Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 18, 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)

 

A.    CALL TO ORDER –

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

 

B.     ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Chair Justin Hopkins, Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, Secretary Christopher K. Lawlor, and Members Andrew Delisio, Kevin Lowther, and Tabitha Harkin

 

Members absent:             Member Joseph M. Montesano

 

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

 

Town Council Liaison Phillip M. Overton was absent.

 

C.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1. December 21, 2021 Regular Meeting – Mr. Constantine made a motion to approve the December 21, 2021 Planning Board meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Lowther seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED with 4 affirmative votes and two abstentions by Ms. Harkin and Mr. Lawlor as they were absent from the December 21, 2021 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.

 

            Mr. Hopkins requested a motion to move item F.4. 2022-ATC-01: Bradford School Property to the beginning of new business as it will be a continuation to the next regular meeting and there may be members of the public present for this item. Ms. Harkin made a motion to move item 2022-ATC-01: Bradford School Property to the first item under New Business. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions. 

 

E.     OLD BUSINESS

 

There was no old business on the agenda.

 

F.     NEW BUSINESS

 

1. 2022-ATC-01: Bradford School Property – Recommendation to Town Council (15 Church Street | AP 33, Lots 105 & 98) 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 potential future uses for and possible sale of the Bradford School Property.

 

            Mr. Hopkins said the Town Council requested that the Bradford School Property be placed on this Planning Board’s agenda and will be continued. Mr. Hopkins requested that any members of the public that wish to address the Planning Board submit comments to the Town Planner and be aware that this will be on the February 15 agenda. Mr. Hopkins asked that members of the public wait until the formally scheduled hearing to make any comments.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion to continue the Bradford School Property discussion to the February 15, 2022 Planning Board agenda. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. In discussion, Mr. Delisio asked if the Board could tour the school or go there on their own. Ms. Letendre said she would investigate a site visit. Mr. Hopkins shared that the building is open and there may be members of the public that would be willing to help Board members tour the facility. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

1.2021-DPR-06: McDonald’s Reconfiguration – Development Plan Review (135 Granite Street | Assessor’s Map 77, Lot 270) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Development Plan Review for proposed reconfiguration of McDonald’s parking lot to accommodate a double drive-thru.

 

            Civil Engineer Dan Allen, of Bohler, was present on behalf of the McDonald’s application via Zoom. He reminded the Board of the 2018 Planning Board approved site improvements that were recently completed. He described the details of the plan for a double drive-thru lane.

            Mr. Allen said there will be pavement striping and arrows to direct traffic circulation. He shared the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendations that double drive-thru lane turn is widened to accommodate more cars. There was further discussion on the logistics of the double drive-thru plan. Mr. Allen said there will be a gateway clearance bar to restrict height and label drive-thru designations for the lanes. Mr. Allen said there are no proposed changes to the existing McDonald’s signage.

            There was discussion on the property’s sightlines, tree plantings, and curb cut. Ms. Letendre questioned how striping will prevent illegal left-hand turns at the exit lanes. Mr. Allen said there are no additional proposed changes to the exit lanes besides what was approved in the 2018 plans. He said McDonald’s had hoped to get this project approved as part of the 2018 design but were not able to complete the design in time and have treated it as a separate project.

            Mr. Lawlor made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board approve with conditions the McDonald’s application, which includes three findings of fact and two conditions of approval as written in the Planning staff memo to the Planning Board dated January 10, 2022 for the meeting on January 18, 2022. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

            Mr. Lawlor made a motion that the Planning Board render a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board on the merits of the proposed change to the development. The Planning Board advises that the granting of the requested special use permit and variance would be in keeping with the general character of the area and encourages safe circulation of vehicles and pedestrians both on and off the site. The relief requested is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it seeks to promote the economic use of land without adversely affecting the environment and promotes redevelopment within the urban services boundary. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. 2021-LMIH-01: Minor Subdivision & Multi-Family Development for Former St. Pius X Property – Pre-Application (32 Elm 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 Minor Subdivision and Multi-Family Development for a Pre-Application Review for proposed multi-family apartment buildings, two-family home, and single-family home at former St. Pius X property.

