Planning Board – Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, November 14, 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 6:02 p.m.

 

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Chair Justin M. Hopkins, Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, and Secretary Andrew Delisio, Members James Hall IV, and Matthew O’Neil, and Auxiliary Member Karen Lentz Madison

 

Members absent:

 

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

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1. September 19, 2023 – Mr. Hall made a motion to approve as submitted the September 19, 2023 Planning Board meeting minutes. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with abstentions from Mr. Hopkins and Ms. Lentz-Madison who were both absent on September 19.

 

2. October 17, 2023 – Ms. Lentz-Madison made a motion to approve as submitted the October 17, 2023 Planning Board meeting minutes. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

3. November 7, 2023 – The minutes were not available for review.

 

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. 2023-DPR-07: Deck Access Door Replacement (113 Bay Street | AP 185, Lot 32D-4) Continuation to January 9, 2024, meeting by the Planning Board on the Development Plan Review for proposed replacement of a deck access door and windows at 113 Bay Street in the Shore Commercial- Watch Hill (SC-WH) Zoning District.

 

Ms. Letendre said she received a request from the applicant’s attorney requesting a continuance to January 9, 2024.

Mr. Hall made a motion to continue the application to the January 9, 2024 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Lentz-Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. 2023-LMIH-03– Combined Master & Preliminary Plan Review – Comprehensive Permit – Trendsetter Multifamily Residential (26 and 28 School Street | Assessor’s Map 66, Lots 91 & 91A) Links Below Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on a combined Master & Preliminary Plan review of a Comprehensive Permit for multi-family development of 54 apartments with 25% (14 units) at 80% AMI.

 

· Revised Plan Submission – 11-09-2023

 

Mr. Hopkins explained the procedure for hearing the application. Ms. Letendre asked that the staff memo dated November 7 for today’s meeting be marked as Board’s Exhibit 2. She clarified what she thinks is the final ask of the applicant in the table that says “recommended changes to the Zoning relief that is requested.” The proposed project is on the revised plans and is under discussion tonight. There was a summary of the proposed modifications that were received in the recent application submission. Ms. Letendre said some documents were received Thursday night that the Planning Board does not yet have and project engineer Sergio Cherenzia, principal of Cherenzia & Associates, LTD., 99 Mechanic Street, Pawcatuck, CT will distribute them. Descriptions were given of construction between phase 1 and phase 2. Ms. Letendre pointed out a mistake on page 8 of Board’s Exhibit 2 that it should read “minimum of 26 units” instead of “maximum.” Ms. Letendre intended to set up the comprehensive permit standards and development plan review (DPR) standards in a way that the Board could easily review and decide about the project.

Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, representing the applicant, Jeffrey Pucci, principal of Trendsetter LLC, was present. He incorporated into the record correspondence to the Planning Board dated November 8, 2023 and indicating items 1 through 7, which was marked Applicant’s 1, as well as a correspondence dated November 9, 2023 addressed to the Town Planner including items 1 through 5. Ms. Letendre said she does not have that yet. Atty. Nardone said the cover letter dated November 8 contains two superseded items 6 and 7, modified from a previous submission, and the November 9 letter with items 1 through 5 was marked Applicant’s 2.

Landscape architect Rebecca Nolan explained the plans submitted includes a phasing plan, as well as updates to the parking for items 6 and 7 on Applicant’s 1.

Also present at the meeting were Ed Pimentel, Planning Consultant, Paul Bannon, traffic engineer, and Peter Springsteel. Atty. Nardone introduced Mr. Pimentel to provide testimony. The applicant’s hired stenographer, Meredith Fortune, swore Mr. Pimentel in for public testimony. He reviewed his opinions on the project and his updated report based on updated housing data from the 2020 census. He summed it up in six points in his analysis. He said that Rhode Island is in dire need of housing and affordable housing, adding that a year ago it appeared that Westerly was at 5.1 percent of the 10 percent low and moderate income (LMI) housing stock mandate, but that number dropped to 4.87 percent, according to the most recent data. He reviewed new legislature on housing from the State in January. He said he thinks the area is appropriate for the project and it is one of the few areas of Downtown Westerly that could accommodate a project like this and that has resources and services within a quarter mile. Mr. Pimentel’s comments were available in a three-page memo to the Board. He clarified that his previously submitted project analysis was based on projections and this analysis was based on most more recent data. Mr. Delisio asked if the project was too dense for its location and Mr. Pimentel said it was not and the location could handle a more dense project. He said all the services and infrastructure are present and can accommodate the project. Mr. Pimentel said what will happen with the State statute moving forward is a mandatory minimum density for housing projects. Mr. Hall asked if he reviewed Westerly’s Affordable Housing Plan before his opinion was issued and he said yes. Mr. Hall asked if he thought that the implementation of Westerly’s housing was affected by the Covid pandemic and Mr. Pimentel responded no, as that was a two to three-year period out of an almost 20-year period of observed time where there was only a 16-unit housing stock increase. Mr. Pimentel said the strategies in the affordable housing plan are not effective and housing could be more densified. He elaborated on the topic of density and why this location of Westerly was ideal for the project. Mr. Pimentel recommended to the Board, to better understand minimum density bonuses, that the Town do an analysis of infrastructure, as well as another housing analysis. Mr. Pimentel said there have been a total of 16 units gained over 20-year game plan and if this project were approved it would provide 7 units, which is nearly half of what was gained in the last 18 years. He said there were other State communities that dropped by percentage points in LMI housing. Mr. Hall asked if there is logic behind density bonuses and asked if he is aware why the State legislature didn’t set the number higher. Mr. Pimentel said the new law will set a density mandate even if the infrastructure is not present.

