EXETER ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2017
Approved: February 8, 2018
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, October 12, 2017 at 7:30 pm, in the Town Council Chambers of the Exeter Town Hall, 675 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI.
Meeting called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Richard Booth.
Motion made by Pamela Toro to open the public hearing. Seconded by Tom McMillan. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Pamela Toro to proceed with the agenda out of order, seconded by Tom McMillan. Voted all in favor.
The petition of 4400 Post Rd, LLC, Eugene McQuade, applicant and owner of property located at 350 Stony Lane, Exeter, RI , Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 12 Block 1 Lot 1A ; a request for a special use permit under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.1.10.b (Kennel Class 2; 4-10 dogs) to operate a kennel.
Robert E. Craven, Esq., 7405 Post Road, North Kingstown, Attorney for the Applicant was present.
Eugene McQuade, Applicant, was present and sworn in.
Clerk indicated the certified mail receipts have been received.
Attorney Craven stated that his client applied for a special use permit for a “Class 2” kennel on the property, which would allow him to keep 4-10 dogs.[1] He stated his client raises and breeds dogs and participates in dog shows. He argued that the proposed kennel would not be disruptive to the neighborhood because his client’s lot is surrounded on three sides by land owned by the Nature Conservancy and no one lives on the Nature Conservancy’s land. He does not believe that there are neighbors within earshot of the proposed kennel. He stated that his client had stood on the road near his closest neighbor in order to determine whether the dogs could be heard barking from that location and that his client could not hear the dogs barking.
Mr. McQuade testified that he has been breeding and raising dogs for approximately eighteen (18) years. He raises “American Staffordshire Terriers” which he said is not the same breed as a “pit bull.” He testified that he is a construction worker by trade and does not raise dogs for income. He said the kennel would not be a commercial business and would not result in additional traffic or visitors to the property. He stated that he has no formal training or education with regard to raising and breeding dogs. He denied that he is involved with dog fighting. Mr. McQuade stated that there is a house on the property that he built. He stated that construction was complete but he did not yet have a certificate of occupancy. He testified that he has been living in a trailer on the property. He stated that he previously lived in East Greenwich and kept dogs at a farm in Warwick. He testified that he has been keeping six dogs on his property in Exeter and that he keeps them tied outside during the day and brings them inside the house at night. He stated that he had been keeping the dogs at the property for several months. He testified that his girlfriend might help him take care of the dogs and that he might get a roommate. He has not hired anyone to help take care of the dogs. He stated that he does not currently have liability insurance that would cover damage caused by the dogs.
Ms. Toro asked the size of the kennel. Mr. McQuade testified that he had not yet decided what type of structure he would construct for the kennel and did not know precisely where it would be located on the property. He described several different types of structures he was considering. He said that he would comply with setback requirements if he is permitted to construct the kennel. He stated that the kennel would be located toward the back right corner of the lot which would be furthest from his neighbors. He stated that he plans to construct a fence the entire way around the property and would also construct a fence around the proposed kennel structure. He testified that his neighbors would not be able to smell dog waste. He testified that his dogs are quiet, that his neighbors would not be able to hear dogs barking, and that there had been no complaints about noise from the dogs since he had come to Exeter.
Mr. McQuade testified that Exeter Animal Control Officers (“ACOs”) had visited his property but claimed he did not know why they were there and said they did not identify any issues with respect to his dogs. Ms. Toro asked then why did the ACO’s file a report in response to a noise complaint from a neighbor he admitted that was true and accused his neighbor of trespassing. He also admitted that the dogs had not been licensed in the Town of Exeter. He claimed that he could not remember whether or not his dog “Tremor” killed another dog in Exeter in 2005. When the applicant was asked about noise complaints and other violations related to his dogs in the Town of Coventry he admitted that he was moving to Exeter because of the problems he had in Coventry.
