Oh, this is a really good microphone.

63.

We'll get this meeting going.

Uh first item the agenda is approval of the minutes.

There are two minutes to approve.

The first one is January 6, 2026.

Are there any edits or changes to that?

Those minutes from anyone here.

Okay.

Seeing none, would the is a motion to approve would be in order at this time?

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve, made by Director Carrera, seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Next uh minutes on the agenda is the February 3rd, 2026 minutes.

Uh is there any edits or changes to those minutes?

I see none.

Uh the motion to approve would be in order at this time.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve made by Director Carrero.

Seconded by Commissioner Mancini.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed saying nay.

Ayes have it.

Before we go to capital budget, we will take Lake Street Villa up first.

They have a continuance request.

It's my understanding based on this document here.

They have requested a continuance till April 7th, 2026.

They have also waived the requirement that a decision the statutory requirement that a decision be made within 90 days.

So according to the applicant, they are still additional time to complete the water drainage system design.

So a motion to continue.

Is there any discussion on their motion to continuance?

Is there anyone here like to make public comment on the motion continuance for Lake Street Villa?

Seeing none, Mr.

Lemers.

Anyone online that like to make discuss the Lake Street Villa continuance?

There is no public comment online.

Thank you, Mr.

Lima.

Okay.

Um any discussion otherwise a motion to uh continue the matter until the April 7th 2026 meeting would be in order.

You can recuse yourself, Commissioner Mancini.

You you continued yourself, you accused yourself last time.

You should just say consistent, I think on that.

Motion to approve.

Motion to continue.

Okay.

Second by made by Director Carrero motion to continue.

Seconded by Commissioner Exter.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Okay.

For those at home watching, and for those here, we will now do the capital budget plan.

Um, after we do the capital budget plan, we will then proceed with the remainder of the subdivision development projects and then go to zoning board review and then subdivision regulations.

So capital budget.

Um let me just start out with this, and then I will ask for commentary for from um finance directors of Dallas, and then we will go through the departments under the charter 6.12 of the city.

The city planning commission has a duty to review proposals, capital budget, capital project proposals for the necessity, and for the uh in reference to the financial resources of the city.

No project can be included in the capital plan unless it's been favorably considered by the city plan commission.

The mayor presents the plan that is approved to the council.

Excuse me, the plan the mayor presents what has been approved by this commission to the council, and the council can make accept, reject, or modify projects listed.

And this year we have uh the capital plan has been proposed here, uh put together, I should say, compiled by the finance department uh with the cooperation of the planning staff.

Mrs.

Adellis, uh, would you like to make any comments at this point before we go through questions of the individual departments?

If I may, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Oh, Ms.

President.

Um, before you was a capital plan, um, which is a framework for all of the proposed capital projects in this fiscal year's, I should say for FY27 borrowing.

Um, the basic the basic rhythm of a the capital plan will be um upon approval of the plan before you uh before us as a commission.

Um it will provide the framework of potential borrowings and potential projects based on the estimates compiled by um the respective departments.

A note sale in the fiscal year 27 CIP will effectuate a potential borrowing um long-term borrowing in FY28 with a half a year's interest um to be paid in FY28 in the the debt service to um commence principal and principal and interest in FY29.

So long term any project authorized by this plan commission subsequently recommended to the city council will have debt service payments in commencing in FY29.

Okay, thank you.

And so another matter I should add is um we approve a five-year capital plan here.

When it goes to the city council, the city council actually only looks at the next fiscal year, which would be FY27.

So tonight, when I ask questions, my focus will be on FY27, but I will be looking at my me personally, speaking for myself, the entire five-year timeline.

And so, Mrs.

Adulus, uh, just to make clear, so tonight's projects we approve would probably show up as debt service in FY29.

Um, Mr.

President, yes, the column um entitled 2627.

Um the debt service um for the entire year will commence in 29.

Okay.

All right.

I could say a couple of things more, but I think I will just get going.

Um so as I said, most of my questions to the directors will be focused on necessity.

Um a little bit on the on some of the financings, but those are basically Mr.

Zadell, director Zidellas will answer those questions if I have any, or anyone else does here.

Um, so first uh let's start with the school department, the school department.

Uh they present here to discuss the three million dollars on their capital projects.

No, Mr.

Chairman, if I can just on that one.

Okay.

Um as you see, the FY 2526 approved um CIP by the Plan Commission, um, exclusively had the tail end of the AES charter school, uh, which is expected to be completed by December.

Um, the three million dollars that you that is denoted um in the 2627 is a augmentation of the existing funding for the the AES charter school.

Um this has been the uh this particular three million has been approved by ride to be packaged uh in the in the 74 percent reimbursement from ride and any additional um differential between what ride is um will reimburse the city and the actual debt service is slated to be paid for through tuitions of the AES Academy.

Okay, so let me just ask this way.

I know that the three million dollars for the laborers academy is what I call it is being paid for by ride.

The other 26% is it still the taxpayers paying for it, or is it the laborers and or the school itself paying for it?

I'm just trying to understand.

The other 20 cent uh 27% is slated to um come from revenues generated from tuitions from the academy.

Okay.

Should that be noted somewhere in the bottom when it talks about the financing of these things?

Like it says, um you can then indicate if it's gonna be bond authority or like ride AES.

Just wondering, do you do we make any notation?

Do we maybe on the very bottom?

Yep.

I believe it does, sir.

All right, because I see request requires additional bonding authority, fully funded through ride and AES school.

Okay.

So that's that's where it comes out is that ride pays for it and AES will pay for the remainder that ride doesn't pay for.

Um Commission President, that is correct.

Okay.

Yep.

Okay.

Uh the other one here is 100,000.

And if if I may, um that has two components of that.

The um two of the projects in the 40 million dollar authorization, that being the boiler for East in the West parking lot.

Um needed additional um technical services, engineering and architectural services.

The 100,000 um will go into that as well as start an assessment of additional school projects for some future uh capital um recommendation from the schools in the years 27-28 outward.

Okay.

All right, is there any other questions from my colleagues about the school department's requests?

Okay, we'll move on to fleet maintenance division.

Is the director?

I don't I don't know what the director or person in charge of the fleet maintenance requests here that would like to discuss this.

I mean, obviously you have to put your microphone on.

Director Carrero, you'll be speaking about fleet maintenance.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, what we do have is vehicles here, but as you can see for FY27, there is no money being allocated for those additional trucks, vehicles, back hose, et cetera.

I see that.

Could I just ask you a few questions on the out years, just for informational purposes?

Okay.

The heavy-duty dump trucks.

Um, what are the life life of these vehicles?

Because on the report that's provided me, it's 16 years and need a replacement.

Is it usually go more than 16 years?

Is it 20 years?

I'm just curious.

It is usually not 20 years.

We usually get between 10 to 15 years out of these vehicles before we want to rotate them out.

Ideally, it would be great to get them out every 10 years.

But unfortunately, we don't always have that luxury to be able to purchase new vehicles every 10 years for these.

So going forward in FY28 in future years, we would like to be able to at least acquire a couple of those trucks per year so we can get the ones that are from the 19 or early 2000s, get them off the books.

Okay.

The maintenance of those vehicles is becoming very challenging and it gets very expensive to maintain those vehicles beyond that point in time.

On the next document, which is talking about manager supervisor pickups.

Um, you talk about the city's fleet management strategy.

Could you just elaborate on what the city's fleet management strategy is?

Again, it was to identify replace those vehicles within a 10-year period, or if you don't replace them, we have other vehicles that are much older than that for pickup trucks that actually go out and pick up parts, et cetera.

Uh, what they would do is take the uh the supervisors' vehicles now, turn those into the vehicles that they use to run errands and pick up equipment and be able to replace them with newer vehicles for the supervisors, and that would be for two vehicles.

You said that the usual life is about 10 to 15 years, you'd like to replace them at about 10.

Do you are you aware from your experience what other cities and towns have?

Do they go beyond 15 years?

Do they go to 20 years?

Any idea?

I I don't believe that many of them get more than 20 years out of them without the bodies rotting out the way we have in the salt conditions and being out all winter like we do.

They they're very challenging to get them beyond that 10 to 15 year lifestyle.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for Director Correll related to fleet maintenance?

Okay, is anyone here?

We're going to do public comment by the way at the end on capital budget.

Okay.

So if you do want to talk about capital budget, all of you guys here, we'll take you at the end.

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll move to the next one.

Engineering division.

Um, who will be speaking about engineering?

Is that you, Director Carrero?

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Could you simply give us a quick overview of uh the necessity of the ones that are in FY27?

Okay, but uh the Dean Street project right now is a road to go the bridge that goes over the bike path.

Uh, right now there is some deterioration of the abutment.

So this is a shoring contract, which is just to support those at the uh underneath the uh the what you would call the abutments of the bridge.

So we would end up putting in some additional timbers in order to support that bridge while we look at getting it future years to get it designed together to actually design that bridge over again.

Kimberly Lane, we do not anticipate any expenditure on that for construction into FY27.

Citywide infrastructure, that has to do with the resurfacing projects that we put out every year.

We have uh the roadways ridden ranked based on condition and rideability, and then based on that, we will come up with a project that would be able to accommodate approximately two million dollars of expenses and try to get at least five to six miles or four to six miles of roadway resurfaced in the city.

The next project, storm drain rehabilitations.

You know, one of the things we have in this city is some flooding issues that we need to address.

Uh, some of it has to do with capacity of the drainage structures and the drainage systems in place.

So, what this would be would be money is okay available for us to make those improvements during this year as those situations arise field survey equipment.

This is something we're looking at doing.

It's called kind of a total station.

It's where one person can go out and do some survey to gather information that we normally have consultants develop for us when we're developing projects and putting them together.

So by having this equipment in-house, we'll able to utilize our in-house resources and be able to have this equipment available so that we can do some quick survey boundary markers and boundary corners, be able to do that with this equipment with one person instead of having to hire consultants to have that work done for us.

Okay.

And that would be it again for FY27.

Thank you.

Um, let me start with the last one, the field survey.

Um you say that this will be able to do it in-house rather than use external.

You're asking for $60,000.

Have you calculated the amount of savings that you would include that the result by doing it in-house rather than using external?

No, we don't because we don't know from year to year what we're going to be needing for engineering as a result of the design projects.

But however, having this equipment in-house does give us the ability not to do every single bit of survey that we need, but it would definitely go a long way to some of the smaller projects that we have going on or would like to do.

We'd be able to go out there with our own resources to gather that data to be able to engineer those projects.

Okay.

Um, in regards to citywide infrastructure, this is the paving of roads.

Um, you're putting in two million, other years you have eight.

Is there any reason for the fluctuation other than um is just the is there some why some years of four, some years raised?

Some of it has to do with the availability.

Uh originally we use utilize about four million dollars per year.

Um, but uh it appears we have some other projects that would maybe going in with parks and recreation that we've kind of transferred some of this money towards them so that they can get things together.

And I think primarily that was looking at a track for the Cranston East High School area, and it's adjacent to the Bain ball fields, so that the Cranston West has its own field, it has its own track.

That's something that East does not have.

So the mayor would like to have something in place for them going forward.

Okay.

Council President, I mean, yeah.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

Uh in addition to, in addition to the two million dollars, we have a state grant um for which this two million will leverage um 33% of the cost.

So in to augment two million dollars, there are additional resources at our bill to do additional road work.

Okay.

Yeah, for example, uh on these roads that have the governor is set aside money each year.

It's called road restore.

And what they do is they reimburse us for 33% of whatever we pay for roads that are pre-approved by them.

So some of the roads that are within this two million dollars will be part of that program.

So this money this will increase in more roads than the two million will be able to be done.

Okay.

Um want to ask you about the roundabout on Hope Road Wilberav.

Um I'm familiar with this from driving through it, like when I used to do CLCF things.

Have you had any discussions with members of the public who use that road or live in that area that they want a roundabout?

Uh not specifically.

They've been asking us to look at making improvements.

Right.

Uh one point in time, they were thinking traffic signal, but that would be worse than what they have now.

By having a roundabout that would allow traffic to continually move through that area, and it reduces the backup that you would have currently.

Uh we we're looking at getting a consultant on board to do that, and as part of that design, we would have a public outreach program where we would have something available to the public to be able to comment on and see get their input relative to moving forward with a project like this.

Okay.

Um, because I just think there'll be different opinions.

Why do you think a roundabout is better than traffic signals?

Because a roundabout allows traffic to continually move when the traffic is light and even when it's heavy, it allows people to sort of alternate through that intersection, whereas you have to stop traffic, and usually you have a certain cycle time cycle that you have for traffic signal, which means you'll be holding up those people for that period of time that you have for the cycles for anywhere from 45 to 60 seconds.

So these become more efficient to keep traffic moving relative to the traffic other than the traffic signal.

Okay.

I just think like just my own two cents about it.

Is I think you should get public input earlier in the process rather than later to see if people really want that.

I just hear different things.

People, some people don't like roundabouts.

It's confusing to them.

But anyway, um, one other thing on this, it says traffic volumes at this location exceed typical residential thresholds.

Uh, do you have any what do you mean by exceeds?

Like, do you have some is there a standard that you guys use?

Not um it's not a standard, it's just the volume of traffic as the West the Western part of Cranston develops, it's usually exceeding what you normally have at a normal neighborhood intersection, and that's where you would go into utilizing a different type of traffic control device to keep traffic moving, especially given the four legs and being able to uh provide right of way based on the volumes that you have.

Okay.

Um you're looking at existing drainage structures prone to failure.

Do you have any idea for repair and replacement?

Do you have any idea what locations you're looking at?

I don't have the specific locations right now, but we have had a history of some of the problem areas that we will continue to try to track and be able to come up with some improvements to at least reduce that potential for the flooding that people are experiencing today.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions for uh director Carrera on this topic?

Okay.

Move on the next.

Let's see, traffic division.

Mr.

Carrera, I assume you're dealing with that as well.

That is one of my third hats that I wear, yes.

Okay.

Could you just elaborate on the projects you're seeking approval for in this fiscal upcoming fiscal year?

Yeah, traffic signal upgrades.

That would have to do with some traffic signal equipment upgrades at some of the intersections within the city of Pranston.

A lot of the equipment that we have for traffic signal heads and traffic signal controllers are obsolete.

And the repair of those is becoming challenging because they actually don't have the equipment available for those any longer.

The radar speed signs, those are the feedback signs that you have, and we were looking at putting those in the locations around school areas to just reinforce the reduced speed as they approach those school zones.

And sign fabrication equipment acquisition.

That has to do with right now, they have to physically go to a computer, and when we make our street signs for your different streets, you actually have to cut out paper on the reflective sheathing that they use.

You have to tape it on.

This type of equipment they're now doing is it's actually a printer.

The printer now prints that on that paper.

It does it in all different colors, and then it makes it much easier to fabricate and much quicker to fabricate the street signs that we currently have to replace.

Okay.

And that includes both software training and the hardware in order to have that printer.

On that project, um you're seeking 35,000.

You talk about a reduce on reliance on external vendors.

Uh, do you have any estimate of how much money we would save as a city?

Again, it varies from year to year.

So you don't know what you actually need for signs, but uh we do several hundred street signs every year, and some of the larger signs that we are unable to do, those are the ones we go outside to vendors again.

It's kind of an as needed basis.

So I we don't have a specific.

We don't we don't have a specific number each year of what we signed.

It's kind of an as uh do it as you need basis as we go through the year.

On the traffic signal project, you list the need to assess and upgrade 26 city-owned traffic signals.

Pardon my ignorance, we have more than 26.

No, we no, we do not.

A lot of the traffic signals are state-owned okay, streets and intersections.

All right, so these are only ones similar to like Budlong Road, Pontiac Avenue.

Okay, and when you say it needs to be upgraded to current standards, what's the difference between the current standard and the standard on which these traffic signals operate now?

Currently, by that they're meaning that the equipment is obsolete and the repair of those controllers is a challenge.

We don't always have the equipment, we only have some of the older ones that we've taken out, and we're trying to use those to replace the parts, but you really need to update them a little bit more so it's much easier to program and they're much easier to use.

On the installation of radar signs, speed signs here on Hope Road at Hope Islands, and then you have something at Cranston High School Western Hills, Cranston High School West and Western Hills.

Um, I know there are what I recall is that there's speed, you know, there's speed signs in those locations already when I go on Cranston Street and when I go on Hope Road.

Are you talking about other locations?

I because it does say other locations.

No, those are static signs.

Oh, this is what we're talking about.

Are the feedback signs where the radar picks up your speed and it flashes your speed as you approach that?

It they have an ability to gather more of the drivers' attention as they approach those areas.

So that's why it's Hope Highlands right now, and we are just installed a new crosswalk at the Cranston Western Hills area, especially for the ball field at Cranston West.

So we would like to supplement those signs as well with the radar signs.

Okay.

Any other questions for Commissioner Carrera on these projects?

Okay, move on to the next topic.

Public buildings.

Is that you, Mr.

Carrero?

Or is that Mrs.

Mellis or anybody here in the audience?

Yeah, I think that's number four.

Okay.

I didn't get that one.

I believe you have a number of projects here.

Could you elaborate on each one?

I could if I can find that sheet.

Yeah, because the next one I have is sewer.

I know.

I thought I I had to up to I'll give hold on a second.

I'll just give it over to you.

What I have.

All right.

Did you jump?

I think I'll remember my questions that I had.

Don't read the notes.

It was just put online uh yesterday.

Okay, so you want to go each one or down?

