STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS MINUTES THE ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF BRISTOL, RHODE ISLAND 03 APRIL 2017 7:00 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. CHARLIE BURKE MR. TONY M. BRUM MR. DEREK N. TIPTON, Alternate MR. DONALD S. KERN, Alternate ALSO PRESENT: ATTORNEY ANDREW TEITZ, Town Solicitor's Office MR. EDWARD TANNER, Zoning Enforcement Officer Susan E. Andrade 91 Sherry Ave. Bristol, RI 02809 401-253-5570 [Type text]
PAGE NO. 1. Minutes: 02 FEBRUARY 2017...2 06 MARCH 2017 2. 2017-04 - Petition of Brian J. Sadler...4 3. 2017-07 - Petition of JRM Properties, LLC...9 4. 2017-08 - Petition of Jeffrey Macomber...11 5. 2017-09 - Petition of Tracy L. Sweeney...15 6. 2017-10 - Petition of Blue Wave Car Wash...20 7. Adjournment...23 P a g e 1
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: 08 FEBRUARY 2017 06 MARCH 2017 The first order of business will be the approval of the February 8, 2017 and the March 6, 2017 meeting minutes. MR. BURKE: I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we postpone the review and approval of the minutes of February 8th until next meeting. MR. BRUM: MR. BURKE: MR. SIMOES: MR. KOGAN: MR. KERN: I'll second. All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (February 8th minutes continued) How about the March 6, 2017? MR. SIMOES: I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes as printed of the March 6th meeting. MR. KOGAN: Second. P a g e 2
MR. BURKE: MR. SIMOES: MR. KOGAN: MR. KERN: All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLAY APPROVED) (Minutes Accepted) P a g e 3
2. 2017-04 BRIAN J. SADLER 363 Poppasquash Rd.: R-40 Pl. 177, Lot 82 Continued... Dimensional Variance to construct an interior hallway connection between an existing single-family dwelling (currently under construction) and an existing 24' x 36' accessory garage structure and an interconnected 24' x 44' accessory garage structure; and to add roof dormers to the rear of the smaller garage structures with less than the required left side yard. Attorney William Dennis presented the Petition to the Board. Mr. Dennis stated that as the Board may recall, they were last before the Board at the February 2017 meeting on an application for a left side yard variance. The request was for a variance of 15 1/2 feet. The reason that the variance was necessary is that there is a new home under construction and the applicant s wishes to connect this new home to an existing garage, which has been there about 20-25 years. The original application was just to connect to an existing garage. However, at the February meeting, when the applicant was describing the construction and they reviewed in some detail the submitted plans, it became very apparent that the garage itself was being modified. And they had been under the impression, when they first made application, that they were simply connecting to an existing garage; when in fact that garage is actually being renovated and modified. For that reason, they decided to continue the matter to get full sets of plans back to the Board. So that the Board could take into account the full impact of the garage renovation, in addition to connecting this existing garage to the new home under construction. In the process of gathering these new plans, what they discovered was that this existing garage is adjacent to a second garage. And although the two garage buildings are some distance apart on the ground, they have a roof overhang that P a g e 4
touches. So, they attempted to work with Mr. Tanner to frame for the advertising a description of exactly the extent of what is going on. The second garage building will not undergo significant alterations; but will undergo some alterations. So, knowing the Board wanted to see the entire picture, they did request and supply the plans for both garages. Mr. Kogan stated that it was indicated that because they are connecting the garage structure to the main house, that a variance is required from the left side property line; and he understands they are still seeking the 15 1/2 foot variance from the normally required 25 foot side yard in an R-40 zone; and asked if there is any other relief that's requested; or is it just they want to see the whole current plan. Mr. Dennis stated they don't think there is anymore relief; because he thinks the buildings right now are conforming; they are two separate accessory buildings. The size of one of them might exceed the standard maximum garage size right now. Mr. Kogan stated that they both exceed the accessory structures size; but they're pre-existing. Mr. Dennis confirmed they are pre-existing and the modifications that are being made to the existing buildings; the second one, the Board will see on the plans, is being re-sided; it's got some new windows going in and it's got a couple of faux dormers; the windows are not real, they look like windows, but they're not. It's just to bring the older buildings into the design of the brand new house. The second garage, the larger garage is having very little done to it. It s the smaller garage that is actually having its roof line changed; the roof line is no higher, but there are proposed dormers on the second floor, because the proposal is to make studio space on the second floor of the smaller garage building, which is illustrated in the submitted plans. P a g e 5
