[1:25] putting my mic on. Um, I'd like to call
the uh Town Coventry Planning Commission
[1:32] meeting of Wednesday, August 26th
to order at 6:30 p.m.
[1:38] I will first call the role to get a
determination of a quorum. Uh, when I
[1:44] call your name in no particular order,
just acknowledge if you're here. John
[1:48] Price
>> here.
[1:49] » Uh, Pat Delude
>> here.
[1:51] » Um,
Mr. Kenny
[1:54] » here. John Luca is new member
>> here.
[1:58] » Uh vice chair Studley
>> here
[2:00] » and I'm Rick Clooney and I'm the
chairman and I'm here. So we have a
[2:03] quorum of five. Mr. Dilva and Mr. Burke
are both excused tonight.
[2:09] » Six.
>> I'm sorry.
[2:15] » Yeah, I just said we had a quorum. I
didn't say how many.
[2:19] » Oh, did I say okay?
All right. emergency evacuation plan. In
[2:24] the unlikely event of an emergency, if
we have to vacate the room, you can go
[2:28] out the doors that you came in. If for
some reason those doors are blocked, you
[2:31] can go out this door right here, and
there's another exit out to the uh
[2:34] parking lot through there.
At this time, I'd like everyone to stand
[2:38] for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[2:44] United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
[2:49] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
[2:59] » First item on the agenda is uh approval
of minutes from the July 20th 26 public
[3:07] workshop. Everyone should have a copy in
that packet.
[3:13] » Make a recommendation for approval of
the meeting minutes.
[3:16] » I get a motion to approve the meeting
minutes from July 20th. Do I have a
[3:20] second?
>> Second.
[3:21] » I have a second by Mr. Kenny. Do um any
discussion or corrections? Hearing none.
[3:28] All in favor?
>> I.
[3:31] Next item is approval of the minutes
from the July 22nd, 2026 planning
[3:38] commission meeting. Do I have a motion
to approve?
[3:41] » Make a motion to approve.
>> Motion to approve by Mr. Kenny. Do I
[3:44] have a second?
>> I'll second.
[3:45] » I have a second by Mr. Price. Is there
any discussion or corrections on these
[3:49] minutes? Hearing none. All in favor? I.
No opposed. Motion carries. Okay. First
[3:57] item on the agenda here under six is
Senator New England master plan major
[4:02] land development with associated
dimensional variance. I believe this is
[4:06] a one-year extension for the prior
approval of the master plan, right? It's
[4:13] master plan.
>> Yes.
[4:14] » Does it say? [clears throat] Yep. Okay.
>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of
[4:19] the board. For the record, my name is
Kelly Morris Salvatore. It's been a
[4:22] while since I've seen you. It's hard to
imagine that the master plan was
[4:26] approved almost two years ago. Um just
for the new members, uh this is a master
[4:33] plan that allows for 732 units uh across
substantially three lots in center of
[4:40] New England that my uh client has under
control. Um, in terms of the annual
[4:46] update that I'm supposed to provide
during this matter, uh, we do expect to
[4:52] be before you, uh, for lot what we call
lot three, which is one of the ones to
[4:57] the west, um, near the Highlands
condominiums. That should be coming to
[5:02] you for preliminary plan very shortly.
Uh, and, uh, the same partner in
[5:07] development will be developing lot two
as well. Um over on lot four, which is
[5:12] the one closer to Arnold Road, we were
very grateful to the town council last
[5:18] night. Uh they approved a tax
stabilization agreement that we have
[5:22] been negotiating with them for for
months. So we're ve very happy for that.
[5:26] That gives us the opportunity to move
forward with preliminary plan design uh
[5:32] for that lot. Those are intended at this
point to be apartments. So I expect to
[5:37] be seeing you quite a bit this fall and
winter.
[5:41] looking forward to it. Want to get those
units online.
[5:45] » Okay. Does anyone um on the commission
have any questions?
[5:52] » Okay. Hearing none. Um I'll entertain a
motion to approve the
[5:58] two one-year extensions. Is that what
we're getting here? I'm sorry. Are there
[6:03] right to extend two one-year extensions?
Richmond quit
[6:08] » and will be broken up into phases. I'm
sorry. Which will be broken up into
[6:12] phases, but you're it's just one
extension.
[6:16] » Okay.
>> Oneyear master plan extension to October
[6:20] 18th, 2027 in accordance with Rhode
Island general law. Do I have a motion?
[6:25] » Um
Mr. Co, I'll make a motion.
[6:31] Um, I'd like to make a motion of
approval for one-year master plan
[6:35] extension project named Center of New
England. Uh, major land development with
[6:40] association associated dimension
variances. Owner Matthew McGrien
[6:46] um
applicant Star Capital LLC. Address
[6:52] Honor Road Angela Drive SE Stephanie
Drive and Center of New England
[6:56] Boulevard.
lot AP 13 lot 14 AP14 lots 1 and 65
[7:05] portions of AP 14 lot one and 1.2 two
app
[7:13] uh 15 lot 98 zone BP business park the
extension date is to October 18th 2027
[7:23] I'd like to include the staff report and
the asense other associated documents
[7:29] attached to the staff report in my
motion
[7:33] » I have a motion do I have a second
>> second
[7:36] » I have a motion motion by Mr. Kenny,
second by member Price. Uh, last call.
[7:41] Any further discussion?
Hearing none.
[7:45] All in favor?
>> I. Any opposed? None. Motion carries.
[7:51] » See you.
[7:55] Okay. [sighs and gasps]
Next item. Mar, this is a matter carried
[7:59] over the ADU accessory dwelling unit
with associated dimensional variance.
[8:05] Jason and Amarie Theiel, assess plat 21,
lot 312 in R20 zone located at 31 King
[8:13] Street. Yes, sir.
>> Good evening. Jamie Ter, Jason Tero.
[8:19] Okay. 31 King Street, Coventry.
Jason Tero.
[8:27] Okay.
[8:31] So, we have the staff director's report.
You do you know why you're back before
[8:35] us this time?
>> Yeah, there weren't enough members
[8:38] [snorts] last time to vote on it
>> from the time before.
[8:43] » We approved this. Yeah,
>> but I believe the issue was the lot
[8:47] coverage was not correctly calculated
because you're now putting in a driveway
[8:52] that
>> Yeah, we want to um have a driveway
[8:55] going to the ADU off the existing
driveway.
[9:01] » Right. And before it was shown as
imperous gravel or not shown at all. And
[9:07] now
>> I think it was gravel before. Yes.
[9:10] » Yeah.
>> So that's the change.
[9:12] » And since that wasn't calculated at the
first application, you're back before us
[9:16] to get approval because you won't be
able to get a permit to put in that
[9:19] portion of the driveway. Correct. With
the prior approval, right? Okay.
[9:23] » I just Does anyone on the U commission
have any questions or do you all
[9:29] understand why he's back here?
[9:33] Okay, hearing none. Anything to add?
We're good.
[9:36] » No, no concerns by staff.
>> Okay. So, if we're all uh set with
[9:41] questions, I'll entertain a motion to uh
approve the I just want to make sure
[9:46] here. Are we just doing the variance on
this one because he already has the ADU
[9:49] or do we have to make two motions?
>> We're doing an additional variance. Um
[9:52] but it is a hearing so we should do a
call for comments.
[9:55] » Oh, okay. Is there anybody here in the
audience that would like to speak for or
[9:59] against this application
or should I have is it hearing?
[10:04] » Sorry, I'm a little off my game time.
>> No, that's fine. You can just indicate
[10:08] verbally that we're opening the public
hearing and this is the opportunity.
[10:11] » Yeah, we usually vote to open public
hearing.
[10:13] » Yeah, you you could do it as a vote.
>> I'll make a motion to open this.
[10:16] » We got a motion to We got a motion to
open for public hearing. We got a second
[10:19] by Mr. Kenny. Um [clears throat] all in
favor? I. Any opposed? None. Is there
[10:25] anybody here that would like to speak uh
for or against the application for a
[10:29] variance for the property at 31 King
Street?
[10:33] Is there anybody on Zoom? If there's
somebody on Zoom, please raise your
[10:36] hand.
Do we have anybody on Zoom tonight? No.
[10:41] Okay.
All right. So, I'll make
[10:43] » I'll make a motion to close public.
>> Okay. We got a
[10:46] » And we got a second close public
hearing. All in favor?
[10:49] » I.
>> Okay. That said, I'll now entertain a
[10:54] motion to um with regard to this
application.
[11:00] » Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to
approve
[11:03] uh the dimensional variance to exceed
maximum lot coverage uh project is the
[11:10] ADU unified development review accessory
dwelling unit with associated
[11:16] dimensional variances. Owner applicant
Jason and Anne Marie Thorough 31 King
[11:22] Street Cessors plot 21 lot 312 zone R20
lot size 0.76 acres uh existing use is a
[11:31] single family dwelling proposed use
single family dwelling with an accessory
[11:36] unit ADU
um I'd like to include the staff report
[11:41] in my motion
>> okay I have a motion do I have a second
[11:47] » I'll Second
>> motion by Mr. Kenny, second by Mr.
[11:51] Price. Do we have any further discussion
from the board? Hearing none. All in
[11:57] favor?
>> I. Any opposed? None. Eyes have it.
[12:01] You're all set, sir.
>> Thank you.
[12:03] » Sorry for the delay.
>> If if uh if uh you don't mind, I'd like
[12:07] one more motion on this. Whenever we do
ADUs, we always do a second motion to
[12:11] allow the project to move forward to
building permit. Very straightforward.
[12:14] » I'm sorry. uh a second motion to allow
this ADU to move forward to building
[12:18] permit.
>> Okay, that's
[12:20] » this is we we call it unified because
there's two separate actions.
[12:23] » Okay. I just didn't know if we had kind
of already done. Okay. So, at this time,
[12:26] I'll entertain a motion to allow this
project to move to building permit.
[12:30] » Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
favorable motion for the throat ADU to
[12:35] move forward to building permit. And I'd
like to include the staff report in my
[12:43] uh motion. Okay, I have a motion. Do I
have a second?
[12:47] » Second.
>> Motion by Mr. Kenny, second by member
[12:50] Price. Any discussion?
Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any
[12:57] opposed? None. Motion carries.
>> Thank you. Good night.
[13:02] » Okay.
New applications for discussion. Vote or
[13:07] other action. 8.1 Torborg ADU. Accessory
dwelling unit with associated
[13:13] dimensional variance
cesus plat 43 lot 18 in the R20 zone.
[13:19] Owners are Vincent and Alicia Torberg at
100 Reservoir Road proposing a 2600
[13:25] square ft two-bedroom accessory dwelling
unit on a 97 acre parcel.
[13:30] One-dimensional variance is required
because the ADU will exceed the maximum
[13:34] unit maximum unit size requirements.
Good evening.
[13:38] » Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Are we uh
with the chairman's indulgence, could I
[13:42] have one moment to speak with the
solicitor before I begin?
[13:45] » Sure.
[14:12] Thanks.
>> No problem.
[14:14] » I didn't give it get a chance to give
him a heads up earlier.
[14:16] » That's fine. I understand.
>> So, good evening. Thomas Cronin, 1070
[14:21] Main Street, Car Coventry, Rhode Island
for the owner and applicant, the Tobog
[14:25] family's here with us tonight and uh
there contractor Ryan DeFranco from
[14:30] Trust also with us um if there any
questions that they can uh respond to.
[14:37] So 100 Reservoir Road AP43 lot 18 is
42,383
[14:43] square feet or.97 acres. It's in the R2
R20 zone, excuse me, R20.
[14:50] So the existing conditions include a
single family home uh with well and
[14:54] septic. Uh the lot runs uphill from
Reservoir Road to the rear property
[14:59] line. It's a raised ranch style home
with two stories in the front and a
[15:04] single story in the rear. That's how the
the grade uh works. There's a pool,
[15:08] concrete patio, and a fenced in lawn
behind the home directly to the rear
[15:13] adjacent to the existing home. Uh the
driveway and utility access are also
[15:18] directly from Reservoir Road.
There's an existing well on the
[15:23] southwest side of the existing home and
the septic is in the front yard of the
[15:29] existing home adjacent to Reservoir
Road. The proposal is to construct a
[15:36] freestanding ADU behind the existing
home and behind that fenced in yard uh
[15:42] after the pool. The proposed ADU is for
the Torborg's daughter, Kendall, who's
[15:48] with us tonight. Town ordinance requires
an ADU that are incidental and
[15:54] subordinate to the principal home and
maintain a continuity of appearance with
[15:59] the existing home in the neighborhood.
100 Reservoir Road is located in a
[16:04] neighborhood of well-kept single family
homes, most built um with minimal
[16:10] setback within 100 ft of uh Reservoir
Road. Um the proposed ADU is a
[16:16] singlestory two-bedroom shingle style
cottage. Has a peaked roof, a small
[16:23] covered front porch, a rear deck, and a
single attached uh single car attached
[16:28] garage.
I don't know. They're not no plans up
[16:31] there, but um
including these features, the ADU is uh
[16:37] smaller and lower than the existing home
and the neighborhood homes.
[16:44] So, the applicant has submitted a
landscape plan. Uh Dennis Haggy from the
[16:49] staff has been out to the property to go
over it, but the property is currently a
[16:53] grass lawn in front of and beside the
existing structure. This will remain.
[16:58] There's a fenced in grass lawn behind
the deck and pool which will also
[17:03] remain. Um,
beginning at the rear fence on the south
[17:07] side of the property through the rear
boundary, there are mature pine trees
[17:11] and other deciduous trees including
oaks. The area to the south side of the
[17:16] existing fence will be cleared for the
ADU and a front lawn for the ADU. the um
[17:22] so the area in the center will be
cleared but the trees will be maintained
[17:27] along the boundary including the rear
boundary
[17:31] behind the existing uh there's also
going to be uh an OWTS specific to this
[17:38] ADU so there'll be a clearing uh for
that area as well
[17:44] so um the applicant has plans to fill in
any gaps created by construction with
[17:49] some new evergreen planting I think
there are 18 abroite trees currently
[17:55] along the boundary along uh I guess it
would be the southeast boundary
[18:02] and additional plantings will be made so
that the there'll be limited visual
[18:06] impact uh to the neighbors. Um, in order
to reach this ADU, a separate new
[18:11] driveway just like the one you just
discussed with the gentleman before us
[18:15] would be installed 12 foot wide driveway
from Reservoir Road to the ADU along
[18:21] that same easterly boundary that uh has
the uh currently 18 Abraitees. It'll go
[18:27] between the existing row of abravites
and the existing front yard septic and
[18:32] home.
So the variance saw tonight is for the
[18:37] size of the ADU. So
the ordinance there's there's a bunch of
[18:44] calculations, but in in this case, the
ordinance refers to a a maximum size of
[18:49] 1,200 square ft. So that's what we're uh
working with. The interior living space
[18:56] of the proposed ADU is 995 ft. There's
an attached garage of 352 square ft and
[19:03] a covered front porch of 78 square ft
for a total of 1,65
[19:10] square ft on the ground level.
The town includes the area of the
[19:17] unfinished basement, an area of 995
square ft in their calculation, which is
[19:23] how they reach 2,600 square ft. I have
raised a legal objection
[19:30] that floor area is not defined in state
law or the town ordinance and there's no
[19:35] legal or practical basis to include the
unfinished basement area in the
[19:40] calculation of the floor area. That's
that's not really for this board to
[19:45] decide and I'm only raising the
objection to preserve it. I don't have
[19:49] any plans to further argue that point.
But should things not go the way we
[19:53] hope, it's preserved. Thank you.
So the planning department has suggested
[19:59] uh that an outside bulkhead be
integrated into the basement to allow
[20:04] for exterior access
to the basement of this ADU so that the
[20:09] storage in the basement of the ADU can
be common storage for the ADU and the
[20:13] primary residence.
We we like we like that suggestion made
[20:17] by the staff. We think it's a good
suggestion. um part of the basement of
[20:23] the primary residence which is a raise
ranch style home is finished. So there's
[20:27] actually a very small basement area in
that home probably be it's it's a good
[20:33] idea to have that ADU basement be common
storage and so we're adopting that
[20:38] suggestion. We think it's a good one. So
the plans will be will show um exterior
[20:44] access through a bulkhead to that ADU
basement.
[20:49] Um, so
when we look at the basis for the
[20:53] variance based on size, we looked at we
look at the impact to the neighborhood,
[20:58] the impact to the property and and the
town. So, I I said I wasn't going to
[21:03] argue about the unfinished basement area
tonight because when you look at when
[21:07] you look at that, an an unfinished
basement doesn't have any impact on on
[21:12] the neighbors, the the the utilities,
the town and the public health and
[21:16] safety of the town of Coventry. It's
just it doesn't, you know, just doesn't
[21:20] have any impact at all. Um
I I note you know kind of repeatedly in
[21:27] my application and I apologize for the
redundancy though that the actual living
[21:32] space is 995 ft where 1,200 square f
feet are is allowed. The other items are
[21:40] part of a design, a thoughtful design to
have this be an attractive building to
[21:45] have it integrate into the neighborhood,
not just for the primary residence, but
[21:50] for the other residences.
So, we have some design features like
[21:54] that covered front porch and a small
rear deck which are counted into the
[21:59] square footage which brings it up to
that 1,600 or 2600 depending on how you
[22:03] look at it. Um, but those are items that
um help this integrate so that it's not
[22:10] so noticeable uh in the neighborhood as
you drive by. Um, they're they're design
[22:15] elements
that add value for sure, but you know,
[22:19] we're not are here to argue about
economics, but also uh increase the
[22:24] blend into the neighborhood. Um, so
I I guess
[22:31] that's our basic story. I'm sure the
board has some questions. Um, and I'll
[22:37] uh answer them best I can.
[22:42] Does anyone on the board have any
questions?
[22:49] I don't hear any yet. I just I'm I'm
still trying to grasp some of this
[22:53] calculation stuff myself.
>> Sure. So, and I know you didn't do the
[22:56] whole it's it's the there were two What
is the square footage that was used um
[23:03] to do the calculation for the existing
dwelling? Do they count the lower level
[23:07] because it's finished in that
calculation? I
[23:09] » I believe they counted the entire tax
assessor's floor plan,
[23:15] » right? But in a raise ranch, they
usually don't they wouldn't count the
[23:18] basement. No real estate broker would
count the basement. That's why I'm
[23:20] trying to compare apples to apples.
Yeah, because you raised a very good
[23:24] point with counting the basement. So,
I'm just wanted to know for this
[23:26] calculation when the town
>> says, well, it's this percentage or
[23:31] 1,200, what percentage what what do we
use
[23:35] » in this case? The the code says that the
maximum size of an ADU shall either be
[23:39] 1,200 square feet or 60% of the size of
the primary dwelling, whichever is less.
[23:46] In this case, the lesser number is 1,200
ft². So imagine that the the primary
[23:52] dwelling is large. Um but the 60% of
that number becomes irrelevant because
[23:57] we're working with
>> I just wanted to know if it wasn't
[24:00] irrelevant
whether you would count the lower level
[24:04] of a raised ranch in the square foot
calculation or not.
