TOWN OF BRISTOL ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES. Thursday, June 18, 2015

Transcription

1 TOWN OF BRISTOL ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES Thursday, June 18, 2015 The following petitions were received and were heard by the Bristol Zoning Board of Review on Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Bristol Town Hall, 10 Court Street. Members present: Chairman Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Steve Hudak, Mr. David Simoes, Mr. David Raposa, and Mr. Diamantino A. Fonseca. Also present were: Amy Goins, Assistant Town Solicitor, Mary Ann Escobar, Court Reporter, Dianne Williamson, sitting in for Zoning Enforcement Officer and Richard Pimenta, Building Official. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Simoes made a motion to approve the minutes from May 4, Mr. Kogan seconded the motion. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Steve Hudak, Mr. David Simoes, Mr. David Raposa, and Mr. Diamantino A. Fonseca. CONTINUED PETITIONS: Bristol Enterprises, LLC Buttonwood Street DECISION: Christopher Pimental appeared before the Board this evening. He submitted a letter requesting to amend the original request for special use permit from 7 containers to 4 containers. He stated he currently has 4 containers on the property. Mr. Pimental explained to the Board that he was been working with the Town and the Planning Board of review to develop the property and stated he will only need 4 containers on said property. The Chairman questioned Mr. Pimental if he knew that he was only allowed one container. Mr. Pimental replied that he was aware of being allowed one without a special use permit, and that is why he is coming before the Board this evening. He also stated that he knows of other properties in Bristol that have more than one container on their land. The Board questioned Mr Pimental of his plans for putting up a building on this property. If there was a main building on this property, then these containers would be considered an accessory structure. But right now there is no main building on this property. Mr. Pimental stated that he is in the process of getting permits to build a main building on the property. Mr. Simoes stated that these containers are supposed to be more than 25 feet away from the road and that it looks like these containers are short of that measurement. Mr. Pimental stated that he believes they are 25 feet away, but if not, he will gladly move them. 1

2 Mr. Hudak asked Mr. Pimental what the Planning Board requested of him. Mr. Pimental stated they told him to clean up the property, remove loose debris, any dismantled vehicles and the like, and he has done so. Mr. Pimental stated that Mr. Michael Fonseca is his builder and asked him to speak at the meeting for him. Mr. Fonseca stated that he is working with Mr. Pimental in getting his property ready for the building process. He has already done the test pits for the engineering and the Class A survey has just been completed by Steven Murgo. Mr. Fonseca stated that they have the blue prints for the building and they are drawing up a foundation plan. So Mr. Pimental is going through all the steps to get ready to build. Mr. Fonseca asked on behalf of Mr. Pimental if the board can give him a special use variance that expires within a certain amount of time to just get him through this building process. Mr. Kogan replied that he would have to get a permit for a temporary structure, which is something the town would have to give him. And it would only give him 60 days, and it s already been over 60 days that these containers have been on his property illegally. Ms. Williamson stated to the Board that there was a notice of violation issued to Mr. Pimental in November of So they have been trying to work with this applicant for going on close two years to try to address this and to date he has not submitted any of the required permit applications or plans. Mr. Kogan made a motion to deny this petition. The reasons set forth by Mr. Kogan are stated in verbatim as follows: The reasons in support of my motion to deny are that a special use permit in order to be granted by the Board has to be a use that is specifically authorized by the zoning chapter. The use of shipping containers is not a use authorized in conjunction with the apparent outdoor junkyard operation that the applicant had been maintaining on the premises. In addition to that, the standards particularly specifically applicable to the granting of a special use permit for a storage container or shipping container found in (I) do not appear to be met or attainable by the applicant in that those standards require that containers may not be located in the front yard of any property. This is a corner lot which has two front yards and the shipping containers as presently located on the property appear to be in the front yard of the property. In addition to that, the special use permit, were we able to grant one, must not impair the intent or purpose of the zoning code nor impair the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the zoning code is outlined in the zoning code in Section 28-2 sets forth a variety of purposes for the zoning code. And with respect to a number of them, the maintenance of 4 prefabricated re-locatable steel shipping containers would be inconsistent and would impair a variety of those purposes. Among the purposes that would be impaired would be the purpose of providing for a range of uses and intensity of use appropriate to the character of the town. The maintenance of steel shipping containers is not appropriate to the character of the town. Another purpose that would be impaired were we to grant the special use permit is that the 2

