See, I forget about that stuff.

Okay, thank you all.

I'm calling this meeting to order.

Um I know this is uh we'll get through this pretty quickly.

Um I know it's a nice day outside.

So uh there's a couple, there's a few things on the agenda here.

First is the comprehensive plan amendment, then it's the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulation amendments.

So the comprehensive plan, um, let me just explain everybody why I asked for this meeting and why I thank you for being here and what's importance.

The we have a locally approved comprehensive plan.

However, our comprehensive plan has not been approved by the state.

Um, that could deny a comprehensive permit for affordable housing.

Our affordable housing plan would need to have state approval.

There are other reasons to deny a comprehensive permit, but that is one reason.

And so for that reason, I thought it was important for us to get our comprehensive plan um submitted to the state.

Get commission approval, get council approval, get the mayor's approval, and potentially get statewide planning approval.

Okay.

And then the other two items are zoning order and subdivision regulations.

I'll just say at the outset, I have not reviewed these uh prior to the submission to you.

Uh, these are a much less priority to me.

Um because you know, in regards to state law, state law is what state law says.

And the state law goes into effect unless we have some discretion.

Um, I'm not this is not a priority to me as much as the comprehensive plan is a priority.

So with that said, we can get going.

So uh director, how do you want to proceed?

Do you want to just look at I don't know if the commissioners have reviewed the housing element, housing production plan, which I know was submitted and put on the website.

Yeah.

I just like to highlight that one of the things that we said we'd do from the onset was we rewrite the goals as goal statements.

So you have that separate page that has the goals that are written as goals, and then a little table that shows how all the policies, which goals each of the policies um map to.

So while the policies haven't changed very much from they've changed to to reflect the plan, the those goals you're seeing uh for the first time in this form.

So, in addition to the text of the draft being new, definitely want comments on the goals themselves and and the um let me see that this this little guy here.

Okay, so goals, and then each of these columns represents one of these goals above above, which I've summarized with just a quick title.

So you can see that many of the policies address multiple goals, and there are policies that address all of the goals.

So each policy has at least one goal that addresses okay.

Um another thing too.

This is a workshop.

So I know that next week we've put this as notice in the in the newspaper.

Um, and therefore I know we can we'll get the public can weigh in that there right now.

I'm kind of focused on getting something so that the public can comment on properly.

Um I'll open it up first.

I'll just start with my few changes and issues, and it's pretty minor because I worked with you, director on these.

Um at the out I'll point out that we have a typo on the goals where it says 2030 and of so just something to fix.

Um second, and these are more substantive.

As I indicated to you before in my edits, I wanted the goal to be there about the character and density of established neighborhoods.

Uh, excuse me, not that one, Suey.

Hold on.

That's it.

Cranston maintains its uniqueness as a predominantly suburban community, but it would have mixture of urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods.

I know we had a conversation about that.

Um I believe it should be in there because A, we have that language in the land use plan uh element.

B I believe that reflects what Cranston thinks of itself historically, and that goal basically overriding goal is reflected in basically the policies.

We maintain density, we maintain the character of our neighborhood, but we do have um opportunities to increase housing in different places.

So that's one second is two.

Are you talking about goal two or three?

I'm talking about let's see.

The one you did not put in at all.

We kept the the I don't think that we left one out.

I'll read it to you.

Okay, and I have a copy of what I submitted to you.

So it's Cranston maintains its uniqueness as a predominantly suburban community, but with a mixture of suburban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods.

Okay, that that is on this chart, so we'll keep that in.

Okay, so just goal three.

Okay, so just put that as one of the goals on page five-one.

Yeah.

Okay.

I apologize if I I have a lot of paper in front of me for oh, there's been a lot of paper.

So I'd like that is submitted the goals.

The second one is on page 511.

I had this is about the redevelopment of mixed use zones.

And the second to last sentence of that paragraph in 3.6.

This last sentence is historic building set the appropriate height, blah, blah, blah.

I had a sentence preliminarily, it's anticipated that zoning will allow for 15 units per acre.

The reason I had that is because statewide planning in their menu of options indicated they wanted 15 at least 15 acres, excuse me, 15 units per acre.

So I wanted to comply.

Right.

No, I think we can comply.

The reason I took out that as a limit is because the the math just doesn't work for us to meet the housing goal if we cap it at 15 units per acre.

And certainly there are many neighborhoods in Cranston that far exceed 20, 40 units per acre.

If you look at the the Rolf squares and the and the historic fabric of our mixed-use neighborhood centers is already well above 15 units per acre.

So I one of the goals of this plan, one of the parts of the what we're trying to do with this math is to be able to yield enough units in the new transit-oriented development zone.

Okay.

On Elmwood that we wouldn't have to make any changes to the neighbor to many of the neighborhoods.

Right.

So I just want to make clear though, is like when statewide planning.

I don't want statewide plan to come back and say, well, how many units we're gonna have here?

Okay.

And I know that on one of these pages I have here, they said they want at least 15 units per acre.

So I I think we need to say at least here has to be you know at least 15 years per acre.

And then we make it like we have to have get public input about how much it can be, but we have to say I think 15 units per acre.

Yeah, I would and I would to comply because I don't want the state to say that you're not doing one thing.

It's on page, excuse me.

Yeah, because 15 units per acre is just below the threshold to have a functioning transit oriented development zone.

That was so we could say at least 15 units per acre.

I think so.

I think so.

For at least at least for the purposes of the TOD of this thing for the hearing on next week.

Okay.

Um the goals, and I'm I'm just on policy H1.

It says maintain zoning densities that reflect planned municipal service levels and natural resource constraints.

I'd say maintain zoning densities that reflect current neighborhood character, planned municipal services, and natural resource constraints.

All right.

And the last one, okay.

These are two questions.

There's actually a question, then there's two more.

On policy goal H 12, it says encourage inclusion affordable housing consistent with smart growth goals.

Can you just people use these buzzwords?

Yeah, that's why I'd like to know what people mean when they use a buzzword.

Um, that one we've brought forward from the last comprehensive plan.

That one's not new.

Okay.

Um, we could definitely rephrase it to not use a buzzword if you like, but this is one that um yeah, I just we did not change.

So what happens is that you stick something in the plan, and then everyone says, well, that's what this means, and this means to me.

And then everybody argues about what something means, you know, that kind of and uh there's probably no definition right so here or elsewhere.

If it can work without a buzzword that I don't know is defined somewhere in the plan, I prefer not to use it.

I mean, I think I know what smart growth generally means, but again, um, unless you're gonna tell me what it means, then just the goals of the comp plan and the affordable housing goals, state affordable housing goals.

I know what they are.

Um3, we say require conservation type subdivisions.

I prefer encourage, um, just because there may be situations um where requiring may be problematic.

Okay.

Um then the last one is on pay the next page, it's H-11.

Um, the last sentence.

I'm okay with considering a pilot for Ward 3.

I have a concern about where some historic buildings have no off-street parking.

Um I just want to delete the phrase where some historic homes have no street.

Are we saying that we're going to not require off-street parking?

No, I'm just saying that the place where the pilot's going to take place as a neighborhood where some of the homes have no off-street parking.

Okay.

All right.

So that's okay.

I see what you're doing now.

It's a descriptive rather than a process.

Yeah, it's a descriptor.

Okay.

Of what it's sort of an explanation of why we chose that neighborhood.

Right.

Okay.

All right.

Those are my minor changes overall.

Uh, director.

Um, if my colleagues um have some other suggestions or change, can talk about that.

Um, of course, you guys can talk about my changes and say I don't like them, you know.

Um, but I'm just trying to make it smooth and fast on a nice uh or questions too.

Or quite comments or questions.

Uh Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I apologize.

I have not had much opportunity to go through this um to any great detail, but I do recall that somewhere in there, and please correct me, director, if I'm wrong on this, that there was um a statement that non-conforming uses would be uh pretty much just accepted, I guess is the the way to put it.

I think it was when discussing um existing um zoning on site as opposed to what the zoning requires, and there was a statement that would encompass non-conforming uses.

Um my understanding is that there are two kinds of non-conforming uses.

There are legal non-conforming uses and um not legal non-conforming uses.

Um is it your intention that just the legal non-conforming uses would be allowed and accepted, or had we not really contemplated that.

I think just legal non-conforming uses.

So I would just ask if that's the case that we we just make um an amendment to that section, and I apologize that I don't have it in front of me.

No, that's good.

It's good.

It's not in this housing element, it is in our, I believe in our regulations.

Oh, it's in the regular but but we can add it to the housing element because that we do have a I'll I'll that has been a long-standing policy to, you know, if it's been a triple decker since 1945, gets to continue to be a triple decker as long as it's continually in use as a triple decker.

