Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bridgeport ZBA hears request to enclose existing deck at 30 Lotus; staff says variance limited in scope
Summary
An applicant asked the Bridgeport Zoning Board of Appeals for an 8-foot rear-setback variance to enclose an existing 12-by-15 deck into a 180 sq. ft. three-season room at 30 Lotus (as stated in the record). OPED staff said the variance is limited in scope and unlikely to harm neighbors; the public hearing was closed with no public opposition.
The Bridgeport Zoning Board of Appeals on the evening of the meeting considered an application seeking an 8-foot variance from the rear-yard setback to enclose an existing deck at a property identified in the record as 30 Lotus (presented as "30 Lotus, Street, Circle"). Jesse Allen of Bay Restoration said the proposal would enclose an existing 12-by-15 open deck to create a 180-square-foot, three‑season room and that the enclosure will not expand the current footprint.
"All she wants to do was just make it a 3 season room," Jesse Allen said, adding the irregular (non‑square) lot created the hardship claimed in the variance application. Allen said the work will be on the second floor, use 2-by-4 wood framing and siding, include three windows and will not include heating.
David Cottingham, design review coordinator with OPED, summarized the applicable zoning provisions and criteria and said staff finds the requested variance "limited in scope and [not] expected to produce significant adverse impacts to the neighboring properties." Cottingham referenced code sections cited in the record while explaining that an open or screened deck would be allowed closer to the lot line but that enclosing the deck with walls requires a variance.
A board member asked whether the enclosed room would extend beyond the existing deck; the applicant and board confirmed it would not extend the footprint. The public hearing on the item drew no comments in opposition and Chair Robert Shepherd closed the hearing. No formal vote or motion on the variance is recorded in the transcript provided.
Because the proposed enclosure uses the existing footprint and staff identified adjacent parcels as heavily wooded with wetlands near the improved area, staff advised the board that impacts are likely limited. The application materials and on‑site constraints were discussed by staff and the applicant, but the transcript does not record a final disposition or roll-call vote for this item.
