Click to view the entire meeting or click any video icon below to jump to that section of the meeting.

Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, August 31, 2021 - 6:00 p.m.

Council Chambers, Westerly Town Hall

45 Broad Street, Westerly, RI 02891

(Governor Daniel J. McKee’s Executive Order 20-46 expired on July 23, 2021,

thereby requiring public bodies to meet in person.)

Please be advised this meeting was held in-person. All Planning Board members must be physically in attendance for purposes of a quorum. Members of the public were welcomed and encouraged to attend in-person. Zoom video conferencing was provided for the public’s convenience, per Town Manager Mark J. Rooney’s Executive Order 21- 001 dated July 8, 2021.

A. CALL TO ORDER –

Mr. Hopkins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

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

Members absent: Members Kevin Lowther and Tabitha Harkin

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

Town Council Liaison Phillip M. Overton was present for the first half of the meeting.

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting – Mr. Lawlor made a motion to approve the July 20, 2021 Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by a 4-0 vote with an abstention from Mr. Constantine.

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.

Ms. Letendre recommended item E.1. Aquifer Protection Overlay District (APOD) be moved to the end of new business after F.5. Code Amendment Implementation Schedule. She also recommended item F.3. 2021-DPR-04: Flynn Residence Addition – Development Plan Review (48-52 Bay Street | AP 179, Lot 102) be moved after item F.4. 2019-DPR-15: 20 Frontage Road Solar – Development Plan Review (20 Frontage Road | AP 39, Lot 36) due to the anticipated number of public comments.

Mr. Montesano made a motion to move agenda item E.1. after item F.5. and to move item F.3. to after item F.4. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

E. OLD BUSINESS

1. River Corridor Overlay District (RCOD) Review, discussion, and continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on potential development of a River Corridor Overlay District (RCOD) Ordinance.

Ms. Letendre reviewed that the RCOD memo is for informational purposes only and staff is available to answer any questions as needed. She said the memo describes how the Comprehensive Plan has prioritized the topic, the projected schedule for it, and the partnership with the Wood-Pawcatuck Wild and Scenic Rivers Stewardship Council.

F. NEW BUSINESS

1. 2021-MNS-02: 58 Boombridge Road – Pre-Application Review of Minor Subdivision (58 Boombridge Road | AP 11, Lot 6) Review and discussion by the Planning Board on request for Pre-Application Review of a minor 2-lot residential subdivision.

Attorney Kelly M. Fracassa, of Naccarato & Fracassa, 85 Beach Street Building C, Unit 8, Westerly, and project engineer Molly Titus, of DiPrete Engineering, 90 Broadway, Newport, were present on behalf of the applicant. Atty. Fracassa reviewed that the applicant is seeking to subdivide a parcel, which is over 100 acres, into two properties. He said one parcel would be over 90 acres and is not planned for development and the applicant is seeking waivers related to stormwater management, wetland permits, onsite wastewater treatment (OWTS) permits, and sediment and erosion controls. Ms. Letendre previously reviewed the waiver requests with legal counsel and said if the Planning Board will consider the waivers, they will be completed at the Master Plan application phase for a major subdivision, rather than a minor subdivision with no waivers requested. There was some discussion on what the applicant could do with the land as well as environmental impact concerns. In a poll of the Board, there was a consensus to possibly combine the Master and Preliminary Plan phases in the future; however, no formal actions by the Planning Board are required for a pre-application review.

2. 2021-MNS-03: 103 Oak Street – Preliminary Plan Review of Minor Subdivision (103 Oak Street | AP 48, Lot 104) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Preliminary Plan Review of a minor 2-lot residential subdivision.

Joe Toscano, land surveyor, was present on behalf of the applicants, brothers John and Tony Genese. Mr. John Genese was also present at the meeting. Mr. Toscano reviewed that in 1966 there was an existing two-family home on the property and the Genese’s father built a second home behind it without subdividing the land or recording the deed, so this application seeks to bring the lot into conformance. He said there is a family agreement that each brother own a home and there are plans to keep both properties in the family. Mr. Toscano explained that the home meets all the Planning and Zoning requirements besides insufficient frontage by 6.65 feet in the proposed rear lot and there are also no separate driveways for the homes. The application goes to the Zoning Board on September 1 for a frontage variance and requires a Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Hopkins emphasized that the Planning Board must ensure the project be done by regulation as the Board assumes that the lots would exist in perpetuity and may not always be in the same family.

