The meeting is at six thirty-five.

I'll be calling this meeting to order.

I'm not seated in my usual location.

Due to uh a cold.

And um but I asked my colleagues that if uh if you want to speak and I can't see you, especially people on my left hand side here, please raise your hand, make a noise.

Um I'm just doing this for basically everyone's benefit to be over here.

Okay.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Next minutes of May 12th, 2026.

Are there any edits to those minutes?

Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve those minutes?

Made by Commissioner Lampier.

Seconded by Commissioner Callasante.

Any discussion?

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Commissioner Exeter, you were abstaining on that vote, correct?

That is correct.

I was not at that meeting.

Okay, thank you.

Next, we have Champlain Heights.

Please proceed.

Good evening, Dave Tagley and Eddie with the copianotto group.

If you want to have any discussion on this first, or you just want me to proceed?

All right, so um we were here in front of you last year for a an extension to give you a an update as to where we're at with this project.

We have recently over the last couple of months, uh, entered into discussions with a national developer to either joint venture with us on this project or perhaps even uh purchase this land and develop it themselves.

Um we've recently been working with a company called uh post-road residential on our Avon project.

We just recently entered into a purchase and sales slash joint venture agreement with this company.

It's going well.

Um, we're doing a similar uh joint venture sale agreement in Plymouth Mass with a company called HYM.

So we feel that you know we've we've had a couple of these projects, joint venture and and sale agreements where uh we're working hand in hand uh with these national companies.

They bring a little different approach to uh to making the economics work behind these residential developments, so we feel confident that within the next you know, probably six months, you know, we have something to move forward with okay for both phase two and also for phase one.

Okay, so phase two is 152 units, phase one is 90.

The company that we're working with, this sweet spot is about 250 units.

This totals 242 total units.

Okay, so they just completed a project in Warwick, Rhode Island, which is 90 percent leased.

So they are aggressively looking for their second opportunity in in Rhode Island.

Okay, thank you.

Could you just I forgot to mention this?

Could you state your name and address for the record, sir?

Sure, it's uh David Taglionetti Combinado Group, 1414 at what have Johnston, Rhode Island.

Thank you, sir.

Uh is the staff have anything to add to this.

You can just say no.

Uh, not really, besides that we recommend that it gets continued.

Okay, all right.

Is uh any discussion if there's no discussion from the uh or questions from the commissioners?

Um motion for an extension for Champlain uh project would be in order made by Commissioner Coop, seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Ayes have it.

Anyone posed?

None passes.

Congratulations.

See you next time.

Legion bowl.

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

Uh for the record.

Um, I have to recuse myself as um he is my client.

Okay, Mr.

Marcella's recusing himself on this matter.

Uh good evening, Marshal D'Ambrosio, 661 Park Avenue, Cranson.

Asking here for the um permission to have the master plan ordinance extended for an additional two years.

Okay, is there any questions from Mr.

DM D'Ambrosia?

Okay, Mr.

Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you, Mr.

Lima.

Could you please give us an update on where things stand?

There are people inquiring on the property.

You have to understand the last four years, the financial markets have been basically frozen and they appear to be loosening up.

You have a new fed chair, you have a different direction with monetary policy coming out of Washington.

That's gonna free up capital.

And people sense this, they are inquiring.

Has anybody pulled a trigger yet?

No, but people are inquiring about the property.

So I'm very optimistic.

Any other further questions for the applicant?

Staff, do you have any uh position you'd like to take on this extension?

Uh none beyond we recommend uh approval of the extension.

Okay.

All right, if there's nothing else, motion for extension to Legion Bowl would be in order at this time.

Second, uh made by Commissioner Coop, seconded by Commissioner Mancini.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

I was supposed to say nay, eyes have it.

Thank you.

Next order of business is KG Amore venue.

Uh this was a technical glitch on our part, but the staff did not post it correctly to notice for your preliminary plan.

Um could you just state your name and address for the record?

Hi, my name is Gathering Gomez.

Uh Dang 16 Park Avenue.

Okay.

Did anybody come up with any other questions for the applicant since last month?

Okay.

I would assume the staff has a uh what's the staff's recommendations to grant approval of this preliminary plan?

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Anyone have any questions?

Okay, seeing none, uh, motion for approval, preliminary plan would be in order at this time.

Made by Commissioner Coop.

Motion second by Commissioner Mancini.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All is opposed to say nay.

Ayes have it.

Um congratulations.

You're all set this time for sure.

Just for the record, I did not vote on that one.

I was not at that meeting.

Commissioner Exter is abstaining on that vote.

Okay.

All right.

Ms.

Von Lane.

Uh we received um materials from the applicant.

Um since last meeting.

So I think Solicitor Marcella would be appropriate at this time for me first to ask the commissioners if they have any follow-up questions for the applicant and then open it up for public comment.

Correct.

Okay.

Are there any follow-up questions for the applicant?

Would the applicant like to come forward just in case there's questions for you based on your submission?

Certainly.

Good evening.

Uh Tanessa Azar from Moses Ryan on behalf of the applicant.

Okay.

Any of my colleagues have some questions they would like to ask the applicant at this time with a focus on the applicant's uh response.

But of course, this is open to anything that has come up in the last month that they've thought of.

And just to clarify, our response was to the proposed conditions as requested uh at the last meeting.

Uh, and those are the proposed conditions in the abutters um experts report rather than the conditions that were in the staff report, just for the record.

That's correct.

Okay, anything.

Okay.

Uh one question I have for you is for condition number seven.

A response listed.

The last word on that response is furthermore.

I assume that's a typographical.

Did you want to say something to me?

Yes, no, I believe that was meant to be before the sentence prior.

Okay.

On this is really tick uh very technical, but on number six use of native species.

Your last sentence is although native species will likely be priority, uh although native native non-evation evasive species would likely be priority prioritized.

Um you're not leaving out the possibility that you're gonna bring a non-evasive species into your landscaping plan, right?

No, and and to the extent that there's any regulations about species that would be followed.

The goal is not to introduce you know invasive species.

Okay.

I just I thought that you could have simply said no, we're not bringing an evasive species.

You know, we're gonna just use native.

Commissioner President.

Uh just wanted to note that our regulations, um, the recent update we do require uh that native species are planted or landscaping regulations.

Certainly agree with that, then yeah.

The peer review of stormwater plans in your experience, Mrs.

Stormwater plans peer reviewed.

I'd actually like to have the engineer speak about uh the stormwater if you wouldn't mind.

No problem.

Good evening.

My name is Jenna Shea for the record.

I'm the project manager from Depreet Engineering.

Um the stormwater typically is reviewed when we submit to RIDE EM.

Um, but then some towns do choose if they don't have a town staffing engineer um to have it peer reviewed by a consultant.

Could you just repeat that one more thing?

If they don't have what they don't have in house, if a town or a city doesn't have their own in-house engineer that's capable of reviewing it, um, sometimes they'll they'll send it out to a peer reviewing consultant to another engineering company that will review it.

Um I do not see Mr.

Carrero here today.

Um is it your opinion that the city of Cranston has an in-house engineer that can handle stormwater reviews of the of the type of project that you're proposing?

I do believe so.

I personally haven't had a peer review um done by an outside consultant in Cranston.

Um, but I I believe that's to the jurisdiction of the board.

Okay.

I just had like she said, DEM is going to look at this as well.

Understood.

And if I may, uh there's a staff member at DPW who does stormwater reviews.

Yeah, my question was just um stormwater reviews of one house, two house, three houses different from a stormwater review of 44 for this project.

That's why I was just curious.

Um that was my question.

Anyone else have any follow-up?

Okay, I think you're all set.

I'd like the um if there's any further public comment from um the abutters, I would just ask the following.

Uh I expect this meeting to go to about 11 o'clock tonight based on everything on our agenda.

I asked to respect uh when I'm not putting a specific limit on your time to speak, but ask you not to repeat each other and to focus your comments on addressing the stuff that has come in since the last meeting, okay, since your last public comment.

Okay.

So with that said, anyone would like to make public comment and respond um on the bond lane.

Please state your name and address.

Mr.

President, I guess I'll get started.

Uh Steven Slaypole with the firm Gidley Sarley in Marusac in Providence.

Are you speaking into the microphone?

Am I not?

I don't know.

Mr.

Lima.

You you you did have to chastise me about that last time.

Yeah, see, we don't have a sonographer, and if this goes to court, you're gonna want to have this on the record on video.

Sure.

So I did uh I submitted just a few pages of documents uh last week that I asked if we could put on the uh on the screen.

And I brought a hard copy if there's any reason that you would need that for the record.

Is this the blasting material?

Uh yes, thank you.

Yeah, I hope to clarify that somewhat.

Um, so yes, I we've we received the uh responsive memo uh from Moses Ryan that uh we arrived last week, and I'm I'm prepared to discuss just just a few of those items on there.

I know other other folks that will follow me have comments on on other points, but I'm going to focus on on Bond Lane, the traffic and then the uh the geological and uh subsurface type issues.

Um so I I want to repeat as we have uh throughout this time that you know the the developer strategy here is is you know getting this master plan approval, getting these plans recorded, and give you as little information as they can.

So you know, you you're not required to be satisfied with bare minimum compliance with checklist items.

There's a lot of information that has come out, especially when it comes to secondary access, Vaughn Lane, and uh these geotechnical concerns about the vibrations that the homes experience, and their uh you know, their response has been we'll deal with that a preliminary, and basically, you know, just because they submit the bare minimum for the checklist, you absolutely have the right to ask for more to require more at master plan.

Uh so beginning, and I'm just gonna go in order on the memo.

So I'm starting with uh one and two here.

And uh, so you know, our our expert who came in last week whose report you were provided.

He he spoke to the need for a traffic study, and so we don't we shouldn't be recording a plan that shows Vaughn Lane as a secondary access or an emergency access until we establish a need for that at all.

We do not have established in the record that there is any need at all for an emergency or a secondary access.

Uh, that being said, we we appreciate the offer, and it's you know, a reasonable compromise to put a gate so that it can only be accessed for emergency use.

But before we get there, we don't know if there's any net need for any emergency or any secondary access.

Uh the request that we would have if we do go with this gate option, is that the recorded documents say that this will always be gated.

Bond is not ever going to be turned into a fully open secondary access uh to this development.

So we would want the recorded documents to say that gate will be there in perpetuity.

This is not going to be removed and a road connection made through there at some point.

But uh just to conclude that that piece of it, right?

Before these plans are recorded, showing Vaughn Lane we used, we need to know if there's even a need for that.

Uh moving on to number three of the geotechnical study.

Um, this their response here at number three, it's it's not at all responsive to any of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors that were at or by our expert.

Uh this is basically kick the can down the road to preliminary plan again.

They cite the checklist item 20 and section six, and I won't go into all those other subsections of the uh subdivision regulations, but all those really say is that you will identify what's there, not what impact you will have on your neighbors by blasting it or uh crushing rock in there.

Uh it's just there's been there's been no response to any of the concerns that the neighbors have raised on this, none, zero.

Um and again, this is something where a bare minimum compliance with a checklist item should not be satisfactory to the board or the commission.

Then on a related note, I'm moving on now to items number seven and eight uh that had to do with the blasting ledge removal, surveying the bond.

That was what those documents were uh submitted for.

If we can put those on the screen, but I wanted to say again that these items are really they're not responsive to the concerns that the neighbors have raised.

Nothing in here is going to address how we're gonna prevent your house from shaking, being damaged.

It's it's just not addressed.

And so what I did uh in terms of in terms of the blasting issue, I went and looked into the fire marshal's uh regulations, how they regulate this, what is required of people, and that was could we are we able to get that up?

And so what I what I noted here was that um in number eight, they said that the applicant will conduct pre-blast inspections or pre-blast surveys as required.

What I found out is that is not required.

I called the fire marshal's office personally.

I was told that that is something that the blasting company often does to protect their own interests to protect themselves from liability.

And if you zoom in right on their own website in this second paragraph here, prior to blasting, pre-blast inspection surveys may be offered.

So if you don't require it, the fire marshal's office is not going to require it.

The blasting company might be a responsible blasting company, and maybe they'll do it.

But if this board doesn't require it, the fire marshal's office is not going to.

So we would like a condition that they be required to do a pre-blast survey, uh, as we described in our uh experts memo because this and and also to do do a study of what is the impact of this going to be because this is again, this is a project that calls for a better understanding of this issue now beyond just the bare minimum checklist item.

And if we could go to the to the next page too, I also pulled up the actual uh Rhode Island general laws that apply to this, the fire marshal applies, and it really it doesn't provide as much guaranteed protection as I thought it would.

And so um, on here, and I I confirm this by by up by calling the fire marshal's office.

So when they are blasting, they have a seismograph, and they have to put that at the nearest structure to the blast.

So that does not extend further out than whatever the nearest uh structure is.

And we've had ample testimony that something, you know, a construction truck driving down the road will shake the houses.

The river rising from the rainstorm will shake the houses.

So a seismograph next to the closest structure might not be sufficient here.

And I think we need an expert, and we need it now at this stage of review to decide if this is going to be safe and feasible for them to do this, or what precautions should be taken before the plan's recorded.

On the next page, uh, you'll see that uh is in terms of a bond.

The fire marshal only has a minimum of a $50,000 bond, which is this statute is old, it was last updated in 1997.

That's obviously not even close to being adequate if they have the minimum bond amount.

They could certainly do more, but we don't know if they will.

Uh, but that is the minimum bond amount, is $50,000, which is not enough to fix anything if there's a problem here.

And on the next page, uh, I would just also note that the there is a notice requirement.

It is to people within 500 feet.

I don't know if we don't have any kind of a study to tell us what kind of an impact, any kind of lasting or uh impacting crushing of rock, what have you.

We don't know if that's going to be adequate if it might extend past that.

And these are unanswered questions that we still have.

So I you know what I was told by the by the representative I spoke with at the fire marshal's office was people should document the current condition of their own properties.

And I I want to just provide this so people have it.

They advised everyone who's concerned about this go out and take photos and document the current condition of your property yourself because you can't rely on the developer, you don't know if the blasting company will be required to do this, you don't know if they will do it.

So everybody should be doing that for themselves if this is something that they are concerned about.

We had also requested a number of peer reviews, one of which was stormwater, which which you had raised.

And and my my comment on that was was very similar to the question, Mr.

President, that you just had, which was does the city have the capacity to do that?

Because we would like to see a peer review of the stormwater.

This is uphill from many of the neighbors, and uh, you know, I don't I have no idea if the city has staff with the qualifications for this or not, but if not, an outside peer review, I think is is what is needed for this.

And also uh I think I'm going to conclude at least my comments on on number 17 phasing, which is I I simply don't understand why we can't get more detail on this, a better estimate of what is going to be built and when uh there's no reason that they can't provide a preliminary or a you know at least a proposed phasing plan at this point, so we have an idea of what's going to happen, and we would also ask that you know, in connection and related to that, that we make sure that there are no construction vehicles using bond lane.

I know my my client, Miss Salter has had an issue where just can just heavy trucks driving on the road have vibrated the house and and uh just like cracked uh yeah, just just construction vehicles driving on bond happen that she can elaborate on that, but but that has been an issue.

So uh, you know, we want to make sure this phasing plan doesn't involve we're going in through bond first, you know, road A should be built first, the houses at the along road A.

And I I don't understand why that's information that we can't have Naval Master Plan.

So to conclude, I I think that my clients and I have been reasonable and appropriate in what we've asked for uh with this renewed application as it has come in.

Uh and I would ask that the commission please uh put these conditions on this project and uh you know require these studies that have been been asked for.

And it's not just me saying this.

We we uh last month or yes, last month we had our our expert, uh, expert planner who who concurred that these things are appropriate and reasonable for you to be asking for.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We may have questions for Mr.

Sidepole and the applicant, but I'd like for us to hear all from the public first who want to make any comments.

Anyone else from the public that would like to make any comments?

And please, as I said earlier, try to keep your comments on the conditions and what has been submitted since the last meeting.

Sonia Meissenborg, 30 Robert Savistville.

Comments are related to uh traffic.

Good evening.

I would like to thank the committee uh for taking the time over the past year uh to work with the community and the developer.

It has been greatly appreciated.

In his letter to the committee, the vice chairman of the transit school committee wrote thoughtful planning, proper oversight, and responsible mitigation measures can ensure that the concerns related to the traffic, drainage, and neighborhood impact are addressed while still allowing the city to move forward.

Isn't that a great example of what the community has requested?

At the community meeting held by uh the developer at the Harris Grill a while ago, the current access road A was introduced along with the discussion of four other possible access routes.

The current road A access is in the center of the village of Fistville.

It is not responsible mitigation of neighborhood impacts for reasons that have been discussed in previous years.

An example of a less impactful access is an existing road south of the village center, used for decades as access to the northeast end of one land.

There are no houses, no existing homes, no houses, no one to disturb, no variance is needed, as access to Main Street, and it is owned by the access was brought up by the uh planner that spoke last month as well.

As we have stated many times, we are not opposed to housing.

What we are concerned with is the negative impact the current access will have on the village.

It literally accesses the center, small that it is of the village of Pistville.

The community are in our reps have asked that this large scale development be planned thoughtfully.

Please consider the importance of the conditions we have submitted and consider requesting an evaluation of an alternative less impactful access road.

Thank you.

Okay.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the commission.

My name is Robert Sanson.

I'm a butter at uh 145 Main Street, uh downstream property owner.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the commission this evening.

Since the last hearing, I believe the discussion has evolved in an important way.

The issue is no longer whether a drainage feature exists, where road A is proposed.

The applicant has acknowledged that road A crosses the drainage channel identified in the certified existing conditions survey and has indicated that culvert sizing and stormwater analysis associated with that crossing will occur through subsequent engineering review.

