Planning Board – Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, April 20, 2021 - 6:00 p.m.

 

*Pursuant to former Governor Gina M. Raimondo Executive Order 20-46, dated June 12, 2020, as extended, and Executive Order 20-100, dated November 30, 2020, as extended, this meeting was held via Zoom conference only.

Council Chambers, Westerly Town Hall

45 Broad Street, Westerly, RI 02891

 

 

 

A. CALL TO ORDER –

Mr. Hopkins called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.

 

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Chair Justin M. Hopkins, Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, IV, Secretary Christopher K. Lawlor, and Members Joseph M. Montesano, Andrew Delisio, Kevin Lowther, and Tabitha Harkin

 

Members absent:            None.

 

Staff present:                   Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning Atty. Scott Levesque, Town Planner Nancy Letendre, Principal Planner Alyse Oziolor, Information Technology Technician Lanny Fuller, and Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota

 

Town Council Liaison Phillip M. Overton was absent from the meeting.

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1. March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting – Mr. Montesano asked that the Town Council Liaison position not be listed as a member on any of the agendas or minutes. Mr. Montesano made a motion to approve the March 16, 2021 Planning Board meeting minutes with that revision. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. March 29, 2021 Special Meeting – Mr. Lawlor made a motion to approve the March 29, 2021 Planning Board meeting minutes with the revision as noted for the March 16, 2021 minutes. Mr. Montesano seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

3. March 31, 2021 Special Meeting – Ms. Harkin made a motion to approve the March 29, 2021 Planning Board meeting minutes with the revision as noted for the March 16, 2021 minutes. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

D. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA –

Review, discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on changes to the agenda, including known continuances and the order in which items will be heard.

There were no proposed changes to the agenda.

 

 

E. OLD BUSINESS

 

1. 2020-MJS-01: 60 Ledward Avenue – Master Plan Review of Major Subdivision (60 Ledward Avenue | Assessor’s Plat 68, Lot 74) Review, discussion, Public Hearing, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Master Plan Review of a 9-lot (10-unit) residential subdivision.

 

On behalf of the applicant, Attorney William Nardone, Joe Duhamel, and Joe Luzzi were present at the meeting. Many residents living near the property were also present.

Mr. Hopkins opened discussion regarding the Wednesday, March 31 site visit. Mr. Lawlor said the site tour was useful and it was interesting to note the large portion of land that is unbuildable. Mr. Constantine said he found the level area to be more attractive and buildable than he expected.

Shane Tallardy, of 7 Joshua Street, said he was late to the Zoom meeting on March 31, but wanted to note that there seems to be no provision for off street parking. He asked if anyone went to the Joshua Street end to see the existing drop off that is proposed as access for a conservancy. He said he would like consideration in the plans for showing off street parking for that parcel and for signage on the road. Ms. Letendre said they will see the new plan presented in a few minutes. She said the use of the conservation area has not yet been determined but should happen between now and the next stage of the application when all the engineering is done.

Atty. Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, introduced Molly Titus, engineer with DiPrete Engineering, on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Titus screen shared the engineering plans with the meeting attendees. Atty. Nardone said everything in the modified plan has been reduced, including the number of lots and potential traffic. He said the suggestion in the plan is to incorporate the Joshua Street parcel as an entrance to the conservation area, but they only had a preliminary discussion with the Westerly Land Trust and its board has not had an opportunity to discuss it amongst themselves. He said parking is also a consideration of the plan but prohibiting and allowing parking is a matter of Ordinance by the Town Council. Ms. Titus further explained some of the updates to the subdivision proposal from the last

revision on April 8, 2021, including a public roadway extension, referencing sheet 7 of the revised plans showing the layout and sheet 8 showing the grading. There was further discussion among the Board on the details of the project. Mr. Montesano complimented the applicant on creating a better plan. He appreciated seeing a potential drainage plan for the project. He said the change in the plan to create a unique parcel featuring a water treatment pond for the project was a step in the right direction but there is no clean accessway to it that the Department of Public Works (DPW) could utilize. He advised that retaining walls be installed along the proposed lot adjacent to the 20-foot wide accessway to the stormwater pond and to get rid of the cross slopes that are shown so equipment can make it down the hill. He said he heard Ms. Titus say earlier that the rear property line of the lots may be moving forward, and he thinks that may be a good thing so that the applicant can wrap that 20-foot accessway along the entire northern boundary of the treatment facility for use by DPW. He also suggested that the drainage easement be considered easement just for pipes themselves with no public access. Mr. Lawlor referenced map 7 and there was a clarifying discussion on various lines on the map. Mr. Montesano added that to create the 20-foot access the vegetation must be removed from the property line at the Sposato residence and asked that the applicant, with permission from the Sposatos, plant something along the property line to replace the lost buffer. Ms. Letendre reviewed Mr. Montesano’s requests; that lot 10 with the infiltration pond be redesigned to allow better access for maintenance along the rear of lots 7 and 8, that access to the pond by vehicle be limited to flag connection to Gardner Drive, that the buffer be enhanced along that property line with the best option being to coordinate with the Sposatos, and that the drainage easement between lot 6 and 7 only have pipe and not be accessible by the public.

