Zoning Board Approves Variance for North Wilton Road Addition
Planning and Zoning · Meeting of July 6, 2026
New Canaan Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously approves North Wilton Road addition variance. A separate variance request for a retaining wall at 240 Rosebrook Road was continued from Monday's meeting to August 3. On the main matter, the board voted 5-0 to grant architect Doug McMillan and homeowner Jamie Kemp a variance allowing a mudroom and family-room addition to sit 31 feet from a side property line, four feet inside the required 35-foot setback, on an undersized 1.1-acre lot in a 4-acre zone.
McMillan said the new noncompliant area totals just 42 square feet and that the 1807 house has 797 square feet of unused building coverage remaining. Neighbors on both sides of the property submitted letters supporting the request. Board member Alex called it "not a large ask."
In the full story:
- Who Was There
- Organizations And Documents Referenced
- The complete report — 2,014 words
Source: the Planning and Zoning meeting of July 6, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.
The Full Article
Board Roll Call and Alternate Seating
Before taking up any application, the board spent several minutes sorting out who was present and in what capacity, a housekeeping matter that nonetheless shapes how future applications will be decided. Six people were present or on Zoom, including at least two alternates whose status was unsettled in real time: a member identified as Brett was confirmed as a newly seated alternate who would observe rather than vote on this meeting's applications, while a member named Ian described himself as having been both a full member and an alternate but said he had "not been moved officially" into either seat. A member named Chad, participating remotely, was likewise described first as a full member and then corrected to alternate. The presiding officer, who is not named in the recording and is referred to here as the chair, resolved the confusion by announcing that Chad and Ian would vote on this meeting's applications and that the board would "rotate through" its alternates on subsequent items so each gets seated over time. The chair noted the board expects to formally seat some alternates as full members "pretty shortly," a detail worth tracking for readers following the board's composition going into the fall.
240 Rosebrook Road: Retaining Wall Variance Continued
The board's first agenda item, a continued application for 240 Rosebrook Road, consumed only a few minutes. The application, filed on behalf of property owner Matthew Lasco and represented by attorney Michael Murray, seeks a variance from section 6.5B.2B of the zoning regulations to allow a retaining wall closer than 10 feet from the property line on a two-acre-zoned lot at map 39, block 99, lot 144. The applicant requested a further continuance to the board's August 3, 2026 meeting, and the board granted it without discussion. The chair advised anyone who attended the prior hearing on this matter to be present again on August 3, and asked anyone who had not attended the earlier session to listen to the recording beforehand. Later in the meeting, in response to a question about upcoming business, a board member characterized the odds of the applicant either withdrawing or continuing again as roughly even, suggesting the matter's ultimate direction remains genuinely unresolved.
901 North Wilton Road: Addition Variance Granted
This was the meeting's only substantive hearing and occupied the bulk of the session. The application, filed by architect Doug McMillan of McMillan Architects on behalf of owner Jamie Kemp, sought a variance from section 3.5E of the zoning regulations to allow a home addition 31 feet from the side property line where 35 feet is required, on a property at 901 North Wilton Road, map 47, block 124, lot 11, zoned for four-acre minimum lots.
The question before the board was narrow: whether the applicant had demonstrated a hardship that is both physical in nature and unique to the property, the statutory standard the chair read into the record at the start of the meeting, sufficient to justify a four-foot side-setback intrusion affecting a single, small portion of the proposed addition.
McMillan's presentation, aided by site plans displayed on screen, described a straightforward addition: a new mudroom connecting the garage to the kitchen level, replacing an awkward interior stair arrangement, paired with a modest rearward extension of the family room to recapture space lost to the mudroom, plus a small bump-out of the kitchen breakfast area. McMillan was explicit that the addition extends straight back from the existing building line rather than pushing further into the side setback, a point that took some clarifying back-and-forth with board members who initially read the drawings as showing the new construction angling outward. "That red area is just hash marks," McMillan said, explaining that the red lines on the plan were dimension markers, not new building envelope. Once board members confirmed the addition ran parallel to the existing wall line, the discussion moved to the hardship case itself.
McMillan grounded the hardship argument in three overlapping facts about the property. First, the lot itself: 1.1 acres in a zone requiring four acres, with an average width of about 135 feet, leaving a buildable envelope of roughly 65 feet once setbacks are applied, which McMillan called "pretty tight." Second, the lot's shape: the side property line, on what McMillan called the east side of the house, bends inward toward the rear rather than running straight back from the street, a feature that narrows the usable envelope in the precise area where the addition is proposed. McMillan estimated the lot loses close to 10 feet of width because of the bend, telling the board he could not explain historically why the boundary was drawn that way. "It just, you know, lot lines are funny things. They go all over the place, but yet it really makes this restricted, the way that lot line bends in," he said. Third, the age of the structure: the original portion of the house was built in 1807, predating the town's zoning code, which McMillan argued is itself a form of hardship because the zoning framework was imposed on a lot configuration that long preceded it.
