Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 21, 2020 – 7:00 p.m.

 

Council Chambers, Westerly Town Hall
45 Broad Street, Westerly, RI 02891

 

 

A.    CALL TO ORDER

 

Mr. Hall called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.

 

B.     ROLL CALL AND REVIEW OF STAFF ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:     Chair James A. Hall, IV, Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, Secretary Christopher K. Lawlor, Alternate Secretary Justin M. Hopkins and Members Jason A. Parker and Dylan Kosten

 

Members absent:       Member Catherine DeNoia and Auxiliary Member Joseph M. Montesano

 

Staff present:             Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning Atty. Scott Levesque, Town Planner Nancy Letendre, and Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota

 

C.    APPROVAL AND REVISION OF MINUTES

 

1. November 19, 2019 Regular Meeting (continued from December 17, 2019) – Mr. Hopkins made a motion to approve the November 19, 2019 regular meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. December 17, 2019 Special Meeting – Mr. Constantine made a motion to approve the December 17, 2019 special meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Hopkins seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

3. December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting – Mr. Constantine made a motion to approve the December 17, 2019 regular meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Hopkins seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

D.    CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

 

There were no changes to the agenda to report.

 

E.     OLD BUSINESS

 

1. 2019-DPR-15: Centrica Solar Ground Installation (105 White Rock Road | Assessor’s Map 16, Lot 6) Review, discussion and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on the Master Plan of a Development Plan Review proposing the installation of a ground-mounted solar energy system.

 

Atty. Levesque said this agenda item should be tabled this evening and the applicant will return at some point. Mr. Lawlor made a motion to table 2019-DPR-15: Centrica Solar Ground Installation. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. 2019-MNS-01: Gowen Subdivision/DCG Properties, LLC  (37 Batterson Avenue – Assessor’s Map 48, Lot 90; 39A, 39B Batterson Avenue – Assessor’s Map 48, Lot 90-1) Proposed two-lot subdivision for one- and two-family residential development. Review Stage: Review, discuss, and act upon advisory recommendation, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-23-61(a)(2), to the Westerly Zoning Board for Special Use Permit to construct two-family residence at 39A, 39B Batterson Avenue – Assessor’s Map 48, Lot 90-1.

 

Atty. Levesque explained that the application needed a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board on a Special Use Permit before the Zoning Board could hear the application.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board recommend the Special Use Permit for the Gowen Subdivision/DCG Properties, LLC application 2019-MNS-01. Mr. Kosten seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

 

F.     NEW BUSINESS

 

1. 2019-MJLD- 08 (1, 3, & 5 Plimpton Road Development) (1, 3, & 5 Plimpton Road | Assessor’s Plat 179, Lots 98 & 99) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board a Public Hearing on a combine Master and Preliminary Plan Review for renovation/redevelopment of three properties.

 

            Ms. Letendre summarized the application for the Board. Elliot Siderides, president of Windward Development, was present to represent the applicants and explained the project. He said they are proposing to construct a partial underground office structure on the property as part of the project.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.  

            Gerald Visgilio, of 7 Plimpton Road, asked for clarification on the underground structure.

Mr. Siderides said with respect to Mr. Visgilio’s property, as you look toward Bay Street, the underground portion of the structure is not seen. The face that is seen is overlooking Bay Street. He showed him a section drawing of the building. Mr. Visgilio asked further questions about the size and location of the office space and where the parking was located. Mr. Siderides explained the locations, pointing to the diagram. He said they provided plenty of parking for the office in the plan. Mr. Visgilio asked on what authority the parking was being changed for 1 Plimpton Road as that area is part of an easement agreement with the Ocean House for numbers 3 and 5. Mr. Siderides said the Julian's own 1 and 3 and they are separate lots and regardless of any agreements, they have enough parking to satisfy the office either behind the property or the four spaces in the easement area. Mr. Hall asked the Town Planner if Mr. Siderides planned parking accommodations are reasonable. Ms. Letendre said she and the Zoning Official are satisfied that between the two areas there is more than sufficient parking. Mr. Visgilio said the easement agreement was for parking for numbers 3 and 5, and they are concerned about allotting parking spaces for a commercial property at number 1. He said if that is granted and the property is sold the use of the right of way and parking may be granted. Mr. Siderides said number 3 is already Zoned commercial and whatever was granted to that property was granted to a commercially Zoned property and he doesn't see any negative effect in the future. He said that if the property is sold, he is sure his clients will ensure there is no adverse affect.  There was further discussion on parking concerns.

