Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, July 19, 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 6:01 p.m. He asked that citizens wishing to make public comment sign up on the available sheet in Council Chambers.

 

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 also present in the audience.

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1. June 14, 2022 – Mr. Lawlor made a motion to approve the June 14, 2022 Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED with abstentions from Mr. Montesano and Ms. Harkin.

 

2. June 16, 2022 – Mr. Montesano made a motion to approve the June 16, 2022 Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

3. June 21, 2022 – Mr. Delisio made a motion to approve the June 21, 2022 Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

D. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

Review, discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on changes to the agenda, including known continuances and the order in which items will be heard.

 

Ms. Letendre said the applicant for agenda item F.4, 2022-MJLD-01 Florentine Realty, LLC. Venice Restaurant Expansion requested a continuance to the August 16 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Montesano made a motion to move agenda item F. 4 to the first order of business on the agenda under new business. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

E. OLD BUSINESS

 

1. None.

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

4. 2022-MJLD-01 Florentine Realty, LLC. – Venice Restaurant Expansion, Major Land Development, Master Plan (165 Shore Road | Assessor’s Plat 140 Lots 19, 20, & 21) Public Hearing to review, discuss, and possibly act on an application for the merger of Lots 19, 20 & 21, and expansion of an existing restaurant at 165 Shore Road to include 34 hotel suites, a 290-seat banquet hall, pool, and fitness center and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board.

 

Mr. Constantine made a motion to open the public hearing for 2022-MJLD-01 Florentine Realty, LLC. – Venice Restaurant Expansion. Mr. Montesano seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions. There was no public comment.

 

Mr. Montesano made a motion to continue the 2022-MJLD-01 Florentine Realty, LLC. hearing to the August 16, 2022 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

1. 2022-MNS-03 – Preliminary & Final Plan – 2-Lot Minor Subdivision | 7 Robin Hollow Lane (Assessor’s Map 113 Lot 43) Public Informational Meeting to review and discuss and possible action on a 2-lot Subdivision at 7 Robin Hollow Lane and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board.

 

Ms. Letendre explained that the 7 Robin Hollow Lane application is a simple two-lot subdivision. A modification was issued for a dimensional setback for the barn existing on the property and the application meets all Zoning requirements. Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, was present on behalf of the applicant, Rosina Gabriele. Mr. Delisio asked what the modification had to do with the subdivision. Atty. Nardone said when they created the second lot it caused one of the property lines to become a rear line and not a sideline, which resulted in the need for a Variance. He said wetlands on the property were flagged and they did receive the necessary State approvals. Access to the property will be from Robin Hollow Lane and not Route 1, he said.

 

Mr. Montesano made a motion to close the 7 Robin Hollow Lane public hearing at 6:14 p.m. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

Mr. Montesano made a motion to approve Planning Case 2022-MNS-03 – Preliminary & Final Plan – 2-Lot Minor Subdivision | 7 Robin Hollow Lane (Assessor’s Map 113 Lot 43) with conditions as listed in the Planning staff memo dated July 7, 2022 for the July 19, 2022 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. 2022-MNS-02 – Preliminary Plan Review – Trendsetter Properties, LLC. 3-Lot Minor Subdivision (32 Elm Street | Assessor’s Map 66, Lot 91) Public Informational Meeting to review and discuss and possible action on a 3-lot Subdivision at 32 Elm Street and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board.

 

            Ms. Letendre explained that the application is for a three-lot subdivision of the former St.Pius School property, which would create two new residential lots with the remainder of the property subject to other Zoning requirements. She said when a project is proposed for the largest parcel, the applicant will return to the Planning Board for review.

 

Present on behalf of the application was Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, Theresa Transue, project engineer, and Mark Castellanos, project surveyor, both of Cherenzia & Associates, LTD., 99 Mechanic Street, Pawcatuck. Atty. Nardone noted the significant number of public citizens present to speak about the application. He asked the Board to stay focused on the matter of business tonight - the subdivision - and not any potential development that is not on the agenda. He described the property’s location and its abutting properties. He explained the proposal to create three lots includes two new residential lots; one on the corner of Elm and School Streets at 12,000 square feet and one to the east on School Street of 8,800 square feet. Atty. Nardone said the third lot will be the remaining parcel consisting of 91,153 square feet, which houses the school building and is the future site of a proposed multi-family development, which will be the subject of many future public hearings. He said the subdivision will preserve the residential uses of the area, does not create more density at this time, and the lots clearly have permanent and adequate access to public roads and utilities. Atty. Nardone said the applicant intends to sell the two residential lots and is not planning construction on them. He said the corner lot is sized so that a two-family home could be built, but it would require a Special Use Permit from the Zoning Board.

