Continued Petitions from January 23, 2024:

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 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. Ms. Amy Murphy spoke on their behalf. She provided the details for the petition. Ms. Murphy stated that she had spoken to her neighbors. She did and the Murphy’s had made changes and adjustments altering their original design. The alterations, addressed previous objections from one abutter. Their neighbors now all support the renovations. Since the Murphy’s made adjustments to their design, their 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. Eric Kirton made the motion to approve and it was second by Judith Rosenthal. Following a discussion among the board members the zoning board members 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;

2.      That the motivation for the petition is to construct a new garage to provide their daughter with a place to live;

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

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

Continued Petitions from February 27, 2024:

Petition of: Bruce & Cheryl Munick (Owners) and David P. Martland, Esq. (Attorney) for a Special Use from 903 to expand the existing two family structure by adding an additional 306’ to the foundation as well as 1,380 sq. ft. deck area around the home; and a Variance from 603 for 44.4’ and 41.6’ from the rear yard setback where 50’ is required.  Said real estate is located at 612 Tuckerman Avenue and further identified as lot 116 on tax assessor’s plat 122. The petition of Bruce & Cheryl Munick (Owners) for a Special Use from 903 and a Variance from 603 to expand the existing two family structure was continued to the Apr 23, 2024 meeting.

New Petitions:

Petition of: Kurt & Deborah Schultz (Owners) for a Special Use from 602 and a Variance from 603, 903 & 702 to construct a detached dwelling unit requiring dimensional relief for 64 sq ft where 15,000 is required for two-family.  Said real estate is located at 31 Elmwood Avenue and further identified as lot 97 (C) on tax assessor’s plat 108. The petition of Kurt & Deborah Schultz (Owners) for a Special Use from 602 and a Variance from 603, 903 & 702 to construct a detached dwelling unit requiring dimensional relief for 64 sq ft where 15,000 is required for two-family. Ms. Deborah Schultz spoke on their behalf. She provided the details for the petition. Ms. Schultz stated the dwelling was a new place for her mother to live. Her mother is currently being priced out of her current residence. Additionally, Ms. Schultz had spoken to her neighbors and they supported the petition for the detached dwelling. Since the Schultz’s dimensional relief was minimal (64 sq ft) 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 (S.U. and the variance). Thomas Silveira made the motion to approve and it was second by Judith Rosenthal. Following a discussion among the board members the zoning board members 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;

2.      That the motivation for the petition is to construct a new detached dwelling to provide their mother with an affordable place to live;

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

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

Petition of: Joseph M. Kobylak (Owner) and J. Russell Jackson, Esq. (Attorney) for a Variance from 903 & 705 to construct a fence 8’ high along a portion of the Southern boundary where 6’ is permitted.  Said real estate is located at 592 Tuckerman Avenue and further identified as lot 117 on tax assessor’s plat 122. The petition of Joseph M. Kobylak (Owner) and J. Russell Jackson, Esq. (Attorney) for a Variance from 903 & 705 to construct a fence 8’ high along a portion of the Southern boundary where 6’ is permitted. Mr. Jackson spoke on the petitioner’s behalf. Mr. Jackson explained the 8’ fence was agreed to by the neighbors. The location of the fence (on Mr. Kobylak’s property) and it’s height (8’) were in accordance with a previous agreement. The two additional feet provides greater privacy for both parties and only impacts the two properties. 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. Eric Kirton made the motion and it was second by Thomas Heaney. 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;

2.      That the motivation for the petition is to construct a new fence to provide screening and privacy between the two properties;

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

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

Petition of: Andy Paris (Owner) for a Variance from 603, 903 & 321 (A) to construct a 12’x12’ rear deck resulting in a 42’ rear setback where 50’ is required.  Said real estate is located at 138 Oliphant Lane and further identified as lot 253 on tax assessor’s plat 111. The petition of Andy Paris (Owner) for a Variance from 603, 903 & 321 (A) to construct a 12’x12’ rear deck resulting in a 42’ rear setback where 50’ is required.  Mr. Paris spoke on his own behalf. He provided the details for the petition. Mr. Paris  stated the existing deck was an “odd trapezoid” shape and it was his desire to “square it off.” The deck’s current shape makes it difficult to enjoy the outside space. Additionally, Mr. Paris had spoken to his neighbors and they supported the petition for the deck. Since the Paris’ dimensional relief was minimal (8 ft into the 50’ setback) 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. Thomas Silveira made the motion to approve and it was second by Eric Kirton. Following a discussion among the board members the zoning board members 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;

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

3.    That the unique characteristics of the lot makes it difficult to get the full enjoyment of the property;

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

Petition of: Bank Newport (Owner) for a Special Use from 1212(B) to install two wall signs where one is permitted.  Said real estate is located at 528 West Main Road and further identified as lot 142 on tax assessor’s plat 107SW. The petition of Bank Newport (Owner) for a Special Use from 1212(B) to install two wall signs where one is permitted.  Mr. John Ramsey spoke on behalf of Bank Newport (Owner). Mr. Ramsey explained the additional sign was necessary due to the reconstruction (of the existing Bank Newport structure) and for visibility and safety issues. 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. Judith Rosenthal made the motion and it was second by Thomas Heaney. 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 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 compatible with previous decisions to grant additional signage for safety concerns;

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

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)

Thomas Silveira made a motion to adjourn the March 26, 2024 meeting. Judith Rosenthal seconds the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:27 pm.

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

POSTED:  March 4, 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.