Chairman Martin Atkins called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

Other Members Present: Carl Graveline, Marianne Byrne, George Havican (alt)
Members Absent: Jeff Slapikas, Lori DaSilva (alt)
Also Present: William Donovan, Clerk/Land Use Inspector

Chairman Atkins seated G. Havican for J. Slapikas

Correspondence: None

Clerical Bill:
Motion by C. Graveline, seconded by G. Havican to pay the clerical bill. Unanimous.

Approval of Minutes:
Motion by M. Byrne, seconded by C. Graveline to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2007 meeting as presented. Unanimous.

New Business:
Chairman Atkins called for a motion to add Dorothy Shea, 2 Maple Drive to the agenda under "New Business". Motion by M. Byrne, seconded by G. Havican to add Dorothy Shea to the agenda. Unanimous.

a. Dorothy Shea, 2 Maple Drive. Application for a 5-foot front property line variance for an attachea garage. Mrs. Shea stated she is seeking to add an attached garage. Her son, Don Shea was also in attendance. Mr. Shea stated they are limited to putting the garage at this location because of the septic in the rear and location of existing mudroom. After discussion with the board, it was agreed to increase the requested variance to a 7-foot front property line variance. M. Byrne asked if there is an existing garage on the property. Mrs. Shea stated there is not. This proposed building will be a one-car garage. Motion by M. Byrne, seconded by C. Graveline to accept Application 06-2007 of Dorothy Shea for a 7-foot front property line variance for an attached garage. Unanimous. A public hearing was scheduled for August 28, 2007 at 7:10 p.m.

Public Hearings:
a. 7:15 p.m. Application 05-2007: Michael J. Gerrity, 87 Union City Road for a 20-foot sideline and 15-foot front property line variance for an attached garage. Chairman Atkins read into the record the "Notice of Public Hearing" as it appeared in the Republican American on July 13 & 20, 2007. Mr. Gerrity stated he is seeking to add an attached 24' x 42' garage addition to his home. He presented receipts ol certified mailings to surrounding property owners and additional architectural drawings and pictures oi the proposed addition and property. Chairman Atkins confirmed the proposed addition will be a two-car garage with potential upper level living space. The Chairman asked for a hardship relative to the requested variance. Mr. Gerrity stated his lot is smaller (Vz acre) than currently permitted under zoning. The septic is located in the back yard and consumes a major portion of the rear property. He has city water. C. Graveline questioned the distances showing on the map presented compared to the plans presented at the last meeting. Mr. Gerrity stated his engineer is certain with the accuracy of the location ol the proposed garage to the property lines as shown on the revised plans. It was discussed that the original variances would not be necessary given the revised plans and could be reduced if approved. B. Donovan asked if approved, would cars under restoration on the property be moved into the garage. Mr. Gerrity stated that is his intention. Mr. Gerrity stated the addition will match the house, including remodeling improvements planned for the house itself. Chairman Atkins confirmed with Mr. Gerrity that the proposed garage would not extend any closer to the front properly line than the current house. Mr. Gerrity stated that is correct. Chairman Atkins asked for comments from the oublic. Arthur Gerritv. 256 Soencet Street, Naugatuck is Michael Gerrity's father and supports the requested variances. There were no further comments and the public hearing closed at 7:30 p.m.

Old Business:
Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector/ZEO mentioned he has been discussing the zoning regulations regarding non-conformities with the Town's attorney. Specifically, the regulations say the degree of non-conformity can not be increased (unless approved by the ZBA). He questioned the board on how they would view an application for a structure that is located within the properly setback where the applicant wants to extend the length of the structure without causing the addition to be any closer to a property line than the existing non-conforming structure, and also an application for a second-story addition that would not be closer to a property line than the existing structure. Does the board see either oi these two scenarios as causing an increase in the degree of the non-conformity, i.e. a non-conforming addition on a building that is existing non-conforming? After consideration, it was the board's feeling thai any addition that does not increase the existing foot-print of a structure does not increase the degree of the non-conformity; any addition that would expand the structure's footprint causing the non-conformity to increase in length or width would increase the degree of the non-conformity and require a variance.

Action on applications:
a. Application 05-2007: Michael J, Gerrity, 87 Union City Road for a 20-foot sideline and 15-foot from property line variance for an attached garage. Motion by M. Byrne, seconded C. Graveline to approve the application as presented. Discussion: M. Byrne stated she feels the sideline variance needs to be reduced based upon the revised plans presented at the public hearing. It was determined a 13-foot sideline variance would be sufficient. The board also agreed the front line variance can be reduced from what is being requested. The board would have to base their decision for a variance on the site layout plan as presented by the applicant. The roof line of the proposed garage could be extended 2-feet forward of the foundation. The board affirmed the new structure can not be closer to the front property line than the existing house. M. Byrne withdrew her motion and made a new motion to approve a front property line variance necessary only to place the front of the proposed garage parallel to the front of the existing house and a 13-foot left sideline variance for the garage. A condition of approval was included with the motion that an "As-Built" survey of the property showing the exact location and distance of both the existing house and proposed garage to the front property line and left side line be filed with the Land Use Inspector. In favor: Unanimous. Reasons: The Chairman noted the small size of the lot, location of the septic restricting building in the rear of the property and the improvement to the property resulting from this addition.

Public Participation: None

Adjournment: Motion by M Byrne, seconded by C. Graveline to adjourn at 7:55 p.m. Unanimous.

Martin Atkins, Chairman