[1:25] putting my mic on. Um, I'd like to call the uh Town Coventry Planning Commission

[1:32] meeting of Wednesday, August 26th to order at 6:30 p.m.

[1:38] I will first call the role to get a determination of a quorum. Uh, when I

[1:44] call your name in no particular order, just acknowledge if you're here. John

[1:48] Price >> here.

[1:49] » Uh, Pat Delude >> here.

[1:51] » Um, Mr. Kenny

[1:54] » here. John Luca is new member >> here.

[1:58] » Uh vice chair Studley >> here

[2:00] » and I'm Rick Clooney and I'm the chairman and I'm here. So we have a

[2:03] quorum of five. Mr. Dilva and Mr. Burke are both excused tonight.

[2:09] » Six. >> I'm sorry.

[2:15] » Yeah, I just said we had a quorum. I didn't say how many.

[2:19] » Oh, did I say okay? All right. emergency evacuation plan. In

[2:24] the unlikely event of an emergency, if we have to vacate the room, you can go

[2:28] out the doors that you came in. If for some reason those doors are blocked, you

[2:31] can go out this door right here, and there's another exit out to the uh

[2:34] parking lot through there. At this time, I'd like everyone to stand

[2:38] for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[2:44] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation

[2:49] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[2:59] » First item on the agenda is uh approval of minutes from the July 20th 26 public

[3:07] workshop. Everyone should have a copy in that packet.

[3:13] » Make a recommendation for approval of the meeting minutes.

[3:16] » I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes from July 20th. Do I have a

[3:20] second? >> Second.

[3:21] » I have a second by Mr. Kenny. Do um any discussion or corrections? Hearing none.

[3:28] All in favor? >> I.

[3:31] Next item is approval of the minutes from the July 22nd, 2026 planning

[3:38] commission meeting. Do I have a motion to approve?

[3:41] » Make a motion to approve. >> Motion to approve by Mr. Kenny. Do I

[3:44] have a second? >> I'll second.

[3:45] » I have a second by Mr. Price. Is there any discussion or corrections on these

[3:49] minutes? Hearing none. All in favor? I. No opposed. Motion carries. Okay. First

[3:57] item on the agenda here under six is Senator New England master plan major

[4:02] land development with associated dimensional variance. I believe this is

[4:06] a one-year extension for the prior approval of the master plan, right? It's

[4:13] master plan. >> Yes.

[4:14] » Does it say? [clears throat] Yep. Okay. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of

[4:19] the board. For the record, my name is Kelly Morris Salvatore. It's been a

[4:22] while since I've seen you. It's hard to imagine that the master plan was

[4:26] approved almost two years ago. Um just for the new members, uh this is a master

[4:33] plan that allows for 732 units uh across substantially three lots in center of

[4:40] New England that my uh client has under control. Um, in terms of the annual

[4:46] update that I'm supposed to provide during this matter, uh, we do expect to

[4:52] be before you, uh, for lot what we call lot three, which is one of the ones to

[4:57] the west, um, near the Highlands condominiums. That should be coming to

[5:02] you for preliminary plan very shortly. Uh, and, uh, the same partner in

[5:07] development will be developing lot two as well. Um over on lot four, which is

[5:12] the one closer to Arnold Road, we were very grateful to the town council last

[5:18] night. Uh they approved a tax stabilization agreement that we have

[5:22] been negotiating with them for for months. So we're ve very happy for that.

[5:26] That gives us the opportunity to move forward with preliminary plan design uh

[5:32] for that lot. Those are intended at this point to be apartments. So I expect to

[5:37] be seeing you quite a bit this fall and winter.

[5:41] looking forward to it. Want to get those units online.

[5:45] » Okay. Does anyone um on the commission have any questions?

[5:52] » Okay. Hearing none. Um I'll entertain a motion to approve the

[5:58] two one-year extensions. Is that what we're getting here? I'm sorry. Are there

[6:03] right to extend two one-year extensions? Richmond quit

[6:08] » and will be broken up into phases. I'm sorry. Which will be broken up into

[6:12] phases, but you're it's just one extension.

[6:16] » Okay. >> Oneyear master plan extension to October

[6:20] 18th, 2027 in accordance with Rhode Island general law. Do I have a motion?

[6:25] » Um Mr. Co, I'll make a motion.

[6:31] Um, I'd like to make a motion of approval for one-year master plan

[6:35] extension project named Center of New England. Uh, major land development with

[6:40] association associated dimension variances. Owner Matthew McGrien

[6:46] um applicant Star Capital LLC. Address

[6:52] Honor Road Angela Drive SE Stephanie Drive and Center of New England

[6:56] Boulevard. lot AP 13 lot 14 AP14 lots 1 and 65

[7:05] portions of AP 14 lot one and 1.2 two app

[7:13] uh 15 lot 98 zone BP business park the extension date is to October 18th 2027

[7:23] I'd like to include the staff report and the asense other associated documents

[7:29] attached to the staff report in my motion

[7:33] » I have a motion do I have a second >> second

[7:36] » I have a motion motion by Mr. Kenny, second by member Price. Uh, last call.

[7:41] Any further discussion? Hearing none.

[7:45] All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? None. Motion carries.

[7:51] » See you.

[7:55] Okay. [sighs and gasps] Next item. Mar, this is a matter carried

[7:59] over the ADU accessory dwelling unit with associated dimensional variance.

[8:05] Jason and Amarie Theiel, assess plat 21, lot 312 in R20 zone located at 31 King

[8:13] Street. Yes, sir. >> Good evening. Jamie Ter, Jason Tero.

[8:19] Okay. 31 King Street, Coventry. Jason Tero.

[8:27] Okay.

[8:31] So, we have the staff director's report. You do you know why you're back before

[8:35] us this time? >> Yeah, there weren't enough members

[8:38] [snorts] last time to vote on it >> from the time before.

[8:43] » We approved this. Yeah, >> but I believe the issue was the lot

[8:47] coverage was not correctly calculated because you're now putting in a driveway

[8:52] that >> Yeah, we want to um have a driveway

[8:55] going to the ADU off the existing driveway.

[9:01] » Right. And before it was shown as imperous gravel or not shown at all. And

[9:07] now >> I think it was gravel before. Yes.

[9:10] » Yeah. >> So that's the change.

[9:12] » And since that wasn't calculated at the first application, you're back before us

[9:16] to get approval because you won't be able to get a permit to put in that

[9:19] portion of the driveway. Correct. With the prior approval, right? Okay.

[9:23] » I just Does anyone on the U commission have any questions or do you all

[9:29] understand why he's back here?

[9:33] Okay, hearing none. Anything to add? We're good.

[9:36] » No, no concerns by staff. >> Okay. So, if we're all uh set with

[9:41] questions, I'll entertain a motion to uh approve the I just want to make sure

[9:46] here. Are we just doing the variance on this one because he already has the ADU

[9:49] or do we have to make two motions? >> We're doing an additional variance. Um

[9:52] but it is a hearing so we should do a call for comments.

[9:55] » Oh, okay. Is there anybody here in the audience that would like to speak for or

[9:59] against this application or should I have is it hearing?

[10:04] » Sorry, I'm a little off my game time. >> No, that's fine. You can just indicate

[10:08] verbally that we're opening the public hearing and this is the opportunity.

[10:11] » Yeah, we usually vote to open public hearing.

[10:13] » Yeah, you you could do it as a vote. >> I'll make a motion to open this.

[10:16] » We got a motion to We got a motion to open for public hearing. We got a second

[10:19] by Mr. Kenny. Um [clears throat] all in favor? I. Any opposed? None. Is there

[10:25] anybody here that would like to speak uh for or against the application for a

[10:29] variance for the property at 31 King Street?

[10:33] Is there anybody on Zoom? If there's somebody on Zoom, please raise your

[10:36] hand. Do we have anybody on Zoom tonight? No.

[10:41] Okay. All right. So, I'll make

[10:43] » I'll make a motion to close public. >> Okay. We got a

[10:46] » And we got a second close public hearing. All in favor?

[10:49] » I. >> Okay. That said, I'll now entertain a

[10:54] motion to um with regard to this application.

[11:00] » Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve

[11:03] uh the dimensional variance to exceed maximum lot coverage uh project is the

[11:10] ADU unified development review accessory dwelling unit with associated

[11:16] dimensional variances. Owner applicant Jason and Anne Marie Thorough 31 King

[11:22] Street Cessors plot 21 lot 312 zone R20 lot size 0.76 acres uh existing use is a

[11:31] single family dwelling proposed use single family dwelling with an accessory

[11:36] unit ADU um I'd like to include the staff report

[11:41] in my motion >> okay I have a motion do I have a second

[11:47] » I'll Second >> motion by Mr. Kenny, second by Mr.

[11:51] Price. Do we have any further discussion from the board? Hearing none. All in

[11:57] favor? >> I. Any opposed? None. Eyes have it.

[12:01] You're all set, sir. >> Thank you.

[12:03] » Sorry for the delay. >> If if uh if uh you don't mind, I'd like

[12:07] one more motion on this. Whenever we do ADUs, we always do a second motion to

[12:11] allow the project to move forward to building permit. Very straightforward.

[12:14] » I'm sorry. uh a second motion to allow this ADU to move forward to building

[12:18] permit. >> Okay, that's

[12:20] » this is we we call it unified because there's two separate actions.

[12:23] » Okay. I just didn't know if we had kind of already done. Okay. So, at this time,

[12:26] I'll entertain a motion to allow this project to move to building permit.

[12:30] » Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a favorable motion for the throat ADU to

[12:35] move forward to building permit. And I'd like to include the staff report in my

[12:43] uh motion. Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[12:47] » Second. >> Motion by Mr. Kenny, second by member

[12:50] Price. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any

[12:57] opposed? None. Motion carries. >> Thank you. Good night.

[13:02] » Okay. New applications for discussion. Vote or

[13:07] other action. 8.1 Torborg ADU. Accessory dwelling unit with associated

[13:13] dimensional variance cesus plat 43 lot 18 in the R20 zone.

[13:19] Owners are Vincent and Alicia Torberg at 100 Reservoir Road proposing a 2600

[13:25] square ft two-bedroom accessory dwelling unit on a 97 acre parcel.

[13:30] One-dimensional variance is required because the ADU will exceed the maximum

[13:34] unit maximum unit size requirements. Good evening.

[13:38] » Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Are we uh with the chairman's indulgence, could I

[13:42] have one moment to speak with the solicitor before I begin?

[13:45] » Sure.

[14:12] Thanks. >> No problem.

[14:14] » I didn't give it get a chance to give him a heads up earlier.

[14:16] » That's fine. I understand. >> So, good evening. Thomas Cronin, 1070

[14:21] Main Street, Car Coventry, Rhode Island for the owner and applicant, the Tobog

[14:25] family's here with us tonight and uh there contractor Ryan DeFranco from

[14:30] Trust also with us um if there any questions that they can uh respond to.

[14:37] So 100 Reservoir Road AP43 lot 18 is 42,383

[14:43] square feet or.97 acres. It's in the R2 R20 zone, excuse me, R20.

[14:50] So the existing conditions include a single family home uh with well and

[14:54] septic. Uh the lot runs uphill from Reservoir Road to the rear property

[14:59] line. It's a raised ranch style home with two stories in the front and a

[15:04] single story in the rear. That's how the the grade uh works. There's a pool,

[15:08] concrete patio, and a fenced in lawn behind the home directly to the rear

[15:13] adjacent to the existing home. Uh the driveway and utility access are also

[15:18] directly from Reservoir Road. There's an existing well on the

[15:23] southwest side of the existing home and the septic is in the front yard of the

[15:29] existing home adjacent to Reservoir Road. The proposal is to construct a

[15:36] freestanding ADU behind the existing home and behind that fenced in yard uh

[15:42] after the pool. The proposed ADU is for the Torborg's daughter, Kendall, who's

[15:48] with us tonight. Town ordinance requires an ADU that are incidental and

[15:54] subordinate to the principal home and maintain a continuity of appearance with

[15:59] the existing home in the neighborhood. 100 Reservoir Road is located in a

[16:04] neighborhood of well-kept single family homes, most built um with minimal

[16:10] setback within 100 ft of uh Reservoir Road. Um the proposed ADU is a

[16:16] singlestory two-bedroom shingle style cottage. Has a peaked roof, a small

[16:23] covered front porch, a rear deck, and a single attached uh single car attached

[16:28] garage. I don't know. They're not no plans up

[16:31] there, but um including these features, the ADU is uh

[16:37] smaller and lower than the existing home and the neighborhood homes.

[16:44] So, the applicant has submitted a landscape plan. Uh Dennis Haggy from the

[16:49] staff has been out to the property to go over it, but the property is currently a

[16:53] grass lawn in front of and beside the existing structure. This will remain.

[16:58] There's a fenced in grass lawn behind the deck and pool which will also

[17:03] remain. Um, beginning at the rear fence on the south

[17:07] side of the property through the rear boundary, there are mature pine trees

[17:11] and other deciduous trees including oaks. The area to the south side of the

[17:16] existing fence will be cleared for the ADU and a front lawn for the ADU. the um

[17:22] so the area in the center will be cleared but the trees will be maintained

[17:27] along the boundary including the rear boundary

[17:31] behind the existing uh there's also going to be uh an OWTS specific to this

[17:38] ADU so there'll be a clearing uh for that area as well

[17:44] so um the applicant has plans to fill in any gaps created by construction with

[17:49] some new evergreen planting I think there are 18 abroite trees currently

[17:55] along the boundary along uh I guess it would be the southeast boundary

[18:02] and additional plantings will be made so that the there'll be limited visual

[18:06] impact uh to the neighbors. Um, in order to reach this ADU, a separate new

[18:11] driveway just like the one you just discussed with the gentleman before us

[18:15] would be installed 12 foot wide driveway from Reservoir Road to the ADU along

[18:21] that same easterly boundary that uh has the uh currently 18 Abraitees. It'll go

[18:27] between the existing row of abravites and the existing front yard septic and

[18:32] home. So the variance saw tonight is for the

[18:37] size of the ADU. So the ordinance there's there's a bunch of

[18:44] calculations, but in in this case, the ordinance refers to a a maximum size of

[18:49] 1,200 square ft. So that's what we're uh working with. The interior living space

[18:56] of the proposed ADU is 995 ft. There's an attached garage of 352 square ft and

[19:03] a covered front porch of 78 square ft for a total of 1,65

[19:10] square ft on the ground level. The town includes the area of the

[19:17] unfinished basement, an area of 995 square ft in their calculation, which is

[19:23] how they reach 2,600 square ft. I have raised a legal objection

[19:30] that floor area is not defined in state law or the town ordinance and there's no

[19:35] legal or practical basis to include the unfinished basement area in the

[19:40] calculation of the floor area. That's that's not really for this board to

[19:45] decide and I'm only raising the objection to preserve it. I don't have

[19:49] any plans to further argue that point. But should things not go the way we

[19:53] hope, it's preserved. Thank you. So the planning department has suggested

[19:59] uh that an outside bulkhead be integrated into the basement to allow

[20:04] for exterior access to the basement of this ADU so that the

[20:09] storage in the basement of the ADU can be common storage for the ADU and the

[20:13] primary residence. We we like we like that suggestion made

[20:17] by the staff. We think it's a good suggestion. um part of the basement of

[20:23] the primary residence which is a raise ranch style home is finished. So there's

[20:27] actually a very small basement area in that home probably be it's it's a good

[20:33] idea to have that ADU basement be common storage and so we're adopting that

[20:38] suggestion. We think it's a good one. So the plans will be will show um exterior

[20:44] access through a bulkhead to that ADU basement.

[20:49] Um, so when we look at the basis for the

[20:53] variance based on size, we looked at we look at the impact to the neighborhood,

[20:58] the impact to the property and and the town. So, I I said I wasn't going to

[21:03] argue about the unfinished basement area tonight because when you look at when

[21:07] you look at that, an an unfinished basement doesn't have any impact on on

[21:12] the neighbors, the the the utilities, the town and the public health and

[21:16] safety of the town of Coventry. It's just it doesn't, you know, just doesn't

[21:20] have any impact at all. Um I I note you know kind of repeatedly in

[21:27] my application and I apologize for the redundancy though that the actual living

[21:32] space is 995 ft where 1,200 square f feet are is allowed. The other items are

[21:40] part of a design, a thoughtful design to have this be an attractive building to

[21:45] have it integrate into the neighborhood, not just for the primary residence, but

[21:50] for the other residences. So, we have some design features like

[21:54] that covered front porch and a small rear deck which are counted into the

[21:59] square footage which brings it up to that 1,600 or 2600 depending on how you

[22:03] look at it. Um, but those are items that um help this integrate so that it's not

[22:10] so noticeable uh in the neighborhood as you drive by. Um, they're they're design

[22:15] elements that add value for sure, but you know,

[22:19] we're not are here to argue about economics, but also uh increase the

[22:24] blend into the neighborhood. Um, so I I guess

[22:31] that's our basic story. I'm sure the board has some questions. Um, and I'll

[22:37] uh answer them best I can.

[22:42] Does anyone on the board have any questions?

[22:49] I don't hear any yet. I just I'm I'm still trying to grasp some of this

[22:53] calculation stuff myself. >> Sure. So, and I know you didn't do the

[22:56] whole it's it's the there were two What is the square footage that was used um

[23:03] to do the calculation for the existing dwelling? Do they count the lower level

[23:07] because it's finished in that calculation? I

[23:09] » I believe they counted the entire tax assessor's floor plan,

[23:15] » right? But in a raise ranch, they usually don't they wouldn't count the

[23:18] basement. No real estate broker would count the basement. That's why I'm

[23:20] trying to compare apples to apples. Yeah, because you raised a very good

[23:24] point with counting the basement. So, I'm just wanted to know for this

[23:26] calculation when the town >> says, well, it's this percentage or

[23:31] 1,200, what percentage what what do we use

[23:35] » in this case? The the code says that the maximum size of an ADU shall either be

[23:39] 1,200 square feet or 60% of the size of the primary dwelling, whichever is less.

[23:46] In this case, the lesser number is 1,200 ft². So imagine that the the primary

[23:52] dwelling is large. Um but the 60% of that number becomes irrelevant because

[23:57] we're working with >> I just wanted to know if it wasn't

[24:00] irrelevant whether you would count the lower level

[24:04] of a raised ranch in the square foot calculation or not.

[24:08] » Yeah, we do. Um >> so we do apples to apples. We we we do

[24:12] attempt to do apples to apples which is um and as you've seen we've done ADUs

[24:17] where we do count the garage as part of the square footage. Uh we're we're

[24:21] drawing upon state law. Um our code zoning code speaks like uses the same

[24:26] language as state law. It doesn't use the term living area. We're not m we're

[24:30] not looking at the maximum living area of the ADU. We're looking at the maximum

[24:34] floor area. So, we've taken the position that that includes decks, it includes

[24:38] porches, it includes garages, it includes basements. I think what um the

[24:44] uh uh Mr. Cronin has just offered in terms of an exterior entrance to the

[24:49] basement, I think that for us was a key consideration if they wanted to use the

[24:53] basement and consider the basement as like general common property storage.

[24:58] That's something that I can appreciate. Um, it raises a a little bit of an odd

[25:04] variance uh notice question. Um, it almost might be better for Mr. Cronin. I

[25:09] think that's a valuable point. I think we could still look at that. Here's the

[25:13] issue. This is notified for a um uh the idea is the ADU itself is part of a

[25:21] building. Right now, we're counting the entirety of the building, all the floors

[25:24] as ADU square footage. We've noticed that the variance we're seeking is for

[25:28] an ADU that's bigger. If we start to look at the building as two separate

[25:32] components, there's an ADU and then there's a separate square footage that's

[25:37] related to another thing. Someone might argue that we should have two variances.

[25:42] One is to have an ADU that's bigger than the square footage. And let's just say

[25:45] that number is 1,600 for sake of argument. You still need a variance just

[25:49] for the top floor. We have code that says that no accessory structure

[25:53] regardless of its use should be bigger than 12,200 square f feet. So now we're

[25:57] triggering this multiple things happening in the building at once. One

[26:01] might argue we should have a variance for the ADU size and a variance that the

[26:05] entirety of the structure is also bigger than 12,200 ft. We've only noticed the

[26:10] ADU for tonight's hearing. >> It it could be that it's half dozen one.

[26:15] » Yeah. you know, but I would suggest maybe if they want the square footage,

[26:20] we stick with it being under the umbrella of the ADU, but I think that

[26:24] the counselor raises good points about trying to um make sure the board

[26:29] considers that that square footage may not be as pressing as, for example, a

[26:34] second floor of an ADU would look. That makes sense.

[26:38] The basement's 995, but I guess if it's not part of the issue is going to get

[26:43] clouded in my opinion, and I don't think Mr. Cronin wants to use this as his test

[26:48] case. >> I do not. And uh that is why I indicated

[26:51] that although I was preserving the argument, I'm not going to press it

[26:54] tonight. I uh I would like you to consider the

[26:59] ADU in its entirety. >> 2600 square feet for the whole thing.

[27:03] The only Yeah. Go ahead. Does anyone else on the on the board have any

[27:06] questions? Okay. And we have this down for public

[27:09] hearing. >> This is a public hearing. Yeah.

[27:11] » Okay. Um I don't want to make any comments that are going to maybe sway uh

[27:15] comments in from from the audience, but I do have a comment on these ADUs. Um is

[27:20] there anybody I'm sorry. >> Like to make a motion to open.

