Planning Board - Regular Meeting

What did I know? Right.

This is our last This is our last meeting.

Well, they're Hello.

So far Okay, so they Chris and Dave, are we good?

I'm ready. Okay, I'm calling the April 28th zoning board of review meeting to order. Our first order of business is our roll call. Rick Lombardi here. Judith Rosenthal here. Rebecca Rogers absent. Alicia Reyes here. Chris Row here. Antonver here. Our next order of business is to read in the minutes from our March 24th meeting. Motion to approve. Lombardi makes a motion. Do I have a second? Second.

Alicia Ray seconds. Any discussion? All in favor? I approve. 5 We have four new petitions for this month. So, what we're going to do is we're just going to call out the petitioner and the address for each of the cases. Make sure you're present and ready to proceed. If you are, we'll go back to the top and we'll start by reading in the first petition in its entirety. First petition, please. CBR 2610 Caroline Stone owner and Gerard Galvin as the attorney for 565 Walcott Avenue.

Thank you. CBR 2611 559 Walcott LLC owner Gerard Galvin attorney for 559 Walcott Avenue. Thank you. ZBR 2612 Richard owner um at seven Cedar Avenue not presently here. So we'll put them to the bottom in case they come in late. Go ahead. ZBR 2613 Ryan Rurak owner 137 Ellery Avenue.

You'll be the third case. Okay. Go back to the top now. First petition. Would you please read it in petition ZBR 2610 Caroline Stone Gerard Galvin for a variance from 603 90371 to construct a new dwelling with front yard setback of 17 1/2 ft where 25 ft allowed required north side 9.4t where 15 ft is allowed and south side 10 and a half where 15 is allowed. um located at 565 WCOT assessors plat 116 Southeast lot 92.

Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the board, Gerard Galvan on behalf of Caroline Stone. Uh this is our petition for dimensional variance for the setback relief as was just read into the record. Uh specifically, we're seeking relief from sections 603, 903, and 701 from the code. There is a current uh existing home that is non-conforming on the subject lot. Uh it has setback encroachments that are far in excess of what we're proposing tonight. Um the lot itself is also non-conforming in that it's 73 feet slightly more than 75 73 feet wide where a standard lot in town would be 100 ft wide. My client is proposing to demolish this existing home and to rebuild a new home. Uh the new home is being proposed with setback encroachments, but again smaller encroachments than exist today. Uh the proposed front setback will be 17.5 ft where the 25 is required uh being a 4ft improvement on the existing encroachment. Today the north side proposed setback is 9 ft uh four 9.4 feet uh where the current setback is 8.4 ft where 15 is required.

Could you speak up just a bit please?

Yes. And on the south side the existing setback is 9.4t and we're proposing it uh be 10.5 ft. So, we're looking to improve on all of the setback encroachments that currently exist. Myth Stone purchased the property just last year. Uh, since her purchase, it's been her intention to uh rebuild it with better quality uh safer, better functionality uh than the existing structure. Uh to that end, they've hired Patrick Ahern Architects uh to design a home that fits her family's needs, and they created the design that is before you tonight. So, the chief issue that they were faced with was the narrowness of the lot. Uh that's the the heart of the hardship we're dealing with. Um and so they really tried to balance uh the interests of the neighborhood uh the compatibility with the neighbor of the neighborhood uh with with the design that meets meets modern living and their needs. Uh we have support from uh the neighbors to the north and to the south. We haven't heard or received any objections to date. Uh there may be uh issues presented tonight and we'll certainly do our best to address any of those. Uh so tonight I have Caroline Stone to describe her goal and needs for the project. Mike Tardamela from the aforementioned Patrick Ahern Architects. I have the project engineer Dan Samansky from Northeast Engineers here to answer any questions you might have on the engineering side. And I have Jim HooL who will speak to the proposals conformance with criteria for special use permit. I'm sorry that for the dimensional variance. So unless you have any questions for me at the outset, I'd uh begin by having Caroline Stone come to the podium.

Could I just clarify also? The five voting members for tonight is myself, Mr. Lombardi, Miss Rosenthal, Miss Reyes, and Mr. Ro. Thank you very much. Good evening. You raise your right hand. 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. Caroline Stone. I reside at 17 Allen Road in Welssley, Massachusetts, and I own the property at 565 Walcott Avenue.

Thank you. And Caroline, when did you purchase 565 in September of 2025? Can you describe the existing structure and it conditionally?

Sure. What exists today is uh a ranch structure. Uh on one level there is uh there's a basement that's substandard I would say very very low ceiling uh that's been Frankensteined together in two pieces. the the foundation is not all original to the house. Um there are three bedrooms. The primary bedroom, um the bathroom that accompanies it, um does not have a shower. It's just a toilet and a sink. Um but I bought the house because there's a plaque on the cliffwalk. There's a plaque on the cliffwalk that says, "Walk the cliff, smell the sea, share this view forever with me." And I got to this site and I had been looking and looking and said, "Well, I all of these things can be done here. This this would be a dream come true for my family." So that's why I bought the house.

So you bought it then. Do you have Sorry. You have two children? I have two children and two stepchildren. Okay. And so we bought it with an eye towards them and ultimately for my retirement. Yes. Okay.

Correct. We've discussed the improvement on the proposed setbacks today. Have you communicated with your neighbors at all this? I have I have tried my best. I've spoken with um my backyard abuter uh my abutter uh directly to the south and to the north and I've placed a couple of other phone calls with abutters on the list but I have not heard back

and I think there's reflections of support in the file from the north and also the south correct and the concern raised if any by had to do. Yes. Correct. And there is a plan in place to make sure. Absolutely. Okay. And we'll get more into that.

Anybody? So to be clear, you're going to knock what's there. You're going to improve the site as far as based on your plans, put in a full basement and then a three-story house on top of that. Yes. I don't know as a lay person. I don't know if officially it's considered threetory or two and a half or whatn not, but the answer get into that later with the expert right by those who know. And it's not going to be your primary residence initially. Correct. Not initially, but long term. That's my plan. And why don't you describe how you intend to use it initially though you will be using this house. It just won't be a primary residence.

Absolutely. I see this as a beautiful place to spend uh summers and an elongated summer once my older two kids go to college, which is just two years. Um and then an extended summer if I'm able, May through November. family holidays. It would be beautiful spot to bring everybody together. I'd love to do that. Anyone else? You understand that's you're not permitted short-term rentals, but you're not residing there.

I I do understand that. I also um there was a grandfathered in short-term rental permit that was associated with the property. When I bought the property, I did continue that short-term rental permit because I know my my husband's father has a a guest house um in New Orleans and um and I know how valuable and rare those permits are. I do not intend to use it. I I don't want people in my beautiful home, but um understanding the rarity of those uh and that it was my right to continue it, I did.

So, the um short-term rental permit is currently active. That is correct. I would intend to keep it active. Yes. So that would be the short that would be the STR um registration that is with breakwater property group. No, I don't believe so. I believe that may be the second item agenda which you're speaking of which is not related to my property. But you're talking but we're talking about a previous owner's STR permit

being grandfathered. Mike, well, why don't why don't we why don't I here for a second? U

when this petition was filed, uh the idea of the short-term rental uh permit being a part of this discussion was not uh known to me. I only learned after the fact that there was an existing short-term rental uh license registration associated with this address. Caroline understands that that u that license which she has my understanding is converted with with her purchase of the property. She followed the proper procedure to maintain that status. um there is a limitation on that uh related to the number of bedrooms that are allowed to be rented. She is aware of that and she expressed to me she was maintaining her rights uh with the purchase by maintaining that registration that she's not intending on utilizing it immediately. She's intending to use it with her family, but it's not something she wants to just go away and give up voluntarily if she need not. So that's the status of that. If she needs to expand, ask this board for an expansion of that license, that would be a separate application. Now, we had already filed this application before this came on our radar screen, which is why we probably would have done that just to line up the uh uh the registration that exists currently with what she's hoping to do on the bill. Um, but if that's something she wants to do in the future, that would have to come back before this board to line up, you know, if it's a twobedroom or two bedroom or threebedroom, whatever it is. So we are aware of that uh as something that may have to come back before this board.

