At the Sept 4 P&Z commission meeting, a proposed coastal subdivision to transfer land between two parcels at 0 and 60 Field Point Circle was denied unanimously, 5-0.
The area is on the water at the southern tip of Belle Haven.
The proposed reconfigured lot line would result in two lots of about six acres each by transferring 4.173 acres from 60 Field Point Circle (lot 12) to 0 Field Point Circle (lot 11).
The applicants are co-trustees Brian Olson, Frank S. Velluci, Garrett Lynam and Leslie John Schreyer.
The land features a number of buildings that pre-date the 1950s when subdivisions did not need commission approval, and the lot lines had been changed for what the ZEO described as a "tortured" layout, even though from an aerial view there appears to be a single estate.
Today the lot line cuts through an existing garage apartment building that P&Z commission chair Margarita Alban suggested was a full residence.
In his WGCH 1490am radio debrief the morning after the meeting, P&Z director Patrick LaRow explained, "The applicant is clearly trying to market it as two separate developable lots. The issue is there are three residences – they may be guest houses or they may be for employees – but they are large, over 2,000 sq ft houses, in addition to the main residence."
"The commission did not see a way that this subdivision would fit while keeping the structures," LaRow said. "Compliance with zoning regulations is paramount when you are dividing land."
[caption id="attachment_221379" align="alignnone" width="936"]![]()
Original Lot 11 and 12.[/caption]
[caption id="attachment_221388" align="alignnone" width="836"]![]()
Today: GIS map shows one lot as landlocked and a property line going through a garage/dwelling. The applicant sought a lot line revision that would move 4+ acres from 60 Field Point Circle to 0 Field Point Circle.[/caption]
Accessory Structures?
Commissioner Arn Welles said detail from the trustees' affidavit on what domestic employees were in residence was "wishy-washy" and not sufficiently assuring.
"Is it the guy who mows the lawn? Is it a friendly neighbor? Is it someone who lives in California? Is it someone who lives in France?" he asked.
Mr. Heagney said the occupant of the main dwelling would be more specific.
Commissioner Nick Macri said there was no documentation of any future commitment that those accessory dwellings would be used for employees. The two buildings average 2,500 sq ft each.
P&Z commission chair Margarita Alban described the buildings as two legally nonconforming primary structures built prior to current zoning, and suggested it was questionable whether they were already actually accessory.
Commissioner Mary Jenkins said that even if some of the buildings could be considered accessory dwellings, having three residential structures on an RA2 lot as a result of a proposed lot line change would expand a non-conformity.
"You're moving the most significant size residence onto lot 11 (0 Field Point Circle) with your lot line change," Jenkins said. "The 12,347 sq ft residence is now becoming part of lot 11, not 12 (60 Field Point Circle), and we've gone from one full plus half a residence to three full residential structures."
Mr. Heagney said two dwellings were built in 1905 and main house was built in 1949, and all three had been in that configuration until 1988 when a lot line change was done.
"We're essentially looking to restore to what it had been," Heagney said, adding that per regulation 6-146a, having structures for domestic employees was permitted and they were not required to meet setbacks for accessory buildings.
Ms Alban disagreed.
She said 6-146b referred to "any" structures being used for residential purposes, including or domestic employees, as having to meet residential setbacks.
Mr. Heagney said regardless of the discussions on the use of dwellings for domestic employees, construction of a new dwelling on lot 12 (60 Field Point Circe) was already approved for building purposes by the town engineer.
He said his client was willing to furnish an updated affidavit on use of the accessory dwellings for employees as part of conditions of approval.
The timeline for the application was expiring, which meant the commission had to take a decision at Wednesday's meeting.
"I believe what you have right now is two primaries (dwelling structures) on lot 11," Ms Alban said. "And with two primaries on lot 11 you are creating a non-conformity as you bring in a third primary – and then you don't have compliance with Building Zone Regulations 6-205."
In the motion she presented, Alban said that if the lot line revision were to be approved, then 0 Field Point Circle (lot 11) would contain 3 single family dwelling units, the third of which would be a 12,347 sq ft house, and 0 Field Point Circle would lack a primary structure.
As a result 60 Field Point Circle would be rendered non-compliant with regulations.
[caption id="attachment_221382" align="alignnone" width="1346"]![]()
Attorney for the applicant said the "landscape feature" at 60 Field Point Circle in Belle Haven was not a pool by definition.[/caption]
Attorney for the applicant, Tom Heagney, said the vacant lot included "a landscape feature," as opposed to a pool.
