Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, August 2, 2022 - 6:00 p.m.

Westerly Town Hall | Town Council Chambers

45 Broad Street, Westerly, RI 02891

 

A. CALL TO ORDER –

Mr. Hopkins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. He acknowledged Mr. Lawlor’s dedication over the last five years to the Planning Board and thanked him for his service as it was his last meeting as a member and as the appointed secretary.

 

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Chair Justin M. Hopkins, IV, Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, 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, Information Technology Technician Lanny Fuller, and Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota

 

Town Council Liaison Phillip M. Overton was absent.

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - There were no minutes to approve.

 

D. OLD BUSINESS

 

1. 2022-ATC-04: WINN Properties, LLC Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Development Standards for Commercial Recreation Hotel) Review, discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on changes to the Zoning Ordinance providing development standards for the Commercial Recreation Zoning District and defining accessory uses to a golf course, and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board.

 

            Mr. Hopkins reviewed the procedural order for discussing this agenda item. Atty. Levesque reminded the Board that the application requests an advisory opinion on a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for a Town-wide commercial recreation zone, so it is not an application for a project. He said any future major land development will proceed through the legally required review process and will be seen by the Planning Board again. This matter, along with the Planning Board’s opinion of it, will be on an August Town Council agenda.

            Attorney Thomas Liguori was present on behalf of the applicant, Nick and Jill Scola, owners of Winnapaug Country Club. He said the Ordinance amendment suggested by Winn Properties LLC. was subjectively reviewed in its initial stage by Town staff and Atty. Levesque and it was substantially reformatted. He said the applicant believes the reformatted suggestions by Town staff accomplishes the same objectives as their original Ordinance amendment. Atty. Liguori said he believes that the Ordinance presented this evening is the initial staff rewrite along with the suggested changes by the Architectural Review Board (ARB,) who reviewed and drafted an advisory opinion on the matter at their July 21 meeting.

            Mr. Montesano thanked staff for their work on the amendment. He suggested another language change that he said may prevent a property owner from drastically altering an 18-hole golf course to add accessory uses on site. Mr. Montesano’s suggested edits were applied to Section 260-73 lines 24-26. He provided a spreadsheet to the applicant showing the suggested edits. The Board concurred with Mr. Montesano’s suggested changes to lines 24 to 26 as written.

Mr. Lawlor shared concerns that the Board is taking an amendment request from one course with special interests and applying that amendment to four courses and one Yacht club that fall under the commercial recreation zone. Ms. Letendre explained that the Ordinance is broken into three sections; section 1 changes section 260-73, section 1.A is a restatement of the current process and what that process will be when a golf course presents an application for development, and section 260-73B is a combination of language from the existing sections 1.A and 1.B. She said additional information is added and part of that is the definition of what a clubhouse may be. The accessory uses are a change from what currently exists and adds only a limited suite hotel, which must still meet requirements. She said section 2 and section 3 are changes to the development regulations and the special uses are applicable to all changes, in particular any property known as commercial recreation will be allowed a single principal use structure of a 55-foot height at a setback of 500 feet from every lot line. Ms. Letendre said there are two facilities now that meet that setback requirement, but Winnapaug Country Club could not. The applicant requests it be changed to a 150-foot setback on all sides. That change would be available to all commercial recreation properties, she said. Ms. Letendre added that accessory building height is currently at 20-feet, and they would like it to be a 35-foot maximum. There was discussion that any development project is still subject to ARB review. Mr. Lawlor said his issue is that these are changes to a course in a residential area and he suspects that potential changes may infringe on abutting property owners. There was some discussion on the meaning of limited suites and for whom they are created. Ms. Letendre explained that the Zoning Official would make the determination about accessory uses on the site and if no Zoning relief is needed, the Planning Board would still see the project through the normal development process. Concerns were raised that accessory uses may appear to be or become principal uses of the site.