I guess um digging into all the stuff STR stuff it it gets a little bit confusing. I understand that. Um yeah, the breakwater currently listed breakwater the the STR for 565 WCOT registered with the state active as and current as of April 2026. I know because I pulled up the state STR registration and that's what it's got. 565 Walcott. The the group that does it that owns it is Breakwater Property Group that has over half a dozen different STR U permits registered with the state. Um, I've got some concerns, questions, issues about STRs transferring from ownership from one owner to another. And with the house is the STR part is the STR because the person is the one that wants to use the STR. The house doesn't use it by itself. It's the person that uses it. So, does the, you know, does the grandfathered STR for the owner because it's a special use permit that, you know, that's required. Does that special use permit go to the person, the house or the property? If it goes to the the house, well, if this if the existing house is being demolished, then I would think that the existing special use permit and STR that is associated with the house, as soon as the house is demolished, that goes away. So therefore, it's it's it's it's gone. And if a new house is built, then a new

STR permit and special use permit would be required. I think this there there's area that is unclear. Can I just give my pre brief response and then I'll have you kind of weigh in?

I understand your uh the theory there of it running with the house or even the owner, but um my understanding. I I dove into it because the next petition is exactly on this point. Um there are some short-term rental licenses or registrations that have are been permitted or existed prior to the town regulating them. They are grandfathered in. There are others that have received special use permits. Those special use permits run with the land. They run with the property

going forward. not with a particular owner, not with a particular structure, but with the land. Um, and they and so a new buyer does have the ability to sort of buy that right that's separate from their obligation to properly register for that ongoing license every year and and comply with all of the obligations that a homeowner who has that right has to comply with. So I I just wanted to kind of jump in with my understanding of that and then we can have the the solicitor here.

Is that is question is that covered is that specified somewhere in the law or in the code that says it is permanent permanent never to be removed from the property. So it's not that it's permanent never to be removed for any reason, but the state supreme Can you pull the mic up? Sorry, please. The state supreme court has explained that special use permits do run with the land. So it is inherent in the property itself, not the person or the building. But that doesn't mean it couldn't, you know, you can lose it for other reasons, but if you were just to to buy the property, you get that with it.

The I'll express my the

concerns. Um, I went through the neighborhood. Um, I went I, you know, I drove through the neighborhood. I have, I looked, I found out from the the STR registry. I don't know how many are actually being used as active STRs, but from the registry there was one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 STRs active um on Walcott the from Purgatory down. Oh, wait. I think I missed a couple. 30. Why? I missed two. So add two to that number. Um from Purgatory down to the end of Walcott going south, there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, there's nine.

So So we can keep this discussion going, Chris. Okay.

As the petition is written, we are not addressing per se the STR at this time. there they have testified and it's on record and you voiced your concern that because there is a grandfathered STR we would like to in the future if it becomes an issue have to address that as a separate petition but right now the only thing that we are looking at right now as the petition is written is the knockdown and reestablishment of new residents at this place and the fact of the matter is that while there is a grandfathered STR on the books, it's not really gerine to that petition as it's written. So, I hear your concern. It's good to voice it and we've got it, you know, as a footnote now that if we need to address it in the future, it'll have to be a separate.

Okay. And I and you know I can have Caroline acknowledge that her intention is to only utilize that in full compliance with the town's regulations and the state's regulations regarding short-term rentals. But but yes, this is a petition for a new home or her family moving forward.

And Mr. Row, if I may, thank you for calling out this about what's registered with the state. I took steps, the proper steps to secure the permit only for the town of Middletown and had no use uh in renting it or doing anything with that permit. So, I did not follow up to register with the state registry. Right. I do not know who this breakwater is and I will be following up on that. So, thank you for calling that to my attention. You're welcome. Any other comments? You want to proceed, Mr.? Yes, Mr. I'll ask Mike Tardamela to come to the stand, please.

Raise your right hand. You swear the testimony that you'll be given this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. State your name and your address, please. Mike Tartamela, Patrick Ahern, Architect, 14 Newberry Street, third floor, Boston, Massachusetts, 02116. So, you're an architect, correct? Yes, I am. And you have a degree in architecture. I do.

Uh, I attended Roger Williams University right here in Bristol. and obtained a five years bachelor's of architecture degree. Uh I also hold a national council of architectural registration board certificate um through the council uh through the national council of architectural registration. Yes. Uh personally I've been practicing licensed since 2008 but uh practicing for over 26 years. testified before. Yes. Yes.

This board will so recognize.

Yes. You describe a little bit of your effort before getting into the with the town to sort of learn about the lot.

Sure. Um, upon getting the site plan, we we visited with the building inspector to understand a little bit of the zoning criteria and orders of operation for what we could potentially develop on the property. We spoke at length a number of times with the building department and also engaged uh with attorney Galvin to advise us on what would be permissible on the lot prior to proceeding with the schematic design and we go into more detail height.

Sure. Uh the house currently does comply with uh the building height restrictions. The the nature of the massing is is a Gambrell style house um with some shingle style detailing, but it's very indicative of coastal New England architecture. Um I heard some references to how many stories is the house. In fact, there's really three stories above grade, but you only perceive one of those or the other two stories are under the roof line. So with a Gambrell, it gives you a little bit more of a volutric ability to to pack the architectural program under the roof line. So you don't have this perceived three-story house. You really what has feels like more of a one and a half to two and a half story house from the street. Um which is an intentional device that we used in an effort to break the scale down and maintain the architectural character of the rest of the neighborhood. Yes, it is.

Yes, it does.

Yes, it will. in Caroline, did you consider the general character of the surrounding area with that design of the home?

Very much so. Um, I think, you know, when we examine this neighborhood, it's it's what we kind of classify as a neighborhood in transition. There's a lot of houses that have been either reworked or um some of them have been raised. It seems to be a trend that's happening. when I believe zoning was enacted in Middletown in in the in the 80s which kind of sort of blanketed a lot of these properties with non-conformity. A lot of the original houses that were there at one point look like they were from primarily the 1950s and60s. There were some older houses that were in that neighborhood, but a lot of these are kind of ranches one-story 1950s and60s style homes. Some of them, as we've heard the term Frankenstein, they've been added to, they've been manipulated. Um, this house is is no stranger to that. So, in terms of of kind of evaluating the neighborhood, evaluating the mass and scale, you know, how do we create what will become the next architectural vocabulary and draw on what's already been done in the neighborhood. So, we're looking to kind of maintain that consistency uh from both a mass and scale standpoint, but also from a streetscape standpoint.

Can you speak just a little bit about the landscape design? lot.

Sure. You know, again, I think it's very safe to say we're we're fully intending to do a tasteful landscape solution on site um and keeping in mind um privacy at the property line and also doing some screening that would provide both privacy to both Butters on each side and also Miss Stone and her family. U we're not proposing anything that would be out of character with the existing other properties.

Questions from the for the architect. Just one point of clarification. You are building a thinner house but deeper into the lot currently there. Yes, the house does improve on the current non-conforming setbacks on both sideyards and in the front. So, it is less non-conforming than what's currently there. Yes. And then you're going deeper in the lot, which is permissible because that's where the buildables most of the buildable space is because it's a long rectangular lot.

