STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS MINUTES THE ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF BRISTOL, RHODE ISLAND 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 RAPOSA MR. DAVID SIMOES MR. TONY BRUM MR. CHARLIE BURKE, Alternate ALSO PRESENT: ATTORNEY AMY GOINS, Town Solicitor s Office MR. EDWARD TANNER, Zoning Enforcement Officer MR. RICHARD PIMENTA, Building Inspector Susan E. Andrade 91 Sherry Ave. Bristol, RI 02809
INDEX Page No. 1. Approval of Minutes: 13 JULY 2015. 3 2. 2015-25 Petition of Gary Fenster..4 3. 2015-26 Petition of Christopher Harkins.....8 4. 2015-27 Petition of Timothy H. Chisholm..12 5. 2015-28 Petition of Joyce M. Kinsella 15 6. 2015-29 Petition of Klaus Kutter.18 7. ADJOURNMENT..23 2
The regular meeting of the Town of Bristol, Rhode Island Zoning Board of Review was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Joseph Asciola. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 13 JULY 2015 MR. SIMOES: MR. RAPOSA: First order of business is the approval of the July 13, 2015 meeting. I'll make a motion that we approve. I have a correction on page 34, I voted opposed to the applicant's request. (At the end of the meeting it was determined that there was a misreading of the minutes; the minutes was correct and it did show that Mr. Raposa was opposed to the motion). MR. SIMOES: MR. RAPOSA: MR. RAPOSA: MR. SIMOES: I make a motion to approve, as corrected. Second. All those in favor? The Board welcomed new Board member, Mr. Charlie Burke to the Board. 3
2. 2015-25 GARY FENSTER 8 Riverview Ave: R-10 Pl. 121, Lot 143 Applicant is requesting a Dimensional Variance to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling with less than the required front yard. Mr. Gary Fenster and his son Zachary Fenster presented the Petition to the Board. Mr. Gary Fenster stated that he has an existing house that he wants to knock down. He's was asking for a variance for the front yard. The side yards are all in compliance with the requirements. He was asking to square off the house, because the shape of the property makes it difficult. He's trying to square it off and get a little bit more of garage in the front. Right now with a 24' x 24' garage, he cannot set it on the property because of the radius of the road and the 30' setbacks he would have to cut everything and the corner of the garage would be removed. The existing house actually goes into the setbacks. Once he knocks down the existing house, the new house will meet all the other three setbacks, just not the front one on the corner of the garage. The Board reviewed the plans in detail with the Petitioners. The Board noted that the proposed structure would actually improve the present configurations. The Board reviewed the unique shape of the lot, which is 7,348 square feet; which is less than what would normally be required in an R-10 zone. However this lot was laid out prior to the zoning ordinance. It was noted that in the drawing submitted, identified as C-1 that the two side yards will meet all requirements and the rear yard will also meet all requirements. Mr. Fenster confirmed that in order to put a reasonable sized house and garage on to this lot, and try to comply with as many of the setback requirements as possible; that he really can only fit it in with these small encroachments that he is asking for. 4
The front porch, as indicated on the site plan would be 19.43 feet from the front property line; which would mean 10.57 feet of relief from the normal 30' setback. Does anyone wish to speak in favor of the Petition? Does anyone wish to speak against? Can we have a motion from the Board? Mr. Chairman I'm going to make a motion that the applicant's request for dimensional variance with respect to the front yard setback be granted; that would enable the applicant to build a front entrance way of the home within 19.43 feet of the front property line, which would amount to a variance of 10.57 feet from the normally required 30' front yard setback. And the reasons for that variance are that there is a hardship due to the unique characteristics of the subject land and not the general character of the surrounding area. Because the lot in question, which was laid out and approved many years, probably back in the 1920's, that's when this neighborhood looks like it was developed; is an irregular shape and is also substandard with respect to what would currently be required in an R-10 zone at only 7,348 square feet. The applicant has made efforts to be as much in conformity as possible, resulting in conforming side yards on both sides and conforming rear yard. And the only relief he is seeking is a front yard variance. This hardship is not the result of any prior action on the part of the applicant; because the applicant testified that he did not lay out the lots in this manner and did not create a lot with a front yard that's on a curved arc that presents difficulty in trying to come up with a fully conforming design. And this hardship is not due to any economic disability of the applicant or any desire to on the part of the applicant to 5