Correct, as opposed to someone using something that is only supposed to be a two-family, and it's a three-family, so it's not a legal non-conforming use.

So I would just like to be able to distinguish that, and I'll I'll review it and have an amendment ready for our meeting, but just to give you a heads up.

And the the other concern that I had at this point was just um a reduction of the off-street parking um requirement.

And I'm not adverse to that everywhere, but I think if we I think we need to be a little more detailed or limited in how we describe that, because I would agree that in some places it may work, but in others it may not.

So it's not something I would want to do broad brush or as a matter of right, but I think it would need to be done a little more um strategically.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

And I think, Director, we have it as a pilot in this thing.

So obviously that is a kind of um that would go into deciding where we'd do this pilot is in ward three, we're in ward three.

And then number two, um, does it work or not?

I mean, that's the whole thing to see if it could work.

Whether or not it can work is a whole other conversation, but putting it in the plan for the possibility of a pilot in a part of Ward 3 to see if it can work.

I think it's once we implement it, we may find the difficulties of implementing this thing, but we'll see.

When I think uh Commissioner Lampier's not just referring to the pilot that would allow residential parking permits on street overnight, but also to allowing less than two unit two cars per unit in some uh multifamily development.

Oh, okay, I see what you're saying.

Are you seeing are you mentioning that?

Yes, it's in H11, and as it says there to um reduce parking requirements to one or 1.5 parking spaces per housing unit where this is sufficient to meet the needs.

Right.

And I think even that phrase where this is sufficient to meet the needs, in whose opinion, right and what are those.

So I I again um and I can see places where that would be appropriate, but I can also see neighborhoods where that wouldn't be appropriate.

So I'm I'm not saying that I would necessarily disagree with that, but I would want to do it in a more strategic way.

Yeah, and so I think that there's where the owners can the builders going to continue to own and operate it.

They're very they have every incentive to estimate their parking needs correctly.

But if anywhere we're building it to to sell, um, there could be an incentive for them to underestimate their parking requirements.

Um because they wouldn't know what they would be necessarily.

And and also I think there's a difference when you say per housing unit, because there are some units that are much bigger than others, and naturally will gravitate toward having more people and more vehicles versus housing units that are smaller, and you can better estimate the needed vehicle parking spaces.

And the location with transit proximity, if transit isn't if there isn't transit in that area, then it's not as plausible that people would have only one car per household.

Yeah, I mean, I was gonna say this to touch on cash uh commissioner Lampier's point.

Now I understand it better.

We have approved that's the equivalent of one and a half um parking units for a multifamily apartment, but they have been done on bus routes.

And it was part of like night's corner.

There's another one I'm forgetting.

I think, or um, yeah, the bowling alley, Legion Bowl.

So to me, if we went to 1.5, I would feel a little more comfortable because that's actually what I think the correct number is in general.

Um, and it would be in areas that is a pro, you know, close to or at least on a bus route.

Um, that would be the the twerk, the changing of the language, I think.

Um, to try to address Commissioner Lampier's concern.

There may be more you want to put in there, but as a minimum, I think it's not one, it's one and a half, and it would be um in areas that are on a transit bus route or in close proximity to one, because that would limit it significantly to me.

Yeah, I mean, for certainly uh for the transit-oriented development, that's where that's where it would be.

You're hoping to get more units and less less parking fields.

Right, right.

Um that's it for you for now.

Okay.

Anything else from my colleagues?

Okay.

Um to the next element in this is future land use map.

Yeah, it we don't have the map ready.

We're working on it.

Okay.

We will I'm you know, I'm optimistic we might have something to show you at their next meeting, but it'll still need lots of public input.

It's it's something that's going to take public input to well, I was gonna say, in regards to the future land use map, we approved our future land use map in our last comp plan.

Basically is reflected in the appendix.

Basically, everything that is zoned appropriately is zoned, and then there's others that they asked to change.

Okay.

So and I think in the in the plan, and I can't recall the specifically, I think there's a map in the plan, or at least an image of a map that says the of what the future land use is.

Um, even if I'm wrong about that, it's basically taking what we have for the future land use map and making very small changes, except for maybe this transit thing, is what I was thinking, because we have to get this moving because we have to get it to the council by the end of September.

Right.

So we've taken a real deep dive um in the new categories that are required by statewide planning.

Oh, I see, okay.

Um to separate out the open space into four separate categories.

Okay.

Um because that's what's taking up some of the time.

Yeah, we're yeah, okay.

And also um, we're reflecting the we're we're gonna show areas that are completely within the floodway or the the one percent floodplain as being special flood hazard areas rather than showing them as uh the underlying zone.

And I think that's important because we have a couple we have a big industrial area that's not really an industrial area, right?

Um because it's not developable, and I think that's a it's really important for it.

When once you do that, you can really see that we have two major industrial areas, Howard and Western Cranston.

Okay.

Um again, like I've I've talked to you before about this.

I know it's a bit challenging, but I'm trying to get, as you know, our goal is to get this to the council by the end of September for their introduction.

No, and I I apologize for the delay.

We're actually behind on a number of things, including uh the required transition to being to to the e-government portal.

That's that's a big load on the department right now, too.

Okay.

Um next is schedule of ordinances for comp plan implementation.

What's uh that about so um we're just double checking that all the ordinance, so we're required.

I'm highlighting for you that we're required in our comp plan to have a schedule of ordinances that we'll be that we think we need to implement, we need to enact to implement the comp plan.

So that where we're gonna do that is just to make sure that all the ordinances that are referenced in the text of the comp plan end up in the action section.

So right after the policies, there are actions.

Okay.

So for example, the um trade a transit supportive mixed use zone along Elmwood Avenue, Broad Street, and Warwick Avenue, boom, it's right there.

Um enact inclusionary zoning, boom, it's right there.

So trying to and and this is something we need we need to just they just are just requiring us to be specific.

And one of the things that Cranston Cranston really fell behind in enacting ordinances to implement its comp plan.

Um, some of the things in here, like the conservation um development districts have been in the comp plan for 20 years.

So I think we need to be.

So you don't understand what I'm saying?

So the inclusionary zoning bylaw would be typically included as an appendix in the comp plan because we refer to it, and that's one of our, you know, that's a specific proposal we're putting in there.

Yeah.

So that's why it's important to take a look at the text of the draft inclusionary zoning bylaw, because we reference it directly in the plan, and it's sort of a package deal.

No, I I understand that.

I don't have a problem telling statewide planning this is their draft ordinance.

What I'm saying is implementation is I do not see it as making sense to have the city council adopt ordinances until I know or we know statewide planning finds it to be sufficient and approves the plan and hasn't had further changes.

That's the point I'm making.

I don't I don't agree that we can't take this, you know, we can take a step forward with the inclusionary zoning, even if we know that you know I I understand you may disagree.

My point is I do not want to go to the council and say adopt this, and then three months later being told by the statewide planning that's not good enough, and then I gotta go make changes again.

It's a waste of time for the city council, it's a waste of time for all of us.

So when the state tells us this is okay, we can implement it until they tell us it's okay.

We got to wait and see if they have changes.

This is like a compliance to me.

This is something of a compliance filing.

And if the state doesn't see it that way, that's fine.

But to me, we send this in.

This is our implementation schedule.

Once you tell us it's approved, we implement these housing elements.

With all due respect, we uh we'll fall behind.

I mean, we know that the inclusionary zoning is a required element, and the sooner we enact it, the sooner we start gaining units through that process.

We don't get an extension of time based on how long it takes us to get state approval.

We have five years to meet this goal.

And if we know some steps that we're ready to take now, we should go ahead and take them so we can start making progress towards the goal.

Last year, the year before, we we permitted like 33 units in the city of Cranston.

We need to, what's the number?

250.

We have to get from 33 to 250, and it's not gonna happen overnight.

It's going to be a you know a growth curve where we ramp up, but it takes more than a year for you and your enacted ordinance to be reflected in developers' plans for the city.

So it's it's a very slow moving process.

I understand it's a slow moving process for some, but we have approved by um this commission in the past has approved about 600 units, of which 76 I think are affordable.

They've been approved at master plan and preliminary plan stage.

This inclusionary zoning ordinance is not going to affect that.

That can come on in line anytime, including print works at 100 units.

So my point in this is statewide planning wants this to happen.

And I'm okay with that, and we will do that.

But if the implementation schedule is somewhat dependent on what statewide planning approves, the faster they move, the faster we can move.

That's I don't understand what would be the difficulty of them moving quickly to review something.

