Called the meeting of the city plan commission to order at approximately 634.

First I'm on item on the agenda is approval of the minutes.

We will take these minutes one at a time.

December second, two thousand twenty-five minutes.

Are there any edits or corrections to those minutes?

If there are none, a motion to approve would be in order.

Okay, I abstained because I you can abstain, Mr.

Zidells.

Okay.

Motion made by Director Carrero, seconded by Commissioner Barberi.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Okay.

All opposed.

Say nay.

Ayes have it.

December ninth minutes.

And just make sure when you speak, you speak into the microphone.

Go ahead, Commissioner Mancini.

I need to abstain from the December 9th minutes.

I was not at that meeting.

Okay.

And let the record reflect that Mrs.

Dellis is abstaining from the December 2nd minutes.

And Miss Mancini is abstaining from the December 9th minutes.

And Mr.

Zedellus is also abstaining from the December 9th minutes.

Okay.

So that's correct, Director.

So Director Corral, you you should have abstained instead of making a motion on December the second, right?

The December 2nd, the first meeting.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

I'll I'll just keep you as the making the motion.

Don't worry about it.

All right, we're on December 9th.

Um motion, are there any edits to December 9th minutes?

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

Motion made by Commissioner Exter, seconded by Commissioner Lampier.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

This is the time for aye.

I'm all those in favor, all those opposed say nay.

Next item is the January sixth, two thousand twenty-six minutes.

Is there any edits or discussion on this matter?

Commissioner Lamfier?

Um, I'm just not certain they were posted to the website uh yesterday morning, I believe.

Uh I'm not sure that that's adequate forty-eight hours for us to vote on them.

That's fair enough.

So correct.

On the minutes?

Yes.

I would say they don't have the minutes don't have to be posted until you vote on them.

I think I think Commissioner Lamphere, if you're asking that we can continue this to the month of March, there's no harm.

No, no, no, there's no harm, but I I I'm I'm definitely certain that the minutes don't have to be posted until you vote on them because you could change them.

Right.

So Commissioner Lamprey, I want to just explain something, is that I got these minutes from the staff last week and I didn't get around to it until over the weekend or I think Friday morning.

So that's probably why we're going to be able to do that.

Okay.

So we can continue this till next month.

Um so can I have a motion to continue the January sixth, 2026 minutes to our next regular meeting in March.

Motion continue made by Z uh Mr.

Zidellas.

Seconded by Commissioner Mancini.

Any discussion?

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

All those opposed saying nay.

Okay.

Next item on our agenda is recognition of member from Nicole Renzuli.

I do not see her present, so I will continue this matter uh later on to our agenda.

Um next item on our agenda is Lake Street Villa.

Okay, is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on Lake Street Villa?

Please come forward.

Please state your name and address.

Um which is seven.

Oh sorry, I didn't because I have a deep voice, so I I try to be real cautious about that.

Sorry about that.

Um so we're looking to combine create two, we're looking to configure the three existing lots that's there currently into two new locks.

All right, uh for the exact which is basically parcel A.

Um, since the location is zone B1, um, we're looking to build a single family home on that lot um once we divide the three lots into two.

All right.

Um we're looking to do about 4800 square feet split each one.

I believe both lots, I mean all three lots combined or two lots combined comes out to about 9600 square feet if I'm correct.

And also I believe another issue that we potentially had, um, even though it's in the it's not in a flood area, um, I believe uh the street itself, when whenever there's uh heavy rain, the street itself tends to flood, not the not the uh homeowner's property.

But what we're looking to do when we do build a single family home on this uh vacant land, we're looking to possibly do a rain garden on the property to minimize potentially the possibility of any water itself, creating more um issues on the street in terms of flooding the street.

So we're trying we're trying to avoid that and uh hopefully try to do something where it makes the city of Cranston happy in regards to the rain guard that I mean the rain garden that we'll like to place on the property itself.

Any questions I just make your presentation?

Okay, Miss Mancini, you are gonna recuse on this matter.

Okay, so I would suggest you um uh uh move to the audience.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Uh there any questions for the applicant regarding this application for my colleagues.

Um I can get started.

Go ahead.

All right.

So let me just start with a couple of things.

On the page eight of the staff report, they list certain density levels, and they list that the density of your proposed subdivision is 13.64, which is above the future land use map.

Uh, do you dispute this number?

Um, as of right, I don't right now um just have to check in with I would I would eventually check it with my uh survey just to make sure that we're good with that.

Um, but other than that, I personally don't have an issue.

Right.

Um but that if that's a requirement with the city of Cranston, obviously something that needs to get done and addressed, and we'll do what we need to do to make sure we meet that.

Yeah, understand.

It's it's I'm just asking to see if you dispute uh outline and and then um second come up.

Um, and I saw some of the photos presented by the abutters about the um flooding that occurs in the area.

Now, what you said was how obviously stormwater is an issue in that some stormwater can become an issue.

I'll phrase it that way.

Um you want to address it with a rain garden, you said correct.

Okay.

Um which will allow which will basically during heavy rains, um, obviously oh get there'll be a placement for whether where the water should drain down to and obviously the the land itself soak up as much water as possible versus spilling over onto the street and create a more issue since that's already a known area for um flood.

Okay, so the storm what I want to ask you about that stormwater management plan is why haven't you presented it as part of this application?

Which is something that just came to my attention in regards to um once I submitted everything over to the city of Cranston.

Um, and then on top of that, initially, we didn't realize there was an issue in regards to the area where uh a flood specifically in that area.

So something something like this is pretty much new um to our area.

When I spoke to my surveyor, he said the area wasn't a wasn't in the flood zone.

So technically we thought that we're perfectly we're pretty much fine in regards to that.

But since this has been brought up to my attention, um obviously it's something that's new and it's possibly an issue that I don't think the city of Cranston could pretty much um mitigate the issue, right?

So and I've I was told that each houses in the neighborhood are supposed to manage their own way of controlling um the flood that occurs in the area.

So one of the things that we'll like to do is basically create a uh a ring uh a rain garden to help out with this to help with the city of Cranston, try to resolve that issue for everybody in the neighborhood as well.

And who would review you haven't submitted the stormwater management plan with this application, but you're saying you want to subsequently submit it uh at the next stage, I believe.

Who would be reviewing that?

Would that be DEM or would that be the city of Cranston?

Um most likely might have to be DEM.

Obviously, we'll probably it won't be the so will be the city of Cranston that will review and make the final decision for you guys.

Yeah, what he's referring to is it's not gonna help the drain.

What it's trying to do is minimize any additional runoff from whatever he proposes on that property, is what's gonna be addressed by the rain garden.

It's got nothing to do with the actual city area.

Right now, there's approximately 200 plus acres of land all up near the Laurel Hill Avenue that drain down onto Cranston Street, continue down Cranston Street, some of these side streets and ultimately make it down to the spectacle pond when the drainage system is overtaxed.

So when he's referring to putting in the rain garden, that would really just adjust so that his property does not add any additional water to that flooding issue.

But he himself is not responsible for addressing that flooding issue, nor can he correct that that's a significant problem that the city of Cranston needs to continue to work on to see how we can make that better for those areas.

Because that's not the only street that that happens, but it does happen on several streets when we have our systems taxed with high intensity, short duration rainstorms.

Thank you.

He's the public works director, so that's why he's on this commission.

So my understanding then is that I understand that he is just responsible for mitigating the storm water runoff on his property so that it does not have new additional net runoff.

I understand that.

Second, it's the city of Cranston, the Department of Public Works that will be reviewing that mitigation plan, not DMs.

Is that right, director?

Okay.

So that's so I understand that.

Thank you, Steve.

And um, who do you plan to do you have a do you know who you plan to retain to develop the stormwater mitigation plan that would demonstrate there is no new net runoff?

Um use my uh general contractor um who's going basically oversee the the project itself, and I'll make sure that's something that gets addressed while we're building the property also.

Okay.

Um all right, you answered my density question.

Stormwater runoff.

Are there any other questions anyone else has before I we we turn it to staff and then we have public comment?

Okay.

Um at this point, I think thank you, Mr.

Uh, thank you, sir.

No problem.

Thank you.

Um we will we will um now hear from the um staff.

Can you please provide an overview?

And then we will hear from the public.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Mr.

Frazel.

Yeah, you should take a seat, and then if we have further questions, we'll ask you to come up and then we'll have public comment.

No problem.

Yep.

This is a property owned by Michael Bosha and Don Basha, the applicant of this project uh proposal is Sadiq Davies of the Davies Group.

The location is 35 and 33 Lake Street.

Um they're in the B1 zone, and the proposal is to reconfigure the three lots that total 9600 square feet into two 4800 square foot lots where the existing two family will remain on one 4800 lot, and a new single family dwelling is proposed on the other 4800 square foot lot.

We can see the three parcels here.

There's a driveway currently on each side of the existing two-family home.

Another aerial view.

I included both of the radius maps, which are also in the staff memo.

And I have a zoom zoomed-in version here of the existing conditions where you can see both driveways and the shed have been added.

Um here's the entire existing conditions, and now the proposed conditions a little bit more zoomed in.

Um you can see in gray that dark gray is a new proposed driveway on the new parcel for the new single family home.

The planning analysis states consistency with the comprehensive plan because this proposal mirrors the existing use, density, and character of the development in this neighborhood.

It is consistent with the goals and policies of 2024 comprehensive plan, specifically goal land use six and policy land use 18.

The proposal is consistent, is generally consistent with the future land use map designation for reasons such as the 200 foot, 400 foot, and neighborhood zone analysis all yield that with this proposal added into the analysis, it is still within the limits of the future land use map.

So neither the 200, 400 nor neighborhood analysis show anywhere above 10.89 units per acre with this proposal.

However, the resulting density of the proposed subdivision itself yields 13.64 units per acre.

This subdivision is aligned with the neighborhood fabric, which is essentially two family and mainly two family and single family.

Here is the chart that was also in the staff memo, kind of going over what I was just talking about, how um the project density does increase the overall density of the area, but still keeps it within the future land use map.

And I can address any questions on this chart if there are any.

Okay.

Oh, go ahead, Commissioner Lampier.

Um I had a couple of questions.

Um, one is that you um site land use goal 18 in that approval would protect and stabilize the existing residential neighborhood.

Can you just explain to me how you came to that?

The facts that underlying underlie that conclusion.

How does splitting these lots and allowing the building of the additional house so that they're both on substantially undersized lots protect and stabilize that residential neighborhood?

Um Rihanna has presented evidence that the proposal is consistent with the density of the neighborhood as it is right now.

That is her argument.

I'm not trying to put people on the spot, but I might if it's stated in the report that it does this, and I personally don't agree with that.

So I was hoping to find out facts that supported that conclusion that might make me change my mind.

Right.

So the facts are are the the facts on the existing lot sizes and development in the neighborhood.

I mean, any proposal for new development is proposing to build something new, but what's Rihanna's analysis concluded that this proposal is consistent with what we find in this neighborhood today.

Okay, thank you.

And nothing more than that behind the other question I had was um I believe the number was that 71% of the existing two family houses in that area are on undersized lots, lots under 8,000 square feet.

Correct.

This one is going to be on a lot that is 4800 square feet.

Do you do you have any information on those other dwellings?

What those lot sizes are that they are currently on.

Well, uh, if you're referring to like other examples of this, there other examples of two families on or you're talking about the 71% of these two family dwellings that are on undersized lots.

Right.

Um, there are within the 200 foot radius, there are also two.

Um, well, there's actually within the 200 foot radius, just to kind of get us because it's easier maybe to talk about less parcels and within the 200 foot radius than the 40 percent uh 400 foot.

There's three uh parcels that are on undersized dwellings with uh undersized parcels, right?

Within the 200 foot radius.

So two family dwellings um are on there's three undersized um lots in the 200 foot radius, two of them are actually 4800 correct, so the same exact as this proposal.

Out of how out of how many parcels you said there are three parcels, how many parcels in the 200 foot radius?

All told because you said there were three parcels.

Yeah, there's three parcels with two family dwellings.

And so out of how many parcels.

I only know the total number of parcels in the 400 foot radius off the top of my head.

Okay, so the number of parcels in the 400 foot radius looks like if I'm doing the math here right, looks like about 123.

Does that sound about right to you?

So there might be 123 lots.

Yeah, in terms of like combined lots, there's about 76.

Okay, because what I'm reading here from your report is within a 400 foot radius, there are 77 single family dwellings, and 46 are on okay.

46, sorry, I did the math wrong and 46 are on lots under 6,000 square feet.

Okay, so there's 77 lots, 77 single families.

So I think what Commissioner Lampier is trying to get at is how many on a percentage basis, like three out of how many or 10 out of how many?

Like how how many are we talking about are 4800 feet or less for two families?

Yeah.

Within a 200 foot radius, or 400 foot of the one.

I can say within a 200 foot radius, yeah.

There are two out of three.

Out of three.

Okay.

And what about the single family that's 400 4,800 feet?

Do you know?

What's your question?

How many single family homes are on a lot that is 4,800 feet or less when either within 200 or 400 feet?

I don't know.

So no.

Okay.

Okay.

But public comment will come in a second.

Um you'll be able to ask.

Oh, I have a we'll be able to ask the applicant a second.

