STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS 13 JULY :00 PM BRISTOL TOWN HALL BRISTOL, RHODE ISLAND

Transcription

1 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS MINUTES THE ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF BRISTOL, RHODE ISLAND 13 JULY :00 PM BRISTOL TOWN HALL BRISTOL, RHODE ISLAND BEFORE THE TOWN OF BRISTOL ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW: MR. JOSEPH ASCIOLA, Chairman MR. BRUCE KOGAN, Vice Chairman MR. DAVID RAPOSA MR. DAVID SIMOES MR. STEPHEN HUDAK MR. DIAMANTINO FONSECA ALSO PRESENT: ATTORNEY ANDREW TIETZ, Town Solicitor's Office MR. EDWARD TANNER, Zoning Enforcement Officer MR. RICHARD PIMENTA, Building Inspector Susan E. Andrade 91 Sherry Ave. Bristol, RI

2 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 1 INDEX 1. Approval of Minutes 18 JUNE 2015,,,, Petition of Richard Gayer,,, Petition of Maria I Vicenzo,,,,,, Petition of Manuel & Carmella Soares,,, Petition of 429 Wood Street, LLC,,,,,, Adjournment,,,,,,,,.36 The meeting of the Town of Bristol Zoning Board of Review was held at the Bristol Town Hall, 10 Court Street, Bristol, RI; and called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Joseph Asciola.

3 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 2 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 18 JUNE 2015 X X X X X X MR. ASCIOLA: MR. SIMOES: The first order of business will be the approval of the June 18th meeting. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that the minutes of the Thursday, June 18th meeting be approved. MR. RAPOSA: MR. ASCIOLA: MR. RAPOSA: MR. SIMOES: MR. ASCIOLA: MR. KOGAN: MR. HUDAK: Second. All in favor? X X X X X X RICHARD A. GAYER 50 Richmond St.: R-6 Pl. 32, Lot 83

4 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 3 Applicant is requesting Dimensional Variances to construct a second story roof dormer, screen porch, deck and garage additions to an existing single-family dwelling, portions of which would have less than the required right side yard. Mr. Richard Gayer, currently residing at 12 Doran Ave, Bristol, presented his Petition to the Board. Mr. Gayer presented photos of the house to the Board and explained the photos show the existing conditions and his proposal is for a variance for the side yard to do the additional work to the house. They would create a room and a proposed deck. The existing fence line, as shown in the surveyor's plan on the side yard is not correct. He has talked to the owner of the abutting property and they are in agreement with that the fence is not in the proper location and that they knew it when they purchased their property. He will be paying to move the fence. Upon questioning by the Board, Mr. Gayer confirmed that the existing house is already there and the second floor area already has a small knee wall; so he will only be bring the roof line up a couple of feet for head room; it will not be encroaching any further into the side yard area. He will be residing in the house when it is finished with his wife and two children. The Board reviewed the plans in detail with Mr. Gayer. Mr. Gayer purchased the property in January 2015 and guesses that the house was built around the 1850's or 60's. X X X X X X MR. ASCIOLA: Would anyone like to speak in favor? Would anyone like to speak against? Okay, can we have a motion from the Board, please? MR. HUDAK: I'm going to make a motion to approve the applicant's request for dimensional variance to construct a second story roof dormer, screen porch, deck and garage addition to the existing single-family dwelling; portions of which would have a less than required right side side yard

5 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 4 area. I make a motion to approve applicant's request for a 3' 8" right side variance to the property. And the reasons in support of my motion are that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area and not due to the economic disability of the applicant. The applicant is limited on his side yard; however his existing home is within the same footprint that he proposes the additions. The hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant. It does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize any financial gain. The applicant stated that he purchased the property in January of 2015 and he is going to use it as his primary residence with his wife and two children. That the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of this Chapter. The surrounding homes have lots similar in size and homes that have been built similarly. The relief to be granted is the least relief necessary. I think that because of the fact that the existing home is already within that same footprint, I think that the proposals offered by the applicant are of minimal relief requested. And that the granting of the dimensional variance; that the hardship that will be suffered by the owner would amount to more than a mere inconvenience if not granted. If we deny this motion, I believe that the applicant testified that his wife and two children would be limited in space within the home; and I think that that would amount to more than a mere inconvenience for him and his family. So for these reasons, I move to grant his motion. MR. SIMOES: I'll second.