Mr. Burke asked if Mr. Sadler knew the length of the proposed walkway; the plans were reviewed to determine the length to be roughly 50 to 60 feet. The Board reviewed the plans in detail with the applicant. Page C-1 On-Site Base Water Treatment System Plan was marked as EXHIBIT A. Mr. Brian Sadler testified in detail and confirmed Mr. Dennis' presentation of the plans. The studio space will be used just as a game room and such, no living quarters will be in that area. The new home is a 3-bedroom home and they are presently installing a new septic system, which has been approved from DEM for a three-bedroom house. He confirmed that he did not build the existing garages, as far as he knows from a building permit he found, they were built in the early 90's. Upon questioning by Mr. Kogan, Mr. Tanner stated that he did not know if variances were granted at the time of the original construction of the garages. Also, Mr. Sadler confirmed that the new construction is the result of a fire to the original house structure and the new home is more or less in the location of the original home; he is only looking to have a covered walkway from the garage structures into the main house, which is the connection that requires a side yard variance.\ Would anyone like to speak in favor? Would anyone like to speak against? Can we have a motion from the Board, please? MR. BURKE: I'll make a motion to grant the application for a dimensional variance of 15 1/2 feet on the left side yard for this applicant. Based on the testimony and the information we received with the application, I think that we can say that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land and structure, and not to the P a g e 6 general characteristics of the surrounding area, or to an economic
disability of the applicant. I think the use of these two buildings is a good idea. The reason I asked about the distance from the garage to the building was to actually establish that there would be a hardship. I think 60 or 70 foot walk from a detached garage into your house in the winter would in fact be more than a mere inconvenience. The variance required is not the result of any prior action of the applicant, as he just testified that the existing former residential structure was burned and had to be replaced. And the two structures that exist and will be retained, existed before he acquired the property. 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. I think that the redevelopment of this property is actually totally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This is the least relief necessary; there is no other relief; it s either connected or isn't connected. So, there really is no other option for us to consider. Again, I mention that the distance between this existing structure and the main building would in fact represent a hardship in bad weather. For those reasons I move that with grant this request. MR. SIMOES: MR. BURKE: MR. SIMOES: MR. KOGAN: MR. KERN: I'll second that motion. All in favor? P a g e 7
(THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) MR. KERN STEPPED DOWN, MR. BRUM SAT ON THE BOARD. (Petition Granted) P a g e 8
3. 2017-07 JRM PROPERTIES, LLC 10 Francis St.: LB Pl. 37, Lot 30 Dimensional Variance to add one residential dwelling unit within the existing footprint of an existing 17 unit apartment building with less than the required lot area per dwelling unit. Mr. Richard Kearns, 577 Sandy Point Ave., Portsmouth presented the Petition to the Board. Mr. Kearns stated he purchased the property a little over a year ago. It is a all one floor apartment building that was in pretty bad shape. He purchased it as an 18- unit apartment building and it turned out to be 17 units. It had an office within the building. He completed the renovations in December and essentially the office that's in there is in the original block building, which he pointed out on the foot print of the plans submitted. The previous owner used it as an office over the years; it has a full kitchen and bath, which he pointed out in pictures that were part of the record. He has no use for an office space, would rather not have a vacant space within the building and he would like to use it as a residential apartment. It will not change the dimensions of the building in any way and there is plenty of storage for the tenants. Mr. Burke asked if Mr. Kearns could explain how he determined that it was a 17- unit apartment building. Mr. Kearns stated that it was marketed as a 18-unit; but it was near the end when his lawyer discovered it was recorded as a 17 plus one, which turned out to be the office space. The listing agents were aware of it and the owners didn't disclose it; it was in the end of the process. Knowing he had options, he opted to continue on the project. Mr. Kogan asked if the 18th unit at the time he looked into the purchase of the property being used as an apartment. Mr. Kearns stated that it was and confirmed that it had already been converted from an office to an apartment sometime prior to his even P a g e 9