Uh I do want to commend you though, um, Miss Valcourt for putting this amount of information on the density, because that's something I'm always going to ask.

So by putting it forward, you cut a lot of questions I had.

So I appreciate that.

Um, I just wanted to follow up on what Commissioner Lampier was talking about, which is the um just to lot size issue.

I don't know exactly how many single families are under on lots under 4800 square feet, but to kind of answer the question in a in a different way, like to address that issue is why I provided lots that were significantly under 4800.

So I don't have a total under 4800, but rather lots, even less than 3,000 square feet.

Yeah, I saw that.

It's um you said there are you didn't say how many.

So uh it's just the it's the percentage question.

I think Commissioner Lampier is getting at um any it's not the question whether or not there are ones that are below 4800 feet, but it's whether it's how many of them are as a percentage basis 4800 feet or below.

That's right.

Enough to make the neighborhood median in your opinion less than 4800.

Yeah, in your opinion.

Okay.

Any other further questions for our staff or the applicant?

Okay.

Before I did somebody in the audience who was going to say something to me, was it the applicant or a member of the public?

Oh, okay.

Because if you want to come up and address us, you can again.

If you heard something that you want to respond to, I'd like you to you can respond to us.

I believe the answer that we were looking for um regarding uh regarding how many uh two family and single family there are in the neighborhood, as well as the percentages on page nine of 16.

It looked like the medium lot size um of the B1 zone lots, the spectacle is 4500 square feet, while the proposed lot size is 4800 square feet.

Um, within the within the 400-foot radius, there are there are about 14 two-family dwellings, and and 10 are and 10 of them are on lots under 8,000 square feet, right?

Um, which is about 71%, right?

And then in addition to that, to your single family um question, you have within 400 radiuses, there are 77 single family dwellings and 46 are on lots under 6,000 uh square feet, which is about 60 percent.

Um, in addition to that, there are also single family homes in proximity, which are located on lots less than equal to 3,000 square feet.

Um, and there are two family houses in proximity, proximity, which are located on lots equal to 4,800 square feet within that neighborhood.

Um, so to answer uh, and this all within the B1 zones, B1 zone lots in this uh spectacle neighborhood of Preston.

Yep.

Um, and yeah, so basically to answer your questions on page nine of 16, which breaks down the percentage as well as how many total units of single family, two family, and so forth.

Right, and I I was gonna say thank you for coming up and and saying that I was just trying to assist Commissioner Lampier and some extent myself, which is you're reading about the percentage of lots that are below 8,000 square feet, below the zoned.

She was asking about how many of the percentages below 4800 feet.

You see what I'm saying?

That's a slightly different calculation.

Gotcha.

Okay, so that's all it was.

Um, and I do recognize that you're saying that the median is 40, 4500 square feet.

So that's a basically, I understand what median is as well.

So thank you very much.

All right, is there any other questions?

Um for the applicant or for the staff before I turn over the public comment.

Okay, I see none.

All right, thank you.

This is now your opportunity for the public to come forward.

I ask all of you to please um stand up, come one at a time, state your name and address for the record and speak clearly into the microphone.

She could be with me.

Oh can you hear me?

I can hear you.

Can the rest of my colleagues hear him?

Yes, all right.

Proceed, sir.

Name and address.

You you need to state your name and address first.

All right.

Oh, my name is Ralph B.

Bosen, T O Z CI.

I live at 319 Shawman Avenue, Warwick Rhode Island.

Okay.

I am the buddy owner of the lot left of his party.

My ex-wife Paula and my daughter live on the left of my vacant lot.

And uh I know the area, I'm retired building.

I bought the lot 77.

I bought it.

I didn't know what I was getting myself into.

And uh one day I went there, and the lot is completely covered, four feet of water in my car.

So what the hell do what do I do now?

I didn't want to, I didn't want to sell it to a special person.

I said, Well, let me build a house for myself, Mary Paul and work in the city, it's very convenient.

We have a house and water, so six months there's six months there, so more or less we're living with the problem that was never solved.

I have a really strange.

So I'm a builder, I know the area, and I will remain, but then anyone can actually uh so I know the water conditions, it's not the city's farm, technical palm is level with the road, what if we severe the water comes through the manual covers?

I want the public work to go.

Well, don't get us involved because there's no solution.

So when people say regards to the water situation, the downspace and everything doesn't happen.

You have to have an engineer that knows water conditions in that area.

What playing water ponds is one thing?

So when he I don't want to see another person in that area go through what the heck I went through, which I'm still here, I'll live with the conditions because all these people here are right around this piece of property, the back side and everything.

Forget about the percentage 400 feet.

We're worried about the main area, lots 1479, 1480, and 81.

Now Mr.

Bosch is a building, and he's gonna sell it to some other person.

If it was a good deal, maybe he would have put himself.

So everybody is passing whatever.

I don't know, but regards to the rooflet study 235 and pumped in 1974, you legally at that time you have two lots 45, 40 by e 40 by eight, you combine it to make a 9600 square feet.

We don't do that.

So now when Mr.

Borsha's father, his family put the house.

Can you hear me?

Huh?

Hello?

Can you hear me all right?

And can you hear me in the headphones?

Yeah, okay.

So I know everybody wants to build this that and the other.

And I want to help all these people.

They all want to speak.

So now, regards to this 9600.

You're gonna have 8,000 square feet, B1 zone.

That's the zone, B1.

Single family 6,000.

So when you put a duplex, I'm a duplex, I'm a B1 zone.

You've got 8,000 square feet.

Now you're getting 8,000.

What 1480 is 40 by 80?

3200.

1479 is 40 by 80.

32 and 32, 60.

He had to pay part of the other lot to make it work.

Now we have a problem that they want to sell the little 40 by 80.

He has to flip.

And I asked many times I called, and I still don't have this answer today.

I'm very unclear.

The questions I asked, I haven't found out yet, because there's no real answer.

I've been driving these people crazy, ask them questions, and they said, speak to your thing.

So when you say 71%, 81%, that's good.

We get above the percentages of shells.

I'm worried about the lot, the duplex, and these babes that are gonna live there until they die or whatever.

That's my concern.

Not the percentage of the neighborhood.

This is the neighborhood, right?

This is the neighborhood.

And I spoke to last month, and you said the only thing you were concerned about the neighborhood's opinion.

A lot of people say, Ralph, you're wasting your time, you know, whatever.

But I I'm trying to make the people have a say so, and I want people to listen, regardless of which way it is owed.

I'm speaking for my family, the neighbors, as a builder, as a person that suffered on that same street.

There's people that lost their cars, pumping.

Every January we had a party.

I had to put cars on people's lane.

We can't get down the street.

Now, is it the city's problem?

Who the hell knows?

There comes the water comes down by Fallby Linen with Hawkins, flood conditions.

I'm a builder in water.

You've got a perk test and all that and all that water fly.

This is something that is a major, major problem.

And this person here that's applying is the gutters in our phone.

The pond is higher than the street when it range.

When it floods, all the garbage cans goes in that pond.

Am I right or wrong?

And that's what garbage in.

So we're creating a hardship for the neighborhood, this city, and everything.

And all these people want to speak.

I wish you could hear them, because I don't want to be the long range.

And they have issues, and they don't know how to handle this.

So I just wanted to thank you for that.

You know, I'm going to read my piece of paper.

You could ask me all the questions.

The other building could ask you questions.

Mr.

Bush could answer the question.

This water people's bases.

This house is of course it's shooting for my ex-went dog.

On 6,000, 4,000.

So all this percentages and percentages, it's good to make it passable or not passable.

We're here to solve a problem of future of use of what to do with this piece of problems.

We have 8,000 beautiful duplex, and we're going to cut it up to put up a problem house in a condition that's going to create.

Now the water comes down and does in the ground.

I put my I put my I put my house on a hill.

When you get out of the car, you've got to put your lake to get out of the car because you can't get up because the hot house is so high.

And it's already gray, rainfall.

I'm seven feet above the street.

When I build my raised ranch, I get water up to the eight.

So there's a water problem, groundwater problem, grandfather.

Now, of all the paper, people don't know.

I I did this for it for a living.

So I know what I'm talking about.

This young lady is a wetland scientist, and she knows all about DM and all that stuff and stuff like that.

And if she would say, Oh, what happened to you?

You know what I mean?

Now, regardless of the land sites, as she said, we're only moving a lot once.

We're moving a lot.

We're creating a hardship.

You're going to conformly duplex on eight.

We're going to make 48.

We're going to steal the footage from this and that, right?

Now we're going to talk about the 35%, right?

The B1 zone, 25 feet front, 20 rear, eight to eight.

The duplex has a variety on the left.

If you're talking about the 35% of the density of the lot, it's questionable on the duplex.

How is that going to determine this future of house?

Now, the plague's incomplete because we don't have all the checklists.

Soil, water conditions, run.

When you build a house here, people don't know.

People don't buy houses that neighborhood around the tunnel.

They don't know where we're planting it.

But if people know that area, they keep away from it.

Am I right?

Just make sure you're addressing us.

They'll have their chance to speak.

So get back to my question.

That's the first thing.

I'm in our position, I do know.

Of 3335, right?

It's lot 75, lot 78, 79, and 1480.

The duplexes are 1480 and 1479.

They had a chop it up to make it work.

For a 6,000, but it's not for a 60-foot front.

So you have three lots, 40 foot, 80 back, 40 foot, 80 back, 40 foot, 80 back.

If you go 40 feet from the property to the duplex, right?

I mean my wife and I, my expert line, we measured in the so nice.

And I measured it that the duplex, three-quarters is we need all that footage to make a 60 by 80 to make it 4800.

That's not on the plane.

Now when you go to plane over here, I never went over here.

It's only here.

This basically makes things easier for the building.

So when you go to zone, they want to know the lot size, what size?

They've got a proposed square.

We don't know what that is.

There's no pages on the duplex.

There's no figures on the proposed house.

I own the property right aside of it.

My land, right?

Level, it goes up four feet.

I got trees right on the property like with Mr.

Borsha and this gentleman's lane.

And it goes down.

I have to put a retailer on, take the trees down on this property and my property.

We don't have that on the surveyor.

The surveyor's stamps says, this is all set, that's all set.

And they take in this gentleman's word that they're going to control the water.

They looked into.

I look into and I got sucked.

And I don't want all these people who don't know what to do because they're not builders.

I don't have the answer.

And this gentleman don't have the answer.

Because it's a severe problem.

Forget about the percentages, 3200, which is good.

My concern is a headache on that street.

A disaster.

I built house of Western France and Dean Estate, I did it all.

I never ran into this because I was ignorant to the fact of the property conditions on which.

Not that they're smart or stupid.

But in other words, you know, it's going to have these suffering on that.

Now, you've got a beautiful duplex, and you've got a season of a housing that is rushing.

And you're trying to find those 71%, 200 feet.

I'll worry about that area that long.

We're trying to make the numbers work.

You can make the numbers work.

Good or badge, yes, no, whatever.

The numbers are consumed on the existing lot, bosses property, my property, their property.

That is the problem, not about the density, the use, the economic use and all that with someone to make it look you know formal, which is the right thing.

So I just want to explain that while I'm reading this.

It might answer questions to everybody but in that.

All right.

Now our position no lie because of these users.

The lot that he has is an all the basic ones to my bacon lot with the hill with the trees.

He's a big rock.

What the hell is it?

What's gonna happen?

How's he gonna say that?

Take all those trees down, a retaining wall, get a granite found down, right?

It's a big question out there.

We get about the density and the percentage.

I'm worried about the existing conditions on lot of visual.

My test alone to the director, that's asked minimum if they do, and you know, distribution to the members of the planning board.

When asked what does the deadline was for submitting written comments commissioned, right?

Before me that the comments mailed for 430 at February 2.

Everything to the last minute.

I'm in the planning board right now.

I still don't have all the completions of what should be done for those who propose a marketing or a zoning problem.

I don't know what the heck is going on with the setbacks.

Don't know what we're doing.

They go by percentages, the density 10.89, 13.74.

It's over and above.

Those are important on a regular piece of problem, normal conditions.

This is not a normal sheet, and this is a not a normal area.

So when you compare 400 feet, they got no water problems.

So water goes by walking, three, four feet.

That's a lot of work.

People can't get have to get a lot of mental problems.

All these people are concerned about safety.

The fire trucks can't go down here.

Who the hell knows?

Sometimes it rains and it's it stops raining, and it's hours for that water to go up there.

It's a bad problem.

And this gentleman here, how long you've been with the city?

Many years, right?

Did you ever solve the problem over there?

Can it be solved?

Now you're gonna ask this builder to go get an engineer to design it.

Not of us, you better be God because God created a water problem, not this guy in A.

General Sir, I've I never have cut anybody off for public comment in my four years.

Um, you maybe you've been speaking for about 20 minutes.

There's a lot of the people want to speak.

Could you continue with your written or whatever else so we can continue proceeding?

Well, the thing is, I went there many times to get answers from the call.

They didn't have the axis because it wasn't submitted to this have a piece of paper making a lot more.

We don't have any numbers on proposed existing, you can't move to the house is there.

If there was no house there, that's a different math.

Since we have a house that is there that have you moved, and you're gonna cheat to make it work for 60 by 80 is one problem.