They have a certain time limit, I get it by statute.

They have notice and all that stuff, and we're moving quickly to implement our stuff.

So if everyone works quickly, this will get implemented quickly.

But I don't understand the idea of I'm gonna implement something.

I'm gonna go to elected officials.

I'm gonna implement, tell them this is what we got to do.

And then six months later or three months later, they come in and say, no, no, not good enough, got to do this, gotta do that.

This is especially in an interesting environment.

So that's what I would say.

Um by the way, I've been talking, going back and forth with the director.

Anything else people I've been go ahead, Commissioner Mazuli.

Thank you.

Um, as a former member of the city council, I would also have to agree with President Frias on how it's it is difficult sometimes to get things through.

So if you have to go more than once for the same thing, it might end up being very frustrating.

So I would suggest that as well.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Just a question on um on the agenda item it says discussion of zoning ordinance amendments.

Are there when I look at this, it appears to me that there might be two classes of zoning ordinance amendments we're talking about.

One are um is the comprehensive list that you're referencing that needs to be attached to the comp plan that goes to statewide planning for approval that has to reflect the proposed ordinances needed to implement what is in the plan, correct?

Right.

We have to, in order for them to approve this plan, we have to convince them that we're proposing actions that will result in the number of units, will plausibly result in the number of units.

Uh, we say that we are the planning to get the ordinance is necessarily necessary to actually implement what your goals are.

It is, and then the details might affect the yield.

And then um some of the ordinances though, we're gonna acquire more work like the transit-oriented development zone itself.

Um, we can say in here we're gonna do it.

We'll put an estimate, we have an estimate of number of units, but we know that in order to do it.

I I put in a grant to have some consulting help us do a much more um you know consultative process and to look at the different stretches of the area.

We're not, you know, we're not gonna adopt the comp plan doesn't rezone thing.

There's still more work to make sure we get the details right before we enact a zoning change.

That I don't underestimate that as a as needing more work.

And then I I think there's a second class here that of ordinance amendments that relate to um what you believe are necessary to comply with new state law.

Yes.

Now, is that to the extent that it doesn't involve a comp plan change that needs to be implemented?

Those that new set of ordinances does not have to go with our comp plan.

Correct.

So that could be those could be set aside for they could, although they will free up a lot of time for the planning department to work on other things.

Yeah, so the second group that we're gonna hear later if we get to it, um which we will get to.

Um yeah, that I I call those those are basically mandatory changes either from last year or this year, or stuff that's coming up July, or um, you know, that we are implementing to make things easier for the planning department, more for the building department and for you know the the consumer, because now they're looking at our ordinance last year's state law, this year state law.

So most of those are just to essentially to comply with state law and also to make things a little bit easier.

We put some getting rid of certified mail and and and things like that.

So um, so that second group would be done irrespective of this.

Um, would part of that second group yield housing?

Yeah, I would say yes, because you know, there's some things regarding unmerger and things like that, but as far as part of this plan, it's they're really two separate things that are happening simultaneously.

And the ones that are uh mandatory by state law, even if we don't make a zone change, somebody can already they're already in effect, so it just happens.

So that's the second what you're kind of talking about now, Commissioner Lampier is a discussion of zoning ordinance amendments.

That's a separate thing from ordinances to adopt recommendations in the concept or two separate things.

Any other inquiries or comments?

Okay.

Last one here is various other amendments to complete state submission checklist.

Um, I know you talked, I know you've spoken to me uh director about there was a few missing maps, and I think they're now on the website, for example.

Um, where are we with these I call missing checklist items?

Um there is a with the exception of the land you future land use map and any changes in the land use element itself.

Okay, uh, they're all there in that memo, which I updated today.

So it'll be so it's ready for the hearing on next week.

September 2nd.

Okay.

All right.

Any other comments or questions about the this element of the comp plan and all these other things underneath it?

Um I skipped actual inclusionary zoning.

Um I may have to think about, I think I may have a suggestion on an amendment or two on it, but generally I thought it was fine.

Um, but I have to look at it in more detail.

Um, I know you're saying that you we submit the comp plan with the draft ordinance as an appendix.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, and we've done that before.

And I and your point about are you locked into implementing it?

No, I mean it's it's nobody's kind of come back and get us if we continue to refine our inclusionary zoning after the comp plan is submitted.

For example, if we look example, like the transit thing, we put in 15 15 units per acre, and all of a sudden the state says no, it's gotta be 20.

It's gonna have to be 20.

Well, I'm just saying that's an example, okay.

Then it's then I got I gotta go back to the city council and make all these changes.

I'd like to go to the city council one time.

That's what I'm saying.

Um, before we move to the next item, um, I want to ask my fellow colleagues this quick question, which is this is a workshop, so we don't need to take public comment, but I know there are people here in the public that would like to speak.

Does anyone have a problem if we give each person three minutes?

Okay.

So I was just gonna say so I can see all of you clearly.

I'll give each of you three minutes this week.

You know that next week.

Go to town, say what you want to say.

But um, I wanted to give you three minutes at this point each for whatever you want to say about the comp plan.

Um, I'm just trying to make this meeting as quick as possible for everybody.

Okay.

So just come up, however, however, you signed up and tell me what you want to say.

I think Bob, you did you sign up first?

So you signed up, you didn't sign up.

Okay, all right.

Just state your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Annette Born 51 Community Drive.

Uh, thank you, members of the plan commission and the planning staff worked so hard um on these documents.

Um, I want to start with one clarifying question.

Is the intention to submit this chapter ahead and separate from the entire phase two comprehensive plan?

The intent is to take the comp plan we've already approved and amend it for this and to get it in quickly, and then we can have further changes as part of phase two.

Okay.

All the other chapters are also being will be reviewed, not will be at a at a next year, for example, as part of phase two.

The reason this is being moved so quickly is that I I understand the reason why.

Okay, thank you.

This is just gonna be inserted as the housing chapter to the phase one plan that we're gonna do.

Correct.

Okay.

So um I have not had time to pour over in detail, uh, but I will be before next week's meeting.

Um I would have really liked to have thought that we would have gotten through all of the ward workshops.

I went to one in ward three and ward one, and I thought the intention was that we would get through all of the wards workshops and incorporate all of that thoughtful commentary and planning.

I saw several members of you there at various meetings.

Obviously, the staff was there.

Um, and I know there was great interest and thought um uh visuals, uh, a lot of transit stuff.

So um I'm not sure I understand the reasons why this got rushed, but I think that's going to really diminish the value of this plan to the nearly 80,000 people who live in Cranston.

So my goal really uh in in looking over some of what's been presented.

Um, it does appear that some of the goals are actually in opposition to each other, like we are saying we want more housing of different types and affordability, but we aren't going to change any density or that nefarious word character.

Um I'm a math person when I used to read these plans, I need to see the actual quantifiable evidence of how the numeric goals on page 5.8 would actually be achieved.

Um generally in the past, I would see um historic subdivision for the last five years.

So I would know that 15% would yield X number of units.

I would see uh adaptive reuse, which is a great tool.

Uh, I would see named, you know, the Chester Barrow School, which I live near, and um a number that appears comfortable, you know, for that project, but I'm not actually seeing that.

And I apologize if it's because I haven't really been able to look at it that deeply yet.

Um note I would like to make at this time, which I think honestly will give you some trouble with statewide planning, um, as it is not a smart growth, which I'm surprised to say you don't know that term given that our entire land use 2025 is premised on smart growth.

Um the policy H2, which is to maintain rural densities where desired, regardless of availability of improvements to municipal infrastructure, such as public water, sewer, and roads.

Um of 39 municipalities in the smallest state.

We don't have a lot of roads and water and public infrastructure, so that to maintain even half acre densities and such, uh, where there is public water is a waste of that land for our state as a whole.

So and beyond that, um, the role of the housing commission, which I'm glad to see continues to be named in the strategies and how to achieve it.

I have been in consistent contact with the city council because there are still three vacancies on the housing commission.

So whatever um emphasis you all could put on that, we have two members of the housing commission with us here tonight.

Um so I know they are eager to meet again as soon as they have three more colleagues to meet with.

So thank you very much.

I hope I haven't exceeded my time.

No, you have not, thank you.

Just because um just because you made a comment about my um about smart growth.

Uh I know what smart growth means.

Um, it's just that everybody seems to interpret it in different ways.

So it's like it's like due process, it's like due process.

It's like one of these terms.

So that's why I said that.

Um, in regards to your other comment about wards one and three, we had workshops, yes, and we incorporated those ideas by having this transit corridor.

Okay.

All right.

But there are there are other wards, and the intention was to get to all those wards.

