Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, I have 70 7:04. Apologize for the brief delay. Uh we'll call to order the meeting of the zoning board of review. Today is Tuesday, May 27th, 2025. Um roll call. We'll just wait a moment for the secretary to come back. Uh we know that uh the only ones aren't present would be uh um Gail and Andre I believe. So all other members are present. Item three is disclosure of no compensation or pension credits received by the board members. Uh we're all appointed by town council. Item four, disclosure and notice. Zoning board of review members shall disclose any expartate communications about any contested or material adjudicatory facts or opinions concerning the merits of any application before the ZVR, zoning board of review. Item five is approval of the minutes from May 13, 2025. It was a fairly straightforward meeting. Um, uh, Vivian did send out, it was midm morning, early afternoon, but I'm assuming that all had a chance to read them. It's really pretty straightforward unless there are any uh corrections or additions. If we can have a motion to approve. I make a motion to approve the minutes from meeting on 51325. Okay. Second. I'll second the motion. All in favor? I. Okay. Um item six is the

continuence continuence of application ZVR 253 application for a special use permit and a dimensional variance by attorney Michael Kelly at the property located at 35 Norwood Road, North Smithfield. Order of the property is Manuela Garza. This is lot AP06, lot 0191. Applicant seeking a special use permit for groundmounted solar faic system as an accessory to a residential use under se under section 7 5.7.4 requirements for accessory use solar voltaic systems photovoltaic systems. Al also the applicant is seeking a dimensional variance under section 5.5.1 lot coverage in an RU residential district. Okay, since this was continued um a Vivian we we took we didn't take the role but we know that only Gail and Andre are not present. Okay. Um, your minutes were approved unanimously. So, now we're on item six, which is the continuation. You could probably hold off on that information because that's all for Is that all for the next application? Okay. If it's for this app, why don't you if you could bring it up to him, that'd be great. Okay, thanks.

Okay, so I don't believe Vivian, I don't believe we ever entered uh anything in Okay, so we'll do that first. Uh P1 will be the application ZBR25-3. It's the standard application was submitted online. P2 is the single sheet uh list contact information below for anything related to this application. Attorney Greg East Esbrooks. P3 is a quote uh plan titled proposed improvements prepared for Emanuela Garza. Its original date preparation is October 18th of 2022. Uh revision six is the most current and it's dated 511 of 25. That's P3. P4 is an untitled memorandum dated May 4th, 2025. It's titled memorandum in support of request for special use permit and dimensional variance 35 Norwood Road, North Smithfield, Rhode Island. And that is one, it's doublesided. One, two, three, four, five. Last few pages are just pictures. P5 is the radius map. There is no date on it. There's no information other than to show that it's Norwood Road and the circle is centered around

Norwood Road. Uh the uh 164 the lot in question corner Norwood and Oakdale. P6 is the 200 foot of Butters List. It's dated April 16th of 2025 and it's uh was generated by kitech.com. We have a little bit of a interesting uh circumstance here with what we'll call P7. P7 is a plan prepared by PE registered in the state of Rhode Island. Registration number is 13264. This plan was issued for permit on a date of 32825. That's going to be P seven uh P7A, call it P7A is the very f same plan with a second PE stamp on it. No revisions have been made to the drawing. Uh but we have two stamps. The second stamp is uh registration number 8393 Daniel R. Campbell and it's dated 514 of 25.

That stamp occurs on both pages of the drawing and it is the exact same drawing. It is interesting to note that on P7 which is was supposed to have been the original submitt the dimensions are different and it's very obvious that there was an attempt to alter the drawing. So we'll get to that in a little bit. P8 is really just the second page of P7 and 7A, but for some reason it's blown up and the original surveyor's, excuse me, the original PE's stamp is circled and dimensions are written in pencil to replicate the dimensions. printed on the plant. P9 is an eightpage untitled unsigned list uh multiple drawings. It's it's excuse me multiple photographs. There's eight pages of photographs of the property in question. Uh T1 is a a email slash essentially an email received uh by it was addressed to Don Fontaine North Smithfield government rai government. It's the regarding the North Smithfield zoning board hearing that had been scheduled originally for 512 2025 use special use permit for ground mounted solar and dimensional variance at 35 Norwood Road. Uh that was provided by Charles

Ty and an Ellen Ashley Ashley Ty and Charles Ty. And that's uh four pages with the cover sheet. Okay. And who would you be? Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'm not Mike Kelly. not partic I think initially we have some pretty basic issues that I think have to be addressed and it would be my opinion strongly to the other board members that this necessitates a continuence of this application. So let me review them with you before you make your presentation because I think the presentation is pretty straightforward with regard to the application and the memorandum. However, I think we have uh significant I know I do as the chair significant issues with some of what has been provided uh P3. So we called we defined P3 as again this uh proposed improvement plan and just you know as an example for example um he he notes on the plan and this is a stamped drawing it's not it's not signed but it it is signed. I'm sorry. I apologize. It's signed. But in the top right corner where he shows the array to the rear

right, the somebody wrote 10 feet plus or minus 10.1T plus or minus from the nearest corner. And I I am quite certain that you know that the setback is 10. It's not plus or minus 10, it's 10. So I I think uh when that has to be adjusted to very clearly state 10 feet not 10 feet plus or minus. That's item number one. If I might respond Mr. Go ahead. My understanding is that P3 is an updated plan. You have in your packet your zoning officer updated plan made those corrections. So unless I'm missing something I don't have P3. It's not something that I have a plan with a revision date of 511 2025. What What is this site plan? Yeah. What What What do you have? Give us a minute. The bottom right corner. Let me just see the bottom right corner. 511. I have the exact same plan. 511 of 2025 is the drawing that we have in our presence. They both say the exact same thing with respect to that issue. Mr. Chairman, before we go on, I'd like to bring our engineer up to discuss that. Well, hold on. Let me go through this because it's on the drawing. Therefore, you're submitting it as factual. And we can't accept plus or minus as factual when the setback is 10 ft. If it's plus or minus, pl minus is fine. Plus is a variance. So, this has simply asking the draft person to put their stamp on and have an opportunity

to respond to you, Mr. Chairman. It's not me that's going to respond to it because I wasn't aware of that. Well, fine, bring them up, but it's not going to change what was submitted. You still have a right to address. Of course you do. Let's let's keep this civil. I made a civil comment based on something that was submitted as factual. So that's all I did. Go ahead, sir. Sure. Daniel Campbell design on behalf of the applicant. As you can see, it was stamped by both types or certainly. [Applause] Well, you realize that the sideyard setback, the minimum distance from a plot line is 10 feet. Therefore, in order for it to be valid, it must be 10 ft. I all I can say is from the survey standpoint, I am not your survey on your engineer. Um, typically even a plan that we submit for a building. Well, that would be up to the zoning official. He can require a certified plot plan if he feels it necessary. I just made the obvious notation that 10 ft plus or minus when 10 ft is a setback is going to draw our attention and if it doesn't then we're not doing our job. Understood and possible what I would suggest is that we would agree to a revised plan as a condition. to agree that that there is no setback relief required as a condition and we'll do as built to demonstrate that if if required which will I think obate any issue well the only requirement is that you be in compliance with the ordinances that's all

um and note number six in that same document P3 which is the site plan. It says a s and again I'll note that the issue of offense isn't necessarily relevant to the relief because that is in the ordinance. We don't need to see it. But if you're going to put it on the drawing and it's going to be ambiguous, then we have every right to ask the question. I note six says a six-foot fence will be placed around the entire solar system. So, I guess I would ask someone, the engineer or the you have two arrays. So, are you intending to fence both arrays or in fence? I don't assume you're not fencing the entire backyard. Um, no sir. If you notice on the plan that we have stamped, both arrays have a dash line around them that says 6 foot high. This drawing has no such thing. Interesting. The one that has my signature on it should No, it does not. You are Mr. Long. No, I'm Mr. Campbell. Your signature is not on this, nor is your stamp. We have a stamp from Stephen Long, registration number 1930. Mr. Long is your surveyor for this particular project. I am your civil engineer. I get that, but I don't see your stamp on this drawing. So, that has to be resubmitted with your stamp on it. What is your name again, sir? just so I can put it down. Daniel Campbell. Oh, you're the same Daniel Campbell, correct? Okay,

Mr. Chairman, given that issue, obviously we we could agree to that. However, I just satisfy the board. If not, I'm not sure how much of a presentation make this unless you would agree. No, frankly, I'm I'm a bit annoyed and I think members would be annoyed because we've there are multiple things that aren't correct here. And it should be reasonable for us to expect that an application that's submitted is correct in all of its content. And already I have three or four things that are not. So therefore, and let me get let me move on. the memorandum which we're referring to as P4. Uh again, I'll note for the record this is untitled. The board members could have no idea as to who wrote this, but it is making assertions. Um it's making defined statements in in support of both the SUP and the variance. It's unsigned and we have no way to know who is making these statements of fact. We can fix that right now. Yeah, but you didn't sign it. You didn't sign it right now. But you're not a professional engineer. You're making statements. I made a legal argument in a memorandum which is my right supported by the documents that we put forth. There is Mr. Chairman, you've identified some issues and I've accepted them and we're happy to work with you to resolve them. Suggesting that that memorandum that submitted by my office is inappropriate, is not accurate. Uh, uh, council, am I being unreasonable in saying that when we receive a memorandum that's unsigned, that I have the right to question why it was submitted unsigned? If if I may, Mr.

