Evening everyone.

Um I'm gonna call this meeting to order at approximately six thirty-four.

We have a quorum.

Um my name is Steve Fryers, I'm the chairman of this body.

Uh the reason I'm sitting here is because my son left to go to Chicago, but he left behind a bad cold, and I got it.

And so I'm just kind of like sitting over here to avoid infecting anybody.

So that's what I'm here for.

And if uh you know, I'm not at the top of my game tonight, I think, so please be patient with me if I'm a little bit slow and uh I'm not like I said, uh I'm a little bit slow tonight or I missed things up.

But anyway, we'll get the meeting going.

Uh first order of business election of officers.

Uh Vice Chairman Coop, could you preside over the nomination for president?

Of course.

Members of commission, are there any nominations for the position of president of the plan commission?

Commissioner Renzuli.

I nominate current president Stephen Fryas to be re-elected as president of the planning commission.

Is there a second?

Any other nominations?

Any discussion on the motion?

If not, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Congratulations, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Uh and the best part of it is I'm not going to give a speech.

So um next is uh nominations for the office of vice president.

Are there any nominations for the office of vice president?

Mr.

Commissioner Renzuli.

I nominate current vice president Robert Coop to remain a vice president of the planning commission.

Uh, there's any seconding to that nomination.

No, seconded by Commissioner Lamphier.

Are there any other nominations?

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor of Commissioner Coop being elected, uh re-elected vice president, please please signify by saying aye.

Hi.

All those opposed say nay.

Hi, Savage.

Congratulations, Vice Chairman, Vice President of Coop.

Uh next is approval of the minutes.

I want to apologize to my colleagues.

I there are no I would ask that we continue these two approval of the minutes till next meeting.

I received drafts of these on Monday.

I was not in um, I did not feel up to making revisions to these minutes, and particularly because of the preparation time for this meeting.

So I'd ask uh your indulgence and to continue these approval.

These two minutes to the next February meeting.

Any discussion?

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

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

I have it.

Um nothing, my colleagues, because I'm sitting over here.

If you I may not be able to see you well, it's just raise your hand and I will try to find you.

Okay.

So um so before the meeting began, I just try to get a sense of where things were at, how many people were here for what and the order.

So I wanted to take things out of order and start with the simple matter, which is the Lake Street Villa matter, which is a continuance request.

Will the staff please uh indicate uh uh provide us a report on this continuous request?

So we th this project's gonna be re-noticed because of an error in the notice.

So they'll be re-advertised in the Herald and sent out and advertised for the February meeting.

At least somebody in the room has come on this matter.

And I'd like to share that we've received a lot of a lot of inquiries and and and questions about this project.

Okay.

Mr.

Solicitor, is it okay?

Should we just continue this matter or could we take public comment at this time?

What's the most appropriate course of procedure?

No, just uh continuing.

No, no public comment at this time because we it hasn't been opened.

It hasn't been opened.

Okay, so uh this would be a continuance until the February meeting, correct, Director Ashman?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh the February meeting is February 3rd of this year.

Okay.

So you understand there will be a meeting on February 3rd.

And you'll be able to be heard at that time.

Okay.

At this time, if any would like to make a motion, continue this matter to February 3rd, please indicate to me.

Commissioner Lampier has made a motion to continue this February 3rd.

Seconded by Commissioner Mancini.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Next matter I'd like to take up is the Dunkin' Donuts development zone change.

Um Mr.

Brennan, I believe you're here.

Uh, you were not here at the beginning, right at the beginning.

So I kind of take things out of order.

And I thought that your there were some people here already, and I wanted to, we already heard your proposal already.

I thought it'd be more efficient if we heard you now at this point.

Is that okay?

Would you?

That is, thank you very much.

Okay, proceed, Mr.

Brennan.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh, Mr.

President, congratulations on the reappointment.

Uh, for the record, Joseph Brennan, attorney on behalf of the applicant.

The project that you have before you is the uh uh recommendation for an ordinance change.

The current uh property is zoned M2.

Um, well, for formality, well, uh the location is zero plain field pike assessors plat 36 2, lot 169.

The current zoning is M2.

And what we are proposing is M2 with conditions.

Um, that way we keep the zone the same.

Um, and the conditions, the the main one that we're applying for is for the additional uses um to be added into the allowed uses for this lot only.

Um, those would be the conditions.

I know in the last meeting you wanted me to read those out.

Would that be appropriate to do again, or is it just considered part of the application?

Well, why don't you read them out just in case because members of the public here may not have heard it last time and they may want to comment on it.

So the additional uses would be an artisan's workshop studio, bakery retail, bank financial institution, barbershop, beauty salon, brew pub, check caching facility, convenience store, day spa, drive-in restaurant, drugstore, hardware store, medical diagnostic laboratory, music and dance studio, restaurant without drive-in facility, retail sales small scale, tavern pub, neighborhood bar, urgent care facility, veterinarian hospital or clinic, and that that rounds out the list.

So the the proposal that you have is for really the our main tenant here is gonna be the Dunkin' Donuts.

And if you have the plan, it's to the top of the plan, but to the east side of the property where we would have that Dunkin' Donuts located.

And additionally, as two parts of the uh conditions that we're looking for are the use regulations.

One being that a drive-thru use has to have a separate building for that use.

As you can see, unit one on the top, we have it proposed as attached to the other buildings.

When we read through the planning staff um recommendations, they themselves note that they don't it's more of an archaic thing.

They themselves don't understand why um that's necessary, especially if a site can prove that it can work with an attached um uh facility.

So we we agree with that, of course.

Um, and the beauty of it is it allows for us to have the double drive-through that gets extended all the way through the back of the building.

So the stacking of vehicles wouldn't even be a question, and the public really has no reason to use the back as we can provide all of our parking as you can see to the front of the building.

Um, the exit towards the top would be um a right turn only.

Um, that way traffic can be predictable towards the west of the property where people could turn left or right.

So if anybody leaving the drive-thru needed to turn to the left, they would have to exit down at at the bottom.

Um, the other item that we're asking since we're talking about the exits is you can see the exit to the to the east on the top of the plan, that's the right turn only.

Um, your regulations require uh 40 feet between driveway openings to adjacent properties.

Um, the owner of that lot, their property goes all over into the back.

They're the ones who subdivided this, so they're completely on board with this plan because they know that it was coming and that this was the agreed upon uh placement of that driveway.

So we have no issues with them at all.

Um, and you can see it even goes onto their lot.

So we'll be getting an easement from them as part of our plan.

Um, and so we believe that that is um an acceptable placement, especially that way we can have two forms of egress for the drive through for safety purposes.

And because it's a state road, Ryland DOT will also have to review that.

And although we have we don't have a physical alteration permit because we're very far from that process.

In the initial meetings and discussion with them, they were on board with this, and that's why we're proposing it as such, because we've only received positive feedback from them on that uh proposal.

And then just to kind of round out and finalize it, just as a reminder, what we have what you have is on the top we show unit one, and then in the middle, we show unit two as retail, and there's some dotted lines in there because that could indicate some tenant spacing.

We're not sure what tenants will go in there in a perfect world.

One tenant would take up the entire of that middle portion that we show as like the unit two retail, but it may be two, it may be three.

Um, and that's the purpose for why we are asking for those additional uses as part of the M2 with conditions, and then on the on the bottom, all the way to the west, you'll see we show unit three restaurant use.

That would be just one restaurant, it wouldn't be broken up as such.

And the um the reason for doing this as such is also because we won't need to ask for any parking relief because the parking regulations are all based upon usage and the square footage that you're providing.

So whether it's one tenant or four that go through the middle, and then one at the top, one at the bottom.

So you're looking at possibly three to six tenants, the parking calculation would remain the same based upon those uses in the square footage of the building, and we can meet that parking regulation.

So we also believe there's adequate parking as part of it.

Um, as you can see, there's also some landscaping shown on the plan, which will in the future will have more um detailed examples of what kind of plantings and such, but obviously at this point, we're still only really at the recommendation stages.

We've got to move forward to the city council.

Um, so with that, that concludes the presentation.

I do have um uh the engineer, Dana Nisbet from Dapriet Engineering here.

If there's any questions that I can't answer, and uh we also have the applicant, um uh David Petersonelli with us too.

Um, if I couldn't answer something.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Brennan.

Are there any questions for Mr.

Brennan on this project from my colleagues?

Commissioner, yeah.

I don't think you can see me.

I can see your director.

Okay, uh, just a quick question.

I you I noticed that the eastern side you talk about that driveway.

Why is that only a right out when the one to the west is a both direction?

Is there a median that prevents a movement?

No, there's not.

Um so why wouldn't you just come out perpendicular and allow the people that use the drive-thru not to go through the parking lot and make a left or a right the same way you're doing it at the lower one?

You would separate the distance between the eastern driveway to the other development, and you'll also be able to have multiple movements left and right out of that easternmost driveway.

Uh this layout, uh Dan and Isbit the prete engineering for the record.

Uh, this layout was originally worked out uh with a pre-application meeting with DOT, and we established that exit only for basically the truck route around the building.

Otherwise, we really wouldn't even need the second exit.

But we could certainly discuss that with DOT if they'd rather have a two-way entrance at that point.

I would because I I just have seen several developments like that.

And the right only is not always going to be a right only.

It's also going to be people making the left turn in.

And you might as well just make it a two-way the way it would normally be functioning.

And if it's okay at the westernmost driveway, I don't see why it wouldn't be for the northern, I mean the eastern as well.

Yeah, I I think the idea was trying to prevent traffic from coming in there.

That way, when they go around the drive-thru, they're only passing through the property one time.

Um, but I'm sure as the project goes on, we'll take that into consideration.

And if there's some way to engineer the exit to the left too that could prevent people from entering from that direction, we'll we'll certainly consider it.

Any other questions for Mr.

Brennan?

Mr.

Barberi, Commissioner Barberi.

Uh Frank, just to clarify, I think that you can't coming down, you can't make a left turn going in there.

And if you're coming out, you can't go out and take a left going out either.

I don't think you go.

Maybe that's why.

No, I'm not aware of any traffic signal on that area of plain field point.

No.

The signals a little further down the intersection from this area.

Yeah.

So you I mean, for right now, obviously you can ask any questions you want, but you know, the this is just an ordinance recommendation for consistency with the comprehensive plan, et cetera.

They're probably gonna have to come back once or twice more regarding that.

But um certainly you can Lisa.

Did you have a question or no?

Okay.

Um, you know, ask any questions.

Are there any other inquiries from Mr.

Brennan?

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Brennan.

Thank you.

Um let me see.

I usually do public comment at this point.

Uh oh, yeah, sorry.

See, I told you I'm gonna be a little off today.

Jonas, could you could you give the the staff report on this?

Yes.

All right.

Since we already have the introduction, uh just wanted to show here's the current aerial view.

As you can see, the site itself is currently uh a vacant lot with just grass on it.

Um may remember this from a recent subdivision, uh, the real term uh minor subdivision.

That was a UDR approval.

Um this is in red, that is kind of the the estimated boundary line right there.

Uh side road itself.

Um as you can see, much of this area is from the zoning map.

You can see much of the area is industrially zoned.

It's also right on the Johnston line.

So uh I also and uh before I move to the next slide, you can see uh there are commercial uses along Plainfield Pike, most commonly around Comstock, and then there's another C5 zone uh there by Sailor Way.

Uh there's also you can't really see it here, but there's also a bank right next to where this is a very small little lot.

See if the laser pointer right here is also being used there.

Um, and here's the Johnston zoning map for reference.

The other side of the street is uh their like general business district, so mostly commercial, some light industrial uses.

Um the yellow to the left that's not directly on this road is uh residential district, but that's um the lot we're looking at is right here versus the central districts up there.

Um future land use map also designates most of this area as um uh industrial.

You can see this is the wider comstock the while they're comstock industrial area and others, but this is a part of um applicant already talked about the ordinance and details, so I will move on from this slide.

Um move to the consistency of the surrounding area as I kind of showed with the um zoning map and the future land use map, the area zone-wise, very much uh commercial and industrial.

So we're just mixed along Plainfield Pike, most of the more intensive industrial uses are definitely much more um on the inner side of the bigger industrial area that you saw earlier, um, mostly along these roads.

So it kind of sticks to where most of the commercial is located on Plainfield Pike.

Um doesn't really like intrude too much into that industrial area.

Um so generally this having a commercial, another commercial use along Plainfield Pike, it's very much in line with much of the uses that are already there.

Uh much of the development of that's ready there.

There's other kind of uh strip commercial developments along that side, uh, especially near the the Comstock area.

Um briefly over the uh analysis of the can of the conditions.

Um for condition one, the permissible uses that we talked about.

For condition one, the permissible uses that we talked about, generally found that the list of the proposed commercial uses focuses mostly on these like smaller commercial uses, you know, that are mostly in support of staffing and operate, like mostly in support of the industrial area and the people that work there.

Um and it's not because it's not these like big grocery stores, we don't really estimate that it's going to be like any uses that are like replacing any industrial uses, more so you know, working in tandem with those uh larger industrial sites.

Um we generally suspect that also like the traffic volumes that something like this would you know compare to like a major grocery store would be much more manageable um you know, with existing or maybe even slightly modified infrastructure, like a left turn lane, as you see uh a little further down.

Um so and uh for condition two, the um dimensional regulations that we talked about, the M2 setbacks um generally find them a bit unusual for commercial uses, just because in our other uh you know, our commercial zones mostly they'll have smaller setbacks, but um, you know, having the setbacks for the M2 for this use for the site is very much in line with much of the rest of the area.

Um should also allow for some greater separation um between some of the more nuisance prone industrial uses that it will um be right between and um yeah, and then for myself condition three right, so because condition three uh Abaconoso basically mentioned it, but um yeah, yeah.

So reiterate um when it came to the for the B section B1, subsection B1, um you know, this um this regulation definitely predates everyone here in the planning department, and we weren't quite sure why a uh drive-thru use would have to be separated from the building.

Um but you know, when it comes to this specific layout, we actually thought that it is acceptable that the drive-thru use is connected um to these other commercial buildings just because it really uh helps route the traffic around the site, and um will limit uh will kind of help to limit some interactions with pedestrians that'll be going to the other businesses.

Um then for before um oh, and uh the uh layout with the double drive-through, um, it kind of helps like having like an elongated layout, it definitely helps with adding much more queuing space, so we should have much much lower likelihood that um this traffic will bleed out onto Plainfield Pike.

Um for before um sorry about that.

Um right.

So for this one, it was um you know, there was a question was brought up about like for curb openings of um this definition for B4.

We're not entirely sure if that refers to uh how you measure um sorry, the ordinance is unclear um about um how this definition of a driveway opening can be interpreted.

Um, but generally we think that this layout um can be safe and um during the master and the preliminary plan.

We also think that um if a better design needs to come, that can happen during those times as well.

Um so for the consistency of the comprehensive plan, uh generally believe that the proposal will create um you know space for new businesses in Cranston.

Um provide a slight boost to the city's employment opportunities and the economic growth, um, particularly as a site that'll provide uh auxiliary commercial uses that serve the Comstock Industrial Area.

Um so overall, our beliefs that the uh ordinance is consistent with comprehensive plan uh belows the uh goals and policies that uh we believe are uh support this um uh this application for zone change.

Um generally we believe that this you know could also uh kind of act as like a pilot project for um you know potentially allowing some commercial auxiliary uses in the uh uh in the industrial area as like some smaller supporting uses.

Um yeah, um so when it comes to ordinances, we have to make these two findings.

One A's consistency with the comprehensive plan.

Um just noted an area on the slide that says 2010 that should actually say 2024 comprehensive plan.

Um but um as of the items that I listed before, um believe that the um you know items of this before the goals and policies that were listed before are in support um a positive consideration of this ordinance.

Um and then for B.

Uh believe that the the section uh sorry general purposes of zoning as prescribed by City Code Section 17410.

Believe they've been recognized and considered and review of the proposed ordinances.

Um we generally think that they're also consistent with the general purposes of zoning.

So with that, uh we're offering uh hoping to move forward a positive recommendation for this ordinance.

Thank you, Mr.

Burgerman.

Any questions for the staff?

Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I'm curious a couple of questions.

First, do we have M2 with conditions in other sections of the city?

Um specifically oddly we have um I don't believe we have an I don't know if we have an M2, but I believe that isn't um uh Cranston Printworks, I believe it's an M1 with conditions.

Um I think the closest that we have to this, and I don't remember exactly what zone um that was, but the closest to this is a special zone that we've made for a flex commercial space.

I cannot think about off the top of my head what exact development that was for.

But I remember it is very similar where it was like we're allowing the existing uses, but we're adding very specific conditions to allow a very specific development or type of development.

Um can you um I I think I know the answer, but can you tell me uh why you chose to do M2 with conditions as opposed to rezoning it to some type of commercial use?

Um two reasons.

One of them is that if the site were at some point in the future, because it still allows the industrial uses, so if the site were to be used for industrial or is 30, 40 years down the line, you know, um, if they're ever want they would ever want to put an industrial use in it, they could um on this lot.

Um and it would also avoid a uh amendment to the future land use map.

Any other questions from Mr.

Burgerman from my colleagues seeing none?

Um this would be the appropriate time to take public comment.

Is there anyone here in the room that would like to make public comment on this application?

I see none.

Mr.

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

There is no public comment online.

Thank you, Mr.

Lima.

Okay.

Mr.

Brugman, you have provided the recommendation, just quickly so state it one more time, and then we can have uh a vote or further questions or discussion.

Um we uh recommend a positive recommendation on ordinance 122502.

Okay, thank you.

Um any questions for Mr.

Bugman?

If not, this would be an appropriate time for a motion.

Don't be shy, people who's who's making the motion.

Okay, Mrs.

Adams.

Directors and Dallas.

And what is your motion, Director Zedel?

Ms.

Chairman, I I recommend that we adopt the finding of facts and move a positive recommendation on ordinance 122502 to the city council.

All right, motion made for a positive recommendation adopting the city the staff's recommendation.

Uh is there a second to that motion?

Second seconded by Director Carrero.

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

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

I have it.

Congratulations, Mr.

Brennan.

Next up in your journey, the big house.

Thank you very much for your time.

We've thank you.

As discussed earlier, um as discussed earlier, we'd be now taking these Natic Solar application.

Uh last time we left this.

Um Mr.

Murray uh was rebutting comments made by the public.

Um before I we continue with Mr.

Murray's or rebuttal, if any at this time to the comments made by the public, I just want to make a quick statement here.

Um I understand from emails that were sent to me, they're also on the website that Mr.

Uh Doherty had an act, the attorney for the abutters had an accident and is in has surgery today, and therefore cannot be with us.

Um Mr.

Doherty asked for a continuance.

However, uh the continuance would be for approximately would be for a month, which would be to our February meeting.

Unfortunately, uh state law provides the applicant 90 days, and that time period expires um next week, I believe January 15th, if I remember correctly.

We the commission do not have the power to unilaterally exp uh suspend statutes like that.

The only person who can suspend that is the applicant.

Um I will indicate I think it's unfortunate that the applicant will not suspend.

That's my own personal view.

Um I've been involved in administrative law for many years.

And uh times I've as a professional courtesy, we do for extenuating circumstances such as a medical emergency do grant the continuance, and I've represented utilities where we've even suspended statutes where we're going to raise rates to accommodate situations.

