TOWN OF TIVERTON
ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES MARCH 2, 2022
The following petitions were received and heard by the Tiverton Zoning Board of Review on Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., on Zoom.
Members present: Chairwoman Lise Gescheidt, Vice Chairman David Collins, Ms. Wendy Taylor Humphrey, Mr. John Jackson, Mr. George Alzaibak, and Mr. Edwin Schober (alternate).
Also present were: Mr. Michael Marcello, Esq., Town Solicitor, Mr. Joseph Kaufman, Zoning Official, and Ms. Mary Ann Escobar, Court Stenographer.
1) Call to Order
The Chairwoman called the meeting of the Tiverton Zoning Board of Review to order at 7:03 p.m.
2) Considering of the Following Applications:
2a) Continued from December 3, 2021, Special Use Permit 567 Main Road for the construction of an ATM @ Dollar General and Variance for 35 Hancock Street, (Plat 116-Lot 361).
DECISION: Jay Lynch, Esq. appeared before the Board on behalf of the petition.
The Chairwoman explained that the Board had heard this petition in November of 2021. At the November meeting testimony was taken and an abutter was present who had not been properly notified when this petition was presented to the Planning Board. The issues with the proposal consisted of the abutter complaints and problems of egress from the parking lot. This matter had then been continued a number of times.
Since November, an additional abutter complaint was also received from the Ferreiras, of 7 Kearns Avenue, citing excess litter due to Dollar General, amongst other issues.
The Chairwoman said that the Board was in receipt of a letter from counsel for the petitioner requesting the continuance.
Mr. Lynch stated that the applicant was in the process of reevaluating the proposed location of the ATM within the parking lot, and was considering altering the project to a kiosk rather than a drive through ATM. He requested a one-month continuance.
The Chairwoman mentioned that in November an abutter objected to the request for continuance, as well as member Mr. Alzaibak. She did not find good cause in the letter requesting the continuance, since the project was being redesigned. She stated that the Board could not dismiss without prejudice, but the applicant would not be prejudiced by withdrawing this proposal, creating a new plan, and requesting relief.
Mr. Marcello expressed reluctance to deny the continuance request. In the event that the applicant submitted a new application, they would have to re-file and
re-apply.
Mr. Alzaibak said that the past requests for continuances were not submitted in time, he was not in favor of granting this request, and the applicant should withdraw and reapply.
Mr. Lynch replied that he notified the Board as soon as he had heard from his client.
Mr. Schober asked whether the project was for a drive through ATM or a kiosk. Mr. Lynch responded that the current proposal was for a drive-up ATM.
Mr. Alzaibak made a motion to deny the continuance. Mr. Schober seconded the motion.
Mr. Marcello asked, if the continuance was denied, would the petition be heard. Mr. Lynch said that he was not prepared to present the petition, and that he notified the abutter’s counsel that he was requesting a continuance. Mr. Lynch requested one more continuance and was willing to withdraw the application if the applicant was not prepared by next month’s meeting.
The motion passed 3-2-1. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr.
Alzaibak, and Mr. Schober. Voting against the motion were: Mr. Jackson, and Ms. Taylor Humphrey. Mr. Collins abstained.
DECISION: Variance for 35 Hancock Street, (Plat 116-Lot 361) was erroneously included on the agenda and was not heard.
2b) Dimensional Variance
A petition has been filed by John & Linnea Wolfe, 116 Lawton Ave, Tiverton, RI. 02878 (Plat 305-Lot 130) R-40 zone. A dimensional variance is being requested for a relief of 20 feet from the side yard setback of the required 25 feet. Proposed structure (attached two car tandem garage addition) will be 5 feet from the side yard.
DECISION: John and Linnea Wolfe, applicants, Patrick Connors, architect, and Yamile Delisi, architect, appeared before the Board on behalf of the petition. The applicants were sworn in.
Mr. Connors, as representative of the applicants, stated that the Wolfes bought their wood-frame two (2) story home in August of 2021, and they needed a two (2) car tandem garage. The plan showed that the garage was proposed to be five (5) feet away from the western property line. He explained that the property was a lot of substandard size at 60% of the required lot size, and so the required side yard setback would be reduced to ten (10) feet. Therefore, five (5) feet of relief was being requested. Mr. Connors continued in saying that the western side of the property was the only option for the garage due to the septic tank and leaching field located on the eastern side of the property.
