Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, June 18, 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 6:02 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:                   Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning William Conley, Town Planner Nancy Letendre, Information Technology Technician Lanny Fuller, and Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1.  April 16, 2024 – Mr. Lawlor made a motion to approve the April 16, 2024 Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.  

 

2. May 7, 2024 – Mr. Gagnier made a motion to approve the May 7, 2024 Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with an abstention from Mr. Lawlor.

 

3. May 21, 2024 – Mr. Gagnier provided Ms. LaSota with some notes he suggested be included in the May 21 minutes. There was a consensus of the Board to allow Ms. LaSota to review the video of the meeting and insert the suggested notes as they are verified. The minutes were continued to the next meeting agenda.   

 

4. June 4, 2024 – Mr. Lawlor made a motion to approve the June 4, 2024 Planning Board meeting minutes as submitted. Ms. Lentz-Madison 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. 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.

 

i. Administrative Officer’s Memo: 06/05/24

 

ii. Administrative Officer’s Memo: 06/07/24

 

iii. Administrative Officer’s Memo: 06/12/24

 

Ms. Letendre noted that the applicant consented to a July 16 decision deadline extension. She noted the memos included in the application packet for the record, as listed on the agenda. Mr. Hopkins reviewed the procedure for hearing the application.

Attorney Matthew Landry was present with the applicants, Jill and Nick Scola. He reviewed the testimony presented at the last meeting by project manager David Held, of Provost & Rovera, Inc. He referenced the items submitted since the last meeting; an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) claim from DiPrete Engineering dated June 11, 2024, and a supplemental report from DiPrete Engineering dated June 11, 2024, drafted to address staff comments. Stephen Ulman, of Alfred Benesch & Company, 120 Hubert Avenue, was present to review the Benesch Engineering traffic study conducted June 4 through June 6 study. He said the estimated trip generation for the proposed 2,300 unit development was broken down based on segments of the site and the project will create 743 new daily trips, with 171 entering and 572 exiting the development. Mr. Ulman submitted traffic flow diagrams to the Board. He said there was a traffic analysis of the four nearby intersections. The study shows that the site can handle the increased traffic to the area and a future study can determine if any changes are needed. He added that this is a snapshot to show that this development can be handled by the area intersections. Mr. Ulman said the trip generation manual is based on studies of similar developments. There were also other traffic reports and data used for this study, he said. Mr. Ulman described his professional experience generating traffic studies. He said public safety concerns are normally not addressed in the Master Plan phase and only if it is a large development with a single entrance. He did not believe it would dramatically effect the traffic count to the area. Mr. Ulman said the proposed phasing of the plan over seven to ten years will help them better prepare. Mr. O’Neil asked about potential adjustments to the plan. Mr. Ulman responded that at this stage there is no indication that he needs to adjust anything to the plan. Discussion ensued on how the average number of trips are generated and the potential traffic to the area. He said further studies will happen in the preliminary phase, adding that a much more detailed traffic analysis will be forthcoming and will depend greatly on engineering and the final number of units. Mr. Lawlor said he thinks the plan does not account for enough cars going onto Shore Road versus Tom Harvey Road. He said one of the reasons the Planning Board requested a full study is because they did not want to look at this in phases. Mr. Lawlor thinks the project will introduce closer to 4,000 vehicles and suggested the plan does not compensate with off-site parking or any plan. Mr. Lawlor said a full traffic report should include a study of the five-mile radius. There was additional conversation about potential changes to neighboring roads, circulation issues, and traffic patterns. After extensive discussion, Mr. Lawlor said he cannot fathom a development of this size in this area because that area does not have the roadwork necessary to handle the traffic, even when the traffic plan gets further developed. Mr. Delisio also questioned the validity of the numbers in the study. Mr. Ulman explained the methodology used by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) to determine the rates and estimates. Mr. Armstrong questioned the peak travel calculations and also doubted the numbers presented. Mr. Ulman responded that not every household will have a vehicle on the road during peak travel time. He said commuter peak hours are between 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. Mr. Armstrong said the report seems unrealistic based on the reality of the Town and historical seasonally heavy traffic on Shore Road.  More discussion ensued on the methodology for generating trips during peak hours. Mr. Ulman shared that the largest development he had worked on had 280 units, but that it does not matter what the size of the development is because the trip generation is based on the number of units and applied to the roadway network. Mr. Gagnier asked if he knows any development of this magnitude without any traffic signals nearby. Mr. Ulman replied that he does not, but said this development will have ten or fifteen access points spread throughout the area. There was more discussion on the formulation of the study data.