And it was the intention, and we can do it in phase two.

And unfortunately, the state law changes every year.

So I gotta move.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, um, thanks for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Amy Raynone, um, 67 Valley Street.

I would full disclosure, I am uh um employee of Rhode Island Housing, but I am here representing myself, not the agency.

I am also a member of the housing commission.

Um, I would echo Annette's concern, um concerns around public engagement.

I know that there's been a lot of talk about this phase phase two.

Um, but uh I think that given the importance that's being placed on this document being approved by the state, that uh it's really critical that the public have an opportunity to react to it, and they haven't to date.

Uh, in particular, I was disappointed that the members of the housing commission were not notified in any way of these documents or of this meeting.

Um I am gonna speak generally because I also have not had a chance to really look at these documents and absorb them, as it sounds like a number of of you have not either.

Um, but um uh it is a resource.

There are some great folks on the commission, even though there are some vacancies, and I hope that moving forward, the um the city takes advantage of uh that expertise.

Um there were a couple of things in particular um in my brief review of the documents that jumped out at me.

Um I also really um uh was looking at that those the goals and policies associated with um preserving density rather than increasing density, just looking at around the city of Cranston.

You know there's plenty of places where, and it talked about character and preserving character, and I get that, but there's a lot of places in Cranston where you can increase density without changing character at all because the existing character of the community, you can't build that anymore because the zoning doesn't allow it.

So, I mean, even just going to the built environment zoning level would significantly increase the opportunities for housing development in the city, and that's an easy win with um no impact on the character, since that is the existing character, in fact.

Um, another thing that jumped out at me that was that it seemed um really home ownership heavy.

We have a lot of rental needs in this um city, a lot of low-income folks who are not going to be able to afford homeownership, even with some of the subsidized homeownership opportunities.

So I would really love to see more emphasis on rental opportunities in the city.

Along those lines, I was really surprised that there was not a single goal or strategy that spoke to homelessness at a time when affordability is just through the roof.

Homelessness has been spiking.

We're in the second, third largest community in the state right now.

It just seems like a really uh kind of stark that that there was no mention whatsoever of homelessness in the plan today.

Um it seemed like there were some opportunities that that weren't um incorporated, things like looking at municipally owned land for opportunities for affordable housing development, vacant schools, things like that, or identifying um just parcels in this in the city where you want to see development, where you want to be concentrating development and looking at whether or not the existing zoning or the proposed zoning is um incentivizes development in those areas or facilitates housing development in those areas.

So anyway, I like I said, I have not, and I apologize if any of the things I say are inconsistent with the full documents.

Again, I have not had the opportunity um to read them fully, but I intend to do so and we'll submit um full um comments based on that thorough review.

But given I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to share some initial thoughts.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Renault, and I just want to make two quick points.

Uh the municipal land thing is in there is 3.1 right now.

We have schools and municipal land.

It doesn't say which ones, but it says an inventory and about schools on the housing um role of the housing advisory commission.

I may be misstating the name.

It has not been functioning, I believe, for quite some time.

And that's one reason why the involvement was not there.

So yeah, and I would point to what Annette said in terms of the council have not yet um appointed folks to the forum.

However, you do have sitting members of the commission with significant housing experience, and I think that they could be a real resource, and they could meet and talk with you regardless of the lack of a quorum.

Right.

So I was gonna say glad to take your comments, whatever you have in writing for next time, because like I said, there's uh a need to get this adopted and sent to the state.

Should have, you know, this whole comp plan.

So okay, thank you.

Next I'm Sam Brusco, 11 L.

Amber Circle.

Um see, let me just go.

I again I apologize.

It's kind of a theme.

I didn't have much uh warning about this.

Um, but I'll discuss things that stood out to me.

Uh character and density is uh is one of the goals.

It's let me see.

Two of the first four words.

Those are dog whistles to NIMBYism.

And I really think you don't need to include that because they already know, and it's just gonna encourage it.

In some of the documents, it talks about Cranston being partly urban.

Where I can't, I've lived in cities, and I can't think of anything any place in Cranston that's urban.

Oh, yeah.

Uh the ability for you know kids who grow up in Cranston to be able to afford later in Cranston.

How?

I mean, it you you all know that uh housing prices are rising ridiculously.

Um actually a court in in respect to that.

Is there anything in here about corporate ownership of uh single family homes?

Uh is there no because I don't think we have any jurisdiction over that.

Okay.

Airbnb.

Same.

Governed by state law.

Okay.

Um, the uh the city's um assets and um land.

I I okay, we got Chester Barrows.

I was wondering if there's what else is there.

Waterman School and Arlington.

So what Waterman's being closed?

Waterman is closed.

Okay, nobody told me.

Sorry about that.

I did I say Arlington or did I mean Gladstone?

The old Gladstone's been taken down.

It's the Arlington, right?

I'm sorry.

I just Arlington will be closed.

Okay.

Arlington, not uh Waterman and Watering.

Yeah.

Yeah, there are three schools.

What about Bane?

Bain is still with us.

Okay.

Um, so we were talking about uh parking.

In real cities, you get charged for parking.

Um and is I don't know if that's not allowed within Cranston ordinances, but it should be.

Uh, if you rent an apartment and you want three cars, well, you rent three spaces.

Uh, and otherwise you rent two and figure out from there.

So it's more a matter of putting a price tag on parking because it is a real resource.

Does this have anything to do with commercial commercial use?

This is there is an element of um something of the effect of like taking um like mixed-use zone, like having a part uh residential mixed in with commercial.

Okay, there's an element in there about that.

All right, well, um, for commercial uh parking requirements.

The a great idea that I heard was instead of minimum of so many spaces, which is usually the worst possible scenario, um, times two.

It could be changed very easily to maximum of that ridiculous number.

And you know, you can have more effective use of the land in commercial areas.

Um I think that covers it for me.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Uh next, make public comment.

Good evening.

Christina Brown, 217 Armington Street, Ward One.

Um, thank you for the time to speak, Chair.

I just want to thank the planning department for the work they've put into this and all the members of the commission.

Um I want to reinforce what Annette and Amy said regarding the public process um as well as the involvement of the housing commission.

I'm an appointee of the housing commission, and I did not learn about um this chapter being reviewed until late this afternoon in a busy work and family day.

Just came from the open house at Cranston use of my son.

Um I just want to speak to a few things that uh stood out to me as well.

Um I guess primarily um the comprehensive plan is supposed to set the development pattern for the city for the next 10 years.

I believe that this is something that really does warrant robust input to everyone who lives in the city, as well as people like myself who have volunteered our housing expertise to participate in this process.

Um, and I do hope that the final version of the plan will include the other remaining wards.

I also feel um very strongly that looking at the demographic data that the planning department has pulled together.

Uh, we know that the state of Rhode Island is moved over into this threshold as an aging community.

Our city still has a large number of children, 18 and under.

What you decide in this plan and what you as planning commission members decide when development proposals come before you, you are deciding the fate of who can live here in the future.

And what I see over and over again when I come to these meetings about development is that Cranston doesn't want any more families.

I take that personally because I am and I have chosen to raise my kids here.

And with the rising cost of housing, I have seen my neighbors, particularly over the pandemic, who have lived in Cranston for generations, have to leave the city because the housing prices and the taxes are going up.

And I have seen new families from Boston or other areas who can work remotely and make higher incomes coming into the city.

You are all appointed by the public to represent us and the next 10 years of the city.

And not building new housing is going to impede that the types of working families who have always made Cranston what it is, the ability to stay here and it is going to continue to cause displacement.

Additionally, environmental concerns are great.

A lot of neighborhoods are experiencing flooding.

New homes are built to 2025 building code.

Environmental standards that have many, many checks and balances.

And to impede new development in the city is to make it so existing residents whose homes may be taken by flood or fire have no place to live, as well as the concerns of an aging population that would need accessible units that are safer and easier to maintain, smaller units, apartment buildings, et cetera.

I just want to paint that broad stroke picture because I have not been able to dig into the details of what's in here.

But those are all elements that I hope you're taking into consideration as you look at this document and as you make your decisions going forward on housing development.

Things like Mulligan's Island, the proposals that are before you, these are important housing stock options that can help mitigate some of the things that we are facing.

And none of it will happen overnight, and it needs to be taken very seriously.

I also want to add that parking uh minimums, parking reform.

There was a note in here of like whether one parking spot per unit versus 1.5.

Um across the country, parking reform, you know, builders will build what they think is needed.

If you set a maximum amount of parking spaces that are needed, they'll have to do that.

But the market really does cater to what is needed.

If you look at the demographic data, our household sizes are shrinking.