[24:08] » Yeah, we do. Um
>> so we do apples to apples. We we we do
[24:12] attempt to do apples to apples which is
um and as you've seen we've done ADUs
[24:17] where we do count the garage as part of
the square footage. Uh we're we're
[24:21] drawing upon state law. Um our code
zoning code speaks like uses the same
[24:26] language as state law. It doesn't use
the term living area. We're not m we're
[24:30] not looking at the maximum living area
of the ADU. We're looking at the maximum
[24:34] floor area. So, we've taken the position
that that includes decks, it includes
[24:38] porches, it includes garages, it
includes basements. I think what um the
[24:44] uh uh Mr. Cronin has just offered in
terms of an exterior entrance to the
[24:49] basement, I think that for us was a key
consideration if they wanted to use the
[24:53] basement and consider the basement as
like general common property storage.
[24:58] That's something that I can appreciate.
Um, it raises a a little bit of an odd
[25:04] variance uh notice question. Um, it
almost might be better for Mr. Cronin. I
[25:09] think that's a valuable point. I think
we could still look at that. Here's the
[25:13] issue. This is notified for a um uh the
idea is the ADU itself is part of a
[25:21] building. Right now, we're counting the
entirety of the building, all the floors
[25:24] as ADU square footage. We've noticed
that the variance we're seeking is for
[25:28] an ADU that's bigger. If we start to
look at the building as two separate
[25:32] components, there's an ADU and then
there's a separate square footage that's
[25:37] related to another thing. Someone might
argue that we should have two variances.
[25:42] One is to have an ADU that's bigger than
the square footage. And let's just say
[25:45] that number is 1,600 for sake of
argument. You still need a variance just
[25:49] for the top floor. We have code that
says that no accessory structure
[25:53] regardless of its use should be bigger
than 12,200 square f feet. So now we're
[25:57] triggering this multiple things
happening in the building at once. One
[26:01] might argue we should have a variance
for the ADU size and a variance that the
[26:05] entirety of the structure is also bigger
than 12,200 ft. We've only noticed the
[26:10] ADU for tonight's hearing.
>> It it could be that it's half dozen one.
[26:15] » Yeah. you know, but I would suggest
maybe if they want the square footage,
[26:20] we stick with it being under the
umbrella of the ADU, but I think that
[26:24] the counselor raises good points about
trying to um make sure the board
[26:29] considers that that square footage may
not be as pressing as, for example, a
[26:34] second floor of an ADU would look. That
makes sense.
[26:38] The basement's 995, but I guess if it's
not part of the issue is going to get
[26:43] clouded in my opinion, and I don't think
Mr. Cronin wants to use this as his test
[26:48] case.
>> I do not. And uh that is why I indicated
[26:51] that although I was preserving the
argument, I'm not going to press it
[26:54] tonight.
I uh I would like you to consider the
[26:59] ADU in its entirety.
>> 2600 square feet for the whole thing.
[27:03] The only Yeah. Go ahead. Does anyone
else on the on the board have any
[27:06] questions?
Okay. And we have this down for public
[27:09] hearing.
>> This is a public hearing. Yeah.
[27:11] » Okay. Um I don't want to make any
comments that are going to maybe sway uh
[27:15] comments in from from the audience, but
I do have a comment on these ADUs. Um is
[27:20] there anybody I'm sorry.
>> Like to make a motion to open.
[27:23] » We got we got a we got a motion to open
public hearing by Mr. Price. Do I have a
[27:28] second? We have a second. All in favor?
I. Is there anyone in the audience that
[27:33] is here to speak for or against this
application for a um variance for the
[27:38] ADU?
I don't see anyone in the audience. Do
[27:42] we have anyone on Zoom? And we still
have nobody in attendance on Zoom.
[27:46] » No, there's two.
>> Two. Okay. Anyone want to speak on this
[27:49] application? Please raise your hand.
[27:53] Let the record show there's no hands up
on Zoom. Um, with that said, uh, I'll
[27:59] entertain a motion to close public
hearing.
[28:01] » Make a motion to close public.
>> I have a motion by Mr. Price to close
[28:04] public hearing. Second by Mr. Kenny. All
in favor? I.
[28:09] My the the layout of this is, in my
opinion, is good. It's It's great. I
[28:15] just wonder as we start to approve
these, and I was thinking this the other
[28:18] day, are we going to start getting
variances five or 10 years from now?
[28:24] Hey, can I just subdivide the lot now? I
got two houses on one lot and I got, you
[28:29] know, and I can't the dimensions aren't
going to work. I don't have enough
[28:33] frontage of about, you know, a few
thousand square feet or 20,000 square
[28:37] feet for both houses because we've seen
a couple of them now. And basically, it
[28:41] it's coming down to they're allowed,
state law allows it. The idea is to
[28:45] increase housing stock, but um I'm just
wondering how it's going to go five or
[28:49] ten years from now when someone goes to
sell their property and it has two
[28:53] houses on one lot and you know either
the price is going to be a factor or
[28:56] something's not going to work and
they're going to start coming and asking
[29:00] for variance. I I just caution you. It's
funny that you should raise that because
[29:02] a Rhode Island Supreme Court case came
down this week in Newport that a 1994
[29:09] restriction against further subdivision
was good that that they could, you know,
[29:14] that the town could rely on that and say
no, you cannot further subdivide this
[29:18] lot. Even though, of course, there are
new statutes, there's new ordinances,
[29:23] they said, you know, if they wanted to
appeal it, that was their chance. So,
[29:27] uh, it's an interesting point. But uh
just this week the Supreme Court said
[29:31] the town can rely
>> on that decision
[29:35] now presently
20 years later, 22 years later.
[29:39] » Yeah. I'm going to and we do that
sometimes with some of the lots and the
[29:43] other things that we we've done where
folks have come in and said, "Hey, can I
[29:46] cut this or cut that? I need a
variance." And then no further
[29:48] subdivision. Uh I'm not so inclined to
um
[29:53] consider that tonight. It was just a
comment because I can just, you know,
[29:56] I'm just looking forward
>> um Okay. Does anyone else on the board
[30:01] have any other questions or comments on
this?
[30:03] » Yeah, I'm just I'm just looking at the
the calculations. So, the ADU as it sits
[30:10] right now with all the plans and designs
is 2600 square feet. Correct.
[30:17] » Correct. And if they the conditions of
approval, if we eliminate
[30:23] the proposed deck and the covered porch,
is that what's going to bring it down to
[30:30] 2,91.6
square ft?
[30:34] » Um the deck and the porch to combined
are it looks like somewhere around 258.
[30:42] » It is. And so, yeah, it'd be Yeah, it'd
be um
[30:46] » that brings it down to 2,300
>> 2,300 or so.
[30:49] » Yeah. So,
>> it'd be it'd still be well over. I'm
[30:53] going to give you my frank take on this.
My Frank Tank take on this is that um I
[30:59] think the most important issue is what
you just got to Mr. Clooney, which is if
[31:04] we create ADUs that start to look like
two houses on one lot. I don't think
[31:08] that's the case here because I think the
location of the ADU is prominently right
[31:14] in the rear of the lot and the lot if it
was to be subdivided would require a
[31:18] variance for the frontage. So when we
have if we have wide uh shallow lots and
[31:24] they do a big ADU then I think we start
to wonder does this start to look like a
[31:28] uh two two units on one lot. I don't
think that's the case here. However,
[31:33] what you're seeing is staff did think
the number 2600 seemed quite high. It's
[31:37] over twice what the state limit is. It's
over twice what our zoning code limit
[31:40] is. Staff kind of in their analysis gave
you some optionality for how you might
[31:46] reduce it. I frankly don't think the
basement makes it look any bigger. You
[31:51] can't see it. So I'm not sure if we
we're giving you optionality if you wish
[31:56] to reduce the size. In this case, I
don't think the size renders this
[32:00] particular ADU to appear that it's not
sub sub, you know, um, uh, ancillary um,
[32:07] and subordinate. I think it looks
ancillary and subordinate. That's the
[32:10] most critical component. Whether the
board feels inclined to reduce the size,
[32:14] I think we're giving you some options on
what ways to do that.
[32:16] » Well, the reason I asked that question
is because the calculations don't work
[32:20] out because it said staff added the
following considerations. is the ADU
[32:24] could be reduced to a maximum size of
2,91.6
[32:29] ft. But if I take 258 from 2600, that's
2342
[32:35] ft. So how do you get down to 291?
That that's my
[32:42] » um the 291 is actually provided as
reference to what is 60% of the size of
[32:50] the primary dwelling. uh that's only
there for context. The idea is that if
[32:55] the applicant warranted extra credit for
the fact that the primary dwelling is
[33:00] very big, then if you feel like he's got
a big primary dwelling, he should have a
[33:04] little bit of a bigger ADU. That number
is just there to reference as that's
[33:08] what 60%. It the code is telling us you
have to go with the lesser number which
[33:14] is 1,200. So code compliance is 1,200.
That 291 is just there to let you know
[33:21] that's what would be 60% of the size of
the primary unit.
[33:24] » It's just not
>> which would be what was the number that
[33:27] would be 60% please.
>> 60% of the primary dwelling would be
[33:31] 2,91
square ft. So that's really that was
[33:35] staff just offering some context on
>> if if it's a big primary house and you
[33:40] feel inclined to give this ADU a little
extra credit then that's what 60% of the
[33:45] primary. Now you know why I wanted to
know whether they calculate with
[33:48] included the basement in the is is the
is the house that they live in now or
[33:53] the existing house three three about
3,000 square ft and then does it include
[33:58] the basement or not include the basement
cuz again I was trying to I'm trying to
[34:02] justify is this house going to look
bigger than the one in the front? It
[34:05] doesn't sound like it will.
>> It it won't look bigger. um the the
[34:08] primary dwelling the the number we're
referencing is pretty close to 3500
[34:12] square feet.
>> And I'm [clears throat] inclined to
[34:14] agree with
the applicant's attorney that I think
[34:18] aesthetics goes a long way to just
throwing up a boxy structure to meet the
[34:24] the requirements when you're fitting it
into a neighborhood. And and similar to
[34:29] the last application, as some of my
colleagues mentioned, we didn't have any
[34:34] objections right now from the abutters
or the people that were noticed to come
[34:38] to this hearing about the size of the
dwelling.
[34:40] » Agreed. Yeah, I think that there's um
it's a large ADU. Um when you're looking
[34:44] at the staff analysis, I think we were
chopping this up a little bit to give
[34:48] some optionality if you wanted to reduce
size.
[34:50] » I appreciate it. But I think that the
board is within their right to to look
[34:54] at the whole picture, which is um the
the lack of any noted opposition and the
[35:00] fact that from the street, this
certainly won't come close to looking
[35:04] like a two family or uh or two separate
units. That's my personal perspective.
[35:11] » Do I have any more comments from anyone
on the board? Anyone want to kind of
[35:14] weigh in on this before we entertain a
motion? just
[35:18] my estimate
um
[35:25] this this paragraph says the 2091
described in the staff findings for the
[35:30] above through the removal of the porch
and deck. So that's that's incorrect. It
[35:35] would be 2342 if we remove the porch and
deck. Um, if it's 2091, now we're eating
[35:41] into the structure, which means they
have to redesign the house
[35:44] » or the garage
>> or the garage.
[35:48] I personally don't have a problem with
removing number one and number two
[35:53] conditions of approval,
which means they don't have to take off
[35:58] the deck and they don't have to take off
the porch because
[36:02] that really has no effect.
I mean, I don't know if that's putting
[36:09] us in a a situation down the road that
it's going to be a problem for us with
[36:14] ADUs.
Um, as we said, the building at 2600
[36:19] square ft is including the basement,
which really isn't livable space unless
[36:25] you finish it. But by putting that
outside bulkhead in, now you're making
[36:30] it common storage space. So if you if
you technically take off the the 995
[36:37] square feet, you're down to 165
square ft, which is only 400 above
[36:43] versus
double and more.
[36:48] I don't know where that puts us by
arbitrarily picking how we look at it.
[36:55] And do you have any weigh in on what I'm
talking about, Mr. Solicitor?
[37:01] I would like to, but I I did not have I
didn't know this issue. I was going to
[37:05] be down until Mr. Cody just mentioned it
to me in my ear a moment ago. Um, so I
[37:13] do think at some point the count the
board needs to take a position. Um, are
[37:18] they are they not going to include it
the basement? Forget the out the
[37:22] additional structures. Right now, I'm
not hearing arguments against the um the
[37:27] » Yeah.
>> dog house or the um
[37:33] porch area, right? Are there arguments
against that as well?
[37:36] » No, I I honestly leave I think the best
way to think about it is this. It does
[37:40] not in my mind make sense to have this
app. We thought the basement should be
[37:45] included because the only way to reach
the basement is through the ADU. It's
[37:48] almost as a precedent that I find that
we should make sure that ADUs include
[37:53] all the components that are part of it.
Um, that being said, I think you should
[37:58] stick with the concept that the relief
that's being sought is all under the
[38:02] umbrella of an ADU that's too big to
break it up and say that part shouldn't
[38:06] include it. We we almost open up a can
of worms as to whe whether we notice
[38:09] this correctly. Now, it's up to the
board. I'm not bothered by the basement.
[38:14] It's a lot of square footage, but to me
it doesn't impact the true issue here,
[38:19] which is does this unit look subordinary
and incidental to the primary house. The
[38:25] basement can't be seen. I do think um I
asked the applicant if they had any
[38:30] intent to finish the basement, which I
think is a reasonable question to be
[38:33] asking when we get these. They said that
wasn't their intent. If the board feels
[38:36] that you want to add a condition of
approval to that extent, you could.
[38:39] That's up to the board. I think if
you're not touching the basement, the
[38:43] idea is are you bothered by the front
porch or the rear deck to the degree
[38:47] where you think those amenities make the
house look different than a subordinate
[38:51] incidental house? If they don't in your
mind, then I think you're well within
[38:55] your right to approve it at 2600. Um,
you know, when we did our analysis, it's
[39:00] it sometimes we're thinking that the
board may want some options to reduce
[39:04] the size if the board is of the mind
that they think this is appropriate as
[39:08] it's proposed. I don't have outstanding
concerns with approval as proposed.
[39:13] » If they did decide to finish the
basement in the future, hypothetically,
[39:17] they would have to come back before the
board
[39:19] » whether
I would say so. I would assume
[39:23] » ADU statute. Yes.
>> Yeah. I would actually, you know what's
[39:28] very funny? I take the position that um
the ADU statute and state law doesn't
[39:34] use the word living area. It just uses
the word floor area. We're taking the
[39:37] position that the basement is floor
area. So to be honest, them converting
[39:41] the basement from an unfinished to a
finished, it doesn't impact the fact
[39:45] that they were given an ADU this big. To
be honest, I think that unless this
[39:49] board wishes to add a condition of
approval, they could finish the basement
[39:52] without another variance. It's a
building permit away. To be honest,
[39:56] that's up to the board if you wish to
add a condition of approval on something
[40:00] with relating to the use of the
basement. That's I'll leave that for
[40:04] your discretion. Um, I would say that
we're considering code that gives them
[40:08] that square footage. Whether it's
finished or not, we're giving them the
[40:11] square footage.
[40:16] Anybody else?
All right. So, my thoughts on this now
[40:20] are 2600's what's before us. To render
an approval for anything less than that
[40:27] is going to put the applicant in
jeopardy to some degree. Um, it's a full
[40:32] basement. It's not like a raised ranch
where it's half light. So, um maybe
[40:39] they'll finish it, maybe they won't.
But, um I'm inclined to myself just
[40:44] consider the application on the face of
the way it is. And as Mr. Kenny pointed
[40:48] out, I don't know, um
why one would get stricken, but number
[40:53] two and the conditions of approval
would. Um
[40:58] » and Okay. And you're okay with all the
other conditions of approval? Did you
[41:03] read what those were? Yep. Okay.
>> Okay. So, in unless we have uh more
[41:08] discussion or future, um I'm I'm ready
to entertain a motion.
[41:17] » Basement.
>> That's up to the members, but I I as I
[41:20] said, I I don't have a concern. It's a
full basement. He's going to have
[41:24] utilities down there.
>> Yeah. The way I look at it, it it's
[41:27] below ground. So whether they finish it
or not, that's uh as far as I'm
[41:32] concerned, they just have to go get
>> they're going to have utilities down
[41:34] there, boil it down there, maybe a
washer dryer, I mean,
[41:39] » even if they finish part of it to make
it look nice and put exercise stuff down
[41:42] there, what what do we care?
>> I think it's going to fit in with the
[41:46] neighborhood. That's the most important
thing. So that's just my opinion. Okay.
[41:49] So, with that being said, does um
>> chairman, I'd like to make a favorable
[41:53] motion to T togg
[41:59] uh owner applicant Vincent and Alisa
Torborg, 100 Reservoir Road, Assessor's
[42:04] Plat 43, a lot 18, zone R20, lot size.97
acres. This is an existing family
[42:13] dwelling, which they are going to be
adding an accessory dwelling unit. The
[42:17] applicants proposed to construct a 2600
square feet two-bedroom accessory
[42:23] dwelling on their uh on their lot. The
applicants seek a dimensional variance
[42:30] as the ADU exceeds the maximum unit size
requirements. I'd like to include the
[42:36] staff report with general approval
recommendation number two stricken from
[42:42] the report.
>> I have a motion. Do I have a second?
[42:48] » Second.
>> Second from Mr. Doo. Do we have any
[42:51] further discussion on this application?
[clears throat]
[42:55] Hearing none. Uh, all in favor? I. Any
opposed? None opposed? I sat.
[43:01] » Thank you.
>> Uh, council, I'd like to add a second
[43:04] permit, a second approval for to allow
uh the application to move forward to
[43:10] the building permit process.
>> Second.
[43:13] » I have a motion by Mr. Price and me uh
second by member Studley to allow this
[43:20] application to move to the building
permit stage.
[43:24] Any discussion?
Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any
[43:29] opposed? None. Now you're
>> Thank you.
[43:32] Word and bill.
>> Good luck.
[43:35] » Good luck.
>> Okay. What's next? [sighs]
[43:42] » Yolks.
The Oaks Homeowners Association.
[43:48] » Yes, sir. How are you?
>> Good. Name and address for the record.
[43:53] » Tyler Bosworth to Jack Sway. Um, I am
the president of the Oaks Homeowners
[43:58] Association.
[44:01] » Okay. And you are coming before us. I've
read the application. It sounds like
[44:06] you're just trying to do a little
housekeeping, clean things up.
[44:09] » Yep.
