Planning Board - Regular Meeting

You tell me.

Call the May zoning board review to order. We'll start with a roll.

Thomas Heaney.

Here.

Rick Lombardi.

Here.

Judith Rosenthal.

Here.

Rebecca Rogers. Here. Alicia Reyes. Here. Christopher Rowe.

Here.

Joseph Markey. Here. Kendall Holmes.

Here. And this is Joe and Kendall's first meeting. We'd like to welcome you to the board. Thank you for your pending service.

We appreciate your volunteers.

Don't have the minutes from the April meeting, so we'll forego that. And we will read them in as part of the meeting's minutes for next month. First petition that we have is a continued petition from last month. So we'll get there in just a second. So Richard, are you here this evening? Richard Platt, you ready to proceed? Are you ready to proceed? Okay, we'll get back to you in just a second. We also have a summary petition tonight. A summary petition is a petition where the petitioner is only asking for one exception, one variance. So in this case, the petitioner is Brian Blanchard. Are you here, Brian? Not here. So I guess we're going to skip that one. We're going to continue that.

Why don't we hold that for a moment?

Hold it until they see. Okay, so we'll hold that for right now. Okay, thank you. All right, so now we're just going to read the new petitions that we have in our books. I'll ask Rebecca to read the petitioner and the address, and we're going to ask you if you're ready to proceed. And if you are, then we'll just put everybody in order and then just go right back down the list.

New petition, ZBR 2615, Michael Powell.

That's at 8 Julia Court.

Daniel's normally here, you know, and he has both those petitions, so he's not here at all.

DPR 2616, Christopher Keefe at 1250 East Main Road. DPR 2617, Timothy Burrow at 1 Edgewood Drive. ZBR 2619, Lisa Boner at 278 Chases Lane. ZBR 2620, James Cahill.

We're asked to continue to the June meeting.

So we'll continue that to the June 23rd meeting.

ZBR 2621, Mara Jenkins at 671 Green End Ave. And see how the VR 2622 Dan Sylvester at 13 Livingston Pat place.

OK, so we'll go back up to the top and we'll start with it. Continue petition ZBR 2612 from last month. Would you read that in?

Richard Paff for special use from 602 and 902 to obtain approval for an owner occupied short term rental. Said real estate is located at Seven Cedar Ave and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plot 125, Lot 34.

Come up to the microphone please. To raise your right hand, do you swear the testimony that you're going to give the board this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. State your name and your address, please.

Richard Pfaff, 7 Cedar Avenue, Middletown, Rhode Island. Can you explain your petition to the board, please? Pardon?

Explain your petition to the board, please.

We want to do short-term rental on the bottom half of our house. We have a a couple rooms down there we want to rent out for the folk festivals and etc how many rooms are you planning on renting out there are two and could you tell us what the parking situation is is there enough is there enough parking yes okay

So when you also understand that the town has updated its short-term rental policy, and one of the key features of the new policy is that the owner must be home and occupying the residence whenever you're renting out those rooms.

Yes.

Okay, and you're willing to do that?

Yes, that's the plan.

Any other questioners of the petition? Questions of the petitioner?

I part of the is there can't be off street parking. So that you have to be able to fit them in your driveway. They can't be lined up along the street or anything, right?

We have force for spaces in our driveway.

And the garage. And the garage.

Anyone else? Seeing no other questions from the board, I'm going to open the hearing to the people present in the meeting hall. Does anybody want to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none, I'm going to close the open portion of the hearing, and I'm going to ask for a motion for this petition. Motion to approve.

I'll second.

I have a motion to approve and a second. Discussion?

I've been by the house when I did my drive-throughs, and the driveway looks big enough for two small vehicles, not massive ones, or four. It's got two spots. Small vehicles could fit, plus the garage, so that's a possibility of fitting five. Go ahead.

Rick? Based on his testimony, he fits the criteria for the new ordinance. As long as you understand the rules, I think I'm going to support this petition. Thank you.

Thank you. Just for the record, because this was continued, the voting members for this case and this case only for this evening is myself, Mr. Lombardi, Ms. Rosenthal, Ms. Reyes, and Mr. Lowe. Those are the voters for this case only because it was carried over from last month. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Measures approved, five to nothing. Thank you, thank you very much. Book. Thank you, sir.

So we've got the summary petition coming up next. We're gonna keep it on hold. We're gonna skip down to petitioner Mr. Keefe, so EBR 2616.

Christopher Keefe for special use from 602-27C and 902 to convert garage into a STR. Said real estate is located at 1250 East Main Road and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plot 117, Lot 841.

Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear the testimony that you're going to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. State your name and your address, please.

Christopher Keefe, 1250 East Main Road.

Mr. Keith, would you explain your petition to the board, please? Sure.

I want to convert my now existing attached garage into a STR year-round. Just one room, bathroom, 8 by 10. In my plans, I've probably seen them. I talked to Mr. Costa earlier. There was a kitchenette that was just an idea. I'll remove that, no problem, omit it, and just be a refrigerator, basic microwave. No big deal. actually probably save me a lot of money so that so that's fine my parking situation I have to park driveways at my house one off the East Main Road and and one on Island Drive the one that we utilize so the one on East Main Road will be strictly for the short-term rental I fit three four cars which is more than I want I really just want two to three people staying there at a time. So yeah, really basic. We live there. We don't plan on going anywhere. We'll be owner-occupied.

Yeah.

And it's just one bedroom that you're putting? Just one. Yep. It's just going to be like a studio. So the only thing I'm going to be really doing is framing out the garage and then putting two walls up for the bathroom and adding another exit, another door, a couple windows. Questions for Mr. Keith?

Okay, seeing none, I'm going to open up the hearing to the public. Is there anybody here this evening that would like to speak for or against this petition? Yes, sir? You have to come up. Just come on up. And I got the thing in the mail. I got the thing in the mail.

