MINUTES OF THE CUMBERLAND ZONING BOARD MEETING
HELD AT
THE CUMBERLAND TOWN HALL AND
ALSO VIRTUAL CAPABILITY ON THE ZOOM PLATFORM,
45 BROAD STREET, CUMBERLAND, RHODE ISLAND
ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2023 AT 7:00 P.M.
ZONING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT WERE THE FOLLOWING
John McCoy, Chairman
Robert Chaput
Mike McGrath
Joseph Craveiro
Rachael Guadagni
Chris 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 7:02 p.m., and all the Members of the Board listed above were present.
* * * * * * * * * *
23‑01. David Sisson, of 345 Taunton Aveune, East Providence, RI 02914, has petitioned this board for a Dimensional Variance for relief of maximum lot coverage and distance between the main house and carport. Article 18‑2, Section (a). Described as Assessor's Plat 021, Lot 0530, and Designated Zone R‑1. Located at 6 Willow Drive, Cumberland, RI 02864.
David Sisson, of 345 Taunton Avenue in East Providence came forward and identified himself as the architect for this project. Also, Michael Lauzon, of 6 Willow Drive, Cumberland, Rhode Island, came forward and identified himself as the owner of the project. Both were sworn as witnesses and testified in favor of the granting of this application for Dimensional Variance.
Mr. Sisson stated this is a single‑family property with an existing single‑family house on it. He stated that the lot is undersized for the zone and has existing a bit too much lot coverage for the zone. Mr. Sisson stated that the proposed project is to remove an existing single‑car carport, put back a two‑car carport with a storage shed attached to that carport. He stated they are reconfiguring the side entrance to the house a tiny bit to accomodate the carport project and also doing a small addition at the rear for a closet on the master bedroom. He stated that closet addition occupies some of the same space that the existing deck does, and then they are doing an interior renovation, a kitchen and some of the other portions of the house. He stated when they do this, they are increasing the lot coverage slightly, about 150 square feet total; and that is a result of the carport, and it is getting a little bit of pavement underneath it because it is moving in its location ever so slightly on the lot. Mr. Sisson stated they are also also putting the carport a little too close to the house by ordinance.
He stated that the existing carport attaches to the house. Mr. Lauzon concurred that it is presently attached. Mr. Sisson continued that they would be detaching it from the house, and it is about a foot away from the house where they are placing it.
Mr. Sisson stated that their request is for the dimensional variance for the setback of the carport from the house and for a bit of lot coverage. He also stated that the lot coverage is already existing nonconforming, and they are seeking to make it a little bit worse.
Discussion ensued between the Board Members and Mr. Sisson and Mr. Lauzon.
After Mr. Sisson and Mr. Lauzon completed their presentation, Ms. Teresa Misiaszek, of 2 Willow Drive, Cumberland, came forward and stated she did not know where these structures were going to be and she did not want cars closer to her home. Mr. McCoy suggested that Ms. Misiaszek speak to Mr. Sisson and Lauzon in private while Mr. Craveiro read the Planning Board recommendation into the record.
Ms. Misiaszek left the hearing room with Mr. Sisson and Mr. Lauzon for a brief period and then returned. Ms. Misiaszek did not speak any further in this matter. No one else came forward to speak either in favor or against this request.
After hearing, Mr. Chaput made a motion to grant variances to the applicant for Assessor's Plat 21, Lot 530 in two areas. One is for lot coverage.
Mr. Chaput stated that the analysis was pretty accurate and pretty complete, so it looks like they need an increase for lot coverage to 30.1, or about 135 square feet over what they have presently.
Mr. Chaput stated that the second item would be the distance from the accessory structure to the main residence, which the rule seems to be 10 feet, and they are looking at 4.6 feet, although the roof, as the Applicants mentioned, does kind of closely overhang; but, as far as the size of the structure itself, they would need a variance of 6.4 feet.
Mr. Chaput stated that these are the two areas that the Board would need to approve for the variances.
As findings of fact, Mr. Chaput stated the following:
The restriction is due to the unique nature of the lot. As a matter of fact, they pointed out accurately to the Board that the curvature of the lot allows the accessory structure to look as if it is in front of the main residence, when, in fact, it is not.
The hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant. They merely want to improve the property by enlarging the carport and making a couple of minor additions, modifications to the residence.
The granting will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area. The Planning Board has given this a favorable approval memo, and they were unanimous in voting on that issue.
The relief is the least relief necessary. It is a very small, de minimis increase in lot coverage, and the carport being close to the home is very sensible because no one wants to get caught in the rain in a car, and they do not want to be out in the middle of the yard and get soaked.
If the application were denied, the hardship would be more than a mere inconvenience. This is a sensible project, and Mr. Chaput recommended that the Board grant the variances. Mr. McGrath then seconded the motion.
Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion.
Mr. McGrath, Mr. Craveiro, Ms. Guadagni, Mr. Chaput and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion.
THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mr. McCoy stated, before the Board began the hearing on the next case, he had the minutes from the meeting of February 8, 2023. Mr. McGrath then made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 8 meeting. Mr. Chaput seconded the motion. Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion. Mr. McGrath, Mr. Craveiro, Ms. Guadagni, Mr. Chaput and Mr. McCoy all voted in favor of the motion.
THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 5‑0.
* * * * * * * * * *
23‑02. Patrick Malloy, of 54 Highland View Drive, Sutton, MA 01590, has petitioned this Board for a Dimensional Variance for relief of minimum front yard setback. Article 18‑2, Section (a). Described as Assessor's Plat 039, Lot 0219, and Designated Zone R‑12. Located at 71 Scott Road, Cumberland, RI 02864.
Attorney Scott Partington came forward to represent Mr. Malloy on this request for Dimensional Variance. At the outset, Mr. Partington stated that, as the Board may recall, though it was a little while ago, this matter was before the Board on a similar request for a front yard setback; and at the time there was testimony provided by the applicant that they were marketing the property, but they did not have anyone actually in mind yet; and, although there was a footprint that was provided with the plan, that footprint did not go beyond the footprint, basically, the design. Mr. Partington stated that, as the Board has done in other cases when there are multiple front yards, they were concerned about where the front door was going to be, what the address was going to be, and things of that nature.
Mr. Partington stated that, from his recollection and from his review of his notes from that evening, there was a bit of uncertainty about the nature of the structure. Mr. Partington stated that the relief is the same, and there is an additional foot‑and‑a‑half, give or take, of a setback required. He further stated that, correspondingly, however, the footprint, as Mr. Modica has pointed out once again in a very well researched and articulated opinion, that there was almost a 90‑foot reduction in the square footage of the property. Mr. McCoy stated it would be the square footage of the proposed footprint.
Mr. Partington agreed that it was of the footprint.
Mr. Partington stated that nothing has changed, historically, with respect to the OWTS, with respect to the placement of it or to the approval of it; and everything else has remained the same.
Mr. Partington stated that one of owners is here this evening, and an agreement has been reached with a builder who has built several houses of this exact type in Cumberland, and he is here as well from Northeast Building Company; and Mr. Partington stated that he was hoping that that would sort of fill in the blanks.
In support of this application, Mr. Partington presented several witnesses, who were all sworn and gave testimony in support of this request.
The first witness to testify was Patrick Malloy, of 71 Scott Road in Cumberland. He stated that he owned the property with his brother, and it has been in his family since he could remember.
Next, Mr. Partington presented Michael Darveau, the President of Darveau Land Surveying, who the Board accepted as an expert witness to testify as a land surveyor and project construction manager.
Mr. Partington asked Mr. Darveau to go through some of the steps that he had taken in furtherance of this application and also to run through the plan with the Board, revisiting some of the historical aspects, including the on‑site wastewater treatment system, the placement, and why the house had to be placed where it was. Mr. Darveau then went into detail about the project, as requested by Mr. Partington.
Next, Mr. Partington presented, as a witness, Mr. Rick Bessette, of the Northeast Building Company, 125 West Road, Cumberland. Mr. Bessette stated that the structure to be built is a 30‑foot wide colonial with a two‑car garage, very similar to previous ones that he had built in Lippitt Estates and Aborn Avenue. Mr. Bessette went into greater detail as to the description of the actual structure that he would be building on the property.
After Mr. Partington had completed his presentation, there was no one else who came forward to speak either in favor or against this request.
After hearing, Mr. Chaput made a motion to grant the front yard variance of 11.4 feet off Mae's Meadow, which is the southern part of the property, so that they can build a house 13.6 feet from that boundary, the house as shown on the application.
Mr. Chaput stated that there has been a good discussion about the standards for granting relief having been met. He stated that the house is a proper size house in terms of the area. Mr. Chaput stated that he likes the new configuration because it gives you a better site line coming off Mae's Meadow for traffic that is coming westward on Scott Road. He stated that he thought this actually is probably a better location than the original house, and he believed the Board should grant the variance.
Mr. Chaput stated that, in terms of the standards, Mr. Partington, as usual, has given the Board an excellent description of those standards in Exhibit B, and he stated he would incorporate his description on Exhibit B by reference in the motion. Mr. Chaput stated, therefore, he would make a motion to grant those variances. Mr. McGrath then seconded the motion.
Mr. McCoy then took a vote on the motion.
Mr. McGrath, Mr. Craveiro, Ms. Guadagni, 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 8:00 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 March 8, 2023.
Andrew J. D'Angelo
ANDREW J. D'ANGELO,
Court Reporter
(Signed Electronically)