All right, good evening, everyone.

Uh, this is the uh calling the meeting to order of the city Kransha City Plan Commission.

Uh first item on the agenda is the uh approval of the minutes for November 4th, 2025.

Are there any uh amendments um or changes to the minutes?

Okay.

Uh seeing that there are no amendments or changes to the minutes, motion to approve would be in order at this time.

Motion made by uh Commissioner Coop for approval, seconded by Commissioner Barberi.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it.

Okay.

Next on the agenda is we're I'll note that it says subdivision land development projects, old business.

Uh just let everyone know who is at home watching this.

Natick solar has been uh noticed for the December 9th special meeting.

So everyone who is interested in that issue, uh please please be sure uh to be here or online December the 9th, next Tuesday.

Uh next on the agenda is subdivision land development projects, new business.

First up is Champlain Hills.

Um extension request.

Is there anyone here who would like to be heard on that matter?

You checked at the microphone.

Now it's on.

Uh good evening, Dave Tagellinetti with the copianato group.

Um, as you mentioned, President, we are here for a as of right extension for phase one of the Champlain Hills project, which is a 90 unit multifamily development.

Um we have actually filed for our final plan approval.

Um, I believe we have the application and all the necessary documents filed.

The last piece of information um that planning staff is waiting on is a sewer agreement that was negotiated with the city back in 2015.

So it's an agreement that we would like to revisit uh with your DPW and and maybe uh Totela as well.

Um and we plan to do that right after the first of the year.

Okay.

Okay.

Um thank you very much.

Just a quick question is um my curiosity is your final approval documentation is here.

Do you expect to um like be ready to go permit by the end of next year?

Go permit.

Like go go start getting permits and stuff.

Are you at that stage pretty soon?

Are you a little bit further?

Fully permitted, so this is just final approval, is what you're waiting for.

Correct.

We we have all of our state permits.

Yeah.

So we're waiting on the final approval from staff.

Um, I I thought you were going to ask when we'll be going to construction.

Okay.

Well, that could be the second question.

I thought that would be the first one.

And unfortunately, I I don't have this there's many factors that go into when we'll you know when we go forward with construction.

Um, but we hope to we hope to buy the spring summer of next year.

Okay.

That's the goal.

Okay.

For the applicant.

Okay.

All right.

Unless the staff has anything to say, I assume they have no objection to this extension.

Um that would be a motion to uh appropriate the grant the extension.

Motion made to grant the extension by Commissioner Lampier, seconded by Commissioner Barberi.

All any discussion.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it.

Congratulations.

We'll see you soon.

Thank you very much.

Along with you, print works and a couple other projects.

Maybe we'll have a couple hundred units next year.

You two.

Next is for public information, Duncan Donuts pre-application concept.

Is there anyone here would like to be heard on this matter?

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board, president and members of the board.

Uh Attorney Joseph Brennan here on behalf of the applicant.

Um the application that you have before you is for a uh development.

We're calling it the Duncan Development.

Uh it's technically located at zero plain field pike, but this is part of the subdivision that had already been approved for the property at 210 Plain Field Pike in Cranston, Rhode Island.

So as this property stands today, it's just a vacant piece of land.

Um the applicant is proposing uh the main item coming in is the Dunkin' Donuts.

Uh, if you look at the site plan, um that would be the um the unit that would be all the way to the east on our plan, which is on the top of the um site plan for the existing conditions.

You can see our uh from this, our parcel is I think it's labeled parcel one on the bottom left.

That would be our parcel of use.

Um the total area uh we would have the Dunkin' Donuts in the top.

Um yeah, there we go.

The site plan, you can kind of see the little gray-shaded areas of the building.

The Dunkin' Donuts would be the top unit.

Then we would have retail in the middle units there.

Um, depending on, we don't have any tenants ready to go for that.

So it depends on who would want to come.

There could be a multitude of them, different ones.

Um, it could be one big one if if it played out that way, or we kind of just had some a couple of little dotted lines in there to signify cutting it differently with internal walls that could show another um four.

And then all the way to the west on the bottom, um, we're proposing a restaurant use.

We don't know what restaurant exactly would go in, um, but it would just be a simple restaurant use.

Um, the development would have a drive-through through the Dunkin' Donuts.

So I think that kind of brings on the discussion of what we're looking for from uh not just the planning stages that we'll go through, but we'll also be seeking a zone change.

Um, we are in the M2 zone, and we're actually going to be staying M2.

Um, so we're not going to technically change the zone, but what we're looking to do is to change it with conditions.

Um, those conditions would be to allow for a multiple more uses.

I don't know if you have that in your packet, but we have been working very closely with the um city's planning staff to put together a list of items that would be as part of that submission, uh list of uses, I should say, that would be as part of that submission that they believe would still fit within the integrity of the M2 and the um proposed use that we're looking to provide here.

Um, because of that, with the schedule, we can meet all the dimensional requirements, but you also have a schedule of uh uses and intensity regulations.

Um, the two waivers that we would need from that as part of the approval is just simply the the one to the west.

You can see our exit only over at the top of the plan, the northwest, because there's a certain distance regulations between two driveways.

So there's that driveway that's directly to the west of ours that we would be very close to.

And then the second one is um because the Dunkin Donuts is an attached unit to us.

Your um regulations don't allow for a non, you you have to have a freestanding drive-through use.

So because that's that building is attached, we'd prefer to leave it that way.

But if we absolutely needed to, we could put a five-foot separation.

But um, we think that the plan in the building would flow better with with this with this proposal rather than having to break it off, and there could be through traffic, people come, you know, I just fire rated wall, it just becomes a different type of disaster, in our opinion.

Um, we have um based on the square footage of the building, we can provide for enough parking spaces based on those proposed uses that we show with being the Dunkin' Donuts, the retail for the square footage, and then the restaurant at the bottom.

Um, we have had initial conversations with Rhode Island uh DOT regarding our proposal because as just like with your um uh regulations with the 40 feet between the two driveways, they would probably have a concern as well, but their initial indications to us uh with without submitting formal applications, of course, because we're so early, um, would be that they would actually support this proposal.

So that was great and exciting news and a good start for us.

Um, as a whole, that really is kind of where we stand right at the moment.

Um, if the board did have any questions or any feedback that we could take with us, we'd be happy to hear and attempt to answer.

I do have um the uh uh Chris Shea from DePrete Engineering here as well, and um David Petersonelli.

Um he is part of uh the applicant.

He's uh mineral enterprises Inc.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Brennan.

Um, I just have a couple of questions and I'll open it up to others as well, obviously.

Is uh I didn't see it in the packet, maybe I missed it, but when you talk about multiple uses working with the planning staff of multiple uses, could you just kind of um give me some illustrations of the multiple uses you were talking about?

Yes.

So it would first be, of course, all other uses that are allowed in the M2 industrial zone.

But then in addition, some that we have listed out uh would be an artisan workshop studio, a bakery retail, bank financial institution, barber shop, beauty salon.

They have listed brew pub, check caching facility, convenience store, day spa, drive-in restaurant, not a drive-through, um drugstore, hardware store, medical diagnostic laboratory, music and dance studio, um the restaurant without drive-in facility, oh, because the drive-in is the Dunkin' Donuts.

My apologies, uh, retail sales, small scale, tavern, pub, neighborhood bar, all following under that bottom restaurant um uh uh envelope, and then an urgent care facility, veterinarian hospital or clinic.

Um that's what we have listed thus far.

Okay, and then on the multiple uses that you listed, um obviously each of these things have different parking requirements.

Would the plan that you have presently provide a sufficient parking, not only for your Dunkin' Donuts, but also these multiple uses, all of them that you're considering?

Yes, it would because the parking calculations are based on the type of use and then the uh square footage of the building.

So we calculated it based on that top unit being the Dunkin' Donuts, the middle units being retail, and then the bottom unit being the restaurant.

But if for some reason something were to change, as always, we would apply for a building permit, be denied, and they would have to seek that zoning variance for um any uh uh relief needed from parking.

But based on our our plan of Dunkin' retail restaurant, it would fit that.

Okay, and my last question before I turn over the others is um you talked about layers.

Are you talking about three separate buildings, three compartments of a building, or are you talking about three floors?

No, um I'm just I was trying to so like when you look at the gray building itself, you can see there's the top unit, which is the Dunkin' Donuts, and we have it separated by a solid black line, and then in the middle, you'll see the one to three dotted lines.

That would be an indication that we would have the retail space there, but we wanted to put dotted lines so you could see we're considering maybe up to four units.

But if someone wanted to come in and take the whole, they could take the whole or two of them or one, two, three, you know, and then the bottom one again, we've got the solid black line.

Um, because that would be the restaurant area as a designation of uses.

We were trying to trying to make it clear.

Okay, no, I understand now because when you say top to bottom, you're talking about top to bottom on that map, not top to bottom, as I was envisioning, like a multi-story building.

I was thinking about when you were talking it.

So thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

Uh, any other questions from my colleagues?

Uh Mr.

Brennan.

Uh Vice Chairman Coop.

Yes, thank you.

Can you just the driveway issue you were explaining?

Can you go through that again?

Is that the one that would be, I guess, on the east?

Yep, the one where the red dot what just was, yep, that would be the one we're talking about.

And what's the driveway that's closest to it?

Uh you I you can kind of see it right there.

It's uh right where the can you see the um yes, that's a great indication of it.

That's the driveway.

Okay, what and that serves what is that?

Um what property does that serve?

Um, I don't know.

The the property that it was the divided from the truck.

I don't know what the use is.

So that everybody at home can hear that.

There's a truck facility, a truck terminal that the driveway utilizes.

So nobody can hear you at home from there.

So that's all it's okay.

So back to your plan, how would how would your driveway?

Um I'm just trying to figure out what that curve on the plan, how does that work?

We need an easement.

So we would have so where you can see the top where the Dunkin' Donuts of exit, if you kind of were just to go straight to the road, then we would need an easement on the neighbor's property, which we would of course have as part of this, and then that would lead out.

But because our driveway that we're proposing is so close to the other driveway, your regulations don't allow for that without a variance.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Brennan?

Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you.

Just if you could clarify for me, it seems there is one means of entering the property, correct?

For every for every business or building that's on that property.

Yes.

And to the right would be the um where you would go for the drive-up.

Is that correct?

And around the back of correct.

That way anybody using the drive there wouldn't have to go through the parking lot.

They could just go down and around the back of the building.

Okay.

But everyone else at some point, everyone there, whether they're going through the drive through or using the other buildings, would have to go out the same way.

Um, you could go out because it the the one where the the red dot was just at the top, it would be a right turn only.

And but anyone could choose to still go down to the bottom and exit if they wanted to take a left turn.

That way nobody's trying to pull an illegal U-turn somewhere or cause a dangerous traffic problem up to the top to the east.

Okay.

And and the um the exit that um commissioner Coop had just inquired about how close is that proposed to the exit of the um trucking facility next door.

It it's sort of it's not clear in the regulations how that's measured.

Normally the distance would be measured from throat to throat or the straight portion.

Um and that's that is probably under, and I think your regulation is 40 feet.

It's under 40 feet.

I don't know the exact measurement.

Um, but then it you can see that the the curve, the radius really just pretty much wraps into the radius of the other driveway.

So that's it's from that perspective, it would be um zero distance between driveways.

It's it is necessary in the DOT.

We we did talk to the DOT about this.

Um the existing driveway ramps up into the site, and our site flows down, so there wasn't any way to make a connection into that existing driveway.

So we had to, and for emergency services vehicles as well as um um loading facilities, this was the only option we had.

And it and like it's like uh attorney Brennan said that the um we had did have a discussion with the DOT, we did talk about alternatives.

Um, the term was there were no fatal flaws in this design, and they were comfortable with what we were proposing.

So our only issue is the definition of a 40-foot separation between driveways, which either way we don't need it.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Brennan, Commissioner Mancini?

Um so the traffic on Plainfield Pike, is that an area that has a barrier in the middle in front of the property?

No.

And then across from the double, thank you.

Okay, good.

So there's a belly in the top corner of that property where Plainfield Pike is.

There's a belly in um the striping of the property of the of the streets that for traffic to make it go into one lane and then west, it opens up and goes back to two lanes.

Will that be like negotiating with DOT for figuring out traffic patterns?

Because if that's gonna be the congestion of everyone coming into that area and crossing that double.

Does that make sense what I'm asking?

I I think if if I understand you're asking if someone is waiting to take a left turn into the site, our other vehicle is going to be able to get around them.

Um because the striping is the striping is makes it a belly right there.

It starts the belly to go around going west.

That we did discuss that with the DOT and the DOT in looking at the configuration of Plainfield Pike in that area was comfortable that there was enough shoulder for vehicles to go around, um, particularly a truck um waiting to turn into the site, but any even a passenger vehicle, there's plenty of space for um for two.

There's the two lanes over there going west.

It's I think it's one lane going west, and then there's a there's quite a bit of shoulder in that area.

I don't know if you could is it possible to zoom in.

Suppose a drive in the shoulder to go around cars.

Well, that's what they specifically mentioned that that was adequate.

Um that was adequate.

Concern for people driving to take a left to go into a Dunkin' Donuts in the morning, and then there's people going around illegally driving.

Um, I don't I I I guess it I'll have to discuss that with the DOT when we go through the permitting process, but their initial read on it was that it was not an issue.

Um, if we need to stripe that out as a lane and have a smaller shoulder, that may be the answer um with the DOT, but we'll get into that when we get into the DOT permitting.

Any other questions for the Duncan project?

Duncan Plus.

Okay.

Um let me just uh see if there's any public comment.

Is there any public comment on this project at this point here in the uh room?

Mr.

Leam, is there anyone who would like to make public comment on Duncan Plus?

There's no public comment online.

Okay.

All right.

Any other for further thoughts from anyone or the staff?

Okay.

I think we're all set.

Uh so the next step obviously is that you'll be submitting um a zone change with some conditions in the near future.

We will be making a recommendation at the appropriate time, and then best of luck dealing with the legislative branch.

Fantastic.

Thank you guys very much for your time.

We appreciate it.

Uh thank you.

Okay, that brings us for everyone at home wondering how long this meeting will be.

I'm hoping this meeting will be done by 8 30 at the latest.

Um, this brings us to our zoning board of review.

Uh Willow Properties.

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on Willow Properties?

Go ahead.

David Johnson.

Excuse me, but I haven't talked to them out for a minute.

David Johnson, I'm attorney for the applicant, William Hogan.

Um, I'm just gonna give a quick overview of what we're seeking and what the business is that we're seeking the variants for.

So Mr.

Hogan owns around mobile fencing and storage.

They lease out uh uh they lease out temporary fencing.

So around construction types, if you're driving around, you see big construction sites.

Those fences that are around them are oftentimes there if they have green placard in them behind those fences.

A lot of times you'll see a gray container.

They're typically used to store tools and things of that nature on on sites, they're at least out to a number of different businesses.

Um retail stores when they're doing renovations, they'll put their equipment in them and then pull them back out.

The business is they deliver an empty storage container, it's used by the client on the site, it's emptied out on the site, uh the client's site, and then brought back to my client's business empty, stored, and waits to go back out.

So that's the portion of the business that we need a variance for.

The zoning code in an effort to not allow basically freight terminals and container yards, doesn't allow for the outdoor storage of containers.

Um that's what we're seeking a variance for.

This business is a little bit different than that, in that the container itself is the item being stored.

So that item would sits on the property temporarily until it gets leased back out.

Um the business has been around for a very long time.

They have a location in Providence, they have a location in New Hampshire as well.

They're a well-established business in Rhode Island, they have 23 full-time employees.

Um, they leased the land that they're on now in Providence, so they're seeking to buy their own property, more or less control their own destiny um from there.

When it comes to the site itself, I don't know if you have the proposed site plan up.

Um yeah, so that when it comes to the site itself, this is the old Frito Lace site on the on the corner of Stamp Farm Road.

Um, conveniently north is up on this on this map.

So these will be stored in the southeast corner in its own zone, down in its own little area uh down in the in the bottom right-hand corner of the site.

That fits uh 84 containers.

That would be if the containers are stacked three high.

Um, he never has more than about 50 containers on site, so that would be that would exceed what he expects to have as as maximum volume on there.

The height of the of that stack is 24 feet.

Um if stacked to full capacity, the building next door to it is about 27 feet high, and both of those are under the restriction.

So it would be less than the height of the uh building.

Um directly to the south uh is a uh wooded area.

I believe it's part of a drainage basin for the property to the south, and to the east is uh I believe it's a freight terminal to van line.

Um it's the bottom of their uh bottom left corner of their property um where they have tractor trailers and things of that nature.

There it is, there where they have those stored.

So you can kind of see in the in the bottom right corner there, uh, where those containers will be stored, they're pretty well away from the road.

They don't have any real impact on any of the neighboring businesses.

There's no residential uh uh uses in that area.

Um, so there's no impact on any kind of residential or or abundant properties.

Um, and this would be again the what the variants are seeking is for is just to put those containers there emptied while they're not being used, they get shipped out to their businesses and again come back.

So he's been in Providence for for over 30 years um without any without any issue.

Um again, he's just looking to something that he owns.

Thank you.

