And so part of our task, as it was um in the prior uh strict uh comprehensive plan was is to think about how can we diversify the economy.

And so we've been mapping where are the um the key employers and understanding the density of jobs as distributed throughout your city.

And one of the things that we're you know thinking about is the fact that the city's almost completely built out and there's really limited opportunities for new development.

And so we'll be working with you all and working with staff and working with um the members of the public to understand and reflect where and how uh new development should occur.

So I showed this graphic last time I was here, but this is just a reminder that um the plan has these 10 elements, they're all really interrelated, and so um we will be thinking through um all of these topics and working together to think about how we can strike a balance between development and preservation, between growth and sustainability, between pressing current needs and long-term resilience.

And so um like I said, this this trip is really about listening for us and uh reporting out what as I just did, some of what we're uh understanding about your city.

And we will be back before you in February, uh having um done our part to analyze the information that we learn from people tomorrow at the event and all of the um activities that will be at tomorrow's event will also be replicated online so people who are not in town or not able to attend um can participate uh asynchronously and um we look forward to sharing with you what we hear uh next time we're in town.

So just one last plug about tomorrow.

Um we'll be there, like I said, in the student commons uh the big atrium at Rogers High School for three hours.

There's no formal presentation, it's really uh intended for people to stop by as they're able and do as many or as few of the activities as they feel uh inspired to do.

Um there'll be a raffle and um like I said, uh photo booth and um food and drink and cookie decorating and a whole bunch of questions and interactive activities for people to um engage with, whether they are um five years old or you know, much older than that.

So um happy to take any questions you may have tonight and uh otherwise if you're able tomorrow, stop by.

Thanks, Mindy.

Questions for Mindy.

Do you have a sense already how many people may be there tomorrow?

I have no idea.

That's always it's like if you um field of dreams, if you build it, will they come?

I don't know.

We're hoping for a big crowd.

Yeah.

Right.

So I have a couple of questions about some of these data.

The um population, is that year-round population?

Does it include students?

What what is the composition of that number population?

The um 25,000 would be the year-round population and it does generally include students.

Um so I think um we've done some math that we're not it's not quite ready for prime time to understand like exactly um how many do we think you know, include um part-time residents and then the visitors.

So I think we're still um refining our numbers.

We'll be interesting to learn more about that.

And and it's certainly an issue that comes up a lot when we're talking about planning uh questions about short-term rentals and things like that.

Um the other question I had uh had to do with um, will your economic analysis take a look at the varying utilization?

So if you have revenues coming from specific sources, will you also look at who are the greatest consumers of like infrastructure and other kinds of city services?

Um I think that will depend on the data that's available.

So um, but I think that's a a good question.

Um are you talking about um like utilities or are you thinking about like services or yeah, the infrastructure basic infrastructure services and are we in other ways, in other words, uh one hypothesis would be that tourism and um dark how non non-full-time residents, people who who do not who only live here part-time, they might be subsidizing uh people who do live here full-time.

Yes.

Or maybe not.

I don't know.

Yes, I know the economist has um thoughts on that particular question.

Yes.

That'll be interesting.

That for some of the other um inquiries, it will depend on, yeah, if we're able to attach data to sure particular parcels of land use.

But I I think so far the data's been really good.

And so um we're happy to um follow a lot of inquiry inquiring threads.

Okay.

Um anybody else?

Yeah, the um uh there's a lot more use of things like carbor, harbor facilities.

And will you be incorporating more of that and looking at the transportation, the housing side, the water, the um because it is a focal point of tourism and and people coming and going um because when you sort of measure housing, um, a lot of the boats on the water are technically second homes.

Yes.

Um that's a very good point.

I when I was just talking to the economists last week and we were trying to think about all of the inputs that would need to go into our understanding of like what actually is the daily capacity of Newport.

And so it's not just it it is a different um mix because we have to think about the moorings and the slips and really like how many people can be accommodated um uh in the in the harbor, as you say.

So yes, I think that um that piece of the analysis uh is important just as like we would count you know parking spots.

It's like we need to understand how are people getting here and and um um coming to land and and you know moving moving through you know, accessing the city from other from other from the water.

So yes.

Yeah, and whether you have the I I assume the transportation plans in there, but also the the harbor management plan should be sort of tied in as well.

Yes.

So I didn't include that slide, but um our office has done a really deep dive of all of the prior plans and that have been produced by the city, um, by the island, by you know, the state, and so and we've made a record of all of the different recommendations and so the harbor management plan is part of that mix, and um we have not yet had the opportunity to um explore the the city by water yet, but and it's on our list.

And um I think the the transportation master plan, the team that wrote that uh tool design group is part of our team.

And so they've got a real good handle on um certainly the land-based transportation.

And I think that there's room for us to um go a bit further in in what we're talking about and making sure that that um intersects well with the the water-based transportation.

Mindy, has has there been a conversation at all about attracting business outside of hospitality, uh, to particularly to you know, to bring some level leveling off in the in the in the non-summer months.

So you hear about a lot of cities, right, that create tax incentives or reasons for certain industries to maybe set up uh set up businesses here.

Uh in fact, the other day I was talking to somebody uh who was working for a small firm that was looking for new office space.

And I said, have you guys looked at Newport?

And they said, Oh no, we're not planning to meet with Newport.

We're gonna meet with uh Middletown.

And uh, you know, I left it at that, but at the same time, I would say, do we have like an office here that that you know focuses on that that creates incentives and reasons for businesses to settle here, you know, which ultimately, you know, you got to start small, but you gotta start somewhere.

So I wonder if that's going to be part of this conversation going forward.

Yes.

So um Kevin Highley from Ninigrit Partners, that is certainly squarely within his scope to think through, you know, what are the incentives and what are the um opportunities?

What part of that is always about, you know, um what do businesses need as far as office space or workspace or access.

And so um he's very good at thinking about both from the kind of the city levers as well as the um spatial opportunities and go ahead, Jared.

The on slide seven and eight when you talk about the household incomes changing.

Is that something we're seeing across the state?

Just anecdotally hearing a lot about folks from New York, New Jersey, wherever Connecticut moving to Rhode Island.

Yeah.

Uh, because it's a little bit cheaper or they can get a little more bang for their buck.

Is that something we're seeing in other cities and towns in the state, or is that more cutely a newport thing?

Um I don't know, but we can look into that.

So I'm happy to um we can figure that out tomorrow.

And if if you come by tomorrow, we can let you know.

But um uh I think it it's a good point.

Like it's good to help to understand this in context.

And so um, we can provide a similar assessment for some of those deaf demographic points, but beyond just uh the young kids.

And just curious about actually that question from Jared.

Um do we know of those households, how many of them are second home owners as opposed to full-time the on that slide.

Um the change in housing.

Yeah, yeah, you know, the hundred thousand or more, which has grown by 33% versus almost the same number as declined, you know, for the 20 less than 25,000.

Yeah.

Um I'm just curious.

I'll have to talk to I we'll have to take a look at that.

You know, I think that there's um multiple like those statistics are from the American Community Survey.

