Zoning Board – Meeting Minutes

Thursday, December 3, 2020 - 7:00 p.m.

(Pursuant to Governor Gina M. Raimondo Executive Order 20-100 updated November 30, 2020, this meeting was held via Zoom as all public meetings shall be held virtually, and no members of the public body should be convening in person.)

 

 

 

 

A.  CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Pawelkiewicz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

 

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE

Mr. Russo lead the Board and meeting attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

C. ROLL CALL AND REVIEW OF STAFF ATTENDANCE

 

Members Present:     Chairman Walter Pawelkiewicz, and Members Larry Cioppa, Doug Brockway, Jeffrey Russo, and Alternate Members James Torres and Dawn Robinson

 

Members Absent:      None

 

Staff Present:             Zoning Official Nathan Reichert, Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota, Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning Todd J. Romano, Esq., Information Technology Technician Lanny Fuller, and Director of Information Technology Marc Tate

 

Mr. Pawelkiewicz noted that Mr. Torres would be voting as a full member at the meeting. He read into the record the rules of procedure for hearing applications at the Zoning Board.

 

D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1. November 4, 2020 – Mr. Brockway made a motion to approve the November 4, 2020 Zoning Board meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

E. CHANGES TO AGENDA - Consider, discuss and act upon schedule changes for Applications.

 

There were no changes to the agenda.

 

F. APPROVAL OF DECISIONS - Consider, discuss and act on application decisions referred to staff for writing.

 

There were no approvals of decisions to discuss.

 

G. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Business - Consider, discuss and act on application(s). Case Issue Status

 

1. Quarry Hill Properties, LLC, 61 Ledward Avenue, AP ‘68’ Lot ‘48’. Ministorage w/ rooftop solar array. Dimensional Variance (§260-19), Special Use Permit (§260-34) Continued from October 7th

and November 4th 2020.

 

Mr. Reichert reminded the Board that eligible voters would be members who have heard the full testimony of the application. New Member Ms. Robinson may participate but not vote, he said. Mr. Reichert reviewed that the applicant provided a traffic study report and an environmental study, which were both requested by the Zoning Board. He said staff is generally supportive of the application.

Attorney John S. Payne, with offices at 46 Granite Street, was present on behalf of the application. He introduced some experts on behalf of the application; Anne Heffron, of Applied Enviro- Tech, Inc., Wakefield, Todd Brayton, a civil engineer with Bryant Associates, Tony Nenna, president and principal engineer at On-Site Engineering, Inc., Westerly, and the property owner Sam Bliven.

Mr. Nenna was sworn in for public testimony. Mr. Nenna reviewed the traffic report prepared by Bryant Associates and said that the proposed project will reduce traffic on Ledward Avenue. He reviewed the results of the phase one environmental report conducted by Ms. Heffron. He summarized that it was a neat site with neat operations and the applicant is amenable to cleaning up soil staining if a building permit is issued for demolition.

Ms. Heffron was sworn in for public testimony. Mr. Cioppa asked about the tanks on the property. Ms. Heffron said there are seven above-ground storage tanks for oil for the building which could be gone in the spring. She said waste oil in Rhode Island is not considered hazardous.

The Board had no further questions for the applicant or professionals and asked for public comments.

Lee Couture, of 62 Ledward Ave, said she thought there were plans to do a combined phase one and two study and that they would dig to see what was beneath the property.

Mr. Reichert explained that the applicant made a proposal to do a phase one study with additional soil samples, which the Board approved. Ms. Heffron said the property did not reveal a history to support conducting a phase two study. Ms. Couture stated a waste management business used to be on the property. Ms. Heffron said the property was the location for a waste hauler at one point, which stored trucks on the property but there was no manufacturing or underground storage tanks. She said there was no physical evidence of any hazardous release occurring on the property.

Michael Dippolino, of 55 Ledward Avenue, said he wasn’t worried about the current business at the property, but the past actions of a waste hauling business located there. He said he expected them to do digging on the whole property.

Mr. Nenna responded that several months ago they did excavate some test holes and ledge probes on site and did not encounter any garbage. He said they did about six or seven test digs in the area Mr. Dippolino referenced. Mr. Dippolino said he was satisfied with Mr. Nenna’s response.

In a poll of the Board, all members were in support of the project. Ms. Robinson did not comment as she was not present for previous hearings.

