Town of North Kingstown, Rhode Island

Transcription

1 Town of North Kingstown, Rhode Island 80 Boston Neck Road North Kingstown, RI Phone: (401) Fax: (401) Web: NORTH KINGSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW March 26, 2013 The North Kingstown Zoning Board of Review convened in the Town Hall Conference Room, 80 Boston Neck Road at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Daniel Pirhala, Chair John Gibbons James Almeida Brierley Mellor Vincent Brunelle Arthur Cardente Joseph Bambara Also in attendance were Town Solicitor James Reilly, Town Building Official Gary Tedeschi and Principal Planner Rebecca Lamond. Liz Greeley was the Allied Court Reporter for this meeting. Mr. Pirhala called the meeting to order and explained the proceedings as follows. The applicant or their representative would be asked to come forward, be sworn in, and give a brief explanation of their application. The Board will then ask questions of the applicant before opening the floor to public comment. After all has been heard, the public portion of the meeting will be closed. Decisions are usually rendered the same evening; however, continuances for more information may occur. 1

2 There is a 20-day appeal period once the Minutes have been approved at the February 26, 2013 meeting. No building permits may be granted until after the appeal period. Minutes, and a decision to each petition, are recorded in the Town Clerk s office. Mr. Pirhala asked if the Agenda for tonight s meeting had been filed with the Secretary of State s Office. Ms. Lamond replied that it had. The Board adheres to a 10:00 p.m. curfew. Minutes A minor edit was made. Mr. Gibbons made a motion to approve the Minutes of the March 12, 2012 meeting. Dr. Brunelle seconded, all voted aye, and the motion carried. Decision Washington County Community Development Corporation, AP 92, Lot 60 Mr. Pirhala called for a motion for permission to sign this decision. Mr. Gibbons moved that the Zoning Board of Review to accept the decision as presented. Dr. Brunelle seconded. All voted aye. The decision is signed. Decision Michael C. DellaGrotta, AP 117, Lot136 Mr. Pirhala called for a motion for permission to sign this decision. Dr. Brunelle moved to authorize the signature of the decision dated March 19. Mr. Cardente seconded. All voted aye. The decision is signed. Norman L. Grant, 30 Seaview Avenue, AP 68, Lot 178, for relief under chapter 21, special use permit and dimensional variance from Section (7) and (7)(9) to maintain an existing accessory dwelling unit on a lot with less than the required lot size. Mr. Grant came forward and was sworn in. He told the Board that there is an apartment in the basement of his home that was present when he bought the property in He has rented it out since that time. Mr. Grant said that he has an affidavit from the previous owner which states that the apartment has been in place since the time he bought it in the early 60 s. There is a kitchen, dining area, living room, bedroom and bathroom in the unit. Mr. Grant said that he would like to keep the apartment. Mr. Pirhala asked Ms. Lamond if this has been taxed as a dwelling with an accessory dwelling. Ms. Lamond answered yes; she added that sometimes the Assessor s records don t match the Building Official s. Mr. Tedeschi added that he looked into whether the accessory unit had been taxed since 1974 (when the zoning ordinance was adopted), if it had been, he would have considered it a grandfathered use. This property was not taxed as such at that time. Mr. Tedeschi said that in his office s permit files, there were no records regarding the installation of a kitchen or anything else that would signify an accessory unit. He said that looking into the 2