 

            Present on behalf of the application via Zoom was Attorney William Nardone and Sergio Cherenzia, civil engineer and principal of Cherenzia & Associates, LTD., Pawcatuck, Connecticut. Atty. Nardone shared some details about the property and the proposed project for a three-lot subdivision to create two residential lots on Elm and School Streets. He said the existing school building would be reverted to 13 residential units on two floors – four apartments on each floor – and five units in a new addition on the north side of the building. He said there is also a proposal for a second story addition on that existing structure, which would house four units, bringing the total to 17 units. Atty. Nardone said that would be the first phase of the project and the next phase would include construction of an 11,000 square-foot multi-family structure depicted in the preapplication submission, which would have 25 units on three floors. He said 25 percent of the proposed units would be low and moderate income (LMI) housing as required by the Comprehensive Plan. Atty. Nardone welcomed comments from the Board and staff and said the applicant did read the Planning staff memo referencing what was explained and there were some comments with respect to the massing of the proposed multi-unit structure. He said the lots would be serviced by Town water and sewer.

            Mr. Cherenzia referenced a conceptual site plan that was filed with the pre-application and screen shared the proposed plan, which featured a two-family residential lot, an adjacent single-family residential lot, and two multi-family apartment buildings, including the existing former school structure. Project architect Peter Springsteel was present via Zoom along with the applicant Jeff Pucci. Mr. Cherenzia said they are going to phase this project and will prioritize renovating the existing building as housing. He said the parking requirement is one parking space per unit but they have accommodated some additional spots for guests and as a contingency so there is adequate parking. Ms. Letendre advised the applicant to treat the parking calculation as a maximum as this neighborhood is a walkable area and that should be encouraged. She said she believes the second building is too big and needs more design attention. She also stated a need for green space.

Atty. Nardone said this plan does not show a park but that may come. He said some citizens have asked about plans for a historic bell that is part of the existing school building and the applicant does not have plans for it and may be happy to donate it. There was some discussion on what amenities may be planned for the site.  

            Ms. Harkin echoed Ms. Letendre’s comments on stormwater, building massing, and landscaping needs. She said it is good to see old buildings get reused and it is not easy to do. She suggested more attention be given to the architecture of the buildings and outdoor living spaces for future residents. She emphasized the importance of outdoor living and green space. Ms. Harkin asked who will rent the units and how much they will cost. Atty. Nardone said there may be a combination of work force housing and affordable housing residents, but it is not designed with a specific customer in mind.  

            Mr. Lawlor suggested to the applicant that the project complement the architecture of the existing structures in the historic district. He regretted that a park which was shown on a previous design plan was not included in this design plan.  He said he would like to see 10 to 15-foot trees, which could break up the layout of the property and block views of the large buildings. Mr. Lawlor asked about LMI guidelines. Ms. Letendre said the Zoning Ordinance specifically calls for a target of 80 percent area median income (AMI) when you have rental units. She said the figures were taken from State law. Ms. Letendre suggested that when they talk about “need” they should think about who the tenants will be. She asked that the Master Plan show support for the type and number of rental units requested.

Mr. Hopkins asked about the difference between the Comprehensive Permit and normal operating procedure. Atty. Levesque said the intent of the permit is to allow the Planning Board to grant whatever relief the application requires. He said it puts communities like this one, that haven’t met the State’s 10 percent LMI housing requirement, in a different posture as it throws out the Zoning process and changes the density analysis. Atty. Levesque explained that it is designed by legislature to promote LMI housing throughout the State to spread the burden equally.

            Mr. Lawlor requested a report on the impact to the current wastewater treatment plant, saying it behooves the Planning Board to stay apprised on the capacity of the Town’s infrastructure. Ms. Letendre said staff has been in conversation with the Utilities Department and are getting closer to the goal of getting that information. There was some discussion on a local subdivision listed for sale.