3 code is intended to provide for the protection of the natural historic cultural and scenic character of the town. The maintenance of steel shipping containers on this property would impair the scenic character of the town. The additional purpose that I see as being impaired is number 11, which the code is supposed to promote a high level of quality and design in the development of private and public facilities. Maintaining steel shipping containers, at least the ones presently on the property in the condition in which they appear, does not demonstrate any level of quality and design for the development of this facility. Although the applicant testifies that he intends to build a building for the storage of his cars, which are in various states of repair and disrepair, that is very different than maintaining steel shipping containers. I don't believe that either the specific standards or the general standards for a special use permit have been met in this case and for that reason I move that we deny the special use permit for any steel shipping container on that property. Mr. Simoes seconded the motion. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Steve Hudak, Mr. David Simoes, Mr. David Raposa, and Mr. Diamantino A. Fonseca Steven M. Hudak 70 Franklin Street DECISION: Mr. Hudak appeared before the Board and stated that since he is a current board member he has filed a recusal with the town and with the ethics commission regarding this matter. On May 19 he was granted a hardship from the Rhode Island Ethics Commission in order for him to have this matter heard tonight. Mr. Hudak wanted to make sure that he has gone through all the proper channels before he came before the Board tonight. Mr. Hudak stated that he wishes to add onto his current home an 11 by 22 foot addition onto the top of an existing sunroom to his house. He presently has a two bedroom cape and now has three children and needs additional space in the home. When he purchased this home, he and his wife weren t even sure if they wanted to stay there forever, nor did they anticipate having three children. Mr. Hudak explained that the hardship for him and his family is due to the unique characteristic of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area. In addition, he expressed that this was not the result of any prior action on his behalf. He believed that when he bought this house, there was enough room to grow, but due to the fact of having three children, there is no room in the house. Based on his neighborhood and surrounding area, he believes this would not alter the general characteristics of the area. Mr. Hudak also stated that this would be the least relief necessary for him to apply for. He is building on a current footprint and going up. He is not expanding past the foundation footprint of the home. 3

4 Mr. Simoes made a motion to grant this dimensional variance of four feet. He stated that this request will not alter the general characteristics of the area. It also will be the least relief necessary and if they were to deny this petition, it would cause a hardship on Mr. Hudak and his family. Mr. Simoes also mentioned that the Bristol Historic Commission has looked at the design plans and has approved the design. Mr. Raposa seconded. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. David Simoes, Mr. David Raposa, and Mr. Diamantino A. Fonseca. NEW PETITIONS The Kathleen Harkin MacLean Trust 3 Dana Road DECISION: Attorney John Rego appeared on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the petitioner actually purchased two buildable lots. They combined them into one lot containing approximately 1.7 acres. There is a single family house presently under construction which will be approximately 7,800 square feet. The homeowner is planning on putting in an in-ground swimming pool and swimming pool cabana. He explained that the homeowners are requesting a dimensional variance for a foot x foot pool cabana. The builder, Michael Fonseca, appeared before the board and showed the Board the plans for this cabana and stated the only reason they need this variance is that the overhang for the cabana will be larger than 24 feet. The overhang is needed for shade protection of their family and guests. They have 7 children and 13 grandchildren. Mr. Rego stated that this cabana is compatible to the surrounding areas, and will not alter the character of the neighborhood. He also stated that if the board were to deny this petition, it would be a hardship on this family enjoying the use of their property. This property is a large parcel of land, approximately 1.7 acres and this structure will not cause a nuisance to the town. Mr. Kogan made a motion to grant the dimensional variance of.75 by 7.75 for the structure. He stated that this would be the least relief necessary for the petitioner. In fact the actual foundation to this structure is in compliance with the accessory structure ordinance, but the roof overhang which extends out further is what this particular structure needed relief for. Due to the unique characteristics of the lot, which is approximately 1.7 acres, this structure is intended to fit the design of the house currently being built and all the additional landscaping and the like. There would be a significant hardship if the Board did not grant this variance. In addition, this structure will not alter the characteristics of the surrounding area, nor cause a nuisance to the area. Mr. Simoes seconded the motion. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Steve Hudak, Mr. David Simoes, Mr. David Raposa, and Mr. Diamantino A. Fonseca John F. and Fran L. Blaess 15 Dimond Avenue DECISION: This petition was withdrawn by the petitioners. 4

