Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, October 18, 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 6:03 p.m.

 

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Chair Justin M. Hopkins, Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, and Members Andrew Delisio, Kevin Lowther, Tabitha Harkin, and Auxiliary Member Karen Lentz Madison

 

Members absent:             Joseph M. Montesano

 

Staff present:                   Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning Atty. Scott Levesque, Town Planner Nancy Letendre, Information Technology Technician Lanny Fuller, and Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota

 

Town Council Liaison Phillip M. Overton was absent.

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. September 20, 2022 – Mr. Delisio made a motion to approve as submitted the September 20, 2022 Planning Board meeting minutes. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED with an abstention from Ms. Harkin who was absent from that meeting.

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.

 

Mr. Constantine made a motion to move new business ahead of old business on the agenda. Ms. Lentz Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

E. NEW BUSINESS

 

1. Low-Impact Development (LID) Municipal Assessment Introduction University of Rhode Island student Hayden McDermott presentation on the Low-Impact Development (LID) Municipal Assessment Tool. Planning Board discussion of applying the tool to the current Westerly regulations to identify priorities for improvements in early 2023.

 

Ms. Oziolor reviewed that the Town received a SNEP (Southeast New England Program) technical assistance grant and part of that grant was to work with the University of Rhode Island’s NEMO (Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officers) program.  Student Hayden McDermott shared a PowerPoint presentation on the subject. Ms. Oziolor said Mr. McDermott will return to staff in November or December with the results of the assessment with some highlights of where stormwater regulations may be lacking according to State standards. The information will go through a review process with Planning staff and the Board before being sent to the Town Council for possible adoption of new stormwater regulations. 

 

2. 2022-MJLDP- Ext 51 Franklin Street Office-Residential Development – Request for Master Plan Approval Extension (51 Franklin Street | AP 87, Lots 146 & 147, AP 88, Lots 24 & 25) Review, discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on granting a Master Plan approval extension for a mixed-use office-residential development.

 

            Ms. Letendre said this item and the next item are related to the same property. The representative was granted an extension of Master Plan approval in 2020 and is back for a second extension. He explained in a letter that the last two years there has been much interest in this property for a residential development and more recently, Dakota Properties, LLC. Ms. Letendre said there were Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) changes and additional work was needed on the property to reassess the wetlands, which is the reason for the development delay. Ms. Letendre said staff supports the time extension that would allow the project to move forward in the review process. Present on behalf of the application was project architect Paul Azzinaro, principal of Azzinaro Architects and Associates, Inc., 108 Airport Road, Suite 204, Westerly.

            Mr. Delisio made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board hereby extends the November 30, 2018 Master Plan approval for ‘Application ‘2022-MJLDP-Ext – Master Plan Approval Extension– 51 Franklin Street Office-Residential Development (51 Franklin Street | Assessor’s Map 87, Lots 146 & 147, and Map 88, Lots 24 & 25),’ in accordance with the application and supporting materials, including Plans titled “Mixed Use Development, 51 Franklin Street, Westerly, RI,” Sheets C-1,  LC-1, and LC-2, prepared for Fifty-One Franklin, LLC, dated September 2018 (last revised November 13, 2018), prepared by Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.’ with conditions. In accordance with RIGL §45-23-40(g), vesting of Master Plan approval, including the zoning requirements, conceptual layout, and all conditions shown on the approved master plan drawings and supporting materials is extended two (2) years – until November 30, 2024. Ms. Lentz Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

3. 2022-LMIH-01 Dakota Properties LLC Pre-application – Request to Combine Master Plan and Preliminary Plan for Multi-family Residential Development (51 Franklin Street - 111 Wells Street | AP 87, Lots 146 & 147, AP 88, Lots 24 & 25) Review and informal discussion by the Planning Board on a pre-application for proposed medical office building, AND consideration and approval of request to combine Amendment to Master Plan with Preliminary Plan review and approval of the residential

portion of the property.

