All right, good evening, everyone.

Uh, my name is Steve Friars, I'm chairman of the uh planning commission, and um I'll call this meeting to order.

Uh for all those at home, I just wanted to indicate sorry for the technical difficulty, uh, for guess getting it started at six thirty.

Uh, we will be following the agenda um as is shown.

The one thing I'll be taking out of order is I'll be taking independence way before Natick Avenue Solar.

Um and also for those interested in Natick Avenue Solar, um this proceed that application could take some time.

Um allocating two to two and a half hours to that uh matter this evening.

We may end up not uh deciding that matter this evening and continue it to another meeting based on past history.

And therefore I would assume that by a ten o'clock we'll get to the zoning board of review and then the subsequent uh items on our agenda about comprehensive plan zoning amendments.

So that's for those of you who are here and on Zoom, so you can plan accordingly your evening.

Okay.

With that said, I call I will now start approval um meeting.

I see uh some proposed edits to our minutes from Commissioner Lamp here, Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um page four of the minutes, and I did pass a copy out to everyone under the section entitled Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

She also noted that this change coupled with the recommended development along Broad Street, Warwick Avenue, and Elmwood Avenue will disproportionately increase the burden on aging infrastructure and density east of Elmwood Avenue.

Okay.

Is there a second to Commissioner Lamphere's amendment?

Second by Commissioner Eckster.

Is there any discussion of the amendment?

Okay, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it.

Commissioner Barberi abstains.

Next item the agenda is 235 Beckwith Street.

Um this, I believe, is a withdrawal request.

Is that correct?

Um director or Mr.

Brugerman.

Uh, yeah, so it's a uh request for withdrawal by the applicants.

Um technically, what happened with this application is uh the original owner uh applied for uh a subdivision, then sold the lot, um, and now the new owner at first needed some time, which is why they asked for the continuance, but now that it's technically new owner, they're actually looking to submit a new application.

Uh basically requesting the same thing, but it's a new owner, so they think they need a new application, so they want to request uh for withdrawal puppetches.

Okay, I'll ask the solicitor do we have to vote on this or take public comment on it?

Uh you don't have to do either, but if you want to take a vote, you can.

Okay, I'll move it along.

Do you guys want to take a vote?

We just move along if we don't have to.

You you can move it because it's it's not it hasn't been opened.

Okay, we didn't have a hearing on this, so we're just gonna it's it doesn't have to have a vote on it.

It's been withdrawn.

Next item on the agenda is 102 Old Oak Avenue.

Well, the out is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on this matter.

Okay, you can maybe proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Gary.

Uh uh indicate that we've um sent out the required notice.

Um abutters within 400 feet by certified mail, return receipt requested, and have filed an affidavit with the staff.

I just make that uh you know for the record.

Um if I may.

This is a um oversized lot subdivision.

I call it a one lot subdivision, which really doesn't make sense, but it's it's it's to divide an existing 10,000 square foot parcel into two 5,000 square foot parcel.

One 5,000 square foot parcel would have the existing two family dwelling remain on it, and the second uh parcel would be for a uh single family dwelling on a 5,000 square foot parcel.

Um always interesting to see neighbors, neighborhoods and the way they are developed.

Um, this one obviously over near Cranston Prittworks um was platted in 1902 with many 2500 square foot lots, and as you know, a lot of the mill houses were small and built on these small lots.

This uh lot had this one house on it built clearly to the right.

Um I guess maybe with uh and the the the city records indicate it was built in 1880.

It doesn't look like an 1880 house, but evidently there was a structure built on it in 1880.

So the the request is essentially that uh we asked for relief from the merger provision because under the um the uh merger provision this uh these two lots, these four lots actually would merge into a 10,000 square foot uh property, not allowing for any development on the remaining property.

So essentially we're asking for relief to allow the existing two family to be uh remain on five thousand square foot, two lots, 2025 each, and the second lot uh to be merged 2500 each into a 5,000 square foot lot.

Um Mr.

Uh Michael McHugh is here to testify as an expert in the area of land use, and he has testified uh before this commission as well as zoning boards across the state.

I have his resume here and ask that he be qualified as an expert in the area of zoning and land use, chairman.

Um Mrs.

Solissa uh solicitor, do we qualify experts at the planning board commission?

Although this is a UDR.

Uh, since it is UDR, we should because uh he's here for the zoning part of it.

Okay, do we uh have to have a formal vote on qualifying him as an expert?

Um I would recommend that.

Okay, could you please pass out the resume to me?

And commissioners can take a look at us as they proceed.

You can continue while we so I'll just uh uh Mr.

McHugh uh has been a building was a building official for 28 years, been an expert in this area for the past 15 or 20 22 years testifying before many zoning boards in the state, and he's gonna testify with respect to the standards of the relief requested under this under the uh UDR development.

You can uh testify, Mr.

McQueen.

Uh is he yeah.

So let me um uh is he chairman if he is going to be sworn?

Um Ron's not here for this.

So he will not be sworn.

Okay.

Uh he has he has prepared a report, and and I know no one said an opportunity to review it, but he will testify to the report as well as to the photographs that are that are included.

So I ask that these be included as an exhibit.

So uh I'll proceed, Mr.

Chairman, if that's okay.

Uh if you have any questions, Mr.

Q.

Please speak into the microphone, please, so everybody can hear you.

Speak loudly.

You're familiar with the property located at 102 Old Oak Street in Cranston, are you not?

Yes, I am.

And you're familiar with the neighborhood.

Yes, I am.

Can you please then did you make it site visit of the property?

I have.

Can you describe this existing conditions with respect to the site of this particular property?

And then with respect to the neighborhood.

Yes.

Mr.

Gavy mentioned it's an existing two-family dwelling.

There are four 20 25 foot 2,500 square foot lots presently.

The house on the right side basically takes up the two lots to the right.

The two lots to the left will be built on to build a new one-family dwelling.

The existing house been there for many years prior to the zoning ordinance taking effect in transit that is existing.

A new house will be built to meet all setback requirements, etc.

The general area as specified in my report.

I have a number of photographs.

There are many undersized lots of this type.

More than 50% of the lots in the area are 5,000 square foot or less.

There's also a number of the same lots as these, these little 2500 square foot lots scattered around the area, including in there and on the map that you can see.

I did not even count those lots as undersized lots because a lot of them are being utilized for a dwellings presently.

So when I say there's more than 50% of the lots in the area that are under size lots of 5,000 square feet, it would be even more like 70% if you count those smaller lots.

So again, the area very much uh non-conforming for today's zoning code with the lot sizes, fundages, and lot sizes.

So with respect to we're here as a unified development, which means that we're to subdivision, um, really we're gonna be uh dividing the lots, the 10,000 square foot lots into two, five thousand square foot lots, and we need relief from the zoning.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Can you describe the relief that we need for the fundamental?

Yes, the uh present zone, the B1 zone actually allows the one and two family dwellings.

The use is allowed specifically mentioned in the uh zoning ordinance and in the comprehensive plan uh that they are allowed.

We're here for dimensional variances only for the minimum lot frontage and for the minimum lot sizes.

Again, it does comply with most of the other area uh buildings and uses and lot sizes in the area.

So we're also asking for relief from the emergency division, is that correct?

Because otherwise these lots would be correct.

Lot size require for a two-family is 8,000 with 60 foot of frontage, and the lot size for a single family is 6,000 with 60 feet of frontage.

Is that correct?

That is correct also.

Uh if I may, a lot of these older platted areas, such as this.

This house has been here for many years, way before zoning took effect.

Uh, they probably could have subdivided these lots years ago.

No one knew what was going to be happening in the future.

If they had known about what was going to be happening, they would have subdivided the lot years ago into two five thousand square foot lots, and then we wouldn't even be here, we'd have the existing two family on a legal lot, and we'd be able to build a new one family on a legal lot.

Unfortunately, uh people don't know too much about real estate or zoning issues.

Many property owners don't know that, so they don't have the wherewithal to do that.

Uh so again, it does meet the requirements that you see.

All the other lots in the area, the one family, two families, and even three family dwellings on many of these undersized lots.

So, with respect to the standards, the zoning standards uh establish, uh, in your opinion, is the hardship for which the applicant seeks relief in this case due to the unique character of the property and not the general character that's around the area?

Yes, my opinion, yes.

These lots again were added many years ago, I think 1902 or so.

The president only only wished to construct a legal use one family dwelling on the lot, uh unused portion of these lots, and certainly uh he did not do anything to make the subdivision.

He puts the lots as is, and they were recorded many many years ago.

So one of the standards for for a variance is that the hardship does not result from the prior actions of the applicant.

Chairman, if I may just make a legal point here, uh the legislature uh this past year established that in when you do UDR, that is not required to be proven requirements for the subdivision.

So that standard gets removed from the properties.

Um partially agree with that.

Okay.

Um the the standard gets removed regarding the size to my understanding regarding the size of the lot, not all the hardship.

It if if I in other words, if if the lot is was required to be six or eight thousand square feet, um the standard by making it five thousand square feet, that standard you're not creating your own hardship with a substandard lot because that criteria has gone away.

Um I I guess I would like to hear, I don't know if the legislature and and you were there contemplated any hardship that may have been created by the structure that remains.

Well, I I to that point, I I think you're you so we're asking for relief um from lot area and lot width in this case.

Yeah, so if that's all you're asking for, then I I agree with you, but I didn't know whether any relief is needed for the remaining structure.

There is no limit needed for the remains.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So uh Mr.

McHugh, in your opinion, will the granted of the rent requested variances alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purposes of the zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan of the city of Cranston?

No, it will not.

These lots are very consistent.

The proposed lots are very consistent with the surrounding area, the general character of the area with many one, two, and three family dwellings on similar size lots.

They will not impair the intent or purpose of the zoning orders or the comprehensive plan that should have no effect on the smart, no negative effect on surrounding properties.

And if the variant sort is not granted, will the hardship uh suffered by the owner and the applicant amount to a mere inconvenience, in your opinion?

In my opinion, it will uh due to the fact that some of the items I previously mentioned fits in very well with the surrounding properties, uh the surrounding uses and surrounding lot sizes, they're all very similar in size, many of them smaller, and some of the uses were only applying for a new one-family dwelling.

Some of the uses on these smaller lots are two and three family dwellings.

Also, there's a complex right across the street, it's in a different zone, but it is within the radius.

There are like 172 apartments across the street.

So the fact we're adding one more single family residence should not have any negative impact on the surrounding properties.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So at this point, I'm just gonna ask Mr.

McHugh to go through the requirements for a subdivision as an expert to establish that they are also met, um, which is your normal uh processes under the under the subdivision ordinance and under state law.

So, Mr.

McHugh, um, for this subdivision, is it consistent with the requirements of the comprehensive plan and or or shall satisfactory address the issues for which there may be inconsistencies?

It does comply with the comprehensive plan in the B1 zone specifically says that one and two family dwellings can be built in this zone.

And there's some it's it it's with respect to density, it's it's a little higher than the comprehensive plan provides, but um is it consistent with the comprehensive plan overall with respect to that point?

Yes, it is, it's very much in compliance with the surrounding properties, as I mentioned, and with the density issues that the planning board and the comprehensive plan uh wish to be in compliance.

So, Mr.

McQue uh and does the subdivision conform to the standards and provisions of the zoning ordinance, subject to the relief that we're asking for here tonight.

Yes, uh, other than the dimensional variances for the lot width and the lot size, both the existing building and the proposed building are going to meet all other zoning requirements, uh setbacks, height requirements, lot coverage, and parking.

Uh setbacks, height requirements, lot coverage, and pocket.

There are no other issues uh to address all the requirements.

Is it your opinion that there will be no significant environmental impacts from the proposed development shown on the final plan?

As approved, no, there should not be if it's going to be a regular uh construction of a new one-family home on an existing street.

And and is it the case that the subdivision as proposed will not result in the creation of individual lots with physical constraints to development that building on those lots according to pertinent regulations would be impractical?

No, it will not.

Again, it's on existing street, uh, bacon lots or joining the existing building.

It's not going to have any effect on that matter.

And is it your opinion the proposed subdivision shall have adequate and permanent physical access to a public street?

Yes, it is on a public street.

The new lot and the new building will have access to sewer water gas connections, and we'll have no issues at all with that.

I have no further questions with Mr.

McHugh.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, just to clarify, Mr.

You want um Mr.

McHugh certified as a for us recognized as an expert in what matter?

Zoning and planning.

Okay.

As all my fellow colleagues taking a look at the Mr.

McHugh's resume.

Uh is everyone feel comfortable with certifying him as an expert on zoning and planning.

Okay, if people do feel that way, a motion would be in order.

Move by director commissioner Carrero, seconded by Chairman Coop.

Any discussion?

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

Those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Okay.

Um questions.

I'll start with just a couple of simple ones, and then I'll send it over to my colleagues.

Just so I understand a majority of the properties here within 400 feet are either 5,000 square feet or less, the lots, correct?

That's a clear majority, right?

Yes, 31 than 50 percent.

Again, I did not have a function, but a lot of small lots, or 20 or 22 of the small lots.

So I include that, the percentages much higher.

And what's the percentage that you I'm just trying to remember what lots better with the size?

Yes.

Okay, and on the density issue is just that you said that this development obviously would be having a two-family and a single on 10,000 square feet.

You recognize that would be slightly above the density of the comprehensive plan, right?

We recognize that, but but the comp but when you look at the comprehensive change at all to get into consideration as built the neighborhood.

Correct.

Okay, all right.

Just one of those two simple questions off the bat.

All right, is there any questions for Mr.

McCugh from my colleagues?

Commissioner Guerrero.

Um, just do we have the slight plan to bring up the house?

I know they said there are no other variances being sought for this property, but when I look at the property for the new single family house, when you look at the square footage of the or the footprint of the home plus the driveway, are we really meeting the coverage?

Do we actually know the numbers?

No, for the ex for the new proposed home.

Coverage coverage, it does meet lot coverage.

It's just a little confusing because the concerned about some I'm looking at the plan coverage with respect to building coverage, building in the impervious cover, because I assume the driveway is part of that coverage, and that driveway takes up almost 30 percent of the property, and then you got the house on top of that.

I see that director Ashman has a has her hand raised.

Um, I know it makes sense that we would regulate impervious surface coverage, but we do not.

We only have a regular building lot coverage other towns like in Narragansett, they do.

So that would count.

There's building coverage and lot coverage here.

It's just and stop me if if I'm incorrect, it's it's just building coverage.

So the structure itself and any other structures have 30 25 or 30 percent, whatever whatever our number is here, that would be the the building coverage.

We don't regulate lot coverage with the exception of maybe in edgewood near the water where you know where CRMC or DEM comes in.

Okay, so so the driveway itself is not part of that calculation.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Um Mr.

Ray, could you make a presentation from the staff and then we'll take public comment?

I just like to reserve Mr.

Chairman if that's possible.

Oh, certainly, don't worry about it.

You always get the last word.

All right, so I won't uh repeat too much, but um as I said, uh there's a two or the four uh 2500 uh square foot lots.

Um and that is being turned into two 5,000 square foot lots, one with the existing two-family house and one with the proposed uh single family house.

So um an analysis uh of the 200 square foot radius uh revealed that um the surrounding lots are equal to um the proposed lots, which is 5,000 square feet.

Um, and this means that uh Laurel Hill was originally platted with lots this size or even smaller, and um, in addition to this, 50 feet of frontage, which um is part of the variance, is also very common for homes in this neighborhood.

Oh, and as well, uh, like they noted, uh, single and two family houses make up the majority of this neighborhood's housing stock.

Um, and as previously mentioned, uh, the future land use map designates this property as single and two-family residential less than 10.89 units per acre.

Um, and this proposed subdivision new home would increase the density on B1 zone lots in the Laurel Hill neighborhood from 9.10 to 9.11 units per acre, which is obviously a negligible increase in density, and well below the density established by the future use map.

Um these uh goals outlined in the comprehensive plan, also support this development.

Um here are the zoning variance is ass, um lot area and lot width and frontage.

So um this was also uh brought up, but um the hardship from which the app seeks relief, uh, is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land structure.

Um staff noted that the location of two-family home off center on the subject set of lots since before the implementation of zoning laws is consistent with plans to add a second house at future time.

In addition to this, the area of Laurel Hill is a walkable traditional neighborhood with a mix of housing types, and this proposal is keeping in line with the neighborhood density and character.

Um so uh staff also noted that the variances in the subdivision established conformance to the zoning and denying this application would be more than a mere inconvenience because the proposal is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood.

Positive recommendation.

All right, is there any questions for the staff before I hand it over to the public comment?

Okay, all right.

At this point, I'll take we'll open the floor for public comment.

Is there anyone here who wishes to make public comment on the 102 old oak avenue application?

Please come forward, please.

State your name and address, and then you have the floor.

Sure.

My name is Anna Mendes.

I'm on 580 Dyer Avenue.

So my house is directly next to this home where changes are being proposed, which sounds like everything was already agreed upon.

So I don't have the legal language or jargon that previous folks might be able to have, but I will say considering that the parking space is not being it's not something that is that is not what we have to legally abide by, or the zoning is all being considered.

One of the things that I definitely wanted to express after listening to that is also especially being right next to it, is the comfort and the ease and how it's gonna impact me as someone who actually is going to live there.

I've been in Cranston for a few years now.

I've been a property owner for this home that again is directly next to it for about eight years now.

So any of the prior owners, and I know it definitely makes a difference when you own your home versus renting it.

So for the individuals that own this home, I know it's more of a business deal.

Why may just be mere of an inconvenience for them, but for me, this is where I live.

This is my home.

Some of the changes that have already been made, including the parking lot.

If you go back to one of the prior pictures where prior to the zone, I'm not sure right here.

The part that is not showing is the other side, and I can show you guys on my cell phone.

Right next to that house, and it's still part of the property.

There's another slot that they made or converted into a, I guess, an entrance, the parking lot, and my parking is right next to it.

The only thing that device does is a um a small fence.

So as my car is coming out, if they have cars coming out and we're coming out at the same time, that is also not only an inconvenience for me at all, but also a safety hazard.

In addition to that, once this home is this additional house is created, I know it's gonna be rented out, it's not gonna be a property owner.

Who are gonna be the people that are gonna be coming in and out?

How many cars, how many, how much trash, and all of that?

So I understand that here you guys are only considering or taking into account the size of the law and the business opportunity that it could be for the owner of this property.

But I would just urge you maybe in the future also consider the other impacts that this would have for the residents there and the people that live there, because there are other issues that I can mention, like the increasing rent problems and all that.

But I was just urge you to consider how something like that is gonna impact the livelihood of somebody who lives there, and it's not just a business venture, but someone that considers this place their home.

So that's all thank you very much.

Um there any other comments?

Um people wish to be heard on this application.

Okay, seeing none.

Um Jim, uh Mr.

IT.

Um is there anyone on public comment online?

There is no online public comment.

Thank you.

Um further questions for the staff or for the applicant um before we proceed to a final vote on this.

Commissioner Lampier.