I'm his neighbor. I didn't know what was going on.

Raise your right hand, please. You swear the testimony that you're going to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. State your name and your address, please.

George Birch, 29 Drive.

Go ahead.

please. So I live across on Island Drive. There's an exit that he has access there. And I was wondering if maybe the people would park on East Main. I just didn't know how much traffic flow was going to be coming out right across from me. And my mailbox, sometimes when you back out, it can get hit. I didn't know if other people that don't know. would potentially knock that over and I didn't know how it worked for short-term rentals so I was trying to get a little education on that too I guess it's being allowed I thought I heard Middletown doesn't do it or I don't know so I'm just getting a little education I thought I'd come tonight Mr. Keith can you confirm what you what the question was that the short-term parking is going to be accessed from the driveway from East Main Road

The one that we use, and then the one that we don't use. Could you speak into the mic, please?

So folks can hear you.

I'm going to pave the, right now it's just gravel. It doesn't look like much. I'm going to pave that. It would be enough room for one to two cars. You could fit more, but I don't want. I'm going to put a max of three people for the occupancy. I don't want more than that. All right.

Any other concerns, sir?

No, I think that was the main one, and I was just, again, getting a little education, too, on the short-term rental thing. how it works, or I guess it gets approved and then you do it, but I thought you couldn't do it, or as long as you come and get approval.

You have to come and get the approval. If you get the approval, the property has to be occupied by the owner whenever it's rented on a short-term basis, so he can't rent the whole house. He's got to be living there when the rentals are taking place. and none of the short-term rental guests can park on the road. They have to park in the driveway.

And does an approval like this convey with the house, say he moves in a year, does it stay a short-term rental forever, or I guess conceivably?

If the new owner registers that it would stay, like any zoning approval that goes with the property, in this case provided that the new owner were to continue to register it as a short-term rental.

And not the house itself, just the appendage, the garage, not the whole house. Correct. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. You're welcome, sir. Any further comments, Mr. Keefe?

Nope, that's it.

Okay. Entertain a motion? Motion to approve. Lombardi, motion to approve. Second?

I'll second.

All right. Discussion?

I'd like to start out by, just for the record, mentioning that I am recusing myself from any comments or commentary because I have a work relationship.

Hey, Chris, could you, yeah, if you could also before, just, yeah, do that, and then before you go home, fill out the form. There's a recusal form, just so we have it on the record, please. Thank you.

All right, any other discussion?

I'm going to approve because, like I said, as long as you understand that the ordinance is that you have to be on the property anytime that you're renting it. It seems like it's kind of good they have their own private entrance. You'll continue to have your own driveway. So the parking is good. So yeah, I'm going to approve.

Thank you. Anyone else? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Measure passes 5-0. Congratulations. Thank you. Okay. Gotcha. Next case will be 2617.

Petition ZBR 2617, Timothy Borough for a variance from Article 6, Section 603 and 903 to install an 8 by 10 shed addition to an existing 10 by 14 feet shed with a 2 feet rear setback where 10 is required. Said real estate is located at 1 Edgewood Drive and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plot 114, Lot 255.

Raise your right hand, please.

You swear the testimony that you're going to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes, I do.

State your name and your address, please.

Timothy Barrow, 1 Wedgwood Drive, Middletown.

Mr. Barrow, would you explain your petition to the board, please?

Yes, we currently have a 10 by 14 shed, and we wanted to make it bigger. Our lot is undersized. We're 12,000 square feet in a 20,000 square foot zoning area. And we have an extensive garden edge around the property. So instead of adding in a new location, we want to extend it. Wanna go against, straight along the property line, I guess. Go out eight feet, and the current shed is 10 feet wide, so we're gonna match that. And the height will be a little smaller, because we're gonna make it look like an addition, if you will. So it's gonna be completely for putting in yard furniture, gardening equipment, have a granddaughter, so we have some kids' stuff. It currently sits on blocks, so there's not a port foundation, and it's not gonna be that way. So it's gonna be a shed addition, if you will.

And that, as you stated already, the existing structure that's there right now, the 10 by 14 shed, is already within that two feet distance from that eastern property line.

Is that correct? Yes.

So you're not going any closer with your new construction, but you are going longer along that fence line.

that's correct and the the owner of that property is actually um i believe it's the state of rhode island managed by looking upwards okay i don't think and and we um because we used to call over there and they they told us once the state doesn't own it but in in this project i've been speaking with them in fact to um to make the addition go my the land went uphill. So my landscaper needed to even it out. And the only way to access it actually was through the back, through the property of looking upwards. So I had to contact them. I told them about the project. And they gave us approval for him to drive the tractor in. And I have an email, I put it out from him, where I explained to him, we're going to put in the shed addition, and we need to level the ground out. Said, yeah, go ahead, in summation. So they're on board with it, if you will. They don't have any issue with it. Continuing on that, my neighbor to the north, Nicole, Nicole Chang, I believe, she rents out the property, but she does own it. She's given me a letter, actually, of support where she supports my project. Why? But she doesn't have an issue with it, basically. And now today I heard from my neighbor to the southeast who does have a concern regarding any ADU going in, which I guess is quite a thing from what I heard tonight. So that's not our intent. It has never been our intent. I don't see it as our intent to make it livable, if you will. It's just a frame, no insulation. It's on footings. The additions are going to be the same. Doors that swing out. So that's their concern, is that we don't make it into some sort of a livable dwelling, which, again, is not our intention at all. I've had conversations today with their attorney. He contacted me for the first time today about 1.30 and we've talked about two or three times. And talking it over with my wife, we don't want to get into anything that they've proposed in terms of a covenant on our deed. I think that's a little bit of an overkill for an 80-foot shed addition to have concern about an ADU. And I appreciate that concern, because it's obviously going on. But if you have a copy of the plot and where the shed is, There's no roads, there's no driveways. I don't think it possibly could ever be. And the hurdles I would have to jump through to even make it livable would be incredible. So again, that's not my intent. It just came up this afternoon as their concern. I know the attorneys here, he'll probably speak on that in a minute or two. So let's see. Yeah, I haven't heard from, you know, heard from a couple, one other neighbor who thought it was a different, I own another property actually right across the street, and I have a shed there, and she thought it was going on that shed, but I said no.

