Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 5, 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: Chairman: Justin Hopkins, Vice Chairman: Richard W. Constantine, Secretary: Andrew Delisio, and Members: Matthew O’Neil, Christopher Lawlor, John Armstrong, and Jean Gagnier, and Alternate Member Karen Lentz Madison

 

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

 

TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Administrative Officer/Town Planner Nancy Letendre; Minute Taker Stephanie LaSota; Assistant Solicitor for Planning and Zoning, Dylan Conley

 

Mr. Hopkins introduced Mr. Gagnier as a new member of the Board. Mr. Gagnier confirmed he watched the video of the last Planning Board meeting and read the minutes.

 

C.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1. January 16, 2024 – Mr. Armstrong made a motion to approve the January 16, 2024, Planning Board meeting minutes as submitted. Ms. Lentz-Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with an abstention by Mr. Gagnier.

 

2. February 6, 2024 – Mr. Constantine made a motion to approve the February 6, 2024, Planning Board meeting minutes as submitted. Ms. Lentz-Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with an abstention by Mr. Gagnier.

 

3. February 20, 2024 - Mr. Constantine made a motion to approve the February 20, 2024, Planning Board meeting minutes as submitted. Ms. Lentz-Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with an abstention by Mr. Gagnier and Mr. O’Neil.

 

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.

 

Mr. Hopkins reviewed a desired change of order to the agenda. Mr. Gagnier made a motion that the Planning Board adjust the agenda to the following order; E.1  2024-ATC-1 RETAIL CANNABIS, E.3 2024-MJLD-01 Pre-application Review – Winnapaug Golf Course Resort (several parcels associated with 184 Shore Road), E.4 2024-ATC-01 – Zoning Amendment – Golf Resort Overlay District & Zone Change, and E. 2 2023-LMIH-04 – Master Plan Review – Winnapaug Residences Comprehensive Permit - Multifamily Residential. Ms. Lentz-Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

 

E.  OLD BUSINESS

 

1. 2024-ATC-1 RETAIL CANNABIS Continuation of review and discussion, and Planning Board vote recommending to the Town Council on an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance providing retail cannabis by special use permit.

 

Discussion was continued from the last meeting. Mr. Hopkins reviewed that once the Planning Board recommends the amendment to the Town Council, they will hold a public hearing on the subject.

Ms. Letendre reviewed that the operating hours suggested by the State have been modified in the draft to 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Sunday, reflecting the Board’s instructions to adopt the hours associated with alcohol retail sales. There was discussion on the changes presented within the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lawlor proposed that the Planning Board recommend a clause be written for a set-back restriction up to 200 feet from residential zones. There was discussion that licensing for retail cannabis was a state process. There was further discussion about the licensing process, the security of such facilities, and what local involvement should be. The Board requested Atty. Conley investigate the licensing issue and local authority. In discussion of Mr. Lawlor’s suggestion, Mr. Delisio said retail cannabis should be treated the same as liquor sales and the 200-foot proposal is onerous. Ms. Lentz Madison agreed with Mr. Delisio. Mr. O’Neil said he preferred a business like this on Route 1 where traffic flows in and out of the Town and it is near emergency services, versus it being in a different zone. Ms. Lentz-Madison mentioned the medical benefits this business would have for many individuals.

The Board had a conversation about signage. Ms. Letendre said aesthetics are part of the Route 1 corridor plan and concerns about signage and aesthetics would be addressed within the application process. Mr. Armstrong asked if the Town Planner suggests special language for this Ordinance. Ms. Letendre said that is an alternative. Mr. Hopkins said he would not like to create a different set of standards but prefers to subscribe to what already exists and wait for further sign provisions for the entire Route One Corridor.

