It's uh looks like it's 6 32.

Mr.

Lima, are we ready to proceed on your end?

I can't hear you guys speaking to the microphone.

So yes, we were online.

Thank you.

All right.

Um let's see, called me to order, approval of the minutes.

So the first minutes on the agenda is the minutes of August 26, 2025.

Just seeing if anybody has any edits or corrections.

Otherwise, the motion to approve would be in order.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve made by Director Carrero.

Is there a second?

Second by Commissioner Exter.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Next one is the September 2nd, 2025 regular meeting minutes.

Are there any edits to these minutes?

Seeing none, a motion to approve would be in order.

Made by Commissioner Mancini.

Seconded by uh Director Carrero.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it.

This brings us to the Von Lane project.

It's my understanding that we have a uh letter um requesting a withdrawal by the applicant.

Would the applicant like to be heard on this matter?

Yes, good evening, Tanessa Azar, on behalf of the applicant.

Um, like you said, you have a letter from our office.

Essentially, we received um the title information we were waiting for on this matter, and as to Winnie Street, it proved essentially inconclusive.

Um, so based on that, the plan is to withdraw this application and return to you with an amended and redesigned project.

So tonight we asked that I guess you accept our withdrawal and then we'd come back with um a new project.

I know the procedure of it is a little we want to clarify whatever you need to clarify essentially, but um that's the the basis of it.

Okay, thank you.

Um are there any questions for the applicant on the uh request for a withdrawal?

Okay.

Um I will now open it up to anyone from the public that would like to speak on their request for withdrawal.

Stephen Slidepole on behalf of uh some of the uh neighbors.

Uh I'm I'm really here because we received this letter and it wasn't there was enough ambiguity that that my clients wanted me to be here and clarify this.

And so I spoke to uh attorney Azar beforehand, and uh it is our understanding that this application is now over, and whatever comes next will be a new application, that this is not a continuance.

I didn't I wanted to make sure the record was clear, there was no ambiguity, and that whatever comes next is a new application.

Uh because we we did see language in here about amended application, but that's not what this is.

As long as we're all on the same page that this is a whatever comes next is a new application, that we have no objection to the withdrawal.

Um okay, thank you, Mr.

Seipole.

Any questions for the applicants?

Okay.

Seeing none.

All right, thank you.

I s I'm gonna open this up, but I don't think we need to.

Is there any public comment?

Okay.

Mr.

Lima, is there anyone online that make public comment on this request for a continuance?

There is no public comment online.

Withdrawal.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cause a problem.

Withdrawal.

Okay.

Um, I think that's it.

So um does uh anyone have any discussion or anything they'd like to say before we make motions and vote?

Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you.

I I would just like that clarified or at least confirmed um by Ms.

Azar that it is a withdrawal of the application, and um if they wish a completely new application will be filed.

Yeah, so I'll clarify that.

We just weren't sure because this process isn't really outlined in the ordinance or in state law.

Um, and we didn't want you guys to think that you know be surprised when we came back.

So this will be a new application for the same property.

Any other comments or questions?

Okay.

Do you have something?

Okay.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

I just wanted to say thank you for all the residents who have have come out from the beginning.

Um everyone's really done their homework and brought things to us that I think will make this project better when it when it comes back.

And I think that's the goal.

Um as a buy right project.

We want it to be as good as it as it can be.

So I think everyone that's been coming out has really helped with that.

And I would agree on having this withdrawn without prejudice so that it then it can come back as a new application.

And I'm hoping that next time this is something that we have all said that the information as far as right of way and easements is something that we get at the beginning, so that we don't kind of spin our wheels for months.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Zoolie.

Anyone anything else from anyone else?

Okay, I'll just make a quick comment before we make the motion.

I just want to thank the parties.

And I mean by the parties, I mean Mrs.

R and the developer and all associated with that, and also the abutters and the people of the public for conducting yourselves in a professional manner.

This thing could have been gotten really out of hand sometimes.

The temperature rose in the room a few times, but overall, I think everyone handled themselves quite well.

And I want to thank people for doing that.

These issues can be very contentious because there's usually either a lot of money involved or people's homes are involved.

And both things can mean a lot to people.

And um also I appreciate um when it comes to these cases learning something new.

I'm a lifelong learner, so I learned a lot about rights away that I never knew before.

And um like I said, when you're in this position, sometimes you do come across something new.

And uh lastly, just as a general comment.

Um I have said this before.

Um, I always appreciate public comment.

Even when I don't necessarily agree with what's being said, I always appreciate what the public has to say because um I learned from it.

Yeah, I was at a thing a couple of months ago at uh the central library, and there was people there talking about a book called Neighborhood Defenders, and uh the staff was there too separately.

And it was critical of the idea, it was criticized the idea of public input uh in the land use process because it impeded uh development.

And I didn't have the same view.

And one thing I'm happy about from this process that I learned is that everybody learned something that there was an issue with a right-of-way on Winnie Street, and that came from the public.

So public input is relevant, does matter, it's and um it's valuable.

So um with that said, my last thing is I hope both sides here work together in the next project so that this can not everyone's gonna get everything they wanted, but hopefully, if somebody all works together in good faith, you can come up with something that the neighborhood likes, the community likes, the developer likes, and the city likes, and we all can have less contentious meetings, and you guys in fiscal don't have to drive all your way out to the eastern side of the city and I won't have to drive all the way to Fiskville and get lost.

And before this uh uh event, I never knew one person from Fisquill.

So this was something another life, another uh another learning experience for me.

So with that said, anybody have any other speeches or we just make motions?

Motion.

So anyone wants to make a motion.

Motion to accept the withdrawal made by Vice Chairman, Vice President, seconded by Commissioner Ronzuli.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

All right, good night.

We'll see you again.

We'll just take a couple of minutes for the room to clear.

If anybody online is wondering what's going on.

Are we uh is everybody set?

Because I'd like to get started on the next thing if you don't mind.

All right, I'm gonna try to get this moving along.

Um the comprehensive plan amendments.

I'm gonna push that to the end because we have other people here who would have some matters before us, so I'd like to deal with that first.

Um next thing on the agenda is that I'd like to take up this 1489 Pippert Orchard Road, public informational.

Um is the applicant here and wishes to talk about this.

The applicant is unfortunately out of town, but I am here on the applicant's behalf.

Attorney Steven Antonucci here for Ted Rampini, who is the applicant.

I also have Jen Shea from Depreet Engineering to give a brief overview on this, what I should see in front of you.

It's just a very simple subdivision of one lot uh into two lots.

And if I janna, if I could.

Come on up.

Good evening.

Thank you for your time this evening.

Um, and we're here to present the pre-application.

Um, we did do an informal pre-application meeting.

Um, and we just wanted the opportunity to get your feedback, um, especially since we're going to be applying under unified development review um for this minor subdivision.

And we just wanted to hear if there was any feedback that we could incorporate before we do the engineering.

Um, so the project site is located on Pippin Orchard Road.

Um, the address is 1489 Pippen Orchard, and that is AP 28 lot 31.

And the subject lot is zoned A eighty, which is single family 80,000 square feet and has a total site area of 5.7 acres.

