[0:03] Okay, good evening to my colleagues on the council, to town staff and to our planning board members. Also to those who are in attendance tonight. Welcome to this East Greenwich town council joint meeting with the planning board. I'll call this meeting to order and we'll say the pledge of allegiance.

[0:39] I'll now ask our planning board chair, Ben Lupovitz, to call his group to order.

[0:47] President, I'm Ben Lupovitz, chairman of the East Grinish Planning Board and I'd like

[0:54] to welcome with me this evening as voting members. Mark Gertzikoff to my left at the end,

[0:59] Vice Chair David Johnston, Matt Yoder, Manning Gonzales, and Tara Wood.

[1:09] And for the record, you have a quorum. We do have a quorum. Yes.

[1:15] Very good. John, joining me on the day is here, Councillor Michael Zarella,

[1:20] Councillor Renning Anglehart. I'm Councillor Mark Schwiger, our solicitor Andy Tights,

[1:24] our town manager, Andy Nada, and our town clerk, Lee Karney.

[1:30] So we are ready to start our first agenda item.

[1:32] This is a public hearing, joint meeting with the planning board.

[1:36] A little background before we get the meeting going with,

[1:39] we have a number of people here from our planning department.

[1:42] We have our consultants here as well.

[1:45] And this is an open meeting where the public can participate.

[1:48] In Rhode Island, cities and towns are required to update and adopt

[1:52] the comprehensive community plan every 10 years for review by the Rhode Island Division of

[1:58] Statewide Planning and East Greenwich is now in the process of updating its plan. The comprehensive

[2:05] plan must identify the town's goals and policies for future growth and development over a 20-year horizon.

[2:12] In December, the town hired Libra planners of Providence-based planning firm to assist our town

[2:18] staff. Also they will be working with our town council and planning board in

[2:23] constructing our plan. The planning board had an opportunity to review an

[2:27] introductory presentation by Libra at their March 4th meeting and tonight the

[2:33] planning board is joining the town council and town planning staff and Libra for

[2:38] this public hearing. The community will have the opportunity to participate in our

[2:42] discussions with questions and comments. So now I'd like to introduce our town

[2:46] planner Alrenaldi to begin our discussion with his introductory remarks.

[3:16] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

[3:22] East graded is East graded is current, comprehensive plan has expired. However,

[3:29] recent changes in state law introduced a penalty provision if the town, which is if the town does

[3:38] not re-adopt its plan within 12 years of expiration, which is much 24th, 2026, and loses its

[3:48] ability to rely on that plan for local, land use decisions such as subdivisions, variances,

[3:57] and major development approvals.

[4:00] This penalty provision was added only last year.

[4:05] Once the staff and our legal team understood the impacts of it, we developed a practical solution

[4:18] to update our comprehensive plan, and that's going to be in a two-phase approach.

[4:25] adopting phase one before the deadline keeps the town legally protected, and it enables the town to use its plan for any local land use decisions.

[4:41] The phase approach is not ideal. However, it's the most workable option given our deadline constraints.

[4:51] Phase 1 focuses on meeting state requirements and the deadline includes updated data required

[5:03] mapping, housing, infrastructure inventories, and other mandatory components.

[5:11] The goal is to adopt a compliant plan before the deadline to preserve the town's local

[5:17] and use authority, as I said.

[5:22] One of the not ideal elements that came up was actually today when

[5:31] we received quite a number of emails from residents regarding a particular area. It's in North

[5:39] West and region of town. It was designated in the 2013

[5:48] comprehensive plan as an area for acceptable is an area of

[5:54] high density and and and multi multi use commercially

[6:04] residential. Consequently, a developer had that explanation, and in not craft creative plan,

[6:14] and as everybody probably knows in this room, submitted a 410 unit subdivision,

[6:23] which was denied and then overruled by the state court.

[6:28] So we were, my recommendation today was to delete that recommendation and keep it as an F2.

[6:39] However, Paan walking into this meeting, I was, I discussed a few things and I'd like to refer to the town solicitor and he tights for his explanation.

[6:56] Thank you.

[6:56] So yes, I just want to, I want to go back a little bit and there was this particular

[7:05] development with 410 units on Division Road, which the planning board did deny when it

[7:18] was before them with master plan.

[7:20] This was under the previous law and it was appealed to the state housing appeals board.

[7:25] and the State Housing Appeals Board overturned that denial. And this was actually just before the

[7:35] State Housing Appeals Board itself was going out of business. They were abolished as of December 31st

[7:43] of this was 2024. That was they were abolished. This decision came out about noon time on Saturday

[7:54] December 30th. We were ready, and so the town filed an appeal of that state housing appeals board

[8:06] called SHAB. We filed an appeal of the SHAB decision with the Superior Court on Saturday night

[8:14] of New Year's weekend, while they were still in business to make sure that there was no question.

[8:22] As a result of that appeal, we were able to negotiate and some of the neighbors who were

[8:29] participating as parties in the litigation as well.

[8:32] They were part of it and negotiated actually a significant benefit of a restriction of

[8:39] 50% age restricted of those units, that 50% of them would be age restricted, which what

[8:49] it has as a major effect is dealing with peak traffic flow. You know,

[8:53] none of all these people go into work and coming home from work at the same

[8:56] time. Yes, they drive the roads, but they're not all there with those peak

[9:01] hours. So, so the town has been very involved with this all along. At the

[9:06] moment, the town is awaiting presumably the developer coming back in for

[9:11] preliminary plan approval.

[9:16] As noted by Mr. Analdi, we're concerned that if this is not renewed,

[9:24] if this new plan is not adopted now, then we have a problem applying our comprehensive plan to

[9:33] any land use decision, whether it be these people if they come back in with their preliminary plan,

[9:41] or just whatever is showing up at the zoning board next month, where the planning board,

[9:47] two lots of divisions, to 410 units, whatever it is, we will not be able to apply our

[9:54] comprehensive plan to it. That's why the urgency is involved here. Specifically, tonight, I understand,

[10:03] as Mr. Analdi said, he was prepared to take this section out, but we do have an issue with a quorum.

[10:09] Two of the members of the council,

[10:12] Karen Korrenthal, and Renewangel Hart,

[10:16] when the division road development came up,

[10:20] went to the Ethics Commission and received permission,

[10:24] effectively. It was confirmed that they had the right under the public,

[10:29] public exception to speak before the planning board on this.

[10:35] However, there was some key language at the very end of the Ethics Commission opinion,

[10:44] which I just have the one from his angle cards here tonight, which says finally in the unlikely

[10:49] event that any aspect of this proposed development comes before the town council.

[10:54] The petitioner is strongly encouraged to recuse from participation therein and or to seek

[10:59] further guidance from the Ethics Commission.

[11:02] Well, all of these emails came over the last three days, the weekends, so there's no

[11:08] time to seek further guidance from the ethics commission within the timetable.

[11:13] And I have given my legal opinion, which I think is that Miss Engelhart is capable of

[11:20] voting on the comprehensive plan as a whole as it's been presented here tonight.

[11:27] That is the entire plan.

[11:29] it's not just this development. It's language that was there before that's not changing.

[11:35] I think that is not a conflict to her to vote on the entire plan. I do think based on the ethics

[11:42] commission language, it would be a problem. If it were to have a specific amendment as

[11:47] or not, Mr. Rinaldi suggested to remove that section, she would have to recuse and because we are

[11:55] missing two of our other counselors we would not have a quorum and therefore the

[11:59] comprehensive plan adoption could not go forward at all. And then so we are

[12:05] still waiting until we have an opportunity to do it again and during that time the

[12:12] town is vulnerable. The town is a whole and even the people on division road. We

[12:18] don't know who's out there with applications ready to come in or not. But it's a

[12:24] vulnerability that we don't think is worth it, at least it's my recommendation.

[12:28] And as I said, it is my legal opinion that you can participate on the discussion and

[12:33] vote of the comp plan as a whole.

[12:34] But if it's focused on an amendment to remove that section to change that section that would

[12:40] specifically affect the division road development, she would have to recuse.

[12:44] And then we would basically have to drop this whole thing for at least three weeks possibly

[12:51] longer depending when council members are available.

[12:56] So to clarify, we do have a remedy for the high density designation on a division

[13:03] road development.

[13:04] Yes.

[13:05] What I want to point out is this is not a one and done.

[13:10] It's already part of two phases to do this and then have it.

[13:15] But it does not have to wait another nine months for the entire comprehensive plan to

[13:20] be done.

[13:20] I do think there should be a debate that includes people from all parts of town as to where we want high density development or don't want it, but there's no reason that this couldn't come as a smaller amendment in another month or so to the town council we are allowed to amend the town the comprehensive permit four times per year and related to housing we have an unlimited number of amendments so this could come back in a month or two and deal with that issue.

[13:50] It's not something that we're saying you must wait nine months before it will be resolved and I think there has been expressed a

[14:01] General I mean you'll hear from people today in the meeting, but it seems like people are in support of doing that change the planner has language that he's prepared to provide to the planning board at you know at their next meeting they can even take up that and get it get the process started.

[14:17] So Andy, are we in a position that we can't do that change today because we don't care

[14:23] vote?

[14:24] Yes.

[14:25] Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but normally when you recuse yourself, you recuse yourself

[14:29] for a certain project.

[14:30] There's no project on the table today.

[14:32] It's just the area.

[14:34] I have conflicts near my house, my brother lives in town, other people live in town.

[14:38] Under that theory, I shouldn't be able to vote on anything.

[14:40] I think she should be able to vote tonight, that's just my personal opinion, but we don't

[14:44] have time to get another ethics opinion.

[14:45] Yeah, I think she can vote on and I said I think she can vote on the general plan the way it is now

[14:51] But I think with specific discussion and a specific motion that would affect that parcel

[14:58] It is a development it is

[15:00] It is vested for master plan approval at the moment. So it is a development. And as I said, in light of very explicit language, strongly encouraged was the word of the ethics commission. My, my advice to Miss angle hard is not to take that risk of committing that kind of violation. The only concern I have is you don't put her in a position where she's forced to vote one way. She can't vote the other way.

[15:29] I don't think that's right.

[15:32] She's literally forced to vote for the way it is.

[15:36] Yes.

[15:37] I'm not.

[15:39] Yes.

[15:40] That's it.

[15:41] Right.

[15:41] No.

[15:41] But it's she can vote against well, she could vote against it.

[15:46] Can you just hear a microphone?

[15:47] I'm sorry.

[15:48] I mean, Renew can vote against.

[15:50] I guess she could vote against the entire plan.

[15:53] And if you and the chair voted for it, it would still pass on a two-to-one vote.

[16:00] She could do that.

[16:02] She just can't vote on a specific amendment.

[16:05] Can we do the amendment?

[16:06] Or we can't even do the amendment?

[16:07] No, you can't do the amendment because you need a quorum to do the amendment.

[16:11] No, you can't do the amendment.

[16:13] It's a tricky situation and I've given over the course of the day

[16:19] and that's the best solution I can come up with.

[16:23] I feel like we're in a shotgun mode.

[16:26] I just want to tell everybody this just came up this afternoon.

[16:30] I wasn't aware of this. I was perfectly willing to vote until this was brought to my attention

[16:37] that I had refused because I had to have a conflict with the developer at this situation.

[16:42] So I did not have time prior to this to seek another ethics opinion.

[16:51] I think what we have here is we have a delayed solution or delayed amendment that I think would be favorable to many of the residents here tonight who are concerned about the high density designation for that parcel.

[17:05] So I think what we'll do now is move on with our presentation and then we will have an opportunity for people to come up to ask questions to clarify this and we can have some additional discussion.

[17:15] but at the present time, we can't make that amendment to remove the high-density designation for

[17:22] the Division of Apostle, but there was agreement that we are legally able to do that from our

[17:27] solicitor, our planning board director, and that is our likely intent as soon as we have a quorum to

[17:35] do that. So we could still do the amendment just on a different day? Yes. As soon as we go through the

[17:42] process of removing that and coming back to the council, then we can pass that amendment.

[17:48] And if somebody was to go to town hall and file something before we do that vote, are they obligated on what we're doing tonight or can we?

[17:58] Well, only if only if the current developer who has a vested plan were to give up his rights to that land, there's someone who owns the land, someone has a vested plan, someone else can't come in now and make another proposal.

[18:11] right. I mean, even if we were, even if we were to make that amendment, it still would

[18:17] not apply to the current development. Okay. The current developer is vested. It would

[18:22] only apply if someone came in with a, if this guy gave it up and somebody totally new came

[18:28] in, that would be where it might make a difference. But. And do we know one will have a quorum?

[18:37] Not until May, the beginning of May.

[18:40] Mr. Donigan is not available until May 2nd, and Renew and Karen, Renew Anglehart and

[18:46] Karen Cornthole are both recused, so that is a quirk of our scheduling here, very unusual.

[18:54] And as far as advertising this again, it's going to need to be, take three weeks for the

[18:59] advertising and so forth.

[19:00] So it's probably likely that that's when it's going to come up as an early May anyway.

[19:05] That would be when the soonest it could come up.

[19:10] It would have to be re advertised as opposed to continued.

[19:13] Yes.

[19:14] We're going to vote on it.

[19:16] We're going to go on this one now.

[19:18] And then this would be a new amendment.

[19:19] So it would have to be advertised.

[19:22] Any public hearing we have to re advertise at three weeks.

[19:25] So that will take us into nearly to May.

[19:28] That would take us into that time frame.

[19:30] Okay.

[19:33] Well, you didn't think you were going to learn all of this legal policy and procedure

[19:39] tonight, but when we proceed with our presentation.

[19:44] Thank you, Mr. President.

[19:47] So the good news is, face two of the comprehensive plan is going to be a robust community engagement

[19:55] with a lot of discussion and I hope to see everybody at this meeting at the following meetings that we have, because we are going to discuss density, what's appropriate, what's acceptable.

[20:13] It's a very important subject in the time that we're in right now with the general assembly.

[20:20] So, Phase 2 is going to be a real good, good phase robust community engagement.

[20:30] We're preparing our website portion of the website for public engagement with Facebook posts so that everyone will be notified as to when the meetings or surveys and there's a variety of public outreach when those will be coming out.

[20:49] So I hope to see everybody's response in those engaging pieces.

[20:57] We're going to be developing policies, detailed implementation strategies.

