Neighbors Question Need For Variances For North Haven Bayfront Home

Representatives for Larry Baum, who wants to replace a house known as “the Lighthouse” at 59 Mashomuck Drive and build a 164-foot dock to go with it, told the North Haven Village Zoning Board of Appeals last week that the new house would require only two variances while eliminating or reducing nine other nonconformities.

Despite objections raised by neighbors and environmental groups, the ZBA closed the hearing on the application and its chairman, Mark Poitras, said he expected a decision would be rendered by next month’s meeting.

Meanwhile, the Village Board, which is reviewing the proposed dock, tabled the matter until its July 14 meeting to give it time to review new submissions from both Mr. Baum’s representatives and those opposing the application.

Neighbors, including Susan Dusenberry, who lives next door, have argued that the proposed house and dock are too large and will have a negative impact on the neighboring Loveridge Preserve, a 60-acre wetland. Ms. Dusenberry’s attorney, Dennis Downes, also told the Village Board on June 10 that the due to the angle of the shoreline between her property and Mr. Baum’s, the dock would disrupt her own views of the water. “When you look out the back of Dusenberry’s house, you are staring at a dock,” he said.

Brian DeSesa, Mr. Baum’s attorney, and Grayson Jordan, his architect, went over plans for the new house with the village ZBA on June 9.

In a submission to the board, Mr. DeSesa said that a great deal of misinformation had been circulated about his client’s plans — plans, he added, that have been tweaked to require only two variances.

One requested variance is relief from the required 30-foot side-yard setback to as little as 21 feet for window boxes that would jut out from the wall on the northeast side of the house to provide a better view over the water. A second variance from the required 50-foot front-yard setback would be required for a covered stairway that would be about 45 feet from the street.

Originally, he said, the house would have required a modest variance from the pyramid law, which regulates the height of a house in relation to its distance from the property line.

As proposed, the new house would be about 10 feet lower than the existing house, he added, and only be 436 square feet larger than the existing 3,700-square-foot house. Plus, he said, some decking and impervious driveway surfaces would be removed, which would reduce runoff, and the new house would be built with an updated sanitary system to reduce leaching into the wetlands.

“The benefit for the community is they are getting a more conforming house,” Mr. DeSesa said.

But those who tuned into the meeting broadcast over Zoom questioned the need for any variances at all, and concerns were raised about what would essentially be a second-floor pool and whether the activity that would likely follow would prove to be disturbing to neighbors.

Mr. Poitras said because the house would be “an upside-down house” with amenities like the kitchen on the second floor, it would improve views for the occupants but “potentially have a bigger impact on your neighbors.”

“Is there a reason why a seasoned real estate developer cannot renovate the house that he bought originally rather than demolish it and have to go through a new development?” asked neighbor Meg Farrell.

And Bob DeLuca, the president of the Group for the East End, in letter read into the record by Mr. Poitras, argued that Mr. Baum had inflicted “a self-created hardship” when he purchased a property that is constrained by wetlands and should have known his development options would be limited.

He called on the board to require Mr. Baum to do more to build a house that conforms to the required zoning to protect the neighboring wetlands.

Mr. DeSesa, however, argued that if the proposed new house was built to meet all current zoning setbacks, it would have a minuscule building envelope.

Alison Bird, another resident, said she feared the ZBA was sliding down “the slippery slope granting variances,” but Mr. Poitras said he believed the property was unique and a decision approving a house would not open the flood gates for other applications.