that. >> Um, yeah. So, but I do think this is becoming more non-conforming than what was previously approved from what I can tell. I have one question.

073>> Go ahead. >> Is Is this driveway I saw it on site and and in the papers. Is it any way shared or are these two separate driveways? >> It's not shared. >> Oh, sorry. Just when you go by the front, it looks it's like kind of like one deal there. That's all. >> Yeah. No, it's it's one one drive that goes all the way from the street straight to the to the house. Okay. between us. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Oh, I have one more question. This property has a ton of ledge on it, right? >> Correct. Is there any consideration for the um imperous coverage as it relates to what's actually impervious on the property? >> Good question. No, not not in our current regulations. Um >> ledge is, you know, God put it

074there. So, we're not whacking man-made impervious on it. That could change in the future, especially with our >> watershed discussions that are ongoing, but as of now, it does not count against Yes. >> And there's probably a significant amount of blasting and drilling that will have to happen to do this, right? Also near the neighbor as well. >> There have been considerations. I I didn't see it in the narrative, >> right? Yeah, you're you're correct in the process. I've done some construction projects before and it really is a very simple process and it's um and I know that um it can be done and we've had friends actually do a pool within 5t of a gas line. That's how accurate it can be. So it's not a huge process to do it. It's actually the

075simplest process than having a hammer estimator with a hammer on. It would be a much bigger process and slower process to do it that way. But it's very accurate process. As you know, we did I blasted a lot of rocks. Our neighbor had a very similar concern and the the blasting company handles all of that. They have insuranceances. They have everything and it's just so accurate today that it really doesn't I wouldn't say that that would be really a non-issue. >> They require a bond in the event that something were were to happen. They'd be like a a bond company from the blast company or something in the event that one of the uh neighbors um wells no longer went if all of a sudden they lost water pressure and it wouldn't be they wouldn't

076bear the responsibility >> requirement. I believe they're required to have >> they have to for any kind of insurance >> any issues. >> Yeah. not so much like a liability issue that could go into like civil court for like a bonds, you know, specifying that >> the property is is is a ledge hill. And one of the things I would like the board to consider is that we're trying to make this the best it can be to protect the lake as well in this whole process. It it's going to reduce the speed of this water heading towards the lake. right now it's uh it's like a sea slope and we're going to reduce that hill that creates a big problem um in this process that hopefully is a benefit. >> Any further questions or discussion

077in the work? >> Yeah, I mean I I think it's problematic because it's more nonconforming than the previously approved plans. It has a grinder pump moving closer to the neighbor's well. It has a propane tank in a position that's it can be moved of course, but right now in these plans it's in a position that could be hazardous. So I think there are multiple problems with this this plan. >> Is there a regulation on the propane tank? I'm just out of mine's like right on the side too. Uh, I don't know. >> Mine buried. My cap is three feet off the side of the driveway. I don't know that. >> Do you know that? >> There's no zoning regulations. >> Um, >> it's only if it's like a 500 >> if if it's like a

078125 that there you can be right. Yeah, there's certain it has to be a certain distance from like windows, but it can be right up on your house if it's a smaller tank. If it's bigger tanks, it's got to be 10 feet from the house and 10 feet from the property line. >> Yeah. My my only note though, Ryan, I don't know where yours is placed, is that if you look at where it's placed, a truck with a hitch backs in there, it'll hit it. >> Yeah, that's >> What about putting up like a a column or something to protect it? I mean, most people do that anyway, driveways and things like that, just for a bunch of different reasons. So, >> yeah, I mean, that can be changed. Uh but I I do think

079the the fact that the plan is more non-conforming than the approved plan is problematic as it relates to this board's you know >> every project's non-conforming that that comes through >> but it's more non-conforming. It's it's more non-conforming than what was approved. I'm not sure like why would you approve something that's more >> I don't know where the I don't know where the where the hardship is. five or six more inches so that we got a little bit farther away from the Pollock property. That's how um so is that where the non-conform because we didn't increase >> well the south side the increase of the lineal footage is more nonconforming. >> So one says south one says you've got one that goes The south side's the policy. >> That's the north side. I'm sorry. >>

080Just to run through on this bottom sideard is going 67 108. >> Southside is going >> Which plan are Sorry, Ryan. Which plan are you looking at? The previously approved or the current? >> Previously approved. I'm working previously approved. is the exact same house square footage as the previous approved. It really we're just adding our garage to the house. We're not increasing the size of the garage, right? >> Just attaching. >> But that's Yeah, but that's adding right lineal feet. That's non-conforming that wasn't being added before. >> Yeah. So, so you are decreasing your south sideyard from 10.6 down to 7.8 on the new one backwards. It was 7.8. >> I'm trying to catch up to what plan you're looking at. >> So, the same >> that one. Okay. >> Right. Right. Right. previously approved

081run down so we're all on the same page here. The front yard previously approved was 67 ft. Currently it's at 108.5. So there's a decrease from the street. This one has previously the north side was 2.1 the old one. That's increasing the 2.6. So you're decreasing you're increasing your side there. Your south sideyard was 7.8. You're increasing that to 10.6. >> But you're not taking into account the addition of nonconforming lineal footage along the south side. >> Yes. because the the the old plan didn't move the existing garage. So the existing garages southside um setback was uh >> the only the only thing that I don't see that's decreasing but your point about Jeremy's letter from the other one is the actual impervious coverage >> and the lineal footage on the south side. >> Well,

082we just did that on the other one. The only thing that increased was the linear footage along >> No, it didn't increase because it was the house is in front of it. So, the lineal footage didn't change at all. >> Well, it did because they attached the garage. >> Doesn't matter because it's not >> because it was still that was still non-conforming lineal footage that they're just paralleling in front of. >> Wasn't this the same? This is still not the form of linear footage. >> But this isn't her. This is extension. This is an extension >> of lineal footage. >> No, we didn't extend it. >> No, we did. >> So, we had a house >> pre-existing attached garage >> and we brought the garage back and attached it to the garage. So, we increased

083the linear footage along the fence on the south side of that property. >> That's true. We did that. >> That's what Jeremy's letter stated was. So the the only thing that I see on here that doesn't follow Jeremy's letter is the impervious coverage. So if we're following what he wrote and they were to decrease that pvious coverage. So this was at 40. >> Yeah. We're at 38 on and then we're going to 39 and a half. >> So, this one was at 39 on the previously approved one. >> So, I compared all my my numbers to the the current state of the the site in that >> the current state. So, not this one. So, it's a it's a half a percent increase over was already approved >> which is being accounted for by our

084infiltration system. >> Seems like the major issue here is is moving the garage >> to the house and it's going to run along the north side a very long parallel line to the north side like that. That is that that is the major change here to this property because from I sorry I didn't have that sheet in here but from from the south side not much is changing from the last variance. It's mostly the the the meat of this issue is the garage being attached to this side and on on the north side. You're gonna have a very long parallel run of a house >> on that side. >> That's what we just got from Jeremy was in that letter >> packets are kind of Do you mind if I just >> The only difference

085between this one and Lake Drive >> is that it's next to another house. >> So was the other one. No matter what you do, it's not going to change the fact that the houses are crammed together like that. And no matter what you do. >> Exactly. >> I mean, it's it's it's it's a difficult lot. >> You just have to we have to look at the lot >> itself. >> What What is the hardship precluding you from moving this attached garage to the south side of >> I can answer. So, we thought about that and we're trying to make sure that we get all that runoff to work away from the Pollock property. Um, so when we started to think about, you know, keeping the garage as low as possible and dealing with the grades

086because we we move the garage over more, we're moving it into just more sight that we're taking out. So, we tried to figure out how we're going to get down the stairs to the down to the the lakeside of the property and not be down in a tunnel as you come around the side of the house. And this was all the compromises that we could come up with to improve that our no longer is our driveway on top of the Pollock's house. It's now 8.7 feet farther away from his house. and also allows us to attach the garage to the house. Um, and what was very important to the Pollocks as they have expressed to us is height is something that really they don't like on a lake. It's something that >> that's not really

087true >> water. >> So, he's he has expressed it in our four year ago meeting. I wanted to put a third story on the house. That was the first plan. And we went through this process for him uh to to um make things better for him because height something was a concern. So um we built this home to look like a cape. It's a garage with the second story. The gutter line is going to be very close to the Pollock's house. We built it as low as it can. And with this being attached to the house, it's going to be um 10 ft lower than our current situation. So >> I'm I'm not understanding though if you have to blast and excavate to bring it down 10 ft >> on the north side of your

088house. North side >> north northeast side of your house. >> what is what is the hardship right that is being caused if you do that on the southeast side? >> Um I think it's the other way. The pollocks are on the north side of >> No, no, but that's what I'm saying. Like if you could just pull up the current plan. >> Yeah, we wouldn't be doing any site work on the side. >> Well, the proposed garage is favoring the north side of the property. >> Okay. >> So, what I'm asking you is what is the hardship? What's the what's the condition of the property that precludes you from doing that on the south side where we know on the neighboring property there's quite a bit more distance between the structures. >> It's the massive

089height of the property. So that the high point is 918. So if you were to look at um and to try to keep the property flowing as we we needed to get a little bit more room so that we can kind of pitch the property. So, we're going down to 9:06 from the high point of 918. So, we felt this was the compromise of trying to get the garage in a situation where um it works for us, it works for the property. Um and >> but it's it's 9006 in that southeast area, right? Right next to the sidewalk. So, we're just talking about 905 9006. We're just talking about one foot difference. >> So I don't I don't understand the difference. >> Keep it as flat as possible. I mean it's that was and get

090it and get our walkway uh all that to to flow. So >> well you you it wouldn't it wouldn't inhibit your your side walkway here on the south side if the garage were over there. You would simply walk out of your garage door and be on your southside walkway. Um >> I guess I'm just also it's also do this and we didn't you know we didn't change the footprint of the house. It also has to work where um it fits with the house. If we stagger it, we would have, if you think about the roof pitch line, you would have this, the house would be so jagged. Just if you, let's say you moved it over three more feet or four more feet and you'd have the shape of the house, you'd have >> Yeah.