Mr. Brockway made a motion to close the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Russo suggested the Board continue the public hearing in order to have Zoning staff draft an affirmative motion to be read at the January Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Pawelkiewicz called a five- minute recess at 7:47 p.m. so that the applicant could discuss with Atty. Payne whether to allow a continuance. The meeting was reopened at 7:55 p.m. Atty. Payne said Mr. Bliven agreed to waive the 15-day requirement for a decision and the Board could read the motion at the January 14, 2021 meeting.

Mr. Russo made a motion that the Zoning Official draft a motion to approve the Quarry Hills Property, LLC. application to be presented at the January 14, 2021 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

H. PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS - Consider, discuss and act on application(s). Case Issue Status

 

1. Rudemyer, 89 Winnapaug Rd., AP ‘152’ Lot ‘110’ Addition of a second story to an existing structure, Dimensional Variance (§260-19).

 

Applicant Robert Rudemyer was present on behalf of the application along with the builder, Eric Posillo. Mr. Reichert explained the application is for a simple Variance for a 15 by 28-foot second-story addition, along with a wraparound front porch and a rear deck on the existing home. He said the applicant requests a vertical expansion up and horizontal expansions forward and back to accommodate the decks – a 5.4-foot dimensional Variance request.

Mr. Posillo was sworn in for public testimony. He said there are no proposed alterations to the existing rear deck. He described the project addition. He said certified mailings were sent and he knows applicants are friendly with the neighbors and haven’t heard any objections to the project. Mr. Posillo said changes to the home are being made to accommodate extended family visits during the summer. He said they included a septic design in the package that was already approved by Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM).

In a poll of the Board members, all were in support of the application.

Mr. Russo made a motion to close the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Torres read into the record the details of the Rudemyer application narrative, including testimony held at the December 3, 2020 public hearing and all documents entered into the record, and made a motion that the Zoning Board approve the Rudemyer application request with no conditions. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. Toppi, 58 Uzzi Avenue, AP ‘164’ Lot ‘109’ Addition of a front and rear yard deck (§260-19) Dimensional Variance

 

Dean and Pamela Toppi, of 133 Hillside Street, Rowley, Massachusetts, were present on behalf of the application. Mr. Reichert reviewed the details of the application for the Board; a proposal for two decks to create additional living space for the applicants. He said staff is supportive of the application.

Mr. and Ms. Toppi were sworn in for public testimony. Ms. Toppi explained the addition proposal to the Board and said it is consistent with the character of the neighborhood.

There was no public comment. In a poll of the Board, all members were in favor of the application.

Mr. Cioppa made a motion to close the public hearing 8:33 p.m. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Brockway read into the record the details of the Toppi application narrative, including the information heard at the December 3, 2020 public hearing, and made a motion to approve the Toppi application request with no conditions. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

3. Zoey Watch Hill, LLC, 14 Larkin Road, AP ‘185’ Lot ‘30’ Elevate, renovate, add a second floor with rear deck, reconfigure first floor rear deck, add a roof deck and make the home compliant with FEMA flood zone requirements (§260-19) Dimensional Variances.

 

Mr. Reichert described the details of the application.

Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, Westerly, represented the applicant Michael Schwartz. He introduced the project’s architect Wayne Garrick and engineer Jeffrey Balch to the Board. Atty. Nardone described the characteristics of the property and lot, including that it is currently serviced by a cesspool, which will be replaced by a septic system. He said the parking area in front of the existing garage does not allow for a vehicle to be safely pulled off the street or sidewalk and for that reason the garage level will be recessed. Atty. Nardone said Mr. Schwartz purchased the home in 2019 and it is in less than desirable condition inside and out, but sits near beautiful properties. He stated that a renovation at 50 percent of the home’s value would be inadequate for the state of its disrepair. He said there is a need and desire to lift the house to make it FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) compliant and resilient in the event of a serious storm based on its flood zone. He said the proposal is to lift the house and add a second level within the existing footprint of the property. Atty. Nardone said there is no available buildable land within the setbacks.

Mr. Garrick, with offices at 291 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut, was sworn in for public testimony. He shared details about his more than 40-year career in architecture. Mr. Garrick explained that they carefully considered the Zoning Ordinance in the planning of the project and described “the bones” of the structure to be in phenomenal condition, saying they would salvage most of it. He said various areas of the structure are in disrepair and do not meeting Building Code. He further described the plans for the building.

Attorney Gerald Petros, representing the Watch Hill Fire District and the Watch Hill Conservancy, questioned Mr. Garrick on the project proposal. Mr. Garrick said the garage grade will stay at 12 feet and they will not lift the slab. He said the elevation of the first floor is 21 feet, which includes 1 foot of floor and 1 foot of steel beam. He said its current elevation is 20 to 21 feet. Atty. Petros commented that the applicant is proposing to increase the size of the home, which has 475 square feet of habitable space, to 1,230 square feet. Mr. Garrick said he measured the current livable space to be 616 square feet.

