MINUTES OF THE CUMBERLAND ZONING BOARD MEETING
HELD VIA ONLINE ZOOM WEBINAR
ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2020 AT 7:00 P.M.
ZONING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT WERE THE FOLLOWING:
John McCoy, Chairman
Robert Chaput, Vice‑Chairman
Joseph Craveiro
Mike McGrath
Edward G. LeBlanc
Ryan Antrop, 1st Alternate
Evan Elgin, 2nd Alternate
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Skwirz, Esquire, Counsel to the Zoning Board
Brad Ward, Building Official
Dolly Rousseau, Zoning Clerk
* * * * * * * * * *
Mr. McCoy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and all the Members of the Board listed above were present.
* * * * * * * * * *
20‑11. Tammy L. LaCoste, of 14 Torrey Road, Cumberland, RI 02864, has petitioned this board for an Appeal of Notice of Violation dated August 21, 2020 for more than two living units on one parcel. RIGL 45‑24‑63 and Article 17, Section 17‑11. Described as Assessor's Plat 057, Lot(s) 0090, and designated Zone A‑2. Located at 14 Torrey Road, Cumberland, RI 02864.
Mr. McCoy stated that the Board has one matter, 20‑11, Tammy LaCoste, of 14 Torrey Road.
He stated the Board received a letter from Mr. Mancini asking to continue this matter, but there are also notice issues, and he asked Mr. Skwirz to weigh in on the matter.
Mr. Skwirz stated there was the request for a continuance, and there was also a question about the notice being provided to abutters for the hearing; and, because of that, a continuance would be appropriate. Mr. McCoy stated that he agreed, and the letter came first. Mr. McCoy stated that, unless there are any safety issues, he was inclined to grant continuances. He stated he did not think there is any safety issue on this matter, and it is not like it is an attractive nuisance or a house that is not boarded up, and he saw no harm to the Town or to anyone else to continue this, plus the fact now that there are apparently notice issues. Mr. McCoy further stated that this matter will be continued to the February meeting, which will be February 10th; and he stated, unless anyone had any objection, he would listen to a motion to continue this matter, based upon the request, to the February 10th, 2021 meeting. Mr. LeBlanc so moved the motion to continue the matter. Mr. Chaput seconded the motion.
Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion. Mr. Chaput, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. McGrath, Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
* * * * * * * * * *
After further discussion, Mr. McCoy asked for a motion to adjourn the Board of Review sitting as the Board of Appeals. Mr. Chaput so moved the motion to adjourn, and the motion was seconded by Mr. McGrath. Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion. Mr. Chaput, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. McGrath,
Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mr. McCoy stated the Board has the minutes from the last meeting of November 11 and asked if everyone had a chance to look at them. He stated that, unless there are any comments or edits, he would take a motion to approve the minutes.
Mr. Chaput so moved the motion to approve the minutes of November 11. Mr. McGrath seconded the motion. Mr. Chaput, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. McGrath,
Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
* * * * * * * * * *
20‑06. Joseph J. Pacheco, of 112 Dexter Street, Cumberland, RI 02864 has petitioned this Board for a Dimensional Variance for an addition of a garage in the rear yard setback. Article 18‑2, Section (a). Described as Assessor's Plat 007, Lot(s) 0676, and Designated Zone R‑2. Located at 112 Dexter Street, Cumberland, RI 02864.
Mr. McCoy stated that the Board has 20‑06, Joseph J. Pacheco, and he asked Mr. Skwirz if he could see if Mr. Pacheco was present this month.
Mr. McCoy stated that he was not able to make it last month, and Mr. McCoy asked Mr. Skwirz if he could see Mr. Pacheco in the queue. Mr. Skwirz stated he could not see Mr. Pacheco.
After further discussion, Mr. McCoy stated that he would give Mr. Pacheco one more time tonight, and the Board would go through the other matters. Mr. McCoy stated that, if he does not appear, then his inclination is to just pass this matter without prejudice. Mr. McCoy stated he would be free to refile, but he has not responded to the Clerk or appeared in two meetings, so he may not be looking to pursue this. Mr. McCoy stated that he would hold the matter for now and take it up at the end of the calendar to see if he is here.
