Zoning Board – Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, June 2, 2021 – 6:00 p.m.

 

Pursuant to Governor Gina M. Raimondo Executive Order 20-46, dated June 12, 2020, as extended, and Governor Daniel J. McKee’s Executive Order 20-46, dated May 7, 2021, as extended, this meeting was also conducted via Zoom conference.

 

Council Chambers, Westerly Town Hall
45 Broad Street, Westerly, RI 02891

A. CALL TO ORDER –

Mr. Pawelkiewicz called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. He read into the record the Zoning Board Rules of Procedure for hearing applications.

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 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

 

C.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. May 5, 2021 - Mr. Brockway made a motion to approve the May 5, 2021 Zoning Board meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. May 17, 2021 - Mr. Cioppa made a motion to approve the May 17, 2021 Zoning Board meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Brockway 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.

 

1.        Withdrawal Requests: Mayo, 5 Ice Pond Road, AP ‘137’ Lot ‘27UUU’

 

Mr. Reichert explained that the applicant had applied for a dimensional modification, which was less relief than originally applied for and it was administratively approved so this application was no longer needed.

Mr. Brockway made a motion to accept the Mayo application withdrawal request. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. Set briefing schedule and continue public hearing: Nordstrom, 2 Spray Rock Road, AP ‘169’ Lot ‘3’.

 

Atty. Romano explained that the applicant and abutting neighbors have requested to submit briefs before the public hearing and the established submission deadlines would be June 23 for the applicant’s brief, July 14 for the abutters’ brief, and an August 4 public hearing date.

Stephen MacGillivray, of 4 Spray Rock Road, was present to represent the abutters. He said she would be away August 4. Attorney Kelly Fracassa, representing the applicant, told the Board they could choose the public hearing date.

Mr. Russo made a motion to accept the schedule as stated by Atty. Romano with a public hearing date set for September 2 instead of August 4. Mr. Brockway seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions. 

 

F.  APPROVAL OF DECISIONS –

Consider, discuss, and act on application decisions referred to staff for writing.

 

1.    None

 

G.   PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Business –

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

 

1.    South County Cultivators, 71 Quarry Road AP ‘55’ Lot ‘1’Modify the recorded plan of a previously approved marijuana cultivation facility. (§260-34) Special Use Permit, (§260-52) Aquifer Permit. Continued from May 5, 2021. (Consider with item H.1.)

 

Present on behalf of the application was Attorney Beth Noonan, of Adler, Pollock, and Sheehan, P.C., Providence, and her associate, Christine DiBiase, and the applicant, Rick Comolli.

Mr. Reichert explained the applicant’s desire to amend a previously approved Special Use Permit as well as an appeal application to the Zoning Official’s decision. He said if the Zoning Board grants the Special Use Permit amendment, it renders the appeal irrelevant. He explained the discrepancies found in the existing project and the approved plan. Mr. Reichert said the applicant’s requested changes try to grasp the spirit of the original approval relative to security concerns. He said that the timing of the Zoning Certificate approval coincides with the business’s State renewal process and will require an inspection from the zoning, building, fire, and police officials. He explained the application’s process at the Planning Board and their conditions of approval. Westerly Police Chief Shawn Lacey was also present at the meeting.

Atty. Noonan explained that an updated plan was submitted to the Planning Office in February, which cured any deficiencies stemming from the violation notice. She said another revised plan dated April 16, 2021, was delivered to the Planning Office on April 26 and that is the plan referenced tonight. She said the cover letter to the plan indicates the changes of the fence surrounding the building, an enclosed dumpster in the front, 8 cameras, and parking spots within the fence. She reminded the Board that the cultivation facility is an allowed use by Special Use Permit and there will be no change in the operation of the business. Project Engineer Sergio Cherenzia, principal of Cherenzia & Associates, LTD. Pawcatuck, Connecticut, was sworn in for public testimony. He shared an exhibit that compared the approved plan to what was constructed as well as the additions and improvements made to the plan. It was marked Applicant’s Exhibit 1. Mr. Cherenzia described the differences between the plans. Mr. Comolli was sworn in for public testimony.

