1.    Approval of the minutes of the August 12, 2026 regular Planning Board meeting.

1. Mr. Croce requested a modification of the language on page 2 item 5.a.i so that it reads “heard after 5.b” rather than “heard after 5.a.”
2. Mr. Croce requested a modification of the language on page 7 item 7.a.i so that it reads “the PB would review the comprehensive plan comparison document before a public hearing held.”
3. Motion by Mr. Skirzenski, seconded by Mr. Vaillancourt to approve the August 12, 2026 regular meeting minutes as amended. Vote: 6-0-0.

2.    Correspondence

1. Correspondence dated August 24, 2026 from Frank DiGregorio, 143 Hallville Road, Exeter, RI re: Home Rule Violation - Alert
2. Motion by Mr. Skirzenski, seconded by Mr. Weber to receive the correspondence. Vote: 6-0-0.

3.    Agenda modifications

a.    Continue item 4.a. to the October 14, 2026 regular PB meeting.

b.    Item 5.a and 5.b will be heard before 4.b.

c.     Motion by Mr. Weber, seconded by Mr. Vaillancourt to continue item 4.a. to the October 14, 2026 regular PB meeting. Vote: 6-0-0.

4.    Old Business

a.    Public Hearing - Application of Prescott Point, LLC for combined Preliminary and Final Plan approval of a Minor Land Development Project to develop 6 additional single-family units in an existing multi-family development project. The request includes application for a special use permit under Zoning Ordinance Section 602 for expansion of a multi-family development, and request for variances from Sections 603, 903, 1506 and 1508 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow separation 25 feet between principal buildings where 50 feet is required, building height of 40 feet where 35 feet is permitted, and multi-family development to be served by private sewer system. Property located off West Main Rd. and identified as Tax Assessors Plat 104, Lot 7.

                                          i.        Continued to the October 14, 2026 regular Planning Board meeting.

2. Planning Board recommendation to the Town Council – Proposed addition of new Article 16A – Inclusionary Zoning to the Middletown Zoning Ordinance, Town Code Chapter 152.

                                          i.        Heard after 5.a and 5.b.

                                         ii.        Mr. Lawrence Frank, of 8 O’Donnel Road, stated that in 2020, Frank Spinella, the advisor to the Affordable Housing Committee, commissioned a report concerning the development of an affordable housing project at Peckham School. The demographic information described in the report stated that “affordable rents above the 80% AMI (average median income) would compete with market rate units and may preclude the ability to achieve maximum affordable rents at the affordability thresholds.” The report goes on to state, “In our experience, up to 80% and 100% AMI units will typically compete for tenants who are also pursuing market rate housing.” 

                                        iii.        In response to questioning by Mr. Croce, Mr. Frank asked that the Board consider requiring an evenly divided wide range, from 30 to 80% AMI.

                                       iv.        Mr. Croce expressed his concern that being overly specific would be unattractive to developers and suggested using an average. Mr. Frank agreed. He lamented that density has not been addressed by the town in a substantive manner as of yet and went on to say that both the Peckham and Oliphant School projects were rejected by the Town Council because of density concerns.

                                         v.        Mr. Weber stated that New Bedford and Fall River used to offer affordable housing but both before and after the MBTA commuter rail expansion, rent has significantly increased. He also stated that with the expansion of the NOAA and the Coast Guard the competition for housing will only increase. 

                                       vi.        Mr. Skirzenski expressed his desire to approach the housing issue in a broad manner and begin the discussion otherwise the town is likely to be forced by the state into making more severe changes.

                                      vii.        Board members by and large expressed their approval of the recommendation.

                                     viii.        In response to questioning by Mr. Croce, Mr. Wolanski explained that 80% AMI is the maximum income level that counts towards the town’s 10 % affordable housing inventory. This maximum could be lowered if the Board choose to do so.

                                       ix.        In response to questioning by Mr. Croce, Mr. Wolanski explained that off-site construction of units or payment of a fee in lieu of adhering to the ordinance requirements is not allowed the way the recommendation is currently written but the Board could allow it in the future.

                                         x.        Mr. Huttler, expressed his concern that if the Board went down to 30% no developer would consider building affordable housing in town. He asked that the Board seek further guidance. 