Atty. Levesque said he is assuming that the applicant doesn't want to interfere with Mr. Visgilio's rights in anyway. Mr. Siderides said the properties are separately owned but owned by relatives and the office is intended to be used by Mr. Julian as he manages a foundation and he anticipates few visitors. He said they intend to treat their neighbors with as much respect as has gone into the development process. Mr. Visgilio said his issue is not with the applicants but in changing the intent of the easement with the Ocean House.

Elaine Visgilio, of 7 Plimpton Road, said parking has been a real problem for them since they moved there. She said the neighbors have put some numbers up but there is still a problem. She said they can view the easement from their home and in the summer,  it is a "headache" when people “zoom in and zoom out.” She said she doesn't know how much the spaces will be used by the proposed office. She added they do a good job of communicating with their neighbors but they bear the burden of discomfort of "shooing" people away from parking in the easement area. She said they don't know how much traffic this will generate. She said for as long as they have had it, it hasn't been a commercial kind of parking lot and she can't foresee it being ready for that.

            Mr. Constantine asked if the parking for the right of way is for the commercial establishment and Mr. Siderides said two of them are. He said they could park on the road on Bay Street but there is no parallel parking on Plimpton. He said regulations require you have a certain amount of parking at a certain distance. Mary Raho Julian, homeowner, was present to help answer questions. Mr. Siderides explained that they created more parking down below for the residential buildings in the end of a cul-de-sac as originally the four spaces in the easement were used by 3 and 5. Ms. Julian said two were used by 3 and two by 5. She said the office building will not get many visitors as it's mostly teleworked, but they are thinking two of the four could be used when needed. There is also public parking and access to Bay Street from the property. She said she sympathized with Mr. Visgilio about parking issues in the area and everything they've done in the project is to make it less onerous. She said they are providing signage and she does not believe they are creating a hardship with the project. There was discussion that the design approach they took for the office design is to respect the neighborhood and not create any blockages of view. Mr. Siderides said if this Board allows two parking spaces to be had by the professional office irrespective of the distance on Bay Street, they would be amenable to not allotting space for the office building. He said according to regulations, 1 Plimpton parking needs to be within 500 feet and needs to accommodate two cars. Ms. Julian said between the two spaces on the right of way and the area on the turn around you have plenty of parking to serve the three lots. Ms. Julian explained that 7 Plimpton has a driveway and goes into a portion of the right of way, but doesn't use the four spaces. Mr. Visgilio said it is concerning to have people potentially parking there and if they aren't parked properly, they can make exiting their driveway difficult. He said that may seem trivial to people but it is a concern to them. Mr. Kosten asked clarifying questions on the parking layout. Mr. Visgilio reiterated that his concern is if the building is sold the four parking spaces would be going along with that business in perpetuity. Ms. Julian said the right of way spaces were dedicated to the Rahos and Julians and they decided themselves to use two spots for each property at 3 and 5. Mr. Siderides said the plot exists and existed at the time of the easement but the address 1 is only being proposed now. There was discussion that the four spaces can never be expanded.

Mr. Parker asked about the residence at 3 Plimpton being razed and reconstructed and how it is allowed. Mr.  Siderides said the owner has a right to rebuild and expand as there's an existing building on site. He said they spoke with the Building Official and Building Inspector about positioning the rebuild with the same parameters within 25 percent. Ms. Letendre said that lot is Zoned residential (1) and maintains nonconforming status with the Zoning Ordinance. She clarified that the Zoning Official has looked at this and the response was parking was sufficient and the applicant requires a Special Use Permit as the proposed plan adds 987 square feet of expansion which is within the 25 percent increase for a single-family nonconforming residence. She said the property is Zoned commercial (1) and has a non-conforming residence, but there's no intention of changing the Zoning. She said this particular project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is more adamantly consistent with the plan currently being written. She said it's a wonderful opportunity to provide context sensitive design in an area that requires it. She pointed out that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) had an extensive meeting with Mr. Siderides and there's a draft of a landscape plan and they will be providing a final landscape plan when they pick out native plants. She said Ms. Julian has an interest and will be providing that landscape design. Ms. Letendre pointed out the conditions of approval as recommended by the ARB.