 

Present on behalf of the application was Attorney Matthew Landry and civil engineer Will Walters. He said it is the applicant’s intent to submit a combined Master Plan amendment and Preliminary plan for lot 24 and they will need to amend some items in the Master Plan. He reviewed the existing Master Plan from 2018 and the proposal, which deals with the residential portion on lot 24. The plan contemplates 3 apartment buildings with 72 total units with 75 percent of them being low and moderate-income (LMI) deed restricted units. They are proposing to price the units at 60 percent area median income (AMI) with some as low as 30 percent, adding that Narragansett Housing Authority is the proposed moderator of the units. Atty. Andrews said the applicant will be filing a Comprehensive Permit for the project.  He shared that in order to qualify for State funding, affordable housing project proposals need to be received by the end of the year and combined stages of review will allow the applicant to more quickly prepare a package to submit to the State. Mr. Hopkins asked Atty. Levesque to review the difference between a Comprehensive Permit and standard operating procedure. He responded that most projects of this nature would be major land developments and proceed through the normal process and Zoning for any necessary dimensional relief, but a Comprehensive Permit comes to the Planning Board for any and all relief required. Mr. Lowther asked about the application’s funding element. Atty. Andrews said ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funds are earmarked for affordable housing and applications need to be in by the end of the year to qualify for any of those credits. The applicant’s intention is to move through the Town’s process while facilitating the State’s funding process.

Mr. Walters showed the site plans and described the location and characteristics of the land. He said they will need a RIDEM permit and they have a strategy for low-impact development. Above ground and below ground retention areas are designed into the plan and wetlands will not be disturbed, he said. Mr. Constantine asked how much the wetland setback has increased since the original Master Plan approval. Mr. Walters said the project will be well outside the setback area but they will have a height variance request. Atty. Andrews said the applicants interested in the site vetted any potential development and the plan’s building configuration made the most sense with the number of buildings and setback requirements. He said at the next plan phase, the applicant could provide testimony from an expert on that topic. Ms. Harkin noted that the Planning Board looks for outdoor amenities, plantings, vegetative buffers, and screenings when deliberating an application. Mr. Walters said most units are two-bedroom apartments and 25 percent are 1-bedroom units.

Mr. Hopkins said he is curious about a traffic study, which includes possible school transportation, and he requested a description of site lighting be included in the proposal. Ms. Letendre said there were 4 conditions of approval in the previous Master Plan that must be addressed and the traffic impact analysis is one of them. There was discussion that within the Comprehensive Permit process the applicant is free to request a waiver and they were considering a deferral of the traffic report to Final Plan review. Mr. Hopkins said he would like to keep the traffic study requirement at Preliminary Plan review. Mr. Walters said the nature of affordable housing is that they are constantly looking for projects and this endeavor came alive about a week ago and because of the nature of the timing they will not be able to have a study ready for the Preliminary Plan submission. Ms. Letendre said there is an option to make final approval something that comes back to the Board and at that time you will have an opportunity to review a traffic study. Atty. Levesque advised the Board that the Preliminary Phase is the time all engineering should be completed. Mr. Delisio agreed a traffic plan will be needed, especially as the project would be near an already crowded intersection.

Mr. Constantine added that dimensional requirements exist for a reason and suggested the applicant look at alternatives to their 10-foot height variance request. Mr. Lowther asked how the applicant plans to engage the community in this project. Atty. Andrews said in the packet submitted there are materials about the company and similar projects completed from other towns. He will discuss a public relations plan with the client. He said there is typically a town hall forum scheduled for abutters to the project.

Ms. Harkin made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board authorizes Dakota Properties LLC to submit a combine Master Plan amendment and Preliminary Plan application for a Comprehensive Permit for the development of up to 72 units of housing at 111 Wells Street (Assessor’s Map 88, Lot 24) provided local reviews and approvals and a traffic study can be obtained prior to the public hearing. The Board anticipates that the application will request variances and waivers as allowed by the Comprehensive Permit. Ms. Lentz Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

 

4. 2022-MJLD-02: Wells Street Medical Office – Pre-Application (50 Wells Street | AP

87, Lot 93) Review and informal discussion by the Planning Board on a pre-application for proposed

medical office building.

