EXETER ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW
MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2017
Approved: October 12, 2017
675 Ten Rod Road
Exeter, R.I. 02822
401-294-2592
Fax: 267-0128
A Regular Meeting of the Exeter Zoning Board of Review was held on Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:30 pm, in the Town Council Chambers of the Exeter Town Hall, 675 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI.
| Members present: | Richard Booth; Pamela Toro; Tom McMillan; Joe St. Lawrence Susan Franco-Towell, Richard Quattromani |
| Members absent: | Tim Robertson |
| Others present: | Ron Ronzio, Stenographer; Stephen Sypole, Solicitor and Lorraine Field, Clerk |
Meeting called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Richard Booth.
Motion by Pamela Toro to proceed out of agenda order; seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. Voted all in favor. Motion Passed.
Motion made by Pamela Toro to open the public hearing. Seconded by Tom McMillan. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
The petition of Daniel Holzwarth, applicant and owner of property located at 15 Lantern Lane, Exeter, RI , Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 13 Block 1 Lot 3; a request for dimensional relief under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1 (acreage relief); 2.4.2.2 (street frontage); 2.4.2.4 (front depth); 2.4.2.6 (side setback) to construct a 12’x16’ shed.
Daniel J. Holzwarth, applicant and owner, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Holzwarth stated he wanted to build a 12’x16’ shed on his lot for storage of lawn equipment.
Chairman Booth asked about the location of the shed. Mr. Holzwarth stated the location is due to the least amount of rocks and the 10% slope on the property.
Mr. McMillan asked where the driveway was located. Mr. Holwarth indicated on the drawing submitted. Mr. McMillan stated he had an issue with the location of the shed.
Ms. Toro asked if the terrain of the yard would make it hard to put the equipment in the barn located in the rear of the property. Mr. Holzwarth stated yes it would be difficult.
Exhibit A- pamphlet showing type of shed proposed. Mr. St. Lawrence asked if there would be trees around the shed. Mr. Holzwarth stated there were trees existing in front of the proposed location so it wouldn’t be seen from the road.
No public comment.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to close the public hearing; seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Ms. Toro noted for the record the criteria for dimensional relief has been satisfied as required in section 1.3.E.C of the Exeter zoning ordinance as follows:
In granting a variance, the Exeter zoning board of review shall require that evidence to the satisfaction of the following standards be entered into the record of the proceedings:
1. That the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area; and is not due to a physical or economic disability of the applicant;
2. That said hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain;
3. That the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent of purpose of the Exeter zoning ordinance or the Exeter comprehensive plan, upon which this ordinance is based; and
4. That the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary.
Motion by Pamela Toro to grant Daniel Holzwarth, applicant and owner of property located at 15 Lantern Lane, Exeter, RI , Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 13 Block 1 Lot 3 dimensional relief under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2 the following relief:
1. Acreage relief of 2.9 acres
2. Roof frontage relief of 185’
3. Right side set back relief of 64’.
To construct a 12’x16’ shed. Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence.
Discussion: Mr. McMillan stated he objected to the location of the shed.
Voted 4-1. Motion passed.
The petition of Michael DiPietro, applicant and owner of property located at 74+78 Black Plain Road, Exeter, RI, Zoned RE-2 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 20 Block 3 Lot 37; a request for dimensional relief under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1 (acreage relief); 2.4.2.2 (street frontage); 2.4.2.6 (side setback) to create 2 separate lots with one house on each lot.
Mr. DiPietro stated he wished to create 2 lots with 1 house on each lot. He has owned the property for 13 years. The first house was built in 1959 and the 2nd house in 1974. There is a bush line separating the 2 house basically down the center of the property.
Chairman Booth stated both houses were built prior to 1977 when zoning went into effect in Exeter. Does Mr. DiPietro plan on staying in one of the houses? Mr. DiPietro stated yes and the person currently renting the other house may buy it if the lot is separated.
Stephen Sypole referenced Section 1.3.D.A.1 of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance and stated Mr. DiPietro should get a special use permit also to authorize the altering of non conforming development.
