Welcome to Burrillville, RI

WHEREAS, a meeting of the Burrillville Zoning Board of Review was held on August 14, September 11, and October 9, 2007, wherein the instant matter was considered.

WHEREAS, PAULETTE A. TESSIER : Applicant(s), and Paulette Bousquet-Tessier, Owner(s) of property on Whiting Lane, Pole# 6 in the Village of Pascoag, Town of Burrillville, Assessor’s Map: 133 Lot: 18 in the R-12 Zoning District has/have filed an application for a variance to build a single family dwelling. Zoning Ordinance 30-73 (b)(1) Nonconformance and 30-151 Access to state and town highways and roads.

WHEREAS, the Burrillville Zoning Board of Review held a public hearing on this application at its August 14, September 11, and October 9, 2007 meeting after due and public notice as provided under the Burrillville Zoning Ordinance and Rhode Island General Laws;

1. At the August 14, 2007 Zoning Board Hearing, Paulette A. Tessier, applicant & owner requested her case be continued to the September 11, 2007 Zoning Hearing.

3. George Keeling made a motion to continue this case to September 11, 2007 Zoning Board Hearing. Ed Hochwarter, Jr. 2^nd the motion. Raymond Cloutier, George Keeling, Ed Hochwarter, Jr., Ken Johnson, and John Patriarca voted to pass the motion and continue this case to the September 11, 2007 Zoning Hearing.

5. A revised zoning application was submitted and at the September 11, 2007 Zoning Board Hearing, Attorney Patrick Dougherty, Assistant Town Solicitor, stated that Ms. Tessier’s revised application would supersede the previous application.

7. John Norman Goyette was sworn in and testified that by removing the top floor of the plan, the proposed dwelling was reduced from 1800 square feet to 900 square feet of living space. He noted the proposed dwelling was reduced from a 3 bedroom to a single bedroom design. He stated the proposed ISDS design was reduced from a 4 bedroom to a 2 bedroom system, and the ISDS location was moved from the lake side to the street side of the property to address water runoff issues. He added that no setback relief would be needed.

8. Mr. Goyette testified catch basins would be installed for the gutter runoff. He further noted that the well issue with a neighbor has been addressed. He stated that this proposed dwelling would not be occupied fulltime but rather used as a summer home for his aunt when she visits here from placeStateTennessee.

9. When questioned by Raymond Cloutier, Zoning Board Chair, Mr. Goyette stated that the dwelling would have a 2,500 gallon holding tank to store potable water, and due to D.E.M. guidelines they suggested that a holding tank be utilized for potable water as his abutters’ cesspools on either side are too close to allow for a well to be situated on the applicant’s property.

10. Mr. Goyette testified that hay bales and silt fencing would be installed as necessary. He noted that the house would be situated where the property is fairly level, and that the subject property is 69 square feet shy of the minimum lot area required in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the neighborhood is comprised of nonconforming parcels.

11. Ed Hochwarter, Jr. had concerns with the tires dumped on the property and the condition of the existing dwelling on the property. Mr. Goyette stated that the tires were abandoned there. He added that the cottage has not been demolished in the event that this zoning application is denied, as they will attempt to construct an addition onto the structure.

12. Mr. Goyette stated that an Advantex Filter septic system would be installed on the property. In response to Ed Hochwarter, Jr.’s questioning, Mr. Goyette stated that a 2,500 gallon holding tank would provide the potable water supply for the proposed dwelling, and that a 6 wheel truck would deliver water as needed. He added that an alarm on the tank would go off when the tank needed to be refilled.

13. Ken Johnson questioned how the water delivery truck would reach the property in the winter months. Mr. Goyette stated that it would be possible. He further noted that it would be a 2,500 gallon fiberglass holding tank buried 3-4 feet below the surface and 2’ from the left lot line.

14. Joseph Raymond, Building/Zoning Official, stated that more information was necessary regarding a holding tank being utilized for their potable water supply. In response to Mr. Goyette’s statements, Mr. Raymond noted that D.E.M. does not have jurisdiction over potable water holding tanks.

15. Marc N. Nyberg – Professional Land Surveyor, testified that this water tank is new with D.E.M. He stated that D.E.M. insisted the water tank be installed as no well would be allowed due to the proximity of the neighbors’ septic systems. He added that there would be a deed restriction for a 2 bedroom ISDS and a deed restriction that no well for drinking water be drilled on this property.

16. Joseph Raymond stated as the Building Official that even if only 150 gallons of water were used per day, the tank would need to be refilled every 2 weeks. He further questioned who would monitor the water quality with each delivery of water. Joseph Raymond stated that he must be confident with the potable water system prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Ken Johnson and Raymond Cloutier noted that they would need more information to make a decision on this case. George Keeling stated that he was not satisfied that a holding tank rather than a well would be providing potable water for this property.

