The most significant outcome of the meeting was the approval of a variance for Teal New Haven LLC’s plan to convert an old hotel into affordable housing. Kimra Zenka represented the applicant, explaining that the project would provide 254 studio efficiency apartments restricted to affordable rates for 30 years, per the Live Local Act. The units, at 288 square feet each, fell short of the mandated 300 square feet. The board discussed the project’s merits, noting its potential to address local housing needs and boost the workforce with reduced commute times. Ryan Heiler, a representative specializing in redeveloping older properties, highlighted the project’s benefits, including quality interiors and amenities like fitness centers and yoga studios. Despite initial feedback indicating unit sizes were too small, the board unanimously approved the blanket variance for all units, recognizing the project’s alignment with community housing goals.

The meeting also addressed the contentious application by Shanny Murphy O’Brien and Todd O’Brien, who sought a variance to legitimize a backyard deck originally built in 1975. The O’Briens cited a neighbor dispute as the impetus for their variance request, following a recent code enforcement notice. The neighbor, Richard Bitner, opposed the variance, alleging that the deck compromised his privacy and was part of a broader neighborhood conflict involving fence disputes. Bitner presented photographic evidence and emphasized his right to privacy, arguing that the deck, described as a “monster,” obstructed his view. The board, after considering the longstanding nature of the structure and the personal grievances involved, approved the O’Briens’ variance request, acknowledging that the deck had been an important part of the property for decades.

Another high-profile discussion revolved around a variance request from a resident seeking to legitimize three accessory structures following a code enforcement violation. The applicant detailed the need for additional storage after removing a large shed and constructing a smaller one for boating gear. Neighboring residents strongly opposed the variances, alleging zoning noncompliance and unauthorized property changes. They expressed concerns over potential fire hazards and drainage issues exacerbated by the new structures. Despite these objections, the board’s decision on the variances was mixed, with some requests denied due to failure to meet specific zoning criteria.

The board also reviewed several other applications, including one from Joseph and Amanda Desert for a dock variance. The Deserts sought side setback variances to construct a dock on their canal-front property. The board approved the variance unanimously, supported by letters from adjacent property owners endorsing the proposal.

A suggestion was made to clearly reference which of the six required findings were unmet in case of denial.