 

Ms. Letendre reviewed there was a proposal for three buildings that was approved but never built. This application is for a single building on the site.

Thomas Cousineau, AIA, Sam Hemingway, and Mike Latiglia, Jr. managing member of Bailes Firenza & Groves IV, LLC, were present on behalf of the application. They described the project as a single-story building with two tenants. Ms. Oziolor said the project is going through the MJLD (major land development) process as there are two units with two uses on the site. The project will also require a Special Use Permit.  There are 85 parking spaces planned, though only 51 spaces are required by ordinance. The project will feature a stormwater system retention basin and underground filtration system.

Mr. Latiglia said the need for the spaces provides a safe environment for the occupants and visitors. The pervious pavement is part of the lot, and the plan includes green space and buffers. He said they could also add rain gardens if requested. Mr. Cousineau said they manage two other medical office buildings in Rhode Island and no matter how much parking is provided it is not sufficient. Mr. Latiglia said the building could support three practices and they are in negotiations with potential tenants. Mr. Hopkins requested documentation to support the extra parking needs.  Mr. Cousineau said they could return with information about the number of staff and potential visitors. Ms. Letendre said regarding parking regulations, they go by the minimum allowed and the Planning Office looks at is in terms of impervious surface created. Mr. Constantine encouraged the applicant to save stone walls on site. Mr. Latiglia said the plan is to leave the wall alone and the plan shows a heavily treed landscape buffer.

Mr. Constantine made a motion to authorize the submission of a combined Master and Preliminary Phase application for 2022-MJLD-02: Wells Street Medical Office – Pre-Application (50 Wells Street | AP 87, Lot 93). Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

F. OLD BUSINESS

 

1. 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.

 

Ms. Letendre entered several documents into the record; a memo from the Planning Office dated October 12, 2022 was marked Board’s Exhibit F, approved Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting minutes from May 5, 2022 was Board’s exhibit G, an opinion from the ARB was marked Board’s Exhibit H, an opinion from the Zoning Official was marked Board’s Exhibit I, a letter from Max Sposato from the Department of Public Works was marked Board’s Exhibit J, a letter from Planning Board member Joseph Montesano suggesting revised plans was marked Board’s Exhibit K. Ms. Letendre noted several written comments from abutters objecting to the size and scope of the expansion and marked them Opponent’s Exhibit 1. Attorney Elizabeth Noonan, of Adler, Pollock, and Sheehan, Providence, said the August minutes reflect different labeling of the exhibits.

Atty. Noonan was present on behalf of the application. She said the applicant’s last visit was in August with the Master Plan and since that time they have met with Planning staff and the plans now reflect that the only Zoning relief needed is the height. She said the applicants decided that a second banquet hall would be removed, which resulted in a reduction of 70 parking spaces. The two additional buildings to be constructed are Building A, requiring a 7.7 foot height variance, and Building B, requiring a 4.5 foot height variance. She noted that page 5 of the staff memo reflects a reduction in the massing of the building. She said most of the Planning Office’s conditions are acceptable to the client. She asked for clarification on condition 4. Also present on behalf of the project was civil engineer Tony Nenna, architect Peter Springsteel, and landscape architect Rebecca Nolan. Steve Bannon was also present to discuss the submitted traffic study.

Mr. Nenna revised the parking calculations on sheet C-3 of the site plans. They will provide 143 parking spaces and the requirement is 130 spaces. He reviewed sheet C-2 proposed grading plan. The grades are from the north to the south and the plan decreases runoff.