Mr. Cioppa asked the applicant to consider a gate that would automatically lock to avoid human error of forgetting to lock it. Mr. Comolli provided more details on the security cameras and DBR requirements. He said the surveillance is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and the video is stored for at least 60 days. Mr. Brockway mentioned that the list of approval conditions adopted on August 23, 2019 include documented proof of the applicant’s State cultivation license renewal and the latest conditions do not include that. Mr. Reichert it is already a requirement that the applicant provide their State renewal documentation when they do their Town renewals. Mr. Brockway suggested “providing documented proof of the State renewal by the applicant to the Zoning Official” be added back into the conditions of approval. Mr. Reichert agreed. Atty. Noonan said she anticipated her applicant’s future compliance to all conditions of approval. Mr. Comolli said regarding the original approval that they had complied to everything that DBR requested and had a Certificate of Occupancy from Westerly Building Official David Murphy but did not yet have their fence installed as that part of the project was delayed. He said it was installed within two weeks of receiving the cease-and-desist order. Mr. Brockway asked the applicant how he would ensure noncompliance to approval conditions did not happen again. The applicant responded they had previously tried to save money by having the fence installed at the same time as the solar, which caused a delay, however, the overall changes made to the previous approval are minor.

Mr. Russo asked a series of questions regarding hiring and background checks at the cultivation operation. Mr. Comolli said background checks are required and submitted to the State. He said he has two full-time employees and there will be three to five trimmers that visit the site seven to ten days a month. Mr. Comolli said there will be a maximum of seven people at the site at any one time. Mr. Comolli continued to emphasize that DBR regulates his business and would not let him operate without the proper hiring protocol and a written standard operating procedure. He said that if the Town wants to add protocol for him to follow, he can add it into his standard operating procedure. Ms. Robinson advised him to document everything for his business.

Westerly Police Chief Shawn Lacey was sworn in for public comment. Chief Lacey said his comments should not be interpreted as support for the facility. He said the operation’s fence was up six to eight weeks after the Certificate of Occupancy was issued and not two weeks as the applicant stated. Chief Lacey said he contacted DBR, who did not know anything about the facility’s security camera operation. He added that he is not aware of any employee background checks that come through Westerly Police Department. He said back when the fence was not yet installed, he walked right into the facility with the Town Manager as nothing was locked and there were multiple vehicles on the property. Chief Lacey said he does have concerns about security, fencing, and staffing. He said when he visited the site today the fence was locked, and the applicant’s truck was the only vehicle parked within the fence. He said that he is troubled over the fact that someone was able to get a license to operate a cultivation facility without police knowing anything about it. Mr. Cioppa asked Chief Lacey if an automatically locking gate in the fence would be best. He responded that the whole thing would likely need to be changed, which would be a challenge or expense for the applicant, but it would be more secure. There was some further discussion on how to set a future procedure for businesses like this. 