Mr. Constantine suggested that some of the parking spots on the rear drive could be designated for the proposed office structure and the applicants could leave the right of way parking as it is so as not to create issues. Mr. Lawlor said neighbors wouldn't be able to tell if someone parking on the right of way was for lot 1 or an illegal parker. Mr. Parker made several comments becoming the basis for his negative votes.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr.  Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

            Atty. Levesque pointed out the memo from the Town Planner. There was further discussion on parking accommodations for the project. Mr. Hopkins said in his opinion there's a permitted use of business on number 3 so you could have the same nature of traffic and he would encourage more dialogue between the property owners. Mr. Siderides said they will continue to make an effort to do that.

            Mr. Lawlor made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board approve the plan 2019-MJLD- 08. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by a vote of 5 to 1 with Mr. Parker voting no.

            Mr. Lawlor made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board make a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board on granting a Special Use Permit for the application for 2019-MJLD- 08. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by a vote of 5 to 1 with Mr. Parker voting no.

 

2. 2019-DPR-17: 44 Frontage Road Solar Installation (44 Frontage Road | Assessor’s Map 49, Lot 1) Review, discussion and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on the Master Plan of a Development Plan Review proposing the installation of a ground-mounted solar energy system.

 

            Ms. Letendre presented the application to the Board and described some details of the plan and the proposed location.

            Atty. William Nardone was present on behalf of the applicant, Centrica Business Solutions. He described the location and topography of the lot. Joseph Duhamel, civil engineer with DiPrete Engineering, was also present on behalf of the application. Mr. Duhamel further described the lot to the Zoning Board. He said they are proposing 140-kilowatt direct connection to the array. He said the site will have signage along the fence and no grading is proposed at this time. Mr. Duhamel said they are proposing evergreen screening along the property line on Frontage Road. He said the existing disturbed areas and tree areas will be seeded with an appropriate mix. He said the project was reviewed at the preapplication period with the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) in September. Atty. Nardone said they are not proposing any buildings on the site and they are pending before Zoning Board for a dimensional modification and required Special Use Permit. In addition, they are requesting to proceed to the Preliminary Plan phase without the State permits required by Development Plan Review (DPR),but will have them at the Final Plan.  

            There was further discussion on the lot’s location and that there are no abutting residential neighbors. Mr. Hopkins encouraged the applicants to choose a different species of tree for vegetative buffering.

            Ms. Letendre said that the applicant submits copies of their submissions to the State as part of the DPR requirement and they could waive the final permits to the Final Plan phase. Atty. Levesque also asked for a copy of the decommissioned plan and an estimate for that. He advised that the legal motion incorporate both of those things.

            Mr. Constantine made a motion to grant Master Plan approval with conditions as included in the staff memorandum and as discussed at the January 21 meeting. Mr. Hopkins seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

            Mr. Constantine made a motion to provide a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board on the merits of the proposed development and advised the granting of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. In discussion, Ms. Letendre said to remove the phrase "of State permits" from the legal written motion. Mr. Constantine restated his motion with the correction. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

            Atty. Nardone noted that in Finding of Fact number 2 in the Staff Memorandum and Recommendation dated January 9, 2020, it references a fence on the residence side of the property and there is no residence side so that needs to be corrected. Ms. Letendre took note.

The Planning Board took a five-minute recess and was called back to order at 8:35 p.m.

 

3. Comprehensive Community Plan: 2020-2040 – Form Based Code the Planning Board will review, discuss and may act on and/or continue the discussion of Form Based Code as a policy consideration.

 

            Economic Development Commission (EDC) Chair Dan Lathrop and EDC Vice Chair and Zoning Board member Jim Torres were present for discussion. Meeting attendees and the Planning Board discussed the possible merits of form-based code with the Town Planner, as well as creating an opportunity for an educational community forum with the EDC and Planning Board some time in February. Principal Planner Benjamin Delaney created a rough draft of an informational slideshow on form-based code, which was distributed to the Board. Atty. Levesque emphasized that they are talking about the concept of form-based code now but not yet setting standards. Ms. Letendre discussed elements of form-based code based on the prepared presentation.

