Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 - 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 Tabitha Harkin, Andrew Delisio, James Hall IV, Matthew O’Neil, and Auxiliary Member Karen Lentz Madison

 

Members absent:             Member David A. Giorno and Auxiliary Member Karen Lentz Madison

 

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

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1. April 18, 2023 – Mr. Delisio made a motion to approve the April 18, 2023 meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Mr. Constantine and Ms. Harkin abstained from voting as they were absent from the April meeting. The motion CARRIED.

 

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 –

There was no old business to discuss.

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

1. Update of Westerly Profile | 2020 US Census Data Presentation by University of Rhode Island Graduate Student James McBride on the updated Westerly Community Profile and proposed amendments to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan to incorporate 2020 US Census Data.

 

University of Rhode Island (URI) graduate student James McBride introduced himself to the Board. He explained his internship objective to update the Westerly Community Profile and described the changes made as described in a PowerPoint presentation. He thanked the Planning staff for his time with the municipality. Ms. Letendre said the created documentation will be added to the Town’s Web site. There was some discussion on the data used to edit the Westerly Community Profile. Staff said they would make Mr. McBride’s presentation available to the Planning Board, the Town Council, and any relevant Town subcommittees. Mr. Hopkins announced a resolution of recognition and congratulations to Mr. McBride and read it into the record that he had contributed more than 200 hours of internship work along with the pertinent details of the work.

 

2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects PY2022 Review, discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on the determination of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) proposed project activities for Program Year 2022.

 

            Ms. Oziolor described what the CDBG is and the Town’s proposed projects for this program year. Ms. Harkin made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board hereby finds that the Bowling Lane Water Line Replacement Supplement, Wilcox East Infrastructure Upgrades, Looking Upwards Fairfield Drive Group Home Renovations, Westerly Education Center (WEC) Workforce Development Training Program, Johnnycake Center Emergency Financial Assistance Program, and Meals on Wheels RI (MOWRI) Home Delivered Meals Program activities are compliant with the local development policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and local development ordinances and regulations of the Town of Westerly, as presented in the Office of Planning memorandum dated May 9, 2023 with the subject line ‘Application for Community Development Block Grant - Program Year 2022 Allocation of Funds’. This finding shall be included in the official record of the Town Council’s public hearing on the CDBG PY22 Application and serve to advise the Town Council on the activities’ compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and local development ordinances and regulations. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

3. 2023-LMIH-01: 19 High Street Comprehensive Permit – Pre-Application Review & Request to Combine Master & Preliminary Review Stages (19 High Street | AP 56, Lot 79) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for a Pre-Application Review and request to combine Master & Preliminary Plan Review for a Comprehensive Permit to convert an existing commercial building to a mixed-use building with 12 residential units at 19 High Street (Miceli’s Furniture).

 

Attorney Thomas Liguori, with offices at 85 Beach Street, Westerly, was present on behalf of the applicant, Joseph Miceli. Also present was Attorney Todd Romano, co-counsel to the applicant. Atty. Liguori described the property and the request to the Board. Mr. Miceli shared the history of the furniture business and the aspirations for converting the building to a mixed-use by adding residential units, which he described as an important element for the Downtown area. Atty. Liguori elaborated on the potential parking needs for the project and what the Zoning Ordinance states. He further described the potential benefits of the project to the community.

Ms. Letendre added that the building is the parcel and so there is no site analysis required besides some existing stormwater management. She said staff supports the combination of the review phases. Mr. Delisio asked for clarification on where residents would park. Mr. Miceli shared his Downtown parking observations, having worked in that area for almost three decades. He said there is no prohibition on overnight parking on the street except for the instance of winter storms. Mr. Hall noted that urban living does not always require car ownership. He added that the Canal Street lot by his business is not ever at maximum capacity, and it may seem inconvenient, but it is a possibility for future residents of the project. There was some discussion on the exits and egress plans for the building. Mr. Hopkins shared his thoughts about the project and supported the combination of the review phases. Mr. Hall requested, and Mr. Miceli obliged, to describe the thought process for planning the size of the proposed apartment units.

