2026-09-01 - City Plan Commission

09:10into order.

09:12Uh I will for the people at home who are

09:14watching [clears throat] um I talked to

09:17some of the people in the audience's

09:18gauge interest in the various items in

09:20the agenda. So the order will be call to

09:24order, approval of the minutes, 30

09:26Pondum Street, 80 Phoenix A, the

09:29Stormwater ordinance, then Hope Road,

09:33then the zoning board recommendations,

09:35and then finally this 2026 state

09:37legislation for both zoning ordinance

09:40and subdivision. Uh we plan to try to

09:43conclude by 11:00 tonight. If for some

09:46reason we cannot get done by 11 o'clock,

09:49I would assume we will not get to the

09:51state legislation for subdivision and

09:53ordinances and that'll be continued the

09:55next month. So if you're here for those,

09:58you may we may not be able to get to

09:59them. My apologies. So I'll start with

10:02call to order. I see a quorum present.

10:05First time the agenda is approval of uh

10:08has anyone have any changes or

10:10amendments to the minutes?

10:14Seeing none, uh motion uh to approve

10:17would be in order.

10:21Commissioner Laner makes a motion to

10:22approve. Second by Commissioner Mancini.

10:25Any discussion? All those in favor

10:26signify by saying I.

10:28>> Those oppose say nay. Eyes have it. Next

10:31item on the agenda, we'll be going to 30

10:33Palm Street. Is the applicant here and

10:35wishes to be heard on the matter?

10:38>> Please come forward. State your name and

10:39address for the record.

10:4230 street.

10:46>> Do you have a presentation to make to

10:48the commission?

10:52>> She on the line, but I think I might

10:54have

10:56might not be here.

10:58>> Is your lawyer is the uh M. Okay. Mr.

11:00Lima, is there someone raising their

11:03hand? Uh who's an attorney for the

11:06applicant on 30 Pondum Street?

11:10Uh, no one is raising their hand if you

11:12want to instruct them.

11:18>> Oh no, it's it would be via uh Zoom. I

11:22can do the

11:23>> Okay. If you wish to proceed, we could

11:24also take you later.

11:26>> Yeah, I can do.

11:27>> Okay. Go ahead, sir.

11:28>> So, it's

11:30a three lots.

11:36It's uh three assessor lots at 3200

11:40square feet each and we are trying to um

11:44subdivide that into two 4,800 foot lots

11:48and create one house for the uh

11:52buildable and one to sit on the existing

11:54house.

11:58Pretty simple.

12:01and your let me just let me see there

12:05any questions that people have for the

12:07applicant at this point.

12:11I believe you had an application earlier

12:13this year that was

12:14>> We did. We had one that uh was a little

12:17aggressive and uh back here doing the

12:20right thing for the neighborhood which I

12:22have my neighbor here. He'd like to

12:25speak and this survey is here also to

12:27talk if there's any questions for him.

12:30>> Okay. If I recall the application

12:31earlier this year, you were trying to

12:33build two more houses. So now you're

12:35just building one, right?

12:36>> Two houses, correct?

12:37>> And now it's just one.

12:39>> And you would agree um maybe the

12:41solicitor wants to if I need to ask

12:43this, he would agree that he would only

12:45build one more house here. This would

12:47not be like he builds a house and he

12:48comes back and asks for more relief and

12:50gets something else. Right. We don't

12:52have to put something in condition about

12:55>> you you you could do that. You know, I I

12:57think uh first in this case since it was

13:01denied

13:03um within a year, I think the first

13:05thing you need to do is um vote to to

13:08see if it's a substantial change from

13:11the original application. Um if it is,

13:14then you can move forward on the merits

13:16of the application. Um and you certainly

13:19can put the condition if agreed to by

13:22the applicant that there will be no

13:23further subdivision.

13:25>> Okay. So, I'm going to go in reverse.

13:27Would you agree to a condition that

13:28there be no further subdivision to this

13:30property to add another house?

13:32>> I agree.

13:32>> Okay. On the You said waiver,

13:36>> Mr. Chairman, there is a uh someone

13:38online.

13:39>> Oh, your lawyer showed up just in time.

13:43>> Hello.

13:44>> Proceed. Please proceed. Please state

13:45your name and address.

13:47>> Yes. Attorney Kevin Height, 365 Eddie

13:49Street, Providence, Rhode Island.

13:52>> Okay. Okay. Would you like to make a

13:53presentation for the applicant or I just

13:55asked the applicant a couple of

13:56questions?

13:57>> Um I did I did hear I I I thought the

14:00meeting was starting at 6. So I have

14:02been here right along but I just found

14:03my button to raise the hand. Um I think

14:06uh Mr. Spirido uh who is the applicant

14:09and my client uh has presented uh what I

14:12was planning to do. Uh but I was going

14:14to give a little more specifics. I did

14:16hear a response regarding uh the

14:20question of Mr. spirit as to whether

14:21there'd be any further uh division of

14:24the property and I believe he had stated

14:26correctly that there would be none and

14:28we can accept that fact.

14:30>> Okay. Thank you. Um my my solicitor

14:34reminded me that because you made an

14:36application within the prior year uh on

14:39this property you have to request a

14:41waiver and demonstrate solicitor correct

14:44me if I'm wrong that there's been a

14:45change in circumstances or this has

14:47changed application in some way. um they

14:50they they'd have to present evidence to

14:52you that this is a material change in

14:54circumstances from the prior application

14:56that was denied and then you would have

14:58to take a vote on that.

15:00>> Okay. So, um attorney uh could you just

15:04could you just explain why you believe

15:05there's a believe a material change?

15:08>> Yes. Uh, in fact, what we were trying to

15:10do is to work with the neighborhood and

15:13uh not try to squeeze three uh separate

15:17uh there's already three lots there, but

15:18instead of building three different

15:20houses, what we were planning to do uh

15:22after getting some feedback from the

15:24neighborhood of actually doing two uh uh

15:28lots as opposed to the three, but

15:31increasing those to 4,800 square ft when

15:34in fact uh we do know that the the total

15:38square footage of the property is 98

15:409600 square feet. So each of those lots

15:43of what we're seeking in the variance

15:45would be um each would need uh an

15:47additional 1,200 uh square ft. But the

15:51idea would be that we're actually um

15:53making it less uh congested that there

15:56would just be two lots. So that's the

15:58significant change as opposed to making

16:00the three.

16:02>> Okay. So just to summarize for my

16:03colleagues and myself, the material

16:05change is that this is not the same

16:07project as you submitted earlier this

16:08year because it's not three houses, it's

16:10going to be two and that it was in

16:12response to feedback from the

16:13neighborhood.

16:14>> Okay.

16:15>> Yes, that's correct.

16:16>> Okay. Um solicitor, should I make should

16:19we should we have the motion now the

16:21discussion on the motion or should we

16:23let for the whole application go

16:24forward?

16:25>> No, you have to get past that first

16:26hurdle first. So

16:27>> Okay. Uh, does my colleagues have any

16:30questions for the applicant about the

16:31motion?

16:33If not, we can just do motion and

16:35discussion.

16:39>> Anybody?

16:44>> Okay. Motion made by C Commissioner

16:46Coupe, seconded by Commissioner Exter.

16:48Is there any discussion on this matter?

16:51Seeing none, all those in favor of

16:52granting the motion that this is a

16:53material ch materially different or

16:55change, please signify by saying I. All

16:58those oppos say nay. I have it. Now you

17:00can keep going. All right. So

17:04you have major application. I understand

17:08Mr. uh the attorney. I'm sorry if I

17:10pronounce your name.

17:11>> That's okay. Hi Keith. Not too many

17:12Germans in Cranston.

17:13>> Okay. Uh is there anything you'd like to

17:16add to the presentation the applicant

17:18made before we ask have the

17:20commissioners maybe ask a couple of

17:21questions?

17:22>> Yes. Uh I would I would just like to say

17:24that the frontage requirement of of 60

17:26ft is met uh for each of the proposed

17:28lots and uh those do match uh and

17:31conform uh with the neighborhood that

17:33Pomman Street is on. Um and I believe

17:36that there are some neighbors present

17:37who will speak in support uh of this

17:39application.

17:42>> Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions

17:44uh for the applicant?

17:50Okay, I see none. Um, we will now go

17:55first, uh, staff and then we'll take

17:56public comment. Is that okay?

17:58>> Thank you.

17:59>> All right, staff would like to make a

18:02presentation, then we'll hear from the

18:03public.

18:05>> This application is to reconfigure three

18:07existing record lots of 3200 square ft

18:10into two lots and of 4,800 square feet

18:12in the spectacle neighborhood where

18:14single and two family residential is

18:16allowed. Here are the three record lots

18:19with the future land use of single two

18:21family less than 10.89 units per acre.

18:24All right, at the northern edge of the

18:26spect spectacle neighborhood,

18:28aerial view of the lots, you can see the

18:30curved driveway that will need to be

18:32modified for this application.

18:35uh the aerial view right near the plaza

18:38and um the plans that were included in

18:41the staff memo showing um here the new

18:45two proposed lots on Pom.

18:48This is consistent with the surrounding

18:49area. They're um proposing a single

18:52family. The majority of the area is

18:54single family. Um the proposed densities

18:58are conforming with the future land use.

19:00uh despite the lot size

19:01non-conformities, it is much in

19:04character with the spectacle

19:05neighborhood. Again, consistent with

19:07future land use. You can see there the

19:09existing density and the proposed

19:10density both under the future land use

19:13requirement

19:15and consistent with the comp plan as it

19:17is aligned with the following goals and

19:19policies.

19:20The traffic and parking circulation is

19:23changed by one new driveway and one new

19:25curb cut which this lot has adequate

19:27access uh access and width for that. In

19:31terms of consistency with the zoning

19:33ordinance which we are looking at the

19:35lot size variance, it is supported by

19:38this uh proposal requesting closer

19:40conformity with the B1 zone. So

19:44currently, as outlined in the memo,

19:46there are two lots merged for zoning

19:48purposes of those three record lots. So

19:50you have that one single family um

19:52taking up that kind of 6,400 square ft

19:55and then you have one vacant 3200 foot

19:58lot that is buildable. So rather than

20:00building on a 3200 foot lot, which is

20:03>> um allowed currently, they are proposing

20:06to build on a 4,800 foot lot.

20:09um consistent again with the surrounding

20:13B1 residential lots and although they

20:15are introducing the new non-conformity

20:17of making the single family the existing

20:20single family on a smaller

20:21non-conforming lot it's overall more

20:23conforming with the spectacle

20:25neighborhood to kind of equal both of

20:27those lots in size

20:29>> I have included some um numbers here in

20:33terms of density with uh the proposed

20:35parcels the surrounding 200 foot area

20:38and the whole spectac neighborhood in

20:40the B1 zone. Also included some lots

20:43that are equal or larger or smaller than

20:45this development.

20:47Um staff recommends that the plan

20:49commission approve this administrative

20:51subdivision to reconfigure the three

20:54existing lots into two.

20:59And um

21:02again with that be the variances for

21:04parcel A to be of 4,800 ft² where 6,000

21:08is required and for parcel B similarly

21:10to have 4,800 ft² where 6,000 is

21:13required.

21:15Two votes are required for this

21:17application. First the variances and

21:20then the subdivision.

21:22The variances are the only uh vote that

21:25can have conditions. Um, that's just the

21:27nuance of administrative subdivisions

21:31under UDR. So, I just wanted to make

21:33that point for you.

21:34>> Thank you, Miss Valort. Are there any

21:36questions for the staff on this

21:38application?

21:42>> Okay. At this point, we'll take public

21:44comment. Is there anyone here that

21:46wishes to speak on this application for

21:4830 ponum? Please come forward. State

21:50your name and address for the record.

21:53>> My name is Alan Queen. I live at 8

21:55Marboro Street adjacent um Scott and I

21:59approve everything that he's doing with

22:01this. It's a good job. Thank you.

22:04>> Thank you. Anyone else would like to

22:06make comment on 30 Ponum Street?

22:09Who's here in the room?

22:12>> Mr. Lemur, is there anyone online that

22:14would like to make public comment on 30

22:15Ponum Street?

22:19>> There's no public comment online.

22:21>> Okay. Are there any further questions

22:24for the uh applicant from my colleagues?

22:31Will the attorney have anything further

22:32they'd like to add before we deliberate?

22:37The attorney for the applicant?

22:40>> Nothing further.

22:41>> Okay. Um All right. Um just put the

22:46staff recommendation up, please.

22:49So, as the staff indicated, this is a

22:52two-part

22:53um two kinds of mo two motions. First is

22:56the variance motion to grant the

23:00variance relief as recommended by staff

23:03and the second is to grant the

23:06subdivision as recommended by staff. As

23:10I indicated earlier, I would like that

23:13um we grant the variance relief,

23:15however, with the condition that there

23:16not be any further subdivisions on this

23:18lot. I don't want them I don't want this

23:21to become a a process of people get two

23:24houses and then they come back for a

23:25third and do an end run around this in

23:28this process. Okay. So, with that, if

23:32anyone would like to make a motion to

23:33grant variance, Mr. Director Caro.

23:36>> Yes. I'd like to make a motion to

23:37approve with the variances and the

23:39condition that you just mentioned.

23:40>> Okay. The condition that be no further

23:42subdivision. Is there a second to

23:43director Carrero's motion? Seconded by

23:46Commissioner Lfair. Any further

23:47discussion?

23:49Seeing none, all those in favor signify

23:51by saying I.

23:52>> Those oppos say nay. Eyes have it.

23:55Second motion now in order to grant

23:56subdivision consistent with the staff

23:58recommendation.

23:59>> Is there a motion to that effect? Motion

24:01made by Commissioner Coupe. Seconded by

24:02Commissioner Exter. Any further

24:04discussion on this matter?

24:08Seeing none, all those in favor signify

24:10by saying I. Those oppos say nay. Eyes

24:13have it. Congratulations, sir. You're

24:15the It's complete. Uh nice nice speaking

24:17to you by phone, attorney. Uh

24:21[snorts]

24:22>> um

24:23>> he's tough to get in touch with.

24:24>> Yes. Okay. And by the way, for the

24:26people in the audience, I apologize. I'm

24:28going very fast, but we do have a long

24:29agenda. So I I have a feeling you guys

24:31are going to have a lot to say at one

24:32point on this agenda. So, I'm trying to

24:34get to you have enough time for

24:36everybody. Okay.

24:41Next, we're going to

24:4480 Phoenix A. Is the applicant here and

24:46wishes to be heard on this matter?

25:13Mr. President,

25:14>> yes.

25:15>> Um, speaking with our, um, council, I

25:18may have to recuse myself from this.

25:21>> Um, this

25:22>> anybody who wants to recuse, no problem.

25:25Just

25:25>> I need to recuse myself. I own a

25:27property across the street.

25:28Do we still have Yeah, we still have

25:30enough. Um,

25:33yeah. So, just you two.

25:37>> Okay.

25:37>> Okay. So, the record will reflect that.

25:39Commissioner Coupe and Commissioner

25:40Mancinior are recusing. Please um join

25:43the audience for the present time and we

25:45will continue forward. Mr. Murray,

25:51>> could I just inquire? Is Mr. Coup's

25:53concern that because of the Knightsville

25:55Manor or another reason.

25:58>> If you would list, you don't need to

25:59respond, but you can if you want to.

26:01Commissioner Coop.

26:01>> I'm happy to explain. My My employer

26:05owns a house directly across the street

26:07from this lot.

26:08>> Thank you. I just

26:11if it was the Nights Cranson Housing

26:13Authority, Knightsville manor, I I

26:15thought that was a bit distant. No,

26:17that's fine. Okay. We have five members.

26:21Um,

26:23good evening. Um,

26:26for the record, my name is Robert

26:27Murray. I'm an attorney with the firm of

26:29Taft and MSali. I'm here tonight with

26:32the owner applicant of the subject

26:34property at 80 Phoenix Avenue of Kesi

26:37Properties LLC. And with me this evening

26:40is Mr. Dante Kis, uh, a principal of,

26:43uh, the ownership and applicant. Um we

26:47have uh here a piece of property of uh

26:50in the uh Knightsville area u

26:54prominently on Phoenix Avenue.

26:58This would be uh west of Etri Park. Uh

27:01I'm sure members of the commission have

27:02driven by this site multiple times. Uh

27:05there's a wall in front of the property.

27:08Uh, and this property has unique

27:11characteristics of being fronting on

27:12both Phoenix Avenue and Bolton Street to

27:15the rear. Bolton Street is culde-sac to

27:18the rear.

27:20This area is a B1 zone. And

27:24in the B1 zone, both single and two

27:26family houses uh are allowed. Um, for

27:30the one family, you need a minimum lot

27:32size of 6,000 and for the two family, a

27:35minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet.

27:38Uh the uh there is an existing building

27:42on the 31,000

27:44change uh square foot parcel uh that uh

27:48is legally constituted as a four unit

27:51building. Um uh it's being rehabbed

27:55right now. So there there aren't four

27:56tenants in it right now. Uh but the plan

27:59that's before you is to subdivide

28:03um uh the property into a total of four

28:06lots. uh leaving the existing four

28:09family on a parcel of about 11,000

28:11square feet, creating an 8,000 square

28:14foot lot along Phoenix Avenue uh for two

28:18family and then to the rear creating two

28:226,000 square foot lots uh to um for

28:27single family homes.

28:29the

28:31the property uh

28:34does require certain dimensional relief

28:36that I'll go over in a second, but um

28:40all the lots if uh allowed to be

28:42established can be serviced by public

28:45sewer and water and would um

28:51would involve with respect to the main

28:53existing structure the removal of the

28:56existing garage to the rear. uh see that

28:59in the bottom uh bottom of that screen

29:01there that Brianna just put up. Um the

29:04proposed plan does call to provide a

29:07total of eight parking spaces for the

29:09two family,

29:12I'm sorry, for the four family and those

29:14would be on the uh easterly property

29:18line. You see them defined there. And as

29:22that uh site plan shows, you can see the

29:26hose division along Phoenix Avenue for

29:30uh the new two family uh leaving the

29:33four family and then the two uh single

29:37families to the rear coming off Bolton

29:39Street. There is um uh relief that is

29:44being asked for from the commission

29:45tonight. Three forms of relief.

29:48First,

29:51with the four family home, uh under our

29:55calculations in our zoning code, we

29:57would be required to have 18,000 square

29:59feet. Uh we're proposing 11,272

30:03square ft uh depicted on that plan as

30:06parcel number two uh or lot two and uh

30:11so we need about 6700 square feet of

30:14relief for the area. I would suggest to

30:16you that and this commission's been

30:18doing this a long time as I have uh we

30:21have many multif family houses on lots

30:25perhaps smaller but in this case we are

30:27we would be taking a non-conforming use

30:30and putting it on a non-conforming lot

30:33and we acknowledge that um the other two

30:36reliefs are very similar uh along Bolton

30:39uh street uh the frontage um in the B1

30:43zone would be required to 60 ft and both

30:47those frontages would be about 43 and a

30:50half. So we need about 16 feet of relief

30:54uh as a dimensional relief uh on the

30:57frontage. the um the staff has done a

31:02nice job describing uh the project and

31:05I'm sure Brianna will go through it, but

31:08um uh I do have a couple of comments on

31:13the proposed conditions. Um if it's all

31:16right, I'll address those now and she

31:17can then um

31:20defend them or or uh explain them the

31:24rationale. Um certainly the first two

31:27conditions we have no objection to. Um

31:31the uh

31:33relating to the drainage

31:37the design of the storm water drainage

31:38for the existing house once u the other

31:42area the of the lot is uh divided. Uh

31:46and then on the final plan showing the

31:48dimensions for the driveway and curb

31:49openings. No objection to that. The one

31:52that I would ask uh commission to

31:54consider is condition number three

31:56relating to uh Briana. Do we have

32:01do we have the walls on the in the

32:03presentation?

32:05>> Okay. If in the report that was

32:07submitted uh by the staff, you you'll

32:09have a page of photographs. Uh there is

32:12an extensive wall network running along

32:14Phoenix Avenue uh for the frontage of uh

32:18this property. Uh and condition three

32:21does address that. Uh in the first

32:23instance uh well it talks about

32:26compliance with section 17.20.10.

32:31Um that section of our zoning code

32:33relates to corner visibility. Uh I'm not

32:37sure it's applicable in this uh in this

32:39case since we're not at a corner. Um but

32:43I would also note in the staff report

32:45that the building official and zoning

32:46official did not have any comments and

32:49when I discussed this with him today

32:53um

32:55he felt that that was an issue that he

32:57would resolve at the time of uh building

33:00permit applications if the approval is

33:03granted. So, uh, respectfully, I'd ask

33:06consideration that, um, that condition

33:09not be imposed if this, if the members

33:12of the commission were inclined to, uh,

33:14grant approval of this subdivision. We

33:17[clears throat] will deal with that with

33:18the building official at the appropriate

33:20time. Um, I will acknowledge the wall

33:25uh, if the ordinance was applicable. Um

33:28the the walls the height of the walls

33:30does exceed u the uh

33:36the three and a half ft that is

33:38outlined. The qu that's the staff in

33:41fairness suggested that we make

33:43modifications to the wall. Um obviously

33:46we're going to have to make a

33:46modification to get the opening for lot

33:49one. We acknowledge that and we would do

33:51it and restore the wall uh as as

33:54appropriate. Uh but uh part of it also

33:58deals with the condition deals with

33:59removing part of the wall uh affecting

34:02lot two in the driveway and the real

34:05question is whether or not that is

34:07absolutely necessary. Uh but I

34:09appreciate the staff raising it, but I

34:11wanted to comment on that. Um and we'd

34:14be happy to deal with the building

34:16official at the appropriate time on that

34:18if if that ordinance is applicable.

34:22Um that is pretty much um uh you know we

34:27have four uh we have three new

34:29conforming lots um and uh we will be

34:33leaving the existing four family on a

34:36substantial lot with uh adequate parking

34:39uh to meet the needs of the four unit.

34:43>> Happy to answer any questions.

34:44>> Okay. Um just Mr. Murray and just make

34:48sure you speak into the microphone a

34:50little bit more so that you know so this

34:51is recorded properly. Um,

34:53>> okay.

34:54>> The, um, just so I understand, the

34:58parking for the four unit, all that

35:00parking is going to be on the same lot

35:03of the as the four unit. It's not going

35:05to be on some other lot, right?

35:06>> No, you can see is lot two up there. Uh,

35:09there the spaces are on the west of the

35:11property property line. They will be

35:13created there. Um because right now

35:16there is that uh garage that's going to

35:19be raised uh on the lot, one of the lots

35:22that's going to be uh that presently is

35:25going to be created on Bolton Street. So

35:27we're removing the garage there. Most of

35:29that parking already exists and is

35:30utilized, but

35:33we have provided two parking spaces for

35:35the for each of the each of the units in

35:38the four build. [clears throat]

35:40And the two units on the B on the

35:42southern side, they're uh are they

35:44single family going into Bolton?

35:47>> Those will both be single family homes.

35:48>> Okay. All right. [clears throat]

35:56Are there any questions my colleagues

35:57have from this project at this point?

36:00Commissioner Carrero.

36:20However, why wouldn't you open up that

36:23driveway enough so you can have better

36:24visibility for anybody walking on that

36:26sidewalk and driving cars out of it at

36:28the same time?

36:30>> Are you talking about the existing

36:31driveway?

36:32>> Well, both. [clears throat] We're

36:34obviously going to have to open it up

36:35for the new two family

36:38>> which is which is to the west of the

36:40existing lot one. We will have to open

36:43up um the wall for access to that.

36:46>> Right. But opening up is a relative

36:48term. How much are we opening up so that

36:50you can provide some better visibility

36:52than if you have a 10-ft driveway that

36:54you don't open it up 12 feet because it

36:56is very difficult to see pulling out of

36:59there if you have a three or 4 foot wall

37:02and you could have children or people

37:04walking on that sidewalk.

37:05>> Um I think the answer would be we will

37:09open up as much as required by the

37:11building official and what makes good

37:14common sense. If we're going to if we

37:16have to open up so much to

37:19pretty much take the wall down then

37:21that's a separate discussion we you know

37:23but obviously safety egress and ingress

37:25for both vehicles pedestrians and

37:28traffic on Phoenix Avenue is paramount

37:31[cough and snorts]

37:31>> so [clears throat] right now are there

37:32currently two openings

37:34>> no

37:34>> and it's existing condition there's not

37:35a walkway and the driveway just the

37:37driveway

37:38>> no there is one curb cut right now along

37:42Phoenix Avenue on Phoenix Avenue in

37:44front of the four unit

37:46>> okay the plan just seems to look like

37:47there's break there for like a walkway

37:50to the west.

37:51>> There is a gate. Yeah, but but it's

37:53that's a walkway. That's not a vehicle.

37:55It's not a driveway.

37:56>> I understand. Okay. Thank you.

38:00>> Any further questions for Mr. Murray?

38:04Commissioner Lamp here.

38:05>> Thank you. U Mr. Mari, did did you did

38:09your client consider any other

38:11configurations

38:13that would make the four family on a

38:17more conforming lot?

38:25Well, to make it conforming, it would be

38:2818,000

38:30more. Well, to make it conform, we be

38:3218. Well, I don't know what there's

38:34degrees, you know, we're at 112, there's

38:3718. So 113 is more conforming, but I

38:41know that's not what you intend. The um

38:44we felt that this at the end of the day,

38:48this proposal

38:51uh was one that should be favorably

38:54considered. It would provide much needed

38:56housing. Um and uh if we

39:01if we increased the area around the four

39:04family's

39:07word significantly

39:09somewhere between 11 and 18. Uh you're

39:13probably talking about this depiction of

39:15lot [snorts] layout not being feasible

39:17because we'd then be asking for we're

39:20trying to make the new lots conforming

39:23as possible. So we we felt 112 was

39:26sufficient for the full family. We

39:29didn't want to if we if we made that

39:3114,000 then conceivably we'd be here

39:33asking you to make approve a two family

39:35on Phoenix at 6,000 or you know we have

39:408,000 that's required for the for the

39:42new two family. Um we just felt that

39:45given the historic use of the property,

39:48its configuration presently that this is

39:50the best uh configuration.

39:55And and just to be clear, the best

39:57configuration for four total lots. Did

40:02you consider three lots

40:06and three structures? Um

40:10did we consider it? Possibly. But when

40:13when we say this, the incentive was not

40:16to maximize the number of lots, the

40:18incentive here was to create the three

40:21lots and make them as conforming as

40:23possible. So if you know I've sat here

40:26for many times and the commission's been

40:28concerned about air and density all that

40:30what you're looking at here is two s

40:33single family lots on Bolton that meet

40:35to 6,000 square feet and we have a two

40:38family proposed on Phoenix that has

40:408,000 square feet. We can't do any

40:43better than that. But the um but we

40:47think the four family left on 11,272 is

40:51very defensible and worthy of

40:53consideration.

40:58>> Um just a couple questions. Um so you're

41:02going from four units to obviously these

41:04many units. It works with the density

41:05and the future land use map. I get that

41:07you have no other further plans to do

41:09further subdivisions on this and because

41:10this is a B1 zone. So I just want to

41:12know like you have no other no desire no

41:14plans to do like two units on where the

41:16single families are in Bolton, right?

41:17>> Um

41:20there are no plans to make any further

41:22subdivision

41:24of this property if this configuration

41:26is approved this season.

41:27>> Okay. And is that a problem if I if

41:29that's a condition?

41:30>> Absolutely not.

41:31>> Okay. Um on the wall thing, this is not

41:35my specialty and the the public works

41:37director knows more than me about these

41:38things. First of all, is that wall like

41:41historic or something? You don't want to

41:42bother with it. Like you don't want to

41:44mess with it or something like

41:45>> No, I don't think this is historic, you

41:47know, this is not re revolutionary war

41:51stones. Yeah.

41:52>> Wall this is this is a stuckco wall that

41:56has been there as long as I can

41:57remember. And

41:59>> so what would be the problem of like

42:01agreeing to reduce the height if you

42:03need to at this stage?

42:05Well, I don't think the discuss well

42:08>> I just don't understand like what's your

42:10hesitation to say yes, we will make that

42:12change

42:13>> because we think the wall is a nice

42:15feature and if we're going to savage it

42:20then we may end up with something we

42:22might as well take the whole thing down

42:23and that I don't think that that is is

42:27appropriate but the public safety egress

42:32and ingress right

42:33>> pedestrian safety is paramount And we

42:35through that process we will satisfy the

42:37building official, the zoning official

42:39and public works. All we're saying is,

42:43you know, I'm using this term, it's a

42:46nice wall.