Um, the way that it is actually could we pull up the site plan?

Perfect.

Oh, we can leave this.

So this is the existing conditions plan.

Um, and as you can see, there's so this project was previously another more recent subdivision project where the front four lots had gotten subdivided out, and then there's a back lot where there's an existing home, and that's gonna be the subject parcel for this project.

Um, so the owner who is Ted, um, and he owns the existing home in the back over there, and he is proposing to subdivide that existing lot into two um proposed lots.

The two proposed lots we as shown on this plan um would meet all of the defined setbacks for the A80 zone, would meet the suitable area requirement for the A80 zone.

The only item that we would be requesting release from is the frontage requirement.

So as you can see, um, this parcel as it exists today does not have frontage.

Um it's accessed by this approximately 10 foot wide existing gravel access way that's located in a right-of-way easement.

Um this access drive would remain in its existing conditions.

It currently only services that one residential home that's in the back.

Um, so you can see on this plan what we have done is both lots would remain serviced by this access drive.

And then there would be a small split off at the top over here that would provide uh private driveway access to the additional residential home.

Um all of the wetlands and the survey has been completed to date.

And the existing home would remain in place and currently has an existing private septic system and an existing private well, which would remain servicing that home.

Um, and then the other proposed home would have a proposed private septic system and a private well as well.

Um and also I just want to note that the dimensional setbacks also uh we made sure that they work for that existing structure as well.

So we made sure that that stays out of the setback area.

And then as I had mentioned, the private drive, we would like to leave in its existing conditions.

To this lot today.

And then I would be open to any questions, any feedback you may have or anything that you'd like to see when we come back in the future.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any questions for Ms.

Shea from the Director Carrera?

Just got a couple of questions.

The existing, I assume that's an easement.

What properties is that easement part of?

So there you're you're speaking of the one with the access drive, correct?

Like the that one right.

So there's a couple easements on here.

So there's the purple, like there's a purple line.

That's an electrical easement for the existing overhead wires.

Um is the existing access drive.

That is actually an undefined right-of-way.

It's on an undefined it's an undefined right-of-way.

So there's no easement that anybody has the right to cross that.

So it's a access, it's an access easement right-of-way.

I can get the exact terminology.

I was gonna say, because I don't want to go down the path that they just did with Vaughn.

Oh, I I know far too well.

Because I had a totally different interpretation of what their definition of easement and access and right of way is.

So either it's a right of way, which would mean it's public, or it's an easement, which means it's on somebody's private property, and someone has given someone else the right to utilize that property to gain access to somewhere else.

That's what I'm trying to figure out here, so we don't have any confusion because I don't see any easement lines defined for that access right now.

And so per, and I'll I will confirm with our survey department, but per our class one survey that was completed for this property when we did it previously for I was actually the project manager on the previous subdivision for this parcel.

Um, and it was defined as an undefined right-of-way.

But I can get more information on that.

I wouldn't I would just say for us to understand it and to be able to get permission if we're giving permission for someone to access property through someone else's.

I don't think we have the right to do that.

So we either have to determine whether or not there's a legal easement, if there isn't, then something should be secured prior to coming back because that will be one of the questions we're gonna have as far as what's the legal right of way or could use that one.

Yeah, and if if I could just join in, uh obviously if it's an easement by prescription to the back, you by adding another lot, you'd be burdening a prescriptive easement, which you would then need permission, which you can't do.

I mean, you would need permission from the whoever owns lot 10.

Uh so um the owner, um, the applicant actually did recently speak with the owner um that is in the that top corner over there, that lot 10.

Um, and she did uh she had no objections uh to our proposal.

Yes, I think I guess Steve, you you need to secure something.

Button it up.

Well, uh secure uh uh an easement deed with uh description in order to allow this board to consider that application.

Thank you.

Um other questions from Ms.

Shay.

I just have a couple of questions, Ms.

Shay, just because I'm not an engineer, so I don't really read these maps well.

It's two different lots, right?

Correct.

Does any one of them have a house on it now?

One of them does.

So the um proposed lot numbers, right?

So proposed lot one has a proposed single family home.

Yep, proposed well, proposed septic.

And then lot two has the existing home, the existing well, septic.

And approximately how large are their lot sizes?

Um the usable area, which is what kind of has to meet that 80,000 threshold.

So lot one has 80,586 usable.

Um, and then lot two has 1093 five square feet usable.

All right, thank you.

And if I could so you you're defining usable area by uh you're taking out what the electric easement and what else?

We're taking out the wetlands.

Wetlands the wetland area.

Not the electric ease.

Not the electric either.

So can you go back to the other one?

So the red cross is that for an easement for the electrical lines?

That's an overhead electric, is it?

So I believe stop me if I'm wrong.

I believe usable area under our code excludes uh utility using this.

Check that.

So I recently did look into this.

Um I don't know.

So I I recently looked into this, and uh the subdivision regulations and the zoning regulations didn't exactly line up.

Um so when we looked into the state law, and state law says to exclude just the wetland area.

I can I can comment on that.

So um we pretty recently amended our subdivision regulations that excludes it, but only like excludes um overhead uh easement, uh just these electric easements, but in our zoning ordinance, we net we haven't amended the zoning ordinance to match up with our subdivision regulations yet.

So there's discrepancy about how either of them defines buildable area state law and the subdivision state subdivision law or state zoning law.

I'm I'm not sorry to put down the spot.

No, that's fine.

Um Rhode Island general laws, I believe the subdivision laws, but I would need to compare.

Steve, could you check on that too?

Um I I just don't want I have documentation too that I had already kind of put together about.

Yeah, because I thought I thought usable area excludes some a little bit more, and then my final question, and I'm sorry, because this is a legal nightmare, is um was the big lot part of the four lot subdivision up in front?

It was um was there any conditions of approval on the four lot subdivision that would impede an additional subdivision if it was all one parcel and we approved the four lot subdivision.

Were there any conditions of approval that would inhibit an additional an additional subdivision of the subdivision?

Not to my recollection, and we also did like as you can see just south of our subject parcel, there's a whole open space area, and that's not part of the application.

So that was part of the RPD, and that's gonna stay as is.

Um, and then the front four lots wouldn't get touched with this application.

Yeah, because I thought the four lot subdivision had an open space area, which was there.

Yep.

So we actually use all of the property lines that you're seeing on this land are from the record plan that was recorded for that project.

So they're the same property lines um that were defined and approved for that open space and those front four lots.

Why are you looking at me like that?

I I'm just seeing all what's happening around the state and here is that we're getting subdivisions on top of subdivisions, and I just had one that um basically they told me not even my client not even to apply and so I'm thinking because as part of the original subdivision, they agreed to only limit the subdivision to a certain number of lots, and now they want to take the big lot and resubdivide it kind of like it's here, but there was actually a condition of approval in the original subdivision.

Um, and I don't remember what we what would the condition of the first so we would need that also, Jerry.

Okay.

I I did review it before this project.

I don't recall anything, but I will double check for sure.

Nope, that's very important stuff.

Ms.

Chairman, okay, sorry.

George Prayer.

Again, just to kind of follow up with what journey Marcella said.

The open space calculation, it was required since those four lots in front were under sized lots.