091I don't I don't think the design issues fall under hardship, though. It's really about the It's about the condition of the property, the nature of the property. And I'm not hearing that there's a difference between placing it on the southeast side. >> I think this is a very similar project to the previous one that I just listened to. I mean, and I think the distance the ones I just looked at were very similar. Um, and I'm and I'm actually not asking for an increase of any size of the property. It's just getting rid of my garage and connecting it to the house. Um, it's actually not an increased I don't but that's still not answering the question there. There basically I'm not hearing from you or from your engineer any any hardship that is being

092presented by the nature and condition of the property to put your garage on the southeast side of the house as opposed to the northeast side. What's the existing elevation on the north side? I'm missing it. >> It says 9006.6 >> proposed the exist I can put >> proposed or current. >> Yeah, proposed. So the ser the survey has 918 as the high point on the south side of the >> on the south. What's the highest point on the north? >> On the north side's uh it's more consistently flowing but where the garage would be is about 910. >> Yeah. >> So you're going from 910 to 9006 versus going from 918 to 9006 on the south side if you were to flip it to the south side. >> So if you were to flip it

093to the south side and that's going to create some sort of a a wall. >> Well, like you just said, you did a lot of blasting. I mean, they're going to have to blast anyway. >> Yeah, but I'm looking at it as a property line, right? So, what happens? So, when you if you have to get down to 9006, say that has to be the the final elevation on the south side of the property. What does that create between the side of your garage and the south side property versus what does it create versus the north side? And in the north side you're eating it up with I just because it's it's going two directions, right? So the property comes up off the road and goes higher as it goes south. So naturally less blasting,

094less work to the north side versus the south side because I looked at that the same exact thing I was trying to understand >> because the south side has a big rocky mound on the left of it. So to move the garage to the south side, you have to remove this big rocky mound which would be quite disturbing. >> Well, there they are they are blasting ledge on the north side too. It's just not ledge that is protruding as high. >> Yeah. I would say it's not I would say it's less impactful. >> Sure. But it's not >> I mean I would say Ryan overall it's less impactful than what you did. >> Oh absolutely. >> Yeah. >> But but again my mind didn't hurt anything right. We captured all our water. We put in

095all the >> Oh no. I'm not saying I'm not saying >> but what I'm saying is that >> it is possible >> and now Now there's there's no there's no water uh retention or anything. And then now he's adding all this stuff to he's adding all this infrastructure that's not there. >> There's no storm water. >> There's no there's no anything. So really I mean from the sorry I don't have that sheet but from the last one that was approved. Really the only major change here that's really I suppose worth mentioning is that the garage is being moved. It's being moved from the from the front by the road and it's now being moved to be attached to the house. That's and and >> well and the grinder pump's being moved closer to the neighbor's

096well, which is a real issue. >> The grinder pump >> and that there's blasting condition to move it. I'll be glad to move it to the other side of my garage if that is a condition that >> the board would like. >> So, this was another one. Where is it now? Right now, it's right in front of the house and it would be within the garage. So, that that wouldn't work. Um, we need to get that outside the the structure. >> So, there's probably no room on the south side. >> They they'd have to blast. I mean, that's the thing. They're blasting anyhow. So, I don't I I am still >> Is there like a manhole cover or something like that? So, can it be moved into the driveway with like a manhole cover? >>

097Moved into the driveway. It's in the driveway, the gravel driveway now. Or we can move it to the the south side of the the garage that the proposed garage put it in between like the walkway and the >> and then just have like a pipe. >> Yeah. >> Would be the same same setup. Yeah. >> Yeah. We the the key is that you need to be able to get a pitch from the inside of your house to inside. So, if you're too far away from your house, it's not going to work. So, you have to either pick one side or the other. And I I'm glad to move it to the other side of my garage if the board as a condition if the board that was important to the board. >> And then there

098was a thousandgalon underground propane tank here, but then relocated. Oh, >> those are air conditioning units. I'm sorry. So, so that it wasn't a propane thing on the driveway. It was it was uh >> just >> air conditioning units. Is that what we were we were talking about putting the the um the columns in? >> Yeah. So, here's the this is the grinder >> the grinder pump. They're talking moving over here. >> And there's a there's a thousand gallon propane tank. So, what's I guess what's the issue of somebody like hitting that's underground? What's the issue of them hitting that? was concerned of it having the head sticking up. >> The head sticking up out of the ground, >> which that can get a snow wall in front of it or a barrier. >> Yeah.

099>> Well, that's that's not in the that's not in the driveway, is it? >> It's right at the end in the turnaround. It's only 5 ft away. >> Oh, right here. >> So, like if a truck with a hitch backed up, it could hit the head. >> Yeah, fair enough. >> That's why I was It was out of the driveway. So suppose you could put up some kind of fence or like a >> or condition of the column if you'd like fence shrubs. >> Yeah. >> But it doesn't solve the fact that you're increasing the the the nonconforming lineal footage >> unless he was to get rid of some pvious surface. it continues and has was more impervious then it follows the same rule that we just voted on. >> No, because he's making it

100more non-conforming. The existing garage right now in the approved plan is has a further setback on both the north and south sides. >> Yeah, but so did >> that's what I'm saying. It's follow we're following the same exact It's basically the same exact thing just with ledge involved. And if you look at the setbacks, go back to the other one. >> The sideyard setback from the garage increased, but it >> which one we talking about? 30 730. >> Yeah. I I don't know that we can compare Nardella's or the other one because the structures were there was just so much more distance. structures and I do think we have to take that into account. >> I'm not I'm not following you look at the survey here. >> I'm saying that like the on the south

101side of Nardella's Senate structure is much further away from his proposed construction than for instance the neighbor on the north side here. >> Right. Those they're not they're not comparable in that way. But I mean it's not really in our ours is on the land. >> No, it is. It's the condition of the neighborhood. That that is part of the part part of what we have to consider. >> I I just >> I mean I I could I guess I I if this were blocking some type of view or the house is right there. going to block their light for sure. It's the south side of the house. >> Well, these So, right now the previous listing has a two plus story garage that goes away and goes down to a singlestory garage. So, it's

102actually lower, lesser impact than what they have already on the structure, >> but much closer to the house. >> Closer to the house. But, you know, I mean, all these houses are extremely close together. I don't know that Does it change the way that he's going to enjoy your property? I don't think it does. Not where it is. You know, >> I don't know. The homeowner might >> But that's what we have to disagree. >> We Okay. I mean, we we need we need we need to um I mean I I I can see the questions and concerns and whatnot, too. We do need to move on to uh the public comments at the moment there too. Um we can we will continue this as as we go forward. Fair enough. Um, I'll go ahead

103and open the public portion of this um public hearing portion of this application. Any members of the public who wish to speak to this application? >> Could we sit over here, please? Is that possible? >> Over where? >> At the table. >> Yeah, they they'll have to just >> Yeah, that's that's fine. Yeah. Good evening. My name is Joe and I'm next door neighbor and my brother He's part owner and my wife Mary and we both are opposed to this new variance because there was granted in 2021 and had everything that possible could imagine one of the people principally involved in um granting having him get his variance. I don't know if anybody had a chance to see the u the houses, but I would like to just pass some of this around. This is

104the house that we're talking about. Um 504 East Wakefield Boulevard. Um it's a small cottage. It's about 750 ft square feet and it's been there since 199, excuse me, 1910. And um right next door is our house. It's very very close. It's two feet is on the property line and then we got the driveway which is around 8 ft over there. So, it's super close. And um over here, if you can see this, this is the u property line stick. It's 2.1 ft away from the house. And this is one of the problems that we're dealing with over here is how close the property line is. It's 2.1 ft. Here's where the property line is. And on this side, if you look, these are black and white pictures, but this was taken by Mr. Casey.