 

Mr. Constantine agreed with Mr. Montesano’s requests but said he is not happy with the width of the road. He asked what the hardship would be to make it 30 feet versus 24 feet. Ms. Titus said it would be added stormwater and impervious area and she does not see it adding a benefit. There was no comment when the Board sought public discussion.

Ms. Letendre reviewed the waiver requests on page 7 of 16 of the staff memos. The Board and staff discussed the width of Gardner Drive and the possibility of adding sidewalks to the project. Ms. Titus said adding one sidewalk would change the width from 24 to 28 feet and adding sidewalk to both sides would create a 32-foot width. In a vote of the Board, most members requested sidewalks on both sides with Mr. Delisio voting no sidewalks and Mr. Hopkins preferring a wider road without sidewalks. Ms. Letendre suggested the Board grant the waiver to stick with the 24-foot pavement width if sidewalks are included in the plan subject to an engineering review. She said the applicant may always request another waiver if they feel it is necessary.

Ms. Letendre said staff previously provided the Board with a list of four requirements prior to Master Plan approval and has added Mr. Montesano’s comments at this meeting as conditions of approval. She also asked that as a condition of approval, a note be added to the plan indicating specifically on lot 10 and 11 that they are not for development purposes because they are unbuildable. She said there are about 12 items called out in addition to what is on the checklist prior to Preliminary Plan review, many given by the Engineering Department. Mr. Lawlor said only one of three items have been addressed that he previously requested; a biologist report on the effects to the wetlands and a report on wildlife and habitat, suggested borehole testing to find more information about potential blasting, and slope risk assessment at the end of Joshua Street. Ms. Letendre said staff will make sure the requests are clear in the conditions of approval. Ms. Letendre said the biologist report will be clearly asked in item one. She said the applicant is required to discuss any potential blasting prior to the Preliminary Plan. She said she believes the hydraulic report request was meant to address the last issue he brought up. Mr.

Montesano said he believes a boring should be placed in the center of each future building footprint at a place that is two feet below to inform any potential future blasting. Ms. Letendre said that can be accomplished between now and the Preliminary Plan phase of the project. Mr. Delisio added that on the prepared landscape plan the applicant show a buffer agreed upon by the neighbors.

Mr. Constantine made a motion to continue the public hearing on 60 Ledward Avenue to the May 18, 2021 Planning Board meeting and in the interim the applicant shall complete the following items and submit documentation to the Planning Office on or before May 5. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. 2020-MJLD-08: Avondale Heights – Master Plan Review of Major Land Development (165 East Avenue | Assessor’s Plat 107, Lot 57) Review, discussion, Public Hearing, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Master Plan Review of a 20-unit condominium development with 3 offsite LMI units.

·                Online Petition Signatures: Residents Opposed to Avondale Heights Development

 

Mr. Delisio said there was a complaint made and shared for the record he was not soliciting landscape work during the project’s March site visit.  Board members shared commentary on their experiences at the March site visit.

Present on behalf of the application was Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, Ed Pimentel, a planning consultant, Molly Titus, of DiPrete Engineering, Amy Archer, senior project engineer at Pare Engineering, and the applicant, Doug DeSimone. Mr. Pimentel briefly reviewed the updated density report based on the 20-unit project. Ms. Archer said in coordination with the site revisions they did an additional traffic review. She described how the new study was conducted and the findings.

Mr. DeSimone referenced a waiver request letter sent to the Town Planner on April 16. He said he is proposing to comply with the right of way requirements for width of the driveway and turning radius of the cul-de-sac for cluster subdivisions. He said they are asking that they not be required to install sidewalks.

Mr. Montesano shared concerns that the applicant has not demonstrated conformance with the design standards. He said he does not believe the roadway width is sufficient and it needs sidewalks to tie into the public roadway. He said the applicant’s design has not provided enough detail regarding the slopes of the land. Ms. Titus said she does not believe major site work will be required. Mr. Montesano asked for a fill analysis to be completed. He also said there was not even a conceptual design for drainage included in the plan. He asked to hear from the applicant if he would consider extending the application decision.

