Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, June 4, 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, John Armstrong, and Jean Gagnier, and Auxiliary Member Karen Lentz Madison

 

Members absent:            

 

Staff present:                   Town Planner Nancy Letendre, Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning William Conley, of The Law Office of William J. Conley, Jr., Information Technology Technician Lanny Fuller, and Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota

 

 

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

 

1. 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) Continuation of a public hearing to include review discussion and possible action or continuance by the Planning Board on a Comprehensive Permit.

· Letter from the public

 

            Mr. Hopkins reviewed the procedure for hearing the application; that the applicant will first make a presentation, the Board will discuss and ask questions, the public will speak, and then the applicant will have a chance to respond. The Board will continue deliberation at the end.

Attorney Matthew Landry was present on behalf of the application, along with the applicant Nick Scola, and David Held, from the engineering firm Provost and Rivera. Atty. Landry provided a review of the project application, for a Comprehensive Permit to build a development on 120 acres featuring 2,300 housing units. He explained that the applicant will be required to go through several stages of review after this phase and that this is a seven to ten-year development project. Thirty percen of the 2,300 units will be deed restricted low and moderate income (LMI) affordable units, even though 25 percent is the required LMI percentage for a Comprehensive Permit application. Waivers requested pertain to density and residential development because it is in a commercial recreation zone. It was clarified that 609 units will be deed restricted and be rented at a cost of 60 to 80 percent of the area median income. Atty. Landry said they received a letter of eligibility from Rhode Island Housing. He will address the concerns of the Camoin Housing study and staff and said the applicant has engaged professionals regarding sewer capacity, requesting they prepare on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) plans for the entire plan. Atty. Landry said that any sewer capacity issues can be explained at the preliminary plan stage. He said the final piece they need is a plan to determine the impacts to school and rescue services. Atty. Landry said less than 5 percent of the property contains wetlands and engineers are working to address areas of specific concern.

Mr. Held showed the conceptual site plans and described the planned layout of buildings, OWTS, and potential stormwater design. He explained that the advantages of pumping the majority of the system is that they can control the flow. It is possible to do a combination of sewer and OWTS, he said. Mr. Held said the development plan is feasible at the master plan phase of review. He explained that one pumping system could be 15 to 20 feet below grade, the pumping station at the 12th green is in a flood zone and could still function under water, but there is some ability to control the grade. Mr. Armstrong asked if it is good engineering practice to put a pump in known flooding area. Mr. Held said it is not unusual to have them in areas subject to flooding. Ms. Lentz-Madison asked how sewer would be accessed at green 9. Mr. Held said it is feasible to put a septic area there. Mr. Lawlor shared concerns that this project will not be good for Westerly and estimated based on the presented units, that it could bring 7,000 people and 4,500 cars. He requested the applicant provide reports from the Westerly Police chief, the fire chief of Dunns Fire Department, Town beach parking, recreational facilities, and Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) because the entire area south of shore road would be developed beyond capacity. He questioned how the plan would be fully funded. Mr. Lawlor expressed that 30 percent LMI for a project of this size is still low and would not full meet the State mandated 10 percent LMI housing for Westerly, but it would increase the overall amount of housing, which would increase the 10 percent goal. Mr. Lawlor said this is a massive project and he is very concerned about its effect on the Town, neighborhood, and the people. Mr. Gagnier said he was having trouble reconciling the applicant saying they were not in a flood plain on the property while the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) says it is. He raised concerns about historical storms and stated that the property is in a vulnerable area. Mr. Gagnier referred to a two-page document titled “Winnapaug decision public comment submission series of maps, stormwater, flood plain, and sea level rise” related to his comments. He said the project endangers nearby natural resources. Mr. Hopkins commented that they have a forthcoming analysis on the OWTS system. It was said that the housing needs assessment and marketing study document is available on the Town of Westerly’s Web site.

Ms. Letendre said there are several public comments received via email and are being entered into the record. Mr. Hopkins said most of the Board members received letters delivered to their personal addresses, but he reminded the public that letters do not become public record unless they are sent to Town Hall. The Board heard public comment.

Angela Volpicelli, of 18 West Fairview Avenue, read census data and information about the areas that make up Westerly. She said the development application proposes the largest development in history in one small section of town, which is one of the least suitable locations for housing, according to the Camoin Associates housing study. The growing Keep Westerly Green (KWG) opinion has been consistent on the issue and they strive to protect green space.

Kenneth Hammond, of 1 South Fairway, clarified to the Board that this matter was first brought to the Town on December 23, 2023, but new State law went into effect on January 1, 2024. His opinion was that the applicant should go back and refile the application. Mr. Hammond asked what engineering firm will do the traffic study. Mr. Hopkins allowed Atty. Landry to reply that Benesch will do the study and Doug McCain is a planning expert who will testify at the next meeting. Mr. Hammond said his father was a victim of motor vehicle homicide, and he is interested in what goes into the study and advocated for potential harmful effects that increased traffic will have to the area. Mr. Hammond also noted that there is a flood plain by Shore Road and he is concerned about any construction there. He asked the Board to take their time with the application and get accountability for the project.

Sue Strouse, of 23 Wicklow Road, executive member of KWG, represented the abutters and residents across Westerly. She submitted a 17-page document titled “Evidence-Based Reasons to Deny the Winnapaug Development Plan Comprehensive Permit Application,” which was submitted by KWG. She listed the reasons why the project should be denied. She said the plan falls short of its statement that there is no negative impact to the area. She requested they deny the application. Ms. Strouse submitted into the record her written comments dated June 4, 2024.

