MINUTES OF THE CUMBERLAND ZONING BOARD MEETING
HELD AT
THE CUMBERLAND PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM
AND ALSO VIRTUAL CAPABILITY ON THE ZOOM PLATFORM,
1379 DIAMOND HILL ROAD, CUMBERLAND, RHODE ISLAND
ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2022 AT 7:00 P.M.
ZONING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT WERE THE FOLLOWING
John McCoy, Chairman
Mike McGrath
Joseph Craveiro
Robert Chaput
Christopher Alger, 1st. Alt
Diane Emerson, 2nd Alt.
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Skwirz, Esquire, Counsel to the Zoning Board
Kevin Joyce, Building Inspector
Dolly Rousseau, Zoning Clerk
* * * * * * * * * *
Mr. McCoy called the meeting to order at 6:57 p.m., and all the Members of the Board listed above were present.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mr. McCoy stated that the Board has some abbreviated minutes from last month when the Board did not have a quorum. Mr. McCoy stated that he was the only one who was there, along with Ms. Emerson. Mr. McCoy stated to Ms. Emerson that he thought they looked accurate, and Ms. Emerson agreed. Mr. McCoy stated he did not see any problem with those, but the Board has those minutes.
* * * * * * * * * *
22‑10. Sheila M. Quinn, of 273 Abbott Run Valley Road, Cumberland, RI 02864, has petitioned this board for a Dimensional Variance for relief of minimum rear yard setback. Article 18‑2, Section (a). Described as Assessor's Plat 026, Lot(s) 0255, and Designated Zone R‑1. Located at 273 Abbott Run Valley Road, Cumberland, RI 02864.
Sheila M. Quinn came forward, was sworn, and presented her case for dimensional variance to the Board. She stated that she bought the house in 2011, and it was built in 1939. She stated it is a cottage, one of the original in the Sleepy Hollow plats. Ms. Quinn stated there were some renovations done to it before she bought it in 2011 to bring it into the modern era, but it has one bathroom. She stated that she would like to take a closet and make another bathroom and add on to the back to make it even with the back entrance. She stated that she just wanted to square off the back, and you cannot even see it from the street. She stated she was going to move her washer and dryer upstairs to the living level and put a closet in the second bedroom where she was taking away the other closet for the bathroom. Mr. McCoy asked who the neighbor in the back was, and Ms. Quinn answered that she has testimony or approval from all her abutting neighbors. McCoy confirmed that by stating the Board has the letters in the packet.
No one else came forward to speak either in favor or against this request.
After brief hearing, Mr. Chaput made a motion to grant a 12‑foot rear yard variance to this property to allow Ms. Quinn, essentially, to even off the rear of her dwelling. He stated that, although it is nonconforming, it was nonconforming before, and she is not moving further into the rear yard. She is just extending parts of the house that do not reach quite that far to the rear to even off that back line.
As findings, Mr. Chaput stated the following:
That the restriction that she is seeking relief from really relates to an existing nonconforming dimension, and it does not increase the nonconformance.
The hardship is not the result of any action that she took and does not result from her desire for financial gain. She wants to remain in the home and just make it more livable, add the bathroom and make it more comfortable.
The granting will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area. The rear of the yard is shielded by fencing. The neighbors are all on board, and the Planning Board seems to be enthusiastic in its recommendation.
The relief granted is the least relief necessary. It only makes sense to do what she is doing in order to accomplish her objective.
If the application were denied, the hardship would be more than a mere inconvenience, simply because she wants to add the bathroom and make her house more livable.
Mr. Chaput stated, therefore, the Board should grant the variance. Mr. McGrath then seconded the motion.
Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion. Mr. McGrath, Mr. Alger, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. Chaput and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
* * * * * * * * * *
22‑12. Laurence and Suzanne Rondeau, of 20 Blissdale Avenue, Cumberland, RI 02864, have petitioned this board for a Dimensional Variance and Special Use Permit for relief of minimum front and side yard setback requirements and two accessory structures and to install a minor ground‑mounted solar installation system. Article 18‑2, Section (a) and Article 18‑4, Section (i) and Articles 18‑8 and 6‑5. Described as Assessor's Plat 016, Lot(s) 0843, and Designated Zone R‑1. Located at 20 Blissdale Avenue, Cumberland, RI 02864.
Laurence Rondeau came forward, was sworn, and testified in favor of his requests to the board.
Mr. Rondeau stated that what they were hoping to do is they have an opportunity to get solar panels from a friend who runs a solar company. He stated that they are the older vogue style, and they would not get this opportunity again. Mr. Rondeau stated that he has 40 that he can give them that are just taking up space in his warehouse. Mr. Rondeau stated that they are a style that people do not want any more, even though they are very efficient; and he stated they use a lot of electricity at their place.