Atty. Noonan said she understands the Town’s concerns and said she was astounded as to why DBR did not communicate with Westerly Police Department on the security details of the facility. She cautioned the Board from doing special approvals for one type of business when there are similar business operations with low security such as pharmacies. She said they did not bring their security professional tonight as the plan was already approved as it is two years ago, and they did not think it would be needed. Mr. Torres asked if Chief Lacey reviewed the conditions proposed. Atty. Noonan said one condition is to save surveillance video for up to 60 days and provide WPD access to it as requested. Chief Lacey said they have direct camera access to the Christopher Columbus statue in Wilcox Park so there should be a way to get streaming access to WPD. Mr. Reichert said the applicant did have a security expert testify in the past. Joseph Trillo, sales manager at AAA Alarms and Fire Protection, West Warwick, also testified at the recent May Planning Board meeting. There was some further discussion on DBR regulations for the business. Mr. Torres suggested the applicant meet with Chief Lacey to discuss the security conditions. Atty. Noonan asked for an approval of the application tonight as the DBR annual certification is due at the end of the month. There was some discussion among the Board on what they could require of the applicant and that security measures were not in their purview. Mr. Brockway said he would like some form of verification from the applicant within 90 days of approval that all the conditions were followed. Mr. Comolli stated that everything is already in compliance. Atty.  Noonan said if they go through the renewal process tonight, they could set a future date to review the status of the facility. She said all the changes are existing. She said the parking outside of the fence was removed so they have discussed shuttling or carpooling employees on days when there are multiple people in the facility. Mr. Brockway said a September meeting would be fine. Mr. Torres said he would require a meeting between the applicant and Chief Lacey to ensure they have an agreed upon security and safety plan. Mr. Russo said he would like Chief Lacey to be a part of that 90-day report. Atty. Romano reminded the Board that Zoning enforcement is not their role but if the applicant is willing to return in three months to ensure the conditions have been satisfied, that is fine, and the Zoning Official would take any enforcement action needed.

There was no public comment. In a poll of the Board, Mr. Torres said he is in favor of approving the application with the condition that the applicant meet with Chief Lacey and review conditions of the approval for parking, safety, and security protocols, agree to the plan, and return at the September meeting. Mr. Cioppa agreed. There was discussion that the Fire Chief already does an annual inspection. Chief Lacey commented that the existing parking plan does not make sense if up to ten people could be at the facility at any one time up to 10 times a month. Mr. Reichert said a meeting between the applicant, Chief Lacey, and himself should take place in conjunction with the annual DBR renewal. Atty. Romano suggested a simple affidavit from Mr. Comolli stating that he has a written standard of operations procedure for his business filed with DBR would suffice to satisfy the Board’s concern on this issue.  Mr. Brockway and Mr. Brockway said they would vote yes with all the added conditions as mentioned. Mr. Russo he is leaning toward approval but has a low confidence level in the applicant’s compliance history and DBR work. Mr. Pawelkiewicz said he would vote yes to approve as he believes Atty. Noonan has been working closely with Mr. Reichert to cure the defects in the process so far and that ultimately, they have the authority to have Zoning enforcement if there is any issue.

Mr. Reichert suggested the Board grant staff permission to draft the approval however in needs to occur before the end of June. He suggested a June 9 meeting so they could record the decision on June 10.

Mr. Torres made a motion to close the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Cioppa made a motion to grant the Zoning staff permission to draft an approval for the application South County Cultivators, 71 Quarry Road AP ‘55’ Lot ‘1’ to modify the recorded plan of a previously approved marijuana cultivation facility. (§260-34) Special Use Permit, (§260-52) Aquifer Permit subject to the conditions that have been discussed tonight for a June 9, 2021 Zoning Board meeting at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

Mr. Cioppa made a motion to move agenda item H. 1. South County Cultivators, Inc., 71 Quarry Road, AP ‘55’ Lot “1” Video Appeal to the Zoning Board of Review. Appeal of Cease-and-Desist Notice of Violation issued November 18, 2020 (§260-38) Right to Appeal to the June 9, 2021 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2.    Mayo, 5 Ice Pond Road, AP ‘137’ Lot ‘27UUU’ Install an 18’ x 38’ inground pool in the rear of an existing residence. (§260-33) Dimensional Variances. Continued from April 7 and May 5, 2021.

 

Mr. Reichert reviewed that the application was withdrawn as a Dimensional Modification was administratively approved.

 

3.    Montesano, 5 Terrace Ave., AP ‘142’ Lot ‘108’ Garage / Front porch addition, Home Occupation greater that 150 sq. ft. (§260-33) Dimensional Variances and (§260-34) Special Use Permit. Continued from Feb 3, Feb 25, March 3, April 7, and May 5, 2021. Request for Special Use Permit Withdrawn; Modified plan removes garage.

