I'll call the meeting to order.

First item in the agenda is approval of the minutes.

So first we have the August fifth, twenty twenty-five minutes.

I believe Commissioner Lampier, you handed out some proposed edits.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

President.

Um a proposed amendment at the bottom of page five and continuing to page six.

Um it was with regard to my comments.

Um and I changed it to read Commissioner Lanfier reminded the public that the master plan stage doesn't require addressing every possible concern.

She said that proof of access is a primary concern for which the applicant bears the burden of proof.

She asked that the applicant provide probative and reliable evidence regarding right of way ownership well in advance of the next meeting to afford the commission adequate opportunity to review the information.

Seconded by Mr.

Barberi.

All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Okay.

All those opposed?

Ayes have it.

And now for the minutes as amended.

Seeing none, now it'd be the time for a motion.

Motion made by Commissioner Renzuli for approval of the amended minutes seconded by Commissioner Exter.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed saying.

Next on the agenda agenda is appointment of administrative officer, planning technician, James Ray.

Uh Director Ashman, uh could you just uh explain what this is?

I uh sure.

So each member of the planning department's staff is appointed as an administrative officer, which gives them the authority to carry out their duties.

Um after being appointed, Jay James will be able to sign his own recommendations to the commission.

And okay, Mr.

Ray was uh hired by the uh recently hired, he's the plan technician.

So um is there any further discussion?

Otherwise, we can make a motion to approve.

So move uh moved by uh director Corrello, seconded by Commissioner Coop.

Uh all those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Congratulations, Mr.

Ray.

Welcome to Cranston.

And uh you've you've been enjoying these meetings, I assume, and taking minutes of it.

All right, next update on parks and rec.

So this is I believe uh director Pisca.

I'm gonna mispronounce your name.

Piscapello.

Oh, yes, okay.

Um this is really in relation to the comprehensive plan, but we're just doing it separately because you're a director.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

President, members of the commission.

Uh, thank you for the opportunity to come here tonight and and just uh state my uh case in regards to the comprehensive plan after reviewing it.

Um I feel as though with the with the help of uh athletic director that Mike Traffic can't be that we have a glaring um omission on this uh plan.

Um as a second largest city in the in the state of Rhode Island, one of the things that we don't have is a multi-purpose indoor facility.

Um during COVID, uh we did some research and uh how to use opera funds, and it was glaring that one of the things that kept on coming out of the uh out of the responses was that we didn't have a facility that would meet the needs of the residents of the city of Cranston.

Um if you look at other municipalities, they do have indoor facilities that are quite smaller than Cranston.

Um, we have to uh go into the winter months and in training for the the residents and uh the organizations, a lot of these people have to travel to areas outside the city, which include uh North Kingston, uh Quantet Point, Tiverton, North Smithfield, and even further in Northborough, uh Massachusetts.

So this is something that has been talked about for some time, and um I think it should be added to the comprehensive plan because of all the uh the particulars that would be added to the community.

Um and we can we can make sure that our residents have an opportunity to use a facility quite like this, and to make sure that we don't have to travel as much as our uh peers do in other communities.

Um facility like this would be obviously accessible to the handicap, which is important.

A lot of the older facilities do not have that option or not capable of that.

Um this is um a need that should be, if anything, on this report in this plan, and um down the road, if we do come into some funding that uh could potentially do that or acquire land or use uh a facility that's already in the works.

I think it's something that would be beneficial to the community.

So I hope you would uh consider this.

I think it's uh long overdue.

Again, uh municipalities and and not um begrudging them, but Johnston, uh Providence, they they have multi-use facilities already, and I think it's time that Franston uh joins the the fund for the residents.

Thank you, director.

Um thank you for coming in and giving us your comments.

Um, unless someone has a question for the director, we I believe you submitted uh paperwork and um comments to be included in the comprehensive plan to the director, correct?

I did that.

Um I also added uh some parks and facilities that were omitted from the the original plan.

Thank you.

I think it was very important because it was a very, very small list compared to the 36 top parks, 18 basketball courts, 22 tennis courts.

A lot of that was omitted, so now it's part of the part of the plan itself.

Thank you very much, director, for taking the time to do that.

Okay.

Um next is the comprehensive plan amendments public hearing.

So before I take public comment, let me just explain what this is all about.

So, and I'm I'm not going to make a long story, but I want to be a thorough story.

In 2023, a state law was passed that stated that unless we had a locally approved comprehensive plan, we could not deny an application.

We had our comprehensive plan at the time had expired for a number of years.

As a result, we went very quickly and adopted a comprehensive plan at the local level.

That process, phase one was completed at the end of September, beginning of October of 2024.

It was my thought that this plan would then be submitted to the state for their approval.

I'd subsequently learned that Director Pizzulo decided not to submit it to the state, that he was going to wait till the end of our second phase of the comprehensive plan review to do so.

Certainly did not consult with me.

Um first I became aware of it was at the end of June of this year.

And to the credit of my colleague to the right, Commissioner Lamfier, she pointed out to me a couple of months earlier, like on the website, it had not shown that it had been submitted.

Um we need to get a plan submitted to the state.

Um, why are we doing it right now at this stage versus what was originally thought trying to do it all at once at the end of next year?

And the reason I contacted the director at the end of June.

The reason is that the General Assembly passed a law which indicated that in order to you have five reasons in order to reject an affordable housing comprehensive permit.

And one of those reasons is if you have an affordable housing plan approved by the state.

And that would be part of a comprehensive plan.

That state law takes effect January 1st of 2026.

So what I indicated to the director is that we need to submit our plan, update it with all technical changes, and we're going to need to revise our housing element to be consistent with the state's goals because in April, the state uh proposed what they called housing 2030, which set a goal of approximately 1,300 home uh houses in Cranston by 2030.

They have not yet finalized it.

So we have been working towards submitting a plan that incorporates that housing element to reflect the housing goals of the state by the end of the year.

The goal being we would approve it here, submit it to the city council for their review and for the mayor to approve or not approve, and then submit it to the state and get feedback.

I do this only because I feel an obligation to try to do everything I can to protect the residents and neighborhoods of this community.

That does not mean to be clear that we will not continue to make changes to the comprehensive plan in 2026.

We have other elements to revise, and we can make further elements on the housing.

But I felt that it was important for us to at least get this in as quickly as possible so that we have the full legal protections that we can possibly have.

With that said, originally I thought we would probably have a vote tonight on this.

The staff has not been able to complete all the work that's needed to be done to get a vote tonight.

So we're not having a vote tonight on this.

Second, we'll be taking public comment from all of you that will be incorporated into the into the draft.

I request uh make this clear, you can submit written comments to the staff.

We will review it and incorporate it, you know, to the extent we feel it's appropriate, with the goal of submitting it to the city council in October, which brings up the second point.

Originally, I tried to get it to the end of September to the city council.

As all of you probably are aware, um the city cult council went through a tumultuous phase last week and it's a bit of a transition.

So I felt that you know, instead of pushing this on to them this month, we can wait till October to present that to the city council.

And third, again, it gives you more time to give us public input.

We would have a vote in October to prevent provide it to the city council.

And this brings up another point.

And I'm sorry for this long discussion, but I just want to educate everybody and understand where I'm coming from.

I know that the director called me today about the Affordable Housing Commission or the Housing Commission.

So I know that a couple of their members showed up last week and they've been showing up the workshops.

They have the ability to submit comments anytime.

The housing commission has been inactive and not meeting since about a year and a half.

But if you want to submit comments, we will consider them.

I've also told the director, if you guys want to come in individually or whatever it is to talk to the director to get an understanding of the plan to put in some more input, that's fine as well.

But the thing is I believe that we need to get a plan to the council in October so they can get this approved by the end of the year.

But I have to do what I can to try to um I felt in good faith, do what I can for the community.

And that's why I'm doing it.

So if people don't want to do it, that's that's I understand that, but I gotta do what I think is best.

Hopefully, my colleagues will agree with me, and we'll see what happens.

So sorry for that long introduction, but I just wanted to make clear to the public why this process is moving as quickly as it is on this chapter because of state law change, and because of the fact that it had not been originally submitted to the state.

So now would be the time for public comment.

If anybody wants to come up and make public comment on the comprehensive plan, please do so.

Hi again.

Annette Bourne, 51 Community Drive.

Um, thank you very much for your opening remarks.

Just need to add one more name here.

Sorry.

Um I have a printed copy for the staff too.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer remarks at this critical public hearing.

I'm here tonight to implore you to delay the vote on the city's comprehensive plan.

Glad to have heard Mr.

Fryas' remarks to allow planning staff to finish the appropriate research and outreach that is needed to achieve the excellent plan the city's residents deserve.

My remarks address the housing element in particular, but I am sure there are many observations to be made about the other 11 elements required.

Overall, it is unclear what the sudden rush is that we heard much about at last week's workshop.

Thanks again for explaining.

I suspected those, so I'm prepared.

The 2023 law, which made our existing plan outdated, was considered handled by the phase one plan passed in 2024.

And I heard Director Pizzulo at the time on several occasions say it would not be submitted to the state.

I was very clear about what that process was.

If the rush somehow pertains to the 2025 law that makes the city subject to comprehensive permits, then there is a misunderstanding of that law.

Effective January 1st, 2026, the rental exemption no longer applies to allow those qualifying municipalities to avoid taking comprehensive permits.

See page 17 of H 5801A.

The municipalities which can avoid comprehensive permits are those who have low and moderate income housing in excess of 10%, and who have an inclusionary zoning ordinance.

Cranston's low and moderate income housing inventory stands at 6.23% with a delta of 1,283 homes needed to get to 10%.

Reason number two, short-circuited public engagement that was promised and is needed on such important statement that guides the city for the next 20 years.

Workshops in wards three and one, none in wards two, four, five, and six.

Moreover, no input from any of the groups that serve residents' needs related to housing, transportation, energy, et cetera.

I would like to make a point here about the excellence of the two ward workshops that I attended.

The staff, including our municipal fellow, have put together compelling information about housing and affordability, as well as the public transportation and street safety at the public workshop for the proposed development at Mulligan's Island.

I saw a presentation on the connection between housing production and affordability, which I would want others to see in such a public engagement process.

Number three, no input from the housing commission, the city's own body.

But if you look at the action plan for the housing element, they are named as a party for action throughout the plan.

So the sitting members were not informed and/or consulted.

Fourth reason there's no math or specifics, how the strategies that are listed achieve the goals stated.

What is the acreage of the areas listed for the transit supportive neighborhood mixed use zone?

And how are the 100 units anticipated?

What are the city-owned parcels?

What density will be permitted, et cetera.

As someone who used to read and comment on these plans, um, those are questions that I would ask.

So I'm missing a page.

Oh my goodness.

So what I can tell you is that incomes in oh, in the housing affordability section, it does not really get into the incomes of uh Cranston residents.

So the median household income for a Cranston resident right now is about 87,000.

The median sales price in 2024 was 435,000, which would require a mortgage of about $3,646, which would mean an income of about 145,000.

Um current income of homeowners in Cranston is around 109,000, which means many Cranston homeowners wouldn't even be able to buy their own homes right now.

Renters are even worse off.

The 2024 Rhode Island Housing Rent Survey puts the average two-bedroom rent at $2,270, which would be affordable to an income of almost $91,000, yet the median renter income is $52,133, so nearly 40,000 short of what would be needed.

There is no mention of homelessness in the plan at all.

How can it be a housing plan if it avoids the critical needs of our city's most vulnerable?

Lastly, spending valuable time if this plan is spent is sent to statewide planning, they could be spent preparing a better plan, which takes larger cities upwards of two years, including public robust public engagement.

So once this plan goes to statewide planning, statewide planning has a time clock to get back to our staff.

That makes for a back and forth.

I know you are saying that you would start working on the other plan, but why would you be wasting valuable state employees' time reading a plan that you are already suggesting you would be updating?

So in my remarks at last week's workshop, I commented on the seemingly contradictory goals of maintaining what I would term a status quo using the emotionally charged words of density and character, while making several statements about opportunities for more housing development, having options for older adults to downsize and reaching housing 2030 goal of 237 permits per year.

If the city were to take a thoughtful look at the housing needs of its residents and workforce, we could take time to consider something like form-based code in order to have less of an impact on the visuals of physical characteristics, but that requires more time and public engagement and further discussion and calling on the input and expertise of our own housing commission.

