» Meeting Minutes
A Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the Black Point Beach Club Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Friday evening, September 22, 2006 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, Don Wilkinson, Joyce Wojtas
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Chapman, Representing the Applicant, Bill Greenwood, Alternate, Paul Pendergast, Alternate, Charlie Beckham, Black Point Beach Association ZEO
ABSENT: No One
1. Call Public Hearing to Order
Chairman Willetts called the Public Hearing to order at 7:05 PM.
2. Read Notice of Public Hearing
Mr. Willetts asked Mr. Bollo, Secretary to read the Notice of Public Hearing:
Case No. 5 - 2006: Application of Robert Chapman (Design/Builder) for a variance of Section VI, 7a of the Black Point Beach Club Zoning Regulations, for the purpose of removing an existing non-conforming building and replacing it with a new structure on the same footprint but increasing the area of non-conformity of a portion of the proposed second story thereof, at property located at 78 East Shore Drive, owned by Ronald and Margaret Mager. The property is further identified in the application as East Lyme Assessor’s Map 05.19, Lot 38.
Mr. Willetts noted that this notice was sent to The Day for publication and that the abutting owners had been notified.
3. Introduction of Zoning Board of Appeals members
Mr. Willetts asked the Board Members to identify themselves for the audience. The members did so.
4. 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’s representative to present his case.
Robert Chapman, Design/Builder from Old Lyme said that he is representing Ronald and Mary Mager who own 78 East Shore Drive. He said that they originally presented an application in May of 2006 and at that time what they wanted to do was approved, however they made some changes regarding the views and the second story roofline and re-applied with the changes and the application was denied. He showed the views and what they had started with and what had been changed and how it changed the frontal and side views. He noted that the affected area only involves 35-sq. ft. of frontal area facing the street (copies attached of plans and changes)
Pat Zito, 76 East Shore Drive asked that he show both views.
Walter Leckowicz, 80 East Shore Drive asked what side faces him.
Mr. Chapman replied that it is the north side that faces him. He showed the both views for Ms. Zito explaining what she would see from the side where her home is.
Mr. Willetts asked that Mr. Chapman address the hardship being claimed here.
Mr. Chapman said that the hardship would be that the design and looks of the building are spoiled if they cannot make this small change. It is something that will be very hard for his clients to have to live with.
Mr. Bollo asked Mr. Chapman what alternatives there are in dealing with this problem.
Mr. Chapman said that he could bring the building up a bit more as there is still room to do that at the bottom of the ridge and soffit but he is not sure that he can get the pitches in there to make it work. The hardship is hard to explain except that you will live with this from now on.
Mr. Willetts asked if there were any questions from the Board members.
Charlie Beckham, BP ZEO said that from the original design to this design that he is still within his allowable lot coverage.
Mr. Willetts said that he could not increase the non-conformity of the footprint area.
Mr. Chapman said that there is a storage area on the front, a non-conforming area that they can get rid of as it also blocks access to the garages. It is 82-sq. ft. and they would trade it for the 35-sq. ft. that he is requesting here.
Marylou Weidl, 22 Indianola Road asked if there was a basement in this home.
Mr. Chapman said that with the FEMA, CAM reviews that they cannot have a basement in this house. This is a hardship for this building. Because of FEMA and the new regulations this addition will be built strong and will have steel corners and ice guard on the roof. He said that this is such a small area that it is worth consideration with the trade-offs that are being made.
Mr. Bollo asked that Mr. Chapman go over the hardship again and if he has said that it is due to design and the effect of these aesthetics.
Mr. Chapman said that it is a trade off. They need storage. They would get rid of the front storage area and trade it for this small change. This is not a big change to the building or to the footprint.
Mr. Willetts called for anyone from the audience who wished to speak in favor of this application –
Hearing no one –
Mr. Willetts called for anyone from the audience who wished to speak in opposition to this application –
Mary Ann Leckowicz, 80 East Shore Drive said that they live to the south of this house and that they have no objection to this. It will make the roofline look better.