So your three direct abutters, you've talked to all of them, and we're going to hear from this gentleman.

Yes, yes, yes, and that one abutter I would categorize as having a concern, not against it, but I'll let them speak for it. Um, and further I do have, I've already gotten prices, which I brought a copy of the quote and um, Gladly share with you, but you can see there's nothing in there that would indicate it's going to be livable. So again, I just think this concern of the neighbor is pretty drastic, you know, for a 10 by 80 foot addition. But I guess given what's going on in the town personally, I guess maybe that's why. Otherwise, I have my other two abutters are fine with it.

Tim. um the letters you have uh the emails you have are they on the record or have you do we have those um i printed them out today rick they weren't because after i submitted the application that's when i went in um could we put those on the record please possible if they're not on the record already tim if you would bring up you can bring them up so we can put them on the record they're not so all right Yeah, then we can show them with the rest of the committee and we'll put them on the record. Okay, that's. So they can read it. It's lengthy.

I highlight it. Okay.

Any conversation should be on the record. It's fine. Wouldn't you accept that if we could accept that?

We've got two pieces of correspondence from the petitioner of two of the three direct abutters that are supporting the petition, and I'll record these as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

That'd be correct. So Tim, I know you mentioned what you heard here tonight. What you heard here tonight was about short term rentals, and ADU is something different. But that said, just two starkly different things in a lot of ways. Right, and we're only considering this, what it says in the petition, which is a shed. Correct. And my observation is you said that your lot is undersized, so you need relief to get this project done, correct? That's correct, that's why I'm here. And when you bought the lot, it was an undersized lot, am I right? Correct. That's all I need for that.

Anyone else have questions? Yes, please, go ahead, Alicia.

the options to satisfy your storage needs on the property um i you know do i have you know could i put a shed elsewhere when i want to which is why i'm i'm here i mean it's a yeah i'm asking because puts two foot setback is where 10 is required is pretty significant and i understand that your existing shed approaches on that setback already, correct?

Correct.

So my problem is, and I understand that your abutters now may not have any objections, but if you're granted this relief later, I mean, we don't know how that will affect how your abutter's property is valued at a later point when they go to sell and they see that there's like no space between property lines. So this is like a, this is pretty permanent. So I just wanted to ask Chris or Peter, by granting this setback, if at a later point, I mean, I know it's, He's not asking for an accessory unit right now, but in the future, because he's been granted that setback, does that carry on? Because accessory for an ADU, doesn't the lot need to be 20,000 square feet?

No, I'm sorry. So a new freestanding ADU, if someone was coming in to build a new freestanding ADU, you need 20,000 square feet under the current ordinance. But you do have a right, you can convert an existing garage or another accessory structure to an ADU regardless of the size of the lot. So an existing garage, an existing shed, if it was brought into compliance with the minimum housing codes, could be converted.

That's my concern. So you're going to have this 10 by 22 structure that you're using for storage right now with granted relief for a two-foot setback, that somewhere down the line, somebody could say I'm just converting an already existing structure and it's already been granted relief for that setback. I'm not saying that you would do it or just relief of this nature kind of. opens the door for other things. And as you said, it's a non-conforming lot, a legal non-conforming lot, because it's undersized, and a neighborhood that's probably pretty condensed as it is. And the neighbor that abuts that property line may not always be your neighbor. And in the spirit of protecting character and quality of life and the potential to convert something that would not be allowed now. I have concerns.

And if I can just comment, the neighbor to the east of that is the state of Rhode Island in a group home, and again, they are, A lot. I think they're close to our 40 neighbors, both neighbors and the one to the south and actually to myself directly is a office condominium. And if you look at the land structure of the actual neighbor, it's almost a jog of the land that touches my property, basically an unbuildable piece of land that he owns. So just to kind of couch what your comments are, it's not as if we've got two other houses directly, you know, bordering in the sense of a neighborhood laid out in a grid.

So there's a picture that was in the file, right, an aerial view of your property.

Okay.

Right? So when I'm looking, right, when I'm looking at it, it is the right back corner, right?

Correct.

Okay. And you're planning on going along the, I can never pronounce the name, the tall trees.

Yes, Abravides.

Yes. So you kind of already have like a grass fence between that neighbor, which is the state of Rhode Island potentially, and where the shed will be.

Correct.

And is your trees taller than what the shed is gonna be?

Oh yeah, the trees are about 25, 30 feet in height. And then to the south side on the corner, the other neighbor has already, years ago, put up a six foot picket fence. And then again, there's that land is really a buffer zone, if you will. Used to be a buffer zone by the office business. But when he bought that land, I think he had an undersized lot. So he bought that little strip of land to conform to the zoning requirements for an R40 or something. So that land is owned merely to get him his main lot, if you look at his layout on the plot plan. So it's not as if it's part of his yard that he's in every day. I mean, he does own it, but it's not something that's utilized.

Question. For an ADU, would he have to come back and ask for permission? No.

. . .

Chris, let me ask Tim a question. Tim, when did you put this shed up, the existing shed? How long has it been there? I'd say close to 15 years. Chris, was there an ordinance on the books when he put that shut up? Because he says it's encroaching on the setback now. It's an existing non-conforming. And I think the question tonight is, But because the lot is non-conforming and it's not of his doing, there's a hardship there in and of itself, in my opinion. If I'm not wrong, I could be wrong. Right. He fits the...

