Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 – 5:15 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 5:23 p.m.

 

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Chair Justin M. Hopkins, Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, and Members Andrew Delisio, James Hall IV, and Matthew O’Neil

 

Members absent:             Member Tabitha Harkin and Auxiliary Member Karen Lentz Madison

 

Staff present:                   Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning Atty. Scott Levesque, Town Planner Nancy Letendre, Information Technology Technician Lanny Fuller, Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota, and Principal Planner Alyse Oziolor left the meeting about 7:00 p.m.

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1.       November 22, 2022

2.       November 22, 2022 Special

 

Mr. Constantine made a motion to approve both the November 22, 2022 special Planning Board meeting minutes and the November 22, 2022 regular Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Mr. O’Neil 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, such as known continuances and the order in which items will be heard.

 

            There were no changes to the agenda.

 

E. OLD BUSINESS

 

1. 2020-MJLD-08- Performance Bond Review - Harbor Ridge (165 East Avenue | Assessor’s Map 107, Lot 57) Review, discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on setting a performance bond, discontinuing third-party SESC inspections, and LMI alternative in the 20-unit residential condominium development.

 

Ms. Letendre reviewed the details of the application, and that the applicant has already framed four structures. She said the Final Plan application was received but is not yet certified complete. She reviewed that a written request was received from Attorney William Nardone to discuss the performance bond, the elimination of the need for stormwater erosion and sediment control inspections, as well as a request on the low- and moderate-income housing fee in lieu. Ms. Letendre said Atty. Nardone and Atty. Levesque have discussed the third item but the Board should be prepared to discuss the first two items.

Atty. Nardone and project engineer Joseph Duhamel were present on behalf of the applicant, Douglas DeSimone, who was also present. Atty. Nardone explained that a fee was agreed to be paid to the Town in lieu of building three LMI units after discussion with Atty. Levesque that alternatives were not available. However, the applicant prefers work in concert with the Town if he finds the appropriate location or units and have the funds held in escrow.

The applicant’s request to eliminate third party review is based on the fact that most construction has been done and inspected by Bryant Engineering, paid for by applicant, and stormwater control and soil erosion management have been installed and are satisfactory. He said that based on advanced construction on the site, those inspections are no longer necessary. He said the contractor would do their own inspections. The Town will also conduct its routine inspections.

The most concerning issue is that at 4:05 p.m. this afternoon the applicant received an email with an estimate of a revised bond. He said the applicant’s request was submitted three weeks ago at $58,000. The Town suggested the bond be set at $195,976. Based on discussion with Town officials, the applicant agreed to pay $104,587. Atty. Nardone stated that specific items in the email sent this afternoon are either inappropriate or not necessary and he requested those items be removed from the bond. Mr. DeSimone explained the reason for the bond is to ensure the infrastructure improvements that the Planning Board approved are constructed in case something was to occur and the developer could not complete the project. He said the three items in the email are related to unit construction, and therefore not necessary. The Town Engineer reviewed the bond estimate and compared it to State work costs. Ms. Oziolor summarized the erosion control needed if the project were abandoned. Mr. DeSimone said the way to stabilize it now would be to hay it and that he did not screen the loam stockpiles in the summer because of dust concerns, but they did about three weeks ago. He said he is entitled to have stockpiles on site and should not be required to bond them. He believes he has demonstrated that he is willing to work with the Town. Mr. O’Neil asked how close the piles are to the road and Mr. DeSimone said about 60 to 75 feet. Ms. Oziolor said the intent of the Town comments was not that these piles were part of the roadway but a part of general cleaning of the site if the Town were to take over. Mr. DeSimone responded that if a disaster happened, the Town could sell it rather than tend to it. Atty. Levesque said the Town would call the bond company if the developer defaults, they would make an assessment and the bond company would be responsible for following the details of the bond so the Town would not be responsible. He said this is also why the Town does not take checks in lieu of bonds so that an abandoned project does not become a Town problem. Atty. Levesque said the Town is only concerned about the cost of fixing the situation. Mr. Delisio opined that the loam pile is an asset and not a liability and believes the cost estimate is too high. Mr. Hall commented that the Town would be stuck with the burden of an abandoned site and wanted clarity on the differences in the applicant’s and Town’s estimations. Ms. Oziolor said the developer did not include the cost of grading the site. Mr. DeSimone said the software that calculates cost did not include unit construction details and that is why the grading was not included. He suggests that he can knock down fill piles and grade them but does not want to knock down loam right now. He offered to seed the loam piles on April 1 and stated that all the loam on site was already screened and three units have been completed and are waiting for the closing sale process. Mr. Constantine said it seems appropriate that the Town Planning staff and the Town Engineer determine what the pile of loam is worth and solutions for selling or moving it. Mr. O’Neil recommended that Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) has an available table with unit rate of importing loam to a site and that could be used as a basis for developing a value of that pile as an offset cost to the Town. Mr. Delisio said the Town could sell it and it would be a negative cost to the Town. Mr. DeSimone asked the Board to decide this matter tonight as there are condominium buyers that need to close on units and this matter is inhibiting that process. Mr. Hopkins said part of the issue is the Board has a letter from the applicant dated December 5. Mr. DeSimone said the numbers were available eight months ago and there is no disagreement on what items have been completed, but the Town wanted to revisit the numbers due to the current economy. Ms. Oziolor said this is the same bond estimate at the Preliminary Plan phase and Bryant Engineering suggested the numbers be revisited during Preliminary Plan review. She shared that the Town Engineer has not confirmed that each line item of the project has been completed onsite but did confirm that grading remained incomplete. Mr. DeSimone said all necessary inspections and preliminary approval conditions have been met for the project. Mr. Duhamel listed the completed work on the project. There was discussion on unrelated local developments that were abandoned or created issues for the Town. Atty. Levesque said the Town has had experience with developers, not Mr. DeSimone, abandoning stockpiles. He refreshed the Board that the prior abandoned project was brought before the Board because it was believed the applicant did not comply with conditions of the Board related to erosion control. This is one of the reasons a Town bonds issues like this, to protect itself. If the Board believes there is a true offset in the cost, they should explore it, but the Board should examine how they can best protect the Town and not spend any money.

