For
Plaintiff: Mark E. Liberati, Esq.
For
Defendant: Wyatt A. Brochu, Esq.
DECISION
NUGENT, J.
Before
the Court is the appeal of David and Jennifer Clancy
(Clancys) from the May 22, 2018 decision (Decision) of the
Zoning Board of Review of the Town of Jamestown (Zoning
Board) denying them dimensional relief to add an addition to
their home. The Jamestown Historical Society opposed the
Clancys' application. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L.
1956 § 45-24-69.
I
Facts
The
Clancys own the subject property described on Assessor's
Plat 7, Lot 22 located at 382 North Road, Jamestown, Rhode
Island (Property). Located in a Rural Residential 200 Zone
(RR-200), the Property is a substandard lot, consisting of
approximately 65, 340 square feet. Decision, May 22, 2018
¶ 1. The Property is located in the "Windmill Hill
Historic District," which includes six historic
farmsteads, an 18th century burying ground, the meeting
house, as well as a windmill. Id. ¶ 2. Adjacent
to the Property's east side sits the "Jamestown
Windmill" (Windmill), which is owned by the Jamestown
Historical Society. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. The
Windmill is open to the public. Id. ¶ 7.
The
Property holds a small two-floor, single-family house, a
free-standing garage, a glass-blowing studio, and another
building the Clancys had rented out as a guest cabin in the
past.[1] Dating back to 1787, the house is
historically referred to as "Miller's Cottage."
Id. ¶ 3. The house has a footprint of 878
square feet and is approximately 31 feet by 22 feet with a
smaller attachment of 14 feet by 14 feet. Id. ¶
11. The second floor is 22 feet by 31 feet, but this space is
not entirely usable because it is immediately under the
gabled roof. Id. ¶ 13. The second floor is
comprised of only a single bedroom and a separate area for a
washer and dryer. Id. The Clancys share this bedroom
with their daughter and separate their respective areas with
a screen partition. Id. ¶ 14. The garage is 19
feet deep and 21.5 feet wide, which is less than the standard
23-foot depth of a garage. Id. ¶ 17.
The
Clancys seek a dimensional variance requesting setback relief
from the requirements under Jamestown Zoning Code §
82-302 in order to build an addition and an improved garage
33 feet from the westerly property line and 6 feet from the
southerly property line.[2] The Clancys request said relief to
provide their daughter and themselves with separate bedrooms,
provide for more living space and storage space, and to make
a longer garage. Id. ¶ 20. As the footprint of
the existing house is 878 square feet, the addition would add
about another 720 square feet. (Tr. at 45-46, Jan. 23, 2018.)
At the
first hearing on the Clancys' application on January 23,
2018, David Clancy testified as to the layout of the existing
house and their reasons for the requested relief. (Tr. at
5-8.) Given the house's lack of a basement or attic and
the garage being "undersized and unusable," David
Clancy explained there was barely any room for storage
generally and the storage of equipment to maintain the
Property. (Tr. at 7.) Moreover, he explained building the
addition to the north of the house and away from the property
line would require moving the septic system, cutting down a
two-hundred-year-old tree, and a much larger driveway. (Tr.
at 7-8.)[3]
The
Zoning Board next heard from the Clancys' expert
architect, Shahin Barzin (Mr. Barzin), who testified that the
proposed renovations would satisfy the Clancys' needs for
living space and storage space while maintaining the
integrity of the existing cottage. (Tr. at 17-22.) Mr. Barzin
explained the garage would be connected to the existing
cottage by a sunroom, leading to an area for storing utility
equipment as well as a general storage area. (Tr. at 22.)
This area would also include a stairway to the Clancys'
new bedroom above this storage area. Id. The
proposed garage would be narrower but longer than the
existing garage and would be one foot farther away from the
southern property line. Id. Mr. Barzin testified
that the addition would not further obstruct the view of the
Windmill when driving south on North Road because that view
is already obstructed by a large tree. (Tr. at
24-26.)[4] Mr. Barzin explained he planned to use
wood planks for the addition instead of using shingles like
the existing cottage to preserve the integrity of the
existing cottage. (Tr. at 26-27.) The addition, Mr. Barzin
noted, could not be moved farther north without also moving
the septic system and making a much larger driveway. (Tr. at
31-33.) Mr. Barzin believed this proposal met all of the
requirements for a dimensional variance. (Tr. at 33-35.)
Next,
the Zoning Board heard from the Clancys' other expert,
Jason Iacobucci, an architect providing design and consulting
services in historic districts. (Tr. at 47-52.) Mr. Iacobucci
believed that the requested relief does not conflict with the
Jamestown Comprehensive Plan because the expansion for living
space does not alter the single-family residence. (Tr. at
51-52.)
In
opposition, the Jamestown Historical Society's expert
architect, Ross Cann, discussed the historical significance
of Miller's Cottage and the proposed renovations. He
presented conceptual drawings for alternative renovation
plans which would provide for two bedrooms and a bath on the
second floor by moving the existing stairs and adding two
dormers to the north side. (Tr. at 55-68.)[5] Mr. Cann claims
this alternative proposal meets the Clancys' needs by
adding more "usable square footage" without making
extensive renovations to the cottage. (Tr. at 65-68.)
Additionally, Mr. Cann submitted his written opinion on
behalf of the Society regarding the historical significance
of Miller's Cottage in relation to the Windmill and how
alterations to the cottage would detrimentally impact the
view of the Windmill. (Tr. at 70-72.) Mr. Cann further opined
that his alternative proposal would provide the Clancys their
requested relief and constitute the least relief necessary.
(Tr. at 73.) Mr. Cann acknowledged that the Clancys'
prior zoning variance required additions to be made east of
the existing structure to preserve the view corridor to the
Windmill. (Tr. at 73-74.)[6] However, Mr. Cann believed the Zoning
Board's Decision did not apply to the garage as it was a
separate structure and would be in compliance if relocated
north and outside the setback. (Tr. at 73-74.)
The
Zoning Board then heard from the public. (Tr. at 90.) The
Zoning Board had received eighteen letters in support and one
letter opposing the Clancys' application. (Tr. at 90;
93.) Nine people spoke in opposition to the application. (Tr.
at 91-107.) At the end of the hearing, the Zoning Board
continued the matter to the February meeting for the parties
to present further evidence. (Tr. at 109.)
A
second hearing was held on February 27, 2018. Mr. Barzin then
submitted a video of the view of the Windmill when driving
south on North Road to show that the Clancys' proposed
renovations would have practically no effect on the view
corridor of the Windmill because the view was already
obstructed by the large tree. (Tr. at 6-8, Feb. 27, 2018.)
Mr. Barzin further testified about the issues he found in the
alternative plan that Mr. Cann originally provided at the
hearing in January. (Tr. at 35-37.) Mr. Barzin testified that
Mr. Cann's proposed layout to add usable square footage
for the second floor was not functional because of the gabled
roof. (Tr. at 36.)
At this
second hearing, the Jamestown Historical Society's
attorney, Matthew Callaghan, submitted the Jamestown Tax
Assessor's records to show that the home was previously a
two-bedroom house which the Clancys had subsequently
converted into a one-bedroom house. (Tr. at 13-14.)
Additionally, Mr. Cann provided a PowerPoint presentation
detailing his alternative renovation plans for the cottage
and showing how the Clancys' proposed renovations would
impact the view of the Windmill in comparison with the
existing cottage. (Tr. at 14-30.) Mr. Cann testified that the
proposed renovations would result in a structure nearly
doubled in size. (Tr. at 16-17.) Mr. Cann explained that the
...