5 Stephen G. Bernardo 5 Burke Road DECISION: Mr. Bernardo appeared before the Board. He stated there is currently a 4 foot stockade fence on the property. There is a pool in the backyard and this fence currently cuts his back yard in half. He would like to replace the entire fencing with a 6 foot high fence and bring the fencing out to the Heritage Road side and to the back of his house. Mr. Bernardo stated that with this 6 foot height, he would feel safer. He has young children and having that extra height would yield more privacy, too. He showed the Board a proposed plan that he had. He stated that under the current ordinance it is only allowed 4 feet for a corner lot, but that his property actually sits on two roads, Burke Road and Heritage Road, but he only used Burke Road to enter his house. Mr. Kogan asked Mr. Bernardo numerous questions regarding access to his house, and Mr. Bernardo replied stating that he only uses Burke Road to enter his home. Mr. Kogan made a motion to make a finding of fact that the western portion of the applicant's yard that fronts on Heritage Road is a side yard and that given the testimony that the applicant gave about the family's use and the layout of the property where access is gained from Burke Road that Burke Road is their front yard. Therefore, no variance is required for this applicant. Mr. Raposa seconded the motion. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Steve Hudak, Mr. David Simoes, Mr. David Raposa, and Mr. Diamantino A. Fonseca Michael F. and Carole M. Morrell 106 State Street DECISION: Mr. and Mrs. Morrell appeared before the Board along with their architect, Cory Kallfelz. She explained that the Morrells purchased the property in June of 2014 a year ago and it was sold to them as a two family home but they use it as a single family. What they are showing to the board is a rear addition which currently houses the two kitchens and an access stair to the second floor. They wish to make a single kitchen downstairs and a sewing and laundry room above. They are look at making it 19.6 wide for the foundation. The relief they are looking for would be 4 feet 7 inches and would be 5 foot 5 off the property line. Ms. Kallfelz explained that due to the unique characteristics of the lot and its size, they are going to have a hardship, should they not be granted this variance. They have appeared before the Historic Commission and they have approved their plan. The Morrells are asking for the least relief necessary in order to build this addition. This addition will not be a nuisance to the neighborhood. Mr. Kogan made a motion to grant the dimensional variance for the following reasons: This house is a historic house, built in 1804, in the historic district and has a unique character to it. 5

6 The eastern side of the property is only three, three and a half feet from the street, which makes it difficult for the homeowner to do any kind of alteration on that side of the property and ultimately causes a hardship for them. This hardship is not the result of the homeowners, nor do the homeowners desire to realize financial gain from such. In addition, Mr. Kogan stated that the addition to the rear of the property will not be visible at all from State Street and will not adversely affect the surrounding properties. Mr. Simoes seconded the motion. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Steve Hudak, Mr. David Simoes, Mr. David Raposa, and Mr. Diamantino A. Fonseca. CONCLUSION OF ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW MEETIING: The Chairman entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr.Simoes made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Raposa seconded. The Vote was unanimous. Voting were Mr. Joseph Asciola, Mr. Bruce Kogan, Mr. Steve Hudak, Mr. David Simoes, Mr. David Raposa, and Mr. Diamantino A. Fonseca. Whereupon the Bristol Zoning Board of Review meeting was concluded at 8:36 p.m. 6

7 C E R T I F I C A T E I, Mary Ann Escobar, Registered Professional Reporter, hereby certify that the foregoing 13 pages of the Bristol Zoning Board of Review minutes held on Monday, March 2, 2015 are transcribed to the best of my knowledge, skill and ability. I further certify that I am not interested in the event of the action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand and affixed my seal of office this 2nd day of April, Mary Ann Escobar, RPR My commission expires: September 30,