putting my mic on. Um, I'd like to call the uh Town Coventry Planning Commission
meeting of Wednesday, August 26th to order at 6:30 p.m.
I will first call the role to get a determination of a quorum. Uh, when I
call your name in no particular order, just acknowledge if you're here. John
Price >> here.
» Uh, Pat Delude >> here.
» Um, Mr. Kenny
» here. John Luca is new member >> here.
» Uh vice chair Studley >> here
» and I'm Rick Clooney and I'm the chairman and I'm here. So we have a
quorum of five. Mr. Dilva and Mr. Burke are both excused tonight.
» Six. >> I'm sorry.
» Yeah, I just said we had a quorum. I didn't say how many.
» Oh, did I say okay? All right. emergency evacuation plan. In
the unlikely event of an emergency, if we have to vacate the room, you can go
out the doors that you came in. If for some reason those doors are blocked, you
can go out this door right here, and there's another exit out to the uh
parking lot through there. At this time, I'd like everyone to stand
for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
» First item on the agenda is uh approval of minutes from the July 20th 26 public
workshop. Everyone should have a copy in that packet.
» Make a recommendation for approval of the meeting minutes.
» I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes from July 20th. Do I have a
second? >> Second.
» I have a second by Mr. Kenny. Do um any discussion or corrections? Hearing none.
All in favor? >> I.
Next item is approval of the minutes from the July 22nd, 2026 planning
commission meeting. Do I have a motion to approve?
» Make a motion to approve. >> Motion to approve by Mr. Kenny. Do I
have a second? >> I'll second.
» I have a second by Mr. Price. Is there any discussion or corrections on these
minutes? Hearing none. All in favor? I. No opposed. Motion carries. Okay. First
item on the agenda here under six is Senator New England master plan major
land development with associated dimensional variance. I believe this is
a one-year extension for the prior approval of the master plan, right? It's
master plan. >> Yes.
» Does it say? [clears throat] Yep. Okay. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. For the record, my name is Kelly Morris Salvatore. It's been a
while since I've seen you. It's hard to imagine that the master plan was
approved almost two years ago. Um just for the new members, uh this is a master
plan that allows for 732 units uh across substantially three lots in center of
New England that my uh client has under control. Um, in terms of the annual
update that I'm supposed to provide during this matter, uh, we do expect to
be before you, uh, for lot what we call lot three, which is one of the ones to
the west, um, near the Highlands condominiums. That should be coming to
you for preliminary plan very shortly. Uh, and, uh, the same partner in
development will be developing lot two as well. Um over on lot four, which is
the one closer to Arnold Road, we were very grateful to the town council last
night. Uh they approved a tax stabilization agreement that we have
been negotiating with them for for months. So we're ve very happy for that.
That gives us the opportunity to move forward with preliminary plan design uh
for that lot. Those are intended at this point to be apartments. So I expect to
be seeing you quite a bit this fall and winter.
looking forward to it. Want to get those units online.
» Okay. Does anyone um on the commission have any questions?
» Okay. Hearing none. Um I'll entertain a motion to approve the
two one-year extensions. Is that what we're getting here? I'm sorry. Are there
right to extend two one-year extensions? Richmond quit
» and will be broken up into phases. I'm sorry. Which will be broken up into
phases, but you're it's just one extension.
» Okay. >> Oneyear master plan extension to October
18th, 2027 in accordance with Rhode Island general law. Do I have a motion?
» Um Mr. Co, I'll make a motion.
Um, I'd like to make a motion of approval for one-year master plan
extension project named Center of New England. Uh, major land development with
association associated dimension variances. Owner Matthew McGrien
um applicant Star Capital LLC. Address
Honor Road Angela Drive SE Stephanie Drive and Center of New England
Boulevard. lot AP 13 lot 14 AP14 lots 1 and 65
portions of AP 14 lot one and 1.2 two app
uh 15 lot 98 zone BP business park the extension date is to October 18th 2027
I'd like to include the staff report and the asense other associated documents
attached to the staff report in my motion
» I have a motion do I have a second >> second
» I have a motion motion by Mr. Kenny, second by member Price. Uh, last call.
Any further discussion? Hearing none.
All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? None. Motion carries.
» See you.
Okay. [sighs and gasps] Next item. Mar, this is a matter carried
over the ADU accessory dwelling unit with associated dimensional variance.
Jason and Amarie Theiel, assess plat 21, lot 312 in R20 zone located at 31 King
Street. Yes, sir. >> Good evening. Jamie Ter, Jason Tero.
Okay. 31 King Street, Coventry. Jason Tero.
Okay.
So, we have the staff director's report. You do you know why you're back before
us this time? >> Yeah, there weren't enough members
[snorts] last time to vote on it >> from the time before.
» We approved this. Yeah, >> but I believe the issue was the lot
coverage was not correctly calculated because you're now putting in a driveway
that >> Yeah, we want to um have a driveway
going to the ADU off the existing driveway.
» Right. And before it was shown as imperous gravel or not shown at all. And
now >> I think it was gravel before. Yes.
» Yeah. >> So that's the change.
» And since that wasn't calculated at the first application, you're back before us
to get approval because you won't be able to get a permit to put in that
portion of the driveway. Correct. With the prior approval, right? Okay.
» I just Does anyone on the U commission have any questions or do you all
understand why he's back here?
Okay, hearing none. Anything to add? We're good.
» No, no concerns by staff. >> Okay. So, if we're all uh set with
questions, I'll entertain a motion to uh approve the I just want to make sure
here. Are we just doing the variance on this one because he already has the ADU
or do we have to make two motions? >> We're doing an additional variance. Um
but it is a hearing so we should do a call for comments.
» Oh, okay. Is there anybody here in the audience that would like to speak for or
against this application or should I have is it hearing?
» Sorry, I'm a little off my game time. >> No, that's fine. You can just indicate
verbally that we're opening the public hearing and this is the opportunity.
» Yeah, we usually vote to open public hearing.
» Yeah, you you could do it as a vote. >> I'll make a motion to open this.
» We got a motion to We got a motion to open for public hearing. We got a second
by Mr. Kenny. Um [clears throat] all in favor? I. Any opposed? None. Is there
anybody here that would like to speak uh for or against the application for a
variance for the property at 31 King Street?
Is there anybody on Zoom? If there's somebody on Zoom, please raise your
hand. Do we have anybody on Zoom tonight? No.
Okay. All right. So, I'll make
» I'll make a motion to close public. >> Okay. We got a
» And we got a second close public hearing. All in favor?
» I. >> Okay. That said, I'll now entertain a
motion to um with regard to this application.
» Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve
uh the dimensional variance to exceed maximum lot coverage uh project is the
ADU unified development review accessory dwelling unit with associated
dimensional variances. Owner applicant Jason and Anne Marie Thorough 31 King
Street Cessors plot 21 lot 312 zone R20 lot size 0.76 acres uh existing use is a
single family dwelling proposed use single family dwelling with an accessory
unit ADU um I'd like to include the staff report
in my motion >> okay I have a motion do I have a second
» I'll Second >> motion by Mr. Kenny, second by Mr.
Price. Do we have any further discussion from the board? Hearing none. All in
favor? >> I. Any opposed? None. Eyes have it.
You're all set, sir. >> Thank you.
» Sorry for the delay. >> If if uh if uh you don't mind, I'd like
one more motion on this. Whenever we do ADUs, we always do a second motion to
allow the project to move forward to building permit. Very straightforward.
» I'm sorry. uh a second motion to allow this ADU to move forward to building
permit. >> Okay, that's
» this is we we call it unified because there's two separate actions.
» Okay. I just didn't know if we had kind of already done. Okay. So, at this time,
I'll entertain a motion to allow this project to move to building permit.
» Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a favorable motion for the throat ADU to
move forward to building permit. And I'd like to include the staff report in my
uh motion. Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a second?
» Second. >> Motion by Mr. Kenny, second by member
Price. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any
opposed? None. Motion carries. >> Thank you. Good night.
» Okay. New applications for discussion. Vote or
other action. 8.1 Torborg ADU. Accessory dwelling unit with associated
dimensional variance cesus plat 43 lot 18 in the R20 zone.
Owners are Vincent and Alicia Torberg at 100 Reservoir Road proposing a 2600
square ft two-bedroom accessory dwelling unit on a 97 acre parcel.
One-dimensional variance is required because the ADU will exceed the maximum
unit maximum unit size requirements. Good evening.
» Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Are we uh with the chairman's indulgence, could I
have one moment to speak with the solicitor before I begin?
» Sure.
Thanks. >> No problem.
» I didn't give it get a chance to give him a heads up earlier.
» That's fine. I understand. >> So, good evening. Thomas Cronin, 1070
Main Street, Car Coventry, Rhode Island for the owner and applicant, the Tobog
family's here with us tonight and uh there contractor Ryan DeFranco from
Trust also with us um if there any questions that they can uh respond to.
So 100 Reservoir Road AP43 lot 18 is 42,383
square feet or.97 acres. It's in the R2 R20 zone, excuse me, R20.
So the existing conditions include a single family home uh with well and
septic. Uh the lot runs uphill from Reservoir Road to the rear property
line. It's a raised ranch style home with two stories in the front and a
single story in the rear. That's how the the grade uh works. There's a pool,
concrete patio, and a fenced in lawn behind the home directly to the rear
adjacent to the existing home. Uh the driveway and utility access are also
directly from Reservoir Road. There's an existing well on the
southwest side of the existing home and the septic is in the front yard of the
existing home adjacent to Reservoir Road. The proposal is to construct a
freestanding ADU behind the existing home and behind that fenced in yard uh
after the pool. The proposed ADU is for the Torborg's daughter, Kendall, who's
with us tonight. Town ordinance requires an ADU that are incidental and
subordinate to the principal home and maintain a continuity of appearance with
the existing home in the neighborhood. 100 Reservoir Road is located in a
neighborhood of well-kept single family homes, most built um with minimal
setback within 100 ft of uh Reservoir Road. Um the proposed ADU is a
singlestory two-bedroom shingle style cottage. Has a peaked roof, a small
covered front porch, a rear deck, and a single attached uh single car attached
garage. I don't know. They're not no plans up
there, but um including these features, the ADU is uh
smaller and lower than the existing home and the neighborhood homes.
So, the applicant has submitted a landscape plan. Uh Dennis Haggy from the
staff has been out to the property to go over it, but the property is currently a
grass lawn in front of and beside the existing structure. This will remain.
There's a fenced in grass lawn behind the deck and pool which will also
remain. Um, beginning at the rear fence on the south
side of the property through the rear boundary, there are mature pine trees
and other deciduous trees including oaks. The area to the south side of the
existing fence will be cleared for the ADU and a front lawn for the ADU. the um
so the area in the center will be cleared but the trees will be maintained
along the boundary including the rear boundary
behind the existing uh there's also going to be uh an OWTS specific to this
ADU so there'll be a clearing uh for that area as well
so um the applicant has plans to fill in any gaps created by construction with
some new evergreen planting I think there are 18 abroite trees currently
along the boundary along uh I guess it would be the southeast boundary
and additional plantings will be made so that the there'll be limited visual
impact uh to the neighbors. Um, in order to reach this ADU, a separate new
driveway just like the one you just discussed with the gentleman before us
would be installed 12 foot wide driveway from Reservoir Road to the ADU along
that same easterly boundary that uh has the uh currently 18 Abraitees. It'll go
between the existing row of abravites and the existing front yard septic and
home. So the variance saw tonight is for the
size of the ADU. So the ordinance there's there's a bunch of
calculations, but in in this case, the ordinance refers to a a maximum size of
1,200 square ft. So that's what we're uh working with. The interior living space
of the proposed ADU is 995 ft. There's an attached garage of 352 square ft and
a covered front porch of 78 square ft for a total of 1,65
square ft on the ground level. The town includes the area of the
unfinished basement, an area of 995 square ft in their calculation, which is
how they reach 2,600 square ft. I have raised a legal objection
that floor area is not defined in state law or the town ordinance and there's no
legal or practical basis to include the unfinished basement area in the
calculation of the floor area. That's that's not really for this board to
decide and I'm only raising the objection to preserve it. I don't have
any plans to further argue that point. But should things not go the way we
hope, it's preserved. Thank you. So the planning department has suggested
uh that an outside bulkhead be integrated into the basement to allow
for exterior access to the basement of this ADU so that the
storage in the basement of the ADU can be common storage for the ADU and the
primary residence. We we like we like that suggestion made
by the staff. We think it's a good suggestion. um part of the basement of
the primary residence which is a raise ranch style home is finished. So there's
actually a very small basement area in that home probably be it's it's a good
idea to have that ADU basement be common storage and so we're adopting that
suggestion. We think it's a good one. So the plans will be will show um exterior
access through a bulkhead to that ADU basement.
Um, so when we look at the basis for the
variance based on size, we looked at we look at the impact to the neighborhood,
the impact to the property and and the town. So, I I said I wasn't going to
argue about the unfinished basement area tonight because when you look at when
you look at that, an an unfinished basement doesn't have any impact on on
the neighbors, the the the utilities, the town and the public health and
safety of the town of Coventry. It's just it doesn't, you know, just doesn't
have any impact at all. Um I I note you know kind of repeatedly in
my application and I apologize for the redundancy though that the actual living
space is 995 ft where 1,200 square f feet are is allowed. The other items are
part of a design, a thoughtful design to have this be an attractive building to
have it integrate into the neighborhood, not just for the primary residence, but
for the other residences. So, we have some design features like
that covered front porch and a small rear deck which are counted into the
square footage which brings it up to that 1,600 or 2600 depending on how you
look at it. Um, but those are items that um help this integrate so that it's not
so noticeable uh in the neighborhood as you drive by. Um, they're they're design
elements that add value for sure, but you know,
we're not are here to argue about economics, but also uh increase the
blend into the neighborhood. Um, so I I guess
that's our basic story. I'm sure the board has some questions. Um, and I'll
uh answer them best I can.
Does anyone on the board have any questions?
I don't hear any yet. I just I'm I'm still trying to grasp some of this
calculation stuff myself. >> Sure. So, and I know you didn't do the
whole it's it's the there were two What is the square footage that was used um
to do the calculation for the existing dwelling? Do they count the lower level
because it's finished in that calculation? I
» I believe they counted the entire tax assessor's floor plan,
» right? But in a raise ranch, they usually don't they wouldn't count the
basement. No real estate broker would count the basement. That's why I'm
trying to compare apples to apples. Yeah, because you raised a very good
point with counting the basement. So, I'm just wanted to know for this
calculation when the town >> says, well, it's this percentage or
1,200, what percentage what what do we use
» in this case? The the code says that the maximum size of an ADU shall either be
1,200 square feet or 60% of the size of the primary dwelling, whichever is less.
In this case, the lesser number is 1,200 ft². So imagine that the the primary
dwelling is large. Um but the 60% of that number becomes irrelevant because
we're working with >> I just wanted to know if it wasn't
irrelevant whether you would count the lower level
of a raised ranch in the square foot calculation or not.
» Yeah, we do. Um >> so we do apples to apples. We we we do
attempt to do apples to apples which is um and as you've seen we've done ADUs
where we do count the garage as part of the square footage. Uh we're we're
drawing upon state law. Um our code zoning code speaks like uses the same
language as state law. It doesn't use the term living area. We're not m we're
not looking at the maximum living area of the ADU. We're looking at the maximum
floor area. So, we've taken the position that that includes decks, it includes
porches, it includes garages, it includes basements. I think what um the
uh uh Mr. Cronin has just offered in terms of an exterior entrance to the
basement, I think that for us was a key consideration if they wanted to use the
basement and consider the basement as like general common property storage.
That's something that I can appreciate. Um, it raises a a little bit of an odd
variance uh notice question. Um, it almost might be better for Mr. Cronin. I
think that's a valuable point. I think we could still look at that. Here's the
issue. This is notified for a um uh the idea is the ADU itself is part of a
building. Right now, we're counting the entirety of the building, all the floors
as ADU square footage. We've noticed that the variance we're seeking is for
an ADU that's bigger. If we start to look at the building as two separate
components, there's an ADU and then there's a separate square footage that's
related to another thing. Someone might argue that we should have two variances.
One is to have an ADU that's bigger than the square footage. And let's just say
that number is 1,600 for sake of argument. You still need a variance just
for the top floor. We have code that says that no accessory structure
regardless of its use should be bigger than 12,200 square f feet. So now we're
triggering this multiple things happening in the building at once. One
might argue we should have a variance for the ADU size and a variance that the
entirety of the structure is also bigger than 12,200 ft. We've only noticed the
ADU for tonight's hearing. >> It it could be that it's half dozen one.
» Yeah. you know, but I would suggest maybe if they want the square footage,
we stick with it being under the umbrella of the ADU, but I think that
the counselor raises good points about trying to um make sure the board
considers that that square footage may not be as pressing as, for example, a
second floor of an ADU would look. That makes sense.
