Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 15, 2022 - 6:00 p.m.

Westerly Town Hall | Town Council Chambers 45 Broad Street, Westerly, RI 02891

(This meeting was held in person and via Zoom pursuant to Governor Daniel J. McKee’s

Executive Order 22-01, dated January 6, 2022, as extended)

 

A. CALL TO ORDER –

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

 

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Chair Justin M. Hopkins, IV, Secretary Christopher K. Lawlor, and Member Kevin Lowther were present in Council Chambers and Members Joseph M. Montesano, Andrew Delisio, and Tabitha Harkin all attended via Zoom.

 

Members absent:             Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine

 

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

 

Town Council Liaison Phillip M. Overton was present and left the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1. January 11, 2022 Special Meeting – Mr. Lawlor made a motion to approve as submitted the January 11, 2022 Planning Board special meeting minutes. Mr. Lowther seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. January 18, 2022 Regular Meeting – Mr. Lawlor made a motion to approve as submitted the January 18, 2022 regular Planning Board meeting minutes. Mr. Lowther seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with an abstention from Mr. Montesano, who was absent from the January 18, 2022 meeting.

 

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. Oziolor noted for the public that the Bradford School item was removed from the agenda.

 

E. OLD BUSINESS

 

1. 2020-MJLD-08 – Third-Party Engineering Review for a Major Land Development – Harbor Ridge (165 East Avenue | AP 107, Lot 57) Review, discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on determining an appropriate engineering firm and scope of work to perform a third-party engineering review of a 20-unit residential development Preliminary Plan.

 

Ms. Letendre reviewed that a previous condition of approval requiring a third-party engineering review needed to be decided. She said she spoke with the applicant, Douglas DeSimone, regarding the scope of work for the report and received some quotes on the project. Attorney William Nardone was present at the meeting on behalf of Mr. DeSimone. Ms. Letendre asked the Board to review the scope of work on page two of two of the Planning staff memo dated February 11, 2022 for the February 15, 2022 Planning Board meeting. Atty. Nardone said they have no issue with either firm listed, however the scope of work detailed by GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. indicates they would subcontract the traffic study review to Bryant Associates, Inc. and from their perspective, it doesn’t make sense to have two firms involved and it would be more cost efficient and effective to deal with one firm – Bryant Associates, Inc. - doing the peer review.

Mr. Lawlor agreed with Atty. Nardone’s comments. There was discussion on the traffic studies for the project. Ms. Oziolor said they have a revised traffic study on file with the Zoning Office as that was submitted with their application for a Special Use Permit. Atty. Nardone said updating the study depends on the report of the peer review. Mr. Montesano suggested the peer review be allowed to make recommendations for good engineering. Ms. Letendre reviewed that in the peer review they include a traffic report, engineering report, and welcome recommendations from the third-party firm.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion that the Planning Board hereby approves of Bryant Associates, Inc. as the third-party engineering firm for review of the preliminary plan for the Harbor Ridge condominium complex at 165 East Avenue and read into the record the details of the scope of work and cost from the Planning staff memo dated February 11, 2022. Mr. Lowther seconded the motion. In discussion, Ms. Oziolor stated that item 6 in the draft motion should read “review of the traffic engineer’s report with in-depth validation.” Mr. Lawlor amended his motion to include the change to item 6. Mr. Lowther seconded the amended motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

1. 2022-MJLD-01: Venice Hotel – Pre-Application Review for a Major Land Development (159, 163 & 165 Shore Road | AP 140, Lots 19, 20 & 21) Review and discussion by the Planning Board on request for a Pre-Application Review of a Major Land Development for proposed expansion of an existing hotel and banquet center.