 

After a brief recess, the Zoning Board meeting was called back to session at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Torres was recused from the hearing and was removed from the Zoom meeting as a panelist. Ms. Robinson voted as a full member in this application. Mr. Reichert reviewed the changes to the application and said staff is supportive of its approval.

Attorney Christine Dieter, representing the applicants, reviewed the history of the application and said the revised site plan and schematic drawing provides a path to move the project forward. She said the applicant withdraws the requests for a north side setback Variance and a Special Use Permit, which leaves a nominal request for relief. Mr. and Mrs. Montesano were sworn in for public testimony. Mr. Montesano shared his screen to show the plans.

Stan Bednarski, of 12 Salt Pond Way, said he owned property behind the applicant and is concerned with the proposed septic system. Mr. Montesano said they already have an approved Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) permit. Mr. Bednarksi said he does not understand why RIDEM would approve it. Atty. Romano referenced a Supreme Court case that stated the Zoning Board could not challenge RIDEM approved permits within an application.

There were some brief remarks made by Attorney Michael Lynch, representing abutting neighbors of the project, who had spoken against the application at past public hearings.

In a poll of the Board members, Mr. Brockway said he would have voted yes on the original application but would vote yes tonight. Mr. Cioppa agreed with Mr. Brockway’s comments. Mr. Russo said he is in favor of the application’s redesign. Ms. Robinson said she is also in favor of the new application. Mr. Pawelkiewicz agreed.

Ms. Robinson made a motion to close the Montesano public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Mr. Brockway seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions. 

Mr. Cioppa read into the record the details of the Montesano application request for a 3.1-foot right side yard, a 15.4-foot rear yard, and a 12.1-foot front yard Variance for a front porch, mud room, bathroom, and a second story expansion to the existing home, and made a motion to approve the Montesano application. Mr. Brockway seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with a recusal by Mr. Torres.

 

Mr. Brockway made a motion to accept the withdrawal of the Montesano Special Use Permit application. Ms. Robinson seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with a recusal from Mr. Torres.

 

4.    Christopher Sisco, 59 Shore Road, AP ‘151’ Lot ‘89’Addition (278 sq. ft.) to an existing garage. (§260-33) Dimensional Variances. Continued from May 5, 2021.

 

Mr. Cioppa was recused from the application. Mr. Torres rejoined the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Mr. Reichert provided details of the application. He said despite the Zoning enforcement officer’s efforts to inform the applicant that they needed a permit, construction continued, and they found a completed project in the spring. He said the structure needs to meet the full setback requirement of 20 feet. He said the applicant had the opportunity to have conversations with the Town prior to construction and now he can do one of three things; detach it and make it less than 144 square feet with a  6-foot setback; detach the structure and move it 6 feet from the primary structure and use an accessory use setback requirement, or if they wanted it connected to the garage they could do so but they would have to meet setback requirements through a dimensional modification or moving the structure to meet the setback requirement. Mr. Reichert said staff does not see any form of hardship in this application. He said there are other locations on the site that they could have put the shed and it would have conformed.