Yep.

Okay.

The first one here is building maintenance.

It has to do with citywide building improvements.

I don't know if anybody has been around long enough, but as you can see, there are different conditions within the buildings that we currently have that are deteriorating over the past year.

We've had to replace heating systems, rooftop air conditioning units, and things of that nature.

We've had electrical upgrades, we've had failures of uh hot water tanks.

So this money is allocated to be able to make those repairs and renovations to the city buildings throughout the year.

The next one is fire alarm.

I guess currently we are supposed to have remote ability through radio signals to be able to get radio signals from the city buildings to the fire department in case of fires.

Right now, everything is hardwired, and that hardwired system is obsolete.

And as a result, we've been required to upgrade all of the buildings to have this remote location or remote transmitters in order to get a emergency call for fire to the city buildings.

So we need to upgrade that system throughout the entire city.

We have approximately six to seven, I'm sorry, six fire stations were done.

And I believe there's four different city buildings that have to be upgraded for that.

The ice rink.

I don't know if anybody's been in there lately, but we've had a lot of issues with the cooling systems.

We've had some structural issues that we had repaired in 2026.

Going into 2027, one of the major things that has to happen is the front arch of the ice rink right now has been deteriorating.

It's it has got voids in it, it has a hole in it.

We have bird nests, birds nests in several locations.

So this is to go out there, clean up those areas and fill in those voids along that fascia arch of the ice rink.

So that's what this is for the 70,000 dollars to take care of that.

And the final one is facility acquisitions and upgrades.

This is what we're looking at to try to acquire and use some properties and upgrade those properties or put renovations to those properties so that we can consolidate some of the city offices that are currently being utilized by rental spaces.

Okay.

Um I'll just ask a couple of questions.

The first one on upgrades to city buildings, the first project that you listed.

Um there certain areas that you're prioritizing to use for that half a million dollars.

None in particular, but primarily we've got fire stations with roofs.

We've got fire stations with interiors that really need to be upgraded.

Uh, the facilities have got some significant deterioration from water damage from previous failures of the roofs.

So we need to look at a upgrade all the roofing, then B, get into the buildings themselves, drop ceilings where the water stains have been there, insulation that has been damaged as a result of the water that has come into those buildings.

So we would be looking at getting those things upgraded and repaired.

Um, the last project I think you're seeking approval for was the um acquisition of properties.

A million dollars.

Do you have any particular properties you were looking at or particular functions of the city that you want to locate at a property that's being rented right now?

I was gonna say are you either go ahead.

Don't answer if you're looking at a property.

Yeah, okay.

I shouldn't have said it that way.

That's right.

There's you know, I'm is there certain functions, certain departments that are being rented.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, all right.

I get it.

All right.

Um, I'll ask this one.

This one's doable.

Why aren't you looking at using the old schools?

We we are looking at doing that, and that is one of the things that this money would be used for.

Should we have some of these schools?

Most of the schools are currently occupied.

Yeah, until Gladstone is completed, we will not have any real vacant schools that are available to look at renovating to become office annexes.

So this would be one of the things that we would be utilizing that money for was to upgrade some of that if we decide to use an abandoned school to convert it to an office annex.

All right.

I was just trying to think about what I call um the most efficient use of money.

If you already have the property, it's better to just upgrade it to what you want to use versus just buying a complete new property and just building a building.

That's why I just wanted to see if that was no that absolutely something that's under consideration.

Just we do have to realize that a lot of those buildings are equally as old as many of the other buildings, and there's going to be a lot of renovations and improvements to bring it up to pay standards.

All right, thank you.

Um, any questions for Mr.

Director Carrero related to public buildings?

Okay.

Next is sewer.

Is that you, Mr.

Carrer Director Carrera?

Okay.

You could say that.

I don't have a lot of questions here just because I know there's a good fund balance in the sewer fund.

Yeah, that is correct.

Most all of the improvements that are going to be going on for any of these pump station upgrades, et cetera, any of the slip lining, any of the sewer replacement that's required, it's all coming out of the sewer enterprise funds and it has no impact to the capital improvement.

To that service for the city has to pay for for the taxpayers.

Yeah.

Um, rather than have you go through each of these, I'll just ask you a question of a couple of them.

I'll save some time because it's not going to be on the operating budget.

Um, one out of curiosity is the burnham pump station rehabilitation.

That's your project priority one.

Um, it says here in the project need the project will also relocate the Lake Street gravity main in order to avoid prog problematic blockages in the line.

Um could you explain?

Will that improve the drainage problem on Lake Street?

It will not improve the drainage problem because we do not have a combined sewer and drainage system.

So the sewer is totally separate from the storm drain system.

And so what will this will this have any benefit to Lake Street?

Two to it says to relocate the Lake Street gravity main.

Does this have any benefit?

It's just that, or is it just that's where the main is located?

I I think that has more to do with the actual uh possibly slope in the pipe or the interior condition of the pipe.

Yep.

Um your project priority two is treatment plant emergency generator replacement.

It says beyond the expected useful life, no longer available, no longer supported certain parts.

What's the what's the expectation?

They don't even list the expected useful life.

Just want to have an idea.

What's the useful ice for these types of things?

1520 more.

I'm I'm not sure on that.

I'm not sure what the actual lifestyle would be on a generator, but okay.

This has reached the end of its life, again with the additional pairs that have to take place.

Okay.

Any questions for Director Carrera on the sewer stuff?

Okay.

I'm saving time for the city council.

They can just watch this video.

Um next one.

Police.

Is anyone here who's gonna speak on behalf of the police?

Just come to the microphone, sir.

Please state your name.

I'm Lieutenant Mike Sulo from the Crancester Police Department.

Hi, sir.

Um, could you just you have one project here you're looking for approval for?

Uh, could you just explain the need for that project?

Sure.

So we're looking to upgrade our taser platform, our conductor uh energy weapons, uh, as you know as tasers.

The current taser system that we run right now is just Taser 7CQ, which is a uh a platform that's beyond its useful service life.

It's no longer supported by Axon, which is a manufacturer that makes tasers and other equipment that the police department primarily uses.

Um the new platform, which is the Taser uh 10, uh is a much more sophisticated device, allows us more options, um, and is uh much more technologically advanced than the Taser 7 CQs.

So the current Taser uh 7CQ, like I said, is beyond its useful life.

Uh the Taser 10 platform is would be purchased under a five-year payment plan.

Um the uh seven CQs have been officially discontinued by Axon.

They obviously being discontinued present a significant operational and safety challenge for the police department.

We are also losing a 10 million dollar coverage uh insurance policy in uh with the expiration of our contract.

We are out of contract as we stand right now.

Um after January, middle of January, I believe it was.

The older platform also lacks the advanced uh compliance features, such as enhanced data logging, improve integration and body uh one cameras, and cloud-based evidence management, uh, all of which are critical for meeting modern accountability standards and protecting both officers and the public.

Upgrading the uh to the actual uh axon taser 10 platform addresses all of these concerns and delivers significant operational benefits.

Uh the taser 10 offers a 10 probe capability as to a uh two probe capability and the taser 7 CQ.

Uh they're more accurate.

They are uh from a from a further distance.

Um they allow multiple uh deployments of the taser probes.

Um so the the taser 7 CQ would allow two probes that came out and they would spread over distance, which allowed them to be mostly inaccurate most of the time.

The taser seven, uh the taser 10 has 10 individual probes, which could be fired one after another uh until the target is acquired.

Um they also uh align the new feature aligned with the Department of Justice guidelines uh and accreditation standards such as Calia, which we are currently accredited.

Um so we would be uh treading on water uh thin ice with um with not re uh upping these tasers to the taser 10.

Okay.

Um just a quick couple of questions on the useful life of the current taser.

Um how long did you have it?

What was the useful life of that?

10 years, five years, seven years?

So we've had it for five years.

Um prior to us getting it, that that model was around for a little while.

So it's now beyond that useful life.

Usually it's about 10 years.

We're already three years into the taser 10.

So um is this like a like a like a windows program?

Like every once in a while they just come up with something new and you got to get the whole thing.

Is that how it works?

That's exactly yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

They always increase the price, as you know.

Yeah, I know.

Yeah, I I hate when when Microsoft comes up with a new thing.

I just I like I just got to learn the old one, and then they want to do a new one, you know.

Correct.

Um, let's see.

Okay.

I understand.

Any questions for the police department?

Okay, thank you very much, sir.

Next we have is fire.

Would fire like to come forward, please.

A representative from the fire department.

Please state your name.

Uh Richard Mancini, assistant chief.

Hi, Mr.

Uh Chief Mancini.

Um, thank you.

Could you um give us a quick overview of the projects that you're seeking approval of for FY27?

FY27, we're looking for an additional 400,000 to purchase an engine company.

Um, when I did the original capital budget last year, I didn't anticipate the dramatic rise in pricing.

And we're 400,000 short.

So, in order to buy a new engine, we need that 400,000.

We also have come to the end of life of our Scot Packs.

We need 1.5 million to replace all of our scot packs, all of our air bottles.

They are now almost 15 years old and at end of life.

Uh December of 2027, they'll be useless.

The last item on the budget, which really should be in public buildings, is we need $3 million to move our maintenance division into a facility that they can actually work on vehicles.

But right now, the trucks are so big, they barely fit into the building, and they can't work on them in our ladder trucks.

They have to work on them outside.

And when it's raining or snowing, it's impossible to do.

We will have to send them out at that point.

Okay.

I'll just ask you a few questions.

Okay.

First, um, I'll talk about the first project, which is you have a five-year plan, it looks like for replacing certain vehicles and trucks.

Yes.

Um what is your strategy in doing that?

What's the useful life of these things?

10 to 15 years?

Uh, useful life of a fire truck is approximately 10 years frontline.

I think it's moved to reserve status, where it's basically part-time, and we'll keep it there for eight to 10 years.

Okay.

Um, and so when is it like completely retired?

After 20.

All right.

Is um is there like any kind of national or uh I don't want to use industry standards, but like is there a national standard?

Like is it 10 to 15 and then 15 to 25?

I just saw that online.

Not really.

Um what what happens or comes into play is the new regulations of the federal government puts on our apparatus for safety features and that sort of stuff.

Older trucks just don't meet it.

Okay.

On the um self-contained breathing apparatus, you said it's nearing expiration.

What's the usual life of of one of these apparatuses?

Is it 10 years, seven years?

15 years.

15 years.

So this should be good for 15 years then?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

All right.

I'm gonna ask you a couple more stuff that um I'm not sure is necessary.

So you ask here for a an additional fire station on the western side of the city.

In the past, I've asked Chief Warren, who I'd asked him when he made these proposals, and he indicated that there was, you know, originally this is something we think we may need, but we don't need in the next few years.

Why do you think you need a seven fire station in the next few years?

Right now, the building boom in the western, the southwestern end of the state, a city is um they're building a lot of houses there.

Our response time to there is in some areas greater than 12 minutes, and that's just not up to national standards.

Do the response time, do they get service from like from mutual aid?

They get they come from like Jackson situate and other places to the South.

Yes and no.

If we have something we need mutual aid, we can call for mutual aid.

Right.

Um, if they were to be dispatched initially, that would be automatic aid, and we don't have an automatic aid agreement.

When you say housing boom in that section of the city, I've been here for a few years now.

I'm not seeing a I would say I've maybe seen about six houses, maybe six houses that we are approved at preliminary plan stage, maybe a little bit more.

I'm not seeing many in the southwest corner that we've approved yet.

Do you can you explain why you're seeing a housing boom in the southwest corner of the city?

Off of Pippin Orchard Road, there's which which road?

Pip and Orchard Road in the south end of Pip and Orchard near Hope Road.

There's uh three or four developments that Perserna's put in.

Wouldn't they be served by the fire station up there?

Like there's a station in the west up.

Yes, sir.

That's where they are, sir, from right now.

Right.

And they have a nine to 10 minute response time.

Okay.

Um you're listing 17 and a half million for this fire station.

That's just the capital costs.

Um I don't think the city has even bond authority to do a fire station out there up to, I think it was approved maybe about almost 20 years ago, it was like six million, if I recall, by a narrow margin too, by the voters.

You are you aware of any other bonding authority?

I am not.

Okay.

Last thing is if you build a fire station, uh, do you anticipate there would be an increase in operating expenses, meaning more personnel?

Absolutely.

That's what I thought.

Okay.

Next question I have is on the training facility for the police and firework.

You have a training facility currently, correct?

No, we don't.

Do you use a training facility?

Yes, we do.

We rent uh time at um union fire district.

We use their facility down in South County.

Okay.

And do you know how much it costs to do that?

The last time I looked, it was around $2,500 a year.

Yeah, so it's pretty inexpensive compared to a $3.5 million project, not including interest, right?

Yes, I will say yes on that, but also with that, we can only train once in a while versus having our own joint training facility.

We could train monthly, daily, weekly.

Um, right now we have a very successful training um joint training with the police department.

We've just been through um hostile shooter training with uh rescue task force.

We've been training with the police department.

We have our um bulletproof attire and working with the police department, we'd be we've become one, and I don't want to see this all this training go to waste.

Um it's known that if you don't use something, you lose it.

Um we all learned all the state capitals in fifth grade.

Can anybody here remember every single state capital?

I know I can't.

So my point is if we have a training facility where we can train and keep the muscle memory in place, we will be able to do our job better.

And you train with you said you trained with the police recently, yes.

And where'd you do that?

We uh used um St.

Mary's School when they had their training, we tagged in with them and train with them.

And so that costs you less than 3.5 million dollars?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um next question is the new facility for three million.

I'm not gonna ask you where it's going to be because I don't want to.

Do you could you explain to me?

Let me phrase it this way.

You say that you cannot, where is it located right now?

Uh behind station two on the other side of the fire state right here, right?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And it's been used that way for I would say generations at this point or decades at least.

Better than 50 years, yes.

Okay.

And when you need to repair a vehicle that's larger than the facility, then the facility, do you go to a particular place now?

Usually in the good weather, they put it outside and they work on it outside.

Right.

And whether like this, we have to send it off to one of several vendors, depending on what needs to be done.

Okay.

And do you have an idea of how much that cost is not off the top of my head?

The last time we sent a truck out, it was 12,000.

12,000.

Okay.

And you understand a 12,000 dollars, and you're asking for a three million dollar garage plus interest, right?

There's a difference financially, I think pretty significant.

There is, but we're talking about our three mechanics have to work on the ground outside.

I don't think that's should come into play.

I mean, yeah, it's going to cost us money to house them and to put them in.

But that's just some that it's a necessary evil.

We need a place for them to work on the vehicles.

Right.

Most of the year it's would you agree with me most of the year it's not raining and snowing?

Some of the year.

Yep.

Okay.

All right.

Are there any questions for the fire department?

Go ahead, Mr.

Coop.

Commissioner Coop.

Chief, I just want to follow up on some of the sorry.

I just want to follow up on some of uh President Fryas' questions about the new fire station in Western Cranston.

Um I understand.

Has the you say the response time in some cases was 12 minutes?

Has that increased over the past few years?

I know there are more houses out there, but is there a reason why the response time might have increased from what it was a few years ago?

It hasn't increased, but the number of 12-minute responses has increased because there's more people out there.

Okay.

So that was gonna be my next question.

But um uh I seem to recall the response time was lower than 12 minutes uh when I was present for a discussion a few years ago.

Um, but then the follow-up is how dramatically how many more calls are there than they were, say three or four years ago?

Off the top of my head, I can't give you an answer, but I can tell you the volume of calls from three or four years ago went from about 10, 12,000 to now 18, 19,000 citywide.

Citywide.

That's citywide, that's citywide, right?

But you can't estimate how much it's increased.

Sorry, I I don't have that information.

I'd rather not answer and give you a false answer.

Okay, I'm just curious.

Um, thank you.

I do have uh printout from Maria Girous, so she mapped it for me if you'd like to see the response times in color.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions for Chief Mancini?

Thank you, Chief.

Yeah.

Next is IT.

Are you handling that?

Yes, Mr.

Director Zells.

Could you just tell us the two things IT wants?

Uh and why?

Um, in the under the auspices of uh cyber technology.

Our IT department is looking for a hundred and eighty thousand.

Um, they call it the the virtual environment.

It's in our server room, um, outdated hardware, servers and the corresponding software that goes on it, um, which is the backbone of our of our um both financial software and other GIS software.

So it's an upgrade to out outdated um server technology and software, which we need to update primarily for um cybersecurity, and on a related note, the connectivity between um buildings or switches, whether it be the city hall in the police station, um Gantz itab or any other other remote sites, such as the DPW facilities um down on Phoenix Ave, are the switches, which is the routing for um the transmissions are once again in certain areas exceeding their useful life.

Thank you.

Any questions for directors of Dells on the IT.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Next topic is park and recreation.

Someone here present for park and recreation.

Could you state your name, sir?

Sure.

Stephen Piscapello, director of parks and recreation.

Thank you.

Could you just go through the FY27 requests and explain why they're necessary?

Sure.

Um first one being uh Fayfield, a Chrome Jewel Hidden Gem in the uh Edgewood section of the city.

Um it's a 90-foot baseball diamond.

We have a very active program there.

Unfortunately, um it's very limited because they can only play one game in the evening.

Um, they cannot play a second game in the evening, and they cannot um ow some beneficial tournaments um that could bring in some um much needed generated revenue at that particular site.

It was uh the entire complex was redone a few years ago.

Um, it's one of the better complexes, uh baseball wise that the city has.