1.    Mr. Croce suggested that we invite Mr. Frank Spinella to discuss the matter further at the next meeting.

                                       xi.        Motion by Mr. Huttler, seconded by Mr. Vaillancourt to continue item 4.b and invite Mr. Spinella to come before the Board at the next meeting. Vote: 6-0-0.

c.     Receive proposed amendments to the Middletown Rules and Regulations Regarding the Subdivision and Development of Land and Town Code Chapter 152 zoning ordinance to address amendments required by legislation adopted in the 2026 session of the RI General Assembly and consider scheduling a public hearing.

                                          i.        Motion by Mr. Huttler, seconded by Mr. Vaillancourt to continue item 4.c to a special meeting to be set by the Town Planner. Vote: 6-0-0.

5.    New Business

a.    Public Hearing – Application of Wave Pond Hotel, LLC for Preliminary Plan approval of a Minor Land Development Project for construction of a pool structure with deck, parking, stormwater management, and other site improvements; administrative subdivision to merge subject lots; request for special use permits under Town Code Chapter 152 – zoning ordinance, Sections 1404 and 602 to allow expansion of the number of hotel rooms from 68 to 73, and to allow expansion of the existing liquor license to the pool and deck area; variance relief from the dimensional requirements of zoning ordinance section 603 to allow easterly side yard setback of 10.1 feet where 20 feet is required, and building lot coverage of 60.6% where 25% is permitted. Property located at 1 Wave Ave., 20 Wave Ave., and 38 Purgatory Rd., and further identified as Tax Assessors Plat 116NW, Lots 13, 1200, 1201, 1202.

                                          i.        Atty. David Martland on behalf of the applicant described the project. It involves three lots, 13, 1200, and 1201. He described two different standalone applications for lot 13 that were presented to the Board previously:

1.    The first approved 5 years ago, while under previous ownership, was for a 13-room hotel. 

2.    In 2024 under the current owner, Wave Pond Hotel, LLC an 8-unit hotel with a pool deck area was approved with an extension to sometime next year.

                                         ii.        The client has now decided not to add the additional 8 units and instead will extend the amenities offered such as the pool and the pool deck. Under the zoning ordinance it is not permissible to have an accessory use as a principal use on a lot, so lot 13 needs to be merged into the adjacent lot 1201.

                                        iii.        When 20 Wave Avenue on lot 1200 was approved for 26 units and 125 parking spaces, a condition was added requiring the historic hotel at 1 Wave Avenue to decrease from 50 units to 42 units to accommodate the limited parking. When this application was prepared it was found that the historic hotel at 1 Wave Avenue actually has 47 units, an additional 5 more than it should have. The special use permit applied for, would legitimize those additional 5 units. By adding an additional 12 parking spaces on lot 13, the applicant is able to accommodate those existing 5 additional units.

1.    Mr. Weber confirmed that the assessor’s office had been taxing a total of 73 hotel units which equals 26 plus 47. Atty. Martland stated that maybe this was discovered during routine inspection.

                                       iv.        Atty. Martland also discussed the lot coverage variance, stating that once lot 13 and lot 1201 are merged the total lot coverage will not exceed 60.6%. 1201 is about 86% lot coverage currently. This is essentially creates the same amount of lot coverage when lot 13 was held as a standalone at about 34%.

                                         v.        In order to accommodate changes to hotel parking requirements the applicant has removed restaurant space inside the hotel in favor of offering that amenity outside. This space has now become restrooms and other non-gathering spaces. There was no increase in parking requirements associated with the amenity expansion of the pool deck.

                                       vi.        Atty. Martland reviewed the dimensional relief of the side setback area, where a portion of the pool deck is within the required setback. This was similar to the variance received in the prior approval and is caused by the narrowness of the lot.

                                      vii.        Atty. Martland stated that lot 13 is outside the purview of the Watershed Protection Districts and no special use permit was proposed to accommodate that.

                                     viii.        Mr. Vaillancourt confirmed that the liquor license would be extended to lot 13 since it would be merged with lot 1201. The pool deck and pool is not designed for public use and is for hotel guests only.

