» Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes from the most recent ZBA meeting can be found on this page, archives can be browsed by using the links to the left.
A Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the Black Point Beach Club Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Friday evening, October 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM at the Black Point Beach Club Association Clubhouse located at the corner of Woodland and Sunset Streets in Niantic, CT.
PRESENT: Bill Willetts, Chairman, Paul Bollo, Secretary, Phil Hagaman, Roberta Jordan, Bill Greenwood, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Gail & Paul Kelly, Owners/Applicants
Charlie Beckham, Black Point Beach Association ZEO
ABSENT: Joyce Wojtas, Paul Pendergast, Alternate, Anita Schepter, Alternate
Call Public Hearing to Order
Chairman Willetts called the Public Hearing to order at 7:05 PM.
Mr. Willetts noted that he had seated Alternate Bill Greenwood at the table.
Read Notice of Public Hearing
Mr. Willetts asked Mr. Bollo, Secretary to read the Notice of Public Hearing:
Case No. 2 - 2007: Application of Gail Kelly for a variance of Section VI, Par 7a of the Black Point Zoning Regulations regarding nonconforming buildings to permit the replacement of an existing non-conforming garage with a larger garage at the same location on property owned by the applicant and located at 12 Seaspray Avenue, Niantic, CT per Zoning Permit Application No. 07-21on file. The property is further identified in the Application as Lot 16 on the East Lyme Assessor’s Map No. 05-19.
Mr. Bollo noted that this notice was published in The Day on October 7, 2007 and October 14, 2007.
Mr. Bollo presented the certificates of mailing for the record; this was entered as Exhibit A.
Introduction of Zoning Board of Appeals members
Mr. Willetts asked the Board Members to identify themselves for the audience. The members did so.
Poll ZBA Members for conflicts of interest –
Mr. Willetts polled the Board members for any conflicts of interest – hearing none – he noted to the applicant and the audience that they would need four votes in favor for the appeal to be granted.
Mr. Willetts then asked the applicant to present his case.
Gail Kelly, 12 Seaspray Avenue said that there is a two car garage on the property that was built in 1924 and that they want to replace it with a larger garage that will be able to house a car. The hardship is that in 1924 there were Model T’s and they were a lot smaller that today’s cars and they would like to have a functioning garage to fit today’s cars. The garage functions also as a barrier to the neighbors and if it was not there, they would be putting up a fence so that the three houses would not be looking at each other. They are asking for a garage that would be 22½’ x 21’.
Mr. Willetts asked if the existing garage is 3’ from the property lien on the east side and about 1’ in from the back property line.
Paul Kelly, 12 Seaspray Avenue said that he thinks that it is more equidistant and that they are both about 3’ from the property lines.
Charlie Beckham, Zoning Enforcement Officer said that it is about 3’ on the side and 4’ in the rear as he did measure it when he was out there.
Mr. Willetts said that they would be increasing a non-conformity by about 9” in the rear and 2’ on the side lot and noted that the setback regulations are now 15’. He said that he also understands that Mr. Beckham did grant them a permit to tear down the original structure and to rebuild exactly in that footprint.
Mr. Willetts called for anyone from the public who wished to speak in favor of this application –
John Carey, 19 Saltaire Ave. said that he was speaking on behalf of his mother who has no objection to this and that they feel that the application of the regulations here would not serve anything well and that they should be granted the variance.
Mr. Willetts called for anyone from the public who wished to speak in opposition to this application –
Barbara Johnston, 35 Seacrest Avenue said that they are increasing a non-conformity and that it is a non-conforming lot to begin with. The garage can be rebuilt where it currently is. She said that she is against this as it is not a hardship as understood and defined by Connecticut General Statutes. She noted that she has a picture of another property that had the same situation and where they reconfigured the garage to make it work for them. She passed the picture around for all of the Board members to review.
Mr. Bollo asked if it was possible to put the garage somewhere else on the property so that it would comply.
Ms. Kelly, 12 Seaspray Ave., said no, it is a 50 foot lot. She added that when they decided to knock down the existing garage and to build a new one that they wanted to conform but they do not think that it is asking for much to ask for 2’. She noted that there is a garage on Billow Road that clearly has two doors in the front and is quit large for the area. While they understand that it is non-conforming, they do not think that they are asking for much or that it would cause any issue. There are also other garages that received larger variances and then built garages. They have not asked for anything over all of these years and this property has been in their family that long.
Mr. Beckham asked Ms. Kelly about the dimensions of the garage and if they measured it themselves of took his measurements.
Ms. Kelly said that they measured it themselves and that it included the eaves – so if they did not have the eaves, it would probably work – however, they want the eaves so that it matches the house.
Mr. Willetts asked Mr. Bollo if they had received any letters on this application.
Mr. Bollo said no.
Barbara Johnston, 35 Seacrest Avenue said that she did not see the fellow who spoke in favor of the application and that she also does not see his name on the application and he said that he was notified. She asked if the abutters names were supposed to all be listed on the application as there are only three listed.