Um, there are any questions for the applicant.

area um um so there's no impact on any kind of residential or or abutting properties um and this would be again the what the variants are seeking is for is just to put those containers there emptied while they're not being used they get shipped out to their businesses and again come back so uh he's been in providence for for over 30 years um without any without any issue um and again he's just looking to um something that he owns thank you um there are any questions for the applicant uh i'll start by saying thank you for coming to cranston if you're leaving providence it's a good move um the the just so i understand is you store this the containers you don't you're not the storage you just store the storage containers the container so it's my my client is mr hogan i he unfortunately isn't back yet from from the holidays uh he's he's on his way back but um the the containers are empty that uh they're not there's nothing in them right um when he picks them up from those clients if they're if they're full the interior they they have to dispose of those items on the client's property and they come back to them they don't there's an issue with obviously storing them but there's a bigger issue with transporting they don't know what's in them they don't have right you know hazmat transports things like that so they they get transported updates so this we so you're saying this is a use variance which I'm always skeptical of use variances so you know but this one doesn't seem to bother me so much is because you're stating this is a use variance because we don't have our code does not specifically allow for these types of empty storage containers so yeah and we have the same issue in province actually um okay uh because storage containers are typically so the storage having storage containers usually means you're gonna have a bunch of stuff in them right like ready to go out on a freight somewhere um and that's a use that's you know more suited for the port of providence or a rail yard or something like that.

So that's what these are tailored towards now because they're shipping containers um and that is the product we we did run into that issue in Providence we ended up before that zoning board as well on uh it was actually that was a building uh official appeal um but we we were we were successful in that um we understand that it's you know use fairness is not something I like to ask for um obvious for obvious reasons um but it's it's a bit of an odd use and it's kind of hard to shoehorn it but when you start seeing shipping containers it's right you know you point to the code in the word says shipping container it is what it is so Steve uh Dave and I spoke at length about this and again what the city what what the point of the the non-use would be the traditional I'll call it terminal container port where you had stacked of um containers full of product that causes a whole host of issues including fire um fire safety you know access all that those type of things so um you know Dave had two choices either a zone change or or a use but this use is so unique yeah um that I don't know if any town has a use for vacant containers which is essentially what it is so it's it's a little bit um different so that's the use that we're prohibiting isn't really this use although it does it's really the container of you know that we're trying to avoid a container port correct um where trucks going in and out every day with full tractor trailers etc.

Okay I understand right any questions for go ahead Commissioner Lampier thank you just um to counsel if um if these containers were empty and stored in a building would it require a use variance I'd have to check with the building official I guess my question is that is it because they are being stored out in the open it is definitely because they're being stored out in the open but I can give you the answer whether storing the containers in a building creates other issues that I I don't know about whether you're allowed to do that under some building code I don't believe it would be a violation of the zoning code but um I I don't know whether it's allowed you just don't see it so I'm assuming there's a fire safety issue regarding storing containers inside um even with if you go to off 146 on the way to Worcester you'll see the BJs the Costco they have all those um you know centers all those trailers never you know they never come in that you know they all park up and around and then the warehouses they move all the stuff inside so the trailers do not go inside um those facilities but I don't know whether if if you put a roof on it whether that would be a it would be a use variance or not um I I could check and and certainly I mean I'll what I'll do is I'll I'll have the answer for the zoning board.

That's probably the best answer I can give you any other questions.

Okay.

Mr.

All right.

So as it has been discussed, uh, it's a request for a use variance.

Um bit of a uh specific case, um, with the use being kind of unique.

But um, as you can see on the site plan, it's uh set back in the road.

Um it's not too visible and has uh discuss uh the containers uh are below the maximum height of the zone, and also within the rear setbacks of the house.

So um in the schedule of uses, uh the container storage use is not allowed in any zone, but it is listed as an industrial use, um, showing that it matches with the character of the area, which is all industrial parcels, and as you can see, um this use would fit right in here.

So positive recommendation to the zoning.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Um questions for Mr.

Ray from this my colleagues.

Quick question, Mr.

Marcello.

Was this type of use ever allowed as a special permit use in the city?

Um no, but that would probably be the best way to go about it.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

I was gonna be putting I if I had done away, I did away with all special use permits in the city after some legislation.

Oh, yeah.

So the I felt I was gonna say I owe you to approve it.

So the answer to that is it it was not a special use prior to us getting rid of all the special and I just saw it, you know.

Getting rid of all the I saw Mr.

Sikarsi's uh assistant leave, but it was before it's getting rid of all the special uses.

This was not all the special use, but it would kind of be it would it would be a good idea almost, you know, because you would have need separate, you know, you need separation between containers and all that.

Exactly.

Okay, all right.

Um any further commissioner lampier?

Just a question to council.

So um in this instance, we are sitting as the planning commission making a recommendation to the zoning.

Correct, on on the comprehensive plan.

So um we are not or we should not consider whether or not um there is a another beneficial use that could be made.

That that's the standard that that Dave's gonna have to overcome next week, correct?

Okay, it's just whether this for lack of a better term, commercial.

Well, I'm not gonna make his argument from, but this commercial use fits within the comprehensive plan for this zone.

Um, I don't I don't know if it's an M zone over there.

Yeah, an M zone, whether this commercial use um fits within the comprehensive plan for the M zone.

And um that's all you're doing because you're you're making a recommendation on and we we could add um a condition.

Yeah, suggested conditions of empty if they be I would suggest because this is what happened with um I'll call it the junk transfer facility behind CCAP is you approve the transfer of scrap metal, and then it gets higher and higher and higher because there was no limit to the height.

So one of the things I would suggest is um a height limit to what the applicants proposed, which I think three containers high.

It was three high, and that was a condition we were certainly gonna mention that.

Yeah, so that way you know we don't come back and as they say in arrogance that it's not this owner, but the next owner decides to put six can seven containers high, um, etc.

So that would be one of the conditions that I would suggest.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff, counsel, or the applicant?

Okay, I'll first I'll do public comment.

Is there anyone here would like to make public comment on this zoning board recommendation?

Seeing none, is there Mr.

Leam?

Is there anyone online that would like to make public comment on this zoning board application?

There's no public comment online.

Okay.

So last I saw Mr.

Ray is this is a positive recommendation, correct?

Okay.

Um I'll just make a quick comment before we turn it over.

Um basically I am skeptical of use variances, but in this instance, it's basically an industrial use and industrial zone, so I don't see much of a problem.

And secondly, on the comprehensive plan, you know, one of our goals is to attract capital.

This is certainly we're attracting capital, and I love attracting capital from the city of Providence.

So I'm really happy you're coming here.

I I have you have you talked to the economic development director, Franklin yet?

No, you got to meet him.

So anyway, thank you so much.

All right.

Uh any further discussions, otherwise, the motion would be in order.

Go ahead, Commissioner Lampier.

Um, I would move to accept the uh staff recommendation, a positive recommendation with the following conditions that the containers be required to be empty, that they contain no hazardous materials, that the height limit of stacked containers be no more than three containers in height, and that the number of containers be um no more than 84 containers on site.

Okay.

Does the applicant have any issue with those conditions?

Okay.

The motion has been made.

Um seconded by Commissioner Renzuli.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

All those in favor of the positive recommendations with the conditions set forth by Commissioner.

Just Commissioner Barber.

Quick thought at the last second.

When you stack them up, an empty container three high, would that cause any damage being emptied?

Bad storm, something pushes them over, falling over, whatever.

So I'm I'm just thinking about the hazard of them being stacked up three high and empty with nothing in them with no weight on them, and a possibility of something happening being stacked three high.

So the only answer I could give is that again, because um, you know, I I don't run, I don't operate the business, but they've been there been doing this for over 30 years.

They're stacked three to four high in their current facility, they're trying to get it down to three to have easier uh less equipment to get them down.

Um so they haven't had any issues with them being blown over any other issues, and they've always been empty.

There's no weight or there's no balance, I guess, for lack of better term in them as they're stacked now.

And so for they're in uh uh till's dusky street uh in home, but you can see them from uh junction of route 10 and route six, um, off on the side of the road.

Um as you went over in the past, they've never had any issues once um at their facility where they it would be this roughly the same operation, just in a bigger footprint.

Commissioner Ronzulli.

Um, what about the or not on site?

Probably either.

So the uh the cleaning of them is not off site, it's really just you know, some there might be some trash or something like that, get swiped out.

The repair of them, I mean it would be an industrial, you know, it's it's an industrial use, it would be I mean, I would imagine just some maybe some like riveting or welding or something like that.

I'm I'm not aware of of what they but whatever they have uh whatever they're doing there.

It's most of these containers are new, uh, and they're shipped as they get rusted out and start to start to age out, they're sold.

If you look on Facebook Marketplace, uh you'll see that he's got a ton of them on there as they start to age out and he buys new ones.

So they're not doing like heavy metals or anything like that.

It might be some, you know, obviously some light repairs, not sand and painting, um, doing any kind of stuff outdoors.

Um, most of the repair stuff is limited to um fences, you know, then basically you think it's kind of like think of it as like manual fishing, you know, maybe required uh it's a lot of what the but that is all kind of is part of that industry, I'm not sure, but um you know it's kind of part of the normal kind of business operation.

Um not sandblasting, they're not painting, they're not manufacturing these things, they're on the line.