42:47>> Yeah.

42:48>> Okay.

42:48>> Yep.

42:49>> You know, if we we have to open it up

42:51and we want to do it appropriately for

42:53the new driveway.

42:55>> Yep.

42:56>> But to suddenly take a [snorts] hedge

42:58trimmer and take two feet off the top of

43:01the wall, I don't think is what

43:03anybody's suggesting. But uh the

43:05condition even though I disagree with it

43:07talked about the distance you know you

43:10know the 10 feet as opposed to the

43:12reducing the height of the wall.

43:15>> Okay. So let me try to rephrase it

43:16differently because I don't want to be

43:18um so prescriptive here. I just don't

43:21know enough about the wall. I just have

43:23a concern about two things. Um that if

43:27there's a public safety problem about

43:29the wall and getting out egress I want

43:31that make sure we can address it. Now,

43:33if it's not us, I just this is my second

43:35point. Somebody needs I want like I just

43:38don't know about this. It's like the

43:39authority if the if it's public works or

43:42the zoning or building whatever say you

43:45need to reduce the height of that thing.

43:46Are you guys going to fight them? Are

43:47you going to say you can't do that? I

43:49mean, I'm just trying to understand what

43:50would you agree that they will you would

43:52agree to whatever the the city officials

43:54say at the final plan stage what the

43:56height needs to be for public safety?

43:59Yes, we I I just said we will we will

44:02deal with the the wall. I just question

44:04whether it was a perfect negative

44:05condition if you have the staff report

44:07available on page five. Yeah.

44:09>> Are two pictures of the wall to help the

44:12commission if they

44:13>> didn't have a chance. You I know we

44:14don't have it for the PowerPoint. I

44:16apologize. I didn't bring photos, but

44:19>> the you you know, Miss Lania is looking

44:22at it right now. You can see my concern

44:26that

44:27topping off the top of the wall and then

44:29having to put a new cap on it doesn't

44:31seem to be approved.

44:33>> Okay.

44:34>> So, so you're so if I could summarize it

44:36is don't you do not want this wall

44:39condition at this stage because it goes

44:41in your opinion too far potentially. It

44:43may be unnecessary but you would accept

44:46a change in the wall if it's deemed for

44:49public safety purp purposes at the final

44:51plan stage.

44:53Uh yes, but my my comment is two

44:56twofold.

44:57>> Okay.

44:57>> First,

44:59>> the ordinance that was cited

45:01>> is not the correct ordinance in your

45:02opinion.

45:03>> So, I just question that.

45:04>> Okay.

45:05>> The

45:06um whether or not

45:09the suggested changes to the wall as in

45:12the staff report are necessary.

45:15In my discussion with Mr. Ple today he

45:17said we will deal with that at the time

45:19of the building for them and I I'll make

45:21a determination you know what if

45:24anything what alterations will be

45:26required for the

45:28>> okay I I've asked the questions I've

45:30exhausted my knowledge if the if the

45:31public works director is okay with this

45:33then I'll defer to him so

45:36>> my suggestion would be I would not want

45:38to consider reducing the elevation of

45:41the wall because that's very difficult

45:42to match that after that it's going to

45:44look like an eyes saw my goal was to be

45:46able to widen it because you could go

45:49[clears throat]

45:49vertically and still increase the sight

45:52distance without ever affecting the

45:53height of the wall. As long as you have

45:55enough on either side, you'll have the

45:56visibility you need, not necessarily

45:58having to drop the height of the wall.

46:03>> I'm not trying to stonewall this

46:05discussion. Um, whatever the commission,

46:09I understand, I thank you for allowing

46:10us to make our point.

46:12>> Okay. Any further questions uh to the

46:14applicant from the commissioners?

46:17Okay, I see none. Will the staff um make

46:22its recommen uh present its report?

46:24>> Okay. Um I'm going to continue with the

46:26presentation from this slide. This is

46:28the application for 80 Phoenix Avenue

46:30for the applicant Kesi Properties LLC.

46:34Uh four lots being proposed out of the

46:38one existing lot. um for consistency

46:41with the surrounding area majority two

46:43family next majority would be single

46:46family and then there are the um there

46:48is a presence of multif family in the

46:50area there is a four a four unit also

46:53within the 200 foot radius it's the next

46:56street over and it's actually on a

46:58smaller lot than this one but anyways um

47:01the proposed lot sizes are here with um

47:05their proposed densities

47:08uh the largest proposed density

47:10obviously being that four family with

47:12the 15 uh unit per acre density. Um and

47:17then rather than lot sizes which I felt

47:19like didn't give a good good kind of

47:21synopsis of the surrounding area I

47:23provided you the approximate densities

47:25of the surrounding area just kind of

47:27showing you that there are the outliers

47:29of much uh higher density

47:32um lots within this surrounding area.

47:35You also have a good amount that have an

47:37equal and lesser density.

47:41Um, and despite the variances that are

47:44being requested for frontage on Bolton

47:46and the lot size on Phoenix, the lots do

47:49remain largely consistent with the, uh,

47:52residential area and the reduced

47:56frontage on Bolton Street being at the,

47:59you know, culde-sac termination of the

48:01street would minimize the visual impact

48:03of that reduced frontage.

48:06Um this proposal is generally consistent

48:08with the future land use where the total

48:11proposed density being 10.91

48:14units per acre um and also consistent

48:17with the comp plan with the following

48:18goals and goal and policies

48:21in terms of traffic and parking. Um they

48:25have sufficient parking, sufficient off-

48:27streetet parking. There would be three

48:28new driveways and two new curb cuts as

48:31there is already one curb cut ready for

48:33one single family on Bolton. Um and all

48:36lots have adequate width for that

48:38driveway access. The conditions of

48:41approval [sighs and gasps]

48:42are on the SH site plan to show just

48:45certain dimensions of driveways, curb

48:47openings, parking spaces. Um I did

48:50measure the site plan with the physical

48:53site plan to make sure that the um

48:55dimensions of the parking spaces were

48:56conforming, but just having the numbers

48:58on the paper would be nice. and um also

49:01just indication of the height of the

49:02wall on the plan drawing is being

49:04requested in terms of the driveway um

49:08wall and the wall conversation. Um so it

49:11has been confirmed that the wall does

49:14exceed 3.5 ft and so that's why these

49:16conditions are being considered. Um lot

49:19one is the proposed two family. So

49:22within 10 ft of the driveway on each

49:24side um the wall should be demolished

49:27leaving a 10-ft visibility on each side

49:29of the driveway and lot two where the

49:32existing four family is um should also

49:35be brought into compliance. Now if I may

49:38reference the zoning code section uh

49:411720

49:43the section of corner visibility there's

49:45an A and a B. Section A describes corner

49:49lot. It says on a corner lot nothing

49:51shall be erected within the 10 feet and

49:54it continues. Section B is not does not

49:58mention corner lots. It's just about

50:00visibility and it says in the areas

50:02within 10 ft from the sides of a

50:04driveway and from the street line

50:08um to a line 10t from the sides of the

50:10driveway. So it's just going on and on

50:12to describe the 10 feet kind of buffer

50:14away from the driveway. It does not

50:15indicate anything about a corner lot.

50:17It's just about the visibility out of

50:19the driveway.

50:23Uh consistency with the zoning

50:24ordinance. The relief is supported by

50:27the unique sha shape of the lot, not the

50:29applicant's circumstances or the

50:31surrounding area. Denial would prevent

50:33uh viable residential development as the

50:36lot lots meet all but one-dimensional

50:38standard and can accommodate access and

50:40storm water management. The variance is

50:43supported by the comp plan as it

50:45facilitates additional residential

50:46development again consistent with the

50:49surrounding residential lots and will

50:51not impair the zoning ordinance.

50:53Um these are these are waiverss that are

50:56within the conditions um just to defer

50:59the submission of um the storm water

51:02management. Um both of these speak to

51:04storm water management as touched on in

51:06the subregs and in the checklist. So,

51:08that's just all this is saying.

51:11Um, planning analysis. Here are all our

51:13numbers for the um proposed density of

51:16the subject lots, the surrounding area,

51:17and the neighborhood. Um, I wanted to

51:20take a moment to point out that yes, the

51:22proposed subject parcels are slightly

51:25above the future land use, but it is

51:27such a small amount of um land area that

51:30makes that difference when you um look

51:34at to get to the 10.91

51:37to back to the 10.89, you're looking at

51:39like five square feet in a in a for a

51:42one family, like 20 square feet for a

51:44two family, 30 square feet for a four

51:46family. So just the numbers of the area

51:47is actually just very small to get to a

51:50conforming um density. And therefore

51:53staff recommends that the city plan

51:55commission approve this preliminary plan

51:58to subdivide one record lot into an

52:00additional three lots along with the

52:02variances for lot two for lot size and

52:07um the street w frontage and width uh

52:11for lots three and four. I also have a

52:13slide after this which goes over the

52:16conditions that we've been discussing.

52:20>> Thank you, Miss Valkcore. Is there any

52:21questions for the staff from the

52:23commissioners?

52:26>> I have a quick question, Miss Valor, and

52:28this really should go to the applicant,

52:29but I see it reminded me this storm

52:32water management plan is being deferred

52:34to final plan stage, right? Okay. Is

52:36there can you explain the rationale why

52:38we're deferring to a final plan stage

52:39for that?

52:47Well, there's been I think that this

52:50application had sufficient

52:53um

52:54information just regarding storm water

52:57plans for the three proposed lots. Mhm.

53:00>> Um

53:02I think there's no problem with them

53:05submitting this storm water mitigation

53:08for lot two which has the existing house

53:10before final plan because after the

53:12approval of this uh preliminary plan

53:15here nothing is substantially changing

53:17for lot two. So there will be no

53:19problems uh calculating it after this

53:21time.

53:22>> Okay. Does the applicant have anything

53:24to add to that uh answer by the miss?

53:28Um, no. Uh, you know, we we asked for

53:32that. We're in the process of having

53:35that information. Um but um ironically

53:40later this evening you're going to be

53:41reviewing a solar ordinance which

53:46one of the considerations is this exact

53:50scenario and that ordinance is not in

53:52effect yet but we uh we're confident we

53:57can address that with the the existing

54:00building and have no we'd ask that it be

54:03issued for the final. Um, may I just

54:06note and I I know what's intended there,

54:09[snorts]

54:10the eastern impact fee.

54:13I think what what's intended there per

54:15unit that

54:18>> I don't we're happy to just give you

54:2059346, but it would actually be

54:22>> right.

54:24>> Four times that.

54:25>> Y

54:27>> I I know what she meant, but I don't

54:29want

54:29>> No, that's fine.

54:31>> Wanted to note that. Thank you.

54:32>> Yeah. Yeah, the reason I asked this one

54:34more thing is like when you building a

54:36hall on stuff is going to be impervious

54:38service. I just want to understand the

54:39rationale why you're waiting till final

54:41plan stage. So I I I kind of understand

54:43what you're saying. Any questions from

54:44Miss Valor,

54:47Miss uh Commissioner Lampir?

54:53If um because the approval

54:58uh on the varants for lots

55:01three and four

55:04um are for a single family and this

55:08zoning um and subdivision

55:11allows one or two family and I realize

55:15that one family is 6,000 and the other

55:19is allowed on 8,000 but we have had

55:22situations come software there that

55:39says that approval on us three and four

55:44are for one family only and that it may

55:48not be converted to a a two family even

55:52though it is in the B1 zone.

56:03>> Well, a couple of things. One is

56:07they wouldn't convert it to a two

56:08family. They convert it to a one family

56:10with an ADU and it would be able to be

56:12converted without any restrictions. So,

56:15I I don't see the the practical reason

56:17for it. Um

56:20uh on the 6,000 square foot one, they

56:23they're with a two family, they would be

56:25substandard. Um but um

56:32>> restricted to a single family um with

56:36the 8,000 square feet.

56:38>> I mean based upon this approval, they

56:40they are

56:43they are we are calculating our density

56:46etc. are based upon a single family. So

56:48based upon that um I believe um I

56:51certainly would be able to defend that

56:54should you wish to add that condition

56:56practically speaking. Um

56:59uh

57:02it could be you know there's a

57:04workaround to to put a do family in

57:05there if they wanted.

57:06>> I forgot there was that workaround but

57:09but

57:10>> exactly they're coming

57:11>> for that that would

57:12>> correct. They're coming to you with a

57:14subdivision. you're making density

57:16requirements based upon a a single

57:17family home. Therefore, um you could

57:20certainly put that restriction on it,

57:22but the restriction is it wouldn't be

57:25valid for an ADU

57:28because it's illegal to to put that

57:30restriction on.

57:32>> Uh solicit.

57:36>> So, so people didn't hear this on the

57:38microphone at home. Uh Mr. Murray said

57:40he'd have no problem with that

57:41condition. So the condition the

57:43condition would be phrased in what way?

57:45Like no further subdivision or no no

57:48two. I just want to know what the

57:49wording should be. So

57:50>> if the applicant well no further

57:53subdivisions of of the lots um you know

57:56as

57:58>> um

57:59proposed and approved by by this

58:02commission. And as far as um you can

58:05just put the applicant agrees and the

58:07commission hereby imposes a condition

58:10that the uh single that the homes

58:14approved as single family uh dwellings

58:17will remain

58:18>> remain a single family. Correct.

58:20>> Okay.

58:23>> Yeah. Thank you.

58:27>> Any other further questions for the

58:28staff? Just quickly, when you talk about

58:30a two family, I mean, it's not really

58:32the subdivision of that land. You're not

58:34really saying you're going to subdivide

58:36that again. So, I'm not sure you can

58:38really restrict anything other than the

58:41commitment that they're saying they're

58:42going to go with single family homes.

58:43>> Well, one, they're agreeing to it. So,

58:45you you certainly can do that.

58:47>> Correct.

58:48>> And so, what Kathleen is what Miss Afair

58:50is saying is that we're making this

58:53approval based upon its conformance with

58:56the comprehensive plan. One of the

58:57conditions of the comprehensive plan is

59:00density requirements and should the

59:02application

59:04um should the applicant come here with a

59:06two family proposal that would be a

59:08different calculation and may lead to it

59:12not being in conformance with the

59:14comprehensive plan. Now, since a two

59:16family is allowed, most likely it would,

59:19but that's one of the criteria for you

59:22to approve it is conformance with the

59:24comprehensive plan. And adding density

59:27to the lots by adding a different

59:30structure would could impact your

59:33approval or denial of the project.

59:35>> Okay. That I that I agree with.

59:36Increasing the density, but it's nothing

59:38to do with that. There's no further

59:40subdivision of the land in order, but a

59:42two.

59:43>> [snorts]

59:43>> No, they're they're two separate issues.

59:46One is a subdivision, so to put another

59:48house there, and the second is to con to

59:52convert the two family, you know, one

59:54family, two. [clears throat]

59:55>> I just didn't want the words to confuse

59:57it. If we use subdivision, if someone

59:58was to ever question it,

1:00:00>> you're saying, hey, we we are not You

1:00:02said I couldn't subdivide it. You didn't

1:00:03say I couldn't put a two family. Yeah,

1:00:06it would be basically we could probably

1:00:07do a like I said we could probably make

1:00:09the condition worded in a certain way to

1:00:11say no further subdivision and that the

1:00:13two the two lots which have single

1:00:14family shall remain single family.

1:00:16That's what it basically would be. Um

1:00:20okay there are any other questions uh

1:00:23for the staff or for the applicant at

1:00:26this stage?

1:00:29Okay, I don't see any. I'll go to public

1:00:31comment. Is anyone here in the room

1:00:33that'd like to make public comment on

1:00:3880 Phoenix A?

1:00:43>> I see no one in the room. Mr. Lemur, is

1:00:44there anyone online that make to make

1:00:46public comment on 80 Phoenix A?

1:00:50>> There is no public comment online.

1:00:52>> Okay. Uh Miss Valkor, could you please

1:00:54put your recommendation up? Um, are

1:00:57there any final questions

1:01:00um for the staff or the applicant?

1:01:06Okay, I don't see any. Um, okay. We can

1:01:09start doing motions and discussion. I'll

1:01:12say um I'll be voting for this. The

1:01:16density is just barely above the flum. I

1:01:19think it's a dimminimously

1:01:21exceeds the the flum dimminimus because

1:01:232 10.89 89 to 10.91.

1:01:26Um, and I would ask that we put

1:01:29conditions about no further subdivisions

1:01:32and that the single family uh home shall

1:01:34remain single family. Those are

1:01:37important because our approval for this

1:01:41is because it's consistent with the

1:01:43density level in our comprehensive plan

1:01:47for

1:01:49the basis for it. So, um, and

1:01:52Commissioner Carrero, um, if you are

1:01:55okay with taking out the condition on

1:01:57the wall, I will be okay with it. Um, I

1:02:01just, uh, I defer to your judgment on

1:02:03it. I I, as long as this, you feel the

1:02:06city has the ability to acquire a change

1:02:09in that wall 10 ft for visibility at the

1:02:12final plan stage, then I'll go along

1:02:14with it. I'm just concerned that we

1:02:15approve something and then comes the

1:02:18final plan stage and we're stuck. We

1:02:19don't have the authority at that point.

1:02:21You know,

1:02:22>> my my only concern is, you know, Mr.

1:02:25Murray is having conversations with Mr.

1:02:27Ple regarding they'll take care of it at

1:02:32the construction phase. However,

1:02:36these subdivisions once they're

1:02:38recorded, you know, there's no condition

1:02:41that the building be built anytime soon.

1:02:44Mr. Michael's 65. You know, there could

1:02:47be another building official three years

1:02:49from now.

1:02:51>> Yes.

1:02:51>> I'm not saying he's [clears throat]

1:02:52dying. I'm saying he might retire.

1:02:53>> Yeah. I I I know who know who knows how

1:02:56long I'm going to be

1:02:59>> stating that the building official will

1:03:01take care of it at at at construction is

1:03:04not

1:03:04>> great.

1:03:05>> Is is nothing.

1:03:06>> Is nothing. Yeah.

1:03:07>> It means nothing.

1:03:09>> So I just I mean you don't have to

1:03:11condition it, but it it means legally

1:03:13means nothing. No, I it's like I said, I

1:03:15I really hate being like difficult about

1:03:18something like this, which is not like

1:03:20this is not my area of expertise. So

1:03:22that's why I'm like asking the director

1:03:24here um from a public safety standpoint

1:03:27like

1:03:29it's in the code. So the other thing

1:03:31too, solicitor, if it's in the code

1:03:34and they have a wall that doesn't meet

1:03:36the code, even if it's not a condition,

1:03:38can't the city go out there and enforce

1:03:39it?

1:03:40>> Yeah. or not give a building from

1:03:42whoever whoever that may be.

1:03:43>> Okay. So, so it's basically the city

1:03:46still has even if we don't condition it

1:03:48at this stage, the the city could still

1:03:50enforce the code and say you want a

1:03:53building permit, you got to change that

1:03:54wall.

1:03:55>> If if if the if whoever the building

1:03:58official is at that time and it meets

1:04:00the criteria of item B, correct?

1:04:02>> Okay. I like I said, I defer to you,

1:04:04director. If you feel comfortable not

1:04:05putting a condition in about the wall at

1:04:07this stage, I will defer to you. So, I

1:04:10am because I'm looking at it and I'm

1:04:11trying to figure 10 feet could be

1:04:13excessive. I mean, that's just a random

1:04:15number. I mean, I'd hate to see them

1:04:17remove 10 feet on either side. That's 20

1:04:18feet plus a driveway is 12. You're

1:04:21looking at 32 feet of that wall having

1:04:22to come out. That might be a bit

1:04:24excessive, but I think if you work with

1:04:26them to get the maximum extent possible,

1:04:28I'm sure Mr. Murray and his client

1:04:30[clears throat] would be in agreement to

1:04:31make sure that the safety of the public,

1:04:34excuse me, is going to be a priority

1:04:36with them.

1:04:39Okay. All right.

1:04:41So, um at this point, unless there's any

1:04:44further discussions, this would be

1:04:45appropriate to uh motions. There would

1:04:47be two motions at this stage. One motion

1:04:49would be the variance with the

1:04:51conditions um and the other would be the

1:04:53subdivision.

1:04:56So, however people want to proceed,

1:05:03>> I make a motion that we accept the

1:05:05recommendation for the waiver with the

1:05:07conditions as presented

1:05:10>> with the waiver and the uh waiver and

1:05:12granting of variance, right? Or is that

1:05:15is that what this is? We have to grant a

1:05:16variance solicitor, right?

1:05:19>> Yeah.

1:05:19>> Yes.

1:05:20>> Okay. where the conditions presented

1:05:21would you

1:05:23with the exception that you don't want

1:05:25the condition on the wall. Right.

1:05:27>> Correct. I think I would let the

1:05:28regulations take its course.

1:05:31>> Okay. And would you agree to the

1:05:33condition of no further subdivision and

1:05:35that the single family lots shall remain

1:05:37single family?

1:05:39>> I'd be cautious to use the words no

1:05:41further subdivision, but I would

1:05:42definitely agree with making sure that

1:05:44the single family homes remain single

1:05:46family homes. Okay, that's fine with me.

1:05:50Do you see any issue with that?

1:05:53>> No.

1:05:53>> Okay.

1:05:55>> No. Do we need any more detail with the

1:05:57reason why we're doing that?

1:06:00>> No, I don't think so.

1:06:01>> Consistent.

1:06:02>> Yeah, because it's consistent.

1:06:04>> Yes, you could say

1:06:06>> with the agreement of the applicant, the

1:06:09the commission imposes that.

1:06:12>> Okay. Is that fine, Commissioner

1:06:13Carrero?

1:06:14>> Okay. Is there a second to Commissioner

1:06:17Carrero's motion? Second by Commissioner

1:06:20Lampir. Is there any discussion?

1:06:24Seeing none, all those in favor signify

1:06:25by saying I.

1:06:27>> I.

1:06:27>> Those oppos say nay. Eyes have it. And

1:06:30so just to be clear, the condition is

1:06:32that

1:06:34no that the single family home shall

1:06:36remain single family consistent with the

1:06:38comprehensive plan and the flum density

1:06:41as agreed to by the applicant. Correct.

1:06:43Okay, we're all in agreement. Okay, next

1:06:46motion is the subdivision.

1:06:50Motion to grant the subdivision uh

1:06:52consistent with the staff

1:06:53recommendation.

1:06:54Anybody want to make that motion?

1:07:02Commissioner Lamp here. Is there a

1:07:03second?

1:07:04>> Second.

1:07:05>> Second by Commissioner Caro. Any further

1:07:06discussion?

1:07:09Seeing none, all those in favor signify

1:07:10by saying I.

1:07:12>> All those post say nay. Eyes have it.

1:07:14Okay, I think that concludes Phoenix A.

1:07:20>> Next we will do storm water. Just for

1:07:22people at home and in the room, I plan

1:07:24on taking a break at approximately 9:00.

1:07:27Um,

1:07:29but first we'll be doing the storm water

1:07:31ordinance.

1:07:32Storm water ordinance. Ordinance. This

1:07:35is ordinance recommendations ordinance.

1:07:38Let's see.

1:07:4307-20-01.

1:07:46So this so the people who are here just

1:07:49to kind of provide a quick overview

1:07:51before I hand it over to staff under the

1:07:54charter and state law we provide

1:07:56recommendations to the city council um

1:08:00on zoning ordinances that affect zoning

1:08:02zoning ordinances and recently

1:08:05commissioner Grazi commissioner

1:08:07councilwoman Graziano proposed a storm

1:08:09water ordinance.

1:08:12Uh, this ordinance has been reviewed by

1:08:15staff and staff um has provided a

1:08:18recommendation. We also received some

1:08:20public comment um from Mr. Murray as

1:08:24well. We'll get to that in a second. And

1:08:28um

1:08:31All right. and then we so I'll hand it

1:08:33over to the staff and we have to give a

1:08:35recommendation

1:08:37today.

1:08:39Uh due to the requirements of the

1:08:41charter and state law um we have to

1:08:44address it. So is the staff ready to

1:08:46proceed with

1:08:48the uh their review and recommendation

1:08:51on the stormwater ordinance?

1:08:56>> All right. Go ahead, assistant director.

1:08:58[clears throat]

1:09:00All right. This is for ordinance number

1:09:037201.

1:09:05Um

1:09:08this ordinance generally

1:09:10um deals um it's in addition to a

1:09:14handful of provisions.

1:09:16um primarily dealing with storm water um

1:09:20through impervious surface requirements

1:09:23through a direct um ordinance requiring

1:09:27um storm water infrastructure systems

1:09:30and there's a requirement for riparian

1:09:33buffers

1:09:34um integrated in this ordinance as well

1:09:38as um some additional sections regarding

1:09:41parking and pvious surfaces for parking.

1:09:45Um, for this presentation, I'm not going

1:09:47to go into the ex same detail

1:09:50um as the memo does. So, there's some

1:09:53stuff I'm going to skip and I'm mostly

1:09:55we talk about in the memo I talk about

1:09:57very specific recommendations.

1:10:01Um, and that's what I'm mostly going to

1:10:03be dealing with

1:10:06uh presentation.

1:10:08Um

1:10:12and um

1:10:14comes to the comprehensive plan, it's

1:10:17ordinance really aligns with these four

1:10:20key factors. Um encourages water quality

1:10:24improvements. Um requires storm water

1:10:27infiltration, reduce runoff in new

1:10:28development. Um it's going to help with

1:10:31wildlife habitat and we also believe

1:10:33that it'll you know prevent it

1:10:35implements very specific and objective

1:10:37site design standards which are intended

1:10:40to improve the quality of development

1:10:42reduce impacts of the surrounding area.

1:10:47Um

1:10:49and we definitely find that um this

1:10:53ordinance because very often we think

1:10:54about storm water um we typically think

1:10:57about flooding issues and I think we're

1:11:00most people in CR know that we do have

1:11:02issues with flooding. Um but the other

1:11:04thing that storm water runoff also

1:11:06impacts is water quality. Um this is a

1:11:10map that designates all the or shows all

1:11:12the rivers and waterways

1:11:15um in our city. Every time you see a red

1:11:18or a yellow um like pond or river or

1:11:22stream, that means that's a um pond or

1:11:25river stream that is impaired in some

1:11:27way. Typically, that means it's there's

1:11:30some sort of pollution that is found in

1:11:32that river or uh or pond. Um and we do

1:11:37have poor water quality in a lot of our

1:11:38streams, and that's kind of thing that's

1:11:41less talked about. That's something that

1:11:42this will help address.

1:11:44Um

1:11:48um I'm going go through the bill and

1:11:51talk about directly about some of the

1:11:53aspects of it. Uh the first thing is the

1:11:56what this does it creates a requirements

1:11:59regarding impervious surface

1:12:00specifically maximum imperous surface uh

1:12:04cutoffs. Um you know these ensure that

1:12:08there's a certain amount of groundwater

1:12:09infiltration that's guaranteed. Um again

1:12:12like the the table that you see that's

1:12:14specific to residential

1:12:16um properties

1:12:18um

1:12:21and

1:12:23um will help with storm water runoff.

1:12:27Um, typically when it comes to storm

1:12:30water runoff, if you have above 10% of

1:12:32impervious surface threshold, that means

1:12:35it's going to impair natural groundwater

1:12:37infiltration is going to impair run um

1:12:41like natural waterways to some degree.

1:12:44Um,

1:12:45so there's only a handful of places of

1:12:49Cranson that are like that. So wherever

1:12:51we can keep groundwater infiltration at

1:12:54a max that's going to be to the benefit

1:12:56of city. Um

1:12:59so it's a recommended practice in the

1:13:00Rhode Island um low impact development

1:13:03site planning redesign guidance manual

1:13:06and um

1:13:09crime should allow for all lots to have

1:13:10adequate space to build and meet other

1:13:12zoning requirements including park

1:13:14minimum requirements.