Mr. Constantine made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board authorizes the submission of a combined Master and Preliminary Plan comprehensive permit application for 19 High Street Mixed-Use Redevelopment (Assessor’s Map 56, Lot 79) provided local reviews and approvals can be obtained prior to the public hearing, Local reviews and approvals shall include, at a minimum: 1. Approval of new unit #s from Town 911 Liaison and 2. Approval from the Utilities Department regarding new public water and sewer use. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

4. 2020-MJS-01: 60 Ledward Avenue – Preliminary Plan Review of Major Subdivision (60 Ledward Avenue | Assessor’s Plat 68, Lot 74) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for a Preliminary Plan Review of a 9-lot (10-unit) residential subdivision including extension of Gardner Drive and a duplex on Ledward Avenue, as well as 2 additional lots “not for development.”

 

Ms. Letendre reviewed that this plan was before the Board two years ago for Master Plan review. She described the history of the project. Present on behalf of the applicants, Joe and Cheech Luzzi, was Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, and project manager Joseph Duhamel, of DiPrete Engineering Associates, Inc.

Atty. Nardone shared the historic details of the project. He said in 2020 they proposed an 11-lot subdivision with single family homes. There were still some concerns and in 2021 further revisions were made to the plan. He said the plan before the Board now is a total of 11 lots, 8 of which are single-family lots proposed on the extension of Gardner Drive, one is a proposed two-family lot accessed off Ledward Avenue that requires Zoning relief, and the other two lots shown as 10 and 11 are conservation area and a drainage feature and detention area, which are labeled “not for development”.

There was a unanimous approval with conditions at the Master Plan phase before the Planning Board and Zoning review was required. Atty. Nardone said they received approval from the Zoning Board for both the Special Use Permit and the 46.98-foot frontage variance on the condition that the Planning Board conditions are implemented. He listed the State approvals received so far by the application. Atty. Nardone explained why the applicant was so amenable to the project changes due to the characteristics of the site, such as the presence of wetlands. He further described the communications with Westerly Land Trust (WLT) on the environmental aspects of the project and a possible purchase of the 8-acre lot 10. Atty. Nardone detailed discussion with Community Housing Land Trust contact on the low- and moderate-income requirements for the plan.

Mr. Duhamel described the existing undeveloped parcel of 11.5 acres. He said the area of the development is limited to the uplands of the site and the wetland buffer will be preserved and is written as part of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) permits. He reviewed the plans for the extension of Gardner Drive. There was discussion on the presence of ledge in the parcels and on the possibility of incorporating basements in some of the proposed homes. Mr. Delisio asked what the plans were for a vegetative buffer along the 12-foot right of way along the property line. Ms. Oziolor said there was discussion about it with the neighbor, as well. Ms. Letendre advised them to look at the landscape plan in more detail and this is one of the features that must be accommodated. She said the plan must also detail if there are significant trees in the area of disturbance. Mr. Duhamel described the locations for future street tree plantings. It was said there are some existing pine trees on the inside of the wall so they will try to retain those and show them on the plan.

Mr. Delisio noted that a traffic study does not seem to be necessary for a road extension that is less than 500 feet on Gardner Drive. Ms. Letendre agreed, and the current traffic volume is typical for an area like this, and the addition of homes will not drastically impact traffic to the area. There was some discussion on the plans for the cul-de-sac and the phasing of the project. Atty. Nardone noted the suggested condition that an independent outside engineer inspect the stormwater system, but it is a significant cost to the developer. He requested it be waived based upon the site’s topography, which is flat, and to the extent that there may be any erosion based on the layout the runoff will stay on individual properties. He confirmed that DiPrete Engineering is hired to do this work and they are amendable to have a reporting system or Town inspections done but to add a third-party obligation is a burden to the applicant. Ms. Letendre said the requirement is a condition on the Master Plan. Ms. Letendre asked about the soil in the roadway as they are reconstructing the road and placing utilities underground. Mr. Duhamel said it is currently loam. Mr. Hopkins suggested that the company provide an affidavit stating the intent and frequency of inspections and maintenance of the stormwater plan and infrastructure on the site during construction. Discussion ensued on the stormwater management plan.  Town staff asked to discuss this matter with the Town Engineer and Department of Public Works to aid the Planning Board in their decision whether to waive this requirement.