Um our understanding of um, you know, second homeowners is based on our analysis of your tax roles and um where the mailing address is.

So it's like we in perfect science to kind of there's a lot of data, and it's a little bit of chaos theory at the end of the day.

Yeah, so but I I think it's uh it is certainly something, it's a good question that I think has a been um pinging in our heads as well.

Yeah, it should be it should be possible to take apart the the proportion of homeowners in Newport who actually claim the residential tax.

Yes, exactly.

Credit, right?

Um and and related to both of those questions, I'm kind of wondering how these demographic changes uh relate to how consistent they are with other uh new England coastal communities.

Cape and Islands, the you know, the the whole Long Island.

Yeah, yeah.

So that is something that we often do in this work is think about like what are some good peer cities or comical places so that we can learn from, you know, how are they handling some of these issues that they're um experiencing as well.

And so I think that that's um a good question for us to be grappling with this like which are the right places that makes sense for us to um consider as um years to Newport for this work.

Great.

Well, I hope everyone will try to go.

I know uh I think that Dick is going to try to go, at least for part of the time.

I'll be there in the second half.

I have another meeting in the early part, but I'll I'll certainly show up.

Hope everyone else can try to show up as well.

Thanks, Mindy.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

It's time to uh to go about our planning business.

This here.

Uh tonight we're hearing the application.

Oops, I keep pulling up the same thing.

Yeah, we know.

All right.

This is tonight.

We're hearing the unified development uh review uh for it's a preliminary plan uh for 102 to 108 Girard Avenue.

Uh Tap 3 lot 11.

Uh Girard Partnership has applied to construct an additional 1400 square foot building uh containing four dwelling units to the westernmost part of uh building of the three recently constructed this area has had a number of approvals and there has been some construction.

So I take it, sir, that you are here to represent the applicant.

You are correct.

Uh my name is Jay Lynch from the law firm of Morvog Adamo Lynch, 97 John Clark Road in Middletown.

Uh I am representing the applicant.

Um I think what's appropriate here, I'll give you a quick summary of the relief that we're looking for uh this evening.

And give you a little bit of history and background and exp.

I think that'll help explain why we're here in front of you uh tonight.

Thanks, Mr.

Lynch.

Welcome.

Uh this is a uh uh an application for unified uh development review.

Um this what we're proposing to do, and if you look at the uh the the monitors, uh we're asking to put an addition on to the westernmost building uh that will house four additional rental units.

Um one of those units will be uh ADA compliant, uh senior uh 88 compliant.

Um it's possible more will uh because as part of this addition, we're adding an elevator into the building.

So the elevator will serve the addition and the adjacent space.

Um we are we need a special use permit uh for that relief because this is uh multifamily housing, which is uh permitted by special use permit in this district.

Uh we're also seeking several variances uh from the zoning code dimensional relief.

Uh first, we're asking for a side yard setback.

Um we're proposing to build the addition six feet from the southern property line where 10 feet is required.

Uh we're also going to increase lot coverage.

Uh right now we're at 20% lot coverage.

The addition will increase lot coverage to 22% or 20% is permitted.

Um we also need relief uh from the parking, the terms of the parking uh uh code, zoning ordinance.

Um this project was developed uh in advance of the current parking uh ordinance that we have in the zoning code.

So as a result, the parking was situated in the middle of the uh the lot under the new code.

It's supposed to be towards the rear and uh back of the the properties.

Uh so we do need relief because we are going to be providing parking front side of the uh the project off of Girard Avenue.

Um I'll give you a little bit of history uh on this project.

Uh and this goes back all the way to 2017.

This project started in 2017.

Uh the applicant came in front of the zoning uh this planning board for demolition permit to demolish three uh buildings that were on this uh on this site, uh, and that was approved back in 2017.

Uh thereafter, in February of 2018, we went in front of the Newport Zoning Board and received a special use permit uh and dimensional relief to construct 24 uh residential dwelling units on this property.

Um the initial configuration was going to be in four separate buildings.

Uh we had the three uh that you see in the uh that are constructed right now, and then there was going to be one additional freestanding building on the uh the west side of the uh the property.

Um we received a variance for lot coverage.

Uh we were permitted up to I think 24% of lot coverage.

We're down down to 22.

So we we the initial lot coverage was reduced uh from the initial 2018 approval.

Um may not be aware, but back in 2018, uh Newport did things backwards.

Uh they we would go to the zoning board, you would get your approval, and then you would go to the technical review committee for final approval of all of the technical aspects of the uh the design.

Uh during the technical review uh process, uh the city had concerns about stormwater runoff.

Uh and as a result of those uh concerns, the project was downscaled.

Uh we went with three buildings, six uh units per building, and we removed the building that was going to be on the west side of the property.

Going ahead from that point, uh, the building on the north side of the uh property, that was the first building to be constructed.

Uh, and then thereafter uh in 2002, uh the two buildings on the south side uh were approved and permitted.

Um at that point, what we did is we went in front of the zoning board uh in uh October of 2023 and asked for a dimensional variance.

Uh we asked to push those two buildings back six feet from the property line where 10 feet is required.

The reason being is that there was an existing fence line between our subject site and the uh housing uh to the south.

That fence had been there forever, uh, so we use that as the markup.

Uh that so we proposed to site the structures 10 feet from the existing fence line, and the zoning board uh approved that variance uh to give us the the setback.

Uh in January of 2024, we went back to the board again uh and we asked just to relocate some of uh the uh outdoor patios decks uh from uh the east side of the building.

Uh I'm sorry, we we asked that they be moved to the east side of the property, which was within the uh front yard setback off of Girard Avenue.

Uh zoning board had no concerns about that request, and they granted the dimensional variances in 2024.

Uh then in March of 24, uh we came back again and we asked to uh increase the uh interiors of the uh the dwellings and we uh were able to add additional bedrooms to the third floor unit at 106 uh Girard Avenue.

So what we did is we turned what were two bedroom units into uh three or four bedrooms, and that was approved.

Then uh we came back uh to the zoning board uh in late 2004 uh for these four additional units that we're proposing.

As you can guess, Mr.

Armour was sick and tired of seeing us in front of the zoning board, so he sent us here uh to the planning board development plan uh unified development plan review.

So we're here tonight uh seeking this board's approval to construct an addition onto the westernmost building and add uh four additional dwelling units.

Each dwelling unit will consist of two bedrooms, as I mentioned before.

One of the four will be uh ADA compliant senior living compliant.

Um back in uh September.

We went in front of the technical review committee.

We went over all of the drainage issues, construction issues, fire, police protection, et cetera, and we received a favorable recommendation uh from the TRC.

Um our engineer for Stu Hamill uh from DeBrete Engineering prepared a stormwater management report, which took the roof run off from the new dwelling, uh put it in an underground infiltration system uh and certified that that would be appropriate for the site and it would drain into the existing uh detention uh basin, which is at the west side of the property.

Uh we also entered into an operations and maintenance agreement with the city uh for the new uh set new sewer system uh that was going to be constructed on the site and tied into the uh city system, our landscaping plan.