3 past; there was nothing in the zoning of this property that would have allowed an additional unit. At this time, this Board s approval would clear up any outstanding questions about the unit s legality. Mr. Almeida asked Mr. Grant how many bedrooms were in the entire dwelling. Mr. Grant answered 4. There is a 4 bedrooms OWTS system in place. Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Grant if he gets a lot of visitors there on the weekend. Mr. Grant said no his children visit once in a while. Mr. Pirhala opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Albert J. King, Jr. of Seaview Ave. came forward and was sworn in. He explained that he created the basement. He was in the process of building the second story when he and his wife went through a divorce. One of their attorneys s suggested finishing off the basement for one or the other to live in while the other lived above until the children turned 18. So he did. He said that he never took out a permit or got approval for it this was sometime during the 60 s. Mr. Jack King, Sr. came forward and was sworn in. He said that he had met with Mr. Grant in the past week because he was concerned about the number of occupants in the house. He and Mr. Grant agreed that there were 5 (Mr. Grant and a family of 4). Mr. King said that if a two family dwelling is allowed, the house occupant number could grow. The lot is small and does not support the size of the house. Parking is also a concern; right now, the residents are parking on public land that belongs to the Hamilton Association. Mr. King said that he is fine with it right now, but would be really concerned if the property sold. Ms. Lamond explained the ordinance requirements (which places limits on what can happen there) to Mr. King. Mr. Pirhala asked Mr. Tedeshci about codes that deal with the number of occupants allowed to reside in a unit. Mr. Teseschi said that Mr. Grant said that there were 5 residents now and the code allows for more than that. Mr. Tedeschi said that the number of bedrooms and their size dictates how many occupants are allowed according to state law. Mr. Ronald Dale came forward and was sworn in. He said he was also at the meeting that occurred with Mr. Grant and Mr. King last week. He mentioned the trouble that emergency vehicles have getting down the one way street (Seaview Ave.). Seaview Ave. is also posted as a no parking street and Mr. Grant has recently added a stone parking spot adjacent to the street, which looks like it would allow a vehicle to park on the street, against ordinance as well as making it more difficult for emergency vehicles to get down the road. Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Grant how many cars can park on his property right now. He answered that none can, but land across the street has been deeded to him for parking. Mr. Grant said that six cars can park there. He added that no neighbors have complained about the parking in the past. Mr. Dale said that the new addition put on last year could conceivably be turned into two additional bedrooms in the future. 3

4 Mr. Grant explained who is living in the house and that they are basically living in the entire house as a family. Mr. Gibbons said it sounds like right now, there are 5 people living in a 4 bedroom house which is acceptable. Mr. Reilly said that the neighbors seem concerned with the number of people living in the house; the Board has no authority to rule on that. Mr. Dale said that Seaview Ave. is a street of single family dwellings. Mr. Grant pointed out that there are other multi-family dwellings in the area. Ms. Lamond added that she pointed out area multi-family dwellings in her staff report; but she did not look at the off-street parking for those properties. Ms. Sally King came forward and was sworn in. She said that she is aware of the terms two family dwelling and in-law dwelling but she had not heard of an accessory dwelling and was curious of the difference. Mr. Reilly answered her question. He told her that state law now said that when an accessory dwelling unit is located on a property, the residents no longer have to be related. The term inlaw is no longer used. There are other criteria that must be met, one being the square footage, another that the owner must reside on the premises. He added that there are also building codes which define an accessory unit most of those have to do with bedroom counts. Ms. King asked if the number of cars that are parked at a dwelling fall into criteria for accessory dwelling units. Ms. Lamond answered that the ordinance specifies that there be one parking space allowed for the accessory unit. Mr. Reilly said, that the ordinance, however, does not state that the owner must provide off-street parking. Ms. King said then that makes it alright that the house residents park on the common land across the street from the property. Mr. Reilly said that Mr. Grant has stated that he has a quit claim deed to park there it is not the purview of the Zoning Board to make that determination. He said that if the neighbors are in disagreement, then they should seek legal counsel in order to pursue this in a civil court. Mr. Pirhala asked if there was anyone else who wanted to comment or question the application. There was none. Dr. Brunelle moved to close the public portion of the application. Mr. Cardente seconded. All voted aye. The public portion was closed. Mr. Reilly said that the Board had to find facts on granting the special use permit that would allow the accessory dwelling unit and then find facts that would allow the dimensional variance for the lot size. Mr. Gibbons began to make findings for the issuance of a special use permit. He said that the issuance of a special use permit would not alter the general character of the surrounding area primarily because the applicant has testified that there are several buildings in the immediate area that have multi-occupancy. Mr. Gibbons added that the granting of a special use permit would not pose a threat to the public drinking supply because the property is presently serviced by town water. Mr. Gibbons said that the special use permit is reasonably necessary to serve the public convenience and welfare because someone lives there. 4

