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, March 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 6:03 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE
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
Mr. Hall welcomed Mr. Lowther and Ms. Harkin as members of the Planning Board. He also welcomed Mr. Overton in his new position as Town Council Liaison to the Planning Board.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. February 16, 2021 – Mr. Montesano made a motion to approve the February 16, 2021 Planning Board meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Delisio 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.
Ms. Letendre said agenda item E2 will need a continuance to April. She suggested the Planning Board address that first and then hear agenda item F1.
E. OLD BUSINESS
1. Inclusionary Zoning (Section 260-50.2) – Determining “Yield” Review and discussion of the ordinance provision by the Planning Board, including yield plan requirements.
Discussion on Inclusionary Zoning was included in the conversation on agenda item E 3.
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 said the applicant submitted a continuance request and agreed to an extension of time for Planning Board to decide on the application. He cited project redesign efforts based on neighbors’ input, addressing the concerns of the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Planning Office with respect to the plans for the project’s access road, and pending discussions with Westerly Land Trust on submitted plans as reasons for the continuance. Ms. Letendre said staff is suggesting a June 9 decision deadline and Atty. Nardone said that is acceptable for his client.
Mr. Lawlor said Planning staff was able to visit the site and he would like the Planning Board to be able to visit the proposed project area, also. Atty. Nardone did not object to that. Mr. Lawlor made a motion that a site visit to 2020-MJS-01: 60 Ledward Avenue be scheduled for the Planning Board. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.
Mr. Lawlor asked if his suggested three conditions prior to Master Plan approval; the biologist report, inspection of ledge, and borehole testing, are part of the Planning staff’s proposed motion for the application. Ms. Letendre said she believes the comments are in the minutes and staff is aware of them and as they continue discussion with Atty. Nardone and his client they will arrange for them to happen. She said part of that discussion needs to happen with WLT and they will not lose sight of it.
Mr. Hopkins made a motion that the Planning Board continue 2020-MJS-01: 60 Ledward Avenue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on April 20, 2021 and extend the Master Plan review decision deadline by one month to June 9, 2021. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.
F. NEW BUSINESS
1. 2021-DPR-01: St. Clair Annex Customer Area Revamp (141 Bay Street | Assessor’s Plat 185, Lot 32b-4) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on the Development Plan Review for SCWH for modification of an existing restaurant seating area.
Paul Azzinaro, architect and principal of Azzinaro Larson Architects, Inc., 108 Airport Road, representing George and Joanne Nicholas with Nicholas Associates, LLC, was present on behalf of the application along with the applicants. He explained that the project received a favorable advisory opinion from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and involves taking an existing façade and moving it inward about eight feet to increase a covered porch area to accommodate extra outdoor seating. He said about 240 square feet of indoor space will become outdoor dining. Mr. Nicholas said it would be nice to provide customers with outdoor seating to improve the enjoyment and safety of the dining experience. Mr. Azzinaro further described the plans for the building.
Ms. Letendre said the application only went to ARB for architecture as it is DPR because of its location in the Shore Commercial Watch Hill Historic District. She said staff is supportive of the project. There was no public comment on the project.
Mr. Lawlor asked for an exterior lighting description. Mr. Azzinaro said the applicant will reuse the recessed lights that already exist. Mr. Hopkins said anyone who has been there understands the congestions that can happen and said it is a great application to help alleviate that so it will be an improvement. Mr. Azzinaro commented that Planning staff did a great job in reorganizing the checklist format for DPR and their help was excellent.
Mr. Montesano made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board approve the Preliminary and Final Plans for 2021-DPR-01: St. Clair Annex Customer Area Revamp (141 Bay Street | Assessor’s Plat 185, Lot 32b-4) and read into the record the draft legal motion, which included three Findings of Fact. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions. Mr. Delisio said he recused himself from voting as the applicants are friends and relatives.
3. 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.
• Online Petition: Residents Opposed to Avondale Heights Development
Planning staff and the Planning Board included discussion on Inclusionary Zoning during conversation on this agenda item. Ms. Letendre said the Planning Office received many public comments and opinions on this application and many citizens are present. She recommended the matter be continued to April 20, 2021 after new information is shared this evening from the applicant’s expert, discussion on a new yield plan, and any public comment. She said several requests of the applicant were discussed in February, such as a second traffic study, and they should anticipate discussion them again in April.
Atty. William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, was present on behalf of the applicant, along with the applicant, Douglas DiSimone, hired planning consultant, Edward Pimentel, and Molly Titus, engineer with DiPrete Engineering. Atty. Nardone said he must leave the meeting at 7:30 due to a scheduling conflict. Atty. Nardone said Mr. Pimentel’s report will help resolve many neighborhood concerns. Atty. Nardone said this property is zoned HDR-15 and does not require a rezone and the housing project they are proposing is allowed by Special Use Permit.