None of that area is impacted by what you're proposing to do now.

So in order to have four lots, you needed four eighty thousand square foot lots minimum.

But obviously, those are only I think three quarter or one acre lots.

So that the space down below, which would be the southern southwestern corner, is something that was used for that calculation as open space, correct?

Correct.

And and those actually fell under an RPD, so they had reduced area requirement of 20,000 square feet.

There was there was definitely there was dimensional relief that was provided for those specifically to the frontage and I believe on the front two had area um request none and I believe the back two met that 2000 area just from my recollection.

Yeah just take note I mean we can review this when the actual application comes in but just note that we'll have to take a look at that original yeah we can take a look at that okay any other questions for Ms.

Shea Commission Lampier Thank you.

It's not really a question but just following up on what we just discussed perhaps um the actual overlay slide that shows us what was approved what you're asking for now so that we can see the areas don't overlap okay or to you overlap so that it would be easier for us to understand what subject of question here so it's kind of like an exhibit that the only thing is I just want to make sure that people don't get confused and kind of blend the two projects together because they're totally different applicants um different pockets.

Yeah I think our concern is that the property line should be second okay okay any other questions from a Shay right thank you Miss Shay very much oh I'll see if there's any whoever shut that off thank you very much it was like this when uh everyone at home watching there was this white noise in the background I was wondering what it was but I thought and it was like am I imagining this who has left this on anyway um all right thank you Miss Shay uh just I'll take you know is there any public comment here in the room about this proposal okay Mr.

Leem is there anyone online that wants to make public comment on this there's no public comment online.

All right thank you um anyone any have any last thoughts for uh Mr.

Antonucci Ms Shay okay so you know I think you got your homework on what you need to do to come before us okay all right all right thank you very much next we have 235 Beckwith Street I have here it says there's a continuance request um director ashman uh could you explain what the request is probably to the next meeting right John sorry um yeah so this is not my project but um to my understanding um the applicant for this project the owner um like applied for the project and then sold the property to another person and the the the other person wants to continue with the project the the new owner um then just what they want to continue with the subdivision but they just needed more time to kind of get a bearings on things um but we in the meantime we've already done the uh the advertising for this project right so that's like continuance necessary okay and because if there's a new owner there's probably you have to update something in the application about ownership and stuff like that minor stuff can still yeah you you would need new signatures and and not an not necessarily new application fee but the new owners of the property would have to sign the new the amended application correct um I don't believe there was anything in our regulations that requires like um the ownership to be in the like advertisements um so that's why we we thought they wouldn't have like if we could continue this we wouldn't have to re-advertise yeah you should re-advertise we should read you should well I mean this is just for age once you get you should we need the new owner's signature on the application and my advice would be to re-applize so would you consider this a new application no I don't think they'd have to pay a new application fee but because but they should application they should I think they should readvertise with the new owner it should better practice it whoever or the new owner

Once you get you should we need the new owner's signature on the application, and my advice would be to re-advertise.

So would you consider this a new application?

No, I don't think they'd have to pay a new application fee, but because the application they should, I think they should re-advertise with the new owner, it's better practice.

It whoever or the new owner pays for both, or whatever the whoever pays for whoever, but I would re-advertise it with the new owner once you get the new owners because you've advertised something with the you having you have an applicant that had didn't authorized the first advertisement because that was a different thing.

Oh so you think yeah, we we thought that like because technically in our regulations we don't require like the owner in as part of the like advertisements, and it's the same project, same property, only difference is different.

The only thing I would say is a member of the if I was a member of the public, who the owner is could matter to me.

I think sometimes who the owner is matters to people who come before zoning board sometimes.

Correct.

I mean legally it's just flat lot address, but right the owner can be yes.

That's probably the only reason that I can understand why an additional public notice could be beneficial.

That I don't think we do put the owner name in the advertisement.

So it's not it's not a requirement, it's not yeah, it's it's sometimes sometimes people are influenced by who the owner is sometimes they look at the owner's history of what they've done on other properties.

That's is it is it occurs very often?

No, uh but it could be an issue.

That's my own thing.

Commissioner Ronzuli.

Um, I just would like someone to clarify that someone is going to pay for this, but we are not gonna cover the advertisement again.

Someone covered this unless we unless we're the ones who screw something up, we do not cover the cost of that sense.

Okay, that's all thank you.

Okay, is there any other questions about this continuance?

This would be a continuous of November is the next meeting the fourth fifth.

Oh, actually, it says I guess that's on the on the slide.

Okay, um, all right.

If there's anything else, um there'll be a time for a motion for continuous to November the fourth motion to continue until November 4th.

Made by Commissioner Mazzulli seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed saying nay.

I have it.

Next item is the continuance request for 102 old Oak Avenue.

Uh could the staff explain uh reason for the request for a continuance?

This one was um we advertised the project in the newspaper, and then the applicant failed to do the appuised notices.

So for the next meeting, the applicant needs to submit the adoption.

Okay, I think that's a good reason to submit the butter's notices.

Okay, any questions for staff on this?

Any discussion?

Okay, motion to continuance until November the fourth.

In order motion made by Commissioner Mancini, seconded by vice president poop.

Any discussion hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, all those opposed say nay, aye sound move to zoning border review, french town capital partners.

Steve, we have a huge one.

Yeah, I'll need to recuse on this one.

Oh director will be recusing himself on this matter.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Sorry.

Okay, whenever you're ready, um, Mr.

Ray.

All right.

Um seventy-five and zero Oakland Avenue.

The applicant is requesting relief from the merger provision to construct a single family dwelling on this size lot.

So um the app can't requested specifically in the application.

Relief from substantive lots by the so in slide if you apply the sliding scale to these lots, and um uh they do uh compliance uh build lots, right?

Um they also or both provide sufficient accommodations for particular access and comply with the setback frontage and lot width requirements outlined in the slide scale.

Staff has reviewed this application and consideration with the compatibility of the general character of the surrounding areas are primary resident primarily residential and the press does not propose or encourage income uses that would be the structure.

An analysis of the neighborhood demonstrates that 71% of lots on B1 are feet for our substandard in size, meaning smaller than 6,000 square feet, and up to 378 lots on D1 in part 199 times part between 4,000 square feet and 4,800 square feet.

This means that lots of this size make up the majority of zone B1 and pose parcel A and proposed parcel B are both within the screen, meaning that the application is entirely character, and um we also found that the application is consistent with future land use map designation, negligibly changing the density, keeping it uh far below the future.

Um I'd like to give a positive recommendation.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on this matter?

Okay, let's see.

Um anything.

So first I'll just uh we'll do questions for the staff and then we'll open up for public comment.

Um Mr.

Ray, just a couple of clarification things because I'm just trying to understand how this when you go back to where it says 71% of the lot zone.

Are you talking about 71% of all the lots within 400 feet?

71% of all the lots in that area.

I mean, how do you define yes?

So it's going to be lot with many of them.

So the Eden Park's neighborhood that's B1 is not just within 400 feet, it could be 800 feet, it could be a thousand feet away from this.

Exactly.

Okay.

And did you do an analysis of just the lots within 400 feet?

