Meeting report · Zoning Board of Adjustment
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Zoning Board of Adjustment — May 19, 2026
The meeting moved beyond routine administration due to focused debate on legal precedents and the potential for unintended zoning consequences.
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of variance petition 2601 for the construction of a utility shed at 1107 Newport Road.
The variance was granted without conditions to allow the shed to be built in the proposed location despite the front yard setback violation.
Unanimous
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 00:13 Variance Petition 2601 (Wolf Residence)
A continuation of a hearing regarding Stephen and Anita Wolf's request for a variance to construct a utility shed in violation of the front yard setback at 1107 Newport Road.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Stephen Wolf
▶ 03:00 Review of Site Conditions and Utilities
The petitioner presented updated diagrams and explanations regarding utility lines (sanitary sewer, foundation drains), topography, and wet areas to justify why the proposed location is the only reasonable site.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Stephen Wolf
▶ 25:51 Evaluation of Variance Criteria
The Board discussed the five criteria for granting a variance, including public interest, character of the neighborhood, substantial justice, property values, and hardship.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Ann Bedard, Brad
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Variance Petition 2601 (Wolf Residence) and Precedent Setting
While the immediate request was for a utility shed, there was significant debate regarding whether approving a setback violation would set a legal precedent allowing for the future conversion of the structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), which impacts neighborhood character and zoning enforcement.
Board position: The board decided to grant the variance without conditions, choosing not to restrict the future use of the structure to mitigate legal precedent concerns.
Internal dissent
While the final vote was unanimous, Board Member Brad expressed significant reservation during the deliberation regarding the precedent for ADUs.
medium concern
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Apply for a building permit following the variance approval.
Assigned: Stephen Wolf · Due: Next day
Email personal vacation schedules for July and August to the Chair to facilitate summer hearing scheduling.
Assigned: Board Members · Due: Not specified
Notable statements
The hardship value in this particular petition should be what we refer to as Simplex prong two, where we would say no fair and substantial relationship exists between the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property. — Unidentified speaker · Legal analysis of the hardship requirement for the variance. ▶ 32:27
In this day and age, where ADUs are such a big deal... we're setting a precedent for that piece of property. — Brad · Expressing concern that approving a non-conforming structure might set a precedent for future Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). ▶ 38:55
Member positions
1 issues · 0 explicit · 5 inferred
W. Michael Todd
Present
Chair
Variance Petition 2601 (Wolf Residence)
YES
~
Supported approval without conditions
Ann Beardsley Bedard
Present
Vice-Chair
Variance Petition 2601 (Wolf Residence)
YES
~
Supported approval without conditions
Frank Anzalone
Present
Member
Variance Petition 2601 (Wolf Residence)
YES
~
Supported approval without conditions
Steven Root
Present
Member
Variance Petition 2601 (Wolf Residence)
YES
~
Supported approval without conditions
Heidi Lauridsen
Present
Member
Variance Petition 2601 (Wolf Residence)
YES
~
Supported approval without conditions
Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position.
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
2
Total speakers
1
Addressed
1
Partial
0
Not addressed
Steven Wolf
Addressed
The petitioner presented updated diagrams and details regarding the proposed utility shed location. He explained that the selected site is necessary to avoid utility lines, existing wet/swampy areas, and the need to cut down significant trees. He also noted that the proposed location is visually screened from the road and neighbors.
Key concern
Justifying why the specific proposed location for the utility shed is the only reasonable option for the property.
Board responseThe board engaged in an extensive question-and-answer session, asking about alternative sites, utility locations, and the impact on neighbors and property values.
The board reviewed all the evidence provided by the petitioner and ultimately used his explanations to satisfy the legal criteria required to grant the variance.
Brad
Partial
Brad expressed concern regarding the precedent being set by granting a variance for a structure that could potentially be converted into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). He worried that future owners might misunderstand the rules or use this variance to circumvent zoning laws regarding ADU expansions.
Key concern
The risk of setting a legal precedent that could lead to unauthorized or expanded ADU usage on the property in the future.
Board responseThe board discussed the possibility of adding a condition to the approval to limit the structure to a utility shed, but ultimately decided against it, noting they cannot guess at future state or local legislation.
The board acknowledged and debated his concern thoroughly, but they chose not to implement the specific solution (a conditional approval) he was suggesting.
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering New London.
Follow New London
One email when a new report is published from the Zoning Board of Adjustment — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-01.