Mr. Springsteel reviewed the findings from his research of the neighborhood and the height of some existing nearby buildings. He said he reduced the height of this project by putting the top story into roofline with dormers and lowered the elevator towers. The applicant still needs adequate clearance under building A for access and to have the needed hotel units. The modified renderings included in the packet were redistributed with more detail and marked as Applicant’s Exhibit 5. Mr. Springsteel provided an explanation for how he used “smart growth” in the building’s design. He said if they were to meet the height restriction they would be creating a two-story building and they would lose a third of the units, which are needed to support the amenities being created. Atty. Noonan said various shapes were tried and not found to be conducive for a conference center. Ms. Letendre asked for a description of the new concept for the building’s exterior. Mr. Springsteel explained the updated design shows a pergola feature over balconies versus a gambrel and he chose colors that would tone down the building. Ms. Letendre reminded the applicant of the condition that they return to the ARB if there are extensive changes to the design.

There was discussion about the two access easements on the site. Copies of the Sorenson easement were distributed and marked as Board’s Exhibit L. Atty. Levesque said it appears that height may be an issue because of language in the agreement but it is a private issue of the owners.

Ms. Nolan, landscape architect with offices at 44 Water Street, Mystic, was present to describe the changes to the landscaping plans. She said an existing garden patio behind the restaurant is supporting a use and is well maintained. One of the reasons they are creating this plan is to have this space in the rear of the building. She said pedestrian connectivity in the parking lot is well noted and will connect to the rear and a bike parking area was added, as well as a trash storage and drop off area. Privacy fence on the westerly property line will have a gate that will not be blocked in case access is needed. There was discussion on the tree species and height at planting and full growth. There was discussion about the front parking lot reduction and addition of green space there. She said all the proposed landscaping is on the inside of the stone wall on Venice property along Via Roma Road and there is no proposal to remove any existing trees. Ms. Letendre asked for clarification on what will happen to the picket fence by the wall. Ms. Nolan responded that the line of sight out of Via Roma Road needs analysis to eliminate potential hazards but there will be low shrubs along the right of way. Atty. Noonan read from the easement agreement and readdressed the question of height clearance. Mr. Hopkins said a conversation needs to occur between the applicant and owner. Mr. Nenna said the right of way is 25 feet wide and they are proposing a 14-foot driveway to get to the rear.

Mr. Bannon, associate of Beta Group, described the traffic impact study. He said he worked with the site engineer to review plans relative to driveway access and circulation. Mr. Bannon developed a trip generation estimate for the land use and assessed safety and operations of the conditions in peak summer conditions. He said they will provide a clean line of site from Via Roma Road. The westerly opening will be entrance only and the easterly one is exit only. Mr. Bannon said there are insignificant amounts of traffic associated with the hotel and any cars generated from facility would blend with the normal queue on Shore Road. There was more general discussion on the study.

Paige Bronk, a certified planner, was introduced as a witness to the application and his curriculum vitae was marked as Applicant’s Exhibit 6. Mr. Bronk said he was hired to visit the site, review the project, and create a report of the project’s consistency with Westerly’s Comprehensive Plan. He described the commercial zone pocket as surrounded by a mix of land uses. Shoreline Commercial is specific to encouraging economic development. Residential property is prohibited in this zone and if it exists there today it is classified as a nonconforming use. The northerly property across the street is within the same zone. He said found on the property are residential cottages at the end of Via Roma Road. He noted a significant grade drop from the roadway to the existing parking behind the structures. Mr. Bronk said the project needs to consider the existing structure and the grade. He said the applicant has demonstrated the intent to try to design the building with the least relief necessary. For the project to advance in its current form with amenities in line with market demand, a height variance is required. Mr. Bronk said Westerly is looking for what the market is requiring. He said that low-rise hotels are not being constructed and many of those have the highest vacancy rates. Mr. Constantine emphasized his concern about giving a positive opinion to the Zoning Board on the height Variance. Mr. Hopkins noted that the proposed building has almost 250 feet of frontage from Shore Road and all but 14.5 feet are subject to a height Variance and that is part of the challenge of accepting the application. Mr. Bronk said there is weight in the content of the Westerly Comprehensive Plan and not every property is the same. He said there is not much land in Westerly designated or promoted for commercial development. He added that Zoning Variances are not precedent setting but dependent on the merits of each case.

The Board took a recess at 9:01 p.m. Mr. Hopkins called the meeting back to order at 9:09 p.m.