>> Yeah. So to speak. Um,
[44:14] » I can give a quick
>> Yeah, that would be good just just just
[44:17] for the board. I mean, we have it in
front of us, but sometimes it's nice to
[44:20] get
>> um the the the
[44:25] uh declaration that was drafted that um
oversees the rules and regulations
[44:30] within the Oaks Homes Association was um
something that was uh put forth and
[44:36] filed with the town by Robert Duboce
building code. Um and
[44:41] um he had a lot of stuff in there um for
when he was overseeing the board. Um uh
[44:50] but the way that it's written
when enough of the lots were sold and he
[44:54] handed the the you know the jurisdiction
of the board over to the community
[44:59] members. Um it basically says that the
the board really has no uh
[45:06] responsibilities other than maintaining
the common grounds. Um if you read like
[45:10] the beginning parts of it, it's like
anything with bylaws and rules and
[45:14] regulations. It's it's homeowner to
homeowner or town to homeowner
[45:19] compliance. The board really has no say
uh in in any of the stuff going on. So,
[45:25] there were a couple of of things that um
that were in the document that we were
[45:32] just hoping to amend it just to make
things a little bit easier just to
[45:35] maintain the relationship, maintain the
board stuff. And then also um what Bob
[45:41] was approving and doing when he had
ownership of the board versus today
[45:46] there's there's a little bit of
conflicting stuff there. So, it's really
[45:48] two two addendums. Um he's got a section
in there about fencing and it describes
[45:53] particular fencing material that can be
used. Um it does not include vinyl.
[45:59] Um but when he was overseeing the board,
he gave approval for people to install
[46:03] vinyl fencing. Um and we're there's a
lot of houses that have vinyl fencing in
[46:10] the neighborhood. It looks nice. It
looks fine. Um, and we would just like
[46:15] to add vinyl to the list of approved
fencing material uh within our
[46:20] development just to avoid any legal
issues of houses that already have it or
[46:26] want to install it or or whatever the
case may be. So, that's one uh requested
[46:31] addendum. Um, the first and I skipped I
went to the second one first. The first
[46:35] one on on the list um is in regards to
uh out building out structures. Um
[46:43] um it's written that while he is uh in
charge of the board any uh outuilding
[46:52] structure approval has to go through him
as well as meet you know to town
[46:56] compliance ordinance and all that stuff
but he has the the right to say yay or
[47:01] nay. Um and then after he leaves it gets
handed over to the board. Um, but what
[47:08] really isn't documented in there is what
constitutes the approval. Um, it's
[47:14] really subjective and the way our board
works, it's just people that live in the
[47:18] neighborhood and could be a different
group of people next year uh that are on
[47:22] the board. And um, so we just like to
remove the board being responsible for
[47:28] the process of approving any of the L
structures and just leave it with the
[47:31] town. Um, so that way we don't run into
conflicts with,
[47:35] » you know, objective opinions on what is
a good
[47:38] » or the board has to have a meeting. They
don't meet for three months. Now the guy
[47:42] can't get I you you understand he put
that in there because he's still trying
[47:45] to sell the houses and all of a sudden
the guy next door just starts throwing
[47:49] up the building.
>> Problem with with the original verbage,
[47:51] just the last part about when you know
now the board is responsible for
[47:55] approving or denying feds and we just
don't think that that's something that
[47:58] we should be involved with. So, so does
um anyone on the board have any
[48:03] questions for the applicant
>> hearing? None. Um public hearing on this
[48:07] one, too.
>> No. Um this is a an odd request we don't
[48:11] typically get.
>> Okay. Yeah. Yep.
[48:13] » Yeah. Okay. We it and it should be noted
that um it does call out what the
[48:18] official process is at the beginning of
our uh documentation. And it says that
[48:23] we have to get um uh signatures by a
majority of the members uh to approve uh
[48:31] the addendums as well as planning
commission approval. Um and we have a
[48:37] very minimal budget and
>> Oh, the changes these changes you're
[48:40] talking about?
>> Yes. Yeah.
[48:41] » Yeah. So um so tonight's request is to
just formally
[48:47] get the approval from the planning
commission to Yeah. we agree with the
[48:51] concept of these changes. We I will
still have to go back and collect the
[48:55] necessary signatures
um and then present them and file them,
[48:59] I'm assuming, with the town to actually
officially make these changes. So again,
[49:04] tonight was just to get your guys, you
know, blessing. Yeah, it's it's fine.
[49:08] You guys can move forward with Are you
okay? So if we vote on this tonight, I
[49:12] it'll go administratively after that.
You'll work with them to get Correct.
[49:16] They don't have to come back. Frankly,
we don't have many HOAs that say that to
[49:19] change their own HOA bylaws, they have
to come back to the planning. So, I
[49:22] think this was an idea a previous
planning staff or commission had
[49:27] inserted. Frankly, we wouldn't recommend
having bylaws and HOA docs require
[49:32] coming back to the town. This one
happens to have it and we have no
[49:35] issues.
>> This is Oaks, right? This is the
[49:39] » not to be confused with the Oaks, too.
>> Yeah. No, this one we have no concerns
[49:42] with the things they're changing. He
just happens to need a vote. Um, and so
[49:47] it's a very simple
>> Which oaks is this? Off Tyoke or Ho
[49:50] Furnace? Which
>> it's Twood?
[49:53] » Twood Drive West. Yeah.
>> Okay.
[49:57] » So, there was
>> it was another
[50:01] subdivision cut through Road off Luba.
>> Yeah.
[50:04] » That I guess the original developer
handed off and so he just named it Oaks,
[50:09] too. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um,
[50:14] any further discussion from the Okay,
I'll entertain a motion then.
[50:19] » I'll make a motion to approve the
proposed changes to the declaration of
[50:22] restrictive and protective covenants uh
for the oaks as presented.
[50:27] » I have I have a motion. I have a second.
A motion by member Stley, second by
[50:33] uh member Kenny. Do we have any further
discussion? I didn't hear any. Okay. All
[50:37] in favor? I. Any opposed? None. All set.
All right. Good luck, gentlemen.
[50:46] » Wonder how many signatures he has to
get.
[50:49] » Well, he knows he got some some good
ones because he was buying a fence.
[50:52] » Okay, so we are now up to item 9.2,
which is the zoning code updates. And I
[50:59] think we've got some pressing matters. I
realize it's still fairly early, but
[51:02] just out of an abundance of caution, I'd
like to switch up the agenda. Could I
[51:05] have a motion to please uh move item 9.2
to uh to uh
[51:14] to after item 10 and we will take up the
uh
[51:20] 10 point
you want 10.2 first or 10.1 or it
[51:24] doesn't
>> let's do 10.1 I imagine it may be pretty
[51:27] quick and we do have an applicant here
for that
[51:29] » oh okay I'm sorry okay so we'll I I'll
entertain a motion to move item 9.2 to
[51:35] um to after after items 10.
>> I'll I'll make a motion to move 9.2 to
[51:42] after item 10 on the agenda.
>> I have a motion. Do I have a second?
[51:46] » Second.
>> I have a second by member Stley. Motion
[51:48] was by Mr. Kenny. All in favor? I. And
now uh we'll take item 10.1 ordinance
[51:55] 2026-21
amending chapter 255 of the zoning
[51:59] article 5 zoning districts and zoning
district map reszoning 1119
[52:06] after general business from
must have been BP um Michael beard
[52:17] » how are you
board on behalf of Mr. Beard attorney Al
[52:22] Medisi Medici on behalf of Mr. Beard.
[52:30] Okay,
I have to confess this is my first time
[52:33] at a first read, so I'm not sure how how
you proceed.
[52:37] » First, this is my first time at a at a
first read, so I'm not sure how you
[52:40] proceed on on these matters.
>> Mr. Mediti, if you just want to give a
[52:45] twominute overview of uh the proposal
that you're looking to do. Sure. So, uh,
[52:51] Mr. Be is proposing to, um, he need have
the zone changed, uh, from plan
[52:56] development to general business. Uh, his
intention is currently a building, an
[53:01] old kiosk from Citizens Bank. It's
being, uh, torn down. He already has his
[53:05] a demo permit to take the building down.
Uh, it intentions to put up a 50 by 100,
[53:12] uh, garage style storage building for
contractors could store their equipment
[53:16] there.
[53:20] Yep. Okay. And that's allowed by Wright
and the general business owners.
[53:24] » That use is allowed by Wright. Um would
be worth noting as the board may be
[53:29] thoughtful on um the uh aesthetics is
that this property would still be
[53:34] subject to the special planning overlay
which uh would bring with it uh certain
[53:40] um aesthetic degrees. It talks about the
the building materials. It talks about
[53:44] pitched roofs. uh this property would
still be subject to that overlay. Um I
[53:50] know it's it's likely it's a prominent
property and it will become more
[53:53] prominent because of the development in
and around it. Uh we do have the
[53:56] capacity to ensure that there's um uh a
streetscape uh appeal to the best degree
[54:02] we can be aware of those conditions.
>> Yeah.
[54:06] » And what's the um
how big is the lot?
[54:12] » It's fairly small.
[54:18] 1.3 acres.
>> And And what would be allowed in the
[54:21] business park zone?
>> When you say the business park, you mean
[54:24] the BP zone? Are you talking Are you
referring
[54:27] » PD? I'm sorry.
>> PD. So a PD zone is like a make your own
[54:30] zone essentially. Um the that means or a
PUD. You might have heard that term
[54:36] before.
>> I'm just trying to figure out what is he
[54:39] going to gain by switching this to
general business. What can he do here
[54:42] now that he can't do? Because originally
that was all zoned
[54:47] » for for planned development, at least
that's what it says, change from planned
[54:51] development when they had the proposal
for the mixeduse development in there.
[54:55] And now we've got 400 apartments going
in there using the same entrance. And
[55:00] basically, Mr. Beard has an easement to
get to his property through what they're
[55:04] building. And I'm just thinking
contractor trucks and equipment that
[55:09] might be using um what could be
construed as an industrial use really. I
[55:15] mean I I don't know what he's going to
be storing in there. Um so um couple
[55:21] considerations. The PD zone as it's
zoned right now would only really allow
[55:25] him to uh achieve the same use within
the same building footprint. And when
[55:29] this was zone PD they tied the zone to
the approved site plan at the time. So
[55:35] essentially this was a zone that allowed
them to build exactly what they built.
[55:40] Um so the options are to either reszone
it to PD to something else which we're
[55:46] kind of kicking the can to whatever he
wants to do. We're going to do it as a
[55:50] zone exercise and uh that is one option
but that's not the option they're
[55:56] seeking. What they're seeking is to turn
it back to a GB which is a generic zone.
[56:01] that zoning designation matches what
exists on Tyogg on both sides of the
[56:05] street for the duration. So, we see it
as a fit because imagine that what
[56:09] they're seeking to do is the same thing
that Burger King or any other lot that's
[56:13] in the vicinity could also seek to do.
They're going to be given the same range
[56:16] of allowed uses across the GB zone. Um I
think it is worth noting because we're
[56:22] aware that there's um new development in
and around the area that we would have
[56:27] the tools. This would come back to the
board as uh either a major or minor land
[56:32] development. Likely a minor. Uh
actually, I take that back. It may not
[56:35] come back to the board if it's a minor
land development, but the town will
[56:39] still review the details of the minor
land development. We'll be able to
[56:43] ensure that there's um good aesthetic
outcomes if because we do have the
[56:48] ability to suggest what building
materials can be used, the pitches of
[56:52] roofs, and there's a code on
fenestration on windows. So I think um
[56:56] out of the range of uses that are
allowed, we can at least ensure there's
[57:00] some good form, some good appearance of
the structures,
[57:06] » right? And is the has the town done
anything with this ordinance? Do they
[57:11] read it once and now we're making the
recommendation? They did.
[57:14] » This got a this got a first reading last
night at the town council. Um, so it is
[57:19] in front of you for a recommendation and
then back in front of the town council.
[57:22] I believe on September 22nd is when they
may shoot for a hearing, but it may not
[57:28] make it that quickly. Do you happen to
note in September 22nd? I believe it's
[57:32] back in front of the council for
>> hearing. But did what do they do about
[57:35] notice? Cuz the applicant for the abuing
parcel probably isn't the owner of
[57:39] record.
>> Um, for notice, you don't mail a notice
[57:43] for a zone change like this. You
actually the notice occurs through the
[57:46] paper. So, there's a newspaper ad that
will be run three consecutive weeks to
[57:50] notify um actually I'll ask the
solicitor on a zone change because we
[57:56] haven't issued notice yet. Um this
recommendation is occurring as a
[58:00] required step but a non-notice step
aside from the fact that our agenda
[58:04] tells us what we're doing. It's the
hearing and for a zone change where
[58:08] there um it's not a zoning amendment.
It's a it's a property zone change. the
[58:11] solicitor might advise there is mailed
notice to a butters
[58:16] » if um the distinction is if it's a text
change it's just advertised in the
[58:22] newspaper three successive weeks 14 days
you know on a series of uh notices but
[58:28] if it's a map change and this would be a
map change it has to be both that
[58:33] advertised in the newspaper three
successive weeks I believe 21 days and
[58:38] also noticed uh surrounding the butt is
I think within 200 ft. You may have a
[58:44] greater u notice section towns sometimes
have greater thing but the answer is
[58:51] nobody really the abuters are not aware
of this at this moment right they're
[58:55] going to be aware of this at the public
hearing when it goes to the council
[58:59] » okay that's I just want to make sure
that our applicant who's we're going to
[59:04] be back in front of us on September 14th
with
[59:08] a extreme number of affordable or LMI
units to help the town meet their guide.
[59:15] 400 apartments is not going to say we
didn't expect that to go right in front.
[59:20] » The um the applicant is aware of this
zone change. Both the applicants have
[59:24] spoken. So they're both aware of you
answered my question.
[59:27] » Yeah. And uh and this is considered a
map change. They're they're changing the
[59:31] zoning map. So
>> So as far as you know, there wasn't any
[59:33] kicking and screaming and any objections
to this.
[59:36] » Um I can I can tell you that both the
applicants are aware of each other's
[59:40] proposals.
>> Okay. Thank you. We'll leave it at that.
[59:44] » I can attest to that fact as well that
I'm sorry.
[59:46] » I can attest to the fact there have been
communication.
[59:51] Okay. Uh, anyone else have any
questions?
[59:56] Hearing none.
[1:00:00] » We're making a recommendation to the
town.
[1:00:03] » Just make a recommendation. We're making
a recommendation of the town council
[1:00:05] that they may proce or or to re to I'm
sorry to to pass an ordinance that
[1:00:11] reszones
um that lot highlighted in yellow which
[1:00:16] is where the citizens bank kiosk is in
front of the old commercial plaza
[1:00:22] um to business general business as
opposed to planned development which
[1:00:28] they have a a a right to do based on the
designation of a plan development.
[1:00:36] » The I mean when you ask the question, do
they have a right to do it? They have a
[1:00:39] right to seek a zone change. A zone
change is a legislative action. The
[1:00:43] council's the decision maker. There's
nothing guaranteed, but um it does have
[1:00:48] some logical sense in that. I don't
think that the applicant envisions
[1:00:53] trying to build a bank in the exact same
footprint. This is really current zoning
[1:00:57] locks this in place for a very limited
range of options. the general business
[1:01:01] is really what surrounds the area. So,
we feel pretty comfortable that what
[1:01:05] they could build here could be built on
any other lot in the vicinity um along
[1:01:10] Tyoke. So, we feel comfortable it's
straightforward and we don't need the
[1:01:14] PD's tool to be used for this lot moving
forward.
[1:01:17] » From what what I'm reading, it was
originally zoned general business.
[1:01:22] » Yeah.
>> Prior and then was changed to plan
[1:01:25] development.
>> That's correct. Oh, they were going to
[1:01:27] retail.
>> This was at one point this property was
[1:01:30] part of a larger proposal. They were had
a really complex development scheme
[1:01:34] largely in the back to comp to do the
complex development scheme. They needed
[1:01:38] a make your own zone. Then this property
got carved off and now this property
[1:01:42] kind of lives as a remnant of an old
vision. Um and really I think this
[1:01:46] property should have more optionality
for the choices moving forward.
[1:01:53] » Yes.
>> Just wanted to mention Mr. Price asked
[1:01:56] it. You actually have two votes. One, I
believe, is to um
[1:02:02] vote whether or not you think this
proposed change is consistent with your
[1:02:06] comprehensive plan. That's your
statutory obligation that has to go to
[1:02:10] the council. And then in addition to
that, you could make a positive or
[1:02:15] negative. And the normally when people
when the boards find it consistent with
[1:02:19] the comprehensive plan, they also make a
positive recommendation,
[1:02:23] » right? So they're they usually but
technically they're two different
[1:02:27] they're two different votes
>> and it has and the change from the
[1:02:32] change to general business is
um not included with what the applicant
[1:02:39] plans on putting on the site right now.
He has to come back for that application
[1:02:45] or go to
>> well unless he's got it by right
[1:02:48] » unless Yeah. So
>> he's got something by right. He might
[1:02:51] not be coming to you.
>> Come back to to planning whether it's
[1:02:54] » No, I disagree. I think he would go back
might have to just go to building or
[1:02:59] » it would be my my assumption of what's
going to happen is the the what he's
[1:03:03] seeking to build does not need to be
incorporated into the zone change
[1:03:06] because he's just doing a straight zone
change to a straight zone. Um the
[1:03:10] application they're conceiving I assume
will end up being a minor land
[1:03:13] development which is commercial square
footage underneath 7500 square ft. minor
[1:03:18] land developments go to TRC and they get
administrative decisions, but all of TRC
[1:03:22] reviews it. They all comment on it and
uh this applicant uh will have to uh
[1:03:28] attest to the the general business code
as well as that overlay code that has
[1:03:32] the aesthetic oversight.
>> So So you you will have involvement.
[1:03:36] » Yeah. Yeah. This application it will
result in a in a formal application. um
[1:03:41] TRC will review it and uh assuming it
stays as a minor um planning the
[1:03:46] administrative officer will decide.
>> Okay.
[1:03:48] » And I and then I would note with all
zone changes because we've done a
[1:03:52] handful of them. There are required
findings. Um the you'll see in the staff
[1:03:56] memo we call out towards the end the the
required findings, there's two of them.
[1:04:00] One is that it it is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. The other required
[1:04:04] finding is that it's consistent with the
purposes of zoning. Um, we've made the
[1:04:08] required findings and uh, it's up to the
solicitor might determine that the
[1:04:12] findings should get their own vote, but
we've typically done it as a singular
[1:04:16] vote to recommend in a certain direction
to the council and acknowledge for the
[1:04:22] record that you concur with the findings
in the memo. If that makes sense to you.
[1:04:30] » Yep.
[1:04:33] » Oh, I didn't think I had that. That's
why I'm asking all these questions. Can
[1:04:38] I just see that?
Either that or I misplaced it.
[1:04:44] I'm sorry. Just give me a second. I I
didn't see this um in the packet.
[1:04:55] » Right. Right. Right. Right. Yeah, I got
that part. Yeah.
[1:05:08] might be helpful. I think the um the
planner had indicated that the
[1:05:13] properties
also running on either side of that
[1:05:18] Tyogre Avenue are all GB.
>> Yeah, if you look at the map on the
[1:05:22] screen, everything in gray is GB.
>> No, no, I'm I'm fine. I Yep. I'm
[1:05:26] familiar with that. I'm just trying to
gauge as I said the the this is where
[1:05:31] again there was a plaza there there were
multiple stores citizens comes wants to
[1:05:35] put a kiosk there they didn't even ask
for access off tyio gap they got an
[1:05:40] easement they were they complemented
each other you had a bank in the
[1:05:43] shopping center I mean that's just the
way they did thing what I was trying to
[1:05:46] determine from this map is if in fact
there's there looks like there's legal
[1:05:50] access to tyoke but the physical access
is constrained by some type of
[1:05:55] » that's correct there's wetland
constraint there.
