Zoning Board – Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, November 3, 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 the rules of procedure for hearing applications at the Zoning Board.

 

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:             Principal Planner Alyse Oziolor, Zoning Official Martin Loiselle, Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning Todd J. Romano, Esq., Minute Taker Stephanie LaSota, and Information Technology Technician Michael Harris

 

C.    APPROVAL AND REVISION OF MINUTES

 

1. October 6, 2021 – Mr. Brockway made a motion to approve the October 6, 2021 Zoning Board minutes as submitted. Mr. Torres seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote. Mr. Pawelkiewicz abstained from voting as he was absent from the October 6, 2021 meeting.

                       

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.

 

Ms. Oziolor noted that item J. said applications have been declared complete and scheduled for a November 3 meeting but that was a typo and should read a December 2 meeting.

 

 

E.     APPROVAL OF DECISIONS –

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

           

There was no approval of decisions for discussion.

 

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.

 

            Ms. Oziolor reviewed that the hearing was continued from last month and the Zoning Board should have received an originally approved application along with a revised as-built plan. She said that the surveyor went out and resurveyed the property and now the stairs measure 22.5 feet away from the front property line so technically the request could be covered under a dimensional modification as the Variance request is under 25 percent of the setback length. Ms. Oziolor said the applicant has not requested a withdrawal and they want to proceed with a Variance request. There was some clarifying conversation about the survey process. Ms. Oziolor said the survey submitted with the original Variance application was completed before the stairs were built. She shared that the original Variance request was for 13.5 feet and now it is for 7.5 feet, or exactly twenty-five percent of the total setback area, the maximum allowed for a dimensional modification. Ms. Oziolor said Assistant Zoning Official Cindy DiMaggio visited the site and took photos and said it looked like it was more than 20 feet away from the property line. She added that originally the stairs were going to comply with the setbacks, but because of the elevation of the home they needed more steps, which caused them to protrude farther into the setback. Mr. Russo questioned why the Zoning Department accepted the as-built plan. Ms. Oziolor said the steps were incorrectly shown on the as-built plan. Atty. Romano clarified that the Zoning Department only approved a Zoning Certificate based on the proposed plan and it was not discovered that the stairs went into the setback until that plan was submitted, leading to this process. Mr. Cioppa asked at what point the builder and property owner were aware that the stairs were noncompliant.

            The applicant, Robert Alberga, was sworn in for public testimony along with the builder, Scott Anderson, of 22 Cosmo Street, Westerly, employee of Connecticut Valley Homes. Mr. Anderson testified that they knew there was a possibility that the steps could run over the setback line so he went to the Zoning Office to determine the procedure they would have to take if this occurred. He said based on the information he was given, he thought it would more than likely be a dimensional modification and this was the only reasonable way to install the staircase. He said there was an error made on the original as-built plan. Mr. Russo commented that this could have been prevented by placing the home farther back on the property. Mr. Anderson said they both decided they wanted to leave the home where it was so as not to encroach on the backyard space. He testified that their thought process was once they had the as-built plan they would then apply for the relief that was needed for the staircase and they were confident that it would be a simple dimensional modification. Mr. Brockway asked clarifying questions as to when he knew the Variance was needed. Mr. Alberga said when they received the plans before construction, the possibility of a Variance was discussed. Mr. Anderson echoed that they discussed it before construction started that the stairs may possibly be over the setback and a Variance might be required. Mr. Russo stated there is 202 feet from the back corner of the home to the rear of the property so setting the home further back by a few feet would not have been a major encroachment. Mr. Cioppa asked why the applicant did not apply for Zoning relief immediately when they suspected it might be required. Mr. Anderson reiterated that they were comfortable that it would be a dimensional modification. Ms. Robinson asked what point in the process he spoke with Zoning staff. Mr. Anderson said he spoke to staff very early on before any construction. Ms. Robinson asked more questions clarifying the applicant’s thought process. Mr. Anderson said he was unsure if a Variance would be needed specifically because of the height of the foundation and the depth of the deck. He added that he did not speak with Zoning staff after the new foundation was set and staff did not direct him to build before applying for any relief. He shared that an outside contractor was used to build the steps. Mr. Brockway stated it is simple geometry to determine where the steps would go, referencing the plan. He asked Mr. Anderson who was responsible for checking to make sure the steps were reasonable, and Mr. Anderson stated he does not know. Mr. Cioppa asked if alternative staircase builds were considered. Mr. Alberga said if the staircase went to the right, the driveway or garage is there, and if they built to the left it would be in the setback for another neighbor. Mr. Cioppa stated that the applicant knew there was a problem and they built it before requesting relief. Mr. Russo asked that the land surveyor be sworn in for testimony. Mr. Torres commented that this could have been avoided before construction. Mr. Anderson reiterated that they knew it would have been at the most a dimensional modification. Mr. Torres said it could have been avoided and an applicant still needs to request a dimensional modification prior to construction. Mr. Russo said the surveyor should have been sure because he knows the elevations and measurements. He said the site plan submitted to the Building Department was not accurate as it misinterpreted what would happen and he questioned why the stairs were depicted as only a three-step rise hitting the building when it was a seven-step rise ten feet off the building line.

