Um call on the meeting of the uh Kranson City Plan Commission to order.

First of all, happy fourth of July to everybody.

Um I hope you all celebrated your country, the greatest country on Earth's birthday.

Um so as we get started here, uh approval of the minutes.

Uh there any any edits to the minutes for the June 2nd, 2026 meeting.

Okay, I see none.

Um the only edit I have, it's my own mistake.

It's a type not a typographical, it's just a formatting issue on page four.

There's a black bullet point and a couple of dots.

So could you just eliminate it?

I don't have to make an an edit, it's just a formatting thing.

So that's all it is.

That was my mistake on when I redlined it.

Okay.

Other than that, is there a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion made by uh director Carrero, you were a second.

Second by uh Dave Exter.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it, and Commissioner Barberi is abstaining, he was not present at that meeting.

Okay.

Um second is the next on our agenda is the one ninety-nine Gladstone Avenue subdivision.

Is someone here and wishes to be heard on this matter?

Yes.

Uh good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Uh my name is Andrew Cormier.

I'm here on behalf of the applicants Conrado Sanchez and Delane Rodriguez Benedict.

Hello, check it out.

Check.

You hear me okay?

All right.

Yeah, thank you.

Um again, my name's Andrew Cormier.

Um I'm here on behalf of the applicants, Conrado Sanchez and Delane Rodriguez Benitez.

Uh last August, uh the applicants received minor uh subdivision approval with uh dimensional relief um for a subdivision.

Um due to some personal circumstances.

Uh you know, they were uh initially delayed getting plans final plans together.

They've hired an architect to assist with um the final plans.

Um and we're asking that that plan the preliminary approval be extended.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any questions for the applicant?

Uh does the staff have anything they'd like to add at this point about the request for an extension?

Um the uh original approval expires August fifth, twenty twenty-six and the extension would be one year exactly to August fifth, twenty twenty-seven.

All right.

If there's no questions for anyone, uh motion to grant the extension would be in order.

Motion made by Commissioner Coop, seconded by Commissioner Massini.

Any discussion.

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

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

You're approved.

Have a good day.

Thank you very much.

Next on the agenda is the replay.

Attorney with also the 21 Garden City Drive in Cranston.

I'm here tonight with the owner of the property and applicant, Mr.

Richard Cardello.

This is one of the more simpler applications that we've uh appeared before you in recent times.

Um Mr.

Cardello owns the property at 21 Turner Avenue, uh, which presently is a 14,000 square foot lot, and he is uh it's composed of three assessors lots, three record lots, and see them outlined in red there.

Uh, two are 5,000 square feet and one is 4,000.

The uh desire is to reconfigure the lots to uh one lot of 8,000 with the existing house, and then um uh create a 6,000 square foot lot, uh, which would be identified as parcel B on the site plan.

Um both then totaling four 14,000 square feet.

This normally could have been handled administratively, except for small uh relief that we need from the commission.

Um you can see the existing house is uh is close to the proposed property line for parcel B.

Um this property uh is in an ASIC zone and would require uh eight feet of frontage of eight feet of side yard and the existing house if we create a six sixty foot uh lot for parcel B would be uh three point I'm sorry, four point three inches, four point four feet three inches off the property line.

We are eight feet would normally be required.

So we're asking the board to approve this resubdivision with that zoning relief.

Um I should note that if uh Mr.

Cardello tried to uh do this in a way that both lots conform to the area requirement.

If we had gone with 5,000 square feet, we wouldn't need the site setback relief, but we'd need an area uh relief for the area.

So we thought it was best to go with 6,000 and 8,000 and ask for the relief on the plan before you just above that oval.

Um there is a set of stairs that come off the existing house.

Um small encroachment on the new lot, parcel B.

Those stairs will be reconfigured to remove that uh small encroachment.

Uh but uh he's owned this property for many years.

He actually built the house uh right hand side of the screen.

Um so um that's in essence what we're trying to do here again.

Um, if not for that setback issue uh for the existing house, we would conform uh could have handled this administratively with the staff.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

Are there any questions for the applicant at this time?

Okay, seeing none.

Um we'll hear from the staff and then we'll take public comment.

Okay, all right.

Ms.

Valcourt.

I'll continue the presentation from here for this application at 21 Turner Avenue.

Again, we have a 4.3 foot um side setback that is being requested for a variance.

Um I wanted to kind of paint the picture of the record lots.

So I have all the record lots here.

Um the existing house is on a 5,000 square foot lot, meaning that it needs to be merged with one of its adjacent lots to be conforming.

So the two 5,000 lots are merged to create a 10,000 square foot lot where that single family sits.

That leaves a 4,000 square foot lot to the right hand side.

That 4,000 square foot lot is buildable.

It would be buildable right now via the sliding scale.

So this application is to um create a more conforming configuration that doesn't allow a single family on just 4,000, but rather 6,000.

So that is um why this application is before you.

This proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the comprehensive plan.

Um I've listed the following goals and policies that it is consistent with.

Um in terms of lot size.

The resulting density of this proposed subdivision is 6.22 units per acre, which is within the limit.

Um the future land use map designation is 7.26 to 3.63 units per acre.

The resulting 200 foot density will be above the future land use map designation, but the um neighborhood zone density does remain within the limit.

The proposal seeks to create a new single family lot that is conforming and consistent, um, aside from the side setback, and it is creating a lot that is more conforming than the existing buildable lot.

Here are some numbers that represent the 200 um foot radius, as mentioned the density of the 200 foot radius is 7.23, and it will become 7.45.

There's an um a list of lots that are either smaller, equal, or larger than this proposed subdivision.

All in all, the staff finds this proposal to be consistent with the comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and standards for required finding of fact, findings of fact, and staff therefore recommends that the city plan commission adopt the findings of fact and approve the unified development review of the subdivision.

Thank you, Ms.

Velcourt.

Is there any questions for Ms.

Port from my colleagues?

Just a quick thing, Ms.

Valcourt.

I saw that your planning staff analysis online on the screen has the correct numbers because I on the on the all right.

All right.

I was gonna ask you about that, but we corrected it.

All right.

Any no questions from Ms.

Melcourt?

Just Mr.

Correct, director currently is it 3.7 for the existing house or 4.3.

Um density the setback on that 4.3 feet.

What is it?

Go all the way back to the plan.

It's 4.3 feet.

The set the the side setback.

Oh, so they're seeking relief of 3.7 as opposed to releases for the side setback.

Actual the relief is 3.7.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you.

Do we ever um consult with the fire department when we have side setbacks to see if they believe that that's a safe, or is there a standard that they've given planning staff that is acceptable to them?

So I all subdivisions go through municipal review.

Fire did not comment on this project.

However, I can speak to the building code, um, which is relative to the fire code.

If two buildings are five feet away from each other, there's extensive um fireproofing that needs to be um constructed for the walls.

The walls will be constructed to a certain fire rating because they are so close together.

Um it's unlikely that this would fall into that predicament, considering the new house will be um held to the eight-foot standard setback.

So it will be eight plus the 4.3 feet from building to building, so they won't run into any like fire code issues in that sense.

And just to follow up, there are towns, matter of fact, they just passed it last night in Arrogance that have minimum setbacks, but usually they're like three feet.

But but Brianna's right as the building gets closer to the lot line, the fire code increases.

So to the point where you if it's that close, you may have to take out windows on the side and fire rate the entire wall.

But um it doesn't prohibit the fire code doesn't prohibit it, it just makes more fire rate as you get closer.

Any further questions for staff?

I thank you.

At this point, I'll take public comment.

Is there anyone here that wishes to be heard on the Turner on the reply of Oakland Platte?

Turner have.

See no one here at the room.

Mr.

Lemer, is there anyone online that wishes to be heard on this matter?

Michael Luciano.

Okay, Mr.

Luciano, please state your name and address for the record.

We can't hear you, Mr.

Luciano.

Michael Luciano, 26 Turner Avenue.

I can hear you now.

Okay, so this is the third.

This is the third bite of the apple that this uh property owner has asked for changes.