[27:23] » We got we got a we got a motion to open public hearing by Mr. Price. Do I have a

[27:28] second? We have a second. All in favor? I. Is there anyone in the audience that

[27:33] is here to speak for or against this application for a um variance for the

[27:38] ADU? I don't see anyone in the audience. Do

[27:42] we have anyone on Zoom? And we still have nobody in attendance on Zoom.

[27:46] » No, there's two. >> Two. Okay. Anyone want to speak on this

[27:49] application? Please raise your hand.

[27:53] Let the record show there's no hands up on Zoom. Um, with that said, uh, I'll

[27:59] entertain a motion to close public hearing.

[28:01] » Make a motion to close public. >> I have a motion by Mr. Price to close

[28:04] public hearing. Second by Mr. Kenny. All in favor? I.

[28:09] My the the layout of this is, in my opinion, is good. It's It's great. I

[28:15] just wonder as we start to approve these, and I was thinking this the other

[28:18] day, are we going to start getting variances five or 10 years from now?

[28:24] Hey, can I just subdivide the lot now? I got two houses on one lot and I got, you

[28:29] know, and I can't the dimensions aren't going to work. I don't have enough

[28:33] frontage of about, you know, a few thousand square feet or 20,000 square

[28:37] feet for both houses because we've seen a couple of them now. And basically, it

[28:41] it's coming down to they're allowed, state law allows it. The idea is to

[28:45] increase housing stock, but um I'm just wondering how it's going to go five or

[28:49] ten years from now when someone goes to sell their property and it has two

[28:53] houses on one lot and you know either the price is going to be a factor or

[28:56] something's not going to work and they're going to start coming and asking

[29:00] for variance. I I just caution you. It's funny that you should raise that because

[29:02] a Rhode Island Supreme Court case came down this week in Newport that a 1994

[29:09] restriction against further subdivision was good that that they could, you know,

[29:14] that the town could rely on that and say no, you cannot further subdivide this

[29:18] lot. Even though, of course, there are new statutes, there's new ordinances,

[29:23] they said, you know, if they wanted to appeal it, that was their chance. So,

[29:27] uh, it's an interesting point. But uh just this week the Supreme Court said

[29:31] the town can rely >> on that decision

[29:35] now presently 20 years later, 22 years later.

[29:39] » Yeah. I'm going to and we do that sometimes with some of the lots and the

[29:43] other things that we we've done where folks have come in and said, "Hey, can I

[29:46] cut this or cut that? I need a variance." And then no further

[29:48] subdivision. Uh I'm not so inclined to um

[29:53] consider that tonight. It was just a comment because I can just, you know,

[29:56] I'm just looking forward >> um Okay. Does anyone else on the board

[30:01] have any other questions or comments on this?

[30:03] » Yeah, I'm just I'm just looking at the the calculations. So, the ADU as it sits

[30:10] right now with all the plans and designs is 2600 square feet. Correct.

[30:17] » Correct. And if they the conditions of approval, if we eliminate

[30:23] the proposed deck and the covered porch, is that what's going to bring it down to

[30:30] 2,91.6 square ft?

[30:34] » Um the deck and the porch to combined are it looks like somewhere around 258.

[30:42] » It is. And so, yeah, it'd be Yeah, it'd be um

[30:46] » that brings it down to 2,300 >> 2,300 or so.

[30:49] » Yeah. So, >> it'd be it'd still be well over. I'm

[30:53] going to give you my frank take on this. My Frank Tank take on this is that um I

[30:59] think the most important issue is what you just got to Mr. Clooney, which is if

[31:04] we create ADUs that start to look like two houses on one lot. I don't think

[31:08] that's the case here because I think the location of the ADU is prominently right

[31:14] in the rear of the lot and the lot if it was to be subdivided would require a

[31:18] variance for the frontage. So when we have if we have wide uh shallow lots and

[31:24] they do a big ADU then I think we start to wonder does this start to look like a

[31:28] uh two two units on one lot. I don't think that's the case here. However,

[31:33] what you're seeing is staff did think the number 2600 seemed quite high. It's

[31:37] over twice what the state limit is. It's over twice what our zoning code limit

[31:40] is. Staff kind of in their analysis gave you some optionality for how you might

[31:46] reduce it. I frankly don't think the basement makes it look any bigger. You

[31:51] can't see it. So I'm not sure if we we're giving you optionality if you wish

[31:56] to reduce the size. In this case, I don't think the size renders this

[32:00] particular ADU to appear that it's not sub sub, you know, um, uh, ancillary um,

[32:07] and subordinate. I think it looks ancillary and subordinate. That's the

[32:10] most critical component. Whether the board feels inclined to reduce the size,

[32:14] I think we're giving you some options on what ways to do that.

[32:16] » Well, the reason I asked that question is because the calculations don't work

[32:20] out because it said staff added the following considerations. is the ADU

[32:24] could be reduced to a maximum size of 2,91.6

[32:29] ft. But if I take 258 from 2600, that's 2342

[32:35] ft. So how do you get down to 291? That that's my

[32:42] » um the 291 is actually provided as reference to what is 60% of the size of

[32:50] the primary dwelling. uh that's only there for context. The idea is that if

[32:55] the applicant warranted extra credit for the fact that the primary dwelling is

[33:00] very big, then if you feel like he's got a big primary dwelling, he should have a

[33:04] little bit of a bigger ADU. That number is just there to reference as that's

[33:08] what 60%. It the code is telling us you have to go with the lesser number which

[33:14] is 1,200. So code compliance is 1,200. That 291 is just there to let you know

[33:21] that's what would be 60% of the size of the primary unit.

[33:24] » It's just not >> which would be what was the number that

[33:27] would be 60% please. >> 60% of the primary dwelling would be

[33:31] 2,91 square ft. So that's really that was

[33:35] staff just offering some context on >> if if it's a big primary house and you

[33:40] feel inclined to give this ADU a little extra credit then that's what 60% of the

[33:45] primary. Now you know why I wanted to know whether they calculate with

[33:48] included the basement in the is is the is the house that they live in now or

[33:53] the existing house three three about 3,000 square ft and then does it include

[33:58] the basement or not include the basement cuz again I was trying to I'm trying to

[34:02] justify is this house going to look bigger than the one in the front? It

[34:05] doesn't sound like it will. >> It it won't look bigger. um the the

[34:08] primary dwelling the the number we're referencing is pretty close to 3500

[34:12] square feet. >> And I'm [clears throat] inclined to

[34:14] agree with the applicant's attorney that I think

[34:18] aesthetics goes a long way to just throwing up a boxy structure to meet the

[34:24] the requirements when you're fitting it into a neighborhood. And and similar to

[34:29] the last application, as some of my colleagues mentioned, we didn't have any

[34:34] objections right now from the abutters or the people that were noticed to come

[34:38] to this hearing about the size of the dwelling.

[34:40] » Agreed. Yeah, I think that there's um it's a large ADU. Um when you're looking

[34:44] at the staff analysis, I think we were chopping this up a little bit to give

[34:48] some optionality if you wanted to reduce size.

[34:50] » I appreciate it. But I think that the board is within their right to to look

[34:54] at the whole picture, which is um the the lack of any noted opposition and the

[35:00] fact that from the street, this certainly won't come close to looking

[35:04] like a two family or uh or two separate units. That's my personal perspective.

[35:11] » Do I have any more comments from anyone on the board? Anyone want to kind of

[35:14] weigh in on this before we entertain a motion? just

[35:18] my estimate um

[35:25] this this paragraph says the 2091 described in the staff findings for the

[35:30] above through the removal of the porch and deck. So that's that's incorrect. It

[35:35] would be 2342 if we remove the porch and deck. Um, if it's 2091, now we're eating

[35:41] into the structure, which means they have to redesign the house

[35:44] » or the garage >> or the garage.

[35:48] I personally don't have a problem with removing number one and number two

[35:53] conditions of approval, which means they don't have to take off

[35:58] the deck and they don't have to take off the porch because

[36:02] that really has no effect. I mean, I don't know if that's putting

[36:09] us in a a situation down the road that it's going to be a problem for us with

[36:14] ADUs. Um, as we said, the building at 2600

[36:19] square ft is including the basement, which really isn't livable space unless

[36:25] you finish it. But by putting that outside bulkhead in, now you're making

[36:30] it common storage space. So if you if you technically take off the the 995

[36:37] square feet, you're down to 165 square ft, which is only 400 above

[36:43] versus double and more.

[36:48] I don't know where that puts us by arbitrarily picking how we look at it.

[36:55] And do you have any weigh in on what I'm talking about, Mr. Solicitor?

[37:01] I would like to, but I I did not have I didn't know this issue. I was going to

[37:05] be down until Mr. Cody just mentioned it to me in my ear a moment ago. Um, so I

[37:13] do think at some point the count the board needs to take a position. Um, are

[37:18] they are they not going to include it the basement? Forget the out the

[37:22] additional structures. Right now, I'm not hearing arguments against the um the

[37:27] » Yeah. >> dog house or the um

[37:33] porch area, right? Are there arguments against that as well?

[37:36] » No, I I honestly leave I think the best way to think about it is this. It does

[37:40] not in my mind make sense to have this app. We thought the basement should be

[37:45] included because the only way to reach the basement is through the ADU. It's

[37:48] almost as a precedent that I find that we should make sure that ADUs include

[37:53] all the components that are part of it. Um, that being said, I think you should

[37:58] stick with the concept that the relief that's being sought is all under the

[38:02] umbrella of an ADU that's too big to break it up and say that part shouldn't

[38:06] include it. We we almost open up a can of worms as to whe whether we notice

[38:09] this correctly. Now, it's up to the board. I'm not bothered by the basement.

[38:14] It's a lot of square footage, but to me it doesn't impact the true issue here,

[38:19] which is does this unit look subordinary and incidental to the primary house. The

[38:25] basement can't be seen. I do think um I asked the applicant if they had any

[38:30] intent to finish the basement, which I think is a reasonable question to be

[38:33] asking when we get these. They said that wasn't their intent. If the board feels

[38:36] that you want to add a condition of approval to that extent, you could.

[38:39] That's up to the board. I think if you're not touching the basement, the

[38:43] idea is are you bothered by the front porch or the rear deck to the degree

[38:47] where you think those amenities make the house look different than a subordinate

[38:51] incidental house? If they don't in your mind, then I think you're well within

[38:55] your right to approve it at 2600. Um, you know, when we did our analysis, it's

[39:00] it sometimes we're thinking that the board may want some options to reduce

[39:04] the size if the board is of the mind that they think this is appropriate as

[39:08] it's proposed. I don't have outstanding concerns with approval as proposed.

[39:13] » If they did decide to finish the basement in the future, hypothetically,

[39:17] they would have to come back before the board

[39:19] » whether I would say so. I would assume

[39:23] » ADU statute. Yes. >> Yeah. I would actually, you know what's

[39:28] very funny? I take the position that um the ADU statute and state law doesn't

[39:34] use the word living area. It just uses the word floor area. We're taking the

[39:37] position that the basement is floor area. So to be honest, them converting

[39:41] the basement from an unfinished to a finished, it doesn't impact the fact

[39:45] that they were given an ADU this big. To be honest, I think that unless this

[39:49] board wishes to add a condition of approval, they could finish the basement

[39:52] without another variance. It's a building permit away. To be honest,

[39:56] that's up to the board if you wish to add a condition of approval on something

[40:00] with relating to the use of the basement. That's I'll leave that for

[40:04] your discretion. Um, I would say that we're considering code that gives them

[40:08] that square footage. Whether it's finished or not, we're giving them the

[40:11] square footage.

[40:16] Anybody else? All right. So, my thoughts on this now

[40:20] are 2600's what's before us. To render an approval for anything less than that

[40:27] is going to put the applicant in jeopardy to some degree. Um, it's a full

[40:32] basement. It's not like a raised ranch where it's half light. So, um maybe

[40:39] they'll finish it, maybe they won't. But, um I'm inclined to myself just

[40:44] consider the application on the face of the way it is. And as Mr. Kenny pointed

[40:48] out, I don't know, um why one would get stricken, but number

[40:53] two and the conditions of approval would. Um

[40:58] » and Okay. And you're okay with all the other conditions of approval? Did you

[41:03] read what those were? Yep. Okay. >> Okay. So, in unless we have uh more

[41:08] discussion or future, um I'm I'm ready to entertain a motion.

[41:17] » Basement. >> That's up to the members, but I I as I

[41:20] said, I I don't have a concern. It's a full basement. He's going to have

[41:24] utilities down there. >> Yeah. The way I look at it, it it's

[41:27] below ground. So whether they finish it or not, that's uh as far as I'm

[41:32] concerned, they just have to go get >> they're going to have utilities down

[41:34] there, boil it down there, maybe a washer dryer, I mean,

[41:39] » even if they finish part of it to make it look nice and put exercise stuff down

[41:42] there, what what do we care? >> I think it's going to fit in with the

[41:46] neighborhood. That's the most important thing. So that's just my opinion. Okay.

[41:49] So, with that being said, does um >> chairman, I'd like to make a favorable

[41:53] motion to T togg

[41:59] uh owner applicant Vincent and Alisa Torborg, 100 Reservoir Road, Assessor's

[42:04] Plat 43, a lot 18, zone R20, lot size.97 acres. This is an existing family

[42:13] dwelling, which they are going to be adding an accessory dwelling unit. The

[42:17] applicants proposed to construct a 2600 square feet two-bedroom accessory

[42:23] dwelling on their uh on their lot. The applicants seek a dimensional variance

[42:30] as the ADU exceeds the maximum unit size requirements. I'd like to include the

[42:36] staff report with general approval recommendation number two stricken from

[42:42] the report. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[42:48] » Second. >> Second from Mr. Doo. Do we have any

[42:51] further discussion on this application? [clears throat]

[42:55] Hearing none. Uh, all in favor? I. Any opposed? None opposed? I sat.

[43:01] » Thank you. >> Uh, council, I'd like to add a second

[43:04] permit, a second approval for to allow uh the application to move forward to

[43:10] the building permit process. >> Second.

[43:13] » I have a motion by Mr. Price and me uh second by member Studley to allow this

[43:20] application to move to the building permit stage.

[43:24] Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any

[43:29] opposed? None. Now you're >> Thank you.

[43:32] Word and bill. >> Good luck.

[43:35] » Good luck. >> Okay. What's next? [sighs]

[43:42] » Yolks. The Oaks Homeowners Association.

[43:48] » Yes, sir. How are you? >> Good. Name and address for the record.

[43:53] » Tyler Bosworth to Jack Sway. Um, I am the president of the Oaks Homeowners

[43:58] Association.

[44:01] » Okay. And you are coming before us. I've read the application. It sounds like

[44:06] you're just trying to do a little housekeeping, clean things up.

[44:09] » Yep. >> Yeah. So to speak. Um,

[44:14] » I can give a quick >> Yeah, that would be good just just just

[44:17] for the board. I mean, we have it in front of us, but sometimes it's nice to

[44:20] get >> um the the the

[44:25] uh declaration that was drafted that um oversees the rules and regulations

[44:30] within the Oaks Homes Association was um something that was uh put forth and

[44:36] filed with the town by Robert Duboce building code. Um and

[44:41] um he had a lot of stuff in there um for when he was overseeing the board. Um uh

[44:50] but the way that it's written when enough of the lots were sold and he

[44:54] handed the the you know the jurisdiction of the board over to the community

[44:59] members. Um it basically says that the the board really has no uh

[45:06] responsibilities other than maintaining the common grounds. Um if you read like

[45:10] the beginning parts of it, it's like anything with bylaws and rules and

[45:14] regulations. It's it's homeowner to homeowner or town to homeowner

[45:19] compliance. The board really has no say uh in in any of the stuff going on. So,

[45:25] there were a couple of of things that um that were in the document that we were

[45:32] just hoping to amend it just to make things a little bit easier just to

[45:35] maintain the relationship, maintain the board stuff. And then also um what Bob

[45:41] was approving and doing when he had ownership of the board versus today

[45:46] there's there's a little bit of conflicting stuff there. So, it's really

[45:48] two two addendums. Um he's got a section in there about fencing and it describes

[45:53] particular fencing material that can be used. Um it does not include vinyl.

[45:59] Um but when he was overseeing the board, he gave approval for people to install

[46:03] vinyl fencing. Um and we're there's a lot of houses that have vinyl fencing in

[46:10] the neighborhood. It looks nice. It looks fine. Um, and we would just like

[46:15] to add vinyl to the list of approved fencing material uh within our

[46:20] development just to avoid any legal issues of houses that already have it or

[46:26] want to install it or or whatever the case may be. So, that's one uh requested

[46:31] addendum. Um, the first and I skipped I went to the second one first. The first

[46:35] one on on the list um is in regards to uh out building out structures. Um

[46:43] um it's written that while he is uh in charge of the board any uh outuilding

[46:52] structure approval has to go through him as well as meet you know to town

[46:56] compliance ordinance and all that stuff but he has the the right to say yay or

[47:01] nay. Um and then after he leaves it gets handed over to the board. Um, but what

[47:08] really isn't documented in there is what constitutes the approval. Um, it's

[47:14] really subjective and the way our board works, it's just people that live in the

[47:18] neighborhood and could be a different group of people next year uh that are on

[47:22] the board. And um, so we just like to remove the board being responsible for

[47:28] the process of approving any of the L structures and just leave it with the

[47:31] town. Um, so that way we don't run into conflicts with,

[47:35] » you know, objective opinions on what is a good

[47:38] » or the board has to have a meeting. They don't meet for three months. Now the guy

[47:42] can't get I you you understand he put that in there because he's still trying

[47:45] to sell the houses and all of a sudden the guy next door just starts throwing

[47:49] up the building. >> Problem with with the original verbage,

[47:51] just the last part about when you know now the board is responsible for

[47:55] approving or denying feds and we just don't think that that's something that

[47:58] we should be involved with. So, so does um anyone on the board have any

[48:03] questions for the applicant >> hearing? None. Um public hearing on this

[48:07] one, too. >> No. Um this is a an odd request we don't

[48:11] typically get. >> Okay. Yeah. Yep.

[48:13] » Yeah. Okay. We it and it should be noted that um it does call out what the

[48:18] official process is at the beginning of our uh documentation. And it says that

[48:23] we have to get um uh signatures by a majority of the members uh to approve uh

[48:31] the addendums as well as planning commission approval. Um and we have a

[48:37] very minimal budget and >> Oh, the changes these changes you're

[48:40] talking about? >> Yes. Yeah.

[48:41] » Yeah. So um so tonight's request is to just formally

[48:47] get the approval from the planning commission to Yeah. we agree with the

[48:51] concept of these changes. We I will still have to go back and collect the

[48:55] necessary signatures um and then present them and file them,

[48:59] I'm assuming, with the town to actually officially make these changes. So again,

[49:04] tonight was just to get your guys, you know, blessing. Yeah, it's it's fine.

[49:08] You guys can move forward with Are you okay? So if we vote on this tonight, I

[49:12] it'll go administratively after that. You'll work with them to get Correct.

[49:16] They don't have to come back. Frankly, we don't have many HOAs that say that to

[49:19] change their own HOA bylaws, they have to come back to the planning. So, I

[49:22] think this was an idea a previous planning staff or commission had

[49:27] inserted. Frankly, we wouldn't recommend having bylaws and HOA docs require

[49:32] coming back to the town. This one happens to have it and we have no

[49:35] issues. >> This is Oaks, right? This is the

[49:39] » not to be confused with the Oaks, too. >> Yeah. No, this one we have no concerns

[49:42] with the things they're changing. He just happens to need a vote. Um, and so

[49:47] it's a very simple >> Which oaks is this? Off Tyoke or Ho

[49:50] Furnace? Which >> it's Twood?

[49:53] » Twood Drive West. Yeah. >> Okay.

[49:57] » So, there was >> it was another

[50:01] subdivision cut through Road off Luba. >> Yeah.

[50:04] » That I guess the original developer handed off and so he just named it Oaks,

[50:09] too. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Um,

[50:14] any further discussion from the Okay, I'll entertain a motion then.

[50:19] » I'll make a motion to approve the proposed changes to the declaration of

[50:22] restrictive and protective covenants uh for the oaks as presented.

[50:27] » I have I have a motion. I have a second. A motion by member Stley, second by

[50:33] uh member Kenny. Do we have any further discussion? I didn't hear any. Okay. All

[50:37] in favor? I. Any opposed? None. All set. All right. Good luck, gentlemen.

[50:46] » Wonder how many signatures he has to get.

[50:49] » Well, he knows he got some some good ones because he was buying a fence.

[50:52] » Okay, so we are now up to item 9.2, which is the zoning code updates. And I

[50:59] think we've got some pressing matters. I realize it's still fairly early, but

[51:02] just out of an abundance of caution, I'd like to switch up the agenda. Could I

[51:05] have a motion to please uh move item 9.2 to uh to uh

[51:14] to after item 10 and we will take up the uh

[51:20] 10 point you want 10.2 first or 10.1 or it

[51:24] doesn't >> let's do 10.1 I imagine it may be pretty

[51:27] quick and we do have an applicant here for that

[51:29] » oh okay I'm sorry okay so we'll I I'll entertain a motion to move item 9.2 to

[51:35] um to after after items 10. >> I'll I'll make a motion to move 9.2 to

[51:42] after item 10 on the agenda. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[51:46] » Second. >> I have a second by member Stley. Motion

[51:48] was by Mr. Kenny. All in favor? I. And now uh we'll take item 10.1 ordinance

[51:55] 2026-21 amending chapter 255 of the zoning

[51:59] article 5 zoning districts and zoning district map reszoning 1119

[52:06] after general business from must have been BP um Michael beard

[52:17] » how are you board on behalf of Mr. Beard attorney Al

[52:22] Medisi Medici on behalf of Mr. Beard.

