Can everyone hear me?

All right, I'm going to be calling this meeting to order.

Um before we get to the first time on the agenda of approval of the minutes, I just want to say a couple of things quickly.

Um, not on the agenda, but I don't think it's an open meeting issue.

First, um I just uh as you may see, we do not have Director Ashman with us today.

Uh there is a deaf and her family, and so I just want to wish her my condolences and uh first have a quick moment in silence and um because of that.

Uh second, I'd like to welcome uh John Carlosante, who was appointed today as the newest member of the planning commission, Mr.

Mr.

Callasante is to my right for all of those of you watching on television and in the audience.

Um Mr.

Callisante is a small business owner.

Uh he's currently I may leave a member of the historic district commission, and I'd like to welcome you to the uh he's replacing um Ms.

Renzuli, who uh took a position with the administration earlier this year.

So welcome aboard, Mr.

Callisante, uh and and welcome to your first meeting.

Thanks, Steve.

Okay.

First item, the agenda approval of the minutes.

Is there any edits or changes to the approval of the minutes?

I mean to the minutes that were submitted for April 7th.

Okay, seeing none.

Commissioner Coop makes a motion to approve the minutes.

Is there a second?

Second by Commissioner Barberi.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed to say nay.

Ayes have it.

Next is an extension request of Champlain Heights.

Um Mr.

Brogerman, my understanding is they have requested a continuance of the next meeting.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Mr.

Brookerman has indicated they requested a continuance.

Can I have a motion to continue this to our next meeting in June, which is June 2nd?

Moved by Commissioner Coop, seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Any discussion?

All those favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Next item on the agenda is the reinstatement request for 20 garter drive.

I believe the attorney is here.

Mr.

Murray.

Good evening, uh Robert Murray, 21 Garden City Drive and Cranston.

I'm here tonight on behalf of uh guarded drive LLC, which is the new owner of the property at 20 Gard Drive, the former medium security uh prison facility that has since been uh raised since this process started.

Um the new owners uh uh this commission approved about a 200,000 square foot uh industrial warehouse building for the site.

Um I think it was two 210,000.

Um the new owners have been um working with various uh builders and contractors, and the the size seems to fluctuate between 232,000 and 201,000, but they're they're closer to the 201,000 tonight.

Um during this process, it became apparent uh that the uh preliminary plan uh was left to be uh expired without a request for an extension.

They would have been entitled to an extension.

Um respectfully, we'd ask the commission to reinstate the preliminary plan for at least uh one year until February of uh 20 2027, which would be the one year from the 2026 date.

Um I think you will uh we will be submitting a final uh final plan application submission to the uh department uh for their review uh shortly.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

Are there any questions from Mr.

Murray regarding the reinstatement of 20 Garter Drive?

I'll ask a quick question, Mr.

Murray.

Um if you're not liberty to discuss, that's fine.

Do you have a is there an actual prospective um business entity going uh that is likely to be coming soon?

Uh yes.

Okay, all right.

That's all I needed here.

That's we need some good news in the city for economic development.

It will be an industrial warehouse uh facility as uh previously described.

Uh the actual end user uh I'm not authorized this evening to reveal it will be revealed shortly, but uh uh the plan um as uh presented at master plan and preliminary uh hasn't really changed.

We're working on some loading docks and parking configurations, but uh the final plan will be uh uh I think can be approved administratively by the staff uh unless this commission desires to see it again.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions?

Commissioner Lampier, just one, please.

I did see that the DEM uh RIPD's permit.

Is it expired?

Yeah, there was some confusion on that.

Um the I've since uh that uh was first proposed.

Uh I've shared with Mr.

Bruggeman uh it is currently extended until February of 2027.

Um there was a uh a general uh approval from uh DEM to extend the RIPTES permit.

So it's valid right now through February of 2027.

And and the original permit was extended without any changes to what had been approved before.

Right.

So we we um Garafalo Engineering is working uh with the developer to make certain that uh uh whether or not we need a modification from DEM is still being determined that talking to DEM.

So uh but we have a valid RIPD supplement right now.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Murray?

Okay.

Uh could the staff make their uh presentation and recommendation.

All right.

So um because this is a reinstatement of something this commission hasn't um seen probably in a while.

Um I'm gonna not touch on every single point that's in the memo, but I'm gonna touch kind of the the core aspects of it and specifically the uh five conditions um that basically need to be met.

So very similar to the findings we typically need to do um for for subdivision, but these are more focused around, you know, are the like physical conditions and the regulations still generally similar to the way they were um you know upon time of approval compared to now.

Um and here are the five conditions.

I'm gonna walk through some of them or all of them.

The um so the first condition basically asking if the subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the prior approval approval, including all conditions attached there too.

Um so there was an amendment in 2024 to the comprehensive plan, specifically to the future land use map on the site, um, changing it from government institutional to special redevelopment area.

Um the change, the intent of the change was to provide more development options for the area, um, but it doesn't generally preclude development that's allowed in the M2.

Um the proposals also generally consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan.

Um still um the memo lists a list of the um goals and policies that were in the comprehensive plan uh that were in the decision um mentioned that were in favor of the approval.

Um as you've know, but we 2024 we adopted the new comprehensive plan.

Um, but we didn't really change a lot of the goals and policies.

In fact, all the goals and policies that were in the 2022 decision have all been carried over into this version of the comprehensive plan, um almost word for word.

Um so therefore it's basically still um consistent and the same.

Um the proposal is also consistent with all conditions that are attached to the master plan and the preliminary plan.

Um the master plan basically the conditions of the master plan basically just asked that the um applicant address um uh rooftop solar and electric vehicle charging stations, which in their uh narrative, which they did.

Um the conditions of the preliminary plan um have either been satisfied or they're specific to the final plan.

Um so one of the conditions that was satisfied was that they um you know the the building was already raised, the that was there previously, the correction facility, um, and the um during the raising they needed to cap the sewer in the water, which they did.

Um the second condition is basically asking that the subdivision regulations are substantially the same as they were in the time of the original approval.

Um they have also been um uh changes to the subdivision regulation since 2022, but most of the regulations were most of the changes were procedural.

Um and generally wouldn't lead to the denial of the substantial alteration um of the approval if it was uh submitted today.

Um specifically when it comes to industrial development and the use of the industrial development design requirements for three, uh the zoning of the subdivision parcel is substantially the same as it was at the time of the original approval.

Um again, there's also been changes to the zoning code since 2022.

Um but we generally feel like that they're largely the same as they were um um that the they were doesn't really affect the the specific parcel.

So um there was also a change to the zone um for the site.

Um so 2024 had a zone change that changed it from M2 to M2 with conditions.

Uh the conditions are basically intended to expand the types and types of development that are allowed from the site, but generally do not alter any of the permissions.

Um generally don't disallow any of the um baseline M2 zone.

So this would still be a buy right um by red project if it was submitted today.

Uh other changes that happened to the zoning ordinance or so are mostly procedural items, or just don't if it was if basically if it was submitted today, there's nothing in the zoning ordinance that would lead to a denial of substantial alteration of this project.

Um speaks to the physical conditions of the site.

Uh the only real change that happened to the site was the demolition since original um uh since the 2022 approvals, the demolition of the correctional facility.

They received all the appropriate permits when they did the demolition.

Um, and that was also an intended part of the proposal.

So that is still um within the original um proposal.

And uh as far as we're aware, there's also been no changes to state or federal federal regulations that would have affected this.

Um yeah, I have my my understanding was the DEM permits were extended to 2026, but as Mr.

Murray just stated, it's actually until 2027.

Um if if it needs to be extended further, it'll probably be dealt with um at or after the final plan.

Generally, our recommendation is to uh improve the reinstatement based on these findings and the findings in the staff memo.

And there's conditions, right?

And there's conditions that are are carried over um from the original preliminary plan approval.

Is it the same four conditions?

Um in the staff memo, we did add to the uh Ruthie's permit should be extended, but that was before we were aware that it has actually been extended.

So that can be removed.

Okay, is there any any questions for staff?

Okay.

We'll do public comment.

Any public comment on 20 guarded?

No one here in the room.

Mr.

Lemer, is there anyone online who wants to make public comment on 20 guarded?

There is no public comment online.

Okay.

Any final questions for the staff or from Mr.

Murray?

Okay.

Seeing none, that would be appropriate for some sort of motion.

It can be basically motioned to reinstate consistent with the staff's recommendations and the conditions listed.

No motion made by Commissioner Coop, seconded by Commissioner Mancini.

Any further discussion?

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

Those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Before we go to Vaughn Lane, very quickly, this is a continuance.

Um 1016 Park Avenue is a request for continuance.

Is that correct, Mr.

Uh Assistant Director Bergman?

That is correct.

So um just till June 2nd, right?

Uh till no.

So this one was actually request to be extended.

Um, Brianna, if I'm not mistaken, to May 12th meeting.

Um, it's also be extended to June.

I'm extending this to June.

I'm not coming back for this thing.

Um, so does it have to be decided by by before June 2nd?

No.

Assuming we meet on May 12th.

Do you see what I'm saying?

I just don't know if we're I have to see what's going to happen here.

So it was advertised for May 12th.

Right.

Let's extend uh is there a motion to extend this to May 12th?

Assuming all of us will be here.

Second move by Commissioner Coop, second by Commissioner Lampier.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those say nay.

I have it.

Okay.

This brings us to Von Lane.

Uh, Mr.

Murray, we were we had a quick discussion in the beginning.

Um, Mr.

Moses wanted to proceed with Von Lane rather than have your things go.

And I talked to you earlier earlier today, so we're gonna deal with you probably.

My guess is somewhere between 9:30 and 10 o'clock.

That's fine.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

So would Von Lane, we know Von Lane is up, is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on this matter.

Yes, good evening.

Tanessa Azar from Moses Ryan on behalf of the applicant, 777 Main Street LLC.

Would you like me to go right in or would you like an intro from the staff first?

All right.

Good evening, everyone.

This is a property that you're likely familiar with, but we are here as a new application.

This property is located on Main Street in the Vaughn Lane area.

It includes a couple different plats and lots.

Just for the record, it's plat 30, lots 4, 83, 84, 85, and 258.

Lot 4 is an addition since the last application.

We'll get to that in a moment.

This is proposed for a residential planned district.

The current zoning is A20 for one of the lots, A80 for the rest of the lots, with the exception of lot four, which is C4, but that's only being used for access to be turned into a roadway.

So as mentioned, we're here for residential plan district, proposing 42 lots for single family residential development and associated roadways.

And because it's the RPD, this will be preserving just over 55 acres of open space.

As mentioned, we were here before.

Since we were here before, we've made some changes to the project.

We were also just for the record, we were at the TRC on April 1st, and we've also done some outreach with the neighbors.

We had a neighborhood meeting that we sent invitation to the to the neighbors that we had early in April, and we've also uh spoken to them.

So the proposal here, like we said, it's the RPD.

So the goal is we do the conventional yield.

It tells us how many lots we could have.

Based on that, we are under the number of lots permitted.

Um we would be able to have 53 lots under a conventional subdivision layout, but instead we've opted here for the RPD with 44 lots.

RPD is allowed by right in the A20 and A80 zones.

Um the goal here is there's no density bonus or anything like that.

This is uh a buy right RPD.

Like I said, a key for this is that over 61% of the site is going to be preserved as open space by going with the RPD.

Um, so like I said, we have about just under 30 acres total of which uh excuse me, not 30 acres.

We're looking at usable too.

There's a breakdown between what's usable and what's not usable.

Um to go through the the open space required would be 21 acres.

We're providing just over 55 acres.

The total open space required to be suitable is 10.68 acres, and we're providing 35.74 acres of suitable space.

Um the internal layout has been redesigned since we were last here.

So previously on the prior application for this property, access was going to be through Vaughn Lane and through the area known as Winnie Street.

Uh title for Winnie Street's dedication to the city could not be confirmed despite uh a number of efforts.

It was never really determined what the status of it is.

Status of title to Vaughn Lane was confirmed that it was dedicated as a public street to the city.

There was a recorded map.

So we've looked for alternative access.

Now it's proposed that the property will be accessed through lot four, which is right on Main Street.

So that will be an all these will be new road.

That'll be a new road coming into the property.

It has a loop design.

Um it's a vacant lot currently.

So the plan would be to go right in through there and then create a roadway network within the property.

The engineers will go into a little more detail, but that's that's one of the biggest changes we're coming back with.

Um the proposal is that Vaughn Lane will be a secondary access with the goal to get people onto this main, what we'll call road A.

There's no road names yet.

Um, and um the uh in line with the planning recommendation in the staff report.

No no changes are proposed to Vaughn Lane under this.

We're looking to come in through road A.

Um we've looked at water availability and sewer availability.

We've submitted letters for those.

Um, there's also one distinguishing feature besides the wetlands of this site is that there is a Providence Water easement through the site.

Um we've been in contact with Providence Water.

They've received the new layout.

Um, and we think actually it this is a better layout with related to that.

All the easement area in in almost total part will be part of the open space.

It'll just be crossed in a few areas by the roadway, which is within the allowed guidelines by Providence Water.

We have their guidelines on how to be in compliance with the easement, but we'll continue to work with them.

But they have been provided this new layout.

The project is consistent with the comprehensive plan as is outlined in the staff report and also complies with the city's zoning ordinance for RPDs.

I'll go into that a little bit more after.

We are asking for two waivers.

So one relates to this new access through lot four.

As I said, we're we're purchasing an existing lot that's undeveloped.

The way the lots were split over there.

Generally, you would look for a 50-foot right of way.

This lot frontage on the road is just under that.

It's 47.6 feet wide.

So there will be no difference.

There'll still be 24 uh feet of pavement.

To the naked eye, it won't be different, you know, look any different, but it is technically a waiver of two point about 2.3, 2.4 feet to conform to the regulations.

And as soon as the lot opens up, because it's a little bit irregular shaped, um, we will uh go back to the full 50-foot right-of-way.

So it's about, I believe it's like 90 feet that we would need the relief for.

And so that's we're asking for a waiver.

And the other waiver we're looking for is because this is a low impact um development, we're looking for sidewalks to be waived.

Um, the standard for those is that it's reasonable and within the general purposes and intents of the regulations, and that the little literal enforcement would be impractical and be an undue hardship.

Um, and in the best interest of good planning, we think both of those are present here with each of these waivers.

Like I said, the the relief is extremely minimal as to right of way, and the pavement width is going to be within the full requirements.

It will be, you know, basically negligible.

Um so for our team here, we do have Jenna Shea from Depreet.

I'm gonna let her go into a little more of the technical details, and then I'll come back to talk a little bit about the standards we have to meet.

But I'd like to turn over to Jenna to go through the engineering of the project.

Good evening.

Um, my name is Jenna Shea.

I'm the project manager at Depreet Engineering, located at two Stafford Court for the record.

Um, I will walk you through the existing conditions, and then I will touch base on our conventional yield plan as well as our proposed RPD development.

And then I would just like to close out with the changes that we've made since we've last submitted, um, and why we believe that they are truly improvements on what we had submitted last time.

Um, so our project site is located on Main Street with existing access currently located through Vaughn Lane, which is also located off of Main Street.

We're directly north of the Arctwright Bridge, and the project site is located entirely within Cranston, with the town of Coventry to the south, and the town is situated to the west of the property.

The project site is entirely zoned A80 and A20.

So there's an AP30 lot 83 is zoned A20, and then all of the other lots are zone zoned A80, and then AP30 lot 4, which is the new lot that has been added to this application.

Um, and that one is a C4 zone and is only utilized for access.

Um, the project site has a total site area of 91.6 plus or minus acres.

Um the A20 zone and A80 zone areas were the only areas that were utilized for our density calculations and um open space calculations in a conservative approach, since the C4 zone is only being utilized for access.

So we did not incorporate that into our dimensional calculations.

And then the area suitable for development.

So we have a area, um, a total unsuitable area of 21 of 20.56 acres, um, and then a area suitable for development of 61.5 acres on the entirety of the property.

Um, and then if we could just pull up the existing conditions plan in the plan set, please sheet.

I don't have it on the slides, but I can pull it up if you want me to.

Yes, Lisa.

All right, so as we're pulling this up, I just wanted to point out so there are numerous numerous wetlands scattered throughout the property.

So there's an isolated wetland in the northwest section of the site, which is located within AP 30 lot 83.

And then there's wetland areas and an existing pond located all along the southern and eastern edges of the project site, which also includes a tributary of the Patuxet River.

All of the wetlands that are shown on our submission plans have been flagged to date by DePrete Engineering.

And we have also shown a GIS boundary survey on the plans as well, which is a class T4 survey.

These are the two lots that are located within the center of our project site.

They will keep and their current access that they have right now, which is a gravel access easement that ties into Vaughn Lane.

So you will see on our proposed development that we've ensured that there is a stub connection for this access drive so that we're not having implications on their current access to their lots.

So Vaughn Lane as it exists today is a paved public right-of-way with an existing width that ranges from 14 to 15 feet plus or minus.

So now I'm gonna touch base on our conventional yields plan.

So as Tanessa had mentioned, we had to complete a density calculation and a conventional yield plan in order to propose our RPD configuration for the project.

So first we did complete a density calculation, which yielded 53 lots.

And on this conventional yield plan, you'll see we have yielded 44 lots.