Ms. Letendre noted the recommended conditions of approval in the staff memo to the Planning Board. Mr. Montesano expressed the importance of separating stormwater runoff from the sanitation system and asked that an inspection be done on the property to ensure there is no discharge into the public sewer. Ms. Letendre said this would be done through the Utilities and Engineering Departments. Mr. Montesano also requested that the applicant’s site plan show the easements on the map and not only describe them in the text. There was some further discussion on the requirements of the conditions and location of the easements.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion that the Town of Westerly Planning Board approves, with conditions, the Preliminary Plan for Planning Case No. 2021-MNS-03 – 103 Oak Street Minor Subdivision (Assessor’s Map 48, Lot 104) in accordance with the application and supporting materials including; the set of Plans titled ‘Preliminary Plan Submission, Minor Subdivision Application, Property of John & Antonio Genese, 103 & 103 ½ Oak Street, AM# 48-Lot 104, Westerly, Rhode Island,’ dated July 16, 2021; prepared by Joseph P. Toscano, Jr, PLS, referencing the conditions as listed in the staff memo to the Planning Board dated July 26, 2021. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. In discussion, Mr. Montesano requested that an additional condition requesting an inspection by the Town of Westerly Utilities and Engineering Departments be completed on the property to determine that stormwater discharge is not entering the public sewer system. Mr. Lawlor amended his motion to include the additional condition as stated by Mr. Montesano. Mr. Constantine seconded the amended motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board render a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board on the dimensional variance for frontage for a one-family residence for 103 Oak Street Minor Subdivision. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

3. 2019-DPR-15: 20 Frontage Road Solar – Development Plan Review (20 Frontage Road | AP 39, Lot 36) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Preliminary Plan Review of a Development Plan Review proposing the installation of a ground-mounted solar energy system.

Ms. Letendre said the application was previously approved at the Master Plan level prior to the adoption of the new solar ordinance in October 2020 and this review examines the engineering details of the project. She said there was a modification made to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the clearing of trees and that aspect of the application has been discussed in the staff memorandum.

Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, and Civil Engineer Molly Titus, of DiPrete Engineering, were present on behalf of the application. Atty. Nardone said many of the items addressed in the staff memo are engineering concerns. Ms. Titus described the plan to the Board, referencing the items in the staff memo. She said a violation was noted in July 2020 due to issues created from the prior landowner. Ms. Titus said part of the site is mapped in a natural heritage area, which was part of Planning staff’s concern. She read into the record an email from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM), which was submitted as Applicant’s Exhibit A, “We have nothing identified on that parcel. There are a couple of species listed as State threatened and State concerned on the adjacent Westerly Land Trust River Wood Preserve. If your site requires a Wetland or Stormwater Permit a biologist will review any species of concern at that time.” Ms. Titus said the RIDEM email was provided to the applicant in 2019. Ms. Letendre said Exhibit A was never submitted to the Planning staff or Board until now and it is new information and staff was not aware of it when the memo was written so at this point it is something they will consider. Ms. Titus said they testified to this fact verbally during the Master Plan phase when discussing the checklist items and apologized for not submitting it sooner.

There was discussion on the conditions of the site and the present activities taking place there. Ms. Letendre said regarding Exhibit A that there are species of concern on the property and staff feels that because of the sensitive nature of the area they should get the information on the record as part of the Preliminary Plan review. Mr. Montesano referenced the Solar Ordinance amendment adopted on October 26, 2020, which says explicitly that the applicant shall provide an environmental assessment of the site. He asked if that report would be provided. Atty. Nardone said the Master Plan was approved under the prior Ordinance and they are not subject to the current Ordinance. Ms. Letendre said in the Master Plan approval it was pointed out that the applicant had to provide additional information regarding environmental resources during the Preliminary Plan review.

Ms. Letendre referenced page 10 of 10 of the staff memo - a list of recommended items that the Board may request - including a continuance of the application so the items could be provided. Ms. Oziolor said botanical surveys would be the most adequate way to assess what species exist in the area. She said Exhibit A does not provide any documentation of previous surveys completed. Colleen DeBenedetto, of DiPrete Engineering, asked for clarification on what Planning staff seeks. Ms. Oziolor requested a survey that details species where the work will occur as particular species were already identified in the area by RIDEM. Mr. Montesano indicated that the survey should not be limited to just plants but also include wildlife and other natural resources on the site.

