I'd like to call the Tuesday, July 18th.

The Tuesday, July 18th, 2023 Planning Commission meeting to order.

The first two items we have on the agenda, Nicole, is there any reason why we wouldn't hear them and then hear them together and deliberate on them uh individually.

You can re you can reach them, Jim.

Okay.

So uh item three A is a public hearing review and recommendation to the town council for request by 3760 Quaker Lane LLC for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map to change the designation of assessors plat 130 lot sixty-five from commercial and low density residential to commercial.

This was continued for May 16th.

And item 3B, review and recommendation to the town council, the application of 3760 Quaker Lane LLC for an amendment to the North Kingstown owner zoning ordinance to change the zoning designation of assessors plat 130 lot sixty five from general business to annual residential to general business.

Again continued from May 16th.

And I believe the applicant knows the process that staff will walk us through first and then after questions we'll give you time to present.

Yep, so Jim, um for the record, Eric uh Wishot is recused.

Yep, so you guys, as you know, you've already um the applicant has already made a presentation on the application, so I'm not gonna go over all of the everything that was presented last time, but just an update.

Um at your meeting on May 16th, you had requested more information.

Um you wanted a copy of the minutes from when the applicant was before you for a pre-application for the development plan review for the subject bot.

And you also thought a site visit would be appropriate and help you in making your decision tonight.

So we did do that site visit on June 13th, and the applicant was there with um his engineer and his attorney, and um four or five planning commission members were there um at the time.

And um I did include the minutes from that meeting in your packet.

And um other than that, the other thing I confirmed was just that they did get their wetlands permit.

I know we talked about that a little bit when we were on site, so I just snipped the page from DEM to show that they um did receive their permit, and then subsequently um their engineer did give me a copy of the permit from DEM that was recorded.

So just for the record, they they did submit that too.

Does anyone have any questions of staff?

Okay.

Um at this point open up to the applicant, excuse me, John.

Yep, it's coming on.

I think that's better.

Yes.

All right, I'll start over.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, members of the board for the record, John Mancini on behalf of the applicant.

Uh the petition for be petition before you is requesting a zone change of an existing commercial use.

It's with located within a split zone, and we're asking for continuity with respect to a commercial use of the the property has historically been commercial, and our goal is to uh extend that GB zoning designation.

At the last meeting in May, you heard from Kevin Warren, who's our project engineer, and he's available again this evening to answer any questions or concerns that the board may have with regards to our proposed change.

We also have Ed Parmental who had submitted a report uh with regards to consistency with the comprehensive plan.

Uh we, as your staff indicated to you, uh did conduct a site walk in June uh for members of the board to become better familiar with the activities on the site and essentially the the current use and and use for the property.

Um unless there's I I have my witnesses here and I think that um what I would do is just open it up to the board if there's any specific questions or concerns that you want us to elaborate on, we can we can do that at this point.

I also have a uh our we also brought a PowerPoint presentation which we've had before.

We can uh share additional information with you if that's what you need, but I think the record is complete based on both the site walk and our last hearing in May.

Anyone have any questions, Ms.

Mancini?

Okay.

Thank you.

I've got one question, I think from that.

So the currently disturbed area.

That when the zone changes, that will remain a pre-existing if it's within the buffer, that will remain a pre-existing non-conforming.

What is that?

So the the my mic on the so in the back area that is the disturbed area, and I'm not sure if it goes into the 50-foot buffer between a commercial and a residential area.

But since it's already cleared, when the zone changes and moves that buffer into the property, will that still be considered an existing non-conforming condition?

I I I can address that if if you if you'd like to.

Go ahead, John.

So the um what we're asking for is a zone change.

So what what will change is the zoning classification of the property with respect to any DEM regulations or any DEM existing um existing monitoring or any of that, that that won't be won't change.

That's the zone district adjacent to residential.

Oh, oh, I see you're saying the basic yes, yeah.

So basically now instead of having I don't know whatever is 15 feet, you now have a 15, a 50-foot, yeah.

And I I think that may go into your disturbance area.

I I think it should probably just be down as existing that's correct.

But that will all be balanced out once it it one once the uh applicant, whoever it may be, comes before you with a development plan review, that will all need to be taken into account.

So we don't have a particular plan in front of you that calls out the buffers or any of the other restrictions, but we would still be subject to your table of view to table of dimensional um restrictions and and otherwise other items that would be applicable to any development plan.

So that's not changing.

The buffers are not changing.