[21:04] We're also adding broad state law resiliency planning, historic preservation,

[21:12] and continue on our economic development strategies.

[21:16] So, these ones, the framework, these two is the real, the most notable part of this plan.

[21:29] So with that, we hired Libra Planners, who presented a summary of the comprehensive

[21:36] plan to the planning board, and they are here and prepared to present a presentation to

[21:46] everyone in attendance. So I think to invite Kim Solano to come up and she's the principal of

[21:54] leadware planners.

[22:01] Thank you, Al. Good evening, President Schweger, members of the council,

[22:07] members of the planning board. Thank you for having us here. My name is Kim Solano and I'm the principal

[22:13] of leadware planners. We are municipal planning consultancy and we do similar projects

[22:20] the state in a variety of municipalities.

[22:27] So our city clerk or town clerk has posted slides up on the screen and I'll be speaking to these slides.

[22:36] I apologize to the planning board and to other other city leaders town leaders that this is a repeat presentation of the presentation that we gave you last week.

[22:48] So it'll become very familiar.

[22:53] So the topics in this presentation tonight will discuss the strategy we use to develop the plan, the phase one plan.

[23:01] What we did to learn about the East Greenwich community on such short notice, the data and mapping that we did for the town.

[23:11] how we developed goals and policies, how we developed the plan language in the plan content,

[23:18] a little bit about a thing that we use called the comprehensive guiding goals set of

[23:24] bright policy goals that are designed to inform the entire document. The vision statement,

[23:31] which is a singular statement that embodies those goals, then the organization of the plan,

[23:39] the chapters and then a little bit about phase two and how we hope to engage the community

[23:46] in the following phase.

[23:48] So would you please advance the slide?

[23:53] So the strategy for phase one, when the town first issued the RFP, the request was for

[24:02] a traditional comprehensive plan that would unfold over the normal amount of time, which

[24:08] is usually 12 to 18 months, and we submitted a proposal that fit into the town's schedule,

[24:17] and during the process we became aware of the constraints of the aging of the existing

[24:27] plan.

[24:28] So we were requested to make a new proposal that would create a comprehensive plan that

[24:35] would serve the East Greenwich community for the duration of the planning process and would

[24:42] ultimately form a sort of foundational document and really a set of issues that could be questioned

[24:51] and tested with the public as the project entered phase 2.

[24:56] So the phase 1 plan, the idea was that we would create something that was essentially approval.

[25:03] So the first goal was that it would be familiar policy and the other thing that we had to do is make sure that we could provide a planning document that would fulfill the statewide planning requirements and we worked with town staff to kind of understand the immediate issues.

[25:25] So what we tried to do is make a document that's consistent with your existing planning documents.

[25:33] We proposed very minor revisions to land use because even though the town may actually want to explore changes and the state may be requiring additional changes, we were trying to create a document that was

[25:49] is current but familiar and balancing town and state priorities.

[25:58] And I just want to reiterate that this group will adopt this plan, but it's really to serve as a test plan for the next few months while the robust public engagement informs a new fuller and more accurate direction for the community.

[26:17] next slide, please.

[26:21] So how did we learn about East Greenwich? So we are Rhode Island residents. My

[26:25] daughter went to Rocky Hill School and she on all the on all the literature they listed as an

[26:33] East Greenwich school and it was only during the mapping for this project that we learned it's actually

[26:38] in warwick, but we know a little bit about the community because we drove here every day for four

[26:44] years. And of course, Rhode Island's a small state we're familiar with the

[26:49] community. The first thing we did is we made a site visit and we took photographs

[26:54] and our photographs are beautiful. It was a sunny day but there's a foot of snow

[27:00] and all the photographs. So we're looking forward to another sunny day when there

[27:04] won't be snow on the ground and we'll come back and explore the community again.

[27:08] And we did the photography after we had already kind of looked at the existing comp plan and the existing plans.

[27:18] And so we were looking at it at the physical community with an eye toward the policy that already exists.

[27:27] Normally, in an extended process, consultants may review existing documents and highlight

[27:38] language and material for review.

[27:41] Because we had this two-phase process, we have the opportunity to really pick apart

[27:47] the old plan.

[27:48] plan. So we're really thinking of this plan as familiar but in a sense a tabula rasa.

[27:56] So what are the existing documents that we considered? We looked at the existing comp

[28:01] plan. We looked at the existing municipal resilience plan. We looked at the existing housing

[28:07] plan, which as I understand has not been adopted. We looked at the Harbor Management Plan

[28:12] and the comprehensive community services plan

[28:15] in the school's master plan.

[28:18] Next slide, please.

[28:21] So data in mapping for East Greenwich.

[28:26] The state has a number of requirements

[28:29] for mapping conditions.

[28:31] And the idea with these requirements

[28:33] is that through the expectation of mapping,

[28:37] we, the state expects the community

[28:39] to aware themselves of the land use issues.

[28:43] So what did we do for the mapping and data?

[28:47] We looked at existing information that's in the plan and tried to figure out what's current, what needs to be changed.

[28:56] We used current American Community Survey data.

[29:01] We tried to verify information with other sources, including state and local.

[29:07] We followed the state guide plan, essentially.

[29:11] The state provides a sequence and a list of requirements

[29:16] and we adhere to it faithfully knowing that we would have

[29:21] the opportunity for specialization during phase two.

[29:27] We also used conventional state recommended planning categories.

[29:32] Some comprehensive plans can be really unique and be thematic

[29:37] and explore different objectives, but we felt like given the constraints of this project, best to

[29:45] use state, huge towards state requirements. And we used a conventional mapping in data,

[29:55] presentation, series of images, graphics, etc. But

[30:00] Phase two may actually present questions which will require additional maps and additional data. Next slide, please.

[30:12] So what actually helped us develop the goals and policies in this current plan. The first thing we did is we looked at the existing plan. We kind of shook everything out. We looked at all of those policy documents and we tried to find overlap. And as you might imagine, there was significant overlap.

[30:28] And a sort of sense of where the community wants to be, at least emerge for us.

[30:36] We also sent out a questionnaire to department heads because we wanted to know what the people that work in town hall actually think needs to happen.

[30:48] We considered the existing goals and policies and when we wrote this set, we basically tried

[30:56] to distill those existing goals and policies into something that was a little bit more essential

[31:04] and even kind of long-term eternal.

[31:10] We also created this thing called the Comprehensive Guiding Goals and I'll show you those in

[31:16] a minute. And these were sort of the basic principles that we hope would inform all the chapters.

[31:21] And when we were working on the specific goals and policies of the different chapters, we would

[31:26] refer back to the guiding goals to see, well, does this fit with this sort of picture of what the

[31:34] plan should be? And then from there, we created the vision statement. So often, next slide, please.

[31:40] A traditional process that is 12 to 18 months might start with a very elaborate development

[31:50] of a vision statement and then foundational principles that evolve into basic goals and

[31:58] policies and then implementation items.

[32:01] We kind of worked backwards because of the constraints and the basic.

[32:08] Again, balancing the town, the town aspirations and the state requirements, that was what we were trying to do to get this plan to this place.

[32:24] We reviewed the existing action items and we tried to identify which action items were completed.

[32:31] But ultimately we wanted to limit the number of action items because those are very specific things those require a kind of

[32:41] very involved querying of the community and the staff to know what are the specific things that need to happen to actually make your vision and then your goals and policies of reality.

[32:54] So we tried to limit action items and we tried to eliminate those that had been completed.

[33:00] So in that sense, the plan is ready for a round of review that really explores specific

[33:08] actions to support your goals.

[33:11] The state requires a strategic plan and an implementation plan.

[33:16] The implementation plan is a list of the goals and policies and who is ultimately responsible

[33:26] for executing or shepherding the goals and policies.

[33:32] And then the strategic plan is essentially a prioritizing of the actions according to

[33:40] a calendar.

[33:41] So it lists the goals and policies as the ten years unfold.

[33:48] We viewed this document as foundational for phase two.

[33:51] So it's a great sort of jumping point to test ideas.

[33:56] And we're looking forward to feedback from both the decision-making bodies and the public.

[34:03] Next slide, please.

[34:05] So these are the comprehensive guiding goals.

[34:08] And, again, this was a kind of shaking out the existing plan, and trying to see what

[34:16] makes East Greenwich tech and what should sort of inform every policy and every action

[34:23] that this plan provides.

[34:27] Okay, and then next slide, please.

[34:32] The vision statement.

[34:33] So one thing we've learned after doing compliance and a number of places is that there will be members of the community that are really eager to debate action items, and there will be other members of the community that want to wordsmith every word in the vision statement.

[34:51] So the planning process provides an opportunity for everyone who thinks about planning in every way to kind of come together and inform the plan.

[35:02] Again, this is the vision statement that we came up with through our shaking out process.

[35:08] It's a beginning, but it doesn't have the sort of, it doesn't have the community in

[35:16] promoter, so that's what we're looking for in phase two.

[35:21] Next slide, please.

[35:23] So, the chapters are organized according to essentially the state guide plan.

[35:33] We didn't want to, we wanted to stick close to the recommendations and leave exploration

[35:41] for organizational change to the second phase,

[35:48] next slide.

[35:49] I'd like to invite Manuel Cordero to come up.

[35:52] He's the principal of civic. They are the public engagement consultants and he's going to tell you

[35:59] a little bit about the engagement process in face chip.

[36:15] Good evening. As you just heard, my name is

[36:18] Manuel Cordero. I'm the principal of civic planning and design studio based in Rhode Island.

[36:24] And we specialize in facilitating thoughtful creative and actionable community engagement for

[36:31] processes like this. Another one of our specialties is actually school facility planning, and I remember many of you from planning East Greenwiches school facility master plan, which is bearing fruit right now, so it's exciting for us to be back here working with Libra and with you on this important comprehensive plan update.

[36:54] We understand that you are all preoccupied likely with the document in front of you, so I am just here to give you a brief overview of the engagement process because we are already looking ahead to the phase two and in particular to thinking about the community engagement portion of it.

[37:16] Like you, we believe the comprehensive plan updates are a unique opportunity to take a step back

[37:21] and holistically reflect on the past, the present and the future.

[37:27] And to do that, we've developed a community engagement process that aims to do three things.

[37:33] One, empower community members with data and with best practices, so sharing information.

[37:38] two to truly listen to lived experience and recognize the expertise of community members

[37:46] and three to encourage visioning through multiple iterative creative engagement methods.

[37:54] So in the packets that you have and available to the public as well, you should have a proposed

[38:01] community engagement framework that we've developed with input from the East Granted staff. In it,

[38:07] we've proposed methods that you might expect, like public meetings, but also surveys, workshop

[38:14] series, and interviews with key stakeholders. And we've also been discussing additional

[38:19] methods with town staff to reach key stakeholders and gather insights. So, for example, you might

[38:26] see us at a pop-up event, at a summer concert, or conducting around table discussion with key stakeholders.

[38:34] The goal over a series of

[38:36] Inventes is to move from high-level visioning as Kim was alluding to to defining goals and strategies and then considering policy trade-offs.

[38:47] Although I don't have the time to go through it with you all today, this is just an opportunity for me to introduce myself and my colleague Tim Shea who will be leading a lot of the engagement.

[38:57] And tell you really how excited we are to do this work with you.

[39:01] and to center East Greenwich Community voices in this process of the comprehensive plan update.

[39:09] Thank you.

[39:19] Thank you.

[39:21] Are you, you're completed with your assessment and your presentation?

[39:26] Okay, thank you, Manuel.

[39:28] So at this point, we've had our initial presentation and we will have an opportunity for planning board and town council to ask any questions to begin the discussion.

[39:37] I

[39:53] can start. I guess we can start to. Sure, go ahead.

[39:57] So, can we just go back and talk a little bit more specifically about how to remedy the route to situation and kind of commit to a timing of that?

[40:07] Because our next meeting is when as a planning board, because we could vote on it then you're saying to, okay, so we would maybe just walk through the process as what we would vote to.

[40:20] If we approved the plan tonight, we would vote to amend it on April 15th, if there's enough of us, and then it would go, what's the next step now?

[40:32] Can you use the mic so

[40:37] my office could have something prepared for April 15th, following April 15th, we would then transmit it to the town council.

[40:48] We would need three weeks of consecutive advertisement for our regulations and then following that the town council would then call another public hearing with the planning what again to review and possibly adopt the amendment.

[41:09] As Mr. Tate says, we have four amendments.

[41:14] If it has to do with housing, it's unlimited.

[41:21] Four amendments per year.

[41:24] I'm sorry.

[41:30] So that's a timeline that I can commit to.

[41:37] It may not be as simple as what I just said,

[41:41] But because of timing, but I will coordinate that with the town clerk for the town council meetings and then advertise accordingly.

[41:54] Okay, so maybe we should lead us mid-May if we have those and then we would have a repeat meeting like this threat.

[42:01] But yeah, I think we can move it as schedules allow.

[42:04] I think it's important to make two points.

[42:07] One is this has no impact on the existing development,

[42:11] which is vested at master plan.

[42:14] Correct.

[42:14] Now that development still has to come back

[42:16] for comprehensive and final plan.

[42:19] Are those done together?

[42:21] Is comprehensive and final plans now done in one meeting

[42:24] or is that it would be two meetings?

[42:27] It would be two meetings.

[42:27] More than likely.

[42:28] The final is now administrative. There is no meeting for final.

[42:33] Okay, so they will come to a public, a public hearing and for comprehensive plan.

[42:41] Correct.

[42:41] And the preliminary plan is the hot engineering of the site.

[42:47] So 80 acres is going to be very involved.

[42:52] I'm sorry.

[42:53] I was mixing up comprehensive and preliminary.

[42:55] preliminary. The preliminary is just before the final plan. Yes. Yes. Okay. So they would have to come back for preliminary plan. And final plan is administrative.

[43:06] I'm sorry.

[43:07] Make a comment. Can you introduce yourself, please?

[43:10] Peter Friedrichs from labor planners. The principal. Yes.

[43:13] Peter is my first name. Last name is Friedrichs. F-R-I-E-D. R-S-C-H-S.

[43:19] the principal planner at Libra Planners and I've got a bit of an education into the basic

[43:25] education into the East Greenwich administrative requirements the last couple of months.