What was explained to me was you know, when they come in, um typically, you know, they're either they're either useful to be released or they're used to be for sale.

People buy these, you know.

Um so these are kind of like the rested out holes if you can see them around construction sites.

There's one actually behind my office now on post-arboard.

Um, they're generally speaking in pretty good shape.

So I don't think there's anything.

Whatever they're gonna do there would fall within that M2 zone of business operations, probably certainly less than you know, maintenance trucks and things like that, those happening part of the free away, you know, operation maintaining vehicles.

Okay, thank you.

Anything further from anyone else?

Okay, we were in the middle of our motions, unless someone has changed their mind and wants to withdraw their motion.

Okay, there was a okay.

I think the motion was a positive recommendation with conditions.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Congratulations and good luck.

Thank you all.

Next is the city plan commission meeting schedule.

Um I can talk about this.

As you all know, we have regularly scheduled meetings on the first Tuesday of the month.

Um by state law, we're supposed to post our regular meetings on the Secretary of State's website and reschedule that.

So these are the meetings that are the first Tuesday of the month uh for the remainder for next year.

Um so I just wanted to point this out.

We'll have a vote on it.

The only thing I would say is that the first Tuesday in November is election day, and 26 is an election year.

So we could make a change there.

Um former chairman would like to always change the date in November because he was an election worker and worked the polls.

Um therefore we always like to change it.

Um, but other than that, if anybody if people have any issues with these dates, let me know.

We can make a change now, um, including on the election day of November 3rd.

Otherwise, um motion to um go ahead, Steve.

Is City Hall open on election day?

Because it's a poll.

That's what's gonna say that city hall is usually a poll.

Um so probably on an abundance of caution.

We probably posted it this way and we could change it later, but I think what does Commissioner Rosally want some is this telling me something?

I we might as well just change it now in order to do it.

Okay, it's like so anyone have a problem with changing it from election day.

No, okay.

Okay, that's a Wednesday.

It's just if the chambers are available.

Well, I mean, we could we could always change it when we get it.

Because I think the count like tomorrow I gotta come to a council meeting and it's on a Wednesday, so I don't know if the council chambers are on a Wednesday.

Council chambers are Commissioner Rosalie.

Yes, uh committees now meet on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

We could do it the next Tuesday because that would be before zoning, which would be on Wednesday.

November the 10th, then right.

Whatever.

Okay.

Hearing um a desire to move it from election day for concerns related to whether or not City Hall will be open, and then moving it to the next week in November due to concerns about whether or not this chamber would be available that week on Wednesday or Thursday.

So being November the 10th.

So um, is there any other dates people have a problem with here looking at far ahead?

Okay, otherwise, we'll make uh a motion to adopt this meeting schedule for 2026 with the amendment that it be November 10th rather than November 3rd.

Commissioner Lamphier makes the motion.

Is there a second to Commissioner Lamphier?

Seconded by Commissioner Coop.

All the any discussion.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay, ayes have it.

Okay, that's the schedule.

Now discussion of subdivision regulations.

As all of you probably saw on the website, this thing's about 130 pages.

Would the staff like to just come uh provide us with a general overview of the regulations then the revisions to them?

Yeah, as you have me, as you may have seen on the agenda.

Um, no, we're not looking to do any uh votes today.

Uh this is mostly just for discussion purposes.

Um we are hoping to uh potentially schedule a hearing for February to have these new regulations adopted.

Uh and we do need a it is a public hearing, so we do need to schedule that public hearing.

Uh just to do a very general overview of these changes because we haven't really discussed them too much in depth.

Uh most of these changes are from the 2025 uh Rhode Island General Assembly session session.

Um specifically, there's this one bill, um, or I guess the House bill and the Senate bill together.

Um that's where the majority um what these changes come from.

Um plus there's some smaller um changes that are just like you know, cleaning up or um clarifications stuff.

Um and for the most notable things in this bill is one is the oversized lot subdivisions, which uh for the most part will not go to this board unless there's a variance or street extension involved.

Um those will be counting as minor subdivisions.

Um if there's any questions on that, I can answer them for sure.

Um lot of the the pre-application meetings, uh which were previously required for major land major land developments and subdivisions are now uh uh optional and can only be requested by the applicants.

So uh administrative officers and plan commission cannot make that requirement anymore.

Um state permits have been moved for the final plan.

So uh anyone hoping to have any permits in by the preliminary plan for uh major subdivision of land development.

Um state has required that move to the move to the final plan.

Um and uh yeah, and there's a movement of the expiration date uh for final plan approvals for major subdivisions of land developments.

It is now two years instead of one.

Um I still believe it still includes the additional um two one-year extensions that are by right.

So there's also been some discretionary changes.

Um, and if you have the the table, I kind of like itemized all the changes that we did.

Um, you know, we clarified fees for the applications where we combine the review stages.

Um, a lot of this is just like smaller cleanup stuff.

Um besides the the fees, um, I know we're discussing that at a million time too um as part of the zoning ordinance amendments.

Um, but we're actually still in the process of discussing fees, so we might actually come with new proposal um later on about um how we can address the fees.

Um DPR integration, um and we're so currently in discussing that right now as well.

Um so that is not actively in this bill, but um, it might be depending on what how we want to move forward with DPR.

Um but we did integrate the design standards from the DPR ordinance.

So if you go to further back to the subdivision regulations, um for some reason we had two sets of design standards, some of them were in the DPR ordinance, um, and then there was separate standards in the subdivision regulations.

Um basically what we did is we took all the design standards from the DPR ordinance and then transferred and then copied them, whatever was missing or um uh conflicted, we then uh transferred to uh or added to our subdivision regulations.

Um there's two additional uh changes that were suggesting, which were brought in by city staff.

One of them is a requirement for street lights and all new developments.

Um, and then the other one is a requirement for uh underground water tanks uh for subdivisions without public water access.

So basically anywhere you can't put a fire hydrant.

Uh we need to be putting in cisterns.

Um technically that was already like the fire department policy already, um, but now we're making it explicit in our subdivision regulation.

So when people come in for development, they know that ahead of time.

Yeah, and uh are there, yeah.

Any questions about this?

Commissioner Coop.

Can you explain where the street light requirement proposal came from?

That came from public works.

Yeah, so right now um street lights are in the regulations, but they're only allowed if the city engineer requests them, and we we've had subdivisions put in with no city engineer and staff, so we're changing them from being required by request to being required unless you get a waiver.

So by default, they're now going to be required unless someone puts in writing that you don't have to build put them in.

And and who would be the one to put that in writing?

Uh it it's in uh the either the city engineer or the director of public works.

And this language request came from the Department of Public Works.

Okay.

Um I can find that piece of folks.

I will uh wait till the public works director is here to ask him more about that.

Well, there is some history about this.

I mean, he's had lots of complaints from people on streets that don't have street lights and wondering why their street doesn't have street lights.

And can they compel the developer to put in street lights?

And the answer was no.

We can't compel because our ordinances didn't require street lights.

Even though they have been standard practice in the city of Cranston, most of our subdivisions have street lights.

It was standard practice, but it hasn't been for quite a while now.

And there's an argument why.

So I'm curious to uh I'll wait until the public works appears here too.

Yeah, they're expensive.

And they become the city's expense to maintain and and power forever and ever.

And sometimes they're necessary, sometimes they're not.

And to have a blanket requirement in every subdivision is going to cost the city a lot of money, and they're not always worth the cost.

That's something I think you could talk to the public works director about.

And I think something too is obviously a sub let's without getting into projects, like obviously certain projects with like 40 houses, 25 houses.

I could see some need of a street light, but if subdivisions now were defined like four houses, you know.

Like I'm not sure if that's I'm not sure they really knew, but I'd only tell them the direct public works director, I'm not an engineer, so you know I don't know you know, but sometimes the car there's compartmentalized thinking.

Oh, street lights are good, so let's require street lights without considering it from another perspective.

Yeah, that's why I wanted to talk to him about it.

We'll do a little more looking into criteria that might be appropriate for where street lights are.

Yeah.

Because if it's discretionary, there's always criteria behind that, right?

Any other questions or comments?

I'll I'll have mine.

I already already spent two hours today with the staff on them.

Um, I'll I'll just say this before I I ask a few more people.

It's just I spent a couple hours with the staff in generally.

Uh there's a couple of changes I I requested that you'll see, and they're very minor.

Um, but just in general, um, I need to work a little bit.

I was gonna say first, I wanted to make clear, and I think the regs will make clear is that we have public hearings, we allow for public hearings for master plan, and and we have a lot of public comment on preliminary plan just to make it clear so that we don't have these issues in the past where like in Vaughn Lane, the attorney's coming here arguing about whether or not he's even allowed to have you know public comment and preliminary plan.

Um, another thing I'm gonna be asking the uh had the staff will look at and I will work with the solicitor about is this oversized zoning, oversized lot section.

I just want to see how that will be implemented and how that is exactly worded.