While we certainly have a responsibility to our residents and workforce, we also have a role as the state's third and sometimes second largest city in that vein.

We can do better, we must do better.

Thank you.

Next, hello.

I live at 191 Wentworth Avenue.

I am part of ward one.

I want to thank the planning staff for hosting two wonderful stakeholder meetings in ward one and ward three.

I'm grateful that I got to be part of the ward one workshop.

It was excellent.

We had a wonderful turnout and like Annette echoed.

We had a lot of grateful residents.

They like to participate and may not have been able to make it to some of these events in one in three.

So I'm I'm hearing from them that they'd like a few more meetings.

And I'm happy to hear about our goals of meeting affordable development.

I guess I would just say that I reviewed some of the mapping, and I am going to be a little bit selfish because I'm a ward one resident.

We have a lot of wetland resources and coastal resources.

And what I would really be looking to see is to see maps projecting out 2030, 2050, 2070, reflecting the NOAA Atlas plus precipitation rates as they've increased.

Some of that flood mapping doesn't only include wetland resources, but it includes the existing stormwater system for the city.

And for a hundred year storm, we're projecting out anywhere from 8.94 to 11 inches on the high end.

And I just want to say, you know, I'm just overall concerned about that.

And then checking also the maps for the new FEMA maps.

They just issued new FEMA maps July 8th, 2025.

There's actually a website.

I'm happy to forward it over.

Sometimes it's hard to find on FEMA.

But I'm happy to forward it.

I'm also happy to forward my comments.

I'm sorry to sort of dump them on the planning commission tonight.

I'm happy to put them in writing and I appreciate that you're going to continue this.

And thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

Next.

We have a lot of people in our group who are interested in the comprehensive plan process, particularly in the housing part, but not exclusively.

And people by and large, the public doesn't understand what this is or what the different what choices and questions have to be confronted under the different chapters of it.

So doing robust public engagement, can't be satisfied by just having workshops where people come in and they're expected to opine on a subject area when they're not educated in that way.

So people have a little bit of like groundwork in order to be able to give meaningful input and understand the choices that are in front of the city because this plan is supposed to reflect their priorities and how can they even sort of participate in an informed way in that.

So I wanted to point out that although there have been these two workshops, the one in Ward One, again, you know, I appreciate the planning commission and all the work they did, but it only was meant to address like two or three sections of the plan.

So very limited so far.

And I also wanted to point out with respect to the housing commission that my understanding is that for much of the past year and a half, most or all of the seats on the commission were vacant.

So it's not as if there was a commission and it was on the commission that they didn't sort of come forward proactively and insert themselves into the process.

They need to be, first of all, there's been a problem that the commission hasn't been reconstituted and all the seats filled.

And that's been, you know, sort of going on and on.

Those seats need to be filled, and then the planning commission or the planning department needs to consult with them on the housing portions, as opposed to expecting them as individuals to kind of you know take it upon themselves.

So I guess I'm just here to say that I don't really understand whether it's necessary, like immediately to submit the plan to the state.

I thought that that was the plan a year ago and it didn't happen, and I think everybody was aware that it didn't happen a long time ago, and we were all confused.

So I don't really understand that, but I'm just here to say that there really needs to be much more public engagement, and I hope that happens before anything is submitted, if at all possible.

Thank you.

Next good evening.

We are a statewide housing policy advocacy organization.

Um, and I wanted to speak to a couple of the items that were listed in the material.

Um, number one being what I think is a misinterpretation of the 2025 law that was passed.

Um, the presence of an approved housing plan is not, in fact, a permissible reason for denial under a comprehensive permit application.

A municipality must also demonstrate that their decision was consistent with that plan and demonstrate that they have made adequate progress towards improving affordable housing if they were to make a denial.

So the simple presence of an approved plan would be uh inadequate reason.

And so for that reason, we think moving this forward at this point in time or in the immediate future actually does nothing uh to eliminate the fact that Cranston will be subject to comprehensive permit applications beginning on January 1st without the provision of almost 1,300 of uh affordable housing units.

Um the other thing I think I wanted to point out was some of the the language and the specific strategies that were pointed out, um might be evaluated against uh fair house might have serious fair housing implications because there do seem to be um discriminatory practices against a number of protected classes um protected by the state of Rhode Island in their fair housing law.

So I would suggest that you look at um bedroom size specifically in regards to female status.

So thank you so much.

And we are happy we do provide education and information as the previous speaker spoke about for the public.

So we're happy to provide education around affordable housing.

Thank you.

Next.

Good evening, Amy Raynone.

Um I'm uh 67 Valley Street in Cranston and a member of the uh cities housing commission.

Um I agree, I don't won't repeat things that you've already heard from Annette and Melina, but I um 100% agree with the testimony that they gave.

I have written testimony, which I'll leave.

Um, I don't know if I have enough for everybody.

Um, but to summarize that um, you know, with regard to this this question on timing, I would reiterate what you've we've heard already that the changes that were approved in 2025 would not exempt the city of Cranston from comprehensive permits if you adopt a comprehensive plan.

Um, and and if you interpret the legislation that way, then I would strongly urge you to seek legal advice on that because I have not spoken to anyone personally that has that same interpretation.

Um my reading of that statute, as with Annette and Melina is that the only way to be exempt from comprehensive permits after October after January 1st, 2026 is if you exceed 10%, which as Annette said requires about 1280 additional LMIH units in Cranston right now and have inclusionary zoning ordinance in place.

So if that's the urgency that is moving this process forward process forward right now, I would strongly urge you to get seek legal um interpretation on that.

Um, in addition, uh it was mentioned Annette touched on a few of the things that she thought were shortcomings of the proposed housing element with regard to the statutory requirements and the regulatory requirements, the statewide planning puts on these housing elements.

Um I would specifically drill down on a couple of them.

I agree with the points that she mentioned, but in addition to that, um I don't believe from my read of the proposed elements that they meet standards 5.4 or standards 5.5 in statewide planning's guidance.

5.4 requires an assessment of future housing needs, stating that the most basic assessment of future needs that must be completed is to determine how many units will be needed to house the future population, either at build up or at the end of the 2020 horizon.

I don't believe that that is anywhere in the current document.

Standard 5.5 requires plans to demonstrate how the mandated low and moderate income threshold will be met.

While the plan refers numerous times to the production targets in housing 2030, the unit production totals and the proposed housing element do not satisfy the requirements of law or statewide planning guidance.

That the plan includes strategies to achieve the 10% affordable housing goal.

Housing 2030 specifically states that achieving the five-year affordable goals alone should not be viewed as sufficient evidence that a municipality has met local affordable housing needs as described in the low and moderate income housing act.

It's not entirely clear to me in the table in the housing element, but it appears to propose the production of 1,365 market rate units and 205 LMIH units over five years.

As I mentioned, the current deficit in low and moderate income housing units in Cranston is about 1280, and that doesn't include the units that will be needed to keep up with anticipated market rate production over the life's plan over the plan's life.

If the city submit, as Annette mentioned, if the city submits a comprehensive plan update that does not meet the statutory or regulatory requirements, it could add up to a year to the approval process.

So I would strongly urge the commission to go back to the engagement process, um, have a robust community engagement process that meets the you know the guidelines that statewide planning generally looks for in this, and really look at the I have comments in the in what I handed to you.

I won't repeat them here in terms of the body of the plan and my thoughts on what the recommendations here are versus what I think the city needs right now, but I will leave that to your um consideration of the written comments.

But I strongly urge you to um go back to the go back to the drawing board on this one and try to get some more public input on some strategies that will really address the needs of all of the residents of of Cranston, including the extremely low-income residents, the renters, low-income families, and obviously the homeless.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

Next, uh, hello, I'm Sean.

Oh goodness, I'm Sean Sarah Petit from uh 260 Aqueduct Road.

Uh could you move the microphone closer to your mouth?

Sure, I was worried about it making horrible noises.

Is that better?

Okay, Sean Sarah Patif, 260 Aqueduct, uh, right down here on Word 2.

Um, I'd been saving a lot of uh comments and feedback on this for hopefully award two meeting, which uh didn't happen.

Um, but I wanted to come and make a few comments today.

This is not my first comp plan meeting.

I was uh really overwhelmingly involved with the Providence Comp Plan when I lived there and in Worcester when I lived in Worcester.

Um and I'm very familiar with what a comprehensive plan, especially a 20-year comprehensive plan uh looks like, including other historical examples.

And I I apologize that I missed your explanation when you came in.

I wasn't able to cut off work in time to hear it.

But from what I have understood from everybody else, um we're out of compliance with with some new laws that are coming through, and we're trying to hurry up and and meet some compliance.

But submitting a what is really a uh far from complete comprehensive plan does not bring us into compliance.

We're still out of compliance.

This is still a problem that we have to deal with.

Um I had a long list of comments, but I will skip most of them for brevity and and and lack of repeating myself.

But uh the document felt like an awful lot of sort of magical thinking.

There's not a lot of teeth.

Uh, generally a comprehensive plan is where we present these kinds of numbers where it's you know, ADUs were suggested, and I really love ADUs.

I was very active in the legislation about ADU statewide recently.

Um, but you know, how many homes can we expect to be created in in the city with ADUs?

How much developable land do we have?

You know, how much actual oomph is there?

It mentioned 20-something units, but that's not going to change anything for housing affordability.

And and the same goes for most of the aspects of this.

And it's not that I don't think that we could or do have the information on this.

The city has great staff and we have good people around.

Uh this is just this is the time and the place to bring them forward, and they they simply weren't there.

Um, and a lot of these ideas and stuff are usually fleshed out through a really long and sometimes exhausting public comment process.

And I understand that that can be burdensome, but it's it's important.

The different words have different things to put in, and a lot of people, as we've already heard, have very varying individual expertise.

Uh, and it's worth hearing.

You know, Providence just wrapped up theirs, and for good or bad, there were some really, really excellent and well-hashed out ideas in there, and some of them are already seeing plans.

We can see some of the accessory uh residential units above single floor commercial going up on reservoir and on Smith Street and things like that in Providence.

And we've got plenty of single-story commercial that would be a great spot for that to build you know real tangible housing units, and there's you know, that would have been a great thing to discuss at the Ward 2 meeting, because it's something that I'm interested in, but it didn't happen.

And and you know, maybe we'll be in trouble, and maybe it'll be tricky to deal with legislatively for a little while, but I think it's worth it to really sit down and hash this out properly and have a document that we can build something off of now.

Uh I don't think it's worth doing it twice.

It's a waste of the staff's time and everyone's money, and just I don't know, get it done properly.

So, anyway, thank you.

And hopefully there'll be more uh hearings in the future where I can give the the spiel I had intended.

Next.

Okay, thanks.

Good evening.

Um, Christina Brown, 217 Armington Street.

Um, I came before you last week.

Um I don't want to repeat everything that everybody else else has said, but I want to put on the record that I strongly support the speakers before me, and they're upset that this is being forced through, as you know from my testimony last week.

I'm also an appointed member of the housing commission, and I do feel like this is being rushed um unnecessarily.

There are so many elements to the plan, and I'm really unclear outside of the housing element, which has been up for discussion for the last week, how the other 11 chapters are going to be taken and what kind of public comment will be given on them as well.

But I think as I said last week, this is a this is a major plan for the city.

It should have the input of all the residents as a public engagement process should be represent every single ward.

Um, and while there are themes within it that represent good ideas of how the city can grow, at least for housing development, there is no detail or action plan to meet those goals, and it is far lower than what our housing development goals should be.

Um, like I said last week, there is a very real disconnect in what exists right now and and what I think we want in the future to keep the residents that we have in the city and to minimize displacement and to create equal opportunity for Cranston to really be a city for all ages and all stages of families to live here.

Um, and just looking at the demographic data again, the increase in um households that are owned with only one person living in them, and the decrease, the increase of larger households having to move into rental units, should should give some pause into how our housing stock is being used.

And like I said last week, we know that our housing uh sales price, the median home sales price stated in the plan that it was somewhere around 380.

In my neighborhood, there's a house for sale that's 780 right across from Edgewood Highlands.

This is a neighborhood that is it has been traditionally a family neighborhood.