Mr. Cherenzia was sworn in for public testimony. He displayed the site plan last dated November 8, 2023 with a revised master and preliminary plan. There was a prepared summary of the proposed modifications in Applicant’s 1. The project previously had 54 units with 81 bedrooms and was reduced to 42 units with 67 bedrooms; 17 one-bedroom units and 25 two-bedroom units. Parking calculations are provided. Originally there were 85 spaces required and provided based on 1 space per bedroom and the November 8 plans require 63 spaces, but 69 spaces are provided. There is an overall reduction in impervious area of over 12,000 square feet and since the project dropped the land area of the adjacent single-family lot, it has decreased by 7.35 percent in impervious area. Mr. Cherenzia described the front of the proposed building, which was moved farther away from School Street and he said the southwest portion of the site is significantly different. He was able to remove the access drive and the parking. He said they will still need the area for emergency access to function but it is to be used primarily by tenants as functional outdoor space. Mr. Cherenzia said he met with the Town Engineer regarding the stormwater plan and they are close to having Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) approval. He also described the phase 1 and phase 2 layout and materials plan.

Mr. Delisio clarified that the applicant is seeking relief of the requirement for impervious surface. He suggested that including the extra lot would bring the project closer to meeting the requirement for impervious surface area and would not require the applicant to request relief. Mr. Cherenzia said it is a separate lot of record and not needed for the density of the project. Mr. Hopkins said currently as it exists, the two parcels are separate from the property in question. There was some discussion on setback requirements and the project’s phasing plan. Mr. Constantine referenced the relief sought for the rear setback due to the second-floor expansion and suggested the new building move ten feet to the south so they have a 15-foot buffer. Mr. Cherenzia said some parking may be lost but they could consider it.

Ms. Nolan, the project’s landscape architect with offices at 44 Water Street, Mystic, CT, was sworn in for public testimony. She displayed the landscape context from Elm Street suggested by Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission (RIHPHC.) The School Street landscape context was also displayed and described. Ms. Nolan proceeded to describe the planned landscaping and street tree design for the site. Circulation around the building was a concern of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the RIHPHC so they lined up the access points at the building. She said the cross walk could be considered permeable. She provided many details on the plan. The new landscaping plan was submitted on November 7 after ARB comments received. Mr. Hopkins complimented the presentation. Ms. Nolan said this project is close to amenities Downtown and it is exactly where you would want to do an infill development. She said they cannot assume everyone living here would have cars and the applicant is trying to balance the amount of parking and the concerns of the neighborhood.

Mr. Springsteel, a licensed architect in Rhode Island, of 105 Starr Street, Mystic, CT, was sworn in for public testimony. He shared an aerial view of the site plan. He said that the new construction decreased by 24 feet in length and by 6 units. The new plan includes redesigning in response to comments from RIHPCH. Mr. Springsteel also addressed ARB comments, including that all the AC units are now on the roof and screened. He said there is no better site in Westerly for a housing project close to services.

There was some discussion on the architectural redesign. There was a consensus of the Board that the design was improved from previous application submissions. Mr. Constantine suggested the applicant consider making the new building two stories instead of three to decrease the density, but it would lose nine units, two of which would be LMI.

Atty. Nardone said Mr. Bannon is here if anyone has questions.

The Board called a recess at 8:17 p.m. and reconvened 8:26 p.m. Ms. Lentz-Madison left the meeting at this time.

Mr. Hopkins described the procedure for public comment and asked that repetitive or supportive comments be kept as brief as possible.

Richard Wolak, of 33 Elm Street, shared concerns about potential stormwater runoff. He submitted to the Board a USB drive with a 90-second video of stormwater runoff filmed on Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 4:30 p.m. at the intersection of Elm and School Street, which was played on the monitor in Council Chambers. The video was marked as Remonstrance 1. He said with the curb cuts and crowning of parking areas in the planned project, he finds it hard to believe they will not introduce more water to the street.