No, I was just saying to let you talk. Savor that moment.

That's something new. You're letting me talk, but that's all right. You're usually trying to stop me. But I guess my point is this. When you look at the petition, and the petition is kind of narrow, in my opinion, is you want to put an addition on to a shed that's sitting on blocks that can't be

Before we get too far down the road in terms of analyzing it and making up our minds about the case, I think you want to make sure you take the opportunity to hear from the objector and whatever they might want to say before we get too far down the road in terms of discussion.

Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Borough for right now?

I have one other question. In your petition it said that this is a resubmission of a previously approved petition. So I was wondering, I don't know if you've got a copy of that previously approved petition or- No, it was- When was that?

Two years ago. And we received approval. I actually did get a permit. This is for this exact same project. Never did it. So it's cost me another $250.

So you have to go through the process again.

So was this a timing out of the old, so it had to be expired and therefore it had to be redone? Okay.

My bad on that one, definitely. All right.

Go ahead and have a seat, Tim, and we'll get back to you in a minute. Sir, would you come forward?

Opportunity to speak here. My name is Michael Richards. I'm an attorney here in Newport, Rhode Island. Our office represents Peter Dunn and Abigail Dunn, as well as DMB Valley Associates LLC. So they are the abutters directly to the south of this property. We were contacted on Friday, so I'm not as well-versed on this application as I would like to be. Myself and Mr. Barrow did not have really enough time to really flesh out the concerns and come to an agreement between neighbors. So the first thing I'm asking tonight is really a continuous. I'd rather not.

Speak up.

My first request is a continuance to the June date. Because I think with time, my clients and Mr. Barrow can reach an agreement. We would prefer to have a declaration of restrictions on record that's enforceable by those abutters, the Duns, that just simply says that this accessory structure will not ever be converted into an ADU and will be used solely for storage purposes. Because I think a lot of good points were made today that down the road with other owners in place that this now shed that's being represented as going to be strictly for storage could be converted into an ADU. It is a big lift, but as Mr. Costa said, anything's possible with these new ADU regulations. So my first request is a continuance to June so that I can continue to work with Mr. Barrow to work an agreement out between the neighbors so I can shift from coming here being an objector and I'd much rather submit two letters of support from those neighbors. So I'd really prefer that the motion to continue first be addressed before i even get into any objections and then if i do have to get into objections there's a third part if the board is inclined to approve this petition tonight i'd like certain conditions to be put on that approval so three parts one right now i'm just asking for a continuance if that can be considered If not, I can move two points of objection, and then third, move two conditions to put on any approval if you are so inclined.

One of the most obvious questions is, where are the Dunns? Where are they? Where is Mr. and Mrs. Dunn?

They weren't available to come tonight. I was hoping to get it resolved during the day with Mr. Barrow.

It would have been nice to hear it from their mouths. I mean, I respect the fact that you're advocating for them, but it would be really nice to see them here, first of all, and they're not. Okay. And my gut is that I would like to hear what conditions you would be interested in putting out there because I can tell you right up front, I probably will not support a continuance, not for a shed. This is just, It's unacceptable to me. I would like to hear, if you're going to ask for conditions, why don't you state them for us so that we can hear what they might be. And if they're reasonable, then I think we should maybe see if Mr. Barrow is willing to accept those types of conditions. But I think if someone's going to object and they're going to take the time to have an attorney here, I think I would like to see them here. I'd like to hear it from their mouths to us and I will not support a continuance, I can tell you that. So why don't you lay out whatever conditions you might think might be reasonable given the circumstances.

Okay, I'd be happy to. That the accessory structure shall be used exclusively for accessory storage purposes that are customary and incidental and subordinate to the principal single family dwelling on the property. Accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit for sleeping or overnight occupancy or for commercial or rental use of any kind. That no plumbing fixtures, bathing facilities, cooking facilities, or living quarters of any kind shall be installed or maintained in the accessory structure. That the accessory structure shall be used or converted to an accessory dwelling unit or any other habitable space. that the height of the accessory structure does not exceed the existing portion of the shed, and that the accessory structure shall not be rented, leased, or occupied independently from the principal dwelling on the property.

Question for the solicitor? Peter, if we should grant this and Mr. Barrow agrees to whatever conditions, and should that property down the road be sold, Do the conditions follow?

The conditions, like the zoning approval, run with the property. They do.

So any new owner will know that that's it. Those are the parameters. It can't go any further than that.

Unless they come back to the zoning committee.

Yeah, I guess that's what they would have to do, would have the conditions removed.

Another question. Restrictions that you're suggesting, aren't they already covered by the existing zoning regulations?

The existing what? I'm sorry.

Aren't the restrictions you're seeking already covered by existing zoning regulations?

No. Existing structures can be converted to ADUs.

With zoning approval?

No.

No.

No. And that's the issue here. Gotcha. Thank you for explaining that. So the applicant is... He's not suggesting that that's something he's going to do, but under current law, once again, as Mr. Costa said, provided that the building is upgraded to meet minimum building codes, a conversion of an existing accessory structure to an ADU is allowed by right under current state law. So that's the, I think that's the inflection point.

And what the Dunn's would prefer that these restrictions are memorialized in a declaration of restrictions and covenants so that the neighbors themselves can enforce them and not simply the town zoning board.

I, I, And I'm happy to talk to Mr. Richards about this. Based on some language in the ADU statute, I think a condition may actually be more enforceable because there are provisions in the ADU statute that prohibit homeowners associations and condominium associations from enforcing restrictions against ADUs. So it may be that a condition would be better, but once again, And I don't know if those conditions have been discussed with the applicant as a condition of zoning approval as opposed to a covenant. I don't know if you want to.

