EAST LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Scrolling down or clicking the bookmarks will take you to the minutes for meetings held in September.
EAST LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
Monday, SEPTEMBER 17th, 2007
MINUTES
A Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the East Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, September 17, 2007 at 7:30 PM at the East Lyme Town Hall, 108 Pennsylvania Avenue, Niantic, CT.
PRESENT: Bill Mountzoures, Chairman, H. Peter Hunt, Secretary,
Leo Mostowy, Tom Boguszewski, Skip Saunders, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Anthony Thompson, Design Service representing the Applicant
Attorney Tom Collier, representing an Abutter
ABSENT: Craig Mason, Shawn McLaughlin, Alternate,
Flo Hurley, Alternate
Chairman Mountzoures called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 PM. He noted that he had seated Skip Saunders, Alternate at the table.
2. Read Notice of Public Hearing
Mr. Mountzoures asked Mr. Boguszewski to read the notice of the Public Hearing:
Case No. 5-2007: Application of John Petrillo for a request of a variance of Section 7.3.3 of the East Lyme Zoning Regulations to construct a garage on the property identified in the application as 2 Elizabeth Street, Niantic, Connecticut. East Lyme Assessor’s Map 22.14, Lot 80.
The Public Hearing notice was sent to the New London Day for publication on 9/3/07 and 9/13/07.
Mr. Mountzoures introduced the Board members and polled each for any conflict of interest. Hearing no conflicts of interest, he explained the rules of the meeting and asked that anyone speaking please stick to the subject matter of the application.
Mr. Mountzoures called for the applicant or their representative to make their presentation.
Anthony Thompson of Design Services, Branford, CT said that he is representing the applicant, John Petrillo. He said that he has a letter from a neighbor to submit for the record.
Mr. Mountzoures read a letter from the residents of 6 Elizabeth Street into the record. Gaetan and Joanne Rocamora said that they are in favor of any renovations or additions that the Petrillo’s make. This letter was dated 9/10/07 and entered into the record as Exhibit A.
Mr. Thompson explained that the house is located at the end of the cove and that it is on an unusual lot. They are looking to put a garage on the south side. The lot jogs a bit and is on the corner of North Road and Elizabeth Street. There is currently no garage on the property and they would like one. The owners are in their 60’s. He said that he has tried to locate the garage in such a way that it provides plenty of additional parking and they have tried to scale it for a minimal encroachment on the property line of 6’. They have left room for a lawnmower or other item to navigate. The home had some damage during the winter when a pipe burst and they have tried to fit this garage in with the unusual roof angle of the one-story single family home and provide a mud room/foyer entry from the garage. They are not blocking anyone’s view. In requesting the sideline reduction from 12’ to 6’, he said that they feel that the hardship is that they have an unusual inside corner lot and that the 30’ setback radius has pushed the garage back.
Mr. Boguszewski asked if they built a single car garage, could they do it without a variance.
Mr. Thompson said yes.
Mr. Saunders said that he has said that the garage is on the south side of the house – isn’t it on the north side?
Mr. Thompson said yes, that was correct, it is on the north side of the house.
Mr. Saunders noted that the Section cited was incorrect in a note from the Zoning Official and that it applied to undertakers and not setbacks, however, the application and legal notices were correct.
Mr. Mountzoures said that the legal notice is correct and that there is also a letter from the applicant with the correct Section.
Mr. Mostowy asked exactly what the hardship is here.
Mr. Thompson said that they feel that the overlapping setbacks due to the unusual lot are excessive.
Mr. Mountzoures said that he noticed that they are asking for a 6’ variance but at the end they are only encroaching by about a foot or so. He said that he does not understand the hardship as they could build an 18’ x 28’ garage instead and require no variance. It could also always be redesigned to fit in with the house roofline.
Mr. Thompson said that they could however his clients are elderly and are looking for a 24’ wide garage.