And at this particular time, um, I think it's uh a necessary uh upgrade to that facility in order to um get much more use out of it.

Um what we did this year was we um we combine playground and equipment needs.

Um obviously our infrastructure uh is getting a little bit older and the need to upgrade our uh equipment um that we use to uh maintain the complexes along with um replacing some of our older uh playgrounds.

Um the goal and objective is to try to replace uh two playgrounds per year.

Um currently this spring we'll be doing that um at two different sites, and again, um if if funded, we would try to do the same thing um with the necessary funds.

Um thirdly, uh one of the visions of the mayor as part of the Bud Long Pool project and now water park is to have a public pavilion where the families can um have a picnic area, uh a leisure um type of facility um with some shading, some benches um to make it a full-fledged family-oriented complex um that will be um in addition to the pool um and the water park uh that will be uh the splash pad that'll be next to it.

Um as far as um the the track, um obviously Cranston West has had a track for many many years, and unfortunately uh Cranston, uh the eastern side of the city and in Cranston East has not had a track, and really is at a disadvantage to be competitive in the relying interscholastic league because they don't have the facilities to practice um that are necessary to be competitive.

So one of the visions um was to uh try to find a a spot where we feel uh a track can be uh can be facilitated and can be constructed and would give the the children and the kids that uh are in track in cross-country an opportunity to train adequately in their sport of choice.

So those are the four projects we have um slated for this year, and I think all of them uh would be beneficial for the city and would be an upgrade to the infrastructure overall.

Okay, this is uh ask you a couple of questions on some of the projects.

Sure.

Um as you know, uh the city um you know had a deficit last year of five million operating, and we may be, I believe we're probably having a deficit this year.

And that service goes into play.

Um I see merit in the projects you're talking about, but I want to understand the necessity of why they have to be done in FY27 versus let's say FY28.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Sure.

Okay.

More of a timing issue versus whether or not you should do it.

So the lighting at Fay Field.

There's stadiums in the West that are have lights, right?

Correct.

Was that paid for by the taxpayers or by parents or by who?

It all depends what complex you're talking about.

Um the one I'll use uh uh the Chafee Complex uh was used uh by private funds.

Um Cranson Stadium was uh publicly funded by the city.

Yep.

And um Fay Fear would obviously be uh uh request for public funding.

Okay.

Is can you explain to me why it's important to get this in FY27, let's say FY28?

Uh it's it's been on the table for many years.

Uh it's been talked about.

Um I just felt as though because the complex has been uh redone um in the last couple of years, that um the amount of use that it has now and potentially what it could have with the installation of lights would uh really be uh a boom for that particular uh area and for the city itself, because again, they're very limited in in having one game and evening, and they cannot host any type of a tournament um per se where they can have multiple games in during the course of the day.

So um I'm not saying the uh that it's uh it it has to be done immediately, but I just think that it's it's important that it's on the table and it's discussed because um that that side of the city really does not have a field adequate as a 90-foot diamond with with lighting on the Cranstonese track issue.

Sure.

I'm not gonna ask you if you have a location, okay.

Uh what the location is, but I'm asking, do you already know where you want to put this?

You don't have to tell me where, just yes.

Okay.

And this is I assume the city owns that property.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, but there's it's it's it's one step at a time.

Um, there has to be a lot of engineering done.

There has to be um some footprints that have to be uh taken care of first to see if if the size of the facility will be um the the site that we're looking at would be adequate enough to do it in uh in the proper way, but um yes, there is a there is a site that is has been um mentioned.

Do you really think you're gonna spend two million dollars in FY27 if you're talking about engineering designs and all this other stuff?

I think some of that's already been done.

Um the track itself, um, I think uh it's within the realm of the two million dollar figure.

I think it'd be honestly might be a little less than that.

Um the biggest thing is we already have the site.

And if if logistically and engineering-wise, the site works out, then we have the potential to move forward, and that's a realistic number.

Um, obviously, with anything else, obviously, um, you know, I hate to dwell on uh the past, but I mean you you can't you you just don't know.

Uh just like we didn't know there was uh a vi uh uh an aqueduct at the pool that burst out.

So we just don't know what we're looking at until we get there.

Bringing up the pool, one of your projects is half a million dollars phase two for Bud Long Pool.

So I want to understand what phase two means.

Is Faye are you any of this 500,000 going towards actually getting the pool up and running, or is this something else?

No, this uh that allocation is already um geared toward the pool.

This is in addition to to make this a family-oriented complex um that would include the pool itself, the water park has already been allocated.

There's been an allocation now, the pavilion area and uh family uh type of uh picnic area is something that um was spoken about uh with the administration and something that uh we wanted to go forward with okay.

So this is not the pool, this is a bunch of stuff like just people facilities around the pool, correct?

Set up is that the way it's characterizing?

Correct.

It just upgrades the entire facility and it makes it possible that bring your entire family there, including your grandparents or what have you.

Okay.

And you think this is necessary for this year coming, why I think it's it's something you can think about simply because the uh the project itself is in the construction phase, and at this particular time when you're at the construction phase, um it would be it would be really uh sad to see it have to uh open up and become a construction site again.

So while um the ground is already uh ripped open and and things are happening there, it would probably be um it would probably in our best interest to try to do it at this particular time, but again, understanding the finances uh understandable that it might not come to fruition.

The last one I have a question about, and this is a little bit of maybe confusion or um you have a Cranston Stadium renovation, and then you have a kind of like a Cranson Stadium Glory Days kind of project.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Like there's almost two different things.

I can completely explain both of them.

Okay, could you just explain?

They sound are they overlapping in some way?

It's not an overlap.

One of them has to strictly do with the baseball field.

Um, for those that are historians, the baseball field uh going back uh 30 years ago had underground dugouts, um, and and was uh uh was the crown jewel of the city.

Um we took out the underground dugouts many years ago, which basically um destroyed the sight lines of the field because the canopies that are over the dugouts currently are very high, and the people that are sitting in the stands cannot see the field.

So this is to bring the $500,000 figure is to bring that particular site back to its old um historic um fig um the way it was um configured in the past.

Um as far as the uh Cranston Stadium, um, to be very honest with you, uh it's it's starting to show its age.

Um the football field is starting to show major um um age where um the potential of um deteriorating uh cement um the the interior as far as the the seating as far as the uh uh the fencing as far as the bleaches, um it it's it's it's time that we address it before it's too late because um the infrastructure is starting to fail.

Um which includes also if you look on on the uh overall five-year plan, um the life expectancy of of a turf field is 10 years, and we are currently at year seven uh of a 10-year plan.

And we've just had uh uh a comprehensive comprehensive study done uh on that particular site that basically gives us a two years of really um good play on the the current turf.

So that's also uh another um project that we we put into this five-year plan as well, which also includes the uh the uh um the restoration of the turf at Cranston West, which is in year six.

Yeah, okay.

I just was uh I won't belabor it too much more except to say on the restoration project, you talk about a return to underground dugouts and replacing nylon netting, and I just I didn't send why is that so necessary?

Well, as a baseball historian and somebody that uh that is uh uh likes uh to have it restored to its uh original luster, I think it's it's important that we bring back the history of uh of a facility that has a rich history.

Understood.

Any other questions for the director uh uh Piscopolo?

All right, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Next is libraries.

Is uh Mr.

Garsha available online the director is online.

Thank you, Mr.

Garsha.

Uh could you just state uh your name and title and then explain uh the projects you want approval.

There's none listed in FY27.

I don't know if that's a typographical error, but regardless, could you explain what you are seeking from the commission for approval tonight?

Mr.

Lima, we're not hearing him.

Director, I don't believe we can hear you.

If you want to check your audio settings, pull it us now when QA.

Mr.

Lima, um Mr.

Garsha, when you're ready, where he can't hear you.

Uh it says give him a moment.

You just type in QA.

Can you guys hear me now?

Mr.

Garsha, is that you?

Yes.

Okay, I can hear you.

I believe my colleagues can hear you as well.

Uh please go forward and uh present um why um the need and necessity for the projects you are outlining in the plan.

I don't see any right now listed on the plan for FY27.

If that is an error, uh please correct it and let us know.

So you can proceed.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, sorry that I'm not there in person.

I'm out of state, so uh had to log in for Zoom.

So uh originally we had a project for a Flight 27, and it's listed there for the uh rooftop unit for the central library.

But since we've submitted this application, we actually have received uh grant from the island pandemic recovery office called the community municipal library grant.

Uh that we've been working with the mayor's office on it, and this uh RTU unit is the first project we're gonna be uh undertaking with that grant.

We're in stage two applications and should be hearing about funding on April 6th.

So um I believe that's why that project is now uh zeroed out for FY27.

It's originally budgeted for 85,000.

Um not need uh funding from the capital plan for that project uh any longer.

The only other project we have uh that's additional is for FY28, uh a new elevator system for the Williams Hall library.

Um the elevator was put into that building back in the mid-80s.

We've experiencing lots of difficulties over the last few years.

I think the last few years you spent uh uh over 11,000 fixing it.

Uh we've had several people get caught in it and had to be rescued by by fire, uh the fire department.

And so our uh current maintenance uh estimates that we need to replace the entire elevator, all the mechanics and car uh sometime within the next 10 years.

So wanted to get that on the capital budget for a future out year.

Um, but we also will be will be seeking additional funding uh through grants for that.

So if we can get a grant for that, we will go that route uh before we need to bond that out with the capital plan.

Okay, uh thank you, Mr.

Garsha.

Mr.

Director, is there anything you'd want to add about the financing part of that?

Uh in terms of his FY27 request, it doesn't need to be in the capital budget.

He has a grant, right?

Um, in terms of 20 125,000.

We're not even, I mean, we put it as a placeholder in his request that as you well know, that doesn't guarantee that um you know next year when it rolls forward, that will be improved.

So all right, thank you.

Any questions for Director Garsha?

I have none for you either.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Garsha.

Stay tuned.

We'll see if we approve your request later this evening.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, there are any last-minute questions before I open it up for public comment, and then we discuss the pro uh the plan.

Okay.

Any public comment on the capital plan?

Premier in the room.

Please come forward, state your name and address.

Oh, Mr.

Moretti.

Oh, oh, no.

Okay, sorry.

He he pointed at you.

That's why.

Okay.

Proceed, Mr.

Director Moretti.

Sure.

Thank you.

Just want to give you just an overview about the capital proposals that are in front of you.

That uh yeah, I think we pretty much all know that um we're facing some fiscal challenges.

And uh, and they'll be severe.

And we'll be addressing those in the operating budget, but obviously it's should also be reflected in the capital budget.

Um, what the mayor feels he's put forward is a much leaner uh uh proposal to you and the various department heads than particularly in the past, in light of I'll say those fiscal challenges that that we're looking at.

So I think the uh the criteria that the mayor was using is kind of one of two things.

Those projects, uh so we think we fully feels feel as if what's presented is uh is lean, but the criteria basically is that uh feeling it's either necessary that essentially that to keep the the bare bones uh operations of the continuing long-term operations of the city intact.

Um, you'll see a many reduced amounts.

I think one uh item that was noted, particularly a great example is infrastructure.

Um the other criteria where you might not see it as as financially oriented, but I think it uh the mayor feels that the proposals are very heartfelt in terms of uh good for the future of the city of Cranston.

So it's a combination of balancing those two.

So you might say, hey, it doesn't hit criteria A, but it may hit criteria B.

So that's basically, but I just want to share that with you as to what went on in the mayor's mind proposing this.

And the first and foremost was really just trying to keep it as lean as possible in those projects.

And he does believe that the future is with the children, and that's why you may see some emphasis on uh some of the recreational facilities and recreational uh programs.

Um so just want to give you a little bit of background of thought into that, but certainly on some of these, we also will you know obviously appropriately leave it up to the wisdom of this uh body to to act upon.

Um, there are two uh just two uh capital projects that I'd like to point out.

Um, one being that million dollars you see in there for potential uh facility acquisitions or improvements.

Um, I will say that there is definitely a uh location uh identified, and that it might be a tremendous opportunity for the city um to acquire uh a facility or consider what was discussed, uh given the decommissioning of schools, but potentially upgrades to one of those schools, possibly, but there's also something external that uh is presenting its very well, maybe presenting itself to the city, and it's one of those opportunities you say it you just can't let it pass by.

And that's pretty much the thought process that was reflected there.

Let me just mention that if approved, um in those opportunities that opportunity or uh or something with the foresight of utilizing an existing building.

Um, if if that if those two don't don't work, that's not walking around money.

That is money that would be earmarked, particularly particularly for the uh the former project that I mentioned that that uh maybe uh once a one-time opportunity to capitalize on because it won't come this way again.

Um or or possibly schools, but it it's very serious look at things, and that I think it'd be um it's kind of in a way has to be a bit of a leap of uh faith uh that that money would be used uh wisely, but I could tell you it will not be used unless those opportunities come forth, that it's not just walking around money.

Um the second one I and I'm a bit disappointed.

The mayor did actually, and it's probably too late to put on to include, I believe, because uh because the mayor wanted to include uh uh money for uh uh uh upgrades of of the uh begin upgrades over two of a three, four-year project of upgrading uh fire stations.

Uh the living facilities are not in good shape.

Um the mayor requested internally that it be proposed to this body, but I don't see it, I don't see it on this list, and it's probably too late to include now.

And if legally maybe ask the attorney, it's not uh if it's too late to uh amend this document.

But the mayor did request it uh and it did not make it to this list.

Too bad for us, is that correct?

Okay.

Any questions of me?

Thank you.

I'm in the cat, deputy chief on the Princeton Fire Department.

I just wanted to make one statement on the um maintenance facility.

Um, not that the assistant chief didn't do a good job, but I just want to be a give you a better picture.

It's not a building behind station two, it's actually underneath the headquarters.

You can barely get a fire truck in there.

Now the fire trucks to work on them.

You got to lift the cab up to work on the motors.

So when they're working on a fire truck that does fit in there, they might be able to fit lift it up maybe a third of the way, and they have to put two by fours in there so it doesn't come back down on them.

So it's not just a when it's raining out or snowing out.

It's not a safe place for them to work on any vehicle.

Except for maybe a car.

Ladder trucks that they have to work on outside to say that it doesn't rain and snow all the time.

They're working on their backs in an alleyway on the side of station too.

Just to give you a better picture of the whole scenario.

Thank you.

Any other public comment.

Mr.

Lemers, anyone online like my public comment.

David Graziano.

Sure.

Mr.

Graziano, state your name and address for the record.

Just to confirm you can hear me.

Uh my name is David Graziano.

I live at 191 Wentworth Avenue.

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, great.

Uh good evening, members of the planning board.

My name is David Graziano.

I'm here representing as co-president of Cranston East Little League and the more than 300 local families who participate in our league each year.

First, I want to thank the board for considering the opportunity to install lighting at Faye Field.

This is not simply a facilities improvement.

It's an investment in how our community uses public space and how we support our young people.

While our league is called Cranston East Little League, the reality is this field serves families from across the entire city.

Kids come from every neighborhood.

Parents travel from all corners of Cranston.

This isn't just an east side field, it's a community field.

And what we're really talking about tonight is not simply baseball.

We're talking about connection.

Youth sports creates one of the last places where kids still gather in person, spend time with teammates, learn how to work together and build real friendships.

In a time where so much of their world happens on the screen, this space or these spaces matter more than ever.

A field with lights is not just a baseball field, it's a place where community happens after school.

Right now, fields across on uh field field access on the eastern side of the city is limited by daylight hours during the spring and fall seasons, especially when school is in session, it becomes extremely difficult to schedule practices and games for hundreds of kids beyond um before the sun goes down.

Lights allow us to extend safe play hours and make far better use of a field than already exists.

For our league alone, this directly impacts more than 300 families in Cranston.

It allows us to schedule games more efficiently, reduce conflicts with school and family obligations, and create a better experience for kids and parents who simply want the opportunity to participate in youth sports.

Beyond youth baseball, lighting opens up broader community opportunities.

Fay Field could host adults adult recreational leagues in the evenings, which creates the possibility for the league to lease field time and generate modest revenue while increasing utilization of a public asset that currently sits unused after sunset.

We're not asking to build something new, we're asking to make better use of what we already have.

I also want to acknowledge that every decision in our city has to consider fiscal realities.

Budgets matter, trade-offs exists, but investments that strengthen community connection, youth engagement, and healthy activity are some of the most valuable investments a city can make.

And the most important reason to support this project is the impact on our kids.

We're all aware of the growing challenges facing youth uh young people today.

Screen times replacing real interaction, social media is pulling kids away from in-person contact.

For teenage boys in particular, we're seeing rising levels of isolation and loneliness during formative years.

Youth sports are one of the best anecdotes to that.

A field with lights means teenagers can continue to play, practice, and spend time with teammates after school hours.

It keeps them active, builds friendships, teaches accountability, and keeps them connected to a positive peer group and adult mentors.

When a community invests in places where kids can gather, compete, build relationships, we're investing in healthier outcomes for the next generation.

Fay Field already serves as an important recreational space in our neighborhood.

Adding lights simply allows it to fulfill that role more effectively for the families who rely on it.

And I'll close with this.

When cities debate where to invest limited resources, one of the safest bets is investing in places that bring people together.

Lighting this field isn't about extending baseball hours.

It's about extending opportunity, connection, and community for the kids and families of Cranston.

On behalf of the Cranston East Little League and the hundreds of families we represent across the city, I respectfully encourage the board to support this proposal.

Thank you for time consideration.

