I.            CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

II.            NEW BUSINESS:

A.      The application of Georges and Iryna Makhlouf, Applicants and Owners of The Homestead Restaurant, property located at 750 South County Trail, Exeter, RI; Zoned B and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 79, Block 2, Lot 12; a request for dimensional relief under Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section 3.1.4 for a proposed addition to the existing non-conforming by dimension restaurant to provide ADA compliant restrooms.

Chairman Richard Booth introduced this application and asked who was present to speak to this request for dimensional relief. Mr. George Makhlouf stepped forward and was sworn in. He explained that he was making this request in order to improve the restaurant’s restrooms and make them ADA compliant (Americans with Disabilities Act). He noted that 90 percent of his customers are retired individuals.

Richard Quattromani asked Mr. Makhlouf to verify that he was looking for relief for the front of their establishment.  Mr. Makhlouf indicated that was the case.

Tom McMillan asked about the size of the addition and would the addition be on a concrete slab? Mr. Makhlouf indicated yes, that is correct. Mr. Makhlouf then reviewed the required setbacks he was requesting for the proposed addition. Mr. McMillan asked if there was a need to grant a variance for an existing building? Solicitor Ruggiero interjected that he was unsure why the zoning inspector (Karen Ellsworth) would have required the Makhlouf’s to appear, noting that typically when you have a nonconforming building by dimension, that when you do any alteration, you are technically intensifying that, even though he is not intruding into that setback area this time, but because he is working on the building, he is acting on a nonconforming building, that’s why it’s here. The Solicitor then stated, “So, you will give him a dimensional variance for the front. So, yes you are going to give him the same variance again.”

Chairman Booth asked how this would change when we (the Board) say we have a two-acre zone and we always say “already existing nonconforming lot of record?” Solicitor Ruggiero stated that a nonconforming lot of record is different from a nonconforming building by dimension, a subtle nuance. 

Richard Quattromani looking for clarification asked, “We have a new addition going on, it is going to be further away from the front, but the original building had 47 feet or so, so we go back with the whole building, not just the addition?” Solicitor Ruggiero stated that you should look at the entire building and site, what this means to the site, and apply your usual variance questions and standards. 

Tom McMillan then noted that the drawing shows that the addition is actually 59’ from the front property line, so it’s further away than the points on the other end, that had previously been granted. Solicitor Ruggiero concurred.       

Tim Robertson noted the full septic design and how that will make a large improvement in this area. Loren Andrews had no further questions for Mr. Makhlouf.

Chairman Booth asked if there were any comments from the Public, hearing none he called for a motion to close the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Loren Andrews; Seconded by Tom McMillian; Vote was all in favor (5-0); The Public Hearing was closed. (Richard Booth, Tom McMillian, Richard Quattromani, Tim Robertson and Loren Andrews).

Chairman Booth then reviewed with the Board the applicant’s request and noted that he had no issues and supported Mr. Makhlouf’s request for dimensional relief.

Making the motion to approve the applicant’s request: Tim Robertson stated that based upon the testimony and evidence presented, and the recommended findings and proposed conditions of the Planning Department, I hereby make a motion to approve the application of Georges and Iryna Makhlouf, Applicants and Owners of The Homestead Restaurant, property located at 750 South County Trail, Exeter, RI; Zoned B and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 79, Block 2, Lot 12; a request for dimensional relief under Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section 3.1.4 to provide the front setback relief of 53’ as was existing originally and as per the plans that were provided for a proposed addition to the existing nonconforming by dimension restaurant to provide ADA compliant restrooms. Seconded by Loren Andrews; Vote was all in favor (5-0); The motion passed. (Richard Booth, Tom McMillan, Richard Quattromani, Tim Robertson, Loren Andrews).

B.       The application of David C. Fetherston, Applicant and Owner of property located at 11 Quail Hollow     Drive, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 37, Block 5, Lot 19; a request for dimensional relief under Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.6 (side setback); Section 2.6.3; and Article IV, Section 4.1.2 for a proposed addition of a 30’ x 28’ barn.

For the record Tim Robertson recused himself from this application and the required form is part of the applicant’s record.

Chairman Booth introduced this application and asked if someone was present to offer details regarding this application. David Fetherston stepped forward and was sworn in and proceeded to explain his proposal for a new Post and Beam Barn to be used primarily for storage, but that the second floor may potentially become a library. That the structure would have electricity, but no plumbing. Mr. Fetherston turned in an additional document on post and beam barns and the Chair asked that the handout be marked as Exhibit A.