There was extensive discussion on how to reduce the cost of the bond to the applicant and still sufficiently protect the Town. Ms. Letendre suggested items 19, 20, 21, on grading, slide slopes, seed fertilizer and lime, should be taken out of highway and given its own section and they use the applicant’s numbers for those items. She added that with respect to those items, there was a suggestion, that based on the unit price of loam set by RIDOT, this could be deducted from the bond. The conditions of approval will be that before Final Plan approval the applicant must grade the existing fill pile and cover the loam with hay, and seed it on April 1. Atty. Nardone agreed to the conditions. The cost difference would be $59,000. Ms. Oziolor said that subtracting $59,000 from the Town total would leave a required $131,076.50 bond and that number includes the 10 percent contingency of $11,916.05.

Mr. Constantine made a motion that the Planning Board hereby approves the performance bond estimate for 2020-MJLD-08- Performance Bond Review - Harbor Ridge (165 East Avenue | Assessor’s Map 107, Lot 57) presented by the Planning staff at $119,160.47 with a ten percent contingency of $11,916.05 for a total of $131,076.50 in the form of a surety bond for seeding of the building sites, in case the buildings are not to be constructed and the site needs to be stabilized, with the conditions that before Final Plan approval the applicant must grade the existing fill pile and cover the loam with hay, and seed it on April 1. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

It was stated that the third item request with respect to the LMI units was withdrawn by the applicant. There was further discussion on the request to cease third-party inspections of stormwater and sediment erosion controls. Mr. Delisio said there is a neighboring property that has experienced greater water on their property since the project began. Mr. DeSimone said he has not heard a complaint but that can be inspected before or during the next rain.

Mr. Constantine made a motion that the Planning Board hereby relieves the applicant 2020-MJLD-08- Performance Bond Review - Harbor Ridge (165 East Avenue | Assessor’s Map 107, Lot 57) of the third-party site inspections of erosion control and stormwater management on the site performed by Bryant Engineering, as required by Preliminary Plan Condition of Approval #2, subject to the following conditions; 1. The Applicant shall remit payment to the Town for any outstanding invoices related to inspections performed by Bryant Engineering prior to the date of this approval on December 13, 2022, 2. The Applicant’s own contractor shall continue to inspect the erosion controls and stormwater management on the site daily throughout the remainder of construction and correct any deficiencies observed, until the site is completely stabilized, 3. The Applicant shall permit Town staff to enter the site for the purpose of inspections, upon request, and shall correct any erosion control and stormwater management deficiencies identified by Town staff. Mr. O’Neil seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

1. 2021-MJLD-03 – Preliminary Plan Review – Cozi LLC Commercial Development (92-100 Granite Street | Assessor’s Map 67, Lot 275) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Preliminary Plan approval for redevelopment of mixed commercial.