Now we're gonna make the numbers work to make it uh a 6,000 square foot, we'll make it a 48.

You want to say 4800 square foot?

Now, there's no setbacks on proposed future, whatever it's up.

We don't have the numbers, numbers, numbers.

Elevation we don't want.

So whenever they stick to later wall, the trees might have to come down, uh you know, whatever.

I don't have those answers, and that's scary.

I like to know what the heck we're doing, right?

We're trying to make the numbers work with this hill.

The numbers don't, you know, the conditions is the problem, right?

So do you know, sir?

So do you know, sir, we received these comments in writing before the meeting.

It's on the website.

I reviewed them myself and read them.

You can see highlights and stuff like that.

Um, if you want to read them, okay, but we do have the document in front of us, and those commissioners that had the opportunity to review it, did review it.

If you want to read it, go ahead.

But I'm just asking you to try to what you said in your comments or written comments.

If you want to read them out loud, I'll listen, but you're kind of repeating yourself a little bit here.

Would you you understand I'm saying so?

And I want to hear from other people as well.

Well, if it I want to make conditions, right?

If the app does get involved with it, it's going on a single frame.

I don't know.

But DB ships would be fine.

You know, it's gonna be a single frame if it doesn't get a pool, right?

Like the little setbacks between uh surveying the fall set, which I was no elevation, but my property was way high than it.

I don't know where this how this is going to affect the condition, and we need energy the strong water wrong.

What's up?

Right?

We don't need more more hands when we had mountain, that's all we say, and uh the greedy is uh another issue which I well I uh I want to thank you for no listen.

I didn't go buy the paperwork this far normally, but if you could read that and put that legal document down for the channel before, in other words, it might make some difference.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, all right.

Um next person who would like to make oh, please sign in um your name and address on the sign in sheet so we can keep track of y'all where I live all of a bunning property.

How do I do that?

Just put your street address where you live.

Okay.

Next for public comment, name and address.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Excuse my voice.

My name is Alexandria Cazarian, and I live at Two Barrett Street, and my I am objecting to this plan.

Um, my driveway is behind the um proposed sale of the property, and I have a dog, and we walk down Lake Street around Barrett Street, around Marlborough and Gordon Street.

I've lived there for 34 years, and I'm very familiar with the area.

I agree with what Ralph said about the flooding is ridiculous.

I've had water in my basement, and I'm opposed to the way they want to take the land away from the existing two family, which um I've been in many times.

I'm friends with the owner, the uh tenant, and her cellar floods many times I've helped her clean out her basement.

My cell of floods.

My cellar floods, I've had femur at my house once, and I have spent thousands and thousands of dollars in 34 years to make my second lot because I have a front to back two lots to make it beautiful to put in a driveway to put up a little stone wall on my property, and the biggest problem that I have is getting out of my driveway.

I know there is other two family homes in the area within a 400 foot radius, and my concern is I have pictures.

I was wondering if you'd like to see the pictures of what happens when a house is put on an undersized lot in that area, especially on Lake Street and Gordon Street.

The two family house, the mom and dad get married, and they have children.

They have two or three kids.

When those kids get 16, they all get cars.

So now you got the mom's car, you got the dad's car, and you got the kids' car, and they park on the sidewalk because there's not enough room in the driveway on these on this size lots, and I spend an extra $7,000 to put in a driveway big enough to handle four to five cars, and I live by myself, so that's one of my biggest problems is the parking.

When I back out of my driveway, I hit the curb of the proposed um sale of that.

Mr.

Bosch's property.

I can talk a little bit educated about the situation of the water if you want to hear it.

If you don't, just say you don't, and I won't go there.

It's your discretion.

We're here to listen to you.

Okay.

Um75 and 77 Lake Street is currently vacant, but before it was vacant.

That's on an undersized lot, I believe.

And there would be at least 10 cars parked in the driveway and on the sidewalk, blocking me from walking my dog on the sidewalks.

And I believe that Cranston Law states pedestrians have to walk on the sidewalk and cannot walk in the street.

And I only know that because I was walking down Gordon Street one day with my cousin, and the house had five cars, and they were all parked on the curb.

My cousin and I had to walk around the cars, couldn't we couldn't walk on the sidewalk, and I fell in the street on a gas cap and broke my right leg.

So I know my lawyer had told me, who was my personal injury lawyer.

The law states in Cranston, you cannot walk in the street.

So that's was my problem.

Then we take 45 Marlborough Street on the weekend.

That's um, I believe that's a six unit on an undersized lot.

They have guests over.

So the cars park all over the curb, all over the sidewalks, and my dog and I, once again, we have to walk down the middle of the road.

Same thing with number 35 and 37 Gordon Street.

And this morning I went and measured when I walked my dog.

We went on the street today, and the street was only 12 feet wide, and I couldn't back out of my driveway because of the snow on both sides of the street.

I had to go three times.

So I said, let me measure the street because I knew I was going to be here tonight, and the street that was passable was only 12 feet wide.

She can't park on the street.

She has to park when there's snow in somebody's yard that plows, and it says, you know, she can park there.

I put the flooding on how the water comes down, but I don't think I'm gonna go there because I think you guys have heard enough about from Ralph about the flooding, and it's true.

I have atrial fibrillation, I have a blocked left ventricle in my heart, and I have regular doctor appointments, and I have to schedule my appointments around the weather.

That's how bad it is.

The water comes up to my hips.

Um 5'4, so there's a lot of water, and like Ralph said, I'm very concerned about keeping our little neighborhood the way it is without adding more trash to spectacle pond.

I've lost many garbage pails to spectacle pond.

Um the drain pipes do pop up, and I've had to live my life around that water for 34 years, and I wouldn't recommend to anybody buying that lot and putting a house there because I just think it's you know, this man is going to put a house and he's gonna sell it to somebody, and they're not gonna know, and the problem is gonna exist with more cars in the street.

Mom and dad are gonna buy the house, and I'm not gonna be able to get out of my driveway, period.

And I took some pictures here this morning.

If you'd like to have these, you can of the cars parked on the sidewalk and my driveway.

How I'm completely blocked in just from the snow plowing.

If there was another house behind me, I and they have a car in the street.

I can't get out of my driveway.

The drive, the street's just not wide enough.

So if you would like the pictures, I don't know.

Um just provide the pictures to the commissioner here and we'll pass it along and become part of the record.

Okay, I thank you all very much for your time listening to my complaint and my objection.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, anyone else want to make public comment?

I live at 60 Lake Street in Cranston.

My name is Richard Biagetti.

Um, I'll be short and sweet.

The road is a problem.

Uh, right where this man is set to build a house is one of the only three drains on the entire street where he wants to build his driveway.

I mean, is the city going to plan to move that drain, or is it just gonna be null and void afterwards?

Um we lost a car a year ago.

It's it's a problem street.

And if I would have known 24 years ago what I was getting into, I wouldn't have bought my house.

But uh I find that the house is gonna be a problem with the drainage issues, the parking issues, and uh that's all I got.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um next, anyone else wants to make public comment?

Please come forward.

Um good evening, Mike Delmonico, 30 Beacon Street.

Um I got some pictures to present.

Um couple of things.

Uh in the pictures, you'll see a fire truck that stopped in his tracks.

I personally seen him.

All the guys jumped out of the truck, they ran to a call, waist high in water.

If you ask me, that's not a job that I would want to do.

They're out there saving people's lives.

That's what they do.

They choose to do that, they don't have to do that.

They do that because they that's in their heart, they want to do it.

That shows a lot.

Um water is a big issue on that street.

We all know that we can't say it enough.

Um the uh gentleman said that it was not a flood zone.

Maybe it's not, I'm not sure.

I have one question that I'll rest on.

I don't need an answer.

I want you guys to think about it.

Why is there a sub pump in that house?

Why does it not stop pumping?

Have a good night.

Anyone else have a public comment to make.

Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.

My name is Christina Brown.

I live at 217 Armington Street.

Um, I was here actually to speak on the next agenda item.

But just quickly, the charge of this body is to uphold the comprehensive plan and the needs of the city.

Um the water issues that these residents are talking about are certainly serious from what I've heard and do need to be addressed.

I would encourage everybody to uh contact your council person and the mayor.

Um but at this moment, the uh planning staff has given their report about these lot lots, and that these lots are consistent with the neighborhood, and we do need the housing.

It is 2026.

New construction is built to 2026 building code.

We have many checks and balances in place to deal with storm water runoff, DEM environmentals to ensure that these homes are going to be safe and habitable for the residents who would inhabit them if they were to go forward and be built.

And I just want to say that if the developers have everything in order, I believe this is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Our housing goals as a city, we need new homes.

We need smaller homes for working families to continue the legacy that certainly all these residents have had the ability to achieve.

Um that's that's my comments.

Thank you for your time.

Anyone else like to make public comment?

First the public speaks and then the applicant can respond.

Hi, Annette Bourne, 51 Community Drive.

I like Christina.

I'm actually here for the next agenda item on subdivision regulations.

But I, you know, infill, gentle density, these are the things that we continue to try to encourage for smaller starter homes.

I really appreciate all of the neighbors coming out.

I live near Parkview Middle School where I think many people know homes were taken by the flood in 2010.

And you know, if it if the city says these are buildable lots, then it is the city's responsibility to ensure the safety and dryness of all of that neighborhood.

Either that or the city should make a good faith purchase of properties that it no longer finds to be uh habitable.

So that would go to everybody in that neighborhood.

I've been here when people down, I think Fordham Road that oh water up to the third floor.

So we definitely have areas that as we work on the comprehensive plan, we should probably identify as hazard areas that maybe no longer should be habitable.

But as long as these lots are considered uh buildable by the city, then I would hope that we could encourage more infill and gentle density like this.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to make public comment?

Hi, my name is Cola Bosey, and I reside at 49 Lake Street, and I just wanted to say that I am opposed to this, and there is flood problems.

We had many issues.

We lost a car a few years ago, and uh I don't think it's feasible to put another house and then everyone to create more problems.

Okay, I don't want to repeat about the water, but the water is a big problem.

They stopped building.

I'm in the lot, I'm on the lot right behind him.

So I've had enough problems with his trees falling down on my fence three times this year, and I had to replace that.

I have to pay to have these trees cut all the time.

It's they're just it, I know it's got nothing to do with the water, but the water is a big problem.

He starts building.

The water's gonna have nowhere to go.

It's just gonna backflow into my house.

So it's like it's always been a problem.

You can't go down that street, you can't park on that street.

They won't be able to get out once they're in the house.

They can't get out because the streets flooded.

So it's every single time it rains.

It's not just when it overrains.

Uh it's always been a problem.

I've been there long enough to realize the problems and what streets you can go down and what streets you can't.

Um, but I don't think it's a good idea at all for this property to go there.

It's smaller than all the properties around there.

It's the smallest lot on that street.

It absolutely is.

And the um duplex that's already there, already gets flooded.

So this house is going to absolutely be flooded.

It's gonna, it's not it's not a good recommendation.

Thank you.

Anyone else like make public comment?

Hi, my name is Amanda Bosey.

I reside at 49 Lake Street in Cranston, and I'm just opposed to um the plan.

Any other public comment?

Okay, I don't think my name's Elaine Sambergan.

I live on Tin Lake Street, and I oppose.

Anyone else like make public comment?

Seeing no more in the room, uh, Mr.

Leem, is there anybody online like make public comment?

Councilman and R.

Please proceed, councilman.

Yes, good evening, members of the community.

Thank you, members of the commission, Mr.

President.

Um, thank you for your service, of course.

Um I'm just calling in in support of this.

Um, I've been listening to public comments.

I visited the area.

I know very well the situation of the area, but I'm getting to the point where from Gordon to Farragut.

There are there are many homes on 3200 square foot lots, and this is going to be a 4800 square foot lot.

Um, I also feel that we need to let other people play in the sandbox.

And this house with the technology today could be built slab on grade.

There's numerous new technologies that could help with the stormwater drains.

So I am in full support of this.

I am in full support of our planning department that's fixing Cranston.

If you look all around the city, especially in Ward 3, you have multiple family houses on 3200 square foot lots.

And I would even go to the point of saying I would support a two-family house on this lot.

I understand the concerns of the neighbors with parking, but I've been here about a year and a half, and I haven't received not one complaint or one comment on somebody complaining about parking in the area or flooding.

So that's where I'm getting at the comment with let's let somebody else play in the sandbox.

So I approve this.

And um, I hope the commission will support this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

I see no other public comment online.

Okay, thank you.

We will now turn back.

Um, does the applicant have anything they wish to say in response to the public comment?

If you want to, if you don't, you don't have to.

Um, first things first, definitely thank the councilman.

Actually, before the councilman, I definitely want to say thank you to residents of the area uh for providing your viewpoint and your concerns in regards to why you think a new construction shouldn't be uh built in that neighborhood.

But one of the one of the factors that we are having that we all need to realize is that there is a housing crisis crisis across the US.

This is an opportunity to be able to provide homes for people who are looking for housing, not an opportunity to minimize opportunity for people.

All right.

We're here to maximize the potential and totally understand your concerns as neighbors.

I mean residents in the area, but with the approval of the city and with the new technology and the things that are provided, houses are built to sustain nowadays.