Mr. Lawlor suggested a poll discussion be had on incorporating a 200-foot buffer zone for cannabis retail by residential areas. Ms. Lentz-Madison said she shares his concerns for the Route 1 corridor but disagrees on a buffer. Mr. O’Neil agrees he prefers other businesses be on Route 1 but does not see a need for a buffer. Mr. Gagnier is not in favor of a buffer and said retail cannabis should be consistent with liquor stores. Mr. Constantine and Mr. Delisio agreed with most of the Board.

Public comment was opened at 6:36 p.m. Attorney William Nardone, with offices at 42 Granite Street, Westerly, was present on behalf of an applicant interested in licensing a business under the new ordinance amendment. He clarified that a cannabis retail license is issued by the State of Rhode Island and part of the vetting process includes security review. One other requirement to apply is the Town must have a designated Zoned area that allows the sale and that is what this Ordinance does. Atty. Nardone expressed support for the revisions in the draft ordinance provided by the Planning & Zoning Office before the Board tonight.

Mr. Delisio made a motion that the Planning Board recommend the adoption of the Ordinance as discussed and amended this evening to the Town Council and advise them to review it at a public hearing. Mr. Gagnier seconded the motion. Ms. Letendre said the Board should include in the motion the notes on the consistency of the Ordinance with the Westerly Comprehensive Plan and zoning purposes. Mr. O’Neil made a motion to include the language that “the Planning Board finds the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance providing retail cannabis by special use permit to be consistent with the Westerly Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Zoning” as stated in the draft motion and Mr. Delisio accepted the amended motion. Mr. Gagnier seconded the amended motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

3. 2024-MJLD-01 Pre-application Review – Winnapaug Golf Course Resort (several parcels associated with 184 Shore Road) Continuation of discussion only by the Planning Board on the pre-application of a Golf Course Resort.

 

      Mr. Gagnier said he reviewed the previous meeting’s video and notes and asked for guidance on voting. Atty. Conley said he may participate if he can attest to his review of this specific application. Attorney Matthew Landry, of Blish & Cavanagh, LLP, Providence, representing Winn Properties, said he had no objection to Mr. Gagnier’s participation. Atty. Landry said he had submitted a letter earlier this evening to the Town Planner and Atty. Conley with a formal request to continue the agenda items related to the golf course property. The items are of great interest to the public and he thought it beneficial to focus this evening’s discussion on the Zoning amendment. He requested they continue both the preapplication request and the comprehensive permit application for 2 weeks, to the March 19 Planning Board meeting, dependent on actions of the Ordinance amendment review tonight.

The Chair acknowledged receipt of the letter requesting the continuances and explained it led to the change in the order of business. Mr. Delisio made a motion that the Planning Board continue the 2024-MJLD-01 Pre-application Review – Winnapaug Golf Course Resort to the March 19, 2024, Planning Board meeting. Mr. Lawlor seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

4. 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.

 

      Ms. Letendre said that attached to this agenda item is a memo from the Planning Office about potential continuation dates for the application, a set of public comments received since the February 6^th meeting, and a copy of the avigation easement previously discussed regarding Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) need to approve of any construction on the golf course. Mr. Hopkins added that in a Town Council memo to the Planning Board dated March 5, they asked the Planning Board to review and make a recommendation regarding the overlay ordinance and specifically address the 150-foot boundary rule and the inclusion of low- and moderate-income housing (LMI.) 

      Westerly’s Economic Development Commission (EDC) Chairman Doug Brockway, of 32 Chestnut Street, and former EDC Chair Jim Torres,  of 19 Salt Pond Way, attended the meeting to give context on why they have been working on the ordinance. They provided an EDC presentation to the Board and explained why the EDC supports the Golf Course Resort Option. Mr. Brockway reflected on Town Councilman’s Kevin Lowther’s comments at last night’s meeting, which were aligned with EDC’s reasons for supporting it. Mr. Brockway explained how the Ordinance was developed and how the project will proceed over time. He introduced another document to the record from the executive director of the Rhode Island Golf Association, which explains the process of maintaining a golf slope and radiant. Mr. Hopkins said they did not have that correspondence but have the United States Golf Association (USGA) material. Mr. Brockway said courses must be reviewed every 10 years and when the golf course is renovated. Mr. Torres described other documents with Keep Westerly Green’s nine listed issues along with EDC responses.