 

            Present on behalf of the application was Attorney William Nardone and project engineer Joseph Duhamel, of DiPrete Engineering, Cranston. Also present was Paul Bannon, traffic engineer. Ms. Letendre provided a brief history of the application and said staff did give permission for some paving work to stabilize the site, but erosion controls were not in place during a recent rain event, which caused flooding problems on Granite Street. She said stormwater controls continue to be a priority of this project, adding that there may be a historical culvert on the property near the vicinity of the proposed stormwater measures and that will be investigated.

Atty. Nardone introduced Mr. Duhamel to explain the engineering aspects of the plan. Building one and three will be for office/business uses and do not yet have tenants. The plan incorporates extra parking for potential use changes. Ms. Letendre said conversation was had at Master Plan review to use the rear of the property along Tower Street for larger commercial vehicles. She suggested they be cognizant that the current parking location is highly visible. Staff hope for more landscaping at the front of the property to soften the aesthetics at this intersection. She advised the applicant not to wait and construct the parking area set for phase 2 and that the Board disallow overnight parking in front of the middle building. Atty. Nardone said he understands the aesthetics argument, but the parcel is zoned highway commercial and the vehicles need to be stored overnight. There was extensive discussion on the logistics and circulation of the site, as well as the proximity to the quarry. Ms. Letendre noted that the applicant began work that is normally not permitted at this stage to contain the site, which was allowed, but the fence was not part of that work. Atty. Nardone could not respond to the question of unpermitted work being completed on the site as he has not yet discussed this with the applicant. It was stated that current building work has been permitted.

Mr. Bannon, an associate of BETA Group, explained the four points of entry and exit to the site. He said one curb opening on Granite Street will be closed and the one closest to the Tower and Granite Street intersection will be restricted to right hand turn only. The lot exit onto Tower Street allows drivers to turn left at that light onto Granite Street. He said this project proposes a less intense use of the site than previous proposals. Mr. Bannon explained the plan’s pedestrian connectivity between buildings and described it as sufficient.

There was extensive discussion on the project’s landscape plan and pedestrian access to the southern building on the site.  Ms. Letendre asked if the connection between Granite Plaza and the site could be more residential in scale to prevent trucks from cutting through and speeding.

            There was no public comment. Mr. Hall made a motion to continue the application 2021-MJLD-03 – Preliminary Plan Review – Cozi LLC Commercial Development (92-100 Granite Street | Assessor’s Map 67, Lot 275) to the January 24 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

The Planning Board called a recess at 7:44 p.m. Mr. Hopkins called the meeting back to order at 7:51 p.m.

 

2. 2022-DPR-08 – Development Plan Review - Watch Hill Bay Views, LLC (48-52 Bay Street | Assessor’s Plat 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 for renovation of a mixed-use commercial-residential structure in the Shore Commercial-Watch Hill (SC-WH) Zoning District

 

            Ms. Letendre introduced the details of the application. Present for the application was Attorney Kelly Fracassa and John Masson, associate with Azzinaro Architects & Associates, Inc., Westerly. Atty. Fracassa presented the procedural schedule of the application. Mr. Masson described the proposed renovations to the second floor of the building. Paul Azzinaro, principal of Azzinaro Architects & Associates, Inc., was also present at the meeting and described the evolution of this plan from the original submission, which was withdrawn without prejudice. The applicant was able to go to the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission (RIHPHC) one on one and they went through the design elements together.

            Peter Wallis, owner of 44 Bay Street, B210, said his understanding is that the current Zoning Ordinance height is 25 feet and this project has a stair tower is going up to 41 feet. The project may set a new standard with this height. He read into the record a statement by Peter Catalano, president of the Bayside Condominium Association. Mr. Catalano’s letter stated many residents were upset that they could not be included in a Zoom conference for the project. The letter also referenced insufficient parking space and the proposal eliminates a parking space making it nonconforming. Mr. Wallis read that access to the existing roof deck could be created by an exterior stair and this current design is a reach to achieve an original design not approved by RIHPHC. Mr. Wallis said he found the presentation disingenuous and while the property is preexisting nonconforming, this project makes it more nonconforming.