realize greater financial gain. Merely to be able to build a reasonable size home... an appropriate sized home on this lot. Granting the requested front yard dimensional variance will not alter the general character of the area; this is a neighborhood that was originally laid out with a lot of smaller summer cottages and is in transition now. Many of the homes in that neighborhood are not 30' from their front yard property lines. Granting the requested dimensional variance will not impair the intent of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which recognizes the pre-existing state of lots that existed and deals with nonconformity and recognizes that some relief may be necessary. The relief requested is the least relief necessary. Instead of trying to manipulate where the home would be located and maximize the size the home, the applicant has in fact made great efforts to make it conform on three sides; and the front yard variance would be the least relief to meet the design that the applicant is seeking. And were we to deny the applicant's request for a variance, it would create a hardship amounting to more than a mere inconvenience, because the applicant would then have to move the home in a way that would create some other nonconformity. And it would be necessary for the applicant to then come back for a revised plan that would seek relief. So, for those reasons, I move that we grant the requested dimensional variance. MR. SIMOES: MR. RAPOSA: MR. SIMOES: I'll second that motion. All in favor? 6
(THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (Petition Granted) 7
3. 2015-26 CHRISTOPHER HARKINS 49 Walley St.: R-10 PL. 20, LOT 91 Applicant is requesting a Dimensional Variance to construct a new single-family dwelling with less than the required front yard on a corner lot. Mr. Christopher Harkins, 1907 East Main Road, Portsmouth, RI presented the Petition to the Board. Mr. Harkins stated that he owns property at 49 Walley Street, which is a corner lot; although one side of it is actually a paper road that is being used for drainage, per the Planning Board, which he appeared before about a year ago. With the corner lot, it requires two 30 foot setbacks, as opposed to 15 and 15 and 30. He was looking to have one side to be considered a side as opposed to a front yard, as there is no intention of the Town to approve that to be a City street. Mr. Kogan stated that on the plans submitted it is indicated that there are some surface, or sub surface drainage features that have been constructed in that area. Mr. Harkins stated that it is a drainage swale, which is existing now. He confirmed that this was an area that had historic drainage problems, which is why the whole drainage facility got installed and is now taking care of what was free flowing water coming down Howe Street and now it is captured. He confirmed that the Planning Board has indicated that there is no present intentions on the part of the Town to improve that Howe Street extension with paving. Howe Street runs in from the north to a location north of his lot, and there is now a new cul-de-sac there on Howe Street. The Board reviewed the plans in detail with Mr. Harkins. He confirmed that his application is for a dimensional variance, but he was now asking the Board to make a finding that the eastern side of the property is a side yard and not a front yard. The Board reviewed distances from the other properties in the area in detail; Mr. Harkins stated that he has not measured the Furtado Estate to the east of him, but from looking 8
at the plans he would estimate there house to be somewhere between 15 to 20 feet to their property line along the paper street. In response to questioning by Mr. Burke, Mr. Harkins confirmed that this lot was created by a subdivision of a larger lot, which went before the Planning Board and the package presented to the Planning Board did not show a lot that was conforming. At that point they were just making one lot into to. Mr. Burke stated that the information he saw in the Planning packet did show two footprints, both complying. Mr. Harkins stated that he believes it only showed the buildable area. Mr. Harkins stated the square footage of the lot is just under 12,000 at 11,050. Mr. Christopher Murray and Marion Murray, 121 Wood Street spoke. Ms. Murray stated that she didn't know if they were for or against, but that they had concerns about the drainage system. They've seen the plans and they've had a Civil engineer look at the plans, but she's not sure that the drainage system is really working the way it should be. There's a lot of standing water there. She knows there's a pond that they built that's supposed to have some standing water in it, but there's a lot of water gathering there; and this has been a pretty dry summer. They do have concerns about that because eventually they'll build in the lot behind them and they are concerned about their property. The Board informed the Murray's that their concerns should be raised with the Town's Building Inspector and the Planning Department. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Can we have a motion from the Board? Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion that we make a Finding that the eastern side of this lot is a side yard and not a front yard. And the reasons that I would suggest to support that Finding are that although the southerly extension of Howe Street has existed on paper, it's never been 9