seeing the building. As soon as he found out he had the tenant removed before he closed on the property. Mr. Kogan asked if any of the units are currently restricted to be rented for Affordable Housing. Mr. Kearns stated no. Discussion was held on whether or not he would be willing to designate this one unit as affordable housing. Mr. Kearns stated that he has had issues with Section 8 housing tenants in the past and would not like to go through that again, as he takes pride in the work he puts into his renovations and the types of tenants he rents to. The Board explained the differences with Affordable Housing, which is different than Section 8 and the appropriate officials to speak to on the rules governing tenant requirements. It would be advisable to speak with the East Bay CDC. Mr. Kogan suggested that the applicant ask to continue the Petition until the May meeting, which would give him time to investigate whether a condition of Affordable Housing would be acceptable. Mr. Kearns agreed to a continuance. MR. BURKE: MR. KOGAN: MR. BURKE: MR. SIMOES: MR. KOGAN: MR. BRUM: P a g e 10 I'll make a motion to continue this matter until the May 1st meeting. Second. All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (Petition Continued)
4. 2017-08 JEFFREY & LETICIA MACOMBER 110 Mt. Hope Ave.: R-6 Pl. 39, Lot 39 Dimensional Variance to construct a 693 square foot second-story addition to an existing single-family dwelling with less than the required front yard on a corner lot. Mr. Jeffrey Macomber presented the Petition to the Board. Mr. Macomber explained that he would like to construct the second story addition that would remain within the existing footprint of the house. His family is expecting another child in October. He has two front yards, as he is on a corner lot; on FoxHill is 9' 2 1/4"; so he would need an 11' variance. The Board reviewed the plans in detail with the applicant. Mr. Kogan noted that the survey from Mr. Murgo indicates that on Mt. Hope Avenue to the nearest portion of the house is 28 1/2', which is in compliance, because the front yard setback in an R-6 zone is 20 feet. However on the FoxHill side, if that's another front yard, he is 10' 9 3/4" shy of the required 20' setback; the variance would be 10' 9 3/4" on the FoxHill side. On the eastern side of the property he is only 4' 6" from the property line, which is also nonconforming; however, the house was there long before he purchased it. Mr. Macomber confirmed that the house was built in 1954. The addition would allow the applicant to change the house from a 2-bedroom, 1 bathroom to a 4-bedroom, a bonus room and two full bathrooms. Mr. Macomber confirmed given the area and the size of the lots, his only option would be to build up, as he has noticed others in the area have done. Would anyone like to speak in favor? Would anyone like to speak against? Okay, a motion from the Board, please. MR. KOGAN: P a g e 11 Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion that the applicant's request for dimensional variance to construct a second-story addition to the existing
single-family dwelling, with less than the required front yard on the FoxHill side be granted, in order to enable the applicant to construct the second story addition within 9' 2 1/4" of FoxHill Avenue; which would mean that I'm moving we grant the applicant a 10' 9 3/4" variance from the normally required 20 foot front yard setback. And the reasons for granting that variance are that there is a hardship arising from unique characteristics of the subject land and the existing structure, and not the general character of the surrounding area. That hardship arises from the fact that the lot on which this house is constructed is relatively narrow and the orientation of the existing house running in a north-south direction means that the existing house is already non-conforming to the present side yard and front yard setbacks. The applicant indicated and testified that the existing main house structure is built in 1954, which pre-dates the passage of the current zoning ordinance of 1961. So that that house and its placement on the lot would be a pre-existing non-conforming use of the property. That hardship does not result from prior action on the part of the applicant, because the applicant is not the one who built the house or located it at its present location on this lot. This hardship is not due to any economic disability on the part of the applicant, or any desire on the applicant to realize greater financial gain. The reason that the applicant is seeking this variance and the hardship that he identifies is that the house in which he and his family have been living for the past ten years is only approximately 1,100 square feet of living space. The applicant testified that his family is growing, he and his spouse are expecting another child, the house currently really only has two bedrooms and one bathroom. P a g e 12 With a growing family it is not unreasonable to be able to have a house