Uh we adopted the same landscaping plan that was submitted to the zoning board in 2018, and that was approved.

So we decided to can uh continue on with the same uh landscaping proposal that had been approved uh several years ago.

I just went ahead on a few other points.

The lighting plan that we submit, uh all of the additional lighting will be dark sky compliant.

Uh our parking proposal uh meets all the technical aspects of the zoning code.

We have uh one or two extra spaces uh that uh on site that uh go beyond what was required on the zoning ordinance.

Um loose end which we discussed at the TRC, and I'm more than happy, we're more than happy to get this board's input is where do you want us to place bikes bike racks?

Uh we're gonna propose to put at least two bike racks on the site.

Um you know, there are several spots on the site that could conform where we could put them.

Um just wanted to see if the board had any preference as to where you'd like to see them, uh, and they will appear on the final uh plan that we're going to submit to uh staff for review.

That's all I have to just give you a background.

I do have Mr.

Gullison, who is the principal of the applicant here.

If you have any particular questions, um I'm sure Mr.

Gulleson or I could uh hopefully answer them to your satisfaction.

Uh I did review the staff report, which was you know, I guess favorable on the application.

Um certain conditions that they had proposed, which we're more than happy to accept in this uh if the board sees fit to grant us preliminary plan approval.

Thanks, Mr.

Lynch.

Any questions uh for Mr.

Lyncher for Mr.

Gullison?

Um I was looking at this.

This is sort of our first pass at this board.

Um sidewalk.

There are sidewalks uh that are going to be on there.

And it it during the TRC, we submitted the sidewalks, they were approved.

Uh we're putting sidewalks, internal sidewalks, uh but I'm I'm talking about across the front.

And a crosswalk.

I don't think we haven't gotten a crosswalk approved yet from the city, have we?

No, yeah, they didn't want sidewalk on the west side of that street, lighting the property.

Yeah, they didn't want it sidewalk there.

No.

Talking to Frank and our excavator, and he said no, because he wants the water to run.

He didn't want to catch it and run it down the street.

Some reason.

I mean, as I understand it from the uh staff report, uh the request is to uh put in a crosswalk connecting the property to the sidewalk across the street.

Is that correct?

Yeah, we've done we haven't gotten final approval yet from uh city that you know, we'll put that on there.

Yeah, but from a long-term standpoint, um, I mean, I know there are not a lot of sidewalks on that side of the street.

Um, but um, you know, I I get it from uh a stormwater runoff, but at the same time, you know, if we take the opportunity to put a sidewalk in now, it sort of puts the footprint down for the next development or the next reiteration on the properties adjacent that we tie the sidewalk in on that side of the street.

I don't know if there's any logic to that or not.

Well, all of the uh all of the properties on the west side of Jard Avenue have been developed, fully developed.

I don't see any additional development, or we have the condominium development to be at the north existing, and then we have the uh department uh complex south.

But it's um you know, I don't know, I don't know.

I don't know if we need the you know, from a public safety standpoint.

Do you need are are we missing something here by not sort of saying, okay, you know, yeah, the stormwater runoff is important, but shouldn't we be focusing on a little public safety here on both sides of the street because it is a busy street?

Because it is a busy street.

Um and I don't want to speak for the city, but I know staff report there was a recommendation that we do put a crosswalk right across to the existing sidewalk.

So uh we're prepared to do that sidewalk on the uh east side of Gerard Avenue.

It runs all the way through on the on the east side.

Right.

Right.

I don't know.

If you have a crosswalk to a bus station, which is right on the other side, right?

So yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

I I'm just I'm just throwing this out here.

And I understand, and that would, you know, if we put a sidewalk there, then the the condoms in the north are not gonna put a sidewalk in, and uh the apartment uh complex south is not gonna put in a sidewalk.

So it wouldn't be on an island.

Oh there were sidewalks on the west side of Gerard Avenue.

I think that's probably why they the city recommended that we put the crosswalk across to uh the east side of Gerard Avenue.

Okay.

And we'll work with the engineering graphic engineering department as to where they want us to place it.

I just want to mention that the city engineer sits on the technical review committee.

Um, and I think that's uh a sort of a great goal.

And every time we have the opportunity to ask for additional sidewalks, he makes sure that we do that.

The fact that he didn't for this application, um I I think you know the preference was for the storm water uh being able to travel down that and with the accommodation of the sidewalk on the other side.

So they'll continue to review this with the city engineer who looks at that.

Um also our director of utilities sits on the TRC, and so they work out these kinds of issues as they go through that process.

Okay, it's a good goal.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Uh thank you very much, uh, Mr.

Lynch and Mr.

Gulison.

I'm gonna open the public meeting.

Um the public comment and begin the public comment period.

Are there any members of the public here who wish to speak regarding this application?

Hearing no members of the public interested in speaking with regard to this application, I will close the public comment period.

Uh any further comments you wish to make, Mr.

Lynch or Mr.

Gullison?

Okay.

All right.

I'm gonna call the board's attention to the staff report.

Uh staff, do you have anything you'd like to you wish to add or anything you wish to clarify?

No.

Uh staff will continue to work with engineering, making sure that the crosswalk does not go just to a patch of grass, it has to go to an accessible something.

So um I think that kind of satisfy satisfies the point that was trying to be made.

So staff will continue to work with the engineering staff.

Can we also ensure that it's handicap accessible and so on?

Yes, I believe that's a standard that the engineering department has to meet.

Um, but we can certainly confirm that.

Yeah, I mean they they'd have to redo the sidewalk on the east side, right?

Obviously, then yeah.

All right.

I'm gonna call for uh a motion to adopt the staff report as findings of fact.

So moved.

Second.

Any discussion?

All right, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Uh passes unanimously.

So let's move on and begin to evaluate uh the applicant's requests for uh dimensional variances.

Uh there are three dimensional variance requests, one having to do with setback, second lock coverage, and the third parking uh with respect to the rear and the side yards.

What I'd like to do is uh subject each of these variances uh evaluate them against uh the following standards, consider conditions, and then make a determination as to whether the applicant has met those standards for all three dimensional variance requests.

Just as a reminder, and you'll find these uh standards in the staff report.

Uh the analysis begins on page six and continues to page eight.

Um the first standard has to do with um hardship.

Uh it is that the hardship is uh relief that's sought is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure.

Any discussion, comments, questions with respect to that standard with either with regard to either of the three variance requests.

I think they're pretty straightforward.

Um which ones do you want to tackle?

Do you want to you want to tackle them as a group or is uh I I think we can we can talk about all three variances.

These are the standards that we're going to subject all three variances to the same four standards.

Um so I think we can talk about them as a group, unless someone objects to that way of going about this.

So the uh just as a again, the analysis begins in the staff report, begins on page six.

The setback here is um uh they're requesting the applicant is requesting constructing the unit within six feet of the south side yard line rather than ten.

Yeah, I think it's it's not as the staff has said in here, this hardship is not the result of the applicant doing it.

This is it already is existing in the other buildings, and so uh it doesn't, you know, it's it's pretty straightforward.