                                       ix.        Mr. Huttler confirmed that the 34% lot coverage on lot 13 did not include the parking spaces, only the pool, pool deck area and the service deck area. Parking, only if it is a parking structure counts towards lot coverage. Atty. Martland reiterated that the lot coverage on lot 13 is exactly the same amount that had been previously approved in 2024 with 8 units, a pool and a pool deck.

                                         x.        Professional Engineer Lynn Small of Northeast Engineering, 6 Valley Rd. took to the podium. Ms. Small worked on the original 2015 plan that called for a 13-room hotel and a pool on the top floor. That application also called for CRMC approval because of the lot’s proximity, within 200 feet of the Easton Pond moat, which is identified as the nearest coastal feature. DOT approval was needed because the south side of the lot faces a state road, Aquidneck Ave.

                                       xi.        In 2023 Ms. Small worked with the new owner who proposed an 8-unit hotel and a pool at the ground level and went through the permitting process with CRMC and DOT as well as the Town.

                                      xii.        Ms. Small explained that the only change to lot 1201, the historic hotel, is that it will be merged with lot 13, and a door will be added to provide access to the pool and deck. The newer hotel on lot 1200, 20 Wave Avenue, is elevated with parking on the lower level to accommodate the flood plain. No changes are proposed to this lot and building. The primary changes are to lot 13 where two cottages that are currently breaking all setback requirements and their corresponding cesspools will be removed. The cesspools are located in front of the cottages along Wave Avenue, one of which is actually within the right of way itself.

1.    Mr. Croce requested that a note be added to C3, existing conditions, that says the cesspools will be removed. Ms. Small noted that the note already existed on the proposed plans.

2.    Mr. Weber confirmed that the cesspools can usually be pumped out and then filled in and left on site but since stormwater treatment will be added they would have to be removed and disposed of at a landfill.

                                     xiii.        Ms. Small explained that since most of the surrounding area is impervious surfaces, stormwater accumulates at a low point in lot 13 and causes flooding. Minor areas along Wave Ave and Aquidneck Ave drain towards the streets. Because proposed conditions cannot increase runoff, an extensive system is proposed to mitigate stormwater runoff. This system is incorporated underneath the proposed parking area.

                                     xiv.        A discussion was held regarding where on the plans to place a note that indicated the cesspools would be removed.

                                      xv.        Mr. Weber confirmed that CRMC and DOT would also require review of the proposal. Ms. Small explained that the DOT is interested in runoff south towards Aquidneck Ave while the CRMC will not give final plan approval until after local approval is granted with the Planning Board but prior to Building Department approval.

                                     xvi.        Ms. Small confirmed that they had received CRMC approval at the last iteration of plans and that remains valid.

                                    xvii.        Ms. Small confirmed that currently there is no stormwater treatment taking place and runoff flows freely to Wave Ave or Aquidneck Ave./Purgatory Rd.

                                   xviii.        Ms. Small explained that the soils are sandy and there is an elevated water table which makes the stormwater design more difficult.

                                     xix.        Mr. Huttler confirmed that the vegetative depression, not currently present, is part of the stormwater management system.

                                      xx.        Mr. Weber discussed the Roads and Utilities comment regarding runoff. Ms. Small explained that their concerns had been meet. The new plans include a larger volume stormwater system that holds back the stormwater and meters it out slowly to better match existing runoff. State roads measure runoff and volume while other roadways and receiving systems are measured at peak runoff. This lot historically has a very small increase in peak runoff. The proposal is not exceeding runoff with regards to the permit currently in place and the one secured prior.

                                     xxi.        Ms. Small reviewed the proposed conditions. The pool area is on the southern side of the lot with decking on either side of it. The eastern and southern ends of the lot will remain grass while the western end will have impervious pavers that connect to the existing hotel and will provide an access point. Further north the proposal features the elevated deck with parking below. At the extreme northern end are parking spaces without a deck overhead. The parking lot is made of pervious pavers on top of a filter course of several layers of stone and sand for treatment that provide separation from the water table. The stormwater is directed into storage chambers, that is then metered out intro a drainage structure. The stormwater then proceeds to the nearest catch basin on Wave Ave which is then directed to the moat along Easton’s Pond. The site is on a flood plain. The prior plan called for the entire building to be elevated with a larger parking facility underneath. The stormwater infiltration system design is based on a class 4 soil evaluation and complies with state regulations. Even if soil percolation rate drops the system will still meet code for that infiltration requirement.