* * * * * * * * * *
20‑12. Erik Brouillard, of 9 Tuscan Court, Cumberland, RI 02864, has petitioned this board for a Dimensional Variance for relief of minimum rear yard setback for the location of the proposed shed. Article 18‑2, Section (a). Described as Assessor's Plat 029, Lot(s) 0178, and Designated Zone A‑2. Located at 9 Tuscan Court, Cumberland, RI 02864.
Mr. McCoy stated his understanding on this case is there are no Planning Department comments because Mr. Brouillard needs to redo this because it did not show setbacks. Mr. Skwirz stated that was correct. Mr. McGrath then stated that he was at 9 Tuscan Court today, and Mr. Brouillard indicated he thought he was going to be on for the January meeting. Mr. McCoy stated it is probably going to be the February meeting, rather than the January meeting. He stated the problem is that the Planning Board is not meeting in December, and the Board will not have a recommendation until the February meeting.
Mr. McCoy then asked for a motion to continue this matter to the February 10 meeting; and, assuming the motion is passed, he asked Dolly to reach out to Mr. Brouillard and make sure he understands that it is the February 10th meeting that he will be coming back for.
Mr. McGrath then so moved the motion to continue this matter to February 10. Mr. LeBlanc seconded the motion. Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion. Mr. Chaput, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. McGrath, Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion.
THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
* * * * * * * * * *
20‑13. Deborah B. Hall, of 29 Blissdale Avenue, Cumberland, RI 02864, has petitioned this Board for a Dimensional Variance for an addition of an accessory dwelling unit and for expanding the accessory structure in front of the main residence. Article 18‑2, Section (a), Section 6‑6 and Section 6‑5(c). Described as Assessor's Plat 016, Lot(s) 0536, and Designated Zone R‑1 Located at 29 Blissdale Avenue, Cumberland, RI 02864.
Attorney Scott Partington was present to represent Ms. Hall on this request for Dimensional Variance. In support of this request, Mr. Partington presented Deborah Hall as a witness. Ms. Hall came forward, was sworn, and testifed in favor of this request for variance. Through questioning by Mr. Partington, Ms. Hall testified that she is the owner and applicant in this matter. She stated that she wanted to improve an accessory family dwelling unit for her mother, who is 83 years old. She also stated that she wanted her mother, for privacy purposes, to have a separate location from the main residence.
During the hearing, Mr. McCoy stated that it says in the application that they are looking to have an accessory dwelling unit of 1,010 square feet, and he asked Ms. Hall if there was only one bedroom. Ms. Hall answered that was correct. Mr. McCoy also asked if there was only one utility coming in or one bill from National Grid, and Ms. Hall again answered yes. Mr. McCoy also asked Ms. Hall to speak about the rest of the layout of the dwelling unit, and Ms. Hall stated there would be one bedroom, a bathroom, a kitchen and a living room.
Further discussion ensued between
Mr. Partington, his client, and the Members of the Board. No one else came forward to speak on this request.
After hearing, Mr. Chaput made a motion to grant a variance of a number of square feet allowable, so that the applicant can expand the existing accessory dwelling to 1,010 square feet, and not to exceed that amount; also, that the Board allow a variance to allow the accessory structure to remain somewhere between 25 and 31 linear feet in front of the main building. He stated those two items need to be given a variance.
Mr. Chaput stated that the variance must be subject to a couple of conditions:
Number 1, that the accessory dwelling comply with all provisions of Section 6‑6 which are enumerated in the application and the Planning Board's memo; and, also, that the variance would be subject to the removal of the existing shed, which is on the southern boundary of the property.
Mr. Chaput stated, in terms of the standards that need to be met, the following:
It really is due to the nature of the property but also the need to construct a decent accessory dwelling unit which is something not only allowed but encouraged by the Ordinance.
The hardship is not a result of any prior action of the applicant. She is trying to give a decent living space for her elderly parent, and it looks like it is done very nicely.
