Trouble in Paradise

ON the morning of Oct. 7, George Kimmerle of Mendham, N.J., decided he was fed up.

He and his wife, Lynn, had spent the last two years trying to obtain zoning approval to renovate the small cottage in the borough of Stonington they had bought in 1996 as a weekend retreat. The cottage is next door to the 160-year-old Stonington Lighthouse, which once guided ships from Watch Hill, R.I., in the east to Fisher's Island, N.Y., in the west.

On Oct. 7, Mr. Kimmerle learned that the Stonington Historical Society, which operates the lighthouse as a museum, was soliciting donations to fight his plan once again. The cottage is small, and the couple had at first wanted to build a 196-square-foot addition with large windows facing the lighthouse. After that plan was rejected by the borough planning and zoning commission, they submitted a 167-square-foot plan, with smaller windows. Now, that plan was meeting community resistance, too, and already their legal fees were approaching $200,000.

Adding to Mr. Kimmerle's frustration was an incident one night just after they moved in, when a group of residents stood outside the cottage yelling, ''Go back to New Jersey!''

So the couple decided to make a statement. On the afternoon of that emotional October Friday, they had their entire house painted black (the borough has no rules against that). They posted a sign on their fence that read in part, ''Our decision to paint our home black is an individual and personal expression of the terrible pain and sense of mourning we feel.''

To say the least, they stopped traffic. Curious residents stood in the street staring at the house. Soon, television news crews were showing up.

''People were telling me you're not part of this community, so this was part of my own personal quiet protest,'' Ms. Kimmerle said. ''And the paint was a lot cheaper than legal fees.''

Neighbors were stunned.

''It was a happy neighborhood, and suddenly there was this blackness,'' said Krystyna Celichowska, who lives next door to the couple. ''The Kimmerles painted it and went home to New Jersey, and now I have to look at it every day. They did it to demonstrate and to punish us.''

This has been a long fight for both sides, and like many zoning battles, it centers on what a community says is best for all residents versus what homeowners want to do with their private property. The problem for the Kimmerles is that they happened to fall in love with a house that is yards away from a historic lighthouse in a borough that has become tired of newcomers who, some residents say, are changing the character of their community.

''I don't think Stonington residents want the village to turn into a Miami Beach,'' said Michael Davis, the president of the Stonington Historical Society. ''We're aware of what's going on in the Hamptons, where people build glitzier and glitzier palaces. That's something we don't want here.''

The Kimmerles' problems with the house began soon after they bought it, four years ago. Mr. Kimmerle, an architect, was visiting the Mystic area with his family in March 1996 when he spotted the small, dilapidated home for sale at the southern tip of Stonington Borough. The family had been searching for a weekend retreat for several years. Mr. Kimmerle liked the location and knew his wife would love the quaint shops and restaurants. He thought the 1,400-square-foot house had potential and, with some renovations, could be perfect.

''I think I've found it,'' Mr. Kimmerle told his wife. Three months later they bought the house for $232,000, a bargain in the pricey borough.

But soon they were hiring lawyers to defend themselves against a suit filed by a neighbor over a fence they had installed on a shared driveway. They won that fight, but it turned out to be nothing compared with the reaction to their application for a permit to renovate the cottage. Part of the Kimmerles' problem is the result of the borough's design review standards, which the commission implemented last year. The standards require that exterior modifications like windows and additions must conform to the historic character of surrounding homes.

The commission implemented the regulations after a growing number of newcomers, mostly from the New York City area and affluent southwestern Connecticut, began buying old houses that had belonged to the families of fishermen and factory workers. They gutted the homes and turned them into larger, modern ones with big windows in their place. The trend angered some residents, who pushed the commission to implement the design review procedure.

The zoning commission rejected the Kimmerles' first plan in 1998 and they appealed the decision to Superior Court, where the case is pending. Earlier this year, Mr. Kimmerle submitted a scaled-back proposal, which the commission is considering. Mr. Kimmerle said that as an architect he frequently appears before zoning agencies and historic commissions and is used to working toward a compromise. But in the borough, he said, the commission, the historical society and some neighbors have repeatedly rebuffed his attempts to meet and agree to some type of revised plan.

The Kimmerles' new plan calls for constructing a 46-square-foot addition to the rear of the home, raising the roof by three feet, eliminating a garage bay, relocating a deck, extending existing dormers and adding a 121-square-foot studio. The historical society has objected to changes to the side of the house that faces the lighthouse, which would receive for two sets of double windows each on the first and second floors.

''It seems totally out of scale,'' Mr. Davis said. ''It seems totally inappropriate for a property in that part of the borough and for a property overlooking the lighthouse. It's a look-at-me approach to building.''

The society has applied for formal intervener status on both of the Kimmerles' applications, which places the burden on the commission to determine that there are no feasible alternatives to the project.

The Kimmerles point out that the society did not object to a recent unsuccessful proposal by the owners of the neighboring Point House to construct a two-story addition even though it exceeded the borough's 30-foot height limit and would have blocked ocean views from the lighthouse tower. They say the society has also not objected to neighboring homeowners who have installed large blocks of windows or to the ongoing construction of a two-story addition with large windows across the street from the lighthouse.

Mr. Davis defended the society's decisions, saying it had limited resources and could not fight every project. He said it did not hire a lawyer to oppose the first Point House application because it knew it would be rejected. The society has considered filing for intervener status for the latest Point House application, which calls for a 3,408-square-foot addition, but has yet to do so. Mr. Davis said the Point House addition would block water views from the lighthouse and break its historical connection with the ocean. He added that the society did not oppose the project across the street because it was in keeping with what it feels is historically appropriate. Other projects were done before the new design standards were implemented.

Mr. Davis says he hates the publicity the controversy has generated.

''We were accused of running a Stalinist regime,'' he said. ''I think that's a very unfair portrayal.''

Mr. Davis says the society doesn't want to stop people from making changes to their homes, but wants to protect the historic fabric of the village.

''The Kimmerles are not bad people,'' said Warden Andrew Maynard, the borough's chief elected official. ''They're friendly folks. I know the members of the commission and the people who are commenting as opponents. Everybody has the best interests of the borough at heart. The feeling that they've been targeted and are not wanted here is just not the case. This is a very welcoming, diverse community.''

The formal process continues with public hearings and commission deliberations, with the final answer expected some time in December.

The Kimmerles, who now fly a ''Don't Tread on Me Flag'' on the house, says they are sure the commission will reject the latest plans.

''My heart tells me we're not the type of people they want here,'' Ms. Kimmerle said. ''But what's wrong with us?''