Mr. Mountzoures called for anyone who wished to speak in favor of this application -
Hearing no one –
Mr. Mountzoures called for anyone who wished to speak in opposition to this application –
Thomas Collier, Attorney with O’Brien & Shatner, offices in Groton and Old Lyme said that he is present to represent Robert and Diane Smith abutters next door to the applicant at 28 North Road. He said that he has some submittals that he wanted to enter to show how this would limit the quality of life of his clients. He submitted the Assessor’s Card for 2 Elizabeth Street to indicate that it is a residential use and that it has been so and been made use of since at least 1977 when the Petrillo’s purchased it. This was entered as Exhibit B. He also submitted a copy of the GIS mapping of the area showing his clients’ home in relation to the Petrillo’s. This was entered into the record as Exhibit C. He submitted two (2) photos demonstrating the rear of his clients’ house looking down the grassy way to the water. This was entered as Exhibit D.
Attorney Collier also noted that they are here this evening due to a request of variance of Section 7.3.3 of the Zoning Regulations and to submit a copy of it as it was obviously a typographical error referencing an undertaker establishment. He noted that the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce a 12’ setback to 6’. This was entered as Exhibit E.
He then said that there is no hardship here and that a garage is not a hardship and the applicant can have an oversized garage without a variance and does not have to have a two-car garage. Having the garage in this setback is upsetting to his clients, the Smiths’. He cited Section 9.3 of Judge Fuller’s Land Use Law – CT book which stated that a self-created hardship does not show a need for a variance and that grounds must arise due to circumstances beyond a persons’ control. Here, this property has had an enjoyable use since at least 1977 and not having a garage is not adequate grounds for a hardship. This was submitted and entered into the record as Exhibit F.
He submitted Supreme Court cases to support that a variance cannot be granted for a self-created hardship.
The Pollard Case vs. ZBA, 1982 was submitted and entered as Exhibit G. Garibaldi Case vs. ZBA Norwalk, 1975 cites that personal needs are not grounds for a hardship. This was submitted and entered as Exhibit H. Lastly, a more recent case – Feldman vs. ZBA Easton supports the holding that a personal need is not a hardship. This was submitted and entered as Exhibit I.
Attorney Collier noted the placement of the garage in relation to his clients, the Smiths saying that it is the worst placement of a garage for their quality of life.
Mr. Saunders asked if approval would put the garage in the hedge.
Attorney Collier noted the photos that were entered as Exhibit D and said that they are not there to talk about view however; the garage would be approximately where the chair is in the photo.
Mr. Mountzoures said that it is not relevant whether or not it would obstruct the view.
He then called for anyone else from the public who wished to speak in opposition of this application.
Robert Smith, 28 North Road said that he wanted to read to them the back of the application that the Town has for the public to apply for a variance. He said that Item D gives the instructions and clearly states that a hardship relates to an exceptional difficulty and not to a wish which constitutes a personal license to violate the zoning regulations.
Attorney Collier said that he has a note to read into the record from Diane Smith of 28 North Road who is his client. Ms. Smith stated her objection to the garage and said that the corridor is approximately 25’ wide and to allow the encroachment into it of 6’ would greatly affect the quality of life for them and potentially devalue their property.
He also said that Mr. Thompson had submitted a letter from the owners of 6 Elizabeth Street stating that they support any renovations and that he would like them to be aware that they are not abutters to the applicant. He said that he also hopes that they meant any renovations that pertain to the law. He said that he thinks that they have heard their concerns and that they all understand the rigorous requirements for a hardship and they just are not here.
Diane Smith, 28 North Road said that she wanted to address the letter from the Rocamora’s as they do not abut the property and would not be affected by this at all.
Mr. Mountzoures asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak.
Tony Thompson, representing the applicant said that it is due to the odd shaped lot that they felt that they had a claim to a variance. The setbacks are excessive and he said that he wants it on the record that the request has nothing to do with their wants or desire for a two-car garage. He said that he never made the statement that ‘want’ was the reason or that they were trying to push the envelope as they were leaving room for fire and movement around the structure as they are abutting a grassy area. He said that he did not see the photographs.