All right.

And then in addition to that, the cities, the plan is they also overlook drawings and survey plans to make sure that how the homes are being built in these neighborhoods.

Well, I want to say any issue, but issues that may occur, hence the reason why they prefer a rain garden to help maximize so water won't spill on the street and cause more issues.

But other than that, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um, councilman, councilwoman, and everybody else that's here, as well as those that's virtual and everybody here uh every individual's that's from from the resident um from the local area.

Thank you as well for your opportunity and your time.

Thank you, sir.

Are there any final questions for the applicant before we turn it over to ourselves here?

Wait, wait, any other further questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Um see here, Mr.

Bossi.

We we basically almost ended public comment, but if you have something succinct and concise you want to say, I'll have you come up and say something.

Yeah, the city of Cranston, highway department cannot control.

I don't have the answer.

So they have flooding conditions.

Well, it's not like it's it's no like we have to don't believe it.

If the highway department in a hundred years can't do it, right?

Well, how many years you've been there?

One year, but before you, everybody knows.

So it says public comments and checklist.

It says public works, no comment.

Building inspector, no comment.

I might be in consistently of a nuisance area.

We don't have the answer.

I feel bad about the housing shortage.

I'm not just me.

But this is not uh this is a creating problem of the area of that lot condition.

Regards to the the shortage.

I agree, you know, there's a shortage, but we got we're creating a bigger hardship by not answering these questions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Um Bosie Bosey.

Okay, um, we already have the staff recommendation.

Could you just put it up on the screen so that everybody knows?

Okay.

Um, as I understand, Mr.

Marcella, this is a two-part process.

First is whether or not to uh grant relief under the zoning provisions.

Yep, correct.

And the second is of course whether or not to uh grant approval for the subdivision, correct?

Two separate two separate motions.

Okay.

Is there any discussion we want to have before we start going in?

Go ahead, Commissioner Lampier.

I'm a little bit confused.

Um I'm looking at the uh minor subdivision checklist that was um part of the materials and what is checked off is preliminary plan.

Are we doing a preliminary plan approval this evening?

Yes, okay.

Umified development review is not checked off on the checklist, but I realize that that is part of this evening's um proposal as well.

When I look at at the checklist and um go through it, there are a lot of requirements, required elements that are just blank.

So that is typical.

The checklist is everything that could possibly be required of any proposal in that category in the city of Cranston.

So it is common for them to be items on the checklist that we don't end up requiring.

For example, to today, the issue of slope was brought up.

We were we're it's in this case, we're not allowed to consider slope in the decision of subdivision.

So we as staff use that that checklist as a guided tool of all the possible things that we might need to think about.

But some of the but it's typical to have many of them not be required for a particular application at this stage.

So would it also be correct that if this is a minor subdivision, but it's a minor land development preliminary plan?

It's not a land development plan, it's just a minor subdivision request.

So in this case, you know, it there's first they would need relief because it doesn't meet our zoning.

Second, there's approval of a subdivision, and then after that they would still have to do um, they wouldn't normally hire a you know stormwater design engineer or design the house till after they have subdivision approval in in a case like this with a one-family subdivision.

They're not gonna invest in all of those.

So would we be approving a preliminary plan this evening that doesn't include slope, doesn't include uh contours, correct include a soil analysis, correct?

And be a general welfare issue.

Uh correct, it's just looking at the lot size.

Um I'm interested, I'm after all that I'm hearing today of like why is this not in the floodplain?

Because that's you know, we use the FEMA floodplain maps, and I'm hearing and seeing in pictures a lot of flooding, but um, even the uh yeah, I don't know if Jonas wants to was Jonas here.

If you want to you are master of all checklists, maybe would you like to comment on that question of why there are not everything on the checklist is is checked off uh I I personally haven't reviewed all the items on this checklist, but it is uh as you said, it's pretty standard that it it because it very often depends on if this is a subdivision or land development, it depends on the scale, it depends on the um you know the the environmental conditions.

Um, you know, typically for example, for example, like a soil analysis would be very important if they wanted to put in a septic system, but this is a they're requesting to uh be connected to public sewer.

Um, or slopes would be important if it was, I guess, a larger lot or um if it was a like a multifamily development and there's steep slopes involved, it would affect how what the how it would be designed, or even if it was a smaller development with like a street extension, the slopes would be very important because that would determine um how to design the uh the subdivision around those slopes, especially if there's steeper slopes.

If I may just turn the question over to Brianna, do you feel like all the elements that are relevant to this application were received?

Yes, I do feel as though all um necessary documentation was received for preliminary plan.

And upon issuing the certificate of completeness, they had all required um information and documents after issuing the certificate of completeness was when public input started coming in about the flooding issue.

Um I did know that it was not in a flood zone, but I received all the input about flooding after issuing the certificate of completeness, um, and which at that point one of the conditions of approval for preliminary plan became that operate that maintenance of stormwater.

So I'm not sure.

Was that a requirement or a suggestion the way it was worded?

I wasn't certain.

Oh that they submit a plan to manage the stormwater.

So final plan will not be approved until there is a plan for managing stormwater.

I will say that that preliminary plan is an important step because then applicant is vested with the right to go forward.

And I I would agree with you that some applications may be different from others in terms of what information must be provided in terms of scope and scale and all of that.

But I think that based on what we've heard tonight, um, there are some things in that checklist and information that we don't have that I think at least for me is really important to making a decision at the preliminary plan stage.

Um location size, use type of proposed buildings and structures, all um number of residential units per building, all accessory structures, building setbacks, and total lot coverage.

Um I think that total lot coverage, even impervious surface area is important because of the flooding.

I think the soil uh type is important because of the flooding issues.

Um, it might not be in other cases, but I think is as I look at this list, and I did not go through it before this evening, there are a lot of pieces of information that I think would be helpful in making an appropriate preliminary plan determination.

And I think I if I may add a comment to that, umone else also raised impervious surface coverage.

This is something that I think is a major omission in our regulations.

We do not regulate impervious surface in the city of Cranston.

We have a building lot coverage, but that only applies to the building itself, not to the driveways or other paved areas.

The one requirement you have that is relevant is that when a when a house is approved, they have to show that they're not making the stormwater situation worse.

So, and as Frank Correa spoke to this before, they just have to have show a plan to manage the the water that will land on the roof of their proposed structure.

Any other questions for staff if I if I may uh also speak to Kathleen's concerns about the omission of some information?

I you mentioned maybe like five things, such as like um use lot coverage, um setbacks and all of those things almost by by not asking for relief, they are proposing to comply with zone with the standards per the subdivision.

So if they are approved for this subdivision with two 4800 square foot lots in that they're not additionally asking for relief from setbacks, so their setbacks upon the approval of this subdivision, they will they are required to have conforming setbacks, conforming dimensional regulations.

I would just I would just say that we recently had a matter that came before us at the last meeting where a subdivision was approved with no relief sought, and subsequently they went to the zoning board to seek relief.

So I don't think that provides enough assurance to me that that might not happen anyway.

That was an interesting case because that was a applied as an administrative subdivision.

Yeah.

Um quick thing, uh Ms.

Valcourt um responded to my questions by providing a document to me that's written.

So I'll just read it on two family lots on the 400 foot radius.

There are 14 undersized, five under 4800 feet, and in a 200 foot radius, there's three undersized and one under 4800 feet.

Thank you.

That does answer my question.

And um, does anyone have anything else to say?

And then we'll just start talking and doing motions and stuff.

Okay, I'll just start.

Um generally when I review these kinds of proposals, I look at when I look at the density issue.

First, I look at what's in the future land use map.

Is it above, below in the existing neighborhood?

And then thirdly, sometimes I will look at the lots in that area.

Uh this is clearly above the future land use map density.

Future land use map is 10.89.

This is in the range of I think 1364, and by 25% more.

The existing area, sometimes if the existing area is above the future land use map, I'll go with it.

Um the existing 200 foot area is 8.86.

I know the public comment was like you're focusing on percentages and numbers.

The reason I do that is because it actually is relevant for deciding whether or not something is subject to the comprehensive plan.

Um, which is one element, really two elements here.

Um then I look at the lot size issue.

And at times I've gone with it, like I've done it in Dale Lab and some other places, but here it's not clear to me that a majority of the lots in this area are 4800 feet or below.

They may be undersized, but they're not 4800 feet or below.

So this is actually going lower than what is common in that area.

Um, so I'm inclined not to vote for it because it's inconsistency.

But what bothers me the most, and I do take public comment from everybody and listen to it intensely the best I can.

Is we have an obvious flooding issue over here.

Um, I don't think anybody can deny it.

To me, for me to even want to vote for this, I could not vote for this unless I knew for sure that there was an adequate stormwater management plan related to this property, so that it would not increase the runoff into this area.

I do not want to approve it and then see the plan.

I want to, if I'm gonna approve this, I want to see the plan first and then approve it.

That's just me.

And I'm not trying to be like, look, I've approved homes on undersized lots before, but you guys are in a kind of a difficult situation.

I don't see neighborhoods that look like this, like Aquaman stuff.

You know, this is bad, and it's not your fault.

And I know the whole problem with the city and this thing and all that, and it's not the developer's fault either.

But so I'm not inclined to vote for this.

I'll listen to my colleagues.

I'm not inclined to vote for it based on density, and I'm certainly hesitant to vote for it because I'm putting the we're putting the cart before the horse by not seeing the stormwater management plan ahead of time.

So that's why I'm not supportive of it.

Thank you.

Anyone else have anything they want to say?

Commissioner Lampier.

All right.

Now I'll put this in the category of beating a dead horse, but I I'm just going to as a again.

I find that there are some things that should be included that are not.

And in the uh checklist, there is also a requirement, and I believe it's um number 20, that certification by a Rhode Island registered professional engineer that the proposed conditions plan is correct.

And if you look at the proposed conditions plan, which was just submitted, I think a day ago, um, there is no stamp by a registered engineer.

It's prepared by a surveyor, as they are allowed to do, but the checklist appears to require certification by a Rhode Island registered professional engineer, unless that was on a different document.

But what I see in the packet, there is no certification.

Most of our minor subdivisions are are just plans prepared and submitted by a land surveyor, a professional land surveyor.

Um that's it.

Okay.

One other thing I just want to say before.

Um, by the way, so people know this.

I don't know anybody here over here.

Like you guys.

I don't know you.

Mr.

Bosch, I've met you maybe 10 years ago.

Nice person.

Great.

And I remember voting for your applications on other projects in the past.

So this is not personal.

It's just strictly fact-based and how I view it, so you understand.

Any other comments or discussion before we take motions?

Okay.

All right.

The first motion would be whether or not to it's a to deny or approve or deny a zoning variance, correct?

And and with the zoning variants, you would be able to take into consideration the um reasons for approval or your findings for zoning variants, which would be comprehensive plan.

The comprehensive, it would be like everything that that's in the staff memo regarding the standards.

It would be if you approve it, you just follow staff recommendation, approve it, or if you deny it, it's basically denial based on inconsistency on or whatever you would be like.

Yeah, whatever you find.

Yeah, it would be like for me, it would be number two over here about so that requested would not generate would not be a general character or intent of the comprehensive plans.

Correct.

Should someone wish to deny it, that would be the motion.

Okay.

All right, guys, how you want to proceed.

I make a motion that we approve the zoning variance based on the recommendation of the staff.

Okay.

Motion made by Director Correro for approval.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second by Commissioner Zodallas.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

All those in favor of granting the variance, um, please signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Nay.

Okay, so we're gonna and vote.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

Mr.

Barberi, Mr.

Zadellus, Mr.

Carrero.

All those opposed say nay.

Mr.

Exter, myself, the president, and Commissioner Lamper.

So Mr.

Marcel, we have a three-three tie here.

The motion does not pass.

Okay.

So the problem with this now is if I made a motion to deny, I don't think it would pass either.

So uh I asked for your guidance.

Do we continue this the next month?

Or do we is it by us not granting it, it's approved, or um I would we haven't had a tie in a long while.

Oh that's why we pay you the big bucks to remember this stuff.

Well, it I mean if the motion fails, so right now we the the floor is open.

Yeah, um, so you could you're you could continue it um and allow the other planning board members who who missed the meeting to view it and ask questions, you could continue it and request information from the applicant that may um address some of the concerns that um you know I uh I I tend to agree with uh Ms.

Lamfear regarding some of the necessary items on the checklist uh and and it's there's something there's nothing um improper with you requesting that the applicant um get the appropriate professionals and bring those back to you and now the applicant can say no I'm I'm not gonna do it.

I rest on what I submit.

Um that would be the um other way.

Um I understand.

So basically our options are um I could try to do a denial vote and see if I somebody switches their mind.

Two, we continue it to next month, or three, continue to next month and request further information for next month.

Correct.

Okay.

Commissioner Lamper, you had a lot of inquiries that you thought needed to be addressed.

Is there something that you would like to?

I know you're doing this kind of like off the top of your head, but is there certain things in the checklist that you would like to see provided to us before next month meeting, assuming we continue as the next month meeting.

Thank you.

Um I'm sure that if I had um adequate time to go through these one by one, I could tick off a number of them.

Correct.

