Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 24, 2023 - 6:00 p.m.

Westerly Town Hall | Town Council Chambers

45 Broad Street, Westerly, RI 02891

 

A. CALL TO ORDER –

Mr. Constantine called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

 

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, Secretary Andrew Delisio, Members James Hall IV, Matthew O’Neil, and Auxiliary Member Karen Lentz Madison. Chair Justin Hopkins joined the meeting at 7:54 p.m.

 

Members absent:             Member Tabitha Harkin

 

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. Principal Planner Alyse Oziolor joined the meeting at 6:40 p.m. and left the meeting about 9:10 p.m.

 

Town Council Liaison Kevin Lowther was absent.

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1. December 13, 2022 Special Meeting and December 13, 2022 Regular Meeting – Mr. Delisio made a motion to accept as presented the December 13, 2022 Special and Regular Planning Board meeting minutes. Mr. O’Neil seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

D. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA –

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

 

There were no changes to the agenda.

 

E. OLD BUSINESS

 

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

 

            Ms. Letendre reviewed that the Cozi LLC project is a continuation from a past meeting and a draft motion has been prepared for the Board’s review. She asked the applicant to review the status of RIPDES (Rhode Island Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) and RIDOT (Rhode Island Department of Transportation) permits and discuss any needs regarding inspections of stormwater and erosion controls. She requested that the applicant explain the directional signage on the property and clarify any changes to the plan.

            Present for the application was Attorney William Nardone, project engineer Joseph Duhamel, the applicant, Dion Luzzi, and traffic engineer Paul Bannon. Atty. Nardone reviewed discussion had at a site meeting on January 13 with Ms. Oziolor, Town Manager Shawn Lacey, and Mr. Luzzi.  The purpose of the meeting was to gain a practical understanding of the site and the phasing plan. A letter dated January 18, 2023 was submitted to the Planning Office by Atty. Nardone and included information as discussed at the January 13 meeting. He said a number of the landscaping and site design suggestions, though probably attractive, do not make sense at this stage. He reviewed that there was much discussion on parking, but he reminded the Board that the property is zoned highway commercial, and it is commercial use. The concern of parking overnight and parking commercial vehicles was addressed, and an employee parking area was designated. Atty. Nardone said the applicant does not want to encourage pedestrian use of the property as there will be significant vehicular access and it is not a large site. They do not want to include a walking path for access to the quarry for liability purposes. The site was stabilized for stormwater concerns and vehicles, but the surface will be disturbed again for site changes and landscape additions.

Mr. Duhamel said they did receive a letter of approval from RIDOT, but the RIPDES permit has been under review for a couple months. He said he will send it to the Planning Office as soon as it is approved. The applicant may not perform anymore site work without it. He reviewed the modifications to the plan. He said the parking for the three buildings meets subdivision regulations and the employee parking was designated at the south side of building 2 for large commercial vehicles. Mr. Duhamel referenced changes made to the site plans on sheets 5, and landscape notes and details on sheets LS-1 and LS-2 revised on January 17, 2023. There was some discussion on phase 1 and 2.

Mr. Delisio commented that the green space on the corner lot is a good addition but advised that green islands with grass can be hard to maintain in a parking lot and may dry up rapidly in the sun. He agreed with the applicant discouraging public access to the quarry. Ms. Lentz Madison also agreed with the quarry decision. Mr. Hall said he appreciated not wanting to commit to phase 2 yet but asked about the plans for the Tower Street section of the project. He asked if the applicant would consider neighbors in the plan’s aesthetics. Mr. Luzzi said they have no intentions of landscaping in phase 2 except for a field grass cut, and creating a 6-foot fence with secured gates. He said it will be an improved view for the neighbors. Mr. Duhamel described the existing conditions of that area – a fence exists from Tower Street to building two and a gate will be added along Tower Street during phase 2. Mr. Hall asked about the Granite Street landscape plan for the final application. Mr. Duhamel referenced Sheet LS-2 and described the plan including 6 trees, 70 shrubs, 36 grasses, perennials, and annuals along that street all to be included in phase 1. The Board opened the meeting for public comment at 6:31 p.m.