My concern tonight is not whether detailed engineering belongs at the preliminary plan stage.

I understand that it does.

My concern is whether sufficient information exists at the master plan stage for the commission to make the findings required to approve this application.

Road A is the primary means of access for the entire development.

Because of that, two issues remain particularly important.

The first is the drainage crossing.

The record now reflects that a drainage crossing exists, that a culvert will be required, and the stormwater analysis remains under development.

The applicant's own response indicate the important engineering evaluations remain forthcoming.

I respectfully submit that understanding how this crossing will function is fundamental to evaluating site suitability, drainage conditions, and potential stormwater impact.

The second issue is the proposed road A intersection.

The entrance is located on a curved section of roadway where visibility appears constrained by roadway geometry and nearby development.

Existing homes are located relatively close to the roadway, creating legitimate questions regarding available site distance for vehicles entering and exiting the subdivision.

Having lived in this area for many years, I've personally assisted occupants involved in multiple serious motor vehicle accidents within a few hundred feet of the proposed entrance location on both sides of the roadway.

I'm not presenting myself as a traffic engineer, nor am I suggesting the past accidents alone determine the outcome of this application.

However, those experiences have made me particularly sensitive to the importance of adequate site distance, safe ingress and egress, and intersection safety at this location.

The comprehensive plan provides guidance on these issues.

Policy NR11 calls for directing development to areas with appropriate drainage conditions.

Policy NR9 emphasizes protection of water quality.

Policy NR20 promotes stormwater management practices that protect watershed functions and natural resources.

While I am not suggesting the existence of a nesting site, those observations support consideration of the wildlife habitat objectives reflected in policy NR4 and further demonstrate the environmental significance of the area.

Ultimately, my concern is not whether development should occur.

My concern is whether the current record contains enough information for the commission to confidently determine the project's primary access route is suitable, safe, and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Before taking final action tonight, I respectfully ask each member of the commission to consider whether the current record provides sufficient information to support those findings regarding drainage, stormwater management, access safety, and comprehensive plan consistency.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I guess what we're hearing tonight is really not yes or no, but how.

And I think how is a pretty important word for this commission to consider.

I'm going to choose to talk about a few that are important to me.

And once it's gone, it's gone.

So I want to talk about trees.

I want to talk about native species, and I want to talk about stone walls.

Why do I want to talk about them?

Because they are part of how we really acknowledge our legacy, how we understand our history.

Stonewalls may not seem like much, but if it's all we have for the history of a farm, a farmlands, which all of Western Cranston once was, then we actually do want to hold on to them.

So trees are kind of like that.

And the request that you had for a qualified local arborist to conduct a comprehensive tree inventory was responded to as inappropriate as stated, it would be burdensome.

I live on 45 acres, and I can tell you the trees that I would choose.

I'm not a certified arborist.

A certified arborist could come in and get that done in a heartbeat.

Might disagree with me.

But the point is the land is very clear.

There's old growth, there's new growth, there's important species, there are trees on that land.

I have walked it.

That land has stuff we don't have other places but are native.

That's important.

It's not a big lift to do that.

When we talk about the use of native species, the response was they will likely be prioritized.

That's not good enough.

And I understand that we have regulations now, but let's get that in writing.

We don't need more orbiting.

They're ugly and not great for our local environment.

But stone walls, this one gets named.

The response to the stone wall condition, which was a full mapping of existing stone walls, and a plan to maintain or rebuild all walls that align with any applicable local and state laws.

The response was we've already spoken to Rhode Island Historic Preservation Commission.

Now, the applicant did speak to them in the last round, not this application.

So a year ago, there was a conversation about whether or not there was historic structures on the property.

Now they didn't address stone walls, period.

And I'm going to submit that letter for the record.

And they didn't talk about it because they don't actually have the control of those walls.

The state does.

And the state, meaning our legislature, has a very clear position on stone walls.

And when you destroy them, steal from them, or remove the rocks, it is considered a larceny charge.

We protect those walls for a reason.

The state also maps them on Rhode Island GIS.

They don't do that for fun.

They do that because they see these as banners of what we have left.

They are not to be removed.

Cities and towns by state law cannot have their own maintenance people disturb those walls.

Now, Cranston has not done a local condition on this to that.

We should.

But state law still protects those walls.

And we need to be thoughtful about this answer because it isn't adequate.

So when you're thinking about this, I ask that you ask a lot of hows.

And I don't think anyone of the people, and I'm not a neighbor to be clear.

I live on native app.

I don't think that anyone has said no development.

What they've said is please be responsible about it.

And that's fair.

This is the largest development we have seen in decades.

And it is one of the last pieces of land that's left in the city.

So please do the right thing.

Hi, Jessica Salter, six Bond Lane.

Good evening.

Thank you yet again for your time.

And thank you to the developers team for their response to the suggested conditions.

But I wanted to quickly address two points of the developer's response to the requested conditions.

Specifically construction hours and noise and construction sequencing.

First, um, on the construction hours and noise.

The applicant argues that additional restrictions are unnecessary because existing ordinances are sufficient.

But based on everything I've been able to find, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I would love to be wrong in this instance.

It has a general noise noise ordinance with a construction section, which somewhat serves a different purpose.

The general noise ordinance, which much of this project would fall under, offers protection only between the hours of 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

The existing subset of the noise ordinance, which pertains to construction, which is what we would expect to offer protection in this instance, allows construction equipment to operate from 7 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

That is a 15 hour window every single day, and it does not prohibit weekend or holiday work.

So in reality, the applicant's position could include early morning starts, evening construction, and potentially seven days a week of activity.

And while that may be workable in a dense urban environment, this is a quiet rural residential neighborhood where ambient noise levels are low and where residents reasonably expect peace and predictability.

In that context, relying on a very broad citywide noise ordinance is simply not sufficient.

And it is within the planning commission's power to impose stricter construction hours for this project, and we ask that you do so.

On the issue of construction sequencing, given the scale and potential potential impacts of this project, requiring sequencing and stabilization through a formal condition provides an important safeguard.

It ensures accountability, reduces the risk of prolonged site disturbance, and protects adjacent properties, public infrastructure, and protects other environmental resources.

This is especially important given the concerns surrounding how changes to the current elevation will impact flooding and water runoff to existing properties, the wetlands, and the nearby river.

Accordingly, the condition is not the condition that we've asked for is not duplicative, but instead serves to elevate standard practices into a binding commitment that can be monitored and enforced as a part of the project's approval.

Without these safeguards, this project could become a continuously expanding construction site, significantly increasing noise, dust, and the duration of the impact on the abutters.

Again, if proper sequencing and stabilization are truly standard, as the response mentioned, there should be no issue committing to them formally.

And to expand on that idea of standard practices, the applicant repeatedly states that many of the protections requested in these conditions are already standard practice.

But that raises a very straightforward question.

If these are truly standard practices, why is there any resistance to making them binding conditions?

Because there's a critical difference between what is described as best practice and what is actually required and enforceable.

Without conditions, there's no guarantee of consistency across phases, no accountability if practice slip, and no clear recourse for residents.

We are asking you for help in assuring us that we will not have to rely on general assurances, but instead set enforceable expectations up front so that we have confidence that these standard practices will be met.

At its core, this entire list of suggested conditions is about accountability and appropriate fit within the surrounding community.

This project is being introduced into a quiet rural neighborhood, not an urban corridor, and that context matters.

The applicant is asking the commission to rely on a general ordinance that allows very broad construction activity and statements of intent that are not enforceable.

Respectfully, that's not enough.

If something is truly standard practice, it should be standard to put it in writing.

These conditions are not burdensome, they are basic, reasonable safeguards to ensure that what is promised is actually delivered and that the character and livability of this neighborhood are protected during what we already have heard will be a very long construction process.

What we have heard from so many involved in this project is that they are in support of a responsible, fair, well-thought-out project.

This is a way to make sure that that applies to everyone.

Thank you.

My name is Jennifer Sutliff, 171 Main Street, and I am the property owner directly adjacent to the proposed road edge.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak again tonight regarding the proposed road.

At the previous meeting, I raised concerns regarding the location, design, and potential impasse of the proposed roadway.

I also mentioned that I had hired a surveyor at my own expense to confirm my boundaries due to my property's close proximity to the proposed roadway.

Since the last meeting, the surveyor has completed the research phase and begun field work.

However, the survey process is still ongoing.

Because of that, these concerns remain, particularly since the exact property lines in this area have not yet been definitively established.

I understand that a variance has been requested for the roadway with.

However, until the property boundaries are clearly established, there is no way to independently verify the dimensions being relied upon for this request.

Until the revolent survey work is complete, questions remain regarding the placement of the roadway and its potential impact on adjacent properties.

I respectfully ask the commission to keep these concerns in mind as you consider the master plan and any future approvals associated with this project.

Thank you.

Could you state your name again?

Mike Clitchman.

My concern has been all along the amount of traffic.

Hope Road has been listed as one of the three busiest roads.

And now we want to put another 44 homes with only access to the property by 90% of the traffic has to go by my house to get to the entrance, wherever it may be determined.

The other side, that would be fantastic.

Hope road is turned into a throughway morning and evening.

Speeding at night and everything else.

I just don't think the road without a traffic survey could justifiably handle additional 44 more homes.

That's 80 some odd cars every day in and out on our road that's already taxed.

We have school buses that run up and down the street, school kids crossing the street.

They fly as it is, and I just feel that it needs to be addressed.

And if we walk away from this, at least we have a traffic survey in place before we grant final approval to make sure that the road can handle the additional traffic.

And that's my concern.

Thank you.

Any other further public comment in the room?

Seeing none, Mr.

Lima, is there any further public comment comment online?

There is no public comment online.

Okay.

Mr.

President, members of the commission, my name is Tom Moses.

I'm a principal in the law firm, Moses Ryan.

I would say many of the comments that the property owners, the abutters or interested neighbors, are legitimate questions.

But this is the inappropriate venue.

These questions they have raised are all appropriately addressed at preliminary plan.

For example, when you discuss the issue of ledge and blasting in those conditions, we have to do a ledge survey, which will be done and submitted to the planning commission in preliminary plan.

We are required on traffic to submit to you in preliminary plan a traffic analysis.

The issue of groundwater, we don't even have the groundwater or the drainage work done yet.

That's all done at preliminary plan.

Now we tried, as your request, Mr.

President, be reasonable with our responses to the requests of Mr.

Seiple.

And I think we did a good job at that.

And I honestly think that the city of Cranston has qualified planners and qualified engineers that work within the city, and if they believe if they come to you and say we need additional help, we need an independent review by an outside consultant.

That's all at preliminary plan.

So this development is being asked to bear a burden that no other development has had to be.

And that's unfair.

That's just unfair.

I mean, people still have property rights.

They still have the right to own property and develop property.

I understand it.

If I lived in a house with a rubble foundation that shakes when a car goes by, I'd be concerned about my house.

If you know this site, this site abuts, carpentry, and situate.

There are massive mills in this area.

Thousands of people worked in this area.

This is not an area that has been this rural setting that has never been seen in a thousand years.

That is not the case.

That's an unfair assessment, and it's it's unfair to you as a commission to have to address that because that's not the case.

And it's it's unfair to you as a commission to have to address that because that's not the case.

You have a master plan approval.

Excuse me, you have a comprehensive plan that approves this development.

This is a buy-right development.

This isn't like we're asking to put a nuclear power plan here.

This is to build residential housing, which the entire world says is a necessity in the state, a dramatic necessity.

And I understand the problems.

And we will address every single one of these issues at preliminary plan, but we have to get master plan first, Mr.

President members of the commission.

Thank you.

Mr.

Moses, may I ask you two specific questions?

Sure.

The abutters attorney talked about the gate being in perpetuity.

I didn't hear you.

I'm sorry, my voice.

I know you're not feeling the gate, the Knox gate that separates the subdivision from Vaughn Lane.

Yep.

He indicated that he would like it to be in perpetuity.

Is that a problem in your view?

No.

So that's a condition that you as a planning commission would have to.

I I understand that.

I wanted to understand your perspective on it before I impose something potentially.

Last question I have for you is on the phasing.

The abutters attorney asked, could the phasing be done in such a way where the Vaughn Lane portion, the portion that would be abutting Vaughn Lane would be in the last phase, and that the first phases would be more on the road A.

I'd like to know what your opinion is.

Can I confirm my client?

Okay, sure.

Go ahead, sir.

My client feels that's not a problem.

Thank you very much.

Those are the questions I have for you.

Do any of my colleagues have any questions from Mr.

Moses?

Can I say one more thing, Mr.

Chairman?

Mr.

President, please.

Thank you.

I would suggest that my client has had experts come and testify, experts in their specific field to testify.

Now, I'm not criticizing any neighbors for their the way they feel it's their homes.

I would feel the same way if it was my home.

I would be concerned.

But you need to evaluate the quality of the testimony versus a professional engineer's testimony versus a neighbor who's upset because they don't want life to change.

I just would like to add that.

That was all.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there any before you go, Mr.

Moses?

I have to ask my colleagues if they have any questions for sure.

Does any of my colleagues have any questions for Mr.

Moses slash the applicant?

Mr.

Cook, Commissioner Coop, please proceed.

No problem.

I am um I just want to follow up on the issue of work hours.

Yep.

Um, because I do think the reference to the noise ordinance is a little too open-ended.

Um would you consider proposing some sort of reasonable hours that we could uh limit the construction to?

I don't know if you want to talk about that.

Sure.

Give us an answer on it.

I'll be happy to address it.

First and foremost, work hour conditions are not unreasonable.

They're not.

And my client will not be working at 10 o'clock at night.

I will tell you that, because he would be paying premium dollars to union contractors to be working out there.

This you've got to be realistic about this.

This is a very expensive project to build.

I would also tell you that once we get the ledge survey that we were required to do, we will know better as when we can work.

And there will be limitations on us regarding that.

We are more than happy to work in reasonable work hours in conjunction with what is approved with the public works director, the town engineer, and the town planner, city planner, excuse me.

That's we have no problem with work hours, but that's an issue that once you evaluate all the engineering, we can do.

Would I say to you that we would like work hours 7 a.m.

to 5 p.m.?

We could live with that.

That's not a problem.

But what I'm what I'm saying to you is that is for road construction, right?

That's what we're worried about because that's when you're blasting in your lot of earth work, a lot of heavy equipment.

When people are building their homes, that's a condition that the building official will put on every house.

I just want to be clear on what's who's doing what makes that part of it does.

Yeah.

Um and I understand your point about working at 10 p.m.

Yeah.

Um, but for example, a street sweeper came by my house at six o'clock this morning.

Yep.

Got my dogs riled up, woke up the whole house.

Now I imagine that happening at six o'clock every morning, and that would be a real issue.

Yeah, so that's why I said seven.

So I think uh I think your answer for that, I think your answer's fine, but I do think um some sort of formality to that.

Oh, yeah, and uh and we will address that specifically to you at primary plan because we need to understand what our limitations of construction is going to be.

We don't know that yet.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Moses or the applicant?

I think that's all set, Mr.

Moses.

Thank you.

Mr.

Marcello, just for our own due process issues.

Do I need to open this up one more time for anybody to respond to that, or we are all set at this point?

You don't have, I mean, it's up to you.

I there's no new evidence, so the legal answer is there's no new evidence.

So does I'll give the chance the abutters attorney or anybody have anything specific to what Mr.

Moses just said.

Okay, the applicant's attorney indicated from the audience that no, no, thank you.

Okay, all right.

At this point, oh, you have you want to ask a question, director.

I do want to make a point that one of the conditions requested that would close off the second means of egress would trigger the need for a variance that was not requested because our subdivision require regulations require the two roads.

Could you repeat that again?

So I understand.

Require our subdivision ordinance requires the two means of entrance to the neighborhood.

If not, they would need a variance for exceeding the maximum length of a dead end road.

It's a waiver, but that's that's something that hasn't been.

I just want to make it's a point of that's okay.

Just I understand.

I think I understand what you're required to do.

You you've interpreted the we approve this without two roads, right?

So we've approved it.

Okay, so Mr.

Moses, do you want to respond to that point?

I saw you get up.

Uh you know, give you the opportunity.

Uh Mr.

President, members of the commission, your specific regulations is on page 89 of 125, dead-end streets and cul-de-sac.

All right.

In cases where unusual conditions exist, the commission may modify the requirements for dead end streets and cul-de-sacs.

So when I said you earlier, if you want that gate, that's within your purview.

I appreciate what you're suggesting that, but I wanted to clarify that's clearly within your purview.

Okay.

Not that it would anything further.

Okay.

So listen to Marcella, should I do a motion to close public comment?

Yes.

Okay.

Could somebody make a motion to close public comment?

Made by Commissioner Coop, seconded by Commissioner Mancini.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Those opposed saying nay.

Ayes have it.

Okay.

If I was a city council, I'd be taking a break now.

And then like meeting up here, and I don't know what to do.

But anyway.

Sorry.

I still have a sense of humor with a cold.

Um I would um I'll open the floor up to my colleagues to if they have something they want us to start talking about in reviewing this application.

Otherwise, I'll make my best effort.

Oh, Commissioner Lampier, please proceed.

Thank you.

Um with regard to just picking up where we left off about the one access point, one of the things that we spoke of at our last meeting, and also this meeting is the question of whether or not one access point is sufficient, both from a traffic point of view and also from an emergency vehicle point of view.

Um, from what um director uh ashman has said, one access point will require a variance or a waiver.

Um I don't believe, and I would like someone to correct me if I am wrong about this, but I don't believe we heard any testimony as to whether or not one access point is sufficient, so without any testimony on that issue, um, is that something that we can proceed to approve under a master plan?

