NORTH KINGSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW November 23, 2010 The North Kingstown Zoning Board of Review convened in the Town Hall Conference Room, 80 Boston Neck Road at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Daniel Pirhala, Chair Vincent Brunelle, Secretary to the Board John Gibbons Stephen Craven Arthur Cardente Also in attendance were Town Solicitor James Reilly and Principal Planner Becky Lamond. Liz Greeley was the Allied Court Reporter for this meeting. Mr. Pirhala called the meeting to order and explained the proceedings as follows. The applicant or their representative would be asked to come forward, be sworn in, and give a brief explanation of their application. The Board will then ask questions of the applicant before opening the floor to public comment. After all has been heard, the public portion of the meeting will be closed. Decisions are usually rendered the same evening; however, continuances for more information may occur. There is a 20-day appeal period once the Minutes have been approved at the December 14, 2010 meeting. No building permits may be granted until after the appeal period. Minutes, and a decision to each petition, are recorded in the Town Clerk s office. Mr. Pirhala asked if the Agenda for tonight s meeting had been filed with the Secretary of State s Office. Ms. Lamond replied that it had. The Board adheres to a 10:00 p.m. curfew. 11/23/10 1
Minutes Mr. Cardente made a motion to approve the Minutes of the November 9, 2010 meeting. Mr. Brunelle seconded, and the motion carried. Jeffrey R. Gardner, Plat 139, lot 29, located on Roger Williams Drive, zoned village residential (VR-20), for relief under Chapter 21, a special use permit and special exception from Section 311 Land Nonconforming by Area or other dimensional requirements to construct a single family dwelling. (continued from October 26, 2010) Jeffrey R. Gardner, Plat 139, lot 30, located on Roger Williams Drive, zoned village residential (VR-20), for relief under Chapter 21, a special exception from Section 311 Land Nonconforming by Area or other dimensional requirements to construct a single family dwelling. (continued from October 26, 2010) Mr. Pirhala indicated that the applicant s attorney has requested a continuance for these applications to the January 25, 2011 meeting. Mr. Brunelle made a motion to continue the application of Jeffrey R. Gardner, Plat 139, lot 29, located on Roger Williams Drive, zoned village residential (VR-20), for relief under Chapter 21, a special use permit and special exception from Section 311 Land Nonconforming by Area or other dimensional requirements to construct a single family dwelling to the January 25, 2011 meeting. Mr. Gibbons seconded, and all were in favor. Mr. Brunelle made a motion to continue the application of Jeffrey R. Gardner, Plat 139, lot 30, located on Roger Williams Drive, zoned village residential (VR-20), for relief under Chapter 21, a special exception from Section 311 Land Nonconforming by Area or other dimensional requirements to construct a single family dwelling to the January 25, 2011 meeting. Mr. Gibbons seconded, and all were in favor. Raymond York, Plat 117, lot 266, located on 97 Pleasant Street, zoned village residential (VR-20), for an Appeal of North Kingstown Notice of Violation dated August 25, 2010 for the construction of landscaping site work without prior approval of the Historic District Commission. Mr. Pirhala said that the applicant s attorney has requested a continuance to February 8, 2011. Mr. Gibbons made a motion to continue the appeal of Raymond York, Plat 117, lot 266, located on 97 Pleasant Street, zoned village residential (VR-20), for an Appeal of North Kingstown Notice of Violation dated August 25, 2010 for the construction of landscaping site work without prior approval of the Historic District Commission to the February 8, 2011 meeting. Mr. Craven seconded, and all were in favor. 11/23/10 2
Joyce L. & James T. McWeeney, Plat 142, lot 33, located on 57 Sauga Avenue, zoned village residential (VR-20) for relief under Chapter 21, special use permit from Section 325(7) accessory dwelling units to construct an accessory dwelling unit, variance from Section 21-325(7)(a)(8)(a) accessory dwelling units to construct stairways to the second floor, special user permit from 21-329 location of accessory uses and structures to locate an accessory structure between the principal structure and street right-of-way and dimensional variance from Article IV dimensional regulations, Table 2A residential districts and 21-306(a) setback. Mr. Reilly explained the four types of relief requested in the McWeeney application: accessory dwelling; variance for stairway; location of accessory structure; and two dimensional variances. Mr. Reilly said that Planning staff has indicated that with some applications they have