Mr. Constantine commented that Elm Street has always been the prettiest road in the Town of Westerly with well-maintained homes and is an exciting and powerful part of local history. He said he is concerned that the quality and mass of a potential home on the corner of Elm and School Streets be consistent with area architecture and add beauty to the neighborhood. Mr. Constantine said the proposed new building does not fit in at all as currently designed as it is too big and too tall. He suggested that two buildings, perhaps connected, would better fit that neighborhood. He asked if the driveway that goes on the northside of the building is necessary or required and suggested that if there were no driveway loop there could be room for outdoor amenities.  

            Mr. Lowther asked what challenges the applicant sees having to overcome to convince people in the neighborhood that this is a project that will enhance their lives. Atty. Nardone responded that they recognize that this is a significant project in a neighborhood that has existed in its current state for a long time. He said they also must consider that the property they are dealing with is Zoned for these purposes, so they are not suggesting something that isn’t allowed. Atty. Nardone said the applicant is cognizant of staff comments. He commented that Windsor Condominiums on School Street has been there for years and has 60 units, and several houses on Elm Street are multi-family even though they don’t appear to be.

            Mr. Hopkins asked that the next time Planning Board reviews the application that there be some effort demonstrated in addressing the Board’s shared concerns. He opened the meeting to public comment.  

Lisa Farraro, who did not provide her address, said she was a 12-year resident of Elm Street, and the application is deeply important to her. She took issue with the scale of the project and said the number of units will impact infrastructure in the area and it should not be undermined. She said that the traffic on Elm and School Streets is already congested, especially in the summer, and the project size is overwhelming for the area. She shared concerns about noise and stormwater runoff. Ms. Farraro pointed out that Elm Street is only three blocks long and they have a long-term care facility, four churches, a theater, a masonic lodge, and part of the Moore Company. She noted the emergency services on nearby Chestnut Street, as well. She applauded the Board for their request for an impact analysis on utilities but strongly suggested a study on parking and traffic. Ms. Farraro referenced the Comprehensive Plan’s language on preserving the unique characteristics of each constituent area and involving area residents and businesses to address their ideas and concerns.

Gina Morrone Patterson, of 33 Shore Road, said Elm Street is probably the only thing that hasn’t been touched in Westerly. She said they cannot discount the historic relevance of the street that is 200 years old. She called the project a massive disruption in an aesthetic street that hasn’t been changed in hundreds of years. She suggested project architects should go back and look at the aesthetic of the street to be sure the proposed buildings adhere to it.

            Ed Marolda, of 40 Elm Street, said when he first heard of the plan, he was happy that the former school building would be repurposed into housing. He said he was concerned to learn that a Comprehensive Permit was sought to avoid density requirements. Mr. Marolda stated that the proposal looks like density for the sake of density and is not consistent with what everyone has been discussing in terms of the historic nature of Elm Street and Downtown Westerly. He said he is not sure it is ideal to emulate Windsor Condominiums. Mr. Marolda shared that he heard from many long-time residents that that property (in the rear of the condominiums) has never had the amount of flooding it does prior to the building of that complex. He said that maximizing every square foot of the property may not be the right thing. He posed the question on how the Board would address other similar potential projects that may come forward in this area if a project like this were to be approved.

            Angela Goethals, of 7 Granite Street, echoed what was already said about the concerns of the character of neighborhood, over-crowding, and over-taxing utilities. She asked the applicant to be thoughtful to use materials that mimic the local architecture and historic value of existing buildings and the street in general. She said that planning outdoor living space, trees, and preserving the historic bell from the school building are very important.  

            John Clark, of 30 Elm Street, said he has lived in the area four years and was happy to move back to Westerly and see improvements on Granite Street. He shared similar concerns as others that already spoke. He said he was concerned about a home potentially being built 15 feet from his property line and concerns for 2 homes being built in the equivalent of his front yard. He said when he purchased the house, he looked to enjoy having a school as a neighbor for some time but that did not work out, but he did not expect the magnitude of this proposed project. He said when the property was operating as a school it had a steady stream of traffic, but this would be different and would impact Elm and even Chestnut Street. He said there have been a lot of improvements in the area and this doesn’t seem to be in line with them. 