Um and so I find it unfortunate and on top of it.

Um this case has been very contentious, and I know Mr.

Doherty is a very zealous advocate and sometimes engages in language that can be very off-putting and upsetting to people with talks about hell and fraud and stuff like that.

I would also indicate is that my understanding is we almost we had a problem with our notice in November, and that was brought to our attention by the abutters.

The abutters could have decided not to disclose that at that time.

Held on to it, and we would have had an open meeting problem later on down the road.

But I've said my piece, what I wanted to say for the record, and it's my understanding that the clients, excuse me, the applicants wish to proceed tonight, which I'm fine with.

Um, I'm prepared to do this, and I believe my colleagues are as well.

So Mr.

Murray, I'm apologize for sounding out of breath, but it's just the cold I have.

And um uh we can proceed if you have we would not do some rebuttal, and then the commissioners will ask some questions, including myself on this application.

Um excuse me, Mars.

Yes, Listen Marcelo.

Um before you get going, there were uh a couple of um uh board members who missed a few meetings uh or a meeting.

Um so I want to put on the record and ask them individually.

Sure, sorry.

Um so um uh we Miss Mancini, did you uh for the meetings that you missed, did you review either by the transcript or the um the YouTube video, the entire meetings, which you missed?

Both meetings, YouTube videos and all applicants' missions.

Okay, and uh you prepare to move forward tonight.

I am prepared.

Okay.

Uh Mrs.

Sidellas, um, same question to you.

Both meetings, and I am prepared to move.

Okay.

And uh, I believe Mr.

Coralia missed one meeting.

Both meetings and I'm able to move forward.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Murray, you have the floor if you wish to go and continue your rebuttal from uh public comment from last meeting.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh again for the record, Robert Murray representing Natick Solar LLC and Ronald Rossi, the owner of the property.

Um at the December uh meeting, Fryas, there was uh substantial opportunity for the uh of the objectors to present uh testimony and documents and subsequent to the meeting that uh further documentation was submitted.

Um you gave us an opportunity at the last meeting to uh reply to some of what was discussed that evening.

Uh that included not only myself but uh Ryan Palumbo from Natick Solar LLC.

Um my rebuttal to Mr.

Dowerty's 45 minutes was obviously shorter than that.

But um at this point, uh we're prepared to stand on the uh information we've provided thus far.

Uh, we'll be happy to answer any questions, and that's why we're here tonight.

I just want to correct not correct, but just take for the record.

Um, the only thing within our power is whether or not we would agree to extend the period for the certificate of completeness uh deadline.

And uh given the history, the lengthy documentation presentations, discussion of this application.

Um, we're at the point where we believe uh that's not necessary, and for that reason, we did not um agree to extend the uh statutory deadline for the uh action by the planning commission.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

Um let's see.

I just have some follow-up questions because as you know, Mr.

Murray, um from the public comment and then the submissions that came in.

I I do have some follow-up for the applicant.

Um who's the individual in charge of DEM?

Is that Mr.

Ravy Revy?

Sorry if I mispronounced it.

I'm sorry, they didn't hear that question.

Um is it better if I stand here?

No, I just couldn't.

You said who is the individual I just I needed to ask some questions on DEM.

Is that person here?

DEM.

Yes, DM permit.

Eric Prevy from Deputy Eric Preview, thank you.

Professional engineer is testified in this matter.

I think he you'd be the first choice to answer.

Okay.

I'm only standing here because it's easier.

Maybe you can hear me better because I'm over here, it's kind of hard maybe.

Uh Mr.

Prevy, there were some questions about DEM permit.

Your DM permit has expired, and you have resubmitted a new for a new DM permit, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Actually, real quickly, just for the record, Eric Prevy, uh P R I V E.

I'm a registered professional engineer with Freedom Engineering.

Thank you.

Um the DEM permit you have resubmitted.

How long do you think it will take before you uh would likely get approval of a DEM permit?

Probably at least a couple more months.

That's typically how long.

And typically permits are around six months by the time they actually get through.

And you will not be submitting uh for seeking final panel.

This may be a legal question.

May not you will not be seeking final plan approval until you have a DEM permit, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Uh one of the issues raised by one of the applicants, excuse me, one of the abutters, the on your DM permit was that the standard has changed, apparently, is how what was how it was characterized.

The standard has changed that now DEM strongly discourages um solar farms in forested areas.

And I'm paraphrasing as you would understand.

Um, have you had any discussion with DEM on the how your permit will be treated based on that?

How has been alleged a change of standard overview?

We have had discussions with them.

And matter of fact, uh the uh it's somewhat of a procedural matter in a way where there is no more extensions that can be granted at this time.

Um, but in the instance of understanding of what has gone on in the length of the process and and both with municipal matters and such and how long it's taken, uh recognize that uh kind of not gonna say grandfathering, but the extension of what that could be.

Uh so we do need to get a new permit because the ability to get extensions is no longer, but they recognize that uh we have been giving ongoing effort this entire time again, not just sitting on a permit and and not moving.

So uh the standard has as much as you know, DEM has a different view and stance on solar projects.

Uh this has been viewed as uh an acceptable uh resubmission.

Okay.

Okay, so if I remember the word you used, you DM from your viewpoint you believe DEM considers you grandfathered.

I wouldn't say that they recognize and understand uh that we have been ongoing with it.

So clearly not grant grandfathered is a legal term, and I'm not using that as a legal term.

I'm just I was just using with the term that you used, is what I thought.

I understood all right.

But I understand is that this we'll find out if you're gonna get DM approval, and that will be subject to final plan approval.

Sure.

Um I just address the Could you state your name?

Of course.

Uh Nick Nibel, senior legal counsel for Revit Energy and Affiliates, including Natick Solar.

I I have reviewed uh the comments made about DEM and what I would term uh the core forest legislation that was passed in 2023.

Um that legislation is explicit about grandfathering.

It provides DEM no discretion about whether a project is grandfathered or not, and the uh grandfathering line is whether uh an application was made to the municipal relevant municipality or an interconnection application was made with the relevant utility here, Rhode Island Energy, prior to April 15th, 2023.

I think um everybody in this room would agree that this project applied with this municipality prior to April 15th, 2023.

And and we also uh filed our interconnection application in 2020.

So all of the restrictions that are now in place under state law with respect to uh solar projects in core forests do not apply to uh this application.

I hope that answered the the question about DEM and core forests.

It does answer the question, and um it also I also understand even if your people disagree with your interpretation, uh you cannot get final pan approval without a DEM permit.

So DEM will make the final determination one way or another, correct?

I'm only speaking about the core forest aspect.

I 100% agree with you, and I just wanted to address that very limited point.

Understood.

Thank you very much.

Next question, um, Mr.

Reavy, I is Mr.

Prevy, is it's Mr.

Preview, right?

Okay, I'm sorry.

Um there's this question.

Um, you may be the right one, or it's Mr.

Carter or Mr.

Murray, I just don't know yet, about the size of the parcel.

Is it six excuse me, parcel size of the project is approximately 62 acres more or less, correct?

Uh 64 acres is what the entire park is.

64 acres.

And what portion of it is leased for the solar farm?

I I I on the leasing end, I'm not sure.

What I can tell you is the limited disturbance that might be important.

That's what I could tell you is uh the limited disturbance that we are using is 28.7 acres.

So that is the area within the where proposed work is within the erosion controls and and any uh disturbances and such.

Okay, so less than half of the of the correct of the of the land, I'll phrase that way, is being disturbed for the solar farm.

The map may be up there, it may not be, but um, one issue that keeps coming up is this um insufficient landscaping.

And this may be where Mr.

Carter comes in, but I think you can maybe answer it first.

Um aspect is supposed to be this development standard review issue, but it says about 15% supposed to be landscaped.

But one of the things I've seen rebutted uh by you is or by the applicant is that there's a lot of land that's being left in its natural condition, a significant percentage, it appears to me.

Um the wetlands area in this in the east south corner, south southeast corner.

About how much land is that acreage-wise.

I I don't want to give a wrong answer.

Which I don't know the exact number, and I don't want to testify incorrectly on that one.

Okay.

I'm trying to get an understanding that there's probably um between the landscaping and other land there.

There's probably nine eight.

I mean, there's at least nine acres of undisturbed land that's not going to be able to be disturbed more or less, I think.

That's correct.

Okay.

That's fine.

Um Mr.

Carter, could I ask you a few questions, please?

Yes, uh, John Carter.

I'm a registered landscape architect.

Mr.

Carter, um I was not part of the first phase of this proceeding in 2019, 2020, 2021.

So I'd like you to explain to me a little bit of the you sometimes refer to as the collaborative process, the ad hoc committee that was that was developed in the process that came into creating the landscaping plan.

So could you please explain a little bit for me right off the get-go?

What was that process?

Um, how did it work?

Okay.

Yes.

So the uh at the request of the uh commission, the applicants retained a uh registered landscape architect to do a peer review, which is a common practice.

Uh in addition to that, uh to act as a uh intermediary between an ad hoc group, uh uh made up.

I'm not gonna say I I wasn't on the ad hoc committee, but I believe there were neighbors and staff and and applicants all represented.

Um she was her her name was uh Sarah Bradford.

Uh she since passed away.

And um so her role was to uh basically, I guess represent the city's interests uh in reviewing the work that my office did.

So the way that unfolded was that uh I originally met her at the site.

Uh we walked the site, we walked the perimeter, the areas that were uh sort of the the focus of of the um need for landscaping to screen the adjacent homes.

Um I believe she interacted with the ad hoc committee.

Um I think somebody here would know that.

Um, however, we had I met her at the site several times.

We walked it, uh, we had numerous discussions.

I showed her the uh plans that we were developing.

She reviewed them, she made comments, she marked them up, uh, she made good comments.

Um, and we incorporated them.

So it was a collaborative effort between my office and her to develop what you have in front of you now.

Thank you.

Can you hear me from here?

Is this fine?

Can you hear me from here?

Yes, or is it more difficult for you?

As good as I can hear anything to stay, yes.

Um I'm just trying to understand one thing.

So it was a collaborative effort.

You worked with a person who was appointed by the city um to work on this landscaping plan.

Are you aware of any aspects of the landscaping plan that the abutters wanted changed that was rejected by the applicant?

I am not I I can say that early in the process before uh Sarah Bradford was even uh involved.

We had presented some options, talked about uh putting a solid fence.

I believe the feedback we got was from the neighbors, they did not want that.

We didn't think it was a good idea, too.

So that simply because of maintenance and so forth.

Um, but no, I I don't have any personal knowledge of that.

No.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Carter.

Um, Mr.

Murray, uh, is there someone here who can answer questions of blasting, or should I direct these questions to you?

Um, yes.

Can I just take a moment just to go back to an earlier question?

No problem.

I just want to be clear with respect to the peer review process.

Uh that was a selection made by the planning department.

Um my client paid for the services of Mrs.

Bradford, and uh whatever bill she submitted to the city was then forwarded on to us, and we paid it.

But I want to be clear that we did not hire the um we were not the decision maker to hire Miss Bradford, she was an excellent choice.

Uh and um the ad hoc committee was made up of member of the planning commission, a couple of neighbors, uh, the applicant, and uh it was a process that went on over several meetings and months, and few exceptions, I don't believe any recommendations to Miss Bradford made uh we could not find some common ground on.

So uh the end result of the landscape plan that you've you're doing here incorporates uh the valuable contribution she made through that process and the professionalism and recommendations of Mr.

Carter.

Okay, thank you.

Are you the uh on blasting?

Are you the person I should direct my questions to?

Well, I think Ryan Palumbo from uh Revity Mike That's fine.

That's fine.

Uh why don't we start with me and we'll see where we go.

Did anyone look at the pictures by Mr.

Lawrence?

Uh we've seen those pictures numerous times over the years.

They were taken during the construction of the Tennessee gas pipeline.

Has anyone who has expertise in gas pipelines insulation reviewed them on your behalf?

Um our project team is aware of it.

We've worked with Kinder Morgan, who is the uh manager of the pipeline for Tennessee Gas.

Uh we have met on site with them.

Their comments and recommendations have been incorporated in the plans.

Um while I was understand Mr.

Lawrence's passion about the Tennessee gas pipeline, when it was going in, I remember very well uh his uh community involvement in that area.

Um we believe that uh the Tennessee gas pipeline today is safe.

Uh there is construction that goes on up and down that pipeline.

There is blasting the sun much closer to the pipeline in other areas that uh is not posed a problem.

Uh we will comply with all state law with respect to the state fire marshal and all blasting laws.

The uh Mr.

Rossi has from time to time uh received permits to do blasting on his property already uh without incident.

And um in the uh letter that Mr.

Naibo sent the planning director, uh, where we agreed, we reaffirmed our agreement to all the conditions that were uh placed on the uh preliminary approval in 2021.

Um we offered to the commission a um additional condition that uh in the course of an approval of this preliminary plan, we would not object to a additional condition of no blasting within 200 feet of the gas pipeline.

Uh and we stand by that this evening.

And if um that condition is imposed, it will be honored and uh followed uh to the to the letter.

And uh we believe that uh given the experience uh and assistance of Kinder Morgan and this all the regulations placed regardless of what Mr.

Lawrence's photos depict, this project can be built safely.

Um that pose any problem with respect to the pipeline.

If I could just ask Mr.

Plumber, he wants to supplement it.

Uh just to piggyback on that comment.

Um like Mr.

Murray said, no one is going to be have a better judgment of uh you know how this operation needs to be policed than Kinder Morgan themselves.

So before we start construction, I think we've spoken about this before.

There will be a formal submission process where we show them our site plans and all other documentations that they require.

And there's no reason from our side that those pictures shouldn't be part of it.

You know, we want them the current representatives today to see what they did back then.

Um they'll take all that into their review.

And that's blasting or not.

Um any disturbance that we have within 300 feet of their uh gas line is gonna require that review.

So when that time comes, we will also make those photos part of their review and analysis.

So they so Kinder Morgan hasn't reviewed these photos yet, has not reviewed, not that I know.

Okay.

Yep.

First of all, I don't believe it's a requirement, but but you know, they very they may have, like in any project like this, there while they did not do the actual construction and they're managing it for Tennessee gas.

I'm sure they have available a history of construction techniques and methods that are used to install the pipeline, various uh depictions of the pipeline during its different phases.

Um, but first of all, when we met with Kinder Morgan on site as part of uh our submission, you know, we didn't have the benefit, we did not have the benefit of Mr.

Lawrence's uh photos.

They came much later in the process.

Mr.

Palumbo.

You would agree that within 300 feet, there's a more intensive review process with Kinder Morgan on blasting within 300 feet of the pipeline.

I would agree that uh they have a standard that any disturbance within 300 feet triggers their formal review, right?

That's all I'm aware of.

And then it's more, I would say it's different from 1,000 feet away, correct?

Uh their standard is um as I know is only 300 feet.

Okay.

I think there's a thousand, it's like they have a needs to have a notice.

That's maybe my recollection from the master plan phase, but I may be wrong.

If you were not allowed to blast within 300 feet, could you actually build a solar farm there?

Uh we could still build the solar farm.

Okay.

There would just be different mechanical means of disturbing that area.

So if we had a big outcropping of ledge, let's say 250 feet that we ran into and we couldn't blast it, what that would require is a large hammer coming out to the site and just repetitively chipping away at it.

And once you chip away those pieces, it creates you know smaller but still large rocks.

So then you hammer away those pieces, and it's uh you know, we consider it a uh a little bit more of a nuisance based on the feedback that we received on project in the state, but it is not impossible.

So it's still feasible, okay?

Mr.

Murray or Mr.

Palumbo, either one, it's more of a legal thing.

Um just on blasting.

Uh you would agree.

I'm trying to remember your conditions, and I apologize.

I can't read and do this as quickly as I used to.

Um you would not, you would obviously not do it on weekends, you'd do it during regular business hours.

Um how many hours a day are you gonna blast?

Could you limit it to let's say two hours a day.

I'm not avoiding your questions, bear with me.

That's okay.

Well, uh, you know, that's all right.

The um I I would answer that this way, Mr.

The um blasting is a specialized uh art.

I'm just gonna use a top tier blasting company for this.

Um as we stand here tonight, we don't know exactly the total amount of blasting will need to be done.

There may be an instance where we might be able if we spent four hours on one day blasting to a substantial amount if it if there were limitation of time, um considerations that have to come into place is the amount of the charge.

Um, you know, you know, I don't I don't want to say that we could not do this if there was a time limitation, but I really think those decisions should be made in the field once we get there.

Um, our interest is doing minimal blasting, uh doing it as efficiently and as quickly as possible and getting off the site with the blasting.

So um, but if you know I can't tell you that we can't live with a condition, but I I would suggest that it's probably uh at this point, my word be premature to make that determination because we don't have all that information yet.

Mr.

Palumbo?

I don't know if Mr.

Palumbo wants to I'll just supplement what he uh Mr.

Murray said.

And we'd be happy to you know abide by what that condition would be.

More when you're blasting in the middle of the day, you know, more time goes into the prep and the cleanup work than the actual blast itself.

So you may spend a couple hours in the morning prepping for it.

You may do the blast at 11 a.m., 12 a.m.

and then you're processing all the material after that.

So if there was a you know a window a little later than the start hours and a little earlier than the end hours for construction hours, we would be amenable to that.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Murray, I'm gonna go through.

Yeah, I'm so you meant to say 12 p.m.

not uh no, I understand.

Don't worry.

Just for the record.

Yeah, I'm gonna go through the December 19th, 2025 letter that uh Nick Naibo sent to the commission.

Just got a few questions on these conditions.

Could you turn your attention to condition nine?

Let me know when you're there.

Yes.

Um before I forget on the blasting, I apologize.

I'm not as I don't have it as organized in my head as I usually do.

I believe at master plan level, you indicated you would provide notice to the abutters for blasting 10 to 14 days ahead of time.

Is that still your are you still willing to abide by that as a condition?

Certainly.

I believe at master plan level you indicated that you would provide notice pursuant to state law of 500 feet from the blasting location.

That would be 500 feet, even if uh to a property, I believe, even if the structure was not within 500 feet as long as it touched the property.

Is that my recollect?

Am I recalling that correctly?

Um I would consider the property being the radius if there if there was a house at 512 feet, we would still notify the property.

Okay, that's what I was asking.

Thank you.

And you have no problem with that as a condition if if if necessary, correct?

No.

Okay.

Insurance.

Uh for you to go engage in blasting, you need insurance, correct?

I would assume so.

Well, they're required to have insurance, and um, and we uh also have insurance.

Okay.

Would you be able to provide proof of insurance and including uh or proof of how of something dealing with I'm I'm gonna get this wrong, and I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just probably getting it wrong.

Is how you have insurance.

Is your insurance covered the blaster in any way?

Or is the blaster have his own insurance that covers the blasting?

Do you see what I'm saying?

Yeah, we and we have insurance to protect ourselves from the blasting.

We don't we don't ensure the blaster.

The blaster has his own insurance for a claim that could be made uh against him.

We are gonna we will have the protection against any claim that will also be made against us.

Our first look will be to the blaster if there's a problem.

So you say is that you have you will have insurance and that your insurance will encompass blasting in some way.

Yes.

Uh do you have a problem with providing that proof as a condition?

No.

Okay, thank you.

All right, now condition nine.

Oh, Mr.

Palumbo wants to say something.

Go ahead.

I want to clarify.