Just a question for the applicant.

Um the public comment that was just made referenced.

Um some potential difficulty getting in and out of the driveway.

Is it a shared driveway?

Can you explain to us a little bit more about how that works and um whether or not there is any dual use of the same driveway area?

Well, what's what's proposed is is a driveway on the right side of the existing uh house.

So there'll be a driveway there for the existing house, and obviously there'll be a driveway on the other side for the new proposed house.

Uh there's driveways are on opposite sides of the lot.

If I may, uh the driveway, I think believe she was talking about on the right side of the existing true family.

That is a new paved area that's the installed uh open to utilize that for his existing building once it's approved.

The only thing it does not have yet is a curb cut.

You could not apply for that yet once if it gets approved for the new dwelling, they will also apply for a curb cut to access the parking area on the right side of the existing true family.

I think that's what she was talking about because they drive over the curve to the park there.

Once it's approved, they'll have two separate driveways, one resolve curve cut on the far left of the property.

That'll be the existing curve cut and access for the new house, and the new locking and curved card will be to the right of the existing two family, so it'll have separate driveways as required.

Driveways will be as far away from each other.

Okay.

Um, so basically the follow-up of Christian Lamp here is like there's an existing driveway.

Let's talk about the neighbor.

The neighbor has an existing driveway, it's on the left-hand side of her property.

Is that basically the way I understand it?

And that you're trying, you're gonna build a driveway on the right hand side of the property on the two-family side, I think.

And that they're gonna be separated by a boundary, and that's what it's gonna be, right?

Okay, the true curve, as I understand a point for a driveway and butting each other, okay.

Um that is allowed by zone in and by the plan have two driveways going with each other separate accesses for each driveway.

Frank, I I don't think that's correct, but can you no?

First of all, they're not a combined driveway.

If you look at the plan for the proposed for the existing home in that driveway on the right side, that was put in, and it looks to be approximately four feet difference between that driveway and her driveway.

So there is a four-foot grass strip and a fence.

Okay, they're not a butting, they're not a close to each other.

There is a four-foot difference.

I do believe our zoning requirements are technically 10 feet between the property line and a butting in a driveway.

So that can't physically fit here, so that may be a variance that would have to be requested because you do not have 10 feet between the property line in the first corner of the driveway.

Oh, I see.

I've never heard that requirement, Frank.

On the 10 feet for the driveway in Cranston.

He's the public works directly.

I know.

We'll be talking afterward.

We I was gonna say this this um normally, I mean, frankly, I've been here a long time.

That normally doesn't come up where they're now request.

I guess post application, they're requesting a curb cut.

It usually it's not an issue, but it is here.

So what the Commissioner Carrera was saying is there actually is a need for a further variance that hasn't been requested here.

I would need to verify, I mean, I have seen many driveways that are this close or closer on many of the properties within the city of Cranston.

I thought I saw something regarding a 10 foot, but I I could be mistaken on that 10 foot because there are so many driveways in the city that are much closer than that.

Technically, you're leaving 20 feet between two driveways, which isn't feasible, especially in these neighborhoods.

Mr.

Garrity, I'm hearing a little bit of comments from the public works director that I have to take, obviously, with some weight here.

Um, I feel a little bit uncomfortable about approving a development.

I'm sorry.

Sorry about that.

I'm just you know, I feel a little uncomfortable voting for a proposal right now without knowing this issue exactly.

Um, unless you know off the top of your head that he's wrong.

I don't know off the top of my head that it's wrong, yeah.

But I mean it it's so the side yard requirement.

I'm a little surprised to hear that two driveways cannot be budding each other if you comply with the side yard requirement.

But I mean, I think what I was gonna say is like, unless my colleagues feel fine just voting for this tonight, um, you know, we could continue this to the next meeting, and then we can get kind of like more information about whether or not this is worked out.

I don't know what the date of completion this application was made, whether or not next meeting would be within 90 days.

Yeah, we met with that would not be an issue if uh and like I said, because um I if you if let's assume that we want to grant these variances, we should be granting all the variances versus some sort of piecemeal approach, and then we have to think it all the way through.

So we um commissioner uh director of Ashman, you want to say something?

I'm pretty sure there's no requirement for 10 feet.

Um in the city of Cranston.

We can do some research on that right now.

Okay.

Um just hold on a minute.

See, it's when the public works director tells me something, I gotta stop the meeting and find out for sure.

Yeah, if you can't, I again I haven't been here for 20 years either, but I I thought I saw something, and I could be mistaken.

Yep, because again, there are significant number that have that less than 10 feet.

I I I guess I'd ask that maybe we we close the public hearing before you vote and research it for a minute, and then I mean I'm not gonna delay you or tonight, you're gonna be here for a while.

Just one more minute.

Let's see something because then we'll just uh I'll we'll continue it to the next meeting if we have to, and we keep the well, you keep the public hearing open if public hearing, yeah.

Yeah, we would keep the public hearing open until the next meeting, and then we can just deal with it.

So it's kind of intuitive with side yard requirements to me that you'd have to put another 10 feet if you have a driveway on the other property.

No, I I understand.

I mean Commissioner, yeah.

Based on what she just referred, it's really referring to a corner lot that has to have that minimum 10 foot so it's not this lot, it's not this lot.

Okay, okay.

So you just took a bit a little bit of patience.

Um, thank you.

Um just uh just uh okay, I think we're all says there any other questions for the applicant at this point.

Okay, I think we're thank you.

Um all right, Mr.

Ray, could you present the recommendation of the staff?

All right, uh staff has a positive recommendation.

Okay, and this is basically um Mr.

Solicitor, we have to do two votes, right?

We have to do a approve uh a motion to grant zoning relief and then a separate motion to uh approve a subdivision, correct?

Okay, um, just a very quick thing on my side.

Um this goes above the density, however, I recognize a majority of the lots in the area are 5,000 square feet or less, a clear majority, and therefore when it's that it seems consistent with the character of the neighborhood.

Um in response to comments from the public, I very much appreciate your comments and take it very seriously.

Whenever I look at developments, I look at not just whether or not this is a business opportunity for the person building the property, but also look at the impact on the surrounding community and neighborhood, and I do that all the time.

And I can't do so.

You know, I've had this conversation in other proceedings.

Um, we can't prohibit absentee landlords, you know.

That's just not something we can do.

And can I go ahead?

Can I stop you?

And I and I apologize for this.

So um Brianna and what section were you looking at?

702100.

All right.

Um, so John, I'm looking at um each parking space shall have uh vehicular access to street, driveways, aisles, and all multifamily developments shall so be arranged that vehicles will leave and enter on a forward motion.

Curve openings shall conform to the following design standards.

Uh residential construction minimum width 10 feet, maximum width 20, multifamily 12, maximum width 35.

So Frank, what's the what's the width?

I read that as what's the width of that driveway on the left side.

I I just can't see it.

Okay.

Is it that's what it's measured on the side?

Okay.

All right, then I'm good with it.

Okay.

So the solicitor just also did a double check on the same width of the driveway.

Um I'm sorry.

Yep.

But that's the two family.

It says multi-family commercial construction minimum width 12 feet.

But this is not multi-family, it's a two-family multi-family is three and above, not a remnants per wrap rent building photo says so.

Okay, so uh, we've been spending a long time on this thing, so I just say it's like um I just wanted to say amended to the public.

We do take these concerns seriously, and I recognize the problems you're pointing out, but there are limitations of what we can and can't do under the law, and I recognize that it is your home first and foremost.

And I always keep that in mind whenever I can to the maximum extent I can under the law, just so you know.

All right.

Um other comments or questions before we have a motion and votes.

Or if anybody so if not, uh motion could uh Mr.

Ray, could you put the app the recommendation back on the screen?

So if people want to make a positive vote, it would be obviously file staff recommendation, grant zoning relief would be one motion.

The second motion would be file staff recommendation and approve the subdivision.

The alternative obviously is a possibility as well.

I believe is what the first one is.

On zoning relief.

Yes.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Coop.

Any further discussion?

Okay, hearing none.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Now the second motion would be in order for the subdivision.

So the single family dwelling.

Zoning remove is for both lots.

It's smaller than both lots area left both lines.

Well, Mr.

Carrell, could you correct your motion and we'll do it over again?

Make a motion to accept the positive recommendation for the zoning variance is for both lots.

Okay.

Okay.

Second by Mr.

Coop.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Okay.

Now would be the motion for a subdivision.

Can I just chime in on just one thing that's happening?

And it's entirely up to you guys.

Is um there was a recent um subdivision approval for a single family lot and a single family house.

The new developer came in and requested a two-family go where a single family was approved.

So then they cited all substandard lots of record, all the new substandard lots, etc.

etc.

So it would be good policy to um when you're approving the subdivision for the single family lot to restrict the use to a single family use because just happened to me here with a request from a developer was an approved subdivision.

The lot gets sold, the new owner comes in and says you didn't restrict the subdivision to a single family.

So I'm it's up to you what you want to do, but but that is that is what just happened.

Um and this was only in a B1 and a B2 zone, not in any of the A zones.

Um so just be aware of that.

Because whatever we do, the developers want to do more.

That's essentially what happens.

I've no objection to placing that limit, but just out of curious curiosity, wouldn't a two-family require additional zoning relief.

No, because they're saying since it's a substandard lot of record, I they want the modified amend my motion to accept the staff's recommendation to approve the subdivision for a two-family home and a single family home as proposed.

Okay, is there a second to that?

Seconded by Commissioner Eckster.

Thank you for bringing it up.

Um Mr.

Solicitor, uh, going forward, I think that should be expected out of the recommendations uh that we get so that we don't get played.

Um discussion.

Okay, although okay, seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Okay, congratulations, Mr.

Gardy, and best of luck.

Okay.

I I yeah, I said that eight o'clock native solar.

I don't think's happening.

Okay, all right.

Next on the agenda is Lake View Development.

Is the applicant here wishes to be heard about Lake View Development?

Mr.

Murray.

Good evening, uh ladies and gentlemen, members of the planning commission for the record, Robert Murray, 21 Garden Seat Drive in Cranson.

I'm here tonight on behalf of the owner applicant of the subject property at 1611 Hope Road Lakeview Development LLC.

Can you just uh speak a little closer to the mic?

Is that better?

Yes.

Okay.

Um says the mystery voice.

The uh he's the IT guy.

Uh with me this evening is David Cloxton.

He's the principal of Lake View Development LLC.

He's an experienced builder of the city, he's a resident of Cranston, and he acquired this property several months ago from the estate of Gloria Warner, and uh is coming forward this evening with a proposed subdivision of this 172,000 plus or minus square feet of land uh near the intersection of Hope Road and Seven Mile Road.

Um what's before you this evening for consideration is um four additional lots.

Uh it'll be a five lot subdivision with the existing home on one of the lots and four additional uh lots to be created.

This property is in an A20 zone, uh which requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet.

Um the lots as proposed before you this evening.

Um four of them uh are three of them are slightly larger than 20,000 square feet.

Uh the existing home will remain on a lot about 30,000, and then uh lot five, which is the subject of the relief being sought this evening.

Um is presently constituted at 82,350 square feet.

Um we get the site plan up, Brianna with your permission.

Thank you.

Um so that's the existing condition plan.

Uh okay, so we have a site plan there, and uh as you're looking at the screen at the bottom is seven mile road.

Uh to the right is Hope Road, and you can see where they converge at the corner.

Um the property does not uh Mr.

Clarkson's property does not go exactly to the corner.

There's a small sliver there that's owned by the Kent County Water Authority.

So uh you can see on the lot four on the screen the existing home that is set back considerably from the road.

Uh the intention is for that house to be restored uh and remain, and then the other lots would be utilized for single family dwellings.

Can we go one more?

Uh sorry.

So as you can see there, um uh the three lots at the at the bottom of the screen.

Uh two of them would front on seven mile road, and one would front on Hope Road.

Um then we uh then we have lot five at the top of the screen, which wraps around the existing home.

The reason we're here tonight under the unified development review is that in the 820 zone, all uh house lots uh or all lots for development should have a minimum of 125 square feet, and uh four of those lots do.

Um the existing home will be left on a lot four with um 125 feet of frontage, and the other uh three lots.

Um on the seven mile would have 125 feet of frontage, and then the lot at the corner on seven mile would actually have about 400 feet of uh frontage.

This uh lot five, which is the subject of the univided development review, uh actually has frontage as proposed here on Seven Mile Road and Hope Road.

So if you're looking at the bottom of the screen, you go to the far left, uh, and you can see a sliver that leads to the back, and then the primary access would be uh at uh the Hope Road side.

Uh just for the record, the access on Seven Mile Road is about 2029 feet, linear feet, and the access at the top uh of Hope Road uh is about 54 feet.

So on either side, we don't we don't have 120 feet of frontage, and when you combine the two, we don't have 125 feet of front.

So that's that's the uh the dilemma or the status of where we are in terms of the physical configuration of this lot as you can see it.

Uh it um uh it's it's in odd shape, and land surveyor and designing the lots has laid led them out as she felt uh uh most appropriate.

Um with your permission, I'd just like to have uh Mr.

Clarkson sworn in by Mr.

Rangio just asking a couple of questions, uh David Clarkson.

Uh Mr.

Clarkson, just for the record, uh you are the principal of Lake Development LLC, Lake View.

I'm sorry, Lake View Development LLC.

And uh you are in the business of uh home construction principally, yes, and uh other properties around the city and state of Rhode Island and you're familiar with uh land development and land use requirements in terms of subdivisions, right?

And you acquired this property from the state of Gloria Warner uh earlier in the summer, and just come closer.

Um after you're acquiring the property, uh your first intention is to have the existing home, which is uh somewhat age, uh that will be restored, correct?

That is correct.

And we're asking the board tonight if we we wouldn't be before the board except for the fact that we don't have enough frontage on we don't have the 125 feet, correct?

But other three lots as proposed there uh do conform to the subdivision regulations and would have been eligible for just the lot four uh as it sits there this evening with the existing house.

Um that house is set back considerably from the road, correct?

Yes, and uh you needed to accommodate uh that house um while also providing the 125 feet frontage.

That's correct.

And um your experience as a uh builder and real estate developer, is the layout as depicted here by your land surveyor um the most optimum in terms of trying to comply with zoning and the suburb regulation?

It is that that would be the access.

So up top uh that uh that rectangle piece that we're looking at there, that would be the access for lot five.

And these lots can be serviced by uh public water from Kent County Water Authority.

Yes, and we've provided letter from there from Kent County uh advising the city that uh water is available for this one in the site correctly.

Yes, and uh sewers are not at this location.

So these these lots will be serviced by uh private septic systems, and uh in addition to the new ones that will be installed uh that is to prepare the existing septic system for the existing right?

Yes, and um since you acquired this property, have you given away any proportions of the property?

No, and so that the uh in order to uh you have not given away any proportion, so the 55 feet of frontage is is what you uh have owned since you acquired it as it's been laid out before the board seat, and um all these lots will have access to a public road, yes, and under the uh city's comprehensive plan, uh the planning staff has reviewed this and found uh the layout and the proposed development to be consistent with the uh the comprehensive plan and consistent with the zoning ordinance, except for the frontage issue uh on line five.

Okay, uh anyone have questions for Mr.

Clarkson, the applicant at this time Mr.

Carrera.

Uh again, what is going to be proposed for lot five?

I see there's nothing shown there for development.

Is it gonna stay as is, or is there a future development proposed for that?

That we we have not done any detailed engineering yet.

So that last slide, correct?

The only other thing is I reviewed the plans and I did not notice any curbing.

And most of our subdivision does require curbing.

And I have been here for a short period of time, but I've had several concerns raised by people who end up purchasing these properties and the erosion that takes place at the road side, so I would only ask the curbing be installed along the frontage along these lots on both Hope Road and Seven Mile Road.

There are uh existing stone walls portion on the perimeter of this property, just clocks and except for access to the individual lots.

Your intention is to try and maintain the wall scrub.

Just to further on uh Commissioner Carrero's issue about curbing.

Is that um do you agree that you're gonna do that?

If that's condition you, yeah.

I guess that I think he's saying he wants it as a condition.

I've made that okay.

Thank you.

Um five is about what 80,000 square feet.

Uh as it's laid out there, it's 82,300 square.

Okay.

A couple of last questions was um use I did not see the letter.

I apologize, but the letter about Kent County Water Authority.

Can County Water Where's the pipe over there?

Is it already in the street on Seven Mile Road?

Like close, like already like that far up.

Houses are uh presently serviced by 10 year old.

Okay, so yes, the existing houses also okay.

That's why I just want to understand that it's already there, it's not just something like well, we can get it, we'll see where it comes from.

Okay, okay.

And this is called Lake View Development.

Um you see a lake from the house, any of the houses.

Yeah, um, has nothing to do with the surrounding the area.

Oh, okay.

Okay, okay.

I just want to understand.

That was all right.

Uh any other questions for the applicant.

Okay, I think we're all set.

We'll uh hear from the staff, and then we'll take public comment.

Thank you.

And you'll have a chance to respond.

Go ahead, Miss Valcourt.

As stated, the owner and applicant Lake View Development LLC at um on assessors plat 30 lot 62 in the A20 zone where the future land use is designated as single family residential 3.363 to one unit per acre in the western cranston neighborhood.

The proposal is to subdivide one record lot to create four new lots.

The subdivision will require the granting of a dimensional variant variance for frontage and lot width for lot five.

I included some um imagery from Google and also tried to help you understand where that is on the site plan.

So this is looking um south on Hope Road, and looking at the crossing of the two roads, also taking a view towards lot one on the bottom.

We see the existing conditions, the site plan and the site development plan.

We as staff have found that the surrounding area is primarily residential in nature.

The proposed lots match the existing infrastructure, and lot five has enough frontage to create a roadway if needed in the future for a driveway, enabling that vacant site for future development.

While the lot width would remain non-conforming for lot five, the proposal would overall create lots that are more conforming to the zoning ordinance and more consistent with the surrounding A20 zoned lots.

The proposal creates five lots, four which are new with lot areas that are consistent with the A20 zone and the future land use designation.

Staff finds that the following goals, policies, and actions um support the approval of this application.

Goal H1, policy H1 and action H7.

The historic and cultural impact on this site is that there are historic stone walls located here.

The driveways for lots two and three would require the stone walls to be moved.

No regulations are in place for protecting stone walls, however, it they are considered a valuable cultural resource that warrant preservation.

The planning staff recommend that the adequate steps are taken to allow the relocation of removed walls for openings, provided that the removed stones are relocated to continue along the driveway or be used to replenish the remaining stone walls around the property.

This project area is outside of any FEMA flood zone of hazards.

There are no wetlands on the site.

No impact to Ride M's natural heritage.

Ride M and environmental resource map also shows that there are no regulatory overlays, and the proposal would be subject to all state and local regulations pertaining to environmental impacts, wetlands, and erosion control.

I broke down the square footage and frontage that is within the proposal.

You can see all the areas are conforming.

It is just the frontage on lot five that we are here for today, which is proposed at 53.74 feet.

