Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 16, 2021 - 6:00 p.m.

(Pursuant to 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.)

 

 

A.    CALL TO ORDER –

Mr. Hall called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

 

B.     ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

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

 

Members absent:             None.

 

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

 

C.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1.      February 2, 2021 Special Meeting – Mr. Montesano made a motion to approve the February 2, 2021 special meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Constantine 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.

 

The Planning Board agreed to hear new business before old business on the agenda.

 

E.     NEW BUSINESS

 

1.      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 continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Master Plan Review of a 26-unit condominium development.

 

It was confirmed by planning staff that the applicant submitted an affidavit of notice to the Planning Office. Ms. Oziolor reviewed the details of the application for the Board. Staff recommended the Board open the public hearing, receive comments, and continue the business to the next meeting primarily because the application does not contain an appropriate yield plan. According to the Planning staff memorandum and recommendation to the Planning Board dated February 10, 2021, a revised yield plan depicting a conventional subdivision with a public road is required to establish the base number of units permitted and the proposed density bonus before the Zoning Officer can render an opinion. Ms. Oziolor reviewed other application requirements as listed in the same memo.

Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, was present on behalf of the applicant and stated there is some confusion or disagreement with respect to the Planning Staff’s memo analysis. Atty. Nardone said that the project is not a subdivision, but a major land development and it is within the requirements of the yield plan. He said they originally submitted the application under a Comprehensive Permit provision. He said the applicant prepared the plan three times based on Zoning regulations for multi-family housing regulations that exist. They call for, as indicated on sheet 5 in the applicant’s submission, a minimum of 4 acres in an HDR-15 Zone for multi-family use which they meet at 7.3 acres. He said they proposed a calculation of 13 duplex buildings based on inclusionary zoning and when you calculate the yield of what is allowed it equals 21 units – one unit per 15,000 square feet.

Atty. Nardone presented further details of the application to the Board. He said they believe the proposal is attractive for the developer and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. He said he understands there have been public comments submitted but some are not accurate. Atty. Nardone stated that the proposal is allowed by Special Use Permit and no rezoning is necessary. He said the applicant will request a Variance for an additional unit for consistency. Atty. Nardone introduced John Shevlin, professional engineer with Pare Corporation, to present an engineering traffic analysis submitted on January 31 along with a report generated February 15, which was presented for the first time tonight. Mr. Shevlin explained the analysis of the impact on local traffic and how the study was conducted. He said they feel the development will have no impact on traffic capacity and that there should not be a safety decrease in the area. Molly Titus, a professional engineer with DiPrete Engineering, presented the technical details of the proposal to the Board. She screen-shared a draft of the project’s site plan from page 6 of 6 of the January 12, 2021 Master Plan submission to show plans for drainage and grading on the site. She said the main point of the design is to follow the existing slopes. She said they are not proposing much cut from the site and blasting is not anticipated but if there is blasting there is a protocol and permits required to do so. Ms. Titus said during construction they are proposing a tiered layered approach to erosion control, stating they will exceed State requirements. Ms. Titus said the applicant filed a waiver request from the requirement of the subdivision regulations to create a private street for the project. There was further discussion about the details of the waiver requests. Ms. Titus said the application proposes a 20-foot pavement width with a one-foot berm on each side for a total of 22 feet and there are no proposed sidewalks.

At 6:47 p.m. Mr. Lawlor made a motion to open the public hearing for the Avondale Heights application. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Karen Cioffi, of 94 East Avenue, shared she is a Westerly Town Council member speaking tonight as a resident and member of the East Avenue neighborhood community. She said she lived on the street for 25 years and has concerns that the traffic study did not review all accidents in the area. Ms. Cioffi said she has spoken to the police chief many times regarding the traffic in the area and they have clocked cars going 80 miles per hour. She said this project will be adding more cars to the neighborhood and there will be a petition opposing the project.

The applicant, Douglas DeSimone, asked to have an opportunity to speak after the public comments.

George Markham, of 150 East Ave, said he lived in the area for 26 years and is concerned the development will negatively impact the area and it is against the goals of the 2020-2040 Westerly Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Markham submitted to the Planning Office a letter of opposition dated February 15, 2021 and reviewed his key points from it. He said the density of the project is inconsistent with the neighborhood and will lead to the erosion of the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Markham said removing trees from the buffer between the lot and East Avenue would leave a significant number of proposed units exposed to the roadway. He provided concerns regarding the effect to the historical significance of area homes and the environmental concerns of the project. He suggested a traffic study be conducted in the summer when traffic peaks.

Roxanne Illiano, of 12 Pickering Drive, said she lived in the area for 12 years. Her concerns about the project include that the proposed 45-foot buffer abuts their property and is not sufficient for the proposed number of condo units. She said many of the trees in that buffer are dead. She said the trees on the property line along Pickering Drive are in poor condition. She also shared concerns of cars speeding on the road. Ms. Illiano said the project proposal creates too many homes in one spot and detracts from the neighborhood and she believes the applicant could find a better project for the beautiful land.  