                                    xxii.        Ms. Small confirmed that the proposal is an overall improvement to what currently exists because it will do away with cesspools that are currently in the water table and replace it with stormwater infiltration, treatment and metered discharge to improve water quality.

                                   xxiii.        Ms. Small explained that the site has two watersheds, Purgatory Rd and Aquidneck Ave, which is a state road to the south. Here peak runoff volume is required by DOT. To the north side towards Wave Ave, as with every preceding design peak runoff is exceed by .01 CF which has been accepted by all the state agencies, town engineers and third party reviewers consulted.

                                   xxiv.        In response to questioning by Mr. Huttler, Ms. Small explained that for aesthetic purposes the building was aligned to be parallel to the existing hotel in this oddly shaped lot. This requires a setback variance at one pinch point at 10.1 feet northeast of the pool decking and all points north of it, where 20 ft is required. Trending south, at public view on Aquidneck Ave the setbacks are met.

                                    xxv.        In response to questioning by Mr. Huttler, Ms. Small explained that along the southeastern corner is a grass depression and landscaping along the edges that allow for stormwater infiltration.

                                   xxvi.        Ms. Small confirmed that the 12 parking spaces provided in the proposal reduce the existing non-conforming number of spaces. When considering all three lots the existing number of spaces is 74 when what is required is 78. Provided are 86 spaces which brings the site into compliance with parking regulations, shown on sheet 5.

                                 xxvii.        In response to questioning by Mr. Skirzenski, Ms. Small confirmed that bollards will be placed within the parking structure to protect the overhead deck but would not impede on any parking spaces.

                                xxviii.        Ms. Small confirmed that lot coverage was calculated with respect to the zoning ordinance which counts the elevated deck, the pool and pool deck. No additional decking was added to make sure that the plan did not exceed the percentage of lot coverage (after the lots are merged) that has been previously approved, 60.6%. The pool and decking does not exceed the 34% previously approved, where 25% is required. Ms. Small explained that the applicant wanted a larger deck area but they recommended that they not increase the percentage of lot coverage already approved.

                                   xxix.        Ms. Small confirmed that with 73 rooms, occupants could vary from 73 to 146 or more and that the size of the pool and deck is smaller than what other hotels have built for that number on Aquidneck Island and Westerly, etc.

                                    xxx.        Pamela Rodgers, landscape architect of Verde Design in Jamestown, RI, reviewed the landscape design and lighting. Ms. Rodgers worked on the previous approval and stated her opinion that this was a better use and incorporated more landscape design than previously.

                                   xxxi.        Ms. Rodgers reviewed the existing conditions that included the lawn, cottages and invasive bamboo along the perimeter line with Flo’s Clam shack. Taking into account the stormwater depression along the landscape edges, native plantings were recommended along with screening adjacent to Flo’s. Trees were added along the ground level parking area, as well as ornamental landscaping along the walkway between the pool deck and the hotel. All plantings are consistent with the coastal area and atr likely to be accepted by CRMC. The landscape plan was granted a positive recommendation from the Tree Commission.

1.    Mr. Croce indicated that the Tree Commission was overall very happy with the project but had some concern that some species of plantings might spread and require more maintenance than other types. It was agreed that Ms. Rodgers would have further discussion with the Tree Commission to address their concerns.

                                 xxxii.        Ms. Rodgers described the landscape lighting as all dark sky compliant. She stated that the lighting was minimized and included for safety. There is recessed lighting that washes the pavers along the walkway adjacent to the hotel and the pool deck area. Sconces along the café area are shielded to avoid light pollution. Lighting in the canopy is covered. Other lighting is on posts and directed downward. Lighting along the steps is louvered. 

                                xxxiii.        Mr. Huttler noted that the pool at its closest point is only 10 feet away from the Aquidneck Ave sidewalk. To accommodate the need for separation from the public sidewalk and the private use of the pool he asked why taller plantings were not included in the design to create a more visible boundary. Ms. Rodgers answered that the height of the pool is consistent with the height of the grasses, mix of shrubs and the taller ornamental grasses and trees. This creates a more layered look that would still obscure the pool from view but allow pockets of visibility outward towards the coast. Ms. Rodgers explained that what was depicted on the architectural plans was not accurate to the landscape plans. Ms. Rodgers explained that the height of the pool deck is about 4.5 feet from the point of the ornamental grasses which could grow to about 3 feet. There is a line of shrubs to the front that could potentially get to about 4 feet. There is a 4-foot fence with the shrubs, tall grasses and tress behind it. The sidewalk itself sits 6 feet below the height of the pool deck. 