6 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 5 MR. ASCIOLA: MR. RAPOSA: MR. SIMOES: MR. ASCIOLA: MR. KOGAN: MR. HUDAK: All in favor? X X X X X X (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (Petition Granted)

7 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 6 MARIA I. VICENZO 25 Spruce Ln.: R-10 Pl. 122, Lot 32 Applicant is requesting Dimensional Variances to construct a 23' 6" x 26' 9" second-story addition to an existing single-family dwelling with less than the required front yard and left yard on a corner lot. Ms. Vicenzo presented her Petition to the Board. She stated that she would like to add up on the current structure she's living in. There's currently a second floor, but it's not finished; she would like to turn it into livable space by adding 8 feet and raise it up. She also obtained a site plan and she also presented pictures to the Board of the current structure. The Board reviewed the pictures and the plans in detail with the applicant. Ms. Vicenzo stated that the pictures are of the center of the structure. The front porch and the rear of the house are not going to be affected; it's just the center part and the overhangs are going to be eliminated. The chimney will be removed, which was used for an old stove outlet. Total height of the house was determined to be 29' 6" on the Drawing A1 on the proposed elevations. The house sits on a corner lot, which has two front yards and the relief being asked for, with respect to the setback, which is presently located at 14.1' from the property line along Anawan, which will not change. In an R-10 zone, normally it would be a 30' setback; so the variance will be 15.9'. On the north side on Spruce the house already encroaches by the porch at 7.6' from the property line; and that will not change. Everything is existing, she will just be going straight up. She needs the additional living space for her hopes of someday having a family. She purchased the house in 2006, which was built in 1945; making it a lawful preexisting non-conforming use.

8 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 7 X X X X X X MR. ASCIOLA: Would anyone like to speak in favor of this? Would anyone like to speak against? Okay, can we have a motion, please? MR. KOGAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion that the applicant's request for a number of dimensional variances to permit her to construct a second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling, which addition would not conform to the front yard setbacks and the right side setback. My motion would be to grant the applicant on the west side of the property, the Anawan Avenue side a variance of 15.9' from the normally required 30' front yard setback. And on the Spruce Avenue, which is the northerly property line, the existing house is only 7.6' from the northerly front yard property line. The addition is not going to be that close to the property line because there's this existing front porch; so the porch seems to be 7' deep; so the variance on the northerly side would be... with the addition is 7' back from the end of the porch, the addition would be only 14.6'; so that variance would be 15.4'. And on the eastern side, which is the left side, the existing house is 8.4' from the left side property line; normally in an R- 10 zone the applicant would have to build the addition 15' from the property line. So, the applicant would need on that side, and I'm recommending that we approve, a variance of 6.6' from the property line; enabling her to build the addition within the footprint of the existing center section of the existing home. And the reasons that would support that variance are that there's a hardship arising due to the unique characteristics of the subject land and the structure on it; not the general character of the surrounding area. This house was built in 1945, at least that's what the Tax Assessment records show; and it was located exactly

9 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 8 where it presently is. And the zoning ordinance was eventually adopted in the mid 60's; R-10 zones had different setbacks. It is a hardship for the applicant to do anything that would conform in the way of expanding her living space; since the home as it exists is non-conforming. And, therefore, it would be a hardship for her to do anything at all in conformance and doesn't make any sense at all. This hardship is not the result of prior action on the part of the applicant. I don't believe the applicant looks like she was alive in 1945 to build this house in it's present location. Nor is the hardship due to either an economic disability of the applicant or the desire on the part of the applicant to realize greater financial gain. The reasons that she has proffered for adding the addition on for additional living space, since she eventually plans to have a family and doesn't want to relocate from a house that she's been living in for the last nine years. Granting the requested dimensional variance will not alter the general character of the area. This is an entirely residential area, with a mix of different styles of homes; some of which are one story, some of which are two story; it doesn't appear that this will alter or impact in any negative way the general character of the area. Nor will granting the requested dimensional variance impair the intent of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which identifies this as a residential area, which is exactly what the applicant intends to do. And were we to deny the requested variances, the applicant would suffer a hard ship more than a mere inconvenience, since the existing upper level of the home is completely unusable according to the testimony of the applicant. And she would like to have a little bit more space. This is a very minimal request; it doesn't change the footprint of the house at all. It will have minimal, if

10 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 9 any, negative impact on anyone else. And for those reasons, I move that we grant the requested variances. MR. SIMOES: MR. ASCIOLA: MR. RAPOSA: MR. SIMOES: MR. ASCIOLA: MR. KOGAN: MR. HUDAK: I'll second the motion. All in favor? X X X X X X (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (Petition Granted)