Mr. Pimentel gave an independent assessment of the proposed project based on the most updated Westerly Comprehensive Plan and Zoning regulations. He apologized for the late submission of report and said he knows the Board will need more time to read the material and he can return to the April meeting. Mr. Pimentel further explained his density analysis referenced on page 10 of 16 of the report. He explained how he found the project to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, as well as compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. DiSimone asked Ms. Titus to share graphics and maps of the site to the screen. He said there is a lot of public interest and it is important for him to clarify the process, as there was a recent local newspaper piece questioning how a project like this gets to the phase it is at. He explained that the property is found and is put under contract and they engage professional engineers to do a study plan and make preliminary decisions. He said he took those early study plans, which showed an ability to file a Comprehensive Permit that complied with the provisions of the Westerly Zoning Ordinance. He said the Westerly Ordinance, unlike many in the State, provides great guidance on deciding density to those seeking to file a Comprehensive Permit. At this point, he said they had discussion with Planning staff on how to proceed with the plan over the course of a couple months. He said he decided to work in good faith with the Town and draft an inclusionary plan which resulted in the loss of six units. He said he submitted a yield plan to the Planning Office as part of the Master Plan application about 3.5 to 4 months ago. He said staff reviews the application and decides whether it is complete and once staff certifies it complete, the Town has 90 days in which the Planning Board must decide otherwise it is approved unless the applicant agrees to extend the decision deadline. Mr. DiSimone said he has complied with the Planning process and all required checklist items are there. He explained that prior to last month’s meeting, about 45 days after the application was certified complete, an issue arose with the submitted yield plan. He said he and Atty. Nardone worked diligently reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations as it relates to the yield plan requirement on an Inclusionary Zoning application for a land development project. He said they believed their yield plan complied, but staff did not so the applicant created a new one for a multi-family development in an HDR-15 Zone that sets the allowable density at 20 units as a permitted use and an overall density of 24 units with the Inclusionary Zoning allowance. He complimented Planning staff and said the public should understand the effort they put into the application on the public’s behalf. He said the new yield plan allows the creation of buffers more than the requirements and allows for greater setbacks. He said development at the allowable density of 20 units would mean they could create the four low and moderate income (LMI) units off site. He said they could do this by rehabbing existing units elsewhere and deed restricting them. Mr. DiSimone asked the Planning Board to discuss whether this is something he should continue to explore with staff prior to the next meeting. He said he thinks they can plan how to keep units further away from neighbors and create only one curb cut. Mr. DiSimone said this current plan is 12 units less than what he started with at the Comprehensive Permit level.
Mr. DiSimone said he received the petition from residents opposed to the proposed project and he listed their concerns, addressing each one in his remarks to the Board. He explained the price of the developed units will be fair market value, which is set by the Rhode Island Housing and Finance Corporation. He said it is false that they are seeking a Zone change. He said he has no objection to hiring someone to do an independent review of topographical issues, peer review of the plans, or further monitoring of erosion control issues on top of Westerly’s Department of Engineering and Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) monitoring. Mr. DiSimone requested a financial limit be set for these requested checks. He said a traffic study was already submitted and he is agreeable to updating it during the Preliminary Plan phase, but not now as waiting until the summer during the Master Plan phase is overburdensome to the applicant. Mr. DiSimone said issues identified by his traffic consultant were sightline issues and those will be improved by having just one entrance and decreasing the overall units to 20. Regarding the neighborhood petition item of requesting project review by the fire chief, police chief, and emergency services, Mr. DiSimone said those things are already part of the application process during the Preliminary Plan phase. He addressed the concerns about habitat and wildlife saying an applicant has a right to develop property within the limits of the municipal Ordinance and his plan does less than the maximum allowed. He said he would never propose to remove the historic stone wall and there are already two cuts in the wall and his project proposes to close one of them. He said they would use stone from the area they widen to close the other part of the wall so that they are left with virtually the same amount of existing intact wall. Atty. Nardone left the meeting at about 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Hall opened the meeting to public comment.
Shaun Tine, of 180 East Avenue, said the project basically puts 20 new residences in an area that is a single-family home neighborhood. He said the applicant eloquently addressed all issues that were petitioned, but traffic will be increased, and a lot of negatives will come from the project and he does not see a need for it.