Chairman, you have the right to ask the attorney, you know, why it's unsigned, but he can clearly testify that he wrote that memor Let me just finish. He can clearly testify that he wrote that memorandum and that it is submitted from his office. And I think that clears up the issue. Well, as aside, when you're finished with the dialogue, we need to go back with this new system. This being the first application that is actually uploaded. Uh there is a document that was submitted with the chain link fence around it as the engineer testified to and Leo about that. I I it's everything's uploaded. So, just a matter of housekeeping. All right. Well, I'll just add that the memo that you're referring to was sent to your zoning officer. I discussed it with her. It was emailed by my office. There shouldn't be any question about who wrote it. I wrote it. Well, I beg my your pardon, but when I don't see a signature on the record issues, let's discuss it. Well, authorship of that document is foreclosed. I'm the only one that knows who wrote it. I wrote it. One of the other issues that is clear is that if you're the author, you're you're making definitive statements about the size of the solar array. But I don't believe, unless council is going to tell me that I'm wrong, that you have the ability to make categoric statements about the size of the solar array relative to its least relief necessary. That was a significant question that I had and that's why we're here this evening, so that I can present this project to you, make an argument in support of why we need the dimensional variance factors and the special use permit factors. And I have my engineer and I So if we're given the opportunity, we are going to present that memorandum was presented to this board and outline of what you have to make an exhibit. I'm very happy to do a lot in an old cand.

Let me let me just jump in for a minute. Why don't we just bring it down a notch? I really think that uh as the attorney say, Mr. Resnik that the memorandum is his guidepost to take you through his testimony. He has his experts here. He's going to put his experts on to support the documents that he's put forth before the board. And I think he needs an opportunity to do that. And I wouldn't say that that memorandum is anything other than what Mr. Resnik's testified to what it is. Remember, in these hearings, testimony when it's established by either an expert or by an attorney is just as compelling, just as powerful as any document. Remember that. No, it's it's it's it's also standard that when we receive technical data, it comes from a technical person with background. That's all. I agree, Mr. Jim, but I think Mr. Resnik said that he's going to put his experts on to actually testify to that, right? Is that correct, Mr. Resnik? That that is correct. In fact, most practice firms that take their jobs serious to submit an a memorandum that supported the project to a board. I've actually never gone to a planning board meeting or zoning board meeting in my life and not tried to give the benefit of the board of our position before we showed up. The other thing is there's many municipalities we get a copy of the staff report so that I understand what are the issues. Now I I had great communication with uh your your um zoning officer and assistant but there's no I I wasn't aware of them. So, I took it upon myself to draft something to do my best to educate this board. You you may disagree with the arguments, but that's what the document is for. And like I said, I'm happy to do it live. That's fine. Now I also the last item that that I have in my initial review was I just I'm at a loss to understand how it is that we are supposed to accept P7 and

P7A when it's quite obvious that there's something a miss. Now, I don't want to start an inflammatory conversation, so I can defer to councel if need be. The drawing is stamped by two professional engineers. Clearly, one prepared the drawing. Clearly, one did not. What are we supposed to do? Am I being argumentative? No, you're not being argumentative. That's a question I would ask that the attorney clears up through the testimony of his own engineer. We were looking at it with the zoning officer and one was stamped earlier and then in talking to the zoning official who clearly can clarify this apparently a section was taken out and the panel was moved and then it was stamped by the engineer that did that. I don't know I don't think there's anything underhanded about that. Both engineers stamps are on the face of the document. Yeah. But but I I submit that the engineer can testify to your questions. I but my issue to the engineer and to the attorney is does Mr. Harash who created the drawing. Did he give Mr. Campbell the authority and the permission to stamp his drawing? Mr. Chairman, I I think the respectfully I think the the more appropriate question is is that necessary? And I as an attorney for the town, I don't know the answer to that. I think that's a civil engineering question. and I was talking about that with our zoning official, but that's clearly something that could be cleaned up afterwards with some housekeeping or perhaps the enlightenment of the testimony of council. I don't know the answer to that, but maybe Mr. Resnik can help us or the engineer. And you certainly one one more point, Mike, you certainly could make any approvals tonight contingent upon the verification that that document is in fact certified in the correct way. Well, I'm a builder. I know what an engineer would say to me if I had another engineer stamp his drawing without his knowledge and normally you

would submit with it which would be fine a letter from Mr. Nash Harash saying yes I give Mr. Campbell the right to use my drawing and modify it. That is what I'm accustomed to. I understood. I think we should give the applicant an opportunity to put their application on the testimony on hear from their engineer and see what it fleshes out. I really do. The testimony will be compelling one way or the other. You agree, Mr. Resnik? And if I may just briefly Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that Mr. Campbell is happy to discuss those issues with I don't know the exact genesis of why we have different. What I know is this and I Say this with respect. This is not an enforcement body. This is a zoning board. Your domain here is zoning relief. We are here for dimensional relief for max law coverage and in fact it's some of the most dimminimous relief that I've ever presented for a demential application because it's 1.3%. We're also here for a special use criteria which I'll go through. We can go through and give you some answers as to why Mr. Campbell stamp is on that. Cander. He's a professional registered engineer in the state. His stamp appears on the document. That's it. It's been certified by an engineer. So to suggest that we're not going to look at this application or there's an issue with this application because you believe that there should have been permission from the engineer. It's not before you. And I I I have respect for the concept that you're a builder and you know this world and maybe you believe it's inappropriate. We'll find the answers. It's not before you this evening. There's absolutely nothing to do with engineering credentials, engineering enforcement. It's the Department of Business Regulation is the only body in the state that has that authority. I totally would like to discuss a little bit about how your stamp ended up on these plans before we go through our presentation.

So I was asked to review as to whether or not those adhere to the requirements of whether or not additional structural modifications would have to be made or whether or not differentials would have to be made. I reviewed the drawings based upon that and was able to whether or not he gave me permission. He is a set of drawings. I reviewed the set of drawings and was able to structural engineering of those drawings isn't really the point of hearing either. So I'm happy if you would like one set of drawings with one stand to make sure to review that provide you a set of drawings to that exact specific post hearing as well. And Mr. K, may I just ask you briefly outwithanding this Do you certify that everything on those plans is correct as far as you're aware? As far as I'm aware, can I ask you a question then? Why is it that you a different engineer? And if all of this is irrelevant, why were you asked to review didn't come from this board so why were you asked to review and stamp a drawing that was already stamped and already submitted? I'm just curious. Because when the set of panels was bifurcated, they wanted to know that the same or similar structural components would be added. So what changed from the original drawing? Literally the set of panels. There were panels that were removed from the drawing. And I still don't understand why the original engineer couldn't have just revised his drawing. I have no idea. That's not my All right. Thank you. I was requested to Yep. I understand. Any questions for the engineer? With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know whether or not this board is going to consider this engineering

issue that you've outlined in making their decision tonight because respectfully, it's not appropriate. It's not what's before you. It's not the elements. It's not the criteria, and it's not within your ordinance, and it's not within the general laws. I don't know why we're talking about it. We're talking about it because it's a it's submitted. Otherwise, you have an engineer that's registered in the state that just certified for you that everything's on there. Correct. You think he's going to put his stamp on it if he believes he could be exposing himself to liability for one project, one evening? I don't need to engage in argument. I'm doing my job as the chair when something comes in front of me that is irregular and draws my attention just coincidentally because I have extensive experience in that regard. It is my job to question uh you can ask any board member have we ever received a drawing with two PE stamps on it and the answer is no. So for me to inquire as to why is completely reasonable since it is submitted as an article. So please go on with your presentation. Thank you. Good evening again. We're here this evening to discuss two forms of relief relative to a ground mounted solar array. We're here to uh seek relief from your maximum lot coverage requirement. This is an RU zone single family residence. It's on459 acres. That's approximately 20,000 uh square feet, excuse me, 20,8 square feet. The current lot coverage, excuse me, the proposed lot coverage with the dwelling, with the deck, with

with the solar panels before you this evening comes to 21.3%. The maximum for this uh residential zone uh is 20%. So the dimensional relief that we're seeking is not related to setbacks. It's not related to front, rear, sideyard, etc. It's solely relative to that maximum lot coverage issue. U the proposed improvements are a 20 kilowatt DC ground mounted solar array. I'm going to approximate that that array is about 950 square ft. The proposed improvements is screened by an evergreen buffer and low profile racking. That low profile racking uh will be discussed uh by our expert. The evergreen buffer is arborites. There should be some photos uh in your packet. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me um and I guess we'll make it P10. I have an exhibit uh that demonstrates that arborite arborite fence. Um the planting area uh the grade was raised about 2 feet. The arbor vites at this time are about 8 ft. Obviously, they are going to grow. I'm not an arous can't tell you exactly how quick but probably about one to two feet a year based off of my own experience. Um and they're green arbor vites. Uh so pretty robust um type of planting vegetative buffer um and so generally the goals here the goals here is energy production for this house. um and we're putting in uh vegetative buffers etc to minimize the visual and environmental impact. I will note and I'm going to get into in

particular but when you look at your special use permit criteria in the context of a ground mounted solar array it's really about two things. It's about of the view shed whether there's sufficient buffering from the neighbors. We believe we've achieved that with the grading uh and with the arbor righties. Uh and the other issue is sound. Uh and as as you will hear from the contractor that's going to install this array, there is no sound that emanates from the panels and it's um inverter. It's the inverter that actually makes the sound and that's going to be within the residence. It's going to be within the structure. So there really should be no concern whatsoever uh relative to this because of that item being within the home. And again, the other big issue is the vegetarian buffering and we think we've done that. Uh we met um special use criteria with that. So just very briefly and I want to be clear there there are two things you need to vote on tonight. The first is the dimensional variance justification and ultimately that comes down to is it the unique circumstances of this property the land itself that gives rise to the need for this variance and that's the case. Um there's reasons why uh a roof mounted solarite would not work. uh one structural integrity of the roof, two voiding uh the warranty of that of that roof and other things that um the gentleman that's installing the ray and our engineer um can can speak to. Um so it really is the the sole thing we're looking for because there's just not enough uh uh acreage in this property and it's very very dimminimous. It's 1.3% which is a very very request. One of the other items that

makes this property unique that would require us to do a ground mounted as opposed to a roof is the ground placement maximizes sun exposure on the south facing slope. And I know I'm not an expert, but we can all take judicial notice of the fact that that's the way that the array uh will be facing. That's to maximize um energy production. So that's the first factor. Are we because of the unique characteristics of the land and not because of something that the applicant did to create this situation. She didn't do anything. She wants to use alternative energy. She needs to make sure that it's cost viable and it's only cost viable if that array is going to feed power to the entire household. So, it doesn't make sense to have a smaller array. It would be unfeasible um to power this product. Um the next factor to look at, and I will go over this with Mr. Is it the hardship? The hardship is it was it created by any action of the applicant? Um, and that's not it. It's the the array size is driven by the consumption data. There's only one reason we're here. That's what she needs to effectively run this house and not have some kind of hybrid system. If we could have a small array, we would not be here looking for 1.3%. just be focusing on the two issues really before you on the special use criteria. Is it buffered visually and is it going to make noise that's above and beyond of the decel limits within your code? Excuse me, attorney, could you please where in the application does it reference the percentage of uh the coverage relief that you're asking for? It should be on the stamped plan. Which plan? That would

be P8. I'm sorry. P3. Excuse me. So, can somebody please walk us through that? I see it in the top right corner. No, I I see it. Can you please come up and explain that? [Applause] The explanation you're looking for is purely what is the differential that you're asking for relief? The differential we're asking for and where do you just walk us through that zoning ru book box please? Um so the the overall coverage has to do with the building the on the property. So the square footage and what's the difference in dimensions we have what square footage versus minimum what's where is it in this table? So the lot coverage as it states in the zoning table is 20%. the building overall coverage. We have building that includes the building of itself and the shed as well as panels themselves. So the addition of those get us to the 21%. But is it ever specifically noted here? 20 No, it's noted. So where is the square? So you have building coverage is 2817. The lot is 20,08. Correct. The building coverage which is inclusive of the array is 14. And then the solar panels themselves are listed at 275 and 605.