The granting will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area. Mr. Chaput stated the Board has seen from the Planning Board's memo that they had no problems with it in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is not really visible to the public because it is set so far back off the road, like 250 feet away from the road.
The relief to be granted is the least relief necessary. Even though the proposed accessory dwelling unit is somewhat larger than what is called for in the Ordinance, it really is a decent size apartment for a single person, and to make it any smaller than that really does not seem to be very fair or really sensible.
If the application were denied, it would be more than a mere inconvenience. The mother is now trying to live in a very small area with limited heat and not very comfortable, and this is really necessary for her well‑being. Mr. McGrath then seconded the motion. Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion.
Mr. Chaput, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. McGrath, Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion.
THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
* * * * * * * * * *
20‑14. Freedom Bank, a Division of Bristol County Savings Bank, of 584 Putnam Pike, Greenville, RI 02828 has petitioned this board for a Dimensional Variance for a freestanding and directional signs, Maximum height, Maximum area, and Minimum setback. Article 13‑8, Section 13‑6. Described as Assessor's Plat 033, Lot(s) 0291, and Designated Zone C‑2. Located at 2152 Mendon Road, Cumberland, RI 02864.
Attorney Scott Partington came forward to represent the Freedom Bank on this request for Dimensional Variance. In support of this request, Mr. Partington first presented, as a witness, Mr. Michael Darveau, the President of Darveau Land Surveying, who the Board accepted as an expert witness in land surveying. Mr. Darveau came forward, was sworn, and testified in favor of this request. Through questioning by Mr. Partington, Mr. Darveau reviewed two site plans showing the existing location and dimensions of the signs on the property and also the proposed location and dimensions of the signs to be installed. Mr. Darveau went into great detail on the proposal for the signs on this site.
During discussion, Mr. Elgin stated he was concerned that the width of the large freestanding sign may create a visual block for the people who are coming in and out of the bank on the directional driveway areas. Mr. Partington stated that it is a 15‑foot high sign. Mr. Elgin stated that the post is considerablely wider than the old post. Mr. Darveau stated that the post is two feet wide, and it is located at the center of the sign, which is 106 inches wide, which is almost 10 feet wide.
Mr. Darveau also stated that the edge of the post is almost seven feet off of the right‑of‑way line. Further discussion ensued.
Also during discussion, Mr. Chaput stated that he uses that bank and has pulled through the drive‑thru and the ATM and looked left because of what the Planning Board mentioned in its memo, that it was difficult to see the southbound traffic.
Mr. Chaput stated he did not have any problem seeing the southbound traffic, but he was looking behind the directional sign, between the post of the existing sign and the directional sign. He stated that he was well back from the road and was able to see clearly. Mr. Chaput stated, to Mr. Elgin's point, once that big post goes in for the new sign, that would not be so any more, and it is hard to tell exactly what it is going to look like when you are looking for southbound traffic then.
Mr. Partington then presented Peter St. Jean, who is employed by the Bristol County Savings Bank as the Special Assets Officer. Peter St. Jean was sworn and testified in favor of this request. Through questioning by Mr. Partington, Mr. St. Jean stated he was given the task of making contact about getting relief to make sure that the freestanding sign was permitted and also to monitor the situation.
Mr. St. Jean stated the relief that is being requested is the relief that the bank is seeking, which is the replacement of the freestanding signs; and, also, with respect to the directional signs, the bank would be willing to accomodate the Planning Board with respect to the movement of one of the directional signs by the drive‑thru, and Mr. St. Jean indicated that would be the northern‑most sign on the drive‑thru exit. Further discussion ensued between the Members of the Board, Mr. Partington, and the two witnesses.
When Mr. Partington completed his presentation, Mr. McCoy asked Mr. Skwirz if there were other persons in the queue. Mr. Skwirz stated that there were, and three people came forward, were sworn, and spoke against the granting of this request. They were William and Kathleen Spoerer, of 2133 Mendon Road, and Josh Perlin, of 2137 Mendon Road.