Um, we're we're insured for all construction activities on the property.

So you know, we can certainly provide a COI to the extent that the commission is looking for it before we get going.

Um I've never seen a COI say specifically blasting in it, but it doesn't mean it's not covered as policy.

So if we need to do a little bit of digging to provide the commission with uh what you need, we'll certainly do so uh within reason of whatever the insurance carrier will provide to us.

Yeah, I just think it's important.

Um if we allow work, you know, uh I assume the commission, if majority of the commission allows blasting on this site, that the residents of this area have some um assurance that there is uh insurance here.

That's all.

Yeah, okay.

Totally.

Mr.

Coop, I forgot.

Did you want to say something or ask something a little earlier?

And I just was I got I I get to I was reviewing those conditions from the 2021 approval.

I was gonna give you some information from there.

But that's we're well beyond that now.

All right, and and Mike, by the way, I want to thank Commissioner Lamb here for bringing up these conditions at the last meeting.

Um, it wasn't in the staff report, and it was really helpful as a way of guiding us here.

Um condition number nine, Mr.

Murray.

Um, useful life of this project is anticipated to be 30 years, correct?

Approximately, yes, approximately.

However, annual inspections are only for three the first three years.

Why isn't it not 30 years?

Well, I think that that condition was uh reflective of um typically um the landscaping needs a period of time to take hold and stabilize.

And I'll defer to Mr.

Carter, but um uh I believe that the first three years are critically important for uh for the city and for the neighbors that we monitor the uh the landscaping.

Um as you know, in another condition, we're putting 35,000 in escrow for uh plantings if necessary at any time during the course of the uh the existence of the project.

So, and if we if we use $10,000, we have to replenish it.

So the uh I think the the feeling was at the time working with the uh peer review architect, landscape architect, that three years was a measuring stick that was appropriate.

My my concern about that, Mr.

Carter can address it was one of the things some things go wrong after three years, you know.

And I heard Mr.

Carter talk about you have to maintain this, you have to water it, you have to do things like that.

So, and I remember Commissioner Renzulli picking up on this and her questions about the importance of maintaining this, and this is a useful life is 30 years.

Why are we only doing specials for the first three years?

Mr.

Carter has something to add, but that's my concern about that.

Yeah, before he comes up, let me let me just say this.

As Mr.

Palomo said at the last meeting or the one before, um uh the Palembo family intends to retain ownership of this project.

Uh, they are in located in Walwork Rhode Island.

Um, they will be the one maintaining this on a monthly basis.

Um, they uh if we are fortunate to get to the point of uh uh coming out of the ground with this project.

Um they are absolutely sensitive to the interests of the city, the commission, the neighbors, and um they will do what's right in terms of landscaping.

Right, you know, I I feel strongly about that.

And uh as Mr.

Palumbo said, uh, you know, you're not gonna need a 1800 number for some company in Colorado to call about landscaping.

So uh they understand it to be an important aspect of this project.

Um that's why we have said we think we have a good plan, but we're gonna make final decisions on the ground once the panels are in place, and Mr.

Carter will work with the city to make certain that if there are areas that need a little uh additional landscaping, uh, we're gonna provide it.

So um it's not a hard and fast rule of the landscape plan that you see here.

That's the that's the primary basis of the the approach we're taking.

But um, so as far as the three years, I'll let Mr.

Carter talk about if he thinks that's appropriate.

Before you go, Mr.

Carter, Commissioner Lamphere, you have a question that may just help add to this.

You can all answer the both questions at the same time.

Actually, what I what I did want to do was just point out condition 14, which and which requires for the life of the project, the applicant owner shall maintain required plantings and buffers as reflected in the final plan.

My recollection from um when we first put these conditions in, and and Mr.

Carter can certainly add to this was that we did the inspections for three years because that was what we believed was an adequate amount of time for the plantings to take root and either survive, not survive, be replaced if they needed to be um and not require inspections after that, although the obligation is still on the applicant for the life of the project under condition 14 to maintain those required plantings as you know, sort of insurance for that and to ensure that it occurred, there was the language put in about the interest-bearing escrow account, which I think was my suggestion.

Um, so that there would be a fund to draw on and to ensure that it would be done if for some reason the applicant did not do it on their own.

I agree with Commissioner Lamfier's analysis of I I didn't specify cite uh section 14.

I was speaking to the to the Astro account because that's in my mind what has the funds available too for supplemental uh work if necessary.

We'll get we'll get to Mr.

Carter.

I know you're be answered on the escrow account 35,000.

That was in 2021.

Um adjusted for inflation, it's 42,000 today.

Is there a problem with going up to the inflation adjusted amount?

No.

Okay.

Mr.

Carter, could you come forward, please?

I just want to talk to you about maintenance.

Mr.

Carter, I remember your testimony last time talking about the importance of maintenance, watering, that type of nature to keep these plants.

Not only do they survive the transplant and the planning, but they continue to go.

And my concern, especially when we have storms, nor you know, these nor'easters, these hurricanes, whatever, trees fall down, whatever it is.

What would be the problem of having an annual and is it a problematic to have an annual inspection uh of these uh of these um of this landscaping?

No, the it's not.

Um, I think that uh Mrs.

Landfair did a spot on job of explaining uh uh the uh three years.

So the industry standard is typically one year, occasionally now a lot of communities are requiring two years.

Um but that is uh of a warranty, and that's a warranty that basically covers the risk of losing plants due to transplanting, right?

Um, so water uh as needed, um, proper installation of the plants, and according to the details on the plan, which provide planting soil, that type of thing.

Typically, a landscape, once it's established, uh, particularly this landscape and plant choice, uh, these are primarily native plants.

These are plants that should live all by themselves with no additional care.

Um, there's always the extreme, an insect, a disease, something that comes in.

Uh, but in that event, there is the condition 14.

So if, in fact, an insect came in and wiped out whole uh uh variety of plants and left holes in the landscape, then that would be an obligation on the owner to come back with something else that was just as effective.

Um they don't need they should they don't need uh maintenance, we don't want maintenance.

This isn't we use the word landscaping, but this is really uh we're trying to establish a vegetated buffer to provide a stamp screen between the project and the homes.

Hands off is is the best thing for that buffer, but during the establishment of the of the new plants, there may be a necessity, say invasive plants come in, invasive vines come in, and that type of thing.

We prepared and submitted a maintenance uh document that I that went forward with the plans and would be uh if approved, that would be part of the approved plan set and addresses all those issues.

Would uh this is probably my final question on this.

I understand the importance of the first three years to make sure the transplant works and they are growing.

Do things arise after have you seen things arise after three years where the buffer has a problem has occurred, it's decayed, it's died, and an annual maintenance would have caught it.

I don't think an annual inspection is unreasonable.

No, okay, thank you.

Um Mr.

Murray, I got one more question for you, and then I'll turn it over to my colleagues.

I think it's one more question.

Condition 21 is about final plan application shall be brought before the plan commission as an informational meeting item.

Could you elaborate on what you how you envision that to work?

And would public comment be allowed at that.

The um I believe that let me address that two ways.

First, there was some confusion in remarks made among the uh the meetings that talked about the final plan approval through the development plan review process.

Um, what that committee does is they approve a preliminary plan.

In the development plan review committee, uh their position was if the plan stays basically as we've reviewed it, you do not need to come back to the development plan review committee for final approval.

It can be handled administratively.

That was one, and there was some confusion about that language.

That's in the ordinance, and that's what the development plan committee typically does.

Um projects, they uh they defer to the staff that they have the experience and knowledge and understanding of what the committee was concerned about, where the conditions met, they can go ahead and approve the final development plan review plan, and we will have to submit that.

This condition talks about the last stage of the land development process, and like we did earlier.

So the uh it was obviously prior to Jonas and Beth uh joining the staff.

We submitted the final plan submission.

It was reviewed by the staff.

I think uh Josh Barry was the uh the uh principal planner at the time who reviewed it.

Before he stamped it approved, he brought it to the commission for their review, not because the statute allowed it, not for their approval.

He was he he felt it was in accord of the preliminary plan approval, he was prepared to give final plan approval, so it was brought to the commission.

So when we look at that condition here, that's what would be um contemplated, and I believe your question was that would be a docketed item on an agenda, uh, and you know, as is your practice.

Um whether or not um you were presiding that it would be an informational meeting, and I expect public comment would be allowed.

So uh that that's what uh it was it's just the procedural uh step of the commission actually voting to approve the final plan.

What we did the last time was the staff reviewed it, they were prepared to approve it, but came to the commission and said this is what we have, and this is what we're gonna approve.

Thank you.

I was I read one of the public comments was about that there would not be public input at the final plan approval stage, and I wanted to it appears that you're okay with permitting public comment at that stage.

Yeah, correct.

I mean, it wouldn't be the applicant's choice.

So under the law, we'd have to allow it.

I just don't know if he's gonna object or something, you know what I mean?

That's all it is.

It's still one matter if he objected.

It would be up to it would be up to the commission.

All right, okay, thank you, Solicitor Marcella.

But to answer your question, we would not object.

Thank you.

Um I think that's all my questions for you, Mr.

Murray and the applicant.

Uh, do my colleagues have questions from Mr.

Murray and and the applicant at this time.

Please raise your hand or indicate to me.

Okay, I can't I can't read your I have to thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Just a couple with regard to the blasting.

What distances to the pipeline does the current plan contemplate for blasting?

You said you wouldn't you agreed not within 200, but what does the plan contemplate?

Well, there are areas within the 200 feet that we will not be able to blast if that conditions are imposed.

Um there are some you know outcroppings that uh put forward in 200 feet.

We will use mechanical means if necessary everything that we're talking about for last more often than not, it's subsurface conditions.

So you'll see a couple of outlines of uh ledge cropping out of the ground, so you'll have some idea of some challenge areas if you walk the site, but other than that, we need to do things like dig trenches.

Um there's some grade changes on the site, so to pin down the exact areas of where blasting will occur isn't something that you would actually be able to do today.

We have a general general idea.

And what would be the well, you may not be able to answer this either, but if you can, um, what would be the closest that blasting would occur to um abutting properties?

I think the closest visual uh abutting properties or the pipeline specifically.

I'm sorry.

A budding properties.

I could probably get through that answer pretty quickly if I could just run.

Uh is on the north side, there might be some areas within 100 to 75 feet from the uh property line that there may be some blasting.

Can you tell me how many abutting properties that would would be if you know?

I'm not sure I understand how to answer that question, Mr.

Uh, how many abutting properties are in the general vicinity?

So if you look at the the area that I'm referring to would probably be in the northeast side of the development.

So uh yeah, so if you're in down there, maybe whatever a hundred feet would be.

So there's uh two or three properties I'd say surrounding that corner.

Um I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Yes.

Um, I have hi.

My question is with the blasting comes with do we know we don't know what's gonna happen if got something happens to one of the houses because it's close enough if a window breaks or where would be reparations be happening for the abutters properties of any injuries to the property damage if anything happens.

Yeah, and how can they prove that to Kinder Morgan?

Of course.

Uh are you so when you say Kinder Morgan, obviously you're referring to the pipeline, but I understand your question.

Blasting in general around uh surrounding properties.

So uh we've been doing this for a decade.

We blast it a lot closer than 100 feet.

Um we've never had an experience gone wrong, but if something did, um, the conversations that we're having earlier in regards to insurance, that would probably be the first means and method.

Um an investigation would obviously be done.

Um, but there will always be insurance data to cover that.

Um it wasn't too long ago that we were blasting on a property in West Greenwich that had a residential well, maybe 15 feet to the east and a house foundation 15 feet to the west.

We blast it right in the middle of that.

Um, again, with uh professional blasting company that does this all the time uh with no issues.

So I just I say that just to provide perspective for those that don't have experience with blasting, and you know, you can hear 100 feet and say, you know, wow, that sounds pretty close relative to the property that we're looking at, but um I just want to provide that perspective.

Well, I was re-watching the YouTube um video of the last meeting on the ninth, someone testified that we wouldn't put blast within a hundred feet of the pipeline.

That's like putting salutes in the ground because you wouldn't get enough proper method to remove the material.

So you're saying you do this within a hundred feet of other properties, and it's fine.

I mean this is a ledge you're saying that this is what we're doing.

Yeah, that that comment was specifically related to the pipeline.

So Kinder Morgan has very specific rules and guidelines and uh a pipeline is just I believe treated.

Um they have their own standards.

I couldn't tell you exactly what they are, but yes, that's exactly right.

So in that instance, you know, imagine if you wanted to get two feet away from that pipeline and start blasting, you know.

If you maybe you've ever bought those kids, those little uh explosive rocks they throw at the ground, they splash.

That would probably be what would be approved when you get that close.

So the comment of it's not worth it pursuing something like that, it's kind of like that's kind of what we were getting.

Just to follow up on the blasting, Mr.

Um Colombo.

Before you blast that affects abutting properties, do you do some sort of like pre-blasting survey?

You go to the area and you look at the well or you look at the the home.

Uh there is a process that the state fire marshal gets involved in for review.

That's right.

Okay.

And I believe all of that is taken to an account.

Okay.

That's what I just wanted to just make.

I just wanted to know if it was already required, and you're saying it is.

Okay.

I'm not, I couldn't tell you what the state fire marshals guidelines are, but uh they're usually the reviewing body in that process.

Okay.

The extra layer, I should say.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

I think that's the questions we have for you.

Thank you.

All right, at this time, if people would like to respond.

Okay.

So what we're gonna do so people know why I was whispering, is the staff will then provide a recommendation at this point, and we will go back to the public to see if there's any comments they have and ask your public comments be tailored to what you heard tonight, um, so that we're just not repeating ourselves, as you understand.

Um commission commissioner Ronzuli.

Thank you, President.

Um, will commissioners be able to ask questions again after the public speaks if something has you know sparked our interest.

Yeah, well, um, so go ahead.

So just is um I believe Mr.

Fryas uh um we're gonna have the staff review public comment, then at some point um you you can certainly ask questions and then we'll close public comment.

You can then ask questions.

Um you can ask questions of me at any time.

You'd ask any legal procedural questions and then proceed to um a vote one way or the other.

Thank you.

Okay, is there anything else?

If not, um Mr.

Bogman, uh please provide your recommendation just before um because the the applicant also brought up in uh correspondence from December 19 uh 24 uh proposed conditions.

Um, we did review those.

We think they're all uh acceptable.

We had one suggested um change, which was um on uh uh page three, I believe, condition 11.

Um page three of the December 19 correspondence.

Um, I think this was also in the um the preliminary plan.

Um there is just one thing that we suggested a change, which was condition 11.

The very end it says prior to the issuance of the certificate of completeness.

I'm assuming what they meant is the certificate of occupancy.

Uh am I correct?

Or okay.

We were a little confused about it because the certificate of completeness is also a step in the planning process, which of course that wouldn't make sense.

Completeness of construction.

So that is that is completeness of Rhode Island terminology is correct.

So that's a completeness in the building department.

Um the the building official will issue a certificate certificate of completeness because certificate of occupancy you think more of a dwelling or a commercial building.

So we're not occupying this, so the proper terminology as suggested in condition 11 is certificate of completeness.

I understand it can be confusing with the sort of completeness in the land development regulations, uh, but at the end of the project when we're ready to uh turn on the power.

We we need to have a certificate of completeness from the building official.

Building official, okay.

Okay.

So I would leave that as that is fine, then yeah, absolutely.

It's obviously up to the commission, but I would leave it as performance.

Okay.

Given that, um staff finds this proposal generally consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and the standards for acquired findings facts set forth in Rhode Island General Law 452360.

Staff are recommended that the city plan commission adopt the findings of facts, document it in the relevant staff memo and approve the preliminary plan, submit as subject to the conditions been noted below.

Um in the staff memo, we provided specifically this one condition, which is upkeep and clearance of the private roadway connecting from the development to Phoenix Avenue shall be guaranteed for emergency vehicles to be able to exit the subject site through lot 133 on plat uh plat 22.

Um of course we wrote this before uh December 19, but we're also um we also accept the uh 24 conditions uh brought forward by the applicant as well, or find it acceptable.

Is that is that it or you gonna okay?

So um ultimately the the commission's required uh to make findings of fact, positive findings of fact based upon 452360, those findings of fact um as detailed by the planning staff or in the planning staff's memo.

Um that's probably the most obviously important thing that you that you do um besides the conditions um because you need to make positive findings on all those um required findings.

So um based upon the memo that um the staff had presented, they obviously don't have to read the memo back to you because you you've already read it.

Do you have any conditions of the um questions of the staff at this point regarding their um suggested required findings?

Um I have a quick question for the staff.

Ms.

Mr.

Burgerman in um pardon me on one of the pages of the report you indicated that this is consistent with the 2024 comprehensive plan.

My belief is that we're reviewing the comprehensive plan as of the time it existed uh the application.

Um because I know I took out land banking in the new comprehensive plan.

Let me find the page for you.

I apologize, I'm not as swift as I can.

I believe I put in both.

I think I believe I put the 2024 as a courtesy, but yes, the in the findings of fact itself.

So was that in the analysis or was that in the findings of fact?

That's the findings of fact that planning analysis page six.

If you look at the under consistency with the comprehensive plan, you say the project is also consistent.

Last sentence in that paragraph, the project's also consistent with the city's long-term land banking strategy, blah blah blah, aligning with the current goals of the 2024 plan.

That is not accurate, in my opinion, because we don't have land banking anymore in our current comprehensive plan.

And you're basically you should be referring to the comprehensive plan at the time of this application.

Um I can't see what uh you have you found it where I'm talking about.

I yeah, I'm I'm looking at it right now.

Okay.

Yeah.

Steve, just to uh direct you and and Jonas, in the in the actual findings of fact, they reference the vested comprehensive plan based upon ordinance number zero one seventeen eleven.

Yeah, I'm noticing the incongruity.

I'm I I understand in the findings of fact you have it written correctly in my view.

I just making it clear for the record here, and because I received we received public comment that was pointing out some of this stuff to me that was not correct because the 2024 comprehensive plan has nothing to do with land banking in it anymore.

Um other thing I'll just make as a comment, Mr.

Borgerman, and maybe I saw it in public comment.

I don't know if it's here, but there was a comment made by the public about consistency with the surrounding area.

Personally, I don't think it's consistent with the surrounding area.

It's just that it's allowed under the comprehensive plan at the time of 2017.

That's excuse me.

Well, the time of the application, whatever that was, I think it's 2018.

Um so that's one thing.

There was one more thing.

Hold on.

Oh assuming that the commission decides to approve this.

When we put the comprehensive language here about findings of fact, and it's maybe a question more of the solicitor about consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Is it inappropriate to say cons consistent with the judge's opinion from 2023?

It's not my opinion necessarily, it's a judge's opinion.

It actually is your opinion.

Oh, I have to I have to have that opinion now.

You you voted for it based upon the uh court order.

So okay.

Well, because I oh go ahead, Commissioner Lampier.

I I actually had the same question as to whether or not there could be some framing of language, because we were directed to approve and make those findings by the court, which we did, correct.

Um personally, I would like should I vote in favor of um the preliminary plan?

I would like a finding that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan as ordered as determined by the court and as approved pursuant to court order by the commission.

Something of that is that appropriate to put in there if that's what you if um I mean if if that's what the commission agrees upon, it it is an accurate statement.

Uh well, I shouldn't say that it's your opinion that it's an accurate statement.