So that's 20.05. The 14% is just the house. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And 6.05 is the panels. Yeah. 6.3 6.3 So that's 20.3 20 21.3 21.3 7.3 Oh, that's what I was going to say. My math is 10.3. So you're saying that the panels are 7.3, correct? So the total coverage is 21.3, correct? and the ordinance the requirement is 20. So you've got 1.3% is the differential. I hope somebody might be able to understand the frustration where I shouldn't have had to. It should have been crystal clear somewhere to tell me and the members exactly what the relief was requested. Uh is that reasonable for me to expect and it wasn't there. We had to walk through it to get there. So 1.3% is what we're talking about when we're talking about relief. Okay. Thank you. I lost my pencil. Oh, before we continue, Vivian, did you get P10? You got P10, right? Yes, I did. Okay. Thank you. One of the issues that that may be on the board's mind is there any demunition value based off the fact that there's no sound that's going to emanate from the system based off of the inverter being within the building and the fact that

we've got quality uh arborites surrounding uh the area should should suffice um tohclude that type of impact on properties. I I would add I know often times um maybe not before zoning boards but often in my practice before planning boards when we're putting for landscaping plans you know there's a question are these plants going to are they going to exist more than three four five months something like that. So we would be very happy to agree to some kind of condition regarding you know inspection maintenance some kind of warranty to this board that that that greenery that are are providing buffer will will remain in place um and we'll do everything we can to maintain it and keep it healthy. Well as as you know this board really doesn't have enforcement capacity. um if if the board feels so so suited, they can put it in as a condition. However, that would be deferred to the zoning official in the building. Uh all of the issues with relation to except as specifically noted in the special use permit criteria is all relevant to the ordinance and if you v if you deviate from the ordinance, then you know well that that would be a variance. So, anything and everything except the criteria in the special use permit has to be in accordance with the variance, excuse me, the ordinance that deals with the accessory use uh groundmounted solar. Can you clarify also for Mr. Campbell the engineer with regard to the orientation of the arrays? You just confirm that they are indeed pointed towards the residence and not towards any abutters. Correct. They are pointed inward not okay thank

you and just very quickly with respect to the special use permit criteria solar arrays are allowed by way of special use permit in the zone pursuant to section 340-59 of your ordinance as I said other than the max lot coverage there is site planform performance with respect to setbacks, height. Um I know that there's that issue uh Mr. Chairman that you identified, but we would agree to make it a condition to this decision that there is no encroachment within that setback. Um and we would defer to whatever the building official would require to ensure uh that there that that's been met and there's no violation. I mean clearly we would be proceeding at our peril uh and it would not a lot of sense to construct this unless we're sure that we're not going into a setback obviously. Well, the reason councelor the reason that I brought it up in addition to what I previously stated is that it is obvious from the pictures that the sauna tube the structural embedments were placed far before appearing before this board. Therefore, it raised the question in my mind when I review these things that well, if those sona tubes are not in the exact right position. Uh so what we can do as part of our uh resolution and we always make a resolution in the in affirmative no matter what the application is. We can put a stipulation that we require the building official zoning official to ask for a certified plot plan which will clearly identify that those arrays are within the appropriate setback and that would be sufficient. Um before you continue, can council please agree relative to 9.2.1 dimensional variance in constru

conjunction with a special use permit? My premise would be that they can stand alone. Uh the attorney's testimony or opinion aside, you could install a solar mounted ground mounted accessory solar without the variance dimensional relief as as we know they have to be heard in concert if one is dependent upon the other. Can the two of you please agree on which way? Your question is somewhat rhetorical but yeah and respectfully the little comp it's a compound question. The first part of it sure if he gives relief as the attorney testified to Mr. Resnik were at 20% he wouldn't even be here on that issue. But when you do combine the two issues as you know that's the rhetorical part long-standing practice and case law shows they have to be considered collectively. You agree as well? No objection to that. No objection Mr. Chairman to what you just referenced. Anything else? I would just like There was an oppositional memorandum that was submitted to this board. It's the only one that I'm aware of of a substantive objective from a community member. I won't be long, but I just want to very briefly go over them. The first item that was brought up was a premature construction allegation. And Mr. As you noted, Mr. Chair, we're here in hand. Should should any of this solar array have been commenced or construed? before obtaining the required relief from the zoning board? No, it should not. However, this board is not an enforcement body and your building official in your zoning department saw fit not to violate this gentleman or violate this project for it under the concept that we would immediately stop work which we did and

come here to obtain the relief that is required. So, no, it was not done. Um, you should come here first. However, there's no violation. We're here to fix it. Um, I don't think that there's any prejudice uh to the board or the community based off of what happened. And if you can, even though this is a little bit theoretical, it's probably not a violation of your ordinance to dig some holes in the ground and put some cement. It shouldn't have happened. It shouldn't have happened. But my point to you is we're not here sitting in a in a posture where we've been violated. We accept responsibility and we're here that we need to do it appropriately. So, no one's going to suggest that um that the footings being placed in etc. before we came to this board. That's not how business should have been conducted. But we need to find a path forward and and in speaking with staff that path forward was obviously through this. Um before you continue or conclude, we're going to leave you open so that if we have the public, you can come back. But on the resolution, when we write it, I if if members agree, I think we should indicate that we will require that the zoning official receive a stamped drawing or a letter from either either Mr. Campbell makes his own drawing and stamps it and then it's a dead issue. If Mr. Campbell doesn't want to do that, then he needs to get a memorandum from the original preparer giving you the authority to do what you did. As long as one of the other is received, then that is a contingent of the decision if it were to be in the favor. So, as I said, when I was up here, I am happy to do that. Limited time. I took a review of what I did. Perhaps a letter in that case would have

been more appropriate. However, we will provide you final documentation prior to building. Thank you. I think you can appreciate uh the reason I brought it up. Anything else, attorney council? There was there was an item about missing plan details. We believe that's been discussed. There was an updated plan submitted to you after this was drafted. There's an issue about the stamp concern. Uh again, It's not proper before this board and I do note that I believe that gentleman is here. I don't believe he's a registered engineer. My understanding from the memo is that his wife is a registered engineer. I want to be very careful here tonight to the extent that there is testimony put forth by this gentleman. As I understand it, he is not a registered engineer. So, we need to be very careful about how we consider his testimony uh here this evening. Uh it should be that of a witness. He may have experience in the solar industry. He may be here because he has a rival solar company, but I just want to be as far as I understand it, he's not a registered engineer. And we're getting into that area, Mr. Chairman, that you have a concern about, which is clearly protecting registered uh engineers in this state. Um, so I just want to put that on the record because I always see the gentleman here this evening. Well, council, I think if assuming you've read the memorandum, which I'm sure you have, you realize that the vast majority of it deals with the technical aspects of the ordinance. Understood. Which is not necessarily in our purview. We we do not deal with uh a vast majority of what is in the memorandum. That is for the zoning official and the building authority to interpret the rem written ordinance. And if there's a variation or you're not in compliance, then you got a problem. But

other than that, as you've noted quite clearly, the relief is documented with the criteria that it is. The the author when we open up public comment is of course welcome to come up and give their presentation. Um, however they're identified, we understand your point of view, but you also know that again the majority of what's in the document relates to the technical aspects of the ordinance, not necessarily the relief that's being sought. Understood. I'm just simply pointing out that sometimes weight is afforded to experts. It's not to lay people and I don't have the opportunity to examine the engineer that apparently worked on this. So, we're being denied the right to examine something, put that documentation together. My people are here. So, I just I just need to note that. Um, the other issue, uh, roof mounted solar seems to be some concept that because roof could be potentially available that ground mounted is not appropriate. That that's not the law. That's not your ordinance. Property owner has it within their purview to do a groundmounted array or a roof array. There's a lot of reasons why people don't like to put solar panels on their roof. It is voiding the warranties. It's water intrusion issues. It is the self slope that I mentioned before that makes the ground mounted a huge benefit here. Um, and there are serious structural concerns about this roof being able to hold up this way. But I I'll defer to people with that expertise in a moment to flesh that out. Also, the shading, the dorm layout, of the of the uh structure. It just does not lend itself well to a roof mounted. But again, it's had the option of uh the applicant. There's no self-created hardship here. That's very important. There's nothing