Phil Fitzpatrick, of 60 Elm Street, said at the last hearing Mr. Hall raised a question on quarry history. He wondered if the applicant could install some sort of an exhibit about the quarry during the project development. Mr. Fitzpatrick understood the applicant’s desire to discourage public access but suggested that the site contain some references to the quarry and the nearby Babcock Smith House Museum. Ms. Letendre responded that this matter is under consideration with the Route 1 Corridor Plan and the Planning Office would like to highlight that museum on Route 1.

Mr. Delisio made a motion to close the public hearing at 6:34 p.m. Ms. Lentz Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Ms. Letendre suggested an amendment to the draft motion on page 11 of the staff memo in findings of fact number 4 that the RIPDES permit be submitted as soon as the applicant receives it from the State and that no further site work may take place until it is.

Mr. Delisio made a motion that the Planning Board approve the plan 2021-MJLD-03 – Preliminary Plan Review – Cozi LLC Commercial Development (92-100 Granite Street | Assessor’s Map 67, Lot 275) with conditions as written in the draft motion from the Planning Office memo dated January 17 for the January 24, 2023 meeting with the addition of finding of fact 4 that the applicant does not proceed with any work until receipt of the RIPDES permit and the applicant must submit it to the Planning Office as soon as it is issued. Ms. Lentz-Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. 2021-LMIH-01: Multi-Family Development for Former St. Pius X Property – Comprehensive Permit - Master Plan (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 Master Plan Approval of a Major Land Development for proposed multifamily development at former St. Pius X property.

 

            Ms. Letendre shared that after tonight’s discussion, the matter will be continued to the February 21 Planning meeting and the applicant has agreed to a time extension for a decision to be issued on March 21. Attorney William Nardone was present on behalf of the application, along with Edward Pimentel, planning expert, and Paul Bannon, traffic engineer.

Mr. Pimentel described his credentials for the Board. Ms. Oziolor joined the meeting at 6:40 p.m. He said he felt comfortable supporting the project because it is an anomaly to find a site with more than 2 acres near a downtown area. He said this is the preferred place to incorporate density for pedestrians as it decreases the need for cars. Mr. Pimentel said it is the best place to build to help increase affordable housing availability. He said when housing densifies, it may attract mass transit. There was discussion on RIPTA (Rhode Island Public Transit Authority) trends, ride availability, existing RIPTA routes, and the flex bus schedule. Mr. Pimentel said it may be a long term effect but the downtown core is where housing densification should occur to attract those services. Mr. O’Neil questioned the short-term effect of the project as many residents are concerned about traffic increases. Mr. Pimentel reiterated that the location near essential services, businesses, and recreation will encourage more pedestrian use. Mr. Hall asked what sources Mr. Pimentel used for his determinations. He responded that the Westerly Comprehensive Plan and his professional experience were his main sources. Mr. Pimentel justified his determination that the project was in the downtown core as School and Elm Streets are just a few blocks from Westerly Town Hall.

Mr. Bannon, team project manager associate with Beta Group, Lincoln, introduced himself to the Board and described his traffic analysis methods for the project. He estimated that during the morning peak hour 20 trips would be generated by the project and 25 trips would be generated in the p.m. peak hour. He suggested that adequate and safe access could be provided for the development. He said the 2007 data examined was crash data. Mr. Bannon indicated in his plan that a school use generates higher peak use than a residential development, so the impact of the former use was greater than this proposal. Ms. Letendre asked his opinion on the parking plan and if street parking would be needed. Mr. Bannon said the units are likely to contain one person and one car and that many people seeking this housing will likely choose it for its proximity to town and choose pedestrian travel. He said the parking does meet Zoning requirements, but possible restrictions could be more closely examined. Atty. Nardone said one of the purposes for the extended decision time is that the applicant will present a modified plan at the February Planning Board meeting. Building two will have 24 units instead of 31. The applicant will propose a second floor for the addition to the current school building, which will result in an increase in the overall number of units. There will be 23 units in the school building as opposed to the proposed 13 and 24 in building 2 for a total of 47 units. He said no height variances are needed. The applicant will also include the School Street lot in this project for dedicated green space and some parking, which is already there. He said the new project will reduce the impervious surface area. The new information will be submitted to the Planning Office at least two weeks prior to the February 21 Planning meeting. The Board opened the meeting to public comment.