Yes. Mr. Burrow, would you come forward, please?

I mean I guess I'll just stay I don't think it's fair to like I understand that like they're the Dunn's wishes and desires right but to lock in any future homeowner from being able to do what they want with their property except the Dunn's could sell tomorrow and then that property is locked in for people that bought a house in Florida and moved away so I don't think it's fair to restrict not just you know Mr. Barrow here but anyone who buys this property for No, forever, right?

20 years from now. And I tend to agree with you, by the way. Yeah. But if there's a compromise, I don't, let's see what happens.

And that's where we want to head towards a compromise. I'm not here banging the podium or objecting. I'm just looking to the future, protecting the butter's interests. I want to work directly with Mr. Barra. I think a continuance could- at working directly with Mr. Barrow.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse. Sometimes I do that a lot. But at the end of the day, and I'll say this again, if the Dunns felt strongly about this, they would've or they should've asked you for it to continue this until they could be here. I hold a lot of weight Me personally, when I see the people who are objecting here in front of us so I can hear it from them, it's important to me personally. I don't know about anybody else up here, but I would have suggested if outside of this, that you would have asked for a continuance so that the Dunns could be here. They're not here. And it's unfortunate, but it's just a deal breaker for me. I'm gonna be honest with you.

Mr. Barrows, would you agree to a continuance or do you want us to decide today?

I definitely want you to decide tonight. It is an 8 foot by 10 foot addition, very small. It's on the current. We have no plans to make a dwelling unit out of it. The height's going to be restricted to 16 feet. We, you know, we are in agreement with your comment. We don't want anything restricting our property for the next generation. We think that's crazy for a small shed addition. Silver kill, you know, if we need to, in your decision, I would just suggest, you know, why not, you know, the application kind of speaks for itself what we're trying to do. know what else to give you. But no, I don't see any need to continue it and drag it out.

So the way the petition is written, it is clear that you're trying to build a shed. But you also have to understand that the way that the law is written, you still have options. Even though we are here tonight to talk about solely the shed, you still get options based on the fact that you will have an existing structure on your property. And that's where the concern is being raised, is they want it to be a shed and nothing more than that.

And not to interrupt, but I have those rights on my current shed now, the 10 by 14 shed. Yep. So- Yes, if you're going to live in 140, it's going to be 220 square feet in the end.

I got to say, to your point, the petition is talking about a shed and nothing else but a shed. And that's what we should be addressing. Petition, number one. Number two, it was already granted once, and you gotta- That's not relevant. We'll talk about that later. That's not relevant. I'll talk about that later, I'll get to it. But I think we need to focus on what's in the petition, the four corners of the petition. It's about an addition to a shed on an undersized lot, a non-conforming lot. And I think for us to speculate on something that could happen 20 years down the road is not within our purview tonight. We need to stay focused on the petition as it is in front of us. I'm not a mind reader. I don't have a crystal ball. I can't predict what your kids or somebody you may sell the house to 20 years down the road will do. That's for someone else to decide. We need to decide the petition as it's put in front of us. And I want to emphasize that to my colleagues here.

As far as the points of objection goes, there is already, and I don't want to object to this petition, but there is already a shed on this property. I understand it's an undersized lot, but he has 140 square foot shed on the property. Simply denying a 220-square-foot shed on the property, that does amount to a mere inconvenience. He hasn't showed a hardship that without a 220-square-foot shed, he can't make reasonable use of the property. But that's really not a road we either want to go down.

We have to go down that road.

Maybe Mr. Barrow would agree to conditions on an approval this evening. Those conditions being that the shed is strictly used for storage and is not to be converted into an accessory dwelling unit.

But we have to go down that road because a hardship is one of the criteria that we have to look at. And the hardship in and of itself is the fact that it's a non-conforming lot. He didn't create that problem. He bought the lot, as it is, and it's a problem that he's had to live with. And he's coming in front of us and he's pretty much stating that it's a hardship. And it's a criteria that we have to look at. It's in the rules. So yeah, we have to go down that road.

His hardship doesn't rise to the level of you can't make reasonable use of the property without a 220-square-foot shed. That's the only point I'm making.

That's not what your clients are, like, objecting, right? I mean, that might be your objection now, but they just don't want it to be an ADU. They're not complaining about the size of the shed going there, right?

No, they're not. But whether they're objecting or not to that, he still has to meet the standards. But again... They're agreeable to this being approved tonight if it's not going to be continued. If a declaration of restrictions is off the table, fine. But will Mr. Barrow agree to conditions to an approval? I think that's a pretty light ask.

He has the right by state law to have an EDU there. He could do that and not have to come in front of us by state law. I don't know if it's the right thing, in my opinion, but that's not what we're arguing here. And again, we don't have a crystal ball. He's asking for a shed, an addition to a shed. I think that's what we have to stay focused on.

Okay, so you've stated your objective, sir, so we've clearly noted your objection on behalf of the abutters. Mr. Borough, you want to continue and you don't want to agree to any of the wordage to the effect of the shed's only going to be used for storage and you're not going to use it as an ADU. You don't want to have that language in the decision. Is that correct?

Is that binding on future buyers, potentially?

Yes.

Yeah, it would be. No, I think I'd rather just go with, I'll leave it up to your good senses on an eight foot by 10 foot addition to a shed. I'll leave it up to you guys. Okay.

Anyone have any more questions for the petitioner?

I just, and I apologize, I didn't check the size of the lot and get lot coverage. So you're not requesting really from any lot coverage requirements, correct? Okay. So it's not going to increase that percentage, okay.

If there are no other questions for Mr. Burrow, I'll open up the meeting to those present. Do you have one? Yeah, Mr. Burrow. Mr. Burrow, Tim.

Mr. Burrow.

Tim.

