Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Canaan ZBA grants variance for addition at 26 Turner Hill Road
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance to allow a two-story addition 18 feet from the side property line at 26 Turner Hill Road, citing lot shape, wetlands constraints and prior variances as the basis for hardship.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of New Canaan voted unanimously May 5 to grant a variance allowing a two‑story addition to be built 18 feet from the side property line at 26 Turner Hill Road.
Board members said the 1. an undersized, irregularly shaped lot and 2. a wetlands buffer on the property created a practical hardship that justified the relief. Board member Jessica moved to grant the variance, and the motion carried on five affirmative votes.
Applicant Richard Veil, representing owners Carla and Ali Watson, told the board the project is a 12‑by‑12 addition that would add a second‑floor bedroom and a first‑floor utility/laundry room off the west side of the house. Veil said the proposal “lines up with the [previous] addition we did a few years back” and that the site is constrained by wetlands and an odd lot shape.
Veil also said the house was already nonconforming when the owners bought it and that prior variances from earlier ownership remain on the title. When asked by the board whether the prior variances could be surrendered, Veil replied the owners would “forego the first 2” approved variances from prior owners and had no intention of pursuing the larger demolish‑and‑rebuild plans those earlier approvals envisioned.
Board members walked the parcel and reviewed the site plans on-screen and in hard copy. One member summarized his view of the application during deliberations: the current request “is noticeably less than what was found [to be hardship] in 02/2005 and 02/2016” and “can't be seen from the road,” while other members said the request was “modest” and the lot presented genuine constraints.
Jessica moved that “the variance, as depicted on the site plan, be granted based on the hardships that are associated [with] the property, including the odd shape of the lot, the change in the zoning, the small undersized nature of the lot, and then other aspects of the property, including the nearby wetlands.” The motion was seconded and the roll call showed Dull, Tash, Carden, Snyder and Book (seated member Chad Cook was acting for an absent member) voting in favor.
No members of the public spoke in opposition during the hearing on this item, and the board recorded that four affirmative votes were required for approval; the motion exceeded that threshold.
The board’s decision approves the addition as shown on the submitted site plan; the approval conditions cited on the record included adherence to the drawings and the representations made at the hearing. No separate building‑permit approvals or other agency permits (wetlands, septic, building) were granted by the ZBA; the applicant was told those approvals remain the responsibility of the owner and their contractors.
The board completed the business session and moved on to other agenda items.
(Notes: the record shows two prior variances from 02/2005 and 01/2016 related to earlier owners and a prior addition for which the current owners said they will formally forego earlier unused variances on the title.)