Uh oversized lots is a state law.

It may have I understand how it would apply when everybody's in the same zone, you know.

Everybody's in a it's like 5,000 square foot lots in A6 zones, it's different.

However, if it's an oversized lot, what they call an oversized lot, but it's basically because they're comparing themselves to lots in another zone next to it that's in a different zone, you know, A20s, A80s, A8s A6 is a mixture type stuff.

Um and another thing I mentioned to the staff, and I'll ask the solicitor about.

Um, we don't need to get into it today.

Is we have a lot of requirements for what people have to give us for information.

They have the water access, the sewer, the blah blah.

One thing I've thought because we're in the planning world is they should at least get some kind of information from the school department whether or not there's capacity at the local elementary school for major projects.

That's something that's always comes up.

And they uh it's like for some reason we can't ask it, and there's some concerns, and I understand them, but if we can ask it legally, I think we should for mass for major developments.

Um we actually in our regs, because I spent the weekend looking at these, I might spend Sunday looking at this.

Actually, you can phase in projects under our regs if there's a lack of facilities for police fire or school.

That's what specifically says.

So I think knowing what's going on with the schools is important.

Um there's an issue with the filing fees.

Um we can get to that when we get to the ordinance section to talk about filing fees.

Um, but that was just kind of like my my gist of it.

Um so generally, I think it's in good shape.

Hopefully, um the next over the next few weeks.

I know there's still work in progress in regards to the development plan review committee aspect, whether or not that's going to be a zone thing or a regs thing, and I don't have a strong opinion about it.

Um but once we get that finalized, we can probably move forward probably early next year with some reg regulation revisions.

Um, is there anything else anyone else has to uh either questions or comments for the staff about these regulations?

Commissioner Lampier.

Just um quickly, I did speak with Jonas today, and we talked about trying to make there's some areas um on what is submitted where the wording it's intended to be the same thing, but the wording differs a little, so it's kind of like a cleanup thing, and I'm not going to go into it now and waste everybody's time, but I'll continue to work with you on those so that we can just get them to be uniform.

Um, substantively, the only um other thing that I looked at and thought might be useful is under um both master and preliminary plan, uh, once there is an approval by the commission, um, it allows the administrative official to make a modification if requested to that approval, and it can either be a minor modification or a major modification.

And on the minor modifications, it is at the sole discretion of the administrative official.

Um, and I think state law provides that as well.

But my concern was just um perhaps to put in there um that it still remains the authority and the discretion of the administrative official, but perhaps with a consultation with the commission president, because in many of those cases, the standard is whether or not the requested modification still meets the intent of the commission's approval.

So it seems to me that there should be some representative of the commission, not that it has to come back to us, but at least a discussion with the commission president um on what that modification is that's being requested to give the administrative official more or less the sort of intent or opinion of the commission.

Um, so I just had language on both of those that I'll submit and you can take a look at and we can certainly talk about it.

It's not um, you know, as Steve said, the concern is always the next um owner of the property.

Well, here I don't have any concern about our current planning director or that something is going to be done that we feel is untoward, but I think that um it's just good practice that if a decision of the commission is going to be changed, there at least be a discussion and notification to the commission president um about that issue before it occurs.

Interesting, the notification it would be very there's no other thing where we have consultation with a single member of the planning commission.

The notification certainly seems very doable, and we as you say it's a matter of practice.

We we always get a second opinion.

We consult with our our legal counsel to make sure something's minor.

So we try to be careful and not um there's also um that the section you're referencing also explicitly says that we that the administrative officer can consult the uh plan commission as well as part of the process for a minor change.

So that is that is in the section, yeah.

Because you could you could actually to either you can consult with the council, you can consult with the commission as a whole or provide notification to the commission.

The commission, you know.

I I mean, we can you can talk about with Commissioner Lampier, but the most important thing is just loonifying the commission that something is changing, and then you know, I think that's number one, and then how you know I don't know how quickly these decisions are made, obviously.

Um much time you'd have for notification, like either it's a pre you make a decision or after.

Um, but I think that's something you can work out with Commissioner Lampier.

I um we don't need to get into a whole bunch of details, and maybe you know, the the solicitor can assist with that too, if there's something uh to work there, Commissioner Manzuli.

I don't know if this is an appropriate question at this time, but can you go back to this the schools that you mentioned?

Why why is it that we don't have a school impact fee when other places do?

Okay.

Um I think when you say other places, right?

This is just me thinking off the top of my head.

Um, in other places, they are building new schools for more people moving to the town.

So think of a rural community, right?

Our two major school construction projects in the last decade was taking an old schools, closing them, and making new ones.

Waterman Gladstone, Garlington Gladstone, oh I said it wrong.

Sorry, Garden City Waterman, Arlington Gladstone.

Um personally, I think in the 1990s, we should have had impact fees for Hope Highlands and for Orchard Farms.

I personally believe with all this blah blah coming from over there at the school department about needing more school.

I'm sorry, Tom, I don't mean the mean you, okay.

I mean I mean the superintendent.

Okay, but anyway, about the um it's actually this direction.

The um, you know, talking about we, you know, school construction, like if they're going to, you know, like if we're gonna make an extension at orchard farms, if they're gonna build more schools in the western part of the city because of more population, then I think there needs to be some kind of school impact fee in some form or another for those new construction projects in the western part.

It's harder to make the argument.

I think maybe the solicitor will tell me that I can, but I think when you're talking about just taking an old school and building a new one where the old school was, it's hard to show that the new people moving into town are the cause of the new school construction.

But when you have new home construction occurring on the western side of the city, and let's say we had to build an extension to orchard farms.

I think without question, I think that could be an argument there that there should be some school impact fee there.

Could it just be that you know, as obviously new construction is going to bring in more children on on average, and if I schools are at capacity, right?

As we've examined, we're going to eventually need a new school.

So I I know.

I like us, this is probably something we can talk about some more.

And I think we can do it with the staff.

Um, and then we can talk about talk about other towns, how other towns do it.

I just think in Cranston, if I look at the impact fees we have right now, we have an impact fee related to libraries, police, recreation.

Um there's something else I can't remember, fire, but we don't have school, which is to me, it doesn't make any sense to me why we don't have that school component when schools are usually the a biggest infrastructure cost, and B, if I had to connect housing and schools, well, that's a clear connection when you're talking, especially in certain parts of our city.

So um, and we have verbiage uh from school committee meeting meeting that it's about orchard farms being at capacity and oak lawn school being at capacity.

So anyway, that's my response, Commissioner, the best I can off top of my head, unless the staff has anything you want to add about school impact fees.

Okay, but that's something we can talk about, and I can we can talk, but what I was saying in regulations is we ask all these things that we want, you know, archaeological studies and and this and that, but it's like and nobody asks the school department whether or not they have adequate capacity at their local elementary school for a major project.

It's just boggles my mind why we don't.

And I think it's like I think the average person asks that question all the time.

Like, what's the top?

There's usually three issues that always comes up, and one of them is schools.

So anyway.

So we just do we just have the it's us that has the authority to to do this.

We we have the authority to put stuff in our regulations.

Obviously, whatever we put in our regulations has to be permitted by law.

So that's why I got to talk to the solicitor about what can we require of applicants for informational purposes.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Okay.

Any other questions or inquiries or something else?

Okay.

All right.

So we'll keep the staff will continue to work on the subdivision regulations.

All those who have further questions or concerns feel free to talk to the staff about it.

As this gets fine tuned because I think we may be ready for some kind of you know maybe January certainly February we should be in place to start having an actual draft that will go up to be noticed and stuff like that.

And then we can go from there.

Oh before I leave is there any public comment on these subdivision regulations.

Okay none is there anyone oh someone's online now is there anyone online that would like to comment on the subdivision regulation drafts and discussion.

There is no public comment online.

Thank you.

All right.

Unless anyone has anything further we'll we'll move on to zoning ordinances.

Well top my head number one we had an omnibus zoning ordinance that we approved we recommended for submission um there was a snafu in the city council about the submission of the zoning ordinance so now we will go to the administration next week to get the administration to submit it so that's what's taken care of there are I think there's three zoning ordinance issues um first is filing fee inclusionary and then DPR.

So Mr.

Bergman do you want to okay you want to do the fees let's go I did I did it in order that's on the screen.

Thank you.

