By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday approved a Gorham Avenue homeowner’s requet to add a second-floor addition in the front with a covered porch.
The request by Joyce E. Stites was handled by architect Mark Bartolone. It encountered opposition from some neighbors at a previous hearing and through letters sent to the Planning and Zoning Department, but had the support of another.
Philip C. Pires, a lawyer hired to speak for neighbor Jason P. Wulf of 11 Gorham Ave., said at the previous board meeting, members had hoped the homeowner and neighbors could meet and come up with an agreement, including a landscaping plan.
Pires said Tuesday, “but they were rebuffed.”
He said there is no formal landscaping plan, just mention of planting some trees.
Pires said there was “a complete lack of response” in regard to the second-floor plan.
He argued Stites did not have a true hardships to allow the needed variances and said the application should be denied.
Board Chairman Jim Ezzes asked Pires if the objection was the second-floor addition, and he said yes.
“If that were a room and not a deck, would you object?” Ezzes asked.
“We would not be objecting … but she’s refused to make it a room,” Pires said.
“I don’t quite understand what they think is going to happen, your client,” Ezzes said. “They think they’re going to be staring in their window? “
“There’s no screening on the deck … over my client’s bedroom,” Pires said. “And they don’t like that.”
Board member Michelle Hopson asked if a meeting ever took place between the parties.
Bartolone said yes, and that there was a plan to plant seven 10-foot arborvitae on the left side of the property facing the Wulf property.
He told the board that he’d been in the neighbors’ house for conversations.
“This is not looking into his bedroom,” Bartolone said. “His bedroom is on the other side of the house.”
“There are a couple of guest bedrooms, I guess, but they are not occupied,” he added.
Linda Frazer, of 39 Gorham Ave., had concerns about the plan. She found it confusing that the property — the smallest lot on the block — could exceed building and total coverage, and possibly be granted more.
“It just makes me wonder what are the limits set for if they’re not to be kind of enforced?” she said.
Ezzes told Pires that his clients want a room and the homeowner wants a deck, “That’s not a compromise.”
There was discussion about making the trees a condition, but Ezzes said the town doesn’t have a way to police such a requirement.
Hopson said she was disappointed a meeting between the neighbors hadn’t happened.
During the work session before voting, Ezzes said he had no problem with the application.
“It’s a tiny house,” he said. “The property is one big rock.”
Member Liz Wong noted the plan would improve the drainage system on the property, which was a plus for the neighborhood.
“Given the site conditions, I think it’s a nice design,” said member Amy Wistreich. “And I’m very sorry for the neighbors that they are so upset about this deck, but I don’t find it relevant to this variance that we’re granting.”
The vote was 5-1, with Hopson against.
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 35 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.
Lived in Westport +30 years; will never forget the generosity of neighbors and the flexibility of the then ZBA supporting several variances in expanding a teeny-tiney house on a very small lot on Sherwood Dr. Everyone benefited from private investment in the neighborhood.
I’m really in no position to say if this is a good decision or a bad decision, but “this is not looking into his bedroom,” Bartolone said. “His bedroom is on the other side of the house”” shows a dumbfounding level of some combination of “rude” and “obtuse.” The person asking for the variance is in no position to define what is a violation of the privacy of the neighbors. I’ve read this four times and keep bogging down in that same spot.
I’ve lived next door to 15 Gorham Ave. for 39 years. I’d like to add that with the recently-approved new construction, the total coverage (house, driveway etc.) will exceed the allowed amount by 37.5% on a very small lot that already has a significant amount of impervious ledge.
The new drainage collection chambers are to be located in the left rear setback behind the house, while the new covered porch, roof deck and driveway expansion are going to be built in front of the house. Since the property slopes downhill, away from the house towards Gorham Ave., it’s not clear how these new drainage chambers will be able to collect the additional runoff which will be flowing in the opposite direction.
Unfortunately, it’s not possible to attach updated photos of the house to my comment. About six months ago the owner (who lives elsewhere) ripped the siding off the house and spray painted Danger and Keep Out on the exposed plywood. The property has become an eyesore in our neighborhood. It’s difficult to understand why the ZBA has rewarded her by granting these variances.
Linda Frazer
While you can argue that premature partial demolition occurred….the plans for the replacement structure are absolutely appropriate in size and scale as well as design of the structure that is sympathetic to the Gorham Historic District. This house is not in the district and the owner developer could have built a lunar lander if they desired. All the abutting neighbors did was complain and harass the current owner spitefully I may add. Unfortunately, they are the usual suspects who always complain and never choose to provide a cooperative and neighborly approach.