            The building surveyor, Dan Herrington, of 7 Harringtons Crossing, Hope Valley, was sworn in for public testimony. Mr. Russo asked why the home was so close to the front line knowing that the home is higher than depicted. Mr. Harrington said the top of the foundation is not depicted on the plan and it was not determined at that time. He said the elevation grade at the house is 8 feet and the flood elevation is 12 feet, and the State requires one foot of freeboard above that. Mr. Russo said a land surveyor should stake out the home and Mr. Anderson said the excavation contractor staked out the home. Mr. Russo said the surveyor should stake the home to conform with the plot plan. Mr. Harrington stated that there were 104 feet from the back of the house to the rear property line. He also stated that the applicant may have wanted to avoid building into a raised sand filter septic system in the rear. Mr. Harrington reviewed that a higher home would have required more steps and that is what occurred with this application. He testified that he worked on at least 20 homes in the Misquamicut area that were not raided. Mr. Harrington said there were no elevations in the architectural plans. He had asked Mr. Anderson and he said yes, it would be elevated but the top of the foundation and finished floor elevation was not yet determined at that time. Mr. Harrington said on the southerly side of the house there are places to put steps and it was his understanding they would go for a dimensional modification a year ago and not a year later. Mr. Cioppa restated that he believes there are alternative areas for the staircase.

Mr. Anderson said alternatives would have been in front of the garage area or on the side. Mr. Brockway asked Mr. Alberga if the intent of razing the previous cottage and elevating a new home was just for flood purposes. Mr. Alberga said they wanted to expand their home and going higher was the way to do that, as discussed with Connecticut Valley Homes.

Ms. Robinson asked Mr. Anderson about the conversation he had with his clients about where stairs would be located. He said the deck design was chosen before having the conversation about stairs. Anderson said garage is under the porch. Deck runs continuously across, built on site. Mr. Russo asked the Zoning Board to entertain a motion to split the stairs to create a landing and build stairs to the left so they could still be within the building lines on the left side. Atty. Romano recommended the Board request alternative plans as those are needed to deny or approve an application. He also stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows for a staircase to jut three feet into a setback without requiring a Variance. Mr. Anderson stated that he believed the application would not have exceeded that three-foot allowance.

Mr. Russo made a motion that the Alberga hearing be continued to the December 2 Zoning Board meeting to allow Mr. Anderson to provide alternative designs to the staircase within the front and side setbacks to avoid a dimensional modification or Variance request. Ms. Robinson seconded the motion. In discussion, Mr. Anderson was asked how long he worked for Connecticut Valley Homes, to which he answered seven years and that he had over 20 years in the construction field but had never been a part of a Variance application before but had clients go through the process. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with Mr. Pawelkiewicz abstaining as he was absent from the original Alberga hearing. Ms. Robinson voted as a full member in this application.

Mr. Anderson asked the Board to reconsider their motion due to the potential bad effect to the aesthetics of the home and the neighborhood. Mr. Russo clarified that he would like to see renderings of how the stairs could be turned and if it is not aesthetically pleasing or causes a hardship because of the landing, then the Board can decide based on the evidence. Mr. Torres asked the applicant to make a good faith effort to make an aesthetically pleasing egress to the stairs that they can evaluate. Ms. Robinson suggested the applicant hire an architect to do the renderings, so measurements are accurate. There was some more brief discussion on the details of the plans.

 

The Zoning Board took a recess and was called back in session at 6:57 p.m.

 

G.    PUBLIC HEARINGS –

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

 

There were no appeals on the agenda.

 

H.    PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS –

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

 

1. Lot 3C Bradley Circle, LLC, AP ‘179’   Lot ‘91A’, 18 Plimpton Road - Renovations to existing non-conforming structure. (§260-34) Special Use Permit, (§260-33) Dimensional Variances. Variance will be withdrawn with final approval of Dimensional Modification 11/1/2021

 

Ms. Oziolor said a dimensional modification was submitted and it was accepted without any objection and only a Special Use Permit is required for the application as the property is nonconforming as it has two single-family homes on one lot and the expansion of either home requires it. She said the expansion cannot be more than 25 percent of the existing floor space, and in this case, the 990-square-foot proposed expansion is only 17 percent of the home’s floor space. Mr. Brockway asked what was already happening on the site as he witnessed some work being done. Ms. Oziolor said the only part happening is expansion of the living space and internal renovation is allowed as they have the Building Permits. She said an outside front retaining wall was built for the stabilization of the structure and is not yet for the expansion. She added that the front yard parking space must remain as crushed stone or a non-paved surface due to requirements of §260-60E because it exceeds a width of 16 feet. Ms. Robinson clarified that the only reason for the request was because of its nonconforming nature and the lot cannot be subdivided because it would lack the necessary requirements of size and frontage. Ms. Oziolor clarified that the structure will only expand vertically and will not be built outside of the existing floor plan.