11 13 JULY 2015 P a g e MANUEL & CARMELLA SOARES 43 Sowams Dr.: R-10 Pl. 159, Lots 807 & 808 Applicant is requesting Dimensional Variances to construct a 33' long rear roof dormer addition, and a 20' x 22' second-story living area addition to an existing singlefamily dwelling with less than the required front yard and left and right side yards. Ms. Carmella Soares, 43 Sowams Drive, Bristol and Mr. Jeffery Soares, 55 Boneyville Road, Swansea, Ma. presented the Petition to the Board. Mr. Soares explained they would like to raise the existing foundation, put a dormer off the back, raise over the breezeway and the garage to make a living space for himself, his wife and his daughter. Ms. Soares explained that they all own the property, and Manuel is getting older and they would all like to move in to make living conditions better by everyone living together. The existing Cape style home is 28' from the property line in an R-10 zone. The addition on the right hand side will be aligned with the present front of the house. The addition is over the garage and breezeway, which will not change the footprint of the house at all. The dormer is over existing structure; but the house is 12' from the left side, but the dormer addition is 3' set back in; which will make it conforming. Mr. Tanner explained that he added the dormer in because a survey was not presented and he added in as an abundance of caution. The Ordinance does require a survey; but they will not be able to get a building permit without one; so they Board could rule on the issue. Mr. Kogan expressed concern on approving the setback variances based on a site plan and not a registered survey. Mr. Tietz explained that they will require a survey prior to receiving a building permit so the Board could approve it now; and if the survey shows that they are within

12 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 11 the setbacks, but that they are different than what's shown, then they'll have to refile and come back. Or the Board could continue it until they have the survey. They confirmed that this will remain a single-family home, it will not be an in-law suite, and there will be only one kitchen. Ms. Alison Jarvis, 39 Sowams Drive, spoke in favor of the Petition and stated that she lives right next door and has no problem with what the Soares would like to do. X X X X X X MR. ASCIOLA: Would anyone else like to speak in favor? Would anyone like to speak against? Can we have a motion from the Board, please? MR. KOGAN: Mr. Chairman I'm going to make a motion that the applicant's request for dimensional variances to permit the construction of a second story living area addition to an existing single-family home be granted. And in so doing the variances that I would recommend are the ones requested. So with respect to the front yard setback, which in an R-10 zone would normally require 30 feet; the applicant is looking to construct the addition above the existing home, which appears from the site plan only to be 28 feet from the front yard property line. So that would require and I'm recommending that we grant a 2' variance to enable the applicant to build the addition above the existing home at 28' from the front property line. On the right side, the east side of the property, the existing structure is only 9' from the property line; and in an R-15 zone normally 15' is required on the side yard setback; so on the east side of the property I am recommending that we grant a 6' variance to enable the addition to be built above the existing structure only 9' from the property line. And on the left side, or west side of the property, the existing structure is only 12' from the property line, or at least as reflected on the site plan. The

13 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 12 applicant is proposing to build a dormer at the rear of the property at a distance of 15' from the property line; which would not require a variance. However, out of an abundance of caution, if that dimension is not completely accurate and needs a small variance then I would recommend that we grant the applicant what they need to be able to build that dormer; so long as it does not extend past the left side of the property, which is 12' from the property line. So, in essence I think I'm saying I would be willing to grant them a 3' variance on the left side, so long as they don't extend past the existing footprint. And the reasons for my motion are that there is a hardship arising from the unique characteristics of the subject land and the existing structure, which was erected The existing home is a two-story Cape style home with a one car garage on the right hand side of the property. This home was built in 1952, it was built in its current location and when the zoning ordinance was adopted it made those dimensions non-conforming. The hardship is not the result of any prior action on the part of the applicant; they didn't build the house, they didn't locate it where it's presently located and they are not proposing to encroach any further into the setback than the present encroachments that the now 60-year home is located at. This hardship is not due to any economic disability on the part of the applicant, nor for a desire on the part applicant's part to realize greater financial gain. The motivation behind the request is to slightly enlarge the living space in order to accommodate the return of the prodigal son to the home, with his family and to reunite the family back in the family home; the applicant junior and his family. Granting the requested dimensional variance will not alter the general character of the area; this is an entirely residential neighborhood

14 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 13 with a mix of one and two-story homes. The external appearance is only going to be modestly modified from the front exposure and there's a very minimal impact; none of which to be negative. In fact there was testimony offered by the next door neighbor who has no objection to the addition. Granting the requested variance will impair the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies this portion of Bristol as residential. Family friendly, so this is a family friendly request that the applicant is making. The relief requested is the least relief necessary; there's no further expansion into the setbacks under this plan and he hasn't come in and asked for some grandiose addition; it's minor changes to go up within the existing footprint in order to make it more workable for the family. And it would amount to more than a mere inconvenience for the family if we were to deny this request; there's some indicated that Jeffrey's child desires to enroll in the Bristol/Warren school district and if this gets denied that would make it very difficult for the family to achieve their family desire of the son and his family moving home. So for those reasons, I move that we grant the requested dimensional variances; subject to, however, to a condition that the applicant obtain a survey of the property with the existing structures on it, indicating the location of those existing structures, prepared by a registered surveyor and conform with the requirements of the zoning code and the Town. A requirement is necessary anyway to get the building permit, but... and that the approval, should the Board vote in favor of it, is conditioned upon that survey being consistent with the site plan that was submitted and upon which this decision would be based. That would be my motion. MR. SIMOES: I'll second that motion.

