By Thane Grauel

WESTPORT — A proposal to replace a house on Sherwood Drive with a multi-story, more contemporary structure has been denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The application for several variances at No. 39 was met with concerns from several neighbors in the months since it was filed and a demolition notice affixed to the front of the original 1923 house.

The 2,302-square-foot home was bought by Janusz Chomik in October 2022 for $1.5 million. It appears for months to have sat vacant.

Neighbors had several concerns, most focusing on the proposed new design not fitting, in their view, with the neighborhood. It would have had a below-grade basement, two floors and an attic.  

The variances — for new construction, non-conforming lots, setbacks and building and total coverage — were the subject of a lengthy public hearing at the ZBA’s last meeting. Member Josh Newman and others had questions about the origins of one hardship, and whether the board could consider aesthetics in any decision.

Land use consultant Gloria Gouveia, on behalf of the applicant, had written to the ZBA that the application would mitigate some non-conformities on the lot that predate zoning regulations.

“The public safety improvement provided by replacing a perilous parking area within the road right-of-way with on site parking that meets and exceeds the current regulated standards, is worth and also a compelling consideration,” she wrote.

“Finally, the reduction and/or elimination of numerous non-conformities proposed in the application conforms to the Plan of Conservation and Development, which recommends doing so wherever and whenever possible,” Gouveia concluded.

The board last month voted to delay its decision until hearing from the Town Attorney’s Office.

Peter Gelderman of the Town Attorney’s Office weighed in with a memo on the matter. It was technical, cited case law and appeared to hold sway with ZBA members on Tuesday. They voted unanimously to deny the application.

“It’s essentially that we can’t make aesthetic decisions, but we can look at other considerations and as I read this … basically what they’re saying is that the new construction, even though they’re reducing the setbacks, they’re creating a new hardship in the front by going into the front setback,” Chairman Jim Ezzes said.

“So yes, what I said was correct, that if you know that prior to 2000, if you reduced the non-conformities, it could be the basis of granting a hardship,” Ezzes said. “However, in 2000-and-change, which is what we have here from Peter Gelderman, which says yes that is the case, however, they’re creating a new problem, a new setback. So that’s the basis on which I would recommend that we deny this application.”

“Plus,” Ezzes added, “it’s a double lot and it’s a very large house … even though we don’t deal with architecture we can deal with bulk. And it’s just too big.”

“To me it’s not in real character,” said member Liz Wong. “It’s just bulky, it looks square — I know we can’t go architecture but I’m just saying that.”

“Character is a dangerous word,” Ezzes noted. Read more about that here.

“I thought the legal analysis was very convincing,” said member Joseph Scordato.

 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.