that would add two more usable bedrooms and one more bath. And that's all the applicant is looking to do. Granting the requested dimensional variance will not alter the general character of the area. The applicant testified that there are other houses that are similarly situated on smaller narrow lots in the neighborhood and he also testified that there are other houses that have been added to by going up from a one-story house on a small lot to a two-story house on a small lot, in order to accommodate family growth and reasonable residential use of the property. Granting the requested dimensional variance will not impair the intent of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which is intended to give flexibility in order to enable people to make reasonable residential use of their property. The relief requested, and which I'm moving that we grant, is the least relief necessary; and is also the least burden on anybody else in the neighborhood, because the applicant is not expanding further into the side yard or front yard setback, but is merely going up to add a second story. In addition, this house is on a corner lot, and the main entrance to the house actually faces on Mt. Hope Street; the FoxHill Avenue side is really his west side yard and if this were a side yard, then in an R-6 zone the setback requirement would be 10 feet and he's at 9' 3 1/4"; so there wouldn't have been much of a variance required were this to be a real side yard, as opposed as it being on a corner lot. The applicant would suffer a hardship amounting to more than a mere inconvenience. The applicant testified that he might have to move and find a bigger house if he were not granted this dimensional variance. And so for those various reasons, I move that we grant the requested front P a g e 13 yard setback variance.
MR. SIMOES: MR. BURKE: MR. SIMOES: MR. KOGAN: MR. BRUM: I'll second that motion. All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (Petition Granted) P a g e 14
5. 2017-09 TRACY SWEENEY 8 Wood St.: R-15 Pl. 161, Lots 12 & 23 Dimensional Variance to demolish an approximate 16' x 26' portion of an existing accessory structure and to construct a new 26' x 26' addition in its place with the overall structure being larger than permitted for an accessory structure in a residential zoning district. Mr. Carl Benevides, Contractor, presented the Petition to the Board. Mr. Benevides explained that the Sweeneys have an accessory structure in the far back of the property that is currently dilapidated, a portion of the structure is poorly built, falling apart, needs updating and the other portion of the structure is in relatively good shape. They would like to rebuild the dilapidated section, more in keeping with the main part of the accessory structure. It is over the allowable size for an accessory structure, it does span onto two existing parcels. The second parcel, which is off of Plant Avenue, they also own, but it is substandard in square footage, so they cannot sell it or do anything with it, other than to continue to use it for what it is used for now. It is primarily used as a home business, which they are approved for, a photography studio. Part of the studio is used for storage for the home business. The portion they would like to take down is sized such that it limits her right now in the type of photography that she takes, so she would like to increase the size of it by approximately 260 square feet. It would still be within the setbacks, it would not be encroaching on any of the limits and it would give her the space she needs and the lighting she needs to take the type of photography that she is accustomed to taking. It would alleviate the problem with the portion of the building falling apart and give her the ability to conduct her business as she needs it to be. Mr. Benevedies noted the survey done by Mr. Murgo, an elevation certificate in preparation for the project, which they will comply with it. There might be a slight change P a g e 15
