NORWALK — The Norwalk Zoning Board of Appeals voted to approve variances and the Coastal Area Management (CAM) application for 46 South Beach Drive on a 4–0 vote, with Chairman Andy Conroy abstaining.

The application from Plankport LLC seeks multiple variances to elevate and alter an existing single-family residence to meet federal and local flood-elevation requirements while retaining some nonconformities, including building height and front-yard parking encroachment. The applicants presented revised plans that eliminated an elevated pool and adjoining deck, removed two cupolas, reduced one wing’s roof by 2.5 feet, lowered the pool to grade and removed an existing shed.

“Since the renovations and proposed additions will exceed the 25% appraised value, the new regulations then require us to elevate the structure to meet the minimum flood,” said Liz Saatchi, partner at Carmitore and Sendak in Hennessy, who represented the owners, Michael and Christine Angelakis. She summarized that the finished floor and freeboard will be raised to 17 feet to meet FEMA and the city flood elevation (15 feet FEMA plus 2 feet city), and that most design changes were driven by that required elevation.

Why it matters: The board’s decision balances flood-safety regulations with neighborhood massing concerns. Raising houses to current flood-elevation standards is common along Norwalk’s waterfront; how the board applies height and setback rules in these cases affects future redevelopment decisions on other recently built homes.

Board members pressed the applicant for additional design changes but concluded further reductions to the main roof would require removing and reconstructing the roof and upper structure, which the project team said would render existing third-floor spaces unusable. Architect Oliver Cope said lowering the primary roof by several feet would “completely replan the rooms” and eliminate usable ceiling heights in parts of the upper floor.

The board and applicants discussed specific variances requested and the staff memo. Key numeric points described in testimony and the staff memo include:

- Front yard setback (required 30 feet; existing ~18.4 feet; proposed 15.7 feet).
- Building midpoint height (32 feet permitted; existing 29.4 feet; proposed 37.1 feet).
- Total building height (40 feet permitted; existing 37.4 feet; proposed 44.3 feet, with a reduction of 2.5 feet on one wing reported during the hearing).
- Pool rear-yard setback and buffer issues: earlier code changes reduced the mean high tide buffer requirement (from 25 feet to 15 feet), removing one variance need; a one‑square‑foot encroachment on a porch corner was noted by the applicant as minimal.

Caitlin Drury, Hollander Design, described the revised landscape and pool plan and confirmed the previously proposed elevated pool terrace was replaced with a pool at grade. She said the revised plan lowers the previously proposed terrace elevation roughly 9.5 feet from the original elevated design and about 1.5 feet lower than the pool’s existing grade, which the team said materially reduces visible massing from neighbors’ vantage points.

Staff had also clarified retaining-wall treatment: rebuilding or reducing nonconforming retaining walls was interpreted by staff as allowed as‑of‑right, but the applicant sought board approval as a variance “out of an abundance of caution,” according to the staff memo read into the record.

Board members repeatedly acknowledged the practical difficulty created by the combination of a relatively new, high‑pitched roof built under prior codes and the present obligation to elevate the house after renovations exceed the 25% threshold. Several members said the applicant had made meaningful concessions — cupolas removed, chimneys reduced, shed removed, pool lowered — and that asking the applicant to remove and rebuild the entire roof would be impractical and disproportionate.

The ZBA approved the non‑CAM variances and then separately approved the CAM application as amended; the board recorded four affirmative votes with the chair abstaining.

The approval includes conditions stated on the record and reflected in staff memos, including compliance with the revised plans submitted to staff and the CAM rules. A decision deadline noted in the staff memo indicated the board must render a decision by the July meeting if continuances are used, and the record reflects the applicant requested action at this hearing.

Board members and project consultants agreed to continue working on minor fine‑tuning; commissioners encouraged the applicant to consider modest additional reductions if feasible but did not require further redesign as a condition of approval.

The property is in CD‑1S zoning and within the Coastal Area Management overlay: District 6, Block 36, Lot 63.