that the owner or the applicant has done to exacerbate this situation. They have a home. They're looking to uh they're looking to energize their house in a green way. Um and as you know, there's local policies, your comprehensive plan, state law, all supports that different types of renewable um energy. And just wanted to comment as well um again very happy to agree to a maintenance plan uh with respect to the trees, some inspections to make sure that they that they're there for some time. Um and again with the issues uh with the uh the building permits, we will work if we're so lucky to get the approval tonight to make sure that they have everything that they need to feel comfortable issuing a permit. We're not going to move forward with construction um till that happens. Um so with that, Mr. Chairman, I I would for purposes of protecting this record, I do need to ask uh my engineer um some magic questions, but I'd be happy to defer to you've taken um uh taken some comment from uh public. No, I think finish your presentation. Uh while uh engineer Campbell, while you're coming up, can you also if we can note it in the in the A emotion either modify the drawing here with the if you you didn't Yeah, you prepared this one, right? Uh in conduct. Yeah. So, one of two things. We want it to be crystal clear what the relief the dimensional percentage relief is. So you either generate a memorandum that you can address to the zoning official and very clearly state the summary that we

went through in the math or amend the drawing so that it's very clear that it's 1.3%. I'm very happy to do either one of those whichever is preference. If we want to keep it simple then modify the drawing table. Please do. Thank you. And Mr. Campbell, you just briefly uh list to the board your credentials and your experience testifying in the state. Sure. Again, my name is Daniel Campbell. I'm currently in the state of island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, New York, and I have a bachelor of science degree. civil engineering, bachelor of science degree in engineering management and environment background. And you are the registered agent registered engineer on this proposal. I am a registered engineer on this proposal as well as Steve as Mr. Chairman based off that testimony accept Mr. Campbell is an expert in his profession is a registered engineer. His stamp is there to prove it. So, couple questions. Did you review the local ordinance in preparation for your testimony this evening in relevant parts and relevant parts and did you review uh Rhode Island general relevant parts particularly zoning and you're aware that we're seeking dimensional relief tonight from maximum lot coverage correct correct and you provided some testimony this evening substantiated that the relief being sought is 1.3% in degree. Is that right? Correct.

Would you agree, Mr. Campbell, that the the reason that the relief is being sought with respect to the dimensional uh criteria is because of the unique physical circumstances of this property? All right. And would you I would like to list you some of those items, some of those characteristics. I'd like to know whether you agree that those are the particular unique physical circumstances that work upon this property. Um the property features a steep southerntherly slope. Is that correct?

I for the engineer questions questions. You had mentioned that this was the smallest array you could install a 20 kilowatt array. I mentioned based upon the current and this is just a single residence house that uses almost 1500 kilowatts a month. Okay. I can tell you well anecdotally I can tell you that I get a letter from the electric company pretty much every month that tells me who the best people are in my neighborhood and the worst people and the worst people use 750 kilowatts. This is twice that. I I'm just That's why I was surprised. I must be too efficient. That's all. Vinnie, one more. I have a question for you. Do you have storage batteries? Do you have storage batteries? There are non storage batteries currently proposed. What you say? None proposed.

So what happens when you don't have the sun for a few days? So it goes back to the grid. Sure. The way the power works if you don't have storage batteries. True. So in reality, you're really not running the house, you're making electricity for the grid. So the way most of the storage systems work or the way most of the electric systems work is you are putting it back through a meter regardless of of how you've got your If you have the batteries, you charge your batteries first. But a lot of the electric programs associated with the batteries also make an agreement with the electric grid that they can take power out of the batteries anytime you want for a certain number of times a year. Now, all the time you're essentially trying to run or slow down your electric meter. So, either you run it backwards, it's stagnant, or it's running forwards. During the day you're running it backwards with the hope at night you're running it forwards and they balance out with each other. That that's a typical array. Yeah. And the only way you do that if you can produce more than what you use produce more or at the same correct that answer your question. It's like putting money in the bank. You put it in and you take it out. Same idea. Same same basic idea. And you generate more in the summer than you do in the winter. So in the winter technically you're using up the bank as you put it. You hope for zero balance at the end of the correct. Any other questions? I'm just curious what's the total height of this array? I don't see it in the drawings. Um it's the back side of the total height, but I put it to the installer for what? Okay. Well, we should note though that if the ordinance has a specific dimension, then they must be in compliance and if they're not, they

would need a variance or that can be part of the asbuilt is to confirm if we want to note that uh that to note not only the setback but the finished height maximum height of the array relative to any requirement in the ordinance. Any other questions for the uh engineer? Okay, we're going to keep them both uh both open. We ask you to sit if you'd like and uh we'll suspend uh we'll suspend the applicants testimony for now. All in favor? Okay, continue it suspended. Uh we can open for public comment if we have any. Sir, just uh introduce yourself clearly so that the secretary can get your name. I'm assuming obviously that you're one of the people who wrote the memorandum. No, you're not. Okay. My name is Jose Garcia. I live a right behind right behind I'm a little little nervous. You know, this is the first time coming up here. So, hope you'll forgive me. Take your time. That's fine. Yeah. Um, so I just wanted to thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide public comment for the application of the ground mounted solar panel at 35 in Northfield. My name is Jose Garcia. I'm the homeowner at 54 Avenue directly behind the property on Northwood. Given the location on my property, uh, my family and I would be the most impacted by the continuation of this project. So therefore, I'm here to share additional context for your consideration. First and foremost, I'm here to advocate for the safety of my children. The ground mounted solar

panels can pose a significant safety risk due to electrical wires that run behind and near the peers that were already installed prior to any approvals. While I will note the applicant does not mean any harm to our well-being, there simply is currently no safeguard to prevent access to these potentially dangerous ground mounted panels. Um, as you know, kids routinely go where they're not supposed to go, chasing after balls, pets, just going around uh and playing tag. Um, and I'm raising this now as a potential risk to avert accidents in the future. Um, since I've arrived in North Smithfield a little over two years ago, residents have been warm and welcoming to my family, and I' even made friends who had several my neighbors, which doesn't usually happen uh when we get to our age, but here we are. Um it was through my interaction with others who let me know the potential risk of having the panels installed as proposed. Um and I'm thankful for their expertise and input in this area. While I understand the desire for the applicants to install the ground mounted panels, I hope they can also understand my concern as a parent of a 5-year-old boy and nine-year-old girl. Their names are Joseph and AA who are at home right now. outside as we speak. Um, they absolutely love living here and wouldn't change a thing. I only want to protect them if it's in my power to do so. Um, I also mentioned the hidden dangers because a survey map submitted as part of the application does not show the gaps between trees separating our properties. Um, these gaps are wide enough to walk through. Um, one side has no trees at all. and you can pierce through them and see the other side. Um likely requiring an 11 foot fence to completely cover the proposed panels which is currently not allowed by the town. Um they also it's it's been referenced you know in today's hearing that uh there is a buffer of a height difference but it's also misleading to not say that my patio is greatly raised above that and so there's

no way to necessarily avoid seeing it. Um though the panels tilted or will always be at an angle that is either at near or possibly over the property line if it requires constant adjustments and at the edge of our properties. I fear that without a fence that completely keeps the panels out of sight and out of reach, it could peique the interest of my kids or of others kids who might go off to explore and accidentally touch electrical wires. And I wouldn't want that to happen for my kids or anyone else's for that matter. As you can imagine, we you know, we routinely have children coming over to our house, our neighbor's kids. You know, it's like it's not It's not unusual for like them to kick over a wall and then run over there and I just wouldn't want anything to happen to them. Um, I hope my public comments won't be heated, but I also hope that the applicants can achieve their desired savings through the installation of panels on their roof. From my understanding, their roof should be large enough to accommodate the panels needed to meet their energy needs. It doesn't require special permitting. It matches the aesthetics of neighboring properties, but most importantly, it is a safe and cost effective alternative. Um, thank you again for this opportunity and I I hope any comments from neighboring will be reviewed thoroughly with caution for safety, health and wellbe for all residents. Um Mr. Garcia, if you could um your property does views the rear of this property there. There appear to be abroad is on the right side and I'm trying to see if there's a picture here. of the rearing of the pictures have it does provide some coverage but there's a lot of gaps in between if you'd like to come forward I don't know if you saw this drawing so

this is you here correct I'm showing him uh I'm showing him the the So that's you there P3. So these would be new. Are these existing or those new? These don't necessarily exist. There are some shrubs here. Um there is a weird island here with a tree right here. Um and then there is nothing over here. And you heard us. We just discussed and the applicant has accepted to put the abraites here. Have you Mr. Campbell, have you been to the site? Um, I've been to the property. Sure. And Mr. Garcia is concerned with regard to is there a way to modify the buffering on the back side? So, overall, the concern is how far apart they're planted should be planted approximately 8 ft apart. Yeah. If they're closer than that, they will kill each other. Well, but the engineer is correct in saying that you can't put them. They'll choke each other. Each plant will kill itself within three years and then you're going to say to the applicant if this goes forward why don't you replace them and they're going to say well they dead because that's the way we did it. The other option is to maximize the height of the fence and put some fabric on it so that you don't have a direct line of sight you know fabric. See, problem is we're not we're not in the position to negotiate and bargain necessarily on some on substantial issues. We we can ask them to comply with certain things, but it's not in our purview to say to them, well, you should just put it on the roof because that's what we think you should do. That might be your opinion, but we can't just arbitrarily say we don't like this. We won't approve it unless you put it on the roof, and then you don't need our approval. So the

real question is can we accommodate the security could be achieved by what is required of them anyway which is to fence both of them such that nonprofessional people have cannot access it. Um and if you wanted to put a fabric fence I think we all know that fabric fence is minimal expenditure. So, if I can address that quickly, um, we just asked the client the backside of each one of those, if you would be amendable to us making it a vinyl fence rather than the chain link, they're happy to do that. It's an impermeable barrier on the back side as well as the plantings that we've already discussed. That's very reasonable because it's a complete obstruction. They're happy to do that, sir. And also, if there is a concern about gaps in the vegetation not withstanding the fact they have to be planted a certain amount apart. We're happy to add in a couple more trees. There's a certain area that you're concerned about. Um but the idea is to provide you this is a proposal. Not everything that you see obviously put into effect. And if this is happy to see it, but I have to see it on the paper. Well, but if if the relief I just take one moment of the process. If the relief is granted, we we will make it contingent upon certain things and one of them will be that you can sit down with the zoning official as he gets the updated drawings from the applicant and you're free to go to their office, even free to arrange for meetings, which is what we often encourage. And you look at it and you if you are accepting of it, if it's a approach then that's the way we uh alleviate these concerns. So let's just clarify. You're saying the back because we're wrapping each one of each one of them. So the back elevation the back