That price is outrageous for any working family to own or buy that home.

And what we are seeing is Cranson residents leaving because of the increase in taxes and the inaccessibility to move from a rental unit to a home ownership unit, and for those homes to be bought by people who live and who really work elsewhere.

Um, it's a huge issue, and it should be taken into consideration throughout this plan.

I also want to note um, because I am very unclear of when the other elements will be discussed, things like water, sewer, infrastructure, and transportation.

These are all incredible, incredibly important issues that should have community input and expert input taken into account, particularly where transportation is concerned.

I'm a mother of two children, one who goes to Parkview, one who goes to Cranston East.

The fact that we don't have multimodal transportation on Park Avenue.

So it is safe for my children who participate in after school activities to get to and from our home while I'm at work all day, is a really big issue that increases traffic on Park Av, which all of us hate, everybody hates.

I can't tell you the amount of hours I spend on that road.

But these things should be taken into consideration in how we look at the infrastructure that we have and the transportation that we have.

Like I said, I'm sorry if those comments are out of place, but I'm at this point very unclear of when all of the elements of the plan will be taken into consideration.

I'll stop there.

Thank you for the time.

Next.

Okay.

That's it on public comment.

Mr.

Leem, is there anybody online who makes wants to make public comment on the comprehensive plan?

I've seen no public comment online.

Okay.

Um thank you very much for all being here for that.

We'll see where I suggest to you again to submit all your written comments to the staff.

And we will go forward.

And in regards to the legal opinion, I will be talking to the solicitor about the five section about this law and about the first part of that law, which says about an affordable housing plan production plan approved by the state in progress towards it.

And um we will go from there.

Uh Commissioner Winzoli.

Thank you, President.

Is it appropriate that we make a request to the city council to fill the vacant seats on the housing commission?

Because that's not my that's not our business, Commissioner.

Okay.

I mean, I I don't want to I don't want to get into like telling them what to do.

That you know what I'm saying?

So that's all.

Um that's we'll move on to the next topic again.

Thank you for all coming out tonight on the comprehensive plan.

Next, Vaughn Lane.

I will have the applicant come forward to uh discuss their request for a continuance um until October.

Hello, good evening, attorney Tanessa Azar, on behalf of the applicant.

Um as mentioned, we've asked for a request for this for an additional month, um, just to catch everyone up.

Um at the last meeting on October 5th, it was requested to get some additional information about the roads that access the site.

So the next day we engaged attorney Chris Montalbano at Pilgrim Title.

Um he's very well versed in this type of work, and we asked him for titles to the roadways.

Um, given the the history of this area, it's taking him a little bit longer to complete.

So we waited as long as we could and then realized it was not going to happen for this meeting.

And so, as it says in the request, we'd ask for a one-month continuance so that he can finish his work.

He anticipates that he will have the work finished by next meeting, and we'd be able to get it to you in advance of that meeting.

Um, I know we have the clock running for a decision.

We'd previously given you uh or consented to an extension of that into October.

Um, understandably, if you need a little bit more time for that, the applicant could grant some additional time there to give everyone breathing room in case something happens with a quorum or a meeting or any other number of things.

Who knows?

Um, we'd be happy to extend that out.

You know, if you want to do two months, whatever, whatever would make the the board comfortable.

And uh that's our request here tonight.

Okay, thank you, Attorney Azar.

I will now hear from the um the uh butter's attorney.

I assume he has a response, and I've read it the written response.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President uh Steven Slipole for some of the neighbors uh from the firm Gidley Sarley and Marusac in Providence.

Um you've you've received, I I hope my my written submission that was in later than I would have liked it to be, but it was in um last week.

And you know, we we've obviously objected to the continuance.

We would ask you to vote to uh deny it tonight.

This is like a broken record.

We are in here every month, hearing their excuses for why they don't have things done that should have been done before they filed their application.

And so this is again, we were told last time that they had definitive proof of of uh you know this this issue in their favor, and now of course we're hearing that they've needed to hire a new lawyer because obviously that proof wasn't quite so definitive.

So I'm not expecting the attorney, Mr.

Montobano, who I I know who he is, I know his reputation, and if it's taking him a long time to complete this, it's because this is a disaster of a situation over here, and there is no clear answer, and there is no clear and convincing evidence, and I don't think there is going to be to support their burden of proof that they need uh to widen Von Lane.

And so I I would ask you uh to to vote tonight.

This doesn't need to go on forever.

Uh and and I think at some point you've asked for this information multiple times and still don't have it, and that shouldn't be acceptable.

Um one question I want to clarify is exactly when it is that the time clock uh expires, because I was very disappointed earlier today to email your uh planning department and be told that they wouldn't answer that question for me, which is just absolutely baffling to me.

That is a piece of information that anyone on the planet should be able to call the planning department and find out.

So I would like to make sure we are all in agreement on on what that is, uh, because I you know, my I guess my my clients don't deserve an answer to that uh from your planning department, which is uh very very disappointing.

It's not the first time that they've been unable to tell us what the correct dates are, uh, which has been a disappointing problem from the beginning here uh with this project, among other issues which I outlined in my submission, uh, which uh you know my my clients feel like they have the planning department working against them and cheerleading for the uh developer, which uh no one appreciates and is not appropriate.

So if we could please uh all decide on when the time clock expires, uh that would be that would be great.

That is not uh information that should be difficult for me to uh be able to get.

Thank you, Mr.

Seipel.

Um I'll just I can ask the solicitor, I can ask the director, I can ask the assistant director.

I believe it's October 12th.

I that that is what I have.

I asked to confirm that, and I was told that.

I'm just want to get correct.

Um, so I get a conclusory question from um Mr.

Seipel's firm.

So um the way I left it was that right now would we would do this on the record in open forum in case there's any appeal.

That's the way um at least I've been taught to do it.

So right now it would be the applicant has agreed to an extension to October 12th.

However, you guys have the right to request an additional extension until an additional date, if the applicant certainly um wishes to agree to do that.

You have the right to do it, Mr.

Seipel, as asked.

You could approve it or deny it tonight.

Okay, right?

Thank you.

Or you know, you can also um wait until October.

I'm assuming if the the documents have to come soon in order for me and you guys and Mr.

Seipole and everyone to review them.

So the longer it takes, you know, at some point, um, I do agree with the objectors that um you know the this commission has to make a decision one way or the other.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Marcello.

So I think we're all publicly in an agreement here.

It's October the 12th.

Um actually I should have asked this.

Anyone have any questions for Mr.

Seipel or Ms.

Bazar?

I sorry to not give that opportunity.

Otherwise, we can um Mr.

President, the last thing I would add is we we provided one new uh case.

It was, I believe it was called Anderson.

Yeah, it's East Crunch.

It was um it was, you know, when when you have a road, because we have no evidence here of any sort of formal acceptance of a 50-foot easement.

So what the case law tells us to do, if a road becomes if Vaughn Lane is a public road, it became a public road by the public using it as one.

And when that happens, you look to the structures and the historical monuments along the edge of the road to decide how long the community intended how wide the community intended that road to be.

And then in our case, in that case, the uh, you know, the person that brought the petition was disappointed because they said the fence is over here and it's wider than you want it to be.

But in our case, in uh in Vaughn Lane, we have you've we've all been there, and the houses and the stone wall, the garage.

There's carving, there are other things that are all built up right up to the edge of the road.

Historically, that is what has always been accepted as the public road is is what is there is the 13 feet that's paid.

So that uh, you know, that is that is our position and our you know, otherwise, I'm just gonna sound like a broken record because my my position is the same today as it was the first meeting I appeared at.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Sipel.

Now, um we've allowed public comment on this, as you know at every meeting.

I would if someone has public, I assume I'll phrase it this way.

If somebody has public comment about the continuance and is to the point.

Oh, we can allow it.

I just want this to move along quickly.

And I'm being very indulgent by giving all this public comment.

I know my colleagues are probably going, you don't have to do all this, but I just want to just to the point on the continuance.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, and thank you for that.

Um, Jessica Salter, sixth volume lane.

I know you've all heard from me before, and so I apologize for this, but this is regarding to the continuance.

Um, we understand that the request for the continuance was submitted by the developer.

We appreciate you taking the time to hear our position on that.

I know you've heard from me before.

I'll try not to cover anything that has been um covered in the past.

Um, but I do want to go over briefly a timeline of this this project because there have been many, many meetings at this point.

On May 21st, a presentation to the planning staff at the development plan review committee occurred, which included the official presentation by the master plan application.

That application, which was submitted on May 2nd, was signed by the property owner on January 6th.

At that meeting, members of the public noted on the record the existence of privately owned structures that lined Vaughn Lane.

This is reflected in the planning staff report submitted by Jonas Brugman with the following quote: there are concerns that the widening of the roadway will require the removal of privately owned structures such as sheds and stone walls, end quote.

Likewise, Cranston's public works director, had the following comments also reflected in the planning staff's report submitted by Jonas.

Uh, quote, improvements will need to be made to Winnie Street and Vaughn Lane as the paved width of both streets is too narrow for emergency vehicles to access the site, end quote.

The public works director also recommended that quote the ser a survey of the right-of-way is done to catalog all encroachments and create a plan that permits appropriate access to the development while minimizing impacts to encroaching structures to the greatest extent possible.

End quote.

Finally, the recommended conditions for approval by the senior planner Jonas Brookman included the following as a requirement for master plan approval.

Quote, provision of a plan to widen the existing portions of Winnie Street and Vaughn Lane.

This plan shall list all encroachments and list any encroachments that require removal to assure two-way traffic, vehicle traffic, and emergency vehicle access, end quote.

On June 3rd, the planning commission met and the planning staff report regarding bond development was presented.

That report noted numerous concerns regarding entry points to the proposed development, as noted in my previous comments.

In addition to the report presented by the Cranston Senior Planner, many members of the public spoke at that time, calling out the inaccuracies of both the applicants' materials and some of the measurements used in the planning staff's report.

Members of the public also spoke to many other concerns, noting numerous times that privately owned structures exist in the area of suggested right-of-ways on both Vaughan and Winnie.

These structures were noted as garages, stone walls, and private homes.

Additionally, City Attorney Marcella noted at this meeting that there were quote legal title issues that need to be answered, end quote.

It was at this meeting that the public requested a site visit.

During their comments, both Commissioners Venzuli and Fryas requested a site visit be planned prior to the next planning commission meeting, which was scheduled for July 1st.

We, the community, reached out to the planning staff later that week to follow up on planning the site visit.

Despite numerous efforts to contact the staff, it took two weeks to receive a response that they would be reaching out to the developer to schedule the site visit.

It was eventually scheduled for July 17th, as you know, two weeks after the planning commission meeting that was it was requested to precede.

This effectively ensured a continuance to the August 5th meeting, giving the developer yet another month to complete the work that was asked of them.

At the July planning commission meeting, prior to granting the continuance to August, Commissioner Fryas requested that by the August meeting, the developer provide answers, quote, addressing stormwater and drainage issues, end quote, as well as access to utilities above the Providence Water Easement.

At that time, President Fryas, when addressing the upcoming site visit, requested that there be quote, stakes in the ground, and quote, showing the alleged encroachments.

At the site visit, the access issue was again discussed at great length, which you know, with reassurances from the developer that I promise you no buildings or structures will be touched.

We now officially know, as we all knew then, that was untrue.

At our most recent August planning commission meeting, the developer submitted such last-minute materials that you, the planning commission, suggested a continuance.

In the conversation about that continuance, President Fryas asked the developer to quote, address in writing the conditions submitted by a butters by the September meeting.

I can only assume those responses are not available tonight either.

To date, this project has been granted three continuances and one extension.

There can be no argument that the developer that they have not had enough time to address the issues that you have consistently asked them to address.

The neighbors have supplied materials in a timely manner.

We have offered answers to questions that the developer has avoided or not bothered to answer, and even offered physical representation of the alleged right of way because the developer did not.

We, the community members, have shown up month after month and offered 100% effort.

We have done that despite the fact that we do not carry the burden of proof to do so in this instance.

The issue of private property versus an alleged city right of way was first brought to the developer's attention in May.

Yet by their own admission, they waited until August to hire a title search attorney.

The attorney that now has had a month to perform that service.

There is no fair scenario where the developer should be granted additional time to do the things that they should have done before they ever submitted this application.