However, um those that I did raise were um under proposed conditions and plans, section D, D one location, size, and use slash type of proposed buildings and structures, including proposed number of residential units per building, if applicable, and include all accessory structures, building setbacks and total lock coverage.

Um if I may, if this exercise, if you feel this exercise is going to be incomplete, um Brianna, when was the um when was the certificate of completeness?

How much time do we have?

This thing was December the um 10th.

So you could just continue it one month and then next month um come back with a list of items that you know that the board believes it needs, you could do it now.

You could just continue just do a straight continuance, come back with what um request that the that the board needs.

Um, and at that time, you know, you'd have the other applicant rather than you trying to um what you know go through the checklist on what may or may not be.

Because the time period ends the 90 days ends sometime in the middle of March.

Correct.

So we got we have two two months.

Okay, so well, we have one month, one month.

So that was gonna say, why don't you I think solicitor Marcel, I think she should mention like three or four things she wants to see now.

We assuming one of my colleagues on the other side want to support it, yeah.

Then we vote for that to request that from the applicant and continue it to March.

Correct, yeah, that would that would be the best practice.

Um then obviously the applicant, should they wish, could always uh agree to continue it, you know, or could yeah, we're gonna have to go ahead, Commissioner Lampers.

Some of the some of the ones are the most important.

So you said D1.

All right, that was the first.

Yeah, the second one is D20, which is certification by a Rhode Island registered professional engineer that the proposed conditions plan is correct.

Um actually would just like make a quick comment on that.

That is a requirement for the final plan.

But but Joe, they can ask for it now.

They can ask for it earlier, they they can't they can ask for it.

The applicant can supply it if the applicant wants.

Okay, I I also want to say so.

Typically, um the professional engineer certification is if there is a specific item that would require an engineer stamp.

Um so with the plan as it is, that don't believe, and maybe Frank can uh well, I clarify too.

But so say, and and I am not an engineer, and I'm not a planner, so it may be my lack of expertise that that brings me to what I'm about to say.

But I found that the plans that were provided for this were very different and lacked a lot of specificity than what we generally see in a preliminary plan.

I realize that part of that has to do with scale, but I think that a lot of the information is still helpful to um what is before us.

Um, and I think the applicant has heard a lot of what it is we're looking for, and a lot of it relates to the physical um property itself, the soil, the contours, uh, storm water management and things of that nature that are real concerns for for general welfare um and and determining whether or not it's appropriate to do what you are asking us to approve.

So, what we're asking for is more information.

Uh Commissioner Lampier, so I'm just trying to make it sure that's clear if we make a motion.

Yes.

So you have a motion as you want the D1 that you mentioned earlier, the D20, which is the was the engineer stuff.

Is there anything else you want to say?

Like the slope and the this and whatever.

I'm just trying to move that, you know.

You know, I know it's difficult to do anything.

I'm just looking for the way it is worded here, which is much more succinct than I would be if I tried to say it myself.

Well, and it sounds like you're asking the department to double check the full list.

Yes, but I but I think there are things that we would like to see, such as you know, there are boundaries and total area of any land classified as unsuitable for development.

Um I think that my understanding is since you're voting on a discretionary relief that they've requested your your request for information could go beyond what we as a department could require for the subdivision.

I I personally would like to have a stormwater management plan myself.

I don't know if they can do it in 30 days, but that's what I would want to see.

But anyway, what is Commissioner Zedels?

You're making okay, forget it.

I I also would just want to say that if if the applicant, we can certainly continue this for a month, but the applicant has the ability to agree to a lengthier continuance to get together the information that you think is necessary to present to us so that we can be fully informed and make a decision based on information that we we think we should have in front of us.

Yes, sir.

If you could just come up and you have the right to respond, you although public comments close, you have the right to respond if regarding time frames, et cetera.

So the you know, the board's commission's asking for additional information from professionals that you may have to retain.

Um we have 90 days to make a decision.

However, you have the right if if, for instance, if you need to hire an engineer and that engineer can't get to you for another 40 days, you have the right to agree to extend that 90 day period to another 30 days to allow you to present evidence to the board um that may obviously further you know your application.

Um, but statutorily, this board has to make it can only really continue this one more month.

So it's um it it I don't want to say it's your call because that they're gonna make a motion to continue, but it is certainly your ability to extend that 90 day period to allow you time to get in to get professionals that you may not be able to get in the next two weeks or whatever.

Um so I guess I asked two questions.

Sure.

Uh so one is I need to understand what your requirement because from past bills allow these stuff, especially for mining subject as a home, not allowed the preliminary stuff is typically what's asked of, right?

So in this situation, I understand um Ms.

Lenpia Lemphia that you're requesting more stuff, right?

So I guess my what I need in terms of clarity is what you're looking for exactly, just like Mr.

Fry stated that if you have three or four suggestions, I would like to hear in clarity what those three or four suggestions are.

And then in regards to uh Mr.

Marcella's uh um question and in terms of time, um, I guess it won't come down to based on what's required, right?

Right now, I guess I could agree on 30 days.

Um, but then if I if that's not enough time, am I okay to reach back out to a city and request an extension, maybe just to make sure that provide enough information that the councilman and councilwoman are looking for.

Yes, absolutely.

You would um should you wish to extend the period of time, um you could you would just send in a written um a letter or an email to the planning department um allowing uh an extension of time.

Perfect.

Okay.

Um, me personally, I'd like to have a stormwater management plan.

So in regards to that um I don't know if the my my other colleagues want to do it, but that's what I would want.

I don't know, Commissioner Lambert had a couple of things she the D the one on the D checklist D1 and D20 is what she said so far.

The D1.

Instead of repeating all of that, if you look at that checklist, which is on the website, it's D1 and D20.

Okay.

Oh Mr.

Mr.

Corrupt Correct, point for I'm sorry about that.

Um does the rain garden as a form of our storm water um assistance.

Um, are you looking for anything further as well from a DPW standpoint, or does that self-base, and I just need to make sure that's clarified within the planning.

I again would I don't find the right words.

I don't want to say manipulating the regulations, but it seems like we're going above and beyond what we would normally do for a checklist.

For this stage for this stage of the process, you can't design a stormwater plan without designing the house and having the roof size and doing the calculations.

So we are requiring a significant investment in design before rendering a decision of whether the lot will even be could be considered for building.

Correct.

And that was one of the things I'm trying to stress.

There's a lot of upfront money that needs to be expended in order for these things to be done.

And I'm just saying I don't want to go too far outside the realm of what we're required to allow or to ask for at this stage of the game.

I mean, a stormwater management plan, that's usually for a subdivision of a larger size, a single lot of 4,800 square feet.

Stormwater management plan is not something you would normally see.

And I'm not sure an engineer would know what to do with it because that doesn't really fall into the realm of what a stormwater management plan is.

They can design a rain garden to say based on the potential building that's being proposed.

It's just so many square feet.

They come up with that number over one inch of rain over that roof that gets drained from the downspouts that end up into this rain garden.

And that needs to be sized and designed based on soil conditions and whatever you have for elevations and whatever volume of water that would ultimately make it.

So it's really just designing the rain garden more so than a stormwater management plan.

That's pretty extensive.

When you talk about stormwater management plan and operations and maintenance plan, the same thing that just requires whatever plantings you put in there that they are maintained at that stage and you continue to maintain that.

One of the things I want to caution you about is when you do that, you're also asking the potential property owner that purchases this property in the future that they are signing on to make sure that they meet the requirements of that operations and maintenance plan to in perpetuity.

Correct.

Every year they're supposed to submit something that shows they did X, Y, and Z to ensure that this still functions and is able to address the capacity of water that's coming off of that structure.

Yeah.

One thing in response, Director Crow, and I don't pretend to be a stormwater management person at all.

I'm not an engineer.

My thing is, and I have not been a stormwater, like I don't like you can't do a development unless I have a stormwater on what you know, stormwater management on this one or two houses.

The reason this jumps up at me is because of this particular situation.

I have a hard time ignoring the rainwater problem there.

And I feel uncomfortable approving something without a robust, clearly articulated stormwater management plan.

Is it unusual what I'm doing by saying that?

Absolutely.

I think that neighborhoods, I think that neighborhood's in an unusual situation.

So yeah, so Steve, in in other towns, and Mr.

Correa will okay back this up.

They do require stormwater management and engineered stamp plans at the preliminary plan stage.

Again, that is something they require.

It's it's something that we don't require, but as we said, but we have the ability to ask.

But it's uh at the preliminary plan stage, it's on the state.

It's on the state checklist.

It can be required a preliminary stage, and as you know, it is in other places in most other places, actually.

I I and I think in this situation is it's not like we're willy-nilly imposing it all over the city here.

I've never done that before.

It's because of this situation, the situation.

So I think I'm justified in saying I want to be like the rest of the state and have a stormwater management plan and engineering approval and all this other stuff at preliminary plan stage for this particular neighborhood.

I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to set a precedent, Director for like, oh, they're gonna do a development and alpine state, and you know, and some I need a stormwater management plan kind of thing.

That's what I'm saying.

But this for many uh issue.

So is if I do if I did provide all the information, I'd uh like to send them.

I didn't provide the information.

No, it comes to it comes to a point where all right, I provide all the necessary information for all the investment into this to make this happen.

Come in front of the board, um, come in front of the uh the councilman councilwoman, no obviously get rejected.

That's my biggest concern.

Up front costs is gonna cost me a lot of money up front.

If it was some of that was guaranteed, said, All right, you know what?

This could definitely happen as long as you provide us for the information.

I'm willing to bite the bullet and fund the investment up front.

That doesn't bother me.

It's I mean fund the investment up front, you know, so we get rejected.

Now my phone's not gone.

I and I understand I can't prejudge.

You know, I can't prejudge.

I think you've heard my view.

Um, the good news for you is that Commissioner Cooper's not here, and Commissioner Coop, you know, you know, you have to see what he has to say next month.

You know, he'll hear it if we can, you know, we continue it.

So I can't, I can't speak for anybody else, but uh for me, I have a real problem with this.

I think you know, and I certainly have a big problem unless there's a stormwater management plan up front.

I've I think I made that kind of clear, you know.

You know, make that uh can we make that this uh the defining I can't say I can't make it the I'm not saying defining in terms of making a decision, but in terms of what you prefer up front for the next meeting versus all the other necessary stuff that's typically after preliminary stuff.

I think we got to just ask for a lot of front first.

I think Commissioner Lampier has said that she wants the information on the D1 checklist, the D20 checklist, and I want some kind of storm water management plan.

I think that's where I've heard so far.

And you can decide if it's reasonable or unreasonable.

We'll continue it to next month.

There'll be possibly one new commissioner.

There'll be one commissioner here, you it's not here.

There could be another one, you know, who could be appointed.

So but this is the this is what I can speak for for us right now.

Because we don't violate the other thing, so people don't believe this.

But we don't violate open meeting.

So I can't like oh, I know what that person's doing and this one's gonna do.

You understand what I'm saying?

Absolutely.

Okay.

If I can't commissioner I I know what what he's trying to accomplish, but as a developer or a builder, you know what you're gonna be putting onto that possible land.

Yes.

So I don't think it's a far stretch to be able to show the structure, the driveway, know the areas that are coming in and be able to produce that on the site plan that would come in.

So it's not a stretch.

Okay.

Um I think I can make a motion or or one of you can make a motion and we can see what happens, which is to continue this to next month's meeting.

Um, and request in the interim that the Apple can provide information consistent with checklist item D1, D20, and a stormwater management plan.

Does that sound pretty much consistent for you, Commissioner Lampier?

Yeah, we need to say the date.

I'm sorry.

What's the date?

I didn't care.

I didn't hear that.

When's the March meeting?

March 3rd, March.

All items will be after the Capitol budget hearing.

Yes, that'll be after the Capitol.

That's a that's a fun thing to be part.

So you you can skip the first hour or two.

Um March 3rd.

So this would be continue to the March 3rd meeting with requests more information consistent with the D1 checklist, the D20 checklist, and a stormwater management plan.

Okay, that's I'll make that motion.

Second by Commissioner Lampfair.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Pass is unanimous.

We'll see you next month.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Um if you want to stay here for the subdivision regulations, you're more than welcome.

But uh before we get to that, um, I want to take a moment for a recognition of members on our agenda.

Uh sorry I had to postpone this, but tonight we wanted to recognize the service of uh Commission Plan Member Nicole Renzuli.

Um I Nicole uh Commissioner Renzuli is now working in the mayor's office.

And um the first time I, you know, I've known her a few years, but um what I know of her when she was younger was that she was a star athlete at West.

Very and to be a star athlete, you gotta be dedicated and have talent.

And clearly she's uh an emerging star here in public service here in Cranston.

In her short political public service career, she's been a leader in the legislative branch.

She's been an active member in the uh quasi judicial body, and now she is in the executive branch as the communications director.

So we know your time here has been short with us, but you certainly were an active participant.

And uh before you leave, we wanted to give you some recognition uh as you head on to bigger and better things.

So I just wanted to give you this certificate on behalf of all of us, okay, Commissioner.

Thank you.

That's a version of me giving a nice speech.

Here's okay.

When the staff is ready for subdivision regulations.

We'll get going.

I thought we'd be out of here 8 30, but I think we got another hour.

Mr.