Mr. Mountzoures presented the photographs to Mr. Thompson.
Attorney Collier, representing the Smiths’ said that Mr. Thompson has asked if the pictures show an area where a portion of the garage would appear. He said that they are saying that they would see a portion of the garage in the photographs. He pointed this out to Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson said that he is not sure that seeing a portion of a structure is a reason for denial and that they are again, only asking for a 6’ variance and that they tried to clip it and to make it inconspicuous. The lot is unusual and not something that you would find in many lots.
Mr. Mountzoures said that he thinks that they are losing sight of the hardship and that they can build a garage there without a variance just not the size garage that they are looking for.
Mr. Thompson said that they have tried to push the garage around on the property and that they are here because they feel that it is a reasonable application.
Mr. Mountzoures asked if the Board had any other questions that they wanted to ask.
Hearing none - he said that he would now close the Public Hearing.
Mr. Mountzoures closed this Public Hearing at 8:15 PM.
Mr. Mountzoures said that they would now deliberate and make a decision on the application.
Mr. Mountzoures said that the only comments that they can take now are from the applicant and only if they have technical questions that they need answered. He also informed the applicant that in the event that they wish to contest the decision that they have 15 days to appeal it to the Superior Court.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Mountzoures opened the Regular Meeting at 8:16 PM.
Case No. 5-2007: Application of John Petrillo for a request of a variance of Section 7.3.3 of the East Lyme Zoning Regulations to construct a garage on the property identified in the application as 2 Elizabeth Street, Niantic, Connecticut. East Lyme Assessor’s Map 22.14, Lot 80.
Mr. Mountzoures called for discussion.
Mr. Boguszewski said that he is having trouble seeing what the hardship is here. It seems to be a personal preference as they can have a garage just not the size that they want.
Mr. Hunt said that the applicant according to drawings and verbiage has asked for a 24’ wide garage. He said that he would have preferred that size himself, but did not have the room and ended up with a 16’ wide garage. In order to put this garage in this location, they would have to have a side yard of 12’ and they only have 6’. That is the case, they can talk about aesthetics, the view of the water and a number of cases as Counsel has recited, but the fact remains that the applicant has applied for a 24’ wide garage x 28’ deep but he does not justify it by showing that he meets the requirements. And, he does not as he is shy on the side yard by 6’.
Mr. Saunders said that he agrees with Mr. Hunt and does not see a hardship. The fact is that they applied for a 24’ wide garage. He also said that there are a lot of lots like that around and that in fact, he owns one of them.
Mr. Mostowy said that he does not see any hardship here other than what is self-imposed and that does not constitute a hardship.
Mr. Mountzoures agreed with his fellow Board members and said that the ‘hardship’ here is self-imposed and personal and does not constitute a legal hardship.
Mr. Mountzoures asked if they were ready to make a motion -
Mr. Saunders said that he would make one –
**MOTION (1)
Mr. Saunders moved to DENY the Application of John Petrillo for a request of a variance of Section 7.3.3 of the East Lyme Zoning Regulations to construct a garage on the property identified in the application as 2 Elizabeth Street, Niantic, Connecticut. East Lyme Assessor’s Map 22.14, Lot 80. Reasons for denial are that there is no hardship inherent in the land and the application does not meet the standard by which a hardship could be approved.
Mr. Mostowy seconded the motion.
Mr. Mountzoures called for a vote on the motion.
Vote in Favor to DENY: 5– 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Mr. Mountzoures explained the 15-day appeal process to everyone and then called for a motion to adjourn.
ADJOURNMENT
**MOTION (2)
Mr. Boguszewski moved to adjourn Case #5-2007 of the East Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals at 8:25 PM.
Mr. Hunt seconded the motion.
Vote in Favor: 5– 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Zmitruk,
Recording Secretary
Back to Top