Susan E. Andrade 91 Sherry Ave. Bristol, RI

Transcription

1 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS MINUTES THE ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF BRISTOL, RHODE ISLAND 02 OCTOBER :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 SIMOES MR. CHARLES BURKE MR. DEREK N. TIPTON, Alternate MR. DONALD S. KERN, Alternate ALSO PRESENT: ATTORNEY AMY GOINS, Town Solicitor's Office MR. EDWARD TANNER, Zoning Enforcement Officer Susan E. Andrade 91 Sherry Ave. Bristol, RI

2 PAGE NO. 1. Minutes: 11 September Petition of Frank X. Dupuis Petition of Steven J. & Kathleen A. Kloeblen Petition of Newport Hotel Group/TSL, LLC Petition of Susan J. Chesire Petition of Anne Marie Silvia & Kathleen M. Trier Correspondence,, Adjournment Susan E. Andrade 91 Sherry Ave. Bristol, RI

3 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. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MR. ASCIOLA: The first order of business is the approval of the minutes of September 11, Mr. Chairman, I ll make a motion that we accept the minutes as recorded. I ll second that. MR. ASCIOLA: MR. ASCIOLA: MR. KERN: All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLAY APPROVED) (Minutes Accepted) 2

4 FRANK X. DUPUIS 28 Harrison St.: R-15 Pl. 146, Lot 10 Dimensional Variances to construct a 20 2 x 24 5 second-story addition to an existing accessory garage structure with less than the required front yard and left side yard. Chairman Asciola stated that Mr. Dupuis had sent a letter requesting a continuance of the public hearing. Mr. Burke noted that this item has been on the agenda for six months, Mr. Tanner has agreed to contact Mr. Dupuis in order to get the revised package in time for the November meeting; and if it is not received, the Board should not continue it after the next meeting. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that Petition No , Frank Dupuis, be continued to next month s, November 6 th, under one condition; that the packet be submitted, so that we can continue with the Petition. If it s not, then we don t except any more continuations. I ll second. MR. ASCIOLA: MR. ASCIOLA: MR. KERN: All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLAY APPROVED) (Petition Continued) 3

5 STEVEN J. & KATHLEEN A. KLOEBLEN 693 Hope St.: R-6 Pl. 8, Lot 16 Continued Dimensional Variances to demolish an existing accessory garage structure and construct a new 24 x 36 accessory garage structure with an overall size and height greater than permitted, with greater than permitted lot coverage by structures, and with less than the required left side yard. Mr. and Mrs. Kloeblen presented the Petition to the Board. Mr. Kloeblen explained that since the last hearing, they have worked on the advice given by the Board and have modified the plans, which the Board was in receipt of. They believe they have complied with what the Board had requested and reduced the plans to show a two-story 24 x 26 garage. Upon questioning by the Board, Mr. Kloeblen confirmed it would be a two-story garage. He explained that he would like to conduct his woodworking hobby on the second floor. The first floor would be used for two cars and a small boat. He believes that with the shorter length, the garage is probably not going to fit the two cars and boat, so he will have to store the boat elsewhere. The Board reviewed the plans in detail with the applicants. Mr. Kloeblen confirmed that there will be plumbing for a half bath, gas and electricity in the garage; but there will be no shower or bath or kitchen facilities in the structure. The revised plans showed a new lot coverage calculation of 33.9%. MR. ASCIOLA: Would anyone like to speak in favor? Would anyone like to speak against? Can we have a motion from the Board, please? 4

6 Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we grant a 4 variance for the dimension of the garage. The garage, according to the Zoning Ordinance should be 22 x 24 ; but he needs the extra space, because he s going to do some woodworking and he has a boat that he wants to store in there, plus two cars; so he needs those extra 4 feet; for a 24 x 26 garage. The hardship is not due to the applicant s any previous action. Also, the applicant is not doing this for any desire of the applicant realizing greater financial gain. By granting this requested dimensional variance, it will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area, or impact the Town s Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. A lot of the homes in the area, a lot of Colonial homes and the Historic Society has looked over the application and has granted them permission to demolish the other garage and construct a new garage; it meets all their requirements. Actually being in a historic district, the design of the garage will blend in with the area. By granting this relief, it s the least amount of relief necessary. Also, this will also increase the lot coverage to 33.9%; normally its 30 % of the lot. With this extra addition it will increase it to So that would be a 3.9 % increase. Alright. Also, by granting this dimensional variance, I would also like to put a stipulation, or special condition in here. That no kitchen or shower 5

7 be installed. The only installation is just a half bath, in case of any emergencies. For that reason, that s the condition of my motion. MR. ASCIOLA: MR. ASCIOLA: MR. KERN: Second. All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLAY APPROVED) (Petition Granted) 6