105And if you look at the front over here, you could stick that back in. You'll see that there's a lot of room in the front of the driveway over here where he could build his house or he could move his house or he could keep his garage where it is. Um right over here. These are I took the color pictures. >> So maybe you can just pass that around in the meime going. There was a um I think Mrs. Stani made a mention that my house was a very large house and it isn't. >> Here's a picture of my house and it's about 1,400 square feet. It's a um single floor house and um it's got a um the front was raised a little bit. It's got a twoft kneeboard in the front and that

106was purposely done over the kitchen so that we could get into the attic um which is unfinished and the basement is unfinished. John, >> would you say that this proposed addition plan goes anywhere past this bush? Yes. It's going to come all the way here. It goes all the way to the house. >> So, it's going to follow this line on this plan. It's going to follow this house line over to here to about where this bush is. >> Probably even possibly more. >> So, >> it's pretty large for the garage where the garage is. >> So, this is going to leave this strip of land here, >> right? Basically, the big difference is going to be where the hedges are. So the the h the hedge is basically if we're looking at this picture

107the hedge is >> Yes. >> So 24 ft from this corner >> right out that way. That's correct. >> So the how far would you say that hedge is? I think this question is that hedge about the 24T mark. >> That's about like if we're just like visualizing >> I would say it would probably be pretty close to that. Yes. >> Okay. So right here. So you would have this strip here, >> right? >> That that would separate the side. Do you have any like means of egress on this side or anything like that? No, there's no need to address or anything. >> So, you enter the house in the front, >> right? You enter the house in the front. >> What about in the back? >> You enter the back. >> What are you

108calling the front and the back? >> I'm call I'm calling the front the the road side. >> So, you entered the house from the front? >> Yes. >> What now? Um, on the north side of your house, do you have like any egress on that side? >> Yes. There's a porch there. >> There's a porch there. >> Very close. There's a picture of it right here. Excuse me, I didn't take it away. Here's the porch. Here's the porch railing. And then there are stairs that go down. >> So, it's very close to Mr. Stanzi's house is right there. That's the porch. >> If you don't mind me asking, is this are these like a bathroom or >> Yeah, right here. Here's the bathroom coming up. Yeah. >> Bathroom and the bedroom. >> And that's where

109he wants to put the garage. Very close to our bathroom. Very close to our bedroom. And then he's going to have six windows overlooking the bathroom and the bedroom. But I'll get to that uh afterwards. >> Are these >> Yes. These are the That's how big the house is. >> That's your structure. >> That's correct. >> These are two additions. >> Okay. This was This is an addition here. That's correct. And this was it's a sun porch. Okay. It was there for maybe 40, 50 years. And it was just a regular porch and then we converted it over and it was like um I think maybe 40 feet or something like that and we just made it into a year round. It was originally um just a regular porch for the summer >> cuz right

110here in these photos there's like a string of bushes here. So this garage would end at this first bush, a first bush closest to the lake. >> It's hard to tell on that. >> Yeah, I'm just trying to gauge it. So it's it's not like it runs the full length of the house. It really just ends like a third of the way from the back. >> The other I just wanted >> something >> I just want to clarify something when he was talking about the size of our house. I just want to make it clear that the the there's a there's a I I think the difference between as far as levels and stories. If it's a story has living space and a level is just a level. So a basement that's unfinished is considered

111a level. That's what I read and in some of the material I was reading. Is that is that true? >> I I don't know how I would I don't know that we're looking at levels unless we're looking at overall. >> No, I was just trying to tell the size of our house. The the the bottom the bottom uh level is a unfinished basement and then there's living space on the floor above that. And then uh what what happened was that we had a um that we our our we had a pull down uh you know ladder that went up into the attic >> and that and we we still have a kind of a ladder that goes into the to the basement. So the reason that we built up that one side of it so

112is that we could get upstairs because I don't think I'm going to be able to go up that ladder and put things in the attic. >> You have a single level home. So we have really a >> single level home single story home but I don't know >> a single level single >> right so I just wanted to say that's not a >> single level ranch they had because they had the letter and they described it differently if you use that that verbage if you were to add a story to the top you you could use either part of the language if you were to add a level or a story that's you have a single level home if you were to add an additional level to the top then you'd be adding a level

113or a story the fact that The basement is is is could be conditioned to be usable space. It really wouldn't change that it's a it wouldn't make that a twostory house. >> No, it's not a two story house >> or a twole house. No, it still >> we do have stairs now that we can walk up to get into the attic and there is there is a space there. >> Yeah, that's not really a story. >> It's not living space. No, it's a single level. >> I just wanted to make that clear. That's >> okay. Just I don't mean to interrupt you, but this was the variance that was granted to Muselli. uh in 2021 and I was very instrumental in getting him this variance. The architect was the man that I recommended uh Jeffrey

114Linquist I think it was his name. Um he recommended a three bedroomedroom house um which we have over here. And then he has a garage there which is still in existence. The garage is in very good shape and he recommended to put a second floor living space on top of the garage. And as a result, we have like 500 square ft here. And then this house over here is I think around 2,300 square ft. >> Are you talking living space? >> Living. Yes. >> Or coverage space. >> Living space. >> I guess I'm I'm not seeing where the living space really. >> Okay. Okay. I'm just making a statement. I'm not challenging you and just showing that that this is the uh variance that he was granted in 2021. >> Yep. >> It's a three-bedroom

115house and it was allowed to be put on the uh same footprint and and then he has the garage over there and the garage is exactly where it is now. and he agreed to have a um deck put on it and a living space and and so it basically has maybe close to I don't know 2300 23 and 100 ft and 500 ft here at the house on the garage. Um the other issue is um I just wanted to go over the A2 surveys which I have difficult time just looking at it. >> Can I ask you a quick question? >> Sure. >> What do you ever um just looking at the pictures here? Like when you're when you're like, you know, using your house and I'm sure you and your neighbor coexist. >> Do

116you ever like if you're looking at this picture, do you ever walk >> to the south side of the house like do you ever use this as like a passageway? >> Yes, I do. I definitely use it as a passageway. >> And is that on your property? Is that kind of like a sh is that like kind of a shared uh >> on my property comment zone. >> That's that is on my property. That's that is a good point. I do use that right where the hedges are. >> Okay. >> What would you say use that for? Just just because do you have to walk into their driveway to do that or because >> No, I don't have to walk in his driveway. It's right it's right behind where the hedges are. There's a drain

117there. >> You got a garden there, >> right? There's a garden a garden there and there's a drain there. It's very narrow, but but I'm able to walk through there. >> And you and you would still be able to to walk through there if if if the event that this this home was was built. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, you'd still be able to access that side of your house and and and walk past there. >> Okay. Okay. Just getting back to the original A2 survey. This is how everything stands right now. Here's the existing house. and it's around 760 square ft. And here's his garage and it's around 530 square ft. And what he wants to do is he wants to move the garage over here and connect it to not this house,

118but I'll show you on the next page. It's going to make it much more nonconforming, which goes against the zoning breaks. He has trees here. He cut every tree down on his lot. He had 18 trees. He has all open space here. The ledge here is not that bad. He could blast. Um he could do anything he wants over here. He can move closer to his neighbor on the other side. He does not have to move his garage. He could try to connect his house to the garage over here. Or he could also move the house. Why can't he move the house over maybe 10 or 12 feet, connect it to his garage? himself a lot of money. I I just I can't understand this plan that he that he has here that he has

119to excuse me encroach on my property so much. >> Well, I don't think it's an encroachment onto your property. It's it's running parallel um about 10 ft long house. So, it would potent potentially you would instead of having uh a free view of of trees and and thing your bathroom window and your bedroom window will be blocked by house. >> That's correct. >> And that's basically where our kitchen >> our whole side that we live in will be basically blocked by >> No, I don't think that's the case. >> Yes, it is. >> I'll just Anyways, so here's what he wants to know. I still don't understand how this footprint that we have over here is the same size as the one I just showed you. It's much larger. He's putting a a complete deck,

120wooden deck around here. The deck here is going to be I I just probably like a th000 ft and the limit deck the CDA usually allows building 400 ft. So he was given an excessive amount or he wants an excessive amount of deck over here. He has to have a porch over here. Um and the reason he has to have a covered porch is because he's got all the trees cut down. There's no shade there. As it stands right now, our air conditioners have to run pretty much every day because we have no shade on our house because of the damage that you've done to the um to the property. >> Where is your house end in in comparison to uh to this proposed garage? That's where >> it's going to be right here. >>

121That's that's your house. >> Yeah. And the garage is going to be right. He's gonna have two huge air conditioning grinder pumps over here. Our well is over here. It's going to be so close to the well. >> So, did you draw that blue square in his ear? >> I drew that blue square. >> Okay. >> And then here's his other neighbor, Michael. I measured it pretty closely. And he's well away from here. Everything is being encroached on our side. And if he wanted to, he could move this house or he could make it smaller, move it to the south, and we'd have no problems there. But he wants to make it as big as he can. And he wants to put it on my property line. And that does not sit well with me.