The applicant, Christopher Cisco, was sworn in for public testimony. He said the shed is finished and he did not do this to avoid any permits. He said he did not realize he needed a permit for the shed. He said when the structure had all four walls up, the Zoning enforcement officer visited and let him know he was in violation and would need a permit. He said this was in the middle of construction and the pressure treated lumber he used was getting damaged but within three days he started the process of complying. He said he contacted a site surveyor to assist him and paid him over $1,000 however he was unreachable for many months. Mr. Cisco said he completed the construction to salvage the materials. He said he did not know that attaching it to the garage would put him in violation. He said there is no access from the garage, and he attached it so that he could install an outdoor shower in the rear of the structure. Mr. Cisco said is willing to detach the structure. He said it is on eight four-foot-deep concrete peers so he is unsure how he could move it. Mr. Cisco explained the purpose for building the shed was to free up space in his existing garage for another permitted project. Mr. Cisco testified that he had hoped his hired surveyor would assist him in submitting the required paperwork for the shed. He said he did not contact any other professionals as he had money invested in this person. He further described how the shed attached to the garage through a small section 3.5 to 4-feet wide making a small “L” shape in the area to create an outdoor shower as the accessory wall blocked the view from neighbor. He said when the Zoning enforcement officer visited, all the walls were up, and peers were in but there was no roof and that it could have been lifted and moved at that point. Mr. Cisco testified that he has been a permanent resident of Westerly for 48 years. He described the effort required to separate the existing structures. The applicant said it is possible to reduce the shed by 100 feet and that he created it larger to potentially store lawn equipment Mr. Cisco said he is unsure of how to proceed with the structure and he has a pending court date on the 7 and is hoping to attend it with more information Mr. Torres said what he would do is withdraw the application or continue it to next month to think things through, talk with the Zoning Official, and work on a plan. There was no public comment.

Ms. Robinson made a motion to continue the Cisco application to the July Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Brockway seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions and a recusal from Mr. Cioppa.

 

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, March 3, April 7, and May 5, 2021.

 

See notes under item G.1.

 

I.      PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS -

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

 

1. Weekapaug Yacht Club, 23 Spray Rock Road, AP ‘158’ Lot ‘2’ Demolish existing clubhouse and its replacement with a new flood zone compliant facility within the existing footprint. (§260-34) Special Use Permit.

 

Mr. Reichert described the application to the Board and said one rear yard setback is required. He said Principal Planner Alyse Oziolor has provided guidance on coastal plantings on site to meet the standards of the Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC.) He said staff is supportive of the application.

Project architect Rob Lambert, of 20 Maple Avenue, Jamestown, was sworn in for public testimony. Also present on behalf of the applicant was project engineer Tony Nenna, principal of On-Site Engineering, Inc., Westerly, and Attorney William Nardone with offices at 42 Granite Street, Westerly. Atty. Nardone gave a history of the club and its structure. He said the proposal is to demolish the existing structure and rebuild it within the existing building’s footprint. Mr. Lambert shared a virtual tour of the proposed structure and Mr. Nenna provided details on the engineering plan. In a poll of the Board, all members were in favor of approving the application. There was no public comment.

Mr. Cioppa made a motion to close the public hearing at 10:01 p.m. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Russo read into the record the details of the application for Weekapaug Yacht Club, 23 Spray Rock Road, AP ‘158’ Lot ‘2’ demolition of the existing clubhouse building and its replacement with a flood zone compliant structure in the existing footprint, including details of the lot and Zoning district, neighborhood, testimony, and evidence given at the public hearing, and made a motion to approve the Weekapaug Yacht Club application with the conditions as written. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2.    Nordstrom, 2 Spray Rock Road, AP ‘169’ Lot ‘3’ Raze existing structure and construct new moving footprint forward. (§260-30) Dimensional Modifications.

 

See agenda item E. 2. notes.

 

J.    STAFF COMMENTS

 

            There were no staff comments.

K.   Applications Declared Complete, Waivers Granted and Scheduled for Public Hearing at the Wednesday July 7, 2021 Zoning Board Meeting. Informational no action to be taken.

 

1.    Frederick P. Paretta, 47 Uzzi Ave, AP ‘164’ Lot ‘168’ Remove existing, and construct, new front deck increasing footprint. (§260-33) Dimensional Variances.

 

2.    Casey Winslow, 19 Babcock Road, AP ‘117’ Lot ‘95’ Appeal of the decision of the Department of Public Works for the approval of a curb cut. (§260-38) Right to Appeal.

 

L.    ADJOURN –

Mr. Brockway made a motion to adjourn the Zoning Board meeting at 10:14 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 July 7, 2021