So due to this, we have proposed 44 lots in our RPD cluster um layout that we have shown on sheet five of the plan set.

All of the lots that are in the conventional yield do meet the requirements for a conventional subdivision.

And then as you can see on this cluster RPD plan, we have met the zoning and dimensional requirements for the RPD in for these corresponding zones.

So for the proposed RPD, we're proposing 44 lots, all of which are single family homes with private driveways.

And then we have public roadways with a right-away width of 50 feet and a pavement width of 24 feet, with the exception of that small section, which is located in lot four that we're requesting a waiver for on the right-of-way width, which is approximately two to three feet under the required 50-foot right-of-way width.

And then we have a secondary access utilizing Vaughn Lane as it exists today with no improvements proposed.

And as you can see on this layout, we've tried to incorporate numerous loops, a cut-through road to really try to emphasize and drive the point home to have people utilize this primary access location, which we have shown as road A and ties into Main Street through lot four.

So for the RPD subdivisions, one of the requirements is we have to provide an open space area with the development.

So we are required to provide 25% of the total land area, which equates to 21.4 acres, and then half of which need to be suitable for development, uh, which comes out to 10.7 acres.

So for this project, which you can see on the plan over here, we have provided 55.9 acres of open space.

And just to make things a little clearer, all of the purple areas as well as those wetlands that are in the purple areas are the open space areas that I'm speaking to right now.

Um then of the 55.9 proposed um open space area, we have also provided 35.7 acres of which are suitable for development.

So as you can see, we are in it well in exceedance of what is required for the open space area on this project.

Um actually in almost more than double of what is required.

Um and then for utilities, we have received a water availability letter from KCWA as well as a sewer availability letter from West Warwick Sewer.

Um and as Tanet Tanessa did mention, we are requesting um relief for the sidewalks as well as uh the minor um dimensional relief for the right-of-way area on lot four.

So to close out, I just want to point out that since the last submission, um what really has changed is the access.

So we're no longer proposing any access or disturbance to the Winnie Street area, and we're proposing our primary access location through this lot four area and utilizing Vaughn Lane only as secondary access.

Um and then we also did reconfigure the layout in a way that we we believe drives people towards that primary access location and ease of access throughout the development.

And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Shea and the applicant.

Um I'll just ask a couple of things right off the bat.

This may be the you know, this is our you may want to respond.

The when I when I look at this project, um, and you're talking a lot about the primary access road and trying to make sure people go on the primary access road, not the secondary road, which is Vaughn Lane.

The question I have is why is it necessary to connect this development to Vaughn Lane?

Because I've heard from Mache, and I've heard this repeatedly.

This is a road that is you do not seek to make improvements on.

It's about 14 to 15 feet wide.

It is uh, I'll put it this way, an unusual road to be considered a public way, but it's I understand why it's public.

Why is it necessary for this development to be connected to Vaughn Lane versus just using the road A?

That's that's what that's like that's like a big concern of mine because of the public safety factor because you talked about the RPD, you talked about the zoning of the comprehensive plan, I get that, but it's it's it's a I I just wonder like why is it makes sense to connect the Vaughn Lane.

So from the applicant's perspective, if that's something that the commission would like to see, we we could propose putting uh a gate on Vaughn Lane so that it's available for for access if needed in emergencies, but to keep traffic away from there, that's something that the applicant would be fine with as long as the city is fine.

And when you mean a gate, are you talking of a gate separating I call the subdivision, the proposed subdivision of the rest of Vaughn Lane?

So essentially we we'd of course leave access for the lots that we do not have in our control to be able to have live their daily lives unchanged.

So yeah, it would be it would be to the to the north of that area so that uh exactly there so that there would be no new traffic on Vaughn Lane except in the case of maybe an emergency where fire might want to go through the gate.

But day-to-day traffic from the new subdivision would not travel on Vaughn.

Right.

If the city is fine with that, that's fine with the applicant.

Yeah, it's um let me just start out by saying this.

I'm not a fire safety expert in any sense of the imagination.

Um and I don't know what the conditions or requirements are for that or can be permitted, public works may know that better than me.

But that is a what I see the fundamental problem is is like if you don't have if this is connected to Vaughn Lane, there's no question in my mind, people will use that if they can.

You see what I'm saying?

If there's if there's a road, people will drive it.

Like I said, it's been designed so that there will be no incentive to we think people will want to use road A, but that's that's our goal.

But like I said, if it if it makes you if it if it answers the question that they won't because there's a gate, we're happy to we're happy to do that.

Okay.

Um by the way, if there's public comment, we'll we will get public comment, okay, guys.

All right.

Um that's that's perfectly fine with the applicant.

Like I said, it's been designed.

The goal is to keep people on a road A.

This this is just in service of that.

And in regards to the road A and the and the have you had any conversations with the fire department uh about this Vaughn Lane situation?

Because I didn't see any comments.

I maybe I was gonna say, I know it's been circulated through the TRC and through all of that to everyone.

I I've not heard any feedback with problems, but it's it's gone through the regular process that to all the city departments as part of TRC from my understanding.

Yeah, because one thing I would say is like if we were to put a condition of a gate um over there, I'd probably want to hear a little bit from the fire department.

But all right, that's my first macro question.

Okay.

Um there's maybe a second one, but I'll you can continue on with your presentation.

Okay.

If there's anything else I'll any anyone else on any questions at this point, okay.

Okay.

I'll walk a little bit through the standards, what we're looking for, all that kind of stuff.

Some of it is obviously in the staff report, which you know we'll likely be into the read into the record after.

Um, but I just wanted to clarify for the record that, like we said, it's a by-right development.

Um the the staff report goes into a lot of detail how this is consistent with your comprehensive plan.

Uh it meets um the future land use map uh for with this proposed single family residential use.

It also meets it's preserving over 55 acres of open space that protects habitats and wetlands that goes to NR1, NR2, NR4.

Um housing, it provides new quality housing stock consistent with the the development patterns there.

That that goes to H1, H2, H5, H6.

Um the goal is to extend some public utilities, which would also uh meet the meet the comprehensive permit, excuse me, the comprehensive plan under SF2 and SF19, and it also concentrates development on suitable land while preserving large contiguous open space.

Um so we think that is also uh a goal of the comprehensive plan under the land use.

Um looking at the RPD itself, like we said, this is the permanent preservation of open space, includes wetlands, woodlands, all of those.

Um, and it clusters.

That's that's one of your goals under the zoning ordinance.

It adds new housing, which helps.

That's another benefit.

Um, and then if we go through the master plan uh approval requirements, like we said, it's consistent with the comp plan, it's consistent with the zoning ordinance.

There's no negative environmental impacts.

In fact, you know, we're we're preserving uh the environment.

All these lots um are buildable with no development constraints or anything like that.

Um, and it has adequate frontage on what will be new city roads.

Um then for the RPD itself, these are permitted uses, single family dwellings are allowed in the RPD, and the project complies with all the RPD standards for structure location, development size, dwelling unit calculations, everything like that.

Like we say, we're well in exceedance of the open space required under the the RPD.

Uh the purple is the usable area of it, and then you see the wetlands and the open the under the D uh under the regulations, the open space will be owned and protected by an easement and maintained by uh a homeowners association, which I believe is uh a requirement of the ordinance.

The generate public the general public benefits are really this preservation of the space and increase in in housing stock.

Um, like I said, our those are just some of the all that is mimicked in the staff report, which recommends approval with a few conditions.

So our request would be that you approve this uh this master plan for the residential plan district as recommended in the staff report.

It's a it's a good project that I think has been improved since the last time we were here, and it fully complies with the state law and the local ordinance, the comp plan, and it's it's bringing public benefit to this area, uh, in our opinion.

So that's what we'd ask.

All right, Mrs.

R.

Uh, any questions for Ms.

Is there any questions for Mrs.

R.

Okay.

I'll ask you a few questions.

Um I'll start this way, which is are you going to do you want to have the opportunity now to address the um testimony from their from the abutters witness at all?

Or do you want me just to ask some questions about it?

I was gonna say, I'm not sure if he's going to speak tonight or if it's just his report they're relying on.

So if he's going to speak, we'd want the opportunity to potentially ask him some questions directly.

I'm not sure if he's here or if it's just relying on his report.

Usually what I understand and the solicitor will correct me is that sometimes the person, the witness comes in, presents the report, is subject to questions from the board, but is not subject to cross-examination from the other party.

Is that correct, solicitor?

That's your choice whether to allow it or not.

We traditionally has have not allowed cross-examination because neither you nor I are a judge to to allow you.

You do have the right to allow cross-examination.

We never have um, yeah.

Can I allow that?

A question.

What about asking questions through the board to the expert?

Yeah, correct.

What normally happens is the ex we have a separate issue issue that we're going to want to challenge his report as to um what subjects he's an expert in.

Um we don't believe that we believe in his report he's speaking to engineering conclusions, traffic conclusions.

Um he should not be accepted as an expert with respect to those, and some of the conclusions we we do have issues with.

Okay.

So I don't know procedurally how you want to do it.

Yeah, I think um when we get to the public comment stage, the abutter will attorney will be present.

He will then um have his expert witness, I assume here.

I use expert as in I'll use the term alleged for this point.

Um, and then generally solicitor.

Um, with zoning board, we do qualify experts.

Um we usually don't do it at the plan when we act as a as we act in the zoning board capacity, we usually qualify, but um not usually planning, but we could do so, I guess.

Correct.

Correct, right?

Um can I ask you then for a few questions that came out of the report that interests me?

Um, um, I the first one that I recall was the idea of a geologic study.

What is the applicant's opinion of the need for a geologic study for this project due to the fact that, as I recall from reading the report, and if I'm wrong, you can tell me this is incorrect, but uh the nature of the of the uh rock over there.

So, first of all, I just qualify that we don't we can he can suggest studies, but he made conclusions as to what he thought those studies would say.

We do object to that.

Correct.

Um, as part of preliminary plan, there's going to be soil testing and other evaluations of the land there.

We think that that will be addressed at the preliminary plan stage, and everyone will have a lot more information once the engineering gets going.

That's not a requirement of master plan.

I I I got that.

I got that clearly that that is not a requirement for master plan.

Yep.

I understood that the request was studies to be done for preliminary plan stage before you get approval at preliminary plan stage.

So I wanted to ask you was uh a geologic study.

Is that a is that a something you could accept or something you would object?

And just why one way if you object, why?

I'm gonna let Jenna just speak to what is done at preliminary plan.

So um just to clarify things, uh, when we get to the engineering stage, we do subsurface soil evaluation.

So we have no objection to doing soil testing on the site, um, which will allow us to determine where the groundwater table is, um, where any ledge on the site is, and then we design around these constraints.

So you you're saying is that you do do some geological analysis?

We do, yes, we do soil evaluations.

Soil evaluations, okay.

Um another thing that I've read, and it is custom, I see for preliminary plan stage is traffic study.

Um, you know, is that something that for preliminary plan stage would be a problem for the applicant?

So, first of all, I'll make the same disclaimer that to the extent he makes conclusions about traffic, rather than just suggesting a study, we object to that.

Um, I think at the preliminary plan stage, there's a willingness to study the traffic, because I think it's normally a part of that uh checklist.

Um, another thing is I read in in um the pre-engineering statement is that this project will be done in phases.

Yep.

Uh could you elaborate a little bit more on phases?

Meaning like years, number of houses at what stage, for example.

I think I think part of it will be dictated by what's found in the engineering.

Generally is the is how we've done it before, is the entire master plan is approved first to let you know what the entire scope of the project is.

And then sometimes you'll come in with phases later.

Uh, I think the app on behalf of I think the plan is to be maybe seven to ten houses a year, is what they're thinking.

Okay.

But like I said, it might be a formal phasing plan would would be in place then if needed.

Right.

So if you did, let's say this 44 houses, you know, I get it.

If you do like nine houses a year, it'll take you five years, you know.

So I get it.

Okay.

Um, in regards to, and I may ask more questions about it, but I'm just trying to get this out here because for me to think about this.

Uh the next in part of the comment is impact analysis.

Now, generally, we have not done an we don't usually require impact analysis in the city because for the most part, our city's pretty developed.

Um this area is a particularly undeveloped area in general.

And so you have issues about I've read and I've heard issues about school capacity.

Um talk about length of time to respond to fire in that area.

What is the feeling of the of the applicant about an impact study?

And I know you object to his conclusions related to it, but just so just you know, you could I I I that's for the record, I know that.

I understand about just like do you have a problem with an impact study here because of the fact that it is a very undeveloped area in the western corner of the city.

I think the the first thing I'll qualify with here is um under the definition in the subdivision regs, this project wouldn't qualify automatically.

And the regs are are drafted a little bit interestingly as to the impact study.

It it's strangely if the qual from my reading of the regulations, if the project is not automatically qualify for an impact study, it says the plan commission has to determine if one is needed before a public meeting or public hearing.

It's very strange language.

So, first of all, we we might dispute whether you have the ability to ask for one, but separately, it also does not really say what it looks for from an impact study.

Um, that's another lack of clarity in the document, in my opinion.

Um, I know that in Western Cranston, there are impact fees that are required for um projects.

I think that partly addresses some of these concerns and has already been accounted for in the regulations.

So they break it down by various services that the fee is supposed to go towards.

Um, so I think you've actually already addressed the impact a little bit.

Um, we we definitely need more information about what kind of what impact assessment would be because like I said, from my reading of it, I could not find a definition of what it actually means.

And it's it's very open-ended, and like I said, there's a question of whether it can even be asked for.

It's it's strange drafting, admittedly.

Yeah, the impact says I I know what you're saying about like before a hearing, but this would be you could we could probably request an impact study, I think, before preliminary plan stage.

I'm not talking about because that would be before our hearing on the preliminary plan.

It's it's a little it's a strange section though, for sure.

I understand.

And it's and then secondly, what what you know what's your read on what it means?

Because I don't think it's very clear.

Um, it could it could mean as much as you know, uh a two-page report from the engineer as to what they think the impacts are, and at what point do you cross out of what you're properly supposed to consider?

Like I said, I understand there's interest in the schools, but uh, you know, in our opinion, that's not something you can rely on to make your decision on to this project.

So we would not want an impact study that goes beyond the scope of um the approval requirements, right?

And so I I understand your your point on that.

My point is that we can we have power over phasing, yes, correct.

So in for me to determine what is for me, just speaking for myself, to determine the pace of phasing, I may need to know the impact on schools, elementary school, and on the fire situation.

You see, that's where it wouldn't be a there would be no denial of your project based on impact.

There would be no um, yeah, no denial, it would basically be the pacing of it, and therefore knowing what a possible impact is on the facilities, meaning the school and this fire could determine the pace of the phasing.

One other point to the regulations as to phasing.

Um from my reading of those, it specifically talks about taking feedback from the departments that the plan is provided to, not from the public, all due respect to all the public here.

I understand so that's another thing, and it same thing you the master plan is improved, approved first, and then oftentimes more information comes from the more advanced engineering that comes at preliminary plan that might give everyone an idea of what phasing might look like.

And I understand that, and I just want to be clear about impact that would be at for preliminary plan stage.

Okay, not talk about master plan stage, okay.

And like, for example, I'll just say this from my own public knowledge.

Yeah, the school department has these meetings in this building with the city council, and they talk about we don't know what's going on in Western Cranston, what's getting built, what's it, and they would like to have some information from the developers of what's going on.

It just happened like a month ago at some joint council meeting.

So, this process you're talking about getting information to the city departments and the school department.

It would be, for example, we expect 22 kids in this phasing.

Let the school department know, and they would provide feedback as to the impact.

Do you see what I'm saying?

I understand.

That's what it is.

I'm not talking about asking the public for what they think about 22 kids.

I'm asking about essentially what the school department thinks and what the fire department thinks and the police department and stuff like that.

That's what phasing is.

That's what impacts the analysis, what I talk about.

Um there's sorry as I just look at this.

No, no worries.

The whole stormwater plan.

Yeah, you want to you want to come you want to come to the case?

The engineers are can speak to it a little more detailed than I can.

Okay.

All right.

So the stormwater um will be designed in compliance with the regulations as set forth by RIDE EM.

Um, and then since there are wetlands located on our project site, we will be submitting to RIDEM for review, and they will thoroughly review our storm water at that time as well.

In regards to um there's a statement here, it's a factual statement.

That's a conclusion, conclusion conclusion, but the Vaughn Lane where Vaughn Lane meets the main street.

What kind of flooding area is that?

Because I always get confused about what's like the different distinctions of flood areas.

Do you see what I'm trying to talk about?

Yeah.

So I to get into the floodplain.

So there, so let's see.

So a majority of our site is within zone X, um, unshaded.

There is that small section over there.

Um, that per the planner report they mentioned is within a um a minor flood zone.

I I need to look up the actual moment.

Yeah, I have it right here.

Thank you.

All right.

So that the small section is within zone X unshed.

Um, and I I just want to point out that this location we're we're not proposing any disturbance here.

Um, we're not proposing any improvements here.

So therefore, we don't believe that any of our proposed development will have implications on this flood zone in this area, um, since our disturbance is well out of this location.

Um, also, I do want to point out that when we do our drainage and stormwater design, um, one of the things that we do analyze is pre- and post-development runoff.