They're proposing to right now, there are two access points Vaughn Lane and Road A.

Do you agree with that?

Well, yes, there are two proposed access points.

What the abutters are suggesting are putting a gate on road lane, but again, that's something right now.

I mean, for master plan, because of trap, you don't have the traffic study in front of you.

So right now they they are proposing two access points, a and Vaughn Lane.

It seems to me that once the traffic study comes in, it may be a condition of approval that um you know that a gate goes into Vaughn Lane.

At that point, it would be a legal issue for preliminary whether they need a waiver when the access point is a gate as opposed to nothing.

So, in other words, if if there was no access, if one lane was not accessible at all, so but at this point, they're not that they're showing us two access points, and they're not requesting a waiver.

And after a traffic study is done, depending upon what the results of that traffic study may be.

Are we as a commission then free to change our initial approval because what we're approving is a master plan that has two access points?

Correct.

If we find out as the result of a traffic study that one of those access points is not workable or doable, then at that point, it would either be uh there would have to be a change in the plan or a waiver request, at least in my opinion.

Thank you.

Any other of my colleagues have something to say at this point, okay.

I'll get going.

Um I'll start out this way.

I like Western Cranston as a rural area, although I don't live there.

If I could, I would kind of keep it the way it is.

If I was an elected official, I would probably talk to the applicant about whether or not we could have some of this be more open space, but I'm not an elected official, and I'm not the property owner.

I'm a person on the planning board that goes by what these requirements are.

They're the property owner, they have the right to develop it within the rules and regulations and of the law.

So I cannot deny it outright because I do not see from your witness, your expert clear statements that I can cite to about being inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

I cannot find how it doesn't comply with zoning.

The access point issue.

They do have an access point that I think is pretty much undisputed at this time, which is road A.

The Vaughn Lane access point.

They have provided significant evidence at this point that this is an access point.

Unusual and a bad access point, but it's still an access point of some type.

What I believe as we go through this process, we'll be making determinations about Von Lane.

So by statute, I don't see much leeway for me, other than to impose conditions.

On the conditions, I'll go through them.

My colleagues will say what they're gonna say, and I want to say what I'm gonna say.

On the staff recommendation, they put a condition number three.

Von Lane shall not need to be improved to public city standards as part of its development.

I'd like to revise that to say Von Lane shall not be improved.

And that in a statement that there will be a gate with a knock box separating the subdivision from Von Lane.

The reason I do this is that it is a public safety hazard to try and turn that thorough that Vaughn Lane into something other than a roadway that is used by about a half a dozen people.

I'm not, I don't pretend to be one.

I can get myself from one place to another with a car in the city of Cranston.

That's about what I can do.

But I can tell that I do not want to have a car accident over there.

If we need to have emergency access, I understand it.

A gate would be a knock box in perpetuity would be sufficient to protection for the people of Vaughn Lane so they don't have a public safety hazard.

The rest of the conditions here seem to me adequate.

I will now go through the conditions of the abutters.

I believe, let me just start out with conditions.

I'm a person that's been a regulator and a regulated.

Also, conditions should be imposed in stages when they're most applicable.

That's my general view of things.

Traffic study.

I think a traffic study should be required in peer reviewed as a condition of approval of master plan.

We know we're going to need one.

Excuse me, I said it the wrong way.

A traffic study is to be completed and peer-reviewed the preliminary plan stage.

So that master plans approved with a condition at preliminary plan straight to traffic study.

Once we get the traffic study back, we will have to potentially make changes.

Maybe there will be, maybe there won't be.

Maybe we get into this whole issue that Commissioner Lampier has talked about, Director Ashman's talked about.

This is an unusual development.

The theory of about looking for alternative access routes.

I'm just, I don't, I'm I look at that map, I look at a lot of wetlands.

I don't really think it's there.

But here's the problem I have.

I don't think I can mandate an applicant to go explore alternative access routes when they give me road A.

And so I think that's the problem.

I think your conditions that I've would agree to about Von Lane not being improved, that there's a gate with a knockbox for only emergency vehicles in perpetuity.

I think addresses some of the protection for Von Lane.

I will assure you about the geological geotechnical study, subservice conditions.

Absolutely, we're going to have a preliminary plan stage.

We need to have a study done when we get to before we get the preliminary plan stage, you know, once after this is done.

Stone walls.

Again, we have something here already about stone walls.

And if state law governs there, we're going to follow it.

When it comes to the trees, that's gonna be part of the landscaping plan.

And you know, there's going to be roads built, and some of those trees are going to be cut down for those roads.

I've already heard from them as a commitment.

They're not talking about invasive species.

The blasting issue.

The blasting issue is something that's very significant.

I believe you guys when you tell me things shake.

This time to deal with blasting will be at the preliminary plan stage, like we did in Natick Solar.

And I'll be better prepared if I'm here at the commission.

I'll be pretty prepared for that.

And you should be too.

This thing, we don't know where the ledge is, how much ledge is going to have to be blown up or dealt with.

We can't know that until we get the study.

So telling them they can't do blasting or restrictions on blasting and surveys and all this other stuff, these are all conditions for preliminary plan stage.

I assure you, if I'm here, I will be more than willing to listen and consider conditions related to blasting to protect people.

This is a topic that can be addressed at preliminary plan.

And we will have a better idea of what kind of construction we're talking about after we do all these surveys.

Many of these requirements are already part of standard procedure.

If you believe that the standard procedures are not sufficient, by all means, if preliminary plan stage, tell me why you want to go beyond the standard, why they're wrong, be specific to me.

Stormwater.

But I'm not comfortable yet, unless my colleagues think otherwise of requiring a peer review at this stage.

But one will come if we have to phasing.

This is there will be phasing, the phasing will be determined at preliminary plan stage.

I've already part of the I want a condition here about phasing, which indicates there will be phasing will be determined at the preliminary plan stage, and that Von Lane, the sub the portion of the subdivision connecting Von Lane would be the last phase of any phasing.

Also part of phasing.

The impact study would inform us of the phasing.

Services, schools, fire, the whole works.

So that could be, I leave it.

We can talk about the details, but impact studies of a reason I order an impact study here is real simple.

This is one of the biggest projects we've ever approved in the last five years, and its location at the fringe of the western southwest corner of this city.

Um there is issues with school capacity to the west, and there's an ongoing issue about fire service.

I don't want to get into a debate about that, but that's there.

That's my general feeling.

So for me, I like to have conditions modified for question for point number three with a gate box perpetuity.

I'd like to have a traffic study required that's peer-reviewed.

I'd like to have a condition that states that the preliminary plan phase phasing will be determined.

And prior to that, they need to do an impact study.

But that the phasing, the last stage of the phasing would involve the portion of the subdivision that touches von lane.

That's pretty much where I am.

I'd like to hear from my colleagues if they want to go further, they disagree with me, or if they see a if they have a different view, I'm all ears.

But that's kind of where it is for me.

Ummissioner Coop, please proceed.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I I agree generally with most of uh what you said.

Um I do believe that the city has a well-qualified engineer when it comes to assessing uh drainage.

And I'm also believe that if it is beyond his ability, he would certainly inform his boss, the public works director who's a member of the commission.

So I'm not too worried about that.

Um I have no problem with a peer reviewed traffic study.

Um, but I would suggest that maybe we should hold off on any conditions regarding Vaughn Lane until after that traffic study has been presented to the commission.

Um just because we don't want to put ourselves in a spot where we learn something from the traffic study and want to reverse course.

And I don't know if this has been addressed at any point, but if we're going to require a gate with a knox box at the end of Vaughn Lane, the purpose would be to permit emergency vehicles.

Is the current state of Vaughn Lane sufficient to for emergency vehicles to pass?

Is it wide enough for a fire truck to get around the corner and down the street?

I don't know.

Maybe the director can tell me if that's already been looked at.

You know, while it's not ideal, the fire department did indicate that Vaughn Lane was an important second access.

Okay, so that's good.

So then in that case, I would if the traffic study indicates, then I would certainly support the gate at the end of Vaughn Lane, but I wonder if we should wait to see the traffic study first.

And I I could be convinced either way, but I just wanted to point that out.

Yeah.

Um, just one thing that was frustrating to me, and I'll say this, and I don't want to be too difficult with some people, but like in the report that the staff gave us, there was no comments filed by the traffic engineer, no comments filed by the fire department.

You know, um, it would have been helpful if the fire department had put that in writing, so we would have known that you know what I'm saying.

Um, the traffic engineer, you know, but he could maybe could have said something about it.

But I think Commissioner Coop, what I what I'm concerned about is once you decide the right now, the plan is no need for improvement.

No, that's the whole basis of this, no need for improvement in Vaughn Lane.

I think it would be if we did a switch and bait and said all of a sudden on preliminary plan, we're gonna develop Von Lane and start like knocking down people's buildings.

I I feel pretty uncomfortable about that.

I feel like I wouldn't, I wasn't, you know what I mean.

Like, I don't you know what I'm saying.

No, I wasn't suggesting that I was I was suggesting I mean I was concerned about the emergency vehicle access, but if we've been told that it's okay as it is, then I would not okay improve it.

Um I might as far as putting the gate gate up, I might wait to see what the traffic study shows.

Um we don't know.

Um I understand the reluctance to have regular vehicle traffic going up and down Vall Lane.

Um I'm I'm with uh you know, I I'm I'm with that, but at the same time, if uh traffic study says, well, that would relieve a burden somewhere else, and then would we be worth it, then maybe what we ought to consider something.

Yeah, I just think that Vaughn Lane, unless you're going to widen it at key points which would affect other people's buildings and properties.

I just don't think it's feasible uh as a like I call normal two-way traffic, Commissioner Coop.

You see what I'm saying?

That's I do you know, I mean, I was out there for the site visit, and I can't remember what the numbers are, but it's like 12, 14 feet wide.

I mean, that's that's that's why I prefer to just lock in.

And then if we lock in at this point and the traffic site says, well, these are issues, then the applicant can figure out the issues.

Maybe they scale back the project, maybe they do something else.

I don't know, but I don't want to do a switch and bait on Vaughn Lane.

I'm I'm approving this on the basis that Von Lane is a secondary access road, going to be only for emergency vehicles that is not going to have any improvement.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Yes, I do.

Because I I if I had to say this is going to be a normal access road, I'd have to like think about whether or not I'm creating a public safety hazard or what other consequences, you know.

That's me.

Uh any of my colleagues have anything else they'd like to add or talk about.

Okay.

So my view is that we approve the conditions, but for number three, we modify it to say Vaughn Lane shall not be improved to public city standards as part of development, and that a gate with a knockbox shall be put placed there in perpetuity to separate Vaughn Lane from the subdivision, and then I'd add two more conditions, which is that there will be a traffic study performed for preliminary plan that will be peer reviewed, and that there will be a phasing plan submitted as part of preliminary plan, which would indicate the last section of the subdivision in touching Von Lane.

Excuse me, that the last phase would be the portion of the subdivision touching Von Lane, and that as part of that phasing and before and that phasing, excuse me, that would be the phasing, and then I'll add one more to make it simple, and that the applicant and that a impact study be performed.

Okay, those are my three things.

Modify number three traffic study phasing with Von Lane as the last part, and then an impact study for preliminary plan.

And Mr.

Solicitor, I think what would be is that we have to find legally the sub that it meets the subdivision requirements, and then would conditions correct.

Yeah, correct.

Um, I mean, normally the motions are to um accept staff's findings um based upon the um statement, yeah, which are in your memo.

And if you want to supplement any of those findings, you certainly can, and then you can accept staff's conditions with amendments.

Correct.

Okay, so I'll as that's my kind of motion would be to adopt the staff's recommendation and findings to adopt master plan with the conditions set forth in the memo, with the exception that for number three, it says Von Lane shall not be improved to public city standards as part of this development, and a gate with a knockbox in perpetuity would be place dividing the subdivision from the Vaughn Lane, and that the three other conditions would be a traffic study that is peer-reviewed, a phasing plan for at for preliminary plan stage, which would have Vaughn lane, the portion of the subdivision connecting the Vaughn lane be the last portion of the phase, last phase, and third, an impact study to be performed.

Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um could we also include as a condition that a storm water plan peer review may be required prior to preliminary plan approval after consultation with public works?

Okay, I don't have a problem with that.

Commissioner Coop, you you have a problem with a indicating that a peer-reviewed stormwater plan could be maybe required after consultation with DPW.

We don't have DPW here too, on top of it.

So we may impose a future condition.

I'm just confused, it's not a condition, it's uh we may impose a condition.

I wouldn't we do that when they come back with a preliminary plan at that point, we could talk to public works and say we want your stormwater plan peer reviewed.

That's my my my purpose is to make sure that the applicant is aware that it's a condition that we might require and without public works here for us to inquire about qualifications and whether or not they feel they have sufficient staff for the scope of the project.

I did not want it to escape being a condition.

But if we are in agreement that it can be added later, that's my applicants on notice that we're considering.

But if the president or council wants to tell me that it can do it, I mean it, you know, it's not really hurting anything either way.

You can impose the condition or not impose the condition later on.

It certainly gives the applicant notice that one's probably coming down the bike.

I think they know that.

Okay, so the four a fourth condition would be that a stormwater plan, uh the stormwater plan.

So could you just say, Commissioner Lamphier?

I'm just put your maybe require after consultation with DPW.

Okay.

Okay.

So that's four more.

One other thing, solicitor.

I think we have to grant the waivers, correct?

Yes.

And um the waiver on the 47 and a half feet from the 50 feet, right?

The road A, correct.

Yeah, and there's something else too.

I can't remember what the other waiver is.

Mr.

President, would we also uh approve the waiver for the dead end street at this point if we're going to require um I would rather have that wait till we get the preliminary plan stage?

Let's go figure out whether or not we really have to do that, you know.

I just think if we're gonna put a condition in requiring that we close off on lane, or then we should hold off on the condition requiring the closure of on lane until we know whether or not that would require a waiver.

Um, do you have an opinion about would do we have to grant a waiver on the call to sack rule at this stage?

Uh as I said before I I would advise what we're I would advise um that we wait on the gate.

Oh, you're more of a wait on the gate, guy.

Correct.

Because you don't have traffic study yet.

Asking the there.

See, I'm I just don't want to do a switch and bait.

That's my worry.

So right now the two waivers are the fit are the um the width of road A and then um Jonas.

Um the two waivers that we have the roadway to be at least 24 feet, so you want them to be less for the second waiver shall be a at least at least minimum of 24 feet wide.

Okay, uh, I think curbing is yeah, so 16.

Oh god.

Um, yes, so one of them is curving, the other, so the low impact development.

Um the one if for one of them is for sidewalks, which requires low impact development, which also requires uh low impact development design, which also requires a waiver for curving, a kind of like they kind of trigger each other.

Anyone else have an opinion?

Because I'm like I said, I don't want to belabor this, but I I may I feel the need the applicants agreed to do a gate, and I don't want to see a switch and bait.

That's basically what my view is.

If the applicant, if we first of all, if the we were interpret the regulations to say they have to request a waiver.

I mean, I'm not even sure I have to interpret the regulations that way.

I'm not sure.

I haven't looked at this issue.

I haven't don't have it in front of me or that they could just make it a preliminary plan stage.

Yeah, they absolutely do it in preliminary plan.

Okay.

So I'd rather just do it at preliminary plan.

I don't, and I'll just say this for the record.

I don't see a problem with me granting it a preliminary plan either.

The most the that's because the fire department will have access, the police will have access with a knock uh um knockbox.

So the intent behind the need for these call-de-sack rules is for purposes of public safety.

That's the major reason why we have these call to sack length rules is so that the police and fire can go have two ways to get in.

That's how I view it.

Anything else anyone else has to say, or we can make a motion.

I can make the motion, but it's usually I don't make the motion, but just trying to move this along, guys.

So okay, I'm gonna move this long.

I'm gonna make a motion that we adopt the staff's recommendation finding and facts, grant the waivers, the conditions SF4 from the staff memo with the alteration to condition three that von lane shall not be improved to public city standards as part of this development, and that a gate with a knockbox in perpetuity will be placed separating the subdivision from Von Lane, and that we have four additional conditions that there'd be a traffic study that has peer reviewed, performed for preliminary plan, that there'll be a phasing plan proposed at preliminary plan stage in which the portion of the subdivision that connects to Von Lane would be in the last phase of the project.

Third, that an impact study will be performed, and fourth, Commissioner Lampier, could you just say it?

A storm water plan peer review shall be required, may be required, may be required after consultation of the public works director.

Yes, Commissioner Coop second, or you have something to say.

Just put yeah, I can hear you in the microphone too.

I would ask you if you would just slightly amend your change to condition three to include and that the plan and to the extent necessary to comply with the ordinance, the commission modifies the requirements for dead end streets in Cal de Sachs, so that we don't put ourselves in a pickle where we've imposed a condition that then implicates another okay requirement.

I would refrain I would phrase it as condition three as bond lane shall not be improved to the public city standards as part of the development with a gate with a knock box placed between Von Lane and the subdivision in perpetuity, with the with the additional it's a it's a regulation, Commissioner.

So it would be like, and in the event and if necessary, the commission would waive the subdivision work regulation requirement of length related to dead end streets and call the sacks, if necessary.

That's where I was going.

Thank you.

Is that fine?

That's what yes, that's what I meant.

Thank you very much.

And if necessary you understand the the uh add on to number three, if necessary, the requirement for uh the length restriction on call-de-sacks and dead end streets in the subdivision regulations would be waived.

Okay, so what is it, Commissioner Coop?

I'll say okay.

Anyone else has anything to say?

I think I covered everything in my head.