Borgman, um, please give us a little intro before we take public comment on the amendments to the subdivision regulation.

And I know there's people still here, you know.

Please try to keep the noise down while we we get this going.

Go ahead, Jonas.

All right.

Um just gonna give a brief overview for both members of the commission and the public that may be seeing this for the first time since this is the official public hearing.

Um we have discussed the subdivision regulations over the last few months.

Um going over it again and again.

I'm not getting picked up.

Let me just move this.

Okay.

And um most of the changes that are in the subdivision regulations are gonna were from the 2025 um session.

Uh and specifically from the one bill that I've on the screen right here.

Um that's where most of the changes that were listing as like required changes in our table.

Um, though there's also discretionary amend amendments that we added, um, either that the planning staff recommended, um, a couple from the fire departments from the deep uh public works, and um also some from members of the city plan commission.

Um and uh for ease of use, we did make a guide table um that kind of shows where we made the changes, were they required by the state, uh by state law, or are they recommend the changes?

Um we also added uh you know what it is and why we added it or why it was recommended.

Um so from the 2025 bill, um some of the most like important things, uh the most notable things were um this new type of subdivision, which is an oversized lot subdivision, um, which is a type of minor subdivision that is only administrative, basically allows um a developer or a landowner to subdivide um uh a lot that is considered oversized compared to the neighborhood.

Um, and there's very specific categories where you qualify for that.

Um, but this commission will largely not see that that's mostly an administrative type of uh subdivision.

Um additionally, pre application meetings are gonna be now optional, so only the applicant can request those, not the city plan commission, not the administrative officers anymore.

Um state permits that are now required at the final plan for major subdivisions and land developments.

Um there's an option for minor subdivisions if the uh commission that we could potentially still require those at the minor at uh at the preliminary plan stage rather than the final plan stage, but um that we'll discuss later.

Um another change is the expiration of the final plan approvals are now two years instead of one, and changes to there's also some changes to required findings of fact that also will affect this commission specifically.

Um not so much the first part, but the second part specifically, there's some changes uh to how they um to the language in some of the findings and also how um as we've seen the previous one, uh for example, when under unified developments, there's um instead of uh four categories that we have to review um for fine four findings that we have to review for dimensional so uh dimensional variances.

It's only three now.

Um some discretionary changes that we recommended was were that we clarified fees uh that the planning staff specifically recommended that so we clarified fees for applications for when we combine review stages.

That's something that's been kind of unclear.

So we did uh recommend some language on um how that would be clarified.

Um we created two categories for minor subdivisions uh fees.

So we've always kind of treated all minor subdivisions as the same in the past.

Um, but the fees are still the same.

And to us, you know, we these usually take very different amounts of time.

You usually spend way more time on the ones that go to the board.

So we decided splitting them up would make much more sense.

Um, just time wise.

Um we also integrated design standards from our DPR ordinance into our subdivision regulations to create kind of like a uniform standard because for some reason there were some standards in our DPR regulations that were different from the standards in our subdivision regulations.

Um there's still more work that needs to be done.

Um, so there's some stuff in there, but there's we need more time to work on um more uh like to update our design standards to really meet best practices, especially specifically when it comes to landscaping and street lights um and and some some roadway stuff as well.

Um and then something that specifically the fire department recommended that I wanted to highlight was this requirement for uh cisterns for new subdivisions.

Um we've had some issues in the past where some subdivisions came through, but they didn't install cisterns.

Um, but this is actually a fire department policy, so uh hopefully going forward uh all new subdivisions without access to public water will have um requirements to build these cisterns.

Um here's also a lengthy list of some discretionary amendments that we've uh worked on since December 2nd.

Um part of that was a recommendation to increase uh like filing fees by 25%.

Um then also some some minor changes like where the oversized lot subdivision uh language uh lives in the regulations.

Um checklist items were added as well.

Um we also worked on updating the sidewalk requirement.

Um previously uh the sidewalks were only required under very specific circumstances, or if the board requested it.

Uh now we've changed that to make them required um for most new subdivisions.

Um, and then provide some conditions for the waivers.

Um and also a requirement for cryptocurb report we're paving, which um even on seen in the previous subdivision, it's something that we very often require um as a condition, but we've never explicitly put it in our regulations.

This would actually formalize that that requirement rather than always having having us remember to condition that.

Um we did notice some there's a couple other things that we added a little bit last minute.

So these are things that we added last minute, very last minute, some things we added uh or are recommending to add.

Um and uh one of them um just very small language change that is actually quite impactful, which is this institutional category for expansions for expansions um in minor subdivisions, um which language-wise also applies to some major subdivisions, but we that was I guess somewhat an oversight.

We have some um it basically by not having that in our in our regulations.

We are missing out on there are certain very specific projects.

Um I think the sample I gave um like assisted living facilities would actually not fall under planning review if those came through.

So that's why we recommended that that we add that.

Um yeah, also added a recommendation for public comment.

Um sorry, uh yeah.

Um, one more thing that was added to the specific draft was public comment requirement during the uh public meeting for preliminary plan.

Um I mean, it's and uh right, and then one very minor change at the end as well, um, which just kind of which is something we must have missed in previous drafts as well.

Um there's a couple other things that we also last last minute uh recommending as well.

Um one of them was just take full responsibility for is a complete oversight on my part.

Um, this is actually a state law change.

Um that definitely should be in here.

Um specifically, that was what I mentioned earlier.

Um that speaks to there's uh when it comes to dimensional variances that fall under UDR, that second finding, which is that um that self-created hardship finding uh cannot be used to deny projects anymore, specifically for dimensional variances under UDR.

Um for use variances, I still I guess it still applies, but not for dimensional.

Um the other one was um oh, so kind of a minor oversight content-wise, it was fine.

Um there was a state law change, specifically in the the bill that changed most of the other state, the other things in our regulations.

Um that um previously when we made our findings, we uh also had to make findings around the general purposes um that are cited in state law, but the um general assembly decided to get rid of that.

And so now we only need to find um now it's only the specifically the findings, the the five findings for uh approvals for subdivisions.

Um so right here you see the existing language.

Um so I must have just cut it out and then forgot to reward the sentence.

So here I'm rewording the sentence to have it make sense.

Um I'm also instead of listing every single potential permitting authority.

I just simplified it to authorized permitting authority.

Um yeah, everything else will be in the major draft um that we have up on the website.

Um, or and should be highlighted on the table as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Burgen.

Um, before I open up public comment, I know you all here have been anxious to make public comment, but I just had two small questions to the staff that could be typographical errors.

Obviously, there's like little things always happening here, and and I keep reading I keep reading it, and so I keep finding things, you know.

So it's that's our problem too.

All right, so just want to see if this is a typographical error or not.

On page 18 of 125, and if you have it before you let me know, I'll ask you the question.

Go ahead.

Okay.

It says it gives a definition project classification for minor subdivision.

A subdivision creating nine or fewer lots where a street extension or street creation is required.

Should it not be not required for a minor subdivision?

Or am I wrong?

Solicitor or I'll read it.

The definition in our regs for minor subdivision is a subdivision creating nine or fewer building lots, billable, excuse me, buildable lots, where a street extension or street creation is required.

Isn't it not required?

Correct.

I don't mind having, you know, go ahead.

It would be a major, right?

If it's required.

No, if it's if it's nine or fewer buildable lots.

If it's 10 or more buildable lots, that's a major.

If it's nine or fewer and it needs a street extension, that's uh minor subdivision.

Minor, but not administrative.

Correct.

So I could not, I did not separate to be clear, I did not separate those categories.

There's still a minor subdivisions.

The state has decided to make it as confusing as possible.

See it confused me.

Thank you.

All right.

All right.

Yes, yeah, exactly.

So whether, yeah, whether it's minor or not, whether it's minor or major is the number of lots, whether it's administrative or I'll call it, you know, uh planning board procedural has to do with essentially what the subdivision does, you know, street extension uh other type of um uh necessary variances, except you've explained it.

I understand now.

Okay.

Page 35.

If you when you get there, let me know.

Okay.

Go to the final sentence on that page.

It says the resulting lots are not less than 3,000 square feet in the in the parentheses is 3,000 feet two.

Yeah, that probably should be a square rather than uh uh okay.

That's just typographical.

That's what's okay.

That's all it is.

Yep.

See, it wasn't I was nothing substantive, guys.

Don't worry.

All right, is there any other final questions or comments to the staff before we open it up to the public for their commentary on these?

Go ahead, director.

The one thing that keeps confusing me is this word, any subdivision.

The property we just did, isn't that a subdivision?

So are we saying that's potentially not going to come before the planning commission anymore based on your determination?

That project only came before the planning commission because it requires relief.

Zoning relief.

It doesn't otherwise that would have been an administrative if they had the 8,000 square feet and the 6,000 square feet.

Yeah, never seen it.

If there was no house on, you know, because the house needed release.

So if it was if it was a 16,000 square foot one lot, Beth could have done it administratively.

Okay, which I guess if Mr.

Bosey decides to sell that piece of property they can do nothing with, they could have bundled all four of those locks, and then they would not have to come before us.

Yeah, but keep in mind that that's because the when there's structures on it, it it things get convoluted, especially again what Mr.

Bosey said, you know, you you you build a house and you have enough land for a two-family, and then you cut off half of the land once you get the CO and ask for it.

So in other words, you're you're now creating a non-conformity that you didn't have.

Right.

So that's no longer the finding of facts.

It goes without saying that the proposal is for relief, is create creating a need for relief.

But also any other last minute questions.

Okay, we will now open up for public comment on the regulations, the draft regulations.

Please come forward, state your name and address for the record.

Don't be shy.

I know you that's what you're here for.

Hello again.

Um thank you, Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee.

My name is Christina Brown.

Okay.

I live at 217 Armington Street in Cranston.

Um, my first comments you did clarify in terms of um the subdivision with the street, which was your clarification.

So thank you for that.

That writing is confusing.

Um the other comments I have, I'll keep them brief because it's getting very late, but um under the new additions to subdivision required documents and checklists.

Um page 44 of at least the copy that I have, uh, an estimate of the number of school-aged children to be housed in the proposed subdivision development.

I'm very concerned about this in terms of are you going to use this to deny projects based on the potential number of children that could possibly be in that housing?

And I would like to know how you expect to determine what a developer is supposed to come to you with that number.

In my experience, living in Rhode Island and in Cranston, you can have a one-bedroom unit where you have a single mother living with her child.

You could have a two-bedroom unit where you have a family of four.

You could have a three-bedroom unit, you could have a house.

Many of our homes are now inhabited by single elderly people with no children.

So, how is a developer who is there as an expert on building and developing structures, supposed to be a demographer and a predictor of the future of who might possibly be the household and the demographics of that household who will eventually buy or rent that unit.

I I strongly object to this.

I do think that there is case law president of developers suing municipalities for denying projects based on their assumption that there will be an influx of children in these properties.

I will I just strongly object to this and would like to know more about the rationale and what you expect the developer to do.

As a Rhode Island taxpayer, I know that my taxes go to paying for planning staff that has credentials and expertise and are looking at census data and are projecting population trends and demographic data.

I also pay for the statewide planning office that is obligated to give us projections.

Your role is to mitigate growth and manage growth of the city.

And I feel like pushing this on to the developers is not appropriate at all.

I feel similarly to uh the fiscal impact that you're requesting.

We should, as a city, have staff and personnel that understand the fiscal impact of development that should not be put on to the developer who is going to build housing or any other structures in our community.

We should have robust staff that knows what that fiscal impact should be.

I know for myself as uh a parent of two children in in Cranston who goes to public schools.

I want to see more families live in my community.

I don't think projects should be denied based on that.

And the way that this is worded, I have a real fear that that is where we're going with these two requirements.

Um that is the end of my comments.

Next hello again.

Do I need to sign in again?

Or my name is already there.

Yes, again.

Okay.

Um Annette Bourne, 51 Community Drive.

I'm gonna wax a little philosophical at the outset here because what are we here for?

We're here about being a city.

We are here about uh whether we're growing or creating community.

Uh, some communities in Rhode Island are declining, including their childhood uh population precipitously.

Tiverton is actually uh paying a bond on a school that they built that they are now closing.

So just want to keep that in mind.

So as I read through the subdivision regulations, this particular idea that school children is the most important uh thing that a developer needs to bring um uh an estimate for.

Um it just there's something about it being kind of anti-community to me, that we are thinking that school children are somehow the ruination of what we are going to be as a community.

Um I will remind people again that there are fair housing laws that protect uh families.

Um there's a case in Arlington, Virginia, where the city had to pay or maybe county $95,000 in a fair housing lawsuit because of the idea that the development was being prevented because of the number of school children.

Uh, Massachusetts courts have also held in this position, and our director of planning uh knows those situations as well.

So, similar to Christina's comments, this is the job of a municipality.

If this is what we want to do, then we need to devise what the methodology is.

Because honestly, every household brings something.

If we decide that we're going to do a 55 and older community, are we going to decide whether or not there are going to be more ambulance calls to that development?

Every household brings something.

So to just identify school children, I think is a very dangerous path.

Um, if we are going to devise that methodology, I would ask that there be a threshold to it as well.

Let's not make it for every minor subdivision.