elevation here and the back elevation here a 6 foot vinyl fence that's north side. Yeah. North northeast. Yeah. Correct. So we'll put that in the motion as well that the north and northeast will have a solid vinyl fence. And again, you're free to sit down. So it will be over here. No, no. Fencing the actual array. Yeah. So the array is fenced approximately 3 to four feet off of the physical array itself just to give service access. Service access and then prevent the access you. So you have two forms of obstruction. You have the buffering of the plantings and you have the buffering of the solid fence. We don't want to belabor this, but we've taken your point into consideration and the an applicant has been uh kind enough to Thank you for hearing. Oh, you're welcome. Do you have anything else? Okay. Thank you, sir. So, we noted that. Uh any other public comment, please go ahead. Members of the board. Uh my name is Charles Ty. speak a little bit closer to the mic if you uh I am also to this project by the town. Um myself and my wife Ashley T. Uh we submitted the memorandum in opposition. Um and I want to be clear to start off that our primary concerns relate deeply to uh the lack of process that has been followed here. Um we own and operated a solar development engineering firm for eight and a half years. And it has been our experience that generally speaking uh when processes involving town permitting and

special use permitting and variances are not followed closely, it typically will indicate that those people do not intend to be very careful about the overall installation of the project in its entirety. That has been our personal experience. Doesn't necessarily that will um I'd also like to mention uh I I have spoken in a number of zoning board meetings and I I always find it interesting when people proactively try to discredit what we want to say uh in opposition to a project by mentioning that I am not a licensed professional engineer. That is true. I have never claimed to be a licensed professional engineer. I am an engineer by trade and professor. Uh I have a bachelor's of science in engineering. Um and as I said I have been in this industry for eight years. So you can take my position strictly from the perspective of someone who is in the trade. It's perfectly acceptable. Um, there are a number of comments that have been made tonight that I continue to find concerning in terms of making them as statements of fact. Um, one of the items has to do with the P stamping that you brought up. Um so the engineer who is here this evening uh who I have spoken to prior to this meeting full disclosure um he mentioned that he has reviewed these documents in detail and I stamped them and certified them. I will note that repeatedly this evening uh the number of 20 kow has been mentioned is the minimum reasonable size for this array in order for it to be financially viable. That is not the size of the array that is being proposed on these drawings. The drawing was restamped uh continues to say 36 solar panels, but it shows 32. And so the size of this array is

actually just under 18. Uh again, as a point of fact, that detail has not been changed on the drawing, but it has now been seen twice. The orientation of the right hand side panels, the smaller array of panels between the engineer drawing and the site plan also does not align. They're not the same. So these are just discrepancies that as someone who works in this industry I would find very concerning in terms of making sure that things are done precisely because they are not consistent and that has now been reviewed by two different engineers and not um There are a number of aspects of this proposal uh in terms of strictly talking about the relief requested. There were statements made about how the roof cannot support solar and that's why that's not a viable option. I have not done a structural review of this building but again from my personal experience over eight and a half years we have built dozens of projects on roofs. Um we have had exactly groups that are incapable of supporting uh direct rafter mounted accounts. We've never experienced this. Um there were also statements made regarding uh voiding warranties of uh the roof. Generally speaking, if that work is done by a licensed roofer, uh the warranties can be maintained, which is why many people that option In fact, we were able to produce very quickly a design that would only use two of the four sections of this roof and accommodate the same number of panels as have been proposed on the ground. That is not to say that required to proceed. It's merely to point out that this is not the only way of

achieving this design. It should also be noted that it was mentioned that this is the most efficient design that is possible. In the updated site plan, there is fencing directly surrounding all of this equipment. That fencing will shade the solar panels which will inherently make them less productive. So the current design would actually be on average less productive rooftop system. There was also mention of the financial impact of the system. Rooftop systems on average statistically are 20 to 25% less expensive to build than a grounded system. So these statements of fact I would argue are more opinion than fact. Um in terms of the relief specifically there are a number of references and ordinances mentioning that this needs to be relief required, the minimum relief required. If there are alternative approaches that do not negatively impact the butters and are financially more feasible, it would seem to me that this is not the minimum relief required because the minimum relief required would be to not pursue the project in this way. Again, most of our concerns really stem from the fact that documents were submitted with handwritten notes on stamped plans. They were inconsistent. Many of the documents initially there was very little notice. The documents had not been submitted prior to the meeting which I understand there was obviously from the last event. Um so we would just really like to emphasize that in our experience similar processes. Had we submitted documents with this level of inconsistency, they would not have been scheduled for a meeting. They would have been rejected

outright. And so I would encourage this board at the very least to ensure that all the documentation that is submitted is consistent and reviewed appropriately for detail. Um just as a followup, um Mr. Ty Charles, um, thank you for clarifying and clearly stating your background and that while you have an engineering degree, you are not representing yourself as a PE. Um, and your concerns. I I'll I'll make a few statements and then members can can add to that. Um the procedural issues that you uh was the original flag are more than valid and we I believe uh sometimes not to the favor of the uh applicant uh made that very clear. I believe in fairness to all parties that uh the path forward if this is approved has been clearly defined both by the conditions that we currently have in the resol in the motion if it's approved and also the fact that the zoning official is quite aware. He's the one who went to the site and observed the excavations. It's his discretion. uh he didn't issue a cease synthesis which is fine because the applicant agreed to then quote play by the rules. So from this point moving forward yes that's why the board raised the issues that we did about the double stamp for example. Um, but we have an engineer with a stamp providing uh professional information and opinions that the board can only rely on. His stamp is there to substantiate it. He's

been very candid with us. And we also need to be mindful of the fact that we don't really have the right to negotiate. Now, I should qualify that. You just saw a negotiation occur, but that was a minor issue which was trying to appease a neighbor and a butter and the applicant. It's not the same as saying to the applicant, "Oh, go home and resubmit. I mean, you don't even need to be here for roof mounted solar." As you well know, they have every right to install a groundmounted solar if they comply with the special use permit criteria. And in this instance, they're asking for the variance for the small percentage overage. If you have issue with uh engineer Campbell's stamp and his calculations, then if this is approved from this day forward, you have every right, as you well know, to sit down with the zoning official and look at every thing that is submitted. And you have every right to go after back to him and say that this is my opinion as a professional in the industry that this is correct and this is not and it's his obligation to flush it out and make sure that the applicant is being forthright in their in what they're presenting. So, you know, that's where we are. Uh, of course, the applicant could walk up right now and say, "Oh, you know what? We're going to do rooftop." they don't have to do that and we don't really have the legal authority to coersse them into doing it because uh that just would not be proper. So, all due respect, I think the best way to handle your concerns if the board approves the relief sought is to make sure that you stay in touch with the zoning official because he will not issue a permit until he has all the

documentation and you have every right to get a copy of the decision if it is approved. and the conti conditions on the decision are very clearly going to be stated and if any of them are in violation then the relief is null and void and that is a legal document. So you do have protection if the board gives an affirmative on the relief. That's the best that we can do trying to navigate through trying to appease a butters and be fair to all parties including the applicant. So any uh comments or questions for Leah Butter? Okay. Thank you, sir. Um we can bring back the applicant. Do we have anything further for them or are we good? Mr. Campbell just wanted to briefly respond. Okay. Comments on the plan. Come up please. Good evening again. Just as we talked about um at the table, I wanted to clarify that the plans do contain a sixoot fence for security as we previously talked about. Um part of that discussion was changing the rear or the property line that faces the north northeast to a 6ft val fence instead of the chain link fence. and that we would certainly meet with the to discuss any gaps that currently appear as well as finish the plantings around that corner. Understood. Thank you. And I just wanted to make one comment relative to um the previous gentleman, Mr. Ty. Uh we would be happy to provide him if we are lucky enough to get the approval this evening when we put together our application uh for uh the permits that will be required. We send Mr. Ty a copy of it the same day that we submitted to the

town so that he's got a copy of it. Um, and obviously that way there can be, you know, if there needs to be a meeting, something's inappropriate, he wants to speak with the building official, I will put on a condition that we will provide him a copy the same day that we submit. The other comment I just wanted to make briefly is we are a little bit unable to examine the gentleman about some of the things that he stated. He mentioned creating some kind of theoretical plan. He certainly had conversations with our engineer, Mr. Campbell. It was never sent to us. I've never seen it. I can't really respond to it. There's comments about the roof warranty and generally speaking I would offer up that I don't think this gentleman knows the materials of the roof. I don't know he knows the roofer. He certainly doesn't know the contract. He doesn't know what warranty flows from it. So in just the same way that there was some ammunition at us about I guess making some conclusions without a factual basis. I think that we obied all those issues. I think we have put the factual support before this board and I'm in a situation where I can't even examine this gentleman on anything he said because I don't know what it's based off. So I I I have a question. Mr. Ty said that the array would not be 20 kilowatts. Are you assuring us that it is 20 kilowatts based upon the diagram? Mr. Campbell, I'm not going to provide any testimony to that. Our expert Okay. based upon the panels that were chosen and given to us from the solar provider. Yes. And all the panels are clearly represented on the diagram. They're represented on the diagram in their entirety. Right. There is a typo. Okay. Oh, there is a typo. There is a typo which we will Well, can we clarify where is So, we're talking about what we're calling P7A, correct? Which is the

revised drawing that has both stamps. Correct. So, where is the typo? Um, it is in the note section 30 rather than 30. Uh, there's nothing in the notes that notes that. Again, we don't have the drawing. You think we have the total module count on our plan is 36. Yeah. No, I'm trying to get back to the total panel count is 32 instead of 36. So the 36 the 34th and the the 35th and the 34th would have been the two that were erased were removed removed. So this is supposed to say 32 32 and that represents uh what does that correlate to? That's the correct 20. Uh can we put another condition in the motion would be that P7A that the total modular count be corrected to 32 and resubmitted. I believe there was a question about height and we would like to provide the documentation that the height will not exceed the allowable height for the zoning code. is allowable. Happy to provide that. You don't need to, but it would be beneficial as long as you're compliant. That's fine. Mr. Chairman, one other issue. There was some questions about the um the consumption needs of this house. Um I can provide some testimony to that. I believe in the packet that was submitted