Mr. and Mrs. Spoerer both spoke against the granting of this request for variance. Mr. Spoerer stated his objection was to the granting of the sign being almost twice the size of what is allowed, and Mrs. Spoerer also voiced her objections against the granting of this request.
Then Josh Perlin came forward, was sworn, and stated that he and the Spoerers and one other house are on a shared driveway that is right across from the bank. He stated that he is a new resident, that he has been here for two years and loves the Town. He stated that his real main concern is safety. He stated he has a three‑year‑old dog, and they both walk up and down Mendon Road many times, especially during lockdowns; and the way the new sign is going to be located, it does seem like it is going to block peoples' view looking northbound.
Mr. Perlin further stated that he also owns a dog walking business for the last 13 years, not in Cumberland, but that he has a lot of experience walking on sidewalks; and he stated that he has to think about how people drive versus how they should drive, especially when coming from cross streets or parking lots or driveways. He stated that people pull straight up to the roads many times without really looking, and with that extra two feet blocking now, it being in the center of the site line, he thought it would make it very unsafe to see oncoming traffic and also pedestrians because this part of Mendon Road is extremely busy. Mr. Perlin spoke further about his concerns about the granting of this request.
No one else came forward to speak in this matter. Lengthy discussion ensued. During discussion, Mr. Chaput stated that Mr. Partington summarized exactly what variances he was looking for. Mr. Chaput stated he has a list of what he thought he is asking for; but, before going with a motion, he wanted to make sure that he was going to be doing it correctly.
Mr. Chaput then stated that what they were looking for is to have the main sign at 15.2 feet, where the regulation calls for eight feet; that sign which should be four feet off the right‑of‑way is now going to be two feet off the right‑of‑way; that the size of the directional signs, which the standard is four square feet, they're looking for five‑and‑a‑half or six square feet; and, as to setbacks on the three directional signs, they would be looking for 3.8, only two‑tenths of a foot difference. Mr. Chaput stated that the sign that the Board had so much discussion about, which will be the middle of the three directional signs, also known as the northern‑most of the directional signs by the drive‑thru area, they are looking for a two‑foot variance; and, as to the southernmost directional sign, they are looking for a 4.8 foot variance.
Mr. Chaput then asked Mr. Partington to validate that that is really what they are looking for.
Mr. Partington stated to Mr. Chaput that the only one is with respect to the face area of the directional signs. Mr. Partington stated he believed Mr. Chaput stated, where four square feet is required, but he said five proposed. Mr. Partington stated that it is 6.5 feet, and Mr. McCoy stated that is what he had also.
Further discussion ensued. During discussion, Mr. LeBlanc stated he wanted to talk about the safety issue. He stated that the Spoerers were concerned about the sign's height, and they were advocating for the sign to be limited to the current standard in the Ordinance; and they did not want any deviation from the Ordinance. Mr. McCoy stated he heard it the same way. Mr. LeBlanc stated he did not recall that they had a safety issue with the sign, but he could not recall because there was a lot of noise in that conversation. Mr. McCoy stated he heard the height and objections to that, but he did not hear the safety issue. He stated he thought it was Mr. Perlin that raised safety issues. Mr. LeBlanc answered that Mr. Elgin did also, and Mr. Elgin answered that
Mr. Chaput did also. Mr. LeBlanc stated that the safety is not an outlier here in this issue, and he stated he was just curious if anyone has any thoughts on how the Board might address the safety issue, other than just offering a motion to approve the request. Mr. LeBlanc stated he did not know if engaging some sort of a risk assessment expert to determine the risk of the current sign versus the risk of the potential sign that has the two‑foot stanchion is the answer. He stated that he did not have the answer, other than he just found it worth noting that the safety issue is not an outlier.
Mr. McCoy stated it is not because it is a different kind of sign. Mr. McCoy stated the current sign does not have a post, and the new one does; and none of the Board Members here are traffic engineers.
Mr. McCoy stated it was testified by Mr. Darveau that there is five‑and‑a‑half feet beyond where the new post would be, and that seems like it would be enough to peer around and look northbound; but Mr. McCoy stated he is just speculating.