[1:05:59] » That's where you see the wetland curls
right in front of the property and then
[1:06:02] it goes into a covert. It the there's a
physical constraint um where they can't
[1:06:07] have direct access on Tyogg and the
property does have there's cross
[1:06:11] easements so the property does have
easement access through the larger lot.
[1:06:15] Um both this has been discussed both of
the two applicants are aware of it. Um
[1:06:20] they're both aware of these pending
actions. They're both aware of the dates
[1:06:23] that they can attend each other's
meetings if they wish to add comment and
[1:06:27] they're both aware to comment to me. I
haven't received comment negatively from
[1:06:31] either of these two parties on the other
application.
[1:06:36] » Okay.
[1:06:39] » And if whatever whatever act whatever
construction they wanted to do their use
[1:06:45] now they would have to demonstrate to
the planning department that they have
[1:06:49] permanent physical access. So, the
point's well taken.
[1:06:52] » Oh. Oh, they definitely do. I'm just
trying to figure out again what what is
[1:06:57] going on this property. I mean, M. Mr.
Beards put up a number of these um lodge
[1:07:04] buildings for storage. And again, we
don't know exactly what's going there or
[1:07:09] the dimensions, but that type of
facility um he he was taking boats in
[1:07:14] for the winter because it was cheaper
than shrink wrapping or you got
[1:07:17] landscapers coming in with trucks. and I
was just trying to figure out how that
[1:07:21] was going to be compatible. If he
doesn't have road front andage, he's not
[1:07:24] necessarily looking for retail. Um,
there's probably some things that would
[1:07:28] go there that would complement the
apartments, but that's not our business.
[1:07:31] That's that's up to the applicant. But I
just want to make sure we're not doing
[1:07:34] anything that facilitates something that
may have a negative con consequence. But
[1:07:40] the question was answered. The a butter
will have an opportunity to go to the
[1:07:45] town council hearing if they have any
objections or want some further
[1:07:48] restriction on it. So, we'll we'll let
it play out.
[1:07:54] That said,
any anyone else have questions? If not,
[1:07:59] I'll entertain a motion.
>> I'll make a motion that the planning
[1:08:05] board forward a positive recommendation
to the town council
[1:08:10] on uh the matter of the proposed zone
change for AP28, lot 3.1. Um, and in
[1:08:18] that I also make a motion that the
planning board adopt the findings of
[1:08:25] fact as laid out in the staff report.
Those being that the zone changes
[1:08:31] consistent with the comprehensive plan
and that um it is consistent with the
[1:08:38] purposes of zoning as presented in
452430.
[1:08:43] » That cover it. Okay. Uh, I have a
motion. Do I have a second? I have a mo
[1:08:48] motion by Vice Chair Studley and me uh
second by member Price. Any further
[1:08:55] discussion? I know I've asked sound like
a broken record, but hearing none. All
[1:08:59] in favor? I. Any opposed?
>> None.
[1:09:03] » All set. Thank you for your time.
>> I know I took a while. Okay. So, now we
[1:09:10] go to 10.2.
amendment to housing and land use
[1:09:14] chapters of the locally adopted 2026
comprehensive plan.
[1:09:20] And this is a public hearing. Um, do you
want me to open the public hearing and
[1:09:25] then you give opening remarks or do you
want to give us some opening remarks and
[1:09:28] then I'll go to public hearing? It
doesn't matter.
[1:09:33] » Kyle, is there anyone on Zoom?
>> There are four people.
[1:09:40] Um, I'll give brief remarks. Okay. Thank
you.
[1:09:43] » And uh I'll just uh suggest that what's
in front of you are amendments to the
[1:09:49] comprehensive plan that we recently
adopted. Uh you may recall this board uh
[1:09:56] made a favorable recommendation on the
comprehensive plan. Um was that late
[1:10:00] April?
And uh that comprehensive plan without
[1:10:06] change was adopted by the town council.
Uh we've always known along the way that
[1:10:11] we felt that the housing element of the
the housing chapter of the comprehensive
[1:10:15] plan uh could have been greatly improved
and we uh achieved funding to do that.
[1:10:20] It just happened that we both wanted to
get our comprehensive plan over the
[1:10:24] finish line for a variety of reasons not
related to the housing chapter, but we
[1:10:29] also wanted to take advantage of uh the
resources we had to write the housing
[1:10:33] chapter in a more robust way. Uh we've
been able to do that. Um the full
[1:10:38] comprehensive plan is still in a
statewide planning comment period.
[1:10:42] Essentially statewide planning approves
these uh the comment uh I wouldn't say
[1:10:47] it's the comment period. It's it's their
fivemonth review period. Um we they're
[1:10:52] very aware that we're rewriting the plan
while they're currently reviewing it and
[1:10:56] that they understand that we will have a
fully rewritten housing chapter. Um, as
[1:11:01] it relates to the housing chapter, we
did have some other changes to the land
[1:11:05] use chapter that included um, uh, a new
buildout analysis. Um, and that included
[1:11:12] some other uh, associated changes to uh,
the land use chapter related to um,
[1:11:18] future growth um, particularly in the
future land use map categories uh, and
[1:11:24] discussion of future land use map
categories. So, um, long story short, it
[1:11:28] is a full rewrite of the housing
chapter. This was subject to public
[1:11:32] input. Um, this also, um, referred to,
uh, stakeholder input we had with
[1:11:38] housing experts. This, uh, relied upon
public input we gathered through a
[1:11:43] communitywide survey. Um, we feel it's a
it's a strong document. it does do what
[1:11:49] we wanted, which was taking a housing
chapter that we felt was um fairly
[1:11:54] substandard and may not have ultimately
achieved statewide planning approval
[1:11:58] because at that point we had pretty uh
dated uh data and information we were
[1:12:03] relying on. This is updated data. It's
uh policy framework that relies on our
[1:12:09] current decision makers. Um we feel it's
a strong document. Uh that's enough from
[1:12:15] me. We can either see if there's public
comments and go from there or if the
[1:12:20] board has initial questions I can help
answer.
[1:12:24] » Make a recommendation to open it to
public comment.
[1:12:27] » I have a recommendation to from Mr.
Price to open public hearing. I'm sorry.
[1:12:33] Motion uh and a second by Mr. Kenny. All
in favor?
[1:12:39] » I. Any opposed? None. Okay. Public
hearing is open. Is there anyone in the
[1:12:46] audience that wishes to speak on the uh
draft of the
[1:12:52] proposed draft housing chapter for the
town's comprehensive plan?
[1:12:58] And I don't see anyone anyone on Zoom
wants to comment on the housing chapter
[1:13:03] that's proposed. It's a draft to the
comprehensive plan. Please raise your
[1:13:08] hand.
[1:13:11] No.
No, no comments. How about the board?
[1:13:21] No, no.
All the work done up front must be uh
[1:13:27] sufficient for it to be this smooth at
the end.
[1:13:32] » Yeah, the chairman. I'd like to make a
motion to close public hearing.
[1:13:38] » Okay. I have a motion to close public
hearing by member Kenny. Do I have a
[1:13:41] second? I have a second by member Dude.
All in favor? I
[1:13:46] » Okay. Any anything else to add before we
uh go to You just want to
[1:13:51] » No, I'm uh I've given you everything I
need. Um I would just note you've got a
[1:13:56] a a planning department memorandum.
There are required findings and
[1:14:00] essentially you can make your motion
based on that. Um we are ultimately uh
[1:14:06] just forwarding a recommendation to the
town council. The council will hold its
[1:14:10] own hearing. We anticipate for any of
those listening in or uh reviewing this
[1:14:14] meeting after the fact, we anticipate
that council hearing will be September
[1:14:18] 22nd and that would be subject to an
additional round of public notice. So,
[1:14:23] you can always keep your eyes out for
future council agendas and the ads, but
[1:14:28] we anticipate September 22nd hearing by
the council as the final step on these
[1:14:33] amendments.
>> Okay. And just to clarify, the state is
[1:14:38] currently reviewing our comprehensive
plan and this will just be supplemented
[1:14:42] to that is if it passes and they will
just continue with their review and
[1:14:47] hopefully um we'll hear from them in
some time.
[1:14:51] » That's correct.
>> In the future and then the lift's over.
[1:14:54] Okay. Um Okay. So, you're looking for a
motion to make a favorable
[1:14:58] recommendation to the town council to
include this uh housing chapter in the
[1:15:04] comprehensive plan and to incorporate
your um staff report
[1:15:09] » for and for the record uh the housing
chapter and edits to the land use
[1:15:12] chapter as well.
>> Okay.
[1:15:17] I'll entertain a motion if someone
chooses to make one. Mr. Mr. Chairman,
[1:15:21] I'd like to make a positive
recommendation to the town council for
[1:15:26] the comprehensive plan update
for housing and land use. Um, that is
[1:15:34] consistent with our state goals as set
forth in RGI 4522-3.
[1:15:45] » I have a motion. Do I have a second? And
yeah,
[1:15:49] » I'd like to court the planning
department memorandum
[1:15:57] » and I have a second from member Luca.
Uh, any further discussion?
[1:16:03] I would just add the draft that we have
in front of us tonight is dated August
[1:16:06] 19th, 2026. Just to make sure there's no
misunderstanding.
[1:16:12] That said, all in favor?
>> I do. I have any opposed? None opposed.
[1:16:18] Motion carries. Thank you very much.
>> Yep, we got that done. And now the next
[1:16:22] thing is discussion on zoning code
updates.
[1:16:25] » Yeah. So, um, this one, uh, Heather,
you're all set. Thank you very much. Um,
[1:16:32] yep. Um, this one can take as much or as
little time as we choose, although I
[1:16:36] would note I'd like to give it enough
time to to get some feedback from you
[1:16:40] and allow our consultant to take some
next steps. Jim Rearen is here uh, from
[1:16:46] Weston and Samson. Um, we've done a lot
of uh code work. A lot of it has been
[1:16:51] with uh Ashley of Weston and Samson
who's out on uh a sick leave at the
[1:16:56] moment. So Jim's uh filling in. Uh these
are some old MTAP projects. Uh the
[1:17:03] long-standing board members will recall
we've had discussions about what we
[1:17:07] wanted to do with multifamily and two
family. We sat around maps. We talked
[1:17:12] about different concepts. Um, so and
long-standing board members will also
[1:17:18] recall that on January of 2024,
um, we effectuated, uh, zoning code
[1:17:26] changes to essentially remove every use
that was allowed through a special use
[1:17:31] permit in town. Um, those two issues,
the idea of let's bring back multif
[1:17:35] family and two family and how and where
is it appropriate? That's a big
[1:17:40] question. And uh the other is all these
uses that we previously allowed, you're
[1:17:45] seeing a big chunk of them. This is
we've we've seen some come back in drips
[1:17:50] and drabs. You've seen gas stations come
back. Uh you saw kennels come back that
[1:17:54] those individual ones came back because
there were uh parties that were
[1:17:57] interested in pursuing them, but what
we're looking at is also broad strokes.
[1:18:03] There's many uses and we're trying to
sort out how do we bring them back? Um
[1:18:09] and so those two big issues which are
really kind of independent separate
[1:18:12] issues they were independent separate um
uh funding projects that we got we this
[1:18:18] these consulting uh work that we gained
with assistance from the state. We're
[1:18:22] trying to wrap it all up by the end of
this calendar year. Really that's the
[1:18:26] target is we have to close these
projects before uh December 31st. Um, we
[1:18:32] envision that these two items, the
multifamily and bringing back the uses
[1:18:36] previously allowed through special use
permit, they're uh something that we can
[1:18:41] uh have conversations over the next um
three up to three planning commission
[1:18:47] meetings. So, we've got time tonight and
then we're going to set a little bit of
[1:18:50] time in our September meeting and set a
little bit of time in our October
[1:18:55] meeting. The consultant's goal is to get
enough feedback from you tonight so that
[1:18:59] they can start putting pen to paper and
drafting code that you might be able to
[1:19:03] see. Um, you also might say, "I have uh
some questions. I maybe want to see some
[1:19:08] research done in a certain area." Well,
they might be able to do that research
[1:19:11] and come back with answers to those
questions at the next meeting. with the
[1:19:15] idea by the end of this we hope to have
draft code that we're fairly satisfied
[1:19:20] with on our level that we can consider
then moving forward in a formal sense
[1:19:25] with uh the town council and and putting
the the the code into a formal ordinance
[1:19:30] format. So that's probably enough from
me to start. Um, I do think that, you
[1:19:37] know, those of you who have, you know,
these are big packets, so I don't know,
[1:19:41] you know, you may have only had a chance
to skim some of these. I think out of
[1:19:46] the two discussions,
um, either the multif family, two family
[1:19:50] being one of them, the special use
permit uses being the other. I'd
[1:19:54] recommend we start with the multifamily.
Um,
[1:19:59] and the the the very brief memo that we
have, it's a
[1:20:04] three-page memo. Um, it outlines the
basic concepts that the planning
[1:20:11] commission has established with what it
wants to see. I'm going to say that we
[1:20:17] understand that the planning commission
wants to consider reallowing these uses.
[1:20:23] There was always the intent that we
would make sure that somehow multif
[1:20:26] family and and two families would come
back. There's been a strong concern
[1:20:30] about um allowing those in any way,
shape or form that would increase uh the
[1:20:37] baseline density that could be achieved
on a parcel if we and I think a lot of
[1:20:41] the rationale for that has been we all
have seen many comprehensive permits.
[1:20:45] It's a predominant development tool in
the state. If we do any underlying
[1:20:49] zoning changes that allow someone to
achieve greater numbers of units through
[1:20:53] underlying zoning, a comprehensive
permit can build on top of that and get
[1:20:57] a greater outcome by adding the state
density to our underlying zoning. So,
[1:21:01] we've held a policy that we've kind of
called even Steven, which is let's allow
[1:21:05] the uses, but let's ensure that our
zoning um does not increase the ability
[1:21:10] to create more units than the underlying
zoning currently does. that can be a
[1:21:15] little limiting and restrictive, but I
understand that we're taking a
[1:21:19] conservative posture uh to really make
sure that comprehensive permits don't
[1:21:23] get additional units from what they
already are allowed to seek. Um so that
[1:21:28] even Stephen is a basic component of all
this. There's other components you've
[1:21:32] talked about. You you didn't love the
concept of multifamily coming in big
[1:21:36] buildings. You like the idea that you
could allow the use but do it in in in
[1:21:40] multiple smaller buildings instead of
one big one. And uh one very open-ended
[1:21:46] question was what do we want to do for
multif family or two family in our
[1:21:50] commercial zones? We don't currently
allow residential at all in our
[1:21:55] commercial zones, but we're seeing a lot
of interest in developing commercial in
[1:22:00] our or I'm sorry, developing residential
in our commercial. You're seeing it with
[1:22:03] the comprehensive permits. You're seeing
comprehensive permits take place in our
[1:22:08] uh commercial districts. You're seeing
the business park which has all of the
[1:22:11] receiverhip parcels. It does turn out
that our commercial zones are receiving
[1:22:16] a lot of interest and a lot of units but
there's not a underlying byright um
[1:22:22] codified way for people to do it. So
while we think about how we allow these
[1:22:26] uses in our perhaps the R20 our densest
residential we should be thinking about
[1:22:30] what do we want to do in our commercial
districts and our industrial districts
[1:22:34] as well. So I'll leave it there. The
goal tonight is to get your feedback. Uh
[1:22:39] if you review the memo and you review
the bullets at the top of page two,
[1:22:44] which really calls out those kind of
basic parameters that this board had
[1:22:48] established, probably a year to a year
and a half ago is the last time we ever
[1:22:52] discussed this. Uh if you feel good
about those basic parameters, if you
[1:22:56] want to add context, if you don't feel
good about them, that's what we want to
[1:23:01] hear from you.
[1:23:10] So
[1:23:13] limiting the maximum number of dwelling
units within an individual multif family
[1:23:17] to six that excludes
like compliments, right? I mean cuz I'm
[1:23:24] I'm not opposed to apartment buildings
as long as they're cited in the right
[1:23:27] spot.
>> Fair enough. Yeah, we um this all of
[1:23:31] this is the assumption is that um it
does exclude comp permits. A comp permit
[1:23:36] is allowed to essentially not follow
zoning. This is our choice to make a
[1:23:42] compelling code that someone that wanted
to do multif family would have a choice
[1:23:46] in our underlying code. We felt and I
think this was specifically thinking
[1:23:51] about R20. Let's just say there's a 10
acre lot in the R20 zone. There's not
[1:23:57] many, but there are a few here and
there. Uh, underlying zoning would
[1:24:00] suggest you could get 20 units out of
that lot. Um, the concept is the board
[1:24:06] felt if we're in an R20, it's largely
going to be surrounded by single family.
[1:24:11] The board felt more comfortable if
you're going to give 20 units, let's do
[1:24:16] three smaller buildings of six units and
make it more townhouse oriented than one
[1:24:20] big building of 20 units. That was
previous context and feedback. The board
[1:24:27] may feel differently now. You may feel
like, "No, I'm open to having a 20 unit
[1:24:32] in one building larger scale apartment
complex." Um, we're looking for your
[1:24:37] feedback if that's
>> it. It's hard for a one-sizefits-all. I
[1:24:42] do not have
any objection to a high-rise apartment
[1:24:47] building three or four stories. I mean,
they're going in. They they have them in
[1:24:53] other cities and towns. We're seeing
them get developed. They got nice
[1:24:56] facade. Sometimes they have a a meeting
space. There's a demand for that type.
[1:25:01] And and in fact, if you head towards
West Warick on the right hand side,
[1:25:04] there's an apartment building in the
back. And then they've got a few elderly
[1:25:07] highrises in West Warick. And then here,
we don't really have that I can think of
[1:25:13] any high-rise structures. Um,
so that's my point, but I don't want to
[1:25:21] say, oh, it's going to be allowed in the
R20 zone because, as you just said,
[1:25:24] somebody may have 10 acres in the middle
of two different residential plats where
[1:25:27] it's predominantly surrounded by single
family, not a good fit. And someone
[1:25:31] might come in and say, it doesn't really
matter. I can fit it in there. Whereas,
[1:25:34] if it's got its own access, let's say
off a um a major artery road, and you
[1:25:40] just got to go in and it opens up, and
there's, you [clears throat] know,
[1:25:43] there's not a lot of abuing properties.
it can be screened properly and it might
[1:25:48] work. So, how do you do they still have
an option to come in for some type of
[1:25:53] variance or other um that was would be
how it would have to might have to go to
[1:25:58] the town council or get a a PUD or
something like that. So, as long as
[1:26:02] there's a mechanism, I just don't want
to
[1:26:05] » close the door on those types of things.