Okay, any further discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye, those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it, and I just want to say this.

Congratulations to the applicant and to the abutters.

This is not the end of the process.

This is not even the end of the beginning.

So we will see you again if this thing moves forward.

For those of you at home watching, we're going to allow the room to um the members in the audience to leave the room before we take up the ordinances.

That's everybody cleared the room.

Okay.

Are my colleagues ready to proceed or they want to take a break?

I don't know.

We're going to start the ordinances.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, how are you?

Next on the agenda, we're moving to ordinances.

So usually when there's an ordinance, for all of you here who've not customed to this process.

When there's an ordinance, it's usually one of two things.

It's usually a rezoning ordinance, and then applicant comes forward to make their presentation.

Or the staff has put together an ordinance to comply with some aspect of state law or at the direction of the commission.

Today we'll be hearing an ordinance and giving a recommendation on the um ordinance presented by a city council member.

Is that city council?

So I'd like to give the opportunity for the city council member here or at home to make a presentation or any sort of opening related to these ordinances.

And the other thing I'd like to add is I'd like to take these ordinances as a group because I feel like we will likely be talking about them as a group anyway.

So is Councilman Andah here in the room or online at this councilman and har if you wish, I'd like to give you the opportunity to tell us about um your ordinances, what they do, why we why why you recommend that we should give a positive recommendation, and then we will hear from the staff, and then we will hear from the public, and then the commissioners will will then deliberate.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, I can, councilman.

How are you today?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you to the commission.

Um, I put forward these two ordinances basically common sense legislation, other cities and towns are doing it.

As you see, we uh I'm just looking for a way to uh increase revenue.

Um there's already houses that exist on these size uh this size of you know the square footage that that's being presented today, and that's basically it.

So I mean it's just common sense.

Um I will be listening and paying attention to see what the committee recommends, and then I guess we'll be coming to my committee tomorrow.

So I thank everybody for their time.

Thank everybody for their service, and I'll be listening.

Thank you, Councilman Andar.

And that's the other thing I should point out to the audience that this is the start of the process, not the end of the process.

We give a recommendation, and then the city council makes the final decision.

Um, and they're having an ordinance committee meeting, I think, tomorrow.

So we give a recommendation, and then the city council decides.

So uh with the staff, as I said earlier, uh we have two ordinances like them take them up together.

Um would the staff make their presentation um on their ordinances on these ordinances, excuse me.

On these ordinances, excuse me.

All right.

So we have two ordinances today.

I'm going to talk about them both at the same time.

Kind of mix them up in the presentation a little bit because they cover kind of cover very similar aspects.

And just read through my memo.

And they interact with each other pretty well as well.

So I'm going to refer to the first ordinance, O three as kind of what the substandard lots ordinance and then 04 as the two family ordinance throughout the presentation.

So three basically what this ordinance does, it um has two core elements to it.

Both of them primarily affecting or well really exclusively affecting two zoning districts.

Yeah, I'm going to talk about examples and then I'm going to go through exactly what they do.

For reference, these are most of the B1 and B2 zoning districts.

Some of the B2 zoning districts, there are B2 zoning districts in other parts of the city.

If you put it for if you have evidence that these lots, which are currently here, are one lot or two lots in the past, that will give you the basically a allow you to do a by-right subdivision, you know, provided that the lots are 3,000 square feet, uh, have a 3,000 and allow you to do a minimum um sorry, um, allow you to do a buy right subdivision of the lots into lots that are substandard for the zone, so less than what the zoning requires.

Um provided they are at least 3,000 square feet and have 30 feet um of frontage, um, and also at here to and make sure that all that land, all that 3,000 square feet is uh land that is considered suitable for development.

Um this is the categories of land that's considered unsuitable for development.

So you know, that is your wetlands, that is flood hazard zones, that is certain easements.

Um if you uh you know had a plaque card you put forward, and one of the lots that you wanted to subdivide had 3,000 square feet, but 500 of that square feet was wetlands or an easement.

That means you can't do the subdivision.

You need 3,000 square feet of suitable area for development.

Uh the second thing that this ordinance does, it takes lots that are um substandard that are less than what the zoning requires.

So here's an example is uh you know, two lots that are in common ownership that are less than six thousand square feet individually.

So they are per our zoning ordinance, they are considered merged.

Um, and um therefore that second lot, even though there's no structure on it, you're not allowed to build on that, and you have to get a variance to build on it.

Um there's a a recent state law that came into effect that allows unmerging um under certain circumstances, um, which does happen occasionally, but honestly, the most of these um variances and variances that a lot of the commission members have already seen most of the time require variances.

Um on the left here, it has a green box that structure.

Um it is a I guess it is a little close to a lot line, so maybe that's not the best example because it has to actually also adhere to the sliding scale.

But in in this example, it's a single family house.

So the way we've been interpreting it is that two and three families still need really if they wanted to unmerge their lots, they still needed a additional variance for that.

So this ordinance would really only apply to single family homes like this.

Oh, and the same with the other one, you know, you need a at least 3,000 square feet.

Um and you need a minimum frontage and lot width of 30 feet, and it has to be 500 feet from a 1% flood hazard area.

I think the ordinance specifies it as AE and VE flood zones, AE being flood zones from freshwater wetland uh like mostly like streams and rivers and ponds versus the VE is um mostly coastal flooding.

Um the second ordinance, so this is for the two-family zoning ordinance.

Um, this one says three things.

It clarifies that two family structures are permitted on substandard lots of record.

So we only pass the previous one that only applied to two single families.

If we apply if both of the these flip bills would be um, if this bill would be approved, it would allow two family um two family structures on substantial lots.

It kind of clarifies that.

Um, it would also reduce the minimum lot size requirements for both single family and two family structures, both down to 4,000, and also makes um adjustments to frontage setbacks and maximum lot coverage accordingly.

Um it also aligns lot size uh requirements for multifamily structures to mirror that 4,000 square foot requirement for the first two units, just I believe those for consistency purposes.

Um here's the exact amendment.

You can see both single single and two family used to be in separate requirements.

We used to uh require currently uh 6,000 square feet for single family in the B1 and the B2, and 8,000 for uh two families in B1 and B2.

Um the ordinance also you know reduces the frontage, reduces front minimum lot setbacks, kind of to accommodate for the fact that this is now you know a smaller lot.

Um generally, as we've stated in the memo, is that both of these bills and these bills individually have kind of these five core impacts.

Um, you know, they will facilitate neighborhood consistent development and bring a substantial number of existing homes into conformance with zoning.

They will allow a portion of the city's housing goals to be met by permitting homes and smaller lots and streamlining development processes.

They will capitalize on existing utility infrastructure with minimal chance that roads and utilities will be expanded to accommodate development, meaning much lower cost to the city compared to expanding development in other parts of the city that have less infrastructure.

Um they will reduce development pressure on remaining open space in the city by allowing more development on the eastern side of the city, and they will significantly reduce staff time spent on uh you know cumbersome unmerging and um uh a lot of variance processes.

Um, and I'm also gonna go through each of these um if each of these points.

Um so the first one is to make the zoning zoning conform to existing development.

Um you know, these bills kind of put into put these two actions.

Um, you know, it's a direct execution of these two actions, which it basically aligns zoning with our built environment and the B1 and the B2.

Um and our analysis kind of reflects that as well.

Our single family, so this this is what um this map shows that the majority of the B1 and B2 lots um you know are do not conform to the zoning.

Um so we're predicting we're saying about 74% of these lots do not conform to the zoning code.

Um as you know, most of the lots in these land and these areas were originally platted to be between 3200 and 5,000 square feet, um, primarily four and five thousand with a handful of 3200 uh here and there.

Um, and the same goes for two families.

Umly 15% of two families actually conform to minimum lot size requirements.

And the passing of the bill four or ordinance number four, the two families would make over 82% of these lots conforming.

And there's also other benefits to have zoning match the development that's actually on the ground.

Primarily it returns rights back to property owners.

In 1966, is when a lot of this development was legally allowed until 1966 when there was a major change to the zoning ordinance that suddenly restricted further development on all these B1 and B2 areas.

That by providing a more efficient and predictable and effective development process that's also in our comprehensive plan.

And it also significantly reduces this, you know, the burden by making these more streamlined by not having to do all these burdensome variance processes that we have to do pretty frequently, as you can know.

And so you know it allows us to reach our housing goals.

So according to our analysis, number three, the subscene lot ordinance will allow development of up to 200 vacant lots.

So you know, provided that all of them are developed to two families, that would be up to 300 units allowed.

And together, both lots we estimate will allow two family development of up to 200 lots, so up to 400 units allowed.

Of course, this will not substantially increase the our like need, and um uh this will not substantially um you know increase the amount of low and modern income housing.

Um it according to data we have from housing works, you know, two families are overall on a per unit basis a much more affordable type of unit than your average single family house people.

So while yes, it's not that subsidized affordability, um it is generally more affordable than your average single family.

Um the other benefit of you know, allowing more two families does that on a per acre basis, it is actually um on average provides much more um assessed tax value.

So not only is it lower cost for the homeowner, it is the means we get uh you know uh more taxes out of those two families.

Um and here's an analysis that shows how you know small lot and especially those two to five families tend to provide on a provide much more value, um much more taxable value on a per acre basis.

Um, as you can see on those eastern sides, especially the red ones, those are two to five families.

Um, you know, they tend to provide much more much much more taxable value on a per acre basis than the single family, the large lot single family predominantly see on the western side of the city.

Um, which leads me to the third one.

It will reduce costs of growth to the city and homeowners.

Um, you know, these large lot low density developments means that fewer people can carry maintenance costs of roads and utilities.

Um therefore these like large lot developments are pretty costly on a per unit basis to individuals, but also overall contribute less to that tax base while requiring more miles of roadways and utilities.

Um the eastern side um you know really has like a higher household density, which means there's a greater efficiency of infrastructure and services, as most of the infrastructure and services is already in place, and um you know, from what we know, we have the capacity to be able to handle additional households in the eastern side of the city.

Um it also reduces development pressure on the remaining open space.

Don't currently allow for housing development.

You know, those are not permanent protection areas.

So as the demand for housing remains very, very high, um, you know, there is greater pressure that those areas are developed.

And this doesn't even show all the areas that are currently zoned for development in Western Cranston and just haven't been built on yet for a variety of reasons.

Um, so if we want to you know reduce development pressure on the open space, um, you know, we have to provide this trade-off of allowing more missing middle housing in the areas that are characterized by that development that already have that development on those single and two-family houses.

Um, and then in the meantime, we can reduce you know this development pressure on the agricultural land and the open space.

Um, and especially you know, further away from the environmentally sensitive areas, the wetlands, the prime farmlands that we see primarily on the western side.

Um that said, you know, um it comprehensive plan also specifically speaks that we need to create this balance between natural resource protection and growth-related needs.

Um as we know, like Cranston already is experiencing issues with flooding and water quality and streams and ponds.

Um, new development is already um, you know, any new development that'll come in, any new development that'll be created from this bill, they are already subject to requirements to offset any stormwater.

Um, but of course, it doesn't accept um address existing issues.

Um, so planning staff recommend that you know, alongside this ordinance that we also start looking into regulations that better manage our stormwater in a more comprehensive matter.

Um, you know, that could be maximum improvio service requirements.

Um, that could be stormwater utility fees, that could be greater um expansion of low impact development standards in our regulations.

Um we're also required to recognize and consider the purposes of zoning um in our zoning ordinance.

Um, you know, these ordinances allow for construction B1, the B2 zoning districts and the character of the existing neighborhoods and provide for current and future needs of an adequate and varied housing stock in the city.

Um so it takes the B and H as is supported by the goals and policies of the 2024 comprehensive plan and um uh purpose L.

The ordinance also improves the efficiency of reviews of development, proposed development proposals and expedites approval for neighborhood consistent development um line with purpose N.

Um, because these are two ordinances, we have two separate findings.

Um basically we find that the comprehensive plan for ordinance 03, um, that ordinance 03 is consistent with the comprehensive plan that says 2010 that should say 2024, and that it is uh consistent with the general purposes of zoning.

Uh, we find the same thing with um uh ordinance four four.

Um and therefore we also um uh recommend that the city plan commission for a positive recommendation on coordinates 03 as well as ordinance 04.

Thank you, assistant director.

Are there any initial questions for the assistant director from the commission?

I'll ask uh a quick thing because it's just very simple math stuff.

Um assistant director.

By my calculation if you allow two family homes on 4,000 square foot lots, the density per acre for units is approximately 21.78.

Does that sound approximately correct?

Is that sound about right to you?

That sounds approximately correct.

Okay, and the future land use map is 10.89 for B1, B2 zones.

Is that my correct on that?

That is correct.

And you know, the the future land use map as it is written now, the the density numbers are specifically geared to the underlying zoning that we have.

So that's how you get that 10.89 and um the other numbers are a little lower.

So um, yeah, of course, if you're changing, if you're densifying those underlying zoning values, that's going to affect those numbers.

Last question or group of questions is on the housing draft plan, page 25.

You this city staff put together a chart which listed various neighborhoods and the median square lot size in B1s and B2s.

Are you familiar with that chart?

I think if you want me, I can give you I'm familiar with that chart.

Okay, Commissioner Ashman.

Excuse me, Director Ashman.

Um from my observation, approximately 11 of the 13 neighborhoods in the B1 zones have median lot sizes above 4,000 square feet.

I can give you a copy, but does that sound about right to you?

So I'd like to make one comment.

Um, since that chart was created, I've done more work with RGIS director, and we found a um many of the housing units in Cranston were not counted in our density numbers.

So I will be reissuing that chart.

Um, and I'd also like to comment that these zoning ordinances if there if there aren't 4,000 square foot lots in the neighborhood, then it's not going to allow you to create new ones.

It's so some of the neighborhoods are full of have a lot of four thousand, some other neighborhoods have five thousands.

Um I know it uses a very small number of three thousand, but it won't allow you to create new three thousand square foot lots in neighborhoods that don't already have them.

Would the let me rephrase the question, which is would you agree with me that there are neighborhoods in the B1 zone where the median lot size is likely above 4,000 square feet?

Yes, there are neighborhoods where the median is more like 5,000.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff before we go forward?

Commissioner Coop.

Yeah, my commission.

Uh my question is um along the similar vein.

Uh, we're talking about the single family homes.

Um, Jonas, you said that uh many of the any of the single family homes that are on lots that are smaller than the required 6,000 square feet are in the four to five thousand square foot range, some as low as 3200.

Do we have houses on 3,000 square foot lots?

And yeah, so typically um maybe I should go back.

Um yeah, okay.

This doesn't reflect it great.

Um, but yeah, so um did I have it previously?

I don't have previously.

So um, yeah, so um there are there are a handful of neighborhoods where we have a significant amount of development because again, these are a lot of some of the areas were platted to like 3200 square foot lots, so you'll have a row of like four 3200 square foot lots where there are houses on those 3200, and then it might be a gap.

So it's it's yeah, so there's there is a handful of neighborhoods that are 3200, 4,000, 5,000, somewhere more building.

So the reason I asked the question is because I took a quick look.

I went on the GIS and I couldn't find anything at below 3200.

Correct.

So very thousand seems like a really small lot to me.

And I I understand the purpose for the ordinance.

I support it in concept because we address a lot of these requests, and rather than doing them piecemeal, I would like to see some kind of standard, but I think 3,000 is a pretty small lot size.

And I think 4,000 is a pretty small lot size for two family.

I could be convinced otherwise, but I think 3,000, I I couldn't find a house on a 3,000-foot lot in the city.

3,200 is more common, like in the stadium neighborhood is where that's actually what I looked at.

Yeah, and and the smallest I could find was 3200.

Exactly.

So I am ma'am, ma'am.

You're gonna have your chance to do public comment and say whatever you want to say.

I trust, trust me, you'll you can do that.

There are smaller in the city too.

It's just because the city was more typically platted to um typically on the small side, the 40 by 80, though there are exceptions.

Um there are like 2900 square foot lot areas, but those are definitely much fewer and far much more fewer in between.

So um, I mean, I can't speak to exactly what I'm assuming the 3,000 number was chosen because that's just a more basic number than 3200, but I think it's a provenance number.

It's a providence number.

It's the providence number.

Yeah, the problem um, I think I forgot to mention that.

So um ordinance oh three is um pretty much in line with something that already exists in Providence.

I think mention that.

Um especially that section three for 2040.

That's more or less work besides the fact that it's limited to the B1 and B2, that's more or less word for word and ordinance that are uses in Providence.

Um but yes, so the um yeah, that's that's good.

Thank you.

All right.

Are there any other questions or can we go to public comment?

I think uh Commissioner Callsante.

I have a question for the uh solicitor.

Um I'm concerned there may be an issue on the agenda here.

Um as advertised, the ordinance numbers are incorrect.

Can we legally vote on this given that information?

I I think solicitor the description is different.

4223, and then we have three and I think solicitor, we have to give a recommendation tomorrow.

You know, our deadlines today, and I think there is enough information there so one knows what the ordinances are about.

Yeah, I agree.

Um, because the if you notice, Jonas Woody's pointing out is one says oh three, and the second one says oh three, but it does describe the ordinance, so and it and it is a recommendation.

Um at this point, um I would say we're okay moving forward.

Any other questions?

All right, I the it's about a quarter of nine, so I'd like to get public comment going.

Uh is anyone here in the room that'd like to give public comment on these ordinances.

Please come forward, state your name and address.

Good evening.

My name is Annette Bourne.

I live at 51 Community Drive in Cranston.

I'd like to ask the commission to strongly recommend uh for both of these ordinances.