Um, so we do ensure that at all of our design points that we're analyzing um throughout the project that we're not increasing flows from pre-to-post-development uh conditions.

Okay, I'm asking these questions because hey, I gotta get all the facts.

Number one, but number two, by hearing your answers now, I can the public will be able to respond however they want to, and it gets the narrow down the facts and issues that we got to consider.

Understood.

All right, and I point out in the staff report, it also notes that when I believe DOT was contacted, they didn't have any reports of of flooding in that area.

I understand anecdotal evidence might differ, but the staff report notes that you know the the verifiable facts that they were able to gather were that it was not flooding.

Okay.

Um I'll have to think about more of this gated issue.

Understood.

Um, because if that thing is gated, then there's less of a I call um real public safety problem.

Yep, to me.

Um other thing, and this is general.

And if you don't like trying to see how to phrase it, um you are providing open space.

Yes here, that's clear to me.

And it is looks appear to me, it appears to me at this time consistent with our regulations and all that.

Have you ever thought of developing this with potentially even more open space?

Because one of the problems we hear from the public, and you've probably heard this in your interactions with them, is that they would like a smaller development to keep a more rural character, and then in our comprehensive plan, they talk about rural character a lot, as you know.

And then in our comprehensive plan, they talk about rural character a lot as you know.

Has there any thought been given about shrinking?

And I shrink, I mean like less lots being developed and more open space and or any interactions with um anyone about that possibility.

This is already well in exceedance of the required open space.

I think it's about maxed out at open space from my understanding.

I'll speak to but that's that's what I've heard.

Like I said, it's it's over, I think it's almost double what uh is required under the it's it's it's well in exceedance of the requirements.

So the applicant feels comfortable with the number of lots and the the balance between open space of which much is usable and um the current layout.

Okay, yeah, it's just I as you remember from the last um Vaughn Lane one.

Um there was a lot of comment, like maybe something smaller.

This is too big.

So I wanted to see if there was any consideration of a smaller development that it would have more open space, but I understand.

Understood.

Okay, is there any questions?

Uh from Mr.

Czar or the applicant's team at this point.

Okay.

Um can I go ahead, solicitor?

Yeah, I wanted to let everyone else can um someone just explain to me the I'll call it the the road A access parcel.

The Jonas, if you could just what is the highlighted purple area below, right there?

Correct.

I believe that's extra land outside the right of way.

Yeah, it's open space, yeah.

It's additional open space area.

It's because that width is wider than the 50 feet.

So that's just an extra open space area as well.

Rather than giving lot one a finger that comes out over there.

Who would be responsible for that open space?

That would all be part of the HOA.

Okay.

By the way, this is it's probably like a question I'm just gonna ask.

Like, there's no issues with building a road through that lot that you're aware of at this time.

No, there's not.

Okay.

All right.

I mean, I haven't, I don't I don't know this area.

I've been out there once or twice, but I haven't okay.

That's what I just want to understand.

Okay, give it while we're just on this, and and I apologize.

Um the the deed in um does that include the house in the entire area?

Just no, so this is already a separate tax assessor law, and it was actually brought up during the TRC by um Mr.

Peichel, whether it might have been merged or anything, he checked after that TRC.

This is a freestanding lot, it's already been split off from any other lots around it based on his research.

And and the the deed, the legal description of the deed basically creates that L shape.

Yeah, I think what had happened, like I said, this is from my review, not anything confirmed.

I think they had given a little to their neighbor uh for their home from that extra lot.

They gave them that little bit.

Okay.

So that's how we ended up with a little bit of weird uh shape.

But it's its own, it's its own lot.

Okay.

One like one last question about the gate.

Who would be responsible for maintaining the gate, making sure that it's closed, all that type of stuff?

Is that the homeowners association?

I think so.

Um obviously there'd have to be coordination with fire to make sure that they can access it, how it sees to fit to them.

I know there's ways of doing, I believe, a breakaway or some kind of lock box.

Um, this is this has been done other places before.

So it'd be an interplay between the homeowners association and then like I said, they'd make sure that emergency services had the access that they need.

Um, but there have there's gonna be an HOA here anyway to maintain the open space, so it'd be easy to easily addressed.

Would this then is this kind of like uh see?

I'm not familiar with gated communities in the city of Cranston.

This is this is this is not a gated community.

No, because you're you're gonna have complete access to road A.

It's the other way, right?

Yes.

So it would not be a gated community.

Right, right.

Okay.

Any more questions before uh we I assume you've completed your presentation.

We've completed our presentation.

We remain available for questions and obviously to respond as needed to any comments or anything else.

Right.

Okay.

Is there anything further from Mrs.

R her team before we turn it over to the next phase?

All right, thank you.

All right.

Um I think at this stage um we can have this.

I think we just have the staff make its presentation, and then we just have the public.

Yeah, but I would I think staff make their presentation, then um give the public public uh butters with the butters, uh, the attorney maybe go first.

And okay, that's right.

All right.

Just wanted to see if you thought the same way, solicitor.

So go ahead, Mr.

Director Bergaman.

Okay.

Um, we'll try not to cover uh too much that has already been covered.

Um just wanted to mention very quickly.

Here is an aerial view of what the existing site looks like.

Um within all these orange boxes.

Just keep in mind that this uh section right here is not part of the development.

Um this is they're independent lots and they're connected by an access road that goes through this lot.

Um that is not uh slated to change.

A lot of this is covered, so I just wanted to mention real quick for the uh waivers.

Um we talked the applicant has requested two waivers.

One was with for the uh the public right of way, the other one was for a waiver for sidewalks.

Um out of abundance of caution, we would also recommend a um a waivers granted for concrete curbing, which is technically a requirement.

Um, but because they're applying for the low impact development standards, those typically do not have concrete curving.

Um, of course, we're gonna ask for a condition that they show in their preliminary plan when they have their stonewater plan that they can actually handle all the stormwater using this low impact development design without curbs.

Um, and also kind of a special condition is to leave Vaughn Lane unaltered.

Um, real quick, just so you know, understand have a general understanding of what this may look like.

It's not final, but this is a uh cross section of what a typical low impact development standard that would have 12-foot lanes.

Um public works requested that this be a 24-foot paved road.

Um, the actual right of way 50 feet is not what's going to be paved.

That would include 50 feet right of way would include the open channels, which would be used for the drainage.

Um, for example, not include the sidewalk because they requested a waiver from the sidewalks.

Um, so it'd be the 12 foot lanes and probably the two channels, most part in the public right-of-way.

Um briefly, the development pattern that this uh uh yeah, this was talked about at the um the last time we had this development bit, but briefly.

Um the development that they're proposing is relatively consistent with what's in the area already.

Um especially considering that it's in the area already is you know um a bit all over the place.

Um there's single family lots on large acres on small lots.

Um there's some multifamily, um, so it is a bit all over the place, but this generally conforms with like the uses, the frontages, the lot sizes.

Um of this proposal generally to perform with the um uh the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations, and um you know it's gonna be mostly largely low density single family residential development in a uh primarily residential area, so it is generally consistent with what we see in that area.

Um this is already been yeah, the slide has already been mostly mentioned, but generally we think it's consistent with the future land use map.

Um, you know, proposed uses single family residential is exactly what the land use map calls for.

Um, including open space as part of that.

Um, because lot four is the only lot that's in this highway commercial services designation, which is more common for um like larger um you know, stuff that you see right off a highway, not really in this area, but because it's only the access way, uh, we generally think it does not necessarily contradict that designation, therefore it's generally consistent.

Um also the density of the development, um, both with the A20 and the 80 and generally is also very much um consistent with the future land use map designations.

Um I go into more detail in the staff report, but um the you know, provided that the subdivision is a use by right, needing only very minimal relief through the requested waivers proposing to use the RPD standards and the low impact development, you know, in our opinion provides the greatest balance between the protection of natural resources and uh further development of housing.

Um, you know, that our rules and regulations both allow and incentivize, um, which is something that several goals and policies of the comprehensive plan speak to, um, specifically these that are listed here below.

Um that and a lot of the items that are also listed in the staff report um are recommended you know, we find that as proposals generally consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and the standards um of state law.

Um we do for recommend that the seed plan commission adopt the findings of fact, document those in the staff report and approve the master plans subject to the conditions.

Um I also briefly want to touch on the eight conditions.

Um condition one is just the waiver for the front dish for the right of way.

Um decision is approval of the waiver for um uh waiver for sidewalks and the curbing um kind of extra condition that the stormwater plan, the stormwater management plan uh shows that the low impact design standards can properly manage that.

Um three is about Von Lane Um, basically providing the exception to not uh improve that to public standards.

Uh four is um speaks to specifically because the water and sewer that is um mains that they're proposing to extend to the site do extend from quite a distance.

So we would ask for informational purposes that they provide um just a general overview of how those services are going to be extended, um specifically, especially if it's going to be extended along um public right of ways that would impact the city.

Um that would be to class four standards, um, which is basically our GIS um level standard.

Um and then um, but that does not preclude so the utility plan itself that would be on the side, that of course has to be to class one standards, um, which this clarifies.

Um so um our the way our regulations are written, it basically uh requires the commission.

The the landscape plan is not necessarily given for subdivisions, so the landscape plan we the commission does have to ask specifically for a landscape plan, which um provided this is an um development that's entirely an open space, we believe is uh warranted to have a landscape plan for the site.

Um public works requested number um number six um and number seven.

Um six is for location for snow storage, which we would like to see on the preliminary site plan.

Um seven is um specifically for the public roadways.

Um we'd like to see an itemized bond estimate, which that's pretty standard process um for um any improvements to public roadways or creation of public roadways.

Um eight is the hydrant locations for the fire uh for the fire department to sign off on.

Nine is to uh map any of the stone walls.

I I talked more about this in the staff report.

I talked about this um when this application to it came to us previously.

Um the um there are some uh state maps that as that show that there are potentially um historic stone walls on the site.

Uh the city does not have official uh protections for stone walls, but the state does recommend that we try to protect them to the greatest extent possible.

Um so therefore we'd like the applicant to map these stone walls uh within the limit of disturbance.

Um so basically that means the the project, the project area where they're actually going to be due work.

Um and um basically demonstrate a plan like of how they're looking to move these uh the stone walls.

Um and number 10 um DPWOs are requested.

Um there's some it there is some issues with previous developments where it was not very clear if street lights should be part of the development or not.

So they basically just asked to have it that we don't require street lights necessarily.

Um basically they're asking the applicant to decide if they want street lights, and if they do um you know, have a plan for it, have it like openly on the plan, and um also be dark skies compliant.

Um if anyone in the commission is not familiar, um basically dark skies is um uh basically it's just a point the lights downwards and avoid um light pollution by having light be shined upwards.

Um that's especially very important for more rural areas that might have less light pollution than a more urban area urbanized area.

Um and yeah, and if no if no uh street lights are proposed, they would just like have a notation on the site plan would be useful.

Thank you, uh director, assistant director.

Um any questions at this point for the staff before we hand over public comment?

Commissioner Lampier.

I'm just a little bit confused.

The two waivers that are being requested, are those to be decided this evening as part of master plan.

Should we recommend approval or um I I mean the staff is yes, so so they those are um part of the master plan approval.

All right, so and we are recommending approval.

The staff is recommending approval.

Um my question with regard to those is um I believe what you have there is that the application um can show in the preliminary plan this if the stormwater can be adequately managed through low impact design standards.

Correct.

Shouldn't we um on both of those wait until the preliminary plan stage?

Should we approve master plan to consider those waivers so that that information is before us and we don't have to condition it on receiving the information?

Um it is my understanding that we need um that these waivers are needed for them to move to the next stage legally needed or preferred by the applicant.

Um I'm sorry, I'm not trying to put you in the legal spot.

Maybe that's better addressed to requested by the applicant.

I mean, the a waiver is what the the applicant has requested these waivers.

Um obviously the access, the the one that they need tonight would be the 50 foot one, because that you know that clearly is the access.

Yeah, um the sidewalks, etc.

You know, could be done later, but you know, I would think this board would want to give the applicant uh you know uh a developmental direction, meaning if the board wasn't apt to waive sidewalks that that might impact the actual you know development plan, and therefore um certainly you you can grant the waivers um at later.

Um however um you know they're they're only asking for for the two.

All right, I'm just looking at the language that says on number two.

Um, provided that the applicant can show in their preliminary plan, maybe can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the commission.

But you can certainly change that language, something just to be more clear.

Okay.

That is an option, yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the assistant director?

All right.

At this stage, we will shift to uh public comment.

We'll start here in the room.

Um please uh come forward, state your name and address for the record.

If the otters would like their attorney to start the process and present their witness, that's fine as well.

However, I leave it to the public.

Uh thank you.

Uh we would prefer to have our expert go after the neighbors have had a chance to speak.

That's fine.

So I'll I'll wait until the others have a turn.

That's your it's your reprogative.

Okay.

Mr.

President, uh, are we gonna have a time limit on these speeches?

Oh okay.

Oh I will I look this is their neighborhood.

I'm gonna let people talk.

If they start getting repetitive, then no, that you guys want five of you want to overrule me.

You can.

I'm just saying that I mean we've heard a lot of it before, and I know we're gonna go through it again.

So let's, for example, Mr.

Calasante hasn't heard he's never heard it before.

So that's that's what it is.

So if I just ask you all of you, is two or three things.

Um, don't repeat yourself, stick to the facts.

And I know you feel passionate about this, but remember we have to base everything on the facts and evidence.

So those are the three things I'd say, and the floor is yours.

So state your name and address.

Good evening.

My name is Jennifer Sutcliffe, 171 Main Street, and I am the property owner adjacent to road A.

Could you put on the road A, Matt, please?

Thank you.

So I am that little little outlier that um you guys were talking about earlier.

Uh I'd like to express several concerns regarding this road being proposed next to my property.

I want to be very clear.

These concerns are not hypothetical.

They are based on gaps in what has been presented.

First, there has not been boundary surveys completed in decades in this area, and there the lines are very hard to not clearly defined.

Because of that, I've had to hire a surveyor at my own expense to confirm my boundaries.

I do not believe it is appropriate to move forward with an approval of a roadway when the exact property lines and roadway limits have not been definitive definitively established.

This raises concerns about whether the proposed road placement is accurate and whether it could encroach on my property.

Second, the size of the layout of the proposed road do not appear sufficient when considering regular traffic, emergency access, and winter conditions.

I am especially concerned about snow plows, which could easily extend beyond the roadway and cause damage to my property.

Third, I am concerned about property damage during and after construction, including grainage, grading, drainage changes, and ongoing impacts from traffic, ploughing, or impaired drivers.

Lastly, my driveway sits very close to the proposed road alignment, and it could be easily mistaken for part of the roadway.

This creates a clear and preventable safety issue for myself, my family, and drivers unfamiliar with the area.

I would also like to note that there is an OWTS record on file for this property filed by the previous owners, permit number 22071132.

I would ask that any wastewater or septic related considerations associated with this property be fully reviewed as part of the process.

Given these concerns, I respectfully request that a plan not be approved in its current form.

Any minimum, any approval should be contingent upon a current verified boundary survey, a roadway design that meets safety and with standards, including winter maintenance considerations, protective measures to prevent damage to adjacent properties, and clear signage or design adjustments to distinguish private driveways from roadways.

I ask these considerations be reflected in the record and consider in any future approvals or conditions.

Thank you.

Ma'am, did you say your name and address before you started?

Yes.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I just wanted to make sure.

So sign in.

Okay, thank you.

You want to sign it.

It just helps us with the minutes to make sure everyone's names are correctly written down.

You can have it.

Hopefully, tonight's the only time we need it.

I wanted to point to it.

That was the whole point.

Yeah.

Sure.

If you'd like to see.

But you're welcome to look at the memory.

Yep.

And then we'll mark that as uh neighbors one and how a butters in however many sheets.

We'll mark it abutters one.

State your name and address, and you can proceed at your leisure.

My name is Robert Sansone and marking 145.

Good evening.

Thank you to the president and the commission for the opportunity to speak tonight.

My name is Robert Sanson of 145 Main Street in Fiskville.

I'm an abutting and downstream property owner and resident.

For the record, I'm submitting a visual exhibit showing a map drainage system that connects the proposed development area to my property and ultimately to the Potuxet River through municipal infrastructure.

I have previously submitted evidence of this stormwater drainage at multiple planning commission meetings, and it is on record.

Exhibit A, which is the first line up there, shows images of the Cranston City GIS mapping.

It's a similar to the existing condition.

You can leave that up there for now.

This identifies a continuous drainage feature conveying stormwater from the project area toward my property.

If you look carefully, there's a big blue line that goes runs down to the right hand side.

Other images, the topography of the site clearly show a drainage path and a downhill feed towards my property and the river.

In addition to current mapping, the Cranston GIS City's Hydro 2001 layer also identifies this same drainage path.

This clearly shows the system has been recognized in municipal mapping over time.

And then here's exhibit B.

That is the um the plan.

Exhibit B shows the applicant's engineered plan.

This drainage feature does not appear on the submitted plans.

And then here's exhibit F, the certified survey.

Exhibit F is a certified existing conditions plan prepared for Merlin J.

Jenkins by Stephen Dyer Professional Land Survey.

Rhode Island license number 1973.

The plan is certified to conform to class one standard for property boundaries and class three standard for topographic and existing conditions.

