Numbers don’t add up for Hayes application

Thu, 09/30/2021 - 4:00pm

Richard Hayes and his Connecticut company, B.I. Harborview Partners II, LLC., are still working through the zoning application process to build an addition onto his property on Corn Neck Road (Plat 4, Lot 2a). The application had made it to the decision stage on September 22, and things looked favorable.
“Do you foresee any hiccups?” Chair of the Zoning Board of Review Kate Butcher told the board she was asked this question by the applicant prior to the meeting.
“This is my only hiccup here, but (the application) needs to be accurate,” Butcher told the board during the discussion phase of the motion to approve.
The application is seeking a variance to demolish the existing kitchen on the historic home formerly owned by Miss Mary Tinker, and construct a new addition. Hayes was unable to attend the meeting and had conveyed to Butcher his apology for not being there when he asked if she foresaw any problems with his application’s final step.
“We should have caught these things,” Butcher told the board. “But he should have submitted a clear application.”
The issue came up when Member Judith Cyronak was writing the decision for the board to approve at the meeting on September 22. She realized that the numbers did not match between the application and the site plan. “The problem is the inconsistencies between the numbers that are in the application and the numbers if you delve into the details of the site plan,” Cyronak told the group.

The applicant had received approval back in 2020 for the addition, but after subdividing his adjoining lots to make one of them bigger, Hayes had to resubmit the plans and get approval from Zoning all over again. Changing the lot size changed the lot coverage calculations, and the new application and site plan did not add up, according to Cyronak.

Once the board started looking closer, they found other idiosyncrasies.
“He has not included the porch in the application,” Butcher said. “It’s 20’ by 16’ and the dimensions are not included.”
The clerk noted that this had been going on for four months, and there had been inconsistencies throughout.

As the board began adding up the measurements on the site plan and comparing them to the application in an effort to get the correct information on the right forms, it became apparent more work needed to be done.
“Can we just ask them to fix this and send it back to us?” Member Steve Filippi asked. “If we make a mistake it’s on us.”
“It’s not as advertised,” Butcher said.
“The application’s flawed,” Member Bob Lamoureux agreed. He suggested opening the application’s public hearing back up so that Hayes could present the application with accurate numbers. “Ask the architect to present exactly what the footprint is and include the steps and the porch.”

Butcher said she didn’t think the changes would actually alter the board’s decision, but she reiterated, “we need accuracy.”
The board continued the item until the next meeting, on September 29, when it voted to reopen the public hearing at its October meeting. At that meeting, which will have to be advertised again, the applicants will present the corrected application with the opportunity for public comment.