5 Mr. Gibbons continued that the special permit will not disrupt the neighborhood or privacy of abutting landowners by excessive noise, light, glare or air pollutants based on the testimony of the neighbors and the applicant, that as long as the use is as described, then this will not be disruptive. Sewerage and waste disposal in the ground and the surface water drainage will all be handled on site; the sewerage for the four bedroom house is handled by a four bedroom septic system. He added that a year ago, this Board granted permission to put an addition on at this property and at the time it was determined that surface water drainage was adequate. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not cause undue congestion or introduce a traffic hazard based on the testimony that everybody utilizes the space provided across the street and that the vehicles are not parked on or along the street, there is sufficient access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Gibbons began to find facts for the granting of the dimensional variance. Mr. Gibbons said that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not the general characteristics of the surrounding area because the neighborhood consists of small lots and the houses on those lots have grown resulting in using most of the land. Dr. Brunelle continued that the applicant has testified that the hardship is not a result of any prior action and the primary result is not for financial gain. He testified that the apartment was there when he bought the property. Dr. Brunelle added that the previous owner testified that he put the apartment in. Dr. Brunelle continued that the granting of this variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of this chapter or the comprehensive plan because this house from the outside appears to fit with all of the other houses in the neighborhood. Dr. Brunelle said that the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary because the property has had an accepted additional unit (for tax purpose) for a number of years. Mr. Pirhala added that most of the items from (7) for accessory dwelling units have been met. Mr. Gibbons made one other finding that the hardship to the owner if the granting of the relief is not granted will result in more than a mere inconvenience because the owner bought a house that had this use in it and he is applying that use to his family, therefore, if he did not have it he would not have benefit of full use of the property as it was presented to him at the time of purchase. Mr. Pirhala said that what is being sought here is a special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit and dimensional relief of 13,902 sq. ft. to allow an accessory dwelling unit on a 6,098 sq. ft. parcel (20,000 sq. ft. is required. He called for a motion. Mr. Gibbons moved that the Board grant the special use permit from Section (7) Accessory Dwelling Units to permit an accessory dwelling unit and that the Board grant a dimensional variance from Section (7)(9) to permit an accessory dwelling unit on a lot with less than the required minimum lot size; specifically a 13,902 sq. ft. variance to allow an accessory dwelling unit on a 6,098 sq. ft. parcel where 20,000 sq. ft. is required. These recommendations are based on the testimony of the applicant, the testimony of the neighbors and the findings of fact. He added that as conditions, all required building permits are obtained for the accessory dwelling unit and that all construction is done in strict conformance with the 5