Yeah, if they want to keep it in line with the other building.

Right.

That's the unique characteristic.

So I think the myth of myth the showing of a unique characteristic, the setback.

Okay, any other thoughts about this?

Also by lining it up with the other buildings, you're keeping the parking in the center.

You're not moving parking out.

The staff also notes that with respect to the setback uh variance requests, uh that variance has already been evaluated and approved in previous petitions.

Okay.

Uh the second standard has to do with um whether or not the hardship is the result of any prior action of the applicant.

Questions, comments, thoughts about that.

Well, the yeah, the applicant went in front of the zoning board and got the variance, so it was part of their doing, but um at the same time that that variance has already been given.

So the argument that it wasn't the applicant's responsibility is yes, it wasn't as you know, you didn't cause it in this case.

This is as I see that this is a project that's been evolving over time, and that evolution has in effect created uh a kind of um hardship and as well as just trying to uh construct this in such a way that it meets requirements with minimal requests for variances.

Any other thoughts on that?

Uh with respect to either again, lot coverage, parking, or uh setbacks.

Okay.

The fourth standard is uh, or I'm sorry, the third.

I'm jumping ahead here.

Granting of the request and variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance or comp plan upon which the ordinance is based.

And on one side you have condos, the other side you have festival fields.

So they're clearly large residential structures that are already in that area.

And this addition is also at the rear of the property, right?

Right.

So you from the street, you can't you can you can't tell actually that it doesn't belong or that it was added later conceptually.

So and I think in general, the con the the neighborhood, this construction is not inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in the the entire surrounding area.

It's very consistent.

And really the only thing that's in that neighborhood that's not residential is the Met School, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Fourth standard.

Okay.

Further comment?

I just have sort of a general comment that covers a lot of this territory, which is if you go back to the last comp plan or the current comp plan, I should call it, right?

I mean, we have a whole section there on density of individuals with disabled status.

Yes.

Right.

And here we're talking about a neighborhood that that has actually the second highest uh um, or I should say the third highest level of uh people with um disabled status.

And so what we're what's being done here is actually to serve these uh, you know, these uh these residents, you know, who have those special needs.

And so I think this is a just a terrific way to also address what the comp plan uh has already identified as an issue.

And we will cover the comp plan uh features of this in I jumped ahead.

Okay.

That's okay.

It's okay.

Um do we have evidence entered into the record of the proceedings showing that in granting a dimensional variance, the hardship suffered by the owner of the subject property of this variance is not granted, does not amount to more than a mere inconvenience in other words that relief sought is minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use of the property.

Yeah, because if we enforce this, then you're gonna lose parking and it's just gonna confuse this issue even more.

So this is this is the least this is the force of least resistance.

I also think these variance requests are are relatively insignificant.

Yes, and and so it's not a major feature.

Okay, the staff has uh recommended approval of the variances subject to uh condition that final the final development plan approval is granted by the administrative officer.

Does anyone wish to add any additional uh conditions?

Okay, I don't hear anything.

So may I have a motion to uh approve uh to may I have a motion to find that the applicant has addressed the applicable standards and to grant approval for all the dimensional variances and to grant that approval contingent on meeting the specified conditions in the staff report.

So any discussion further discussion?

Uh may I have a vote, please?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I hear no opposition, unanimous approval.

Uh the variances have been approved.

Okay, let's move on to the special use permit.

The request is a category one uh special use permit to construct a multifamily dwelling in the R10 district.

And here I refer you to the staff report.

The analysis begins on page eight and continues to page nine, uh actually to page 10.

Um we are looking at uh uh the the following standards.

Um has to do with parking and loading standards, two performance standards, three uh development standards, uh four for new construction and alterations exceeding 50% of any building dimension, providing a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces previously mentioned by the applicant's attorney.

Uh for new construction alterations exceeding 50% of any building dimension, provision of sidewalks connecting to the parking area and building entrance, and we've heard some discussion about that one.

No that net increase in stormwater runoff from the site.

All proposed lighting is dark sky compliant.

Uh applicants attorney has testified that this lighting is dark sky compliant.

Uh for new construction parking lots should be located in the rear or side yard of the property.

Those are the standards we're looking at.

Those are the standards we must use to uh consider this request for a special use permit.

Any questions, discussion?

I have a question about what I'm reading in the staff report about the parking.

Um they say there's 22 proposed units, accessible units only require one parking space.

Are they saying that there's enough parking spaces?

One are you saying there's more parking than needed than required?

The staff found that there was enough parking shown to not require a variance.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I have a question.

Yeah.

Are the parking spaces for the accessible units marked as such?

Yes.

So all the parking spaces designated for the accessible units are marked with the symbol signage, and they also have the um striped median buffer.

And appropriate um access with curb cuts.

And a ramp that leads to the new area.

Right.

Yes.

Okay, I guess I'm asking the question because it says for such as seniors or differently abled.

So seniors may not have a handicapped placard.

So is their unit marked specific is their parking space marked for them?

That would be a question for the applicant.

So if there is a senior resident living in one of the union units that does not have a handicap uh tag, would they have a designated spot that is accessible to their door?

Or would it not be assigned parking spaces?

I think this is really what the city we're trying to fit, you know, a square and around uh a peg here.

Um, if you have senior housing, you only have to have one parking unit, and it doesn't have to be designated where it's located.

Um we will voluntarily agree that it will be located immediately adjacent to the building uh that contains that senior housing, but it does the parking uh space does not have to comply to ADA standards, but it will be close proximity to the uh the building where the unit is located.

Okay, I guess my question is are the parking spaces designated for each apartment marked as such?

No, they're not.

So it's not like apartment one, department two, three.

No.

So it's open parking.

Open parking.

All right, I just thought I think I see a problem with senior citizens who maybe not designated as disabled, so they don't have a placard.

It but still have issues walking to and from their apartment.

We'd probably want to be able to park close by.

I understand your concern that we'll address to make sure that that's not going to be a problem uh going forward.

Do you do you want to formulate a condition, Sunny?

Um, well, it's just the way this one is is worded.

It just opens up that question.

It's a good question.

Um, sure, we can make it a condition.

I guess that's the only thing I'm asking.

Any housing designated for seniors should have a parking space designated close by for them.

Provided we'll make some you know nomination.

We may not uh put a you know identify it by a unit number, but we'll make sure that it's available.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh any other comments or questions about the application of these standards to uh the special use permit request.

Question about the I know there was discussion about EV ports.

Did those did was that ever decided upon?

I know that there was a discussion about it during the TRC.

Okay.

I'm sorry, what was the what was the uh uh electronic the electric chargers?

Yeah, they'll be uh provided for and submitted on the final plan that's going to go to uh staff.

Okay.

And are these, I'm sorry, while you're up?

Are these year-round or are these well these are all year-round rentals?

They're no short-term rentals.

And no one can rent them out, sublet them to someone else on a short-term basis.

Correct.

Is there something in there that says it has to be a 12-month lease?

Except in military?

Uh well, the applicant has got hundreds of units uh in Newport, and they are all uh long-term 12-month uh leases.