Doug Brockway, of 32 Chestnut Street, introduced himself as a retired Westerly Zoning Board member, current Vice Chairman of the Westerly Economic Development Commission (EDC), the Town’s Ad-hoc Marina Committee member, he helped to write the Route 1 Corridor Study, and is an EDC representative on an Ad-hoc Town group communicating with Rhode Island Senator Victoria Gu on commuter rail. He submitted to the record a five-page document marked Remonstrance 2 and reviewed its content of the document, which featured concerns about the proposed project. Mr. Brockway said he gets the sense that the applicant is preparing for a possible appeal, and the developer decreasing the project from 52 to 44 units is not a concession as the neighborhood always requested a project in the low 40s. He said it is a negotiation tactic and does not decrease the density significantly. He commented that any costs of the application are at the risk of the developer and not the public and the applicant may not imposition the community because of the risk of the project and its investment.

Phil Fitzpatrick, of 60 Elm Street, said he hopes that somewhere in the new application it is clear how people can reach the landlord. He said the applicant previously mentioned that there is space for an on-site manager and there seems to be no provision, so he hopes it is taken care of. He said the parking provisions, while superficially meeting the Town standard, are “nuts.” Mr. Fitzpatrick said this development is not about LMI housing, but it is about getting good returns on the investment. He said there is nothing wrong with bare naked capitalism, but this project’s requested benefits are premised upon the idea that there will be community benefit and a benefit to the LMI housing inventory. He says the accommodations for LMI are minimal. He claimed that there is no sacrifice here and it should be contrasted with the Wells Street project, which did more for LMI. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the applicant is asking for maximum accommodations in every regard.

 

Chris Lawlor, of 8 Bucks Trail, said he drives through the area a lot. He was serving on the Planning Board when the first submission from this applicant was received in 2020 and he thinks that the size is still an issue. He also shared concerns for stormwater management and the effect this project may have on the Town’s water supply and wastewater treatment plant. He suggested the Town create a report using 2021 as a base year and add the most recent housing developments to understand the effect on the water supply. Mr. Lawlor said that the neighborhood seems to accept the need for LMI housing, but it should not be to the detriment of the area. He said things have to be done for the best of the Town and not the bottom line.

Ed Marolda, of 40 Elm Street, submitted a letter on behalf of the neighborhood group, Elm Street Cares. A letter dated November 8, 2023 with comments responding to Mr. Pimentel’s report was also received from Mr. Marolda and included in the record. He thought Mr. Springsteel’s drawings were a significant improvement from the past. He questioned the RIHPCH opinions and wondered if they reviewed the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and understood that part of this project would require a large underground stormwater infiltration system. He noted that the Town is involved in a Main Street stormwater infrastructure plan and this project could exacerbate issues to the Pawcatuck River. Mr. Marolda also questioned Mr. Pimentel’s expert opinion and stated that he found his report insulting. He called the density decrease statistically insignificant and that the project is more than numbers and should also be about the character of the community. It should be about balance. He asked the Planning Board to consider that the neighbors do not reject the project, but only its size and scale.

Vincent Kubisko, of 219 High Street, a native with a degree in civil engineering and a 2014 Westerly High School graduate, now lives in Downtown Westerly. He said he pays $1,700 for a two- bedroom apartment. He asked the Planning Board to look at the human problem of housing in the area. He said having 11 LMI units means 11 people or families get housing. Mr. Kubisko said the younger demographic is dwindling in this area due to housing issues and they cannot keep Westerly “frozen in amber” and rejecting a project purely on aesthetics is not wise. He said he supports the project if they make the infrastructure improvements to allow it.

Ed Rice, of 22 Cross Street, cochair of Westerly’s Ad-hoc Affordable Housing Committee study, will report to the Planning Board and Town Council before Christmas. He said they have had six months of studying and understanding the issues and over the next six months they will get feedback and data from the consultant, Camoin, who is working on a housing assessment study. He urged the Board to look optimistically at how to solve the issues of LMI housing. He said that Mr. Marolda provided details on why this project is not key for LMI inventory.

Tara Whelan, of 43 Elm Street, commented that earlier Mr. Pimentel said Westerly has a unique Downtown and this is why it is a desirable place and expensive place to live. She said the project still looks like a Holiday Inn Express in a historic district. She asked the Board to consider who is benefiting from the project.

Jamie Burstell, of 38 Elm Street, showed support for the neighborhood group Elm Street Cares and asked the Board to be sensitive to all the issues discussed.

Mr. Hopkins reminded the public there are two vacancies on the Planning Board.

