Zoning Board – Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, April 7, 2021 – 6:00 p.m.

*Pursuant to Executive Order 20-05 dated March 16, 2020 as extended,

the April 07, 2021 at 6:00 PM Zoning Board meeting was conducted electronically via Zoom. *

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.

 

 

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE –

Mr. Cioppa lead the meeting attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

C. ROLL CALL AND REVIEW OF STAFF ATTENDANCE

 

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

 

Members Absent:      None.

 

Staff Present:             Zoning Official Nathan Reichert, Minute Taker Stephanie LaSota, Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning Todd J. Romano, Esq., Information Technology Technician Michael Harris, and Court Reporter Meredith Fortune

 

D.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1. February 25, 2021 – Mr. Cioppa made a motion to approve the February 25, 2021 minutes as submitted. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. March 3, 2021 – Mr. Torres noted a correction on page three of eight that the Lamm application was for 20 Chapman Road. Mr. Cioppa made a motion to approve the March 3, 2021 minutes as amended. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

E.   CHANGES TO AGENDA – Consider, discuss, and act upon schedule change for applications.

 

There were no proposed changes to the agenda.

 

 

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

 

1. Zoey Watch Hill, LLC, 14 Larkin Rd., 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. Continued from December 3, 2020, January 14, 2021, February 3 and 25, 2021, and March 25, 2021.

 

Atty. Romano reminded the meeting attendees that at the February 25, 2021 Zoning Board meeting the public hearing for 14 Larkin Road was closed and there was a motion made for Zoning staff to draft a motion of approval for the requested Variances at 14 Larkin Road to be considered at tonight’s meeting. He said the written decision was distributed to all Board members, and electronically to the applicant’s lawyer, as well as the attorney representing clients in opposition to the project. He said the decision could also be forwarded to any interested members of the public. He asked them to email Mr. Reichert at nreighert@westerlyri.gov to request a copy of the written decision.

Mr. Brockway made a motion to open Zoning Board discussion about the written approval decision drafted by Zoning staff on the Zoey Watch Hill, LLC, 14 Larkin Rd. application. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Brockway made a motion that the description in the draft decision of the testimony given by Stephen Hayes, of 2 Larkin Road, on March 25, 2021 be appended as follows; “He further stated his property is noncompliant in all ways and that if these Variances are granted that any subsequent owner of his property will believe it is in their right to build vertically and thus alter the general character of the surrounding area.” Mr. Cioppa seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Torres wanted to ensure all Board members’ perspectives were understood. He said his perspective was that the applicant, Michael Schwartz, had a right to the use of his property as a single- family dwelling. Mr. Brockway said the apartment above the garage was not intended to be a large home and he is not in favor of the change. He said he thinks changing the building to a three-story home will alter the character of the neighborhood and he is not in favor of the project.

Mr. Cioppa made a motion that approval of the requested Variance of a vertical expansion only of the preexisting nonconforming structure at 14 Larkin Road be conditioned on the following; that on or before May 7, 2021 the applicant shall submit two site plans, 1. an existing conditions plan with dimensions from the boundaries to the existing structure including the rear deck and 2. a proposed conditions site plan with dimensions from the boundaries to the proposed structure, including decks based on the relief granted. The plans shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor licensed by the State of Rhode Island. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Cioppa made a motion that with the reasons as written in the drafted decision for Zoey Watch Hill, LLC, 14 Larkin Rd., AP ‘185’ Lot ’30,’ as amended and with the stated conditions, that pursuant to §260-33 Variances of the Town of Westerly Zoning Ordinances that the Westerly Zoning Board of Review approve a Variance for the vertical expansion only of the preexisting nonconforming structure to a height of 33 feet, which vertical expansion will raise the existing structure one story and add a rooftop deck and a second rear deck and thereby we approve application of the existing 20.6 foot front yard Variance, 28.6 foot right side yard Variance, 27.7 foot left side yard Variance and 14.07 foot rear yard Variance to the vertical expansion at 14 Larkin Road. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. Mr. Brockway voted no on the motion. The motion CARRIED.

