» Meeting Minutes
A Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the Black Point Beach Club Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Saturday, April 1, 2006 at 12:01 PM at the Black Point Beach Club Association Clubhouse located at the corner of Woodland and Sunset Streets in Niantic, CT.
PRESENT: Peter Stempien, Chairman, Phil Hagaman, Acting Secretary, Bill Greenwood, Tom Hayes, Alternate, Bill Willetts, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Barbara Johnston, Applicant Suzanne Johnston, Brian Smith, Co-Owner Attorney Joshua Foley, Association Counsel Charlie Beckham, Black Point Beach Association ZEO
ABSENT: Sally Cini, Secretary, Don Wilkinson, Steve Whitman, Alternate
1. Call Public Hearing to Order
Chairman Stempien called the Public Hearing to order at 12:03 PM.
Mr. Stempien noted that Phil Hagaman would be the Acting Secretary and that he had seated Tom Hayes, Alternate and Bill Willetts, Alternate at the table.
2. Read Notice of Public Hearing
Mr. Stempien asked Mr. Hagaman, Acting Secretary to read the Notice of Public Hearing:
Case No. 2 - 2006: Request for variance in Section I (definition by Barbara Johnston, Owner) for an attached garage per drawing, and Section II Jurisdiction, of the Zoning Regulations of the Black Point Beach Association on property located at 35 Seacrest Ave.
Mr. Hagaman noted that this was sent to The Day for publication.
3. Introduction of Zoning Board of Appeals members
Mr. Stempien asked the Board Members to identify themselves for the audience. The members did so.
4. Poll ZBA Members for conflicts of interest –
Mr. Stempien 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. He asked that those who speak to please sign in so that they would have a record.
Mr. Stempien then asked Joshua Foley, Association Counsel to explain the events that have led up to this request for variance.
Joshua Foley, Association Counsel explained that the original application was for a breezeway between the house and garage and that a Cease & Desist was issued to Ms. Johnston on this due to the way that it was built. Ms. Johnston appealed the Cease & Desist to this ZBA and to the Courts. It was denied here and it is still moving along on its way through the Court system. She then applied for a variance in the fall and there were some notice problems, which pushed the hearing off until April 2006. Ms. Johnston pushed for the 65-day guideline, which was March 25, 2006, and again there was a notice problem. This brings them to today. In the settlement that was reached a new permit to construct her breezeway was allowed where screened in walls were made acceptable.
Ann Farley, 39 Seacrest Ave. interrupted and said that she did not understand what was allowed from the Superior Court decision.
Attorney Foley said that the Superior Court approved a settlement that Ms. Johnston could have screened walls and pavers with the attached roof.
Ms. Farley asked what this variance is for today.
Attorney Foley said that if the variance is granted today that no walls screened or otherwise would be needed.
Barbara Johnston, 35 Seacrest Ave., the applicant said that she does not like the use of the word walls, as it constitutes solid matter.
Brian Smith, 35 Seacrest Ave., future son in law, explained what the variance was for.
Mr. Stempien apologized to Ms. Johnston for the mix-up with the advertising and asked Ms. Johnston, the applicant to state her case and give her presentation.
Barbara Johnston, applicant and owner, 35 Seacrest Ave. recapped the events. She said that on 6/10/05 that they had submitted the requested plan, which she submitted again and which was entered into the record as Exhibit 1, showing an open breezeway. She also submitted two pages from the old application of other homes with open breezeways within the area – these were entered as Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3. Also submitted was the layout of the property in 2005 – this was entered as Exhibit 4.
Mr. Stempien said that the garage and apartment are there and that there is a roof attaching the garage to the house. Ms. Johnston is seeking relief from the screening in the breezeway in this request.
Mr. Hagaman asked what would be at the bottom.
Brian Smith said that they would put pavers there.
Ms. Johnston asked that all of the records from the July 2005 hearing be put into this record also. She then submitted Exhibit 5 – a definition of a breezeway from answers.com, which she also read into the record.