People who are living in apartments really don't need more than one parking spot.

Um, and that is better for land conservation, for stormwater runoff, for minimizing imperfect impervious services, and building resilient um housing.

So I just want to say I hope you continue to look at these things and be the best stewards of the land that we have in Cranston and think about who you want to live here in the future as you make these decisions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think that leaves you, Mr.

Murray.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um I found myself in agreement with much of the speakers who came before me.

Um heard me say this many times.

The answer to more housing is to build more housing.

And uh we are um uh as someone who comes at this from a different perspective than some housing advocates, for example, who have very legitimate and worthwhile goals and uh concerns.

Historically, the members of this commission know I represent developers, applicants for projects.

And I live every day with the process that happens after this commission acts on something.

It is a marathon, it's not a sprint, and uh it is a challenge.

Uh I want to underscore that, despite the best efforts of everybody within the um the structure of government to try and bring projects online.

Uh I would be remiss if I didn't say at the outset, uh I've tried to stay away from the planning department for the last couple of weeks because every time I showed up, they were deeply involved working on this product that's before you.

It's commendable.

Uh, you know, uh, and I legitimately felt bad even asking questions on little things just because it took them away from what they were trying to do.

I also think that this commission should be commended for on an beautiful August night uh being here uh in the numbers you are to hear these comments and to consider these things.

That being said, uh respectfully, I don't think the last August and uh last Tuesday in August when people are getting ready to go back to school.

Uh it was an open house at my Alma Mata Crancity's tonight.

My granddaughter was uh had her kindergarten orientation at Glen Hills tonight.

There's a lot going on at the end of the summer.

People are trying to grab the last few rays of sunshine, and I commend these people for being here.

There should be others here.

Um frankly, there's a whole panoply of stakeholders that haven't really participated in this, and it's nobody's fault, their fault, but you know, I feel responsible sometimes that you know to share information with people, whether it's the Builders Association or you know, just clients that I represent to let them know hey, this is what Cranston's thinking about.

Um that being said, I also question, and I know and I respect the chairman immensely, and I know he's trying to do the right thing, and he's trying to accelerate this to get it to the state.

And um, you know, that's all commendable.

If the intention of this commission is to try and act on something next Tuesday night, because I know there's no votes tonight.

I gotta I gotta be honest with you, I don't think it's fair to anybody to the Tuesday after Labor Day weekend to try and um expedite these things through.

Uh, there's a lot of discussion that needs to happen on these documents, just the time to go through them.

You know, I mean uh I was exhausted just printing the stuff on the website without even reading it.

Um so I I I question just you know, I think we should take a deep breath here and really think about what we're doing and how we're doing it.

Um I have a lot of comments.

Um I come at this differently than some people, but um, you know, the goals, you know, the the state housing 2030 plan, the goals that are contained in in some of this work that's before you this evening.

I gotta be honest with you, I think they're pie in the sky.

They're not gonna happen.

If we feel comfortable, you know, that we should pass something.

All right, let's pass it.

But I am telling you that you know, you know, the number of units that's being estimated, either market rate or low and moderate income units, not gonna happen, despite the best efforts of everybody here.

In 2022, I think this commission approved the Cranston Printworks, my project.

Okay.

I started out as 129 units.

We had to take down the building, it's gonna be a hundred units.

I think it was 2022.

We do not yet have the building permits to start the 100 units with the assistance of the planning department with the building department, um, you know, which staffing is a whole other issue here.

Let's not go there tonight.

You know, we're getting incrementally little.

I get a temporary service um permit.

If I, you know, I can get a self-storage permit because that's not you know in the flood zone.

We do, you know, we just got last week with the assistance of Mr.

Corrello, the final sign off from Violia and the public works department for the sewer connection.

Okay.

That took that was a tennis match of about a year going back and forth with comments, comments.

I mean I'm I don't mean to vent, but I Brady Sullivan presented building plans for the Princeton Printworks, and the building department basically said we don't have the time, the staff, or the expertise to review these plans.

They required us to go hire a third-party co-consultant at our expense.

Okay, to review the plans.

Yesterday I got the latest tennis ball hit back.

We're getting close, but uh I just want to I want you to appreciate that this process of from concept to groundbreaking to ribbon cutting is a mammoth undertaking.

And I just um um I'm open to any ideas, and I I I don't I don't I don't want to belittle the goals and the numbers we're talking about.

Realistically, I don't think they're achievable.

And if we need to pass something to show that we're in conformity with the state housing plan, that's fine.

But August 27th tonight, I'm just letting you know this is all make believe.

Um, and that's with tremendous respect for the Jonas and Brett Beth and Brianna, what they're trying to do here.

But Bob, these numbers are coming from the state.

I mean, I I I understand that.

So why so bad idea at the state shouldn't become a bad idea at the city?

However, the state is shoving it down our throats, Bob.

And we have to comply with what the state has to do.

Stephen, I I appreciate you defending the staff and the commission.

I'm just telling you that they're gonna be voting on something that is is make believe.

So I I've said enough.

You can uh well then did you did you testify at the state that it was make believe?

No, Steve, I apologize.

I have a life, I have a law practice.

I don't Bob You're here every night.

Did you go testify?

I didn't because it's maple leave.

I can I make a comment okay, okay.

Okay, let me wrap up.

Oh, okay.

Thank you, Bob.

I I you know I've made my point.

Yeah, I have a lot of comments um on these other ordinances and things like that.

There are work in progress.

I understand that.

They need they need some uh some refinement in my opinion.

Not not just because it's Bob Murray saying it, but I just think the wording and what's intended, you know.

I read things one way, people read Steve Marcella might read it a different way.

But that being said, all I'm saying is let's take a breath here and not jam this down the city council, the mayor, or anybody else, until everybody here has had their say, everybody's had a chance to, you've had a chance to listen to the practical side of these things and the very worthy comments that come from housing advocates who you know.

I mean, I can go on about density, you know.

Until we get real about density, we're not gonna increase housing.

Okay.

And when I have a client that comes to me with an undersized lot, and I gotta get my calculator out and figure out, you know, the size of the lot, the you know, the you know, I gotta be honest with you, that's not the approach we should be taking it.

If there's three blocks of 5,000 square foot uh lots with houses on them, and somebody has one, we should not be doing Herculean jumps to get somebody a building permit on a similar size lot.

And we had an easy statute, and the state changed the law.

And now we have to go to their complex statute.

We had a statute that if on the same side of the street, you look one way, you look the other way, and a lot would be unmerged.

Now that under we can't do that anymore.

We got to do the whole oversized lot, hunt 50%, and it has become unworkable.

I agree with you, but we can't keep we couldn't keep our old ordinance, Bob.

I I I didn't say you to keep the old order.

All I'm I'm just trying to, when somebody comes to me with a proposal, and I have to call the building official, the planning department, and then you to ask exactly what type of relief we need, because I can't figure it out.

That's something wrong with the process.

I agree with you, but the state keeps changing the law every six months.

Okay, Mr.

Murray, is there are you those outside?

We have somebody else to get the last word, you know.

Oh, okay.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

I just wanted to thank Bob Murray for bringing up the issue of process and the friction and drag that that and the costs that imposes on the property owners and developers in Cranston.

We have a lot of work to do, um, not just in the planning department, but citywide to improve to reduce friction and reduce drag and reduce delay.

And we we're working very diligently with our powers to do that, but I recognize as Bob does that we have quite a long way to do go and streamlining our processes.

And I guess maybe that's one of the reasons why I'm hesitant to uh to uh feel like we're gonna have one fix and tie it all up with a bow.

I think it's going, you know, there's years worth of work of improvements ahead of us, and it's not gonna all be one and done.

But thank you.

Um Mr.

Leam, is there anyone online that'd like make public comment?

Okay.

Correct.

There's no public comment online.

Thank you.

Um just a quick thing, and then I'll open it to my colleagues before we wrap this up and go to the next topic.

Is I wish we're I'm not in this position right now to all the people here where I feel that I have to move this chapter quickly.

Um we had a comp plan approved by this council last year.

Staff made a decision under Mr.

Pizzulo not to pursue statewide state approval at that time.

They were going to wait until the second phase was completed.

However, since then there were changes in state law that I feel it's in our best interest to move this as quickly as reasonably possible, knowing that further changes can be made.

Um but I that is the reason and in good faith that I'm trying to do two things.

Move this to get state approval and to sort of respond to Mr.

Murray's comment and echoing a little bit of Mr.

Marcellus, the solicitor.

These are the state goals.

I recognize the difficulty of reaching those goals, but we at the state laws local level are making our best faith effort to make those goals, and we'll just see what happens.