If we have um, you know, 400 units or 400 bedrooms coming in, maybe that is a threshold, but I would ask that our professional staff, you know, consult and make those decisions, perhaps with other municipalities, perhaps with other states, and we should definitely consult with their housing lawyers.

Thank you very much.

Next good evening.

Uh Robert Murray 75 Debbie Drive Cranston.

Um I'm here tonight.

They're representing myself.

Uh nobody in particular, but as you know, I appear here on a regular basis representing applicants, developers, um, property managers, and um I'm here tonight to comment on those items that have been posted.

Uh I know some things were changed today, and I apologize.

I was unaware of that.

I'm not really focused on those.

I I heard what they were, but I I think my comments are more um directed towards uh some other issues.

So I'll uh uh I'll defer on those right now.

Um I want to try and do this in some order.

Um I will save for the end my grave concerns that Annette uh raised concerning your checklist for fiscal impact statements and um school aged information way out of bounds and hopefully built to a crescendo.

Um let me first start by saying uh I appreciate the efforts that Beth and Jonas and the staff have tried to um undertake over the past many months trying to update these things.

Um the chart that uh was provided uh was a you know a good effort to try and make sense of the changes.

You know, I you know I took the chart, I looked for the changes, and you know, it was very helpful.

So I uh and I I appreciate uh their efforts uh every day, but certainly in this effort trying to be responsive to the commission and the the changing dynamics of what we're doing.

Um let me start first with the the regulations, just a few minor things.

Um were addressed a moment ago, but um that comment on page 18 about the the minor forget who asked it, the uh I think chairman did.

Uh I'm still not clear on it because well, we have a definition, and then we have on page 18 a chart, I think.

Um I'm unclear in that chart where uh subdivisions that are nine or fewer with no street extension that category.

I don't I don't think it's in there.

There are there are various uh categories, and and I tomorrow I'd be happy to, you know, I mean you may act tonight on this, but I I'll I'll try and put this in some order for the staff.

But as I looked at that, I I think that category is missing, but I'll I'll defer.

Um you would be disappointed if I didn't comment on page 21.

Um the 25% increase in fees.

Um I'm not saying fees should not be increased.

I'm not sure if there was any rationale or Dartboard use to pick 25, but uh you know I note that there are increases in fees, and those things get passed on to the ultimate end users uh when uh when we raise fees uh through the development process.

Um just a general comment uh for joining Jonas Jonas, I talk about this a lot, but we have an owner affidavit uh it's part of the online portal, which totally understand.

You want to you want evidence that the property owner knows that there's a subdivision or a land development project for their property right now in the under the I hate to date myself under the old process, an applicant would sign an application too.

Right now, if we don't require the application, and that seems to be up in the air right now, based on the other day, you have submissions being made where an applicant is not affirming to the information being provided.

So I just throw that out for your consideration.

We seem to focus on the owner affidavit, but you know, you know, how do you know the applicant?

You know, you know, is the applicant standing behind the submission.

So I I bring that to your um consideration.

Um the there were some of the changes that were noted on the cheat sheet.

Um when I went to them, I couldn't find them being highlighted, and uh, but I don't think they're big deals.

But like on page 47, you know, we adjusted language to state law, but I'm I'm not quite sure where it was highlighted.

Same thing with page 62.

Um then we ran into some trouble.

I don't know if it's just formatting, but when you get down to the bottom of the cheat sheet, the page numbers in the document that was online with the cheat sheet didn't line up.

Um, but I don't, you know, I I was able to find them, but I just note that.

Um so I want I want to focus on uh if you don't mind, just bear with me a second.

Um those were kind of the regulation comments I had, I believe.

Um I also you know what I tried to do when when these were posted, and this was heading towards this meeting.

I I did, you know, you know, and Beth and I have talked about this.

I try and share this with people, you know, that I deal with, you know, uh sharehold stakeholders, and you know, um, you know, so I circulated everything and they appreciated me filling up their their emails and uh uh you know I got some comments back, but I didn't you know I didn't get you know a lot of substance.

I I frankly encourage them to come tonight so I wouldn't have to carry their water, but um in fairness, I'm not really offering any comments on the landscape standards or uh you know it's just not my thing, and I you know and and I know the director uh you know we have some new standards for sidewalks.

I don't necessarily have a problem with them because I think there's I I kind of like the fact that there are circumstances when the director can issue some relief and then you can still come to the planning commission.

Um so I I'm I'm I'm gonna hold uh hold on those.

I I think I think they're workable.

Uh the cistern thing is new.

Uh I've I've dealt with the fire department on that, uh, both in Crants and other communities.

Um I hope is that any projects I'm involved in will be available for public water, and we won't have to fight about the size of the cisterns, but uh we'll we'll see what happens.

Um and then the if I could just take a moment.

Um I'll come back to the let me just go to the checklist, see if there's anything I missed.

I I apologize, it's just there's just too many uh I have no comments on the administrators checklist, so let's take that off the board.

Um on the minor and major um under required uh documents on page two of nine, Jonas.

You re it says a certified radius package from the tax assessor's office.

Um I always get my radius packages from the uh from the tax assessor's office.

I'm just not quite sure what a certified one is.

I I don't know, I don't know if that's a term of art or if it comes from the tax assessor's office, it's the real thing.

I I didn't hear the last part.

If it comes from the tax assessor's office, it's the real thing.

Okay, I agree, but I I just didn't know whether we're required to have we've had people pull their own address lists from the GIS.

And the town of that's fine.

Other towns allow that.

We do not it was just a term of art that jumped out of me, which kind of um uh just bear with me here.

The next item I had on the checklist page five.

I'm looking at the minor, but I think it's on the other one.

Um you're looking for uh utility plans, you want um include proposed utility means I engineer.

My experience, and I'll defer to Mr.

Carrero, is that there are instances in development where, for example, Rhode Island Energy or National Grid, they do not give you their, you know, you you apply for service and those connections after you're approved, and then they will send you their form uh easements and things like that.

I don't know because and some of it involves paying money to Rhode Island Energy for you know for them to so I'm just questioning whether or not you know, I mean it's one thing if if uh uh you know my client is declaring an access easement on their property.

We can prepare that.

That I'm just concerned about when we say proposed utilities, there may be circumstances that where whether it's um a public utility, they may they may trail later on.

I don't know if if you know what I'm explaining.

No, I'm just trying to think.

Uh are you talking about an easement on private property or public property?

Because on public property, they have the right, and there are no easements.

The easements are only drawn up once you go on to private property.

I agree with that.

Like if they need if they need a um I'm doing it for Garden City right now, where you know they need to put a new uh transformer in and they want Garden City to sign.

I mean, that that's not a uh land of but if I'm re if I and we may not be able to resolve this tonight.

I just point out that I so the I mean the thing that I'm concerned about.

The intent of the indition is um typically what I I guess when we put this in, what we were mostly thinking of is um on private property.

Um if someone needs to bring in, I don't know, like a like a power line or a water line through someone else's property, and now they need to get an easement on that property.

Um I guess we were not really thinking about um like a I guess was your so was your question more about like like the the the major overhead kind of situation whether it's underground or overhead.

For example, I'll I'll give you an example which I think I'm correct on because I have a client buying a lot.

If you recall the five lot subdivision off late night road, um uh Larry Moses is doing okay, you approved the five lot subdivision.

He subsequently granted Rhode Island Energy easements because it's a private road um in the uh for the conduit underground.

And uh, but that happened after the fact that that was a condition of Rhode Island Energy.

So I I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but I'm uh I'm all I'm just saying is I think it's one thing when where like for example, next month the commission is gonna see a subdivision where I provided you a draft of an access and utility easement that my client is declaring on their property.

Okay, I have no problem with that scenario.

It's it's the outside agencies.

If if you're requiring somebody to go get a utility easement before its time is right.

That's yeah, I I agree that we shouldn't we shouldn't be asking you to anticipate future proposals.

Right.

All right, let's not call it that.

Um page seven, and these are both major and minor.

You talk about a term, final copies of an irrevocable offering the city all publicly and or other public improvement accompanied by a mix and bound subscription.

I've never seen an irrevocable offer.

Um but I know irrevocable means you can't revoke it.

So there could be a situation where somebody makes an irrevocable offer, then something has to change, and you know, I don't know how we get it back.

But um if the intention is traditionally in a subdivision, when we go to record a final subdivision, we do quick claim deeds for streets, for example, okay, when we record the subdivision, then you know, obviously a bond is posted, the city's not accepting that street, but you know, we you know there are two ways, as I understand it, have a street created.

One is by conveyance, or it's on an approved city map.

That that's that's my limited knowledge of that, but I'm just questioning the this terminology of an irrevocable offer.

Maybe Mr.

Marcella is in agreement with it, but I I'm not quite sure what it means.

No, I mean, normally under the map street ordinance, once we record the map and it's accepted by the pl planning board, that's that's kind of the legal mechanism.

That's the one I've seen.

I don't know.

It may be if uh I mean that would I've never seen one, but I'm assuming if you needed a street um to the city.

I mean, in a certain circumstance.

I mean, they like if you look at these if for instance, uh, you looking at the nine-page checklist for minor subdivisions or which but it's too, I think.

Yeah, I know.

I mean, uh again, just doing one that I did as an applicant's attorney, I would say 70 percent is NA is not applicable, but you know, the the state and or the you know the planning department put it on there.

Um so it you know it it could be applicable.

Um you know, I can have a I can talk to Jonas on on the wording on that.

I'm a big fan of NA.

So I no, I must Mr.

Murray, yeah.

I I uh I appreciate all this commentary and the details this let me if you have like I think this Mr.

Marcel and the staff would certainly work with you on the most nuanced aspects because I was gonna say I don't anticipate voting on this tonight.

Okay, well that's fine.

I just you know, but sometimes you're in the forever.

But um, but Mr.

Fryas, uh you allowed someone to speak a long time, and Mr.

Murray would like to speak a long time.

I I I'm sorry, Mr.

Murray.

That's true.

That's true.

I'm sorry.

We're now we're now working towards the meat of my discussion.

This is he's getting to the good part now.

This is where I do my best to not offend the chairman, since most of my comments are directed towards his discretionary uh add ons to the checklist.

Um that left, everybody left.

There was their issue, and I'm like, I'm gonna bring it home.

Do you want to do you want to just like they're not not here?

You don't have to speak about it.

If you don't want to let's go right to the meat of it.

Um first on the fiscal impact statement, whether it's major or minor.

Um I think that's a big ask at that stage that it's being asked for uh in that it's being asked for.

Uh I I've had projects where on my own initiative I've brought those analyses in because I thought uh it would be uh helpful to the commission, and but I you know, and I I'm not talking out of school, but I uh I and I and I know you people have an appreciation for this, but you know, you know, whether it's a one lot subdivision or a nine lot subdivision, you're telling people they have to do a fiscal impact statement.

That means I take that, I mean you have to go find a qualified person to provide that.

Okay.

Um you want it on the back of my napkin, I'll I'll do it.

But if if I have to go hire somebody, my experience is $2,500 gets you two pages.

You want something real, you're up to $7,500.

Is that really what we're trying to do here?

And I and that that's a big concern.

If you're talking about a major subdivision, okay, I've spent anywhere from $7500 to $20,000.

So I just I just caution you that um you know, is that really where we're going here?

Uh when we're trying to create housing.

Is it you know, you know, just let's just front load all these expenses that um may or may not be necessary.

That being said, the school issue.

Um I I agree with everything the speakers before me said.

I you know, I go back to you know, Rhode Island General Law 452360, which sets forth the standards that you're supposed to be looking at.

Nowhere in there is school capacity an issue.

Uh, nor do I believe it should be.

Uh I have listened over many years, probably more recently in the last three or four years.

The people espoused that Cranston schools are over capacity, we can't handle any more kids.

Um I disagree strongly with that premise.

I don't think it's based in fact.

Uh I think it's inflammatory, and it's really being used as a sledgehammer to try and stop development.

Okay, it's not an issue that should be taken into consideration and shouldn't be on your checklist.

Um we're in Cranston.

I've been waiting for a subdivision to come forward where I can share this information, but I'll I'll give you a preview.

Um for the last year, I've been dealing with this central administration on enrollment.

Okay.

I have breakdowns by every school, I have breakdowns by every grade.

Okay.

Norm Cole will come here and tell you that there are no schools that are overcrowded.

Um they don't need to cluster in Western Cranston.

Okay.

Um in fact um we are at the low school population that we've been in the last 11 years.

Okay.

Um, I have data in the year 2015-16, we had 10,441 children.

Last year's October enrollment was 10,037.

It's been very stable, two or three hundred up or down.

The October enrollment last year was 9,906 students.

You can go right on the Red Island Department Ed website.

Normal was very nice to uh compile this information.

Say, by the way, Bob, if you go to this tab and link on this, you can get the information yourself.

So I I now do it.

So my point is school population is going down.

Okay.

And when I look at the breakdown of the individual schools, you know, by grade, okay.

I have the estimates that they estimated for last uh October.

Um, the 2025 estimates, I have the actual numbers, you know, and as I said, we're down at least 131 kids overall.

But you know, let's just uh everybody jump on um orchard farms.

Let me find one that worked for no um orchard farms.

They estimated 670 kids in October there was 669.

