Narragansett Zoning Board of Review Meeting - May 13, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Narragansett Zoning Board of Review Meeting - May 13, 2026
The Narragansett Zoning Board of Review met on May 13, 2026, at 6:30 PM in the Narragansett Town Hall Assembly Room. The board addressed a contested appeal concerning a lot un-merger, approved minutes, granted continuances for two other matters, and handled administrative items. The meeting adjourned at 7:54 PM.
Approval of Minutes
- The board voted 5-0 to approve the minutes from the April 14, 2026 meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Micheli Appeal (C.1): Multiple members of the public testified on the proposed un-merger of lots at 16 Pocono Road.
- Beverly Banfield (lot owner, represented by Attorney Diana Pierson) opposed the un-merger, arguing the lots were voluntarily and administratively merged, and the statute should apply prospectively only.
- Robert Iganni (18 Pocono Road) supported the un-merger, citing neighborhood nuisances and potential tax benefits.
- Brian Willinsky (17 Major Arnold Road) supported the un-merger but raised questions about future development and sewer capacity.
- Louis Micheli (appellant property owner) testified about the history of the merger and his understanding that the new state statute permits un-merger.
Discussion Items
- C.1 Micheli Appeal – Lot Un-Merger: The board heard extensive testimony from:
- Andrew MullhernCormier, attorney for the appellant, argued that under R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-38(C), lots of record meeting the 50% area threshold are entitled to un-merger. He provided a compilation plan prepared by a surveyor.
- Jay Humes, the Town’s Building & Zoning Official, testified that the town historically treated these lots as administratively merged and that subdivision is the proper process. He also stated the statute does not explicitly provide for un-merger and should apply prospectively.
- Nicholas Solitro, Assistant Solicitor, noted the board stands in the shoes of the building official and highlighted the legal question of whether the statute applies retroactively or only prospectively. He advised that memoranda of law would help guide the board.
- Diana Pierson, attorney for opponent Beverly Banfield, argued the merger was voluntarily and the statute is prospective; she also noted the appellant had constructive notice of violations.
- The board deliberated on the legal interpretation and past town practice, with members expressing concern about inconsistent application.
- C.2 Sabbagh Appeal: The board voted 5-0 to continue this appeal to June 17, 2026, as the parties were working with the building official.
- D.1 Cherry Public Hearing: The applicant withdrew the request for variances; relief was obtained via a 15% modification application before the building official. No vote needed.
- D.2 Terek Public Hearing: The board voted 5-0 to continue this public hearing to June 17, 2026, due to pending regulatory and court changes.
- Administrative Matters: The board confirmed a quorum for the June 17, 2026 meeting (set for Wednesday). Members noted potential absences.
Key Outcomes
- Minutes Approved: April 14, 2026 minutes approved 5-0.
- Micheli Appeal Continued: The board voted 5-0 to keep the hearing open and continue the matter to July 23, 2026, with all interested parties to submit memoranda of law by June 17, 2026.
- Sabbagh Appeal Continued: Continued to June 17, 2026 (5-0).
- Cherry Application Withdrawn: No further action.
- Terek Public Hearing Continued: Continued to June 17, 2026 (5-0).
- Adjournment: Motion passed 7-0 at 7:54 PM.
Meeting Transcript
I would wait till 63. Okay. Hold up. All right, we'll call to order the uh meeting of the zoning board for May 21st, 2026. Heidi, can you do a roll call, please? Christine Groshu. Here. Ellen Cardell? Here. Keith Kyle? Here. Leslie McKnight here. John Ball. Here. Karen Casunio? Here. David Chernesau? Yeah. Mr. Chairman, you have a full board yet with our approval of the minutes from April 14th, 2026. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Pass 5-0. We have a bunch of matters on tonight, but we also have uh a couple of continuances so we can get the lawyers and other people out of here. So is someone here on Teric, which is flat R2318, 26 Star Fish Drive. If it please the uh board chairman, staff, even you miss Kellyanne. Um we're here tonight to ask for a uh continuance on 26 Starfish Drive. Uh there was some information that was uh submitted uh at the request of the official building official, and I don't think he's had a chance to review it all. Um there's also some questions that I think that the solicitor of the building's uh official, zoning official are going to uh discuss with regard to timing on this particular because we have bouncing back and forth of ordinance changes, case changes and supreme court decisions as to what I fall under, at least from the staff and council's position, and of course the board will decide hopefully exactly the way I want them to. Uh uh what dates do we have available? Um before we do discuss that, can we just have Mr. Indalia um introduce himself for the uh record? Oh calorie, but I don't know. My name is Vincent Indalia, Indalian associates I represent uh the owner of this property, Dr. Richard M. Terrick at 26 Starfish Drive in Arragans. What dates do we have available? Uh we can we can move to this so this is their second continuance, so it's up to the board's discretion whether or not to move one month or two months. Um if you're looking at one month, it would be June 17th, um 2026, which is a Wednesday, and I would have to ask Ms. Patron if she has the um July meeting date. I don't have that off the top of my head. I am looking for that now. I would respectfully beg for that for the 17th. Yeah, July 23rd. Well I don't I mean what's the calendar look on July uh June 17th? June, I think we have two applications at the moment, so it's okay, but it it's at this moment it seems to be okay. A date certain of June 17th, 24th second. All in favor? Aye.
openpublica.com