Mr. Constantine expressed concern that the club may not be able to give priority to existing members and the public with the addition of a limited suite hotel and villas. He was also concerned about the request for a decreased minimum setback for structures. He thought that it may become a resort with an accessory use as a golf course. Mr. Hopkins said as a point of clarification that this is the only property in a commercial recreation zone that is open to the public, but it doesn’t preclude them from operating as a private course. Mr. Delisio said there is some gray area with determining uses. Atty. Liguori said in any potential proposal to the Board, a hotel would be presented as an accessory use and the golf course must be maintained as an 18-hole course. Mr. Scola said there are many famous public access courses that have hotels, and you would never know the structures are on site. He listed some examples. Mr. Liguori urged the Board to not preemptively review a potential development plan that has not yet been submitted and focus on the requested Ordinance text amendment. Mr. Hopkins said the accessory use definition and the development standard application are the two areas the Board is grappling with at this time. Mr. Montesano’s earlier suggestion gives some objective standard to the primary use.

Ms. Harkin said she thinks the language is good and reflects the work of many but asked the Board to consider several edits to the text she created. Board members went through Ms. Harkin’s suggested edits one by one while Ms. Letendre noted the changes. Mr. Lawlor abstained from voting on Ms. Harkin’s edits to the text amendment as he explained he did not have enough time to process those changes. The remaining Board members unanimously accepted Ms. Harkin’s edits.

Mr. Lowther reviewed the purpose of the application and asked if it could be considered that the applicant could accomplish its future development goal through the Special Use Permit process. Ms. Letendre reviewed what uses require a Special Use Permit. Atty. Liguori said the balance struck in the Comprehensive Plan was that a hotel must be an accessory use in the commercial recreation zone and that will be judged during potential applications. There was discussion on the criteria for determining accessory and primary uses, as well as the Special Use Permit process. Mr. Montesano said he likes the travel path for this current approach as it sets the guiderails for future projects. He said it is more heavily regulated, but he thinks it is a good thing as it tightens the guard rails before it comes to Planning Board. He said the process has been educational and codifying the amendments was a good step. Mr. Lowther wanted to ensure that the public interest was served, and they understand how the text amendment process worked. Mr. Constantine asked if the Board agreed on the requested dimensional modification change from 500 to 250 feet. Atty. Liguori said 150 feet was chosen as that is what permits the driving range property to be the site of the principal building. Mr. Hopkins asked how a principal building can be an accessory use. Mr. Montesano argued that talking about a use versus a building changes the definitions of “principal” and “accessory.” The Board revisited the dimensional modification discussion after taking public comments.

Ken Julian, of 16 West Fairview Avenue, submitted his comments in a letter dated August 2, 2022, and read them into the record.  

Robert A. Anderson, of 9 Wicklow Road, shared concerns that Westerly could become overdeveloped and asked the Board to be cautious with development projects, especially given climate change concerns. He asked the Board to consider mandating solar power for new projects. He said a new hotel could be able to become a vital area resource if it was solar-powered. He referred to the discussed planning as dated and short-sighted and warned that Westerly could become a “paradise lost” like California, from where he is from.

Matt Walker, of 35 Wicklow Road, read from Westerly’s Comprehensive Plan that commercial recreation zones are “intended for areas adjacent to residential areas to allow their continued existence and are subject to reasonable regulation and limited expansions.” He argued that the potential project overpowers the principal use and that the Winn Properties, LLC. application is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” He stated that the request for a 150-foot setback was arbitrary. He asked the Board to reject the amendment. Mr. Walker said he would like to see the golf course renewed, but it does not need banquet halls or hotels.  

Nina Rossomando, of 12 West Fairway Avenue, a member of Keep Westerly Green, discussed the applicant’s requested setbacks. She said the text amendment has been designed for the proposed project of Winnapaug Country Club and a 70 percent reduction in setback is not appropriate. She asked the  Board to consider safety issues for those staying in any potential hotel as her own property has had damage from golf balls. She recounted an afternoon when she was hit in the stomach by a ball while she was outside gardening. Ms. Rossomando said it is easy for her to picture people staying on the course injured or seeing building damage due to flying golf balls. She encouraged the Board not to endorse any changes to the minimum setbacks. She also voiced concern that a 55-foot maximum building height is not necessary.  