[43:30] So one of the things that we've run into for today and tomorrow is that I'll defer to

[43:36] the solicitor on this, the East Greenwich town chart requires three council meetings on

[43:42] an ordinance, which the comprehensive plan is, so as part of that may process, there would

[43:47] be three council meetings. So I require a special town council meeting or push out into June.

[43:54] Just wanted to let everyone know about that.

[44:03] Actually, can I ask a question? I wanted to talk

[44:06] about the existing land use map versus the, what, sorry, staying with that for one more second.

[44:12] Just so now we're saying it's going to be June because we have to have three town council meetings

[44:16] before we can. No, I the three town council meetings may sound like it's a long time, but the council

[44:28] needs twice a month. Right. And it's a matter of schedule, like, which I would wrap with the town

[44:35] clerk to say, logically. But Alan May, we actually probably have a council meeting every Monday because

[44:40] it's the budget month. So into the beginning of June. So whether they want to or not, we're going to

[44:46] meaning probably every single week through May. So that should help simultaneously with this

[44:51] dovetail well. Right. And it does not have to, there has to be notice for the public hearing

[44:58] And the second reading which is here

[45:00] Here. But the charter does not specify a time limit between the second and third reading, which is why we're planning the council's planning to meet tomorrow night for third reading on this. So, um, as Mr. Not indicates, I was going to say there be lots of meetings with the budget and I think there'll be opportunities to get this done in May. And it seems to out there's very low likelihood that between approving the plan tonight and modifying it.

[45:29] in mid-April that a new development could pop into your office because that

[45:33] development could use the route to area, right, as high density if that if the

[45:39] plan is that this way for six weeks or so. The 410 piece property was specifically

[45:47] outlined for high density. There are no other areas that are outlined for high

[45:54] identity. Okay. So just involve this project.

[45:59] And in parallel, we'll see if we can get an ethics opinion. And

[46:04] maybe you won't be conflicted out, right? I mean, I can

[46:09] certainly, yeah, call tomorrow and find out what the situation

[46:12] is. Well, the problem is that they'll give you formal advice

[46:16] on the phone, but you can only rely on a formal written one,

[46:20] which you have to apply, and you have to go to a meeting of the

[46:23] ethics commission that they vote on. And they only meet twice a month. So it seems like

[46:28] the timing will be all about the same. But in answer to your first question, it seems

[46:35] obviously there's no certainty about anything but it seems unlikely that the developer is going to

[46:42] sell it to someone new who would have all their engineering done and be able to come in in the

[46:53] need all the engineering done.

[46:55] So either one or two things are happening.

[46:57] Either the developer is working on the engineering plans

[47:01] and maybe has them done and comes in,

[47:04] but that doesn't matter because that developer

[47:05] is vested no matter what change you make.

[47:09] Or a new developer, and as I said,

[47:12] that new developer would have to come in

[47:14] with all their engineering plans as well,

[47:16] which seems unlikely in that timeframe.

[47:21] Do we need to hear this at first reading again

[47:24] or we've already done our first reading.

[47:25] Done first reading.

[47:26] This would, upon your,

[47:28] upon after the planning board recommendation,

[47:30] you vote, your vote would constitute second reading.

[47:33] Mm-hmm.

[47:33] And then third reading is scheduled for tomorrow.

[47:36] For an amendment,

[47:37] we would have a second reading,

[47:39] and then we could have the third reading the next day.

[47:42] So there's, we do not have to re-advertise,

[47:43] we don't have to extend it out.

[47:44] So three weeks advertising next day,

[47:48] this council will meet anytime it's necessary.

[47:50] meeting again tomorrow if this matter is approved tonight, so we can do that to move this

[47:56] along.

[48:00] So I'm curious about the changes in the existing land use map versus the future land use

[48:08] map.

[48:09] I just was curious about there was a change, a bigger change that I saw on institutional on

[48:16] the existing land use map.

[48:17] I believe that's Camp Fogarty and going to

[48:22] MUPD at that for the future land use map. I was wondering if anybody could speak to that and explain

[48:29] How that works with the federal property

[48:33] This is on page

[48:35] 88 and 89

[48:38] On their pages Libras page 88 and 89 that was probably a leftover from

[48:44] 20, the 2013 plan, so that would be corrected.

[48:49] Okay, so then, but we don't anticipate anything different

[48:53] in the federal plan.

[48:54] Do we, we don't expect the federal government

[48:56] to turn that property over in any way?

[48:59] I, I would not take a chance of protecting

[49:02] what the government's going to be doing.

[49:05] That's true, I, because I see it's commercial industrial

[49:09] and the future land use map, that's why I'm just curious.

[49:12] The same thing with the property on route two I believe it's the farm. I think it's you're we're looking at

[49:19] Believe it looks like it might be farmland currently and it's

[49:24] slated I shouldn't say that that's both

[49:27] It's commercial industrial is this the purple area on route two

[49:33] Going west is that the Bosch um not Bosch. What's the

[49:39] Before I pour a plastics property, the old

[49:43] boxage property, is that what that is?

[49:46] I can't answer that, right?

[49:49] Okay, sorry.

[49:50] All these very detailed questions that you have,

[49:54] we will be able to focus that on focus on all of those

[49:58] down to the platinum lot we face too.

[50:03] Okay, I just was curious because there's some.

[50:06] You guys were great about, I had some other concerns you took, you would dress those as well.

[50:12] I just was curious about some of the changes in the map overall.

[50:19] I did have a question about,

[50:25] we had used a specific number for affordable housing for the

[50:29] number of 7.21 percent, which we're currently at, that's at 2024 and I was curious as to

[50:37] I think I had asked Andy this as well do we need to put numbers do we have to plug numbers in for affordable housing in when we're doing a comprehensive plan like this or do we is it better to leave it general is it better to leave it open?

[50:53] Or because of the it's better to be specific in something like this when it comes to housing with the environment from the general assembly I would like to drill down to get specifics.

[51:07] So if it means, for instance, I had a question today, you know, in one of those state plans,

[51:16] they have us at building 222 units in like six, six years.

[51:24] You know, that number stuck with me.

[51:26] I'm like, well, how's that going to happen?

[51:28] And I went back and I did an average of all of our building permits over 20 years.

[51:34] and we roughly do about 22 to 25 units per year, so it works out, but we will drill down to specifics.

[51:45] Okay. And that's one more question I apologize.

[51:53] I think I brought the wrong notebook,

[52:00] so I don't have that question. I'll come back to it. Let me look for it.

[52:05] Those are my questions for in the moments.

[52:12] Other questions for our staff or consultants?

[52:16] Al, you had mentioned you conceptually moving away

[52:21] from designating specific parcels

[52:23] for high density development and coming up

[52:26] with a broader perspective on location of affordable housing.

[52:29] A lot of it based on community input.

[52:32] Can you expand on that a little bit?

[52:34] And so it's my opinion that we as professionals shouldn't dictate to a private land owner.

[52:47] Your land should be this or your land should be that.

[52:52] So I would like to do areas, for instance, and I'm being very broad with it.

[53:00] the harbor area, the hill area, the route to Colorado, and then the western section of town.

[53:10] All of those areas are unique in and in and of themselves. And there is

[53:18] certain density that can be acceptable in each one of those areas. They will that those areas

[53:24] will be discussed and it will be asked, what's acceptable in the Hill neighborhood? What's acceptable in the harbor? What's acceptable in the room to Harvard?

[53:37] So that's what I and Michael is to drill down and be that specific of those areas.

[53:44] I mean, you say what's acceptable? That's based on community input.

[53:48] Community input. Yes.

[53:49] What other factors are influenced that because there's a lot of talk about community needs

[53:54] that your comprehensive plan should reflect community needs.

[54:00] What's reflective in density is land capacity.

[54:05] So, sewers and sewers and water, it's pretty much anything could happen with sewers and water.

[54:13] So that it reverts to what does the town prefer to happen in this in a particular area?

[54:21] Community needs is identified through looking at our demographics, our demographics and

[54:27] lean towards families. It doesn't ring out anything in particular where we would say what we have a need

[54:38] for X. I think we offer a variety of housing options for any stage of a

[54:48] person's life. Because people now are talking about that missing middle, you know,

[54:52] with starter homes, smaller homes, and how does that, is that, or how does that

[54:56] become a community need? Well, it's older people downsizing, or I've had many, many

[55:05] calls and conversations with people who have five bedroom house and there's only two people living

[55:10] in the house and they don't like their heating bill. And one woman said she shuts down her

[55:19] second floor because they don't use that area. So that's one. The other is young families

[55:28] families, young families, young professionals, buying a home in East Greenwich, they're competing

[55:37] with families that are looking for larger homes and so on. Those are identifiable segments

[55:46] of the population.

[55:50] Can I ask a general question? We're talking about conservation and natural habitat, which

[55:56] I know is a huge concern for people in East Greenwich, and yet at the same point, when

[56:01] I look at the map for the Conservation and Natural Habitat on page 16 of Libra's presentation,

[56:07] I see that much of it is already built upon. Is there any way, I guess I'm curious, are

[56:16] these significant, you know, are these areas of significant importance that we should not

[56:22] have built on altogether or were they I mean at the time that these homes were built they were not

[56:27] considered to be you could you just talk a little bit about how you know we identify these areas

[56:34] and you building upon them much of it's already built upon. Right it all depends on the

[56:41] the decade that the development comes through as everyone knows 60s the 50s 60s there was

[56:49] less regulation as we move forward to today.

[56:53] There's a lot more regulation.

[56:55] So that dictates really development patterns

[56:59] and what's allowed and what's not allowed.

[57:01] But what I would do is the state of Rhode Island

[57:04] has a very, very informed GIS overlays.

[57:12] So they look at soils.

[57:15] They look at wetlands.

[57:16] and you start layering them onto a plan and you see what areas that really need to be preserved.

[57:28] And also, I like to look at links. If we own a lot of property and

[57:34] conservation commission has some property. So, is it a piece of property that is privately owned

[57:43] what is in between two of our properties are two already conserved properties. And if that came

[57:49] on the market, it's a good link between the two to extend the conserved land. So that's

[57:59] how at least how I look at open space and observation. And the same thing with the farm,

[58:08] the agricultural soils, the Libras presentation page 17,

[58:12] we're talking about, I guess agricultural soils

[58:16] or prime farmland, much of that's already built upon already.

[58:20] It looks like in the same thing,

[58:22] I just hope that people understand that this is something

[58:27] that has happened in the past and that the town

[58:30] has already built upon a lot of significant

[58:32] can't farm land or agricultural properties.

[58:38] And so we are not looking at that.

[58:40] I think I had asked about that.

[58:42] We've taken farm land out of potential density

[58:45] and for development and we're asking for that to stay open space.

[58:52] All right, thank you.

[58:53] Those are the questions I have today.

[58:57] The question is from the Planning Board Council.

[59:01] If not, we'll open up to the public

[59:03] and ask them to come up and make any comments they'd like or ask questions of our staff,

[59:09] we have our consultants here as well, planning board members.

[59:27] Good evening.

[59:29] Hi, I'm Greg Weiss, resident east crunch and I appreciate I think before I got here tonight,

[59:34] there was conversations about amendment and that's why I'm here tonight. I guess most of you know that

[59:41] my neighborhood and the people around my neighborhood were working really hard to mitigate the

[59:48] 400 and 10 unit development. Now we know it as the division road project and you know I realize

[59:56] I'm not here to advocate that we could we could change that because

[1:00:00] It was a settlement, the town and the developer made. But why I'm here tonight is because the draft of the comp plan still identifies this parcel of land as a mixed use, high density zone. The old comp plan said you could build up to 20 units per acre on this site, which would, with those 80 acres and another 10 that's adjacent to it that that could be up to 1900 units. And to be fair, the old comp plan estimated only

[1:00:30] 852 would be built there because there's you know wetlands and so on but you know that could

[1:00:38] concentrate 25% of East French's housing units on those 90 acres of land even though the

[1:00:44] current land is owned for one unit for every two acres.

[1:00:50] I would like to remind you all that

[1:00:52] during the planning board meetings for the 410 unit development and division road the attorney

[1:00:58] for the division road project, our youth developer was actually doing the town of favor.

[1:01:02] He said the developer could max out that particular property as much as 20 years for an anchor

[1:01:07] rather than the five that he proposed.

[1:01:10] So we all know that the residents of East Greenwich don't want any more density there yet the

[1:01:16] draft continues to identify that as being a high density area.

[1:01:25] So why is that important?

[1:01:26] In the event that developer does not build on the project and someone else comes along and ask for a modification and they come before our planning board, the, the comp plan is what would, would help some guide their decision and that our expired comp plan was a, was a huge roadblock in our ability to mitigate the 410 development, so I'm asking, let's not make that mistake again, even if it's unlikely that we're in that scenario again, let's not allow for that because it's

[1:01:56] is let's learn from our mistakes.

[1:02:00] And Mr. Rinaldi even, I think I heard him say,

[1:02:03] tonight that he was in agreement with,

[1:02:06] we should have a realistic and appropriate development

[1:02:09] for that location.

[1:02:10] So I heard the people from Libra planners

[1:02:16] talking about our goals and what was stated

[1:02:19] and what stated in the draft.

[1:02:22] We should create mixed use zones

[1:02:24] in areas with public transit.

[1:02:25] it, but we know there's none there. It's East Branch's mature and established and large-scale

[1:02:32] changes that land use are neither required or advised. Land use modifications should focus

[1:02:39] on already developed lots. We should protect the rural and agricultural nature of areas

[1:02:44] of the west, create mixed-use zones, preserve rural and character of western areas. So there's

[1:02:51] ways that it's contradicting labeling that area as a high density mixed-use area and I think I heard a

[1:03:01] mention like that might be the only one that's in the comp plan and it just doesn't belong there.

[1:03:07] I'm not saying housing doesn't belong there and even some sort of density should belong there but

[1:03:13] And 18, 852, 1900 units, I think we heard from all the residents, that 410 was more than

[1:03:21] enough, so let's not allow for more than that in our new complaint.

[1:03:26] Thank you.

[1:03:28] Thank you.

[1:03:31] I appreciate your comments and we received a number of calls and emails with that same

[1:03:37] concern and I think we have tried to respond to that by removing that designation.

[1:03:44] it just will take a little bit more time than we had initially hoped for.