developed. And, in fact, the Town's attempts to ameliorate the drainage, it is quite unlikely that it ever will be paved and developed as a through street. The adjacent house to the east is built at what appears to be, both on the plan and visually upon inspection, appears to be at approximately 17 to 20 feet from the paper road, which would suggest that that's also be treated as a side yard. So to be consistent, and in addition, as Mr. Simoes asked about, the house as being proposed will front on Walley Street, not on Howe Street, paper street; making that from an appearance standpoint appear to be the front yard. It just all and all looks like a side yard, so I would move that we make a Finding that the eastern side of the property is a side yard; subject to normal side yard requirements within an R-10 zone. MS. GOINS: I'll second. Mr. Chairman I just want to advise the Board... I think I've previously said this, but, I would advise against this method of handling request for dimensional variances on corner lots. There really is no provision in the Zoning Ordinance for the Board to grant relief based on this kind of Finding. The Board can either grant dimensional variance or special use permits and there's standards for each of those types of relief; there's really no standards for the Board's Finding. Not to impugn anything you've said, Mr. Kogan, but I don't... the definition of a corner lot is a lot that has more than one front lot line and the Zoning Ordinance permits the yard setback from one of the rear lot lines to be reduced to side yard setback requirements; but, again, there is no mechanism in the Zoning Ordinance for a Finding that one of the front yards is really a side yard. So, I suggest that in the future that the Board should grant the application 10
or deny the application based according to the Standards for Dimensional Variance. Ms. Goins you've made that suggestion before; my motion is the motion I'm making. MR. RAPOSA: MR. SIMOES: It's been seconded? Yes. All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (Petition Granted) 11
4. 2015-27 TIMOTHY H. CHISHOLM 28 Richmond St.: R-6 PL. 32, Lot 87 Applicant is requesting a Dimensional Variance to construct a 14' x 16' deck to the rear of an existing two-family dwelling with less than the required right side yard. the Board. Mr. Timothy Chisholm and Mr. Knight Hess, contractor, presented the Petition to Mr. Hess explained that Mr. Chisholm's house is right up against the side yard property with a bulkhead about 14 feet over and the planned location is the only logical place for a deck in the back of the house; right up against the property line, just like the house is. Mr. Raposa questioned the detail of the hand drawn plans submitted. Ms. Goins stated that there are no requirements that the applicant submit a plan drawn by a licensed surveyor; the applicants submit whatever plans they choose to. But the Board obviously can judge the plans based on what they're worth. Mr. Raposa stated that under Section 28-402, it states that a site plan is required. Ms. Goins stated, a site plan, absolutely is required. There is no requirement that the plan be drawn by a registered surveyor. The Board reviewed the plans submitted in detail with the applicant. The house next door is on the far side of their lot with the driveway on the side of this property in question and there is a tall fence between the two properties. The Board expressed concerns about future maintenance to the structure and the construction of it. Mr. Hess stated it would be built easily; they would just bolt it right to the house and put it on sonic tubes, just like any other deck. The materials being used would need very little maintenance; and the existing fence will remain. 12