So that you know factually that that's what occurred um and and um it it is up to the commission whether they choose to put language like that, certainly the result is the same, correct.

Um, it's just more or less um the reasoning as to why we are finding what we are finding.

That's that's I I don't disagree that you can't do that.

You you certainly can't do that.

Uh I shouldn't say that is if if a majority I see Mr.

Coop wanted to pop in.

Go ahead.

So if I may I would just want to be very careful that we don't create wording in a finding that could then lead to some new legal issue arising because we didn't make the findings properly.

So I would not object.

I do think it's factually accurate, but in the end, regardless of why we made those findings, and as long as we say we made those findings, if we want to say, but by the way, it was because of a court order.

I have no objection to that, as long as we're not creating some new legal issue that's gonna send this thing back on court.

I tend to agree with you, Vice Chairman Cook, Vice President Coop, because there's three findings here.

Okay.

From our view viewpoint, because that's that's kind of the way I'm saying.

So you have your three, and then there's this fourth one, which would be consistent with the judge's opinion.

I wouldn't object to that as long as our our solicitor doesn't cons raise an a potential an issue of a potential legal issue.

I mean, it's not consistent with the judge's opinion, it's a consistent with the court order.

Okay, okay.

I mean, I'm I'm sorry, I'm not like I'm not top of my A plus game about court order, court events.

Okay, but you I think you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

That's it's it's there are two different things.

I understand, but you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

Okay.

Uh any other questions or comments from Mr.

Burgerman before we open it up to the public.

Okay.

Um thank you, Mr.

Bergman.

At this stage.

Before we deliberate, um, I like to give the chance to the public here and at home to comment on anything they've heard tonight.

Um, so feel free to come forward.

If anybody has any further comments, and just state your name and address for the record.

Carol Swanson, 593.

Carol Swanson, 593 Natick Avenue.

I don't have any prepared comments because I was unprepared to hear some of the things that I heard tonight.

But the first thing I'd like to do is thank Commissioner Lamphier for asking our question about blasting near the property lines because that's the first I've heard confirmation that we're gonna have blasting so close to our property line, and it upsets me.

We have a barn right on the property line, which I mentioned in my comments in the previous meeting that I'm very concerned about.

We have a well about 150 feet away from the property line that I'm also very concerned about, and I'd like to know more about the fire marshal's inspection process, pre-inspection process, so that we we the abutters can be involved in that.

I don't want just somebody to come out and say, Oh, look, everything's great, and then you can blast.

And we have no we have no recourse at that point.

Insurance concerns me.

Insurance is a process, it is an argument.

It is sometimes we have to go and defend ourselves if there's problems.

I don't want to have to deal with this.

My second question is I'd like um, I just want people to be aware.

Thank you, President Frias, for mentioning the specific hours of the blasting.

I work from home full time, and I'm concerned about being able to continue to work during this whole process.

So I'd like to thank you for asking that question as well.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you for listening.

Next.

Hi, my name is Dan Zebon, 591 Natick Avenue.

Happy New Year to everyone.

Again, I've been involved with this process since uh day one.

In fact, Mr.

Rossi installed my septic system at my house that is six feet from the blasting that they're talking about.

It's right over the line.

There's just been a lot, you know, since the first interaction with Mr.

Murray, there's just been a lot of non-truth, like it's just statements, and I just don't feel like they're being validated.

You know, last week or the last session, he was talking about the additional property that Mr.

Rossi's looking to build.

And went on some home story about some uh war veteran, Navy SEAL and his grandchildren.

There's no Navy SEAL.

There's grandchild and his executive daughter, who's on a highfalutin job out in San Diego, already has a house in Warwick.

So this whole story that's being created to, I don't know, appeal to everyone's heart about a Navy SEAL veteran that's injured.

The guy's a crossfit Olympic, a crossfit trainer that competes globally.

This story that was painted like he's some injured war veteran, Navy SEAL, which imagine if you are a Navy SEAL, and he's calling this guy a Navy SEAL who's not even a Navy SEAL.

Further public comment.

Good evening.

Uh Douglas Doe 84 River Farms Drive, West Warwick.

Um here tonight for the last destructive gasp, a failed policy.

It was implemented 10 years ago.

Since that has been repealed by the city council by about the eight to zero.

For reasons should be obvious to everyone in the room.

Not that it matters to the applicant, which clearly doesn't.

I experienced it, so I'll tell you what it's like.

We came home from work one day upon a notice on our back door from the blasting company.

And now said they're gonna start blasting in a week.

That's the first notice we ever heard from anyone.

So I called him up and said, What are you doing?

They said, Well, we're blasting up this site.

You let me know when you're gonna be doing it.

They sure they send me an email every day before the first blast.

People asked it seven times over several weeks, and we had a quarry operation in our neighborhood for about three and a half months, four months.

And the last trunk left the site, and there were hundreds of them.

The applicant never said a word to us about before, during, or after.

They knew they were gonna be blasting, and they didn't tell us.

They kept it a secret.

That's what they thought about us.

I have to say the panic commission staff at the time knew as well.

They didn't tell us either.

And no one's ever explained why that happened.

They don't explain it because they don't have to.

No one's gonna require them.

That's how they get away with stuff.

They just do it.

I read the staff report about topsoil.

That's a fairy tale.

There is no topsoil left after they're done, ripping out trees, blowing up ledge, and grinding it all up.

There was no topsoil anywhere on the liquid app site, which is dirt, rocks, and chewed up three degrees.

That's it.

I'm hate, I'm glad to hear that the end has changed their tune on these projects of wetland in the woods.

Because they know from experience, especially from Lipett, these projects have devastating impacts on wetlands.

The two wetlands on next to this site in Lippet were devastated.

Trees are all dead.

They're all completely flooded out because the wetlands became ponds, Spanish ponds.

The wetlands became putrid orange from iron bacteria.

I mean, what's gonna happen when uh Drake Patten's wetlands become putrid orange?

The same thing I gonna say to her.

There's nothing anybody can do about it.

It takes years for it to wash out, but it happened to us, and it may probably all happen to her.

My understanding is they put out portable seismic seismographs to record the tensity of the blast.

I would ask you to question where those are gonna be placed on this site, they're gonna be kept on the site, or they're gonna be kept up to put on neighboring properties.

It's important to know that stuff.

Last time I asked about the roads, the interior roads on the sites.

There are no roads within these two solar fields.

How is anybody gonna access them?

Emergency vehicles, supply trucks, repair trucks.

And these when they do repair, it's just not two guys in a pickup.

It's usually a big container truck, a flatbed trailer bringing in one of those long, long lifts to lift the stuff off the truck.

This is very heavy material.

And solar panels fail, inverters fail, and constant upkeep.

Just a couple of guys in a truck a couple times a year.

Another fairy tale.

And tonight they refuse to spend the meeting.

So Mr.

Doherty could be here next month to represent his clients.

That tells you what they're thinking, Mr.

Doherty, but the clients need to be represented by him.

I mean, I'm sure they think they're gonna get a victory tonight, which is why they said no.

All they're gonna do is another another two weeks, another month.

That's all it would have taken.

Mr.

Dory to be here to represent his clients.

And they said no, that's what they think.

You know, I know how they treated us.

I've seen how they treated Mr.

Doherty's very humane request.

That's how they're gonna treat the abutters.

Once you say yes, they're not gonna change the response.

You know, Mary Langelo said, you know, when people show you who they are or what they are, believe them the first time.

Why believe them the first time?

I hope you do too.

Thank you.

Sonia Michelbor, pleasure to see you all again.

Um the topic tonight was uh blasting.

Thank you for bringing that up.

During that conversation, um, you asked if blasting would be limited to hours per day.

And an answer was um obtained.

And also, if you didn't blast, what process you would use?

And the process that he was hammering with that correct, it was I live at the crow flies two miles away from the lipid site.

I cannot make a sound loud enough in here for you to understand what means.

Two miles on my deck in the summer.

Two miles.

All of you o'clock two miles away from your house.

And then go out in your yard.

And you listen to that.

But obviously, no restricted amount of time because no one asked how long you were going to restrict that time for people that work at home.

They're gonna deal with this all day.

But it is loud, it is annoying, and it's an everyday reminder of how the city failed their constituents and letting this happen.

So please take into account your responsibility to the citizens, to your constituents.

Thank you.

Rachel Clark, Woodcrest Court.

Um thank you for allowing me to speak.

I'll be brief, but I just I just want to address.

We know this facility doesn't belong here because the city reversed its own decision to allow solar and A8.

We know that.

In fact, DEM has changed its position on solar and forested areas, but we're still pushing this through.

I can't imagine the money they're making.

I can't, because we know it doesn't belong here.

Everyone's reversed their decisions on this.

Who do we call when it starts flooding?

I and and I want to address this because I was home the last time the industrial size hydraulic jackhammer came next to my house and started at 7 a.m.

and didn't stop till five, six o'clock at night.

I can't tell I as she said, you can't make a noise loud enough.

So that's not what it sounds like.

It was my numbing.

It's it's not fair.

We've been through so much, and we put up a good fight, and we told you we don't want this here.

Mr.

Rossi has to go through a process, and I understand the judge ruled, but the judge doesn't live in our neighborhood.

The judge doesn't see the ice on those streets, the judge doesn't see the overturned cars that flip because of the icy roads.

You don't know what's gonna happen when they take out those 46 telephone polls.

You have a chance to not let this happen.

Please do the right thing.

Think of our little children that play in this neighborhood.

This is going to devastate me, Dick.

Hi, my name's Christie Moretti.

I live at 595 Natick Avenue.

Um, I just want to thank you again for the opportunity to speak to all of you once again.

Um if you look in this room, we've all been showing up since 2019, since this whole process started.

This is how much this neighborhood means to all of the community and all of us that live there.

This is why we've been fighting so hard against this solar project.

It does not belong in the rural area of Western Cranston.

I bought my house in February of 2018, not knowing that there was even a proposal for a solar farm.

The reason we bought our house where it is is because it's rural, it's in the woods, it's quiet, and we have a good life there and we like it.

We've actually discussed selling our house because of what's happening, and we don't want to do that.

Um, I have concerns about not only blasting, but you know, any sort of machinery and hammering that creates a vibration all day long.

I worry about my foundation, I worry about my wealth, I worry about my septic, and I don't have those items on my property are not as close to the project as some of my neighbors, but I still worry about it.

Who's going to take care of my house when something happens because of this construction?

We have to cut trees down.

We have to, you know, blast ledge.

My septic actually, when it was installed, and it was probably a year prior to us buying our house, had to be moved on our property because there was too much ledge for them to put it where they originally wanted to.

So that you know, might give you a little example of what's up in this neighborhood.

The road is very narrow, it's literally two cars wide if you're lucky.

It's very windy, it's very wooded, it's overgrown.

The city has to come out and trim back all of the vegetation.

There's um there's rock walls.

Like I don't know where they're gonna install these giant telephone poles to transfer the electricity since it's coming out on Natick Avenue.

And if you don't live in our neighborhood, I suggest that you take a ride through.

You see what we're talking about, about you know, weather conditions, puddles, ice.

It's it literally it all happens and it happens to us.

We choose to live where we live.

We did not choose to put up with a solar farm just because someone thinks or says that they can do it because it's their property.

And I'm imploring all of you to please do the right thing for those of us that live there and do don't allow this project to move forward.

Our quality of life is far more important than a solar farm.

Thank you.

My name is Jan Ragno.

I live at 1439 Hope Road.

Thank you for allowing us to speak this evening.

I'm gonna repeat what I said the last time because I still feel the same way.

First of all, three things.

One I was really let down by the city when they allowed the solar installation.

It's not a farm, the solar installation on Hope Road.

I drive by it every day, several times a day, and it's an abomination.

And I firmly believe that the city and this commission has come a long way in planning and limiting what can be put up and what this will look like.

And I appreciate that so much.

I it's too late for that one, but I I do appreciate that.

Um another thing that I brought up the last time was this, I guess.

At no time have we discussed what that does to foundations, to wells, to property.

It just don't worry if we don't, you know, if we're not gonna blast, we'll just do this.

But okay, what are the effects of that?

Never have have heard that discussed.

And the the third thing that concerns me the most that I brought up the last time is this.

We're gonna do this.

There are no commitments.

No, it's just suits saying, don't you worry about it, we'll do the right thing.

Not but my experience.

And I would want much more of a commitment.

Don't tell me it's a hundred feet, 200 feet, 300 feet for blasting, which is it.

But I've heard all three numbers.

Somebody said 500.

I don't know where that came from.

But one, two, three hundred feet.

So what is it?

So, wait, where is the point where we have commitments that that they say, you know what?

We're gonna do this and this and this, and we're never gonna do this, this, and this.

Instead, I hear, well, you know, in the next plan, and it might come up, and maybe this will happen, and maybe that will happen.

I don't want to hear that.

I ended up with a hope road disaster because of that.

I want to hear commitments.

I want to hear actual plans.

Step forward.

I mean, we all know it's it's about money.

I mean, Ronald Rossi told me several years ago, do you know?

I don't know why you're so upset about the land.

You know, it's money.

My kids have already used it, so I don't need it anymore.

And it's it's money, it's gonna make me a lot of money.

That's not inspiring.

And when I see the money that is invested in every single meeting and every single part of this, and then I look at this side of the room with the faces and the emotion and and the caring and giving up of their time for no money.

I think I don't know.

Uh I hope that you make the same decision that you made before, and protect what we have because once it's gone, it's gone.

You all know that, and I appreciate so much everything that you do.

Thank you.

Excuse me, my name is Robert Sansone.

Um, I'm not a butter, but uh I'm at 145 Main Street.

Um some of you may recognize me from uh previous visits during the Fiscavilian um comedies.

Um I have only been showing up for this is my second meeting regarding this, and so I don't want to repeat other things.

I'm just gonna mention the things that were uh brought up today.

Um and mentioned in the last meeting.

Uh to me, the drawings of the landscape architect with them being shot from ground level are intriguing to me.

Um, because everyone who has I'm sure we could do a research and I guarantee that they're more than uh single story houses on all of those, but those aren't shown on the plans.

Um, and for the houses that are in second level, um, how uh uh affecting that will be.

Um there was also testimony last time from some of the abutters that um you know, clearly they've been there for a very long time, and how this is affecting them.

Now, we're also receiving testimony of people who they're new, you know, it's like this is new to us.

Like I'm just moved here and now we got a solar farm.

Um, and how shocking that must be.

But for someone else who's lived here forever, um, or if I'm not wanting to use the term forever for a length of time, how much of an effort um this is going to be to affect their way of life.

Now, to me, that way of life, if we've driven up 95, you see the solar farms along 95.

We have lipid ones that are placed in um rural farm uh areas.

Um, I think we've all been blinded by them.

Um there is uh a reflective nature to them.

Um so you're up in your bedroom, and you know, you're the southern southernly facers.

So if you look at the property lines, it goes all the way around.

I know this is also repetitive, but to me, I think um it was brought up last time and just sort of brushed away.

Why weren't those drawings readdressed?

Like, why don't we figure out are those trees really going to cover that?

Are they going to as the time comes, or is that the uh tree as it the tops uh fall down?

Does that get worse?

Or um imagine if you only have seven years left in your life, and now we have a window of how long it'll take for it's gonna take 20 years for that tree to hit the the fruition of point.

Why are why are these people being forced into their last few years of their life in reflective mirrored spaces in the woods that they grew up in, in the woods that they've spent there with their children and growing up in?

I mean, I I think that's um sad that um, you know, and having read all of the um, you know, believe it or not, I've read through a lot of the Rhode Island uh specifically Cranston uh land use plans and those kind of things.

And it's uh it's sad that it's going forward to turn into this now 30 years, I'll be dead.

Um, I know I have a physical condition, I will be gone.

So these solar plans are still here.

I know that there's other people in those properties that are being affected, they'll be dead.

Um can we address that?

Um, I I remember when um Mayor Fung they were saying, well, his election period's only this long.

How does he have the right to sell land that's for 30 years?

He's nowhere to be found.

Is he at these meetings?

No, he doesn't talk about the future of solar, he doesn't come into these rooms, and that's sad.

Um, so that's something that all of you in a panel that sit here are this is your last chance to say, well, what does 30 years mean?

Why is it is it just the physical nature?

And then in that 30 years was brought up tonight.

How much are they gonna be maintaining it?

Well, so half the farm, quarter of the farm, three quarters of the farm is no longer um apparent.

That's their loss, or is it?

Is there deterioration?

Is there other things that happen?

Is it uh entryways, exits?

Um, I mean, we all have been up farm roads that are deteriorated, they're falling apart.

And is that what's gonna happen here?

Is that gonna be the future of what stands in front of uh all of these neighbors that every time they have to see like the gate falling down, the fence as it's been hit by the local hurricane, the tornado, many tornadoes, my house has been decimated.

I've had trees toppled um for many times, and I never expected that.

So what $35,000 I can tell you to replace one of my trees was estimated around 14,000.

That $35,000 replacement tree doesn't go very far.

So think of what that endowment uh, even though it raised um a cost of inflation that doesn't go very far to replace 40 foot tall trees, and that's something that really weigh in.

So um and you know, I I don't want to uh sugarcoat it.

This this sucks.

So um, and it's sad that it's it's been a game of legal battles that um is epic, and I hear both sides, and you know, then there's the third side, the court and all that, and that's sad.

And it should uh hopefully it's it's easier than that, but it's not.

So um thank you for your time and uh good luck with your decision.

Next thank you, Mr.

President, and congratulations on your re-election.

You do a great job.

Uh Richard Campano, uh citywide councilman in Cranston.

Uh I have the unique position of not only representing Mr.

Rossi, but also the many people here sitting behind me.

I'm not gonna delve into what's legal, what's not legal, what DEM jurisdiction is, whatnot, that's for you and those uh people to decide.

But um there's a saying that not in my backyard, and it's usually used to diminish someone's opinion but something goes in their backyard.

But um, it's not in any of your backyard, it's certainly not in my backyard, but it is in their backyard.

So I plead to this commission to uh do what's right by them.

If it goes through, listen to their concerns, listen to their concerns about wells, blasting, vegetation, or whatever you can do to make this more tolerable for them.

So if they have to put up with it, then it's maybe just that much easier.

That's all I got today, but thank you very much.

Dana Sroka, 580 natic av.

Dana Srooka, 580 natic av.

Um we were very upset by everything that we had heard previous to this, and now tonight we are even more upset knowing about the blasting.

Um it's just something that we never even imagined would happen in our quiet, believe it or not, even though it's a main road neighborhood.

Uh I'm thinking about the growing families near us, the children napping, the babies napping, children playing, my children sick on the couch home from school, and the noises that they're gonna hear.

Um, I'm thinking of the my brother had a solar farm put in near his house, and he now has coyotes wandering around during the daytime because they are displaced.

And I know you said stay to what was talked about tonight, but these are things that my children are extremely concerned about playing out in the yard with our pets.

Um the trees, my my son said that he was thankful for trees and all the trees surrounding our house for Thanksgiving, and no we know that so many will be taken down and our street will be widened, and that will be less play area for my children.

And I just can't even comprehend how this is going to change our lives, and something that is so unknown, like we'll have to wait and see when the blasting starts.

We'll have to wait and see once this gets put in exactly what will be happening.