The relief being sought is 71.26 feet on Hope Road.

Planning staff notes that the land is a unique shape that permits enough land area for more than five lots, but lacks only the required frontage.

Planning staff also notes the support of the comprehensive plan.

And that the requested relief is minimal as possible to allow four conforming lots and a fifth lot with enough area for future development.

Staff finds the proposal generally consistent with the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and standards for required findings of fact.

Staff therefore recommend that the city plan commission adopt the findings of fact documented in the in the staff memo and approve the preliminary plan submitted under unified development with the requested variances subject to the conditions denoted below.

Alteration of historic stone walls shall be limited to the leased amount of removal necessary to create safe and adequate driveway openings conforming with the city's regulations.

Any stone stones removed shall be relocated along the driveways or used to replenish the remaining historic stone walls.

A plan or narrative for the relocation of the stone wall shall be provided prior to the approval of final plan.

Any alterations to this plan after final plan approval shall require review and approval by administrative staff in the planning department.

The application shall provide photographic evidence to the building official that stone walls have been relocated in accordance with final plan approval prior to granting the CO, and all required state and local permits shall be submitted as a part of final plan.

Any questions for staff before we have public comment?

Okay.

All right, at this point, we'll take public comment.

Is there anyone here present that would like to speak on the lake view development application?

Please come forward.

Please state your name and address.

I don't swear in the public.

Hi, my name is Ricky Galtz.

I live at my name is Ricky Galt, and I live at 176 seven mile road.

Um my main concern is the frontage for the seven-mile facing would directly face my home, my driveway, um, as well as where the property goes to the back where the additional like phase two would be.

My grandparents' house is right in front of that.

So we concerned about like the frontage as well as the stone wall, and like if our driveways are going to line up, if that's going to be a safety issue in the in the future.

Um, and as far as a phase two, I know that the property does go a little far back.

Is there gonna have to be like a road that's put in um as well as like the property 1611 Hope Road does have the driveway goes all the way across into a seven-mile access?

So is that gonna change with the plans as well?

And we're just overly concerned about you know, noise and it's not a wide wide street, so we're concerned about like safety and planning and building and things like that as we go forward.

Right, thank you.

I ask you to sign it, sign in on the sign-in sheet with your name and address.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here who would like to make public comment on this application?

Please come forward.

And also please sign in after either before or after you're done.

Hi, my name's Lauren Kennedy.

I live at 1767 Mile Road across from this.

Um there is water over there.

It is the second reservoir that goes from Hope Road to Late Night Road.

It's in the back.

I used to live up the street, it was in my backyard.

So there is water.

Um like my daughter was just saying, my parents, where I grew up my whole life, this wraps around their whole property.

They're in their mid-80s, they're not with us at all.

Um and the traffic on Seven Mile Road in Hope Road is so bad that I don't know if people realize I'm situate across the street, but the accidents on Seven Mile and Hope Road at that intersection is crazy.

If anybody ever pulled up any accident reports, they will be amazed.

Because there's so much building up going on in up the street, tip of Norchet Road, Late Night Road, um, the traffic is crazy.

Um I guess that's it for now.

It just uh there's a lot, and I do worry about the water and the animals.

I step out, I see deer, I see turkey, you know, foxes.

Now I'm gonna step out and see a bunch of houses.

It's just I'm not happy with my all right, thank you.

Is there anyone else here who would listen to make public comment?

Please come forward.

Good evening, uh William Rogeri.

I live at 168 Seven Mile Road, like directly across from lots two and three.

And my question is is this an all or nothing deal?

If there's uh not a variance to lot five, are they still able to develop with lots one through four?

Okay, well, I'll ask that question for you.

If um, you know, as you look at the access to lot five, if it was just coming in off of Hope Road and they were gonna drive in off of Hope Road, and something goes on back on lot five, that's one thing.

But if the access is gonna be next to the green's property on Seven Mile Road, which is the 27-foot variants, and that's going to become a major rotary to go back to lot five.

And if lot five should get developed into more than one home, now you've got a subdivision within a subdivision, and as Laurie said, uh, things are growing out of control in Western Cranston.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any other further public comment on this application?

Please come forward.

Uh Martha Sermoli, 91 Jackson.

Martha O'Cermalee, 91 Jackson, Flat Road, and Hope.

Could you spell your last name for the for the one?

S is in Sam.

E R M E L Y.

So I am part a member of Tabernacle Baptist Church, which is directly across from the proposed development.

There is a driveway onto this property that the Warners would use to exit onto um Seven Mile Road.

And the Warren's are very kind people, and they allowed us their congregation to use the property as overflow parking because it is a vacant lot.

And we have used that lot for decades and decades.

The church was built in 1875, and we have used, I don't know how long the warners have owned the lot, but we have used it for parking well before.

I've I've attended there for about 25 years, and we've used the lot well before I started attending.

So I can attest to the fact that it is a very moist property.

We would when we pulled into the driveway, we could easily park on the left, which is the property abudding.

Um, I'm not sure what that um house number is that was just mentioned.

But um, you know, it's a little elevated, and we could park there with no trouble.

But on the occasion that we would turn to the right, which would head towards the the lots that would that would meet with the corner of um Hope Road.

Uh and we deal with on the Seven Mile Road an extraordinary amount of stormwater that comes down seven mile road.

In fact, our church is on the situation side.

Whether or not you I don't know if you understand, but that road uh one side is Cranston, and the other side is situate, and the road is constructed in such a way that we receive a tremendous amount of stormwater onto our property, which has caused so much damage to our parking property.

And of course, that's not your issue for today, but a lot of the water also that comes under the street and down through is from the reservoirs.

There are two reservoirs, current, and then there's another one.

Uh there's so much water that comes under the road that not only do we have stormwater issues that come across our property, but we have stormwater that comes under our property, which continues on down to the Patuxet River, which is just you know, a few tenths of a mile from this intersection.

So it's hard to believe that that property is not wet because the the land just descends down towards Piskville, as I I believe you're familiar with and and so that it doesn't make sense to me that the extraordinary amount of water that we deal with every time it rains at our church does not also affect this property across the street, which is on the same side as the reservoirs.

So I just thought I'd bring that to the attention.

I would just love for Cranston to help us out by correcting the road and providing some stormwater drains because you know there are no stormwater drains on the situate side of this seven mile road, which is a I believe a Cranston Road.

There are no stormwater drains at all.

There are on the other side of the road.

That doesn't help out us at all.

And I've had Mr.

Correa out before, and he was nice enough to come out.

I've had we've been struggling with this for years, and so I appreciate that he came out and he looked, but he said, you know, maybe in the years to come we can provide some storm drains on your side.

I think we deserve that effort to put in some storm drains on our side because we've had tremendous damage to our property.

We're facing thousands and thousands of dollars to correct our parking lot because of all of this water that comes down Seven Mile Road, and again, it just keeps on going down towards the Batuxet.

So it's a very wet area.

Um thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here who would like to make public comment on this application?

Seeing none, is there anyone online that would like to make public comment on this application?

There's no online public comment.

Thank you, sir.

Um would the applicant would like to um address some of the concerns of the public before some questions are asked by the commission.

Um, sure.

In no particular order, I'll try and address some of the comments that we heard.

First, I understand, like every in every development we work on change brings concerns and interest, and uh, we appreciate that.

Uh ironically, because of the 400-foot notice requirement for this particular application.

My office actually sent more notices to the town of Situate and people living on the opposite side of Seven Mile Road than the people within the radius of the uh property because the lots on Cranston were larger.

So I appreciate the fact that people came in from Situate tonight to share their concerns.

Uh I can't speak to the parking challenge that the church has.

Uh I think that we have to assume that the development of this property from houses probably will pose a challenge for them unless they make private arrangements with the new owners of those homes.

Uh and I but I sympathize you know with the church parking challenge.

Um with respect to stormwater, uh, those are all development issues that we will have to deal with and work with the public works department, satisfy the building official.

Um we have uh we have done perk tests out there, and we're confident that we can establish private septic systems on these lots uh with the existing water tables.

Um the I understand that um it was a gentleman I apologize that he gets named, but you know, it was just an all or nothing thing.

You know, um the reality is um the three corner houses, uh the three new houses two on seven mile on hope.

Uh we don't need uh we could subdivide that without formal planning commission approval.

It's we're only we triggered an invitation to your meeting tonight because of the frontage on the lot five.

So uh there will be development on this property.

Uh that's uh I think everybody should leave here tonight understanding that.

Um Mr.

Cloxon um Prince a resident, he's on the building appeal board.

Uh he's a known quantity.

He will, you know, he's not he will he's hands-on, he will be on site, and we will communicate with neighbors.

Um the green family, I you know uh understand uh Mr.

and Mrs.

Green are elderly, and the daughters here tonight, I guess the granddaughter, their son is you know um, I understand that they've been surrounded by the water property and hasn't been developed.

Uh you know, we will be sympathetic.

Um, in you know, particularly since I know Mr.

Green with through the fire department, we will we will we'll communicate and and uh reach out to keep them informed.

Um the one issue about the uh the intention is for lot five, the main access will be from Hope Road.

Uh that seven mile road, it's only 20 23 or 24 feet wide.

Yeah, it came with the property.

We you know it's not it's not part of some grand scheme for the future development of lot five.

If as lot five would develop whether it's one house or two houses, that access will be off uh off hope, not uh seven mile road.

Um if I might, I don't know if I touched out I can go back if I missed something.

Um I I just want to comment um uh Rihanna outline some recommendations there on the stone wall, unless I missed it.

I didn't see it in the the published staff report.

Uh I don't know if those are late entries, which is fine.

I don't think there's anything inconsistent there with what we would do.

Um the only uh question as I'm reading it first for the first time is uh I understand the final plan, you know, the you want a uh you know an AV explaining how we're handling the stone walls.

We've already talked about the surveyor with that.

We that's not an issue.

I just want to be clear here with Mr.

Marcella's assistance, is subdivisions approved, we apply for building permits, and prior to getting any certificates of occupancy, we have to we may we may not start and build four houses all at once.

So I just want to be clear that if we if we start on lot one, for example, we only need to provide evidence of how we handled lot one for certification.

We're not gonna be held up, we're not gonna develop these all possibly all at the same time.

So I just want to be clear on what what the intention there is.

So I guess Brianna, what is the staff's intention regarding do the walls cover all the all the properties or they do not?

Part of the perimeter, a good portion of it.

No, maybe we can condition it for the lots that do interfere with the stone walls that upon any moving or removal of stone walls that there is evidence of where they were placed after the removal of those wall um stones.

However, lot one is not one of the lots that interferes with the wall, I believe.

So for example, lot one should not come after such uh evidence.

Can you just put put the um lots back up?

So lot one is the one on the the bottom left, the bottom left okay.

Um just go to this slide here.

Uh driveways for lot two and three would require stone walls to be removed.

Yeah, if we could just specify it for two and three then that's fine.

That's fine.

And I've confirmed Mr.

Clock, so we're we're not fighting this.

We I just want to be clear here, and we'll uh obviously the walls bring character and value to the property, so we're not gonna indiscriminately remove upon um the discussion with the plan commission.

I also want do you two um confirm the condition about curbing and if we're requiring curving in front of those stone walls?

So our subdivision requirements require the curbing and no waiver has been requested for curbing.

Okay.

Um I just have a few questions for you, Mr.

Murray.

Um my colleagues do as well.

So you let's start with lot five.

You said um the access to lot five will be coming from Hope Road, not seven mile road, correct?

Yes, all right.

Is there a problem if I made that a condition?

I don't believe so.

No.

Okay.

Just I want to address one of the things that concerns of the neighbors.

Uh this is stormwater.

Um, I've been doing this for a few years, and still this is like how this how this gets reviewed and developed has always been kind of like I still try to get my hands around it.

When you do a you're gonna do a stormwater analysis, you're gonna have to go to DEM and all that stuff.

Is that how this is gonna work?

Um bring up Mr.

Lockerbox.

I just want to understand how you're going to deal with how you're going to deal with the stormwater issue because it's clear there's a stormwater issue in that area of some type.

Um I don't believe we're required to make any submission to DEM.

Okay.

Um there is water on the street.

Yes.

Okay.

That does not necessarily mean there's water on the lot.

I'm not saying there's no water on the lots, but we will, you know, we will through the building permit process, um, be able to demonstrate to the uh city through the root slip process and everything else, how we're handling uh groundwater uh on the site.

Right.

And and Steve Ola'll have to show us that there's no net runoff.

I understand that issue.

There's no the whole issue is that you are not causing more runoff than there is now.

I understand that.

What I want to understand is how is that pro how do you like who do you talk to and has to approve your plan to demonstrate there's no net runoff?

Yeah, we're we're we we will um we obviously we're gonna work with it a professional engineer to determine the best way to handle whether it's uh yeah, I don't we don't anticipate like detention ponds or anything like that, but yeah, there could be rain gardens, things like that, some some mechanism to retain the water.

We're not you can have no, you're gonna have zero net runoff, and if you can improve the quality of the water, you want to do that also.

So who in the city?

This is one like uh that's what I'm trying to get to is you're gonna get a plan together, you're gonna get your professionals look at it.

Who if DM's not looking at it, who in the city is looking at it to approve it?

The building department and the public works department comes into play through the root slip process.

Okay.

So as we apply for a building, we will make a submittal that addresses those issues.

They'll be put they'll be on the portal, and as they go through building official fire, public works, they will uh they would review it, they will do the review to ensure that there is no net runoff, right?

Okay, traffic.

Everybody, I understand everyone thinks there's a lot of traffic on the roads.

I understand that issue.

I live on a cut through street myself.

Um what kind of size development of this size is more of a question for staff.

Development of this size, we usually do not require our traffic impact study, correct?

Right.

Because we're talking about basically five lots, right?

Right, four additional homes with the potential in the future, there could be one more.

Right.

And obviously, we're only having two driveways on seven mile road and two on Hope Road.

So two drive.

Okay, yes.

Thank you for that clarification too.

I like I said, um, I really hope this I really am not familiar with how the stormwater process is reviewed, how it is handled.

I just find I think that stormwater is like becoming a more and more important issue, especially as we try to develop on lands that are as one person said, moist and a little wet.

And I just want to make sure we have a process in place where somebody is reviewing this correctly.

If we're not doing DEM, then we're doing somebody in the city then.

Well, I I think this, you know, Mr.

Correa got credit for going out there.

You know, it is a situation with, you know, for Hope Road comes down to the intersection, seven mile road, I think, you know, follows down to the intersection towards FISO.

Um that's an issue well beyond the scope of this property.

Uh I understand that historically and factually so.

Yeah.

Okay, is there any other questions for the applicant on this uh Commissioner Lampier?

I actually have a question for the solicitor.

Um, and I I hope I can convey um what I'm thinking here, but um by approving um the lot configurations that are proposed and the dimensional variance for lot five.

Are we in any way creating a hardship or physical constraint that could be used to justify future dimensional relief down the road for that phase two uh you the question is is if they want to um put in a public road, they would and I mean they they would need road frontage in order to develop lots in the back, so they'd have to put in a public road to do that, and um so by approving this, they're limiting themselves to one lot in the back as is, unless they come unless they then they come in with a public road and then create road frontage in the back, but that wouldn't um be a dimension, they they'd have to make it conforming at that point.

The the lots, the road would have to be a public road, and the frontage would have to be conforming in the back.

I mean, it could be done, um, except for there isn't enough square feet to carve the road at a public road out with a turnaround and still have 20,000 square foot for each of the lots.

I mean, in in theory, you you could put I don't know, could you bet sorry I just don't think it lays out, but that's a really good question.

Um so they they could come in and ask for future relief, but I don't believe they can there's room for conforming additional subdivision of lot five with a public road, and we don't allow private roads in the A20.

Not trying to put you on the spot, and I know none of us have a crystal ball, but my my question is.

Yeah, no, I mean uh when I look at this subdivision on subdivision, yeah, correct.

I mean, I see a subdivision on a subdivision also, and what they're asking for tonight is just relief, obviously for the frontage on lot five.

However, in reality, they wouldn't have to do that.

Say they were going to do a subdivision later on, they could have just left one big lot four and and then come in later.

So I don't uh I don't see how granting the relief now, I think granting the relief now would would create a constraint for lot five unless they put in a public road.

And I'm I'm just trying to be sure that we are not we as a commission are not creating that constraint, and later on it can be argued that there's that hardship because we approved this.

Well, no, we approved that it was the hardship would would have been them creating the substandard, not not us approving it.

Well, I mean obviously it would it could be argued the other way, but what when when someone comes in for a subdivision?

I mean, that's the whole point of the new subdivision law with the with the smaller lots is is the developers creating the their own hardship by creating the smaller lot.

So by requesting this, they're creating their own hardship.

Um so the only again, the only way they could do more lots in the back would be to put a public road in there somehow.