 

Present on behalf of the application was Attorney Elizabeth Noonan, with Adler, Pollock, and Sheehan P.C., Providence, project architect Peter Springsteel, and project engineer Anthony Nenna, principal of On-Site Engineering, Inc., Westerly. The applicants, brothers Nunzio and Joseph DiMarco, were present at the meeting. Landscape architect Rebecca Nolan was also present. Atty. Noonan described the proposed project. She said they predict they will need some Zoning relief for height and parking. Mr. Nenna continued to describe the details of the project and displayed Sheet C-1 of the site plans. He explained that the site occupies three properties; 159 and 163 Shore Road are residential properties and the larger lot, 165 Shore Road, is occupied by the restaurant and banquet hall. Farther east of the property is the Winnapaug Inn, which is also owned by the applicants. Mr. Nenna referenced Sheet C-3, showing the proposed conditions of the parking areas and curb cuts. He explained they want to change only the interior of the existing Venice Restaurant facility and add buildings A and B to the west side. He said a third curb cut is added to access building B. He referenced the lot plans for added landscaping and a connective flow of lots to access different buildings and said a traffic engineer will join the team. Mr. Nenna said the State has already been contacted about the process and necessary permits. Mr. Springsteel referenced sheet A-105 showing elevation views of the proposed project to connect two additional structures to the existing restaurant. He said the third floor will be built into the roof to contain the height within the existing building height. He explained the center of the building would house a banquet hall to replace the existing second floor hall and the bottom of that building would have a fitness center and pool. More hotel suites are planned above the existing restaurant. Mr. Springsteel described the slope of the lot in the rear and said height relief will be requested at the Zoning Board of Review due to the shape of the lot. A passthrough between proposed Buildings A and B will continue to provide easement access to the residential home located to the rear of the proposed

Building B.

Mr. Montesano asked what Zoning relief would be requested. Atty. Noonan said a dimensional height Variance and a possible side yard Variance would be needed. She said relief from the required parking spots would also be needed to accommodate landscaping plans. As part of the 2012 restaurant application a Special Use Permit was approved, and Atty. Noonan said her position is that it is still operative. Atty. Levesque agreed that Special Use Permits don’t expire; however, if a Zoning Official review finds a material change between the past approved project and this current one, it would open it up for review. Ms. Letendre confirmed that the Zoning Official will review the project at the Master Plan phase. Mr. Montesano asked how the height is determined given the sloping lot and what specific relief is needed. Mr. Nenna said you measure the average existing grade at the corners of the building and add 35 feet to that and that would be the maximum elevation. He said that measurement means 55 feet is the maximum height to build, but the survey elevation came to 65 feet, so they are ten feet above the height limit. Mr. Nenna said he measured two ways, as if the existing restaurant was connected to building A and he also calculated the height for building B by itself. He said the elevation streetside on Shore Road is elevation 34 feet, the roof is 69 feet, and the average grade came up to be 26.2 feet. Mr. Montesano expressed concern about the massing of the structure so close to the street but is supportive of the concept. Ms. Harkin commented that adding landscape to the existing lot is a great idea, but the height is concerning, although it makes sense to have that use there. Mr. Lawlor’s concern was that the project is in an area with high value natural resources. He asked how they will ensure the home behind building B is shielded from the view of such a large structure. Atty. Noonan said those details were not planned yet. She said the applicants intend to run a year-round business and the existing inn will remain seasonal. Atty. Noonan explained that the parking space calculation includes the 290-seat banquet hall, which the applicants also hope to use as a conference center. Mr. Delisio asked if the access easement has a height requirement, referencing the pass-through. Atty. Noonan said she would look closer into it to be sure they don’t overburden the easement. She said as far as she knows it is not utility easement. Mr. Lowther asked what the plans are for utilities. Mr. Nenna said they are proposing waterline access off Shore Road to access buildings A and B and electrical would come from the corner of Building B. They have not yet planned how they will connect. He said they will try to utilize the existing septic system. Mr. Hopkins noted that the applicant may have an opportunity to create a main entry and avoid numerous curb cuts. He questioned the flow of entry and building connection. He commented that solving some of those problems may remedy concerns about massing.

 

 

2. 2022-MJLD-03: Cozi LLC Commercial Development – Pre-Application Review for a Major Land Development (92-100 Granite Street | AP 67, Lot 275) Review and discussion by the Planning Board on request for a Pre-Application Review of a Major Land Development for a proposed commercial mixed-use development at the corner of Granite Street and Tower Street.

 

            Ms. Letendre described the 4.03-acre highway commercial zoned property at the corner of Tower and Granite Streets. There was a previously approved plan that has since expired and they are back with a proposal to improve the property, she said, and recommended the Board hear the proposal and provide feedback.