I've got one question. So you said that the shed is on cinder blocks currently today.

Yes.

So if it's not in a foundation or anything like that, in theory, you could move that 10 by 14 shed eight feet to make it underneath the setback requirements and then ask for your eight by 10 addition onto said shed so that you're only requiring the hardship of the property size and not necessarily the setbacks of the property line.

With difficulty, I'd have to take down fences to get a truck in to move the shed.

You could do it on rollers with just a piece of lumber and five guys.

But yeah, it would make the lot, you know, there'd be that space of a yard going around behind it. So it would come in on our gardens. It would make the lot a lot less livable, if you will. The quality of life would definitely be decreased. It really would become an encumbrance on our property. The backyard's very small. I just mowed it today in half an hour. Not even, maybe 20. It's a very small backyard.

You wouldn't be reducing the size of the property by moving it. You'd just be changing the location of it. Right, right.

The quality of life, again, I'd be moving it towards our house. as we sit on our back deck having dinner, staring at our shed virtually. Now we have maybe 20 feet between our porch and the shed. Okay. Forced me to sell my house now. Been talking to my wife, haven't you? Just kidding, sorry.

All right, anything else for Mr. Barrow? Okay, if not, I'm going to open up the hearing to those present. Is there no one here this evening that would like to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none, I'm closing the hearing to the public, and I'm asking for a motion for this petition. Motion approved. Motion approved by Ms. Lombardi.

Second.

Second by Rebecca Rogers. Discussion?

I was just going to say I agree with my colleague that we need to look at the petition as it's written and not think about what might happen down the road. And I certainly understand Mr. Barrow's objection to signing anything that's going to hinder the next buyer down the road. So anyway, that's just my comment.

I understand that your current shed already is encroaching on your setback, but that was prior to requirement for ordinances for your variances to come before the board. And I believe our ordinances are created for a reason. And continuing relief of these small reliefs will, at some point in time, impact the character of our neighborhoods. So I know that there's an existing encroachment, but you're asking to expand it. have other options for creating storage space, it would be terribly inconvenient for you to do that. So I don't feel that you've met the criteria of hardship simply because the lot is smaller, is a small lot. But I just want to clarify one more thing with Chris or Peter. The existing structure cannot be replaced with the same dimensional reliefs, correct? So he can put it up, but if at some point they want to replace it with something that's more permanent?

Okay.

And does the size of the structure change the characteristic or the label that we're assigning it to? Once a shed exceeds a certain size. But over that. Regardless of whether it's considered permanent or.

Any other comments?

So, as I said earlier, I think, and I probably made it clear, the request is a simple one, number one. But in addition to an existing shed, it already is encroaching on setbacks. And it was put there before we had an ordinance. And this applicant, this petitioner, came in front of this board once before for essentially the same petition. And ran out, and he had gone as far as getting a building permit. I don't know what the entire makeup with the board was back then, but in its infinite wisdom, they chose to grant it. Nothing has changed. Same petition. I don't know if the Duns objected back then. I would think probably not because ADUs weren't a thing at that point, at least, well, they were out there, but it wasn't as big a deal as it is today. And I will say again, I find it, I'll use the word troubling, that the people who are objecting, well, their attorney has done a great job tonight, not personal, but they should be here, in my opinion. My opinion, again, I don't know about anyone else sitting up here, but if you're gonna object to the point where you wanna continue it, if you're gonna object to the point where you wanna set conditions, drastic conditions, by the way, that burden not just his ownership, but future ownership, is troubling to me. I don't think we should handcuff property owners that way. And I don't know whether or not he devalues their property, but it may. Oh. When you set restrictions, you would think that it might because it obviously restricts anything anyone else could do on the property. But I think the hardship piece of it, yeah, it's a hardship. We have a lot of lots in this town that are non-conforming through no fault of anyone, including the people that buy them. And it was because years ago when they didn't have R10 and R20 and R40 and whatever, they may have used a ball of string to map out these lots. And who knows how they did it back in those days. So I just feel like that the petitioner has met the burden as far as I'm concerned, particularly the hardship piece of it. And I think we should approve, and I'm going to support this petition. Any other comments?

I'm also going to support. I agree that the hardship prong of A1 and A2 have been met, that the hardship is not a result of you. The property is just unique in that way. Also, we have a letter, I think it's Exhibit A, from another neighbor that supports it. And I think the biggest person who would have an issue would be looking upwards, because that is where the property and setback is and they are not here so you know I have one neighbor that objects and one that doesn't and one who's not here right they have their attorney here and so I think that I'm going to approve all in favor aye opposed motion passes four to one good luck

We're moving to petition ZBR 2619.

Lisa Boner for special use for 602, 902, and 27C to obtain approval for owner-occupied short-term rental. Said real estate is located at 278 Chase's Lane and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plot 106, Lot 8A.

You raise your right hand. Yes. Do you swear the testimony that you're going to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

State your name and your address, please.

My name is Lisa Bonner, and I live at 278 Chases Lane in Middletown, Rhode Island.

And would you explain your petition to the board?

my petition is uh the property i recently inherited it from my mother my parents purchased the property in 1972 it is a legal two family and it has a decades-long history of being a rental unit for the first and second floor i moved back home in march of 2020 at the start of the pandemic in part to take care of my mother i've been living overseas and I knew that that move was likely going to be permanent and I've been living there ever since and taking care of my mother and she passed away in January and I've inherited the property. I started working in November of 2024 at the Naval War College. putting roots down putting roots down I am a 1984 graduate from Middletown High School because we moved here in the 70s as well so I'm back home and I now I'm single and I would like to try some short term rentals for the remainder of the year for a year maybe two to see how that works before I'm ready to rent the entire second floor permanently for year round or for the academic year. And since it's almost June, I thought maybe if I could try for the summer to get a few rentals in short term. I also have two adult children that are still in New England for a couple more years. And they will probably launch and be not close by anymore. So also the opportunity to be able to carve out holiday time so I can still have everybody at the house. That is my request. Questions for Mrs. Bonham?