Jeff Balch, professional land surveyor, with offices at 33 North Road, Peacedale, Rhode Island, was sworn in for public testimony. He described the existing house to be 27 by 22 feet with small an 8- foot-wide rear deck. He said the existing cesspool is between the home and the neighboring carousel and they are proposing to install a new denitrification system.

Atty. Petros asked Mr. Balch a series of questions regarding the replacement of the cesspool with a septic system. Mr. Balch said they chose a bottomless sand filter because it is the smallest footprint to the area and it will require CRMC (Coastal Resource Management Council) approval. He said CRMC often requires a denitrification system, adding that the septic system area will be surrounded by timbers or concrete walls with a pea stone surface. Mr. Balch said it would be a 10 by 15-foot area and the septic system will be partially placed underneath the current slab.

Mr. Schwartz, of 609 Campbell Road, Wilmington, Delaware, and owner of Zoey Watch Hill LLC, was sworn in for public testimony. Mr. Schwartz said he knew about the property for six years and it has been for sale since 2006. He said he purchased the home in 2019 and sees it as a thorn to the community and seeks to improve it. He described the plans for the building, which he spent the last year developing with professionals. He said most of the backyard will be the septic system and installing a larger second floor deck will allow him to more fully enjoy his property.

Atty. Petros asked Mr. Schwartz a series of questions regarding his understanding of his property purchase and the characteristics of the lot and the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Schwartz said he was aware the home was in a flood zone and there would be a requirement to fix certain elements of the structure. After an extensive line of questioning, Mr. Brockway asked the attorney to expediate the process. When asked by Atty. Petros, Mr. Schwartz said he didn’t discover the Zoning challenges until he visited the Town offices this summer. Atty. Petros argued that the structure could be kept as is and remain FEMA compliant. Mr. Schwartz said the home was not compliant with all Building Codes and many parts of the home are in poor condition. The two further discussed the details of the structure and Mr. Schwartz shared that he did not have the home appraised.

Mr. Torres asked Mr. Schwartz what he does for a living and he said he is a Harley Davidson dealer and he hired Mr. Garrick and Mr. Balch as the professionals for this project as he is a layman in this area. Ms. Robinson shared her appreciation with the applicant that he is proposing improvements to the property and she said she is appalled there is a cesspool, especially so near to a tourist attraction that has young visitors. Mr. Russo also asked Atty. Petros to expediate his line of questioning to the applicant. Mr. Schwartz shared that in June 2020 he was told by a neighbor that it would be unwise for him to lift the structure as it would impinge his views. Mr. Cioppa clarified that the proposed height is not an issue in this application. Mr. Reichert confirmed that the proposed house height will only be 31 feet and it is within Mr. Schwartz’s right to build it. Atty. Nardone reiterated the applicant’s hardships to the Board; the size and configuration of the lot, which is clearly nonconforming, and the issue of full and reasonable enjoyment of the property by increasing the deck by a minimal amount. Mr. Garrick said he would like to clarify that the proposed decks are 8 by 16 feet. He said based upon their measurements, not including the stairs, the existing deck is about 72 square feet. He added that he appreciated Ms. Robinson’s comments because the house has good bones, but as Mr. Schwartz has stated, the windows, exterior trim, and interior finishes are substandard for this neighborhood.

Atty. Petros further questioned Mr. Garrick on the details of the architecture plan. He then called his own witness, Deborah Lamm, president and chairman of the Watch Hill Conservancy (WHC), who resides at 29 Ocean View Highway, Westerly, to speak. Ms. Lamm was sworn in for public testimony. She shared that she’s an urban planner by training and has worked in New York City for over 10 years, as well as in private practice doing Zoning analysis. She explained that the concerns of her organization include reserving historic Watch Hill and the nature of Bay Street. She said she is pleased that there is a new owner interested in caring for the property, as it has fallen into disrepair, however the proposed project would more than double the space. She said adding more height and density makes the structure’s proximity to neighbors much less bearable and will have a devastating impact on the area, especially next to the carousel, which is a national historic landmark. She suggested the applicant to only renovate what exists now. She asked the Board to not approve the proposed the project.

