OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Cranston City Plan Commission Meeting - September 1, 2026

City CouncilTuesday, September 1, 2026
BodyCranston, Rhode Island
SessionCity Council
DateTuesday, September 1, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 4:25:36

Transcript — Verbatim
9:16

Um I talked to some of the people in the audiences gauge interest in the various items in the agenda.

9:21

So the order will be call to order, approval of the minutes, 30 Ponham Street, 80 Phoenix Ave, the Stormwater Ordnance, then Hope Road, then the zoning board recommendations, and then finally this 2026 state legislation for both zoning ordinance and subdivision.

9:45

If for some reason we cannot get done by eleven o'clock, I would assume we will not get to the state legislation for subdivision and ordinances, and that will be continued the next month.

9:55

So if you're here for those, you may we may not be able to get to them.

10:00

My apologies.

10:01

So I'll start with call to order.

10:03

I see a quorum present.

10:05

First time the agenda's approval of anyone have any changes or amendments to the amendments.

10:14

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

10:20

Commissioner Lampier makes a motion to approve.

10:23

Second by Commissioner Mancini.

10:25

Any discussion?

10:26

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

10:28

Those opposed say nay.

10:30

I have it.

10:31

Next time the agenda will be going to 30 Palm Ham Street.

10:34

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

10:37

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

10:41

Mark Spiro 30 Palm Street, Consor and I want.

11:00

Okay, Mr.

11:00

Lima, is there someone raising their hand?

11:04

Uh who's an attorney for the applicant on 30 Ponham Street.

11:10

Uh no one is raising their hand if you want to instruct them.

11:18

Oh no, it's it would be via uh zoom.

11:21

I can do the okay.

11:23

If you wish to proceed, we could also take you later.

11:25

Yeah, no, I can do it.

11:27

Okay, go ahead, sir.

11:28

So it's a three lots.

11:34

Sorry.

11:36

It's uh three assessor lots at 3200 square feet each, and we are trying to um subdivide that into two 4800 square foot lots and create one house for the uh buildable and one to sit on the existing house.

11:58

Pretty simple.

12:01

And your let me just let me see.

12:11

I believe you had an application earlier this year that was we did.

12:14

We had one that uh was a little aggressive, and uh back here doing the right thing for the neighborhood, which I have my neighbor here.

12:24

You'd like to speak and this survey is here also to talk if there's any questions for him.

12:30

Okay, if I recall the application earlier this year, you're trying to build two more houses, so now you're just building one, right?

12:36

Two houses, correct.

12:37

Now it's just one house.

12:39

And you would agree that um maybe the solicitor wants to, if I need to ask this, he would agree that he would only build one more house here.

12:46

This would not be like he builds a house and then he comes back and asked for more relief and gets something else, right?

12:52

We don't have to put some good condition about you could do that.

12:56

You know, I I think uh first in this case, since it was denied um within a year.

13:04

I think the first thing you need to do is um vote to see if it's a substantial change from the original application.

13:13

Um if it is, then you can move forward on the merits of the application.

13:18

Um you certainly can put the condition if agreed to by the applicant that there'll be no further subdivision.

13:25

Okay.

13:25

So I'm gonna go in reverse.

13:27

Would you agree to a condition that there be no further subdivision to this property to add another house?

13:32

I agree.

13:32

Okay.

13:33

On the uh, you said waiver for uh Mr.

13:36

Chairman, there is a uh someone online.

13:39

Oh, your lawyer showed up just in time.

13:43

Please proceed.

13:44

Please proceed.

13:45

Please state your name and address.

13:46

Yes, attorney Kevin Heike, 365 Eddie Street, Providence, Rhode Island.

13:52

Okay, would you like to make a presentation for the applicant, or I just asked the applicant a couple of questions?

13:57

Um, I did I did hear.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning and Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████48%
Stormwater Management███████████████16%
Procedural██████████11%
Public Engagement████████8%
Transportation Safety██████6%
Zoning And Land Use███3%
Environmental Protection██2%
Comprehensive Planning██2%
Public Safety1%
Summary of Proceedings

Cranston City Plan Commission Meeting - September 1, 2026

The Cranston City Plan Commission met on September 1, 2026, from approximately 6:00 PM to 10:50 PM, including a five-minute break at 9:00 PM. The agenda included approvals of minutes, two subdivision applications, a stormwater ordinance recommendation, a pre-application informational session for a 12-unit affordable housing development on Hope Road, and several zoning board recommendations. Two items on state legislation changes were continued to the next meeting.

