**** UNAPPROVED MINUTES ****

  JAMESTOWN ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW

  Minutes of the August 26, 1997 Meeting

A regular meeting of the Jamestown Zoning Board of Review was held at the
Jamestown Town Hall, 93 Narragansett Avenue.
      The meeting was called to order by the Chairwoman at 7:02 p.m.  The
clerk called the roll and noted the following members present:

  Catherine Finney, Chairwoman
                          Rolf Knudsen
  Richard Allphin
  Thomas Ginnerty
   Dennis Grieco 
  Don Wineberg
  Raymond Iannetta

Also present were:

  Jane Fitts, Stenographer
  Pat Westall, Zoning Clerk
  Mary Jo Carr, Counsel

MINUTES of JUNE 24, 1997
 
Seated: Catherine, Rolf, Richard, Thomas, and Raymond.

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Richard Allphin to
accept the minutes of the June 24, 1997 meeting as written.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0.

MINUTES of JULY 22, 1997

Due to the absence of Guy Settipane there was not a quorum to act on the
minutes of July 22, 1997.

CORRESPONDENCE

Coastal Features Volume V, No. 4, Summer 1997.

A letter from MaryJo Carr re: Quattrocchi and Bucklin complaints with
copies of each appeal.

Memorandum from Planning Commission re:Comprehensive Plan Citizens Survey.
      The clerk was directed to obtain a copy of the survey from the
Commission and the members of the Board could respond individually.
Seated: Catherine, Rolf, Richard, Thomas, and Dennis.

OLD BUSINESS

HAMMETT COURT

A motion was made by Richard Allphin and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty to
continue the application of Hammett Court Properties to the October 28,
1997 meeting at the request of their attorney John Murphy to allow the
parties time the discuss a possible resolution.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0.

NEW BUSINESS

CROOKE

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Richard Allphin to
grant the request of Susan J. Crooke, whose property is located at 98 Cole
St., and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plat 9, Lot 616 for a
variance from Article 3, Section 302, Table 3-2 (District Dimensional
Regulations) to subdivide and sell off a small portion of lot 616 to have
that portion joined with lot 609.

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the
requirements of Article 6, 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 an R20 zone and contains 17,982 sq.    ft.

2. That granting the variance would allow the subdivision and transfer of
a small portion of lot 616 to be joined with lot 609, thereby bringing the
boundaries into conformity with the practice of the parties and provide a
regular boundary dimension between the lots.

3. That the owner of lot 609 has in the past continuously utilized the
subject portion of lot 616 for his own use.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0.
CANNON

A motion was made by Rolf Knudsen and seconded by Dennis Grieco to deny
the request of Joseph & Gladys Cannon, whose property is located at 276
Capstan St., and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plat 3, Lot 131 for
a variance from Article 3, Section 311 (Maximum Size of Accessory
Structure) to construct a garage workshop of 1,040 sq. ft. instead of the
maximum allowed 600 sq. ft.

This Board has determined that this application does not satisfy the
requirements of Article 6, Section 606, Paragraphs 1 through 4, and
Section 607, Paragraph 2.  In particular reference to Article 6, Section
606, Paragraph 1, 3, & 4, and Section 607, Paragraph 2.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1. Said property is located in an R40 zone and contains 23,504 sq. ft.

2. We do not know the location of the septic system and feel that it is
required before any application could be granted.

3. According to Article 3, Section 311 an accessory structure may not have
a footprint larger than 600 sq. ft. or 30% of the gross living area of the
principal structure on the lot, and in no case shall any combination of
accessory structures have a gross floor area greater than 50% of the gross
living area of the principal structure.
      This application exceeds all of the above areas and percentages by
as much as 200%. 

4. There were abutters who strongly objected to this application and felt
that their property values would be impacted in a negative way.

5. There are other alternatives to this plan that would require less
relief from the zoning ordinance and still provide the garage and storage
space to the applicant.

6. The size of the proposed structure is unusually large and atypical of
the surrounding properties.

The motion to deny carried by a vote of 5 - 0.

HOLMES

A motion was made by Richard Allphin and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty to
grant the request of Andrew & Margaret Holmes, whose property is located
at 14 Holmested Court, and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plat 2,
Lot 100 for a variance from Article 3, Table 3-2 (District Dimensional
Regulations) to construct a garage addition to an existing home which will
be 25 feet from the northerly boundary, 30 feet being required, and a
waterfront access stairway which will be 3 feet on the north and south
boundary lines
where 20 feet is required.

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

This variance is granted with the restriction that the applicant must
obtain approval from CRMC for the water access stairway.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1. Said property is located in an R80 zone and contains 80,170 sq. ft.

2. The nearest abutter is in favor of granting these variances.  No one
spoke against the issuance of the variances.

3. The variance for the stairway is the minimum necessary because the lot
is only 10' wide in the portion that leads to the waterfront.
      The applicant withdrew the request for permission to build a deck.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0.

AT&T

A motion was made by Dennis Grieco and seconded by Rolf Knudsen to deny
the request of Wireless PCS, Inc., d\b\a AT&T Wireless Services, (State of
Rhode Island, owners), whose property is located at 180 Tashtassuc Road,
and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plat 6, Lot 46 for a special use
permit under Article 3-1 Table 3-1, V 12, 17 and a variance from Article
3, Section 305 (Exceptions to Height Regulations) for the purpose of
installing a 75' tall flagpole with attached radio frequency antennas and
a 5' x 6' x 3' cabinet.

This Board has determined that the application does not satisfy the
requirements of Article 6, Section 606, Paragraphs 1 through 4, and
Section 607, Paragraph 2.
AT&T cont.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1. The property is located in a RR200 zone.

2. The applicant requires a special use permit and a dimensional variance
from the setback requirements of Section 305.

3. The hardship from which the applicant seeks relief results primarily
from the applicants desire to increase its digital phone network, attract
customers and realize a greater financial gain.

4. The applicant has not demonstrated that there is no other reasonable
alternative, as less obtrusive digital cells are apparently being utilized
in other regions and the applicant was unable to demonstrate that such
options were explored or were not reasonably available.

5. A reasonable alternative currently exists in that digital and cell
phone users can reasonably continue with the service now available.

6. The application submitted was inadequate and did not provide proper
notice in that (a) it did not contain accurate plans of the proposed
project (b) failed to explain the width of the pole to be utilized (c)
inaccurately described the structures needed in addition to the pole and
(d) did not adequately describe the dimensional relief being sought.

7. A number of objectors testified that the proposed pole would be
incompatible with the surrounding area and environment.

8. The relief requested has not been demonstrated to be the least relief
necessary, as it appears other, less obtrusive, digital cells are being
utilized in other regions and the applicant has not explored the
availability of such cells in the area at issue.

The motion to deny carried by a vote of 5 - 0.

TERMS

Term limits were discussed and Catherine Finney will draft a letter to the
Town Council.

ADJOURNMENT

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m.