122And he does not have a hardship here at all. He has no hardship. He has advanced to build the house that I just showed you before. And he wants to make a big house. It's just unbelievable. So, let me just um All right. So, I was just going to say that at this time there is really no hardship here. He has no exceptional difficulty. And as I mentioned in July 2021, the ZBA approved a variance and the variance was to build a 25* 6 * 22 floor two floor edition with an 8* 25 and 25 foot covered porch in the front. A 13 times a 55 deck 55 foot deck. And then Um in the rear it was a 30 foot deck. >> So we're getting up to like a th00and feet for deck for

123this. Um and u during the hearing I had to be recused because I was still on the zoning board. But since Mr. Spazzi and I were good friends here and I wanted him to have something to live in besides the house that was 100 years old, I voted in favor of it and I'm glad >> in favor. You did it. oppose it. >> I I didn't oppose it and um I gave him my blessing and I still give him uh my blessing on the variance that he has there. I'm not in favor of what he plans to do right now. It's it's the only hardship here is going to be on the Pollock. Um what happened was many years ago the um the property over here was um the his house was built in 1910

124and then it was divided um in 1955 and it was divided and since it was divided they had to have a 2.1 boundary on the north side so that the lakefront would have at least 25 ft so that it would be a lot and that's that goes back to the old rules. So, it's really not his fault. It's really not my fault. It's just the way it is. Um, when he bought that piece of property, he only paid $315,000 for it. Right now, he could probably double it. Um, uh, if he wanted, we have people always coming over asking us to sell our property. They're always looking for lakefront property and maybe they would be interested in buying it or even if they wanted to buy it and put another house on it, they probably

125would move it farther away from our property line and I'd have no problem there. But what he's trying to do is he's trying to make moving the garage over he's making everything more non-conforming and and that's the big problem. His plans are to even build a bigger house, 2600 square ft or even or even bigger. I really don't know what the size is, but um because it's not mentioned in here any place. He wants to build a three-bedroom, three floor house, have a 25 ft garage, and he wants to be 8t away from my property line, which is an encroachment on my property. Put that stand back up. Sorry. Um so just getting back it's not a hardship since there's the 2.1 boundary and it was created in 1955 is says that this is something

126that was done by the previous owner and it's doesn't it doesn't uh qualify for as a hardship and let me just I forgot to show you the most important thing um building plans While he's doing that, I would just like to say that we did spend a lot of time going over the um the grounds for varian Connecticut statutes. >> Yeah. Connecticut general statutes. And there was really not one that he he was able to follow. I don't understand the fact that they're negative. Like so there's no hardship. The the um the property line was self created meaning that the other owner of the property created it and that doesn't have that doesn't give you any kind of a hardship and um you have to have reasonable use of it which they've had. and you

127and also um it can't be detrimental to the property values which I which I believe is a reason you have zoning board appeals and the state to back people up on that in case that their other people's building causes detriment to the to the to the neighbors and it does probably >> tell you why in a little while >> this is the site of the house that's closest to 502 it's 86 ft long and it's not mentioned any place in the plans. The only place that was mentioned was on the map and then it had about and here's where um over here's his garage and his garage is going to be looking is is going 8 ft away from our house and he's going to have all these five windows um which are going to

128affect our privacy and then our deck is over here. I I I understand that he has to have windows, but to have windows right over here. Um >> would you say those windows, John, are above your They look like they'd be kind of close to your roof line. If you're if you're a singlestory house, it looks like there's only one window in the garage. >> And the Yes, this >> that window. Correct. Yeah. But the windows above that, those would you'd be looking down on your roof. >> They'd be looking into his window. >> He'd be looking right into the house from here. Yeah, >> he he would be standing there and he would be able to look right into the bathroom into the bedroom. No problem that. >> Yeah, I'm I'm just >> away

129from my perceived. >> No, I understand. It's your perception. >> The deck is over here. >> What I'm saying is I still for the life of me don't understand why he doesn't move over 12 feet or 15 feet. Just the idea that he has to be in the same footprint. The ZBA does recommend will be a to >> that's that's your grievance is that you want this garage edition moved south. >> I want the garage edition where it is. He doesn't have to have it over here and he doesn't have to have all this stuff up. >> No, I'm saying I'm saying on the house I'm saying if if in the event that it was on the house your your grievance is that it's attached to the house period. >> If it were to be

130if it were to be moved >> to if it would be moved to more the center of the house, the southside house, you would have no grievance at all. That's not true. That's not true. He would still have agrees. >> Yes. This house is even bigger now. He's going to more non-conforming. He's making the house bigger for what it was originally on the variance we get granted him. And he's making the garage even bigger. And he's even moving the garage closer to my property line, which is even more. >> I understand. Every single project that comes through here, they're making their house bigger. >> I know that. >> Every single place. >> Yes, that's correct. I I understand. But what I'm saying is he was granted this this variance and why doesn't he use that

131and then we wouldn't have any problem here. >> Why don't we why don't we allow him John if you if you want to allow him to maybe answer those questions that you have. >> Why don't we can do that? >> Could we do that after we finish our talk? >> Why don't Okay. But >> I mean I mean I mean I mean um I mean this I mean Mrs. Policare you mean the what further you have to say basically continues that what what grievances you you you currently have or you just or you just want to what >> fine haven't I'm sorry I'm sorry ma'am >> I apologize I was out of line >> oh no no you weren't no that's okay I just I mean um I just I think for purposes of of

132time and also to be sure that your questions are properly answered too uh we'll give them we'll give them an opportunity >> I'm sorry may I ask for like a a clear tangible grievance I guess like the grievance is that the garage is attached to the house. >> Yeah, we we have some written down here but it's kind it's it's a lot >> just just a just to clear just so we all understand that your particular grievance is that the garage is on your property line extending the length of the house >> parallel to your house. That's that's your grievance. >> That's one of them. Yes, that's the other one is that he's making the house much bigger. So, the house is bigger and the garage is attached >> and he's 2 feet away from

133the property line and it's going to be very difficult. I didn't finish my presentation. It's going to be very difficult to build a 30foot side when you have two feet away from the property line and then he's going to have blasting. just a >> he's going to have blasting and he's going to be probably damaging our well and then we have a uh a chimney on the other side which he probably would end up shaking and then I'll have to have that fixed and I want to know who's going to pay for all these damages because he wants to have a house that's so close to the property line >> in in the event that hypothetically if if the garage is moved to the other side of the house would you have the same any

134of these grievances? >> No, I don't know if I would I would have to see the new plans to be honest. But let's just say hypothetically that that that that garage proposed garage moved over to the south side. If it if it just went right if it and and let's just say the cover let's just say the whole thing was flipped and let's just say hypothetically that the covered porch was on on the north side and the proposed garage was on the south side. Would you have any of these same grievances that the house was bigger and that the h would you would you have the same grievances you have here? Because I'm just trying to get to the root of the problem. The problem seems to be that you don't like that the house

135is going to go longer and run parallel to your house. >> That's that's the main that's that's the issue. >> Yeah. What's the uh the distance between the two houses? It still be 8 ft. >> Well, no. So So the the addition of the house, the garage is 8.7 ft from the property. >> The existing house right now is 2.1, >> right? >> Which is going to 2.9 >> 2.6 >> 5 in. >> Yeah. So, so that's that little bump out that that's already there, right? >> Yeah. >> But, but then the the garage edition is moving >> to 9 ft, >> 8.7 ft from the property line. So, when we're talking about 2.1 ft, >> just so we're all on the same page, it's already 2.1 ft for that section. The additional section is

1368.7 ft. >> Yeah. But it's 8.7 ft. That's not there now. I mean, it's just it's just open space now. >> Excuse me though. What is the setback supposed to be? It's a lot short, a lot closer than the the setback is supposed to be, isn't it? >> Absolutely. It is. And that's what the variance is for. >> And that's what the problem is. That's what causes us that detrimental problems. >> On that point, though, I just want to read this into the record, right? Regulation 45-17 um non-conforming uses, building structures, and lots intent within the districts established by these regulations or by amendments that may later be adopted. There exist lots, uses and structures which existed at the time that these regulations were adopted or amended but which would be prohibited, regul regulated or

137restricted under the provisions of the regulations or future amendments. Such lots, uses and structures are declared non-conforming by these regulations. It is the intent of these regulations one to permit these nonconformities to continue until they are discontinued or removed but not to encourage their survival. Number two, to prohibit the enlargement, expansion, or extension of nonconformities if such a change would increase the nonconformity and to prohibit the use of nonconformities as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. >> So, so understood. I understand that. And but now we have to go back, right? So then unfortunately for everybody here, we just did the same thing, right? So you didn't do the same thing. I I don't agree with that. >> Every single project that comes through the board has to

138deal with that exact thing. And if and if the this is basically a checkpoint to regulations that were set into place that are very rigid that create a board to begin with because otherwise not a single project would get approved. So this this project it in in my opinion is really no different than every single one that comes through here. every single project, people are making their houses bigger. They're adding garages. They're they're they're going up a story. Every single one of them, >> but they're not the same. They're all different. >> Well, they're all different, but every every single project goes is is a change to the lot, a change to the the property. Almost all of them are increased. >> And it's also our responsibility to think about the integrity of the neighborhood,

139>> right? What about the neighbors, >> right? And and We have I haven't been on this board approving something that's 8 ft from another house. >> Yeah. Well, they've done a lot of them. >> Well, doesn't a variance have to be unique? Like if if everybody's bringing one, they should be having something different to grant a variance for it, wouldn't they? >> I I I guess all of them are unique. Every single every single property here is unique and and every single property is non-conforming. every single property is not not necessarily unique in the way that they're talking about it because you can have properties that a lot of the properties around here were formed for the same reasons >> because they they they they divided properties. >> Okay. >> And there's and there that's

140why there's that's why there's small lots. That's why you have a lot of people wanting variances. >> So So with with with your concerns on the table and your grievances on the table here, uh would you allow the opportunity for the applicant to answer any any concerns you have? Well, I thought I was going to be able to at least he asked me to know be more specific about the the detriment that we thought it was causing. And we had we wrote it in a couple of things that we gave you, but what the one that we gave you tonight was uh that that was just given to you tonight. But if you look on page three, you want we there's we have we have if you look at the whole thing, we we we

141we wrote about the hardships and then we say we make statements and then the special condition. There's no special condition that he's definitely making a non-conforming property more non-conforming that he's had reasonable use. But if you look at page three, you want to finish. >> Yeah. Yeah. On page three, it says it's not supposed to be detrimental to the public welfare welfare. The granted variance should not harm the surrounding properties. That's 502 or be detrimental to the public health. He's going to be blasting. There's going to be a lot of dust. There's going to be stone. Uh and and the other thing is um the property values. Our property value definitely definitely is going to go down because that house is going to be so close. So, it's going to be 8 ft away where

142the garage is. And then he's going to expand the uh the other part of the house where the uh where the property line is 2 feet away and that's going to be 67 feet right along the side of our house. I I can't understand how that's not going to be detrimental to the property value. You're going to have a house bigger than my house running right just like trains running by each other over there 8t away. >> But but it's only going like a third of the way in. If >> No, it is it's going more than that. It's more than >> covers most of the house. >> No, on the survey it does not seem to say. It seems like it's going to on the pictures. >> Well, they didn't site the other house.