Sally Sorenson, of 161 Shore Road, said she resided at the property for 25 years and now owns the property. She was opposed to the expansion of the business, saying her home is landlocked, and she would be looking up at the building. She said one of her concerns is the right of way and she opposes having to drive through a tunnel to access her home. She also opposed the height variance and feels that a structure that high will be an affront to her privacy and security. She noted concerns about an increase in traffic, potentially invasive site lighting, and noise concerns. She added that her electrical lines could not go up and over the building if it will be as high as proposed.

Stanton Terranova, of 16 Atlantic Avenue, spoke to support the project and the growth of a local family business, which is good for the economy. He said it should be allowed to proceed as it is positive project for the area.

Attorney Michael Cozzolino, with offices at 80 Beach Street, spoke to represent abutters of the property to the south of the project. He said his clients oppose the project as the proposal is about three times the size of the existing building. His clients have already experienced issues with use and enjoyment of their property because of the existing restaurant/hotel. He said he did not see anything in the application that substantiated a hardship and claimed it was only for financial gain. Atty. Cozzolino said they have a concern that the facility will become a residential operation. He noted concerns about water run-off from Venice to his clients’ property due to modifications the owners of Venice did to their lot, which he believes was cited by DEM. Atty. Cozzolini said the building does not look like a Mediterranean style and compared the proposal to La Quinta in Pawcatuck. He said his clients’ main issue is the easement. They own Via Roma Road and granted an easement to the applicant in 1998 for Venice Restaurant. He argued that this project is a significant burden of the easement that was originally granted. He asked for the condition that the installation of an electric access gate be created below Via Roma Road as they have had past issues with people parking along the road and ignoring signage. He asked the Board to not recommend the project’s approval to the Zoning Board.

Mr. Hopkins asked Atty. Levesque to advise on the status of an existing easement when there are changes to the lot. Atty. Levesque commented that an overburdening of an easement would be a right that his clients would need to pursue with this applicant and that is not before the Board to decide. He recommended a condition of approval that the Via Roma Road and the Sorenson easements be validated and if the applicant cannot do that, the project’s approval will be rescinded.

Ms. Lentz Madison asked if the applicants were advised to change from a Mediterranean to coastal look. Ms. Letendre said it was not suggested but changes did happen in what appears to be an attempt to bring down massing. Mr. Lowther asked about the septic system. Mr. Nenna said they will utilize the existing front system and they will install a new one in the rear of building B. Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) dictates milligrams per liter of nitrogen that they are not allowed to go above. Mr. Nenna said the drainage strategy is to incorporate bioretention basins in the lot. Mr. Springsteel said it was mentioned that topography is not a reason for a hardship, but it is a classic reason for providing height relief. He explained the differences in measuring height with a sloping and flat lot.

Atty. Noonan thanked the Board for their time in the application. She said she does not have a problem with conditions based on the easement discussion with relevant parties. In terms of the Pons’ family issues on Via Roma Road, many will be addressed within the plan, such as stormwater management. She said the applicant understands it is a large change to the neighborhood but they are in a commercial district and the proposal is the type of development called for in Westerly’s Comprehensive Plan. In her closing remarks, she emphasized that the topography is a hardship for the height variance. The Zoning Board will have to decide on that and she asked for Planning Board’s approval.

