Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, November 17, 2020 - 5:00 p.m.

(Pursuant to Governor Gina M. Raimondo Executive Order 20-46, dated June 12, 2020, and

extended November 5, 2020 this meeting was held in person and via Zoom.)

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

 

A. CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Hall called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Chair James A. Hall, IV, Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, Secretary Christopher K. Lawlor, Alternate Secretary Justin M. Hopkins, and Members Joseph M. Montesano, and Andrew Delisio

 

Members absent:             None.

 

Staff present:                   Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning Atty. Scott Levesque, Town Planner Nancy Letendre, Director of Development Services Lisa Pellegrini, Principal Planner Alyse Oziolor, Director of Information Technology Marc Tate, Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota, Town Manager Mark Rooney, and Finance Director Dyann Baker

 

Mr. Hall welcomed Mr. Delisio as a new Planning Board member. He said another new member,

Elizabeth McGuire, has not been sworn in yet and was not present tonight.

 

C. OLD BUSINESS

 

1. Capital Improvement Program - Discussion of capital improvement plans received from the Town Manager and continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on preparing a Capital Improvement Program.

 

Mr. Rooney said there are two items for discussion in the CIP; the sewer treatment plant and a new building for the Department of Public Works (DPW) on Larry Hirsch Road. He said negotiations with the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and the Rhode Island Health Department resulted in a change that decreases the cost of a sewer treatment plant renovation to $12 million. He said it will likely be a referendum question in the spring. Mr. Rooney said staff’s goal is to propose a bond issuance of $12 million with an expenditure over two years to renovate the plant. He said the proposed new DPW building would be between the current building and the transfer station at a cost of $500,000. Mr. Rooney said the Town will use funds from the sale of the old Town garage, $401,000, and a Ledward Avenue property, about $60,000, to build the new structure.

In a poll of the Planning Board, members were satisfied with the Town Manager’s recommendations. Mr. Montesano asked that language in the Planning Board draft motion be edited to better describe the projects’ consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 

Mr. Hopkins made a motion to continue the Capital Improvement Plan discussion and recommendation to the December 1, 2020 Planning Board meeting at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Rooney offered to meet with new Planning Board members to discuss CIP topics if they needed more familiarity with them.

 

E. NEW BUSINESS

 

1. Comprehensive Community Plan: 2020-2040 - A Public Hearing to review and discuss the proposed 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Westerly, with particular focus on the portions of the Comprehensive Plan that relate to rights-of-way to the shore and reference to residential uses on golf courses, during which the Board will accept and address public comments. The Planning Board may conclude the public hearing and provide a recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan to the Town Council for adoption or continue the public hearing to another date.

 

Mr. Lawlor made a motion to open the public hearing at 5:14 p.m. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions. 

Ms. Letendre reviewed the purpose of the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan is to specifically discuss two matters, which the Town Council referred back to the Planning Board; to ensure that the rights of way (ROW) to the shore or river included in the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with the Westerly Harbor Management Plan (WHMP) and to determine whether the directive for reviewing potential changes to mixed use in commercial recreation Zones, specifically golf courses, should be included in the Comprehensive Plan. She reminded the Board that the meeting was open to public comment on these two topics and any subject in the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Constantine recused himself from the discussion of rights of way due to his ownership of a residence in Weekapaug, where Spring Avenue is located, and potential for its designation as a ROW to affect his property value. Mr. Constantine left the meeting at 5:19 p.m. 

Ms. Letendre provided the Board with highlights of the discussion for ROWs. She said the Planning Office reviewed the WHMP as adopted in October 2019 and compared its maps with the Comprehensive Plan maps. She referenced four items staff recommends to change in the plan based on the WHMP, which are listed on page 3 of the staff memorandum. She read them into the record.

There was discussion that many of the ROWs have been verified as public and those that haven’t have been noted in the WHMP as under investigation. Ms. Letendre said there are action items under the recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan to continue to review public rights of access in the community and help the maintenance and support of them.

