TOWN OF TIVERTON
ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES JANUARY 5, 2022
The following petitions were received and were heard by the Tiverton Zoning Board of Review on Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: Chairwoman Lise Gescheidt, Vice Chairman David Collins, Mr. John Jackson, Mr. George Alzaibak, Ms. Jennifer Hilton (first alternate), and Mr.
Edwin Schober (second alternate).
Also present were: Mr. Michael Marcello, Esquire, Town Solicitor, and Ms. Sally Ferreira, Court Stenographer.
2a) Variance:
Continued from December 3, 2021, Special Use Permit 567 Main Road ATM @ Dollar General and Variance for 35 Hancock Street.
DECISION: The applicants for the Special Use Permit 567 Main Road ATM @ Dollar General had requested a continuance. This petition was continued to the February 2, 2022 meeting.
DECISION: Applicant Vincent Paquette appeared before the Board on behalf of the petition. Mr. Paquette was sworn in.
The Chairwoman explained that this petition had been continued twice already, and requested that the applicant present his entire proposal to the Board. She said that Mr. Paquette was proposing to construct a detached two (2) stall garage on his property and was seeking zoning relief from Article 4 Section 1 of the zoning ordinance. The dimensional regulation table showed the minimum front yard setback in the highway commercial zone as 40 feet. On the last version of the plan, the proposed garage was 21.5 feet away from the front property line.
Mr. Paquette stated that the plan had been revised and resubmitted, and the current version showed the proposed dimensions of the garage as 28 feet wide by 40 feet long. The garage was now shown as approximately 31.9 feet from the front yard property line, and the difference between 31.9 and the required 40 feet was the
relief being requested. He said that he had purchased a camper, and the garage is being proposed to store the camper and to enhance his property.
Mr. Collins asked if relief was being requested for the north end of the property. Mr. Paquette replied in the affirmative. Mr. Marcello clarified that this was the front yard setback.
Mr. Paquette advised that he attempted to relocate the garage, but was unable to create a plan that would meet the required setbacks. He mentioned that the surrounding properties were built close to the property lines, and he was only asking for around eight (8) feet of relief.
Mr. Jackson brought up the last meeting’s discussion with the Director of the Department of Public Works (DPW), Mr. Rick Rogers, and asked if the applicant had been working with Mr. Rogers. Mr. Paquette replied in the affirmative. Mr.
Jackson said that there was an expectation of receipt of documentation from Mr. Rogers. Mr. Paquette was unaware of any required documentation.
The Chairwoman stated there was some question of water runoff, and how it could affect the area. Ms. Hilton mentioned roof runoff. Mr. Jackson said he thought it was relevant to the swale on Hancock Street. Mr. Paquette responded that Mr.
Rogers hadn’t identified any water issues, and was working with him on drainage. Mr. Jackson said the drainage would cross the subject property. Mr. Paquette replied that it would all be on the subject property. The Chairwoman asked if the plan was revised according to the information and suggestion of Mr. Rogers. Mr. Paquette responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Collins inquired if the purpose of the proposed garage was to store a recreation vehicle (RV), and if the RV was currently exposed. Mr. Paquette said yes, he would store the RV and his other vehicles in the garage, and the RV was presently exposed to the elements.
The Chairwoman stated that the garage could not be placed further from the front yard setback line because of the existing pool. Mr. Paquette agreed, and continued to say that when reviewing the plan, Mr. Rogers had taken water runoff into account as to avoid undermining the pool.
Mr. Paquette told the Board that he lived in Tiverton for all of his life, and opined that enhancing his property would be beneficial for the Town.
The Board took no further input from the applicant and there were no comments from the audience.
Mr. Collins asked what the hardship was, and hypothesized about the possibility or difficulty of the subsequent property owner not being in possession of an RV. Mr. Alzaibak replied that the applicant had the right to request this relief, and the next owner would be responsible for dealing with the garage. Ms. Hilton pointed out that no objections had been received. Mr. Collins opined that the advantage would be the covering of the RV for aesthetic value. He asked if he was the only Board member with this concern. The Board replied yes; no other members shared the concern about the subsequent property owner.
Mr. Collins made a motion to grant the request for dimensional relief on the front setback of the 8.1 feet. The relief was not contrary to the public interest. Not having relief would be beyond the mere inconvenience in that the storage of the RV vehicle won’t alter the general character of the area.
Mr. Alzaibak seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Alzaibak, Ms. Hilton, and Mr. Schober.
Mr. Marcello reminded the applicant that they could not build prior to the thirty
(30) day decision appeal period.
2b) Variance:
A petition has been filed by Marianne DeMello-Smith & Arthur Smith JR, 70 Jacqueline Way, Tiverton, RI. 02878 (608-122) R-80 zone requesting a variance from article VI section 1a to erect a 1536 square foot pole barn on the property. Proposed barn is 672 square feet over the 864 square foot maximum.