Uh it's there, the changes that he proposed in the past went to the zoning board uh in the past, and it was shot down twice.

Um the first they wanted to build on unbuilt uh undersized lots, and then they uh then he wanted to go with uh uh lowered standards on side set back, and that was shot down.

And at that time, he said that he would knock down the existing dwelling and then put up uh two houses to uh that would conform to city standards.

Now he's coming back and because he realizes I'm sure that it's gonna cost a lot of money uh to take down that house and then build a house at its place that he figures he's gonna save money, and and then uh undercut the side setback.

So, you know, the side setback is he wants to do 4.3.

Where does it end?

You keep making exceptions, you keep piling people on top of one another.

This is this is uh historic Oakland village.

Where does it end?

Where does where does it where do you where do you draw the line where you make exceptions for people?

You know, uh I understand this guy who you know he's he's buying property, he's he's God bless him, he's making a living.

But you know, he's piling, he's trying to squeeze it in out of the house over there to save himself some money.

He made that decision the first time around with the neighborhood proposed that he he split that property, all those plats into two, sell the house on the that he's already already built, sell the house with a bigger piece of property with a circular driveway, and then build another another nice house to the left of that.

So he'd end up with two, but no, he insisted that he had to have three houses built there.

He had to have three houses.

So the second time around, he came around and said, Well, he wanted to squeeze in and do the side setback.

The zoning board, if you read the historic record, the zoning board said absolutely not.

He tried to say that it was a uh a hard ship.

No, it wasn't a hard ship.

He just tried to take another bottom of another bite of the apple.

So at that point, he decided he said, Well, I'll just knock down the houses there and use the proper the remaining property and build new houses.

Well, as I pointed out, he's realizing that it's gonna cost him a lot of money because here it is, 2026.

He's gonna take down a house, and then he's gonna build two houses.

I I can I can't imagine it's gonna cost you know uh uh pennies to take down a house, fill in the property, backfill it, etc.

But the point of the matter is where does it end?

If you keep making exceptions for people to build on undersized lots or improper setbacks on side or back or whatever, where does it end?

This is like I said, this is historic Oakland village.

Okay, uh, thank you, Mr.

Luciano.

If you have nothing else to add, okay.

Is there anyone else like that?

No, I'm I'm against this.

Okay.

Is there any okay?

You're all set.

Or is there anything else you want to add before?

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Luciano.

Uh is there one else, Mr.

Lima online that would like to make public comment on the Turner Av project.

I seem to know all the public comment online.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Lima.

Uh Mr.

Murray, would you like to the applicant would care to respond to the public comment we received?

Sure.

Uh just very briefly.

Um the proposal before you is the proposal.

Um, I'm not quite sure.

I'm not sure we need to go back over uh Mr.

Luciano's recitation of history because it's not accurate, but um what's before you is to leave the existing house.

We're not taking it down, we're leaving the existing house.

That's why we're asking for the setback relief.

Secondly, um uh to the best of my knowledge, this property is not in the historic district.

Um the definition of that area does not include this lot.

I just want to correct the record there.

Um the only other comment I wanted to make was um we did include uh waiver for sidewalks in curbing, and I don't know if Rihanna touched on that.

So I just want to uh mention that.

But Bob, when was the zoning application?

I apologize.

When was the zoning application?

Uh it was it was a long, I don't remember it, so it had to be a long time.

I wasn't involved, but I think it was 2019.

Okay, 29.

I as long as it's more than a year.

Okay.

Happy to answer any other questions.

Just to remind me, the distance between the two how the current house and the proposed house, how far will it be to the distance between the two houses, even with the setback relief?

Uh can we put the uh plan up again?

You can see um you can see the property line where where the 8,000 six thousand you can see the dotted line within parcel B.

That is the building envelope that conforms to zoning.

So it has to be a minimum of eight feet from the side yard.

Um I don't know if we have that scaled there.

So it would be approximately around 12 feet, the difference between the two houses.

That's assuming we use the entire building envelope.

We haven't finalized it at a minimum, at a minimum, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Um last thing on this is um this is stretching maybe your knowledge of this, but this area.

Do you believe that there's like they conform exact all the setbacks conform exactly?

Uh that the setbacks of all these homes conform exactly with zoning.

Like let's say Dean Estates was all platted a certain way and conform with certain zoning, or is this more of a there's some differences?

Yeah, um, based on my experience and knowledge of the area, I I would venture to say no.

Um, I think it's a mix this is a nice area.

Obviously, the mixed use of housing units and the type of housing.

Uh the setbacks, uh, given the age of some of these structures, they predated the zoning.

So I I suspect that they don't.

That's right.

Um, any other questions for the applicant of Director Carrero?

Yeah, one thing there was a request for uh waiver on the curbing.

I don't recall ever seeing that, and I would not grant any waivers on curbing curbings to go in and all the developments like this.

Okay, I assume his comment doesn't apply to sidewalks.

I would agree with not having the sidewalks, but no waiver on the curbing.

Yeah, okay.

I I'm not sure there's curbing along there, but we we have no problem if it's required, we'll install it.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments from my colleagues?

Okay, could the staff put up the recommendation?

Okay.

With the condition, right?

No, my understanding solicitors that this is a two-motion um application.

There must be a motion to approve the zoning variance, and then uh uh consistent with the staff's recommendation, and then uh approval of the subdivision consistent with the staff's recommendation if that's the way the commission wants to go, right?

With the condition correct, with either any condition you want to put on correct.

Uh okay.

All right.

Um there's nothing further, people.

It's time for a motion.

Me myself, just to respond to Mr.

Luciano.

I understand his concerns about you keep giving exceptions.

What's the point?

But uh I don't see this as being a significant public safety issue.

I don't see clear uniformity in the area that this would be out of line with the neighborhood the density 6,000 square foot lots is the zone for this area.

So for that reason, I don't see it being inconsistent with the comp plan or being a problem uh to grant a variance, especially because the distance between the homes will be um I think of sufficient size.

Anyway, okay.

Anything from anyone else?

Any motions people want to make?

First would be the zoning variants, and second would be the subdivision.

Grant zoning variants reports that motion made by Commissioner Coop to grant the zoning variants in accordance with the staff recommendation.

Is there a second seconded by Commissioner Carrero?

Is there any further discussion?

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

Aye.

All those opposed saying nay.

Ayes have it.

Second motion is now on order.

Commissioner Coop.

Setback with the aim of the Eastern impact fees and your well, you would grant a waiver of the sidewalks, but not of the curbing.

Yes.

Okay.

So the motion is to grant uh subdivision approval, uh, consistent with the staff's report.

Um with the condition of the impact fee and the waiver of the sidewalk but not the curbing.

Is that right?

Okay.

All right.

Is there any further discussion?

Uh is there a second?

Second by Commissioner Carrero.

Is there any further discussion?

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

All those opposed saying.

Ayes have it.

All right, thank you very much.

Next is the zoning board recommendations.

We will start with the Lanona construction.

I'm sorry.

Well is that still going on?

Do we have a to the extent that there's anybody here for the Joseph Fulton and Casali Development on 70 Pleasant Street, Zero Carlton Street?

That is not being heard today.

That application's been withdrawn.

Okay.

Just in case anyone was here.

Next is the Lanona construction at Zero Beckwood Street and 235 Beckwood Street.

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard?

Okay.

Before we do that, could the staff or the solicitor just explain?

I know some of us were here last month.

We heard this, so just to explain why are we back here again and what happened.

Um well just briefly, there's there's two lots uh involved.

One, the relief is for the unmerger, and then the second one, there's uh additional relief for the lack for lack of a better term, house lot.

Umly one of the um lots were advertised.

So um, due to the fact that uh there was a um an error in the advertisement, uh we thought it best that uh we hear both of them again tonight.

Okay, thank you.

So basically, for those of the public here, there was a technical issue with the advertising, so we need to re-advertise this now and now we have Mr.

Pasha here tonight.

And now we have the applicant.

So please um proceed.

Good evening, uh Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission.

Uh I'm attorney Richard Posha on behalf of the applicant Lenona, as was indicated.