uh to the board there is some um energy consumption data, but it would helpful. Um, one of the uh residents of the home, not the owner. Uh, the owner's here this evening. One of the residents has a little bit more uh experience with these types of things and can provide some testimony to substantiate what's already in your packet about the electrical consumption if you'd like. I I don't think it's necessary unless the members No, the the bill clearly shows what the average consumption is. you have submitted uh you've submitted sworn testimony that the two years is so we have no reason to conduct an investigation and go searching for things if if uh if if it's been submitted that way it's been submitted that way. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Unless the board has any other questions of me, Mr. Campbell. Are we good? Any questions for either? Okay. Thank you, Attorney. A motion to close the applicant's testimony. Make a motion to close the applicant's testimony. All in favor? I. A motion. Are there any further public comments? Can I just make one follow? Yes. Go ahead, please. I just wanted to follow up on that question that you asked about the total count. Yep. So, uh, the original design was the 36 modules. which I believe is on what you mentioned is P that shows the height of the shows the angle of the racking system. Yeah. Uh so you'll see at the top left of that sheet it says that the modules are 560 each. It's simple math that now that there are 32 modules 32 * 560 just to be clear about

Well, you can come back if you'd like. Um, but again, we have ambiguities in the drawing. So, um, uh, could Mr. Campbell please come back up then? Will we can we reopen a motion to reopen? Make a motion to reopen the applicant's testimony. Second. I'll second the motion. Can you address that? and we have a stamped document that appears to be in conflict. Can you please clarify? So, as I said previously, we're going to be providing document based upon the panels that are now provided to us and happy to clarify every single one of those. Well, how does the how does what's listed as the 560, how does that differ from the math that you just generated? As I said, the 32 panels at the panels provided to me, I didn't specify the wattage of these specific panels, the panel that's recently been provided to me that I had to review the documents. It's a panel that I am happy to provide at the time. And when it's all said and done, what does this truly mean? No, no, I understand that. When it's all said and done, you either increase the wattage of each panel. Correct. Or you increase the number of panels. Correct. Which would mean we would have to come back. Yeah. Absolutely. No, I understand. Anything else? Good. Okay. Go ahead. You're the applicant. What's that? You have to identify yourself. No, you speak slowly. of the secretary. Did you get that? Speak slowly in the mic. Russell. Okay. I just think this is an important

document because one guy indicated most he was $7,000. It says 17,765. And again, you are Who are you? I'm the boyfriend of Neo. Okay. But annual annual 17,65 and you gave that to the they have it somewhere. Oh, that's fine. We weren't we weren't we weren't questioning the veracity of the statement but thank you for the clarification. Thank you. Are we good? I am. Uh are you guys Well, why don't you you can still speak because you're still open. I'll leave them open until you speak in the event that they want to rebut what you're saying. come forward, please. Hi, my name is Ashley Ty and I am a professional engineer. I'm a civil and environmental engineer in the state of Rhode Island and I'm also uh the president and um primary business owner of a solar development and civil environmental engineering firm. And my question is because I asked this so that I can protect the integrity of the engineering profession but also for the future other residents who will want to get solar and I want them to have the best services provided to them because obviously I do advocate for solar um for every resident in field. I want them to just I want them to do it in the appropriate way. And I come up with um I develop drawing sets for all sorts of solar projects including including residential and there are uh three types of engineers that may be working on a

project like this. There are structural engineers which was the original uh stamp which would be necessary for ground mount system. There are also electrical engineers which would be necessary for the single line drawing which I understand is not of for the special use permit. Um, and I see that the stamp here is from a professional civil engineer, uh, Daniel Campbell. And I'm wondering what his expertise was for this particular project, why he felt that he was or is, and I'm not doubting that it is, I'm just confused, um, qualified if he doesn't have experience with solar. He's not structural specifications of it and he's unfamiliar with the electrical components of this solar system or even the numbers that are written on this planet. So what is it that compels him to stamp a residential solar ground mount system? That's all. Thank you. Uh Mr. Campbell, you're free to comment if you'd like. Mr. Campbell, unless you want to, you don't have to comment. He's a registered professional engineer in this state. In this like Massachusetts, there are no specialties. You're either a registered PE or you're not. He testified that he looked at all the local ordinances, that he looked at all the pertinent general laws, that he looked at all the appropriate information in developing the plan and stamping it. And that's our response to that question. I don't believe that anyone on the board is questioning the PE stamp. It is a PE. Um, and just note that any other drawings that are required, that's in the ordinance. If an electrical uh drawing is required, it's in the ordinance and the zoning official enforces it. Otherwise, this board would have this much in front of us and we're supposed to interpret things that is not our expertise just like your expertise is what it is. We are not in the

business of trying to interpret an electrical drawing to determine whether or not it's valid. That's what the building and the zoning official is for. All I can say on behalf of the board is that this is a routine relative I know it's not routine to all of you but it's relatively routine as to the process by which the application is submitted. There's a criteria that the zoning official and the building official the same goes through with the stamps required and the public is always able to challenge and go to the office and if you're a professional and you have a valid uh issue. The zoning official has nothing to lose and it's his job his or her job to entertain your thoughts. So with that said, uh I think um we can move on. Um any other public comment? Did you want to say something? I just wanted to so as an engineer and yes in the state of Rhode Island stamps and electrical stamps must be stamped for solar. I have a civil stamp as well. My area of expertise allows me to also stand as I have a master degree in environmental as an environmental engineer. Mr. Chairman, let me just stop you for a minute. There shouldn't be any testimony from a seat. If you want to testify, you should come to the podium. You have to come forward. Yeah, my my mistake. Please, if you want to continue, I should have asked you. This isn't why I was here tonight, but yes, Ashley Ty. Um, but I feel that when something again is stated as a I would like to correct it that in the state of Rhode Island we do have um profession specific stamps. I'm a general civil which means that I cannot stamp as a structural engineer for inhabited buildings. However, if I feel

that I have enough experience as an envir environmental or in transportation, I can stamp using my civil stamp. Which is why I questioned if this particular engineer felt that they enough experience as a solar array designer to stamp this drawing set. It's up to them to decide. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for either? Uh why don't we since we reopened the applicant, why don't we close the applicant again? Make a motion that we close the applicant's testimony. Second. I'll second the motion. All in favor? I. Okay. Now we have to close the public comment. Make a motion that we close public comment. All in fa second. I'll second the motion. All in favor? I. Okay. So, we'll go into deliberation. One minute here. Let me get some make some order of this mess. That's right. Well, you can read it. I'll have you read it. Okay. Well, we um as we noted in uh

9.2.1 2.1. Since both councils have agreed that um the relief is hinged, we have a dimensional variance request and a special use permit. Since one is contingent upon the other, we hear them simultaneously. Um I imagine it's somewhat arbitrary. I'll go and do the variance criteria first um since that would seem to be the most compelling one and then we won't vote until we have both. Okay. So um 9.3.1 in granting a variance the North Smithville Zoning Board of Review shall require that evidence to the satisfaction of the following standards be entered into the record of the proceedings based on the testimony and evidence presented in a few full review of the application and the record all presented at the public hearings. Uh based on that, the North Smithville Zoning Board of Review makes the following findings of fact. A that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land and is and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area and is not due to physical or economic disability of the applicant. Um the relief, the hardship, um you would say that it's of course it has to be unique to the characteristics of that specific property because the square footage is less than what would be what is in the ordinance. Um we don't really know how the sizes of

the abuing properties. Uh there is no physical or economic disability of the applicant. Um, you can add as you'd like. Uh, item B 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. Um there was no prior action other than the obvious which was installing the cement footings, but again that is not an action that's relevant to um those could easily be removed um and they don't impact our decision process. Um it's my opinion. Item C that the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of this zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan upon which this ordinance is based. This is always a bit of a wild card. We know that the comprehensive plan can be interpreted in multiple directions. You can find pros and cons for just about any desired use. Um clearly it would be in accordance in some respects and you could also find places in the complaint if you looked where you might be able to find that it's not um the we know that we have just in this year approved at least two other ground mounted uh both of them probably had a little bit more of a buffer but uh it it is something that we have done um and we

have uh at least twice this year. As to the altering of the general character surrounding area, uh, of course, you can always indicate that any change you make to property A that you didn't make to property B is alters the general character. But I it doesn't appear from all of what we've seen and the efforts to buffer and screen that it would be um quote a significant alteration or general significant alteration of the general character. Um that the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary. Um, we heard, you know, testimony with regard to from the abutters with regard to rooftop solar, which we know is does not require a an SUP, special use permit. But again, that is not the lease relief would need to be relative to the relief that's sought, not to an alternate. And what is being sought is a mounted solar installation. So is it the least relief necessary? We have testimony multiple accounts of it where that criteria by which the engineer established the size is what is needed to cover the electrical. Uh they've also submitted documentation. So I think it is and given that in this instance it's a variance a dimensional variance and it's a percentage we're talking about

