|
ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW
________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT (S): JOHNSTON CORPORATION
DATE: November 13, 2007
FILE NO: 2007-22
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
A VARIANCE AT L0T: 10
ASSESSOR’S MAP: 118
WHEREAS, a meeting of the Burrillville Zoning Board of Review was held on October 9, 2007, wherein the instant matter was considered.
WHEREAS, JOHNSTON CORPORATION: Applicant(s), and Green Acres Realty, Owner(s) of property on Stag Head Drive, Pole # 5 in the Village of Pascoag, Town of Burrillville, Assessor’s Map: 118 Lot: 10 in the F-5 Zoning District has/have filed an application for a variance to build a single family dwelling. Zoning Ordinance 30-73 B-1 Nonconformance.
WHEREAS, all members of the Burrillville Zoning Board of Review viewed the property on or before the public hearing;
WHEREAS, the Burrillville Zoning Board of Review held a public hearing on this application at its October 9, 2007 meeting after due and public notice as provided under the Burrillville Zoning Ordinance and Rhode Island General Laws;
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those whom desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded;
WHEREAS, the Burrillville Zoning Board of Review finds as a fact that:
1. Attorney Richard Johnston was representing Attorney John Sherkarchi, a principle for the applicant - Johnston Corporation. Attorney placeCityJohnston submitted the following exhibits:
a. Exhibit 1 – Recorded plot plan for subject property
b. Exhibit 2 – Assessors Card for subject property and abutting properties
c. Exhibit 3 – Approved I.S.D.S. for subject property
2. Attorney placeCityJohnston stated that Exhibit 1 shows the lot as a non-conforming lot of record, and Exhibit 2 shows the lot has not been merged with abutting properties. He noted that as the property has 57’ frontage, 18’ frontage relief is required. He further noted that the proposed dwelling would fit within all dimensional setbacks and though allowed to have up to 25% building coverage, the dwelling would only cover 10% of the lot.
3. Edward Pimentel, AICP, was accepted as an expert witness and testified that he had reviewed the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Ordinance. He entered Exhibit 4 – a report of the subject property, and his resume. He testified that addressStreetStag Head Drive is a high density area where no lots conform to the F-5 Zoning District. He testified that the footprint of the proposed dwelling would be similar in size and proportionate to the neighboring houses.
4. Mr. Pimentel stated that the lot complied with all other size requirements but the minimum lot width. He noted that the proposed dwelling would fit within all dimensional setback requirements.
5. Mr. Pimentel testified that the hardship was not caused by any action of the applicant, that the owner did not create this lot, but rather the hardship is due to the unique characteristics of the subject property. He noted that if this application were granted it would not alter the general character of the neighboring area but rather would be very consistent with neighboring properties. He further stated that the applicant is requesting the least relief necessary and denying this application would remove all beneficial use of the property.
6. Donald Morash was accepted as a real estate expert and entered Exhibit 5 – a real estate summary of the subject property. He testified that the proposed dwelling would fit within all dimensional setbacks, house size would be proportionate to the lot size, and would not alter the general character of the area. Mr. Morash testified that new homes are advantageous to neighboring property
values. He further noted that if this application where denied there is no other beneficial use of the property.
7. When questioned by the Zoning Board, Mr. Morash testified that over 70% of the homes in the area are 3-4 bedroom dwellings, and he agreed that lot size of neighboring properties is roughly twice the size of the subject property.
8. Ronald Perkins, an abutter from Map 118 placeLot 9, testified of concerns with the location of the proposed house, and if the lot will need to be filled in. He entered Exhibit A – 25 photographs of the subject lot and surrounding area. He also questioned if the applicant had surveyed the property to make sure he does not disturb his property during development.
9. Forest Mitchell, an abutter from Map 118 placeLot 11, testified that he had concerns that the development of this property would cause a change in ground water that would lead to increased water in his basement. He also noted that due to proximity of the proposed dwelling to his house that property levels would be negatively effected. He noted that it is not typical in this neighborhood to have houses so close together.
10. Attorney placeCityJohnston stated that a proposed retaining wall of approximate 2’ in height would be built on the left side of the property. A colonial style house with a full walk out basement would be built rather than filling in the rear of the lot. He stated that the property has an 8’ water table. He also stated that the applicant would obtain a Class I “As Built” Survey of the property noting the location of the foundation. He also noted very little fill would be needed as minimal grading would be necessary. Attorney CityplaceJohnston stated that a row of White Pine trees would be planted between the
applicant’s property and Mr. Mitchell’s property for privacy. He also stated that any boulders that could not be buried or utilized in the retaining wall would be removed from the site.
11. Mr. Mitchell stated that he would prefer a row of arborvitae trees be planted between the properties.
12. Roland Cote, an abutter from Map 117 placeLot 19, testified that the neighborhood looks like a little village with houses on top of each other.
13. There was no other public comment from the audience.
WHEREAS, THE BURRILLVILLE ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW has determined, based on the testimony presented at the hearing, the
observations of the Board Members in viewing the property, and the findings of fact as set forth above:
1. That the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan upon which the Ordinance is based as the applicant is requesting to build a single family dwelling in a residential zoning district.
2. This variance will have no adverse impact on the development upon other land, including the type, intensity, design, and performance of activity as the applicant accepted all conditions set forth.
3. The hardship is not the result of any prior action of the Applicant or Owner and does not result primarily from the desire of the Applicant to realize greater financial gain as the applicant simply wishes to build a single family dwelling on a residential lot.
4. That the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary as only frontage relief was requested and no dimensional reliefs were required.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Burrillville Zoning Board of Review that the application as filed by the Applicant is GRANTED by a vote of 5 – 0 with 4 conditions.
Ed Hochwarter, Jr. made a motion to grant 18’ frontage relief from Zoning Ordinance with the following 4 conditions:
1. the dwelling will have gutters and downspouts that terminate in drywells to control runoff.
2. a row of arborvitae trees be planted between the applicant’s property and Mr. Mitchell’s property (Map 118 placeLot 11)
3. a Class I Survey be done of the subject property
4. all boulders not used for the retaining wall, and not able to be buried, be removed from the property.
George Keeling 2nd the motion.
John Patriarca, Michele Carboni, Ed Hochwarter, Jr., George Keeling, and Raymond Cloutier voted to pass the motion with the 4 conditions.
John Patriarca stated he voted to pass the motion as the applicant met all dimensional setbacks and as the applicant was willing to please the neighbor, Mr. Mitchell. Ed Hochwarter, Jr. and Michele Carboni noted
that he voted to pass the motion due to the expert testimony. George Keeling noted that he voted to pass the motion due to the expert
testimony and conditions imposed. Raymond Cloutier noted that he voted to pass the motion due to the willingness of the applicant to accepted the requested conditions.
The Zoning Board shall set down a record of findings of fact and shall make its decision in writing. No decision shall be final until it is filed in the Zoning Enforcement Office. All decisions shall be recorded in the land evidence records of the Town.
A variance or special use permit shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval by the Board, unless the applicant who has been granted relief obtains a building permit and is actively engaged in the project’s construction, or in case of “use variance” has actually put the subject property to said use.
BY ORDER OF THE BURRILLVILLE ZONING
BOARD OF REVIEW
_____________________________________________
Raymond Cloutier, Chairman
THIS DECISION WILL BE PUBLICLY POSTED IN
A VISIBLE LOCATION IN THE TOWN HALL FOR
A PERIOD OF TWENTY DAYS COMMENCING:
_______________________________________________
APPLICATION GRANTED
Vote 5 –0 with 4 conditions
| 