            Mr. Delisio responded that the proposal will not alter the building structure nor will the site circulation change. Mr. Constantine said the structure for the stairs seems to be a contentious issue and asked why it was needed. Mr. Azzinaro said the project complies with height regulations and RIHPHC suggested the absolute minimum of a roof. Atty. Fracassa said the Zoning Official submitted a detailed explanation about the height in the Zoning narrative and a Variance is not needed. Mr. Azzinaro explained that a deck over 12 feet needs an intermediate landing, and he described that the enclosed staircase will be built over a transition area of the ceiling height. Atty. Levesque said the Zoning Office issued a memo dated Oct 11, 2022 where Zoning Official Martin Loiselle calculates building height and he looked at property records today and there is no record of evidence of adverse possession of an alleyway. Ms. Letendre said there is no change being made to the site that would eliminate parking and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) has already approved the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS.)

Mr. Hall made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board render a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board on the merits of the proposed redevelopment 2022-DPR-08 – Development Plan Review - Watch Hill Bay Views, LLC (48-52 Bay Street | Assessor’s Plat 179, Lot 102) in accordance with the application and supporting materials. Mr. O’Neil seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Constantine suggested that as a condition the applicant consider an exterior staircase to access the roof deck instead of an enclosed one. Mr. Constantine made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board approve Planning Case 2022-DPR-08 – Development Plan Review - Watch Hill Bay Views, LLC (48-52 Bay Street | Assessor’s Plat 179, Lot 102) and read into the record the findings of facts and five conditions of approval, recommending that another condition be that the applicant consider an exterior staircase to the deck. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

 

3. 2021-LMIH-01 - Master Plan Review - Multi-Family Development for Former St. Pius X Property Comprehensive Permit (28 School Street | Assessor’s Map 6, Lot 91) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Master Plan Approval of a Major Land Development for proposed multifamily development at former St. Pius X property.

 

            Atty. Levesque clarified that the application is under a Comprehensive Permit and any requests for relief will go to the Planning Board. The application can proceed with a Comprehensive Permit because the applicant agreed to have at least 25 percent of the units as low and moderate income (LMI) and the State allows that. Ms. Letendre agreed to a continuation of this public hearing to January 10. Attorney William Nardone was present on behalf of the applicant. He submitted a cover letter dated October 22, 2022, which confirmed that everything submitted with that package was submitted for public record. It was labeled Applicant’s Exhibit 1. Another document, a report by Pimentel Consulting, Inc. dated November 21, 2022 was labeled Applicant’s Exhibit 2. Revised architectural plans were also submitted and marked Applicant’s Exhibit 3. Project architect Peter Springsteel was present to describe the new plans, along with project engineer Teresa Transue, landscape architect Rebecca Nolan, and Jeffrey Pucci, one of the principals of Trendsetter Properties, LLC.

            Mr. Springsteel reviewed the changes to the architectural plans. The proposed new building is a three-story structure. He summarized the commentary received by the ARB and many neighbors. Mr. Springsteel said the application no longer needs a height variance and the new building will be at 35 feet, measuring two or three feet below finished grade to get the building height, as they must build up around the structure to allow drainage away from the building. He described the newly created variations on the façade to help articulate the building. Atty. Levesque clarified that the applicant measured from the existing grade to the top of the proposed building, so the fill was deducted from the calculation. Ms. Nolan presented the landscape plan and submitted a set of plans marked Applicant’s Exhibit 4. She described the changes to the plan, such as the use of an evergreen mixed buffer. The plan adds many street trees to School Street where there are none. She said all utilities and transformers will be buffered.

            Mr. Delisio offered comments on the landscape plan and choices. Mr. Constantine commented that it appears the new building is lowered but the aesthetic appearance is of a shopping plaza and wondered if the Board would agree to a higher roofline that looks better. Mr. Springsteel explained that the apartment unit HVAC units will be on individual balconies but the common area HVAC will be on the roof. Mr. Hall wondered if lowering the equipment and removing a few units could be a solution to making a more attractive roofline. Mr. Hopkins agreed fewer units would help with some of the scale issues. Atty. Nardone said this proposal allows for 11 LMI units. Mr. O’Neil asked about drainage. Ms. Transue said even though they haven’t yet designed the stormwater management system, they have a grading plan to gain a positive pitch for the new build, which is now sitting lower than the existing school building. Mr. Springsteel said the option of adding a second story to the existing building presented economic issues and roof issues and it was best to preserve the building as is.