            Atty. William Nardone was present on behalf of the applicant, Cozi LLC, along with Joseph Duhamel, project engineer with DiPrete Engineering, and project architect Paul Azzinaro, principal of Azzinaro Architects & Associates, LTD. Mr. Duhamel displayed the site plan and reviewed the current conditions of the site, which has three existing structures. He explained that the proposed layout is to modify the existing buildings and reuse them for retail and office uses. The site would reduce curb cuts along Granite Street, and add one on Tower Street to simplify and increase the pervious area. Atty. Nardone said there has been some initial work done to the existing structures. Mr. Azzinaro said they recognize planning efforts happening with the Route 1 corridor and the goal is to get the buildings usable and presentable, which will be done in phases. He displayed elevation drawings of the proposed changes to the existing buildings, saying they are taking a minimalist approach to parking and adding more greenery onto the site. Mr. Azzinaro talked through the designs shown to the Board.  

There was discussion on the structural integrity of existing buildings and future parking lot plans. Atty. Nardone said there are currently no tenants lined up for the planned buildings, but Servepro is anxious to move in as the owner of the property. Ms. Harkin suggested examining the potential of the rear pond and creating outdoor seating. Mr. Lowther agreed with Harkin on integrating the rear pond into the landscaping and site plan. Mr. Hopkins questioned if there was a need to have a driveway in front of building number 2 and if they need to have connected parking lots, saying there is a perfect opportunity in front of building number 2 for green space. Mr. Azzinaro said eliminating curb cuts helps decrease traffic from Route 1 and the property is located so close to an intersection that they are limited. There was further general discussion of the potential for the important property that is identified as a cornerstone of the Route 1 corridor study, particularly for its location adjacent to a pond and its historic granite building.

 

The Board took a recess at 7:37 p.m. and Mr. Hopkins called the meeting back to order at 7:43 p.m.

 

2. 2022-DPR-01: Burger King – Development Plan Review (99 Franklin Street | AP 88, Lot 3) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Development Plan Review for a proposed double drive-thru facility and modification of existing parking at Burger King.

 

Ms. Letendre explained that there are suggested changes to Burger King’s drive-thru for the Board to review. Project engineer Todd Markevicz, of APD Engineering & Architecture, was present via Zoom to describe the proposal to remodel some exterior and interior areas of the Burger King building and create a rear double drive-thru lane. He further described the changes to be made to the existing property for the double drive-thru lane and the façade of the building. Mr. Markevicz commented on the changes to the impervious area and ideas for green space and stormwater management. He reviewed the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendations to the Planning Board and their concern for the radius size of the turn. Mr. Markevicz said the best location for outdoor seating would be in the front of the building with a minimum of 8 to 10 feet of concrete.

Mr. Montesano suggested the applicant redesign the site plan to align the exit and entrance of the site with the existing traffic light and make the drive-thru exit lane right-hand turn only. He said the applicant could create a more efficient double drive-thru lane layout by moving the lanes farther to the rear of the lot and create a more manageable turn. He disagreed with the idea to remove existing red maple trees and asked the applicant to investigate green structures to provide beauty and stormwater management. Mr. Montesano said he did not support the current plan. Mr. Delisio said the site has existed as it is for years, and the proposed changes are low impact. There was discussion on how to proceed with advising the applicant. Ms. Letendre reminded the Board that this application triggered development plan review (DPR) and the Planning Board can address any concerns and nonconformities for the whole property. Mr. Lowther agreed with Mr. Montesano’s comments. Ms. Letendre noted that the staff memo to the Planning Board recommended a continuance of the application. There was further commentary on alternative drive-thru lane plans for safer circulation. Ms. Harkin said she would like to see more traffic analysis of the site and circulation demonstrations and she reiterated the need for stormwater management on site. Planning staff stated they would review a list of project topics with the applicant soon to have a draft motion ready for the next regular Planning Board meeting.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion to continue the Burger King application to the next regular planning Board meeting on March 15, 2022. Mr. Lowther seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

4. 2022-ATC-02: Tattoo Parlor Use Table Revision – Recommendation to Town Council Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request from the Town Council for Recommendation on revision to the Zoning District Use Table to expand the areas where Tattoo Parlors are permitted by right or allowed by Special Use Permit.