Thank you.

Any other further public comment?

I see no other public comment online.

Okay, thank you.

Um we will now proceed to.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see you.

Could you come forward?

State your name and address.

Uh Lieutenant Justin Ruckowitz with the Cranston Police Department.

I'm the uh third shift lieutenant and also the department's lead taser instructor.

Uh Lieutenant Pizzula did an excellent job describing to you many of the reasons why we need to upgrade our taser units from the uh taser seven CQ to the uh taser 10 unit.

And while it is uh very expensive, one of the things that he did mention was the fact that not being under contract, we lose 10 million dollar insurance policy with axon.

Um another thing we lose is the ability to replace our units when they break.

We lose the ability to upgrade the software as software upgrades come in, and we do not have the ability to make evidence files out of um deployments.

So when you deploy a taser unit, everything that about that deployment is recorded on the battery.

We upload that and it's using evidence in court.

We don't have the ability to do that anymore.

The units themselves have been discontinued.

Uh, when the stock that Axon has on hand is out, we will no longer be able to replace units, we'll put which would put a gap in the number of officers on the road that have taser units, which currently I believe all but two uh patrol officers carry tasers um on duty at all times.

It is our policy that if they are trained, they have tasers.

Um, personally, I have seen the effectiveness of the taser.

It doesn't have to be deployed on someone and have uh probes shot at them uh to de-escalate a situation.

The officers having the units on their person, um, de escalates many situations.

Uh, one of the fears that I have is if we no longer have feasible uh CEW units and we have to pull them off the road entirely because of um liability concerns.

Um we will have officers having to escalate the force to impact weapons and having potential other issues, uh, which may bring lawsuits uh from suspects who are injured, uh, which could be avoided.

Um, one such lawsuit uh would be significantly more expensive uh than the funding that we're requesting to replace the units.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Any other further public comment?

Okay.

Uh before we deliberate, just a couple of quick questions.

Uh Mrs.

Zidellas, I forgot to ask this.

Um generally the city goes out, the bonds is basically like maybe 20 to 30 years more generally.

Depending on the project, up to 30 years.

Yeah.

Um basically, right now, recently we've gone out to bond.

Basically, we get like a five percent yield approximately.

Yes, but up until recently, rates have been going down.

Correct.

Could be lower, could be higher.

You don't know when you actually go out.

I get it.

Most likely when we go to market, it will be below the bucket.

Okay.

And the last question I have is I went and reviewed the debt cost for the city in our operating budgets for the last decade.

Uh, for FY26, the number I had was about 12 million dollars.

We budgeted for FY26.

Is that more or less the amount we're headed towards, or is it a little bit higher?

Right now it's going to be a little a little bit higher with an upcoming bond sale.

That the budget that we have now has embedded in it.

Um, some premium because of the payoff note interest.

So, yes, it will be right now.

If I had to give you a number, the number in the budget is probably somewhere a little over um under a million dollars, worst case.

Okay.

And for FY27, you have any idea what it looks like right now as you prepare the budget for FY27.

Um, the last year's bond.

Um, in one thing is when you were asking questions, there's two components.

One is the increased housing aid.

Um, number two is the increased debt service.

I believe the number for um increased debt service exclusive of any housing aid is three to between the two, but we have a loan of approximately a million two coming off being retired.

So the the we say a loan, you uh one previous bond.

I understand what I know what you mean by previous bond, previous loan.

What I mean is 1.2 is coming off.

You mean total on the that service?

Not a loan of one point two.

The actual 1.2 is defeased in 27, I believe.

And the current uh put the current bond, they have better equipment over here than we do next door.

The current bond that we'll be going out with, yeah.

Um is predominantly the schools, it will be um issued through um Rhode Island health and education.

It will have a premium in so there'll be no anticipated increase in debt service in FY27.

That also with the additional housing aid will hit in FY28.

Okay.

So would you I'm just there's a lot of numbers going around, but I would say is like it's not gonna be more than 13 million next year.

FY2728.

Is that more or less in your back?

Maybe a little more, but until we I get a better handle on interest rates, I can't give you a okay.

That's why I'm just trying to get a handle of how much it's going.

Okay.

All right.

Sorry for that.

I just wanted to understand because one of the things um we look at necessity, we look at the financial resources of the city.

And in the past, I've looked at basically the um the state has a study that comes out every year, the Gerard Island Treasurers and looks at how we look at from a debt perspective in all the cities and towns, and we're always in the green.

Unfortunately, last prior year we had a you know, budget deficit.

We're headed towards one this year, and I'm concerned about increasing debt service very quickly, is my concern, more or less.

Um, in future years.

Um, from FY 2010 to FY21, you know, our debt service went from about 9.7 to about 10.7.

So that's a very small amount, like basically a 10% increase over 12 years.

In the last few years, primarily because of the schools, we've gone from 10.7 to it, sounds like we're going to be around 13 million, it looks like.

So understandably, that's the schools, but our tax rates can only go up usually about three to four percent a year, depending if you use a city levy or the state law.

So big increases in debt, I think you have to be can concerned about.

So that's one reason I was asking those questions.

Um so we'll go through this as we do usually.

Um we will go through it by category so that people can all vote on it, and uh then there'll be an order of amendments if people want.

Any further things before we get going?

Okay.

First category is the school department for 3.1 million.

Um I was just make a comment that this is of course this is the laborers of charter school.

They've gone over budget.

It was originally going to be 14, now it's three, and now it's gonna be three more.

I understand the laborers are going to be kicking in, excuse me, the training school be kicking in the portion that the city would be taking in.

So that finally I felt in the past I was uh not supportive of it the first time, in part because the I didn't feel that it was being contributed to by the people actually using it, the laborers who are partners.

Well, anyway, um, anyone have any comments on this before we just make a motion one way or another on this?

Okay, if no one has any issues or amendments, uh motion to approve this.

Uh the school department requests is in order.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve maybe uh director Corell and the school department, seconded by uh Commissioner Coop.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Okay, all opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Next is highway maintenance.

Um I really appreciate that highway decided to put zeros in FY27 as a taxpayer.

So I'll make a motion to approve fleet maintenance seconded by Commissioner Exeter.

Any discussion?

All favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed to say nay.

I have it.

Next is the engineering division.

Is there any amendments people have?

Otherwise, it's a motion to approve the projects on engineering.

Mr.

President, I'd like to ask uh a question.

Sure.

Um Director Correo.

Um 60,000 for field survey equipment.

Uh it strikes me as something that should probably come out of an operating budget.

Um typically survey equipment sounds to me like something that's not a capital investment.

It's not a building improvement, it's not a truck with a lifespan of 15 years.

Um, particularly given the small amount.

Is there a reason it's in the capital budget and not the operating budget?

If I may, um, similar to the IT equipment.

One would say that's not a capital.

It you can well, I'll get there.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna have the same question um when we get to uh traffic and a couple other places.

Um the fire alarm, you know.

My place of employment had to upgrade the fire alarm system to the wireless.

You know, that was all done through our operating budget.

Um, seems like that the oh those systems maybe I could understand being capital because they're like just made they're extending the useful life, it's just like and and they you can expect them to have quite a lengthy life of service.

Um, I I don't know exactly what this field survey equipment is, but it doesn't seem to me like something that would last 10 years.

But if I'm wrong, you know, that's why I'm asking the question.

Given our ability for the money that we use, we try to let them last as long as possible.

So the life may be six to eight years, depending on the computer of it, but obviously they would probably be in place for at least the 10 years.

They do have upgrades to the equipment from time to time on the software, but other than that, we would be extending it, and we've used several things that kind of exceed their life cycle.

Are you satisfied?

If you want to make an amendment, or you don't want to leave it, you want to go.

It's up to you.

Uh I understand the answer.

Okay, you're satisfied.

Okay.

Okay.

So we're engineering.

Uh is there a motion to approve the engineering division request?

Made by Commissioner Mancini.

A motion to approve, seconded by Commissioner Zadales.

Any discussion?

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed saying nay.

Ayes have it.

Traffic division question.

So president, um, for the same reasons I just announced, I'm gonna make a motion to strike the radar speed signals and the sign fabrication equipment.

Okay.

Okay, if that's 25,000, okay.

Is there a second to Commissioner Coop's request?

I'm sorry, just to be clear, it was 25,000 for the radar signs and 35,000 for the sign equipment.

Oh, for both.

Okay, I'm apologize.

Yes, sure.

25 and 35.

Okay.

Is there a second to Commissioner Coop's request?

I'll second it.

If it's an operating expense, it should be in the operating budget.

That's how I kind of view it.

I've said that before myself.

Commissioner Zedales.

Uh Mr.

President, is there any way you could break those into two?

Ask him to re re remake the motion.

We're drawn by Commissioner Coop.

Uh, so question, my colleague, which item would you ask me to remove from the motion?

No, not no, take it as two.

Two individual I I will amend my motion to uh strike only the radar speed signals at 25,000.

Um okay, could you make two separate motion?

Why are you gonna come back with a second motion?

Okay, okay.

Commissioner Coop has made a motion to eliminate radar speed signals.

Is there a second?

I will second because it's an operating expense.

Any discussion?

Okay, seeing none.

All those in favor of Commissioner Coop's uh amendment signify by saying aye.

Aye, all those opposed say nay.

Nay.

Okay, so it looks like the three to four, and it's basically the A's, excuse me, the nays are Zedelis, Barberi, Mancini, uh Carrero, the A's are Coop, Exter, and myself.

So the motion amendment does not pass.

At this point, do you want to make another motion or do you want to just why not?

I will make a motion to strike the signed fabrication equipment at 35,000.

Okay.

I will second that motion for the same reasons I did before.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, we'll have a vote.

All those in favor of Commissioner Coop's amendment, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Oh all those who say nay.

Okay, now this 4-3 does pass.

So on the A side is myself, Commissioner uh Exter, Commissioner Coop, Commissioner Zodallas.

On the nay side, Commissioner Barberic, Commissioner Mancini, and Commissioner Carrero.

And now somebody should make a motion for traffic signal upgrades to approve.

You want to do that one too?

I'll make a motion to approve the traffic division budget as amended.

As amended, that's correct.

Okay.

I will second that motion.

All uh any discussion?

All in favor of the amended uh traffic division of budget, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Again, same split, four three.

Zedellas, Coop, Exit Frias, yay, nay, Barberi, Mancini, Carrero.

Okay.

Next is public buildings.

Any amendments or discussion on this before we have a vote?

Okay.

Okay, a moment amended.

Uh, excuse me.

A motion would be in order for approving public buildings, the projects of public buildings.

Anyone want to make it?

So moved.

Moved by Commissioner Coop to approve all public buildings.

Seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

I have it.

I have a question.

Correct.

Did we uh did you vote on the whole traffic budget?

I know you had voted on the amendment.

We voted on the traffic budget as amended.

As amended.

As amended.

Next is sewer.

Unless there's discussion or amendments.

Any amendments?

Seeing none.

Uh motion will be ordered to approve the sewer projects.

Made by Commissioner Mancini to approve the sewer projects as listed.

Seconded by Commissioner Zedellas.

Any discussion?

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Police.

Any discussion on this?

Any amendment?

Okay.

Motion will be in order to approve police.

Made by Commissioner Exter, seconded by Commissioner Barberi.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed saying nay.

Ayes have it.

Fire.

Discussion and amendments.

I will not be supporting, and I'll be making an amendment, probably three amendments.

We'll see how this goes on the following items.

I'll just go one by one.

One of the things we have to deal with is necessity and cost here.

Uh resources city.

A fire station in the western part of the city, based on the conversations and representations made by the prior fire chief, is that it was not needed.

In my time here in the last few years, I have not seen significant levels of development in the southwestern port of portion of this city that would justify a 17.5 million dollar fire station, let alone all the staffing that goes with it.

And a 17, five 17.5 million dollar fire station, if it's 30 years at a 5% interest rate would be over 30 million dollars.

30 million dollars over 30 years is about a million dollars.

So you basically half a percent on our property taxes.

Um if necessary.

And as I indicated previously, I have not seen the growth that would justify such an investment.

And actually, we don't even have bonding authority that would cover this.

I know it is not in the current year, but it's still, I believe we should not have it in here.

If there's growth at some point, we can consider it, but at this point I believe it's premature.

With that said, I'll make a motion to strike this slide item on the fire station.

Commissioner Coop.

I'll second the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Coop.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

Yeah, if if I may, the only thing I did want to reference the fact when they speak about that southern part of the uh West of Cranston.

Uh, keep in mind, you know, some of the developments that we've had proposed recently in that area.

One of the reasons why they believed that it was not something that we should be approving, and that was for a 40-something lot subdivision was the fact that the rescue and police response time was very high.

So although we may say it may be it may not be that high, when you look at the map, it does appear that there is some sort of significant difference between that and the central and eastern side of the city.

I recognize that, Commissioner Carrero.

That's why you I think you have mutual aid coming from Jackson.

This light, this I'm not sure that this shows what the time frizz for situate to get in there.

I'm not sure about that.

That's I that's the this may be just what I'm not sure if this is the entire.

I look at this as a big picture.

Like we're not just Cranston.

We look at what other people the Providence calls on us as well.

So that's why I thought it was not necessary.

Second, is the other thing I want to respond to that is if there becomes a time with Von Lane that that comes forward, uh, we can phase the project if we approve it.

And also then that could become more relevant.

But and I have all we don't have one, we didn't approve Von Lane.

So I don't believe in authorizing something until I know I actually need it.

That's how I kind of look at it.

Because especially when you're talking about 17.5 million dollars.

I I guess I I don't disagree with what you're saying.

The only other thing is I am not a fireman, but I thought that when you're talking mutual aid, mutual aid is usually something that they respond to after we have responded and we can't handle it.

I don't think you can call Jackson and have them come in and make a rescue call or a fire call at that in the town without notifying us first that we can't make.

That's possible, I agree.

But it would be like you could call them and say, can you get there?

I'm just I just know that mutual aid does occur.

So I know that that's what it is.

Anyway, Commissioner Coop.

Yeah, I'd also like to I my question about the number of calls is based on this thought process.

Um, I understand response time is a little slower, but that's the nature of the area.

The roads are narrow, they're windy, they're hilly, you have to drive slower.

And if you put a fire station out in the corner of the city, uh to service that area, they're not going to get anywhere else in the city.

So, are there enough calls to justify a fire station out there?

Manned buying now, we're buying equipment, we're hiring more staff, we're filling that station.

And you know, I live there, I live in that corner.

I don't see a whole lot of activity out there, you know.

Of those calls, I know where a lot of them come from, and it's not out in the southwestern corner of the city.

So before we go build a fire station, I would need to know not just, I understand it it may take 12 minutes to get from Situate Avenue or to get from Oaklawn Avenue out to Phoenix Avenue where I live, but it also takes 12 minutes to go the other way.

So they're not going to be responding in a timely manner to any calls on the other side of the city.

So, do we really have the need to fill up a station in that corner of the city?

I I don't see it.

I agree with Commissioner Fryas on that.

And uh that's why I seconded the motion.

Okay, I I mean again, I I agree with what you're saying and how you're saying it.

Uh my only concern is it's not something we're doing next year, and it's not something we're doing the fiscal year after.

I think it was just to keep it on the file and on the record that it could potentially be there in the future, and a couple of years from now could make a big difference.

And I know I guess it could get added at a later date once the need is there.

I was just hoping that maybe we'd be a little more proactive than reactive.

It could be added at a later date.

Every year they almost every year they come in here and ask this, and almost every year they get rejected because the need is not there.

First, to me, you must demonstrate the need.

If there's a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of developments going there, as you're saying, Commissioner Coop, I can understand it.

But this is a somewhat rural area, and when you live in a rural area, there are somewhat um there are things that you don't have like an urban area.

One of them is the quickness of the services.

So, and again, 17 and a half million dollars to me is nothing to sneeze at, just on the cost of the facility.

Never mind the cost of staffing it, which is another.

I I didn't ask how many staff people would be there, but it would, it's not gonna be one person.

So that's why I'm I made the motion.

Any other discussion?

And just the fact that I just I just hope that the people in that area, when we do talk about developments, that that does not become a reason as to why we should not approve a development in those areas.

I if that became an issue about look, I don't want to I'm not gonna speak to an application that hasn't been submitted yet.

Okay, when the time comes, we'll talk about it.

People people talk about lots of things when an application is filed.

We'll deal with it when the time comes.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

All those in favor of the motion of removing this item from the capital budget, signify by saying I all those opposed say nay.

Okay, so that's a three-four to keep it in.

The three and excuse me.

Okay, the three to take it out that did not succeed was myself, Coop, and Exter, and the four that wants to keep it in are Zadellas, Barberi, Mancini, and Carrero.

Okay.

The next one is the training facility.

This is a $3.5 million um proposal.

Again, if you put $3.5 million and you basically do 5% over 30 years, it's about $7 million approximately.

I have heard that they can use a training facility now in South County that costs a lot less than this.

And if they want to work with the police, they can work with the police in other locations that would cost a lot less than this.

Again, I don't see the necessity of the cost of this training facility.

Therefore, I'll make a motion to amend to remove this item from the project from the list.

Seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Seeing none, we'll take a vote.

All those in favor of the motion to remove this item signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those who say nay.

Commissioner Barberi.

So now that's a six to one vote of myself, Exter, Coop, Zidales, Mancini, Carrero in the affirmative, uh Barbary in the negative.

Last one that I have.

The garage.

This is a three million dollar proposal.