Mr. DeSimone said this is the first time he has heard that a Board member feels there are deficiencies in the plan and additional information is needed. He said he is willing to grant a decision deadline extension if the Planning Board believes it is necessary. He said he was operating under the belief that he provided everything needed and he took responsibility for any shortcomings. He asked for continued feedback from the Board tonight so he and other professionals could provide further details to the plan.

The Planning Board further commented on the project. Mr. Delisio said the reduction of units in the plan is a good thing. Mr. Lowther agreed with Mr. Montesano that adding sidewalks to the plan is beneficial. Ms. Harkin left the meeting at 8:10 p.m. There was no public comment. Ms. Letendre said significant public comments were made at the last regular meeting and the current staff memo to the Planning Board includes the conclusion of many of those concerns. Mr. DeSimone confirmed that he allowed the extension of the application decision deadline to May 18 with the intention of submitting any additional plan details by May 5.  He asked for more clarity on what was needed. Ms. Letendre explained for the record that the original decision deadline of May 17 was created as the affidavit of notice was received by the Planning Office on February 16 and there is a 90-day decision window from the time an application is certified complete.

Mr. Constantine made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board continue the public hearing for 165 East Avenue to the next regular meeting on May 18. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. Ms. Letendre asked Mr. Constantine to include in the motion that the Board mark the additional requests made at tonight’s meeting Board’s Exhibit 1 and ask that the applicant submit to the Planning Office additional information addressing these concerns by May 5. She said she would provide those requests to the applicant in writing. Mr. Constantine amended his motion to include Ms. Letendre’s comments. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote.

Atty. Levesque clarified for Mr. DeSimone that the Board requested only a conceptual stormwater plan at this phase of the application.

The Planning Board took a brief recess and was called back to order at 8:46 p.m.

 

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

1. 2021-MNS-01: Terranova Subdivision - Pre-Application Review of Minor Subdivision (5 Berry Drive | Assessor’s Plat 19, Lot 44D) Review and discussion by the Planning Board on the Pre- Application Review of a Minor Subdivision involving the rear-lot provision.

 

Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, was present on behalf of the applicants, Nicholas and Jennifer Terranova. He said the 80,000-square-foot lot in an R-30 Zone provides for a rear lot provision. He said the property is an irregular shape and the proposal is to create a rear lot for a family member. He said there is a deal with the neighbor to acquire land if the project is approved.

Tony Nenna, engineer, and principal of with On-Site Engineering, Westerly, screen shared the lot layout plan before. He said with the purchase from the neighbor, it would make the rear lot conform to Zoning regulations at more than 62,000 square feet. He said he prepared a concept plan on the driveway grading. He said the change to the neighboring property would not make that lot nonconforming in area or frontage and it would still have more than 40,000 square feet. He said there are no wetlands on the parcel, and they are seeking Planning Board feedback on configuring the lot before pursuing further engineering plans.

Ms. Letendre reminded the Board that this is a preapplication and does not require a decision tonight. She said subdivision regulations do favor new lots with a configuration that is not irregularly shaped, which is a different standard than what is required in the Zoning Ordinance for a standard rear lot.

Mr. Montesano asked Atty. Nardone if he looked at the components of the existing easement and if there is a right for it to pass from the Sposato to the Terranova property. Atty. Nardone said has not researched that yet. Mr. Constantine commented that he thinks it is an ingenious use of the land to try to increase the density reasonably in an area that can tolerate it. Ms. Letendre said the Board would see this application at a subsequent meeting.

 

2. 2019-MJLD-01: South County Cultivators – Preliminary Plan Amendment Review of Major Land Development (71 Quarry Road | Assessor’s Plat 55, Lot 1) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Preliminary Plan Amendment Review of a medical marijuana cultivation facility.

 

Ms. Letendre reviewed that the Preliminary Plan application had been approved for South County Cultivators, but the applicant is here requesting an amendment to the approved plan. She said the as built plan was provided to the Town and because of the inspection it was noted that it did not meet the qualifications of the approval and the matter is returning to the Planning and Zoning Boards for modifications. She said there were specific modifications to the proposed parking location and site circulation, the fence location, and associated security measures are different. She said the applicant removed the dumpster pad and modified waste management on site. She said although the site has a connection to public water rather than a well, that specific modification was already approved by and does not require an amendment.

Attorney Elizabeth Noonan was present on behalf of the applicant along with the project engineer, Sergio Cherenzia, and the applicant, Rick Comolli. Christine DiBiase, an attorney in the same law firm as Atty. Noonan, was also present at the meeting. Atty. Noonan said an updated plan was resubmitted to the Planning Office that is closer to the originally approved plan and meets all the requirements except for item 2 under item 2a noted on page 4 of 7 of the staff report dated April 8, 2021.