Mr. Burke suggested that the Board may want to put a provision that the fence stay. Mr. Chisholm stated that the erected the fence on the posts that were already there and he plans on keeping the fence and maintaining the fence. Would anyone like to speak in favor? Would anyone like to speak against? Can we have a motion from the Board, please? I'll make a motion that we approve the Dimensional Variance requested to build a 14' x 16' deck to the rear of an existing two-family dwelling on the property located on the southerly side of Richmond Street. The proposed deck would extend off the rear of the existing dwelling. And in the location there currently there's a step to a brick patio. The proposed deck would extend 16' back from the existing side wall of the garage. The variance which we are providing relief for would be a side yard variance, because the deck would not meet the requirements of 10' in an R-6 zone. The hardship is based on the unique characteristic of the subject land and the structure. The applicant and owner does not wish to further impede on the side yard, which the structure that is on the property currently sits. It does not change the general characteristics of the surrounding land. It is not due to any economic disability of the applicant. 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 financial gain. He solely wants to use the deck for outside entertainment. And as he listed in his application, that the home is in a flood zone and entertaining in the back of the house is difficult, due to this feature of the property. The granting of the requested variance will not alter the characteristics of the surrounding area, or impair the intent or purpose of this characteristic or 13
the Comprehensive Plan of the Town. The relief to be granted is the least amount of relief necessary. And the hardship is that he would suffer more than mere inconvenience, considering that he will not be able to utilize the back of his property. The subject property, if the dimensional variance is not granted, is more than a mere inconvenience. So, I make a motion that we approve. And I also cite Mr. Burke's suggestion that the fence be maintained in accordance with the specs. MR. SIMOES: MR. RAPOSA: That would be a special condition. Yes. Second. All in favor? Aye, All opposed? (THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 4-1) (Petition Granted) 14
5. 2015-28 JOYCE M. KINSELLA 130 Berry Lane: R-10 Pl. 154 Lot 214 Dimensional Variance to construct a 13' x 24' addition to an existing single-family dwelling with less than the required rear yard. Ms. Joyce Kinsella presented her Petition to the Board. Ms. Kinsella explained that the addition would be utilized for an in-door therapy pool, which would allow her allyear access, due to medical reasons. Mr. Tanner stated that the Board was supplied with updated plans prior to the meeting. Mr. Asciola read a letter from Ms. Kinsella's medical physician in support of the Petition. The Board reviewed the plans, along with her medical reasons for needing such pool, in detail with the Board. Ms. Kinsella confirmed that the property in the rear of her property is wetlands and cannot be built on. Does anyone wish to speak in favor? Does anyone wish to speak against? Can I have a motion from the Board, please? Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that the Board grant the applicant's request for Dimensional Variance, to enable the applicant to construct a 13' x 24' addition to her existing single-family dwelling that would be with less than the required rear yard. The Zoning Ordinance in an R-10 zone would normally require a 30' rear yard setback and the applicant is proposing to construct her addition to within 19.2' from the rear property line, which would require a variance of 10.8 feet. I'm moving that we grant that 10.8' variance. And the reasons for that are that there exists a hardship due to unique characteristics of the subject and/or structure. The applicant has owned this home for 15 years, but I don't believe the 15
applicant built the home. So the home is located at a location that the applicant did not select, nor did the applicant lay out the house that has an irregular rear yard layout, which has a deck sort of squeezed into the middle of it, which would make it very difficult to identify any other alternative location for the proposed addition, which the applicant has explained is necessary to address her medical conditions; since the addition will contain a medical therapy pool to address her medical mobility problems. Which may or may not amount to a disability, but even if they don't, it's a reasonable request for a variance to put on an addition that is going to align itself with the existing northern side of the property; so it won't stick out any further to the north and it will not encroach any side yard. The only relief that the applicant needs is rear property relief. This hardship is not the result of any prior action on the part of the applicant. As I stated, the applicant did not construct the home at all, or in its present location. And the applicant certainly did not choose to need a medically necessary therapy pool. This hardship is not due to any economic disability of the applicant, although it might have something to do with a potential physical disability; nor is it due to any desire on the applicant's part to realize greater financial gain. The plans indicate this is probably going to be an expensive little addition, with a pool located within it; it's probably going to be costly; it's unlikely that the applicant will actually realize that investment at some future point; but that's not the reason she's asking for it; she's asking for it to ameliorate her physical infirmity. Granting the requested Dimensional Variance will not alter the general character of the area, because, first of all, this addition is unlikely to be seen from the street, or by the neighbors. And, also, to the east of 16