 

Mr. Lawlor reviewed questions listed in a public submission from the neighborhood group Elm Street Cares, noting that many would be addressed during future applications. He expressed concern about the potential effects of 80 new residential units on Westerly’s wastewater treatment plant. It was discussed that Westerly’s Comprehensive Plan from 2018 states the plant is at 83 percent capacity. Mr. Lawlor requested more information on this for future development applications. He noted that if the Planning Board approves the subdivision, the lots will be sold, and he asked how the Town may influence development. Atty. Nardone said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) does not review single family home applications, but the properties are in the Wilcox Historic District and there may be some input from that group with respect to potential architecture. He added that if a multi-family home is proposed on one of the lots, the Zoning Board may impose conditions in the issuance of a Special Use Permit. Mr. Montesano proposed that they add a condition to approval that they go to ARB for an opinion on any development to the lots. Atty. Levesque said any ARB review is not binding. Mr. Constantine said that it could make the buyers aware of the sensitivity of the topic and that the neighborhood is concerned with its historic aesthetic. Mr. Delisio commented that a new home was built recently on the other end of Elm Street, and it looked nice and fit on the lot so the hope is that whoever buys these lots will design a project that fits in with the neighborhood. Mr. Montesano referenced that the applicant would pursue a comprehensive permit for development of the St. Pius School site and that is why this subdivision is a good idea because the applicant could have used the space for additional density. Mr. Lowther asked what the development requirements are for the Wilcox Historic District. Ms. Letendre said it is a nationally registered historic district and the school building is a contributing building, but any new development in the district will not have that historic designation. Mr. Montesano said the Planning Board would have some input in the application, but under a comprehensive permit it is very limited. Ms. Transue noted that the St. Pius historic bell is being donated to the St Pius  Church on Elm Street.

 

Doug Brockway, of 32 Chestnut Street, addressed the Board and disclosed he is the Vice Chair of the Westerly Economic Development Commission (EDC) a recent but former Zoning Board member. He said the applicant submitted a lot of documents for this application that include more information than just a subdivision. He expressed that the aesthetics are important in any future development plans and suggested they look for traditional houses of the late 1800s or early 1900s, such as the homes near Crescent Street. He said he signed a neighborhood petition circulated by Elm Street Cares, though he later found some issues with it. He emphasized that the least common denominator should not be design and that standards are needed. However, the Cherenzia & Associates, LTD. documents submitted that include architectural commentary do not mention design. He argued that the neighborhood may qualify to act as a local homeowners’ association and recommend those design standards.  

 

Ed Marolda, of 40 Elm Street, stated that the application is more than a subdivision and that the community is very interested in this application because of the design and density. He asked everyone in the public who wanted to speak on the application to stand to show the Board the number of concerned citizens. Mr. Marolda said Elm Street Cares chose a few residents to represent their concerns and their comments have been written and submitted for the record. The Board marked the document Remonstrance 1. Mr. Marolda wanted to ensure the record reflects that most residents are in favor of repurposing the school building into housing and in favor of new housing if it retains the character of the community. They support creating affordable housing. He said that much of the written record is about a broader project and he feels compelled to discuss the plans as they are already part of the official record. Mr. Marolda shared his professional background working with the Mashantucket Pequot tribal council to create affordable housing to ensure the entire community is protected. He referenced the postcard created to advertise the Route 1 Corridor Plan and solicit public feedback. He also noted the Planning Board’s recent approval of a project at 134 Main Street and how the business owner met with neighbors to customize their plans. He said this level of communication could also take place between the St. Pius School project applicant and the neighbors of 32 Elm Street. He described various homes that have been preserved on Elm Street and their historical significance. He said all the homes were originally built as single-family homes. Mr. Marolda said they believe that Elm Street is a historic neighborhood and hope the Planning Board recognizes the concerns of Elm Street Cares. Mr. Marolda’s entire comments were written in Remonstrance 1.

 

Lisa Ferraro, of 56 Elm Street, whose home was built in 1875, said that information submitted by the applicant establishes that the subdivision is inseparable from a larger plan. She said the applicant stated that Wilcox Park was available for recreation, using that as a possible excuse for not designing green space in future development. They did not mention it is a park, not a playground, and young children cannot walk there without an adult. Ms. Ferraro’s comments were recorded completely in Remonstrance 1 and included concerns about the potential large massing of a future apartment building.

