Planning Board – Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, February 6, 2024 - 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 6:00 p.m.

 

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Chair Justin M. Hopkins, Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, and Secretary Andrew Delisio, Members Matthew O’Neil, Christopher K. Lawlor, Jack Armstrong, and Auxiliary Member Karen Lentz Madison

 

Members absent:

 

Staff present:                   Assistant Solicitor for Planning and Zoning Dylan Conley, Town Planner Nancy Letendre, Principal Planner Aidan Adams, Information Technology Technician Lanny Fuller, and Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota

 

Mr. Hopkins welcomed Jack Armstrong back to the Board as a full member.  He previously served on the Planning Board. Mr. Hopkins introduced the new Principal Planner Aidan Adams. He asked Attorney Dylan Conley to address the public with the procedural rules for the hearing tonight. Atty. Conley explained some of the changes that occurred with Rhode Island Land Use Law and how that may effect projects filed and vested in 2023. He explained that the Planning Board will review a motion requesting an endorsement of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) initiative to request that the Town Council schedule a work session to review a draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating a Golf-Resort Overlay District. Atty. Conley read the complete motion into the record, which was later discussed under related business. Atty. Conley said the recommendation of staff is that there be an opportunity tonight for the public to discuss the project and for the applicant and the Board to address questions and the application will be continued to March 5. He emphasized that tonight’s hearing is to gather input and comments and the application will not be concluded this evening.

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

There were no minutes on the agenda.

 

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 on the agenda.

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

1. 2024-ATC-01 – Zoning Amendment – Golf Resort Overlay District & Zone Change (several parcels associated with 184 Shore Road| Assessor’s Map 141, Lot 94 & A.P. 119, Lots 3P, 5E3; A.P. 129, Lot 2; A.P. 130, Lots 4, 6; A.P. 140, Lots 4, 10, 13; A.P. 141, Lots 25, 95, 191) Discussion and vote, with a continuance by the Planning Board on a request from the Economic Development Commission for Planning Board consideration and recommendation to the Town Council on the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance creating a new zoning overlay district regulating a golf resort.

 

Doug Brockway, chairman of the EDC, was present on behalf of the agenda item. Former chairman and Westerly citizen Jim Torres also joined him. Mr. Brockway asked that the Planning Board review an attached draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create a Golf-Resort Overlay District, only for the golf club and not the whole commercial recreation zone as this would allow Winn Properties to reintroduce a hospitality plan from 2022 with some modifications and it would keep the golf course about 70 percent green space. He said this hospitality option would involve a hotel and a set of condominiums, but it would be a lesser project than the submitted comprehensive permit from Winn Properties, which proposes 2,300 condominium units and greatly reduces green space.