This survey clearly depicts the drainage feature.

It is obvious.

And if you were looking at the plans that are passed around, you'll see a gigantic.

I've highlighted it in blue, but it's obvious if it's it was originally on their plans.

But the drainage system shown here is not represented on the plans.

Those impacts depend on understanding where water is already flowing and how that flow may be altered.

Because this drainage system is not identified, the commission cannot accurately evaluate stormwater runoff or its downstream impacts, including its direct connection to the Patuxet River.

This is also subject to municipal drainage requirements under Cranston Code Subsection 1304, which depend on accurately identifying existing drainage conditions.

Without fully identifying that system, the effect of that added coverage on stormwater flow and downstream conditions cannot be accurately evaluated.

Under Rhode Island law, including the reasonable use rule established in Butler versus Bruno, evaluation of surface water impacts depend on whether effects can be avoided through reasonable care.

That analysis requires a clear understanding of existing drainage conditions.

Because this drainage system is not identified, particularly where road A crosses, the commission does not yet have a sufficient basis to determine whether stormwater impacts can be avoided or minimized.

The drainage system shown in the certified survey is not isolated.

It forms a continuous flow path that connects directly to the Potupsit River.

Exhibit C.

So C is over here.

It's tiny, but uh your engineer could easily pull this up on his GIS.

Exhibit C shows a JS map of municipal drainage, including a basin on my property and a pipe conveying water under Main Street to the river.

Exhibit G shows maintenance.

That's that right there.

Um shows maintenance activity along the system.

I observed crews from the Rhode Island Department of Transportation clearing debris from manhole 1578.

The series of images indicate an active system connected to a maintained infrastructure.

Then exhibit D, and these are pictures that I photographed myself.

This is these photos clearly show the flow path entering my property, forming a defined channel, and continuing downstream through the greens and the hoarder properties before reaching the river.

I repeat, this is a continuous multi-property drainage system.

Now, under Rhode Island freshwater wetlands rules, areas subject to storm flowage are freshwater wetlands.

Now, if you were to look up at the map up here, it's just north of where it says open space.

There's these cool little brown lines that say ASF.

And that's what that stands for for the people who might not know what that means.

And under 250 RICR 150 15-1.4, I'll repeat areas subject to storm flowage are freshwater wetlands.

The upstream portion of the system has already been identified as such on those plants.

This proposed plan includes a roadway crossing, road A, as the primary access.

That means the feasibility of the entire project depends on crossing that drainage system.

Now, no person shall alter a freshwater wetland without approval.

That's 250 road RICR 150 15-1.6.

Activities shall not alter natural flow or impact downstream properties.

250 RICR 15015 subsection 1.17.

Local drainage requirements under Cranston Code, subsection 13.04 also apply to stormwater management and system capacity.

The commission is required to make findings that this proposal is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.

The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with LU4.

However, compliance with LU4 depends on understanding site constraints, including drainage and stormwater behavior.

Because the drainage system is not identified with uh with is not a consistency with the L U4 cannot be fully evaluated at this stage.

Because this is a mapped historically recognized and surveyed drainage system extending across multiple properties, connecting to municipal infrastructure, and discharging to the Patuxet River, its omission is not minor.

It is a missing site constraint.

Because this drainage system is not fully identified, the record is incomplete with respect to stormwater and downstream impact.

I would respectfully request that the commission continue or defer the matter until these conditions are clearly identified and evaluated so that a supported determination of site suitability and comprehensive plan consistency, including LU4 can be made.

Good evening, Sonia Meissenborg, 30 Roberts have Fiskville, Rhode Island.

Um, two topics I would like to discuss.

The first is Road A.

Um, as my neighbor Jen mentioned, when house associated with that vacant lot was sold.

It was sold with a cesspool, which is supposed to be converted to a septic system within a year.

It is two years overdue, it is on file at DEM.

Plan is approved, and it sits on road up.

Earlier in Vaughn Lane One, uh, the area being discussed is described by this committee as one of the last few areas in Western Cranston where large scale development is possible.

That statement alone should get every could give everyone pause to consider the impact of 44 homes on this community, the city, and the environment.

According to a recent Cranston Herald report, Cranston is one of a few communities chosen by DEM to participate in the agency's suburban forests for Rhode Island Assistant Program.

Why?

Because Cranston has a long-term goal of increasing the tree canopy from 34% to 35% in 10 years.

Doesn't seem like much and should be an achievable goal.

Its importance is illustrated in maps created by the Green Infrastructure Center showing a surface heat map in Cranston on June 25th, 2024, with Garden City having a surface temperature of 145 degrees.

Well, Hope Road had a surface temperature that was 70 degrees cooler.

Why?

Trees are effective air filters, filtering gases harmful to humans and to the Earth's ecosystem.

They cool the air, provide natural habitats, and aid in reducing climate change.

So let's talk about the deforestation of 40 plus acres of trees that doesn't align with the green canopy goal.

We're going to remove old growth, hardwoods, conifers, new growth, release captured carbons back into the atmosphere, eliminate the cool air provided by the shade canopy and create a massive change within the local environment.

The tree warden is going to be very busy mitigating this loss.

And based on the last budget I saw, that won't be happening.

In addition to the negative effect of the tree canopy, the habitat loss will be will never be replaced.

According to DEM, habitat loss is the ongoing threat to long-term viability of the American black bear, which we have one.

Their habitat preference consists of type of forest area we are discussing, and yes, they are out there.

In addition to the black bear, there's the useful coyotes, white-tailed deer, bobcats, red foxes, and fishes.

Avian varieties include pileated woodpeckers, American woodcocks, bard, and great horned owls, and due to the proximity of the Patuxet River of Wald Eagle sitting in this woman's yard the other day.

The developer will remind us that many, many acres are being left undisturbed.

The majority of these acres are wetlands and unsuitable for development.

A portion of the Providence water supply aqueduct, which is highlighted in purple and is considered part of the open space, is also undevelopable.

As we all know, humans will use chemicals to create the perfect lawn, sprinkle poison to eliminate rodents, who will get eaten by the raptors, who will ingest the poison and die.

Species that cannot adapt will die or relocate, forever changing the vibrant wildlife habitat.

As for the wetlands, they will be with the responsibility of the HOA.

How is that regulated?

How does an HOA maintain wetlands?

As you stated, this is one of the last few areas in Western Cranston where large scale development is possible.

And when you grant master approval for 44 homes, this land undisturbed becomes very disturbed.

And this forested habitat in the city is gone.

The topography is changed, ledges blasted, impervious roads installed, runoff into the Patuxent River increases.

You approve a development so large that the city services can't support it, so large it doubles the size of an already underserved community, so large it negatively impacts the tree canopy, so large it destroys a vibrant natural habitat.

To your point, why does it have to be so large?

We are concerned about the changes that a large scale development will bring and request that the committee review the overall impact on the community and the city before granting approval.

Perhaps a smaller scale development decreasing the impact on all interested parties would be a better option.

Good evening, Dave Green, 169 Main Street.

Um just say my house is on ledge.

There's ledge in my basement.

Obviously, when they built it in way back when they couldn't get all the ledge out, it's clearly on ledge, vibrates all spring long, like everybody has though.

So I don't know how I'm gonna be protected if drilling in blackness is done and that damages my home because I'm connected to the same ledge.

Secondly, road A is a perfect example of why you need 50 feet in carbon, and the variance or exceptions should not be given.

You can see clearly there's a home right below road A.

Someone's bedroom window is right there at road A, and that house is right on the street.

You can't have this as the only access to a neighborhood with traffic going in and out.

They can't see around the corner of Main Street.

It's gonna be a public safety issue.

You need 50 feet in carbon to determine where the street is and to be able to pull out safely.

Thank you.

Thanks for letting me speak this evening.

There's a couple of things in mind, and one of them just I'm curious about now.

With this development, I've never heard once suggested how large these houses are going to be.

So I'm assuming they're going to be single floors.

Um, but I've never heard of the actual home impact.

Um, and I would be curious to hear that.

I live on Hope Road, I live on a highway, a cut through from Cranston, for Coventry, West Warwick to the highways.

Police were there today.

There's a constant traffic problem on that road.

I would like to see the traffic study.

I am disabled, we have a farm across the street, we go back and forth constantly.

The horse boarders who want to go across the street from the farm to the 300 plus acres of state management land and trails behind my house have to be crossed because the it's an S curve and the traffic goes so fast and there's so much that it's unsafe for them to cross their horses on their own.

We've had multiple problems of horses being spooked and riders being afraid.

So I would like to see that traffic study.

I'd like to see the impact because I believe it's going to be great.

Um, I spoke with the Rhode Island Indian Council, and because anecdotally there uh I think you've heard that here.

There um are Indian burials on that land.

So when I called them and I said, is that true?

Actually, was their settlement?

They said, Absolutely, and it was the Nipmunks.

And I said, Well, what can we do to ensure that everything obviously it's not gonna stop anything, but what can we do to ensure that everything, all of the evidence of Native Americans, everything that was there will be preserved.

And they said that um through the the NIP monk nip muck council, the state would actually come in, have pay for someone to be on site through construction to make sure if there was any evidence that they would preserve it and protect it.

So I'd like to see that also.

It's been brought up before, but I'm bringing it up again because this is a new ball game.

Um I just did some numbers.

40 some houses, 80 students, less than you know, fewer than two per house, times the 19,950, which is what the state and the city say it takes to educate a student in Cranston.

So at 80 students, it's 1,596,000 a year.

I'm afraid because I'm on disability, I live very close to the to the edge, and I'm doing okay, but with increased tax hikes coming up, and the deficit that we have, it scares me.

So in five years, when this project is done, it's gonna cost us another 50 million and a half to edit just to educate these students.

That has nothing to do with additional police, additional fire, additional any kind of public works that go on this land.

Can the city afford it?

I don't think so, and I know that I can't.

Let's say with 40 houses, they each pay 10,000 in taxes.

That's 400,000.

That leaves over a million dollars each year, just in schools.

I'm afraid, I'm very much afraid.

I hope to keep my home, you know.

I'm elderly, and I hope to keep my home, but I know I can't afford all this.

And I think that the city should really take that into consideration.

Can the city afford this?

Thanks so much for listening.

Okay, okay, okay.

Let's all be respectful to each other.

So thank you.

I'm probably one of the bigger abutters of this parcel.

So I'll feel it on the back and I'll see it in the front and hear it in the front with all the additional traffic that's gonna pass by my house.

As Jan stated, it's it's suicide to walk across that street.

The best time to walk across the street is late at night.

At least you can see cars coming with their headlights.

The traffic is crazy.

As she said, there would have been police patrols because the speed is incredible, the heavy traffic, truck traffic, and so on.

But my main concern tonight here is as I've always preached from the word go on this project, is fire and police.

I have personally spoken to Situate, Coventry, and Cranston.

They would love to talk to you about coverage that is out there.

It's it's not, and I'd like to dismiss what you call mutual aid.

I went and talked to Hope Jackson.

I talked to Coventry, I've talked to what Warwick West Wark rather.

Mutual aid only exists if all apparatus and personnel are busy at the time of an incident, incident on this property.

You're not going to get the everyday service that you seem to think that's going to come out of Hope Jackson.

Hope Jackson has a volunteer engine.

There are only two people staffing the rescue on a regular basis.

So if a fire breaks out and Cranston's tied up, they've got to call everybody from home to come and man the engine.

It's not manned 24-7.

The road cannot handle apparatus at a high rate of speed.

So it takes them anywhere from 12 to 15 minutes to arrive on scene.

We've seen this numerous times.

Ingress to this property.

I don't think a gate is an idea that should be even put on the table.

There's got to be another solution.

So my concern, like I say, if I walk away from here tonight and you have a general understanding that what you think as far as mutual aid from surrounding cities is not going to happen on an everyday basis.

It would have to be all apparatuses out, all personnel is occupied doing something else, and there's there's an incident in this plat, then there will be some mutual aid available, but not on a regular basis.

So we're dependent on Situate Avenue over by the print works.

We're talking about Oklahoma Avenue.

If all of our apparatuses are out, even the station right next to this parking lot would respond.

And it's a 15 to 17 minute drive with an engine to get to us.

God forbid it's somebody's family that is injured and dying.

It's going to be a horrific story in the papers because we don't have the coverage.

I know there was some talk on the capital budget about putting an additional station out there, but this plot is going to move ahead of that development of a station.

I think it should be the other way around.

We should have the services and be provided with what we pay taxes for.

Full fire, full police, and just get it done right instead of just trying to pass this through and put it on us.

And we're the ones that live there every day.

I mean, I own 50 acres.

It's a big piece of property.

And I'd hate to see it go up in flames because we can't get engines on the scene in time.

And it's just the same thing with the police.

When there's an accident, they'll tell you we ought to come from the Providence Grants Online.

We're at the station.

So and they only have two offices on duty in that district, District 12.

And you know that that to me is not a safety safe situation to be in with low fire coverage and also police.

I mean, insurance is going to look at that.

It used to be did you have a hydrant within reach of an engine company that has the hose on the truck?

The hydrant's there, but the engine's not going to be there, so it doesn't matter anymore.

So you'd have to get the right equipment in the right spot to do the job properly.

And like was said earlier, taxes are going up.

So we're going to pay more and get less.

So I think you got to look at overall.

I want to walk away from here letting you know that mutual aid is not going to cover your your development that you're talking about.

There's got to be an engine company with a rescue somewhere nearby.

Thank you all.

Good evening.

Drake Patton, 684 Natick Avenue.

I'm not a resident of Fiskville, but I am someone who cares a lot about what is happening in our city.

And I tonight really just want to give some comments in response to what I heard tonight.

And the changes to this plan from what we're calling Vaughn One to Vaughn Two.

These are comments and questions.

Vaughn Lane is being determined as being unaltered.

There's a mention of a gate.

There's still going to be the difficulties already mentioned with the way that road was built as a mill road.

A comment on what we heard earlier with due respect, um, soil evaluations, whenever they happen, are not geological studies or geologic studies.

And my understanding is the concern about that is because the neighbors in Fiskville literally feel vibrations when the river is running fast.

I can relate to that because when things happen on Natagav at the quarry, which is all the way down past the uh bubble and everything else, our buildings move too.

I can't imagine what it's like to live in Fiskville.

We heard tonight that there's going to be open space and it's going to be permanent.

So a question that I have is permanence typically is only granted with a conservation easement.

Um, I didn't hear that tonight, and an HOA managing uh conservation land is not a model that I'm familiar with, and I do own conservation land and have done a lot of work in that area.

Um, and related to that, open space as we use it implies public use.

I did not hear public use in HOA is typically related to a private um area.

So I I would love some clarity on that because the language matters in how we talk about this and how we credit it.

On this particular new road that's being shown, a concern that I would have is related to what we heard this evening about the tightness next to the road, but also typically in a development of this size, you would see a turning radius that would be reflected to create a safe access to Main Street.

And I find this from a design perspective to be lacking and also potentially confusing and dangerous for folks driving in.

And I was particularly concerned to hear that there's a driveway next to that.

So I other people have spoken about this, but I do think that's a strange design component.

And we've heard tonight about safety.

That should concern all of us.

But we're talking about adding a large number of families and homes with dubious access and kind of strange emergency approaches.

And I believe it was a member of this body, I think it was Commissioner Correo, if I remember correctly, who made the argument at the Capitol budget that a 17.5 million dollar fire station should be built because of this proposed development.

Now that may be a fantastic argument, and indeed we probably do need a firehouse out there now.

But I'm pretty sure everyone in this room knows that we're in pretty bad straits right now.

So a 17.5 million dollar firehouse, whether it's in the capital budget or it's happening tomorrow, I think is a pretty big nut for the city to crack right now.

So thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Jessica Salter, six Vaughn Lane.

Good evening.

Thank you to the planning commission for again listening to the public's concerns and taking them into consideration.

We also want to thank the developer, the team of engineers, and the others for this updated plan.

We acknowledge that it seeks to address some of the concerns we brought to light with the previous application, and we are grateful for that.

Thank you.

For the sake of efficiency and to honor your time, the developer's time and the pay time of the many experts involved in this application.

We have resubmitted some documents previously discussed to add them to the record, so that we do not have to rehash them all via our time for public comment.

That being said, we don't want to diminish the importance of these topics.

As some have previously stated our concerns about environmental and wildlife impact for Maine, as do our questions about stormwater runoff management and others.

Today I'll be limiting my comments to three topics of particular concern: traffic, the impact of ledge in the area, and the overall financial impact of this development.

But as you can see, nothing about this design makes one entrance any more accessible or easier than the other.

In fact, roughly half of the houses are arguably more accessible via Vaughn Lane than they are via the newly proposed road A.

While this project is presented as restricting traffic by the developer and the engineers' own admission when recently asked, this project has not yet been reviewed by a traffic engineer, and they have no plan as of yet how people would be discouraged from using this narrow, windy road for access.

All we've been provided thus far is quote, maybe we can utilize some signage to direct people, end quote.

Overall, I'm unsure how you would begin to tell people which road they're allowed to use to access their home.

The entrance to Vaughn Lane and the newly proposed road will be roughly 400 feet apart, certainly not a distance that would prompt a person to choose one over the other.

By Mr.

Moses' own admission, he has other access points to this property, including through his own property.

