Zoning Board – Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, February 19, 2020 – 6:00 P.M

 

Council Chambers, Westerly Town Hall

45 Broad Street, Westerly, RI 02891

 

A.    CALL TO ORDER

            Mr. Pawelkiewicz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The Board opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Pawelkiewicz read into the record the rules and procedures for hearing applications of the Zoning Board of Review.

B.     ROLL CALL AND REVIEW OF STAFF ATTENDANCE

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:      Chair Walter Pawelkiewicz, Vice Chair John Ornberg, Members Doug Brockway, Albert Clemence and Larry Cioppa, and Alternate Member Jeffrey Russo

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:         Alternate Member James Torres was excused from the meeting.

 

STAFF PRESENT:  Administrative Officer and Zoning Official Nathan Reichert, Solicitor Todd Romano, and Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota

 

C.    APPROVAL AND REVISION OF MINUTES

None.

 

D.    CHANGES TO AGENDA

 Review, discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on changes to the agenda - on the order in which items will be heard or known continuances.

1. Perno/ Ferraro, 397 Atlantic Avenue, AP ‘167’ Lot ‘30', Raise existing structure to be (FEMA) compliant with an addition of a second floor and roof deck. Dimensional Variance (§260-19). Continued due to notice requirements.

            Mr. Reichert said due to a typographical error in the notice, the Town requests the application be continued to March 4. Mr. Ornberg made a motion that the Perno/Ferraro application be continued to the March 4 agenda. Mr. Brockway seconded the motion. There was discussion that the applicant should not be faulted because this was a Town error. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

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

 

There were no approval of decisions to review.

 

F.     PRE-APPLICATIONS - Schedule public hearing date for Application(s). Consider and approve application waivers.

 

There were no pre-applications to review.

 

G.    PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS - Consider, discuss and act on application(s).

 

There was no old business for discussion.

 

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

1. DCG Properties, LLC, 39 Batterson Avenue, AP ‘48’ Lot ‘90B’ Construction of a two- family residence Special Use Permit (§260-34).

            Mr. Reichert explained that the lot was created last spring and at the time it met all the Zoning requirements for a multi-family residence. He said, however, the Zoning Ordinance requires a Special Use Permit to allow it. He said the two lots were created and construction of a single-family home on the adjacent lot was done. He said foundation preparation was allowed on the application site per agreement with the Building Department that they could start the initial phase of construction with the understanding that if Zoning Board did not grant the Special Use Permit they would have to build a single-family home. He said staff is supportive of the application.

Present for the application was Sergio Cherenzia, project engineer and principal of Cherenzia & Associates, LTD., who was sworn in for public testimony by Mr. Pawelkiewicz. The applicant Dan Gowen, of DCG Properties, LLC, was also present. Mr. Cherenzia explained that the application had already been approved by the Planning Board and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEM.) He said the use is consistent with other uses in the area as there are other nearby multi-family properties. Mr. Cherenzia said they encountered shallow depth to ledge while digging and have accommodated that by not blasting so as not to disturb neighbors.

Mr. Brockway asked Mr. Cherenzia a series of questions about the proposed rain gardens in the site plan and who is responsible for ensuring the applicant maintains them. Mr. Cherenzia said the homeowner would be responsible for maintaining the rain gardens and the plan had been approved by DEM as the property is in the vicinity of wetlands. He said if the state identifies issues with the property they can be cited for a violation. Mr. Reichert said in the case of a complaint or issue on the site, Town staff would first try to make a referral to DEM as they have more expertise, but if it became a significant issue they would have the authority to enforce homeowner regulations, which is usually through the Engineering Department. Atty. Romano said the Board could put a condition on it but there are agencies in place already and it would be a civil issue, which DEM can enforce itself. There was further discussion on rain gardens and how they work. Mr. Cherenzia said they submitted a maintenance plan as part of the application to DEM and if they abide by what was submitted, DEM said they didn’t need a permit. Mr. Brockway said he was satisfied with the conversation and did not see the need for a special condition on the approval.