[1:04:08] The Brinoise 10 Westfield Drive. I'm not to repeat anything and I know that it came up earlier

[1:04:14] and I'd like to thank Al for his recommendation. But I'd still like to get the comments I prepared

[1:04:20] so they are on the public record and also because we are not voting on this today. I think it's

[1:04:27] important that everyone here understand the importance of misdivision. A lot

[1:04:35] designation for our entire town. So being up here today feels a little bit like

[1:04:42] Deja vu. I remember when the 410 unit development was up for approval a couple

[1:04:47] of years back and looking at the towns then comp plan and being very confused.

[1:04:52] How could this area have ever been marked for high density mixed use development when key goals and guiding principles within the plan completely contradicted doing so.

[1:05:04] But at that point, it was too late. The developer was able to build a strong case for high density relying heavily on our town's own comp plan.

[1:05:13] Yet we find ourselves in a similar position today and to be quite honest, I'm a little bit frustrated.

[1:05:19] I'm frustrated that because this process feels rushed, and I know there have been many valid reasons for that,

[1:05:26] that we may not be taking a detailed enough look at the draft comp plan to make sure this is done thoroughly,

[1:05:32] and that the necessary changes are made in the first phase.

[1:05:37] I'm frustrated that, for as important as this point is, that the council cannot pass an amendment today,

[1:05:45] day, the day before the call plan is due. But there is good news. It's not too late

[1:05:52] this time around. After all, that's why we're all here tonight to make public comment

[1:05:56] and for the council to respond accordingly. Despite what some may think, the 410 unit

[1:06:02] development is most definitely not a foregone conclusion and we need to stop treating it as

[1:06:07] such. In today's economy, who is to say that if that it will ever be built and who is to

[1:06:14] say that the developer, or if he sells it, the new developer will want to modify the current

[1:06:19] plans. This is not about rehashing the past. This is about the future possible development

[1:06:26] on that land. Because if that happens, which again, is not an unlikely scenario, the new

[1:06:32] comp plan would once again serve as a guideline for what they can do. If it remains the same,

[1:06:38] that could mean over 1,800 units in that area. I'd like to read several of the guiding

[1:06:43] principles that have already been mentioned from the new draft comp plan. Protect town assets

[1:06:50] from hazards, including inundation. Encourage housing development according to smart growth

[1:06:57] principles. Protect the rural agricultural character of the areas to the west. These are only three

[1:07:05] of the principles in the draft plan, but nearly all of the guiding principles in the draft plan

[1:07:10] are in direct opposition to the land on division road

[1:07:14] being designated as high density mixed use.

[1:07:18] I also reviewed some of the state's comprehensive plan guidelines,

[1:07:22] which clearly state that future land use designations should be consistent

[1:07:27] with the goals and policies set forth within the comprehensive plan.

[1:07:32] This surely is not the case if you continue to designate this area

[1:07:36] as high density mixed use.

[1:07:38] We need more affordable housing in our town and in our state.

[1:07:43] That is absolutely true.

[1:07:45] But it can and it should be done in a much more thoughtful way.

[1:07:50] And in a way that moves the needle towards the 10%.

[1:07:55] To me this would look like creating pockets of 100% affordable housing throughout the town.

[1:08:00] In the western area, off-division road, this might look something closer to single-family

[1:08:05] homes on a half-acre or quarter-acre lots.

[1:08:09] Of course, I am not the expert, and isn't that the point.

[1:08:14] We as a community trust in and rely on our experts, the town planning department and our planning

[1:08:20] director, Alvernaldi, as well as town officials to do their due diligence despite time restraints

[1:08:26] And to make decisions that will guide our town for the next ten years, thoughtfully and

[1:08:31] with purpose, the draft plan as is does not do this.

[1:08:36] I respectfully ask that you revise the future land use designation of the land off of Division

[1:08:41] Road to properly reflect not only what our community wants, but what the comp plan itself outlines

[1:08:48] and what is best for the future of our town.

[1:08:51] Thank you.

[1:08:59] Thank you.

[1:08:59] If you're comments and people are welcome to come up and give their views whether they've

[1:09:05] been heard before or not, there's nothing wrong with people going over the same material

[1:09:09] and adding their slant to it.

[1:09:12] I would comment that I know that you have the feeling that there's a rush here to do this.

[1:09:19] We do have a deadline to meet and so we have to adhere to a timeline.

[1:09:23] But as far as a rush, this phase one is really an outline that is awaiting development and to be fleshed out.

[1:09:35] As part of this phase one, we've created a number of different categories.

[1:09:41] For example, tonight it was mentioned improvement of public services, natural and ecological resources, recreational opportunities, hazard mitigation down at the waterfront, historic structures,

[1:09:52] in landscapes, looking at the downtown and looking at modifications to the downtown.

[1:10:00] So it's a very big document.

[1:10:04] And I think it's not really a draft that we're going to be voting on tonight.

[1:10:07] It is basically a phase one.

[1:10:10] And this process will be going on throughout 26 and into 27.

[1:10:14] There will be multiple public hearings.

[1:10:17] And there was nothing here that cannot be changed and modified.

[1:10:21] So, I think there'll be a lot of opportunities to, you know, have your concerns addressed as we go forward.

[1:10:31] Mark, I have something that wants to speak.

[1:10:34] I'm sorry, yes, please come forward.

[1:10:38] My name is Len Greco, 15, Ms. Fry Drive, Ms. Gretich.

[1:10:43] I'm a neighbor of Greg and Sabrina, and it's why we'll rehash anything that they went over.

[1:10:49] I just wanted to try to clarify one thing and ask a question.

[1:10:52] Mr. Rudolph, you were, am I correct in understanding that they're proposed or the proposed amendment

[1:10:59] that might be following on is to change the 80 or 90 acres on the area we've been

[1:11:09] discussing would be proposed as F2 going forward as opposed to whatever the designation is

[1:11:18] now. And if that is the case, what kind of pushback might we expect to hear from anyone

[1:11:28] in this room or others that would oppose that proposed amendment?

[1:11:36] Do you? I would be making that amendment when I have a chance to do that,

[1:11:41] so I can only speak for myself, but I do think it should be changed.

[1:11:47] The zoning is F2 now, the zoning is staying F2, there is just the section of the comp plan

[1:11:55] that suggests it identified several different nodes within the town as being possible good

[1:12:03] locations for high density, housing, and mixed use in the past.

[1:12:08] But the zoning will stay the same as to what kind of push back there might be from removing it from the plan. I don't know. In fact, we might have probably might have push back from the state of Rhode Island and they may they may not want to approve the plan with that amendment because we're taking away housing, which which is part of why it needs to be looked at overall as part of this process to.

[1:12:37] it needs to be looked at

[1:12:40] comprehensively because the town

[1:12:42] has an obligation to provide the housing.

[1:12:45] And if it's not going to be there

[1:12:46] it's going to be somewhere else.

[1:12:48] It's it's not it's a zero-sum game.

[1:12:53] There's not the acres if it's a two-acre

[1:12:56] so that mean you can do the map, right?

[1:12:59] It would be 45 houses instead of

[1:13:01] whatever the other number is.

[1:13:02] So I'm not saying don't develop it.

[1:13:04] I'm saying just that you clarify.

[1:13:07] Are you answering my questions?

[1:13:08] The zoning won't change.

[1:13:10] There was a proposal in the 2013 plan to change that development, that land to mixed

[1:13:17] use plan development, but that zoning change was never made.

[1:13:21] And so it was mentioned in the town conference of plan in 2013 to allow a density bonuses

[1:13:28] of 10, 12 or 20 units per acre.

[1:13:32] But since that zoning change was never made, there was no statute in East Granite

[1:13:38] that allowed 10, 12, or 20-unit bonuses to prudensity. But it was mentioned in the plan at that

[1:13:47] time in 2013.

[1:13:50] Thank you.

[1:13:58] Other questions or comments?

[1:14:01] Is there anybody online who would

[1:14:03] like to make a comment? Yes.

[1:14:11] Alissa, can you hear us? Yes, hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi. This is

[1:14:17] Lisa Hoover. I'm a resident of East Greenwich as well. Just a quick question about this phased

[1:14:25] approach to this plan. I understand that the phase one has to be into the state tomorrow

[1:14:33] is what I'm hearing. Once there's opportunity for public comment and round tables and

[1:14:40] And however, the public will be able to comment on this.

[1:14:45] Can we amend what gets submitted to the state, or will we be locked in to what is submitted

[1:14:51] to the state with only the opportunity to flush it out if you could clarify?

[1:14:58] Yeah, our solicitor had mentioned that.

[1:15:00] A little bit earlier, and we can review that again. Right. Yes. It is, it is not locked in. You can amend the comprehensive plan. You can amend it at least four times per year. And to the extent that the amendment deals with housing, you can amend it an unlimited number of times per year. So this is not, as I said, not one and done. It can be amended. And it is meant to be

[1:15:29] a living document over time. It's meant to be a guide, a long-term guide plan, but it also

[1:15:35] is meant to adjust to changing circumstances. Yeah, Andy, I would add to that as well that the

[1:15:43] planning board has discussed this at length. And we feel comfortable where we are at this point

[1:15:50] and with this plan going forward because of the tremendous amount of flexibility in a short

[1:15:56] amount of time for us to make adjustments into plan. So we have every reason to believe that we're

[1:16:01] going to include more input from the community from the town, which we're very interested in hearing,

[1:16:07] and factoring that into our process as we continue to evaluate the plan and make whatever adjustments

[1:16:13] we feel are in the town's best interests.

[1:16:18] Thank you.

[1:16:28] Can I ask a question quickly?

[1:16:30] So, this is probably a question for Owl, so I'm curious in the draft plan, is there

[1:16:38] any way we could designate or encourage developers to build something like Cape

[1:16:43] Cod style houses or raised ranches as opposed to, you know, 5,000 square foot homes or, you know,

[1:16:51] like instead of give a density bonus for like, you know, on that same piece of property, maybe,

[1:16:56] or maybe I can't talk about that property,

[1:16:58] but another piece of property say, you know,

[1:17:01] instead of like a half acre for a raised ranch,

[1:17:06] I think that would be much more in keeping with the town

[1:17:11] and also in keeping with the affordable housing part.

[1:17:14] I'm not against the density, but I'm just saying

[1:17:17] we don't seem to get a lot of middle homes.

[1:17:22] it's called missing middle. Yeah. And it is the smaller houses on smaller

[1:17:31] lots. Yeah. And that's what I mean when I said it's being specific, you know, usually

[1:17:39] there's single family, sometimes there do boxes, those missing middle. But in the

[1:17:45] western section, and this is certainly not in stone, I'm just putting it out there for

[1:17:51] discussion, but the rest of the section would be, in my opinion, a candidate for a recommendation

[1:17:58] or a strategy to encourage missing middle development. That includes, this is something that I do.

[1:18:09] 25% is mandatory. I always ask developers to do 35% for housing. We could write it into the plan

[1:18:19] that if you do it and take this advice, 35% affordable housing. I know I've discussed with several

[1:18:27] planning board members making an ordinance change that we raise the the percentage. So these are

[1:18:34] all ideas that we could all we could flesh out when we are in phase two. Yeah because I don't think

[1:18:41] that people understand that the 10% has to be maintained after we reach the 10% we still have to

[1:18:47] maintain the 10% and every every year we build market rate houses we build more

[1:18:55] market rate than affordable houses so it always tilts that number yeah I mean I

[1:19:02] would prefer I think a lot of people would prefer single-family homes that are

[1:19:06] much more you know raised ranches or keep cards something maybe just a little bit

[1:19:11] smaller than what we're currently getting.

[1:19:14] Sorry.

[1:19:19] Thank you.

[1:19:20] So I just want to say that this is an issue we encounter across the state and even in other states.

[1:19:25] And that often the biggest objection to the increased density is not in the number of people or even the traffic.

[1:19:34] But the image that is presented by design that's unacceptable.

[1:19:37] In many of our recommendations, we include design standards or templates that developers

[1:19:49] can use that are sort of immediately approval, but that by considering design as part of

[1:19:57] the process, it helps us wage the concerns of the neighbors and the community in general.

[1:20:05] Thank you, Chair.

[1:20:13] There are other questions on online.

[1:20:21] Hi Denise, can you hear us?

[1:20:23] Yes, hi, can you hear me?

[1:20:24] Yep.

[1:20:25] I thank everyone Denise Lopez, 35 FOX for an East Greenwich.

[1:20:31] I want to thank the WICES for so eloquently

[1:20:34] kind of summarizing what many of us in the community

[1:20:37] have been feeling.

[1:20:38] As you know, I've been involved and have sat in on many

[1:20:41] of the planning board meetings, you know,

[1:20:44] from the development that went on to division

[1:20:46] and we, I apologize, I don't know if I think formally prepared, but, you know, we kept referencing

[1:20:52] back to the comp plan and some of the things that were put forth there, but were not necessarily

[1:20:57] instituted as protections for what the community was looking for. And I think, you know, all too

[1:21:04] often, we were, you know, we were going to be having working sessions. There were going to be community

[1:21:09] input on the upfront. And then next thing you know, we're racing to get consultants and have to get

[1:21:15] draft in tomorrow. So, you know, while consultants are great, I do hope that, you know, those

[1:21:23] in power are listening to what the community is longing for, and that is balance.

[1:21:28] The consultant even spoke earlier about, you know, well, you drive through the neighborhood,

[1:21:32] you don't live here. And there's a lot of concerns, flags that have been raised, and, you know,

[1:21:38] somewhat fallen on deaf ears. So, I hope that as we move forward that we are truly working

[1:21:44] together to try to preserve the historical aspects of the community, you know, meet the

[1:21:50] demands of affordable housing so that the community, you know, can be more balanced in the

[1:21:54] missing middle, but also preserve what we have. And, you know, it just, I frustrated because

[1:22:01] I thought we were going to get more input on the front end of this before, you know, moving

[1:22:05] forward with the draft. You know, I sat in on one or two working sessions and then there

[1:22:09] was no structure of what was done previously, you know, the comprehensive plan with

[1:22:14] But doing it more of the officials, people from the community, we jumped right to consultants.

[1:22:20] And now I just wanted to confirm what we're putting forward tomorrow will remain a draft,

[1:22:24] or is it the first apologies because I missed a little bit of the presentation.

[1:22:29] So is it a draft that gets submitted for approval to another phase, or is it something that

[1:22:34] remains a draft until we go through multiple iterations to put it into the final proposal?