No, I think that you wouldn't. It is
[1:26:09] true that you could create code that
anybody can seek a variance from and
[1:26:14] then ultimately you are the decision
maker on variances as it would be
[1:26:18] related to multif family projects
>> because as we said and I'm sorry the
[1:26:22] reason I we talked about the compliments
but there could be a time when we don't
[1:26:27] have to consider compromise anymore
because we met our housing goal
[1:26:30] » that and they won't become right and
then they can't come in on that. So now
[1:26:33] what mechanism do they have? If somebody
wants to put up an apartment complex and
[1:26:38] there's actually a demand for it and
it's a good fit, they can come in and
[1:26:43] they just got to
dot the eyes, go for the right changes
[1:26:47] and either reszone the lot or something
like that.
[1:26:50] » Yeah. Um so I mean what we're
considering I think the the probably the
[1:26:54] biggest challenge is how would we want
to handle this in the R20? I do think to
[1:26:57] be honest I get a sense the board might
be open to these uses in the commercial
[1:27:02] districts but the challenge is how do we
want to handle it when we know that the
[1:27:07] large context around it would be our
single family neighborhoods and if we
[1:27:11] find a solution we're happy with there
it probably looks easier to then turn to
[1:27:15] our commercial and say what are we
comfortable with there as comparison I
[1:27:20] think you look at it as a 10acre parcel
you could do 20 single family houses
[1:27:24] there so we would say even Stephen
you're allowed to do 20 multif family
[1:27:28] units. The thought is, okay, you might
say, I'm comfortable with that as long
[1:27:34] as you give me
uh you you you you site it on the right
[1:27:38] area of the lot. And that's one of the
tenants we talked about. If you want to
[1:27:41] do multif family, there might be a
minimum distance to the nearest single
[1:27:44] family. So, you're not putting the the
multifamily, you know, right on one side
[1:27:49] of the property or the other. You put it
in a way that is separate from the
[1:27:53] existing single family. Um, we've talked
about a number of different things where
[1:27:57] people were, you know, maybe you would
be comfortable with small buildings, a
[1:28:02] series of like, let's say it's three
buildings with six units each. It looks
[1:28:05] more like town houses. You might say,
"Hey, someone has a great concept to do
[1:28:10] something different." We can consider it
through a variance. If someone has a
[1:28:13] site that's just perfect for uh a bigger
building, you can look at it through a
[1:28:18] variance. Now, to me, it's really about
establishing what's the baseline code
[1:28:23] that you would accept on every lot in
R20. And if you start to get to a point
[1:28:29] where I don't know if I'd want this kind
of approach on every lot in R20, then
[1:28:34] you need to think through why not and is
there code we can write to protect from
[1:28:39] that negative outcome of why did I not
want this use on that kind of setting.
[1:28:44] So, I know we've talked about um the
even Steven approach on density. We've
[1:28:48] talked about um making sure the
buildings themselves don't have more
[1:28:53] than a certain number of units. We've
talked about uh maybe a minimum
[1:28:57] separation distance to the nearest
single family dwelling. Um we've talked
[1:29:00] about maybe landscape buffers. Uh these
are the concepts we've talked about kind
[1:29:05] of developing the most comfort around
the use. Um, you guys tell me if there's
[1:29:10] something that you feel like, hey, I'm
not hearing this and I want to hear this
[1:29:14] kind of protection or if you're like, I
don't think we need that protection
[1:29:18] anymore.
>> Okay,
[1:29:22] I got it. Now, [clears throat] this
doesn't preclude other avenues. This is
[1:29:26] kind of like this is what we're going to
write into the code to allow these uses
[1:29:30] kind of expand the use, but not over the
top. They want to go top, they got to
[1:29:35] come back.
>> Yeah. Yeah. What one way to think about
[1:29:37] it is if someone if someone didn't want
to do a comp permit, they they wanted an
[1:29:42] ability to maybe do a a multif family by
rate. We don't have that now. The option
[1:29:47] is a use variance. And as you guys may
know, use variances aren't a tool you
[1:29:51] use for for heady complex applications.
If we allow the use, they can come in
[1:29:57] and if they give you dimensional
variances, you can consider them on a
[1:30:01] discretional basis. But at right now,
there's really not an opportunity for
[1:30:05] someone to offer us a multif family
without using the comp permit tool. So,
[1:30:10] we're our code is currently
communicating to the world if you want
[1:30:15] to do multif family and we're seeing it.
We're seeing it on Tyog, we're seeing it
[1:30:18] in Center of New England. We're
communicating use the comp permit tool.
[1:30:24] If we want to make a compelling argument
that's not the only tool out there, then
[1:30:27] we need to put something in our zoning
that says here's another option.
[1:30:31] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. and and this would not require
[1:30:33] affordables. Um there are communities
that do very complex uh arrangements
[1:30:38] where you can achieve affordables
through underlying zoning and maybe you
[1:30:42] you get you get density for in exchange
for affordables. I recommend right now
[1:30:47] if you want to stay even Steven, you're
probably not toying with different
[1:30:51] metrics for density bonuses for, you
know, giving affordables and the
[1:30:54] underlying. Um I' I'd recommend looking
at, you know, what would you allow by
[1:30:59] right um without toying with uh too many
complex situations, but trying to give
[1:31:05] people alternatives to the comp permit
for these uses.
[1:31:12] Anybody
[1:31:18] else have any thoughts? So, it sounds
like you took this feedback, put pen to
[1:31:22] paper, and you're wondering if you left
anything out that should be a
[1:31:25] consideration for at this juncture u
multif family dwellings in the R20 zone
[1:31:31] and then you're going to move on now to
commercial and industrial.
[1:31:34] » Yeah. And so I think one question would
be if the board feels comfortable with
[1:31:37] those bullets on the top of page two
that seems to be wraps up what you
[1:31:43] currently still feel are appropriate. Um
Jim the consultant can take that
[1:31:47] feedback and say I can start to think
about how we would draft code that
[1:31:51] follows the tenants of those bullets. Um
I think that's a that's a good place to
[1:31:56] start
>> because it gives us a baseline but
[1:32:00] allows some wiggle room for an
applicant. Yep.
[1:32:04] » It allows the board wiggle room to say
yay or nay or what we want to see and
[1:32:11] » y
[1:32:15] » maybe to put it in perspective rather
than second guess what we want to see
[1:32:19] before he puts pen to paper this is just
going to be the framework for it unlike
[1:32:24] the the kennels for example
>> this is this is giving you a chance to
[1:32:28] see the approach before we put pen to
paper.
[1:32:31] » Yep. And if this approach looks
reasonable, then um the next meeting,
[1:32:37] I'll put Jim into the the spot, but I
assume by the next meeting, Jim might be
[1:32:41] able to help produce code that would
specify and effectuate what you're
[1:32:46] seeing here. Those that code we can
still toy with. Uh Doug, I don't I feel
[1:32:50] like the separation distance needs to be
a little different or we need to have a
[1:32:53] gradation. If the project is seeking 20
units, we need a bigger separation
[1:32:57] distance than if they're seeking three,
>> right? Um, and then we can toy with
[1:33:00] those metrics, those numbers, but he
could give us code to actually start to
[1:33:06] see those. And as they do their work,
you know, there's they may stumble upon
[1:33:11] ideas and offer us, here's the base code
you want. You might want to consider
[1:33:15] these other provisions that other
communities have. Uh, they're going to
[1:33:18] offer us their best guidance on as we
enter this. Here's a range of options
[1:33:23] and maybe here's some things you didn't
think about, but we should have in there
[1:33:25] as well.
You know, we don't talk about parking
[1:33:29] arrangement. It might be that we feel
like strongly that we want to be
[1:33:32] thoughtful on the parking also needs a
separation distance from nearby
[1:33:37] properties. If I live near a
multifamily, a larger scale multif
[1:33:41] family, I might be concerned with the
lighting in the parking area just as
[1:33:45] much as I'd be concerned with the
buildings themselves. Um little nuances
[1:33:49] like that that you know when we put pen
to paper you'll start to consider if
[1:33:54] this code feels appropriate and if it's
something that you would be willing to
[1:33:58] consider. Every project has a by right
choice to
[1:34:03] » and I don't mind being put put on the
spot Doug. I think uh so far be able to
[1:34:08] deliver that.
>> Thanks Jim. You
[1:34:09] » tell Jim that's Friday though. Uh yeah
yeah yeah. No that's all right.
[1:34:14] » It's going to be a less well thoughtout
draft than
[1:34:18] Just wondering if um the the consultant
has any
[1:34:24] empirical examples from other
communities that they worked on about
[1:34:29] this exact issue and what they thought
worked or didn't work or were problems.
[1:34:35] » Now you're Yeah. Yeah. Now I'm on the
spot. So this
[1:34:39] » I'm just It's interesting because we
were talking about these are the tenants
[1:34:43] and my question is is this being done
anywhere else? There's 39 other cities
[1:34:46] and towns. Have you done it? Has it
worked or has it failed? That that would
[1:34:51] be my question.
>> So,
[1:34:53] » not that I'm I'm not the board, but
>> yeah.
[1:34:58] Do do you want me to uh address that?
Yeah. So, yeah, sure. If you guys would
[1:35:02] like me to, I'm happy to. So, uh working
backwards as far as like how well an
[1:35:07] approach might this uh an approach like
this might have worked so far. Um, it
[1:35:12] would be pretty hard to tell because
this is, you know, relatively new
[1:35:16] regulation, uh, and it hasn't had a lot
of chance out there in the ecosystem to
[1:35:21] see how it flies. Um, uh, as far as, but
really getting to your original
[1:35:28] question, which was, you know, have we
seen this approach someplace else or
[1:35:32] have we seen a community do this
approach someplace else? Um, I'm not
[1:35:36] aware of one immediately. We do a little
research and see if we can find one.
[1:35:44] But I do know in the town of Jamestown,
they allow um duplexes, multifamily
[1:35:52] duplexes on an R20 lot,
which normally would be a single family
[1:35:58] lot in Jamestown. And now is is it
>> they definitely do.
[1:36:02] » Yeah.
>> So I don't know if we're you keep on
[1:36:05] talking about 10 acres.
Is there a distinction between an
[1:36:09] individual lot
versus a 10 acre?
[1:36:13] » Well, I I think the feedback that Doug
got was that if it's in the R20 zone,
[1:36:18] they wanted to say, well, then you need
20,000 square ft per unit, whereas
[1:36:23] Jamestown has said the R20 zone is big
enough for two units if someone wants to
[1:36:30] build it and they just by right could
put it a multif family. Coventry used to
[1:36:35] have and I I forgot maybe it got wiped
out. It was a special use permit in the
[1:36:40] R20 zone. You could put a two family if
you had the additional road frontage.
[1:36:46] It's like 120 ft required for a multif
family. If you had 175
[1:36:53] feet of road frontage in the R20 zone,
you could ask for a special use permit.
[1:36:58] But then we threw the special use
permits out. So now we're back to well
[1:37:02] how do we allow multifamilies in the R20
zone and his and it looks like the
[1:37:06] direction we're going in based on the
feedback was well you still have to have
[1:37:11] the underlying 20,000 ft. Now nothing
would stop someone from coming in and
[1:37:15] saying hey I only have 30,000 square ft
but I still have this much road
[1:37:20] frontage. It's a good fit. There's
another multif family down the street. I
[1:37:23] want to put a multif family. Then they
got to get a they got to get a variance
[1:37:27] which means you know they got to go
through jump through the hoops.
[1:37:30] » Yep.
>> So and I mean there's a range of other
[1:37:33] choices we have that we haven't
discussed. I mean one is that there
[1:37:37] might you guys may feel as though after
you start to see some of the code not
[1:37:41] all areas of the R20 are equal. You may
say I feel that this is appropriate to
[1:37:45] do as an overlay. There are certain
areas of the R20 that we want to allow
[1:37:49] this use and there's certain areas we
don't. Um, we've talked about overlays.
[1:37:54] When we actually started the
conversation about multif family, we
[1:37:57] started with overlays, but the board
found it even harder to start to circle
[1:38:01] areas on the map that they felt were
more appropriate than others because
[1:38:05] everything became so case-pecific, sight
dependent. And this big blob, there
[1:38:10] could be a great site for it, uh, or a
poor site for it. We'd want to be able
[1:38:14] to see the case by case on on this blob
over here. Same situation. There's
[1:38:18] certainly areas of of of Coventry that
have more multis or twos and so the idea
[1:38:23] is it might be more appropriate where
there tend to be more multis and twos
[1:38:27] and our older areas of town that are
tend to be denser. Um but Coventry
[1:38:32] doesn't have what many communities have
which is like a village center where
[1:38:35] everyone kind of builds around a a more
dense village center. We do have some
[1:38:39] great mill villages that offer a bit of
that, but there's a lot of the community
[1:38:43] that's just through the ages has been
built in different um densities, but a
[1:38:48] lot of it still remains predominantly
single family. So, the idea is it's
[1:38:52] still a valuable tool. It was allowed by
special use permit, both twos and and
[1:38:56] multis. We still think we want to have a
right an ability for that th those uses
[1:39:01] to be achieved and it's just finding the
right mix. So, if the board is ideas of
[1:39:07] overlay sounds like a great idea, I
immediately have things that come to
[1:39:10] mind. Um, we're open to that, but that
was even more challenging than creating
[1:39:15] the framework we have now, which is this
is where an approach that could be
[1:39:19] appropriate in a range of different
options and styles that depends on how
[1:39:22] big the units are, how big the project
is. That might, you know, almost old
[1:39:27] neighborhood, new neighborhood, less
dense, more dense. the board was more
[1:39:31] focused on if you give me a great site
with enough separation from the nearest
[1:39:35] single family, I'd be pretty
comfortable. And we kind of landed there
[1:39:38] as opposed to overlay or a floating
zone. A floating zone might be one where
[1:39:42] if you want multif family, you got to
change the zone to say on this property,
[1:39:46] we're going to allow multif family in
addition to all the other R20 uses. So,
[1:39:50] there's a range of tools, but these this
seemed to be the direction the board
[1:39:54] last left us with, which let's look at
R20 as a whole.
[1:40:00] No, go ahead.
>> We have very limited sewer access in
[1:40:05] town, like only 700 residents, right?
>> Is water equally? Um, there's pretty
[1:40:12] much I think city water in all of the
R20 zone and then I think it starts to
[1:40:18] stretch out. They just didn't run the
piping. It was too too expensive. And
[1:40:22] that's a good point. And I was thinking
that
[1:40:25] » to the site I think a big impact
>> and and that some of that's in the code
[1:40:30] now even for single family if you if you
don't have city water and
[1:40:35] if you don't have city water the amount
of land area you need to build is
[1:40:39] greater.
Um I think right it's not even in the
[1:40:43] R20 zone it's like you need more land
than 20,000 square feet or something to
[1:40:48] put up a single family house. Uh, if you
don't have water in the R20, the minimum
[1:40:53] lot size jumps to an acre. So,
essentially cuts your density in half if
[1:40:56] you don't have water. I think you're
correct. The majority of R20 does have
[1:40:59] water. John Studley might be able to off
the top say if that sounds correct to
[1:41:03] him.
>> Yeah, that's correct. And in some
[1:41:05] portions of the R2, but then it cuts off
pretty much at Reed Schoolhouse. And
[1:41:08] there's some portions in the R20 where
they didn't they didn't run the the
[1:41:12] piping because of the you know it's
going to be a loop system and Kent
[1:41:16] County won't even allow you to put city
water in. But um but what I was getting
[1:41:21] at too though and this is just food for
thought you know when you really come
[1:41:23] right down to it 20,000 square feet for
a single family dwelling that's the
[1:41:27] zoning that's still a lot of land.
people that don't want to maintain large
[1:41:31] yards. Now, I mean, fif 10,000 could be
a little short because if you have a
[1:41:34] house and you got a few kids and before
you know, you got two, three cars and
[1:41:37] there's not enough room for a large
driveway, a goodiz house, and then, you
[1:41:41] know, ample space around it. But 15,000
for each unit in a in a multif family, I
[1:41:49] mean, that's 30,000 square ft for a two
family, 45,000 ft for a three family,
[1:41:54] that would probably be sufficient. I
don't know that 20,000
[1:41:58] would even be necessary if the idea is
to, you know, put two houses together.
[1:42:04] » I mean, I I'll be honest. If there was a
way to draft the code that was um
[1:42:08] protected against a comp permit, we
would probably be talking about wanting
[1:42:12] to make this a little more attractive in
terms of achieving a byite density,
[1:42:17] » right? because they'll come in with a
comp if you went to 15,000 and next
[1:42:20] thing you know you're going to have
>> I've talked with the state and the state
[1:42:23] lawmakers uh or the state uh
administrators understand this
[1:42:27] challenge. We want to write a compelling
alternative to a comprehensive permit.
[1:42:31] The more compelling we make it, the more
it aids a comprehensive permit to get
[1:42:35] more density.
>> Yeah, I got If there was like a magic
[1:42:37] word where you could say this
multifamily is allowed through
[1:42:42] uh exclusive zoning and we use the word
exclusive zoning and state law says once
[1:42:46] you use that word this tool can only be
used and it can't be used with a comp
[1:42:49] permit. The truth is that doesn't exist.
A comp permit can come on top of
[1:42:53] whatever your zoning says and says we
get what you told us we could get and we
[1:42:57] get our bonus and there's no way to
draft zoning to preclude that. If there
[1:43:04] was, I'd be guiding you guys to say,
"Let's talk about increasing density
[1:43:08] from the baseline because let's make it
more compelling and attractive. Someone
[1:43:11] might choose this over a comp permit."
Unfortunately, we are still kind of
[1:43:16] stuck at a in a point where the comp
permit is a dominant tool and it's very
[1:43:22] difficult to do what you suggested,
which is let's start to look at this as
[1:43:25] maybe we can do multif family and 1500
square foot per unit. I mean, what we're
[1:43:29] really doing is we're opening to the
door to criticism that a comp permit
[1:43:32] comes in and and takes advantage of
that.
[1:43:34] » What stops someone now from coming in on
a 20,000 foot lot to say, "Hey, guess
[1:43:39] what? I'm going to build a single family
house right here and I'm going to put an
[1:43:42] ADU right behind it."
>> Nothing.
[1:43:45] » So, you could have two you can have two
units on one,000.
[1:43:49] » The only thing we have to protect ADU
has to be small.
[1:43:52] » Has to be smaller than Yep. Yep.
>> Yep. Yeah. Interesting. So,
[1:43:58] no. So, does uh I at least I think I'll
leave it with on the R20,
[1:44:03] does the feedback that you see in the
bullets uh still feel like that's that
[1:44:08] represents what you'd like to see a
first draft of code on? Is there any
[1:44:10] other ideas that you think we should be
including in this?
[1:44:17] » Anybody?
>> Works for me.
[1:44:20] » Yeah, I think it's I think it's a good
framework. Yeah.
[1:44:22] » Great. Um, now before we leave the
concept of multif family, two family, I
[1:44:28] want your quick reactions. We haven't
discussed it in our commercial zones.
[1:44:32] Let's talk about the GB because on
Tyogg, it's an area where we see a mix
[1:44:36] of housing in and amongst the the
commercial. We're seeing a massive
[1:44:41] housing proposal on Tyogg. Um, that's
using the comp permit. I think there
[1:44:46] there's some desire to do housing and
particularly multifamily housing in that
[1:44:51] Tyog corridor.