Um I believe I did, but I did not.

Okay, because it'd be just so you know from everyone has different facts that they consider when they review these things.

For me, I like to look at 400 or 200 feet.

What does it look like?

Um the reason why I didn't do a 400 foot analysis is because of the school, as you can see in this school is like that takes up a lot of area and it's okay.

On the density calculation, you did a density calculation of what the neighborhood be if this proposal is granted.

I assume you did a calculation of this entire B1 Eden Park neighborhood.

Is that what the calculation of 9.34 is?

Um, did you do a calculation of what it would be for this particular parcel?

What would happen?

Like, would it be now the density of this project?

Would it be about like for example?

I think I calculated it.

I think about 10, 9.92 or something like that.

Is that sound about right too?

Because each one is about 4,000 square feet.

I love you as a witness.

Uh I gotta have you at more of my hearings.

Um, my point in this is what I was asking, Mr.

Ray is just I like to know also this again.

This is one of these facts that I care about, which is what is the density of the actual project?

And I've asked that of other people presented, but I think it's about I think it's about 10.

And that's still within the future land use map of 10.8.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all it was, Mr.

Roy.

Is there any other questions from Mr.

Ray?

Okay.

Is there any uh public comment here that likes to be heard on this project?

I don't see any in the room, Mr.

Lemer.

Is there anyone online that wants to talk about this project?

There is no public comment online.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions or comments?

Um otherwise this would be a proper time for motions.

I think a motion to accept a positive recommendation.

What's the planning staff?

Motion made for a positive recommendation by Director Carrero, seconded by Commissioner Renzuli.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Yeah, I have it.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Ray.

I know you're sticking with us for the next one.

The next one is force realty and Amy Fairs at 74 Ralph Square.

All right, so um, this is a request for various uh for Austrian parking and happening as far requesting permission to construct a dining area without an increase.

Um see where the addition will be so our off-street parking requirements for eating and competitions.

One space should be provided for each the proposed parking provided is 12 space to fulfill the the parking requirement on they would need to reply.

So any staff has reviewed this application property and surrounding area instead of general business uses and this does not propose encouraged to around it.

It's abundant on street parking nearby, indicating that includes off-street parking and not the bank customers from accessing this restaurant or surrounding business.

Also, finds that the application is consistent with patrillion is not designation, which is uh neighborhood commercial slash services, which closely aligns with the current C3.

Thanks, like you have a positive recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant here wishes to be heard on this matter?

What do you think Robert Murray for uh on this feast crowding?

This is taking away from our photographs and dining over spaces with available question the other tenant very limited hours or so spaces will properly be also um

Thank you.

Uh is any my fellow colleagues uh have any questions for Mr.

Murray?

Commissioner Lamper.

I'm not sure if this is directly from the process.

Mr.

Murray, um have a quote, a couple of questions real quick.

Um you represented that the you that you and off street parking has not been a problem area at this time that off street parking has not been a problem in the Ralph Square area at this time.

Well, with respect to this location with respect to the threshold for what we okay.

Uh Mr.

Ray, have we gotten are you aware of any all street parking problems in the vicinity or related to this restaurant?

Okay, did we receive any public however um about this issue about all street parking in that area that you're aware of?

No, okay.

Any other questions for Mr.

Murray?

And and plus with the take it outside um state law kind of that area is being usable.

Yeah.

No, I I only like I said, I don't I used to live in that area, but you can park over here to have a concern of creating an off-stream property area.

So that's kind of what when you're taking away, not taking away is not the right track when you're seeking less than half of what is required.

That's a big number, and so once I give it to you, you know, somebody else will say I wanted to, I wanted to, and then we have a big that was my that's really what I'm trying to see if there was a true off-street parking problem right now.

There's not okay.

That's a concern.

That's all it's right.

I'm on the zoning board, so any other okay.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Murray.

There are any other questions?

Any public comment on this application?

Seeing none here in the room.

Anyone online, Mr.

Lima that would like to comment on this?

There's no public comment online.

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Ray, you've made a positive recommendation.

Is there any questions or comments?

Not motion would be in order.

Motion to accept a positive recommendation from the planning staff.

Motion made for a positive recommendation by Commissioner Renzuli.

Is there a second seconded by Commissioner?

Rector Carrero.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those saying nay.

Ayes have it.

Good night, Mr.

Murray.

Next, we will go to bond release request.

So the finance department at CVS was filming through their books and found that they still had a bond.

Um from the construction that happened back in 2011 on the CVS on Broad Street New York and Norwood Avenue.

Dr.

Carrero, you have anything to add on that?

Like I said, we I did go over there to take a look at it after 14 years or so.

I don't think there's anything that hasn't been done that is supposed to be okay.

Just want to make sure.

All right.

Any questions for the staff?

Not a motion we ordered to release the bond.

I make a motion to release the bond.

Motion made to release the bond by Director Guerrero, seconded by Commissioner Lampier.

Any discussion.

Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Ayes have now we will return back to the beginning of our agenda, which is a comprehensive plan amendment update and presentation on progress from the staff.

Go ahead, uh Director Ashman.

Thank you.

Moving full speed ahead with comp plan phase two, as well as expediting work on the housing element.

Um we're aiming to have a carefully crafted housing element that responds to all the most recent parameters from the state in front of the CPC in November.

So we we were close to having a draft for you to be able to review.

Um the intent is to submit this element to statewide planning directly as a draft for review uh while we continue to work on all the other elements of the comp plan.

Um so we have to do one of the things we talked about at our last meeting on this is that we need to do a 20-year plan for housing.

And and um, what you're seeing here is uh a record of how many housing units that we've produced in Cranston from 1950 to the present in the dark green, and then in the lighter green, uh me showing ramping up to meet that housing 2030 goal in the next five years, and you can see I have assumed we're you know it's already October in 2025, so we're not gonna not gonna increase many more units this year, but I'm showing the sort of ramping up towards 2030 to make that goal, and then based on the populations projections for Cranston, which are are quite low growth out to 2046.

Um, I'm showing what maybe the continuum of need for housing would be um for those out years in the five years.

So it's quite an interesting graph.

Um it uh kind of emphasizes that uh that the 2030 goal is going to be quite a ramp up in housing production to meet that.

I I would look at this graph and I think of it also like you're squeezing a balloon, you squeeze one side and it pops out that way, like you can see housing production just dropped off in 2008 and never recovered.

So we've the story from the state is that we've accumulated a housing shortage by producing slightly too few units every year since 2008, and so there's some catch-up to do, and then once we caught up the the plan, I think is for very steady to allow very steady housing.

But this projections are kind of the basis for the housing production plan that we have to do.

So the next slide.

Uh, just to recap, you know, the the checklist that we have to avoid comprehensive permits.

Um approve the housing getting an approved comp, adopting inclusionary zoning, and meeting the 10% housing guaranteed LMI affordable housing.

We're currently at six point uh three.

So you know little gap, a little catch up to do in terms of guaranteed affordable units.

Next slide.

The next slide talks about the the strategies that we're putting in the comp plan.