Mr. Elgin then stated that the one thing he did not think has been properly addressed is pedestrian safety and where people are walking on the sidewalk and the visibility of those people on the sidewalk. He stated there was a lot of discussion around the visibility of being able to see oncoming traffic either turning right or turning left, but Mr. Perlin was talking about the ability for people who are walking on the sidewalk and what the visibility is for that, and Mr. Elgin stated he was not sure that was addressed in any evidence that was presented today.
Mr. Partington asked to speak, and he stated he did not agree. He stated that what was discussed was that the whole idea of moving the middle sign back was to avoid cars inching out, not only to avoid inching into traffic but to avoid more so people on the sidewalk. He also stated that, as far as the freestanding sign goes, if it is 15 feet high, he did not know how it was going to obstruct someone coming out of that driveway and risk a pedestrian getting hit.
Lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Partington stated that, if this debate is going to continue, then Mr. Saint Jean is here, and if he is willing to move it to the next meeting to have someone go out there and put a mock two‑foot post out there, then that is what he would want to do is help the Board. Mr. LeBlanc stated that, if that post is two‑foot wide, he wanted a two‑foot piece of plywood sunk in the ground and left there for a couple of days, or a day, and somebody call him and tell him the post is there or the plywood is there, and he would go down and walk in both directions and drive in both directions and take pictures and satisfy himself that, from a layman's perspective, that he would let his child or his daughter take his grandchild for a walk down the sidewalk. He stated that is the standard he would apply.
Mr. Skwirz stated that Mr. St. Jean could let Mr. Partington know when it was installed; and
Mr. Partington could let him know, and it could be sent out to the Board Members about the time it is going to be up. He stated the Board Members could go individually and then not talk about it until they get back in the next meeting.
Mr. McCoy then stated that the Board would continue this matter to the next hearing which is January 13th. He stated the Board would go out there and take a look, and everybody will be back here and see if this could get finished. He then asked for a motion to continue this matter to January 13.
Mr. McGrath so moved the motion to continue this matter to the January 13 meeting. Mr. McGrath seconded the motion. Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion. Mr. Chaput, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. McGrath, Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
* * * * * * * * * *
20‑06. Joseph J. Pacheco, of 112 Dexter Street, Cumberland, RI 02864 has petitioned this Board for a Dimensional Variance for an addition of a garage in the rear yard setback. Article 18‑2, Section (a). Described as Assessor's Plat 007, Lot(s) 0676, and Designated Zone R‑2. Located at 112 Dexter Street, Cumberland, RI 02864.
Because it was the end of the meeting, Mr. McCoy asked Mr. Skwirz if Mr. Pacheco had shown up. Mr. Skwirz stated that he did not. Mr. McCoy stated that he would be inclined, since Mr. Pacheco had two opportunities, just to pass this without prejudice. Mr. McCoy stated he can refile, but maybe he is not going to proceed. Mr. McCoy stated he did not want to just keep this on the calendar for no reason. Mr. McCoy asked Mr. Skwirz if the Board needed to make a motion to just pass it, and Mr. Skwirz stated that there could be a motion to deny without prejudice, and that way if he wants he can refile. Mr. Chaput then made a motion to pass this matter without prejudice. Mr. LeBlanc seconded the motion. Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion. Mr. Chaput, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. McGrath, Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0. Mr. McCoy stated this matter is passed without prejudice.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mr. McCoy then asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. McGrath then made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. LeBlanc. Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion. Mr. Chaput, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. McGrath, Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
(THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:31 P.M.)
* * * * * * * * * *
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew J. D'Angelo
ANDREW J. D'ANGELO,
Court Reporter
(Signed Electronically)
I hereby certify the foregoing minutes to be a true and accurate interpretation, to the best my ability, of my stenographic notes taken at the Cumberland Zoning Board Meeting on December 9, 2020.
Andrew J. D'Angelo
ANDREW J. D'ANGELO,
Court Reporter
(Signed Electronically)