Zoning Board of Review - 05/04/2022 ' APPROVED AUG 1 0 2022
TOWN OF TIVERTON
ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES MAY 4, 2022
The following petitions were received and heard by the Tiverton Zoning Board of Review on Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
Me1nbers present: Chai1woman Lise Gescheidt, Vice Chairman David Collins, Ms. Wendy Taylor Humphrey, Mr. John Jackson, Ms. Jennifer Hilton (first alternate), and Mr. Edwin Schober (second alte1nate).
Also present were: Mr. Michael Marcello, Esq., Town Solicitor, Mr. John Hoyle, Jr., Building/Zoning Official, and Ms. Mary-Ann Escobar, Court Stenographer.
1) Call to order
The Chai1woman called the meeting of the Tive1ion Zoning Board of Review to order at 7:00 p.m.
The Chai1woman stated that #2b of the agenda had been withdrawn.
2) Considering of the following applications:
2a) Dimensional Variance
A petition has been filed by Peter Cirillo, 59 Elk Drive Tive1ion, RI. 02878 for a Dimensional Variance for O Laura Street (Plat 118 - Lot 291) R-30 zone. Pursuant to A1iicle XVII Section 2a and 2b the variance is for lot frontage for existing lot of record for the purpose of const1ucting a residential dwelling.
DECISION: Bill Smith, of Civil Engineering Concepts, Inc., and Peter Cirillo appeared before the Board on behalf of the petition. The applicants were swmn in.
Mr. Smith explained that the subject prope1iy was located along a right of way at the end of Laura Street, and was an existing lot of record shown as Parcel B on the recorded plan. The applicant proposed to const1uct a residential dwelling, but due to the existing right of way the submitted plan demonstrated that the required frontage could not be met. The plan showed about one hundred eleven (111) feet of
frontage.
The Chairwoman asked how much relief was being requested. Mr. Smith replied that the R-30 zone required one hundred and fifty (150) feet of frontage, so
thi1iy-nine (39) feet of relief was being requested. He continued to say that the only frontage was located on the right of way.
Mr. Smith stated that the relief was being sought through no fault of the applicant, the layout of the lot and surrounding prope1iies should be considered a special condition, and there was no record that the right of way was ever accepted by the Town as a street but had been in existence for about twenty (20) years. He noted that without the variance the owner was unable to build anything, and the minimum relief necessary was being sought.
The Chairwoman asked if the lot across the street was being developed. Mr. Smith replied that there was already a house on that property. The Chairwoman inquired if the house across the street had frontage. Mr. Smith responded that he believed so, and explained that the lot to the south had frontage on Laura Street.
Mr. Smith said that this caused more than an inconvenience, and all of the sruTounding lots had residential buildings on them.
Ms. Hilton questioned how the plan was approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Smith replied that the recorded plan was an Administrative Subdivision, and didn't necessarily receive approval by the Planning Board because no new lots of record were created.
Mr. Marcello stated that a private or public street was not a right of way. He wanted to bring this matter before the Board due to this lack of clarity.
The Chairwoman inquired if the right of way was passable in case of fire or other emergency. Mr. Smith replied in the affirmative, and stated that the mail t1uck truned around within the right of way. The Chai1woman asked if the right of way concluded in a dead end. Mr. Cirillo responded that it continued further.
Ms. Taylor Humphrey asked for the Building Official's opinion. Mr. Hoyle stated that he had no issue with the proposal, and mentioned that municipal offices including the fire depaiiment would review and approve the building permit.
Mr. Collins questioned if extending Laura Street and including the right of way in the road would solve the issue. Mr. Smith responded in the negative.
The Chairwoman asked for public comment. The Board took no further input from the applicants, and there were no comments from the audience. The Chairwoman closed the public hearing.
The Chaitwoman mentioned that the owner would be better protected with Board approval.
Mr. Collins made a motion to grant the dimensional relief due to the special conditions that existed: the property was a legal lot of record that should be buildable but the frontage requirement could not be met which created a conflict, the relief requested was not contrary to the public interest, a hardship existed as the property was not usable without relief, the applicant did not create the issue, it wouldn't alter the general character of the surrounding area, and the least relief necessary was being requirested. Ms. Taylor Humphrey seconded the motion. The motion was unanimous. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr.
Collins, Ms. Taylor Humphrey, and Mr. Jackson.
3) Discussion and Review:
Discussion and/or approval of Revised Rules of Procedure, applications and notices.
The Chaitwoman made a motion to approve the revised 1ules of procedure as drafted. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion. The motion was unanimous. Voting in favor of the motion were: Ms. Gescheidt, Mr. Collins, Ms. Taylor Humphrey, and Mr. Jackson.
4) Adjournment
The Chaitwoman made a motion to adjomn the meeting at 7:23 p.m. (Whereupon the Zoning Board of Review meeting ended at 7:23 p.m.)
Submitted by: <Tara Perreira
Tara Ferreira
Approval Date: August 10, 2022