Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Call the August 25th meeting zoning board review meeting to order first order of businesses roll call.

Thomas Heaney here. Rick Lombardi here. Alicia Reyes here. Rebecca Rogers here. Christopher Rowe. Absent.

Joseph Markey, absent. And Kendall Holmes. Absolutely. Next order of business is the adoption.

Oh, Judith Rosenthal. Here.

Next order of business is the adoption of the zoning board meeting minutes from July 28th.

Move to adopt.

Ms. Lombardi, adopt. I can Alicia all in favor aye opposed. Minutes are accepted 5 to nothing. The next thing we're going to do is we're going to go through each of the petitions that are on the agenda for tonight make sure that you're here and ready to go if you are. We'll then rack and stack all the different petitions, excuse me, and we'll go through them one at a time, okay?

First petition is ZBR 2623, Sandro D'Souza at 146 Oliphant Lane. Summary petitions, new petitions, petition ZBR 2637, Hector Rodriguez located at 512 Greenland Ave. Petition CBR 2635, John Emanuel, located at 68 Crest Street.

Yes.

Petition CBR 2636, Anna Gasparato, sorry, at 23 Aliquin Drive.

Aliquin. Aliquin.

CBR 2638, Christopher Simonelli, at 542 Wolcott Ave. Petition CBR 2639, 559 Wolcott LLC, located at 559 Wolcott Ave. Petition ZBR 2640, 59 Aquidneck Ave, LLC at 59 Aquidneck Ave. Mr. Chairman, I did speak with Attorney David Marklin today.

He indicated that his client was requesting to withdraw that matter without prejudice.

Okay. So 59 Aquidneck Avenue is being withdrawn without prejudice. Can I get a motion?

I make a motion to accept.

I'll second it. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Withdrawal without prejudice, 5-0 approved.

And then there's two continued petitions from the last meeting. Petition ZBR 2632, CGRI, Middletown LLC at 1400 West Main Road.

They have a request to be continued to the September 22nd meeting.

Okay, we will continue that to the September 22nd meeting.

Petition ZBR 2633, Coddington Cove Commons LLC at 300 Coddington Highway.

There's also a request to continue that matter to September 22nd.

Okay, so we will move the Coddington Cove Commons LLC at 300 Coddington to September 22nd. Okay, so the first case we're going to consider is a summary case that we have on the agenda. A summary case is a case where the petitioner is only asking for one modification, one variance in this case. So what I'm gonna do is have the case read in and then I have a couple of questions I have to ask whether or not we can consider such a summary case.

Petition ZBR 2637, Hector Rodriguez and Brian Schull for a variance from 603, 903, 803C and 321A to construct a 17 by 18 story addition with a west side setback of 12.5, where 15 is required, an R20 reduced to an R10. Said real estate is located at 512 Green End Ave and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plot 114, Lot 161.

Is there anyone on the board that would like to hear the petitioner describe this case, or are you satisfied keeping it as a summary? Is there anyone in the audience that would want to speak out against this case and therefore want to hear the full case? Hearing none, we're going to continue this as a summary. So can I get a motion for this petition?

Motion to approve.

Ms. Lombardi. All in favor of the petition for variance at 5.12 Greenland Avenue signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Approve 5 to nothing. First case we're going to take is now ZBR 2639 because our solicitor has to recuse himself and we have a substitute.

Yeah, so Ms. Kendra Cuisinance is... going to advise you on this matter.

Thank you. Mr. Regan.

Petition ZBR 2639, 559 Wilcott, LLC owner and Gerald Galvin, attorney for variance from 603, 701, and 903 to demolish current legal non-conforming single-family home and rebuild on the same footprint with a second-floor addition resulting in a 3.3 from the north side setback and 3.4 from the south side setback where 15 is required. Said real estate is located at 559 Wilcott Ave and further identified as tax assessor's plot 116SE lot 91.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Zoning Board, Gerard Galvin on behalf of 559 Walcott LLC. As was just written to the record, this is our petition for a dimensional variance for setback relief from both side yard setbacks. That would be the north side and the south side. But that relief is requested to be simply on top of where the existing first floor and existing foundation is. No new additional encroachments are being proposed here. So the existing lot is non-conforming. in that it is 73.6 feet wide, so in that zone, there is required to be 100 feet. We went through a similar request for relief on this road just a few months back, where we went into great detail talking about the hardship that that narrow lot creates, and that's very similar here. 559 Walcott purchased this lot in 2025. Since that purchase, it's been their intention to rebuild and renovate the home there to bring it to better quality construction and better functionality than the existing structure. It does hold a short-term rental registration for four bedrooms, as was approved by this board previously this year. In that application when we sought that approval Plans were submitted and those are the same square footage plans that are before you tonight There was some more feasibility work that had to be done before We confirm that with the dimensional requests that were before you with tonight, which is why we didn't pursue that a few months back But our Principal of 559 Walcott LLC, Mark Horan, is here to offer some testimony about the hardship that he faces on this lot and what his intentions are. Unless there are any other questions for me, I'll call Mr. Horan up to the stand. Any questions at this point?