Um they're not going to be any short-term rentals.

I don't know how we deal with the military if they're going to be uh nine months or well, yeah, you just put a military exception in the lease.

Yeah, but they these will all be long-term uh leases.

Anything else?

Trish, you look like you're about to say something.

Okay.

We this is a uh numerous technical reviews.

We'll continue to have uh technical reviews and uh utility engineering reviews.

Uh let's take a look at the staff condition, the staff uh recommendations.

They have uh recommended conditional approval uh based on a number of conditions.

Uh first the final development plan approval is granted by the administrative officer.

Uh second, that the applicant work with the city engineer to add a crosswalk connecting the proposed sidewalks to this on site to public sidewalk to the public sidewalk across Gerard Avenue.

Um for the TRC memo, the applicant shall add bike racks to the proposed site plan within 100 feet of a building entrance on the final site plan.

Uh the applicant's attorney asked if we had any uh recommendations or thoughts on that subject.

I know I don't, but does anyone else have strong feelings about the placement of bike racks on this property?

Okay.

Are there spaces for them, like near all the build the various buildings, or do you have to put all the bike racks right at the front entrance?

That's what I think that condition says, right?

Oh surrounding the parking lot and approximately the buildings to fit its uh these racks.

Okay.

We can fit them.

We just wanted to see if you had any uh preferences.

Um they will appear on the uh final plan.

Yeah, good.

Uh another condition is that the applicant will receive review and approval for the final stormwater plan from the utilities department, and finally that the new uh proposed addition will be verified as compliant with the 2024 energy code by the building official.

Um as I understand it, Mr.

Lynch and Mr.

Gullison, those are acceptable conditions too.

Okay.

Uh does the board wish to uh to add any additional conditions, such as accessible parking for seniors or lane conduit for EV charging?

I think just the one about the designated senior parking.

Okay.

So you'd like to um make uh designated parking for seniors as requested or something like that.

For those particular units.

I mean, it doesn't you don't have to designate every single apartment space, but for the senior housing should be okay.

Uh do you have any objections to adding that as a condition that there be uh designated parking for seniors where there is senior housing?

Well designate the spaces that depend on how you want to designate them, but yeah.

I imagine seniors could end up living in any one of these units, and if they need uh accessibility, uh making some kind of provision to provide that.

Jared, you have a thought?

Could we identify so depending on the ADA units in each building?

I'm wondering.

Maybe so if there's two ADA units, new building with the elevator, there's two parking spots that are designated at least.

Maybe it's not just seniors, maybe it's just folks with disabilities, so they're able to access that building.

So we're we're we know that the people that are going to be needing that accommodation will have that available to decide to live.

And I I just practically speaking, you know, the the parking is gonna be people are gonna park near their building.

Uh so if you have a building with seniors that are in it, there's the spaces there are going to be occupied by seniors as opposed to somebody across the property.

So I think that's going to will hopefully work itself out so it won't be a problem.

But we we will do uh what we need to do to designate uh spaces for seniors.

I was just gonna say that to your point though, if I'm in another apartment and I'm having a dinner party, nobody knows they'd not stop there.

So I think the request is for uh designated ADA parking spaces.

We do have designated ADA spaces, that's on the plans.

Uh we do have those.

Oh, this is for accessible units that do not need ADA compliant.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, I understand what you're saying.

I'm trying to figure out how to word it.

You have any thoughts?

I do.

I I think that each accessible unit should have a designated spot.

And whether it's with the I know the placards aren't always going to work.

So if it's unit 12A, unit 12A should have a designated spot.

But isn't it only one handicapped unit per building?

Yeah, that's four.

Okay, so it's only four spots that need to be designated as for those apartments.

Okay, but then there's also conversation about um seniors.

So that's different.

So we I'm just looking from the developer side.

How do they no?

Because the senior could look ask for an accessible apartment, either because they can't do stairs or whatever, but they're not technically handicapped.

Under the zoning code, they combine uh ADA compliant uh handicaps uh units and senior uh units.

They're in the same uh classification.

So we're providing handicapped designated spaces.

So if you have a handicapped senior unit, we've got the designated spaces there for those particular units.

Right.

But if you're not handicapped, you don't have a placard.

Right.

So you know, so someone's gonna ticket them because they're parked in a spot that they think they shouldn't be in.

Is it theoretically possible the entire building could be seniors or the entire complex?

Anyone could be seniors, yes.

Uh, but they're being specifically designed uh for ADA or being specifically designed for those.

Putting those aside, the rest of them could be senior.

So every 12 months, this is gonna change.

Potentially.

Potentially.

You're your whole, you know, you may have 70-year-olds uh renting every uh unit in this property, and then everyone's uh a senior.

Oh, I understand your concerns.

We'll do our best to try to designate uh spaces, most of buildings for those.

It might be overthinking it.

But what it's worth, the distance is actually not that big.

I drove through there today and it's it's relatively short.

It's like from here to the other wall over there for people to walk from one side to the other side where the other building is, and it's parking on both sides that extends from the front to the back.

Okay.

So that's where that so no condition?

No.

Okay.

Um unless the this has already been requested.

I I do want to make sure that conduit is laid for EV charging as a condition.

Uh and so uh any further questions, discussion, any further conditions anyone wants to consider.

Okay.

So uh may I have a motion uh to find that the applicant has addressed applicable standards to grant approval for the special use permits and to grant approval contingent upon meeting the specified conditions in the staff report, in addition to laying conduit for EV charging and final approval of the development plan.

So moved.

Second.

Uh any further discussion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The eyes have it, and uh special unit use permit has been uh approved.

At this point, I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Uh thank you uh for your patience and good luck.

Still the development plan development plan down here.

Yeah.

One more vote.

What's what's the oh the development plan?

I'm sorry.

The development plan review.

I'm skipping, I'm skipping ahead too quickly.

So now we're gonna have to consider the development plan uh against the standards uh, which I will list quickly and briefly.

They're fairly straightforward.

Uh the staff analysis begins on page page 10 and it continues to page 12.

Uh the granting, the standards we must uh adhere to that the granting of approval will not result in conditions inemicable to the public health, safety or welfare.

It will not granting of the approval will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of the property in the surrounding area.

Uh the plans uh for the development comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance subdivision and so on.

Uh you can read that in the staff report.

The plans for the development are consistent with the comprehensive plan and conditions restrictions are required.

Site approvements meet those guidelines.

Um now take a look at the if you'll take a look at the staff report.

The staff has helpfully has helpfully identified a number of ways in which uh the plans are consistent with the comp.

The main focus here to summarize is housing goals.

And they've listed a number of housing goals.

Uh one to six, so on.

I would add housing uh goal four, expanding housing to address Newport's senior population.

Um then the other kinds of comp plan uh goals that this application directly addresses are providing comprehensive multimodal transportation.

Everyone's had a anyone see any other comp plan goals that are met or disagree with any of the findings in the staff report.

I would agree with the goals.