Consent Calendar

  • Approval of minutes: Unanimously approved.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • 30 Ponham Street: Alan Queen (8 Marlborough Street) expressed full support, stating "I approve everything that he's doing with this. It's a good job."
  • Stormwater Ordinance: Councilwoman Bridget Graziano (191 Wentworth Avenue) spoke in favor, emphasizing the need for on-site stormwater management to protect the MS4 system and water quality. She stated, "Managing stormwater at the source is key to protecting capacity and long-term effectiveness for Cranston's MS4 system." Attorney Robert Murray presented comments from 14 engineers, raising concerns about requiring existing structures on subdivided lots to comply and about the effective date; he suggested a future implementation date.
  • Hope Road (pre-application): Multiple residents spoke in opposition. Alex Moore (435 Hope Road) noted the historic nature of the area and traffic concerns. James Erb (50 Hope Road) highlighted severe existing traffic congestion, adding 24 more cars would worsen. John Davia (1660 Pippen Orchard Road) argued the development would set a precedent for further dense development. Others cited groundwater flooding, school overcrowding, and loss of rural character. One online comment (from a name appearing as "Housing Works" but attributed to a resident named Net Born at 51 Community Drive, Cranston) supported the project's design and need for affordable housing but acknowledged traffic issues should be studied.

Discussion Items

  • 30 Ponham Street: Applicant Mark Spiro (30 Palm Street, Cranston) sought to reconfigure three existing 3,200 sq ft record lots into two 4,800 sq ft lots to build one new single-family home. The earlier application for three houses had been denied. After finding a material change (reduction from three to one new house), the commission approved variances and the subdivision. Commissioner Coop requested a condition that no further subdivision occur, which the applicant accepted. The variance motion passed 5-0, and the subdivision motion passed 5-0.
  • 80 Phoenix Avenue: Attorney Robert Murray (21 Garden City Drive, Cranston) represented Khaleesi Properties LLC to subdivide one 31,000 sq ft lot into four lots: an existing four-family on 11,272 sq ft (needing lot size variance), a new two-family on 8,000 sq ft, and two new single-family homes on 6,000 sq ft each (needing frontage variances). Staff recommended approval with conditions, including a wall modification for visibility. Extensive discussion occurred regarding a stone wall along Phoenix Avenue that exceeded 3.5 feet height. The applicant argued the wall condition should be removed, promising to address it with the building official at final plan. Director Correro expressed that the city could still enforce code without the condition. The commission removed the wall condition but added a condition that the single-family lots remain single-family to maintain density consistency with the comprehensive plan. Variance motion passed 5-0; subdivision motion passed 5-0.
  • Stormwater Ordinance: Assistant Director presented Ordinance No. 7201, which would establish impervious surface limits, stormwater mitigation requirements for small developments, and riparian buffers. Staff recommended five changes: simplify by keeping only total lot impervious limits, reduce minimum pervious surface to 1,000 sq ft floor, remove riparian buffer section (redundant with state), allow pervious pavement in parking areas, and require operation/maintenance manual before certificate of occupancy. Councilwoman Graziano stated she supports the changes. Commissioner Correro asked about retroactive application to existing structures on subdivided lots; staff explained the ordinance applies when a lot is subdivided. Robert Murray raised concerns about the section requiring the lot with an existing structure to be brought into compliance upon subdivision, warning it could burden economic development. He also questioned the 2,000 sq ft disturbance threshold and the immediate effective date. The commission voted to forward a positive recommendation with the staff-identified changes (5-0).
  • Hope Road (pre-application): Developer Chris Duhamel (DePrita Engineering) and architect Don Powers presented a 12-unit affordable housing proposal under the comprehensive permit statute on a 5.5-acre site (2.2 acres wetlands) at 425 Hope Road. The project would be age-restricted for those 55+, with 25% low/moderate-income units. The site has 2.6 buildable acres. Commission Chair questioned the yield calculation: 5 units per acre on 2.6 acres yields 13 units plus one existing, totaling 14, but they propose 12—he argued the statutory formula yields only 11 units (10 plus one). He also cited need for sewer capacity documentation, a weekend traffic study (due to adjacent Chafee Athletic Complex congestion), and potential historic significance of the existing farmhouse. Director Correro asked about stormwater management (high water table) and whether the road would be private (20 ft wide). Commissioner Lampier expressed concerns about building on edge of wetlands. Public comment was overwhelmingly opposed, citing traffic, environmental damage, precedent for much larger development, and incompatibility with A80 zoning. Commission took no action; the session was informational.
  • Zoning Board Recommendations: The commission heard six items and made recommendations to the Zoning Board of Review:
    1. 357 Dyer Avenue: John Garry represented applicant for a restaurant/bakery (former Coffey's Restaurant). Requested variances for parking (21 spaces required, none provided) and wall sign size. Staff recommended positive. Commissioner Lampier voted negative, citing a complete waiver of parking and poor walkability in the area. Motion passed 5-1.
    2. 2 Kensington Road: John Garry represented the applicant seeking to build an ADU in an existing garage (increase height to 21 ft). Staff believed no relief was needed. Commission gave positive recommendation in case board finds relief necessary. Passed 5-0.
    3. 118 Maplewood / 0 Maplewood: John Garry represented a lot merger/unmerger to create a three-family and a new two-family on 5,000 sq ft lots each. Staff recommended positive, but commission voted negative on both lots (5-0 each) due to density exceeding future land use and undersized lots.
    4. 185 Albert Avenue: No applicant present. Staff recommended positive for garage reconstruction with reduced side setbacks (same as existing). Commissioner Lampier expressed concern about building on the property line. Commission voted positive with a suggestion that the zoning board grant less than the full relief requested. Passed 5-0.
    5. 75 Gladstone Street / 0 Gladstone Street: No applicant present. Proposal involved zero side setback and parking easement off-lot. Commissioner Correro noted zero setback is a public safety concern for fire access and that creating such lots is a bad precedent. Commission voted negative on both lots (5-0 each).
    6. 110 Lawrence Street: Applicant not present. Staff recommended positive for a two-family dwelling that had been previously approved in 2004 but permits lapsed. Commission voted positive (5-0).

