New Petitions:

Petition of: Paul J. Murphy (Owner) for Variance from 603, 701, 803 & 903 to construct a second floor over existing garage for a family dwelling unit and 10 x 10 addition on the front of the garage for storage, resulting in a 4.2’ set back on the east side where 15’ is required, 7.5’ rear set back where 30’ is required.  The height will be 20.2’ where 15’ is allowed.  Lot coverage will be 25.6% where 25% is allowed.  Said real estate is located at 226 Reservoir Road and further identified as lot 52 on tax assessor’s plat 121 NW.

The petition of Paul J. Murphy (Owner) for Variance from 603, 701, 803 & 903 to construct a second floor over existing garage for a family dwelling unit was continued to the Feb. 27, 2024 meeting.

Petition of: Vanbru Limited Partnership for Realty (Owner) and Rhode Island Nurseries, Inc. (Applicant) for Variance from 1212 (D) to relocate existing 58 sq ft sign and integrate into a newly constructed mandatory backflow protection structure “hot box” on edge of property resulting in sign height of 11’ 6” where 6’ is allowed.  Said real estate is located at 736 East Main Road and further identified as lot 14 on tax assessor’s plat 118. The petition of Vanbru Limited Partnership for Realty (Owner) and Rhode Island Nurseries, Inc. (Applicant) for Variance from 1212 (D) to relocate existing 58 sq ft sign and integrate into a newly constructed mandatory backflow protection structure Mr. Vanisk spoke on behalf of Vanbru Limited Partnership for Realty (Owner) and Rhode Island Nurseries, Inc. (Applicant). He provided the details for the petition. The request was straight forward and there were no additional questions from the board. When the Chairman opened the meeting to the public, no one spoke out against the petition. After closing the hearing, a motion was made to approve the petition by Stephen Huttler and second by Thomas Silveira. Following a discussion, among the Board members the board voted 5-0 to approve the petition. The reasons given for approval are:

1.      That the hardship petitioner faces are not the result of any prior action of petitioner;

That the motivation for the petition is to integrate a mandated “hot box” and signage on the property;

2.    That the relief requested is the least relief necessary;

3.    That the granting of this accommodation will not alter the general character of the surrounding area.

Inactive Petitions & Appeals - Pending Other Board Decisions

Petition of: Prescott Point Investor, LLC (Owner) Jeremiah C. Lynch III, Esq. (Attorney) for a Special Use Section 902, Article 9 to permit the construction of a 20-unit multifamily dwelling project, with a 2,500 sqft. clubhouse.  Said real estate is located at 0 West Main Road and further identified as lot 7 on tax assessor’s plat 104. (Pending Planning Board)

Petition of: Prescott Point Investor, LLC (Owner) Jeremiah C. Lynch III, Esq. (Attorney) for a Variance from Section 603, 1506 (A), 1508 (A) & 903 to construct principal buildings, with windows, within 50’ of the adjacent building and to permit the construction of a multifamily dwelling project with maximum building height of 45’ where 35’ is allowed.  Additionally, seeking variance for multifamily dwelling project not connected to sewer system.  Said real estate is located at 0 West Main Road and further identified as lot 7 on tax assessor’s plat 104. (Pending Planning Board)

Petition of: Clive & Gail Youlten (Owners) and David P. Martland, Esq. (Attorney) for a Special Use from 1103 & 1106 and a Variance from 603 to construct a 234 square foot two-story addition to their existing single-family home located in Zone 1 of the Watershed Protection District.  Additionally, to allow for lot coverage of 15.8% where 15% is allowed.  Said real estate is located at 942 Green End Avenue and further identified as lot 72 (A) on tax assessor’s plat 120. The petition of Mr. & Mrs. Youlten (Owners) for a Special Use from 1103 & 1106 and a Variance from 603 to construct a 234 square foot two-story addition to their existing single-family home located in Zone 1 of the Watershed Protection District. The Youlten’s were represented by Attorney Sean Bouchard, Esq. Mr. Bouchard explained the need to construct this addition adjacent to the Zone 1 Watershed Protection District. When the Chairman opened the meeting to the public, Mr. Art Webber spoke out against the petition. He contended that neither Mr. Bouchard nor the Youltens’s provided evidence from experts to show how the proposed addition would not impact the Zone 1 Watershed Protection District. He challenged the zoning board’s ability to make a determination without expert evidence/opinion. Both the town solicitor (Mr. Regan) and the Zoning Board Chairman (Mr. Miller) opined that there was enough evidence to make a recommendation. After closing the hearing a motion was made to approve the petition by Stephen Huttler and second by Thomas Heaney. The motion included the 2 recommendation made by the planning board (storm water management and future  prohibition for the use of fertilize on the property) and the specifications added by the zoning board (sediment control and additional (drains) to manage storm water). There were no additional discussions among the board members. The board voted 5-0 to approve the petition. The reasons given for approval are:

1.      That the special use will not result in the diminution of property values;

2.    That the special use will not create a nuisance;

3.    That the special use is not detrimental nor will it injure the proper use of the property;

4.    That the special use will not result in hazardous conditions or conditions inimical to the public health, safety, or welfare.

A motion to adjourn the Jan 23, 2024 meeting was made by Thomas Silveira. Stephen Huttler second the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:01 pm.

All items on this agenda may be considered, discussed, and voted upon.

POSTED:  January 2, 2024

* RI Secretary of State Webpage *Clerkbase *Middletown Library

*Town Hall of Middletown Bulletin Board * Middletownri.com Website.

*Meetings begin promptly at the time posted and will not last for more than four (4) hours. The Board normally will take a short break after 1½ to 2 hours of hearings to re-assess the agenda and their ability to reach the remaining items pending before it.  The Board will not entertain/begin a new petition after 10:00 p.m. and will conclude all hearings at 10:30 p.m. therefore some petitions cannot be heard due to these time constraints and will be continued to the next regular meeting date.