Mr. Brockway said the draft amendment dictates that the green space be used as a golf course. The submitted comprehensive permit is on an accelerated timeline and the Board has 90 days to review the request, which is why the EDC is moving quickly to propose this alternative. There was some discussion about what this hospitality option would mean for affordable housing possibilities. He explained that he and Mr. Torres met with one of the principals of Winn Properties, Nick Scola, to listen to what he would have proposed if he was allowed to do whatever he wanted and that is the impetus for the amendment. Mr. Brockway said the owner and Keep Westerly Green (KWG) are not going to agree on everything, but many may be more in favor of a hospitality project than the 2,300-unit affordable housing project. He said the proposed ordinance amendment is taken from the 2002 draft. The applicant’s attorney wrote it and EDC and Planning Office staff reviewed it, as well.  Mr. Brockway said any reference to a 9-hole golf course needs to be removed, and there needs to be clarification in the document about a possible set of cottages envisioned between holes 15 and 17 on the course. Mr. Lawlor asked if there is a sequence for improvements to the buildings. Mr. Brockway said the golf course must be improved before the buildings are completed. Mr. Brockway’s impression from conversations with Winn Properties was that as long as they have confidence that the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is permitted and a master plan follows, they’ll continue with the idea, and we do not expect them to withdraw it. Mr. Lawlor read the proposed amendment regarding tourism and green space. Mr. Brockway said one of the values of the EDC is to improve Westerly’s year-round economy and this project addresses that. Mr. Delisio said this seems like such a quick process to determine something on this scale. Mr. Brockway said the hospitality option was already reviewed and approved two years ago. Ms. Letendre added that the golf course option is dependent on Winn Properties filing a Master Plan application for a golf resort but after tonight she foresees the zoning text amendment going to Town Council and to be under discussion at the February 20 Planning Board meeting and a February 26 Town Council workshop. She said it is a possibility they could have a Master Plan golf resort discussion on March 5 and a possibly approval with a formal recommendation for a Zoning change to Town Council on March 19. Mr. Brockway said the EDC is involved because of the dynamics of the overlay process in order to get ahead of the 2,300-housing unit comprehensive permit process. Mr. Torres said the EDC was against the affordable housing option and thinks a better use of the land was a golf course. Not only did the Planning Board already approve the 2022 project, but the Architectural Review Board (ARB) went at it strongly also, and many of the specifications were included in that review. EDC took the initiative to be sure green space was preserving. Winn Properties will be at the February 20 meeting and KWG will provide input. Atty. Conley advised that the historical context is valuable, but it is not relevant to the application of this evening as this is a new application. Mr. Hopkins said in his opinion it is a good time to have simultaneous conversations. There was a discussion on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and environmental regulations. Mr. Torres clarified that the EDC is trying to facilitate a win-win situation for the community. Mr. Constantine thanked them for their efforts. There was discussion on density in the area and how the draft amendment may affect the commercial recreation zone. It was said that the Master Plan will establish the maximum infrastructure and density based on the golf course. Ms. Letendre said they are suggesting a 70 to 30 percent ratio with 70 percent being green space. Mr. Torres said the Planning Board should ensure that Town Council puts this item on their February 12 calendar so that a February 26 meeting gets scheduled. Mr. Hopkins read the proposed EDC motion into the record. “The EDC hereby requests that the Planning Board review the attached draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment crating a Golf-Resort Overlay District, in accordance with the amendment process required by State and local regulations. The Board is asked to : 1. Begin their review on February 6th  with a formal referral of the ordinance to staff and legal counsel (for review/consideration and recommendation) 2. Schedule the Board’s review for the February 20th  regular meeting, and 3. Support the EDC’s request to the Town Council for a work session the week of February 26th.

Mr. Delisio made the motion as read by Mr. Hopkins. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Hopkins thanked the EDC for their efforts.

 

2. 2023-LMIH-04 – Master Plan Review – Winnapaug Residences Comprehensive Permit Multifamily Residential (several parcels associated with 184 Shore Road| Assessor’s Map 141, Lot 94 & A.P. 119, Lots 3P, 5E3; A.P. 129, Lot 2; A.P. 130, Lots 4, 6; A.P. 140, Lots 4, 10, 13; A.P. 141, Lots 25, 95, 191) Public hearing to include review discussion and possible action or continuance by the Planning Board on a Comprehensive Permit. The application proposes constructing ninety (90) three- story structures comprised of a mixture of apartment units distributed on several properties associated with the current Winnapaug Golf Course, at 184 Shore Road.  The proposal includes a total of 2,300 rental units of which 1,610 are market rate units and 690 (30%) are LMI qualified units.

 

Mr. Hopkins reviewed the procedure for hearing the application. Attorney Matthey Landry from the offices of Blish and Cavanagh, LLP., Providence was present on behalf of the application. Atty. Landry said the overall goal is to get approval and return in several phases, providing the Board with several opportunities over the course of the development period to weigh in on the project. He said the applicant agreed to set aside more than 30 percent of the proposed units for deed restricted low and moderate income (LMI) housing, which is 690 affordable units distributed throughout the project with the same design as the other housing. He said the whole development will take seven to ten years. He addressed the concerns of KWG and stated that the application was certified complete in 2023 and is protected from changes in land use law in 2024.