Again, and this is an FY27, which we are having some fiscal issues.

Um we'll add to the debt service in the near term.

It will then, if it's over a 30 years, it'll be about six million dollars if it's five percent interest.

I do not see the necessity for the following reasons.

They can work on the facility outside in warm in sunny weather.

They can work in the facility indoors as long as there's room for it.

And when there is not room for it, they send it out at a very low cost of what I heard of a few thousand dollars versus three million plus three million of interest.

In particular in this fiscal time where we're having issues with uh just the challenges that we're having.

I am not comfortable with this project as a necessity.

For those reasons, I'll be making a motion as I do now to remove this item from the budget.

Therefore, I make a motion to remove this item to the budget.

Is there a second to my motion?

Mr.

President, before I second the motion, may I ask?

Sure.

Um, because I do believe this facility is important, but I also agree with your concern about the uh finances for the upcoming fiscal year.

Yep.

Would you consider moving it to an out year to leave it in there?

As a way of trying to get the four votes, I will.

So what year would you like to move it out of 27?

I would say just move it out one year and let's see where we are a year from now.

All right, I'll make a motion then to excuse me.

Commissioner Zellas?

If I may, yeah, Ms.

President using the act.

If the motion was going to be made, yeah, okay.

The rule of thumb for architectural and engineering work is 10%.

So can I at least make an amendment to what I perceive to be your amendment?

Because no matter what, it's going to be a two-year project.

Yeah, it's got to be a site is gonna, you know, if whether it be a city site, so by moving it out exclusively a year, you're you're you know, pushing it off to two years in all actuality, yeah.

So if I just you know, offer a friendly offer friendly amendment that if we could at least leave three hundred thousand for design work in FY 2627 in if you want to try to reallocate 2,700,000.

At least it's moving forward, and the reason I say that, um the the it's not a a deputy chief anymore, but the the the original um assistant chief and the fire marshal, they are right.

Ms.

Corral spoke of the condition of you know the city buildings, yeah.

Um that's from I hate to say it, years of neglect, and in some of our decisions, what we're gonna do is further said neglect in if we could have any savings in trying to repair buildings.

All we're gonna do is another year or two years worth of decay on buildings, yeah.

So that I would offer, you know, be a uh preemptive amendment to Mr.

Coop's men.

Correct.

So it would be like 300,000 27 and 2.7 and 28.

Is that what you suggest?

2 million 700,000 and one other thing, if I may, uh Mr.

President.

Yeah, with that first 300,000.

We can refine the 2.7 million.

Okay.

Before we I know it's kind of awkward how we just did that, but is anyone else have anything to say before we go?

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Coop, what do you think of that?

I would second okay.

So you have motion, I'll second your I'll I'll I'll now make the motion clear is that we split this up to 300,000 in FY27 and 2.7 and FY28 on this garage line item.

Okay, I'll second that, Mr.

President.

Okay, seconded by Commissioner Coop.

Any further discussion?

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

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

It was passed as unanimously.

Okay.

Anyone have any uh other amendments of the fire department budget?

Okay, a motion would be in order to approve the fire department budget as amended.

So moved made by Commissioner Coop, fire department budget as amendment.

Second, second by Commissioner Carrero.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Everyone's in aye.

Okay, I'm a nay, because I don't believe in that fire station.

Okay, so it's six to one.

Okay.

Next is the IT project.

Um, anyone want any amendments to this?

Okay.

Um I just I just want to ask um Commissioner Zedellas again, you know, particularly the switch upgrade.

That's not something that could be paid out of operating funds.

It has not been budgeted in our operating budget, so it'd be a new add-on.

And um, I have to give some compliments to our IT director and her staff.

And quite frankly, the actual switches that we're replacing, she's exceeded her useful life, and it they're gonna run 10 years.

Yeah, I I don't I don't question the need for it.

I understand the need for it.

I I actually know a little bit of the history of the IT system.

Um, but you know, this habit of of capitalizing operating expenditures ends up costing that much more down the road, and and I just think it's a bad habit.

And if I just may um in terms of I honestly don't know what uh the source of funds was on um the purchase of the original servers and the original switches, but I can tell you that um independent of this, she has sought out grants for some of the the items more so on uh the cybersecurity that were clearly operating.

So this is one that we all agreed was capital, and they are they shall be out there for 10 years, both the switches and the service.

Okay, I'm done.

You're done.

Okay.

Um all right, there's nothing further.

A motion to approve it, would be inappropriate, would be appropriate this time.

Anybody like IT?

Motion to approve, motion approved made by Commissioner Carrero, seconded by Commissioners Dells.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All posts say nay.

Ayes have it.

Correct.

All right.

I'm not going to make any amendments here.

I've thought about it.

I really don't know if these are really necessary in that point twenty seven.

But if somebody wants to make an amendment, I'll listen to it.

Any discussion, any other amendments?

All right.

All those in favor, uh, someone make a motion on uh the park and rec projects.

I make a motion to approve toxic rex is presented.

Okay.

Uh and a second to that motion.

Seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed to say nay.

I'll make the motion to approve.

Second by Commissioner Coop.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Open space is nothing.

Okay.

So then the last order business is basically to approve the capital budget as we have just amendment.

Do I have a motion to approve the capital budget as amended?

Motion by Zadales, seconded by Claire.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

I have it.

Thank you very much.

And thank you, all directors who came here, and sorry it took you longer than we expected at eight thirty.

All right.

Now for the rest of you, we will now begin the rest of our program.

Does the staff want it?

We will now have a five minute break, and we will be back at twenty of nine.

Okay.

This is a five minutes.

Thank you.

Right.

We're back on.

Let's uh get telled in here.

Sorry, we took a few more minutes than we should have.

Next.

We have completed the capital budget.

Okay.

Um next on the agenda is subdivision and land development projects.

Ridgewood Road.

Is the applicant here wishes to be heard on this matter?

Are you calling the meeting out of order?

Um what'd you say?

Isn't Lake View Development first?

We Lake View's Lake Street Villa has already been continued.

Right, but this is and what I have next on the agenda is Ridgewood.

Lakeview Development is not next.

Right.

So Lake Street was continued.

Next I have on my on my agenda is Ridgewood.

And then next is Lakeview Development.

Do you have something different on your agenda?

No, the presentation's just out of order.

Okay.

Mr.

Murray, would you you can go ahead and proceed?

Uh yes, good evening.

Um members of the planning commission.

Uh I have both applications, so I uh it doesn't matter to me, but you have Ridgewood Road ready to go, that's fine.

Um this um for the record, Robert Murray, 21 Garden City Drive in Cranston.

Uh I represent the owner and applicant of the subject parcel, Ronald Rossi, who's here this evening.

Um this is our straightforward uh one lot subdivision proposal.

Um with me this evening is Jason Clough from Depreet Engineering, uh, who will be offering testimony and uh between himself and my uh presentation, Mr.

Rossi will be available to clarify any uh questions.

Um his daughter uh Rebecca is with us this evening, uh, who's intent it is the intended recipient of the lot to be uh created uh if the planning commission approves uh the subdivision.

Um this property is um uh lot 108 on uh assessors plot 22.

Um I just want to put on the record uh members of the commission are familiar with this lot um at the southeast end of the property.

This is about a 61-acre parcel.

Um you've spent uh many hours uh in this setting uh reviewing the Natick solar project.

Uh this uh proposed house is substantially away from that project.

It will not uh the solar project won't impact this house, and this house won't impact the solar project in any way.

But I just want to put on the record that uh it is the same uh lot.

Uh there was a preview of this application at one point um at a public hearing on the Natick solar where there were uh questions raised about some of the uh prep a work that Mr.

Rossi did in terms of wetlands and uh uh with the uh with DEM for the septic system.

Um but when we were uh discussing Natick solar at those points, um this application had not yet been submitted.

Um it is now ready for submission and it was submitted, and uh we're hoping tonight that you review this under your your unified development regulations.

There's one small aspect of this that requires zoning relief.

Uh as the map will um unfold and Jason will talk about um this this lot, which goes from Natick Avenue all the way up to Ridgewood Road, um has only 50 feet of frontage on Ridgewood Road, and that is where the intended house lot is to be created.

Uh this is in an A80 zone.

The normal required street frontage is 200 feet.

So we're asking for relief to recognize the 50 feet of existing frontage.

With that, Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to ask Jason to come up.

I do have his resume just for the benefit of the commission.

If with your permission, I'd just like to uh pass it out just so you have his biography.

Mr.

Clough, uh just a couple introductory questions before you uh speak a narrative.

Um you're with Pred Engineering, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And you're a Rhode Island professional engineer?

Yes.

And uh your office was involved, and you specifically in the preparation of the plans uh that have been submitted to the planning commission tonight for this uh subdivision.

Yes.

You're familiar with the subject property?

Yes.

And the surrounding area.

Yes.

And in addition to working on the subdivision application, you also worked on the outside agency approvals that were obtained from the Department of Environmental Management, including the uh wetlands permit and uh the on-site septic system permit.

Yes, that is correct.

And just for the record, this property will be serviced by uh well and a septic system.

Yes.

And uh there are no issues that there are uh appropriate separation between the two, and we meet all state regulations in terms of both, correct?

That is correct.

All right, I'm gonna ask you just to uh go over the highlights of of the plan.

If perhaps call it up, Rihanna needs to be referred to, and then I'll have a few more questions.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Jason Clough.

I am a project manager with Depreet Engineering.

Um as is previously noted, uh, we are here for a preliminary plan for uh Cessors Platte 22 3 lot 108 for the creation of one new residential lot.

The property is zoned residential A80, um, which requires 80,000 square feet of buildable area for the for the lot.

Sorry.

Uh it's in residential zone A80 and which requires 80,000 square feet of of buildable area.

Um with respect to the lot configuration, uh, we meet all zoning requirements with the exception of frontage.

Uh access to the site is from Ridgewood Road, which is an existing public right-of-way.

Um the right-of-way ends at uh at the property uh with a width of 50 feet, uh, and we are requesting relief from the 200-foot frontage requirement um of 150 feet, as we uh are limited to a 50 feet of frontage.

Uh also, as was noted, we have secured permits from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management for both a wetlands permit and an on-site wastewater uh treatment system, uh septic system.

Um there's no FEMA flood hazard areas or natural heritage areas located on the property, nor are there historic resources uh areas located on the property.

Regarding uh drainage, uh we are proposing a pervious driveway to be situated off of an existing gravel drive, and the roof stormwater management will be handled by qualified pervious areas.

Um again, as noted, the the only relief that is being requested is uh for the 50 feet of frontage that exists on the property where two where 200 feet is required.

Um at this time, I'll you know, if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Let me just uh with your permission, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh let me uh just follow up.

Um the um the proposed lot is shown on the screen here outlined in blue.

It's approximately 2.57 acres, I think.

Correct.

Yes, uh, I believe it's uh 2.57 acres.

Right.

Yeah, um a portion of it is covered by a wetlands area, but we do meet the requirement of at least 80,000 square feet of uh developable land, correct?

Yes, that is correct.

And um uh there is already an existing uh road or path uh at the end of Ridgewood Road uh that Mr.

Rossi utilizes uh that's going to be incorporated in uh this lot, correct?

Yes, that is correct.

The existing gravel drive is present uh off of the end of Ridgewood Road, and that gravel drive is being used as a portion of the the driveway um with the additional driveway to the proposed home chairman.

I have no other questions for Puff.

I don't know if any members of the board do I okay.

Um any questions for the applicant here?

Commissioner Carrero.

Uh I have a couple of quick questions.

I thought as part of the solar farm, the lower middle portion of this map shows a portion of a dirt road.

I thought that originally was going to be part of a secondary access out of the solar farm, but it looks like it drives right into that lot and ends.

That that I you know, keeping in mind we're 60 acres, that that that path you're referring to is like a mile away.

So the there is there is access.

Mr.

Murray, make sure you speak into the microphone because I apologize.

Okay.

There are several paths up from Natick Avenue.

Uh there's there's uh access out through Mr.

Rossi and Mrs.

Rossi's property on Phoenix Avenue.

Um as part of the there the the path that's shown there will which will be used for access into this lot.

Mr.

Rossi will retain an easement over even after the lot is given to his door.

There will be access, but that this access was never intended to be utilized in connection with the solar facility.

It is available, but that's not it's not part of the leased area, uh, but it is an existing uh path.

Okay.

The other thing is engineering and public works had an opportunity to look at the end of Ridgewood.

And there is some drainage at the end of that, and there is an outfall that discharges into this property.

We would like to have in drainage easement drafted up so that we can maintain and replace in the future, if the need should be, to continue to keep that outfall and that piping that's currently on private property, which is not shown on that plan right now.

Um, I don't see that as a problem.

In fact, uh Mr.

Rossi worked with the highway department a while back in in addressing that whole issue.

Um, and uh that I don't see that as a problem.

So there will be a drainage easement drafted for the whatever outfall comes on there.

Will that be done before he comes in for a building permit?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Um, I have a couple of questions.

I think you kind of answered it, but I'm gonna use it in my call my my layman's terms.

Um this project um the stormwater issue.

Does it have the how this project is going to have any impact on the or the remainder of the property, the water from it?

Just it may not.

If it doesn't, I understand, but could you explain why it will not?

Sure.

Um drainage for the proposed residential lot is handled with uh for the driveway, the driveway is pervious.

So with the pervious driveway, it's basically handling itself um like like a lawn area would.

And for the roof area, um, we have utilized qualified pervious areas, which are reserved natural areas uh that were shown on the plans that were permitted uh through DEM through wetlands.

Um so the roof, the roof uh uh downspouts and roof leaders are directed towards those qualified pervious areas.

Um, and then um which is which is located within in the buffer areas, um, and then from there uh the you know stormwater flows to the large wetland areas that are located on the property.

So the impacts have been mitigated with previous surfaces and with qualified previous areas.

Okay.

Next question is potentially for your attorney.

Um I don't know the length, but as you may recall, uh, Attorney Murray, there is a requirement in our rules about um nine, let's call this that can only be 900 feet.

Um, do you know that this if it's more than 900 feet, you have to, it's not allowed or you have to ask for a waiver from us.

Is this within 900 feet and does not exceed 900 feet, this call this act.

Well, first of all, that's first of all, that's a that is not part of this application.

It is um uh long standing as part of the um that development when it was approved.

I can't speak to the length of uh I don't know if I know the length of Ridgewood Road, but we are we are at the terminus of the road right now.

Uh and we would be uh impaired if we weren't allowed to have access out there, in my opinion.

Okay.

Um that's I just wanted to ask because it's just in the regulations, so it just occurred to me when I looked at the thing.

Um I don't think you asked for a waiver, so that's why I was asking.

So you don't think you need one, uh, I guess.

All right, those are my questions.

Any other questions from my colleagues for the applicant?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

Yeah, just uh just in closing, um, you know, Mr.

Rossi is available to answer any questions, but um, you know, the burden on us with respect to the uh zoning relief that needs to be granted first.

Um obviously he has no other frontage on um uh Ridgewood Road.

He um uh it would amount to more than a mere inconvenience for someone to suggest that access to this new lot should be all the way down to Natick Avenue to require this house to be serviced by a driveway all the way down to Natick Avenue.

Um he has not given away any portions of the property.

Uh that's the only frontage he ever had.

Uh and um uh the relief that's being sought here is uh uh certainly the least relief necessary, and it's the only relief necessary to uh achieve the objective of uh developing this as a single family lot.

Um I'll reiterate again for the record, uh, we would have no objection uh in granting the city uh an appropriate drainage easement, which I will review with Mr.

Correio and Mr.

Marsala.

Uh, and uh be happy to answer any other questions.

Anything further for Mr.

Murray before we go to public comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

I think we'll now move to public comment.

Is there anyone here in the audience that'd like to make public comment on this application?

Please come forward and state your name and address.

Drake Patton, 684 Natick Avenue.

Good evening, commissioners.

I'm sorry to stand in front of you yet again.

Um I'm here to address Ron Rossi's request for subdivision and relief in order to add a new house to his property, which would be referred to as lot 1081.

As co-leader of the group that opposed Natick Solar on the same existing lot, which is lot 108 in our residential neighborhood, I am here tonight representing our shared opposition to this request.

Over nearly eight years with this project, we have documented several concerns regarding Mr.

Rossi's long-term plan to not only place a commercial solar project in our residential neighborhood, but to also double dip by simultaneously claiming his right to also use the same land for housing.

The question for you tonight is how can a subdivision be made to a lot that is also already and formally tied to being the quote project area, unquote, with a forthcoming commercial solar project already approved by this commission for the same site.

Mr.

Rossi began this process in December of 21 when he applied to DEM's division of agriculture for a quote, farm road, unquote, which he falsely justified by claiming the proposed solar installation would restrict access to his land.

This was blatantly false since access was guaranteed in his lease with Revity Energy, and in plans that you approved here at the commission.

In early 22, Mr.

Rossi gave an easement to National Grid for distribution, a distribution line into the middle of his property.

He gave no reason, but neighbors were told by him that he was building housing.

Sure enough, in the fall of 25, Mr.

Rossi submitted a septic permit application to DEM.

And in this application, the access obstacle he claimed in his farm road application had magically disappeared.

In fact, his application stated that the house would be on open land and a Christmas tree farm.

As we have previously stated, in 2023 and at other proceedings before this body and on the public record, we were told clearly by then planning director Pizzulo that planning would never allow housing to co-occupy the solar site.

And we were told by Mr.