1.03% of of uh of relief and that's a relatively minor percentage given the total of 20. So I I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that this is reasonable and the least relief Um, that granting the variant, excuse me, that granting the variance requested will not confer onto the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Again, that's always a wild card because you can you can push and pull that phraseiology and meaning in in whatever direction you want. But from a reasonable point of view, we know that every every resident has the right to apply for a ground mounted solver. So the only thing that differentiates this is the relief of the dimensional variance which is just over 1%. So while it technically always of those confer privilege because it is relief. Uh that privilege is not denied necessarily to other structures, lands and buildings in the same district should they seek. 9.3 2 uh 2 A doesn't apply and that's a use variance. I just want to double check we change the the law changed with 9.3.2. Right. Yeah. Yes. I'll read it and then we can strike whatever is not applicable. U I think I still have the old version. In granting a dimensional variance that the hardship that will be suffered by the owner of the subject property if the dimensional

variance is not granted is shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience. I believe the rest has been struck stricken. Yes, that's correct. Well, in this case, um you wouldn't think that the 1.03% would would do that, but it appears from their testimony that that it has. Um I guess um so it would appear that from their testimony and from documentation submitted, they would not be able to satisfy the previous electric demands without the relief. So by definition that would probably serve to define a mere inconvenience. So that's the uh criteria for the variance. We can add or to that as needed. I'll I'll I'll move right into the special use and then we can go back if we need to add anything. Um findings of fact this is 9 section 9.2 um special use permit item one and it's the same criteria as to the zoning board written decision includes finding a fact certifying compliance with the rules governing the special use permit that satisfactory provision and arrangement has been made concerning the able portions of the North Smithfield zoning ordinance. Findings of fact were supported by testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing as follows. Item one, um, ingress and egress to property in proposed structures thereon

with particular reference to fire or catastrophe. Um, we've had this same condition with the other two ground mounted. I think it's reasonable to conclude based on the plan of the property that the fire or police have easy access right and left of the driveway onto the grass to access both array locations. Item two, um, off streetet parking and loading areas were required with particular attention to the items uh in it in item one above and the economic, noise, glare or odor effects of the special use permit on adjoining properties and properties generally in the district. Um, This is, you know, another one of those wild cards. The first part, the over off streetet parking is is with this type, as we've seen with the other solar ground on the residential, is is kind of a mood point. There is really no parking and loading. U we know that technicians may may visit the site once or twice a year and they just pull into the driveway. Um and uh as it relates to ingress and egress that's still been dealt with the economic it's it's it's extremely hard for us to ever find u bonafide information that would that would confirm a yay or a nay whether it's a benefit or a disadvantage. We just have never had information provided in either direction other than whatever we happen to conclude of our own accord. Noise, we know that noise is

really not an issue with ground mounted solar. We've we've been down this road many a time. Uh the glare we did note and I did ask them to clarify that the panels are are directed to the south souththeast and west away from or south southwest away from the abutters um and directed towards the house. um odor effects. We know that to best of our knowledge that's not relevant. um on adjoining properties and properties generally in the district. You know, we had many comments about rooftop and you solar and if the applicant had chosen to do that, you had many people who have strong opinions, yay or nay, whether it be the architectural look of solar in their neighborhood. So, you can look at it many different ways. Um, we did through our motion if we vote in favor and with Mr. Garcia the butter to the rear. The applicant was was willing to um make concessions to improve to benefit his concerns about his young family um and to maintain the security of the array so that children their curiosity would not allow them to access. So I think In that regard, um that's been met. Item three, um refuse and service areas. Uh with particular reference to the items in one and two above, that's really not applicable. There is no refu refuse. Uh in generally speaking, utilities would reference the location, availability, and compatibility.

Um, if that was an issue, it's going to be dealt with by the zoning official uh when the application is formally submitted. There wouldn't be a reason. It doesn't appear that the uh Rhode Island Energy can't deal with this because it's just a small residential system. Item five, um, screening and buffering with reference to type, dimension, and character. I think the drawings submitted, the notes in the motion that I believe we have dealt with screening and buffering uh and actually gone a little bit beyond to try and satisfy the concerns of the um and again the the motion will contain uh stipulations that the zoning official will need to ensure are Item six, signs if any and proposed exterior lighting with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect. Uh we know that signage is again addressed in the ordinance and it's minimal in nature. There's no reason for it to be large and it would be on the front side of the array which is facing away from the abuters. um required yards in open space. It's always a little bit ambiguous as to what that truly means in this regard. I believe we've dealt with it as a process of getting where we are through the information provided. Um there's plenty of open space. It's a residential property. Item eight, uh, general compatibility

with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. Um, I I guess that's still a true statement whether the if the relief is granted because it's not a significant overly significant issue. It's two small clusters of array that are going to be shielded by buffering and by fencing. Um, Again, you can always argue if you want to about general compatibility. That's a rather broad statement, but I think for the most part that has been addressed and we would say that it is in the gen generally it is compatible with the adjacent properties. Uh anything on any of those items for the variance or the special use permit? No, I think you covered it. Anything else? Good. Okay. You want to have a motion to close deliberation? Make a motion to close deliberation. Second. I'll second the motion. All in favor? I. So, we need a motion from the floor. Excuse me, from the board. Bethany, if you could. Okay. Make a motion to approve ZBR23 application for special permit for a ground mounted solar palic system as an accessory residential use and as a dimensional variance for lot coverage in an RU residential district with the requirement that the zoning official will obtain a memo from the original preparer of plot map of P7A stating his permission to stamp the original map on his behalf. half and a requirement that the zoning official obtain a modified zoning table on P3 drawing dated 51125, noting the amount of relief

required and requirement that the applicant match existing buffering on the rear right northeast corner of the lot. and the applicant agrees to set back and max height of the array requirements to comply with our ordinance. Also that the applicant agrees to a solid 6-oot vinyl fence on the northnortheast side of the arrays and further that uh a required update to the note section of P7A will reflect 32 panels and be resubmitted. Mr. Chairman, if I may, with respect to P7 and whether or not it would be the original engineer's approval, I believe there was also a disjunctive or that the Mr. Campbell would submit a plan with his own stamp on it. Is that what you were going to say? I think if you add that to it. Yeah, that's what was discussed. So, we can add that that either either a memo from the original professional engineer or a new drawing from Mr. Campbell prepared by him and stamped by him. I'd like to ask that the in addition to the number of panels reflect the number that will be used there be something that uh identifies what the aggregate kilowatt kilowatts will be for that number of arrays whether it be 32 or 36 or whatever the number is it reflect the exact number of arrays and the exact amount of power being produced which is what he said he would do. Okay. But we can note that the only other thing was to request that the zoning and building official get a certified plot plan upon completion to verify that all of the panels are within the 10 foot setback.

I think that was a good one. I think we got everything. I think so. Do we need to hear it back or is everybody good? Good. Yes. Do you want me to add anything officially on the record or you've got it covered in the discussion? You don't want me to read it all back? I don't think so. We we the only thing that we added that you didn't read which is fine is the certified plot plan and the qualification that that Mike had mentioned and also the option to the engineer Campbell to submit his own drawing with his own stamp. Okay. Um why don't we have a roll call vote please? Um Mr. Chairman, before we have the roll call vote, who second the motion? Good question. No. No one. I'll second the motion. My omission. Thank you. Okay, the roll call vote. Um, Mr. Nigerian, yes. Mr. Men, yes. Miss Benoy, yes. Mr. McAntonio, yes. Mr. Cabini, yes. That's five. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good day or good night. Good luck. Uh just give us one minute to do some paperwork clean up here and we'll get to the next agenda. A lot of tonight. We have a lot of Number one, we can't worship 8 foot. to be from my yard. I'll show you. I know. That type of thing.

They really They're really producing more than usual. A lot of people do that. My electric is about $42 and usually check us had We'll accept that as a full exhibit. This is the key. No further question. This is how you do it. But see, that's why this is national very strict about what you can do. National doesn't want you. National people couldn't move and I was able we good. Let's let's get back to business here. Uh, Vivian, you may have to help me on this just because I I had pieces. And so, we're on item seven, new business ZBR25-4, application for dimensional variance property located at 10 Leonard Drive, North Smithfield. Owner of the property is Zachary Leuk. This is lot AP014, lot 234. The applicant is seeking a dimensional variance and is seeking relief from section 6.8 accessory buildings and structures to build a shed

in the front yard of his property which requires a dimensional variance under section 9.3 property is in an RA zone. Okay. So, but I read it. We'll call P1 the actual application which is ZBR25-4. P2 um is the shed permit which is SH23. I printed that out because it was uploaded. P3. Uh I think most of us got the larger version of P3 which is a untitled unstamped uh plot plan of some extent um of the property. P4 would be the 200 foot of butters list report. P5 is the uh radius map, 200 foot radius map. It's dated April 22nd of 25. Uh axis CIS. Now Vivian, that's all I have. Do we I'm missing anything? Um warranty deed and pictures. Do you have any pictures? No, I I I didn't. Let me. So, okay. So, I think we have them here. I can mark these up. What about the warranty date? Does Yeah, I'll need that. Or I don't need it. We

can just We'll just give it a number. Okay. So P6, we're getting good at better at this electronic. Uh we're just switching over now, so it's taking some adjustment. P6 is a Google map, 10 Leonard Drive. It's dated 42525. It shows the property with the culdeac and the driveway. Piece seven would be some schematic architectural framing drawings. There's one, two, three, four sheets. They're undated. They were prepared by sketch up and again it's just a wood framing for what would appear to be the shed building and the warranty. So this is P7. So the deed would be P8. Yes. Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to get up and make a quick presentation, please? Speak a little bit closer. So I'm looking for a dimensional variance on the existing slab property in 2022 that we're trying to build a shed on it shed on that slab just to get you know all the equipment equipment all my stuff out of the garage so that my kids don't Okay. Is that it? All right. if you could. Um I mean it's kind of a unique property because you're at a

corner. What's the culdeac? Is the culdeac the entrance? Is that what you use as the entrance? The front what I consider the front yard? Yep. And then the driveway. So that driveway to the right is what you use. You just that's access to your garage. Now, I hadn't seen the what we're calling P6, which is the the 10 Leonard Street Google map. So, all of that growth, if you would, if you wouldn't mind come forward. So, is the apron is the concrete pad in this U? Yes, it's in here. It is underneath those trees right there. So is it Oh. Oh. Is it visible from the abuter to the right to 1200? Yeah. Uh you'd be able to see it through trees. And again, this is just explain briefly based on this picture why you couldn't put it say to the left of the property or to the rear. just left the property as we're looking down, which would be closer to Francona Street, right? Or Franconia Drive. It is a big hill, but technically that is my front yard. And that's the that's what everybody's looking at when they're coming into the neighborhood. So, we're trying to hide the shed itself. Which one is the front yard? The corner of Franconia and No, that's what I thought you said. But if you went further down Franconia towards towards number nine, I we can't tell what the topography is. That's why I'm asking