[1:22:39] So tomorrow, if that if we do approve the the conference of plan phase one, that would become a the first component of the process of implementing a new plan.

[1:22:53] So that would take us into phase two, which has been outlined by Libra and Manuel Cordero mentioning what the engagement for the community would be over a number of months.

[1:23:05] So we have this, that is the process phase one and then goes back to the planning board for much more detailed public hearings that will extend over many months until we have a final draft.

[1:23:23] Okay. All right. Well, I appreciate the clarification is still just a little apprehensive as to what the first draft tomorrow means for.

[1:23:30] or when we're in limbo when projects are coming in during that time frame, is that somewhat

[1:23:37] the Bible of what we go by or it's not necessarily because it's not a finalized version of our

[1:23:43] comprehensive plan?

[1:23:45] Well, I'll let our solicitor comment on that.

[1:23:48] The plan, if adopted in third reading tomorrow, we'll be binding on the town for all town

[1:23:56] actions.

[1:23:58] It will not be binding on the state until it's approved by the state, if it's approved

[1:24:06] by the state, but it will bind the town upon adoption.

[1:24:12] And that's the way it is, they have a two-step process.

[1:24:16] So for example, if DOT wants to come in and take a small road and make it into a four-lane

[1:24:23] highway. We can't stop them with our comprehensive plan until it's approved by the state. But as far as any local

[1:24:31] things before any of our local boards, that's why we're doing this. That's why we are rushing so that it

[1:24:37] will bind our local boards, planning boards, zoning board to start district commission and town council.

[1:24:44] Once it's adopted tomorrow night, yet third reading.

[1:24:52] And is there any other opportunity for public comment tomorrow night or that was tonight?

[1:24:57] That was and still is tonight and double sharing is closed.

[1:25:01] Okay.

[1:25:02] All right.

[1:25:02] Thank you.

[1:25:05] Thank you for your comments.

[1:25:08] Other questions anybody else online or in person who'd like to add any of their thoughts

[1:25:13] or has any additional questions.

[1:25:24] Andrew Winters.

[1:25:25] He's right.

[1:25:26] The microphone is possible.

[1:25:29] Thank you.

[1:25:30] Just a question.

[1:25:31] Your name.

[1:25:32] Can you give your name again?

[1:25:33] Please.

[1:25:34] Sure.

[1:25:54] I believe it's been amended over the years, but I don't know, I don't recall it hasn't been amended in the last two years, but I believe it was amended in the past.

[1:26:06] Okay, thanks. Yeah, just I mean appreciate all the comments from the other residents it does seem a little rushed and we're going back to an old plan that a lot of us didn't live in town for and you know appreciate it could be amended but it does seem.

[1:26:24] Time is of the essence unfortunately.

[1:26:26] other

[1:26:36] questions?

[1:26:40] So, at this point, in the public hearing, if there are no other questions,

[1:26:43] we would look to the planning board to deliberate and to vote on a potential recommendation from

[1:26:52] the planning board to approve the comprehensive plan as it is current for me.

[1:27:02] Thank you, Mr. President. Once again, I've given this a lot of thought. We've had a lot of discussion.

[1:27:10] I'm comforted by the fact that there will be plenty of opportunity over a reasonable amount of time for us to revisit this and take into consideration everybody's thoughts and the input of the town in general. And I look forward to that process.

[1:27:25] So while it does seem like it's rushed, it's it's not the end to what the final result will be.

[1:27:32] And it's certainly, I don't believe at this point, has encompassed nearly enough ideas and

[1:27:37] thoughts and suggestions that we expect will be coming forth as this continues to unfold.

[1:27:43] So I do feel really good about the fact that because we have those opportunities to revisit it,

[1:27:50] make changes and come up with a final product that we can all be proud of, that moving forward

[1:27:56] with this this evening, if the outcome is that we go forward and we accept this for now in a phase

[1:28:02] one. I'm okay with that and I've discussed that with the board and I would open it up to the

[1:28:08] rest of the board now for either their thoughts or comments or suggestions or any other discussion

[1:28:13] on the matter that you'd like to have.

[1:28:21] There you have it.

[1:28:24] So I think the next step would be a motion.

[1:28:26] You do a motion recommendation.

[1:28:30] I move that we accept the East Greenwich Comprehensive Community

[1:28:35] the plan March 2026 in its current phase, right, zero specific written recommendation.

[1:28:48] Right, can you, I think we're motion to adopt the draft written recommendation is prepared

[1:28:54] by the planner.

[1:28:57] Is this the letter that you gave me?

[1:28:59] Okay.

[1:29:00] You don't have to read the whole letter, just reference the letter and the date that you're

[1:29:05] adopting the letter.

[1:29:06] If you want to read the whole thing, that's fine too.

[1:29:07] No, I can we I move to accept the planning board recommendation, which is the adoption of the East Greenwich Comprehensive Community Plan March 2026.

[1:29:18] Pursuant to correspondence dated.

[1:29:22] Pursuant to correspondence also same date to President Mark Schwager and honorable members of the East Greenwich Town Council.

[1:29:31] Thank you. You're welcome.

[1:29:33] So you need a motion second and a vote.

[1:29:38] So you need a second and a vote.

[1:29:41] All those in favor?

[1:29:45] And we'll let the record note that it was unanimous.

[1:29:50] Thank you for your deliberations and your decision.

[1:29:53] So at this point, it will be on the council's side to accept the recommendation.

[1:30:00] Of the planning board, and to make a motion on the ordinance, which would adopt the new conference of plan. So Mr. Types, would it be sufficient to read that look for a motion to pass the ordinance by the East Greenwich Town Council, adopting the East Greenwich Conference of plan, updated March, 2026, as the official conference of plan of the town of East Greenwich, superseding and repealing the previously adopted comprehensive plan? Are we moving it to third reading?

[1:30:29] is not that what this is you're you're you're moving it to approve it as second reading this would constitute second reading can we can we add

[1:30:37] subject to

[1:30:39] Any change we might make like clearly. I want that to be known that there will be another meeting regarding this otherwise

[1:30:45] I'd be voting no

[1:30:48] Well, the motion is to we've we've had the public hearing we've had a discussion of what our plan is I don't know if this is there's something that we could add to that

[1:30:56] I don't know that we can say what we're going to do prior to

[1:31:01] having another public hearing.

[1:31:02] Yeah, I mean, I'm not saying what we're going to do

[1:31:04] that there will be another hearing.

[1:31:06] I don't think we can add that to this.

[1:31:09] Amendment.

[1:31:10] Amendment.

[1:31:11] Ordinance, because you're adopting it

[1:31:14] as is, I don't think that would be an amendment.

[1:31:18] And that would also end up stopping it, because then so,

[1:31:24] I mean, I think you've heard everybody's commitment

[1:31:26] to the whole of it.

[1:31:28] I understand, but I don't really know how it

[1:31:30] could be done.

[1:31:34] Excuse me, Mr. President, you may also want to include to close the public

[1:31:39] here. Yes, closing the public hearing and we'll be having a third reading for the public's

[1:31:45] knowledge tomorrow at six o'clock in town hall. If this motion is successful. I move that we move

[1:31:54] this to third reading. So you approve the motion to close public hearing and move to third reading.

[1:31:59] Any for the discussion? All those in favor?

[1:32:06] Are you seconding? You're voting.

[1:32:08] You seconded.

[1:32:09] I think actually the chair made the motion.

[1:32:14] I'm seconding, sir.

[1:32:16] All those in favor?

[1:32:18] Aye.

[1:32:19] Motion carries 3, 2, 0.

[1:32:21] Thank you.

[1:32:22] I think we'll take a short break and let people stand up if they want to speak.

[1:32:29] Any more needs to adjourn?

[1:32:30] We may want to adjourn your meeting.

[1:32:34] No, you can make a motion to adjourn.

[1:32:36] You can adjourn your meeting.

[1:32:39] Motion to adjourn.

[1:32:41] All in favor?

[1:32:43] So noted.

[1:32:52] Okay, after our break, we are back in session.

[1:32:55] I'm going to make a change in the order of our agenda items.

[1:32:59] I'm going to move up reports and presentations to our next item.

[1:33:05] and I'd like to welcome school superintendent Tom Ken Wurley to our meeting.

[1:33:11] He's joined us at the day.

[1:33:15] Use our reports and presentation section tonight to

[1:33:19] hear from our superintendent and town manager to update the council and the

[1:33:24] community on the investigation into anti-Semitic graffiti discovered last week at

[1:33:30] Hanoverd Cole and East Grinich High School as well as the racist graffiti found at

[1:33:35] with the Eldridge Elementary School several weeks ago.

[1:33:39] So we'll have some updates from our manager and superintendent.

[1:33:43] But before you do that, our agenda only says report from town managers.

[1:33:48] So could we have a motion to add to the agenda report from school superintendent?

[1:33:54] So moved.

[1:33:54] Second.

[1:33:55] All those in favor?

[1:33:56] Aye.

[1:33:57] Thank you for keeping us in good compliance here.

[1:34:00] So superintendent Ken, were they, why don't we have you start off?

[1:34:03] Thank you, thank you, Mr. Schreiger, and thank you for inviting me this evening.

[1:34:09] Obviously, I was very dismayed with the news last week that I had to report.

[1:34:16] And it's times like these that it's hard for me to separate as well.

[1:34:20] My role is superintendant, but as many of you know, I'm also resident of this community and my children attend school here as well.

[1:34:28] So, these things certainly hit hard for me from that perspective as well.

[1:34:35] But I did report out on Wednesday over the course of Monday and Tuesday.

[1:34:41] We did, unfortunately, receive the news, you know, I received directly from each principle

[1:34:47] of three separate anti-Semitic graffiti incidents at Hanifred Cole and his Greenwich High School.

[1:34:56] As you can imagine, any one of those reports to me from a principal requires a lot of coordination

[1:35:04] between myself and that principle and making sure that certain steps are being followed.

[1:35:10] So that kept playing out over the course of Monday and Tuesday, as you can imagine with

[1:35:17] these reports coming in.

[1:35:21] So by Wednesday, you know, after I had a chance to make sure that everything was in place

[1:35:29] for each school to initiate their investigations and follow up, I did begin my direct consultation

[1:35:36] with the police department and Mr. Nada to make sure that we would be in coordination going

[1:35:42] forward as well.

[1:35:42] And so that was really the launch of our two what I would call parallel investigations right in the the police in this type of instance have, you know, their own investigation they have to run.

[1:35:56] We will do that on the school side.

[1:35:58] We will coordinate, you know, when appropriate to share information, but obviously the outcomes of what happens on each side can be a little different.

[1:36:10] So that transpired on the school end through Wednesday and Thursday and then Friday I was no school in the district for the EED holiday.

[1:36:20] So coming into the weekend after we had a chance for updates from school leaders and with the police department as well and consultation on the school side with our district legal council.

[1:36:39] So what you are going to see in the next few days is a quick emergency school committee

[1:36:46] meeting.

[1:36:47] We are going to be engaging with an outside investigator.

[1:36:52] Our school investigations continue to run at the direction of each principal, but based

[1:36:57] on the severity of these incidents and the fact that it was three separate schools, we feel

[1:37:03] like some coordinated effort on the school side would be helpful.

[1:37:07] So we will be putting that in place by the end of this school week and I will certainly announce that once it happens.

[1:37:16] While all of that has been happening, we are fortunate to have a great community partners that we can reach out to around the state.

[1:37:24] So I have been, you know, speaking with the Jewish Alliance of Greater Red Island and the

[1:37:32] Sandra Bornstein Holocaust Education Center. There are several other organizations that are

[1:37:39] great that we can tap into as well, but those two in particular around these most recent incidents,

[1:37:44] and they have as always been extremely supportive and helpful. At this point, in addition to the

[1:37:52] investigations each of our school principles are working with those two organizations as well on programming, they can bring into each of their schools, you know, kind of looking a little different depending on the age and level of the school.

[1:38:07] And I am in discussion about coordinating a district community conversation follow up.

[1:38:15] So, again, I will hopefully be able to report out more information on that when we have

[1:38:20] a firm deed in place in more details. But those are the mean updates that I had to share this

[1:38:27] evening. And again, thank you for the opportunity. Thank you to Mr. Nada. I'm grateful for our collaboration.

[1:38:34] And it's unfortunate that an incident like this has to bring it to the forefront.

[1:38:41] Thank you very much. Mr. Nada.

[1:38:44] Yeah, there's not much I can add to that, but first and foremost, I'd like to thank the Superintendent for being here tonight and for his friendship and collaboration as a professional colleague here in the community.

[1:38:55] I think, you know, everybody on the town side was, this isn't the first time this has happened in East Greenwich. It's an uncomfortable, unnecessary process that we're going to go through.

[1:39:10] But we understand that this does not rest on the shoulders of our school district alone and that we're all in this together and that the town does have resources that can support the superintendent in the district and working through this process and I think as was noted.

[1:39:29] You know, there is, it's a complicated life we lead today in terms of information, very different than 20, 30, 40 years ago where you were basically limited to your family influences and maybe a friend group.

[1:39:45] But today really that extent of information gathering and access is unlimited.

[1:39:52] So that being the case, when you have young people in a community, and we would like to think that none of this was intentional, truly to hurt someone we hope, but maybe the misuse of information, but clearly the town will continue to work collaboratively not only with the district and personnel regarding their investigation.

[1:40:13] I received one full report from our police chief regarding their findings so far, but that investigation continues, and we're committed to be collaborating along with the third party investigation team as well as we go forward.

[1:40:27] I released, I was going to hold off for a period of time and I've been speaking to council members regarding statements and it was clearly very important for the school district to be able to get out in front and through their leader, the superintendent to be able to do that.

[1:40:40] But we were hoping to get a little farther along with our investigation before making a public comment, but I think this past weekend, clearly the impact in the community and the traumatic nature of the actions that have been taken really prompted that and I wanted to use and I posted it this weekend on the town's Facebook site, but I really wanted to take that opportunity to reiterate what I've heard from various people in the community that, you know, we're not in a nice way.

[1:41:10] isolation that not only in Rhode Island, but around the country and even the world, similar incidents occur

[1:41:17] unfortunately much more frequently than any of us would like.

[1:41:22] The particular acts here, although hate-based really in many respects is just

[1:41:29] something that I think collaboratively we can put our hands around and work to

[1:41:36] really implement a number of the educational programs that the superintendent is recommending and clearly to educate our population and

[1:41:43] knows that we associate with and our families and with our friend groups in the community is going to be really critically important.