 

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

 

1.    Dixon, 10 Schumann Road, AP ‘146’ Lot ‘5’ Addition of a second floor of an existing structure. (§260-19) Dimensional Variances - Continued from February 3, February 25, and March 3, 2021

 

Mr. Reichert summarized the application details for the Board. William A. Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, was present on behalf of the application, along with Marco Tommasini, a registered architect in Rhode Island with offices in Westerly. Mr. Tommasini was sworn in for public testimony. He explained that the Dixon proposal is for a second-floor addition on an existing two-bedroom ranch home occupied by four adults. He said it is their permanent residence and there is no other place for the addition based on Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) setbacks and Town Zoning setbacks. He said the finished project will be consistent with the character of other homes in the neighborhood and will be modest by some standards. Mr. Tommasini shared the design plans on the Zoom screen and further described the project location and details. Mr. Torres asked if he considered second-floor designs that would not infringe on the setback. Mr. Tommasini said other designs would be too narrow. There was no public comment. In a poll of the Board members, all were in favor of approving the application.

Mr. Brockway made a motion to close the public hearing at 6:48 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 Dixon, 10 Schumann Road, application for a 12.58 front yard Variance to construct a partial second story addition and front porch and made a motion to approve the application request with no conditions. Mr. Brockway seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2.    Montesano, 5 Terrace Ave., AP ‘142’ Lot ‘108’ Garage / Front porch addition, Home Occupation greater that 150 sq. ft. (§260-19) Dimensional Variances and Special Use Permit (§260-34). Continued from February 3, February 25, and March 3, 2021

 

Mr. Torres recused himself from the application as he is a neighbor to the applicant. Ms. Robinson voted as a full member in this application. Mr. Torres was removed from the Zoom meeting as a panelist at 6:59 p.m. and placed as an attendee.

Mr. Reichert recalled that at the last meeting the Board gave direction to the applicant to redesign the request. He said the redesign resulted in a conforming rear left corner of the proposed office and garage. He said the lot’s configuration does not match the house orientation and while the rear left corner meets the requirements, the front left corner still needs a Variance. He said there are some significant architectural changes, such as a decreased office space above the garage with the addition of a balcony. Mr. Reichert said the height is conforming and there is a reduction in the impervious area. He suggested that because there is also a Special Use Permit application to allow for a home office of greater than 150 feet, the Zoning Board consider asking staff to craft an application decision as it will be lengthy.

Attorney Christine Dieter, of Hinckley Allen, lead counsel for the applicants Joseph and Jean Marie Montesano, and Attorney Michael Lynch, attorney for an abutting neighbor, Linda Zunda, of 9

Terrace Avenue, were present for the application hearing. Atty. Dieter thanked the Zoning Board for their time and review of the materials. She said the applicants took all the feedback and looked for modifications to the plan that would address concerns and keep their own needs in mind. Mr. Montesano shared some testimony about the modifications made.

Stan Bednarski, of 12 Salt Pond Way, who resides directly behind Mr. and Ms. Montesano’s home, said he purchased his cottage in what he thought was an established area. He said he would wait until the end to share his comments.

Atty. Dieter called Alfred W. DiOrio, president of Alfred W. DiOrio, RLS, Inc. Professional Land Surveyors and Land Use Consultants, Hopkinton as her next witness. Mr. DiOrio was sworn in for public testimony. There was discussion on the boundary lines of the project. It was said that on the north easterly corner there is no Variance required. He said the north westerly corner needs a Variance of 4.1 feet. Atty. Lynch asked Mr. DiOrio a series of questions regarding the requested relief.

Atty. Lynch called his client, Ms. Zunda, as a witness. He noted that the redesigned plan was not made available to the public until Friday, April 1. Atty. Romano said any member of the public could have accessed the plans through Town Hall. Atty. Lynch screen shared a slideshow while he questioned Ms. Zunda on how the proposal would potentially affect her property. Atty. Dieter cross examined the witness, who said she had no certifications in design or architecture. Ms. Zunda said her figures in the shared slideshow were derived from property cards and documents shared at the last public hearing. Atty. Dieter asked the Board to disregard the testimony given as it is designed to impeach the character of her clients.

Charles Philip Amidon, of 14 Salt Pond Way, said he lives behind Ms. Zunda and he and his family have enjoyed summers in Westerly over the last 30 years. He commented that the design seems large and questions if the hardship is forced. He said that the size of the proposed structure is not commensurate with the need for this quiet community.