Um any of my colleagues have anything they want to add, Commissioner Ronzuli.

Um, thank you.

I very much so agree with Mr.

Murray that this is the end of the summer and it's difficult to get people here.

Um so I I might suggest that the city council seems like they're having a lot of special meetings lately.

So if we need more time, and we can't have it on their exact meeting, we can have a meeting just about this.

If the housing commission has not met because they don't have enough people to have a quorum, that's a problem.

It's not we can't do anything about it, but the city council needs to.

And obviously, there are people here who have intelligent things to say, so I hope that they can submit written comment after they're able to digest this material.

Thank you.

Right.

Um, it's been in the newspaper advertised for September 2nd, so they certainly will have uh time to submit written comments if they so desire.

We can take that into account.

Uh any other comments, Commissioner Coop, Vice Chairman Coop, Vice President, sorry.

Thank you.

I'm getting there.

I'm a little tired already at about 20 of I I reserved my any comments because apparently, like other people in the room, I haven't really digested all of this, but I agree with a number of the comments that were made tonight.

Um, specifically on the density question, because when I look at this goal, I see many of the debates we've had about density over the past six or seven years that I've been here uh summarize down into one sentence.

Um we've spent many hours debating density versus additional housing.

And I liked your comment, Mr.

President.

Um, that smart growth is like due process, you know, density versus more housing is like trying to define due process.

So while I understand the need to get this done, and I agree with you to get this done.

At some point, I think it would be in our best interest to give ourselves and the applicants some definitive guidance to put some guardrails on what is the appropriate change in density that we're willing to accept in order to allow more housing.

And I don't expect to come to that consensus tonight or even probably in this phase of the project, but I do think we ought to think about coming up with some acceptable guardrails for that.

Um, you know, some of the other goals and actions, I agree.

Well, we don't have a lot of discretion.

I don't see them happening.

Um but I also think it's unfair to put on this commission or even the city council blame for the lack of housing production in the city of Cranston.

We can within the confines of existing ordinances, confines of the existing comp plan, even within the new comp plan and whatever rules we set up, we can make it marginally easier, marginally more difficult.

We can change things like or we can ask the city council to change things like parking requirements, but ultimately these are economic issues that are beyond our control.

And for the six or seven years that I've been here, I've seen a lot of very thoughtful debate and discussion.

We've approved many more housing proposals than we've denied over those years.

So you know, I I don't take it personally, and I don't think it was meant personally, but I do think that we've stried to create a balance over the years.

And while I don't like some of the things I read in this, I I agree with you, Mr.

President, that we should get something done now so we can get it in.

But I do hope that we address some of these tough questions in the next phase.

Thank you, Vice President.

And um, I like I said, this is this was not my plan to do this this way.

I thought we'd be doing this at the end of the next year and say we'd have more time.

But like I said, the state law changed.

I felt that we need to move forward expeditiously, put something in that could work, and then we can fine-tune and maybe make some changes um as it goes on um when we review other chapters.

So all together.

All right.

Is there any other comments or questions from uh Commissioner Renzooli?

Thank you.

This is for the director.

Um there was an outside contractor that helped with the first phase, correct?

Are they completely phased out now?

Or are they still part of this?

I can't remember the name of it.

I know they're in Boston.

They did a separate website, separating the chapters, making it a little easier for people to read.

I don't know if they're still with us at all.

They are still with us.

They prepare three of the maps that are up on the website.

Um that's definitely an that's definitely something we should discuss further.

Yeah, you have the tools you need.

I feel like in the past it's been explained to us that you need more people than just the planning department because you're already a small understaffed department, and we have a lot of development coming in.

We have long meetings, you have to prepare memoals.

I get it.

So I just was wondering if we spent that money.

I know we got a grant for it, and if there are more grants that the city council needs to procure in order to keep this contract there so that we can have a website that takes in public engagement and summarizes it, and people who are doing this like full time for us.

Yeah, that it that's let's talk more on that.

Let's definitely talk more on that.

I um we're almost a fully staffed department.

We we're having interviews tomorrow, and God willing, we'll be a fully staffed department for a while.

So um, but thank you.

All right, is that it for this topic?

And then we'll move to the next one, which is zoning ordinances.

Okay.

Um, so this uh the staff put on the agenda.

This is a um I'm receiving I saw it the first time all of you did essentially.

Um basically it's a combination.

What I would say is of compliance with state law changes, but for stuff that's gone beyond state law in certain areas.

So first question I have is actually for the solicitor.

Um have you reviewed this before we got this?

Um the ordinance.

Yeah, yeah.

We um last year we went through it stepped down, I think.

Okay.

All right.

But that doesn't mean that it's perfect for no uh just try just trying to make it easier for really for applicants and for the you know, younger planning uh people um to be able to navigate um our ordinance again without having to go to state law to city ordinance back and see what controls and when it controls.

Well, state law can find the just trying to make it easier for really for applicants and for the you know younger planning uh people to be able to navigate um our ordinance again without having to go to state law to city ordinance back and see what controls and when it controls.

So um we did our best in uh moving through this, um not deviating from the definitions of state law, and it was reviewed a few times, but again, um if the commission sees any errors, um uh uh feel free to point them out.

Okay.

I would like to say too that I did make some additional edits and changes uh since last time you viewed it, so I still need to send it to you for another review.

Sure.

Um just so you know.

Okay, so you know, unfortunately, I did not I focus most on the comp plan because of its urgency versus this um because it's not as urgent since it's already in place in state law.

But I'll I just want to make a couple of comments and maybe a couple questions.

Um first, I can tell this goes beyond state law in certain areas, so I'll start with the first one.

A proposed amendment to the ordinances, it's a separate thing about the development plan review committee, and it's a complete deletion.

Well, basically 14 pages of ordinary and putting in about maybe a page and a half of general general stuff.

So is this required by state law?

This is so DPR um last year was made a required element.

Um and then oh no, in 2023 it was made required in 2024, they undid that requirement.

Um, however, um the way DPR was is structured in state law and in model ordinances, um, is to actually have most of the um because currently currently DPR, all the entire ordinance is in our zoning ordinance.

Um but typically much of the like design uh elements and uh uh like the stages of review, most of that really should be in the subdivision regulations.

So if you look through the subdivision regulations, much of this was just moved over to the subdivision regulations.

Um and what's in the zoning ordinance is basically a an enabling uh section.

Okay, so this is this is more in line with state laws, more in line with the uh subdivision regulations.

It's DPR is just a thing that we just haven't touched, even though the state law around it changed significantly about two years ago.

Okay, so I'll so my short answer is yes, we need to take some action on I I agree we need to take some action, but I don't think we need to take as much action as what it says here.

That's my sense.

Yeah, so so just to maybe make it a little bit easier.

If you go to the draft zoning ordinances update, that's really kind of one set of changes, yeah, and then the DPR.

So they're you know, they're split into two, yeah.

Um, so obviously any comments to DPR can be separate than the first batch, right?

So then looking at the second batch, which is DPR.

The DPR changes in the second batch.

I'm not aware that the state law required us to delete all this stuff.

I really don't.

I'll have to take a look at it.

Okay and how it's written.

Okay, so the deep the DPR, the way it's written here is a couple of things that I don't think is required by state law.

First, you have no requirement that there's public notice for the meeting.

That is in the subdivision regulations, right?

So I'm right now there's a public notice and a hearing requirement under the zoning code for DPR.

Correct.

Right.

So I'm gonna tell you that unless state law said I cannot have a public hearing, uh, that makes no sense to me to take that out.

The public hearing requirement is maintained, it's just moved to the subdivision regulations, which would be much more in line with the I I'm not gonna ask the city council to make changes that don't amount to it's like it's over here in the regulations, not the one.

So then I gotta go to city council and say I'm taking out a public notice requirement, but it's gonna stay in the regulations.

Who controls the regulations of the planning commission?

The planning commission.

So they can then take it out eventually.

I I uh you this is more like work but the meeting notice requirements for land developments and subdivisions are also in the subdivision regulations.

My point in the zoning ordinance, so it would be much more consistent.

I'm not comfortable asking city council members to change the zoning ordinance to get rid of public notice.

We can keep it in there.

Okay, so that's number one, then we're gonna keep going.

Next is it says this thing about DBR waiving our subdivision regulations.

Um, no offense to the people on DBR.

You do it all the time.

Okay.

If that's possible, but uh I thought like to waive our regulations, it would be the commission that should waive the regulations.

Um the other thing here is like I said, I'd have to look at all these changes and say, I'm gonna go to city council and say, I want you to delete 14 pages of zoning ordinance information and submit it and we're place it with five or six, basically a page and a half of stuff.