If the community performed with the same lack of action, you would no longer be considering our arguments.

We ask that you apply that same logic to the developer's application and deny it tonight.

The community members continue to bear a financial burden in utilizing legal counsel to protect their own ownership in this neighborhood.

So in summary, the list of items requested by the developer by all of you include create a plan that creates appropriate access to the development.

This has not been done.

Offer provision of a plan to widen the existing portions of Winnie Street and Vaughn that list all encroachments and list encroachments that were that show the removal to assure access to a vehicle and be emergency vehicle, this has not been done.

Provide answers addressing stormwater and drainage issues by the August meeting, this was not done.

Provide more detail regarding access to utilities above the Providence water easement by the August meeting, this was not done.

Show stakes in the ground, showing the alleged encroachments at the site visit in July, this was not done.

I could go on and on listing the items I referenced in my previous remarks and many more, but you get the point.

At this point, we can only assume there's no good faith intent by the developer to fulfill the ongoing questions, respect your time, and respond to your very specific concerns.

It has been 105 days since this project was first presented to the city, 112 days since this application received a certificate of completeness, 123 days since this application was submitted, and 239 days since the application was complete and signed by the owner applicant.

How much time is too much?

And lastly, on a completely different note, if the planning commission determines that the developer can widen bond and or winny, what does that process look like?

Who will be responsible for the demolition of the properties in question?

Will there be any compensation offered to property owners in exchange for that?

And if so, what fund from the city will that be pulled from?

I'm unsure of who answers these questions or when or how, but they're questions that have come up regularly in our community meetings that I offered to bring them forward officially for consideration.

We know you're tired of addressing the same issues month after month.

We are too.

We really, really are.

We have so much things that we would rather do than this.

But we thank you for your time and your ongoing commitment to considering the impact to this community, and we ask that you deny this tonight.

Okay.

I was gonna say, I think that Ms.

Salter pretty comprehensively provided a response for the community.

If um that's okay, we can all right.

I hope everybody online is nobody needs to between the attorney and Ms.

Salter.

I think you covered everything for the continuance.

So anybody would really need public comment.

There's no public comment online.

Thank you.

All right, we'll go to the commissioners uh talk about this.

I'll open the floor up to the commissioners and how they want to how you know, so it doesn't look like I'm just doing all the talking.

Um somebody want to say something, how they want to view this and comments, opinion.

Okay, Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um as you know, in in previous meetings, um, when the issue of a continuance was first raised by the applicant, um, it was my suggestion that they should waive their right to a hearing within 90 days.

Um, and the reason for that was to afford the commission the opportunity to have adequate time to consider issues, uh, review evidence, and make sure that we had time to do our due diligence before making a decision.

As we all know on several occasions over several months, as Ms.

Salter um very eloquently um described, issues have come up where either the commission wanted more time, or the applicant has asked for more time.

We're now at a point where um I expect we almost have an answer to the question that the commission and um even members of the public have been asking with regard to um access and ownership.

I still feel that if the applicant wants a continuance, they should waive their right to that 90 days and be at the um allow the commission to in still in a prompt and fair and timely way, decide, but not put the commission in a position where we may get very complex information three days before a deadline, and then be constrained in trying to investigate and give our full attention and time, um, which this deserves for both the applicant and everyone else in the community.

So I feel we are far enough along that it would behoove us to get the answer or not get the answer to the question that is important and is the applicant's burden to demonstrate with regard to access.

Um the applicant should waive it and there be no deadline except as the commission schedules meetings in an appropriate way to finally come to a decision, isn't because I'm trying to afford the applicant more and more time or delay a decision, or put the abutters and those who are in the community and interested in this through coming in time and time again.

It's so that we can address it in a time in a way that allows us to look at the evidence to take time, reflect on it, and not have to make a decision 48 hours after information is posted on a website.

Um that being said, um grudgingly, I think that we should grant a continuance and allow that information to be provided or allow in whatever the information may be, it may satisfy the applicant's burden, it may not satisfy the applicant's burden, but I do think that it is um more appropriate and reasoned for the commission to have that information than to make a decision without it.

Um I would also say that I don't think the commission should be put in a position again of being the entity that requires when asks for a continuance.

Um because the reason for that is that we have not received the information in a timely manner for us to make an informed decision.

So I would suggest that at a minimum this be well, my preference is that we do it and and require the applicant to waive their right to a hearing within the 90 days and that no longer be um a drop dead date on that.

I know that's probably the more extreme um end of it, but I think that at this point we have every right to require that.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Anyone else have a comment at this point?

Commissioner Coop then Director Carrera.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I'm gonna actually go a little one step farther than Commissioner Lanfier.

I don't want to vote without knowing the answer to this question.

I I I wouldn't feel like I was upholding my responsibility to cast a yes or no vote without knowing the answer to what I think is the most important question in front of us right now.

So I just wouldn't feel comfortable saying approve or deny without knowing what the answer is.

Um I understand Commissioner Lanfier's point about waiv the um deadline, but I think a one month further extension would meet that goal, simply because if we get another month down the road and we're not happy, it's still our prerogative to vote to deny.

So having a one-month extension does not put us in a position where we would end up approving this by default.

If we don't have the information, if we're if there's not anything responsive, we can always just vote to deny.

So I think that holds our feet to the fire as well as the applicants.

Director Carrero.

Yeah, and and I vote for a continuance for a couple of different reasons, and it's pretty much because of my own selfish needs.

We have over 300 miles of roadway in the city of Cranston.

Every one of those is within a right of way.

If their definition of what they're saying is that it only becomes a public road by public use, to me, that would mean anything outside the curbing of a roadway.

If people don't walk on the side of the road, that is going to be the right of way.

And I'd be curious to see what that really means in a definition through the process that they're in the process of going through, is to have the attorney do this title search because of those 300 roads.

I'm not aware of any, and I've only been with the city a few years, but I've been doing engineering for 40 years.

A right of way is always a right of way.

That was a deeded portion of the land adjacent to what would be private property.

That's given to us in every single plaque that is ever recorded in the city of Cranston.

And if that is not correct, then I would like to know that because then we need to be looking at this totally different going forward with all the other roadways that we have in the city of Cranston that have a road on it.

Just because the roadway is less than what the right of way is, that does not mean everything outside the roadway is no longer part of that right of way, if that makes any sense.

So I would like to get a definition.

I would like to hear from the title attorney.

I would like to find out exactly what that means by definition of what a right of way is versus a roadway.

Anyone else?

Um we just start out this way.

Applicant has known about this issue for approximately two months, ever since Mr.

Stipal submitted his objection.

I'll phrase it that way.

And it has been an issue.

But I'm gonna say this to my colleagues, well, you know, a majority rule rule.

Um next month is it's it's it for me.

If you can't figure out if you got a right away after 90 days of this issue being around, and the reason I would agree to this 90 days, so I understand the attorney.

Mr.

Stipole's cases that he cited to us basically was the commissions in those cases asked for information, couldn't get it, kept getting extensions.

It was about four or five months in general from October from approximately beginning of June to October the 7th, that'd be four months at that point.

And this has been an issue.

And if you can't get it in get it in by that time, credible convincing evidence, excuse me, clear and convincing evidence, then there's a problem.

In regards to the, you know, and other things I've said before, which is you have to, you know, I wanted you to respond to the objection of the abutters for the conditions they wanted to impose.

You haven't done that yet.

So you'd have to do that as well.

You'd have to present evidence on the right of way for at least Winnie Street is your major problem.

Von Lane is more of um, I'll have to think about this some more between the his cases and what you presented.

But this is um so I'm okay with going to continuance to take Commissioner Lampier's point two point two points about what you said.

We need this a couple of weeks ahead of time so that we can evaluate and the abutters can see it and it's on the website.

If Mr.

Marcella has a suggestion or the staff has a suggestion as to when we would need this before the meeting, uh, please let me know.

Um we can say so now.

Um because it's really not fair to give me stuff the day of the hearing and expect me to evaluate it.

And so the commissioner's lampier's point, you know, even if we grant you the extension to October 7th, a continuous excuse me, October 7th, we would probably need any of the two months just in case you do this last minute thing, although just for safety purposes, like until December the 12th.

Um, but I don't see I'm telling you, like right now, this is kind of like either you have the evidence or you don't, October.

Um, and I understand your frustration.

If I'm gonna come out here every month to decide of the city.

Um I've been in court cases, and you just want the judge to make a decision, and the judge is thinking about appellate issues and due process and making sure it's done crop T's are crossed and I's are dotted.

Um I'm hearing from my colleagues.

This is a for example, so from the first meeting I said to you, this was a buy right.

So that takes a you know, to reject the buy right is a lot of things.

Um because this thing could be submitted to appeal.

Um, I just want to get all the evidence we can, and again, um give them the opportunity if they can't present it, then I think you know where I'm going based on what I've said before.

Um director, when would we want if have you consulted with the solicitor and what date we'd want those documents before the next meeting?

I would need them by September 25th.

Okay.

Would the the um Mrs.

R is that acceptable to you?

Good evening again.

Can I say Azar?

Um, yeah, that should work because our understanding was it was going to be two additional weeks.

So I think that would would fit if I just look at the calendar.

Um, I think that should work for everyone.

And did you want me to comment about um allowing more time for a decision?

I it seems like maybe there's some mixed opinions about if the clocks just turned off completely.

I'm not sure if if this was a transmission of it can be turned off completely.

Do you want me to give you like five months, something to make you comfortable?

I agree with you that you know, next month is kind of when you'd like to hear something, and it maybe won't be needed.

It would be, yeah.

I mean, to me October 7th, and then the deadline is October 12th is a problem, just in case something comes up, although I'll tell you you'd have to come up with a pretty big emergency for me not to make a decision in October.

Let's not tempt fate with anything that could happen in the world, maybe.

Um yeah, you know, um, but that's just me personally.

I don't know about my colleagues.

Um, but it's it's like what what do you have a date and then we can kind of like and just read the room and we can just make faces and kind of like is it work or not?

So what's your what's your suggestion?

Jordan, do you want to start well take us through the end of the year?

So, you know, I'm not sure when your your January meetings are probably not out for a schedule yet.

Um, so maybe to to mid-December to encompass the rest of the meetings of the year.

Yeah, I think it would be December 15th.

Something like that work for everybody, kind of.

No, and but so the people don't freak out.

I'm I want to explain something so people don't start freaking out.

And I uh the Commissioner Lamphier suggested an extension, possibly until December 15th.

Not that the commission would utilize it.

Huh?

No, I'm sorry, Commissioner Lamphier, if I characterize it correctly, I think you were open to a continuance, but you wanted no deadline.

For decision to be made, just to clarify, this is the board's decision clock, not the continuance of the meeting itself.

Right.

The continuance is until October 7th.

Is what we've asked for, yes.

Yeah, that is happening.

I think that is a majority towards that.

The question is on the commission having a deadline to make a decision to in order to a buffer in case something comes up until let's say mid December.

That's where we're talking about.

Not that the commission's going to take until mid December to do this.

But is that kind of like what we're talking about here?

My concern was that.

Well, let me back up.

My intention, and I think yours too, is that we would receive this information in a timely manner, perhaps by the September date that the planning director suggested.

And we would have adequate time to review and make a decision.

Should the information come to us late, and we don't have adequate opportunity to review it, we would run a foul of the requirement that we decide within that time period.

And if we ran a foul of that, then it would be considered a granting of approval to the applicant.

So I am not trying to push um push this any farther out than we need to, but I'm asking that there be a cushion should October 7th come.

And for some reason, we don't have what we needed.

Well, uh let me not say that.

What we have before us, we didn't get soon enough to do an adequate review and make a decision on.

That's why I'm looking for that cushion, so to speak, so that we don't find ourselves in violation of the time period that we have to make a decision in.

Yeah, so basically, so the public could understand, and I think you understand is Commissioner Lampier is looking for a little bit of cushion in case something comes up to review now.

September 25th, we would need the title search information, whatever you have, so that everyone can look at it and evaluate.

And I'd also want a response to the what I said, your response to the memo that the abutters submitted on conditions.

Um that kind of work for everybody here, more or less like September 25th and then December 15th, meaning September 25th is the deadline for submission of documents.

October 7th, you have the hearing.