Stan Bednarski, of 12 Salt Pond Way, asked questions regarding the septic tank on the design plans. Mr. DiOrio said the water-tight septic tank has a treatment pod on top and there is no affluent capable of leaving the structure. He added that the stormwater management structure is at the southeasterly portion of the property. Mr. Bednarski asked about any potential noise from the denitrification system. Mr. DiOrio said it does not run constantly and Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management already approved the system.

Ms. Montesano spoke regarding the details of the project and size of the proposed home.

Atty. Dieter made closing remarks that her clients love their home and neighborhood and want to make it a forever home. She said they heard feedback about their proposal being too large and they responded by redesigning the plan.

Atty. Lynch said the home is not a fit in the neighborhood with six bedrooms and three bathrooms. He said they bought an undersized property and are trying to maximize all the space they can. He spoke further about why the Board should deny the application.

Atty. Dieter replied that the reasons driving the design is Ms. Montesano’s medical condition and it is important to incorporate a single floor plan design. She said the staircase to the back of office allows access to the kitchen and home. She said she believes the applicant has satisfied all the standards of approval for a Zoning application.

 

The Zoning Board took a five-minute recess at 8:13 p.m.

 

In a poll of the Board members, Mr. Russo said he is not in favor of the application today because the house sits as a nonconforming home as it is now on all four sides of the setback requirements and the applicants are asking to make it more nonconforming. Mr. Cioppa said he would vote yes. Ms. Robinson said she would vote no. Mr. Brockway said he is in favor of the proposal. Mr. Pawelkiewicz said he cannot vote in favor of the plan presented tonight because it did not go far enough in scaling back the garage size and he believes the home is too large for this lot.

 

Mr. Cioppa said the no votes on this seem definite and suggested the Board close the public hearing to have staff draft a decision on the application. Mr. Pawelkiewicz said he would like to have staff do an analysis of the information shared regarding neighboring properties and present it to the Board. He said if staff finds the application not atypical in terms of the size of the lot and size of the house, that will help him decide. Mr. Pawelkiewicz clarified that he does not want new information, but only the current information succinctly presented. Atty. Romano said the Board may keep the public hearing open and ask the applicant if he would like another opportunity to submit revised plans and staff will pull property cards on neighboring homes for the requested analysis. Atty. Dieter said there was a lot of information that was provided by Atty. Lynch and the applicant would like a short opportunity to consider feedback and see if there are any potential modifications to be made. She said she does not know if there is room to scale back and still accomplish the applicants’ goals, but they are willing to take it under consideration. Ms. Robinson said she would like to better understand opinions of year-round residents on the direction the neighborhood should go.

 

Mr. Cioppa made a motion to continue the Montesano public hearing to the May 5, 2021 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

3.    McSweeney, 49 ½ Atlantic Avenue, AP ‘175’ Lot ‘002’ Construct a dune walkover structure (§260-19) Dimensional Variances. Continued from February 3, February 25, 2021.

 

Mr. Torres reentered the Zoom meeting as a panelist at 8:42 p.m.

There was no one present on behalf of the application. Zoning staff said the office has not yet received the additional information requested from the applicant.

Mr. Brockway made a motion to table the McSweeney application. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

H.   PUBLIC HEARINGS - Appeal to the Zoning Board of Review – Consider, discuss, and act upon appeals.

 

1. South County Cultivators, Inc., 71 Quarry Road, AP ‘55’ Lot “1” Appeal to the Zoning Board of Review. Appeal of Cease-and-Desist Notice of Violation issued November 18, 2020. (§260-38) Right to Appeal. Continued from February 3, February 25, and continued to the May 5 public hearing.

 

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

 

1.    Mayo, 5 Ice Pond Road, AP ‘137’ Lot ‘27UUU’ Install an 18’ x 38’ inground pool in the rear of an existing residence. (§260-19) Dimensional Variances

 

Attorney Thomas Liguori, with offices at 85 Beach Street, Westerly and Sergio Cherenzia, principal and engineer at Cherenzia & Associates, LTD., 99 Mechanic Street, Pawcatuck, were present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Reichert provided details of the application and said staff recommended its approval.

Atty. Liguori said the required 75-foot buffer is because this is a cluster subdivision. He introduced Mr. Cherenzia as an expert witness and asked him a series of questions about the project location and details of the proposal.