But that those wait and sees are gonna be so very permanent to us and the families and the children in that surround in those surrounding neighborhoods, and the safety and everything else that'll be taken away from us on our street that we are so used to.

And the one thing I said to my daughters, I said, what do you think is the driving motion behind all of this?

If you hear what is going to be happening to our neighborhood, if you know that there are companies behind this, what do you think is the real reason for this?

Because it doesn't seem like it's for our safety.

It doesn't seem like it's really going to, there may be some benefits that they're sticking to, but when there are going to be so many unknowns for the people around and so many negative aspects that we see and are frightened for, what do you think is the driving reason for this?

And what did you say, Violet?

Money.

And that is what my daughters can see at eight years old.

They did not even give her a hint.

That is what she can see from her standpoint after discussing this and talking about this.

And so if an eight-year-old can see this and be afraid for what's in her future, and we don't want to make them afraid, everything will be okay.

You know, everything turns out okay.

We, you know, we'll stick together and we figure it out, but it's upsetting, and I'm glad they're here tonight to see this and to see the community that we have around us because you will all make it okay for each other, no matter what happens, but you have to always stand up and fight and say what you believe in and stick together as a family and friends and a community.

Thank you so much for letting us say this.

Carol Cooney, A.

E.

Velane.

I feel for you.

This is not an easy decision.

I first off like to say that I have tremendous respect for this builder, this developer.

I also have to speak from my heart.

As you can see, this is very personal for all of us.

This is not just a neighborhood.

This is a community of people that truly care for one another and appreciate where we live.

We chose to live there.

If this goes through, the landscape will forever be changed.

The homes, everything around us, even the community will change.

I understand change is necessary at times.

I completely understand that.

All I ask of all of you is to really think about this decision because it's not an easy one for any one of you.

We've been a long time in this process, and I am a believer in the process.

No matter what happens tonight, I leave here with the utmost respect for all.

Thank you.

I've been through this, and you guys have been listening, you've been listening to us for a long time.

Please, please do the right thing by the citizens and everything else.

Ron Rossi and Mr.

Murray, fraud, fraud, fraud.

Pardon me would like to say we rest, but I uh have two things that I want to say to you.

Um for the first time, I want to be a little personal.

So you've heard from people tonight in very personal ways.

That is how we experience where we live.

That's how I experience it.

I don't get to do that here because I chose to lead this group, so I have to be the one that says the things that are harder to say, but I live there too, and I stored a 45-acre conservation farm that my husband and I have worked our off to improve to make something that we could be proud of, that the city could be proud of, that our neighborhood could be proud of.

Roads are put on top of wetlands.

That doesn't mean the wetland stops.

It is personal for us.

We have livestock, we have a farm that leases from us.

What happens, the flooding, the impacts that are going to come, regardless of anything, they will come.

That will affect our livelihood.

And we're frankly exhausted by this.

You're probably familiar with the quarry on Phoenix Ave.

That is miles from our homes.

Yet when they blast every day, sometime between 11 and 1, typically, we feel it.

And it's beginning a lot worse.

And my husband and I are about to hire an engineer because our dry laid stone foundation from the 18th century is beginning to cave in because we are on the same ledge they are on.

That ledge extends across the street from us to the south, to the north, to the west, to the east.

It is all ledge.

So when people talk about concerns about blasting and this, it's because we live there and we know what it means.

And my neighbor spoke about living next door to this for a summer or more.

Well, that's next to me too.

And it wasn't just the sound, it's what we could feel.

So we are concerned about that.

And I appreciate that the applicant says we've done this work everywhere and nothing's happened.

You haven't done it in our neighborhood.

And you haven't done it on this section of pipeline.

And the question, which was put out there, I believe, by the chairman about the methods that were used in areas of construction, that there must be records.

Well, I can tell you factually, there are not, because I did that research.

Those records don't exist.

So Mr.

Lawrence's photographs are the only thing that we have.

I want to also address the DEM conversation, and now I will stop being personal.

And I'll go back to just being ahead of this group.

There was discussion tonight about the DEM permit.

There is no grandfathering, and I think we established that, although it was a bit awkward.

I also know from speaking with the person in charge of the application that although it has not yet been drafted as of a few days ago, there is a letter coming out to the applicant with a series of questions about the new application.

This is not a done deal.

And as I have pointed out, the application that was submitted is not truthful.

This is a problem.

But I do think that that is a reasonable request that we made.

What meant we could not have representation tonight.

But we were denied it.

It is a requirement of preliminary plan to have your utilities on your plan.

And they are not on the plan.

Why not?

The questions we asked last time that have been left unaddressed tonight still stand.

And you have every right to ask the applicant to come back through a denial.

And I ask you on behalf of our neighborhood to do so.

Thank you.

Hi.

Rebecca Nugent, 1936 Phoenix Avenue.

I'll apologize in advance for needing to take up the time to even speak on this matter, but I just want to address some of the comments Mr.

Zevon made about my family tonight.

And I thank him for the opportunity to rectify this all with you.

Yeah.

It saddens me that I need to even comment on the number of children I have or the sacrifices that my husband has made.

For the record, I have two children.

I know because I birthed them.

And my husband is currently an active duty Navy SEAL.

He can't be here tonight with myself and my brother because he had to return.

Sorry.

I got it.

He had to return to California to prepare for an upcoming deployment.

Mr.

Zevon was correct that prior to his military service, he was an athlete.

But I am happy to provide whatever evidence you need to corroborate the things that I'm saying.

Okay.

I'm like I said, I'm happy to provide any corroborating evidence you need to uh justify the number of children I have and my husband's jobs.

But um to also Mr.

Zivon's other comments, I currently do not own any other residences in Cranston or Warwick.

Uh we recently sold our residence in California, and I moved my young family across the country uh to live with my parents and begin the process of making Rhode Island our forever home.

Um, as my husband is nearing the end of his military service.

Um again, I'm sorry to take up the time to discuss this, and I'm saddened that I even have to comment it on it.

Um, but I just want to set the record straight in um both the you know makeup of my family and uh my husband's military service.

And there was an insinuation that in in some way that we were um not being straightforward with that.

So thank you.

Sir, sir, sir.

I let me just say this.

All that stuff is all that stuff, Mrs.

Yvonne is irrelevant.

Okay.

I so we are if you I I understand, Mrs.

Yvonne.

I understand people get passionate about this stuff.

You've had your comments, your wife had some comments, she's responding.

It's it's it's not gonna make a difference on whether under the statutes, whether or not this preliminary plan is approved.

Okay.

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

Okay, Mr.

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

I've seen the public, I see no public comment online.

Okay.

The applicant as a response to any of this stuff.

Commissioner Renzuli.

Thank you.

Um I have questions relative to the blasting restrictions, uh, the blasting notices, the time frame, how long during the day.

Um, I'm I'm a little bit concerned about, you know, um, someone who came forward and spoke about how they were noticed.

I know now, currently with the quarry, I get I signed up to get phone calls.

So they call every day, they say what time they're gonna be, you know, any time they're going to blast, they call X amount of hours in advance.

I know the number as it comes up on my phone.

They say the blasting from 9 to 12.

Well, if I was living near there, I probably wouldn't want to hear the blasting.

I do think that's an effective way to know that you're going to blast.

I don't know if that's possible for you to do, or if anyone's ever requested that before, but they're obviously doing it at the quarry.

Maybe that would be something that the neighbors would appreciate and would be better than getting something on your door and then not knowing when it's happening.

I understand that this affects the people sitting over there more than it affects me or anyone sitting over here.

Um, I also think that or like to hope that the applicant wants to be a good neighbor, do a good job, and doesn't want to go back to court or have any more problems.

I understand that we have been directed to move this forward by a court.

So while I can appreciate and I feel so badly for the people who have come forward, it's my understanding we have to do that.

So the conditions that we put on it is the best that we can do to make this happen.

If I'm incorrect, I would like someone with the legal authority to tell us if no, we don't have to do that.

This has to go forward, correct?

The the applicant has to prove you have to make five or six findings of fact based upon the evidence before you.

But obviously, you've already the board's already made findings and master plan that um it would be difficult to then say you know, three months later, I I find something different.

Okay.

So then it's my understanding that the best that we can do is to put conditions on this to make it the best possible plan for the neighborhood.

And in that, this is as someone who was a public servant as a city councilwoman now on the planning commission.

This is going forward, I would like to leave this meeting, knowing that we did our best effort to do so.

So I would like to know, and people can thumbs down at me, but I'm I'm trying to do my best.

If I can't stop this, then should we just let it go as is, or should we make it as as best as we can do?

I know that's not going to make everyone happy, but if that's you're gonna be happier than you are if it goes in just as is, if that's all that we have really the power to do, because we this is where we are in this stage.

I know that's not going not the answer you want to hear, but if that's all we can do, what should we just let it go?

Don't do the don't get extra inspections, don't ask about this blasting.

Well, I would say that um any conditions that the the commission wishes to put on the right right now at master plan, there actually are no conditions.

Any conditions that the commission wishes to place um on any approval should you should you approve it.

Um that will happen.

Um the board, after we close public comment, um the board will um then discuss um their vote and then any conditions and it it whether it's a consensus or ultimately a vote, um any commissioner can add their conditions, accept the conditions as um as drafted, and um I believe you know it'll that'll probably be a lengthy discussion amongst the board um on which conditions to put on any approval should you should you do that and um any again uh I'll call it details, time of blast in again.

Uh if you if you approve it, time of blasting um uh commissioner Lamfear mentioned something about um uh buffers from the actual property rather than uh the pipeline, things like that can all be as long as they're reasonable conditions, um, then um they can be placed on the project.

Um, and obviously, if if an applicant gets approval and they don't like one of the conditions, they have the right to appeal the conditions too.

That usually doesn't happen.

Um, but certainly um, you know, both parties would have the right to appeal.

So I would just really like to sorry to go off on a tangent.

I'd like to know more about the the blasting, like I said, the notice, how it plans to be now, and if it is possible to make the notice better for the neighbor so they're actually noticed phone call, if that's a thing that's possible you've ever done in other projects.

Sure.

Respond to the commissioner's question.

Yeah, let me um let me respond to Commissioner Riddulu this way.

First, um I don't think there's any appropriate analogy to what goes on in Tilcon Gamino's quarry to what we're talking about at Natick Solar.

Okay.

We're talking about a limited number of blasting, a limited amount of blasting.

We're not talking about uh a project that cannot sustain itself that they blast every day because they need to create the rock to make the uh the aggregate that they sell.

This is not what we're talking about for native solar.

I am not suggesting that there aren't legitimate questions about blasting.

I take you back to Mr.

Palumbo's earlier discussions when he talked about the new techniques that are now being utilized by them in terms of the installation of panels, the screw technique, where they work with the existing contours of the land, wherever possible.

The blasting is a last resort, and there are a few outcroppings that should be blasted.

What we have said was if we couldn't blast based on a distance or whatever, we would have to use some type of mechanical means.

Now I have to be honest with you, uh, you know, as I always am, but I on this issue, I use Mrs.

Clark's example around this state about the impact of mechanical means to break up ledge.

Okay.

I remember vividly her first night of testimony years ago, how the houses that were being constructed next to her on Woodcrest Drive or along Natick Avenue, how she listened for months about the hammering, okay.

I totally sympathize with that.

That inconvenience, the annoyance, the aggravation, the disruption.

Revity and Natick solar are not talking about that type of prolonged mechanical means.

If we had to use mechanical means, yes, but there is not going to be months and months and months of hammering if necessary.

That's why we argue there should be consideration to allowing us to professionally and in a controlled way do blasting because it's quicker, it can be done safely.

If anybody is familiar with blasting, when they put those big, I don't know what they're called.

I call them tires over the blast.

They, you know, they as somebody said tonight, as Ryan said tonight, the preparation for an individual blast takes longer than the actual blast.

So I want to dispel the concern that we can, I I'm absolutely convinced we can blast safely, but more importantly, we're not talking about, you know, and we and we're we're reasonable here in terms of the notice to neighbors.

This is not something that's going to be done over months, okay.

So we will do our best to cooperate and work with proper, you know, with notification, but this is not something where every day somebody at noontime is going to get a phone call that we're blasting.

But there are a few pockets here that we need to blast, get it done and move on.

So I hope that at least begins to address.

I want I want to I want to try and clean up this appearance that you know, hammering is going to be constant and annoying.

And I believe Mrs.

Clark when she said it six years ago, and I believe her tonight.

So that's not what we want.

The example that Mr.

Murray was talking about is a residential development.

What we're proposing here for solar, as opposed to a residential development, is a less intrusive use in terms of blasting and hammering.

Mr.

Rossi, well respected person in this community, both as a person and as businessman.

And he has the goal to leave this property to his kids and generate something from it.

So if this was not a solar project, you know, the alternative would be a you know, probably some sort of comp plan, residential houses going in the area.

They don't have the same tolerance as a solar project does.

We can work within 15, 20 degree slopes, minimize the grading on the property that minimizes and mitigates the amount of blasting and a rock hammering that we would have to do on the property.

Um we've constructed our revised grading plan with that exact goal in mind, minimizing the amount of work that needs to be done out there.

That said, you know, we can't see what's on the ground, all we see is the outsurface.

There will be something, whether it's mechanical or blasting.

Um, and in terms of notice, you know, we're every project that we have done, we've relied on the blasting company to provide notice, but we're more than happy to try to accommodate a creative solution.

Um, I would imagine that the list of interested abutters or members of the community would be relatively large.

Um, I'm not sure if it makes sense to, and I'm just spitballing to assign you know an interested member of the community who might want that initial interaction, and they could be, you know, reaching out to the members of their community or their group.

Um, you know, again, shooting from the hip, but my point being you know, we're open and amenable to some sort of creative notice process that uh kind of outlines what you were referring to.

Um I I appreciate that Mr.

Murray has said this is not going to take months and months, it's not going to be every day, it's not necessary to call everyone every day at noon.

But I I can't speak for the neighbors, I can only try and interpret the feelings that you know they're expressing, is that they're not convinced of this.

So when you can't say right now, this project from you know, soup to nuts is going to take four months, and we plan to only blast five days out of those four months.

You don't know that answer right now, I'm assuming.

Okay, but you have to have, I hope that you have some idea.

Oh, when will you have that answer?

Is maybe maybe the better question.

What I can tell you definitively is that if we were allowed to blast, the timeline for site disturbance would be significantly reduced.

So there's one scenario where we're blasting, there's another scenario where we're not blasting.

Blasting is the faster method.

Um, a project of this size should take three to four months from a shovel in the ground to starting to install our racking.

So that would be our best timeline right now.

And again, not all of that is hammering and or blasting.

There's a lot of other civil activities that go on on the site.

Um, but that would be our uh best estimate today.

Okay, that is that is helpful.

I I think that as you move down the line, you get closer to that and you know better, would you be able to inform people of that?

Yeah, I think we would.

Okay.

Um and similarly to this, I'll go back to the the inspections that have to do, you know, it's it's three years inspections for the the landscaping.

Um I I'm glad that someone said that you know that your your landscape expert said that you know, every year inspections is something that you could be agree to.

I don't think that I think the more that you do, and the more that you show that you're a good neighbor and you care about this area, the more that the less pushback you're gonna have from from neighbors from anyone.

So if you were keeping up with it, then yeah, they'd be happy.

But if you're doing it on your own, but there's no guarantee that you're gonna they want guarantees.

I think people want to know every year, someone's going to look, someone's checking.

I think they want to know there's going to be pre-surveys before blasting so that the property looked like this, and then after someone said it looked like this.

This is their livelihood.

This is their homes.

I know that you're trying to do a business, and so is Mr.

Rossi, and you have the right to do so based on your vested in the comprehensive plan, but they just want guarantees.

And I think that that's the best that we can do to try and ask for that stuff.

So I would I'll say this later when we have to put in the conditions, I would like to see more inspections, whether it's every year or every other year for the life of the project.

The stuff doesn't go wrong in the just in the first three years.

I think when they're talking about these other solar projects, which I don't can't say who owns each one of them, the problems happen later when everyone forgot about them because it's not spicy and in the newspaper or at the planning commission.

So that's something that I would ask for, just as you know, trying to make this as amenable as possible.

And I hope that we have portrayed that we by no means are here.

When we're not here to just shove a project down, you know, everyone's throat just because the court made uh a certain decision.

We consciously made the effort to make some of the improvements that are on this new plan with the sole purpose uh of the abutters in mind.

Now I understand the comments of lawning guarantees.

Anyone should want guarantees, but I think a lot of the mistakes of the past, and this isn't specific to solar, is that developers can come up here and they can say, I'm gonna promise you this, and I'm gonna promise you that, and I'm gonna promise you the world.

And here it is.

And it just it doesn't always go that way, especially in construction, things come up.

I rather be you know honest and up front and tell you we're gonna you know perform to the best of our abilities.

We have a great track record.

We uh we build high quality project uh projects for the sole reason that we own these projects, we're gonna maintain these projects for the next 30 years.

I don't want to make my life difficult.

I don't want to have to be in front of this board every year with an issue with something going on.

So you can be assured that I'm gonna pay close attention and make it my top priority when construction actually kicks off.

But I just you know, as developers, and we've learned over the years, we're hesitant to just promise the world um set in accurate expectations.

I I didn't mean to imply it all that I would like you to overpromise and under deliver, but there also has to be certain expectations.

And I think that if you know they do it like the inspections every year, then that means that every single year it's I know that it's under a condition that you're you're supposed to maintain this, and I know the 35,000, which may now be 42 with inflation, that's fine.

But if someone is not in my experience as a public servant, if whether it's developers or license holders or whoever don't have a timeline of follow-up, where they're expected to come back with something, sometimes they don't.

Not because it's it's not necessarily I'm not accusing anyone of it being intentional, but it's just because you move on, you get another project, and this one maybe takes a back seat to your new projects.

So for these neighbors for the city of Cranston, it's that's can't take a back seat because it's gonna be in their backyard.

So for them, it's always going to be priority number one.

For you, I wish you all the success in the world doing other projects as well, but you can't forget about this one.

So if we say that you're gonna come back every every year and check on it, then it makes me feel like you're doing a we're doing you know, our job by kind of you know, forcing you a little bit.

Like when I tell my kids they have to do their homework, they have to do it, whether I check if they did it or not.

But if they know I'm gonna check, they're definitely doing the homework.

So sorry if that's you know benign example, but that's what I'm looking for.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for my colleagues?

Commissioner Lampier, Mr.

Palombo.

I think that some of this discussion is sort of an illustration of what we've heard from many members.

Um, I had asked about the extent of the blasting, where it would be, and to the best of your ability, you answered me, but um we didn't get, and I'm may not be asking for exact, you know, meeting bound.

Here's where the blast is going to be, but this is preliminary plan stage, not master plan anymore.

So the details should be coming to us at preliminary plan, and we don't have those on where the blasting is going to be.

You you gave me a you know a fairly a more detailed answer than we had before, but still not how much how often, and the reason you gave was that we don't know yet what's under the ground, but my understanding is that from an engineering standpoint, that information is ascertainable, and so I guess what I'm asking is I understand at master plan stage, it's a concept, but at preliminary plan stage, this is where an applicant is required to present much more hard information.

So if that information has not been obtained, why can't it be before we proceed with preliminary approval?

Understood, and I may have done a poor job of wording my response first time around.

If it's possible, can we pull up the site plan before I want to try to do a better job answering your question?

So there are three main pockets on this property.