Why then are the only two options offered as an option for a secondary entrance to either a route massively increased traffic down a winding village cart path, or B widen that road in a way that destroys private property.

When evaluating the construction site, we would like to call your attention to our concerns about construction in this area of ledge.

In the plan and via Miss Shea's previous presentation of the project, the land in question slopes from north to south from an elevation of 250 feet to 140 feet.

At technical review, when asked if they would employ blasting, the answer was that it had not yet been determined.

While we know that these answers do not usually arise until preliminary plan review, we are asking the commission to request that more information be provided now.

The extent to which blasting and/or hammering will be utilized will have significant impact on the neighbors, ranging from quality of life and enjoyment of personal property to safety and structural impacts to existing foundations, wells, and septic systems.

And while we can appreciate that we have been assured that DePRET has experience designing projects in ledge, we as neighbors also know the reality of what it means to live in this very specific area where sounds and vibrations are extraordinarily amplified due to the ledge.

And while I am not an engineer and can only offer anecdotal observations of this impact, I would like to share with you a brief glimpse into the impact of the natural movement in this area.

That was recorded a couple of weeks ago on my phone with no additional microphone or amplification, simply sitting in my living room.

It is not the result of construction or any situational occurrence.

It is simply the sound that emanates from my house shaking as vibrations from the river travel through the ledge in this area.

This is not new to any of us in the area.

We all have stories about our houses vibrating and shaking and even things falling off the walls.

We've become accustomed to it, although it is admittedly sometimes annoying, but you can certainly understand our concern about the impact that hammering, blasting, constant construction trucks, et cetera, will have on our homes and our lives.

Finally, it's no secret that Cranston is in a financial crisis.

City services are anticipating layoffs, and the local schools are bracing for reductions in order to meet drastically reduced budgets.

Past proposed developments have encountered challenges with overcrowding in Western Cranston schools, specifically Orchard Farms Elementary.

These challenges remain, and the potential addition of 80 plus students into the local school system could exacerbate that problem during a time when cuts are occurring, not expansions.

Additionally, during this city's this year's city capital budget, a new Western Cranston firehouse, which we've heard about, was proposed to support potential new developments.

The cost for this addition was 17.5 million dollars before you take into account staffing, vehicles, or ongoing general operating costs.

I also, I am also sure that there will be financial benefits from this development, specifically to additional housing in our community, an effort that we are not against.

In no way are we arguing that the owners not be allowed to build on their land due to these circumstances.

We just ask that the city go into the project knowing the true financial impact, both good and bad, before master plan approval is granted and they are vested for the number of houses that they would be vested for.

Many of these concerns could be mitigated by taking a strict and strategic approach to phasing.

In the master plan checklist item 19 on page five, it shows at master plan level for the application is that proposed phasing, including description of which structures and on and off-site improvements are to be installed in which phase is if applicable.

Phasing plan details should be appropriately scaled to application phase, end quote.

The developers check this as complete and notes that the answer is on sheets four and five, but the only phasing details available where referenced are quote, the development is proposed to be built in multiple phases.

A phasing plan will be developed to find completion of site engineering for the project and provided with a future submission, end quote.

So essentially no phasing details.

We are asking the plan commission to request a detailed phasing plan from the developer that limits the impact to local schools and other city services in a way that allows the city to adjust and evaluate each proposed plan, each proposed phase with clarity on what the community impacts would be.

Other towns have enforced clear phasing guidelines as a way to control municipal impact.

For example, Portsmouth, North Kingstown, Hopkinton, and others require initial information where impact on school and other city services is explicitly analyzed.

For any major subdivision or plan development, the town requires a detailed school impact analysis, including the estimated number of school age children, the breakdown by age levels, including elementary, secondary, et cetera, methodology used for projections, projected need for new school facilities.

This is not optional.

It's part of the formal review.

Developers must also submit a fiscal impact statement in many of these communities and a municipal cost benefit analysis.

This includes the cost of educating new students, the impact on municipal services, including schools, police, fire, et cetera.

If costs outweigh benefits, especially due to schools, the planning commission can impose stricter phasing, delay later phases, and require mitigation efforts.

These requirements are then tied to the rate of development.

North Kingstown and others' approaches is powerful.

While not a hard school capacity cap that restricts housing development, written as a number, instead, this functions as a growth management tool tied to school and city services capacity, even if it's not strictly labeled that way.

These are towns that have taken proactive steps to ensure that the city can support the growth they are welcoming.

Our neighbors in situate have some similar phasing restrictions, as do many others.

I'm hopeful that we can learn from the guidelines others have set forward.

This isn't restrictive.

It's smart and ensures that residents will have access to the services for which they will expect and be entitled to via their tax dollars while not overburdening the system or taking away resources from existing residents.

The developer has indicated a desire to phase this project.

We simply ask for some structure and strategy around something that they have already stated that they intend to do.

Thank you all, including the developers team for listening to our comments and concerns.

I know that there is a belief from the developer that we are simply making up issues in an attempt to obstruct this project, but this simply isn't true.

From the beginning, we've not thrown out unreasonable concerns or requests.

Every element we have expressed concern about has been based in fact.

I'll remind you that the original design for this development included major access via Winnie Street, a roadway that the developer, developers, engineer, and team assured you was public and that they had a legal right of way to access.

We were all at the site visit, that they had that we were all at site visit, where one expert on the team staked his 30-year experience on knowing that road was public and connected to the developer's land, regardless of the evidence we provided.

In the end, their own research, which was only achieved because it was pushed for and demanded by this annoying group of neighbors, proved that to be inaccurate.

We instead seek to protect the rights of many existing Rhode Island property owners who already live here.

Thank you.

Richard Campbell Piano, Citywide Councilman here in Cranston.

I want to thank you for the opportunity of speaking.

For the record, first of all, I am not for or against this project.

But and I am not an expert on stormwater traffic safety.

But I think the financial impact to the city.

I owe it to my constituents to find out what that is.

Uh I think we should do a physical impact statement, knowing what it will cost the city immediately, five years from now and beyond that.

Some of the troubles we are facing now, I think of decisions that we made many, many years ago, and now we're coming back to haunt us.

So I just asked the commission that if we can have that statement so we can understand what we are facing in the future.

It would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you.

Any other further public comment?

Uh well, Mr.

President, thank you, members of the commission.

Uh, my name is Steven Slipole.

I'm an attorney.

Uh, my firm is Gidley Sarley in Marosak and Providence.

I represent a group of the neighbors.

I would like to make a few uh comments and then have our planning expert uh summarize his report and answer whatever questions uh you may have.

Uh first of all, uh I I believe uh Ms.

Azar and I are in agreement that we would both uh like to have public comment at the preliminary plan hearings.

And I believe that was what we had decided uh the the last time we were here for the uh for the original application.

I think we put it division regulations recently, clear that there's public comment and preliminary.

I just I wanted to make sure we were clear on that.

Um and had that on the record.

Thank you.

Um I brought with me, I've already sent all of this in electronically to the planning department and the solicitor, but this is just a hard copy of the uh the the three memos that I had authored uh for the prior application.

I wanted them just to put in the record.

Um Mr.

Solicitor, is there a problem putting in his prior memos?

No, and and they have we already we are he he submitted them electronically too.

So if we can take a paper copy too.

Okay, if you'd like it, I I brought one.

All right, so this would be public, whatever two, three, four, whatever it is, or butters.

I don't know what what exhibits don't worry.

It's just uh give it give it and we'll take it.

Sure, thank you.

So uh another item I wanted to cover is uh I we're not here arguing or fighting about this tonight, but I I don't agree that they have established a 50 foot easement for Von Lane.

I don't want to be argumentative about it.

I just want to put on the record that we we we still do not agree with that.

Um that doesn't seem to be an issue at this point, but I did want to uh still preserve that argument.

So I'm I'm bringing this up only just to put that on the record.

My last uh issue that I I wanted to address that I was not covered in the experts' report was I I would ask the uh the commission uh to be very very uh careful about how this HOA is set up and structured.

Uh HOAs notoriously uh failed.

They have people who lose interest who want nothing to do with it, who don't want to pay their dues.

Uh when I work on these in other communities, when I'm reviewing them on behalf of other communities, I make sure there is language in there that the homeowners themselves are personally responsible, and that the city can lean their properties if their infrastructure fails and their HOA doesn't take care of it.

Uh, because Mr.

Moses isn't going to be coming and fixing the problem here.

It's going to be the city and it's going to be the neighbors who are going to suffer if any of this infrastructure fails.

Um my parting comment is uh just as it was with the uh first application.

What what we're seeing here is is the same game that was being played the first time where the goal is to get a uh master plan approval while providing this commission with as little information as they can possibly uh get away with.

And with that, I would ask uh Mr.

Wiegand to please uh come up and I would just start by I just want to go through have him go through his education and uh you want to vlog dear him, go ahead.

Sorry, one of Vladirum, go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

Uh so uh Mr.

Wiegand, could you please uh introduce yourself to the commission?

So my name is Brent Weekend.

I'm uh the director of planning and zoning in town of North Providence.

Uh before that, I was in Narragansett.

Um attest to that.

Um, and before that, I was in the town of East Greenwich.

I have probably 14 years of planning experience at a bachelor's in uh environmental planning, and I uh went to URI earn the credits for a master's certificate in community planning.

So I would ask the uh commission to please recognize Mr.

Weigan as an expert in the uh the field of of uh land use planning.

Yes.

Is there an I want to do this?

Give you a courtesy.

You want to object that this person's not qualified as an expert in land use and planning.

You have to speak in front of the microphone.

This is all gonna go to court, so we want this all recorded properly.

Uh Mr.

President, members of the commission of this gentleman's resume, which I had an opportunity to review today in his report is ripe with references to geological studies necessary, ripe with engineering, civil engineering studies that need to be done.

He has no expertise in civil engineering or geological engineering or any other of this type of work.

He can, in my humble opinion, his only expertise is in planning.

And if he has issues that are specific to planning questions, we would have no objection, but to what he's given you in his written report is not a planning report at all.

So uh obviously the objectors asked that he be qualified as an expert in land use and planning.

So that's all that they requested.

Second thing, you can obviously it goes to the weight of his testimony regarding all the other items in the uh in the report and the weight of the report regard to the other items.

Yes, the way I kind of parse it in my mind is that you have obviously given opinion the the report that I see does have some opinions that I think are analysis that are planning oriented and land use oriented.

There are things here that you spoke of engineering.

So when it comes to land use and planning, I believe he's qualified.

I think you don't object on that.

Okay, but the you have to speak to the microphone.

I'm I don't object to that.

But I understand that you object is presenting him as an expert.

He's he's being presented expert testimony be limited.

I understand the you are not we would what you're basically would be objecting to is if we rely on his testimony for civil engineering purposes, for example, or for anything that is outside the scope of land use and planning, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So I think I would I to the extent there's anything in here, that's uh uh you know debatable, we can figure that out, but I think it's clear to me that there is stuff in here that deals with land use and planning, and to me, he is qualified to be an expert in land use and planning.

That's my own personal view, but we will have a vote in a motion.

If anybody has any questions or they want to void there, the whoop anybody or ask questions.

Uh anyone one more thing, Mr.

Moses, go ahead.

Yes, I would I would just like to suggest in my no problem.

In my review of his report, I saw almost no planning commentary.

Mr.

President, and most of his commentary was as to drainage issues, as to site suitability, as to building suitability, dealing with ledge and other construction constructability issues.

He has no expertise in any of these areas.

And if Mr.

Seipole is bringing him forward as an expert, and which he has, he said he wants his expert to testify, and his expert should be limited to what his expertise is.

And I did hear the gentleman say, Did you say you had a master's in community plan?

I that's my expert.

I'm sorry, stop.

I'm just asked.

I couldn't I just couldn't hear him.

You go ahead, Mr.

You're no you've been in arrogance, so this is more contentious down there.

So go ahead.

Please address us.

You don't need to turn around and no, I just I didn't hear him when he said it before.

Yes, I've seen his resume.

I just many of these issues, the majority of his vast majority of his report is areas which he cannot testify to as an expert, in my opinion.

Okay, your choice.

I understand.

So this is the commission's choice, correct.

So the way I'm looking at this is there's things in here that I find is land use and planning oriented, whether it'd be traffic studies, impact statements, phasing.

Those are specific engineering issues.

If a planner when a planner when a plan I have planning staff that makes recommendations to do traffic studies, I understand that, Mr.

Okay, but they're not there coming forward testifying in front of a public body as an expert in an area.

I am traffic analysis, you need a traffic engineer.

His rec I understand what I'm saying is he is recommending that there be a traffic study, for example.

That is typical, consistent with land use and planning to my analysis.

Okay.

It's not like you don't be have to be an engineer to recommend a traffic study.

Right?

You can't testify as to a need for a traffic study.

Well, why don't why don't we let him testify first and then you can put your objections on the record because you don't know what he's going to testify to?

I've read his report.

But do you don't know exactly what questions Mr.

Sipol is going to be?

Okay, so we're gonna do this.

Let me do this.

You've uploaded your objection to his qualifications beyond planning, and you're objecting to this report in its entirety.

I am okay, great.

So my opinion, just say it this way.

I would like to, I would think that he is qualified to make a land be an expert in natural in um land use and planning, and that we omit his report and we give it the weight it deserves and aspects of it that are obviously planning oriented, is expertise, other things you can dispute, and we just go from there.

Thank you.

All right, solicitor, you have no that was perfectly said, Mr.

Okay, great, great.

All right, uh, can someone make a motion?

Uh or you want me to do it?

Commissioner Coop, Mr.

President.

Uh, I agree with you 100%.

We hear opinions, conclusions from many people that we haven't qualified as experts.

And I think as a commission, we can see the difference.

So based on that experience, I would make a motion that we qualify this witness as an expert in planning and land use and give his testimony in those areas the weight of an expert.

Does that sound appropriate, solicitor for that?

And I was told your president Fryas, not Mr.

Fry.

That doesn't matter.

Um is there a second second by Commissioner Barberi?

Any further discussion about this?

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

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

So you may proceed, and your objection is noted for the record.

So I I would like to have Mr.

Wiegan just summarize his report and and I don't want to put him through a direct examination, like we're in a courtroom here.

Uh, but before we start, I'd like to ask a couple of more uh questions.

Uh Mr.

Wiegand, are you an engineer?

I'm not an engineer.

Are you planning to provide the uh commission with any testimony tonight that requires expertise or education and engineering?

Uh no, all my recommendations are just that recommendations.

Uh, in your role as a town planner, is it typical for you to provide advice to planning boards as to what uh engineering studies they might request?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Is that a common uh piece of advice that town planners such as yourself typically give to their uh planning boards that they work for?

It is.

I regularly give that opinion.

Thank you.

Uh that being said, uh, if you could please just uh summarize your opinion and uh please respond to whatever questions the board has.

Thank you.

So I think um without beating a dead horse, both of my or all of my recommendations be summed up with two questions.

Um is Vaughn Lane really necessary.

Um I did a survey or an analysis of uh neighborhoods within the general western Cranston area.

Um I found numerous neighborhoods much larger than this with one single access.

Um and those are um Twin Birch Drive and which has 59 residences, and Apple House Drive, which has 63 residences, so both um much larger than this uh development.

So is Vaughn Lane really necessary?

I think a traffic study would determine that.

If it isn't, and they build it, it it's excess impervious surface, uh, which you know affects drainage.

Uh it's more area to for the town to plow, and it's just generally not needed.

Um the floodplain, there is a shaded X zone that engulfs the entire intersection of Vaughn Lane and Main Street.

Um, this has a one percent annual chance of flood risk um of one foot or less.

Um, and according to the National Institute of Occupational Safety, six inches is enough to carry a car away.

Uh intensification of this current situation.

Uh I don't believe is appropriate.

But again, a traffic study, I uh believe would um identify if it is.

Um let's see here.

The soils, I am not an expert in soils.

Uh I looked at the soils map, identified the types of soils on the property, and uh they're made up of and lodgement till, which is characterized by large stone sleep, steep slopes and bedrock.

Uh the folks in the audience have testified that there is uh significant ledge in bedrock in the area that may affect their foundations, their houses, and I believe the uh the the geologic survey uh should be done to identify these areas and work around them.

I believe uh someone on the applicant's team earlier um agreed to this.

So I don't think that should be an issue.

Um Vaughn Lane is narrow, uh 12 to 14 feet, it has an S curve right at the entrance.

Uh I believe this is a dangerous situation.

Again, a traffic study would confirm that.

Um considering uh standard one-way road is 12 feet and two ways 24 feet is about half that width for two-way traffic.

Um I believe if Vaughn Lane is deemed necessary by the traffic study, um, or I should say a secondary access.

Um, I don't think it should be Vaughn Lane.

I believe a route should go to the east, um, which is the direct route to the highway.

It would reduce the funneling of all the traffic of this development directly into the quaint Fiskville neighborhood.

I believe various land development regulations and comprehensive plan sections speak against the uh the development of a road within a floodway.

Um I understand it's there now, but I think the intensification increases the likelihood of conflict during a flooding event.

Um I understand this project is a by-right project, so we're not trying to end the project.

We are simply trying to improve it for the betterment of the community.

And um, like I said earlier, I think my position can be summed up in two questions.

