ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW
MIDDLETOWN, RHODE ISLAND
-MINUTES-
DATE: JANUARY 27, 2026
TIME: 6:00 PM
LOCATION: TOWN HALL CHAMBERS, 350 EAST MAIN ROAD
*This meeting location is accessible to the handicapped. Individuals requiring interpreter services for the hearing-impaired should notify the Town Clerk’s Office at 401-847-0009 not less than 48 hours before this meeting.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. Roll call. The Zoning Board of Review was called to order at 6:00 pm. The board members present: Thomas Heaney, Mark Donahue, Alicia Reyes, Rick Lombardi, Judith Rosenthal and Antone Viveiros. Absent: Rebecca Rogers and Christopher Rowe. Unless otherwise indicated the voting members for this meeting were: Thomas Heaney, Rick Lombardi, Mark Donahue, Alicia Reyes, and Judith Rosenthal.
2. Adoption of Zoning Board meeting minutes from November 25, 2025. Rick Lombardi made the motion to accept the minutes and Mark Donahue seconded. The minutes were approved 5-0.
____________________________________________________________________________
Petition ZBR-25-28: Timothy Beck (Owner) for a variance from 321(A), 803(G), and 903 to replace existing 12’ x 10’ deck with a side yard setback of 13’ where 15’ is required. Said real estate is located at 117+119 Vernon Avenue and further identified as tax assessors Plat 109 NE Lot 54.
The petition of Timothy Beck (Owner) for a variance from 321(A), 803(G) and 903 to replace an existing 12’ x 10’ deck with a side yard setback of 13’ where 15’ is required was heard. Mr. Beck explained that the existing 10’ x 12’ deck on the 119 side of the duplex is in disrepair and needs to be replaced with a new 10’ x 12’ deck. The chairman opened the meeting to the public, no one expressed concern regarding the petition. Mr. Lombardi made the motion to approve the petition and it was seconded by Ms. Reyes. The board voted 5-0 to approve the petition. The reasons for approval were as follows:
a. That the hardship petitioner faces are due to the unique characteristics of the lot;
b. That the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant;
c. That the granting of this accommodation will not alter the general character of the surrounding area.
d. That the hardship which will be suffered if the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience.
e. That the relief sought in the requested variance was minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the property.
Petition ZBR-25-32: Richard Splain (Owner) for a Special Use from 27(C), 803(A), and 902 to add one bedroom to Units A & B of the existing STR footprint. Said real estate is located at 247 Oliphant Lane and further identified as tax assessors Plat 112 Lot 64.
The petition of Richard Splain (Owner) for a Special Use from 27(C), 803(A), and 902 to add one bedroom to Units A & B of the existing STR footprint was heard. Ms. Kelly Moran spoke on behalf of the owner. She explained that the unit is a duplex with each side of the house being a mirror image of the other side and the request would increase the number of bedrooms in each unit from 4 to 5. The property is an approved (grandfathered) non-owner occupied short term rental. Mr. Regan, Town Solicitor, explained that under Town code the current property is a legal non-conforming use and as such requires a Special Use permit for any alterations or expansions. Mr. Heaney asked if there would be adequate parking (2 spaces per bedroom) for the increase requested and Ms. Moran answered that there was adequate parking. Ms. Reyes said that she could not find both units in the State STR registry. Ms. Moran said that both were active on the State registry.
The chairman opened the meeting to the public and Mr. Ed Silvia, abutter of 235 Oliphant Lane and 35 James Francis Terrace asked if the additions would change the existing footprint. The answer was no.
The chairman closed the public hearing and asked for a motion.
Mr. Lombardi made the motion to approve and Ms. Rosenthal seconded. There was concern raised by Ms. Reyes regarding the currency of the State STR registration for one of the two units. Mr. Costa explained that the registry was verified during the recent Town STR inspection. Ms. Moran then located proof of the registration on her phone and shared it with the Board members. The board voted 5-0 to approve the Special Use Permit. The reasons for approval were as follows:
a. That the special use will not result in a significant diminution of property values in the surrounding area;
b. That the special use will not create a nuisance in the neighborhood;
c. That the granting of such special use permit will not be detrimental to or substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of the property in the surrounding area;
d. That the granting of such special use permit will not result in hazardous conditions or conditions inimical to the public health, safety or welfare.
e. That the special use will not cause significant traffic or parking impacts in the neighborhood.
