Zoning Board – Meeting Minutes
Thursday, December 2, 2021 - 6:00 p.m.

Westerly Town Hall | Town Council Chambers

45 Broad Street, Westerly, RI 02891

(Governor Daniel J. McKee’s Executive Order 20-46 expired on July 23, 2021,

thereby requiring public bodies to meet in person.)

Please be advised this meeting was held in-person. All Board members must be physically in attendance for purposes of a quorum. Members of the public were welcomed and encouraged to attend in-person. Zoom video conferencing was provided for the public’s convenience, per Town Manager Mark J. Rooney’s Executive Order 21- 001 dated July 8, 2021.

A.    CALL TO ORDER –

Mr. Pawelkiewicz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. He read into the record from the Rules of Procedure for hearing applications at the Zoning Board of Review.

 

B.     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 Martin E. Loiselle, Jr., Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning Scott Levesque, Minute Taker Stephanie LaSota, and Information Technology Technician Michael Harris

 

C.    APPROVAL AND REVISION OF MINUTES

 

1. November 3, 2021 - Mr. Torres made a motion to approve the November 3, 2021 Zoning Board meeting minutes. Mr. Brockway seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

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.

 

            There were no changes to the agenda.

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.     PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED BUSINESS –

Consider, discuss, and act on application(s).

 

1.    Deborah & Robert Alberga, AP ‘168’ Lot ‘189’, 43 Montauk Avenue Stairway change during construction requiring a front yard variance. (§260-33) Dimensional Variances. Continued from November 3, 2021

 

Mr. Loiselle reviewed the application details and reminded the Board that in November they requested that the applicant return with alternative designs for an existing staircase to their former plan. The applicant and a representative from the building company were present to discuss the options presented to the Zoning Board. Mr. Loiselle explained that the design showing the staircase on the right-side falls within the setback area and the other one falls 5.2 feet into the setback area. A two-page document of the applicant’s submitted elevation designs were submitted for the record and marked Applicant’s Exhibit 1.  

Present on behalf of the application was property owner Robert Alberga, of 43 Montauk Avenue, and Scott Anderson, of Connecticut Valley Homes, who constructed the home and staircase. Both men were sworn in for public testimony.

Mr. Alberga said he did not prefer the design with the staircase to the right as it created an inconvenient entry way to the home. He said the second design “sort of works” but the setback difference is only two feet from the existing design and questioned if it was worth it to the Zoning Board for the applicant to rebuild to save only two feet. It was clarified that the applicant was requesting a 7.5 foot Variance with the existing staircase. Mr. Alberga further explained that the right-side staircase design creates a burden because his family would have to cross the entire 28-foot deck to enter the home, after using the stairs. Mr. Brockway commented that this would expose the family to the elements in inclement weather or cause hardship with carrying groceries. Mr. Cioppa confirmed with the applicant that they have an alternative entry to the home through a downstairs garage area so the compliant design does not qualify as a major inconvenience. Mr. Alberga emphasized that the design and build of the staircase was a mistake in the surveyor work. Mr. Russo argued that it appeared the applicant did not want to pay the surveyor to stake the home out properly before the work was done. Mr. Anderson said he advised the applicant that they would need Zoning relief and he said he made a mistake thinking that they would only need an administrative Dimensional Modification. Mr. Anderson said he believes that the right-side design is a hardship, even though it might be surmountable.

Ms. Robinson said she thought the right-side design looked better aesthetically. She agreed with Cioppa that the interior garage entrance stairs were an alternative to use in inclement weather. After some clarifying conversation, Mr. Anderson stated he was confused on the requirements of a Dimensional Modification application. Mr. Alberga said he wrote to all his neighbors, and no one voiced any objection to his existing staircase. Zoning Board members emphasized that they needed to follow the Zoning guidelines while scrutinizing Mr. Alberga’s Variance request. Mr. Cioppa said applicants should not assume their application is guaranteed approval.