                                xxxiv.        In response to questioning by Mr. Huttler, Ms. Rodgers explained that the design allows people on the pool deck but not necessarily in the pool itself to look out across the street to the park and coastline. Atty. Martland noted this was identical to the previous application.

                                 xxxv.        In response to questioning by Mr. Huttler, Ms. Rodgers explained that the Aquidneck Ave perimeter is gated and fenced to keep people from walking on to the property. Mr. Huttler noted that this was not shown in the renderings.

                                xxxvi.        In response to questioning by Mr. Vaillancourt, Ms. Small explained that it is better to get a setback variance along a perimeter that is open air rather than putting two structures closer together. Ms. Small explained along the west side there is 5 feet from the existing building to the edge of the pool deck and about 15 feet as you move father north towards the elevated deck.  Heading south there is more than the 20 feet required setback

1.    Atty. Martland noted that the owner of Flo’s has no objection to the setback variance.

                               xxxvii.        Architect Jeff Moniz, owner of 2 Hand Studio, described the pool deck with lounge areas clad with stone pavers. The upper deck has a seating area with café furniture. From the upper deck there are views towards the coastline, these areas are meant for circulation and not for large groups.

                              xxxviii.        Mr. Moniz described the service area swap. The banquet and areas that can be rented are now allocated for restrooms, service storage areas, and a back bar for the bar window service area. The rest of the space will be used as a gaming area, such as pool tables and foosball tables. The restaurant service area will transition to the elevated deck area for seasonal service.

                                xxxix.        In response to questioning from Mr. Huttler, Mr. Moniz confirmed that he did not design the pool to have a view of the ocean and that was only possible if you were standing on the pool deck and not in the pool.

                                       xl.        In response to questioning by Mr. Vaillancourt, Mr. Moniz confirmed that the deck area will not be spaces that can be rented for events but people renting space elsewhere may gather there for food and drinks.

                                      xli.        In response to questioning by Mr. Croce, Atty. Martland explained that the additional 5 rooms in this proposal were not initially counted in the limit on hotel rooms in the Atlantic Beach District. What was counted was all the existing hotel rooms, the additional 13 rooms previously proposed and approved for this site, the one’s currently being constructed across Wave Avenue in the old Rusty’s, as well as the 18 that were proposed at the time where KJ’s is. This is a total of 31 proposed rooms.

                                     xlii.        Mr. Huttler, clarified Mr. Weber’s question regarding how the additional 5 rooms were not counted although the assessor’s office accounted for it. He explained that when the 20 Wave Avenue hotel was approved 8 (from 50 to 42) rooms were supposed to be removed from the historic hotel to accommodate the limited number of parking spaces set at 73. Atty. Martland explained that this omission was discovered when planning for this proposal was made by the applicant who had recently purchased the properties. The number of buildings in the historic hotel were only reduced by 3 rooms instead of 8 leaving 5 rooms illegal. To legitimize them additional parking spaces were incorporated into the plans bringing parking into compliance.

                                    xliii.        Mr. Robert Clinton, transportation engineer at VHB, analyzed the traffic impacts of the proposal by analyzing the existing conditions in comparison to what an ancillary use of this nature would create according to ITE trip generation codes.  He stated that because it is an ancillary use and not a distinct destination on its own it would not create additional traffic. It also does not have direct access to Aquidneck Ave, a state road managed by DOT, and so no consultation with DOT, or physical alteration permit was required. DOT’s primary concern was with the drainage issues already discussed.

                                    xliv.        In response to questioning by Mr. Vaillancourt, Mr. Clinton stated that there maybe a reduction in pedestrian traffic as people might stay poolside rather than walk over to the beach, partly because food and drink will be available on site.