Please proceed. Mr. Ramp, would 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, I do.

State your name and your address, please.

Mark Horan, 336 Gibbs Avenue, Newport.

Play in the position. So, Mark, could you describe the existing lot and the existing structure on the lot briefly for the board? Yes.

The existing structure is a One-story ranch, 25-plus years. It had been used as a short-term rental by the prior owner. When I purchased the property, we looked at the condition of the existing structure, the foundation, et cetera, looked at ways that we could improve, determined that the existing foundation could be utilized, and the most efficient and feasible way to add on top of it would be to go on top of the existing walls. Anything we did inboard would require isolated footings, restructuring, reengineering the footprint. So what's before you now is a plan that retains the foundation, retains the first floor walls, goes directly on top, and that in essence is the request, to put a second story right on top of the first and then a roofline on top of that. The plan that was before you in March for the STR was Exactly the same footprint, 4,291 square feet was the total square footage of that home. This home will be the same or less. Any of the modifications that we've done, the second plan that we've submitted has a different roof line. It's a curved gable trim in the front of the house, and we've looked at different options with that. Regardless of which way we go, it will not exceed that square footage as presented. We've looked at the garage on the north, the garage on the south. We've looked at different interior partition walls. None of that bears on the approval we're seeking now. Everything else would be conforming. Block coverage would be conforming. It's just the relief on the two side yards, north and south.

And you started to go through some of the other elements that we typically look at when we're... structures and lots. You mentioned lot coverage are compliant there. The total height is compliant as well, correct? And I know you've mentioned this, but you're going straight up on top and there are no other encroachments on setbacks other than where they currently exist today.

Correct. Okay. It was surveyed. Maybe class one survey by Mike Russell and that It was submitted, I believe, with part of the application. It was in the packet.

Yeah. Now, one other point I want to make is that if this lot were, in fact, conforming and 100 feet wide, what you're proposing as a structure here wouldn't require any relief. Correct. Correct. Okay. Now, that narrowness is the hardship that we're talking about tonight. You didn't take any action that created that hardship, correct?

No, we haven't touched any of the existing buildings.

Right, and you didn't subdivide this to create this lot. This lot existed in this form and in this dimension when you took title, correct? Correct, yes. Okay. Now, is the proposal that you're making here altering the character of the neighborhood or the surrounding area in any way?

Actually, I think it's making it more conforming.

And can you explain why that is?

As I'm sure the board knows, most of a lot of the homes have been either renovated or knocked down and rebuilt. We've done a fair amount of work on Easton's Point where I'd say the average new home is two and a half stories. on a R10 or R20 lot. And this would be very much in keeping with those on this immediate, right next to this house or close to it, 585 and 578 Walcott would be built back in between 16 and 18, among others. And those would be, in terms of massing and size, comparable.

And in fact, 565 Walcott, which we were before the board with just a few months ago, also faced a similar narrowness hardship, and they petitioned for setback relief, even more setback relief than we're asking for, and that was granted by this board, correct? Now, we're complying really with the intent of the code. You've talked about how this is compliant with lot coverage height, and you're not increasing any of the nonconformities, correct? No. Okay. I already testified to the consistency of your proposal to the surrounding area. And I guess I just ask, why is this relief minimal to the reasonable enjoyment of the property and the home?

Can you expand on that a little bit? I think the proposal is more in keeping with those that are around it in terms of size and desirability for our clients and people looking. I think the existing structure is very limited in its use as a a subpar basement with a ceiling height less than eight feet maybe seven six not really habitable the previous owner did use it for habitable space but that's not the intent here it needs updating it needs improvement does not have a central air system that's working it has wall wall units there's a lot of work that needs to be done the chimney needs to be so bringing it up to speed is

Mr.

Chair, I think that's really all we intended to put into the record tonight on direct. I'd reserve the right to cross-examine if anybody comes up with any objections. I'm not aware of any. Tonight is coming into the hearing. But just to add on what Mr. Horan just testified to, we see this as a very minimal request. It's building off of a single-story home. It's staying within the height limits It's not adding at all to any non-conformities or encroachments. Raising the standard of that property to a modern... I'll rest and...

Questions from the board? This couple things to get on record, you said the height is under the Max. So what is the actual proposed height of the building that's under 35 it's a 34 inches. OK so I thought it was pretty close. And then the property itself is owned by the LLC is going to stay as a short term rental is that the plan.

I'm in the business of selling finished homes as well, and I have entertained interest, and I'll continue to do so. I do keep some, so it's possible I keep it long-term. I can't foresee that outcome yet.

Okay. I know you have a grandfathered short-term rental that goes with the properties.

That's right, and I had an inspection done after I purchased it and went through the house, and it was

It is also possible if you keep it that you would entertain long-term rentals there. Correct.

Is this a total tear down or just taking it?

It's using the existing foundation in walls, first floor walls, building on top of them. The existing walls will be shored up so there'd be new headers, beams, columns as required, be structural engineered.