1:13:16Um this is the table just to go over it

1:13:20quickly. Um there's maximum purpose

1:13:23maximum pvious service requirements that

1:13:25are address the the front yard. So

1:13:27anything that you'll have in front of

1:13:28the house, the rear yard, anything

1:13:29behind the house, and then the lot

1:13:31total. There's also this total minimum

1:13:34pvious surface coverage. Um as you can

1:13:37see, that's in square footage rather

1:13:39than in the percentage. Um where this is

1:13:43relevant is mostly when it comes to

1:13:45substandard lots of record. So if you

1:13:48have a lot because in certain cases

1:13:51you're allowed by right to build on a

1:13:53substandard lot of record. Um so if you

1:13:56have a lot that is much smaller um for

1:13:59example a like a 3,000 foot lot in an A6

1:14:02that's when this would be um would be

1:14:06relevant. the thousand square foot

1:14:07requirements. Basically, it requires

1:14:09those subser lots to have some amount of

1:14:11service.

1:14:14Um,

1:14:16you know, when we're reviewing this

1:14:18ordinance, um, um, there was some

1:14:21criticism about the reduction of

1:14:23flexibility that the reduction um that

1:14:26the front yard and the rear yard uh,

1:14:28requirements have. um when really like

1:14:32the most important aspect of the whole

1:14:34thing is the uh impervious surface uh

1:14:38metric for the entire lot. Um so just

1:14:41having the front and the rear lot you

1:14:43know complicates the complica it

1:14:44complicates calculations

1:14:47um and um

1:14:52uh minimum pie surface.

1:14:55So,

1:14:57we're going to recommend um we're going

1:15:00to re we're recommending

1:15:02um that we just keep the total

1:15:06impervious surface um maximum limit and

1:15:10remove the front and the rear

1:15:13requirements just to keep it simple

1:15:16because that's the most um important

1:15:18standard. Um and then regarding the

1:15:21pvious surface uh calculation

1:15:25because that is really only relevant for

1:15:28substantial lots. I think that the we

1:15:30recommend we believe that that should

1:15:33um

1:15:36that that doesn't necessarily need to be

1:15:38on a zone byzone basis. it could really

1:15:41just apply specifically to substandard

1:15:43lots of record and um

1:15:48be just kind of like a general thousand

1:15:50square foot requirement

1:15:52[snorts]

1:15:53just to simplify it. Um another aspect

1:15:56of this specific section that is

1:15:58proposed is the 15% um landscape

1:16:01requirement for any non-residential

1:16:03development. Um this is already

1:16:06established practice. Um and our DBR

1:16:09ordinance requires 15% for

1:16:11non-residential developments. Um 15%

1:16:15landscaping. The only thing that this

1:16:17adds that's new is it also allows you to

1:16:20meet that through planters

1:16:22um planter boxes um certain cases and it

1:16:27also allows green storm water

1:16:28infrastructure to count towards that

1:16:30landscaping.

1:16:31Um

1:16:33and also there is a um it also addresses

1:16:38um

1:16:39uh the requirement starts at 10,000

1:16:43square feet of um of lot area. Um we

1:16:50believe that the intent of that is to

1:16:51reduce

1:16:53um the burden on small commercial

1:16:54developments to try to meet this

1:16:57especially in like a main street area

1:16:59overall square where you you have

1:17:01buildings way up to the front um you

1:17:03know meeting those landscaping

1:17:05requirements can be very ownorous for

1:17:07those those small little developments.

1:17:13Um

1:17:15for the next section that addresses

1:17:17storm water mitigation.

1:17:19Um something important that this section

1:17:21does is

1:17:23as you know a lot of the projects that

1:17:25come through the planning especially the

1:17:27larger land development projects those

1:17:30are always subject to review um by Rym

1:17:34um for storm water uh mitigation and

1:17:37storm water um infiltration. The thing

1:17:40it doesn't the thing that um isn't

1:17:42subject to Rym requirements are usually

1:17:46those small infill subdivisions

1:17:50um

1:17:52and small like single family two family

1:17:55residential construction. Um but those

1:17:59could those that impervious service that

1:18:01they create will still run off into our

1:18:05municipal

1:18:06um storm water systems.

1:18:09Um, and we're required by law to manage

1:18:12any runoff that enters our storm water

1:18:14system. So even though they're not

1:18:16subject to RHDM permits, it's basically

1:18:19Ryum basically delegates that

1:18:21responsibility to the municipalities to

1:18:22enforce. So what a lot of other

1:18:24municipalities have is a municipal

1:18:27separate storm water um system

1:18:29ordinance. We don't have that. We're

1:18:31recommending that longterm that

1:18:32something like that is reviewed and

1:18:34adopted. Um but this kind of helps this

1:18:36like stop gap measure um

1:18:41um

1:18:43um to have that requirement for the the

1:18:45single family and the two families

1:18:47>> [snorts]

1:18:47>> um to fall under some sort of storm

1:18:50water mitigation standard. Um

1:18:54and there's also one small change that

1:18:57we're recommending to the operation

1:18:59maintenance manual. Um,

1:19:03basically we're adding the ordinance

1:19:06adds an extra step. Um, in the like

1:19:10building permit process. Usually when we

1:19:12when it comes for building permits, um,

1:19:15most of the stuff is due either right

1:19:17before you issue the building permit or

1:19:19right before you grant the certificate

1:19:21of occupancy. This one would add kind of

1:19:22like an in between step and requiring

1:19:25recording upon installation. We are just

1:19:27recommending that that's kind of pushed

1:19:30to before the CEO just to kind of help

1:19:32streamline

1:19:33um you know the uh enforcement of the

1:19:37operation and maintenance manual

1:19:38requirement.

1:19:43Um so the following section is about

1:19:45riparian buffers. Um this graphic if you

1:19:49don't know what that is this graphic

1:19:50demonstrates it very well. The riparian

1:19:52buffer is basically just a vegetated

1:19:54area that is right next to wetlands and

1:19:58like streams and other types of

1:19:59waterways. Um the benefits that they

1:20:02provide is you know they provide

1:20:04benefits um allow for additional

1:20:05habitat. They also um help with some

1:20:08filtering of any runoff coming into. So

1:20:11very often when it comes to like farms

1:20:13and stuff, they'll have a few trees

1:20:15before um there's a stream um kind of

1:20:19helps filter some of that runoff. Um

1:20:24riparian buffers are generally uh our

1:20:26comprehensive plan speaks favorably of

1:20:28the riparian buffers. Um the only thing

1:20:31is that the requirements in the

1:20:33ordinance are less strict than the most

1:20:35current state requirements by Rym. Um

1:20:39and additionally the way those

1:20:40requirements are written it shows that

1:20:42Brightm really has most of the

1:20:44jurisdiction over this area. So you know

1:20:47because of these two factors we're

1:20:49recommending that that riparian buffer

1:20:51section is removed. Um you know Ryum has

1:20:54um much much stricter buffer

1:20:56requirements than the section has. So

1:20:58it's we just believe it's redundant to

1:21:00keep that in there.

1:21:04And finally, u we had a recommendation

1:21:08to the off streetet parking.

1:21:10Um so there's a section in the ordinance

1:21:14that this allows

1:21:16um

1:21:18uh parking areas and driveways to be

1:21:19counted as purvious surface even if they

1:21:22prefer materials are used. Um

1:21:26but Ryum actually promotes the usage of

1:21:28pvious materials for parking areas for

1:21:30specifically in their guidelines. So uh

1:21:33as a response to that we're recommending

1:21:35that that section is amended to um allow

1:21:40for pvious um like pvious pavements and

1:21:43stuff like that to count towards the uh

1:21:45calcul pvious surface calculation.

1:21:47[snorts]

1:21:49Um yeah, in conclusion, we believe

1:21:52provided all these changes um are

1:21:55applied that the um this ordinance will

1:21:59allow the city to continue to have an

1:22:01efficient predictable development

1:22:02process and it'll strikes a balance

1:22:04between natural resource protection and

1:22:06growth related needs.

1:22:09Um the other thing beyond consistent

1:22:11with the comprehensive plans is we also

1:22:13need to review for um we need to

1:22:16recognize and consider the purposes of

1:22:18the zoning um the purposes of zoning in

1:22:21the city code. Um believe that it does

1:22:26uh

1:22:28believe that by implementing strategies

1:22:30for improving water quality, mitigating

1:22:31storm water runoff, the ordinance

1:22:32promotes both the public health safety

1:22:35and the general welfare.

1:22:37um which is if you look at the night

1:22:39layers here that's um a [snorts]

1:22:43and

1:22:44um you know addresses

1:22:47um the existing issues flooding and

1:22:48water quality

1:22:50um and a need to establish balance

1:22:53between natural resource protection

1:22:55growth related needs and reflects the

1:22:56current expected future needs of the

1:22:58city. Um the ordinance also promotes

1:23:01orderly grow orderly growth and

1:23:03development which recognize the goals

1:23:05and patterns of land use contained in

1:23:06the comprehensive plan and implements

1:23:08protections for our natural resources

1:23:09and open space for improved design

1:23:11standards as supported by the goals and

1:23:13policies of the 2024 comprehensive plan.

1:23:16Therefore we also find this ordinance is

1:23:18also consistent the general purposes of

1:23:20zoning.

1:23:22Um this is just summary of the both of

1:23:24them that we found it both consistent

1:23:25with the comprehensive plan purposes of

1:23:27the zoning.

1:23:29Um and therefore we're forwarding a

1:23:32posit we are recommending that the city

1:23:35plan commission forwards a positive

1:23:36recommendation on this ordinance

1:23:38provided the um five changes that I

1:23:42discussed during this presentation.

1:23:46>> All right. Thank you, assistant

1:23:47director. And uh before I turn it over

1:23:49to questions for my colleagues and then

1:23:51myself, I just want to start out by

1:23:52saying um I want to thank Councilwoman

1:23:55Graciano

1:23:57for presenting this ordinance. Um the

1:24:01three biggest problems that I deal I've

1:24:03been here for about five years and the

1:24:04three biggest issues I hear about when

1:24:07people talk about development of

1:24:09housing, one is the cars, parking,

1:24:12traffic, second is flooding, storm

1:24:15water, and the third is the schools.

1:24:17Okay. And this what I'm happy about is

1:24:20that commissioner, keep calling it

1:24:22commissioner, councilwoman Graziano has

1:24:24put forward this ordinance. Uh second, I

1:24:27want to compliment the staff, which I I

1:24:29don't regularly do on

1:24:33putting putting work their work on this

1:24:35uh because it really was a lot of work

1:24:36to do this and to also

1:24:39accomp

1:24:41on putting together the public comment

1:24:43he did from all those engineers. Um the

1:24:46combination of your input and I'll hear

1:24:49more of it later I'm sure with the staff

1:24:52taking a lot of it into account I think

1:24:54has created a better product than we had

1:24:57to start out with. Um, I know my

1:25:00colleagues may have further questions

1:25:01and and thoughts on it, but I just want

1:25:03to start laying that out because it's

1:25:05when you're putting forward a ordinance

1:25:07of this importance.

1:25:10Um, there's a lot of things that go into

1:25:12it and there can be a lot of criticisms

1:25:17or second guessing, but to just put

1:25:19something forward that I think is a at

1:25:21this point is a pretty good work

1:25:22product. Uh, I just want to compliment

1:25:25the councilwoman, the staff, and Mr.

1:25:28Murray for what this looks like right

1:25:30now. So before I keep talking, I I know

1:25:32we want to get going. Is there questions

1:25:35for my colleagues on the ordinance? Is

1:25:37what you see here is that the staff has

1:25:40made a positive recommendation for an

1:25:42ordinance as they have proposed

1:25:44amendments to and a draft of the amended

1:25:46ordinance is on our website. Um so is

1:25:49there any questions at this point for

1:25:51the staff on their recommendation?

1:25:54>> If director,

1:25:55>> yeah, if I can. I mean, I like to

1:25:57encourage development, but I also want

1:25:59it to be controlled. And one of the

1:26:01questions I have is the pvious and

1:26:03impervious. Have we defined that

1:26:05somewhere? Because I know other

1:26:07communities don't recognize pvious parts

1:26:10of construction as

1:26:12>> it is. It is in the bill. So, the um

1:26:15page two of the ordinance defines

1:26:18specifically impervious surface

1:26:19coverage, pvious surface coverage.

1:26:25Does it give examples or does it just

1:26:27try to define it?

1:26:29>> Do do you want me to read it out?

1:26:32>> Well, again, my question is sometimes

1:26:33you have things where you put

1:26:36pavers as a driveway or pavers as a

1:26:38patio.

1:26:39>> Some communities are looking at that and

1:26:41saying, "Well, that's impervious," but

1:26:42it's it's really not. So, I just

1:26:45>> keep that clear and straight in

1:26:47everyone's mind so that there's no

1:26:48confusion

1:26:50>> after the fact.

1:26:52One thing I'll try to assist you is that

1:26:55the definitions are pvious and

1:26:56impervious. But on off- streetet parking

1:26:59requirement, it says all areas that are

1:27:01parking for parking or access parking

1:27:03shall be considered impervious unless

1:27:05designed with porous sub surface

1:27:07consistent with RIM standards. So as

1:27:10long as RIM thinks it's porous,

1:27:13it's considered porous.

1:27:16Okay.

1:27:17>> Yeah. And there's also pvious surface

1:27:19coverage which shall mean the portion of

1:27:20a site that allows for absorption of

1:27:22water into the ground bit more general.

1:27:26>> And I we did have a quick discussion in

1:27:28the office relative to retroactive

1:27:30meaning existing properties versus new.

1:27:34>> I didn't see anything in here regarding

1:27:36that. Did we eliminate that at this time

1:27:39and go forward or there is still

1:27:41something that if you have two

1:27:43properties and you subdivide one and you

1:27:45have an existing home that remains that

1:27:47we are going to require

1:27:49a

1:27:52a review of that existing parcel for

1:27:54pvious and impervious and have to be

1:27:56able to contain that as well.

1:27:59Um yeah, I mean we we're recommending to

1:28:01keep that section um just in preparation

1:28:05of a lot of the infield development that

1:28:06we're seeing.

1:28:08Um,

1:28:10yes. So, I I would think you you'd have

1:28:13to if you're doing whatever a non merger

1:28:15or, you know, administrative subdivision

1:28:18like we saw tonight, you would have to

1:28:20calculate

1:28:22um the pvious imperous

1:28:24surface on the structure lot. Um, and if

1:28:30it didn't comply, you would need to have

1:28:32it comply because you're not

1:28:34grandfathering. Obviously the structure

1:28:36is there but you wouldn't be

1:28:37grandfathering um the drainage. So I

1:28:40mean

1:28:40>> right and again some of the discussions

1:28:42we had is some of these houses that are

1:28:45left are very small parcels of land and

1:28:47there's not a lot of room to do that

1:28:49containment there because that was never

1:28:50planned for in the past and now we're

1:28:52saying well you need to be able to do

1:28:54that and I'm just trying to make from a

1:28:57personal point of view and from a

1:28:59department is make it as easy as

1:29:01possible for us to make those reviews

1:29:03and to be able to make those

1:29:04determinations without getting into a

1:29:06conflict every single time we do it.

1:29:11you're going to like in arrogance if

1:29:13they make you do it. So if this this

1:29:16ordinance will make you do it and if I

1:29:18can go on the record, I don't want to be

1:29:20narroed. That's all I [laughter] can

1:29:21say.

1:29:21>> No, I know. But in Providence, if if if

1:29:23this ordinance passes the the way it is,

1:29:26you'll have to do it for the lot that

1:29:28remains

1:29:31because the if the whole point is to

1:29:34control the storm water running off the

1:29:37property, if you're ignoring

1:29:40half of the property because it already

1:29:42has a house, that seems to defeat the

1:29:44purpose of the ordinance.

1:29:47do what just the the solicitor and the

1:29:50staff know more than me, but I what I

1:29:51read here is under

1:29:5517.22.02

1:29:58OD where a subdivision includes an

1:30:01existing primary structure or a parking

1:30:03lot, the lot with the existing structure

1:30:05or parking lot shall be brought into

1:30:06conformance with the requirements of

1:30:07this section prior to the recording of

1:30:09the subdivision. So that's means that it

1:30:12if you have a if someone's taking a

1:30:14piece of land, they want to subdivide it

1:30:16and they want to put new stuff on the

1:30:17subdivide and put a new house on it.

1:30:19Well, then the whole thing has to come

1:30:21up to to the standard.

1:30:24So this is this is people who want to

1:30:26subdivide something they already have

1:30:28kind of the issue. I guess we should

1:30:29hear the testimony, hear everything

1:30:30else. It's just I I just see some

1:30:33complications with that. Just thinking

1:30:35of if there's a commercial property and

1:30:37you have a residential property next to

1:30:38it and then you tell them, "Okay, the

1:30:40commercial property is a building and a

1:30:42parking lot." Now, you're going to go

1:30:43back to them and say, "Oh, by the way,

1:30:45you need to now contain all that water

1:30:47coming off of your building and off of

1:30:48your parking lot." That's going to be

1:30:50some somewhat somewhat of a financial

1:30:54burden and possibly even a restrictive

1:30:56burden on that property that's existing

1:30:58and you're going to still go in and do

1:30:59the property for the single family home.

1:31:03about to hear the testimony and maybe

1:31:06discuss that a little

1:31:07>> see it is if you have a a sideyard

1:31:10that's accommodating your storm water

1:31:12right now if you want permission to sell

1:31:14off the landscaping

1:31:18so there can be further development you

1:31:20it's

1:31:22feels totally appropriate before we

1:31:24allow them to subdivide and sell off a

1:31:27portion of their lot that they can show

1:31:28us that they can still accommodate their

1:31:30storm water on their lot otherwise

1:31:33Otherwise, we will be accepting

1:31:34additional runoff into our public

1:31:36system.

1:31:38>> Unless you require zero runoff from that

1:31:40new parcel, then you haven't changed

1:31:42anything, which is sort of some of the

1:31:45regulations with some of the other like

1:31:47for example, Department of

1:31:48Transportation, when you do that, you

1:31:50cannot have any runoff come off your

1:31:52parcel. So, whatever you develop,

1:31:54whatever you do, it's zero runoff to the

1:31:55system. So, you're not ever adding

1:31:57anything to the system. If you would to

1:32:00have to contain that on the new

1:32:01developed property, if you have zero

1:32:02runoff, then you have met that

1:32:04requirement that you are not increasing

1:32:06water flow to the existing drainage

1:32:09systems.

1:32:16>> Okay. Is there any further questions for

1:32:18the staff?

1:32:20>> Commissioner Lamp here,

1:32:22>> thank you. Um with respect to the um

1:32:26either percentage of minimum pvious

1:32:30surface or um the

1:32:35standard of 1,000 square feet that you

1:32:38established for um substandard lots of

1:32:42record. How did you come to 1,00

1:32:46square feet? And isn't that if you

1:32:49looked at a percentage generally a lot

1:32:51less than what would be required for a

1:32:564,000 square foot lot or a 3,000 square

1:32:59foot lot or even a five depending on on

1:33:01what where they were and what they were

1:33:04because they're substandard.

1:33:07>> Yes. So, um this would mostly kick in,

1:33:13um for extremely small,

1:33:18uh substandard lots. Um

1:33:24um especially when you can see the the

1:33:26B1 and the B2 for the 60%. So, you would

1:33:30need um probably less than a 3,000

1:33:32square foot lot for the perfect surface

1:33:34coverage to um that thousand square feet

1:33:38to really kick in. Um and there are lots

1:33:41in the city that are that size.

1:33:42>> Isn't it anything less than an A6

1:33:46basically would be a substandard lot of

1:33:49record?

1:33:50>> Um

1:33:52anything smaller than 6,000 square feet.

1:33:54So, I would suggest that there are areas

1:33:58in

1:33:59>> Cranston

1:34:00>> um where the neighborhoods and the the

1:34:05plan because they were developed before

1:34:08zoning came into effect are 5,000 square

1:34:13feet or less. And I'll use Northern

1:34:16Edgewood as an example. Those lots are

1:34:19very small

1:34:21and they're not occasional. They're

1:34:24pretty much the fabric of those areas

1:34:27and those areas are very close to

1:34:29Naragansa Bay.

1:34:31>> Correct.

1:34:32>> Um or the Puxit River in some cases, not

1:34:34necessarily northern Edward. So my

1:34:37concern is that the 1,00

1:34:41square feet is not really protected

1:34:44enough, at least not as much as it is

1:34:47for the percentages that were

1:34:49established on the table for other size

1:34:52lots.

1:34:54Commissioner, let me just the staff can

1:34:56respond better than me possibly, but

1:34:58let's use a B1B2, right? So, if it's

1:35:035,000 square feet and a minimum of a

1:35:05th00and has to be pvious, that means it

1:35:08has 80% maximum, right?

1:35:12Like I'm just like I'm just you see the

1:35:15B1B2 I'm reading that like so what this

1:35:19says is if you're B1B2 you have to have

1:35:21the maximum impervious service is 60%.

1:35:25>> Right?

1:35:25>> Which means 40% needs to be pious

1:35:27>> for 40% mean pvious. So if your average

1:35:29B1B2 lot is that it's like 5,000 6,000

1:35:33something like that. So,

1:35:35um, that would mean it's 60% of 5,000

1:35:40is 3,000 pvious, 2,000 impervious.

1:35:44And so, you're saying is like it goes

1:35:46down to 4,000,

1:35:491,000 impervious, 75% is is 75% is

1:35:54impervious, 25% is pvious. I think they

1:35:58kind of they're not that off.

1:36:04Well, I mean, I don't think it's that

1:36:05odd,

1:36:06>> which I do often, but what what I will

1:36:10the way I looked at that was that if you

1:36:12have, for example, a 4,000 square foot

1:36:14lot,

1:36:1660% of it would would have to be pvious,

1:36:21correct?

1:36:23Or am I reading the table?

1:36:25>> Impervious. 40% would be pvious.

1:36:28>> 40%

1:36:29>> pvious. Yes.

1:36:30>> Okay.

1:36:31>> Yes. So, for a 5,000 foot lot, about

1:36:342,000 square feet would still need to be

1:36:37purvious. Yeah. And this is not like the

1:36:39um

1:36:41the um sliding scale that you see for

1:36:44like frontage and stuff. That doesn't

1:36:45apply here because the sliding scale

1:36:47only applies to like lot size and

1:36:49frontage and stuff. It would not apply

1:36:51to this.

1:36:51>> So, all substandard lots of record would

1:36:54be 1,000 square feet.

1:36:56So

1:36:59not less than thousand,

1:37:00>> less than 1,000.

1:37:01>> So for example, 5,000 square foot would

1:37:04still be a substandard lot of record,

1:37:06right? Um and that is, you know, you

1:37:10would have still 2,000 um square feet.

1:37:13That would be impervious. So So the the

1:37:15thousand square foot would really only

1:37:17be relevant if you have around

1:37:20um a lot that's probably less than 3,000

1:37:23square feet, which there are a handful.

1:37:25It's not that many. There are a handful.

1:37:27And in that case, then that 60% would be

1:37:31um impervious would go um

1:37:37above um

1:37:43>> if it's if it's 3,000 60%, 1,800.

1:37:45>> So you need even less than that. So um

1:37:48it would probably be like a 2500 foot

1:37:49lot. That's when the thousand square

1:37:51foot would kick in being

1:37:54>> Yeah, because this the language in the

1:37:56revised ordinance is maintain a minimum.

1:38:00So I think that's like the absolute

1:38:02floor and so you use these things until

1:38:04you get to the absolute bottom. The

1:38:05absolute bottom is like really small

1:38:07lots.

1:38:08>> Yeah,

1:38:09>> thank you for correcting me so that I

1:38:11understood it properly.

1:38:15quickly one other. So what are the

1:38:17consequences if you are unable to meet

1:38:19these requirements? Is that a variance?

1:38:21Again, you'd have to go to zoning for a

1:38:22variance. It's pretty much it

1:38:24>> pretty much.

1:38:24>> So there may be potential for relief on

1:38:26some of these

1:38:28>> it. Yes.

1:38:28>> Anything in the zoning code can get a

1:38:30variance unless the solicitor tells me

1:38:31otherwise.

1:38:32>> Yep. Yeah, you come and get

1:38:34>> but again it would be in the very rare

1:38:36case that you would be trying to build

1:38:37on like a 2500 square foot pot or

1:38:39something like that or the sorry the

1:38:41pvious specific one but um yeah

1:38:45>> any further questions uh from my

1:38:46colleagues for the staff on the storm

1:38:49water ordinance.

1:38:52>> Okay,

1:38:52>> thank you. We will now uh open it up to

1:38:55public comment. Is there anyone here

1:38:57that wishes to make public comment on

1:38:58the storm water ordinance?

1:39:02Please state your name and address for

1:39:03the record.

1:39:08>> Bridget Gra.

1:39:10Uh Bridget Graziano, 191 Wentworth

1:39:12Avenue. Um thank you to the planning

1:39:15commission and the staff for um hearing

1:39:17this um zoning ordinance. I really

1:39:20appreciate it. So recently we've

1:39:23received some proposals to amend our

1:39:25zoning which targeted specifically lots

1:39:28B1 and B2 and lots that were also

1:39:31subject to old merging requirements from

1:39:33the 1960s. And I noticed that impervious

1:39:36cover was not addressed. These lots were

1:39:39proposed to be as low as 3,000 square

1:39:41feet while an average in some of these

1:39:43locations as noted by the planning

1:39:45department were about 5,000 square feet.

1:39:47As the requirements from the state

1:39:49continue to push municipalities to

1:39:50address our housing crisis and the need

1:39:52for affordable housing, it occurred to

1:39:54me while all these are reasonable goals

1:39:57and muchneeded goals in the city and the

1:39:59state. We need to look at other

1:40:01environmental effects of increased

1:40:03development. These cannot be ignored.

1:40:06During discussions about amending zoning

1:40:08for B1 and B2, all the supporters never

1:40:10discussed how to achieve goals and

1:40:12ensure that the city residents are not

1:40:14impacted by increasing flood waters. um

1:40:17through increased impervious surface. I

1:40:20just did like a quick breakdown of and I

1:40:22chose city hall and I pulled Noah Atlas

1:40:2514 requirements for precipitation rates

1:40:27for a 100red-year storm and right now

1:40:30that's 8 in. So that's that's pretty

1:40:32high and that that's just for right here

1:40:34in Cranston. Um in other locations it

1:40:38could be higher. Um, the current MS4

1:40:41systems that we've all discussed this

1:40:43evening are not designed to handle

1:40:45impervious runoff from X amount of new

1:40:48house lots if for some reason our zoning

1:40:50does change along the way and these

1:40:52amendments are pushed forward. Um, our

1:40:55systems are designed to handle runoff

1:40:57from our streets and our sidewalks. Um,

1:40:59and as um, Mr. Caro said, we we are we

1:41:04do need to manage these systems. We are

1:41:06required. staff also mentioned that, you

1:41:09know, we will have to have an MS4

1:41:11permit. That's absolutely true. And DPW

1:41:14has to work to clean our catch basins

1:41:16and manage our infrastructure. And why

1:41:19are we managing other people's runoff?

1:41:22Um, so that that's what that's we can't

1:41:25possibly say, don't put this in your

1:41:27lawn. Don't put this onto your driveway

1:41:30because then we have to do all testing

1:41:32for our MS4 dry and wet testing at our

1:41:34outfalls. And if we come up with high

1:41:37phosphorus counts, we are accountable to

1:41:39the state to say why we have those high

1:41:41counts. And if we can't regulate private

1:41:44property, this is the only way they have

1:41:46to keep it on their property. So storm

1:41:48water management becomes especially

1:41:50important when we're dealing with lots

1:41:51that have relatively small square

1:41:53footage but a high percentage of

1:41:55imperous surface. Imperous surface

1:41:57includes roofs, driveways, parking

1:41:59areas, and other surfaces that prevent

1:42:01rainwater from naturally infiltrating

1:42:03into the ground. When imperous coverage

1:42:06increases, less rainfall infiltrates

1:42:08infiltrates into our soil and more water

1:42:11runs off the property. During heavy

1:42:13storms, that additional runoff can

1:42:14quickly overwhelm our drainage systems,

1:42:17contribute to our localized flooding,

1:42:19erode stream banks, and carry

1:42:20pollutants, sediment, oil, and other

1:42:23nutrients that contaminate our wetlands

1:42:26and waterways.