[1:41:52] And I think at times today, as we all know, things that were very, very unacceptable a short time ago for some reason have become much more acceptable.

[1:42:01] and would like to think that these types of acts and statements and actions that have been taken will never get to that point, but it seems like we're moving in that direction.

[1:42:10] So the effort is going to be much more challenging really for not only the district, but for the community and really all communities in Rhode Island and elsewhere to be able to start to manage that process, but I think it really starts like most lessons with our younger population.

[1:42:26] and if we're able to manage that and really work through not only our district, but through community-based programming, but also through our faith-based community, which has direct, all different traditions, which has direct access not only to our families, but to our children as well to be able to teach them, you know, I think really we're at a point of a re-education that's needed and society starts to change its moral standards a bit.

[1:42:53] But I think my point this evening to follow the superintendents is really just to reassure

[1:42:59] the community that we are working in collaboration, all school department and town resources

[1:43:04] are working together not only to get to the bottom of it but then also to dig our way out

[1:43:09] in terms of resolutions and solutions in terms of how we educate our community so we can

[1:43:14] really put an end to this type of conduct.

[1:43:16] But again I'd like to reiterate to Tom that we greatly appreciate his partnership and

[1:43:21] in the collaboration and he has the full support

[1:43:24] of the community and be able to move forward.

[1:43:26] So thank you.

[1:43:28] Thank you very much for those remarks.

[1:43:30] I wanna thank both of you for your work

[1:43:32] and your leadership.

[1:43:34] It's not a nine to five job,

[1:43:35] but you're both working nights, weekends.

[1:43:39] I called Superintendent Ken Worthy

[1:43:42] to offer him the opportunity to attend our meeting tonight

[1:43:44] and his immediate response was absolutely, I'll be there.

[1:43:48] so we really appreciate it. Just a few comments that I'd like to make as a member of these

[1:43:54] grants Jewish community and also as a long-term resident of the town and as a member of the

[1:44:00] town council, I want to add my voice to so many other voices in our community to unequivocally

[1:44:07] condemn the anti-Semitic graffiti discovered this week at Hanford Cole and East Greenwich High School

[1:44:12] as well as the racist graffiti found at Eldridge School several weeks ago.

[1:44:19] Like many of you, I've moved through a mixture of emotions these past few days,

[1:44:23] sadness, frustration, anger.

[1:44:26] We know that these recent acts cause real harm.

[1:44:30] They create a climate of anxiety for our students and families.

[1:44:33] Our schools and our community must be a place where everyone feels safe,

[1:44:38] respected and valued.

[1:44:39] And as a representative of your town council, I want to reassure every resident that the

[1:44:44] town and school district are taking these events with the utmost seriousness.

[1:44:49] We have only taken the first steps.

[1:44:52] Once the facts are gathered, the school district and the town can begin a well-designed, coordinated

[1:44:57] community response that you've heard a little bit about.

[1:45:00] Some of that this evening focused on strengthening policies to ensure our schools remain inclusive and safe environments. Solidarity is our greatest strength. Tonight is one small step in building that solidarity. Let's carry that spirit of unity and community toward forward to ensure that hate has no home in these credits. Thank you.

[1:45:24] Can I? Sure. I just would like to say as a parent, as a parent of children who

[1:45:33] grew up in this town and went to school here. My comments are last week's graffiti

[1:45:41] and that of us several weeks ago were both disgusting and upsetting for so

[1:45:44] many of our students and families in this town. Whether you are targeted because

[1:45:48] of your religion or ethnicity, sexual orientation or the color of your skin, hate

[1:45:53] has no home here. We as a community and East Crenish must do better to protect our children and

[1:45:58] families from being harassed. I know that counselors don't again and Koran Thaw would express the

[1:46:02] same if they were here. I would like to thank Tom Kenworthy for his presence tonight and I look

[1:46:07] forward to the community coming together for future discussions regarding this issue. Thank you.

[1:46:15] I just want to thank Mark first comments. Also, Rayneau, I agree 100% with both of them.

[1:46:21] It's very sad when anybody tries to signal out people most recently we had something that came and spoke before the school committee basically attacking trans children that go to our schools and I stood up and I spoke to him and we're in the same position again, once again, people are isolating people and it's just not right so hopefully this works out and we can basically find out who did it.

[1:46:50] and have them have appropriate punishments.

[1:46:53] I will say this, these are maybe young kids, so I don't expect if the persons of a certain

[1:47:03] age that people are going to find out who it is.

[1:47:06] And maybe that's better because that way we don't want the response and it go back and

[1:47:10] forth.

[1:47:10] But if we don't find out who it is, people have to understand that they are children.

[1:47:15] I just want to say that.

[1:47:16] Thank you.

[1:47:19] Thank you for those comments and thanks again for coming tonight. Dr. Ken, we're there. I know we'll let you get back to your home so you can be there bright and early for your students tomorrow.

[1:47:31] Thank you again for 10.

[1:47:32] Thank you up on that. Thank you.

[1:47:37] This brings us to the next agenda item which is public comment.

[1:47:40] This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to the council about what's on their mind that is not on tonight's agenda.

[1:47:48] Is there anyone who would like to give public comment?

[1:47:54] Anybody online?

[1:47:55] No?

[1:47:56] Then I will close public comment and move on to the consent calendar.

[1:48:00] These are routine items that can be voted on as a group unless one council would like something taken off of the consent calendar for individual attention.

[1:48:10] These are items 5A minutes from the March 9th, 2026 regular meeting of the council.

[1:48:14] Item 5B, an application for an F1 alcohol beverage license for Army Aviation Association

[1:48:21] Deployment Reunion, which will occur on March 28th at the Varnum Armory, 6 Maid Street.

[1:48:28] And 5C is a renewal of a private detected license for Donald L. Monge of Chora Street.

[1:48:37] I have a motion to approve the consent calendar in this entirety.

[1:48:40] I have a problem and seeing that we only have three of us here. It may be a major problem.

[1:48:46] I hired the services of Donald Monk and he's currently my private investigator on our case

[1:48:51] that I am working on. Does that cause a recusal issue?

[1:48:59] Unfortunately, yes.

[1:49:03] Is Cameron going to be able to expire when does his current license?

[1:49:06] That's fine. We can move it ahead to the next meeting and just ratify it if that's okay.

[1:49:10] Okay.

[1:49:10] That's fine.

[1:49:11] I apologize.

[1:49:13] Okay.

[1:49:13] So we will take no action on item 5c.

[1:49:17] So I'll make a motion to approve 5a and 5b.

[1:49:20] So moved.

[1:49:21] Second.

[1:49:22] Motion to second.

[1:49:23] All is in favor.

[1:49:24] Aye.

[1:49:24] Motion carries 320.

[1:49:28] Mr. Nott, do you have other components of your town manager's report?

[1:49:32] You'd like to possess?

[1:49:33] Just one brief one, Dr. Swager.

[1:49:35] You know, in the past several weeks, as you can imagine, there have been follow-up questions

[1:49:40] in my office regarding how everything went during the snow storm financially,

[1:49:45] not in terms of how we did snow removal. So I did provide a very brief update, but I was on a call

[1:49:52] early this morning with state officials and FEMA representatives. And we got some good news.

[1:50:00] FEMA is looking at this particular event since it was a snow storm. Their traditional model

[1:50:06] only allows for a 48-hour window of financial recovery.

[1:50:13] So as everyone knows in town, this was about a week-long event for us.

[1:50:19] So Sunday, the storm started. We had staff in as of Sunday.

[1:50:23] Monday was the day. We had staff in. They were there for about 55 hours straight.

[1:50:30] And then it took Tuesday through Sunday for us to finish the cleanup.

[1:50:35] So, but so far, only two counties in Rhode Island, Bristol County and Kent County, which

[1:50:43] we're lucky to be part of this time, we're going to, we're, we've already been authorized

[1:50:48] for a 72-hour window of financial recovery.

[1:50:51] So that, you know, that may change, may, may not change, I think the state of Rhode Island

[1:50:56] and the other municipalities will be petitioning FEMA for a change, but at this point, Kent County

[1:51:02] has been authorized for 72 hours.

[1:51:03] So what that means is all of our costs associated with storm cleanup are

[1:51:10] just every piece of equipment that was on the road whether or not it was from

[1:51:13] a contractor or our own, all of our people who are compensated to vast

[1:51:17] majority and over time for the majority of this event as well as other costs

[1:51:22] involved and I highlighted a number of those costs that I could get my hands

[1:51:26] around at this point and those are on the last page of my report.

[1:51:31] What this basically reflects is that our Department of Public Works budget is about $120,000 a year for over time and about $85,000 a year for salt, so that's $205,000.

[1:51:44] So so far, we're about $114,000 over budget in those two categories alone.

[1:51:51] So in addition to that, we spent between one private contractor hired by the school department who performed work both on school properties.

[1:52:01] and in the community, as well as school contractors who are handling our school construction and coincidentally happen to be located at the high school hand effort in French town with large scale wheel loaders, which were perfect in a three foot snowstorm to clear the parking lots.

[1:52:18] So, we engaged them as well, those two totals are about another hundred thousand, so now

[1:52:25] you're up to about two hundred and fourteen, and none of that includes the costs associated

[1:52:31] with the other contractors that were made available to the community by the state of Rhode

[1:52:37] Island.

[1:52:38] Now, the only good thing there is that we didn't hire them, the state hired them, and allocated

[1:52:43] They hated them around Rhode Island and some of them in our community, most likely from about Wednesday through Sunday.

[1:52:50] So I can guarantee you that those costs would be well in excess of $100,000 based on the number of pieces of equipment that we had in town.

[1:52:58] But it is still unclear until we sort that through fully if the town's going to be responsible for any of those costs because we didn't hire the contractors and the state dispatched them here.

[1:53:10] So, at this point with what we know, we're dealing with a shortfall of about $214,000.

[1:53:17] We clearly can address that through contingencies that we have available in our FY26 budget, which

[1:53:23] is our present budget, as well as any surpluses which we would generate.

[1:53:29] So this would, that amount of money would probably cut into some of our surplus transfers

[1:53:34] at year end, but a vast majority of that up to 75% of it will be recovered over that 72-hour

[1:53:42] window. So the fortunate thing is we have the opportunity to pick which 72 hours. Incredible

[1:53:49] that the federal government gives you the ability to pick. So usually they just tell you how it's

[1:53:53] going to be and that's it. So not in this case. So we are now costing out on a daily basis and we

[1:53:59] You will utilize, you have to be cumulative, one after another.

[1:54:02] So we'll pick the three days, whether that's a Monday through Wednesday or it's a Tuesday

[1:54:06] through Thursday.

[1:54:08] We'll have to see.

[1:54:09] But I'll have more information on that in the coming weeks.

[1:54:11] But many have been asking about the impact, not only from in town, but also statewide.

[1:54:18] So I want to make sure I provided the council in the community with some of that information,

[1:54:21] at least that we could rely on up to this point.

[1:54:28] Any questions for the manager?

[1:54:31] I mean, I think we're not the only town that's facing these huge, the situation, so it was well worth the money that was spent on that.

[1:54:45] Okay, thank you, Mr. Nada.

[1:54:47] This brings us to item seven, our public hearing.

[1:54:50] We're acting as the Board of License Commissioners tonight to hear an application of a new BVL alcohol beverage license with Vittling for 431 Main Street.

[1:55:00] doing business as EG smash. This was continued from the March 9th, 2026 meeting. Good evening.

[1:55:09] We need to sway you in today.

[1:55:13] Do you want to come to Mike Bond to state your name?

[1:55:18] Okay. I'm excited there, sorry. Hi, I'm Chris Thos, speedy this, and Mike Partner. How do you do that?

[1:55:36] So it's S-P-Y-R-I-D-I-S-E-R-C-E-L-A-K.

[1:55:46] Good evening.

[1:55:47] First thing I'm going to do is ask our town clerk to review the application, the status of the application.

[1:55:55] Okay, thank you.

[1:55:56] So, this application came in as a limited license, meaning it's for beer and wine only.

[1:56:03] The current cap for those types of licenses is 6.

[1:56:07] So, if this is approved, this will be number 5.

[1:56:10] The application, there is no request for any entertainment.

[1:56:15] The business hours are seven days a week, 11 a.m. to 11 p.m.

[1:56:20] The seating and the parking will remain exactly the same as it's been approved by the zoning board, which is 21 seats total and seven parking spaces.

[1:56:30] There is a request for a seasonal expansion of seating during the warmer months, which would be supplied by picnic tables, which will reduce the number of seats that will be inside during that time.

[1:56:44] and just to note that this is considered private property and although the address is main street it is not on a state sidewalk.

[1:56:52] All the local approvals have been completed.

[1:56:56] What I'm waiting for now is approval from the State Division of Taxation, the Department of Health for their food business license and a retail sales tax permit from the Secretary of State's office.

[1:57:08] A butters notices were mailed out twice on February 20th and March 16th due to the rescheduling

[1:57:16] of the hearing, and I have not heard anything as a result of that.

[1:57:23] Thank you.

[1:57:25] Can you describe your business a little bit to us?

[1:57:28] Sure.

[1:57:29] So I am currently on Main Street as well.

[1:57:33] I have the old jiggers diner, and I operate that for a few years.

[1:57:36] and my partner as well, he's in the industry and in the business.

[1:57:41] So the model for this burger place will be Smashburgers,

[1:57:45] which is apparently the new trend in the last few years

[1:57:48] for the youngsters and we're also making our own gelato.

[1:57:52] So it'll be a combo of both.

[1:57:55] We're planning to have it very down to earth, family-friendly,

[1:58:03] relatively on the cheaper side, the menu, to encourage families to come in there in groups.

[1:58:14] That's the basic part of the model.

[1:58:18] The model is very simple, very easy.

[1:58:20] It's going to be five creative burgers and five other options, nothing very extensive.

[1:58:25] And honestly, the liquor license we're asking for is simply to complement the menu, but

[1:58:33] it's not definitely not our main product that we want to serve.

[1:58:38] And do you have thought about how you're going to apportion your seating indoor and outdoor?

[1:58:43] Yes, so at the moment we have the design and the layout which we've submitted for the 21 seats indoors.