Jessica Nicolosi, of 94 East Avenue, said she has been watching the project from the beginning and saw the proposal changes. She said she created the petition, which has 126 signatures as of 5:00 p.m. today and more than 60 comments that she will share with the Planning Office and Planning Board. She said the independent traffic study is important because even though the applicant did one, it was dated January 31 and January traffic compared to summer traffic is very different. Ms. Nicolosi thanked the staff for their work with the applicant on decreasing the density of the project. She said she is against creating off-site LMI. She added that the neighborhood cannot sustain another development of this size. Ms. Nicolosi did not deny that there are similar developments in the area but commented that they are off on side streets hidden way back in the neighborhood and this proposed project would be in the middle of East Avenue. She said the proposal would negatively change the dynamic of the neighborhood. She said she finds it disheartening that even though there is such a public outcry, the developer continues with the plans and she implored the Planning Board to reject the application.
Jean Gagnier, of 6 Narragansett Avenue, said regarding the traffic study, he agreed with Ms. Nicolosi’s statements that a January study is not an accurate portrayal of the area’s traffic capacity.
Roxanne Illiano, of 12 Pickering Drive, invited the Board members to walk along her property and look at the existing rocks. She asked what will happen to existing home foundations if the applicant needs to blast. She also asked where overflow parking would be on the site. She said the project plans for too many units in a small area and she is opposed to it. Ms. Illiano said doing another traffic study now map be inconvenient for the developer, but the project is an inconvenience for neighbors, and she would like the Planning Board to require a traffic study be conducted in the summer.
George Markham, of 150 East Avenue, commented on the density study, questioning the numbers used for neighboring property densities and asked the Planning Board to verify the study.
James Thornton, of 185 East Avenue, said he also spoke at the February 16 Planning Board meeting and signed the petition. He said he overlooks about half of the property and there is a lot of ledge and rock around the area. Mr. Thornton voiced concerns about potential blasting and asked if the applicant planned on putting foundations under each unit if approved. He commented that the sidewalk is very narrow near the present curb cut on the south end of the historic stone wall and suggested the applicant move the wall slightly inward if they seal it up there to make more room for a sidewalk.
Maryanne Casey, of 15 Butterfly Drive, said she has lived here for about 12 years and traffic even at this time of year is concerning. She said people travel fast on East Avenue and there are also many pedestrians. Ms. Casey voiced concerns about parking. She said the plans look nice, but she is not convinced this is the right place for the project.
Atty. Levesque said staff still has not received the updated traffic study that the applicant said was updated at the last hearing. He reminded the Board a project site visit is tentatively scheduled for Monday, March 29 at 5:30 p.m. and suggested the Board officially schedule that site visit as a meeting and prepare to advertise it tomorrow.
Mr. Hopkins made a motion to schedule a site visit at 165 East Avenue for Monday, March 29 at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Montesano seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions. There was discussion on how to proceed with the application. Mr. DiSimone said it is premature to ask him to continue the decision beyond the 90 days and he is hoping the Board will have everything they need at the April meeting to consider a motion and will consider a time extension at that time. Ms. Titus said she will ensure the accident data from the Westerly Police Department is added to the report and forwarded the Planning Office.
Planning Board members had some further discussion about the project. Mr. DiSimone asked if he should consider off-site LMI housing as an option to decrease his project density. There was a consensus of the Board that the applicant could explore this option but no official determination was made.
Mr. Montesano made a motion to continue the Avondale Heights public hearing to the April 20, 2021 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.
2. 2021-RES-01 (Fair Housing Month – April 2021) Discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on designating April 2021 as Fair Housing Month and directing the Planning Office to publicize
the same.
Ms. Letendre introduced Annette Bourne, the resource and policy director from HousingWorksRI at Roger Williams University. Ms. Letendre said April is fair housing month and Westerly recognizes it to take proactive steps to establish fair housing in the jurisdiction. Ms. Letendre said after Ms. Bourne’s presentation there is a resolution she would like planning board to take up when presentation is finished.
Ms. Bourne shared her presentation titled “Housing Affordability & Fair Housing in Westerly: A Municipal Overview” to the Zoom screen. Ms. Bourne shared information with the Board about fair housing week and updated them on Westerly’s LMI numbers. She said Westerly has a shortfall of 507 units or about 5 percent of the 10 percent LMI State mandate. She said most of the existing LMI units support elderly people so more family units should be developed. She explained how LMI qualifications are calculated. She provided a history of fair housing in the United States, including legislative efforts to thwart racial disparity.
Mr. Montesano made a motion to adopt the resolution as prepared by Planning Office staff and detailed in a memorandum and staff recommendation to the Planning Board dated March 1, 2021 for the March 16, 2021 meeting to recognize April as National Fair Housing Month, endorsing favorably the details of the resolution as written. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions. Ms. Bourne left the meeting at 8:56 p.m.
3. Neighborhood Planning Discussion - Discussion with the Planning Board on Neighborhood Planning as it is intended to be implemented based on the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Community Plan.
Ms. Letendre discussed some elements of proposed neighborhood-based planning as outlined in the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Community Plan. She said she expected to continue this conversation with the Planning Board.