Mr. Brockway asked Mr. Loiselle that given that they know that the surveyor made a mistake, would he be amenable to approving the application. Mr. Loiselle said he believes they were asked to go before the Board because the stairs were built before any application and that he does not feel comfortable granting approval to something that is already built. Mr. Cioppa objected to Ms. Robinson restating the applicant’s case to see if it could meet the Zoning criteria for relief. He added that increased financial burden to the applicant does not qualify as a hardship.

There was no public comment. In a poll of the Board members, Mr. Russo said he would vote no to a Variance because the standards of hardship were not proven. Mr. Cioppa said that he would vote no because there is no significant hardship and because it was built before they came to the Zoning Board for approval. Mr. Brockway said he was as upset as anyone with what the applicant did, but if the consultant and surveyor hadn’t made the mistakes the applicant would not be here so he is uncomfortable putting the applicant through the hardship he will receive with the redesign on the right side. He said he would vote to grant the Variance and leave it the way it is as the least relief. Mr. Torres said he struggles with this case due to the communication errors and the fact that the stairs were built before any application was submitted. He said if the process had been followed, it may have been an easy approval or they would have been advised by the former Zoning Official to redesign, however Mr. Torres commiserated with the applicant. He said he felt it was an honest mistake after hearing the testimony and it was not a deliberate act of defiance to the Zoning Ordinance. Given the circumstances, Mr. Torres said he would agree to approve the Variance as is on the original design because he feels they would have gotten there if the process had been correctly followed. Ms. Robinson said she thinks it will be difficult to be elderly in this forever home and walk further in the weather with the alternative staircase design and it may be difficult to use the garage stairs with groceries in the winter time so she would vote yes to the Variance if she were voting. Mr. Pawelkiewicz said he agreed with Mr. Cioppa and Mr. Russo that it fails to meet the hardship and standard for least relief necessary. Since the Board was seemingly facing a 3-2 decision in the negative for the applicant, Mr. Torres asked for counsel from Atty. Levesque on steps the applicant could take. Atty. Levesque said the applicant has a chance to withdraw the application for the Variance. There was some further general discussion of the Zoning  process. Mr. Alberga said he would withdraw the Variance application. Atty. Levesque asked him to submit an official application withdrawal in writing to the Zoning Official.

 

2.    Stephen St. Germain, AP ‘143’ Lot ‘2’ 32 Breach Drive Deck addition (§260-33) Dimensional Variances. Continued from November 3, 2021

 

Mr. Loiselle reviewed that the application was for a 1.1-foot left side setback Variance and an 11.7-foot rear yard setback Variance. He said the home was built in 2015 and the applicant has worked extensively with Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) to get this approved and they insisted that they push the home further back on the lot. He said the house is set back farther on the left than on the right. He explained that the hardship for the application is the constraints of the coastal features and he recommended its approval.

Property owner Stephen St. Germain was sworn in for public testimony. He said he was given some maps from the architect and distributed them to the Board. The two-paged document was marked as Applicant’s Exhibit 1 for the record. He explained that the existing deck on the left side is 10-feet wide and they are trying to wrap it around the rear of the home. He said in 2015 he purchased the quarter acre lot to the right of his property to compensate for the left side setback. He said CRMC guidelines constrained him to the current location and a new CRMC employee submitted a letter supporting his plans for the deck. There was no public comment on the application.

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

Mr. Russo made a motion to close the public hearing at 6:56 p.m. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Cioppa read into the record the details of the St. Germain application for a 1.1-foot left side yard setback Variance and an 11.7-foot rear yard setback Variance for a two-story 12 by 33-foot deck addition extending an existing deck attached to a single-family residential structure at 32 Breach Drive pursuant to §260-33 including the specifications of the structure, lot, and Zoning district, as well as the testimony and exhibits submitted at the Zoning Board hearing and made a motion to approve the St. Germain application. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

G.    PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS –

 Consider, discuss, and act on application(s).