[1:58:49] And then if and when the summer comes around and you know if the demand is there we would simply remove three tables from inside and just put them on side.

[1:58:59] Obviously not in the parking section on the left side of the building which is a patio which is already a patio design basically.

[1:59:09] Yeah, do you know how many you could fit there on that patio side?

[1:59:11] I mean, we could fit more than three tables, but we would never put more than two possibly three just to create some sort of curb appeal as people are driving by for the most part.

[1:59:26] And no entertainment planned at this point.

[1:59:31] We're more of the go to work early come home early ground.

[1:59:35] So when you're coming home early, what time do you do you finish your operating hours?

[1:59:39] at this new location, so the way we've applied is 11, 11, 11, but again, we're seasoned

[1:59:48] operators, so if the demand is there and it justifies the 11 p.m., we will stay, but

[1:59:55] if the demand is not there after the summer season and we see it's best fit to close at

[2:00:00] We'll do so accordingly. You operate jiggers already. I do, yes, man. So you'll be like, when do you plan on sleeping? I usually go into jiggers at 5 a.m. So two, seven days a week. So after that, you know, we'll take a short break and we'll come back to the evening. Yeah. But we would do have a manager for this new location. He's already in the Smashburger business. But it's an interesting little project, you know, we're excited.

[2:00:29] for us. Do you want to mention the DBA, Chris? Yes, so initially when we had applied we had put

[2:00:39] EG smash as the DBA, the fictitious name, and then we did a survey at jiggers over the weekend,

[2:00:45] we asked like over a hundred customers which name they preferred and everybody preferred burgers on

[2:00:50] main. So we would like to change that and we already applied for the fictitious name. We have that

[2:01:02] Okay. Other questions for the applicants?

[2:01:06] No.

[2:01:08] This is a public hearing. Is there anybody in person or online who'd be interested in commenting?

[2:01:14] No, sir.

[2:01:16] No, seeing no one is looking to ask any additional questions.

[2:01:21] I'd like to make a motion to approve for a period of one year subject to full compliance as determined by the clerk.

[2:01:27] the application for a new BBL alcohol beverage license with

[2:01:32] Biddling for 431 Main Street LLC doing business as burgers on Main.

[2:01:39] Is it burgers on Main?

[2:01:40] Okay.

[2:01:43] And this was already, it's already been continued from March 9.

[2:01:51] So I have the motion.

[2:01:52] I'll second.

[2:01:53] We have a motion in a second.

[2:01:54] All those in favor?

[2:01:56] Aye.

[2:01:56] All right. Motion carries 3, 2, 0.

[2:01:59] Can I just make a note that you're when you're making the motion about a proof for one year, it's only good until November 30th.

[2:02:08] All the liquor licenses renew on November 30th, so in August, look for stuff from the clerk reminding you to start getting ready to do the renewal already.

[2:02:20] We'll see.

[2:02:21] You want to.

[2:02:21] I'm familiar with that process.

[2:02:23] Just to revoke.

[2:02:25] With that.

[2:02:26] Do you want to revoke?

[2:02:27] Because right now.

[2:02:28] No, I think the law says the license is November 30.

[2:02:32] So that's what it is.

[2:02:33] I just want to.

[2:02:34] No.

[2:02:35] So it was so make sure.

[2:02:36] And I.

[2:02:37] Okay.

[2:02:37] I think I'm comfortable with it.

[2:02:38] But.

[2:02:40] Thank you very much.

[2:02:41] Thank you very much.

[2:02:42] Thank you.

[2:02:43] Thank you.

[2:02:46] This brings us to a new business.

[2:02:49] Item eight a on our new business is a resolution regarding low and moderate.

[2:02:52] income housing. At previous meetings I asked our manager and his staff to come up with some

[2:03:01] potential resolutions related to some components of affordable housing. One of them was to ask

[2:03:12] the legislature to accept affordable housing which has been, the application has been approved,

[2:03:20] but there is no certificate of occupancy to count that as one of our affordable units.

[2:03:25] There were some other components that the council had discussed, which were put into a resolution.

[2:03:32] There's actually two resolutions to consider by a town manager. It's kind of a starting point

[2:03:36] to get the discussion going. So Mr. Nott, if you want to introduce the resolutions that you put

[2:03:41] together and how you formulated these. Yes, sure thing. So actually my mistake, what happened when I

[2:03:48] I uploaded the two, an original draft that I was working on was attached in the file, so

[2:03:54] as a third, but that very last one which does not have draft resolution 1 or draft resolution

[2:04:01] 2 is just a throw away.

[2:04:03] So that gets you back to the two versions that you're referring to, Dr. Swager.

[2:04:08] So in putting these together, what I did is I went back and really listened to the council

[2:04:12] over several meetings in a particular area of interest.

[2:04:17] And then during that same time period we had, I'll say significant, maybe 20 or 30 contacts

[2:04:24] from members in the community, which is significant on any issue, to be able really

[2:04:31] focusing on the one issue of the draft proposed legislation that focused on really counting affordable

[2:04:39] units at the building permit stage versus the CO stage.

[2:04:44] So, draft one, and so that's the focus of both of these resolutions.

[2:04:49] So, draft one, both of these tell a story,

[2:04:56] tell these credits story with that request.

[2:04:59] So, in looking at some of the draft legislation and understanding that

[2:05:03] there was some language in various iterations that were presented

[2:05:07] that the council was not necessarily supportive

[2:05:09] of all of that language.

[2:05:11] I stayed away in the drafts

[2:05:13] from citing existing legislation,

[2:05:15] but I think it's very easy,

[2:05:17] it'll be very easy to get to a point

[2:05:19] of either supporting legislation

[2:05:22] that focuses on that one element in the near future,

[2:05:25] if it were to be amended.

[2:05:26] If not, I think just a general resolution on behalf

[2:05:30] of housing in East Crenish

[2:05:32] and the control elements of what that provides

[2:05:35] a community very similar to the conversation we just had with the comp plan, and looking at ways

[2:05:39] in which to control and manage housing requests that come in. In this particular case, by having

[2:05:48] a count be registered at the building permit stage, we'll really advance us where we have projects,

[2:05:57] some projects that go on for several years. We'll advance us to a point of hitting that 10% threshold

[2:06:03] that a much earlier timeline thus providing additional local control and over any additional

[2:06:11] permit applications that we may see. So the first one and the second one vary just slightly.

[2:06:18] The second one tells a little bit of a longer story than the first one. The first one really focuses

[2:06:23] on East Greenwich. It talks about the comprehensive permit, the comprehensive plan process,

[2:06:29] talks about some of the major developments in the community where we've had success that have

[2:06:35] recently helped catapult us up to the 7.21 percent. It focuses on the low and moderate income housing

[2:06:42] act and the municipal authority over-com permit applications. The second draft gives a little bit more.

[2:06:54] It focuses on those elements as well, but it also talks about legitimate concerns in a community when you're evaluating expanded housing and new applications.

[2:07:06] It talks about roadways, it talks about infrastructure, traffic, evacuation routes, school capacity, wastewater and water utilities, emergency response capabilities and just general municipal service delivery.

[2:07:18] In addition to that, the second draft also touches on the other things that we talk about a lot here with residents in the community, and it's that balancing of affordable housing, additional affordable housing with the capacity in our community of environmental constraints, transportation access, workforce development, infrastructure.

[2:07:39] So I would say the second version, more technically, and there's a couple of other whereas statements that are there and be it further resolved, that drills into some of the more technical nature of what housing growth does in a community.

[2:07:59] And it also, by touching upon those issues in a resolution, to me, what it does is it puts the state legislature on notice that we as well as every other community in the state is supportive of following the state law, supportive of moving towards that 10% threshold, but in the same token, there are some things that are beyond our ability as a small community to be able to keep ace with some of those infrastructure and utility requirements.

[2:08:25] So that's how I try to break it down, not really knowing specifically if the council was looking for just a one page acknowledgement of support.

[2:08:36] Or if the council wanted to actually put themselves out on this issue in a lead position where they actually can start to focus on some things that other communities may also pick up on.

[2:08:51] and for us to be able to have the clerk upon approval to be able to submit these documents on a statewide level, not only the state agencies, but our other municipalities to try to garner further support for this resolution in terms of the makeup of what we were really focused on.

[2:09:08] So, again, these are just drafts, these were just to follow up on the council's request and

[2:09:15] happy administrative staff is happy to support the council, should either of those fit

[2:09:21] your need or should there be significant or minor change that's needed, we're happy to facilitate

[2:09:26] for the council if you wish to continue to go forward and move that type of resolution forward.

[2:09:36] I consider I was, I asked for this. I like, I like both of them. I guess I don't really know which one would be more appropriate to send to the general assembly or which one is better for the general assembly.

[2:09:52] I know I had asked you about putting in specific, like was the 7.21% that we are working

[2:10:00] to, that we currently have affordable housing if that's important to put in there, but I

[2:10:04] agree, I do think it's important because it shows that we're ahead of the game compared

[2:10:10] to other towns, especially some of the other towns that sent in their resolutions.

[2:10:19] I guess I didn't agree with the language of the specific bill, but I do agree with the language on this and I think it's important that our building permits, and I just want to verify once the building permits are approved, that's what we're looking for.

[2:10:39] We're looking for, saying once the building permits are approved by the planning board that we would or whoever you

[2:10:46] The planning department then you

[2:10:50] Then we that would count against our 10%

[2:10:54] Is that correct? It's not the preliminary approval or master plan approval. It would be

[2:10:59] Building permits are approved

[2:11:02] correct

[2:11:02] In fact, right now we have absolutely no control over when a person or company finishes

[2:11:11] a project and a CO is issued.

[2:11:15] We do have control when a building permit is issued, so it's much more predictable.

[2:11:22] Yeah, and there's no real, I think I had spoken with you before.

[2:11:25] There's no real, there was no rhyme or reason when they wrote the original laws to when,

[2:11:32] you

[2:11:32] it's a sort of pink. Correct. It is very, you know, actually somebody picked it. I didn't even

[2:11:40] know about it until I dug down with my contacts as to when things are actually counted. Yeah.

[2:11:48] I guess the other question that I had would be that do once the building permits are approved and

[2:11:58] How many, how long do they have to actually get shovels in the ground?

[2:12:02] Was there a state rule or is there a town rule or how would that?

[2:12:07] So the best of my knowledge is there's no time limit.

[2:12:11] Oh really?

[2:12:12] I believe so.

[2:12:13] Oh wow.

[2:12:14] I believe so.

[2:12:15] So you could hold a building permit for like three years and not have any.

[2:12:18] Oh.

[2:12:19] A building permit.

[2:12:20] I could have one.

[2:12:21] Yeah, you could have one.

[2:12:22] And then it's there's no like two-year limit and then it expires.

[2:12:28] It all depends on when you if you're doing work and just add a

[2:12:33] slow piece.

[2:12:34] Yeah, I don't know the distinction of it.

[2:12:37] If you just get a building permit and do not stop work,

[2:12:42] stop work, then 18 months.

[2:12:46] 18 months.

[2:12:47] 18 months.

[2:12:48] So now what does that constitute does that constitute like clearing the lot or?

[2:12:53] No, it would actually start working under the permit

[2:12:58] Right

[2:13:00] But they can be extended even the comprehensive permits can be extended

[2:13:05] The approvals they can come back to the planning board and get extensions on their vesting time

[2:13:11] So how many times they could only like do one for like a year, right?

[2:13:16] No, they have two years and then another two years by showing up and then beyond that it's at the discretion of the board, although there's new law that's kind of changing it a little bit and may make it even easier for further extensions.

[2:13:31] But that actually works in the favor of this resolution because then those permits still are active and it counts against the 10%.

[2:13:39] Correct.

[2:13:40] right? Yeah. You know, we knew I'd have to believe that by the time this legislation,

[2:13:47] if it gets considered, there's going to be some type of limit. I cannot believe that they

[2:13:51] wouldn't put any type of time limit on the building permit to be able to take action. So, I

[2:13:56] think there's a number of amendments that might be considered. I think it's, you know, there

[2:14:00] is some traction. I'm not sure of anybody in any municipality why they wouldn't support it.

[2:14:06] But so there is there is some room and this may be a nice give back based on demand dates that we have now in terms of the legal changes in the law regarding housing that we have to follow.

[2:14:17] So I don't think it's a bad initiative to get behind.

[2:14:21] It may look a little differently by the time they're done, but I think it would help us significantly because we're not that far away.

[2:14:27] I think the second one is probably better just because it makes our point more succinctly

[2:14:36] or gives a more clarification, the second draft, excuse me, that would be my thought.

[2:14:45] I would like to pass this tonight or vote on something tonight on this.

[2:14:54] Yeah, I agree with some of your comments.

[2:14:55] I think I was leading more toward version one

[2:15:00] And the reason is, I think the idea of having a goal, an attainable goal, and focusing on that, and moving that along to a bill that is before the legislature is going to be a good strategy. And I think a lot of residents have written about specifically getting these approved applications counted toward our affordable housing. I agree with Mr. Nada that it may not look exactly like that.

[2:15:30] like that, but I think that's something that's alive in the legislature.

[2:15:33] I think the other version has a lot of good goals, but they're very kind of nebulous.

[2:15:42] And I think they're asking essentially all of those paragraphs are saying, please give

[2:15:48] the city's and towns back some of the authority that has been removed by the legislature.

[2:15:54] But I think that over the last four years, I don't know, Mr. Tite, how many bills have

[2:15:59] there been in under reform, like 50, 12 to 15 a year for the last four years.

[2:16:07] So you're talking about almost 50 different components.

[2:16:10] And I just think unless we can focus and ask a question,

[2:16:14] it's going to be hard for them to, to pick and choose which ones to, to give back

[2:16:19] or even to give any of them back.

[2:16:21] But I think version one is short to the point and does give us some meaningful

[2:16:27] the form if it is successful.

[2:16:30] And is there a bigger difference between,

[2:16:36] I don't, and I was thinking that number two would be just more, yeah.

[2:16:42] It's more detailed that I think it makes our argument better.

[2:16:50] I mean, I'm not, I would like to pass something tonight.

[2:16:52] I guess that would be Mr. Zarella's thoughts.

[2:16:59] Do you want to do it tonight or do you want to have the whole, when does it need to be

[2:17:03] in by?

[2:17:06] As soon as possible.

[2:17:06] There's no deadline, but I guess the sooner the better.