6 submitted plan set unless minor modifications are approved administratively by the Planning Department. Mr. Pirhala asked if there was any further discussion by the Board before they voted. Mr. Cardente said that he is concerned with the parking situation; this property has very limited parking. He said that the common use parking is wonderful but if other neighbors want to utilize that parking, they have every right to. Mr. Pirhala said that he did not think that the Board could condition the use of parking in the motion because it was in fact common land. Mr. Reilly said that the accessory dwelling unit ordinance only specifies that one space be required for the accessory dwelling, that the Board could require that the owner establish that one onsite parking space. Dr. Brunelle said that was already required by Section 325(7) requirement #4. Mr. Gibbons asked if the fact that the owner said that he had deeded rights to parking across the street, couldn t that be established as the parking. Mr. Reilly said that the owner stated that he had a quit claim deed from someone to use the property for parking, but that did not meet the ordinance which states an onsite parking space must be in place. Mr. Cardente agreed with some of the abutter s testimony about the difficulty that emergency vehicles might have to tackle to get down the street. Mr. Gibbons said he did not hear any objection from the neighbors that the use of the common land for parking was a problem. Mr. Pirhala asked if they could approve the relief but condition it that a parking space will be established. Mr. Reilly said that they could. Dr. Brunelle pointed out that it appeared that establishing a parking space may be impossible; the septic system is in the front yard. Ms. Lamond addressed the gravel strip that runs across the front of the property which could provide parallel parking. Dr. Brunelle responded that there is no parking along the street, as testified by the neighbors. He added that if he knew the exact width of the gravel strip that might provide the evidence that parking along the strip would be considered onsite parking rather than street parking. Dr. Brunelle then suggested a continuance of the application for further evaluation. Ms. Lamond suggested a class I survey that would establish the measure. Dr. Brunelle said that there was a OWTS application presented at the last hearing that may have the engineering that is needed as well. Mr. Reilly agreed that was an option. Mr. Gibbons moved to withdraw his previous motion. Dr. Brunelle seconded. All voted aye. The motion was withdrawn. Mr. Pirhala called for a motion to re-open the public hearing. Dr. Brunelle moved. Mr. Cardente seconded. All voted aye. The public hearing is opened. Mr. Pirhala then called for a motion to continue the application. Dr. Brunelle moved to continue the application of Norman Grant of 30Seaview Ave. Assessor s Plat 68 Lot 178 for information with regards to parking in the front of the property for size and dimensions on April 23, This information shall contain a class I survey and OWTS plan. Mr. Gibbons seconded. All voted aye. The application is continued to determine the parking availability. 6

7 HK New Plan Hunt River Commons, LLC, AP 177, Lot 21, 20 Frenchtown Road, to appeal a Notice of Violations and denial of a change of tenancy/occupancy application to operate a Great Clips hair salon in a groundwater overlay zone 1. Mr. John Bolton, an attorney with the law firm of Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, representing the applicant came forward. Shawn Whitney, the applicant also came forward and was sworn in. Mr. Reilly told the Board that this appeal was a bit different most of the other appeals they were presented, the Board tonight is acting in concert with the zoning officer (Mr. Tedeschi), rather than looking at an already recorded board decision. Mr. Tedeschi gave a presentation. He told everyone that he is the building and zoning official for the town. In January, his office received an application for a change of tenancy, (this was entered into the record as town exhibit #1). He explained how this application works to ensure that all of the various town offices are notified of the change of business, while driving approvals for updated taxes, licenses, permitting and zoning this is all done per town ordinance. Mr. Tedeschi said that as part of his review, he looks at the plat and lot map (he introduced a copy of the subject plat 177 and lot 21 as town exhibit #2). He noted that the property is located in the PR (Post Road) zoning district and also lies within the towns groundwater 1 overlay district (GW1). At the time of review, two town departments denied the application the building official s department and the zoning department. The town ordinance states that this use (beauty shops, hair salons and barbershops) is not allowed in the groundwater overlay district (he introduces a copy of the ordinance as town exhibit #3). Mr. Pirhala asked Mr. Tedeschi about exhibit #1 which listed the proposed use as a hair salon, but then listed a barbershop also. Mr. Tedeschi explained that the applicant had applied twice for the change of tenancy - this was not due to his error but the town s software was brand new and there was a glitch, so a new application was called for one listed hair salon as the use, the other listed barbershop. Mr. Tedeschi said that both were denied. Mr. Tedeschi said that he did not approve the change of tenancy because of the prohibited use in the groundwater overlay district. He entered exhibit #4, a copy of the denial letter (dated January 25, 2013) Mr. Tedeschi sent to the applicant. Mr. Tedeshci added that though the letter appears to be a Notice of Violation that is due to the new software package s language, so he does not want the Board to think that he served the applicant with a violation. He said that a Notice of Violation would have been issued if Mr. Whitney had opened the business or was using hair chemicals without giving the town prior notice. Mr. Bolton presented his case. First off, he wanted to state that although the use listed on the change of tenancy application was both hair salon and barbershop, the correct use is neither of those. He said that the applicant s proposed use does not fall into any of the prohibited uses listed in the ordinance. He asked Mr. Whitney what his relationship was to this matter. Mr. Whitney answered that he is the owner of a Great Clips franchise and the prospective tenant of this location. He is proposing no appointment haircuts, primarily to the male market. He said that he offers no hair coloring services. He said that hair permanent services would not be offered at this location. Mr. Whitney said that shampooing is offered as an option. Mr. Whitney said that shampooing is an up-charge, most clients do not choose it (less than 3%, according to 7

