JAMESTOWN ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW

Minutes of the September 24, 2002 Meeting

A regular meeting of the Jamestown Zoning Board of Review was held 
at the Jamestown Library, 26 North Rd.  The Chairman called the 
meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.  The clerk called the roll and noted 
the following members present:

Richard Allphin
Thomas Ginnerty
Dennis Grieco
Don Wineberg
Raymond Iannetta
Richard Boren
Joseph Logan
Kathleen Managhan

Also present:       Brenda Hanna, Stenographer
Pat Westall, Zoning Clerk
Fred Brown, Zoning Officer
Bruce Leach, Counsel

MINUTES

Minutes of the September 10, 2002 meeting.

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Richard Boren 
to accept the minutes of the September 10, 2002 meeting as 
presented.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.


CORRESPONDENCE
Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Dennis, Don, and Raymond.

A letter from Turner Scott, Esq. requesting a continuance of the 
appeal of Michael P. Dutton.

Dutton

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Dennis Grieco 
to continue the appeal of Michael P. Dutton to the October 22, 
2002 meeting.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

A letter from Turner Scott, Esq. requesting to allow the 
withdrawal without prejudice of the pending application of Nancy 
Kolman Ventrone.

Kolman-Ventrone

A motion was made by Dennis Grieco and seconded by Raymond 
Iannetta to accept the withdrawal without prejudice of the 
application of Nancy Kolman-Ventrone.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0. 

OLD BUSINESS

Osprey Creek

Seated: Richard A., Raymond, Richard B., Joseph, and Kathleen

A motion was made by Richard Boren and seconded by Raymond 
Iannetta to grant the request of Osprey Creek, LLC, whose property 
is located at 486 East Shore Rd., and further identified as Tax 
Assessor’s Plat 4, Lot 39 for a variance from Article 3, Section 
302 Table 3.2 (District Dimensional Regulations) to build a new 
house 12’-6” from the front line (40’ required) and 25’-6” from 
the side line (30’ required), and to install an individual sewage 
disposal system 51’ from freshwater wetlands (150’ required).

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the 
requirements of Article 6, Section 600; Section 606, Paragraphs 1 
through 4; and Section 607, Paragraph 2.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1.  Said property is located in a RR80 zone and contains 13,760 
sq. ft.

2. This is the second application of Osprey Creek within a one-
year period.

3. The first application was heard in June 2002 and requested a 
dimensional variance to build a 2-bedroom home after demolishing a 
560 sq. ft. house.  The proposal was to build a 1615 sq. ft. house 
on 2 levels.  The proposed house was avant garde in design.

4. After the close of testimony, members of the zoning board 
raised concerns over the design, the size of the structure, and 
the height.

5. There was no opportunity for the applicant to address the 
concerns.

6. The Board voted to deny the application.

7. In July 2002, the applicant submitted a new application for the 
same property, which was heard by the Board in August 2002.

8. Two preliminary issues were raised:
   Does Section 505 of the zoning ordinance and/or the doctrine of    
administrative finality bar the Board from considering the new 
application?

9. As a finding, it is noted that between the 2 applications; to 
wit, on 6/25/02, R.I. General Law §45-24-41 was amended to 
eliminate the requirement of “no other reasonable alternative”.

10. As a finding, it is noted that the applicant sought to change 
the application pursuant to the concerns of the Board.

11. As a finding of fact, the changes between the 2 applications 
show a change in material circumstances:


1) 1,412 sq. ft.
2) 32’ height
3) change appearance drastically
4) change in roof line
5) siding changed and shingles
6) 10% smaller footprint
7) reduced length by 4 feet
8) south side setback changed from 19 ft. to 25 ft. 6 in.      

12. Therefore, Section 505 is not applicable.

13. The doctrine of administrative finality is not applicable.

14. Even if the doctrine were applicable, there is a substantial 
change in material circumstances.

15. The applicant has met its burden under amended section 45-24-
    41.      

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0. 


NEW BUSINESS

Jamestown Place Assoc. LLC
(Knowles Court)

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Dennis, Don, and Richard B.

A motion was made by Don Wineberg and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty 
to accept the withdrawal with prejudice, the request of Jamestown 
Place Associates, LLC (Knowles Court) at the request of John A. 
Murphy, Esq. due to the decision made on Sept. 10, 2002.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

Lemery

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Dennis, Don, and Raymond

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Don Wineberg 
to grant the request of Gary C. and Kathleen A. Lemery, whose 
property is located at 45 North Bay View Drive, and further 
identified as Tax Assessor’s Plat 1, Lot 218 for a variance from 
Article 3, Section 302, Table 3-2 (District Dimensional 
Regulations) to add a second floor addition (approximately 860 sq. 
ft. in size) to the existing one-story house.  The proposed 
addition will be 36’ from the front lot line wherein 40’ is 
required, 10’ from the north lot line, wherein 30’ is required.

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the 
requirements of Article 6, Section 600; Section 606, Paragraphs 1 
through 4; and Section 607, Paragraph 2.

This variance is granted with the restriction that a mimosa tree 
will be trimmed in a manner agreed to by the neighbor, Maurice 
Laflamme.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1.  Said property is located in a RR80 zone and contains 11,278 
sq. ft.