The basement's 995, but I guess if it's not part of the issue is going to get
clouded in my opinion, and I don't think Mr. Cronin wants to use this as his test
case. >> I do not. And uh that is why I indicated
that although I was preserving the argument, I'm not going to press it
tonight. I uh I would like you to consider the
ADU in its entirety. >> 2600 square feet for the whole thing.
The only Yeah. Go ahead. Does anyone else on the on the board have any
questions? Okay. And we have this down for public
hearing. >> This is a public hearing. Yeah.
» Okay. Um I don't want to make any comments that are going to maybe sway uh
comments in from from the audience, but I do have a comment on these ADUs. Um is
there anybody I'm sorry. >> Like to make a motion to open.
» We got we got a we got a motion to open public hearing by Mr. Price. Do I have a
second? We have a second. All in favor? I. Is there anyone in the audience that
is here to speak for or against this application for a um variance for the
ADU? I don't see anyone in the audience. Do
we have anyone on Zoom? And we still have nobody in attendance on Zoom.
» No, there's two. >> Two. Okay. Anyone want to speak on this
application? Please raise your hand.
Let the record show there's no hands up on Zoom. Um, with that said, uh, I'll
entertain a motion to close public hearing.
» Make a motion to close public. >> I have a motion by Mr. Price to close
public hearing. Second by Mr. Kenny. All in favor? I.
My the the layout of this is, in my opinion, is good. It's It's great. I
just wonder as we start to approve these, and I was thinking this the other
day, are we going to start getting variances five or 10 years from now?
Hey, can I just subdivide the lot now? I got two houses on one lot and I got, you
know, and I can't the dimensions aren't going to work. I don't have enough
frontage of about, you know, a few thousand square feet or 20,000 square
feet for both houses because we've seen a couple of them now. And basically, it
it's coming down to they're allowed, state law allows it. The idea is to
increase housing stock, but um I'm just wondering how it's going to go five or
ten years from now when someone goes to sell their property and it has two
houses on one lot and you know either the price is going to be a factor or
something's not going to work and they're going to start coming and asking
for variance. I I just caution you. It's funny that you should raise that because
a Rhode Island Supreme Court case came down this week in Newport that a 1994
restriction against further subdivision was good that that they could, you know,
that the town could rely on that and say no, you cannot further subdivide this
lot. Even though, of course, there are new statutes, there's new ordinances,
they said, you know, if they wanted to appeal it, that was their chance. So,
uh, it's an interesting point. But uh just this week the Supreme Court said
the town can rely >> on that decision
now presently 20 years later, 22 years later.
» Yeah. I'm going to and we do that sometimes with some of the lots and the
other things that we we've done where folks have come in and said, "Hey, can I
cut this or cut that? I need a variance." And then no further
subdivision. Uh I'm not so inclined to um
consider that tonight. It was just a comment because I can just, you know,
I'm just looking forward >> um Okay. Does anyone else on the board
have any other questions or comments on this?
» Yeah, I'm just I'm just looking at the the calculations. So, the ADU as it sits
right now with all the plans and designs is 2600 square feet. Correct.
» Correct. And if they the conditions of approval, if we eliminate
the proposed deck and the covered porch, is that what's going to bring it down to
2,91.6 square ft?
» Um the deck and the porch to combined are it looks like somewhere around 258.
» It is. And so, yeah, it'd be Yeah, it'd be um
» that brings it down to 2,300 >> 2,300 or so.
» Yeah. So, >> it'd be it'd still be well over. I'm
going to give you my frank take on this. My Frank Tank take on this is that um I
think the most important issue is what you just got to Mr. Clooney, which is if
we create ADUs that start to look like two houses on one lot. I don't think
that's the case here because I think the location of the ADU is prominently right
in the rear of the lot and the lot if it was to be subdivided would require a
variance for the frontage. So when we have if we have wide uh shallow lots and
they do a big ADU then I think we start to wonder does this start to look like a
uh two two units on one lot. I don't think that's the case here. However,
what you're seeing is staff did think the number 2600 seemed quite high. It's
over twice what the state limit is. It's over twice what our zoning code limit
is. Staff kind of in their analysis gave you some optionality for how you might
reduce it. I frankly don't think the basement makes it look any bigger. You
can't see it. So I'm not sure if we we're giving you optionality if you wish
to reduce the size. In this case, I don't think the size renders this
particular ADU to appear that it's not sub sub, you know, um, uh, ancillary um,
and subordinate. I think it looks ancillary and subordinate. That's the
most critical component. Whether the board feels inclined to reduce the size,
I think we're giving you some options on what ways to do that.
» Well, the reason I asked that question is because the calculations don't work
out because it said staff added the following considerations. is the ADU
could be reduced to a maximum size of 2,91.6
ft. But if I take 258 from 2600, that's 2342
ft. So how do you get down to 291? That that's my
» um the 291 is actually provided as reference to what is 60% of the size of
the primary dwelling. uh that's only there for context. The idea is that if
the applicant warranted extra credit for the fact that the primary dwelling is
very big, then if you feel like he's got a big primary dwelling, he should have a
little bit of a bigger ADU. That number is just there to reference as that's
what 60%. It the code is telling us you have to go with the lesser number which
is 1,200. So code compliance is 1,200. That 291 is just there to let you know
that's what would be 60% of the size of the primary unit.
» It's just not >> which would be what was the number that
would be 60% please. >> 60% of the primary dwelling would be
2,91 square ft. So that's really that was
staff just offering some context on >> if if it's a big primary house and you
feel inclined to give this ADU a little extra credit then that's what 60% of the
primary. Now you know why I wanted to know whether they calculate with
included the basement in the is is the is the house that they live in now or
the existing house three three about 3,000 square ft and then does it include
the basement or not include the basement cuz again I was trying to I'm trying to
justify is this house going to look bigger than the one in the front? It
doesn't sound like it will. >> It it won't look bigger. um the the
primary dwelling the the number we're referencing is pretty close to 3500
square feet. >> And I'm [clears throat] inclined to
agree with the applicant's attorney that I think
aesthetics goes a long way to just throwing up a boxy structure to meet the
the requirements when you're fitting it into a neighborhood. And and similar to
the last application, as some of my colleagues mentioned, we didn't have any
objections right now from the abutters or the people that were noticed to come
to this hearing about the size of the dwelling.
» Agreed. Yeah, I think that there's um it's a large ADU. Um when you're looking
at the staff analysis, I think we were chopping this up a little bit to give
some optionality if you wanted to reduce size.
» I appreciate it. But I think that the board is within their right to to look
at the whole picture, which is um the the lack of any noted opposition and the
fact that from the street, this certainly won't come close to looking
like a two family or uh or two separate units. That's my personal perspective.
» Do I have any more comments from anyone on the board? Anyone want to kind of
weigh in on this before we entertain a motion? just
my estimate um
this this paragraph says the 2091 described in the staff findings for the
above through the removal of the porch and deck. So that's that's incorrect. It
would be 2342 if we remove the porch and deck. Um, if it's 2091, now we're eating
into the structure, which means they have to redesign the house
» or the garage >> or the garage.
I personally don't have a problem with removing number one and number two
conditions of approval, which means they don't have to take off
the deck and they don't have to take off the porch because
that really has no effect. I mean, I don't know if that's putting
us in a a situation down the road that it's going to be a problem for us with
ADUs. Um, as we said, the building at 2600
square ft is including the basement, which really isn't livable space unless
you finish it. But by putting that outside bulkhead in, now you're making
it common storage space. So if you if you technically take off the the 995
square feet, you're down to 165 square ft, which is only 400 above
versus double and more.
I don't know where that puts us by arbitrarily picking how we look at it.
And do you have any weigh in on what I'm talking about, Mr. Solicitor?
I would like to, but I I did not have I didn't know this issue. I was going to
be down until Mr. Cody just mentioned it to me in my ear a moment ago. Um, so I
do think at some point the count the board needs to take a position. Um, are
they are they not going to include it the basement? Forget the out the
additional structures. Right now, I'm not hearing arguments against the um the
» Yeah. >> dog house or the um
porch area, right? Are there arguments against that as well?
» No, I I honestly leave I think the best way to think about it is this. It does
not in my mind make sense to have this app. We thought the basement should be
included because the only way to reach the basement is through the ADU. It's
almost as a precedent that I find that we should make sure that ADUs include
all the components that are part of it. Um, that being said, I think you should
stick with the concept that the relief that's being sought is all under the
umbrella of an ADU that's too big to break it up and say that part shouldn't
include it. We we almost open up a can of worms as to whe whether we notice
this correctly. Now, it's up to the board. I'm not bothered by the basement.
It's a lot of square footage, but to me it doesn't impact the true issue here,
which is does this unit look subordinary and incidental to the primary house. The
basement can't be seen. I do think um I asked the applicant if they had any
intent to finish the basement, which I think is a reasonable question to be
asking when we get these. They said that wasn't their intent. If the board feels
that you want to add a condition of approval to that extent, you could.
That's up to the board. I think if you're not touching the basement, the
idea is are you bothered by the front porch or the rear deck to the degree
where you think those amenities make the house look different than a subordinate
incidental house? If they don't in your mind, then I think you're well within
your right to approve it at 2600. Um, you know, when we did our analysis, it's
it sometimes we're thinking that the board may want some options to reduce
the size if the board is of the mind that they think this is appropriate as
it's proposed. I don't have outstanding concerns with approval as proposed.
» If they did decide to finish the basement in the future, hypothetically,
they would have to come back before the board
» whether I would say so. I would assume
» ADU statute. Yes. >> Yeah. I would actually, you know what's
very funny? I take the position that um the ADU statute and state law doesn't
use the word living area. It just uses the word floor area. We're taking the
position that the basement is floor area. So to be honest, them converting
the basement from an unfinished to a finished, it doesn't impact the fact
that they were given an ADU this big. To be honest, I think that unless this
board wishes to add a condition of approval, they could finish the basement
without another variance. It's a building permit away. To be honest,
that's up to the board if you wish to add a condition of approval on something
with relating to the use of the basement. That's I'll leave that for
your discretion. Um, I would say that we're considering code that gives them
that square footage. Whether it's finished or not, we're giving them the
square footage.
Anybody else? All right. So, my thoughts on this now
are 2600's what's before us. To render an approval for anything less than that
is going to put the applicant in jeopardy to some degree. Um, it's a full
basement. It's not like a raised ranch where it's half light. So, um maybe
they'll finish it, maybe they won't. But, um I'm inclined to myself just
consider the application on the face of the way it is. And as Mr. Kenny pointed
out, I don't know, um why one would get stricken, but number
two and the conditions of approval would. Um
» and Okay. And you're okay with all the other conditions of approval? Did you
read what those were? Yep. Okay. >> Okay. So, in unless we have uh more
discussion or future, um I'm I'm ready to entertain a motion.
» Basement. >> That's up to the members, but I I as I
said, I I don't have a concern. It's a full basement. He's going to have
utilities down there. >> Yeah. The way I look at it, it it's
below ground. So whether they finish it or not, that's uh as far as I'm
concerned, they just have to go get >> they're going to have utilities down
there, boil it down there, maybe a washer dryer, I mean,
» even if they finish part of it to make it look nice and put exercise stuff down
there, what what do we care? >> I think it's going to fit in with the
neighborhood. That's the most important thing. So that's just my opinion. Okay.
So, with that being said, does um >> chairman, I'd like to make a favorable
motion to T togg
uh owner applicant Vincent and Alisa Torborg, 100 Reservoir Road, Assessor's
Plat 43, a lot 18, zone R20, lot size.97 acres. This is an existing family
dwelling, which they are going to be adding an accessory dwelling unit. The
applicants proposed to construct a 2600 square feet two-bedroom accessory
dwelling on their uh on their lot. The applicants seek a dimensional variance
as the ADU exceeds the maximum unit size requirements. I'd like to include the
staff report with general approval recommendation number two stricken from
the report. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second?
» Second. >> Second from Mr. Doo. Do we have any
further discussion on this application? [clears throat]
Hearing none. Uh, all in favor? I. Any opposed? None opposed? I sat.
» Thank you. >> Uh, council, I'd like to add a second
permit, a second approval for to allow uh the application to move forward to
the building permit process. >> Second.
» I have a motion by Mr. Price and me uh second by member Studley to allow this
application to move to the building permit stage.
Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any
opposed? None. Now you're >> Thank you.
Word and bill. >> Good luck.
» Good luck. >> Okay. What's next? [sighs]
» Yolks. The Oaks Homeowners Association.
» Yes, sir. How are you? >> Good. Name and address for the record.
» Tyler Bosworth to Jack Sway. Um, I am the president of the Oaks Homeowners
Association.
» Okay. And you are coming before us. I've read the application. It sounds like
you're just trying to do a little housekeeping, clean things up.
» Yep. >> Yeah. So to speak. Um,
» I can give a quick >> Yeah, that would be good just just just
for the board. I mean, we have it in front of us, but sometimes it's nice to
get >> um the the the
uh declaration that was drafted that um oversees the rules and regulations
within the Oaks Homes Association was um something that was uh put forth and
filed with the town by Robert Duboce building code. Um and
um he had a lot of stuff in there um for when he was overseeing the board. Um uh
but the way that it's written when enough of the lots were sold and he
handed the the you know the jurisdiction of the board over to the community
members. Um it basically says that the the board really has no uh
responsibilities other than maintaining the common grounds. Um if you read like
the beginning parts of it, it's like anything with bylaws and rules and
regulations. It's it's homeowner to homeowner or town to homeowner
compliance. The board really has no say uh in in any of the stuff going on. So,
there were a couple of of things that um that were in the document that we were
just hoping to amend it just to make things a little bit easier just to
maintain the relationship, maintain the board stuff. And then also um what Bob
was approving and doing when he had ownership of the board versus today
there's there's a little bit of conflicting stuff there. So, it's really
two two addendums. Um he's got a section in there about fencing and it describes
particular fencing material that can be used. Um it does not include vinyl.
Um but when he was overseeing the board, he gave approval for people to install
vinyl fencing. Um and we're there's a lot of houses that have vinyl fencing in
the neighborhood. It looks nice. It looks fine. Um, and we would just like
to add vinyl to the list of approved fencing material uh within our
development just to avoid any legal issues of houses that already have it or
want to install it or or whatever the case may be. So, that's one uh requested
addendum. Um, the first and I skipped I went to the second one first. The first
one on on the list um is in regards to uh out building out structures. Um
um it's written that while he is uh in charge of the board any uh outuilding
structure approval has to go through him as well as meet you know to town
compliance ordinance and all that stuff but he has the the right to say yay or
nay. Um and then after he leaves it gets handed over to the board. Um, but what
really isn't documented in there is what constitutes the approval. Um, it's
really subjective and the way our board works, it's just people that live in the
neighborhood and could be a different group of people next year uh that are on
the board. And um, so we just like to remove the board being responsible for
the process of approving any of the L structures and just leave it with the
town. Um, so that way we don't run into conflicts with,
» you know, objective opinions on what is a good
» or the board has to have a meeting. They don't meet for three months. Now the guy
can't get I you you understand he put that in there because he's still trying
to sell the houses and all of a sudden the guy next door just starts throwing
up the building. >> Problem with with the original verbage,
just the last part about when you know now the board is responsible for
approving or denying feds and we just don't think that that's something that
we should be involved with. So, so does um anyone on the board have any
questions for the applicant >> hearing? None. Um public hearing on this
one, too. >> No. Um this is a an odd request we don't
typically get. >> Okay. Yeah. Yep.
» Yeah. Okay. We it and it should be noted that um it does call out what the
official process is at the beginning of our uh documentation. And it says that
we have to get um uh signatures by a majority of the members uh to approve uh
the addendums as well as planning commission approval. Um and we have a
very minimal budget and >> Oh, the changes these changes you're
talking about? >> Yes. Yeah.
» Yeah. So um so tonight's request is to just formally
get the approval from the planning commission to Yeah. we agree with the
concept of these changes. We I will still have to go back and collect the
necessary signatures um and then present them and file them,
I'm assuming, with the town to actually officially make these changes. So again,
tonight was just to get your guys, you know, blessing. Yeah, it's it's fine.
You guys can move forward with Are you okay? So if we vote on this tonight, I
it'll go administratively after that. You'll work with them to get Correct.
They don't have to come back. Frankly, we don't have many HOAs that say that to
change their own HOA bylaws, they have to come back to the planning. So, I
think this was an idea a previous planning staff or commission had
inserted. Frankly, we wouldn't recommend having bylaws and HOA docs require
coming back to the town. This one happens to have it and we have no
issues. >> This is Oaks, right? This is the
» not to be confused with the Oaks, too. >> Yeah. No, this one we have no concerns
with the things they're changing. He just happens to need a vote. Um, and so
it's a very simple >> Which oaks is this? Off Tyoke or Ho
Furnace? Which >> it's Twood?