143Those surveys are not that clear. >> Well, from the from the distance wise and setting, it looks like it's coming up to these bushes right here. So, >> I wish they had a third of the way in. It's not it's not the just it's not the full length. I >> I think we should say we're estimating without it being cited on the >> I'll just read these detriments if you don't mind. You mind if I do that, John? Go ahead. >> All right. So, uh, first of all, we never really did see the plans. I mean, we saw the plans. We have them. We got the plans. I mean, we were able to look at the plans because they came to us when he was on the zoning board. >> Yeah. Let me just explain

144that. But, uh, let me just Okay. The first thing you usually do is if you want to do something to your house, most people say that you would go over to your neighbor's house and you would tell them, "I'm going to do something to my property. I want to either put a garage up or I want to do something else or build a bigger house. Sean never gave me any plans. He not >> the plan. >> Excuse me. He never discussed anything with me. On um I think it was June um June 25th, a Saturday, knocked on my door and said, "Here's the plans um what I plan to do." And I said, "What are you talking?" I knew he was going to do something. And then I looked at the plans and I couldn't

145believe how much he was going to encroach on my property, how big the garage was going to be. And I just couldn't understand why he was going to not use his garage that he has right there. Why can't he attach his house to the garage that he has over there? Why does he have to tear it down? There's nothing there. There's nothing wrong with that garage and the space over there is still available to use it. that that so um anyways after I discussed it with him u we really didn't get anywhere with it and and that's why we're here before the zoning board uh and hopefully uh they could give us some consideration that what he's planning to do is is going to uh decrease our fair market value and uh it's just not

146right especially building something so close >> hey John he's right behind you would you like him to answer your questions >> he never answered my questions We're here in a we're here in a public meeting in a public forum right now. >> Get him to answer them. >> Would you like an opportunity to answer his questions? >> To respect the board's time to just have all the stuff that they have about the property. Have you guys asked all mentioned all the concerns? I just want to make sure that in our letter make sure we have a letter, but if there we want to make sure we address every concern. >> We have a letter also, but I don't we have a letter also. We have a lot more and did spend a lot of time

147and they asked you a lot of questions and and so I don't think that you that I think that >> yeah I I I really do >> I really do commend the board for staying or else you know we would say something and go back so I think for every to respect everyone's time just >> after a public hearing is closed you're going to have an opportunity to sell your case one last time so maybe that's your opportunity >> you want the question answered though, John, >> instead of a back and forth between >> what is the reason for him answering the questions? >> I was just wondering. >> Well, Aubre's just giving you the opportunity. >> So, just give us a chance. >> I was just curious. >> Just give him a chance to

148to to uh >> The reason I'm giving him the opportunity to answer his questions because you have questions about >> his plan about what Oh, hold on, John. Yes. >> About what he's doing, what he's planning to do. Yes. >> Okay. This these are questions we as a board cannot answer. necessarily. The applicant is sitting here in this room with you here so that maybe he could answer those questions. >> Why don't we have him do that? >> Would you like us to put the plan back up? >> No, you know, why don't we just consider them answer the questions so that so that the board can understand their responses? You want us to put it back up there so we can be concrete and clear? >> No. I I would like to know why

149you have to have the house so close to our property line, the 2.1 foot property line over there. And what's And even though you have ledge on that property, that ledge is not granite. It's uh uh slate or shale, it's very easy to blast uh even though there's stone there. He had trees there. Trees don't grow into rock. You have like 18 or 20 trees that he cut down. If you go over that property, you're going to see there's trees in the middle over there. Um, and I'm telling you that he could he could move it over. He doesn't have to have all of this stuff where we are over here. Perfect example. Here's his house over here. There's a lot of room over here. There's a lot of trees that he cut down over

150here. And there's tree stumps there. And that's what I'm trying to tell you. He doesn't have to encroach here. You could put it in the middle or you could move it more to the south. 522. >> So you'd be okay with that, John? >> Yes. So that that's your >> I don't care how big his house is. I don't want it to be as close as it is to my house. It's not fair. He could do this. >> No, I understand. I'm just trying to get like just just for pres time preservation just so everybody's clear on the grievances. Your your I'm just reading just listening to everything you're saying. Your your your grievance is that the house would be extended to run longer parallel along your house. That's that's your grievance. >> That's one

151of my grievance. And the other just now you said that you didn't care if the house got bigger. So you don't care if the house got bigger. >> I said I don't care if the house got bigger. If he moves it away from the >> That's what I'm saying. So your grievance is that's going to run along the north side. >> So he if he moved that house 12t away from my property line, I don't care if he built it to the sky. It would not bother me. I don't want it that close to my property line. >> That's the grievance. >> The green is gonna run long. It's already close to the property. It's going to run longer and extend further down your property. That's your >> And it's too close also too, Paul.

152That's what I'm telling you. That's the big grief. >> No, I understand. I'm not minimizing your concern, so please don't take it that way. >> I know. But what I'm trying to tell you is this is a pretty big size lot. And if you look at the lot, everything is on the north side over there. Uh >> on my property line, a lot of it is over here. I mean, here's my property line. It's two feet over here. He has he he could Why can't he just maybe remove some of these decks that uh take some of his decks off and then move it? Um there's a lot of things he could do. I I don't know why we gave him a thousand feet worth of deck. Do you know that's the size? It's just

153unbelievable. That's what he's asking for here. 1,000 ft of deck. And how much does the zoning bar say that the deck should be? >> 400 ft. >> We base it up. We've done this, >> right? They've done it before. >> But that's So the Okay. >> So basically we just said So if you took this house >> Yes. So we're all you took this house >> which other than the garage the the house itself was approved. >> So if you took this garage >> who said the house was approved >> well but I have a question about that. I didn't know you could like have like a backup variance. I thought you had one variance that was a variance and then if you applied for another variance you're still talking about the other variance like

154>> well they still have the they still have the variance in place >> but that house is not the same house. This house is not the same house that was approved of. It's the same footprint on the prints. >> Yeah, but it's not the same meeting. It's like I don't understand that how that can happen. But I I better >> the other house is only two level. This is three level. It's not the same house. >> Yeah. and and the application for the >> sorry >> Ryan the I would say that the sort of the request >> for a new variance actually uh qualifies as a discontinuing of the old nonconformity as stated in 45-15. So if he built the house as it was originally done and came back for a variance today to add

155a garage to the house, right? >> That'd be a new variance. It' >> be a new variance to do that. And I think that's the only change that we're seeing other than the style of the house where the windows are, the roof lines, things like that. The footprint is the same on the existing variance for the structure. So to, you know, yes, this particular one might have a finished basement, but that doesn't affect anything to do with what we're talking about here. We're looking at the setbacks, the impact on the property, not the design of the house, right? >> We're not talking about the design of the house. >> Well, you're saying it's a different house, but this the footprint is the same as what was approved. Although, >> but it's not the original house

156and the original house was a different size. >> It's just more details on the plan. >> It is a >> Yeah, the style of the house doesn't matter. It's the same footprint. I really do honest not to be mean or anything like that but I'm very I apologize that you would that you would feel able to uh at least show us the plans and explain them because they are very I mean we John understands plans but it's easy to make mistakes in our but I I think that I believe them because I of all the things that I've seen I don't know I can't see that's why I think people really need to look at the plans and I'm Sorry that the boards don't have enough time to really study him because to study him

157right before it's not enough time. I can't >> just >> Why are you preparing it to >> Yeah. Why are you defending him? I I thought you were supposed to be impartial of their right. >> I'm 100% impartial. I'm trying to I'm looking at everything you just said. So what you just said was if you don't care how big the house was. If he was to take this, move it over >> 12 feet. 12 feet. That's correct. Move it over to two 12 ft or move the whole thing over 12t. >> 12 more feet. So 12 feet already the house and the garage. The house and the garage. The house and the garage. >> No, the garage is already over there now. So >> no, I'm talking about So my question was that so I

158was trying to get like kind of the to the I'm just trying to get to the root of your your grievance. >> So the house it where the house is now it's it's static. It's It's in the same location and it's just as close as it's ever been to your house. Nothing changes. The only thing changing here would be to add a garage addition to the front of it that would run parallel to your house. >> Right. That's correct. >> Because he's not Okay. So, that where the house is that that doesn't need to change. That's the way it's been. It's not changing. So adding this garage to the front of the house runs longer parallel to your house and you have a bathroom window there and a bedroom window. And my understanding of of

159your grievance to put this in the simplest case possible is that you don't want to to look out your bedroom window and see another house or you don't want to look at your your your bathroom window and see it because you feel that it's too close to the property line because the house doesn't have to move anywhere. It's there no matter what. So when they put this garage here, you your grievance is as it's going to run longer more down parallel to your house. >> That's that's the grievance. >> And and what and then what it causes by doing that. And I just wondered can I I have a you have to use you have to say >> well the the causes you mean like like detriments like like construction damages. That that's that's what