Atty. Landry introduced the project’s certified engineer, David Held, of Provost and Rovero, Plainfield, Connecticut. He displayed and described the site plans to the Board. He reiterated that it is a seven to ten-year timeline for the completion of the project and it is likely that the exact parameters of a site plan will change as a sewer plan progresses. He said development area 5 is made of 360 units and 1.4 parking spaces per unit is proposed. It was said that the soils on site are favorable for a potential septic system installation if necessary. Atty. Landry said they are aware they are in an overlay district and Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC) has jurisdiction, but they are willing to comply with regulations. Waivers are requested with respect to multifamily residential housing and no waivers for setbacks or landscape buffering are required. Doug Mclean, a professional planner and Director of Planning in Coventry, Rhode Island, testified on the application about how it is in line with State guidelines and the urgent need for affordable housing. He also described why he thought the comprehensive permit is consistent with Westerly’s Comprehensive Plan and overall vision. He read into the record from page 4 of the plan how the vision statement related directly to the application for increasing residential density and LMI housing. Mr. Mclean read statistics on housing in Westerly. The plan identifies that the most effective way to create LMI is through comprehensive permits, such as what is being proposed today. His opinion is that the Master Plan satisfied the conditions for the comprehensive permit. Atty. Landry asked Mclean a series of questions confirming details of the findings.

Jill Scola, one of the principals of Winn Properties, said the project is important to her family to provide housing for local professionals and people who need affordable housing. They think it is a wonderful location with green space, local paths, and ocean views and they will investigate incorporating solar power into the plans. Atty. Landry said they will bring a traffic expert in on the plan in the future.

Mr. O’Neil said at this preliminary stage to say there are no traffic or environmental concerns comes across as disingenuous. He agrees that LMI housing is needed, but this project would create 21 percent increase of the total number of houses in Westerly and he is concerned about the services required and the potential strain on local resources and schools. Mr. Mclean said they need to show that they have the possibility to mitigate the environmental impacts and he believes they do to a satisfactory degree at this stage. Mr. O’Neil read from Mr. Mclean’s report and said in the document itself there are discrepancies between the plans, such as the locations of buildings and current wetlands. He also heard no discussion tonight on emergency response plans and he suggested the applicant better communicate what is written for the public. Atty. Landry said they haven’t done a full fiscal impact study yet, but they are examining data.

Mr. Lawlor said the main impact of the project is infrastructure and it appears that the density is too high for the area so the Town must be prepared as they move forward. He referenced the cost of the sewer system study that is upcoming and commented on the potential effects to the water system. Mr. Lawlor read a list of reports the applicant should provide the Board; a sewer report, comments from he fire chief, a school report for taxes and placement of students, comments from the Town Manager and Finance Director on potential tax effects, a traffic study on a five-mile radius area, a report on available recreational facilities, and a Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) report. He shared concerns about the effects to Winnapaug Pond and commented that Westerly is a unique Town, and he gets the feeling that the State does not care about character and certain details, but is only looking at the numbers. Each Town will have to fight their own battles based on their infrastructure and the needs of their citizens. He added that Westerly has until the year 2040 to get to the 10 percent LMI mandate and not 2024 so this application does not need to be pushed.

Mr. Delisio said affordable housing has to be shared throughout the State, but it seems that Westerly is carrying the load with this project, and he questioned the amount of housing on the site. He questioned Mr. Mclean’s opinion on the amount of housing and if he would approve of such a project in Coventry where he works. Mr. Mclean noted that Westerly is not the only Town that has not met the 10 percent and there is work to be done all over the State. He said there is no doubt the number of units is a lot but it is a viable project through a comprehensive permit and allowable by the State. Mr. Constantine said one of his concerns is that the Planning Board is asked to weigh the benefits of LMI against other issues and concerns in the community, such as forgoing open spaces, the environment, and potentially losing the only publicly accessible golf course, so he needs more information. Mr. Armstrong said the population has remained stable and to set up 2,300 apartments he questioned from where the renters would be. He thinks some may become summer rentals which does not benefit the local community. Mr. Mclean said he did not have specific market data now to respond to those questions. Mr. Hopkins said the one thing that has not remained stable is school enrollment and it has decreased. He commented that typically a comprehensive permit is smaller in scale and there is a more measurable immediate impact on parking and traffic, but when looking at something like this that is like the size of a college campus, the Planning Board must consider other elements in a long-term scale. He agreed there is an affordable housing issue in Westerly, but they need to be responsible with how they deal with it.