That's right. The lot is fairly narrow. But yes, we are we are observing those those non-conforming setbacks, improving on them, but also going slightly deeper into the lot. Not by a greater not by a whole lot, um but kind of filling the back missing tooth of the existing footprint, if you will. I see that you are reducing the encumbrances on each side by minimum amount. Is there a reason that you couldn't reduce the front setback? Can't set it back to be a little bit more awful.

Um, you know, there's some possibility, but we'd have to very carefully evaluate the grading there in order to make sure that it doesn't create a negative situation for the properties behind. Obviously, the more depth that we have in order to adjust the grading, we'd have the ability to do that a little bit more sensitively and control drainage and runoff that way. I did read favorable um comments from the neighbors regarding the site setbacks. They're pleased that there's an attempt to put a little bit more space that way. I was just wondering about

Yes. Yeah. because it's currently 13 and you're going to set it back 17 and a half question. Raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony that you'll be given this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. State your name and your address, please.

Daniel Samansky from Northeast Engineers, Six Valley Road, Middletown, Rhode Island.

I have so recognized. So again, could you just briefly describe the lot, you know, the grade of the lot and describe the challenges that the shape of this lot poses?

The lot is graded from front to back, which is echoes the last comment that the architect made about the grading of the driveway. So in accordance with Middletown storm water regulations, this proposed home will be compliance to not increase. So we need to be able to capture some of that runoff and provide underground infiltration again in accordance with regulations. Not really a zoning gearing matter but comes up as a soil erosion control plan for the building. So the grading front to back to be sure to not flood the garage. So, we provide positive drainage around the building. We'll probably provide some yard basins as well as catch rooftop runoff to allow for that undergroundation. That's the primary engineering task here.

Okay. And typically the process is that come to the zoning board for approval design and then you go back and you building permit stage. That's where all that That's correct. That's all shown on the soil erosion. Is there anything that suggests that?

No. Uh we conceptually design all these at this phase. We've done it for years on many many of the homes even on this particular street. So conceptually we know how we're going to attack that. That's what I described at the beginning of my presentation here. Positive drainage drains and catching rooftop runoff. Other engineering thoughts are the existing utilities all come in from the front. The proposed utilities all come in from the front. The proposed footprint that goes the existing footprint. So drainage patterns would be similar. So all that falls under the realm of fairly easy on our engineering. So from your perspective as an engineer, is there anything in this plan that suggests this new construction or safety concerns?

No, this design is proposed does not negatively impact. Okay. Correct. It does not. Could I interrupt you for one second? A a general announcement. We we were just notified that um these these meetings are being televised live and um a reporter who's watching this said that he cannot hear anything. So we all have to we need to speak up and speak into the microphone. So if you wouldn't mind please. Thank you.

I actually think that's uh all of the direct questions I had for Dan. So if if there's anything that any questions you have for him on any concerns, he's happy to answer it. And and perhaps I could just have the the staff confirm also that we're looking at this in the right way in terms of when the engineering actually would occur uh to deal with some of those storm water issues. Any other questions from the board from Mr. Samansky? Thank you. Now I have Jim H.

Raise your right hand. You swear the testimony that you be given this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. State your name and your address, please. James H. Hulle 198 Union Street, Portsouth, Rhode Island. Uh again, Mr. Chairman Jim Hoo has testified before the zoning board and planning board in Middletown hundreds or maybe thousands of times. He's been recognized as an expert in land use and in appraisals and I ask that he be so recognized tonight. He's so recognized. Okay. Uh now Jim, I asked you to review Miss Stone's project to determine whether it meets the criteria for her variances. Correct? Yes.

You prepared a report answering that question? You're going to testify tonight. Yes. Approach M.

Yeah. I apologize for not getting it. We'll label this exhibit A.

Thank you. So, uh, can you describe your process in reviewing the site and how this design meets the criteria for variances? Sure. You know, I I consider this kind of a sort of a standard part of the the market in that area. Um at this moment we we sort of already touched on that. Um but this is a very simple request for a dimensional variance. Um Caroline is constructing a new home that is described by the architect. It's very compatible with a lot of the old older homes that are in the area. Uh it's really it's a good house replacing the existing small house. It's on site. And I think the really the key issue here is the hardship. The hardship sort of twofold. One is the obvious narrow lot. Um you know, Mr. Galvin touched on the fact uh that if the lot was 100t wide, uh it would be 26 feet wider than it is, and they're asking for a total relief of 20 ft. So had this lot been roughly 10 feet on either side, if the lot had been full width, you wouldn't have an issue at all on the sideline. As it is, it encroaches less on the sidelines than the existing house. Um the same is sort of true of the front. You're dealing with the existing improvements that were part of the streetscape of the area. Um, you want to

keep it more or less lined up in the same line as as the existing house is. Um, you've heard that there was some topographical issues that are also involved with the positioning of the house. And so I look at it and I see that the hardship is is clear. It's the undersized lot. It's the existing improvements that are on site. Um, in both cases, that's being constructed is reducing the dimensional encroachments on the sides and in the front. Um I I look at it this is certainly not any part of the prior action of the applicant. The lot has been this way. The house has been in place for decades. The granting of the requested variances will not alter the general character. As I started to touch on this is absolutely not going to it will certainly improve the general character. This the larger homes that are replacing the smaller houses pretty standard. I dealt with two in the last week in my appraisal business. Uh I know of several houses that very recently have replaced and sold. There was another sale a week ago on the Espanon 46 Espanade. When I drove down to look at it, the truck was already there from the contractor. So, um it certainly is not going to injure the the character. It will only improve the character of the neighborhood. certainly enhancing and you building a house that is proportionally um you know effectively proportional to the to the lot itself replacing one that is no longer and and granting the dimensional variance the hardship suffered if the variance is

not granted would amount to more more than a mere inconvenience. I certainly see that as being true. This is again an improvement over what's there both in terms of the character of the neighborhood but also in terms of all the dimensional setbacks that are already being experienced. It would seem to be much more than a plan.

No, not at all. It it actually is very much in harmony with both. I mean the relief being requested as I said is reduced. That's a goal of the zoning code is to reduce nonformity. And certainly in terms of the comprehensive land use plan talking about improving and infilling rather than dealing with new lots in place from your perspective as an appraiser is there

not at all direct any further Other questions from the board for Mr. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Scout. That concludes our uh direct presentation. I'm not sure if there are interested parties here tonight. So, I'll step aside, but if not, we respectfully request that the uh request for variances be approved.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. G. So, at this time, I will open up the hearing to those that are in the audience. Is there anyone present this evening that wants to speak in favor or against this petition? Seeing none, I'm closing the open. I have one. Okay. My name is Ray Lewis. Raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony that you've gi given this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. State your name and your address, please. Lewis 71 Mountain View Drive Town and I'm aut microphone microphone please.