And if there's a need to go to December 15th at the latest, uh, but like I said, I'm just telling the public right now and yourself.

I am probably going to be ready.

I'm gonna, I think I'll be ready to vote on October 7th, unless I don't know.

Totally understood from the applicant perspective.

Understood.

Okay.

Anyone else about Commissioner Vice Chairman Coop.

Oh, as I just want to make sure everyone, is anybody else have anything to say?

Commissioner Razzli.

Thank you.

I'd just also like to go on the record to say that I would like to vote on October 7th.

We have we have waited long enough, and I think that the residents have been patient, and I I understand their point that they have been providing information and we've been waiting on the developer.

So I'd like to vote October 7th.

Thank you.

Understood.

Then motion time.

I'll just know I will make a written request, excuse me, a written extension for your record tomorrow if the if it so passes today.

Correct.

For the December 15th.

Yep.

Okay.

Motion time.

Mr.

President, I make a motion to continue this matter to the October 7th meeting, subject to the applicant's agreement to extend the original 90-day deadline for decision until December 15th of this year.

And that they will submit documents.

And that documents requested will be submitted by September 25th.

Okay.

Is there a second to that motion?

Seconded by Commissioner Renzuli.

All right, is there any further discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

I those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Sorry, was not resolved today.

We'll see you next month.

Yeah, we're gonna have a five-minute recess so the Von Lane people can leave the room.

Thank you.

Okay, before we start on the Cranston Street project, uh solicitor reminded me that would probably behoove us out of abundance and caution to continue make a motion to continue the public hearing on Cranston comprehensive plan until October seventh.

So um just to continue the public hearing, and if we have a decision to make is there any credence to what they're saying as far as future public hearings on this?

I mean, uh is it defined, we need to say it just we don't find anything committee for that.

Don't get into the subject.

We should have done we should have continued.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Second.

Made by Commissioner Cook, second by Commissioner Zodallas.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

I have it.

I apologize to everybody.

Commission uh Director Ashman showed me a note while everything was going on.

I said talk to a solicitor, and then we had Bond Lane.

I got I apologize about that.

All right.

Um next on the agenda is Cranston Street zone change.

Um is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on this matter.

Uh Commissioner Exter will be recusing himself on this matter.

I'm here tonight on behalf of the owner and applicant of the petition to the city council to change the zone of the property at seventeen forty-six Cranston Street.

With me this evening is Scott Achito.

Scott's family with his grandfather uh has owned this property probably for 50 years.

Um, but with your permission, I'd just like to go through the specifics of the ordinance.

I know you have your planning staff recommendation, which uh has recommended uh to you to send a positive recommendation to the city council.

Uh there will be an ordinance committee meeting next Thursday, the 11th, which we will attend and make a formal presentation to the ordinance committee.

Uh prior to this evening, uh we did hold a neighborhood meeting last week.

The St.

Mary's Sea Society Hall.

Uh, this subject property is right across the street from the new E Tree Park, and uh we had a nice um compliment of uh neighbors, businessmen, some plan commission members stopped in briefly, elected officials, and so we had a very positive discussion, and I think uh in fairness, the project was uh well received.

Um both Richard and Scott spoke uh to the group that evening.

Um I know Jonas has uh last week we shared with the uh the public um kind of a you know a conceptual site plan, and I'm glad he labeled it as concept.

Uh we also shared uh some possible elevations of and uh renovations of what uh this could uh eventually uh detail.

Um Eric Zwayner of EDS uh design is uh the project architect, he's multi-talented in his group.

Uh Scott and Richard are working closely with them just for the benefit of the um the commissioner group camp to the border passing out just so they have it.

David's not saying it.

Um so this property um is as stated across the street from Etry Park, and uh it is Presley zone C5.

C5, as you know, under our zoning ordinance is for primary use of heavy business and industry.

Uh it fronts on Cranson Street and backs up to the to the bike path, and on the opposite side of the bike path uh is um a substantial industrial area.

I refer to as Calder Street, Macklin Street back there.

Um the ordinance has been submitted to the city council for considerations to rezone this property to C2, which is a neighborhood business zone, and uh C2 zone is on the map before you is reflected in the pink color.

Uh the purple is the industrial, the C5 is the dock, let's call it Mauve.

Uh, you can see the subject property outlined in the orange stripe.

There are two lots there, lots 282 and 287.

There is an existing four unit structure on the property, and the ordinances we submitted to the council uh, if approved, would allow us to develop up to an additional 32 units.

Um plan that I shared with you this evening, what you're looking at right there is 30 units.

Again, it was just for uh demonstrative purposes to show how units could be laid out, uh the style of condominiums, and um what disciple in that concept is uh, for example, two parking spaces per unit, and uh all the um there would be no direct access out onto Cranson Street from those units along the front.

Um we have um you know early on a uh looking at the uh you know the benefit to access to the bike path, things like that.

Um the ordinance presented to the city council uh beyond uh the uses that would be allowed in the C2 zone.

Our intention here is to do a condominium development while other uses are allowed in the C2 zone.

Um right now the plan is not to do any type of mixed use.

Uh, there's a series of uses that are allowed in the C2 zone.

Our primary focus is the uh development for the multifamily uh dwellings.

Um the ordinance itself, uh, just to talk about a couple specifics.

Um obviously uh as outlined in the staff report.

And I'm gonna have Scott talk a little bit about this in a minute, but you know, one of the concepts here, as you can see by the elevations and the exteriors that they're looking at is you know, kind of, you know, this is Knightsville, it's crossing meetree park, you know, you know, the European villa type um discussion comes into play when looking at uh this being a very unique development.

Um I talked about the parking uh in our ordinance as proposed.

We're asking the city council to allow us to apply the C3 district regulations, not the C2.

One of the advantages to that is first in the C3, and this is long established.

Um there are zero setbacks allowed both for front and side setback.

It just helps in the development uh uh of the uh development concept uh if we can have some flexibility, and that's one of the considerations asking the city council to approve the C3.

Um there is a difference in the C2 versus C3 in height, 30 feet's allowed in the C2, 35 and a C3.

But as a review of the ordinance would say, uh, we're asking permission to construct up to four stories, um, which would be in higher than obviously 35 feet.

Uh again, uh it allows the architect to work in with the developer into some interesting designs and really make this um a special property.

Um the um obviously of interest based on the discussion earlier this evening and the comprehensive plan is uh the developers have agreed to an affordable housing component of fifth proposed 15 percent.

Um they would be prepared um you know to make that obviously a de-restrive for at least 30 years and work within the Rhode Island House Rhode Island housing guidelines.

So um this if allowed, if we come back here with a development project, it has the benefit of providing needed housing.

Um this property has been long vacant uh and would be a nice uh investment in the Knightsville community uh to capitalize on what's already been there.

The city and the planning commission and the city council have been making investments in Knightsville, and we're hoping to um uh bring people live people living in the community um right uh right into Knightsville.

Um with that, Mr.

Chairman.

I'd just like to Scott um talks passionately about this property and his grandfather's involvement in just you know the hours late, but we just want to Scott would just like to share a couple thoughts with you about his excitement for this project.

Thank you everybody for uh the time tonight.

Um so as Bob mentioned, this this property's been in my uh my family's I guess ownership for close to 50 years.

Uh my grandfather uh when he came here when he came to the country.

This was one of the the first places he was able to afford buying.

So looking back since I've been alive, it I've had cousins, I've had aunts, uncles, um, all different family members living there.

It's still our uh our staple hangout for the St.

Mary's feast for when the Madonna statue comes by.

So um as we looked at doing this project, um, you know, partnering with with Rich was was a great fit because uh his father, excuse me, his father and my grandfather actually worked together many many moons ago building um throughout their years.

So it was a way for us to kind of build a legacy that uh we looked at both of our ancestors as something that they may be proud of.

Um so some of the some of the pictures and renderings that you've seen, um, we're doing that to try to match the aesthetic of what the neighborhood has started to build up.

Uh I think the streets are still red, white, and green, if I'm not mistaken at the moment.

So uh making this kind of one of the one of the foundational corners of of Cranston Street and what that area is starting to uh turn into was something that we were very proud of, and again, we were hoping to build more of a legacy project on this rather than just you know the cookie cutter square boxes that um is possible to to do out there.

So with the hard work that the city put into uh renovating each resquare, we wanted to continue that and start to add and really help um hopefully build bring more development into this this area.

That's quite frankly sat sat vacant since I've known it and sure since many of you have known it as well.

So um, you know, thank you in advance for any consideration and happy to answer some questions if if needed.

Does uh any of my colleagues have a question for uh Mr.

Murray on this project?

Um just a quick thing because I'm looking at the plan for the first Bob.

I'm sorry.

Okay, uh just to a couple of quick questions.

The um the ordinance as proposed will require a minimum of two parking spaces per unit.

That test proportion.

Okay, and would allow uses other than residential, although the intent is 32 units.

Right.

It's it's self-sport and a few other many other.

So we're trying to go in a different direction.

Housing is so unrelated to the ordinance at all.

Uh just curiosity, is there any plan to rehabilitate the existing structure that's on the site?

Yes, yeah.

Thank you.

The ordinance the question is the four the existing four units.

Any plans to rehab update that building?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions for Mr.

Murray?

Yeah, I just one quick thing, Bob.

Um with the affordable housing statutes, some of them say you can't mandate two parking spaces.

You can only do one.

Is there gonna be a way around that?

It was I just that just popped into my head regarding um you know, the man the towns aren't allowed to mandate two parking spaces for some of those units.

I well.

Um, it it is a good yeah, it is a good number.

I just didn't want that to get caught in.

Okay, thanks.

Um, yeah, on that point, I think um if this was a comprehensive permit, the city could not require you to have two parking spaces.

But if you guys want to have more than one parking space, um I don't think there's a real problem.

It's their discretion.

It's just that we couldn't require if this was a comprehensive permit.

I don't think we could require them to have two spaces.

I think that's what the point Mr.

Marcel was making.

I think.

Yeah, well, no, and uh and uh and I can um it depends on the situation.

Um I think that um yeah, two I uh two parking spaces works is is the is the default, and as many people expect that in some in certain situations.

Just going back to some quick questions.

This is the first time I'm looking at the plan itself.

Um so there's no commercial at all on this, correct?

Um almost to the northwest corner, if you will, right?

The only one that that's a gray roof.

Yeah, okay.

Uh that that currently is three three units with an office, so four four units there.

So that's the current mixed use.

We're not gonna leave that um that building as is.

That that would be redone to kind of match.

I don't think we have a finalized plan of what exactly would go there, but that would most likely be where the commercial component is.

And that's also the one most closely touching the the neighboring property, which is commercial.

And uh Mr.

Murray, could you just remind me what kind of commercial uses are allowed in the C2, or at least unloaded under this proposed ordinance?

Just some examples.

You don't have to go into it.

I mean the list is lengthy, but I mean, you know, C2, as you know, is a is a neighborhood business.

Right.

Okay, so let's just let's just talk about the uh you know beyond the esoteric ones like you know, nursing homes and all that stuff, but you know, you know, you're looking at it um antique shops, artisan workshops, bakeries, bank, um body art establishments, um you know, business and professional office, uh catering services, commercial uh recreation, communication service broadcast studio, convenience store, a crematory, a drug store, you know, those hardware store, you know.

None of you know, when you're talking about real retail uses, I don't think we're looking to you know, you know, some of these would not be you know, obviously we're not gonna put a bank there.

Um, I understand.

I just want to kind of have an idea just as I look at these residences being close by.

Whatever your imagination, you know, yeah, and if you have a specific one, I will answer it.

But I mean, you know, they're neighborhood businesses, so generally they work in a neighborhood that's residential.

I understand.

Okay.

Dry cleaners, yeah.

Veterinary, a veterinary.

Yeah, because it's the I was gonna say it's it's a mixed use in a mixed use can sometimes be challenging if it's a residential with a heavy industrial use, for example.

That could be a problem.

But the same that um I think the intention is if there was a commercial use in the building, it would uh be an enhancement to the residents that live there.

Yeah, they could go to the laundromat, for example.

Yeah, or coffee shop.

I mean, yeah, we're not we're not looking to do a coffee shop, but you know, things that you know you have a built-in audience within 15 feet of your establishment, you know, what would make sense there, but there's plenty of you know, it and it this was discussed last week at the neighborhood meeting, and there were business people there and representative St.

