Minutes Approved: November 10, 2022
675 Ten Rod Road
Exeter, RI 02822
401-294-2592
A Regular Meeting of the Exeter Zoning Board of Review was held on Thursday, October 13, 2022 at the Town
Hall Offices, 675 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI.
Members present: Tom McMillan, Tim Robertson, Richard Quattromanni, Loren Andrews and Susan
Franco-Towell.
Members absent: Richard Booth and Susan Littlefield
Others present: Peter Ruggiero, Solicitor and Dixie Foisy, Clerk
Meeting called to order at 7:31 pm by Acting Chair Tom McMillan
A. The application of Eric Baxter, Applicant and Brian and Carla Singman, Owners of property located at 184 Kingston Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat
76, Block 3, Lot 12; a request for dimensional relief under Zoning Ordinance Article II Section
2.4.2.6 (side setback), for a proposed detached garage and gym.
Acting Chair Tom McMillan called for a motion to open the public hearing. Loren Andrews made the motion and Susan Franco-Towell seconded; vote was all in favor. The public hearing was open.
The Chair recognized Attorney Daniel Flaherty, 33 College Hill Road, Warwick, RI. Attorney Flaherty also noted that Brian Singman, owner of the property at 184 Kingston Road, Exeter, RI was present to answer any questions the Board may have.
Attorney Flaherty went on to review the Singman’s application. He noted that the Singman’s have lived on the property for 21 years. He stated that their petition is for minor dimensional relief for a side yard setback. He indicated that the property has an existing house with a footprint of 4,747 square feet, including a cabana of 308 square feet and a shed measuring 160 square feet. The proposal is for the addition of a 2-car garage 30’x30’ and a gym 20’x20’. The ordinance requirement is 80’ for side setback, the proposed is 20’, requiring 60’ of relief from the lot line, for the two buildings. He added that there are mature landscaping beds along the driveway, and they don’t want not to rip them up, also noting that the structures will be more accessible to the main house. Attorney Flaherty noted that to deny the petition would amount to more than a mere inconvenience as the owners would be unable to fully enjoy the property without the requested relief. He noted that the rest of the property exceeds all the other dimensional regulations including the front setback, right yard setback, the rear setback, height and lot size. Mr. Flaherty is seeking approval on behalf of the Singman’s and noted that the new construction would improve the property and not change the nature of the area.
Acting Chair McMillan asked if any Board members had questions for the applicant.
Board member Loren Andrews was recognized. He asked about this being a “minor” dimensional variance but noted that it’s 60 feet and asked why they couldn’t change the location. Attorney Flaherty indicated that the left side of the property has the pool and cabana and the garage would be built in relationship to the driveway.
Brian Singman of 184 Kingston Road, Exeter, stepped forward and was sworn in. Mr. Singman indicated that the existing garage is attached to the house and that would be expanded into additional living space; the new garage is planned for the “correct” side of the house.
Board member Susan Franco-Towell asked Mr. Singman if it would be a significant hardship for him if the structures were to be moved to a different location on the property. Mr. Singman indicated that, although there is a lot of land, the property is very narrow and the setbacks would make it impossible. She also asked what type of structure(s) would be built, since the drawings were not provided. Mr. Singman indicated that the buildings would complement the existing aesthetics of their home.
Board member Richard Quattromani asked about the location of the new structures and if the buildings could be relocated to behind the house? He also inquired as to whether the new buildings could possibly be moved 10 feet closer to the house, noting that the new addition is in the setback area. Mr. Singman reiterated the reasoning for the placement of the new construction. He also added that the closest neighbor is at least 600 feet away.
Board member Tim Robertson reviewed the site plan and made another layout suggestion. Mr. Singman stated that what the Board could not see on the site plan is the elevation of the land and the need for them to cut out a portion of the land in the back in order to move the buildings.
Loren Andrews asked the owner to clarify the lighter green area on the site map. Discussion ensued between the owner and the Board. Acting Chair Tom McMillan noted that it seemed like the Board was trying to redesign the Singman’s plans, which is not within their purview. He noted that the Boards concerns were with the amount of requested relief, because the Board is being asked to waive three-quarters of the required relief.
At this time, Susan Franco-Towell asked Hal Morgan, Zoning Inspector, if there was any reason why the structures couldn’t be moved to a different location on the property? Mr. Morgan first asked the Board members if they had been out to the property? They all responded that they had not, however, Mr. McMillan stated he had driven by. Mr. Morgan noted that the issue is the terrain. That there is very limited buildable land in the back of the property.
Acting Chair Tom McMillan asked a question of Solicitor Ruggiero with regards to Zoning Code
4.1 under Accessory Buildings and Uses, stating that Accessory Buildings includes private garages, etc., etc. and that item 4.1.1.2 states that the location of accessory buildings and uses…a building or use accessory to a dwelling shall not be located within a setback. Acting Chair McMillan asked if this was something they could waive? The Solicitor indicated that, yes, if they relieve the setback requirement, and that this was the question before them. Solicitor Ruggiero stated that if the Board finds it meets the hardship and the standards then the Board can waive the setback.