Kelly Page, of 176 Shore Road, echoed the safety concerns. She also shared concerns about the current noise and potential noise issues with future development. She said the scale of the conceptual proposed development would fundamentally change the character of neighborhood. Ms. Page submitted a two-page copy of her comments at the meeting.

Erin Collins, of 4 Whales View Drive, questioned the need for the text amendment. She suggested that the Planning Board’s review of the applicant’s request took authority from the Town Council to decide Ordinances. She said commercial recreation zones are unique and intertwined with residential zones so residents should have input in the decision-making process. Ms. Collins said that development proposals in commercial recreation zones are likely to be contentious so the Town Council should continue to be the decision maker.

John Fritz, of 27 Tom Harvey Road, thanked the Planning Board for their work and effort. He stated that the Weekapaug Inn and The Ocean House are not in commercial recreation zones. He asked if it was appropriate to sell residential units in a commercial recreation zone. Mr. Hopkins interjected to say that at no point during the text amendment discussion have they discussed selling properties. Mr. Fritz continued to address Mr. Montesano’s language suggestion to curtail the principal use from decreasing. He said by the time you’re able to do a slope rating and determine if it is a principal use or not, it will be too late as development will be complete. Mr. Fritz said the plan may be a great concept, but the working reality is that is not possible. He suggested that a way to tell what is a principal or accessory use is which costs more and which generates more income. Mr. Fritz suggested the Planning Board strike all 23 of the ARB’s design standards within the text amendment and stick to the description “New England coastal.”

Lane Doherty, of 7 Wicklow Road, said her family was one of the first to build on the land surrounding the golf course. She said when she purchased her home, she did research and thought it was secure from future development. She has been enjoying and supporting the course ever since she moved there and never worried about the future of the course until learning about potential development in 2019. She shared concerns that the proposed text amendment is not in line with the intention of the Comprehensive Plan. She reminded the Planning Board of the plan’s vision statement and read it into the record.

Susan Strouse, of 23 Wicklow Road, submitted a copy of her statement dated August 2, 2022 and read from it, omitting comments that were already stated by residents who spoke before her.

Michael Donovan, of 10 Tranquility Trail, addressed the slope requirement as amended in the text and said it is unfounded. He said the Atlantic Ocean is a destination point and it always will be. He thanked the Scola family for trying to preserve what they have here. He shared his history working with the Norwich golf course and said they had a similar situation that Winnapaug Country Club has now, and it is important for courses to diversify. He said he personally does not believe it is the responsibility of a golf course to protect abutters, but it is their responsibility to create buffers or protection for their homes. Mr. Donovan said many residents live near the property to have a view of open land and the course and this is an opportunity for Westerly to preserve and protect a 100-year-old golf course. He said golf by itself cannot sustain itself so you need development and how much can be controlled. Mr. Donovan said the project team is well-assembled and Westerly needs to keep this affordable public access course. He referenced a letter to the editor he submitted to the Westerly Sun on the issue.  

Joan Beth Brown, of 5 Ninigret Avenue, moderator for Watch Hill Fire District, shared concerns about the text amendment and proposed it should not be applicable for the whole Town. The proposed zoning change affects a wide area and believe it should not extend to historic districts, such as the Misquamicut Club, she said. She said they wrote a letter asking not to be included in the proposed change. Ms. Brown argued that there may be unwanted safety issues from additional traffic, and impacts on the ecosystem.

The Planning Board called a recess at 8:45 pm. Mr. Hopkins called the meeting back to order at 9:00 p.m.