Pat Zito, 76 East Shore Drive said that she has no objection to this.
Bill McDowell, 14 Saltaire asked what the distance was between this house and the Zito house.
Mr. Chapman said that he was not sure but this house is closer on the Zito side than the Leckowicz side.
Mr. McDowell said that he was against this as he recalled wanting five (5) ft. for a chimney and being denied.
Mr. Willetts asked if there were any other questions or comments regarding this application –
Mr. Bollo said to Mr. Chapman that a hardship to a property is due to the strict application of the zoning regulations producing an unusual impact on a particular home from those others in that zone.
Mr. Chapman said that this is a 45’ wide property and that other properties have more distance and that is something that these people do not have. He said that he does not know of others in this area that have these same restrictions.
Mr. Bollo asked if anyone building on a lot in this district who sought to expand the upper floor – wouldn’t they run into these same problems?
Mr. Chapman replied perhaps yes but added that he had heard that some were allowed to build only two (2) feet away.
Mr. Wilkinson said that he was not sure that was true and asked for specifics. He then asked if the only thing that he was talking about here is aesthetics, and because he can’t get a window in he wants more space?
Mr. Bollo said that he had heard, from Mr. Chapman regarding the hardship issue that ‘it spoils the effect and it not as pleasing’. He asked that Mr. Chapman succinctly state what the hardship is.
Mr. Chapman said that they need the additional space by getting rid of the building in the front as moving it creates less storage area.
Mr. Willetts noted that he had not received any letters or communication regarding this application. He asked if there were any other questions or comments.
Hearing none –
Mr. Willetts closed this public hearing at 7:35 PM.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Willetts opened the Regular Meeting for Case No. 5-2006 at 7:36 PM.
Case No. 5 - 2006: Application of Robert Chapman (Design/Builder) for a variance of Section VI, 7a of the Black Point Beach Club Zoning Regulations, for the purpose of removing an existing non-conforming building and replacing it with a new structure on the same footprint but increasing the area of non-conformity of a portion of the proposed second story thereof, at property located at 78 East Shore Drive, owned by Ronald and Margaret Mager. The property is further identified in the application as East Lyme Assessor’s Map 05.19, Lot 38.
Mr. Willetts called for discussion. He said that he does not see the hardship here.
Mr. Bollo agreed that he does not see a hardship here.
Ms. Wojtas, Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Hagaman also agreed that they could not see a hardship here.
Mr. Willetts called for a motion.
**MOTION (1)
Mr. Bollo moved to DENY the request for variance of Section VI, 7a of the Black Point Beach Club Zoning Regulations, (for the purpose of removing an existing non-conforming building and replacing it with a new structure on the same footprint but increasing the area of non-conformity of a portion of the proposed second story thereof) in the Application of Robert Chapman (Design/Builder) for property located at 78 East Shore Drive, owned by Ronald and Margaret Mager. The property is further identified in the application as East Lyme Assessor’s Map 05.19, Lot 38.
Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion.
Mr. Willetts called for a vote on the motion.
Vote in Favor of the motion: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
¨ Other Business – 10 Brightwater Road
Mr. Willetts said that he had discussed this with Mr. Bollo.
Mr. Bollo said that he felt that they should not be discussing this here as there is no issue appropriate to come before the ZBA at this point as they can only act on issues regarding ZEO rulings or variance requests. This does not fall under either of those categories, as there is no application before them and no appeal of the Black Point Zoning Enforcement Officers ruling.
Mr. Bollo noted that the Board of Governors was holding the workshop on Fair Housing and ADA on October 14th or 21st and that they should watch for more news on it.
ADJOURNMENT
**MOTION (2)
Mr. Bollo moved to adjourn this September 22, 2006 meeting of the Black Point Beach Club Zoning Board of Appeals at 7:40 PM.
Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Zmitruk,
Recording Secretary