1:42:27>> [snorts]

1:42:27>> is particularly important for Cranston's

1:42:30MS4 system because MS4's or municipal

1:42:33separate sewer storm sewer system is

1:42:35designed to collect and convey storm

1:42:37water, but it's not intended to absorb

1:42:40unlimited increases of runoff from

1:42:42development. When many individual

1:42:44properties add impervious surface

1:42:46without appropriate storm water

1:42:47controls, the cumitive effect can place

1:42:50additional stress on our municipal

1:42:52drainage network. For smaller lots, even

1:42:54a relatively small increase in

1:42:56impervious surface can have significant

1:42:59impacts because there's less available

1:43:01land to naturally manage the runoff.

1:43:03That is why storm water management

1:43:05should be considered at the individual

1:43:07lot level. Practices such as rain

1:43:10gardens, infiltration areas, permeable

1:43:12pavement, rain barrels, and properly

1:43:14designed drainage or detention systems

1:43:16can help reduce runoff and allow more

1:43:19rainfall to infiltrate where it lands.

1:43:21My goal is not to simply prevent

1:43:23flooding on one property. It's a to have

1:43:26effective storm water management that

1:43:29protects the entire drainage system and

1:43:31that helps everyone protect their own

1:43:33property from increased runoff and

1:43:35becoming a problem to downstream

1:43:37properties and public infrastructure.

1:43:40Ultimately, managing storm water at the

1:43:41source is a key component to protecting

1:43:43capacity and long-term effectiveness for

1:43:46the Cranon's MS4 system, reducing

1:43:48flooding risk, protecting water quality.

1:43:51I've reviewed attorney Murray's and the

1:43:53engineering firms which support our

1:43:55developers within the city of Cranston.

1:43:57And some of them were definitely

1:43:58valuable. Some are just upset about um

1:44:01the additional cost and regulation,

1:44:03which I understand. But overall, I I

1:44:06really believe that storm water should

1:44:09be managed in place. When you push it

1:44:12into our storm water system, it goes

1:44:13into a completely different watershed

1:44:15and a completely different wetland and

1:44:17waterway. It does not stay in the

1:44:19existing watershed. And while I think

1:44:22some of the most important wards will be

1:44:24affected by these small lots, one, two,

1:44:26three, um, one of the considerations

1:44:29that um, the commission should um, hear

1:44:32is that there are still wells in the

1:44:35city of Cranston. So don't forget where

1:44:37that some people get their water from.

1:44:39We forget every day where it comes from,

1:44:41but if you don't infiltrate the water

1:44:42back into the wershed, those people

1:44:44withdrawing their water from wells don't

1:44:46have water. So, if you've been down to

1:44:48the beach lately, you can't use your

1:44:51water right now. And why is that? It's

1:44:53because we're not properly infiltrating

1:44:55our water and we're in a drought. So, we

1:44:56need to take what we can get when it

1:44:58rains and climate change is here. So,

1:45:00please be aware that infiltrating storm

1:45:02water where it lands should be our

1:45:05ultimate goal. And I thank you and I do

1:45:08support your changes. Um, so I'm I've

1:45:11I've done a review and I'm happy with

1:45:13the changes that the staff has presented

1:45:16and I would be happy if we could move

1:45:17forward with this this evening. Thank

1:45:19you.

1:45:20>> Thank you, Councilwoman.

1:45:22Any further public comment on this

1:45:24ordinance?

1:45:32>> Again, just for the record, Rob Murray,

1:45:3421 Garden City Drive in Cranston. Um,

1:45:37first of all, let me thank the president

1:45:39the commission for earlier recognition

1:45:42there. Um, what's before you this

1:45:45evening is a uh

1:45:47an embodiment of three three legs of the

1:45:50trial there.

1:45:54>> Could make sure you speak into the

1:45:55microphone.

1:45:56>> Sorry. This is an issue of passion for

1:45:57Councilman Graziano and uh and I've met

1:46:00with her privately on projects and she's

1:46:02uh uh if nothing else consistent in her

1:46:06messaging uh and uh and I appreciate

1:46:08that. Um I also appreciate the the work

1:46:13the staff put into this uh and with

1:46:16respect to my role uh when this came

1:46:18about um you know it's very hard you

1:46:22know as as many of you know a good

1:46:24portion of my practice is dedicated to

1:46:26this area uh development and

1:46:28representing developers and working with

1:46:30project engineers and consultants

1:46:32surveyors and contractors um

1:46:36I didn't think there was a mechanism a

1:46:38practical mechanism to get them all to

1:46:40come to your meeting and and and

1:46:42comment. Um, you know, it's one thing

1:46:45when they're they come for a specific

1:46:47client or specific project. Um, so I I

1:46:50did take it upon myself to at least

1:46:52share within a circle of consultants

1:46:54that I deal with. Um, some more

1:46:57regularly than others. I shared the

1:47:00ordinance uh and asked for comments. Um,

1:47:03I received quite a few. I I then

1:47:07incorporated those in a memo. Um what

1:47:10you received from me was basically um

1:47:14cut and paste. I took uh these all came

1:47:17in the emails. I have the emails with

1:47:18me. Uh I didn't editorialize. I didn't

1:47:22modify. Whatever um engineer A said. Uh

1:47:26I attributed to him or her and put it in

1:47:29uh in my report. Um uh you know I do

1:47:34have thoughts on this ordinance and this

1:47:35topic but um I thought it's more

1:47:38important for the commission to hear

1:47:40from the the real stakeholders who deal

1:47:42with these regulations both at the state

1:47:44and federal level and locally. Uh so uh

1:47:47I appreciate the time and the

1:47:49consideration for the work product that

1:47:52we shared. Um and I also appreciate the

1:47:57receptiveness of the staff for some of

1:47:59these suggestions. I want to be clear

1:48:01here. If 14 engineers told me this

1:48:05ordinance is perfect, uh I would have

1:48:07let you know if they think it's perfect.

1:48:10They all had some constructive comments

1:48:12and the spirit in which they offer them

1:48:13was Nat was trying to uh share their

1:48:16practical experience, their knowledge uh

1:48:19to supplement um the council woman's um

1:48:23uh work uh and suggestions for the

1:48:26council. Um the

1:48:30I'm a little not at disadvantage, but

1:48:32I've had the benefit of seeing the the

1:48:36revised ordinance that the staff has

1:48:39posted. Um uh which is obviously with

1:48:43incorporated changes that they accepted

1:48:45and are recommending, which I assume is

1:48:48if the commission is going to

1:48:50>> I I think they were waiting for what we

1:48:52were going to do.

1:48:53>> That's fine. and to see if we had any

1:48:55recommended changes before they

1:48:57advertise an ordinance, you know,

1:48:59assuming that the commission provides a

1:49:01positive recommendation with these

1:49:02amendments.

1:49:04Um, they would then have that and then

1:49:06they could use that for the notice for

1:49:08the newspaper.

1:49:08>> That's fine. My only point of raising

1:49:10that is that my understanding, you may

1:49:12have had better information, but my

1:49:14understanding earlier today was it's not

1:49:15going to be heard tomorrow night. I was

1:49:17hoping to have a night off. Uh, and I

1:49:20think it's going to be heard in a

1:49:21subsequent month. Um but that being

1:49:24said, there are a couple of comments

1:49:25that I would like to make with even with

1:49:27respect to the changes that were

1:49:28embraced by the staff. Um

1:49:32first, um

1:49:36you know, and and the the written report

1:49:38addresses many of these issues, so I'm

1:49:40not going to I'm not going to go back

1:49:41over it. We have a lot of people here,

1:49:42but um the biggest challenge that I see

1:49:46with this ordinance and was just raised

1:49:48by Mr. Kareo or responded to by the

1:49:50councilwoman and the staff uh is uh to

1:49:54leave in uh in section 17.22.020

1:50:00section D. Okay. that um uh if someone

1:50:05is looking to subdivide, not only do

1:50:07they have to bring the new lot and

1:50:10structure in compliance, but the

1:50:13original structure, even if they're

1:50:15planning no renovations or modifications

1:50:18to the the building that may be there or

1:50:22other than taking a portion of the lot

1:50:24and subdividing it for another use. um

1:50:28uh that is um is concerning. Um I'd like

1:50:34to try and give you an example for one

1:50:36that comes to mind uh is this commission

1:50:40will recall out on Planefield Pike about

1:50:43a year ago. We did a subdivision for the

1:50:46new Pan Express truck terminal where we

1:50:49spun off the front lot for a shopping

1:50:53plaza or Dunkin Donuts and a shopping

1:50:55plaza under this ordinance if it

1:50:58affected them and that we haven't broken

1:51:00ground yet on the on the Dunkin Donuts.

1:51:02They're still going through the approval

1:51:03process.

1:51:05we would then have to bring this large

1:51:07trucking terminal uh into compliance at

1:51:11considerable cost and investigation and

1:51:15um so that's a maybe an unintended

1:51:18consequence of something like that. But

1:51:21also I just you know and I'm an advocate

1:51:24for my position is that um I'm you know

1:51:27I'm going to argue to the council and to

1:51:29this commission that um the lot that

1:51:32were with the existing structure should

1:51:35not have to be brought in in compliance

1:51:38with these regulations. That's I feel I

1:51:41feel you know it's going to be a

1:51:43detriment to uh commercial industrial

1:51:46development if someone out in the Howard

1:51:48industrial park or another industrial

1:51:50area we're trying to encourage this

1:51:52development and if they suddenly are

1:51:55faced with the expense in and I don't

1:51:57know what would be involved in it. um uh

1:52:01I'm not sure that's uh positive for

1:52:03economic development, but also uh you

1:52:06know, we can say what we want if we're

1:52:09you know, because I frankly don't think

1:52:10even with all the state law changes and

1:52:13with all the positive reception that

1:52:15this commission has had in the last year

1:52:17and a half or whatever, uh I don't think

1:52:20we're really developing a lot of new

1:52:22housing in Cranston. you know, we're

1:52:24we're doing it incrementally in very

1:52:26slow and small steps. And

1:52:31with that supposition, I don't believe

1:52:34that provision encourages more more

1:52:39development in housing. Um, the other

1:52:42issue I would ask you to consider is in

1:52:45section 1764010

1:52:47on the off street parking. um some of

1:52:50the engineers I talked to um u towards

1:52:54the end of paragraph five it says um

1:52:58that disturbs more than 2,000 square

1:53:00feet of surface area. Uh they thought

1:53:02that was a low number. Um some people

1:53:07were telling me the state is like 10,000

1:53:09square feet. I just question whether or

1:53:11not that's the right number. Um, but in

1:53:15fairness, I'm [snorts] not an engineer,

1:53:17so I but I I just wanted to I was asked

1:53:19to mention that. And the last thing for

1:53:22your consideration

1:53:24is

1:53:26when and if this gets heard by the

1:53:28ordinance committee and gets approved by

1:53:31by the council, this says it shall take

1:53:34effect upon final adoption. Okay. I'm a

1:53:38little concerned about that. What does

1:53:41that do in terms of project in process?

1:53:45Um what does that do with projects that

1:53:48have vested rights? Um uh and I think

1:53:51there needs to be a period of time of

1:53:54education and

1:53:57you know so that we lead up to the

1:54:00implementation ordinance. Um I don't

1:54:02have a date in mind whether it's you

1:54:04know December 31st or you know I I'm

1:54:07just concerned um you know for example I

1:54:11have

1:54:13there's a lot of development going on in

1:54:14the Garden City Shopping Center right

1:54:16now that I represent. I don't know what

1:54:19impact this ordinance has on that u

1:54:23and so I I need to be concerned about

1:54:25the effective date of this ordinance.

1:54:27So, I I just mentioned that I that may

1:54:29be an issue for the council to deal

1:54:31with, but I I wanted to put it on the

1:54:32record. So, I thank you for your time.

1:54:34Again, I thank Councilwoman Gra

1:54:36Councilwoman Graciano for her patience

1:54:38and um willing to listen and I thank the

1:54:42commission for your time.

1:54:44>> Thank you, Mr. Murray. Is there any here

1:54:47who would like to make public comment on

1:54:48the stormwater ordinance?

1:54:54I see. You want to make a second public

1:54:56comment?

1:54:57>> Not a second public comment. I just want

1:54:59to offer um one map if you want to enter

1:55:02into the record. This is of the

1:55:04impervious cover for um for Cranston.

1:55:08So, I didn't know if you I didn't make a

1:55:10lot of copies.

1:55:11>> Just make one copy or pick one copy for

1:55:13that side and one copy for this side.

1:55:15Yeah, it it's come. So, my colleagues

1:55:18can review it and the staff will have it

1:55:20as part of the record. Thank you,

1:55:22Councilman Graciano. Is there anyone

1:55:23else like to make public comment on

1:55:25storm water ordinance?

1:55:27Okay, Mr. Lemur, is there anyone online

1:55:29that'd like to make public comment on

1:55:30stormwater ordinance?

1:55:35>> There is no public comment online.

1:55:36>> All right. Thank you.

1:55:42>> All right. At this stage, um we'll just

1:55:45um we can ask anyone have any more

1:55:47questions for the staff uh in light of

1:55:49public comment or anything else that's

1:55:51popped in their mind?

1:55:54Um, I'll ask the staff a couple of

1:55:57things. The three points that Mr. Murray

1:56:00raised that

1:56:03has not been that he still seems to have

1:56:05what he has expressed concerns about

1:56:07[snorts]

1:56:09the ordinance. Um, one is the issuing

1:56:11about,

1:56:13you know, the change would have to bring

1:56:14up the if you're going to make a div a

1:56:16change on your lot, a new subdivision,

1:56:18and you're going to make a change on the

1:56:20new, you're going to have to deal with

1:56:21the gr, you're not grandfathered in on

1:56:23the old lot. Uh, we already talked about

1:56:25that earlier. Um, but the question he

1:56:29had

1:56:31the solicitor about like this takes

1:56:33effect upon final adoption.

1:56:36This is a zoning. This changes our

1:56:38zoning. Wouldn't everyone who's in the

1:56:39process be vested under the current

1:56:41ordinances?

1:56:41>> Correct. Any complete application would

1:56:44be vested. Any

1:56:46>> right

1:56:46>> any approved application would be

1:56:48vested. I I think what Mr. Murray's

1:56:50concern is for instance with Garden

1:56:53City.

1:56:55>> That's a an ongoing

1:56:57>> oh

1:56:57>> you know application process depending

1:57:00on whatever building they're doing. So

1:57:02maybe where um you know Newport Creary

1:57:06used to be would be grandfathered in but

1:57:09whatever is happening over where LA

1:57:11fitness used to be may be subject to the

1:57:13to the new

1:57:14>> okay because the way I understood it is

1:57:16like I said to the solicitor I thought

1:57:18it's you got you're vested in whatever

1:57:19the ordinance is now I understand the

1:57:21garden city concern if it's an ongoing

1:57:23project but I think the council can kind

1:57:24of handle that.

1:57:26um on the 2000. Go ahead. It it would be

1:57:29better if if rather than upon passage to

1:57:32for a future date just to allow

1:57:34profession professionals to um tailor

1:57:39their future projects based upon the

1:57:42softscape hardscape aspect of this

1:57:45because if you make it upon passage all

1:57:47you're doing you know PE given the delay

1:57:50and architects and service and all that

1:57:54um it would be my recommendation that

1:57:57you would at least do a little bit of a

1:57:59future date, whether that's January 1st

1:58:00or something like that.

1:58:01>> So, so for for example, like I actually

1:58:04think by the time this would pass, it

1:58:07would probably be if everything goes

1:58:08quickly would be October of this year.

1:58:11>> Um, so you would say like

1:58:14>> January 1st or July 1st of next year

1:58:17kind of a thing.

1:58:18>> I'll leave that up to to to elected

1:58:19officials, but something in the future.

1:58:21>> Something in something beyond passage.

1:58:23Okay.

1:58:24Um,

1:58:26the third one he brought up is the thing

1:58:29on off streetet parking number five of F

1:58:33about 2,000 square feet.

1:58:36Where did the staff

1:58:38derive that number? Um, he was Mr.

1:58:42Murray talked about that the engineer

1:58:45has that he's heard that another number

1:58:46has been used elsewhere. I can't really

1:58:49see it in the comments where they

1:58:50brought that up, but I just wanted to

1:58:51see what your thoughts were of the staff

1:58:53on the 2,000 square foot number.

1:58:56>> This section is um very similar to a

1:58:59section in the Cumberland ordinance.

1:59:01Cumberland, Rhode Island.

1:59:02>> Okay. Cumberland. Cumberland ordinance.

1:59:05>> Cumberland zoning ordinance.

1:59:12>> Cumberland is one of the communities

1:59:13that just recently updated a lot of

1:59:15their storm water requirements.

1:59:21Um, okay. [clears throat]

1:59:25All right. Any other questions for

1:59:27the staff for my colleagues?

1:59:31Commit a director.

1:59:32>> Yeah. A question would be is what do we

1:59:33do with the potential changes that have

1:59:35been brought forward? If we approve it

1:59:37tonight, it's going to be approved as

1:59:38drafted, which means there's no other

1:59:40changes. Correct. Correct.

1:59:42>> Yeah. So you you have because it's a

1:59:44zoning ordinance that's coming back, you

1:59:47essentially have two unfortunately you

1:59:49have two options. You can either deni uh

1:59:51give a negative recommendation or a

1:59:52positive recommendation. However,

1:59:56either way you could give a negative

1:59:58recommendation

1:59:59with the caveat if you make these with

2:00:03these suggested changes it would be a

2:00:05positive recommendation or you could

2:00:07give a positive recommendation with a

2:00:10suggestion. But you we don't have the

2:00:12ability at at this board to make any

2:00:14changes to that. It's only suggestions

2:00:17to the to the city council. So I mean in

2:00:21reality it might be a ne I don't want to

2:00:24say that

2:00:26the way

2:00:26>> smoother to almost be a negative

2:00:28recommendation with one two three four

2:00:30five changes or a positive

2:00:32recommendation.

2:00:33>> I I would say I think the right way to

2:00:35do it is positive with these recommended

2:00:37changes. recommended changes.

2:00:39>> You see, and then the commit and then

2:00:40they can do whatever they want. They can

2:00:42have six changes, seven or eight more.

2:00:44It's just the difference between

2:00:46positive and negative is basically if

2:00:48it's positive, it can pass with a

2:00:49majority. If it's negative, it needs a

2:00:51super majority. And so if you do a

2:00:53negative, it's harder to pass. And so,

2:00:56you know, my my personal feelings, you

2:00:58can kind of tell, is I'm in a I'm in the

2:01:00positive camp, but with changes. So, I'd

2:01:02like to make it easier to pass than more

2:01:04difficult to pass. So, okay. I I guess

2:01:07just saying though without the

2:01:08opportunity to vet some of those it's

2:01:11going to be difficult to make that

2:01:12decision other than if we agree that

2:01:14there are some changes that we're going

2:01:15to accept or we would like to suggest

2:01:18going forward then those would be the

2:01:20suggestions that go as an approval.

2:01:22>> Yeah. It would like for example director

2:01:24is that we would make a positive let's

2:01:26say we make a positive recommendation

2:01:27with these changes the council can

2:01:28ignore it. You know what I'm saying?

2:01:30They can they can do whatever they want.

2:01:32It's just that they now when they go to

2:01:34the council, they know that the staff's

2:01:36vetted it. We've looked at it. And so

2:01:38what I've noticed that with this council

2:01:40and with our commission is that they do

2:01:42give weight

2:01:44to our suggestions and our thoughts.

2:01:47Whether that's always going to be the

2:01:48case or this case here, I just don't

2:01:50know. But that's how I felt.

2:01:51Commissioner Lanford, did you have your

2:01:52hand on something? I was just going to

2:01:54to mention that um the sponsor Council

2:01:58Graiano indicated that she was accepting

2:02:01of the changes that staff have made. So

2:02:04at least with respect to those um

2:02:09changes

2:02:11that in our

2:02:12>> Yes.

2:02:12>> in our decision.

2:02:13>> Yeah. that we we would say that we make

2:02:16let's say we make a positive

2:02:17recommendation with these changes and

2:02:18that the in our report we'd say

2:02:20Councilman Graiano made public comment

2:02:22that she indicated support for the

2:02:23changes we recommended. So then it would

2:02:25be further evidence that this is where

2:02:28it is. Now if the council wants to make

2:02:29further changes in response to Mr.

2:02:31Murray, they can.

2:02:35So

2:02:39All right. There's anything else from

2:02:40anyone else?

2:02:44Okay, this would be the time for

2:02:45motions.

2:02:53Commissioner Lampir,

2:02:54>> I would move that we accept the staff's

2:02:57recommendation

2:02:59as amended

2:03:01uh for ordinance 7201

2:03:05and send a positive recommendation

2:03:08with the suggested amendments made by

2:03:12staff.

2:03:13>> Okay. Is there a second to that motion?

2:03:16Second by Commissioner Mancini.

2:03:20Any further discussion?

2:03:23I see none. All those in favor of

2:03:25positive recommendation signify by

2:03:27saying I. I. All those oppose say nay.

2:03:31Eyes have it. Okay. Congratulations,

2:03:34Councilwoman Grazion, if you're still

2:03:35here. I don't know if you're here. Um,

2:03:38all right. I think that concludes that

2:03:40part, right? All right. So, I want to

2:03:43ask my colleagues and the public. First,

2:03:45I'll ask my colleagues and then I'll

2:03:46inform the public. Sorry. Um, next on

2:03:49the agenda is Hope Road.

2:03:51I think there's a lot of people here

2:03:52want to make public comment on Hope

2:03:54Road. Do you want to take a fivem minute

2:03:56break now or do you want to do an hour

2:03:59of probably this stuff and then take a

2:04:01break? Do you want to do a break now for

2:04:03five minutes?

2:04:05We're going to take a break for five

2:04:06minutes. We'll be back and then the

2:04:08evening is yours except for Mr. Gary.

2:04:12He's got zoning at the end. All right.

2:04:13Five minutes.

2:12:13Got to get back to order.

2:12:16All right.

2:12:18Next on the agenda

2:12:21is a

2:12:24public information

2:12:27on a proposed subdivision

2:12:30of 425 Hope Road.

2:12:34to clarify to the public. This is a

2:12:36publicformational.

2:12:37There will be new no vote taken. This is

2:12:40simply they are making a presentation as

2:12:43to their idea and their proposal. We

2:12:46will the commission will provide them

2:12:48with feedback and of course you the

2:12:50public will provide them with feedback

2:12:52as well. So sir please state your name

2:12:55and address for the record and then you

2:12:57have the floor.

2:12:58>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Chris

2:13:00Du Hamill. I'm a professional engineer

2:13:02and professional land surveyor with

2:13:04Depree Engineering with the offices

2:13:06located at two Stafford Court. I'm here

2:13:09also with uh with the project owners,

2:13:12the the land owners of Lenachelli and

2:13:15David Anachelli and Ken Kazerian that

2:13:18are sitting in in the front. I'm here

2:13:20with attorney Patrick Coin of Adelaian.

2:13:25And I'm also here with the design

2:13:27architect, Donald Powers of Union

2:13:29Studio. As as stated, we're here to

2:13:32present a pre-application plan review, a

2:13:35non-binding uh review to the planning

2:13:38commission um for the overall

2:13:41development and to take any advice that

2:13:43you have uh uh and what the public has

2:13:47um to to heart to go in the further

2:13:49stages. Uh this is a property located at

2:13:53425 Hope Road, Cransy Rhode Island. A

2:13:555.5 acre property. It has a 545 ft of

2:14:00frontage on Hope Road. It's across from

2:14:03the John Chaffy Athletic Complex. Uh

2:14:08the U proposed development is for a

2:14:11comprehensive permit. This is something

2:14:13that is new to Cranon. that's only been

2:14:16allowed uh by the state legislature

2:14:18since January 1 of 2026 this year. So

2:14:22I'm I'm told this is the first

2:14:24application that the planning commission

2:14:25will be reviewing under this uh state

2:14:28law

2:14:30review process.

2:14:33the the site. Um

2:14:37I if I could continue to the existing

2:14:38conditions of the of the site uh depreit

2:14:41engineering has completed a class one

2:14:43survey of the plan of the 5 and a half

2:14:45acres. We've also

2:14:48uh done a wetland delineation of the

2:14:51plan um showing where the jurisdiction

2:14:55of the RIM is. There is a single family

2:14:58home on the site serviced by a well and

2:15:01septic system. The uh the home is 39

2:15:04feet off of the frontage. That's

2:15:06important on Hope Road. Uh given the

2:15:08setbacks of of the uh Hope Road 75 ft.

2:15:13Um the the uh

2:15:17soils on site are Woodbridge. They're

2:15:22test holes range from 20 to 32 in of

2:15:25seasonal high water table. um utilities

2:15:28on site

2:15:30uh existing above ground utilities.

2:15:32There is a rise sewer line that um that

2:15:36runs in Hope Road uh that we currently

2:15:39have a wills serve letter that would

2:15:40allow for connection to. We have

2:15:42Providence Water 20 20 in ductal line

2:15:46main with 84 PSI of static pressure. We

2:15:48have a will serve letter that that would

2:15:51allow us to tie in for the proposed

2:15:53development. Um, I want to briefly talk

2:15:57about the

2:15:59the comprehensive permit requirements.

2:16:02Um, that allows for a greater density

2:16:05and residential use. Um, density that

2:16:09would be determined by the yield of the

2:16:12of the uh of the lot itself. How many

2:16:15units could be um determined by right?

2:16:19And then given the suitable area of the

2:16:22of the site, um a density bonus for for

2:16:26the lot given that we're providing for

2:16:2925% low and moderate income housing,

2:16:32given that there is available sewer and

2:16:35available municipal water. Um there's a

2:16:38density bonus of five units per acre. So

2:16:42in this particular case with the

2:16:44wetlands on site the 5.5 acres of of of

2:16:49area there's 2 uh 2 acres of uh wetlands

2:16:56that is subtracted from the suitable

2:16:58area. There's 2.6 acres that is

2:17:01remaining as suitable. Um given that 2.6

2:17:046 acres of five units per acre. There's

2:17:07a total bonus of 13 lots or units rather

2:17:11that can be achieved. Um combined with

2:17:13the existing one lot that that exists,

2:17:16there's a total of 14 units that could

2:17:19be accommodated on the site. Um that's

2:17:24not what we're asking for. We're asking

2:17:25for uh 12 12 units and uh we're looking

2:17:30for a

2:17:32community that uh that would be in tune

2:17:35with with affordable housing with with

2:17:38uh providing for age restricted or an

2:17:42older demographic. Someone as old as me

2:17:45um could live there. Um but I would

2:17:47rather have uh our architect Don Powers

2:17:51go through the design of the site at

2:17:53this point. I can be available for

2:17:55questions on drainage, on access, on

2:17:57site distance and all that nature, but I

2:17:59want Don P to come forward and to give a

2:18:02better explanation of what we're

2:18:04proposing.

2:18:09Uh, for the record, my name is

2:18:11[clears throat] Don Powers. I'm the

2:18:12founder of Union Studio in Providence,

2:18:14Rhode Island. Um,

2:18:16uh, I just want to introduce the firm

2:18:18for a minute because I think it's

2:18:19relevant to the to the project. We are a

2:18:21a firm that was founded primarily for

2:18:25the design of small communities and to

2:18:27help small communities with the things

2:18:28they need. We work for municipalities,

2:18:30developers, individuals. Um our work is

2:18:33very varied, but as I said, primarily

2:18:36what our focus and our reputation across

2:18:38the country is for designing um small uh

2:18:43compact communities, creating a kind of

2:18:46um compact connectedness that allows for

2:18:49the kind of um density that really

2:18:55we believe and many believe is sort of a

2:18:57key to some of the issues around the

2:18:59housing shortage. So, one of I just

2:19:01wanted to offer a couple of examples of

2:19:02the work this team has done together

2:19:05because some of you may be familiar with

2:19:07this is a project called the cottages on

2:19:09green which took what would have been a

2:19:1116 unit multif family building as as was

2:19:14allowed by the zoning ordinance and

2:19:16broke it into a cottage court um that

2:19:19was very successful. This came out of

2:19:20the ground in the middle of the pandemic

2:19:23uh the housing crisis of 2008. Another

2:19:26one is Castle Street Cottages. So, I

2:19:28don't want to dwell on that other than

2:19:30just to show you some images of the kind

2:19:32of work and the scale that we have done

2:19:33as a team. Turning to the existing site,

2:19:37um, as Chris [clears throat] said, this

2:19:38is across from the Chaffi um, athletic

2:19:41complex. It's in that or the orange box

2:19:44up the top that's labeled 425 Hope Road.