The Chairwoman asked if the house was currently encroaching the side yard setback. Mr. Connors replied in the negative. The Chairwoman inquired as to how far the garage would be from the side yard setback and the neighbors house, citing fire or emergency service truck access. Mr. Connors responded that the garage was proposed as five (5) feet from the property line setback, the neighbors house was on a larger lot and opined it was around twenty (20) feet from the property line, and fire trucks could drive up the eastern side of the subject property. The Chairwoman asked if fire engines could access the neighbor’s property. Mr. Wolfe said that there was a strip of land in between the neighbors garage and the property line that was open space. The Chairwoman questioned if the garage would be used for habitation, or would require water or heat hookups. Mr. and Ms. Wolfe replied in the negative.
Mr. Alzaibak asked if the three season room as shown on the plan could be built without the garage. Mr. Collins replied that it could be constructed independent of the garage.
Mr. Collins inquired about the existing asphalt driveway on the south end of the property. Mr. Connors said there was a four (4) to five (5) foot high retaining wall on the upper right side of the existing paved driveway. Mr. Collins asked if the garage would be built over the driveway. Mr. Connors responded in the affirmative. Mr. Collins questioned if relief was denied, would it constitute a major hardship.
Mr. Connors replied yes, taking weather conditions into account, denial of relief would constitute a hardship. Ms. Wolfe stated that it would be beyond a mere inconvenience, this house was bought to be a retirement home, and safety was an important factor.
Mr. Alzaibak asked where the existing driveway ended. Mr. Connors replied it stopped at the wooden steps that would be displaced by the proposed garage.
Mr. Schober questioned what the neighbors’ feedback was to the proposal. Mr. Marcello said that the abutters would have been property notified, and could attend the hearing to voice any objection.
Mr. Kaufman asked if the faux railings were attached to a deck. Mr. Connors replied that it was not a deck, but a low sloped roof which did not have access, and the railings were decorative.
Mr. Connors addressed the design standards of the project as required by the zoning ordinance.
The Chairwoman asked for public comment. Mr. Marcello provided the Zoom instructions and the call-in phone number.
The Chairwoman confirmed that no written objections were received.
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 stated that he was hesitant initially, but after considering the presentation he saw no other option for the applicant and expressed his support.
Mr. Collins cited the hardship of the locations of the leach field and existing asphalt driveway. He opined that the Board had decided in the past that not having a garage would constitute a hardship beyond a mere inconvenience.
Ms. Taylor Humphrey agreed with Mr. Alzaibak’s comments. She mentioned the slope near the septic, that the surrounding houses had garages, and the proposed garage was minimal. Ms. Taylor Humphrey did not have any objections to the proposal.
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Schober had no objections.
The Chairwoman said that this was the smallest lot in the surrounding area, the impervious surface would not be increased, and was satisfied that emergency access was possible.
Mr. Collins made a motion to grant approval on the grounds that the location of the septic system and existing driveway constitute a hardship, the request is not contrary to the public interest, is compliant with the comprehensive community plan, and the requirements as cited by the applicant.
The Chairwoman added that this was the least relief necessary, the proposal was not for economic profit, and the relief was sought through no fault of the applicant.
Mr. Alzaibak seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Ms. Taylor Humphrey, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Alzaibak, and Mr. Schober.
2c) Dimensional Variance
A petition has been filed by Richard L. Westlake, 509 Nanaquaket Road Rear, Tiverton, RI. 02878 (Plat 403-Lot 127) R-80 zone. The dimensional variance is being requested for the relief of 30 feet from the front yard setback of the required 50 feet. Proposed structure (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 Chairwoman explained that this item was included on the meeting agenda in
error. It would not be heard because the application was incomplete due to the lack of a site plan. She said that the Board did not have the authority to waive this requirement.
Mr. Westlake was under the impression that his application was complete. The Chairwoman advised that a certified plan was necessary, and the Board could grant a continuance.