This is a 10,000, these two parcels, 235 and zero back width, if you will, is two lots of uh contiguous lots.

It's totally 10,000 square feet.

There's an existing single family at 235 uh Beckworth, um, which has about two-story dwelling with 2350 square feet.

We're proposing uh on the 5,000 square feet next to it to construct another single family uh two-story dwelling.

Uh the distance between the existing house and the new house to be built is a 23 foot strip.

Um, because it's going to be a two two uh uh a double driveway, if you will, to the left of the existing house.

And this we're looking for setback uh side relief and frontage relief with respect to the existing, excuse me, with respect to the new house.

Uh we feel uh it's consistent with the neighborhood densities indeed.

If you look at the abutting prop two abutting properties immediately to the right of the proposed parcel, uh they're even smaller lots, I believe, and um title lots that are.

So I think we're consistent with the neighborhood, consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Um the relief is we're seeking is not significant, it's it's minimal.

Um that basis, I think uh we've requested okay.

Thank you, sir.

Is there any questions for the applicant?

We have before us basically a request on two lots now.

Okay, seeing none.

Um we will get the staff recommendation, then we'll get public comment.

All right, I'll just um jump in from there.

As you can see from this image, the uh current the lot where the house is proposed already has a curb cut, so that would not be necessary.

This is the existing house.

And this is the proposed house.

The uh front yard setback was mentioned in the memo.

Um, I just wanted to point out that that is that specific relief is an existing condition, which won't be changing.

So we reviewed this application uh in consideration with the compatibility general character of the surrounding neighborhood, and we found that um these lots are typical size for the neighborhood, um, actually being the exact average size of lots in this neighborhood in the Auburn B1 zone.

We also found that um this application is consistent with the future land use map, um, which on this property is designated as single family residential, less than 10.89 units per acre.

Um, the proposed density for this project would be 8.71 units per acre, which is below that 10.89 figure.

And um also found that the B1 zoning district is appropriate for this as well.

And following goals, policies, and actions in the comprehensive plan, support the approval of this application.

Goal H2, policy H3, and policy H6.

And with that, I'd like to give uh positive recommendation on both of the ZDR applications, um, which were jointly submitted as part of this on merger application.

Okay, is there any questions for the staff?

Any questions have come to the my colleagues to ask the applicant at this time.

Okay, seeing none.

We'll look comment.

Is there anyone here to be heard on this matter for give public comment?

State your name and address for the record and provide your comment.

Good evening.

My name is Elizabeth Guest and I live at 36 Moran Street.

I am I'm sorry, I live at 36 Moran Street in Cranston.

I am an immediate abutting neighbor to the proposed project at Zero Beckwith Street.

Sorry.

This project violates the core intent of Cranston zoning ordinances for several distinct reasons.

I believe it alters the neighborhood character.

The B1 zoning district enforces density requirements for a reason, allowing a second single family home to be squeezed onto a substandard split lot will create an overcrowded footprint that fails to match the established pattern of our neighborhood.

Safety and infrastructure strains.

Adding another residential unit on an already tight section of Beckwith Street introduces extra curb cuts.

I know he's showed that there is already a curb cut, reduces available street parking and compromises traffic site lines.

Runoff and storm water management concerns, replacing natural pervious ground on lot 332 with a brand new house foundation, roof line, and driveway alters the local water table.

Our area already experiences heavy pooling and basement dampness during major rainstorms by maximizing the buildable footprint on a lot that fails to meet minimum square footage requirements.

This development reduces the land's natural ability to absorb water, threatening to displace hazardous stormwater runoff onto adjacent properties.

This also violates the least relief necessary standard.

Under Rhode Island law, dimensional variances should only be granted if they represent the absolute minimum relief needed for the owner to enjoy the property.

The applicant already has a viable single family home on this parcel, subdividing this land to squeeze in a second home is not least relief necessary to enjoy the property.

It is an aggressive overdevelopment intended purely to maximize profit.

This is a self-created hardship.

The applicant purchased this land knowing that section 17.88.010 automatically merges adjacent substandard lots under single ownership.

They created their own financial hardship by planning a development that knowingly conflicts with Cranston's long-standing zoning protections.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the planning commission to protect the integrity of our neighborhood, uphold our local zoning codes, and issue a negative recommendation for this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Gus.

Is there anyone out here who would like to be heard on this matter?

I see none.

Mr.

Lemer, is there anyone here?

Uh excuse me, online that wishes to be heard on this matter.

There is no public comment online.

Okay.

Thank you.

Speaking to the microphone.

Sure, that um with regard to the safety issue that uh the Vermont should mention the neighbor mentioned.

Um that that was viewed by the commission, uh, fire density, things of that nature, public safety.

I don't believe this compromises the public safety at all.

With regard to street procing, um, there's a double car lot that is two car density is planned here, which can uh amply uh contain four vehicles.

So the the uh the uh street parking issue uh is is minimus in light of the fact that there's parking for four vehicles on the subject property with regard to the water storm train off uh respectfully.

I think that testimonies are competent that would require expert testimony, uh just anecdotal testimony in that regard, I think is not competent uh and should not be given any weight with regard to the allegation that there is the squeezing in of a so-called second house.

If you looked at the aerial site plant, you can see this ample property here, and uh surrounding properties are squeezed in more tightly than the uh proposed of the existing property.

So I think uh we've met all the requirements uh for for the requested relief and our thank you.

Are there any questions for the applicant from the commissioners?

Commissioner Lampier.

I actually have a question for the solicitor.

Ums guest mentioned two standards.

One was least relief necessary, and the second was that it was a self-created hardship.

Are those standards still applicable after changes made by the General Assembly?

Um, well it depends what relief you're you're asking for.

So meaning uh lot size, it's no longer applicable.

So the um six to five, it would not be applicable.

Um for the unmerger, not applicable.

Um lot size and frontage were taken out or taken out of of the um uh of the subdivision relief standards, however, the side yard setback um would still be applicable as far as being able to ask for that for that that type of relief which you're considering.

Um the standard is of um necessary for minimal enjoyment.

Yeah, it's it's minimal enjoyment, which um I know Mr.

Posh has been doing it for I still don't know what that means.

There hasn't been a case on it.

Um, however, um, you know, I I do look at as as um you know we we've been uh certainly uh the zoning board has taken it almost as a lease relief necessary type of standard.

I have to my knowledge, there hasn't been a case on that new language in four years since since they put it there.

Um but um um the least relief necessary standard while no longer in the ordinance is it's still a good kind of a baseline um uh given the new language that they did use, which is I think enjoyment of the property, which I I again I can't give you a true legal on what enjoyment of the property is, but um certainly it's a single family use in a single family zone.

Um, therefore um you know the use certainly is allowed on on the lot.

I raised that only to uh make clear that you standards.

We usually don't do that, but uh if you have a quiet you want to make some further public comment, you can go ahead and the applicant will be able to respond.

Does this Rhode Island General Law section 4524 41 never don't doesn't exist anymore?

It doesn't apply where it says a variance cannot be granted if the hardship is self-created or results from a desire for greater financial gain.

Usually the solicitor doesn't like to respond to the public and giving legal advice for various reasons.

I think there has been change.

Because I'm not the solicitor, I'll just tell you this.

I think the law has changed under state law for dimensional variances, some of these things that the self-created hardship thing does not apply anymore.

So and and I I will say this is that all this board does tonight is give a recommendation to the zoning board, and that zoning board hearing is tomorrow night.

Does the zoning board will then um look at the entire application again?

They just give a recommendation as to consistency to the comprehensive plan.

Um so this is uh tonight is not a final determination.

Tonight is just a recommendation to the zoning board.

Tomorrow, um, the applicant will have to bring in their own experts, their own presentation tomorrow night um at the zoning board hearing, which is here at 6 30.

So that yes, and so just one fine new nuance.

We tend to look at the comprehensive plan because that's what we make a recommendation on.

You're asking about hardships, that's standard.

That's more of the zoning board's purview.

Okay, okay.

Miss Mancini, Commissioner Mancini.