Uh, the second question is can the town really handle this in this area?

Um, do they have adequate infrastructure?

Do they have um I understand there's a uh request for a 17.5 million dollar fire station uh in western Cranston, which leads you to believe that the fire infrastructure is not adequate currently, and certainly if it's not now, then it won't be in the immediate future unless that is constructed.

Um I think that summarizes all my points.

Okay, I sorry, how do you pronounce your last name, sir?

It's weekend, W I E Week.

Okay, I just be going back and forth.

I didn't hear how it was pronounced.

Sorry.

Um, sorry, Sidepole, do you have further?

Yes, I wanted to just follow up with a couple of items.

Uh Mr.

Weigan, could you please you gotta you gotta do this in front of the microphone?

It's not picking me up.

Uh Mr.

Weigan, could you please discuss the uh alternative access points that you identified in your report?

So if you go on Google Maps, there is a historic road leading from Vaughn Lane.

I put a uh a map of it in the my report.

Um it's already cleared.

It would go just south of uh ArcRight.

Um, there is existing curb cuts on both sides with an opening in the rock wall along Vaughn Lane and uh curb cut on Main Street.

Um this wouldn't require clearing since it's already disturbed.

Um, but alternatively, I I think an ideal situation would be to bring a road the direction of the highway, which is more often than not the route people take to travel further distance, you know, that they're not all traveling into Fiskville.

Um, and I think that would alleviate some of the congestion that would be brought into Fiskville, which is a smaller village area.

Uh Mr.

Weigan, did you also uh consider an alternative access that could come in from Lipidav?

Yes, yeah, that's that's what I meant by uh to the east.

Lip it av uh the applicant is on the record as saying there is opportunity to bring it that direction if they have to.

I believe that is a uh a better opportunity.

And uh to uh to wrap up, could you please just uh go through the uh conditions that you are recommending in the uh conclusion section of your memo.

So, number one, a uh traffic study be complete completed and peer reviewed at the cost of the applicant.

Uh, like I said, I'm not a traffic engineer.

Um, and I believe this is a necessary step to identify if the extra impervious surface is even necessary.

Um I believe that Vaughn Lane should not be utilized.

Um, if the traffic report deems road A sufficient for the 44 units, my analysis shows evidence that it could be.

Um geotechnical study be performed prior to the preliminary plan to confirm the magnitude of bedrock, subsurface elements or subsurface compositions and that no blasting occur on the property and any ledge removal be limited to explode but non-explosive, strictly mechanical methods.

Um, that a comprehensive property survey be conducted before any ledge removal and cash bond is submitted to the city to cover the damages surrounding the property if they occur.

That all construction construction activity is limited to the hours between eight and four with loudest activity being concentrated between 10 and 3 with no work being done on holidays and weekends to ensure peaceful enjoyment of surrounding properties.

That the prior to the issuance of a building permit, the application must submit a comprehensive soil control plan to the building official for their approval.

The plan must be according to the Rhode Island Soil Erosion Sediment Control Handbook said erosion control measures must be in place prior to the start of construction.

Um, that any proposed site work landscaping such as driveway construction grading or other landscape improvements within the right-of-way between the property line and the edge of the payment be reviewed by the Department of Public Works.

Um, and that no site work may begin until the project has been reviewed and approved for a road construction permit is issued by DDW in addition to the track off pad, must be installed used for the duration of onsite construction to prevent dirt in the road.

Um, the prior to the issuance of a building permit, the proposed subsurface elements is certified by professional engineer to comply with the development standards.

That a peer review of the stormwater plan be conducted before approval of preliminary plan to ensure no increased runoff.

The application that the applicant provides a phasing plan for the projects that includes the order of phasing is sent of each phase to be approved by the planning board.

I think this should be done this evening.

And in order to ensure the city is able to provide adequate services, and that the limit of disturbance indicated on the site plan becomes a repeat.

No, thank you.

Um before I got questions for you, but before I do that, does anyone want to take a break right now?

Or do you guys want to just hear me do like half hour questions, maybe?

Uh huh.

Five five minutes, yeah.

All right.

It's a little it's really hot in here.

And um, so I apologize, okay,

I just um just want to see the solicitors here.

I don't want to get going before he's here.

We'll get back on the record here.

Uh thank you.

Uh Planner.

Say one more time.

Brent weekend.

Okay.

Most of what I read is these are conditions for the same thing.

Oh, theoretically, master plan.

Um for any this is what the land development regulations say about impact statements for any division subdivision or land development project not meeting the criteria above the subdivision land development regulation section three general provisions 26 of 123 um may require an impact assessment.

Can we point the commissioners to the to which page on your report you're referring to so they can follow along?

Oh it is the fourth page.

Thank you.

Uh so that that middle paragraph right there, um, the second half of that paragraph, the city plan commission may require an impact statement if it is determined that there's reasonable expectation that a proposed subdivision or land development project will have significant negative impact on the site or nearby properties or on the building, the built environment.

So um the next sentence says determination shall be made prior to any initial public meeting or hearing.

So if we're doing a public hearing at preliminary, I would recommend that that decision be made before preliminary.

Okay, so um so that I'm I'm a little confused by your answer.

Are you suggesting that the impact statement be required before preliminary plan stage or before we approve master plan?

That was the question I was asking.

I would say before preliminary.

Okay.

Um of these conditions or statements that you have here, and it's sometimes it's uh there's conditions on the last couple of pages, but sometimes you have things like you like you say there must be a study, there must be a traffic study.

Are any things on those last two pages or anywhere here where you say this must be done before the commission approves master plan?

These are all recommendations, and i so vesting is done at master plan.

Correct.

Um I think perhaps before you vest this project, you should see if the town's able to accommodate it.

Okay.

All right.

As far as everything else, I believe that can be done before preliminary plan while they're doing the engineering.

Do you believe that phasing must be decided at this stage?

I believe it should because that directly correlates with the town's ability to accommodate the increase in population and how fast they're increasing.

Um, if new infrastructure is needs to be developed, it takes time.

The phasing provides that time.

Could phasing in your opinion be done at the before preliminary plan stage, however.

It probably could, but I believe it should be done at master plan.

Okay.

I'm just so you understand I'm asking questions, so I understand the range of options and where your opinion is.

You believe that Von Lane should not be an access is not an appropriate access road for this development.

Is am I saying it more or less correctly, my layman's terms?

In my non-engineer opinion, I believe there's a safety issue there.

Yeah.

With two lanes of traffic on a one-lane width road with the S curve.

Um I don't think you have to be a traffic expert to see the conflict there.

Right.

Okay.

Why from a planning perspective?

Do you believe it's necessary for this to have two roads?

Based on my analysis of the greater Western Cranston area, there's neighborhoods that exist larger than this with one access road that work perfectly fine as they are right now.

Okay.

And those have 15 more units in them to 20 more units.

So the applicant offered up this evening the concept of a gate on that would separate a gate on Vaughn Lane between the development and the where Von Lane is today.

From any of your planning perspective, what is your do you have any opinion on a gate in that location?

I think there's no reason for a gate if if we can prove that Vaughn Lane doesn't need to be built.

It's more subsurface or permeable.

Sorry, I'm speaking too fast.

It's more impervious surface that isn't necessary for the area.

And it affects the neighbors that live on Vaughn Lane that currently live in a small quiet little development.

And this would bring potentially 80 cars down their road a day.

Each way.

The applicant is indicating that Vaughn Lane would not be improved.

It would remain in its current condition with its S curves and its limited width.

Are you familiar with public roadways in your experience as a planner?

I have experience with basic roadway requirements under the zoning codes and general construction of roadway.

Yes.

Okay.

Is Vaughn Lane you would say something you've seen before?

Is it I certainly know it's not typical, and I'm not an engineer, but I have not seen something like that.

I'm I most of my background North Providence uh there against it.

Okay.

Uh we don't see a lot of private roads in those communities.

Right.

What do you see as the benefit of having a peer-reviewed traffic study?

I believe it would confirm the accuracy.

Um I don't I don't think it generally needs to be an outside.

I believe uh town has staff, professional staff that is well versed in traffic engineering uh that can review this project.

But if not, um an independent traffic engineer.

You gave an estimate of 22 students.

Um I believe that's you derived that from the census.

The methodology you use to divide the derive those 22 students, is that a common methodology used by planners?

I'm not sure, but it makes sense in my opinion.

So it's a common sense approach from your point of view versus a plan.44 people per household.

You can imagine a couple creates a kid, and point four four is the represents the the child in that situation.

So it could it might be you know off a little bit, but I think it's a fair median line.

Could you elaborate on your con your opinions about the infrastructure for sewer and water?

What is the point you were making there?

Are you uh you believe that Kent County doesn't have the capacity to handle 44 more homes?

No, they did confirm the capacity.

Uh my question is more about the mains, the the piping.

Uh is it uh the correct diameter to adequately transport the increase of effluent.

Okay, and that would be obviously determined those types of issues are generally determined at preliminary plan stage, correct?

Yes, okay.

Um there was an you brought issues about water, and I think the issue is what direction the water is coming from.

Could you explain why that is relevant?

Why is that relevant in this consider uh in this stage?

So the water based on the topography, the river is the low point, and the water would be coming downhill off the property on into the river, essentially.

So I think uh it would it has the the potential to affect anyone within that pathway, which there's you know, eight houses, nine houses you mentioned lasting.

Um we the commissioners in general have had projects that blasting's an issue.

What is it?

I think it that would be something for preliminary plan stage, or why do you think it needs to be discussed at master plan stage?

It doesn't necessarily have to be done at master plan.

Okay.

That there'd be no blasting, and that everything would be non-explosive, strictly mechanical, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Drilling pneumatic.

Um I've had we've had these debates before about this.

Um wouldn't it mean that people would be constantly hearing a hammering noise repeatedly for long periods of times if there's no blasting?

It's kind of a I've by the way, I don't like blasting, so you don't understand.

This is not me saying, hey, I like I you know, um, it's more like it's kind of like you gotta pick pick pick choose.

You do you do the blasting or you do the hammering?

There's like a pluses and minus on both sides of you know, for the neighbors, it's minuses all around.

Don't get me wrong, I get that, but I'm just saying that's what it is.

So I believe there's less uh potential for vibration with uh less impactful methods.

So your concern is because of the fact that these building these homes already shake that you've you heard, yeah.

I assume that blasting would possibly be more damaging, yes, then then the noise of think think thing, you know, the the hammering noise, right?

Yes, I think it's less harmful.

Okay, maybe maybe more disruptive in the long run, but less harmful to the actual properties.

Okay, is that what your view?

Okay, all right.

You guys have a respond.

I know you guys are like looking at me.

I mean no, no, no, no, no, Mr.

Moses, Mr.

Okay.

Mr.

President, these questions that you're asking, yeah, are questions that should be made of experts in fields that they know.

That's you're asking this gentleman, yes, who seems a very smart and intelligent gentleman.

Yep.

About blasting and vibrations, he is not a geotechnical engineer.

I understand.

Okay.

So what you're talking about is not relevant and gets addressed during preliminary plan.

That's why that's okay, Mr.

Moses.

My first question was doesn't blasting usually get done at preliminary plan stage.

And he said, Yes, that's right.

And I wanted to understand what his view was from a planning perspective of the pluses and minuses of blasting from up, and that's that's what it was.

You've given uh Mr.

Moses, I understand you don't like my what I said.

It's not a planning question.

Come come to come to the microphone and tell me.

Tell me it is a constructability question.

You have an engineer sitting on your commission who can explain this to you better than I can.

I understand dealt with this in at least 15 different communities in this state.

I have hadly hammering is worse than blasting.

Okay, you've given your opinion of that.

You've given your opinion as an as opinion as a lawyer.

Thank you very much.

All right.

You want to say something, Mr.

Solicitor?

No, I mean, they all these questions you're asking.

Yeah, they have the right to respond.

So you have the right to ask all the questions.

I just I just want to confirm.

I said less impact methods would create less vibrations.

That's just obvious.

Okay, all right.

If you have less of an impact, there's less of a vibration created.

I gotcha.

I got you.

Okay, I'm almost done with this.

I'm not gonna ask any more blasting questions right now.

Okay, okay.

You want to you want to talk about blasting too, your opinion?

I really uh you have to talk to the mic, you have to come to the microphone and give your opinion as a lawyer.

Uh I was going to ask a question as a lawyer.

Uh Mr.

Wiegan, the the the questions that the the president has been asking about blasting, are these the issues that he's raising?

Is this the reason that you would recommend that an engineer do a geotechnical study?

Yes, that's why I recommended an engineer do it.

Okay.

Okay.

I think that's about it for my questions for the expert for the uh abutters.

Is there anyone who has questions for the abutters?

President, can I do a follow-up on one of your questions?

Um I I'm torn on this question about access through Vaughn Lane.

Um, and uh and our witness um said he looked at uh several other neighborhoods in Western Cranston that have one road in and out, and that was okay.

And I actually live in one of those neighborhoods, and I don't like it.

So I'm wondering why you think it's okay to have a neighborhood with only one road to access.

It was approvable at the time that it was approved.

So uh approvable then, then I I think it should be approvable.

So you're lesser your statement it's okay means it was just approved, not that it works well or it functions well or anything like that.

Yes, I'm not a traffic engineer, so I don't know if it works well.

Okay, thanks.

I can't do that analysis.

I'm not qualified.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Mr.

Sipel, you're up for a reason.

Yes, microphone.

Uh Mr.

Weigan, in your report, you uh you previously discussed that there was uh possibility of access from lipid ad.

Correct.

Is it your opinion that if there was going to be any secondary access, would that be a superior location?

That would be far superior.

It would eliminate an increase in so it would divide the amount of traffic going either way by 50-50, roughly, if you want to average it out.

Most of the traffic most likely will go to the highway more often than not.

And that direct route would be quicker from lipid.

Well, Mr.

Moses, there's a process.

I know.

Okay, so this is this I'm gonna explain the process because I know you know this.

I know you very well.

You know more than me because you've been doing this for years, and I've just been doing this for a few years.

That's correct, right?

But the process here is that they get to talk, and then you guys get to respond.

And you get and you're not ready to respond yet because they're not done talking.

Okay, don't worry, I'm gonna give you a chance.

So a direct route to the highway, the uh the main highway in the area, uh Route 95 in 295.

Uh from Vaughn Lane, that's a 13-minute drive from Lippet.

That is an 11-minute drive, so it's about two-minute drive, let's say about a half a mile each direction.

Uh, I think it is a half mile based on the Google maps.

So not only would it increase efficiency, but it would decrease the stress onto the Fiskville village.

Okay.

Okay.

Anything else?

And then would you recommend microphone close to the microphone always?

Would you recommend that a uh traffic study uh include an analysis of that lip it av uh possible access route?

I believe it is something that definitely should be explored.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Is there any questions firm?

I think we're all set for now.

Thank you.

All right.

Um at this point, it's 9 30, but we're gonna I'm gonna have what my plan was is to try to wrap this up by a tennis so that we could have Mr.

Murray come in and do his zoning board recommendations.

So I want to give you a chance to respond to the app to the abutters and anything you want for now, and I will have some questions because I've heard public comment and and stuff from the abutters um that I want to ask you and others could.

You can come to the microphone if you want to talk to me.

Everything has to be heard and recorded.

I'm getting very old.

So I know.

No, I I know, I know.

But my point is we're not finishing the hearing now.

I want to give you a chance because you've been you're anxious to respond to these things.

I want to give you and Mrs.

R and whoever to respond to anything you've heard.

Okay, Mr.

President, members of the commission.

I give you kudos for your patience and your tolerance.

I really do.

I could not have this patience and tolerance.

I I don't have this patience that you have.

Many of the comments you heard today were not relevant at all to master plan approval.

The report that you just heard from the so-called expert.

And his recommendations are almost exclusively relative to preliminary plan matters.

And if they want to hire an engineer and challenge to pre-engineering's work, they're entitled to do that during the process.

This process is far from over, as you know.

The comment about accessing at Lippet Avenue.

This is the problem with people just looking at a map without going on site.

Do you have a major wetlands crossing if you try to go in that direction?

That's why Lipet Avenue was taken off.

You cannot do it.

It would take years and it would be extremely expensive to accommodate that.

So that's that's the answer on Lipid Av.

And to in an effort to move this along, I will complete my comments at that point.

Um I go through some of the questions I have to ask you, because I need to ask you some questions based on what I heard of public comment.

So this is a question for the applicant, could be Mrs.

R, could be Mr.

Moses, could be the engineers.

First public comment I heard was something about there is an OTWS on the on the record for the property where there's road A.

Could somebody address A if that's true?

B is that relevant?

If it's not relevant, why it's not relevant.

Evening, Mr.

President.

My name is Blendy Bradley, principal with the Green Engineering, um, professional engineer, uh responsible of this project.

In my opinion, it it is irrelevant as when we our plan right now is we'd like to hook the development or connect the development to public sewer.

So in that case, um my recommendation would we would be that we connect that home to the public sewer.

If we don't connect with public sewer um my recommendation would be that we relocate that approved OWTS to be on off the the proposed right away.

So it'd be a new design new permit um that would be done.