Public comment:
Scott Millar, 247 Stony Lane, abutter, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Millar is in opposition to the application. He stated that he has been annoyed by the applicant’s dogs barking since July. He lives across the street, approximately one thousand (1,000) feet away, and he clearly hears the dogs barking all night and has observed that the dogs are left unattended overnight. Mr. Millar testified that the applicant told him the dogs were on the property temporarily because there had a problem with theft at the construction site where he was building his house. Mr. Millar did not know that the applicant planned to have a kennel until he received notice of the Zoning Board hearing. It is Mr. Millar’s opinion that the kennel would decrease his property value because the neighborhood was extremely quiet before Mr. McQuade began keeping his dogs there. He stated that the neighborhood has dramatically changed as a result of the noise from the dogs.
Mr. Millar testified that another neighbor, Henry “Hank” Halsted, made a request for public records from the Town of Coventry regarding Mr. McQuade. He presented the documents that had been received from Coventry to the Board. The documents were approximately fifty (50) pages of reports from the Coventry police and animal control officials related to Mr. McQuade and his dogs. These records documented numerous noise complaints from neighbors related to barking dogs and violations for, among other things, mistreatment of dogs, failure to vaccinate dogs, and failure to license dogs in the Town of Coventry. Mr. Millar expressed concern that a kennel on Mr. McQuade’s property would not be operated properly based on his history of violations and complaints.
Mr. Millar said he is concerned that the Queen River, which is approximately two hundred (200) feet from the proposed kennel, could become contaminated by dog waste. He stated that Mr. McQuade had cleared a lot of the vegetation on his lot, which would make it more likely that the river could be contaminated. He also said that he has safety concerns because people, including children, hiking on the Nature Conservancy land that abuts the applicant’s property.
Exhibit A — Approximately fifty (50) pages of police reports from the Town of Coventry. These documents were provided in response to a public records request made by Henry “Hank” Halsted. They were submitted to the Board during the hearing and discussed by Scott Millar. These reports document numerous occasions between September 2013 and June 2017 when the Coventry police and/or animal control officials reported to property owned and/or occupied by Mr. McQuade at 525 Hill Farm Road in Coventry for noise complaints from barking dogs. The documents also describe various charges that were filed against Mr. McQuade for failing to comply with vicious dog laws, failure to vaccinate dogs, failure to license dogs, mistreatment of animals, and for keeping too many dogs at his property.
Exhibit B — A handwritten note from Henry “Hank” Halsted, 215 Stony Lane, Exeter, RI. The note asked that the Zoning and Planning Boards be made aware of the police reports he had obtained from the Town of Coventry. A copy of the documents that were marked as “Exhibit A” was attached to his handwritten note.
Marc Massa, 239 Stony Lane, Neighbor, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Massa also spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he lives next door to Mr. Millar and he can hear Mr. McQuade’s dogs barking. He expressed his concern that the dogs are “pit bulls” and could be dangerous.
Exhibit C —A letter signed by Exeter ACOs Lori O’Brien and Shauna Dolan submitted to the Zoning Clerk on October 12, 2017. The letter included approximately one hundred and forty (140) pages of attachments. The letter was read into the record and the attached documents were described by Vice-Chairperson Pamela Toro.
The letter states that the ACOs went to Mr. McQuade’s property on August 1, 2017 in response to a complaint from Henry Halsted, who could hear dogs barking and was concerned about the dogs’ welfare. The ACOs discovered that Mr. McQuade was keeping more than three dogs on the property in violation of Town ordinance. The dogs were not licensed in Exeter and some were not up-to-date on vaccinations. The letter states that the dogs were thin and did not have adequate housing. The letter states that the ACOs provided instructions to Mr. McQuade as to how to correct these violations. The letter from ACOs O’Brien and Dolan states that in 2005 Mr. McQuade was charged with having a vicious dog named “Tremor” that attacked and killed another dog on New Road in Exeter. The letter also states that the Exeter ACO contacted the Coventry ACO and was informed about Mr. McQuade’s history of complaints and violations in Coventry.
