Zoning Board Meeting – August 13, 2026: Decisions on Variances, Special Use Permits, and Continuances
Zoning Board Meeting – August 13, 2026
This meeting of the Narragansett Zoning Board was convened at 6:30 PM to hear five public hearing items, discuss administrative matters, and receive updates on a Superior Court decision. The board approved two applications (Brooks and Ocean Vibe Development), continued two others (McKenna and Trazi/O'Connor) to September 17, 2026, and noted the withdrawal of one application (Gibson Court). Voting on all matters was unanimous where votes occurred.
Public Comments & Testimony
- B.2 Brooks: Frank Matari (15 Captain Freebody Road) opposed the project, stating the proposed house was too large, that the FAR and height would adversely affect neighborhood character, and that existing demolitions/rebuilds were changing the area. Kathleen Batari also opposed, arguing the applicant was a new owner and that the proposed FAR did not include the deck, making the house more massive even with the same bedroom count.
- B.3 Ocean Vibe Development: Neil Woshinsky (8 Elm Avenue) opposed, citing the planning board's denial recommendation and the sensitivity of the coastal site (noting the 25th anniversary of Hurricane Bob). Carolyn Machado expressed concern about preserving the public right-of-way to the beach, fearing future owners might obstruct access.
- B.4 McKenna: Charles Tibaldi (C. Pines Condominium Association president) opposed, expressing concern that the applicant would use more of the unpaved road than proposed, and had already cleared portions of adjacent paper streets without permission.
Discussion Items
- B.1 Gibson Court Condominium Association: Application withdrawn prior to the meeting; no further action.
- B.2 Brooks (39 Major Arnold Road): Attorney Matthew Grunberg presented the revised proposal, noting that the building department had agreed a height variance was no longer required, leaving only a FAR variance (8.6% deviation, 109 sq ft over existing). The project reduces lot coverage from27.7% to20.5%, impervious coverage from26.7% to22.4%, and moves the structure away from the coastal feature. Expert witnesses (Patrick Freeman, Mason Khaleesi, Lindsay Sedden) testified that the hardship is due to the coastal location and floodplain requirements, not self-created. The board voted unanimously to approve the special use permit and variance under Section4.4 and the FAR variance under Section6.4, with conditions from the planning board.
- B.3 Ocean Vibe Development (0 Stanton Avenue): Attorney Jack McGreen presented a proposal for a three-bedroom home requiring a163.5-foot variance from the200-foot coastal setback and a3.54-foot front yard setback variance. Expert planner Edward Pimental testified that the lot is0.7 acres (substandard for R-10) and cone-shaped, making compliance impossible without relief. Wetland scientist Joseph McHugh stated the project meets all eight development standards under Section4.4, with no work in the buffer zone. A rock-splitting expert, Jeffrey Gilman, described minimally invasive methods to remove a boulder on the property line. The board voted unanimously to approve, adding a condition requiring prominent granite markers along the right-of-way boundary.
- B.4 McKenna (0 Emery Street): Attorney McGreen presented a request to extend Emory Street only45 feet (rather than paving the full 115-foot dead-end section) for access to a new single-family home. The building official confirmed the town would maintain the extended road up to the driveway. The board closed the hearing and, at the request of member Leslie McKnight, decided to have her write a decision and continue the matter to September17,2026, for a vote.
- B.5 Trazi/O'Connor (58 Indian Trail): The applicants sought a special use permit to allow two additional bedrooms (total five) in the lowest level of their existing dwelling. Staff reported that the bedrooms had been installed without permits and that a2015 complaint led to a notice of violation reducing the count to three. The chair warned the applicants (who appeared without counsel) that they had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the special use permit criteria, and offered a continuance. The board voted unanimously to continue to September 17,2026, to allow the applicant to obtain legal advice or prepare adequate evidence.
Key Outcomes
- B.1 Gibson Court: Withdrawn.
- B.2 Brooks: Approved (5-0) for a variance under Section4.4 (187.2 ft) and a special use permit, plus a0.03 floor area ratio variance under Section6.4, subject to conditions1-7 from the planning board.
- B.3 Ocean Vibe: Approved (5-0) for a variance under Section4.4 (163 ft) and a special use permit, plus a3.54-foot front yard setback variance under Section6.4, subject to staff conditions2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (conditions1 and3 removed), plus a new condition for granite markers at the right-of-way boundary.