Jim Thornton, of185 East Avenue, agreed with Mr. Markham that they do a traffic study in the summer as this is a primary route to beach area by police and ambulance. Mr. Thornton inquired about noise levels during the construction phase. He said he listened during the applicant’s test dig and all he heard was scraping of rocks. He believes there are substantial rocks and not just sandy soil.

Sandy and Steve Algiere, of 168 East Avenue, said they live directly across the street from the proposed development. Ms. Algiere said for the last three summers they have experienced traffic backed up from Wells Street and people routinely use their driveway as a turnaround area. She commented that there have been several accidents at the existing cutout at the proposed project property and the latest one “took the fence out.” She said they have lived in the area since 1994, partly because there are fewer homes on the street. Ms. Algiere said it is a growing area and there is a high number of walkers. She also expressed concerns with heavy summer traffic and speeding cars. She said she is upset about the prospect of the project removing the wall and possible blasting and loud construction. She also questioned how median level income the proposed housing will be and how many of these will be summer homes. Ms. Algiere said the proposal takes away from a beautiful-preserved area and privacy in the neighborhood. She asked the applicant to consider how the community feels about it.

Sharon E. Ahern, of 196 East Avenue, a Town Council member speaking as a resident, said she wanted to emphasize the big picture and that the Westerly Comprehensive Plan mentions neighborhood-based planning. She said if an applicant requires that many waivers from the existing law, she does not understand why the project has gone as far as it has, and this is not the place for a project like this. Ms. Ahern asked that staff recommend, and the Planning Board consider other areas of Westerly for the project. She also asked that the Board request further studies and the applicant should show evidence of why it should be approved.

Chelsea and Joseph Parilla, of 165 East Avenue, live across from the proposed project and said they submitted a letter to the Planning Office with their concerns. Mr. Parilla explained the content of the letter, including the concerns for cutting into the historic stone wall and the project being inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood.

Charlotte Cottrell, of 175 East Avenue, did not speak at the meeting but had submitted to the Planning Office a letter of opposition to the project.

Mr. Constantine asked why the applicant has not considered single family homes. Mr. DeSimone said it was not considered due to design challenges and it would not work financially. He stated that it is beautiful land with no wetlands. He said he believes the project is consistent with the neighborhood and there is no proposed street lighting. He said he has no objection to using down lighting for created walkways as part of a condition of approval.   

Mr. DeSimone explained they are not creating lots as the proposed structures are condominiums and there will be a condo association. He said the density is one unit per 15,000 square feet. He said any rock found while digging would be used for fill and they would limit trucking it out from the site. Mr. DeSimone said he does not anticipate blasting but if it needs to be done, they will comply with State law and local regulations. He said any tree removal on the front property line will be minimal, if there is any at all. They will develop a sight line plan that shows specifically what must be removed. He said he does not anticipate removing more than a 5 foot or 6 foot width across a 40-foot distance.

Mr. Lawlor mentioned that public comments came down to three major issues: the effect on the current neighborhood, traffic concerns, and soil erosion and sediment control. He stated that a new traffic study should ideally be done for this area in the summer. He said an additional 52 cars is of no small consequence if you assume 2 cars per proposed unit. He said it is a big project in a quiet area of Town and he hopes that most of the land is not destroyed. The final look should make it feel like a real part of the neighborhood.

Mr. Delisio said some of the buffers looked very close to the structures. Mr. DeSimone said the 30-foot buffer is required in an HD-R15 Zone so the first 30 feet around the entire project is a no-cut zone and the building setback line is at 50 feet. He said they are not requesting any Dimensional Variance for the front, side, or rear line. He said after the first 30-foot no cut buffer there will be a landscaped area within the next 20 feet. Mr. DeSimone said the number 2 building can be pulled closer to the road. He said he thinks that it was pushed back to preserve the one tree at the entrance. He said he hired an arborist to identify all the trees on the property.

Mr. Montesano said the Planning Board should think about the need for the Town to hire consultants at developer expense for peer reviews of design analyses on project review.

There was further discussion about the details of the applicant’s yield plan. Mr. DeSimone said Planning staff made it clear that they did not want a Comprehensive Permit application but wanted less density and they complied with that request. He said he wants to follow the law and that is what he thinks he is doing with the submitted plan. Board members requested the applicant work out the details of the yield plan with staff and counsel as there was disagreement on the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance requirements.

            Mr. Hopkins said they are trying to figure out what is granted by right to solve the density question, which is a concern of many people. Mr. Hopkins asked that a site visit be scheduled between now and the next application review. Mr. Hall agreed for the need of independent experts for studies on traffic, soil conditions, and on-site inspections. After a brief discussion it was decided that a site visit would be scheduled administratively and be posted as a Planning Board meeting.