I mean that's the whole point of the new subdivision law with the with the smaller lots is is the developers creating the the their own hardship by creating the smaller lot so by requesting this they're creating their own hardship um so the only again the only way they could do in more lots in the back would be put a public road in there somehow any other questions for the applicant or the staff for my colleagues okay thank you sir thank you okay uh miss valcourt could you present the uh recommendation okay um as stated the staff recommends a positive recommendation um and recommend that the city plan commission adopt the findings of fact documented below and approve the preliminary plan submittal under unified development review with the requested variances of the alteration of the stone wall being limited any stones removed during construction be relocated a plan or narrative of the relocation of the stone walls being provided prior to the approval of final plan the photographic evidence um sent to the building official that the stone walls have been relocated for specifically lots two and three prior to granting the certificate of occupancy all required state and local permits shall be submitted as a part of final plan and the last condition that the entry to lot five be um located off of hope road okay thank you miss valcourt um mr solicitor we this is also a two motion um the zoning first okay is there any other comments or discussion uh for my colleagues before we get into motion time okay uh just make a quick comment for myself i i always listen to public comment like i've said before um the frontage variants remote myself i don't see it as a significant issue um the fact is that this is land that's going to be developed ideally we'd like to have western cranston stay more green but he has a he's a property owner with some rights and i believe he has the right to build this property and i i don't feel the variance request is not as so significant that of a problem that i could i could justify voting against it um and i do see a need for more housing in general the other thing i'll indicate is i do have a significant concern about the stormwater issue and i hope that it is properly reviewed and addressed as this project moves forward and we tried this evening to address at least one of your issues about the access from um lot five being from hope road rather than seven mile road um okay any other comments from anyone before we should we should call for comments from oh I'm sorry the remote audience oh I thought we did public I'm sorry what happened somebody wants to talk now we oh oh did we okay I did ask okay all right I'm sorry okay uh now would be the time for a motion the first motion would have to be on the zoning by the way do we have to make a condition specific on the curbing or is that already assumed because they have a request a waiver assumed okay thank you I'd make the motion so are we approving the planning recommendation or are we just approving the zoning relief at this time the first motion I make a motion that we approve the zoning relief for the frontage okay is there a second to that motion seconded by commissioners any discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying aye aye all those opposed saying nay ayes have it uh okay second motion would be in order on the subdivision uh preliminary plan re approval with these conditions as modified by Brianna with the um with the lot two lot three on the on the stones stone walls and the whole back on the road ready done make a motion that we accept the the findings of fact and the staff memo to approve the preliminary plan submitted with the conditions as amended as amended okay everyone understand okay all right uh is there a second second by uh commissioner carrero any discussion seeing none all those in favor signify by saying aye aye all those opposed say nay ice have it okay we'll see how this goes all right all right thanks is uh next one is independence way

Motion would be in order on the subdivision uh preliminary plan approval with these conditions as modified by Brianna with the um with the lot two lot three on the on the stones stone walls and the whole back on the road ready done make a motion that we accept the the findings of fact and a staff memo to approve the preliminary plan submitted with the conditions as amended as amended okay everyone understand okay all right uh is there a second second by uh commissioner Carrero any discussion seeing none all those in favor signify by saying aye aye all those opposed say nay eyes have it okay we'll see how this goes all right all right thanks is uh next one is independence way we'll give you a little bit of time to clear out okay so on independence way as I said earlier we're taking independence way before we do Natick Solar and um that's what we're doing on independence way we have a pre-application plan public information only no vote to be taken um is the individual here who would like to uh present this pre-application plan here today I am okay please state your name and uh address and I'll turn it over to you my name is Chris Elsie our office resides at 2021 Vanesta Place in Manhattan Kansas and yeah I guess to start off I appreciate you putting us in front of uh the following uh or the preceding uh much appreciated but I'm the uh owner and developer of the prime company uh my identical twin brothers here and we build workforce housing throughout the country and so you may ask why is the guy from Kansas here presenting a project in Rhode Island and the reason that we are interested in um developing a project here is that there's a couple of things one you have an affordable housing need and we feel like we can help uh provide a solution to that challenge to there are state tax credits now available for workforce housing projects and so there's a need and there's funding to fulfill the need and if we can go to the next slide um yeah what kind of differentiates us from other developers is we're completely vertically integrated so we have an in-house design team we do all the design work we self-perform act as our own contractor and then we also have our own management company so and what this enables us to do is to build housing units for a good value and so we've spoken with the Rhode Island housing folks and they are excited about working with us because we can build stuff to a better value than what they're currently seeing in the marketplace and their idea is they would like to fund projects where their dollars go further.

So we can go to the next slide and so this presents the problem that we are trying to help uh provide a solution for and so you may or may not be aware that uh the city of Cranston and per the state you have a 10% affordability requirement so the general objective there is that residents are only supposed to spend 30% of their income that goes towards housing and so we are proposing a hundred percent project where every single unit is at 60% of the average median income.

So it's what that means is that somebody can rent these apartments they make around sixty thousand dollars they can go we can income average it so they can go up to about 80 um but I think that may be a common mix misconception about workforce housing project is and we'll see some other images of this is somehow that they're a substandard project I like to tell people and you can look at the images that we build the only thing affordable about affordable housing is to the end user.

So these are very nice complexes they're built to the highest standard uh but you can basically think of it is it's a market rate project that's offered to your workforce in this community at a better value uh and how that works is with um these they're funded with state and federal tax credits and so we can go to the next slide and so our particular site that we're looking at here is right along um I-295 it's um across from the Walmart there um there's an existing multifamily complex to the east and it basically abuts the interstate and so we feel like this is a great location it's tucked away from other single family homeowners it has good access to obviously services and the interstate and it has all the utilities are there um there are some wetlands but we're staying away from those um and so we feel like it's got you know it kind of checks all the boxes from a uh site sustainability standpoint because it has all the utilities it's an infill site and uh we actually uh just got in here and went and looked at it and seems to be that the current there's maybe some vagrancy

It has good access to obviously services and the interstate, and it has all the utilities are there.

Um, there are some wetlands, but we're staying away from those.

Um, and so we feel like it's got you know, it kind of checks all the boxes from a uh site sustainability standpoint because it has all the utilities, it's an infill site, and uh we actually uh just got in here and went and looked at it, and seems to be that the current there's maybe some vagrancy issues there right now.

It seems like kind of a dumping site, maybe, and uh yeah, we could certainly clean it up and it would look very similar.

Actually, it would look a lot nice.

Uh I went to the other uh complex to the east there, and I think you know, it would we would certainly build something just as nice or nicer than that current complex.

So if we go to the next slide, so this is really um this is a very key um slide here, and one of the things we're up against is that this opportunity is here for 2025, it does not exist after 2025.

And so, in order for these products to get funded, you have to be in what's called a qualified census tract or a difficult to develop area.

And so you can see here in 2025, or kind of a little red dot there.

Um, it's in the purple.

And so, what that means is that we need to get this project submitted to the state of Rhode Island in 2025 to basically utilize this QC QCT DDA.

And so what that gives us is it gives us a 30% boost on our funding with our tax credits, and so you can see in 2026, it basically fell out of the difficult to develop area, and so that is what that means is if we submit it after the first of the year, the opportunity is no longer here.

And so, through your housing element, I think you guys, your 20 or 2030 plan, like you're trying to shoot for, I think around 200 dwelling units.

If we go to the next slide, this is our proposal here, and so there's an access highway, uh, an access uh the Walmart is basically up.

Um north is to your left there, and we have two four-story buildings that we're proposing a hundred and ninety-two units.

Um, we're parking at 1.5 stalls per um per dwelling unit, and we are proposing about 7500 square feet of amenity space, and as you can see, again, it's kind of pushed up against the highway.

There's all of this basically green space kind of along it.

It's actually there's an access road that comes into it.

Um potentially, I guess from the Walmart, you may not even be.

I mean, besides the access road, you would be maybe challenging to even see that it's there.

You would be able to see it from uh the 295, um, but from the rest of the area, and so yeah, that's just a site plan that we put together.

Uh, we would have about 25 percent one bedrooms, 50 percent two bedrooms, 25 percent three bedrooms.

Go to the next slide, and then this is we're currently building a 250 unit um workforce housing or affordable housing project funded with tax credits in Lawrence, Kansas.

This is just to give you an idea of some of the finishes.

So we have like a two-story clubhouse, you know, co-working area.

We've got some pickleball courts here, and so again, this is a very nice complex.

This is just to give you an idea uh on what these workforce housing projects look like because they are funded with both state and federal tax credits, they are well capitalized, and so there are lots of funds to basically make this work.

Uh, but again, the opportunity is only here in 2025, it goes away in 2026, so that's why we're here before you currently.

Okay, and then we this is another project we're currently under construction on.

This is a affordable house uh workforce housing project in Oceanside California.

Again, you can see the finishes, the pool.

We proposed a pool here on the Cranston project, be similar to this, it'd be a pool within the inside the courtyard.

Uh, next project.

Uh, this is another one that we completed in South Central LA.

Uh again, just trying to show you the finishes and the quality of the project, and you can keep going.

Uh, yeah, this is a student housing deal we just did in uh San Diego.

Uh, next project, uh, one in Los Angeles.

We'd have a workout room kind of similar to this.

Uh, that would be in that amenity space that we'd be proposing in that 7500 square feet.

Uh next project.

Uh, this is a market rate deal that we did in Inglewood, Colorado.

Um, this is five stories, um, but to give you kind of similar scale uh on the building, so it'd be one story less than this.

Uh next slide.

Uh yeah, this is what we did in Columbus, Ohio, and Minneapolis, Minnesota.

We go to the next one.

And these are some other developments uh that we currently have.

And so yeah, we're just excited to hopefully present this to you guys and share this opportunity.

And um, yeah, at the end of the day, we need your help.

We need a fast uh rezone proposal so we can try to get this application into the state before the year, and uh we feel like we'll have a high likelihood of getting funded.

They announced the awards in April.

Uh, and then we'd like to get on with it and get some workforce housing built for the community.

So appreciate your time.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Elsey.

Um my colleagues may have some questions.

I'll just start on a couple of things.

Um, and actually, I really appreciate the information you presented.

Uh it was informative.

I always like learning new things.

So, first of all, thank you for coming.

Um, thank you for pulling all the way from Kansas.

Um, people in Kansas, I know a lot of people in Kansas, very godly people, very good people.

And um, I appreciate first of all is the location.

Real estate always comes down location, and some locations don't work, in my opinion, for multifamily apartments in our city, and some locations do.

That location can work for multifamily apartments because it is not um a budding in the middle of single family neighborhoods.

It's close to a Walmart and it's close to another independence place.

So it makes sense for me from a location standpoint.

That to me is always the first and foremost, the most important thing to me when I look at housing.

Does it fit with the surrounding community?

Um second, I look at um what it's going to be the impact on the city or the community as a whole, not just the neighborhood next to it.

So I look at traffic, I look at schools, I look at fiscal traffic.

My only concern is that it seems like one way in, one way out on the plain field pike.

You'd have to obviously address that.

It already is, I don't know how difficult a traffic issue is over there right now with Walmart.

I call I call it for lack of better term, the Walmart Plaza, you know, and the apartment, whether or not yours would work with it.

But that's something I'd point out.

Um schools.

I'm happy that you're on the east of 295, because that's a the boundary line on the elementary schools.

The elementary schools to the west, Orchard Farms, and Oklahoma, Oaklawn is at capacity.

I don't believe the elementary school Stone Hill is at capacity, and I don't believe Western Cranston West is really at capacity and Western Hills, they always talk about it, but it's not really at capacity either.

So I don't see a real capacity issue fiscally.

Um I always think that housing is a is sort of a net fiscal negative, especially in our state with the fact that their low-income housing or affordable housing, whatever you call it.

We can't tax you like we would other commercial properties that have residential in it.

I mean multifamily, you know, but that's part of the need that we're addressing.

I understand this what you're saying.

So I kind of understand, I I see how this what's what makes it attractive to me.

And I'm always hesitant about a big project like this, to be honest with you.

I wouldn't, I'm not somebody who like looks to do this kind of stuff.

192 units all at once in one place.

Yeah.

Okay.

We have this state requirements.

And one of them is this like 205 low-income moderate income units by 2030.

We already have about 70 or so that we have approved in various plans.

And you're talking 192.

So this would certainly show to all the people that we are making material progress towards our goals in one fell swoop.

So I give you credit for coming forward with that.

Um I was intrigued by the point you made that this credit for you in this area only lasts through 2025.

And then this appears in 2026.

Yeah.

Could you explain how that occurs?

Yeah.

So to fund these projects, you need state and federal tax credits.

And so if it has to be in what's called the difficult to develop area or qualified census track because you get a 30% boost on your tax credits to basically fund the project.

So if you don't have that 30% boost, you basically can't do the project because you don't have the funding sources available to do it.

And so for an application, and that's actually one of the from the state, they have a it's called a qualified a Q um qualify a QAP, a qualified allocation plan, and that's one of the requirements is that it be in a point score to get points, it has to be in a qualified census track or a difficult to develop area.

And so why it changes and moves around, it has to do with like census track data.

It has nothing to do with who the president is.

No.

Okay.

I was just curious.

So it's just interesting to me how it just changed like that.

And uh and uh so now that you're basically telling me is that basically everything to the west is no longer in that zone.

Yeah, if you go back to that map, yeah, and it could it could potentially pop back in.

Yeah, you never know, but yeah, the opportunity is is here this year, yeah.

And it it may not ever come back, we don't know.

So it's all census track data population, right?

Well, um, yes, I was gonna say we have so they get to your application.

The point of like what you're trying to do, can this be done by December 31st, right?

Um, there are basically two pathways you could try to do, and one of them, of course, is your zone change, putting a zone change in.

We the city has done zone changes for 15% affordable, pretty non-controversially, too, you know, for different parts of our our our um of our um city.

Um a hundred percent, you know, a zone change.

I don't know how the response will be to be, you know, be perfectly honest with you.

I don't go, I don't call the elected officials up and like poll them.

Do you know what I'm saying?

But that is when you're doing a zone change of a hundred percent, it could go, it may not.

If you sell it basically on it's one spot, it works already for apartments, and it shows that you would meet the two, you know, our housing needs under 2030, it could be a good selling point.

So I would say that in regards to the other avenue would be of course the um housing per comprehensive housing permit for low and moderate income housing.

Um there's been changes in the law, of course, and some of them will be taking effect January 1st.

You could try to file it beforehand, but I don't know if it could you would meet through all the requirements to do so in this time frame, and it would be coming before us, okay?

Yeah, certainly, you know, so um my point in telling you this is I don't inherently see a like when I see a problem, I tell people I see a problem.

I appreciate the transparency, yeah.

You know, because I don't want to waste your time, and I don't like when people waste my time.

I'm I I'm involved in government and so much time wasting with blah blah blah, you know.

I do not see if a fundamental problem, I just a zone change of a hundred percent in 60 days, maybe challenging for elected officials.

Yeah, I understand that.

Yeah, okay.

So I'm just being straightforward with you, but from a strictly, unless my colleagues tell me like I'm I'm missing something and they may have something they view it differently.

That location works, it already has 196 units next to it, and you are telling me I'd probably satisfy the state requirement in one fell swoop, essentially for 2030.

It's it's not it's it's it's it's it's a possibility in my mind.

Being straight with you, okay that's encouraging vice chairman Coop.

Just want to make sure I got the figures right.

It's a 190 units, 192 units, 192 units, uh half of them two beds, a quarter, one bed, and a quarter, three beds.

Yeah.

And they would be affordable for renters at 60% of the area median income.

Correct.

Yeah.

So in order to qualify for the tax credits, you have to have an average of 60% ANI AMI.

So you can do what's called income averaging, which means you can have some units higher, but then you have to have some lower.

But total, it has to be on average 60%.

And and do you maintain ownership and do you manage these buildings yourself?

Yes.

Yeah.

We would more than likely to start off, we would have to partner with a local operator that's part of the QAP.

Um, and so we would partner with like a local operator.

Um, but we would be heavily involved uh with the operation.

And I assume a condition of the funding is a um 30-year commitment to maintain affordability.

Okay.

Thanks.

Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you for coming in and enlightening us and bringing that proposal forward.

Um for your application to Rhode Island housing, what approvals do you have to have in place?

Well, what they've told us is so a part of the scoring, so who gets the points is basically what they call site readiness.

And so if we have like a fully permitted project, you get four points.

If you have a like 50% set that's through building and permitting, you get like six points.

And then if you have like a hundred percent set that's basically ready for like to get to get rolling with building, you get eight points.

And so we could theoretically make a proposal with no approvals whatsoever, but then we're docked with points.

Um, but some of it is subjective, you know, from their standpoint.

So I think this QAP thing actually maybe work to our advantage because we can say to the state, like, hey, this opportunity is here.

We don't know if it will be available in the future, maybe ever maybe won't ever be available in the future, and so they could maybe allocate um funding to this, but again, it would be very helpful for at least scoring four points if we could have um the rezone change.

The application deadline, I believe, is right before the Christmas holiday.

And so your planner Beth, she's been phenomenal.

We've done stuff all over the country, and yeah, you guys got a rock star with Beth here working for you.

So she's been great.

So he did scare me with that deadline though.

No, I I will say I didn't know like I said, like the director talked to me about this, obviously.

Before she posted it, we talked about it.

I was like, okay.

You a deadline of like pre-Christmas for yeah, is a very aggressive deadline, yeah for a zone change of this magnitude of this nature.

Yeah, uh, so let me just ask uh I call a follow-up question.

Let's say for a moment, this can't get done by January 1st, 2026.

Is this because of the tax credit?

Is it this kind of thing you just walk away from completely because it can't be a hundred percent?

Or would you say, hey, I can do it for I can do 50 percent?

Because I don't see what I'm trying to suggest, like you I can't get the the tax credit completely, but I can still do something then.

Yeah, well, I mean, the game we're in for on this project, the opportunity is with the tax credits.

Um, that's kind of our MO.

I'm not saying that you know, future stuff, maybe there'd be some other no, no, you know, I just want to understand from our standpoint, yeah.

It's uh kind of a all or nothing type deal.

I do think that again the state has been um very supportive and willing to work with us, and so you know, again, like these aren't they do have some rigid guidelines, etc.

But I mean, I think everybody recognizes the need for workforce housing, and that would be my hope that you know if we have community support and basically that hey, we're it's unfortunate, you know, with the timeline we're under, but you know, I think you know, certainly by the April award date, you know, that we can hopefully have things buttoned up and they can understand from the state's perspective, they just don't want to allocate funding towards something that potentially doesn't happen.

No, I think so.

Well, if we can be in good faith and uh um, you know, be moving towards actually getting something built, then I think they would be um willing to work with us, at least that's my hope.

But I mean, me coming here tonight, you know, that's something basically that we wanted to feel out is like, hey, you know, I appreciate you being transparent, times our most valuable asset.

If this is something the community wants or feels like they can get support support behind and is an asset to the community, you know, then we'll hit the go button and put 110% into it.

But if it's not something that the community wants, you know, then basically pack our bags up and head back to Kansas and look for a different opportunity.

So that's the goal of this.

I appreciate Beth working with us and present this opportunity where we can come talk to you.

No, and like I said, um I think people know me well enough who know me that I'm pretty straightforward about these things.

And um I don't have a right off the bat problem.

You see what I'm saying?

Yeah, that's encouraging.

You see, so I mean, could there be a problem?

Maybe potentially but but you know, because of the traffic or something, but you tell me I want to put 192 units next to another thing that has a nine hundred and ninety-six units.

Doesn't sound like a problem for me.

You see what I'm saying?

Yeah, and um I see a need to try to make some progress on this affordable housing stuff.

So I I you're not getting an objection from me, I'll put it that way.

Whether or not elected officials can move fast enough to be comfortable with this in a zone change.

If you gave me until gave me we had until like February, I could see it being maybe more possible.

But like this is how it works.

So just to be straight.

You got to get a council person or the mayor.

You you could you could put in a petition for a zone change.

You have to do it this month.

The meeting is at the end of the it has to be in soon, so it can be at the end of the month heard by the council to send to ordinance.

We have to review it in December.

At the and that's lights, that's like kind of like real fast for us.

That's like warp speed, Mr.

Sulu.

You see what I'm saying?

All right.

And then and then the then the council has to like review it and approve it by the end of December.

So you see the t the time frame you're talking about.

Yeah, we get we got it.

We got it.

So is it possible?

Yes, but you gotta there's a lot of things you gotta move fast.

Yep.

Um sorry, go ahead.

I did speak to Councilman Ritz, and he also thought it was an acceptable location.

So that we've opened that channel of communication.

But being an out of state developer, you know, um, the prime group really wanted to talk and get input from this group before I even tried to go into a process.

When I tried to describe the process where you have to talk to a council member, get them to introduce it, introduce it to city council.

He really wanted to take the temperature of the room before going down that path.

I just director Zidellas.

This is exactly what I'm accustomed to seeing from my former life.

So, endorsing something like this is something I'd be wholeheartedly behind.

Yeah.

So I think it's an opening.

I just don't know if the if the clock you have enough time on the clock.

