KENT, Conn.—The Zoning Board of Appeals debated about inches Tuesday when it heard an application to expand an existing, non-conforming cottage at 45 Fuller Mountain Road.
The house, built in the early 1960s, only a few years before zoning was adopted, sits within the current 30-foot front yard setback. The applicant, Damon Jerico, wants to enlarge the building to improve its functionality and to add another bedroom. Jerico was represented at the ZBA meeting by Steven Kalur, principal of F + H Architectural Design of Washington, Conn.
Kalur explained that the cottage was originally built as a three-season cottage and has since been converted to a year-round, two-bedroom residence. It already encroaches on the 30-foot front yard setback and the new owners would like to expand it further.
Kalur said that in planning for the expansion he was “aware of the constraints of the property,” which has ledge and steep slopes behind it. A new, larger, septic system, already approved by the Torrington Area Health District, will occupy one of the locations that could have been used for the expansion of the building. “We investigated it as an area to build, but it was one of the few areas where we could install an enlarged septic system,” Kalur said.
He said most of the expansion is accomplished withing the existing building’s footprint, with the addition of about 18 square feet at the right-hand front corner of the building. “We would be squaring off that corner,” he said. “Mostly, we have gone up and back with the increased footage to create about another 500 square feet for the house.”
The additional room at the back of the house would be within setback requirements, but Zoning Enforcement Officer Tai Kern said that the entire property had to be treated as nonconforming.
Chairman Anne Bisenius clarified that the expansion would increase the building’s size from 992 square feet to 1,010, with the majority of the expansion at the rear. Member Dan Schiesel noted that even though the addition to the front would only involve about one additional foot in depth, the renovation would also involve extending the second floor within the front setback.
Kalur said reasons for filling in the recess of the right-hand corner include both the esthetics of the building and allowing a better interior configuration. “Filling in the corner would present better face to the road and give access for a mudroom area,” he explained. “Otherwise, we would have to redesign whole interior, at considerable cost.”
The ZBA is supposed to issue variances only to remedy “hardships,” and financial considerations are not considered a hardship. ZBA member John Johnson said he could not find the hardship in the application. “The drop-off in the back doesn’t affect a variance at the front,” he said. “I don’t see the extra room as being critical to functionality or affecting ingress or egress.”
“We made every effort to make the the changes within the existing envelop and hoped for this small variance to make the house less awkward,” said Kalur. Pushing the right corner out would only extend it by about four inches beyond the existing eaves, facades, etc.
There was some discussion about the owner’s plan to provide different onsite parking, but that was not under the purview of the ZBA. “They have not sought approvals for that yet,” said Kalur. “At the moment, access is awkward. You have to come in on the left through the basement to the kitchen. They hope to park and access the house from the ground level on the right.”
Asked about provisions for a fence, ZEO Kern said fences under six feet in height are not considered structures and can be placed on the property line. Further discussion was devoted to a bluestone patio, which Kern said would also not be considered a structure.
Johnson continued to assert that there was no hardship. “I do have concern about the front, as small as it may be,” he said.
But member Justin Potter argued that filling in the front corner would make the building easier to maintain and insulate. “I would make a case for the utility of the change,” he said.
“It’s a pretty modest little addition,” agreed member Steve Pener. “If you’re going to do all the work and invest the capital, you want to do in the best way. I think the real hardship is that it was built before all the restrictions were put in place.”
The variance was granted unanimously.