I'm a butter to property of 551 Wilcott Avenue. So I'm one house away and I just have a concern with what Mr. Row has a concern with which he'll talk about next and the next project as well is we're building non-conforming houses and we're passing in long rental property. I mean, rental agreements that I feel are just a piece of paper as a selling point to the home. And I bought this home to retire here. I pay the highest tax rate in in the area because I'm an out ofstate person. And I look at these as flips. So, you look at the first house was bought originally bought by JPS. And this second one that you're going to talk about now is from And I feel like the whole point of everything, everybody that was doing was trying to give the town back to the people and not have it a an area of all just rentals. And that's the way I look at it. I don't rent my house. I pay top dollar for my taxes because I'm out of state. I don't intend to rent my house. I didn't run down here and get a rental permit after everybody did that. So, one thing I'd like to ask Mr. Row is how many of those 22 people signed up within before that date? You know, was it 20 people out of the 30? Was it 10? Was it 100? You know, that's the one thing that I want to know because at that point, people just did it to do it because they wanted to have that selling point to the next guy and to the next guy. When does it end? When does that end? When does that whole thing end that you can just keep passing it along, passing it along? As far as I'm concerned, her house is a complete tear down. So, it's got to meet new code. It's got to meet building code. It's got to meet electrical code, plumbing code. Why can't it meet the

ordinance code for rentals? It should. It's completely ripped down new house. We shouldn't be passing along a piece of paper because the people before had the right to rent their house. If the new ordinance says you have to be owner occupied, then you got to be owner occupied. call a spade a spade. Not saying, "Oh, just because this guy got a paper." Well, how how many times can we pass it along? We pass it to the builder who goes in like my neighbor and buys the home from the neighbor and then he sells it to somebody else and that paper follows five people. I mean, come on. I mean, at a certain point, it's not it's not worth what it's worth. I I personally think that if that's the way the ordinance is written, we need to change it. That that speculation has to be put in that law to get rid of the gray. No more gray. It's black and white. You stole something, you get arrested. You know, you're the new oral is ordinance is you rip the whole house down. It's not the same house. So, if you're going to if you're going to sit here and say compliancewise she's going to build a non-conforming house and then get a rental agreement, I don't think that's right. That's just my opinion. But at the end of the day, this whole pass it along thing. I don't want to live in a neighborhood. I bought this house to retire here and I don't mind paying the taxes for another five years. I'm 59 years old. So if I retired 65, I got to do for five more years. So that'll cost me over $100,000 to keep the house over there because now I have to pay the extra 5% on the state. That's now a new law. So at the end of the day, I'd like to see the board rule in a way that everybody's happy and and it's not

just a free-for-all. Bing mansions, getting, you know, sevenbedroom houses and then being able to rent them because you can. sir. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Could you repeat your name and address? My name is Raymond Lewis. Lewis. Okay. 71 Mountain View Drive in Beluretown, Mass. And I'm from 551 W cutout. Thank you.

In answer to your question that you asked me, um, I wish there was a way to get more information like what you were asking and referring to. I'm digging into it to try to find out if there's ways to do it. Um I only got a chance to check listing for Walcott, but there's the neighboring streets and how many of those have got STRs. Um so

hopefully I can hopefully some of that will become more clear in the future if some of that information can be found. The solicitor already teed this one up if you recall. He talked about how that short-term rental transfers with the land, not with the not from owner to owner, not be from building on the land, but the land. That's the state law and that's what we are governed by and we have to follow. So that's was stated earlier. Correct. And Mr. Solicitor just To clarify in my own mind, it's not just the use that follows the property for just short-term rentals. If they have applied for out, whatever it could be, and came in front of this board and got a special use or it it follows the property,

always has. No, it's not just unique to short-term rentals. Am I right? Every special use permit stays with them. special use permit no matter what it is follows the property and also not I understand the concerns but this petition is not for a special use permit it's just for a variance so I'm not sure while it's a valid concern I'm not sure how relevant it is to the actual petition that we're hearing

that is all I was gonna say I think everything that has been discussed on that topic is an important issue we know in Middletown, but it's just not part of the application that we have before you. And so we just ask before you you vote come to a decision on our application focused on just the hardship and the criteria that we think or the varian. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience that want to speak or against? Please come on up. Raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony that you'll be given this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth? I do.

State your name and your address, please. Mark Horin. Uh, I own the property to the north. Okay.

This property. I've reviewed the plans. I've reviewed the site and engineering plan. I think this is a thoughtful approach to the both the lot and the neighborhood. I think it's an excellent design. Um, I understand there's a variance required. It's however it's less than what exists there. One of the choices that this owner has is to keep the footprint, go vertical by right, come inboard, maintain the existing non-conforming use by right. And what's a better what's is that a better plan? No, this is a thoughtful design takes into account the architecture, the view, the neighborhood, and I I think it's the right thing. And if you look, this isn't a novel uh application. There many homes on this street Tuckerman as well.

We have we built quite a few in that neighborhood and I think it'll be compatible and it will not be an infringement. As far as the short-term rentals, it is a different matter as the solicitor mentioned. I think there's a bit of it's a bit inongruent to think that a short-term rental by right by defacto is a blight is a it's not. There are many communities, you can go to Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, Aspen and rent by the week. That's not the issue. The issue is overcrowding and violation of the ordinances to then associate that with the right to rent. Believe it. Actually, the right to rent is should be allowed for those that live here, that grew up here, that can help now afford to stay in the house. But no one talks about that. The market will sort it out. If you tell people they can't rent short term, are you going to take away a right that was a property right initially? Guess what? Are they going to rent it at a loss year round? No, they're not. They're going to sell, which will then cause people to leave. So, that's not the reason. Attack the problem, not the That's not the issue.

We also have your written correspondence as part of the record. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ver. Anyone else in the audience? Seeing no one else, I'm closing the public hearing and I'll entertain a motion for this petition. Motion to approve. Motion to approve made by Rick Lombardi. Do I have a second? Second.

Judith second discussion. So I see this um and we see this in that particular area town in particular. um a lot of non-conforming lots. And as it was brought up earlier, the reason they're non-conforming is because they were it was subdivided years ago before we had zoning ordinances and we went to R10 and R 20 and our 30 and it then it specified that a lot had to be a certain size and was conforming. These lots are non-conforming. There are a lot of them over there. We see this on a regular basis and when people buy, you know, they may not know at that time that they're non-conforming. They probably should, but that's the the point is is that if there if there wasn't the ability to make improvements based on the ordinance, if we don't if they weren't allowed to come in here and do this, um, you know, they they can't improve on their property, they can't improve their home. Um, even if it's a tear down, even if it's a tear down, the other thing I'm seeing here is that this design, this plan is better than what's there now. And that's a consideration that we have to we have to think about. It's better. It's an improvement on what's there now. Um, and I just think at the end of the day that Your points are well taken. I I'm not totally 100% disagreeing with you, but I will say this. If you understand what this board is charged with, we are a finder of fact, number one, and number

two, we are charged by law to follow the ordinances as they are written. We don't make them. The state makes some of them. The town makes some of them. Zoning ordinances are what they are, but we're required by law to follow the zoning ordinance and we have certain criteria that we have to follow when we're going to grant special use. So, with that said, if in fact we ruled against the petition for whatever reason, the next remedy from here is to take it to superior court. That's the next remedy for something like this. So that tells you what kind of responsibility this board has. So at the end of the day, I think we have to take all the facts into consideration, the design, whatever, and and we have to make sure that it fits. In my opinion, when I look at when I look at the there is a hardship here because it's a non-conforming lot. In my opinion, um the hardship wasn't created by the people who bought the property. It was there already. And I think as I just said earlier, it it's not going to take away from the general character of the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, it's going to improve it. So I think those are the criteria, some of the criteria that we have to look at. And again, I'm sensitive to the neighbors. I certainly am. I'm c I'm certainly sensitive to your concerns. But those are concerns that have to be addressed at another level of our pay and maybe even at the state house because they're

they are slowly but surely encroaching on the rights of the towns to you know in the zoning ordinances and they're changing it so that they don't give us a heck of a lot of leeway anymore and for whatever reason but without repeating myself. We just have to follow the ordinance as they're written. If you want those changed, then you need to go and talk to somebody else. Anyone else, Chris?