[52:30] Okay, I have to confess this is my first time

[52:33] at a first read, so I'm not sure how how you proceed.

[52:37] » First, this is my first time at a at a first read, so I'm not sure how you

[52:40] proceed on on these matters. >> Mr. Mediti, if you just want to give a

[52:45] twominute overview of uh the proposal that you're looking to do. Sure. So, uh,

[52:51] Mr. Be is proposing to, um, he need have the zone changed, uh, from plan

[52:56] development to general business. Uh, his intention is currently a building, an

[53:01] old kiosk from Citizens Bank. It's being, uh, torn down. He already has his

[53:05] a demo permit to take the building down. Uh, it intentions to put up a 50 by 100,

[53:12] uh, garage style storage building for contractors could store their equipment

[53:16] there.

[53:20] Yep. Okay. And that's allowed by Wright and the general business owners.

[53:24] » That use is allowed by Wright. Um would be worth noting as the board may be

[53:29] thoughtful on um the uh aesthetics is that this property would still be

[53:34] subject to the special planning overlay which uh would bring with it uh certain

[53:40] um aesthetic degrees. It talks about the the building materials. It talks about

[53:44] pitched roofs. uh this property would still be subject to that overlay. Um I

[53:50] know it's it's likely it's a prominent property and it will become more

[53:53] prominent because of the development in and around it. Uh we do have the

[53:56] capacity to ensure that there's um uh a streetscape uh appeal to the best degree

[54:02] we can be aware of those conditions. >> Yeah.

[54:06] » And what's the um how big is the lot?

[54:12] » It's fairly small.

[54:18] 1.3 acres. >> And And what would be allowed in the

[54:21] business park zone? >> When you say the business park, you mean

[54:24] the BP zone? Are you talking Are you referring

[54:27] » PD? I'm sorry. >> PD. So a PD zone is like a make your own

[54:30] zone essentially. Um the that means or a PUD. You might have heard that term

[54:36] before. >> I'm just trying to figure out what is he

[54:39] going to gain by switching this to general business. What can he do here

[54:42] now that he can't do? Because originally that was all zoned

[54:47] » for for planned development, at least that's what it says, change from planned

[54:51] development when they had the proposal for the mixeduse development in there.

[54:55] And now we've got 400 apartments going in there using the same entrance. And

[55:00] basically, Mr. Beard has an easement to get to his property through what they're

[55:04] building. And I'm just thinking contractor trucks and equipment that

[55:09] might be using um what could be construed as an industrial use really. I

[55:15] mean I I don't know what he's going to be storing in there. Um so um couple

[55:21] considerations. The PD zone as it's zoned right now would only really allow

[55:25] him to uh achieve the same use within the same building footprint. And when

[55:29] this was zone PD they tied the zone to the approved site plan at the time. So

[55:35] essentially this was a zone that allowed them to build exactly what they built.

[55:40] Um so the options are to either reszone it to PD to something else which we're

[55:46] kind of kicking the can to whatever he wants to do. We're going to do it as a

[55:50] zone exercise and uh that is one option but that's not the option they're

[55:56] seeking. What they're seeking is to turn it back to a GB which is a generic zone.

[56:01] that zoning designation matches what exists on Tyogg on both sides of the

[56:05] street for the duration. So, we see it as a fit because imagine that what

[56:09] they're seeking to do is the same thing that Burger King or any other lot that's

[56:13] in the vicinity could also seek to do. They're going to be given the same range

[56:16] of allowed uses across the GB zone. Um I think it is worth noting because we're

[56:22] aware that there's um new development in and around the area that we would have

[56:27] the tools. This would come back to the board as uh either a major or minor land

[56:32] development. Likely a minor. Uh actually, I take that back. It may not

[56:35] come back to the board if it's a minor land development, but the town will

[56:39] still review the details of the minor land development. We'll be able to

[56:43] ensure that there's um good aesthetic outcomes if because we do have the

[56:48] ability to suggest what building materials can be used, the pitches of

[56:52] roofs, and there's a code on fenestration on windows. So I think um

[56:56] out of the range of uses that are allowed, we can at least ensure there's

[57:00] some good form, some good appearance of the structures,

[57:06] » right? And is the has the town done anything with this ordinance? Do they

[57:11] read it once and now we're making the recommendation? They did.

[57:14] » This got a this got a first reading last night at the town council. Um, so it is

[57:19] in front of you for a recommendation and then back in front of the town council.

[57:22] I believe on September 22nd is when they may shoot for a hearing, but it may not

[57:28] make it that quickly. Do you happen to note in September 22nd? I believe it's

[57:32] back in front of the council for >> hearing. But did what do they do about

[57:35] notice? Cuz the applicant for the abuing parcel probably isn't the owner of

[57:39] record. >> Um, for notice, you don't mail a notice

[57:43] for a zone change like this. You actually the notice occurs through the

[57:46] paper. So, there's a newspaper ad that will be run three consecutive weeks to

[57:50] notify um actually I'll ask the solicitor on a zone change because we

[57:56] haven't issued notice yet. Um this recommendation is occurring as a

[58:00] required step but a non-notice step aside from the fact that our agenda

[58:04] tells us what we're doing. It's the hearing and for a zone change where

[58:08] there um it's not a zoning amendment. It's a it's a property zone change. the

[58:11] solicitor might advise there is mailed notice to a butters

[58:16] » if um the distinction is if it's a text change it's just advertised in the

[58:22] newspaper three successive weeks 14 days you know on a series of uh notices but

[58:28] if it's a map change and this would be a map change it has to be both that

[58:33] advertised in the newspaper three successive weeks I believe 21 days and

[58:38] also noticed uh surrounding the butt is I think within 200 ft. You may have a

[58:44] greater u notice section towns sometimes have greater thing but the answer is

[58:51] nobody really the abuters are not aware of this at this moment right they're

[58:55] going to be aware of this at the public hearing when it goes to the council

[58:59] » okay that's I just want to make sure that our applicant who's we're going to

[59:04] be back in front of us on September 14th with

[59:08] a extreme number of affordable or LMI units to help the town meet their guide.

[59:15] 400 apartments is not going to say we didn't expect that to go right in front.

[59:20] » The um the applicant is aware of this zone change. Both the applicants have

[59:24] spoken. So they're both aware of you answered my question.

[59:27] » Yeah. And uh and this is considered a map change. They're they're changing the

[59:31] zoning map. So >> So as far as you know, there wasn't any

[59:33] kicking and screaming and any objections to this.

[59:36] » Um I can I can tell you that both the applicants are aware of each other's

[59:40] proposals. >> Okay. Thank you. We'll leave it at that.

[59:44] » I can attest to that fact as well that I'm sorry.

[59:46] » I can attest to the fact there have been communication.

[59:51] Okay. Uh, anyone else have any questions?

[59:56] Hearing none.

[1:00:00] » We're making a recommendation to the town.

[1:00:03] » Just make a recommendation. We're making a recommendation of the town council

[1:00:05] that they may proce or or to re to I'm sorry to to pass an ordinance that

[1:00:11] reszones um that lot highlighted in yellow which

[1:00:16] is where the citizens bank kiosk is in front of the old commercial plaza

[1:00:22] um to business general business as opposed to planned development which

[1:00:28] they have a a a right to do based on the designation of a plan development.

[1:00:36] » The I mean when you ask the question, do they have a right to do it? They have a

[1:00:39] right to seek a zone change. A zone change is a legislative action. The

[1:00:43] council's the decision maker. There's nothing guaranteed, but um it does have

[1:00:48] some logical sense in that. I don't think that the applicant envisions

[1:00:53] trying to build a bank in the exact same footprint. This is really current zoning

[1:00:57] locks this in place for a very limited range of options. the general business

[1:01:01] is really what surrounds the area. So, we feel pretty comfortable that what

[1:01:05] they could build here could be built on any other lot in the vicinity um along

[1:01:10] Tyoke. So, we feel comfortable it's straightforward and we don't need the

[1:01:14] PD's tool to be used for this lot moving forward.

[1:01:17] » From what what I'm reading, it was originally zoned general business.

[1:01:22] » Yeah. >> Prior and then was changed to plan

[1:01:25] development. >> That's correct. Oh, they were going to

[1:01:27] retail. >> This was at one point this property was

[1:01:30] part of a larger proposal. They were had a really complex development scheme

[1:01:34] largely in the back to comp to do the complex development scheme. They needed

[1:01:38] a make your own zone. Then this property got carved off and now this property

[1:01:42] kind of lives as a remnant of an old vision. Um and really I think this

[1:01:46] property should have more optionality for the choices moving forward.

[1:01:53] » Yes. >> Just wanted to mention Mr. Price asked

[1:01:56] it. You actually have two votes. One, I believe, is to um

[1:02:02] vote whether or not you think this proposed change is consistent with your

[1:02:06] comprehensive plan. That's your statutory obligation that has to go to

[1:02:10] the council. And then in addition to that, you could make a positive or

[1:02:15] negative. And the normally when people when the boards find it consistent with

[1:02:19] the comprehensive plan, they also make a positive recommendation,

[1:02:23] » right? So they're they usually but technically they're two different

[1:02:27] they're two different votes >> and it has and the change from the

[1:02:32] change to general business is um not included with what the applicant

[1:02:39] plans on putting on the site right now. He has to come back for that application

[1:02:45] or go to >> well unless he's got it by right

[1:02:48] » unless Yeah. So >> he's got something by right. He might

[1:02:51] not be coming to you. >> Come back to to planning whether it's

[1:02:54] » No, I disagree. I think he would go back might have to just go to building or

[1:02:59] » it would be my my assumption of what's going to happen is the the what he's

[1:03:03] seeking to build does not need to be incorporated into the zone change

[1:03:06] because he's just doing a straight zone change to a straight zone. Um the

[1:03:10] application they're conceiving I assume will end up being a minor land

[1:03:13] development which is commercial square footage underneath 7500 square ft. minor

[1:03:18] land developments go to TRC and they get administrative decisions, but all of TRC

[1:03:22] reviews it. They all comment on it and uh this applicant uh will have to uh

[1:03:28] attest to the the general business code as well as that overlay code that has

[1:03:32] the aesthetic oversight. >> So So you you will have involvement.

[1:03:36] » Yeah. Yeah. This application it will result in a in a formal application. um

[1:03:41] TRC will review it and uh assuming it stays as a minor um planning the

[1:03:46] administrative officer will decide. >> Okay.

[1:03:48] » And I and then I would note with all zone changes because we've done a

[1:03:52] handful of them. There are required findings. Um the you'll see in the staff

[1:03:56] memo we call out towards the end the the required findings, there's two of them.

[1:04:00] One is that it it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The other required

[1:04:04] finding is that it's consistent with the purposes of zoning. Um, we've made the

[1:04:08] required findings and uh, it's up to the solicitor might determine that the

[1:04:12] findings should get their own vote, but we've typically done it as a singular

[1:04:16] vote to recommend in a certain direction to the council and acknowledge for the

[1:04:22] record that you concur with the findings in the memo. If that makes sense to you.

[1:04:30] » Yep.

[1:04:33] » Oh, I didn't think I had that. That's why I'm asking all these questions. Can

[1:04:38] I just see that? Either that or I misplaced it.

[1:04:44] I'm sorry. Just give me a second. I I didn't see this um in the packet.

[1:04:55] » Right. Right. Right. Right. Yeah, I got that part. Yeah.

[1:05:08] might be helpful. I think the um the planner had indicated that the

[1:05:13] properties also running on either side of that

[1:05:18] Tyogre Avenue are all GB. >> Yeah, if you look at the map on the

[1:05:22] screen, everything in gray is GB. >> No, no, I'm I'm fine. I Yep. I'm

[1:05:26] familiar with that. I'm just trying to gauge as I said the the this is where

[1:05:31] again there was a plaza there there were multiple stores citizens comes wants to

[1:05:35] put a kiosk there they didn't even ask for access off tyio gap they got an

[1:05:40] easement they were they complemented each other you had a bank in the

[1:05:43] shopping center I mean that's just the way they did thing what I was trying to

[1:05:46] determine from this map is if in fact there's there looks like there's legal

[1:05:50] access to tyoke but the physical access is constrained by some type of

[1:05:55] » that's correct there's wetland constraint there.

[1:05:59] » That's where you see the wetland curls right in front of the property and then

[1:06:02] it goes into a covert. It the there's a physical constraint um where they can't

[1:06:07] have direct access on Tyogg and the property does have there's cross

[1:06:11] easements so the property does have easement access through the larger lot.

[1:06:15] Um both this has been discussed both of the two applicants are aware of it. Um

[1:06:20] they're both aware of these pending actions. They're both aware of the dates

[1:06:23] that they can attend each other's meetings if they wish to add comment and

[1:06:27] they're both aware to comment to me. I haven't received comment negatively from

[1:06:31] either of these two parties on the other application.

[1:06:36] » Okay.

[1:06:39] » And if whatever whatever act whatever construction they wanted to do their use

[1:06:45] now they would have to demonstrate to the planning department that they have

[1:06:49] permanent physical access. So, the point's well taken.

[1:06:52] » Oh. Oh, they definitely do. I'm just trying to figure out again what what is

[1:06:57] going on this property. I mean, M. Mr. Beards put up a number of these um lodge

[1:07:04] buildings for storage. And again, we don't know exactly what's going there or

[1:07:09] the dimensions, but that type of facility um he he was taking boats in

[1:07:14] for the winter because it was cheaper than shrink wrapping or you got

[1:07:17] landscapers coming in with trucks. and I was just trying to figure out how that

[1:07:21] was going to be compatible. If he doesn't have road front andage, he's not

[1:07:24] necessarily looking for retail. Um, there's probably some things that would

[1:07:28] go there that would complement the apartments, but that's not our business.

[1:07:31] That's that's up to the applicant. But I just want to make sure we're not doing

[1:07:34] anything that facilitates something that may have a negative con consequence. But

[1:07:40] the question was answered. The a butter will have an opportunity to go to the

[1:07:45] town council hearing if they have any objections or want some further

[1:07:48] restriction on it. So, we'll we'll let it play out.

[1:07:54] That said, any anyone else have questions? If not,

[1:07:59] I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion that the planning

[1:08:05] board forward a positive recommendation to the town council

[1:08:10] on uh the matter of the proposed zone change for AP28, lot 3.1. Um, and in

[1:08:18] that I also make a motion that the planning board adopt the findings of

[1:08:25] fact as laid out in the staff report. Those being that the zone changes

[1:08:31] consistent with the comprehensive plan and that um it is consistent with the

[1:08:38] purposes of zoning as presented in 452430.

[1:08:43] » That cover it. Okay. Uh, I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a mo

[1:08:48] motion by Vice Chair Studley and me uh second by member Price. Any further

[1:08:55] discussion? I know I've asked sound like a broken record, but hearing none. All

[1:08:59] in favor? I. Any opposed? >> None.

[1:09:03] » All set. Thank you for your time. >> I know I took a while. Okay. So, now we

[1:09:10] go to 10.2. amendment to housing and land use

[1:09:14] chapters of the locally adopted 2026 comprehensive plan.

[1:09:20] And this is a public hearing. Um, do you want me to open the public hearing and

[1:09:25] then you give opening remarks or do you want to give us some opening remarks and

[1:09:28] then I'll go to public hearing? It doesn't matter.

[1:09:33] » Kyle, is there anyone on Zoom? >> There are four people.

[1:09:40] Um, I'll give brief remarks. Okay. Thank you.

[1:09:43] » And uh I'll just uh suggest that what's in front of you are amendments to the

[1:09:49] comprehensive plan that we recently adopted. Uh you may recall this board uh

[1:09:56] made a favorable recommendation on the comprehensive plan. Um was that late

[1:10:00] April? And uh that comprehensive plan without

[1:10:06] change was adopted by the town council. Uh we've always known along the way that

[1:10:11] we felt that the housing element of the the housing chapter of the comprehensive

[1:10:15] plan uh could have been greatly improved and we uh achieved funding to do that.

[1:10:20] It just happened that we both wanted to get our comprehensive plan over the

[1:10:24] finish line for a variety of reasons not related to the housing chapter, but we

[1:10:29] also wanted to take advantage of uh the resources we had to write the housing

[1:10:33] chapter in a more robust way. Uh we've been able to do that. Um the full

[1:10:38] comprehensive plan is still in a statewide planning comment period.

[1:10:42] Essentially statewide planning approves these uh the comment uh I wouldn't say

[1:10:47] it's the comment period. It's it's their fivemonth review period. Um we they're

[1:10:52] very aware that we're rewriting the plan while they're currently reviewing it and

[1:10:56] that they understand that we will have a fully rewritten housing chapter. Um, as

[1:11:01] it relates to the housing chapter, we did have some other changes to the land

[1:11:05] use chapter that included um, uh, a new buildout analysis. Um, and that included

[1:11:12] some other uh, associated changes to uh, the land use chapter related to um,

[1:11:18] future growth um, particularly in the future land use map categories uh, and

[1:11:24] discussion of future land use map categories. So, um, long story short, it

[1:11:28] is a full rewrite of the housing chapter. This was subject to public

[1:11:32] input. Um, this also, um, referred to, uh, stakeholder input we had with

[1:11:38] housing experts. This, uh, relied upon public input we gathered through a

[1:11:43] communitywide survey. Um, we feel it's a it's a strong document. it does do what

[1:11:49] we wanted, which was taking a housing chapter that we felt was um fairly

[1:11:54] substandard and may not have ultimately achieved statewide planning approval

[1:11:58] because at that point we had pretty uh dated uh data and information we were

[1:12:03] relying on. This is updated data. It's uh policy framework that relies on our

[1:12:09] current decision makers. Um we feel it's a strong document. Uh that's enough from

[1:12:15] me. We can either see if there's public comments and go from there or if the

[1:12:20] board has initial questions I can help answer.

[1:12:24] » Make a recommendation to open it to public comment.

[1:12:27] » I have a recommendation to from Mr. Price to open public hearing. I'm sorry.

[1:12:33] Motion uh and a second by Mr. Kenny. All in favor?

[1:12:39] » I. Any opposed? None. Okay. Public hearing is open. Is there anyone in the

[1:12:46] audience that wishes to speak on the uh draft of the

[1:12:52] proposed draft housing chapter for the town's comprehensive plan?

[1:12:58] And I don't see anyone anyone on Zoom wants to comment on the housing chapter

[1:13:03] that's proposed. It's a draft to the comprehensive plan. Please raise your

[1:13:08] hand.

[1:13:11] No. No, no comments. How about the board?

[1:13:21] No, no. All the work done up front must be uh

[1:13:27] sufficient for it to be this smooth at the end.

[1:13:32] » Yeah, the chairman. I'd like to make a motion to close public hearing.

[1:13:38] » Okay. I have a motion to close public hearing by member Kenny. Do I have a

[1:13:41] second? I have a second by member Dude. All in favor? I

[1:13:46] » Okay. Any anything else to add before we uh go to You just want to

[1:13:51] » No, I'm uh I've given you everything I need. Um I would just note you've got a

[1:13:56] a a planning department memorandum. There are required findings and

[1:14:00] essentially you can make your motion based on that. Um we are ultimately uh

[1:14:06] just forwarding a recommendation to the town council. The council will hold its

[1:14:10] own hearing. We anticipate for any of those listening in or uh reviewing this

[1:14:14] meeting after the fact, we anticipate that council hearing will be September

[1:14:18] 22nd and that would be subject to an additional round of public notice. So,

[1:14:23] you can always keep your eyes out for future council agendas and the ads, but

[1:14:28] we anticipate September 22nd hearing by the council as the final step on these

[1:14:33] amendments. >> Okay. And just to clarify, the state is

[1:14:38] currently reviewing our comprehensive plan and this will just be supplemented

[1:14:42] to that is if it passes and they will just continue with their review and

[1:14:47] hopefully um we'll hear from them in some time.

[1:14:51] » That's correct. >> In the future and then the lift's over.

[1:14:54] Okay. Um Okay. So, you're looking for a motion to make a favorable

[1:14:58] recommendation to the town council to include this uh housing chapter in the

[1:15:04] comprehensive plan and to incorporate your um staff report

[1:15:09] » for and for the record uh the housing chapter and edits to the land use

[1:15:12] chapter as well. >> Okay.

[1:15:17] I'll entertain a motion if someone chooses to make one. Mr. Mr. Chairman,

[1:15:21] I'd like to make a positive recommendation to the town council for

[1:15:26] the comprehensive plan update for housing and land use. Um, that is

[1:15:34] consistent with our state goals as set forth in RGI 4522-3.

[1:15:45] » I have a motion. Do I have a second? And yeah,

[1:15:49] » I'd like to court the planning department memorandum

[1:15:57] » and I have a second from member Luca. Uh, any further discussion?

[1:16:03] I would just add the draft that we have in front of us tonight is dated August

[1:16:06] 19th, 2026. Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding.

[1:16:12] That said, all in favor? >> I do. I have any opposed? None opposed.

[1:16:18] Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Yep, we got that done. And now the next

[1:16:22] thing is discussion on zoning code updates.