Ms. Letendre said the draft of the ordinance the Board has is what was forwarded to them from Town Council, date stamped February 15th. Mr. Torres briefly reviewed the changes since the Council meeting. Atty. Conley asked for copies to be distributed and indicated the legal counsel supports it. Atty. Landry submitted a document titled “Proposed Amendment to the Town of Westerly Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance” as the March 5 proposed amendment. Mr. Armstrong made a motion to identify the document as stated by Atty. Conley. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions. Discussion ensued regarding the March 5 proposed amendment.

Mr. Brockway continued to address the nine concerns in the written submission of KWG. The EDC asks that full consideration of Keep Westerly Green’s issues and concerns be addressed in the project planning process and the project implementation process. Mr. Brockway and Mr. Torres requested that the Board approve the Golf Course Overlay District and Zone Change and refer it to the Town Council for a public hearing.

Attorney Matthew Landry, of Blish & Cavanagh, LLP, Providence, reintroduced himself, representing Winn Properties, and present are Mr. & Mrs. Scola. Atty. Landry thanked the EDC for their efforts. He said there was nothing materially different between this version and other submitted version, but some changes add limiting language and specificity regarding density. He said there were concerns about the 150-foot buffer, and provisions were changed on page 6 and 8, limiting density on specific lots and it also limits parking on residential lots. Atty. Landry said the ordinance is very restrictive in a lot of ways and will be heavily vetted through a public process. He said the client wants to reiterate that they desire to maintain the spirit of the previously presented conceptual plans for a resort project, but no master plan submission is required. The LMI housing element was brought up by the Town Council last evening. He emphasized that is a collaborative effort and is confident the result represents the position of all the parties involved.

Mr. Torres summarized the actions taken by the EDC, the work everyone put in and how the details of the ordinance were negotiated. Mr. Hopkins asked Atty Conley for a comment on the process. Atty. Conley had no objection to how the application is proceeding or to the content submitted. He said the applicant described the appropriate process.

      Mr. O’Neil asked if there is a requirement that the course remain public as the word public is not in the purpose statement description. Mr. Brockway and Mr. Torres responded that the public inference is written into the definition of golf course within the Ordinance. Mr. Constantine asked what percentage of tee times would be set aside for the public. Nick Scola said it is not just locals using the course but also vacation visitors and there are plenty of tee times for the public. He said there will be resident members, but the average member plays once or twice a week. Mr. Scola said they “track local play” in 5 towns and it is less than 5 percent of the “total play”.

There was further discussion in regard to the 150-foot overlay extension. Mr. Torres said all dimensional requirements apply and that extension would apply differently depending on the area. Atty. Landry said this was widely discussed by Town Council and Keep Westerly Green and its purpose is to allow the Zoning Ordinance to apply to properties within 150 feet of the golf course, but their current regulations still stand. It would allow those properties that could be developed and to use the amenities of the golf course resort. Atty. Landry confirmed all underlying dimensional regulations and zoning uses would still apply to potentially affected properties. Atty Landry confirmed that underlying use will remain, and the property owners will have the added benefit of repurposing the existing residential lots for multi-family housing dependent upon the underlying dimensions. Mr. Armstrong also questioned the meaning of the aggregate numbers of offsite and onsite units. Ms. Lents-Madison asked about employee housing. Mr. Tores stated the employee housing did not count toward the aggregate numbers. After Mr. Landry clarified the intent, Ms. Letendre suggested the LMI Act be referenced in the relevant part of the ordinance amendment for clarification. Mr. Landry agreed. Mr. Hopkins asked why KWG originally disapproved of the LMI, which went unanswered. Mr. Delisio had further questions regarding the location of offsite 140 units and other parcels owned by the Scolas. Mr. Scola explained. Mr. Hopkins attempted to clarify the overlay and the minimum dimensional requirements in the new ordinance. Mr. Scola clarified that the underlaying dimensions would control if they were more strict.