Motion by Pamela Toro to close the public hearing; seconded by Tom McMillan. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
The Board discussed the concerns that had been presented by the applicant’s neighbors and ACOs O’Brien and Dolan as well as the information contained in the police reports from Coventry. The Board had concerns about the safety of the neighborhood in light of the applicant’s documented history of keeping a vicious dog and failing to comply with vicious dog laws. The Board was concerned that Mr. McQuade was unable to explain what type of structure he planned to erect for the kennel or where on the property it would be located. The Board found that Mr. McQuade’s testimony lacked credibility and that there were material inconsistencies between Mr. McQuade’s testimony and the other evidence that was presented to the Board.
Based on the record before the Board and argument presented, the Board makes the following findings of fact:
1) That the applicant has requested a Special Use Permit for a Class 2 kennel which would allow 4-10 dogs to be kept on the property.
2) That the applicant has bred and raised dogs as a hobby for approximately eighteen (18) years and has participated in dog shows.
3) That the proposed kennel is not commercial in nature and would not result in increased traffic in the area.
4) That the Applicant has not determined what type of structure he plans to erect for the kennel or where on the property the kennel will be located.
5) That the applicant has no formal education or training with respect to breeding and raising dogs.
6) That the applicant has a documented history in the Towns of Exeter and Coventry of failing to vaccinate his dogs.
7) That the applicant has a documented history in the Towns of Exeter and Coventry of failing to license his dogs.
8) That the applicant has a documented history in the Towns of Exeter and Coventry of keeping more dogs on his property than permitted by Town ordinance.
9) That the applicant has a documented history in the Towns of Exeter and Coventry of mistreating dogs.
10) That the applicant has a documented history in the Towns of Exeter and Coventry of noise complaints from neighbors because of barking dogs.
11) That the applicant has a documented history in the Towns of Exeter and Coventry and the City of Warwick of keeping a vicious dog and/or failing to comply with laws related to the keeping of vicious dogs.
12) That the applicant’s neighbors can hear his dogs barking during the day and at night and that the neighbors are annoyed by the dogs barking.
13) That the applicant’s property is located in a quiet residential area.
14) That the applicant does not currently have liability insurance that would cover damage caused by the dogs.
Based on the above findings of fact, the testimony presented, and the exhibits before the Board, the Board makes the following conclusions;
1) The kennel proposed by the applicant would not be compatible with neighboring uses and would adversely affect the surrounding neighbors’ use and enjoyment of their property.
2) The kennel proposed by the applicant would not be environmentally compatible with neighboring properties and would be detrimental to property values in the surrounding area.
3) The applicant has not demonstrated to the Board’s satisfaction that he has considered or employed the best practices and procedures to minimize the possibility of any adverse effects on neighboring property, the Town of Exeter, and the environment.
4) The purposes of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan would not be served by issuance of the special use permit requested by the applicant.
A motion was made by Pamela Toro to grant the application of Eugene McQuade / 4400 Post Road LLC for a special use permit under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.1.10.b (Kennel Class 2; 4-10 dogs) to operate a kennel; seconded by Richard Quattromanni. The Board voted unanimously against the application and the motion failed.
THEREFORE, the application of Eugene McQuade / 4400 Post Road LLC for a special use permit to operate a kennel is DENIED.
The petition of Exeter Land Development LLC, applicant and owner of property located at South County Trail, Exeter, RI, Zoned LB-R and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 67 Block 3 Lot 1 ; a request for a special use permit under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.20 (Florists, Greenhouses and Nurseries) due to the location in a Ground Water Overlay District.
Petition will be heard on a future agenda.
5 minute recess.
The petition of Robert Hutchinson, applicant and Karin and Jeff Hutchinson, owner of property located at Pole #30 Yawgoo Valley Road, Exeter, RI , Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 77 Block 2 Lot 5; a request for dimensional variance under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.2 (road frontage); to construct a single family dwelling.
Karin Hutchinson, Owner, was present and sworn in.
Amy Comeroski , Robert Hutchinson’s girlfriend, is present and sworn in.