received letters from the applicant s neighbors. He questioned whether or not the ZBR members should be shown these letters, and he said that the answer is in the interpretation of the law. Mr. Reilly said that in his opinion the ZBR can read the letters, but they cannot be the basis of any decision making. He said that only the evidence presented to the ZBR can be used in decision making. Ms. Lamond said that the Planning Department has received a fax and an email regarding this application, Mr. Reilly said that they could be marked Town Exhibits 1 and 2. Town Exhibit 1 is an email from Michael Mello asking the ZBR not to approve the application and Town Exhibit 2 is a letter from Stephen Reynolds expressing concerns about the design of the garage. Mr. Reilly said that the ZBR could read the memos, but they could not be used in the decision making. Mr. Mosca, attorney for the applicant, came forward. He said that they have received letters from neighbors who are in favor of the application. Mr. Mosca said that the applicant would like to construct a detached garage with an accessory apartment on the second floor for family use. It would not be rented, and there is no pecuniary gain. He said that they are requesting relief for the stairway and dimensional variances of 14 for front yard and 10 for side yard. He presented: Exhibit 1 Land Survey by Robert Curran; Exhibit 2, ISDS permit; Exhibit 3 Elevation Diagrams; Exhibit 4, Letter from Anthony and Josephine Duva supporting the application; Exhibit 5 Letter from Hillarie Davis supporting the application; Exhibit 6 Letter from Laura Davis supporting application; Exhibit 7 Plat Map showing properties in area; and Exhibit 8 Photograph of area after hurricane of 1938. Mr. Plunkett, attorney for an abutter, objected to Exhibit 8 and questioned the authenticity of the date. Mr. Mosca presented as Exhibit 9 Photo of the House from the 1960s. Mr. Plunkett objected to Exhibit 9 questioning the authenticity of the date. Mr. Reilly said that Exhibits 8 and 9 should be marked for identification only. Mr. Mosca presented as Exhibit 10 Photo Package of garages and garages with accessory dwellings in the area. Exhibit 10 was marked for identification only. James McWeeney came forward and was sworn in. He was asked questions by Mr. Mosca. He said that he and his wife have owned the property for five years, and it has been in his wife s family since 1966. He said that Exhibit 9 was a photo in the family album, and it was determined to be taken by a family member right after the house was purchased because shortly after that the façade of the building was changed. He said that 11/23/10 3
it is a photo of the house that he has purchased with the footprint slightly changed with a squared off north corner. He said that the concrete patio is still there. Mr. Reilly indicated that the photo has been authenticated as a full Exhibit. Mr. Plunkett objected saying that the date has not been authenticated. Mr. Reilly said that it is an admissible photo. Mr. Gibbons made a motion to accept Exhibit 9 as a full Exhibit. Mr. Brunelle seconded, and all were in favor. Mr. McWeeney said that the photo in Exhibit 8 was taken from a Shore Acres Association website which posts facts about the area. He said that Rick Padula had submitted the photo. Mr. Plunkett objected saying that the date had not been authenticated. Mr. Reilly said that it is acceptable as an Exhibit. Mr. Gibbons made a motion to accept Exhibit 8 as a full Exhibit. Mr. Craven seconded, and all were in favor. Mr. McWeeney said that the sea wall and sea stairs in the photo are still in existence. Mr. Mosca indicated that the collection of photos of the garages in the area was prepared by Mr. McWeeney. He said that there were photos of garages with exterior stairways and garages located in front of houses. Mr. Mosca said that houses on waterfront lots usually have garages in the front. Mr. Plunkett objected to this testimony. Mr. McWeeney said that patio on the survey is the same patio that existed in the 1960s. Mr. Plunkett objected to the approximate date. Mr. Mosca asked questions of Mr. McWeeney. McWeeney said that there is a raised septic system, and a vehicle cannot be driven over the area. It is located between the shed and the primary residence. Mr. McWeeney said that the driveway would be peastone and bluestone over gravel. He said there would be a 24 x24 two car garage with a one bedroom loft. The doors would face east. There will be a wooden deck and a stairway which is exposed at the rear of the garage. He said that if there were interior stairs the footprint would not change, but the loft would change, and it would be difficult to put two cars in the garage. He said that the permit from CRMC uses the existing footprint, and 1600sf can only be improved by 800sf. Mr. Plunkett indicated that he would like to