160that's what your detriment. >> If you don't mind I know >> I got a ton of papers here. >> I happen to write something that I I obviously can I'm not very good at off the top of my head, but my husband asked me to write a really >> um is this basically everything that we have been discussing right here for the last >> this has to do with it >> over over an hour we have been discussing this >> you guys have had the floor for over 45 minutes as well too um and have discussed the grievances and everything is this basically kind of a repeat of what we we were discussing >> no because it it just uh gives more about the uh well I don't think we really discussed there is a

161there is something that says that they can't cause detrimental detriment to to the property to >> I mean I >> very briefly what kind of detriments like just very briefly like like >> but that that is a condition for >> No I know but what detriments are you asking it goes into >> John forget it go ahead >> no go ahead >> no it's air is one of the things your privacy is another thing um and the big thing is the property value that's the thing that's really going to bother me it's going to be 8 I know there's house house is away and um >> but how do you know that? I guess like >> I had people come over. I had two appraisers come over. >> No, I understand that. But from like

162a board standpoint, we have really no way to say that that's going to increase or decrease your property value. I mean >> Oh, it's definitely going to decrease in property. >> We don't know that. Okay, John. We have had discussions with with other applications before when they have had concerns about, you know, property values being lower, raised, or what. We are not appraisers. This is not what we This is not >> we're we're not we're not discussing what the property value is. We we're discussing basically what you know okay property I understand the concern but it's not something that's going to to make or break what our decision is too basically is what the concerns according to our zoning regulations. Okay. We have or or you know and and as you know you I mean

163other concern again you have talked for over 45 minutes. We have we understand what the couple concerns you have are too. We understand too you have taken a lot of time to prepare to prepare your presentation. This is probably the most thorough objection presentation in my seven years on this board that I've seen happen. Everything too. And I am not dismissing it. I'm not downplaying it at all by any means. Everything. I just believe right now we are going in circles right now too. We understand what what what >> one of the reason that I know that I could say for myself that I'm going in circles is because it's because we don't we're we we're under a lot of duress for other reasons also which I don't want to mention here but uh anyway

164can I just read this? It's not going to I'll I'll skip what I what has already been said. >> She has let her read it. I I'll just I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and allow it. >> Well, is it is it >> No, we need to expedite this. It's not anything and and if a lot of it is repetitive of what has already been presented. >> I'll try not to repeat repeat everything. So, if you can just paraphrase and get through it as quickly as possible, >> that would be >> I just want to say basically that um I was going to give my name and that say I'm a resident of Winstead and I I live in the house and uh you know I've worked in the community for a long time

165and I I and I know that it might not be important for zoning but it's important for me to say it that and so I I really I really appreciate Winstead. I had a lot of experience in the schools here. I've worked in the in the community college, the St. anthony school and and sub in the Winchester public schools and I'm I'm an outsider. I'm from New York. I'm not I'm not from Winstead. So, uh I think that the thing that I that I wanted to say is that and I know it probably doesn't count, but I but my experience has been unique because over the over the course of time, although I'm an outsider, have come to know and to sincerely love the people and places of Winstead and and Highland Lake is not

166all of Winstead. There's there's a lot more to Winstead than Highland Lake. All right. Anyway, the three concerns that I want to talk about are the privacy, the loss of of property value, and the impact on the neighborhood. And it's only like a few paragraphs is our understanding the new project. Okay, I'm not going to say what's going to happen. I'm not going to tell tell you what's going to happen. I can skip that. But I am okay. As far as the privacy goes, um we occupy the kitchen, the bedroom, the bathroom, the sun room, the dining room, the deck day. We're in there all day. So, uh, all and everything is located on that right between the garage, his garage and our and our house. All our our kitchen, our bathroom, our bedroom. We

167have that sun dining room area and our outside deck. All right. And then so I don't want to um we have to we have to accept privac private issues with that place because of the two-foot boundary. We there's always private there's privacy users with us but we all really were able to handle it and it just worked out that we were not always in the same place at the same time and the only thing we really had to be concerned of was seeing people go back and forth and try not to close the blinds or whatever to protect their privacy and ours and but I don't want to have to do that but but that that was before they're building a bigger house and putting another thing closer to our house and it's not it's

168not my my concerns aren't only that we have to close our shades during during the day to protect their privacy or that they have to or they will be able to look into our house from above or that we might hear noise, but the proximity of our decks will certainly interfere with the reasonable use of our property with respect to our time with guests and the time we personally use on our deck. I mean, that's what people have houses at the lake for to spend time with their family and their friends and and we want them to be able to spend time with their friends. We we love that they're here for that reason and and uh and they do they they really love the lake also and just being new and so I don't

169I'm not I'm I'm not okay. So anyway, I'm so uh but we and we know we can't change that. So it's something we have to live with. But um it just it's just disturbing that that you know that problem. It's just disturbing that they're going to move something that's just going to make it even harder or even more more more infringing on our privacy >> and it is more non-conforming. But uh that's what that's what's really that's there's other things too. But that's to me that's the really the real problem is that you know it's just going to we're already we've already been disturbed for two months trying to work this out and trying to visualize this and trying to look for it. All right. Anyway, I know that's just an emotional thing. Doesn't count,

170but I'm still going to say it. All right. So, and you know, I I personally have preferences what the portions of houses and the size of land and what's around it, what makes it look good and and in some cases they there is a I guess there they some towns want to have unifying designs and I don't know if that's true about here. So, uh but I I really can't you know that I really can't speak on I guess. Um and I I am concerned about what'll happen to the lake. I've, you know, I've I don't know how to put this scientifically necessary, but I've seen lakes. I swim in the lake. I've noticed since the since uh I so I noticed the weeds a lot. I see the weeds and there has been there's

171a greater influx of weeds. Not just not because of this property, but because people have been building and I've seen that on other lakes. It really ages the lake to have a tremendous amount of building on the lake. It does. Anyway, um anyway, but you know what the more my most this is this is why I wanted to read this and it's and it's true and it's not scientific and and I don't know if it goes with the zoning board or whatever, but I think it's very important because one of the is my most important concern is the relationship that we have with our neighbors. More more valuable to me than living in in a million dollar neighborhood is the unspoken deep lasting bond and the respect between neighbors that has been appreciated and nurtured

172for years all around the lake. It's priceless. That's all I want to say. Take it. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> Wait, my brother-in-law is gonna What are you going to talk about? >> The only thing I wanted to say will take about a minute is if you look under the um variances under the state of Connecticut, the uh Sean's uh engineer stated that the hardship was a lot size. And if you look at uh the number two special condition, it says that it has to be unique circumstances and he did not mention any unique circumstances. It has nothing to do with the last size. So he never actually explain what the hardship was. >> It's not the first one. And the other uh point I want to bring out is

173that uh the prior neighbors Fred Isaac and uh Norman Smith all had reasonable use of the property and so does Sean now. Reasonable use of the property would be uh swimming, fishing, boating, jet skiing, camp outs, sleeping over. So he cannot claim that there's a lack of reasonable use because he does have reasonable use of the property which is one of the six grounds for a variance. So he doesn't mean reasonable use and he doesn't mean circumstances means you should be granted that's probably all I have to say. >> Okay. we've heard your um your grievances for the last hour and definitely we'll take into consideration as we make our decision and of course allow them the opportunity to respond as well too and and uh and make their and make their case. We appreciate

174you guys uh coming and make your presentation. Thank you. >> Yeah, we appreciate your time. >> Thank you. Is there um any other members of the public who wish to speak to this application? Any other members of the public permission to speak to this application? >> Hearing none, I will go ahead and close the public portion and allow you guys the final word for your application. And if you want your time and make it as quick as possible >> and if you want to answer any other questions too as far as your closing remarks, please do so. >> Thank you. I'll try to make my comments as succinct as possible. Um, so as we've talked about the most of the project was approved in 2021, special exception variance for the footprint, second story, the decks.

175Um, we're trying to simplify it, keep things where they are, the house where it is. I wanted to describe as you walk down our driveway so you can picture a little better the experience as you're walking down the driveway. When you walk down the driveway, we park our trucks right next to the Pock House and there are bushes that run all along the house. So blocking the windows, blocking the light. I heard them talk a little bit about the trees and the shade. They are getting shade in that way. It sounds like shade is what they want. So worrying about the windows doesn't seem like as much of an issue as maybe it was described as. There are two there's a set of tomato bushes before the so closer to the street side there are

176tomato bushes. That's where the kitchen window is, if I have it right. And that won't be blocked at all um by the garage. So when you come down the driveway, you'll be able to to see that. And then our trucks won't be there. So there will be more privacy because the the garage will be further away. So you're pulling into the garage and we won't be walking along the um the house in that way. And there is no walkway there. So for the polls to be on that side of the house, they would be going by our shrubs on our driveway, which is fine cutting the shrubs or picking the tomatoes or anything, but it isn't a pathway that they use in and out. It's just walking on our driveway where it is right now.