Chairman Booth read the Planning Board’s comments into the record:
The Board advised the applicant to come back next month with the request for a special use permit as well as the dimensional relief. The Board will waive the additional application fee, but the applicant must renotice the abutters.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to withdraw the application without prejudice. The applicant must re-file seeking a special use permit and dimensional relief. The Board waives the application fee. Seconded by Richard Quattromani. VOTED ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED.
The petition of Mountford Construction, applicant and Suburban Land Company, owner of property located at West Shore Drive, Exeter, RI, Zoned RE-2 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 83 Block 4 Lots 7+8; a request for dimensional relief under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1 (acreage relief); 2.4.2.2 (street frontage); 2.4.2.7 (rear setback) to construct a new 3 bedroom single family dwelling.
Exhibit A- revised application indicating front setback relief needed.
Richard Harrington, ReMax Real Estate, representing the buyers, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Harrington stated there was a mistake on the application, he did not request front setback relief. The letters to abutters did list that relief.
Jonathan Juneau, potential buyer of proposed house, was present and sworn in. Mr. Juneau stated he authorized Mr. Harrington to give testimony for this application.
Chairman Booth clarified for the record:
Applicant/Builder is Mountford Construction LLC, Suburban Land Company owns the property, Richard Harrington is the real estate agent, and Dan Cotta from American Engineering is the Engineer. Mr. Juneau confirmed.
Dan Cotta stated the survey was redone and the property lines changed from the plan submitted. Therefore the house needs to be moved to accommodate the septic and requiring the request for the additional front setback relief.
Exhibit B- OWTS design
There was no public comment for this application.
Ms. Toro noted for the record the criteria for dimensional relief has been satisfied as required in section 1.3.E.C of the Exeter zoning ordinance as follows:
1. That the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area; and is not due to a physical or economic disability of the applicant;
2. That said hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain;
3. That the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent of purpose of the Exeter zoning ordinance or the Exeter comprehensive plan, upon which this ordinance is based; and
4. That the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to grant Mountford Construction, applicant and Suburban Land Company, owner of property located at West Shore Drive, Exeter, RI, Zoned RE-2 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 83 Block 4 Lots 7+8; dimensional relief as follows:
1. Acreage relief of 1.7 acres
2. Road frontage relief of 97 feet
3. Front depth setback relief of 15 feet
4. Rear set back relief of 4 feet.
To construct a three bedroom single family dwelling per the drawings submitted. Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
The petition of Gail Burchard, applicant and owner of property located at 36 Plantation Drive, Exeter, RI, Zoned RE-2 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 82 Block 2 Lot 5; a request for a special use permit under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1.38- to have a two family dwelling structure.
Gail Burchard, owner and applicant, is present and sworn in.
Ms. Burchard stated she is seeking a special use permit have a two family dwelling unit. Ms. Burchard purchased the house in 2006 to live near her daughter. In 2008, she built an addition with an in-law apartment in it above the garage. She said her ex-husband was supposed to live in it but became ill and could not access the apartment. Ms. Burchard stated the Zoning Board told her she had to have an in-law living there. Ms. Burchard had intended to move into in-law and rent house.
Pamela Toro asked who was going to live in the house when she moved into the in-law. She would have a renter but then she was told she couldn’t do that. She is still occupying the house but has a renter in the apartment. The tenant has been there for 4 years.
Pamela Toro asked what she requested from the Zoning Board originally. Ms. Burchard stated she requested an in-law apartment that her ex-husband was going to live in.
Ms. Burchard states she has been challenged by her neighbor, Ms. Sahagian. Her intention was not to run a B&B originally. She has not destroyed the character of the neighborhood as implied.
Richard Booth asked if she would be making any alterations to the property. Ms. Burchard stated no. Mr. Booth stated it is a 600 square foot in-law. Ms. Burchard stated yes.
Pamela Toro asked if there were any other 2 family dwellings in the neighborhood. Ms. Burchard stated no.
Ms. Burchard stated the neighbor has removed the stakes from the property line also.