Um, another another area and different direction aside from the SDR issue. Um, I looked I went I drove through the neighborhood and to look at the overall characteristic of the neighborhood the from about halfway between this property and purgatory I started counting houses and I I think I might have missed a couple because I'm like trying to keep in right down in ticks for which kind of which type of house was which. But basically from about halfway down the street to the end of it, I counted six singlestory houses, 13 two-story houses and five three-story houses. So, the majority are twotory with that one story added in um making up about 3/4 of the houses from there at that point on down to the end of the street. Um I'm I've got some concerns that it is pushing towards the the as what as our gentleman said you know people that are getting pushed out because the property value is obviously with the the type of this type of house construction the value of it's going to go up a lot I would expect afterwards after it's built. which means property values in the neighborhood are going to go up, which means people who have the smaller houses, their property, everyone's property taxes are going to go up. And I did talk to another one of the neighbors within just a couple of

houses of this property who is a recently divorced single mother, single parent, um, and having concerns about whether she's going to be able to keep her and stay in her house because of taxes, because of property taxes. and we talked I talked with her about STRs and about because both of these two properties right next door to each other registered as STRs again not withstanding I understand what what's been said about that um but there is you know there's this constant takeover of properties for investment purposes turning them more and more into STRs and which is driving and changing the character of the neighborhoods from residential homeowners. The person I talked to, she said there is, you know, she used to know a bunch of the neighbors around and now she doesn't because they're not owner occupied. Some of them aren't owner, some of them aren't STRs, but they're vacation homes, not owner occupied. No more there's no more no more kids in the neighborhood. Um, so I've got some some concerns that building up this, you know, this size is affecting the characteristic of the neighborhood. Um, maybe if it was only twotory, I wouldn't I don't I think I'd feel the same way because there's so many other twostory houses. Um, I'm curious. I don't know if I should be asking this again, but when were you how long were you?

Okay. I was just wondering when she was looking at possibly moving it full time versus and if it was being planned on being rented until such time as deciding to move in. But I guess I can't. Okay. Part of the criteria is not when they're going to move in. We have a certain set of criteria that we have to follow. It's just irrelevant. Can I can I just say something?

Yeah. I mean, our our job is to look at the petition as it stands right now. Um, I mean, I I think while repeated allowances of these small variances ultimately could affect the characteristic of the neighborhood, I feel like it's been shown very clearly in this case because of the narrow lot that it will not change the characteristic of the neighborhood. And that's the burden and that's what we need to look at. Um, I think all of this other stuff is irrelevant to this particular petition.

I got a question for the building inspector. Now, out of these lots, the requirements for the building uh variances and came out after after building has already been up. the house had the property has been divided and when you the setbacks were set to sort of restrict the over building on a piece of property. So when it says 15 ft setback that was and that was to maintain a certain size house basically and for a couple of feet either way how much of a difference that's going to make. Now when it comes to the height, height is 35 feet 35 feet anywhere in town.

No difference districts you know like an R six an R30 might have a 40 foot, you know, but in this district Yes. 35 ft. 35 ft. So if somebody bought a house 25 years ago, single family house 20t high, somebody comes in, buys a piece of property and wants to build a house less than 35 ft high by right by right. That that's that's what that's what I'm getting at. Yeah, you know, it's not it it may not uh be the same as the single family house, but it satisfies the zoning. Yes.

And if that if that if they're satisfying the zoning and they're not making a big uh change on the setbacks, you can see relief in here for height. They can do this by right. That's what I'm Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Call for a vote.

Um, I'm just the last thing I'm I'm just going to go with again. I think the I'm leaving out the STR issue. I understand that's a totally separate issue not related to this. I think it is a mitig mitigating factor that has to be remembered, but again, I'm leaving that out. Um, I still feel that under Mr. Hules um listing here about number three granting the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area because as I've already mentioned what that current characteristic of the housing in the area is we're looking at building more and more three stories which is so for that reason I'm not going to be able to support it because I think it is a general it is affecting the surrounding area in a negative way.

That's all. So I'm call for a vote on this petition. All in favor? I I opposed.

The measure passes 4 to one. Nextition 261 Avenue LLC owner Jared attorney for special use permit from 602 803 902A 902 increase bedrooms from 3 to Texas 116 lot 91. Thank you members of the board. Gerard Galvin, Galvin Law on behalf of 559 Walcott Avenue. Tonight I have uh a member of 559 Walcott uh LLC, Mark Heran, here to testify along with Jim Hoo. Uh so much of the subject area we were just talking about will be the heart of this discussion u on the issue of short-term rentals. Uh the current home uh is very similar to the existing home that we were just talking about right next door on Walcott to 565 a singlestory uh ranch home. That home currently is licensed for three bedrooms, three short-term rentals. Uh this LLC purchased the property last year, I believe, and Mark will testify

about his acquisition of it. plans for it. Um, but he is looking to improve the structure and is part of that would be adding a bedroom to the new vision for the structure. And so the process that the town has landed on to deal with properties that are authorized to rent on a short-term basis and who want to expand on that or seek to expand on that in any way is that you then apply for a special use permit to do that. And you have to meet the criteria for a special use permit. uh and uh in particular the subsection of special use permits that uh deal with residential properties. So that's what we've done. So when we boil it down, what we're here tonight to ask for is an increase in an existing short-term rental permit from three bedrooms to four bedrooms. So, a onebedroom increase on this property. Um, so with that, you know, I'll I'll bring Mr. Heran up to kind of explain uh his vision for the property uh and in particular focus on uh the improvements he's going to be making to the parking availability, which is one of the primary concerns of the special use permit for residential areas. Unless there's any questions for me or the solicitor on the process that we're going through here tonight, which I know is new for all of us. Okay.

Raise your right hand, please. You swear the testimony that you'll be given this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do.

State your name and your address, please. Mark Horin 336 Gibbs a Newport. Okay. Um Mark when you purchase the property structure that sits on the property, what you're hoping to do purchased the property last fall. Um, it was run as a short-term rental, second home for by a couple from Connecticut. Um, soon after I closed, I did renew that license. I met Ray Clancy at the property. We walked through, looked at the layout, egress, smoke detectors, and so forth, and he gave me a certificate. Uh, it's a continuation of that permit. Plan for the property is to add another story and a roof on top of the footprint. We may utilize some of the existing structure. We may not. We're looked we're looking at that in terms of structural integrity. The foundation we learned has no footing underneath it. We would have to underpin to make it sound. Um it can be done and we're looking at two different scenarios to do that. Currently there are three bedrooms in the house. It's a one-story ranch. It was built I think in the 80s7s 80s maybe 78. Um and we want to add a fourth fourth bedroom. It would be a bigger house. It would sit picture another floor on top of what is there and then a roof over that. Parking is not really workable in this current state. The new new design would maintain the garage, enlarge it a little bit, and have parking one in front of the other. We're also looked at a scenario where it's a curved driveway, and I think that provides given that the lot is only 73 feet

across the front, the radius driveway gives us the best use. Um so we're looking at those two but nonetheless whichever way it goes it will comply. Um none of the building that we do addition work will require any variance lot coverage setbacks no we don't anticipate requiring requesting what are you expanding the garage I think in your plan you went to two yes garage instead of the one correct that exists picture it wider than what's there so right now it's oversized it has a jog on the north side so it's a weird shape inside so you can't fit two cars we would just come over it's about 9 ft but It comes out of the house. All right.