I ask because non-conformance, the relief that you have from the ordinance, as it is now, my understanding is that goes away if you tear it down, if you tear it down completely, but you're not doing that.

That's correct. I'd add the petition, the neighbor to the south, it was approved that Mr. did have the same condition. They proposed tearing it down and rebuilding new with new structure. That building is no longer there. That was approved as a new structure. But the difference between that petition and mine is I'm utilizing.

And before I open to the public, just one more question regarding, there is a letter of support in the file. Do you want to mention that?

Sure. Mark, did you communicate with any of the abutters and neighbors?

Yes, Caroline Stone, the neighbor to the south, showed that we shared each other's plans. We talked about a number of things.

That was submitted to the portal and asked that it be part of that.

It's in the written record. I just want to put it on record for the meeting. Anything else? Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I'm going to open the meeting up to the public. Is there anybody here tonight that would like to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing and ask for a vote on this petition.

Motion to approve the petition.

Second. Second. Second. Thank you. Okay, so as far as the petition is concerned, I think as important based on the way the town regulation reads, that the plan that has been submitted and what's being proposed is within the relief that we can grant and also it's in keeping of the character of the neighborhood that you're building in so as far as that's concerned i think those are all good things and i'm going to support this petition

I agree with the chairman. Nothing has changed since the last time he was before us. The hardship still exists. That was one of the main things that we needed to take into consideration. And in fact, this plan certainly improves what's there now and doesn't change the overall character of the neighborhood. So I'm going to support the petition also.

I agree with my colleagues. I took a drive-by today, and it fits perfectly. In fact, it looks out of place as it is now.

Anyone else? All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Motion passes 5-0.

Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. Petition ZBR 2623, Sandra D'Souza, for a variance from 603 and 903 to construct a 10 by 25 shed where 8 from the side yard where 20 is required. Said real estate is located at 146 Oliphant Lane and further identified as Texas Assessor's Plot 111, Lot 40.

Mr. DeSouza, come up to the podium, please. Raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony that you're gonna give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? State your name and your address, please.

Andrew DeSouza, and what else?

And your address.

Oh, 146 Wollefont Lane.

Thank you, good job. All right, would you explain your petition to the board, please?

Yeah, I have an old garage there, and I want to fix that, so I spoke to Chris, and he said that it's in ruins, so I gotta knock it down and rebuild it, and I just want to make it a little bit bigger to the left, and that's how I want to do that.

YOU DESCRIBED TO THE LEFT, WHICH IS I THINK ACTUALLY NORTH ON YOUR PROPERTY. AND YOU'RE BUILDING INTO THE PROPERTY. YOU'RE NOT GOING INTO THE RELIEF AREA AT ALL, OKAY? THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. Stand by one second to open the meeting up to the public for anyone who wants to speak for or against this petition. Seeing no one, I'm closing the public portion of the hearing and I entertain a motion for this petition.

Motion approved.

Second. Rogers.

I've been by the property several times and I agree with you. It's a tear down. You know, so anything you put there is going to be better than what's there now. So I'm going to support your petition.

Yeah.

I did look at very odd shaped lot. I'm sorry. It's a very odd shaped lot. So my first question would have been, can you move the entire structure to the left so that you can wait from the property line a little bit, but the way it is shaped, um, that would be a request to ask. So I understand why you want to keep it, uh, and regional spot and just extend.

Anyone else? All in favor of this petition, signify by voting aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Petition passes five to nothing.

Thank you.

Petition ZBR 2635, John Emanuel, for special use from 602, 902, and 27C to obtain approval for an owner-occupied short-term rental. Said real estate is located at 68 Crest Street and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plot 116 and E Lot 159A. Mr. Emanuel, are you here?

And think he was when we did the role the first time. So continue this to September 22nd. Absolutely.

Petition ZBR 2636, Anna Gasparato, for special use from 602, 902, and 27C to obtain approval for an owner-occupied short-term rental. Said real estate is located at 23 Aliquin Drive and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plot 105, Plot 220. Sorry for butchering that.

Mrs. Gasparato, please come forward. It's right in these where the testimony that you give this evening is the truth, the whole truth and the truth.

Yes, it's your name your address and that is for all to 23 Algonquin drive.

A good would you explain your petition to the board.

We live in a ranch house, it's like split level and you'd like to rent upstairs and I'm going to leave downstairs so but to be approved for that. We have like the whole thing downstairs, living area, kitchen, and a bedroom and bathroom as well. And we have upstairs the same layout, but we have three bedrooms.

And there's just one bedroom in the area that you're planning on having as a short-term rental?

No, it's three. They are three bedroom upstairs where we're gonna rent.

So you're gonna rent the upstairs? Yes.

And you're gonna live downstairs? I'm gonna live downstairs, yes. Okay, I got you.

So as part of the Newtown ordinance for short-term rentals, you understand that one of the stipulations for being a short-term rental is that you have to be present at all times when that area is rented as a short-term rental. I know that. Okay. And also, based on your bedrooms, how many parking spaces do you have off-road in your driveway?

I would say six, because you have a ramp, and they fit like three and three on the driveway. Yes, and the most of people that live in the neighborhood, they park on the street. But I would say that our guests would like stay in the driveway.