Vivian E. Barnett, of 25 Elm Street, read into the record her letter dated January 12, 2023, previously submitted to the Board, and marked as remonstrance G. She urged the Board to submit the project to the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage Commission (RIHPHC) as the Town Planner already suggested as the whole site has historic importance to the Town. Ms. Letendre said one of the conditions of approval is that submission details be included in the architectural drawings on the changes to the school building for submission to RIHPHC.

Doug Brockway, of 32 Chestnut Street, made comments on the traffic analysis. He clarified that the speed on School Street is 20 miles per hour (mph), slower than the 25 mph stated in the analysis by Mr. Bannon. He said that September 2022 traffic is less voluminous in that part of Town than any Friday afternoon in the summertime. He thinks the analysis should have occurred on Thursday and Friday afternoon in the summertime.

Ed Marolda, of 40 Elm Street, introduced a five-page letter dated January 17, 2023 from Elm Street CARES and it was marked as remonstrance H. He said they look forward to seeing a new presentation from the applicant and they are glad that the citizens comments have been heard. He referenced page 19 of the Pimentel report. Mr. Marolda elaborated on the concerns the neighborhood group has with the density of the project. He said Elm Street CARES is supportive of affordable housing and he is pleased that there will be an attempt to build on the existing building addition. He asked the Board to find the balance in this project for the developer and overall good for the neighborhood.

Tara Whalen, of 44 Elm Street, and owner of 42 Elm Street, said some of her planned comments may no longer be true since there are some proposed changes. She said the community must pay close attention to this project as it is a very special spot. If the new plan is just a shrunken down version of the current plan it will create the same feel that already exists in the project. A more thoughtful architectural plan should be created to show the unique character of the area and reflect the surrounding history, she said. Ms. Whalen noted that neighbors requested the applicant decrease the project from 44 units and now there are 47 planned so she questioned the potential effects to the neighborhood.

Gene Renz, of 58 Elm Street, said he has lived in the area for over 40 years. He said the experts stated the positives of their studies but the timing of the studies is crucial and he believes that the analyses were not done at the right time. He asked the Board to consider the flaws of the studies and questioned where potential residents of the proposed project would work and what public transit exists for them.

Phil Fitzpatrick, of 60 Elm Street, shared remarks on the experts’ reports. He said it sounds good that residents of the project will work downtown, but what is real is that the project will simply attract people in need of housing regardless of where they work. He commented that the Board has been extremely patient with the applicant and the project.   

The applicant decided to reserve any further comments for the February Planning Board meeting.

Ms. Lentz Madison made a motion to continue the application to the February 21 Planning Board meeting with an extension to render a decision at the March 21 meeting. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

The Planning Board took a recess at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Hopkins joined the meeting at 7:54 p.m. and resumed the role of Chair, calling the meeting back to order.

 

 

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

1. 2022-MJLD-02- Combined Master & Preliminary Plan - Wells Street Medical Office (50 Wells Street | Assessor’s Map 87, Lot 93) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on the combined Master & Preliminary Plan for proposed medical office building at 50 Wells Street.

 

Attorney Vincent Indeglia, of Indeglia Lutrario, Attorneys at Law, LLC., Warwick, was present on behalf of the application and described the project details to the Board. He introduced the professionals present to testify about the project. He said all the Architectural Review Board (ARB) comments were addressed by project architect Thomas Cousineau and added to the plan. He explained that the Town Engineer had some concerns about stormwater drainage on the site and the applicant is willing to adhere to a maintenance program for the property and can record that with any approval granted. He said the Town Engineer did submit a letter saying the modifications to the drainage plan were satisfactory. Atty. Indeglia said the parking plan was reduced to 81 spaces with the appropriate amount of handicap spaces. He said the parking is sufficient for the site and justified because of appointment wait times, required staff parking, and additional space is planned for possible snow storage.

