TOWN OF BRISTOL ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES. Monday, July 10, 2017

Transcription

1 TOWN OF BRISTOL ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES Monday, July 10, 2017 The following petitions were received and were heard by the Bristol Zoning Board of Review on Monday, July 10, 2017 at 7:05 p.m. at the Bristol Town Hall, 10 Court Street. Members present: Chairman Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Tony Brum, Mr. David Simoes, Mr. Charlie Burke, Mr. Donald Kern (alternate), and Mr. Derek Tipton (alternate) Also present were: Andrew Teitz, Town Solicitor, Mary Ann Escobar, Court Reporter, and Ed Tanner, Zoning Enforcement Officer 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Simoes made a motion to approve the minutes from June 5, Mr. Kogan seconded. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Tony Brum, Mr. David Simoes and Mr. Charlie Burke. The minutes from April 13, 2017 and May 31, 2017 were not completed from stenographer due to the lengthiness of the hearings. The Board will vote on these at the next meeting. 3. APPLICATIONS PENDING DECISION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Prazeres Management Co., Inc. Gooding Avenue and Hope Street Special Use Permit: to construct a drive-thru service window for a proposed 1,100 square foot freestanding Dunkin Donuts restaurant; and Dimensional Variances: to install a directory sign and two wall signs at sizes larger than permitted in the General Business zoning district. DECISION: Mr. Asciola and Mr. Simoes recused themselves from this matter. Mr. Kogan sat as the Chairman on this matter. Mr. Kogan stated that they received a letter on July 7, 2017 requesting a withdrawal of their petition without prejudice. He stated that in his 15 years of sitting on this Board, the Board has always granted withdrawals in these cases and he cannot remember a single instance where the Board did otherwise. His feeling would be to do the same for this petition. Mr. Burke agreed with Mr. Kogan, and made a motion to accept the withdrawal without prejudice. Mr. Kern seconded. The Vote was Unanimous. Voting were: Mr. Kogan, Mr. Burke, Mr. Kern, Mr. Tipton, and Mr. Brum. 4. CONTINUED PETITIONS: Frank X. Dupuis 28 Harrison Street Dimensional Variances: to construct a 20ft. 2in. x 24ft. 5in. second-story addition to an existing accessory garage structure with less than the required front yard and left side yard. 1

2 DECISION: The Board received a letter requesting a continuance on this matter. Mr. Burke made a motion to continue this until the September 11 meeting. Mr. Simoes seconded. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Tony Brum, Mr. David Simoes and Mr. Charlie Burke Joseph Arruda 56 Tilbury Drive Special Use Permit: for the keeping of up to six (6) chicken hens in a Residential R-10 zoning district. DECISION: Mr. Ed Tanner stated that he had spoken to Mr. Arruda last week regarding the placement of the chicken coop. Mr. Tanner stated that he called Mr. Arruda to see if he was coming to the meeting tonight and Mr. Arruda explained that he forgot about the meeting tonight and asked for a continuance in this matter. Mr. Burke made a motion to continue this until the September 11 meeting. Mr. Simoes seconded. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Tony Brum, Mr. David Simoes and Mr. Charlie Burke Nathan T. Calouro 17 Fesser Avenue Dimensional Variance: to construct a six foot high stockade fence on a corner lot at a height greater than permitted in the front yard. DECISION: Mr. Tanner stated that Mr. Calouro requested a continuance on this matter due to he is awaiting a ruling from the ethics commission. Mr. Teitz stated that the hearing for the commission is tomorrow. Mr. Burke made a motion to continue this until the September 11 meeting. Mr. Simoes seconded. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Tony Brum, Mr. David Simoes and Mr. Charlie Burke. 5. NEW PETITIONS: Robert J. Torres and Debra D. Torres / Schooner RI Trust 346 Wood Street Dimensional Variance: to convert an existing first-floor commercial space within an existing mixed-use building into one residential dwelling unit with less than the required lot area per dwelling unit. DECISION: Mr. Rego appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. and Mrs. Torres also appeared before the Board. Mr. Rego stated by way of introduction that this property is located in a limited business zone. It has two commercial stores on the first floor and two residential apartments on the second floor. It also has an attached three car garage. The one commercial use on the first floor is a hair salon and that business has been there for a few years. The other store front use is vacant and has been for over a year now. He stated that the petitioner wants to turn that vacant store front into a one bedroom apartment. The building was built in 1920, way 2