The staff and Board members further discussed if certain ROWs should be identified in the Comprehensive Plan with or without a notation of their status. Atty. Levesque read into the record suggested language on the topic from page three of the staff memorandum which quoted page 137 of the Comp Plan and the Planning Board agreed to adding that language.

Benjamin Weber, of 3 Blossom Court, Westerly, spoke indicating the treatment of ROWs and potential ROWs is still inadequate and requested the public hearing be extended to allow for more public comment and so the Board can further examine the language around ROWs.

Attorney Thomas Ligouri, with a law office at 85 Beach Street, Westerly, agreed with the removal of ROW number 17 from the REC-M3 map as recommended by staff because it both recognized that it is a potential ROW and the decision is up to the Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) as to whether it is public or not. He said the reference for a decision is that the Town does not presuppose what the outcome will be. He referred to ROW number 16; the Spray Rock Road/Sand Trail and suggested it be renamed because it is it is called Ninigret Avenue/ Sand Trail. Atty. Ligouri added that the recommendation is consistent with the Planning Board’s original recommendation with respect to ROWs listed in the Comprehensive Plan being consistent with the WHMP because the issue had been dealt with in great detail, but the recommendation also recognizes that the town would continue to determine and seek out other ROWs. There was a similar discussion concerning Table 2-11.

Ms. Letendre noted some staff recommended edits in red boxes on the map figure M-3 and Table 2-11 from the Comprehensive Plan.

Attorney Jerry Petros, representing the Watch Hill Fire District and the Watch Hill Conservancy, acknowledged the hard work of the Planning Board and Town staff on the Comprehensive Plan and then addressed perceived inaccuracies in the Comp Plan citing the WHMP “all ROWs must be proved to be public or private”.  Discussion of the privately owned paths on Niantic and Fort Road were discussed. Atty. Petros said the statement he highlighted from the WHMP is not in the Comprehensive Plan and ROWs shouldn’t be labeled public until investigated. He requested on behalf of his clients that the Planning Board should either recommend that the language in the WHMP be included in the plan or else the list should only contain the properties, that based on appropriate diligence and legal work, are in fact public ROWs.

Ms. Letendre said she has the language in the WHMP with respect to Fort Road and read it into the record. In a poll of the Planning Board members, all agreed to add the suggested WHMP language “some of which are under investigation” and emphasized the intention that the Comprehensive Plan be a living document.

Stephen Cersosimo, a Granite Street, Westerly business owner, thanked the Board for their work. He agreed with Atty. Ligouri that the Sand Trail ROW has been called Ninigret Avenue and not Spray Rock Road but disagreed that the public cannot  reach the ocean from the Sand Trail. Mr. Cersosimo asked that the Spring Avenue ROW should be included in the Comprehensive Plan as it is being investigated by CRMC. He said there are other ways to verify it, too, and the Town has the ability to make it a ROW. He said there are four parking spots there and the Town owns the property. Mr. Cersosimo said he included evidence of such in his discussion with Town Council and sent CRMC information on behalf of the public.

Atty. Petros commented again to say his reference to Fort Road and Niantic were used as examples and acknowledged footnoting Fort Road on the map as a possible solution.

There was further discussion on what to edit on the M-3 graphic. The Board and staff agreed to add after ROWs; “some of which may be under investigation.”

Tom McAndrew, of 9 Upland Road, mentioned that in a previous November 2017 opinion from the Town Planner, when she served as solicitor to Planning and Zoning, she wrote that Niantic was considered a private ROW. He asked that it remain designated as private.

Mr. Montesano suggest they poll the Board on the Town Planner’s previous recommended edits. He said he agrees with how Ms. Letendre presented the facts in her last statement. Atty. Levesque suggested leaving the asterisk on number 6 Niantic Avenue determining it is a private ROW. The Board agreed to the changes.