There was confirmation by legal counsel that the Town could request an independent traffic study. Mr. Shevlin said his study examined the peak traffic hour conditions and by adding small number of volumes you will find there is no significant effects. He added that the Westerly Police Department provided him with the crash data for the last three years and that was included in the study. Mr. Constantine recommended they look at the sight lines in terms of how they can be improved from the site access. He said sidewalks would also be appropriate for this development. Mr. DeSimone said he did not object to a peer review but on the engineering phase that review should come prior to the Preliminary Plan and not at the Master Plan stage. He also asked that the Town and applicant agree on the choice of  hired professionals.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion to continue the public hearing to the next regular scheduled meeting. Mr. Hopkins seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2.       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 continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Master Plan Review of an 11-lot residential subdivision.

 

Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, was present on behalf of the application. He described the proposed project to the Board. Town staff suggested an extension of the road be public and eliminate the existing cul-de-sac at the end of Gardner Drive, he said. Atty. Nardone said there was also concerns about the proposed lot at the end of Joshua Street so the applicant will eliminate lot 10 on that street and incorporate it into the proposed conservation area to eliminate the concerns of the neighboring property owners and create an access to the abutting conservation area. He said the owners are also amenable to making the street access a Town road.

Molly Titus, professional engineer and senior project manager with DiPrete Engineering, screen shared a draft of the site plan and explained the updated details of it. Atty. Levesque and Ms. Oziolor had no additional comments. Mr. Lawlor suggested three additional items for inclusion to Conditions required prior to Major Plan approval.

There was some further discussion between Board members and the applicant’s hired professionals on the details of the project. Ms. Oziolor said the property is a conservation opportunity area identified by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM.)

Mr. Montesano made a motion to open the public hearing at 9:01 p.m. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Schane and Melissa Tallardy, of 7 Joshua Street, along with several other neighbors, had submitted a letter of concern to the Planning Office dated February 12, 2021. Mr. Tallardy said Atty. Nardone’s comments in the beginning address some concerns of the submitted letter and he appreciates that. He shared he is an architect by profession. He shared concerns of the topography near Joshua Street and the area that was part of a former quarry. Mr. Tallardy also shared concerns that the potential project will disturb wildlife and the environment. He said a walking trail could possibly benefit the neighborhood; however, he questions the feasibility of the project with the grade change and rough terrain in the area.

Kathleen (Katie) and John Sposato, of 30 Gardner Drive, have lived in the area almost 13 years near the existing cul-de-sac. Mr. Sposato said he is concerned with the potential proximity of the proposed new houses especially off lot 9 near his home. He said there is exposed ledge in his and his neighbor’s yards and that blasting will need to be done for the project. He is concerned about the effect of blasting on existing homes. Mr. Sposato said he is also concerned with the maintenance of the proposed catch basin. He also shared concerns about a potential unlit path in the woods that would be accessible to area youth.

Jeffrey Coopee, of 8 Joshua Street, shared concerns regarding maintaining his lot privacy if lot 10 will be cleared to become a parking lot. He asked if a potential trail would abut his property line and how public use of the conservation area would be regulated.

Michael and Heidi Severns, of 3 Joshua Street, thanked other neighbors for speaking, too. They shared concerns about regarding long-term effects that they may encounter with the proposed development.

Amy and Brandon Raiche, of 4 Salem Street, shared concerns regarding the safety of children in the neighborhood. Ms. Raiche said there are several children in the area that will attend Westerly High School in the next several years and their access to walk to school is Ledward Avenue. She said there are already no sidewalks in the area. She said the wooded trail is a concern and she would not want children walking in the early morning hours in a dark wooded area. She also shared concerns regarding potential blasting in the project site.

Mr. Montesano made a motion to continue the application to the next regular meeting. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. In discussion, Atty. Nardone said some of the public concerns shared will be addressed at the next meeting. He said if blasting occurs there will be a plan in place. He said with respect to the concerns about the safety of children that it is outside of the applicant’s purview as developers of an  adjacent parcel. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

F.     OLD BUSINESS

 

1.      Planning Board 2020 Annual Report - Review, discussion, approval, and transmission of the Planning Board 2020 Annual Report to the Town Council by the Planning Board.

 

Mr. Montesano made a motion to approve as drafted the Planning Board 2020 Annual Report to send to Town Council. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2.      Inclusionary Zoning (Section 260-50.2) - Review and discussion of the ordinance provision by the Planning Board in advance of today’s applications.

 

There was no discussion on this agenda item.

 

3.      Waivers (Section A261-22) - Review and discussion of this regulation by the Planning Board in advance of today’s applications.

 

There was no discussion on this agenda item.

 

4.      Physical Design and Improvement Requirements (A261-30) - Review and discussion of this regulation by the Planning Board in advance of today’s applications.

 

There was no discussion on this agenda item.

 

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 February 2, 2021 to February 9, 2021: There was no discussion or new administrative actions taken.

 

Development Project Status Report: There was no discussion or report shared.

 

H.    CONFIRMATION OF QUORUM FOR NEXT REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING

 

March 16, 2020 Regular Meeting - The following topics are anticipated to be discussed:

Development Plan Review (SC-WH) | St. Claire’s Annex, Bay Street; façade improvements.

 

I.       ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Montesano made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Mr. Lawlor 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 March 16, 2021