Yeah.

Well, I'm encouraged with it.

We will certainly put forth our best good faith effort and we'll work with Beth and yeah, we'll try to make it happen.

So and when you do your zoning ordinance, look at some other zoning ordinances we've done, yeah, and just be clear about what's you're doing.

Yeah, you know what I mean?

So we've looked at it.

The underlying zoning for this lot, the lot has it's a split zone lot, the C2 allows the mixed use, the C4 would only allow it on upper floors.

So we're proposing to we've we discussed sort of how would you structure a zoning ordinance that we'd structure it to rezone the whole lot to C2 uh with a density bonus and probably use the acido property that was just done on Cranston uh street as as an example where you um yeah, C2 with conditions, see to yeah, it would be C2 conditions 100% affordable under state law and what's your what's your parking 1.5 per unit.

1.5, yeah.

Yeah, and then we've done 1.5 in the city before.

Um anything else from anyone else about this, Mr.

Carrera.

I'd just like to say a couple of things.

First of all, welcome to Rhode Island.

Thank you.

Um what is it that you really need from this community in order to make this happen or get at least this so-called application to the Rhode Island housing?

I mean, can you spell out you need us, you need zone change and yeah.

I mean, again, to score those points, having the zone change and then you know, certainly any letters or support from elected officials to the Rhode Island housing folks that are making a decision, that's a part of the part, you know, they basically you know, they get applications from all over the state, and then they're trying to decide, hey, who wants it, who scores the highest, you know, there's amenity points, you know, if you're close enough to services, etc.

I mean c can you spell out you need us you need zone change and yeah I mean again to score those points having the zone change and then you know certainly any letters or support from elected officials to the Rhode Island housing folks that are making a decision that's a part of the part you know they basically you know they get applications from all over the state and then they're trying to decide hey who wants it who scores the highest you know where there's amenity points you know if you're close enough to services etc and it's a competitive game but yeah certainly the more support that we can show from the community um I think the better shot we have at it if I just may dovetail off of the commissioners um question so you proceed in putting in your application subsequent to January you got a zoning change or whatever or even the project if you get it in before they do the scoring does that count you know you were talking about the two points the four points I do not know that for sure I do not know if they will like if we basically submit it you know maybe we can explain the situation we're in and then maybe you know they'll do the scoring sometime in you know after the first day of the year in February or early April or whenever I honestly do not know that so and have you had any conversations with any of the council people other than Beth touching with one I can't see a council not looking forward to trying to do either a special session to get these zone changes in place in order to have something like this happen within the community and I'm just trying to trying to say if you got the temperature of the rest of the council because I've got to believe they would be in favor of this just as we appear to be as well I have not reached out to council I would say um I will certainly do that and if that's per your recommendation I'm more than willing to do that.

But yeah this was kind of Beth's recommendation this was the place to start and so I appreciate that.

I mean that plus the mayor I mean a personal meeting with the mayor and and being able to get the council president there at the same meeting which you just presented here I mean I I like the term you use workforce housing because as they call it everybody keeps calling affordable I've built houses and I built houses there is nothing affordable that you can get if you're not subsidized with the amount of money you need to build something it's just impossible.

So given that having that understanding I I really think that something like this could be fast tracked if we just know exactly what it is you need and when you need it by certainly okay well we'll try to communicate clearly and we can talk to the folks at the Rhode Island housing and work together.

So one thing from the solicitor just one question.

The application has to be submitted in 2025 that's the key thing submitted to the to the no to the Rhode Island housing authority yeah or not it's not the housing authority to the Rhode Island housing yeah so that's what kind of locks in this QCT DDA.

Okay anything further from any of my colleagues on this okay sounds like there's a possibility here okay I really appreciate everyone's time I appreciate your service to the community so these are you guys have got a long night so yeah we we have native solar is about to begin thank you all right um it's quarter of nine we can go right into native solar or if you guys want a five minute break we can do that too it's up to you guys um you want a five minute break all right we'll be back in five minutes thank you

Ordered by Judge Malobano for this commission to approve the master plan.

That was subject to a petition for a writ of sociari in the Supreme Court, and the court at the time chose not to uh take the matter up.

So we're here tonight with a master plan approval.

We're vested.

The issues that have come up before in terms of not complying with the zoning ordinance or not complying with the comprehensive plan, those those issues in my mind have been settled.

And so tonight we're asking for the next level of approval for the preliminary plan stage.

And our intention is to go over the modifications that we have were offering tonight to the commission to the plan that was previously approved at the master plan.

We are perfectly fine proceeding forward with the master plan as approved.

We have some enhancements that we're going to propose in this submission, and we're gonna ask for your favorable consideration of them.

And we think there's good reasoning for it.

Um if the commission feels that uh our uh modifications, some of which were done uh in good faith by the applicant and the developer as an accommodation to neighborhood comments.

Um if you choose that those are not um acceptable or should be approved by you, we will stand on the master plan uh as it was uh as it's constituted.

Um the uh record uh that we submitted uh that's before you uh has you know many of the uh well all of the required um documents that uh the planning staff we worked with uh Beth and Jonas and the staff on this submission.

So you have before you a complete plan set, you have before you a stormwater uh report landscape plan.

Uh we've provided maintenance guidelines for the vegetative buffer area.

Um to this uh project status is uh we have uh engaged a consultant and uh she will testify shortly about uh uh uh pollination and uh maintenance plan for that.

Uh we think that's a uh an important enhancement to our project.

Um and so we'll talk about that.

Um this matter was reviewed by the Development Plan Review Committee.

We have uh we have an approval uh from them.

Uh and that's part of the record, but we were there in um uh July, and they granted uh they recommend they granted uh approval of the uh preliminary plan that we submitted.

Um they actually granted a few waivers under the uh zoning ordinance for uh requiring an impact assessment, a traffic study, and uh relief on uh landscape standards.

We didn't think it was necessary, but an abundance of caution uh we asked for it.

So that was that decision was recorded on July 2nd in the land evidence records.

So we are um we believe we're in order this evening uh after hearing and testimony for you to favorably consider this preliminary plan.

Uh let me just introduce who we have.

And you know, we're gonna try and we'd like to at least we're sympathetic to the chairman's direction here.

We want to try and get our uh at a minimum try and get as much of our um testimony in this evening.

Um, and then the commission can decide where we go from there.

Um this evening, you're gonna hear from Eric Prevy from Depreet Engineering.

He's a professional engineer.

I have his resume.

Eric's been, I've worked with Eric uh as long as he's been at the pre probably 25 years.

He's appeared before this commission on numerous occasions.

Uh John Carter continues to be our landscape architect.

Uh and John is uh well known to this commission, and uh we'll talk about landscaping and how we're uh some of the things we're doing.

Um this evening is Claire Hoogerboom, uh H O O G E B O O M.

Uh She's a wetland scientist with LEC consultants.

Uh uh they're in Rhode Island, but uh they're out of state also.

Uh and she is uh she's working with the team now and she's worked on other uh solar projects.

Uh uh, so we uh we think she'll add uh significant to the uh presentation.

Uh lastly, Ryan Palumbo, the vice president of uh Revity Energy and uh representative native solar uh will uh also share uh his thoughts and uh comments on the status of this project uh and um the modifications we're suggesting and uh uh Ryan uh uh is representing his uh family uh business this evening and is doing a great job and did a great job at the development plan review committee.

Um I think that's all I want to say at this point.

Um we know unless the commission uh has specific questions later.

I'm not I am not gonna go through the chronology of why where we've been and why how we got here.

I think everybody understands that.

So with that, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to invite Eric Privy up uh from DePrete Engineering.

Uh and with your permission, I'd just like to pass out topics getting red.

High regard for them.

Just always speaking to the microphone.

I want to make sure Mr.

Dharty has worked with Mr.

Perry for and he has high regard for him.

And I'm I know he'll offer that thought when he gets it to Eric, just some uh preliminary uh introductive questions, and then you can take it from there.

Um as I stated, you're uh professional engineer with degree engineering, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And how long you've been doing with uh 25 years.

I don't think we're swearing in.

Are we swearing in or not?

Right after.

So that's fine.

Sure.

Uh good evening for the record.

My name is Eric Prevy, P R I Biazin Victor E.

Preview.

Um, your firm has been working on this uh project native solar since its initial inception, uh starting back in 2018, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And uh you're familiar with the preliminary plan application uh that we've submitted this evening for consideration to the planning commission.

Yes, I am.

And you're familiar with the property on Natick Avenue owned by Mr.

Rossi.

Yes, I am.

And you're familiar with the the character and the uh portion of the Mr.

Rossi's property we intend to use for the solar array.

Yes, I am.

And you're familiar with the history of this project and the the approvals that we received today from the the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.

Yes, I am.

And you're here tonight to outline in a general view uh way uh the project and to talk about uh some of the modifications that we're offering up uh uh to the commission and the community.

Yes, that's correct.

Um with that, I'm gonna let you uh seat forward.

I may have a couple other questions.

Uh good evening.

Just to reiterate, my name is Eric Prevy, uh registered professional engineer with DePrete Engineering Offices at two Stafford Court in Cranston, Rhode Island.

Uh what I'd like to do is briefly go through the existing conditions.

Uh I'll go through briefly.

I know there's a lot of important things tonight, but I just want to make sure everybody knows where we're talking about, first of all.

Um we're at a sister's flat 22 uh-3 lots, 108 and 119.

It's a 64.03 acre parcel.

Uh the boundary was done by uh it's a class one boundary that was done, and the survey is uh to the highest accuracy for the state of Rhode Island.

Uh the area is zoned A80, uh, that's residential approximately 80,000 square foot uh density.

For frontage, there's uh two frontage parts, uh two frontage areas located along Natick Ave on the eastern side of the site.

There's a 50-foot swath that's located kind of centrally to the property, and then there's another uh 223 feet that's located in the southeast corner as well.

There's actually a secondary um frontage that is located off of uh Ridgewood Road at the terminus of Ridgewood in the northwest portion that actually has uh some some frontage up in that area as well.

As far as cover types, uh so existing what's out there today.

Uh the existing cover types are a mixture of open fields and mostly wooded in the eastern portions where uh the proposed development is located as well.

Uh topography on the site, so the uh the elevations, uh, they go generally from the north central area, so the northwestern up in the ridgewood area, and they go down to the uh southeast portion towards Natick Ave in the southeast portion of the property.

Uh as you would imagine the stormwater flows today go that direction as well with the topography.

Wetland areas, there is a wetland that's located in the southeast portion of the property that was delineated by natural resource services.

Uh that is a wooded swamp that is located in the southeast portion, and there is a 50-foot perimeter wetland that's associated with that.

So that's a buffer additional buffer area that uh is typically set back from wetland areas.

Gas easement, there's a gas easement that runs along the southern uh runs east to west along the southern portion.

Thank you for helping point on that there.

That is a 50-foot wide gas easement, and that is uh by Tennessee gas pipeline as well.

The soils on the site we we dug soil test pits on site.

They were done by a class 4 licensed soil evaluator from Department of Environmental Management, and they are uh suitable for development, silt loams and fine sandy loams and such.

That's the overall of the existing of the site.

What I'd like to do is go to the proposed now, please, and we'll give a quick overview on that as well.

Uh proposed is a 6.25 megawatt AC ground mounted solar array.

Uh to give you uh perspective of what they look like.

They're approximately uh three feet off the front portion, so the front lip as they're angled, so three feet from the ground, and they go uh they're tilted at different angles, southern facing, and they go anywhere from about eight feet to nine feet at the at the high side.

So it depends on the angle, but so uh sorry, eight to twelve feet, excuse me, depending on the angle.

Row spacing is approximately uh eight to twelve feet again, that has depending on the contours and the topography and where those are going to make sure they get the proper uh shading or lack of shading on the panels as well.

We're proposing a six-foot uh six-foot high chain link fence around each of the arrays.

Uh and that chain link fence will have uh from discussions, and I'll get to that at the end as well, but that chain link fence will also have black vinyl located on the areas that are abutting uh are adjacent to uh our neighbors.

So on the eastern side uh on the north, the the north side and the eastern side that would add the black lynel coating on it, and that'll help kind of dampen a little bit of the visual effects, and also on the southern portion as well to the neighbors to the south.

We do have internal fencing to keep each array together, um, but so the internal fencer would not need that vinyl because it's internal to ourselves, and also on the western side again to the remainder of our property, would not have the vinyl.

So anywhere that is facing for abutters to help uh dampen that visual visual effect to them as well.

Uh that fenced area is approximately 21.5 acres.

The total limited disturbance over here is 28.8 acres.

One of the uh enhancements, modifications that we made is taking the uh the access road.

So it's a 20-foot wide uh crushed stone access path.

And we've moved out to the middle of the property and the master plan submission.

Perfect, actually, thank you.

That's that's an excellent graphic.

Um, so the approved master plan, you can see how the path used to go as soon as you came in from the site, you would go due north and run along the northern side of uh the solar array, and then there was a north north-south access down the middle.

The proposed plan to the right, you can see how we've shifted that and put that right down the middle uh between the arrays, and that that gives us a better access to each side there, and it shifts that away from some of the residential properties to the north as well.

So, again, that access path is a 20-foot crushed stone path, and that would be down uh the middle as well.

That path would be accessing directly from the existing access that's from Natick Ave.

So today there is a 28-foot-wide uh access to Natick Ave that comes through, and there's a gate there today that comes into this piece of the property.

Uh for review as well as part of the preliminary plan package, along with the soil erosion and sediment control plans and the operations and maintenance plans for how the long-term operations and maintenance of the stormwater features.

That has been designed to the Department of Environmental Management's best management practices and the Rhode Island Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual.

Those are the two kind of I call them bibles for stormwater design in the state of Rhode Island.

The drainage design includes seven stormwater mitigation measures, which include stone trenches and stone infiltration basins to mitigate the stormwater directly on site.

You can see how we've we've placed them throughout the site, and one of the reasons for that is to break down the areas that contribute to that.

Again, making those catchments into smaller areas as opposed to having a large watershed that comes down and has momentum through the site.

We're able to pick those subwalk sub watersheds up in different areas and treat them on the spot.

So that kind of that gives it a more localized treatment and also breaks up the watersheds.

We do provide reduction in runoff for from pre-development to post-development as required by the state for the two through 100 year frequency storms.

The stormwater was reviewed and approved by the Department of Environmental Management's freshwater wetlands program.

And that is that has a review by a biologist and an engineer at DEM.

The issuance of an insignificant alteration permit, application number 19-0130.

There is no work that is proposed within the wetland or the wetland buffers.

So that 50 foot perimeter wetland that I spoke of at the beginning for the existing on-site resources, we are able to hold that 50-foot perimeter and all limits of disturbance are outside of that 50-foot buffer, protected with erosion controls and such during construction.

One of the issues that was discussed at master plan was to minimize the grading to the maximum extent practical to try and mimic uh existing contours, and that's something we paid special attention to.

You can see from the grading that is shown on site the dark air, the dark lines are the proposed grades and how that we tried to contour the existing grades and get them as close without having to create new uh major land disturbances and such.

So we heard we heard the comments that were made at master plan, and we've designed it accordingly for preliminary plan.

There's no lighting proposed and no water or sewers needed as it's a solar array.

Um landscaping.

I'm not going to get too deep into it, but I just want to say that John Carter is here tonight and we'll testify it.

But our project team had extensive meetings and third-party peer reviews and coordination for the vegetative uh screening to the abutting properties, and John Carter will speak to that tonight.

Uh, as far as uh the pollinators as well, we worked with uh Claire Hogeboom of LEC to look at some of the plantings between the row spacing, and uh, she'll speak again to more to that tonight as well.

Um, three things that that were mentioned, I think are important is uh the review bodies that have looked at this, and again, this is not one stop, the first time that the city is seeing this as well.

We did receive the uh Department of Environmental Management's wetland permit.

That's a comprehensive review by again biologists and engineer reviewing all of it, the uh the data and supporting materials.

It did receive the development plan review approval on July 2nd of 2025, and it did uh just get reviewed at the Technical Review Committee on October 15th of 2025 as well.

So many different reviews that city staff have seen and have been fantastic to provide uh comments to us uh through throughout, and we believe have helped enhance some of what you end up seeing up here as well.

Um, so I want to quickly highlight uh a few of the uh modifications that were made from the master plan again, uh moving that interior access path to the central area that was uh previously along the north.

Um, and looking at in doing that, we're actually able to reconfigure a few items with the solar arrays themselves, and we actually have a reduction in the number of panels that are out there as well.

So the the original design had approximately 16,200 panels, and we're down to 14,280 panels.

So that's a reduction about 12 percent of the panels out here.

Um reduction reduction in the actual panel area, so the amount that the size that they take up as well originally was 10.56 acres, and it's down to 9.32 acres.

Again, so smaller surfaces as well.

That's a reduction of 1.2 acres for a 12% reduction in the size there as well.

And then a reduction in the total fenced area, again, the area that is fenced in for each of the arrays was originally 22.24 acres, and that's down to 21.47 acres.

So that's approximately three quarters of an acre that's reduced down in size as well.

We believe again with some of the other folks that are going to testify tonight as well.

Uh, we believe that a lot of the these improvements, enhancements that we've been able to do are improvements to the original master plan.

So I wanted to give an overview.

Um Mr.

Murray, wouldn't it be I think I'd like to have your witnesses come first and then we could have the questions.

I don't think we're probably gonna get to questions tonight, unless my commission fell commissioners feel like they really want to ask questions right after each witness.

Okay, so we'll be we'll be asking you some questions, but just won't be tonight.

We'll also umbrate the equipment there, right?

That's correct.

Yeah, actually, that's a that's a great point.

Exactly.

So the the transformers inverters are centrally located now as well.

And John Connor will talk about it, but we are also trying to expand the puffer area to the residential.

That's correct.

By shifting down that that path that used to be along the northern area that now gains us some extra area where we can look at uh some additional uh vegetative screening along the northern portion.

Yep.

That's all I have to uh with that, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm gonna invite John Carter to come forward.

Uh John has uh obviously testified.

I did my just for the record, uh, you've been the landscape architect of uh record uh on this project.

Yes, I have landscape management, which is part of this preliminary application by you and your office.

That's correct.

And you're obviously familiar with the site and the property uh along Natick Avenue, yes, I am and uh compilation of material and plans you're recommending to this commission as a result of both personal uh visits and knowledge of the property as well as your experience as a that's correct.

And while it was probably several years ago, uh just the ask in the required uh peer review and answer process that uh formed an ad hoc committee for consideration for the this project, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And what's presented to the commission this evening when the plane stage uh incorporates those comments and recommendations received the that's correct, and I'm gonna ask you to some of the commission issues and actually kind of step back, give an overview of uh the approach in what we're offering here, and then we'll have Claire talk a little bit more about pollinator right.

Thank you.

Um for the record, my name is John Carter.

I'm a registered landscape architect, and uh my office is at 960 Austin Neck Road in Arrogance.

Would you be able to put my uh plan up?

My sheet one.