8 Boston marketing data done in the previous 12 months); he said that Great Clips stores are marketed for price and time value. Mr. Pirhala called to open the public portion of the application. Mr. Mellor moved. Dr. Brunelle seconded. Mr. Prihala opened the meeting to the public. Ms. Patricia Sylvestre came forward and was sworn in. She said that she is a North Kingstown resident, but is also a Great Clips franchisee (her shops are in Rochester and Concord, NH). She said that when she opened the shop in Rochester, she ran into the same situation that is happening with this application, they did not want any chemicals going into their system. She said that Great Clips does not offer hair coloring it is not market they want to be in; she added that only 1% of Great Clips shops within the US offer hair permanents. She said that Great Clips has stringent guidelines that franchisee s must adhere to. She noted that shampooing is a very small sale at both of her locations. She said that the Stop and Shop grocery store and the Wendy s restaurant already located in the proposed shopping center probably use harsher cleaners than the shampoo Mr. Whitney would be using. Ms. Lamond said that the Stop and Shop store and the Wendy s restaurant had to gain Land Development approval, where the groundwater was of major concern. As part of those approvals, the town water department made sure that strict guidelines were in place for the installed systems and the maintenance of them. She continued that the main reason the proposed use of hair salon and/or barbershop are prohibited in the groundwater is because of the chemical use; but also because it is nearly impossible to police and enforce whether chemicals are being used with this use. She said this is the reason that the ordinance blankets the use. Mr. Bolton summarized his client s intent. He said that the proposed shop Mr. Whitney is proposing is not a beauty shop, salon, parlor or hair salon. He said that under the town ordinance, the definition of a barbershop is directed to RI general law; the referred general law has been repealed, so from a legal standpoint, there is no definition in the town ordinance. Mr. Bolton continued saying that Mr. Whitney has testified that chemical uses will not be done at his business. He said that he understands Ms. Lamond s comment about the trouble with policing the use, but that is a problem with any use within the town. He said that according to Mr. Tedeschi s testimony, if his client was ever found to be using chemicals, the business would be shut down. If the Board decided to approve the application it could be conditioned that none of these services will be provided. Mr. Bolton added that the impact of two shampoos a day was less than the impact of a residence with three teenagers. He respectively asked the Board to consider the application and remember that this business is new to town, will occupy a vacant shop, will be locally owned, and will offer employment to 8-12 people. Ms. Lamond wanted the Board to be aware that this use does fit into the town definition of a hair dresser. Mr. Pirhala called to close the public hearing. Mr. Gibbons moved to close the public meeting. Mr. Mellor seconded. All voted aye. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Reilly again reminded the Board that they are sitting now basically as building officials; they are not judging Mr. Tedeschi s decision. The Board is making their own conclusion and decision. Mr. Gibbons stated that there are nearby uses that include another restaurant, an auto body shop, a hardware store and a major manufacturing facility. Ms. Lamond responded that unfortunately she did not have the entire groundwater maps with her tonight, but 2/3 of the town sits within the groundwater one or groundwater two overlay zones; the properties that Mr. Gibbons is talking about could very well lie within another zone. 8