Attorney Thomas Capalbo was present on behalf of the applicants and stated that the owners purchased the property with the intent to make it a year-round residence and move to Westerly permanently. He said the property was condominiumized this year to sell the homes to separate buyers and his client purchased unit A. Atty. Capalbo said the seller was able to effectively split the lot without doing a subdivision by selling the buildings separately. He said at the time of purchase the property was in a blight condition and there is a lot of the work going on to rectify the structural issues. He stated that the client will expend a significant sum of money to revitalize it and will add some architectural aesthetics to enhance the value to this home and the neighborhood. Atty. Capalbo introduced several professional witnesses to the Zoning Board, including general contractor Ken Sorenson, land surveyor Mark Castellanos, of Cherenzia & Associates, LTD., and architect John Grosvenor.

Mr. Sorenson, of Sorenson McCuin Contractors, at 116 High Street, was sworn in for public testimony. He said it is the applicant’s intention to continue the single-family use of the structure. He said he suggested they bring a structural engineer to look at the issues in the home and they are working together to address deficiencies in the walls, foundations, and electrical work. He said a staircase needs to be changed as it is not code compliant and an elevator is being added as a second means of egress.

Mr. Castellanos, a resident of Westerly, works as land surveyor with Cherenzia & Associates, and was sworn in for public testimony. He described the existing setbacks and further described the existing impervious surface area saying there would be no change to the existing area.

            Mr. Grosvenor, of 2 Marlborough Street, Newport, architect, and president of Newport Collaborative Architects, was sworn in for public testimony. He shared a bit about his professional background and was accepted by the Board as a professional witness. Mr. Grosvenor said the impact of the changes is on the north and east elevations. He talked through the plans while showing the Board the elevation drawings. He said they would use a foundation wall of an existing courtyard to structure a deck on the first-floor level, but it would not increase any pervious surface. Mr. Grosvenor spoke of the importance of the architectural integrity of the home and preserving the historic character.

There was no public comment.

In a poll of the Board, all members were in support of the application. Mr. Russo said it is a great service to the area and the plans are beautiful.

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

            Mr. Torres read into the record the details of the 3C Bradley Circle, LLC, AP ‘179’   Lot ‘91A’, 18 Plimpton Road application, including the testimony given at the public hearing on November 3, the Zoning narrative dated September 28, 2021 outlining details of the application and summarizing the project by staff and he made a motion to approve the request for a Special Use Permit to expand an existing legal nonconforming residential single-family use by 990 square feet, with conditions; that the calculation of the 990 square foot or 17 percent expansion is less than the maximum expansion of 25 percent, further that the Seaview LLC. 18 and 20 Plimpton Road Map 179 lot 91A by Cherenzia & Associates, LTD. dated August 10, 2021 and last updated September 7, 2021, is hereby embedded in this proposal and shall be used going forward as the determination of floorspace or area use for the duration of the legal nonconforming use of this single-family structure on the lot, and that the proposed crushed stone driveway shall remain unpaved and impervious. Mr. Brockway seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Capalbo stated that his applicant formally withdrawals a Variance request application for the same property.

 

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

 

Mr. Cioppa asked if it was the first time they are seeing this application. Ms. Oziolor said there was an application submitted in June, but it was deemed incomplete. She said there may be some material from that original application. There was no one present at the hearing for the Germain application.

Mr. Cioppa made a motion to continue the Germain application to the December 2, 2021 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Russo seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

I.       STAFF COMMENTS

 

1.         Revision of Zoning Board- Rules of Procedure – Mr. Pawelkiewicz said any comments on the distributed revisions could be emailed to Atty. Romano and the changes will be presented before the final vote.

 

J.      Applications Declared Complete, Waivers Granted and Scheduled for Public Hearing at the Wednesday December 2, 2021 Zoning Board Meeting. Informational no action to be taken.

 

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

2. Douglas Enterprises, Ltd., 165 East Avenue - Demolish existing structure, create land development project consisting of 10 Duplex style buildings.         

            There was no discussion on agenda item K.

K.    ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Russo made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Cioppa seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Next Regular Meeting – Thursday December 2, 2021, 6:00 P.M. at Westerly Town Hall and Zoom.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Stephanie J. LaSota

Minute Taker

Approved by vote of the Board on December 2, 2021