Richard Quattromani stated in 2008 she sought relief to build the in-law. Where did she live then? Ms. Burchard stated she lived in the house. When did someone move in to in-law? Ms. Burchard stated in 2010 by renters and she was living in the house. Mr. Quattromani asked if the ex-husband ever lived in the in-law. Ms. Burchard replied no.
Ms. Toro asked when her ex-husband health started failing. Ms. Burchard stated his health start failing in 2010.
Richard Booth asked when his health restricted him from living in the in-law. Ms. Burchard stated he started failing in 2008 but definitely in 2010.
Tom McMillan stated it never has conformed and has its own separate entrance which is not allowed. He has concerns for the approval of a two family dwelling unit. Does she have one or 2 septic systems? Ms. Burchard stated one.
His other concern is if it is approved it would be in perpetuity and runs with the property not allowing restrictions for the future. There are no other 2 family dwellings in the neighborhood and could impact the property values of the surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Burchard asked what happens to an in-law apartment when the in-law moves or passes away. Solicitor Sypole stated it is usually decommissioned.
Ms. Burchard asked if she married or became engaged to her tenant would that qualify him as an in-law. Ms. Burchard stated her neighbors are too concerned with the “what if” factors. She feels her other neighbors were coerced to signing a letter in opposition to her application.
Public comment:
David Burchard, the applicants ex-husband, is present and sworn in. Mr. Burchard stated he had a stroke and can’t do stairs.
He is concerned about the tenant that has been there, will he be kicked out?
Joseph Giorgio, abutter, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Giorgio feels that Ms. Burchard may rent to URI students due to proximity to University.
This is the fourth time they have been before this board for this property. He feels she willingly and knowingly misrepresents herself to the board. He is concerned if the request is granted they don’t know who or what would be living there in the future.
Lynn Giorgio, is present and sworn in.
Mrs. Giorgio had the property surveyed to clarify the property line.
Exhibit A-F- photos of property.
The photos show how close their house is to Ms. Burchard's property.
Exhibits G-letter dated April 1, 2017 signed by 10 out of 18 residents of neighborhood.
Mrs. Giorgio stated they live there for the characteristic of the neighborhood and have lived there for a long time.
Marcia Sahagian, abutter, was present and sworn in.
Ms. Sahagian stated the neighborhood is zoned for single family dwellings. She requests the denial of the application due to the impact on property values and the safety of the area. 2 of the neighbors didn’t sign the letter and stated the Town should not allow this to happen. Ms. Sahagian stated Ms. Burchard knew she needed a permit for the apartment and the bed and breakfast. There is no violation or fine from the town for her doing what she is doing. If this is allowed, it may set a precedent for others.
Michael McCabe, son of Marcia Sahagian, was present and sworn in.
Mr. McCabe stated he grew up at 28 Plantation Drive. The zoning ordinance references Article 3 Section 3.2.1:
Nonconforming uses are incompatible with and detrimental to permitted uses in the zoning districts in which they are located. Nonconforming uses cause disruption of the comprehensive land use pattern of the town, inhibit present and future development of nearby properties, and confer upon their owners a position of unfair advantage. It is intended that existing nonconforming uses shall not justify further departures from this ordinance for themselves, or for any other properties.
1. Treatment in residential zones (RE-2, RU-3, RU-4, CR-5.) Nonconforming uses in residential zones are to be treated in a stricter fashion than nonconforming uses located in nonresidential zones. Due to the disruption which nonconforming uses cause to the peace and tranquility of a residential zoning, nonconforming uses therein should be eventually abolished or reduced to total conformity over time.
Mr. McCabe questioned if an “ex” husband even qualifies as in-law. How often are people coming and going and what screening is used. Concerns with traffic also.
Ms. Toro asked if he was familiar with the property in 2008. Did he see the construction? Mr. McCabe stated he was away at college and couldn’t remember. Ms. Toro asked if the outside stairs were there. Mr. McCabe stated he couldn’t remember.
Mr. McCabe stated there are no other 2 families in the neighborhood and believes the proposal would have an adverse effect on neighborhood.