As part of the new ordinance, they have to park in the driveway. They can't park on the street.

Okay. Yeah, we're going to do that. We have space for that. When did you buy the property? The closing was July 7, 2026.

Are you moved into the property? Yes. And just for my curiosity, where are you moving from?

I'm originally from Brazil. So yes, I'm living out here, me and my husband, and we have jobs here. So I'm gonna live here for good.

How many people will those three bedrooms sleep?

Each to each room? Yes.

And you're aware that that is the max, six renters?

Yes, yes, I know that.

Including children, so it's regardless of age, so. Yes. Okay. Mm-hmm.

What else are the questions from the board? I'm going to open this petition up to the public to speak for or against this petition. Is there anyone here tonight that would like to speak? Please come on up front. Raise your right hand. 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. My name is Judith Sicardo, and I live at 27 Algonquin Drive, Middletown, Rhode Island.

Okay. Please explain.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Judy Sicardo. My husband and I have owned, lived in 27 Algonquin Drive and paid taxes to the town of Middletown for 50 years. And we have raised our children there. We, as well as other residents who could not be here this evening, oppose the application for a special use permit, 23 Algonquin Drive, for use as a short-term rental. I'd like to first of all talk about the character of the neighborhood. Birchwood Manor is a tranquil neighborhood characterized by single-family residences. Adults and children can be seen strolling, jogging, riding bicycles, walking dogs, and playing in the streets. Baby carriages can also be seen. Despite its serene ambiance, the neighborhood has faced challenges related to traffic congestion. The absence of sidewalks and the steep nature of parking on driveways contribute to this issue. The recent acquisition of 23 Algonquin Drive by the new owners who have resided there for a little over a month has raised concerns regarding the potential transformation of the neighborhood. We firmly oppose the conversion of single family homes into multi-dwelling units, which likely accommodate frequently changing individuals and introduce additional traffic and safety hazards. I have to talk about the configuration of the dwelling. 23 Algonquin Drive. is a small, split-level home with a single-car garage and a narrow, steep driveway very similar to my own and many in the neighborhood. There are three bedrooms upstairs. Bedroom A shares a wall with Bedroom B. Bedroom B shares a wall with Bedroom A and Bedroom C. Bedroom C shares a wall with Bedroom B. There are three steps between all bedroom doors. Enter the bedrooms. One enters the home, climbs up a set of stairs facing the kitchen. Then one enters the living room, takes a shop right, and walks down a very short 12-foot hallway. That's where all the three bedrooms are located. Downstairs, there are multi-purpose rooms that could be considered a fourth or more bedrooms, depending on how many beds that were placed there. Now, it has been explained to me by the zoning board officials that the owners must occupy the home during the short-term rentals. This allows for a minimum of three bedrooms to be used as short-term rentals daily, weekly, or monthly, up to 31 days. Every composition of days, up to 31 days, a different set of unknown individuals can occupy the rooms. While not designated as a hotel, motel, or inexpensive youth hostel establishment, that is not the vibe conducive to a quiet neighborhood with young children. I can look at oversight. It has been clarified to me that there is no oversight from the zoning board once the application is approved. No entity that guarantees that renters will only stay for 31 days, or that the owners will occupy the residence, or that there will be no more than six renters at a time. There are no assurances that short-term rentals will not transition into long-term rentals, with the residence becoming a multi-dwelling apartment building versus a single-family home. The official short-term rental guide instructs neighbors to contact the police if noise, parking, or other issues from the short-term rental become problematic and not to contact the zoning board. In summary, we strongly oppose granting the new owners of 23 Algonquin Drive a special use permit for an owner-occupied short-term rental. The impact on the character of the neighborhood, the non-conducive configuration of the property, and the lack of oversight are significant concerns. We understand that the town of Middletown will generate lodging tax revenues from short-term rentals, but this should not come at the expense of long-term taxpaying residents and their children.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Mark does exhibit 8. Good afternoon. Do you swear the testimony that you give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? State your name and your address, please.

Good evening. My name is Joan Whitty. I live at 28 Algonquin Drive. I have lived on Algonquin Drive for 52 years. I have raised my family there. It is a quiet residential neighborhood. I am very concerned about the short-term rental, the congestion. I don't know if you're familiar with the slant of the driveways in the area, but this driveway has a very steep slant, which means Many people have to park on the street, which will add a lot of congestion. I am here tonight because I oppose short-term rentals on Algonquin Drive. Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak? Do you swear the testimony that you give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

It is. State your name and your address, please. Kevin Mulcahy, 26 Algonquin Drive. I'm directly opposite 23. And I repeat, I'm not going to repeat the same things over. My... Some of my questions have to do with parking. There is currently two or three vehicles. I don't know whether there's a vehicle in the garage still on the property. I assume that two of them have to go away if this is only one bedroom. That determines the owner that only has one space. Am I right or not? I couldn't figure out.