Mr. Armstrong inquired about the effect of the avigation easement on the whole property. Mr. Scola noted Exhibit B of the easement was not included in what the Board received. Ms. Letendre agreed to provide exhibit B, describing it as “an elevation drawing of trees and a typographical cross section”. Atty. Landry conceded that the property is subject to the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC) avigation easement and subject to federal regulation.  He said the background on the easement is confusing and its application isn’t germane to the ordinance discussion.

At the request of Mr. Lawlor, Ms. Letendre explained why the typical process would require a master plan, and how legal counsel has differentiated this EDC introduced ordinance from the typical private proposal. There was some discussion on the application process and when a master plan submission will be required. Atty. Conley compared this process with the Cannabis Retail zoning amendment application on the agenda earlier tonight, as this follows a similar process. He said the similarity is that the original language drafted comes through Town - the EDC not the Town Council - and a third party has a vested interest.

Mr. Lawlor asked for further clarification on the 150-foot boundary detail in the amendment. He inquired how a private property owner can go about including 150 feet of possibly over 200 abutting private properties in order to add it to their overlay. Atty. Conley responded with a description of the Planning Board’s role, reminding them they do not have legislative authority. He said the Zoning code is legislative, but fundamentally this zoning map and code is determined by the Town Council. The Town Council may change the Zoning, but the applicant cannot. Mr. Lawlor asked if the property owners within the 150-foot boundary would maintain their rights under the current zoning. Atty. Conley said property owners maintain these rights and there is not an obligation to use the new provisions, but they are available to them. He made a distinction between a loss in rights and an increase in rights. He said this is an expansion of uses but all existing standards apply and nothing about the Zoning overlay preempts engineering, building requirements, etc. He added that there is a level of detail in the overlay draft that is not common, but that increase in detail does not give bonus rights to the proposal. He maintains that the Planning Board retains control over the impact of the future project within the confines of the Ordinance. Mr. Lawlor then asked should the dock/beach access, listed as a permitted use in the overlay, be taken out of permitted uses until CRMC approval. Mr. Conley responded the permitted use is still subject to all state law and regulations so does not need to come out.

Mr. Gagnier requests more information regarding the condo’s effect on the 10%. Mrs. Letendre stated they are not year-round units so would not count.  Mr. Gagnier asks for assurance from an authority (State of Rhode Island) that they are not going to count against the Town. Mr. Landry explained that condo-hotels are not counted as units. There was discussion that LMI housing could be worked out in a future master plan process and RI Housing would be able to give assurance that the hospitality units would not count against the Town during that process. Mr.  Gagnier commented that he wants to ensure the RIAC issues are fully vetted. Mr. Torres stated it would.  Mr. Gagnier commented on the 150-foot extension and concern for those homeowners.

Ms. Letendre recommended the definition for LMI from section 45-53-3 be referenced in the zoning amendment.  Ms. Letendre asked if certain lots can be identified for workforce and employee housing just as with the other provisions. Atty Landry suggested that to do so would place limits on the LMI units, which benefits the Town.

Mr. Hopkins asked for clarification on Keep Westerly Green and asked to identify its representatives. He also recognized that progress has been made that should have been made two years ago. When does this ordinance text become final. Is it still under negotiation? There was further discussion on Keep Westerly Green’s contributions to the zoning amendment, as well as the implications of the 150-foot boundary rule. Atty. Landry said Keep Westerly Green’s representative attorney is not present tonight, but he had previously submitted a letter endorsing the most recent ordinance revision and tonight’s draft should be the final one. Atty. Landry said Keep Westerly Green has many members, and some voices may have differed in opinion, but the understanding was that the executive board signed off on the March 5 proposed amendment.