the applicant's property are wetlands that are not going to be built upon in any foreseeable way; so that it is unlikely to be disruptive to the neighbors; and it won't change the general character of the area, which is entirely residential; and what the applicant is proposing will continue her own residential use of the property, just with this accommodation to her physical health needs. Granting the requested Dimensional Variance will not impair the intent of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which recognizes that residents in this Town may need some help with regard to their physical condition. The Zoning Ordinance already deals with handicap access ramps and things like that; so this is not inconsistent with that. The relief requested is the least relief necessary. In fact, this addition is only encroaching approximately the same amount as a rear deck would into the rear yard setback; about 1/3 of the setback. And it would amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the applicant, were we to deny the Dimensional Variance, because she would be unable to obtain the medical benefits of this therapy pool. So for those reasons, I move we grant the requested variance. MR. SIMOES: MR. RAPOSA: MR. SIMOES: I'll second that motion. All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) 17 (Petition Granted)
6. 2015-29 KLAUS KUTTER 325 Metacom Ave: R-10 PL. 44, Lot 88 Applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to change an existing nonconforming hair salon service business use to a custom jewelry design service business and retail use within a residential zoning district. Attorney Bruce Cox, representing Mr. Klaus Kutter and Mr. Kutter presented the Petition to the Board. Mr. Cox explained that the building on site is presently a hair salon and always has been; it was built as a commercial building. It is a 7,500 square foot lot in an R-10 zone, so it is non-conforming both in dimension and in use. What is being proposed there is an attempt to make it more conforming in appearance, while maintaining the same concept of a service business. Mr. Kutter is not only a service business, he is a destination purpose business, as people make appointments to see him. He is not a retail store; while sales that he makes are retail sales, he is not a retail store; he does not have that kind of traffic. The site is basically all paved in the front, gravel around the sides; and he jokes that he probably could meet the requirement of reduced variance for the site. To make this site into residential you would have a non-conforming small site, the value of it maybe $65,000, if it was ready to go. They desire to continue at the site as a service business, improve the site, as stated in the narrative, they will address the front of the building and improve the site. The existing platform would be enclosed and make it ADA compliant with a portico, so that people can come to this service site, be able to get into the building without having to gain access while outside, if you will and make it have a more home-like appearance. Mr. Kutter has told the TRC that the intention is to remove the current mid-west facade, and wants to retain the existing sign. There is a structure there that permits that sign to be about 11 feet tall, in terms of the frame work and about 5 feet wide and still have the adequate distance underneath for 18
road visual clearance. In regards to parking, the most restrictive requirement would be one spot for every 300 square feet of building; it's slightly over 900 feet, so you would have to have three or four parking spaces; there's adequate parking space in the back of the building for employees, in which he has two or three. They believe that this would be an ideal rehabilitation of this site, which has fallen into somewhat disrepair. Mr. Kutter has had his business in Town since 1995; at one point on Bradford Street, and he is presently located on Thames Street and feels this would be an ideal location for his business. Mr. Tanner stated that the applicant was in front of the TRC that morning and there was a memo from Diane Williamson, along with a revised survey plan that was submitted. And some additional sketches of what the front of the building would look like. Mr. Asciola read aloud that a motion was passed to recommend that a Special Use Permit be granted for this proposal; from the TRC that was dated September 14, 2015. Mr. Tanner stated that as a Special Use permit, it's required to have a review and a recommendation from the Planning Board from their TRC. Mr. Kutter explained his business in detail, which is custom jewelry and repair, by appointment only, in detail with the Board. The Board reviewed the plans in detail with both Mr. Cox and Mr. Kutter. Mr. Raposa asked if there is a sketch of the sign that they plan on using. Mr. Cox stated that the prior owner had a sign out there and it will fit within the framework of the existing framework. If the Board is familiar with Ajour Jewelry, and as Mr. Kutter said this morning, nothing he does can be anything other than stylish and classy, because he's not dealing in things that are just quick impulse purchases. If he does not reflect what he makes, then people won't want his product. So that any sign that is put there 19