Mr. Smith, said that when they exposed the existing sewage pipes that they took pictures. He presented the pictures showing that the pipes are located at such a shallow level that they could not put footings. He indicated where the line splits to the house and the garage. These four, color pictures of the sewer line bed, were entered into the record as Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8, and Exhibit 9.
Mr. Hagaman asked if the driveway was going through the breezeway.
Mr. Smith said that it would not be a driveway as it was before. There will be pavers there. They might use it at times to unload dirt for their vegetable and flower garden in the back. He added that there is a 3’ grade difference between the two properties. The garage is 3’ lower than the house.
Ms. Johnston then read a letter into the record noting that Section 1 and Section 2 have been approved due to the lapse of the 65 days with no action, through default. This is a legal hardship due to the location of the existing water & sewer lines. The regulations in the Black Point Zoning do not state that this has to be enclosed. They were in the process of building this when the Cease & Desist was issued on 6/10/05 and, today on 4/1/06 this remains unfinished. She also stated that on numerous attempts that this Board failed to properly notice the hearing – on 6/29/05, 9/23/05, 10/22/05 and 11/19/05. There was a hearing held on 2/19/06 however, they were not included to be heard. On 2/27/06 Judge Jones ruled that they must hold a meeting by 3/25/06 which they also failed to do. This failure may put them in Contempt of Court. She submitted this letter for the record, which was entered as Exhibit 10.
Mr. Hagaman asked with the 9’ wide breezeway opening if they were putting a parking lot in the back yard.
Mr. Smith said no. He explained that they have a vegetable garden back there and a shed.
Mr. Stempien asked Attorney Foley the status of the Contempt action.
Attorney Foley said that he thought that by holding the hearing today that it would be a moot point.
Mr. Hagaman said that he knows that there is living space over the garage, he asked if they are also granting the right to have an apartment.
Charlie Beckham, BP Zoning Enforcement Officer said that no kitchen is allowed, they can only have a water closet and sink there.
Mr. Hagaman asked then if he understood that they could have a sink and toilet but no refrigerator?
Mr. Smith said that was correct.
Mr. Willetts asked if it was a hip or gable roof over the breezeway.
Mr. Smith said that it was gabled.
Mr. Hagaman asked Attorney Foley if once this becomes part of the dwelling and if they were to grant the variance – could they tell them that they could not have two kitchens?
Mr. Smith said that one way or another it would not matter as it is one structure.
Mr. Willetts said to Attorney Foley that they had mentioned the 65 days and asked if it has passed and if so, how does the automatic approval work.
Attorney Foley said that, as he understands it that a failure to act in regular Zoning is considered an automatic approval however with the ZBA it is not considered an automatic approval. If it were considered an automatic approval then Ms. Johnston would already have the variance and would not be here today. This, at least is his opinion.
Mr. Stempien acknowledged that it was his fault that the hearings were previously advertised incorrectly.
Mr. Willetts said that the court settlement has given Ms. Johnston the right to build this with screened in sides and her application for a variance request here is to have the breezeway without screens. He asked Attorney Foley if he understood this correctly.
Attorney Foley said that was correct.
Mr. Willetts asked if the roof is on a level slope from the house to the garage.
Mr. Smith said yes.
Mr. Stempien asked if anyone from the public would like to speak regarding this application –
Carol Zebzda, 31 Sea Crest Ave. said that there is access to the back of the house that is available by way of the common right of way behind it and that can be used as the other homes there use it.
Ann Farley, 39 Seacrest Ave. said that four (4) houses already use the back right of way. She said that she is concerned that if this is a bedroom over the garage that in the future that a part of the property becomes a little house of its own. She wishes that the addition were directly attached to the house.
Jean Burke, 27 Seacrest Ave. said that they have many little houses in Black Point as that is what originally made up Black Point. Many of them have been torn down and rebuilt. She said that she would like to do what Ms. Johnston has done, herself if she had the room. She thinks that what is there is fine.
