By Thane Grauel

WESTPORT — The Town Attorney’s Office and the Zoning Board of Appeals have concerns about proposed changes to the blue-wrapped house at Old Mill Beach.

The new owners of 233 Hillspoint — which has had a troubled history in recent years since being converted from a beachfront restaurant to a residence — asked the ZBA to approve changes to a stipulated agreement between the town, the then-owners and about a half dozen neighbors.

The ZBA held a special meeting Monday to meet with James Pendry, a representative of the new owners, but it quickly became clear that an approval wouldn’t happen that day.

Nicholas Bamonte, a deputy town attorney, said the judge would likely need a letter signed by all the neighbors who were a party to the suit, as well as the ZBA’s approval.

The proposed changes are:

• Six windows above the garage, rather than two.
• The front entry stairway enclosed with a three-story addition, including third garage bay.
• A pedestrian door to access the outside from the garage without opening the overhead garage door.
• A glass panel in place of the stone veneer at rear south corner and extending across the entire rear elevation where the lower level is open to the outside … as well as a thin, vertical window added to alcove on first floor.
• A spiral staircase added back to plan from rooftop to first floor and a straight stair added to access ground level from first floor.
• Modification of roofline in middle of house with two windows added.
• Vegetative buffer reduced from 5 feet along west property line and 15 feet along south property line to 5 feet along both property lines.

“If all of the parties — everyone who was a party to that initial lawsuit — agrees on some new alterations to those plans, as approved as part of the prior settlement, then that’s above board, that can occur,” Bamonte said at Monday’s meeting.

“I know a handful of those abutting neighbors were represented by attorney [Joel] Green, so if we have something in writing or a representation from attorney Green on behalf of all of those neighbors, and this board agrees with the proposed changes, then those changes can be made as a modification to that prior settlement.”

“We don’t have anything from those neighbors at the moment, as I understand, in the record, clarifying for us all of those neighbors would agree,” Bamonte said. “They would need to agree to every aspect.”

“We will require something more than people signing a set of plans,” Ezzes told Pendry. “As well-intentioned as that may be, that really is not a legal document.”

He said a judge will have to sign off on any new agreement, and “so we’re going to need something more than plans signed by the neighbors.”

Legal paperwork aside, some of the changes were viewed favorably, others were a problem.

“The cosmetic changes look terrific,” Ezzes said. “The house is really pretty. I think you’ve done a really nice job adding windows … I think you’ve softened the building.”

“My problem, Mr. Pendry, is I cannot under any circumstances support an increase in coverage or your increase in the non-conformity with the garage,” Ezzes said. “Plus going into the front setback. That’s not something I quite honestly could support.”

Reducing the required 15-foot vegetative buffer to 5 feet also was a no-go for Ezzes.

“Everything else you’ve done I think is terrific,” he said.

There were concerns the neighbors who signed off at the meeting with Pendry understood the full scope of the plan, with the increase in coverage from the garage.

Pendry said he didn’t have the architectural survey yet when he met with the neighbors, just 3D models showing elevations.

“At a later date I said there was a 27-foot encroachment, it turns out it’s less than that actually into the front setback and I thought about a 120-foot increase in coverage, basically 12 feet by 10 feet, the part of the garage that sort of stuck in front of the enclosed stair,” he said.

“I think I’d be very surprised if the other plaintiffs had agreed and known that it was going to be an increase in coverage and into the front setback,” Ezzes said. “If they have not signed off on that site plan, that’s a significant change.”

“I definitely want to see the neighbors’ approval of the revised plans, not just the architectural plans but the site plan,” board member Joe Scordato said. “Because it is definitely an increase in coverage. The buffer strip is also an item of concern of mine. It is a very tight spot, and the beach is right there.”

Member Michelle Hobson asked Pendry about his desire to reduce the vegetive buffer.

“The 15 feet means there’s absolutely nothing in the back yard where someone could put a chaise lounge or somebody could put a chair and a table and four chairs and an umbrella,” Pendry said. “My issue obviously is not trying to endanger the environment, but was trying to create a little bit of somebody’s private back yard … and not go up to the beach to have some sort of open place.”

The matter was continued to the ZBA’s March 26 meeting, which will be online at 6 p.m. A link or agenda has not yet been posted.

Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 36 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.