3 before zoning was in place, and is considered a legal nonconforming structure. They are looking for a variance of 9,442 square feet. Mrs. Torres stated that she is a real estate agent and when her and her husband purchased this building they thought for sure they would be able to rent out the retail spaces they had for the building, but unfortunately for the last year and a half she has been trying to rent out the commercial space on the south side of the building. She has received no calls for this space. She has taken out advertisements, put up a banner, lit up the front so people will notice it and still no one has stepped forward. Mrs. Torres did state that she has received multiple calls on the other hand for apartment space, which she has had to turn those calls down because it was not zoned for an apartment in that space. Mrs. Torres also believes that the area of Wood Street where they are located just does not get the foot traffic that the downtown area has and that also makes it difficult to get a new business interested. She has made multiple calls to other businesses to see if they would be interested in an annex location, a bakery and sandwich shop, but has not been successful in getting them in. Mr. Torres reiterated what Mrs. Torres stated and said when they bought the property they thought they would be able to rent it out and it has been over a year and it is still unoccupied. Mr. Rego asked Mrs. Torres if she has tried all she can to rent this out to a commercial business and she has stated she has used all her resources and still has not been able to gain any interest. Mrs. Torres stated that she has noticed in the past few years the change in business/commercial space due to the internet. More and more people are working out of their homes and saving money. There is no need to have a physical place to do business anymore. It is all on-line now. Mrs. Torres showed the Board the plan which she has had drawn up of how the space could easily be turned into a one bedroom apartment. It is 814 square feet. It will have a small bathroom and a kitchenette/living room area. She explained that the open air concept is also the new way to go. People like the open area design. Mrs. Torres stated she does not have the full use of enjoyment of the property at its present time. It has been a hardship not being able to rent out this vacant space. She also believes that having this turned into an apartment will not alter the surrounding neighborhood. It would actually improve it. There will no longer be a vacant empty space. Mr. Rego asked Mrs. Torres if it would be more than a mere inconvenience if she were not able to make this an apartment space, and she stated that it would. Mr. Brum made a motion stated verbatim as follow: I will make a motion. I would like to make a motion that we approve the applicant's request to convert the existing first floor commercial space with an existing mixed use dwelling building into one residential dwelling unit with less than the required lot area per dwelling. I think that we found through satisfactory evidence that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land and the 3

4 structure and not the general characteristics of the surrounding area. The applicant purchased the building and did not build the subject property. In fact it was built in The applicant did give testimony that she and he, they have both tried to rent the property for commercial use. She also noted that she was a real estate agent and had prior knowledge and experience in renting both commercial and residential properties. She also testified that she received several calls in regards to a residential use for the property but not a commercial use. The hardship was not a result of any prior action that the applicant had made. They have attempted to rent the property. It does result in the applicant trying to make some financial gain but I don't believe it would be a greater financial gain because a commercial unit would probably rent for a higher rate than it would for a residential unit. I believe the property will remain mixed use. And as it was previously stated it was built in Mixed use properties were common. I don't think that multi-families with store fronts is uncommon for the Wood Street area. The granting of this variance will not alter the general characteristics of the property or of the area. It won't impair the intent or the purpose of the zoning ordinance or change the Comprehensive Plan of the town. The use of an 814 square feet one bedroom apartment with what appears to be ample parking is not excessive. It's not an excessive use of the property. In addition the parking of this one single unit will have less of an impact than the commercial use of the property. But along with my recommendation for approval, I would like to add a special condition that one space be assigned to each dwelling unit in the garages that were mentioned during your testimony. And for those reasons I make a motion that we approve. Mr. Simoes seconded the motion. The Vote was Unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Tony Brum, Mr. David Simoes and Mr. Charlie Burke Bento M. and Brenda L. Moreira 36 Charles Street Dimensional Variances: to remove an existing 8ft. x 10ft. accessory shed structure and construct a new 10ft. x 12ft. accessory shed structure with less than the required rear yard and right side yard. DECISION: Lucia McCallum appeared in front of the Board. She stated she is the cousin of Bento Moreira. He could not appear tonight and asked her to go for him. The Board questioned Attorney Teitz whether they could hear from her since she did not sign the petition. He stated that they usually cannot without a letter being sent and he suggested she ask for a continuance. 4