Um, we are talking about the side setback of the building to the new lot.

Are we ever gonna have is there anything about the variance or anything about the setback of the existing garage to the other side?

Because that is way tucked into the corner.

So the two car garage.

Yeah, so uh a couple of things.

One is and and Beth, you can jump in and is that if it's an existing condition, and there's uh and the the new lot line doesn't affect it.

In other words, the garage isn't going to move no matter what.

Um, applicants typically do not have to ask for relief for an existing condition that won't change.

The garage will not change.

Secondly, um uh accessory structures have uh diminished uh proportionally diminished setbacks, so it would be difficult to know if if if that applies or doesn't apply, but for instance, you're not going to ask for relief on the garage on the southern part because it's there and it's not gonna change.

If they were gonna knock it down, they they would have to, but um, certainly um traditionally we haven't required relief for everything on the lot if it doesn't change.

Any further questions for my colleagues for the solicitor or the applicant?

Yeah, I just wanted to make one other regarding stormwater management.

That RIDEM does have some regulations for stormwater management guidance for individual single family residential lot development, so that 100% of the roof runoff will have to be contained on site, it will have to be distorted underground and it will not be able to discharge onto abutting properties.

So they will be able to address that, and they are required to do that as part of their building permit.

Prior if if the application is approved prior to getting a building permit, they would have to address stormwater.

That has to be addressed as part of the regulations.

Okay.

Um the applicant, do you have anything you'd like to respond to public comment that was further made?

It was more of a question.

None.

Okay.

Okay, is there anything else for anyone else?

Okay.

I'll just start by saying um Ms.

Guess, I find it to be a very articulate person.

Uh and for a non-lawyer too, very informed.

I want to tell you that.

Um generally when I look at these things, I always try to look at it and say I have to follow the law and the evidence.

And to the extent I can, I will try to protect a neighborhood.

The problem for you here is the density on this application.

That's my main thing I look at because it's a recommendation to the copy of recommendation about the comprehensive plan.

The density falls within the density of the future land use map.

Okay, which is 10.89, that's 8.71.

So that's the whole neighborhood character issue.

And second, an average the average lot size of people's homes there is about 5,000 square feet.

So that would be treating this applicant different than most of the people in the area.

That would be the problem for me.

Your concerns on stormwater.

I think Director Carrera's trying to address it.

I'm not a stormwater expert.

I don't know how that all works.

On the parking, I think the applicant talked about the garage.

I think that helps address that issue.

On the leased relief, as my colleagues have been talking about, there's been some changes in state law, and I think you got to go to the zoning board and make your case there.

So for that reason, I can't support you tonight.

I you know, but I want to commend you for what your effort and uh your articulateness in uh talking about this.

So I just wanted to say that.

Is there anyone else have anything to say?

They want to make any motions.

Okay.

Seeing none, motion time.

This is a recommendation.

Go ahead, Commissioner Leaf.

I will move to accept staff's recommendation because I agree that it is issue explained, very consistent with the neighborhood.

And under new state law, I don't have a reason in fact or law to not support the staff's recommendation on this one.

Okay.

Commission uh positive recommendation motion for positive recognition made by Commissioner Lamphier, seconded by Commissioner Barberi to my right.

Any further discussion?

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

Aye, aye.

I was opposed to saying nay.

Ayes have it.

All right.

Well, good luck at the zoning board to both of you.

We'll see what happens.

Oh, two votes.

Oh, oh, sorry.

That was for 235 Beckwith Street.

Um, and the other one is for zero Beckwith Street.

So you want to Commissioner Lamfear?

I would move to accept staff recommendations.

Zero.

Zero Beckford Street.

Okay, and seconded by Commissioner Barbera to my right.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Next is 250 Smithfield LC at 90 Wheeler Ave and also zero zero wheeler Av.

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

Please come forward.

This is we're trying to set a record here to get out by eight o'clock.

We we we've we've had a lot of meetings this year that goes to about 11 o'clock, and uh we're gonna try to get out by eight, so I can watch some prime time TV.

That's right.

So we have some stock going on.

Oh, yeah.

Apologize, Mike.

I was working on other things.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um the record again, Robert Murray for the uh the owner and applicant.

Um we have two zoning board applications here, uh, which obviously for the sake of time and brevity will speak just once to them.

Uh they really need to be looked at uh together.

Uh I represent 250 Smithfield LLC.

Uh and uh what's before you is uh an existing four unit uh building at 90 Wheeler Avenue, and uh it's right in the middle, not the green, uh it's right in the bullseye there.

Um there's an adjoining lot with a garage on it, uh, which my client would like to remove the garage and build a new two family on that hockey stick lot that you can see.

Nope.

Can you just go back to the you can see the garage at the back there?

That would be removed.

Uh the left hand side of the screen is the four unit and the intention is to have a common driveway.

Uh we can provide sufficient parking, but build a new two family.

Um my client owns uh several properties.

Can we just go back one second?

If you see to the right there, uh that property is on Broad Street, and uh that contains 26 units uh that my client owns.

Um I believe that's 1690 Broad Street.

He also owns 1704 Broad Street, another nine units, 1710 Broad Street, which is 17 units around the corner on Grand Avenue, he owns 219 Grand Avenue, which is 16 units.

So uh he has a considerable presence in the area.

Uh I apologize.

I apologize.

Um he has a significant presence in the area, and since he's bought these properties, he he's gone through them and upgraded them.

Uh in this uh particular application tonight gives an opportunity just to add two additional units.

Um we would need relief from the zoning board to leave the 4,000 uh 4,000, a four-unit building on an undersized lot, uh, and then build the build the two family.

But it would be a shared driveway, and uh as I as I said, the garage would be removed.

So um 250 Smithfield LLC owns some of the abutting properties, they are in um related entities, not all necessarily in 250 Smithfield LLC, but my client is a sole member of all those LLCs that own those adjoining properties.

Jamie can go through it.

Are there any questions for the applicant about this application?

Director Correll.

I just have a couple of things.

How how is this common driveway going to work?

Is there an easement between the properties?

Is it going to be one continuous property with six units on it?

Um well, as proposed, um the lots would not be merged.

Um they would stand as um separate and apart, but um he intends to retain ownership, so there will be a recorded driveway easement uh for the benefit of both properties, and we'd have no problem that with that being a uh stipulated condition.

So we will if the zoning board approves these applications, as you know, we would then go ahead and record the easement uh to allow um both vehicle and pedestrian passage across both properties.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I may have some questions for you after the staff recommendation a staff report.

Okay.

Um can I just reserve one thing?

When we're done here, I I want to bring up an issue related to this, but it's not related to the zoning board.

So uh is it on the open meeting agenda?

Uh regarding Mr.

DeAndre's property.

So if I can merely introduce the topic, we'll let Mr.

Marcella decide.

But it's an issue which I think is relevant to this, but I don't it has nothing to do with the zoning.

Do you know what he's talking about?

No.

I discuss it now.

I'm trying to guess what you're I'm well no I what I want what I want to put before the board, and I brought with me this evening.

We have a rampant uh situation of fraud being perpetrated in the name of Stephen Fryas and Beth Ashman in the planning department.

And we have these scammers trying to collect from my client yesterday and today the total of uh 12,000 in fees.

Um there is a disclaimer on our website about this.

I don't think the city's doing enough, respectfully.

Um if we merely put this on it, you don't have an open mic night on the yes.

I under I understand.

I was about to say, I I don't know if I can even respond to what you're saying because both it's not on the agenda, Bob.

I mean, we can't take it is well then I mean it's a city council issue regarding city council issue.

Bob this is where where is we're a department today, two emails demanding fees from the Cranston Plan.

Bob do you think Cranston's the only city this happens to?

No, but I think something should be done about it.

Report it to the police.

I'm sorry, report it to the police.

I have but you know it seems to me since my clients you're getting letters, warmest regard, Stephen Fryish.

Uh that uh well we know it's false to you know I don't I don't uh even my text messages aren't very warm.

All I'm saying is is there a mechanism to get on a future agenda to discuss this that's all I want okay.