Mary C Society.

You know, there is a lot of available space in Knightsville for kind of neighborhood businesses, and uh um you know this could end up being one, but it's not it's not the it's not the driver of this project.

Okay, and the last question on the density, as you pointed out, generally the density in this area would be lower um in a C2.

I think it's about 10 units lower than you're asking for more.

And the reason, of course, you're asking for it is because it's an affordable housing component to make up for the below market rates for the others, correct?

Yes, okay.

Uh okay, and I was gonna say this is two acres, so it's basically five acre, five five units per acre approximately, which is what a comprehensive permit would be at the state level.

Um and your planning is condos at this point.

Okay, all right.

We'll see what happens.

Um any other questions for Mr.

Murray.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Bergman, you could uh give a your staff report.

I'm gonna try to start from a point so I'm not repeating too much, but uh as was stated before, we're looking at a rezone.

Um specifically uh something that wasn't mentioned before that I would like to mention is um our um comprehensive plan is very specific about you know this this area of Knightsville, specifically when it comes to the future land use map.

Um in the 2010 plan, it uh actually had a list when we still had that list of like all the specific rezones.

This lot and all this area that you can see here in pink, um all of that was supposed to be rezoned to C2 anyways.

Um so specifically, this request is very much in line with which was um the the C2 rezone is specifically in line with the future land use map, and it's been in line with that for uh uh well over a decade.

Um, as you can see, there's still a bunch of lots that still need to be rezoned, but um, you know, as we said, um the multifamily elements that's an allowed use within the C2 and very uh prominent in the area, and um and if um commercial component is um going to be um uh uh you know uh the you know provided um then um it would be pretty much much of the the uses would probably the business is probably be pretty much in line with which is what already there um such as you know the a lot of the restaurants and retail um though notably if a commercial component is provided then the um you know they'll have to look for ways to accommodate that parking as well.

Um and here you can even see future land use map a bit more zoomed out and you can see um it's bright in that main street area.

Um you know Knightsville is kind of a uh bit of a historic main street um and that is kind of right in the middle of that section slot uh and to just kind of show um the here or this like a quick overview of the the six conditions that they were asking for along with the C2 rezone um just to note one four and five I am running low on battery on the laptop uh one second Tom can do you have uh an extra charger for this so I can plug this in.

Should be working, thank you.

Um so conditions one, four, and five are already basically in line with the C2 zone.

So I'll mostly just be talking about uh conditions two, three, and six.

Um of course, condition two basically allowing the 36 units, and uh condition three um relates to the dimensional regulations.

Uh I put in a table here that shows you know C2, the C2 and C3 are very similar zones.

Um of course, what C2 would allow, or what C3's allows over C2 is the zero foot front setback and zero foot um side setback, um, and the increased lot coverage uh and um the four stories here is covered um OSA by uh section three, which allows a height up to four stories.

Um but as we've seen in the the um proposed plan, um just because they're allowed four stories doesn't necessarily mean that's something that's going to be you know proposed, um just provides for more options.

Um briefly about the surrounding area.

We've already talked about this.

Specifically, I've mentioned that this is kind of an American main stream.

Um this about a century ago was more of an industrial area, so that's where the C5 kind of comes in.

C5 used to be um you know, supposed to be that kind of transition zone between uh commercial housing and industrial.

Um the industrial, of course, being on the other side of the bike path, the bike path kind of acts nicely as this like green buffer between that industrial site and uh Knightsville.

Um but now this area has for last couple decades more been targeted towards retail and um typical things you see in main streets, uh American Main Street, so retail uh mixed use housing, typically first floor commercial, second floor housing uh type of stuff, and that's what's much in the area, specifically around Cranson Street, Park Ave, and a little bit into Phoenix as well.

Um the lots, they just they these lots specifically, but commercial properties exclusively besides you know in the rare, um, so there's little impact there, and um yeah, as we discussed, there's multifamily uses across um throughout the neighborhood.

And I have already talked about the zones.

Uh briefly wanted to talk about some of the conditions as well.

Um so this proposed these this conditional zone is basically in line with other conditional zones that we've improved in the past.

Um, notably, I kind of use Knights Corner and 661 park project developments as examples.

Um both of them were put it permitted additional height and permit additional density um in exchange for 15 unit 15 percent of um um of the total unit count to be deed restricted uh for affordable housing.

Um really the major difference between this one and those ones is parking, typically along with the the additional density, the increase in the multifamily, you would also um along with that would be a reduction in parking requirements, um typically between 1.25 and 1.5.

Um, and uh here, of course, the developers asking for two parking spaces per unit.

Um, you know, our I will talk about this more later, but also staff recommendation is that that could certainly be lower to allow for more flexibility.

It is um, you know, it would be in line with previous things that were asked for, it would be um in line with best planning planning practices.

Additionally, there's also a lot of transportation uh alternative transportation to driving in the area, but um we also don't really want to beat a dead horse if you know the developer specifically is asking for uh two units.

Um, so I want to say that provision the proposed additional height and density, which is conditions two and three, they conform to the area uh and we generally think are warranted exchange for the affordable housing.

Um as we said before, stuff like we've allowed this in the past, um, or we've seen that exchange in the past and is very much in line with um inclusionary zoning ordinances or like comp permits um and additionally, this is also you know located in the walkable area um with two rip the bus services and uh bike paths, so it's something that's um you know has a lot of existing infrastructure that could accommodate more multifamily housing.

Um and the area already features high density multifamily housing, um, most notably Knightsville Maynard.

Um, but there's also you know smaller multifamily buildings in addition to uh another townhouse multifamily on Park Avenue that we uh permitted.

Um, so that it is already in the area.

Um and as I said before, it is standard practice and pretty much consistent with other approvals.

Um in regards to the C three dimensional requirements with the minimal front setback and the side setback, it's very much in line with what's already in the area.

Um, you know, there are several buildings that have you know front side setbacks that are less than five feet, um, or sorry, less than 25 feet.

Um, many even go straight up to the lot line.

Um it's you know, that kind of development is very much in line with uh historic main streets um as well.

Um yes, I already talked about the uh parking requirements.

Um regarding the consistency of the comprehensive plan.

Um thing to know is the comprehensive plan does not provide like a dedicated density range for the C2.

Um so and um, sorry, for the sorry, the neighborhood commercial services, C2 is part of that um that um category.

Um generally the proposed use of multifamily um is very much in line with that category as well.

So we consider it consistent with the future land use map.

Um and you know, our housing element, the current one, um, is speaks pretty clearly that we have a tight housing market with very high demand and low supply and housing units, um, which has created high numbers of cost burden households.

Um, and we have several goals, policies and actions that specifically list Knightsville as an area where we should be targeting new development, and we have more goals, policies, and actions that you know call for the city to provide more affordable housing in the city.

So we also believe that this ordinance is very much in line with our comprehensive plan.

Um, and this is also what our extensive list of all the goals and policies that we believe in actions that we believe uh you know say that we should approve this.

Um this ordinance change.

So uh findings.

Um we have to make two findings.

One is for the consistency of the comprehensive plan for 2010.

That should actually say 2025.

That's should have double checked that.

Um generally believe that it is that this ordinance is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the finding B.

Um the recognition consideration of purposes of zoning and city code.

We also believe that is um that we recognize the uh general purposes of zoning and consider in review of the proposed ordinances and ordinance is found to be consistent with the general purposes of zoning.

Uh and our recommendation that we want to forward uh that we recommend um is a positive recommendation.

Thank you, Mr.

Bergman.

Um any questions for the staff before I turn it over to public comment?

Okay.

Um is there anyone here in the room that'd like to make public comment?

Seeing none, Mr.

Le Mr.

Lima, is there anyone online that would like to make public comment on this application?

There's no public comment online.

Thank you, Mr.

Lima.

Um, just a couple of last questions for Mr.

Murray.

Oh, you have a question too?

Okay, Miss Ms.

Commissioner Lamp, if you have a question.

Mine's is pretty quick.

On the parking issue, if you decide to put commercial in there after all, you have the right to do so.

Will you come?

Does the zoning ordinance as you have proposed require you to have sufficient parking for the commercial as well as the residential?

Do you understand my question?

I do.

Um, I think we would have to analyze the parking first.

The ordinance talks about two per dwelling unit.

Um the code addresses parking for um requirements for you know that it would be it was a restaurant, you would need one space for every three seats, things like that.

So we'd have to, you know, and that would all be vetted through the planning commission as a major land development.

And so no, I understand.

I just want to make sure that we're not approving an ordinance that says you don't have to conform to commercial no parking spaces.

That's not my interpretation, you know.

I just want to make sure it's on the record.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Mari, can you refresh my recollection?

Do we on other matters um where we have done a zone change?

Um, haven't you usually come to us with both the ordinance and master plan at the same time?

Um I don't know.

Um I don't want to say with 100% certitude.

Um the projects I've been involved in uh that come to mind were Knights Corner.

Um print works.

I was not involved in 661 Park Avenue.

And from memory, uh I think we did, but I don't want to.

I you know, Mr.

Fryers is shaking his head.

Um the reason the reason we didn't do it in this case is because before we get heavily involved in the design of this site, um, we needed the underlying zoning to allow it.

You know, the um in the in the printworks case, you know, we maintained the industrial use, but we allowed the uh the multifamily dwelling.

Okay.

In the Knights Corner case, that was industrial, but you allowed 156 units of multifamily dwelling.

Um it was a preference of that developer to try and present the whole thing at once.

Um that's why we presented at least a concept plan so you'd understand what we're talking about.

You know, we were more trying to sell an idea here tonight uh with a vision as opposed to this is the master plan we're asking you to approve.

We will come back to you if the city council rezones it in short order with a uh the first step of the major land development, but um several minutes ago you asked the question.

I think the answer was yes.

You did and and I didn't want to rely on my recollection that that's what I thought.

And the only the reason why I asked that is um it looks like a wonderful proposal, and it looks like something that would be good for Cranston and great for that area, and wonderful to have an affordable housing component with it.

The um only pause I have is that we are going to change the zoning by right, and hope that what you are telling us about tonight comes to pass.

Um, if for some reason something occurs beyond the owner's control or in the economy or otherwise, we have made this um a zone that can have many other things there by right that we might not choose to approve.

So that's why I was asking why the it wasn't coupled with a master plan proposal through the chair.

Um, I understand the proposition.

Uh I would rebut respond to that by saying there are many uses allowed today in the C5 zone that I think would be incompatible with the character and the vision that the city's trying to uh extrapolate in the Knightsville area.

So if we don't rezone it, the C5 uses are not as desirable in my opinion from a community point of view.

In the C2 zone, we're you know, we're asking, yes, you're taking something on faith here, but you know, you know, this is not the last stop.

This is the last comment on this.

We're coming back to you with a master plan of multifamily housing.

So, you know, we but I mean, you know, we could just go through the city process of putting up, and I have the plan, uh they've looked at it, you know, self-storage units, you know.

Now, if that's that's the vision, and I don't think it is that this commission of the city wants, and but they chose not to.

This is this is exciting, it's new, but yeah, we're asking you to take on faith that yes, C2 uses, because I don't know if there is a mixed use component exactly what that would be.

I don't want I don't want to buttonhole them and say you can only have a barber shop uh or you can have a tattoo pala, uh, but you know, you can't have you know a professional office.

So um question for the staff, then I'll have a question or comment from Mr.

Murray.

Um at 36 units, do we generally ask for traffic impact studies at master plan level?

Or is that too small?

I just don't know what the cutoff is.

That's generally the staff uses.

I think at this location on Cranston Street, we would not need a traffic impact study.

Okay, but that would be at your discretion.

All right, because just because I don't travel Cranston Street very often.

Um, I live on that other side.

Anyway, um I'm just curious, like, you know, we may want a traffic impact study.

Check this speaks to that preliminary.

Yes, okay.

Because I just don't recall, like there's certain parts of Cranston Street that's a problem, is what I think is on traffic.

I mean, maybe the director of the public works knows better than me where the traffic situations are in the city.

Um, I don't know if this location is a potential problem, but if it is, I just point out that we should have a traffic impact study when it comes to master plan or preliminary plan stage.