[1:16:25] » Yeah. So, um, this one, uh, Heather, you're all set. Thank you very much. Um,

[1:16:32] yep. Um, this one can take as much or as little time as we choose, although I

[1:16:36] would note I'd like to give it enough time to to get some feedback from you

[1:16:40] and allow our consultant to take some next steps. Jim Rearen is here uh, from

[1:16:46] Weston and Samson. Um, we've done a lot of uh code work. A lot of it has been

[1:16:51] with uh Ashley of Weston and Samson who's out on uh a sick leave at the

[1:16:56] moment. So Jim's uh filling in. Uh these are some old MTAP projects. Uh the

[1:17:03] long-standing board members will recall we've had discussions about what we

[1:17:07] wanted to do with multifamily and two family. We sat around maps. We talked

[1:17:12] about different concepts. Um, so and long-standing board members will also

[1:17:18] recall that on January of 2024, um, we effectuated, uh, zoning code

[1:17:26] changes to essentially remove every use that was allowed through a special use

[1:17:31] permit in town. Um, those two issues, the idea of let's bring back multif

[1:17:35] family and two family and how and where is it appropriate? That's a big

[1:17:40] question. And uh the other is all these uses that we previously allowed, you're

[1:17:45] seeing a big chunk of them. This is we've we've seen some come back in drips

[1:17:50] and drabs. You've seen gas stations come back. Uh you saw kennels come back that

[1:17:54] those individual ones came back because there were uh parties that were

[1:17:57] interested in pursuing them, but what we're looking at is also broad strokes.

[1:18:03] There's many uses and we're trying to sort out how do we bring them back? Um

[1:18:09] and so those two big issues which are really kind of independent separate

[1:18:12] issues they were independent separate um uh funding projects that we got we this

[1:18:18] these consulting uh work that we gained with assistance from the state. We're

[1:18:22] trying to wrap it all up by the end of this calendar year. Really that's the

[1:18:26] target is we have to close these projects before uh December 31st. Um, we

[1:18:32] envision that these two items, the multifamily and bringing back the uses

[1:18:36] previously allowed through special use permit, they're uh something that we can

[1:18:41] uh have conversations over the next um three up to three planning commission

[1:18:47] meetings. So, we've got time tonight and then we're going to set a little bit of

[1:18:50] time in our September meeting and set a little bit of time in our October

[1:18:55] meeting. The consultant's goal is to get enough feedback from you tonight so that

[1:18:59] they can start putting pen to paper and drafting code that you might be able to

[1:19:03] see. Um, you also might say, "I have uh some questions. I maybe want to see some

[1:19:08] research done in a certain area." Well, they might be able to do that research

[1:19:11] and come back with answers to those questions at the next meeting. with the

[1:19:15] idea by the end of this we hope to have draft code that we're fairly satisfied

[1:19:20] with on our level that we can consider then moving forward in a formal sense

[1:19:25] with uh the town council and and putting the the the code into a formal ordinance

[1:19:30] format. So that's probably enough from me to start. Um, I do think that, you

[1:19:37] know, those of you who have, you know, these are big packets, so I don't know,

[1:19:41] you know, you may have only had a chance to skim some of these. I think out of

[1:19:46] the two discussions, um, either the multif family, two family

[1:19:50] being one of them, the special use permit uses being the other. I'd

[1:19:54] recommend we start with the multifamily. Um,

[1:19:59] and the the the very brief memo that we have, it's a

[1:20:04] three-page memo. Um, it outlines the basic concepts that the planning

[1:20:11] commission has established with what it wants to see. I'm going to say that we

[1:20:17] understand that the planning commission wants to consider reallowing these uses.

[1:20:23] There was always the intent that we would make sure that somehow multif

[1:20:26] family and and two families would come back. There's been a strong concern

[1:20:30] about um allowing those in any way, shape or form that would increase uh the

[1:20:37] baseline density that could be achieved on a parcel if we and I think a lot of

[1:20:41] the rationale for that has been we all have seen many comprehensive permits.

[1:20:45] It's a predominant development tool in the state. If we do any underlying

[1:20:49] zoning changes that allow someone to achieve greater numbers of units through

[1:20:53] underlying zoning, a comprehensive permit can build on top of that and get

[1:20:57] a greater outcome by adding the state density to our underlying zoning. So,

[1:21:01] we've held a policy that we've kind of called even Steven, which is let's allow

[1:21:05] the uses, but let's ensure that our zoning um does not increase the ability

[1:21:10] to create more units than the underlying zoning currently does. that can be a

[1:21:15] little limiting and restrictive, but I understand that we're taking a

[1:21:19] conservative posture uh to really make sure that comprehensive permits don't

[1:21:23] get additional units from what they already are allowed to seek. Um so that

[1:21:28] even Stephen is a basic component of all this. There's other components you've

[1:21:32] talked about. You you didn't love the concept of multifamily coming in big

[1:21:36] buildings. You like the idea that you could allow the use but do it in in in

[1:21:40] multiple smaller buildings instead of one big one. And uh one very open-ended

[1:21:46] question was what do we want to do for multif family or two family in our

[1:21:50] commercial zones? We don't currently allow residential at all in our

[1:21:55] commercial zones, but we're seeing a lot of interest in developing commercial in

[1:22:00] our or I'm sorry, developing residential in our commercial. You're seeing it with

[1:22:03] the comprehensive permits. You're seeing comprehensive permits take place in our

[1:22:08] uh commercial districts. You're seeing the business park which has all of the

[1:22:11] receiverhip parcels. It does turn out that our commercial zones are receiving

[1:22:16] a lot of interest and a lot of units but there's not a underlying byright um

[1:22:22] codified way for people to do it. So while we think about how we allow these

[1:22:26] uses in our perhaps the R20 our densest residential we should be thinking about

[1:22:30] what do we want to do in our commercial districts and our industrial districts

[1:22:34] as well. So I'll leave it there. The goal tonight is to get your feedback. Uh

[1:22:39] if you review the memo and you review the bullets at the top of page two,

[1:22:44] which really calls out those kind of basic parameters that this board had

[1:22:48] established, probably a year to a year and a half ago is the last time we ever

[1:22:52] discussed this. Uh if you feel good about those basic parameters, if you

[1:22:56] want to add context, if you don't feel good about them, that's what we want to

[1:23:01] hear from you.

[1:23:10] So

[1:23:13] limiting the maximum number of dwelling units within an individual multif family

[1:23:17] to six that excludes like compliments, right? I mean cuz I'm

[1:23:24] I'm not opposed to apartment buildings as long as they're cited in the right

[1:23:27] spot. >> Fair enough. Yeah, we um this all of

[1:23:31] this is the assumption is that um it does exclude comp permits. A comp permit

[1:23:36] is allowed to essentially not follow zoning. This is our choice to make a

[1:23:42] compelling code that someone that wanted to do multif family would have a choice

[1:23:46] in our underlying code. We felt and I think this was specifically thinking

[1:23:51] about R20. Let's just say there's a 10 acre lot in the R20 zone. There's not

[1:23:57] many, but there are a few here and there. Uh, underlying zoning would

[1:24:00] suggest you could get 20 units out of that lot. Um, the concept is the board

[1:24:06] felt if we're in an R20, it's largely going to be surrounded by single family.

[1:24:11] The board felt more comfortable if you're going to give 20 units, let's do

[1:24:16] three smaller buildings of six units and make it more townhouse oriented than one

[1:24:20] big building of 20 units. That was previous context and feedback. The board

[1:24:27] may feel differently now. You may feel like, "No, I'm open to having a 20 unit

[1:24:32] in one building larger scale apartment complex." Um, we're looking for your

[1:24:37] feedback if that's >> it. It's hard for a one-sizefits-all. I

[1:24:42] do not have any objection to a high-rise apartment

[1:24:47] building three or four stories. I mean, they're going in. They they have them in

[1:24:53] other cities and towns. We're seeing them get developed. They got nice

[1:24:56] facade. Sometimes they have a a meeting space. There's a demand for that type.

[1:25:01] And and in fact, if you head towards West Warick on the right hand side,

[1:25:04] there's an apartment building in the back. And then they've got a few elderly

[1:25:07] highrises in West Warick. And then here, we don't really have that I can think of

[1:25:13] any high-rise structures. Um, so that's my point, but I don't want to

[1:25:21] say, oh, it's going to be allowed in the R20 zone because, as you just said,

[1:25:24] somebody may have 10 acres in the middle of two different residential plats where

[1:25:27] it's predominantly surrounded by single family, not a good fit. And someone

[1:25:31] might come in and say, it doesn't really matter. I can fit it in there. Whereas,

[1:25:34] if it's got its own access, let's say off a um a major artery road, and you

[1:25:40] just got to go in and it opens up, and there's, you [clears throat] know,

[1:25:43] there's not a lot of abuing properties. it can be screened properly and it might

[1:25:48] work. So, how do you do they still have an option to come in for some type of

[1:25:53] variance or other um that was would be how it would have to might have to go to

[1:25:58] the town council or get a a PUD or something like that. So, as long as

[1:26:02] there's a mechanism, I just don't want to

[1:26:05] » close the door on those types of things. No, I think that you wouldn't. It is

[1:26:09] true that you could create code that anybody can seek a variance from and

[1:26:14] then ultimately you are the decision maker on variances as it would be

[1:26:18] related to multif family projects >> because as we said and I'm sorry the

[1:26:22] reason I we talked about the compliments but there could be a time when we don't

[1:26:27] have to consider compromise anymore because we met our housing goal

[1:26:30] » that and they won't become right and then they can't come in on that. So now

[1:26:33] what mechanism do they have? If somebody wants to put up an apartment complex and

[1:26:38] there's actually a demand for it and it's a good fit, they can come in and

[1:26:43] they just got to dot the eyes, go for the right changes

[1:26:47] and either reszone the lot or something like that.

[1:26:50] » Yeah. Um so I mean what we're considering I think the the probably the

[1:26:54] biggest challenge is how would we want to handle this in the R20? I do think to

[1:26:57] be honest I get a sense the board might be open to these uses in the commercial

[1:27:02] districts but the challenge is how do we want to handle it when we know that the

[1:27:07] large context around it would be our single family neighborhoods and if we

[1:27:11] find a solution we're happy with there it probably looks easier to then turn to

[1:27:15] our commercial and say what are we comfortable with there as comparison I

[1:27:20] think you look at it as a 10acre parcel you could do 20 single family houses

[1:27:24] there so we would say even Stephen you're allowed to do 20 multif family

[1:27:28] units. The thought is, okay, you might say, I'm comfortable with that as long

[1:27:34] as you give me uh you you you you site it on the right

[1:27:38] area of the lot. And that's one of the tenants we talked about. If you want to

[1:27:41] do multif family, there might be a minimum distance to the nearest single

[1:27:44] family. So, you're not putting the the multifamily, you know, right on one side

[1:27:49] of the property or the other. You put it in a way that is separate from the

[1:27:53] existing single family. Um, we've talked about a number of different things where

[1:27:57] people were, you know, maybe you would be comfortable with small buildings, a

[1:28:02] series of like, let's say it's three buildings with six units each. It looks

[1:28:05] more like town houses. You might say, "Hey, someone has a great concept to do

[1:28:10] something different." We can consider it through a variance. If someone has a

[1:28:13] site that's just perfect for uh a bigger building, you can look at it through a

[1:28:18] variance. Now, to me, it's really about establishing what's the baseline code

[1:28:23] that you would accept on every lot in R20. And if you start to get to a point

[1:28:29] where I don't know if I'd want this kind of approach on every lot in R20, then

[1:28:34] you need to think through why not and is there code we can write to protect from

[1:28:39] that negative outcome of why did I not want this use on that kind of setting.

[1:28:44] So, I know we've talked about um the even Steven approach on density. We've

[1:28:48] talked about um making sure the buildings themselves don't have more

[1:28:53] than a certain number of units. We've talked about uh maybe a minimum

[1:28:57] separation distance to the nearest single family dwelling. Um we've talked

[1:29:00] about maybe landscape buffers. Uh these are the concepts we've talked about kind

[1:29:05] of developing the most comfort around the use. Um, you guys tell me if there's

[1:29:10] something that you feel like, hey, I'm not hearing this and I want to hear this

[1:29:14] kind of protection or if you're like, I don't think we need that protection

[1:29:18] anymore. >> Okay,

[1:29:22] I got it. Now, [clears throat] this doesn't preclude other avenues. This is

[1:29:26] kind of like this is what we're going to write into the code to allow these uses

[1:29:30] kind of expand the use, but not over the top. They want to go top, they got to

[1:29:35] come back. >> Yeah. Yeah. What one way to think about

[1:29:37] it is if someone if someone didn't want to do a comp permit, they they wanted an

[1:29:42] ability to maybe do a a multif family by rate. We don't have that now. The option

[1:29:47] is a use variance. And as you guys may know, use variances aren't a tool you

[1:29:51] use for for heady complex applications. If we allow the use, they can come in

[1:29:57] and if they give you dimensional variances, you can consider them on a

[1:30:01] discretional basis. But at right now, there's really not an opportunity for

[1:30:05] someone to offer us a multif family without using the comp permit tool. So,

[1:30:10] we're our code is currently communicating to the world if you want

[1:30:15] to do multif family and we're seeing it. We're seeing it on Tyog, we're seeing it

[1:30:18] in Center of New England. We're communicating use the comp permit tool.

[1:30:24] If we want to make a compelling argument that's not the only tool out there, then

[1:30:27] we need to put something in our zoning that says here's another option.

[1:30:31] » Yeah. >> Yeah. and and this would not require

[1:30:33] affordables. Um there are communities that do very complex uh arrangements

[1:30:38] where you can achieve affordables through underlying zoning and maybe you

[1:30:42] you get you get density for in exchange for affordables. I recommend right now

[1:30:47] if you want to stay even Steven, you're probably not toying with different

[1:30:51] metrics for density bonuses for, you know, giving affordables and the

[1:30:54] underlying. Um I' I'd recommend looking at, you know, what would you allow by

[1:30:59] right um without toying with uh too many complex situations, but trying to give

[1:31:05] people alternatives to the comp permit for these uses.

[1:31:12] Anybody

[1:31:18] else have any thoughts? So, it sounds like you took this feedback, put pen to

[1:31:22] paper, and you're wondering if you left anything out that should be a

[1:31:25] consideration for at this juncture u multif family dwellings in the R20 zone

[1:31:31] and then you're going to move on now to commercial and industrial.

[1:31:34] » Yeah. And so I think one question would be if the board feels comfortable with

[1:31:37] those bullets on the top of page two that seems to be wraps up what you

[1:31:43] currently still feel are appropriate. Um Jim the consultant can take that

[1:31:47] feedback and say I can start to think about how we would draft code that

[1:31:51] follows the tenants of those bullets. Um I think that's a that's a good place to

[1:31:56] start >> because it gives us a baseline but

[1:32:00] allows some wiggle room for an applicant. Yep.

[1:32:04] » It allows the board wiggle room to say yay or nay or what we want to see and

[1:32:11] » y

[1:32:15] » maybe to put it in perspective rather than second guess what we want to see

[1:32:19] before he puts pen to paper this is just going to be the framework for it unlike

[1:32:24] the the kennels for example >> this is this is giving you a chance to

[1:32:28] see the approach before we put pen to paper.

[1:32:31] » Yep. And if this approach looks reasonable, then um the next meeting,

[1:32:37] I'll put Jim into the the spot, but I assume by the next meeting, Jim might be

[1:32:41] able to help produce code that would specify and effectuate what you're

[1:32:46] seeing here. Those that code we can still toy with. Uh Doug, I don't I feel

[1:32:50] like the separation distance needs to be a little different or we need to have a

[1:32:53] gradation. If the project is seeking 20 units, we need a bigger separation

[1:32:57] distance than if they're seeking three, >> right? Um, and then we can toy with

[1:33:00] those metrics, those numbers, but he could give us code to actually start to

[1:33:06] see those. And as they do their work, you know, there's they may stumble upon

[1:33:11] ideas and offer us, here's the base code you want. You might want to consider

[1:33:15] these other provisions that other communities have. Uh, they're going to

[1:33:18] offer us their best guidance on as we enter this. Here's a range of options

[1:33:23] and maybe here's some things you didn't think about, but we should have in there

[1:33:25] as well. You know, we don't talk about parking

[1:33:29] arrangement. It might be that we feel like strongly that we want to be

[1:33:32] thoughtful on the parking also needs a separation distance from nearby

[1:33:37] properties. If I live near a multifamily, a larger scale multif

[1:33:41] family, I might be concerned with the lighting in the parking area just as

[1:33:45] much as I'd be concerned with the buildings themselves. Um little nuances

[1:33:49] like that that you know when we put pen to paper you'll start to consider if

[1:33:54] this code feels appropriate and if it's something that you would be willing to

[1:33:58] consider. Every project has a by right choice to

[1:34:03] » and I don't mind being put put on the spot Doug. I think uh so far be able to

[1:34:08] deliver that. >> Thanks Jim. You

[1:34:09] » tell Jim that's Friday though. Uh yeah yeah yeah. No that's all right.

[1:34:14] » It's going to be a less well thoughtout draft than

[1:34:18] Just wondering if um the the consultant has any

[1:34:24] empirical examples from other communities that they worked on about

[1:34:29] this exact issue and what they thought worked or didn't work or were problems.

[1:34:35] » Now you're Yeah. Yeah. Now I'm on the spot. So this

[1:34:39] » I'm just It's interesting because we were talking about these are the tenants

[1:34:43] and my question is is this being done anywhere else? There's 39 other cities

[1:34:46] and towns. Have you done it? Has it worked or has it failed? That that would

[1:34:51] be my question. >> So,

[1:34:53] » not that I'm I'm not the board, but >> yeah.

[1:34:58] Do do you want me to uh address that? Yeah. So, yeah, sure. If you guys would

[1:35:02] like me to, I'm happy to. So, uh working backwards as far as like how well an

[1:35:07] approach might this uh an approach like this might have worked so far. Um, it

[1:35:12] would be pretty hard to tell because this is, you know, relatively new

[1:35:16] regulation, uh, and it hasn't had a lot of chance out there in the ecosystem to

[1:35:21] see how it flies. Um, uh, as far as, but really getting to your original

[1:35:28] question, which was, you know, have we seen this approach someplace else or

[1:35:32] have we seen a community do this approach someplace else? Um, I'm not

[1:35:36] aware of one immediately. We do a little research and see if we can find one.

[1:35:44] But I do know in the town of Jamestown, they allow um duplexes, multifamily

[1:35:52] duplexes on an R20 lot, which normally would be a single family

[1:35:58] lot in Jamestown. And now is is it >> they definitely do.

[1:36:02] » Yeah. >> So I don't know if we're you keep on

[1:36:05] talking about 10 acres. Is there a distinction between an

[1:36:09] individual lot versus a 10 acre?

[1:36:13] » Well, I I think the feedback that Doug got was that if it's in the R20 zone,

[1:36:18] they wanted to say, well, then you need 20,000 square ft per unit, whereas

[1:36:23] Jamestown has said the R20 zone is big enough for two units if someone wants to

[1:36:30] build it and they just by right could put it a multif family. Coventry used to

[1:36:35] have and I I forgot maybe it got wiped out. It was a special use permit in the

[1:36:40] R20 zone. You could put a two family if you had the additional road frontage.

[1:36:46] It's like 120 ft required for a multif family. If you had 175

[1:36:53] feet of road frontage in the R20 zone, you could ask for a special use permit.

[1:36:58] But then we threw the special use permits out. So now we're back to well

[1:37:02] how do we allow multifamilies in the R20 zone and his and it looks like the

[1:37:06] direction we're going in based on the feedback was well you still have to have

[1:37:11] the underlying 20,000 ft. Now nothing would stop someone from coming in and

[1:37:15] saying hey I only have 30,000 square ft but I still have this much road

[1:37:20] frontage. It's a good fit. There's another multif family down the street. I

[1:37:23] want to put a multif family. Then they got to get a they got to get a variance

[1:37:27] which means you know they got to go through jump through the hoops.

[1:37:30] » Yep. >> So and I mean there's a range of other

[1:37:33] choices we have that we haven't discussed. I mean one is that there

[1:37:37] might you guys may feel as though after you start to see some of the code not

[1:37:41] all areas of the R20 are equal. You may say I feel that this is appropriate to

[1:37:45] do as an overlay. There are certain areas of the R20 that we want to allow

[1:37:49] this use and there's certain areas we don't. Um, we've talked about overlays.

[1:37:54] When we actually started the conversation about multif family, we

[1:37:57] started with overlays, but the board found it even harder to start to circle

[1:38:01] areas on the map that they felt were more appropriate than others because

[1:38:05] everything became so case-pecific, sight dependent. And this big blob, there

[1:38:10] could be a great site for it, uh, or a poor site for it. We'd want to be able

[1:38:14] to see the case by case on on this blob over here. Same situation. There's

[1:38:18] certainly areas of of of Coventry that have more multis or twos and so the idea

[1:38:23] is it might be more appropriate where there tend to be more multis and twos

[1:38:27] and our older areas of town that are tend to be denser. Um but Coventry

[1:38:32] doesn't have what many communities have which is like a village center where

[1:38:35] everyone kind of builds around a a more dense village center. We do have some

[1:38:39] great mill villages that offer a bit of that, but there's a lot of the community

[1:38:43] that's just through the ages has been built in different um densities, but a

[1:38:48] lot of it still remains predominantly single family. So, the idea is it's

[1:38:52] still a valuable tool. It was allowed by special use permit, both twos and and

[1:38:56] multis. We still think we want to have a right an ability for that th those uses

[1:39:01] to be achieved and it's just finding the right mix. So, if the board is ideas of

[1:39:07] overlay sounds like a great idea, I immediately have things that come to

[1:39:10] mind. Um, we're open to that, but that was even more challenging than creating

[1:39:15] the framework we have now, which is this is where an approach that could be

[1:39:19] appropriate in a range of different options and styles that depends on how

[1:39:22] big the units are, how big the project is. That might, you know, almost old

[1:39:27] neighborhood, new neighborhood, less dense, more dense. the board was more

[1:39:31] focused on if you give me a great site with enough separation from the nearest

[1:39:35] single family, I'd be pretty comfortable. And we kind of landed there

[1:39:38] as opposed to overlay or a floating zone. A floating zone might be one where

[1:39:42] if you want multif family, you got to change the zone to say on this property,

[1:39:46] we're going to allow multif family in addition to all the other R20 uses. So,

[1:39:50] there's a range of tools, but these this seemed to be the direction the board

[1:39:54] last left us with, which let's look at R20 as a whole.