Mr. Willetts and Mr. Bollo said that the three names were presented by the applicant and that they feel that it is their responsibility to notice all of the people within 50’ of the applicant and not just what Ms. Kelly provided them with. They also noticed the people across the street as they are within 50’.
Mr. Kelly concurred and said that she did not know all of the people.
Ms. Johnston said that, with nothing against the applicant, that this is still asking to increase a non-conformity and that it should not be allowed.
Carol Ward, 23 Blue Heron said that she has not seen the layout and that she would have to agree if they are increasing a non-conformity. She suggested that perhaps they could re-position the garage on the existing property or re-work it in the rebuilding.
Mr. Willetts asked Ms. Kelly if it is true that they own the lot next door to this one to the west of this property.
Ms. Kelly said yes.
Mr. Willetts asked Ms. Kelly if they read the back of the application form that cites the conditions of a hardship – and also noted that in driving by this property that there is a two-car garage already there.
Ms. Kelly said that they did read the application form and the conditions.
Mr. Kelly said that they are looking to fit a large old Cadillac in the garage and it will not fit now.
Mr. Willetts asked if the house is still a cottage.
Ms. Kelly said that it is and that it remains as it originally was and is not winterized.
Mr. Bollo asked for clarification on the width outside without the eaves.
Ms. Kelly said that the width without the eaves is 18’.
Mr. Bollo asked if he understood correctly that they own the lot next door to them –
Ms. Kelly said that yes, they do on the west side and that they are contiguous but not legally attached by deed.
Mr. Beckham suggested that they re-measure to see what they have with and without the eaves as he had measured when it was getting dark and there seemed to be some confusion over the measurements. He said that he would review this with them.
Mr. Willetts asked if there were any other questions or comments regarding this application –
Hearing none –
Mr. Willetts closed this public hearing at 7:35 PM.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Willetts opened the Regular Meeting for Case No. 2-2007 at 7:36 PM.
Case No. 2 - 2007: Application of Gail Kelly for a variance of Section VI, Par 7a of the Black Point Zoning Regulations regarding nonconforming buildings to permit the replacement of an existing non-conforming garage with a larger garage at the same location on property owned by the applicant and located at 12 Seaspray Avenue, Niantic, CT per Zoning Permit Application No. 07-21on file. The property is further identified in the Application as Lot 16 on the East Lyme Assessor’s Map No. 05-19.
Mr. Willetts called for discussion.
Mr. Bollo said that while he sees this as a hardship to the applicant in the generic sense that he does not see it as a hardship as defined by the Statutes and for that reason he would have to vote against this.
Mr. Hagaman asked Mr. Beckham if they could do the garage at the size that they want without the eaves.
Mr. Beckham said that the width would still be non-conforming and that they did not propose the garage without the eaves. They are also still asking to increase the footprint on a non-conforming lot. He said that he would look at this again with them.
Mr. Willetts said that he does not feel that they have met the hardship requirements and also noted to the applicant that they would need four favorable votes in order for this to pass. He added that they still have a permit to build a garage in the current footprint from Mr. Beckham.
Mr. Willetts called for a motion.
**MOTION (1)
Mr. Bollo moved to APPROVE the Application of Gail Kelly for a variance of Section VI, Par 7a of the Black Point Zoning Regulations regarding nonconforming buildings to permit the replacement of an existing non-conforming garage with a larger garage at the same location on property owned by the applicant and located at 12 Seaspray Avenue, Niantic, CT per Zoning Permit Application No. 07-21on file. The property is further identified in the Application as Lot 16 on the East Lyme Assessor’s Map No. 05-19.
Ms. Jordan seconded the motion.
Mr. Willetts called for a vote on the motion.
Vote in Favor of the motion to APPROVE: 2 – 3 – 0. Motion failed. Variance Denied.
For: Mr. Hagaman, Mr. Greenwood
Against: Mr. Bollo, Ms. Jordan, Mr. Willetts
Nominations and Election of Chair and Secretary for the ensuing year.
Mr. Bollo opened nominations for Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
**MOTION (2)
Mr. Bollo moved to nominate Mr. Willetts for Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Hagaman seconded the motion.
**MOTION (3)
Mr. Greenwood moved that nominations for Chairman be closed.
Mr. Hagaman seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Mr. Bollo called for a vote on the nomination of Mr. Willetts as Chairman.
Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Mr. Willetts opened nominations for Secretary of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
**MOTION (4)
Mr. Willetts moved to nominate Mr. Bollo for Secretary of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Hagaman seconded the motion.
**MOTION (5)
Mr. Greenwood moved that nominations for Secretary be closed.
Mr. Hagaman seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Mr. Willetts called for a vote on the nomination of Mr. Bollo as Secretary.
Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
There being no other business before the BP Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Willetts called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
**MOTION (6)
Mr. Bollo moved to adjourn the October 19, 2007 meeting of the Black Point Beach Club Zoning Board of Appeals at 7:45 PM.
Mr. Hagaman seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Zmitruk,
Recording Secretary