Middletown zoning board approves variance for new home at 83 Shore Drive, conditions CRMC sign-off and neighbor buffering talks

The Town of Middletown Zoning Board on Sept. 23 approved a variance allowing Austin and Mary Willis to demolish and replace a nonconforming house at 83 Shore Drive with a new, elevated home, provided the project receives final approval from the Coastal Resources Management Council.

The board voted to approve the petition to move the proposed house footprint forward on the lot — a change the applicants say was requested by CRMC to increase the distance from the shoreline — while also granting relief for two side-yard setbacks. The measure passed after a 4–1 roll-call objection; one member recused themself before the hearing.

The request drew detailed technical testimony about competing regulatory requirements, the lot's irregular shape and design constraints. The Willises' attorney, Gerard Galvin, told the board the existing structure is nonconforming and that CRMC advised the applicants to locate the new house no closer to the shore than the current building. “After deliberation, that led to us submitting a request for a variance from the zoning setback restrictions,” Galvin said.

Mary Willis said the couple bought the property about a year ago and found the existing house had substantial deferred maintenance and did not meet FEMA standards. “For both safety and financial reasons, we've made the decision to start fresh and build a new home that fully complies with the regulations balancing FEMA, the CRMC, and the Town of Middletown,” Willis said. She added the design seeks to minimize visible bulk by using a flat roof and pilings to elevate the first living floor to the FEMA-required elevation.

Architect Rosanna Beth Harding described a design driven by site geometry and regulatory constraints. She said the lot’s wedge shape and the need to meet elevation, structural and access requirements led to a footprint that the design team regards as the minimum necessary to provide required circulation (stair and elevator) and structural supports. “Every effort was made at the outset to design this within a allowable footprint,” Harding said, adding that the team adjusted the design after preliminary CRMC discussions.

Engineer Mike Russell and peer reviewer James Houle testified that two main hardships support the variance request: (1) the lot’s irregular — narrowing — shape, and (2) the site’s location within CRMC jurisdiction and FEMA flood/velocity zones, which require elevated construction. Russell said the existing concrete seawall and the coastal buffer are CRMC considerations that influenced the siting. Houle said the requested encroachments — roughly 1.3 feet on the side setbacks and a 9-foot reduction in the front setback to 15.7 feet where 25 feet is required — were minimal relative to the demonstrated hardships and that the proposal would likely improve the neighborhood’s character compared with the existing house.

Neighbor Marissa Nardo of 73 Shore Drive testified in person and in a written letter. Nardo said she is generally supportive of the owners but objected to the reduced side setback because the replacement house will be taller and closer to her property. “My only concern is that the close proximity to my property ... it is going to be double the size of my home,” she said, asking that the 15-foot side-yard buffer be respected. Board members and the applicants said they would continue direct discussions about vegetative screening and other buffering measures; Galvin said the applicants were willing to pursue mitigation talks.

During deliberations a board member proposed conditioning approval on CRMC sign-off; that condition was added. The motion before the board was to approve the variance pending CRMC approval. Board members debated whether the owners had created the hardship; several members agreed the lot’s shape and regulatory constraints predated current ownership.

The board recorded the motion as approved with one objection. The approval included the condition that the petitioners receive any required CRMC approvals for the proposed relocation of the structure and that the parties continue negotiations about buffering between the properties.

Votes at a glance: motion to approve (conditioned on CRMC approval) — outcome: approved; recorded tally: 4 yes, 1 no, 1 recusal.

The applicants' project details presented to the board include a proposed front-yard setback of 15.7 feet where 25 feet is required, side-yard setbacks of 13.7 feet where 15 feet are required, and a required first-floor elevation of approximately 26 feet above sea level to meet FEMA standards. The team said the new design will not increase lot coverage beyond town limits and that parking will be under the elevated structure.

Board members asked the applicants to continue dialogue with Nardo about screening options and to supply any documentation CRMC or FEMA require as the state review proceeds. The board also noted that CRMC typically prefers applicants to resolve local zoning clearances before final coastal permitting.

If CRMC declines administrative approval and requires additional coastal variance procedures, the applicants will need to follow that agency's process before construction can proceed.

The record of this petition includes testimony from the applicants and their expert witnesses and a written letter from the neighbor; the board’s approval was conditioned on the external CRMC decision and on continued neighbor negotiations.