Um why don't we do I I think this would not be a planning commission discussion, it would be a me you Chris Millet and Beth Ashman discussion and the police I would be we have an officer assigned to this case and and the police officer and I'd be glad to meet at any time and talk about it that way because again if not only Cranston's not the only place and I don't know of any town that has been able to I don't want to say competently address it, but stop it if if that makes any sense so um I'm a little concerned, Bob to be honest with you about the open meeting thing.

No, I uh you know what I'm saying?

I only brought it up in the context of the City Gain for you.

I thought you were gonna make I you could you know if I thought you're gonna just make public comment and go off, you know, something like that, but uh okay.

I I get what you're saying, and you've already got some feedback from the solicitor.

This can be handled outside of this form right now for now.

Is there anything else that's like actually um regarding the app in front of us?

Okay, Mr.

Ray, you can proceed with report.

All right, so uh as he was saying, this application to unmerged two lots um and leave a four-unit dwelling um and build a new two family dwelling.

Um this is the relief from the zoning ordinance.

So when I analyze the um neighborhood consistency, um thing that is important to note is the presence of um dense multifamily development to the left uh on Broad Street, and then um throughout the neighborhood, a good mix of different housing types and one particular thing to look at is um on the street below this.

Um there are similar size uh or similar shaped um lots that directly abut this uh subject parcels that are actually very similar case to this proposal but slightly more dense with a five family and a two-family development on them.

And we also found that um development in this area is not restricted to any one type of housing, consistent lot sizes or density ranges, um, and it is pretty consistent with the neighborhoods, density, scale, and character.

It is also the only undeveloped lot uh parcel on this block.

Um also found that um this application is consistent with the future land use map designation of single and two-family residential um and for the comprehensive plan to be one zoning district permits two family residential land development.

Um we also found that the following goals, policies, and action items outline the comprehensive plan uh pertaining to residential development sports approval of this application, goal H2, policy H3, policy H5, and policy H6, and I'd like to give positive recommendation on two positive recommendations.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Is there any questions for Mr.

Ray from my colleagues?

Commissioner Lampier Mr.

Ray, could you tell us what the density calculations are for those areas, please?

Yeah, so um which area specifically?

Yeah, so the existing lot density or the proposed lot density?

All right, so um the existing is uh about 10 units per acre, the proposed is 15 units per acre, and um within the 200 foot radius, actually the density is a bit higher than the proposal at 15.43 units per acre um yes, yes any other questions for my for Mr.

Um other questions for my for Mr.

Ray.

Well, Commissioner Coop.

And just follow up, what is the size of the proposed lot for the two family dwelling?

It is not in my graph.

Sorry, I messed that up, but it is uh 11,371 square feet.

So then I understand uh the two families on what kind of lot size again?

Six thousand okay.

Is the what's which one's on the four, and what's the lot size of the four family?

Wait, sorry, I might have missed okay.

So the existing yeah, it's a whole lot of housing.

Yeah, so the existing um four family is on um six thousand seventy-five square foot lot, and the proposed two family is on eleven thousand two hundred and sixteen square foot lot.

So the two family is gonna be if this is adopted, is gonna be on eleven thousand approximately eleven thousand square foot lot, and the four family's gonna be on a six thousand, right?

Yes, okay.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

You had something, Commissioner Langer.

And just to ask, both the lots are currently merged, and are basically that one lot is undersized for a four-family house already, correct?

Uh yeah, by our zoning code definition.

Okay.

Um okay.

Is there any other director?

Yeah, just clarification on the parking then.

In the four unit, where is the parking and area for that?

So it's there's the shared driveway, which leads to the back, which has um I think at least 14 spaces, which would easily satisfy um parking requirement for a four-family and a two-family.

Right, but they're on separate lots.

Uh, yeah, but there is the easement that he was discussing.

Okay, that was for a driveway.

I don't know if that included parking.

Maybe Mr.

Murray can clarify that for us.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I'm just looking to the future.

If this ever gets sold off, that four unit does not have enough parking.

Yeah, I'll clarify the the parking, the off-street parking for both buildings.

Um, there was a plan called boundary stakes.

That's the dimensional short of it is another site plan.

Do you have that Jamie available?

Not in the presentation, no.

Okay.

Um at the top is Wheeler Avenue, and here's the four unit.

So all the parking for both buildings would technically be on the eleven thousand square foot lot, and um we would uh obviously with the driveway easement also um grant permission to um for the four unit to park on lot uh 782.

So there'll be a driving or a parking easement for that lot on the new lot that's being proposed for the two-family home.

Right now, there is an encroachment.

There's a garage that you've seen in the oh that's behind the four unit.

Okay, you can see that since that's gonna be raised right now.

It's you can obviously see some parking right there up against the fence.

So because there's no building there, the four unit people are parking there.

We're gonna raise the garage and delineate all street parking behind the garage towards the rear of the property.

So you have a driveway easement across parking easement.

Will there be dedicated spots?

Just because I know they're gonna ask tomorrow night.

Yes.

I I I didn't hear the oh uh dedicated driveway easement, cross parking easement and dedicated spots for one building.

We'll get eight spots.

Uh but we'd have no problem with that.

I'm just for future when there is further questions for the staff or the applicant.

Commissioner Cooper just for the applicant it seems I don't know if I'm describing this correctly, but it seems almost like these two buildings will be on separate lots, but for all intents and purposes, they'll be treated as a common lot with access and parking shared between the two buildings without knowing the lot lines.

You might think they were on the same lot.

I would agree with that, and they are in common ownership.

So further questions.

Okay.

Now we'll do public comment.

Is anyone here wishes to be heard on this application?

Okay.

Uh anyone online that wishes to be heard on this matter, please uh state your name and address and speak.

Uh Michael Luciano has hand up.

Please proceed, Mr.

Uh please state your name and address for the record, Miss Luciano, then proceed.

It's 26 Turner Avenue.

I'm I'm still I've been trying to comment follow-up comment on 21 Turner.

You guys completely ignored my hand raise.

And one of my neighbors has been trying to get through.

And he was trying he's directly across the street from 21 Turner.

You completely ignored what I what I requested.

You didn't even mention what I said.

You you guys don't care.

This is the neighborhood.

You completely don't care about the neighborhood.

All you're concerned with is just piling properties on top of one another.

Uh Mr.

Luciano squeeze in the housing so you can collect more taxes.

That is how about the neighborhood?

Mr.

Luciano, uh, we heard you speak on 21 Turner Av, number one.

Your hand was raised.

We heard you.

It's on the record, it's on video tape.

I then asked you anything else to say, nothing you said anymore.

We then concluded public comment and we proceeded with the application.

In regards to regards to the case, and my neighbor tried to get through any Luciano.

Mr.

Luciano, I've listened to you speak, and I'm gonna now I'll ask you to look give me the courtesy, listening to me, because I'll explain to you.

In regards to your neighbor, I asked Mr.

Lima, I is there anyone else?

No one else had their hand raised.

Okay.

So number one, they could have spoken if they had to raise their hand.

Second, you can also come here and speak in person.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm not able to because of health reasons.

I'm not sure.

I understand that.

That's why we that's why we have this option.

And we heard you.

We heard you, we we considered it, and we voted the way we did.

So I said why is it that the zoning board shot it down and you guys let it sail right through?

Because based on the law and evidence here, we thought it was appropriate.

You already heard our comment.

So thank you, Mr.

Luciano.

Why is it that the zoning board?

But when you are interrupting another proceeding, when you had your chance to speak, I have to do that.

I apologize, you'll be upset with me, but there's nothing else I can do.

Mr.

Solicitor.

And and sir, if if you wish, you certainly have um you uh a legal right to appeal.

You have a 20-day uh appeal period once the decision is recorded.

So just want um if you disagree with the uh decision of the board.

Is there anyone else, Mr.

Lima who has their hand raised that wishes to speak on this application?

There's no other public comment.

Thank you very much.

Is there any other where was I?

There are any other questions or uh comments for the staff or for Mr.

Murray on this application.