see something in writing from CRMC. Mr. Cardente questioned the deck footprint as regards the CRMC regulations. Mr. McWeeney said that the deck does not have a roof so it is not counted in the footprint. Mr. McWeeney showed a photo of a Town tree on the property which was presented as Exhibit 11. He said that the tree cannot be taken down, and it affects the placement of the garage. Mr. McWeeney explained the outside lighting for the garage, and he said that there might be some motion lights. He said that the lighting would not disturb the neighbors. He explained that there would be no discharge of rainwater into the ground. Downspouts that drain into a dry well would be used. He said that currently there is a single family dwelling and a shed. There would be one bedroom in the accessory dwelling, and there are three bedrooms in the primary dwelling. He said that there would be two vehicles in the garage and one off street parking space. Mr. McWeeney said that the purpose of the accessory dwelling is for his son and his family to use when they visit during the summer. Mr. Cardente asked if the principal house is currently under construction, and Mr. Mosca replied that it is. Mr. Plunkett objected to testimony not referencing the ordinance. Mr. Reilly said that Section 21-325 (7) refers to accessory dwellings. Mr. 11/23/10 4
McWeeney said that there is a line of hedgerows between his house and the abutter. He said that the hedgerows would remain. Mr. Mosca said that they would follow the Planning staff recommendation that the accessory dwelling and the principal dwelling shall be the same ownership with a deed restriction. He said there would be no condominiums on the property, and all the construction would be done in conformance with the submitted plan. Mr. Mosca said that this addition is for family purposes only, and it not about money. He said that there is public water service. Mr. Reilly said that ZBR approval could be conditioned on an additional permit from the DEM for hooking up the ISDS to the accessory dwelling. Mr. Cardente questioned hiding the stairway. Mr. Mosca said that the sea wall would need maintenance, and it is necessary to have 10-12 area on the side of the house for equipment access. There is very little yard, and this is the best location for the garage. Mr. McWeeney said that they need clearance for equipment to reach the seawall. Mr. Plunkett said that he objects because McWeeney is not an expert on sea walls and heavy equipment. Mr. Brunelle questioned moving the garage, and discussion followed of the garage location. Mr. Plunkett asked if the drywell for downspout drainage appeared on the plan, and Mr. McWeeney replied that it does not. He said that David Gardner would draw up a drainage plan as part of a submittal for CRMC. Mr. Plunkett said that a stipulation could be made that accessory dwelling visitors are limited to family members. Mr. McWeeney added and also friends. Mr. Plunkett asked which garages with accessory dwellings shown in Exhibit 10 were close to Mr. McWeeney s property. Mr. McWeeney indicated two garages on Sauga Ave., and one has plumbing, and the other one he could not testify to. Mr. McWeeney referred to Minutes of various ZBR meetings where garages with accessory dwellings had been approved including the March 8, 2005 Minutes showing approval for 139 Sauga Ave. Mr. Reilly said that the other accessory dwellings in the area are not relevant to this application. Mr. Plunkett questioned this application serving the public welfare, and he asked Mr, McWeeney if it would alter the general characteristics of the area. Mr. Reilly said that Mr. Plunkett s questions should be about testimony and not Findings of Fact. He said that this is improper questioning, and the ZBR will make Findings of Fact. Mr. Plunkett said that there is no application for the existing dwelling as shown in Exhibit 1. Mr. Reilly said that it is grandfathered as non-conforming use of property. Mr. Mosca said that this is not the subject of this application, and it is not relevant. Mr. Reilly said that it is an improper question. He said that Mr. Plunkett can object to the issuance of a building permit, but it is not before the ZBR. Mr. Plunkett asked if the shed would remain on the property, and McWeeney said that it would. He asked if the shed is included in the footprint. Mr. Reilly again explained the four types of relief requested in the McWeeney application: accessory dwelling; variance for stairway; location of accessory structure; and two dimensional variances. He said that there is no issue before the ZBR regarding lot coverage. Mr. Plunkett questioned the septic system setback from the property line, and McWeeney explained. Mr. Plunkett asked if there is an application for a septic system servicing the accessory dwelling, and Mr. McWeeney said there is not. Mr. Plunkett questioned the location of the water line, 11/23/10 5