17. Mr. Goyette requested if this case be continued could he represent his aunt, as she must travel here from placeStateTennessee for each hearing. It was determined that if Mr. Goyette, the applicant’s nephew, was to acquire Power of Attorney, he could proceed with the case in Ms. Tessier’s absence. The applicant requested this case be continued to the October 9^,2007 Zoning Hearing. It was also noted by Raymond Cloutier that all additional information provided by the applicant must be submitted to the Zoning Department in 11 complete copies by September 25, 2007 for distribution to the Zoning Board Members for review prior to the Zoning Hearing.

18. Scott F. Hoppe, an abutter from Map 133 Lot 19, came forward and was sworn in. He objected to this case being continued to the October 9, 2007 Zoning Board Hearing. Raymond Cloutier stated that the Zoning Board requested additional information from the applicant and that the Zoning Board would wait until the next month to hear public testimony.

19. Amelia P. Wexler, abutter from Map 133 placeLot 17, had concerns with the proposed water holding tank. She stated having spoken to someone at D.E.M. and believes there are no regulations on such holding tanks. She said she is worried regarding the future integrity of her cesspool as the applicant’s water tank would be just 2’ from her lot line where her septic system is located. She requested that the applicant’s engineer move the tank to a distance of 10’ from her property line. She also had concerns with the removal of ledge during excavation at the applicant’s property, and that a truck to refill the proposed 2,500 gallon water holding tank would be carrying 10 tons of water up addressStreetWhiting Lane.

20. Scott Hoppe complained that this application had been denied by the Zoning Board a few years ago and now they are here again. He stated that the well issue has not been addressed, and that he is not satisfied, but rather still has concerns with his well. He noted that the applicant’s septic system will have an alarm and these systems fail, and that there is not enough room for machinery to access the property for repair. Mr. Hoppe stated that he does not want the applicant to provide him with a new well as the drilling machinery would ruin his landscaping.

21. Marc Nyberg, Professional Land Surveyor, stated that a monitoring company would respond within a few hours if the alarm was triggered. The alarm monitors high/low water levels in the septic system.

22. Doreen Goyette, wife of John Goyette and niece of the applicant, came forward and testified that the property has been in the family for a long time.

23. At the October 9, 2007 Zoning Board Hearing this hearing was re-opened and John Norman Goyette presented the Zoning Board with Exhibit 1 – Power of Attorney for Paulette Tessier. He testified that the there would be no need for a potable water holding tank as an agreement has been reached with abutter Scott Hoppe to have a well drilled on Mr. Hoppe’s property that would be shared by both parties.

24. Mr. Goyette entered Exhibit 2 – a letter from Attorney Beier regarding the Hoppe/Tessier well agreement. He entered Exhibit 3 – a site plan showing the easement for a water line from Mr. Hoppe’s property to the Tessier property.

25. Mr. Goyette noted that the proposed dwelling would cover 17% of the property, whereas his neighbor to the left has 62% of her property covered by her dwelling. He also noted that the proposed dwelling would be 10’ from the right lot line and 23’ from the left lot line.

26. Mr. Goyette testified that all boulders that cannot be used onsite would be removed from the property, that most trees on the property line would not be removed, and there would be plantings in the front yard.

28. Scott Hoppe came forward to testify stating that he had reached an agreement with Mr. Goyette to gain access through Ms. Tessier’s property to his own land to drill a well, and he would share this well with the applicant. Mr. Hoppe noted that the applicant’s property is the 3^rd largest on addressStreetWhiting Lane.

30. Attorney Charles Blackman, representing the Wexlers came before the Zoning Board. He questioned if this shared well would provide sufficient water for both properties.

31. Attorney Blackman called Eric J. Wishart, a registered professional engineer before the Zoning Board. He was qualified as an engineer, and testified that he reviewed this application and the Burrillville Ordinances.

32. Mr. Wishart questioned why a wetland biologist did not delineate the property. He noted that the issue of possible wetlands would impact Zoning Ordinance 30-153 as he believed that the applicant’s property is 40.3% wetland area.

34. Mr. Wishart stated that the applicant’s galley for roof drains would be close to his client’s cesspool and would pre-saturate the area and suggested it be moved further away from his client’s cesspool. He noted that the Burrillville Comprehensive Plan Chapter IV.1.b.3 & 4 states that the Town should eliminate nonconforming uses and limit the use of land along water bodies to water dependent uses.