- B.4 McKenna: Hearing closed; continued to September17,2026, for decision writing by member Leslie McKnight.
- B.5 Trazi/O'Connor: Continued to September17,2026, for the applicant to prepare evidence or secure counsel.
- D.2 Rules of Procedure: Continued to next meeting.
- D.3 Comprehensive Plan Update: Continued; no meetings held yet; John Ball remains liaison.
- D.4 Quorum Confirmation: All seven board members confirmed availability for the September17,2026 meeting.
- D.1 Superior Court Decision: Assistant Solicitor Solitro summarized C.A. No. WC-2024-0378 East Side, LLC v. Town of Narragansett, where the court upheld the board’s denial of a two-family use on a party-wall property. He emphasized the importance of meshing factual findings with each legal standard in written decisions.
Meeting Transcript
Uh here. Uh uh absent with cause. Here. Mr. Chair, thank you. Um the first matter on the agenda tonight is um the Gibson court condominium, which has been continued uh prior to this, but my understanding is that that application's been withdrawn. Is that correct? Okay. Yeah, so just for the record, we when I say we, I mean staff received an email on August 17th from Karen Auclair Oliveira stating that she's withdrawing her application and asked that this matter be removed from the agenda tonight. Okay, perfect. So that we're done with that one. Uh the next matter on the calendar is um uh Brooks, which is continued, plot L lot 1-12, 39 major Arnold Road. Um I believe we left that hearing open. Uh so is there any further comment. Good evening, thank you. Matthew Grunberg, G-R-U-N-E-B-E-R-G with Blich and Kavanaugh representing Miss Alexandra Brooks, as you certainly recall, 39 Major Arnold Road. I'll keep my comments brief here tonight. I just wanted to remind the board that at the last meeting you heard testimony from Patrick Freeman from American Engineering, Mason Khaleesi of Khaleesi Design, and Lindsay Sedden of House of LT, who all provided testimony as to the appropriateness of this proposal for this site. Um besides Patrick Freeman, who couldn't make it here tonight, uh the members of the design team are here to answer any other questions that you may have. I would also like to highlight that before this meeting we sent in a supplemental narrative that hopefully answered a lot of the questions that the board had. Um in particular, it was focused on the height requirements and how height is measured, and we've since received correspondence from the town that the building department is no longer requiring a height variance for this project based on the information. So we certainly appreciate that that was considered and reviewed. And Matt, I I can just jump in that. Um I believe Attorney Groomberg sent a memo to the board dated August 6th of this year. Uh that was received by your building official Jay to my left. Uh he reviewed it. He's actually in agreement with the applicant that they don't actually need a height application. Um that is no longer going to be part of your consideration. It's no longer necessary. Well that was going to be my first inquiry of legal counsel as I read the memo, as did other members of the board, and it appeared that based if the memo is the legal assertions are correct, there would be no need for a height variant. So we were council put the work in, Jay put the work in, and they they worked it out. And I think that's the appropriate resolution. All right, great. Thank you very much. Thank you, and thank you for uh considering those uh extra pieces of information. So that leaves the FAR variance, which was also discussed last week, uh last month at the July 23rd meeting. And we just wanted to reiterate that that variance is stated in the staff report is is for an 8.6% deviation, which typically would be eligible for administrative modification. Now we were advised by the town that since we also had the special use permit that we should bring forth that variance request along with the special use permit, and it should all be heard at once. Um however, I think that does demonstrate the minimal aspect of that request. Essentially, the applicant is proposing a design that's a mere 109 square feet larger than the existing structure, and as the design team can speak to if needed, a lot of that space, almost all of it, is due to the enlargement based on code requirements. You know, your wall thicknesses are bigger because you have more insulation in there, structural members, and perhaps most importantly, the the staircase in the new construction takes up much more space than in the existing home, which only has a very small um spiral staircase. So this is a very minimal request, and it's necessary to adhere to the four-bedroom count that is currently existing on the property. So considering the tremendous benefits of pulling the new structure away from the coastal feature, uh reducing the lot area coverage, we think that this request is minimal and reasonable. Um other than that, we are here to answer all of your questions, but that concludes our statements for the evening. Thank you. Is there a motion to close this hearing? So moved. Second. All in favor? I question point.
openpublica.com