And so a lot of it seems to be transferring.

I can't figure out this is a transfer of stuff that we do at the planning commission.

I haven't figured that out yet to the DPR.

But the reason that the planning commission deals with it is that generally there are three things.

One, the commission and zoning board deals with things because they are appointed by elected officials.

Two, they have public comment as a requirement.

So the public has direct input, these people are ahead of accountable to public officials who are elected.

DBR consists of some of them are appointees of elected officials, some of them are civil servants, and therefore there's a less direct accountability to elected officials.

So unless state law requires me to transfer all that jurisdiction over, I'm probably not going to do it.

And second, asking the city council to do this, a complete rewrite will get their attention of this nature.

This isn't some simple change.

This isn't mandated by state law to the best of my knowledge.

You want to make changes that conform with state law that require it, no problem.

Um, but that's my initial, and I haven't had a time to look through all the state law.

So, like I said, I just reviewed it the first time today.

Um second, so I'm just gonna say this is consistent with what is in state law.

Is it required?

And is it required, Mr.

Boogerman?

DPR in itself isn't required.

Right, right.

But the book that's what I'm saying.

All I care about is what is required.

So what Jonas is saying is the that some of the changes are required, but we could choose to go farther and eliminate DPR, but we find it to be a useful process.

No, the DPR would not be, I'm not talking about eliminating DPD committee.

What I'm saying is for you to change how the committee is its current jurisdiction and what it does, you'd have to demonstrate changing.

You would have to demonstrate to me that is required by state law.

You know, maybe I'm assuming demonstrate is that I first time I'm reviewing this, looking at state laws, I'm looking at this quick.

Yeah, no, I mean, maybe regarding the the DPR subdivision switch, that might be a separate workshop that we can do.

And and and the reason why, and um is it's it's it's actually very complicated whether you go before, and I don't even understand it, whether you go before a technical review committee or development plan review, and what you do and when you do it.

Um, while what the changes that donus that we made here comply with state law, it might again that's a process question that again, given the priorities of the comprehensive plan and the I'll call it draft zoning uh updates number one.

Um, that I I really I mean we need to do.

Um, you know, maybe that might be another special meeting um where we can sit down and and see the interaction between the subdivision regulations and DPR, and again, and Jonas is correct how it's was in our zoning code, and it really should be in our um our subdivision regulations.

But again, given the bulk of items that we have to send to the city council, you know, again, uh it's not gonna be a lot of these changes go back, have gone back and forth over the last 24 months.

It's not gonna be the end of the world whether this be is package number two that gets submitted um in October or November.

Yeah, but that you know that's up to you guys, right?

Um it's it there, it's not an easy fix.

It's a little bit easier for Cranson because we had development plan review.

Some towns didn't have DPR or technical review committee, and the state mandates those avenues in certain development circumstances, and there are other towns that don't have the ability to even comply with one of those.

So at least we have the infrastructure set up with with our current development plan review, um, where the the projects aren't getting held up.

I mean, they're they're going through the process now.

Um, but again, it's up to the board, you know, whether you guys want to move this one to maybe a September meeting, not around the holiday.

Yeah, this is not around, you know, people going back to school or not going back to school.

I mean, it's up to my colleagues as well.

But to me, this is not a priority, and unless I have to do it because of a state law change.

Um, it's kind of like, okay, we can get to at the end of the year.

We actually kind of comply with state law by our old ordinance because of development plan review.

Okay.

We're covering the basis, not correct.

I agree with not to the letter of the law.

We really do need to change it to keep everything flowing through the subdivision regulations, which is really where it belongs.

Um, but okay, maybe a battle for another day.

Well, this was gonna say it's this was the first time, like I said, the first time I've seen this, and it seems like a pretty dramatic change to go sent to the city council.

So to me, I'd rather send the comp plan first to the city council, and this goes later.

So this is this is not scheduled to um yeah, this was not our this this was no for September 2nd.

This is the company plan.

We would be looking more at October or potentially even later.

We understand this is what this is just to introduce this so we can start having these discussions.

All right.

I'm gonna educate myself on this thing, uh, so I understand it better.

Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you.

May I make a request?

Um we revised the subdivision regulations last to comply with state law.

You were kind enough to put uh after each section where there were changes made, a parenthetical that said required by state law.

Yeah, we can do that same table.

Not and that would be very helpful when we do our review.

And we can do that with the references to the specific state laws that prompted the changes.

Although we are, you know, we are in complying with state law, we're working to make our process work.

So I I no, I understand.

I also wanted to see I don't I don't want to be limited to uh only being as good as the state law.

We could we could make our processes a little bit easier to understand.

It would just help if they were identified so that you know there may be some things I would argue about, but if I see that it's state law, I don't I'm not gonna be successful because it has to be.

So it might eliminate some of that, but it would also I think head off some of the questions.

Um, and the other um request I would make is I know with some of the comp plan elements in the um before we adopted that, they were sent to the commissioners in word format.

I'm not sure if I had to make a specific request and they were sent to me that way, or if it was um, but if if draft ordinances and draft elements of the comp plan could be sent to us, we don't always get them that far in advance.

And in order to prepare something for a meeting, it would be really helpful if it was in that format so that we could if if need be draft an amendment to be ready to pass out to um fellow commissioners on the day of the vote.

Yeah, we can accommodate that.

And I did want to state so for these subdivision regulations.

I did add a table that had that is in line with that.

I am still working on it for the the zoning ordinance.

It's just that table was a bit more complicated.

So and currently we we we do have a lot going on, so I I don't have that ready quite yet, but I can have that ready for um uh uh yeah, it is ready for the subdivision ranks.

The subdivision ranks are the one part we have to hold a public hearing on, and the earliest we could choose to do that would be October, but that's at the discretion of the you guys.

Like I said, we'll we'll get through September's meeting and then we'll see where we stand in this comp plan.

Um but it's it's just good to have these things out there for people to take a look at right again circle tonight.

It gets me to review the the development review committee detail more.

Um the other part of the zoning ordinance, I call it part A, which is basically changes to can be consistent with state law.

There's a couple of places where you go beyond state law, and I'll just talk about that right now.

Um first I'll start with just saying, yes, changing the definitions to match state law, fine.

Sometimes you can just do it by citing the statute, but I understand uh solicitor Marcelo's point, it's it's easier for uh staff to maybe see the exact wording.

I just want the exact wording used, unless there's ambiguity and we think we have discretion, fine, but otherwise just use the language so that we don't have too much of a difference.

Unless there's ambiguity and we think we have discretion, fine, but otherwise just use the language so that we don't have too much of a difference, but where we have a difference of opinions on, like for example, like this ADU is a new policy.

So when the zoning ordinance that you propose, and we've talked about this before.

Um, and I've expressed to you my um non-support for having ADUs in all residential zones.

Uh that's in this ordinance.

That's not required by state law.

It's required in the sense of you have to allow ADUs in 20,000 square foot lots, you have to allow it in places where the person can build within their footprint or envelope, whatever the phrase is used.

So that I understand, but you seem to go beyond that.

And to me, like I used to live in the Eden Park, so I used to live on a four, you know, this these lots in this area, some of our city, our community is pretty small, it's 4,500 feet.

There's really no room for an ADU, or it's it's it's difficult.

And so I don't want to create a confusion that people think they can put an ADU there, and then we have a whole problem about it.

And then you know, in the city of Cranston, we allow by ordinance, you know, for family members.

So if people have a family member and they want to have an ADU, they can do so.

People want to do an ADU otherwise, they can ask for various so Stevie Go ahead.

You're saying uh section E of the ADUs, Jonas.

Can you go down?

Uh I think you should just pass it.

That's it.

Uh section uh of the ADU section.

Oh, that's yeah, keep going down section F.

Yeah, no, yeah, but oh section, which number?

I'm looking at 20.00.

2020, 17.

So shall we permit it in all residential districts?

It's basically just cite the state law.

This is where you're allowed to do it under these circumstances.

That's all it is 20,000 square foot and within the footprint, blah blah blah.

So that that doesn't create a confusion that we're permitting it in all circumstances in all zoning districts.

Correct.

And the reason why we did that um I understood that.

Um, and more importantly, it if if it does change, then um we don't have to keep changing this every six months.

I yeah, so you would to me is like you cite the state laws.

Okay, so let me see if I'm reading this, and again, I apologize.

I'm reading this very quickly, Steve.

No, uh you know, this because I'm looking at an accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of blah blah blah, which is those three state laws.

I get it, yep.

And then it has section blink blink blank.