15 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 14 MR. ASCIOLA: MR. RAPOSA: MR. SIMOES: MR. ASCIOLA: MR. KOGAN: MR. HUDAK: All in favor? X X X X X X (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (Petition Granted with condition)

16 13 JULY 2015 P a g e WOOD STREET, LLC 429 Wood St.: LB Pl. 18, Lot 1 Applicant is requesting a Dimensional Variance to convert existing commercial space within an existing mixed-use building into two residential dwelling units with less than the required lot area per dwelling unit. Attorney William Dennis, representing owner and applicant 429 Wood Street, LLC, presented the Petition to the Board. Present with him were Mr. Joseph Brito, who is the Principal of the LLC and Mr. Edward Cox, who is the manager of the company and the property itself. Mr. Dennis explained that the Petition is one for dimensional relief. Specifically area relief and even more specifically relief in the amount of 16,134 square feet of area. This is an application to convert two existing units on the first floor of the subject building from their current use as commercial to a residential use. The property exists in a Limited Business zone. This is a zone under the code which permits multi-family residential, as well as limited business. The applicant proposes really no exterior additions or modifications. Virtually all of the renovation will be done inside the building. The Building predates Bristol zoning by many decades. Mr. Dennis produced an updated version of of the plans, due to faulty addition information on the original plans submitted. Mr. Edward Cox testified that he is the manager of the 429 Wood Street LLC company and the manager of this investment property. Upon questioning by Mr. Dennis, Mr. Cox confirmed that seeing that the building itself is less than 6,000 square feet, that the present configuration of both the land and the building is identical to when they purchased the property. They have done no exterior modifications to the building. He is aware that this property is dimensionally non-conforming. Referring to the chart that Mr. Dennis provided to the Board, Mr. Cox confirmed that the percentage of properties within

17 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 16 the 200 foot radius of this property that are dimensionally non-conforming is at 82%. In regards to the second Standard of the Code, which speaks to the fact that the applicant cannot be in a position where the applicant actually created the hardship for the situation that exists, Mr. Cox confirmed that they did not build this building and was not enlarged in any way by their company. The company has owned this property approximately 8 years and in those 8 years they have actively attempted to rent the commercial units through multiple venues continuously with no success. The present configuration of the building, including an interior stairway which goes up to the second floor makes the first floor difficult to expand for the present store owner on the corner of the business to expand his business further to the south. They have had some interest in the locations, but in the end there was no interest, even though the rent is low in scale compared to other areas at $ per space. Mr. Cox confirmed that the property is presently a mixed use property, as it does have commercial use on the first floor and residential above. Within the 200 foot radius, including this subject property, there are four properties within this radius that enjoy both commercial and residential use. Using records from the Bristol Tax Assessor's records, there is a percentage of the properties within the radius that are residential, which is at 86%, 79 units in total and 10 commercial units, which comprises 14%. He is aware that residential uses are permitted in an LB zone. He confirmed that under the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed uses of residential and commercial are recognized as appropriate to this particular area. Mr. Cox, in regards to it being the least relief necessary, confirmed that no additions were ever made by them to the existing building and they are no planning any new additions to the building in terms of this conversion. All work will be interior alterations to the property. It is their desire to change the use from one permitted use, which is commercial, to another permitted use, residential.

18 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 17 In regards to the last Standard, in that denial of the relief would constitute more than a mere inconvenience for the applicant, Mr. Cox confirmed that to his knowledge both the current use and the requested use are both permitted uses and he again emphasized their ongoing attempts to get a commercial tenant into the property with no success. It is essentially part of his job to find tenants for vacant property and he has been unsuccessful with regard to this property. The Board reviewed the building configuration in detail with Mr. Cox. There are presently a total of five bedrooms that are rented to four tenant; one tenant has two bedrooms and three one bedroom apartments on the second floor. And the proposal is to add two residential units on the first floor, which would be a total of six residential units and the commercial unit on the corner. They also reviewed the requirements for an LB zone, which follows the nearest residential zone, which in this case would be R-6. In an R-6 zone the requirements are 6,000 for the first unit and then 4,000 for each additional unit. The proposal is for a total of 6 units, which would require 26,000 square feet; so the variance would be 21,034 square feet. The Board also review parking in detail. At present there are six parking spaces. In the winter, when there is a snow ban, they are able to almost double the number of cars they get off the street; the spaces are not assigned, it is first come first serve. Mr. Cox believes there would be more demand on parking if there was more commercial use; than the residential use. Mr. Dennis stated that the zoning requirement for parking with their two units as commercial is a higher requirement than residential; so they actually lessen the parking requirement by moving to a residential use. The Board reviewed in detail the retail and residential mix in the area and the attractiveness of commercial use in this area compared to the downtown area and Metacom Avenue area. Mr. Kogan discussed in detail the option of having an affordable unit included in the proposal. The applicants stated that they would rather not consider it