8 NEWPORT HOTEL GROUP/ TSL, LLC 269 Thames St.: W Pl. 9, Lot 50 Continued Dimensional variances to replace existing business and directory signage with new signage within the Bristol Harbor Landing property with the number of signs and the size of signs exceeding the maximum permitted in the Waterfront zoning district. Mr. Tom Casselman, stated that since the last meeting, he took the Board s advice and met with Mr. Tanner and revised the documents and plans, as requested. When questioned if anyone from Corporate would attend, Mr. Casselman stated that he was representing Corporate and presented a letter stating that he could be the representative. The Board reviewed the new information in detail with Mr. Casselman. Mr. Casselman confirmed that some of the signs were replacements, with different information, but replacements for existing signs and a few of the signs were brand new. Each proposed sign was reviewed in detail with Mr. Casselman, including the dimensions and purpose of each. The Board also reviewed the sign ordinances in detail with both Ms. Goins and Mr. Tanner. Mr. Charlie Burke suggested that perhaps the Board could enter the signage plans as an exhibit and have the Staff draft a motion, which would be reviewed prior to acceptance by the Board, due to the volume of information presented, and the time needed to ensure the proper variances are granted. 7

9 I will make a motion that the applicant s request for dimensional variances with the number of signs and the size of the signs, which exceeds the maximum number and the maximum sizes permitted in the Waterfront zoning district be granted, in conformity with the package submitted to the Board between the last hearing and today, which is stamped in by the Town on September 28, 2017, be granted, subject to Staff preparing the proposed decision, which would address with more specificity the particular signs; the sizes, the amount of variance and the number of signs. That they be signs for particular use, or signs for the land development, or sign boards; that those specific dimensions be addressed. And that the decision document be circulated. The reasons that I m moving that we grant all of these variances are that a hardship exists, due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structures on the land; not the general character of the surrounding area. The general character of the surrounding area is the Downtown Historic Commercial District, and the present buildings and the changes that are being made by the new owner are consistent with the general character of the surrounding area. The hardship that arises from the unique characteristics of the subject land and buildings are that this is a complex that is complicated in terms of its visibility from the roadway; in terms of its multiple uses that are contained in the complex, which vary from food service, to restaurants, commercial stores, potential offices and an 8

10 operating hotel property. And all of those uses are entitled to, and deserve, an opportunity to identify themselves to the public. But, the physical structure of the building is, as has been testified to by Mr. Casselman tonight, and at the September meeting, very difficult and complicated for visibility reasons, and the corridors that people walk and park in create significant problems of identifying what businesses are operating in the complex; how to get from one side to the other. All of those challenges present hardships that need relief in order to create opportunity for the businesses and the overall complex to thrive. This hardship is not the result of any prior action on the part of the applicant. There was testimony from Mr. Casselman that this property has changed hands recently. That there s a new owner and operator for the entire complex. Although some of the uses are continuing, the DeWolf Tavern, the restaurant bar and the Bristol Harbor Inn, but there s going to be changes made and it was not the applicant that laid out this property. Some of which are historic buildings, others that have been modified; but the new owner hasn t done any of that and has taken over the project. So there s no prior action that created the complexity of the particular property, or the site line challenges for businesses that might be located there. The hardship is not due an economic disability of the applicant, or a desire to realize greater financial. It is true that the applicant is in business and seeks to make a profit, as do the separate businesses that might be located within this complex. But the primary motivation is not to realize greater financial gain, but to provide information to the public as to 9

11 what businesses are located there; so that people who are looking for these particular businesses won t get lost and not realize where they re going to. Granting the requested dimensional variances will not alter the general character of the area. As I indicated earlier, this is part of the Downtown Waterfront Historic District; and there are many commercial businesses with many types of wall signs and other signs in the Downtown Historic Commercial District. What the applicant is trying to do fits in with all of that. Nor will granting the requested dimensional variances impair the intent of the Town s Comprehensive Plan, which seeks to create a unique commercial historic down town district, with businesses that can provide an economic benefit to the community. The relief requested, and that I m moving that we grant, is the least relief necessary in order to adequately identify the complex various uses and tenants within the complex. And to provide that necessary information to the public. And it would amount to more than a mere inconvenience, were we to deny the requested dimensional variances, which given the size and complexity of the property are entirely reasonable. So for all those reasons, I move that we vote to grant the various variances requested, subject to having the chance to review the decision document that Staff will prepare for us to sign off on. I ll second. MR. ASCIOLA: All in favor? 10

12 MR. ASCIOLA: MR. KERN: (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLAY APPROVED) (Petition Granted) 11

13 Chairman Joseph Asciola stepped down and Board member Derek Tipton sat on the Board SUSAN J. CHESHIRE 1223 Hope St.: R-20 Pl. 66, Lot 17 Dimensional Variances to construct an 8 6 x 11 covered porch addition and a 9 x 12 one-story bathroom addition to an existing single-family dwelling with less than the required front yard on a corner lot. Ms. Susan Chesire and Todd Strunk, 16 On Center contractor, presented the Petition to the Board. Mr. Chesire explained that she would like to have the addition of the bathroom on the first floor. She has lost an inch and half of her leg, which makes going up and down the stairs will make it very difficult for her. She presently does not live in this home, which is her family home, once it is upgraded to meet her needs. It is a single-family home at present, and there are no plans to transform it into a multi-family dwelling; her only wish is to make it more accessible to her physical needs and make improvements to the aesthetics of the property. She explained that her grandfather purchased the home from Sears and Roebuck in 1922, which was known as a catalog house and is need of upgrades. She acquired the land approximately 10 years ago and she merged both lots officially with the Town a few months ago. The Board reviewed the plans in detail with the applicant and her builder. Is there anyone who wants to speak in favor of this Petition? Is there anyone who wants to speak against this Petition? Is there anyone on the Board who would like to make a motion with respect to this Petition? I ll make a motion to approve the relief requested in application , located at 1223 Hope Street of 21.5 feet for the back porch and 3 feet for 12