The Board took a recess at 8:15 p.m. and returned at 8:20 p.m. to take public comment. All public comments were included in the video recording of the Planning Board meeting and comments included in the minutes are redacted for the sake of brevity.

Alicia Schaffner, executive director of the Salt Pond Coalition (SPC), spoke and said her goal was to advocate for Winnapaug Pond. An official letter from SPC dated January 31, 2024 was submitted for the record as Exhibit 1. She said the SPC has monitored the water quality on the pond for 40 years. She shared concerns about the project’s negative impact on the pond and excess sewage from this project is a top concern. She asked the Board to consider future generations when deliberating this project.

Attorney Peter Skwirz, with a law office in Providence, spoke on behalf of Keep Westerly Green (KWG.) He referenced the hospitality project option as a viable alternative for the applicant. He noted that the 90-day timeclock on the comprehensive permit application could be granted by default by the State statute. He said it is important to know that the applicant could stop the timeclock to consider the hospitality option and get the details if they wanted to. He said that a project of this size has a provision in the fire code that there needs to be a study and the Master Plan submitted is not adequate to review this so he suggested it not proceed. Atty. Skwirz said the request for 2,300 units on a parcel of 120 acres is astounding and it would be like putting a town inside a town. He said under the comprehensive permit act as of January 1 they did a lot to promote affordable housing, but they established a baseline for density based on water, sewer, and the percentage of LMI proposed. He stated his objections on the grounds of the potential effects to finite resources, the project density, that it is not the right project, and they do not have appropriate materials. A letter from Atty. Skwirz’ s office dated February 4, 2024 was submitted for the record as Exhibit 2.

Nina Rossomando, of 12 West Fairway Avenue, a member of KWG, and an abutter of the Winnapaug Golf Course, said the group formed three years ago to advocate the maintenance of green space, protect residential areas with reasonable changes to density, and to support projects with the intention of preserving and improving neighborhoods. She said they support increasing LMI housing over the next 10 years. Ms. Rossomando suggested that the Route 1 corridor is a better location for a project such as this and near more services. KWG is asking that the Planning Board reject the comprehensive permit unless they address KWG’s concerns. She recommended the Town hire outside experts to render opinions on health and safety issues as the proposed project is a massive overdevelopment in an ecologically sensitive area. She said a development of this size is an existential threat to the Town.

Erin Collins, of 4 Whales View Drive, read a letter into the record, which was submitted along with a large package from KWG prior to the meeting and was marked as Exhibit 3. The letter referred to the Planning Board’s process for approving comprehensive permits. She read that the project is not in line with Westerly’s Comprehensive Plan as all residential projects must have the intent to preserve the character of this area and this project does not do that because of the proposed density. Ms. Collins listed the negative impacts of the potential project. The letter stated that the golf course is not a suitable site for a project like this. She further commented about environmental concerns and read the values of the Westerly Comprehensive Plan with which projects should align.

Frank Voldicelli, of 18 West Fairway Avenue, said the project is just too large and the influx in population will stress local services. He hopes Westerly can find a location that is best for LMI and affordable housing and heed the concerns of KWG.

Jeff Gardner, of 227 Shore Road, and owner of Watch Hill Oysters, shared his professional background and perspectives of the project as a local business owner who is very reliant on the water quality of Winnapaug Pond. Mr. Gardner stated that the pond has only been closed three times in 30 years for water quality and if it gets shut down due to this massive project the negative effects to the economy and environment will be great. Mr. Gardner said they are currently working to create a shellfish reef in the pond and he has partnered with the United States Department of Agriculture to do everything they can to keep Winnapaug Pond clean. Mr. Gardner supported property owners’ building, however, he said this project is too large.

