Printer-friendly version (includes attachments)
A Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the Black Point Beach Club Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Saturday morning, November 16, 2013 at 10 AM in the Black Point Beach Association Clubhouse located on 6 Sunset Avenue in Niantic, CT.
PRESENT: Steve Fogarty, Chairman, Joyce Wojtas, Sally Cini, Paul Pendergast, John Sullivan, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Cheryl Colangelo & Ray Lillis, Owners/Applicants
Attorney Theodore Harris, Representing the Applicant Marianne Neptin, Alternate
ABSENT: Anita Schepter, Alternate
1. Call Public Hearing to Order
Chairman Fogarty called the Public Hearing to order at 10 AM.
2. Read Notice of Public Hearing
Mr. Fogarty, read the Notice of Public Hearing:
Case No. 1-2013:
Application of Cheryl Colangelo and Raymond Lillis for a variance of the Black Point Zoning Regulations Section V 1A to allow an expansion of non-conformity in connection with a renovation of their non-conforming dwelling at 39 Whitecap Road, Niantic, CT. The property is further identified on the East Lyme Assessor’s Map 5.14, Lot 39.
Mr. Fogarty said that this notice was published in The New London Day and that the certificates of mailing to the abutters have been submitted (Exhibit 1).
3. Introduction of Zoning Board of Appeals members
Mr. Fogarty asked the Board Members to identify themselves for the audience. The members did so.
4. Poll ZBA Members for conflicts of interest –
Mr. Fogarty 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 and that they had a full Board of five members seated.
Mr. Fogarty then asked the applicant or their representative to present the case.
Attorney Theodore Harris, 351 Main Street presented Exhibit 2 – pictures of the house in relation to the abutting properties; Exhibit 3 – a letter from a neighbor expressing no objection and Exhibit 4 – plans showing the elevation proposed in comparison to what is allowed. He said that the request is for a side yard variance to allow for a full vertical addition to the single family home. The lot is 4,000 sq. ft. which is pre-existing, non-conforming. They also do not comply with the frontage setbacks. Applying the current regulations to the pre-existing parcel create the hardship by significantly diminishing the usable portions of the property. Building a second floor in compliance with the regulations would create a 9’ wide second floor that would be aesthetically unpleasing and not allow for the necessary space. The application of the side yard setbacks causes the second story to be ‘off balance’ as the house is off center on the lot and only 4.9’ away from one side. The proposed addition would allow for an additional bedroom and bathroom and storage area. The requested variance is 10.1’ on the westerly side yard and 4.2’ and the easterly side yard. He continued that an unusual hardship is not the only basis for granting a variance – he cited the Stillman v. Town of Redding case relating to a septic system and well on a small lot where the variance was granted as it caused undue hardship on the proposed addition to the house.
(Note: 10:13 AM – Marianne Neptin, Alternate joined the meeting)
Mr. Sullivan asked what year the Stillman case was heard.
Attorney Harris said 1991. He added that in the Stillman case that the people later went back for a vertical/ horizontal variance also and that was also granted.
Mr. Sullivan said that one of the issues in the Stillman case is that they were on septic and well and that we do not have that here as we are on public water and sewer.
Mr. Harris said that he is applying the Stillman principles to this case as they have a very minimal building line and it would cause them to have to build a bowling alley addition. They are not increasing the height beyond what is normally allowed and he said that they would generally be consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. He added that he would say that it would be consistent with the public health and safety and more consistent than those with an ugly roof line. They are also adding storage so the house could be used year round. He asserted that it meets the standards and that the variance is justified.
Mr. Sullivan said to Mr. Harris that he did not speak to the land in the back of the house where they have room to put an addition and to follow the required setbacks without expanding a non-conformity.
Mr. Harris said that in the back that the setbacks would be met but they would still have a very long and narrow addition and it would not get them the space that they need.
Mr. Sullivan asked about that space.
Mr. Harris said that they would still only have a 10’ addition out the back.
Mr. Sullivan asked what additional square footage they would end up with by following the setbacks.
Mr. Harris and Mr. Bonelli said that it would be 180 sq. ft. (10’ x 18’).
Mr. Harris added that it would not allow for the two full bedrooms, full bath and storage space that they need.
Ms. Wojtas asked if the existing house is around 24’ wide by 44’ in length and one story.
Mr. Harris said yes.
Mr. Pendergast asked if the house is on a slab or if it has or would have a basement.