The Chair asked the following Board members for their comments:  Stephen Sovet had no additional questions for the applicant. Richard Quattromani, asked about the proposed placement of the barn, right-side setbacks and dimensional relief. Tom McMillan inquired about the drawings that were submitted to the Board.

Questions arose about the need for the front setback. Solicitor Ruggiero was asked for an explanation. The Solicitor indicated that the Zoning Inspector (Karen Ellsworth) had determined that the building, located in the front yard, requires relief (2.6.3). Mr. McMillan asked the Solicitor to clarify where the need for X distance between the house and the barn come from? Solicitor Ruggiero stated that the zoning inspector determined that the building is in the front yard, not the front yard setback, and in that case, she is interpreting the code to read that you can’t locate a structure in any required yard. Mr. McMillan questioned her interpretation, but noted if the Inspector felt this request should be granted, he could support that. Loren Andrews reviewed the barn location noting that the barn is located in the only possible place because of the nature of the property, so it is the least amount of relief needed. Mr. McMillan wanted it noted for the record that there were no plans to have housing/living space as part of the barn. Mr. Fetherston stated that there were no plans for anyone to be living there.

Chairman Booth asked if anyone was present for the Public Comment portion of the evening? Hearing     none, he called for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Loren Andrews made the motion to close the Public Hearing; Tom McMillan seconded the motion; All in favor (5-0) the motion passed and the Public Hearing was closed. (Richard Booth, Tom McMillan, Richard Quattromani, Tim Robertson, Loren Andrews).

Chairman Booth called for a motion. Board member Tom McMillian stated that based upon the testimony and evidence presented, including the drawings, presented by the applicant, Mr. Fetherston, I move to approve the application for the positioning of the proposed barn, and grant a 5’ variance to the right-side setback, a requirement of 80’ versus a proposed 75’ and further grant relief under Article 4, Section 4.1.2 with the positioning of the barn in the front yard and in addition reference Section 2.6.3 for the required yards, granting approval for the positioning of the barn within the front yard. This motion to approve is based on the fact that first the hardship from which the applicants seeks relief is not due to the unique characteristics of the land or the structure; is not due to  the general characteristics of the surrounding area or the physical or economic disability of the applicant; the hardship is not the result of any prior action by the applicant; that the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area nor impair the intended purpose of the zoning ordinance in the Comprehensive Plan; that the hardship that will be suffered by the owner of the subject property, the applicant Mr. Fetherson, if the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience, meaning that relief sought is minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use to which the property is proposed to be devoted; Seconded by Loren Andrews; Vote was all in favor (5-0); The motion passed. (Richard Booth, Tom McMillan, Richard Quattromani, Loren Andrews and Stephen Sovet.)

III.            OLD BUSINESS:

A.      Discussion and/or Possible Action: Zoning Board Rules of Procedure

Board member Tom McMillan asked a question regarding Section 2.1 and the election of a Chair and Vice-Chair asking if a motion and a vote were required, which we have not been doing, would we need to do that retroactively? Solicitor Ruggiero stated that it was up to the Board that you either follow the rules or waive the rules.

The Solicitor pointed out that changes were identified last month, that most of the language, approximately two-thirds of it, is existing language. He noted that Dixie Foisy, Zoning Clerk, asked only that the current ways of completing the work of the Board be updated to reflect those changes. Solicitor Ruggiero suggested that Board members take the time to review the Rules of Procedure, again, and make any changes they may see fit.

Tom McMillan noted on Page 3, Paragraph 4.7--Public Hearings for an application…

On Page 4, Paragraph 6.2/B print the decision on letterhead and deliver to the Town Clerk’s office for recording.

 Page 4 Strike Paragraph 6.4 and renumber the Rules of Procedure.

The final page regarding the Planning Board of Appeals will become its own document with a front-page setup as the Rules of Procedure appears. Followed by striking the last sentence in the paragraph that begins:  Any person can appear on his/her own behalf or be represented by an agent or attorney.

Correct a space issue on the paragraph the begins: A majority vote of the Zoning Board is…

IV.            ADMINISTRATIVE:

V.            ADJOURNMENT:

Motion to adjourn the meeting made by Loren Andrews; Seconded by Tim Robertson;

The Vote was all in favor, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. (Richard Booth, Tom

McMillian, Richard Quattromani, Tim Robertson, Loren Andrews, Stephen Sovet)

Meeting Minutes prepared by:

Rebecca M. Lukowicz and

M. Dixie Foisy, Zoning Board Clerk