TOWN OF TIVERTON

ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES APRIL 6, 2022

The following petitions were received and heard by the Tiverton Zoning Board of Review on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members present: Chairwoman Lise Gescheidt, Vice Chairman David Collins, Ms. Wendy Taylor Humphrey, Mr. John Jackson, Mr. George Alzaibak, Ms. Jennifer Hilton (first alternate), and Mr. Edwin Schober (second alternate).

 

Also present were: Mr. Michael Marcello, Esq., Town Solicitor, Mr. John Hoyle, Jr., Building/Zoning Official, and Ms. Sally Ferreira, Court Stenographer.

 

1)   Call to order

 

The Chairwoman called the meeting of the Tiverton Zoning Board of Review to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

2)   Considering of the following applications:

 

2a) Continued from March 2, 2022

Richard Westlake, 509 Nanaquaket Road Rear, (Plat 403 - Lot 127). Dimensional Variance for the relief of 30 feet from the front yard setback of the required 50 feet. Proposed three car garage will be 20 feet from the front yard setback.

 

DECISION: Richard Westlake, applicant, appeared before the Board on behalf of the petition. The applicant was sworn in.

 

Mr. Westlake explained that his property was an unusually shaped lot surrounded on all sides by houses, and he was petitioning the Board to add a garage to his property. The garage was proposed to be four-hundred (400) feet from Nanaquaket Road so it could be accessible from his driveway.

 

The Chairwoman pointed out that there was already a garage on the property. Mr. Westlake agreed, and said that it was a two-car garage.

The Chairwoman stated that a Site Plan was a requirement, but one was not received in the application. She asked if a waiver was obtained. Mr. Westlake replied in the affirmative, and said that the plan he submitted was measured and drawn himself. The Chairwoman responded that a Site Plan was required unless an official waived it. Mr. Westlake said that he met with the Building Official who granted him the waiver.

 

The Chairwoman noted that there were no dimensions on the submitted plan. Mr. Westlake replied that the proposed garage was shown on the other submission documents as twenty-five (25) by forty (40) feet, to be one-thousand (1,000) square feet. The Chairwoman asked if both front setback relief and relief to exceed the dimensional requirements of an accessory structure of eight-hundred-sixty-four square feet (864) were being requested. Mr. Westlake said that the plan could be revised to be in conformance with the ordinance in regards to square footage.

 

The Chairwoman asked why two (2) garages were needed. Mr. Westlake replied that he had a few antique vehicles that occupied the existing garage. The proposed garage would be built to house his tractor and other seasonal tools. The Chairwoman asked if the property would have two (2) garages and a shed. Mr.

Westlake replied in the affirmative.

 

The Chairwoman inquired why the proposed garage couldn’t be moved back twenty (20) feet to conform to the ordinance. Mr. Westlake responded that he wanted it to tie into the existing driveway, and the proposed location would be more shielded from the neighbor’s view.

 

The Chairwoman asked about plumbing, heating, and water. Mr. Westlake answered that he planned to run electricity to the proposed garage, or install a split unit for heat.

 

Mr. Schober stated that he didn’t see an issue with the proposal, especially considering that the neighbors had submitted letters of support.

 

Mr. Collins questioned if there was one (1) house in the front of the lot. Mr. Westlake responded that three (3) homes shared the driveway. Mr. Collins asked if the other houses would block the view of the proposed garage from Nanaquaket Road. Mr. Westlake replied that it would be screened by vegetation.

 

Mr. Jackson inquired about frontage. Mr. Westlake said that there was no frontage,

there were homes on all sides. The front property line was determined as the one closest to Nanaquaket Road.

 

Mr. Alzaibak asked if the existing garage could be expanded. Mr. Westlake replied in the negative because of the next property line.

 

The Chairwoman asked for public comment.

 

Mr. Marcello acknowledged the neighbors' letters of support.

 

Mr. Westlake stated that his proposal was not contrary to the public interest. This constituted a hardship due to the location of the driveway as so close to the front property line, and this was not his doing. He continued in saying that the proposal would not alter the character of the neighborhood, and submitted photographs as a sample of what the garage would look like.

 

Mr. Collins asked for clarification on the location of the shared driveway. Mr. Westlake replied that the driveway was existing when he purchased the property, and had no control over its location. He stated that he wanted to set up his property for all weather conditions, and was forced to work around the position of the shared driveway.

 

The Board took no further input from the applicants and there were no comments from the audience. The Chairwoman closed the public hearing.

 

Mr. Alzaibak noted that the lots in the neighborhood were chaotic, and the additional garage would not be very impactful. He had no issues with the petition.

 

Mr. Jackson had no concerns about the variance, but the non-conforming size of the garage was an issue. The Chairwoman agreed. Mr. Marcello stated that the only matter before the Board was a setback variance, the size of the garage was not a part of this petition.

 

Ms. Taylor Humphrey opined that the applicant had demonstrated that he was in a unique situation in that it would be difficult to situate the proposed garage anywhere else on the lot. She acknowledged that Mr. Westlake was a good neighbor, and the justification of needing additional storage because of his car collection was valid. She had no issues with the proposal.

Mr. Collins stated that the proposal was not contrary to public interest, the lot was land-locked, and the hardship was pre-existing.

 

Mr. Collins made a motion to grant the request for a dimensional variance of thirty

(30) feet. Mr. Alzaibak seconded the motion. The motion was unanimous. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Ms. Taylor Humphrey, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Alzaibak.

 

3)  Approval of minutes from January 5, 2022 and March 2, 2022 meetings.

Mr. Alzaibak made a motion to approve the March 2022 meeting minutes. Ms. Taylor Humphrey seconded the motion. The motion was unanimous. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Ms. Taylor Humphrey, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Alzaibak.

 

Mr. Alzaibak made a motion to approve the January 2022 meeting minutes. The Chairwoman seconded the motion. The motion was unanimous. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Ms. Taylor Humphrey, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Alzaibak.

 

4)   Discussion and Review:

Discussion and/or approval of Revised Rules of Procedure, applications and notices.

 

The Chairwoman advised that she made minor changes to the regulations and application forms. She wanted to clarify the procedure relative to continuances, and change the meeting cutoff date to 10 pm.

 

The Chairwoman would make the discussed revisions and provide a copy to the Board for review. This item was continued to the May 4, 2022 meeting.

 

5)  Adjournment

Mr. Alzaibak made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m. (Whereupon the Zoning Board of Review meeting ended at 9:52 p.m.)

 

 

Submitted by: Tara Ferreira                                              Approval Date: June 1, 2022    Tara Ferreira