You have the landscape plans.

Okay, there we go.

Thank you.

So is Bob said, I was uh uh engaged early on at the sort of onset of this project, uh to collaborate with the design team and the engineer and developers.

Uh we've had numerous meetings with the board with this board, uh, the other input from the city.

Uh the first thing that we do when we start a project, and we did in this case was you do a fairly detailed assessment of the uh site, and we look at the existing vegetation, the topography, the adjacent land uses.

Uh the site presently is a working farm, and the topography slopes from the northwest, which is the upper left, uh, to the southeast, which is the lower right, uh, approximately 125 feet across the uh breadth of the of the uh project and the existing uh vegetation, it's it's a heavily managed uh property uh through farming activities and so forth, uh, but it's primarily uh oak maple overstory with some shrubby understory, it has a fairly thin understory.

So in our analysis of the site, we paid particular attention to uh the abutting properties and the potential for views from the uh of abutting properties onto the site, uh and that kind of drove some uh all all of our process and analysis and so forth.

Is part of our analysis in order to understand the relationship between the abutting home and the uh solar panel installation, we drew a series of transects a profile view, and the yellow lines that you see there all indicate the profiles that we drew.

And what we did was we uh drew a line of the proposed conditions on the ground, existing vegetation, uh the topography of the land, the height of the panels, and we drew them from an approximate first floor elevation of the abutting houses.

Uh and that was able we were able to analyze how best to uh buffer by leaving uh undisturbed areas as well as providing additional planting uh the views from those houses, and that was the primary uh driving uh force behind the landscape plan that we um that we developed.

Uh so we did uh develop a plan of uh supplemental planting.

So the plan you're looking at now, you can see the green, the dark green.

So, well, excuse me, I'm gonna back up on this on the north property line, which is the top of the top of this slide you're looking at as well.

Um there's a proposed 50-foot-wide vegetated buffer.

That is, thank you, and that is an area 50 feet wide that will not be disturbed during construction.

Um, so whatever's there will remain.

In our uh site assessment, and I and Bob had mentioned that we worked with uh a peer reviewer, and we had numerous interactions with uh peer reviewer who was a very experienced landscape architect, uh, including numerous site visits, walking along the property line and trying to determine what areas were critical to block with existing or added vegetation.

So we developed a plan where the we're gonna leave 50 feet of undisturbed buffer, and then there's an additional 10 feet, which is the dark green, and within that we have designs for putting additional plants.

Uh we left the design to be uh the way that design developed it, it's fairly uh uh flexible or I guess scalable would be a word, because in my experience, you can't really determine exactly where the best place to add the plants to enhance the buffer.

Uh people use solid fences, which nobody wanted in this case, uh, but the plantings have to be placed pretty much after the lots cleared.

So after the site is cleared for the pro for the development, uh we have a planting scheme, and I'll show you that shortly.

And where the red, the little red sort of trek trangles are, those indicate where we would put within that 10 feet, we would put additional planting.

Um as uh Eric pointed out the plan from the from when we develop that landscape, the original uh layout on the north property has actually improved because the uh service road is was running along the north property line or was running right inside of the buffer.

Uh now it's been moved into the center of the site.

So we actually have an additional uh 20 feet available if we want it.

It has to maintain, I believe, a 10 foot wide clearance just for maintenance.

Uh where we can as we add the plants, which is a flexible sort of design process.

Uh we have additional space, and also during the clearing, if there is something significant, the large tree is something that's uh actually uh making a positive impact on the buffer.

We have the opportunity to leave it there if we just have more more uh more room to move.

So uh as I said, that we we spent time with a peer reviewer who was I believe interfacing with the ad hoc committee.

I think board members, neighbors, and so forth were on it.

Uh we spent a lot of time with her, uh a lot of different revisions, revisions that we brought into the board, and this is ultimately what was all agreed upon and approved.

So, what I'd like to do, if you don't mind, can you just flip one sheet forward?

Thank you.

The transects, the cross sections for uh lack of better description that we did, and we did 15 of them, I believe, from all the houses on all the abutting lots.

Uh basically what you're seeing, and I if you're sitting close, you can probably read it better than me.

What you're seeing is that we we have a line drawn indicating the ground level, we have a site line coming out of the house indicator.

We have the buffer drawn, we have the property lines indicated, and it's all to a scale.

So it allowed us in some cases the topography would will block the view of the uh panels, and in some cases, uh exit there'll be considerable existing vegetation.

Uh, but in all cases, we're proposing to further enhance that with more.

If you don't mind, can you go to the last sheet now?

But the rest of these pages were all just uh more of the cross sections, and happy to spend as much time as you want with them, but uh they're a little hard to discuss at this level.

Uh I I have the last sheet on and not in the presentation, but I have it on a separate PDF.

Do you want me to pull it up?

I would it'll just take me a minute to pull it up.

Oh, you it's on a separate PDF.

This is just directly in the presentation things that I can my page six of my set.

Okay, I can do that.

Yeah, if you don't mind, I'm it's kind of I need that to describe what we're doing.

If it's a problem, I can I I can use my verbal skills to paint the picture.

While we're waiting for that, the other thing we were asked to do was to prepare a uh a maintenance plan, which we did and has been submitted to the town, been updated.

That's this document here that would be uh going forward with an approval, that would be part of it.

Basically, what happens when we try to do buffer plantings is we have to deal with invasives, that's a big issue.

And so there's a maintenance plan really thank you.

It also spells out what can and can't happen within the vegetated buffers.

So, in other words, uh in going into the future, there's a document that uh protects the the ball.

That sheet right there is good, thank you.

Looks like an old blueprint.

So this is part of the plants that we've submitted originally and approved, and then again uh and on that uh on that sheet on the right side, you'll see those sort of diagrams with the plants, the circles and the plants, and what those are those are we called typical planting clusters.

So I talk about sort of flexible and scalable.

There's a certain amount in the plant schedule, which is right in the middle of the sheet, it says plant schedule above it.

Uh there are uh genus, species, size, planted size, and uh quantities of all the plants.

So going forward, the the applicant, the developers are locked into putting those plants in uh in that size and that quantity, but the planting on the right indicates these clusters of plantings that we're gonna have some flexibility where they actually go.

They're 50 feet, they're wide as this room, uh clusters of them all along the north and the uh east property line, and we're gonna have a little flexibility after the sites cleared where best to put them.

Basically, if there's gaps in a 50 foot buffer that we think needs supplement supplementing, we'll use those.

That was that was something that the peer reviewer myself uh came up with, thought it would from our experiences thought it was a really good way to do that.

So if this moves forward with an approval, it's not uh there's discretion in how those are are laid out, but there's a firm uh schedule of how many and and how big they would be uh required to put in when they're so that pretty much summarizes where we're at and what our involvement was uh questions later.

Unless my fellow colleagues feel the need to ask questions right now, like I said, I'm just trying to get the company's witnesses through Chairman.

Our next uh witness is uh Claire Huleboom from LEC Consultants.

Um is new to this commission in terms of this project.

I don't know, I don't know if she's peered for many courts of commissions to the state in the region.

I don't know if I don't think she's been before this one.

Um but I told her that they're all nice people welcome aboard.

But I'm gonna have you talk about your involvement in the project, but let's just start with some basic questions.

Um you were brought on board by uh Revity Energy and Natick Solar to work on this particular project by Nate Academy, correct?

That's correct.

And as part of our submission, we submitted a report uh on your uh letter head and stationary um entitled uh pollinator friendly site establishment maintenance plan.

Are you familiar with that?

Yes, I am and you and your colleagues uh gathered that information uh for submittal, correct?

Correct.

And this report is based on both your professional experience but also um your personal uh on-site inspection of the property in question.

That's correct, and in your professional career, have you worked with on other solar array projects like this?

Yes, I have and just for the record, your your resume includes work beyond just um uh uh plans like the solar projects.

You you your firm does other uh permitting and uh development work, correct?

Yes, you work on a diverse amount.

Okay, with that, I'm just gonna ask you to uh introduce yourself to the commission and your company, and then um at your base, uh share uh your recommendations to the commission and how we're gonna incorporate them in this right.

Thank you for the record, Claire Hogebaum.

Would you like me to spell that?

Yes, H O O G E B as in Boy O O M as in Mary.

Uh wetland scientists with LEC environmental consultants.

Wetland Scientists with LEC environmental consultants.

Our address is 680 Warren Avenue, East Providence, Rhode Island.

Our ecology-based firm has 13 technical staff that work collaboratively together in a manner that provides a wealth of diverse experience and knowledge to each project that we are involved in.

So when you have one staff member from LEC, you really have a collaborative effort from our entire team.

And as noted earlier, we were retained by the applicant who prepared this pollinator friendly planting plan within the solar array footprint.

So on this particular project, myself and another LEC staff member, Andrea Kendall, who's listed in our report, attended a site evaluation to document the existing conditions, the soil characteristics, and to identify the existing vegetation in order to support preparation of this site specific pollinator friendly planting plan.

The site in existing conditions is primarily comprised of forested uplands with a network of cart paths and numerous rocky outcrops occurring throughout the site.

A small area of upland meadow occurs pretty much centrally within the site where it's absent of canopy cover.

Otherwise, the forested areas are generally comprised of mostly deciduous trees with a few eastern red cedars.

The understory is mostly saplings.

And of course, anywhere devoid of the canopy cover is generally ground cover.

In addition to identifying all of the vegetation within the site, we utilized a hand handheld auger to evaluate the soil profile within selective areas throughout the site, gain an understanding of the subsurface soil conditions that would support a plant community.

Generally, the site contains up to one inch of organic material that's a top uh up to two inches of topsoil.

In one of our test pits, we did identify a buried topsoil layer about 12 inches thick, which was not very consistent with the remainder of the site, but just something noteworthy to gain an understanding that not every portion of the site was extremely similar with the uh with respect to the amount of topsoil and organic matter.

Based on the data collected during our site evaluation, we prepared the pollinator planting plan.

We specifically selected the mesek to dry native pollinator seed mix that's prepared by Ernst Conservation Seeds based out of Pennsylvania.

We very regularly uh recommend using either them or having the local nursery prepare a seed mix based on the planting plan or the specifications that they put together.

Um the seed mix includes a diverse variety of flowering plants.

I believe it's about 32 uh different species in total.

Uh they have different colors and variable blooming periods between April and October, so there's overlap between a lot of the flowering plants to provide some options for pollinator species throughout the growing season.

Some grasses are included in that seed mix.

Uh, they also provide some alternative sources of nesting materials and habitat value for pollinators as well.

So we're trying to really focus not only on food sources, nectar sources, but an overall habitat value provided through this planting plan that could be diverse and do different things other than just provide food.

Umtably, the seed mix includes a cumulative 1.7% of milkweed species.

Uh, we did recommend in our plan to incorporate an additional 10% of common milkweed to the seed mix to be applied throughout the buffer areas around the solar as opposed to underneath the uh solar panels themselves.

And that was in an effort to support the monarch butterfly, which some may know the milkweed plant is an obligate species to the monarch butterfly.

They only feed on the nectar of that plant and they only lay their eggs.

So the caterpillars primary and pretty much sole food source is the milkweed species.

So we selected the common milkweed because we felt it would be more successful in this landscape area as opposed to something like the swamp milkweed, which would prefer a wetter habitat.

And we also recommended a few other opportunities to encourage pollinator-friendly habitat throughout the year, not just within the growing season.

Some of which includes leaving a minimum of three six-foot tall logs along the perimeter that would provide some cavity nesting or wood boring bees, potential habitat or nesting areas.

Additionally, just leaving small piles of logs or leaves along the perimeter as well.

Mostly we tried to encourage doing that within the buffer areas where there's not going to be a lot of staff activity or maintenance activity within the solar panel array itself, just to avoid any potential issues with staff trying to maintain the site or fix something in the solar array itself and then risking stepping on a nest or getting stung.

So we're trying to find that balance of human use and wildlife encouragement.

We understand that the existing topsoil will be scraped, stockpiled, reused around the site.

So we recommended based on our evaluation of finding mostly on average up to two inches of topsoil, that there might be a need to import additional clean organic rich topsoil to the site to achieve four to six inches of topsoil to really support that seed mix germination.

So we have the recommendations in the report to ensure that it is good clean topsoil that would achieve the needs of the planting plan.

Two final things that we did include in this plan, one is our monitoring protocol.

So this is a very common recommendation that we put in any of our upland or wetland restoration replication plans or a plan similar to this, where we recommend construction period monitoring to be done by our form our firm or someone similar that would inspect the seed mix and planting orders upon arrival and even prior to arrival to ensure the orders themselves meet the specifications of the plans.

When they arrive at the site, we would inspect them to ensure all the plantings are healthy, that the seed mix is exactly what was ordered, and then oversee the spreading or implementation of that plan during construction.

And we do leave the opportunity open to make any field modifications because you know you could put so much on paper, but sometimes you get to the field and you're doing the work and you determine there might be a slight shift that would ensure a more successful plan in the end.

Following construction, we outline uh LEC would provide up to three years of post-construction monitoring.

So we would do three site visits each year, uh beginning, middle, and end of the growing season to document all the different stages of the flowering period and ensure that our planting plan is successful, and each year if we identify that there is some modification or supplemental seed mix applications, whether it's the same seed mix or something else that we are finding based on our observations.

Uh, there were some specific seed species that were not as successful as we expected.

We would make those recommendations each year to implement and continue monitoring.

So we have that going on for three-year period.

Um, and that ties back into our maintenance plan, which would continue in perpetuity after our three-year monitoring.

We have a bullet list in our report that outlines uh the owner's landscape team that would just continue the yearly maintenance.

Uh, we are we try to be clear and concise in the report to note that uh mowing once a year is all that we recommend for this planting plan.

Maybe the first three years it's a little more separate's establishing, and that would only occur with the authorization from uh the biologist or the monitor that would uh let them know that you know you can mow at this time, and we also have a specific window.

I believe it's October 1st.

Um up to the end of April.

That mowing would be allowed even in perpetuity because we want to avoid the mowing during the growing season, the active pollinating season.

Um so with that, I believe that summarizes everything I wanted to put together.

So notion the clock, Mr.

Chairman, and I think with your permission, uh, I'm gonna ask Ryan Palumbo to come forward to make some brief remarks on behalf of uh the applicant.

Um that would include our presentation this evening with your commission.

And are those all your witnesses with Mr.

Palumbo?

Subject to questions from questions that we don't have the right people here, or if other issues develop for a subsequent meeting, we may have to present someone else right now.

That will be the entirety of our visitation as it relates to the preliminary plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Members of the commission, my name is Ryan Palumbo.

Um, I am one of the principals at Revit Energy, which again uh family owned business run and operated by myself, my three siblings, our father Ralph.

Um, I'm gonna try to be brief here.

I think uh our consultants have done a lot of the heavy lifting already.

But uh the changes or the modifications that you know we're putting forth here, you know, is truly our best effort to try to you know show good faith with the feedback that we've received over the years from the commission here, the abutters for the project and other members of the community.

Um the the change of the road system going to the central side uh through the central area of the project is going to help decrease noise mitigation, uh increase noise mitigation um and reduce the amount of site work that we're going to have in that area of the project where some of the residential abutters had some significant concern.

Um what used to be a 20-foot access road along that north uh as stated is now only going to going to be a 10-foot gravel pathway.

That's something that the landowner um wanted to make sure that was kept in there, but that gives us that additional 10 feet, eight to 10 feet of flexibility for supplemental plantings.

Um we talked about the environmental enhancements uh between the pollinator mix and the monarch butterfly.

Um we're proposing a different racking system than the commissioner of the city might be used to.

In the past, you may be familiar with a post-driven racking system, which is exactly how it sounds.

A contractor is coming out in the field for the foundations of our panels for supports and you know, driving each post into the ground repetitively.

Um, and we've received a lot of feedback uh specifically from members of this community about how that repetitive noise can be um a nuisance for lack of a better word.

Um, you know, we listen to that feedback, we've explored new technologies over the years, and we've now adapted to a screw-driven system where we actually pre-drill every single hole on site with a drill machine, and the drill will go through rock, we'll go through ledge, and we'll have another machine come behind it and kind of just install the screws.

This helps uh not only reduce the noise during construction, it makes the process a little bit faster, reducing construction time, and it allows us to work with the contours of the land more efficiently.

So we're able to put forth this enhanced plan with reduced grading because this new racking system has higher tolerances in terms of slope and is not impacted by things such as ledge, rock, or crop things like that.

Such in addition to that, we talked about the reduced footprint of the project.

You know, what once was one large fenced in area is now separated into uh pretty much a northern project and a southern project with that road by precaution two.

Um I guess the last point that I'll just briefly touch on is the fiscal analysis.

A common question is what does this project bring to the city itself outside of just development?

Uh per state law, a project of this nature, ground minor solar right, needs to pay 8500 per megawatt AC to the city.

Project of this size that will equate to just over $50,000 a year, plus or minus 1.8 million dollars over the life of the project that town council can factor into their budget uh when that time comes.

Um we're happy to answer any questions.

I recognize we probably have five minutes at this time, but I just wanted to get some of those things on the record and introduce myself.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Palomo.

Um we're almost at 10 o'clock, and we have a few more things to do, like zoning board recommendations.

So I think this would probably be Mr.

Murray, an appropriate time to pause and have you know, continue this hearing uh to a later date, so that we will then have our questions for the uh witnesses, and then we will receive public comment um from uh uh the public and hear from their attorney.

Um, unless I hear something different from my fellow colleagues or from the public that feels like we we personally I don't think it's wise to um be proceeding on a this matter into the midnight hour, you know, because I like to we all like to pay attention and understand it and focus.

So if that's not a problem, I assume that's not a problem with you, Mr.

Murray.

No, first of all, yeah, I absolutely appreciate the fact that Mr.

Thyard's been here and we have neighbors, and they certainly have the right to be heard at the appropriate time you decide.

You know, my only thought would be is that um know that you have one special meeting planned already for this month.

I don't know whether we can piggyback on that.

Um we just on behalf of the applicant, you know, we're hoping to move us along as best we can with your obvious your cooperation and ultimately your decision in terms of how to cheat on that, but we we will be available whenever you uh determine best to uh take this up again.

Okay, um, I do know we have a special meeting November 19th.

In the past, as my colleagues probably recall, we had special meetings for an ADX solar, um, where people the whole meeting was basically dedicated to native solar and maybe some other odd item.

So um is where people I just try to figure out who is planning to be at the November 19th meeting.

We could have the Natick solar topic be at the November 19th meeting since we already have that scheduled.

So I was just saying, like, first of all, if any of my colleagues have a major objection with November 19th, and then to look at Mr.

Murray, Mr.

Doherty, whether or not November 19th at 6:30 is a problem.

And I know Director Ashman had other things she wanted to talk about on November the 19th, but you know, that could be pushed off a little bit because of the of this uh issue of uh interest to the public.

So just wanted to see if my colleagues are okay with the November 19th.

Sometimes it's getting close to holidays.

Another thing, Mr.