Atty. Nardone said he will not rebut every comment, as the applicant has had many expert witnesses testifying at the Board and not one refuted the project. He said that the application checks all the boxes; the location is ideal, as it is close to all amenities and services. One comment he wanted to correct was that it was said that the design and desire was to create one two-family lot and one single- family lot, but what they created was two residential lots that meet the R6 requirements. He said the applicant does not know what will be built there. He said another misnomer is with respect to the potential rent cost that was mentioned by a member of the public, but what was left out is that the developer pays all the utilities out of the LMI rental cost. Atty. Nardone requested that the Board close the hearing and enter the discussions needed. He reiterated that the applicant has made significant modifications to the plans and they think it is a good project for the Town.

Mr. O’Neil shared concerns about the stormwater system and how to alleviate the concerns of the community. Mr. Hall asked if Mr. Pimentel’s opinion was the result of seeing that there were only 16 LMI units added to the Town’s inventory between 2005 and 2023. Mr. Hall said the State of Rhode Island approved the Town’s plan for housing in 2021 so what Mr. Pimentel is doing is relying on older numbers, but the state approved plan. Ms. Fortune read back the dialogue from the meeting on the topic and Mr. Pimentel returned to testify on the methods of his analysis. Mr. O’Neil commented about the parking restriction on School Street and asked if it would be appropriate to also prohibit parking from Elm to Chestnut Street. Ms. Letendre said if the Board agrees, she can make that request to the Town Manager.

There was extensive discussion on how to proceed with the application. The Board plans to render a decision at the next regular meeting on December 19. Mr. Delisio voted to close the public hearing. Mr. Hall was concerned that if they close the public hearing, it may limit the public’s ability to contribute to the process.

There was consensus to approve the relief request of the rear yard setback because of the existing condition. There was discussion about the reduction of a 20-foot landscape buffer. The Town Planner recommended the approval of landscaping as provided. Mr. O’Neil said he thinks keeping the new building’s position as proposed is the best. Mr. Hall said the density of the project and potential population warrants more common space and green space. Mr. Hopkins agreed and said the Board still needs to discuss the density issues. Mr. Hall said he is concerned that the Board discussing the details of the application is a way of backing into a decision and they first need to discuss the density and not mislead the applicant or the public. He said he respects the need for LMI housing, but he was not satisfied with Mr. Pimentel’s report. He takes issue with a density bonus of 200 percent when the bonus set by the State is 66 percent. Mr. Hall cannot justify the percentage of density increase and does not want to set a precedent. Mr. Delisio said he disagrees, and the project is not just about LMI or affordable units, but addresses a real need for housing in Westerly. He said parking may be an issue but traffic does not appear to be a threat and the project will be buffered once the landscaping is completed. Mr. Delisio reminded the Board that the State says they are in a housing crisis and that requires response. Mr. O’Neil agreed housing is obviously a problem and if Westerly cannot meet the LMI housing inventory mandates, the State may assume authority. He questioned other alternatives to get to the 10 percent LMI housing stock and said he would be much happier about approving the project if they had more LMI units for the requested density. Mr. Constantine said one of the keystones of the Comprehensive Plan is to help neighborhoods improve their area and he believes that accepting the density as high as the applicant is requesting may not be beneficial for that sector of Town. Mr. Hopkins said the additional risk is the State’s influence on the project if the Board does not decide and guide the project. He said this is the first time that the application is in a state where he feels he can see moving it forward as there were substantial changes in size. There was substantial discussion on the density of the project and the applicant’s justification for the request. Atty. Nardone asked the Board to consider the totality of the circumstances, the location, the utilities available, and the numbers. Conversation ensued on the rationale for densifying in this specific location of Westerly.

Mr. Hall made a motion to continue the public hearing to the December 19 Planing Board meeting. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. In discussion, Ms. Letendre asked the Board to consider moving it to December 5 to ensure ample time for discussion. She said some other December 5 agenda items can be continued to December 19 to create more time. Mr. Hall made a motion to continue the Trendsetter, LLC. public hearing to the December 5 Planning Board meeting. Mr. O’Neil seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

 

· Public Comments – 11-08-2023

 

· 2023-LMIH-03 AO Memo – 11-09-2023

 

· ARB & RIHPHC Recommendations

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

There was no new business to discuss.

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

 

1.      Development Project Status Report - yearend report will be available December 19th

 

2.      Administrative Actions - None

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

There was no report.

 

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUOROM FOR NEXT MEETINGS

 

1. December 5, 2023 Special Meeting at 6:00pm

 

· CIP discussion and recommendation to the Town Manager

 

· Recommendation to Town Council on Section 260-50 Amendments

 

· Continued discussion of Route One Corridor Comprehensive Plan Amendments and direction to staff. – This will be delayed until December 19.

 

2. December 19, 2023 Regular Meeting at 6:00pm

 

· Decision on Trendsetter multi-family 28 School Street

 

Ms. Lentz-Madison will not be present for this meeting.

 

J. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Hall made a motion to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 11:12 p.m. Mr. O’Neil 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 12-5-2023