The Chairwoman made a motion to continue the matter for a month, to the April 6 meeting. Mr. Alzaibak seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Ms. Taylor Humphrey, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Alzaibak, and Mr. Schober.
2d) Special Use Permit
A petition has been filed by Bally’s Tiverton Casino & Hotel, 777 Tiverton Casino Blvd., Tiverton, RI. 02878 (Plat 203-Lot 111), HC zone seeking a special use permit related to enlargement, modifications and additional new signage at the property.
DECISION: Mark Russo, Esq., Kim Ward, Regional Executive Director of Public & Community Affairs of Bally’s, and Matthew Pimental, Esq., appeared before the Board on behalf of the petition. The applicants were sworn in.
Mr. Russo explained that the applicant was seeking a special use permit to replace three (3) existing casino signs with redesigned signs that exceeded the dimensional restrictions. Two (2) of the signs were located on stone walls surrounding the roundabout to get into the property, and the third sign was located on the casino property. All three existing signs are three (3) feet high by sixteen (16) feet wide, and of a dark bronze/black color with gold lettering.
The proposed replacement signs would measure eight (8) feet high by eighteen
(18) feet, four (4) inches wide, with a signage face of six (6) feet by sixteen (16) feet. The proposed signs would read, Bally’s Casino Hotel in red lettering. Mr. Russo said that the proposed signs would be more visible from the roundabout, resulting in a clear visual improvement.
Mr. Russo asked about the rebranding of signs. Ms. Ward stated that the new signs were proposed because the namesake of Bally’s had been acquired and the rebranding was in process. She said that the company Yesco had been employed to
design signage for all of the properties, who had then subcontracted the job out. Mr. Russo inquired if, after the design process, it was determined that the three new signs would result in a clear visual improvement. Ms. Ward replied in the affirmative. Mr. Russo asked if this was why the special use permit was being sought. Ms. Ward responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Alzaibak questioned if the proposed signs were internally lit. Ms. Ward replied yes, they would have channel lettering. She said that the existing signs do not have lighting. Mr. Alzaibak asked why external lighting wasn’t being proposed. Ms.
Ward responded that the plan was what the design company produced. Mr. Alzaibak inquired if anyone needed this signage to determine where the casino was located. Ms. Ward replied that the area was dark at night. Mr. Russo said that there was some confusion amongst new patrons as to where to exit the roundabout to access the casino, and the sign company took this into account.
The Chairwoman asked about the square footage of the proposed signs. Mr. Russo said that each sign would be one hundred forty six (146) square feet, with a ninety six (96) square foot sign face. The existing signs were forty eight (48) square feet.
The Chairwoman pointed out that the casino overlay district required that the entry signage be of a low profile design, and the existing signage met this qualification. She opined that the proposed signs were not low profile. She was concerned that the large red sign would be distracting while driving in the rotary. Mr. Russo said that because the proposed signs measured under ten (10) feet in height they fit the qualification of a low profile design.
Mr. Alzaibak said the proposed signs were gaudy, of a Las Vegas style, and not fitting for Tiverton.
The Chairwoman asked what the setback was from the road to the signs. Mr. Russo replied that he did not know but it would remain the same. Ms. Ward said that the signs were about twenty (20) to thirty (30) feet from the road, and a digital Las Vegas style sign was specifically avoided. The proposed signs had red channel letters on a brown background.
Mr. Jackson inquired as to how much flexibility there was with the design. Ms. Ward replied that the signs had not been made, this was a proposal. Mr. Jackson considered the proposed signs flashy and large.
Mr. Alzaibak asked if a traffic study had been performed as to how the lit sign would affect drivers at night. Mr. Russo replied in the negative, not since the roundabout was designed. Mr. Alzaibak was concerned that drivers from Fall River would be looking directly at the red light sign.
Mr. Schober stated that if the new signage would attract new customers to the casino and keep taxes lower he was in support of the petition.
Mr. Collins pointed out that the current signs were forty-eight (48) square feet, and asked why the proposed signs had to exceed this same square footage. Mr. Russo replied that the existing signs were low profile, built into the original design, and not as effective.