Project engineer Sam Hemenway, project manager with Garofalo & Associates, Inc., Providence introduced himself to the Board and described the resolutions created to the plan after discussion with Town officials. Mr. Hemenway said the landscape architect added additional screening to the rear of the property. Atty. Indeglia asked if native species can be added as staff requested and Mr. Hemenway said yes they are making those modifications. Mr. Hemenway said pervious pavement is a supported material and a maintenance program is required for a RIPDES permit and that is part of the application now. If it is followed, the longevity of the pavement will be considerable. Mr. Constantine asked if they could increase the pervious pavement space in the project. The applicant said it could be a condition they agree to, and that Ms. Letendre could designate where those six spots will be. Mr. Delisio said he has observed two other new medical offices and they are never more than half full, so he does not understand the parking analysis. Atty. Indeglia said University Orthopedics has 2.5 physicians performing surgeries and seeing 16 to 20 patients a day. He said right now they work five or six days a week at Westerly Hospital and use a lot of hospital parking. Their volume will increase with this new practice. He referenced other similar projects in areas of the State that had insufficient parking and required new parking projects to accommodate staff and patients. Mr. Hall asked about ARB recommendation number 4 for more deciduous trees to screen the neighbor to the east. Mr. Hemenway said there will be vegetative screenings in front of each utility unit in the rear along with deciduous trees. Regarding a sidewalk suggestion, he said he does not think it is appropriate to add a sidewalk but if the Town Engineer presents a plan for future sidewalks in that area, then the applicant will engineer a placement for them on the parcel. Ms. Letendre proposed language be added to the draft motion that “the applicant will coordinate with the Town Engineer on the design and construction of sidewalk at the Town right of way and curb cut if sidewalk is to be added.” Mr. Hopkins asked if the 81 proposed spaces included potential tenants. He said the potential tenant would be a compatible physical therapy group and the parking is appropriate. They said they could add a bike rack as requested, but underground electric and communication utilities are a logistical issue. Mr. Hemenway said adding underground ducts across a public street can be cumbersome and very expensive. The applicant is waiting for guidance from National Grid on the power connection. There is currently a service pole on the property side of the street and the connection will be underground from that pole to the project’s transformer. Mr. O’Neil asked if that would need to be adjusted if there are eventual sidewalks. Mr. Hemenway said they believe the location is compatible with any potential sidewalks. Atty. Indeglia said the applicant’s opinion is they do not need to go back to the Zoning Board for a Special Use Permit. Atty. Levesque said the Board could condition an approval based on the validity of a current Special Use Permit, and if the permit is no longer valid the applicant will need to return for a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board for a modification to the Special Use Permit or for a new one. Ms. Letendre said they are set up to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board to approve a Special Use Permit if they need to ask for it. She reviewed the changes made to condition 1 and condition 3 and added condition 8 regarding the addition of 6 pervious parking spaces. There was extensive discussion on the potential requirement for underground utilities. Ms. Letendre said because it is a new parcel and new development staff recommend utilities be underground. Atty. Indeglia said the budget and time constraint is a burden to the applicant. There was a consensus that National Grid is the determining influence of how the utilities can be installed.

Adele Laudone, of 16 State Street, shared concerns that public notice was not sufficiently sent to all residents on the block. She claimed none of the abutters received notice but her son who lives down the street did receive notice. Mr. Hemenway submitted an affidavit that the public hearing notices were mailed to the necessary abutters. She asked what the hours of operation will be for the facility. Atty. Indeglia said typically office hours can begin as early as 7 a.m. and end between 3 and 5 p.m. Staff may arrive earlier and can remain later, he said. Ms. Laudone asked how long the site lighting would be illuminated. Mr. Hopkins noted that a photometric plan was submitted as part of the applicant’s package. Mr. Cousineau said the exterior lighting is controlled by an automated system and typically turns off by 10 or 11 p.m. and that will be dictated by custodial staff. He said there will be some lighting around the building that remains on, but the parking lot lights are timed. Ms. Laudone asked about the tree maintenance and Atty. Indeglia said any trees removed during the construction would be replaced. Ms. Letendre responded to Ms. Laudone’s question about construction times that construction is restricted to the standard times by ordinance - no earlier than 7:30 a.m. to 5 or 6 p.m.

