Commission tables conditional-use permit for oversized ADU after code and permit concerns

The West Haven Planning Commission on July 22 voted to table a conditional‑use permit (CUP) request for an oversized accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 4086 West 4450 South so the applicant can address multiple code and inspection issues.

Applicant Jeanette Aparicio told the commission she has converted an existing barn into living space and has submitted engineered plans; her written measure of the existing footprint was described as 1,142 square feet with a proposed upstairs that brings total living space to about 1,614 square feet. West Haven code requires a CUP for ADUs larger than 1,200 square feet and more restrictive setbacks for two‑story accessory structures. Staff noted the structure sits roughly 13 feet from the rear property line (staff measured about 10 feet in one instance), which is short of the typical ADU rear setback requirements and well short of the A‑2 zone two‑story standard cited by staff.

Steven, the community development director, told the commission the primary issues are the increased size with concomitant setback expectations, the building’s metal exterior that does not visually match the primary dwelling, parking and driveway conflicts at an offset intersection, and that much interior work was completed before permits and inspections. The building official reviewed submitted engineered drawings and flagged that some window sizes and interior work would require inspections that may involve removing drywall to verify compliance.

Aparicio said she has submitted engineering plans, already revised two windows per staff guidance, and is willing to paint or otherwise alter the exterior and add mitigation (such as privacy fencing and revised parking access). Commissioners and staff pressed on whether the applicant had secured a building permit before doing the interior work (building permit application materials have been submitted but inspections had not been completed), whether the stamped engineering documentation provides sufficient structural verification, and whether privacy fencing could be placed without impeding required sight triangles at the intersection.

Commission discussion focused on fairness and precedent, with one commissioner noting prior enforcement actions where small measurement differences required corrective work. Several commissioners said they would consider tabling the application if the applicant returns with a revised site plan showing mitigation measures (privacy fencing sized to preserve sight lines, exterior materials or paint to match the primary house, parking behind the building and an engineered plan demonstrating code compliance) and with evidence that the building official can certify structural and life‑safety compliance after inspections.

Commissioner (speaker 4) moved to table the CUP application and direct the applicant to work with staff on specific mitigation items; the motion passed with one dissent. The applicant may return with a revised application and documentation; any CUP would still require the building official to grant a certificate of occupancy after satisfactory inspections.