Atty. Noonan apologized for the late plan submission and requested patience while reviewing the revised plan. Mr. Cherenzia, engineer and principal of Cherenzia & Associates, LTD., 99 Mechanic Street, Pawcatuck, Connecticut, screen shared the most recently submitted as built plan. He said as early as the end of last week they took measurements and identified modifications to the fence. Atty. Noonan said because the plan is more conforming, they would like to move forward to the Zoning Board.

There was some discussion on the process of holding applicants accountable to approval guidelines. Mr. Montesano asked why the applicant could not put the fence in the original location.

Mr. Cherenzia said the fence was originally moved to accommodate a dumpster and now pulled closer to the building and is as secure, if not more secure now that the dumpster pad is moved. He said there was a concern that the parking could be accommodated within fence area around the facility. Mr. Constantine asked if the Westerly police chief saw the recent plan and commented on it. Ms. Oziolor said the original plan was circulated to the chief of police but the most recently submitted one was not.

Denise Rhodes, of 20 Niantic Highway, Charlestown, spoke regarding prior concerns she had with Westerly Granite since 2007. She claimed South County Cultivators disregarded any security on site. She questioned how the applicant could have a certificate of occupancy or a State certification if they are not in compliance with Town approval guidelines. She said she does not have faith that the applicant will comply in the future and thinks the application should be denied. She claimed that there are no surveillance cameras on site, and it is an unsafe situation. Ms. Rhodes asked what street they are using to transport materials.

Atty. Noonan responded to Ms. Rhodes that the applicant has a cultivation license that is regulated by the State and the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation (DBR) and it is aware of the situation. She said her client appealed the cease-and-desist order, which allowed them to continue their business functions. Atty. Noonan also commented that the fence is there, and the security cameras are there, and the operation is the same as it has been. She said the applicant does not use Quarry Road. She admitted plans should have been done sooner but that the applicant is here now and complying very closely with what was approved. Mr. Comolli explained the gate locations where the air conditioner unit is for service access, where the garage door is on the east side of the building, and where there is also a gate for entrance to the facility. He said all gates are locked with a regular keypad. He said there is parking inside and outside the gates. Mr. Constantine said he wants to hear from the chief of police in terms of new arrangements. Mr. Comolli said the security is in full compliance with the original plan. Ms. Letendre said the police chief has already commented on the security of the plan.

Atty. Levesque suggested the Board continue the matter if they wish to hear more from the police chief. Mr. Delisio said if the Board approved the plan in the past, they could approve it now. Mr. Montesano said he is sensitive to Mr. Constantine’s concerns regarding police comments, but he is perplexed that the applicant was out moving fence and chose not to comply with the plan. He asked if

the Board is prepared to act on a late plan submission they did not have a chance to review. Mr. Hopkins said hard copies of the new plan were distributed tonight at the hearing. The plan submission was marked Applicant’s Exhibit 1 and contained a letter with two plan sheets. There was some further discussion on the application.

Mr. Montesano made a motion to continue the South County Cultivators public hearing to the May 18 Planning Board meeting and requested comment on the revised plan from the Westerly chief of police. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

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 March 9, 2021 to April 9, 2021:

 

·                Sherman Administrative Subdivision (AP 135, Lots 4 & 4B)

·                Rossini Road Merger Administrative Subdivision (AP 125, Lots 93 & 94)

·                Development Project Status Report (updated 4/7/2021)

 

Ms. Letendre briefly reviewed items on the administrative actions list. She reviewed for the Board that Town staff regularly visit project sites to compare what was approved to what is standing and sometimes it does lead to cease-and-desist orders and corrections are made.

 

H. CONFIRMATION OF QUORUM FOR NEXT REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING

 

May 4, 2021 Special Meeting Members of the Planning Board are asked to notify the Administrative Officer if they will not be present at the next special meeting. The following topics are anticipated to be discussed:

·                Comprehensive Plan Revisions for Statewide Review

·                Aquifer Protection Overlay District

·                From the Comp Plan: Prospective Downtown Corridor Maps and Concepts

 

May 18, 2021 Regular Meeting - Members of the Planning Board are asked to notify the Administrative Officer if they will not be present at the next regular meeting. The following topics are anticipated to be discussed:

·                Matters continued from April 21, 2021.

·                Weekapaug Yacht Club

 

Mr. Constantine said he would attend the May 18 meeting via Zoom and will recuse from hearing the Weekapaug Yacht Club application. Mr. Hopkins suggested the Board continue Zoom attendance as there were technical difficulties with in-person attendance. Atty. Levesque advised that Information Technology address the issue of audio in Council Chambers.

 

I. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Montesano made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 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 May 18, 2021