would be in conformance with the style of what his goal is; make it look not flashy, but attractive. It's Metacom Avenue, so the sign must ensure the safety of people seeking out the business. Mr. Kogan stated that the sign will be larger than the requirements of the code. Mr. Cox stated that the permitted is a 2' x 3' sign; and that would be a hazardous sign on Metacom Avenue. Mr. Kogan asked if they were going to Petition for a sign variance. Mr. Cox stated that they would like to basically swap out the sign that is there for Ajour and as he understands that would technically not be a sign variance. Mr. Kogan stated that the sign issue had not been advertised and he doesn't see that the public has had notice of that intention and thinks that Mr. Kutter needs to come back. Ms. Goins stated that Mr. Kogan was correct on that; so if the Board is inclined to grant some form of relief; they can add as a condition that the applicant cannot erect a new sign without coming before the Board for relief. Mr. Kogan asked Ms. Goins about 28-218 (5); this portico that the applicant is proposing to put in to improve the entrance way, but also to possibly deal with ADA problems, it's an addition to the building that doesn't appear to him to meet the addition provisions. Ms. Goins stated that he was correct and thinks that this is a day-minims addition, but it is an addition; it's enclosing a front entryway, an existing front entryway and it's making the covered foot print a little bit larger; so she thinks that in the Board's judgement, if the Board is inclined to say that addition is planned to accommodate people with disabilities, it could kind of consider that a reasonable accommodation. Mr. Cox stated that is the goal and he agrees that it's an existing structure, you have a platform there, they are trying to make it ADA compliant; they're trying to make it so that the disabled or not are not biased or hurt by the fact that they aren't inside. In a 900 square foot building you can't do that by building it inside the building without wiping way too much function of the building. Ms. Goins stated that it doesn't appear to be an 20
addition that expands the nonconformity; in other words he's not adding an additional room onto the building. Mr. Kutter stated that he is basically open 10:00 am to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Thursday, 10:00 to 4:30 on Friday and Saturday and not open on Sunday. Most of his business is by appointment. Would anyone like to speak in favor of the Petition? Would anyone like to speak against? Can we have a motion from the Board, please? MR. SIMOES: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we grant the application of the applicant, a change in an existing nonconforming hair salon service business to a custom jewelry design service business and retail use within a residential zoning district. It will not alter the general characteristics of the area. Metacom Avenue from the northern end of Metacom Avenue to the southern end of Metcom Avenue is a much diversified commercial, general business, there's a little manufacturing, there's residential; so it would not alter the general characteristics of the area and would conform pretty much to the rest of Metcom Avenue. And, also to allow the applicant to construct an 8' x 8' entryway for the convenience of the customer coming in without getting wet, or in the winter time with snow, or whatever the case may be; and it would also be for handicap use for people coming in with a wheelchair would be able to enter the building. By granting this change, as I said, it would not alter the general characteristics of the area or would not impair the Town's Comprehensive Plan. And that the relief granted is the least relief necessary. For that reason, I move that this Special Use Variance be granted to the applicant. 21
MR. RAPOSA: MR. SIMOES: I'll second. All in favor?. (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (Petition Granted) 22
7. ADJOURNMENT: X MR. RAPOSA: MR. RAPOSA: MR. SIMOES: Motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All in favor? (THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED) (MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M.) 23
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Susan E. Andrade TOWN OF BRISTOL ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD ON: Date Accepted: Chairman: 24