Minutes of the January 29, 2008
Meeting
A
regular meeting of the Jamestown Zoning Board of Review was held at the
Thomas Ginnerty
Don Wineberg
Richard Boren
Joseph Logan
David Nardolillo
Dean Wagner
Richard Cribb
Richard Allphin
Also
present: Cindy Tangney,
Stenographer
Pat Westall, Zoning Clerk
Fred Brown, Zoning Officer
Wyatt Brochu, Counsel
Planning
Board of Appeal
Windridge
Their
attorney Donald J. Packer withdrew the appeal of Windridge Properties.
Zoning
Board of Review
MINUTES
Minutes
of the
A motion
was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Don Wineberg to accept the minutes
of the
The
motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.
Thomas
Ginnerty, Don Wineberg, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, and David Nardolillo voted
in favor of the motion.
Dean
Wagner, Richard Cribb, and Richard Allphin were not seated.
NEW
BUSINESS
Windridge
A motion
was made by Richard Boren and seconded by Don Wineberg to grant the request of
Windridge Properties, LLC whose property is located at 14 Clinton Ave., and
further identified as Tax Assessor’s Plat 9, Lot 201 for a Special Use Permit
from Article 12, Section 82-1205 Shared Parking to be allowed to utilize extra
parking spaces on the abutting property (Hammett Court) to provide the 21
spaces needed for parking.
This Board
has determined that this application does satisfy the requirements of ARTICLE
6, SECTIONS 600 and 602.
This
Special Use Permit is granted with the following restriction/condition(s):
1.
This
project must be constructed in strict accordance with the site and building
plans duly approved by this Board.
2. Before the termination of any lease,
amendment or extension the applicant has the burden of notifying the Town and
the Building Official of any new lease extension. If the agreement is not in place, the special
use permit is null and void.
3. Any lease, lease amendment, or
extension must be recorded in the land evidence records prior to any
expiration.
This motion
is based on the following findings of fact:
1.
Said
property is located in a CD zone and contains 12,605 sq. ft.
2.
The
applicant cannot meet the parking standards of this ordinance on the property
where the use is proposed.
3.
The
proposed shared use will not interfere with the parking required of the existing
uses currently served by the parking area.
4.
The
shared use will not create traffic circulation problems or a safety hazard to
pedestrians.
5.
The
Planning Board has recommended approval of the modifications and has
recommended approval to the Zoning Board provided the applicant satisfactorily
demonstrates that additional parking spaces required to accommodate the
building as modified are available per the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
6.
The applicant has testified he has 18
required spaces.
7.
There has been factual testimony and legal
opinion that 21 spaces are required.
8.
Mr. Brittain has made arrangements to share
3 spaces from
9.
A lease agreement has been executed between
Windridge and Hammett providing for 3 specific spaces on the
10.
The lease agreement provides that the
termination of the lease will not be effective until the landlords provide
notice to the Town.
11.
There has been testimony that Hammett needs
27 spaces.
12.
There has been testimony from Jack Brittain
and an Exhibit that Hammett has 48 spaces.
13.
Jack Brittain has testified that the only
tenant at this time will be his company, Jack’s Electric.
14.
The intent is to maintain one tenant.
15.
Jack Brittain testified that Jack’s
Electric maintains 6 vehicles for company use. He also testified he has 8
employees, all of whom drive to work. In
addition, Jack stated that both he and his wife drive their personal vehicles
to work.
16.
Jack Brittain testified that the Jack’s
Electric vehicles would be deployed to various job sites during the day.
17.
Out of the 18 Windridge spaces, only 10 may
be utilized at any time.
18.
Fred Brown, the Building Official, has
testified that the
19.
There
has been testimony that the
20.
Based
upon all of the testimony and the exhibits the applicant has met the burden of
proof.
21.
There
was substantial argument by counsel for 2 objectors, but little substantive
testimony disproving the applicant’s prima facia case for a special use permit.
22.
The
testimony and photographs introduced by Magdalena Andres was not probative.
23.
Magdalena
Andres also testified that she has never seen the Hammett lot filled.
24. The
Planning Board decision of
The
motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.
Thomas
Ginnerty, Don Wineberg, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, and David Nardolillo voted
in favor of the motion.
Dean
Wagner, Richard Cribb, and Richard Allphin were not seated.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion
was made and seconded to adjourn at
The
motion carried unanimously.