Robert Hutchinson, applicant, is not present due to work obligations.
Mrs. Hutchinson stated they wanted to build a single family home on the property. They had received prior approval but didn’t do anything at the time and it has expired.
Stephen Sypole distributed minutes from the previous meeting and the decision rendered from the 2007 meeting.
Exhibit A- Minutes of 4/12/07 Zoning Board of Review-3 pages
Exhibit B- Decision of 5/18/07- 2 page decision
Exhibits provided because they were referenced in the application.
Richard Booth referred to drawing submitted with package, there is no setback relief requested as demonstrated on drawing. Elevations of house submitted with the application.
Mr. Booth asked if the house would be similar to the surrounding area. Mrs. Hutchinson replied yes.
Mr. Robertson stated there is an error on the application- should be zero frontage proposed but states 300 feet.
Mr. Robertson asked if there was access to the back part of the lot. Mrs. Hutchinson stated yes.
Richard Booth stated Exhibit B references the R.O.W.
Mr. McMillan asked when they would be starting construction if approval was granted. Mrs. Hutchinson stated immediately. Mr. McMillan inquired about the access to the Tucker property behind the lot.
Ms. Toro asked if there was access to the property when they bought it. Mrs. Hutchinson stated they bought the property from Max DeWardner and the only access has been the R.O.W.
Public Comment:
Kenneth Fandetti, 250 Yawgoo Valley Road, abutter, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Fandetti is against the application. He has heard the family intends to establish a Christmas tree farm and sell trees from the property. There is a road marked out already along the back of the properties along Yawgoo Valley Rd. Mr. Fandetti is concerned with the effect on property values and ground water runoff.
Mr. Booth stated there had been no mention of a business on the application. The only thing that is on the application is for the road frontage and that is what is being considered.
Karen Taraska, 232 Yawgoo Valley Rd, abutter, was present and sworn in.
Mrs. Taraska stated the road for the tree farm has been started. They cleared all the trees up to property line of the abutters. Ms. Toro stated there has been no request for a tree farm. Mrs. Taraska stated she doesn’t trust them to do what they say with the house because of what they have told everyone around them. The cutting of the trees is exposing the cell tower which could only be seen in the winter previously.
Exhibit C- Map supplied by Karen Taraska.
Nathan Guthrie
Mr. Guthrie agrees with Mr. Fandetti. He has no issues with the home being proposed but is concerned with the road and the clear cutting. He submitted photos showing the road clearing and staking 8’ from property line.
Exhibit D- 3 pages of photos.
Pamela Toro stated Mr. Guthrie is objecting to the Hutchinson’s clearing to the property line but the photos show Mr. Guthrie’s lot is cleared to the property line also. Mr. Guthrie stated yes.
Richard Booth asked if it is the applicant’s intention to put in a Christmas tree farm. Mrs. Hutchinson stated yes but not for public access. Trees will not be sold from property.
Mr. McMillan asked where Robert Hutchinson is. Mrs. Hutchinson stated he is in South Carolina for work.
Pamela Toro asked if they have had any discussion with the Zoning Official regarding a Christmas tree farm. Mrs. Hutchinson stated no.
Bruce Taraska Jr. - present and sworn in.
Mr. Taraska expressed concern that the piece in question is considered to be a landlocked piece and is being taxed as unbuildable. He said the applicant has stated on several occasions he is going to be selling Christmas trees.
Kathy Fandetti -250 Yawgoo Valley Rd, abutter, was present and sworn
Ms. Fandetti feels the board is making light of the xmas tree farm and there is intent by the applicant to do so. The road that is being built has nothing to do with the house so why is it being built. There is an issue with trust with the applicant.
William Allan-267 Yawgoo Valley Rd, neighbor, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Allen shares the concerns of the others who have spoken and other uses of the property. He is concerned with the traffic along the “cart path”. Also, the dirt road which is used by the ski resort during the snow tubing season as overflow parking.