5 Mrs. McCallum stated that they really can t continue this petition to the September meeting due to the fact the high school is building this shed for them and they need to have all their paperwork in before school begins. She asked if it was possible to maybe call her cousin. Mr. Teitz made a suggestion if the Board wanted to make a stipulation that such relief cannot be granted until a letter is sent to the Board, that would be acceptable and she can go forward tonight on their behalf. The Board agreed. Ms. McCallum explained that the current shed is in disrepair. She showed pictures to the board of what it looks like. She stated they wish to replace this 8 by 10 shed with a 10 by 12 shed and keep it in its same location so as to keep an open space for their young children to play. Mr. Kogan said that he doesn t have a problem with the new shed, but does not want it placed in the same exact location. He suggested possibly three feet from the line instead of its current two feet. Mr. Burke agreed but would be happier if it was four feet away. The Board reviewed the tax card to see the dimensions of the property and get an idea of the characteristics of the layout of the land. Mr. Burke made motion stated verbatim as follows: I will make a motion to approve the application number to replace an 8 by 10 feet shed with a 10 by 12 foot shed. Based on the evidence we heard the shed does need to be replaced. I actually did view the shed today and between that and the photographs, I believe that is accurate testimony. The hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land and the placement of the structure on the lot. There is a limited amount of green area or free space in the back yard and the applicant's representative testified that they have young children and there is a need for a play space in the back yard. The hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant. It does not result primarily from a desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain because they are simply replacing the shed with a new shed based on due to the condition of the existing shed. The granting of the dimensional variance will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area or impair the intent or the purpose of the zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan of the Town of Bristol. There are sheds in that neighborhood, and they are all closer to the property line six foot -- I won't say all -- but the ones I was able to observe. But the relief granted is the least relief necessary. The request is for two foot distance from the property line. This motion calls for a four foot distance which is the least relief that the Board feels is appropriate. 5

6 The hardship suffered by the owner of the subject property if the dimensional variance is not granted it would be more than a mere inconvenience. They would have to do without a shed because eventually the one that is there will no longer be useful. That is my motion. Mr. Simoes seconded the motion. The Vote was Unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Tony Brum, Mr. David Simoes and Mr. Charlie Burke Eduarda M. Medeiros 20 Hopeworth Avenue Dimensional Variance: to construct a 20ft. x 23ft. second-story living area addition (above existing garage) to an existing single-family dwelling with less than the required left side yard. Decision: Eduarda Medeiros and her daughter-in-law Kimberly Medeiros appeared in front of the Board. Kimberly Medeiros asked if she could speak for her mother-in-law due to the language barrier. The Board stated that would be fine. Kimberly stated that they have moved into the house with Eduarda when her husband passed away unexpectedly to help her with the house. She has two children, a boy and a girl and they currently share a bedroom. They wanted to add a space above the garage for them and also add a small bathroom. Mr. Kogan stated that he remembered Mrs. Medeiros coming before the board about three or four years ago in order to put the garage up before her husband passed away. Mr. Kogan stated it only made sense to have the family help out after the passing of Mr. Medeiros to help Mrs. Medeiros in her older years to come. Mr. Kogan made a motion stated verbatim as follows: I will make a motion. I'm going to make a motion that the applicant's request for a dimensional variance to construct a 20 by 23 feet second story living area addition above the existing garage with less than the required left side yard be granted in order to enable that second story living area addition to be located within 13 feet of the left side property line which would require a 2 foot variance from the normally required 15 foot side yard setback in a residential R10 zone. And the reason for that is that there is a hardship from which the applicant seeks relief due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area or any economic disability on the part of the applicant because the applicant's home was originally built as a raised ranch with only three bedrooms. At one point the applicant had come before the board with her late husband to seek an original side yard variance to construct the garage which was granted by this board. Subsequently to appearing and having that variance granted, the applicant and her late husband built that garage 6