» Twood Drive West. Yeah. >> Okay.
» So, there was >> it was another
subdivision cut through Road off Luba. >> Yeah.
» That I guess the original developer handed off and so he just named it Oaks,
too. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Um,
any further discussion from the Okay, I'll entertain a motion then.
» I'll make a motion to approve the proposed changes to the declaration of
restrictive and protective covenants uh for the oaks as presented.
» I have I have a motion. I have a second. A motion by member Stley, second by
uh member Kenny. Do we have any further discussion? I didn't hear any. Okay. All
in favor? I. Any opposed? None. All set. All right. Good luck, gentlemen.
» Wonder how many signatures he has to get.
» Well, he knows he got some some good ones because he was buying a fence.
» Okay, so we are now up to item 9.2, which is the zoning code updates. And I
think we've got some pressing matters. I realize it's still fairly early, but
just out of an abundance of caution, I'd like to switch up the agenda. Could I
have a motion to please uh move item 9.2 to uh to uh
to after item 10 and we will take up the uh
10 point you want 10.2 first or 10.1 or it
doesn't >> let's do 10.1 I imagine it may be pretty
quick and we do have an applicant here for that
» oh okay I'm sorry okay so we'll I I'll entertain a motion to move item 9.2 to
um to after after items 10. >> I'll I'll make a motion to move 9.2 to
after item 10 on the agenda. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second?
» Second. >> I have a second by member Stley. Motion
was by Mr. Kenny. All in favor? I. And now uh we'll take item 10.1 ordinance
2026-21 amending chapter 255 of the zoning
article 5 zoning districts and zoning district map reszoning 1119
after general business from must have been BP um Michael beard
» how are you board on behalf of Mr. Beard attorney Al
Medisi Medici on behalf of Mr. Beard.
Okay, I have to confess this is my first time
at a first read, so I'm not sure how how you proceed.
» First, this is my first time at a at a first read, so I'm not sure how you
proceed on on these matters. >> Mr. Mediti, if you just want to give a
twominute overview of uh the proposal that you're looking to do. Sure. So, uh,
Mr. Be is proposing to, um, he need have the zone changed, uh, from plan
development to general business. Uh, his intention is currently a building, an
old kiosk from Citizens Bank. It's being, uh, torn down. He already has his
a demo permit to take the building down. Uh, it intentions to put up a 50 by 100,
uh, garage style storage building for contractors could store their equipment
there.
Yep. Okay. And that's allowed by Wright and the general business owners.
» That use is allowed by Wright. Um would be worth noting as the board may be
thoughtful on um the uh aesthetics is that this property would still be
subject to the special planning overlay which uh would bring with it uh certain
um aesthetic degrees. It talks about the the building materials. It talks about
pitched roofs. uh this property would still be subject to that overlay. Um I
know it's it's likely it's a prominent property and it will become more
prominent because of the development in and around it. Uh we do have the
capacity to ensure that there's um uh a streetscape uh appeal to the best degree
we can be aware of those conditions. >> Yeah.
» And what's the um how big is the lot?
» It's fairly small.
1.3 acres. >> And And what would be allowed in the
business park zone? >> When you say the business park, you mean
the BP zone? Are you talking Are you referring
» PD? I'm sorry. >> PD. So a PD zone is like a make your own
zone essentially. Um the that means or a PUD. You might have heard that term
before. >> I'm just trying to figure out what is he
going to gain by switching this to general business. What can he do here
now that he can't do? Because originally that was all zoned
» for for planned development, at least that's what it says, change from planned
development when they had the proposal for the mixeduse development in there.
And now we've got 400 apartments going in there using the same entrance. And
basically, Mr. Beard has an easement to get to his property through what they're
building. And I'm just thinking contractor trucks and equipment that
might be using um what could be construed as an industrial use really. I
mean I I don't know what he's going to be storing in there. Um so um couple
considerations. The PD zone as it's zoned right now would only really allow
him to uh achieve the same use within the same building footprint. And when
this was zone PD they tied the zone to the approved site plan at the time. So
essentially this was a zone that allowed them to build exactly what they built.
Um so the options are to either reszone it to PD to something else which we're
kind of kicking the can to whatever he wants to do. We're going to do it as a
zone exercise and uh that is one option but that's not the option they're
seeking. What they're seeking is to turn it back to a GB which is a generic zone.
that zoning designation matches what exists on Tyogg on both sides of the
street for the duration. So, we see it as a fit because imagine that what
they're seeking to do is the same thing that Burger King or any other lot that's
in the vicinity could also seek to do. They're going to be given the same range
of allowed uses across the GB zone. Um I think it is worth noting because we're
aware that there's um new development in and around the area that we would have
the tools. This would come back to the board as uh either a major or minor land
development. Likely a minor. Uh actually, I take that back. It may not
come back to the board if it's a minor land development, but the town will
still review the details of the minor land development. We'll be able to
ensure that there's um good aesthetic outcomes if because we do have the
ability to suggest what building materials can be used, the pitches of
roofs, and there's a code on fenestration on windows. So I think um
out of the range of uses that are allowed, we can at least ensure there's
some good form, some good appearance of the structures,
» right? And is the has the town done anything with this ordinance? Do they
read it once and now we're making the recommendation? They did.
» This got a this got a first reading last night at the town council. Um, so it is
in front of you for a recommendation and then back in front of the town council.
I believe on September 22nd is when they may shoot for a hearing, but it may not
make it that quickly. Do you happen to note in September 22nd? I believe it's
back in front of the council for >> hearing. But did what do they do about
notice? Cuz the applicant for the abuing parcel probably isn't the owner of
record. >> Um, for notice, you don't mail a notice
for a zone change like this. You actually the notice occurs through the
paper. So, there's a newspaper ad that will be run three consecutive weeks to
notify um actually I'll ask the solicitor on a zone change because we
haven't issued notice yet. Um this recommendation is occurring as a
required step but a non-notice step aside from the fact that our agenda
tells us what we're doing. It's the hearing and for a zone change where
there um it's not a zoning amendment. It's a it's a property zone change. the
solicitor might advise there is mailed notice to a butters
» if um the distinction is if it's a text change it's just advertised in the
newspaper three successive weeks 14 days you know on a series of uh notices but
if it's a map change and this would be a map change it has to be both that
advertised in the newspaper three successive weeks I believe 21 days and
also noticed uh surrounding the butt is I think within 200 ft. You may have a
greater u notice section towns sometimes have greater thing but the answer is
nobody really the abuters are not aware of this at this moment right they're
going to be aware of this at the public hearing when it goes to the council
» okay that's I just want to make sure that our applicant who's we're going to
be back in front of us on September 14th with
a extreme number of affordable or LMI units to help the town meet their guide.
400 apartments is not going to say we didn't expect that to go right in front.
» The um the applicant is aware of this zone change. Both the applicants have
spoken. So they're both aware of you answered my question.
» Yeah. And uh and this is considered a map change. They're they're changing the
zoning map. So >> So as far as you know, there wasn't any
kicking and screaming and any objections to this.
» Um I can I can tell you that both the applicants are aware of each other's
proposals. >> Okay. Thank you. We'll leave it at that.
» I can attest to that fact as well that I'm sorry.
» I can attest to the fact there have been communication.
Okay. Uh, anyone else have any questions?
Hearing none.
» We're making a recommendation to the town.
» Just make a recommendation. We're making a recommendation of the town council
that they may proce or or to re to I'm sorry to to pass an ordinance that
reszones um that lot highlighted in yellow which
is where the citizens bank kiosk is in front of the old commercial plaza
um to business general business as opposed to planned development which
they have a a a right to do based on the designation of a plan development.
» The I mean when you ask the question, do they have a right to do it? They have a
right to seek a zone change. A zone change is a legislative action. The
council's the decision maker. There's nothing guaranteed, but um it does have
some logical sense in that. I don't think that the applicant envisions
trying to build a bank in the exact same footprint. This is really current zoning
locks this in place for a very limited range of options. the general business
is really what surrounds the area. So, we feel pretty comfortable that what
they could build here could be built on any other lot in the vicinity um along
Tyoke. So, we feel comfortable it's straightforward and we don't need the
PD's tool to be used for this lot moving forward.
» From what what I'm reading, it was originally zoned general business.
» Yeah. >> Prior and then was changed to plan
development. >> That's correct. Oh, they were going to
retail. >> This was at one point this property was
part of a larger proposal. They were had a really complex development scheme
largely in the back to comp to do the complex development scheme. They needed
a make your own zone. Then this property got carved off and now this property
kind of lives as a remnant of an old vision. Um and really I think this
property should have more optionality for the choices moving forward.
» Yes. >> Just wanted to mention Mr. Price asked
it. You actually have two votes. One, I believe, is to um
vote whether or not you think this proposed change is consistent with your
comprehensive plan. That's your statutory obligation that has to go to
the council. And then in addition to that, you could make a positive or
negative. And the normally when people when the boards find it consistent with
the comprehensive plan, they also make a positive recommendation,
» right? So they're they usually but technically they're two different
they're two different votes >> and it has and the change from the
change to general business is um not included with what the applicant
plans on putting on the site right now. He has to come back for that application
or go to >> well unless he's got it by right
» unless Yeah. So >> he's got something by right. He might
not be coming to you. >> Come back to to planning whether it's
» No, I disagree. I think he would go back might have to just go to building or
» it would be my my assumption of what's going to happen is the the what he's
seeking to build does not need to be incorporated into the zone change
because he's just doing a straight zone change to a straight zone. Um the
application they're conceiving I assume will end up being a minor land
development which is commercial square footage underneath 7500 square ft. minor
land developments go to TRC and they get administrative decisions, but all of TRC
reviews it. They all comment on it and uh this applicant uh will have to uh
attest to the the general business code as well as that overlay code that has
the aesthetic oversight. >> So So you you will have involvement.
» Yeah. Yeah. This application it will result in a in a formal application. um
TRC will review it and uh assuming it stays as a minor um planning the
administrative officer will decide. >> Okay.
» And I and then I would note with all zone changes because we've done a
handful of them. There are required findings. Um the you'll see in the staff
memo we call out towards the end the the required findings, there's two of them.
One is that it it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The other required
finding is that it's consistent with the purposes of zoning. Um, we've made the
required findings and uh, it's up to the solicitor might determine that the
findings should get their own vote, but we've typically done it as a singular
vote to recommend in a certain direction to the council and acknowledge for the
record that you concur with the findings in the memo. If that makes sense to you.
» Yep.
» Oh, I didn't think I had that. That's why I'm asking all these questions. Can
I just see that? Either that or I misplaced it.
I'm sorry. Just give me a second. I I didn't see this um in the packet.
» Right. Right. Right. Right. Yeah, I got that part. Yeah.
might be helpful. I think the um the planner had indicated that the
properties also running on either side of that
Tyogre Avenue are all GB. >> Yeah, if you look at the map on the
screen, everything in gray is GB. >> No, no, I'm I'm fine. I Yep. I'm
familiar with that. I'm just trying to gauge as I said the the this is where
again there was a plaza there there were multiple stores citizens comes wants to
put a kiosk there they didn't even ask for access off tyio gap they got an
easement they were they complemented each other you had a bank in the
shopping center I mean that's just the way they did thing what I was trying to
determine from this map is if in fact there's there looks like there's legal
access to tyoke but the physical access is constrained by some type of
» that's correct there's wetland constraint there.
» That's where you see the wetland curls right in front of the property and then
it goes into a covert. It the there's a physical constraint um where they can't
have direct access on Tyogg and the property does have there's cross
easements so the property does have easement access through the larger lot.
Um both this has been discussed both of the two applicants are aware of it. Um
they're both aware of these pending actions. They're both aware of the dates
that they can attend each other's meetings if they wish to add comment and
they're both aware to comment to me. I haven't received comment negatively from
either of these two parties on the other application.
» Okay.
» And if whatever whatever act whatever construction they wanted to do their use
now they would have to demonstrate to the planning department that they have
permanent physical access. So, the point's well taken.
» Oh. Oh, they definitely do. I'm just trying to figure out again what what is
going on this property. I mean, M. Mr. Beards put up a number of these um lodge
buildings for storage. And again, we don't know exactly what's going there or
the dimensions, but that type of facility um he he was taking boats in
for the winter because it was cheaper than shrink wrapping or you got
landscapers coming in with trucks. and I was just trying to figure out how that
was going to be compatible. If he doesn't have road front andage, he's not
necessarily looking for retail. Um, there's probably some things that would
go there that would complement the apartments, but that's not our business.
That's that's up to the applicant. But I just want to make sure we're not doing
anything that facilitates something that may have a negative con consequence. But
the question was answered. The a butter will have an opportunity to go to the
town council hearing if they have any objections or want some further
restriction on it. So, we'll we'll let it play out.
That said, any anyone else have questions? If not,
I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion that the planning
board forward a positive recommendation to the town council
on uh the matter of the proposed zone change for AP28, lot 3.1. Um, and in
that I also make a motion that the planning board adopt the findings of
fact as laid out in the staff report. Those being that the zone changes
consistent with the comprehensive plan and that um it is consistent with the
purposes of zoning as presented in 452430.
» That cover it. Okay. Uh, I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a mo
motion by Vice Chair Studley and me uh second by member Price. Any further
discussion? I know I've asked sound like a broken record, but hearing none. All
in favor? I. Any opposed? >> None.
» All set. Thank you for your time. >> I know I took a while. Okay. So, now we
go to 10.2. amendment to housing and land use
chapters of the locally adopted 2026 comprehensive plan.
And this is a public hearing. Um, do you want me to open the public hearing and
then you give opening remarks or do you want to give us some opening remarks and
then I'll go to public hearing? It doesn't matter.
» Kyle, is there anyone on Zoom? >> There are four people.
Um, I'll give brief remarks. Okay. Thank you.
» And uh I'll just uh suggest that what's in front of you are amendments to the
comprehensive plan that we recently adopted. Uh you may recall this board uh
made a favorable recommendation on the comprehensive plan. Um was that late
April? And uh that comprehensive plan without
change was adopted by the town council. Uh we've always known along the way that
we felt that the housing element of the the housing chapter of the comprehensive
plan uh could have been greatly improved and we uh achieved funding to do that.
It just happened that we both wanted to get our comprehensive plan over the
finish line for a variety of reasons not related to the housing chapter, but we
also wanted to take advantage of uh the resources we had to write the housing
chapter in a more robust way. Uh we've been able to do that. Um the full
comprehensive plan is still in a statewide planning comment period.
Essentially statewide planning approves these uh the comment uh I wouldn't say
it's the comment period. It's it's their fivemonth review period. Um we they're
very aware that we're rewriting the plan while they're currently reviewing it and
that they understand that we will have a fully rewritten housing chapter. Um, as
it relates to the housing chapter, we did have some other changes to the land
use chapter that included um, uh, a new buildout analysis. Um, and that included
some other uh, associated changes to uh, the land use chapter related to um,
future growth um, particularly in the future land use map categories uh, and
discussion of future land use map categories. So, um, long story short, it
is a full rewrite of the housing chapter. This was subject to public
input. Um, this also, um, referred to, uh, stakeholder input we had with
housing experts. This, uh, relied upon public input we gathered through a
communitywide survey. Um, we feel it's a it's a strong document. it does do what
we wanted, which was taking a housing chapter that we felt was um fairly
substandard and may not have ultimately achieved statewide planning approval
because at that point we had pretty uh dated uh data and information we were
relying on. This is updated data. It's uh policy framework that relies on our
current decision makers. Um we feel it's a strong document. Uh that's enough from
me. We can either see if there's public comments and go from there or if the
board has initial questions I can help answer.
» Make a recommendation to open it to public comment.
» I have a recommendation to from Mr. Price to open public hearing. I'm sorry.
Motion uh and a second by Mr. Kenny. All in favor?
» I. Any opposed? None. Okay. Public hearing is open. Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak on the uh draft of the
proposed draft housing chapter for the town's comprehensive plan?
And I don't see anyone anyone on Zoom wants to comment on the housing chapter
that's proposed. It's a draft to the comprehensive plan. Please raise your
hand.
No. No, no comments. How about the board?
No, no. All the work done up front must be uh
sufficient for it to be this smooth at the end.
» Yeah, the chairman. I'd like to make a motion to close public hearing.