 

Ted Rice, of 22 Cross Street, a retired Navy Captain who served on a Town Council in Virginia, said he retired and moved to Cross Street about 15 years ago. He outlined Elm Street Cares’ recommendation on the application. He said they request that the applicant change the proposed subdivision request to two single-family lots of 10,000 square feet each, which would be more consistent with adjacent homes. He asked the Planning Board to ensure that any historic features are retained in future development plans. He asked that ARB review and approve any future development to ensure consistency with the neighborhood. Mr. Rice also requested the removal of an existing asphalt driveway that was previously used for school bus entry. He recommended the Planning Board reject any attempt by the applicant to create a second building as large as the existing school building and instead scale down additional structures and create lower profile buildings, such as town homes, with an appropriate amount of green space.   

 

Etta Parsons, of 16 George Street, a member of Elm Street Cares, shared general concerns about development in Westerly and asked that the Planning Board be intentional when reviewing development applications and consider a future vision for Westerly.  

 

Madeline Labriola, of 54 Beach Street, whose home was built in 1890, thanked the Planning Board for their time and showed support for the application. She said that the nation, as well as Westerly, is in a housing crisis and her grandson was personally affected recently and she was unable to help him find affordable housing at his income level. She said that because of this housing shortage he is struggling to become independent. Ms. Labriola said by 2025, according to the World Bank, the housing crisis could impact 1.6 million people. A project like this would make housing available for young people beginning careers and older adults looking to downsize. She emphasized the need for Westerly to attract younger workers to Town. She encouraged the Planning Board to mitigate any concerns, but residents may have to make some sacrifice to ensure available housing. The area is already zoned for development, and it does not need a Zoning change, she said, adding that she hopes the developer will keep the design in character. Ms. Labriola noted that it is great that the property does not need to be cleared.

 

Tim Flannagan, of 34 Springbrook Road, said he loves driving down Elm Street and sharing the beauty of that area with visitors who come to visit him in the summer. He expressed support for the proposal because as Ms. Labriola said, affordable housing is at a crisis level and they must balance the needs of residents by maintaining the character of Westerly, not only through design, but they must also maintain a welcoming community. Mr. Flannagan said he can tell it is a complex issue, but he understands this application is a first step and opens the door for more affordable housing. He said he is confident he will still be able to show off Elm Street to guests in the future.

 

Lesley S. Dunn, of Brandywine Drive, shared that she also appreciates sharing the beauty of Elm to her guests. She said they can love what is beautiful and still want to move forward. Ms. Dunn noted that buying a home and starting a family in Westerly is not realistic for her right now because of housing costs. She said the only way to continue to grow is to make space for people to thrive here and be willing to reinvest. Ms. Dunn noted that two things can be true at once; that they must preserve history and make space to bring new energy and housing possibilities to the Town.

 

Susan Dowd, of Windsor Condominiums, shared concerns about potential traffic created from future development proposals.

 

Gene Renz, of 58 Elm Street, said he and many residents are not opposed to moderate income residents in the neighborhood, but what they want is consideration of the space as development progresses. He said Westerly’s housing issue is not unique to the State. This site is different because of its historic nature. He added that it is a unique opportunity to build better housing. He agreed that the subdivision should create two 10,000 square foot parcels instead of what was proposed.

 

Gina Morrone Patterson, of33 Shore Road, said Westerly has always been a blue-collar community, and there is no question that they have been overloaded with housing issues that young people and families need and want. She echoed the comments of Mr. Renz.

 

Paul Uricchio, of 37 Elm Street, said he and his wife bought their home in July 2020, and they love the area. He added that their home is a multi-family building, and they have family living with them. Mr. Uricchio said they are not opposed to two lots out front but are more fearful of any potential huge building constructed behind the existing school. He noted that it is important to build while considering the next three generations. He referenced the book “Lost Newport” by Paul Miller as a Rhode Island example of how the character and history of an area can be quickly diminished.