7 and since then the applicant after the loss of her husband has had her son and daughter-in-law and their children, the grandchildren of the applicant move into the home. The home is not big enough now for the number of residents who are residing there. This hardship is not the result of any prior action on the part of the applicant. It does not result primarily from the desire on the part of the applicant to realize greater financial gain, rather the desire of the applicant is to provide reasonable living accommodations for the expanded family that is presently residing there with the applicant coming up a little in age and needing the assistance of her son and daughter-in-law in the home and they're bringing their children with them. Granting the requested dimensional variance will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of the ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding area is completely residential. Many of the homes are quite similar to the home that the applicant has, raised ranches, smaller homes. Some of them have garages on them. Some of them don't. Some of them have expanded to have second story additions above the garage. Some haven't. But what the applicant intends to do is completely consistent with the character of the neighborhood and would in fact not harm it. It would improve the characteristics of the neighborhood. The relief requested is the least relief necessary because if we were to deny this, then the applicant would have a very uncomfortable living arrangement, probably inappropriate for the family dynamics in the home and it would amount to more than a mere inconvenience if we were to deny this because the applicant perhaps would have to find a bigger home to move and that's not something the Board should be requiring this family to do at this time. So for those reasons I move that we grant the two foot side yard variance to the applicant as requested. Mr. Brum seconded. The Vote was Unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Tony Brum, Mr. David Simoes and Mr. Charlie Burke Zachary N. Rivers 549 Metacom Avenue Dimensional Variance: to demolish an existing commercial structure and construct two new commercial structures with greater than the required maximum front yard setback in the Metacom Avenue Overlay. 7

8 DECISION: Zachary Rivers and Zachary Arcaro from Principe Engineering appeared before the Board. Mr. Rivers explained the project. They wish to demolish an existing structure and build two new commercial structures, but due to the deep hillside slope of the land, they need to build the structures back further than 50 feet. The drop is approximately a 12 foot grade and it would take too much fill in order to bring that grade up. They intend to make four store fronts approximately 1,200 square feet each. They have been in contact with a few future tenants, but nothing set in stone as of yet. The building on one side will be an automated car wash. You just drive your car in, push a button, and the machines will wash the car for you. Then you just drive out. There will be a maintenance person and part time attendant for that business. Mr. Burke brought up the minor issue of parking. According to the ordinance, parking is supposed to be in the rear and side of buildings. This plan shows parking spaces in the front of the buildings. The Board discussed that due to the way the layout of the land, they realize that parking has to be in the front. The abutter to the property is Arnold Lumber. There is an easement for which they have in order to use the entrance/exit. Mr. Rivers stated they will be putting in a 6 foot sidewalk at the front of the property. They have applied for a permit from the State in order to do that. The current sidewalk is in disrepair and needs to be replaced. Mr. Brum made a motion stated verbatim as follows: I will make a motion that we approve file number to demolish an existing commercial structure and construct two new commercial structures with greater than the required maximum front yard setback in the Metacom Overlay Zone. The property is located within the 136 Overlay Zone. The applicant is requesting relief from the specific standard in the Metacom Overlay Zone District which requires a maximum 50 feet setback from Route 136. It shall consist of landscaped area and sidewalks. The applicant's proposed building will be located 126 feet from the front property line at Metacom Avenue and the applicant states that the existing site topography specifically a relatively steep slope and drop off from Metacom to the rear of the property prevents the location from being with the 50 foot setback. It's been stated and observed by the Board that there is a 15 foot decline in elevation from Metacom to the rear of the property which would create a hardship in trying to position the building any closer to Metacom Avenue to meet the Metacom Overlay requirement. The hardship is due specifically to this property of the subject land and not due to any economic disability of the applicant. The hardship is not the result of any prior action as the property was used for several other businesses who have utilized the property in the same manner in which the applicant seeks to utilize the property. 8