» Okay. I have a motion to close public hearing by member Kenny. Do I have a
second? I have a second by member Dude. All in favor? I
» Okay. Any anything else to add before we uh go to You just want to
» No, I'm uh I've given you everything I need. Um I would just note you've got a
a a planning department memorandum. There are required findings and
essentially you can make your motion based on that. Um we are ultimately uh
just forwarding a recommendation to the town council. The council will hold its
own hearing. We anticipate for any of those listening in or uh reviewing this
meeting after the fact, we anticipate that council hearing will be September
22nd and that would be subject to an additional round of public notice. So,
you can always keep your eyes out for future council agendas and the ads, but
we anticipate September 22nd hearing by the council as the final step on these
amendments. >> Okay. And just to clarify, the state is
currently reviewing our comprehensive plan and this will just be supplemented
to that is if it passes and they will just continue with their review and
hopefully um we'll hear from them in some time.
» That's correct. >> In the future and then the lift's over.
Okay. Um Okay. So, you're looking for a motion to make a favorable
recommendation to the town council to include this uh housing chapter in the
comprehensive plan and to incorporate your um staff report
» for and for the record uh the housing chapter and edits to the land use
chapter as well. >> Okay.
I'll entertain a motion if someone chooses to make one. Mr. Mr. Chairman,
I'd like to make a positive recommendation to the town council for
the comprehensive plan update for housing and land use. Um, that is
consistent with our state goals as set forth in RGI 4522-3.
» I have a motion. Do I have a second? And yeah,
» I'd like to court the planning department memorandum
» and I have a second from member Luca. Uh, any further discussion?
I would just add the draft that we have in front of us tonight is dated August
19th, 2026. Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding.
That said, all in favor? >> I do. I have any opposed? None opposed.
Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Yep, we got that done. And now the next
thing is discussion on zoning code updates.
» Yeah. So, um, this one, uh, Heather, you're all set. Thank you very much. Um,
yep. Um, this one can take as much or as little time as we choose, although I
would note I'd like to give it enough time to to get some feedback from you
and allow our consultant to take some next steps. Jim Rearen is here uh, from
Weston and Samson. Um, we've done a lot of uh code work. A lot of it has been
with uh Ashley of Weston and Samson who's out on uh a sick leave at the
moment. So Jim's uh filling in. Uh these are some old MTAP projects. Uh the
long-standing board members will recall we've had discussions about what we
wanted to do with multifamily and two family. We sat around maps. We talked
about different concepts. Um, so and long-standing board members will also
recall that on January of 2024, um, we effectuated, uh, zoning code
changes to essentially remove every use that was allowed through a special use
permit in town. Um, those two issues, the idea of let's bring back multif
family and two family and how and where is it appropriate? That's a big
question. And uh the other is all these uses that we previously allowed, you're
seeing a big chunk of them. This is we've we've seen some come back in drips
and drabs. You've seen gas stations come back. Uh you saw kennels come back that
those individual ones came back because there were uh parties that were
interested in pursuing them, but what we're looking at is also broad strokes.
There's many uses and we're trying to sort out how do we bring them back? Um
and so those two big issues which are really kind of independent separate
issues they were independent separate um uh funding projects that we got we this
these consulting uh work that we gained with assistance from the state. We're
trying to wrap it all up by the end of this calendar year. Really that's the
target is we have to close these projects before uh December 31st. Um, we
envision that these two items, the multifamily and bringing back the uses
previously allowed through special use permit, they're uh something that we can
uh have conversations over the next um three up to three planning commission
meetings. So, we've got time tonight and then we're going to set a little bit of
time in our September meeting and set a little bit of time in our October
meeting. The consultant's goal is to get enough feedback from you tonight so that
they can start putting pen to paper and drafting code that you might be able to
see. Um, you also might say, "I have uh some questions. I maybe want to see some
research done in a certain area." Well, they might be able to do that research
and come back with answers to those questions at the next meeting. with the
idea by the end of this we hope to have draft code that we're fairly satisfied
with on our level that we can consider then moving forward in a formal sense
with uh the town council and and putting the the the code into a formal ordinance
format. So that's probably enough from me to start. Um, I do think that, you
know, those of you who have, you know, these are big packets, so I don't know,
you know, you may have only had a chance to skim some of these. I think out of
the two discussions, um, either the multif family, two family
being one of them, the special use permit uses being the other. I'd
recommend we start with the multifamily. Um,
and the the the very brief memo that we have, it's a
three-page memo. Um, it outlines the basic concepts that the planning
commission has established with what it wants to see. I'm going to say that we
understand that the planning commission wants to consider reallowing these uses.
There was always the intent that we would make sure that somehow multif
family and and two families would come back. There's been a strong concern
about um allowing those in any way, shape or form that would increase uh the
baseline density that could be achieved on a parcel if we and I think a lot of
the rationale for that has been we all have seen many comprehensive permits.
It's a predominant development tool in the state. If we do any underlying
zoning changes that allow someone to achieve greater numbers of units through
underlying zoning, a comprehensive permit can build on top of that and get
a greater outcome by adding the state density to our underlying zoning. So,
we've held a policy that we've kind of called even Steven, which is let's allow
the uses, but let's ensure that our zoning um does not increase the ability
to create more units than the underlying zoning currently does. that can be a
little limiting and restrictive, but I understand that we're taking a
conservative posture uh to really make sure that comprehensive permits don't
get additional units from what they already are allowed to seek. Um so that
even Stephen is a basic component of all this. There's other components you've
talked about. You you didn't love the concept of multifamily coming in big
buildings. You like the idea that you could allow the use but do it in in in
multiple smaller buildings instead of one big one. And uh one very open-ended
question was what do we want to do for multif family or two family in our
commercial zones? We don't currently allow residential at all in our
commercial zones, but we're seeing a lot of interest in developing commercial in
our or I'm sorry, developing residential in our commercial. You're seeing it with
the comprehensive permits. You're seeing comprehensive permits take place in our
uh commercial districts. You're seeing the business park which has all of the
receiverhip parcels. It does turn out that our commercial zones are receiving
a lot of interest and a lot of units but there's not a underlying byright um
codified way for people to do it. So while we think about how we allow these
uses in our perhaps the R20 our densest residential we should be thinking about
what do we want to do in our commercial districts and our industrial districts
as well. So I'll leave it there. The goal tonight is to get your feedback. Uh
if you review the memo and you review the bullets at the top of page two,
which really calls out those kind of basic parameters that this board had
established, probably a year to a year and a half ago is the last time we ever
discussed this. Uh if you feel good about those basic parameters, if you
want to add context, if you don't feel good about them, that's what we want to
hear from you.
So
limiting the maximum number of dwelling units within an individual multif family
to six that excludes like compliments, right? I mean cuz I'm
I'm not opposed to apartment buildings as long as they're cited in the right
spot. >> Fair enough. Yeah, we um this all of
this is the assumption is that um it does exclude comp permits. A comp permit
is allowed to essentially not follow zoning. This is our choice to make a
compelling code that someone that wanted to do multif family would have a choice
in our underlying code. We felt and I think this was specifically thinking
about R20. Let's just say there's a 10 acre lot in the R20 zone. There's not
many, but there are a few here and there. Uh, underlying zoning would
suggest you could get 20 units out of that lot. Um, the concept is the board
felt if we're in an R20, it's largely going to be surrounded by single family.
The board felt more comfortable if you're going to give 20 units, let's do
three smaller buildings of six units and make it more townhouse oriented than one
big building of 20 units. That was previous context and feedback. The board
may feel differently now. You may feel like, "No, I'm open to having a 20 unit
in one building larger scale apartment complex." Um, we're looking for your
feedback if that's >> it. It's hard for a one-sizefits-all. I
do not have any objection to a high-rise apartment
building three or four stories. I mean, they're going in. They they have them in
other cities and towns. We're seeing them get developed. They got nice
facade. Sometimes they have a a meeting space. There's a demand for that type.
And and in fact, if you head towards West Warick on the right hand side,
there's an apartment building in the back. And then they've got a few elderly
highrises in West Warick. And then here, we don't really have that I can think of
any high-rise structures. Um, so that's my point, but I don't want to
say, oh, it's going to be allowed in the R20 zone because, as you just said,
somebody may have 10 acres in the middle of two different residential plats where
it's predominantly surrounded by single family, not a good fit. And someone
might come in and say, it doesn't really matter. I can fit it in there. Whereas,
if it's got its own access, let's say off a um a major artery road, and you
just got to go in and it opens up, and there's, you [clears throat] know,
there's not a lot of abuing properties. it can be screened properly and it might
work. So, how do you do they still have an option to come in for some type of
variance or other um that was would be how it would have to might have to go to
the town council or get a a PUD or something like that. So, as long as
there's a mechanism, I just don't want to
» close the door on those types of things. No, I think that you wouldn't. It is
true that you could create code that anybody can seek a variance from and
then ultimately you are the decision maker on variances as it would be
related to multif family projects >> because as we said and I'm sorry the
reason I we talked about the compliments but there could be a time when we don't
have to consider compromise anymore because we met our housing goal
» that and they won't become right and then they can't come in on that. So now
what mechanism do they have? If somebody wants to put up an apartment complex and
there's actually a demand for it and it's a good fit, they can come in and
they just got to dot the eyes, go for the right changes
and either reszone the lot or something like that.
» Yeah. Um so I mean what we're considering I think the the probably the
biggest challenge is how would we want to handle this in the R20? I do think to
be honest I get a sense the board might be open to these uses in the commercial
districts but the challenge is how do we want to handle it when we know that the
large context around it would be our single family neighborhoods and if we
find a solution we're happy with there it probably looks easier to then turn to
our commercial and say what are we comfortable with there as comparison I
think you look at it as a 10acre parcel you could do 20 single family houses
there so we would say even Stephen you're allowed to do 20 multif family
units. The thought is, okay, you might say, I'm comfortable with that as long
as you give me uh you you you you site it on the right
area of the lot. And that's one of the tenants we talked about. If you want to
do multif family, there might be a minimum distance to the nearest single
family. So, you're not putting the the multifamily, you know, right on one side
of the property or the other. You put it in a way that is separate from the
existing single family. Um, we've talked about a number of different things where
people were, you know, maybe you would be comfortable with small buildings, a
series of like, let's say it's three buildings with six units each. It looks
more like town houses. You might say, "Hey, someone has a great concept to do
something different." We can consider it through a variance. If someone has a
site that's just perfect for uh a bigger building, you can look at it through a
variance. Now, to me, it's really about establishing what's the baseline code
that you would accept on every lot in R20. And if you start to get to a point
where I don't know if I'd want this kind of approach on every lot in R20, then
you need to think through why not and is there code we can write to protect from
that negative outcome of why did I not want this use on that kind of setting.
So, I know we've talked about um the even Steven approach on density. We've
talked about um making sure the buildings themselves don't have more
than a certain number of units. We've talked about uh maybe a minimum
separation distance to the nearest single family dwelling. Um we've talked
about maybe landscape buffers. Uh these are the concepts we've talked about kind
of developing the most comfort around the use. Um, you guys tell me if there's
something that you feel like, hey, I'm not hearing this and I want to hear this
kind of protection or if you're like, I don't think we need that protection
anymore. >> Okay,
I got it. Now, [clears throat] this doesn't preclude other avenues. This is
kind of like this is what we're going to write into the code to allow these uses
kind of expand the use, but not over the top. They want to go top, they got to
come back. >> Yeah. Yeah. What one way to think about
it is if someone if someone didn't want to do a comp permit, they they wanted an
ability to maybe do a a multif family by rate. We don't have that now. The option
is a use variance. And as you guys may know, use variances aren't a tool you
use for for heady complex applications. If we allow the use, they can come in
and if they give you dimensional variances, you can consider them on a
discretional basis. But at right now, there's really not an opportunity for
someone to offer us a multif family without using the comp permit tool. So,
we're our code is currently communicating to the world if you want
to do multif family and we're seeing it. We're seeing it on Tyog, we're seeing it
in Center of New England. We're communicating use the comp permit tool.
If we want to make a compelling argument that's not the only tool out there, then
we need to put something in our zoning that says here's another option.
» Yeah. >> Yeah. and and this would not require
affordables. Um there are communities that do very complex uh arrangements
where you can achieve affordables through underlying zoning and maybe you
you get you get density for in exchange for affordables. I recommend right now
if you want to stay even Steven, you're probably not toying with different
metrics for density bonuses for, you know, giving affordables and the
underlying. Um I' I'd recommend looking at, you know, what would you allow by
right um without toying with uh too many complex situations, but trying to give
people alternatives to the comp permit for these uses.
Anybody
else have any thoughts? So, it sounds like you took this feedback, put pen to
paper, and you're wondering if you left anything out that should be a
consideration for at this juncture u multif family dwellings in the R20 zone
and then you're going to move on now to commercial and industrial.
» Yeah. And so I think one question would be if the board feels comfortable with
those bullets on the top of page two that seems to be wraps up what you
currently still feel are appropriate. Um Jim the consultant can take that
feedback and say I can start to think about how we would draft code that
follows the tenants of those bullets. Um I think that's a that's a good place to
start >> because it gives us a baseline but
allows some wiggle room for an applicant. Yep.
» It allows the board wiggle room to say yay or nay or what we want to see and
» y
» maybe to put it in perspective rather than second guess what we want to see
before he puts pen to paper this is just going to be the framework for it unlike
the the kennels for example >> this is this is giving you a chance to
see the approach before we put pen to paper.
» Yep. And if this approach looks reasonable, then um the next meeting,
I'll put Jim into the the spot, but I assume by the next meeting, Jim might be
able to help produce code that would specify and effectuate what you're
seeing here. Those that code we can still toy with. Uh Doug, I don't I feel
like the separation distance needs to be a little different or we need to have a
gradation. If the project is seeking 20 units, we need a bigger separation
distance than if they're seeking three, >> right? Um, and then we can toy with
those metrics, those numbers, but he could give us code to actually start to
see those. And as they do their work, you know, there's they may stumble upon
ideas and offer us, here's the base code you want. You might want to consider
these other provisions that other communities have. Uh, they're going to
offer us their best guidance on as we enter this. Here's a range of options
and maybe here's some things you didn't think about, but we should have in there
as well. You know, we don't talk about parking
arrangement. It might be that we feel like strongly that we want to be
thoughtful on the parking also needs a separation distance from nearby
properties. If I live near a multifamily, a larger scale multif
family, I might be concerned with the lighting in the parking area just as
much as I'd be concerned with the buildings themselves. Um little nuances
like that that you know when we put pen to paper you'll start to consider if
this code feels appropriate and if it's something that you would be willing to
consider. Every project has a by right choice to
» and I don't mind being put put on the spot Doug. I think uh so far be able to
deliver that. >> Thanks Jim. You
» tell Jim that's Friday though. Uh yeah yeah yeah. No that's all right.
» It's going to be a less well thoughtout draft than
Just wondering if um the the consultant has any
empirical examples from other communities that they worked on about
this exact issue and what they thought worked or didn't work or were problems.
» Now you're Yeah. Yeah. Now I'm on the spot. So this
» I'm just It's interesting because we were talking about these are the tenants
and my question is is this being done anywhere else? There's 39 other cities
and towns. Have you done it? Has it worked or has it failed? That that would
be my question. >> So,
» not that I'm I'm not the board, but >> yeah.
Do do you want me to uh address that? Yeah. So, yeah, sure. If you guys would
like me to, I'm happy to. So, uh working backwards as far as like how well an
approach might this uh an approach like this might have worked so far. Um, it
would be pretty hard to tell because this is, you know, relatively new
regulation, uh, and it hasn't had a lot of chance out there in the ecosystem to
see how it flies. Um, uh, as far as, but really getting to your original
question, which was, you know, have we seen this approach someplace else or
have we seen a community do this approach someplace else? Um, I'm not
aware of one immediately. We do a little research and see if we can find one.
But I do know in the town of Jamestown, they allow um duplexes, multifamily
duplexes on an R20 lot, which normally would be a single family
lot in Jamestown. And now is is it >> they definitely do.
» Yeah. >> So I don't know if we're you keep on
talking about 10 acres. Is there a distinction between an
individual lot versus a 10 acre?
» Well, I I think the feedback that Doug got was that if it's in the R20 zone,
they wanted to say, well, then you need 20,000 square ft per unit, whereas
Jamestown has said the R20 zone is big enough for two units if someone wants to
build it and they just by right could put it a multif family. Coventry used to
have and I I forgot maybe it got wiped out. It was a special use permit in the
R20 zone. You could put a two family if you had the additional road frontage.
It's like 120 ft required for a multif family. If you had 175
feet of road frontage in the R20 zone, you could ask for a special use permit.
But then we threw the special use permits out. So now we're back to well
how do we allow multifamilies in the R20 zone and his and it looks like the
direction we're going in based on the feedback was well you still have to have
the underlying 20,000 ft. Now nothing would stop someone from coming in and
saying hey I only have 30,000 square ft but I still have this much road
frontage. It's a good fit. There's another multif family down the street. I
want to put a multif family. Then they got to get a they got to get a variance
which means you know they got to go through jump through the hoops.