He explained that for that landscape feature to be considered a pool it must be at least 36 inches deep.
The other building on the vacant lot is an underground shed the applicant proposed to keep as an accessory structure to a new dwelling.
[caption id="attachment_221381" align="alignnone" width="1618"]![]()
Paragraph from letter by the applicant's attorney.[/caption]
"Whereas the commission finds that this proposed lot line revision would result in both new and expanded nonconformities," Alban said in her motion to deny. "Therefore be it resolved that this application is hereby denied."
Mr. Lowe seconded the motion.
Voting to deny were Yeskey, Welles, Lowe, Macri and Alban.
"Mr. Heagney, if you want to come back with a different plan, we're happy to hear you," Alban said.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Original Lot 11 and 12.[/caption]
[caption id="attachment_221388" align="alignnone" width="836"]
Today: GIS map shows one lot as landlocked and a property line going through a garage/dwelling. The applicant sought a lot line revision that would move 4+ acres from 60 Field Point Circle to 0 Field Point Circle.[/caption]
Accessory Structures?
Commissioner Arn Welles said detail from the trustees' affidavit on what domestic employees were in residence was "wishy-washy" and not sufficiently assuring.
"Is it the guy who mows the lawn? Is it a friendly neighbor? Is it someone who lives in California? Is it someone who lives in France?" he asked.
Mr. Heagney said the occupant of the main dwelling would be more specific.
Commissioner Nick Macri said there was no documentation of any future commitment that those accessory dwellings would be used for employees. The two buildings average 2,500 sq ft each.
P&Z commission chair Margarita Alban described the buildings as two legally nonconforming primary structures built prior to current zoning, and suggested it was questionable whether they were already actually accessory.
Commissioner Mary Jenkins said that even if some of the buildings could be considered accessory dwellings, having three residential structures on an RA2 lot as a result of a proposed lot line change would expand a non-conformity.
"You're moving the most significant size residence onto lot 11 (0 Field Point Circle) with your lot line change," Jenkins said. "The 12,347 sq ft residence is now becoming part of lot 11, not 12 (60 Field Point Circle), and we've gone from one full plus half a residence to three full residential structures."
Mr. Heagney said two dwellings were built in 1905 and main house was built in 1949, and all three had been in that configuration until 1988 when a lot line change was done.
"We're essentially looking to restore to what it had been," Heagney said, adding that per regulation 6-146a, having structures for domestic employees was permitted and they were not required to meet setbacks for accessory buildings.
Ms Alban disagreed.
She said 6-146b referred to "any" structures being used for residential purposes, including or domestic employees, as having to meet residential setbacks.
Mr. Heagney said regardless of the discussions on the use of dwellings for domestic employees, construction of a new dwelling on lot 12 (60 Field Point Circe) was already approved for building purposes by the town engineer.
He said his client was willing to furnish an updated affidavit on use of the accessory dwellings for employees as part of conditions of approval.
The timeline for the application was expiring, which meant the commission had to take a decision at Wednesday's meeting.
"I believe what you have right now is two primaries (dwelling structures) on lot 11," Ms Alban said. "And with two primaries on lot 11 you are creating a non-conformity as you bring in a third primary – and then you don't have compliance with Building Zone Regulations 6-205."
In the motion she presented, Alban said that if the lot line revision were to be approved, then 0 Field Point Circle (lot 11) would contain 3 single family dwelling units, the third of which would be a 12,347 sq ft house, and 0 Field Point Circle would lack a primary structure.
As a result 60 Field Point Circle would be rendered non-compliant with regulations.
[caption id="attachment_221382" align="alignnone" width="1346"]
Attorney for the applicant said the "landscape feature" at 60 Field Point Circle in Belle Haven was not a pool by definition.[/caption]
Attorney for the applicant, Tom Heagney, said the vacant lot included "a landscape feature," as opposed to a pool.
He explained that for that landscape feature to be considered a pool it must be at least 36 inches deep.
The other building on the vacant lot is an underground shed the applicant proposed to keep as an accessory structure to a new dwelling.
[caption id="attachment_221381" align="alignnone" width="1618"]
Paragraph from letter by the applicant's attorney.[/caption]
"Whereas the commission finds that this proposed lot line revision would result in both new and expanded nonconformities," Alban said in her motion to deny. "Therefore be it resolved that this application is hereby denied."
Mr. Lowe seconded the motion.
Voting to deny were Yeskey, Welles, Lowe, Macri and Alban.
"Mr. Heagney, if you want to come back with a different plan, we're happy to hear you," Alban said.