            The slideshow presentation showed EDC Business Survey top responses about what business owners want and how that could support form-based code. There was discussion on the EDC’s business survey. Ms. Letendre said Mr. Delaney is doing outreach to gather more information on form-based code. Mr. Lathrop and Mr. Torres shared that the Town could share in the public meeting how form-based code could help achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Torres said after watching the Town Council meeting where form-based code was discussed, he noticed they were leading with the “how” and not the “why.” There was further discussion on how to best share the information with the public. Mr. Hall agreed Mr. Lathrop and Mr. Torres had valid points about leading with the “why.” Mr. Kosten said he agreed and heard them say that form-based code is a tool that can streamline, diversify, and improve the livability of town. He asked about the purpose of some slides comparing Westerly to other communities. Mr. Constantine, who also helped with the slideshow, said it wasn't intended to show what was done in those areas but to show that other similar towns have taken the form-based code approach. He added that when form-based code was first presented to the Planning Board they also had many questions and to do this right it will take a couple years. He said it is challenging to give a few examples but if people are not happy with it the Town won't adopt it anyway. Mr. Hopkins said the goals and what they want are outlined clearly already in the plan and they shouldn't expect for the plan to say what it looks like now. He said they could start with listing things we agree on in the Comprehensive Plan and talk about how to use form-based code as a mechanism to achieve them. There was further discussion on what form-based code is and if it needs a label or can be given a different name. Mr. Constantine said it is important to emphasize that the introduction of form-based code will only be in certain areas and not across the board and that may help ease people's minds. Mr. Kosten commented that using examples of saved regulatory work in cases of using form-based code would be helpful at a public meeting. There was discussion that Planning staff would circulate possible meeting dates to EDC and Planning Board members and gather a consensus for a February meeting.

 

4. Comprehensive Community Plan: 2020-2040 – Format Changes the Planning Board will review, discuss and may act on and/or continue the discussion of Format Changes requested by the Economic Development Committee.

 

            Mr. Lathrop explained that they took a few sections of the Comprehensive Plan that were most relevant to economic development and reorganized them, so the goals, policies, and actions linked back to each other. He further explained how the EDC subcommittee created the changes and said they had the edited packets available for the Board's review. Mr. Hall said the input coming in is terrific but there is a question of satisfying three different needs; the need for the Town to get the right information in the plan and satisfying the conditions of the State and the Town Council. Mr. Lathrop said he agreed but described the need for consistency of goals, policies, actions and reframing them so they make sense. Mr. Torres said he appreciates the legal requirements and they didn't do their formatting to include those, per say, because they're not knowledgeable about what they all are. He said they just wanted to provide an orderly flow and readability, so it is easier for the public and potential developers to read it. Ms. Letendre shared that she received input from various parties and talked about how she is working to review and incorporate those things into the Comprehensive Plan. There was discussion of how to include the EDC’s suggested format. Atty. Levesque explained some of the legal requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. There was discussion that Planning Staff will circulate dates for another joint workshop joint.

 

 

 

G.    ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

 

1. Administrative Actions

Report on the following administrative decisions, extensions and/or other actions of the Administrative Officer taken from December 11, 2019 to January 13, 2020:

●  Approval of an Administrative Subdivision for 3, 5, and 7 Cobblestone Lane (Assessor’s Map 86, Lots 82, 83, and 83A).

●  Approval of an Administrative Subdivision for 12, 16 & 18 Margin Street (Assessor’s Map 76, Lots 48, 48A, and 49).

 

There was no discussion on the administrative actions.

 

H.    CONFIRMATION OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE - February 18,  2020

Mr. Constantine and Mr. Kosten shared that they would be unable to attend the February 18 Planning Board meeting.

 

I.       ADJOURNMENT

 

Mr. Lawlor made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:56 p.m. Mr. Hopkins seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

Respectfully submitted:

Stephanie J. LaSota Minute Taker

 

Approved by vote of the Board on February 18, 2020