JAMESTOWN ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW

 

     Minutes of the May 20, 2008 Meeting

 

 

A regular meeting of the Jamestown Zoning Board of Review was held at the Jamestown Town Hall, 93 Narragansett Avenue.  The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.  The clerk called the roll and noted the following members present:

 

Thomas Ginnerty

Richard Boren

Joseph Logan

David Nardolillo

Dean Wagner

Richard Cribb

Richard Allphin

 

Also present:       Brenda Hanna, Stenographer

Pat Westall, Zoning Clerk

Fred Brown, Zoning Officer

Wyatt Brochu, Counsel

 

 

 

 

Zoning Board of Review

 

MINUTES

 

Minutes of March 25, 2008

 

 

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Richard Boren to accept the minutes of the March 25, 2008 meeting as presented.

 

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

 

Thomas Ginnerty, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, David Nardolillo, and Dean Wagner voted in favor of the motion.

 

Richard Cribb, and Richard Allphin were not seated and Don Wineberg was absent. 

 

 

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Phelan

 

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Richard Boren to continue the application of Jack F. Phelan, Jr. to the June 24, 2008 meeting at the request of Fred Brown due to a faulty notice.

 

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

 

Thomas Ginnerty, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, David Nardolillo, and Dean Wagner voted in favor of the motion.

 

Richard Cribb, and Richard Allphin were not seated and Don Wineberg was absent. 

 

 

 

Alexander

 

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by David Nardolillo to deny the request of Thomas F. Alexander, whose property is located at 959 East Shore Rd., and further identified as Tax Assessor’s Plat 1, Lot 90 for a variance from Article 3, Table 3-2 (District Dimensional Regulations) to construct an enclosed porch which will be 16’ from the southerly lot line instead of the required 40’. 

 

This Board has determined that this application does not 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 RR80 zone and contains 26,500 sq. ft.

2.             That the proposed addition could be located to the north of the house or to other locations on the property rather than to the south without any relief and therefore avoid an encroachment in the required setback.

3.             The applicant failed to articulate any hardship in a denial, except referred to a future addition of a great room to the north, which would constitute a self-created hardship.

 

 

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

 

Thomas Ginnerty, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, David Nardolillo, and Dean Wagner voted in favor of the motion.

 

Richard Cribb, and Richard Allphin were not seated and Don Wineberg was absent. 

 

 

Myles

 

A motion was made by Joseph Logan and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty to grant the request of Robert & Meg Myles, whose property is located at 7 Felucca Ave., and further identified as Tax Assessor’s Plat 16, Lot 163 for a variance from Article 3, Section 302, (District Dimensional Regulations) to add a second floor addition to an existing non-conforming structure which will be 20’ from the easterly (front) lot line, 40’ being 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 R40 zone and contains 28,800 sq. ft.

2.          The applicant’s lot has been merged with lot 162 to the north, removing the former north non-conformity.

3.          The proposed deck itself will not encroach further to the east, with the exception of a small stairway.

4.          Other dwellings on the street have similar front setbacks.

 

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

 

Thomas Ginnerty, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, David Nardolillo, and Dean Wagner voted in favor of the motion.

 

Richard Cribb, and Richard Allphin were not seated and Don Wineberg was absent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Huntoon

 

A motion was made by Richard Boren and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty to deny the request of Howard & Ann Huntoon, whose property is located at 20 Coulter St., and further identified as Tax Assessor’s Plat 7, Lot 31 for a variance from Article 3, Table 3-2 (District Dimensional Regulations) and Section 311 (Maximum Size of Accessory Structures) to rebuild and expand a non-conforming shed. Said shed (18’ x 20’) will be 4.3’ from the front (Coulter St.) property line (30’ being required) and 2.5’ from the northerly lot line (10’being required), and will result in an increase in the combined footprint of accessory structures to 655 sq. ft.

 

This Board has determined that this application does not 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 R40 zone and contains 11,407 sq. ft.

2.          The subject parcel is a legally, non-conforming lot of record.

3.          There is presently an existing dwelling, an existing enclosed porch/cottage, an existing shed, and a garden shed.

4.          The replacement shed would add 54 sq. ft., changing the total square footage of all accessory structures to 655 sq. ft., which would require a variance from 82-311.