Middle town describe or were you aware of any problems that office issues? Honestly, I didn't No, I didn't ask him that specifically. He didn't mention anything. He just mentioned what he could approve based on what was there. And then I consulted with my attorney about a change and what that would necessitate and he said that's why I'm here to get a special permit one bedroom and I would comply in all other manner all. So as far as the building itself it's not a knockdown. It's a renovation where you're adding a second floor. That is correct. Or it possibly might be a knockdown once you get started.

That's right. Okay. Okay. So, it's a either or situation, but you're going to end up just going from three bedrooms to four bedrooms, whichever the case might be. Yes. And the other the other point I want to make, which I might not have in my opening, was that just like in the last matter, this existing structure is nonconforming. It's encroaching on setbacks. And you know, Mr. Grant has testified that, you know, if it is a knockdown, it's going to go back up fully conforming. if he's going to add on in any way to the existing that addition will only be. So again,

so question if this petition is addressing just the addition of one bedroom, correct? So if in fact it becomes a mark a knockdown mark, am I right that he's going to come back? Can you repeat that? If if petition. The petition tonight only addresses the addition of the one bedroom, right?

Putting the roof on going up. If in fact the footing issue and whatever else you're facing with that building isn't isn't going to work for you and you're going to go for a tear down, then he's going to come back to us. Am I going back or maybe not? So, the special use permit, if you grant it tonight, will be for a four bedroomedroom STR. What we're really seeking a special use permit for tonight almost has nothing to do with the building, but but with a license that is currently been issued. I get it, but it was brought up that could possibly be a knockdown. I'm not I'm not

right. But again, just as we talked about previously, uh the property is licensed for free, right? I get it. But what I'm asking is if in the if something should happen and you know, nobody knows better than this guy, right? He's good and I know that. But I'm just saying if in fact we're only discussing tonight right now the addition of one bedroom under the STR ordinance. Correct. Nothing one bedroom. Again, we're we're sort of not really talking about the structure. We're talking about the STR license.

So whether it's a knockdown and a rebuild, it's a whole another issue. Yeah. If it's a knockdown and a rebuild, we're still for going from three to four. Three to four bedroom condition. We're just looking to all I just confused myself. That's fine. No, it's it's it's look, it's a new thing. It's a new process we're all going through. So, we're learning on the just like you are. Understood. I was just going to say it's it's easiest to just think of this as a special use permit for a four bedroom STR. Okay. So, perfect.

So, Mr. Gavin, given all of the SDR discussions tonight, I don't think that the the testimony that should it be a tear down, you can reduce the setback variances. Um because we don't know that that's going to happen. Shouldn't even be that shouldn't even be a consideration. It's we're just we're just focusing on the STR additional bedroom. Any other questions for Mr. or you have some more comments?

No, I think really that's it for Mark. He might have some followup, but if unless there are other questions other questions, raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you're given this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? State your name and your address, please. Mr. Chair, I ask that Mr. H be recognized as an expert in appraisals and land use. So recognized.

Thank you, Jim. Uh Mark Huran retained you to prepare a report and review whether his request to go from three bedrooms to four bedrooms complies with the special use permit criteria. Correct? Yes. And you prepared a report answering that question. And this is a copy of that report. Correct. Yes. I approach with approach. We'll label this exhibit A.

Okay. So Jim, can you talk about uh your investigation into this question and and your opinion?

Right. This the relief being saw is just the onebedroom SDR. There is you know alongside that is the discussion about the building and the way it was presented to me was that there would be no request for any variance as part of this. And I think that's really important because whether or not the building is simply expanded or torn down or replaced. Uh it is definitely is that the building would then be conforming or would not be any less.

Right. But I understand the point made you know we're really here just talking about the license. So we'll focus on that. I I think that's only important because the building is being changed enough to add the garage and to change where the parking is, which is a prime consideration of of short-term rentals. And because of that um I then looked at it in terms of the the the fact of the code of whether the standards for the special use permit being sought. So will not result in a significant dimution of property values in the surrounding area of the district. Now I don't see any factors that would generate any diminion of property value. The use is legal, albeit with a special use permit. In fact, it's already legally used in this manner. The request simply increases the approval for three to four bedrooms and it adds sufficient onsite parking.

You guys take your discussion out. So I think that that's really the key issue that you have an existing use that's in place on three bedrooms. You're going to four. Uh the facility would be improved that's there. So I don't see any factor that would negatively impact the value of the surrounding area. It will not create a nuisance in the area. Again, this is simply an increase from three to four bedrooms. It's already been approved. this way. We don't see it changing or creating any kind of additional or any kind of new nuisance in the neighborhood. The granting of the special use permit will not be detrimental to a substantially permanently injure the appropriate use of property in the surrounding area. Again, it's a legal use for the area. The granting of the petition will not be detrimental or substantially injure any other appropriate use. They're proposing to renovate or build a modern house that's going to uh I'm sure increase the safety factors of short-term rentals. So, I think it's fully in harmony with the area uses. The granting of special use permit will not result in hazardous conditions. There's not going to be any hazardous conditions. The parking on site is adequate. It's being increased. The use is in conformance. and is already operated without generating any negative conditions. The use will comply with the following following criteria subject to category residential single family houses

will not create any significant negative traffic or parking impact. It's certainly not going to do either of those two things, especially as they're increasing the amount of parking on site. So I see overall the plan to to essentially increase from three to four with a what is a new improved structure I think is very much in harmony with what the zoning code and the comprehensive land calls for and I think it meets all standards for the specialbody approach

questions from the board from Mr. Thank you, Mr.

Again, unless there are questions from the board members for either Mark or myself or or Jim, that's all we really wanted to present tonight. And again, just reiterate, we're looking to move from three licensed SDR bedrooms to add one more to four. Thank you, Mr. G. At this point, I'd like to open the hearing up to anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this petition. Approach. Raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.

State your name, your address, please. Raymond Lewis, 71 Mountain View Drive in Belchuretown, Massachusetts. I live at I have a property on 551 Walcott Avenue that abuts his property. My main question is why do we need to go from three to four when the new ordinances say the old one say two four two people for two people for a room. So 246 or 246 with the new I don't understand why we need to go to four. I don't when I look at what's actually in the computer in the building department. This is the home that shows it. It's not a two family house. It's a three family house. This is what's in your system right now.

If he looks it up for you, that's what's in there. This is what's in there. I approach and show you. We have that already. How is this a two family twotory house? And the garage is on my side and there's a current garage on this side. So this is right now this is a demolition as it sits in your system. It's a demolition to get here is a demolition. The garage is on a completely opposite side. So you're going to build a stone pad that goes above the garage so you can pull your car in. So I don't know what's going on here, but this isn't what is in your system.

Thank I don't understand why we need to go to a three to a four. One of your ordinances right now, the new ordinances says six people. The old one said two per room. So that's telling me he's trying to sneak. You're trying to put out eight versus six or six versus eight.

I guess that's what it comes down to at this point. So I just want to try to refocus and I'll mark them back up and answer any questions about potential layout again. site, but it's not clear whe

it's granted and it moves from three bedrooms to four is it going to result in a significant reduction property values in the surrounding area. No, it reduces my livelihood where I want where I want to retire. Okay. Would you want a a house next to you that constantly has more and more people in it? To be honest with you, this plan has six bedrooms in it. This is what he's going to do if you knock it down. This has six bedrooms in it. This doesn't have four. It says six. My point is that

if if you if you had a different plan for the other one, it should have been in there so I could see it. We'll bring up Whe you ask for relief, we have to follow. What do you need? What do you need the relief for?