Petition ZBR-25-33: Chris Psilos (Owner) and Dan Herchenroether (Architect) for a Variance from 603, 803(G) and 904 to construct a second story addition, a covered front entry, and a deck located 14.97’ from the northern front property line where 23.04’ is required and 16.59’ from the southern rear property line where 27.65’ is required. Said real estate is located at 29 Newport Avenue and further identified as tax assessors Plat 115SE Lot 157 (A).
The petition of Chris Psilos (Owner) for a Variance from 604, 803(G) and 904 to construct a second story addition, a covered front entry and a deck located 14.97’ from the northern front property line where 23.04’ is required and 16.59’ from the southern rear property line where 27.65’ is required was heard. Daniel Herchenroether (Architect) spoke to explain the project. He was recognized as an expert architect by the board. He provided a revised scheme/plan for the project which was accepted as exhibit A and described that the characteristics of the lot and the existing structure present challenges to meeting the required setbacks. Mr. Herchenroether explained that the revised scheme was prepared in response to a letter of objection from an abutter and could be executed if the board didn’t approve the requested scheme. However, the revised scheme, which could be implemented by right, would result in an increased footprint and would result in an increased impact on the neighborhood compared to the requested scheme which added a 2nd story on top of the existing footprint. Mr. Psilos (owner) was asked about the current status of the property. He explained it is a long term rental currently occupied by a military family and the upgrade would be executed when the current occupants move. He was further asked why such a large renovation was required and said it was an old home and in need of some renovations and the immediate intention is for it to remain a long term rental. He further said that he has discussed the renovation with the neighbor who submitted the objection.
The chairman opened the meeting for public comment and Mr. John Parillo, 53 Newport Ave spoke. He objected to the renovations because it will impact his view of the pond. He further objected to the existing trees on Mr. Psilos property. Mr. Lombardi explained that there is no ordinance which provides a right to a view. Ms. Jane Parillo, 53 Newport Ave spoke next with concerns over parking on the street. It was explained to her that the street is posted No Parking and violations should be reported accordingly.
The Chairman closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Lombardi made a motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Donahue. The board voted 5-0 to approve the requested variance. The reasons for approval were as follows:
a. That the hardship petitioner faces are due to the unique characteristics of the lot;
b. That the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant;
c. That the granting of this accommodation will not alter the general character of the surrounding area.
d. That the hardship which will be suffered if the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience.
e. That the relief sought in the requested variance was minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the property.
Petition ZBR-25-34: Richard Hart (Owner) for a Special Use from 602 and 902 to obtain approval for an owner occupied Short Term Rental. Said real estate is located at 299 West Main Road and further identified as tax assessors Plat 108NW Lot 350.
The petition of Richard Hart (Owner) for a Special Use from 602 and 902 to obtain approval for an owner occupied Short Term Rental at 299 West Main Rd was heard. Mr. Hart (Owner), 299 West Main Rd, explained that he was applying for a Special Use to operate a STR in the property which was formerly a business (Spavana) and is located adjacent to two hotels. He further explained that the property has 15 parking spaces, an installed fire alarm/sprinkler system, and has 5 bedrooms/4 baths. Mr. Heaney explained that he was required to be present on the premises whenever it is being rented as an STR. Mr. Hart stated he understood. He further stated that he didn’t currently live there but would be there whenever there was a tenant and he planned to move in as a primary residence prior to renting it as a STR. Mr. Regan emphasized that the STR is limited to no more than six people per rental period. Mr. Hart asked if there was a way to get approved for more than six people. He was told the ordinance would limit him to six people per rental period.
The chairman opened the hearing to the public, no one spoke for or against the petition.