19 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 18 at this time, as they have contributed to the affordable housing in Bristol in other areas of town. Mr. Cox also explained that when it is a set aside, you can't just rent it to just anybody and they have to go through an application process; you cannot have the freedom to rent it to an affordable price to anyone. And with the market in this area, it will be a handcuff on managing this property. It would basically be easier for someone to rent for the same $550 across the street than go through the extensive application process; which would be a detriment to their marketing of their property. They are also talking to the owner of the convenience store about renting one of the units that would adjoin the store. The Board also reviewed in detail the surrounding apartments, such as above the Common Pub and other commercial buildings with residential above. Mr. Tietz reviewed the percentage table with Mr. Dennis and asked if he was suggesting that is the makeup of the neighborhood; because square footage wise you have half a million square feet of commercial and industrial space legally within their radius when you include the industrial park. Mr. Dennis stated that the radius without question goes into the industrial park; the only properties that had to be noticed within the 200 foot radius were four particular condominium units. So their not going by square footage, no, they're going by the number of properties within the radius. Mr. Tietz stated that then if it's a 500 square foot residential apartment or a 500,000 square feet of industrial space, it's not reflected in the table. Mr. Dennis told him he was correct; but he believes it's very clear that within that radius the overwhelming percentage of uses is residential, rather than commercial. There is only four mixed uses in the table; some of them are entirely commercial. The chart was reviewed again in detail with Mr. Dennis. Mr. Dennis reviewed the Town's field cards with the Board. Mr. Dennis stated that they have been trying to zero in on those two commercial units to try to stress to the Board that they've been vacant for 8 years. That the applicant has made 8 years worth of attempts to rent those units. That the applicant and its

20 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 19 manager are experienced landlords; they're not novices in this field and they have been unable to put a commercial tenant into these units. It's only after 8 years of attempts that they have come to this Board for assistance. He wanted to stress that residential uses are permitted in this zone, just as commercial uses are permitted. So they are not asking for any relief as to the use of the property; residential is a permitted uses. He stressed to the Board that in terms of dimensional nonconformity, having residential units there actually lessens the parking nonconformity that they suffer with at the present time. It is strictly a dimensional issue, they cannot make the lot any bigger or make the building any smaller than it is; all their renovations are planned for the interior. That being said, the issue of affordability has already been addressed. They realize the town has goals with regard to affordable housing; this applicant owns many other properties in town, many of which are restricted under the State's Low to Moderate Income Affordability Act. This is not a case where the apartments would be high rents, but any such restriction works a different type of harm on the applicant in terms of getting even residential tenants into the property. Certainly they've experienced this in Bristol; there are multiple examples of properties that can't be sold, can't be resold because of these restrictions. So, although the restrictions do have a very applaud able goal, they do work hardships on the applicants. They're not asking for additional units; one of the things that the Affordable Housing Act is sort of based on is density bonuses; where you're given more in the way of density than what you currently are entitled to as the so called subsidy from the Town. They're not asking for additional units; they simply want to convert the two that they have from commercial to residential. Ms. Courtney Poissant, 423 Wood Street spoke against the Petition; not only as a tenant of the Common Pub, but also on behalf of soon to be the owner she would say. She is in the midst of trying to buy the bar from her uncle. Within that aspect she is not trying to say anything about them doing business there; she hopes they can rent it out.

21 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 20 From her standpoint of the situation now is that they have been there for 40 years; never had a problem with keeping that business afloat where it is, in that district. Now, over the past few years, Mosaico is also trying to make that district and across the street more business oriented. So she thought that on behalf of the Town that that's the route that they were trying to go; to make Wood Street somewhere that all these people that live in Bristol could actually come and enjoy; not just downtown. She feels that over the past years Wood Street has been ignored a little bit in that sense; in that they could definitely use a little bit of TLC when it comes to the appearance and keeping things up on that end. They don't have a lot of parking; as of now they rent from the Mosaico Society, to give their customers parking; which that's what she would also say to them with renting it to future business people that would hopefully go into there. That they also have other businesses, such as Bristol Sports and Cafe Central who rent that parking lot to give their customers somewhere to park. When MidLand Farms moved in on the corner, that's when those 15 minute parking signs came up. Nothing against that, she agrees that when you're running into the store it's convenient to have those parking spots open; there are two o15 minute parking spaces. She can also speak on behalf of someone who sees it every day; there are six spots in the back parking lot. But you have the person who rents MidLand Farms who parks there constantly. You have people who live upstairs that park there all the time. So, when it comes to people coming in to use the convenience store, they don't have a lot of spots to park and they utilize a lot of the Common Pub's parking spots. She's wasn't saying that they own those parking spots, but there are a lot of businesses in that surrounding area that have been there for a long time. When it comes down do it they're going to put family; which sound like pretty big spots; it doesn't sound like a one bedroom to her, it sound like they're going to have big units that possibly a family could live in. So then what happens to the businesses that are open late nights, such as Bristol Sports Club and herself?