[1:40:00] No, go ahead. >> We have very limited sewer access in

[1:40:05] town, like only 700 residents, right? >> Is water equally? Um, there's pretty

[1:40:12] much I think city water in all of the R20 zone and then I think it starts to

[1:40:18] stretch out. They just didn't run the piping. It was too too expensive. And

[1:40:22] that's a good point. And I was thinking that

[1:40:25] » to the site I think a big impact >> and and that some of that's in the code

[1:40:30] now even for single family if you if you don't have city water and

[1:40:35] if you don't have city water the amount of land area you need to build is

[1:40:39] greater. Um I think right it's not even in the

[1:40:43] R20 zone it's like you need more land than 20,000 square feet or something to

[1:40:48] put up a single family house. Uh, if you don't have water in the R20, the minimum

[1:40:53] lot size jumps to an acre. So, essentially cuts your density in half if

[1:40:56] you don't have water. I think you're correct. The majority of R20 does have

[1:40:59] water. John Studley might be able to off the top say if that sounds correct to

[1:41:03] him. >> Yeah, that's correct. And in some

[1:41:05] portions of the R2, but then it cuts off pretty much at Reed Schoolhouse. And

[1:41:08] there's some portions in the R20 where they didn't they didn't run the the

[1:41:12] piping because of the you know it's going to be a loop system and Kent

[1:41:16] County won't even allow you to put city water in. But um but what I was getting

[1:41:21] at too though and this is just food for thought you know when you really come

[1:41:23] right down to it 20,000 square feet for a single family dwelling that's the

[1:41:27] zoning that's still a lot of land. people that don't want to maintain large

[1:41:31] yards. Now, I mean, fif 10,000 could be a little short because if you have a

[1:41:34] house and you got a few kids and before you know, you got two, three cars and

[1:41:37] there's not enough room for a large driveway, a goodiz house, and then, you

[1:41:41] know, ample space around it. But 15,000 for each unit in a in a multif family, I

[1:41:49] mean, that's 30,000 square ft for a two family, 45,000 ft for a three family,

[1:41:54] that would probably be sufficient. I don't know that 20,000

[1:41:58] would even be necessary if the idea is to, you know, put two houses together.

[1:42:04] » I mean, I I'll be honest. If there was a way to draft the code that was um

[1:42:08] protected against a comp permit, we would probably be talking about wanting

[1:42:12] to make this a little more attractive in terms of achieving a byite density,

[1:42:17] » right? because they'll come in with a comp if you went to 15,000 and next

[1:42:20] thing you know you're going to have >> I've talked with the state and the state

[1:42:23] lawmakers uh or the state uh administrators understand this

[1:42:27] challenge. We want to write a compelling alternative to a comprehensive permit.

[1:42:31] The more compelling we make it, the more it aids a comprehensive permit to get

[1:42:35] more density. >> Yeah, I got If there was like a magic

[1:42:37] word where you could say this multifamily is allowed through

[1:42:42] uh exclusive zoning and we use the word exclusive zoning and state law says once

[1:42:46] you use that word this tool can only be used and it can't be used with a comp

[1:42:49] permit. The truth is that doesn't exist. A comp permit can come on top of

[1:42:53] whatever your zoning says and says we get what you told us we could get and we

[1:42:57] get our bonus and there's no way to draft zoning to preclude that. If there

[1:43:04] was, I'd be guiding you guys to say, "Let's talk about increasing density

[1:43:08] from the baseline because let's make it more compelling and attractive. Someone

[1:43:11] might choose this over a comp permit." Unfortunately, we are still kind of

[1:43:16] stuck at a in a point where the comp permit is a dominant tool and it's very

[1:43:22] difficult to do what you suggested, which is let's start to look at this as

[1:43:25] maybe we can do multif family and 1500 square foot per unit. I mean, what we're

[1:43:29] really doing is we're opening to the door to criticism that a comp permit

[1:43:32] comes in and and takes advantage of that.

[1:43:34] » What stops someone now from coming in on a 20,000 foot lot to say, "Hey, guess

[1:43:39] what? I'm going to build a single family house right here and I'm going to put an

[1:43:42] ADU right behind it." >> Nothing.

[1:43:45] » So, you could have two you can have two units on one,000.

[1:43:49] » The only thing we have to protect ADU has to be small.

[1:43:52] » Has to be smaller than Yep. Yep. >> Yep. Yeah. Interesting. So,

[1:43:58] no. So, does uh I at least I think I'll leave it with on the R20,

[1:44:03] does the feedback that you see in the bullets uh still feel like that's that

[1:44:08] represents what you'd like to see a first draft of code on? Is there any

[1:44:10] other ideas that you think we should be including in this?

[1:44:17] » Anybody? >> Works for me.

[1:44:20] » Yeah, I think it's I think it's a good framework. Yeah.

[1:44:22] » Great. Um, now before we leave the concept of multif family, two family, I

[1:44:28] want your quick reactions. We haven't discussed it in our commercial zones.

[1:44:32] Let's talk about the GB because on Tyogg, it's an area where we see a mix

[1:44:36] of housing in and amongst the the commercial. We're seeing a massive

[1:44:41] housing proposal on Tyogg. Um, that's using the comp permit. I think there

[1:44:46] there's some desire to do housing and particularly multifamily housing in that

[1:44:51] Tyog corridor. There's not an underlying zone right

[1:44:55] now. A comp permit comes in and says we're doing our density bonus on top of

[1:44:59] zero. We allow no residential units. However, if we did a baseline zoning,

[1:45:04] we're naturally going to if we allow multif family, we're naturally allowing

[1:45:07] some underlying zoning. I also don't think if we allow multif family at two

[1:45:13] units per acre at Tyog and someone comes in at a comp permit, we're probably

[1:45:17] still not wildly different than um an approach we might find acceptable. You

[1:45:22] know, let's say, you know, seven units per acre that might not feel wildly

[1:45:26] dense on Tyogg. Um I do think that the consideration is I'd like to offer the

[1:45:32] use of multifamily and two family in our commercial zones. we naturally have to

[1:45:38] then increase underlying zoning and what's a density you think is

[1:45:41] appropriate to start would it be equal to our R20 and would we allow like the

[1:45:47] idea that if you can build something that dense in an R20 should we allow

[1:45:50] them to build that dense in the commercial my thought is you know there

[1:45:54] seems to be a desire the market is is saying that they want housing um my

[1:45:58] thought is we could start there as a conversation point does using this range

[1:46:02] of tools um but allowing it at two units per acre feel right is that would You

[1:46:06] say less or more

[1:46:23] kind of along the same lines that we're doing for the R20 establishing that same

[1:46:27] framework. >> It'd be the same framework. Yeah. I

[1:46:30] mean, some might argue that in a commercial zone, maybe we can uh lessen

[1:46:34] the degree of a separation distance if, you know, if someone could build a a big

[1:46:39] commercial operation, all the residents around it understand it. Um, would there

[1:46:44] be a would there be a need to have such a great separation distance from, let's

[1:46:48] just say we allow a multifamily, let's just say it's 10 units, let's say it's

[1:46:53] two buildings of five. Would it need the same separation distance to single

[1:46:57] family than that same project would have if it was in the middle of a

[1:46:59] neighborhood? We'd probably say no. So maybe you look at it and there's some of

[1:47:04] these bullets on the top of page two that you feel that you can soften a bit

[1:47:07] on, but it could still be the same general framework. Um, you also might

[1:47:12] feel that when you get on TIO, you don't need to limit the number of units in a

[1:47:16] building. You might feel more comfortable saying, "Listen, if they

[1:47:19] have a 10acre lot and we allow two units per acre and they can do 20, I'm happier

[1:47:23] to see it in one building on Tyog." It might be that that setting on in the

[1:47:28] commercial district, uh, you feel different about the scale and the

[1:47:32] massing of the building. >> It would, but I would want to make sure

[1:47:34] that the setbacks and the distances are still, if there's a budding single

[1:47:39] family, they still have to adhere to that.

[1:47:42] » Greening and everything else that goes along with

[1:47:45] » Yeah. the general business. I mean, there's a big difference between an

[1:47:47] apartment complex and the general business zone and a budding neighborhood

[1:47:51] than a two family in a residential neighborhood.

[1:47:55] » I think one big reason why you might see projects in our commercial zones um more

[1:48:00] uh readily um approached by developers is that's

[1:48:04] where our sewer infrastructure is. I mean, even if someone was to approach a

[1:48:08] multif family in a R20, they're probably looking to see what they can do in and

[1:48:12] around Tyog or Sandy Bottom because that's where the sewer exists now.

[1:48:15] » Well, the reality is you can get a greater return on your investment and

[1:48:18] your capitalization rates greater now on residential than it is in you just can't

[1:48:23] rent the space out. >> So, so if the idea is that hey, you

[1:48:26] know, people would want to bring this used to where the sewer is, you know,

[1:48:28] sewer finds itself in our commercial districts. So, um, someone that let's

[1:48:33] say they were looking at the town without a zoning map in their hand, they

[1:48:36] naturally might say, "I want to land this use in along Tyog or along center

[1:48:41] of New England or in these other areas that are already zoned commercial." So,

[1:48:46] I think um there's a debalance. Some people might argue why don't allow

[1:48:50] housing in our commercial zones. That's for our tax base. That should be for

[1:48:53] commercial uses only. We are living through an era where there's a high

[1:48:57] demand for housing. Um Rhode Island is still generally undersupplied with

[1:49:01] housing units. Um that's where the market has so much attention. That's why

[1:49:05] we're seeing uh you know 400 units on Tyog instead of that property be brought

[1:49:09] for a future commercial use. Um I think that uh there's value in looking at you

[1:49:15] know adding this and I think it's just a matter of what's the right volume and

[1:49:20] density to start as an underlying zone for this use in the commercial district.

[1:49:31] Uh yeah, I mean there's a situation where anything could happen, right? Um

[1:49:35] we're a community that is uh seeing incredible housing growth in a short

[1:49:40] amount of time. I mean the amount of proposals we've seen and since I've been

[1:49:44] here in 3 years, it is incredible. A lot of it is the receiverhip. There were

[1:49:48] properties that were pent up and had development potential that are just

[1:49:52] coming out of a a a legal situation. So, they're coming back into uh

[1:49:58] applications, but we're seeing a lot of comprehensive permits. We're seeing a

[1:50:02] lot of other projects and it is generally primarily residential is what

[1:50:07] we're seeing. Um, so >> we have access to 95 and three different

[1:50:12] locations. Plus, you can go the other direction between 117 and and get to

[1:50:18] route two and Wick. So, and we have the largest land area. So, I think there's

[1:50:22] always been a demand for residential in in Coventry just because of its location

[1:50:28] and um you know again available water and some of the other resources. But I I

[1:50:35] just wanted to what right now is zone business park.

[1:50:39] » That's the center of New England region. >> That's it.

[1:50:43] So, okay. And after these housing developments, it's pretty much built out

[1:50:48] » largely. There would still be a handful of parcels that um could be developed.

[1:50:55] And I'm thinking long-term in terms of redevelopment potential. So, you're

[1:50:58] right. I mean, a lot of center in New England, the vacant parcels are the

[1:51:01] receiverhip parcels. Um those receiverhip parcels were getting

[1:51:05] residential and dense residential largely because they're the receiverhip

[1:51:09] uh gave them a froze zoning in place from uh like the year 2000 or so. And

[1:51:14] that zoning allowed residential without a maximum number of units. Um that's

[1:51:19] also where we have sewer. It's where the sites are largely predisturbed. So to

[1:51:23] » some point I was trying to make is I don't know that I want any more

[1:51:25] residential development there if we could stop it. Well, then I would say if

[1:51:29] you're not interested in more residential at the at the center New

[1:51:32] England region, then don't allow residential in the business park.

[1:51:35] » But by the same token, if they're interior parcels that are left, and now

[1:51:38] we've got residential all the way around it. There's really no other viable use

[1:51:42] except residential. >> If we looked at it, we could probably

[1:51:45] find nonreceverhip parcels. There's probably few and far between, but

[1:51:50] probably a few developable non-receiverhip parcels or they're

[1:51:53] extremely underutilized. there uh a parcel that might have a small office

[1:51:58] building on it but still largely available. Some of those parcels might

[1:52:02] get taken for redevelopment. Um so there is still some opportunity

[1:52:07] » but if they're amongst the the retail uses or the hotels or the other things

[1:52:11] and they're right off center New England Boulevard and they're not up in the

[1:52:14] foothills like these last ones, I think we should leave them there for

[1:52:19] commercial development. >> That's fair. So I think

[1:52:22] » but you've got all these the thing we we're losing sight of is all these

[1:52:26] residential properties are currently being built out now when the residents

[1:52:31] are there with their disposable income. There's going to be a need for

[1:52:36] commercial properties and commercial development to fill that void. You're

[1:52:39] going to see these vacant storefronts get built out. And center New England

[1:52:43] that's it's the perfect opportunity. I mean, we've seen things go in there just

[1:52:46] within the last year, and I think it's because they know there's a vast number

[1:52:50] of residential properties that are coming online in there with access

[1:52:54] through Center New England now, whereas before they may only go off of Hopkins

[1:52:58] Hill Road. So, there's there's a demand. Um, and if not, there's a is highway

[1:53:03] it's highway business as well. So I I think the I personally don't think if if

[1:53:09] we need we need not put residential in the business park at this point.

[1:53:14] » I think that's a good point. I we're getting a ton of residential there. I

[1:53:19] sometimes I think that zoning allows doors to be open and if the all of the

[1:53:23] housing is built and 10 years from now someone's saying what's the next highest

[1:53:26] and best use if it's still housing part of me thinks well we should be open to

[1:53:30] that concept. But I think you're right. If we were going to get more commercial,

[1:53:34] the commercial wants to be near the dense housing and you would want to make

[1:53:38] sure that whatever available lots are there still can achieve and be primarily

[1:53:43] geared for commercial. Um, so it's not a bad point on the business park

[1:53:48] » and and industrial one, just so I know, that's pretty much Reservoir Road

[1:53:54] somewhere in the back and over here off of Industrial Lane. It's yeah, it's it's

[1:53:59] stuff off Flat River and Reservoir, but there's also a very big chunk of

[1:54:03] industrial one up in the north eastern corner of the community around some of

[1:54:08] the mill areas. There's some chunks of industrial up there. Yeah. Harris. Yeah.

[1:54:12] And then um >> that's industrial up near um what is the

[1:54:17] name of that big mill that like is split by the Cranston line? Um

[1:54:20] » Arrate. Yeah.

[1:54:22] » So that there's industrial up there. Um, we do tend to see a lot of housing in

[1:54:27] and around our industrial. The industrial tends to almost look a little

[1:54:30] bit patchwork at times where there's housing and industrial in zones near

[1:54:34] each other. We actually have industrial zones in center of New England. Um, some

[1:54:38] of those parcels where uh I don't think Cumbies is on one, but

[1:54:43] like some of those parcels in and around.

[1:54:45] » Yeah, it was they reszone Cummies to land unit development or something to

[1:54:48] get that in there with the gas station. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. No. So, I'm so So, so

[1:54:53] I Yeah. question over [clears throat]

[1:54:59] » it could be. So another idea is that if you want to allow the use in commercial

[1:55:04] you guys might say so here's one good question to test that would you guys say

[1:55:08] multifamily is equally appropriate in all areas of sandy bottom tyog and

[1:55:14] neneck hill road or if you'd say no some of these areas lend themselves more

[1:55:19] neneck hill road that's our general business zone if your answer is no some

[1:55:24] of these areas are very appropriate some of them are not then we could do allow

[1:55:30] the use in the commercial zone but do it through an overlay. So it's sections of

[1:55:34] the commercial. Um so obviously GB is one zone and that's that zone. It's

[1:55:39] that's Sandy Bottom, that's Tyog, that's Newick Hill Road. Uh we could say

[1:55:44] portions of that zone are handled through an overlay. Um I'm open

[1:55:51] » overlay zone give you some ability to notify

[1:55:57] um residents or mandate notification to residents in the residential units

[1:56:05] about the potential activities that occur around them.

[1:56:09] » Yeah. I mean, the town is always able to do voluntary notice, but I think the

[1:56:14] difference between an overlay zone and a non-overlay zone is probably a

[1:56:20] difference between a map change and a text change that you were just

[1:56:22] discussing. However, if the town feels like, you know what, we want to give a

[1:56:26] lot of notice, but we don't think overlay is the right tool, well, we can

[1:56:30] give notice. Uh, we can overnotice uh a text change. And I this is the kind of

[1:56:36] change you you would assume. The town wants to really have its act together.

[1:56:40] We want to know that this is a good idea. You guys are the the the land use

[1:56:44] board of this community. So we really want to make sure you're comfortable.

[1:56:47] But even after you're comfortable, you would say, Doug, let's overnotice the

[1:56:51] hearings. Let's make sure that everyone that lives within two, you know, 200

[1:56:56] feet of the entire GB zone. And that might be a pretty penny. That might be a

[1:57:00] multi,000 mailing effort. But Doug, if we're going to do this, let's do that.

[1:57:04] Let's do that kind of mailing effort. We have that option. The the notice and the

[1:57:08] process is something that I think we can figure out. I think first and foremost,

[1:57:12] we want to make sure that we feel good about the direction we're headed. Um,

[1:57:16] you know, and >> but Doug, also, and I don't know if this

[1:57:19] will factor in it. I'm just because this is what the board deals with. The people

[1:57:24] that go into the residential zone don't know what's going to happen next door.

[1:57:28] and next thing you know it's a GB zone and a commercial use occurs with

[1:57:34] lighting and noise and trucks and all of a sudden those people who are happy

[1:57:38] campers in that residential property are now down your backs and down I'm just I

[1:57:44] don't know how we deal with that. That's why I was thinking about some sort of if

[1:57:49] you're going to allow it in that area, those people that are going to be, you

[1:57:53] know, you put the obligation on that developer that they have to notify

[1:57:58] anybody who's going to be a resident in that building. What's what not just

[1:58:03] what's there that this is all a general business zone. Here's the list. You're

[1:58:08] saying notice the people that move in after the project's built because hey,

[1:58:12] you're in the general business zone and you don't realize this vacant lot next

[1:58:16] door now that could be a market because we've had so much residential

[1:58:20] development there's a demand and right now we only have one market in town and

[1:58:25] » all those and this the 18 wheelers delivering the food at 4:00 in the

[1:58:32] morning. That goes to my point. >> That goes to my point about making sure

[1:58:37] we don't overallow residential development in the

[1:58:42] general business zone or business park, for example, and take away the

[1:58:48] opportunity for commercial development in the future, which we may need to

[1:58:53] support all the people we have in town. Now, next thing you know, they got to go

[1:58:57] buy their groceries in a neighboring town and give them the benefit of the

[1:59:02] tax base. And in the meantime, the residents are costing us money with

[1:59:06] police, fire, possibly schools depending on the size. So

[1:59:13] » where one side of the road is all residential and one side of the road is

[1:59:19] all a commercial and all and every six months the people on the residential

[1:59:24] come in yelling and screaming at the your board in the council on how

[1:59:28] something across the street is driving them crazy. Is that tyog?

[1:59:31] » Oh no that's reservoir. >> Reservoir.

[1:59:34] » Yeah. >> So that's because let me tell you what

[1:59:38] » but see that's the thing. If you go back in time, okay, and you look at a map

[1:59:44] when you'd leave here today and you start and you see that big storage

[1:59:47] facility behind the fence, that's Industrial Drive. That actually lines up

[1:59:53] with reservoir on the other side, but is not connected because of the wetlands

[1:59:57] and the flowage that goes through from Johnson's Pond. That was the town's

[2:00:02] original industrial park. You could get off the highway, go up Route 3.

[2:00:07] Remember, there was nothing there until they started building wood estates. And

[2:00:10] this goes to my point and all those residents moved in. Then you started to

[2:00:15] see the commercial development. In fact, some of the developers held the frontage

[2:00:19] lots on Route 3 until all the residents moved in. Then they put up a commercial

[2:00:23] building and they're renting it out. And then you got dry cleaners, coffee shops,

[2:00:26] laundromats, all that stuff comes in later. Now again, the the dynamics have

[2:00:31] changed on the retail, but that's that's so it's unfortunate and and and and

[2:00:38] that's right because there's areas over there where you have

[2:00:42] industrially zoned properties with, let's say, a non-working asphalt plant.

[2:00:47] This is the case. And then you someone comes in and says, "Hey, I want to

[2:00:51] expand my residential use." They go out, they go, "Oh, yeah, that sounds good.