 

At 9:03 p.m. the Planning Board took a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:13 p.m. and the matter was opened for public comment.

 

Matt Walker, of 35 Wicklow Road, a member of Keep Westerly Green, spoke and said he looked forward to continuing to collaborate with the Scolas and the EDC. He spoke for several minutes on some details of the draft ordinance that Keep Westerly Green agrees with. He said they are disappointed to learn the Town’s attorney does not agree a master plan submission is needed with the ordinance. He said there are still concerns for future stress on existing infrastructure due to a potential project and any future plans need operational restrictions. He questioned the need for a 30 percent impervious surface and also wanted the noise ordinance to be considered throughout the building and operating processes. He said his group supports the golf course, but the plan needs guard rails. Keep Westerly Green is made of over 1,000 people and they need more certainty, he said, adding that it is a Westerly issue and not only a neighborhood issue. Mr. Hopkins asked Mr. Walker how the group is organized. He replied that they have about 1,200 members but maybe up to 200 that actively participate. They did not adopt a formal structure, but they hired Attorney Peter Skwirz, of Ursillo, Teitz & Ritch, Ltd., Providence to represent them. Other main representatives are Susan Strauss and Nina Rossamondo. Ed and Nina Rossamondo are the default president and vice president, but they did not have bylaws written or elect official officers.

Erin Collins, of 4 Whales View Drive, Westerly commented on the avigation easement. She described its content and said the easement includes the whole golf course. She said Exhibit B contains an air restriction and asked the attorney to look at it and examine it as if the applicant cannot build on the property there is no need for an ordinance. Mr. Hopkins asked Mr. Conley for interpretation of the easement effect.

Atty. Conley said it is not the burden of any party other than the party that has the benefit of the easement to enforce the easement. He said he is not saying there is not a restriction, but it is between the property owner and easement holder and not the municipality. There was further discussion on the implications of a potential easement restriction. Mr. Hopkins said many of the items of concern in front of the Board will benefit from the details of a master plan process. He noted that he continues to support this type of project like he did two years ago when he was a Board member with the original ordinance sent to the Town Council.

Other provisions of the ordinance were discussed between the Board and Atty Landry, including conference areas, banquet, restaurants, and parking. Mr. Landry stated the location of these facilitates will be explored at the development phase.

Mr. Hopkins recognized that a few open items should not delay the ordinance process. Mr. Hopkins took a poll of the Board on support for the ordinance. Mr. Armstrong is in support of the potential development but with some concerns about the Ordinance and cannot support it.

Ms. Letendre read through the few suggested edits to the proposed amendment, as discussed. Atty. Conley suggested anything in substance not be changed, without the agreement of Keep Westerly Green and their attorney is not present. Ms.  Letendre said if the Board is satisfied with discussion and is clear on the changers, the Planning Office memo to the Planning Board dated February 16, 2024, for the February 20 meeting can be referenced within the motion and she will read the findings into the record.

Mr. Gagnier repeated his concern for the 150-foot extension and asked if there was a process that might allow the extension of the overlay.  Mr. Scola said there are guardrails. Mr. Lawlor said he has problems with the 150-feet extension. Mr. Delisio discussed compromise. Mr. Constantine needs time to be satisfied with the discussion. Mr. Gagnier commented that he still has reservations.  Mr. Hopkins committed to stay as long as needed to settle the issue of the 150-feet as requested by the Council. Mr. Hopkins concluded he is comfortable with the 150-feet but recognized other Board members are not comfortable.  Ms. Letendre suggested the EDC’s map be included with the ordinance for clarity on the subject of the 150 feet. Mr. Hopkins agreed. 