            Karen Griscom, of 3 Granite Street, thanked the Board for allowing the public participation and requested the applicant take note of all the comments. She shared concerns about the character of Elm Street. She said it is the most beautiful street in Town and she is concerned with preserving its history. Ms. Griscom is a Westerly Historical Society board member. She said the number of proposed parking spaces will have a significant impact on traffic and suggested a study be done to determine the impact to the area.  

            Paul Uricchio, of 37 Elm Street, said he bought his home in July 2020 because his son lives in Westerly, and they wanted to be near to him. He said they fell in love with Elm Street, and it was the only street they would buy property on. He said not even a year later there were many local real estate purchases and now he is anxious about this current proposal. He said after looking at the size of the proposal and the number of units on School Street a lot of his fears have come true, and it is not something that they anticipated. He asked if there are any artist renderings of the homes proposed and suggested they be historically accurate and mimic other Elm Street homes. Mr. Hopkins said nothing is available at this time to represent the proposed development and that would be in a future application.

            Gene Renz, of 58 Elm Street, suggested changing the proposed locations of the two lots on Elm Street so the multi-family lot is on School Street and the single-family lot is on Elm Street. He shared that there was considerable flooding at the Elms Retirement Residence, 22 Elm Street, following 2010 from the school itself and that was with a large permeable green space, which will no longer exist according to this proposal. He noted that the School Street repairs are not yet finished but from Granite Street to School Street it has been a flooding nightmare for 48 years at least. He stated that a culvert collapsed and there was a lawsuit to the Town because of it. He asked the applicant to look at their plans again and to be cognizant of the public comments. He said a project this large will impact traffic and waterflow. Mr. Renz also stated that there have been fatal accidents near this area.

            Carroll Caldwell, of 32 School Street, said he is relatively new to the State but loves the neighborhood and appreciates all the thoughtfulness of the Board and the public.

            Tara Whelan, of 34 Elm Street, said she agreed with many comments. She said Elm Street is historic and stately and it is very expensive to try to make a home design fit in with the local character. She said this project is clearly being done for profit and asked who would help guide the architectural plans for the project.

            Mr. Hopkins said one item Town staff noted in the memo to the Board is that the project is located within a nationally designated historic district, therefore the project needs an opinion from the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage Commission (RIHPHC). He said the project will also be reviewed by the Westerly Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the applicant must submit this at the Master Plan phase.

            Mr. Delisio said Westerly has a genuine need for affordable housing and the legislature has made some provisions for developers. He said he thought the applicant chose a good location for this project. He noted that Wilcox Park is close by so the project does not necessarily need its own park. He said he helped plant some of the trees that exist there now and asked that the applicant be thoughtful in the project development. He said he supported the project.  

            Atty. Nardone said they will pay attention to the public comments. He clarified that the applicant is not proposing any specific construction for the two lots on Elm Street. The applicant would create the lots to support a two-family home and a single-family home based on Zoning and his intention is to sell them.  Atty. Nardone said this is part of phase one. The applicant expects input from the Utilities Department and will respond throughout the process to any concerns, he said.

            Mr. Hopkins addressed the public that the intent of a preapplication is to hear comments, but they fully anticipate traffic reviews and a technical analysis for stormwater runoff. He said the applicant is only required to do that for their property and cannot solve existing issues on adjacent properties. Ms. Letendre said when the applicant provides the next Master Plan application submission, each property owner within 200 feet of the proposed project will receive a post card notice of the hearing, it will be advertised in the newspaper, as well as the meeting agenda. She said the Preliminary Plan is the final stage where the applicant must finalize all engineering aspects of development. This stage generally is two to three months after the Master Plan and will require another notice and another public hearing.

            Mr. Hopkins asked the applicant to show more building details at the Master Plan application hearing. There was some discussion on the procedure of the project phasing as well as further questions about the Comprehensive Permit process.

           

The Planning Board adjourned for a recess at 8:04 p.m. and Mr. Hopkins called the meeting back to order at 8:10 p.m.