We also just to reiterate, we just had our um consultant come in and tell us that the city is having an influx of older residents by having additional housing options that are PDA client with an elevator, make it more attractive for people to live there.

Even for the folks that are already here.

It adds housing to our housing stock.

Uh not just for uh folks who have additional needs for support.

Any other comments, questions?

Okay.

Uh what kind of the staff is recommended uh approval, uh granting preliminary approval, uh subject to the following conditions upon final plan submission, all conditions listed in the special use permit conditions of approval are clearly met.

So this is directly dependent on meeting this special use permit conditions.

Final plans are to be submitted to and approved by the administrative officer.

No leases for any unit on this property be less than 12 months, and that the applicant makes every reasonable effort to include uh EV parking stations on the final uh site plan.

I would add on on C that except for military orders.

You know, it is I think that that's sort of a standard, but you know, if you've got you know I don't know if it's still true, but I know that when I was in the military, it's required anyway.

If a military person shows orders sending them away from Newport, they have to be allowed to do that.

I know, but it it just said we're we're putting in here no leases can be less than 12 months.

Well, you know, I'm just I'm just trying to keep keep the developer from the So listening to the two of you.

I have a question about whether or not Rhode Island law or Newport uh housing regulations require leases to include an exception for military that should they receive orders to leave that they can they can uh be let out of their lease.

So I don't know, I think it's federal law.

Yeah, I would agree with Ms.

Stokes.

So um off the top of my head, I I don't know for certain, but I imagine knowing that for instance for National Guard deployment, an employer is required to keep that job position over that if a landlord tried to seek damages for someone who was active duty military, they would not be allowed to do that in court.

So I understand Mr.

Cromwell's port point, I don't necessarily know that it's required, but it could certainly we could make that change pretty quickly to say, except for military to item C there, and that would also demonstrate the city support for military uh housing as well.

Yeah, because you'd have to ask them if you just rely on the fact that federal law will allow them to get out of it, then you're asking a military person to sign something that says I'm gonna stay for 12 months, but no, well, if I get my orders, I can break the lease.

Whereas if we have a condition that gives allows them to say a landlord to have an exception from the condition, I think that's probably more prudent.

Yeah, I wasn't talking just about leaving though to just point it's it's also about can they sign a nine-month lease when we're requiring 12.

Right.

So I think military is the exception.

Right.

I agree.

So if they have, you know, a a group of naval war college people coming in and they're only going to be here nine months, they can rent it to them.

Well, I even I think we're we're we're agreeing, Sonny.

Right.

We we're absolutely agreeing.

I'm just trying, uh I'm I'm just trying to put in here uh something so like you're saying that we we recognize this and we think it's fair because you know mil the military tend to be fairly black and white.

Yeah, well, I agree with you.

The city does need to, we need to put that in there as military being the exception.

Yeah, all right.

So you you would like to rephrase that condition to say that no leases for any unit on this property may be less than 12 months with the exception of active duty or reserve military.

Yeah, if we can revise that condition.

Yes, okay.

Uh okay.

Um anything further.

Then I'm gonna call for a motion that the applicant has addressed applicable standards to grant preliminary approval for proposed for the proposed development plan subject to the conditions uh as revised and included in the staff report.

May I have a motion?

So moved.

Second.

Any further discussion?

And your vote.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

We've got a unanimous vote.

Now I can say thank you for your once again.

And you have your variances, your special use permit, and your conditions and your compliance.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I am now going to reopen the public hearing.

And we're going to discuss the proposed amendments to the Newport subdivision and land development regulations.

There's actually no one in this room.

Except the planning staff and the planning board.

And the legal representative, our city solicitor.

So there is no one to actually comment on this.

Staff, do you want to talk uh just say a few words about these proposed amendments to the and what we're doing with these?

I do.

Um, so as the planning board is familiar over the course of the last two years, we've been responding to a lot of new regulations that the state has been passing down to the municipalities.

These are generally referred to as enabling legislation.

They're what allow uh municipalities to have the power to do certain things like planning board and zoning board.

Um we went through a batch of like a very big batch of regulations that were intended um at the state level to promote housing development in cities and towns, um, recognizing the the the seriousness of the issue in the state.

This is the latest um revisions that have been made by the state that we are incorporating into our development review regulations, which everybody knows is the the sort of guidelines for how we do development review and the planning board sort of operates.

So the planning board is allowed to update and keep their own development regulations based on state law.

We provided an advertisement for public hearing so that the community uh will have the opportunity to comment.

Um this has been a very sort of um surgical uh uh uh change that they made, and it's been very interesting for someone who's had a long career in planning planning.

Uh there are five standards for subdivisions, and one of them uh is that it needs to meet zoning.

This is something that now allows the planning board to look at lots that are oversized for their community um and subdivide them based on what the community around them looks like.

So uh it's called in the legislation oversized lot subdivision, and there's a slide here that explains this is the the changes that were made in this past June.

Uh so what happens is you can assess the lots around your lot within a 200 foot radius, and you if there's 50 percent or more that are undersized, you can match that size and subdivise without subdivide without any relief from the zoning ordinance for that.

It's pretty um revolutionary, I feel for planning to be able to do this, and this isn't an effort for us to be able to subdivide lots and to be within the neighborhood characteristics and and be able to approve those.

The subdivided lot needs to be vacant, it can't be smaller than 3,000 square feet, regardless of what's going on around, and it needs to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood.

So it's been a pretty interesting thing that's been happening at a state level.

We've already had some interest in this from local attorneys who are looking at this as an option.

It probably fits pretty well with Newport's development pattern.

So there was that change, and you can see in the document that you received, it shows the totality of all the changes.

The red lines are uh what's been stricken from the original uh legislation and the blue what's has been added.

You can also see some changes that were made uh because we in October we went live with our online permitting process, so we're no longer requiring paper submittals, and you can see some of those changes.

And other than that, um the other things were just small words mything.

So um Trish, where where what kind of uh you know, which neighborhoods in Newport would be ripe for this?

What do you think?

Is this like the example where developer comes in and sees like two lots, buys both of them, and then merges them, and then wants to put an apartment building up, maybe most or what no?

It's more like if you look at an aerial of Newport and you see a neighborhood and you can see the development patterns and you can see the sort of complexity of what that looks like.

And if you see a lot that is bigger than most of the ones that are around it, that would be that one lot would be able to be subdivided into two or more.

So it's something that's already in a neighborhood that has smaller development patterns, would be able to match for that.

And we have a lot of neighborhoods that would be like that.

So let me understand.

So I live in an R10 zone.

I have 11,300 something square feet.

How many?

I couldn't hear, sorry.

Like 11,300 and I don't remember, I don't remember the exact number.

Okay, but over 10.500 square foot lots.

Right.

So that would allow us to subdivide it.

That's it would allow you.

So you'd have to do something, you'd have to hire a surveyor to come in and they do something called a compilation plan, which is it's verified by a surveyor, they go around and they look at the lots that are within 200 feet of your lots, and they'll do uh some math and they'll come up with that sort of middle number of what you'd be able to do.

And you can subdivide it, but the caveat is the lot that you create needs to be vacant.