Mr. Constantine rejoined the meeting for discussion.

The Board and staff had a lengthy discussion regarding the potential changes proposed to the Commercial Recreation zone definition, found on page 41 of the current Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Letendre said it was the topic of many public comments particularly because of reference to residential uses becoming part of commercial recreation uses. She said the Town Council gave the Planning Board a directive to review the potential changes and the information on page 51 is intended to express that to the State, she said. She said it is important to discuss the concept of commercial recreation for possible mixed-use development as that is the policy currently represented in the Comprehensive Plan. She said they received many public comments through the Town Clerk’s office and they also have an advisory opinion from the Westerly Economic Development Commission (EDC.) Atty. Levesque reminded the Board that the focus tonight is to discuss the broad strokes of the language in the Comprehensive Plan in order to be able to explore the opportunity of creating an Ordinance in the future.

EDC Chair Jim Torres, of 19 Salt Pond Way, and EDC Vice Chair Doug Brockway, of 32 Chestnut Street, presented an EDC advisory opinion to the Planning Board discussed and written November 10 at a special meeting. He further explained the rationale for the EDC recommendation, reading into the record from a written statement submitted to the Planning Board. Ms. Letendre said there are two documents for the record from the EDC; an official correspondence from EDC as a recommendation and a copy of testimony Mr. Torres read tonight.

The Board discussed the EDC recommendation, specifically the use of the word “substantially” when used to describe possible compromising of a primary recreational use. It was clarified that on page 6 of 7 of the memorandum for the commercial recreation definition under discussion, the word “and” between commercial recreation be deleted and the word “substantially” before compromised be deleted.

Atty. Ligouri, spoke publicly again on behalf of Winnapaug Golf Couse. He explained the initial intention was to allow a golf course to integrate a hotel as a suite hotel and market the course as a resort. He said the issue of affordable housing and hospitality industry housing conversations were the result of multiple meetings that Winnapaug Golf Course owner Nicholas Scola attended with respect to the development of the Comprehensive Plan and those two items were continuously articulated as substantial needs of the community. Atty. Ligouri said it seems those two items have now become the primary issue and that is a municipal decision the Town needs to make. 

Ms. Letendre said a good follow up to Atty. Ligouri’s discussion on there being housing and mixed use would be to reference some of the goals and policies in the plan, outlined for the Planning Board as part of the motion on page 5. She said there was a conscious determination made in the Planning process to advance certain goals through mixed use, including residential. She said to Atty. Ligouri’s point, yes, they got into conversation about variation aspects of housing because they were discussing mixed use. Atty. Levesque reminded the Board that the purpose of tonight is to create broad language in the Comprehensive Plan to facilitate a more specific conversation in the future. 

Atty. Petros spoke again to the Board, stating the concern of using broad language to address a particular problem, one he said doesn’t affect the Watch Hill Fire District, however they are concerned that it essentially allows mixed uses which could be anything. Atty. Petros urged the Board that there is no need to impose that in the future in the Watch Hill Fire District as it is inconsistent with the historic district designation.

Atty. Ligouri responded that is why they suggested they deal with language and consider a golf course resort use and golf courses would have to seek that use. He said golf course itself is currently defined and golf resort is a use only allowed in commercial recreation Zones and would have safeguards of the recreational use being the primary land use. He added that if the Town wants to extract some moderate-income housing and/or hospitality industry housing it could decide whether it wants it to be a mixed use. Atty. Ligouri said they understand the neighborhood and community wants golf course to be a primary land use.

Mr. Brockway said in EDC discussion on November 10, golf resort was an obvious and reasonable addition. He said he would be happy if any reference to affordable housing be discarded in reference to the conversation.

The Board further discussed details of potential wording in the Comprehensive Plan language. In a poll of the Board members, all were comfortable with the recommendation made by Atty. Levesque. Ms. Letendre stated an amendment to that section was made and it is on the screen.