[2:00:55] They built a bunch of stuff." All of a sudden, the asphalt plant starts up

[2:00:59] again. And now you got all these people saying, "Oh, I'm getting the smell. I

[2:01:02] got this." Well, when you bought the house, did you know that it would you

[2:01:06] would go next to an industrial zone? Like there's no buffers. We don't go

[2:01:09] residential, office, industrial, or we we go right up right up against and

[2:01:15] there's a lot of properties. And and it's interesting because that was my

[2:01:19] point. The cornfield where we we we have the comp permit Craig management on the

[2:01:24] corner of Hawkney Hill. if you were here for that one. At one point, those

[2:01:28] residents were up in arms. That was going to be a big shopping plaza for

[2:01:32] like a grocery store with trucks, just like you were saying. So then we get

[2:01:35] something that's more compatible residential use. Granted, the density

[2:01:39] was a lot >> and it's still up in

[2:01:42] » Yeah. And it's still up in arms, but it was I I think it was probably a little

[2:01:45] bit better mixed than what was originally proposed.

[2:02:00] They usually historically they're pre-existing

[2:02:04] use that grandfathered in and you're stuck with them as opposed to a

[2:02:09] thoughtful process where you decided to put an ash plant next to a

[2:02:15] you would never do that. you brought it up at one point and said we should just

[2:02:19] redo the zoning map across the entire town at once and if we don't want to see

[2:02:23] any more industrial development change the zone now and the ones that are there

[2:02:28] are grandfathered and over time they may because of the market conditions decide

[2:02:34] hey guess what I don't want to be industrial anymore they'll go to

[2:02:37] residential and maybe that's what we're trying to do here but I don't know if

[2:02:40] this is the correct way to do it

[2:02:45] not trying to be controversial. I just want to be think

[2:02:52] » that the council hears at every we hear at every council meeting somebody

[2:02:58] complaining about uh really essentially a pre-existing non-conforming use that

[2:03:03] cannot be stopped. >> Right?

[2:03:05] » And and we hear a lot of angst about that and the council thinks they can do

[2:03:10] something about it. You all know we can't.

[2:03:17] Make him an offer. Yeah, make him an offer. [laughter]

[2:03:23] » So,

[2:03:27] » so I >> not just where you think it will

[2:03:30] succeed, but once it's succeeding, >> you don't want to put in have 85

[2:03:37] neighbors living in a building and now they're all pissed off at you because

[2:03:40] you're putting a commercial f I I think >> I think with the

[2:03:46] » I I think with commercial and industrial districts we would need to have a map to

[2:03:50] have a thoughtful discussion to say hey guess what I don't want it in the

[2:03:54] general business zone or it might be okay over here if you wanted to do an

[2:03:58] overlay district that allowed it but we can't have cop blanch let's allow

[2:04:04] residential in this zone or this zone without knowing where they are because

[2:04:07] the intricacies you go all the way down tio cav where does it stop when you get

[2:04:11] up past where uh Nikki's is and you're going over the hill into West Warick. Is

[2:04:15] that residential or is some of that zoned commercial, but it's being used as

[2:04:18] a residence? I mean, you got uh the the door place there. I forget the name.

[2:04:23] Fagan Door, you got Nikki's, you had uh Taco, whatever the heck it is over

[2:04:28] there. Then you got the little condos on the corner of Pilgrim A. So, you know,

[2:04:32] you start saying, "Well, let's let's allow residential use next to

[2:04:37] those. Maybe that's not a bad spot." But as you get down to sandy bottom, right

[2:04:41] now that's all business. You want to put an apartment building right over there

[2:04:45] in the middle of a of that zone and then I mean that's a might be a good spot to

[2:04:48] just keep its own business. I I don't really know.

[2:04:53] » No, go ahead. It gives us something.

[2:05:01] » And unless there's a group of neighbors that show up at the hearing process,

[2:05:06] let's fast forward as you were doing this. If There is nobody that shows up

[2:05:10] that objects. The council is going to rely on what you're doing. They may not

[2:05:14] put together the the issues that you're talking about here, how they could

[2:05:19] explode into more problems for them. So now is and I appreciate what planning. I

[2:05:25] think now is the time to really be thoughtful about not creating more

[2:05:31] issue, but you know, it's encouraging. You need some flexibility, but you're

[2:05:35] going to be my my suggestion. We had that discussion. Let's be very cautious

[2:05:40] because you're just going to create more problems for yourself and the and the

[2:05:45] council that you don't do it thoughtfully. Not really. I like the

[2:05:49] idea of the over you're going to do it. I like the idea very thoughtful over

[2:05:53] laser. That's my >> But even then, you got to look at the

[2:05:56] like up at up the let's face it. The Harris Mill is gone. That used to be

[2:06:01] Victor Electric. All right. Everything up there is converted to to residential

[2:06:04] now. I can't think. There may be one or two industrial uses that are left. Um

[2:06:09] Anthony Mill was converted too. Same developer. That's um I forgot who it is,

[2:06:14] but up in Harris, which is which is where I live, any of the industrial

[2:06:17] properties, there's a mill housing back there that's been there that supported

[2:06:20] the mill because that's just the way it was done. Um you've got one that just

[2:06:24] went up. We've got the, you know, one of those industrial garages, but how there

[2:06:28] se low low to moderate income housing that I think the town controls that went

[2:06:33] into one of the industrial properties. You got a nursing home up there. So, um

[2:06:38] [snorts] I don't know. I I I think maybe that's an area to look at, but for the

[2:06:42] time being, I'd like to leave Sleeping Dogs Lie on the industrial. we got

[2:06:46] enough on our plate just getting the multifamilies into the residential zones

[2:06:49] and then um dealing with the next item which is the uh taking back some of

[2:06:54] these special use permits some of these other activities that we want to but I

[2:06:58] don't I still want to be able to encourage

[2:07:02] non-residential uses that in increase the tax base for years that was the

[2:07:07] problem the only saving grace right now is that people are having less children

[2:07:11] we're still I think starting to see an uptick but if it wasn't for that this

[2:07:15] this town would be exploding. The school districts would be bankrupt in the town

[2:07:19] just with the the number of kids in the schools. But the the reality is I don't

[2:07:24] think you're going to see more than one or two kids per per household anymore.

[2:07:28] That's just the the way it is. >> So, here's my suggestion. I think we've

[2:07:32] got feedback on the R20, which is basically the the bullets we've

[2:07:37] got here are a good starting point. Um I think what we could give you guys a bit

[2:07:42] of [clears throat] homework. H excuse me. And we could send you uh a map of

[2:07:49] the town, but to be honest, sometimes the best way to see the zoning as it

[2:07:53] relates to the town is to use our GIS, which we can send you a link and we can

[2:07:58] kind of give a little instruction on how you zoning on because that allows you to

[2:08:00] zoom in and out, which a lot of people want to know where what what's here

[2:08:04] again. They zoom in. Oh, yeah. Zoom back out. Okay, here's the zone. Here's the

[2:08:08] here's what's on the ground. Um I might give you some homework to assess uh at

[2:08:13] the next meeting when we come back what where are there issue where are there

[2:08:18] areas if any in the commercial and I'm thinking the the the BP I think you kind

[2:08:23] of made your point that that feels like we're getting built out where are the

[2:08:27] areas in the general business zone so again Sandy bottom tyog knickkill road

[2:08:32] and where are there areas and maybe other commercial zones we haven't

[2:08:35] touched on the village main street commercial we haven't touched on village

[2:08:38] rural commercial uh and then industrial. I might ask, you know, come back come to

[2:08:43] the next meeting with a couple ideas on I feel most comfortable here. And if the

[2:08:49] group is still not feeling comfortable with with residential and commercial,

[2:08:52] that's that's fine. Um but it might be that that gives you a starting point for

[2:08:57] if we were to do it, this is where we'd start.

[2:09:03] You got it? Yeah, we can we can do a couple we can both send a PDF. Who would

[2:09:07] who would rather use like a link of the town's GIS tool, which is pretty

[2:09:10] userfriendly, and who'd rather have a PDF map?

[2:09:13] » Well, the GIS map's online. It's the same one, right? You just have to change

[2:09:16] the layers. >> Yeah.

[2:09:18] » Yeah. We we could email you a link to the GIS and then give like a little

[2:09:22] instruction on how you turn zoning on, which is pretty intuitive, but like, you

[2:09:26] know, at least tell you, you know, click on this box, go to here, click on that

[2:09:29] box, and then Frank, and then you can turn on an aerial map because sometimes

[2:09:32] you're just looking at a bunch of boxes on the ground like what is this again?

[2:09:36] And then you can say >> then then that might give you an ability

[2:09:39] to come back to the next meeting with an idea of we looked at it frankly it's not

[2:09:44] appropriate in any of these areas or you might say frankly I find it's

[2:09:47] appropriate here and here let's start talking about that

[2:09:50] » or if we did nothing a developer that wants to put up multif family housing in

[2:09:57] any one of those zones has the option to go to the town to change the zoning on

[2:10:03] that one lot and say this is a good fit. It's never going to be developed for a

[2:10:08] business use because of this, this, and this. It's compatible. It fits in. The

[2:10:13] neighbors in the back are here. Then they have to come here for a

[2:10:16] recommendation. Then it goes back. So there's two hearings on the subject as

[2:10:20] opposed to us writing it into the code and they're coming here and it gets

[2:10:24] approved. And then we have the issue that you talked about where they're

[2:10:26] screaming at the town council because they didn't realize that that something

[2:10:31] got approved. I mean that's my thought is if I look at those maps right now I'm

[2:10:35] I'm kind of and again it's just me there's there's a bunch of us but

[2:10:38] preserving the areas but commercial development that we have

[2:10:45] is probably a good thing and if it turns out that there's such a demand that

[2:10:51] someone's willing to go through that process and we've had it before. I

[2:10:55] believe at one time there was an apartment complex and it may still be I

[2:10:58] don't know for right next to Dunkin Donuts. There's like a 50-ft road that

[2:11:02] goes back and then it opens up and it abuts the residential neighborhood. And

[2:11:06] there was a proposal, I think, to put a two or threetory apartment building back

[2:11:10] there >> with the appropriate screening. And

[2:11:13] again, similar to the the plaza, the 400 units, it had its own entrance in and it

[2:11:18] so it didn't really affect the commercial and it abuted a residential

[2:11:22] neighborhood and for someone to want to put a business back there, it would it

[2:11:27] would have caused all kinds of problems being back up against. So it was it was

[2:11:30] a good fit and someone can come and get a get a variance for that. Why do we

[2:11:35] need to put anything in the code now unless we're going to look at the entire

[2:11:38] zoning map as a whole and say you know what these areas here now should be

[2:11:42] zoned for residential because we're allowing a mismatch of uses in the

[2:11:46] general business zone businesses next to commercial and that's kind of what got

[2:11:50] us in trouble now. Just my thought.

[2:11:53] » Yeah, we're we're we're wide open. So, I'm open to the board's feedback,

[2:11:57] » but we'll at least look at the map to see if there's any areas that say, "Hey,

[2:12:00] you know what? this area right here. But again, I I you almost may want to be

[2:12:05] inclined to say reszone the whole area from industrial to residential like that

[2:12:10] north end up at up where uh you know, we were just talking about in the

[2:12:14] norththeast corner where Cranston and Arkrite and most of it's already been

[2:12:19] converted to residential and all you're going to do at this point is is

[2:12:22] eliminate the opportunity for somebody to go in there with an industrial use

[2:12:27] that's probably not compatible with the residential development that's occurred

[2:12:31] within the last five Yes, >> that makes that's an interesting point.

[2:12:36] Are there those uses going on in commercial that should

[2:12:41] be be zoned to residential and free? >> Um, probably a few as I'm thinking about

[2:12:48] it. Um, I mean certainly on Tyogg Tyog is a mix. Tyogg has uh the zoning

[2:12:54] approach on Tyogg is generally uh commercial zoning on either side, but

[2:13:00] what exists in the ground is a hodgepodge of there's an old house here

[2:13:04] and then over here it was a house that clearly was converted to commercial and

[2:13:07] maybe someone brought it back and it's a hodge podge of what use happened to fit.

[2:13:13] Industrial here in Flat River, it's largely is larger scale industrial

[2:13:19] buildings. industrial in the northeast corner near the mills is a bit of a mix

[2:13:24] but the the industrial that's in the northeast corner it's also a little

[2:13:28] spotted where it's not just oh there's in residential near I mean there are

[2:13:34] industrial actual industrial mills and zones and there just happens to be

[2:13:39] residential zones near it so I don't know how many there I'm sure there would

[2:13:43] be a few residential dwellings in the industrial zone through our uh mill

[2:13:48] areas in that area up in the northeast cuz that's not far from where I live. It

[2:13:54] they're almost it's almost all residential. The only operating

[2:13:57] industrial is one off of Howard Avenue. It's an L-shaped building. The the HVAC

[2:14:03] companies in there and has a couple of other small businesses. Then you got the

[2:14:06] old candy factory which has the indoor baseball and some other uses. But right

[2:14:13] behind it, um, they put up the two big industrial buildings and then there's

[2:14:17] another one down on Main Street. Now, that's the same the same type of thing.

[2:14:21] Um, but if that whole area was reszoned for residential,

[2:14:26] what's there is going to stay there and everything going forward is going to be

[2:14:29] residential. And it almost encourages conversions, which is what happened with

[2:14:34] the Harris Mill, both sides. That's apartments across the street. They took

[2:14:39] the old building, converted it into I think there's like eight LMI units in

[2:14:43] there that the town runs or has some say in. And in the back is the old mill

[2:14:48] housing. And I'm trying to think if there's any there's anything else.

[2:14:50] There's a few commercial uses right along Main Street right before you get

[2:14:53] to West Warick. And in the back it's all apartments. So I I just can't imagine

[2:14:58] anyone opening up a industrial business back there. And if they did and they're

[2:15:02] allowed to open up an industrial business by right, the odds are there's

[2:15:06] going to be a conflict with someone who's moved into a converted property

[2:15:10] that's got a residential use. Y >> so it's time to kind of maybe think

[2:15:14] think about that. But when you get down to Tyoke Avenue, what you're going to

[2:15:18] start allowing residential development in between businesses and then you're

[2:15:21] just going to have a fight on your hands. That's just the way I look at it.

[2:15:28] And if the demand ever gets such that we really don't have any need for

[2:15:31] commercial business zones anymore, nobody's putting it up. Everyone wants

[2:15:34] residential. Great. Then reszone the whole street for residential

[2:15:38] or some other use that allows, like you said, an overlay district with some

[2:15:42] combined use. But I just think it's it might be premature.

[2:15:46] We'll go through the exercise you suggested. We'll look at the map and

[2:15:49] see, hey, are there any areas where we definitely should allow residential and

[2:15:53] and figure that out. But why do we want to say, well, we got to start thinking

[2:15:56] about where we want to allow it and then create problems. Let's just be

[2:16:00] thoughtful. If we can start putting multif family in R20 zones and and maybe

[2:16:04] even in one of the other uh residential zones and it ends up being a demand for

[2:16:08] it, then then that's fine. But like you said, it's it's kind of the sewer line

[2:16:13] and then the economics of it. And if a guy says, "Hey, guess what? I can buy

[2:16:16] that old commercial building on Tyok Avenue, knock it down and put up all

[2:16:20] these residential units and I'm going to get a greater return on my investment

[2:16:24] than if I fixed that building and rented it out for commercial use because

[2:16:27] they're just not paying the square foot price anymore.

[2:16:30] You just can't get it. I mean, even if you've got a big commercial use, they

[2:16:34] they're renting space a,000 square feet for what they used

[2:16:39] you can't rent 2,000 square feet anymore. People don't keep inventory.

[2:16:42] The stuff comes in overnight. So now you need twice as much parking, half the

[2:16:46] space and you don't get much tax revenue on the parking lot. You get it on the

[2:16:52] building. So So they're not making money.

[2:16:56] » Fair enough. No. So I think we got our we got our homework and we'll send you

[2:17:00] an email uh for a little homework before the next meeting which can just be kind

[2:17:04] of explore the map a bit. It's uh it's it's good to get the feedback. It

[2:17:08] actually surprises me. I would have thought there would have been more

[2:17:11] comfort around the use of multif family in the GB than there would have been in

[2:17:16] the R20. Uh but you know, I'm I'm I'm hearing you, which is no, we're we're

[2:17:21] more comfortable in the R20 than the GB. There's a stigma sometimes with multif

[2:17:28] family dwelling. Oh, it's going to be apartments. But you know what? They cost

[2:17:31] so much to build now. The rents would have to be so high. you you're not going

[2:17:37] to get you're going to get affluent people that are going to move in.

[2:17:40] They're going to build them to get a higher rent. They're not going to build

[2:17:43] a multif family dwelling and then cater to someone for $600 a month. They're

[2:17:48] going to cater to someone that's going to be willing to pay $1,800 to $2,000 a

[2:17:51] month. >> Yeah. So, we do have another topic that

[2:17:56] we want to get to. So, I any last comments, questions on the multifamily,

[2:18:02] two family? So then on the next topic, I'm actually

[2:18:06] going to let Jim kind of give us a little bit of an introduction. This is

[2:18:10] about the the special use permits and what we're doing. There's a couple of

[2:18:14] documents. One you got in your packet in advance and it it outlined these

[2:18:18] categories and I'll I'll let Jim take us from there. Is that fair, Jim?

[2:18:23] » Got to do that. Yep, that sounds good, Doug. All right. So, um you should have

[2:18:28] received a second memo um with a longitudinal sort of print out. Yeah. Uh

[2:18:35] couple of different colors on there. And so what this is is again it's more of

[2:18:40] the continued work on uh the zoning regulation rewrite. Um, and what we did

[2:18:47] here was put together a table that shows um

[2:18:54] where where we think where we're thinking it might make sense to use uh

[2:18:58] by right um as uh as a regulatory standard or as a regulatory approach uh

[2:19:06] performance standards or case by case and the by right those uses would

[2:19:12] generally have uh very limited land use impacts. That's what we would expect.

[2:19:17] That's why they could be in this category and um would not really warrant

[2:19:22] additional um use specific review of uh standards. They're things that you can

[2:19:29] say like okay this is something that that we can develop fairly safely won't

[2:19:34] have a lot of repercussions uh where the performance standards uh in

[2:19:39] the middle exist. So these are uses that might be appropriate without uh case by

[2:19:46] case discretion. So you don't have to necessarily review them very closely. Um

[2:19:52] but they would benefit from some specific standards, some performance

[2:19:56] standards as we call them. And then the third set again case by case. Um those

[2:20:02] are uses where the characteristics have potential impacts and it's hard to say

[2:20:08] on the face of it without actually reviewing an application whether uh the

[2:20:13] impacts exist or not. And so those would continue to get individual permits. Um

[2:20:19] the classifications that are shown in the table are just recommendations for

[2:20:23] your for discussion. Uh things we wanted to go over with you tonight. Um and uh

[2:20:30] they're, you know, not intended to represent final determinations. Again,

[2:20:34] just for discussion. Um and what we had asked you to do prior to

[2:20:40] this meeting was sort of think through the things that we have listed out and

[2:20:44] think about whether um whether we've set them up well or whether they're things

[2:20:50] that you might like to change around a little bit. Um there's a second table

[2:20:55] that goes along with that. So, if you flip the page, if you will, um there are

[2:21:00] a list of uh the uses and these uses are the uses that are in your zoning

[2:21:07] ordinance currently. So, the you know, same uses by name. Um in that second

[2:21:14] table, uh there are potentially applicable

[2:21:19] performance standards. So this would be for that middle category, the

[2:21:23] performance standards and they include a bunch of different areas. So they

[2:21:28] include things like uh hours of operation, noise, lighting, uh

[2:21:32] buffering, uh screening distance from uh other from residential uses, parking and

[2:21:39] loading, um traffic considerations, traffic access, outdoor storage, etc.

[2:21:46] Um, and frankly, if you take a look at that, there's some that, you know, as

[2:21:50] you're going down through the columns where there are X's next to almost every

[2:21:54] single use. So, really think about the things that are on the right hand side

[2:21:59] of the table. So, those are the ones that are um

[2:22:06] those are the ones that are like outdoor storage um you know, odor and dust

[2:22:11] emissions, things like that. and think through whether those whether those kind

[2:22:16] of standards are necessary or not. The other thing we want you to consider is

[2:22:21] that um uh standards around issues like noise, those might be better regulated

[2:22:27] or are already regulated through other city ordinances. So they don't

[2:22:32] necessarily need to be in zoning, but we bring them up because we recognize uh

[2:22:38] that these kind of things can create issues. And so we want people to, you

[2:22:43] know, we want you folks to think through them and see what makes sense. Um, so I

[2:22:48] I think that's basically it. We just, you know, I think that that's great. And

[2:22:52] and Jim and I spoke about these products. I I do think that the second

[2:22:56] page um as we reviewed it, Jim and I kind of both acknowledged it probably

[2:23:00] got a little exhappy where we thought so many of these uses needed to have extra

[2:23:05] regulations on so many categories. um that probably it will need a little

[2:23:11] more work and revision. I do think that the standards, some of these, you know,

[2:23:15] parking and loading, you know, they're required for commercial uses. It's not

[2:23:19] as though we need extra regulations, noise. Um you know, some of these things

[2:23:23] we cover. Um so the second table is probably something that would be more of

[2:23:29] a finer level of detail. This is just giving you an example of when we start

[2:23:34] to identify the uses, what are different categories that we might seek

[2:23:37] regulations on. I think a good use of this meeting would be the first page,

[2:23:42] the first table with the green, the blue, and the uh uh beige uh colors. Um

[2:23:50] do we feel as though there's a use that belongs in a different category? Green

[2:23:53] means go. Green means we think this use could just be allowed. Uh blue means we

[2:23:58] should add a regulation or two. Beige means this is pretty heavy-handed and we

[2:24:02] may need to be thoughtful with very specific code on it.

[2:24:06] » So just so I understand right now are these just the items that had special

[2:24:11] use permits before there's other or is it just special use?