So you know down at the bottom places we don't want housing we don't want it in our conservation areas areas with flood risks or industrial parks and we don't want it in our build out neighborhoods that's the Dina states the the neighborhoods that are built according to our zoning today and then they comply with the zoning those are not where we're trying to change anything to add more housing.

So there are really three strategies that we're using to get to the housing goal.

One is the transit supportive areas which would be Warwick Avenue Broad Street and Elmwood Avenue um the neighborhood mixed so those areas I think are the areas where we plan we think we can accommodate the most growth where uh four story buildings might be appropriate where uh buildings can be up closer to the to the street line and where we can take land that's right now a mix of commercial industrial and residential land and allow residential anywhere um allowing property owners to to propose any mix of any one of those uses not necessarily mixed use within a single project but any one of those uses within the zone the neighborhood mixed use strategy is um allowing residential uses in areas that currently don't allow them I think the the rezone that we just did recently that you just recommended positively and the city council just passed in Knightsville is a perfect example of a neighborhood mixed use that was two acres where residential use was not allowed but they got a rezone allow them they're gonna put 30 units on it's two and two stories some three it's much lower density than transit supportive areas but it's the idea is you can blend some residential housing into areas that are now zoned commercial and then the third part working really digging in to put numbers on this is what I'm calling unrealized growth.

So those are neighborhoods where there's infill potential uh because maybe there's there's structures that could be adaptively reused you know legacy industrial buildings and residential neighborhoods um oversized lots and small lots and ADUs which are the three things three things from the state legislation that um the state mandates but we also need to catch up and figure out the Cranston process to do those things.

So if you go to the next slide that's just one so this just to illustrate um I put up Legion bowl at the top as I think is a good visual illustration of what we're gonna I I'm thinking of in the plan for Lau on Elmwood Avenue.

So that would be a transit supportive area it's it's four stories tall it's got trees along the street it's got wider sidewalks and it's a different looking than the below neighborhood mixed use um two two and a half three stories some density but not nearly as much as what we approved in the what you the commission approved with the Legion Bull property um I know this is a lot of numbers on a slide this is where um I've met with some people who review plans for statewide planning and to understand their expectations for the numbers so this is where a lot of our work is um now is getting working out our methodology to support the yield numbers that we have for the different strategies you see at the bottom we've listed a uh projects that already have been permitted in in Cranston assuming that I assume that five out of the six of them will get built in the next five years um again there are a lot of assumptions and coming up with um the methodology and the justification to persuade statewide planning that those numbers are real is part of the job and then um I have three columns here what might get built out by 2030 but by 202046 and then what would be my estimate if we maxed out that strategy so we know that we have 800 oversize or small lots that could be unmerged or oversized lots that could be split that don't that are vacant right now and don't have um they don't have flood we we we uh subtracted out the floodland to make sure that they were at least broad brush buildable obviously you haven't analyzed the individual lots but that's sort of the potential if every lot that could be split got split um 800 but I'm assuming here there is we are seeing kind of a surge after the state legislation on lots splits um and then I just go through um independence way there's 15 acres where we've talked about rezoning to residential uh there's residential across the street and again this is where you think about um you know if we limit that to to the 30 35 feet and keep it small it it'll actually take few of our numbers so we'll have to we'll have to do a lot more housing somewhere else so there's sort of a a push and pull between finding those places where density can be accommodated without without uh really affecting the character of any existing neighborhoods and making those trade offs um next slide uh

So there's sort of a push and pull between finding those places where density can be accommodated without without uh really affecting the character of any existing neighborhoods and making those trade-offs.

Um next slide.

Uh this you'll have the there's has to be worked on the scheduled ordinances, which is a required part of the housing plan of like what are the ordinances we would have to adopt as a city as a city to implement that.

So this is tentatively our our uh scheduled ordinances, all those things I think you've seen before.

Although one of the things that we've uncovered through a number of meetings with staff is that we have um a lot of ADUs that are not currently current with their we have a lot of ADUs that may not have been inspected or and may have some safety issues and the ADUs that we so we have a little bit of a process that we need to create if we want to allow some of those units to convert to a permanent status, and we shouldn't just wave a wand and make them all permanent.

We should make sure that they've all been inspected and not our are safe for human habitation because there's a concern from the staff that there might be a housing safety issue there.

Um next steps, we're definitely focusing on on the map as staff or examining all the city-owned parcels.

You know, this one's a drainage, this one's for drainage.

This one's understanding what each of them's for so we can uh identify if there are any city-owned parcels that we can that have potential or housing.

And we're working on um changes to the land use map to match that.

We'll be circulating a draft um at least a week prior to your next meeting.

And uh, I also want to announce that we were selected in a competition to get received tactic assistance from the national decent states and cohort getting us planning process housing plan.

So that's over the next year.

So think of that at our comp plan phase two approach to housing as we're gonna participate with our cohort and welcome to gum.

We're gonna have something for you next month, and we are going to continue to work and refine it in the next year, and they're you know, in order it to go back to that first slide where we talked about from permits, meeting the 10% affordable housing is one of the things.

So even though while we're in a planning process, we are still you know, we're working on interdepartmental coordination to improve the processes for lot splits and mergers and how that happens to try to not put unnecessary process and expense on our applicants because we've been we've been bouncing them around between requirements a little bit as we adjusted to the new state legislature.

Uh, we've been meeting with developers.

The the Knightsville rezon is a great example, but I've been meeting with an a number of other developers and and you know, in the Knightsville when they came in, and because we have had a Knightsville because design guideline that suggested mixed use that that called for that neighborhood to accommodate more housing.

I was able to say, you know, I know the zoning says this, but why don't you propose something that's consistent with those those Knightsville design downs on them?

And so we can then push the developer to give us a few more units than we might have yielded from that property under the zoning as it was in that and we're also coming next month.

We'll have we'll have that list of ordinance revisions.

We'll have text for you to examine.

Uh we would need a I would also request a motion to continue this public hearing in November.

I mean, June.

Yes.

Understood.

Um, any questions for staff?

I have a couple myself, but um, I'll get it started just because I usually I'm thinking about as I go along.

So I'll start out with I think the first slide.

I recall the numbers.

So the numbers, so the question.

So I understand the 1367 number is the number in the draft of the state, and we'll work in whatever the state's draft is.

The 1320 number.

Um who came up with that?

Isn't you guys did?

You guys, okay.

Well, that's so this is subject to change by us, right?

Okay.

The statewide planning fish official population projections don't go out that far.

They go out to 2040, and they interestingly, they last projected that Cranston would peak about 2035 and then actually start losing population slightly.

Um still you also have to have an assumption in there for housing replacement.

So my numbers I'm showing here are above are above what the state's projected population was I threw in some padding for need to replace and rejuvenate housing.

Okay.

Um but it yeah, it does feel like speculation as you go into the outer years.

What will the population you know how how's it the we're estimating that household size might continue to decline but not go below two as an average household size?

Right.

Um, there are a number of assumptions that go into that.

Yeah, because on you know, we don't need to get into a whole demographic discussion here about how wood island is aging, and you know, we could end up being a losing population um over time because of the demographics of baby boomers passing on and stuff like that.

So I just you know that number to me may be a bit high, but that's over 20 years, 1320.