There's not an underlying zone right
[1:44:55] now. A comp permit comes in and says
we're doing our density bonus on top of
[1:44:59] zero. We allow no residential units.
However, if we did a baseline zoning,
[1:45:04] we're naturally going to if we allow
multif family, we're naturally allowing
[1:45:07] some underlying zoning. I also don't
think if we allow multif family at two
[1:45:13] units per acre at Tyog and someone comes
in at a comp permit, we're probably
[1:45:17] still not wildly different than um an
approach we might find acceptable. You
[1:45:22] know, let's say, you know, seven units
per acre that might not feel wildly
[1:45:26] dense on Tyogg. Um I do think that the
consideration is I'd like to offer the
[1:45:32] use of multifamily and two family in our
commercial zones. we naturally have to
[1:45:38] then increase underlying zoning and
what's a density you think is
[1:45:41] appropriate to start would it be equal
to our R20 and would we allow like the
[1:45:47] idea that if you can build something
that dense in an R20 should we allow
[1:45:50] them to build that dense in the
commercial my thought is you know there
[1:45:54] seems to be a desire the market is is
saying that they want housing um my
[1:45:58] thought is we could start there as a
conversation point does using this range
[1:46:02] of tools um but allowing it at two units
per acre feel right is that would You
[1:46:06] say less or more
[1:46:23] kind of along the same lines that we're
doing for the R20 establishing that same
[1:46:27] framework.
>> It'd be the same framework. Yeah. I
[1:46:30] mean, some might argue that in a
commercial zone, maybe we can uh lessen
[1:46:34] the degree of a separation distance if,
you know, if someone could build a a big
[1:46:39] commercial operation, all the residents
around it understand it. Um, would there
[1:46:44] be a would there be a need to have such
a great separation distance from, let's
[1:46:48] just say we allow a multifamily, let's
just say it's 10 units, let's say it's
[1:46:53] two buildings of five. Would it need the
same separation distance to single
[1:46:57] family than that same project would have
if it was in the middle of a
[1:46:59] neighborhood? We'd probably say no. So
maybe you look at it and there's some of
[1:47:04] these bullets on the top of page two
that you feel that you can soften a bit
[1:47:07] on, but it could still be the same
general framework. Um, you also might
[1:47:12] feel that when you get on TIO, you don't
need to limit the number of units in a
[1:47:16] building. You might feel more
comfortable saying, "Listen, if they
[1:47:19] have a 10acre lot and we allow two units
per acre and they can do 20, I'm happier
[1:47:23] to see it in one building on Tyog." It
might be that that setting on in the
[1:47:28] commercial district, uh, you feel
different about the scale and the
[1:47:32] massing of the building.
>> It would, but I would want to make sure
[1:47:34] that the setbacks and the distances are
still, if there's a budding single
[1:47:39] family, they still have to adhere to
that.
[1:47:42] » Greening and everything else that goes
along with
[1:47:45] » Yeah. the general business. I mean,
there's a big difference between an
[1:47:47] apartment complex and the general
business zone and a budding neighborhood
[1:47:51] than a two family in a residential
neighborhood.
[1:47:55] » I think one big reason why you might see
projects in our commercial zones um more
[1:48:00] uh readily
um approached by developers is that's
[1:48:04] where our sewer infrastructure is. I
mean, even if someone was to approach a
[1:48:08] multif family in a R20, they're probably
looking to see what they can do in and
[1:48:12] around Tyog or Sandy Bottom because
that's where the sewer exists now.
[1:48:15] » Well, the reality is you can get a
greater return on your investment and
[1:48:18] your capitalization rates greater now on
residential than it is in you just can't
[1:48:23] rent the space out.
>> So, so if the idea is that hey, you
[1:48:26] know, people would want to bring this
used to where the sewer is, you know,
[1:48:28] sewer finds itself in our commercial
districts. So, um, someone that let's
[1:48:33] say they were looking at the town
without a zoning map in their hand, they
[1:48:36] naturally might say, "I want to land
this use in along Tyog or along center
[1:48:41] of New England or in these other areas
that are already zoned commercial." So,
[1:48:46] I think um there's a debalance. Some
people might argue why don't allow
[1:48:50] housing in our commercial zones. That's
for our tax base. That should be for
[1:48:53] commercial uses only. We are living
through an era where there's a high
[1:48:57] demand for housing. Um Rhode Island is
still generally undersupplied with
[1:49:01] housing units. Um that's where the
market has so much attention. That's why
[1:49:05] we're seeing uh you know 400 units on
Tyog instead of that property be brought
[1:49:09] for a future commercial use. Um I think
that uh there's value in looking at you
[1:49:15] know adding this and I think it's just a
matter of what's the right volume and
[1:49:20] density to start as an underlying zone
for this use in the commercial district.
[1:49:31] Uh yeah, I mean there's a situation
where anything could happen, right? Um
[1:49:35] we're a community that is uh seeing
incredible housing growth in a short
[1:49:40] amount of time. I mean the amount of
proposals we've seen and since I've been
[1:49:44] here in 3 years, it is incredible. A lot
of it is the receiverhip. There were
[1:49:48] properties that were pent up and had
development potential that are just
[1:49:52] coming out of a a a legal situation. So,
they're coming back into uh
[1:49:58] applications, but we're seeing a lot of
comprehensive permits. We're seeing a
[1:50:02] lot of other projects and it is
generally primarily residential is what
[1:50:07] we're seeing. Um, so
>> we have access to 95 and three different
[1:50:12] locations. Plus, you can go the other
direction between 117 and and get to
[1:50:18] route two and Wick. So, and we have the
largest land area. So, I think there's
[1:50:22] always been a demand for residential in
in Coventry just because of its location
[1:50:28] and um you know again available water
and some of the other resources. But I I
[1:50:35] just wanted to what right now is zone
business park.
[1:50:39] » That's the center of New England region.
>> That's it.
[1:50:43] So, okay. And after these housing
developments, it's pretty much built out
[1:50:48] » largely. There would still be a handful
of parcels that um could be developed.
[1:50:55] And I'm thinking long-term in terms of
redevelopment potential. So, you're
[1:50:58] right. I mean, a lot of center in New
England, the vacant parcels are the
[1:51:01] receiverhip parcels. Um those
receiverhip parcels were getting
[1:51:05] residential and dense residential
largely because they're the receiverhip
[1:51:09] uh gave them a froze zoning in place
from uh like the year 2000 or so. And
[1:51:14] that zoning allowed residential without
a maximum number of units. Um that's
[1:51:19] also where we have sewer. It's where the
sites are largely predisturbed. So to
[1:51:23] » some point I was trying to make is I
don't know that I want any more
[1:51:25] residential development there if we
could stop it. Well, then I would say if
[1:51:29] you're not interested in more
residential at the at the center New
[1:51:32] England region, then don't allow
residential in the business park.
[1:51:35] » But by the same token, if they're
interior parcels that are left, and now
[1:51:38] we've got residential all the way around
it. There's really no other viable use
[1:51:42] except residential.
>> If we looked at it, we could probably
[1:51:45] find nonreceverhip parcels. There's
probably few and far between, but
[1:51:50] probably a few developable
non-receiverhip parcels or they're
[1:51:53] extremely underutilized. there uh a
parcel that might have a small office
[1:51:58] building on it but still largely
available. Some of those parcels might
[1:52:02] get taken for redevelopment. Um so there
is still some opportunity
[1:52:07] » but if they're amongst the the retail
uses or the hotels or the other things
[1:52:11] and they're right off center New England
Boulevard and they're not up in the
[1:52:14] foothills like these last ones,
I think we should leave them there for
[1:52:19] commercial development.
>> That's fair. So I think
[1:52:22] » but you've got all these the thing we
we're losing sight of is all these
[1:52:26] residential properties are currently
being built out now when the residents
[1:52:31] are there with their disposable income.
There's going to be a need for
[1:52:36] commercial properties and commercial
development to fill that void. You're
[1:52:39] going to see these vacant storefronts
get built out. And center New England
[1:52:43] that's it's the perfect opportunity. I
mean, we've seen things go in there just
[1:52:46] within the last year, and I think it's
because they know there's a vast number
[1:52:50] of residential properties that are
coming online in there with access
[1:52:54] through Center New England now, whereas
before they may only go off of Hopkins
[1:52:58] Hill Road. So, there's there's a demand.
Um, and if not, there's a is highway
[1:53:03] it's highway business as well. So I I
think the I personally don't think if if
[1:53:09] we need we need not put residential in
the business park at this point.
[1:53:14] » I think that's a good point. I we're
getting a ton of residential there. I
[1:53:19] sometimes I think that zoning allows
doors to be open and if the all of the
[1:53:23] housing is built and 10 years from now
someone's saying what's the next highest
[1:53:26] and best use if it's still housing part
of me thinks well we should be open to
[1:53:30] that concept. But I think you're right.
If we were going to get more commercial,
[1:53:34] the commercial wants to be near the
dense housing and you would want to make
[1:53:38] sure that whatever available lots are
there still can achieve and be primarily
[1:53:43] geared for commercial. Um, so it's not a
bad point on the business park
[1:53:48] » and and industrial one, just so I know,
that's pretty much Reservoir Road
[1:53:54] somewhere in the back and over here off
of Industrial Lane. It's yeah, it's it's
[1:53:59] stuff off Flat River and Reservoir, but
there's also a very big chunk of
[1:54:03] industrial one up in the north eastern
corner of the community around some of
[1:54:08] the mill areas. There's some chunks of
industrial up there. Yeah. Harris. Yeah.
[1:54:12] And then um
>> that's industrial up near um what is the
[1:54:17] name of that big mill that like is split
by the Cranston line? Um
[1:54:20] » Arrate.
Yeah.
[1:54:22] » So that there's industrial up there. Um,
we do tend to see a lot of housing in
[1:54:27] and around our industrial. The
industrial tends to almost look a little
[1:54:30] bit patchwork at times where there's
housing and industrial in zones near
[1:54:34] each other. We actually have industrial
zones in center of New England. Um, some
[1:54:38] of those parcels where
uh I don't think Cumbies is on one, but
[1:54:43] like some of those parcels in and
around.
[1:54:45] » Yeah, it was they reszone Cummies to
land unit development or something to
[1:54:48] get that in there with the gas station.
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. No. So, I'm so So, so
[1:54:53] I Yeah. question
over [clears throat]
[1:54:59] » it could be. So another idea is that if
you want to allow the use in commercial
[1:55:04] you guys might say so here's one good
question to test that would you guys say
[1:55:08] multifamily is equally appropriate in
all areas of sandy bottom tyog and
[1:55:14] neneck hill road or if you'd say no some
of these areas lend themselves more
[1:55:19] neneck hill road that's our general
business zone if your answer is no some
[1:55:24] of these areas are very appropriate some
of them are not then we could do allow
[1:55:30] the use in the commercial zone but do it
through an overlay. So it's sections of
[1:55:34] the commercial. Um so obviously GB is
one zone and that's that zone. It's
[1:55:39] that's Sandy Bottom, that's Tyog, that's
Newick Hill Road. Uh we could say
[1:55:44] portions of that zone are handled
through an overlay. Um I'm open
[1:55:51] » overlay zone
give you some ability to notify
[1:55:57] um residents or mandate notification
to residents in the residential units
[1:56:05] about the potential activities that
occur around them.
[1:56:09] » Yeah. I mean, the town is always able to
do voluntary notice, but I think the
[1:56:14] difference between an overlay zone and a
non-overlay zone is probably a
[1:56:20] difference between a map change and a
text change that you were just
[1:56:22] discussing. However, if the town feels
like, you know what, we want to give a
[1:56:26] lot of notice, but we don't think
overlay is the right tool, well, we can
[1:56:30] give notice. Uh, we can overnotice uh a
text change. And I this is the kind of
[1:56:36] change you you would assume. The town
wants to really have its act together.
[1:56:40] We want to know that this is a good
idea. You guys are the the the land use
[1:56:44] board of this community. So we really
want to make sure you're comfortable.
[1:56:47] But even after you're comfortable, you
would say, Doug, let's overnotice the
[1:56:51] hearings. Let's make sure that everyone
that lives within two, you know, 200
[1:56:56] feet of the entire GB zone. And that
might be a pretty penny. That might be a
[1:57:00] multi,000 mailing effort. But Doug, if
we're going to do this, let's do that.
[1:57:04] Let's do that kind of mailing effort. We
have that option. The the notice and the
[1:57:08] process is something that I think we can
figure out. I think first and foremost,
[1:57:12] we want to make sure that we feel good
about the direction we're headed. Um,
[1:57:16] you know, and
>> but Doug, also, and I don't know if this
[1:57:19] will factor in it. I'm just because this
is what the board deals with. The people
[1:57:24] that go into the residential zone don't
know what's going to happen next door.
[1:57:28] and next thing you know it's a GB zone
and a commercial use occurs with
[1:57:34] lighting and noise and trucks and all of
a sudden those people who are happy
[1:57:38] campers in that residential property are
now down your backs and down I'm just I
[1:57:44] don't know how we deal with that. That's
why I was thinking about some sort of if
[1:57:49] you're going to allow it in that area,
those people that are going to be, you
[1:57:53] know, you put the obligation on that
developer that they have to notify
[1:57:58] anybody who's going to be a resident in
that building. What's what not just
[1:58:03] what's there that this is all a general
business zone. Here's the list. You're
[1:58:08] saying notice the people that move in
after the project's built because hey,
[1:58:12] you're in the general business zone and
you don't realize this vacant lot next
[1:58:16] door now that could be a market because
we've had so much residential
[1:58:20] development there's a demand and right
now we only have one market in town and
[1:58:25] » all those and this the 18 wheelers
delivering the food at 4:00 in the
[1:58:32] morning. That goes to my point.
>> That goes to my point about making sure
[1:58:37] we don't
overallow residential development in the
[1:58:42] general business zone or business park,
for example, and take away the
[1:58:48] opportunity for commercial development
in the future, which we may need to
[1:58:53] support all the people we have in town.
Now, next thing you know, they got to go
[1:58:57] buy their groceries in a neighboring
town and give them the benefit of the
[1:59:02] tax base. And in the meantime, the
residents are costing us money with
[1:59:06] police, fire, possibly schools depending
on the size. So
[1:59:13] » where one side of the road is all
residential and one side of the road is
[1:59:19] all a commercial and all and every six
months the people on the residential
[1:59:24] come in yelling and screaming at the
your board in the council on how
[1:59:28] something across the street is driving
them crazy. Is that tyog?
[1:59:31] » Oh no that's reservoir.
>> Reservoir.
[1:59:34] » Yeah.
>> So that's because let me tell you what
[1:59:38] » but see that's the thing. If you go back
in time, okay, and you look at a map
[1:59:44] when you'd leave here today and you
start and you see that big storage
[1:59:47] facility behind the fence, that's
Industrial Drive. That actually lines up
[1:59:53] with reservoir on the other side, but is
not connected because of the wetlands
[1:59:57] and the flowage that goes through from
Johnson's Pond. That was the town's
[2:00:02] original industrial park. You could get
off the highway, go up Route 3.
[2:00:07] Remember, there was nothing there until
they started building wood estates. And
[2:00:10] this goes to my point and all those
residents moved in. Then you started to
[2:00:15] see the commercial development. In fact,
some of the developers held the frontage
[2:00:19] lots on Route 3 until all the residents
moved in. Then they put up a commercial
[2:00:23] building and they're renting it out. And
then you got dry cleaners, coffee shops,
[2:00:26] laundromats, all that stuff comes in
later. Now again, the the dynamics have
[2:00:31] changed on the retail, but that's that's
so it's unfortunate and and and and
[2:00:38] that's right because there's areas over
there where you have
[2:00:42] industrially zoned properties with,
let's say, a non-working asphalt plant.
[2:00:47] This is the case. And then you someone
comes in and says, "Hey, I want to
[2:00:51] expand my residential use." They go out,
they go, "Oh, yeah, that sounds good.
[2:00:55] They built a bunch of stuff." All of a
sudden, the asphalt plant starts up
[2:00:59] again. And now you got all these people
saying, "Oh, I'm getting the smell. I
[2:01:02] got this." Well, when you bought the
house, did you know that it would you
[2:01:06] would go next to an industrial zone?
Like there's no buffers. We don't go
[2:01:09] residential, office, industrial, or we
we go right up right up against and
[2:01:15] there's a lot of properties. And and
it's interesting because that was my
[2:01:19] point. The cornfield where we we we have
the comp permit Craig management on the
[2:01:24] corner of Hawkney Hill. if you were here
for that one. At one point, those
[2:01:28] residents were up in arms. That was
going to be a big shopping plaza for
[2:01:32] like a grocery store with trucks, just
like you were saying. So then we get
[2:01:35] something that's more compatible
residential use. Granted, the density
[2:01:39] was a lot
>> and it's still up in
[2:01:42] » Yeah. And it's still up in arms, but it
was I I think it was probably a little
[2:01:45] bit better mixed than what was
originally proposed.
[2:02:00] They usually historically they're
pre-existing
[2:02:04] use that grandfathered in and you're
stuck with them as opposed to a
[2:02:09] thoughtful process where you decided to
put an ash plant next to a
[2:02:15] you would never do that. you brought it
up at one point and said we should just
[2:02:19] redo the zoning map across the entire
town at once and if we don't want to see
[2:02:23] any more industrial development change
the zone now and the ones that are there
[2:02:28] are grandfathered and over time they may
because of the market conditions decide
[2:02:34] hey guess what I don't want to be
industrial anymore they'll go to
[2:02:37] residential and maybe that's what we're
trying to do here but I don't know if
[2:02:40] this is the correct way to do it
[2:02:45] not trying to be controversial. I just
want to be think
[2:02:52] » that the council hears at every we hear
at every council meeting somebody
[2:02:58] complaining about uh really essentially
a pre-existing non-conforming use that
[2:03:03] cannot be stopped.
>> Right?
[2:03:05] » And and we hear a lot of angst about
that and the council thinks they can do
[2:03:10] something about it. You all know we
can't.
[2:03:17] Make him an offer. Yeah, make him an
offer. [laughter]
[2:03:23] » So,
[2:03:27] » so I
>> not just where you think it will
[2:03:30] succeed, but once it's succeeding,
>> you don't want to put in have 85
[2:03:37] neighbors living in a building and now
they're all pissed off at you because
[2:03:40] you're putting a commercial f I I think
>> I think with the
[2:03:46] » I I think with commercial and industrial
districts we would need to have a map to
[2:03:50] have a thoughtful discussion to say hey
guess what I don't want it in the
[2:03:54] general business zone or it might be
okay over here if you wanted to do an
[2:03:58] overlay district that allowed it but we
can't have cop blanch let's allow
[2:04:04] residential in this zone or this zone
without knowing where they are because
[2:04:07] the intricacies you go all the way down
tio cav where does it stop when you get
[2:04:11] up past where uh Nikki's is and you're
going over the hill into West Warick. Is
[2:04:15] that residential or is some of that
zoned commercial, but it's being used as
[2:04:18] a residence? I mean, you got uh the the
door place there. I forget the name.