The chairman closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Lombardi made a motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Donahue. The motion passed 5-0. The reasons for approval were as follows:
a. That the special use will not result in a significant diminution of property values in the surrounding area;
b. That the special use will not create a nuisance in the neighborhood;
c. That the granting of such special use permit will not be detrimental to or substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of the property in the surrounding area;
d. That the granting of such special use permit will not result in hazardous conditions or conditions inimical to the public health, safety or welfare.
e. That the special use will not cause significant traffic or parking impacts in the neighborhood.
Petition ZBR-25-35: Diane Vitale (Owner) for a Variance from 603, 803(G) and 903 to construct a roof over existing front porch. Said real estate is located at 56 Crest Street and further identified as tax assessors Plat 116 NE Lot 160.
The petition of Ms. Diane Vitale (Owner) for a Variance from 604, 803(G) and 903 to construct a roof over the existing front porch at 56 Crest Street was heard. Ms. VItale explained that her home had an existing open front porch and desires to install a roof over the existing porch to provide cover for deliveries and entry to/from the house. Mr. Richard O’Loughlin, the building contractor, described the job and said that the new porch/roof will be a bit smaller than the footprint of the existing porch.
The chairman opened the hearing to the public, no one spoke for or against the petition.
The chairman closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Lombardi made a motion to approve, seconded by Ms. Rosenthal. The motion passed 5-0. The reasons for approval were as follows:
a. That the hardship petitioner faces are due to the unique characteristics of the lot;
b. That the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant;
c. That the granting of this accommodation will not alter the general character of the surrounding area.
d. That the hardship which will be suffered if the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience.
e. That the relief sought in the requested variance was minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the property.
Petition ZBR-25-36: Ari K Ellis & Sabrina Holkar-Ellis (Owners) and David P Martland (Attorney) for a Variance from 604 (C & D) and 321 (A) to install a portion of an inground pool 10.8 feet from the side yard line where 20’ is required. Said real estate is located at 535 Indian Avenue and further identified as tax assessors Plat 129 Lot 300.
The petition of Ari K Ellis & Sabrina Holkar-Ellis (Owners) and David P Martland (Attorney) for a Variance from 604 (C & D) and 321 (A) to install a portion of an inground pool 10.8 feet from the side yard line where 20’ is required was heard. Mr. Martland (Attorney) explained the petition and provided exhibit A which showed the corner of the proposed pool within the required set back. He further explained that the topography of the property combined with the existence of a septic field and limitations imposed upon the abutting homeowners association property precluded building the pool without the small variance. Mr. Martland provided exhibit B which showed the abutting conservation land. Mr. Donahue asked if the abutting neighbors had objected to the plan and the answer provided was that there was one objection, but it didn’t come from an abutter to the pool.
The chairman opened the hearing to the public. No one spoke for or against. The chairman read a letter of objection from a neighbor who was located on the opposite side of the property from where the proposed pool is located and would not be impacted by the pool.
The chairman closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Lombardi made a motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Donahue. The motion passed 5-0. The reasons for approval were as follows:
a. That the hardship petitioner faces are due to the unique characteristics of the lot;
b. That the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant;
c. That the granting of this accommodation will not alter the general character of the surrounding area.
d. That the hardship which will be suffered if the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience.
e. That the relief sought in the requested variance was minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the property.
Petition ZBR-25-37: Elizabeth Orchard (Owner) for a Variance from 603, 803(G), and 903 to install a dormer on the east side of the 2nd floor of existing house; resulting in a 5’ setback where 15’ is required. Said real estate is located at 190 Boulevard and further identified as Plat 108 SE Lot 95.
The petition of Elizabeth Orchard (Owner) for a Variance from 603, 803(G) and 903 to install a dormer on the east side of the 2nd floor of the existing house which would result in a 5’ setback where 15’ is required was heard. Ms. Orchard explained that she wanted to install a dormer on the back of her home (east side) to provide additional headroom to the second floor and to adapt code stairs to the second floor which will allow them to age in place. The dormer will not increase the footprint of the home.
The chairman opened the hearing to the public. Ms. Lapierre, 196 Boulevard, testified in support of the project. No one present objected to the petition.