[2:17:10] I don't think it's urgent.

[2:17:11] We do it tonight, but we could do it with the whole council, but we should get it in soon

[2:17:15] because when the home stretch, when all the bills are coming up, we want it to be there

[2:17:20] at that time.

[2:17:24] I guess I have to choose which one one is more has more detail that's the one

[2:17:32] mock wants to do no mark prefers the one that's got less detail but

[2:17:40] I guess I

[2:17:46] will go with two if you want to do it tonight I would like to see the whole

[2:17:49] console is but it sounds like mox knock I mean I'm Mike's not gonna be here for a while and that

[2:17:55] would put us behind. I guess I mean I would defer to the solicitor of the solicitor thought there

[2:18:01] was a better I

[2:18:06] mean does it make a difference to one or two or not really some more

[2:18:17] stylistic and yeah

[2:18:33] I'm just looking through version two and to to look at it I think it to me it's

[2:18:38] It's just paints with two broader brush.

[2:18:41] If we want changes in the law, then I think we should specify them.

[2:18:45] I don't want to just go up there and I don't really have a lot of enthusiasm for a resolution

[2:18:50] that just says, change the laws that you've made in our favor, which is essentially what all

[2:18:57] of those, whereas, is are saying the first one says, change the law on this specific point,

[2:19:03] which we think is reasonable and there's a bill in front of you that could

[2:19:08] accomplish this. I mean listen I'll go with version one if if that's the one

[2:19:18] that everybody can be excuse me that everyone can get behind I mean they're

[2:19:24] both they both basically say the same thing anyways that we want control back

[2:19:28] And we want permits to count for us against the 10%.

[2:19:35] So I'm happy to go with version one.

[2:19:39] This will just put you in a long line of other communities

[2:19:42] that are supporting the same bill.

[2:19:43] So it's yeah, and I think that that's the point, right?

[2:19:46] I think that's where the interest came from that you actually

[2:19:48] wanted to step into the arena and be part of that broader group.

[2:19:52] And this won't be the last communication to the legislature.

[2:19:56] And we're going to have to communicate on a much higher level

[2:19:58] Once we see the direction, if in fact any other proposed bills start to gain more traction and start to look at amendments or sub-As or other changes that may go forward.

[2:20:09] So, but this is pretty benign information, this isn't news to anybody and either of them.

[2:20:16] So, but it's just putting East, it's just associating East Greenwich with support for it.

[2:20:20] I'll make a motion to adopt version 1, version 1, I'll second that.

[2:20:27] Okay, Andy, it's a league have any position on any of these legislation that's coming up?

[2:20:33] Yeah, they're supportive, I mean, I think guarded in terms of the overall language that's

[2:20:39] in the bill.

[2:20:40] And, you know, in Reno, I know I'm sure you know this anyways, but within the one sentence

[2:20:47] that you were uncomfortable if it's actually in the existing Title 45 under low and moderate income housing.

[2:20:55] It's the last sentence in that required findings for denial.

[2:21:02] And it says concerns for the environment and the health and safety of current residents have not been adequately addressed.

[2:21:09] Right. And that's the sentence I have issues with that.

[2:21:11] did. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that's it. I didn't. I was assuming you knew it was in the existing.

[2:21:16] I didn't know. So that's why I didn't want to get behind the other one. So Renew, what is,

[2:21:24] what I'm just interested, what your concern was, a requirement for denial? Was it something that

[2:21:29] was missing or something that was in there that you didn't like? It was something that was in there,

[2:21:33] something that they had, I don't have it in front of me currently. But it was that reason for

[2:21:38] being the health and safety and environment. I felt that that was so broad that at, I mean it,

[2:21:45] it doesn't work well for either the developer or the town. It leads to just, I think it could

[2:21:51] lead to a lot of legal issues between everybody. You know, you could deny for those and they could

[2:21:56] appeal on those. I don't, I just don't think that's a good, I would prefer not that not to be in our.

[2:22:02] Right, but as far as in the state law, did you have an objection to it being one of the required

[2:22:07] are findings for denial, or?

[2:22:09] Well, that was the sentence I disagreed with in the new bill.

[2:22:15] That's why I didn't want to.

[2:22:16] Oh, in the new in the new bill.

[2:22:17] Yeah.

[2:22:18] I just wanted, so I wanted something that was different.

[2:22:22] That got behind the idea or the idea of the bill, but not to.

[2:22:28] OK, yeah, we can discuss that, because if we, you know,

[2:22:30] this bill moves forward, we can go up there and give testimony.

[2:22:32] Yeah, exactly.

[2:22:33] And so I'd like to discuss it with you further

[2:22:35] to see what your objection was on that basis.

[2:22:39] So we have a motion and a second, all is in favor.

[2:22:43] Aye.

[2:22:43] Motion carries 3, 2, 0.

[2:22:47] That brings us to our next resolution.

[2:22:51] This is a resolution supporting the implementation

[2:22:53] of the Rhode Island Blue Ribbon Commission

[2:22:55] on Education Funding Recommendations.

[2:22:59] I, Andy, can you summarize?

[2:23:01] I'm sure.

[2:23:01] Yeah, so this bill has not been released yet,

[2:23:05] but it has been submitted, it's actually going to be Senate Bill 3015, but it's actually

[2:23:12] hasn't been released. So I did get a copy of it just today. So I think as we all recall,

[2:23:19] there was a Blue Ribbon Commission formed through leadership at the Rhode Island foundation,

[2:23:23] bringing together national experts and other visionaries and diverse leadership to really take

[2:23:29] a look at the existing system the state has in place for that distributed education aid.

[2:23:35] The Commission built a proposal, just a couple of quick comments around a shared vision and guiding principles that funding be sufficient, student-centered, comprehensive, predictable, yet flexible, transparent, timely, equitable, that there's an equitable fiscal burden, and that schools are accountable.

[2:23:54] In addition to that, their proposal, which you'll see articulated in the draft proposal legislation,

[2:24:03] really focused on four core shifts in how Rhode Island's education funding system works.

[2:24:08] And I'll just read these four.

[2:24:10] The first one is to account for the full cost of education in the funding system and share those costs more equitably.

[2:24:17] The second is tailor instructional cost of student needs more directly.

[2:24:20] The third is ensure greater predictability for municipalities with a required local share and fourth is to require transparency and strategic management that ties spending to educational outcomes.

[2:24:33] So in drafting the resolution, clearly I noted those particular key highlights from the work of the commission, what they were trying to accomplish, how they went about addressing it.

[2:24:51] And that's where I really drew that information from.

[2:24:55] I think it echoes, you're going to see this proposed resolution really is going to echo the proposed bill that the Blue Ribbon Commission has submitted.

[2:25:06] And this is also something that I think is going to garner statewide support.

[2:25:11] Although the greatest challenge that we have for those that are familiar with it really is the redistribution of funding, right?

[2:25:20] So this, what this proposal includes is a significant redistribution of aid and where that funding comes from.

[2:25:28] Where today, total education spending is just over $3 billion state funds are about 1.6, 1.5, 1.6 and local funds are about 1.5.

[2:25:39] So, that redistribution over time would be significantly shifted to the state of Rhode

[2:25:45] Island.

[2:25:46] So, everybody involved in this and supporting it, of course, is supportive, right?

[2:25:52] So, there were three communities in the entire state that if the full plan was submitted

[2:25:57] would not see an increase.

[2:25:59] We were proposed to see a $1.9 million increase in our annual aid.

[2:26:04] And that's at a spot in time when they conducted the evaluation.

[2:26:07] So that clearly will change based on enrollments and a number of other variables based on services that are needed by our student population on a go forward basis, but I think the key that most people see to this is that there's an expectation that this plan would most likely have to be funded and rolled out over a multi year period, probably two to three years where they would have to be a commitment because they have to come up with a significant amount of funding.

[2:26:36] the state of Rhode Island does to be able to fund this plan in full.

[2:26:39] So I think other than those three communities that are not receiving an increase in funding,

[2:26:45] I think the vast majority of communities and the league in cities and towns is very supportive

[2:26:51] of trying to move this legislation forward. Speaking to Dave Cicillini and I think the foundation is very

[2:26:59] cognizant of the fact that this is not a one-year implementation. They seemed very prepared

[2:27:05] to be involved with support, even financially in the long term, to try to move the needle

[2:27:12] on this legislation.

[2:27:14] This is really going to be cutting edge change for the State of Rhode Island, so there

[2:27:19] is still a question as to where the money would be pulled from.

[2:27:24] And I think we understand that's a very competitive process with significant advocacy that exists

[2:27:30] all over the state for various funding.

[2:27:33] So this is going to be something that takes some time.

[2:27:36] I mean, I think as we deliberate every budget cycle,

[2:27:41] I think I always hear from this table that it's not equitable.

[2:27:46] People are not, so I think worst case scenario,

[2:27:49] this at least moves forward to a more equitable

[2:27:51] and clearly defined redistribution of state aid.

[2:27:55] The challenge is going to be, is the amount of effort

[2:27:58] that's going to be needed to shut full commitment

[2:28:01] to edge public education over other priorities in the state.

[2:28:06] So that's really what this comes down to is whether they have the ability to fund it.

[2:28:10] So, but I think you're going to see the legacies and towns and vast majority of municipalities

[2:28:15] support this legislation as it moves forward.

[2:28:18] Andy, do you see the focus of the rampantation to increase the size of the pie or just to cut the

[2:28:28] It's not really increasing the total, or at this particular stage, I mean, they book that length regarding that particular issue, and I think in time we understand that the pie is going to grow.

[2:28:41] But initially, this is just to correct something that they think is really in political or island behind the eight ball, especially in New England.

[2:28:51] and we really trail most of the other New England states in terms of financial support for various elements.

[2:28:56] One main one is teachers pensions, where the state of Rhode Island, the state funds 40% of them,

[2:29:03] but most of the other states fund significantly more, if not 100%.

[2:29:08] So where we are funding the ballots.

[2:29:11] So I think, you know, any way to support our district, and again, we deliberate over this every year,

[2:29:16] and we will be, I'm sure, in the next month.

[2:29:18] When it comes down to the amount of either local resources or state resources, but I think there are many in Rhode Island that feel the state needs to really ante up and support public education in the state if it's going to survive because it can't just survive on the backs of property taxpayers at the municipal level.

[2:29:35] So I think the argument is made that the state under funds education, I guess that's the tug of war between the municipalities and the state, but I'm not sure who's side the

[2:29:45] What on foundation came down on I guess it's they talk about a combination pay according to your ability of the communities understood

[2:29:52] Yeah, I think when you when you look at that closely like so I think that works against us

[2:30:00] All right, meeting incomes here when it's always going to work against us, but when I see a process that truly, you know, I typically complain to the council every year when we'll lose aid, and then later along with many other communities, but by the end there's only a few of us still standing that are losing aid, where there's been modifications to the formula and recounts of particular populations that somehow every single year have those communities who are set to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions,

[2:30:29] They're actually receiving increases, just to me it's very coincidental that that happens

[2:30:33] each and every year.

[2:30:34] I think the other piece to this Dr. Swagger is the fact that there is some accountability.

[2:30:40] And I was very impressed by that because usually that is lost in these conversations.

[2:30:44] And it's accountability regarding the metrics that are utilized and clearly there are not

[2:30:52] swift penalties for not achieving those benchmarks that are set.

[2:30:57] But there's a process by which has been recommended that communities would work through in terms of garnering additional support from the state, additional reviews, before they would ultimately be a discussion regarding funding, because I think the greatest problem is is for me in my position and my colleagues is, if we continue to throw money at one particular issue, but there's nobody that's held accountable and things don't ever advance, why would we keep doing that?

[2:31:25] And I think that was the general question that was asked.

[2:31:30] And so I think I was pleased to see some semblance of accountability in terms of follow-up

[2:31:37] for those districts in the state that are just not seeing growth.

[2:31:41] And that's after being funded at a very, very high level.

[2:31:45] So some things need to change.

[2:31:47] And I think this is far from perfect, but I think it's a good first step.

[2:31:50] And there's nobody standing in line behind this Blue Ribbon Commission plan that has a better solution at this moment

[2:31:58] So I think that's why you see most municipalities supporting to advance it

[2:32:03] The other questions for the manager

[2:32:05] If not, I'd ask for motion to pass the resolution supporting the implementation of the Rhode Island Blue Ribbon Commission on education funding

[2:32:13] recommendations

[2:32:14] Motion a second all is in favor. I motion carries 3 2 0

[2:32:22] Back to public comment, we only have one commenter here, nobody online.

[2:32:28] We also have Council announcements and comments.

[2:32:33] Earth Day is coming up.

[2:32:35] I expect to see all of us here at Earth Day.

[2:32:37] I bought some special clippers just for Mr. Dorella to use.

[2:32:42] Oh, he still has a scar from last time.

[2:32:46] Are you assigning particular areas in town for each of us?

[2:32:50] I will be happy to assign people areas.

[2:32:55] It's going to be a whole thing of fair.

[2:32:57] Under council comments, I'd like to add.

[2:32:59] Unfortunately, there's not a lot of people here.

[2:33:00] And I know Mr. Nada will trumpet our successes,

[2:33:03] but our Recreation Director or our Community Services and Parks Director.

[2:33:07] Andy Wade is in what the Rhode Island Hall of Fame and the Recreation Hall of Fame.

[2:33:12] Yeah, correct.

[2:33:13] Our Community Services and Parks Department was the Rhode Island Department of the Year.

[2:33:19] same department and I think Rachel Arbidge, Hermasjan Madness, she was a minor, a major success,

[2:33:28] she had 100 people twice, she had two sessions, which each one I think had 100 people.

[2:33:32] So Andy, we have to give them their recognition as due to them at the appropriate time.

[2:33:38] Yeah, the department's doing really well.

[2:33:42] I'm sure you'll be disappointed here that we will not be

[2:33:45] We are going into executive session tonight, our solicitors informed us there are no new updates and that Mr. Zarella is recused on one of these items, so we will not have executive session tonight.

[2:34:00] Tonight brings us to our last agenda item, adjournment.

[2:34:03] No move.

[2:34:04] Second.

[2:34:06] Motion carries 320.

[2:34:07] 0.

[2:34:08] Okay.

[2:34:09] I'm sorry.

Town Council - Mar 23rd, 2026

Agenda

Transcript