177Um, so as we said, we'll be eliminating the deck and that was going to be added to the garage on the second story and um the house will sit lower than the most recent approved plans and that aligns with the original wishes of the pollocks when we first put the project to to um forward to them. we wanted to add on to the house and put a third story, which was interesting that they mentioned that we can go as high as we wanted because that was the first issue that was that was shared with us, which is why we went to the plan that was approved in 2021 to get those variances because we were originally going to go up on the the first footprint. So, I'm kind of that there's mixed messaging here. So,

178I just wanted to put that out um out there for people to digest. Um so the um the new the new attached garage will be similar in height to the Pock House when you're approaching from the street side. And just in terms of the um wetlands committee in July they asked us to have to hire a um an engineer. So the engineer along with Kyle um made all the revisions that were that was recommended by the wetlands committee. Every pitch to the property has been considered to ensure that there's no water runoff. um plan approved by both. And just in terms of um the property itself and reasonable use, the house was built in 1910 and we have enjoyed it. We've enjoyed it, but we like to be there full-time. We can't sleep there in

179the winter. It's not sealed. Mice run in and out. And I'm not being dramatic, but we're enjoying it. Um but the reality is it's not a place we can live um with our children and live year round. And in terms of enjoying it with our family, enjoying it with our neighbors, um it's not possible the way it is. And it is approved. But adding that the garage is the the part of the conversation right now. Um, and like I said in terms of the house being good condition, the garage isn't in good condition either. It's not sealed. It's not great. It's rotting. I mean, can we are we using it now? Is it protecting our things that are in there? Yes. But it's not it's not in good condition. Um, the seaw wall and the

180dock are now going to conform um by adding the top. So, establishing the grass. We're going to be dealing with um all of the issues that aren't in place in the houses built in 1910. Um the rip wrap, reducing the water velocity, um and there's going to be clean water run off into the lake. And we love the lake. We're we're thrilled to be here. We chose the lake because of um how clear it was and how wonderful it is. So, we're not looking to um create a problem. We're trying to create solutions. Um and the home will be positioned slightly further away from the pock even if it's just a few inches. And the driveway right now is so close that the mirrors touch the bushes when we come in. So it's actually going

181to shift away from that so that we're not literally on top of each other in that way. Um so oh I did want to share that John has served as a DBA board member for many years and we appreciate his his volunteer service but the experience has also enabled him to manipulate the facts of our proposal in attempt to influence your decision. We know that letters were sent and um we wanted a chance to respond to them as best we can, not having all the experience that he has. Um and we have seen firsthand that that John supports changes to Highland Lakes properties only when they line with his preferences and what he'd like to to see um or believe in. And back in 2021, um my husband Sean shared the idea of going up

182to the third up and putting a third story on our house. and John wasn't comfortable with the concept of going up as many of the lakefront um home homeowners do. And um in effort to keep things peaceful and accommodate his views, we spent almost $20,000 to revise the plans at the time. Um and as I mentioned, in hindsight now, we appreciate the shift because we didn't expect the house to become our permanent residence. And so now we're at this we're at this place where we have an opportunity to um to do that for ourselves and our family. Um every other project that we've done, we engineers have recommended engaging with our neighbors before submitting proposals like we've talked about tonight. Um but we we haven't experienced um neighbors with strong bias against development on the

183lakefront. Um which typically seem to be leading a note into nos. And we just ask that the committee considers what it's like to have a neighbor like this as you work to transform a centrial cottage into a full-time home and navigate a neighborly relationship that we've had since we've been here simultaneously. Um despite our differences regarding the project, we genuinely enjoy the poll's neighbors. Sean puts in the dock every season, removes it every fall. Um and the Gonalves family um who live directly south of us have written a letter fully supporting the project. So we have um their support for the project. And then in terms of um getting the approvals to the changes to our home, um we worry that John's distorted some of the facts and um raised some concerns that we would

184like to address. Um, calling the house a three-level house. It has a basement, a first and second floor. Um, the height of the house being too high. We've talked about that whether that's the mixed messages I mentioned, but the house is 32 feet tall, which takes into account the slope of the property, averages roughly 26 feet as Kyle showed in the um the plans. And we designed our house to look like a one-story Cape from the street side to keep things as low as as low as possible. Um, John had raised concerns about property lines and at that time he as a board member a ZBA board member he reached out to Kyle our engineer and Tim Wy our survey and attempt to voice his concern directly to them hoping to influence changes to our

185plans that would align with his vision for our home property and the lake. Um John had questioned the latoral lines of our property and our previous approvals Tim Wy at the request of the board recalculated using the cove method. Um and our new plans reflect those calculations that were um approved by the board. And just to make the point about um 10 years ago when the pilots put an addition on their home um and and yeah 10 years ago um John PA add an addition to his home at 502 East Wakefield Boulevard which required a variance at the time. The addition expanded his home toward the lake the street and the addition is all along our property line. Um and the lot is roughly half the size of ours yet the footprint of the house

186may actually be larger than the first floor of our proposed home. As a percentage, from what we can tell, John has more impervious coverage than we do. Even though our lot is about twice the size of his lot. Given the size of his house, the driveway, the walkway, the shed, the fire pit, it appears that John's impervious coverage is percentage of lot size could be nearly double ours. Um potentially making him out of compliance with regulations. Curiously, us staying within our previous limits of um 39% isn't acceptable to John. And um in the letters, not Tonight there were concerns over the AC well they were mentioned tonight concerns over the AC units brought to your attention um where John makes claims that the condensing units will add runoff water and the condensing units don't bring

187moisture air handlers do and our air handlers will be in the basement and the attic and will drain properly. Um window air conditioning units as on the Pock home which actually are on our side of the property do release water onto the land below them. And then there's also concern about um the timeliness of our um project. John expressed concern that the project won't be completed in a timely manner, suggesting it will take quote unquote years to finish, and compared it to the 15 by 20 foot kitchen edition he made to his own home, which took 13 months to complete. Based on his experience, he's assuming that our construction timeline will far exceed his and raise concerns that not having a general contractor will delay our progress. The reason we haven't hired one yet is

188we haven't received final approvals. Um, and John's assumptions about our timing are unfounded. In reality, we have several subcontractors lined up. Our goal is to complete the project as quickly as possible. And with our experience building two commercial buildings and custom homes, we view the project as relatively straightforward. And in terms of the property value, I think that's um that's up for debate. I I can't imagine an improved home lifting the neighborhood um in compliance would be a negative. Um I'd like to think that it'll be an asset to the lake and to the neighborhood. Um, and just the the idea that the lot was split, that happened before our time, and the pots were permitted to extend their home in both directions. And we're here having a conversation um about our home. >> Just

189want to touch on some highlights again that that Brooke mentioned. So the current state of the >> Sorry, could you speak up a little? >> Sorry, Marian. The current state of the property has no storm water runoff control or prevention, mitigation, anything. So free flowing right to the lake. This this project is going to address all of that. And I would look at it as a net zero and the increase of the impervious surface because we are accounting for the increase with our storm water management. Um before you had the 388% with no mitigation. So I feel like that's a a strong point to this this project. And >> I have one question. >> Sure. Um, you look at like the aerial view. >> Yep. >> And the north side Pollock's home is is kind

190of at a can't towards the south. When you do your new foundation, is that is the new house gonna follow that in a parallel or is it is it going to stay facing exactly that? Because if you look at like the if you look at like the aerial view, the house kind of like >> tilts tilts towards the like the front towards the south, >> right? >> And this house looks like it does not. If if you were just looking at from the picture wise, would that follow their house like that or Would would this building that you're proposing continue to stay on that same trajectory? >> The new building is going to build off of the existing footprint >> off the existing footprint. So, it's not changing at all. It's a it's a new

191foundation, but it's still the same footprint. Everything >> existing parallel to the >> It won't be. So, so when it when the garage extends it, >> the lines could intersect. >> Yeah. The line is just going to kind of come It's not going to >> It's not going to go over the property line obviously. It's going to just come closer to the the property line. Okay. >> Well, it's running the same distance from their property. Is that >> No, no. He what he's talking about is if you look at the aerial view, you can see that the houses are not exactly parallel. So, the the proposed plan is going to follow the existing line of the home, which means that if you were to draw the lines, right, they would eventually intersect. It's going to

192get closer to their >> Yeah. Which they won't. So that's what >> Yeah. So >> becomes a little bit over a foot closer to the property line at the >> the furthest. >> So it goes from 99 to 87. So >> yeah. >> So it's not 87 the entire way. >> So that's Yeah, it's 87 at the very end because it goes in like that. So it's >> it's more just at the at the very end where it gets >> that's the closest point of the garage to the property. >> Yeah. >> So you could still move within that area. >> So it's basically like a foot. It comes over a foot closer at that very end. It tapers in a foot. So it's not >> right. Yeah. Okay. >> When you look at a

193picture of the house, it comes out where the >> the peak is on the existing house. Yeah. Garage comes out. That kind of helps figure out where it is relative to space. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Is that um Are we all set here on your comments now? >> Public comments is over. My apologies. Um but I close the hearing. >> I closed the public comments hearing. We we we have to go with with regular order here. Um okay. With that being said, I will go ahead and put in uh read into the record motion to grant variances per section 3D5C of the zoning regulations for application GBA 2510. Raise reconstruct house, remove existing garage and rebuild a new location. North side yard setback 32.4 ft. Southside yard setback 24.4 ft. Increase in height

19411.5 ft. Increase in previous coverage 24.5% per KCCC consulting P consulting site plan dated June 25, 2025. Do we have a second? >> Second has been made in second. Any further discussion? >> Yeah, I just want to point out that we did not hear uh any sort of um evidence uh supporting hardship for placing the garage further south. And this is making the property more nonconforming. So, >> okay. >> Any further discussion? >> Well, I think you you asked that question. That was >> I asked the question, it wasn't answered. >> Well, I think Well, the ledge was kind of the answer >> ledge on both sides, >> right? >> So, >> the unique shape topography, right? That's the >> Yeah, but it it's it they're going to be in the same situation on the

195north and the south side. every project, every single project. >> Right. Exactly. So, all I'm saying is there's no hardship >> presented for putting the garage further south. >> The other thing that I'd like to just touch on, and I know that we're going to we're not going to see eye to eye on it, but that east that Lake Drive property, we just did the exact same thing. >> Apples to oranges. >> It's It's really not. >> It's apples to oranges. If we're looking at the one property, >> the Senate's house is much further away from that property line. I've walked both properties. >> Understood? But the property itself, right, we're doing the same exact thing. We're >> apples to oranges. That's why the ZBA exists because >> perhaps you two should agree to disagree.