Kyle Laudone, of 10 State Street, said they would like to see a lighting schedule listed in the final approval. Mr. Delisio noted that the size of the arborvitae on the plan should provide ample buffer to assuage his concerns of seeing light from his home. Atty. Indeglia said that given the nature of the business he cannot say that the applicant could agree to a lighting schedule as there may be a case of an emergency where a physician must come to the facility at odd hours. Ms. Oziolor said there is a plan in the package already. Mr. Cousineau said he could provide a narrative of the hours of operation with the understanding that there may be a need for use of the property for emergencies after the planned schedule.

The Board and staff clarified that condition 5 would be removed and replaced with the lighting schedule condition as discussed for a total of 8 conditions. Mr. Constantine made a motion to approve with conditions application 2022-MJLD-02- Combined Master & Preliminary Plan - Wells Street Medical Office (50 Wells Street | Assessor’s Map 87, Lot 93) Ms. Lentz-Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Hall made a motion to recommend to the Zoning Board the issuance of a Special Use Permit should the existing Special Use Permit be void. Ms. Lentz Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Ms. Oziolor left the meeting at about 9:10 p.m.

 

 

2. 2022-ATC-05: 16 Post Road Ministorage – Major Land Development - Master Plan Review, Recommendation to Zoning Board on Special Use Permit & Recommendation to Town Council on Zoning Map & Text Amendments (16 Post Road | Assessor’s Map 99, Lot 3A) Review, discussion and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on a proposed master plan for a ministorage facility at 16 Post Road, along with possible recommendation to the Zoning Board regarding a special use permit and possible recommendation to the Town Council on a zone change from the existing split lot zoning of Highway Commercial (HC) and Rural Residential (RR-60) to one zone, General Commercial (GC) and zoning text amendment regarding parking.

 

            Present for the application was Attorney Thomas Liguori, with offices at 85 Beach Street, and project engineer Sergio Cherenzia, president and principal of Cherenzia & Associates, LTD., 99 Mechanic Street, Pawcatuck, Connecticut. He reviewed that the applicant applied for a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow the use of mini-storage, which would be a less intense use and not require so much parking. Atty. Liguori noted that legal counsel for Trestle Park Storage, LLC. recommended the Board seek an Economic Development Commission (EDC) advisory opinion on the project, but that is not a statutory requirement. He said he wants to submit the revision to the plan for the Board’s review. He requested that if the Board has a special meeting on February 7 they be included on that agenda. Atty. Levesque agreed there is no requirement that the applicant go to the EDC but it could happen before the Town Council discusses the request. Mr. Hopkins said it was not discussed when they first heard this matter and there are two members of the Planning Board on the subcommittee of the Route One Corridor Committee (ROCC) that voted to approve the project. Ms. Letendre said EDC review is not mandatory, but it has helped applicants and the Planning Board could recommend that the applicant go to EDC before the Town Council meeting.

Atty. Liguori submitted a two-page document, a revision to the text amendment, which was marked applicant’s exhibit 1. He also submitted sheet 1 of 1 C-1 that coordinates with exhibit 1 and that was marked applicant’s exhibit 2. Atty. Liguori pointed out on C-1 the division line from the highway commercial zone to the rural residential (RR-60) zone. He yielded to Attorney Christopher D’Ovidio, legal counsel of Trestle Park, LLC., to speak to the Board. Atty. D’Ovidio agreed that EDC review was not a requirement but the Planning Board can require a broad scope of material submissions. He said EDC opinion is important because this project is a part of the Route 1 Corridor Plan, which was just endorsed by Town Council last night. Attorney Jennifer Cervenka, counsel for 5677 Post LLC, spoke to the fact that any action tonight requires the Board to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, of which the Route 1 Corridor Plan is part of, so an EDC review should be included in this review process. Atty. Liguori said this particular property is discussed in the Route 1 Corridor Plan and his client was not given notice that Trestle Park, LLC. would be meeting with EDC to discuss the project. Atty. Levesque said the Route 1 Corridor Study is familiar to the Board but it is not recorded under State law and it does not bind this applicant. He said the Board is charged with specific findings and to the extent you do that has to be related to something in the application materials.