            Ted Rice, of 22 Cross Street, distributed a letter to the Board on behalf of the neighborhood group Elm Street CARES. It was marked as Remonstrance A. Many people in attendance at the meeting agreed with the submitted letter and stood up to show solidarity with Mr. Rice. He reviewed the history of the formation of Elm Street CARES and its participation in the application. Mr. Rice said they heard from the applicant in late October and met with them on November 11. He said the applicant was unwilling to entertain a different design of the building. He referenced consistent feedback from Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning Board members at various meetings that the footprint of the project appeared to be too large for the area. He said the Board has two comprehensive permit applications on the agenda tonight but the two projects stand in contrast. The Trendsetter project is in Wilcox Historic District, on 2 acres with 44 units, and the Dakota Partners project represents half the density.

            Ed Marolda, of 40 Elm Street, said when he listened to the applicant say they heard community concerns, he found it disingenuous as they only lowered the roof line to avoid requesting a variance. Mr. Marolda said the main issue with the project is the mass of the building, which will overwhelm the site. He noted that on page 11 of the expert witness report, an addendum was referenced but not available online. He read the development plan review (DPR) standards of Westerly from Zoning Ordinance section 260-45 and said they do not support the logic of the applicant’s belief that the project is justified based on existing neighboring three-story residential buildings from the late 1800s and Windsor Condominiums across the street from the proposal. He said Elm Street CARES proposed the applicant build only a two-story building and they do not agree the standards of DPR are being met by this project. He said that a 2,100 square foot per unit density is problematic. Other projects to compare this to are the Granite Hill Apartments or Chestnut Street elderly housing, he said. He asked the applicant to lower the building by one floor, which would create 2,800 square foot per unit density. Mr. Marolda also claimed that the applicant planned to list units at 120 percent LMI, and he believes that the Planning Board has the authority to deny the permit in its current form. He said that building scale, mass, and size do matter as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and by the public but he believes the applicant is very opposed to decreasing the size and scale of the project. This is not the outcome that Elm Street CARES was looking for and they are disappointed that Trendsetter hopes that the public will get tired and go away and the small changes the applicant has made do not solve the major issue. He reiterated that reducing the building to two stories is the best option.

            Doug Brockway, of 32 Chestnut Street, an abutter to the property, mentioned some things that were not in the Elm Street CARES letter. He referenced an email sent on November 11, 2022 to the Town Planner and Planning Board Chairman regarding traffic concerns. He asked that Ms. Letendre make it public record. He said in his conversations with local emergency officials, it was discussed that the proposed development could produce more obstructions to traffic. He said people will want to park on School Street or neighboring streets for visits and the density analysis says there is not enough planned parking on the site for residents of the project. Mr. Brockway urged the study be more closely examined. He said he used Google and measured School Street at various points and its width is inconsistent and at some points is 20 feet, expressing concerns for speed on that road. Mr. Brockway observed from the traffic analysis that they took data from 2017 to 2019 and at that time School Street was relatively untraveled but with recent upgrades, the street is clean and smooth and more travelled. He referenced page 17 of the RKG Market Analysis report from the Route 1 Corridor Plan. Mr. Brockway said it includes Westerly’s population trends and the applicant appears to take a low base number for their analysis. He also referenced the potential existence of underground culverts in the area that may affect this project.

Mr. Delisio made a motion at 10:00 p.m. to waive the Planning Board curfew for hearing applications. Mr. O’Neil seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

            Phil Fitzpatrick, of 60 Elm Street, submitted a three-page document marked Remonstrance B. He said he agreed with the position of Elm Street CARES but was not speaking as a representative of the group. He opined that it is not a project to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income citizens. Mr. Fitzpatrick’s commented on the large mass of the project, concerns with the parking plan and pedestrian connectivity, potential delivery issues, and landscaping concerns.

            Atty. Levesque said the applicant is seeking a waiver of the requirement for LMI rental units and the Board does not have power to waive that requirement as it is State mandated. The applicant had requested rental units be restricted up to 120 percent AMI (area median income) and not the required 80 percent AMI. Atty. Nardone said the applicant withdraws this request.