in the height of the finished floor inside the new structure, but the size is what she's looking for to conduct her business. The Board reviewed the plans in detail with Mr. Benevides and Ms. Sweeney in detail. During discussion it was discovered the Board was missing page B1 in the plans, a copy of which was supplied to the Board. Mr. Benevides confirmed they would be expanding 8' 11" to the north and the main portion of the building outside of the entry is where the 10 feet comes from, because the entry on that side currently sticks past what the Board was looking at. And even with the addition footage to the north, they will still be 85 feet from Plant Street. Ms. Sweeney confirmed that the photography business currently and will, once its rebuilt, be on the northerly side of the storage building, because that's where she gets the light from the north side. The south side is used for storage, as well as a work shop, her artist side. She confirmed that she does not and will not keep horses in the structure, such as what was proposed by previous owners. It was suggested that she explore and combine the two properties for tax benefits. Mr. Teitz suggested that the Board require the merger of the lots, as part of the conditions. Would anyone 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 variance to demolish an approximate 16' x 26' portion of an existing accessory structure and to replace that by constructing a new 26' x 26' addition in its space, with the overall structure being larger than permitted for an accessory structure in a residential zoning district be P a g e 16 approved. The applicant is requesting a variance from the normally
permitted 22' x 24' accessory structure, to allow her once a portion of the existing structure is demolished and replaced, to have a combined accessory structure that would be approximately 47' x 38' total; and comprised of two sections. One of which is presently deteriorated and in need of rebuilding. And the reasons that I would make that motion are that there exists a hardship due to unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not the general character of the surrounding area. The unique characteristics are that the land involved in this property consists of historically two separate lots, lots 12 and 23, which are situated in part on Wood Street and in part on Plant Avenue. The existing structure for which the applicant is seeking relief is a storage accessory structure that was built prior to the applicant purchasing the property and which is in excess of the maximum size for an accessory structure; but that pre-dated the applicant's ownership. The applicant is not seeking to significantly expand that structure, merely to rebuild the deteriorated portion and add a small portion on to better accommodate her lawful home occupation of photography studio. This hardship is not the result of any prior action on the part of the applicant. It was testified to and actually this Board has previously dealt with this property, and the Board is familiar with the fact that this accessory structure has been on this property for many years. The hardship is not due to any economic disability on the part of the applicant, or any desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain. Rather, the hardship is due to the deteriorated condition which requires rebuilding. The applicant is going to have to rebuild a portion of the structure no matter what, because when it P a g e 17 was originally constructed it didn't have a proper construction
methodology, as testified to by Mr. Benevides. The applicant is merely trying to make it work better for her home occupation of photography studio. Granting the requested dimensional variance will not alter the general character of the area. This particular area, starting with the applicant's property and heading south, is primarily residential. However, just to the north of this property is the Town Wastewater treatment system. So it's a unique location. And this total property that the applicant has is a very substantially sized parcel; between the two, the parcel fronting on Wood Street is very large and deep and the parcel heading towards Plant Avenue is another approximately 10,000 square feet. So in total it looks like total property is in excess of 30,000 square feet and is residential in character. And it actually serves and furnishes to serve as a back road between the residential properties to the south and the sewage treatment plant. So it would not alter the general character of the area; it will still remain a buffer residential property between the other residential properties to the south and the sewage treatment plant. Granting the requested dimensional variance will not impair the intent of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which does permit reasonable home occupations such as the one in which the applicant engages. And encourages homeowners when it is lawfully done to have a residence and a home occupation. The relief granted is the least relief necessary in order to enable the applicant to rebuild the deteriorated section of the property. And it would amount to more than a mere inconvenience unless the dimensional variance is granted, because the applicant might not be able to efficiently continue her home occupation. So, for those reasons I P a g e 18 move we grant the requested variance. However, I also remove that the