and Mr. McWeeney explained. Mr. Plunkett indicated that the drainage downspouts are not on the site map, and Mr. McWeeney said that is correct. Mr. Gibbons made a motion to accept Exhibit 10 as a full Exhibit. Mr. Brunelle seconded, and all were in favor. Ms. Lamond said that the affidavits of notice have been filed. Mr. Pirhala opened the public portion of the meeting. Dr. Charles Faber of 45 Sauga Ave. came forward and was sworn in. He said that he has no objections to the garage. He said that the whole area is being renewed. He does not feel that the garage will alter the character of the neighborhood. He indicated that the garage is not facing the street. William Ronci came forward and was sworn in. He was asked questions by Mr. Mosca. He said that he does excavation work and septic system design. He said that he has an installer s license, an operation s license and a designer s license. Mr. Ronci said that he has installed the septic system shown on Mr. Curran s plan, and it is completed except for the electricity. He said that the garage and the water line are shown on the application. On the plan, he pointed out the proposed garage, the setbacks, and the water service. Mr. Ronci said that he operates backhoes, excavators and bobcats. He said that he has worked on Mr. Duva s sea wall, and a large excavator would be necessary to repair a sea wall. He said that space is necessary to access a sea wall because an excavator is 8 ½ wide. He said that the sea wall cannot be accessed from the northerly side of the property because the space available is only 6 wide. Mr. Mosca presented the Utility Site Plan as Exhibit 12. It shows the sea wall. Mr. Plunkett asked Mr. Ronci if he had worked in a situation where there was not enough room for equipment, and Mr. Ronci replied that he had and that he had to fill in around a driveway. Mr. Plunkett asked if Mr. Ronci had ever asked for permission from neighbors to use their property to access a sea wall, and Mr. Ronci replied that he had. Karl Sauerbrey, registered architect, came forward and was sworn in. He said that he has worked in RI for 15 years, and he has appeared before many community zoning boards. He was accepted as an expert witness. He was asked questions by Mr. Mosca. Mr. Sauerbrey said that he has designed the garage and the primary dwelling. He showed a rendering of the garage. He said that when he sited the garage he took into account the information of a certified engineer relative to run off issues. He said that the tree is untouchable. He said that it would be good for the neighborhood to have the garage doors to the side of the property. He said that the garage would not be facing the street, and the lighting is not on the street side. Mr. Sauerbrey said that the staircase and deck are in the rear in order to make best use of the garage. The location of the garage is based on the location of the septic system, and it would provide an area to allow sufficient turning room for cars. He explained the elevations on the last page of Exhibit 3. He said that an interior staircase would take room from the upper level common space. Mr. Cardente suggested moving the stairs into the balcony instead of going straight up. Mr. Sauerbrey said that structurally that could be done, but it would not be approved by CRMC because it would change the footprint. If the staircase is open, it does not count in the footprint measurement. Mr. Gibbons 11/23/10 6
questioned that if the garage were moved, the turning radius for cars would change. Mr. Sauerbrey said that it would change. Mr. Plunkett questioned the change, and Mr. Sauerbrey explained the turning radius. Mr. Plunkett asked if he had talked to CRMC about this, and Mr. Sauerbrey replied that he had. Mr. Plunkett asked if had asked for a modification of an assent, and Mr. Sauerbrey replied that he had not. Mr. Mosca indicated that if the tree and the right-of-way are maintained, a 5 dimensional variance would still be necessary, and there would be severe inconveniences to the neighbors and the owner of the property. Mr. Mosca said that the applicant owns two cars and would like a parking area to have room for visitors. Mr. Plunkett indicated that he represents Angelina Scungio, the owner of Lot 103. William King of 165 Sauga Ave. came forward and was sworn in. He said that he has expressed his concerns in his letter of November 17, 2010. A portion of the cement patio sits in the right-of-way. He would like the patio reduced in size so that the public has better access to the beach. He said that the shed is in the right-of-way. It is ugly and should be removed. He said that windows should be added to the garage, so it does not look like a billboard. Mr. Mosca indicated that Exhibit 1 the site plan delineates the shed, and it is not in the right-of-way, and