McMillan also pointed to figures meant to show the request was restrained rather than maximal. The area of new noncompliance created by the addition, he said, is limited to a small triangular wedge near one corner, calculated at about 42 square feet, not the full footprint of the roughly 350-square-foot addition. The house, which he estimated at about 3,800 square feet, has 797 square feet of allowable building coverage remaining unused, meaning the project does not push the property to its maximum permitted building envelope. A soil scientist retained by the applicant found no wetlands on the property, and McMillan said the site is largely flat with no topography concerns.
Board members' questions focused on confirming the scope of the ask rather than challenging the hardship theory. One member asked why the lot line bent inward in the first place; McMillan said he could not explain it, speculating only that "there might have been a stone wall there... might have been a tree 200 years ago." Board member Alex told colleagues he had visited the site that morning and found the home's size and character consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and noted the abutting parcel to the affected side is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded, with a developer reportedly planning to build two single-family homes there. "We're only asking for 42 square feet of area. It's not a large ask," Alex said. A second member, referred to in the recording only as Dell, said: "I have to agree with what Alex said... you're really only looking for a variance for 42 square feet. I don't have a problem with this at all."
Two letters of support were entered into the record: one from a neighboring owner on the opposite side of the property, whose surname was transcribed as Zonus, and one submitted at the end of the previous week by the developer planning the two homes on the adjacent Deforest Road-area lot, described by board members as "the one directly affected" by the variance. McMillan said he was not initially aware of the developer's letter and offered to submit written confirmation of the neighbor's support as well, though the board indicated it would take his word for it.
Before closing the public hearing, the chair summarized the hardship findings the board would rely on: the undersized lot, the unusual and gradual "crescent moon" curve in the property line, and the age of the house. "Historically, we have no idea why" the boundary curves as it does, the chair said, calling the shape the detail that most stood out personally. Another member added that an old stone wall or tree could plausibly explain a centuries-old boundary quirk, though neither could be confirmed.
With no members of the public present in the room or on Zoom to comment for or against the application, the chair closed the hearing and moved directly to deliberation among the seated voters: Ian, Chad, Alex, the chair, and a fifth member identified as Cynthia in the chair's announcement of voters, though the roll-call vote itself used names transcribed only as fragments. A board member, likely Alex, moved to approve the variance "based on the unique nature of the lot, lot size and the modest... request for making the home livable based on the current circumstances." The motion was amended, on a member's suggestion, to add the historic nature of the house as a further basis for the hardship finding. Dell seconded. On the roll call, all five seated members voted in favor, and the variance was granted, 5-0.
The approval allows Kemp to proceed with the mudroom and family-room addition as designed, including the small side-setback intrusion, without further zoning relief. Because the board grounded its approval explicitly in the lot's shape and age rather than size alone, the written decision may serve as a reference point for other undersized, oddly shaped lots in the same North Wilton Road corridor seeking similar relief.
Minutes Approved; Board Revisits Prior 995 South Avenue Matter
The board's only other business was procedural. Members voted, with no discussion, to approve the minutes of the previous month's meeting; the roll call again used member names that were difficult to distinguish clearly in the recording, but no dissent was recorded. A board member then raised a follow-up question about a previously heard matter at 995 South Avenue, noting that the old structures on that lot had since been demolished and that the property owner had obtained a building permit for new construction within the same footprint, without needing a further variance. No board action was required, and the meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
Board chair, presiding — not named in the recording; referred to throughout as "the chair." Ian — described as a full member and/or alternate whose status had "not been moved officially"; seated to vote on this meeting's applications. Chad — alternate member, participating via Zoom; seated to vote on this meeting's applications. Alex — full member; conducted a site visit to 901 North Wilton Road ahead of the meeting. Member identified as Dell — spoke in support of the North Wilton Road variance and seconded the approval motion. Member identified in the chair's vote announcement as Cynthia — named as one of five members expected to vote on the North Wilton Road application. Brett — newly seated alternate; observed this meeting's applications without voting, per the chair's rotation plan. Doug McMillan, architect, McMillan Architects — presented the 901 North Wilton Road application on behalf of the owner. Jamie Kemp — owner of 901 North Wilton Road, the property subject to the granted variance. Michael Murray, attorney — represented the applicant for the continued 240 Rosebrook Road matter. Matthew Lasco — owner of 240 Rosebrook Road, subject of the continued retaining-wall variance application. No members of the public appeared in person or on Zoom to comment on either application.
McMillan Architects — the firm representing the applicant for the 901 North Wilton Road addition variance. Letter of support from a neighboring owner (surname transcribed as Zonus) — submitted in favor of the 901 North Wilton Road variance, cited by the applicant and board members during deliberation. Letter of support from the developer of the adjacent Deforest Road-area parcel — submitted the week before the meeting in favor of the 901 North Wilton Road variance; the developer is reportedly planning two single-family homes on the adjacent lot. Prior board decision on 995 South Avenue — referenced by a board member at the end of the meeting as a case where the owner obtained a building permit for new construction in the same footprint without a further variance. Zoning variance application, 240 Rosebrook Road (section 6.5B.2B) — the continued matter, filed by attorney Michael Murray on behalf of owner Matthew Lasco, continued to the board's August 3, 2026 meeting.