Shall we permitted use in all zoning districts?

So my concern is the F may be too broadly written, so someone could interpret it to be all permitted uses in a residential zoning district.

If your F section is too broadly written, Steve, people could say, I I don't meet one or two, but I meet F and therefore I'm allowed into it.

They have what the one and two, the state laws constrain the definition of F.

So if you're going to put F, it has to be they conform with those state laws.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Okay.

So and I could, you know, I could go really on and on about it.

But to me, I have I understand complying with state law, but I don't want us to inadvertently go beyond state law on ADUs, Steve.

Go to F.

Yep.

If you go to F it actually then, yep.

So F mirrors F one does.

Okay, keep going.

Yeah, and then you keep going.

Blah blah blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Is that all in the state law?

So that exactly the 60 percent cut.

So that all that underlined is all state law.

Okay, and that changes.

So go back up, Jonas.

So we used to have the 600, the 400, and yeah, go back down.

And now that the ADU that changes because it's it's 900 or 1200 or 60 percent of your so number two mirror state law, keep going.

Keep going.

Number three, mirror state law.

Four mirror state law.

Yep.

Um, we got rid of five and six, but seven primary structure, mirror state law.

Tell Matt.

And I don't know if we need seven.

That's uh part of alert.

I think that's in state law, by the way.

Yeah, that is that is all you have to think about.

Keep going down.

I just want to see some eight is all right.

What I'll do, Steve.

So I don't want to go labor is I'm gonna look at this with you.

All right, yep, and make sure this we're not going what I'm saying to you is your uh as our solicitor.

I want to follow, but I do not want to inadvertently go beyond state law, and then someone starts screaming at the city council about what we did.

Yep, okay.

That we didn't know what they were doing.

Agreed.

Uh I'll I'll yeah eight ADUs I know.

Okay, I agree with you with it.

Um we're on the same page.

Okay, I and then believe we mirrored it, but we can take the time to do it.

And the last one is you go to I.

It's about parking on ADUs.

So the parking is, I believe.

Go back up, go back up that it's discretionary.

Yeah, this discretionary.

I think it's supposed to be one parking spot at least.

We cannot require more than one parking spot per unit.

Correct.

So this allows us to go below the one.

This is a discretion.

So this I haven't changed the table.

So this below is a discretionary change that we're proposing.

This is specifically if only would qualify if someone had an elderly or disabled family member, then we could put in a section that could ask for an exemption.

Okay, so this would be a not a right, this would be a request for a waiver, and it would be for family members and disabilities only.

And then the purpose would be to not pave the whole yard.

No, no, I I get that.

I just want to have it written that it is an exemption, but again, to even get to this stage, you need to still do the whole thing when you like submit some okay, like an affidavit thing.

Like I said, yeah, I'm reading this very quickly, and I apologize that I usually what it would happen is I'd call Steve ahead of time and go through it with him.

So I had to waste anyone's time for about 20 minutes about this, but that's what it is.

Um, I think okay, we'll talk some more about it, but other than I like I said, Steve, I'm gonna let you finish talking the computer.

Oh no problem.

Is this my whole thing?

I'll talk to you offline.

I just want to make sure that we are going to state law, but not beyond.

No one agrees with you more than me, Steve.

Okay, we can we can start um okay.

We can certainly make sure I'm doing that.

Any other comments or questions for my fellow colleagues on this one?

Okay, all right.

Unless okay, if you don't mind, I knew you'd want to talk.

Uh okay, we're gonna do we're gonna we're gonna do public comment, Mr.

Murray.

No, I really don't I have a lot of comments, but not tonight's not tonight.

Not voting on this tonight, and and you're can you just from my benefit, explain to me what your anticipation is for next Tuesday.

Not voting on this because the docket hasn't I I understand that, but the docket hasn't been posted yet.

I know there was an ad in the Herald, but but it's not the zoning ordinances, but yeah, as it relates to the comp just in terms of preparation to comment next week.

Can somebody oh I'm sure so explain to me what you anticipate my my anticipation will look like and what your right well, what I anticipating is the comp plan amendments, the comp plan and any amendments to it, like the housing thing.

I do not anticipate and I do not want the zoning ordinance on the agenda, okay, because it's too much already.

We're gonna have Bond Lane next Tuesday.

Oh, yes, and then we have Knightsville, and so we're gonna have the comp plan, and that I don't want to do zoning.

Is that sufficient clarity for you?

Yeah, uh or subdivision regulations.

I got it.

Okay.

And my last just a commercial is you have many meetings to go to.

I just want to for the record say that tomorrow evening at 6 p.m.

at the St.

Mary's Feast Society Hall, there will be a um housing project presented to the community.

Uh the I believe the planet commission members received an invitation.

City council members have a lot going on tomorrow night with the city council, but uh I just want to mention if anyone's interested, it's an exciting proposal for Knightsville, and uh you're all welcome to attend.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

Thank you.

All right.

Um any quick public comment.

I'm telling you, you're gonna get another chance to talk about this at nauseum if you want.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Lima, is there anybody on thank you?

All right.

If there's anything else people have.

Okay.

We're gonna go to the next item on the agenda, which is subdivision regulations.

Again, there's a bunch of changes here, Steve.

Um, this is to the city solicitor.

So these these I haven't gotten to yet.

So okay, all right.

So we haven't because he hasn't reviewed it.

Yeah, I do not really want to talk about it right now.

There's a lot here.

The only thing I'll tell the staff right now is I would like to make one clear change is that when we have um in our regulations, I want to make it clear that we provide public hearings when there's a preliminary plan.

Okay, state law does not prevent us from having public hearings in a preliminary plan, and uh it requires us to provide notice.

Our subdivisions reflect that we provide notice.

I want to make it clear we provide hearings as well, so that we don't have this issue coming up periodically.

Um that's we've had in um other applications.

So that's the one thing I can just tell you right off the bat.

Um looking at this, there's a lot going on, and I was gonna say I need the solicitor to review it first, and then we they'll save everyone a lot of time just doing that process.

I understand thank you for putting this in front of me.

Um because I go look at it, and yeah, have all the members look at it too and provide comments directly back to Beth and Jonas.

Right.

And you know, and and whomever.

Okay, does anyone took the time to read those 100 or whatever pages and want to people want to talk about right now?

Oh, I know you do.

You want to have more public comment, Bob?

He was driving around with it in his car and he waved it at me, like what you made me do.

Commissioner Fryas, yeah.

Um so for the um the the zoning ordinance definitely has more discretionary items, I would say, than the subdivision regulations.

Uh, when it comes to the subdivision regulations, a lot of the stuff that's in there is just straight taken from the state law.

Um, there are some items that we have integrated.

Um but might need to be reviewed again at some point.

Um of those being the uh attached single family units where it is required that we integrate them, but we still don't really know how best to handle them because the state law this is something that's brand new to us in the state law pretty broad when it comes to them.

So we we we I wrote a section in there that I think hopefully best addresses it because again, it's discretionary, it's something that can be reviewed again.

And I was gonna say, uh Mr.

Bogman is like Commissioner Lamphrear suggested, like it's really helpful if you can do an index like of like what's required by state law, what's a new thing?

Um so that we can kind of know where we can yeah, I understand that's on the website.

That's yeah, like that kind of a thing, exactly.

Yes, so that we we can go through it.

Um, but I'd like to solicitor to look at it, make sure that we are um not going beyond state law, but where we are, we know exactly you know how we're going beyond state law, and we understand why.

I know like the notice thing with the mail, for example, is something that's not required by state law, but it's a positive for people who want to ask for changes.

Um, and um do stuff with their or the property.

Okay, um, is there anything else from anyone else about this?

Because I told told everybody I try to get out of here by 8:30.

Nothing okay.

Anyone have public comment on this?

Mr.

Lima, anybody online have public comment on this?

Yeah, there is no public comment.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lima is required by his contract to say the phrase there is no public comment here when there's nobody online, obviously.

Thank you, Mr.

Lima.

But anyway, um, anything else from the staff or other stuff?

I know you guys have a long week ahead of you uh to try to get ready for Tuesday.

Yeah, we just welcome any comments or if you'd rather call us or email.

We will take comments and any form that it's appropriate you find most convenient.

Exactly.

So everyone has the right to make public comment at the hearing, everybody has the right to make written comments and probably want to make a phone call, whatever it is, we take that into account.

Um right.

That's about it.

Is there anything else from anyone else?

All right.

If there's not, and if it's okay with the city solicitor and my vice chairman, you guys okay with adjourning?

I knew he would okay.

Motion adjourned by Coop, second by Carrero.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All right, eyes have it.

See you next week.