To an existing license. It's for a It's for a rental four bedroom, not a house for a rental. Well, again, you know, you talked about the what is legal, how it is legal, the rights that property owners have, rights that they purchase. And again, some ways ways I do sympathize with you. You don't have to sympathize with me. The way I look at this one is it's going from three to four. It's not like the one you had prior that I didn't have any say. I just didn't like it. This one I have say because it's going three to four.

Well, that's right. But there's still criteria that have to be met by us. And if we meet that criteria, we don't fall back on just I don't like it. You know, we presented our our case. Mark come up and clarify that he's looking to take an old outdated structure modernize it and have the existing license. It's not a significant request and I understand there are there are larger questions at stake that I'm sure will be brought to the appropriate venue and be hashed out but right now we're operating under the laws that we have to operate on the bedroom Mark come up here and clarify that board. And of course, if you want to tax six, I tell that's probably not a smart idea, but if you want that, you can go ask the zoning board. That's not what we're here to do. If you approve it tonight, he gets four. That's it. And if he violates it, he gets enforced against. And if the subsequent owner uh rents it to more for more than four bedrooms or does something illegal enforcement action taken against that person. That's how it works. You got a great enforcement. You go out there on Saturday morning and see how many people showed up for

council has made us do that. Great.

Okay. First off, before you do that, anyone else want to speak that's present tonight want to speak on this issue either for against? Please come up.

Raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. State your name and your address, please. Caroline Stone, 17 Allen Road, Welssley, Massachusetts. I also own the home at 565 Wcott Avenue next to the home in question. Go ahead.

So, I am in favor of the homeowner's request in large part because it is my understanding that the Supreme Court of the state of Rhode Island has said that these kinds of short-term rental permits transfer with the property. In addition, I don't see it as a huge deal to move from three bedrooms to four bedrooms. When I think about my kids, I put four kids in one bedroom sometimes. So, you know, we're talking about the difference between six people and eight people in a home. So, with all of that, to me, this seems reasonable and I'm sharing my opinion. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Anyone else want to speak for against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public. You're you're you're the petitioner. You're going to come up in a second. I'm going to close the open hearing and turn it back over, Mr. G.

With regard to the commentary uh on the plan, this is a schematic plan. It's not a final plan. It's not a building plan. It's not fully developed at all. Um, we've looked at different arrangements where the garage is north, the garage is south. This is not the plan that I will submit for a building permit. Okay. So, you understand where the commute confusion comes from. Yes, I do. And respectfully, I I get that. And the intent is to have an office on the second floor, not another bedroom. And the third floor is intended to be open loft. If I get approval tonight, I realize I can have four bedrooms, not six. I get that. Okay. If I did not have this, if I'm not here today and I build this as a single family home with no short-term license, I can build six bedrooms. Understand?

I could rent by the right. So that may not delay his fears if that's the concern among the neighbors is that hey, this is going to be a party house and there's going to be a lot of people here. No, I mean the house the homeowner has a right to do what they will. It is the same thing. I I could have asked for five bedrooms. I didn't. I asked four. That's one more. I thought it was in keeping with the improvements that are proposing. Thank you, Mr. R. Mr. Galvin. Anything else? Any other questions or comments from the board? I I can give it now. I give it during our open discussion. Okay. So,

our discussion um I'll call for a motion and we can do it during discussion. Motion to approve. Motion made by M. Lombardi. We'll have a second. I'll second. Second by Judith Rosenthal.

Discussion. Initially, the the issue I've got with this is that you're you're looking to increase I I would I think a special use permit when it gets issued or amended, it should be applying to existing conditions, not a well, I plan on doing this down the road. I hope to do this. I might change my mind and decide I don't want to do this down the road. So, I think a an approval means approving for existing conditions. You know, um, Miss Stone has stated her, you know, what she's planning on doing. She's got that option to use it as an STR. She's not trying to adjust that based on I'm building a bigger house, so I'm going to try to get this increased. Um, I'm just really stuck on the the whole right now if the conditions of this house don't change, a four bedroomedroom is not legal and we cannot authorize a special use permit increase to four bedrooms because there is no fourth bedroom in existence. I think we have to go by existing conditions, not oh, I'm planning on demolishing or maybe not demolishing. We're not even sure which. Um I think that's a real key factor in this as well as the whole everything else.

So he needs approval prior to Yeah. And any anything you grant is subject to all other approvals that would be necessary. So it you could condition the grant of the the special use permit on certain things, but I don't think the board the board should know that anything that they grant it's still subject to all other permits and building code that might need to be afterward. So it's not like you can't grant it because it will need, you know, certain relief down the road. can't build it first. They need your permission to build it.

They can't build it and then come to you. Miss Stone is building. But you're conflating. Special use was not a part of the previousition. So you can't conflate the two. She's building a residence

that we approve without special I mean shortterm rental ship in that in that this one is the opposite. This one is all about short-term rental and that the shortterm rental special uses currently are three and they're asking them to go to four. We approve the four then as the solicitor just said then they have to meet all those conditions to make that four bed welling. They're kind

I get that. You know, I I still think that it if we're even if we're changing an existing special use permit, right? Because this has got an existing, right? This has special use permit has a three bedroom.

I think that can't I don't think that can be changed to something that doesn't currently exist. I think if anything it would have to exist and then come back and say, "Okay, this exists." Now, I'm requesting an an amendment. I understand what you're saying about it could be said it could be done on condition of it only gets approved on condition of that building being redone instead of putting a condition on something. I think it's, you know, not that big of a deal. Say, "Okay, well, you know what? In case you change your mind, I don't think we should be approving something on something that does not currently exist in and basing it on something that may or may not exist in the future.

Well, SUPs expire though, so they would have to they have to come here first to get permission before they do anything else with the license. When do expire? Um, do they not expire?

Uh, I'm not sure about the special use, but anything any expansion we have 400 plus short-term rentals that are now rendered non-conforming. You can't knock down a 2500 ft house and come up with a 3500 ft house. Same bedrooms. You expanded it though. That requires a special use. All they're asking is go from three to four. They're expanding it in any way, shape, or form. Needs your permission before they can do it. Right now, they're just going three to four. That's what they're getting granted. They're not getting granted to go from a th00and foot house to five. That would be another expansion. Okay. Just wanted to get that out.

Okay. My concern here is the issue of SDRs in our community. So, I understand the permit was transferred to Mr. Horn um as a grandfathered permit prior to the changes. Our our ordinance, our STR ordinance has changed. you have to assume that it was changed and approved because it has significantly impacted our community and our neighborhoods. So to say that it it increasing the number of bedrooms and an STR does not impact the neighborhood or um impact the neighbors quality of life is pretty subjective. So, seeing as it's a grandfathered permit for three bedrooms that was transferred and our ordinance has changed due to the impact it's had on our community. I mean, I I would question whether or not these you're increasing STRs. You're you're going from three bedrooms to four. So, that's an increase. And we have heard many times that these neighborhoods feel the impact of the growing STRs. So that's that's my concern. It's overcrowding maybe. Yeah. I don't know how you want to state it, but there there are concerns in these neighborhoods where the STRs are growing. you're ded on that point and I appreciate it and I

know that this is a sensitive topic in town obviously it's not just tonight but it's been an ongoing discussion for a long long time. Uh the way the town chose to address it though is to allow for a process to allow for flexibility to allow for a property owner with vested rights to come before you and ask for permission to expand and you know and talking to and I think his decision was to try to be very reasonable in his request to expand from three to four not to do something uh dramatic in terms of an increase and I think the important point I want to make is your point is well taken I think it's correct the town's been working hard to figure out how to properly address what has impacted the community. But the way it chose to address it is to not say, "Okay, the grandfathered rights can stay, but nobody can ever ask for any change to that." Okay?