So it it does it's not something that troubles me present can I just hop in because that same that same commenter uh asserted that there's no accurate boundary survey done can you address that please yes so uh we did an extensive review of the deeds um and the dimensions that we've shown of the plan are per the deeds for that property um a boundary survey will be done as we move forward that typically state law requires that come after master plan so we will do that and we'll you know at that time we'll locate uh the abutting homes to make sure there's no encroachments um we'll establish the accurate location of the of the property lines and our design will sit within what my client has uh agreed to purchase for access so that raises a question in my mind you're asking for a waiver of the 50 foot right of way you're sure it's 47.4 feet because that's what our deed states okay and and and I'm not a registered land surveyor I have one on my my team and if that parcel was cut out that possible has senior rights or so they get the 40 seconds okay so you're you're going by a meets and bounds description in the D and that's all that exists these these parcels were created before the subdivision control or required plans as opposed to I understand thank you thank you.

And by the way for any of my colleagues I know I'm being like the grand inquisitor here asking all the questions but if anybody wants to ask a question just interrupt don't worry about it okay um just so I heard this correctly the boundary survey is done by state because of state law says boundary surveys are done after master plan correct okay yeah you know the the way the and and I don't want to if I don't want to belabor this but the process is set up with master plan um so that most of the engineering surveying is done as part of the preliminary preliminary plan phase so it's it's set up specifically so that you know the density can be established the overall zoning use can be established the vesting can be established all the hard details come once that vesting is established and if for some reason something changes and it doesn't work then we're back to the drawing board with coming back for a different master plan.

Okay next question was brought forward by the second public commenter now usually what I do is I usually go listen to public comment again and then formulate my question but I'm just trying to do this to make it more expedited.

There was a question raised about the blue line which is a drainage system that runs close to road A.

Yes and that I believe the represent the opinion expressed that does not show in the plan and essentially it has not been considered in the plan that you've submitted could you address to me how you've considered the little blue line or has he had it a big blue thing um how is that addressed in the stormwater uh analysis and the planning analysis that you're doing for master plan great question this is something that has come up our environmental scientists our our wetlands scientist has looked at that uh it is not a biological wetland it's a drainage channel and when we submit this plan to DEM um we will take that in consideration so if there's a drainage channel there and the water runs from that wetland pocket where open space B is south we will continue to let the water run that way we'll put a culvert under the road and we'll let it keep moving as part and we haven't done our stormwater analysis yet that is something that we still need to do that's part of preliminary and we'll look closely at the we'll actually analyze it to see how much water can flow out how much water you know will flow out during a hundred year storm and we'll size a culvert um appropriately and what my experience with the state GIS is that it's it's a guideline it is basically an indicator and really you have to rely on the scientists being out on the field looking at the soil conditions looking at the vegetative conditions and that when we did that and that channel does not

We'll actually analyze it to see how much water can flow out, how much water you know will flow out during a hundred year storm, and we'll size a culvert appropriately.

And what my experience with the state GIS is that it's it's a guideline, it is basically an indicator, and really you have to rely on the scientists being out on the field looking at the soil conditions, looking at the vegetative conditions, and that when we did that, and that channel does not qualify as a wetland.

It's more than like they're an area subject to storm flow, and under DEM's record regulations, they recognize it, but we have the right to move it to relocate it, to cover it, but it has to be reviewed by DEM, which they will do.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Lamfree, you were looking at me.

Yes, thank you.

Um, had you considered asking DEM for a preliminary determination so that you know for sure that that's not that particular one is is area subject to storm flow, which is not considered a wetland.

So that's part of the preliminary process.

We submit an application to DEM to review it.

That comes after master plan.

So for instance, let's say I'm wrong, my team's wrong, and they take jurisdiction on that, then I can make an application to DM to fill it in to relocate it, or DM could say no, and then we're back like I said before, we're back to the drawing board revising the master plan.

So we would be making a decision about master plan that vests you with rights before we know the nature of that particular area.

You're investing us with a with a number of lots and density, not the rights to fill in a wetland.

That lies 100% with DEM.

So again, if if if we're wrong, if my team is wrong, which I we've been doing this a long time, I don't believe we are.

Um we will redesign around it.

Thank you.

And when you said an environmental engineer, we'll look at it.

So environmental scientists, a wetland scientist.

I'm sorry, whatever.

Yeah, if I'm not saying the term correctly, feel free to correct me.

Um is that someone that you hire, is it someone with DEM?

So someone that works for me.

So in the state of Rhode Island, the only authority on wetlands, the ultimate authority is DEM.

Okay.

My team can flag wetlands, but the ultimate responsibility for verifying them and agreeing with them is DEM.

And it's it's customary as we submit applications that they will go out and look at the wetlands and they'll ask me to move this flag 10 feet this way, five feet that way.

Um we'll do that.

And if it if it impacts our design, we modify design.

So the only authority in the state is DEM.

It's not me, it's not my biologists, it's none of the it's not even the city, it's only DEM.

Okay.

Because there's a driveway right next to it.

There's some issue with the visibility of getting out of the road and and in and out of the road from road A.

Is uh do you have any comment on that?

Um, that, yeah.

When we again, this is this is a conceptual plan, it's a master plan.

Uh when we get into the actual roadway design, looking at the grades, you know, the curb returns.

We'll look at the we'll look at the stuff, the what I will call the stopping site distance and the corner site distance at that intersection and make sure it complies with the city's road design standards.

In fact, the matter, DOT's road design standards.

Um, you know, if there is a driveway in close proximity, there are design standards that DOT has with regards to what the separation should be between the edge of pavement of the road and the driveway.

And uh DO D DOT may have changed the regulations since I've looked at this last, but typically it was like a 20-foot offset.

Uh where our pavement is, I want to say 24 feet in width, and we have a 47-foot right away.

There's grass shoulders on either side.

So we'll look at that as we as we design the road.

And if for some reason it's too close, we can shift the pavement within the right of way away from it more if we have to.

This is probably not a question for you, but I have to still ask it.

The fifth commenter started talking about Indian burial grounds on this land.

Has that issue been examined?

How has it been addressed?

Yes, we actually submitted this project to uh Rhode Island Historic Preservation Society.

The only concern they had is there's an old home uh on the property, which is within the open space that they had concerns for preservation.

Indian burial grounds did not come up in their response back to us at all.

Let's refresh my recollection.

I read about that old home that they were concerned about.

How are you dealing with that?

Or are you just it's just too forgone to care about?

I just don't remember what the thing was in paperwork.

It's it's not habitable.

That's what I recall.

And I think if you tried to relocate it, it probably would fall down.

Right.

But I know we don't want it to be a safety issue as well.

So that's something I think we got to look at closer as we move to the next step.

Like if it is a safety issue, and it's too.

Rhode Island Historic Preservation likes to save these these dwellings, which I agree with, but if it becomes a safety hazard, and you know, if you have kids that if you have a neighborhood here and kids go in there and play, you don't want anyone getting hurt.

So it may be something ultimately has to come down, or if someone wants to remove it from the site and relocate it, I've seen that done before too.

Another commentary uh commenter uh talked about the turning radius for road A.

I assume that your answer to that would be the same thing about sites and uh what you look at it as you develop the traffic now, the road analysis, right?

Yeah, we'll we'll comply with the town, the city's road design standards and uh DOT ash to design standards for roadways of this this standard, this magnitude, but we will comply with the the city's design regulations.

The um there was an issue brought up about the preservation of open space with by a homeowners association.

Um there uh again, this may not be a question for you, it could be for someone else.

Um have you looked at any other looked at the plus and minuses of having open space preserved by a homeowners association versus by some other approach?

Yeah, my my experience, and you know, I welcome uh counsel to correct me if I'm wrong, but typically as a homeowner's association, if we put a conservation easement on the on that open space, that conservation easement will be held by someone else, some type of uh I guess I said it wrong, so I'm getting kicked off.

Uh Tanessa Azar, just to clarify, there are specific requirements in the zoning ordinance as it pertains to uh protecting the open space.

It specifically says that um the open space be protected against building development and environmental damage.

It gives the city an open space easement.

Um, so there's specific requirements that would have to be followed based on the regulations.

And like we said, the homeowners association is involved in in it, and also there's a right for the city if for some reason there's a failure, the the city could step in and then could um charge the costs to the applicant and things of that nature.

So it is it is thought out.

Um, and I believe there's also language in there about if there's any changes to the open space, certain things come back to the city for approval.

There are guidelines within the RPD for this open space.

Okay.

Um you're an engineer, so I can ask you about blasting, right?

Yes.

Okay.

I just want to understand.

Um I've heard public comment about the shaking that goes on over there.

Before you would make a determination of whether doing a mechanical hammering approach or a blasting approach, what goes into the process of deciding what you do and what you don't do for a particular location?

That's an excellent question.

So let me maybe talk about what our next steps would be, assuming we get an approval to move forward.

Um we have to do, and it's been talked about, it's been called a geotechnical report.

That's not really the correct term, but we're gonna do soil explorations.

We're gonna map the soil types, the water table, the ledge.

Uh, if you want to call it a geotechnical report, that's fine, but that's technically that's not the exact term.

That's gonna give us a profile where our where the ledge is.

And when we design our roads, we take that in consideration.

Um, I'm hoping that you know, or in our design, you know, water's gonna be down, water main's gonna be down at least with five feet of cover.

So um ideally we can design our road profiles, our roadways to stay out of the ledge with our utilities.

And if there is blasting that happens, and I think your point was excellent before, where you have a choice of hammering it, which could take months, or blasting it, which could take weeks.

With regards to plasting, um, the blasting that they when they do blasting, they can control the impact of the blast.

And you know, I think years ago, there were probably a lot of cowboy blasters that would use too much powder.

A lot of the blasts that are done are smaller blasts, more controlled.

Um so once we have more information on where the ledge actually is, and we start moving forward with our design, we'll know the impacts more of ledge.

Um if we feel it's a big issue, we'll bring our we'll bring a blasting expert with us that can provide testimony what the best way to handle that would be.

A couple of last questions from me.

Um, I saw I saw the picture's not up of the proposal, but as I heard from the applicant that they would be considering building these, building this in phases.

Yes.

Okay.

So from an engineering perspective, where would the phasing would be would it be like you would start on road A and work your way out versus starting where Vaughn Lane is and working that way?

Um, if if you maybe you can go to the overall plan, Jonas.

So, you know, my if my expectation that if we were to do, let's say phase one, and and this type of development's going to take five plus years to build out.

You know, what I see, and I think it was discussed earlier that typically seven to ten homes a year are built.

Um, so what I would expect um is that you know, phase one would be road A up to and possibly past the uh Providence Water Easement and possibly the the cul-de-sac, and I don't have my I'm sorry, I don't have my glasses on, but I want to say road B is the cul-de-sac to the left.

Right.

Um, so we we typically try to do it in pockets so that you know when we're building the roadway, it makes economic sense from a from uh you know, a cost of how much road you're building and what we turn over to the city, because obviously we'd have to do final plan approvals on each on each stage for the roadway acceptance.

Um we'd want to look at construction traffic as well, because you know, one of the things I'm always sensitive to is that you don't have you don't have a lot of construction traffic going by existing homes.

So let's say the three homes on road A uh closest to Main Street, maybe those don't don't get built right away, so you don't have a construction traffic going by home.

So those are things that we figure out, but I would say, you know, road A would be first with road B.

And I I would almost envision the very last.

Um, yeah, I can't read that either, unfortunately.

Sorry.

Um the very last road we would build would be the northerly road.

Um but we would work with the city to to you know, we would propose a phasing sequence at preliminary plan, saying this is how we'd want to build it, and we welcome comment and feedback from the city and the public.

Two last questions.

One's for you, one's gonna be for the attorney.

Um an engineering perspective, why is it necessary to have a secondary access road?

Great question.

I've been dying to answer that.

Um your regulations require basically the maximum length of roadway, dead end road.

So one way in would only mean that we maybe get a thousand feet, and that's it.

So we want to loop back on ourselves.

So what we decided here, and it's a specific design where we have multiple loops, but we have that emergency connection to Vaughan, which is a public right away.

Um, I know when we were out there on site walk last summer, we talked a lot about it.

So we really need it to comply with the city's own regulations.

Um we could ask for a waiver.

Yep.

Um, and what I would do, I know there was talk of there'd be less impervious.

I don't agree with that because what would happen is where the last house is before the existing Vaughan Lane, I'd end up putting a cul-de-sac there, which is just gonna be more pavement, and I there wouldn't be a physical connection.

There'd be a uh uh legal boundary connection.

We just want to make the physical connection, so it wouldn't really change the layout, but it would end up with one way in and one way out, which as an engineer I would not prefer to do that.

I prefer to have it at least an emergency connection.

So you talked about the reg.

This is still part of the first question.

So you out you mentioned the regulations we have cul de sac lengths and stuff like that.

Um you could ask for a waiver.

Um, I know waivers have been granted in other situations.

So from but from uh put those regulations aside because you could ask for waiver, just like you're asking for a waiver on the width of the road going in on road A.

What is there anything else that is important to have a secondary access road?

Is it something like a public safety?

Is it something that's I would solicit feedback from your fire and police chief as well?

They typically they're the two entities that have the most concern because it has to do with response time.

In my opinion, the response time, whether it's through Vaughn or Road A, I think they would probably prefer road A, yeah, uh, just because the geometry of Vaughan that was raised earlier.

Um, the other option, and and they may hit me for this.

Um, but Winnie, I in my professional opinion, is still a public right away.

It may not be a city right away.

You're an engineer giving a legal opinion, right?

No, this isn't this is this is a surveying engineering opinion.

That's a right of way that was created hundreds hundreds years ago, and it was it was not created through a typical process.

And the issue is that trying to, and my client, my the project attorney can speak to this.

We tried to run title on it, but it is so old they can't find they can't find who legally owns it, but it is a right of way that exists that in my opinion, my client has the rights to.

Um, this would be by the way.

Did anyone else have any questions at this point?

Okay, I just have to raise one thing.

As far as winning goes, who pays taxes on that property?

I don't think anyone does.

You pay it for the property that abuts it, not Winnie itself.

Okay, so the yeah, but at least probably identified okay, Director Kerr.

Um, so that so we can have this for the recording.

That director Carrero said who pays taxes, and a couple of members of the audience stood up and rose their hand and said, I did.

And so that was the dispute that is that you just witnessed here on video.

Okay, thank you.

Um go ahead, solicitor.

Wow.

That just reminded me.

Um, did you ask for public comment for people on?

You know something?

I appreciate that.

I forgot about that.

That's why you get paid.

That's why you get paid.

This is you got to have more than one lawyer in a room to keep you from malpractice.

I'm gonna screw it up.

Mr.

Lima, I'll ask one more question at the end, but I want to do public comment for online.

Thank you, sir.

Is there anyone here who would like to make public comment on the uh Vaughn Lane project?

There is no public comment online.

You saved me, you saved us on appeal, but once again, thank you.

All right.

Um it's about five of ten.

My last question is really directed to the attorneys.

Um I know the objection has been noted about this report, but I would like something in writing from you in regards to whether or not you object to the conditions listed on the last two pages.

If you object, don't object to what it is, so that when if I we make a decision on this, we know what object what conditions you object to and which conditions you accept.

Is that do you understand the question?

Yes, I completely understand the question.

Um, I would submit to you, Mr.

President, that the conditions that are suggested by the planner are all matters that are addressed in preliminary plan.

We will be addressing those in preliminary plan.

So I don't I don't know what's are you planning on not deciding tonight?

That's correct.

That's my plan.

I'll see what five people do.

My opinion, I'm just gonna so you let me finish my point and then discuss it.

The conditions would be put in place, would be conditions that we would have to, we would expect to see in the preliminary plan stage.

Do you understand?

Like preliminary plan has to no no, you're you're missing my point.

Okay.

My point is the issues that have been raised by the planner are issues that are addressed at preliminary plan.

That your staff, yeah, your engineers in the city, yeah, the engineers at DEM, yeah, and others will evaluate, and we will be working in that for quite a period of time, and a lot of money has to be spent to accommodate that.

Okay, not master plan issues.

I understand they're not master plan issues.

I'm asking, I'm at sometimes at master plan stage, you put conditions saying I need this addressed at preliminary plan stage.

Correct?

Yes.

Okay, so that's what I'm asking.

So these things are I'm asking whether or not you object.

But I've said they will be addressed the preliminary plan.

And so then you shouldn't have then you should then you shouldn't then you shouldn't have an objection to these conditions, then it sounds like some of them might do because the right standard that's why I'm asking that you simply would prefer, yes.

We've been here now.

This is the third time we've been here.

You don't know that, right?

I keep count, yes.

I'm I'm I'm the one who sits here, and that's right.

Okay, just checking.

No, so this is what there is a public process, and I appreciate that you want a complete and accurate record.

Correct.

Okay, because this is probably this could end up going to court, as you know, Mr.

Moses.

I do know that.

Right.

I do know that.

I anticipate that actually.

Okay, so because I anticipate that too, I'd like to just have this in writing from you indicating what conditions you accept, which conditions you reject, and you can that's all I it's just helpful.

If you don't, you don't have to, obviously.

Okay, all right.

So my colleagues.

Do you have any other questions at this point?

Okay, it is five of ten.

I don't know where Mr.

Murray is.

Okay.

We need to get the Mr.

Murray.

Number one, in his zoning board recommendations.

Number two.

I have received a lot, I'll speak for myself.

