APPROVED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING ...

Mr. Cozean invited questions and comments for and against the application from thepublic.Michael Hamblett of 9 Bayview Place stated that he and his wife were in favor of theapplication.Mr. Moore asked whether any thought was given to renovating the existing house. Mr.Plunkett stated his belief that this house does not warrant renovating. He noted the1950s addition to the house, which he stated in the process revealed different floorheights and ceiling heights and spans. He stated that if he were hired to renovate thishouse, he would talk someone out of it, whereas he has renovated other houses inTown that he felt warranted it.Cheryl Walton, applicant’s sister, stated that the proposed plans started several years agowhen the homeowner’s wife was still alive. However, after her passing, she statedthat the plans were placed on hold, but now they decided it might be a good time tocomplete the dream. She stated that they were always very sensitive and respectful tothe neighbors.Mr. Cozean identified letters of support on file as follows:EXHIBIT F: Michael and Amanda Hamblett of 9 Bayview PlaceEXHIBIT G: Dr. VJ and Nanda Anand of 11 Bayview PlaceEXHIBIT H: Cynthia Perry and Robert HermanEXHIBIT I: Carol Hanau of 8 Bayview PlaceEXHIBIT J: Ronald and Bette Zollshan of 22 Chapman AvenueEXHIBIT K: Jeffrey and Judy McElnea of 5 Bayview PlaceWith no further questions or comments, this portion of the public hearing was closed andthe Board began its deliberation.Ms. Stevens stated that she thought the applicants met the hardship criteria with theundersized lot that is unique to the neighborhood in that it does not have a buildingenvelope to work with. She noted that Mr. Plunkett reported that some of the existingissues with the house don’t warrant renovation. She also acknowledged that theneighbors were in support of the application and she was in favor of it.Mr. Fiume agreed and was also in favor of the application. He noted that thenonconformities were reduced and the reduction of the nonconformities offset theadditional part of the structure where the elevator would have an effect.Mr. Moore agreed that there was a reduction in nonconformities. He stated that he wouldhave loved to see the house restored because he found it to be very charmingoverlooking Long Island Sound. However, if it is unsafe and would need substantialrenovations in the future, he stated that he thinks it’s best to take the time to fix itnow.Ms. Braisted agreed with comments made by other members. She also noted that theapplicant planned to demolish at a time of year that has least impact to the neighbors.She pointed out the long, narrow shape of the lot that lends to hardship.Mr. Kelty agreed with members’ comments and felt a strong argument was made thatrenovation was not feasible.Madison ZBA • Approved March 2, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes • Page 9 of 16