 

Atty. Nardone said he was encouraged that many people during public comment said they were not opposed to future development. He said everyone recognizes the need for affordable housing, but he will not address that now as it is not the subject of this hearing. He said 90 percent of the comments referenced a “monster building” in the back by the existing school, which is not appropriate as this public hearing is for a minor subdivision. Atty. Nardone said there is nothing nefarious going on and they did submit more information than what is required as they know the content had been vetted by the Board and staff, including the concept of two lots at the Elm Street end of the property to help blend the lots on Elm Street. He said all comments will be addressed when the comprehensive permit is submitted, and that process begins. He agreed with citizen comments that the applicant should be held to all standards of State law. He said they can request waivers, but they don’t know at this stage what they may be yet or if they will be granted. He said they will do a traffic study in the future. He understood the concern about potential construction on the proposed residential lots, but he submitted that market conditions alone influence what may or may not be built on the lots. He said based on what was recently sold on Elm Street, the lots will not be moderately priced. Atty. Nardone said his clients are cognizant of the area and they want to construct a project that they are proud of, and that the community can appreciate.

 

Mr. Delisio said he attended St. Pius School as a young boy, but he doesn’t remember the bell when he attended. He said he also planted many of the existing trees on Elm Street and at one point he knew all the residents on Elm Street as he had a newspaper delivery route, so he is close to this issue. He said the Planning Board will not look at the future development right now as they are legally not able to discuss it. He noted that the application conforms to the Comprehensive Plan.  

 

Ms. Harkin asked about the legality of requiring ARB review. Atty. Levesque said that the ARB is an advisory Board created by Ordinance and does not have authority to issue decisions. Single-family home review does not fall into the ARB purview, but it could be requested, however, the applicant does not need to abide by any recommendations.  

 

Mr. Lowther thanked the public for attending the meeting and recognized that it is often difficult to organize community gatherings. He noted their effort and that eloquent speakers were chosen to share concerns. He said the only comment that he heard that directly addressed tonight’s subdivision application was the request to change the two smaller lots to 10,000 square foot single-family lots. He said the Town cannot take away rights of a landowner to develop a parcel how they see fit. He said he was in favor of approving the submitted application.

 

Mr. Constantine commented that it is unfortunate that the Planning Board has no way of enforcing that what is built in the future is characteristically consistent with the neighborhood. He said that this minor subdivision will help as the smaller lots will be developed by individuals influenced by adjacent properties. He was in favor of the application.

 

Mr. Lawlor agreed it is unfortunate that the Board does not have the authority in Town require design standards for any future project and that Elm Street Cares also may not provide guidance. He said he hopes future developers will consider the neighborhood’s character. Mr. Lawlor noted that having one large lot would be worse than potential development through this subdivision. Mr. Lawlor emphasized that Westerly’s Comprehensive Plan states that neighborhood groups have a right to be involved in their own neighborhood planning.

 

Mr. Hopkins noted that Elm Street being a part of the Wilcox Park Historic District will be addressed during future development projects. He invited the public to speak again.

 

Ms. Patterson said the Planning Board must hold a standard for developers to do the right thing. She referenced 33 Atlantic Avenue as a project designed without the character of the area in mind and that not all developers will be influenced by the neighborhood.  

 

Mr. Marolda understood that the Planning Board is essentially powerless to make requirements of future development and asked what provisions could be made in the future and whose job it is to review the Ordinance to establish design standards.  He added that he was insulted by Atty. Nardone’s comments that he is unsure if public comments approving of the potential affordable housing project are sincere. Mr. Marolda shared Elm Street Cares’ history and their involvement with applications. He asked why they should believe that the applicant will submit something different than what was previously submitted, which was too large in scale.

 

Mr. Montesano responded that when the Planning Board drafted the Comprehensive Plan, they spent a lot of time talking about the development of neighborhood plans. He said they would look to Elm Street Cares to form a neighborhood plan and bring it to the Planning Board for its consideration.

 

Atty. Nardone responded to Mr. Marolda that he clearly did not intend to insult anyone. He said he admired the public engagement. He added that he did not appreciate that his presentation was referenced as “threading the needle” and that there will be many more extensive hearings on the future projects.

 

Town Councilman and liaison to the Planning Board, Philip Overton, thanked the citizens that came forward with concerns because they are doing what Mr. Montesano said, bringing information to the Board. He said he likes the idea that they can develop a plan and submit it for consideration. He asked the Board to be careful and conservative in any future decision making as there is the risk of overdevelopment in Town.

 

Mr. Hopkins told the applicant he recommended that they did not wait for future public hearings to have these discussions on potential development. He suggested the applicant engage with the neighbors.