2:19:47Um, and um, that location

2:19:52we think is significant that it's right

2:19:54across there, if only for the benefit of

2:19:56these residents. It's a a great amenity

2:19:58to have that sports complex right across

2:20:00the field. Um just to give you some

2:20:03sense of there is an existing house on

2:20:04the site. As Chris said, it's set back

2:20:07about 40 feet from the street and that

2:20:09will become important in a minute. Um

2:20:11it's actually bounded by some stone

2:20:14walls that in the proposal we uh propose

2:20:17to keep and extend across the site. Um

2:20:20the site itself, as you can see, the

2:20:22dark green is the wetman's area. You can

2:20:25also make out a green line as the buffer

2:20:28back from that wetlands area along with

2:20:30a series of of trails and walking paths

2:20:33that go through that area. Um

2:20:36in this image, the John Chaffy complexes

2:20:40to plan um southeast.

2:20:44So very quickly, what we have been

2:20:46looking at doing is creating a little

2:20:48community here, creating something that

2:20:50is um maybe not of the pattern that is

2:20:54typically found in suburban Cranston,

2:20:57but is a pattern that is very desirable

2:20:59to the people um to most of the market

2:21:02or a lot of the market right now. And it

2:21:04consists of these smaller, more compact

2:21:07units. All of these have a um

2:21:11a primary bedroom on the ground floor, a

2:21:14single car garage with parking in front

2:21:16of it. Um it's made up of single units

2:21:19and duplex units. The dark orange ones

2:21:22are the duplex units where there are two

2:21:24units together. Um and they're it's very

2:21:27intentionally pulled back off of um Hope

2:21:30Road to create a sort of entrance

2:21:33sequence and a small communal green that

2:21:37provides somewhat of an entrance point

2:21:38and a buffer to the neighborhood. Um

2:21:42these each of these homes is about uh

2:21:45between 1500 and 1700 square feet and

2:21:48I'll show you the floor plan in a

2:21:49minute. Um and uh it's also anchored by

2:21:54a small community pavilion at the front

2:21:56that would have at the very least the

2:21:59mail, but hopefully another function

2:22:00like a small fire pit or something that

2:22:02might uh we would propose to keep the

2:22:05existing trees that that occur in that

2:22:08area. And if you move up a little bit

2:22:10closer into the plan and you can see

2:22:11some of the details of it, that red

2:22:14block is the male pavilion or the

2:22:17community pavilion. Um, you note the

2:22:19sidewalks that are continuous all the

2:22:21way from uh the Chaffi Athletic Complex

2:22:24across the road and down one side of

2:22:27this neighborhood. Um, again, you can

2:22:29see the the narrow curb cuts to the

2:22:31driveways where you would have parking

2:22:34for one car in the garage and another

2:22:37car on the apron in front of that. And

2:22:39then within the neighborhood, there are

2:22:41another 10 um visitor parking spots that

2:22:45are uh sprinkled throughout it.

2:22:49For the architectural inspiration, we we

2:22:51like to sort of find whatever it is the

2:22:54hook in that neighborhood, the some of

2:22:56the examples of the best architecture in

2:22:58that neighborhood, even if it's not

2:23:00specifically on that site. And one is

2:23:02the Oakland um historic district. And in

2:23:05that we discovered um the work of Henry

2:23:08Pratt, who's a local carpenter um at

2:23:12this age. and and many of his um homes

2:23:17sort of exhibit this forward gable with

2:23:20a porch or smaller elements. It's always

2:23:22about one and a half stories and the pit

2:23:24pitches are relatively steep. So, we've

2:23:27used that as kind of the inspiration for

2:23:29these small units that um walking you

2:23:32through the plan. Um, these plans are

2:23:35very much in flux, but the basic

2:23:37arrangement of the volume would be as it

2:23:39is here, where you're coming in a front

2:23:41door and going past the kitchen and

2:23:43dining to a to a living room, possibly

2:23:46out the back and a owner's suite on the

2:23:49ground floor. When these things come

2:23:51together as duplexes,

2:23:54sorry,

2:23:56Jonas, it went the wrong direction.

2:23:58[clears throat] Yeah. So when it comes

2:24:00together as duplexes, you can see

2:24:02they're joined across the garage wall so

2:24:04that you don't ever have a party wall

2:24:06with your neighbor. Um, and it also

2:24:09preserves the scale of the individual

2:24:11house left and right.

2:24:15This is just an aerial sketch of what

2:24:17that [clears throat] might look like.

2:24:19And sort of it's really meant to convey

2:24:21the scale of this and the rhythm of the

2:24:23rooftops and the the sense of of what

2:24:25those sidewalks leading up to the

2:24:27porches would be. If you zoom in just a

2:24:30little further and look at the front

2:24:32here, that's a a better illustration of

2:24:34what we mean by that little common green

2:24:36with the stone walls and the existing

2:24:38trees. Um, that right there would be the

2:24:42the male pavilion that I was just

2:24:44describing earlier. So, at the very

2:24:46least, again, this is the male, but we

2:24:48hope we could kind of bring it something

2:24:51a little bit more than that. Um,

2:24:54I wanted to show this. This is a

2:24:56neighborhood in Brewster, Massachusetts

2:24:58that we we did out on on the Cape just

2:25:00because it's the most similar we have to

2:25:03the scale and the architecture that's

2:25:04being proposed there. These essentially

2:25:06are the same plans or something like

2:25:08those plans and the rhythm of them side

2:25:11by side is what I think you would see in

2:25:13that neighborhood. Um, this was, by the

2:25:16way, I I I understand that this kind of

2:25:20neighborhood is not everybody's cup of

2:25:21tea, but it's a lot of people's cup of

2:25:23tea. And this sold out in

2:25:27five years ago within before they even

2:25:30had a shovel in the ground. It was so

2:25:32desirable to the people. So, I just

2:25:34wanted to point that out. Um,

2:25:37and then I'll just leave you with this

2:25:38image. This is um the vision we had for

2:25:41the site. Again, it looks more finished

2:25:43than it is. It's it's essentially an

2:25:45elaborate sketch at this moment. And the

2:25:47the reason we wanted to come in front of

2:25:49you was to hear comments and see if

2:25:51there's a way to adjust this to to

2:25:53everybody's liking. So, thank you.

2:25:58[clears throat] Okay,

2:26:00Mr. Daml, do you have anything further

2:26:02you like to add before

2:26:04>> that? That that would conclude our

2:26:06presentation. We look forward to the

2:26:09review. Um okay

2:26:17before I take public comment

2:26:19um let me give you

2:26:23a few points and this is feedback. So it

2:26:28means like I'm not

2:26:30um

2:26:32I'm not asking questions that I expect a

2:26:34response from tonight. Do you see what

2:26:36I'm saying? This is the feedback. This

2:26:38is mine and then others and then we'll

2:26:39hear it from the public.

2:26:42Um, [clears throat]

2:26:44you pointed out, Mr. Hamill, there is

2:26:472.6 acres here that you're planning to

2:26:50develop. Okay, you can sit down, by the

2:26:52way, if you want to. It's doesn't matter

2:26:54to me, you know what I mean? If it feels

2:26:55awkward or something, but it's going to

2:26:56be like me talking for five minutes

2:26:58probably. So, um,

2:27:022.6 acres.

2:27:06When I look at the yield on 2.6 acres

2:27:09under the statute, it's basically you

2:27:11get five units per acre. It's not,

2:27:16you know, you get a partial credit for a

2:27:18partial acre.

2:27:20Okay? So, two acres means 2.6 acres to

2:27:23me, unless I get different legal

2:27:25opinions and we go through this, means

2:27:2810 units. And then you have a right to

2:27:31one unit on this A80. So that would mean

2:27:34at most a yield of 11, not 12.

2:27:38Second

2:27:40on 2.6, I did not hear you say that was

2:27:432.6 after all the like the street stuff

2:27:47and infrastructure.

2:27:49If you look at the statute, this is all

2:27:52statutoily governed primarily.

2:27:55You exclude that.

2:27:57If you exclude that, you may fall below

2:28:00two acres. I don't know. Your surveyors

2:28:02will tell you if it falls below two

2:28:04acres, you are no longer getting 10

2:28:06units

2:28:08as my understanding of the statute.

2:28:10People can disagree because you get five

2:28:12units per acre. If it's 1.8 after you do

2:28:14the exclude the street stuff, it's five

2:28:17units plus

2:28:19uh one makes six. But that's something

2:28:22that you guys can review and adjust and

2:28:25you make your application accordingly,

2:28:27whatever you want. But I'm just telling

2:28:28you right off the yield, I'm don't think

2:28:31you're can claim

2:28:3312 units

2:28:42sewer.

2:28:44Um I will need to see obviously

2:28:46documentation from the sewer that you

2:28:48have capacity for this. I always hear

2:28:50things like sewer has limitations. Sewer

2:28:53capacity in the western part of our city

2:28:54has limitations. So I I would like to

2:28:57see where exactly they say they have

2:29:00capacity for this. Okay. The director,

2:29:02the public works director is nodding his

2:29:04head at me. So be pretty prepared to dis

2:29:07discuss that if you go forward

2:29:12traffic.

2:29:16I have three children. All of them were

2:29:17sports people. They still are. They're

2:29:19not dead. So that's they are sports

2:29:21kids. They're athletes. They do soccer.

2:29:24I spent many a morning on Saturday stuck

2:29:28over there.

2:29:30Okay. Um, many an evening stuck over

2:29:35there. So, you're going to put these

2:29:38units over there. I'm going to expect

2:29:40some kind of traffic study, traffic

2:29:42impact, and you may be ready to see

2:29:44because you're at the entrance of the

2:29:46Chaffy Complex, you may have to have

2:29:48some traffic signal. I'm just warning

2:29:50you ahead of time. I don't know. I don't

2:29:52know how bad the traffic is, but I'll

2:29:53tell you, Mr. Damo from some that is the

2:29:57worst section of traffic in the city of

2:29:59Cranon on a Saturday morning.

2:30:03Okay. Uh, now

2:30:08I only say this, Mr. I'm not doing this

2:30:11for applause, just so you know. Okay.

2:30:12I'm just telling you the truth so you

2:30:13have the feedback that you got to get.

2:30:16Okay. The feedback. Okay.

2:30:21And I'm going to tread kind of a little

2:30:23more carefully here. Uh I'm a lawyer.

2:30:26You got a lawyer in the room. I got

2:30:27lawyers all over the place. Okay. This

2:30:30is governed by a statute. And these

2:30:33statutes have been changed a lot over

2:30:36the last couple of years. Statutes

2:30:39sometimes can be subject to various

2:30:40interpretations.

2:30:43And so this could be and when there and

2:30:46this when you have like a statute that's

2:30:48new like this not new newly changed

2:30:51sometimes it takes a while to sort out

2:30:52the meaning of words and what exactly

2:30:55they mean especially if you have

2:30:58butterers who also have been the custom

2:31:00here they sometimes get attorneys

2:31:03so um I could imagine that there's going

2:31:06to be a lot of discussion of the meaning

2:31:07of various words in the statute and

2:31:10whether or not this should be approved

2:31:12or not by statute.

2:31:13because this is not a typical buy,

2:31:18right?

2:31:19Okay, it's not um your attorney will

2:31:24make his arguments at the appropriate

2:31:25time to go forward, but that's going to

2:31:27be a lot of inter potential

2:31:28interpretation

2:31:30and uh I would advise you look at our

2:31:32comprehensive plan that was approved in

2:31:332024 that may come up. Um last, if you

2:31:38want to go forward with this, it's

2:31:39totally your call and your decision. We

2:31:42will review your application. We will

2:31:43hear from the public. That piece of land

2:31:46I always thought would become part of an

2:31:50extension of the recreation complex from

2:31:52Chaffy, you know, because there's so

2:31:54much capac there's a lack of parking

2:31:56there. There's a lack of facilities and

2:31:57I always thought this was going to be

2:31:58like the extension of it. But if this

2:32:00you believe the best use of this

2:32:02property is is is residential, that is

2:32:04your decision and you want to make that

2:32:07proposal. The only other thing I'll say

2:32:08is this is I'm a historic kind of

2:32:10person. So that house over there is a

2:32:13pretty old house. I don't know when it

2:32:15was built or who lived in it and slept

2:32:16in it, but I think like the Greens I

2:32:18think the Greens did or something and

2:32:20like I think there were a prominent

2:32:21family in Rhode Island. So if you go

2:32:22forward with demolishing that house, you

2:32:24got to go check with all the you know

2:32:25the historic preservation stuff as you

2:32:27can guess. Okay. So that is my I call

2:32:32preliminary feedback to you and um maybe

2:32:36my colleagues have something more to add

2:32:37but that's my preliminary feedback and

2:32:39then we'll hear from the public and

2:32:40maybe

2:32:41they will have more to say. But that's

2:32:43my initial take. Does any of my

2:32:46colleagues have anything they'd like to

2:32:47add?

2:32:50>> I guess I could add just a few of the

2:32:51things engineering.

2:32:54>> Uh first of all,

2:32:56what would you be doing with storm water

2:32:58on that? Because obviously I know you

2:33:00didn't get into the calculations yet,

2:33:01but with with all the wetlands that you

2:33:03have there, uh you know, you have

2:33:05pavement, you have impervious. You just

2:33:07heard what we did with the ordinances.

2:33:08That was something to keep in mind.

2:33:11Uh, is that a private road or will that

2:33:13be a public street

2:33:15once that's considered?

2:33:18>> Yeah, I could answer u questions as they

2:33:22come up. Um, it's a private road. Um, 20

2:33:24foot wide is what is proposed for the

2:33:27main culde-sac. Uh, the the oneway uh

2:33:31coming in is 18 feet wide. Um storm

2:33:33water will be controlled on site meeting

2:33:35all dem and and city of cron

2:33:38requirements for analysis of the one to

2:33:42100year storm mitigating it on site with

2:33:45discharge to the wetlands to the east on

2:33:48site there would be no discharge to hope

2:33:50road

2:33:53my other question is you said the water

2:33:54table is approximately anywhere from

2:33:57what it 1.8 8 to 2.3 ft.

2:34:00>> Yeah. In that range,

2:34:01>> two feet uh

2:34:03or so in that in that depth.

2:34:06>> Uh what was going to be proposed for

2:34:07basement or is this going to be slab

2:34:09construction?

2:34:11>> Right now, we're looking at either uh if

2:34:13there were basements that we would be

2:34:15picking up the be adding fill to the

2:34:17site, but that that is so far ahead of

2:34:19the game right now that

2:34:22>> I would just be be cautious as to what

2:34:24you're going to do with that water if

2:34:25they're pumping the basement. If every

2:34:27one of them is going to have a sump

2:34:28pump, it's going to have to go

2:34:28somewhere. And that would also be taken

2:34:31into consideration when you do the storm

2:34:34water.

2:34:35>> Yes.

2:34:43>> I mean, the traffic study that was

2:34:45brought up is a good idea. A traffic

2:34:46signal, it scares me a little bit out

2:34:49here. I I hate to see a traffic signal

2:34:50go into this and start urbanizing this

2:34:52area, but that may be the only way to

2:34:54control it. And I mean your peak hour is

2:34:57on a Saturday morning because yes, I too

2:34:59have had children and grandchildren up

2:35:00here on a Saturday morning and you're in

2:35:02line for 10 minutes trying to get out of

2:35:04that parking lot.

2:35:07Something to consider. The traffic would

2:35:08have to be done and the traffic wouldn't

2:35:10be just a normal work week because

2:35:12that's not the problem. It would be on

2:35:13that weekend for the traffic study.

2:35:15>> I appreciate that. Understood.

2:35:18>> Commissioner Mancini. Uh my question is

2:35:21the existing house we you'll be raising

2:35:23that you'll be leveling that off because

2:35:25is that a historic house that

2:35:28>> we we don't have that um analyzed just

2:35:31yet? I I appreciate the comment of the

2:35:33concern. So that would have to be

2:35:35determined

2:35:39>> on this plan is to be raised.

2:35:45Anything further from my colleagues

2:35:47before I open it up to public comment?

2:35:52Okay, I think that's the commission's

2:35:54initial comments. So, now it's time for

2:35:56the hear for the applicant to hear um

2:35:59the pre-applicant [clears throat] to

2:36:00hear from the public. So, if you'd like

2:36:02to come up, please state your name and

2:36:04address. Um for the record, I just want

2:36:07to say two things. And I say this to

2:36:08anyone who makes public comment on sort

2:36:10of potentially projects that people may

2:36:14be controversial in some way. Please um

2:36:17state, you know, don't repeat

2:36:18yourselves. Okay? And second, um I

2:36:22understand you feel very passionate

2:36:24about this, but please, we're we're a

2:36:26body that has to listen to the evidence.

2:36:28So just understand that as well. Okay.

2:36:30Thank you very much. You proceed.

2:36:33>> Thank you. My name is Alex Moore. I live

2:36:35at 435 Hope Road, which is directly west

2:36:39abuing this property. Um, I did submit

2:36:42my comments formly online, so I'm not

2:36:45going to read all of that here, but I

2:36:46just want to touch on some of the points

2:36:48here. First of all, the house next door

2:36:50that I live in is about 140 years old.

2:36:52It's a farmhouse

2:36:53um that uh was originally a cow farm

2:36:56that owns pretty much all the property

2:36:58that you see in that area, including all

2:37:00of Mystery Farm and most of the Hope the

2:37:02the now Hope uh playground

2:37:06recreational center. So, I bought it

2:37:08from the first owner, uh the person that

2:37:10built a family that built it, the Dale

2:37:12family. Um, and my wife and I moved into

2:37:15this property because it was A80 and

2:37:17because it was zoned for animals and for

2:37:20crops and things of that nature because

2:37:22we really appreciated that. Uh, so that

2:37:25was 12 years ago. Um, we did rent some

2:37:27renovations. We built it out. We're very

2:37:30happy about it. Um, in fact, just

2:37:31recently we cleared out the back part of

2:37:34the yard so that we could build a

2:37:36greenhouse. Um, and that greenhouse plan

2:37:38was is now directly um I don't know if I

2:37:41have a mouse here, but directly in this

2:37:43area right here, which was behind behind

2:37:46one of these or all three of these these

2:37:48houses. So, it's going to it's going to

2:37:50cause a problem as far as sunlight goes,

2:37:52as far as water water runoff goes. Um,

2:37:55you know, again, this is A80. We we

2:37:57expected that this would be preserved in

2:38:00that context and I do understand the

2:38:02state laws have changed, but I also do

2:38:04understand that the city has some leeway

2:38:07to push back on these kinds of things.

2:38:10But uh that being said, there are a lot

2:38:12of concerns that many of my neighbors

2:38:14have, most of which revolve around

2:38:16traffic. Uh pedestrian traffic in

2:38:18particular is quite bad coming up and

2:38:20down, you know, between the school. Hope

2:38:23Highland School in particular, there's a

2:38:24lot of students that will walk uh to the

2:38:27practice fields after school. Um they

2:38:30are often not paying attention. If

2:38:32you've seen middle schoolers, my wife's

2:38:34a teacher, so I understand. Um and

2:38:36there's a tremendous amount of traffic

2:38:38at the bottom of Hope Road and Wilbur.

2:38:40Um I've taken pictures of the traffic

2:38:42there. You have cars backed up,

2:38:44sometimes as many as 20 or 30 cars

2:38:46during rush hour, during games, things

2:38:48like that. I've heard that there's been

2:38:50talk of possibly now building uh needing

2:38:53to build like a rotary or something at

2:38:55that intersection which will certainly

2:38:57cause the city cost the city some money.

2:39:00Um you know lights are definitely

2:39:01something I mean a traffic impact

2:39:03analysis I agree. I think that's

2:39:05definitely necessary.

2:39:07Um the water runoff in particular is

2:39:09also concern because I'm a fisherman. I

2:39:12buy a fishing license every year. that

2:39:14stream behind that property, regardless

2:39:16of the wet, you know, in addition to the

2:39:18wetlands,

2:39:19is sometimes stocked with trout. Um I I

2:39:22do I have not fished that particular

2:39:24stream, but when I first moved here, um

2:39:27it was a a designated trout fishing

2:39:30stream. Um so definitely during storms

2:39:33when you have those drainage bowls, I

2:39:35don't know what you call them, if they

2:39:37overflow, uh you know, it's going to be

2:39:39a problem for, you know, any sort of

2:39:41fishing in the future, I would imagine.

2:39:44Um, you know, I don't want to go through

2:39:46everything I have, but as I did post it

2:39:48online, some of the setbacks are

2:39:50concerning. Um, I I I do see that

2:39:52there's some waiverss that were are

2:39:54being requested for the front and back

2:39:56setbacks. Um, if you notice from this

2:39:59drawing, the setback is only 20 feet

2:40:01from my sidewall. Um, those trees that

2:40:04you see are actually on my property. Um,

2:40:07and they don't look like that. Um, so I

2:40:10don't know. Oh, I mean, I would

2:40:11definitely uh want to see a much better

2:40:15barrier, green a green barrier between

2:40:18the, you know, the two properties for

2:40:19anything like this. Um, you know, I did

2:40:22notice that the the driveway here is

2:40:25about 20 ft wide according to the plans.

2:40:28Um, I think I don't know how you're

2:40:29going to get a ladder truck in and out

2:40:30of there. Um, if you have to get a truck

2:40:34uh, you know, you have a fire, you need

2:40:36to get a ladder truck in there. I I

2:40:38don't know how you can do that. Um the

2:40:40turning radius on a ladder truck is

2:40:42probably 40 or 50 feet.

2:40:44Uh you know the the school impacts is

2:40:47obviously a big deal. You know we have

2:40:48Hope Highlands, we have Orchard Farms.

2:40:51Um yes, they are great schools. They are

2:40:54very overcrowded at this point. Uh I can

2:40:57tell you my daughter's an 8-year-old.

2:40:58She, you know, I'm in there. I see the

2:41:00crowding at in the parking lots at the

2:41:02schools. The schools are very very

2:41:04overcrowded at this point and the

2:41:06facilities are not necessarily in great

2:41:08shape. and the school's uh b funding has

2:41:11been cut recently. Uh

2:41:14so I'll leave it at that. I think that

2:41:16uh you can read my comments online, but

2:41:19um I'll let my other colleagues speak

2:41:21here.

2:41:23>> Thank you, sir. Uh the staff will just

2:41:25um I look I didn't look at it before I

2:41:28got here, but please put the comments of

2:41:29what was received today from email

2:41:31online. Okay. Uh next, anyone else like

2:41:34make for public com public comment?

2:41:39My name is James Herb. I live at 50 Hope

2:41:42Road which is down at the bottom of the

2:41:44hill uh sub from the intersection. So I

2:41:47know all about the traffic referenced

2:41:49earlier and it's also a Monday through

2:41:52Friday problem too in between the hours

2:41:54of 7 and 8:30. So I have several

2:41:57concerns. Uh first one is the excessive

2:41:59traffic. Hope Road is a is a throughway

2:42:03for not just Western Cranston to get to

2:42:05the highway, West Warwick, Situit, and

2:42:07Coventry. I have neighbors in in uh for

2:42:10my son's house who will go by my house

2:42:13every single morning.

2:42:15If we're going to put 12 units in there,

2:42:18that's two cars. Basically, the average

2:42:20per household is two cars in Rhode

2:42:22Island. There's 24 additional cars

2:42:24injected into that current traffic every

2:42:27morning. You can't move. I can't back

2:42:29out of my driveway currently because

2:42:31there is no light installed at the

2:42:33bottom of road at the intersection of

2:42:36Hope Phoenix and Wilbert. So at this

2:42:40point, if we're going to put a light

2:42:41here, then are we going to put one at

2:42:43the bottom of the hill? And that comes

2:42:45with a cost of the city. We do

2:42:49the variance request itself has a couple

2:42:52of different house. I mean parcel the

2:42:54stated 5.2 acres only 2.6 It's buildable

2:42:57in an A80 zone. We're now asking if we

2:43:00take and only look at the usable part of

2:43:02that parcel, we're actually breaking it

2:43:04down to about 9500 square ft per unit at

2:43:0812 units. So now we're actually looking

2:43:11at an 8A zone. Even if this were an A12

2:43:14zone, we're still talking about putting

2:43:16in multif family housing.

2:43:20adjacent to that property along the

2:43:22river there's another 25 acre parcel if

2:43:26that neighbor are we setting precedence

2:43:28here if we went forward with this now

2:43:30we're going to have the potential to

2:43:32have 75 or more houses with that type of

2:43:34zoning code there

2:43:37issue is really the school overcrowded I

2:43:39mean 6.4 24 million had to be cut from

2:43:42the school budget for FY 26 and 27. If

2:43:45we look at that now, we're going to

2:43:46ingest additional 24 kids or more

2:43:50potentially if they're talking with

2:43:51families that have more than several

2:43:53children. That's going to impact Hope

2:43:55Islands, Orchard Farms as stated

2:43:57previously. Those schools are already

2:43:59busting at the seams. They're already

2:44:01underfunded.

2:44:04Um and then the fiscal impact on the

2:44:06city is really any of the traffic

2:44:10modifications that have to be made. The

2:44:13sewer system, as referenced earlier,

2:44:15that was put in in 2001 with a sole

2:44:17purpose. It had an input line and an

2:44:20output line. We sat there every day with

2:44:22my son was growing up at 3 years old and

2:44:23watch the excavators in front of my

2:44:25house. That was meant for the power

2:44:27plant at the Atlanta. So when my system

2:44:31failed in 2018, I had to pay $20,000

2:44:36fees to the city, fees to the state,

2:44:38fees to everybody under the sun, $20,000

2:44:41so that I could tie into that, install

2:44:43an E1 pump.

2:44:45Is that big enough to support any

2:44:48additional infrastructure being added

2:44:50other than the older homes in the area

2:44:53where there septic systems or cess pools

2:44:55which my house is built in 1956 had cess

2:44:58pools is that line big and if it isn't

2:45:02and we add 12 more units what impact

2:45:05will that have I mean had issues about a

2:45:08decade ago where the infrastructure of

2:45:10their septic systems weren't or their

2:45:12their sewer systems weren't

2:45:17So all anybody who lived pretty much off

2:45:19the wall of gathering he was subject to

2:45:21potential first check valve breakage

2:45:23etc. Um so if we're going to move

2:45:26forward with this or really think about

2:45:28this as stated earlier traffic impact

2:45:30analysis is highly recommended

2:45:33environmental impact there's no place

2:45:35for that water to go. Anybody who lives

2:45:37up here knows exactly what the ground

2:45:39is. We have a high water table. It's

2:45:41always been a high water table. Um Some

2:45:44of the developments that are there have

2:45:46huge retaining ponds. There's no space

2:45:49on that property for a huge retaining

2:45:51because they're just going to get let go

2:45:52into the brook. Uh so brook fiscal

2:45:56impact study probably a requirement and

2:45:58then real estate property value impact

2:46:00analysis. There's million-doll homes

2:46:02within you know a half mile radius of

2:46:05that spot. So those would be my biggest

2:46:09concerns and I will in fact put a

2:46:11detailed list online.

2:46:15Thank you.

2:46:18Any further public comment?

2:46:23Good even everyone. Little nervous here.

2:46:27Uh my name is John Davia. 1660 Pippen

2:46:30Road.

2:46:32Uh my family and I we've lived Pippen

2:46:34for 40 years.

2:46:36We moved up there for

2:46:40the safety and quality of life

2:46:44that's erotically okay this development

2:46:47is not conducive to the area

2:46:51one thing what I like to do is look

2:46:53towards the future okay abunding these

2:46:56five acres you have 30 acres starts at

2:46:59hope road wraps fronts pivot orchard and

2:47:01it lands in front of late night road

2:47:03it's approximately 30 acres

2:47:056 700 ft down the road you have Russo's

2:47:08farm that's been inactive for a few

2:47:11years and that's what another maybe 10

2:47:14acres across the street is another large

2:47:17land another 10 acres property so you

2:47:20have 30 40 50 acres okay once you're

2:47:23looking to the future okay so if this

2:47:26devel development goes through you have

2:47:2812 units okay times 50 so I'm sorry you

2:47:34have

2:47:35It's 10 times. Okay. Five eggs 10 times.