Westerly citizen Jack Carson spoke from his long history of experience as a golf player. He began his career as a caddy at Winnapaug Golf Course in 1955. He provided a list of all the open space in the Westerly area that could be considered for development but said Winnapaug Golf Course should not be one of them. He listed some potential areas for development, such as the former Benny’s building in Dunns Corners, which has been vacant for five years. Mr. Carson said the golf course is responsible in many ways for making life good for the greatest generation and it would be shameful if we allowed it to be housing when there is other potential around Town for affordable and realistic housing.

Thomas Micele, of 42 Quannacut Road, Westerly, appreciated the questions the Planning Board asked the applicant. He said he thinks 2,300 units at Winnapaug Golf Course is ludicrous, but it should be done in a sensible manner. He questioned the applicant’s motivations for proposing this project and requested they consider a more reasonable project.

Scott Howie, of 2 Trolley Lane, said he and his wife moved here about 10 years ago from the Washington D.C. area and they love it. He enjoys the population density of Westerly and believes this proposed project is too large and would be detrimental for the Town.

Westerly resident Gregory Medina asked clarifying questions about the details of the project and the idea of a potential hospitality project via an amended Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Medina stated he was representing the interests of the Murano family, of 8 Linwood Avenue, and he moved from Alaska to assist the family. He shared his background in construction and project management and conveyed that the primary concerns seem to be environmentally related to the pond. He questioned if potential upgrades to the Westerly Wastewater Treatment Facility factored in this massive project. His main question is how will this effect local tax rates. Mr. Hopkins responded that the application is for a large housing project but there is a separate option for a resort or hotel project the applicant may choose to pursue based on the Town’s acceptance of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to the Golf Course Overlay District to allow it.

Jean Riendeau, of 43 Chapman Road, thanked the Planning Board for their thoughtful questioning of the project. He said there are collateral impacts and clearly the group understands that. He said he was surprised and disappointed that the Town would hear a project of this magnitude and have it in this space. Mr. Riendeau suggested the Board consider a public auditorium for future hearings where everyone can attend since the Council Chambers was full and left to standing room only. He asked how the applicant decided on 2,300 units.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion to continue the public hearing to the March 5 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Lentz-Madison seconded the motion. Atty. Conley clarified that they are not foreclosing on the applicant’s ability to respond to comments tonight. Mr. Lawlor withdrew his motion.

 

Mr. Hopkins responded to Mr. Riendeau that they will investigate other locations in the future. They did have local police presence in the building tonight for safety and the local authorities were aware of the high attendance of the meeting.

Atty. Landry thanked the public for the comments and said the applicant will listen and try to address concerns. He said many of the comments echo the concerns of the Planning Board and will be considered and addressed through supplemental reports and documentation. He shared that the application was previously for 3,000 units but was scaled back to respect appropriate buffers and the consideration of building heights. He states the proposal is not a tool to leverage anything but an application with a desire to provide LMI housing to an area in need as there are few properties able to handle this amount of density. There was some discussion on TRC (tax residence certificate) jurisdiction and the implications of that.

Ms. Letendre had listed a few items she thought would be important to discuss and asked the Planning Board to take a position on TRC. She recommended the Board hire a peer review expert. Ms. Letendre said she is gathering details for a Preliminary Plan to establish if this project moves forward how it will be managed as it is a large process. She had questions about the other information to be received and even though this is a Master Plan, she suggested that certain Zoning aspects be addressed.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion to continue the application to the March 5 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

 

There was no report or discussion.

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICTOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

There was no report or discussion.

 

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUOROM FOR NEXT MEETINGS

 

1. February 20, 2024, Regular Meeting at 6:00pm – Mr. O’Neil cannot attend. Ms. Letendre reviewed the agenda content.

 

2. March 5, 2024, Special Meeting at 6:00pm Continuation of 2023-LMIH-04 – Master Plan Review – Winnapaug Residences Comprehensive Permit - Multifamily Residential (several parcels associated with 184 Shore Road)

 

J. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Constantine made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Ms. Lentz Madison 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 TBA