[2:24:15] » It's a it's it's largely just the uses that were previously allowed through

[2:24:20] special use permit. And um you know Rick, you were part of a handful of

[2:24:25] meetings that we did. This is going back two to three years ago,

[2:24:29] » a while back. But I I just want to so right now if someone wanted to put in a

[2:24:35] restaurant, how how are they allowed? >> Uh the use of restaurant, I believe

[2:24:40] there are zones where it is allowed by right, but I think you're seeing it here

[2:24:43] because there were zones where it was a special use permit and now we're

[2:24:47] debating, well, I don't know if we're going to bring [snorts] that special use

[2:24:50] permit back in that zone. The idea is that maybe a restaurant in that zone

[2:24:57] needs to have an additional standard. Um the standard

[2:25:01] » So the plan is if it's already allowed by right, we're not going to necessarily

[2:25:05] » impose you're not ones where we have where it previously was a special use

[2:25:10] permit >> and and Okay, that's all I just wanted

[2:25:13] to clarify. So okay, so what you're if I understand and I don't want to take

[2:25:17] words because you were starting to explain. So everything in the fir the

[2:25:20] question is going to be is the stuff in the first column seem like we don't

[2:25:25] really have to worry too much about it exactly we're just going to allow it. We

[2:25:29] already have some regulations that are going to control the development. If

[2:25:32] they adhere to those regulations we can allow it in the zones where it was

[2:25:35] previously a special use permit. The ones in the middle we want to say we're

[2:25:40] going to add some performance standards. If they're going to go into this zone,

[2:25:43] it's non- general business and they want to do this, then we're going to impose

[2:25:46] these additional rules or regulations that they're going

[2:25:50] to need to adhere to to be allowed. And then explain to me case by case versus

[2:25:56] special use permit. How does that end up not being subjected? I think we saw that

[2:26:00] as maybe a category that although I'm looking at it and I'm looking at like

[2:26:04] laundry, dry cleaner, laundromat, that one might be something that we feel like

[2:26:09] we're only a performance standard or two away from allowing. But I think it was

[2:26:13] meant to be uses that uh maybe jump out as having a potential greater intensity

[2:26:19] than the blue. I think the idea is maybe these are more than just a couple of

[2:26:23] performance standards away. uh they may need um some other tool regulatory tool

[2:26:29] that we would use. Um I don't want to go back to special use permits, but I guess

[2:26:35] the idea is that you know those might be more complex. when we kind of initially

[2:26:40] talked about it that there are uses you haven't even seen on here that um we

[2:26:45] haven't talked about like solar, wind, uh wind energy, um quaries, these were

[2:26:53] uses that were very complex. They have sections of the code dedicated to them.

[2:26:57] They were allowed through a special use permit and not anymore. Uh those are

[2:27:01] probably uses that we would have a very long robust discussion about how do we

[2:27:06] allow these without the special use permit tool and and are there cases

[2:27:11] where we would want to bring the special use permit tool back? I frankly don't

[2:27:15] think the special use permit tool is a wise tool at this point. I feel like it

[2:27:19] it puts us into a position where it's uh the the framework to approve it is is

[2:27:23] very straightforward and permissible. So it it can be tricky to deny. Um in my in

[2:27:30] my opinion. Um >> that was the problem. That's why

[2:27:34] » that's why we got rid of them. Um so frankly I think that the third column

[2:27:38] you might say there's certain things in this beige column on the far right that

[2:27:42] you feel like you know what I don't think that that's any more intensive or

[2:27:46] more of a nuisance than some of these other things and we can move it back

[2:27:49] over. Um, as I look at the chart immediately, you know, and this is

[2:27:52] coming from our consultant who's uh giving us a nice neutral objective

[2:27:56] review, I mean, my brain immediately goes to certain uses I want to move

[2:28:00] around, but before I do that, you know, really the exercises for the board to

[2:28:05] for it to get its idea. Um, I'd say the way to think about it is green is go,

[2:28:11] green feel is is uses that we feel like if it's in a commercial zone or

[2:28:14] industrial zone, it should just be allowed by right, no extra regulations.

[2:28:18] Blue means we want to add a a couple of things here. And then gray means we

[2:28:24] probably need more thought. It may need more than a couple of things. Um take

[2:28:29] take a few minutes. Uh feel free to ask questions, but take a few minutes and

[2:28:33] just kind of start to digest it. You could immediately start to circle uses

[2:28:37] that maybe jump out to you. Like immediately I'm like cemetery in in the

[2:28:40] blue column. Uh maybe about 23 of the way down. I mean, cemetery is probably a

[2:28:45] use that we don't need any special regulations on. You know, it's not a use

[2:28:50] we tend to see new proposals for. >> Well,

[2:28:54] the thing the thing I see here is is >> so so maybe Doug, this is this is just a

[2:29:00] thought. If we looked at the things uh in the green go column, the buy rights,

[2:29:05] are there any in there that don't belong in there and should really be in either

[2:29:10] blue or or beige? You don't have to put them in one of those particular spaces

[2:29:14] yet, but just they don't belong in green.

[2:29:18] » Um, [clears throat] okay. That's a little

[2:29:20] » That's fair. >> I mean, I had a problem with newspaper

[2:29:24] offices. >> Just just don't like them.

[2:29:30] » No, who even has one? >> Okay, fair.

[2:29:33] » Newspapers are dead, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, that's fair.

[2:29:38] I mean, there is one. We have a newspaper office. um right near the in

[2:29:42] the Dave's Plaza. I think that's where the reminder has their main office.

[2:29:47] » Yeah. Okay. >> It's odd. I mean, the the use actually

[2:29:50] exists in town as much as it's a dying use. We we got a building.

[2:29:53] » I was thinking of the people, you know, going into the stand where you buy your

[2:29:56] papers to get two, three newspapers, some magazines, what do you want? Some

[2:29:59] candy. >> Yeah. There's one use I I'll you know

[2:30:03] what? I'll give you guys a chance. There's one use I've identified in there

[2:30:06] that is very tricky, but it's it's it's sort of a it's a new innovation, a part

[2:30:10] of the use. But do you guys see anything in the green that jumps out to you that

[2:30:14] it's like I don't love I don't love considering that by right. We should add

[2:30:18] a regulation. There's something there that's a little intense.

[2:30:27] That's it. Yeah, that's what I had in mind. Green houses. Now the definition

[2:30:31] of a greenhouse is changing in the world because there's um controlled

[2:30:35] environment agriculture. Um there's the biggest building in Rhode Island has

[2:30:40] been proposed in exit to grow it's a 25 acre building to grow tomatoes. It's

[2:30:45] probably best understood as a greenhouse but it's highly mechanical. It is

[2:30:51] internal growth. It is staff and it is shifts and it is trucks and trucks and

[2:30:57] trucks. it's probably still a use that someone could say is a greenhouse. Um,

[2:31:03] that might need a little bit of work or maybe we redefine greenhouse to ensure

[2:31:07] that it doesn't include like if we're going to make it easy to make a build a

[2:31:10] greenhouse that does not include mechanicized, you know, methods of

[2:31:15] agriculture within the >> greenhouse size.

[2:31:17] » Was that could limit the size? >> Could max. Yeah, limit the size. Um,

[2:31:23] » and which zones are we talking about too? We still, you know, we don't really

[2:31:26] have the key to know where Well, there are a lot of

[2:31:27] » No, no, we don't have that yet, but I think majority of what you're looking

[2:31:30] at, they're commercial or industrial uses. We're these are these would be

[2:31:34] only for commercial industrial zones. Um, it is a fair question. Some of these

[2:31:39] we might take a look at are village main street or village rural which are kind

[2:31:43] of meant to be light business zones. >> I can't imagine we don't have a nursery

[2:31:46] or a greenhouse out in in the uh in the rural. use that use I think actually

[2:31:51] might that use might be a use that's allowed in residential but or was

[2:31:56] allowed in residential. >> Um I think that that use probably could

[2:32:01] be allowed in residential as long as we frame it as um a maximum size or somehow

[2:32:08] make it make sure we don't end up with a a businesscale greenhouse which we did

[2:32:14] have interest in that in Coventry. We had an applicant that was asking how

[2:32:18] they could achieve that and it was right around the turn when all the special use

[2:32:22] permits went away and I said no it's not available but we had an applicant

[2:32:25] looking to use that use to do um this controlled environment agriculture um

[2:32:31] which that they they they can be busy I mean

[2:32:34] they need parking spaces because they have multiple staff

[2:32:44] so we might want to move that one over to blue.

[2:32:49] » What was the thought process between group instruction in blue and individual

[2:32:54] instruction in green?

[2:32:58] » Meaning like how did we come up with those?

[2:33:01] » Yeah. But >> yeah,

[2:33:03] » so it was it was based on larger land staff experience and considering how

[2:33:09] these things have worked in other uh in other cities and towns that we were

[2:33:13] familiar with.

[2:33:26] Yep.

[2:33:30] [sighs]

[2:33:43] Where would our average uh commercial condo type development

[2:33:51] be listed? Is in that in the performance standards or the buy right?

[2:33:58] The commercial condos actually uh weren't special use permit uses. So,

[2:34:04] ironically, you know, you might say, Doug, that feels more intensive to me

[2:34:07] than a lot of what I'm seeing here. That that's a use that's allowed by Wright in

[2:34:11] our general business and industrial zones. I believe they're also available

[2:34:16] in our village main street and village burough commercial. I mean, that's why

[2:34:19] you saw uh a project, I don't want to name specific projects, but you saw a

[2:34:24] commercial condo in Western that was in a village rural commercial zone

[2:34:29] recently. And I think that's one of the one of the bigger ones we see where the

[2:34:33] community comes out against it. >> It's certainly a popular use. So whether

[2:34:38] whether we're seeing the community come out because they don't like that use or

[2:34:41] whether it's just we tend to see that as a commercial use that appears over and

[2:34:45] over again and that's where there's a rub. You know, I don't know if anyone

[2:34:49] out there would be jumping for joy over retail either. Um but yeah, that's a

[2:34:54] popular use. And if the thought is, hey Doug, you know, while we're doing this

[2:34:58] exercise, we'd love to consider some regulations around that use too, um, I'm

[2:35:04] open. I mean, really, the first task is, hey, these are uses that for some degree

[2:35:08] somewhere in the town we shut it down and we always intended to bring it back.

[2:35:12] There might be uses that you'd say, Doug, there's uses that we need to rein

[2:35:16] in a little bit that are allowed by, right?

[2:35:18] » Yeah. For me, that that's one because all the all these commercial condos

[2:35:23] popping up um really is for me is definitely needed, but it's low value

[2:35:30] low value uh for some high value properties and

[2:35:36] they're putting in these low value developments and frankly

[2:35:42] aesthetically they become eyes pretty quickly.

[2:35:45] » Yeah, understood. Yeah, they're they're certainly uses that are meant to be more

[2:35:49] functional than aesthetically attractive. They're they're not looking

[2:35:53] to bring in customers. It's a workplace for contractors.

[2:35:57] » And I think there's there's an appropriate place for that. And like me

[2:36:01] personally, I don't particularly feel they belong on

[2:36:06] Taio Gav, but there are appropriate areas off the off

[2:36:12] the main roadways that have industrial like the which is they're completely

[2:36:19] appropriate for. >> That's fair. It's a good comment. We'll

[2:36:21] make a little note and this is where Jim always assumes there's scope creep. Jim,

[2:36:25] we'll we'll also just evaluate all the uses in town while we're doing this

[2:36:28] work. Oh, okay. >> Um, [laughter] but no, we'll make a note

[2:36:30] of that. I think that's fair. Uh, I want to get this kind of feedback. We're here

[2:36:34] to talk about appropriate sighting of a range of commercial industrial uses. So,

[2:36:38] if something jumps to mind that isn't on the page, we want to hear about it. Um,

[2:36:42] if we're doing this exercise and one one thing that we've done and we had a work

[2:36:47] group that met many times, so some of this work was based on some work group.

[2:36:51] Um, Rick was part of that work group. We're going back two and a half years

[2:36:54] ago. The last time this work group met, we all believed that it was also

[2:36:59] appropriate to look at uses that were never allowed in industrial but were

[2:37:02] allowed in commercial. Let's look at allowing those commercial uses in

[2:37:06] industrial zones. Our industrial zones aren't factories. They're a hodgepodge

[2:37:10] of different uses that just happen to be allowed. And then there's some cases

[2:37:14] where there might be light industrial where it might be appropriate in

[2:37:18] commercial. I'm not looking to bring a factory to Tyogg, but someone that does

[2:37:22] I I use this case example of uh someone that wants to build custom surfboards

[2:37:27] and they need a place to work. We'd consider that a form of manufacturing,

[2:37:31] probably like miscellaneous manufacturing. He's building custom

[2:37:34] surfboards. This isn't a factory. This is someone that just needs a space to

[2:37:37] work. That might be very appropriate on a tyogue or sandy bottom.

[2:37:42] » So, we looked at the the difference between us is allowed in industrial and

[2:37:46] commercial. To some degree, we're in a world where we're not getting big

[2:37:50] factories and industrial and only retail and commercial. It's industrial needs to

[2:37:55] be more wrestrial zones need to be more open to different uses because they're

[2:37:59] to some degree sometimes struggling because there's not manufacturing in

[2:38:02] America and sometimes we should look at certain industrial uses and say that's

[2:38:07] going to be a very smallcale use and maybe it's appropriate in some of our

[2:38:11] commercial zones. So we thought that the the lines between those two zones could

[2:38:16] use to be um to some degree some more overlap than what our code allowed. When

[2:38:21] we do this exercise we're not giving you this is the use in the industrial and

[2:38:25] business but if we determine this is a use we're comfortable with the next

[2:38:29] stage was in all the business and industrial or one or the other. I I

[2:38:34] would consider that surfboard more of like a a craft or more of like a artist

[2:38:41] type uh

[2:38:44] uh business versus an industrial complex where you see trucks coming in and out

[2:38:50] of and and more of a crafty or oestry type

[2:38:55] » art studio >> an art studio

[2:38:57] » type thing. So, you know, you get through the zoning code and you start to

[2:39:00] realize furniture manufacturing, you know, we don't have furniture factories,

[2:39:04] but someone that wants to build custom furniture and wants to have a site, he

[2:39:09] may you may that we may be comfortable with that on um Tyogg, what what tends

[2:39:14] to happen is people think industrial means factories. We don't get factories

[2:39:17] anymore anywhere. So, it's time for us to revisit what what do we actually want

[2:39:23] and what do these uses mean today compared to what they meant 50 years

[2:39:27] ago. true industrial complex isn't going to fit in any industrial facilities we

[2:39:31] have >> that listed for.

[2:39:33] » I mean, you know, you look at what are the uses driving big site development

[2:39:37] now it's uh fulfillment centers. It's the Amazon fulfillment centers. It's now

[2:39:41] we're going to get data centers and um all of all of that. Um these are like

[2:39:46] the most uh intensive largecale. This is what's replaced factories is uh Amazon

[2:39:53] fulfillment centers and and data centers.

[2:39:56] » And do we do we have those D do we have any ordinances

[2:40:01] » I don't think we have anything I'd have to look I haven't I don't know if we

[2:40:05] have anything that a data center could say we fit in your town because this

[2:40:08] fits what we do. I don't know if we have any description of a use that gets close

[2:40:12] to a data center. I know it's become very controversial nationally

[2:40:16] » but mostly because requires a lot of water and a lot of electricity. Yeah.

[2:40:20] So, so >> they might have trouble coming here.

[2:40:24] » So, I mean, in thoughts, do do people feel generally comfortable with what

[2:40:28] they see in green? Is there anything in green that you you feel needs to be

[2:40:32] bounced over? I like I like getting the thoughts like what you just said, John.

[2:40:36] We're going to take a note about, you know, where do we allow the commercial

[2:40:39] condos and we'll fold that into our analysis.

[2:40:43] Um, but does Green feel comfortable to folks?

[2:40:48] » Pretty much. Yeah, except for the nursery greenhouse. I think that was

[2:40:51] something we might want to look at. But just one more comment. I know I know we

[2:40:54] was talking about the commercial condo. See, the problem is you put the building

[2:40:57] up and it's a commercial condo, but you don't know who ultimately is going to

[2:41:01] end up renting the space. >> It could be anything. It could be

[2:41:04] landscapers, in which case they're coming in and out all day and they don't

[2:41:07] have any customers at all and it's more of a commercial use. They're going to

[2:41:11] park their cars during the day. There's a lot of stuff that gets stored there.

[2:41:13] They're in and out with trucks. Then you could have like if you look at the

[2:41:18] original ones that are off Taio, there's a guy in there that makes trophies.

[2:41:21] There's somebody else in there that has a taekwond do studio. There's an oil

[2:41:25] company. You know, those are all behind Atlantic Plumbing off Taio Cavalick

[2:41:30] behind McDonald's. There's a whole row of industrial

[2:41:32] » Yeah. And those that use is probably considered grandfathered what they're

[2:41:36] doing. >> Right. Right. It is. But what I'm

[2:41:38] getting at is folks are coming in and saying, "Hey, guess what? I can make a

[2:41:41] good return on this." The the rate of return is really good. I'm telling you,

[2:41:45] for what you have to invest in a a steel building with whatever infrastructure

[2:41:50] you put in there, a small bathroom, a couple of doors, an overhead door, and

[2:41:53] it's in, but you have no idea once it's up, who's going to end up renting that

[2:41:57] space. And that's the that's really the issue. Is it allowable use in the

[2:42:01] general business zone? Well, it's a commercial condo. They're not do they're

[2:42:04] not selling any retail. It basically becomes a storage facility. And and see

[2:42:09] Mike Mike Beard again, I shouldn't the the the ones we approved up off a

[2:42:14] reservoir road that are basically in the industrial zone. That's he he mentioned

[2:42:18] that he goes I'm getting people that don't want to have their boat shrink

[2:42:21] wrapped every year. It's cheaper for them to rent space from me and bring

[2:42:24] their boats there and keep them in undercover for the winter and just tow

[2:42:26] them out. >> Yep.

[2:42:27] » So you don't know what the uses are going to be. And if they abut

[2:42:31] residential zones, um you know, they're really not helping us.

[2:42:36] » Yeah. I mean that's why the use is popular because it offers flexibility to

[2:42:40] meet a tenants's need. I can tell you that the use the way it's described in

[2:42:43] Coventry code and we haven't touched it. So this is one of those uses that you

[2:42:47] know is it's just one of those old uses we've used for this purpose. It's it's

[2:42:51] basically a it's a it's an equipment and material storage use. Um the idea is if

[2:42:56] someone starts to do something that looks more like hey I want to point a

[2:42:59] sale and I I want to have customers coming in and out. We're going to start

[2:43:02] to say that's not this use then you want to do retail. But if you're in the

[2:43:06] general business zone, they're both allowed.

[2:43:08] » They're both allowed. But if someone says, "I'm building this building for

[2:43:12] this use," they would need a change of use. If they're going to say, "Now, I

[2:43:16] want to do point of sale." And we might look at a site and say, "You developed

[2:43:20] this thing with garage doors and without parking to accomplish a customer comes

[2:43:26] in, they park here, they come up to a natural safe [snorts] location to meet

[2:43:30] me at the front door to review." we would probably say, "No, I don't know if

[2:43:33] this site lends itself to that use. Maybe there's safety concerns. Maybe you

[2:43:37] didn't give it yourself enough parking." So, the core use of a commercial condo

[2:43:41] is really it's a storage. It's a material and equipment storage use. The

[2:43:45] idea is if a plumber ends up banging a hammer on a piece of pipe in his unit. I

[2:43:50] mean, we're probably not going to say the you banged your hammer or that's a

[2:43:53] manufacturing use. But if suddenly somehow there's 10 employees in one of

[2:43:58] these units and they're all manufacturing something, we might come

[2:44:00] and say this is clearly beyond storage. You're clearly doing another use and you

[2:44:05] need to do a change of use and we need to have you reviewed under the code for

[2:44:08] that new use. It it is >> I all the allowable uses that you

[2:44:14] described for those commercial condos, what did you say it was? storage and

[2:44:19] » like a equipment and material storage. >> Yeah, that in my opinion that belongs in

[2:44:24] an industrial zone, not a general business zone, but it's allowed in the

[2:44:27] general business zone. And that's what you're starting to see because again, it

[2:44:31] all comes down to what's the rate of the return I can get if I can rent this

[2:44:34] thing out. >> And people are saying, you know what, I

[2:44:36] can put one of these buildings up real cheap. I can get a good rate of return

[2:44:39] on the rent. And now we could end up with, you know, those right next to

[2:44:45] something else taking away a potential retail use and taking up space because

[2:44:50] it was more profitable at the time. And those folks don't care what it looks

[2:44:53] like when they drive down Taio Gav, which basically is our main thoroughfare

[2:44:56] in town. We don't have a main street, but that's it.

[2:44:59] » Yeah. Now, we're we're taking notes on this because the idea is that that might

[2:45:03] not be related to our special use permit work, but if it's a use I mean, it's

[2:45:07] certainly a use we've seen a lot of, right?