How many bedrooms is on the second floor?

It would be just for the second floor, and it does have a separate entrance, but it can be locked. There are two bedrooms and about one and three-quarters baths. It has a full kitchen up there and a living room as well. There is off-street parking that can accommodate at least five cars plus a garage.

You understand the owner-occupied portion of the new SDR?

Yes, I do, and I live on the first floor. I was living on the second floor for several years, but now that my mother's not there, I've moved to the first floor, and the second floor is available. Any other questions for Ms. Bonham?

Hearing none, I'm going to open up the hearing to the public. Is there anyone present tonight that would like to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing and I'm going to ask for a motion. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Mr. Lombardi?

Second.

Second. Judith Rosenthal, discussion?

I have met Lisa last fall because she lives down just down my street and around the corner from my house. Quite familiar with the property because I walk by there on a regular basis when I'm just doing walks around the neighborhood. Been on the front porch. I know generally about the house, about the garage, the driveway, everything. I also, in the last two days, three days, have talked to three of the neighbors. One right next door, Mrs. Lyons. Andy, yep. And two other neighbors across the street. None of them have any issue with it. There's no concerns that it's going to be a party house. So I would recommend, I highly recommend it being approved.

Other comments?

You said there's off-street parking? Mm-hmm. Or that parking's not gonna be an issue?

What can I say to alleviate your concerns?

So you have, yeah, how many spaces?

Oh, okay, sorry. So when you turn into the driveway, there is a space for a, a large car or truck right in front of the house. It's half of a circular driveway. Then there is a parking space that's right next to the house. There is a cement slab that is to the right of the two-car garage. And then in front of that two-car garage, we have parked three cars there. So between the front, the side, the side of the garage, and three cars in front of the garage, you could comfortably, a little tight in front of the garage, you could comfortably have five, six cars there that all would be unencumbered to exit the driveway.

That two-car garage is freestanding, right? It's freestanding, yeah.

It's freestanding and built in 1980.

Any other questions? Call for a vote then. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed?

Commission passes five to nothing.

Thank you.

Right. Petition. We've got 20 is continued. 21. I'm going to say that we still want to hold or continue. Going to continue 21. We'll go back and catch the other ones here in a second. That'll be to the June 23rd. Then we'll read in petition ZBR 2622. Dan Silvestri.

Petition ZBR 2622, Dan Sylvester for a variance from 603 and 903 to construct a 15 by 25 shed resulting in a three foot north side where 15 is required, a five feet rear where 10 is required, an increase in lot coverage for 44% where 25 is allowed. Said real estate is located at 13 Livingston Place and further identified as Tax Assessors Plot 108 Southwest Lot 185.

Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear the testimony that you're gonna give the board this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

State your name and your address, please.

Daniel Sylvester, 13 Livingston Place, Middletown, Rhode Island.

Please explain your petition to the board.

I have an existing shed that's been there for about 30 plus years, falling apart. I wanna knock it down and make it a little bigger for storage for first and second floor, because this is a two-family house. and shed storage also.

Okay, so the first question that I would have is that what is the dimensions of the existing shed that's there today?

10 by 12, I believe.

And the reason why I'm asking is you're going up from a lot coverage allowed of 25% to 44%. That's a pretty big jump. And that area, I mean, you're boxed in where your home is there. You're boxed in on all sides by houses that are right there all around you.

On three sides, yes.

On three sides. So I'm concerned about the stormwater runoff. If we put it, you know, a shed of this size on that lot, there's not going to be a lot of room for stormwater runoff.

So what are your thoughts about what... Well, near the back of the lot, it's all, all lots meet back there. So it's not like a bad spot to run everything off right there.

Seems like there's not a lot of space for that stormwater to go. Or is the ground... Lot cover, excuse me, goes. Other thoughts about June?

Could you explain what the hardship is, please?

So, after looking at the lines of everything, the property lines, my property goes over the line into my neighbor's yard on one side. So I'm asking for three feet, but it's really four feet that is my property. And on the back of the lot, I'm gifted, I guess, because the fence is there, and three feet is my neighbor's yard in the back, but the fence is there, so I'm asking for eight feet off the back fence. Do you have a survey? I didn't have a survey. We did it by the two lots up had a survey, so we measured it straight down and across. You're saying that... Because all our lots go at angles.

Yeah, but you're saying your property line encroaches in the next lot? Is that what I heard? I mean...

So on the side of my property, my property goes a foot into my neighbor's yard from the fence.

It's not your property. It's your neighbor's property, right? Did I hear that right?

Backwards. 4,000 square foot block with 10,000 per floor. Right. I mentioned to get a survey. A lot of times, I will verify if I have certified bounds out there. That's what this map shows in this area. We built the house on the corner, the fence post, the two-inch fence post. property bonds and i found surveys of other locks so i went over there with 100 foot tape all of them so his fence is three feet on the other property technically before he bought the house i see this is what you're measuring from you're not measuring from the fence measurements that are correct

He bought the property like that. Correct.

The relief is what you say. If it's nine feet, it's nine feet. It's not eight feet. And I put my name on the line instead of him spending for a survey. He had a 60% reduction if he actually spent $5,000 for a survey. Reduction in the calculation. 44,000 square feet were 10,000. That's a 60% reduction in lot size. optic to just go with what it is, you know? And that's why the numbers look so big. Using the reduction that the state will.

I'm comfortable with your expert opinion.

My residents, our residents get that.

I was hearing.

If they can prove to me that that's a property bond. And that's what you're going by. So there's no reduction here.

You're confident with that?