There was no public comment. In a poll of the Zoning Board, all members were in support of the project.

Mr. Cioppa made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Clemence seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.  

Mr. Brockway read into the record the details of the application request, including the Zoning Narrative, testimony given at the public hearing, and the Findings of Fact and made a motion to approve the application for a Special Use Permit for DCG Properties, LLC, 39 Batterson Avenue, AP ‘48’ Lot ‘90B’ for the construction of a two- family residence without conditions. Mr. Cioppa seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2.  Bonk, 395 Atlantic Avenue, AP ‘167’ Lot ‘31’, Raise existing structure to be (FEMA) compliant with an addition of a second floor. Dimensional Variance (§260-19).

            Mr. Reichert said the project is in a VE-Zone or Velocity Zone, on the beach, so therefore it needs to meet the flood zone requirements. He said because of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements it needs to be elevated to a minimum elevation of fifteen feet and another foot of elevation is required by the Rhode Island Building Code. He said the applicant can take up to three feet of freeboard to get out of the Flood Zone. Mr. Reichert continued to explain the requested Variances, one being a three-foot height Variance request. He asked the Board to deliberate the justification of the request by the applicant. Mr. Reichert said the applicant is requesting to build to 46-foot-high to accommodate a higher roof line. Mr. Reichert said in his opinion the application needs to justify that relief requested met the standards for the least amount of relief necessary.  

A set of proposed front elevation plans marked Exhibit 1 was distributed to the Board by the applicant’s project architect, Paul A. Azzinaro, of Azzinaro Larson Architects, Inc. Mr. Reichert explained the Flood Zone requirements and where those would fall on the Exhibit 1 images. He clarified they are essentially asking for a 28-foot tall home rather than a 25-foot home. He said the higher above the flood zone you get, the lower flood insurance becomes. He said the applicant wants to meet clearance underneath the home to have a garage and storage. Mr. Ornberg asked questions about the proposed roof height and pitch. Mr. Pawelkiewicz swore in Mr. Azzinaro for public testimony. Mr. Azzinaro explained the need for the pitch in the roof. Mr. Azzinaro did provide the Board photos of neighboring homes as examples of the characteristics of the neighborhood, which was marked Exhibit 2.

Atty. William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, Westerly, was present to represent the applicant, and further explained that they are seeking three Variances, two sideline Variances, which do not increase the building’s footprint, and a height Variance, which is the focus. He said the property is Zoned HGR10 and the lot itself is only fifty feet wide. Atty. Nardone explained the area at the roof peak will house duct work for heating and cooling for the second floor and they are taking advantage of three feet of freeboard to raise the home. Mr. Azzinaro explained the average grade in the Misquamicut area and that the minimum of 1 foot of freeboard was needed, but three feet of freeboard is permissible in Westerly and that’s what the applicant seeks. He said, in his opinion, Westerly should adopt five feet of freeboard like the State, and the reduction in flood insurance premiums is substantial per added foot of freeboard. Mr. Azzinaro shared some building design history from the Misquamicut area. He said in this case, they seek to take space below the flood plain and add it on the second floor. He said the newest homes you see in the area are two floors above the Design Flood Elevation (DFE.) Mr. Azzinaro said the second-floor exterior walls are designed to 5.5 feet to create a stronger roof pitch, which does not significantly affect the livable area, but provides safety from wind and an area to store duct work. He said it is also more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Azzinaro explained the process by which they wish to rebuild the home, which will be a full-time residence. He said the area below the flood plain now is not habitable.