So let's start with the fees yeah um I forget how much we talked about it at the last meeting but basically um during the 2023 sessions uh preliminary plan the minor subdivisions uh kind of were uh separated between some that were have administrative review and plan commission review additionally there was also unified development that was created during that time as well um unified development just you know typically when we had two separate processes now we have a single unified process um but it does require additional review from staff to do that um and uh yeah and before oh so prior to 2023 basically any minor subdivision of land development also um was reviewed by the plan commission now we have this kind of two separate process but our fees have never changed to reflect that so even though we have these multiple different processes that fall under a minor subdivision we still have uh you know the same base fee for those um so this is currently our proposal as you saw the previously base fee for all preliminary plans um which uh for 335 per unit um the proposal for this one for this ordinance was to kind of basically split it into those that require only administrative reviews for the preliminary plan and those that will go to the commission for review so um anything that goes to the commission for review um is anything that requires a zoning variance or has a street extension um and if there's a preliminary if there's a um subdivision which has you know it's on an existing street um require so requires no street extension um and it's a buy right project then that would be administrative review for the preliminary plan so this is our proposal uh for that change um lately though we have also talked about um another section in the subdivision regulations which uh allows us to raise fees based on um I believe it was based on the uh the amount that our budget increases on that correct um so there's also a consideration uh to do that and then I guess the the other question to that was brought up to us was um uh I guess we wanted some clarification too about like is this something the um is this something the plan commission can actually approve or not right um sure I'd love to have all of these on the same place I'd love to have our

Um so there's also a consideration uh to do that, and then I guess the the other question two that was brought up to us was um uh I guess we wanted some clarification too about like is this something the um is it something the plan commission can actually approve or not?

Right.

Um I'd love to have all the fees at the same place, so I'd love to have our thing.

Right.

So um this thing.

Um issue, let me just start with the fees themselves.

The fees you're seeing up there on the screen, the staff confirmed hasn't been increased since 2007.

Okay, so that's 18 years.

At the same time, um the budget, this planning department staff budget has increased 44 percent.

Inflation has increased 51 percent approximately.

Okay, depends on how you calculate it.

So these fees are pretty low compared to what I think they should be.

Um, and by the way, when you look at the amount of fees we collect, the planning department, when I mean we the plan department, it doesn't um it doesn't even cover 20 percent of the budget of the planning department, and then for my conversations with the staff, I think they do more than 20% of their time is dealing with these applications um in general.

So I talked to uh director of administration Moretti about this issue because obviously this is an issue that's fiscal, has fiscal impacts and stuff.

And he's I talked to him about the fact that it had an increase since 07 that the plan department's budget's gone up 44 percent, and what he thought, and he said, you know, to me was um you know, 25% increase he felt was justifiable and hard to argue with.

So he was a little bit lower than I originally thought myself, but like he felt better with a 25% increase.

I'll say that.

And so I I usually like to being part of the executive branch, I usually like working with the executive branch about these issues.

Um the second thing, and that may get the solicitor involved here, was you see this is developed as an ordinance.

Um, and I did that, we did that after a conversation uh with the solicitor and the staff, and then I was looking at over the weekend, and it I found a state law, and this is like goes back to Bob Murray's questions all the time.

But where do we get the authority for these fees?

And I found 452358, which says local regulation adopt a pursuance of this chapter.

This is a subdivision of land, may provide for reasonable fees and amount not to exceed actual costs incurred to be paid by the applicant for adequate review in hearing of applications issue with some permits and recordings of subsequent decisions.

So I took that is that we do have the authority to set fees.

We don't need to go to the city council and have them do an ordinance.

So my suggestion would be is that out of an abundance of caution here, we just in the we do our draft regulations, put the fees down, the free structure, and just increase it by 25% and just get the public to say what they gotta say.

If Bob Murray wants to flip out about it, he can flip out about it.

Bob's not here, he maybe he's at home listening.

I'm sorry, Bob.

But I'm only saying this is that it's pretty clear to me, we are not covering the costs of reviewing these applications and a 25% increase when nothing has increased since 2007, I think is justified.

And you're talking about from 100 to 125.

I don't think these things are going to be breaking the bank.

But and I don't think we need to go to the city council with a separate ordinance if we have statutory authority to to approve fees, and these are fees that we have in our regulations already.

So that's just my two cents.

If the solicitor feels very strongly that I'm wrong on this, see it's oh I always appreciate people who have a difference of opinion with me.

But uh, that's what I thought.

Is there any other comments about these fees or um thoughts about it?

And I so that means I wouldn't want the fees to increase automatically on January 1st by 44% or 25%.

I'm just gonna we just put the regulations in, we'll notice it and we'll see what people have to say.

You know, if they want to say it's too much or whatever it is, but I think I think we're on solid ground, by the way, if having no fees increase in 18 years, and this doesn't even cover 20% of our budget.

So anyway, any commissioner Lamphier?

Um, just when you read the statute, it did say um fees that reflect actual costs.

So could we have almost like you know, as the legislature attaches a letter of explanation or something to their bills, could we have something planning staff that establishes that these reflect actual costs and why so that they're challenged to why we did that balance just.

I mean, it says here not to exceed act not to exceed actual costs, and I think like I said, we already have one line, which is these fees would not constitute more than 20% of our budget.

So I think the staff could easily testify to that they spend at least 20% of their time on all these applications.

If the staff would like to give up, give come up with some estimates of how long it takes them to, you know, review master plan, preliminary plan, all these things.

I you know, you can try to come up with some best.

There is certainly a range.

All project some projects come in real clean and are easy to review.

Um, so it'll be an average.

And I think that it would be it wouldn't surprise me, let's say, like for example, a pre uh what is it, a pre-application concept see 120 but it'll be 125 dollars?

That's like Steve Marcelo's legal fees cost 125 dollars at least an hour.

I mean, it's just like there's cost to all this stuff.

Just me getting up costs you more than that.

Um so the the only issue I have with planning commission setting fees is for unified development.

So it's not in this fee schedule, but unified development includes zoning fees.

So isn't which under 4523?

You you're not allowed to set zoning fees.

Correct.

So are we going to have to go before the council to set a separate unified?

I can't see about, but I think unified development.

I think what they did here, Steve, is they're not doing any, they're treating unified development as if you're asking for a master plan or a preliminary plan.

They're just treating it.

Is that what you guys are doing right now?

Yeah.

So division between administrative review and yeah, because in your fee schedule, I didn't see unified development correctly.

We chose to not make that a separate fee in our proposal.

And what about the zoning fees?

Like if you come for a straight zoning variance for a sign.

It's not, do we have are we gonna do a separate fee schedule for that?

No, no, we're gonna keep it the way it's in commission.

They'll just pay the the plan commission review fee for the you know, major minor project that it is.

So I'm a practitioner, I come in, I my client says, how much is a unified develop?

I'm I'm filing for unified development because I have this two lot subdivision with zoning relief.

What does that cost me?

Like I don't see that anywhere.

Um right here on the screen.

So we're technically so this is only for mine.

So by the way, this is only for minor subdivisions.

Yeah.

So this is our so but correct.

Correct.

So the way we kind of handled that difference is for minor subdivisions is anything that comes to the plan commission.

So that includes unified, but also includes street extensions.

Technically, five of those require more staff time in our opinion, and require more your time because you need to be at the commission.

We could add you're asking the clarification.

Yes.

Yeah, but otherwise, yeah, no, that's a good point.

We can put an asterisk at the bottom, so there's no additional fee for unified development reviews.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yep, Commissioner Coop.

I want to go back for a minute to the analysis of the state law, how it's tied to the actual cost of the review.

Are we sure that we can average we're talking about the amount of time that the staff spends reviewing all of these plans?

Is it not tied to the individual application?

Because if someone comes in with a four unit, they pay 250 plus 42 per unit, and someone else comes in with a 200 unit project.

Now they're paying almost 200 times as much.

Are they is their project requiring 200 times as much work?

And is that going to be an issue?

Are we allowed to aggregate all of the applications?

Or do we have to look at the expense of assessing each application individually?

So the we are supposed to have a flat fee and not charge people by the by time reviewing their project.

We're not supposed to send them a bill that's based on actual time.

So do we have to revisit the per unit cost?

Right.

We got the so is your question about whether the per unit the extra plus 35 as it stands there.

I agree with you that after a certain scale, it doesn't take that much more time to review a hundred units than 50.

You're already talking about a major project.

So there is a sense that it doesn't.

So some so some so let's say that's a so there could be a project that comes in, that's a you know, that fee is a little bit higher for them than it should be.

But for other people, it could be less.

So that's my question.

Is you have the reputation of that state law, does it allow you to aggregate all of these?

It has to, otherwise, we'd be billing the planning staff would be like attorneys billing by the hour, and that's not what this is set up to be.

Okay, but just looking at it from the developer's point of view, yeah.

A developer with 200 units might come in and say, Well, why am I paying 40 times as much as this developer with five units?

Shouldn't it be tied to the cost of reviewing my project?

Yeah, I mean, an economist might say that the per unit cost should decrease as it gets larger.

I I don't think this, by the way, uh Commissioner Coop, you know, I'm not an expert on fee structures across the state, but from my understanding from the com conversations I had previously with the director, is that our fee structure is in the middle of the entire state.

So I don't think what we have here is abnormal.

I I agree.

I don't think it's abnormal.

I'm just right trying to think about potential.

I mean, but like um pushback.