22 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 21 How are they supposed to keep it quiet, as a bar, on the side of a family? They already have constant complaints from the tenants that do live in the vicinity. It puts them in a sticky situation; they can't leave their windows open, they can't leave their doors open; they can't go that route at all. And it doesn't matter in that sense that even at 8:00, 9:00 they're still calling the cops. There's no smoking in these establishments, so therefore their customers are forced to go outside and smoke. Now, what are they supposed to do when you re standing outside smoking and having a conversation with somebody that gets a little loud? These people that are renting these apartments are calling the cops because there's people loudly having conversations outside. There's no common ground between those two situations there. To her, they understand that they have six apartments above the Pub. Every single person that has rented there, that they have, makes sure, one that they understand that they live above a bar; that there is going to be noise. 90% of the people that are up there renting right now is family. So when it comes right down to it, they all understand that until 1:00 in the morning there's going to be a juke box going, there's going to be events going on, fundraisers and every other thing that happens and that it's not going to be not completely obnoxiously loud, but it is loud. She thinks that some of the businesses, like the hookah bar and smoke shop; there has been a hookah bar in Bristol. So to keep something like that in that same realm of things it would have been a bad idea to put something like that. She just thinks that there's a lot of college kids around there and as businesses that are trying to keep in that realm, she thinks that they could keep business on Wood Street, if they made it other things for people to come and do there. The Mosaico Society who has not owned that property for that that long and they've been constantly renting out. They now have the 365 Sport thing that's bringing all new people into the area with their children to practice sports and do all that stuff. You have all the sign company across the street. You have businesses that have been in that area for years and years and have never had a problem staying

23 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 22 afloat. She thinks that it's a big difference between businesses that have left that are retiring, because their older and want to retire; that's why some of those businesses were being switched over. Not because they we were having hardships paying their bills. She would like to keep that area, she understands it's a limited business zone, she grasps that, but a lot of the places and apartments that are rented out to over there are rented to college kids. That's a great thing, normally, 90% of the time don't complain about noise or anything to that extent. She would like to keep it as business oriented as possible and try to bring some of that business up to Wood Street and not give it all to the downtown area. The Board again reviewed the makeup of the area on apartments on the second floor and the apartments on first floors and business and customer activities in the area in detail. The Board also discussed the plans with Ms. Poissant that does show they would be two one-bedroom units. Mr. Kogan reviewed Ms. Poissant's comments and stated that she did make two substantial points; one having to do with the general focus on Wood Street to be mixed use, residential above, business on the first floor and that putting apartments on the first floor wouldn't be consistent with helping that zone be more successful for all the businesses there. The second point had to do with the potential incompatibility between her operation and the other alcohol serving operations that exist with a set of residential units on the first floor, because the patrons, in order to smoke, go outside and that would create certain incompatibility between residents who wanted quite; whether it was to sleep or just to watch TV or talk in the apartment, with the buzz that's going on outside from the buzzed smokers who are going to be outside. There's twofold, one is this ought to be a business area on the first floor and the second is incompatibility with existing businesses that have long term been in Bristol, 40 years.

24 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 23 Ms. Diane Williamson, Director of Community Development, spoke against the Petition. She had previously submitted a memo to the Board, which she would refer to. She thinks that Ms. Poissant had addressed a couple of points in her memo; in particular the commercial zone on the first floor and the residential units upstairs, which is how that area has been developed and this building was developed. She thinks the second floor residential provides a bit of separation from activity on the sidewalk and the businesses. She thinks that is clear in the testimony the Board just heard from the adjacent property. She thinks the petition to convert the commercial space to the residential will alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area and impair the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. She thinks that the Comprehensive Plan speaks to maintaining the mixed use in this area particularly. And she thinks that she heard testimony that there are few true mixed use buildings there now; although you so have the large industrial park across the street, you've got the existing businesses on the north, south and west sides of this and she thinks that to eliminate the commercial use it would further diminish the mix of uses in the neighborhood that you have there now. The loss of the commercial opportunity that these store fronts can provide as either separate units or combined units; she understand you couldn't necessarily incorporate a future redevelopment of the convenience because of the staircase; but she thinks that as the applicant states the small commercial space is difficult to rent, then you know you're setting the stage for the whole first floor of this building to be residential at some point when the convenience store is no longer there. She can envision a petition to come forward for that as well. She thinks that the building, or in having the four residential units on the second floor; the uses are permitted, the dimensional variance would be needed to create more units, but she thinks it already exceeds the dimensional requirements; so its already nonconforming with regard to density. So, again, to further deviate on that variance she doesn't think would be in the best interest of that