Mr. Clemence asked if it would be fair to assume if the roof pitch were reduced the safety of the building would also be reduced. Mr. Azzinaro explained why his design is safer, as well as more visually appealing, and shared the recommended numbers for roof pitches. Mr. Clemence said he would address the hardship as something being done to create greater safety for inhabitants. Mr. Ornberg said most houses in Exhibit 2 all have low-pitched roof designs. Mr. Azzinaro shared State projections for future regulations. The Board discussed if it was realistic to attempt to build a two-story home at 25 feet high in VE-Zone. Mr. Russo said it is the underlying problem and Westerly should look to go a little higher to allow a home to be built to standard with quality materials and safety. Mr. Azzinaro said the current foundation is not FEMA compliant. There was further discussion on current and possible future State and FEMA regulations and how they would impact local building design in a flood zone. Mr. Azzinaro explained in further detail how the roof pitch as designed is important for housing the duct work, which must be stored above the freeboard line and out of the flood zone. Atty. Nardone added that this is the only Zone in Westerly that has the height limitation. Mr. Cioppa asked if the applicant were forced to drop the three feet could they fit the mechanics, and Mr. Azzinaro said yes. He added that to do so he'd have to compromise the shingle safety performance. He said when a roof becomes too shallow then it is prone to blow off in high winds. There was no public comment.

            In a poll of the Zoning Board, Mr. Brockway said he is supportive of the application. Mr. Ornberg said the Town should revisit the 25-foot height determination that limits shoreline properties and considering the testimony given he is in favor of the application. Mr. Clemence said he thinks Mr. Azzinaro indicated that the house design provides greater safety and adequate space for mechanicals. He said the Board should consider hardships by how they relate to the owner and not how we would view it. Mr. Cioppa said he is not in favor because he is not convinced that the applicant has met the standards of a Variance request. He said it is not the least relief necessary because he believes the architect could design another home that captures all the things discussed and not be an inconvenience to the applicant. Mr. Russo said he is highly in favor of the application and Mr. Azzinaro demonstrated the need for extra space as a hardship for duct work and safety. Mr. Pawelkiewicz said he wasn't convinced until Mr. Azzinaro identified the reason for the design is to ensure safety.

Mr. Clemence made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Clemence seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.  

            Mr. Clemence read into the record the details of the Bonk application, including the Zoning narrative, testimony given at the public hearing, and the Findings of Fact and made a motion to approve the Bonk application. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brockway. The motion CARRIED by a vote of 4 to 1 with Mr. Cioppa voting against it.

Mr. Bonk shared with the Board that most residents hate having to build high homes because of the wind by the coast and there is danger of outdoor furniture and other things becoming airborne. He said it is difficult to enjoy sitting outdoors with the wind and the height request is due to flood regulations. Mr. Pawelkiewicz said Mr. Bonk should have made his statement during the public hearing, but he does commiserate as he's a resident of the area. They discussed further the wind hazards by the ocean.

 

I.       REPORTS FROM STAFF 

1.  “Discussion and decision concerning Zoning Board of Review Rules and Procedures concerning requests to continue the Public Hearing of an application.”

Mr. Reichert cited page 4 of 10 of the Zoning Board of Review Rules and Procedures and stated that they would need amendments to those sections if they wanted to change rank ordering of applications. He said he also included letters from Board members, which were first brought to the Zoning office and included comments on the subject. Mr. Reichert discussed some reasons why applications get continued. Mr. Brockway said that some other standards were not being followed, like late Zoning Board meeting packet delivery and placing a “changes to the agenda” section on each agenda. There was discussion on procedural steps for applicants that need to see the Planning Board and Zoning Board. Mr. Pawelkiewicz said he would like to add this review of rules and procedures item to the April agenda as March has a full agenda already. Mr. Reichert said they may need to schedule a second Zoning Board meeting in March and they could plan a separate workshop meeting to discuss the rules and procedures. There was a consensus of the Board to revisit the agenda item at the March 4 meeting.

J.      CONFIRMATION OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE –March 4, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.

 

K.    ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Ornberg made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Mr. Cioppa seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephanie J. LaSota

Minute Taker