                                     xlv.        Atty. Martland confirmed with Mr. Moniz that 1800 sq ft of service area currently in the historic hotel for events and large congregations will no longer exist in order to accommodate the new restaurant service area. This new area will only operate seasonally between June and October, weather dependent. This is a reduction in used event space which will further limit traffic.

                                    xlvi.        In response to questioning by Mr. Huttler, Atty. Martland explained that parking on this property is only for hotel patrons. The public may not park at Flo’s or the other hotels. The property owners in the vicinity self-police parking, because of this it is not likely that it will be a destination for increased traffic. Local residents could stop at the facility but they are also capable of stopping at any number of facilities in the area. Mr. Clinton reiterated that people are likely to stay on site to use the existing facilities rather than go elsewhere.

                                   xlvii.        Mr. Croce invited members of the public to speak.

1.    Michael Flynn of 34 Warren Ave, a local resident and President of Easton’s Point Association, the group involved in the creation of the Atlantic Beach Overlay District, addressed the Board.  Speaking as a private citizen, he stated that 60% lot coverage is a lot and the renderings are misleading because in reality the area is getting closed in by large buildings, the opposite of the District’s goals. Mr. Flynn stated that traffic will become more of an issue on Wave Ave and Aquidneck Ave. 

2.    Christopher Row of 177 Chase’s Lane, a member of the Zoning Board, addressed the Board.  Speaking as a private citizen, Mr. Row stated that the renderings do not show gated access from Aquidneck Ave.  The presence of several short-term rentals with drunk patrons in the immediate area may cause liability issues with the pool.

a.    Mr. Martland countered that the renderings are not accurate and that the area will be gated with a sign posted indicating the pool is private property.

3.    Terry Flynn of 34 Warren Ave, stated that the Atlantic Beach Overlay District prohibits pools. Ms. Flynn also took issue with the dimensions of the landscape buffers in the proposal. She was against granting a Special Use Permit as the project does not meet the intent of the ABOD. She was concerned about how the pool and pool deck would fare in hurricanes, increase traffic in the area, and also stated that prior applications should have no bearing on this existing application.

4.    Kim Glass of 111 Compton View Drive, stated she was against the expansion of the hotel, parking and pool area. She also stated that the pool looked as if it was for the public rather than private use and that drunk tourists could easily access it. She was also concerned about the impact to traffic with pedestrians walking over to the beach. She stated that the pool was too large and wondered why it was not enclosed to allow for use during winter months when the beach is not accessible.

a.    In response to questioning by Mr. Croce, Mr. Wolanski explained that pools are prohibited only as a principal rather than an auxiliary use in the Atlantic Beach Overlay District.

5.    Mr. Martland reiterated that the use was allowed, and that the proposal meets the front setback. He also stated that the application meets the intents and purposes of the Atlantic Beach Overlay District. The restaurant would be available to local residents while the size of the pool is common in hotels of this size. He stated that as an amenity and not a destination in itself it would not increase traffic. 

a.    In response to questioning by Mr. Croce, Mr. Martland stated the applicant would provide a management plan to address public concerns.

                                  xlviii.        Motion by Mr. Weber, seconded by Mr. Huttler to close the public hearing. Vote: 6-0-0.

                                    xlix.        Mr. Wolanski listed the following conditions:

1.    TRC condition, stating a landscape maintenance agreement will be provided to the town for landscaping on town property along Wave Ave.

2.    TRC Condition, stating the stormwater management plan must be approved by the Town Engineer prior to final approving.

3.    Revise sheet C4 to add a note regarding the removal of the cesspools on the Demolition Plan rather than the Existing Conditions plan.

4.    Address concerns of the Tree Commission regarding some of the plantings chosen and submit a revised landscaping plan prior to final approval.

5.    Provide a management plan for the pool area prior before final approval to be reviewed administratively.

6.    Entryway on Aquidneck Ave will be gated and signed, “For hotel guests only”.

7.    The approval of the Special Use Permit allowing the expansion of the liquor license is subject to approval by the Town Council.

8.    Final plan approval is subject to the approval of the subdivision plan and the Special Use Permits.

                                          l.        Motion by Mr. Skirzenski, seconded by Mr. Pierik to approve the Special Use Permit for the expansion of the hotel by 5 rooms subject to the findings and conditions. Vote: 5-1-0, with Mr. Weber voting against.