Rossi's lawyer that no housing was planned.

And yet here we are tonight.

The planning began a long time ago, and it involved misleading state agencies, the city, and the public.

Adding insult to injury is frankly the staff memo.

A Google image from 2011, a reference to the flum, the future land use map showing the area as consistent and intended for housing.

And I quote here, quote, the subject property abuts developed A20 and A80 zoned parcels, land use for single family residential and farm forest purposes.

Seriously, how is that possible given what we know?

We understand that you, the commission, are not responsible for Mr.

Rossi and his hired hands behavior and ongoing willingness to misrepresent facts, going so far as to represent and sign as one must documents that state that the applications are true as written.

But we do feel that you are once again a firewall for our community.

Why should Mr.

Rossi be allowed to not only retain a use that is not allowed by zoning, his construction business, a farm zoning for his other business, his tree farm, be allowed to permanently destroy 30 acres of forest through clear cutting and blasting for commercial power generation, and then claim a hardship for a house he wants to build on that same lot.

More importantly, and I will restate this question before I end.

How can a subdivision be made to a lot that is also already informally tied to being the project area for a forthcoming commercial solar project already approved by this commission for the same lot?

We maintain that if granted, this subdivision will in fact change the Natick Solar Project.

Both the lease and the quote project area unquote and associated calculations made and presented to you have been based on the existing lots that Mr.

Rossi owns.

We will be watching carefully how this is managed by planning and by this commission as the project moves forward.

Thank you.

I am submitting this for the record.

Is there anyone else who'd like to make public comment who is here in this room on this application?

Okay.

I see no one here.

Is there anyone online that would like public comment on this application?

There's no public comment online.

Thank you.

All right.

Um we will hear from the applicant.

You have anything to say before we we ask for the staff's recommendation.

I actually forgot to do this whole presentation.

I apologize.

It's like hold on.

Bob, why don't we let the staff give their presentation?

Then you can, if you have any comments, it's probably the best thing.

Yeah, I apologize to the staff.

I was just thinking like how do I move this along faster?

And I forgot about that.

Sorry.

We could have moved the budget along faster.

Oh, you know me.

All right.

No problem.

Thank you.

This is an application named Ridgewood Road for a minor subdivision with um dimensional relief.

The proposal is to subdivide one record lot to create one additional lot.

And the dimensional variance is for frontage that is requested to be 50 feet where 200 feet is required.

Here is our 400-foot radius map.

The aerial view of the entire lot.

And a zoomed in version of the aerial view of the frontage on Ridgewood Road.

Same aerial view here, also shown with zoning and future land use overlaid.

A zoomed-in um screenshot of the existing conditions.

And similarly, the proposed conditions at the same scale.

Couple things I pointed out were the existing gravel road and a pervious driveway.

And the 50-foot frontage on Ridgewood Road.

This is a street view of the cul-de-sac.

And the planning analysis finds that this proposal is consistent with the surrounding area.

The proposed lot layout matches the existing infrastructure and allows for enough frontage to create safe and adequate local circulation for vehicle trap traffic access to the proposed single family dwelling.

The new lot will have adequate physical and permanent physical access to Ridgewood Road, a city public a public city street.

While the lot frontage would remain non-conforming, the proposal would overall create a lot that is more conforming to the zoning ordinance and more consistent with the surrounding residential lots.

No change to existing circulation is proposed beyond formalizing an exist an existing gravel driveway onto the terminus of Ridgewood Road.

There are three findings of fact for variant standards.

First, the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief arises from the unique way that the subject lot interfaces with the public road.

Specifically, the configuration of the lot along a partial cul-de-sac results in a lack of frontage for one residential lot, despite having more than uh more than adequate land area to support a conforming residential lot within the A80 zone.

The granting of the requested variants will create a lot suitable for the A80 zone and make that proposed residential development consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Provided that the proposed lot meets all but one res one dimensional standard of the A80 zone and is able to provide adequate access for an area for single family residential use permitted.

The denial of the variants would be more than a mere inconvenience, meaning that relief sought as minimal.

There are five standard five uh findings for subdivision standards.

The first outlining that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan through goal H1, policy H1, and policy H3.

Second, the proposal requires and seeks dimensional zoning relief for frontage and lot width, which, if granted, will establish compliance with the standards and provision of the zoning ordinance.

No new uses or structures are proposed that would create any environmental impacts.

The proposal will not create and will not result in the creation of individual lots with such physical constraints to development that building on those lots according to regulations would be impractical.

And the proposed additional lot will have permanent physical access.

Overall, staff finds this proposal generally consistent with.

I'm sorry.

I would like to state that the staff finds this proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and the standards of the required findings of fact and the subdivision and land development regulations.

Staff therefore recommends that the city plan commission adopt the findings of fact documented above and approve the unified development review of the subdivision.

The variances include the proposed lot shall be granted zoning relief to have 50 feet of frontage in an A80 zone where the minimum frontage required is 200 feet.

Thank you, Ms.

Valcourt.

Is there any questions for staff?

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

At this point, you can now, if you wish like to say something to the commission.

You can proceed.

It was probably good that Mr.

Marcellar and you suggested I sit down for a moment.

This commission knows that the limits of the solar Natick solar project is approximately 23 acres of a 60.

That's a 66 portion.

66 acre parcel because there's another lot involved.

But we're lot 108 is about 61 acres.

We're talking about 2.57 acres here.

So I'm surprised we didn't attack his character tonight.

Um the um this is a straightforward application.

Uh I thank you for your time.

Mr.

Rossi would appreciate your support.

Uh, he's been very um open uh and transparent uh on what he's trying to do here.

Um, you know, to drag up seven or eight years of discussion of the Natick Solar Project when this site is so far away from it, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this commission approving this small lot subdivision for Mr.

Rossi's daughter's house.

Uh it is not inconsistent with the plans for the Natick Solar, it will not impede um that project in any way.

The approval that you granted for that uh still stands and will um uh will be able to be effectuated uh as anticipated, regardless of this house being built.

So thank you for your time.

Any follow-up questions from Mr.

Murray or the applicant.

Okay, thank you.

Um staff recommendation.

Just if you could, Ms.

Valcourt, just put it up on the screen so everyone can see it.

Uh this is a you unified development project, which means we Mr.

Marcel, we have to make two motions.

One motion is to grant uh that it meets the requirements for zoning relief under the statute, and the second is that it should be um it meets the requirements for a subdivision.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Marcelo.

Is there any further discussion from my colleagues on this matter?

One way or another.

Okay.

Uh before we vote, I'll just make a quick comment.

Um whether or not we can approve this project after another one has been approved.

In my time here, I've seen sometimes projects they get there's like one part of it and there's another phase.

Uh I don't see there's anything inherently illegal about this situation.

Um I asked about stormwater that, and I believe that the stormwater from this will not impact the solar farm stormwater issue only partially because of the distance, and secondly, of the impervious the uh impervious surface issue that was brought up.

Um the hardship.

Uh I mean I've I don't think I've ever voted against something dealing with frontage um when the lot configuration of of the when there's a lot issue about usable space and et cetera, because I tend to believe there is a hardship.

I understand the argument that he has a big piece of land and he uses some for solar farms, uses this, but the statutory requirements for a hardship is it met here if he wants to subdivide this.

Um I think it does with the frontage because there's some unusable space and therefore the configuration of the lot.

That's my own viewpoint.

I just want to explain it to the public and to others.

Um, but that's my two cents.

Does anyone else have anything else to say?

Okay.

Uh therefore this would be in order for someone to make any kind of motion they desire.

Um, I guess that has to be two motions.

Mr.

President, I will which which you do the zoning first, and then um, if that gets approved, we'll do the subdivision with the um appropriate um conditions.

So the condition would go on the subdivision.

Yeah, I think that's the more appropriate one.

So I'll make a motion first to approve the zoning variance based on the uh finding of facts expressed by the staff motion made by Commissioner Coop for zoning relief pursuant uh consistent with the staff's recommendation.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second, second by uh Commissioner Carrero.

Are there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Second motion is now an order on the subdivision with conditions.

Ms.

President, I'll make a motion to approve the subdivision based upon the staff's recommendation with a condition that the developer um agree to record a drainage easement satisfactory to the city of Cranston.

I'm sorry.

Uh motion to approve the subdivision based upon the staff's recommendation with the condition that the developer um record a drainage easement suitable to the city of Cranston.

Okay.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Carrero.

Any discussion?

Okay.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

I was opposed to saying nay.

The ayes have it.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

We will now move to Lake View Development.

Phase two.

You are the the applicant here and wishes to be heard on this matter.

Just have a moment.

No.

Do you want to give Mr.

Ronzo a moment to uh disengage or uh you want to wait.

You want to go ahead he's leaving.

He's he's not here to record you right.

Not this application.

No.

So you just go right ahead.

You don't care, right?

No, no, he I just didn't know if you wanted him to be moving around while we're doing this.

I can pay attention when people are making noise.

He's like a mouse anyway.

Thank you.

Good evening again, Mr.

Chairman for the record Robert Murray 21 Garden City Drive in Cranston.

I'm here tonight on behalf of the owner applicant Lakeview Development LLC, which is the applicant for a um one lot subdivision uh over a uh piece of property that the this commission uh will be familiar with uh with me this evening is Mr.

David Cloxton um Mr.

Cloxton is the sole member of Lakeview Development LLC.

He's in the uh building and development uh uh business and um uh was present uh last uh November uh when this commission approved a five lot subdivision for the property at 1611 Hope Road um that uh final plan was recorded in December in the land evidence records and is of record uh and we are here tonight asking for permission to subdivide what is now known as lot 289 on assessors plat 30 um uh that is a new lot number that was assigned for lot five in the previous subdivision uh by the tax assessor so so we're clear it's just lot 289 we're looking to make one more uh division of um when we were here last um you recall this project at the corner of seven mile road and hope road there was an existing house at 1611 hope road um the plan that the commission approved um placed that house on uh what was then lot four and then there were three lots fronting on seven mile road and uh this lot um which is now 289 with record lot five on that plan and uh that was approved under the unified development uh regulations uh because uh this is an 820 zone and um lots are supposed to have 125 feet of frontage uh this commission uh in your dual capacity approved zoning relief for this lot uh because it only has approximately 54 feet of frontage uh rather than the um required 125 that remains the same today um we have not given any in a way any portions of lot five since we were last here um but what we're now trying to do is to subdivide what was um a lot of about 1.89 acres um which is lot five that's about 82 a little over 82 thousand square feet into two two lots uh that would meet the area uh requirements the uh I should say at the outset the reason we did not uh include that in the plan that you last approved was because of timing and DEM they had not yet approved the septic um the septic um submission um for the septic system and um it was just a question of coordination with uh uh with the uh with DEM and our our uh engineering and surveying company so uh we proceeded forward uh but uh there was never uh it was always known uh at least to the staff that we would look uh provided we got the required approval for the septic to make one more further subdivision to create one additional lot um uh just to refresh your memory um james are we able to get the plan up there or uh no just one thanks Ron Okay that that's fine James so you can see there uh that area in green outlined is uh lot 289 uh and to refresh the members uh memory uh that's the one lot that has frontage both on seven mile road

Um uh just to refresh your memory.

Um James, are we able to get the plan up there or uh just one?

Thanks, Ron.

Okay, that's fine, James.

So you can see there, uh that area in green outlined is uh lot 289.

Uh and to refresh the members' uh memory, uh that's the one lot that has frontage both on seven mile road and um down at the bottom and on Hope Road.

As part of your approval, uh we agreed and uh you uh uh requested that there be no access out of that portion um fronting on Seven Mile Road.

So even with the creation of the new lot that will be part of that area going to Southern Mile Road, we're not looking to have access there.

We will um we are proposing um a shared driveway, and I've provided a uh a draft uh utility and access easement over um the entrance off Hope Roads for the new lot.

Uh before we go to that configuration, I just want to note for the record, uh, in your final decision, uh, or in the the administrative office's final decision, which reflected your preliminary approval.

There were certain conditions uh that we obligated ourselves to with respect to the stone walls along Seventh Mile Road.

We're not looking to uh alter that in any way.

All those conditions remain in full force and effect in terms of the development of those three lots along Seven Mile Road and part of the stone wall that runs up uh Hope Road there.

So uh we're not looking, we're only focused on what's before you there, that map of Texas or whatever it looks like, uh that green area.

Um James, do we have Brianna?

I'm sorry, can we show the proposed subdivision?

Okay, that's that's the uh okay, that'll work.

Um you can see the access off Hope Road, uh and where uh if you see the division uh of the new new lot, there's a diagonal line that goes um uh on the left right there.

That's that that would be the property line for the new lot.

And you can see that we are able to site um a dwelling on um the part um which is about I think 46,000 square feet, and the other portion will be about 36 uh uh 36,390 square feet.

So we can uh we're able to these both both these lots as the other lots, as you may recall, will be serviced by Kent County Water Authority uh for public water, and uh and they will have on-site septic systems, which uh uh we are uh ready to go with.

So um the you know, we already have the variants for um the frontage on old lot number five or lot two eighty-nine as it stands today.

Um uh I'll defer to Mr.

Marcella, but I I think I would have to argue that you should reaffirm that since we're now creating an additional um uh lot off that uh off that frontage.

So I I would have no uh objection to that.

Um if the board approves this uh at the final plan, we would coordinate um the recording of a uh utility and access easement uh over that entrance road to the new house that's in the middle of the uh uh the property uh on the screen before you um I'm not sure Mr.

Clarkson has can add anything further.

He's he is the expert on the construction, so he'll he'll be happy to answer any questions, but uh uh I think that's pretty straightforward what we're trying to do, Mr.

Chairman, and uh uh we'd ask for approval as submitted.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

Is there any questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Carrell.

Mr.

Murray, the is it a is it a private road or is it just a driveway?

And does the driveway service both properties?

Yes, it is a driveway.

And um uh if you can see at the top of the screen is an area that's about 4,000, a little over 4,000 square feet.

That right there where it says proposed access utility easement.

That will um uh it will be a shared driveway, but we'll bring the utilities in for both houses there.

But that um we will provide permanent access to pass and repass over the driveway for the for the house closest to uh what you're looking on the screen there.

So um and Mr.

Clarkson still owns the lot, so he'll be able to declare the easement.

And I've drafted it in that fashion.

The the other thing is has any coordination been done with the fire department for having a driveway that long and that far off the street being only 15 feet wide.

They sometimes have some concerns with that.

Um with me one moment.

Again, I'm not sure I don't need the answer right now.

It's just you just want to confirm I want to answer your question.

I don't want to misspeak, so just bear with me one moment.

Uh, because I believe um in your staff report there was a umon the kettle, who was there earlier, the deputy chief and fire marshal.

Oh, I'm still here.

Okay.

I'd rather not speak for him since he's here.

Uh, but in in the staff report, he had no comment.

Uh and I don't believe the length of that was an issue at the time of the initial five lot subdivision.

Um, so we'll be able to provide uh not only access, but uh um um uh I I don't think there'll be a problem with the vehicle getting in there or uh servicing either of those houses.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right, Mr.

Murray, I just have a couple of questions related to that driveway.

Um shared driveways look unusual to me, as you would understand in the suburban setting.

But with that said, who owns the driveway?

Is it owned by both of them?

Is there going to be some sort of uh easement?

I'm just trying to understand how this would work.

Okay.

Can we back it out a little bit?

Okay.

There we go.

Okay, right now, lot five, which is the entire uh thing going from seven mile road all the way up to the top of the screen to Hope Road and to the left side of the screen.

That is lot five on the subdivision you approved.

It is owned by Lakeview Development.

Ultimately, if approved, both lots will be developed.

The owner of the house on this end, okay.

Um, when they acquire that from Mr.

Clarkston, it will be subject to an easement that he will have already granted to the owner or retained for the other house that's in the middle of the screen there.

So it will be on the property belonging to the house on the left, but the house in the middle will have rights to cross over the shared driveway.

Okay, thank you.

Second is the width of the driveway, as I believe Commissioner Carrero said is 15 feet wide.

Um there could be a possibility, I assume, of two cars trying one car trying to get out, one car trying to come in from these two neighbors.

Um do you do you believe, especially if you have the one of those like big SUV kind of things?

Like you really think 15 feet is like wide enough for like these two cars to pass each other if that were to occur.

I know this is like if you buy the lot, you kind of know what you're getting, but still I'm just trying to understand the is it really is it gonna be problematic I just have a moment, yep.

I'm not sure where the 15 feet comes from.

That is 40 feet.

Well, it's kind of like Vaughn Lane, right?

It's like 1540.

We don't know what the numbers are.

It looks like 15 over there was I saw I have I have an engineer plan that says 40 40 feet.

Okay.

The access, the the access easement and the utility easement is going to be 15 feet wide.

Oh, okay.

So that's the 15 numbers.

So that's where the guy going all the way over here.

Yes, 15 feet, and the other guy is gonna have.

Well, I don't think anybody's gonna question if the gentleman going to the first house, creeps over into the other 35 feet.

I don't think it's going to be an issue.

Yeah, okay.

But we're reserving a 15-foot accessing utility easement for that middle house.

But that that area there is 40 feet.

Okay, I understand now.

As evidenced by the fact that the opening is 53.74.

Okay.

So Mr.

Carrero and I both looked at the wrong number.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there any other questions?

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

Uh, we'll have the staff staff recommendation and then we'll do public comment.

Thank you.

This is the lake view development number two property.