They can park on the street. They can, but anyone who's renting short-term must park in the driveway. They cannot park on the street. So the owners of the property, if they have two vehicles, they can put those on the street. But one in the garage. And they can put one in the garage if they want to. But the fact is that they don't have a restriction from parking on the street. Only the people that are short-term renting.

So I could anticipate that... two or three vehicles will end up on the street.

Whatever number of vehicles they have could actually, if they don't put one in the garage, could in fact be put on the street.

Okay. So previously, from the long-term rental, this property had existed for a better part of 20 years. Occasionally, there is misunderstandings about parking when they park in front of mailboxes and the mailman has no requirement to deliver mail when he can't reach the box from his vehicle. I've had this discussion before. The other is that when he gets crowded, somebody's having a party, somebody has a number of guests, There's not room enough in front of their house to accommodate that, and since I'm a directly opposite, then they park in front of mine. I've had trouble with deliveries because they park across the walkway that leads to my house, and once or twice they couldn't fit, and so they park across my driveway. I am very concerned about the row congestion. The other answer to one of my questions previously was that I read through the short-term rental guides and the ordinance, and there's a couple changes to the Guides 22. There are changes to the short-term rentals that are after that, and you answered some of those. So using the... This is not a... Airbnb, this is going to be basically a small boarding house. Am I correct?

That's how it reads?

Short-term rental.

It's an application for an owner-occupied short-term rental, which allows, under the zoning code, the property to be rented to up to no more than six people when the owner is present on the property.

Right. Can they rent each bedroom separately? would prevent that okay boarding house okay it's not it's it's a short-term rental it's not it's not a boarding right except that um are they allowed to uh extend somebody so somebody goes 31 days can they produce another short-term rental to the same person for 31 days

That would be considered long-term, and we don't regulate long-term rentals. Okay. You can rent more than 31 days to anybody. We don't regulate that.

But the application doesn't prevent the owner from...

If someone has the ability, is registered as a short-term rental, they have the ability to do a short-term rental, they also have the ability, like everyone else on the street, to do long-term rentals if they chose to do that as well. Okay. But not mutually exclusive. But this is...

They don't need permission to be a long-term rental. Right, I understood that, because it's been a long-term rental forever. So... I don't know who fills in short-term rentals that aren't considered, aren't owner-occupied, which would be an Airbnb. So the targets are college students, students at a nail base that are doing short courses.

I have no idea. Okay. It's not something that the board can answer. All right.

So, no, I strongly object. This just doesn't seem to be the place. I mean, we've had long-term rentals that have had problems understanding noise and parking and garbage and the rest of it. I'm not sure since they are sharing the kitchen with their short-term rentals.

that they can or can't at their own desire, right?

Yeah. They can do that. It's not mentioned in the short-term rental. It's something between them and short-term rentals, right?

They're being permitted to rent a room or rooms.

Okay.

Within their own dwelling.

Okay. That's a question for the owner, then. How is this running? Are they... people able to go into their kitchen or not? There's nothing that says they can't do it. Okay, what's the intention? That's what I'd like to know.

What's the intention? Are you gonna share the kitchen with the people that are renting? Okay, so she's got her own kitchen.

So the whole upstairs is what's being used.

I'm gonna live there. I'm gonna live downstairs.

Okay. Where do you intend to get your rentals from?

Okay, we're gonna, you need to address questions to the board, the board can then address questions to the applicant, but you just tell the board what it is you want to say.

Yeah, so. Present the question to us, and then we'll present it to her. All right, so.

As she said, she's a immigrant. I understand she works for a property management company, correct? Ask us. No, I'm sorry. I have a job. I have a job, okay. So how do you intend to advertise?

Once again, sir? Sorry. Okay. If you have questions that you would like answers to, you can tell the board what those questions are. The board can then ask the questions.

Can I find out how the owner intends to advertise for rentals?

How is that germane? How does that make any difference? or her ability to rent a portion of her home.

That's all.

She could do it by word of mouth. She could do it on rental platforms. There are several different ones. I mean, there's Airbnb, there's Vrbo. I mean, she could put it out there on social media. Got it. And there's nothing that says that she can't. Got it. All right. It's entirely up to her.

That's all.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else would like to speak? Seeing no one, I'm closing the public portion of the hearing and I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve.

Ms. Lombardi makes a motion to approve.

Second.

Rosenthal seconds. Discussion?

a question for for peter more for the edification of the people in the room but if the applicant if the applicant fits the criteria under the ordinance living on the premises and parking and and everything else that goes with it um do we we We put the town in a bad position, should we deny this petition? In other words, does it leave it open to appeal? Can we, if it meets all the criteria?