25 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 24 neighborhood and the surrounding area. She appreciates the Board asking for the affordable units, but on this particular property and in this particular building, she didn't think it was appropriate to have any residential on the first floor. Mr. Dennis stated to address some of the issues that were raised in objection. He only has one copy of ten particular properties within the radius that are residential uses on the first floor; and this is only ten, he's sure there are more, but just in leafing through his file while the objections were being aired he was able to find ten different properties with residential uses on the first floor. He's sure the Board will remember the testimony of Mr. Cox indicating and he thinks the Board made it clear on it's own, that the proposals are for a one bedroom apartments; and clearly any potential tenants would be familiar with the area when they see the apartments before they sign a lease. He asked Mr. Cox to talk about the construction of the building and the plans for renovation that might have some bearing on the sound insulation, the privacy of any residential occupants. Mr. Cox stated that they are keenly aware of the neighborhood, and as such the composition of the tenants above the store is that there are no children. The tenants who rent are aware that there are limitations in the neighborhood; there's more noise in that neighborhood than in other areas that's not limited business. The proposal to construct the residential units on the first floor gives them an opportunity to address some of the incompatibility potential problems. So that the location of the bedroom is interior, it's not sidewalk. There will be HVAC in there with windows that won't be needed to be open. When it comes to construct, they have a block wall, which is to the south and then the alleyway to reach the Common Pub. But when they construct they will insulate and soundproof to the best that they can. That in combination with an HVAC system that will allow the units to have the windows closed and mitigate any type of sound which will be coming from the street that potentially could interrupt. They

26 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 25 realize, just as the owner of the Common Pub realizes that it's not conducive for every type of tenant. As he said earlier it's not a high rent district, but there are some people that this is compatible for. He thinks they have been a good landlord with taxes and doesn't think there have been any police calls that he is aware of from their tenants. They have been mindful and respectful of the neighbors and they have not caused any problems for them. In respect to growth of business development in the area, he again explained that they have exclusively look for commercial tenants in this area and they have failed to find a tenant. With the opening up of the manufacturing space across the street, there's so much availability over there and no response to their building. Mr. Dennis asked Mr. Cox about a property outside of the 200 foot radius, located at 391 Wood Street, Plat 18, Lot 24; drawing his attention to the property with specificity because that property in the last several months did have a petition for relief and asked if he was familiar with it and how it was configured then and how it is configured now. Mr. Cox stated he was very familiar with it; it was a hardware store for many, many years and then it was vacant for a good many years thereafter; the first floor street level. There is a second floor on the building. The first floor was in the past retail use and the second floor was residential. Today it is currently being converted from a single store front to two residential units on the first floor, which was approved by the Bristol Zoning Board. And with that petition getting approved they hoped that their application to convert two commercials to two residential would also be approved, as the relief they are seeking is less than that of 391 Wood Street. Mr. Raposa asked if there is a bar located within 20 feet of 391 Wood Street. Mr. Cox stated that he doesn't believe so. Mr. Kogan asked how many residential units are upstairs at 391 Wood Street. Mr. Dennis stated that historically there was one and there continues to be one. Mr. Kogan stated that then involves three residential units in total. Mr. Dennis stated yes,

27 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 26 but he believes the relief was the same relief dimension nonconformity. In that instance they did have a mixed use commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor. Mr. Kogan stated that they weren't asking for 21,000 square feet of relief. Mr. Dennis stated that he didn't know the extent of the dimensions; obviously it's a smaller property, it's a smaller lot. But it's a similar situation where the unit existed, tenants could not be found and it's the same situation. They would argue that it's all well and good to wish and to hope that someday that area may develop as a retail commercial business area; but when you're a property owner looking for a tenant for an eight year period and you can't find a commercial tenant, obviously you look for another use. And this happens to be a zone which permits residential. It's not like they're asking for a use variance; it's a permitted use. Mr. Joseph Brito stated that over the 8 years this building has sat empty like a blithe. If they don't get the relief and they don't get it into residential it's going to stay empty. And his concern is what happens to an empty building over time. They've suffered the eight years with broken windows; they've seen when some individuals get a little bit unruly and decide to start writing on it. They've gone through the pains and aggravation of halving a series of real estate brokers work with us in trying to fill that space, but it hasn't happened. He would also like to point out that just on the other side going to the south of where the Portuguese club is; that's all residential, two floors of it. At one time that was a television and repair business; but that's all residential on the other side of the Portuguese club, which abuts the Common Pub. For a good eight year window they've tried to get these store fronts occupied and it's just not working. They're just trying to get it rented, they're paying taxes on it, they're maintaining the property and they're a good neighbor. He asked the Board to take that into consideration. If they don't get this adjustment, it's going to sit there empty for another couple of years. And if something happens he wants the Board to understand that they came before the Board