Um of Hope Road in the A20 zone, where the proposal is to subdivide one record lot and create one additional for and a dimensional variance for the frontage being 40 54 feet.

Um here's the aerial view.

And I kind of carved out the lot that we are here for today.

Um, that same shape.

This is the subject lot for this application today.

And that same carved out subject lot, just facing a different way in the aerial view, and it's transitioned to the existing conditions plan.

Here you can see lot 289 is designated out of this um larger lot, which is already approved.

Uh so this is the existing condition and the proposed condition I have outlined, but here it is a little more zoomed in with a subdivision for one additional lot.

I did um take screenshots a little more zoomed in if we want to go back to these at all.

And here are the street views off of Hope Road.

This is where the shared drive driveway would begin.

Planning analysis um finds consistency with the comprehensive plan and alignment with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, specifically goal H1, policy H1, and policy H3.

Also finding that this proposal is consistent with the future land use map designation.

Planning staff has found that is the proposal is also consistent with the surrounding area.

The lot layouts match the existing infrastructure and allow for enough frontage to create a driveway for development in line with the surrounding area that is primarily residential in nature.

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

No changes to existing circulation are proposed beyond connecting two driveways onto Hope Road.

The existing lots, the existing lot has adequate frontage and with to provide driveway access to both subject lots.

Provided that the proposed lots meet all but one dimensional standard of the A20 zone and are able to provide adequate access and area for single family residential use is permitted in the zone.

The denial of the variants would be more than a mere inconvenience, meaning that relief sought is minimal.

The granting of the requested variants will create lot sizes suitable for the A20 zone and align two residential lots for the use of a shared driveway, which is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan.

The hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land, as the long and narrow shape of the lot does not provide enough frontage for two parcels, despite having more than enough land area for two lots in the A20 zone.

Staff finds that this proposal is general generally consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The zoning ordinance and standards for standards for the required findings of fact set forth in Rhode Island General Law and the subdivision and land development regulations.

Staff therefore recommends that the city plan commission adopt the findings of fact documented above and approve the unified development review of the subdivision.

Variance variances include the revised, these are just names of the lots that were used in this application and staff memo.

Revised lot 289 and new lot one shall be granted the zoning relief to have 53.74 feet of frontage in an A20 zone where a minimum of 125 feet of frontage is required, and that is specifically off of Hope Road, as along with the waivers to be granted that require sidewalks.

Thank you, Ms.

Velcord.

Any questions for Ms.

Velcourt from my colleagues?

Okay.

Um is there anyone who moved to public comment?

Is there anyone here like me public comment on this application?

Seeing none, Mr.

Lima, is there anyone online?

There is no public comment online.

Thank you.

Um is there any final um questions for anyone?

Okay.

Any comments?

All right.

Then at time for a motion.

This is a UDR, which means we have to make two motions.

The first is the zoning, and the second is a subdivision.

I make a motion to approve the recommended um variance that's requested.

Recommended zoning relief.

Okay.

Pursuant to the findings of fact in the staff recommendation.

Uh is there a second to that motion?

Seconded by Commissioner Coop.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All supposed to say nay.

Ayes have it.

May I may I ask a question?

Sure.

I'm just wondering if we should put on record whether the variance is approved with an access easement specifically.

Since it's a um variance for two lots.

Well, yeah, I think we can take one vote and in the well.

And then the front we're giving frontage.

Did you want a condition of a driveway or an access easement for the back lot as part of the is part of the approval or um I I think that would be um a good thing to do because one of the lots would have no frontage if the access.

Yeah, no, no, I and I agree.

So we we would add that condition to the much subdivision.

Yeah, subdivision uh motion.

Subdivision motion.

Yep.

Okay.

All right.

Moving on to the subdivision motion.

Who wants to make the subdivision motion?

So it if I could suggest it would be uh should you wish uh motion to approve subject to um um both a utility and access easement for uh both parcels and also to grant the waiver, right?

And and to grant the waiver to waiver on the sidewalks.

Do we need to get into any more specific information about the easement?

It's it's unlike the last one where that involved the city.

This involves it's private land on private land, so it would really be be between the two landowners.

Um I'm assuming that um to make the back lot more valuable, they'll make it the uh appropriate easement.

Sounds fine to me.

So I will make a motion to approve the subdivision with a condition of um recording of a utility and access easement and waiving the requirement for sidewalks according to the staff recommendation.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Carrell, do you want to say something?

Yeah, uh, did we ever take a vote on the variance request in a second?

Jamie, did you make notes of who seconded his who's who seconded his motion?

Yeah, so that was done.

And that was voted.

Did you we didn't vote on the first one?

I thought we did the variance.

I thought we voted you don't I thought there was an aye.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, okay.

It might have been getting we have to go to instant replay.

That's fine.

All right, we we we approved anybody, Mr.

Murray.

You you you're a client and you both saw us vote aye on the zoning thing, right?

Okay, all right.

Okay, so there's a motion for a subdivision approval consistent with the fact findings with a waiver for sidewalks and the recording of a utility access easement.

Utility and access utility and access easement.

Okay.

So that was the motion.

Is there a second?

Second, second by Commissioner Carrero.

Any further discussion?

Okay, seeing none.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those say nay.

Ayes have it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Next is Mulligan's Island.

Uh before you come up, Mr.

Mancini.

Uh, Director Ashman asked that the staff be able to make a short presentation, I believe, to explain um this process because Mulligan's Island, of course, is a uniquely zoned area, and because minor modifications are something that is you we don't see all very often.

So we'll have them and then you will come up and and make application, uh, make your presentation.

So it's not even going to be a full presentation, just a very brief explainer.

Um, because I don't know how many people on this commission have actually gone through the MPD process.

It's not a process that we've used in a long time.

Um typically um minor alteration.

So minor alterations are a thing generally for subdivisions and land developments.

Minor alterations would typically be approved administratively, though the MPD, um, the the zone itself and um in in the zoning ordinance, like the way the zoning ordinance is written, uh requires the city plan commission to make approvals of any minor alterations, um such as this, which is mostly uh accessory structures.

Uh that is all.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Brugeman.

Mr.

Mancini, um you have the floor.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission, good evening, John Mancini, on behalf of the applicant and the owner uh with regards to Mulligan's Island.

As you heard from your planning staff, this is a uniquely zoned property.

It's one of only I think two or three in the city, which are zoned to MPD, which is mixed use development.

And as a result, uh it's driven by a particular ordinance.

And uh as the ordinance is read, it requires that something that would ordinarily be done administratively would need to be brought to the planning board.

Uh and what is proposed here is a uh minor uh alteration to the property.

It's not in any way an intensification of the use.

It's not a change in the use, it's not a change in the approval.

It's simply just an update of the existing facility.

Uh, specifically, what the applicant is seeking to do is to modernize the facility to allow it to further further compete in its marketplace.

Uh it has uh committed itself to continue to be a driving range.

And in doing so, it requires particular upgrades.

It also uh asking to expand the coverage of its T spots.

There are X amount of T spots at the at the site.

Those spots are going to increase and there's going to be more coverage.

Uh specifically, as we denoted in our plan, we're proposing uh 608 square foot, 6,800 square foot putting green, uh construction of a coverage shaded structure over the existing golfing green.

Uh that's to allow for modernization of the system that's going to be put in place so it can compete with some of the other neighboring uh golfing range, uh, and also an additional 1,000 square foot food and beverage uh station, essential concession stand, nothing major.

Uh all and by the way, all of these are already contemplated in the original approval that was granted way back when this was approved back in I think 98 or 99, certainly in the early 2000s.

Um and finally, they're also looking for an additional 1500 square foot expansion to the existing uh deck, uh, which would be adjacent to the uh concession stand that would be provided.

All in all, uh, and then we're finally a 250-foot square, 250, 250 square feet storage shed.

Uh the uh improvements again do not really uh make a substantial or significant uh difference to the site plan, but they do have a significant uh difference to the overall operation and the betterment of that operation and the betterment of that project.

I have with me tonight uh Jose Pax Mio from the applicant who can further elaborate on any of the uh additions or changes to the site purposes for for that.

I also have Mike Friedman here from operations who can also testify uh to any questions that the commission may have.

Um but essentially we're just simply here asking for the commission to review the plan, uh consider the minor alterations and approve the same consistent with the ordinance.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Mancini.

Um is there any questions at the outset for Mr.

Mancini?

Okay.

I'll ask a few questions.

Um food and beverage station.

Um this is not a restaurant, I assume.

No, great, great question.

It's not a restaurant, it's not a uh going to be a full-scale restaurant, it's not going to have the type of restaurant equipment that you would uh consider.

It's it's simply gonna be a concession stand.

Okay.

Um the changes here uh look to me to be consistent with recreational use.

Would you agree with that?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Um obviously a minor modification is something new for me here to see.

So this is on for public informational meeting.

Um you said the commission to vote on it.

Um, isn't it more appropriate we would vote on it at the next meeting?

Because this is public informational.

No, so our our our position is that essentially this would have been administrative.

Uh, but because of the MPD ordinance, uh, the the planning staff thought it should be brought to the zoning to the planning board for a vote, but there's no requirement for a public hearing on the vote.

Uh so it's a it's an informational meeting similar to what you would have in a master plan, but again, it's not uh it's not a variance that's being requested, it's not a particular approval.

It's just changing the original.

So the original entitlement plan had specific uh designated items.

We're changing those items, we're not intensifying the use.

So in other words, we're not exceeding what was granted.

We're just basically altering what the final plan was at the uh at the onset.

To elaborate, the zoning code only says that the plan commission needs to approve an alteration.

It doesn't say how to, there's no findings of facts, it just says it has to approve it, which is why we thought that the best thing would be just public informational meeting.

I understand.

A couple more questions.

I'm gonna have to ask something to the solicitor and I'll ask your opinion.

Um did you provide note?

This was very quick.

This came on the I saw this on a Friday.

And so did you provide notice at all to the abutters?

No.

So no notice was provided to the abutters either by certified mail or by by advertisement other than the 48-hour notice requirement for the uh open meetings act.

And you don't think that notice I I don't, because when you read the ordinance as indicated by your staff, it it doesn't identify a particular process.

It simply says it needs to be approved by the planning board.

Uh we think that this uh actually should have been done administratively by the staff.

So it's a unique animal, I understand, um, but it doesn't rise to the level which requires a uh particular notification.

For example, if we were seeking to change the use, if we were seeking to have a variance because the particular size of the alteration was beyond that which was initially approved, then I think that would be a different approval and a different request and a different process.

Yes, I understand you're not changing the use.

This is why I'm I'm pretty flexible and comfortable about this thing, Mr.

Mancini.

Um, I'm a little bit because it's a unique thing, I'm a little bit concerned about the note, you know, we put this on a Friday and we're voting it on a Tuesday, and the abutters don't even know about it.

Not that I think they'd have anything to say other than say thumbs up is my guess.

But I want to ask the question.

I apologize to put the solicitor on the spot about this.

But um should no ask you a two-part question, Mr.

Solicitor.

Um, should notice go, should notice be provided to the abutters here for this.

And second, would it be better to continue this to next month so that the abutters at least get a chance to know about this and they can make comment versus just approving it, something being posted on a Friday and being approved on a Tuesday?

Um so is this an MPD, John?

It is an MPD.

Yeah.

I I I guess my only concern is the only other MPDs that I dealt with would be Chapel View.

And every time Chapel View wanted to make a change, they came to us for a recommendation and then they went to the city council for approval.

However, we only saw the major changes.

We never saw the minor changes.

So I don't know internally whether there were minor changes to again Chapel View before we change that to a C5.

Um, you know, you neither of you were here.

Correct.

So I I only saw major changes come to the planning commission and then it went to the city council.

Um again, barring any explicit notice requirement.

Um additional notice requirement other than Secretary of State.

Um, I I would say at this point they wouldn't, it wouldn't be this commission wouldn't have the authority to add additional notice requirement.

Um if it's not required either under state law or under our um MPD statute, which I'm I'm looking at it now, and it's not okay.

Mr.

Mancini, I want to ask you one more question about this before I turn over for public comment.

I agreed with John, so he looks shocked over there, but you're right.

Okay, I'm letting it process.

Yeah.

I and so you understand, Ms.

Mancini.

I'm just, you know, we're all attorneys here.

I'm just this is not my area expertise, so I am being cautious about this.

So is there an urgency that you have to have a vote on this tonight?

Two things.

So first, I I want to dispel any concern or issue that we just popped up on a Friday afternoon and placed on the agenda Friday.

We'd actually been working with the staff for about a month or so.

Uh so this it would Friday afternoon is not the first time that they saw it.

Um we've been going back and forth with correspondences.

Uh essentially me trying to convince the staff that this should be done administratively.

Uh so it's not that this was the first time that anybody saw it was Friday afternoon.

So I I understand that the commission saw it probably first time on the agenda, so I can appreciate the um the surprise to it.

But we've been we've been at it for longer than that.

Secondly, to address your question, is there an urgency?

There is an urgency because uh frankly, they want to be prepared to open in April, and hopefully the snow by then will be uh exhausted and so that they can start their improvements uh in time for the season.

That that's that's the driving factor.

Um, and that was one of the impetus for why we tried to convince the planning staff that this was to be done administrative so that we could be on the ground ready to go as soon as it was thought out.

So and that was also by why we had a frantic phone call on Friday asking if we could be on the agenda uh today.

So I I understand the concern.

I understand the need to cross T's and dot I's um, but from our perspective, it it's it's it's a ability to be ready for the season at the start of the season.

Um last question then, I think.

Um, because you want to vote on it.

I got to ask a couple of questions about this, which is the new facilities you are putting in there.

Can you just tell me the height of these facilities?

Are they two-story?

Are they three-story?

Are they one story?

So just a little bit of the details of the facilities, the structure.

Absolutely.

So all of the structures proposed are all single stories.

Uh so there's nothing here that is going to be uh close to any type of height limitation.

The the existing um canopy is just going to be extended.

Uh, and um this the shed storage is going to be your typical 250 square foot shed, nothing exotic about it.

Uh, and there's no again, nothing that is going to be out of the out of the norm for a site for a site that size.

Okay.

Is there any questions for the applicant from my colleagues?

Commissioner, I'm solicitor Marcel.

Yeah.

So I I just read through the entire MPD statute.

So again, as long as I I think you would have to make a finding that there is no significant impact on the surrounding properties or the safe and efficient flow of traffic.

John, can you just speak to the fact that this project will not um affect traffic flow?

Yeah.

Um obviously it won't, but just so um to to cover the fact that it's a minor amendment.

Absolutely.

And I and I can I can ground the comment in the um with with respect to the plan.

So uh the plan provides a table for parking.

And and it again, it shows that we're not intensifying the amount of parking.

So it's not that the proposed improvements would be such that they will draw more people than what we normally anticipate.

The goal is to obviously maintain existing kind, maintain an existing clientele, and and also to not lose a clientele to a neighbor who is who who has something similar to what's operating there.

Um based upon the size of the parking, that's going to be accommodated.

We don't believe that it's going to intensify traffic in any way.

So it shouldn't be uh these improvements should not in any way interfere with the public welfare, the public health, and the safety of traffic circulation both in the site and to the site.

Um I'll ask a question quickly to staff.

Um the staff, I know you you put something like on the screen up there, but did you have a memo that went through the requirements for I don't think you did like a requirements of the MPD approval for a minor modification?

No, we don't have a um specific memo for this.

Um basically um I can't.

I mean, I can you want to just read it?

It I mean, it's it just basically says following the MPD approval.

Um alterations uh subsequent to city council approval, certain alterations of uh may be made without requiring further action of the city council authorizations alterations may be authorized by the planning commission and shall be limited to those which may be defined as minor in nature.

Um such alterations shall result in little or no significant impact on surrounding properties, or as I would just said, or on the safe and efficient flow of traffic through nearby city roadways.

Those are those are the only requirements for findings.

That's it, and and it's up to the director if it's minor or major.

And if I may go add, I just I feel very confident that these changes are very minor to the operation of the facility.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions for right, Mr.

Mancini, we'll take public comment here.

See if anybody's here for public comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Ms.

President.

Is anyone here public comment on the Mulligan's Island modern minor modification?

I see none.

Mr.

Lemers, anyone online for minor modification at Mulligan's?

There is no public comment online.

Thank you.

All right.

Um other last questions or comments for my colleagues.

Okay.

I'll just make a quick comment before we go into voting.

Um based on the representation made by the solicitor that notice is not required and cannot be compelled to be required to the abutters on this minor modification.

I feel comfortable.

I will go forward.

Number one.

Number two, based on the evidence presented to me, although I don't basically the few documents in the public representation.

I do not see I see little or no significant impact on the neighboring on the neighboring surrounding properties or flow or impact on the flow of traffic.

I think that's the right term I'm using.

Um if my colleagues want to postpone this for a month, I'm fine with that as well.

If you need more information, or you want a staff memo, or you just want the public to know this is going on.

Uh, but I understand it's a minor modification, and it is consistent with the use of the facility, which is recreation.

And um, it does not sound to me that it will have any sort, it will have little or no significant impact on the surrounding properties.

So anyone else have anything to say on that?

I guess it's a what's the motion to approve minor modification with a finding that it has little or no significant impact on the surrounding properties.

And what's the flow of traffic phrase?

Umigantly impact the flow of traffic on neighboring city roadways.

And will not significantly impact the flow of traffic on neighboring city roadways.

Okay.

Anyone go ahead.

I'll make that motion.