Maybe that's the question. Let me answer it this way. First of all, because there was a question of what could be done here. This is an application for a special use permit to allow an owner-occupied short-term rental And this is under the code that which is defined as a building in which one or more dwelling units or rooms for sleeping are rented for lodging accommodations for periods. Of 31 consecutive days or less with or without the furnishing of meals and with the owner who's in charge and manages such rentals residing onset property at all times during the period of such rental. No more than six short-term renters, regardless of age, shall be allowed during a rental period, irrespective of the number of dwelling units or rooms for sleeping that are contained in the building. Only one building or lot or parts of land shall be allowed a short-term rental use, and all short-term rentals must be registered in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 98 and must fully comply with the restrictions stated therein. So this is a use that is allowed in the residential districts by special use permit and that we have uses that are allowed by right, we have uses that are prohibited, we have uses that are allowed by special use permit, which are uses which the town council in drafting the zoning code has determined are reasonable uses in those zones provided that they meet the criteria for that special use permit. Some of those criteria are, if you look at the criteria specifically for this type of use, the adequate parking, those sorts of things, whether it's gonna cause a problem with traffic or parking within the neighborhood. You also look at the standards of compliance with those requirements under Chapter 98 that govern the regulation of short-term rentals. So, once again, these are uses that are considered to be reasonable for these districts so long as they meet those standards, And your job is to determine whether or not they're going to meet the standards. One of the standards is, is it going to change the overall general character of the neighborhood? And I understand that people get concerned that sort of change of use is going to do that. But once again, you have to start with the premise that the council has said that these things Unlike the short-term rentals, the Airbnbs, where you would rent the entire unit without an owner on the property, which are now prohibited, these sorts of short-term rentals are, in fact, permitted if these standards are met. So that's really your job is to determine have these standards been met or not.

And that's my, I guess that's where I was going with this. Based on the information we've been given by the petitioner, they meet the standards for the special use. And I understand, I'm sympathetic with, I'm sympathetic with the neighborhood. I know the neighborhood well. Um, but on the other hand, um, we opened the town up. Should we deny this? We opened the town up to suit and the only remedy is for them to go to superior court. And I think in this case, um, we would be hard pressed to deny this petition. I say that again. being very sympathetic to all of you. I mean, I live in a neighborhood. It's a nice neighborhood. We've got two or three short-term rentals in my neighborhood. A lot of my neighbors were not thrilled when that happened. And quite frankly, their fears were not realized. But I do have one other question for Chris. Chris, are there any other short-term rentals in that neighborhood?

Oh, I don't have that information. Do we know? Okay.

There are none on your street, but I mean, I'm taking the neighborhood into consideration, too. I mean, you're saying your street on Algonquin.

The public hearing's closed, so we want to just discuss amongst ourselves.

So, I mean, really, it's not like this has fallen on deaf ears. We understand it. We get it. We hear this all the time. But at the other end of the spectrum is the council put restrictions and put an ordinance in place because there were concerns with the old ordinance because they weren't auto occupied and it opened up for Just the things that you were concerned about. Parking, loud noise, you know, transients and that type of thing. And they recognize that. They recognize that issue. And they narrowed it now so that the responsible party is the owner. Under the old ordinance, the owners, some of them don't even live in the state. and they had property management companies managing their properties. And it wasn't working well at all. Um, so when they narrowed it, you know, I would tend to say that if you're living on the premises and you're renting out your house, you're not going to have loud, crazy parties while you're living downstairs. I'm just saying, I mean, if it was me, I certainly would be, I would scrutinize the people that moved into my place, especially if I'm living there and maybe if I had kids or something like that, but. So I think I wanted to address those issues to the people that came up and spoke against it. That the board sometimes has to look at this narrowly in the concept of the ordinance as what the intent the council had when they passed the ordinance. And the intent was to make it so that they addressed some of the issues that came up in the past with the old ordinance. There's always gonna be concerns. I understand it. I've lived in my neighborhood for a long time, too. And nobody likes change. But in this case, I think this petitioner is meeting all the criteria put forth under the ordinance as it is today. I think we would be very hard-pressed to deny the petition.

Anyone else? After listening to neighbors, one of my concerns is the parking. Down the street parking is an issue in many of our neighborhoods. So there's really nothing in the ordinance that prevents the homeowner's parking to displace their parking in order to become compliant with the short-term rental.

There's nothing in the ordinance that prevents anybody who lives on the street from parking on that particular street because street parking is allowed in that neighborhood. The question is whether or not, and I think there was testimony that there were at least six spaces available on the driveway.

Stacked, but stacked, so it's too wide. It looks like the driveway's too wide, so they're stacked. I understand that there's adequate parking for the rentals the renters but in order to ensure that there's adequate parking for the renters. The homeowners may be parking on the street and I mean that leading to that the renters bring 6 cars. If I'm if or. Even though in and out so I'm just. My concern is parking because I see parking issues all over the place in Middletown with narrow roads, no sidewalks. I understand that you meet all the conditions your to use your property your home as a short-term rental if you want but i do have concerns about parking and um my wish is that you would do the best to accommodate your neighbors as far as their concerns are there yes i i just like to to say that we are gonna um follow the rules i'm gonna leave downstairs i'm not gonna leave someone to make like

noise or crazy party upstairs because I'm gonna live downstairs. I don't like that. So I understand it's a quiet neighborhood, they park on the street, but they're gonna have the parking on the driveway and we are gonna follow the rules.