[2:04:23] Fagan Door, you got Nikki's, you had uh
Taco, whatever the heck it is over
[2:04:28] there. Then you got the little condos on
the corner of Pilgrim A. So, you know,
[2:04:32] you start saying, "Well, let's
let's allow residential use next to
[2:04:37] those. Maybe that's not a bad spot." But
as you get down to sandy bottom, right
[2:04:41] now that's all business. You want to put
an apartment building right over there
[2:04:45] in the middle of a of that zone and then
I mean that's a might be a good spot to
[2:04:48] just keep its own business. I I don't
really know.
[2:04:53] » No, go ahead. It gives us something.
[2:05:01] » And unless there's a group of neighbors
that show up at the hearing process,
[2:05:06] let's fast forward as you were doing
this. If There is nobody that shows up
[2:05:10] that objects. The council is going to
rely on what you're doing. They may not
[2:05:14] put together the the issues that you're
talking about here, how they could
[2:05:19] explode into more problems for them. So
now is and I appreciate what planning. I
[2:05:25] think now is the time to really be
thoughtful about not creating more
[2:05:31] issue, but you know, it's encouraging.
You need some flexibility, but you're
[2:05:35] going to be my my suggestion. We had
that discussion. Let's be very cautious
[2:05:40] because you're just going to create more
problems for yourself and the and the
[2:05:45] council that you don't do it
thoughtfully. Not really. I like the
[2:05:49] idea of the over you're going to do it.
I like the idea very thoughtful over
[2:05:53] laser. That's my
>> But even then, you got to look at the
[2:05:56] like up at up the let's face it. The
Harris Mill is gone. That used to be
[2:06:01] Victor Electric. All right. Everything
up there is converted to to residential
[2:06:04] now. I can't think. There may be one or
two industrial uses that are left. Um
[2:06:09] Anthony Mill was converted too. Same
developer. That's um I forgot who it is,
[2:06:14] but up in Harris, which is which is
where I live, any of the industrial
[2:06:17] properties, there's a mill housing back
there that's been there that supported
[2:06:20] the mill because that's just the way it
was done. Um you've got one that just
[2:06:24] went up. We've got the, you know, one of
those industrial garages, but how there
[2:06:28] se low low to moderate income housing
that I think the town controls that went
[2:06:33] into one of the industrial properties.
You got a nursing home up there. So, um
[2:06:38] [snorts] I don't know. I I I think maybe
that's an area to look at, but for the
[2:06:42] time being, I'd like to leave Sleeping
Dogs Lie on the industrial. we got
[2:06:46] enough on our plate just getting the
multifamilies into the residential zones
[2:06:49] and then um dealing with the next item
which is the uh taking back some of
[2:06:54] these special use permits some of these
other activities that we want to but I
[2:06:58] don't I still want to be able to
encourage
[2:07:02] non-residential uses that in increase
the tax base for years that was the
[2:07:07] problem the only saving grace right now
is that people are having less children
[2:07:11] we're still I think starting to see an
uptick but if it wasn't for that this
[2:07:15] this town would be exploding. The school
districts would be bankrupt in the town
[2:07:19] just with the the number of kids in the
schools. But the the reality is I don't
[2:07:24] think you're going to see more than one
or two kids per per household anymore.
[2:07:28] That's just the the way it is.
>> So, here's my suggestion. I think we've
[2:07:32] got feedback on the R20,
which is basically the the bullets we've
[2:07:37] got here are a good starting point. Um I
think what we could give you guys a bit
[2:07:42] of [clears throat] homework. H excuse
me. And we could send you uh a map of
[2:07:49] the town, but to be honest, sometimes
the best way to see the zoning as it
[2:07:53] relates to the town is to use our GIS,
which we can send you a link and we can
[2:07:58] kind of give a little instruction on how
you zoning on because that allows you to
[2:08:00] zoom in and out, which a lot of people
want to know where what what's here
[2:08:04] again. They zoom in. Oh, yeah. Zoom back
out. Okay, here's the zone. Here's the
[2:08:08] here's what's on the ground. Um I might
give you some homework to assess uh at
[2:08:13] the next meeting when we come back what
where are there issue where are there
[2:08:18] areas if any in the commercial and I'm
thinking the the the BP I think you kind
[2:08:23] of made your point that that feels like
we're getting built out where are the
[2:08:27] areas in the general business zone so
again Sandy bottom tyog knickkill road
[2:08:32] and where are there areas and maybe
other commercial zones we haven't
[2:08:35] touched on the village main street
commercial we haven't touched on village
[2:08:38] rural commercial uh and then industrial.
I might ask, you know, come back come to
[2:08:43] the next meeting with a couple ideas on
I feel most comfortable here. And if the
[2:08:49] group is still not feeling comfortable
with with residential and commercial,
[2:08:52] that's that's fine. Um but it might be
that that gives you a starting point for
[2:08:57] if we were to do it, this is where we'd
start.
[2:09:03] You got it? Yeah, we can we can do a
couple we can both send a PDF. Who would
[2:09:07] who would rather use like a link of the
town's GIS tool, which is pretty
[2:09:10] userfriendly, and who'd rather have a
PDF map?
[2:09:13] » Well, the GIS map's online. It's the
same one, right? You just have to change
[2:09:16] the layers.
>> Yeah.
[2:09:18] » Yeah. We we could email you a link to
the GIS and then give like a little
[2:09:22] instruction on how you turn zoning on,
which is pretty intuitive, but like, you
[2:09:26] know, at least tell you, you know, click
on this box, go to here, click on that
[2:09:29] box, and then Frank, and then you can
turn on an aerial map because sometimes
[2:09:32] you're just looking at a bunch of boxes
on the ground like what is this again?
[2:09:36] And then you can say
>> then then that might give you an ability
[2:09:39] to come back to the next meeting with an
idea of we looked at it frankly it's not
[2:09:44] appropriate in any of these areas or you
might say frankly I find it's
[2:09:47] appropriate here and here let's start
talking about that
[2:09:50] » or if we did nothing a developer that
wants to put up multif family housing in
[2:09:57] any one of those zones has the option to
go to the town to change the zoning on
[2:10:03] that one lot and say this is a good fit.
It's never going to be developed for a
[2:10:08] business use because of this, this, and
this. It's compatible. It fits in. The
[2:10:13] neighbors in the back are here. Then
they have to come here for a
[2:10:16] recommendation. Then it goes back. So
there's two hearings on the subject as
[2:10:20] opposed to us writing it into the code
and they're coming here and it gets
[2:10:24] approved. And then we have the issue
that you talked about where they're
[2:10:26] screaming at the town council because
they didn't realize that that something
[2:10:31] got approved. I mean that's my thought
is if I look at those maps right now I'm
[2:10:35] I'm kind of and again it's just me
there's there's a bunch of us but
[2:10:38] preserving the areas
but commercial development that we have
[2:10:45] is probably a good thing and if it turns
out that there's such a demand that
[2:10:51] someone's willing to go through that
process and we've had it before. I
[2:10:55] believe at one time there was an
apartment complex and it may still be I
[2:10:58] don't know for right next to Dunkin
Donuts. There's like a 50-ft road that
[2:11:02] goes back and then it opens up and it
abuts the residential neighborhood. And
[2:11:06] there was a proposal, I think, to put a
two or threetory apartment building back
[2:11:10] there
>> with the appropriate screening. And
[2:11:13] again, similar to the the plaza, the 400
units, it had its own entrance in and it
[2:11:18] so it didn't really affect the
commercial and it abuted a residential
[2:11:22] neighborhood and for someone to want to
put a business back there, it would it
[2:11:27] would have caused all kinds of problems
being back up against. So it was it was
[2:11:30] a good fit and someone can come and get
a get a variance for that. Why do we
[2:11:35] need to put anything in the code now
unless we're going to look at the entire
[2:11:38] zoning map as a whole and say you know
what these areas here now should be
[2:11:42] zoned for residential because we're
allowing a mismatch of uses in the
[2:11:46] general business zone businesses next to
commercial and that's kind of what got
[2:11:50] us in trouble now.
Just my thought.
[2:11:53] » Yeah, we're we're we're wide open. So,
I'm open to the board's feedback,
[2:11:57] » but we'll at least look at the map to
see if there's any areas that say, "Hey,
[2:12:00] you know what? this area right here. But
again, I I you almost may want to be
[2:12:05] inclined to say reszone the whole area
from industrial to residential like that
[2:12:10] north end up at up where uh you know, we
were just talking about in the
[2:12:14] norththeast corner where Cranston and
Arkrite and most of it's already been
[2:12:19] converted to residential and all you're
going to do at this point is is
[2:12:22] eliminate the opportunity for somebody
to go in there with an industrial use
[2:12:27] that's probably not compatible with the
residential development that's occurred
[2:12:31] within the last five Yes,
>> that makes that's an interesting point.
[2:12:36] Are there those
uses going on in commercial that should
[2:12:41] be be zoned to residential and free?
>> Um, probably a few as I'm thinking about
[2:12:48] it. Um, I mean certainly on Tyogg Tyog
is a mix. Tyogg has uh the zoning
[2:12:54] approach on Tyogg is generally
uh commercial zoning on either side, but
[2:13:00] what exists in the ground is a
hodgepodge of there's an old house here
[2:13:04] and then over here it was a house that
clearly was converted to commercial and
[2:13:07] maybe someone brought it back and it's a
hodge podge of what use happened to fit.
[2:13:13] Industrial here in Flat River, it's
largely is larger scale industrial
[2:13:19] buildings. industrial in the northeast
corner near the mills is a bit of a mix
[2:13:24] but the the industrial that's in the
northeast corner it's also a little
[2:13:28] spotted where it's not just oh there's
in residential near I mean there are
[2:13:34] industrial actual industrial mills and
zones and there just happens to be
[2:13:39] residential zones near it so I don't
know how many there I'm sure there would
[2:13:43] be a few residential dwellings in the
industrial zone through our uh mill
[2:13:48] areas in that area up in the northeast
cuz that's not far from where I live. It
[2:13:54] they're almost it's almost all
residential. The only operating
[2:13:57] industrial is one off of Howard Avenue.
It's an L-shaped building. The the HVAC
[2:14:03] companies in there and has a couple of
other small businesses. Then you got the
[2:14:06] old candy factory which has the indoor
baseball and some other uses. But right
[2:14:13] behind it, um, they put up the two big
industrial buildings and then there's
[2:14:17] another one down on Main Street. Now,
that's the same the same type of thing.
[2:14:21] Um, but if that whole area was reszoned
for residential,
[2:14:26] what's there is going to stay there and
everything going forward is going to be
[2:14:29] residential. And it almost encourages
conversions, which is what happened with
[2:14:34] the Harris Mill, both sides. That's
apartments across the street. They took
[2:14:39] the old building, converted it into I
think there's like eight LMI units in
[2:14:43] there that the town runs or has some say
in. And in the back is the old mill
[2:14:48] housing. And I'm trying to think if
there's any there's anything else.
[2:14:50] There's a few commercial uses right
along Main Street right before you get
[2:14:53] to West Warick. And in the back it's all
apartments. So I I just can't imagine
[2:14:58] anyone opening up a industrial business
back there. And if they did and they're
[2:15:02] allowed to open up an industrial
business by right, the odds are there's
[2:15:06] going to be a conflict with someone
who's moved into a converted property
[2:15:10] that's got a residential use. Y
>> so it's time to kind of maybe think
[2:15:14] think about that. But when you get down
to Tyoke Avenue, what you're going to
[2:15:18] start allowing residential development
in between businesses and then you're
[2:15:21] just going to have a fight on your
hands. That's just the way I look at it.
[2:15:28] And if the demand ever gets such that we
really don't have any need for
[2:15:31] commercial business zones anymore,
nobody's putting it up. Everyone wants
[2:15:34] residential. Great. Then reszone the
whole street for residential
[2:15:38] or some other use that allows, like you
said, an overlay district with some
[2:15:42] combined use. But I just think it's it
might be premature.
[2:15:46] We'll go through the exercise you
suggested. We'll look at the map and
[2:15:49] see, hey, are there any areas where we
definitely should allow residential and
[2:15:53] and figure that out. But why do we want
to say, well, we got to start thinking
[2:15:56] about where we want to allow it and then
create problems. Let's just be
[2:16:00] thoughtful. If we can start putting
multif family in R20 zones and and maybe
[2:16:04] even in one of the other uh residential
zones and it ends up being a demand for
[2:16:08] it, then then that's fine. But like you
said, it's it's kind of the sewer line
[2:16:13] and then the economics of it. And if a
guy says, "Hey, guess what? I can buy
[2:16:16] that old commercial building on Tyok
Avenue, knock it down and put up all
[2:16:20] these residential units and I'm going to
get a greater return on my investment
[2:16:24] than if I fixed that building and rented
it out for commercial use because
[2:16:27] they're just not paying the square foot
price anymore.
[2:16:30] You just can't get it. I mean, even if
you've got a big commercial use, they
[2:16:34] they're renting space a,000 square feet
for what they used
[2:16:39] you can't rent 2,000 square feet
anymore. People don't keep inventory.
[2:16:42] The stuff comes in overnight. So now you
need twice as much parking, half the
[2:16:46] space and you don't get much tax revenue
on the parking lot. You get it on the
[2:16:52] building. So So they're not making
money.
[2:16:56] » Fair enough. No. So I think we got our
we got our homework and we'll send you
[2:17:00] an email uh for a little homework before
the next meeting which can just be kind
[2:17:04] of explore the map a bit. It's uh it's
it's good to get the feedback. It
[2:17:08] actually surprises me. I would have
thought there would have been more
[2:17:11] comfort around the use of multif family
in the GB than there would have been in
[2:17:16] the R20. Uh but you know, I'm I'm I'm
hearing you, which is no, we're we're
[2:17:21] more comfortable in the R20 than the GB.
There's a stigma sometimes with multif
[2:17:28] family dwelling. Oh, it's going to be
apartments. But you know what? They cost
[2:17:31] so much to build now. The rents would
have to be so high. you you're not going
[2:17:37] to get you're going to get affluent
people that are going to move in.
[2:17:40] They're going to build them to get a
higher rent. They're not going to build
[2:17:43] a multif family dwelling and then cater
to someone for $600 a month. They're
[2:17:48] going to cater to someone that's going
to be willing to pay $1,800 to $2,000 a
[2:17:51] month.
>> Yeah. So, we do have another topic that
[2:17:56] we want to get to. So, I any last
comments, questions on the multifamily,
[2:18:02] two family?
So then on the next topic, I'm actually
[2:18:06] going to let Jim kind of give us a
little bit of an introduction. This is
[2:18:10] about the the special use permits and
what we're doing. There's a couple of
[2:18:14] documents. One you got in your packet in
advance and it it outlined these
[2:18:18] categories and I'll I'll let Jim take us
from there. Is that fair, Jim?
[2:18:23] » Got to do that. Yep, that sounds good,
Doug. All right. So, um you should have
[2:18:28] received a second memo um with a
longitudinal sort of print out. Yeah. Uh
[2:18:35] couple of different colors on there. And
so what this is is again it's more of
[2:18:40] the continued work on uh the zoning
regulation rewrite. Um, and what we did
[2:18:47] here was put together a table that shows
um
[2:18:54] where where we think where we're
thinking it might make sense to use uh
[2:18:58] by right um as uh as a regulatory
standard or as a regulatory approach uh
[2:19:06] performance standards or case by case
and the by right those uses would
[2:19:12] generally have uh very limited land use
impacts. That's what we would expect.
[2:19:17] That's why they could be in this
category and um would not really warrant
[2:19:22] additional um use specific review of uh
standards. They're things that you can
[2:19:29] say like okay this is something that
that we can develop fairly safely won't
[2:19:34] have a lot of repercussions
uh where the performance standards uh in
[2:19:39] the middle exist. So these are uses that
might be appropriate without uh case by
[2:19:46] case discretion. So you don't have to
necessarily review them very closely. Um
[2:19:52] but they would benefit from some
specific standards, some performance
[2:19:56] standards as we call them. And then the
third set again case by case. Um those
[2:20:02] are uses where the characteristics have
potential impacts and it's hard to say
[2:20:08] on the face of it without actually
reviewing an application whether uh the
[2:20:13] impacts exist or not. And so those would
continue to get individual permits. Um
[2:20:19] the classifications that are shown in
the table are just recommendations for
[2:20:23] your for discussion. Uh things we wanted
to go over with you tonight. Um and uh
[2:20:30] they're, you know, not intended to
represent final determinations. Again,
[2:20:34] just for discussion. Um
and what we had asked you to do prior to
[2:20:40] this meeting was sort of think through
the things that we have listed out and
[2:20:44] think about whether um whether we've set
them up well or whether they're things
[2:20:50] that you might like to change around a
little bit. Um there's a second table
[2:20:55] that goes along with that. So, if you
flip the page, if you will, um there are
[2:21:00] a list of uh the uses and these uses are
the uses that are in your zoning
[2:21:07] ordinance currently. So, the you know,
same uses by name. Um in that second
[2:21:14] table,
uh there are potentially applicable
[2:21:19] performance standards. So this would be
for that middle category, the
[2:21:23] performance standards and they include a
bunch of different areas. So they
[2:21:28] include things like uh hours of
operation, noise, lighting, uh
[2:21:32] buffering, uh screening distance from uh
other from residential uses, parking and
[2:21:39] loading, um traffic considerations,
traffic access, outdoor storage, etc.
[2:21:46] Um, and frankly, if you take a look at
that, there's some that, you know, as
[2:21:50] you're going down through the columns
where there are X's next to almost every
[2:21:54] single use. So, really think about the
things that are on the right hand side
[2:21:59] of the table. So, those are the ones
that are um
[2:22:06] those are the ones that are like outdoor
storage um you know, odor and dust
[2:22:11] emissions, things like that. and think
through whether those whether those kind
[2:22:16] of standards are necessary or not. The
other thing we want you to consider is
[2:22:21] that um uh standards around issues like
noise, those might be better regulated
[2:22:27] or are already regulated through other
city ordinances. So they don't
[2:22:32] necessarily need to be in zoning, but we
bring them up because we recognize uh
[2:22:38] that these kind of things can create
issues. And so we want people to, you
[2:22:43] know, we want you folks to think through
them and see what makes sense. Um, so I
[2:22:48] I think that's basically it. We just,
you know, I think that that's great. And
[2:22:52] and Jim and I spoke about these
products. I I do think that the second
[2:22:56] page um as we reviewed it, Jim and I
kind of both acknowledged it probably
[2:23:00] got a little exhappy where we thought so
many of these uses needed to have extra
[2:23:05] regulations on so many categories.
um that probably it will need a little
[2:23:11] more work and revision. I do think that
the standards, some of these, you know,
[2:23:15] parking and loading, you know, they're
required for commercial uses. It's not
[2:23:19] as though we need extra regulations,
noise. Um you know, some of these things
[2:23:23] we cover. Um so the second table is
probably something that would be more of
[2:23:29] a finer level of detail. This is just
giving you an example of when we start
[2:23:34] to identify the uses, what are different
categories that we might seek
[2:23:37] regulations on. I think a good use of
this meeting would be the first page,
[2:23:42] the first table with the green, the
blue, and the uh uh beige uh colors. Um
[2:23:50] do we feel as though there's a use that
belongs in a different category? Green
[2:23:53] means go. Green means we think this use
could just be allowed. Uh blue means we
[2:23:58] should add a regulation or two. Beige
means this is pretty heavy-handed and we
[2:24:02] may need to be thoughtful with very
specific code on it.