I drove here from Bristol participating in a talk on housing from there, listening to Vaughn Lane and thinking about you know the homes that we could be putting here in character, in historic character in these neighborhoods.

I grew up on a lot, 2500 square feet in Forest Hills, New York, 25 by 100.

That home just sold for over 1 million dollars.

People live on 3,000 square foot home lots, they live in two families on 4,000 square foot lots.

We are talking about incremental density that is in keeping with a neighborhood.

And speaking about Vaughn Lane, I think you guys you know should look into conservation development, maybe stave all those stone walls and trees.

Um, but for now, the eastern side of the city, uh, Pew Charitable Trust just came out with a report that speaks to the municipal benefit of this kind of housing development.

Given the city's financial situation, I think we need to look at every possible situation, including these.

Um please, please support this.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to make public comment?

Hi, I'm Charlotte.

I live at 37 Harmonat.

Oh, Charlotte.

I saw someone pass you guys paper during the Vaughn Lane thing, so that's what I was trying to do.

You guys have a make sure make sure you speak into the microphone.

Oh, I saw you someone pass you guys paper during the Vaughn Lane thing, so that's what I was trying to do.

Do you guys can I do that?

If if you'd like to introduce an exhibit, you certainly can.

Awesome.

Okay.

All right.

So I have to say I am from Stadium neighborhood.

The average lot size in my neighborhood is in fact 3,200 square feet.

It actually kind of broke my heart to consistently hear that lot size being referred to as substandard because I live across the street from a guy whose grass is so perfect, you could take a laser level through it.

And I sincerely believe I referred to his house as substandard, I would probably have to move and change my name.

So I'm here to ask you guys to be in support of this ordinance.

I live, as you can see on this lot here, on the lot that's in bright yellow, which I'm going to refer to here as megalot.

Mega lot was originally two separate lots.

We bought this lot from a family friend.

He was a World War II veteran that came back, moved from Province to Cranston, and bought two separate lots for his family.

That was the entire plan.

We know because his children told us.

In the 1966 thing, this World War II veteran found out that the city had merged his two lots together without his knowledge or permission, totally overriding his property rights.

It was never meant to be that way.

Now we live on megalot, which is 10,000 square feet.

Megalot could eat three of my neighbors' lots and still have room left over.

My husband recently asked me, can we build something here for your mom to live in?

Can we build something here for my parents?

And I said, no, we can't because the city believes that our 10,000 square foot lot is so impossibly tiny, it can only fit one house.

The original 1966 zoning was done blindly, it was done thoughtlessly.

It was not done with consideration for the character of these neighborhoods, and it was not done with consideration for the property rights of these owners.

I'm asking the commission today to support these two ordinances to restore the original character of these neighborhoods, to allow them to flourish, to allow them to develop, and to allow property owners like myself to be able to do the right thing.

I want to be able to put a second house on mega lot, just as was originally intended by these property plot owners.

It is originally two separate zoned houses so that I can take care of my parents when they get older.

This is something that's very important to me.

We're not just talking about tax laws, we're not just talking about property rights, we're talking about Princetonians' abilities to take care of their families and keep families together.

That's really what's the heart of this today.

And I invite anyone who thinks 3,000 square feet or 2,900, which is my neighbor across the way, but it's somehow substandard.

Come and visit my neighborhood.

The houses are beautiful, the families are nice.

And just it was Mr.

Renz's dream when he moved here from Providence.

This is their dream of where they want to raise their families.

These are good people, this is a good neighborhood.

And I just think we should allow more people to have this type of thing instead of sticking to a 1966 ordinance that created well, the absurdity of mega lot, a 10,000 square foot lot that somehow is too small for a second house.

Anyhow, I will, if you want guys want to tour my house to take a look in the neighborhood, please.

I will happily take you around.

I will show you that man's lawn.

It is actually perfection.

I'm very jealous of it.

All of my family knows this.

Anyhow, thank you so much.

My name is Monica Texera D'Souza.

I live at 1921 Bront Street, and I'm here today to uh encourage you to support both of these ordinances.

I moved to Cranston 18 years ago.

I love this city.

My kids go to Cranston Public Schools.

They've been really well served by the public schools.

And I was really fortunate enough to be able to in my early 30s purchase a two-family home in Edgewood.

I would never have been able to afford to do that today.

My mother-in-law lives on the first floor.

My husband and I and our two kids live on the second floor, and it's been perfect for us.

It's really the best of both worlds.

They have the proximity to her, but she has her own household, right?

She's had her home household her entire adult life, and she gets to keep having her own household.

In the neighborhood where I live, two family homes, three and four family homes are commonplace.

Small single families on small lots, two and three families on relatively small lots in light of the numbers that are being talked about today.

I live across the street from a small apartment building.

I love my neighborhood.

It's a vibrant neighborhood, and I think many of the people who live in these B1 and B2 zones would tell you something similar about their communities.

We've been talking about some of the changes that took place in our zoning laws in the latter part of the 20th century, which really led to the properties that many of us own, the structures that many of us own being dubbed non-conforming, right?

Legally non-conforming.

But in some ways, I think the zoning laws are the ones that were non-conforming because they were out of step with the dwellings, the lots that existed prior to that for longer periods of time.

And so when I walk around my neighborhood, I see a certain character, a historic character.

And the proposals that have been put forth, I believe help to preserve that character.

I also think that they will help to make what I described in terms of my family situation possible for more people.

I worry about my kids and their generation.

Last year in 2025, the medium age of a first-time home buyer shot up to 40 years old.

We're simply not able to provide affordable housing to these newer generations that coming that are coming up.

Having two family homes, as was discussed earlier, having smaller homes on smaller lots without state subsidies, enables people to have more affordable options, and it's also, I honestly believe it's better for families and it's better for our communities, and it's in line with what we already have in these zones.

So I really encourage you to uh make a positive recommendation on these ordinances.

Thank you.

Any other further public comment here in the room.

Good evening.

Uh Robert Murray.

I'm an attorney with offices at uh 21 Garden City Drive in Cranston.

I live at 75 Debbie Drive in Cranston.

I also own property in the stadium area, so I'm very familiar with that neighborhood.

Um I'm here tonight to speak on these ordinances, in all honesty, to recommend or ask that this commission send a negative recommendation to the ordinance committee for tomorrow next meeting.

I go appear there share my thoughts.

But um, it's well known on the practitioner and land use the last 40 years of doing this, speaking more for myself as opposed to representing a client of being an advocate for a particular position.

Um, and as a practitioner, I see the value of flexibility and some zoning parameters for development.

Um frankly, the the pitch is you know, helping the little guy, or these ordinances are for real estate speculators and developers.

Um this is a transformational shift, land use policy that we haven't seen in 60 years.

I admit, even in the age, the new age of speaker Shakachi's housing rules.

I find advising and sharing thoughts for clients can be challenging with our existing laws.

So I will acknowledge that these ordinances are too simplistic.

Uh, and I don't think they accomplish what people think they will.

Um, but I just don't believe tonight or tomorrow night is the night to turn the city top two derby on development.

Uh, and is consistent with good planning directives that have been decades old.

Frankly, you know, I heard earlier that one of these ordinances came out of the city of Providence.

Uh, I've spoken against the housing court.

And with these two bills, we now have the trifecta of converting Cranson to Providence with tenement housing over development on small lots with little available parking, no on street parking, uh, and at least our existing system process has checks and balances, whether it's before the zoning board, the planning commission, giving people the opportunity of notice to attend a meeting to speak.

I frankly was very surprised by the staff recommendation, I must tell you.

A month ago, I stood here with a client for three 3200 square foot lots on Tom Hem Street, stadium area.

Um the staff recommended denial, and the commission endorsed that uh those recommendations for single family houses.

Um not sure what is transformed in the last 30 days to uh you know we shouldn't be adopting these ordinance because it'll make it easier for the staff.

And I I love the staff, they're great people, I work with them every day, but we shouldn't do this because it's easier for them.

It's all part of the process.

Um respectfully, uh three-story tenement housing on 3,000 square foot lots is not my idea of Princeton living as a matter of right.

The uh the ordinances I find a little confusing, and I I want to refer to Mr.

Marcella, but what I find confusing is that 42603, which don't is called the uh merger ordinance or the uh whatever we call this does that says if I read it correctly, that if you have a B1 or B2 zone, and you have a 3200 uh lot that's at least 3,000 square feet and 30 feet of frontage, um, it does not have to be merged with the adjoining lot.

Yet in the next ordinance, which we amend the schedule of intensity regulations, it says in a B1 or B2 zone, you need to have at least 4,000 square feet of area and 40 feet of frontage.

So am I reading that correctly that a 3200 square foot lot with 30 feet of frontage as a matter of white cannot be built on?

That's question one, because it that seems to be inconsistent with the second ordinance where you have your amending the schedule of regulations.

But just for the record, I I did not draft these.

So Marcella, I did not subscribe blame.

Well, okay, I'm asking questions here, nor do I endorse them, but uh I did not draft.

No, no, I understand.

I did, but I it appears to be an inconsistency, and in fan, it's the people who are thinking we're proposing tonight to allow development on 3200 square foot lots with 3,000 square feet of frontage.

If somebody asks me, you pass this ordinance, I'm gonna go to the next section that says, Well, you'll you don't have 4,000, so you can't build with a matter of rent.

So that that should be clarified.

The second thing that I would ask is in 42603.

If I read this correctly, it doesn't only apply to housing development or residential housing.

There are uses in a B1 or P2 zone that are little more than single family or two family.

Okay, and if I'm reading it correctly, any of those uses that are committed uses in a B1 or B2 zone could be established on a 3200 square foot lot with 30 feet of frontage.

Like that's another question I have.

Um I recognize you didn't draft these, Mr.

Marcel, but in terms of drafting, we had in 42603 amendments to 172040 entitled conformance to district regulations required.

Then we have the next ordinance, which doesn't carry the changes from 42603.

So my question would be is if 42603 becomes law, and then we have 426, sorry, 42603 becomes law, and then we go to 42604.

Does that how do we address the inconsistency on that?

And my last question, if I'm reading these correctly, is so right now 172090, which is the specific requirements section.

Right now, in a B1 or B2 zone, you need to have 6,000 square feet for a single family and 8,000 square feet for a two-family.

Just so I'm clear, what this says is you would need whether it's a single family or two family, only 4,000 square feet.

No distinction.

So someone could then propose to build a two-family on the same-size lot that they would normally just be allowed to have a one-tenth.

So there just seems to be some questions there.

I may not be reading correctly.

I I share that with you, the commission.

But this is an area that has major implications.

But you know, frankly, you know, there's a lot of confusion in this area today in the city.

Uh, and I appreciate the fact somebody's trying to make it clearer or simpler, but sometimes we have the rule of unintended consequences, and I think that's what may be happening here.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the room would like to make public comment on these ordinances, please come forward.

Hi, my name is Karen Rosenberg.

I live at 46 Bow Street.

Um in a non-conforming lot, I guess.

I just looked it up.

Um it's less than 5,000 square feet.

Um I don't know about these technical issues with the drafting, but it seems to me that this is a practical solution to a problem that Cranston has, which is that it is what thousands of units behind where it should be in terms of um adding new housing, and it really hasn't done much over the past 30 years to move forward, and it doesn't seem like the leadership in the city ever has a solution for that.

They just say no.

Everything is no.

Um, this is a way to provide new revenue to the city, which doesn't seem to have a plan to deal with its budget issue, um, without requiring additional infrastructure investments by the city, um with a higher per square foot tax return, um, and people need housing.

So I resent the description of areas where there would be two or family homes on lots that were considered acceptable the 1960s, being called tenements, you know, in a disparaging way.

There are people who are living in neighborhoods like that right now, and I don't think that they feel like they're living in slums, which is the implication.

Um that's offensive.

Um, I just would like to see the city, you know, if there's drafting problems and issues like those things can be addressed, but I think it's incumbent on the city to start coming up with solutions instead of just saying like no to every attempt to try to add affordable housing in the city, and this in a way that would save the open spaces in the western part of the of the city, and would you know give people opportunities who don't have them right now?

It would create rental housing.

Obviously, if you're gonna have multi-family homes, then you're gonna have a lot more rental units.

It's gonna make this place affordable to the kids who grew up here who cannot buy a home or find a place to rent in the city.

So I would hope that this commit that this committee would give a positive recommendation to this.

Thank you.

Any further public comment here in the room tonight?

Seeing none, Mr.

Lima, is there anyone online that'd like to give public comment?

Christina Brown.

Go ahead, Miss Brown.

Brown.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee.

My name is Christina Brown.

Um, I live at 217 Armington Street.

Uh, for those of you who don't know, that's in the northern part of ward one.

I also live on a non-conforming lot within that section of my neighborhood.

And according to the documents that the planning staff has put forth, uh, in my ward, the the both these amendments would affect um the lots right around my house.

Um, and I'm calling in tonight to ask you to put forth a positive recommendation for both of these amendments.

They essentially legalize the existing built environment and building types in my neighborhood and in all three wards.

And not to belabor the point that has already been made, but they return development rights back to property owners so that if um properties turn over, we can retain the character of the existing built environment.

Single family homes on 6,000 square foot lots are not conforming to what exists in these wards.

And as others have said, this ordinance, both the amendments would allow for a diversity of housing types at different price points and are currently available in the city, creating options for smaller homes and retaining the property rights, the duplexes, legalizing those different types of multifamily housing and small homes that already exist.

Um I think these are both really good amendments for the three wards that they apply to.

I think they are targeted and strategic, and they also offer a chance to retain smart smart growth practices in the city, preserving open space elsewhere, and not over taxing our infrastructure.

So I will leave it there, but I want to say I'm in strong support as a resident who this ordinance will affect, and I hope that the commission puts forth a positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, my name is Nao Goshi Pisawa, and I live in 90 Sefton Drive in Edgewood in Ward 1.

And I have to say at the very beginning, I was kind of skeptical of this ordinance because I really worried about, especially in my neighborhood, about like homes for millionaires being built rather than affordable housing.

And as a um Cranstonian for the past 22 years whose children have gone through the public schools, I really do worry about whether or not my daughters can come back to Cranston to be able to live near us.

And so I also think that one thing we have to consider is something that the gentleman said, which is about the unintended consequences.

Seems to me what we've heard is the unintended consequences of taking away from homeowners the ability to decide what to do with their properties, whether or not they can build another home or not.

It seems to be something that is restorative rather than something that um that is actually kind of like earth-shattering or untested or questionable, etc.

etc.

The other thing I would really like you all to consider is like who's speaking for what and what interest is pushing the person to speak in the interest of the of the decision that we're urging you to make.

I feel like those of us who've spoken those thus far have for some reason been all women.

I'm not sure why, but we have been all women, and that we're thinking in terms of affordability, the ability of our our families, our elders, our children to be able to come back to Cranston and to think about the ways in which we can be proactive in thinking about creating affordable housing for the members of our communities.

And I have to repeat what um another person had just said earlier about the sort of the insult to call these tenements.

Al Stanley, a bad way to think about our communities.

You're hearing from us, members of the community, people who have been here for decades, asking you all to think about how to make our home, which we love so much more accessible to our children and to our elders.

So I urge you all please to consider a positive vote on this.

Thank you.

Next, Mr.

Lima.

A reminder to please raise your hand if you would like to speak.

I see no other public comment.

Okay.

All right, that's it for public comment.

The commission will now deliberate.

Um there are any comments initially from any commissioners.

Um do you want to go first, Commissioner Lampier?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

First of all, I just um would like to address our reference to calling properties substandard lots of methods, and the reason why we use that term is because that is usually the term that is coined either in ordinance or state law, and it doesn't refer, it refers to the fact that current zoning establishes a minimum lot size, which a particular lot may not meet, and if it doesn't need it, it's called a substandard lot of record.

It has nothing to do with the individual there, how they maintain their property or anything else.

So while it may sound like an unflattering term, it's the term we use because that's what's in law and statute.

Um I want I want to say that I grew up in ward free in a three-family home.

Um so I am accustomed to homes that house more than one family, but I think first and foremost, I want to um first address what is always a burden for the eastern side of the city, and I live in the edgewood area, but when we talk about the eastern side, we talk about other areas such as the stadium side and even further west.

And while I can agree with the fact that we need to protect the open spaces that we have in Western Cranston, we also need to protect the areas that have been built, and that we are sometimes struggling to maintain the quality of areas that we live in.

Um I want to say that currently the request to put two family homes or single family homes on lots that are less than what is required by current zoning are handled on a case-by-case basis, and oftentimes, while it may be burdensome to staff or to those people who need to appear every time we're some sort of modification, it serves an important purpose because not every area with smaller lots can accommodate more housing or more density, and it's important that we look at that without just taking a broad brush and saying that if your lot is this size, then you can have a buy right built on that lot.

And I also I agree with Mr.

Mari, it's one of those rare occasions in an agreement over the last nine years when I've been on the commission.

But this is a scene change, and I have a concern that it is being done in a hasty hasty fashion that is going to have unintended consequences, and I know we're making a recommendation to the council, and if there are members of the council listening, I would just like to um point out that when I started on the commission, there was a zone change that was before us with regard to siting of solar facilities in Western France, like the urgent need for housing, there was an urgent need for us to have more green energy for share, and that change in ordinance permitted solar facilities in residential areas.

It was put through quickly, it was touted as protecting open space and helping doing our share in Cranston or state goals of green energy.

We found out down the road the unintended consequences of allowing that.

And only after the harm was done, the council went back and changed that ordinance.

And I don't think anyone argues that we need more housing, but we need to do it in a way that is focused and specific, and first does no harm to existing neighborhood.

We have a housing element that was put forward ago.

We had a public hearing that proposed how Cranston can do that.