Okay, okay.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

So the dark green is all the completed building permit.

The history is dark green, but everything in the lighter green and the blue is is uh projected, yes.

Yes, so you you you appreciate my apprehension about those 2030 production goals because when you see them on that Beth, do we do do we have a uh a list of approved units that are that another slide?

It's kind of too small to see, but um, I put the rezone, it's not really approved, but the isedo rezone was approved, which could be 30 units, Legion Bowl 669, night's corner.

These are all projects, Steve, that we approved here at the count at the commission level of the council or or that haven't been built yet.

Some of them are at the master plan level, you know, but they're all in the works and have really and what about the copyonado ones?

Are they in about to say the one thing I was gonna that's actually brings up a good point?

See Chaplin Hills, that's actually undercounted.

There's phase one and there's phase two.

So you only have phase phase one there.

Yes, you need one, the other one is a 156 or 165.

Yeah, and the other one, and the other one while we're on this, so I can just get yeah, yeah.

There's another one is 747 Pontiac Avenue.

That was 18 units that yeah, yeah, they're they're moving on that one.

There's yeah, I passed by there.

There's something going on, it isn't a ghost.

You know what I mean?

There's something going on in that point building.

So um, those are just a couple of more to add that I wanted to point out to you about that, but that's your point, Commissioner Coop.

If you can you can take it, yeah.

We have to convince statewide planning that the changes we make will allow for the production of museum.

You're talking about a 20-year housing plan, but according to these projections in six years, the required production is gonna drop up a stone.

Well, more like we have this backlog, we have to catch up, and then theoretically we'll be caught up and we'll just have a normal demand.

But we're creating policies and ordinances to allow really high demand, and those aren't going to change in six years when the projected need for so how do we understand what I'm saying?

I I I think it may in reality take us more than five years to catch up, but yes, and but at some point we will and we will have made some pretty significant changes for our comp plan to our policies to our goals to our ordinances to ramp up production.

Well, to yeah, to allow, although as you see, things there can be land that sits there unbuilt for a long time.

Just because we allow it doesn't mean it will be built.

Once we catch up, whenever that is five years, ten years, 15 years, those policies are still gonna be in place.

Yeah, and so on this c on this um one of the things I'm trying to do with the math is is to look at I have a build-out columns like well if we fully if we fully maxed out that policy, what's the maximum?

You know, when's the game over?

No more small small lots you can split.

Um, I mean, no more oversized lots you can split.

And so we are thinking about that.

And I it is I think it's we won't be able to guarantee which of these things will get built in which time frame, but I do think that um we have enough ideas on the table that we can meet the numbers without having to dig further.

And I do want to emphasize the importance of taking action on rezoning.

For example, independence way.

I've had discussions with three or four, I don't know, I think three uh developers who are potentially interested in that, but they walk away when I tell them, well, we'd love to have you propose housing there.

You just have to, you know, talk to your city councilor and get them to introduce an ordinance and get it rezoned, and they're like, Yeah, call me later, lady.

And um, and instead, they're you know, I've had developers asking about doing uh comp permits out on Situate Avenue.

And I'm like, no, no, independence way independent.

So, like if we rezone that we can help steer them.

I guess there.

But my question is not necessarily the housing, it is housing production in the short term, but are we putting too many eggs in the housing basket so that at some point we're gonna look around and say we have no commercial land built, we have no industrial land available because we've scrammed housing into every possible space that we have.

Yeah, and that that is important.

If you go back to the the slide on your different this one, you know, we definitely should prepare that plan of where we don't want housing um industrial parts and it could be commercial centers that we want to be really clear that they're not for neighborhood mixed use.

They're you know so I'm thinking of Elmwood Avenue.

Not that I think we're gonna have large-scale manufacturing coming to Elmwood Avenue, but there may be some commercial use, and if we fill that up with mixed use or housing, we eliminating one of the last places that it's available for commercial development.

I think you're asking a really good question.

Um of the standards that we're thinking for the transit-oriented development is that would be understood that industrial uses are allowed to continue and new industrial uses would be allowed, like all of the above uses are allowed.

So if you're choosing to live in that four-story apartment building on the transit line on Elfoon Avenue, you understand that there were gonna be businesses around you, and that that's part of the the vibe of that type of development.

That's that's I just wanted to bring that point up first.

No, it's iteration.

It's very key because we shouldn't, and I think you you bring up a really good point about how markets fluctuate.

Like right now, the demand for industrial may seem really low, but if we foreclose that opportunity, we could really we could really regret it 10 years from now.

If we you know let people build housing in our two industrial parks, and honestly, the western industrial park, I have had someone inquire about building building housing off Amplex Drive, because the parcel they are looking at is primarily zoned residential, oddly enough.

So it's it's it's not uh just a hypothetical question.

You're you may very well see proposals.

One thing uh commissioner boom.

Oh go ahead.

Oh, I just wanted to add on like we're also um at the same time also thinking about like how can we uh we're also looking at the economic development side as well.

Um we know this currently from our zoning code, there's a lot of barriers, for example, for like smaller business and stuff like the um and uh currently also a lot of our industrial lands being used up by self-storage.

Um, so that's something we're also looking into as well.

Um so it's uh it's the economic development side we're thinking in addition to the housing side, it's not it's not like we're just thinking about housing posts.

I think that's not important how in discussions with commerce, they they did emphasize that making housing a little more available was important for economic development, but um yeah, if we jump to that, um we want to do on the economic development element, we'd like to do some focus groups of small business, larger business, agricultural businesses, and um really dig in there.

I'm not exactly sure on the time frame because there are a lot of things to wrap our hands around that I absolutely we need to consider.

I mean, that's the whole concept of the comprehensive plan, is that you look at it from all angles.

Yeah, so the last thing I'll say is public policy tends to be reactive, and when we're making a 20-year plan, I think we need to be proactive.

Just one uh commissioner could just try to respond to a couple of comments you made.

We put the chart back up.

Thank you.

That 1367, we already have approved that master plan or preliminary plan or city council level, 636 apartment units, two champlains, all this other stuff.

So to me, if they actually do come online, that's half of that 1367.

You see what I'm saying?

Okay, so that's why this thing is like it's going up so fast.

Is that we've already this is what I try to say is that we have already approved, it just hasn't come online.

But our jobs is to allow it is not to finance, we are not developers, okay.

We don't pay people to build stuff, which is part of my understanding.

I think I meant that point before, but yeah, but also the fact that we've approved roughly half that number already, and yet we're being dictated by the state to have inclusive zoning and create zones for multi-family housing in an effort to meet the other half of that budget.

Those are going to be around long after we've reached that 1367 number.

Although the the people are already here, that's those those the the large part of that twent 2030 goal is to house people are already here in Franston.

They just they're just adult kids who can then move out to their own apartment or or you know, it's it's it's about that's why the household size is also rejected to draft with that.

It's about housing, not for growth, but to make housing affordable for the people who already live here to make changes in lifestyle as they go through different phases of my butt you know, Rob, one of the cycles is of the 600 units we approve, only a fraction of them are affordable, which will then lower our affordable numbers.

So we'll actually get penalized for approving 600 units.

All of them include affordable significant amount of affordable, except for I think one sprint works, yeah.