Thank you. With this year, with no reductions, no survey, I just witnessed the bonds and said you're at 40. Yeah, but to say,

Chris, to say what you say a little bit differently, my concern was that by filling the lot to 44%, then the lot itself might not have the ability to drain the stormwater runoff.

Under the shed. Right, but what you're saying is it's actually half as bad as it sounds because there's more land there than what's... Well, if you looked at the GIS profit, which is not survey quality, and you took the size of that two-family house on a 4,000-square-foot lot, it's 50%.

It's big, yeah. I went by.

It's not going to have a foundation under it. Correct. Ungravel, impervious.

Impervious, okay.

What it is is what it is. This is impervious portion. It's not going to get asphalt. It's not getting a foundation under this. As far as I'm concerned. My board take it from there. They're going to ask you what your intent is.

That is going to be my next question. You may have said that already, but why the increase in the shed? I get the current shed is old, falling apart, but why the big increase?

My house was a single-family house way back in the day. They converted it to a two-family house, so there's no closets. Let's see, there's two closets. There's three closets on each floor. No storage in my house whatsoever. And I've owned the house for 27 years.

And you're currently using it as a two-family?

Correct. I rent out upstairs. I live downstairs.

Who made that into a two-family? Who?

It was 27 years. Correct.

Well before me.

Well, you can see the cement stairs underneath my porch that are still there.

And you're a long-term rental? Short-term, long-term rental?

Long-term. Yearly.

I just want to ask again, are there any other storage options in the house? Basement?

I have a little bit of basement storage, but not a lot. Well, in my basement there's two oil tanks, there's two oil burners, there's two of everything in my basement.

I'm just, in order to meet the criteria of a hardship, I would like to know if you have other options, and this is just a favorable option of yours.

I don't.

Did you say that you were putting a second story on the shed? It's going to be two stories?

No, not at all.

I heard that wrong then, sorry.

No, no, no, just to...

It's a 25 by 15 shed.

What's the height of the roof that you're wanting to do?

It'll be the same height as the shed that's existing there, which is six foot, seven foot. I believe it's 10. I believe it's a 10 foot shed. And both neighbors gave me the okay on both sides of me, but I don't have anything written from them, sorry.

Well, I actually spoke to the neighbor to your left.

Facing the house?

Yeah, when you're facing the house, I spoke to the neighbor on the left yesterday. Beautiful. And he did mention that he doesn't have an issue with it. Thank you. So the intent is primarily for your personal storage and storage space for your upstairs tenant? Correct.

And shed things also. I need...

And what?

And for shed things also.

Oh yeah, general, right, that would be your stuff.

Correct, yes.

The reason why I was asking about the height was, you know, one of the things that I see and am concerned with as far as an issue is the 44% coverage on the lot you know that basically it's taking up about for what is your half your backyard it's taken up close to half of that backyard so i didn't know whether maybe going up a little bit higher so that you could have shelving for storage would allow a smaller footprint but still have the same amount of interior storage space you would have to ask for relief because these regulations Oh, okay.

What you'd be requesting relief. Get to a 20, you get 25. 10, it's like 15 feet to the peak.

So it would be possible to go up. 15 feet. So it would be possible to go up in height a little bit, gaining interior storage space, volumetric, you know, cubic volumetric space, and allowing a slightly smaller footprint, which would be less plot coverage.

Idea. I didn't want to take the view of that direction up higher. I just wanted to leave it exactly, you know what I mean?

My just concern with the lot coverage is setting a precedent as a lot of concerns that people are having is setting a precedent with, okay, well, you're getting up to 44%, 45%. Then someone else comes along and says, oh, well, I want to get to 45%, and I want to get to, and next thing you know, a domino effect of people because of setting a precedent of being able to go to that high of a lot coverage.

However, the factors in extenuation are the, The fact that he's calculating the usable space using the old dimensions, not the state's new dimensions, 40%. So he's really got, that's what I tried to say earlier, he's really got twice as much space as I was thinking based on those calculations. Any other questions of Mr. Sylvester from the board? Okay, seeing none, I'm going to ask, open the hearing to the public. Is there anybody here present that would like to speak for or against the petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing, and I'm going to ask for a motion. Motion to approve. Mr. Lombardi, motion to approve. Second. Ms. Rosenthal, second. Discussion?

I still have a little bit of an issue with the lot coverage and the. Eyes of the shed, but I do understand that that building. But that you forego the 60% rule the. The rule for undersized lots, yes. So if he used the calculation for how much square footage he needed for coverage based on how short he is of being that 10,000 square feet. lot coverage wouldn't actually be that high? Is that what you were?

Well, what he would be, assuming that the lot is 4,000 square feet, and that's what's been set up without having a benefit of a survey, the lot is 60% undersized, which means the lot coverage, which would otherwise be 25%, would be increased by 60%. which would mean the allowable lock coverage would be 37.5%. So if he was at 37.5% and I don't know where, you know, where he is now, but at 37.5% would be the max, above which, you know, he would still need relief, even if he went that direction. And then same thing with the setbacks would be reduced by 60%, and it appears that at least with regard to the setback on the north side, he would still need relief, even under those circumstances.

Nineteen versus seven, though, I think is a...

Because of the setup of the two families in the home, you have no other option to add required storage, correct?

Correct.

Still have a hard time with it, but I can understand your situation. Any other comments?

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Measure passes five to nothing.

Thank you.

Good luck. Need a motion to adjourn.

And did we, the matters that were held, have we continued those?

So, thank you. So ZBR 2618, we're continuing that. It's a summary, but we're continuing to June 23rd. And ZBR 2615, we're continuing that to June 23rd. And I already mentioned ZBR 2621 was continued. So thank you, Mr. Solis.

Motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn.

Mr. Lombardi, second?

Second.

All in favor?