I've received a lot of information.

I would like to have before I make a decision, I need to review this thoroughly, think about it, and decide how I want to address this.

So for me, unless a majority of you want to proceed forward, I'd prefer to continue this to the next meeting we have.

And at that point, we can discuss, and hopefully, by that point, the applicant will provide something in writing as to what conditions he agrees to or disagrees to if he wants to.

And that was just my opinion.

I know some people want to get this done right now, but I like to get things done because the decisions we make have lasting impacts.

I like to think about it, make sure I've crossed my T's and dot my I's and thought this through.

And that's why I'd like to have I don't like making a decision.

It's one thing to make a zoning board recommendation right off the cuff, but this is a thing that will affect this community for potentially years to come.

So I just want to have some more time and we can make a decision next week or in June, however, people want to deal with it.

So I just want to throw that out there and see what everyone else has to say.

Mr.

Mr.

Seipall wants to say something to me.

I want to ask a question.

Can we make sure we're on the same page as to what the decision deadline is?

The decision deadline, I believe, is June 17th.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any people have anything to say?

Commissioner Coop.

Uh, Mr.

President, quick question.

Um I was not aware of the special meeting that next week that you discussed.

Is there anything else on the agenda for that meeting?

The only thing we did was we continue this thing for a continuance till May 12th, which I I didn't want to, but they told me that they already posted in the newspaper for May 12th.

And I don't I don't know if you know, I you know, for me, I could go with like I could wait till June for this, you know, personally, you know, but that's go ahead.

Solicitor, you have something you want to add?

Yeah, I was I maybe I didn't remember the May 12th meeting.

Yeah, what what it was is that we had this um in the event this was going on for long, yeah, and we couldn't get it done, we were gonna do it on May 12th.

So that was a tentative date that we set up, but we don't have to do that for May 12th.

We can do this in June.

So that's another possibility.

And I'm fine with going to June people.

I don't have a real desire to have a long meeting here on May 12th.

So I'm just throwing it out there what people want to do.

If five of you want to make a decision right now, go ahead.

I'm probably I'll probably dissent because I'm not ready to make a decision.

Commissioner Lampier.

I will just say that for myself.

I heard a lot of testimony tonight and comments tonight that I also need a little bit of time to digest.

Although I understand that we are at the master plan stage.

Oftentimes, if there is a motion to approve, there are also conditions.

And I don't think that it is in the best interest of either the applicant or members of the public that came here to very quickly try to put something together that may not cover the issues appropriately or be the right conditions that we might want to have.

So for that reason, I'm not prepared, and I would suggest that we continue this as well to either.

I believe we're on for May 12th.

And I would support that.

Yeah, I mean, if you guys want to go to just so I be clear, the May 12th meeting only has one thing on the agenda.

Okay.

So that could be a quick in and out.

And if it's just like a few of us, I don't I don't know if it's controversial.

But if we're gonna put this on May 12th, there's gonna be it's obviously this more controversial.

We want to have all the commissioners here.

So if we can either do May 12th or we can do it at the beginning of June, um it's up to you guys.

That's my own.

If you guys are willing to continue it, if if you guys want to make a decision tonight, like I said, majority of you do, then that's it.

Um yeah, I mean, if I can make a suggestion to continue it to the regular meeting.

Okay.

Um I don't know.

Well, I don't know if I can make it next week.

Not that you need me, but um also well, we got 48 hours for advertising, and uh, but it that's up to you.

I I'm I'm better with doing this in June, to be honest with you, Steve.

Solicitor.

So I do a motion to continue to June.

May I just ask where we will leave public comment open?

Yes, we're leaving public comment open.

Yes, we're leaving public comment open, Mr.

Mosa.

Okay, all right, okay, because that's all you're getting ready.

I need I need comment from you as to the conditions if you want to get yes, that's thank you.

All right, we anything else.

Did you make Commissioner Lampier?

Did you make a motion continuous to June 2nd?

For in public, or did you ask a question?

I did, but I just didn't know it was June 2nd.

So I would um move that we can who seconded somebody second?

All right, Commissioner Lampier seconded.

It will be here.

Okay, is there any further discussion on the motion continues to June 2nd?

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

All those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it.

Thank you very much.

Well, see you next month.

I think so.

I don't know, Jonas.

I think Beth and I went back and forth.

I think maybe complain may be the bigger the only thing is that continuance thing.

We may deal with it on the most book.

I let you guys prepare.

We're gonna be doing zoning now.

So if I mr.

Murray, please.

Yeah.

Well, I mean, we'll yeah, I mean if you want to do something May 12th, we can do it.

If there's something else on the agenda, if all it is is that, then it's probably like five of us have to show up.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Thank you.

Thank you.

See you again soon.

Okay.

Are we ready to proceed to zoning?

Mr.

Murray has stuck through.

I wanted to get taken care of this earlier, Mr.

Murray, but Mr.

Moses, as you know, was very anxious to get this going.

So uh we will now proceed to zoning board recommendations.

First on the agenda is Mark Spirito in Khaleesi Development at 30 Pon M Street.

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

Perhaps you should let the staff present their findings.

I'm not sure.

I have I've read the report.

I know the recommendation.

I'll uh Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

Ray, please proceed.

They are factually correct.

So I'm I disagree with the conclusion, but factually correct, just good.

Then we don't have much to ask you about.

Thank you.

And I and I don't want to spend the next 45 minutes discussing density.

So I thought so.

Okay, let's go.

Mr.

Ray.

All right.

So uh the proposal is to leave an existing single family dwelling on an undersized lot with reduced setbacks, uh, which is previously merged by zoning and to construct two new single family dwellings on adjacent undersized lots, uh, also with reduced furnishes.

So as you can see, there's the two lots.

Um currently one of them is uh merged by zoning with these things, single family.

And they're asking for relief for minimum lot size, um, frontage and the merger provision.

So we reviewed this for compatibility um with the surrounding area, and um found that it was incompatible in terms of um what is built in the surrounding neighborhood.

Um found that the median lot size in the spectacular B1 zone is 4,500 square feet, and the subject lots are smaller than that.

Um, although this is true, um in this image, you can see that the neighborhood was originally platted with 3,200 square foot lots, um, especially in this area on um Almond Street.

They are all uniformly that size, and there are examples of single family houses that are built on these lots, and that that does represent the historic character of the neighborhood.

And uh also staff also conducted a lot size and density analysis, finding that the density which is proposed is higher than the future land use map density of the zone, which is 10.89 units per acre.

In addition to this, there's been uh flooding concerns in this neighborhood, but um that doesn't apply to this street, which is at a much higher elevation.

And we also found that um we found that the following goals, policies, and action items actually support the approval of this application, including policy LU 12, goal H2, policy H3, and policy H9.

So to conclude, um, we found that the application is consistent with the goals and policies of comprehensive plan, but determined that it is not compatible with the general character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Finding that um we'd like to give a negative recommendation on this application.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Any questions for Mr.

Ray?

Okay.

Uh is there anyone here like to make public comment on this application?

Seeing none, Mr.

Leemer.

Is there anyone online that'd like to make public comment on this application?

There is no public combo online.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone have any questions for the applicant or Mr.

Ray?

Okay.

Um obviously, I just want to say I agree with the staff recommendation here.

Um basically on multiple levels.

The density of this proposed development is 13.61.

The flum is 10.89.

The existing density of neighborhood is 9.66.

It's clearly above 3200 square feet is really small.

Um, I think it's problematic.

You can see from the plan that they're gonna have like the driveway in front of the house, kind of like right in front of the house, look to me out of character with the area that I saw when I went there in general, and therefore I will support the negative recommendation and can and include in it citation to goals LU-6 L U-18, which is about stabilize and preserve the uh the neighborhood and maintain the existing density of neighborhood.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Anyone else has anything to say before we do motions?

I I would like to just add a couple of things.

I do respect the density, but I don't always go by it.

I know that.

Right.

And I am all about development, but in this case, based on what I've seen with these, the 3200 square foot lots are very small.

I think there are other options that could have been available to these properties to make it more compatible with the area.

Um, I don't know the developers how they want to do it, but with the given options that are there that they could have chosen, I think this is just a little over intensive use of the property that's remaining there.

So I would not vote in favor of this.

Yes, and I I would just say, Mr.

Director Carrero, if this was one more house, I wouldn't have a problem.

It gets to two houses at 3200 square feet.

I think it just goes too far.

That's the way I kind of look at it.

Anything else from anyone else, Commissioner Lampier?

Are you want to say okay, Commissioner Lampier would like to make a motion?

Um I actually have different wording uh proposed, which I can make available.

Okay.

Um, I would move that the commission forward a negative recommendation to the zoning board based on the following.

The application is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan because the density of the parcels, if approved, would be 13.61 units per acre, well in excess of the density of 10.89 units per acre required by the comprehensive plans future land use map.

Two, the application is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances because the size of the resulting lots is 3200 square feet, where 6,000 square feet is required by ordinance, and the existing median lot size of spec of the spectacle pond neighborhood is 4,500 square feet, making the application inconsistent with the general character of the neighborhood.

Number three, the application is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, land use goal six and land use policy 12 to protect and stabilize existing residential neighborhoods because it lessens open space by increasing density beyond what is allowed by the flume, does not improve roadway conditions and does not conform to existing uses, meaning the median lot size of 4,500 square feet.

Okay.

Commissioner Lampier's motion.

All right, is there any further discussion?

This is for your notes, Mr.

Ray.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

All those in favor of the motion for a negative recommendation as amended, signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Okay.

Next is the Gary Fletch and on zero Fletcher Ave.

Mr.

Ray, are you presenting?

Okay.

Let me ask Mr.

Murray, he's the applicant.

Would you like to say anything at this hour?

I support the staff recommendation.

Okay.

Mr.

Reich.

All right.

So this is an application to utilize a vacant residential lot with restricted frontage for motor vehicle storage.

So this is in the uh Thornton neighborhood.

So they're asking for a minimal relief for the um frontage, uh, which is just two feet of relief for that, and um a use variance.

Um motor vehicle storage is actually not permitted in any zoning districts in the city.

Um, so you would need that for any zone.

So staff reviewed this application in consideration with the compatibility of general characters in our neighborhood.

Um, so the application the applicant owns a nearby business named Fletcher Autobody, and the proposed use of motor vehicle storage likely connected to operation of this business.

And um, the subject law is currently being used to store vehicles as a driveway, which is a less intensive use than what is proposed.

Um, like I said, the motor vehicle storage use is not allowed in any zone.

However, it used to be allowed by special use permit in industrial zones, and the subject property is directly across from an M1 zone.

Um, there are also commercially zoned properties in close proximity.

In addition, this neighborhood is small and surrounded by non-residential zones.

So a portion of this law is within the special flood hazard area and will be subject to the requirements in our code.

However, most of the law is above the base flood elevation and the location of vehicle storage on this side of the street, above the flood zone is preferable to locations within the industrial flood zone.

So also, in addition to that, um the subject lot is currently paved with gravel, um, which is considered an impervious surface, um, which led us to believe that a stormwater management plan must be developed to manage stormwater impacts.

So we found that the following goals, policies, and action items outline the comprehensive plan, uh support the approval of this application, goal ED1, policy ED 16, policy LA7, and policy NR14.

And with that, uh, we'd like to give a positive recommendation with the following recommended conditions of approval, which are that a stormwater management plan um be submitted and that a landscaping plan be submitted.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Is there any questions from Mr.

Ray?

Uh Mr.

Ray, just so I understand the current the proposed use is more intensive than the current use, right?

Yes.

Okay, what are they putting up there?

Are they putting a uh a um they're putting a structure to store vehicles?

Is that what they're doing?

No.

What are they doing exactly that makes it more intensive?

Um I I think uh what I was trying to say is that like its current allowed use is like as a driveway, like a residential driveway.

Oh, I see, I see and what's being proposed is like a formal formal formal recognizes them use.

Okay, all right, Mr.

Cooper?

Essentially a parking lot.

Uh yeah, I guess yeah.

Okay, good solicitor, before we get to Mr.

Murray.

It's not a parking lot, it's vehicle storage, which is different under the use code of you know, obviously, because that goes to one.

Do they still park the school buses down on Fletcher Avenue?

Yes.

Oh, after the flood, I don't know.

Yes, and when when it's gonna flood, they move them all up to Western Hills.

Yeah.

All right, interesting.

Mr.

Murray, you have something you wanted to say?

Yeah, just to clarify that.

Um Jamie, can we go to the site plan or the uh the aerial or radius as well?

The um Gary Fletcher LLC um owns the property at 21 Garrison Street.

So this is an L-shaped lot, and um the there is a small shed, Garrison Street's at the bottom of the map there.

So the single family house is uh there's a small shed that encroaches slightly on this lot, so um the intent was just to use the lot that fronts on Fletcher Avenue for motor vehicle storage.

Uh that removed the net to remove the uh the shed, but as the chairman may recall, motor vehicle storage is not allowed in any zone now where at one point there were certain zones it was allowed in as a special use.

Um that representing that this particular zone was one of them, but right now there are no zones in the city where you can have motor vehicle storage, and that's why we're kept get a variance from the zoning board.

Um, Mr.

Murray, on a question about this is from the residents around there.

The rest look from a residential perspective, the neighbors around it.

By granting this, what change happens to the property?

Is it just gonna be a bunch of cars like in the if the zoning board approves this, uh there will be a permanent fence installed?

Okay, will be landscaping as you suggested by the the recommendation.

Um full disclosure.

Uh my client is utilizing the property right now.

This is not virgin land that is just sitting there.

There is some uh storage going on there, and uh you know I anticipate perhaps one of the abutters may come to the zoning board meeting, but you know, we'll we'll attempt to satisfy them with appropriate stockade fencing or whatever fencing they want.

Okay, all right.

Any other questions for Mr.

Murray, the staff?

All right, Commissioner Lampier.

This this isn't a variance, it's a change of use, correct?

Uh it's a request for use variance from the zoning board.

Yeah, because motor vehicle storage is not allowed anywhere in the city, and it presently is not allowed in the B1 zone.

So we either so we're not looking.

We're not proposing to go to the city council to rezone this parcel.

We're asking the zoning board to grant a use service, which is which is valid in perpetuity for this for that particular use.

For that particular property, no, for that particular use for that use by granting a use variance for a motor vehicle storage does mean they're granting a use variance for a burger king for a different use.

Just got it.

Storage that particular use that we're looking to utilize this parcel.

And motor vehicle storage, is it defined?

Yes, you know, zoning code.

I believe it is.

Yes, so in member in our one of our acts of defiance, we made everything, and um, I believe Task Afford came to us at one point for motor vehicle.

Um either storage or use or repair for um the industrial park, but other than that, we really haven't had anything since.

However, ms Mr.

Murray was right in the fact we never did get to coming up with specific and objective criteria and putting special uses back into the code, right?

Um, but I mean that's up to the zoning board.

You know, you guys I I just think remember the good president was sitting right there.

Oh, I remember, and he said, Don't worry about it.

You can go to the don't worry, we don't need standards.

You go to the zoning board for very yeah, just go get it one over there.

Yes, I thought it was very insightful that evening.

Yes, um the we're not looking to do automotive repair, servicing of vehicles strictly for surface parking.

Okay.

Are there any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Anyone in the audience would like to make public comment, Mr.

Lemers, anyone at home would like make public comment?

There is no public comment online.

Oh, that person went away.

Okay.

Um, all right.

Any further questions?

All right.

I usually vote no on use variances, as people may remember.

Um, I have exceptions, and one exception is if the use is already there being used, I will usually grant a use variance as long as the use is consistent with the how it's being used right now.

Because if that's what it is, so I'm I'm in leaning towards yes.

All right, is there any other questions or comments?

Otherwise, a motion.

Oh, you want to say something, Solicit?

No, no, no, we need a motion.

We in motion.

Commissioner Coop makes the motion seconded by Commissioner Barberi.

Any further discussion?

All is in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All is opposed to say nay.

One no vote on Commissioner Lampier.

It was a close one, Commissioner Lampier.

It was a close one for me.

Okay.

The planning director is not here, as we all know, unfortunately.

Uh, we wish her all the best.

Uh so when she comes back, you know, feel free to contact her and give and she can give you any updates on stuff.

Otherwise, we'll be adjourning now to our May 12th vote taken.

Right, that's right.

About the May 12th meeting.

We have a special meeting at the library because of this continuance, because it was noticed in the newspaper.

So this is the I think the only thing on the agenda, unless the director comes back and says she wants to do something on the comprehensive plan.

But I think you'll know that obviously before we get to the meeting.

So I don't anticipate any votes being taken on the comprehensive plan at that time either.

I think it's going to be mostly discussion for us, but uh I haven't spoken to the director, obviously, about it.

But there's one continuance that we continued and potentially comprehensive plans.

That's May 12th.

And those of you can make it can make it.

So can I have a vote to schedule um a meeting for May 12th?

Move by Commissioner Coop.

Seconded by Dr.

Carrero.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

I have it.

Now can I have a motion to adjourn?

Unless somebody wants to talk about something.

Move by Commissioner Coop, second by Commissioner Mancini.

Any discussion on the adjournment motion?

Hearing none, all those in favor signify saying aye.

All the supposed say nay.

I have it.

Thank you.

I'll see you soon.