35. In response to Michele Carboni, Zoning Board Secretary’s question, Mr. Wishart testified that he had not viewed the subject lot. Raymond Cloutier questioned whether Mr. Wishart believed that the subject property had over 40% wetlands.

36. Mr. Wishart entered Exhibit D – Chapter II Natural and Cultural Resources, of the Town Comprehensive Plan, and Exhibit E – Chapter IX Land Use, of the Town Comprehensive Plan.

37. Attorney Blackman noted that far more than 11’ frontage relief is needed. He stated that the Town’s goal is to protect freshwater resources. He also noted that as the subject property may have 41% wetlands, relief from Zoning Ordinance 30-153 would be required. Attorney Blackman stated that as the subject property is in a F-5 Zoning District, farming is the intended use of such land, but as it is a very small lot, and too close to the water Open Space is a perfectly permitted use of the land. He noted that the Boy Scouts could purchase the property, or the Town could use it for a public boat ramp.

40. Raymond Cloutier made note of the fact that the Zoning Board Members viewed the property prior to the hearing. He also reminded Attorney Blackman of the Biological Narrative by Joseph McCue, wetland biologist, of Natural Resource Services, Inc., stating that there is no wetland vegetation on the property. He further noted the size of the lot, and suggested that a boat ramp or farm would not be feasible on such a parcel.

41. George Keeling noted that Attorney Blackman’s client has her well in the town road right of way. Raymond Cloutier questioned if his client would be moving her well off the town road right of way and upgrading her cesspool.

42. Diane Glass, an abutter from Map 133 placeLot 16, testified of concerns with her hand dug well, and the environmental impact on Wakefield Pond.

43. Marc Nyberg testified for the applicant. He confirmed that it is his stamp on Exhibit 3 site plan. He noted the applicant had a report submitted with the application from Wetland Biologist from Natural Resource Services, Inc. stating that there is no contiguous wetland vegetation on the subject property but rather the property has upland characteristics.

44. Mr. Nyberg testified that the applicant obtained I.S.D.S. approval. He noted that a state of the art Bottomless Sandfilter, such as the applicant would be installing, would produce 90% pure water. He further noted that the property is not over 40% wetlands.

45. Joseph Raymond clarified that there is no regulation in our ordinance for procedures in Well Head Protection Areas regarding construction of single family dwellings.

46. Mr. Goyette testified that Ms. Wexler has a cesspool leaking on his property and a well on town property, and Ms. Tessier is doing everything correctly in developing the property in question.

47. Doreen Goyette testified that they have answered every question and addressed every concern that has come up before the Zoning Board. She noted that every month Ms. Wexler has a new complaint. She stated that they have met the need for a valid potable water source, and that no further boat ramps are needed as there is one in the area already.

48. Scott Hoppe testified that he looked into a Bottomless Sandfilter like the one the applicants will be installing and that they cost approximately $30,000.

49. Joshua Wexler, abutter from Map 133 placeLot 17, testified that he was shocked when he discovered that his well was off his property, and that it was not his doing that his cesspool is located on the property line.

51. Joseph Raymond noted in Zoning Ordinance 30-73 that it has always been the practice of the town that “lot width” be understood to refer to the lot frontage (the width of the lot along the road right of way), as referenced by numerous approved sub-division plans on record.

53. Assistant Solicitor Patrick Dougherty recommended the Board make a determination of whether this application is substantially different from the previous case denied by the Zoning Board.

54. Ed Hochwarter, Jr. stated that this application is substantially different as the house is smaller and the proposed I.S.D.S. is in a new location. Raymond Cloutier agreed.

55. Raymond Cloutier made a motion that this application before the Zoning Board of Review is substantially different from the prior proposal. George Keeling 2^nd the motion. Sandra Cooney, John Patriarca, Ed Hochwarter, Jr., George Keeling, and Raymond Cloutier voted to pass this motion.

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 if the applicant is successful in acquiring the proposed I.S.D.S. approval.

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.

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 11’ frontage relief from Zoning Ordinance 30-73.b.1 and relief from Zoning Ordinance 30-151 accepted but unimproved town road with the following 4 conditions:

John Patriarca stated he voted to pass the motion as the applicant worked diligently with the neighbors to alleviate all their concerns. Sandra Cooney voted to pass the motion stating that it would be an improvement to the property. George Keeling stated he voted to pass the motion based on all the testimony, and as the applicant satisfied all obstacles presented. Ed Hochwarter, Jr. voted to pass the motion as they had reduced the size of the proposed dwelling and as there are 4 larger houses on addressStreetWhiting Lane each on smaller lots. Raymond Cloutier stated he voted to pass the motion based on all the information presented by the applicant.

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.