 

1.        Susan C. Anderson, AP ‘175’ Lot ‘70’, 68 Atlantic Avenue Raze existing structure and construct new single- family residence, (§260-33) Dimensional Variances

 

Property owner Susan C. Anderson and Gerard Martineau, her significant other, were present on behalf of the application and both were sworn in for public testimony. Mr. Loiselle read the details of the application into the record. He said the current home sits within the floodplain as it is now and if you have seen the site plan the light dashed line of the building envelope is virtually unusable. Mr. Loiselle said the applicant’s proposal complies with both side setbacks. The proposed home is 1,800 square feet and given the small size of the lot and that the proposed home is reasonable for the lot, Mr. Loiselle said the Zoning department supports the application.

Ms. Robinson clarified that the basic home footprint is staying the same and it will be elevated and expanded upward so the home is going from 725 square feet to 1,800 square feet.  

Ms. Anderson thanked the Board for their consideration of the application and explained that she has been working remotely from Westerly since the start of the pandemic and the application is to allow for her to have an adequate working environment and to have adequate closet space for staying permanently as she previously commuted from New York on weekends. The applicant said the septic system will not be replaced as it was installed in 2014 and the number of bedrooms in the home will not change. There was some discussion on the engineer’s drawings. Scott Barlow, owner of Tesseract Builders, Closter, Rhode Island, and the project’s contractor, was sworn in for public testimony and provided further information on the building setbacks. Mr. Torres asked if the home was built within the setback, what would the dimensions of the house be. Mr. Loiselle said the left side depth is about 6.5 feet and the right side is about 14 feet. Mr. Martineau explained that the home used to serve as a weekend cottage and now the space is not adequate with Ms. Anderson working full-time from home and rather than look elsewhere for a larger home they thought they would rebuild in the existing lot. Mr. Russo asked who will take responsibility for surveying the property to ensure the lot is pinned property and foundation is where it should be. Mr. Barlow said it is the builder’s responsibility to ensure that the setbacks are done properly. Mr. Russo said he would like to see that when the foundation is dug that the area is pinned. Mr. Torres clarified that the applicant eliminated an existing nonconformance on the left side of the home.

There was no public comment. In a poll of the Board members, Mr. Russo and Mr. Cioppa were in favor of the application. Mr. Brockway and Mr. Torres were also supportive of the application. Ms. Robinson was in favor of the application and liked the design. Mr. Pawelkiewicz agreed that he was in favor of the application and loved the design.

Mr. Cioppa made a motion to close the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.

Mr. Torres read into the record the details of the Anderson application for a 15.6-foot front setback Variance and an 18.5-foot rear setback Variance to raze an existing structure and construct a new single-family residence at 68 Atlantic Avenue, including testimony heard at the December 2 public hearing and made a motion to approve the Anderson application with no conditions. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Pawelkiewicz called a five-minute recess at 7:30 p.m. and the meeting was called back in session at 7:35 p.m.

 

 

2.    Douglas Enterprises, Ltd., AP ‘107’ Lot ‘57’ 165 East Avenue Demolish existing structure, create land development project consisting of 10 Duplex style buildings.

 

Mr. Loiselle said the applicant requests a Special Use Permit to build 20 condominium units in 10 buildings. He said the area primarily consists of forested land and is in a HDR-15 Zoning District.  

Present on behalf of the application was Attorney William Nardone who said there were four professionals present to testify; Joseph Duhamel, of DiPrete Engineering, Ed Pimentel, of Pimentel Consulting, John Chevlin, of Parr Enginering, and John Carter, Landscape Architect for the project. Atty. Nardone confirmed that the material previously submitted is part of the record. He submitted an additional item, a report prepared by Pimentel Consulting to replace the existing one. It stated that the project name was changed to “Harbor Ridge” and the date was changed along with some minor grammatical changes. The submitted report was marked Applicant’s Exhibit 1 for the record.