All of them have the 15% of some networks, and I want to be very clear.

No one here is going to accuse me of not supporting housing in affordable housing, but I I want to make sure we take a long view, and and while I generally support public proposals, do think we need to have a wrong balance that with every other piece that's necessary.

And I do think the mandate that may be closer to the issue than some people, but you know, I think the mandate is coming in at a time when the demand is starting to level up.

Correct.

I I I like what you said, Commissioner Proposal seconded it this way, dictate ideally.

I would not be putting a 1367 number.

I think you know me well enough.

That's not my number.

That's the state's number for now.

For now, and so this is why I try to talk to the director about to some extent the staff is we will try our best to get to that number.

And half of that number we have already, like I said, approved.

In regards to the other stuff, that's why we uh we can get other stuff like the transit-oriented development, something here, something there, but I do not want to make fundamental changes to our neighborhoods because I do not think that is necessary to meet this housing demand that we're being talking about because you're saying it's leveling off in many states across the country already in the west and the south, housing prices are starting to decline.

We are using the northeast kind of the back end of it, as you know, about housing prices.

Someone was telling me I gotta get the articles in Connecticut's already starting to show some signs.

So we are reacting to a to a lack of building from the 20, you know, 2008 to the to the 20, you know, 17 number.

So we have already approved 663 636 units, and there's all these other things.

So I do have a concern that by the time we get to about 2028, 29, people are gonna be like, wait a minute, we don't need all this more housing, but we're not there.

The state hasn't figured this out yet.

But you so you and I are saying absolutely.

I'm just telling you that I gotta deal with this guy up at State House and the planning departments up there, and the statewide planning who want 1367.

And we have to we have it's to our benefit to show how we would allow that.

That doesn't mean that that amount will get built in five years, it doesn't amount, you know.

Umbody expects developers to try to build with the demand software.

They if they can't fill those units, they're gonna stop and and what and one thing, Commissioner Coop, I think we'll see what they put the staff comes up with and what we think about.

Like I said, we've already have half in the I call half we've already gotten there.

So what we need to do to get that out of the number.

Uh, I'm on the less, I'd rather do less than more kind of kind of change, and we just could be a little bit more targeted, but we can talk about you know what we have to because we do have to make a good pay paper to 1367.

That's my own view.

And what comes after we can figure out sorry, Commissioner Wizoo.

I just have a question, probably for the staff.

If we get to that 1367, it doesn't necessarily matter how from from the that chart.

So it doesn't matter from which category those phones come from.

One of our some of them want to call us max out one.

Really yield results, and others might yield nothing.

We could actually do things, Commissioner Coop, on a phase basis, like some of the things we could we already got 636 in the can, you know, as we go.

If there's we're still seeing a housing shortage, it's not supply.

You go we start implementing further and further, but if it's starting to not appear anymore, we would stop, you know, because we had in the end have to implement but plan.

There's plan and then there's implementation.

That's just my okay.

Commissioner Lincoln, I know you've been patient.

You have your finger on the button.

I I would sound what you showed it.

Um lot uh small lots, oversized lots, and I think with some range which can be uh to allow it by yeah, right now it often costs people thousands of dollars just to get an answer to whether they can or can't move forward with an application, so it'd be great to have something that could help them get a sense based on you know of whether that would be allowed without having to base everything on individual analysis.

So it'd be great to have something that could help them get a sense based on you know of whether that would be allowed without having to base everything on individual analysis.

So why right is language so I would be very performance standards, but I don't believe that statewide planning will let us count numbers that aren't by right.

We need to we need to articulate what our criteria are.

We can't just do it because I know language as is predominant in the local neighborhood correct.

So it's very we we are working very hard on some specific.

Um we have a number of different schemes we put together in terms of different ways to analyze it.

Um in a number of our eastern neighborhoods, particularly in the B1 and A6 zones, the predominant lot sizes are smaller than 6,000.

And our comp plan for the last 20 years has called for rezoning those neighborhoods to match the predominant fabric of the neighborhoods.

We're not talking about the majority of neighborhoods or the majority of zones, we're just talking about places where the neighborhood already exists with its 4,000 or 5,000 square foot lots, and we came in and re zone to day six on top, and the states created an opening through their oversized and small lot rules that we allow people to uh to split it based on a 200-foot analysis, but I would much prefer a neighborhood-based analysis because there are natural boundaries to neighborhood.

The 200 foot is very artificial, um, in my perspective, and it would be much better to have a table like okay, you're in this zone in Knightsville, you got 5,000, you're good because that's a neighborhood full of 5,000 square foot lots, and that's whether we do it as a rezone or we do it as uh a table that grants exemption to lots of a certain size in certain areas from the merger provision.

There are a couple different strategies we could take for doing it, but um we're bleeding a lot of money out of property owners who just to get to the answer to the question of of can I build on five thousand square foot lots?

So it's very expensive to apply for variance.

Um it's it can you can easily run up thousands of dollars, yeah, a couple thousand for the land surveyors and then the the uh certified mail and I mean someone walked in yesterday and said that you know they cost some six thousand dollars just to find out whether it's a yes or a no, it'd be much better if we can be like, no, it's not five thousand, you can't do it.

I mean, you one if you want to build a house, you need a class one survey anyway, so you can't you will to build it, but you know whether to get the survey.

I uh you you may not appreciate the frustration of the residents of Franston who walk into our office throughout the week, and then we explain to them our ordinances in the state tests, and they're like, you've got to be kidding.

I know, but it's embarrassing to not have processes that are a little easier to explain.

It's it's I I come from the academic development world.

I don't think there's any benefit to any of us bleeding money out of property owners just for the process, just because what is could you go back to put the slide up that shows the production numbers that you're proposing?

So you're you're let's see which when you talk about rezons.

Like what are you talking about when Commissioner Lampier's question about splitting up zone splitting up lots and oversized lots, but number that so the lot that the state legislation I think gives people the right to probably if they all hire the land surveyors and lawyers maybe split up to 800 lots and I say a lot of places that are zone so that's a state law right now, right?

And I'm saying if that's the way we're gonna do it, let's make it a simple process that works for us and doesn't leave money out of well, we we can't.

Well, we we can't.

Yes, we can that no, we can't because the state it's an enabling law that we have to follow.

Oh, yeah, so they can always prove to us, but we could also give people a yes without them spending all that money.

No, on unmerging we'll talk offline.

Uh we're we have policy choices we can make.

We can't do less than the state.

We have to follow state enabling law to the T.

Absolutely.

No, I guess I get that.

I get that.

I'm talking about her stuff, Commissioner Lampier's points.

Is anything else up there other than the small lots?

Because if it's small lots put oversized lots, that's all state law, then I don't need to do anything other than what state law tells me to do, right?

I would recommend that we adopt a better process.

I understand, but my same in accordance with our comp plan that says we are going to allow development that matches the character of the neighborhood.

This is a long running discussion, and I understand that whole thing.

This is about production.

So state law is already going to make me produce people follow it.

250 lots by 2030.

Well, that's what state law wants.

That's what we do.

We don't have to be anything more than what state law says.