What they did was they said, "You have grandfathered rights, they're vested, and if you want to expand, you can come in and ask for permission." And that's what we've done. So this is the exact process. And so, um, I don't think it's us saying on a blanket townwide level that short-term rentals don't have any impact on anybody. I think in this case, what we're saying is in this neighborhood, our request, our very minor request to go from three authorized bedrooms to four is not going to have the negative impacts. And I I just ask you, uh, I'm hearing a lot of macro level talk today. We're talking about big townwide issues, but what we're here to do tonight is a very micro issue, a very property specific issue, a onebedroom issue.

Understood? And so, uh, again, I every everything that's been talked about tonight is, I think, fair, on point, and, uh, probably up for continued debate at a higher policy level. But we're not really here to talk about polic. we're talking about the the criteria. So, I just wanted I just wanted to reiterate that that we're f we're only here because the town authorized this this process and we think we've met the criteria.

Understand and appreciate, you know, going through the process. Um my point is right now we're talking about one bedroom, but it's not going from one bedroom to two or even two to three. It's three to four and it sets a precedence. So, if we don't get tougher on our our ordinances, we're we're allowing it creep. It's things are going to start creeping. And we've heard from many neighborhood representatives that this is becoming this is becoming an issue and it's impacting their quality of life. So I understand it is a process and you are coming coming to us asking for this special use but it's to the discretion of each of these board members to decide if there is an impact or if it should be approved. So that's that's my point.

Yep. And if I could just ask on the issue of precedents you know each one of these decisions is taken on their own not set correct. I would agree with that. So I think the intent um when the council made the changes to the ordinance, the intent was one thing and their intent was when they made all new short-term rentals be owner occupied, the intent was to tackle a certain issue, mainly overcrowding, mainly having some control of the SDR. But if their intent when they grandfathered in was to not to allow an expansion, they would have done that. They didn't do that. They allowed for someone to come in here under the process of the ordinance as it's written, which is what we need to follow and let them petition us as you just made a good point. Everybody here can look at the ordinance. You know what the what the rules are and we can make we can make this decision on our own based on the law. This is not about what I like or don't like. This is about what the law says. It's black and white. There are no shades of gray. Either we grant it or we don't. That was the intent of the council. If the council wants that changed, then they should change it and that would be their

intent. But as I see it, this was not an issue to them because if it was, they would have addressed it. So, um, that's how I see this. It's difficult because a lot of things in life are not black and white, but when you're sitting up here, in a lot of cases, it is. And they don't give us a lot of leeway. I would like more, but they don't give it to us. And I I can't emphasize that enough. It's almost like I say it every time we have a zoning meeting, but whatever issue it is, you know, people come in here and and and they it's what you like. It's what you have in your neighborhood. It's about your quality of life. And I get that. I get that. I'm sensitive to that. But I I think we need to follow the law. And you know, somebody else is going to change it. We're not going to. True. Any other comments?

He answered it. No other comments from the board. Then I'm going to call for a vote. All in favor? I. All opposed? I. Three to Oh, I didn't say I. Sorry. I So, three to two under the new rules, Chris. Three to two passes, right? What's that? Under the new rules. Yes. Simple majority. So this petition is granted three to two. I said I Yes. Three eyes.

So we're going down to 26. CBR 26. Oh 13. CBR 2613, Brian Rurick for special use permits um 8 from 803 and 902 and a variance from 603 903 to construct a 24x 22 addition with the rear setback of 26 ft where 30 is required. Property is located at 137 Ellery Avenue, Assessor's Plats, 155, lot 197.

Raise your right hand. You swear the testimony that you give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. State your name and your address, please. Ryan Ror, 137 Avenue, Middletown, Rhode Island. Please explain your petition, Mr. Rar.

Uh, so my I'm here on behalf of my mother. Uh, she and my father bought the property at 137 out 50 years ago. Um, The apartment that she lives in now is a non-conforming based on when it was built back in the 80s. And she we are requesting a 4 foot relief on a setback. Um in order to put a second bedroom on and a two- bay garage underneath it for comfort of of parking installation such with a a bathroom and also a laundry room. future use of that will be my mother's primary bedroom and then when my sister comes here for her medical reasons when she needs to see her doctors she'll then have a bedroom to sleep in as well because right now she sleeps on an air mattress in the living room and my mother plans on aging in place and if we need home care we would have that ability to have an overnight staff member in the house

and do you and your family reside in the primary residence there I do with my girlfriend and her Okay. All right. So, the special use portion of this is for two family, correct? Two separate dwellings on the lot. I look at a two family dwelling is under one roof. One roof. We have two dwellings. It says one only one principal dwelling per lot.

So, the characteristics back in the days before the ordinance, they had two separate dwellings. So they, you know, they got granted uh there's an old a 1986 decision to convert living space above the garage for a second dwelling that was all approved making this that's why it's requiring the special use permit. It's existing by special use. And then the variance is simply that 4 foot correct relief that you're looking which will match where it sits on the property against the property line. So it doesn't become any more non no and there's plenty of the if you see the lot it's about 42,000 square feet plus side setbacks front setbacks everything well within reason.

Okay. Other questions? This is not a separate residence. It's just an addition to the res. Thank you. Have you talked with the butter behind you? Are they aware? No, they're they're aware because they got notification from You haven't talked. Um is there is there any kind of screen? I mean that it's it's I've been by a couple of times. It's like almost impossible to see. Right. Which is structure. So is there is there it's like that 360 degrees around the property. There's a buffer.

Yeah, that's above. Yeah, there's there's the hedges visual that there's so much that you can't see when you're driving by street. Come by and see the gardens. You'll love it. I've seen the I've seen the gardens. Yeah, come on by. Come by on Halloween. It'll be spectacular. Um, yeah. No, by no way it impacts any views or anything from any air flow to the rear property or anything. I I noticed that there was no change in the footprint at all. So, it's just it's going with existing. Correct. It's all going with existing setbacks. Report. Any other questions for Mr.

Any other comments? Okay. So, stay right there. I'm going to open the hearing up to the public. Is there anyone here tonight that would like to speak for against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public the open public portion of the hearing and uh I'll ask the board for a motion. Motion to approve. Mr. Lombardi makes we have to have two motions. Special use first and then a variance. Right. So first special use. Motion to approve. We have a second. Second.

All right. Discussion for the special use. I don't I don't know if you should feel slighted because your mother didn't even say that she was willing to speak up in support of this. I'm like what? And now now I'm making question. Well, wait a second. Mom doesn't even support this. This has been a six-year conversation. This is going to be my swan song. I think that's assumed. Okay, there's no discussion. Okay, I'm just call for a vote on the special use. All in favor? I vote passes 5. All right. So for the variance need a motion. Motion to approve.

Second. Second. Discussion. the requested the requested relief is minimal minimal and um there's no changes in basically in lot coverage or any other relief granted. So I don't see that there's an issue with this one. Anybody else? I'm I'm just going to raise the question again that mom still didn't support this one either. She didn't support the first one. She didn't support the second one. I don't know. No, knowing knowing mom I'm sure that you know discussing discussing down the street of course of course all that was said in just of course

any any other discussion if not a call for a vote all in favor I opposed motion passes by you very much good luck thanks all right so I need a motion to adjourn um motion to adjourn. Second. We're just continuing the Richard F. Oh, sorry about that. 12 to the next meeting. Yes. There's a no show. So, that's just automatically. I just want to make sure. So, we're going to we're going to uh continue ZBR 2612. Yes. To the May 24th, I think it is.

May 26. 26. Second. Where's your meeting?