Doug McLean, Planning Director for the Town of Coventry, and a professional planner in Rhode Island for 15 years, was present at the meeting. He discussed his submission to the Board dated June 11, 2024. He said his intent tonight was not to repeat details already submitted, but just provide high level overview and answer questions. He reviewed the Westerly staff memos over the last two weeks, saying that some of the memos cite Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, claiming the application opposes them. Mr.  McLean said he disagrees with Ms. Letendre on her memos. He said variances can be requested via the Zoning code and he has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and finds this development to be consistent with it. He said he reviewed the Camoin Housing study, issued by the Town of Westerly, and he found that the Town has a great need for units, affordable housing, and market rate units, and in his opinion, the study creates further evidence that there is a need for this development. Mr. McLean said there is no explicit content in the plan that says this area is not appropriate for growth. He also referenced the future land use map as essential and its content directly correlates to the growth of the community. Mr. McLean said Westerly has not made substantial progress toward affordable housing in the community over the last ten years, and this project would satisfy or exceed the 10 percent State mandated LMI housing. A submitted pro-forma document demonstrates that the cost associated with all the units is offset by the density sought by the project. He answered a series of questions from Atty. Landry regarding the application.

The Board asked Mr. McLean questions about the project. Atty. Landry said it is a State requirement that LMI housing be distributed throughout each development phase. Mr. McLean said there is always potential that the project will not be fully built out, but the plan offers a phasing pace that includes a built percentage of units will contribute to the 10 percent goal. Wetland features around the site are an important consideration of the project, he said, and the master plan stage of review determined no negative impact at this time. The Board questioned their own concerns as well as public scrutiny of potential environmental threats of the project and using a pump system that requires electrical power adjacent to a pond.  Mr. McLean referred to documentation from DiPrete Engineering that suggests that the pump system is the best course of action, if gravity sewer is not available.

Mr. Constantine commented on the scenic value of the existing golf course, which would be lost if this project advances. He read that there are at least three criteria that the application will not be consistent with and the Planning Board cannot justify supporting the application. Mr. Armstrong is concerned with a 7-to-10-year building plan. He suggested that the LMI housing be equally distributed throughout the development and the units must be compatible in scale and look to the market rate housing. Mr. McLean said within any comprehensive permit there is a range of what is comparable and compatible. He believes the LMI units are adequately integrated into the plan and adequately compatible with the market-rate units. Atty. Landry reminded the Board that the plan was already shown to RI Housing, who provided a letter of eligibility for the application. Mr. Lawlor commented further on the available capacity of the sewer and that the project may need to investigate other avenues. Mr. McLean said that is why the OWTS analysis was done to show there are a wide variety of ways to do the sewer. Mr. Gagnier shared concerns about potential hazardous weather and flooding in that area. Mr. McLean said he looked at site plans and FEMA maps in relation to the project and he incorporated zones into his review. He said that as far as he sees, everything proposed by the applicant can be permitted by FEMA and Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC.) There was discussion about the project’s consistency with the Westerly Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McLean said the predominant function of the plan is addressing the local need and this permit addresses that with affordable housing. He added that the development is outside the urban service area boundary. Mr. Hopkins asked a series of questions concerning potential new citizens and students in the development, and effects to public safety calls. He asked when the Board should expect answers to the population influx and effects to local services, stating it is essential information. Mr. O’Neil said a project of this scope may require an entirely new fire district and possibly new police officers. The Board agreed that the safety of projects is in their purview. Mr. McLean said increased tax revenue from this project could help offset and fund the public safety services. Atty. Landry said fiscal impact permits are not required on comprehensive permits but they could supplement the record in the next couple of weeks as there is some data available. He said the applicant has spoken with the local fire and police chiefs and no official objections were filed.

Eric Prive, civil engineer with DiPrete Engineering, 2 Stafford Court, Cranston, was present to testify on the application. Atty. Landry asked him a series of questions related to the application. Mr. Prive provided an overview of the site plans. He said portions of the project are within the samp plan. He provided the conceptual site plan 1, also known as development plan 5. Mr. Prive described the design elements common to placing buildings in flood areas and said the units will be elevated above the flood elevation. He said the septic components will be water tight and none of the septics are in a leech field with a minimum set back of 50 feet from the property line. Mr. Prive described every development location on the site plan and the wastewater treatment proposed for each zone. Mr. Delisio mentioned the large denitrification systems that get pumped across the street and questioned how there could be no negative effects to the pond. Mr. Prive said they can add more of a vegetative buffer with root systems designed to offset potential impacts. Mr. Delisio commented on frequent flooding in that area by Shore Road. The Board engaged in further discussion on stormwater management, the site map, and wastewater management plans for the site. Atty. Landry said that test holes were dug on the site in 2016 and more information on the topography is available if needed. The applicant completed their presentation at 9:40 p.m. Ms. Lentz-Madison left the meeting at this time. The Board called a recess and reconvened for public comment at 9:53 p.m.