Atty. Nardone described the property to the Board saying that the existing single-family home on the site has been vacant and is in disrepair. The site is served by Town water and sewer and natural gas is also available, he said. He said that there is no dimensional relief requested as the lot follows the regulations for multi-family use. Atty. Nardone reviewed that the application has 400 feet of frontage and has met the 4-acre minimum requirement for a multi-family housing component as it has 6.9 acres. He reminded the Board that the Master Plan was approved in May 19 by the Planning Board and they issued a positive advisory opinion to the Zoning  Board for this Special Use Permit and they found the plan was consistent with the standards and the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Duhamel, project engineer, with DiPrete Engineering, 2 Stafford Court, Cranston Rhode Island, was sworn in for public testimony. He shared the screen to show the existing site and the site plans for the project. He said there are significant boulder walls along the site and trees in the property. Mr. Duhamel stated that a new proposed curb cut will meet the subdivision regulations for Westerly and have an adjacent pedestrian sidewalk. Atty. Nardone said road and sidewalk maintenance on the property would be the responsibility of the future condo association. Mr. Duhamel said the proposed drive will have individual driveways and each unit will have a two-car garage. He further described the details of the project. He said they provide a 50-foot no cut buffer of natural vegetation and Mr. Carter will explain that further. He added that the project is under Department of Environmental Management (DEM) review for stormwater management which has been designed to exceed requirements.

Mr. Brockway clarified the density analysis, and asked about lighting, and sign installation. Mr. Duhamel said there will only be a stop sign at the intersection of the private road with East Avenue. Drivers on East Avenue will not have a stop sign.

Mr. Pimentel was sworn in for public testimony. Mr. Pimentel, of 26 Avon Road, Cranston, is a land use and planning consultant hired to find consistency with the project and Westerly’s Comprehensive Plan and the neighborhood analysis. He explained his rationale for his analysis. He said the Westerly plan wants to have a balance of housing choices and about 1 percent of land resources are appropriately Zoned for HDR so there are select pockets that can support multi-family. He said he examined 101 surrounding lot properties and provided his spreadsheet analysis to the Board. His analysis found that the proposed project showed a density of 2.86 units per acre while the density of the surrounding neighborhood is 2.88 units per acre, therefore the project is compatible with neighboring uses and will not adversely impact the neighborhood. Mr. Pimentel commented that the Town of Westerly is in the top five percent of the newest Comprehensive Plans in the State and this project is consistent with it.

Mr. Chevlin, a registered professional engineer, and senior vice president of Parr Engineering, 8 Blackstone Place, was sworn in for public testimony, and he reviewed the reports submitted to the Board. He said the first study was done in the late fall early winter of 2020. He said there were a relatively small volume of trips generated during peak hours in the a.m. and p.m. and in the Saturday analysis. He said they also did traffic counts during the summer peak hour, included in the September report and the average daily traffic was 4,300 cars per day, or 387 per hour. He stated that incorporating the potential traffic from this proposed project would have no significant impact. There was some further discussion on the traffic. Mr. Chevlin said the increase will not contribute to significant delays and he shared his opinion on the definition of small, medium, and large impacts.

Mr. Carter, a registered landscape architect, 916 Boston Neck Road, Narragansett, was sworn in for public testimony. He shared the method for how the master landscape plan was developed and approved by the Planning Board with conditions. He explained the proposed buffer and species of trees and plants to be added. He said they also included on the plan some tree protection notes and planned the engineering of the site around the trees. Mr. Brockway asked about the no-cut buffer Zone and the maintenance. Mr. Carter said if there were a safety issue that would be able to be addressed. The understanding is that it is a natural vegetative buffer Zone, some deadfall may be able to be cleaned. Mr. Carter said in the past they have developed maintenance guidelines for condo associations. Atty. Nardone said the Planning Board condition states the removal of deadfall from the side buffer is permitted and is to be included in the landscape plan. The condo association is responsible for that subject to the conditions. Mr. Brockway said he would like if the property owners would also manage invasive species. Atty. Nardone said streetlights are prohibited but house and driveway downlighting is approved, clarifying an earlier question from Mr. Brockway.