We talked about Elmwood Avenue and the eastern side of the city accommodating war housing, and I believe that there was a great deal of support for that, including my support.

I thought that was a good way to address this.

I think these two ordinances are not a good way to address the housing crisis.

First of all, um, we need affordable housing.

There is nothing in these ordinances that assures us that any of this housing would be affordable.

The argument is only always used more different types of housing and more housing will result in affordable housing.

I don't think we can just agree to that without having something that requires them, and these ordinances don't require it.

So these are not consistent with the ordinances would also allow housing on three and four thousand square foot lots.

I lived on a 4,000 square foot lot with two children, and my husband, and I will tell you there was barely room on that lot for two cars behind each other in the driveway, the trash cans, and a little tiny tiny tiny yard.

If you put two family homes on a 4,000 square foot lot, you're creating density issues, you're creating lack of adequate parking.

We have more cars now, and when people live together in housing, we often have more than one or two cars, and we don't have adequate parking, that changes neighborhoods.

As Mr.

Murray pointed out, this commission voted no on something that was 3200 square feet about last month, and a couple of months before that, we voted no on a two-family that was on 6,000 square feet.

So that's what we chose to do as a commission.

There may be times when we say yes to that when it's a specific matter that comes before us, but a broad brush or ordinance that does what these ordinances do are not in the interest of most residents of the city of Cranston, property owners and otherwise, and I would encourage my fellow commissioners to vote no on both of these.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Other comments, Commissioner Coop, go ahead.

Um I'll start by saying it was painful for me to cast that vote on Bonn Lane because I spent a lot of time in Fiskville and I know it very well, and I hate to see that development go in, but it is what happens when you run out of space.

And I do think that in the right place in the right way, in Phill is very important.

And I do think that the zoning changes in 1966 or whenever that was has created difficult unfair conditions for many property owners.

I think it's outdated in this world.

Um I think that creating consistency for the applicants or the property owners that want to do these subdivisions is a good thing.

I think as a commission, we do a very good job.

We approve quite a few of these that come in.

So any implication that the planning commission is stymieing housing development, Cranston is off base.

Look at our record.

We approve a lot of these.

Unfortunately, we didn't approve the three that Mr.

Murray brought in, but that's a rarity.

But I just think 3,000 square feet is too small to make it automatic.

I think it's too small for most situations, and certainly we would have to consider something like that on a case by case basis.

Um I didn't pick up on Mr.

Murray's analysis of the ordinances, but doing a quick search right now, it does seem like there is some inconsistency between the ordinances, and I'm not sure I can say for certainty that these ordinances would allow a house on a 3,000 square foot lot, but I don't want to take a chance and support something with a number that low.

Um, I think the biggest difference has been brought up before is parking.

Cranston doesn't allow overnight parking on the street, so you have to get the car off the street.

And on a 3,000 square foot lot, where are you going to put your car?

And if you have a two-family house, you have at least three or four cars.

Where are you going to put three or four cars on a 4,000 square foot lot?

Um, I wish the proponents of an ordinance like this would talk to the planning staff, talk to the planning commission, get some input, um, and give us a chance to you know say something other than yes or no.

But given the choice we have, I just don't feel comfortable giving a positive recommendation, despite my track record that the commissioners know very well is to support housing to support infill housing.

Um, I just don't think this is going at it the right way.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any other comments?

Um, I'll provide mine.

I'll be voting as in giving in, I'll be voting negative on these two ordinances.

They're inconsistent with goal LUS six, protect and stabilize existing residential neighborhoods and policy LU 18, preserve the existing density of established neighborhoods.

By the way, I'll be talking that's the same for both.

I'll also know in addition, it is inconsistent with the future land use map density of 10.89.

Start out with two families on a bill, two family buildings on a 4,000 square foot lot is double the density of these um under our future land use map.

Also, although the director told me that these numbers may be uh not entirely accurate, overwhelmingly, it looks like to me, based on the data I have that was part of our housing plan.

11 of the 13 neighborhoods in the V1 zones and one of the four neighborhoods in the B2 zones have median lot sizes above 4,000 square feet, therefore allowing development on lots of 4,000 square feet, never mind the 3,000, is smaller than the majority of residential lots in these neighborhoods.

This ordinance does not preserve the existing density of the established neighborhoods and does not protect and stabilize existing residential neighborhoods.

To elaborate a little bit further, in case the city council wants to review this video, Cranston has random variances for building on lots that are smaller than what's required by zoning, as Commissioner Coop pointed out, and Commissioner Lamfier.

This is a variance process.

We review things case by case to make sure it works with the surrounding neighborhood, and there's adequate parking.

In contrast, this creates a by right process, one of these ordinances that would significantly limit the latitude of local officials.

I don't consider this right sizing of the zoning.

This is actually uh your the zoning is going to be the lots are going to be smaller than it's already there.

The idea that the ordinance will reduce the work for the planning department staff or the reduce the cost for the developers should only be an ancillary benefit, never a major justification for a policy change affecting our zoning.

They certainly don't override the goals of LU6 and the policy of L U18.

I also want to address this fiscal impact concept.

The staff presented a focused on the taxable value per acre.

However, that does not really show the actual fiscal impact of housing.

You have to look at the costs as well.

You have to, for example, yes, a half acre in B1 will produce more tax revenue than a half acre in Alpine States.

I won't give you go through the math, more tax revenue.

But it will probably, if there's five houses on that half acre, going to have more children than one house on a half acre.

Therefore, it is unlikely building on smaller lots will have a nest positive fiscal impact on the city.

The issue of building of more housing on B1, B2 will somehow reduce the overall pressure of building in far western Cranston.

I don't see.

You see, the B1B2 market of small lots, I don't think is the same demand that you see for these larger lots in far western Cranston, like you saw on Vaughn Lane.

We build 400 of these things and small lots and what in B1B2.

I don't think it's going to make the demand for those 44 lots that are half acre essentially on Vaughn Lane go away.

The staff points out talks about stormwater and the need for stormwater regulation and maximum pervious surface.

I agree with that totally.

The problem is you're putting the cart before the horse.

I do not want to be reducing the size of zoning, uh, excuse me, of lots, until we figure out we got the stormwater issue fixed.

Get the stormwater issue fixed, make sure there's adequate parking, and then we can talk about smaller lot sizes.

In regards to the argument that we're not doing enough, that we are falling behind and all this other stuff about mount housing.

We can achieve, at least on paper, the goals of 2030 housing without this.

We can do Elmwood Av.

You heard tonight, the City would have, the Champlain projects.

That's 250 units.

Legion Bowl, that's about 69.

Vaughn Lane, 44.

Printworks.

You know why we have 150 building permits last year?

100 of it was print works.

That was approved by us and the city council.

So we are doing stuff.

What is the strategy?

It's basically a couple of things.

We look at underutilized properties that are commercial industrial and see can we make that housing?

And when we do infill lots, and this is where we have a gray area.

Some are more stricter, some are less strict on the commission and of the zoning board.

You have to look at it case by case.

And most of the time, as Commissioner Coop says it's approved, about 90%.

In regards to this concept that, you know, these were originally platted this way.

Some of these lots were platted in the late 1800s.

Okay, this is pre-model T.

There was no cars.

People walked in the Narrogance brewery.

They walked the print works.

So, oh, this is how it was plotted back then.

Yes, and there was no cars back then.

So going back to the original platform necessarily to me indicative of anything other than it's not maybe workable anymore, potentially.

And as indicated by Commissioner Lamphier, we had recently the planning staff, the planning commission, and the zoning board all voting against 320 development on 3200 square foot lots, primarily because of parking issues.

In regards to the 1966 ordinance, people can make changes.

I get all this stuff.

But I wasn't done because a bunch of people in a room weren't thinking.

Look at the history of the articles from back then.

Okay.

In 1961 master plan, it said the problems of increasing density may be particularly difficult in areas where existing development is on small lots, allowing little room for increased parking and aggravating shortages of yard space.

And the recommendation was limit the increase of residential density to locations where adequate parking can be made available.

That's what the 66 ordinance did, and that's what we're doing.

So for all those reasons, let me just make sure I address everybody because I do listen to public comment, and I systematically go through it point by point if I disagree with you.

But I do listen, and we have done a lot here on housing.

More sometimes than I feel comfortable about.

But I balance things the best I can.

That's it for me.

Thank you.

Just um our solicitor.

Am I correct in saying that if these lot sizes were reduced to 3,000 and 4,000 square feet, there is a overlay of state legislation that may require further reduction or allow further development.

Correct.

So a couple of things.

One is we've had 61 bills so far, and I think we got nine more, so we're going to be at 70 bills.

Um there are right now on the books, there are further reductions, which are allowed um by modification.

For instance, um, the building official is um in Cranston, our modification goes to 25 percent.

It's mandated 15 percent, so there's modifications.

There's also sliding scales regarding setbacks regarding frontage, so whatever is passed or whatever is um contemplated by a municipality, you now have a substantial state overlay, which essentially shrinks or allows smaller lots to whatever you're going to align.

So it's it's ultimately your policy decision on whether you want to go with um you know 4,000, 6,000, etc.

However, whatever the city of Cranston determines is the zoning for that zone.

Um, there are there are state laws which require approvals, administrative approvals, which this board or the zoning board will never see, and we only see it when it goes below those mandated um, I guess sub overlay approvals or administrative approvals.

So that's one thing you need to consider when lowering the amount of square footage which you're going to allow by right, because the state will then mandate it to going even lower.

Um second thing is because as Mr.

Murray pointed out, because we have a 3,000 square foot lot size in 03 and a 4,000 square foot lot size in 04, that now makes the 3,000 square foot lot size a substandard lot subject to all the benefits that are in current state law.

Now keep in mind there's a horrible bill out there called 8004, um, which is probably going to pass, and that allows even uh one, it allows basically on merger by right because the they change the changing the definition of how you calculate on merger, um it allows a sliding scale on new lots that wasn't allowed before, so there are there's pending legislation, and it might be worth waiting for the city council or recommending city council wait another month to see what actually gets enacted, um, especially in the 8004 bill, which is kind of the mega bill, um, to see how that will affect current status of our lots, you know, as we have it under our zone.

Um I I do agree that for instance go 4,000 and 4,000 on the um on 04 is probably a problem, but you know, the city or or the commission might think of right now it's 6,000 and 8,000.

um to see how that will affect current status of our lots you know as we have it under our zone um i i do agree that for instance go 4000 and 4000 on the um on oh four is probably a problem but you know the city or or commission might think of right now it's six thousand and eight thousand um you know that that clearly can be lowered because practically speaking um very rarely do we see a two family house on an eight thousand square foot lot see we can so but but these are individual policy decisions which really need to be looked at um more closely rather than a blanket level but because the the numbers don't jive between oh three and oh four we are creating a three thousand square foot lot which you're going to be able to get relete by right to bring it down to one twenty four hundred square feet um so you know I I you know with with modification sliding scales etc um so I I would caution if anything if we should bring oh three up to at least four thousand that's at a very and it doesn't look like the uh the commission's going to uh support this um anyway um but we really should look at the numbers again with the overlay of mandated state administrative approvals but thank you solicitor and you raise a great point which is one of my reservations about making major changes to our zoning code regards the lot size is because the state can't stop messing with zoning code so it's a constant moving like target you know the field the goal field code goal posts keep moving so it's hard to like I could do you know as you said so sir could I go below the current six and eight yeah and I actually said that to other people in um but um three thousand four thousand is just not feasible especially with the constant changes in state law and I just want to say one last thing before we vote after the discussion um whenever I make a decision or a policy here or an opinion it's I do it based on the merits it's I just want to let the councilman know it is not anything about who is proposing this about what they're proposing all the time and it's the same way I treat the applicants and sometimes I vote ways that people get upset with me and I understand I get it but it's who I am so that's what it is any other further comment for anyone before we make motions okay motion time um I want to make a negative I'm gonna make I'm gonna I'm I would support negative recommendations so all right I'll make the motion move this along it's like 20 of 10 I would make following motion that this the commission gives a negative recommendation to both ordinances want me to want me to okay can I characterize it as a small lot ordinance or do I have to say the numbers okay on the 03 ordinance I would recommend uh my motion is that it is a negative recommendation based on goal lux protect and stabilize this in neighborhoods and policy l u 18 preserve the existing density of established neighborhoods and also note in addition is inconsistent with the future land use map density of 10.89 units right seconded by commissioner extra is there any further discussion okay seeing none all those in favor of a negative recommendation signify by saying aye all those opposed say nay eyes have it oh four this is for the 04 ordinance again the ordinance is inconsistent negative recommendation based on the fact that the ordinance is inconsistent with goal lux six protect and stabilize existing residential neighborhoods policy lux 18 preserve the existing density of established neighborhoods condition is inconsistent with the future land use map density of 10.89 units per acre that's the motion seconded by commissioner exter any further discussion seeing none all those in favor of a negative recommendation signify by saying aye those opposed say nay eyes have it six zero and all right thank you very much we will now move to by the way do my colleagues want a break or do you want to plow forward it's up to you guys don't be shy I took a break when no one was noticing you want to keep going all right the motion is to go so we will go

Seeing none, all those in favor of a negative recommendation signified by saying aye.

I was opposed to say nay's have it.

All right, thank you very much.

We will now move to by the way.

Do my colleagues want to break?

Or do you want to plow forward?

It's up to you guys.

Don't be shy.

I took a break when no one was noticing.

You want to keep going?

All right.

The motion is to go.

So we will go.

Next is Elena Village.

And then we'll do zoning board recommendations.

Mr.

Murray, uh, is the applicant here on Elena Village and wishes to be heard.

You can proceed when you're ready, Mr.

Murray.

Thank you.

And then for the record Robert Murray, 21 Garden City Driving Prince here tonight on behalf of Ario and Laura and Carino.

Share your interest in the project and any information commission required.

Just by way of background, Arena's quiet property in uh April here.

Have an interest in asking the commission to subdivide this property.

Um the zone the zoning in the area is one part of uh a lane street, Avenue is on eight twelve, which residential uh lot size the minimum lot size of twelve thousand square feet.

Uh on block twelve but across the street and the immediate vicinity zoning is A eight there under our code the lot sizes uh eight thousand um lot in question on other twenty thousand square feet they are going to subdivide the back of the lot house fronts on village after asking your permission regulations to create a lot of the rear existing house just over twelve thousand square feet the existing house on the eight thousand ninety-seven square foot lot.

Um the loop are asking for can I use uh oxygen thirty nine hundred square feet on area to read the existing house at 44 village on a lot that we can less and require the A twelve village.

But I think you see on that screen there, you can get the out of point for the radius uh the gold or yellow uh at the top and in the middle of the screen is the lock uh in the white area white uh PA called property and be uh serviced by public water and sewer and required, but we're asking tonight the allowed to subdivide the new house will be constructed at 29 around the street.

We have that's going to uh signing a house by constructed properly the area the village advanced 44 village advanced house to the rate branch and that is Matt's order contemplated at this time with the board is subject with that Mr.

Correct we decided to uh speed it this way because um as Mark said across the street on the uh west side of footage avenue is called a eight and the past is each eight.

So we want to try to prove as little uh um change as possible.

So uh if the twelve thousand scripts that would be uh preparation of light lift once you overcome correct how long have you been putting those things?

So you're ops and very and just knowing you have semi-inference background.

Um basically prescribed the way from the topography of the property as it's like that last uh diagram because it's probably like a from village uh down the range street, it's probably about a twelve foot drop.

Um the way a street has drains a lot because it has sealed water also has gas, but it also has green and uh yeah, the topography is it's found that it's uh default so because there's a lot of locks and those houses on the steady lock.

Um I built houses, I built my own house at number 45.

Uh we have locked on it, but I've also built houses uh for the street, they are built in which we know basically went all the way down to Africa, right?

Um preparation uh any of your neighbors uh use this project again.

Yes, um the oasis wall to the four hundred degrees um I decided to write a letter explained to them without just explaining one of the things that water uh the back walls are to be asked to run the question.

Um the other thing we have the letters here and split on the scale, but we also um a lot of people walk the neighborhood to leave the double 44 city uh basically 44 people.

Bob uh uh unless my math is wrong, uh but there aren't forty-four lots in the but where are the forty-four people coming from you have to talk on the microphone.

I think we're just four hundred radius.

Um over a hard port and all that.

I think it encumbers uh over a hard court and all that's your knowledge to people decide issues of the value thing within two um not like first um asking you stuff really need uh storm water made what standard board who is this forward to a building process work to see demonstration on site no more water off the site post-construction that it just didn't look targeted for another regulations public work's proposals whether it's rain garden swayos and what kind of on your uh property yeah as we look at the screen on the south side uh they are identified pre-conscribe float commission and prior to the CD over that uh property uh long the issue can we just finish like what's the incompany fair to say on some of those stone walls obviously you understand what uh like historic stone walls are that uh present many you know mediers and the solid uh the fair say some of the stone wall reference here is more assembled of rocks versus actually wall but uh whether that you know obviously not altering time on the property but right now your plans are to anything improve um the stone there stone assemblage but not uh take away um at this point I don't have any other questions I think but just for the record the four photos and I should see mostly that's the point benefits Mr.

Murray is there any questions for Mr.

Murray at this stage for my colleagues Mr.

Murray I just have a quick question doesn't mean you don't need to elaborate um the density calculations do you contest the density calculations in the staff memo and do you have anything you want to say on density to me I should not care about it for example I apologize I thought about 30% of that no problem Mr.

If you do not, you want to address whether or not I should take that into account.

Um actually disagree with the staff calculation.

I was good.

Um disagreement uh my mind certainly well within that we're range of the other issue.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Murray.

Any questions for Mr.

Murray?

Okay.