Commissioner Lampier Um could you please go to the photo of the property again?

Thank you.

Um I just want you to take a look at how small that area is.

If the picture does not, I don't really think accurately reflect just how small and how tight that area is.

We currently have two lots that are merged that are almost in compliance with what zoning requires for a four-family, which is 18,000 square feet.

We're going to take a four-family and approve placing it on a lot that is going to be by the map that we have 6,075 square feet.

When you take a look at this, you're going from what is close to 90% compliance to a lot that's not 30% smaller or 40% smaller, but 66% smaller than what is required by zoning.

We're allowing that if we vote to approve this.

Yes, are different lot sizes, but you don't see lot sizes that are 66% less than what's required by zoning.

This lot configuration with the merged lots as it is, looks like what belongs there.

And to carve it out and say that it's consistent with the neighborhood because there happens to be one other lot configuration down the street a little bit, is not a majority of that neighborhood or not the character of that neighborhood.

So I would argue that this is really to the extent I have ever seen trying to shoehorn in the last bit of building that you can possibly do in an area.

And as staff said, it's the last piece of vacant land, and it really isn't vacant land, it's part of a merger of two lots.

So it's a larger lot with a larger four-family house that is almost consistent with the square footage that's required by zoning.

What is being requested is not, in my opinion, consistent with the neighborhood.

It's not consistent with the comprehensive plan.

I don't see how, in any respect, it complies with land use policy 18 to preserve the existing density of the neighborhood.

And I don't see where it protects or stabilize the existing neighborhood.

It doesn't increase open space, it makes that area more dense.

It doesn't improve the roadway, it doesn't make zoning conform to existing uses.

So the existing use is the four family on 17,000 square feet, where 18,000 is required.

It should stay there the way it is, and we should vote to not approve the additional two family and unmerge those lots.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Are there any other comments or questions for the staff or the applicant?

But primarily right comment, um, any other discussion comments from the my colleagues on this application?

I would just like to say Commissioner Carrera, I'm all about development, and I don't always agree with member Lampier, but I almost have to agree with it on this one.

The way this configured lots are and the way you're looking at that, I think the perspective that you see on that photograph is a little bit misleading.

It looks like there's a lot of property.

And with all of that parking in the back and trying to squeeze that two family in there and having to have a common driveway, it may be just a little bit of an overintensive use of that property.

So I I would be inclined to believe and vote with her as a negative recommendation.

Any other comments uh further on this application from my colleagues.

Me personally, I'm very much wrestled with this because it's clearly above the future land use map of 11 units.

I have gone up to the density of the surrounding immediate neighborhood.

If I did that, I would be, you know, if I strictly looked at included all the condo or whatever that is on the side of the things and apartments, it would meet it.

But I'm listening to Commissioner Lampier's comments about the neighborhood, the the rest of the neighborhood, though, the homes to the to the, I would assume to the east.

And I'm wondering if I should just do a negative recommendation as well.

And then when Carisha Carrero is expressing concern as to the amount of people were packing in to this area between the parking and the driveway.

Um it does bother me.

So I will say that.

That's that's me.

Um anything else anyone else has to say, Commissioner Coop.

And we are making a recommendation, so every stands.

Mr.

President, sorry.

Um I'm also struggling with the layout and the 6,000 square foot lot for a four-unit building.

Um, and as I was thinking about it and thinking about the fact that it's almost like two, it's going to be set up like two properties on one lot.

But as I'm looking at the map, um figure one in the staff presentation.

If you could pull that up, if you look just adjacent to that, what I assume fronts on Grand Avenue, it looks like you have a five-family the one to the south.

Where the two family on the much larger parcel sort of mirroring this.

Um, but then if you look a little bit farther down, you have the four-family with the larger section and a single family with the smaller section, which likes if it was set up that way, it would make sense.

It would, I think, be a lot on paper.

But in the end, if the parking is going to be shifted over onto the larger lot, is there really a difference?

And I'm honestly I'm struggling because by numbers, we shouldn't approve this.

We shouldn't approve a four-family on a six thousand square foot lot.

But at the same time, putting a two-family on a almost 12,000 square foot lot seems like a lot of extra space.

So I'm listening, my colleagues are going back and forth, and I'm not sure which way I'm gonna land on this one.

Yep.

We're not the zoning board.

We're making a recommendation, and this is gonna go to the zoning board, and they're gonna have the issues, they can put conditions or they can decide to reject it or whatever's gonna happen, but we make the recommendation.

Um is there any other things for my colleagues who would like to say anything on this?

The solicitor, you uh you you don't want to say I think I saw your finger over there.

Oh, I would just don't give a no recommendation either, either up or down.

That it makes the zoning very difficult when you guys punt.

So make a decision one way or the other.

They they like this, they like decision makers.

Okay, all right.

All right, um, Commissioner Lampier.

I'll be brief.

I just want to just add after hearing comments.

Um with respect to the larger lot for the two family, keep in mind that a good portion of that larger lot is going to accommodate not that house, but what the parking from the four family as well.

So it's not as if that entire 11,000 square feet is dedicated to a two-family house.

And the only other thing I would add, and I do realize that the the um one that backs up to Grand Avenue is similar.

My argument, you know, again is in our comp plan, we have the argument that where we have commercial uses on a street and we have neighborhoods that back up to it.

Under our comp plan, we're supposed to make sure that we ensure buffers so that there's a there's a protection for the neighborhood.

I would argue that those apartment complexes, while not necessarily zoned commercial, are similar in that there are a lot of cars, there are a lot of people, it's very dense.

We have the same obligation to protect that neighborhood behind it.

And I would say that there's a good chunk of neighborhood there, and as we incrementally add another area that's more dense or on a much smaller lot, we're starting to degrade that continuum of neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Um anyone else?

Oh, you you want to say something, Director?

In my experience, a two-family house would be an appropriate type of buffer between a commercial area and a mixed residential area like this.

So I I agree that a that you do tend to that is a concept in the in the comp plan, but that the two-family house rather than a four-family house would be considered a buffer.

It's more like a six-family house because you've got the four-family unit, and now we're gonna add an additional two.

So it's not as if we have one thing on that lot.

We're adding two what's already a four, a butting it, and now we're gonna make it a two and a four.

I see okay.

Um, any further comment?

Uh none.

If not, seeing none, then it's uh time for motions.

Either a positive or a negative recommendation.

I'll give it a okay.

Um Commissioner Lampier.

I would move that we forward a negative recommendation to the zoning board of review because the application is not consistent with the goals and purposes of the comprehensive plan and is not compatible with the general character.

Yes, it is.

Is this better?

Yeah, all right.

I'm sorry.

Um, I would move that we forward a negative recommendation to the zoning board of review because the application is not consistent with the goals and purposes of the comprehensive plan and is not compatible with the general character of the surrounding neighborhood.

In particular, I would point out that there would be a four-family home on a lot that is only six thousand plus square feet, where 18,000 square feet is required by zoning, that it does not protect and stabilize the existing neighborhood, and that it would increase it that it I'll stop there, that it does not stabilize or protect the existing neighborhood.

Okay, um, negative recommendation made by Commissioner Lampier on um let's call it 90 wheeler av because it's gonna be two motions, right?

Yes, 90 wheeler.

Okay, is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

Is there a second to Commissioner Lampier's motion?

Second by Director Carrero.

Any further discussion seeing none all in favor of a negative recommendation, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay, ayes have it.

Second motion.

I would move a negative recommendation on zero wheeler avenue for the same reasons articulated in my previous motion.

Motion made by Commissioner Lamphair for a negative recommendation is inconsistent with a comprehensive plan.

Is there a second uh to zero wheeler AV?

Is there a second seconded by Commissioner Mancini?

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of a negative recommendation signify by saying aye.

Ayes have it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Next is discussion of legislative agenda.

Um this is the staff put this on.

Is um staff want to have a quick overview of this.

Um yeah, Jonah, Mr.

Brugerman will we'll share.

All right, assistant director Bruggerman.

Uh Burgerman, please proceed.

All right.

Another year, uh another set of bills.