 

3. 2021-MNS-02: 58 Boombridge Road Major Subdivision – Master Plan Review (58 Boombridge Road | Assessor’s Map 11, Lot 6) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Major Subdivision for a Master Plan Review for proposed two-lot subdivision with multiple waivers for application materials.

 

            Attorney Kelly Fracassa was present to represent the landowners George and Marty Champlin. Project engineer Joe Duhamel, of DiPrete Engineering, was also present via Zoom. Atty. Fracassa explained the property was 103.5 acres and the applicant wants to divide it into two parcels: 13 acres and the remainder over 90 acres. He said the 13-acre lot would be the applicant’s homestead and the boundaries are largely defined by an existing stone wall. He said the applicant has no plans to do anything with the over 90-acre parcel. Mr. Champlin said he simply wants to create a homestead in their name and the rest of the property will remain for an unknown action in the future. Ms. Letendre said the applicant requested waivers from submitting a stormwater management plan, freshwater wetland permit, OWTS permit, soil erosion and sediment control plan, and a soil analysis because no redevelopment is planned for the 90-acre parcel. Mr. Lawlor asked about the potential for a conservation easement on the larger parcel. Mr. Champlin said he discussed this potential with Westerly Land Trust in the past, but nothing transpired from the meeting. He said right now there is shared farming on the property. There was some discussion on the procedure if redevelopment was proposed in the future.  

            Ms. Letendre marked the staff memo to the Planning Board on 2021-MNS-02 – Master Plan – 58 Boombridge Road Major Subdivision dated January 10, 2022 for the January 18, 2022 Planning Board meeting into the record as Exhibit A. Atty. Levesque said Exhibit A contains a suggested set of findings of fact in support of granting this application and on page 11 of 12, a number of findings with respect to the waivers sought, as well as three conditions of approval.

            Mr. Lawlor made a motion to approve Planning Case 2021-MNS-02 – Master Plan – 58 Boombridge Road Major Subdivision (58 Boombridge Road | Assessor’s Map 11, Lot 6), adopting all information as written in Exhibit A. Mr. Lowther 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 December 10, 2021 to January 10, 2022:

• 2020-ADM-10 Mowery-Porretta Administrative Subdivision (7 & 9 Pendleton Lane | AP 113, Lots 47A & 46)

 

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 – Ms. Letendre said this project is in process and the Town has an agreement with Wild & Scenic Stewardship Council and they have responses to their RFP. She said if things go well Planning will see that Ordinance for review and will be asked for an opinion in April.

 

• Downtown Redevelopment and Stormwater Management Project – Ms. Letendre said staff has their second training on green infrastructure tomorrow, a project area has been defined, and everything is moving forward well.

 

• Route One Corridor Study and Regulations – Ms. Letendre reviewed that they are working toward getting more interaction with stakeholders and meeting regularly. She said interaction between Town Boards and consultants has been helpful.

 

• Westerly Marina Discussion – Ms. Letendre noted that this was added to the list of discussion points last month. She said there is a potential February 7 presentation to the Town Council about this.

 

• Zoning Ordinance Revisions – Ms. Letendre and the Zoning Official discussed revisions in December and will schedule a meeting with Atty. Levesque so he can review the notes and they may begin organizing changes. Ms. Letendre shared that she spoke with Weston & Sampson regarding the changes and how that relates to Route 1.  

 

3. Development Project Status Report (updated 1/10/2022) – There was no discussion on the report.  

 

 

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. February 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:

 

• Downtown Redevelopment and Stormwater Management Project

• Zoning Ordinance Revisions – Downtown & Stormwater related

 

2. February 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):

• Pre-Application – MJLD - 92-100 Granite Street Redevelopment

• Preliminary Plan – DPR - Burger King Drive-Thru – 99 Franklin Street

• Pre-Application – MJLD - Venice Hotel Expansion – 159 Shore Road

 

Mr. Constantine and Mr. Lawlor said they may be absent for the February 15^th regular meeting. Ms. Oziolor said if there was an extension of executive orders, they could do a hybrid in-person and Zoom meeting for February 15th. She said the February 1st meeting may be via Zoom. 

 

J.      ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Delisio made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Stephanie J. LaSota

Minute Taker