Cranston Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2025
Cranston Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2025
The Cranston Planning Commission met on October 7, 2025, starting at 6:32 PM. The meeting included approvals of previous minutes, a withdrawal of the Von Lane project, a pre-application discussion for a subdivision, continuances for two projects, positive recommendations for two zoning matters, a bond release, and an update on the comprehensive plan amendments.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The minutes of August 26, 2025, were approved (motion by Director Carrero, second by Commissioner Exter). The minutes of September 2, 2025, were approved (motion by Commissioner Mancini, second by Director Carrero). Both approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Von Lane Withdrawal: Attorney Tanessa Azar requested withdrawal of the application due to inconclusive title information regarding Winnie Street. The applicant plans to return with an amended, redesigned project. Stephen Slidepole, representing neighbors, expressed concern that the withdrawal be clearly a new application, not a continuance. The commission clarified it is a withdrawal without prejudice, requiring a new application. Commissioner Zoolie thanked residents for their input, emphasizing the goal of a better buy-right project. The chair thanked all parties for professionalism.
- 1489 Pippin Orchard Road: No public comment from the room or online.
- 235 Beckwith Street: No public comment.
- 102 Old Oak Avenue: No public comment.
- 75 & 0 Oakland Avenue (Frenchtown Capital Partners): No public comment.
- 74 Ralph Square (Force Realty/Amy Fairs): Attorney Robert Murray represented the applicant, noting no off-street parking problems in the area. No public comment.
- Comprehensive Plan Update: No public comment during this agenda item.
Discussion Items
- 1489 Pippin Orchard Road – Pre-Application: Jen Shea from Depreet Engineering presented a minor subdivision of one 5.7-acre lot (zoned A-80) into two lots. The only requested relief is from frontage requirements; both lots would access via an existing gravel drive in an undefined right-of-way. Director Carrero raised concerns about the legal status of the access easement, noting that an easement by prescription cannot be burdened without permission from the owner of Lot 10. The applicant indicated the owner had no objections, but the board directed them to secure a formal easement deed. Commissioner Lampier requested a future overlay showing the original subdivision to ensure no conditions impede this subdivision. The board also noted a discrepancy in the definition of usable area between subdivision and zoning regulations; staff will clarify. No action was taken; the applicant received feedback to address before formal application.
- 235 Beckwith Street – Continuance: The applicant sold the property; new owner needs time to get bearings. Discussion arose about whether to re-advertise given change in ownership. Director Ashman advised re-advertising with the new owner's name. The board agreed to continue to November 4, 2025, with re-advertisement. Motion by Commissioner Mazzulli, second by Commissioner Exter, approved.
- 102 Old Oak Avenue – Continuance: The applicant failed to mail abutter notices after newspaper advertisement. Staff requested continuation for abutter notification. Continued to November 4, 2025. Motion by Commissioner Mancini, second by Vice President Coop, approved.
- 75 & 0 Oakland Avenue – Zoning Board Review: Staff (Mr. Ray) recommended a positive recommendation for relief from the merger provision to build a single-family dwelling. Analysis showed 71% of lots in the B1 zone are substandard; both proposed parcels fit the sliding scale. Commissioner Carrero asked for density calculations; Mr. Ray confirmed the project density (~9.92) is within the future land use map of 10.8. The board voted to accept the positive recommendation (motion by Director Carrero, second by Commissioner Renzuli, approved).
- 74 Ralph Square – Zoning Board Review: Request to reduce off-street parking (from required ~24 spaces to 12) for a restaurant expansion. Staff noted abundant on-street parking and no complaints. The board voted to accept the positive recommendation (motion by Commissioner Renzuli, second by Director Carrero, approved).
- CVS Bond Release: The city found an old bond for a 2011 CVS construction; Director Carrero confirmed all work completed. Bond released unanimously.
- Comprehensive Plan Amendments Update: Director Ashman presented progress on the housing element. Key points: A 20-year housing plan is required, with a goal of 1,367 units by 2030 (state mandate). Current affordable housing is at 6.3%. Strategies include transit-supportive areas (e.g., Broad Street, Elmwood Avenue), neighborhood mixed-use, and unrealized growth (ADUs, lot splits, etc.). The timeline aims for a draft by November. Discussion included concerns about overconcentration on housing at the expense of commercial/industrial land, the reality of approved but unbuilt units (636 units already approved), and the need for by-right processes to reduce applicant costs. Commissioner Coop suggested adjusting numbers downward for lot splits and adding projects like Champlain Hills Phase One. The board voted to continue the public hearing to November 4, 2025 (motion by Vice Chairman Coop, second by Commissioner Mazzulli, approved).
Key Outcomes
- Von Lane Withdrawal: Accepted without prejudice. Applicant to file a new application.
- 1489 Pippin Orchard Road: Feedback provided; applicant to secure legal easement and address usable area definition before formal application.
- 235 Beckwith Street: Continued to November 4, 2025, with re-advertisement due to ownership change.
- 102 Old Oak Avenue: Continued to November 4, 2025, to complete abutter notification.
- 75 & 0 Oakland Avenue: Positive recommendation voted and approved.
- 74 Ralph Square: Positive recommendation voted and approved.
- CVS Bond Release: Approved.
- Comprehensive Plan Hearing: Continued to November 4, 2025. Staff to refine numbers and provide draft for review.
- Meeting Adjourned at approximately 8:30 PM.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com