Um luckily uh compared to previous years though, um this year significantly fewer bills passed.

Um there was a lot of pretty in a lot of bills floating around, but a lot of them uh just ended up um not getting passed at all.

So um primarily, you know, the bills that have passed are either mostly like technical amendments and smaller changes.

Um there's a couple things that will be a bit more consequential, and I'll get into that here.

Um the memo itself has also kind of lists out like some of the stuff that affects you know, more the like administrative review or stuff that's more like adjacent, but um today I'm mostly gonna talk about the stuff that affects the commission um directly uh to some degree.

So see, these five bills are kind of the main ones that have affects, you know, subdivisions and zoning.

Um the ones on the left, um, especially the H 8004, that's the one that's the really really big bill with the tons of technical amendments.

That's the one I'm gonna spend a bit more time on.

Um, and then the H0 the 8005, um talks about parking requirements.

Um smaller bill, but there's like one specific aspect to it that is pretty that will have relatively significant effects.

So I'll get into that one as well.

Um briefly gloss over the ones with the three on the right.

Um so those are like single issue kind of bills that make some very, very small changes.

Um three seven one um basically just raises or sets the um zoning for family child care homes.

So basically rather than like a you know, like a commercial daycare, like a family care home is um it's still a licensed facility, but it could also be in someone's home, and they just you know, we currently our zoning is currently at eight.

This raises it to 12 kids.

Um then there's 8040.

Um technically there are it does affect zoning and building and fire codes, but I think for this, I don't know if there's necessarily any action that we will need to take in the zoning ordinance.

Um and then for 2601.

Um that one specifically talks about like utilities and um they added a section that allows uh municipalities to grant zoning relief for the protection of what they call critical infrastructure.

So, you know, think of like your major gas lines and stuff like that.

If there's anything uh it's pretty straightforward one.

So I'll get into 8004.

Um this is the big technical amendment bill.

Um of the main things that kind of came in that that the thing changes is it adds um to adopt a comprehensive plans that they now need to be consistent with the state law regarding subdivisions and zoning.

Um I mean, our zoning code at this point um and our subdivision rags already mostly comply with state law.

Um I guess this is just something to keep in mind as we are working on our comprehensive plan right now.

I don't know exactly what we would be putting in there that would go against this, but we should at least keep that the um keep that in mind.

And addressing uh the changes to subdivisions and land developments.

Again, some smaller stuff, like they change the definition of a buildable lot a little bit.

Um the thing that I think will affect the commission the most in regards to this stuff is administrative subdivisions.

So previously basically the the state adjusted administrative subdivisions to be kind of in line with the way we do minor subdivisions, which is you know, there are minor subdivisions that have administrative review, and if they need a variance or a waiver, or if there's a street extension, you know, then that would that's what triggers review with the plan commission.

Um they basically did the same thing with administrative subdivisions.

Um not familiar, administrative subdivisions typically that is like if you have two lots and you want to merge them, or if you're moving a lot line without creating an additional buildable lot, you know, typically those are things that we call administrative subdivisions because they're typically handled administratively, but now the state law has changed that says uh to say that you can these administrative subdivisions.

Well, previously they could not go to the plan commission, they now can go to the plan commission for if they require a variance.

Um so again, even for administrative subdivisions, they've kind of created this like two-tier process where now some of them are reviewed, most of them will probably be reviewed administratively, unless they need a variance.

Um previously, if administrative subdivisions needed a variance, uh you you would just have to apply for them as a minor subdivision.

Um, and then there's some changes to the other big thing about this is the findings as well.

You know, we do very consistent findings for subdivisions.

Um it's you know, minor and major have the same findings.

Uh the state has decided that administrative subdivisions should have their own set of findings.

Um more limited in scope, I guess.

Um then they rewrote some procedural elements, but basically, you may in the future see administrative subdivisions if they require variances.

Happens very rarely, but um just keep that in mind and you want to add something to that.

Yeah, no, so um it'll be your determination whether it gets kicked up to a minor and before.

So you you'll get an application as an administrative, and if if you see something, you'll what deny it and then tell the applicant they have to reapply as an as a minor or I I to me, I thought that was so they changed it.

Um so they kind of did this weird thing where like if if if the administrative subdivision was denied, then um, I don't want to take their time.

We can discuss it offline, but um we'll have to figure out internally how you guys do the procedure.

I mean yeah, and we were I think what you described is how we do it now.

I mean, one of the things we as staff said if if it's gonna get kicked to the plan commission, we should be charging the fees that we charge.

Yeah, for things that go to the plan commit.

Well, that's what we do now.

Yeah, yeah.

So they're yeah.

Um yeah, small change to minor subdivisions.

Um in the past, if the commission if the commission is reviewing a minor subdivision and they feel that they can't make a positive finding um for the subdivision, they could um basically bump the minor subdivision up to major review.

Um they basically got rid of that.

So if you can't make a positive finding on a minor subdivision, you deny the minor subdivision, and then you know the applicant can appeal that.

Uh for zoning, um ignore my slide here a little bit for the zoning.

So there were some limitations that were made on the conditions of the zoning board.

Um, and the CBTC can make on variance approvals.

Um in the state law, they have a set of categories of conditions you can make on variance approvals.

And before they kind of struck the section that says you can make um conditions on these categories in addition to other conditions, and now they kind of limit it to those categories, and they struck one, made one of the categories only um apply for use variances.

And they struck one, made one of the categories only apply for use variances.

So they kind of limited a bit the um scope, but that's specific to variance approvals.

So my the way I was reading it at least, it's if you have see something that comes to unified development review, if you make conditions on the um on the variance approval, that might be limited to and scope a bit more than the conditions that are set on the uh you know the second approval you have to make, which is on the actual development.

Um then there's also some change changes to comprehensive permits.

Um they added another way you could be exempted from comprehensive permits, but that is you know, for the handful of communities that might be getting close to their 10% or have like a project that would get them over that 10% hump.

Um might affect us eventually, but we're not really very close to that 10% yet.

So I guess that's something to keep in mind for the future.

Um, and then there's some minor changes like changes to the vesting of these plans, um, soil suitability if you if the comprehensive permit needs the septic system, and then some small tweaks to find things as well.

Again, small technical stuff for the most part.

Um this is the bill that I saw as a bit more consequential, not as much the first part of the bill, which just talks about parking requirements for attached single family dwellings.

Um, you know, before there was a requirement based on the number of bedrooms, and they struck that and just kind of said made this two parking space requirement.

Um maximum requirement basically.

We already comply with this, so we don't necessarily need to change anything about that for the attached single family dwellings.

The thing that is more consequential is regards to this section about um reduction of parking requirements for multifamily developments that are within a quarter mile of what they call regional mobility hubs and an eighth of a mile of um frequent transit stops.

Um we don't have to worry about the regional mobility hubs because those are not uh we don't have any in Cranston.

We do have frequent transit stops that is I I listed in my um memo the R line, but I think technically the one bus counts, and I'm trying to get clarification on this with RIPTA as of now.

Um I was gonna ask you, director, assistant director.

What is the definition of frequent transit stop?

I was just looking that up okay.

So they reference one.

It's it's very interesting.

So they reference the um, and it's not only frequent transit, it's an exing frequent transit stop.

They reference the 2020 the 2020 uh transit master plan.

Okay, in the transit master plan, it defines a frequent transit stop as 20 minutes or better throughout most of the day.

Most of the day um just a bit broad, a bit vague.

If you look at Ripta's map now, they list several lines, including like what I listed here, the one, the 31, the 20 as their frequent transit.

They don't neatly fit into that 20 minute category, so that's why I'm trying to get, and they sent me a map that included the 20, the 31, and the R, but not the one.

Yeah.

Um, so I'm still trying to figure out if the one is included or not.

Yeah, okay.

So I'm trying to I'm trying to still get clarity on that.

Yeah.

Um so for most of these lines though, uh, and basically sorry, so what it would do is um it basically if you have a multifamily project, you cannot require more than one parking space per unit for that project.

So that would affect us because we currently require two parking spaces per unit.