Key Outcomes

  • Approval of minutes: Unanimous.
  • 30 Ponham Street: Variance and subdivision approved; condition of no further subdivision added.
  • 80 Phoenix Avenue: Variance and subdivision approved; condition that single-family lots remain single-family.
  • Stormwater Ordinance: Positive recommendation with five staff amendments forwarded to City Council (5-0).
  • Hope Road: No vote; informational only.
  • Zoning Recommendations:
    • 357 Dyer Ave: Positive (5-1)
    • 2 Kensington Rd: Positive (5-0)
    • 118 & 0 Maplewood: Negative (both 5-0)
    • 185 Albert Ave: Positive with suggestion (5-0)
    • 75 & 0 Gladstone: Negative (both 5-0)
    • 110 Lawrence St: Positive (5-0)
  • Continuances: Items on state legislation for both zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations were continued to the October 2026 meeting due to time constraints.

Meeting Transcript

Um I talked to some of the people in the audiences gauge interest in the various items in the agenda. So the order will be call to order, approval of the minutes, 30 Ponham Street, 80 Phoenix Ave, the Stormwater Ordnance, then Hope Road, then the zoning board recommendations, and then finally this 2026 state legislation for both zoning ordinance and subdivision. If for some reason we cannot get done by eleven o'clock, I would assume we will not get to the state legislation for subdivision and ordinances, and that will be continued the next month. So if you're here for those, you may we may not be able to get to them. My apologies. So I'll start with call to order. I see a quorum present. First time the agenda's approval of anyone have any changes or amendments to the amendments. Seeing none, uh motion uh to approve would be in order. Commissioner Lampier makes a motion to approve. Second by Commissioner Mancini. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say nay. I have it. Next time the agenda will be going to 30 Palm Ham Street. Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on the matter? Please come forward, state your name and address for the record. Mark Spiro 30 Palm Street, Consor and I want. Okay, Mr. Lima, is there someone raising their hand? Uh who's an attorney for the applicant on 30 Ponham Street. Uh no one is raising their hand if you want to instruct them. Oh no, it's it would be via uh zoom. I can do the okay. If you wish to proceed, we could also take you later. Yeah, no, I can do it. Okay, go ahead, sir. So it's a three lots. Sorry. It's uh three assessor lots at 3200 square feet each, and we are trying to um subdivide that into two 4800 square foot lots and create one house for the uh buildable and one to sit on the existing house. Pretty simple. And your let me just let me see. I believe you had an application earlier this year that was we did. We had one that uh was a little aggressive, and uh back here doing the right thing for the neighborhood, which I have my neighbor here. You'd like to speak and this survey is here also to talk if there's any questions for him. Okay, if I recall the application earlier this year, you're trying to build two more houses, so now you're just building one, right? Two houses, correct. Now it's just one house. And you would agree that um maybe the solicitor wants to, if I need to ask this, he would agree that he would only build one more house here. This would not be like he builds a house and then he comes back and asked for more relief and gets something else, right? We don't have to put some good condition about you could do that. You know, I I think uh first in this case, since it was denied um within a year. I think the first thing you need to do is um vote to see if it's a substantial change from the original application. Um if it is, then you can move forward on the merits of the application. Um you certainly can put the condition if agreed to by the applicant that there'll be no further subdivision. Okay. So I'm gonna go in reverse. Would you agree to a condition that there be no further subdivision to this property to add another house? I agree.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com