Motion made by Commissioner Coop to approve the minor modification with the findings that there is little or no significant impact on neighboring properties, and there will not be a significant impact on the flow of traffic of neighboring city roadways.

Is there a second to second second by director Carrero?

Okay, any discussion?

Okay.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Congratulations.

And the one last thing I wanted to say is because of the urgency of trying to open this up on April and to promote economic development.

That's the other reason I decided to proceed tonight.

Okay.

All right.

Good luck, Mr.

Mancini.

We will now move to zoning, zoning recommendations.

It's 10 o'clock.

I think we can get this done by 11.

I don't know.

We'll see.

The first application is Byron is the I'm just going to call it the uh two Indian Road application.

Is the staff ready to present?

I'm ready.

Okay, is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on two Indian Road?

Please come forward.

Please state your name.

My name is Wayne Kazarian.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Members of the commission.

Oh, your address as well.

1157 Narragans Boulevard.

Okay.

I appreciate your persistence this evening.

So I am the owner of 1157 Narragansett Boulevard, which is adjacent, actually next to this property.

Um it's plat, it's lot 737.

The subject property is lot 2922.

It's located at two Indian Road, which is uh a small dead end street that uh proceeds literally down from Narragans Boulevard down a steep slope.

Um I grew up, there's a little bit of history, but I'll be quick.

I know it's late.

Uh I grew up in this house.

I came home from the hospital to 1157 Narragans Boulevard.

Two Indian Road was owned by the Bishop family.

Mrs.

Bishop died in 2021.

I bought the property just because it was there.

Uh if you remember the days, uh Prince Spaghetti days, every Wednesday we went to Mrs.

Bishop's during in elementary school to have spaghetti dinners on on Wednesdays.

Um bought the house, didn't have any plans for it.

My daughter went up went ahead and got married, had a child, another one is due next week.

Uh, and we are looking to have her live in the house.

I am here with uh Brian Mitchie from Mitchie Design Build, who's the builder.

Brian has a nice design to keep the house exactly in the location that it is in, um, which I think we could have done by right, assuming it had a foundation that would survive the process.

Turns out that this house was built just prior to the turn of the century, and by that I mean 1900.

Uh, the foundation is a timber foundation.

And the complication is if we go in to build this house, um, we're not sure it's not going to collapse.

So the better plan is to essentially take it down and replace it in place with a house with a similar exterior look to the house that it currently exists.

And that's what we're looking to do.

Um, in terms of inconvenience and necessity, uh, because of the timber foundation, the house tilts 18 inches from front to back.

Um, and that certainly would be more than a mere inconvenience.

It also still is on a cesspool.

Um, the bishops lived in it from well, I came home from the hospital in 1953.

So they were there from then until 2021.

Has a cesspool because of the grade.

Um, we have to have a pressurized sewer system.

It's been the sewer connection has been approved, but moving this house back to accommodate the setback requirements would result in the house being dropped by another six feet, another sewer plan.

So it is certainly more than a mere inconvenience.

You can see that it's kind of a unique house.

When I was a kid, it was a clapboard house, great clapboard house.

Mr.

Bishop was a bricklayer.

Uh, and he literally came home from work every night with a trunk full of extra bricks, and now it looks like this.

When it's done, it will be a clapboard house again.

So uh that is really what I'm looking to do.

I'm looking for a favorable recommendation.

It would stay exactly where it is.

That little juto toward Indian Road would go away.

Um, because of the curve of the road, you can see that it's got good visibility from Narragans Boulevard, even though there's a house in front of it.

And just in terms of local history, this house was built just about 1900 in the 1930s.

William Cherry Cherry and Webb owned and developed the entire area.

He built my house, which was which was a toy farm to keep his horses that ran at Narragansett racetrack and his chickens um to the uh south of this property and then to the east of the property.

He built a house for his daughter to live in.

Uh, his daughter's name was Molly.

Molly rumor has it lived in there for two weeks before she left for what was then described as a beatnik style in New York City, and he sold it to his accountant.

And that's where I am.

So I want to keep it the same.

It's an iconic house, it's a great design.

Uh, and it would be certainly difficult, particularly because of the trapezoidal shape of the lot and the grade elevation, the this the steep drop uh to place it any other way on that property.

Kazarian is there any questions for Mr.

Kazarin okay thank you Ms.

Kazarin and uh and thanks to the city Mr.

Cario has has helped look at Indian Road and uh planning director has been great I've been in actually I can say that since the class 71 the seats in the auditorium feel about the same here for a while.

They just won't put that they won't put that in the capital improvement plan you know new seats I noticed that thank you.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Ray would you like to give the staff recommendation then we'll take public comment all right so um the relief being sought here is from the front setback um the requirement in this zone is 25 feet and the proposal is nine feet which is um essentially the existing condition and the relief being sought is 15.75 feet um the applicant already stated his reason for requesting relief um staff analysis highlighted the unique shape of the lot which would cause difficulty in complying with B1 setback requirements moving the building footprint in any direction would result in setback nonconformity giving these constraints the request is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood in the comprehensive plan also um to give some context Indian road was partially abandoned by the city in April of 1975 the section that remained a public right of way is less than 200 feet long and only 20 feet wide it provides access to only two single family houses this road receives a similar amount of traffic as the triple as a typical driveway setback requirements sorry should be a low requirement for a street like this and this is especially true when you consider that this house is over a hundred years old um and zoning code was implemented many decades after its construction and um in addition uh forcing the owners to move the foundation would result in substantial financial burdens that may impede their redevelopment efforts uh staff found that the following goals policies and action items uh in the comprehensive plan uh support this application goal h2 all c h3 policy h5 and policy h six and that uh positive recommendation thank you mr ray um is there anyone here would like any questions for mr ray from my colleagues thank you uh anyone here would like to make public comment on two indian road mr leamers anyone online that would like to talk about indian road there is no public comment online okay any final comments or questions from my colleagues on two Indian road okay seeing none this will be a time for motions mr barber I haven't heard from you tonight making a motion i make a motion to accept positive recommendation from the staff okay seconded by commissioner carrero all the any discussion all those in favor signify by saying aye all those opposed say nay eyes have it congratulations you're halfway home thank you very much all right next is three fountain avenue and zero fountain avenue all right um so for this one uh they recently requested a continuance um with the zoning board of review so we'll not be covering it today okay so should we make a uh solicitor should we make a motion to continue this matter to the April 7th meeting no um do we don't have to yeah we don't have to because the there's a there's a title issue and we don't know when it's going to be resolved so if it does get resolved they can just put it on because I understand okay all right well we're not dealing with it tonight okay all right great I was really excited by the staff recommendation on that too all right um the um next matter is 288 Farmington Avenue is the applicant here and wishes to be heard I do not see the applicant can the staff please present uh make their presentation uh yes so this is an application to oh that is wrong so the application is uh asking dimensional relief for a garage um that does not conform to side setback regulations and here's the site plan um as you can see um in the back is quite close to the lot line on the side and the relief that's being asked for is um three feet um the proposed distance from the side uh lot line is two feet

And here's the site plan.

Um as you can see um in the back is quite close to the lot line on the side.

And the relief that's being asked for is um three feet.

Um the proposed distance from the side uh lot line is two feet, and the requirement in this zone is five feet.

Um and the applicant stated reason for requesting relief was um is kind of after the fact because um he's saying that the contractor um did not uh inform him that this process was necessary, and now he's uh preemptively or going back and um getting this variance.

Jamie, did he pull a permit for the garage?

What was that?

Did he pull a permit for the garage?

Yeah, I believe so, yes.

So it's just the variance that they're looking for.

Uh staff review showed that um there are many similar uh accessory structures in the area.

Um, and also the applicant will be subject to applicable building and fire codes, which account for structures constructed within five feet of the property line.

Um the following policies uh in the comprehensive plan support the approval of this application, policy H3 and policy H5.

And I'd like to also give a positive recommendation to this application.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Is there any questions for Mr.

Ray?

Okay.

We'll go to public comment.

Anyone here would like to make public comment on the 280 Farmington app.

Seeing none, Mr.

Lemers.

Anyone online that make the public comment on 2D Farmington app?

There is no public comment online.

Thank you.

All right.

Any last questions from Mr.

Ray?

Okay.

Um I plan to vote in favor of this because I think the applicant in good faith recognizes an error was made.

It was not his fault.

So I'm okay with this.

All right.

Now would be the time for any motions.

Mr.

Barberi, Commissioner Barberi.

Yeah, we do the positive recommendation.

Commissioner Barberi makes a uh motion for a positive recommendation, uh following staff recommendation.

Uh seconded by Commissioner Mancini.

Any further discussion?

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

Aye.

Uh all those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Mrs.

Dallas is a nay.

So in the affirmative, Barberi, Mancini, Carrero, Frias, sir.

Coop.

Okay.

Thank you.

Next is 530 Wellington Ave signs.

Is the applicant?

Oh.

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard?

Please proceed, Mr.

Murray.

Um, very quickly.

Um, I represent Can Am Rhode Island LLC, the owner of the property of 530 Wellington Avenue.

You recall this is a uh subject matter before you as a major land development.

Uh this is the old mill development, uh, old mill along uh Wellington Avenue.

You can see from the canyon of uh Route 95.

Um my client has gone through uh millions of dollars in renovations to convert the building to self-storage.

Um we're at the point where almost to finish the outside cladding and signage came up.

Um there is uh do we have a picture of the building, uh Jamie?

Um how about the old building?

Do we have the old one?

That's not in the presentation.

Okay, that's fine.

Um so you're looking uh south on Wellington Avenue here at the corner.

I believe it's uh station street uh or Clarence.

I can't remember the state.

Anyway, that that's the overall uh scope of the project.

Um the um, yeah, we had to go through extensive remediation, et cetera, et cetera.

And um we are ready to uh get our sign permit.

Uh there are two small signs uh being sought by the applicant from the zone uh from Mr.

Peichel, who advised we needed to go to uh zone for zoning relief.

Uh in this M2 zone, and an owner or applicant is allowed to have the lesser of 300 square feet of signage uh or 30 percent of the street-facing facade.

Um clearly the 300 would be the applicable number because we have about 650 feet of frontage along Wellington Avenue for this building.

So obviously uh 300 is less than the 30 percent.

Um what is before you uh is uh a recommendation, hopefully for approval to the zoning board for the oval sign, which is 45.8 square feet.

Um, and if it was 45, we could just do it.

But in addition, there is one uh channel lettering uh on a front portion of the building that uh they'd like to install uh of about 133 square feet.

So we're about 175, 108, 178 square feet of signage.

Uh but we're asking for two wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed.

But I want to note that within the 300 square feet, uh the applicant could have two freestanding signs, which we're not looking for and other um other type signage as long as we can uh monument signs, uh canopies, et cetera.

We're not looking for any of that.

This is the limitation to the signage that's being sought um from the zoning board, and uh be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from Mr.

Murray on this application?

Will I be definitely be able to see it from the highway, Mr.

Murray?

I question that.

Um in all honesty, but that's not my decision.

Uh because if I'm I I want to see it from the highway, if we're gonna go in here and make no well, I I think the the front facade when it's done will be noticeable, and hopefully that'll draw your attention to the signage.

And I know that every lawyer is looking for self-story, so uh I gotcha.

My wife tells me I got to get rid of some of the stuff in my house, so hey, what's going there?

Very convenient.

All right.

Um questions for Mr.

Murray.

Oh, Ms.

Mr.

Corrector.

Mr.

has a question.

One quick one.

Uh are those signs lit.

The um I believe uh the channel lettering is backlit, and I believe that I believe both are illuminated.

Uh in the presentation that we submitted, the the exact location of the oval sign was shown, but I don't think Jimmy has it in I I can show it if needed, but uh um it's on one end of the building.

So there are questions from Mr.

Murray.

Seeing none, is there anyone here would like to make public comment on this?

The storage sign.

Seeing none, Mr.

Lima, anyone online?

There is no public comment online.

Okay.

Um second.

Mr.

Ray, can you do your presentation?

I did it out of order.

I apologize.

No worries.

Um, so as was previously talked about, um, this application proposes to install a new wall signage exceeding the allowable size at 530 Wellington Avenue.

So um wall signage is limited to 45 square feet in the M2 zone.

And the applicant proposes an oval sign of 45.8 square feet and channel wall uh letter wall signage of 133.5 square feet.

So during the staff uh review, um, we considered the property and the surrounding area, the fact that they're industrial and commercial in nature, and the fact that this requirement uh makes sense for small and mid-sized buildings, but does not allow scaling for large uh former industrial sites like this.

Um large signs are prevalent um along the highway, uh I-95 in this area.

And in addition, it's unrelated to this application, but billboards uh are already present on this site, and um the proposed signage does not limit driver visibility or create more dangerous roadway conditions.

Um staff highlighted goal ED2 policy ED 15 and policy ED24 to show consistency with the comprehensive plan in support of this application.

And I'd also like to give a positive recommendation to this application.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Any questions for Mr.

Ray?

Okay.

Uh I have no comments.

Anyone have comments?

Okay.

Motions would be in order at this time.

Motion to approve the budget recommendation by staff.

Um motion made by Commissioner Barberi for a positive recommendation by staff.

Seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Any further discussion?

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

Aye.

All those supposed to say nay, eyes have it.

Thank you.

That concludes the zoning recommendations.

We have two other things left in the agenda.

One is amendment to subdivision regulations, public hearing continued.

Um, does the staff want to say uh say anything at this point?

Uh just something real brief.

Um here's a brief summary.

Uh, but generally um there have been several minor changes leading up to the February 3rd meeting.

Um, and now since the February 3rd meeting, we suggested a few other changes, uh, mostly building on top of uh some proposed amendments that were already seen at the previous meeting.

Um, one of them being we started working a bit more uh with the fire department and department of public works on the cistern uh requirement section.

Uh also to note here um if we do adopt this, they'll also have to be in the future probably updates to the fire prevention code, which will need to be approved by the city council.

Um, but that will probably take a few more months to work on.

Um additionally, we also um rewrote the language a little bit when it came to the checklist requirements.

Um, just because we're very we're still working on our online applications and we're still adopting our processes, which were previously all like physical paper processes to these online applications and how they work.

Um, so you can see the applicant application consent form and some of the amendments of the checklists uh themselves to see some of those changes.

Um, so the other thing that changed since the last meeting was the checklist items regarding estimates of school children, the fiscal impact statement.

Um it's now only required for suggest to be required for major subdivisions of land developments.

Right.

That's all.

So just a quick question before I make some comments.

So this is Mr.

Bergman.

Are we ready?

We could vote on this tonight.

Correct.

Okay.

Because you're just talking like some things are still you're still working on some things, but it's just way to go.

We were working on things.

Everything that's in this draft is uh final.

Okay.

Let me um let me see how I want to go.

There is one change that I'm responsible for from the last version of this version, which is at the my direction after the public comment we received.

Um, I did a couple of things.

One is I asked the staff to remove the school children's fiscal impact requirement away from the minor subdivisions.

Um, I felt that there was a small amount involved there, small number of homes.

I understand the possible burden, it could be on a developer for major.

I retained it, and I'm gonna explain why.

It will, I know this is about 1025, but I will be concise and brief.

Um I did research of every city and town in the state of Rhode Island and their subdivision regulations and checklist requirements.

Approximately 23 have some requirement for fiscal impact or school-aged children, number of school aged children.

Nine had minor, but I'm just focusing on the major.

I'll read the towns.

Bristol, Charlestown, Cumberland, East Providence, Exeter, Foster, Hoppington, Johnston, Lincoln, Little Compton, Narragansett, New Shore, North Kingstown, North Providence, North Smithfield, Portsmouth, Richmond, Smithfield, South Kingstown, Tiverdon, Warwick, West Greenwich, Westerly.

So a majority of the cities and towns.

I provide this information to the solicitor for his own practice and for his own review.

If anyone would like to see this information, I can present it to you all now.

But I did do my homework.

So what I why I did that was to show that asking this is not an outlier.

This is asked of other developers.

Number one.

Number two.

As I said before, this is about information.

So the city has fiscal impact analysis so they can understand as they plan forward.

It also fiscal impact is economic development.

We want to know what the impact is for economic development purposes sometimes.

And also for planning.

We have a facilities chapter in our comprehensive plan.

If we want to know there are a number of school age children, do we need to increase school capacity?

How's the impact on schools?

As you guys know, like they changed the um they redistricted school district when it comes to uh Western Hills, where some children who were going to George Peters are now going to pain.

So knowing about developments and what's happening, I think is relevant there.

And I do agree with you know that many times bring people bring up school children as an argument against it, and sometimes it doesn't have merit.

And there was discussion about the school department and their capacity.

But I have a comment here from October 10th, 2023, the school committee department, school committee meeting, where they said the following Hope Highlands is going to need to be returned to an elementary school due to all this development in Western Cranston.

Right now, Orchard Farms in Oaklawn are at maximum capacity.

Okay.

So capacity in the western side of the city is an issue.

So providing information so that we know then we can share with the school department if they want it, and the finance director if he wants it, to know what's going on is not a problem, in my view.

Um these 23 towns are doing it or can require it, have required it, maybe they follow it, they don't, I don't know, but they have it in their regs.

I can't see how it's a fair housing violation to ask for this information, which was what one of these things they were talking about.

So that's why I kept it in, guys.

I did my research, this is what it is.

Like I said, I can give this to all of you, and that's what it is.

So anybody have anything to say back to me?

That's what you can do it.

Don't worry about it.

Mrs.