Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Second Floor Addition Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves second‑story addition variances for 3721 Main Street
Summary
The Zoning Board approved two separate motions—one for a reduced side yard setback and minor lot coverage increase, and a second for increasing an existing nonconformity—to allow a second‑floor addition at 3721 Main Street; both passed 5‑0.
Get email alerts on the Second Floor Addition Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Stratford Zoning Board of Appeals approved variances to permit a second‑story addition at 3721 Main Street, voting 5‑0 on two separate motions to address setback/lot coverage and the increase of a preexisting nonconformity.
Owner Kamlesh Rana and project manager Ryan Crowe told the board they bought the house in February 2008 and need more space for their family. Crowe described a vertical expansion that would not change the building footprint and said the proposed second floor complies with the 30‑foot height limit. "We're looking for more square footage," Rana said during the presentation.
The application requests relief from the minimum side yard setback (current existing setback 6.1 feet vs. the required 10 feet), a minor lot coverage increase from 29.6% to 29.7% to accommodate a bay window, and relief under section 14.2 to expand an existing nonconformity. Board members discussed which elevation the change affects, the bay window overhang that produces the 0.1 percentage‑point lot coverage increase, and confirmed that fire‑protection measures will be included as part of the building permit process.
Because the requests involved separate sections of the regulations, staff advised the board to vote on two separate motions: one under section 4.2 addressing the side yard setback and lot coverage, and a second under section 14.2 addressing the nonconformity increase. The board divided the motion accordingly and approved both by roll call, each motion passing unanimously, 5‑0.
The board also noted that the existing house dates to the 1930s and was nonconforming under current zoning; a neighbor letter of no opposition appears in the record. The decisions allow the petitioner to proceed to the building‑permit stage, subject to code compliance and any required fire‑safety measures.