» Yep. >> So and I mean there's a range of other
choices we have that we haven't discussed. I mean one is that there
might you guys may feel as though after you start to see some of the code not
all areas of the R20 are equal. You may say I feel that this is appropriate to
do as an overlay. There are certain areas of the R20 that we want to allow
this use and there's certain areas we don't. Um, we've talked about overlays.
When we actually started the conversation about multif family, we
started with overlays, but the board found it even harder to start to circle
areas on the map that they felt were more appropriate than others because
everything became so case-pecific, sight dependent. And this big blob, there
could be a great site for it, uh, or a poor site for it. We'd want to be able
to see the case by case on on this blob over here. Same situation. There's
certainly areas of of of Coventry that have more multis or twos and so the idea
is it might be more appropriate where there tend to be more multis and twos
and our older areas of town that are tend to be denser. Um but Coventry
doesn't have what many communities have which is like a village center where
everyone kind of builds around a a more dense village center. We do have some
great mill villages that offer a bit of that, but there's a lot of the community
that's just through the ages has been built in different um densities, but a
lot of it still remains predominantly single family. So, the idea is it's
still a valuable tool. It was allowed by special use permit, both twos and and
multis. We still think we want to have a right an ability for that th those uses
to be achieved and it's just finding the right mix. So, if the board is ideas of
overlay sounds like a great idea, I immediately have things that come to
mind. Um, we're open to that, but that was even more challenging than creating
the framework we have now, which is this is where an approach that could be
appropriate in a range of different options and styles that depends on how
big the units are, how big the project is. That might, you know, almost old
neighborhood, new neighborhood, less dense, more dense. the board was more
focused on if you give me a great site with enough separation from the nearest
single family, I'd be pretty comfortable. And we kind of landed there
as opposed to overlay or a floating zone. A floating zone might be one where
if you want multif family, you got to change the zone to say on this property,
we're going to allow multif family in addition to all the other R20 uses. So,
there's a range of tools, but these this seemed to be the direction the board
last left us with, which let's look at R20 as a whole.
No, go ahead. >> We have very limited sewer access in
town, like only 700 residents, right? >> Is water equally? Um, there's pretty
much I think city water in all of the R20 zone and then I think it starts to
stretch out. They just didn't run the piping. It was too too expensive. And
that's a good point. And I was thinking that
» to the site I think a big impact >> and and that some of that's in the code
now even for single family if you if you don't have city water and
if you don't have city water the amount of land area you need to build is
greater. Um I think right it's not even in the
R20 zone it's like you need more land than 20,000 square feet or something to
put up a single family house. Uh, if you don't have water in the R20, the minimum
lot size jumps to an acre. So, essentially cuts your density in half if
you don't have water. I think you're correct. The majority of R20 does have
water. John Studley might be able to off the top say if that sounds correct to
him. >> Yeah, that's correct. And in some
portions of the R2, but then it cuts off pretty much at Reed Schoolhouse. And
there's some portions in the R20 where they didn't they didn't run the the
piping because of the you know it's going to be a loop system and Kent
County won't even allow you to put city water in. But um but what I was getting
at too though and this is just food for thought you know when you really come
right down to it 20,000 square feet for a single family dwelling that's the
zoning that's still a lot of land. people that don't want to maintain large
yards. Now, I mean, fif 10,000 could be a little short because if you have a
house and you got a few kids and before you know, you got two, three cars and
there's not enough room for a large driveway, a goodiz house, and then, you
know, ample space around it. But 15,000 for each unit in a in a multif family, I
mean, that's 30,000 square ft for a two family, 45,000 ft for a three family,
that would probably be sufficient. I don't know that 20,000
would even be necessary if the idea is to, you know, put two houses together.
» I mean, I I'll be honest. If there was a way to draft the code that was um
protected against a comp permit, we would probably be talking about wanting
to make this a little more attractive in terms of achieving a byite density,
» right? because they'll come in with a comp if you went to 15,000 and next
thing you know you're going to have >> I've talked with the state and the state
lawmakers uh or the state uh administrators understand this
challenge. We want to write a compelling alternative to a comprehensive permit.
The more compelling we make it, the more it aids a comprehensive permit to get
more density. >> Yeah, I got If there was like a magic
word where you could say this multifamily is allowed through
uh exclusive zoning and we use the word exclusive zoning and state law says once
you use that word this tool can only be used and it can't be used with a comp
permit. The truth is that doesn't exist. A comp permit can come on top of
whatever your zoning says and says we get what you told us we could get and we
get our bonus and there's no way to draft zoning to preclude that. If there
was, I'd be guiding you guys to say, "Let's talk about increasing density
from the baseline because let's make it more compelling and attractive. Someone
might choose this over a comp permit." Unfortunately, we are still kind of
stuck at a in a point where the comp permit is a dominant tool and it's very
difficult to do what you suggested, which is let's start to look at this as
maybe we can do multif family and 1500 square foot per unit. I mean, what we're
really doing is we're opening to the door to criticism that a comp permit
comes in and and takes advantage of that.
» What stops someone now from coming in on a 20,000 foot lot to say, "Hey, guess
what? I'm going to build a single family house right here and I'm going to put an
ADU right behind it." >> Nothing.
» So, you could have two you can have two units on one,000.
» The only thing we have to protect ADU has to be small.
» Has to be smaller than Yep. Yep. >> Yep. Yeah. Interesting. So,
no. So, does uh I at least I think I'll leave it with on the R20,
does the feedback that you see in the bullets uh still feel like that's that
represents what you'd like to see a first draft of code on? Is there any
other ideas that you think we should be including in this?
» Anybody? >> Works for me.
» Yeah, I think it's I think it's a good framework. Yeah.
» Great. Um, now before we leave the concept of multif family, two family, I
want your quick reactions. We haven't discussed it in our commercial zones.
Let's talk about the GB because on Tyogg, it's an area where we see a mix
of housing in and amongst the the commercial. We're seeing a massive
housing proposal on Tyogg. Um, that's using the comp permit. I think there
there's some desire to do housing and particularly multifamily housing in that
Tyog corridor. There's not an underlying zone right
now. A comp permit comes in and says we're doing our density bonus on top of
zero. We allow no residential units. However, if we did a baseline zoning,
we're naturally going to if we allow multif family, we're naturally allowing
some underlying zoning. I also don't think if we allow multif family at two
units per acre at Tyog and someone comes in at a comp permit, we're probably
still not wildly different than um an approach we might find acceptable. You
know, let's say, you know, seven units per acre that might not feel wildly
dense on Tyogg. Um I do think that the consideration is I'd like to offer the
use of multifamily and two family in our commercial zones. we naturally have to
then increase underlying zoning and what's a density you think is
appropriate to start would it be equal to our R20 and would we allow like the
idea that if you can build something that dense in an R20 should we allow
them to build that dense in the commercial my thought is you know there
seems to be a desire the market is is saying that they want housing um my
thought is we could start there as a conversation point does using this range
of tools um but allowing it at two units per acre feel right is that would You
say less or more
kind of along the same lines that we're doing for the R20 establishing that same
framework. >> It'd be the same framework. Yeah. I
mean, some might argue that in a commercial zone, maybe we can uh lessen
the degree of a separation distance if, you know, if someone could build a a big
commercial operation, all the residents around it understand it. Um, would there
be a would there be a need to have such a great separation distance from, let's
just say we allow a multifamily, let's just say it's 10 units, let's say it's
two buildings of five. Would it need the same separation distance to single
family than that same project would have if it was in the middle of a
neighborhood? We'd probably say no. So maybe you look at it and there's some of
these bullets on the top of page two that you feel that you can soften a bit
on, but it could still be the same general framework. Um, you also might
feel that when you get on TIO, you don't need to limit the number of units in a
building. You might feel more comfortable saying, "Listen, if they
have a 10acre lot and we allow two units per acre and they can do 20, I'm happier
to see it in one building on Tyog." It might be that that setting on in the
commercial district, uh, you feel different about the scale and the
massing of the building. >> It would, but I would want to make sure
that the setbacks and the distances are still, if there's a budding single
family, they still have to adhere to that.
» Greening and everything else that goes along with
» Yeah. the general business. I mean, there's a big difference between an
apartment complex and the general business zone and a budding neighborhood
than a two family in a residential neighborhood.
» I think one big reason why you might see projects in our commercial zones um more
uh readily um approached by developers is that's
where our sewer infrastructure is. I mean, even if someone was to approach a
multif family in a R20, they're probably looking to see what they can do in and
around Tyog or Sandy Bottom because that's where the sewer exists now.
» Well, the reality is you can get a greater return on your investment and
your capitalization rates greater now on residential than it is in you just can't
rent the space out. >> So, so if the idea is that hey, you
know, people would want to bring this used to where the sewer is, you know,
sewer finds itself in our commercial districts. So, um, someone that let's
say they were looking at the town without a zoning map in their hand, they
naturally might say, "I want to land this use in along Tyog or along center
of New England or in these other areas that are already zoned commercial." So,
I think um there's a debalance. Some people might argue why don't allow
housing in our commercial zones. That's for our tax base. That should be for
commercial uses only. We are living through an era where there's a high
demand for housing. Um Rhode Island is still generally undersupplied with
housing units. Um that's where the market has so much attention. That's why
we're seeing uh you know 400 units on Tyog instead of that property be brought
for a future commercial use. Um I think that uh there's value in looking at you
know adding this and I think it's just a matter of what's the right volume and
density to start as an underlying zone for this use in the commercial district.
Uh yeah, I mean there's a situation where anything could happen, right? Um
we're a community that is uh seeing incredible housing growth in a short
amount of time. I mean the amount of proposals we've seen and since I've been
here in 3 years, it is incredible. A lot of it is the receiverhip. There were
properties that were pent up and had development potential that are just
coming out of a a a legal situation. So, they're coming back into uh
applications, but we're seeing a lot of comprehensive permits. We're seeing a
lot of other projects and it is generally primarily residential is what
we're seeing. Um, so >> we have access to 95 and three different
locations. Plus, you can go the other direction between 117 and and get to
route two and Wick. So, and we have the largest land area. So, I think there's
always been a demand for residential in in Coventry just because of its location
and um you know again available water and some of the other resources. But I I
just wanted to what right now is zone business park.
» That's the center of New England region. >> That's it.
So, okay. And after these housing developments, it's pretty much built out
» largely. There would still be a handful of parcels that um could be developed.
And I'm thinking long-term in terms of redevelopment potential. So, you're
right. I mean, a lot of center in New England, the vacant parcels are the
receiverhip parcels. Um those receiverhip parcels were getting
residential and dense residential largely because they're the receiverhip
uh gave them a froze zoning in place from uh like the year 2000 or so. And
that zoning allowed residential without a maximum number of units. Um that's
also where we have sewer. It's where the sites are largely predisturbed. So to
» some point I was trying to make is I don't know that I want any more
residential development there if we could stop it. Well, then I would say if
you're not interested in more residential at the at the center New
England region, then don't allow residential in the business park.
» But by the same token, if they're interior parcels that are left, and now
we've got residential all the way around it. There's really no other viable use
except residential. >> If we looked at it, we could probably
find nonreceverhip parcels. There's probably few and far between, but
probably a few developable non-receiverhip parcels or they're
extremely underutilized. there uh a parcel that might have a small office
building on it but still largely available. Some of those parcels might
get taken for redevelopment. Um so there is still some opportunity
» but if they're amongst the the retail uses or the hotels or the other things
and they're right off center New England Boulevard and they're not up in the
foothills like these last ones, I think we should leave them there for
commercial development. >> That's fair. So I think
» but you've got all these the thing we we're losing sight of is all these
residential properties are currently being built out now when the residents
are there with their disposable income. There's going to be a need for
commercial properties and commercial development to fill that void. You're
going to see these vacant storefronts get built out. And center New England
that's it's the perfect opportunity. I mean, we've seen things go in there just
within the last year, and I think it's because they know there's a vast number
of residential properties that are coming online in there with access
through Center New England now, whereas before they may only go off of Hopkins
Hill Road. So, there's there's a demand. Um, and if not, there's a is highway
it's highway business as well. So I I think the I personally don't think if if
we need we need not put residential in the business park at this point.
» I think that's a good point. I we're getting a ton of residential there. I
sometimes I think that zoning allows doors to be open and if the all of the
housing is built and 10 years from now someone's saying what's the next highest
and best use if it's still housing part of me thinks well we should be open to
that concept. But I think you're right. If we were going to get more commercial,
the commercial wants to be near the dense housing and you would want to make
sure that whatever available lots are there still can achieve and be primarily
geared for commercial. Um, so it's not a bad point on the business park
» and and industrial one, just so I know, that's pretty much Reservoir Road
somewhere in the back and over here off of Industrial Lane. It's yeah, it's it's
stuff off Flat River and Reservoir, but there's also a very big chunk of
industrial one up in the north eastern corner of the community around some of
the mill areas. There's some chunks of industrial up there. Yeah. Harris. Yeah.
And then um >> that's industrial up near um what is the
name of that big mill that like is split by the Cranston line? Um
» Arrate. Yeah.
» So that there's industrial up there. Um, we do tend to see a lot of housing in
and around our industrial. The industrial tends to almost look a little
bit patchwork at times where there's housing and industrial in zones near
each other. We actually have industrial zones in center of New England. Um, some
of those parcels where uh I don't think Cumbies is on one, but
like some of those parcels in and around.
» Yeah, it was they reszone Cummies to land unit development or something to
get that in there with the gas station. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. No. So, I'm so So, so
I Yeah. question over [clears throat]
» it could be. So another idea is that if you want to allow the use in commercial
you guys might say so here's one good question to test that would you guys say
multifamily is equally appropriate in all areas of sandy bottom tyog and
neneck hill road or if you'd say no some of these areas lend themselves more
neneck hill road that's our general business zone if your answer is no some
of these areas are very appropriate some of them are not then we could do allow
the use in the commercial zone but do it through an overlay. So it's sections of
the commercial. Um so obviously GB is one zone and that's that zone. It's
that's Sandy Bottom, that's Tyog, that's Newick Hill Road. Uh we could say
portions of that zone are handled through an overlay. Um I'm open
» overlay zone give you some ability to notify
um residents or mandate notification to residents in the residential units
about the potential activities that occur around them.
» Yeah. I mean, the town is always able to do voluntary notice, but I think the
difference between an overlay zone and a non-overlay zone is probably a
difference between a map change and a text change that you were just
discussing. However, if the town feels like, you know what, we want to give a
lot of notice, but we don't think overlay is the right tool, well, we can
give notice. Uh, we can overnotice uh a text change. And I this is the kind of
change you you would assume. The town wants to really have its act together.
We want to know that this is a good idea. You guys are the the the land use
board of this community. So we really want to make sure you're comfortable.
But even after you're comfortable, you would say, Doug, let's overnotice the
hearings. Let's make sure that everyone that lives within two, you know, 200
feet of the entire GB zone. And that might be a pretty penny. That might be a
multi,000 mailing effort. But Doug, if we're going to do this, let's do that.
Let's do that kind of mailing effort. We have that option. The the notice and the
process is something that I think we can figure out. I think first and foremost,
we want to make sure that we feel good about the direction we're headed. Um,
you know, and >> but Doug, also, and I don't know if this
will factor in it. I'm just because this is what the board deals with. The people
that go into the residential zone don't know what's going to happen next door.
and next thing you know it's a GB zone and a commercial use occurs with
lighting and noise and trucks and all of a sudden those people who are happy
campers in that residential property are now down your backs and down I'm just I
don't know how we deal with that. That's why I was thinking about some sort of if
you're going to allow it in that area, those people that are going to be, you
know, you put the obligation on that developer that they have to notify
anybody who's going to be a resident in that building. What's what not just
what's there that this is all a general business zone. Here's the list. You're
saying notice the people that move in after the project's built because hey,
you're in the general business zone and you don't realize this vacant lot next
door now that could be a market because we've had so much residential
development there's a demand and right now we only have one market in town and
» all those and this the 18 wheelers delivering the food at 4:00 in the
morning. That goes to my point. >> That goes to my point about making sure
we don't overallow residential development in the
general business zone or business park, for example, and take away the
opportunity for commercial development in the future, which we may need to
support all the people we have in town. Now, next thing you know, they got to go
buy their groceries in a neighboring town and give them the benefit of the
tax base. And in the meantime, the residents are costing us money with
police, fire, possibly schools depending on the size. So
» where one side of the road is all residential and one side of the road is
all a commercial and all and every six months the people on the residential
come in yelling and screaming at the your board in the council on how
something across the street is driving them crazy. Is that tyog?
» Oh no that's reservoir. >> Reservoir.
» Yeah. >> So that's because let me tell you what
» but see that's the thing. If you go back in time, okay, and you look at a map
when you'd leave here today and you start and you see that big storage
facility behind the fence, that's Industrial Drive. That actually lines up
with reservoir on the other side, but is not connected because of the wetlands
and the flowage that goes through from Johnson's Pond. That was the town's
original industrial park. You could get off the highway, go up Route 3.