9 The Board questioned the possibility of a conditioning the approval as well as continuing the application to see groundwater designations of other properties in the area. Ms. Lamond pointed out that even if other properties in the area are designated differently with regard to groundwater zoning, this property is within the Groundwater one area and the applicant has to adhere to the standards of that zoning. Mr. Reilly agreed with Ms. Lamond. Mr. Bolton said that his client would not have a problem if the Board wanted to continue the matter to further research the extent of the groundwater district. He added that an approval with conditions would be acceptable as well. Mr. Tedeschi recommended that the engineering report that created the groundwater overlays be looked at for definitions of the language used they may be outdated. Ms. Lamond said that perhaps the ordinance should be looked at; there are new technologies which help with groundwater issues. Mr. Bolton said that he still doesn t think that Great Clips falls under the definition of prohibited uses. Mr. Prihala said that whether surrounding properties are in or out of the groundwater district is not useful in approval for this property and should not play into the Board s decision. Mr. Gibbons responded that many ordinances were made in a vacuum; this property is across the street from an existing barbershop, a hardware store, and an auto mechanic. Mr. Bolton reminded the Board that the intent of the ordinance is to protect the groundwater, the applicant has testified there will be no chemical use, he will simply offer haircuts and one or two shampoos a day. Mr. Bolton said therefore, his clients use does not fall under the definition of the ordinance. He said that the Board should rule that way and approve the change of tenancy. Ms. Lamond asked Mr. Bolton what his client s business use would fall under in the town s land use table. Mr. Bolton answered haircut shop. He said that the Board should take an equitable look at the surrounding businesses in making a decision. Mr. Gibbons moved that this application be continued to the May 14 Zoning Board of Review meeting for the purpose of researching the groundwater designation of the immediate surrounding area and to study the ordinance definitions. Dr. Brunelle seconded. All voted aye. The application is continued. Robert A. and Deborah Buonanno, AP 142, Lots 1 and 2, 221 Sauga Avenue, for relief under Chapter 21, dimensional variance from (a) Setback and Corner Clearance and special use permit from to construct an addition to the existing accessory structure within the required front yard setback located between the principal dwelling and the street right of way. Mr. Matthew Callaghan, representing the applicants came forward. He introduced his clients Dr. Bob Buonanno and his wife Deborah Buonanno, the owners of the property, and Mr. George Calcagni, the general contractor for the proposed construction. Dr. Buonanno and Mr. Calcagni were sworn in. Mr. Callaghan said that the main dwelling includes an accessory unit, that was in place when his clients bought the property. There is also a detached garage on the property that has two stories. Mr. Callaghan said that the applicants want to add to the garage in order to square off what exists. A special use permit is needed because the structure sits between the main residence and 9

10 the street and a dimensional variance because the setback will be reduced to 3.5. The second story of the garage is proposed to be a recreation room. Dr. Buonanno said that he has owned the property for 3 years. He said that he applied for a building permit to renovate the garage but was denied by the building official because of the setback, because it met the definition of an accessory dwelling unit and the placement of the structure between the house and the street. He testified that he wants to build a rec room for his grandchildren. Mr. Callaghan asked to enter into the record an elevation of the proposed structure (applicant exhibit #1); and, a site plan (applicant exhibit #2). Mr. Callaghan also asked that a garage renovation sketch (applicant exhibit #3) be entered into the record as well. Dr. Buonanno said that the existing outdoor shower foundation will be closed off in order to accommodate a new staircase. Dormers would be added to the seconded story. A new bathroom is also proposed. There is a sink proposed for the main rec room, but not a stove or refrigerator, according to Dr. Buonanno s testimony. Mr. Callaghan noted that the garage was there when Dr. Buonanno bought the property he did not create the hardship. Mr. Callaghan asked Dr. Buonanno if any of the proposed construction would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Dr. Buonanno answered that there are similar structures in the neighborhood. Mr. Callaghan asked if the garage was being squared off in order to increase square footage. Dr. Buonanno responded that the area added by squaring off the garage is planned for a staircase; there is no other space for it in the existing garage. Dr. Buonanno said that the staircase is needed to make the second story accessible. Mr. Callaghan asked Dr. Buonanno if he was making these changes in order to increase the value of the property. Dr. Buonanno answered no, he just wants to make the property more useful to him and his family. Mr. Pirhala asked about the fact that the building official denied the application because it met the criteria for an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Tedeschi said that the layout did look like an efficiency apartment. Mr. Reilly read the definition of an accessory dwelling unit, which state the inclusion of separate cooking and sanitary facilities. Mr. Callaghan pointed out that Dr. Buonanno testified that there would be no cooking facilities in the planned rec room. Some of the Board members brought up their concern that this could very easily become an illegal accessory dwelling unit by simply adding a stove. Mr. Pirhala called for a motion to open the application to public comment or questions. Mr. Cardente moved. Mr. Gibbons seconded. All voted aye. The meeting was opened to the public. There was no one present to speak for or against the application. Mr. Cardente motioned to close the public meeting. Dr. Brunelle seconded. All voted aye. The public meeting was closed. Mr. Pirhala asked if the roofline was changing. Mr. Calcagni answered that it is not changing. Dormers are being cut in. More setback relief is needed to include this new roofline overhang, the existing building is not being added to, it will remain the existing 6 from the lot line. Mr. Almeida asked if Dr. Buonanno could move the existing accessory dwelling unit into the garage. Ms. Lamond answered no, they would have to return to this Board for permission to do that. Mr. Pirhala called for a motion close the hearing. Mr. Gibbons moved. Mr. Almeida seconded. All voted aye. The hearing was closed. Mr. Pirhala called for findings of fact. 10