 

Mr. Montesano made a motion that the Planning Board close the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

Mr. Montesano made a motion to approve Planning Case 2022-MNS-02 – Preliminary Plan Review – Trendsetter Properties, LLC. 3-Lot Minor Subdivision (32 Elm Street | Assessor’s Map 66, Lot 91) dated May 23, 2022, last revised June 6, 2022 with findings of fact 1-5 and conditions of approval 1 and 2. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

The Planning Board called a recess at 8:18 p.m. The Board reconvened at 8:28 p.m

 

3. 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.

 

Ms. Letendre said this matter was referred to the Planning Board by the Town Council for a recommendation on the text amendment for the Council’s August 15 meeting.

 

Present on behalf of the application was Winnapaug Country Club owner, Nick Scola, and project architect Donald Powers, President & Founding Partner of Union Studio, 160 Mathewson Street, Suite 201, Providence. Mr. Scola said that his attorney, Thomas Liguori, was unable to attend the meeting tonight and he asked that any potential legal questions be tabled until the next meeting. Ms. Letendre suggested hearing the presentation and public comments tonight, but the intention is to continue it to the Planning Board’s August 2 special meeting.

 

Mr. Scola displayed a PowerPoint presentation titled “Winn Properties LLC Sustainability & Economic Viability Plan for Winnapaug Country Club: A golf and extended stay community crafted for local and visitors’ enjoyment for the next 100 years.” He said he began operating the course four years ago and became the sole owner one year ago and he wants to improve the course and facility. Mr. Scola described its existing conditions. He said their goal is to maintain public access to the golf course. He explained the significance of the course being a Don Ross course. He said Ross was the greatest golf course architect of the 1900s and designed over 400 courses.  

 

Tommy Heardon, Vice President of development for Nicklaus Design, shared with the Board his excitement to work on the project and described the history of his company, as well as its accolades and awards. Mr. Powers spoke about the future architectural plans of the project and creating a sense of place, using a Newport hotel as an example of a way for the public to interact with architecture and create place. Design standards were discussed in further detail. Mr. Powers said they located areas in the course for development will not disrupt the course but enhance its use. He shared images invocative of the intent of the project. It was shared that the planned limited suite rooms would be one to eight-unit pods and act like hotel rooms or structured in groups like cottages. They said no views would be affected by new structures. The project includes an area for staff and employee housing. Mr. Scola said they are focusing on the flow of units, keeping the plans people-centric, and having vehicle traffic only in appropriate areas.

 

Matt Hasler, a representative of Falcone Group and Rentyl Resorts, described the logistics of the plan and the benefits of extended stay accommodations. Ed Long, of Aimbridge Hospitality, was also present to describe their work with the project. Mr. Scola spoke highly of the project team. He added that they presented the project to the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB,) though the ARB meeting was an informal conversation as there was not a quorum present for an official meeting. The ARB will meet this Thursday to conclude discussion and send an advisory opinion to the Planning Board. The EDC made an advisory opinion to the Planning Board on July 12. Mr. Hopkins requested that in the future, the applicant submit presentations in advance of Board meetings.

 

Ken Julian, of 16 West Fairway Avenue, asked Ms. Letendre to clarify the discussion with the Planning Board when she alluded to the submission from the attorney representing Keep Westerly Green. Ms. Letendre said she received a July 13 correspondence from the attorney. She also received two other emails in support of the application, which are included in the Board’s packet of information. Mr. Julian asked if the attorney’s submission was the impetus for changes in the original text amendment and if it was typical to share that information with an applicant. Ms. Letendre responded no; the letter did not initiate the changes. Mr. Hopkins told Mr. Julian that any correspondence submitted in response to an application is part of the public record. Mr. Julian stated he would like to compromise with the applicant and requested a paper copy of the applicant’s presentation tonight. He also requested that the Planning Board share their opinion on the submission.

 

John Fritz, of 27 Tom Harvey Road, asked if there is a traffic study involved in the application. Mr. Hopkins said this is a Zoning text amendment application, but it is proposed by an applicant that has development goals. Atty. Levesque said this approval does not give the applicant the right to build the project and there will be additional proceedings before the Board that will have public hearings. Mr. Fritz shared concerns about current development projects and their effects on traffic to the area as Tom Harvey is heavily driven road. He said this project could potentially turn the community into a rental Airbnb.

 

Mr. Hopkins clarified that they are not approving a hotel tonight but considering a text amendment to an Ordinance to allow construction on the golf course. Mr. Scola said his phone is always on and he is available to speak with neighbors and concerned parties.