5.          The applicants have not met their burden of proof in seeking a variance from 82-311.

6.          Although the replacement shed will add only 54 sq. ft. to the structure and the additional 54 sq. ft. will not be within the setback lines, the replacement shed itself will still be 4.3 feet from the front property line, wherein 30’ is required, and 2.5’ from the northerly lot line setback, wherein 10’ is required.

7.          Clearly, the replacement shed could be placed in an area of the yard, which would meet the zoning setback requirements.

8.          The applicant had reasonable alternatives for the location of the shed, but chose not to present those alternatives.

9.          The applicant has not met his burden with respect to the alleged hardship. 

 

 

Richard Boren withdrew the motion.

 

A motion was made by Richard Boren and seconded by Dean Wagner to grant the   request of Howard & Ann Huntoon, whose property is located at 20 Coulter St., and further identified as Tax Assessor’s Plat 7, Lot 31 for a variance from Article 3, Table 3-2 (District Dimensional Regulations) and Section 311 (Maximum Size of Accessory Structures) to rebuild and expand a non-conforming shed. Said shed (18’ x 20’) will be 4.3’ from the front (Coulter St.) property line (30’ being required) and 2.5’ from the northerly lot line (10’being required), and will result in an increase in the combined footprint of accessory structures to 655 sq. ft.

 

 This Variance is granted with the condition upon removal of the smaller shed to be within the 600-foot requirement.

 

This project must be constructed in strict accordance with the site and building plans duly approved by this Board.

 

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

 

1.      Said property is located in a R40 zone and contains 11,407 sq. ft.

2.      The present existing shed will be within the same setback lines as far as the distance, the 10 ft. and the 30 ft.

3.      The expansion of 54 ft. will not be within the setback areas but will be in other areas

4.      There is a well system 3 ft. behind the existing shed.

5.      There are also old trees in the middle of the yard.

6.      It would severely prohibit the use of the yard.

7.      No neighbors objected to the variance request.

 

Thomas Ginnery stated that he is opposed to the motion, he is opposed to it on the basis that the proposed alteration—proposed rebuilding of the shed which will require the demolishing of the shed should not be made in compliance with the ordinance placed in the area that is permitted, that there is no evidence to show that there is any kind of substantial landscaping had been changed, and there is no evidence to show that there is any kind of substantial hardship and use of the yard in that this proposed new shed will be easily placed in a location in compliance with the zoning ordinance. It could be made in compliance.

 

 

 

The motion failed by a vote of 2 –3

 

Richard Boren and Dean Wagner voted in favor of the motion.

 

Thomas Ginnerty, Joseph Logan, and David Nardolillo voted against the motion. 

 

Richard Cribb and Richard Allphin were not seated and Don Winberg was absent.



 

 

With respect to the first motion made by Richard Boren, Thomas Ginnerty is now making that motion and that he incorporates the findings of fact set forth in that motion. Mr. Ginnerty’s recent comments in denying the previous motion are set forth and incorporated by reference in this motion to deny.

 

The motion failed by a 2 – 3 vote.

 

Thomas Ginnerty, Joseph Logan, and David Nardolillo voted in favor of the motion. 

 

Richard Boren and Dean Wagner voted against the motion.

 

Richard Cribb and Richard Allphin were not seated and Don Winberg was absent.

 

 

 

Solicitor’s Report

 

Nothing to report at this time.

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

 

A motion was made by Joseph Logan and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty to go into executive session at 8:40 p.m.

 

The motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.

 

Thomas Ginnerty, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, David Nardolillo, and Dean Wagner voted in favor of the motion.

 

Richard Cribb, and Richard Allphin were not seated and Don Wineberg was absent. 

 

 

The Board chose to convene in Executive Session   pursuant to RIGL 42-46-5 (a) (2) Litigation (Frank and Magdalena Andres, Appellants, v. Thomas Ginnerty, Don Wineberg, Richard Boren, Joseph Logan, and David Nardolillo, in their capacity as Members of the Zoning Board of Review of the Town of Jamestown and Windridge Properties, LLC, Appellees.  C.A. No. NC 2008-0121

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn at 9:55 p.m.

 

The motion carried unanimously.