Uh where there is ledge outcrop.

Um, if the commission would entertain me just walking up there and pointing, it might be a little bit easier.

Is that and I will use my loud voice to make sure that everyone can hear me.

Is that acceptable?

Yes, okay.

Yes, thank you very much.

So those three pockets are in this vicinity over here in this vicinity over.

Okay, yes, in this vicinity over here, and then in this vicinity over here, those are three ledge croppings that we can visually see on site that we know need to be handled, whether it's through blasting means or mechanical means, I think is you know, to be determined.

Those are three ledge croppings that we can visually see on site that we know need to be handled, whether it's through blasting means or mechanical means, I think is you know, to be determined.

The other areas that we know that we are going to be excavating are areas that we need to put our trench for our conduit on site.

So you can see you have uh the solar footprint with the panels on there, might be a little easier to portray.

That'll work.

Yes, thank you very much.

So you can see the panels here on the north side and the south side, and our electrical utility infrastructure on our plants is outlined over here.

So this is where we're coming out to need a gap.

Our poles and those electrical lines are clearly depicted, and from there, everything else on the site is underground.

So all that power is generated.

It converts to into our medium voltage cable, which will start in this vicinity here, and from there on out, we're trenching because all that's underground in a couple of conduits.

That's going to be plus or minus three to four feet deep.

So that is an area of possibility that there would be uh some sort of a handling of material.

Um I I hope that provided a little bit more clarity on the possible areas.

We have other cuts and fills on the site, but I think everything else as it seems right now could be uh a net cut fill.

So I'm not uh those are the high likelihood areas.

And when you talked about the trenching, and you said this area three to four feet deep, maybe it it will be three to four feet deep.

Okay, and and you're basing that on visual observation or some other um investigation that was done.

Are you referring to the depth?

Yes.

Uh no, that's that's a standard electrical code.

When we put uh cable in the ground, there's a certain cover we need to hit.

Okay, I I think I'm I said something maybe misspoke.

Um, what I was asking was in terms of the depth of the ledge, has there been investigation done as to the depth of the ledge where you see it visually and know that you have to blast.

We have done test pits on this site, they're not as you would imagine, not on every single square inch of the property, but we'll go out there, or a team will go out there with an excavator and they'll do a couple spots to see you know what the what the overall temperature is going to be.

Uh so that has been done.

So I'm not just skewing this information with no background or rhyme or reason or shooting from the hair.

Okay.

That's nothing.

And based on that, you are concluding that those are the three areas that will need blasting.

That's correct.

But like I said, we don't do 200 test holes on every single inch of the site.

So there are areas that we did not test, so it's not a hundred percent that I don't need to handle something here or there, but based on the testing that we did, which was industry practice, a limited amount of samples.

Um, and what we can visually see, that is the best information that I think we could provide today.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate your answering that.

You're welcome.

Any other questions for the applicant from my colleagues?

I'll ask two very quick questions that came up.

Um I asked earlier about limiting the amount of hours of blasting per day to approximately two.

Uh, what is your thoughts on limiting the amount of hours hammering per day to two?

Limiting it to two hours a day.

Uh I think that would be very challenging.

Um hammering process.

If we were going that route, uh, it's going to take a lot longer.

So if you have if the commission decides that this project could only hammer two hours a day, you could potentially increase this timeline for the civil work by double.

Okay.

That would be a very, very drastic change to the timeline.

Okay.

I want to understand that.

Um, because essentially what I feel here, to be honest with you, Mr.

Palomo is like a pick of poison.

I got either pick blasting or I gotta pick hammering, is what I'm kind of left with.

So I just wanted to understand my options.

Absolutely.

Second, uh the discussion about the emergency vehicle access that was raised.

Um, do you have an emergency vehicle access road?

We have our central road throughout the site, which is more than enough to carry large equipment if we ever had to replace something.

So if you look at the plan, you'll see all of our major equipment inverters, transformers are centrally located to that main road.

There is no need for a crane or a large utility vehicle to have to traverse in between the solar panel rows or anything like that.

There's room for emergency vehicles as well.

Yes, that road is wide enough.

We take it we work with the fire departments to make sure that the roads that we're doing within the site up to their satisfaction.

Um so yes, that was your specific question.

Yes.

And I was gonna say, was this topic you've had discussions with the fire department, maybe at the development plan review that's come up.

This has been discussed.

Yeah, I wasn't there, so I just want to make sure.

Yes.

All right, thank you, Ms.

Palomo.

Any questions from Ms.

Palumbo for my colleagues.

Okay.

I think we can sit down, Mr.

Palomo if you want.

Thank you.

All right.

Unless anyone has anything else, Mr.

Ms.

Mr.

Solicitor.

Uh, if if there's nothing else, we'd you maybe do a motion uh to close close public comment and then we could take a break for I was gonna say does somebody want to somebody wants okay.

I'm gonna open up public comment, but it's going to be it has to be based on what we just talked about.

It's a follow-up question.

Okay.

Um Jessica Salter, six Vaughn.

Jessica Salter, six Vaughn Lane.

Um, this is just a request for for clarification for uh Commissioner Winzuli's question regarding the court order.

In my understanding of the judge's decision in the court order, that extended to a requirement to approve at the master plan level, correct?

But not an requirement to approve at this level.

And I I do understand there's issues with the plan being vested and and the things that have to be proven, but just and I would appreciate any clarification from this list if I'm incorrect in that.

Please identify yourself, Mr.

Doe.

Um blasting, we're basically blasting what's gonna happen when we do it.

No one's mentioned what happens after they do it.

A little bit they're caught in two rock crushers for many eight hours a day for weeks.

Require them hall away, any rock debris they blow up for processing off site.

Otherwise, it's gonna be very loud there for a long time.

It's a very annoying noise.

You can hear it 800, 900 feet away without any problem at all.

You should require them to haul away any rock debris.

Okay, not require any processing on you.

Thank you, Mr.

Doe.

I assume we're all set with public comment here.

Nobody online's raised their hand all of a sudden, Mr.

Lima.

There is no public comment online.

Okay.

And Mr.

Sl Mr.

Solicitor Marcella, your suggestion is now at this stage make a motion to pull a close public comment and take a break, correct?

Well, the the break parts, your your well, I'm kind of not feeling well.

So I was I and I think he's making faces at me, the sonographer.

Okay.

So this would be an appropriate time to close public comment.

Vice President Coop makes a motion to close Palm Comment.

Is there a second?

There is a second by Commissioner Mancini.

Any discussion on closing public comment?

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

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

I would say a 10-minute break, if that's okay for people.

Uh uh, so we'll be back in 10 minutes, which would be approximately 9.35.

We all set.

All right, we're all here reconvening the Grandson City Plan Commission meeting.

So we have closed public comment at this point.

So now it is time for the commission to deliberate this matter on the Natick Solar Preliminary Plan application.

Anyone want to get started?

Vice Chairman Coop.

I'll get started.

I'll start off by giving my interpretation of one of Commissioner Renzuli's comments.

And I'm one of eight or twelve lawyers in the room, so I'm sure others will disagree with me, but my sense is not so much that we have to approve this, but that we have to have a good reason not to.

We approve the preliminary.

I'm sorry, the master, we have to have a good reason to say no to this.

From my point of view, I think that's probably why there were statements made at the last meeting about the plan being changed as a way to give us a reason.

I don't believe it has changed.

I don't accept that.

So now I agree with Commissioner Renzuli.

We're at the position of what are the appropriate conditions.

But I'm also very aware of the emotion.

There's a lot of emotion in this room.

I actually share a lot of it.

I am one of the people who lives not as an abutter, but a good, a good drive of a golf ball away from this property.

And I've seen what's happened in our neighborhood.

I could probably count twenty-five houses that are within that distance from my house that weren't there when I moved in 20 years ago.

The runoff comes right through my yard and goes down the hill to Natick Avenue, and it's gotten worse because up the hill are two new developments that weren't there when I bought my house.

The somebody mentioned coyotes.

House slots are not a solar field.

I understand that.

That's what some people in the audience are thinking.

And I I understand that.

Somehow that's more in some ways to neighbors, that's more offensive.

But that's the ordinance that the city passed.

Right or wrong, agree with it, disagree with it.

Still get cut down, the land still gets carved up.

My backyard is full of ledge.

There's blasting to put foundations in the ground.

So I share the emotion, but I agree with Commissioner Renzuli that the best thing we can do is try to find a way to make it as palatable as possible.

Any of my other colleagues want to say something at this point before I say something.

Or vote against this for the same reasons you voted against it last time.

Ladies and gentlemen, I voted against this last time, as you all know.

Because I didn't think it was consistent with a comprehensive plan.

Industrial uses in residential rural areas do not make sense to me in general.

A judge didn't agree with you or me.

So I cannot go back to the court, reject this preliminary plan for the same reasons that I offered last time.

Because the judges already rejected those.

That's was at the city council level.

And by the way, when the judge made their decision, he wasn't saying this is what I think is right.

He's basically saying this is what the city council decided in 2015.

The city council in 2015 decided to do this.

By the way, instead of a buy right, and it failed like on a 5-4 vote.

If it had been like that, it would be a different ball game.

So I want to tell you that I listened as attentively as possible, as I do as best I can to see is there a reason coming before me that this preliminary plan could be rejected.

So I'll just elaborate on a few of the reasons presented to me.

And we have to remember one thing.

But I don't have an ordinance that says that, and I don't believe the comprehensive plan says that, and I know the state law don't say that.

So I listened to the arguments.

One was there's a residential development that's going to occur involving Mr.

Rossi, his family.

It could come.

We have approved applications where there's one the parcels being developed here, and it's not, and another part of it is then developed.

And that's basically about two acres.

It doesn't impact directly the solar farm.

So then there was the argument about how large is the parcel and the 15% landscaping.

But that was not my decision.

That's the development review committee decision.

I'm not about to tell my fellow colleagues on that body that you know I'm going to try to overturn you in some way.

But we're not DEM.

DEM final approval will come.

They get their DEM permit.

And I think it's it is bad.

But I can't, the DEM, the laws, as I understand it, is it's about not increasing the existing runoff.

No new net runoff.

It's not about eliminating the current runoff.

Again, I'm I'm an attorney, and I'm in kind of old fashioned in that I kind of I like to follow the law as with good faith.

They just do what they want.

Catch me if you can.

What I mean by believe is what I have as a personal opinion, potentially.

The issue of the of the where is the solar facility located, the address, the route.

We have a condition from the from the plan uh the applicant about the route issue.

I could go on in a different parts where I think the arguments have been addressed, and I don't see how I can reject this preliminary plan.

I can just put conditions.

I have some questions.

All sight lines not being shown, was not going to probably fly.

But I think a more robust plan could have been developed on landscaping if you had presented it to me.

At least we would have been open to it.

And secondly, on the hammering and the blasting.

Um I take those concerns very seriously, and I think we can put conditions on it, and we'll talk about that in a minute.

There will be final approval.

And I know that one of the abutters in their comments talked about we would not have input into that.

Well, you're going to have public input, possibly, if there's some other conditions you can think of that would help make this project more palatable to you.

Because all we're doing here is taking a use that I find is generally inconsistent in a rural residential area and trying to make it work.

Square peg round hall.

But that was what it is.

If I could figure out a legal way, um, I would be open to it, but it's not been presented to me, and I have not figured it out.

That's my problem.

I'm sorry this disappoint you because I know the answer you want is you know, vote no, but I have to have a legal basis.

That's where I am.

I'll be supporting it with conditions.

I'd like to, I will be supporting it with conditions.

I will vote no if the conditions are not appropriate in my mind, or go far enough.

So is there any sorry for my speech going that long?

Uh is there anyone else who has any comments to make?

Commissioner Lampier.

It's always best when I let President Frias go first because it shortens my comments.

Um, but I do agree with him.

I'm an attorney also, and I have to look in the four corners of the record for legal reasons to deny an application.

When we were here on master plan, I thought we had adequate legal grounds upon which to do that, and that was what we did.

Um process worked through the courts, and um, it was reviewed and found that we did not have an adequate basis for finding that this did not comply with the comprehensive plan as it existed at the time.

So we have to follow that.

And um I hope I was not misleading when I spoke of the court decision because that decision didn't order us to approve the preliminary plan.

However, it did tell us that we can't make a finding that what is before us is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and that is a very big piece that would uh allow us to deny.

As I look through this, I look at conditions as well.

And um, and before I before I go on to that, I I will just say it was um it went through the court, the superior court decision was made.

Um, there was an application that for cert before the Supreme Court, and the city chose not to support that application for cert.

As a member of the commission, I found that very disappointing.

We are here, we work hard, we had um a legal basis for our decision, and the city chose not to pursue that.

Um, so I think that was another decision along the way that uh brings us back to where we are today on the um conditions.

We had a number of conditions from the first preliminary plan approval that was that were worked on at least with landscaping with um the community with um commissioner Vincent at the time, and those I think are still conditions that assist to the extent possible with with all of the abutters to try to have adequate landscaping.

And those I think are still conditions that assist to the extent possible with all of the abutters to try to have adequate landscaping.

There is a provision in there that talks about assessing whether or not the buffer is adequate.

So there is opportunity with the landscape architect that will be working with Mr.

Carter on behalf of the city to ensure that what they proposed was adequate.

It even allows for additional buffering.

If there's a determination by the city's landscape architect that that buffer is not adequate.

So I think that to some extent it it addresses the issue that President Prius raised.

And one other, I realize that condition 21 currently allows for final plan review by the planning commission, but I will be offering a proposed condition where the final plan approval will be made by the planning commission upon recommendation by the administrative officer.

And I will offer that because first of all, at the time the law allowed the commission to review final plans.

That's changed under new laws that were enacted by the General Assembly.

It's taken power away from the Planning Commission as a whole.

But the law allowed for that.

And in this case, we we never exerted that authority in a case that I can remember, but this is a case that is different from any other in my, I think nine years now on the commission.

So I I say that not because I don't believe staff can review it, but because I think that this case has had such an impact on so many people over so many years, and we'll still continue to do that that we have an obligation, at least I feel, and that's why I will propose it, an obligation as a commission member to see this through.

So I will be offering that as well.

And I think that's it, but wanted to explain why I will be voting the way I will if the conditions I feel are necessary are incorporated into that decision.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Is there anyone else in the commission that'd like to make a comment at this time?

Okay.

Umless I see a commissioner say that they want to vote against it, make an argument to vote against it, then I think we should move to the conditions discussion.

Um I'll start it out just because I don't know how many conditions I have, but I'm gonna be using the December 19th, 2025 letter from Rebidi as a starting point.

So one thing I would say is that on point number two, um it talks about the applicant's efforts to remove ledge and rock and limited to hours of 9 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

prohibit on weekends.

I would also say it should be prohibited on holidays.

I'm not sure this is I'd like to hear from my colleagues if they think this goes far enough, or we need to put a little bit more restrictions on time of hours.

On point number nine, following up from earlier's discussion, I believe it should not be just the first three years, it should be 30 years to have annual inspections that would require a change in the first sentence, and in the second to last sentence, I believe, in section in section nine, and also change number 12 from four in total to, I think my maths correct, 31.

This project's gonna have a useful life of about 30 years.

And I'd rather be safe than sorry about having annual inspections to make sure that this thing is properly maintained.

Section 13, as heard earlier, I think this should be adjusted for inflation.

It may not even be enough, but I'll go to 42,000 from 35,000.

On the blasting, I really debated this.

Um whether or not to go to 300 feet.

And I'll tell you why.

I am looked at Mr.

Lawrence's pictures.

I am not a gas pipeline expert.

I'm talking the blasting is number 22.

As I said, I'm not a gas pipeline expert, but I am not convinced that that was done well.

And actually, I suspect it was not done right.

And what concerned me is that they've had these pictures for a number of years, the applicant, and they still haven't talked to Kinder Morgan about it.

These pictures, this condition.

I know we still have final plan approval, so we can come back to this.

But the reason it's 300 feet is what I was thinking about is with a gas Tennessee pipeline, when you're getting 300 feet, it's a new, it's a much more, it's a more restrictive review.

And I'm concerned about this being done properly.

And the safety is involved here.

Mr.

Lawrence, who's not here today, is an early gentleman, lives pretty close to this pipeline, as you probably all know.

I found his testimony from the first plan from the first phase and this pretty compelling.

Um my only concern is the argument that the applicants made, which is if you don't allow me to blast at 250 feet, you have to pick a poison.

You're gonna get your hammer in.

So at this point, I can live with 200 unless my colleagues think we should go to three, but I'm really concerned about that pipeline.

I'd like to hear, I'm saying this to the I don't know if I'm gonna be here by the time this comes, but next time you come before us for final plan approval, I'm gonna want to hear what Keegan Morgan has to say about this installation and about these pictures and whether or not this is safe to blast within 250 feet of it, and I want to hear that.

You can have representations with them, talk with them, represent it to me.

In regards to blasting as well, because blasting is a safety issue.

I'd like notice given to anyone within 500 feet whose properties with 500 feet of blasting, 14 days ahead of time.

I'd like proof of insurance and proof of insurance that covers blasting activities, and I believe that um there's one other thing on the blasting.

I'm sorry, I just can't remember right now.

I think that's what I have for so far.

Um I'd change like to hear from my colleagues if they have additional things or what they consider about my amendments to their conditions, and uh, I would like to say as well, unless the city solicitor tells me I'm wrong at final plan approval stage.

I believe conditions couldn't be imposed at final plan approval stage by the administrative officer at least with our involvement.

So unless Mr.

Marcel thinks I'm incorrect about that.

I is that correct.

I think we can impose conditions.

Go ahead, Mr.

Marcelo.

That well, that that's a first in my 35 years.

Um, okay.

You're asking if the administrative officer at final plan can if final plan approval comes in, correct, and we're gonna have this information meeting.

Can we put any additional conditions and then what's over here?

I'm just curious.

You don't think so?

Well, I would say this.

Um, I don't have a snap answer for you on this one.

However, I would say if if there is a change in the plan.

Okay, um, for instance, if there's a main, you know, um, if there's a major change, it would have to come back to the board for um uh for a public hearing.

If there's a minor change, right, they would have to um the administrative officer has the right to uh bring it back if they want to.

Um and I would assume uh well I I'm not gonna assume, but um it would make sense that if there is a a change in the plan and that change um necessitated a condition, um, it would be something that I certainly could defend.

Okay.

Um, but uh um when you look the to my because I was looking at the final plan statute today, yeah.

Um, it doesn't specifically allow for additional conditions, and I would think that would go into the change um category where if you're in if you have conditions on the plan now and it doesn't change, um I don't see the mechanism to allow additional conditions at the final plan.

Okay, with that said, then I would go with also a condition of because I don't want to deal with this issue, limiting blasting to two hours a day.

I'm just not gonna have these people will be blasted blasting blasting for hours.

So that's the only other condition because I'm not sure I can put that in at final plan approval.

I'd hear more information.

Blasting should not be more than two hours a day.

That's yeah, I I would suggest because um I have an application with blasting, and it's not that blasting that it's it's a window.

Okay, not that blasting could happen two hours a day.

Oh, 11 to 1, let's say correct.

That uh the win, there's a certain window.

The way I would phrase it is there's a certain window where blasting can occur, and that would be 12 to 2, you know, whatever that window is, because the blasting only takes two seconds.

Understood.