So if you have a house there, you have a garage there or things like that, you need to look at the sort of the placement of the buildings on the lot.

So even lots that are oversized may not necessarily be candidates for that, uh, depending on where the structures are there and if the structures want to be kept.

So I was using my street as an as an example, but would that now not change our zone?

We would know.

It doesn't change your zone.

This allows you to do that in the R10 zone just by matching your neighborhood properties.

So all the neighborhood, all the neighbors are now gonna have 5,000 square foot lots, but we're in an R10 zone.

Uh I don't think everybody's gonna want to do that.

The people who qualify are able to apply for that.

Uh a lot of people when we looked at it for the housing plan, uh, we looked at these lots.

Uh this was before this legislation was even crafted.

And there are some lots that are bigger that would be candidates for this, but they also have buildings on it that people sometimes don't want to sacrifice.

So there are constraints to doing this.

I don't think we're gonna see rampant development happening with that, uh, but it is another option and another tool that people can use for the uh providing new housing.

Yeah, I guess I was just confused about the I mean, I don't want to subdivide.

I'll let you know that that note up front.

But we're like one of the last houses that have that kind of um square footage.

So I I guess in my head, I was confused as to how our neighborhood would then be classified because we'd be the only one that's actually an R10, whereas everybody else's is five and under.

So that's one of the things that we're gonna look at when we do our comprehensive plan.

We're gonna take a look at what makes sense for zoning for Newport.

But a lot of these things that the state is doing is sort of making that moot um at this point because they're basically saying we're gonna go by the size of your lot and the size of your neighbors, which is really um I seem to recall we had a case last year in the point that was that they could have if this had existed, they could have taken advantage of it.

We denied it.

Yep.

But they could have taken advantage of it.

Was was C View an example of that or not?

Remember, we had seven C View when they were I don't think the lots around that were small.

Okay.

I believe they were all quite that was one of the smaller lots there.

So I think that's sort of the reverse of that.

But the one on second, I think is a really good example.

That would have been now able to be approved.

But the other thing too is it needs to have adequate access to a street.

So suddenly you can't divide your backyard out if they can't get back there because your house is there.

So you know, there are constraints, not just size.

Um but we just did that last meeting with the L.

Right, but they had access to a street there.

So, like if your house is the cross and you can't, you know, you need to be able to access the street.

Okay.

Well, no, but you answered my question, thank you.

That was I I was confused as to how whether they'd have to now call it an R5 zone or an R3 zone or whatever.

It would make more sense if we do update our zoning ordinance to be more appropriate to what our development patterns are.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Any other questions or comments regarding these changes?

Again, there's something that um were asked to do by the state.

And uh, not a lot of flexibility here.

So I am going to call for a motion to uh I'm gonna close the public hearing.

There being no public here to hear.

And I'm gonna call for a motion to approve the changes as presented.

So moved.

Uh any further discussion about these changes?

All right.

Uh all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The ayes have it, and uh you have the approval of the changes as presented.

Now we're gonna move on to electing officers for the next year.

Um may I ask for nominations for chair?

We have to fill all three officer positions this year.

I nominate Maria Pelaski.

Second.

Um there are any other nominations.

Okay, I'm I'm willing to accept the nomination.

Um, and I want to go through this with each of the officer positions and then we'll vote.

Does that seem fair?

All right.

Uh nominations for vice chair, and I will nominate Dick Krell.

I accept the nomination.

Any other nomination?

Okay.

And nominations for secretary.

Um, I'll nominate Jaron Pimenthal, Jared Pimenthop, if I can pronounce his name properly.

Close enough.

Any other nominee.

Okay.

Um, may I have a motion to elect uh the individuals to the designated officer positions?

So moved.

And a second.

Second.

Any further discussion about filling these positions.

Okay.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

And so there we have it for the next year.

Let's move on to talking about our meeting schedule.

The staff has provided us with a draft regular uh meeting schedule.

Um we don't really need to vote on this, correct, Seb.

Actually, uh the way that it's laid out in the agenda, you will vote on it.

Okay.

And so just to add, uh staff have highlighted the time that starts at 6:30.

Uh, to propose if the board should want to move the regularly scheduled meeting to 6 p.m.

Uh, you would then the meetings would conclude a half hour earlier.

They wouldn't continue as long or um as late as they do.

That is up to the board to decide.

Also, we have highlighted the July meeting last year.

The board had a uh month off in July, but there were two special meetings in results of that.

So it's up for the board to decide if you want a month off in July, or if you would like to keep that meeting and then not have it if there's nothing on the agenda.

It just seems to recall that we kept the meeting and then canceled it and then added the special meetings.

Yes.

So I think we keep it.

All right.

So we have two decisions we have to make.

The A, the schedule itself, and then B whether or not we want to change our meeting time from 6:30 to 6 o'clock.

Okay.

So the schedule itself.

Does anyone have any objection to the schedule?

Is anyone all right?

Um, may I have a motion to approve the schedule as drafted?

So moved.

And a second.

Uh any further discussion on schedule.

Yes.

Uh we have to vote on July 13th.

On whether we're going to What was the question?

I'm I was suggesting that we keep the entire that we that we approve the entire schedule as it's drafted.

With the July July 13.

With July 13th, yeah, as drafted.

And the ability to cancel it if we don't have anything on the July meeting.

You okay with that, Sonny?

I okay.

Yeah.

And staff is directed to try to not schedule anything on the July 13th meeting.

No, I just think it's if we're gonna decide do we take the month off, then then it should be there shouldn't be special meetings.

July 13th is off, and we schedule around it.

Or we'd say no, we're gonna do every single month of the year, whichever.

Some applications you only have 60 days to review, is that right?

No, there's more than 60 days between June 1st and August 3rd.

So you could end up in a situation where you would have to meet or a project would automatically be.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Oh, breaking into the candy.

All right.

Um, all in favor of approving the schedule as drafted.

I mean, all right.

Passes unanimously.

Now the final issue um is the meeting time.

Uh what are your feelings about meeting at 6 rather than 6:30?

Well, do you want to just take a vote?

Who wants six who won 6:30, or do you want to make it?

Well, is there a is there a reason why it's been at 6 30 to accommodate the public?

Well, okay, for that or for us, because there's people that live work off of island that struggle to get here in time as it is.

Is that an issue for you, Sonny?

Absolutely.

Jared is that I think we're saying as well.

Sometimes Cranston seems a lot further away than it actually is.

Especially they're gonna start working on the Newport Bridge again.

Paul, don't say that.

Doesn't matter, maybe I think if people have trouble getting here, let's just leave it alone.

I agree.

You could you can also delay an agenda item or a hearing start time.

If you start the meeting earlier, I think we should consider those people that live that like a cranston providence and keep it at 6:30.

We really do.

Okay.

So moved.

And a second.

Second.

All right, second.

Okay.

Uh any further discussion.

All in favor of continuing to meet at 6 30.

I any opposed.

All right.

So we're gonna keep meeting at 6 30.

Sorry, staff.

It's a long makes a long day for you.