Zoning Inspector Hal Morgan read the Zoning Ordinance definition 1.2.101: Setback line or lines: A line or lines parallel to a lot line at the minimum distance of the required setback for the zoning district in which the lot is located that establishes the area within which the principal structure must be erected or placed.
Mr. Morgan noted that the ordinance indicates that accessory dwellings can be placed in the setback areas, if relief is granted by the zoning board.
Acting Chair McMillan asked if anyone was present from the public who wished to address the Board. He recognized Mr. Abbott who lives across the street from the Singman’s. Mr. Abbott stated he was present only to hear the testimony and had no objections. Acting Chair McMillan noted that the abutter’s map had incorrect information regarding property ownership, stating that this should correctly show the names of the abutter’s properties as the following were reversed - AP71, Lot 11 is the property of James M. & Jeanne Abbott and AP76, L11 is the property of William E. Von Nostrand. Solicitor Ruggiero noted, for the record, that the abutters address list was correct and that the notices had been sent out correctly, and that only the abutters map contained the incorrect information.
The Clerk confirmed that all abutters’ notices were sent, as we were given all the white receipts and to date, only one green card had not been returned.
Acting Chair McMillan noted that the amount of relief is very significant. He went on to say that the reasoning for the placement of the proposed garage is because of the way the property was developed. He noted that one of the neighbor’s properties is setback further from the road than the applicant’s, minimizing the proximity to the proposed garage/gym. He noted that the (Von Nostrands) were not present and apparently had no objection. Acting Chair McMillan indicated that there were no further comments and asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
Loren Andrews made the motion to close the public hearing; seconded by Tim Robertson. Vote was all in favor; the public meeting was closed.
Acting Chair McMillan asked if the Board had any comments? Board member Loren Andrews spoke to the topography and stated that he would require more time to go and view the property, since he had only received the packet on Tuesday (October 11th). Acting Chair McMillan again noted that asking for 60’ out of 80’ concerned the Board. Susan Franco-Towell restated that the code guidance states…granting the least amount of relief necessary. Tim Robertson was conflicted with the gym location being based on “aesthetics” only.
Mr. Singman responded that beside the initial house going up, the other end of the property hadn’t been developed. He stated that he was required to have a 300’ of frontage with setbacks of 80’, so he had to put his house right in the center, leaving him with very few options. He felt that when the lots were laid out, restrictions for the house and accessory dwellings were very restrictive, limiting his future options.
Susan Franco-Towell referred back to the Exeter Code which states…. that the said hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant, and she felt that the Board had established that it absolutely was because of the landscaping done by the owners.
Richard Quattromani stated that the Zoning Inspector felt there was a hardship there; that there is some 13 acres and noted that the neighbors did not have any objections to the addition.
Acting Chair McMillan asked if there was a motion on the floor.
Tim Robertson made a motion regarding the application of Eric Baxter, Applicant and Brian and Carla Singman, owners of the property located at 184 Kingston Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 76, Block 3, Lot 12; to approve a request for dimensional relief under Zoning Ordinance Article II Section 2.4.2.6 (side setback of 60 feet), for a proposed detached garage and gym as displayed and documented in their application.
Board member Tim Robertson then read into the record the following:
Exeter Code 1.3.E.C: 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. 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.
Additionally, Exeter Code Section 1.3.D.2:
In granting a dimensional variance, that the hardship that will be suffered by the owner of the subject property if the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience. The fact that a use may be more profitable or that a structure may be more valuable after the relief is granted shall not be grounds for relief.
There was a motion to approve from Tim Robertson and seconded by Richard Quattromani. The vote was taken with the following results: Tom McMillan, opposed; Loren Andrews, Tim Robertson, Richard Quattromani and Susan Franco-Towell (alternate voting member), in favor; four in favor, one opposed. Therefore, the motion carried.
A. Approval of Invoices: Esquire Deposition Solutions, Southern RI Newspapers and Solicitor Peter Ruggiero. The Clerk stated that the invoices were approved prior to the meeting by Chairman Richard Booth.
B. Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 8, 2022
Acting Chair Tom McMillan entertained a motion to approve the minutes. Board member Susan Franco-Towell made the motion to approve the September 8, 2022 minutes as submitted; seconded by Loren Andrews. Vote was all in favor, 4-0 (excluding Richard Quattromani). The minutes of September 8, 2022 were approved.
C. Correspondence: Superior Court Decision 9-28-2022: No comments from Solicitor
Ruggiero.
D. Future Meeting: November 10, 2022
Motion made by Loren Andrews to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 pm; seconded by Tim
Robertson. Voted all in favor, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned.
Meeting Minutes prepared by: Rebecca M. Lukowicz and
M. Dixie Foisy
Zoning Board Clerk