Um the other thing the go on Commissioner Lampier's point.

No, I'm just saying this is a comment for you on this.

Generally, I think Commissioner Lamphere Commissioner Lampier is correct.

Is that usually when we do a zone change, we have some kind of master plan um uh submission, so we know what we're approving with the zone change.

The reason that I feel comfortable not requiring that on that basis is that it's 36 units in an area where everything else around it's basically C2, and then you have the Knightsville manor up to the north.

So this kind of works.

If this was a 600 unit project, um no, just not that you know I'm saying that's just not gonna happen with me.

Um not gonna do a zone change for a 600 unit project um without master plan and everything else worked out.

So um that's why just want to make that comment to you why I think this is a little bit different than it is because on night's corner it was about a hundred and fifty-six units approximately on print works is about a hundred twenty-nine, and then you reduced it down to a hundred.

So this is on the smaller scale, so I feel a little bit like this is probably okay.

So that was just my general comments in response to Commissioner Lampier.

All right.

Any other uh questions or comments from my colleagues on the nights on uh the um rezone in Knightsville?

All right, you have the recommendation up there.

If not, um I don't think there's anything more to be added here.

There's nothing further.

We can have a motion.

Who's doing the motion?

The other side is pointing at each other.

I don't know why.

I make a motion to accept the positive recommendation for the zone change by the planning.

Okay, motion made by Director Carrero seconded by Commissioner Barberi.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

Uh all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Eyes have it.

Congratulations, Mr.

Cedo.

Thank you very much.

See you again.

Okay.

Now we knew move to zoning border review recommendations.

First up is the Hortons on 20 Swift Street.

Whenever you're ready to proceed.

We have an application for a dimensional variance at 20 Swiss Street, Sessors Plat 2 Lot 3120.

This proposal is to demolish an existing garage and construct a new garage within the same uh setbacks as the original structure.

You can see the lot here.

It was located in the A6 zone.

The future land use of single family 7.26 to 3.64 unit per acre density.

Here are some street views of the property.

We can see the proposed garage in the corner of the lot, which is also um going to be used as an ADU.

Here is the state plan layout with the proposed setbacks.

I also included in this presentation the architectural plan.

Um just kind of showing you the layout.

What's important to me here is that in uh corresponding to building code, there's no windows on the back um property line, and that's important just because of the way that it abuts with the garage right near it.

Um the relief being requested here is mostly regarding strut setbacks.

Um the rear yard setback, the existing was 1.2, they are also proposing 1.2.

The required is five feet for an accessory structure, and the side yard setback.

No, sorry, okay, and the side yard setback being um existing 2.5, they are proposing 2.5 and relief requested is two and a half feet as well.

Um staff finds that this application does not impose an undue new and nuances and is not out of character.

The proposal is a reconstruction of reconstruction of an existing accessory use, which is allowed by right.

Many neighboring properties in this area have substandard frontages and widths, and so therefore all of the garages in this area are commonly very close to the property lines.

Um staff finds this application consistent with goals H2 and H3, as well as policy H3 and H6, which are outlined in the comprehensive plan.

And staff record, and staff recommends a positive recommendation on this application to the zoning board overview.

Are there any questions for the staff on this?

Mr.

Lance here.

Thank you.

Can you go back to the first page, please?

The information page.

Yes, down a bit.

Must be the next page.

It's still the narrative with some information.

No, I it was the very beginning, like the title page.

Okay.

I don't have it in front of me.

Um so under subject property, and I know we did this one before, but it says the subject property is located at 116 Shaw Avenue.

That must be an uh incorrect.

So Shaw Avenue is one that we did about a month or two ago.

My um sense is that you probably used the form that was existing.

Correct.

But I think we need to be careful when we talk about whatever section it may be that we reference the correct property.

I don't know if the platinum lot are correct, um, but it does talk about square footage, and then it says with frontage on Shaw Avenue.

Okay.

So we we need to number one be careful about that.

Is that on the first page of the memo?

It is okay.

I can also um amend that if when this goes to the zoning board.

Um the the other question or observation that I have.

I guess the first question is um the owner is John Horton and another woman as trustees, correct?

It's listed on the correct on the map.

Um I tried to access on the application.

There was a page that had a PDF icon that was the owner affidavit, and I could not open it.

Okay, that that makes sense that it probably wasn't clickable.

Um that might be an error on my part, and I can maybe get that uploaded separately.

I think that was I looked over that.

So my my question is did did John Horton and I can't remember her name.

Um, there is a woman whose last name is also Horton, and they are trustees.

Um they submit the affidavit.

Yeah, was it signed by them?

And and why is the applicant one catala?

Does he live there?

It says it's owner occupied, and that's why I wanted to see the owner.

Excuse me, he's a contractor.

He is the contractor on the application.

It did say it did say contribute this application.

Juan Catala is a contractor.

Okay.

Um so that answers the answers that question.

Thank you.

Do you know if it is owner occupied?

Um at this moment, no.

Okay.

Um, and that's a question that I would have because I believe it affects what they are entitled to do at the property.

Um and my other question is I don't have the general law citation in front of me, but I think that this may be superseded by state law.

Um, and if so, the reference to state law would have been helpful, and I guess I sort of look to our solicitor.

Um, I apologize, I had it on my laptop, which I left at home, so I am now dealing with my phone, but it does say that accessory dwelling units effective June 21st, 2024.

There are three scenarios.

One is on an owner occupied property as a reasonable accommodation for a family member with disabilities that the it may be located within an existing detached structure.

Not to interrupt, but that that is all what is aligned with this proposal.

Excuse me.

That that is the option that is aligned with this proposal.

Correct.

And so my question was it if well, I guess my observation is it would be helpful as a commissioner to have something that says state law allows an ADU under this circumstance.

Applicant here is has provided information that this is for a family member with disability that meets the criteria of the statute.

Because my next question is do we know under definition of in that statute, there's a definition of disability, and it is what interferes with daily functions of life.

It's the the general definition that we're usually familiar with, but there's nothing in there to indicate whether or not that exists.

Who's the family member?

It needs to be a family member of the owner if it is owner occupied.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there's not really enough information for us.

The statute should control, and then there should be certain pieces of information that should be analyzed to tell us as commissioners whether or not this meets the statutory definition.

And if it does, then our answer should be yes, and if it doesn't, then our answer should be no.

But it's hard to tell from the information we have.

Um I realize that there is not anyone here on behalf of the applicant, and that's really their burden, not yours to find out that information, but theirs to provide it.

Um, and then I would also ask has there been any demonstration that there is room for the state law requires one additional off-street parking space per bedroom for an ADU.

Currently, I believe they there they need two off-street parking spaces.

Correct, it's a single family house.

Uh there are no additional spaces required for the ADU.

We can't ask for more than one, but we haven't passed our ordinance on ADUs yet.

But state law requires that says the state law, I believe, says we can't require more than one per one bedroom ADU for one bedroom requires one off-street parking space.

No, it says we can't require more than one, it's different than requiring one.

So I'm reading from one additional off-street parking space per bedroom for the ADU shall be provided, correct?

Parking space.

So if we add one, no, it does uh we don't require two parking spaces for a single family home, one parking space, okay, and one for the ADE.

And one for the ADU?

I thought it was two.

You'd think it would because it's two for everything else.

Wow.

Okay.

Then I stand corrected on that one.

Um so my point is just that I think this is governed by state law, and it would be helpful to put what the state law is and then why it does or doesn't meet that.

Um my other question was is this the exact footprint of the existing garage?

And can I ask our solicitor that generally if you have a non-conforming um structure and it's demolished?

Does that do they then have to conform?

That's why they need a variance, yes, they would.

So they wouldn't be able to keep do they have to conform with regular lot setbacks, not what existed previously.

They'd have to conform, they need the variances to rebuild non-conforming with the accessory use setbacks, even under state law.

Yeah, coming in for variance to allow them.

Right.

It's it's it's because they're demolishing that this is in front of you for a variance.

That's because this one would be considered new.

Yeah, questions.

Okay, uh, thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Um Commissioner Lampier basically asked a lot of the questions I had anyway, just but just so I can understand a couple of things.

Um first a clarification on the question Commissioner Lampier raised.

So there's not a requirement for them to have two parking spaces at this residence when there's an ADU there.

The total the total new requirement will be two, one for the single family, one for the ADU.

And that is uh a state law thing that basically once you put an ADU on your property, you just need two parking spaces, one for the house and one for the ADU, or no, it's just for one when you're adding a one-bedroom ADU.

That and that sparks the need for one additional space.

And at the moment, with a single family, there's only one space required.

Okay, so that gets me to my thing.

At this particular air house or zone or whatever you want to call it, they're only required one parking space.

Okay.

Um the second question I had is um if this is uh this may be the question for the solicitor.

Is this you know say this to the zoning board, which is um a way are we required to grant this variance by state law, or we can we can reject it because they're destroying the building and putting it up?

Oh yeah, we are not they they would not be required, no, it's not a by right use maybe they'll have to prove okay, all right.

And getting back to the other thing, um the Valcourt that Commissioner Lamprey was asking the representation made to us by affidavit, because you saw the affidavit, right?

Okay, that it's owner occupied and for a family member who's disabled, and that's under oath, right?

The affidavit, okay.

That's the representation I can go under.

Is that oh, I mean that's that's all we can require.

I even under the old law.

I mean, every year they had to fill out that form, which no, I mean you you basically it's a uh I don't want to be too flippant about it, but it's basically it's a little bit of an honor system, you know, to make sure that this is actually a owner occupied and a family member, unless somebody's gonna go out there and knock on the door, which is uh really a time consuming enterprise for zoning enforcement to go do.

So I just wanted to I just want to hear from Miss Valcourt that you saw the affidavit, and that was the representation.

Correct, the unknown legal issue is even if this that is accurate and true.

What happens to the AD, say these people move?

Right.

What happens, you know, is the ADU grandfather in afterwards because it was it was allowed because it was a family disabled family member rather than 20,000 square feet or something.

Right, like 10, 20 years from now, what happens about that?

I get it.

I just want to understand the legal framework.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Ms.

Valcourt on the application?

Okay.

All right.

We'll go to public comment.

Is there anyone here to wishes to be heard on the Horton application at 20 Swift Street?

Seeing none, is there anyone online that wishes to be heard on the Horton 20 Swift Street application?

There's no public comment online.

Okay.

All right.

Are any other further questions or comments from my colleagues on this matter discussion?

I think uh my own comment before we vote.

I I think Commissioner Lamper, you made some valid points about on this ADU stuff.

We need a little clarity when you're talking about it, what state law, what's required when we get these reports.

Um, I'm inclined to grant the recommendation because although we could deny it, the zoning board could deny it.

We've been it's been represented to us under oath that it's a family member who is disabled.

So I take people at their word under oath to proven otherwise.

Okay.

Uh any further discussion?

That'd be the time for the motion.

I know people have a problem with ADUs, but we can we can make a motion.

The president I'll make a motion to accept the staff recommendation.

Uh Vice President Coop makes a positive recommendation seconded by Commissioner Mancini.

Any further discussion, hearing none.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

Next up.

The Rhode Island Custom Builders LLC.

Oh boy.

Mr.

Axter is going to recuse, and we have some people who've come in the room.

They have some public comment on this matter, I believe.

Oh boy.

This is a pretty big application, ladies and gentlemen.

We have entered in half the power structure of the I shouldn't do this online.

Sorry.

All right, Miss Valcourt, you can proceed with uh the Rhode Island Custom Builders application.

We have a dimensional variance request at 130 Williston Street.

Um 317 and 318.

The zones are C4 highway business, as well as B1 residential, where single family is allowed with 6,000 square feet.

Um the future land use for both lots are single and two family residential, less than 10.89 units per acre.

And this proposal is for an existing two-family dwelling to remain on an undersized lot and to separate a contiguous undersized lot to construct a new single family dwelling.

You can see both parcels here in aerial view.

And you can see the zoning map, which is showing us one commercial property and one residentially um zoned property.

And you can see them both under the same future land use here.

The street view of these um adjoined properties is here.

You can see the two-family house on the right hand side and an empty lot on the left.

Here's the architectural drawings for the proposed single family dwelling.

Here is the site plan that is currently uploaded.

It was provided to us, um, our department on 827.