Yeah, there's somebody somebody could say anything about like you know, your it doesn't cost you so much time, you know, you're you're overcharging me for this and you're overcharging me for that.

Um, but in the end, you have to come up with an average, right?

And when you see this thing, and it hasn't been increased in 18 years, I have a hard time seeing in this, and this would c compensate this would cover maybe less than 20% of the staff's expenses.

I have a hard time seeing how this doesn't correlate in some way to actual costs.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

Yeah, I'm just thinking about you know, one developer coming in and looking at the fee versus another developer and saying, you know, I'm paying 40 much, 40 times as much as this other developer.

How is this tied to the cost of reviewing my plan?

And see, even if a developer came in and said, all right, 400 times 35 units.

This doesn't cover this.

This the amount I'm being charging me is excessive of what it takes you, is is more is excessive compared to this other guy.

I'm not sure that this uh 40 dollars times 400 times 35 per unit covers the whole cost of reviewing an application by the staff.

I don't know.

Are these they take some time with these things?

You know, when you factor in their staff, you know, the compensation and the sense of salary benefits and other things.

I don't think it's going to be easy for them to show that you know there were over a billion of them.

Commissioner Wenzulli.

Um, just as an example, um, we can we can look at what other cities and towns do, but North Kingston gives a flat fee, and then $10 per residential unit or 1,000 square feet of commercial space.

So that could be a way to do it as well.

Yeah, so they do it by they do it, have a per unit basis like we do.

And they actually even have a square footage basis.

Also new um for commercial and industrial developments.

Um the fee indicated above shall be assessed per developed acre or per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever's greater.

But but looking at that example, the base is much higher and the per unit is much lower, which sort of evens out for the diff the distinction between a small project and a large project.

So they're on more of a level playing field.

Like I said, I mean, we could I I wasn't here obviously in 2007 when they did the analysis to do this, and probably this is in that 2007 was probably going back even further.

Um, but um my feeling is uh when I look at this commissioner, is do other cities and towns have a similar structure?

My hands my belief is yes.

Is this structure out of line with other cities and towns?

I don't believe it is.

And again, I agree with you.

I'm just I'm just posing the question whether this would stand up under the state law.

And you seem to, you know, pretty confident it would.

I'm not hearing from our solicitor that it wouldn't.

So just raising the question.

No, and I understand in commissioner, you know, Commissioner Council Murray will show up and tell me why I'm wrong and all this other stuff.

But I think that A, I think we are on solid legal grounds to have implementing the fees.

We can argue about the level of the fees, how they're structured, but when I see them as consistent with other towns, and I see that we haven't raised them in 18 years.

Um I don't I don't I don't think that's that's I think it's hard for someone to argue that all of a sudden what we did was raise the fees dramatically, and we're you know, and and it's not justified.

That's me just as a layman saying we're raising it 25% that haven't been raised in 18 years, and doesn't even cover 20% of the cost of the staff department.

That's me.

But we'll see.

Commissioner, you know, but Bob Murray will say something at some point.

Anything else?

All right.

Um we got the next one on the zoning ordinance, uh, zoning ordinance list.

And we'll do public comment on all the zoning ordinances in a minute.

Inclusionary zoning.

Uh conclusionary zoning um basically adds a requirement to the zoning ordinance for multifamily housing projects with 10 units or more to include at least 15% of deed restricted low and moderate income housing in accordance with the amendment to the low and moderate income act uh of 2025.

So this last session.

Um and our reasons so far are one, it's the response to this uh amendment in the section.

Um so what you did is for one, it removed the rental exception for comprehensive permits, uh, thereby making the you know, Cranston subject to these comprehensive permits starting January 1st.

Um basically the only way you can get exemptions to these comprehensive permits is if a municipality has um 10% of its housing stock uh be considered affordable under the um uh uh the LMIA Act.

And um basically meaning be 10% of your housing units have to be either deed restricted affordable housing, section have section eight vouchers or um um mobile home, like a combination of mobile mobile home units, section eight vouchers, and feed restricted affordable housing.

Uh, and you need to have inclusionary zoning implemented as well.

Um additionally, we think that uh implementing inclusionary zoning could help the city reach and sustain its affordable housing goals, um, which should help moderate the rising cost of housing in the city.

Um it will also be part of the affordable housing strategy, the housing man element for the 2020 well technically 2026 comprehensive plan.

And oh, it is actually never mind.

It was in the 2020, so the current comprehensive plan we have um recommends inclusionary how inclusionary zoning as part of its portal part of its housing element strategy.

Um will likely also be uh strategy for phase two.

Okay, go ahead, director.

If you have something just there are a lot of there are a number of choices that we have in constructing this ordinance, they'll be um very important to get comment on it.

Okay.

So as I said last month, I thought generally it was okay.

I need to talk to the administration.

I need to talk to the administration about uh this in detail so they understand it uh before we make any kind of vote on it, in my view.

So I have not had the chance yet to talk to an administration about it.

So that's my sense, but overall um what it requires and what it doesn't require, I think is okay, and um in general.

So um that's minus two cents for right now.

Um did my colleagues have anything.

Go ahead, director.

Uh Commissioner Rizzuli.

I just have a a question for attorney Marcella, I think.

Um, as far as having 10% affordable units, does that have to be built constructed people in them, or we could have approved them because it takes time for things to be built, but if we have you know 200 approved affordable housing units kind of in the pipeline, do we not?

In terms of how they account for affordable units as they have to be built, and then they'll show up in the tally the next year.

So that could take many years to happen.

At the end, at each year, the state um does a tally verifying the affordable units and how many we get credit for.

So sometimes units get taken off the books too, because they're there maybe their limitation expires because they were only affordable, guaranteed affordable for a certain number of years, so they come off the books that way, or or maybe something's demolished or work or changes.

So it is a dynamic list, and that is part of the thinking of why you need to require 15%, even just to hold steady it to not lose ground against the affordable units you have in your credited to the city.

We can only approve them.

We can't make anyone build them.

So even if we approved, if we made it 40%, if they didn't build them, then we're still kind of held accountable.

That is a really good point, and that's one of the key changes the state legislature made is they may allowed us to bring that percentage down because there's thinking that if you make the affordable requirement too high, you suppress construction.

So what is that sweet spot?

It's um we've addressed this in here.

The state asks us to have some incentives for the affordable units.

We've put in the text here that there'll be a bonus unit of density that they could have for each affordable unit that they're providing.

So that density bonus is our subsidy.

Um, and that's what's proposed here.

There are other forms that the city could choose to offer an incentive to support affordable housing and make it uh you know easier for developers to to make it financially feasible.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Coop or comments.

Practically um what do you do with a 10-unit development?

15% of a 10 unit development is that one unit or two units.

We have that is actually in the draft, it's that it's specified in the language.

I should I think it's a round upper, isn't it?

Yeah, it's a round up.

I mean I I originally thought it should be 15.

This is because it kind of makes it kind of easier, I think.

You know, as I get it.

I agree.

Yeah, actually, I think I think 10 is I I struggle with this, but 10's a pretty small development to be imposing and affordable.

So um standard in Massachusetts to require the seventh unit to be affordable.

So tennis does not strike me as particularly.

So in Massachusetts, seven triggers.

Every seventh house, yes, requirement.

And we and then and I haven't seen it limited just to multifamily.

So this is a fairly limited approach to inclusionary zoning ordinance because you're most of the housing development in the city has been single family, and we're excluding that entirely from this ordinance.

So it's only going to apply to the multifamily.

And there's no circumstance where the development would be exempted from this.

I mean, like sometimes they, you know, we have things in our ordinance, uh, ordinances, like for example, like flood zone stuff and this thing.

I noticed, like sometimes they ask for waivers sometimes.

So I don't know if a waiver could be request of a particular project.

The example you're probably thinking about that occurred to me too, is print works.

If this thing had been in place with print works, this print works wouldn't happen.

It wouldn't happen.

Period.

And so you could think of putting in criteria where we could waive it if you know their extraordinary development costs because of historical structure.

We could think of reasons why something might get a waiver.

And this is one of the things, like I have to talk to the administration about because that's one of the concerns that has been expressed to me about like this is um it's a double-edged sword.

I'll phrase this.

I don't want to offend anybody's feelings about it.

Okay, but it's a double-edged sword, which is like you have to have a requirement, but that requirement comes with a cost, and then it may not get built at all if you impose that cost, which is the print works example.

I I don't think you disagree, nobody is more concerned about affordable housing than I am, but I agree with you.

It's not it's not going to work in every project, and I think we do need some flexibility.

Yeah, and and so I wonder if like a waiver provision could be put in there, but if a we just have to have it structured, I don't know if it's open-ended or narrowly tailored, and I don't know if it's permit how much latitude we have under state law, which is questions we could probably talk to the solicitor about.

But that's something we this is still a work in progress, and it's like I said, I gotta talk to an administration anyway, and the staff we can talk about in the solicitor.

Any other questions or comments for the staff on uh inclusionary zoning?