We would make a point to continue things earlier to make it a little easier.

So if something seems to be going and it's gonna go past 9 30, 10 o'clock, we can cut say we're gonna cut it off at 9 30, 10 o'clock rather than roll till 11.

Yeah, I think procedurally, we don't have to go any longer than four hours.

Then but we can manage the agenda.

I know we already voted on it, but you were saying something about you can the hearing start time doesn't have to be the meeting start time.

So you know the hearing has to start after the meeting start, but you could have start at 6 30 and do minutes and then have the hearing start at 7.

Or start it at 6 and have it start at 6 30.

Right.

So that is an option.

We voted before he could really clarify that.

Sorry, P.

So if you wanted to move the meeting to six o'clock, but you would do the minutes and everything in case not everybody showed up.

I I think I I have to say that I prefer to make sure that I have a quorum before we start proceeding with any kind of business at all.

Okay.

And just out of consideration for the commuters, and and I will say I often work longer later, and I like to actually eat something before I I come here.

At least jam something down my throat.

Um so uh some everyone's okay with it.

Okay.

So let's go on to uh we have a long list of administrative decisions that have been made.

If you look at your agenda, which I have lost track of right there, it is um staff.

Anything you any questions about any of these decisions, board members, or anything you want to say about these staff?

There are do I see five items here?

Yeah, so these are provided for information.

Uh these some of these things started at the planning board and then were finalized by me, the administrative officer.

And then the demolition applications happen at the technical review commission.

We think it's interesting uh to see just how many of those uh buildings are being demolished and rebuilt.

So we provided some information on that too.

And the administrative subdivision happens solely at the administrative level.

Um, and one York Street was an example of that.

Are we at the does anyone track the demolitions and replacement?

I mean, do we have like some kind of sense of is our housing stock being replaced and at some rate?

Right.

We're looking at that now as one of the issues, you know, it's one of the sort of middle pieces of housing that's uh disappearing for us.

It's certainly never a demo to build a smaller structure right on.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, so this is for information.

Uh anybody have anything else they want to ask about that.

Not let's go to the liaison reports.

Uh tree and open space commission, Sunny.

So I'm debating whether I have to request to be taken off of that.

Um, she starts at six o'clock.

And then a couple of times that I've not been able to get there in time.

I've requested many minutes so that I could at least report to the board.

Well, she doesn't post for minutes for a month and a half, two months.

So, and never responded to my emails.

So I don't know where to take it from there that I'm gonna occasionally be missing these and trying to catch you guys up on it.

But um, but if she's not responding to me, then I have no way of knowing what happened if I missed that meeting.

But it's happened two, three times now.

Yeah.

Does anyone have a problem with intermittent liaison liaising to the tree and open space?

I mean, are you interested enough to stay on it?

I yeah, I do I like being there.

I like being able to interact with them.

Um, it's just actually I just thought I'm on another commission that was Scott, and I might be able to get Scott to give me updates that might be an answer.

I just thought of that.

We also have staff that regularly attends, and maybe we could help them fill in on those meetings that you can't make.

Hayden often goes to that.

So thanks, Sonny.

Um Dick, Waterfront Commission.

Um, yeah.

Um the Waterfront Commission uh they're they're meeting in, I think next week.

They uh they're they're meeting this Saturday, actually.

They're gonna be doing a planning session to um uh to just to help define what they're doing and how they're operating.

Um and and they um and one of the things that they want to talk about a little bit more is how uh as a commission, how do they become more in sync with what's happening with other boards and commissions?

And so it's a it's a it's a good discussion, you know, not just between the Harbor Commission and Planning Board, but also between all the various different boards and how to how to, and I think staff does a very good job of trying to help with that, and you know, but it it's it's something, especially as we're talking about the comprehensive plan, is how do we make sure that this information and the various different boards and commissions are not oper operating as islands, but are interacting and getting information to each other.

Um and on so it it it uh you know I told them about the comprehensive plan.

Um I said I would I would try to represent like I did tonight that you know we need to get the uh the waterfront plan, the harbor plan in in there more because I think the comprehensive plan does not talk about the harbor and the waterfront and and all the various things as much as it should, because it is an integral asset to the area.

So um on one thing that they're wrestling with is um out of Castle Hill, they want to put in a um agriculture um so very small aquaculture um uh oyster, yeah, an oyster farm.

Yeah, oyster farm.

And um, it's not so much that they they're gonna have trouble approving it, it's just I think they're they're thinking about the uh the ramifications of you know, does it get larger over time or what happens if others you know others want to open up other oyster aquaculture farms in other areas are around there?

So, you know, they're they're wrestling with it, um, and I think it's all it's a good stuff, and you know, those are things that again we need to sort of throw into the uh comprehensive plan as we're thinking about it.

Um but uh it seems to be a pretty good group there that they have.

Thanks, Dick.

Uh Energy and Environment Commission, Jared, you had a chance to go to a meeting.

I was not able to go to the one on the 19th, um, but I will be going to the one on the 20th.

I know they discussed the 10-year plan and um elections for 26.

Okay.

Uh comp plan working group, Sunny Frederick and Frederick.

Do you do either of you have any?

Well, I think we heard it today.

Yeah, that's yeah, that was a presentation.

We've been engaging.

All right.

Good.

Anything anything else you want to add?

I think it's going well so far.

It is, and I like that they listen to us about, you know, when we're asking for specific data versus what they had just sort of put in there.

Um as I've seen with the newer slides there, including those types of things.

So yeah, I agree.

I think they're great at communicating graphically, and I think that's going to be really helpful to our community.

And I just wanted to add additionally, so we have our big fun, super fun event tomorrow on Saturday when there's a bunch of different holiday events downtown.

You may be strolling and see Trish and I at a comprehensive plan table at the Siemens Institute.

Um, organized by Aquidnick Community Table.

So we'll be near like all the fun food if you're hungry.

You can learn about comprehensive planning and eat some food.

Um, I believe we'll be there like one to six, and we'll be jolly.

Well, thank you for spending your Saturday afternoon doing that.

Bring a heater.

Yeah, I'll so you're doing that at the Siemens Institute outside or inside.

Oh, we will be inside.

Oh that's the way to do it.

Yeah, that's the way to roll.

Um, I do staff have anything on the bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission.

Uh we have been working on um uh an evaluation method for green and complete streets, and we presented that to the bike and ped commission at their last meeting, and they were very supportive.

Um, and we did a sort of uh beta test of going through some of the roadway projects to see how it sort of evaluated uh what the city engineering department is proposing and what uh the the sort of uh evaluation framework was and it it uh was very successful, we feel.

So we're looking to make sure that when we have the opportunity, uh any kind of roadway major work that happens on a roadway that we can incorporate green and complete streets measures.

Great.

Thanks.

Okay.

Um I note the time is 819.

Uh may I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Okay.

Any discussion about adjourning or shall we approve?

All in favor.

Any opposed.

We're adjourned.

Happy holidays, everyone.

Happy holidays, and again, thank you for the treats.

Thanks for everything you've done for us this year, and we'll continue to do.