9 It does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain. There have been several restaurants there over the last several years and now this would add a different flavor to the area and possibly make it more lucrative. Granting this requested variance will not alter the general characterizes of the surrounding area. As stated Arnold Lumber is adjacent to the property and runs a business there utilizing a similar strategy. It also should be noted that the parking on the Metacom overlay in this case is in the front of the building rather than on the rear or the side of building, but, again, given the unique structure of the land and the property, trying to meet that recommendation would be difficult. I believe that the relief is the least amount of relief necessary and for those reasons I make a motion that we approve the requested variance. Mr. Burke requested to be added to the motion the statement from the Staff Report that Mr. Tanner wrote as follows: "As a result, off street parking space would be located at the front of the building rather than in the rear or sides as required by Section (4B.4). Mr. Kogan seconded the motion with the addition of Mr. Burke s statement. The Vote was Unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Tony Brum, Mr. David Simoes and Mr. Charlie Burke Timwill Holdings, LLC 170 Bradford Street Dimensional Variances: to convert existing first-floor commercial and storage space within an existing mixed-use building into two residential dwelling units with less than the required lot area per dwelling unit. DECISION: Mr. Luis Cabral and Mr. Frank Daponte appeared before the Board this evening. Mr. Cabral said they purchased this building in February of 2015 with the intention of leasing it to commercial businesses. There is 1,600 square feet in the back of the building that has remained unoccupied. Mr. Cabral explained that they have an identical situation as did the previous petitioners. They have commercial space that has been unrented for over a year. He believes that the need for commercial space has declined also due to the internet and people working from home. They would like to replace the existing commercial space with two apartments. They would like to convert one space into one two bedroom unit approximately a 1,100 square feet and then the other the garage section of the building converted into a studio apartment. The lot is approximately 10,700 square feet. The building area is approximately just shy of about 3,000 square feet. There is onsite parking available. Mr. Burke made a motion stated verbatim as follows: 9

10 I will make a motion to grant the applicant s request for a dimensional variance for lot area of 7,302 square feet based on lot size of 10,698 in a requirement of 18,000 square feet. The hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land and the placement of the structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area or economic disability of the applicant. We heard tonight another applicant with the same issue about commercial space not having a sufficient demand. I believe this falls basically in the same category if not identical. The hardship is not the result of the prior action of the applicant. They acquired the property recently and it does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain because it's currently vacant and they're converting it to an allowed use in the LB zone. The granting of the requested dimensional variance will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purposes of the zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan of the Town of Bristol. Mixed uses are allowed and it is very characteristic of the general area of the Wood Street and Bradford Street area. The relief granted is the least relief necessary. The footprint will not be increased. All of the work is being done internally. They also meet all the requirements for parking. The hardship that will be suffered by the owner of the property if a dimensional variance is not granted will amount to more of a mere inconvenience. The property will probably remain vacant for its foreseeable future. For those reasons, I make this motion that we grant this application. Mr. Simoes seconded the motion The Vote was Unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Tony Brum, Mr. David Simoes and Mr. Charlie Burke. CONCLUSION OF ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW MEETIING: The Chairman entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Brum made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kern seconded. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were: Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Tony Brum, Mr. David Simoes, Mr. Joseph Asciola, and Mr. Donald Kern. Whereupon the Bristol Zoning Board of Review meeting was concluded at 8:51 p.m. 10

11 C E R T I F I C A T E I, Mary Ann C. Escobar, Registered Professional Reporter, and Commissioner for the State of Rhode Island, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1 through 11 are complete, true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, skill & ability. I further certify that I am not interested in the event of the action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand this 11th day of July, Mary Ann C. Escobar, RPR My Commission expires: October 31, Minutes of July 10, 2017 Accepted by:, Chairman * * * * * * * LEDGEWOOD COURT REPORTING 23 Last Street Tiverton, RI (401)