Mr. Constantine asked how tall the building is from the road. The professional representatives responded that the existing building to the main roof is 36 feet and it will be the same for building B, while the building A will be about 30 feet. Mr. Delisio agreed that the plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for commercial shoreline. He said there are many residences that are impacted and easements should have been resolved at this point. He can see where the applicant has made great effort to appease the Board and soften the massing. Ms. Lentz Madison asked that the approval be conditional on the easement resolutions. Ms. Harkin agreed with Mr. Delisio’s comments on the commercial district and it makes sense to designate density here. She has an issue with the right of way component and the proposal to move the driveway should be explored. She noted the gap in the buffer landscape at the rear of the parking lot adjacent to Ms. Sorenson’s property. Ms. Nolan said they felt that it was important to leave it open as another access point in case of emergency. Ms. Harkin asked them to work with ARB on the exterior style. Mr. Lowther said it is an appropriate use in an appropriate area and as the Town tries to diversify the economy through winter months, it can provide a solution for short term housing and visitation, but the right of way easements need to be resolved. Mr. Constantine said he is concerned with height in the rear by Ms. Sorenson’s property. Ms. Nolan said the proposal is to plant the trees at 8 to 10 feet and they grow quickly up to 50 or 70 feet. She said the same species exist along Ocean Highway in Watch Hill. Mr. Hopkins said they can both agree this project conforms to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and they can have concerns over the height variances or massing. He shared concerns about the easement and the details left unresolved that does not help them see a clear picture of the future of the building. Atty. Levesque advised that any approval be subject to both easements discussed being valid to applicants intended use, issue of moving Sorenson easement being explored and resolved, a condition to discuss how to limit access down Via Roma Road for the Pons abutters. Ms. Letendre said condition 4 will be removed and the three added as stated by Atty. Levesque for a total of 14 conditions.

Mr. Delisio made a motion that they approve 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) as recommended in the memo from the Planning Office marked Board’s Exhibit F and adopt the conditions as revised on the record tonight. Ms. Lentz Madison seconded the motion. In discussion, Mr. Constantine was concerned that vegetative buffer to the neighbors behind the proposed building be included in the plan. Atty. Levesque said the additional condition would be to address the buffered area on the Sorenson property. Mr. Delisio modified his motion to include the condition. Ms. Lentz Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Delisio made a motion to provide a favorable advisory to the Zoning Board on application 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). Ms. Lentz Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. Annual Report and Discussion of Priorities for 2023 Review, discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on preparing the Planning Board 2021-2022 Annual Report.

 

Ms. Letendre said the Town Code Section 5 says the Planning Board must review the Zoning Ordinance every two years. She said they need to prioritize Zoning Ordinance revisions through the end of the fiscal year and into the next one. Some environmental regulations would be included. She reviewed comments from highlighted areas of the Planning Boards 2021/2022 Annual Report draft dated October 12, 2022 to detail the six priorities.

Mr. Constantine made a motion to approve the priorities and have the Planning Board Chair and staff complete the final draft for the new Town Council. Mr. Lowther seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

5. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Introduction to the CIP process and review and discussion by the Planning Board on next steps.

 

Ms. Letendre reviewed that they will meet at 5:00 p.m. on November 15 for a special meeting with the interim finance director of the Westerly Public School and Town. The Board will receive more information on November 7. The CIP Review process is included in the memo to the Board and the memo titled 2023-2024 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) from the Town Planner to the Planning Board dated October 10, 2022 also states each year in December, the Board prepares a recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the next four years. In preparation for this recommendation, the Board will review which projects in previous years’ CIPs have been completed, and how those projects fulfill the Comprehensive Plan’s Goals, Policies, and Actions. The Planning Office will provide such information for review prior to the meeting on November 15, 2022. On November 15, the Town Manager and Finance Director will provide the new proposed capital improvement requests to the Board, outlining specific projects intended to be included in the plan. On December 13, and the Board will make a written recommendation to the Town Manager of how those projects meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

 

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

 

1. Administrative Actions

a. 2022-ADM-04: Kearney Administrative Subdivision (28, 30 & 32 Lanphere Road | AP 96,

Lots 32, 34 & 35A)

 

2. Development Project Status Report (updated 09/28/2022)

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICTOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

There was no report given.

 

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUOROM FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING

 

1. November 15, 2022 Special Meeting at 5:00pm - 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:

• Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Presentation by Shawn Lacey, Town Manager and

Interim Finance Director

 

2. November 15, 2022 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):

• Trestle Park Storage (123 Oak Street)

• Former St. Pius School Multifamily Redevelopment (28 Elm Street)

 

I. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Lowther made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Ms. Harkin 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 November 22, 2022