The chairman closed the hearing to the public and requested a motion. Mr. Lombardi made a motion for approval, Ms. Reyes seconded. The motion passed 5-0. The reasons for approval were:
a. That the hardship petitioner faces are due to the unique characteristics of the lot;
b. That the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant;
c. That the granting of this accommodation will not alter the general character of the surrounding area.
d. That the hardship which will be suffered if the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience.
e. That the relief sought in the requested variance was minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the property.
Petition ZBR-25-38: Royal Plaza, LLC (Owners) Ortho Rhode Island (Applicant) and Matthew Leys (Attorney) for a Special Use from 1212 and 902 to allow an additional freestanding sign where one freestanding sign is permitted. The sign is 18 sqft where 16 sqft is permitted. Said real estate is located at 1 Corporate Place and further identified as tax assessors Plat 106 Lot 170.
Mr. Leys (Attorney) explained that the applicant is a tenant at One Corporate Place and that the access to the building from West Main Rd is very confusing requiring several turns through the abutting neighborhood. The signs are required to assist patients in finding the location. They are not designed as an advertisement for the business. The sign vendor was not aware of the requirement to get approval from the Zoning Board prior to installing the sign and installed the sign without approval. Currently the signs are covered pending approval of this petition. Mr. Leys further provided his opinions with regard to the Town ordinances on the justifications for granting the requested Special Use in this case. Ms. Kathryn Marcotte (Ortho Rhode Island Director of Practice, Performance and Strategy) testified to the board. She described the operation of the facility at One Corporate Place and described personal experiences of patients who have had difficulty locating access to the facility. She emphasized the importance of “ease of access” to the facility for Ortho RI patients. When questioned by Mr. Lombardi if she was aware that the signs required zoning board approval, she said that she wasn’t aware. Mr. Ryan Beattie (Sign Design Inc), the sign vendor, testified to the board on the specifics of the sign. He was questioned by Mr. Lombardi regarding his knowledge of the zoning requirements for signs in Middletown. He replied that in this case his company misinterpreted the ordinance and he took responsibility for the mistake.
The chairman asked for a motion. Mr. Lombardi made a motion to approve, seconded by Ms. Rosenthal. The motion passed 5-0.
The reasons for approval were as follows:
a. That the special use will not result in a significant diminution of property values in the surrounding area;
b. That the special use will not create a nuisance in the neighborhood;
c. That the granting of such special use permit will not be detrimental to or substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of the property in the surrounding area;
d. That the granting of such special use permit will not result in hazardous conditions or conditions inimical to the public health, safety or welfare.
e. That the special use will not cause significant traffic or parking impacts in the neighborhood.
Petition ZBR-25-39: John P Kennedy and Caroline E Moran (Owners) and Cayton Scherf (Architect) for a Variance from 603, 803(G) and 903 to demolish and reconstruct a new dwelling 4’ from the West side yard where 30’ is required. Said real estate is located at 6 Buena Vista and further identified as tax assessors Plat 129 Lot 72.4.
The petition of the John P. Kennedy and Caroline E. Moran (owners) for a Variance from 603, 803(G) and 903 to demolish the existing and reconstruct a new dwelling 4’ from the west side yard where 30’ is required was heard. Cayton Scherf (Architect) explained that the existing residence is outdated and on a non-conforming lot and they would like to replace it with a new single family residence. The new residence will be predominantly on the footprint of the existing building, but will be 4’ from the west property line where the existing dwelling is 6.3’ from the western property line. The lot is constrained by CRMC development restrictions. Of note, the property to the west is also owned by the petitioners. The existing dwelling is over the 35’ height requirement and the new dwelling will be below 35’.
The chairman opened the hearing to the public. No one spoke for or against the petition.
The chairman closed the hearing to the public and requested a motion. Mr. Lombardi made a motion for approval, Ms. Reyes seconded. The motion passed 5-0. The reasons for approval were:
a. That the hardship petitioner faces are due to the unique characteristics of the lot;
b. That the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant;
c. That the granting of this accommodation will not alter the general character of the surrounding area.
d. That the hardship which will be suffered if the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience.
e. That the relief sought in the requested variance was minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the property.
Mr. Lombardi made a motion to adjourn the January 27, 2026 meeting. Ms. Reyes seconded the motion. The motion to adjourn was approved 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 pm.