Atty. Liguori argued that the phrase “land development project” in the staff’s draft of the text amendment is being vilified as it means nothing other than a one or two-family home. He said the phrase is used in the draft as a substantive and procedural requirement that would have to be met by an applicant under this proposed zoning amendment which implicates section 260-45F with a myriad of additional requirements to the ones in the proposed amendment. Atty. Liguori responded to the public comments that there is not one abutting home that was in place before the golf course existed so there is some unfairness for residents to complain about golf balls. Atty. Liguori said it is a misconception that the Town Council has authority over land development projects. They can only pass a zoning ordinance amendment. He said Mr. Scola made the commitment during the last meeting that there would be opportunity for locals to reserve a tee time irrespective of development. He added that the Town of Westerly had the opportunity in the past to purchase the Weekapaug Golf Course so it would be a Town-owned public course. It was offered to the Town for $1 million and that went to referendum to the community, and they voted no so it became private. Mr. Scola wants to save what remains that is not a private golf course and has made a commitment. Atty. Liguori said it is a myth that a hotel must be a single building and the definition in the ordinance does not limit it to a single building, even without the proposed amendment. He said it is also an infrastructure myth that it will require an expansion of  the Town’s water system and the Town’s wastewater treatment plant. He also stated that the project does not propose or require that the public sewer system be extended to the golf course. In response to comments on energy efficiency, Atty. Liguori shared that the applicant uses green methods for the recirculation of water and golf course irrigation.  

Atty. Levesque addressed section 260-73, which designates the requirement of a development plan, however the paragraph is vague regarding the review process and that is why it was clarified to make it a land development plan. He said one way is to make it a development plan review (DPR) and reduce it to a two-tiered process. Atty. Levesque added, in response to public comment, that under no circumstances does the ordinance require a golf course to go to Town Council for review. All development projects are required to go to the Planning Board and that is State law, he said.  

Atty. Levesque asked the Board to clarify their stance on the proposed changes to the use table within the text amendment application. There was extensive conversation about this issue among the Board members. After Board members consulted with Atty. Levesque, he asked the applicant if they would be amenable to adjusting the use table request from 150 feet to 250 feet for the side setbacks and remaining at 500 feet for the front and rear setbacks. Ms. Letendre commented that if the applicant needed more relief, they could request a Variance with future development applications.  

At 10:01 p.m. Mr. Montesano made a motion to extend the Planning Board meeting to 10:30 p.m. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by a vote of 6 to 1 with Ms. Harkin voting no.

In response to the proposal to amend the use table minimum dimensional regulations all Board members were in favor of that change, except of Mr. Constantine, who thought 500 feet should apply to all setbacks.

There was further discussion of the language in the accessory uses definition from lines 17 to 26 in the text amendment with Mr. Montesano’s suggested edits. All members were in favor of the edits, except for Mr. Constantine.  

Mr. Montesano made a motion to approve as modified the Zoning Ordinance text amendment for the Development Standards for Commercial Recreation Hotel requested by WINN Properties, LLC. and to make a positive recommendation to Westerly Town Council based on the modified text and comments heard at the August 2, 2022 Planning Board meeting, which include modifications to the dimensional standards as discussed, the definition of accessory uses as discussed, and modifications to the design standards as discussed. Mr. Lowther seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by a vote of 6 to 1 with Mr. Constantine voting no.

Mr. Montesano made a motion to modify his original motion to include the that the application by WINN Properties, LLC. for a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to the Development Standards for Commercial Recreation Hotel as modified at the August 2, 2022 Planning Board meeting is consistent with Westerly’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lowther seconded the amended motion. The motion CARRIED by a vote of 6 to 1 with Mr. Constantine voting no.

 

 

F. NEW BUSINESS – There was no new business.

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT – There was no report given.

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

1. None

 

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUORUM FOR NEXT REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING

 

1. August 16, 2022 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 (pending completeness review):

 

Me. Lawlor thanked the Board and shared sentiments about working with the all the present members. He wished everyone good luck in the future. Ms. Letendre said a new auxiliary member will start on September 1.

· Florentine Realty, LLC. – Venice Restaurant Expansion, Cont’d from July 19th

·Downtown Redevelopment and Stormwater Management Project –SRICD

·Route One Corridor Plan and Comp Plan Amendments

 

J. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Montesano made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 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 August 16, 2022