Mr. Harris said that it is not on a slab and that there is no basement and one is not planned so they would not gain any space there for storage.
Mr. Sullivan asked if the second story would exceed the base floor.
Mr. Harris said no.
Mr. Fogarty asked if the Board members had any further questions –
Hearing none –
Mr. Fogarty called for anyone from the public who wished to speak regarding this application –
Cheryl Colangelo, Owner 39 Whitecap said that she had a letter from her doctor noting that she has a medical condition that prohibits her from going to the attic with storage items and that she cannot use a pull-down staircase and must have a regular staircase and this would allow for that. She added that it is hard with only four closets to have a full time life here.
Richard Diachenko, 25 Sunrise said that they are direct neighbors and they are fine with the proposal and they think that they should have something useful to live in and to retire to. (Letter was previously submitted and is attached)
Ray Lillis, Owner 39 Whitecap said that he has been coming here for the summers for the past 40 years and that he raised his 2 children in a raised ranch in New York who are now on their own. They are looking for the possibility of having storage space and to be able to stay here full time and they have a lot of support for this project from their current neighbors.
Pat Tomaino, 26 Indianola said that she is in support of this request.
Dan Lemieux, 26 Whitecap said that he lives across the street and supports this as it is a matter of aesthetics and what he would be looking at and that he would not like looking at something that looked like a ‘chimney’. (Letter was previously submitted and is attached)
Ann Farley, 39 Seacrest said that she is in favor of this and that people should not have to fight for medical things and that this is a retirement community and that people have to accommodate it.
Mr. Fogarty asked if there were any further questions from the panel –
Mr. Sullivan said to Mr. Harris – that he has used the phrase ‘aesthetics’ several times and that it is his understanding from the State Statutes that ‘aesthetics’ has no standing here.
Mr. Harris said that was correct but one of the statutory goals of zoning is to preserve property values and an ugly roofline would have an impact.
Mr. Fogarty asked if there were any further comments –
Hearing none –
**MOTION (1)
Mr. Pendergast moved to close the Regular Meeting for Case 1-2013.
Ms. Cini seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Mr. Fogarty closed this public hearing at 10:42 AM.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Fogarty opened the Regular Meeting for Case No. 1-2013 at 10:43 AM.
Case No. 1-2013:
Application of Cheryl Colangelo and Raymond Lillis for a variance of the Black Point Zoning Regulations Section V 1A to allow an expansion of non-conformity in connection with a renovation of their non-conforming dwelling at 39 Whitecap Road, Niantic, CT. The property is further identified on the East Lyme Assessor’s Map 5.14, Lot 39.
Mr. Fogarty noted that they could take no further public comment on the application.
He called for discussion or a motion –
Mr. Sullivan said that he had to say for the record that there is a tendency for people to speak to how long they either have lived here or have been coming here and that he does not think that longevity should determine the vote. If they do not agree with the zoning regulations, the forum in which to address that is with the Zoning Commission.
Mr. Pendergast said that he thinks that it is based on the usefulness of the property and not longevity.
Mr. Sullivan said that he has heard several people cite how long they have been coming here as a reason and that it is something that they can discuss after the meeting.
Ms. Cini agreed with Mr. Pendergast that people seem to always talk about how long that they have been here and that nothing is meant by it – it is just discussion.
**MOTION (2)
Ms. Wojtas moved to approve the Application of Cheryl Colangelo and Raymond Lillis for a variance of the Black Point Zoning Regulations Section V 1A to allow an expansion of non-conformity (10.1’ on the westerly side yard and 4.2’ and the easterly side yard) in connection with a renovation of their non-conforming dwelling at 39 Whitecap Road, Niantic, CT. The property is further identified on the East Lyme Assessor’s Map 5.14, Lot 39.
Mr. Pendergast seconded the motion.
Ms. Wojtas said that the hardship is with the property itself and an existing non-conforming lot and house.
Mr. Fogarty called for a vote on the motion.
Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion to APPROVE passed.
Mr. Pendergast said that it felt good to him to vote for this regardless of what others have in the past told him to do with regard to variances. It has always bothered him that when he interviewed for the ZBA that he was advised to deny most requests and that this had freed him from his disagreement with that philosophy.
There being no other business before the BP Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Fogarty called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
**MOTION (3)
Mr. Pendergast moved to adjourn the November 16, 2013 meeting of the Black Point Beach Club Zoning Board of Appeals at 10:58 AM.
Ms. Wojtas seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Zmitruk,
Recording Secretary