Um I think we'll have staff.

You can give your your kind of like your overview, and then we'll have public comment if that's okay.

Okay, I will continue on just from where I've left off in the presentation on this application at 44 Village Avenue, the Elena Village subdivision, which is requesting to yield one additional buildable lot and the A12 residential zone for a single family residential lot, and the requested relief is 3,903 square feet for the existing dwelling to remain on 8,000 and change.

Here's the site plan of the proposed conditions, and staff finds that this proposal does mirror the existing uses, density, and character of the development.

Ooh, typo in the Thornton neighborhood.

It is consistent with the following goals and policies of the 2024 comprehensive plan.

I won't read through them because they're in the staff memo, but I can address any questions on those.

Um the proposal is generally consistent with the future land use map designation.

I say generally consistent because it does go over the prescribed density um of the future land use, but it is in line with the use.

Um the resulting density of the proposed subdivision is 4.33 units per acre.

That's just the subdivision itself.

Um the proposal seeks to create a new single-family lot with a hundred feet of frontage, which is consistent with the comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and future land use map.

Um, 100 feet of frontage being consistent with the A12 um zone that it is in.

Here are some calculations that our staff is making standard in our in these types of presentations now.

So you'll probably see slides like this frequently.

Um, just going over what the density is in the 200 foot radius, um, the number of of lots within the 200 foot radius being 17 lots, um, and the density for those 17 lots being 2.26.

Um I do note in the staff memo that many of the residential lots in this area are just on really long deep lots, and so the density is pretty low.

Um, but I threw together this little visual because it's kind of just helping us see that the character from the street is not changing at all.

Um, this is the same sized shape, just on every single lot where there is a home.

And you can see this shape is in red where the new house is being proposed, and so it's just kind of saying um there's a gap there anyways.

Putting a house there would actually fill the missing tooth of the street.

Um the proposal reinforces the rhythm.

Uh the subject property contains currently 200 feet, and again, just proposing the hundred to be standard with the rest of the um houses in the area.

Um, and then also just kind of relating the fact that the the lot that is seeking release is completely in line with the abutting properties in the A8 zone.

Um, so staff finds this proposal to be consistent with the comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and uh standards for required findings of fact and recommends that uh a positive approval for this subdivision as well as for the variance to allow um the existing single family house to sit on 8,097 square feet.

Thank you, Ms.

Halcourt.

Is there any uh any commissioners have any questions for the staff at this time?

Okay, seeing none.

We will now proceed to public comment.

Is anyone here would like to make public comment on the uh Elena Village 44 Village Avenue application?

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

Hi, my name is Mary Love.

I live at 260 Lena Street and my copy of us.

I live at 260 Elena Street, and my property of us newly purchased.

And I'm here just to express a few concerns.

Um my main concern is water issues.

So as Mr.

Calvin said my property and the surrounding area was at the watches.

When I purchased my home, I was told by my neighbors that my lot specifically was a pond where they went ice skating every winter.

Um if you were to walk the back of my property, it is completely wet year-round.

Um you need boots to sink in mud and water.

The only time that it really dries out is in the parts.

So I get water runoff, I have cooling in my backyard, um, and just numerous problems with water.

On the left side of my property is a small indentation which cools with water, and I actually have mallard ducks that come daily and make this.

Next door to the home at 250 Elaine Street does have a small pond in the air for your property, but about small.

The previous names were going down the street, we aligned her two lots and filled in a brook that traversed along the back of her yard and the stone wall all the way down to the street.

The brook was approximately four to five feet wide and it ran activity.

In fact, my kids when they were young, put a foot, like eight foot piece of wood across it to hop over the stone wall and get across the brook, the other side to the lake and not just the wetland pond and full of water on both of our properties probably helped to create that flow, but certainly when that was filled in, it pushed the door down.

Eventually, the vacant lot was sold.

The new homeowners at 250 immediately hit ledge and water when they were trying to build their foundation.

As a result, he had to install two pumps and always complained about getting water in his basement.

In fact, during one rainstorm, he sustained 36 inches of water, and that is with the fire department coming to pump him out.

So this day, previous homework owners, there have been two since he left, both complaining about water in the basement.

I too have suffered significant damage to my own.

I was able to sustain it at two and a half feet, utilizing two pool pumps, industrial grade before the done.

Only after they came out and inspected and delivered the bad news that in addition to everything else that I had lost, I now had to take down all of the stucco boards in the plastic boards and have it mold treated and inspected by the state before I could do anything else.

Eventually, they did give me some relief in the form of a new boiler, a washer, and a dryer, but it took me months to clean up damp, moldy items, household woods, toys, clothing, etc.

And it took me just about a year to get back to somewhat normal.

Another contributing factor to my property, always being wet is the surrounding slopes from all the properties on Crane Street and Village, as I said.

Recently, I have discovered on the property next door that there is a pipe that appears to be a drainage pipe sticking out of the ledge in the rear of Mr.

Carbon Hussein property.

The pipe extends out of the ledge about a foot and is pointed directly to my home.

I'm not sure its purpose, but I do know it's providing draining for something and adding to the runoff in my yard.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that green is directed away from homes that are occupied and prevent disturbing surface areas and erosion.

On that complete side of my house, I am unable to grow grass, bushes, anything of the sort because of the slope and the runoff during the rain.

I do have pictures that I've taken.

I only have one copy of each.

I'm happy to pass them around.

I have pictures of the pipe.

I have pictures pre-rain, post-rain.

You can see the water running off.

Just give it to one of the commissioners and it'll make its way around.

I think if these are the same pictures you put on the website.

That's new.

Okay.

Because I saw your pictures on the website.

I'm also concerned about ledge.

The property next door is very rocky and appears to have a tremendous amount of ledge.

I'm worried about the removal of it, or if the classing would be necessary.

I worry how removal of it will affect water and grain to my property.

The previous owner indicated to me that when they serviced his property with the sewer, they had to go through 10 feet of the ledge in order to get the pipe to his house.

I'd like to address one of a couple of other things, a little bit minute, but certainly relevant.

On both sides of my property, I do have a stone wall that traverses from the Elena Street all the way back on both sides.

I'm asking that, and I know from tonight now it will look familiar with that, that it is protected, but I would just add one that he would say he's not going to touch.

Another thing is that I have an immense amount of wire work.

I have eight here, I have 12 turkeys, two possums, three raccoons, a red fox, a gray fox, two mallard ducks, two gophers, one large skunk, rabbits, myriad of different types of birds, a bobcat, and a plus coyotes.

And there are pictures of them here.

I can send them around.

They come typically on a daily basis, and I'm concerned that where it serves as open woods, and I'm concerned about displacing them from their natural habitat and increasing their feeding and breeding grounds as well.

I would like to just address the letter that Mr.

Carlyn sent to me.

Um just to point out a few things.

He says that while my daughter Brianna initially liked the property, she has never really been a fan of raised ranch-style home, even one that's been modernized.

Because of that, we began exploring a second option, subdividing the lot to build her a home that benefits what she wants.

What about what I want?

And more to that, there are other viable lots.

Knock down the home that's existing there.

Buy another house in the area.

There are plenty for sale.

Look at other houses in surrounding areas that they could buy.

But it does sit on an oversized lot now, but he is short, the frontage needed, and thus would be on the street.

He also says the new house will be located on the rear flotion of the property and would face Elena Street, aligning naturally with the street rather than all float altering the overall feel of Bill Japanese.

What about altering the overall feel of a lane street?

And finally, he says, most importantly, his daughter wants to stay in the neighborhood, so her son can attend school that just like we did.

I'm not originally from France.

I grew up in Province.

I I lived here in 1989, built the home that I'm presenting yet.

And um I think that for me to practice as a result of what's the other one.

There's more to it than that.

And so I would respectfully request that you consider my concerns and let them re and I would decision.

But I am so worried about water in my house.

And I will tell you that my house and the house next door are on a hill, and everybody was shocked that we were the only two neighbors in the whole area that got the water.

No one else did, and we are the highest houses.

Thank you.

Sorry, that's okay.

It's all right.

Good fine.

Thank you, Ms.

Perillo.

Um other uh comment, anyone else like make public comment on this matter?

Okay, see none.

Um, Mr.

Lemers, anyone online who'd like to discuss this application.

There is no public comment online.

Thank you.

Does any call any of my colleagues have questions for Mr.

Murray?

Commissioner Lampier.

Mr.

Murray, were you able to see the photographs that were just presented to us or same thing?

Um I believe what I wanted to ask about was the photograph.

I I let me I can look at it, but I think I know what it is.

The uh they said the colonial just acquired this house in April.

Um he discovered that there is a uh there is quite his intention.

His intention is to uh redirect that into a drywall system, uh, but he's not yet done.

Could you repeat that because I wanted to hear it clearly?

Oh, you can't hear me.

Uh his intention is to redirect that to the drywall system.

We are aware of it, that will be done.

Do you believe that that would, I'm sorry to interrupt your question.

Do you believe that that would assist with reducing the amount of flooding that goes to our home?

Um, I'm not prepared to say that we're directing flooding for a home.

Okay, sorry.

That's number one.

Number two, yeah.

Um shared, obviously we all recall the 10.

Um everybody uh was underwater, yeah.

Unprecedented flooding.

Um the Mr.

Carlino understands his obligation to protect the storm water because lived in the area but a good neighbor if he wants to continue to be a good neighbor.

Uh is um the fact that uh might be something that uh should be penalized for.

I understand Ms.

Burrillo's um uh concerns, but the issues, many of the issues that she raised, uh you know, I know she was sincere in everything she said.

Um you know, we would deal with uh ledge, it's an issue.

Um the um that wildlife um I was know it's off.

Um wildlife.

Um anybody from the stone hill stonehill area, the boy scout property, yeah.

There is considerable wildlife in that area.

I'm sure that uh all the neighbors up there enjoy uh uh the beauty of the uh the native species and the wildlife.

Um if you're gonna talk, you gotta come to the microphone.

Can we just let Mr.

Paulino finish and then oh like Bob said, I I just purchased the property.

I um the down spots is goes into that uh pipe and it leaches into that open lot.

I don't think that pipe is probably 180 feet away from this corillo's property.

It is all downhill, so if there's a heavy rainstorm, some of it probably will go there.

If I have if I get approval, my intent is to cut that pipe and put a proper fly out so that it reaches into the ground, not into you have a problem making that a condition of approval.

No, Ms.

Perello, we don't usually allow further public comment, but uh because you're the abutting homeowner and I know this affects you.

It's a uh uh it occurred.

It's an ongoing problem.

Correct.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Murray, could you address this the ledge thing?

I I just want to know are you even I don't even know how this is.

It's like you're gonna do blasting.

What are you gonna do about this ledge thing?

This uh this assertion that there's ledge on the property.

I don't know.

Uh, give me some thought.

Um yeah, I've um I built my own house and I pulled out a lot of rock.

I didn't hit ledge.

Uh pulled out a lot of rock that I use to create walls so I could flatten my property.

Um I've built three other houses down the street, never hit ledge.

Um, if you look at the map, there's a house on every property.

I I grew up in the neighborhood.

I know that no one ever blasted the pretty much have a large excavator, and they as they say, they pull those potatoes up one at a time.

Okay, the stormwater issue that Mrs.

Perillo raises.

Um I know that this is you have to, you know, you do stormwater management type stuff, city reviews it.

Um is it because is it your view that the reason there's so much storm water that goes down is because of the sloping issue that's like the natural aspect of where she has her home?

Uh two issues topography, yeah, major driver.

Um that expert, but both her and the neighbor's house aren't really built up high, so you know that confidence of those two issues uh brings a challenge.

The challenge to Mr.

Carlino is to not complicate that problem.

Correct.

Uh and hopefully um anything proof the situation.

Could you just explain?

Uh and this is something I'm still trying to learn.

What exactly as a single homeowner, single family homeowner?

What is the process for the evaluation of their stormwater management system with the city?

My most recent experience on that is that uh through the root slip process in the building building department, um this online portal you get an email every 15 minutes, but the uh you um the public works department uh right up front, they will post a comment.

You know, this is what we need to see.

I have some clients who believe them and do it, and I have others who ignore it and then wonder why their permits not being issued.

So um I find that uh public works department is very good about uh you know they cite the section, the requirements, and uh most people you know engage in engineer, which we will have to do to uh comply with the city regulations.

All right, any other questions from Mr.

Murray, the applicant.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Murray.

Just in closing, I just want to say that with respect to your challenge tonight.

Um I believe that the uh standards for the uh leaf for the dimensional relief has been met.

We're not really altering the general character of the neighborhood.

Uh obviously would amount to more than we are a convenience to Carlino if this was denied.

So when you look at your standards of 452360, um my opinion, the plan is before you was consistent with the comp plan.

Uh there's no sign that any environmental issues dealt couldn't dealt with the final plan.

We have access to a street, and uh no lot is being created here that uh that it would be possible to hold.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

All right, if there's no other further questions, we will go uh could the staff just put the recommendation up on the screen.

Yes, the recommendation is on the screen um for a positive or an approval of this subdivision for parcel one to be granted zoning relief to be left with 8,097 square feet where 12,000 is required, and there's two recommendations of uh conditions of the approval just for pavement restoration and the payment of the impact fee.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Solicitor Marcelo, there are two motions today on this one because you have to do the variance, grant the variance under the UDR, so we have to make a motion to grant the variants, and then we have to grant the subdivision, correct?

For the conditions, you got it.

Okay.

Is there any discussion for my colleagues on this matter?

Okay, I'll just say something right now.

Um Ms.

Perello, I wrestle with these kinds of projects.

Okay, about the stormwater issue.

All we can require is that, and this is by law, no new runoff can be from the property onto your property.

I can't fix your I can't make Mr.

Carlino fix your flooding problem.

Okay, you don't have you know, by the way, you don't need to respond, just gotta just tell you, you know.

I wish I could figure something out about this, but it sounds like it's primarily a slope issue.

I can't fix slope.

Um what I feel confident about, what I hope and I feel confident about is that the public works department will do its job to make sure there is a strong stormwater system there on Mr.

Carlino's property so that you don't have the wet problem.

The wet problem does not get worse.

That's all I can basically say.

Um the one other thing I can do is this condition on the drain pipe.

I could easily, if my colleagues agree, we could you know, as a condition, an initial conditions redirect the pipe into a drywall.

Is that what uh is it wall or well?

Well, I'm sorry, a drywall.

So if you're concerned about the pipe, we can at least do that too.

Um of course, under state law, he can't mess with your wall, you know, on the farm stuff.

So anyway, that's my two cents on this thing.

But can I add a staff note that these walls are not on the state's um map uh of like historic stone walls?

So in comparison to Vaughn Lane, those are on the map.

But I think uh thank you for pointing that out.

Then that could maybe also Mr.

Carlina's already agreed publicly not to mess with those those walls.

So I think we could also add a condition if we wanted to, is that the stone walls will not be um moved or tampered with by um by the applicant?

Anything else before we make motions okay then now's the time to make motions.

I've been making the motions all evening.

Somebody else can do it.

Commissioner Lampier.

I would move to accept the staff's recommendation following two conditions.

Stone walls will not be used or disturbed by the applicant, and the drain will be redirected into five up.

That's that's great.

Second motion for the we're gonna do the first motion, and we'll we'll do the uh if you can make a motion on the variants first.

Okay, anyone want to make the motion on the variance to grant the variance relief consistent with the staff's recommendation?

Commissioner Lampier.

I would move to accept staff's recommendation.

Okay, is there a second to that motion?

Commissioner Mancini, any further discussion?

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

All is opposed to say nay.

Always opposed to say nay.

I so second motion now is in order, Commissioner Lampier.

I would move to accept the staff's recommendation and add to the recommended conditions of approval.

Number three, stone walls will not be moved or disturbed by the applicant.

And four that the drain can be redirected to a dry well by applicant.

So you would agree with the conditions also by the staff.

These are two additional conditions.

Okay.

Is there a second to Commissioner Lampier's request?

Motion.

Oh, Commissioner Callasante makes a second.

Any further discussion?

I'll make a quick point.

Mr.

Murray, I am going above the density, very reluctantly.

Just let you know.

Just it doesn't make a whole unit, and that's the only reason why.

I have to say I always have to be consistent.

You never know when these things come up.

Okay.

Anyway.

Uh right.

Any further discussion?

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

All those opposed saying nay.

I have congratulations, Miss Carlino.

Miss Barillo, I wish you the best of luck, and I hope your situation does not get worse.

Okay.

Now we will do zoning board recommendations.

I want to check the room.

Who's here for what zoning recommendations is there?

There's three of them.

Anyone else here for anything else?

Okay.

We're gonna do Beckwith, we're gonna do dream, and then the other one will be last.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Is anyone you you're here for public comment for Beck with put there?

Is there anyone here for Beck with What do you mean the people like applicant?

Okay, so we're gonna do Beckwood first.

I'm gonna do your first.

Don't worry about it.

So I'm gonna do it this way.

I always let the public go first if I can.

Yeah, so just hold on a second.

I gotta do this process then.

Okay.

Uh is the applicant here and wishes to be is there applicant here and wishes to be heard on Lanona construction at 235 Beckwith Street.

Okay, I don't see the applicant here.

Could the staff then provide a recommend uh their their overall staff recommendation?

Then we'll take public comment.

All right, so um this is a proposal to leave an existing single family dwelling, one size lot.

Um, and construct a new single family dwelling size lot.

These lots were previously next by see if this is in the B1's on the upper side plan showing the thing, single family drawing, and this shows the proposed new single and the relief saw is for minimum lot size and D100.