I you said see, I said I'm not in my A game today.

That's correct.

The blasting would be in a window of two hours a day of 11 to 1.

And any other okay, that's my Ms.

President.

Go ahead.

Um going back to your speculating about increasing the distance from 200 to 300 feet.

Yep.

Um I understand there's a lot of fear about blasting, and I'm not an engineer.

Um, but I would think there'd also be some danger from repeated vibrations in the ground.

I don't know if our public works commissioner, Commissioner Cray can weigh in on that, but I I would think at some point uh a blast versus constant vibration from pounding ledge, there might be a different risk to that pipeline.

Do you have any thoughts about I I'm not an expert in it, but however, significant amount of hammering to demo bridges through my career at the Department of Transportation, and it is a nuisance.

Um, I would recommend you stay away from hammering as much as possible.

The blasting, as they say, and as Mr.

Palombo had said earlier, the preparation is what takes time.

The blast is a few seconds.

They hold a plunger with the hand, they let go of a button and it blasts and it's over.

Then they clean it up, you move on to the next area.

So there's time in between, and it's very short periods of time.

The constant blasting, I think would be more of, I mean, the constant hammering would be way more of a nuisance to the neighbors and to the underground soils and profile that we would try to limit that as much as possible.

So increasing where they can or decreasing where they can blast is probably not a most prudent thing we could do.

If if the company that owns the gas line is comfortable with blasting at 100 feet from their property, then I don't know why we think we should have any more expertise to say that it should be greater than that.

And I'm not sure how much of that blasting is proposed within that distance anyway.

It didn't appear that it was very much.

It seems most of the blasting is well within the properties, and it could be at least a couple of hundred feet away from each one of the property lines, it would seem okay.

So I I think I would lean towards the 200 feet.

That's okay.

Um the um the problem I had with like director Correll mentioned the 100 feet.

The argument the comment made by the uh Natick solar representative was not, hey, you don't want to do it within 100 feet because it's not safe or the safety risk increase.

It's more of an economic viewpoint, which is not the answer I wanted.

Okay.

So at 200 feet, I can live with that because the it's a it's like I said earlier, it's a pick of poison.

I gotta pick a hammering, I gotta pick a blasting at 200 feet of 250 feet away.

Commissioner Mancini.

But then I think that we should take apart um what Mr.

Doe said about removing the rubble off site and not breaking it out there.

Okay.

I believe it's a I believe it is addressed in these conditions.

Is that is that is everyone's understanding of that as well?

That the rule go ahead, Commissioner Lemphere.

There is a provision in condition two that says the applicant shall use reasonable efforts to remove ledge or rock by mechanical means.

Only ledge that is to be reused as part of the project on site may be processed on site.

Any ledge not being utilized as stated above, shall not be processed before being removed from the site.

And then it proceeds to say processing of the ledge and rock crushing shall be limited to the hours between, I believe it says nine and five.

I was proposing ten and two uh Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on weekends.

And Commissioner Prius added holidays.

So I think that did address um Mr.

Doe's comment.

Okay.

So Commissioner Lampier, you would have a change on number two to be between sort of nine to five.

It'd be 10 to 2.

And as I said earlier, it would be weekends and holidays.

Correct.

Okay.

Oh, I'm sorry, Director Carrera.

Yeah, it's the president.

The only thing that would concern me with that is you're going to be exposing the neighbors to much longer duration of construction.

If we shorten the window when they can do that mechanical, it's almost better that you it's like taking a band-aid off.

You don't want to do it slowly.

If they get more window to work, nine to nine to five, nine to four, whatever.

That's going to be able to get them out of there much quicker and less of a nuisance than it would be is if you tried to limit them to three to four hours a day.

That becomes a real problem when it comes to progress of work and the production rates that these people need to get in order to make any money to get the blasters out there.

You you want to be able to get them in and out as quickly as possible, based on my experiences of when we've had to do that type of an operation.

Go ahead, Commissioner Lampier.

I think obviously this is uh trying to balance things.

Um, and the consideration I was looking at, but I think there's some flexibility.

We also heard from members of the public.

I'm looking at it, it said nine to five.

Um, children come home from school, maybe want to be outdoors.

So maybe there's a period of time that we could um shave off and make it maybe nine to three or nine to two.

That certainly increases the time.

And I it, you know, I'm open to suggestion by other commissioners on on what's appropriate, but but that was based on the comments that we heard.

Yeah, I I would agree with you that you know, a nine to three window is still a six-hour window to work.

You can get production from that.

You know, anything less than that, it it really would not be that productive, and it would really it's gonna prolong the amount of time that people are out there doing that work.

Okay.

Any other comments, suggestions from my colleagues?

Oh, Director Carrera.

Yeah, one other one was you mentioned notice.

Is that within 500 feet?

Are you talking a written notice or will phone call notice be acceptable?

I would say um I'd like to have it written and I'd like to and phone call.

That's the uh unless the solicitor tells me I can't.

May I suggest um a let um phone or electronic?

Because oh some um, again, in the project that I was dealing with in East Greenwich, they sent out uh emails.

Phone or electronic.

Some people don't answer their phones.

Okay.

Can we do phone and electronic?

Okay.

Phone and electronic.

Commissioner Mancini.

Oh, you oh Commissioner Renzooli.

I I would agree with that.

I think now with with AI that can make phone calls.

If this project is gonna take maybe maybe four months.

I I don't know how many, I don't think they're gonna have to make that many phone calls and AI system can do this relatively on the on the cheap now.

So it's not gonna be too much too.

I feel like over informing the people that are gonna be affected by this.

It can't hurt to let people know more.

I also think I would like to see it put in there somehow that the city itself being informed, City Hall, the mayor's office, um, constituent affairs is going to also get phone calls about this uh complaints about noise, whether it's from hammering or blasting, it's definitely gonna come through.

So if the city can be considered a constituent here, I think then they can serve their constituents better.

So I'd like to see that put in there somehow.

So a notice to um uh yeah, I would say notice to constituent affairs and the planning department.

Okay, I'm just writing things down.

I apologize.

Okay.

Um anything, Commissioner Lampier.

Um, as I said earlier on final plan approval, I believe it's um condition 21.

I have proposed language to um delete what is there and add or final plan approval, the applicant shall submit to the administrative officer all materials required by the commission when the application was given preliminary approval.

The application shall be certified in writing, complete or incomplete by the administrative officer upon recommendation by the administrative officer, the city plan commission shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the final plan within 45 days of the certificate of completeness or within a further amount of time that may be consented to by the applicant.

Solicitor Marcella, yeah, and that that mirrors if if you look at the final plan statute, those time frames manner uh mirror what um Commissioner Lamphere said.

The only true issue is the law now is it has to be administrative.

The law then was um the the planning commission or planning board um could have the option of making it administrative or having it come back to for the plan.

But um, I guess in my opinion that since uh the at the time of vesting, it allowed final plan to come back um to the planning commission.

So um I agree that this condition can be put okay.

All right, thank you, solicitor.

Any other changes, conditions?

Uh Commissioner Lampier.

Um I don't have anything prepared on this, but in listening to comments made specifically by Mr.

Doe, when we're talking about blasting, he did mention that there is the ability to have portable seismic recorders.

Um I know we were trying to consider based on comments throughout master plan, other preliminary plan proceedings, and this one to figure out some type of protection for the abutters with regard to wells and septic and foundations.

Um, I'm not sure.

And and all that would do is to measure the intensity of seismic activity so that there's a record should there be some damage to someone's property.

Um I throw it out there for for maybe some discussion by my fellow commissioners.

If if I could add to that in the blasting that I've had in the past, if you're hiring an expert, they normally will do a pre-construction, a pre-blast and a post-blast survey.

So within a certain perimeter of that property, they will go out there and they will stop at every house and they should be going in there to photograph and have a pre-blasting survey done, which is gonna be a report.

Upon completion of the work, if there's a well that dries up, if there's a septic system that fails, that should all be noted from the pre to the post, and that difference would be eligible to be notified, and that's where they would have to have the blaster come back and he would have to remedy that situation.

I mean, we have had problems where when you blast within certain areas, it's potentially it will close up a well or it breaks and fractures the vein where the water is running.

Where the wells are.

If that happens, that would be something that the pre and post construct for pre-impost blasting report should be able to pick up.

And if they're an expert and they are um experienced in the work they're doing, that's normally what the fire marshal is going to require.

So you would have that documented.

And if there was any change in conditions, it has to do with cracks in the paint, walls, foundation settling stones being fallen off of a foundation, everything and anything they usually do, photographs and a written document for pre and post.

So Commissioner.

Thank you for educating me.

And I think that would make an excellent condition.

So the condition, Commissioner Carrero, um would be that the prior to any any there would must be a pre-blasting survey and a post blasting survey of the abut of the of a properties within 500 feet.

Shall offer.

Shall offer.

In other words, there may be people don't want them to that don't want anyone in their house.

I mean, I wouldn't want anyone in my house.

So okay.

So that the applicant must shall offer to abutters within 500 feet of the blasting, a pre-blasting survey, and a post blasting survey.

Is that adequate?

Okay, thank you, solicitor.

Commissioner Renzooli.

Um, to that end, someone who does not want to take the opportunity to have someone do a pre-blasting survey.

I I think they should have to sign some sort of waiver that they they waive their right to whatever happens after, correct?

Should that be in this condition?

If you don't you don't waive your right to have a survey, who how is that who's gonna say what happened there before?

Commissioner Rinzulli, we can't make abutters waive their legal rights to sue the applicant for whatever they want to sue the applicant for.

Okay, but I just want the city not to be responsible for any of this by now.

I I'm not an attorney, so this is why I'm saying this out loud right now.

I'm just trying to make sure that this doesn't come to the claims, the claims to the city, the city claims commission, uh the committee that now we're gonna sue the city because we didn't do this.

So yeah, I want to protect the city in that way.

I I've thought about this.

I'd like if we ever gotten to I'm not gonna get into this right now.

I uh we cannot.

Well, I'm gonna I'm not gonna get into it right now, Commissioner Razuli, about what the city could do if we ever had a problem here.

I have some thoughts in my head, but I will say that we cannot require abutters to waive their rights to bring legal claims.

They're not the they're not before us.

Do you see what I'm saying?

It's only the applicant that we can impose conditions on.

See, okay.

Um anything else from anyone else about this before we I think I summarized.

I'm gonna try to summarize the conditions, the changes to the December 2020 5 letter.

I'm gonna summarize it.

And I think we have a record here of what we've been talking about, so it'll be easy to make the changes uh in this, you know, as part of our order.

Is there anything else to be added?

I have my proposed um change in writing.

So you can okay.

All right.

So is what I understand is that this would be an approval preliminary plan approval with the following condition, all the conditions submitted by the applicant on December 19th, 2025 with modifications as follows.

In section two, it would be changed from nine to five to nine to three, and the prohibition would apply not only to weekends but holidays.

On section nine, the annual inspections would occur not in the next three years, but the next 30 years, and that would require also a change to 30 inspections rather than a total of three inspections.

Um, on section 12, that would also require a change for the toll inspections, I believe, from 31 from four to 31.

On section 13, the amount would increase from 35,000 to 42,000 to be put in the escrow account for final plan application to be brought before the commission.

I can't remember your your language, Miss Uh Commissioner Lamfree.

We're just going to say the language you've put into the record on blasting.

We will keep it at 200 feet.

However, we will require that the applicant provide proof of insurance and that the insurance shall cover blasting, that the notice will be provided to abutters within 14 days by phone and by electronic notice, and that this abutters will be 500 feet from the blasting location, not just if they have a structure within 500 feet, that the notice will also be provided not only to the abutters, but to the planning department and the constituent of uh department of constituent services for the city of Cranston with the mayor.

That the notice will also be provided not only to the abutters, but to the planning department and the constituent of uh Department of Constituent Services for the City of Cranston of the Mayor.

And that blasting will be limited from a window from 11 a.m.

to 1 p.m.

And that also a butter shall be offered the opportunity to have uh within that 500 feet radius of a pre-blast survey in a post-blast survey.

I think I've captured it pretty much accurately.

If someone thinks I've forgotten something or left something off, please inform me.

Did you Commissioner Lampier?

I may have missed it, but on the blasting, did you indicate that it will be Monday through Friday prohibited on weekends and holidays?

Yes.

If it's not, let's just make it clear that it's prohibited.

It's only on Mondays and Fridays, it's not on weekends, and it's not on holidays.

And the DEM stormwater and wetlands permit must be submitted with the final plan.

Is that appropriate, Mr.

I mean?

So we will add another condition that the DEM permit shall be submitted prior to approval of final plan approval.

Is that more or less what you said, Commissioner?

Yeah.

All right.

Anything else anyone else has to add?

Commissioner Solicitor Marcella.

So I mean it at this point, we would need obviously a formal motion and a second.

I know.

So I'll just finish this before we pop our are you making a motion or you're doing a talk.

I do want to have one other comment.

When you said the DEM approval, that's giving a preconceived notion that they're going to get accepted.

Should be a DEM determination.

It's they have to get the they have to get DEM approval to get final order.

They have to.

They can't get final order.

They can't get a final plan approval DEM approval.

So failure to get approval from DEM would result in a denial that's able to construct it.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

We also I just want to say that uh we'll do a motion, but I want to say I wish I could do more.

Because if I could, I would.

Thank you.

Anyone like to make a motion based on all the changes that I've read into the record to do a preliminary plan approval with conditions as submitted by the applicant as amended by our discussion that I outlined just now.

Okay, Vice President Coop makes a motion.

Seconded by Director Carrero.

Is there any further discussion?

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

Aye.

I have it.

I apologize.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Um I just want to know who we have left in the room.

I'm going to give everyone a couple minutes to get out.

Are you in a butter?

No, I'm sorry.

Ladies and gentlemen, we we do we do have a few more items in our agenda that we need to get through tonight.

Um that completes Natic Solar.

We have someone here for 1681 Crancis Street.

And then we will take the zoning board recommendations.

I fear we will not make the 11 o'clock deadline.

Um more like 11 30 is my guess.

But it depends on what happens.

So the sonographer, you are not going to remain here for this presentation, correct?

Okay, I just want to make sure that you're all set.

All right, if everyone can pay their attention, ma'am.

State your name and address for the record, and uh you have the floor.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Julie Bartlett.

I'm an architect with ZDS architectural interiors in Providence, and I'm here representing a client for uh pre-application for preliminary presentation for 1681 Cranston Street, a mixed use development um uh proposed at that location.

Um you don't mind switching the slide, thank you.

So uh just to orient everyone, uh, this proposal involves a merging of six lots, four in the C2 zone on Cranston Street and two in the residential in a residential zone.

Um it involves a demolition of the existing building that's there and the new proposed uh proposed project.

Next slide, please.

We're very familiar with the context of the Knightsville neighborhood.

And uh, in fact, my managing principal up in the area, he's actually very passionate.

So he's looking forward to continuing to augment the existing vibrancy of that area with the new use in this in the area.

Next slide, please.

Actually, can you go to the next slide and then I'll come back to this one?

Uh just to orient everyone from the site plan.

We're proposing a new four-story structure on Cranston Street, mixed use ground floor exclusively real retail uh or commercial um with a lobby as well.

We'll have parking in the rear, uh one-way access from America Street with some angled parking spaces behind that retail up to the north, and then continuing to a two-way access off of Briggs Street with some tandem parking spaces and some and other parking spaces in the rear as well.

We're also proposing five on street parking, which is on our property, but it is parallel on the street on Brig Street.

So if you can go back to the zoning, please, thank you.

Um we have the start of a zoning summary.

We'll augment this for the official hearing.

Um, that we'll also have civil here and an attorney as well.

But the we are we will be requesting relief due to the four stories for height and for parking.

Um, it'll be about 20 feet for the height for the full four stories in this zone, and we would be we are proposing 54 spaces for a required 84.

Um the existing zoning ordinance requires two to one parking spaces for residential use and uh one to three hundred one space per 300 square feet for retail, totaling the 84 spaces.

Our proposal sort of in um introduces one space per bedroom.

So we have 30 units, 20 of which are one bedroom, 10 of which are two or three bedroom units, it providing 42 spaces for the residences, and then the balance would be for um for retail um and commercial.

So we are we would be requesting relief for that, but we feel that the because of the one bedroom ratio that we have, we feel that the parking would be appropriate for the for the location.

Skip the next slide.

Thank you.

So the ground floor, um, we're proposing currently three retail tenants, possibly a cafe, uh, some other commercial use.

We don't have any tenants lined up quite yet.

The red zone is a lobby and potentially a small amenity space, and then in the rear behind all of the commercial spaces would be back of house and utilities.

We are planning for a transformer and trash on site and a small loading space for the um for the retail spaces as well.

Um, and you'll you'll see the dedicated ADA spaces.

We do also feel that the tandem spaces would be dedicated to our two bedroom units, so that the same unit would have would be sharing that tandem space.

And then the additional four spaces for the tandem would probably be for employees for some of the retail spaces as well.

Next slide, please.

This is our typical floor, so floors two and three, proposing uh 13 units per floor, so 10 one bedrooms and three two bedrooms, uh the two bedrooms flanking the corners, north and south, where we have the extra window access.

And then on the top floor for the penthouse level, we are stepping back.

If you don't mind skipping the next slide, please.

Thank you.

We're stepping back the facade coming in um about 10 feet all around so that it the facade sort of breaks at that third floor level, creating penthouse style units, three two bedrooms, and one three bedroom, each with their own private balcony facing Cranston Street as well.

The next slide is sort of some of the inspiration we were thinking of to for the massing and scale, really trying to activate that ground floor with some retail and highlighting like sort of a darker black metal and black storefront.

Um keeping that like a cornice material at a three-story level and pulling in some wood as well.

And if you go to the next slide, is our um initial step um attempt at a rendering.

We are proposing a primarily metal panel.

If you look at the the ground floor will be storefront, metal panel, um probably some fiber cinnamon, probably a masonry at the base below all of the storefronts, a fiber cement facade of the the cream color, and then we'd have a black or gray metal panel for the vertical orientation accented with some wood at the balconies as well.

Um we have met preliminarily with the planning board, uh at least uh Eric's one from my office, met with some folks, and we're looking forward to hearing some feedback on this proposal.

Thank you.

Uh could you state your name again?

Sure, Julie Bartlett.

Hi, Miss Barlow.

Are there any questions for Ms.

Bartlett at this time or comments?

Commissioner Lampier.

I know you're here to hear our initial impressions, so I will say off the top, the parking is an issue for me.

Okay.

Um, I don't think that that appears to be adequate.

And spillover would go into residential neighborhoods.

Um, so I think that that alone is an issue.

Not sure what I think about the height yet, but um definitely parking needs to be looked at.

Okay.

Parking, can I ask follow-up to that?

Yeah, you can say what uh the residential ratio or just in general at the project level, like considering that we were planning for proposing a one-to-one bedroom to car ratio.

That's an issue.

Okay.

Okay.

Understood.

Um I'll ask you, I'll make a couple of comments and ask a question.

Is this for government subsidized housing that would qualify for the affordable housing under the state law?

No, it would be market rate.

Okay.

So I'll just play my opinion and you can listen, but you you want to get feedback.

This would exceed the density of allowed under a B and the under that B zone, and also our ordinance for the 6,000, 4,000, 4,000.

We have gone above our density in those situations significantly when there is a portable housing component to that property.