Mr. Rondeau went into much greater detail about his requests for variance and Special Use Permit.
After Mr. Rondeau made his presentation, Ms. Justine Faucher, of 36 Blissdale Avenue, came forward and stated that she did not care what Mr. Rondeau did on his property. She just had some questions. Ms. Faucher then raised her questions with the Board, and her questions were answered.
No one else came forward to speak either in favor or against these requests.
After hearing, Mr. Chaput made a motion to approve the variances that are described so clearly on the Planning Board's memorandum of October 27th, 2022, and those variances are specified right there; Mr. Chaput stated that, rather than repeat them all, the Board will incorporate that document by reference in this motion.
As findings of fact, Mr. Chaput stated the following:
The applicant has made his explanation of what he is doing and why he wants to do it. What he is doing is very much approved by the Town by the Comprehensive Plan. By common sense, he is trying to bring solar renewable energy to his property to save electricity and to reduce the use of fossil fuels. It is a laudible purpose, and these variances are going to allow him to do that.
The restrictions, and there are a number of them, are because of the unique nature of the property, the amount of sunlight that is available, and not to do with the physical or economic disability of the applicant. In terms of the front yard, it is not even against the street as such.
It is really a variance from the lot line of his neighbor in front between him and the street, and his neighbor is certainly in favor of that.
The hardship is not the result of any prior action, does not result from him to apply for financial gain. It is not financial gain, so much as saving money that we would all love to do by the use of solar energy.
The granting will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area. As the Planning Board has mentioned in its memorandum, it is barely visible to anyone but the immediate neighbors, and it is pretty far off the road and is not going to show.
The relief to be granted is the least relief necessary. There is some question about that third shed, but the board has kind of recognized the usefulness to the applicant of it; and there is no logical reason, given the size of the lot, to force him to remove it.
If the application were denied, the hardship would be more than a mere inconvenience because he is looking to do something that we would all like to do; and not to do it when he has the opportunity and has a chance to get some free solar panels, which we also would all love to get, it would be much more than a mere inconvenience.
Mr. Chaput, therefore, recommended the Board approve those dimensional variances.
Mr. Chaput stated that, in terms of the Special Use Permit, he is looking to have to have a ground‑mounted minimal, small solar array, and that use is permitted by Use Code 92(b); and he has included, and he is in accordance with, all the special characteristics and requirements of that section.
Mr. Chaput stated that it is the least relief necessary, and the Board should grant it. It just makes sense to give him the Special Use Permit to allow him to do this project. Mr. McGrath then seconded the motions.
Mr. McCoy stated that the only thing he would add is the testimony that Mr. Rondeau is not clearing any trees on his lot, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for solar panels. Mr. McCoy stated he would just throw that in there as well.
Mr. Chaput also added the qualification that he plant the planting along the northern portion.
Mr. McCoy stated that it would be with the conditions set forth.
Mr. McCoy then asked Mr. Skwirz if there should be two votes, and Mr. Skwirz answered that it would make sense, one for the variances and one for the Special Use Permit.
Mr. McCoy stated that the Board would first vote on the request for the dimensional variance as outlined in the motion by Mr. Chaput, incorporating the Planning Department memorandum. Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the requested dimensional variance. Mr. McGrath, Mr. Alger, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. Chaput and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion.
THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
Mr. McCoy then asked for a vote on the Special Use Permit, as outlined in the motion by Mr. Chaput, and also with the condition as set forth by the Planning Board for the 12‑foot buffer. Mr. McGrath, Mr. Alger, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. Chaput and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
* * * * * * * * * *
22‑13. Scott Langton, of 25 Dulles Street, Cumberland, RI 02864, has petitioned this board for a Dimensional Variance for relief of minimum rear yard setback requirement to build a garage. Article 18‑2, Section (a) and Article 6‑3, Section (b)‑2. Described as Assessor's Plat 054, Lot(s) 0334, and Designate Zone R‑1. Located at 25 Dulles Street, Cumberland, RI 02864.
Attorney Scott Partington was present to represent Mr. Langton on this request for dimensional variance. Mr. Partington stated that this property, as idenitifed by Mr. McCoy, is an 11,000 square foot lot, and it is located in a pretty densely‑populated single‑family residential area. He stated that the the intent here is for Mr. Langton to construct a detached, two‑bay garage for the purpose of pursuing a hobby of his that he long intended to indulge in upon his semi‑retirement. Mr. Partington stated he is still working, and certain circumstances in his life have tradgically made this more do‑able in a couple of ways. Mr. Partington stated that the Planning Department did an incredibly detailed job in its staff report about describing the intent and describing the surrounding area with its recommendation.