Kenneth Hammond, of 1 South Fairway, said he submitted an objection letter to Town Hall on Thursday. At the meeting he submitted a packet of photos for the record. He commented about the traffic study. He noted three incorrectly spelled or nonexistent road names in the study. Mr. Hammond said the 2020 Beta Group traffic study occurred during Covid shutdowns so beach traffic at that time was down and this needs to be considered.  

Attorney Gregory Massad, with offices at 1050 Main Street, East Greenwich, spoke on behalf of Keep Westerly Green (KWG.) He said there are several standards that the Planning Board must base their approval decision on and they must explain the competent findings but KWG believes they do not have enough information to justify the standards to approve the plan. Atty. Massad said the applicant cannot prove there will be no negative environmental impact to the area. He said the daily trip rate per dwelling unit is significant to this project, saying the ITE number is 5.25 and 7.5 trips per unit per day, which breaks down to 1,000 trips an hour, which would devastate the area. He cannot find evidence in the record that there will be no negative traffic impacts to area residents and pedestrians. He said that the Board was not given any information proving OWTS will be effective in the area. Atty. Massad noted specific language at the top of page 2 of the June 7 Planning Staff memo to the Board, justifying his claims that the project does not meet legal standards. He said KWG submitted more information to the Planning Office in objection to the plan, as well. Atty. Massad addressed the application process, which has extended for six months, arguing that due process has been afforded to the applicant repeatedly. He requested the Board close the public hearing tonight and vote against the project. Atty. Massad said if the project is denied, the applicant may want to appeal, but the Town has sufficient findings to deny the application.

Fred Sculco, of 117 Avondale Road, said Atty. Massad pointed out the features of the project that violate the Comprehensive Plan and the health of the community. At the last meeting they had an expert from Coventry testify and he commented that he had a system that would enable sewage to be sequestered for a time when the Westerly system could not accommodate. He asked Mr. Prive if he has ever undertaken a development of this size before, which is 2,300 units. Atty. Landry said Mr. Held had testified and was asked about if he could control the flow rates of sewage and he said you could. The testimony this evening is that if sewer is not available they can implement a combination of sewer and OWTS. Mr. Sculco asked if the Board could ask Mr. Prive if he is aware of the daily flow to Westerly wastewater sewage plant and if so, can he cite what the last five months of flow rates have been. He also asked for comments on how a OWTS would pump out and treat wastewater for 2,300 units.

Margaret Fasaro, of 15 Wicklow Road, represented KWG, an organization of 1,600 people who signed a petition to stop overdevelopment in Westerly. She said they are asking the Planning Board to deny this application that will replace the only public golf course with 99 buildings because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Fasaro read the goals of KWG. She said this project will create an unsafe and unwelcome environment.

Chris Lyman, of 6 Hamilton Road, thanked everyone on the Board for their time and effort, especially in a time when it is difficult to get anyone to volunteer. He said they built their home in 2000. He is concerned about vehicular and pedestrian traffic. He said widening the road may not be an option with the proximity of a cemetery. Mr. Lyman said the size of this plan seems “out of contro.” He requested that the Board vote to deny this application tonight.

Alicia Shatner, of 50 Bend Road, the director of Salt Ponds Coalition, Charlestown, commented about the health of Winnapaug Pond. She provided information on the current nutrient levels of the pond and expressed concerns with the maintenance and potential failure of the proposed denitrification systems in the project. She said this project is a real threat to the pond.

Drew Bartkiewicz, of 25 Wicklow Road, commented on the density of this project, which would turn the project into “Winnapaug City” and he is sure the intention of the law and the Westerly Comprehensive Plan is not to turn bucolic areas into cities. He shared his experience as an aerospace engineer who understands flow rates and expressed concern with the inevitable increase of cars in area traffic patterns. Mr. Barkiewicz commented on the area wildlife and said the application seems to quickly dismiss the potential ecological damage. He said the Planning Board’s obvious choice is to deny the application and not because these are bad people but because this is a bad project. He asked Mr. Hopkins to be sure everyone on the Board sees the affordable housing committee’s recommendation that gives the Town 10 to 20 viable options to increase LMI housing without this project. He said they must keep Westerly green, but safe, also.  