 

            Ms. Letendre reviewed that the change to the Zoning District Use Table was that “tattoo parlor” was removed from being its own category and listed as personal services with a more robust opportunity for use by right and by Special Use Permit. Ms. Letendre said this came to staff’s attention recently by someone wanting to open a business and the rationale was that tattoos could be cosmetic uses done in salons now and considered a personal service or a form of art. Atty. Levesque explained that with the current use table, they could not permit tattooing at a salon if they do not permit tattoo parlors. There was some general discussion on the topic.  

            Mr. Lowther made a motion that “The Westerly Planning Board renders a favorable recommendation to the Town Council on the merits of the proposed amendment to Section 260-18 of Article IV, ‘Standard Zoning Districts Use Regulations’, and the ‘Standard Zoning District Use Tables’ expanding the zoning districts where Tattoo Parlors are permitted by right or allowed by special use permit.” Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. Mr. Lowther amended his motion to include that the Planning Board finds that the amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lawlor seconded the amended motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions. 

 

5. 2022-ATC-03: FY2021 American Rescue Plan Act Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) Grant Application – Recommendation to Town Council Review, discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on determining consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the FY2021 American Rescue Plan Act Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) grant application.

 

            Ms. Oziolor reviewed the impetus of the grant and noted the project details included in the staff memo. She said the grant includes two parts; a comprehensive job study to explore what exists in terms of employment, what sectors are missing and how to gain more, and the other part is the Westerly Marina assessment. Ms. Oziolor said the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Planning Board are working on this together and it fits with the economic strategy for the Town. Mr. Montesano commended staff on their work. Ms. Harkin asked questions regarding the scope of the jobs study in particular and the cost of the proposal. Ms. Letendre responded to Ms. Harkin’s inquiry that the scope of the work is yet to be determined and staff welcomed suggestions on it. Mr. Montesano said one of the Town’s goals is to keep younger populations from leaving Westerly for other jobs or housing. Ms. Oziolor noted that the study’s cost was an estimate suggested by a knowledgeable State representative.  

Mr. Montesano made a motion that the Planning Board hereby determines that the proposed projects presented by the Economic Development Commission (EDC) for inclusion in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) grant program application are consistent with the 2020-2040 Town of Westerly Comprehensive Community Plan and the Board provides its endorsement of grant submissions for the projects. These projects include the following: 1. Comprehensive Job Study 2. Westerly Marina Analysis. The Planning Board hereby approves the letter of support addressed to Town Council as presented during the February 15, 2022 Planning Board Meeting.” Mr. Lawlor 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 January 10, 2022 to February 8, 2022:

 

• 2021-DPR-15: Ground Solar Installation Final Plan Approval (20 Frontage Road | AP 39, Lot 36)

• 2021-ADM-08: Sullivan Administrative Subdivision (5 West Ridge Road | AP 173, Lots 29 & 30)

• 2021-ADM-09: Kutesky Administrative Subdivision (5 Riverview Avenue | AP 97, Lot 47)

 

2. Comprehensive Plan Implementation Program Updates - Review, discussion, and possible action on the projects and activities in implementation of the 2020-2040 Town of Westerly Comprehensive Community Plan.

 

• River Corridor Overlay District

• Downtown Redevelopment and Stormwater Management Project

• Route One Corridor Study and Regulations

• Westerly Marina Discussion

• Zoning Ordinance Revisions

 

Ms. Letendre briefly updated the Board on the status of the above projects. She showed a map of the Route 1 Corridor study area. She said they will meet with Town Council again at the end of February and issue a beta test of the new Web site. She said a Westerly marina report will be discussed at the February 28, 2022 Town Council meeting.

 

3. Development Project Status Report (updated 2/7/2022)

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT - There was no report given.

 

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUORUM FOR NEXT REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING

 

1. March 1, 2022 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:

• Status on Zoning Ordinance Revisions & Brief Discussion

• Downtown Corridor Revitalization Plan & Riverside Greenway

 

2. March 15, 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):

• Strafach 3-Lot Subdivision (with a major land development)– 62 Airport Road – Pre-Application Review

• 58 Boombridge Road – 2-Lot Major Subdivision - Preliminary & Final Plan Review

 

J. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Montesano made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 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 15, 2022