Okay, last zoning ordinance on and then I said I'll have public comment on it.

Um DPR, this is still um whole.

I don't have an additional slide for this.

This is still something we're still discussing with the solicitor.

So this is the whole issue about whether or not it should be in the zoning at in the zoning ordinance or in the regs, basically, right?

Correct.

Okay, and then we can leave that to another day.

You guys can yeah, we're gonna have to.

I'm not we're not on the depth development plan review, so I leave it away.

Sometimes I think if it's not broken, don't fix it, you know what I mean.

Um it might be broken, okay.

Um let's see.

Oh, before we go that, so you've um anything else from my colleagues, questions or comments on those three zoning uh three ordinance things.

All right, is there any public comment on the ordinances that we've been considering?

Please come forward.

Good evening, Annette Bourne 51 Community Drive.

Um I just want to offer to the commissioners that there is an extensive body of work on what I will call inclusionary housing.

Um, you know, it goes back to the 1970s, New Jersey.

The intention here is fair share, and the intention of the word inclusionary is to ensure equitable distribution of affordability and a decrease in racial segregation in the United States.

Um, there is a website, inclusionaryhousing.org, if you want to consult that, but in addition to that, there's just extensive body.

If I were a developer here, I would be telling you this is not a great strategy.

Um you set it at 10 units, you set it at 40 units.

I'm gonna give you nine, I'm gonna give you 39.

So it is a double-edged sword, as uh President Fryas described.

I'm here, you know, to support affordability.

So I greatly appreciate that we have been able to actually get 15% in a number of the developments that are on the drawing board.

Um so what I would really suggest, and I don't mean to derail all of the really hard work that the staff is doing, yeoman's work.

Um, but given that the exemption regarding the low and moderate income housing act is twofold, right?

The city needs to achieve its 10% low and moderate income housing, which as we've observed, we are over 1200 units short of that.

So if the intention of this is to meet both of the uh goals of the low and moderate income housing act in order to gain that exemption again, um, I think this is putting the cart before the horse.

Although I do want to see all of these units include affordable units.

The fact that we are hitching this only to multifamily, if our city included multi-family zoning from east to west, I would see that as an equitable approach because it would have as much chance of gaining affordable units out at orchard farms as it would in my neighborhood of Park View.

As it is, we don't have that kind of zoning state uh citywide.

So unless we apply this to single family subdivisions as well, we are not going to achieve the inclusionary aspect of what this law in its spirit is actually meant to achieve.

So thank you very much.

Are there any other public comments here today on this on the zoning ordinances on ordinances related to zoning?

Okay.

Is there anyone on public online who would like to comment on these ordinances?

There's no public comment online.

All right, thank you very much, Mr.

Lema.

Okay.

Um next item is comprehensive plan amendments.

We are working on the housing element.

That is our first priority.

We do have one additional workshop scheduled that's in January, that but that's open space and recreation.

And we intend to uh come back at the January meeting with a timeline of how we uh intend to complete the comprehensive plan next year.

Uh it is been a struggle actually to give it the time it takes um with all the competing out opportunities, but we will we're gonna make this happen.

But I am going to ask that the public hearing be continued to January.

The um one before we do that, um just one thing I already spoke to the director about is I will be asking the director to continue to work on the housing element in particular this next month.

Um, so that hopefully we have a more um robust draft to talk about um in January.

I do still see a need to move this along as quickly as possible on the housing element for a variety of reasons, and uh certainly I can spend some free time in December uh looking at whatever the draft the director has put uh has ready.

Um yeah, so the next when's the next meeting?

January 6th.

Is there anyone have any questions for the director on comprehensive plan amendments?

Commissioner Renzooli.

Um, are we the open space recreation element?

Is that if that is finished, will that go forward before the housing, or did they all have to go together?

How does that work exactly?

Um I think it's really kind of like up to us how we want to do it.

Um the open space recreation.

We the question is whether or not we want to vote on it and then send it to the commission, send to the council as like an amendment, really, at this point.

Um because we're gonna have an open space event in January, are we not?

Yes.

Right.

So it's and if I can make a request, I'm gonna send out the handout, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd circulate it to people.

And I'm also interested in people if they're individuals you think that the planning department should reach out to for informational interviews to help inform that element.

Uh, we'd love to have that kind of input or um or invitations to groups that we should be speaking to.

Um, definitely uh grateful for any input from the commission on how to help enhance our public outreach rather than just putting out a a notice about a workshop, but really be more targeted in our outreach.

Well, like I was going to say, Commissioner Mozilla, because we're having um an event in January, probably it makes some sense to hear from the public first, see what they have to add to the element that's already been revised, and you know, more revisions may be needed, and then probably after that we could probably like okay, we've gotten some input from the public, maybe we can have a vote on this now revision.

You see, but I think the vote would be after at this stage.

We could have maybe had a vote in September, but at this stage, we should probably just hear from the public, people come out, and then we can revise and then make an adoption.

I I agree.

I just meant does it if the housing takes longer will the recreational first are we waiting to do them together?

I I can talk to the director about this.

It's like some elements can go quick and some elements take long.

That's what and I don't think we need to last time.

If I don't remember this now with former director, we were approving we could we were actually kind of like tentatively approving elements, like we're all set with this element and we move on to the next one.

And then we had like a vote on all of them together.

You know what I'm saying?

And so I think we're probably like trying to do this as we move along.

We're gonna take care of these, and we can take care of these, and then we wrap it all up and send it along.

I think something like that, you know.

Anything else from from my colleagues on the comprehensive plan amendments.

Okay.

Um before well, I gotta do public comment first before I do motions.

Is there any public comment here that would like to be heard on comprehensive plan amendments?

Seeing none.

Is there anyone online that likes to have any public comment on comprehensive plan amendments?

There is no public comment online.

Thank you, Mr.

Lima.

Okay, now would be the appropriate time uh to motion to continue this matter to January 6th of 2026.

Moved by Vice Chairman Coop, seconded by Commissioner Mancini.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

All right, director, your time.

So I I've passed out a written director's report as my per usual.

I think um we important things is we we have the signed agreement with Kittlson associates, and we'll be doing our kickoff meeting on our TOD um zoning work in January.

So I'll be when we get a date, I'll be sharing that with you.

I've also worked with um the Raw Square Merchants on an application for the main street learning cohort.

And and and the decision was made that Edgewood and Knightsville wanted to be included too.

So we're putting in a uh main streets of Cranston application to participate in that learning cohort.

Um and the city planning department will be participating along with um economic development from the city.

We've had some conversations on city energy efficiency with Rhode Island Energy and RISE and uh we had a very successful floodplain easement.

I don't know whether you're all aware of this, but we are um we received uh violations from the federal government that we had some debris in our floodplains that we own.

And so the city plan department went out with the Patuxet River Water Authority.

We pulled 44 tires and a pile of other stuff out of the confluence.

Um, but it also brings up a larger issue.

Um these this kind of clean up task does not align well with the city departments.

I mean it's fun to do once, maybe we'll do it again, but I I can't clean up all three of these floodplains, and we might want to open a conversation about you know how could we have these properties owned and managed by an organization whose mission includes land conservation and stewardship.

Um, these are three properties that were acquired with floodplain grants that our former planning director um Peter Lapola brought in.

Um but yes, I just bring that to your attention.

And then finally, we we uh went to the regional planning association conference and is able to present on TOD and uh the joys of trying to uh succeed while state laws are changing under your feet.

Okay.

Thank you, Director.

And the other thing I just note is the director, I think you you post either online you send us AO administrative office, uh what do you call them?

Administrative officer reports.

So every month the administrative officer is uh director ashman, and she'll be listing all the things that have been approved or not approved what happened in the past month because some of the things just she deals with we don't.

So you get to see that.

If there's any questions about something she's approved, feel free to give her a call and talk about it or anything like that.

But that's I think it's a helpful thing to get every month.

It's a long enough list that I don't want to read it into the record, but I think going forward, I'd like to attach it to the minutes so that it becomes archived with the Secretary of State.

If the city solicitor tells me that's okay, we can do it.

If the city solicitor tells me it's not okay, I can't do it.

So we'll we'll I assume it's okay, but we'll find out.

Can we include the attach the administrative officer report with the minutes?

Yeah, so okay.

That's that's fine.

Well, we're not going to do that to the future people of Cranston to read about.

Okay, that's fine.

And we can probably we could probably do that up front when we do approval of the minutes and inclusion of the administrative officers report.

That sounds good.

Yes, that's right.

We're trying to increase transparency.

Yes.

Okay.

If there's anything further or questions for the director, if not for my colleagues, we'll as you all know.

We're not done yet this year.

We have a December 9th meeting at Natick Solar.

We'll be the next one.

So there's nothing else.

A motion to adjourn would be appropriate.

Motion to adjourn.

Made by Commissioner Inzuli, seconded by Vice Chairman Coop.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

And 824.