question. There is a a large hill. My neighbor's yard is higher than mine. So we have steep incline. So that's the neighbor at number nine. Nine. Yes. Yeah. And then you have a heavy heavy tree burden there. Okay. And where's the septic? I mean is the septics in front I consider flood. Okay. All right. So it's a little bit of a nuance that it's you know not clearly defined but the town interprets the front as facing the intersection of the two streets. So are you talking about what the front yard is? What is Yeah. What is the town the drawing you have? Yep. The dotted lines. Yep. You see the dotted lines on both sides. Oh, in between the dotted line between the dotted line back. All right. Okay. And did a survey you said in the your application that a surveyor prepared this plan or you did not? And how did you how did you get those dimensions? the 30 feet. 30 feet. But how do you know what 30 feet is? So technically my neighbor just did a um a survey. The stakes are still up. Okay. And you're you're well within the 10 ft. Yes. But the only reason I'm asking you the question is because to in all due respect and I think you can appreciate it. Everybody always cringes at the the phrase stamp survey drawing but oftent times to be fair

we we usually request it because that is the only way we can attest that it is in fact accurate. Um but given the fact that the line is really right but you created that line as well or who created the dotted lines you did. I did because technically the front yard frontage is considered from the front of my property to the front of my neighbor's property the structure itself. So I just went from corner to corner and that's technically the frontage of my property. Yeah. And what about I noticed in the uh building permit application that the zone the building official noted that have you been able to prove that that that has frost walls? No. So you're going to need to do that? Yes. So this whole thing could be moot if you would have to dig it up and redo it. Yeah. Okay. So that that's between you and the building fish. I'm not I'm not going fishing. I just wanted I'm a builder. So, I you know, I couldn't help but see that. Uh, but that's up to you. Okay. All right. Um, and we have the radius map. I missed all that because it it just fell through the cracks, but do we have anything else for the applicant? I don't. Okay. I I think the only thing that's you know on the surface it would appear to be a a simple request and the only reason that it becomes a little bit more palatable I guess to the board is the fact that you've got so much so much planting that it would appear that from Laconia Street from excuse me Leonard Drive it's obstructed almost entirely.

Is it visible or would it be visible? Visible just because the pines don't have any foliage to see it. Y but it's a buffer of some sort. And your your the neighbor isn't present, is is he? Number 12. No. Okay. Okay. Okay. And that's this gentleman here. Oh, okay. Yeah, we didn't I didn't have these. So, we should enter these. Did we enter these or we didn't? Okay. No, that's another one. Yeah. No, I need that one. What's that? When did you get those? Oh, could you come forward? Uh, just relative to this drawing, walk us through these. So, backyard. This is Take a look. I just want to bloom out this way. So, this is the patio. This is the patio. Okay. This is the patio to the driveway. Three car garage. And you're looking towards where? Yes. So, this is actually this back corner. Oh, this back corner right here. So, that playground shed is right here. And what's the next run? So, we have just a street drawing on a street on Leonard. So, probably here. The slab is currently right there in the ground. You can just see that's Oh, it's just the grass has grown over it or is it is it there when you hit the night? Yeah. So, you can see I mean it's a 6 in slab, but that's right there. Yep. And what's the next one? That's just from the driveway. Same view. Yep. Uh, what are we calling this? This is P9. P9. Okay. And that's you have that. Okay.

I'm looking at this map. Okay. Um, anything else for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Uh, we'll close the We'll leave it open. Do we have a public comment? We'll leave it open. Public comment, sir. Please. The people I'm Kenel Franconia and I'm here in support of the exact building this ship. I'm the largest of a couple hundred feet at least which I recently in November of 2023 had my entire property surveyed and sted not only in four corners but in locations around the property because I was having some things done and I wanted to make sure that I didn't abut anybody or didn't you know I was having a bunch of trees taken down yada yada yada and at the end of the day I just wanted to make sure what I cut down was mine down somebody else's so having done all that I gave a copy of that line drawing to both Zach and my neighbor behind us which I believe is 12 that's strict. So, um and so this right here, they knew where their property began and ended and he knew where his began and everybody was happy and all that kind of stuff. Those those stakes still exist today. So, you know, for what it's worth post still he's well within all those requirements and all that kind of stuff

from my perspective and it's easy to take a measure and go from the state to soerence Um, everything Zach has done since he moved in has been a very high quality. I mean, the yard doesn't never look so good. The house went through some changes and everything he's done. So, that's why you don't see I just Thank you, sir. Any questions? Thank you. Okay. Motion to close public comment. Make a motion to close public comment. Second. I'll second the motion. All in favor? I. Okay. We'll go into deliberation uh for the the variance and essentially the variance is to allow for the shed to be built on the frontage. Where does it uh where where exactly in the ordinance in the regs does it say front yard only for this is an accessory structure? I'm just curious. It specifically says not in the front yard. I know it says sideyard, but does it specific? Yeah. So, but it doesn't specifically say not in the front yard. I'm just curious because I couldn't find where it said not. Okay. Side and rear. Okay. All right.

And if we could get your, we don't normally do this, but just we might as well get your opinion on the definition of whether that's in fact the sideyard or actually the front yard. The way he drew it, it it falls right in front of the structures. If you like he drew the line because I think I went over that with your Oh, from 12 to 10. Yeah. Or Yeah. Okay. So, they're by definition almost because when you're out there visually, you can see that it sticks out beyond the next structure. Okay. All right. Okay. Um I I think um normally we're pretty steadfast. Uh I will commend um Mr. Muk. It's a very nice drawing. Um, usually we're steadfast in saying that we want a stamped drawing. Um, I think with the testimony of the abuter and the realization that we're nowhere near the 10-foot setback, um, I I think I'm inclined to accept this as a formal document in lie of a stamp. Um um and then the foundation itself, excuse me, the apron itself, uh you know, he has to prove to the building official that he has frost protection and he'll have to do some exploratory activating to see if there's a footing. And so he may find that he has to dig it all up. Um I think if you look at the pictures, you know, there's there's sufficient coverage that there is nothing in the ordinance that says necessarily that you need to buffer, you know, uh and it's a somewhat arbitrary to you could easily

define this towards the culdesac as being the front of the So I think you know you could you can make an argument that he's already to the rear. So okay um we'll just go through this uh findings of fact the 9.3.1 as I had noted before in granting of variance of the North Smith Reville zoning board of view shall require that evidence to the satisfaction of the following standards be entered into the record of the proceedings based on the testimony and evidence presented and a f full review of the application and record all presented at the public hearing. Uh the North Smithfield zoning board of review makes the following findings of fact. Item one that the land that the that the hardship from which applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area and is not due to physical or an economic disability of the applicant. Um we know that the concrete pad was not created by the current owner. Um it is unique in that it is located where it is. Um um so it's unique characteristics of the subject lander subject and not to general you know it's it's a that one is always again another another juggling act. Um and it is unique in that most properties do not have a apron of concrete a pad that has been poured into a corner. So it is unique in that regard. If it were back three or four or eight feet, it would be a moot point. He

wouldn't even be here. B, that the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and it does not result primarily from the desire to realize greater financial gain. As we noted, the previous owner uh it is his or her action, but obviously that can't be held against the current owner. So, there was no prior action by the applicant. see that granting the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of this ordinance or the comprehensive plan upon which this ordinance is based. Uh I don't believe we have sheds, you know, all over the town. Um this one's nestled in the corner. It does have plantings around it. I don't think for a minute that it would alter the general character of the area. we have uh an abuter who is strongly in favor and has complimented the current owner for the upkeep of his property. Um and of course the comp plan I don't know that it's even relevant because sheds are all over the place and we all need them because most of us have them. D that the relief to be granted is the leaf rel least relief necessary. Um, you know, he's within he's certainly within the 10-ft sideyard setback. Um, his drawing of the hash line. He's right on it. Uh, the zoning official indicates that technically it is a direct line of sight to the abuterate number 12. Uh but again it's it's shielded by a degree of of existing trees and you could argue again that that isn't the frontage that it's

actually the side. Um so um I think uh doesn't appear to be an issue with the least relief and it's just coincidental that that is where the apron or the concrete pad was installed by the previous owner. uh e that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other land structures or buildings in the same district. Um, special privilege is not really in this instance probably isn't applicable because again we have sheds all over the place and it's a bit of a nuance as to the definition of side and rear on the on the location for the shed to be compliant. Uh 9.3.2A it doesn't apply. Uh B, in granting the dimensional variance, the hardship that would be suffered by the owner of the subject property uh if not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience. The fact that yeah, that's it. Um period. Um it's a bit of a moot point. Clearly, we know that yes, he could move the shed back closer to his children's playground. Um, I don't think that's optimal for anyone, the safety of the children and their enjoyment. Uh, they have testified that the rear property has a significant grade differential and slopes down towards number nine. So, um, I think it does amount to more than a mere inconvenience. Um, and we have concrete there that the applicant would either have to dig up, which is an expense, or let it sit there and do

nothing with it. So, uh I think all in all, um it does meet that threshold of more than a mere inconvenience. Uh any thing to add by anyone. Okay. All right. Do we have a motion? Uh we don't need any conditions on the motion. I don't believe right now. Okay. Make a motion to approve it. We'll have Mary Bethany can make um make a motion to approve application ZBR25-4 for a dimensional variance to build a shed in the front yard of this property in this RA zone. I'll second the motion. Um do we note it was on the concrete apron or concrete pad? Should probably note that. Okay. Um amending the uh motion to approve to include a statement that this shed will be placed on the pre-existing concrete slab in the front yard. Correct. Okay, we have a second. I'll second the motion. Okay, roll call vote, please. Mr. Narian, yes. Mr. Marston, yes. Miss Benoy, yes. Mr. Mr. Mak Antonio, Mr. Ceini. Yes. Good luck. Motion to I make a motion to adjurnn. Second night would have an end.