Grant Hutchins, of 28 Wicklow Road, said he was a retired attorney and also has a problem with the wording of “substantially compromised” and he said he thinks it means more than 50 percent. He suggested perhaps saying “only to the extent that they complement the primary recreational use…”

Ken Julian, of 16 West Fairway Ave, said there’s a significant change that has occurred as it relates to tonight’s topic from the 2010 to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. He said in 2010 golf courses were categorized as open space/commercial recreation. He said he understands the Town’s desires to change that but it has significant consequences as he pointed out to the Town Council that the State’s definition of open space is more restrictive. Mr. Julian said by the Town proposing in that commercial recreation, specifically golf courses, be separated from open space, they’ve already done a tremendous amount to change the balance between open space and development. He said he thinks the whole discussion on language is unnecessary. Mr. Julian said as Mr. Montesano has pointed out, it gives any owner the ability to come forward with a proposal because it is simply commercial recreation. Mr. Julian said the Town is dealing with one golf course owner who would like to do some things but who is to say that another owner doesn’t want to do something controversial. He thinks the Town has done enough with how they separated commercial recreation from open space and they should just remove the sentence completely. He said it doesn’t change the golf course owners’ opportunity to present plans. Mr. Julian said Westerly has done a masterful job with balancing development and open space over the years and that is why people want to come here.

Barry Lund, of 11 Tom Harvey Road, said in the last Town Council meeting he spoke about his concern about the vagueness of language in terms of potential development. He said all of the existing maps in the plan are confusing and it seems any mixed use could be employed on a golf course. He stated his other concern regarding the definition of economic vitality. He referred to language on density in table 5 as too loose. He said he would like more insight as to what potential development could happen.

Mr. Julian followed up on the discussion after his comment and asked why being silent on a specific issue precludes anyone from coming forward and making a proposal that is residential nature. He said if a property is in the commercial recreation district, one could bring a proposal that fits that district, but if the Comprehensive Plan is silent, it doesn’t mean it is not allowed but it doesn’t encourage it, either. Atty. Levesque responded that without the language a land owner doesn’t have the permission to have those uses. Mr. Lund said what he has just heard is that they’ve been creating a plan to include language just to open possible development for one specific golf course. Mr. Hall said one of the issues the Planning Board is dealing with is trying to make sure a crown jewel in this Town remains in a way that is not taken away like another in another community. Mr. Hutchins said based on what Atty. Levesque just said it confirms something he was reading into the language as the language now would allow Mr. Scola to build workforce housing and build lower income housing because that would be a mixed use and he could do it in such a way that wouldn’t compromise the substantial primary use. Atty. Levesque clarified that the Comprehensive Plan document won’t allow him to do anything; only an Ordinance will allow him to and the discussion of this language is for the purpose of having future conversations. 

Mr. Julian spoke again saying he had a conversation with a State representative regarding the situation at a golf course in Providence being resolved in a favorable way for the city. Mr. Julian said he gets a sense that there is a fear that if Westerly doesn’t go down the road to preserve economic viability that they will lose a gem of an asset, but this case proves there are other options that prove a golf course is a viable option in the future. Mr. Montesano asked Ms. Oziolor to modify the language on the screen as suggested by Atty. Levesque.

Mr. Montesano make a motion that the Planning Board close the public hearing 8:19 p.m. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Montesano made motion that the Planning Board accept the language to the definition of commercial recreation district as modified on the shared Zoom screen and marked as Board’s Exhibit 1. Mr. Hopkins seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions. 

Mr. Hopkins made a motion to accept and adopt the language as modified in Board’s Exhibit 1 on the discussion of ROWs as referenced on page 5. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Montesano made a motion that the Planning Board send the amended Comprehensive Plan back to the Westerly Town Council for further review and consideration. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Rooney thanked the Planning Board for their time.

 

F. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Montesano made a motion to adjourn the Planning Board special meeting at 8:23 p.m. Mr. Constantine 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 TBA