2:47:38So you're looking at over a 100 houses

2:47:42within an eighth of a mile from all road

2:47:44to the Russo's farm. Okay.

2:47:48That that can't be done. Okay. What

2:47:51what's going to happen tomorrow? Guess

2:47:52what? You have garbage removal. You have

2:47:56police, fire personnel increases. Most

2:48:00likely it's going to be another fire

2:48:01station. this goes through because what

2:48:04happens if you pass this the other

2:48:06owners of these properties they're gonna

2:48:07come back here and they're going to want

2:48:09the same okay deal right so you add up

2:48:14all those costs okay it's going to drive

2:48:17what our taxes up

2:48:20this proposal is what for affordable

2:48:23housing okay once the taxes go up in the

2:48:26city okay what's going to happen to the

2:48:28homeowners that are living we uh

2:48:32paycheck by paycheck, where is their

2:48:35affordability?

2:48:36How about the rentes in the city?

2:48:39Everybody's screaming, "The rents are

2:48:40skyrocketing right now. Tomorrow, what's

2:48:43the rent going to be? Where's their

2:48:45affordability?"

2:48:47Okay. So, what I see is basically the

2:48:50winners are going to be the developers.

2:48:52They're going to leave the area with

2:48:54money in their pockets and we get to

2:48:56hold the bill. Okay. So, uh I just hope

2:49:00that you uh

2:49:02not pass this uh proposal and uh we'll

2:49:06go from there. All right. Thank you.

2:49:11>> Any further public comment?

2:49:20>> Hi, my name is Michael Bari. I live at

2:49:221730 Pippench Road and my parents uh

2:49:26were there for 45 years and it's a very

2:49:29private community and all of our

2:49:32neighbors all get along. It was never a

2:49:34problem and um my concern is about the

2:49:38traffic. It is it's horrendous and the

2:49:41children that are in the school that you

2:49:44know the the cars go so fast in the area

2:49:48and it's a trouble spot for for that

2:49:50just right alone. So my recommendation

2:49:54would be I just my own recommendation I

2:49:58don't think it's feasible. Thank you.

2:50:03Any

2:50:06further public comment?

2:50:13What do you mean? Ron Buchcci, I live at

2:50:151750 Piper Road. This development absuts

2:50:19my property and I have four acres that

2:50:21go that bought the back side of that

2:50:24property. Um,

2:50:26this isn't the ruralness that I've been

2:50:29paying taxes for in this area. It just

2:50:33isn't. I mean, I don't want to prevent

2:50:35anybody from developing any piece of

2:50:37property. There's a new development

2:50:39right down the street just beyond my

2:50:41house. There's four houses in a piece of

2:50:43property. There's no road. There's no

2:50:46curbing yet. They built four houses.

2:50:49There's no detention ponds there at all.

2:50:53On this site, they show a couple

2:50:55detention ponds. However, we just had a

2:50:58major storm, snowstorm. Where are they

2:51:00putting that snow? Are they going to put

2:51:01it all on Pope Road? Are they going to

2:51:03put it all across the street and in the

2:51:06uh in the uh plate in the plate in the

2:51:08ball fields and all those parking lots?

2:51:10They're going to dump it on that street.

2:51:12So, you talk about storm water and all

2:51:15that drainage and when the when it melts

2:51:18and if you go into some developments off

2:51:20of industry farms, you're right, the

2:51:22water table is high and those houses are

2:51:25literally mounded out of the ground

2:51:27because of the water table. So, uh

2:51:31there's there'll be a height height

2:51:33issue if those houses are if those

2:51:35houses are built like that with a uh

2:51:38with a high water table that we have in

2:51:40our area. So, my biggest complaint about

2:51:42this is the ruralness that I'm paying

2:51:44taxes for that I I pay my taxes every

2:51:47quarter and I want the I like the open

2:51:50space. That's what I'm paying for and

2:51:53that's what I think we should maintain.

2:51:54I don't think this fits our area at all.

2:51:58uh especially in that corner and also a

2:52:01major concern is the traffic because

2:52:03between Hope Road and Late Night Road is

2:52:06a raceway

2:52:08a complete raceway because it's a

2:52:10straight path down and there was a death

2:52:12on that road all the way down if you

2:52:14remember uh last about a year or so ago

2:52:17someone was driving extremely fast and

2:52:20killed an old elderly p passenger.

2:52:24So, and the other gentleman who

2:52:27mentioned coming from uh

2:52:30uh Westwick across Down Hope Road and on

2:52:34that curve coming out of that

2:52:37development is another danger spot

2:52:41because that whole intersection in that

2:52:43area is becoming a complete raceway. So,

2:52:46I'm appealing to the town to even look

2:52:47into that. You want to call put a police

2:52:50car in my property to catch these

2:52:52vehicles? Absolutely. I'm all for it

2:52:54because it's it's terrible. So, I

2:52:57disagree with this development. I'm not

2:53:00I'm not saying that he can't build

2:53:02anything, but that density on two acres

2:53:05or two and a half acres. When we bought

2:53:08that property, it was one house per two

2:53:10acres, and I got another two acres

2:53:13behind me. So, you're telling me I can

2:53:14put 12 houses behind my house? It's not

2:53:17right. It's too dense. Thank you.

2:53:26Any further public comment?

2:53:33>> Thank you for your service. My name is

2:53:35Frank Zeno. I live at uh 225 Late Night

2:53:38Road in Cranston. I grew up on uh

2:53:41Hickory Drive in Cranston. I've been a

2:53:44resident of Cranston uh for 62 years.

2:53:49Uh, I've been in the area. Um, mystery

2:53:52when mystery farms were farms. Uh, the

2:53:55Melaro fields were fields. The Dale

2:53:58Farms is I think the gentleman that was

2:54:01just up here before me. Uh, he the Dales

2:54:05owned all that land. Uh, this really

2:54:08doesn't have a place in our area. This

2:54:11is wrong. Uh, as a resident of Cranston,

2:54:15I've been paying my taxes in. So, uh,

2:54:19just to tell you a little bit about the

2:54:21Zenos and, uh, that area, there's a lot

2:54:24of wetlands in that area. Uh, we donated

2:54:2715 acres on Hope Road and it's actually

2:54:31called the Zeno Swamp because that's

2:54:33what all this land is. It's swamp land.

2:54:37uh the environmental impact of putting

2:54:40this development right next to that

2:54:42brook that runs down. You can't see it

2:54:45if you walk the property, the

2:54:46campgrounds.

2:54:48This is beautiful property to try to

2:54:53put a high density housing development

2:54:55in. It's just unheard of. It's A80. It's

2:54:592 acres per house. They've got 2.6 acres

2:55:03with two acres of wetlands. It should

2:55:06stay one house. It's two acres of house.

2:55:10I don't see how

2:55:12somebody came up with this idea of

2:55:15buying this land from Alcaralia and

2:55:17saying that this property at one time

2:55:19could probably support a couple of

2:55:22houses on it at the best. But to come in

2:55:26and say there's going to be 12 units

2:55:28with affordable housing where we have

2:55:32million-dollar homes with people that

2:55:34are paying taxes into uh the city of

2:55:37Cranston and I and I see all these

2:55:40rules. I see these houses coming up

2:55:42everywhere in Cranston. and to this. Um,

2:55:50and by the way, Briana and Jonas, if

2:55:52they're ever looking for a job, I'm

2:55:54hiring. Uh, but the repairarian re

2:55:57buffer that they were talking about,

2:56:00does that apply to all the housing

2:56:03uh

2:56:05requirements that are coming in front of

2:56:07the council? And are you going to

2:56:08adhere? Everything seems to be geared

2:56:11towards development in Cranston. It

2:56:13seems like Cranston is for sale. Uh the

2:56:16water line that was put into uh Pippen

2:56:19Orchard Road that connects to the dump,

2:56:22I think, for water cooling purposes

2:56:25wasn't put in there for development. It

2:56:27was put in for relieving the residents

2:56:30on Pippen Orchard Road that were running

2:56:32out of water back 20 years ago. That's

2:56:35why it was put in. The sewer line was

2:56:37put in for the waste treatment plant. I

2:56:40don't know what it was serving, but it

2:56:41did some type of purpose for the dump.

2:56:46So, I I I just feel like

2:56:50for

2:56:525.5 acres with 2 acres of wetlands,

2:56:55pristine property, environ

2:57:00deer, everything is up there to go in

2:57:03there and mow it down for this

2:57:04development

2:57:06uh is an atrocity. So, I just want to re

2:57:09I want to voice my opinion to people

2:57:12that this is not for that area and the

2:57:16roadways. I have pictures on my phone of

2:57:19this morning's traffic. Uh it takes me

2:57:2220 minutes to get to Route 37 from late

2:57:25night road. How is that possible? We're

2:57:28not paying attention to infrastructure.

2:57:30You got to do something about the

2:57:33roadways. You got to do something about

2:57:35late night road. I live on it. No water,

2:57:37no sewers, no gas. We have wells and

2:57:41that th this is not for this area. It's

2:57:45for uh somewhere

2:57:48uh uh in Massachusetts. It belongs in

2:57:51mass and I don't want Rhode Island to

2:57:53look like Mass. Thank you.

2:58:00>> Any further public comment?

2:58:11Thank you for allowing me to address you

2:58:14this evening. And this is not a prepared

2:58:16speech, so I'm not reading it. Relax.

2:58:18>> But state your name and address first

2:58:20before you speak.

2:58:20>> My name is Frederick Duket and I live on

2:58:25Country View Drive in Western Cron, not

2:58:29far from this location.

2:58:36What I would like to mention

2:58:39is that we have laws, bills, zoning,

2:58:45speed limits, but what's the intent of

2:58:47those? The key thing is the intent,

2:58:50which often is safety, and also people

2:58:53living and working in together. Well, we

2:58:57have an area here that where this land

2:59:00is happens to be an A80 zone as I

2:59:03recall, but right next to is an A20 zone

2:59:06where I live.

2:59:09What the reasons that our

2:59:12whatever people before us

2:59:15in Cranston set those zones up was so

2:59:19that the traffic, the schools, the

2:59:23number of students in a middle school

2:59:25and everything else was compatible and

2:59:28moved smoothly was safe and it was it

2:59:33worked well. Right. That that's where we

2:59:34were trying to go. So now we're taking

2:59:38state guidelines.

2:59:40State guidelines don't really know

2:59:42Cranston and they don't really know

2:59:44what's the best thing for Cranston or

2:59:46why our zones are zoned the way they

2:59:49are. They have a tremendous goal. Their

2:59:52goal is building economical housing.

2:59:56Great. I'll bet there's nobody in this

2:59:59room who has built more economical

3:00:03housing than me. I've built housing very

3:00:07economically for people that were bombed

3:00:09and that's all they had to live in. So,

3:00:11I know economical housing. I know the

3:00:13importance of that housing, but putting

3:00:15it in a zone that doesn't fit causes

3:00:18other problems and some of its safety

3:00:21and especially educational and sidewalks

3:00:23for children biking around that area.

3:00:26I'm not too happy with what I'm seeing

3:00:28there. I'm not against it. I just don't

3:00:31believe it's the right fit. You can't

3:00:33just do what the state of Rhode Island

3:00:35wants and put it anywhere you want just

3:00:38to get to a percentage. Now, I'm not

3:00:41that eloquent, so I'm going to recommend

3:00:44there was a great letter that does a

3:00:46better job than me. Some of you haven't

3:00:48seen it. It was written by Steve Frius,

3:00:52who was at one time the Cranston City

3:00:55Planning Commission. And it was on May

3:01:0020, excuse my eyes, I think it's May

3:01:0328th, I believe, 2025.

3:01:06Please read that. You'll get a great It

3:01:10even covers by coincidence the Western

3:01:13Cranston Middle School, which be right

3:01:15across the street. So, please read that

3:01:19better than me. I'm just a hacker giving

3:01:21a speech. But, uh, I thank you, ladies

3:01:25and gentlemen, for for this time.

3:01:30>> I wonder who that guy is. Um

3:01:34um any further public comment?

3:01:43Hello Sonia Misenborg 30 Rabbit Zav

3:01:46Pisville Rhode Island. Um it's not a

3:01:48pleasure to to see you all again. Um

3:01:52traffic I think they've uh pretty much

3:01:54outlined that Hope Road is the gateway

3:01:57to the east and and it is. And when you

3:02:00do your traffic studies, it's a

3:02:05snapshot in time.

3:02:07You take into account the 44 houses that

3:02:11are going in in Fisville,

3:02:1488 cars, let's say half of them, which

3:02:18will be more than half, but let's say

3:02:19half of them go Hope Road. Do you add

3:02:22those cars to that?

3:02:24And then in Fisville, the additional

3:02:27five houses that are also approved going

3:02:29in,

3:02:30say five cars there. There are 22

3:02:36houses uh together on Pippen Orchard and

3:02:39Late Night Road that are brand new. Are

3:02:41you going to add all those in? Because

3:02:43you're running out of room. You're

3:02:45running out of room for traffic. So my

3:02:48question is do you look at the broader

3:02:50picture of what's already been approved

3:02:53that will be make an estimate of what

3:02:55that will be on that road and it's

3:02:58already a problem before these houses

3:03:01even show up.

3:03:04So I think for Western Cranston a bigger

3:03:08picture is needed. You see all these

3:03:10snapshots. I sat here when um the

3:03:16development at Sevenmile Road, Hope

3:03:18Road, Hope A, Main Street went in and

3:03:22heard, "Oh, that's just five houses. We

3:03:25don't need a traffic study." Do you say

3:03:28that every time there's five houses and

3:03:3010 houses? Add them all up. You've been

3:03:34there on Saturday mornings. this poor

3:03:37gentleman that lives on on on the Pippen

3:03:39Orchard Road. You can't you can't get on

3:03:42Hope Road. You can't get down there. I

3:03:45go Burling Game. I go around and it's so

3:03:49bad that when you go Berling game road,

3:03:54you've they've blocked off a road that

3:03:57cuts through um towards Blueberry Lane

3:04:00and comes out on uh Connley. be. Guess

3:04:03why?

3:04:06Why?

3:04:11Why are we using it as a cut through?

3:04:15>> M. Mr. Chris, if you're going to talk,

3:04:17you have to talk into the microphone.

3:04:19>> We [laughter] as a cut through because

3:04:21we can't get anywhere from where we are

3:04:25to where we need to be. So, thank you.

3:04:30>> Any further public comment?

3:04:36Hi, my name is Lorraine Rafalian. I

3:04:39owned 425 Hope Road for 40 years.

3:04:43I know everything there is to know about

3:04:46that property. I have come before this

3:04:48board

3:04:49probably

3:04:51eight times with my dad who had passed

3:04:53away in 2012.

3:04:55I can only say that every time I have

3:04:58ever gotten denied from uh doing

3:05:00anything at that property was mostly

3:05:02because of the wetlands, but mostly

3:05:04because it was zoned

3:05:07for two acre lot, one family house,

3:05:09twoacre lot. Um

3:05:12there are so many things that really

3:05:15strike me for this this particular um

3:05:18situation because you know I sold the

3:05:20property because I try to do this

3:05:23constantly like with with doing from um

3:05:26what you had mentioned um

3:05:29athletic field and and an extension of

3:05:32the CLCF um you know

3:05:36rounds

3:05:38that didn't even go through. We we I had

3:05:41put we I can't even tell you how many

3:05:43times I literally have tried I spent

3:05:46money on lawyers and architects and

3:05:48everything else. It doesn't go through

3:05:49because of the wetlands. But the

3:05:51wetlands literally have have changed the

3:05:56the the whole landscape of the property

3:05:58has changed um because of the the

3:06:02progression of the whole area. Meaning

3:06:04when the schools were be was built at

3:06:07the end of that driveway, the end of

3:06:09Hope Road driveway, 125 Hope Road, there

3:06:12was a gas line and a um a water line. I

3:06:17I was forced to get um city water

3:06:20because all the well everything was

3:06:23being so built up across the street that

3:06:25it shattered to like take all the water

3:06:27away from me. I had tenants in there

3:06:29years ago. They didn't have any water. I

3:06:31had to get city water. So every time I

3:06:34wanted to do anything um like for

3:06:36instance just before I sold the property

3:06:38I wanted to put um a septic system but I

3:06:41couldn't because sewer was there was a

3:06:43controversy controversy on Pip and Road

3:06:46and Hope Road being I believe that Pip

3:06:49and Orchard was a state road and um

3:06:51there was a controversy with something

3:06:53to go with with the utilities. So they

3:06:55they weren't able by the time I was

3:06:57ready to I was hired had it um after

3:07:00owning it for 40 years and not getting

3:07:01anywhere with anywhere. I was just going

3:07:03to actually just build a one family

3:07:05house in the back of the property,

3:07:07but I ended up not doing it because

3:07:10there was so many issues with the

3:07:12landscape of it. And I I believe that

3:07:15everybody here that's you know I don't

3:07:18want to say against that but it's it's

3:07:20changing the whole landscape of what

3:07:23everybody has wanted to live there for.

3:07:26You know it's it's a beautiful beautiful

3:07:28piece of property but to have that many

3:07:31houses I mean I got denied for five

3:07:34houses. I get denied for three houses

3:07:36actually going back for many years. So,

3:07:4012 houses and changing the zoning and

3:07:42everything else and all these other

3:07:45different things like traffic and

3:07:46everything, I completely understand. But

3:07:48I just don't understand why like all of

3:07:50a sudden like it can just be changed.

3:07:53Like how does it just after after people

3:07:55have been living there for 20, 30, 40

3:07:57years, you know, bringing their children

3:07:58up and all of a sudden it just changes.

3:08:01It's not fair. It's not fair to the

3:08:03people who live in that neighborhood and

3:08:05it's not fair for the people who have

3:08:06spent

3:08:08there's definitely million-dollar houses

3:08:10every which way you look in that

3:08:11neighborhood, you know, and to build

3:08:13like, you know, low income. I get it. I

3:08:16get we need that in in the state of

3:08:18Rhode Island, but I don't believe that

3:08:2012 houses should ever go on that

3:08:22property. I love that property. is a

3:08:24beautiful piece of property, but I just

3:08:26can't ever see um ruining the landscape

3:08:30of of what that stands for. That's

3:08:33that's all I have to say.

3:08:36>> Thank you. Is there any further public

3:08:38comment?

3:08:45>> My name is Paul Lavoi and I'm at 1770

3:08:48Pippen Archer Road. So, I'm directly

3:08:50behind the proposed um complex.

3:08:55So, uh my father purchased the land in

3:08:581975.

3:08:59Uh I've been there since 1972. Uh we

3:09:02built the house in 1985. Uh we built

3:09:05there because it was open. It was quiet.

3:09:08When my father first bought the land,

3:09:10there were no houses on the street.

3:09:12There was one across the street and

3:09:14there was uh Baris had that built the

3:09:17house and that was it. Um which wasn't

3:09:20my neighbor wasn't there yet and that's

3:09:23my father built it for. He had a farm

3:09:24there. He had chickens, he had goats, he

3:09:27had a garden that was a half acre and he

3:09:31used to give it to people.

3:09:34Um, changing this would change the whole

3:09:39part of Western Cranston that I grew up

3:09:42with, that I enjoyed, and I started my

3:09:45family and came back to Cranston to live

3:09:47there.

3:09:50I don't have any problem with people

3:09:52making money. And you want to put a

3:09:54house, you want to put two houses,

3:09:56that's fine. But put it where it's

3:09:59supposed to be. 12 houses you're gonna

3:10:02have right directly behind my house.

3:10:04You're gonna have six of them.

3:10:08So, there's a water issue now in the

3:10:11back of my house. So, when it rains and

3:10:14we get storms, there's a puddle in the

3:10:18back of my yard that abuts the um the

3:10:21wall that separates the properties. So,

3:10:24now you're going to put 12 houses there.

3:10:26How you going to fix that water

3:10:28from coming back into my yard? Where's

3:10:30it going? You're going to raise these

3:10:31houses up. Where's that going? I'm going

3:10:33to have another swimming pool in my

3:10:34yard.

3:10:36And the traffic,

3:10:38the traffic is beyond

3:10:41traffic. When I first moved there, I had

3:10:45no problem getting out of my driveway.

3:10:48And the field wasn't there. The school

3:10:50wasn't there. There was nobody there. It

3:10:53takes two minutes to get down to Phoenix

3:10:55Avenue. It's less than two miles to get

3:10:58to the highway. Now it takes 15 minutes

3:11:00to get there. On a 9:00 in the morning

3:11:05when all the the school gets the parents

3:11:08drop off their kids, they start going

3:11:09down the road. There's got to be 25 cars

3:11:11waiting at that intersection.

3:11:14Now you're going to put 24 more cars.

3:11:19The speed the speeding on that road is

3:11:22is horrendous. And they start at my my

3:11:25house.

3:11:26And the motorcycles,

3:11:29my wife, we wake up in the middle of the

3:11:31night, 4:00, 3:00, they start, they hit

3:11:34their uh their throttles and they go.

3:11:38It's going to get worse. More more cars.

3:11:40you know, I don't want to be redundant

3:11:42and everybody already, you know,

3:11:45expressed their uh, you know, their

3:11:48worries about it, but, you know, I'm

3:11:49against this and um,

3:11:53that's it. Thank you.

3:11:57>> Any further public comment?

3:12:01>> Uh, my name is David Misenberg. I live

3:12:03at 30 Roberts Avenue in Fisville, Rhode

3:12:05Island. Um, thanks for hearing what we

3:12:09all have to say. Um, I've had the

3:12:11distinct pleasure of sitting in this

3:12:12room with uh with most of you for the

3:12:15last couple of years. Um,

3:12:18learning and and uh and watching how uh

3:12:20city government works.

3:12:24I'm here tonight um because I was

3:12:27cleaning the side of the road with this

3:12:29young man here that started us off. Um

3:12:33he said, "You know, we live in this

3:12:35little house and they want to build

3:12:36these they want to they want to they

3:12:38want to make a development." None of us

3:12:39here are against development. None of us

3:12:42here are against progress. Um we all

3:12:45live in a house that at one time was the

3:12:47first, you know, was a new house in the

3:12:48area that we live in. Um there's a right

3:12:51way and a wrong way to do this. Do it

3:12:53the right way. Um, I've sat here for the

3:12:56last several years and I've seen um lots

3:12:58subdivided, lots that were initially

3:13:01meant to to have one home on them and

3:13:03because we can squeeze another house in

3:13:05there, we do it. It's not the right

3:13:08thing to do, but we do it. I've listened

3:13:11to developers come in.

3:13:16There's a part of my life where I built

3:13:17homes, so I understand what this is

3:13:19like. Um, I've listened to the

3:13:22developers come in here and say, "I'm

3:13:23just a neighbor who wants to, you know,

3:13:26develop my property." You're not a

3:13:28neighbor. You just bought this piece of

3:13:29property to develop it. You didn't buy

3:13:31it to be my neighbor.

3:13:36The gentleman that spoke tonight, the uh

3:13:37the architect, uh, beautiful

3:13:39presentation,

3:13:41he came here tonight and said, "We want

3:13:43to we want to we want to build a little

3:13:45community." Guess what? There's a little

3:13:48community here.

3:13:49join that community. We're going to

3:13:51build this community by building this

3:13:53development right next to a neighbor

3:13:56when there's other there's there's room

3:13:58on the lot that I'm on. I understand

3:14:00there's wetlands on the east side, but

3:14:02there's room on the lot I'm on to not

3:14:04put my house right in my neighbor's

3:14:06backyard.

3:14:07Talk to people. Figure out what's going

3:14:09on. Understand. Uh thank you to the

3:14:12council for uh I understand that in

3:14:15sometime some ways your hands are tied.

3:14:17some things you can do and some things

3:14:18you can't do. I just want to encourage

3:14:20you. Do what you can do. Don't do what

3:14:23you can't, but do what you can do. Um,

3:14:27help us.

3:14:29Help us. That's what we expect from you.

3:14:31That's why we pay taxes. That's That's

3:14:33why we come here. That's why we came

3:14:34here tonight to help each other.

3:14:38Be a part of the community. Thanks.

3:14:47Any further public comment?

3:14:53>> Hello. Uh, my name is Carol Dando. I

3:14:56live at 1485 Phoenix Avenue. Um, when I

3:15:00first moved there in 1971, it'll be uh

3:15:0355 years this December.

3:15:07The changes I have seen are very many.

3:15:09And I used to my land I could see

3:15:12mystery farm. I used to hear the rooster

3:15:14crow. Um the development up there has

3:15:18affected my area, my street. The traffic

3:15:23is unbearable. So that's uh Hope Road is

3:15:26also uh facing that. But the traffic um

3:15:30on Phoenix Avenue is horrendous and they

3:15:34the traffic speeds and it's just not

3:15:37good. The traffic is way too much and

3:15:40that area cannot handle anymore. The

3:15:42four corners of Hope, Phoenix, and

3:15:44Wilbur cannot handle any more traffic.

3:15:47People try to jot through the

3:15:49intersections. Some of them don't stop

3:15:52and it's it can't handle it. So, I am

3:15:55very opposed to this plan. And also uh

3:15:58since all the houses went up in the back

3:16:00of me at Camden Woods in Mystery Farm,

3:16:03I'm getting water in the back of my

3:16:05garage which puddles and it never used

3:16:07to do that and I blame the water runoffs

3:16:10for that and so I am totally against

3:16:13this. Thank you.

3:16:17Any

3:16:20further public comment?

3:16:27>> Good evening. [clears throat] Thank you

3:16:28for allowing me to speak. Uh Richard

3:16:30Campo Piano, 1640 Pippen Orchard Road.

3:16:33Uh these are not only my neighbors,

3:16:35they're also my constituents. Um I

3:16:37wasn't planning on speaking tonight, but

3:16:38I did hear one thing that kind of

3:16:40shocked me, and that was a water table

3:16:42of one to two feet. I you can stick a

3:16:44shovel in the ground and hit that. I

3:16:46know the back of my yard in certain

3:16:48times of the year I get stuck with my

3:16:50lawnmower because it's just it's just a

3:16:52marsh land. So, uh I would be concerned

3:16:54with that type of building, that type of

3:16:57foundation, that type of disruption in

3:16:59that area. Uh it's definitely going to

3:17:01affect my neighbors and uh in their

3:17:03area. So, please uh take special concern

3:17:06with that area and uh look into that

3:17:08before uh any decisions are made. They

3:17:11all said it very well, so I don't need

3:17:13to repeat any of it. So, you did a good

3:17:15job. Thank you.

3:17:19Any further public comment?

3:17:26I see no further public com in the room.

3:17:28Mr. Le, is there any public comment

3:17:29online?

3:17:31How's it works? All right.

3:17:36>> Please state your name and uh Go ahead.

3:17:38State your name and address.