14 the bathroom addition from Meadow Lane. The hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject and the prior placement in 1922 of the Sears Catalog house on this lot. At that point in time there were no setback requirements for front yards. It is not due to the general characteristics of the surrounding area, or to any economic disability of the applicant. We ve heard testimony that it s an accommodation to organize and make this building more livable. It s not the result of any prior action of the applicant. And it does not result from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain. It was stated earlier it s really to make it more livable. There s no indication that is going to result in any financial gain. The granting of the requested dimensional variance will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area, or impair the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Bristol. It s a residential R-20 zone. Many of the homes have setback issues. It s an old home and would be completely consistent with the surrounding area. This is the least relief necessary. In fact we re talking about a minimum three feet and it really doesn t intrude any further; in fact it s no further than the current footprint of the home existing building. The hardship that would be suffered would be more than a mere inconvenience; there will be difficulty in entering the home and also there s no bathroom facility on the 13

15 first floor, which would force the owner to climb stairs, as required. For these reasons, I move that we accept this application and provide this relief. I ll second that motion. MR. TIPTON: MR. KERN: All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLAY APPROVED) (Petition Granted) 14

16 ANNE MARIE SILVIA & 33 Elmwood Dr.: R-10 KATHLEEN M. TRIER Pl. 89, Lot 10 Dimensional Variances to construct a one-story 20 x 34 living area addition to the rear of an existing single-family dwelling with less than the required left side yard. Ms. Anne Marie Silvia and Ms. Kathleen Trier presented their Petition to the Board. Ms. Silvia explained that they do not presently reside at this address, but will after the upgrades are complete. They had a survey done of the property, because they wanted to add an addition on the west side, which showed that the western boundary is at an angle, going in towards the back, and it is the only lot on the street that has that angle. So, in order to build the addition, the addition runs into the buffer zone boundary. Because the boundary is at an angle, they need a variance of a little over 2 ½ feet. The addition will not include any plumbing, or bathrooms, it is mostly going to be a large living/family and dining room, with sliders facing east; and at some point they hope to install a swimming pool in that area. Upon questioning by the Board, Ms. Silvia confirmed that they only acquired the property in November of And they weren t involved in siting the present house on the property when it was built. The property already had the garage that comes pretty close to the left west side property line at 3.8 at its closest; but they re proposing to put the addition no closer than 12 6, in a normally required side yard setback in an R010 zone is 15 ; requiring a dimensional variance of 2 6. Mr. Kogan noted that the Town Assessor s card shows that the first floor living space is 1,224 square feet and there is not a second floor; which is a relatively small house. The proposal is to add only an additional 634 square feet; which even with the addition it only brings it up to approximately 1,860 square feet. 15

17 There being no one present to speak for or against the Petition, Mr. Kogan asked for a motion from the Board. MR. TIPTON: I m going to move that we approve this application for a variance, a modest variance. I find that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land; that being the angle of the property against the street. And not the general characteristics of the surrounding area, or to an economic disability of the applicant. This, as the Chairman stated, is a modestly sized home, and the addition is also modestly sized. That we find that the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize any greater financial gain. We also find that the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area, or impair the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Bristol. And we find that the relief granted is the least relief necessary; it s only a variance of 2 feet and 6 inches. I think the hardship that would be suffered by the new owners of the subject property, if the dimensional variance is not granted, will amount to more than a mere inconvenience, because of the size of the house. I therefore, propose that we approve the Petition. I ll second. All those in favor of granting, say aye. 16

18 MR. KERN: MR. TIPTON: (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (Petition Granted) 17

19 7. CORRESPONDENCE: The Board was in receipt of correspondence from the Town Council. Mr. Tanner explained that the Council has some concerns about the off-street parking requirements in a manufacturing zone. He and Diane Williamson have been speaking with them about their concerns. The difficulty with this is that the current manufacturers coming into town, such as boat builders, need large building to conduct business, but they don t necessarily have many employees. So, if you go by square footage of the building, you may need a lot more parking than it actually needed. They tried to address the issue back in 2010, when they did the last big zoning update, he referenced a section in the Code that does allow the Planning Board and the TRC, during the development plan review process, to limit the number of off-street parking spaces, if the applicant demonstrates that they don t need the spaces. This is a matter that will be continued to be reviewed and adjusted. 18

20 8. ADJOURNMENT: MR. TIPTON: MR. KERN: Motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn, Mr. Chairman. Second. All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:20 P.M.) 19

21 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Susan E. Andrade Shorthand Reporter Notary Public TOWN OF BRISTOL ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD ON: 02 OCTOBER 2017 Date Accepted: Chairman: 20