Mr. Hopkins directed Mr. Sculco’s questions to Mr. Prive for response. Atty. Landry said he didn’t ask DiPrete Engineering to address that and that sort of flow rate data would come during preliminary plan. There was a question regarding trip generation volume per unit directed to Mr. Ulman. He said he can only address the daily trip volume, which at the lowest average rate, is 648 trips.

Atty. Landry said there has been a lot of discussion of the evidentiary standard of the Master Plan stage. He said the applicant has submitted an extensive testimony at this stage even though this phase is supposed to be conceptual and does not need to answer every question. It was said that the Planning Board has the authority to request additional information or requirements. He responded to Atty. Massad’s request of denial that the Board has heard professional testimony and must substantiate a denial of the application. He said that all of the emergency service concerns can be addressed during future stages.

Mr. Gagnier submitted written notes into the record and distributed them to the Board. The notes were excerpts from the Westerly Comprehensive Plan, with references to page and section numbers and also included State land use policies that he thought were applicable. He asked the applicant to address the waiver request information at the top of the page.

Mr. Lawlor made a motion to close the public hearing 10:56 p.m. Mr. Gagnier seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

The Planning Board thanked the applicants for the time and patience with the process. The Board took a poll on whether or not to approve or deny the application. Mr. O’Neil said this is uncharted waters and a large project and he has serious reservations that they will find solutions that lead to the build of 2,300 units. He commented about traffic concerns. He said he has enough questions and concerns to have a difficult time voting yes. Mr. Lawlor said having lived in that neighborhood for many years, the result of this project will be more vehicles crowding the roads. He has problems with the data presented and is concerned about the effects to the neighborhood and citizens. When he returned to the Planning Board he said he would support affordable housing but not by destroying the neighborhood. Mr. Lawlor said the project is too large, but especially for this area of Westerly. Mr. Armstrong said destroying the neighborhood for the sake of this development is disturbing. He said traffic and infrastructure are concerns. The entire character of Westerly would be altered, and he cannot support it. Mr. Delisio said it is difficult to find positive findings that there will be no significant impacts to the environment or to the health and safety of the citizens. He said this is one of the easiest decisions he has had to make on the Board and he would vote no. Mr. Gagnier referenced page 4 and 5 of the Comprehensive Plan and said that this project blows this vision away. He read from the plan and said that 2,300 units in an area without sewer or sewer capacity is a real challenge. He said this project is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan in any area of Westerly, but this area is ecologically sensitive. Mr. Gagnier appreciated the efforts of the applicant and expert witnesses but for the health and safety of the community and Winnapaug Pond he said he cannot support the project. Mr. Constantine said he agreed with all the Board comments and cannot support the plan. Mr. Hopkins named five commercial recreation areas in Westerly, but this is the only one that has a public golf course. He said he voted for and signed two recommendations to the Town Council on maintaining the golf course and having a hospitality resort project option. Mr. Hopkins said he takes LMI housing seriously and agrees they have a serious shortage in Westerly, and as long as he has been chair of the Board he has believed that all relevant parties could arrive at solutions together as a community but with this application they will not have that and after this vote it will be out of their hands.

Ms. Letendre reviewed the staff memo and her recommendation is that the project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She said she would prefer to present a decision to the Board and welcomed the Board’s direction so she can write it and include specific language. Mr. Gagnier referred to the document he shared with his excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Letendre suggested they  go through the standards of review for denial and let her know the direction they are taking. There was clarifying discussion on the standards of review.

Mr. Constantine made a motion that the Town Planner draft a written decision to deny the application, which will be reviewed and voted on by the Planning Board at the next regular meeting on July 16, 2024. Mr. Gagnier seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

Mr. Delisio made a motion to continue the remaining agenda items to the July 16 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

2. Rules of Procedure Review, discuss, and action on proposed amendments.

 

            This item was continued to July 16.

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

1. Planning Board Annual Report for FY 2023-24 Introduction of the Planning Board report, review, possible action, and discussion of priority projects for 2025.

 

            This item was continued to July 16.

 

2. 2024-ATC-02 – Short Term Rentals Review, discuss, and possible action on Town Council referral to the Planning Board.

           

This item was continued to July 16.

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

1. Development Projects Status Report

            This item was continued to July 16.

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

            There was no report.

 

I. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS & BOARD QUESTIONS - There was no discussion.

 

J. CONFIRMATION OF QUORUM FOR NEXT MEETINGS

 

1. July 16, 2024, Regular Meeting at 6:00pm – Completion of Winnapaug Comp. Permit; Planning Board Annual Report finalized.

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

 

K. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Armstrong made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:32 p.m. Mr. Lawlor 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 July 16, 2024