196>> Exactly. >> It exists because every single project does not meet the zoning. >> Exactly. And they're all we are going around and around again. That's the hardship. I'm call I'm I'm calling the vote. All in favor of this application, raise your hand, please. >> All opposed. Okay. Vote of three to two. Unfortunately, uh due to the um due to the rules of the vote here, um this is not approved at this time. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate Okay. Um, one more. >> Yep. One more application here. GBA 25-2. Where is my >> No, I I just actually 25-2. Um, special exception for 602 East Wakefield Boulevard. And we have our good evening. For the record, my name is Robert Kell. I'm a senior project manager with Haley Ward and a licensed professional engineer

197in the state of Connecticut. I'm here today representing the applicants, Matthew and Monica Maloney, uh for their special exception permit. Um fortunately, we don't have to prove a hardship for this one, but I will give you the site improvements that we made here and um try to uh get you lightened a little bit. So, this is the site plan. So what you see in red is the existing house. Um so the existing rear yard was 19.4 ft and um the existing front yard was over 60 ft. Uh so what the Maloney are going to are trying to do is they want to keep obviously they want to keep that deck beyond the 20 foot line which is this blue line here. So they are conforming in that direction. The existing house was 19.4 four feet

198to this corner right here. And the proposed corner is what is that number? Sorry glasses on again maybe. So it's over 20 it's 29.2 ft I I believe it is to the exact uh for the new setback. uh this sideyard is conforming. Um the front yard even though So what he he wanted to do is he wanted to expand the house. He's going to remove this wooden deck and um move expand the house in the direction of the sideyard where he meets. So here's the minimum sideyard. It's way over here, but he he has no work going there. Front yard. So in order to make it more conforming and make this deck uh beyond the 20 foot line, we push the house forward as far as we can and still remain conform conforming. So the

199only line that we held and the reason why we we have a special exception is um is is this line. So we we've kept this line in the same exact spot as it was. We just took the whole house, moved it forward a little bit so they could fit the deck in beyond the 20 foot line and expanded to this side. But in this side they're way beyond um the minimum set back there. Uh proposed sideyard is now 54.8 ft. So it's better showed in our table. So it just a lot easier for me to read the table. All right. So obviously the lot size and lot width is not going to change. The minimum front yard is 50 feet. The house was over 60 feet. Now it's going to be 50.2 feet. Um the

200garage isn't moving. It's the garage is existing. It's staying there. It's at the edge of the roadway. It's they're not doing any work to the garage. Um sideyards. Um the house on the north side was 69.2 ft. Now 54.8. 8 uh the H which is a decrease. Well, anyway, it's conforming. Um the sideyard on the south side for the house went from 20.3 ft to actually 21.3 ft moved over slightly and um the minimum sideyard the north side which is the garage is just going to stay the same. Um oops the building height is uh going to be 27.6 6 feet. Once again, we meet the uh building height of 30 foot for the HLD. Uh the impervious coverage will go, we weren't able to decrease it that much, but we were able to decrease

201it somewhat. Um the deck pergolent patio is beyond this. This project has already received inland wetlands approval. Um what you're looking at now is the impervious coverage plan. So, I've colorcoded this. Finally starting to get around to getting that getting better at doing that. So, asphalt and gravel parking is going to go from 1,130 ft to 640 square ft. The house garage and deck are going from 1313 square ft to 1,754 square ft. Not much of an increase. Uh walks and steps and concrete were pretty much ended up staying the same. So, what I do show on this plan is a two sidewalk combination here, and I'll explain this here in a second. So, they have they're they have an elderly parent that they're going to be bringing up here, and they wanted to know

202if they would be able to if I could design a sidewalk that didn't utilize the stairs so they can get her down into the house. So, I did that, but it's only optional right now and they may or may not do it, but I did improve in include it in the impervious coverage counts just in case they do put that sidewalk in. So, there's, you know, no, we don't have to come back later and say, hey, we put this in, we didn't put this in. So, on the on the site plan, it's shown as optional. Um, this area here down to this retaining wall is where they used to park where they park their boat and and other and the cars and they bring the cars down the driveway. There's also a little landing area

203up here that they also park in. Um, so when we went we went before the for our permit determination with um Jeremy and and Jeff uh they informed me that that is considered impervious now because they could park on it and and they do park on it and and I have a gravel driveway. I know I it fills up with bird bats all the time and it's not impervious. They also have a little bit of impervious from an encroachment from the neighbor's driveway. right here. So, they have no problems with the neighbor or and as a matter of fact, you'll have you have two letters and there from neighbors on both sides and you know both neighbors have no problem with the project. I'm trying to go quick for you because I know you're a

204long night here site plan. So, the site plan needs an L feature. So, we're going to use this area down here. Might have ask the Maloney to pull it back a little away from the shore, but we're going to use that area for rain garden. It's been designed for the first 1.3 uh feet of one, sorry, 1.3 in of of rain uh per the new Connecticut D guidelines. It used to be 1 in, but now it has to be designed for 1.3 in which we did here. um to have a construction entrance for and erosion control measures in place. So I think once again we're trying to make things more non more conforming. And the reason that he's doing a a raise and reconstruct I can show you real quick here why. So this is

205underneath the house. If you see some of these are are leaning and when you walk in the house from the side and you take a right the floor drops 18 inches. It has this big dip in it. One of the columns that you see here which is probably on the next slide glasses. This one. See that one back there? the the footing itself just got tilted and buried and that's not even holding on the floor any longer. Um this house is 19 ft from the road. It has serious structural issues. Uh particularly with this foundation and you know sooner or later there's no recovery here. This this has this is one of those times where there's just not enough that you could do to this house structurally to to bring it back. So, they have

206a lot of issues here with it structurally and uh they're getting ready to spend a lot more time here. So, those are the photos. Um, if you have any questions, I'll take them now. >> Any questions from the board? >> Questions, comments, or anything? Okay. Any members of the public who wish to speak to this application? Any members of the public wish to speak to this application? Any members of the public wish to speak to this application? >> One of them is our the contractor. >> That's John. He uh is partner in D'Angelo Builders. Doing a lot of work. >> Hope you've enjoy hope you've enjoyed our you know. >> Very good. Uh hearing no further comment from the public. I will close the public portion of this hearing and I'll give you the last

207square. Grab >> um this is another one of those properties where you know unfortunately it's one of those cottages. Uh I don't always get to work I mean our delas have a nice house and they're trying to make it you know different and then nights are just adding a storage garage but those are variances and those are difficult to work with and you know in this instance uh we have another situation where I'm just trying to make things better make improve the site. I mean, I only reduce the impervious a little here. That's one of my favorite things. I try to decrease impervious. I think every time I come before this board, it's one of my main goals. And I think we weren't able to achieve it as much as I would like here, but

208we were able to do it. So really I we he meets one two two of the two of the yards are conforming the front and the right side yard from the road left side yard's not changing at all and the rear yards actually becoming less nonconforming >> that's it okay that being said I will enter into the record the following motion to grant a special exception from section 2gdiv of the zoning regulations for application 25-2 proposal applicant is seeking a special exception pursuant to GIVF to allow raise and reconstruct lakehouse per Haley Ward engineering site plane dated June 3rd 2025 revisions June 12th 2025 and June 19th 2025 do we have a second >> motion has been made and second any discussion >> hearing none I'll call for a vote all in favor >> thank

209Any opposed? Motion is carried. You have your project, bro. >> Thank you. Have a great night. >> Thank you. >> Have a good week. >> I'm about to go into my auctioneer type of talk. Now that we have the minutes here, one of them. Um, has everyone had a chance to look over the minutes from our previous meeting from a couple months ago? Yes. >> Any additions, corrections have been made? I'll call for I'll make I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. >> So moved. >> Motion's been made. >> Second. Any discussion? All in favor? >> I All opposed. >> Abstaining. >> Abstain. Okay. >> Oh, was it >> um we have one of the bit any of the correspondents? Anything? >> No. >> Okay. Do we really need I mean I mean should

210we >> we're good. We're nothing more on the agenda. Well, what about election of officers or anything? >> We're going to hold off on that. >> You can't. >> We can't because I have to go home. >> So do I. >> All right. Table the election of officers to the next meeting >> for the upth. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Motion been made to adjurnn. Second. >> Motions been made and second. No discussion. All in favor? >> I. We are journ. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you ladies and gentlemen. >> And my rationale for that is we've waited this long. What difference does it make? >> Uh, we still we're still >> Okay, so we need two more.