Mr. St. Lawrence stated first it was an in-law and a bed and breakfast. There is an issue with the septic also-septic systems are designed for the number of bedrooms. He has concerns with the stairway; in-laws don’t typically have a set of stairs as are present now.
Solicitor Sypole asked if 2 septic’s are required. Mr. St. Lawrence stated it is based on the number of bedrooms.
Hal Morgan, Zoning Inspector, was present and sworn in.
The statue that refers to in-laws does not require a separate septic system. The system has to accommodate the number of bedrooms.
Ms. Toro asked if the structure as it sits now is the same as it was constructed back in 2008. Mr. Morgan stated to the best of his knowledge it is the same.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to close the public hearing, seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Richard Quattromani stated the issue before the Board this evening is for a two family dwelling.
Mr. McMillan stated the financial reasons are not relevant to this board. He is still concerned with the septic issues and is opposed to the application.
Chairman Booth stated the challenge of the Board is to uphold the zoning ordinance. The application goes against what the zoning ordinance is in place to protect and cannot support the application.
Pamela Toro has empathy for the application but the ordinance must be followed and the criteria for a special use permit must be met. Ms. Toro referenced section 1.3.3.F.C as follows:
C. The following criteria will be utilized by the Exeter zoning board of review for issuance of a special use permit. These criteria are in conformance with the purposes and intent of the Exeter comprehensive plan and the Exeter zoning ordinance. An applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the zoning board by presenting competent evidence that the proposed use and/or structure:
1. Will be compatible with the neighboring uses and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property;
2. Will be environmentally compatible with neighboring properties and the protection of property values;
3. Will be compatible with the orderly growth and development of the Town of Exeter, and will not be environmentally detrimental therewith;
4. That the best practices and procedures to minimize the possibility of any adverse effects on neighboring property, the Town of Exeter, and the environment have been considered and will be employed where applicable including, but not limited to, considerations of soil erosion, water supply protection, storm water runoff, wastewater disposal, wetland protection, traffic limitation, safety and circulation; and
5. That the purposes of this ordinance, and as set forth in the Exeter comprehensive plan, shall be served by said special use permit.
Ms. Toro stated there is not enough evidence that supports the criteria and enough evidence to support the opposite. Ms. Toro questions the testimony of the applicant; her testimony has not been consistent.
Mr. St. Lawrence agrees with Ms. Toro and does not support the application.
Susan Franco-Towell has empathy for the applicant but the ordinance must be followed and there has been inconsistency from the applicant. The abutters have been very consistent with their opposition and keep coming back since 2008. Ms. Towell can’t support the application based on those reasons and the zoning ordinance parameters.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to grant the petition of Gail Burchard, applicant and owner of property located at 36 Plantation Drive, Exeter, RI , Zoned RE-2 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 82 Block 2 Lot 5 a special use permit under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1.38 for a two family dwelling unit; seconded by Tom McMillan. Votes in favor-0. Vote’s against-5. (0-5) MOTION FAILS.
Therefore, the petition is DENIED(0-5) by the Zoning Board of Review for a special use permit.
The petition of Ryan Coughlin and Samantha Kauffman, applicants and owners of property located at East Shore Road, Exeter, RI , Zoned CR-5 and RE-2 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 83 Block 11 Lot 22 and Assessor’s Plat 19 Block 2 Lot 6 a request for dimensional relief under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.2 (street frontage) to construct a new single family dwelling.
Application will be heard at next scheduled meeting per request of applicant.
Administrative Issues:
Minutes:
Motion by Tom McMillan to approve the minutes of February 2017 as revised, seconded by Pamela Toro. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Tom McMillan to approve the minutes of March 2017 as revised, seconded by Pamela Toro. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Correspondence
None
Invoice Approval-
Allied Court Reporters-$300.00-approved-February meeting
Solicitor’s Report:
Solicitor Sypole stated Callaci vs. Mann/Knollwood is still pending.
Zoning Inspector’s Report: None
Future Meeting: Next scheduled meeting is July 13, 2017
Motion made Pamela Toro to adjourn the meeting at 10:42 pm; Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Lorraine Field
Zoning Board Clerk