11 Mr. Cardente said that the requested special use permit will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of this chapter or the comprehensive plan due to the testimony heard at this hearing and the similar houses that exist in the area. The relief being granted is the least relief necessary the addition is simply to enclose a staircase in order to access the second story of the garage. Mr. Cardente continued that the special use permit is reasonably necessary to serve the public convenience and welfare because it will bring the garage into legal conformance. The granting of this permit will not pose a threat to the drinking water supply - the submitted paperwork shows compliance with adequate septic disposal. Mr. Cardente said that the use will not disrupt the neighborhood or the privacy of abutting landowners by excessive light, glare or air pollutants; no new lighting is proposed and there was no opposing abutters present at the meeting tonight. The submitted OWTS application and conformance show that sewage and waste disposal will be handled on site. The runoff from the added dormers will be minimal. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not cause undue congestion or introduce a traffic hazard to the circulation pattern of the area because the proposal will not increase the size of the garage. There will be no additional vehicles. Mr. Cardente said that the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain but to suit his family s needs. Mr. Cardente concluded that if the relief is not granted, it would be more than a mere inconvenience because the use of the second story of the garage could not be utilized. Mr. Pirhala noted that the staff does recommend this application and called for a motion. Mr. Cardente moved that the Zoning Board of Review grant Robert A. and Deborah Buonanno of 108 East Hill Dr., Cranston, RI 02920, Assessor s Plat 142, Lot 1 & 2, 221 Sauga Avenue, grant permission to construct an addition to the existing detached garage. Lots 1 & 2 are located within a Village Residential (VR) zoning district. The property is serviced by public water. In accordance with the findings, a special use permit from Location of Accessory Uses and Structures to locate an accessory structure between the principal structure and street right-ofway; and, a dimensional variance from Article IV Dimensional Regulations, Table 2A Residential Districts and (a) Setback a 21.5 front (north) yard variance for a proposed setback of 3.5 (25 is required) be granted. This relief will be granted with the conditions that no additional bedrooms are allowed in the single family dwelling or garage, Lots 1 & 2 should be merged through a lot combination form and that all construction is done in strict conformance with the submitted plan unless minor modifications are approved administratively by the Planning Department. Mr. Almeida seconded. All voted aye. The special use permit and dimensional variance are approved. Adjournment Mr. Pirhala called for a moiton to adjourn. Mr. Almeida moved. Mr. Gibbons seconded. All voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20PM. 11

12 Beth Gagnon-Glasberg Recording Secretary Vincent Brunelle Secretary to the Board 12