Bruce Taraska Sr.- neighbor at 232 Yawgoo Valley Rd, was present and sworn in.
Are they building the house for profit? Robert Hutchinson has stated he is taking down all the trees. There is no frontage on Yawgoo Valley Rd so how do they have an address? Chairman Booth stated it is listed as Pole 30 as a reference point.
Karen Taraska spoke again and stated there is a lot of landlocked land behind and near this property and feels a precedent will be set for people to get variances on land locked land. She feels a road needs to be established.
Motion by Pamela Toro to close the public hearing; seconded by Tom McMillan. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Chairman Booth stated the task of the board is to make a decision based on the application and the ordinances. The application is requesting frontage to build a single family home. There has been no ownership change since the last decision was granted. Mr. Booth understands the concerns of the road being built on the property. As far as the Christmas trees, that is not before the Board this evening.
Mr. McMillan stated he does not feel a decision could be made without Robert Hutchinson present to give testimony since he is the applicant.
Richard Quattromanni stated the application is for dimensional relief for a house and everything else is hearsay and has no issue with the application.
Stephen Sypole stated the tree farm has nothing to do with the application and decision before the Board tonight.
Susan Franco-Towell stated she wished Robert Hutchinson was present to answer questions due to all the abutter testimony and wants the application continued to hear from Mr. Hutchinson.
Mr. Robertson stated the application is for frontage only and has no issues with the application.
Ms. Toro stated the application is for construction of a single family dwelling per plan submitted and there has been no other request for relief. The applicant is not here and it may be reasonable to ask the applicant to come in and testify.
Chairman Booth asked if it was the will of the Board to continue the hearing so the applicant can testify. Solicitor Sypole stated the owner of the property is here.
Solicitor Sypole stated the Board needs to make a decision on what is before the Board not on hypotheticals. The solicitor stated that the Board could continue the hearing in order to receive testimony of Robert Hutchinson but any testimony about the Christmas tree farm would not be relevant to the application for dimensional variance.
Ms. Toro read the 5 criteria into the record for granting a dimensional variance based on the requirements of Section 1.3.3.E.C 1-4 of the Exeter Zoning Code as follows:
1. Based upon the testimony that the surrounding area is comprised of similarly sized lots with single family homes similar to the one proposed and that the proposed home would be consistent with the residential zoned area, the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique
Characteristics of the subject land and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area and not due to a physical or economic disability of the applicant.
2. In light of the above described testimony, including testimony that in planning the proposed home, the applicant has sought to minimize the need for variance relief as much as possible and that the subject lot has not been subdivided, the 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. Based upon the testimony that the proposed home will be consistent with the character of the surrounding area and that similar homes have previously been constructed in the area, 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.
4. Based upon the testimony that the applicant has sought to minimize the need for dimensional relief as much as possible in the proposed plan, the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to grant the petition of Robert Hutchinson, applicant and Karin and Jeff Hutchinson, owner of property located at Pole #30 Yawgoo Valley Road, Exeter, RI , Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 77 Block 2 Lot 5; dimensional relief provided under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section .2.4.2.2 as follows:
1. Road Frontage relief of 300 feet
To construct a single family dwelling constructed in accordance with plan attached to application including location of proposed dwelling, garage, ISDS and driveway (located on southern part of the parcel). Applicant has not requested and Board has not granted any relief relative to uses. Seconded by Tim Robertson. Voted 4-1. MOTION PASSED.
Administrative Issues:
Minutes:
June, July, and August – Motion to approve as revised by Tom McMillan. Seconded by Pamela Toro. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED
Correspondence
Conduct policy distributed to all members
Invoice Approval-
Hometown Newspapers-September Agenda-Approved
Solicitor’s Report:
Callacci Zoning Appeal- waiting to receive Mr. Callacci’s brief.
Zoning Inspector’s Report: None
Future Meeting: Next scheduled meeting is November 9, 2017.
Motion made Pamela Toro to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 pm; Seconded by Tom McMillan Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Lorraine Field
Zoning Board Clerk