Murray, which is between Thanksgiving and Christmas, it gets harder to create a quorum sometimes.

Okay.

Okay.

Any problems with November 19th from anybody?

Okay.

So I think it's appropriate then, Mr.

Unless you tell me something I'm doing something wrong.

Not yet.

Not yet.

Okay.

Yeah, so just a date, sir.

So whatever time.

What time are we doing it on the night?

The 6 30.

Does this uh you want to do it earlier, sir?

Yeah, I I kind of like 6 30 myself because my work schedule sometimes and people have difficulty maybe getting there at 5 30.

Um, okay, so if that's okay, we can continue the public hearing on the Natick Solar Matter until November the 19th at 6:30.

If that's okay, we'll entertain a motion to that effect.

Ms.

Mr.

Carrero, direct commissioner Carrero makes that motion seconded by Commissioner Lamphere.

Any discussion on continued November 19th, 6:30.

Hearing none.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All the opposed say nay.

I have it.

All right, thank you.

And I'm sorry we couldn't get to you tonight, but all right.

Okay, next on the agenda is zoning recommendations.

Signs and fences, signs and fences.

I can ask you to be quiet and leave the the chamber as expeditiously as possible.

You can talk in the hall, but we need to keep going.

Thank you.

The defining colors.

So these are gonna be the fastest presentations in the West.

Right.

All right, I'm sorry about that.

Okay.

Um the first matter of the agenda is domain realty.

Eight four six Oakland app is the applicant here and wishes to be heard.

Okay.

Staff could proceed with their recommendation and their analysis.

All right, so this is uh 846 Oaklawn Avenue, and the applicant is requesting relief to construct a sign within the corner visibility setback and exceeding the allowable height aerial view street view, and uh the zoning map, and as you can see, uh the stand for the sign is already there, and it's right on the property line.

Um this is a plan for the sign.

Um, so they've just requested relief uh for the sign being very close to a corner of a street on the corner lot, and also being 23 feet um when the maximum height for a sign in this zone is 15 feet, and um staff has reviewed this application in accordance with the corner visibility um requirement and found that this proposed sign may create more dangerous traffic and roadway conditions, um, and this goes along with our uh goals and policies of the comprehensive plan.

We also found that there's ample space on the subject property to move the sign away from the intersection, and also no um reason that was presented to us as to why the sign should exceed 15 feet.

Um another variance is uh as I had already mentioned the height of eight feet of relief from the requirement.

And we gave a negative recommendation uh on this application to the zoning board of okay, uh the negative recommendation from staff, so I'll start with any public comment present in the room that would like to be heard on this matter.

Seeing none.

Um James, is there anyone online that wishes to be heard on this matter?

There is no online public comment.

Okay, thank you.

Is there any questions that the my colleagues have for Mr.

Ray on this matter?

I'll ask a quick question for the solicitor or the staff.

This has happened before, hasn't this?

Umperty is part of three laws current lawsuits.

Um, so this will probably be a fourth one.

Um I don't believe that they've come here for the sign.

They put the sign on the property line without a permit.

And the the the base, and they don't want to move the base.

So um for three years, they haven't wanna come for relief, but now they are coming for relief, which is their right.

Um but I don't think it's it hasn't come here yet.

They they they've sued they sued Dave Rodeo, Jason Bazullo, and Stan Peichel personally.

Yeah, first time I've ever seen that in my career, uh, based upon this property.

Then they have two other pending lawsuits based for this property.

But as far as you guys are tonight, we'll we'll move this along.

Um, this is the they're at this hasn't come here before.

Okay, and they're asking for relief um to put the sign on the property line on a corner lot above the height, and the and the reason it's a negative Mr.

And the and the reason it's a negative Mr.

Ray is that it's impeding people from seeing like doing a left turn on this thing, like they can't look right because of the sign.

Is that the theory good?

We just found that um like it wasn't like they have space to put it farther back.

Oh, okay.

They had space to the okay, and they just don't want to move the base.

Yeah, okay, all right.

All right.

Um, all right.

Any questions, comments on on the sign?

If not, this would be a proper time for a motion of some type.

Mr.

Zellas, oh Commissioner Lampier.

Um well, somebody please, it's 10 o'clock.

I would move that we accept staff's negative recommendation on this matter.

Okay, is there a second second by Mr.

Commissioner Zidells?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of a negative recommendation signify by saying aye.

All right, all right.

All those opposed to say nay.

I said next Linda plant Dolpey uh 44 Shirley Bolivard.

All right, yeah.

So this is an application requesting permission to construct.

Oh this slide is wrong.

Um, it's to build a fence that is um double feet above the uh requirement.

So it's six feet in residential area.

Um, and they're requesting eight feet in the back and seven feet on the side.

Any reason why?

Um not sure, but um really private people.

So um the fence is um far is tallering in the back, um, which is not visible as you can see from the street at all, not even a little bit, and that's uh where the property uh obviously about another property, but that's uh in the back and in the front, it is below seven feet on the side and eight feet in the back.

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

Okay, all right, Mr.

A.

Thank you.

Um, and I assume you're making I sorry, I cut you off.

Is there a positive recommendation?

I actually wasn't done with saying yeah.

Um, but it also um correct replaces a fence that was encroaching.

Um, and like I said, it will be um completely blocked from view from the street.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Sorry about that.

Noise.

Um okay, uh first.

Is there uh any questions for Mr.

Ray for my colleagues?

Ms.

Lamfe has a question on the fence.

Um a couple of things.

Um, first of all, a six-foot fence that's in compliance with the ordinance would also solve an encroachment issue, correct?

Yeah, okay.

Um, and the reason why I say that is I I wasn't aware.

First, I looked at this and I thought, why am I being fussy about a foot or two?

But the city council, I learned in September, um, and actually our co-commissioner, um, Nicole Renzuli was one uh one of the sponsors, sponsored an ordinance which passed to keep fence heights at six feet, and there were a number of reasons that were given for that.

Um, aesthetics, um, being good neighbors, um, keep not having heights of fences that cause isolation among neighbors, um, and also concerns that that um privacy fences of certain heights could be more subject to wind damage and could cause safety issues.

So I'm not sure, and I was hoping that there would be an opportunity to ask the applicant why, because I can certainly think of some reasons that might be appropriate to vary from that, but because our council changed or enacted that ordinance as recently as September and gave reasons for that.

Um, I feel that without a basis to vary from that, we should decide it in accordance with what the council has recently enacted.

So I would um disagree with that positive recommendation and um and move that there be a negative recommendation on this issue for those reasons.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Before we get into motions and further discussions, I just want to see.

Is there anyone here who likes to make public comment on the fence?

James.

Is there anyone online?

There is no online public comment.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Well, uh, we've already started our discussion on the fence recommendation.

I understand Commissioner Lamphier's point.

And if Commissioner Razuli was here, maybe she could uh drive the point home.

Uh for me, I'm not particularly bothered by an eight-foot fence or a seven-foot fence.

People are building a lot of walls these days.

And uh and so is so uh uh this doesn't I don't find this particularly problematic.

I assume that the zoning board will make a decision based on the comment of the of the of this resident and possibly the other neighbors will show up about the fence and we'll find the story behind the build me an eight-foot fence.

Okay, but anyway, all right.

This would be appropriate time for any motions, positive or negative commissioner.

I would move for a negative recommendation for the reasons I stated previously um and to be in accord with the recently enacted ordinance of the city council.

Okay.

Is there a second to that motion?

Commissioner Zedellas.

All right, any further discussion?

So, Chairman, I'd like to explain my forthcoming negative vote on this motion.

Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Cool.

Uh just for the record, I think the city tells homeowners what they can and can't do enough already, and we don't need to tell them how tall their fences can be.

Okay.

Oh, oh, that's gonna get that's gonna get a legal opinion from the city solicitor.

We do tell them what it's gonna be, they're asking for relief.

And I'm okay with that.

All right, any further discussion on the eight-foot fence on Shilly Boulevard.

I used to live on Concord Ave.

It's a very nice boulevard, I'll tell you.

Um, all right.

Very nice fences.

Um, anyway, all right.

All those in favor of Commissioner Lamphier's negative recommendation, please signify by saying aye.

There are two.

Uh, how many are negative?

Uh are no votes on this.

So the two four votes that are Barberi, Chairman, Commissioner Coop, Commissioner Exter, Commissioner Carrero, and the two positives were Mr.

Zadellus and Commissioner Zedels, Commissioner Lampier.

So now the opposite motion can now be made.

If so, the Commissioner Coop makes a positive motion for positive recommendation.

Is there a second to the positive recommendation made by Commissioner Carrero?

Any further discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor of a positive recommendation by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Same same five, two, and we're all set.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Now we're gonna do the comprehensive plan amendments, zoning ordinances, city plan directors reports 1010.

We can do this, people.

All right, so comprehensive plan amendments.

Uh I'll I'll intro it off and then hand it over to Commissioner to Commissioner.

Director Ashman, and I want to make sure I get public comment in case somebody is in the room that wants to make public comment on this.

So um a couple of elements were put up there.

Um, the key, for example, the recreation one, which reflected some changes from the recreation department, transportation, it reflected a change simply on the where we would focus our transit oriented development to the Elmwood Wark Broad Street area.

And um, the other is a housing element.

The housing element is still a work in progress.

Uh that element was drafted.

I did not review it before posting.

I was had a very busy week last week.

Commissioner Director Ashman worked on that.

There's a need of some further major revisions in certain aspects.

Uh, we don't need to get into all the details unless people really want to get into the details right now of this work in progress, but um, we just wanted to um put it out there and get people starting to look at it and think about it.

Um we are not voting on any particular element tonight, so you understand.

Okay, so that there's a 10 o'clock, we don't need it to that.

All right, director Ashman, is something you uh you want to go through a little bit of the comprehensive plan amendments in any way, or is sure.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I do want to say we've made no further changes to the open space or transportation or the map since we had our special meeting in August.

Um, I just just want to make uh one point on that draft housing element if you do the next slide.

And so, you know, we've now included um a very modest progression uh projection for population growth to 2046 and the next slide.

Uh we also project a um the decline that we've been seeing in household size is going to it's gonna become more shallow, it's gonna slow down.

It's you know, not gonna so if you go to the next slide, the uh the key figures that we need to refine for our housing plan are you know how much housing do we need, and that's a product of what's our population times our household size, and really in terms of the strategies we've already developed talked about.

Uh, I think that's not going to be very difficult for us to be meet our overall housing production goals for this time period because population growth is projected to actually peak and start to decline after 2035.

Um the the more challenges to get to 10 percent because we were at that sixth uh six and some percent now.

So that's where a lot of the focus has to be to how to how to solve the puzzle to honor all the goals of this community and still um have a have a path towards meeting those needs.

And so that's that's all I want to say for tonight.

Um the draft is up on the website, and we welcome comments written or otherwise for the public after the meeting, also.

Before I ask my colleagues if they have any comments or questions at this point, um, I don't want to forget public comment.

Um, so is there anyone here who would like to make public comment on the comprehensive plan amendments?

Oh my people.

Uh is there anyone online that would like to make public comment?

There is no online.

Oh, there is public comment.

There we go.

You have waited and you will now be heard.

Go proceed.

As uh you you are now on if we can if uh oh I I'm sorry, I was muted.

I'm sorry.

Um I'm sorry.

State your name and address.

Right.

Annette Born 51 Community Drive.

Um, I don't know why that logo is up there.

That should be just a netborne 51 community drive, Cranston, Rhode Island.

I just wanted to thank the staff for all the work that they've been doing on the comprehensive plan.

Clearly, you know, hours and hours of public testimony across the city on various issues tonight.

Um, particularly interested in seeing some of the larger housing development that's uh being proposed.

So I just wanted to express my gratitude and I look forward to the public work ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Bourne.

Is there anyone else online that would like to be heard on this matter?

There is no further online public comment.

Okay.

Um is there anything else anyone wants to make any comments on this comprehensive plan amendments?

We've trust me, this is still a work in progress.

We'll have more settings.

Have to decide if we want to continue it to the November 19th or the December.

Yeah.

Um meeting.

I'm inclined to probably move it to December 2nd because November 19th is native solar, and that's gonna be about four hours.

So are we okay with December 2nd?

Okay, all right.

Uh right, that would be appropriate to do a motion to continue this matter to uh December 2nd.

Made by Vice Chairman Coop, seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Any discussion?

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

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Always have it.

Thank you very much.

All right, now we're gonna do zoning amendments.

Now, the director can summarize this maybe faster than me, but we basically have if I recall four types of zoning amendments.

One is ready, I think, for us to basically sign off on and submit excuse me, have the administration or city council member submit.

First is the zoning uh the zoning ordinance that basically encapsulate all the changes from state law from 2024 and 2025.

Um the second is about the mandatory changes.

I'm sorry.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Um mandatory changes.

The second is the changes to the zoning ordinance related to development plan review.

A third is inclusionary zoning and a four face filing fees.

So on the first one on the omnibus implementation of mandatory zoning changes.

I will just say to my colleagues, this has been prepared by staff for a considerable amount of time.

It's been reviewed by the solicitor, and it was reviewed by myself on a Sunday evening.

And then I actually went in with the staff with the solicitor and went through this on two hours last week to button it down and cross Ts and dot I's.

Mr.

Bogerman, do you want to just summarize some stuff for us?

Uh I mean, you did most of it, but um yeah, I think the memo is pretty self-explanatory.

It kind of you know details everything out.

Um there are some discretionary elements here, um, though, uh, which I highlighted.

Um, but what we have in the text is pretty much basically what our recommendation is for that text.

Um there's some wiggle room here and there.

Um there are some things, such as like the co-living housing, which um you know could be um you know allowed.

There's enabling legislation to have it allowed.

Uh we don't really have any good guidance on like how that's best done.

We don't have any like model ordinances or performance standards, so uh currently we're not recommending it to be an allowed use, but maybe in the future there's something we can come back to.

Um recommend it.

Uh does anyone have any specific questions about anything that's in here?

I know it's late, so okay.

Um will that be a open or yeah, no, I mean I think I think we should just um a vote to direct staff direct staff to um uh requ request that an ordinance be submitted, be submitted either through uh council or through the administration.

Council administration, okay.

All right, and just for the record, again, I just want people to know I don't agree with these state law changes, many of them, but we have to follow state law.

So that's just I want to put that.

But anyway, now would be the appropriate time for a motion to prior to the motion.

I do believe so there are findings of facts in the memo uh that relate to this uh from when I read the ordinance.

That's something we do need to do it, even if it comes from you to the council.

All right.

So if we have a motion to adopt the findings of facts.

Oh, now you now I gotta say no, all right.

Hold on now.

There will exactly so it goes directly.

So, but you do need to still do the same findings of facts.

So the reason we're doing that now because uh the ordinance is coming from us rather than from the council.

Normally, if it comes from the council, it comes down to us.

We'd have to make the findings of fact.

But since it's coming from us, if we make those findings, then it doesn't, it can go to the council and be advertised and then hopefully enacted.

As opposed to going to them, coming back to us and voting that yeah, they're on there on the line.

I should have put it on the slide.

They're on the last page of the memo.

Just give me a moment to just review it.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of that aspect of it.

I apologize.

Yeah, consistency.

So we have to find something in state laws consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Yeah, do I have to do that?

Well, you do because your job as the planning commission is to say that the zoning changes are consistent with some part of the comprehensive plan.

I don't know if there's a part of the comprehensive plan that says you have to do this, otherwise, yeah.

But so yes, the that finding it.

I I won't be difficult.

Thank you.

I won't be difficult.

Not at 1015.

All right.

We'll do a motion then for directing the staff for adopting the findings of fact of the staff memo and directing staff to uh have uh this ordinance submitted um either through the administration or city council.

Oh I forgot something.

Well, public comment.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Bob.

Is there anyone here who would like to be public comment on this ordinance?

Yes, Mr.

Bird.

I I don't, I um I just want to say first of all, I know a lot of effort is going into all these documents.

Um carried them with me to New Hampshire last week.

I carried them to New York, and I still didn't finish reading them all.

So I just want to say that um I know some of these are perform up.

Um I am going to reserve my right at some point to perhaps comment.

So yeah, I mean that this one's going to the council, obviously, you know, but these are just I like to this is the chairman likes to read things.

I like to read them.

Yep.

And so I I you know we I don't want to, I don't want my silence to be interpreted as overall glowing, you know, platitudes.

Yes.

We didn't change any we didn't have.

So I do have one.

If we're gonna do the development review, I'll wait for that one.

Yeah, that this is only doing the the the state law compliance.

I don't want to minimize the efforts that's one of them.

No, I understand, I appreciate it.

And Mr.

Murray, always remember you're gonna have plenty of public comment at the city council level, no question.

Um is there anyone here else who would like to make public comment on the zoning ordinance?

Is there anyone online?

Uh James.

Like to make public comment.

There is no online public comment.

Okay, thank you.

All right, then we're back to motion discussion, which is a motion and or would be an order that would adopt the findings of fact of this memo and direct staff to file an ordinance, uh, an ordinance with the uh city council through either the mayor or the city council.

The motion is thereby made by Director Carrero.

Seconded by Commission Vice Chairman Coop.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those signify by saying nay.

Okay.

Next matter is um development plan review.

We are not at the stage, in my opinion, um, to vote on this.

I have not had a chance to this works in conjunction with the subdivision regulations.

So I'm not really here yet to talk about that, but I wanted to give the staff the opportunity to talk about that and to get any input that the commission, my fellow colleagues feel uh they're able to give at this time.

Yeah, so um these changes came through in 2023 and 2024 from the state.

Uh in the meantime, Rhode Island Housing also produced a model ordinance, which uh these are based off of, and then we also uh took that model ordinance and then we kind of adopted it to the processes that we're already doing, at least the things that we believe that we can uh modify.

Um as uh mentions um the amendments is supposed to come in conjunction with the subdivision regulations.

Um honestly for development plan review, probably would be ideal to pass the subdivision regulation, the associated subdivision regulation amendments first.

Um because if you for some reason the zoning first and then not the subdivision regulations, you would write out a lot of the because we what part of this process is moving a lot of the uh more regulatory uh statutes to the subdivision regulations.

Um that's just closer to how state laws written.

Um, you know, so closer to this model ordinance is proposed.

Um so probably if the um the subdivision regulations amendment came first, that would probably be preferable.

Yeah, some of the major changes uh besides that is uh most of regulatory, yeah, most of the regulatory elements removed the subdivision land development regulations, zoning ordinance mostly just keeps the enabling language, um, landscaping design standards.

Uh we are going that are there's for some reason we have two separate standards, one in DPR, one are subdivision regulations.

Uh one thing that Jamie did is he took all the subdivision standard, the all the ones from the zoning ordinance, and then we moved it into that big package of subdivision regulations, so they're going to be integrated together.

Um there's not a lot of like um counterintuitive ones, so it's mostly just adding to it.

Um another thing is the DPR by the state, they basically limit it to these five categories that you see on screen.