                                         li.        Motion by Mr. Skirzenski, seconded by Mr. Pierik to approve the Special Use Permit for the expansion of the restaurant and the liquor license subject to the findings and conditions. Vote: 4-2-0, with Mr. Vaillancourt and Mr. Weber voting against.

                                        lii.        Motion by Mr. Skirzenski, seconded by Mr. Pierik to approve the side yard setback subject to the findings and conditions. Vote: 5-1-0, with Mr. Weber voting against.

                                       liii.        Motion by Mr. Skirzenski, seconded by Mr. Pierik to approve the lot coverage variance subject to the findings and conditions. Vote: 4-2-0, Mr. Huttler and Mr. Weber voting against.

1.    Mr. Huttler stated his view that the size of the pool and the buffer between the pool area and Aquidneck Ave is insufficient. The lot coverage creates hazardous conditions and changes the general character of the area.

2.    Mr. Weber stated he was against approving lot coverage that is about three times what is currently allowed.

3.    Mr. Pierik, stated that the historical hotel, greatly impacts the lot coverage ratio because the lots will be merged together.

a.    He stated the following benefits of the proposal:

                                                                                          i.    Bringing parking into compliance.

                                                                                         ii.    Bringing the additional hotel rooms into compliance.

                                                                                        iii.    Stormwater management improvements by eliminating the cesspools.

                                                                                       iv.    Amenity expansion of the pool and food service will increase tax revenue from increased hotel occupancy.

4.    Mr. Skirzenski stated that he concurs with Mr. Pierik’s views regarding stormwater management and the improvement to the lot. It currently features dilapidated housing with cesspools contaminating the beach.

5.    Mr. Croce also echoed Mr. Pierik’s comments.

                                      liv.        Motion by Mr. Skirzenski, seconded by Mr. Pierik to approve the preliminary plan of the minor land development project subject to the findings and conditions. Vote: 5-1-0, with Mr. Weber voting against.

b.    Request of Conor Melville for concept review of a potential development at 149 West Main Road, Tax Assessor’s Plat 108, Lot 33.

                                          i.        Connor Mellville of BCM Realty Partners, identified an opportunity to develop a multi-family building at 149 West Main Road, which is a vacant lot that used to house a McDonald’s. The concept review aims to answer if the project would be desired in town and if there is a regulatory path forward for approval. The project would need rezoning, variances and increased density. If allowable the project would be financially viable as workforce housing. They have built several similar projects in Newport.

                                         ii.        Mr. Skirzenski expressed his approval of the proposal, stating the lot has been vacant for most of his life and brings no value to the town. He favored the compact design and the ability for local residents to walk to local amenities.

                                        iii.        Mr. Croce expressed his approval for this type of project provided the area is suitable and that he favored workforce housing more than ADUs because ADU’s change the character of the town.

                                       iv.        Mr. Wolanski’s reviewed Mr. Mellville’s work stating that the lot is currently zoned for Office Business and the Future Land Use map has it zoned for Limited and Office Business, neither of which allow for multi-family housing. Current density regulations for multi-family residential are such that a 37,000 sq ft lot only allows 6 units. Setbacks and parking requirements among other factors would also require variances.

                                         v.        Mr. Wolanski explained that this is an opportunity to review multi-family residential development regulations which currently prohibit the required density needed to make them financially viable. However, he described other options to develop this property that do not require zoning relief, etc., such as the Comprehensive Affordable Housing permit process.  That process would allow the Planning Board more latitude in granting zoning relief.

                                       vi.        In response to questioning by Mr. Pierik, Mr. Mellville explained that state money for affordable workforce housing is not available in the project size that is possible on Aquidneck Island. The money is available more so for 150–250 unit projects in Woonsocket, Pawtucket and other similar municipalities. Their plan calls for smaller units available for a single person with a decent job that cannot afford a house, which he argued was a severely neglected demographic.

                                      vii.        Mr. Pierik encouraged Mr. Mellville to see if the affordable housing model would work in this lot.

                                     viii.        Mr. Weber noted that the Board had previously discussed intensifying density limits in the R-10 and R-20 residential districts and expressed his support for smaller projects that help solve the housing crisis.