 

Christopher Thorp, a registered landscape architect, was sworn in for public testimony. He explained that the basis for the request is that the pool be located five feet from the property line rather than the conventional 10 feet. He said the deck around the pool is reduced to 12 feet and a planting bed will function as drainage to take excess water away from the pool. Mr. Thorp said given that the project is for a family of five, and the spa will be located within the pool, they did not feel they could reduce the pool size. Mr. Russo disagreed with that analysis. Mr. Cioppa said without spa you could reduce the size of the pool and have it be usable for a family with three children. Atty. Romano advised that the decision was made based on the physical property and the size of the family was not a relevant concern. Atty. Liguori asked Mr. Thorp if locating the spa within the pool was a reasonable request and location. Mr. Thorp said it is and it is an efficient use of the space and one they turn to when they have additional space limitations. Mr. Russo disagreed and said most spas sit outside the pool. Mr. Thorp said there is an aesthetic impact to that choice. Ms. Robinson asked how many people in neighborhood have pools and Atty. Liguori was unsure. Mr. Russo said he has not heard significant evidence of the hardship for the applicant if the Board denies the project.  Atty. Liguori said his applicant could provide additional evidence or possibly redesign the project if that is the desire of the Board. Mr. Thorp’s landscape architecture plans were submitted as applicant’s exhibit 1. Atty. Liguori showed slides of the plans to the meeting attendees. He requested that the matter remain open so the applicant could consider the requests of the Board. Mr. Cioppa said his recommendation is to eliminate the spa, reduce the pool by five feet, and that would be the least relief necessary. Mr. Torres said he thinks Mr. Cioppa is saying that he does not see a need for a Variance and to just keep the pool out of the setback. Mr. Brockway said there is a buffer area back there right now and if this were not a cluster development a great deal of that prop area would be part of this property. Mr. Russo said it could hypothetically be a part of another property, too. Atty. Liguori said in this instance there is no impact on abutting property owners. Mr. Brockway said he is concern about the standards of requesting the least relief necessary and it being more than a mere inconvenience to the applicant. He asked the applicant to redesign to decrease the Variance request. Mr. Torres said he did not have an overall objection to the plan but was hoping for a better explanation to help him get to a yes vote.

Mr. Russo made a motion that at the May 5, 2021 Zoning Board meeting, the applicant Mayo, 5 Ice Pond Road, present a new plan showing the least relief necessary to avoid a Variance on the rear setback. Mr. Brockway seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

The Zoning Board and staff had discussion on the general content and difficulty of recent applications. It was suggested they have a workshop meeting to discuss the Board’s approach to hearing applications. Atty. Romano encouraged Board members in their recent work at public hearings.

 

J.    STAFF COMMENTS

 

Mr. Reichert apologized that not all packet materials were available. He reviewed that there are five applications coming up for the May next agenda. He said there were 85 different applications in March and the Zoning office was averaging four applications per workday. Mr. Torres requested that when a dimensional Variance is requested, staff write for clarity; what is allowed, what is requested, and what is existing. Mr. Reichert shared that the Zoning application will be rewritten in the future and he would like the Board members’ opinions on any proposed changes to it. Ms. Robinson suggested staff guide applicants in how to present requests to the Board.

 

K.   Applications Declared Complete, Waivers Granted and Scheduled for Public Hearing at the May 5, 2021 Zoning Board Meeting. Informational no action to be taken.

 

1.    South County Cultivators, 71 Quarry Road AP ‘55’ Lot ‘1’, Modify the recorded plan of a previously approved marijuana cultivation facility. Special Use Permit, (§260-34) Aquifer Permit (§260-52)

 

2.    Christopher Sisco, 59 Shore Road, AP ‘151’ Lot ‘89’ Addition (278 sq. ft.) to an existing garage. (§260-19) Dimensional Variances.

 

3.    Grey Sail Properties, LLC, 65 Canal Street, AP ‘46’ Lot ‘12’Addition of a covered (non- enclosed) pavilion. (§260-19) Dimensional Variances.

 

4.    Gary Julian, 23 Shore Road, AP ‘151’ Lot ‘91’ Expansion of a non-conforming use (§260-34) Special Use Permit

 

5.      Lori J. Paolella, 38 Weekapaug Rd., AP ‘143’ Lot ‘25’ Construction of a (315 sq. ft.) deck, (§260-19) Dimensional Variances

 

There was no further discussion on this agenda item.

 

L.    ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Cioppa made a motion to adjourn the Zoning Board meeting at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Brockway seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Stephanie J. LaSota

Secretary

 

Approved by vote of the Board on TBA