There was discussion among the Board on the merits of sending the application to the EDC for an advisory opinion. Atty. Liguori disagreed with allowing EDC to provide an opinion to the Town Council instead of the Planning Board. Ms. Letendre clarified that the Planning Board and EDC opinions are two different things so they would not necessarily compete. The EDC’s purview is to determine economics. There was further procedural discussion.

Mr. Hall made a motion that the Planning Board continue the matter to the February 21 meeting agenda and that it be first on the agenda and he recommended the EDC provide an advisory opinion to the Planning Board on the project. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

 

1. Administrative Actions

 

· 2020-MJLD-08 – Harbor Ridge Condominium Development (165 East Avenue | AP 107, Lot 57) Final Plan Approval

 

2. 2023 Housing Works RI Housing Factbook Westerly Profile – Ms. Letendre reviewed the most recent information with Westerly’s compliance to the LMI (low and moderate income) Act. Westerly has 5.1 percent accredited LMI or 532 units. She said there are many LMI developments in flux now and they cannot be included with a certificate of occupancy.

She reviewed an award received about the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that at the award ceremony former Westerly Town Planner Marilyn Schellman was present. Ms. Letendre said on March 23 there will be a League of Cities and Towns conference in Warwick and Planning Board members are welcome to attend. She will provide more information if requested. Ms. Letendre will participate in one of the sessions on March 23 and discuss the Route 1 Corridor Committee.

Kevin Lowther has been appointed as Town Council liaison to the Planning Board. Mr. Hopkins read into the record a statement from Mr. Lowther sent via email to convey that he is thrilled to serve as liaison and looks forward to working with the Planning Board. Mr. Hopkins thanked Mr. Lowther for his kind words and endorsement of the Board’s mission. Ms. Letendre suggested a conversational item be on the next meeting agenda for communications with the Town Council. Ms. Letendre said anyone with interest in the Town marina discussion can contact EDC Vice Chairman Doug Brockway. Ms. Letendre said the Town Council is also looking for a Planning Board volunteer to join their subcommittee on affordable housing. Issues in Bradford are on the Town Manager’s agenda. Ms. Letendre is meeting with the Bradford neighborhood group on February 2 for a two-hour meeting to discuss neighborhood planning and a vision statement for Bradford. There was discussion about the time requirements for volunteering. Mr. Delisio volunteered to participate in the Bradford business.

 

3. Development Project Status Report (updated 12/28/2022) – There was no discussion on this item.

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICTOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

1. Special House Commission on Land Use discussion on affordable housing – Atty. Levesque explained that the Rhode Island House of Representatives formed a land use commission in 2021 to address the State’s affordable housing crisis and to consider any changes in land use laws to achieve more housing. He read from a document that declares the commission’s goals, including possibly reforming Statewide minimum lot sizes, discussion on converting large buildings into smaller units, placing mandates on urban and suburban areas for zero lot lines, and dealing with reducing parking requirements, just to name a few. Some other concepts included standardizing zoning districts and amending the process for unified development by making universal a DPR process for all 39 cities and towns in Rhode Island. If municipalities don’t meet LMI housing expectations they will discuss if the State should step in to achieve it. Atty. Levesque said the commission meets every other Tuesday, and there is public participation. He was not sure how many meetings would remain.

Ms. Letendre said as a member of the American Planning Association (APA), she is part of a large group of planners that meet virtually once a month and they have working groups and stay apprised of State discussions on housing and land use. She was told that by February 14 legislation may be introduced. She said the APA is advocating on behalf of the public interest. Ms. Letendre will update future Planning Board agendas with any State changes.

 

 

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUOROM FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING

 

1.       February 7, 2023 Special Meeting at 6:00pm - CANCELLED

 

2.       February 21, 2023 Regular Meeting at 6:00pm

 

Members of the Planning Board are asked to notify the Administrative Officer if they will not be present at the next regular meeting. The following topics are anticipated to be discussed:

 

·         Route One Corridor Implementation – Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

 

·         Downtown Stormwater Project – Concept Plan

 

There was no discussion on this agenda item.

 

J. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Delisio made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Mr. Hall 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 February 21, 2023