Remember, there was nothing there until they started building wood estates. And
this goes to my point and all those residents moved in. Then you started to
see the commercial development. In fact, some of the developers held the frontage
lots on Route 3 until all the residents moved in. Then they put up a commercial
building and they're renting it out. And then you got dry cleaners, coffee shops,
laundromats, all that stuff comes in later. Now again, the the dynamics have
changed on the retail, but that's that's so it's unfortunate and and and and
that's right because there's areas over there where you have
industrially zoned properties with, let's say, a non-working asphalt plant.
This is the case. And then you someone comes in and says, "Hey, I want to
expand my residential use." They go out, they go, "Oh, yeah, that sounds good.
They built a bunch of stuff." All of a sudden, the asphalt plant starts up
again. And now you got all these people saying, "Oh, I'm getting the smell. I
got this." Well, when you bought the house, did you know that it would you
would go next to an industrial zone? Like there's no buffers. We don't go
residential, office, industrial, or we we go right up right up against and
there's a lot of properties. And and it's interesting because that was my
point. The cornfield where we we we have the comp permit Craig management on the
corner of Hawkney Hill. if you were here for that one. At one point, those
residents were up in arms. That was going to be a big shopping plaza for
like a grocery store with trucks, just like you were saying. So then we get
something that's more compatible residential use. Granted, the density
was a lot >> and it's still up in
» Yeah. And it's still up in arms, but it was I I think it was probably a little
bit better mixed than what was originally proposed.
They usually historically they're pre-existing
use that grandfathered in and you're stuck with them as opposed to a
thoughtful process where you decided to put an ash plant next to a
you would never do that. you brought it up at one point and said we should just
redo the zoning map across the entire town at once and if we don't want to see
any more industrial development change the zone now and the ones that are there
are grandfathered and over time they may because of the market conditions decide
hey guess what I don't want to be industrial anymore they'll go to
residential and maybe that's what we're trying to do here but I don't know if
this is the correct way to do it
not trying to be controversial. I just want to be think
» that the council hears at every we hear at every council meeting somebody
complaining about uh really essentially a pre-existing non-conforming use that
cannot be stopped. >> Right?
» And and we hear a lot of angst about that and the council thinks they can do
something about it. You all know we can't.
Make him an offer. Yeah, make him an offer. [laughter]
» So,
» so I >> not just where you think it will
succeed, but once it's succeeding, >> you don't want to put in have 85
neighbors living in a building and now they're all pissed off at you because
you're putting a commercial f I I think >> I think with the
» I I think with commercial and industrial districts we would need to have a map to
have a thoughtful discussion to say hey guess what I don't want it in the
general business zone or it might be okay over here if you wanted to do an
overlay district that allowed it but we can't have cop blanch let's allow
residential in this zone or this zone without knowing where they are because
the intricacies you go all the way down tio cav where does it stop when you get
up past where uh Nikki's is and you're going over the hill into West Warick. Is
that residential or is some of that zoned commercial, but it's being used as
a residence? I mean, you got uh the the door place there. I forget the name.
Fagan Door, you got Nikki's, you had uh Taco, whatever the heck it is over
there. Then you got the little condos on the corner of Pilgrim A. So, you know,
you start saying, "Well, let's let's allow residential use next to
those. Maybe that's not a bad spot." But as you get down to sandy bottom, right
now that's all business. You want to put an apartment building right over there
in the middle of a of that zone and then I mean that's a might be a good spot to
just keep its own business. I I don't really know.
» No, go ahead. It gives us something.
» And unless there's a group of neighbors that show up at the hearing process,
let's fast forward as you were doing this. If There is nobody that shows up
that objects. The council is going to rely on what you're doing. They may not
put together the the issues that you're talking about here, how they could
explode into more problems for them. So now is and I appreciate what planning. I
think now is the time to really be thoughtful about not creating more
issue, but you know, it's encouraging. You need some flexibility, but you're
going to be my my suggestion. We had that discussion. Let's be very cautious
because you're just going to create more problems for yourself and the and the
council that you don't do it thoughtfully. Not really. I like the
idea of the over you're going to do it. I like the idea very thoughtful over
laser. That's my >> But even then, you got to look at the
like up at up the let's face it. The Harris Mill is gone. That used to be
Victor Electric. All right. Everything up there is converted to to residential
now. I can't think. There may be one or two industrial uses that are left. Um
Anthony Mill was converted too. Same developer. That's um I forgot who it is,
but up in Harris, which is which is where I live, any of the industrial
properties, there's a mill housing back there that's been there that supported
the mill because that's just the way it was done. Um you've got one that just
went up. We've got the, you know, one of those industrial garages, but how there
se low low to moderate income housing that I think the town controls that went
into one of the industrial properties. You got a nursing home up there. So, um
[snorts] I don't know. I I I think maybe that's an area to look at, but for the
time being, I'd like to leave Sleeping Dogs Lie on the industrial. we got
enough on our plate just getting the multifamilies into the residential zones
and then um dealing with the next item which is the uh taking back some of
these special use permits some of these other activities that we want to but I
don't I still want to be able to encourage
non-residential uses that in increase the tax base for years that was the
problem the only saving grace right now is that people are having less children
we're still I think starting to see an uptick but if it wasn't for that this
this town would be exploding. The school districts would be bankrupt in the town
just with the the number of kids in the schools. But the the reality is I don't
think you're going to see more than one or two kids per per household anymore.
That's just the the way it is. >> So, here's my suggestion. I think we've
got feedback on the R20, which is basically the the bullets we've
got here are a good starting point. Um I think what we could give you guys a bit
of [clears throat] homework. H excuse me. And we could send you uh a map of
the town, but to be honest, sometimes the best way to see the zoning as it
relates to the town is to use our GIS, which we can send you a link and we can
kind of give a little instruction on how you zoning on because that allows you to
zoom in and out, which a lot of people want to know where what what's here
again. They zoom in. Oh, yeah. Zoom back out. Okay, here's the zone. Here's the
here's what's on the ground. Um I might give you some homework to assess uh at
the next meeting when we come back what where are there issue where are there
areas if any in the commercial and I'm thinking the the the BP I think you kind
of made your point that that feels like we're getting built out where are the
areas in the general business zone so again Sandy bottom tyog knickkill road
and where are there areas and maybe other commercial zones we haven't
touched on the village main street commercial we haven't touched on village
rural commercial uh and then industrial. I might ask, you know, come back come to
the next meeting with a couple ideas on I feel most comfortable here. And if the
group is still not feeling comfortable with with residential and commercial,
that's that's fine. Um but it might be that that gives you a starting point for
if we were to do it, this is where we'd start.
You got it? Yeah, we can we can do a couple we can both send a PDF. Who would
who would rather use like a link of the town's GIS tool, which is pretty
userfriendly, and who'd rather have a PDF map?
» Well, the GIS map's online. It's the same one, right? You just have to change
the layers. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. We we could email you a link to the GIS and then give like a little
instruction on how you turn zoning on, which is pretty intuitive, but like, you
know, at least tell you, you know, click on this box, go to here, click on that
box, and then Frank, and then you can turn on an aerial map because sometimes
you're just looking at a bunch of boxes on the ground like what is this again?
And then you can say >> then then that might give you an ability
to come back to the next meeting with an idea of we looked at it frankly it's not
appropriate in any of these areas or you might say frankly I find it's
appropriate here and here let's start talking about that
» or if we did nothing a developer that wants to put up multif family housing in
any one of those zones has the option to go to the town to change the zoning on
that one lot and say this is a good fit. It's never going to be developed for a
business use because of this, this, and this. It's compatible. It fits in. The
neighbors in the back are here. Then they have to come here for a
recommendation. Then it goes back. So there's two hearings on the subject as
opposed to us writing it into the code and they're coming here and it gets
approved. And then we have the issue that you talked about where they're
screaming at the town council because they didn't realize that that something
got approved. I mean that's my thought is if I look at those maps right now I'm
I'm kind of and again it's just me there's there's a bunch of us but
preserving the areas but commercial development that we have
is probably a good thing and if it turns out that there's such a demand that
someone's willing to go through that process and we've had it before. I
believe at one time there was an apartment complex and it may still be I
don't know for right next to Dunkin Donuts. There's like a 50-ft road that
goes back and then it opens up and it abuts the residential neighborhood. And
there was a proposal, I think, to put a two or threetory apartment building back
there >> with the appropriate screening. And
again, similar to the the plaza, the 400 units, it had its own entrance in and it
so it didn't really affect the commercial and it abuted a residential
neighborhood and for someone to want to put a business back there, it would it
would have caused all kinds of problems being back up against. So it was it was
a good fit and someone can come and get a get a variance for that. Why do we
need to put anything in the code now unless we're going to look at the entire
zoning map as a whole and say you know what these areas here now should be
zoned for residential because we're allowing a mismatch of uses in the
general business zone businesses next to commercial and that's kind of what got
us in trouble now. Just my thought.
» Yeah, we're we're we're wide open. So, I'm open to the board's feedback,
» but we'll at least look at the map to see if there's any areas that say, "Hey,
you know what? this area right here. But again, I I you almost may want to be
inclined to say reszone the whole area from industrial to residential like that
north end up at up where uh you know, we were just talking about in the
norththeast corner where Cranston and Arkrite and most of it's already been
converted to residential and all you're going to do at this point is is
eliminate the opportunity for somebody to go in there with an industrial use
that's probably not compatible with the residential development that's occurred
within the last five Yes, >> that makes that's an interesting point.
Are there those uses going on in commercial that should
be be zoned to residential and free? >> Um, probably a few as I'm thinking about
it. Um, I mean certainly on Tyogg Tyog is a mix. Tyogg has uh the zoning
approach on Tyogg is generally uh commercial zoning on either side, but
what exists in the ground is a hodgepodge of there's an old house here
and then over here it was a house that clearly was converted to commercial and
maybe someone brought it back and it's a hodge podge of what use happened to fit.
Industrial here in Flat River, it's largely is larger scale industrial
buildings. industrial in the northeast corner near the mills is a bit of a mix
but the the industrial that's in the northeast corner it's also a little
spotted where it's not just oh there's in residential near I mean there are
industrial actual industrial mills and zones and there just happens to be
residential zones near it so I don't know how many there I'm sure there would
be a few residential dwellings in the industrial zone through our uh mill
areas in that area up in the northeast cuz that's not far from where I live. It
they're almost it's almost all residential. The only operating
industrial is one off of Howard Avenue. It's an L-shaped building. The the HVAC
companies in there and has a couple of other small businesses. Then you got the
old candy factory which has the indoor baseball and some other uses. But right
behind it, um, they put up the two big industrial buildings and then there's
another one down on Main Street. Now, that's the same the same type of thing.
Um, but if that whole area was reszoned for residential,
what's there is going to stay there and everything going forward is going to be
residential. And it almost encourages conversions, which is what happened with
the Harris Mill, both sides. That's apartments across the street. They took
the old building, converted it into I think there's like eight LMI units in
there that the town runs or has some say in. And in the back is the old mill
housing. And I'm trying to think if there's any there's anything else.
There's a few commercial uses right along Main Street right before you get
to West Warick. And in the back it's all apartments. So I I just can't imagine
anyone opening up a industrial business back there. And if they did and they're
allowed to open up an industrial business by right, the odds are there's
going to be a conflict with someone who's moved into a converted property
that's got a residential use. Y >> so it's time to kind of maybe think
think about that. But when you get down to Tyoke Avenue, what you're going to
start allowing residential development in between businesses and then you're
just going to have a fight on your hands. That's just the way I look at it.
And if the demand ever gets such that we really don't have any need for
commercial business zones anymore, nobody's putting it up. Everyone wants
residential. Great. Then reszone the whole street for residential
or some other use that allows, like you said, an overlay district with some
combined use. But I just think it's it might be premature.
We'll go through the exercise you suggested. We'll look at the map and
see, hey, are there any areas where we definitely should allow residential and
and figure that out. But why do we want to say, well, we got to start thinking
about where we want to allow it and then create problems. Let's just be
thoughtful. If we can start putting multif family in R20 zones and and maybe
even in one of the other uh residential zones and it ends up being a demand for
it, then then that's fine. But like you said, it's it's kind of the sewer line
and then the economics of it. And if a guy says, "Hey, guess what? I can buy
that old commercial building on Tyok Avenue, knock it down and put up all
these residential units and I'm going to get a greater return on my investment
than if I fixed that building and rented it out for commercial use because
they're just not paying the square foot price anymore.
You just can't get it. I mean, even if you've got a big commercial use, they
they're renting space a,000 square feet for what they used
you can't rent 2,000 square feet anymore. People don't keep inventory.
The stuff comes in overnight. So now you need twice as much parking, half the
space and you don't get much tax revenue on the parking lot. You get it on the
building. So So they're not making money.
» Fair enough. No. So I think we got our we got our homework and we'll send you
an email uh for a little homework before the next meeting which can just be kind
of explore the map a bit. It's uh it's it's good to get the feedback. It
actually surprises me. I would have thought there would have been more
comfort around the use of multif family in the GB than there would have been in
the R20. Uh but you know, I'm I'm I'm hearing you, which is no, we're we're
more comfortable in the R20 than the GB. There's a stigma sometimes with multif
family dwelling. Oh, it's going to be apartments. But you know what? They cost
so much to build now. The rents would have to be so high. you you're not going
to get you're going to get affluent people that are going to move in.
They're going to build them to get a higher rent. They're not going to build
a multif family dwelling and then cater to someone for $600 a month. They're
going to cater to someone that's going to be willing to pay $1,800 to $2,000 a
month. >> Yeah. So, we do have another topic that
we want to get to. So, I any last comments, questions on the multifamily,
two family? So then on the next topic, I'm actually
going to let Jim kind of give us a little bit of an introduction. This is
about the the special use permits and what we're doing. There's a couple of
documents. One you got in your packet in advance and it it outlined these
categories and I'll I'll let Jim take us from there. Is that fair, Jim?
» Got to do that. Yep, that sounds good, Doug. All right. So, um you should have
received a second memo um with a longitudinal sort of print out. Yeah. Uh
couple of different colors on there. And so what this is is again it's more of
the continued work on uh the zoning regulation rewrite. Um, and what we did
here was put together a table that shows um
where where we think where we're thinking it might make sense to use uh
by right um as uh as a regulatory standard or as a regulatory approach uh
performance standards or case by case and the by right those uses would
generally have uh very limited land use impacts. That's what we would expect.
That's why they could be in this category and um would not really warrant
additional um use specific review of uh standards. They're things that you can
say like okay this is something that that we can develop fairly safely won't
have a lot of repercussions uh where the performance standards uh in
the middle exist. So these are uses that might be appropriate without uh case by
case discretion. So you don't have to necessarily review them very closely. Um
but they would benefit from some specific standards, some performance
standards as we call them. And then the third set again case by case. Um those
are uses where the characteristics have potential impacts and it's hard to say
on the face of it without actually reviewing an application whether uh the
impacts exist or not. And so those would continue to get individual permits. Um
the classifications that are shown in the table are just recommendations for
your for discussion. Uh things we wanted to go over with you tonight. Um and uh
they're, you know, not intended to represent final determinations. Again,
just for discussion. Um and what we had asked you to do prior to
this meeting was sort of think through the things that we have listed out and
think about whether um whether we've set them up well or whether they're things
that you might like to change around a little bit. Um there's a second table
that goes along with that. So, if you flip the page, if you will, um there are
a list of uh the uses and these uses are the uses that are in your zoning
ordinance currently. So, the you know, same uses by name. Um in that second
table, uh there are potentially applicable
performance standards. So this would be for that middle category, the
performance standards and they include a bunch of different areas. So they
include things like uh hours of operation, noise, lighting, uh
buffering, uh screening distance from uh other from residential uses, parking and
loading, um traffic considerations, traffic access, outdoor storage, etc.
Um, and frankly, if you take a look at that, there's some that, you know, as
you're going down through the columns where there are X's next to almost every
single use. So, really think about the things that are on the right hand side
of the table. So, those are the ones that are um
those are the ones that are like outdoor storage um you know, odor and dust
emissions, things like that. and think through whether those whether those kind
of standards are necessary or not. The other thing we want you to consider is
that um uh standards around issues like noise, those might be better regulated
or are already regulated through other city ordinances. So they don't
necessarily need to be in zoning, but we bring them up because we recognize uh
that these kind of things can create issues. And so we want people to, you
know, we want you folks to think through them and see what makes sense. Um, so I
I think that's basically it. We just, you know, I think that that's great. And
and Jim and I spoke about these products. I I do think that the second
page um as we reviewed it, Jim and I kind of both acknowledged it probably
got a little exhappy where we thought so many of these uses needed to have extra
regulations on so many categories. um that probably it will need a little
more work and revision. I do think that the standards, some of these, you know,
parking and loading, you know, they're required for commercial uses. It's not
as though we need extra regulations, noise. Um you know, some of these things
we cover. Um so the second table is probably something that would be more of
a finer level of detail. This is just giving you an example of when we start
to identify the uses, what are different categories that we might seek
regulations on. I think a good use of this meeting would be the first page,
the first table with the green, the blue, and the uh uh beige uh colors. Um
do we feel as though there's a use that belongs in a different category? Green
means go. Green means we think this use could just be allowed. Uh blue means we
should add a regulation or two. Beige means this is pretty heavy-handed and we
may need to be thoughtful with very specific code on it.