Mr. Partington stated that, in this case, and the Planning Department agrees, this is your textbook corner lot that has two front yards, two rear yards, so you are faced with a much larger setback. He stated that they have the west end of the property which is also a rear yard; and, instead of being a 10‑foot setback, it is now at 25 feet. Mr. Partington went into more detail about this proposed dimensional variance.
Mr. Partington then presented as a witness Scott Langton, who testified in favor of his request.
Mr. Langton stated that his wife just passed away this past June; and two years ago, also, her father passed away. He stated that, with him passing away, they inherited his house in Manville, and there is also a couple of cars involved. One is an old Chevy, which was his wife's grandmother's car that she bought brand new in 1965, and it is still sitting in Manville. He stated that he has been a mechanic for 30 plus years, and he has been wanting to get ahold of this car; and he also has a '31 Ford as well that came through another death in the family; and that is sitting out in the yard. Mr. Langton stated that he also has property up in Maine. He stated, going to the size of the garage, he has property up in Maine where they used to go snowmobiling; and he has ATV's, and those are all packed around in his yard. Mr. Langton stated that what he is looking to do is to have a place where he can, with his 16‑year‑old son, get these two cars back into shape, back into running condition, and be able to store his snowmobiles and ATV's. He stated that, as far as the RV, that was a thing that his wife had wanted while she was sick. She wanted to travel, and they just never had the time to do it. He stated that there are two items that he had to fix on it, one of which he took care of already, and one other item that he has to take care of; and then it is going up for sale, and it is going away. He stated that he hated to see it go, but he just did not have a use for it.
Mr. Langton went into further detail as to his reasons for requesting this dimensional variance.
After Mr. Partington finished his presentation, Mr. McCoy asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard on this matter. Mark Hachey, of 26 Dulles Street, Cumberland, came forward and testified against this request. Mr. Hachey stated that this looked to him that the land is tiny, and it looks like it is all house. He stated that, with the addition of those two garages and the one that he already has, you would be talking about four existing cars that he already has on the property, with two more additional that will be stored on the property. Mr. Hachey stated that to him it sounds like a repair shop. Mr. Hachey stated he is directly across the street, and he could see a lot of the trailers that are along the side; and, if those trailers are going to be stored in that two‑car garage along with two cars, he is going to have to do a lot of moving around to get those trailers out. Mr. Hachey stated the he is also going to have to be looking at maybe repairs going on all the time, whether it be air tools or whatever else that he plans on doing with those vehicles. Mr. Hachey stated that, as to what he has now, he has one vehicle in his one‑car garage, the two vehicles that he uses, him and his son, and then another extra car; so, there are four cars already on the property. Mr. Hachey stated that to him it just looks like a lot of house jammed in a small little lot with a lot of cars and a lot of noise going on, and he stated that he has a problem with that.
No one else came forward to speak either in favor or against this request for dimensional variance.
After hearing, Mr. Chaput made a motion to grant a 17‑foot rear yard variance to this property, with the rear yard being off New Clark Road, the northwestern border of the property, to allow the applicant to construct a 25 X 30‑foot double garage that he intends and wishes to construct. Mr. Chaput stated he would make it easy on himself and on the Board because Mr. Partington always in his application makes such a wonderful discussion of the standards that the Board has to follow, so he is going to incorporate that discussion by reference to take advantage of Mr. Partington's efforts.
Mr. Chaput stated that, although it is busy and it is full, it does look like a reasonable way of probably improving the quality of the neighborhood by getting some of those vehicles out of the yard and into a garage. He further stated that he is not the only person that has old cars that he likes to work on, and it looks like a good place to put them. Mr. Chaput stated that, all things being equal, it looks to be a good project, and he recommended that the Board approve the variance.
Mr. McCoy asked Mr. Chaput if he wanted to note for the record as recommended by Mr. Skwirz.
Mr. Chaput then added that the Board should note for the record that, although the Planning Department asked for a condition of removing the RV, this Board did not think that is appropriate; however, the Board would note for the record that the applicant has agreed to remove that RV from the property.
The motion was then seconded by Mr. McGrath. Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion. Mr. McGrath, Mr. Alger, Mr. Craveiro, Mr. Chaput and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mr. McGrath then made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Chaput seconded the motion. Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion, and THE MOTION WAS APPOVED 5‑0.
(THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:38 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 of my ability, of my stenographic notes taken at the Cumberland Zoning Board Meeting on November 9, 2022.
Andrew J. D'Angelo
ANDREW J. D'ANGELO,
Court Reporter
(Signed Electronically)