3:17:40>> Hello. Yes. And I'm I'm very sorry that

3:17:42this continues to show up as Housing

3:17:44Works. I am not Housing Works Rhode

3:17:46Island. I am Annette Bourne. I reside at

3:17:4951 Community Drive in Cranston. And

3:17:53first I would really like to start I

3:17:56always like to thank the commission

3:17:57members, but I really want to start by

3:17:59thanking all of the really thoughtful

3:18:02neighbors who have come out tonight. I

3:18:05recognize that um the comprehensive

3:18:08permit process is a very new one for the

3:18:12city of Cranston. When I arrived here

3:18:14more than 20 years ago, um I was

3:18:18providing technical assistance to all

3:18:20the communities subject to comprehensive

3:18:23permits. So communities from Little

3:18:25Compton to Naragansit to Westerly. Um,

3:18:29and I hear much of what I've heard

3:18:32across the state here tonight. As this

3:18:35is my community where our daughter

3:18:38played soccer for many years at Chaffi

3:18:40Field, I hear the pain of what change

3:18:45can bring. I'm also very grateful to

3:18:49hear uh what I really feel is some

3:18:53sympathy about the housing crisis that

3:18:56we are all feeling. Um, what I want you

3:18:59to know about this particular project is

3:19:03that I was so excited to see Donald

3:19:05Powers as a part of the project. Um, for

3:19:09those of you who don't know his work, I

3:19:11would really ask you to go to the

3:19:13website. Um, when Mr. Powers described a

3:19:16community, not to diminish the community

3:19:19that is already there. What we are

3:19:21talking about here is very similar to

3:19:23what he described as a cottage court. It

3:19:26will engage more density so that those

3:19:30people, if I understand correctly, who

3:19:32will be age um maybe 55 and older will

3:19:37be within real close walking distance to

3:19:40each other. Um the uh three affordable

3:19:45units, I'm not sure what they would be

3:19:46priced at, but these will not be homes

3:19:50that will degrade that neighborhood at

3:19:52all. Um, there may be considerations for

3:19:55how many cars uh given the uh given the

3:19:59problems around traffic that I've heard

3:20:01tonight. I do want to point out that as

3:20:04a city, Eastern and Western Cranston, we

3:20:08are in the process of a comprehensive

3:20:11plan right now that our city planning

3:20:13staff in addition to putting together

3:20:16really long agendas like tonight um and

3:20:19doing all the research behind all of the

3:20:21things you are seeing here tonight um

3:20:24are in the process of creating a plan

3:20:26that will guide our development for the

3:20:28next 20 years. part of that plan will be

3:20:31circulation. So, I would really engage

3:20:34all of you um regardless of the future

3:20:38of this particular project. It sounds

3:20:40like even without it, there are some

3:20:42serious traffic considerations that need

3:20:45to go on um around these areas. So, um,

3:20:49for those of you who did remark on

3:20:52affordability, I will say that there are

3:20:56more than 10,000 households across our

3:20:59city. About half are renters, another

3:21:03half are owners who really are

3:21:07stretching their budgets to be able to

3:21:09afford to live here. There are pressures

3:21:12on Cranston because there are pressures

3:21:14across our entire state, but

3:21:17particularly in our metro areas. And I

3:21:20would ask that you not just think about

3:21:23planning agendas that feature things

3:21:25that are in your neighborhood. Think

3:21:28about those zoning amendments that are

3:21:30coming up that are on the eastern side

3:21:32of the city, too. Because there is a

3:21:34pressure between these two areas. On my

3:21:38side of the city, I live on a 10,000

3:21:41square foot lot in a neighborhood that

3:21:43used to be zoned 5,000 square feet that

3:21:46is now zoned 6,000 square feet. So, I

3:21:49was particularly taken by the gentleman

3:21:51who talked about the A80 and the A20

3:21:54neighborhoods and that is the process

3:21:56that um that makes our city. So, um

3:22:01again, I'm grateful for everyone's

3:22:03voices. I would ask that the um planning

3:22:07commission consider this very seriously

3:22:11um and consider the excellence of the

3:22:13people involved and uh the work of our

3:22:16planning staff. Thank you.

3:22:21>> Are there anyone else like to make

3:22:22public comment that's online? Mr. Lima.

3:22:25>> Drake Patton.

3:22:29>> Good evening. Drake Patton, 684 NITC

3:22:31Avenue. Um, I'll make this brief. Uh, I

3:22:37will say that I think that the project

3:22:39as far as a project taken in a cloud is,

3:22:43um, certainly more attractive than many

3:22:46things we have seen proposed for our

3:22:48community.

3:22:49But I will also say that we've heard

3:22:52tonight from people who actually live in

3:22:55Western Cranston, as do I. And the the

3:23:00stressors on this part of the city are

3:23:04considerable.

3:23:06And honestly, I'm not talking traffic,

3:23:08although that is an issue. I'm not even

3:23:11talking sewer or schools. I'm talking

3:23:14about the natural environment, which you

3:23:16heard about tonight.

3:23:18There's a reason people are getting

3:23:20puddling and flooding in their yards and

3:23:23basement.

3:23:24We have an ecosystem that simply cannot

3:23:27support the level of development we are

3:23:30putting upon it. End of story. It's that

3:23:33simple. And as we, you know, place

3:23:37houses on rises and we move things

3:23:40around and we create these large gravel

3:23:42basins, we are putting off a larger

3:23:45problem. And I understand that the

3:23:47speaker put us in a situation, Sakarti

3:23:50put us in a situation that is forcing us

3:23:52to deal with housing in a way that is

3:23:54not sustainable for the environment. But

3:23:57unfortunately, we have to create a

3:23:59situation that will be here for the

3:24:01future of this community, meaning our

3:24:03children, our grandchildren, etc. And we

3:24:06simply

3:24:08are straining at the very edges of our

3:24:11ability to do that. And I think what I

3:24:14heard tonight was not a neighborhood

3:24:16that was against having neighbors. In

3:24:19fact, I heard passionate

3:24:21references to having neighbors, but just

3:24:24like our community on Nic A that is

3:24:26facing a commercial solar

3:24:29inst installation on residential

3:24:32property, these things are not going to

3:24:35work for us long term. And I know the

3:24:38commission has limits, but we have to be

3:24:41thinking ahead and we have to think long

3:24:43term about what the earth can bear as

3:24:45much as our streets and our traffic

3:24:47lights. Thank you.

3:24:51>> Thank you, Mr. Le. Is anyone else who'd

3:24:53like to make public comment?

3:24:57>> I see no other public comment.

3:24:59>> Thank you.

3:25:01I see no further public comment here

3:25:03again. Okay. So, we will now conclude

3:25:06public comment. So, at this point, does

3:25:09the commissioners have anything they'd

3:25:10like to say to the applicant? The

3:25:11applicant have anything they say want to

3:25:13say at this point?

3:25:15>> If not, we can move on to the next part

3:25:16of our agenda.

3:25:18>> Mr. Damo,

3:25:19>> thank please come to the microphone.

3:25:22>> I'll just say thank you for the input

3:25:23and we'll take all this under

3:25:24advisement.

3:25:26>> Okay.

3:25:27>> Appreciate the time.

3:25:28>> Okay.

3:25:32>> Uh name and address. We appreciate

3:25:34hearing from all of you. Seriously. Um,

3:25:37we've done a number of developments.

3:25:39>> Name and address.

3:25:40>> Oh, I'm sorry. Dav Chile. I live in uh

3:25:43East Grenwich, Rhode Island, and have

3:25:46been developing for about 20 years. Used

3:25:49Don and a number of our projects. We do

3:25:51appreciate hearing everything, but one

3:25:54thing I'm coming away with is the city

3:25:56of Cranston has some issues with they

3:26:01feel certainly that this project may add

3:26:04to them, but what I'm hearing here is

3:26:07with the traffic and and other issues,

3:26:11uh I would say there's some work to be

3:26:13done and um maybe maybe there's a

3:26:18different direction we need to take. Um,

3:26:21it was interesting to hear uh Stephen

3:26:24say that uh this could be a good adjunct

3:26:27to the development across the street.

3:26:30Maybe we'll talk about that. And

3:26:33obviously there's also the opportunity

3:26:35maybe to um do something much smaller.

3:26:39Uh maybe use that acreage and have two

3:26:42new uh homes for example. But uh there

3:26:46are options and we'll certainly talk

3:26:49about them. Um, but it's a little

3:26:52disturbing to hear about all this

3:26:54traffic and the situations that you are

3:26:57are dealing with. Um,

3:27:00>> what's that?

3:27:02[laughter]

3:27:03>> Well, I'm hearing that. And by the way,

3:27:06>> um, okay. We had public comment.

3:27:10>> It's amazing.

3:27:11>> Mr. Dina Chile, Miss Dina Chili, comment

3:27:14comes to the planning board, not to the

3:27:16If you want to speak to the crowd, go

3:27:18afterwards. your comment is is to this

3:27:20point.

3:27:21>> I'm actually done. I think I've said

3:27:23enough, but thank all of you.

3:27:26>> Thank you very much, Sally. And I I

3:27:28think people appreciate that you

3:27:29>> For the record, I represent an objector

3:27:33for a project in East Greenwich, and it

3:27:36is the same comment, traffic, drainage.

3:27:41>> Well, we don't we're trying to do with

3:27:42storm water today. We tried to do it one

3:27:43of them, right?

3:27:44>> Is not um unique to the city of

3:27:46Cranston.

3:27:47>> Yeah. Matter of fact, it might even be

3:27:49worse than East Grant.

3:27:50>> Anyway, Mr. Anchelli, thank you for your

3:27:52comment and that you're listening and

3:27:54we'll take that into consideration.

3:27:56Nothing further. Okay. Thank you very

3:27:59much, Mr. Anelli and the pre-applicant.

3:28:01Thank you neighbors and residents who

3:28:02came out. Um, we'll see how this goes

3:28:04going forward. Okay. We um All right.

3:28:08Now, we got to do zoning board. So,

3:28:10we're trying to get this done in about

3:28:11an hour.

3:28:20for those at home the people living

3:28:22room. So, we're back in about 2 minutes.

3:32:03We will take this out of order to

3:32:04accommodate Mr. Gary. Get him out of

3:32:06here earlier. Thank you for your

3:32:07patience and for your client. We are

3:32:09taking up 357 Derav the Pat Lakey

3:32:14Enterprise LLC. Please. Is the applicant

3:32:17here and wish to be heard on the matter?

3:32:18>> I'm representing the applicant.

3:32:20>> Okay. Please proceed.

3:32:20>> Uh Mr. Chairman, members of the

3:32:22commission, John Garing, on behalf of

3:32:23the applicant with respect to the zoning

3:32:25application for 357 Dire Avenue. Um, let

3:32:30me say this. This is relatively simple,

3:32:32at least on the face of it. Um, this was

3:32:35the old Coffees restaurant. My my

3:32:3892-year-old mother told me that she used

3:32:40to go there when she was growing up. Um,

3:32:42it's going to be revised as a restaurant

3:32:45and as a bakery. The the zoning request

3:32:48is for parking. the property the uh

3:32:51structure is located entirely upon the

3:32:54property. There is no there is no

3:32:57parking presently on it. I asked why

3:33:00isn't it non-conforming? I guess they

3:33:02changed the use and they're going back

3:33:03to the use. So the parking is not

3:33:05non-conforming. There's never there's no

3:33:07parking there. There's never been any

3:33:09parking. Um it's it's just that's the

3:33:12way it has been for a long long period

3:33:14of time. The other request is for um

3:33:19signage uh relief. Um this uh does not

3:33:24show it, but there's als this picture

3:33:26shows that there's a murals. There's two

3:33:28murals on this property already. The

3:33:31murals on the on the left side on Dyer

3:33:34Avenue does not have any identification

3:33:37of the property. That does not need any

3:33:40relief. The pro the mural on Farm

3:33:42Plington does show that this is going to

3:33:45be a bakery and a restaurant and the the

3:33:48mural over the top of the front door. As

3:33:51a result, those two murals exceed the

3:33:54signage um um

3:33:58what they allow for signage. So, they're

3:34:00asking for a leave from that uh signage

3:34:03in for the park.

3:34:05>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gary. Um this is a

3:34:08really probably a simple question. And I

3:34:09heard you say that this project, excuse

3:34:11me, this area has not had off- streetet

3:34:14parking in the past. Um, how did do you

3:34:18do you know how they used to deal with

3:34:19the off- streetet parking issue? Did

3:34:21they have an agreement with somebody

3:34:23else's pro property? Do you have any

3:34:26ideas of how you'll deal with it or is

3:34:27it not a real problem because of the

3:34:29area?

3:34:30>> Uh, honestly, Mr. Chairman, I don't know

3:34:33how it was dealt with in the past. I

3:34:35can't I can't speak to that. I know that

3:34:37they looked around. There's an apartment

3:34:39complex right above this on Farmington

3:34:41Avenue that has a fairly large parking

3:34:43lot. Um, but it's for the apartments.

3:34:47Um, I I I can't answer that question.

3:34:50>> Okay. Are there any further questions

3:34:52for Mr. Garhe?

3:34:55Okay. Um, Mr. Ray, please make the staff

3:34:58presentation.

3:35:02>> All right. So, as he was saying, um the

3:35:06relief uh for this application is for

3:35:09parking and for

3:35:13um the size of the wall sign. So, I

3:35:18think this was a little confusing. Um I

3:35:20was confused about it as well, but the

3:35:22mir the mural that's shown on the right

3:35:25is um classified as a sign because it

3:35:28has like information about the business.

3:35:31Um, and that's uh slightly larger than

3:35:34what um this sign code uh allows.

3:35:40So um

3:35:42addressing the parking issues on this

3:35:45lot. Um obviously it's very difficult to

3:35:47comply with our park off streetet

3:35:49parking requirements on um a lot like

3:35:51this where the building covers the

3:35:53entire lot. Um but the building is

3:35:56located in a commercial area surrounded

3:35:58by a dense walkable neighborhood. Um,

3:36:01additionally, it was constructed pre uh

3:36:03automobile and uh most surrounding

3:36:06businesses have minimal um or no off-

3:36:09streetet parking.

3:36:11Um, additionally, there is like public

3:36:14transit and um dense development around

3:36:17it. Additionally, one of the state

3:36:19purposes of transit sign regulations is

3:36:21to enhance the aesthetic environment and

3:36:23the city's ability to attract sources of

3:36:25economic development and growth. Um, as

3:36:28was stated, this previously was a uh

3:36:31important local business. Um, it's been

3:36:34um has no tenant had no tenant for a

3:36:37long time. So, I think this is an

3:36:38opportunity for a visual overhaul.

3:36:41Um,

3:36:43staff found that the application um is

3:36:45consistent with future land use

3:36:47designation given that um restaurant

3:36:50businesses are allowed in this zone.

3:36:52Additionally, the U following goals,

3:36:55policies, and action items uh would

3:36:58support the approval of this

3:36:59application. Goal ED2, go policy ED23,

3:37:04and action ED18. With that, I'd like to

3:37:07forward a positive recommendation. So,

3:37:09board of review.

3:37:11>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ray. Are there any

3:37:12questions for Mr. Ray on this

3:37:15application? 357f

3:37:19Commissioner Lampier.

3:37:21Could

3:37:23you go to the I believe in your your um

3:37:26report you indicated the degree of

3:37:30variance that's being requested there

3:37:32are no spaces

3:37:35provided but how many are required by

3:37:38code? So, based off of um the amount of

3:37:44seats in the floor plan, 21 uh parking

3:37:48spots, which is how we calculate um the

3:37:51amount of parking is by the seats for

3:37:53restaurants.

3:37:55>> None are none are um indicated

3:37:59on on site.

3:38:02>> Okay.

3:38:03>> No.

3:38:04>> And what is it operating as now? Do you

3:38:09know?

3:38:10>> I'm not sure, but I believe nothing.

3:38:13I

3:38:13>> think it's vacant.

3:38:14>> It's vacant at the moment, but it was

3:38:16not a It was not a restaurant use.

3:38:19>> It was a manufacturing facility at one

3:38:21point.

3:38:23Okay. Was there ever a restaurant there?

3:38:25I think I read that it had like

3:38:26something called coffee.

3:38:28>> It was a restaurant, Coffey's Restaurant

3:38:29for a long time. I don't know when it

3:38:31stopped.

3:38:32>> Was it Was it Coffees Cafe?

3:38:34>> Coffees Cafe.

3:38:35>> Okay. because I I grew up three houses

3:38:38up Farmington Avenue and I remember

3:38:40coffees, but I also remember it at one

3:38:42point being

3:38:44>> um

3:38:45>> a bakery facility with a very small

3:38:48storefront that was I would agree

3:38:51walkable.

3:38:53Um but I would not car I mean in my own

3:38:57experience now or many years ago I would

3:39:00not characterize this as a walkable

3:39:03neighborhood. Um I think if you Frank's

3:39:07smiling I think he's familiar with the

3:39:09area. Um

3:39:13you know I will I will just say that if

3:39:15we were talking some degree of variance

3:39:18as opposed to a complete and utter

3:39:21waiver of any parking requirement.

3:39:25Um I might be more flexible but the

3:39:29parking is not good around there because

3:39:32of the traffic flow. It's a big You go

3:39:34down Farmington and it cuts through to

3:39:36Planefield Street and then it goes to

3:39:38Johnston or up the other way. There's a

3:39:42lot of traffic there. There's no light.

3:39:45It's very difficult to negotiate. It's

3:39:48not a good walking area. Um and there's

3:39:52I don't see any other area there that

3:39:56would accommodate parking. And certainly

3:39:59at this point you're not offering us

3:40:02parking in some other other area either.

3:40:06Okay. Thank you.

3:40:10>> Make a comment that any future use of

3:40:12the facility besides being vacant will

3:40:15require a parking or uh variance because

3:40:17there is no parking on the on the site.

3:40:22>> Any uh further questions for the staff

3:40:24of the applicant?

3:40:28Okay. Is there any public comment here

3:40:31in the room that wishes to be heard on

3:40:32this project?

3:40:36Not in the room. Mr. Lima, anyone

3:40:38online?

3:40:41>> There is no public comment online.

3:40:43>> Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ray, please put

3:40:46your recommendation up on the screen.

3:40:48So, there were this is DIA. The issue

3:40:51basically is primarily the lack of

3:40:54parking. Um,

3:40:57any further comments? Otherwise, it' be

3:40:58a motion. Can be positive as the staff

3:41:01says or of course negative.

3:41:05Commissioner Coupe. Mr. President, I

3:41:08would um

3:41:10given the opportunity to support um the

3:41:14positive recommendation

3:41:16um primarily because of the

3:41:20nature of the building, it's impossible

3:41:22for them to provide parking and if we

3:41:26are never going to allow anyone to

3:41:28operate, it's just going to stay empty.

3:41:31Um I know the area pretty well also. Um

3:41:36it's it's a neighborhood that relies

3:41:40quite a bit on street parking. When I

3:41:43was a kid, my grandfather would pick me

3:41:45up from school and go to um place down

3:41:47the street and I'd sit in the car on the

3:41:50street and wait for him to, you know,

3:41:53come out. So, it's been uh I think it's

3:41:56been like that since I remember when it

3:41:57was Coffees Cafe. I think it's been like

3:41:59that forever. And I just don't know what

3:42:02the alternative is. Um, so I think I'd

3:42:06rather see it maybe struggle with on

3:42:10street parking than just remain empty.

3:42:14>> Okay. A motion for a positive

3:42:17recommendation made by Commissioner

3:42:18Coupe, second by Director Carrero. Uh,

3:42:21any further discussion?

3:42:24Okay. Um,

3:42:28tough one, Mr. Gary, but I think Mr.

3:42:31Coupe, Commissioner Coop's point about

3:42:34otherwise it stays empty as a problem. I

3:42:36hope the zoning board tries to maybe

3:42:38they can come up with some way to

3:42:40address this, but we're just basically

3:42:42recommen recommendation.

3:42:45Anything further? Okay. All those in

3:42:47favor of a positive recommendation

3:42:48signify by saying I. I.

3:42:50>> All those oppose say nay. Okay. Uh

3:42:54record Commissioner Lampir in the

3:42:55negative of the remaining positive.

3:42:57Okay. Next on the agenda,

3:43:00I forget what's the next one.

3:43:05>> Uh to Kensington Road, the Tel Verma and

3:43:10Brian Schington Road. Is the applicant

3:43:12here wish to be heard?

3:43:13>> Chairman, the applicant, the owner and

3:43:15the applicant is here. The applicant is

3:43:17actually listed as architect here, but

3:43:19Dr. Brener is the applicant and the

3:43:21owner of the property. So, if I may

3:43:24proceed, this is an interesting one, Mr.

3:43:27chairman for this late at night. So, the

3:43:30the staff recommendation is that no

3:43:33recommendation because we don't need any

3:43:36relief and I've been I've been talking

3:43:39to the solicitor over the last couple of

3:43:41days about this issue. Um, I think we

3:43:45firmly believe that we do not need any

3:43:48relief, but I don't want to get stuck in

3:43:50a position where

3:43:54this uh this I don't know whether this

3:43:57board is required to make a

3:43:58recommendation or not, so to speak.

3:44:01We're going to pursue this. So, this is

3:44:03an Let me just step back, Mr. Chairman,

3:44:05if I might.

3:44:07um an ADU in an existing garage within

3:44:11the existing footprint of the garage. Um

3:44:15the the building is within the setbacks

3:44:18but state law says you don't need any

3:44:20relief if it's existing footprint even

3:44:22within the existing footprint. We are

3:44:25going up and I perhaps had a

3:44:28misunderstanding and and I think maybe

3:44:30the architect did as well that the limit

3:44:34there was a limitation with respect to

3:44:36accessory structures of 15 ft. We're

3:44:39going up 21 ft. Um

3:44:43I went through the ordinance today

3:44:46looking for that limitation and I can't

3:44:49find it. I don't think there is a

3:44:51limitation of 15 ft. So, as a result,

3:44:54we're we're certainly within the

3:44:56principal use structure of 35 feet.

3:44:58We're only going 20 21 feet. So, it's a

3:45:01it's an ADU meeting all of the

3:45:04requirements of state law, not meeting

3:45:07the sideyard variances, even though it's

3:45:09non-conforming, and suggesting to you

3:45:12that we do not need any height variance

3:45:14either. As a result, we're going to do

3:45:18our darnest to make sure the building

3:45:21official to make our case to the

3:45:23building official and hopefully withdraw

3:45:26the application. If we don't need to go

3:45:27to the zoning board, we don't want to go

3:45:29to the zoning board. Uh because that has

3:45:32other implications. Um but again, if you

3:45:35need to make

3:45:36[clears throat and laughter] a

3:45:36recommendation,

3:45:38um I'm I'm in that kind of a position

3:45:40between a rock and a hard place. Well,

3:45:42if you're basically saying if you need a

3:45:43recommendation, please make it positive.

3:45:45Right.

3:45:45>> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I wanted

3:45:48to let you know that his daughter was

3:45:50going to be living there. She just

3:45:51finished medical school. Um she's going

3:45:54to try to come back to Rhode Island to

3:45:56practice here. Uh

3:45:57>> oh, we need more primary Is she primary

3:45:59care?

3:46:01>> Okay. So, put it for the record. He's

3:46:03she's a breast oncologist.

3:46:06>> Identify [laughter] yourself and just

3:46:07make that.

3:46:08>> My name is Dr. Chilak Perma

3:46:12stationed in Rhode Island for the last

3:46:13three decades or maybe longer and my

3:46:17daughter has gone to medical school

3:46:19>> in Philadelphia and trained at one of

3:46:21the prestigious medical centers in

3:46:25Boston and completed about seven years

3:46:28of training uh now uh completing uh very

3:46:32soon and in the interview process and

3:46:34I'm trying to get her to come to Rhode

3:46:36Island which is not an easy task. I I

3:46:39have been the former president of the

3:46:40Rhode Island Medical Society. Very hard

3:46:43to recruit physicians here. Yes. Because

3:46:45of many reasons. I think you all are

3:46:47aware of it. Reimbursement here is very

3:46:50low.

3:46:51>> So, uh you know, we lose out physicians

3:46:53to Boston. So, I'm trying to make it

3:46:55attractive for her to come here because

3:46:57she'll have a home.

3:46:59>> Yeah. Good. That's the

3:47:00>> So, so that we need this ADU for public

3:47:02health reasons. I get it. Okay. I got I

3:47:05got you, doctor. Okay. Um

3:47:08>> Thank [laughter] you. so much.

3:47:10>> Hope I explain that properly.

3:47:16>> I understand. Solicitor, is there

3:47:18anything you want to tell us like about

3:47:20this? Because I understand there's a

3:47:22there's

3:47:23there's a disagreement potentially

3:47:25whether or not they need zoning relief.

3:47:28>> Correct. And and

3:47:30it's it's late. So, in other words, the

3:47:35applicant put in an application for

3:47:36zoning. Yeah,

3:47:39>> the city did not.

3:47:41>> So, it is here. So, you should make a

3:47:44recommendation one way or the other.

3:47:46>> Okay.

3:47:46>> I mean, it it's so benign.

3:47:48>> I I I understand.

3:47:50>> I'm not for much, but I can't tell you

3:47:52how to vote, but it's pretty benign.

3:47:53What?

3:47:54>> Um, so the staff is says do not need uh

3:47:57bar. You have any facts about this other

3:47:59than this that like have anything

3:48:01further Jamie?

3:48:03>> Yeah. So, just just brief. So, so there

3:48:05is something in the code that says

3:48:06there's some there 15 feet are

3:48:09referenced, but I believe it's for

3:48:11sheds. Um, otherwise it's blank, which I

3:48:15can't believe that you can build a 90

3:48:17foot high ADU.

3:48:20So, or an accessory structure. So, we're

3:48:24trying to figure out, but ultimately,

3:48:25it's the decision of the building

3:48:27official.

3:48:27>> Yeah.

3:48:28>> But right now, you [clears throat] have

3:48:28an application in front of you. They

3:48:30based it on 15 feet. They're asking for

3:48:32the difference of the relief. That's

3:48:34what you're making your recommendation

3:48:36for. If he can convince the building

3:48:38official that no relief is needed, then

3:48:40they can withdraw their application. Um

3:48:42>> Okay.

3:48:43>> But

3:48:45I I cannot give the legal opinion that

3:48:47you can build an an accessory structure

3:48:51as high as you want.

3:48:52>> I I tend to agree with that common sense

3:48:55response. Um Mr. Ray, is there anything

3:48:58other than your analysis here that it's

3:49:01anything like details?

3:49:02>> I just wanted to shed some light on why

3:49:04I gave the recommendation no

3:49:06recommendation. It's just because um the

3:49:0815P thing it we never found that in the

3:49:12code. So it like the um variances that

3:49:14were listed were for primary structure

3:49:16setbacks which um we didn't think

3:49:19applied. So we weren't really sure what

3:49:23because that we saw that saw that the

3:49:25variances did not apply to this case. So

3:49:28didn't feel that it was right to give a

3:49:30positive or negative recommendation.

3:49:32>> Okay. So there is some relief sought

3:49:34here. It looks like a minimum front

3:49:35setback and accessory side setback but

3:49:38you don't believe you need it anyway. So

3:49:41>> you need those. The state law says you

3:49:43don't require to do the relief of the

3:49:46>> Yeah. and and stand if if they hold

3:49:48their setback even if they're expanding

3:49:50it that we he doesn't require additional

3:49:53relief. In other words, as long as you

3:49:55kept

3:49:56>> Yeah.

3:49:56>> But I they're staying in footprint

3:49:57anyway.

3:49:59>> Okay.

3:50:01>> Foot was just going up. I don't know

3:50:03whether you have any pictures of the

3:50:06>> Yes.

3:50:06>> proposed garage just

3:50:09>> this is the existing condition.

3:50:11>> Yeah. Proposed is just going up.

3:50:14>> Yeah.

3:50:15>> Okay.

3:50:16I mean to me I'll talk to myself to the

3:50:18extent they need a variance I would give

3:50:20a positive recommendation that's the way

3:50:23I would characterize it um on the upward

3:50:27aspect. So that's the way I kind of view

3:50:29it. Um but it's up to my colleagues if

3:50:32you don't want to do any recommendation

3:50:34or like I said to the extent you need of

3:50:36recommendation I'd give a positive. So

3:50:40>> commissioner

3:50:40>> may I just ask Mr.

3:50:42>> Yes. Go ahead.

3:50:43>> Staff are there um Has anyone objected?

3:50:47Any of the neighbors? I know there's

3:50:49just one behind and one alongside

3:50:53close to the garage.

3:50:54>> I haven't received any correspondence

3:50:55from anybody

3:50:57>> and staff has not either. Okay. Thank

3:50:59you.

3:51:02>> All right. This is the time if you want

3:51:04to make any kind of motion. Mo motion

3:51:07could be negative. Motion could be not

3:51:09going to make a motion. I mean, no

3:51:11recommendation or it could be positive

3:51:13recommendation in case you need it.

3:51:18>> Commissioner Lamp here,

3:51:18>> since this is in my neighborhood and I

3:51:21walk by the house most days, I will um

3:51:25say that I I've looked at it. It

3:51:28certainly seems appropriate um and I

3:51:31would move a positive recommendation

3:51:35um for the relief requested.

3:51:39There a second to pause the recommend.

3:51:52Oh no.

3:51:54I'll repeat what just happened. You did

3:51:56a positive recommendation. Not opposed.

3:51:59Congratulations, Mr. Gary. All right.

3:52:04Yes. Next is um was it 118 maplewood and

3:52:09zero maplewood? Is that the next one for

3:52:11you?

3:52:11>> That's the one I have unless

3:52:13>> Okay. The one I have.

3:52:14>> All right. So, this is the Phipe Lafier

3:52:18Giovan Torres 118 Maplewood. Zero

3:52:22Maplewood. Is the applicant here and

3:52:24wishes to be heard on the matter?