Mr. Hagaman asked Ms. Johnston if there would be any problem for them with getting in through the back right of way.
Mr. Smith said that they have a shed and a vegetable and flower garden there and that they like their vegetable garden. They cannot get in due to those items being there and do not wish to drive over them.
Mary Lou Weidl, 22 Indianola said that there is that right of way behind there and asked if they understood that it is in the process of being considered to be sold? She also said that lots couldn’t be split up.
Ms. Zebzda, 31 Sea Crest Ave. said that she has made her feelings known regarding that right of way and that she has been told that it will not be sold off.
Ms. Weidl said to Ms. Zebzda that she could not count on that happening.
Mr. Stempien said that he had received a letter from Jane Morse McLane of 24 Seaview Ave. asking that he read it into the record. He did so. Ms. McLane expressed her concern on how the Johnston property was handled and said that as a contiguous landowner that at times she did not receive notice of the hearings. She said that she felt that a structure of this size should be at ground level.
Mr. Hagaman asked if he was correct in saying that right now it is a detached garage.
Mr. Beckham said yes.
Attorney Foley noted that regarding the attachment that Ms. Johnston does have the permission to build this with screened walls.
Mr. Beckham commented that if they grant this that they will be back where they started.
Suzanne Johnston, 35 Seacrest Ave. said that in February of 2005 that it was approved to have it open.
Mr. Stempien said, to clarify - that what they are asking for is no screens and pavers on the ground.
Mr. Stempien asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished to speak –
Hearing no one –
Mr. Stempien closed this public hearing at 12:55 PM.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Stempien opened the Regular Meeting for Case No. 2-2006 at 12:56 PM.
Case No. 2 - 2006: Request for variance in Section I (definition by Barbara Johnston, Owner) for an attached garage per drawing, and Section II Jurisdiction, of the Zoning Regulations of the Black Point Beach Association on property located at 35 Seacrest Ave.
Mr. Stempien called for a motion for discussion.
**MOTION (1)
Mr. Hagaman moved to Approve the request for variance in Section I (definition by Barbara Johnston, Owner) for an attached garage per drawing, and Section II Jurisdiction, of the Zoning Regulations of the Black Point Beach Association on property located at 35 Seacrest Ave. to allow for an open breezeway with pavers on the ground.
Mr. Greenwood seconded the motion.
Mr. Stempien called for discussion.
Mr. Hagaman said that it now has become an attached garage and since it went to the courts, he did not see a reason to grant Ms. Johnston a variance.
Mr. Stempien commented that Ms. Johnston had appealed the Cease & Desist first.
Mr. Hagaman asked what the hardship here is and if it was about the grade.
Mr. Willetts said that he understands that the court approved a settlement and that means that Ms. Johnston has agreed to it.
Mr. Beckham said that if they grant this variance then they are back to square one with this.
Mr. Greenwood said that he thinks that the Cease & Desist issue was over if this was an attached or detached garage as there was the concern of two houses being built on the one lot.
Mr. Hayes said that she has to close this in with screens.
Mr. Stempien called for a vote on the motion.
Vote in Favor of the motion: 1 – 4 – 0. Motion failed.
For: Mr. Greenwood
Against: Mr. Stempien, Mr. Hagaman, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Willetts
Mr. Willetts commented for the record that he was not satisfied that Ms. Johnston had produced evidence of a hardship other than what she had created herself. The issue of the utility lines is not a hardship as they can be moved.
Mr. Stempien passed out some preliminary information regarding an upcoming case and called for a motion to adjourn.
ADJOURNMENT
**MOTION (2)
Mr. Hagaman moved to adjourn this April 1, 2006 meeting of the Black Point Beach Club Zoning Board of Appeals at 1:05 PM.
Mr. Greenwood seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Respectfully submitted
Karen Zmitruk,
Recording Secretary