            Mr. Hall said he would like to revisit the density issue and the number of units at future meetings. Ms. Letendre indicated a number of items on page 11 of the staff memo dated December 6, 2022 for the December 13, 2022 meeting under recommended continuance that should be looked at between now and June 10. She added to the list during discussion updating the traffic analysis, details on phased development, which will be applied for at the Preliminary Plan, and the State law and Westerly Ordinance requires a pro forma, which was not provided and that could be one source of justification for the applicant’s ideal number of 44 proposed units. Atty. Levesque said plan phasing must be established at Master Plan review and not at Preliminary Plan review when they are doing engineering review. More discussion can be had when the applicant returns at the Master Plan continuance hearing. Mr. Hopkins said more discussion should occur with the Westerly Fire Chief and emergency personnel on understanding the circulation and safety of the site. He reiterated that scale has been a constant issue with this project and they can anticipate discussing more at the next meeting.

Mr. O’Neil made a motion to continue the 2021-LMIH-01 - Master Plan Review - Multi-Family Development for Former St. Pius X Property Comprehensive Permit (28 School Street | Assessor’s Map 6, Lot 91) application to the January 10, 2023 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

4. 2022-LMIH-01 - Combined Master and Preliminary Plan - Dakota Properties LLC Comprehensive Permit for Multi-family Residential Development (51 Franklin Street - 111 Wells Street | AP 87, Lots 146 & 147, AP 88, Lots 24 & 25) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on a combined Master Plan amendment and Preliminary Plan review of a Comprehensive Permit for the residential portion of the site plan.

 

            Ms. Letendre reviewed the details of the application. The applicants agreed to a continuation of the matter to January 10 and request that at that meeting the Board be prepared to render a decision. Attorney Matthew Landry was present on behalf of the applicant. Documents submitted to the Board included a memo with the November 17 application package, now considering 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. A supplemental application was included in the submission and marked Applicant’s Exhibit 2 and the original submission was marked Applicant’s Exhibit 1. Also submitted was a supplemental traffic report showing some of the crash data and it was marked Applicant’s Exhibit 3. A revised elevation plan in response to the December 1 Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting was submitted and marked Applicant’s Exhibit 4 with a set of plans marked Applicant’s Exhibit 5. Will Walter, professional engineer, and Stephen R. Ulman, senior project engineer, both of Alfred Benesch & Company, were also present to testify at the meeting.

            Mr. Landry said Dakota Properties, LLC. hosted a community outreach meeting at the Westerly Library and some comments received were about traffic and drainage, which have been addressed in the plans.

            Mr. Walter described the site plans and layout of the project. He said the seasonal projection from Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) is they can maintain good access to the intersection with one site drive. He described the drainage plan, stating they will gravity flow Town water and sewer instead of adding a pump station. Mr. Walter referenced a photometrics plan in the packet. He said they have been continually collaborating with staff and taking the Town Planner’s suggestions.

            Mr. Ulman reviewed the characteristics of the project location in reference to the traffic report. He summarized the findings of this report. Mr. Delisio, as a former resident of Wells Street, disagreed with the findings of the report that Wells Street would not be majorly affected by the project. He says the cars currently back up on Wells Street. Mr. Ulman recommended stripes in the east bound lane to not block the driveway. Atty. Landry said the traffic report shows that single access to Wells Street can be handled by the proposal, but the applicant is not opposed to secondary access to Franklin Street. He reminded the Board that tonight’s proposal is only for lot 24 and any development on lot 25 is yet to be determined and may or may not require Franklin Street access. There was extensive discussion on the traffic analysis. Ms. Letendre noted Architectural Review Board (ARB) discussion on the same topic. They recommended that the Franklin Street access be developed as part of the plan, and it be right out only and right in only. Mr. Ulman elaborated on pedestrian access to the site. Ms. Letendre suggested the project have sidewalks along the driveways. Mr. O’Neil provided personal insight into the traffic in the summer on Wells and Franklin Streets and said the traffic report does not consider this seasonal increase. He said the residents of the project will struggle the most to access and exit the properties. Mr. Hall said there are no “don’t block the box” lines in Westerly, adding that driving is made up of much habit and conditioning. He said the traffic report needs more observation on pedestrian activity, especially students and encouraged the applicant to plan two egresses. Mr. Hall also suggested a flared or widened entrance.