 

Mr. Montesano thanked staff for their work in the positive progression of the application. He suggested that on page 1 of 4 line 19 be edited after “suites” to read; “providing accommodations for travelers and tourists.” He added that the “northern seaboard” reference on line 33 is not appropriate for this location and suggested it be substituted with “the Town of Westerly’s coastal edge.” Ms. Letendre said the ARB will meet this Thursday.

 

Ms. Harkin said she understands the ARB will review this and she thinks they should revisit the language as some areas are too vague and some are too specific at the same time. Mr. Delisio asked about the principal use of the project and its intent to extend the season to 12 months a year. Mr. Scola said they are open 12 months a year and some clients play in the cold weather. Mr. Heardon said the typical lifecycle of a golf course is 20 to 30 years. Mr. Scola said they will be under a microscope as they renovate and there will be pressure on them to do the right thing.

 

Mr. Constantine asked questions about the existing course and how the project might affect local public access. Mr. Scola said they currently have 80 members. He said you could put 280 people on a course in a day as the majority are playing all 18 holes. There was some brief discussion about membership and potential privileges of those visiting the course and staying at a future hotel.

 

Walter Reynolds, of 48 Harbor Drive, stated he attended for the presentation and asked when the ordinance amendment was posted. Ms. Letendre explained the meeting was posted on the Town’s Web site and the Secretary of State Web site about a week before the meeting, as well as posted at Town Hall and the Westerly Police Station. The August 15 Town Council meeting will be advertised and include the language for consideration. He asked if an accessory use project could potentially generate more income than a primary use. He said he thinks the project is classy but does not think you can do it based on the current Ordinance and you would need to alter the commercial recreation language through a Zoning amendment. Mr. Hopkins explained that this amendment application is an attempt to do this.  

 

Mr. Julian apologized for speaking out of order earlier in the meeting. He said he was unaware that the text amendment was a matter of public record, and the applicant provided a new amendment, and the same procedure was not followed. He said he did not think discussion should proceed without the new amendment. Mr. Montesano said the record is open and you received a copy, and the matter will be continued to a future public hearing for discussion. Mr. Julian quoted section 3.3.4 of the Comprehensive Plan that says because commercial recreation zones exist around and within residential zones there must be reasonable regulation and limited expansion. He said he would appreciate hearing an explanation from the Planning Board if they think the presentation was an example of limited expansion.

 

Mr. Montesano suggested the Board move forward with the application as presented with his suggested language modifications. He said he thinks it is a good text amendment. Mr. Lawlor said there is a lot of detail in the amendment, especially with the design standards. Mr. Lowther commented that the presentation was thorough, but the choice of photographs selected for the presentation could solicit a strong public reaction as they are large-scaled examples. He said he is more in favor of the text amendment changes as it will keep modifications on a smaller scale.

 

Ms. Harkin said she is still processing the project concept but trusts in Mr. Powers design abilities. Mr. Hopkins said the challenge here is that they are tying a text amendment with a specific project, but this amendment would apply to a yacht club and other golf courses.  

 

Mr. Montesano made a motion to continue the text amendment application to the Planning Board’s special meeting on August 2, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.  

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

 

1. None

 

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.

 

· Downtown Redevelopment and Stormwater Management Project – Ms. Letendre said representatives from Southern Rhode Island Conservation District (SRICD) will be present at the August 16 meeting to discuss this project.

 

· Route One Corridor Plan – Ms. Letendre said at the July 12 meeting, the EDC concluded discussion of the study improving the vision for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning revisions. The final draft of the Route One Corridor Plan will be published July 31 by Weston & Sampson. This will be on the Planning Board’s August 16 agenda.  

 

3. Development Project Status Report (updated 7/11/2022)

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

1. None

 

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUORUM FOR NEXT MEETINGS

 

1. August 2, 2022 Special Meeting Based on a recent poll of the available Members of the Planning Board the Town Council chambers have been reserved for a Special Meeting to allow for the continuation of matter F.4. prior to the Town Council’s public hearing on August 15th. Members of the Planning Board are asked to notify the Administrative Officer if they will not be present at the next regular meeting.

 

It was discussed that the August 2 meeting will be Mr. Lawlor’s last meeting and the end of his five-year term as a Board member. He encouraged the Board to continue implementing traffic studies into projects and investigating the wastewater treatment plant’s capacity. Mr. Lawlor added that he hopes that the future Town Council takes into consideration that the Planning Board puts in a lot of time and thought into recommendations and opinions and that the Planning Board relies on staff for information.

 

2. 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. A quorum is expected.

 

I. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Lawlor made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Mr. Delisio 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