Matt Walker, of 35 Wicklow Road, said he spoke to the Board several times on the topic. He said this plan submission does not provide adequate information. Mr. Walker said the density calculations are incorrect, the permit needs to be consistent with local needs and the only thing that is consistent is its location. Mr. Walker added that the application does not meet any of the four goals in Westerly’s vision as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. He said this master plan is insufficient and there are significant environmental impacts. He said they need a detailed environmental impact report. He asked the Board to deny the application so they can stop wasting time and move forward.

Drew Bartkiewicz, of 25 Wicklow Road, submitted a letter to the Town Planner. He said Westerly is a special place and a Town like this cannot change over night. The Golf Course was deeded over 100 years ago and is an asset to the community. He agreed with Mr. Walker’s comments. Mr. Bartkiewicz, a combat veteran, who expressed his admiration for the patriotic and character-filled Westerly, said that the future, identify, and special nature of this Town should trump a proposal of this magnitude with potential harmful effects. He said the application pushes the envelope and pushes the Town beyond what it can accommodate. Mr. Bartkiewicz said the applicant should learn scale and proportionality. He commended the applicant for past improvements to the golf course and stated he is aware of affordable housing needs, but the Board should pass on the proposal as it lacks detail and is ill-suited for the future of Westerly. He wished the applicant luck and said he loves to see the course being used, especially by the youth, and suggested a possible structure for overnight stays, which may be possible with variance requests.

Steve Banahan, of 2 Oxford Street, commented that the area already lost one local golf course when Weekapaug went private and it would be a loss to the community if this project was completed. He shared his professional background working with comprehensive plans in Maine. He said this project is opposed to Westerly’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Banahan said it is one of the most inappropriate settings for development and he does not need a government institution to tell them that it is wet. He asked the Board to take a long hard look. He said the challenges of this property will drive the cost of units so high that there will be no affordable housing. Mr. Banahan said he does not see presented figures of what units will cost and that should be part of the plan. He listed ways the project will create safety issues with traffic and he fears for residents and neighbors.

Dan Marantz, of 33 Urso Drive, said he drives on those roads and the visibility is low. He said increasing traffic will create issues. Mr. Marantz said the car dependent score on Tom Harvey Road is 15, meaning that all errands require a car so future development occupants will require a car. He asked the Board to deny the application.

Dan Halpren-Ruder, of 6 Sea Gull Road, said he agreed with the previous comments shared and thanked everyone who spoke. He thanked the Board for being attentive and said there is no contest that this application is a bad idea.

Atty. Landry responded that the applicant will provide over 3,000 parking spaces. With respect to the environmental impacts, they are cognizant of the issues, he said, adding that development is not prohibited, and they are not trying to delay the issue, but are planning and will address these things at later review when the extensive engineering reports are due. He said the criteria to approve the application is important, but criteria to deny it is also important, and affordable housing is a large need in Westerly. Atty. Landry said at the next meeting there will be a professional to report on the housing need. He said that the applicant will take the Board’s comments back to the team and will address them best they can.

There was some additional conversation about population and housing. Mr. Gagner commented that traffic study needs to be done at peak volume time, like in June or July. Ms. Lentz-Madison clarified that it is a requirement of development that there be no more runoff after than prior to development, by using stormwater management. Mr. Delisio said this project appears not to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, there is a lack of information, and it appears far too large. Mr. Lawlor commented on the traffic issues the project will create. He said he does not think a project, even if it includes LMI housing, should destroy the neighborhood and he does not think it is a fit for the Town.

Discussion ensued on the timeline of the application and what information the Board still needs. Ms. Letendre clarified that the Board will continue the public hearing to June 18 and the applicant must submit any additional paper copies of documents to her by 1 p.m. on Wednesday, June 12. Atty. Landry clarified that they had extended the decision to July in order that the Board have everything it needs for a decision.

Mr. O’Neil made a motion that the Planning Board continue the public hearing to the June 18, 2024 meeting. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

1. Rules of Procedure Per the request of the Planning Board, to review, discuss, and make possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting.

 

            The seven-page Rules of Procedure dated December 7, 2021 was distributed to the Board. This topic of discussion was requested by Mr. Armstrong. He questioned the need for putting small work items on the agenda so that the Board has the ability to vote as a Board without having to go through advertising and found they could not do that. He said that he would like to revise item 8 to include that any Board member could request a special meeting, remove the last sentence of item 8 and add a new item 9, which is specific to agenda referrals. There was general discussion about the rules.

Ms. Letendre said she will write a suggestion for an agenda item for workshop discussion. She suggested “items for further or future discussion” be on the agenda. There was brief discussion of rules of procedure item 18 to change order of business and agenda items. Ms. Letendre will provide draft language for number 8 and 18. Mr. Gagnier asked about item 20. Ms. Letendre said she will have to revisit that one as digital application submissions effect that. Ms. Letendre shared that Westerly has the quickest application processing time out of many municipalities, because of the influence of the Board to persuade applicants and gather information, as well as the resources available to the Town to process the information and documents.

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

 

There was no report.

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

There was no report.

 

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUOROM FOR NEXT MEETINGS

 

1. June 18, 2024, Regular Meeting at 6:00pm – Continuation of Winnapaug Comp. Permit; Introduce Annual Report.

 

2. July 16, 2024, Regular Meeting at 6:00pm – Completion of Winnapaug Comp. Permit; Planning Board Annual Report finalized; Pleasant St. Comp. Permit Pre-application review.

 

3. August 20, 2024, Regular Meeting at 6:00pm – Zoning Ordinance Review

 

There was brief discussion about the future agendas and meeting schedule.

 

J. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Armstrong made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:32 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 June 18, 2024