DECISION: Applicants Ms. Marianne DeMello-Smith and Mr. Arthur Smith Jr. appeared before the Board on behalf of the petition. Ms. DeMello-Smith and Mr. Smith were sworn in.
The Chairwoman stated that the variance was being requested from the zoning requirements that limit the size of an accessory structure. Ms. DeMello-Smith concurred, and continued to say that the subject property contained twenty (20)
acres, all zoning setbacks were met, and animals reside on the property. The Chairwoman inquired about a dimensional variance. Ms. DeMello-Smith responded that one was not necessary, only a variance related to the size of the barn was being sought.
Mr. Collins asked what a pole barn was. Mr. Smith replied that it was a barn constructed from telephone poles rather than six (6) by six (6) cuts of wood. Mr. Collins questioned the benefit of this type of building. Ms. Hilton said that it was a different style.
Mr. Collins inquired why a bigger barn was needed. Mr. Smith answered to store hay, grain, and farm equipment. Ms. DeMello-Smith mentioned that they pay taxes on twenty (20) acres of land, and farming activities serve to sustain the land. Mr.
Collins asked if the 1536 square foot barn would be big enough, and if the applicants would be requesting further relief in the future. Mr. Smith responded that they would not request further relief.
Mr. Collins asked if the barn would be visible from the street. Ms. DeMello-Smith replied that part of it would be. Mr. Smith pointed out that the property was located on a dead-end. Ms. DeMello-Smith continued to say that it was off of Lake Road on the cul-de-sac of Jacqueline Way. Mr. Collins asked how many houses were on Jacqueline Way. Mr. Smith responded about six (6) or seven (7).
Mr. Marcello asked about the general character of the neighborhood and if the surrounding properties had barns or other buildings for accessory use. Mr. Smith replied no, they did not have the acreage. Ms. DeMello-Smith clarified that the properties on Jacqueline Way did not have accessory use structures but the properties up and down Lake Road did.
The Chairwoman inquired if the land used to be a farm that had been subdivided and the subject property was the remaining farmland. Ms. DeMello-Smith replied in the affirmative. Mr. Smith stated that they raised pigs and turkeys in the summer and had chickens on the property as well. Mr. Alzaibak asked if there had been any issues with the neighbors regarding the animals. Mr. Smith responded in the negative.
Mr. Schober asked what equipment would be stored in the barn. Mr. Smith answered that he had a farm tractor, backhoe, and lawn mower, among other machinery.
Mr. Marcello stated, for the record, that the Town’s zoning ordinance dictates that the accessory use dimensional regulations are not tied to the acreage of the property, but provides one dimensional limit. He said that, generally, other zoning codes state that the accessory use square footage limit would be dependent upon the square footage of the parcel. Mr. Marcello suggested the Town have a discussion regarding this portion of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Hilton concurred with Mr. Marcello’s analysis, and said the ordinance should be based on lot coverage. The Chairwoman pointed out the impracticality of the zoning ordinance in relation to property within the rural and farm zoning districts.
The Chairwoman questioned that no other activity would occur in the proposed barn aside from keeping animals and storing farm equipment. Mr. Smith replied no, nothing else would be done in the barn.
The Board took no further input from the applicants and there were no comments from the audience.
Mr. Schober expressed approval of the proposal. Mr. Collins pointed out that the inability to have an adequate barn to operate the farm caused more than just an inconvenience.
Mr. Alzaibak stated, for the record, that the barn should be limited to farm use.
The Chairwoman said, for the record, that the neighborhood was rural, the property had always been a farm, and the proposal would not alter the general character of the surrounding area, nor was contrary to the comprehensive plan. The least relief requested was being granted, the proposal was not contrary to the public interest, and to implement the zoning ordinance on an agricultural lot of this size was not practical.
Mr. Jackson made a motion to grant approval on the terms laid out by the Chairwoman, in addition to the requirement that the proposed barn be limited to farm use.
Mr. Schober seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Alzaibak, Ms. Hilton, and Mr. Schober.
3) Approval of minutes of July 2021, September 2021 and November 2021 Meeting.
Ms. Hilton made a motion to approve the July 2021 meeting minutes. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-1. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Alzaibak, Ms. Hilton. Mr. Schober abstained.
The Chairwoman stated that a quorum was not present to vote on the September and November meeting minutes. These items were continued to the February 2, 2022 meeting.
4) Discussion and Review:
Discussion and review of proposed amended forms and rules of procedure. Applications for variances and Special Use Permits, appeals from the Building Official; appeals from Planning Board; and Rules of Procedure.
The Chairwoman advised that packets had been distributed to the Board and requested comments for discussion before the next meeting. This item was continued to the February 2, 2022 meeting.
5) Adjournment
Mr. Jackson made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:41 p.m. Chairwoman Gescheidt seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Alzaibak, Ms. Hilton, and Mr. Schober.
(Whereupon the Zoning Board of Review meeting ended at 7:41 p.m.)
Submitted by: Tara Ferreira Approval Date:
Tara Ferreira