Mr. Lawlor inquired if the listed buffers were enough for the neighbors. He also asked if any lines could be put underground or if the utility poles are required. Mr. Lawlor brought up decommissioning costs and also asked if there is a revised layout of the solar panels to distribute as he could not see the plan well on the screen presented tonight. Ms. Letendre said a decommissioning plan is required when the permit is issued. Atty. Nardone said they have the requested decommissioning plan dated June 25 and it was submitted and marked Applicant’s Exhibit B. Atty. Nardone said the applicant will pursue a botanist survey. He added that the applicant has decided not to donate any portion of the land to the Westerly Land Trust as an easement or conservation area as previously discussed as a possibility.

Mr. Montesano made a motion to continue the 20 Frontage Road application to the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on September 21, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. so the applicant could submit the additional requested materials. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

4. 2021-DPR-04: Flynn Residence Addition – Development Plan Review (48-52 Bay Street | AP 179, Lot 102) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Development Plan Review of an addition to the rear of an existing residential building and additional renovations. (Previously marked agenda item F.3.)

Ms. Letendre described the location of the project across from Larkin Square that is zoned Shore Commercial Watch Hill and so requires DPR. Present on behalf of the application was project architect Paul Azzinaro, principal of Azzinaro Larson Architects, LLC. Mr. Azzinaro said that many criticisms of the project by members of the public are incorrect. He said the owners wanted to structurally fix the front balcony, as well as utilize the upper deck by creating access to the beautiful view. He further described the details of the project, showing the Board the proposed renovation design. He provided a history of the property. Atty. Levesque identified applicant materials presented for the record; Exhibit A, a one-page loose leaf paper with handwritten notes, and Exhibit B, a packet containing three drawings of the building. There was some discussion about the rendering shared with the Board and other site perspectives still needed. Mr. Montesano commended the architect and said he was grateful to have the former Zoning Official’s opinion on the project. He commented that a screened porch on the third floor may be more appropriate to reduce the overall height of the gable. Mr. Constantine also complimented the attempt to add more utility and resiliency to the structure and stay consistent with Watch Hill’s Bay Street. There was further discussion on the details of the plans. Planning staff explained that many public comments received were related to the historic nature of the building and whether Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission (RIHPHC) review was needed, but this was already addressed by the applicant. The height of the project was also questioned and addressed in a supplemental staff memo.

Matt Walker, of 44 Bay Street and 45 Wicklow Road, said when you compare the proposed project to the neighboring buildings, adding eleven feet to it will not create uniformity.

Joan Beth Brown, of 5 Ninigret Avenue, representing the Watch Hill Fire District, said she wrote to the Town Planner yesterday and that email was shared with the Board. She asked how the applicant will address flood elevation issues. She requested a RIHPHC advisory opinion be sought on the project. She also requested schematics of the plan in comparison to the neighboring buildings.

Peter Wallace, of 44 Bay Street B210, also expressed concern with this case setting a precedent for other buildings in the area to undergo similar renovation related to the height.

Richard Youngken, a historic preservation consultant retained by the Watch Hill Conservancy and the Watch Hill Fire District, submitted his resume for the Board and it was marked Remonstrance 1 for the record. He shared his professional experience working in Watch Hill and emphasized the importance of upholding the Secretary of the Interior standards for the area. He introduced another document into the record, a document titled “Youngken Associates Project Review Memo 4852 Bay Street Watch Hill” dated 8-31-21, which was marked Remonstrance 2. Mr. Youngken cited the section of the Zoning Code that mentions the Secretary of the Interior standards for projects being used as guidance for buildings in the historic district. He said the historically contributing buildings add to the value of the area. He said he also worked on the 1 Bay Street livery building. He emphasized that the Zoning Code asks the Town to apply these standards and the waivers in the flood zone. Mr. Youngken thought that the architect has done some good things that meet the standards, but some things do not meet the standards. He referenced standard numbers 2, 3, and 10. Mr. Youngken said the design of moving the parapet down and replacing it with an open balustrade, removes some historical fabric and dimensionally changes the building. The large window proposed for the second floor is, he said, a very modern 21^st century stylistic window wall that folds back like an accordion so when it is open the entire second floor of the building will be visible from the street because it is not a setback. He expressed that does not lend itself to a historical appearance, but a modern change to the building. Mr. Youngken commented on the first-floor commercial front drawings and said you should be careful not to create a false historical appearance through the design. Mr. Youngken suggested remedies for his disagreements with the presented design. He said the third-floor design to push the addition back is in line with flood guidance, and if it is allowable by the Zoning height requirements, perhaps maintaining a parapet on the second floor instead of an open balustrade would help retain the historical height and proportions of the building. He suggested replacing the large window design with French doors. Mr. Youngken said relying on the Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) review to trigger RIHPHC review is not a good idea as it takes the project from the Board’s hands. He said the best thing to do process wise is to get the RIHPHC report before further deliberation. He said if they are called in for an advisory opinion then he thinks the Board will hear what he is sharing tonight - that the presented design does not meet the Secretary of the Interior standards.