Atty. Nardone asked if the WHC took a vote to publicly share a formal objection to the application. Ms. Lamm said there wasn’t a formal vote but it was presented at a WHC meeting. Mr. Torres asked if the WHC owns property. Ms. Lamm said yes, that the WHC had been gifted some property and has been able to purchase some on their own. Mr. Torres commented that the WHC had the opportunity to purchase 14 Larkin Road while it was on the market to which Ms. Lamm agreed. Mr. Russo asked Ms. Lamm if part of preserving the historic carousel is to remove the neighboring cesspool. She responded that she does think that is a good thing, but that is a requirement and not part of this application request.

Malcolm Maclear, of 6 Larkin Road, commented regarding the FEMA requirements. He said he recognizes there is a need to improve the property but it doesn’t need to be improved dramatically. He questioned the plans for the recessed garage area. Mr. Schwartz said they will be recessed by four feet and the current distance from the doors to the sidewalk is 16 to 18 feet. Mr. Maclear said there are rarely cars parked there now and he wonders if this is a positive plan for that turn in the road. He added that there is no other structure that high on the street and it doesn’t belong in the area. He asked the Board to consider continuing this application until there is further review of what can be adjusted.

Nicky Duff, property owner of 124 Bay Street, across from 14 Larkin Road, spoke in opposition to the project. She said she is concerned about its elevation and rooftop. Ms. Duff said this property is in disarray, but people are renting the property during the summertime so that is not necessarily true. She said she hasn’t seen any cars parked at the property that have been detrimental to pedestrians but she has seen cars in the garage. She said the applicant’s proposed structure elevation is a concern because her condo has a million-dollar view and it will obstruct that view. She also shared concerned about an unsightly condenser at her view level. Ms. Duff said she is concerned that the home will not be personal property, but a rental property and there could be music and disturbance.

Peter Gummeson, of 7 Larkin Road, said they didn’t receive a notice in the mail regarding the application. He said he admires the renovation plans but has an issue with the scale and height of the project. He said it would be a building that will be out of character with Bay Street. He said he understands the hardships, but the home was purchased with the knowledge of its limitations and he doesn’t find the applicant’s arguments genuine. Mr. Gummeson stated that the building should be renovated but the proposal seems like an attempt to double the square footage for financial gain.

Mr. Schwartz shared that this would be a second home for him and he does not rent the home, but stayed the entire summer and parked in the garage. He said he has no intentions of renting the property and takes objection to statements that the project is for financial gain. Mr. Schwartz added that the condensers would be screened in and not visible.

Atty. Nardone said the testimony is clear that the project’s professionals and owner testified they meet the requirements under the Zoning Ordinance for granting the request. He said many people are expressing concerns about the height, but they are not seeking a height Variance and are within height regulations. He stated that the project is compatible with the neighborhood and would be an improvement.

Atty. Petros said his clients do not want to deny the applicant the opportunity to improve the home, but they object to more than doubling the square footage of the structure. Atty. Petros added that he could not find the affidavit on record on the Town Web site that the neighbors all received notice of this application. Atty. Nardone said the notices were mailed by the applicant, who also signed an affidavit at the Zoning Office. Atty. Romano said he is looking at a lengthy list of the neighbors who were notified. Mr. Reichert reminded Atty. Petros that anyone wishing to view a full application file must visit Town Hall and only certain documents are made available Online as a courtesy. Atty. Petros continued to argue that lifting the home to comply with FEMA is not a requirement. He said a lot of work could be done and the applicant would not be affected by the 50 percent rule. He argued that the Variance request is specific and it is not a hardship to not build a bigger home as it is in a nonconforming lot. Atty. Petros said the relief is the owner is able to maintain the structure. He argued that Mr. Schwartz bought the home knowing what it was and its limitations and it is not a hardship to buy a house that is nonconforming and almost triple the habitable space. Atty. Petros asked the Board to deny the Variance request.

Atty. Nardone responded to Atty. Petros’ comments on demolition that the structure will not be completely demolished and the renovation has already been described for the record. He said the 50 percent rule triggers the need to meet FEMA requirements and he feels the applicant has met the burden for displaying hardship.

The Board discussed whether to make a decision on the application tonight or to continue the matter for further deliberation.

Mr. Brockway made a motion to continue the Zoey Watch Hill, LLC application to the January 14, 2021 6:00 p.m. Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

I. STAFF COMMENTS

 

1. No pre-applications were filed for public hearing in January.

 

2. Next Regular Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 14th 2020 from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM.

 

There was no discussion under the staff comments agenda item.

 

J. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Brockway made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:16 p.m. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Stephanie J. LaSota

Minute Taker

 

 

Approved by vote of the Board on January 14, 2021