EAST LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Scrolling down or clicking the bookmarks will take you to the minutes for meetings held in November.

Case No. 6-2007

EAST LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING

Monday, NOVEMBER 19th, 2007

MINUTES

A Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the East Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, November 19, 2007 at 7:30 PM at the East Lyme Town Hall, 108 Pennsylvania Avenue, Niantic, CT.

PRESENT: Tom Boguszewski, Acting Chairman, Leo Mostowy, Acting Secretary, Craig Mason, Skip Saunders, Alternate

ALSO PRESENT: Seymour & Jessie May Kessler, Applicants

ABSENT: Bill Mountzoures, Chairman, H. Peter Hunt, Secretary, Shawn McLaughlin, Alternate, Flo Hurley, Alternate

1. Call Public Hearing to Order

Acting Chairman Boguszewski 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. Boguszewski asked Mr. Mostowy, Acting Secretary to read the notice of the Public Hearing:

Case No. 6-2007: Application of Seymour Kessler for a request of a variance of Section 9.3.3 of the East Lyme Zoning Regulations to construct a garage on the property identified in the application as 51 Hope Street, Niantic, Connecticut. Said parcel appears on the East Lyme Assessor’s Map 11.2, Lot 124.

The Public Hearing notice was sent to the New London Day for publication on 11/5/07 and 11/15/07.

Mr. Boguszewski 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. Boguszewski called for the applicant or their representative to make their presentation.

Seymour Kessler, 49-51 Hope Street said that he and his wife purchased the property two (2) years ago. He submitted a picture of the property for those who had not been able to come out and view it. This was entered into the record as Exhibit A. He continued that his intention at the time that he purchased the property was to put a 2-car garage on the site for use by himself and his tenant. He said that he is requesting an 8’ variance from the 10’ setback on the east side of the property for a length of 24’ for the garage and of 12’ for the shed in the back yard. The remainder of the 149’ length would meet the 10’ setback requirement.

Mr. Boguszewski said that he was not sure that they should be discussing the shed in the back yard as it is not a part of the variance. He asked when the shed was placed there.

Mr. Kessler said that it was put there after he purchased the property and that he has mentioned it because it now falls within the 10’ setback as he had the property surveyed this past June when he was ready to put up the garage. When the property was surveyed, it was found that he actually owns 10’ less on the east side of the property than was originally thought and the shed had been placed on what he thought was his property. The garage that he is looking to put up is 20’ W x 24’ L and that would only leave 2’ on the east side for that 24’. He said that someone had suggested to him that he make the garage narrower but he would still need a variance; and he would like the garage to be for two cars – one for him and one for the tenant.

Mr. Boguszewski asked Mr. Kessler if there were pins on the property when he bought it.

Mr. Kessler said that there were the two pins on the west side but none on the east side which is why he had the property surveyed prior to doing the garage. He said that while he understands what it states regarding a hardship on the back of the application; that Section 9.3 would apply in this case as it stated that while personal hardships are not grounds for a variance that situations that existed prior to the purchase that the purchaser is unaware of might provide for some sort of relief. He said that he falls in this class as he did not know that he had less property.

Mr. Saunders asked Mr. Kessler if – when they did the survey, they used to deed to do it.

Mr. Kessler said yes.

Mr. Mason asked if the reason for not putting the garage behind the house was the maple tree that is located there.

Mr. Kessler said yes and added that the septic tank is located to the right of it and that he believes that they have to stay 25’ away from the septic tank.

Mr. Mason said that he believes that it is 15’ that they have to stay away from the septic tank.

Mr. Saunders asked if the shed is removable.

Mr. Kessler said that he did call the people who installed it and that they said that they would move it for $250 and some other hourly fee. They originally placed it there from a trailer.

Mr. Mostowy said that the tree in the back yard is a multi-trunk type of tree and that some of the trunks are half rotted and it looks like it will need to come down at some point in the future if the wind does not blow it down before then. Taking it down would provide the room for a garage.

Mr. Kessler said that he had the tree looked at and trimmed two years ago when he bought the house and that they said that it would be okay.

Mr. Boguszewski asked how much room there is from the back of the house to the septic system.

Mr. Kessler said that he did not know and would have to measure it.

Mr. Boguszewski called for anyone else who wished to speak in favor of this application -

Hearing no one –

Mr. Boguszewski called for anyone who wished to speak in opposition to this application –

Hearing no one –

Mr. Boguszewski asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak.

Hearing no one –

Mr. Boguszewski asked the Board members if they had any other questions.

Hearing none - he said that he would now close the Public Hearing.

Mr. Boguszewski closed this Public Hearing at 7:51 PM.

Mr. Boguszewski said that they would now deliberate and make a decision on the application.

Mr. Boguszewski explained 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. Boguszewski opened the Regular Meeting at 7:52 PM.

Mr. Boguszewski called for discussion.

Mr. Mason said that he hates to say this but the tree being in the back yard is not a hardship.

Mr. Saunders said that he feels badly about this and that he would be mad if he bought the house this way and thought he had more land than he actually has – especially with a nice back yard. But – it is true that this is not a hardship. He asked to review Section 9.3.

Mr. Boguszewski re-read Section 9.3 and said that there really is no hardship here as the tree can be removed and it would allow for a garage as there is room in the back yard.

Mr. Mostowy asked Mr. Kessler if he had made an inquiry with the neighbor regarding buying that 10’ strip of land.

Mr. Kessler said that he had and that the owner lives in Greenwich and after a number of weeks got back to him and said no. He said that he understands that the adjacent properties will be torn down and that apartments will be constructed which, if that is the case, would most likely make the property near him a paved parking area.

Mr. Boguszewski asked if they were ready to make a motion.

Mr. Mason said that he would make one –

**MOTION (1)

Mr. Mason moved to DENY the Application of Seymour Kessler for a request of a variance of Section 9.3.3 of the East Lyme Zoning Regulations to construct a garage on the property identified in the application as 51 Hope Street, Niantic, Connecticut. Said parcel appears on the East Lyme Assessor’s Map 11.2, Lot 124.

Mr. Saunders seconded the motion.

Mr. Boguszewski called for a vote on the motion.

Vote in Favor to DENY: 4 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.

Mr. Mostowy said that the reason for denial is that the land does not present a hardship and that there are other means that can be employed here to enable having a garage on the property.

Mr. Boguszewski asked if anyone had any other business –

Hearing none –

Mr. Boguszewski called for a motion to adjourn.

ADJOURNMENT

**MOTION (2)

Mr. Saunders moved to adjourn Case #6-2007 of the East Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals at 8:02 PM.

Mr. Mason seconded the motion.

Vote in Favor: 4 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Zmitruk,

Recording Secretary