Katie Sposato, of 30 Gardner Drive, abuts the project. She asked for more details on the landscape buffer on the property line and how far down the line it will go. She said the existing buffer is sparse. She explained there is a retaining wall on Gardner Drive and asked if it would remain structurally sound throughout the project or if it will be changed. Ms. Sposato noted a recommendation in the staff memo that the project be brought before the Board again if blasting is required and also wanted to know how they would learn the locations and times of blasting. She also asked about the changes to the cul-de-sac and maintenance of that area. She also asked about future snow removal and storage of snow since the cul-de-sac acts as a storage place.

John Sposato, of 30 Gardner Drive, asked if the property on lot 8 must be built on slab and if he heard the applicant correctly. He said the talk of ledge on the property warrants an investigation of it now. He wondered if blasting on one side might affect the infiltration pond. He questioned the appearance of a new cul-de-sac. Mr. Sposato also asked about the potential relocation of a telephone pole and expressed concerns about the discharge berm at the end of the infiltration pond, which is a few feet from the property line. He asked if it could be moved. He said everything beyond lot 8 slopes and this project creates much density on top of the hill. He thanked the Board for their time.

Mr. Hopkins asked the applicant to address the comments of the public. Mr. Duhamel said Town staff advised the cul-de-sac be removed and the road extended into another cul-de-sac in the new development. The sides of the cul-de-sac will be removed and planted with grass. Ms. Letendre recommended on the topic of blasting that notice be given to the Town and neighbors and suggested some verbiage recently created on the topic. Mr. Hopkins said a pre-blast survey should be done prior to any blasting as it helps eliminate questions between developers and neighbors. Mr. Hall recommended property owners take photos of their properties in advance of the project to have documentation of the state of structures before and after any potential blasting. Discussion ensued on the methods for mechanical drilling and Mr. Duhamel referenced a utility pole on the site plan’s sheet 11 that is to remain. A wetland marker on site plan sheet 12 was questioned, and Mr. Duhamel responded that RIDEM moved the marker in verifying the wetland boundary. Mr. Duhamel referenced snow storage areas in the new right of way. There was more discussion on the logistics of the infiltration basins and stormwater management plan.

Mr. Hall wondered if DiPrete Engineering could put in writing why it is reasonable for the Board to waive the requirement of third-party inspections. Ms. Letendre said staff will take recommendations from the Board and return with some further revisions to the conditions. She said she will meet with the applicant tomorrow to review the discussed revisions. New application materials are due by June 9 for the June 20 Planning Board meeting.

Mr. Delisio made a motion to continue the application 2020-MJS-01: 60 Ledward Avenue to the June 20 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Harkins seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

 

1. Development Project Status Report (updated 4/24/2023)

 

2. Administrative Actions – There were no administrative actions to report. Mr. Hopkins said one of the items on the projects in review list related to a Comprehensive Permit by an abutter, which precipitated emails and staff was able to address the issues. That project, Dakota Partners, is coming back to the Board for Final Plan review, Ms. Letendre said.

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICTOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

1. Report on proposed legislation – Atty. Levesque reviewed actions in the State House. A bill introducing revisions to the comprehensive permit review process is on the calendar for discussion. The density bonus scheme was changed, and they are now discussing using Zoning incentives. He reviewed the proposals. The accessory dwelling unit (ADU) legislation passed in a different form, allowing ADUs in all residential districts with a building permit process only. He reviewed the limits such as size and location, and that there is no lot size restriction and the ADU must accommodate a family member or a resident with a disability. ADUs will not be able to be used for short term rentals or third-party renter platforms. Ms. Letendre said ADUs were left out of the 2020 Zoning Ordinance updates and now the Town can readdress them. She noted that a draft list of Ordinance changes that staff began must now be prioritized. Staff may come to the Planning Board with some proposed revisions to move along in the next three or four months as they may possibly be up against a deadline, but ultimately State law will trump local Ordinances and most recent legislation changes will take effect January 2024. It was said that House committees will continue, and the municipalities can discuss the changes as they arise. Part of the State’s urgency with changes is that Zoning processes are being digitized and the State wants to help streamline the permit process.

 

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUOROM FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING

 

1. June 20, 2023 Regular Meeting at 6:00 pm 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):

 

• 60 Ledward Ave

• 107 Main Street Redevelopment – DPR

• 37 & 37A Canal Street Redevelopment – Pre-application

• Application Checklist Updates – LID Regulations

• 62 Airport Road

 

J. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Delisio made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 p.m. Mr. Constanine 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 June 20, 2023