it is on the McWeeney property. Mr. Plunkett objected to the right-of-way discussion. Mr. Reilly said that the ZBR has no jurisdiction on location of the shed. Mr. Mosca presented as Exhibit 13(a) photo of the shed; (b) building permit for shed; (c) CRMC assent for shed, and Exhibit 14 Photos of 165 Sauga Ave. showing a garage with no windows on the side.. Joanne Nannig of 62 Sauga Ave. came forward and was sworn in. She said that the letters of support that have been mentioned are from people with waterfront property. She said that she has lived across the street from the right-of-way for 15 years. The property owner has intruded on it by planting bushes. Mr. Mosca objected to discussing the right-of-way. Mr. Reilly said that the ZBR has no authority over the right-of-way. Ms. Nannig said that the shed is on the right-of-way. She said that she would like to see the right-of-way on the other side of the property. She said that the applicant should follow the regulations for building a garage. She questioned that a tree that is half dead would remain standing because it belongs to the Town. Ms. Nannig said that Mr. McWeeney has taken down other trees. Mr. Mosca questioned if Ms. Nannig knows the difference between a property line and a street right-of-way. Mr. Mosca presented as Exhibit 15 photos of 62 Sauga Ave where a stairway is visible from the street. Robert Nannig came forward and was sworn in. He said that in the spirit of the neighborhood an equitable solution must be reached for the right-of-way. He questioned where all the water from the new roof would go. He said that on a regular basis they have a giant puddle on their street when it rains. Mr. Nannig said that when new houses have been built, the puddle has gotten larger. He questioned if there is a plan for drainage so that the street does not become a lake and his basement is not flooded. He questioned if DEM and CRMC had issues with drainage in the area. Mr. Nannig said that he is losing his view of the water, and there is an impact on access to the water. He indicated that the value of his house is based on this, and he asked if the Town would reduce his assessed valuation. He said that the applicant should remove the shed as his 11/23/10 7
contribution to the neighborhood. He said that he opposes the entire project. It is not an addition, but it is two houses. Mr. Nannig said that he and his neighbors have a right to access the bay and a right to view the bay. Urban Nannig of 515 Shore Acres Ave. came forward and was sworn in. He said that he objects to any changes in the rules. He said that he has lived in Shore Acres since he was two years old which is a long time ago. He said that he had proper setbacks on the houses he has built. He said that his garage which was built in the 1920s is on the street because there were no rules then. He said that he does not have room to park his car. Mr. Nannig said that he would like Shore Acres to become a better place. Mr. Brunelle made a motion to close the public comment section of the public hearing. Mr. Gibbons seconded, and the motion carried. Mr. Gibbons made a motion to continue the application of Joyce L. & James T. McWeeney, Plat 142, lot 33, located on 57 Sauga Avenue, zoned village residential (VR-20) for relief under Chapter 21, special use permit from Section 325(7) accessory dwelling units to construct an accessory dwelling unit, variance from Section 21-325(7)(a)(8)(a) accessory dwelling units to construct stairways to the second floor, special user permit from 21-329 location of accessory uses and structures to locate an accessory structure between the principal structure and street right-of-way and dimensional variance from Article IV dimensional regulations, Table 2A residential districts and 21-306(a) setback to the December 14, 2010 meeting for brief arguments by the applicant s attorney and the objector s attorney. Mr. Craven seconded, and all were in favor. Gregory B. Bennett and Judith C. Bennett, Plat 1, Lot 76, located on 99 Ferry Road, zoned neighborhood residential (NR-40) for relief under Chapter 21, special use permit from Section 21-325(7) accessory dwelling unit and dimensional variance from Article IV permit dimensional regulations, Table 2A residential districts and 21-306(a) setback. Mr. Gibbons made a motion to continue the application of Gregory B. Bennett and Judith C. Bennett, Plat 1, Lot 76, located on 99 Ferry Road, zoned neighborhood residential (NR-40) for relief under Chapter 21, special use permit from Section 21-325(7) accessory dwelling unit and dimensional variance from Article IV permit dimensional regulations, Table 2A residential districts and 21-306(a) setback to the December 14, 2010 meeting. Mr. Brunelle seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Joan Markert Recording Secretary Vincent Brunelle Secretary to the Board 11/23/10 8