Welcome to Burrillville, RI - 2008-01 Aubuchon

WHEREAS, a meeting of the Burrillville Zoning Board of Review was held on March 11, 2008, wherein the instant matter was considered.

WHEREAS, GERARD E. AUBUCHON: Applicant(s), and Gerard E. Aubuchon, Owner(s) of property on 22 Pinecrest Lane, Pole # 3, in the Village of Glendale, Town of Burrillville, Assessor’s Map: 93 Lot: 115 in the R-20 Zoning District has/have filed an application for a variance to build an attached garage. Zoning Ordinance 30-111 Table of dimensional regulations.

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 March 11, 2008 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;

1. Applicant and owner, Gerard E. Aubuchon, testified that he proposed to construct an 18’ x 24’ attached garage onto his existing garage. He stated that this addition would have the same lines both front and rear, and the same height as the existing attached garage. He noted that his lot tapers to 60’ in depth to the right side of his property with the left being 140’ deep.

2. Mr. Aubuchon testified that he was before the Zoning Board requesting 15’ front setback relief for the proposed garage. He noted that the structure would be between 45’ – 50’ from the edge of pavement. He added that the general characteristics of this neighborhood is houses close to the roadway, and that he would be 11’ from his right side lot line so no side setback relief would be needed.

3. In response to questioning by Raymond Cloutier – Zoning Board Chairman, Mr. Aubuchon stated that he could not push the proposed garage back further as there is a retaining wall that drops down 8’ and he needs to meet D.E.M.’s 25’ setback to the lake.

4. In response to questioning by John Patriarca – Zoning Board Member, Mr. Aubuchon stated that he needed additional garage space as the existing 2 stall garage now stores his car and his wife’s car. He noted that the additional garage would be used to store his work truck, as well as a lawnmower, tools, and bicycles.

5. Donald Burns, an abutter with a summer cottage at addressStreet30 Pinecrest Road, testified against the granting of this variance. He entered Exhibits 1, 2, 3, & 4 – all photos of Mr. Aubuchon’s property. He noted the retaining wall and fence adjacent to his property, and the earthmoving equipment and heavy trucks he parks at his residence. He further noted that he believes Mr. Aubuchon’s property would remain unsightly even if he is allowed to build an addition to his garage.

6. Raymond Cloutier questioned Mr. Aubuchon regarding a stain on the cement wall shown in Exhibit 2. Mr. Aubuchon denied that the mark was caused by oil, but agreed to clean the cement wall.

7. Michele Badessa, an abutter from addressStreet765 Black Hut Road, testified that she has lived there for over 23 years. She stated that she agrees with Mr. Burns and added concerns with this garage addition obstructing the view of the lake, running a business from his home, and D.E.M. issues. She noted that constructing a shed would be a better idea than constructing an additional 2 car garage. She entered Exhibit 5 – a sheet of her concerns.

8. Joan Burns, wife of Donald Burns, testified that Mr. Aubuchon has continued to build on his property, that his fence looms over their property, and that his property is a mess. She also stated concerns with heavy trucks being on his site.

9. Matthew Richardson, an abutter from addressStreet25 Pinecrest Road, testified against the granting of this application. He entered Exhibit 6 – a series of photos showing the lake view from his property. He noted the proposed garage would obstruct his view of the lake.

10. Upon questioning by Raymond Cloutier, Mr. Aubuchon stated that there is a distance of 50 – 60 feet to the Burns’ cottage where Mr. Richardson could still view the lake. He also noted that it is not the responsibility of owners of waterfront properties to preserve the view of the lake for their neighbors. He added that he has a commercial lot in Pascoag and does not store his commercial machinery on his residential property overnight.

11. Paul Badessa, an abutter from addressStreet765 Black Hut Road, testified that he felt the 2 car garage Mr. Aubuchon has is enough. He questioned the use of an addition to the garage noting that a shed should be constructed instead. He entered Exhibit 7 – a letter written by Deb Donovan and dated December 8, 1998, as well as a and a letter from D.E.M. to Ms. Donovan regarding the applicant.

During discussion, John Patriarca noted that Mr. Aubuchon having a 4 car garage would be overwhelming in the neighborhood. Ken Johnson stated that granting this application may cause more vehicles to be brought onto the site. He noted that maybe a one car addition to the garage would have been a more reasonable request as it is a very tight neighborhood. Raymond Cloutier noted that if the Zoning Board allows the addition it would be a good place to store the equipment that is now visible on the premises.

Ken Johnson made a motion to grant the applicant 15’ front setback relief from Zoning Ordinance 30-111 Table of dimensional regulations with the following two conditions:

2. prior to issuance of a building permit to construct this garage, the stains seen in Exhibit 2 be removed from the retaining wall.

George Keeling 2^nd the motion. Ken Johnson, John Patriarca, and George Keeling all voted to deny the motion. Michele Carboni and Raymond Cloutier voted to pass the motion. Motion denied by a vote of 3 to deny and 2 to approve.

Ken Johnson stated he voted to deny the motion due to the testimony provided by the neighbors. John Patriarca voted to deny the motion due to neighbor opposition, too tight a neighborhood, and as the applicant already has an attached 2 car garage. George Keeling voted to deny the motion based on testimony, as the applicant already has a 2 car garage, but he did note that a one car garage addition would have seemed more reasonable.

Michele Carboni and Raymond Cloutier voted to approve the motion as this garage addition would satisfy the neighbors’ concerns that Mr. Aubuchon’s equipment is visible in his yard.

Raymond Cloutier also noted that if Mr. Aubuchon’s application were denied, he has the right to build a shed on that side of the property, and as there already is a cement pad where the proposed garage would be constructed he voted to pass the motion.

WHEREAS, THE BURRILLVILLE ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW has determined, based on the testimony presented at the hearing, the observations of 3 Board Members in viewing the property, and the findings of fact as set forth above:

1. That the granting of the requested variance will alter the general character of the surrounding area and impair the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan upon which the Ordinance is based as the proposed garage addition would eliminate some view of the lake from the right side of his property, and as this garage addition would be overwhelming to the neighborhood.

2. This variance will have adverse impact on the development upon other land, including the type, intensity, design, and performance of activity application if the application were granted, as Mr. Aubuchon would have an attached 4 car garage on his .29 acre lot, making the dwelling much larger than similar accessory structures in the neighborhood.

3. That the relief requested to be granted is not the least relief necessary as the applicant already has an attached 2 car garage and has other ways to address storage issues on the property which would not require a variance.

WHEREAS, THE BURRILLVILLE ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW has determined, based on the testimony presented at the hearing, the observations of 2 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 and impair the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan upon which the Ordinance is based as granting this application would provide Mr. Aubuchon a space to store equipment currently visible to his neighbors.

2. The hardship does not result primarily from the desire of the Applicant to realize greater financial gain as the applicant simply wishes to construct an addition to his existing garage for storage of his truck and equipment.

3. This variance will not adversely impact on the development upon other land, including the type, intensity, design, and performance of activity as the applicant simply wishes to build an additional 2 stall attached garage on his property.

4. That the relief requested to be granted is the least relief necessary as the applicant has demonstrated there is no other place to situate the proposed garage addition.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Burrillville Zoning Board of Review that the application as filed by the Applicant is DENIED by a vote of 2 approving and 3 denying the motion to grant the applicant the requested relief.

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.