» So just so I understand right now are these just the items that had special
use permits before there's other or is it just special use?
» It's a it's it's largely just the uses that were previously allowed through
special use permit. And um you know Rick, you were part of a handful of
meetings that we did. This is going back two to three years ago,
» a while back. But I I just want to so right now if someone wanted to put in a
restaurant, how how are they allowed? >> Uh the use of restaurant, I believe
there are zones where it is allowed by right, but I think you're seeing it here
because there were zones where it was a special use permit and now we're
debating, well, I don't know if we're going to bring [snorts] that special use
permit back in that zone. The idea is that maybe a restaurant in that zone
needs to have an additional standard. Um the standard
» So the plan is if it's already allowed by right, we're not going to necessarily
» impose you're not ones where we have where it previously was a special use
permit >> and and Okay, that's all I just wanted
to clarify. So okay, so what you're if I understand and I don't want to take
words because you were starting to explain. So everything in the fir the
question is going to be is the stuff in the first column seem like we don't
really have to worry too much about it exactly we're just going to allow it. We
already have some regulations that are going to control the development. If
they adhere to those regulations we can allow it in the zones where it was
previously a special use permit. The ones in the middle we want to say we're
going to add some performance standards. If they're going to go into this zone,
it's non- general business and they want to do this, then we're going to impose
these additional rules or regulations that they're going
to need to adhere to to be allowed. And then explain to me case by case versus
special use permit. How does that end up not being subjected? I think we saw that
as maybe a category that although I'm looking at it and I'm looking at like
laundry, dry cleaner, laundromat, that one might be something that we feel like
we're only a performance standard or two away from allowing. But I think it was
meant to be uses that uh maybe jump out as having a potential greater intensity
than the blue. I think the idea is maybe these are more than just a couple of
performance standards away. uh they may need um some other tool regulatory tool
that we would use. Um I don't want to go back to special use permits, but I guess
the idea is that you know those might be more complex. when we kind of initially
talked about it that there are uses you haven't even seen on here that um we
haven't talked about like solar, wind, uh wind energy, um quaries, these were
uses that were very complex. They have sections of the code dedicated to them.
They were allowed through a special use permit and not anymore. Uh those are
probably uses that we would have a very long robust discussion about how do we
allow these without the special use permit tool and and are there cases
where we would want to bring the special use permit tool back? I frankly don't
think the special use permit tool is a wise tool at this point. I feel like it
it puts us into a position where it's uh the the framework to approve it is is
very straightforward and permissible. So it it can be tricky to deny. Um in my in
my opinion. Um >> that was the problem. That's why
» that's why we got rid of them. Um so frankly I think that the third column
you might say there's certain things in this beige column on the far right that
you feel like you know what I don't think that that's any more intensive or
more of a nuisance than some of these other things and we can move it back
over. Um, as I look at the chart immediately, you know, and this is
coming from our consultant who's uh giving us a nice neutral objective
review, I mean, my brain immediately goes to certain uses I want to move
around, but before I do that, you know, really the exercises for the board to
for it to get its idea. Um, I'd say the way to think about it is green is go,
green feel is is uses that we feel like if it's in a commercial zone or
industrial zone, it should just be allowed by right, no extra regulations.
Blue means we want to add a a couple of things here. And then gray means we
probably need more thought. It may need more than a couple of things. Um take
take a few minutes. Uh feel free to ask questions, but take a few minutes and
just kind of start to digest it. You could immediately start to circle uses
that maybe jump out to you. Like immediately I'm like cemetery in in the
blue column. Uh maybe about 23 of the way down. I mean, cemetery is probably a
use that we don't need any special regulations on. You know, it's not a use
we tend to see new proposals for. >> Well,
the thing the thing I see here is is >> so so maybe Doug, this is this is just a
thought. If we looked at the things uh in the green go column, the buy rights,
are there any in there that don't belong in there and should really be in either
blue or or beige? You don't have to put them in one of those particular spaces
yet, but just they don't belong in green.
» Um, [clears throat] okay. That's a little
» That's fair. >> I mean, I had a problem with newspaper
offices. >> Just just don't like them.
» No, who even has one? >> Okay, fair.
» Newspapers are dead, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, that's fair.
I mean, there is one. We have a newspaper office. um right near the in
the Dave's Plaza. I think that's where the reminder has their main office.
» Yeah. Okay. >> It's odd. I mean, the the use actually
exists in town as much as it's a dying use. We we got a building.
» I was thinking of the people, you know, going into the stand where you buy your
papers to get two, three newspapers, some magazines, what do you want? Some
candy. >> Yeah. There's one use I I'll you know
what? I'll give you guys a chance. There's one use I've identified in there
that is very tricky, but it's it's it's sort of a it's a new innovation, a part
of the use. But do you guys see anything in the green that jumps out to you that
it's like I don't love I don't love considering that by right. We should add
a regulation. There's something there that's a little intense.
That's it. Yeah, that's what I had in mind. Green houses. Now the definition
of a greenhouse is changing in the world because there's um controlled
environment agriculture. Um there's the biggest building in Rhode Island has
been proposed in exit to grow it's a 25 acre building to grow tomatoes. It's
probably best understood as a greenhouse but it's highly mechanical. It is
internal growth. It is staff and it is shifts and it is trucks and trucks and
trucks. it's probably still a use that someone could say is a greenhouse. Um,
that might need a little bit of work or maybe we redefine greenhouse to ensure
that it doesn't include like if we're going to make it easy to make a build a
greenhouse that does not include mechanicized, you know, methods of
agriculture within the >> greenhouse size.
» Was that could limit the size? >> Could max. Yeah, limit the size. Um,
» and which zones are we talking about too? We still, you know, we don't really
have the key to know where Well, there are a lot of
» No, no, we don't have that yet, but I think majority of what you're looking
at, they're commercial or industrial uses. We're these are these would be
only for commercial industrial zones. Um, it is a fair question. Some of these
we might take a look at are village main street or village rural which are kind
of meant to be light business zones. >> I can't imagine we don't have a nursery
or a greenhouse out in in the uh in the rural. use that use I think actually
might that use might be a use that's allowed in residential but or was
allowed in residential. >> Um I think that that use probably could
be allowed in residential as long as we frame it as um a maximum size or somehow
make it make sure we don't end up with a a businesscale greenhouse which we did
have interest in that in Coventry. We had an applicant that was asking how
they could achieve that and it was right around the turn when all the special use
permits went away and I said no it's not available but we had an applicant
looking to use that use to do um this controlled environment agriculture um
which that they they they can be busy I mean
they need parking spaces because they have multiple staff
so we might want to move that one over to blue.
» What was the thought process between group instruction in blue and individual
instruction in green?
» Meaning like how did we come up with those?
» Yeah. But >> yeah,
» so it was it was based on larger land staff experience and considering how
these things have worked in other uh in other cities and towns that we were
familiar with.
Yep.
[sighs]
Where would our average uh commercial condo type development
be listed? Is in that in the performance standards or the buy right?
The commercial condos actually uh weren't special use permit uses. So,
ironically, you know, you might say, Doug, that feels more intensive to me
than a lot of what I'm seeing here. That that's a use that's allowed by Wright in
our general business and industrial zones. I believe they're also available
in our village main street and village burough commercial. I mean, that's why
you saw uh a project, I don't want to name specific projects, but you saw a
commercial condo in Western that was in a village rural commercial zone
recently. And I think that's one of the one of the bigger ones we see where the
community comes out against it. >> It's certainly a popular use. So whether
whether we're seeing the community come out because they don't like that use or
whether it's just we tend to see that as a commercial use that appears over and
over again and that's where there's a rub. You know, I don't know if anyone
out there would be jumping for joy over retail either. Um but yeah, that's a
popular use. And if the thought is, hey Doug, you know, while we're doing this
exercise, we'd love to consider some regulations around that use too, um, I'm
open. I mean, really, the first task is, hey, these are uses that for some degree
somewhere in the town we shut it down and we always intended to bring it back.
There might be uses that you'd say, Doug, there's uses that we need to rein
in a little bit that are allowed by, right?
» Yeah. For me, that that's one because all the all these commercial condos
popping up um really is for me is definitely needed, but it's low value
low value uh for some high value properties and
they're putting in these low value developments and frankly
aesthetically they become eyes pretty quickly.
» Yeah, understood. Yeah, they're they're certainly uses that are meant to be more
functional than aesthetically attractive. They're they're not looking
to bring in customers. It's a workplace for contractors.
» And I think there's there's an appropriate place for that. And like me
personally, I don't particularly feel they belong on
Taio Gav, but there are appropriate areas off the off
the main roadways that have industrial like the which is they're completely
appropriate for. >> That's fair. It's a good comment. We'll
make a little note and this is where Jim always assumes there's scope creep. Jim,
we'll we'll also just evaluate all the uses in town while we're doing this
work. Oh, okay. >> Um, [laughter] but no, we'll make a note
of that. I think that's fair. Uh, I want to get this kind of feedback. We're here
to talk about appropriate sighting of a range of commercial industrial uses. So,
if something jumps to mind that isn't on the page, we want to hear about it. Um,
if we're doing this exercise and one one thing that we've done and we had a work
group that met many times, so some of this work was based on some work group.
Um, Rick was part of that work group. We're going back two and a half years
ago. The last time this work group met, we all believed that it was also
appropriate to look at uses that were never allowed in industrial but were
allowed in commercial. Let's look at allowing those commercial uses in
industrial zones. Our industrial zones aren't factories. They're a hodgepodge
of different uses that just happen to be allowed. And then there's some cases
where there might be light industrial where it might be appropriate in
commercial. I'm not looking to bring a factory to Tyogg, but someone that does
I I use this case example of uh someone that wants to build custom surfboards
and they need a place to work. We'd consider that a form of manufacturing,
probably like miscellaneous manufacturing. He's building custom
surfboards. This isn't a factory. This is someone that just needs a space to
work. That might be very appropriate on a tyogue or sandy bottom.
» So, we looked at the the difference between us is allowed in industrial and
commercial. To some degree, we're in a world where we're not getting big
factories and industrial and only retail and commercial. It's industrial needs to
be more wrestrial zones need to be more open to different uses because they're
to some degree sometimes struggling because there's not manufacturing in
America and sometimes we should look at certain industrial uses and say that's
going to be a very smallcale use and maybe it's appropriate in some of our
commercial zones. So we thought that the the lines between those two zones could
use to be um to some degree some more overlap than what our code allowed. When
we do this exercise we're not giving you this is the use in the industrial and
business but if we determine this is a use we're comfortable with the next
stage was in all the business and industrial or one or the other. I I
would consider that surfboard more of like a a craft or more of like a artist
type uh
uh business versus an industrial complex where you see trucks coming in and out
of and and more of a crafty or oestry type
» art studio >> an art studio
» type thing. So, you know, you get through the zoning code and you start to
realize furniture manufacturing, you know, we don't have furniture factories,
but someone that wants to build custom furniture and wants to have a site, he
may you may that we may be comfortable with that on um Tyogg, what what tends
to happen is people think industrial means factories. We don't get factories
anymore anywhere. So, it's time for us to revisit what what do we actually want
and what do these uses mean today compared to what they meant 50 years
ago. true industrial complex isn't going to fit in any industrial facilities we
have >> that listed for.
» I mean, you know, you look at what are the uses driving big site development
now it's uh fulfillment centers. It's the Amazon fulfillment centers. It's now
we're going to get data centers and um all of all of that. Um these are like
the most uh intensive largecale. This is what's replaced factories is uh Amazon
fulfillment centers and and data centers.
» And do we do we have those D do we have any ordinances
» I don't think we have anything I'd have to look I haven't I don't know if we
have anything that a data center could say we fit in your town because this
fits what we do. I don't know if we have any description of a use that gets close
to a data center. I know it's become very controversial nationally
» but mostly because requires a lot of water and a lot of electricity. Yeah.
So, so >> they might have trouble coming here.
» So, I mean, in thoughts, do do people feel generally comfortable with what
they see in green? Is there anything in green that you you feel needs to be
bounced over? I like I like getting the thoughts like what you just said, John.
We're going to take a note about, you know, where do we allow the commercial
condos and we'll fold that into our analysis.
Um, but does Green feel comfortable to folks?
» Pretty much. Yeah, except for the nursery greenhouse. I think that was
something we might want to look at. But just one more comment. I know I know we
was talking about the commercial condo. See, the problem is you put the building
up and it's a commercial condo, but you don't know who ultimately is going to
end up renting the space. >> It could be anything. It could be
landscapers, in which case they're coming in and out all day and they don't
have any customers at all and it's more of a commercial use. They're going to
park their cars during the day. There's a lot of stuff that gets stored there.
They're in and out with trucks. Then you could have like if you look at the
original ones that are off Taio, there's a guy in there that makes trophies.
There's somebody else in there that has a taekwond do studio. There's an oil
company. You know, those are all behind Atlantic Plumbing off Taio Cavalick
behind McDonald's. There's a whole row of industrial
» Yeah. And those that use is probably considered grandfathered what they're
doing. >> Right. Right. It is. But what I'm
getting at is folks are coming in and saying, "Hey, guess what? I can make a
good return on this." The the rate of return is really good. I'm telling you,
for what you have to invest in a a steel building with whatever infrastructure
you put in there, a small bathroom, a couple of doors, an overhead door, and
it's in, but you have no idea once it's up, who's going to end up renting that
space. And that's the that's really the issue. Is it allowable use in the
general business zone? Well, it's a commercial condo. They're not do they're
not selling any retail. It basically becomes a storage facility. And and see
Mike Mike Beard again, I shouldn't the the the ones we approved up off a
reservoir road that are basically in the industrial zone. That's he he mentioned
that he goes I'm getting people that don't want to have their boat shrink
wrapped every year. It's cheaper for them to rent space from me and bring
their boats there and keep them in undercover for the winter and just tow
them out. >> Yep.
» So you don't know what the uses are going to be. And if they abut
residential zones, um you know, they're really not helping us.
» Yeah. I mean that's why the use is popular because it offers flexibility to
meet a tenants's need. I can tell you that the use the way it's described in
Coventry code and we haven't touched it. So this is one of those uses that you
know is it's just one of those old uses we've used for this purpose. It's it's
basically a it's a it's an equipment and material storage use. Um the idea is if
someone starts to do something that looks more like hey I want to point a
sale and I I want to have customers coming in and out. We're going to start
to say that's not this use then you want to do retail. But if you're in the
general business zone, they're both allowed.
» They're both allowed. But if someone says, "I'm building this building for
this use," they would need a change of use. If they're going to say, "Now, I
want to do point of sale." And we might look at a site and say, "You developed
this thing with garage doors and without parking to accomplish a customer comes
in, they park here, they come up to a natural safe [snorts] location to meet
me at the front door to review." we would probably say, "No, I don't know if
this site lends itself to that use. Maybe there's safety concerns. Maybe you
didn't give it yourself enough parking." So, the core use of a commercial condo
is really it's a storage. It's a material and equipment storage use. The
idea is if a plumber ends up banging a hammer on a piece of pipe in his unit. I
mean, we're probably not going to say the you banged your hammer or that's a
manufacturing use. But if suddenly somehow there's 10 employees in one of
these units and they're all manufacturing something, we might come
and say this is clearly beyond storage. You're clearly doing another use and you
need to do a change of use and we need to have you reviewed under the code for
that new use. It it is >> I all the allowable uses that you
described for those commercial condos, what did you say it was? storage and
» like a equipment and material storage. >> Yeah, that in my opinion that belongs in
an industrial zone, not a general business zone, but it's allowed in the
general business zone. And that's what you're starting to see because again, it
all comes down to what's the rate of the return I can get if I can rent this
thing out. >> And people are saying, you know what, I
can put one of these buildings up real cheap. I can get a good rate of return
on the rent. And now we could end up with, you know, those right next to
something else taking away a potential retail use and taking up space because
it was more profitable at the time. And those folks don't care what it looks
like when they drive down Taio Gav, which basically is our main thoroughfare
in town. We don't have a main street, but that's it.