3:52:25>> Mr. Shim. Um so, let me just quickly say

3:52:29this. I I um I was familiar with this

3:52:32application, but they just contacted me

3:52:34this afternoon to to be here and to be

3:52:37at the zoning board. So, forgive me if

3:52:39I'm not all that familiar with it. But,

3:52:42um this is a this is a mer lot merger

3:52:44situation. It's a a three family house

3:52:47on a 10,000 square foot lot um

3:52:53in the B1 zone. Um as was happened and I

3:52:57had another one of these for you at one

3:52:59time in the same area is a lot of these

3:53:02lots when they were platted as 5,000

3:53:04square foot lots. The house ends up on

3:53:07one side and and and the structure ends

3:53:10up on one side and as a result you have

3:53:12a very lopsided looking lot that merged

3:53:14together. You have nothing on the other

3:53:16side. So, what's being requested here is

3:53:19relief from the merger provision in

3:53:22order to um divide essentially divide

3:53:25the lots into 5,000 square foot lots

3:53:28each and put a two family on 5,000 and

3:53:32leave the re the three family on 5,000

3:53:34ft.

3:53:36>> Okay. Uh thank you, Mr. Garhe. Uh any

3:53:39questions for Mr. Garhe?

3:53:41Okay. Um Mr. Ray, could you make your

3:53:44pres the staff re uh presentation?

3:53:47>> Yes. So, as has already been said, um it

3:53:51the proposal is to unmmerge two 5,000

3:53:54foot lots. Um one with an existing three

3:53:57family dwelling and a proposal to

3:53:59construct a new two family dwelling.

3:54:03Ariel

3:54:15So um the relief for the existing three

3:54:19family dwelling is um for setbacks and

3:54:23lot size and for the new house um also

3:54:27lot size setbacks um

3:54:33so um staff found that um there's a good

3:54:36amount of two and threeies ally

3:54:39dwellings in this area. Also found that

3:54:42um Laurel Hill has some of the highest

3:54:44variability in lot sizes of any

3:54:46neighborhood in Cranston. So if you look

3:54:48at this map I have um the subject block

3:54:52contains single family dwellings on lots

3:54:54as small as 3,600 square ft to lots as

3:54:58large as 10,000 square feet. Um and a

3:55:01lot of variability for the other types

3:55:04of housing as well in that area. Um, as

3:55:07a result of this, um, numbers such as

3:55:10average density and average lot size

3:55:12don't really manage to capture the

3:55:14character of this neighborhood. Um, in

3:55:16addition, um, Cranston traffic safety

3:55:19manager Steven Moy reviewed the parking

3:55:22layout on this application and confirmed

3:55:23that it complies with our regulations.

3:55:27Um, future land use in this area um is

3:55:31single/2 family residential, less than

3:55:3410.89 89 units per acre. Um, this

3:55:38proposal does exceed that. Um, but

3:55:42densing in this area would increase very

3:55:44negligibly the addition of two units.

3:55:48Um, in addition to that, the B1 zoning

3:55:51district is an appropriate zoning

3:55:52classification for two family

3:55:54development. Um, the following goals,

3:55:57policies, and action items support the

3:55:59approval of this application. goal H2

3:56:01policy H3 policy H6 and action LU29

3:56:09and these are some additional figures

3:56:11consider

3:56:16looks like

3:56:18I don't have the recommendation slide um

3:56:20for this one

3:56:21>> but my guess is it's positive

3:56:23>> yeah I knew you would do positive

3:56:26[laughter]

3:56:29>> any questions for Mr. Mr. Ray,

3:56:31Commissioner Lamp here.

3:56:33>> Um, could you go back to the last slide

3:56:36you you had on there?

3:56:38>> This one?

3:56:38>> Yes. Just a question. It says number of

3:56:41residential lots within 200 ft.

3:56:4440 lots.

3:56:46Are there really 40 lots within 200 feet

3:56:49of that lot? That sounds like a

3:56:53>> Yes.

3:56:53>> Really?

3:56:54>> Mhm.

3:56:55>> Okay.

3:56:57Um the other question I had for you

3:57:00>> this is the u where I got that from

3:57:05>> ah there are a lot of corners. Okay

3:57:08>> got it. Thank you. Um

3:57:11on

3:57:13page

3:57:16six of your

3:57:18um analysis,

3:57:21you have um

3:57:24B1 zone. Minimum lot size required.

3:57:276,000 ft for a single family dwelling

3:57:30proposed is 5,000 would be sought as a

3:57:33thousand. But the applicant is proposing

3:57:37a two family dwelling. Correct. Yeah.

3:57:39So, I I realized that was a um error on

3:57:42my part. So, sorry about that confusion.

3:57:44>> So, the relief saw is actually

3:57:47>> 3,00

3:57:48>> 3,000 square feet,

3:57:49>> correct?

3:57:52And the

3:58:08>> Yeah, that's our minimum lot size

3:58:09requirement for three families.

3:58:21Yeah, say that.

3:58:45um yeah I did um so I looked at um as

3:58:50you can see on this map um and in the

3:58:52text I looked at lot size and I looked

3:58:55at um what types of development was

3:58:57already there. So I did do an analysis

3:59:00within 200 feet.

3:59:09Yeah, sorry. Um the pink is

3:59:14three families and the blue is two

3:59:16families.

3:59:25I'm not sure, but it roughly coincides

3:59:27with the 200 foot radius.

3:59:34>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Any for the

3:59:36questions for Mr. Ray.

3:59:37>> Yeah, if I could if you could go back to

3:59:39the that how many of those three

3:59:42families are on undersized lots?

3:59:46>> Um, I'm not sure if I could answer that

3:59:48right now, but

3:59:50definitely there are some.

3:59:53>> Okay. And could you go back to the

3:59:56building plans?

4:00:01>> I don't Nope. Next one.

4:00:03>> I don't know that much about building

4:00:04plans,

4:00:06but I cannot believe that that's a two

4:00:08family house that they're showing there.

4:00:11You've got three stairways going into

4:00:13three separate sections of the house.

4:00:18>> Okay.

4:00:18>> And if you can go back to the site plan.

4:00:22Uh the other question is driveways for

4:00:24that existing three family is going to

4:00:27be on that left side that does not exist

4:00:30today.

4:01:12director speaking to the microphone.

4:01:15She said, "Not a lot of property." Not a

4:01:16lot.

4:01:26Anything? Go. Go ahead. Director.

4:01:31I mean, I don't always ask the question,

4:01:32but why would they need to put a two

4:01:34family on that parcel and not a single

4:01:36family?

4:01:42because they can or with variances, but

4:01:48>> I I I mean I don't know the answer to

4:01:51the question other than that's what

4:01:54they're here for.

4:01:58Any further questions for the staff or

4:02:02the applicant?

4:02:04Okay, I'll go to public comment. Anyone

4:02:07here in the room that'd like to make

4:02:08comment on the Maplewood Avenue

4:02:11applications?

4:02:13Seeing none, Mr. Lima, anyone online

4:02:16that wants to make public comment on the

4:02:17Maplewood Avenue applications?

4:02:21>> Seeing no public comment online.

4:02:22>> Thank you, Mr. Lima. Are there any

4:02:24further questions for the staff for the

4:02:27applicant from the commissioners?

4:02:30Um, okay. Time for motions. I'll make a

4:02:32quick comment. I will not be voting in

4:02:35favor of this. It exceeds the density uh

4:02:37of the surrounding neighborhood, exceeds

4:02:39the density of the flum. And I believe

4:02:42the twothirds of the lots in this area

4:02:44that is on the analysis is larger than

4:02:47the slot that they're proposing. So I'll

4:02:49not be I'll be making a I would vote for

4:02:52a negative recommendation, not for a

4:02:53positive. Mr. Gary, just so you know,

4:02:55that's just my issues. You know, you

4:02:57understand I'm pretty consistent on

4:02:58these density issues. So that's what it

4:03:00is. So all right. Anything further

4:03:03otherwise we'd make motion can be

4:03:06positive or negative.

4:03:14Commissioner,

4:03:16>> I would u move for a negative

4:03:19recommendation

4:03:21because the uh proposal is not

4:03:24consistent with the comprehensive plan

4:03:26as it exceeds the density of the future

4:03:29land use map and the comprehensive plan

4:03:32and that the lot size for the remaining

4:03:37three family home is almost half of what

4:03:42is required.

4:03:44and that is not consistent with the

4:03:47comprehensive plan.

4:03:49>> Is there a second to Commissioner

4:03:51Lanir's motion? Seconded by Commissioner

4:03:53Xter. Any further discussion?

4:03:57Seeing none, all those in favor of a

4:03:59negative recommendation signify by

4:04:00saying I. I. All those opposed,

4:04:05the eyes have it. No nazs. Okay. Thank

4:04:09you, Mr. Gary. All right.

4:04:12Thanks for your patience

4:04:16to the beginning of the ZBR agenda.

4:04:22185 Albert A.

4:04:25Is the applicant here on Albert A. I did

4:04:29not see the applicant present. Please

4:04:31make their presentation.

4:04:34>> All right. So this is a proposal um in

4:04:37Edgewood to raise and reconstruct a

4:04:41detached garage with reduced side and

4:04:43rear setbacks.

4:04:46So the important thing about this

4:04:48application is that it is not actually

4:04:51making the setback relief worse than the

4:04:53existing condition. All it is doing is

4:04:56essentially replacing an old um broken

4:04:59down garage and slightly expanding its

4:05:02footprint but away from the lot line. So

4:05:05the reason that they need um relief in

4:05:08this case is just because they are um

4:05:12destroying the structure and building a

4:05:14new one.

4:05:17>> Could you stop a second, Mr. Ray? On

4:05:19Maplewood, we're supposed to do two

4:05:21motions, right? It's okay. Do you want

4:05:24to do a sec? You think we should just do

4:05:26out of abundance and cost and the second

4:05:27motion?

4:05:28>> Yeah.

4:05:31>> Okay. So, the first one you did, we're

4:05:32gonna say was for

4:05:36>> what the 1818 Maplewood would have. This

4:05:38would be the zero Maplewood AB. Could

4:05:39you make the same motion again,

4:05:41Commissioner Lampier?

4:05:42>> Yes.

4:05:44>> Negative recommendation.

4:05:48>> And seconded by Commissioner Exter. Any

4:05:50further discussion? All those uh in

4:05:52favor of negative recommendation signify

4:05:54by saying I. All those uh opposed say

4:05:57nay. I have it. Apologize to Mr. Garhee,

4:05:59but that's same outcome. You should

4:06:02know. All right. Sorry about that, Mr.

4:06:04Ray.

4:06:04>> No worries.

4:06:05>> My my error after 10.

4:06:06>> Um so, as I was saying, um the footprint

4:06:11of the garage slightly larger than the

4:06:13existing one, but it is not decreasing

4:06:17the setbacks.

4:06:22So as you can see I labeled the uh

4:06:24relief as same as the existing

4:06:26condition.

4:06:29So um the applicant stated that the

4:06:32current garage is in bad condition and

4:06:34that the proposed garage will be

4:06:35reconstructed with no increase in

4:06:38setback relief. Um slight increases in

4:06:41building size will not increase

4:06:42nonconformity on accessory structure

4:06:44setback requirements. In addition, a lot

4:06:46of the garages in this neighborhood are

4:06:49similarly located along lot lines.

4:06:54Um staff found that this application is

4:06:57consistent with future land use map

4:06:59designation and goals H2 and policy H3

4:07:02and that positive recommendation.

4:07:05>> Any questions for Mr. Ray on this uh

4:07:08application?

4:07:10Commissioner Lir,

4:07:11>> I don't know if it's as much a question

4:07:13as I'm generally in favor of this um and

4:07:17a positive recommendation. The only

4:07:19issue I have is that when you look at

4:07:21that um rear lot line and I uh and where

4:07:27the garage is, I understand that it

4:07:33doesn't seem like a big deal because all

4:07:34they're doing is reconstructing and in

4:07:37the same place, but the the ordinance

4:07:40and and the zoning rules require that if

4:07:45you completely raise something, you then

4:07:48have to be conformed conforming.

4:07:50I'm not suggesting that they should have

4:07:52to be completely conforming, but they

4:07:54are on the property line. I don't even

4:07:57know how they would paint the back of

4:07:59that new garage, assuming that they

4:08:03wanted to do that. So, if the applicant

4:08:07were here, I would have asked the

4:08:10question, is there a way to move it

4:08:13forward a hook?

4:08:16because it doesn't seem reasonable that

4:08:18as a matter of good practice we would

4:08:22allow things to be built right on the

4:08:26property line.

4:08:29So that's the concern that that I have.

4:08:32Not that it has to be completely

4:08:33conforming even though that's what's

4:08:35required but we can grant a variance

4:08:37from that but something that's workable.

4:08:43>> Yeah, Commissioner Lier, thank you. I

4:08:44mean, um, in the end, the zoning board

4:08:47could probably provide some guidance to

4:08:50this applicant and ask them the

4:08:52questions about, well, could you move it

4:08:54up a foot, for example, and I, you know,

4:08:57right, listener,

4:08:58>> yeah, you don't have to re you don't

4:09:00have to grant the entire request. You

4:09:02could, if they're asking for a 4 foot

4:09:04variance, you could grant a three-foot

4:09:05variance and you make them move it.

4:09:07>> Okay. So, I think

4:09:08>> Yeah, they'll have to come in with an

4:09:09explanation because I agree with you.

4:09:12there's a maintenance problem. In other

4:09:14words, if if just from a land owner

4:09:17standpoint, if if their neighbor doesn't

4:09:20want them on the land, I don't even know

4:09:22how they build it. So, I mean,

4:09:25practicality, it might be

4:09:28>> I I think the zoning board

4:09:29>> suggestion.

4:09:30>> Yeah, I think

4:09:30>> maybe, you know, if if you do do a

4:09:33positive motion with a suggestion that

4:09:35the board take into consideration

4:09:39a a re Yeah. a re a reasonable request

4:09:42for relief perhaps

4:09:45in a less amount than has been

4:09:48requested.

4:09:51>> Positive recommendation

4:09:53but with a a reduced amount of relief to

4:09:57grant grant grant. Okay.

4:10:01Any other comments or questions?

4:10:04Okay. Seeing none public comment. Anyone

4:10:06here wishes to make comment on this

4:10:08project?

4:10:10Seeing none, Mr. Lemur, any public

4:10:12comment on this project?

4:10:16>> There's no public comment online.

4:10:18>> Okay. At this point, we can make a

4:10:20motion, positive or negative. Um, and of

4:10:24course, Solicer Marcella came up with a

4:10:26caveat on the positive. So, motions

4:10:30would be in order.

4:10:32Commissioner Lamp here,

4:10:34>> I would move that we send a positive

4:10:38recommendation to the zoning board of

4:10:40review with the

4:10:43suggestion that they provide less than

4:10:47the relief requested but a reasonable

4:10:52variance

4:10:54uh to accommodate for building of the

4:10:58structure and maintenance of the

4:11:00structure.

4:11:02Okay. Is there a second to that motion?

4:11:06Seconded by Commissioner Kisante. Any

4:11:08further discussion? All those in favor

4:11:10of the motion signify by saying I.

4:11:12>> All those opposed say nay. Eyes have it.

4:11:15Next is

4:11:17Jenny Clement Joshua Debrasard 75

4:11:22Gladstone Street and zero Gladstone

4:11:24Street. Is the applicant here and wishes

4:11:26to be heard on this matter? Not seeing

4:11:28the applicant present. is staff could

4:11:30the staff proceed with their analysis

4:11:32and recommendation.

4:11:33>> All right. So, um this is another

4:11:36unmerger request. Um and this one is to

4:11:39leave an existing single family

4:11:42um and construct a new two family

4:11:52and um

4:11:56[clears throat]

4:12:00the lot size are shown here. So

4:12:04um the existing single family um

4:12:12anyway sorry um

4:12:21so um the single family dwelling is on

4:12:26about a 6,000 foot lot and the um

4:12:30proposed lot is about 7,000 square feet.

4:12:34And as you can see from the site plan,

4:12:36um a notable feature of this existing

4:12:39house is that is right up against the

4:12:41lot line um right up there with no

4:12:44setback. And um another piece of relief

4:12:46that is being asked is for off streetet

4:12:49parking requirement that requires um

4:12:51parking be on the same lot as the

4:12:54dwelling. So in this case um like I said

4:12:56the house is right on the lot line and

4:12:58right on the other side of lot line is

4:13:01the parking space that is meant to

4:13:03satisfy that parking requirement as well

4:13:06as right next to it the parking

4:13:07requirement for the proposed two family.

4:13:16And in our analysis found that um this

4:13:20neighborhood is developed with a mix of

4:13:23single and two family and three family

4:13:24dwellings and majority of two family

4:13:27dwellings in this area built under 4,000

4:13:30to 7,000 foot lots which is consistent

4:13:33with the neighborhood as well as the

4:13:35frontage which is being requested

4:13:38and um I already explained the off

4:13:41street parking situation.

4:13:44So future land use map, oh it's not

4:13:48accurate. Um we found that the density

4:13:52of this proposal conforms to the future

4:13:55land use map which is 10.89 and the

4:13:58proposal is 9.5.

4:14:01Um and following goals, policies and

4:14:03action items outline the comprehensive

4:14:05plan support approval of this

4:14:06application goal H2, policy H3 and

4:14:10policy H6.

4:14:12And I'd like to give a positive

4:14:13recommendation on both of those ZBR

4:14:16applications.

4:14:17>> Thank you, Mr. Ray. Any questions for

4:14:19Mr. Ray?

4:14:22>> Very cool question, Mr. Ray. They talk

4:14:24this guy sounds like they have this

4:14:25parking thing where they're proposing an

4:14:28access easement. Is this Do you know if

4:14:32it's a permanent easement?

4:14:34>> Um, I'm not aware of the nature of the

4:14:36easement.

4:14:44Oh yes

4:14:49to the micro

4:14:50microphone.

4:14:51>> The driveway is already there like it is

4:14:54shown in the site.

4:14:55>> Okay.

4:14:57And then there's like I don't have a

4:15:00problem with the density. I'm just

4:15:01trying to do one just check a couple of

4:15:04things.

4:15:06And then they have like zero proposed

4:15:08minimum set side setback.

4:15:14>> You guys can approve anything you want,

4:15:16but I I I mean from a public safety

4:15:18safety standpoint, it that's insane. You

4:15:21the a truck a a ladder a fireman

4:15:25couldn't get around the back.

4:15:27>> That's what I'm trying to figure out.

4:15:28Like how how is that even like pos like

4:15:31how is that physically possible? Sorry,

4:15:33ladder trucks don't drive into

4:15:34backyards, but the ladder truck could

4:15:37pull up right in front of

4:15:38>> They have to. How are they going to get

4:15:39around the back if it's a zero side

4:15:41setback on that side? What? There's

4:15:44windows on that side. How are they going

4:15:46to get a ladder up? They need at least

4:15:49five feet of clearance to get a ladder

4:15:50up to the second floor. If there's

4:15:52windows on that side,

4:15:54>> oh, you're talking about there'll be

4:15:56more than 10 feet separation between the

4:15:58buildings.

4:15:59>> Then why does it say zero? because

4:16:02they're proposing uh to draw the lot

4:16:04line right at the edge of the existing

4:16:07building.

4:16:10But they're not proposing to build the

4:16:12other building within 10 ft of it, but

4:16:15but they can put a fence up.

4:16:18>> They could. Yeah, they could.

4:16:22And this is going to be owned by two

4:16:23different people, right?

4:16:24>> Correct.

4:16:26These people Okay. Commissioner Ler,

4:16:32>> you know, it it's one thing when you're

4:16:35dealing with a property that already has

4:16:38those existing conditions on it and

4:16:40we're going to grant a variance to try

4:16:43to make it usable for a land owner. But

4:16:48this is a case where we are being asked

4:16:52to approve a subdivision subdivision of

4:16:56those lots and create those lots with

4:16:59those constraints.

4:17:01And I think it is really a bad precedent

4:17:06for us to start approving

4:17:09the creation of lots

4:17:12that do not allow for any

4:17:16off- streetet parking on that lot

4:17:20and that have zero setbacks whether they

4:17:24be for front yard, sideyard, rear yard

4:17:27or anything else. We're approving the

4:17:29creation of those lots with those

4:17:31restrictions. And I think that when they

4:17:34are those restrictions are that severe,

4:17:37the only right answer is no.

4:17:42Commissioner Le here. Any other

4:17:44questions or comments?

4:17:48Uh, is there anyone here would like to

4:17:50make public comment on this application?

4:17:54Thank you, Mr. Lemur. Anyone online that

4:17:57make public comment on this application?

4:18:01>> There is no public comment online.

4:18:03>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Ray. You have

4:18:04your recommendation up. Thanks.

4:18:06>> All right. At this point, um, time for a

4:18:10motion. You can make a positive or a

4:18:11negative. We'll need to make two

4:18:12motions. And, uh,

4:18:16I just have a problem with the zero side

4:18:18setback.

4:18:20Um,

4:18:22I don't have a problem with the density.

4:18:23I have a problem with the zero side set

4:18:25park. I don't feel I don't like this

4:18:27like easement on a parking lot e parking

4:18:29spice thing but you know anyway I'll let

4:18:33time for motions positive or negative

4:18:41I can we can wait till go ahead [snorts]

4:18:44>> I just want to say we are looking at

4:18:45this two both 75 and then a separate

4:18:48application for zero.

4:18:51>> Yes. So if you theoretically you could

4:18:52vote yes on one and no on the other.

4:19:00[laughter]

4:19:03>> Whoever wants to make a motion, let me

4:19:04know.

4:19:04>> I'll make a motion for a negative

4:19:06recommendation for 75 of leaving that on

4:19:09the existing parcel plan with the zero

4:19:11setbacks and having to acquire an

4:19:13easement

4:19:14>> on a parking space

4:19:15>> for parking in a driveway and access

4:19:17that's up against the zero lot line.

4:19:20>> Yeah. Okay. Negative recommendation made

4:19:22by Commissioner Carrero, seconded by

4:19:24Commissioner Mancini. Any discussion?

4:19:27Seeing none, all those in favor of a

4:19:28negative recommendation signify by

4:19:30saying I.

4:19:31>> I. All those in favor of All those

4:19:33opposed to the negative.

4:19:35Eyes have it. No one negative. Next one.

4:19:39No, excuse me. We got to go back. We

4:19:40have the zero. We got to go back to zero

4:19:43Gladstone now. Gladstone Street. Anyone

4:19:47want to make a motion there?

4:19:53could be the same as the one we just

4:19:54made.

4:19:59I make a motion for a negative

4:20:01recommendation for Zero Gladstone.

4:20:03>> Okay. Uh is there a second? Second by

4:20:07Commissioner Lanir. Any discussion? All

4:20:10those in favor of negative

4:20:10recommendation signify by saying I.

4:20:13>> All those uh opposed?

4:20:17None. eyes have it. Last one. 110 Lauren

4:20:21Street. The applicant here wishes to be

4:20:24heard on 110 Lawrence Street. Not

4:20:26present. Mr. Ray, please present the

4:20:28staff recommendation.

4:20:30>> All right. So, this application is

4:20:33interesting because it is actually a

4:20:37exact copy of an application that

4:20:40happened I believe about 20 years ago.

4:20:43Um, so this is a two family in Auburn

4:20:49that has been a two family um since 1980

4:20:55and has been taxed as a two family since

4:20:571983.

4:20:59And um they applied for essentially the

4:21:02same thing in 2004 and approved the

4:21:05application based on the evidence um

4:21:07that I just stated, which has not

4:21:10changed since that application was

4:21:12approved. And the reason why the

4:21:14application

4:21:15um why they're applying for the same

4:21:17thing again is just because um they

4:21:19never filed those permits or um whatever

4:21:22they need to do after the application

4:21:24let it expire. So doing it again uh

4:21:27hopefully follow through this time

4:21:30and my analysis just found that um the

4:21:34density in the surrounding 200 foot

4:21:36radius is higher than this um I wouldn't

4:21:40call it a proposal but just the existing

4:21:42condition um despite not matching the

4:21:46plume and following goals policies

4:21:48support the approval goal H2 policy H3

4:21:52policy H6 and policy H5 But

4:21:56that like to give a positive

4:21:57recommendation.

4:21:58>> Thank you, Mr. Ray. Any questions for

4:21:59Mr. Ray?

4:22:02>> I see no questions from Mr. Ray.

4:22:06Is there anyone here like make public

4:22:07comment on this Lauren Street

4:22:09application? Seeing none, Mr. Lemur, is

4:22:12anyone online that would like to make

4:22:14public comment about this application?

4:22:17>> I see no public comment online, but

4:22:19there's somebody still waiting for

4:22:21something. I wonder who they are. Okay.

4:22:27The um Okay. Any discussion on Lauren

4:22:30Street? Seeing none, it could be time

4:22:33for a recommendation. Mr. Director Pero,

4:22:36>> I make a recommendation to accept the

4:22:38positive recommendation.

4:22:40>> Okay. You made a motion for a positive

4:22:41recommendation. Okay. Seconded by

4:22:43Commissioner Exter. Any discussion? All

4:22:45those in favor signify by saying I.

4:22:47>> All those opposed say nay. Eyes have it.

4:22:50Q. All right. Now, I'm going to ask my

4:22:52colleagues. It's about 13 of 11. Do you

4:22:55want to start this other stuff on our

4:22:58agenda that Bob Murray's been waiting

4:23:00all night to talk about like the zoning

4:23:03ordinance for state law? No. I'm not

4:23:06seeing a lot of takers, Mr. Murray.

4:23:10Or the subdivisions. This is that's a

4:23:11lot of stuff. So, I would say could we

4:23:14make a motion to continue these matters

4:23:16unless there's something important. You

4:23:17got to tell me, assistant director.

4:23:19>> This is um regarding the subdivision

4:23:22regulations. The only thing because we

4:23:23didn't really wanted to get too much

4:23:24into it. I don't have too much time to

4:23:26review it, but we did want to ask for

4:23:28permission to advertise the subdivision

4:23:31regulations for October

4:23:34um advertise the public hearing for it

4:23:36for adoption.

4:23:39>> Um I think it's probably I think my

4:23:41colleagues would probably want to talk

4:23:43about the subdivision draft before they

4:23:45authorize a hearing on it. Um

4:23:47>> Okay.

4:23:48>> Okay. It's and trying to and trying to

4:23:51have a full discussion about this at

4:23:52quarter of 11.

4:23:53>> And as I told Mr. Price, you guys, this

4:23:56is a compliment is so far ahead of the

4:23:59rest of the state as far as implementing

4:24:02the

4:24:02>> Exactly. We're not really looking to

4:24:04rush these items, but you know, so

4:24:07delaying in a month.

4:24:09>> Yes,

4:24:09>> exactly. We just

4:24:10>> And Mr. Murray, that means you got

4:24:12another month to come up with things.

4:24:16So, if you don't mind, we could just

4:24:18motion to Go ahead.

4:24:20>> Did you really stay here all this time

4:24:21to be told that we're not going to hear

4:24:23this?

4:24:25>> Do you want to make public comment right

4:24:26now?

4:24:34[laughter]

4:24:36>> Next month's fine. Okay. Um, I'm sorry

4:24:38that for those of you who are hoping to

4:24:40get this in by 11 o'clock, it's u 10 of

4:24:4311. We really can't do justice this

4:24:44thing. So, if we're going to have a

4:24:46motion to continue the

4:24:49zoning ordinance, state legislation, and

4:24:52the state legislation, amendments of the

4:24:54subdivision rags. A motion to continue

4:24:56to the next meeting in October. That

4:24:58would be appropriate at this time.

4:25:02Made by Commissioner Lanir, seconded by

4:25:05That's right, Commissioner Kisante.

4:25:08All those in favor of continuing this

4:25:10the next month, please signify by saying

4:25:12I. I oppose say nay. Eyes have it. Plan

4:25:16director's report. You got it. Read it.

4:25:18>> Pass it out.

4:25:19>> And if you have questions, always called

4:25:21director. Motion to adjurnn is now in

4:25:23order.

4:25:27>> That's right. Commissioner Kasan.

4:25:29[laughter]

4:25:30Second, Commissioner Mancini. All those

4:25:32in favor of a German signify by saying

4:25:34I. All oppose, nay. Eyes have it. See

4:25:36you.

```*