Thea Kocher, of 44 Bay Street, echoed the comments of Mr. Walker and Mr. Wallace, that the proposed structure would tower above the neighboring buildings and would not maintain uniformity. She said orienting the building height to the rear is an excuse and many people would be able to view it from the harbor.

Deborah Lamm, of 29 Oceanview Highway, chairman and president of the Watch Hill Conservancy (WHC), shared the mission of the organization. She said they are specifically focused on maintaining the historic character of Watch Hill specifically the commercial area on Bay Street. She urged the Planning Board to continue the hearing until further information could be presented. She said the Watch Hill Historic District is on the National Register of Historic Places and it is important to recognize that the subject building is a contributing building to the district. She said that such a designation is a serious matter and degradation of a building puts the whole area at risk and the Town has a responsibility to respect and preserve the district. She read into the record from the Zoning Code chapter titled “Development Standards for Shore Commercial Watch Hill.” She said the Planning Board has specific measures to take to ensure degradation does not happen and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) also should pursue an opinion from RIHPHC, which it did not do before providing an opinion to the Planning Board. She said another concern WHC has is the Zoning Ordinance changes with how it concerns flood zones in Watch Hill, especially commercial Bay Street, as the new standard would be section 260-20 if buildings in that area would have to be rebuilt. Ms. Lamm said being advised by a professional is what is appropriate because opinion of aesthetics is not enough.

Peter Catalano, owner of the building just north of the subject property on Bay Street, said he was an architect for over 40 years and has respect for Mr. Azzinaro. He said he designed the Watch Hill Inn along with another local building and he never thought he would be on the same side as the WHC after 12 years of litigation with them. Mr. Catalano said he taught architecture, as well, and explained his issue as a developer, an architect, and an abutting neighbor, are the components of the property. He said he had the first opportunity to buy the property however he waived his right to buy it as he was not sure how he would renovate but he never expected anyone to challenge the 25-foot height limit. To be able to allow a building to be raised eleven feet on Bay Street is not consistent with his understanding of the architectural significance of this area, he said. Mr. Catalano said he supports the petitions of the WHC and the Watch Hill Fire District as some decisions seem premature. He said he has been in his building since 1985 and knows the history of the subject building. Mr. Catalano expressed concern with the septic system existing under the deck, as well as where the required Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking space would be. He asked for more time to analyze the renderings and study the project though he thanked the Planning staff for their help. Mr. Catalano commented further on the weather history in the area and how approving this case could set a precent for other property owners on Bay Street. He requested contour drawings, and a site plan done by a surveyor to show the proposed elevations of the project.

Mr. Hopkins gave Mr. Azzinaro the opportunity to address the public comments, specifically the ones on height and the historical preservation. Mr. Azzinaro said there were good comments made and they will go back to RIHPHC for an opinion. He explained there is a difference between existing average grade and mean sea level heights. He said Mr. Youngken’s comments were well-taken and if it is advised that the parapet be retained then they could accommodate that, however it would impede the view for someone on the balcony trying to enjoy it. He said the large window design could also be changed potentially. Mr. Azzinaro showed a photograph of two former contributing structures adjacent to the Watch Hill Carousel that have been demolished. He said that what is there now is the first building put in its place that uses the ground floor and he does not think that his project will cause the area to lose historic character. Mr. Azzinaro said they are at the Planning Board tonight because they are within the footprint of the plan. He said he does not want to create any historical issues with the Watch Hill Fire District and asks that the application be approved conditionally based on the Town Planner’s recommendations and that the application not be delayed. Mr. Hopkins asked what the new elevation would be in comparison to the buildings to the right and left. Mr. Azzinaro responded that the building to the north is at 28 feet 3 inches and the building to the south is about 28 feet and the proposed building elevation is 34.6 feet. Mr. Constantine said the project building is already at five feet below the other buildings so you are going up that five feet and then another six feet. Mr. Azzinaro said when we measure the 34.6 feet we measure from “average grade” or from the sidewalk, so that seven feet is already added to the equation.