Jean Gagnier, of 6 Narragansett Avenue, commented on affordable housing, density, and neighborhoods. He said he is a former vice president of the board for Habitat for Humanity. He said in 2007 he was on Westerly’s affordable housing subcommittee and helped draft the Ordinance applicants must now follow within comprehensive permit projects. Mr. Gagnier said out of 39 Rhode Island cities and towns, there are 15 that have worse LMI percentages than Westerly. He said Westerly’s rent is the ninth most affordable in the State. He said the Town has limited resources regarding developable land and there is a greater level of competition all the time. He said Westerly has an investor gap in affordable housing because a person buys a house but cannot see a return on their investment. He said the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Habitat for Humanity, and Veterans groups helped fill that investor gap in the Pierce Street area. He said some areas of Westerly are dense and if the Town increases density you could see a degradation of the quality of life and of home values. Mr. Gagnier also commented on the limits of the wastewater and sewer plant. He said it is important to make Westerly a place people want to live and efforts within community projects like Bricks and Murals and the Harmony Trail helped inject culture to the Town. He asked the Planning Board to take an approach to LMI that builds on Westerly’s strengths and does no harm. He suggested the Board look at opportunities to renovate existing structures to fill the LMI quota.
John Townsend, of 18 Avondale Road, said he thinks the concept of neighborhood planning is sound, but his issue is with the maps. He said he is president of the Avondale homeowner’s association, which includes about 120 homes. He described the included homes and their areas within the Planning Office neighborhood. He said many of the maps capture a vast area and a high number of homes and it seems like an immense task to gather neighbors from these areas to execute a plan and the Avondale homeowner’s association has a tough enough time gathering their own members.
Fred SkulkoSculco, of 117 Avondale Road, thanked the Planning Board for their work. He commented that he was pleased by Atty. Levesque’s comments at last night’s Town Council meeting regarding what is to be accomplished with neighborhood plans. He said if in certain areas neighborhood plans do not make sense, then they will not happen. Mr. Skulko described the qualities of the Avondale area and said it is not nautical or historical or in an area with a large population of waterfront houses. He said what he thinks Mr. Townsend was trying to say is that the proposed maps gave some angst to some people from that community. Mr. Skulko asked that when something makes sense, pursue it, and when it does not, the Town should not force it.
There was discussion to revisit this topic at the April 6 special Planning Board meeting.
4. Membership & Officer Appointments - An update will be given on the Town council’s progress on appointing new members to fill vacant positions and the Board will vote on the reappointment of Officers.
Mr. Hall said he needs to resign from the Planning Board, and it is time to elect a new Chair. He suggested Mr. Hopkins would be good as his replacement but opened the floor to nominations. There was a consensus of the Planning Board that Mr. Hopkins was a good choice for Chair.
Mr. Constantine made a motion to appoint Mr. Hopkins as Planning Board Chair. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.
Atty. Levesque said Mr. Hall did a wonderful job as Chair and he was one of the best he has ever seen in his work with municipalities. Mr. Hall thanked the Board for their work together. Mr. Hopkins thanked the Board for his election and endorsement and opened the floor to nominations for the position of Vice Chair.
Mr. Montesano made a motion to appoint Mr. Constantine as Planning Board Vice Chair. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.
Mr. Constantine made a motion to appoint Mr. Lawlor as Planning Board Secretary. Mr. Montesano 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 February 9, 2021 to March 9, 2021:
• No new administrative actions taken.
• Development Project Status Report
Ms. Letendre reminded the Board that on Monday, March 22 the Town Council will receive the Planning Board’s annual report. Mr. Hopkins said he would attend the meeting with Mr. Constantine. Ms. Letendre and Ms. Oziolor would attend as well, they said.
H. CONFIRMATION OF QUORUM FOR NEXT REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING
1. April 6, 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:
• Aquifer Protection Overlay District
• CONEX Box Ordinance
• APA RI Chapter Membership
The Board added the topic of neighborhood planning to the agenda for April 6.
Mr. Montesano suggested Atty. Levesque be specifically listed on Planning Board agendas rather than only listing his firm. There was further discussion on the need to see documents associated with applications. Ms. Harkin said links embedded within the agenda are very helpful and thanked the staff. The Board also discussed the role of the Town Council liaison on the Planning Board. Mr. Overton said he found this meeting to be interesting and educational. He said the position was created to keep the Town Council apprised of Planning Board discussion and activity.
2. April 20, 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:
• 60 Ledward Avenue
• 165 East Avenue
• Terranova Minor Subdivision Pre-Application
• South County Cultivators Preliminary Plan Amendment
There was no discussion on the planned agenda.
I. ADJOURNMENT –
Mr. Montesano made a motion to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 9:43 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