James Thornton, of 185 East Avenue, commented on the traffic study that the summer traffic study sounds accurate but not all the cars heading south make it to the end of East Avenue. He asked about the south end curb cut about 10 to 15 feet from the end and the sidewalk. He said it is very narrow there and that sidewalk is less than four feet wide, asking if it were possible to move the wall back a bit even though it is a State road and a Town sidewalk. The applicant, Douglas DiSimone, of 25 Bluff Hill Cove Farm Road, was sworn in for public testimony. Mr. DiSimone said he is amenable to closing the curbcut or leaving it open but on the landscape plan it shows it is left open and has an old gate that could be fixed. He said he does not have plans to move the wall because it is beautiful. Mr. DiSimone said they are not proposing any lighting at the entrance or a traffic signal. He added that a neighbor across from the project was concerned about headlights into his property and they moved the road entrance so any light would not go directly into the home across the street.

In a poll of the Board, Mr. Russo was in favor of the project. He confirmed with Mr. DiSimone that all the units would be sold and not rented. Mr. Cioppa, Mr. Brockway, and Mr. Torres were also in favor of the application. Ms. Robinson said she was in favor of the application and is glad someone will occupy the lot and improvements will be made. Mr. Pawelkiewicz commended the developer and team for listening to their neighbors and the public and accommodating their requests and he said he would vote in favor of the application.

Mr. Torres made a motion to close the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Brockway read into the record the details of the Special Use Permit application by Douglas Enterprises, Ltd., at 165 East Avenue to construct a multi-family condominium development with 20 units in 10 buildings, including public testimony and materials entered into the record during the public hearing and made a motion to approve the Douglas Enterprises, Ltd. application granting the Special Use Permit. Mr. Cioppa seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

H.    STAFF COMMENTS

 

1.      Consider Discuss and Act on Zoning Board- Rules of Procedure – Atty. Levesque said the changes needed to the Rules of Procedure are clerical and included on page 2 of 11 in section 3.1.2 changing “clerk” to “Assistant Zoning Official,” removing the extra “the” on page 4 of 11, and in Section 4.1 the meeting schedule will be changed from the first Wednesday of the month if the Board votes to change the day. He added that Zoning Board meeting packet delivery should read “at least seven days prior to the meeting” in that section of rules of procedure rather than “earliest practicable.” There was some further discussion on packet delivery.

 

2.      Consider Discuss and Act on Dates for 2022 Zoning Board Meeting’s – Mr. Torres made a motion to accept the proposed 2022 Zoning Board meeting schedule. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

I.       Applications Declared Complete, Waivers Granted and Scheduled for Public Hearing at the Thursday January 13, 2022 Zoning Board Meeting. Informational no action to be taken.

 

1.    Mario T Luzzi, 61 Friendship Street, AP ‘47’ Lot ‘8B’ Operation of a Self -Serve Laundromat (§260-34) Special Use Permit

2.    Marco A. Scola, 14 Yosemite Valley Road, AP ‘173’ Lot ‘11A’ Construction of a single-family residence (§260-33) Dimensional Variances (Height)

3.    Gary Julian, 23 Shore Road, AP ‘151’ Lot ‘91’ Modification to previously approved Special Use Permit (§260-34)

4.    Jan Companies, Inc. (Burger King), 99 Franklin Street, AP ‘88’ Lot ‘3’ Installation of a second drive-up lane (§260-34) Special Use Permit, (§260-33) Dimensional Variance

There was no additional discussion on agenda item J. 

J.      ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Torres made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Mr. Brockway seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Next Regular Meeting – January 13th 2022 6:00 P.M. at Westerly Town Hall and Zoom.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Stephanie J. LaSota

Minute Taker

 

Approved by vote of the Board on January 13, 2022