28 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 27 to try to make it residential and keep the neighborhood at least looking vibrant. An empty store front doesn't say you have a vibrant neighborhood; it says you have one that's not viable. Mr. Kogan asked what other Board members were thinking on this matter, as he is somewhat conflicted by the fact that similar relief was granted to the hardware store. He didn't think they didn't need such a large amount of dimensional lot area relief, because it was only three units and this petition is talking about six dwelling units. So that's a conflict to him thinking about, well why do they get it and this applicant doesn't get it. But 21,000 square feet of relief for a property that's only 5,866 square feet is a huge amount of relief. And he does appreciate the testimony of the applicants; that they've made good faith efforts and presented evidence about asking prices that don't seem unreasonable. It seems like maybe they're right it is going to sit vacant; and that would be a detraction for the neighborhood. He personally would be really inclined to grant this if they were willing to think about some help on the Town's affordable housing roster. However even though the applicant has explained why they are not interested, Mr. Kogan outlined what he believes would be the benefits and found it puzzling. Mr. Asciola stated that he felt that being that close to the bar is what he is concerned about and that it is going to cause nothing but problems. Mr. Brito stated that they have the same situation with the Portuguese Club that has more events than the Common Pub. And, again they will make the potential tenant fully aware of what they are moving next to and it will probably be rented to college students who would be made fully aware of the area. Mr. Hudak stated that his only concern is that, just as they are bringing forth the approval on the hardware store, that a few months from now others will come in and say they want the same thing and say, well you granted that relief and uses this as the measuring stick for which to grant even more relief or a similar amount of relief. Eight

29 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 28 years is a very long time and if they have made every due diligence to put someone in there and they have struck out, then I agree that having a empty store front makes for a blighted area. So, for that reason, having some activity is better than none. Mr. Raposa stated his concern is that it is being so close to the bar. But there are examples of similar circumstances in the area. Mr. Fonseca stated that he recalls that the property they gave the relief from the switch from commercial to residential, he believes that one of the units was actually made into public housing. Mr. Kogan stated he was correct, it was made into affordable housing and was part of the factors as to why they were willing to give the relief; because they were cooperative to the Town's desire to achieve progress on the affordable housing. Mr. Cox stated that they are willing to address one of the concerns; the fear that this would set a precedent for the continuation of conversion to residential and at some point the corner store would be petitioned to change that to residential. They are willing to restrict that and take a conditional approval based upon that restriction that that space must always stay as a commercial use. Mr. Simoes stated that he knows there's going to be with the bar and all that; but if they're willing to make this place and avoid a vacancy in there and put a residential unit and let whoever is going to rent it, let them know that there's a bar next door and you can't be calling the cops every two seconds. Don't expect peach and quite, there are other businesses in the area that are going to be noisy also. Mr. Raposa stated that his opinion is that residential on the first floor that close to a bar is going to be problems. Plus the fact that they don't want to designate one affordable unit. It's not right with that particular building there, being that close to that establishment; there's always cops there. Having a residential area on the first floor is just going to be more a problem.

30 13 JULY 2015 P a g e 29 Mr. Hudak asked if it's better to have the units vacant, for the businesses in the area than to have people there. Mr. Brito stated that these units will also be handicapped accessible, which can't be done on the second floor. He also wanted it noted that his company has received awards from the State for spearheading the affordable unit availability in the Town. Mr. Hudak stated that Mr. Brito should understand that because of the sizable amount of relief, designating one unit as the affordable housing could offset the relief request. Ms. Williamson stated that she's been the Director for ten years and she's been working as the Planner before that for ten years and just wanted to say that just thinking about some of the statements, is it better to have vacant store front or something there. She felt that way about another application that was coming to Hope Street; this Board decided not to support it and they moved to Metacom Avenue. When she hears about the potential impact to the residential tenants and yes they may be college students; but you've already heard testimony that there's a bar that's open until 1:00 am; people leave the bar and smoke. Now you'll have a few more residents who are, are they smoking, are they drinking, are they are in their apartment; it just feels like that type of scenario could do more to impact the area than the existing vacant store fronts. And she's optimistic that something should happen there. She knows it's been eight years, she can hear their frustration, she feels the frustration, it's frustrating. But, she doesn't think that she could support, let's just put something in there because it's better than being empty. The other thing, the comparison to the property down the street. In her opinion it s different. This is a much more intensified commercial block than what was down the street. The relief is greater, the commercial intensity is a little bit greater than what you had in the other situation. And again, to the point that they did have the affordable unit to help get to that decision. And she does feel that is different in terms of the area. This