Mr. Delisio said just because an architect can do something does not mean it is ok. He and Mr. Azzinaro had further discussion on how much “wiggle room” there is in the plan for changing the designed height. Mr. Montesano reiterated that the applicant may want to consider a shed roof on the south side of the building. He asked what the process with RIHPHC would be. Mr. Azzinaro said they already reached out to RIHPHC and want to hear input before CRMC approval. Mr. Azzinaro said a conditional approval from the Planning Board would be satisfactory. Ms. Letendre said her experience with RIHPHC is that they respond more quickly to Town requests and she suggested that if the Planning Board needs this opinion that it allow her to make that request. Atty. Levesque asked the Board to give the applicant guidance on the project. Mr. Azzinaro asked that the public hearing be closed. Atty. Levesque suggested it remain open due to possible new information being presented. Mr. Lawlor expressed needing clarity on some of the RIHPHC standards for the building. Mr. Constantine asked that WHC pull old photos of Bay Street as it is quite different now than it used to be, and he is concerned that the Town is holding this building owner to a different standard. Ms. Letendre said she has some experience with historic preservation and in the record, there is information written on the Watch Hill Historic District and the basis of its designation should be kept in mind when deciding what types of attributes they try to preserve. Mr. Montesano asked the applicant to consider adding the shed roof and suggested changing the proposed sliding window wall. Ms. Letendre said the applicant has the interior of the building to consider and could explore reducing the height. Mr. Constantine said it is difficult to adjust the height and not change the roof lines to stay consistent with the area.

Mr. Montesano made a motion to continue the Flynn application to the September 21 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. Mr. Montesano amended the motion to include granting permission to the Planning Office to seek counsel from RIHPHC on the application. Mr. Constantine seconded the amended motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

5. Code Amendment Implementation Schedule Review, discussion, and recommendation by the Planning Board on the proposed implementation schedule for code amendments outlined in the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Community Plan.

Ms. Letendre said Planning staff has been working on organizing the action items that require changes to the Ordinance, as well as regulations and Zone changes. She said this chart is a draft and her latest attempt at organizing things and determining a future schedule to implement the work. She asked Mr. Hopkins to explain “ROCC” to the Board. Mr. Hopkins said the Route One Corridor Committee “ROCC” is a subgroup of Planning Board and Economic Development Commission (EDC) members formed to create an RFP for a land use analysis and strategic plan for redevelopment of the Route One Corridor. Ms. Letendre said the expectation is to advertise an RFP for a consultant to begin work early November and to have a plan and strategies prepared by August or September 2022. Ms. Letendre said that is only one of many projects between now and September 2022. Ms. Letendre said as they get further along, they will look for other funding opportunities, but there is already money set aside for the Route One Corridor project. Planning staff will soon meet with the Finance Director and Town Manager to discuss the budget. Mr. Constantine asked about neighborhoods looking for funding. Ms. Letendre said this is a Town-wide project and if an individual neighborhood wants to do their own plan it must start with them, and they could start public engagement on their own. She said there is a lot of information out there and when it comes to a neighborhood plan, you can look for examples published online, like the Matunuck area in South Kingstown. She said their plan describes how it was formulated.

6. Aquifer Protection Overlay District (APOD) Review, discussion, and continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on proposed revisions to the Aquifer Protection Overlay District (APOD) Ordinance. (Previously marked agenda item E.1.)

Ms. Letendre asked the Planning Board to refer this to legal counsel for review before it returns to Planning staff to send to the Town Council for a public hearing. Ms. Oziolor said the current Ordinance poses challenges for the Boards as there is little information available on what it means to protect the ground water. She said this document is an attempt to elaborate on what is and is not appropriate in the aquifer protection area. Mr. Montesano said he and Ms. Oziolor had a meeting with RIDEM on how the new APOD area was defined. He said the only data that is new is the Crandall Well. He said there is a protection area around the wellhead that needs specific uses, and it is referred to as the primary area. He explained that there is a secondary area, which runs along the Route One corridor, further away and will take ground water a longer time to get to the APOD. He said they broke it into two zones, and this is what counsel needs to review to see if they are following the guidance. There was further discussion on the details written in the APOD.

Mr. Montesano made a motion to send the APOD draft to legal counsel for review. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Stephanie J. LaSota

Minute Taker

Approved by vote of the Board on September 21, 2021