So we're doing this uh application with uh the average lot size in Auburn and Auburn beyond zone five thousand square feet, a lot of the lots in this area, square feet that is the character of the neighborhood, the proposed density is above the uh future land use map that's interesting.

We also found that um following both policies and action items application or each two policy three policy positive recommendation.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Is there any questions for Mr.

Ray from the commission?

Oh, Commissioner Mancini.

So Mr.

Ray, I have a question about this house.

Would the mean house on the the house existing?

We're not questioning anything about the setbacks on like the size of the house compared to the size of the land because it's a very large house when you break up the two pieces of land, and you need to take out the pool on the other one and put the house on the other piece of property.

And you need to take out the pool on the other one and put the house on the other piece of property.

I know this house personally because my aunt and uncle used to live in this house.

I'm a little confused where your question.

Yeah.

I don't believe there's extra relief required for that.

Go ahead, solicitor.

Yeah, no, I mean it if if there's relief, extra relief, certainly.

Um we we can deal with that.

It's a zoning board because the notice will be incorrect, but for tonight's purposes, it sounds like it might be uh the resulting density might be a problem.

Comprehensive plan, which is really your charge tonight.

What'd you say about the density?

The lot that's of the the house that's left, I can't looks like there should be some zoning relief requested for the house in that tree.

But the applicant's not here tonight, so if the if the application is incorrect, um we'll deal with its own.

Okay.

Anything further?

All right, we will now take public comment.

Is anyone here in chambers that would like to be heard on this matter on Beckwood Street?

Please state your name and address.

Good evening.

Um my name is Elizabeth Guest, and I live at 30 questions.

The project violates report and change going to several distinct characters.

Run off and replacing the actual purpose ground on the random house foundation, drastically altered the local water.

All right, yeah, we're all ready to actually maximizing the building on a lot of failures minimum script is requirement.

Correct me to the house of biocentral.

The applicant purchase this land no that that is they created their own financial hardship and uh no initially is anyone here who would like to make public comment on the back of the street application.

Seeing none, Mr.

Leam, is there anyone online that like make public comment on the back of the street application?

There's no public comment online.

Thank you, Mr.

Lima.

Um Mr.

Ray, could you put the recommendation on the on the screen?

Mr.

Ray, I I have a quick question because I got confused by something that I go I heard a public comment.

Is this person trying to build a two family or one family on this part?

Is this person trying to build a two-family or one family on a family house?

That's a single family house.

Okay.

Ms.

Solicitor Marcello, what is the issue with the zoning relief on the existing property?

The setbacks, etc.

on the existing is a problem.

They should be asking for relief for that too.

Okay.

I I believe so basically on the map.

Yeah.

I understand.

Tonight's purposes.

This will have to be addressed by the zoning board, correct.

Okay.

And when's zoning's meeting on this what next week or something?

Yeah.

Right.

Any further questions for the staff or the solicitor regarding this application?

Okay.

Seeing none, this is the time for motions.

Positive, we can make a negative.

Umisher Lampier.

I would move a negative recommendation because there are issues regarding lot coverage and frontage that the applicant is not here to advise us of the of that information.

So I don't feel we have the information we need from the applicant to make.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Is there a second to Commissioner Lampier's motion?

Seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Any further discussion on this application and the recommendation?

Motion for a negative recommendation.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of making a negative recommendation signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

You were surprised, weren't you, ma'am?

Okay.

All right.

We we we listened to our solicitor, we listen to public comment.

Okay.

Next is uh next is the um yeah, the dream thing.

Okay, let's have the dream application.

Application uh zoning board recommendation on Dream.

Dream Big.

Good evening, um, Mr.

President, members of the commission.

Um Amy Goans, I'm an attorney with Rasillo Tights and Rich uh here on behalf of the applicant, Dream Big Gymnastics, Dream Big Incorporated.

I'm here with Shannon Cornicelli, the uh owner of Dream Big Gymnastics.

Um on the Zoom is Lou Gentile, our engineer from Inside Engineering, and Matthew McGeorge, our architect.

I'm also joined.

We're also joined by several supporters and some employees of Dream Big, um, who I want to acknowledge.

Uh Tanya Forti, the general manager of Dream Big Gymnastics, who's been with the company for eight years and manages day-to-day operations.

Amanda Ryder, the billing manager for Dream Big.

Uh, also with us tonight is um Monica Masallis, the head gymnastics coach at Rhode Island College.

Rick uh utilizes the existing facility at Dream Big and hopes to use the new facility if approved by the city.

Um, and Melissa Gendro, the uh gymnastics director for the Rhode Island Interscholastic League, um, and many uh interscholastic league um tournaments, competitions are hosted by Dream Big.

Um, we're also joined by uh Mayor Fung, a supporter of Dream Big, as well as representative uh Arbor Ann Fenton Kong.

Um, in the interest of time, as much as we'd love to make an extended presentation, I'm mindful of the hour.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

I'll be very brief.

We're requesting your positive recommendation on this application for a change of use.

Dream Big, this is this is the latest uh evolution in in Dream Big's journey in Cranston.

The business started in 2008 uh on the third floor of a factory building, an old factory building on Wellington Ave.

It moved to its present location at 41 Comstock Parkway in 2009 after the zoning board granted a use uh use variance for its present location.

We're requesting approval to move really right around the corner at 41 Western Industrial Drive, which is also located in an industrial district.

So we do need relief for the use as well as relief related to parking.

Um, and I shouldn't forget I do have a revised parking plan to distribute to the commission.

Um, we've been working closely with the city traffic engineer to resolve some of his concerns about um safety uh as it pertains to the reconfiguration of the existing parking area.

So there are two lots in this application, the existing lot uh that's vegetated, uh covered with trees to the um west is proposed to remain in its existing state.

So we are seeking parking relief associated with the use, which is driven by the large size of the building.

I would say I think perhaps the school designation for parking requirements might be more appropriate, and parking for a school is really driven by the number of employees as well as the general um requirement to provide uh safety and safety is certainly the highest priority of um dream day safety of the the students and the instructors.

Um so I'm again happy to answer any questions.

I know staff has a um a presentation.

If I may just distribute the revised parking plan.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the applicant?

Can you get back to your microphone?

I'll ask you a question.

Thank you.

Uh how is this property being used now?

The property is the current home of I believe the business name is jewelry concept.

So it's it's um, I would describe it as a small scale manufacturing operation.

My understanding is the business uh will be relocating, so the business isn't shutting down, but it's somewhat uh it's too big for the space.

I think um it's too big for the space.

And the activity that you're suggesting you use for is a more I would mind with commercial, correct?

Correct, it's a gym, it would be a gymnastics studio.

Uh commercial is less intensive than industrial, would you agree with me?

Okay, okay.

Any questions for the applicant?

Okay, staff, please provide the recommendation.

Oh, Miss Commissioner Coop.

So what ages are the students at the school?

I want to I think I think it's age three to all the way through primarily um school age, uh preschool through high school.

There may be some adult students, but the focus of the uh so would you say most of the students get dropped off and don't need a parking space?

Well, there are some um there are some times where drop-offs uh happen and sometimes where parents remain on site.

I think for the younger kids who are in the recreational programs, they'll remain on site where they're getting into the competitive uh programs and where they can um carpool there they are dropped off.

Okay, thanks.

I will say this um the proposed relocation would result in a substantial improvement in parking conditions at the current location.

There are some conflicts with with uh other tenants nearby.

So the existing location has 35 parking spaces.

The uh revised parking plan is reconfigured, proposes to provide 56 spaces.

So although we're still short technically based on the size of the building, it it does represent an improvement over the existing conditions.

Thank you, Squansky.

Please provide the recommended uh the overview or recommendation.

All right, so um, in the interest of time, I will try to avoid the what's going to be said.

But um, this is I guess uh now site plan, but this project also went to PT.

They've been working with the property, so working on the site saw the option parking, uh like uh the stated situation.

I think currently they're about they have about 15 spaces the amount of stages.

Rule ED2 policy 8.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Any questions from Mr.

Ray from the commissioners?

See none.

Public comment.

Is there anyone here in the room that'd like to make public comment?

Good evening, President Fryus, uh Commissioners.

I will be very brief, mindful of time and uh limits here.

But uh I want to just tired too.

But it's been a long night.

I want to uh testify in support of this uh application.

I've known Shannon and her team from Green Bay from their first route nation on Wellington Avenue and that through spot.

So when they next move to Maria the product, and then ultimately where their current location is.

I've had the privilege of cutting their ribbons and seeing the consistent activity and positive impact that they've had on not only Princeton youth, but many other uh families that attend and participate uh in their fun activities, most importantly providing a great opportunity for many of the gymnasts to learn to challenge themselves both physically and mentally.

Uh, on top of that, I've seen Shannon and her team and staff uh the uh consistent uh supporter of many community activities providing back.

I think this would be a great compliment, and as the planning staff recommended, it fits within the comprehensive uh plan goals.

So I urge you to support this application wholeheartedly.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Fong.

Could you um state your name and address officially for the record?

We all know.

I'll be 1581 Phoenix Avenue, uh Alan Fong.

Thank you very much, Mayor Fong.

Nice to see you here again.

That was great.

Uh beautiful, and we'll keep it real simple for the record, Barbara Ann Fenton Fong also at 1581 Phoenix Avenue in Cranston.

Um President Price and the rest.

Shannon and I have known each other since we were about nine years old, and since we've celebrated our 21st birthday more than once, that's a very, very long time.

Everybody on this commission, a lot of you guys are small business owners.

You know how hard it is to start a small business in the state.

I remember when Shannon started this business on Wellington Ave because there it was a third floor walk-up.

There was an elevator, but it was really creepy, so nobody took it.

So we've gone from there.

She's had other gyms throughout the state, but she came back to Cranston.

We have the one over here right off Comstock now.

And it's great that this business is actually thriving and needs to expand even more.

Um when you look at this area back here, we're not trucking through a residential neighborhood at all.

This is very, very heavy industrial area.

We also I mean that just love Shannon.

Um, this type of business here typically runs late afternoon, evening hours, had there be some sector in the day when you're talking about parking and traffic flow and whatnot.

This isn't something that's going to be heavy in like the nine, 12, two o'clock hours type of thing.

Gymnastics, we go super late, usually it's around nine, 10 o'clock at night.

Um training, but that's neither here nor there.

This is not a thing that's going to really keep other people in that area bothered during the day.

Sporting centers are of course just a little bit different than what would normally go in an industrial area, but I think as a question was already posed before, this type of commercial activity is a little bit lighter and less intense than we would have again by a much more um focused manufacturing area.

Um, and quite simply, this isn't an out-of-state company with no track record.

Shannon's been here for oh yeah, 18, almost two decades at this point, and she lives like three minutes in the street.

Okay, like she's been a great neighbor at every single one of her locations, and I think having those type of businesses that are not only choosing to be here thriving and growing is something we really want to support, and I can't stress enough how proud I am of her and how much I appreciate you guys considering our words as part of this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Fen Fong.

Nice to see you again as well here.

Um further public comment.

None here in the room.

Is there any public comment online, Mr.

Lima?

There's no public comment online.

Thank you, Mr.

Lima.

Is uh any follow-up questions uh for the commissioners for the staff or the applicant?

I see none.

I guess it would be time for a motion.

Commissioner Lampier.

I would move to accept Scott's recommendation of a positive record.

Motion made by Commissioner Lampier for a positive recommendation, seconded by Commissioner X to any further discussion.

I'll make a quick point.

I usually do not vote for change of use variances, but because this is less intensive use, you know, it's going from industrial to commercial, and it sounds like it's gonna be a positive on parking.

I'll be supporting it.

I just caution you go to the zoning board, they're even stricter than us on change of use variances.

But anyway, good luck.

All right, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

I have it.

Congratulations and best of luck to you all.

Thank you.

All right, last thing on the zoning board is um Alexander Oragio and Michael Solomon on the 555 Park Avenue application.

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard?

I do not see the applicant.

Oh is that you, Mr.

Murray?

All right, Mr.

Murray, come on down.

Uh very quickly.

Um, I was just brought into this case.

I had nothing to do with the submission.

Uh Councilman Solomon in Providence uh contact me.

I've I've known him many years, and he actually we started working on this property the day after the fire many years ago when this building burnt down at the corner of Elmwood and Park.

Um this is a rather unusual piece of property.

Um it's one worthy of your support for even though it's only 2,745 square feet.

Um I would invite you to uh uh the board denies it uh for permitted use.

Uh we'll be talking about a taking with the uh the law department.

So uh if it's agreeable to use the single family, uh the staff is encapsulated uh but I apologize.

I just got involved in it, but uh's the uh stats recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

I have a quick question for you, Mr.

Murray.

Um, I know you just got involved in this, but when I looked at this property, right across the street from it is a mobile gas station.

Okay.

I know we have an ordinance in the city that you can't build a gas station within 300 feet of a residence, but what you're asking is that we allow for a residence to be built less than 300 feet from a gas station, correct?

Um well at one point I did represent Bob Fortini who does own the mobile gas station.

I believe the ordinance in the fire section fire code.

Uh I thought it was too hard.

You might be right print, it's from the tank.

The tank from the tank.

Um, I don't know what the distance is.

Uh I don't believe the ordinance applies in this situation.

Um reverse.

I know.

Um concerned at all, like you know, like this person's not going to be able to get federal housing.

So I think Bob, what would and I don't think it's this board's purview, but but what came out in the Cumberland Farms uh Park Avenue was that if you have a single family or two family home within certain 300 feet of a gas station, you cannot get FHA or VA financing, which I didn't know at the time, but the it's a legitimate it actually is true, but I don't think that matters to this board, but it it is something that impact the property even you can't you can't get government.

Um I will again before the zoning board meeting.

I will discuss that with uh the applicant and Solomon.

Um I don't believe they're at this point looking at conventional funds, but we'll uh we'll have a better answer.

It's gonna be a lovely home, Baba.

You know what?

Um I take them where I find them.

Uh case by case basis, Mr.

Murray, case by case.

That's right.

But this is an opportunity to embrace the 2378 square footage.

Yes, Mr.

Murray.

Is there any questions or for Mr.

Murray at this point?

I do.

Commissioner Mancini.

Where is the driveway?

Exiting on Elmwood Avenue or Park Avenue.

Uh I believe on Elmwood.

Either way, it's tough.

It's not Rodeo Drive.

I'm just saying either way, it's very tough, huh?

I don't.

I I had a kid who we have problems backing out of my driveway on Carnot's drive sometimes.

I wouldn't want to put my kid over there.

It's on a bus line.

That's true.

Okay.

Well, you have to get uh state.

Is there a curb cut there?

You don't know because you just got an offer.

We have a I have I have an original picture from 2012 before it was burned down.

There was no curb cut around it.

There was no driveway when I did a building.

It's right there.

There's no curb cut on the sidewalk around the side.

Yeah, uh Elmwood Avenue, I think is under state jurisdiction, so I think we'd be uh you want to make that a commission.

It is what it is.

Okay.

Any other questions from Mr.

Murray?

Seeing none.

Mr.

Ray, give us your recommendation.

All right, so I'll I'll skip the uh on this one, but um the relief that is being requested is for setbacks.

Interviewing we took into account the site constraints in this case, which do require balance between safety and co compliance, and out can is proposed in the small zone that matches the scale, it also largely complies the sliding scale setbacks, and the area around it is full of dance residential drug.

In addition, uh seen on the plan, there is a driveway with an area.

We wouldn't have to back out on the Elmwood.

In addition, the reason part of the reason why are being triggered is because of the housing corner, increase basically.

In addition to this, the um future land use map, uh the the designation that this lot has is the instance, which corresponds with the Congress uh revolved full H2, policy H3.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Is there any questions for Mr.

Ray?

Uh slice that for a positive recommendation.

Oh, sorry about that.

But should stop any questions for Mr.

Ray.

Seeing none.

Is there anyone here in the room that like make public comment?

Seeing none.

Mr.

Lima, anyone online that make public comment?

There is no public comment online.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Lima.

Any last minute questions for Mr.

Ray or Mr.

Murray?

Okay.

I will just say that I'll be voting no for a negative recommendation on this lot, is quite small, and I don't feel comfortable.

There's a about having homes building new homes within 300 feet of a gas station.

That's me personally.

Mr.

Murray and everyone else will figure out the zoning board, but that's me personally.

Okay.

Otherwise, time for emotions, negative or positive.

It's 1059.

You gotta get out of here by 11.

I know we can do it.

Come on, Ron.

Who wants to do a if you wants to do a positive?

Who wants to do a negative?

I recommend uh staff's recommendation, positive recommendation.

Okay, positive recommendation made by Commissioner Mancini.

Is there a second to Commissioner Mancini's positive recommendation?

Pro housing makes a positive recommendation.

Second.

All right.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor of a positive recommendation signify by saying aye.

Okay.

Uh it's gonna be closed.

I'm not see hands.

All those in favor, say uh raise your hand.

Mr.

Coop, Miss Mancini, Mr.

Callisante.

All those against, please signify by raising your hand.

Miss Lamphier, Mr.

Exter, and myself.

So it's a 3 3 vote, and therefore there will be no recommendation to the zoning board.

Okay.

All right.

That basically almost ends it.

Commission uh director Ashman.

I know you have your director report.

Um, here is there anything you need to talk about at 1101?

Uh the the community workshop on the mixed use centers and quarters project is coming up on June 18th.

So I did want to give a shout out to that.

Other than that, everything else is posted to the website in a short memo.

All right, thank you very much for that.

I'll have to put on my calendar.

All right, anything else to ask questions for the director?

If not, motion adjournment be appropriate.

The next meeting will be on July the 7th.

So motion adjourn time made by Commissioner Coop, second by Commissioner Mancini.

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

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

1101.

Thank you very much.