I like to think I'm pretty liberal when it comes to granting these and you know I think while I hear some of my other board members you know it's hard for me to approve a petition when multiple neighbors come out and object right. You know I think one of the requirements for the special use is that it will not create a nuisance in the neighborhood and I guess that's kind of where I'm having trouble. You know when I have three different neighbors come you know, to object, it makes it hard for me to support a petition. You know, I will say the comment about you being an immigrant, I found very rude. That doesn't matter to me at all. But, you know, I don't think I'm going to support the petition just because, you know, when I, again, have a lot of people coming to say, you know, that it would potentially cause a problem. So...

Yeah, I understand you, but what would you like to tell you and tell the neighbors that the best thing to think about this petition is I'm going to leave downstairs and I don't like noise as well. I know it's a quiet street and it's a quiet neighborhood, so I'm not going to allow parties or noise if I have something that's disturbing me, I'm not going to allow them to disturb the neighborhood. I'm going to do my best to keep this.

I think short-term rental has just a bad reputation in general. I understand that. I live in a neighborhood where I'm surrounded by short-term rentals. However, I don't think that you can make an assumption that it's going to be all bad. You know, you are, like you said, you are downstairs. You know, you are going to manage. I think that's part of the regulation that I read. You're in charge and you're going to be managing and you're not going to put up with noise. So I feel for the neighbors, but I also feel for you. I understand sometimes it's necessary to get that income.

All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Four in favor, one opposed. Petition passes, congratulations.

No, 38.

I'm sorry. 36. No, 38. Petition CBR 2638. Christopher Simonelli and Matt Lees for a variance from 603 and 903 for a five side yard setback where 15.9 is required.

height of 24 where 20 is re is allowed and especially used from 803 and 904 to extend and alter the legally conforming non-conforming structure said real estate is located at 542 wilcott ave and further identified as tax assessor's plot 122 lot 59.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Matt Lee is representing Christopher Seminelli, who is here tonight, along with his son, Patrick Seminelli, who is involved with the project and will be the witness tonight for this presentation.

Good evening, Mr. Lee.

Good evening. This project involves removing a detached, non-conforming two-car garage that is 9.7 feet from the south side setback and replacing it with a new two-car garage that will have 990 square foot two bedroom ADU above it. The structure will be set back five feet from the south side set back and will be 24 feet tall. It will be attached to the house with an eight by nine foot connector, and we'll have a deck off the front. The lot on which the property is located is an undersized lot. It's 15,861 square feet, where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 district. And it is also a narrow lot. It's 85 feet wide, where 120 feet is required. So it's substandard in those respects. The purpose of the project is to allow the applicant's son, Patrick, and his wife and two small children to move into the main house and for Christopher and his wife to move into the ADU so that all three generations can live together in one house. And as you're going to hear tonight, this actually will make four generations living in this house because Patrick's grandparents also own the house. And then actually it's five generations right in this location because his great-grandparents lived on the corner. So it's keeping it in the family. So we're here tonight for side setback relief. Presently, the setback is 9.7 feet, so it'll be reduced a little bit to 5 feet. It was also advertised for a height variance and special use permit. The height, I suppose, because it's attached to the main structure, you could make the argument that the principal structure height applies, but in any case, it's been advertised for a height variance as well and a special use permit. We have received three letters of support, which should be in the file, and those are from the nearest neighbors. The immediate abutter, who's closest to the five-foot setback, sent in a letter of support. The owner across the street sent in a letter of support, and also the owner of the property abutting directly behind sent in a letter of support. So unless there's any questions from the board for me, I can call Patrick Seminelli up to the stand.

Anything? Please, proceed. Raise your right hand. Do 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 address, please.

My name is Patrick Simonelli, address 7 Sundown Lane, Middletown, Rhode Island.

Christopher Seminelli, what is your relationship to the applicant, Christopher Seminelli? I'm his son. He's my father. And what is your involvement with this project?

My involvement in the project is trying to put together a plan and design for an ADU to build above a current two-car garage for my parents to move into that apartment, and I can, with my wife and two daughters, move into the primary residence. And could you please describe the property as it exists now? It's a 15,861 square foot lot. It was built in 1956. On the property is an in-ground pool, a shed, and the current two-car garage, which we were speaking about. There's also this garage is 9.7 foot setback currently.

And the lot is also substandard by width at 85 feet where 120 feet is required. Yes, that is correct. And so could you describe in more detail the project that's before the board?

The project is to replace the garage with an ADU. The garage will have – the new building will be a two-car garage with an apartment above it. The size is increasing about two feet more wide and moving closer to the – to the neighbors to decrease the setback to five feet. We'll have a two bedroom ADU apartment on the second floor and the two car garage in the downstairs. The building will be connected by a conditioned hallway between the two structures for main entrance to split between the two.

And based on the proportionality rules, what is the required south side setback? The required setback is 15.9 feet. Okay, and the setback will be five feet, correct?

Yes, the proposed setback is five feet, yes.

And could you describe the reason why the new proposed structure has to be placed in that location?