Um yeah, 2020 transit master plan.

Yeah, 2020 transit master plan.

Um the amended one, um, if they ever amend it.

So uh we did make some maps for that just to kind of visualize what that would affect.

Again, we don't have the mobility hubs in Cranston, so this is purely from what we identified as the frequent transit stop.

So here on the left is Route 20.

Um see this is Elmwood Avenue.

Um these are the areas that affected, but the only area where we actually allow multifamily housing is in the B2 up here.

Um Broad Street and Warwick Avenue have a few more areas that would be affected.

Um the uh C3 technically allows for multifamily housing, provided the first floors used for commercial.

Um you can see the C1 and the C2 as well as there's some B2 as well here, and B2 in this triangle right here as well, and then there's a little pocket of C2, but otherwise, you know, these it's mostly B1, A6, C5.

They don't allow for multifamily housing development.

Um those would not be affected.

Um, and then Route 31 would not affect anything really because multifamily housing is not allowed um anywhere in these zones.

So yeah, yeah.

All right, um, so otherwise um, you know, with these bills or the staff's also proposing um some some changes, um, some changes to the zoning ordinance that we're proposing is gonna be um tackling the use table a bit.

Um, you know, we're not striving for any like significantly, you know, crazy policy changes.

Mostly we're looking for you know, kind of simplification for the most part, and really aiming for ease of use.

Um, you know, the the use table is something that was added on to piece by piece over time, and now we have situations for where, for example, we have small scale retail uses that are um, you know, we have like five different small scale retail uses.

Um, like we have the difference between like a florist and a baker in um and in the use table.

So kind of are gonna tackle this with three goals in mind, one of them being combining categories of uses that are very similar or superfluous, um, like that um small scale retail use um that I talked about um in 2023.

Um some of you may remember a lot of the there is a change to the state law that affected um you know administration of special use permits.

Um basically that law affected um any special use permit where there was no performance cat like performance standards associated with them that came allowed by right.

So um in response, the um the planning department um basically proposed that a lot of the special use permits get removed to either no's or yeses.

Um once it hit the city council to my understanding, they mostly removed they mostly just change all the special use permits to no.

This predates me.

So this is that's right.

So for those of you who were not here at the time, you're correct.

The staff made a decision like somewhere yes and somewhere no.

The commission made a decision to make them all no.

Yeah, and then this, and then the council said thumbs up on the no.

Oh, so the commission made that choice.

Okay.

That's correct.

Okay, okay.

Oh, this is not proposed.

This is not forwarded by that correct.

It was only a recommendation to the city council.

Okay.

Um yeah, and so we want to take another look at that because there were a lot of uses that you know had special that were allowed by special use permit and now are just blanket no's across the board, one of them being vehicle storage, which we have reviewed as I think at least a couple times.

Um that required a use variance.

So the the goal is to uh revisit some of these uses that um have their special use permits removed and draft performance standards associated with them.

And the third one, third goal would be to add categories and associated standards and definitions for uses that are asked about frequently um in our department, but are not necessarily listed or you know might need to be incorporated into another definition or a definition needs to get expanded.

Um, one of them being one example I can think of is contractor yard.

Um we have a lot of interest in indoor contractor storage units, which you know it doesn't really neatly map up with anything that we have.

The closest that we have is contractor yard, but that really addresses more outdoor storage, not really indoor storage.

So there's a handful of uses um like that that we're looking to either like expand a definition and um potentially also draft some performance standards for uses like that as well.

Um yeah, and besides that, uh, we're just proposing to update the development plan review to be compliant with state law.

We started that last year a little bit.

Um, but now we're looking at getting a new draft together for that as well.

Um the subdivision regulations.

Um, we're also looking to update our landscaping design standards.

Um really get them in line with best practices.

They haven't updated in a while.

Um there are could be stronger, they're pretty non-specific as to if they apply to uh you know residential subdivision or a commercial land development.

So we're hoping to create a bit more um specification of like how these are applied to different uses.

Um, and same with the design standards as well.

Um we're probably not gonna we're probably mostly gonna focus on landscaping standards for now because we felt that those were the standards that really needed the most um addressing.

Um but if there's any there's a few design standards that we want to take another look at as well.

Um going back to the administrative subdivisions, um, because that's again like the minor subdivisions, kind of split into those two processes again.

We're probably gonna propose, like we did for the minor subdivisions to also have two separate fee schedules for those for the administrative subdivisions that are being reviewed right now.

We'll probably keep at the fees as it is now.

But those that go to the board, you know, there's typically require more time of the staff to review.

So we would be probably proposing uh an increase in the fees for that.

And yeah, uh, does anyone have any questions about anything we talked about?

Anything else?

All right.

Well, thank you, assistant director.

If anyone has your questions, I'll just add a conversation quickly today with the director, which is uh in the near future.

The director, the assistant director, myself and the city solicitor will get together to see how we're going to how we interpret and apply these changes in our ordinances so uh we can get it before the city council, like we did in the past, although I anticipate it will not be as challenging as it was last time because we have much fewer state law changes you indicated.

Um last time we had like a couple years worth of accumulation.

Yeah, and this one was um the the full it's uh the legislative changes are the it's ebbing uh so we have more certainty here.

Uh but anyone have any questions right now?

Um, and I'll say this also if Mr.

Murray, if you're here to make or lady in the back, if you want to make public comment, we can have public comment, but really it's just information, you know, we're not making any votes.

Um anyone have any questions at this point?

Okay.

Thank you, assistant director.

We will uh okay.

Oh, we have just thank you, assistant director.

We will um, like I said, we'll get back to everybody here and with some proposed ordinance changes.

Um thank you.

And we'll we and if it if frequent uh transit stop is not defined under state law, is it defined under state law or is it not?

Oh, great, we'll define it.

So um that's what we'll do.

Anyway, uh that's it.

All right, thank you.

Director, do you have anything to report on the uh city planning director's report?

Sure, a couple of things.

Our our tree canopy study, if you recall.

Um the grant came with some free trees, and we've identified wards three two and three as the areas which have the scarcest tree canopy.

So there's uh a flyer on our website that we're sharing around um to get public input about where the trees go because the trees are gonna our free trees will go where community and pet says to put them in ward three.

So that's uh the ward two and three tree committee.

Um we have some materials on our mixed use centers corridors.

So the workshop was pretty well attended.

We're working to try to um we've got the presentation slides online.

We're also working on a feedback form because the workshop was particularly well attended, we think from people near the library.

It was held in the William Hall library, so it's particularly well attended from Edgewood, but we want to broaden that.

Um the slides and zoning study from the Roger Williams students is now up on our website.

So I know that wanted to share those materials and um let's see.

Yeah, we're we're uh uh still participating in the main street learning cohort, and we're still open to if you have other people who who are interested in the development of Roll Square, Knightsville, or Broad Street.

We'll still open to further participation um on those in those study groups.

And thank you.

That that is it for now.

Okay, just before we adjourn, um Mr.

Leam, is anyone online that wants to make public comment on the legislative session?

I forgot to ask.

Okay, nobody there.

All right, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Carrera.

Yeah, just a quick thing on the tree canopy.

Are we looking at putting these within the city right of way and sidewalks, or can we put these on private property so we don't have to keep spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to lift it sidewalks to be replaced and cutting down the trees that we put in?

Right.

No, they they can be on private property, absolutely.

Uh, but um keeping our skies free of trees is not the goal of the tree canopy study.

But well, it's it's it's all about balance, right?

Trying to make it work.

Um, one other thing.

I'll I had a quick conversation with the director to today.

I think for next month, the goal will be to bring before you a draft housing plan that we talked about back in May, um, with some new numbers and new things, so that we can submit something to the state and get that ball rolling.

So just be prepared for August.

We'll probably have that.

Um we'll see what else comes before us.

So anything else for any questions for director?

If not, we can motion adjourn would be in order.

Motion adjourned made by Commissioner Lampier, seconded by Commissioner Calesante.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

All opposed, say nay.

Ayes have it.

We'll see you next month, everyone.