So, you know, that was uh, you know, but you know, whether you look at Hope Highland, you look at Western Hills, you look at, you know, um, you know, Mr.

Barberi's, you know, Francidis is down according to this by like 70 70 kids from what was estimated.

Today's population might be different.

I can only go by last October.

My point is I think this is a red herring, okay.

And it's its motivation comes from people who you know, you know, it's partly NIMBY, and I don't think the Planning Commission should you know go down that rabbit hole.

Um we don't worry about a four-bedroom house on Alpine Estates that some empty nester is now selling and may to somebody who may bring in three three new kids, okay.

We don't, you know, we don't limit their ability to replenish the house with kids.

Why should we stop new housing uh based on uh school age population?

The um the only basis I can come up with is to discourage housing, and that's not what uh I don't think that's where we are as uh in terms of need.

Uh this commission has recognized in many ways, you know, the need for you know, Rhode Island Housing Works has said we're you know we need more housing, we need more affordable housing, and you know, that's not the basis in which I think these reforms and regulations should reflect.

I can be a lawyer for a minute and then that touched upon it.

It's my position the city cannot discriminate against a developer if the school argument is used as a pretext to violate the familiar status or racial protections of a fair hair fair housing act, while municipalities have the right to manage land use zoning decisions that target or disproportionately impact families with children or protected minorities under the guise of school overcrowding can be considered illegal discrimination.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on familiar status, which includes the presence of children under 18 in a household.

If the city denies the development project specifically because it will bring too many children, um it is deemed direct discrimination against families with children.

If a city does not intend to discriminate, a policy just as a ban on multi-bedroom units that has a disproportionate, even if a city doesn't, I'm sorry, even if a city does not intend to discriminate, a policy uh such as that has a disproportionate adverse effect on families with children or minorities and is illegal and claims made under the Fair Housing Act are valid to that extent.

There's been recent legal precedents that have rejected the argument the potential increased school-related tax burdens are a valid reason for a city or town to deny uh a permit for housing.

Such denials have been found to be arbitrary or unreasonable when used to exclude residents.

A city can make planning decisions based on legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, however, they must be able to prove that a zoning or development denial is based on valid factual and non-discriminatory grounds.

Using school crowding as a pretext to prevent affordable family-friendly housing is a common target of Fair Housing Act lawsuits, and I don't think that's where the city wants to go.

Those are my thoughts.

So I can make more sense out of what I said.

But uh thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

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

Okay.

Is there anyone online who'd like to make public comment?

Oh, we got two hands.

Okay, go ahead.

Monica.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Um, the previous speaker actually made many of the points that I was going to make.

So I'll just uh briefly let you know I live at 1921 Broad Street uh in Cranston.

I'm the parent of two Cranston public school students, and I also have serious concerns about the proposed requirement for developers to have to provide an estimate of the number of school aged children.

I really do worry that this may um expose our city to liability for familial status discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.

I think imposing this requirement, honestly, it can only be interpreted as a message that is really unlawful and discriminatory that families with children aren't welcome in Cranston.

And I and I don't think that you want to send that message, right?

And I also think that it would be it could be costly for our city to do so.

Um as was mentioned previously, the Fair Housing Act does specifically protect against discrimination targeting families with children.

There was actually a case just a few years ago that was uh ultimately settled uh in Texas where the municipality had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Um, and so that would be the worst outcome, right?

That you can imagine for taxpayers in Cranston to have to end up paying for um litigation costs and for these uh fees.

And the other point that I just wanted to make briefly is around some of the uh economic conditions.

I know um that there is this concern that an influx of uh children will increase taxpayer bills, but the trends suggest that we really have as our primary concern this decline in population.

Um schools nationwide are experiencing these dramatic enrollment declines.

There was a study done by the Brookings Institution uh in 2025 that projected public school enrollment will decrease by about 2.2 million students by 2050, and that may actually be a very conservative estimate because that one is based just on population declines alone.

If you look at the number of parents that are now choosing schools other than traditional public schools, the Heckinger report calculates that schools uh traditional public schools could actually lose as many as 8.5 uh million students.

And of course, that has catastrophic financial implications for cities and towns because we know that schools have a number of fixed costs, whether those classrooms are full or empty.

And we also know that Cranston, certain communities in Cranston have already experienced the disruption and loss that goes with losing a neighborhood school, and parents are for obvious reasons very sensitive to that.

And so I don't think most of us would want to see a repeat of any school closures and consolidations.

And finally, I just really do believe that we should be welcoming families, not creating barriers to having more families move in.

And I say that as a parent of public school children uh in Cranston.

Some of these wonderful programs that we have here in Cranston public schools, the economies of scale for these programs don't work if the enrollment continues to decline.

So I care about all the same issues that that all of you uh care about.

I recognize you know that this may very well be uh well-intentioned, but I just don't think this proposal will achieve the intended goals, and so I really do respectfully urge you to reject um this particular uh proposal.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Um next person like my public comment.

Name and address.

Hello.

Yes, we can hear you.

This is my first time, so I'm sorry.

Um in Cranston.

And I also am wanting to speak about the schools.

I remember back when uh Stone Hill had many, many portables in the back before Orchard Farms was built.

And I understand all the concerns about capacity.

Um we've face a lot in Western Cranston with the growth.

But the growth has slowed in Western Crantion, and you're now getting a lot of empty nesters up here because they kids have gone through the school system.

And I think requiring new developers to do these impact studies, like others have before me have said, really is a discrimination issue.

It's really important that we keep families in Cranston because it produces growth and helps our economy and helps our community.

And discouraging by saying, Oh, well, we got to know how many students are coming in, really discourages people from bringing in families.

So I just wanted to reiterate what a lot of the people said before me.

Can I ask you this name again?

So I can get it clearly for the record.

Oh, I'm sorry, Michelle Hames.

Sorry, fresh time doing this.

No problem.

Okay.

Is there anyone else like made public comment online, Mr.

Lima?

There is no other comment online.

Okay.

Last chance for anyone in the room.

Okay.

All right.

That's we'll close public comment.

Thank you very much.

Um, as I said earlier, unless a majority of my colleagues want to vote on these regulations today, I thought the best thing would be is to continue this to next month, March the third.

We can get any last minute changes.

This has been a kind of a leaving last minute changes today.

We got we'd like to get a chance to everyone to get it that straight and down right.

Um, so if that's okay, we could do with that.

I do want to just state a couple of quick things because some of the comments are like um who looked there's a couple of rhetorical comments that I think are directed at me.

So I'd like to just respond.

Like, who is this?

What's this behind?

So I'll just say it quickly.

Um what is the intent?

Are you going to deny projects based on school children?

No, I have never said I would deny projects based on school children.

I can't deny projects based on school children.

And if it's by right, I can't do that.

So why am I asking for this information?

As I said at the prior meeting, it is important to get information so that the city and the school can properly plan ahead.

If we're getting a lot of applications saying there's a large number of children, large number of developments going on, and there's a large number of children going in an area, the school will then have that information so they can decide as they do their school construction programs whether or not a certain elementary school needs to be expanded or uh maybe a school is going to have to be built there.

The fiscal impact also goes along with that.

The city gets information about there's a development coming, it's going to bring in revenue, it's going to possibly be a net negative.

They need to know these things as they make plans for budgeting in the future.

All this is about planning.

It's not about approval or denial of a project, it's about gaining information.

I don't know afraid of information.

I will personally go through all the subdivisions throughout the state to see what other communities require and whether they do this.

And I'll provide it and we can have a discussion about it.

I do sympathize with a couple of the comments that were made to me about do you really want minor subdivisions to have these sorts of requirements?

And I think that there is a good valid point there because when I put this, I copied it from another town that does have it for minor subdivisions.

Um, maybe this should be only for major ones and maybe for rezoning.

When there's a rezoning application, I can assure the my colleagues.

Council people ask questions about fiscal impact.

They ask questions like that.

Um, it does come up.

I would appreciate if Mr.

Murray with the data that he has cut from the school department provided to the planning commission, if you're willing to share it.

I'd like to see it myself.

I always enjoy getting more information.

Um, but I'll we'll consider it and we can talk about it next month.

Um, the second thing is just on the issue of fees.

Was that a dart?

Was the question was asked.

Uh prior meeting, I indicated that inflation since these fees were increased about 2007, has gone up about like 50%.

The planning department's budget has gone up like 40%, and these are approximates.

Uh property taxes have gone up since then, I think, like in the range of a third.

It's hard for me uh to say that fees should not go up.

We can argue about how much, but they should.

So what why did it come up with 25?

I spoke to the director Moretti.

We talked about this, and he's adjusted 25.

Maybe my colleagues don't want to go up to 25, maybe they want to go less.

I don't know.

I just think it's difficult not to increase fees after 18 years of no fee increases with the fiscal situation in our city, and that it's hard to explain and justify why these fees have not gone up in 18 years, to me, anyway.

So that's the answer, Mr.

Murray.

If you have a an alternative percentage, you know, you can always submit the comment, but that's yeah, okay.

3% inflation, yes.

But that's my point is that it's it's been a long time coming.

So I apologize, but I just wanted to respond.

Do I do listen to public comment?

I wanted to give you my initial response.

And if anybody else has anything they want to say, we can hear it now, or we can just continue it to the next month.

It's up to you guys.

Commissioner Lampier.

And I'll make this brief because I'll speak to staff and and um our solicitor about it.

But as I went through, I saw that we still have a fee for a stenographer, but I don't know what the process is for having a stenographer present on behalf of the planning commission.

I know we often have stenographers that the applicant pays for, um, but we do have a fee.

My understanding with just a brief review with some other people in other communities.

Warwick, as an example, I believe has a stenographer at every meeting.

Um a fee of about 350 to 400 K's to have the stenographer there, and then anyone who wants a copy of that transcript would pay for it.

But I say that because I don't believe that YouTube is a good reliable um means as a transcript is with a stenographer that certifies that record.

And there are times when we um take actions that we want that transcript to protect us for things we have done, or abutters may need that transcript, or applicants may need those transcripts.

So I I'll I will talk about how we might be able to do that so that we have a good record.

And also, there are times when we at a meeting go back and forth and come up with suggestions or conditions um that later need to be put in a record of decision, and it's difficult for everybody to figure out what was said because there is no transcript.

So I I would work it on something with staff and and council um, not to increase fees, but to come up with a process so that we can actually use those fees to have a stenographer present at our meetings.

Thank you, Commissioner Lamphier.

Anything else people want to add?

They we still have a stenographer at zoning.

When we do you uh like the zoning board still has a stenographer, and thank you for saying that because there are times where we now sit as the zoning board.

Yeah, correct.

But the zoning board does when they act on the same things that we act on.

Can I can I ask a question about that?

Uh solicitor, sure.

Just a cost issue, like the stenographer.

If we had a stenographer here for UDRs for anything, yeah, who would pay for that cost?

Would it be the taxpayers or the applicant?

Yeah, the well, the city pays this the city pays the stenographer, and it's usually a minimum of three hours.

So if they're here for 10 minutes or they're here for two hours and 50 minutes, it's a set fee, and then they get an hourly fee after the three hours, and that's paid by the city.

However, um, I don't that zoning applications don't have a a stenographer, a separate fee, do they?

They do have a schedule of fees.

I I can't tell you the specifics.

I can check on that if it's yeah, I'll check on if there's a separate schedule of fee if for the stenographer for zoning.

Or they just cover it in the department, or if or if it's part of the budget.

Yeah, I think that's like an important issue, obviously, for the for the finance director.

If we're gonna go down that road, unfortunately, Commissioner Lampier is there's a cost to these things and the cost of the applicant potentially.

And we we do have 350 in the subdivision regulations now.

Yeah, it could maybe be helpful covering that.

Yeah.

Um, anything else before we do a motion for continuance on this matter until March 3rd?

Okay.

I would uh entertain a motion to continue this matter to the hearing on March the third, made by Commissioner Lampier.

Seconded by Commissioner Barberi.

Any discussion for the continuance?

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

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Thank you.

That's the last on the agenda.

Uh director, let's see.

Is it your report?

You want to give us a quick 10 seconds?

Yes, I've anticipated uh the late hour by providing my report in writing.

I think the the highlight of the month was the kick off event for our mixed use corridors project.

And I want to thank Commission President Fryas and Lamphire for spending the time with the consultants at our kickoff event to help provide some more context about the study areas we're looking at.

Oh, and and uh report from legal.

Um you'll you'll be happy to know that um East Greenwich was about 20 days from have their comp plan being expired.

So they had to pull and and they specifically pulled the cranston where they approved.

We were the only they approved some skeletal plan.

They approve something.

They they just approve something, and then for the next two years, they'll approve what they really want to approve.

Oh, that's that's right.

We're a trend center here.

And we should celebrate that the zoning ordinance amendments that you recommended and sent to city council were approved in January.

So we're up to date until three months from now, and then we won't be up to date.

Oh, well, that you're thinking about the state legislation.

The constant constantly evolving hamster wheel of law changes, yes.

Okay, is there anything else?

Otherwise, we'll have a motion to adjourn, will be in order.

Motion made by Director Correll to for adjournment, seconded by Commissioner Lampier.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

I'll see you next month.

Capital budget will be first.