So the location is... restricted on the property due to first trying to maintain a within the fire code of keeping the buildings separated from each other with a certain amount of distance and you're able to walk between the two structures also they trying to replace the garage itself we're putting the property the new building on top of the current garage just extended a little bit further. To go any further back, we would have to also replace the shed, the in-ground pool, and then there's also propane tank and utilities running underground back there. Practical to move it into the back so that it would be conforming to the size. Yes. Yes, to put it in the back, you would have to go behind the house and come into the yard.

And the applicant, your father, he did not build the house, the garage, or the pool. He didn't install the underground utilities, and he didn't create the lot the way it is now, correct?

No, they bought the property in 1993 from my grandparents, and the shed, the garage were built by my grandfather, and the house was what he had purchased as is, and the in-ground pool was also installed by my grandfather.

And you heard me mention earlier that also not only was this your grandparents' house, but your great-grandparents lived next door, is that correct?

Yes, my great-grandmother lived next door at Fort White Terrace.

And so you personally grew up in the house from the age of about seven years old, is that correct? Yes. Okay. And in your opinion, so you know the neighborhood, correct? Yes. And so in your opinion, are the conditions that create the need for this variance due to the unique characteristics of the property and not the general character of the surrounding area? Yes.

Why is that? The narrowness of the property itself restricts on how far we could, on what building we could actually build within there. And it is with the pool in the backyard and restrictions of the utilities creating a unique hardship.

And this application complies with the lock coverage requirements of the ordinance, is that correct? Yes. And what is the height of the proposed structure?

The height of the proposed structure is 24 feet.

And as I indicated earlier, it's attached, so you could say it's part of the principal structure. But in any case, since we're here for the variance, is there any way that the structure could have been made any shorter?

No, both the floors have eight-foot ceiling roofs, and we would have to decrease those ceilings to a below-code level. Okay, and then... Yeah, and the pitch roof goes up on top. It would then change the... It wouldn't conform to the nature of the neighborhood, really.

And since you grew up in the neighborhood and know the area, do you believe that the variances would alter the character of the surrounding area?

No, I don't believe it would alter the surrounding area.

And why not? What is the surrounding area?

Within the surrounding area, there are other properties that have also the setback variances, and also right next door, there's a building that has a garage with living space right above it as well. Okay.

properties in the area have living space above garage. Yes. And so in your belief, if the application were denied, would the applicant, your father, suffer a hardship amounting to more than a mere inconvenience, meaning the variance is minimal to the reasonable enjoyment?

Yes, I believe so, based off of not having the permitted by right ADU and also having to remove the pool and other structures on the property.

And we would need a special use permit as well. You looked at those requirements for a special use permit, correct? Yes. And the standards as well? Yes. And there'd be no diminution of property values, no nuisance. It wouldn't change your appropriate use of property in the area or create hazardous conditions?

No.

Okay. And no parking problems? There's plenty of parking.

No, there's plenty of parking, especially maintaining the two-car garage.

Okay. of support which have been submitted to the board. Yes. Those are all the questions I had for Mr. Seminelli. If the board has any questions for him.

What's the height of the existing primary structure?

The primary structure height is about 25 feet. I don't have an actual survey.

But it's going to be taller than what you're proposing here.

Yes. As of now, it's about two feet different.

Also, the house to the south, I believe the Andersons, They wrote you a letter of support. That's the direction you're going in.

Yes, the Armstrongs at 4 White Terrace. They wrote a letter of support.

And their roof line is even higher, right?

Yes. Okay.

Well, this is not going to seem out of place or dwarf their property. It's kind of the opposite.

No, yes.

Okay, I'll open the hearing up to the public. Is there anybody here this evening that would like to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'll close the public portion of the hearing and ask.

And just to clarify one thing, There was mention of an ADU here. What you're voting on is just the structure itself and that dimensional variance, because as a practical matter, because this lot has less than 20,000 square feet, they've got to build the garage, and then they can convert the garage by right to the ADU. I think Mr. Costa has had that discussion with the applicant, but it's sort of a two-step process here, but you're just voting on the the accessory structure, not on an ADU.

Okay, we'll do that in two steps. We'll first look.

Well, it's two steps for them. It's one step for you.

But how about for special use? Special use and variants are doing both at the same time? You can do both at the same time. Okay. All right, then. Can I have a motion for this petition for the variants and special use? Motion to approve. Ms. Lombardi?

Second.

Rogers? Discussion?

I'm going to support this. I think the petition was described very well. All of the elements I felt like were met. And I'm happy to see so many generations in one house. So good luck.

look you took some of my thunder as i was going to say it's great to see the family sticking together in that neighborhood as we've heard multiple times you know sitting up here lends itself to these non-conforming lots narrow lots odd shaped lots something that's not created by the petitioner that They are what they are. But I think you've met all the criteria. And again, family stays together is a good thing. So good luck.

And I also appreciate you reaching out to the neighbors and really, you know, each of them in their own way supported the project that you're proposing. And I think that shows, you know, honest approach on your part to be able to build this new structure and then take advantage of it as an extended family. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Petition is approved 5-0.

Good luck. Welcome. Motion to adjourn. Motion adjourned.

Second.