Um, I had requested that the surveyor add the setbacks for the existing house because this original site plan only had the setbacks for the proposed house.

So I asked for the uh the two family.

I wanted the the setbacks on there.

Um this is really zoomed out, so I I end up uh typing them out for you in a future slide.

You'll see the setbacks in a moment.

Um I also included the merger analysis, which was a 200 foot analysis um to help us determine whether the well provided by a professional land surveyor.

He provided this to determine that the lots are unmerged.

Um before I kind of move forward, I just wanted to give my this was a complicated one a bit for me to understand, so I just want to kind of read through what I have here.

This 200 foot merger analysis shows that the two lots are unmerged, as they are equal or above the median lot size of the area.

Due to the fact that the existing building is a two-family dwelling, we are here to uh the commission is here to vote on dimensional relief for the existing building.

Note the proposed building needs the proposed single family building needs no dimensional relief.

It is compliant under the state's sliding scale provision.

Also note it is under the staff's the planning staff's impression that the zoning code does not explicitly say that the density nor use of the existing lot plays a part in the ability to apply the unmerger analysis.

So, therefore, saying that this 200 foot analysis is um is not dependent on the use of the existing lots, however, the zoning official feels as though the two family, the existing two family does trigger a the need for a dimensional variance, so therefore the findings of fact here is that there are there is relief being requested.

I believe there's an error showing accessory structure setbacks.

I believe that should not be there.

So the relief being requested is under 1792, uh 1720, and 1788.

Um moving forward, the future land use designates 10.89 units per acre, single and two family residential presently within a 200 foot radius.

Um there is a density of 12.15.

This application would raise that density to 12.18.

The dimensions of the proposed single family dwelling would be allowed by right under the sliding scale.

So that brings me to this chart that I actually updated before this meeting.

So there's some additional figures in here that correspond to the site plan I had requested with additional dimensions.

Um really what stands out to me in this chart is first we can look at the top lot 317.

Um this is the proposed lot.

All of the relief sought is being compared to what is required per the zone.

Okay.

Um if you can see what is proposed is greater than or more compliant to the sliding scale.

So just making the point again that the proposed lot is compliant under the sliding scale.

Um, we are here to look really at the bottom chart and see that the relief sought is um being compared to this the what is allowed um per the zoning.

Um, so I not to reiterate, but all of all of what we're kind of focusing on here is the existing building and the setbacks that are required for that building, the existing two family.

Um, staff finds that this application does not impose undue nuances and is fitting to the character of the surrounding area.

Uh 200 foot analysis deems that 50% of the lots are equal to or less than uh 3200 square feet.

Parking is compliant, and there's alignments with the comprehensive plan under goals H2 and H4, as well as policies H3, four, five, six, and eleven.

And staff therefore recommends a positive recommendation on the application to the zoning board of review.

Thank you, Ms.

Valcourt.

Are there any questions or comments?

Uh excuse me, start with questions.

Any questions for uh Ms.

Valcourt, Commissioner Lampier?

Just a quick one.

Um, sometimes there's a 200 foot radius used to do an analysis, and sometimes it's 400 feet.

Can you just explain to me why the difference?

Um, I believe that 200 feet is the requirement um per the code to formally deem lots unmerged.

A 400 foot analysis is like good measure that the planning staff uses to make um findings on density if we want to take it a step further, because often sometimes there's the 400 foot um abutter notices.

So if we have such notices, it's kind of nice to make that comparison.

Any other questions from Ms.

Valcourt?

Director Career.

Yeah, they have a proposed driveway.

Um between both lots, yeah.

They do have proposed easement on the plan.

So there would be the two sorry, Director Coressel.

This was actually one of my questions as well, I think.

So there's a two-family, and there's a single family one to construct, and they're going to be sharing one driveway.

No, there's two driveways proposed.

Okay, where's the other driveway?

Right here.

Okay.

So that driveway is for the new single family.

Correct.

Okay.

There's the one for the two family.

And the existing two family, they're going to construct a a driveway for that.

Correct.

Because what are they doing?

They're just parking in the middle of this green space.

What are the where are they parking right now?

Who is the original driveway?

Um, I don't see a driveway.

On Google Maps, if you go to just put are you click on your button?

Yeah, that's enough.

Okay.

If you go on Google Maps to the left, there's a driveway and a garage, and it's for the back building, the building on the other side of NASIC.

Right.

But there's nothing on Google Maps right now showing anything for this property.

Unless they're yeah, you can actually see some cars online.

But they look in Google.

No formal parking currently.

No park, no driveway.

Any other parking questions?

Um just a quick thing, Ms.

Valcourt Joe.

The when the uh applicant put in the representation that's 50% of the lots are 3200 per square feet or less.

Yeah, did you double check it or you just took it as the representation?

I took it as a representation.

Okay.

It's it's good.

It's in my so that was checked um by the building official.

So okay, while while the planning department can check it under the statute, it's really the zoning enforcement officer who has to make that determination.

That's Stan Peichel.

Um unique case that could go to the Supreme Court if it so the applicant is saying or or their legal position is that the city um agrees that the property can be unmerged under the statute.

What the applicant's position is is that by the lot being unmerged, the city then cannot require any relief for the structure that remains.

So they're they're they're taking a two-pronged cat.

They're there they filed an appeal saying that the building officials incorrect to make them file a zoning application.

Okay, and then they've also filed the zoning application asking for relief.

Um, and we'll argue that next week before the zoning board.

Uh the city's position, and frankly, every other city in town is once you take that land away.

You gotta conform, you're gonna ask for relief.

You have to re ask for uh release.

They're saying that the unmerger statute doesn't say that.

So therefore, you can you can unmerge something and build whatever you want next door.

Our position is um, and me and Dave Johnson have spoke at length on this is just because it's unmerged, that doesn't mean you know you you haven't taken the next step as far as taking the land away from the current so that's what Brianna was getting okay, getting to regarding if something's unmerged and why they're only asking for relief for the for the remaining structure.

So that's what Brianna was getting getting to regarding if something's unmerged and why they're only asking for relief for the for the remaining structure.

Okay.

And the okay and you look you look.

Well is you give me an inquisitive look.

It's a unique situation.

No one's ever, I mean, this the on we've had on merger for five or six years in Cranston before the state law, and no one has ever come forward with an application.

So obviously, if you have a house with a lot that needs no relief, it becomes unmerged and you can build.

Um I know of no other town that just says, all right, your lots unmerged, so it doesn't matter what that other house what's left, parking setbacks, anything.

So um it's a unique legal argument.

Um, not really before us tonight, but that's that's their position, and that's why um we don't disagree that the lot is greater than 50 percent of the surrounding area.

See, okay, got it.

Um further questions for go ahead, Commissioner Lampier.

Just one um uh earlier, you were asked the question about the uh driveway that they are creating on the two family existing, which is where they need the relief.

Um does that it looked like it uh went over the prop.

What is the new property line between the two properties?

Does it?

So the new driveway encroaches on the unmerged lot by how much it's not explicitly noted here.

Um I can tell you that the proposed house here in red is 12 feet away from the property line.

The easement looks a little shy of half of that.

I'd say about four to five feet of encroachment.

And without that easement, the existing two family would not have a driveway that meets code.

I would agree with that.

Okay.

All right.

Uh, if there's not further questions, I'll take public comment.

Is there any public comment here tonight on this matter?

Seeing none.

Is there any public comment online?

There's no public comment online.

Okay.

Um, any further questions or comments?

Um about this application.

Okay.

I'll just make a quick comment myself.

Um usually I think people know my practice personally.

We have discussions about density.

This does exceed the density um of the local area.

1215 units is the area, and this is 13.81.

Um a little bit on the fence about the fact that half the lots in this area are 3200 feet.

Usually if it's conforming to the area, I I usually agree to it with a majority, but this is not a majority, it's 50.

But um, that's my initial thoughts.

But there's sounds like there's a lot more complications with this application than just that.

So with a driveway.

All right.

Any other comments or questions before we make motions and vote?

Seeing none, then it's um motion time for whatever the motion is.

There can be a positive or a negative.

There also is option three called no recommendation, but let's try positive and negative first.

Commissioner Barberi.

I just make a motion to a positive recommendation.

Um, putting that forward.

Okay.

Commissioner Barberi is putting forward a positive recommendation.

Is there a second of Commissioner Barberi's recommendation?

Oh, okay.

Commissioner Coop decided to make uh the second the motion for a positive recommendation.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Okay, we will proceed with a vote.

Okay, Mr.

Ray, pay attention.

This is probably a close vote here.

We'll see.

All those in favor of a positive recommendation signify by saying aye.

Mr.

Barberi, Mr.

Coop.

All those in favor, all those opposed to a positive recommendation to signify by raising your hand.

That's Ms.

Mancini, Mr.

Correo, Mr.

Zidales, Ms.

Renzuli, Miss Lamphir, myself.

Okay, so that was denied.

So now I believe the other alternative is to make a negative recommendation.

To the zoning board.

Mr.

Zidales has made a negative recommendation.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Lamphier.

Is there any further discussion?

Oh, Commissioner Lampier has further discussion.

I would like to be sure that our recommendation advises the zoning board that our decision is based on density and the inability to provide a driveway that meets code on the property.

Okay.

So that recommendation is a negative based on density of the existing neighborhood and the lack of a driveway that meets code.

Okay.

We're all clear?

All right.

All those in favor of the Zadales Lamphier motion for a negative recommendation signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Nay by Commissioner Coop and Commissioner Barberi.

Passes one, two, three.

Six to two.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Next one.

You can come back, Mr.

X.

Do you miss the excitement?

When you're ready, Mr.

Ray, you can proceed.

Thank you.

Um there's a dimensional variance request for signage at 2050 plain field pike.

Um it's in a C5 zone.

Um, and it's to allow relief from the sign requirements to replace an existing uh eight-foot by three foot sign with a new eight foot by four foot sign.

Um this is the aerial view.

Um this is the existing sign and the proposed sign.

Um and the applicant has requested specific relief in their application, uh, namely the maximum area um sign requirement um requesting 12.5 square feet relief, the maximum height requirement, um, requesting 0.23 feet, um, the minimum size setback requirement and the total sign area requirement.

All right, staff finds that this application does not impose undue nuisances and it's not out of character beyond any other uses on this site or within the surrounding area.

The proposed signage is appropriately scaled for this heavy business commercial area and would be a comparable size to the signage on neighboring properties, and the proposed signage will replace an existing sign, resulting in minimum impact on the streetscape.

Um so with that, I'll give a positive recommendation.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Is there any questions for Mr.

Ray on this application?

Okay, seeing none, is there anyone who would like to give public comment on this application in the room?

Seeing none, Mr.

Lehmer, is there anyone online?

There's one person there.

See if they want to make any public comment.

There is no public comment on the okay.

Thank you.

All right, there's no public comment.

Anyone think of any questions they want to ask Mr.

Ray before we go to motion time?

Last chance.

Okay.

All right.

Um motion time.

President, I'll make a motion to forward a positive recommendation.

Oh, positive recommendation made by Vice Chairman Coop, seconded by Director Zidales.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it.

Congratulations on your first uh presentation, Mr.

Ray.

All right.

Um we are now at the city planning director's report.

Um Ms.

Ashman, you have uh stuff you want to talk to us about.

Anticipating that the hour would be late, I passed out a memo of activities that have gone on in the planning department that haven't that you might want to know about.

And also in addition on the website, we have a administrator's officers administrative officers report.

And we realize that came up a little we posted that today, but that's a good practice for us to do at the monthly meeting is to give a full accounting of the administrative officer approvals that happened during the month.

So we submitted a report from the beginning of the fiscal year to now.

Thank you, uh Director Ashman.

Are there any questions for Ms.

Ashman from the commissioners?

And of course, if you do have questions after reading the report, Ms.

Ashman certainly I assume take your phone call and give you a question answer your questions.

Okay.

If there's nothing else, I think I know what the is there anything, Mr.

Marcello, before we adjourn, we need to deal with legally.

Okay.

No, if you just look at me, I was like, oh, just wondering.

All right.

There's nothing else.

Uh we'll have a motion to adjourn would be in order.

It's moved by Commissioner Coop, seconded by Commissioner Renzuli.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it.

Good evening, and I'll see you next month.