2. That the footprint of the house had not increased, there is 
simply a second floor being added.

3. That there were no objectors and that neighbors support the 
application.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

Kelly

A motion was made by Raymond Iannetta and seconded by Dennis 
Grieco to grant the request of John & Ramona Kelly, whose property 
is located at 123 Beach Ave., and further identified as Tax 
Assessor’s Plat 5, Lot 220 for a variance from Article 3, Section 
302 Table 3-2 (District Dimensional Regulations) to construct a 
one family dwelling 16 feet from the front of lot where 30 feet is 
required and 15 feet from corner where 20 feet is required.

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the 
requirements of Article 6, Section 600; Section 606, and Section 
607, Paragraph 2.

This variance is granted with the restriction that the garage will 
be in line with the living room on Beach Street as depicted in 
applicants Exhibit #1.  This Exhibit illustrates that the change 
to the original drawing C093502 has the garage reduced by 6’ along 
the entire length of Beach Avenue.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1.  Said property is located in a R40 zone and contains 7,200 sq. 
ft.

2. The hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to 
the unusual characteristics of the lot whereby a new sand filter 
ISDS requires the home be located further north towards Neptune 
Street 15’ rather than the required 20’ setback.

3. The granting of this variance will not alter the general 
characteristics of the neighborhood.

4. The new home will have 1,950 sq. ft. of living space, which is 
in character with other homes in the neighborhood.

5. There were no objectors to the application.

6. The relief is the least relief necessary for the unique corner 
lot.

7. The applicant reduced the garage by 6’ along Beach Avenue and 
placed the garage entrance on Neptune Street
 
The motion carried by a vote of 4 – 1.

Thomas Ginnerty voted against the motion.

Collins

As there was no one at the meeting representing the applicant a 
motion was made by Dennis Grieco and seconded by Raymond Iannetta 
to continue the application of John P. and Holly B. Collins to the 
October 22, 2002 meeting.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

DiBiase

As there was no one at the meeting representing the applicant a 
motion was made by Dennis Grieco and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty
to continue the application of Peter A. DiBiase to the October 22, 
2002 meeting.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

Young

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Dennis, Don, and Kathleen

A motion was made by Kathleen Managhan and seconded by Don 
Wineberg to grant the request of Patricia J. Young, whose property 
is located on Beavertail Rd., and further identified as Tax 
Assessor’s Plat 12, Lot 212 for a Dimensional Variance from 
Article 3, Section 308 (Setback From Wetland) to construct an ISDS 
approximately 100 feet from a freshwater wetland.

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the 
requirements of Article 6, Section 600, Section 606, and Section 
607, Paragraph 2. In particular reference to Article 6, Section 
606, Paragraphs 1 & 2.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1.Said property is located in a RR80 zone and contains 
approximately 25 acres.

2. The subject wetland is a pocket wetland by virtue of the previous 
use of land as a golf course.

3.The subject wetland, as a pocket wetland is isolated and not 
contiguous to a larger wetland system.

4. There is no other practical location for the proposed ISDS 
system due to existence of other wetlands on property.

5. Letter submitted by Jamestown Conservation Committee stating no 
objection to granting of 50’ variance.

6. The were no objectors.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

LONG

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Dennis, Don, and Richard B.

A motion was made by Dennis Grieco and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty 
to grant the request of Owen Long (prospective purchaser) and 
Samuel and Sheena Broadhurst, owners, whose property is located at 
56 Ocean Ave., and further identified as Tax Assessor’s Plat 8, 
Lot 34 for dimensional variances from Article 3, Sections 300 and 
302, and Table 3-2 (District Dimensional Regulations) to construct 
an addition to an existing dwelling which will be 14’6” from the 
front (westerly) lot line, 30’ required, and 3’9” from the 
northerly lot line, 10’ required.

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the 
requirements of Article 6, Section 600, Section 606, and Section 
607, Paragraph 2.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1.  Said property is located in a R20 zone and contains 9,250 sq. 
ft.

2. The encroachment of the house on the north side will not be 
increased at all by the proposed structure.

3. The encroachment of the house on the west side will increase by 
only 4” such that the proposed structure will be no closer than 
14’6” to the property line along Ocean Avenue.

4. The proposed addition is reasonable in scale and appropriate 
for the needs of the applicant’s family.

5. The owner indicated he would maintain the design details of the 
existing house, would “side” the house with wood shingles, and 
would construct the driveway with a permeable surface.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

Weaver

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Dennis, Don, and Raymond

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Dennis Grieco 
to grant the request of Thomas & Annette Weaver, whose property is 
located at 36 Mt. Hope Ave., and further identified as Tax 
Assessor’s Plat 8, Lot 577 for a variance from Article 3, Section 
302 (District Dimensional Regulations) to build an addition to an 
existing carport which will be 6’ from the easterly lot line, 10’ 
required, and to build an addition and deck to the existing 
dwelling which will be 8’2” from the easterly lot line, 10’ 
required.

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the 
requirements of Article 6, Section 600; Section 606, and Section 
607, Paragraph 2.

1. Said property is in a R20 zone and contains 10,000 sq. ft.

2. That the proposed modification does not extend the eastward 
encroachment, which pre-existed the previous application.

3. The roofline will be raised to only approximately 19 ft., 
within the legal limit.

4. There were no objectors.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

ADJOURNMENT

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn at 10:07 p.m.

The motion carried unanimously.
4

4