dimensional variance be subject to the following special condition. And that is that lots 12 and 23 must be merged as of record through the Town's Assessor's office as a condition of granting the variance for the reconstruction and addition of the addition. MR. BURKE: MR. BURKE: MR. SIMOES: MR. KOGAN: MR. BRUM: I'll second. All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (Petition Granted) P a g e 19
6. 2017-10 YVONE BLACKMAN 19 Gooding Ave.: GB Blue Wave Car Wash Pl. 106, Lot 27 Dimensional Variances to remove an existing freestanding sign and to install a new 50 square foot freestanding sign with a greater sign area and a greater height than is permitted for a freestanding sign in the General Business zoning district. Mr. Tietz stated that in his looking at the plans, he noticed that in the back of it there are depictions of a car wash exit and car wash entrance sign using that same Blue Wave Logo and he just wanted to note that if the signs were to look like that, those would need approval, those are additional freestanding signs with the logo. If they simply say car wash exit, car wash entrance they're directional signs and they're okay. If they're going to have that logo on it, they become signage that needs approval. And that wasn't advertised at this point, so it really can't be granted as part of this night's meeting. Ms. Blackman stated it wasn't important to have the logo. Ms. Yvone Blackman, owner, presented the Petition to the Board. Ms. Blackman explained that she recently purchased the car wash. She has a car wash in Middletown, Rhode Island and she wants to replace the existing sign that is there now with a sign that's like the sign in Middletown and shown in the packet. The sign is 5' x 10'. The existing sign is 8' x 4' and then it has a metal frame that has an additional 2 feet around it; also it's on a base. They will be using the existing base and mount a new sign on it. Mr. Burke noted that the actual existing sign height isn't 8' high. Ms. Blackman stated, no, the total height is 14' high and the sign is 32 square feet. The proposed new sign will be 50 square feet on the existing concrete base; from the ground to the bottom of the new sign would be 8' and the sign is 5 feet high, for a total of 13 feet in height. The new sign will be plastic face with internal lights, no digital lighting. Ms. Blackman plans on doing many other renovations to both the building and the surrounding landscaping. P a g e 20
The Board reviewed the plans in detail. Ms. Blackman submitted photographs of other area business signs, freestanding, of similar size. Would anyone like to speak in favor? Would anyone like to speak against? Can we have a motion from the Board, please? MR. BURKE: I'll make a motion to grant a dimensional variance for signage. The hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land and structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area and not from economic disability of the applicant. The applicant testified that she will be making significant improvements to the area. The hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant; it s an existing business. Primarily she'll be replacing the existing signage that does need to be replaced, it s not readable. And it does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain. It's really in adherence to the business. The granting of the requested dimensional variance will not alter the general characteristics of the surrounding area, or impair the intent or the purpose of the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Bristol. Although there are sign area restrictions, we will normally grant in a commercial area for business reasons and visibility and safety the larger sign than what is specified in the ordinance. The relief requested is the least relief that we can grant. The only other thing that we could do is decrease the size of the signage. Since it is a sign that's roughly the same size as the existing sign and will in fact be lower, P a g e 21 it actually could be considered an improvement, or less relief than the
currently existing sign. The hardship that would be suffered by the owner, should we not grant this dimensional variance, would be more than an inconvenience; it could actually affect the business. And, once again, it could be a safety factor. I'd like to make one condition to this motion; and that would be that there would be no on building signs, as the applicant has stated in testimony and in the application. That is my motion. MR. KOGAN: MR. BURKE: MR. SIMOES: MR. KOGAN: MR. BRUM: I'll second it. All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (Petition Granted) P a g e 22
5. ADJOURNMENT: MR. BRUM: MR. SIMOES: MR. BURKE: MR. SIMOES: MR. KOGAN: MR. BRUM: Motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn, Mr. Chairman. Second. All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M.) P a g e 23
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Susan E. Andrade Shorthand Reporter Notary Public TOWN OF BRISTOL ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD ON: 03 APRIL 2017 Date Accepted: Chairman: P a g e 24
P a g e 25