There was some further discussion on the efforts of the community members and involved parties to craft this ordinance revision. The Board voted on whether to include the 150-foot boundary rule. Ms. Lentz-Madison said any development issues associated with a future project will be before the Board in the future and does not see an issue Mr. O’Neil agreed. Mr. Gagnier asked for help to get to YES on the 150-fot extension.  Asked for more information, and a continuance. Mr. Armstrong said he could also use some more additional information. Mr. Constantine said they were not comfortable with the rule but could be with more information. Mr. Oneil asked for a map of those owned by the Scolas. The Board continued to discuss the map. Mr. and Mrs. Scola left the meeting at 10:45pm.

Atty. Conley said he understands that that law is an area of concern based on uncertainties of what could be built. Mr. Torres stated the map articulates the result of negotiation with the nearby residents and addresses the question of overdevelopment. Mr. Hopkins asked the members of the Board “What information do you need?”  and stated: “If we can’t get it, we will need to continue.” Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Lawlor expressed discomfort with the unknown. Mr. Constantine expressed continued concern for the unintended consequences and approaches to utilities but is in favor of going forward with the ordinance. Mr. Hopkins recommended an explanation and information on the extension areas’ capacity for increase in residential density be transmitted to Town Council.

Mr. Conley offered to do a residential density analysis and describe it as a report to the Council.  Concluding that the Planning Board intends to send a favorable recommendation, provided that a density analysis goes with the recommendation closing the uncertainty gap. Mr. Brockway added that an analysis of what the underlying zoning allows should be part of the report, to which Mr. Hopkins agreed. Ms. Lents-Madison asked about the effect of the overlay on the Industrial Zoned lots. Mr. Conley added he would make a similar assessment for the industrial zoned properties. There was a more general discussion on the topic. Ms. Letendre shared her understanding of the underlying zoning in the extension area for the Board’s benefit. Mr. Conley ensured the Town Council would have the clarity the Board does not have.

Mr. O’Neil made a motion that the Planning Board advance the proposed ordinance to the Town Council as discussed and amended at tonight’s meeting, with a positive recommendation, identifying that the Board reviewed the Council’s concerns with the 150-foot buffer and suggests that Atty. Conley create an analysis of potential effects to the residential and industrial districts because of the overlay. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. Ms. Letendre read into the record the findings of fact as applicable using the February 16 Planning Office memo as guidance and asked that the findings be added to the motion. Mr. O’Neil amended the motion to incorporate the findings of fact as read and Mr. Delisio accepted and seconded the amended motion. The motion CARRIED with Mr. Lawlor voting no.

 

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) 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

 

ii. Additional Public Comment

 

iii. Avigation Easement

 

Atty. Landry said his office submitted a letter this afternoon requesting a continuance to the March 19 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Hopkins said the Board will have to make a decision on the matter at that time if the application is not extended. He said he was under the impression they would not have to hear this application if they moved the zoning ordinance amendment forward to Town Council. Mr. O’Neil made a motion to continue 2023-LMIH-04 – Master Plan Review – Winnapaug Residences Comprehensive Permit to the March 19 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

F.   NEW BUSINESS

 

There was no new business.

 

G.  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

 

There was no report.

 

H.  ASSISTANT SOLICTOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

 There was no report.

 

I.    CONFIRMATION OF QUOROM FOR NEXT MEETINGS

 

1. March 19, 2024, Regular Meeting at 6:00pm – 16 Post Road, Springbrook Elementary and Dunn’s Corners Elementary Schools.

 

2. April 2, 2024, Special Meeting at 6:00pm – Camoin presentation on Housing Needs Assessment – Data Reports

 

3. April 16, 2024, Regular Meeting at 6:00pm – State Street School, Chamber Way comprehensive permit.

 

4. April 23, 2024, Special Meeting at 6:00pm – Public Workshop: Housing Strategies and Production Plan.

 

Ms. Letendre reviewed the content of the meetings. Mr. Constantine said he would be absent on April 16 and 23.

 

J.   ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Armstrong made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:33 p.m. Mr. Constantine 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 April 16, 2024