» Yeah. Now, we're we're taking notes on this because the idea is that that might
not be related to our special use permit work, but if it's a use I mean, it's
certainly a use we've seen a lot of, right?
Um, there's uses that weren't really I don't
even think that the the the developer meant and was shooting for that use, but
they ended up building something like it. I'm thinking about off of Harky
Hill. Um, we saw an application that was for an oil uh distributor
» and uh it's an odd use and he ended up building buildings that had sort of a
flexible kind of component to them. I mean, he was relying on that use because
I think it gives him the ability to store his buildings or store his
vehicles, uh, store some equipment. But, you know, what he's doing is he's a he's
a, you know, he's an oil distributor and he sometimes takes guys oils tanks out
of their their buildings and he needs a place to cut them up. And so, it's it's
like we don't have a use that says here's the oil tank business use. Uh, it
was the closest use that fit. Um, we do tend to see a lot of them. So, we can
revisit that. That can be part of like maybe our effort is to bring this up
whether we uh ask Jim to help with it or not. It can be a use that we revisit. Is
it where do we want it? And the idea is if we want it in the general business,
fine. But maybe we add a lot of restrictions to it along the way.
Do we want to try the corollary exercise to what we just did and see what in blue
and gray might belong in green? >> That makes sense. And that might be, you
know, I I can assume folks here are probably ready to wrap it up.
» Yeah, please. >> Yeah. No. So, let's let's let's I think
if you if green feels good, aside from the couple comments we got, let's look
at blue. I think look if there's something in blue that jumps to you as
that should be more of a green or that feels like it's maybe even more complex
and it should be in beige.
» Yeah. No, these these Weston Samson guys they I don't know how they pick their
colors. They're crazy.
» [laughter] >> I didn't have any involvement selective.
» They're pretty color like three different colors.
» That's good enough. >> They work.
» It should be yellow. >> Red.
» Oh, yeah. >> Green. Green. Yellow. Red. Next time
a walk-in medical clinic, treatment center, retirement nursing home. I see
two different Is this only what was the special use permit? in what zones? We
don't know. >> Yeah, we can we can take a look. I mean,
I um >> and I'm thinking there's two different
things there. I mean, a walk-in medical clinic and a treatment center
generally would be business and industrial, but retirement nursing home.
» Yeah, I think >> would be a fit in residential. you're
probably getting a mix of some uh some of these uses uh were combined uh
because it was probably maybe two different uses in the code but the you
know the consultant thought let's look at this as
you know this is similar does this grouping of uses feel similar here you
might say Doug I think uh >> time nursing homes are are separate from
the other they're kind of >> yeah no I think that that's fair
» and I think um you know the standards It's they may be suited in some
residential zones. I mean, if they can get the water and the uh and the uh
waste disposal
» is is a driving range and golf course similar or not similar enough located
together sometimes. >> Yep. Um a golf course is actually in
beige, >> right? I'm saying
» and where driving range and mini golf are here in blue. So, it's a it's a fair
observation. It feels like those uses probably driving range tends if it's
good enough for a driving range, it's probably good enough for a golf course
» and vice versa. >> They fit on small areas.
» Yeah, >> you can put a driving range. Not much
many of them left. I think there's one or two in the whole state now.
» Yeah. >> Miniature golf is more commercial.
I guess that's it's like Topgolf. >> Yeah, that's that use I I would dare say
because we I was part of Cranston when when that project was permitted in
Cranston that I don't think we have a use that covers Topgolf. I wouldn't say
that a driving range inherently means that you can build Topgolf there. Um we
also know we're not going to get another Top Golf. Top Golf isn't like they don't
want to build right next to where their other sites are. So I think the state
has one. We probably got what we got for a while. That's a whole there's
basically food, >> alcohol, driving range.
» Yeah, they're they're I kind of would >> Yeah, they're they're kind of like a
major entertainment center, >> clubs, entertainment. So, they they kind
of fit under all of that. This is a >> Yeah. Um what about uh you have uh in
blue auto dealer auto dealership vehicle sales and then you in in the beige you
have boat repair storage sales auto body repair.
» That's fair. I think boat sales and auto sales are probably similarly
categorized. >> Yeah. But I but I would caution that a
lot of auto dealerships have auto body repair shops and uh auto
service in their dealership. >> Mhm.
» So I guess the question would be is auto dealership without
repair facilities in one and then an auto dealership with repair facilities
in another. We actually, this is a use that I'm a little more familiar with
because we did draft and we're looking at this code when we did gas stations
because as you may recall, we did the gas station code and we did a lot of
like cleanup work around it where we we're oddly categors
for some of these uses. So, we have some standards for auto repair and oddly we
were like uh applying those same standards for dealerships. I do believe
that auto dealerships, boat dealerships are independent uses and auto repair.
It's not like there's a use that allows both. So, we can really treat them
separately. I mean, they each come with their own nuisance issues.
» So, if we did have like a um like they have on route to we have
Subaru get moved to center of New England Subaru dealership. they have
their car sales and you pull up to the garage to get your oil changed and
whatever else that would that that that would then go under the most stringent
of the two requirements. >> We would say you're doing two uses at
once, which you're allowed to do in a commercial zone. Um, we have plenty of
cases and we'd say each use needs to meet its own independent requirements.
You could say the the auto dealership is the whole lot because hey, you're
putting the cars up front. You know, all the cars are everywhere on the site.
Maybe the auto garage is in the building and someone might say, "Oh, well, the
standards for the auto garages, the auto garage should be at least this far from
residential." Great. Well, we're going to measure that from the auto garage
component of the site. And we might say, "Oh, and but auto dealerships need to
have other standards like um I don't know what it might be uh of landscaping
throughout the, you know, so like they'd have to meet each independent code as it
applies to the section. >> I just want to make sure that it's
clearly distinguished between the two because that the way it was described
here, it doesn't
» Yep. No, that's fair. I'd actually would recommend that. I do think auto body or
we say here auto body repair but we're starting in our recent code rewrite. Um
we're starting to treat auto body and auto repair is the same. There's no real
need to treat them differently. Um I think they're they're a use that I think
is appropriate to put in blue and that's mostly because we've actually now
drafted a good chunk of performance standards for them. And I think we're
close and that's a use we certainly have plenty of. It's a use that you is
currently turned off across the entire town. I'd love to put it into a category
of blue where we might be just a couple of pieces of code away from taking auto
body and auto repair in general and making that an allowed use, which we
certainly have. We entertained a use variance on an auto body expansion if
you may recall. um this wasn't too long ago and they went with a use variance
because um there there was not a buy right choice and they were just seeking
a simple expansion on their property. So, I think it is something that we're
going to get people knocking on the door pretty soon saying, you know, hey,
» Exactly. Yep. That's that's the one >> I
I think some of it is also regulated by the state. Not so much a regular auto
repair, but automobile sales, you need to go to the dealers commission and they
have standards for the amount of pavement, for the amount of, you
[clears throat] know, things like that. And the same thing with the auto body
auto body shops, they have to have um something to extract the fumes. They
have to have uh you know enclosed paint facilities now. It's not like the old
days pull the car into the garage and just stop painting and we'll hang a
curtain up. They have extensive things to protect the environment that are
built in. I think the biggest drawback is when um you have that type of
operation and the person is stockpiling cars because they think at some point
they might be able to repair them when you know there's parts available from
other junk cars or whatever. So they'll keep a lot of nonworking vehicles stored
on the property. That's the biggest thing. Y.
» So again, if you're going to if we're going to start looking at that second
page where you have the X's, I think some of the uh the aesthetics that go
along with some of those types of businesses are the problem. And then
yeah, you could move boat repair, storage, sales, and auto body repair
back to the blue, but you've got to put those protections in place. If
everything is enclosed and it's regulated by the state, it may not be a
bad thing to have in in certain zones, but you just have to be careful of that.
All of a sudden, you know, there's this big perimeter fence that you can't see
through and you look and there's like piles and piles of cars back there and
old auto body parts and stuff. They said, "Well, I don't want to get rid of
it because I might be able to use it someday."
» We do have um a use that's not on this uh probably because um I'm not sure if
it was just not allowed or how it fell within a special, but a junkyard, which
is a separate use than auto repair. Sometimes the two go together, and we
would say then you're seeking both uses. But if you're seeking to store a bunch
of um non-usable vehicles, then that's a junkyard in town and that is a use that
can be nasty and we would want to make sure we handle correctly with a lot of
screening and fencing. We have code that does that already whether it's strong
enough or not. >> This is just not allowed.
» But that that use I don't think is is allowed right now and and it might just
be turned off and it's probably it may not be on this because maybe it was
turned off even before the special use permits came along. We deal with a lot
of the non-conforming existing junkyards.
Um, >> yeah, many towns just don't allow it.
And I'm not sure exactly how they define it, whether it's like a number of cars
or what what the deal. >> We were just looking at it today. I
think it was like you get to be a junkyard. Once you have like more than
three nonfunctional automobiles, once you start to just store more than three
non-functional automobiles, you're not really repair. You're more of a
junkyard. You could probably go find that
» if you just wrote down >> certainly we we we've got some problem
properties where people are thinking I can just throw these cars around my
house. So we have we have some problem properties that
» we won't we won't go into details on the specifics.
» There's some in the commercial zones I can think of right now. Village
residential village commercial. >> So one down
» street. >> Yeah. So um do we have a question over
here? >> Yeah. Yeah. Do we have anything that
addresses like um incinerators for uh for like um p like power generation,
burning of garbage or or any of waste products? And do we have anything for
crematoriums? >> That's a question. Crematoriums came up
as a recent uh state issue. I don't know if you were involved at all. I think it
was Tiverton. >> Yeah. I I've just heard about it in the
news and I think it's this is >> Yeah. No, I don't think we have anything
like that. I don't think we have a use for a crematorium.
» Um and uh
» we have mortuary and funeral home in there. I don't know if that
» mortuary funeral home wouldn't wouldn't allow a crematorium.
Um what were the ones that you mentioned
before that John? uh some kind of incinerator or whether it's incinerator
for power generation or just burning of waste or
» I'm not sure if our code has um anything that's like a power generation. It it
might have utility um substations type of stuff, but I don't think we have like
a true power plant use. You have the zoning code with us in the
box. Yeah, that's a good question. I I don't
I mean if we have it we obviously it's not on this list. I don't actually know
if we have what someone would say is a use that allows pure just power plant or
power generation. We'll have to I'll take a look.
Um, so thoughts on blue? I mean, I circled cemetery because I don't think
cemetery is a is a land use that, you know, we're focused on as needing a ton
of regulation. Um, but did others have areas in blue that you felt were either
deserved to be in green? Um, or maybe deserved a higher level of concern.
» I think they're
» great. And then I guess I'll ask um if you don't mind before we go in the beige
section um those were I we've kind of already
talked about the idea that maybe boat repair storage sales and auto repair
might find its way into the blue. We do have some good performance standards on
sections of that. I'm not saying we're done. I do think that some of the these
uses might um need for me auto repair could probably use a standard of minimum
distance to residential. Um, if you're going to do that, that's fine to do in
commercial, but if there's a house next to you, you have to be a little more
thoughtful on the noise, nuisance activity that that use brings.
» I I think the top if we we're going to include boat repair, storage, sales, and
auto body repair and put stringent regulations and move that into blue. I
don't see why mortuary funeral home or laundry, dry cleaner, and laundromat be
the same thing. >> That's fair. I think that's a good
point. So, the top three categories, maybe we kind of move those to blue. The
rest of them you get a little different. You're into something. You just don't
know how big it's going to be or what the impact's going to be or what they're
going to be. We're talking, >> you know, compassion centers, commercial
animal raising, hospitals, campgrounds, those are big operations. Yep.
» They probably do belong right where they are.
» Yep. >> Yep.
And I mean, you know, the thing that I think uh what I assume is going to be
one of the primary regulatory tools we're going to be looking at, so this is
a little bit more for Jim, um is we saw it when we brought um uh cannabis retail
use. We saw it when we did gas stations. We saw it when we did kennels. The main
concern and the thing everyone seems to be focused on is a minimum separation
distance to residential. It's fine to do this in business. Business doesn't tend
to bother other businesses. I'm not worried if the business bothers another
business. You're a business, but it we have a lot of residential. It's in and
around our commercial zones and some of these uses jump out as saying if there
if you're in one of these residential, if you're in a commercial zone and
you're close to residential, these are uses that we don't feel as comfortable
as you approaching. And so that that I assume is going to be one of the more
popular performance standards that we'll keep coming back to. And there might be
a range like here, this use feels like it's a 100 foot separation distance.
This one feels more of a nuisance. So, are we going to 150? Is that enough?
Maybe there's some that we feel less. I can tell you we did uh Dennis, what did
we do for retail cannabis? What was the minimum distance to residential on
retail cannabis? Was it 100 maybe?
» Maybe 150. Minimum distance on a gas station. We said the pumps shouldn't be
more uh shouldn't be less than 100 ft from residential. Well, it's funny
because cannabis retail is so highly regulated by the state with the
requirements for the security guards and the the security that you have going in
and out of those places and the number of parking spaces. They're no different
than any other retail outlet and probably more stringent and regulated
than any. Um, just to throw that out there. I know it's case by case. I think
the issue before was we're not sure we want a whole bunch of these in town, so
let's try to regulate them with a special use permit, almost like a liquor
license. But going down now, as I look at the bottom of the list, I mean, we
were only talking about these aren't just commercial zones. I can't imagine
anyone putting a campground, an outdoor gun or archery range, or a golf course
in a general business zone in Coventry. There's just not enough space. That
stuff would end up out in the rural areas of town, either in the two or the
5 acre zone. I mean, it could be in any residential zone, but there has to be a
significant amount of acreage available to to build any of those. And I can't
see where separation to the residential dwelling for a golf course. I mean,
obviously, you're not going to have the holes teeing off right in some into
someone's backyard, but for the most part, I mean, campgrounds, they could be
compatible with a minimum am amount of screening. I mean, I guess it depends on
on how big it is and what it's going to entertain if you're going to run
electricity and have a lot of campers in there. But
» yeah, you can tell some of these uses, campgrounds, outdoor gun, archery,
range, golf course, these were probably special use permits in a lot of our
residential zones. So, I mean, while we may not be ready to turn those uses on
by right in residential, um, I can see where the the tool of a special use
permit made everyone feel safe that in the perfect scenario, these uses might
work in in a very rural residential area. Some of these uses don't jump out
as a fit in our commercial zones. >> And there and there's license
requirements for I know at least for the they got to come up every year for their
license before the town council every single year.
» And there was one year where they weren't renewing them. And they said,
"No, we don't we we don't think you you know, you got people in there beyond
October 1st. There were already regulations in place. They could only
operate from like May to October." And people are like, "Yeah, but I got my
camp here and I want to stay all winter." So, yes, [sighs]
» for their residential houses to be on golf courses then.
» That's right. Or you can have a golf course and they're not going to operate
that in the winter. >> Yeah.
» So, we'll see. I think what you'll see next
here won't just be a shuffling of uh uses from one category to another. I
think you're going to see Weston and Samson start to develop some initial
ideas around the appropriate code. That's probably where Weston and Samson
and town staff will be talking about details. I've kind of mentioned one of
the predominant uh provisions I see being applied is a separation distance
to residential. I, you know, if we're in a general business zone, you guys may
say, you know, Doug, we don't need to slap a lot of specific regulations, but
we do want to protect our neighboring residents. Um, and we might give you
guys something to reflect on um at the next meeting. The I think the idea is
it's hard to know how busy our next meeting is going to be yet. Um, we
probably we will have a major land development at a preliminary plan scale
at our September. We have two September meetings and so staff will kind of
debate maybe we put this on the agenda of either because we don't know which
meeting might go quicker and we feel we have extra time at the end. Um I
probably don't want to have Jim attend both on the chance that what happens but
we'll uh Western Samson's scope to come to a few more of these provide feedback
and uh we'll keep narrowing it down get closer. Uh last questions on any of this
code work. Jim, did you have anything that you felt
you needed to hear more on? >> No, I don't think so. I think we got
some good direction tonight and this is uh this is going to be very helpful
moving forward. Um, if we're going to try and do the two September meetings,
we should we should talk about how to things up.
» I would say we're not going to make you do both. We're probably going to look at
it and we may pick what's the better version.
» Okay. >> Um, it's probably going to be our
regular meeting. I picture the project we're going to see in a special meeting.
I don't I want to give that all the air time we need to give it. So, we'll we'll
we'll put some thought into it and at one of the September meetings, we'll
revisit with Jim here and uh we'll uh then we have October and then the idea
is after October, we hopefully we've gotten enough input and they're able to
wrap up their work. Thank you very much everybody.
» Next uh item on the agenda is to direct >> No, we don't need to there's nothing in
there we need to go over. >> Yep.
I'll second.
» No, we you know what?
» Yeah, right.
information
and I just want to make sure