Mr. Collins asked if the casino overlay regulations superseded the standard special use permit requirements. Mr. Marcello responded that there were three standards for signage as set forth in the special use permit ordinance. He said that the casino overlay district had its own sign requirements and if the applicant wanted to exceed those regulations then the requirements of the special use permit must be met. The Chairwoman questioned if the three standards were the only requirements to be met. Mr. Marcello replied that the requirements were cumulative. Mr. Russo stated that he was unsure that all of the standards applied.
Mr. Alzaibak questioned if there was a study to show how many people got lost on their way to the casino. Mr. Russo replied in the negative, and said the applicant had been a model citizen and the proposal would attract more visitors.
Mr. Marcello asked if there was any proof to satisfy the first standard, that establishment of the sign in a completely conforming manner would result in significant damage to the associated business. Mr. Russo answered that the proof was based on Ms. Ward’s testimony in regards to the rebranding. He said that in the gaming industry there was constant competition and continual improvements must be made to the property.
The Chairwoman opined that the proposed signs were gaudy and the size was distracting. Ms. Ward said that the proposed signs were not that large in comparison to the stone wall. The Chairwoman stated that the signs were located in a dark area, and the proposal was incompatible with the comprehensive community plan. The proposed size was excessive.
The Chairwoman asked for public comment. Mr. Marcello provided the Zoom instructions and the call-in phone number.
Roger Steven Belanger, of 125 Stafford Road did not see the need to change the type of sign. He thought that the lit sign would be distracting, the state of the rotary was challenging, and the proposal was not in character with the Town. He advocated to keep the sign minimal, citing the signage at Fort Barton and Fogland.
Mr. Russo replied that the rotary was the responsibility of the State.
The Board took no further input from the applicants and there were no additional comments from the audience. The Chairwoman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Alzaibak stated that two (2) large signs at the dark rotary would be a problem, and the homes across the street would see red lights on constantly. He was completely against the proposal.
Mr. Jackson was not in support of the signs at the proposed size, but expressed willingness to compromise over smaller signs.
Mr. Collins said that without the casino overlay district regulations that were agreed upon at the time of establishment of the casino, the current signage would not even be allowed. He could not identify evidence that would justify increasing the size of the signs.
Ms. Taylor Humphrey stated that she was against the proposal. There were no studies provided as evidence that the current signs were damaging to the casino or that the new signs would benefit the business. She continued to say that neon signage was not appropriate for that area of Town. The Chairwoman clarified that the proposed signs were not neon, but red channel letters. Ms. Taylor Humphrey said that the planning of the design of the casino took years, and only a few years later changes were being requested. She mentioned that surrounding towns brought in commercial businesses and required them to comply with their design standards, regardless of the company’s logo and colors.
The Chairwoman said that it was desirable to promote the business interests of the community, but was unsure that the proposal would enhance the visual quality of the Town or any commercial building. She was concerned about the distraction the proposed signs could pose, and their incompatibility with the comprehensive
community plan. The Chairwoman could not locate evidence that the existing signs would result in significant damage to the business. She was supportive of the existing signs.
Mr. Alzaibak made a motion to deny the application based on what was proposed and the existing sign regulations applicable to the casino. Ms. Taylor Humphrey seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1-0. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Ms. Taylor Humphrey, and Mr. Alzaibak. Voting against the motion was: Mr. Jackson.
3) Approval of minutes from July 2021, September 2021, November 2021, and
December 2021 meetings.
Mr. Alzaibak made a motion to approve the July 2021, September 2021, November 2021, and December 2021 meeting minutes. Mr. Schober seconded the motion. The motion was unanimous. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Ms. Taylor Humphrey, Mr.
Jackson, Mr. Alzaibak, and Mr. Schober.
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 she made minor changes to the regulations and application forms. The edits would require the applicant to file their application under oath, and entries of appearances must be filed by lawyers that certify they are familiar with the Board’s rules of procedure, citing issues regarding submission deadlines. 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 April 6, 2022 meeting.
5) Adjournment
Mr. Alzaibak made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:21 p.m. (Whereupon the Zoning Board of Review meeting ended at 9:21 p.m.)
Submitted by: Tara Ferreira Approval Date:
Tara Ferreira