[2:45:10] Um, there's uses that weren't really I don't

[2:45:14] even think that the the the developer meant and was shooting for that use, but

[2:45:18] they ended up building something like it. I'm thinking about off of Harky

[2:45:22] Hill. Um, we saw an application that was for an oil uh distributor

[2:45:29] » and uh it's an odd use and he ended up building buildings that had sort of a

[2:45:34] flexible kind of component to them. I mean, he was relying on that use because

[2:45:39] I think it gives him the ability to store his buildings or store his

[2:45:42] vehicles, uh, store some equipment. But, you know, what he's doing is he's a he's

[2:45:49] a, you know, he's an oil distributor and he sometimes takes guys oils tanks out

[2:45:54] of their their buildings and he needs a place to cut them up. And so, it's it's

[2:45:57] like we don't have a use that says here's the oil tank business use. Uh, it

[2:46:02] was the closest use that fit. Um, we do tend to see a lot of them. So, we can

[2:46:07] revisit that. That can be part of like maybe our effort is to bring this up

[2:46:11] whether we uh ask Jim to help with it or not. It can be a use that we revisit. Is

[2:46:16] it where do we want it? And the idea is if we want it in the general business,

[2:46:19] fine. But maybe we add a lot of restrictions to it along the way.

[2:46:26] Do we want to try the corollary exercise to what we just did and see what in blue

[2:46:32] and gray might belong in green? >> That makes sense. And that might be, you

[2:46:36] know, I I can assume folks here are probably ready to wrap it up.

[2:46:39] » Yeah, please. >> Yeah. No. So, let's let's let's I think

[2:46:42] if you if green feels good, aside from the couple comments we got, let's look

[2:46:44] at blue. I think look if there's something in blue that jumps to you as

[2:46:48] that should be more of a green or that feels like it's maybe even more complex

[2:46:53] and it should be in beige.

[2:47:00] » Yeah. No, these these Weston Samson guys they I don't know how they pick their

[2:47:06] colors. They're crazy.

[2:47:11] » [laughter] >> I didn't have any involvement selective.

[2:47:15] » They're pretty color like three different colors.

[2:47:18] » That's good enough. >> They work.

[2:47:21] » It should be yellow. >> Red.

[2:47:24] » Oh, yeah. >> Green. Green. Yellow. Red. Next time

[2:47:43] a walk-in medical clinic, treatment center, retirement nursing home. I see

[2:47:50] two different Is this only what was the special use permit? in what zones? We

[2:47:57] don't know. >> Yeah, we can we can take a look. I mean,

[2:48:00] I um >> and I'm thinking there's two different

[2:48:02] things there. I mean, a walk-in medical clinic and a treatment center

[2:48:07] generally would be business and industrial, but retirement nursing home.

[2:48:12] » Yeah, I think >> would be a fit in residential. you're

[2:48:14] probably getting a mix of some uh some of these uses uh were combined uh

[2:48:20] because it was probably maybe two different uses in the code but the you

[2:48:24] know the consultant thought let's look at this as

[2:48:27] you know this is similar does this grouping of uses feel similar here you

[2:48:32] might say Doug I think uh >> time nursing homes are are separate from

[2:48:37] the other they're kind of >> yeah no I think that that's fair

[2:48:39] » and I think um you know the standards It's they may be suited in some

[2:48:47] residential zones. I mean, if they can get the water and the uh and the uh

[2:48:53] waste disposal

[2:48:58] » is is a driving range and golf course similar or not similar enough located

[2:49:03] together sometimes. >> Yep. Um a golf course is actually in

[2:49:10] beige, >> right? I'm saying

[2:49:11] » and where driving range and mini golf are here in blue. So, it's a it's a fair

[2:49:14] observation. It feels like those uses probably driving range tends if it's

[2:49:19] good enough for a driving range, it's probably good enough for a golf course

[2:49:24] » and vice versa. >> They fit on small areas.

[2:49:28] » Yeah, >> you can put a driving range. Not much

[2:49:31] many of them left. I think there's one or two in the whole state now.

[2:49:35] » Yeah. >> Miniature golf is more commercial.

[2:49:38] I guess that's it's like Topgolf. >> Yeah, that's that use I I would dare say

[2:49:44] because we I was part of Cranston when when that project was permitted in

[2:49:48] Cranston that I don't think we have a use that covers Topgolf. I wouldn't say

[2:49:52] that a driving range inherently means that you can build Topgolf there. Um we

[2:49:57] also know we're not going to get another Top Golf. Top Golf isn't like they don't

[2:50:00] want to build right next to where their other sites are. So I think the state

[2:50:03] has one. We probably got what we got for a while. That's a whole there's

[2:50:07] basically food, >> alcohol, driving range.

[2:50:11] » Yeah, they're they're I kind of would >> Yeah, they're they're kind of like a

[2:50:15] major entertainment center, >> clubs, entertainment. So, they they kind

[2:50:18] of fit under all of that. This is a >> Yeah. Um what about uh you have uh in

[2:50:25] blue auto dealer auto dealership vehicle sales and then you in in the beige you

[2:50:33] have boat repair storage sales auto body repair.

[2:50:38] » That's fair. I think boat sales and auto sales are probably similarly

[2:50:43] categorized. >> Yeah. But I but I would caution that a

[2:50:47] lot of auto dealerships have auto body repair shops and uh auto

[2:50:55] service in their dealership. >> Mhm.

[2:50:57] » So I guess the question would be is auto dealership without

[2:51:04] repair facilities in one and then an auto dealership with repair facilities

[2:51:09] in another. We actually, this is a use that I'm a little more familiar with

[2:51:13] because we did draft and we're looking at this code when we did gas stations

[2:51:18] because as you may recall, we did the gas station code and we did a lot of

[2:51:21] like cleanup work around it where we we're oddly categors

[2:51:27] for some of these uses. So, we have some standards for auto repair and oddly we

[2:51:31] were like uh applying those same standards for dealerships. I do believe

[2:51:35] that auto dealerships, boat dealerships are independent uses and auto repair.

[2:51:40] It's not like there's a use that allows both. So, we can really treat them

[2:51:44] separately. I mean, they each come with their own nuisance issues.

[2:51:48] » So, if we did have like a um like they have on route to we have

[2:51:56] Subaru get moved to center of New England Subaru dealership. they have

[2:52:01] their car sales and you pull up to the garage to get your oil changed and

[2:52:06] whatever else that would that that that would then go under the most stringent

[2:52:11] of the two requirements. >> We would say you're doing two uses at

[2:52:15] once, which you're allowed to do in a commercial zone. Um, we have plenty of

[2:52:18] cases and we'd say each use needs to meet its own independent requirements.

[2:52:23] You could say the the auto dealership is the whole lot because hey, you're

[2:52:27] putting the cars up front. You know, all the cars are everywhere on the site.

[2:52:31] Maybe the auto garage is in the building and someone might say, "Oh, well, the

[2:52:36] standards for the auto garages, the auto garage should be at least this far from

[2:52:38] residential." Great. Well, we're going to measure that from the auto garage

[2:52:42] component of the site. And we might say, "Oh, and but auto dealerships need to

[2:52:47] have other standards like um I don't know what it might be uh of landscaping

[2:52:52] throughout the, you know, so like they'd have to meet each independent code as it

[2:52:55] applies to the section. >> I just want to make sure that it's

[2:52:57] clearly distinguished between the two because that the way it was described

[2:53:01] here, it doesn't

[2:53:05] » Yep. No, that's fair. I'd actually would recommend that. I do think auto body or

[2:53:12] we say here auto body repair but we're starting in our recent code rewrite. Um

[2:53:18] we're starting to treat auto body and auto repair is the same. There's no real

[2:53:22] need to treat them differently. Um I think they're they're a use that I think

[2:53:26] is appropriate to put in blue and that's mostly because we've actually now

[2:53:32] drafted a good chunk of performance standards for them. And I think we're

[2:53:36] close and that's a use we certainly have plenty of. It's a use that you is

[2:53:40] currently turned off across the entire town. I'd love to put it into a category

[2:53:45] of blue where we might be just a couple of pieces of code away from taking auto

[2:53:50] body and auto repair in general and making that an allowed use, which we

[2:53:54] certainly have. We entertained a use variance on an auto body expansion if

[2:54:01] you may recall. um this wasn't too long ago and they went with a use variance

[2:54:05] because um there there was not a buy right choice and they were just seeking

[2:54:10] a simple expansion on their property. So, I think it is something that we're

[2:54:15] going to get people knocking on the door pretty soon saying, you know, hey,

[2:54:20] » Exactly. Yep. That's that's the one >> I

[2:54:25] I think some of it is also regulated by the state. Not so much a regular auto

[2:54:30] repair, but automobile sales, you need to go to the dealers commission and they

[2:54:35] have standards for the amount of pavement, for the amount of, you

[2:54:38] [clears throat] know, things like that. And the same thing with the auto body

[2:54:41] auto body shops, they have to have um something to extract the fumes. They

[2:54:46] have to have uh you know enclosed paint facilities now. It's not like the old

[2:54:51] days pull the car into the garage and just stop painting and we'll hang a

[2:54:54] curtain up. They have extensive things to protect the environment that are

[2:54:58] built in. I think the biggest drawback is when um you have that type of

[2:55:02] operation and the person is stockpiling cars because they think at some point

[2:55:08] they might be able to repair them when you know there's parts available from

[2:55:12] other junk cars or whatever. So they'll keep a lot of nonworking vehicles stored

[2:55:18] on the property. That's the biggest thing. Y.

[2:55:20] » So again, if you're going to if we're going to start looking at that second

[2:55:23] page where you have the X's, I think some of the uh the aesthetics that go

[2:55:30] along with some of those types of businesses are the problem. And then

[2:55:32] yeah, you could move boat repair, storage, sales, and auto body repair

[2:55:35] back to the blue, but you've got to put those protections in place. If

[2:55:38] everything is enclosed and it's regulated by the state, it may not be a

[2:55:43] bad thing to have in in certain zones, but you just have to be careful of that.

[2:55:47] All of a sudden, you know, there's this big perimeter fence that you can't see

[2:55:50] through and you look and there's like piles and piles of cars back there and

[2:55:54] old auto body parts and stuff. They said, "Well, I don't want to get rid of

[2:55:57] it because I might be able to use it someday."

[2:55:59] » We do have um a use that's not on this uh probably because um I'm not sure if

[2:56:06] it was just not allowed or how it fell within a special, but a junkyard, which

[2:56:09] is a separate use than auto repair. Sometimes the two go together, and we

[2:56:13] would say then you're seeking both uses. But if you're seeking to store a bunch

[2:56:16] of um non-usable vehicles, then that's a junkyard in town and that is a use that

[2:56:22] can be nasty and we would want to make sure we handle correctly with a lot of

[2:56:27] screening and fencing. We have code that does that already whether it's strong

[2:56:30] enough or not. >> This is just not allowed.

[2:56:32] » But that that use I don't think is is allowed right now and and it might just

[2:56:36] be turned off and it's probably it may not be on this because maybe it was

[2:56:40] turned off even before the special use permits came along. We deal with a lot

[2:56:44] of the non-conforming existing junkyards.

[2:56:47] Um, >> yeah, many towns just don't allow it.

[2:56:50] And I'm not sure exactly how they define it, whether it's like a number of cars

[2:56:53] or what what the deal. >> We were just looking at it today. I

[2:56:57] think it was like you get to be a junkyard. Once you have like more than

[2:57:00] three nonfunctional automobiles, once you start to just store more than three

[2:57:05] non-functional automobiles, you're not really repair. You're more of a

[2:57:09] junkyard. You could probably go find that

[2:57:12] » if you just wrote down >> certainly we we we've got some problem

[2:57:17] properties where people are thinking I can just throw these cars around my

[2:57:20] house. So we have we have some problem properties that

[2:57:23] » we won't we won't go into details on the specifics.

[2:57:26] » There's some in the commercial zones I can think of right now. Village

[2:57:28] residential village commercial. >> So one down

[2:57:33] » street. >> Yeah. So um do we have a question over

[2:57:38] here? >> Yeah. Yeah. Do we have anything that

[2:57:40] addresses like um incinerators for uh for like um p like power generation,

[2:57:49] burning of garbage or or any of waste products? And do we have anything for

[2:57:55] crematoriums? >> That's a question. Crematoriums came up

[2:57:59] as a recent uh state issue. I don't know if you were involved at all. I think it

[2:58:03] was Tiverton. >> Yeah. I I've just heard about it in the

[2:58:07] news and I think it's this is >> Yeah. No, I don't think we have anything

[2:58:10] like that. I don't think we have a use for a crematorium.

[2:58:14] » Um and uh

[2:58:17] » we have mortuary and funeral home in there. I don't know if that

[2:58:20] » mortuary funeral home wouldn't wouldn't allow a crematorium.

[2:58:24] Um what were the ones that you mentioned

[2:58:27] before that John? uh some kind of incinerator or whether it's incinerator

[2:58:32] for power generation or just burning of waste or

[2:58:36] » I'm not sure if our code has um anything that's like a power generation. It it

[2:58:40] might have utility um substations type of stuff, but I don't think we have like

[2:58:44] a true power plant use. You have the zoning code with us in the

[2:58:50] box. Yeah, that's a good question. I I don't

[2:58:54] I mean if we have it we obviously it's not on this list. I don't actually know

[2:58:58] if we have what someone would say is a use that allows pure just power plant or

[2:59:03] power generation. We'll have to I'll take a look.

[2:59:06] Um, so thoughts on blue? I mean, I circled cemetery because I don't think

[2:59:11] cemetery is a is a land use that, you know, we're focused on as needing a ton

[2:59:16] of regulation. Um, but did others have areas in blue that you felt were either

[2:59:22] deserved to be in green? Um, or maybe deserved a higher level of concern.

[2:59:35] » I think they're

[2:59:38] » great. And then I guess I'll ask um if you don't mind before we go in the beige

[2:59:45] section um those were I we've kind of already

[2:59:49] talked about the idea that maybe boat repair storage sales and auto repair

[2:59:53] might find its way into the blue. We do have some good performance standards on

[2:59:56] sections of that. I'm not saying we're done. I do think that some of the these

[3:00:00] uses might um need for me auto repair could probably use a standard of minimum

[3:00:05] distance to residential. Um, if you're going to do that, that's fine to do in

[3:00:09] commercial, but if there's a house next to you, you have to be a little more

[3:00:12] thoughtful on the noise, nuisance activity that that use brings.

[3:00:16] » I I think the top if we we're going to include boat repair, storage, sales, and

[3:00:20] auto body repair and put stringent regulations and move that into blue. I

[3:00:25] don't see why mortuary funeral home or laundry, dry cleaner, and laundromat be

[3:00:29] the same thing. >> That's fair. I think that's a good

[3:00:32] point. So, the top three categories, maybe we kind of move those to blue. The

[3:00:36] rest of them you get a little different. You're into something. You just don't

[3:00:38] know how big it's going to be or what the impact's going to be or what they're

[3:00:40] going to be. We're talking, >> you know, compassion centers, commercial

[3:00:44] animal raising, hospitals, campgrounds, those are big operations. Yep.

[3:00:48] » They probably do belong right where they are.

[3:00:50] » Yep. >> Yep.

[3:00:54] And I mean, you know, the thing that I think uh what I assume is going to be

[3:00:57] one of the primary regulatory tools we're going to be looking at, so this is

[3:01:01] a little bit more for Jim, um is we saw it when we brought um uh cannabis retail

[3:01:07] use. We saw it when we did gas stations. We saw it when we did kennels. The main

[3:01:13] concern and the thing everyone seems to be focused on is a minimum separation

[3:01:16] distance to residential. It's fine to do this in business. Business doesn't tend

[3:01:21] to bother other businesses. I'm not worried if the business bothers another

[3:01:24] business. You're a business, but it we have a lot of residential. It's in and

[3:01:27] around our commercial zones and some of these uses jump out as saying if there

[3:01:31] if you're in one of these residential, if you're in a commercial zone and

[3:01:34] you're close to residential, these are uses that we don't feel as comfortable

[3:01:37] as you approaching. And so that that I assume is going to be one of the more

[3:01:42] popular performance standards that we'll keep coming back to. And there might be

[3:01:45] a range like here, this use feels like it's a 100 foot separation distance.

[3:01:49] This one feels more of a nuisance. So, are we going to 150? Is that enough?

[3:01:55] Maybe there's some that we feel less. I can tell you we did uh Dennis, what did

[3:02:00] we do for retail cannabis? What was the minimum distance to residential on

[3:02:04] retail cannabis? Was it 100 maybe?

[3:02:08] » Maybe 150. Minimum distance on a gas station. We said the pumps shouldn't be

[3:02:12] more uh shouldn't be less than 100 ft from residential. Well, it's funny

[3:02:16] because cannabis retail is so highly regulated by the state with the

[3:02:21] requirements for the security guards and the the security that you have going in

[3:02:26] and out of those places and the number of parking spaces. They're no different

[3:02:29] than any other retail outlet and probably more stringent and regulated

[3:02:34] than any. Um, just to throw that out there. I know it's case by case. I think

[3:02:39] the issue before was we're not sure we want a whole bunch of these in town, so

[3:02:43] let's try to regulate them with a special use permit, almost like a liquor

[3:02:47] license. But going down now, as I look at the bottom of the list, I mean, we

[3:02:52] were only talking about these aren't just commercial zones. I can't imagine

[3:02:55] anyone putting a campground, an outdoor gun or archery range, or a golf course

[3:03:00] in a general business zone in Coventry. There's just not enough space. That

[3:03:04] stuff would end up out in the rural areas of town, either in the two or the

[3:03:07] 5 acre zone. I mean, it could be in any residential zone, but there has to be a

[3:03:11] significant amount of acreage available to to build any of those. And I can't

[3:03:16] see where separation to the residential dwelling for a golf course. I mean,

[3:03:21] obviously, you're not going to have the holes teeing off right in some into

[3:03:24] someone's backyard, but for the most part, I mean, campgrounds, they could be

[3:03:28] compatible with a minimum am amount of screening. I mean, I guess it depends on

[3:03:32] on how big it is and what it's going to entertain if you're going to run

[3:03:35] electricity and have a lot of campers in there. But

[3:03:38] » yeah, you can tell some of these uses, campgrounds, outdoor gun, archery,

[3:03:42] range, golf course, these were probably special use permits in a lot of our

[3:03:45] residential zones. So, I mean, while we may not be ready to turn those uses on

[3:03:50] by right in residential, um, I can see where the the tool of a special use

[3:03:55] permit made everyone feel safe that in the perfect scenario, these uses might

[3:03:59] work in in a very rural residential area. Some of these uses don't jump out

[3:04:04] as a fit in our commercial zones. >> And there and there's license

[3:04:07] requirements for I know at least for the they got to come up every year for their

[3:04:10] license before the town council every single year.

[3:04:13] » And there was one year where they weren't renewing them. And they said,

[3:04:15] "No, we don't we we don't think you you know, you got people in there beyond

[3:04:19] October 1st. There were already regulations in place. They could only

[3:04:22] operate from like May to October." And people are like, "Yeah, but I got my

[3:04:27] camp here and I want to stay all winter." So, yes, [sighs]

[3:04:33] » for their residential houses to be on golf courses then.

[3:04:36] » That's right. Or you can have a golf course and they're not going to operate

[3:04:40] that in the winter. >> Yeah.

[3:04:41] » So, we'll see. I think what you'll see next

[3:04:45] here won't just be a shuffling of uh uses from one category to another. I

[3:04:50] think you're going to see Weston and Samson start to develop some initial

[3:04:53] ideas around the appropriate code. That's probably where Weston and Samson

[3:04:58] and town staff will be talking about details. I've kind of mentioned one of

[3:05:02] the predominant uh provisions I see being applied is a separation distance

[3:05:06] to residential. I, you know, if we're in a general business zone, you guys may

[3:05:11] say, you know, Doug, we don't need to slap a lot of specific regulations, but

[3:05:15] we do want to protect our neighboring residents. Um, and we might give you

[3:05:20] guys something to reflect on um at the next meeting. The I think the idea is

[3:05:26] it's hard to know how busy our next meeting is going to be yet. Um, we

[3:05:29] probably we will have a major land development at a preliminary plan scale

[3:05:32] at our September. We have two September meetings and so staff will kind of

[3:05:36] debate maybe we put this on the agenda of either because we don't know which

[3:05:40] meeting might go quicker and we feel we have extra time at the end. Um I

[3:05:45] probably don't want to have Jim attend both on the chance that what happens but

[3:05:48] we'll uh Western Samson's scope to come to a few more of these provide feedback

[3:05:53] and uh we'll keep narrowing it down get closer. Uh last questions on any of this

[3:05:58] code work. Jim, did you have anything that you felt

[3:06:01] you needed to hear more on? >> No, I don't think so. I think we got

[3:06:05] some good direction tonight and this is uh this is going to be very helpful

[3:06:08] moving forward. Um, if we're going to try and do the two September meetings,

[3:06:12] we should we should talk about how to things up.

[3:06:15] » I would say we're not going to make you do both. We're probably going to look at

[3:06:17] it and we may pick what's the better version.

[3:06:19] » Okay. >> Um, it's probably going to be our

[3:06:21] regular meeting. I picture the project we're going to see in a special meeting.

[3:06:24] I don't I want to give that all the air time we need to give it. So, we'll we'll

[3:06:30] we'll put some thought into it and at one of the September meetings, we'll

[3:06:34] revisit with Jim here and uh we'll uh then we have October and then the idea

[3:06:40] is after October, we hopefully we've gotten enough input and they're able to

[3:06:44] wrap up their work. Thank you very much everybody.

[3:06:48] » Next uh item on the agenda is to direct >> No, we don't need to there's nothing in

[3:06:53] there we need to go over. >> Yep.

[3:07:03] I'll second.

[3:07:08] » No, we you know what?

[3:07:21] » Yeah, right.

[3:07:30] information

[3:07:34] and I just want to make sure

Planning Commission - 26 Aug 2026

Transcript