And if Commissioner Lampier has some concerns and all this other stuff, I don't really need you know to reinvent the wheel.

No, and we can we can zero out one lot.

We well, we don't make any I would estimate lot splits a lot lower if we don't make the process sane.

If we just stick to like go hire a lawyer and fight us, which you know, people can do that, you spend your six thousand, you get your stuff, and like that's approved.

Um but we can you know, we could zero out that line and instead try to concentrate more of our efforts in another.

You can zero out that line, put in 156 from Champlain Hills, phase one.

Right now, all the what we're talking about is like 90 units.

Okay, so that's that's that's what it is.

If they I mean, I don't even think you need to zero out that one just by going by the state law process, you're probably talking.

You're talking just earlier that you're seeing a lot more because of state legislation.

Uh what you call it, lot splitting is the phrase you used.

How many have you seen so far this year since the law changed?

Any idea?

25, 50, 30, 10.

I could get you that number.

Okay.

Significant in cranes that have achieved it or that if you're just talking, so we're talking oversized lots subdivisions and uh sub center lots, my rights up center lots.

Whatever it is, variances, whatever you guys can.

Oh, and full oversized lots of divisions.

We haven't gotten any so far.

I mean, it's pretty new, so that may or may not change.

Right.

Um, of the people who have contacted our office who are interested.

I think we have seen one property that qualifies so far.

Um the oversized lot line, I don't think really really apply.

Okay, it's less of a Cranc thing because we're pretty cladded, yeah.

Oversized lot, maybe uh Smithfield thing where they have less plaques and they have more bigger kind of acreage.

It depends.

So, in in the Eastern Cranston side, um, you know, we do have a you know, median lot sizes are somewhere around 4,000 or 5,000 very often, yeah.

And sometimes people will have double lots um with the house on like one side.

So there are cases where um you know people will qualify, but like people who have like wired about it in our office so far.

Uh there is one property that I can remember that we look into that would qualify for this of people with it for oversized, um and of like substandard lots that didn't need a variance of some sort, maybe some like I see a lot of them come through, maybe less than 10 probably this year.

Okay, so let's say we use a number 10.

Can we use that number?

Okay, thank you.

So we do 10 times five and makes 50, right?

Okay, so that's those 250 goes to 50, and then I put my 156 from Champlain phase one, and I put my 18 from 747 Pontiac Avenue.

I'm pretty close to 1367, I think.

So then I don't well.

I hope we'll consider making some changes that will help the city going forward because uh you know, Cranston's over 10 years behind in implementing zoning that matches its comprehensive plan, and we see the effects of that in western Cranston in terms of the conservation zoning not being in place, and and uh we see that in terms of just the the you know Elmwood Avenue is not looking that great these days.

I shouldn't say that on the tape, but we have some places where there could be more investment where they're they look like disinvested commercial areas, we have a couple, and um for another question, comment or uh on the transit, you know.

I think that reservoir, yeah.

I'm I'm currently working on an asses on that.

Yeah, and there is some we would I we want you in order to be successful, you don't want to spread out everywhere, you want to actually pick some areas you're planning to focus redevelopment on because then you can be successful.

Um, I know there are there are there is some transit service on a few other north-south roads in the city.

The best transit city service we have right now is in the eastern part of the city.

Um, definitely worth discussing, and um you did put together.

I don't know if we get it, but we did put in a grant for technical assistance to help us really do a process and you know, look at those areas and be very nuanced about which segment what what what's what kind of development will be appropriate in each segment along the corridor?

It isn't just a corridor, it has nodes too.

I mean, there are parts that are totally residential and and they have different characters, and we want to make sure that we respect those as we as we move forward, and that we um you know the areas where there are mill buildings might have larger residential buildings, the areas where there are smaller residential buildings.

We want to respect that fabric.

One thing to follow up, Commissioner Lampre, on your metro transit issue.

When you look at the city, and I know this just from reading Riptus efficiency studies, which I don't do in my free time, the usage is on the east.

That's what a high usage is.

So if, like, I'll start out with a premise.

Ripped up has problems, right?

Has financial problems, and they're constantly talking about you know, cutting back services.

Would do we have enough money to do things?

So, what my view is if you're gonna build train on transit, you gotta make sure that that transit's gonna stay there and be frequent usage.

So when I look at the system and it goes from east to west, like I can't remember the bus route over there, but the broad street war, the Elmwood are like top five usage routes in the state.

You could maybe Elmwood is also a top five, okay.

Pontiac is pretty good, okay.

That could be another area, but once you start moving west, it gets less and less reservoir, is medium.

There's like 35 or 40 routes in the whole state, and it's a medium usage.

Oakland is even lower, and then it gets like kind of less and stuff.

So to me, where the usage you build where the usage is, where it's not going to be cut, and where I could see people actually wanting to have transit service.

So to me, that's why it's war broad in Elmwood because those are the top their area is the top five.

Cranston is not in the same, it's like kind of middle.

Cranston's like, I think middle.

I don't even know Cranston Street that goes like this and then down, it goes Cranston Street down Oakwall.

It's not so good.

It's below the medium of like of the of all the routes that I recall.

Reservoir is about the middle.

So to me, that's why it's there.

It's not because you know, you know, I went on the map and I went in the meeting my vote.

You know, I told the staff people.

It's basically based on two premises.

Ripped has got problems, so it could cut back.

And second, that's what the intense usage is.

That's what it is.

That's the top five.

So I could see that never getting cut, and that being stated.

That's what it is.

Anyone else have any other questions for the staff on this?

And this is a work in progress.

We anticipate trying to get this done in November, but it may not be ready for a vote on November.

We may have to air it out, review it.

Um, but our goal is to get this moving along.

Um I think you already got feedback already on number one point, which was the oversized lot issue.

Yeah, I did the math for you, which is lower the number and put Champlain Heights phase one in there, and numbers will start working out.

Um it's statewide planning that all the projects are developed will get built.

Well, I'll work on I'll work on that.

Well, that's what it is.

We'll see what statewide planning has to say.

We're doing the best we can.

They don't want it.

We want to do what we can here.

That's all we can do.

So um, oh no, I'm gonna get into that.

All right, that's all I got.

Anybody else has anything else for the staff on this?

Feel free always to call the staff with any concerns or questions or problems.

Um, you know, like for example, specifically director Guerrero.

You know, if you have issues about traffic issues, concerns, always feel free to call talk to the director and commissioner coop.

You always had a lot of experiences director administration, big picture issues.

So I said, just feel free to call the director.

Yeah, super appreciated.

Okay, anything else from anyone else?

Okay, I'll make a motion to continue this to our November 4th meeting.

Uh amendments to the comprehensive plan.

Motion motion made by Commissioner Vice Chairman Coop, seconded by Commissioner Mazzuli.

Any discussion?

All those in favor of continuing this to November the 4th, signify by saying aye.

Others opposed say nay.

I think that's director.

Thank you for providing a written report.

Does anyone have any questions for the director as to a written report?

As you know, you can ask her questions anytime about her written report.

You don't have to do it at this meeting.

Okay, if there's nothing else, we have a motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Coop.

Second by Commissioner Mancini.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Thank you.

I'll see you next month.