            Ed Wojcik, project architect, addressed the ARB comments from December 1. He said the applicant agreed to the eight recommendations. He described the main apartment building as a three-story structure with varied textures. The ARB requested the applicant focus on the front and back facades. He described the design, saying originally the site had three buildings and now has two. The project proposes ground-based HVAC units at the ends of the building with a six-foot enclosed fence and plantings. The plan proposes 114 parking spaces.

Ms. Letendre asked for clarity on what will happen in the corner lot between now and the Preliminary Plan. Atty. Landry said at Master Plan approval they received a time extension. He said there will be some site work in relation to the access and an easement across that parcel. Ms. Letendre noted that the Zoning Official wrote an opinion and calculated the density for the site based on lot 24. He also calculated impervious surface area based on the same space. A height variance request will be for less than 4 feet. Mark Pilotte, of Dakota Partners, provided further comments on a planned clubhouse structure.

Anthony Inzero, of 91 Wells Street, explained he returned to the area to assist his mother, who has lived there since 1997. He read from a prepared statement, which was provided to Planning staff for the record. He has observed an increase in traffic on Wells Street over the years saying there is a substantial wait time on Wells to Franklin. Mr. Inzero said the traffic report is flawed in its approach at the time data was taken and how numbers were extrapolated. He said the traffic report does not consider queue lengths or metrics for Wells and Beach Street. He noted that there is a lack of sidewalks and bike lanes and the primary vehicle for many is a car so he believes the development will have a lasting negative effect. He said the location is a poor choice. Mr. Inzero said approving or denying this application is an important decision and the area’s population will continue to increase so the Board should think carefully and look at as much information as possible before deciding. He said the buildings’ designs do not match the candor of the neighborhood.

Scott Collins, of 105 Wells Street, agreed traffic is an issue in that area. He shared several examples of the problematic areas; that Wells Street is one lane leading onto Franklin Street and drivers turning left have to wait for a light change, which causes queues that block driveways, and neighboring businesses already impact traffic. He said the size of the project is out of place for the neighborhood and the main building appears like a high school building.  Mr. Collins pointed out his home on the map. He said he thought there needed to be a buffer zone between zone changes. Ms. Letendre replied that this was untrue. Mr. Collins shared that the project is moving too quickly and the Town and citizens are not beholden to a short timeline.

Chris Tate, speaking for his mother Mary Tate, of 94 Wells Street, said the project is not fitting for the neighborhood and the project is huge compared to even the largest homes nearby. Mr. Tate said when he leaves his mother’s home from June until Labor Day he is often forced to go right and turn around to get in line at the Wells and Franklin Street intersection.

Anthony DiMario, of 75 Franklin Street, abuts the potential development. He expressed concern about the space between his backyard and the planned parking lot. He worried about people cutting though his yard to access Franklin Street. He asked how far drainage culverts would extend as there are concerns with flooding. He said despite living on Franklin Street, the rear of his home is quiet and he is not happy with the thought of having a large lot behind his home.

Rob Discuillo, of 95 Wells Street, said he was involved in two traffic accidents last week in that area. He said his wife is a school teacher and has a hard time leaving in the morning and he has concerns for his children who walk to school, as well. He expressed concerns with potential water gathering in his yard.

Atty. Landry noted that many of the public concerns are about traffic and drainage. He said the applicant will reserve comments for the January 10 meeting.

Mr. Constantine commented that it is not fair that in the traffic report this large development is compared to small neighboring businesses.

Mr. O’Neil made a motion to continue Planning Case 2022-LMIH-01 - Combined Master and Preliminary Plan - Dakota Properties LLC Comprehensive Permit for Multi-family Residential Development (51 Franklin Street - 111 Wells Street | AP 87, Lots 146 & 147, AP 88, Lots 24 & 25) to the January 10 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

 

1.       Administrative Actions

·None

 

2.       Development Project Status Report (updated 12/1/2022)

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICTOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

            There was no report.

 

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUOROM FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING

 

1. January 10, 2023 Special Meeting at 6:00pm 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:

 

·         Trendsetter multi-family (continued)

·         Dakota Properties multi-family (continued)

·         16 Post Road Ministorage | Master Plan & Zone change

 

2.       January 24, 2023 Regular Meeting at 6:00pm 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):

 

·         50 Wells Medical Offices | Combined Master & Preliminary plan

·         Low Impact Development (LID) regulation amendment priorities

·         Route 1 Corridor proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments

 

I. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Constantine made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:49 p.m. Mr. O’Neil 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 January 24, 2023