                                       ix.        Mr. Moniz of 2 Hand Studio, who is working with Mr. Mellville, reviewed some previous 500 sq ft unit projects he was involved in. He stated that all the dimensional requirements and stormwater management, could be met for this lot except the density requirements.

                                         x.        Mr. Vaillancourt expressed his concern that the surrounding area is made up mostly of single-family lots who might be against the project.

1.    Mr. Moniz countered that the buildings would be setback from view and would include landscape buffers. The area is a busy part of West Main Rd, with a lot of commercial development. A developer could come in right now and put in another McDonald’s by right while most local residents would prefer housing there.

                                       xi.        Mr. Huttler stated that a previous proposal for a similar project on the St. Peter’s property was not the ideal location but this location was and so he favored the project.

                                      xii.        Mr. Skirzenski stated that location is extremely important for projects like this and was pleased it is sited at the western end of town on a main artery road.

                                     xiii.        Mr. Moniz stated that while location is important, walkability and the ability to travel by bike or bus to local amenities and workplaces were also extremely important.

                                     xiv.        Mr. Croce reviewed 3 paths forward:

1.    Have Mr. Mellville submit an application and let the Planning Board figure out the changes needed.

2.    Revise the multi-family housing ordinance to allow for these types of applications.

3.    Take both paths simultaneously.

                                      xv.        Mr. Wolanski explained that if an application were submitted today it would require a use variance which is very high bar to clear in addition to all the dimensional relief needed. Mr. Wolanski stated the best path would be a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change request to be approved by the Town Council. This would allow the use and then the dimensional relief could be addressed.

                                     xvi.        In response to questioning by Mr. Croce, Mr. Wolanski explained that the Planning Board could initiate any changes to the Zoning Ordinance it wanted to see on its own and then make any recommendation to the Town Council which would ultimately have to approve them.

                                    xvii.        Mr. Lawrence Frank of 8 O’Donnel Road, the chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, speaking as a private citizen expressed his support for the project.  He also stated that of the 11,000 workers in Middletown at least half earn less than $50,000 a year, while the average 2-bedroom house for rent is $30,000 a year. Mr. Frank extended an invitation to the applicant to present the project in front of his Committee to allow the committee to present a formal recommendation to the Planning Board and the Town Council. He hoped projects like this would encourage more workers to live in town and increase the student population of the schools and support the social welfare of the community.

                                   xviii.        In response to questioning by Mr. Croce, Mr. Wolanski stated that he favored looking at the issue more broadly rather than amend the ordinance and Comprehensive Plan for one particular project. Mr. Croce stated that he would work with Mr. Wolanski to present a proposal to the Board to see the project through.

                                     xix.        Mr. Moniz expressed his support for taking the broad approach and that otherwise it would be a missed opportunity to encourage this development throughout town.

c.     Review of document comparing the goals, policies, and action items of the current Middletown Comprehensive Community Plan, the new draft plan, and consider scheduling a public hearing on the draft comprehensive plan.

                                          i.        Motion by Mr. Huttler, seconded by Mr. Vaillancourt to continue item 5.c to a special meeting to be set by the Town Planner. Vote: 6-0-0.

6.    Updates

1. Status Report on Planning Board action items.

                                          i.        Mr. Croce asked that the Solicitor’s move forward on the use table review.

                                         ii.        Mr. Croce confirmed that item 5, the Complete Streets policy ordinance had already been submitted to the Town Council.

2. Updates on Committee Activity

                                          i.        Tree Commission

1.    Ms. Owen was not in attendance.

                                         ii.        Open Space and Fields Committee

1.    Mr. Vaillancourt is waiting to hear from the new Chair regarding when they will meet again.

                                        iii.        Conservation Commission

1.    Mr. Skirzenski stated the committee would not be meeting in September because of a lack of a quorum.

3. Upcoming meetings:

                                          i.        Regular Planning Board meeting – October 14, 2026, 6pm

                                         ii.        Housing Presentation by Mr. Skirzenski – October 6, 2026, 6pm

Motion by Mr. Skirzenski, seconded by Mr. Vaillancourt to adjourn the meeting. Vote: 6-0-0

Meeting adjourned at approximately 9:47 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Arthur S. Weber, Jr., Secretary