Okay, like we done Legion Bowl.

We are done elsewhere.

I from looking at this, you're looking about 30 units on less than an acre, which to me is about three times what the density is probably allowed for that area, more or less.

That's a big problem for me.

So people who know me here know that I'm not, I don't speak for the majority.

So it's not like, you know, I'm the chairman, but I'm not the dictator.

Okay.

So people just think what they want to do, but I'm a density person.

Okay.

That's number one.

Number two.

Um I'm concerned about the parking issue because you're going to have multi-use and you don't know who your commercial tenants are.

You talked about a cafe.

The people who'd be going to a cafe or restaurant at night, they may be using the parking spaces of the residents.

If that cafe is open after like, I don't know, midnight, one o'clock, whatever it is in the morning.

That's like a problem for off-street parking.

So the commercial component, that's the problem for parking for me, primarily, is having the same space used for commercial and residential when I don't know what the commercial is a big problem.

If you told me that's like, I promise you, it's gonna be a you know, we're gonna put a condition, it's gonna be a doctor's office.

That's a different ball game.

A cafe, they're open up at night.

Okay.

So that's my other feedback on that.

Um these apartments or condos?

Apartments.

Okay.

So I think you're very high density.

Um that's a problem, and the parking's a problem for me.

And like I said, if I give you, if I vote for giving you this much density, a lot of other people are going to come in and ask me for higher density too.

And at least when I do higher density, I can say I want an affordable housing component to satisfy the state requirements.

Okay, of 15%.

But if you're not going to give me more that that requirement, then I don't know why I'm gonna give you more density.

That's just my that's my policy.

That's my viewpoint.

But like I said, that's who I am.

I you'll see what happens.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions for the app for the presenter?

Yeah, Commissioner Carrero.

Uh, just a couple of things.

Yeah, obviously, you're well aware that we've recently done the improvements on Cranston Street.

Do you know if all the utilities are already on site, or are they gonna have to go into the roadway and dig up the sidewalks?

We there's not likely the exact utilities that we'll need for this development compared to what's there existing because there is a moratorium on the pavement for five years.

For five years, yeah.

Okay, and the stamped concrete is a very difficult thing to match.

So I I don't know what the proposal is there.

It looks like it would be at the back of the sidewalk if they can keep the construction within that would be something you want to kind of focus on because any disruption to that sidewalk.

Um we understand we'd have to repair it.

Not just the one here.

You would have to go between joint to joint in order to do it.

It would be much much larger, or they'd end up doing the whole sidewalk from America to Briggs.

Understand.

And then you could then you could dig it up and then you'll be able to replace it in kind.

That's all.

Sure.

You can do oh, certainly you can do public comment.

Just a couple of things.

Um, legally.

Um the owner, when I looked up the owner today, um they the LLC um was expired.

So they're gonna have to the owner should go is going to have to get back in good standing with the secretary of state in the division of taxation.

So it's that required before we come before.

Correct.

Um, you in order to be able to uh put forth an application, you need a a valid um corporation.

And I don't think to go to Kathleen's, I don't know if in my 18, 19 years, if we've ever approved a height variance in the city.

So I mean that'll be up to you guys.

That's um, Legion Bowl was a height was a height variance, so okay.

And then and the hype variance for Legion Bowl again was in an affordable housing component.

Exactly.

See what I'm saying?

Is there any other questions from Ms.

Bartlett?

Otherwise, we can take public comment.

I this is a open to public comment.

No, I'm happy.

I'm happy to hear.

I didn't know that's it's fine.

I I didn't, I was told this wasn't open to public comment, but that's totally fine.

She she can't, she's a commissioner who can't vote on this because she's in the butter.

Uh director somewhere might just come at all.

You might want to all right.

There you go.

All right, so do I have to repeat?

No.

All right, Lisa Mancini, 234, Breton Woods Drive, owner of Nicehold Properties, LLC, owner of the property at 1416 America Street, which is directly across the street.

We have parking for three cars in our driveway, and we have parking for two cars in front of our property.

And when you put two cars in front of our property, you can't park across the street.

So everyone, America Street gets very tired.

So all the properties where all the restaurants, they all park at America Street.

So this issue with the parking is really important that they're just trying to say about this.

Any other public comment?

Anyone online would like to make public comment?

There is no public comment online.

Thank you, Mr.

Lima.

Are there any further questions or inquiries or any comments further you want to make uh to Miss Bartlett or Miss Barley?

Have anything else you want to say to us?

No, thank you.

If you had been here earlier, I would have taken you before that native solar nonsense.

That was a lot of work.

I'm sorry you had to sit through all that stuff.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next on our agenda.

Um geez, it's the is a zoning board recommendations, right?

Which one's the first one?

Is it the sign or the page from front?

Okay.

So the first application we'll be hearing, we're going to zoom in board applications.

that stuff okay okay thank you thank you all right next on our agenda um geez it's the uh is a zoning board recommendations right which one's the first one is it the sign or the I don't have a pay for okay so the first application we'll be hearing we're going to zoning board applications is the 580 reservoir av application for sign variants is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on this variance request I don't see the applicant here um this is your memo feel free you have the floor and Jamie Jamie before you start did did they submit a site plan yet no okay um so this so I'm going to stop you oh you um without a site plan the application can't be complete we can't hear it at the zoning board next week without a site plan so what should you what is your recommendation we do go ahead we had heard from uh Stanley Keichel that he had waived that requirement for a site plan yeah um all right well well why why don't you move forward um I mean I'm not gonna let the zoning board hear it without a site plan so I don't think Stan can can waive that requirement um I mean it but yeah why don't why don't you move forward you guys vote on it like it's getting late and and I'll deal with it it's a zoning board all right so um this is this application is repressing relief uh to replace an existing sign with an LED sign aerial view um it's located at 580 reservoir is another street view and this is uh um rendering and sign um so the our code doesn't explicitly allow um led signs and um this also mentions that there's no site plan survey submitted and um planning department has stated previously that we have issues with um digital LED signage which can be visually overwhelming uh create clutter for drivers and it's the planning staff's view that LED signage distracts from the overall visual aesthetic of the city of Princeton so with that just uh wanted to forward a negative recommendation to the zoning board of review sorry okay uh any questions for Mr.

Ray Okay Mr.

Ray is it still the case on page five that the proposed sign appears to be in your opinion to project over the public right away uh yeah but uh you can't say for sure because what the site plan isn't in uh okay all right starting to make sense to me any other questions for Mr.

Ray took I've got I got I took some more of this I just decided I'm not gonna I'm putting this on the record anyway um go ahead Commissioner Mancini so why is this sign not good but the one at the liquor store down the street is okay that is a violation that is yeah so so let um history which I I know I'm right on this one the the planning commission and the the prior chairman um usually voted against every LED sign that has ever come because one it's a use variance and two spent Mike Smith despised um LED signs so normally the planning commission sends a negative recommendation and then the zoning board 99% of the time approves it with conditions um I know councilman banano has come forward to me and asked actually we should actually have a comprehensive ordinance that's reviewed by the city council um citywide um but with that said that's in the past that's what's happened is is you guys give a negative recommendation um planning department hates it the planning but then the zoning board um you know does what they do but then can we put conditions on this negative recommendation to indicate that someone's gonna go out there and inspect what they're putting on their LED sign because we have people driving by and there's movies going on while they're driving but no one's checking any one of these that's seven that are in the city that's enforcement correct and and we used to have a when I first started with there was actually a sign um person in the inspections department um but as far as funding goes it it having a child of 17 and having three daughters that are older and they're getting distracted by cell phones and people on the phones and bad drivers and working for a body injury attorney I just see people crashing because they're trying to read what price is something going by while they're driving by and it's not right.

Um but as far as funding goes, it it's having a child of 17 and having three daughters that are older and they're getting distracted by cell phones and people on the phones and bad drivers and working for a bodily injury attorney.

I just see people crashing because they're trying to read what price is something going by while they're driving by and it's not right.

So while I approve of the negative recommendation, they need to be conditions on it that they are inspected when it gets passed in zoning for someone to go out and inspect them to make sure they're not putting videos up.

Okay, I agree.

I know I've been hearing this for 19 years.

I don't I don't disagree with you.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh before we do motions, no problem.

Are we all done with our questions?

Okay.

Is there anyone here like to make public comment on this?

Seeing none, Mr.

Lima online.

Andy Andhar.

Councilman Andah, welcome.

You stayed up late to be with us.

Tell us what you have to say.

Mr.

President, thank you for this opportunity.

Uh Andy Endover, I'm the councilman of Ward 3, 17 Rosie Street.

Um, as you know, I am but and councilwoman Heroin of Butts Reservoir Avenue.

We are in total support of this application, as this is a business that is very community oriented, and we feel that as long as they have 30 seconds still signage, we totally support it.

So I understand there is some back and forth going on, but um, if there's any way you could get it to us and uh bypass zoning, as you know, I'm not a big fan of.

Um, we would definitely pass this as at the city council level.

So I wanna thank you all for your time and your service to this uh community as this is a very long meeting, but um uh we are in councilwoman Heroyan and I are in full support of this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Andah.

Anyone else online that would like to make comment?

There's no other public comment online.

Okay, thank you.

Um any further discussion or questions, Commissioner Vice uh Vice President Coop.

I'll say the same thing I say every time.

We say no, the zoning board says yes, and we have a mismatched patchwork of signs all over the city, and we have one business down the road who has the sign and we say no to this business.

I'm not saying I support it, but I do think there's a level of unfairness in the process that we follow.

Yes, uh, Commissioner Renzuli.

I would agree with Commissioner Coop that seems a little bit inequitable how we how we do this, but I would implore the city council to then create that ordinance and guidelines regarding this so we don't have a a patchwork and it's going back and forth between the planning commission and and the zoning board.

Just let the city council employ them to do this, and then we can have a it can be a little bit more equitable.

And I will say that I do agree with Commissioner Mancini that these needs to be stills and it can't be uh a further distraction to to drivers.

Um, but we also need the enforcement mechanism and someone going out there to enforce whatever it is they put in this ordinance that I hope the city council will do.

Otherwise, like anything else, if it's not enforced, then it then it doesn't matter.

Well, it doesn't matter if you don't enforce it.

So that's my only comment.

Thank you.

Any further comments or questions?

Commissioner Lampier.

Um, not to belabor, but it if an applicant is coming before the zoning board or before us, they can at least give us a complete application before we take the time to um evaluate it.

And sometimes we can't evaluate it if they don't provide the necessary information.

So on that basis alone, I would support a negative recommendation.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Any other questions or comments from my colleagues?

I'll finish up by uh saying I'm planning to vote negative on this.

I really don't care that much about signs one way or another.

But um, when someone looks, appears to have a sign that's in the right of way and they don't submit a site plan, uh, that suggests a negative recommendation to me.

And I agree with Commissioner Coop, which is like we need to have a fair process here where if someone's gonna be able to get a sign up, then other people can too in the particular locations.

But that's a city council decision in the end.

That's where councilman Andah comes in.

All right.

Any other comments, questions?

If not, this would be an appropriate time for motions.

Commissioner Lampier.

Except staff recommendation for a negative, right?

For a negative recommendation for the reasons we stated.

Uh is there a second, seconded by Commissioner Mancini.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor of a negative recommendation signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Commissioner Carrero is a nay on that motion.

Any other nays?

Okay.

Then it passes with that uh eight to one majority, I believe.

All right, that's uh that one.

Now we have Narragansett Boulevard.

I think Mr.

Ray, this is you as well.

And uh let the record reflect that uh Mr.

Barberi uh Commissioner Barbera, you're accusing yourself on this matter.

Okay, Commissioner Barberi is recusing himself on this matter, and I should reflect also Miss Mancini refused herself on the uh 1381 uh project.

Okay, um, is the applicant here wishes to be heard on Narragansett Boulevard not present, Mr.

Ray, make your presentation.

All right, so this is an application to construct a two-family home on a 6,042 square foot lot where 8,000 square feet are required.

All right, so um this shows uh that 8,000 is the minimum law size required in the B1 zone for a two-family dwelling.

So the relief saw is 1,958 square feet.

Um, so I did an analysis for the neighborhood and zone, which um is B1, and within this area, around half the housing is single family, or 53% um are single-family homes, and 47% are two-family and multi-family housing.

And this reflects that um there's a variety of different housing types within this neighborhood, and within this neighborhood and zone, there's a density of 7.32 units per acre.

And if this variance was approved, the density of the area would rise negligibly to 7.35 units per acre, falling well below the density standards of the future land use map designation.

So I also um conducted a 200-foot and 400-foot radius analysis alongside the other analysis that I did, and that also yielded similar results showing that the density of the area that I analyzed would still be below the density of the future land use map of the zone, which is less than 10.8 units per acre for each uh separate analysis that I did.

Um, we also found that goals, policies, and actions outlined in the comprehensive plan.

Um also supported the approval of this application.

Um, namely this project supports goals H2, H4, and policy H3 by increasing the availability of housing in a desirable neighborhood.

Its approval would really result in an increase in two-family housing in an area that has more single-family homes and historic neighborhoods in eastern Cranson were originally built with varied housing types.

With that, uh we would send a positive recommendation to the zoning board of thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Is there uh any questions for Mr.

Ray?

Lampier this one.

Wait, uh this I'm sorry.

This borders on Narragansett Boulevard in Edgewood.

I think you can see from the properties that surround this little lot that all of those properties are on much larger lots.

They have frontage for the most part, except two at the bottom, bottom right, um, on circuit drive.

I can't Selkirk, thank you.

Um this lot was recently a subdivision that was done administratively that created that smaller lot.

It's B1, it was created.

Well, I should let the planning director explain that a little bit, but the lot was created as a subdivision of that lot in front of it that has a house on it.

If you look at this just from this view, it is not at all consistent with that part of the neighborhood.

It is not only uh I I'm not arguing that it couldn't be one family because it was subdivided, it met the area requirements for B1 for a one family, but not for a two-family, which is 8,000 square feet.

A lot that size is very much not in keeping with the neighborhood character, and it was approved, although it said B1, they the subdivision had applied for a single family, but under B1, it can be either use as long as the square footage is sufficient.

So I don't know, Jamie, if you can just show a picture of the actual photos of the area.

So this is this is the um lot at the bottom.

Also, those lots are very steeply sloped because they go down to the boulevard and then the water is right.

Person is standing at the little park that's there at the edge of the water.

Um so the houses are quite large and they go that length.

You have another, or is that the only one?

Um I also have an aerial view.

This shows an outline before the lot was subdivided.

Um so you can you can see what that lot was, as he said before it was subdivided.

You can see the that particular area that is a neighborhood area quite unique in Edgewood that goes all the way down to the water.

Um, should those individuals choose to subdivide their property and meet the area requirement, then there's nothing we can do about that, and they have every right to build, but this is very much not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

And I say that as someone who has lived in that neighborhood for about 45 years and walks by that property almost every day.

So that's the basis for my conclusion.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Are there any other questions or comments for Commission for Mr.

Wright, Commissioner Mancini?

Um, the people that are building the house, are they gonna owner occupied or what it I don't know the answer to that question?

They live on Crest Drive, I don't think they're moving.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments for Mr.

Any questions for Mr.

Ray or comments?

Mr.

Ray, I'll just ask you a couple quick questions because you know I usually ask density questions.

So do you know the density?

You provide a density number of the neighborhood area, which is a very large area, but usually we also look at 200 and 400 feet radiuses.

What is the density of a 200 foot radius of that property and a 400 foot radius?

So sorry, uh can you I'm a little confused the density of the property or the density of the 200 foot?

The 200 foot radius and the 400 foot radius.

Um, for the 200 foot uh 6.1 and for the 400 foot 8.98.

Okay.

And of the property, um, 14.4.

Okay.

As proposed.

As proposed, okay.

So um I tend to agree with Commissioner Lamphier.

This proposed property is going to exceed the density of the existing neighborhood, exceed the density under the future land use map.

And I also sense a little bit, no, phrase this way, I don't mean to insult people, but when somebody gets an approval for a uh subdivision for one family for single family and then turns around and and then does two families.

I I don't look um favorably upon that kind of uh action.

So I'll be voting negative on this.

Uh any other questions or comments for Mr.

Ray.

Okay.

Um now open up to the public.

Is there anyone here like make public comment?

Oh Commissioner Marberry.

Please state your name and address.

Thomas Babieri, three sugar drive commission.

Um, I respectfully oppose this application for the following reasons.

This request is based on a lot that simply did not meet the minimum size required by zoning.

This hardship that's being claimed exists only because the lots under size, which itself is not sufficient.

Justification for variance.

You undercide condition of this lot was created through a prior subdivision and foreseeable at the time.

This lot did not become non-conformant by accident or natural circumstances, created through a subdivision that resulted in a possible smaller than what is required for a two-family dwelling.

Approving this variance would weaken the intent of our zoning regulations in a minimum lot size standards.

The minimum lot size exists for a reason to maintain consistency, protect the neighborhood character, and ensure dock road development, allowing a two-family lot with a lot that falls nearly 2,000 square feet short of the requirement, undermines those standards and opens the door for similar requests throughout the neighborhood.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the board to deny the request for this variance to uphold the zoning standards that are in place to protect the long-term character and stability of our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Barber.

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

Okay.

Mr.

Lehman is anyone online that like to make public comment on this.

Annette Bourne.

Ms.

Bourne, please proceed.

Hi, Annette Bourne, 51 Community Drive, Cranston, Rhode Island.

Um I actually am here for another reason later in the agenda if it continues.

But um what I am going to say with great respect to Commissioners Lambfair and uh Barbieri.

Uh, I also live in the neighborhood uh west of Warwick Ave, I will admit, but I'm very familiar with the neighborhood.

And we need homes here in Cranston, Rhode Island.

I this isn't the matter right now, but uh the mixed use proposal also.

We need homes.

We need homes with uh not as much parking as what is historically uh been built in the last few decades.

And I have seen other developments or homes on that strip.

Uh there's a very very large three-story home uh now that goes from front to back.

It's in one of the images that Mr.

Ray showed.

Uh, there was another home that was built uh on an empty lot at the back of one of the homes that now you know sits facing the bay.

So as hard as change is if we only maintain the uh idea that neighborhood character never changes, we are never going to achieve housing for the people who want to live here and who already live here more affordably.

So uh, with all due respect, I support uh the planning board's I mean the planning staff's recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else online, Mr.

Lehman that'd like to make public comment on this?

There's no other public comment.

Okay, thank you.

Is there any further comments or questions?

Commissioner Lampier.

I would would just like to ask um Jamie whether or not you know whether this proposal is for affordable housing or low-income housing.

I don't know that I would suggest that it isn't in the area that it's located.

Okay.

Any other further comments or questions?

Okay.

Well, I will be joining Commissioner Lampier on a negative recommendation on this on the basis of a uh the goals in our comprehensive plan about protecting and stabilizing existing residential neighborhoods, exceeding the density of our residential neighborhoods.

And I can't remember right now, but if there's a goal about uh maintaining the um character of the neighborhood, I'll join that too.

But I just can't remember right now.

So that's about it.

Now it'd be a time for a motion.

Commissioner Lampier.

So moved.

So moved by what I said.

Okay, I'm still I would make a motion to uh a negative recommendation for the reasons you set for okay.

Uh is there a second to Commissioner Lampier's seconded by Commissioner Zadales.

Any further discussion?