Currently, our DPR internally has uh much broader categories because in the past the way we've done DPR was as like a parallel approval process, but from the way I was reading the state law, it seemed like that you can only do one or the other now.

Um so and a lot of these processes kind of also following the same definition as minor land developments.

Um the way I was reading it is some of those minor land developments, yeah.

So if it's if it's if it's not a minor land development, then it would go to DPR, and it's only a DPR if it goes fits under those lines, correct?

Which limit very limited, yes.

Um basically the reason.

So um in the 2024 change, OSO makes DPR um it's weird.

In 2023, they made DPR required process, and then they rolled back on that in 2024, they made it a um non-required process.

Yo-yo policies, yo-yos, yo-yo policy.

Um but the one main reason, and we have also talked to the DPRC about this, and they have reviewed um this proposal as well.

Um, and generally they're also in favor of keeping the committee because there's two main benefits that we see to this.

A, if there's any projects with the DPRC coming through, typically the alternative, a lot of these would just go to a minor land development, which would be administrative review anyways, but at least this kind of gives us more formal setting for everyone to get in the room and um you know, together talk about some of these projects.

Um for context, if anyone's not familiar, I know this board doesn't really deal with the DPRC, they're all um all the commission members, all the committee members in the DPRC are all department heads and other department staff.

Um one of the main benefits really is to allow uh application waivers for changes of use where there's no extensive construction of improvements.

So if someone, you know, we have a pretty detailed use table.

So if someone goes from one use, which could be like the salon, to another use that could be another like retail kind of commercial use, they technically would need to go through a minor land development process unless we have the DPRC, um, in which case they can a lot apply for waiver who would notice make conditions on the waiver.

It's been so far a very good process.

Um the only discretionary thing I think that uh we we did, or that um that we're proposing is that you can make administrative review categories, like there's an administrative DPR and a formal DPR through the committee.

They don't really say that you have to have an administrative review, and that kind of to us kind of defeats the purpose of that.

So we're just recommending the um to just not have the administrative review and just do committee review problem, all categories.

Okay, all right.

Is uh any of my colleagues at this point have any questions from Mr.

Bergman about DPR?

Oh, I haven't I don't worry, I'm gonna do public comment.

I'm gonna do public.

I know I know he wants to do that.

But I want to give my my colleagues that who are on DPR.

They have a chance, want to talk about it.

Questions?

Oh okay.

All right, this is now be the time.

Is there anyone here for public comment on this aspect?

I just have a quick point.

Maybe I've hired and maybe I've read this too many times.

Just look at the applicability section that you were just kind of talking about.

Because if I read it, and I may not be an expert on this the statute, but it says the following category shall be subject to the provisions of the section, meaning you have to go through DPR.

And it says a change in use at the property where no extensive construction or improvement is sought.

So if you are proposing extensive improvement construction, you don't go to DPR.

Is it the double negative or am I misreading that?

No.

Uh I don't know if it's written in correctly.

Um, I've had this discussion um with other planners, and they seem to have made the process more difficult when you don't do anything.

It's you're not reading it wrong, Bob.

I mean I'll talk to you on it.

It's it doesn't make sense on what what was done.

And I don't know if it was a if I'm not sure that's good policy and good government to approve something that doesn't make sense.

Well, no, no, no, no, no.

But but the problem, well, the problem is have to follow state law.

We have to follow that's what the state law says.

Because the next one says if you have an adaptive reuse project located in commercial zone where no extensive exterior construction or of improvements is sought.

So if you are proposing extensive exterior construction, you don't have to go to DPR.

That would probably fall either under minor land development or major land development, depending on how many extents of depending on what I guess I guess extensive.

There are limited categories.

But I'd be glad it's it's it's doing something.

I don't want to keep reading this.

I'll stay tuned.

I my overall comment about development review is I have an expression.

If it's not broken, they'll fix it.

And I've been pretty pleased over the years with development plan review.

Uh and so I just uh, but I'm reading this stuff and I'm I'm just very confused.

So uh but I guess that's what's intended.

So thank you.

That's all I have tonight.

No problem.

No problem.

Um any questions, comments from my colleagues on this.

Okay, uh I was gonna say solicitor.

I can we do I have to do a motion to continue this to December 2nd, or we're gonna just put it on for December 2nd.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so I would say for December 2nds can go on.

Uh I'd ask the solicitor, please review it before then.

Uh the subdivision regulations with this, and I'll do so so we can have a more robust conversation about the intricacies of uh DPR and subdivision regulations.

Okay, the third one.

I can't remember the order.

Um, it doesn't have an order.

I will uh Mr.

Murray's here, so I'll I'll just do filing fees.

Um the filing fees once, Mr.

Burgerman.

This is basically taking filing fees that are currently in our subdivision regulations.

And does this also include uh establishing filing fees if you file UDR with us?

So the um I know previously our proposal.

I I know I know Mr.

Murray will have something to say about that, but previously our proposal was suggest um any time there's unified development review, apply the fees that the zoning board would have in addition to the subdivision fees.

Um, I think we're we've kind of rethought that process.

Um what we're proposing now is that we split out our fees between for minor subdivisions and land developments, um uh between the administrative reviews, though uh minor subdivision land developments that are done administratively versus those that are that are reviewed by the board.

Um 2023, uh I think pri I believe prior to 2023 changes to the state law, all minor subdivisions just went were board reviewed anyways, if I'm not mistaken.

Um, but then 2023, they kind of split it between there's certain applications that are reviewed by um by administrative staff and certain applications that go to the board.

Uh the two categories that go to the board are anything that requires a variance under unified development review, and any any project that requires a street extension.

Um we thought the most sensible thing would be, you know, rather than having, and but our fees basically still stayed the same, even though um what we've seen over the last couple years is that we really need to put in a lot more time when it comes to um reviews that require um um reviews that require um uh that have unified or have street extensions, it's just there's just more to it, it requires more staff time um versus the administrative reviews that don't require as much staff time.

It's just there's just more to it.

It requires more staff time um versus the administrative reviews that don't require as much staff time.

So really the most sensible thing is we split these processes out into two for our fees.

Um, and of course, for the ones that we spend more time on, which you know, those should be more expensive versus the ones that we try to spend less time on should be less expensive.

It's it should be appropriate to the amount of time we spend on these projects.

So this is this is what we have proposed.

Um basically before everything was a flat 300 um as a base fee plus the the unit count.

Um we're not changing the unit count right now.

Um down the line we might do a reevaluation of our fees.

Uh currently we thought, well, we can split the difference in doing you know, lowering by 100 and increasing by 100 for the review ones.

Okay.

Um just a few questions for you, Mr.

Rogerman.

Um, so under this proposal, if someone files UDR under us, they're paying the the 400.

The 400, okay.

And if it's a street extension, it's 400 400.

Okay.

Because that's basically how we're treating a UDR is the same as a preliminary plan.

Just they do they're treating in the same UDR and whatever a non-UDR.

Yeah, with preliminary plan.

Okay.

Um for minor, yes.

Right.

The second question I have is these numbers here, which are based on our current fees essentially, with a slight change of 400, 200.

Um does the staff know when these fees were originally set?

Uh no, I don't know exactly when the time we could get back to you on that one.

Yeah, because what I was gonna say is, and uh, this is really I'm trying to help the finance director here.

If these things were set, let's say 20 years ago, you know, they probably should be adjusted for inflation and should be increased.

We did we did review them compared to neighboring communities.

I'm giving it a chance.

Our Cranston's fees are not either the highest or the lowest in the region.

We're in the middle.

Okay.

I just wanted to point out is that this is I'd like to know when the date is that these were first adopted, see if they maybe should be adjusted for inflation.

The other question I was gonna say is I know these are the numbers right now.

Has the staff kind of computated any sort of like, hey, it takes us 40 hours to do this, 30 hours to do this, and then we can kind of back into that.

We may adjust it to reflect the reality of the labor that goes into these things.

You see what I'm saying?

Yeah, these fees do not cover the full staff cost of review.

We've we do not pay for the entire planning department budget fees.

And and by the way, the whole planning department's time should not be allocated to these fees because you guys spend time doing comprehensive plan, you spend time creating policies.

So, but there is a significant portion of your time of the staff that does these applications.

So when you're looking at an administrative review, it's 200 plus 35 dollars per unit.

You know, I'm not sure that really call copies the time of a staff member and doing these things.

So I think it should potentially be increased.

I I only bring this up to you, Mr.

Zedales, because this would be a way for you to uh potentially um recoup some money that the city is paying on this.

I don't worry, Mr.

Murray.

I'm gonna you're gonna have public comment.

I know you go ahead, Mr.

Council President.

You may recall it was months ago where I was speaking to fees.

Yeah, one of the things in this was um conversations with your predecessor.

Relative to the more complicated projects in the amount of time staff spends on those.

So I wasn't trying to cover the full cost of their operation.

It was specifically um quite honestly, it was precipitated by the former director saying, you know.

I'm trying to think of a uh a good word, but he was expressing frustration with the time as it related to the fees and the fact that they weren't covering their costs.

So months ago when I brought that up, yeah.

There, you know, and I like the concept of the simpler ones coming in with a lower fee.

Um, but the amount of time that the staff spends, you know, should be no offset.

So right, an administrative review, maybe it's it's gonna be on the low side because it's basically like a buy right, usually of like one house.

Okay.

Um it requires commission review, you know.

It it could be a solar farm, it could be you know, a major multifamily project, it could be something else.

Um what's the other the other aspect?

There's one thing in the ordinance that you proposed that bothered me, and I'm not sure I like it, is that I think you created like an automatic fee increasing adjustment factor, whereby like every year the fee automatically goes up with the increase in the department's budget.

Is that did I read that kind of correctly?

Yeah, yeah, you're you're that's like the the third uh asterisk there.

Yeah, the third asterisk that does predate everyone in this department, but um yeah, so um there should technically be an automatic adjustment uh every July 1st.

Saying that's already in our subdivision, right?

This is already in the subdivision regulations, yeah.

Wow.

Um, but it it's the the adjustment is supposed to be depending on uh it seems to relate to the planning department's budget.

No, it and fix what what that thing means is that if the the plan department's budget, let's say you guys know it better than me.

Let's say it's half a million dollars, right?

And it goes up next year because of salary increases and health care, it's like 525,000.

I'll make the fat map easy 550,000.

That means all the fees should go up 10% because the budget went up 10%.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Yeah, yeah.

So that's kind of what that is.

I have a little bit of a concern about that because I don't like auto like home autopilot sort of tax increases and fees.

I'm not a big fan of autopilot, but I understand that, and that's actually something that we could actually make that adjustment.

But um, but anyway, this is something I think that I'd ask the staff to tell me when these fees were first established.

What what are these fees basically when they were established, if you can't like were they 20 years ago, 10 years ago?

We can take a look at it.

Yeah, and um and I also don't think that we ever I don't know if anyone ever implemented that uh the automatic annual system because again that it takes active effort from the commission to actually like you know tabulate that, but yeah, I don't think anyone's ever done that.

Yeah, and I think um, you know, if if you think the numbers don't reflect your time, you may want to figure out can we do a better job of it?

So that's just my two points.

Any other comments or questions for my commissioners?

Was uh lawsuit 10 years ago because the there's a state law that says the building permit fees have to be reasonably tied to the actual expense of evaluating the plans, and I don't know how many months, years we spent trying to figure out what the right number was, and I don't think anyone ever came up with a real answer to that.

So it's not a bad idea to try to tie it to the actual cost of doing the review, but it's a much more difficult task than you might think.

I I know, and I and I'm an attorney, so I'm used to billing my time.

You know, takes me 10 hours to do this, takes me five hours to do that, you know.

So that's kind of like it's it's for me, it's kind of like as it was for you too, Mr.

Burry, you know, just automatic, you have to keep track of your time.

And so maybe that can be done here.

But anyway, and that's what they were doing, except they were building in profit for the building department right into those calculations into those hourly rates.

Okay.

Um anything else for my colleagues.

Okay, now would be a time for public comment.

I wasn't gonna comment.

You have to come, you have to come up here though, Mr.

Murray.

You can't do it from the chair.

Because I frankly thought what was proposed there was reasonable, and then I became unreasonable.

And then the conversation is let me just say this.

The cost of fees, and sometimes they can be substantial.

Yeah, application fees can be substantial.

And um when you're a developer, for example, and you're writing a check for 24,000 for an application fee, you know, eventually those things get passed on down the road.

So that's not number two.

Um with all due respect, while the staff may be spending time on these things, um, the taxpayers of Cranston are contributing in support of their efforts also.

So it's not like we're losing money because we're only collecting 1200 for the review of this thing, you know.

This the staff, the cost of the staff and the electricity is being supported by taxpayers already.

So and the third comment I'm gonna make is that you know, some people will say, well, those developers they can afford these fees.

So and the third comment I'm gonna make is that you know, some people will say, well, those developers they can afford these fees.

Well, you know, you know, when it gets factored into the cost of construction and housing costs and all that stuff, which we're all concerned about, I think there should be uh some thought to that.

But I just think the um, you know, I don't think you know, un you're in the public sector supported by taxpayer dollars, different than you working in the private sector and me working in the private sector.

Yes, I do keep track of my time and I do bill clients by the hour sometimes, but you know, nobody else is paying my electric bill, nobody else is paying my phone bill.

Uh so I have to recoup all those things in an hourly rate.

So uh I don't think it should be um you know looked at it through the prism of oh, I think we're losing money because Jonas took 45 minutes to review this application, uh, but that other one took an hour and 45 minutes, and so we should make that applicant pay more.

I'm just conceptually that models.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any public comment on filing fees.

Uh James, is there anyone online that would like to comment on filing fees?

There is no online public comment.

Okay, thank you.

All right, we'll just have this on for December 2nd.

Um last one is inclusionary zoning.

Uh this is uh the concept of requiring a certain percentage of units being um uh affordable housing, i.e.

low and moderate income housing under state law.

Um it is this inclusionary zoning ordinance is basically 15 percent for multifamily developments, um multifamily development of a size.

I think it's supposed to be over 15, but the ordinance has 10.

I so it's I think you guys have to decide if you want it to be 15 or 10 on the size of the development.

So I believe state law changed this.

I think the 2025 change made it required for 10.

If I'm not mistaken, Beth.

It's didn't didn't state law you're talking about wait 10.

Sorry, you're talking about percentage or units.

15%, but the threshold of units is 10.

I think originally we proposed 15, but then state law changed, and they just made it 10.

Okay, we can talk about that.

Just if you can just like I said, the ordinance is written as 10 units, and I think that you guys in the memo are proposing 15 units.

So it's just I I put the I I put the number in wrong.

Okay, that's that's all it was.

That's it.

I got confused.

I mixed up the the old one, the new one.

Okay, okay, that's great.

So it's gonna be 10 years.

It's 10.

The proposed the the actual ordinance will say 10.

The memo has a typo.

Okay, that's great.

That's why I was confused.

Yeah.

Um generally, you know, I'm open to this thing, it's in our comprehensive plan.

We've had debate about this before about whether or not I mean I heard it from public comment.

This is actually potentially counterproductive of getting more housing built.

I will say that's why I'm kind of holding off of pushing this so fast because we have done a really good job of getting big multifamily units built with inclusionary zoning components, affordable housing components.

If we have it regularly, almost like 15%.

Uh, the only exception is Ben Printworks.

And if this project on Independence Way gets built, that's that's a pretty big uh thing there.

So it's something I'm I'm obviously open to.

The other thing too is I before we vote on this, I really have to talk to the administration and members of the city council about the about this.

So um, like I said, it's a combination of I think we're doing a good job as it is.

I know the state has this thing that they want to see this.

Personally, I think whether or not we have this thing, uh the way I read state law, I don't think it particularly affects our ability to deny comprehensive permit, but you know, we'll see that we'll see that next year.

Um but anyway, if there's my colleagues have any sort of commentary or questions about the ordinance or or John, so I'm sorry, you could just I'm just trying to skip the late, so I'm just trying to go through the state.

Yeah, no, I I don't think we're gonna have more productive discussion tonight.

I mean, it's out on the website so people can see it.

Yeah, you can call for public comment and is there anything to say about this thing right now?

Okay, if you want to if you go make public comment, you gotta come up.

You can't do it from the bench.

You know, you may be comment about being counterintuitive.

You made the comment about being counter improvement of the some communities in Rhode Island are trying to, you know, have tried to do inclusionary zoning, inclusionary zoning and residential developments, and so there are no developers doing residential you know development, you know.

That you know the fact that it's on multifamily housing, whatever the right number is.

I I have thought about it.

So I'm okay.

You know, consumption with that idea.

The only question I have is we don't spend time on it, but how does this interact with our comprehensive event where you're getting density bonuses?

You'll have to find out after January 1st.

Well, we're gonna have a discussion about that.

I'm getting a lot of interest.

Yes, okay.

We're we're we're loading up the bazooka.

Yes, yes.

So the way I kind of understand it, Mr.

Murray and my solicitors here uh as well is like if you file under the comprehensive permit statute, you are your density bonuses are the comprehensive permit statute.

I believe the percentage, the affordable housing is the minimum threshold is 25% for comp permits versus this is 15, you know, right?

And public water and sewer and things like that.

That's right, it's three units per acre, five units per acre.

Yeah, okay.

We will definitely have to double check that they don't stack.

But and this um this proposal does include density extra units, bonus units for creating affordable units, which is designed and calibrated to make it reasonable for developers to be able to produce these units.

And that was precisely to address the issue that Mr.

Murray raised of the goal, isn't it to suppress housing production?

Right.

The the density bonus here is that for every unit of affordable housing, um, you have an extra market unit, therefore you can increase the density.

That's under the so basically it's the 15% concept is this, and then if you want to go to 25 or above, um, you know, if you want to do the affordable housing comprehensive permit, then you follow the state law and you get what you get.

Don't get upset.

All right.

Um let's see.

Is there uh any further questions or comments?

Okay.

Any public comment here on the uh occlusionary zoning ordinance?

I got two dedicated people out here just loving this comprehensive plan stuff and planning.

No online public comment, no online public.

You got to it first.

Thank you.

All right, so we will get to this on December 2nd, Beth.

Um, probably.

I just like I said I gotta talk to some people.

Um, all right.

Now we're at the planning director's report.

Which I have submitted in writing.

Yes.

Woohoo, we got the TOD grant to bring Kettles and Associates on to help us do some public engagement around TOD, but you know, the rest you can read.

Okay.

Any other any what questions for the director on this?

Her report.

I always remember you can give her a call anytime and ask her about it.

You don't have to do it at 11 o'clock at night.

All right.

I think that's it for the agenda.

I think we can do a motion to adjourn.

No, wait, wait, wait.

No, no, no.

Yeah.

No, no, yeah.

So we as to repeat, we have another meeting on uh November the 19th.

Night.

Okay, which will be Natick Solar, dedicated to the Natalic Solar project, and then we'll have our regular meeting on December the second.

Now it's time for motion adjourn.

Made by Commissioner Zedellas, seconded by Director Carrero.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Good evening.

Have fun.