[2:24:06] » So just so I understand right now are
these just the items that had special
[2:24:11] use permits before there's other or is
it just special use?
[2:24:15] » It's a it's it's largely just the uses
that were previously allowed through
[2:24:20] special use permit. And um you know
Rick, you were part of a handful of
[2:24:25] meetings that we did. This is going back
two to three years ago,
[2:24:29] » a while back. But I I just want to so
right now if someone wanted to put in a
[2:24:35] restaurant, how how are they allowed?
>> Uh the use of restaurant, I believe
[2:24:40] there are zones where it is allowed by
right, but I think you're seeing it here
[2:24:43] because there were zones where it was a
special use permit and now we're
[2:24:47] debating, well, I don't know if we're
going to bring [snorts] that special use
[2:24:50] permit back in that zone. The idea is
that maybe a restaurant in that zone
[2:24:57] needs to have an additional standard. Um
the standard
[2:25:01] » So the plan is if it's already allowed
by right, we're not going to necessarily
[2:25:05] » impose you're not ones where we have
where it previously was a special use
[2:25:10] permit
>> and and Okay, that's all I just wanted
[2:25:13] to clarify. So okay, so what you're if I
understand and I don't want to take
[2:25:17] words because you were starting to
explain. So everything in the fir the
[2:25:20] question is going to be is the stuff in
the first column seem like we don't
[2:25:25] really have to worry too much about it
exactly we're just going to allow it. We
[2:25:29] already have some regulations that are
going to control the development. If
[2:25:32] they adhere to those regulations we can
allow it in the zones where it was
[2:25:35] previously a special use permit. The
ones in the middle we want to say we're
[2:25:40] going to add some performance standards.
If they're going to go into this zone,
[2:25:43] it's non- general business and they want
to do this, then we're going to impose
[2:25:46] these additional
rules or regulations that they're going
[2:25:50] to need to adhere to to be allowed. And
then explain to me case by case versus
[2:25:56] special use permit. How does that end up
not being subjected? I think we saw that
[2:26:00] as maybe a category that although I'm
looking at it and I'm looking at like
[2:26:04] laundry, dry cleaner, laundromat, that
one might be something that we feel like
[2:26:09] we're only a performance standard or two
away from allowing. But I think it was
[2:26:13] meant to be uses that uh maybe jump out
as having a potential greater intensity
[2:26:19] than the blue. I think the idea is maybe
these are more than just a couple of
[2:26:23] performance standards away. uh they may
need um some other tool regulatory tool
[2:26:29] that we would use. Um I don't want to go
back to special use permits, but I guess
[2:26:35] the idea is that you know those might be
more complex. when we kind of initially
[2:26:40] talked about it that there are uses you
haven't even seen on here that um we
[2:26:45] haven't talked about like solar, wind,
uh wind energy, um quaries, these were
[2:26:53] uses that were very complex. They have
sections of the code dedicated to them.
[2:26:57] They were allowed through a special use
permit and not anymore. Uh those are
[2:27:01] probably uses that we would have a very
long robust discussion about how do we
[2:27:06] allow these without the special use
permit tool and and are there cases
[2:27:11] where we would want to bring the special
use permit tool back? I frankly don't
[2:27:15] think the special use permit tool is a
wise tool at this point. I feel like it
[2:27:19] it puts us into a position where it's uh
the the framework to approve it is is
[2:27:23] very straightforward and permissible. So
it it can be tricky to deny. Um in my in
[2:27:30] my opinion. Um
>> that was the problem. That's why
[2:27:34] » that's why we got rid of them. Um so
frankly I think that the third column
[2:27:38] you might say there's certain things in
this beige column on the far right that
[2:27:42] you feel like you know what I don't
think that that's any more intensive or
[2:27:46] more of a nuisance than some of these
other things and we can move it back
[2:27:49] over. Um, as I look at the chart
immediately, you know, and this is
[2:27:52] coming from our consultant who's uh
giving us a nice neutral objective
[2:27:56] review, I mean, my brain immediately
goes to certain uses I want to move
[2:28:00] around, but before I do that, you know,
really the exercises for the board to
[2:28:05] for it to get its idea. Um, I'd say the
way to think about it is green is go,
[2:28:11] green feel is is uses that we feel like
if it's in a commercial zone or
[2:28:14] industrial zone, it should just be
allowed by right, no extra regulations.
[2:28:18] Blue means we want to add a a couple of
things here. And then gray means we
[2:28:24] probably need more thought. It may need
more than a couple of things. Um take
[2:28:29] take a few minutes. Uh feel free to ask
questions, but take a few minutes and
[2:28:33] just kind of start to digest it. You
could immediately start to circle uses
[2:28:37] that maybe jump out to you. Like
immediately I'm like cemetery in in the
[2:28:40] blue column. Uh maybe about 23 of the
way down. I mean, cemetery is probably a
[2:28:45] use that we don't need any special
regulations on. You know, it's not a use
[2:28:50] we tend to see new proposals for.
>> Well,
[2:28:54] the thing the thing I see here is is
>> so so maybe Doug, this is this is just a
[2:29:00] thought. If we looked at the things uh
in the green go column, the buy rights,
[2:29:05] are there any in there that don't belong
in there and should really be in either
[2:29:10] blue or or beige? You don't have to put
them in one of those particular spaces
[2:29:14] yet, but just they don't belong in
green.
[2:29:18] » Um, [clears throat] okay. That's a
little
[2:29:20] » That's fair.
>> I mean, I had a problem with newspaper
[2:29:24] offices.
>> Just just don't like them.
[2:29:30] » No, who even has one?
>> Okay, fair.
[2:29:33] » Newspapers are dead, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah, that's fair.
[2:29:38] I mean, there is one. We have a
newspaper office. um right near the in
[2:29:42] the Dave's Plaza. I think that's where
the reminder has their main office.
[2:29:47] » Yeah. Okay.
>> It's odd. I mean, the the use actually
[2:29:50] exists in town as much as it's a dying
use. We we got a building.
[2:29:53] » I was thinking of the people, you know,
going into the stand where you buy your
[2:29:56] papers to get two, three newspapers,
some magazines, what do you want? Some
[2:29:59] candy.
>> Yeah. There's one use I I'll you know
[2:30:03] what? I'll give you guys a chance.
There's one use I've identified in there
[2:30:06] that is very tricky, but it's it's it's
sort of a it's a new innovation, a part
[2:30:10] of the use. But do you guys see anything
in the green that jumps out to you that
[2:30:14] it's like I don't love I don't love
considering that by right. We should add
[2:30:18] a regulation. There's something there
that's a little intense.
[2:30:27] That's it. Yeah, that's what I had in
mind. Green houses. Now the definition
[2:30:31] of a greenhouse is changing in the world
because there's um controlled
[2:30:35] environment agriculture. Um there's the
biggest building in Rhode Island has
[2:30:40] been proposed in exit to grow it's a 25
acre building to grow tomatoes. It's
[2:30:45] probably best understood as a greenhouse
but it's highly mechanical. It is
[2:30:51] internal growth. It is staff and it is
shifts and it is trucks and trucks and
[2:30:57] trucks. it's probably still a use that
someone could say is a greenhouse. Um,
[2:31:03] that might need a little bit of work or
maybe we redefine greenhouse to ensure
[2:31:07] that it doesn't include like if we're
going to make it easy to make a build a
[2:31:10] greenhouse that does not include
mechanicized, you know, methods of
[2:31:15] agriculture within the
>> greenhouse size.
[2:31:17] » Was that could limit the size?
>> Could max. Yeah, limit the size. Um,
[2:31:23] » and which zones are we talking about
too? We still, you know, we don't really
[2:31:26] have the key to know where Well, there
are a lot of
[2:31:27] » No, no, we don't have that yet, but I
think majority of what you're looking
[2:31:30] at, they're commercial or industrial
uses. We're these are these would be
[2:31:34] only for commercial industrial zones.
Um, it is a fair question. Some of these
[2:31:39] we might take a look at are village main
street or village rural which are kind
[2:31:43] of meant to be light business zones.
>> I can't imagine we don't have a nursery
[2:31:46] or a greenhouse out in in the uh in the
rural. use that use I think actually
[2:31:51] might that use might be a use that's
allowed in residential but or was
[2:31:56] allowed in residential.
>> Um I think that that use probably could
[2:32:01] be allowed in residential as long as we
frame it as um a maximum size or somehow
[2:32:08] make it make sure we don't end up with a
a businesscale greenhouse which we did
[2:32:14] have interest in that in Coventry. We
had an applicant that was asking how
[2:32:18] they could achieve that and it was right
around the turn when all the special use
[2:32:22] permits went away and I said no it's not
available but we had an applicant
[2:32:25] looking to use that use to do um this
controlled environment agriculture um
[2:32:31] which
that they they they can be busy I mean
[2:32:34] they need parking spaces because they
have multiple staff
[2:32:44] so we might want to move that one over
to blue.
[2:32:49] » What was the thought process between
group instruction in blue and individual
[2:32:54] instruction in green?
[2:32:58] » Meaning like how did we come up with
those?
[2:33:01] » Yeah. But
>> yeah,
[2:33:03] » so it was it was based on larger land
staff experience and considering how
[2:33:09] these things have worked in other uh in
other cities and towns that we were
[2:33:13] familiar with.
[2:33:26] Yep.
[2:33:30] [sighs]
[2:33:43] Where would our average
uh commercial condo type development
[2:33:51] be listed? Is in that in the
performance standards or the buy right?
[2:33:58] The commercial condos actually uh
weren't special use permit uses. So,
[2:34:04] ironically, you know, you might say,
Doug, that feels more intensive to me
[2:34:07] than a lot of what I'm seeing here. That
that's a use that's allowed by Wright in
[2:34:11] our general business and industrial
zones. I believe they're also available
[2:34:16] in our village main street and village
burough commercial. I mean, that's why
[2:34:19] you saw uh a project, I don't want to
name specific projects, but you saw a
[2:34:24] commercial condo in Western that was in
a village rural commercial zone
[2:34:29] recently. And I think that's one of the
one of the bigger ones we see where the
[2:34:33] community comes out against it.
>> It's certainly a popular use. So whether
[2:34:38] whether we're seeing the community come
out because they don't like that use or
[2:34:41] whether it's just we tend to see that as
a commercial use that appears over and
[2:34:45] over again and that's where there's a
rub. You know, I don't know if anyone
[2:34:49] out there would be jumping for joy over
retail either. Um but yeah, that's a
[2:34:54] popular use. And if the thought is, hey
Doug, you know, while we're doing this
[2:34:58] exercise, we'd love to consider some
regulations around that use too, um, I'm
[2:35:04] open. I mean, really, the first task is,
hey, these are uses that for some degree
[2:35:08] somewhere in the town we shut it down
and we always intended to bring it back.
[2:35:12] There might be uses that you'd say,
Doug, there's uses that we need to rein
[2:35:16] in a little bit that are allowed by,
right?
[2:35:18] » Yeah. For me, that that's one because
all the all these commercial condos
[2:35:23] popping up um really is for me is
definitely needed, but it's low value
[2:35:30] low value
uh for some high value properties and
[2:35:36] they're putting in these low value
developments and frankly
[2:35:42] aesthetically they become eyes pretty
quickly.
[2:35:45] » Yeah, understood. Yeah, they're they're
certainly uses that are meant to be more
[2:35:49] functional than aesthetically
attractive. They're they're not looking
[2:35:53] to bring in customers. It's a workplace
for contractors.
[2:35:57] » And I think there's there's an
appropriate place for that. And like me
[2:36:01] personally, I don't particularly feel
they belong on
[2:36:06] Taio Gav, but
there are appropriate areas off the off
[2:36:12] the main roadways that have industrial
like the which is they're completely
[2:36:19] appropriate for.
>> That's fair. It's a good comment. We'll
[2:36:21] make a little note and this is where Jim
always assumes there's scope creep. Jim,
[2:36:25] we'll we'll also just evaluate all the
uses in town while we're doing this
[2:36:28] work. Oh, okay.
>> Um, [laughter] but no, we'll make a note
[2:36:30] of that. I think that's fair. Uh, I want
to get this kind of feedback. We're here
[2:36:34] to talk about appropriate sighting of a
range of commercial industrial uses. So,
[2:36:38] if something jumps to mind that isn't on
the page, we want to hear about it. Um,
[2:36:42] if we're doing this exercise and one one
thing that we've done and we had a work
[2:36:47] group that met many times, so some of
this work was based on some work group.
[2:36:51] Um, Rick was part of that work group.
We're going back two and a half years
[2:36:54] ago. The last time this work group met,
we all believed that it was also
[2:36:59] appropriate to look at uses that were
never allowed in industrial but were
[2:37:02] allowed in commercial. Let's look at
allowing those commercial uses in
[2:37:06] industrial zones. Our industrial zones
aren't factories. They're a hodgepodge
[2:37:10] of different uses that just happen to be
allowed. And then there's some cases
[2:37:14] where there might be light industrial
where it might be appropriate in
[2:37:18] commercial. I'm not looking to bring a
factory to Tyogg, but someone that does
[2:37:22] I I use this case example of uh someone
that wants to build custom surfboards
[2:37:27] and they need a place to work. We'd
consider that a form of manufacturing,
[2:37:31] probably like miscellaneous
manufacturing. He's building custom
[2:37:34] surfboards. This isn't a factory. This
is someone that just needs a space to
[2:37:37] work. That might be very appropriate on
a tyogue or sandy bottom.
[2:37:42] » So, we looked at the the difference
between us is allowed in industrial and
[2:37:46] commercial. To some degree, we're in a
world where we're not getting big
[2:37:50] factories and industrial and only retail
and commercial. It's industrial needs to
[2:37:55] be more wrestrial zones need to be more
open to different uses because they're
[2:37:59] to some degree sometimes struggling
because there's not manufacturing in
[2:38:02] America and sometimes we should look at
certain industrial uses and say that's
[2:38:07] going to be a very smallcale use and
maybe it's appropriate in some of our
[2:38:11] commercial zones. So we thought that the
the lines between those two zones could
[2:38:16] use to be um to some degree some more
overlap than what our code allowed. When
[2:38:21] we do this exercise we're not giving you
this is the use in the industrial and
[2:38:25] business but if we determine this is a
use we're comfortable with the next
[2:38:29] stage was in all the business and
industrial or one or the other. I I
[2:38:34] would consider that surfboard more of
like a a craft or more of like a artist
[2:38:41] type
uh
[2:38:44] uh business versus an industrial complex
where you see trucks coming in and out
[2:38:50] of and and more of a crafty or oestry
type
[2:38:55] » art studio
>> an art studio
[2:38:57] » type thing. So, you know, you get
through the zoning code and you start to
[2:39:00] realize furniture manufacturing, you
know, we don't have furniture factories,
[2:39:04] but someone that wants to build custom
furniture and wants to have a site, he
[2:39:09] may you may that we may be comfortable
with that on um Tyogg, what what tends
[2:39:14] to happen is people think industrial
means factories. We don't get factories
[2:39:17] anymore anywhere. So, it's time for us
to revisit what what do we actually want
[2:39:23] and what do these uses mean today
compared to what they meant 50 years
[2:39:27] ago. true industrial complex isn't going
to fit in any industrial facilities we
[2:39:31] have
>> that listed for.
[2:39:33] » I mean, you know, you look at what are
the uses driving big site development
[2:39:37] now it's uh fulfillment centers. It's
the Amazon fulfillment centers. It's now
[2:39:41] we're going to get data centers and um
all of all of that. Um these are like
[2:39:46] the most uh intensive largecale. This is
what's replaced factories is uh Amazon
[2:39:53] fulfillment centers and and data
centers.
[2:39:56] » And do we do we have those D do we have
any ordinances
[2:40:01] » I don't think we have anything I'd have
to look I haven't I don't know if we
[2:40:05] have anything that a data center could
say we fit in your town because this
[2:40:08] fits what we do. I don't know if we have
any description of a use that gets close
[2:40:12] to a data center. I know it's become
very controversial nationally
[2:40:16] » but mostly because requires a lot of
water and a lot of electricity. Yeah.
[2:40:20] So, so
>> they might have trouble coming here.
[2:40:24] » So, I mean, in thoughts, do do people
feel generally comfortable with what
[2:40:28] they see in green? Is there anything in
green that you you feel needs to be
[2:40:32] bounced over? I like I like getting the
thoughts like what you just said, John.
[2:40:36] We're going to take a note about, you
know, where do we allow the commercial
[2:40:39] condos and we'll fold that into our
analysis.
[2:40:43] Um, but does Green feel comfortable to
folks?
[2:40:48] » Pretty much. Yeah, except for the
nursery greenhouse. I think that was
[2:40:51] something we might want to look at. But
just one more comment. I know I know we
[2:40:54] was talking about the commercial condo.
See, the problem is you put the building
[2:40:57] up and it's a commercial condo, but you
don't know who ultimately is going to
[2:41:01] end up renting the space.
>> It could be anything. It could be
[2:41:04] landscapers, in which case they're
coming in and out all day and they don't
[2:41:07] have any customers at all and it's more
of a commercial use. They're going to
[2:41:11] park their cars during the day. There's
a lot of stuff that gets stored there.
[2:41:13] They're in and out with trucks. Then you
could have like if you look at the
[2:41:18] original ones that are off Taio, there's
a guy in there that makes trophies.
[2:41:21] There's somebody else in there that has
a taekwond do studio. There's an oil
[2:41:25] company. You know, those are all behind
Atlantic Plumbing off Taio Cavalick
[2:41:30] behind McDonald's. There's a whole row
of industrial
[2:41:32] » Yeah. And those that use is probably
considered grandfathered what they're
[2:41:36] doing.
>> Right. Right. It is. But what I'm
[2:41:38] getting at is folks are coming in and
saying, "Hey, guess what? I can make a
[2:41:41] good return on this." The the rate of
return is really good. I'm telling you,
[2:41:45] for what you have to invest in a a steel
building with whatever infrastructure
[2:41:50] you put in there, a small bathroom, a
couple of doors, an overhead door, and
[2:41:53] it's in, but you have no idea once it's
up, who's going to end up renting that
[2:41:57] space. And that's the that's really the
issue. Is it allowable use in the
[2:42:01] general business zone? Well, it's a
commercial condo. They're not do they're
[2:42:04] not selling any retail. It basically
becomes a storage facility. And and see
[2:42:09] Mike Mike Beard again, I shouldn't the
the the ones we approved up off a
[2:42:14] reservoir road that are basically in the
industrial zone. That's he he mentioned
[2:42:18] that he goes I'm getting people that
don't want to have their boat shrink
[2:42:21] wrapped every year. It's cheaper for
them to rent space from me and bring
[2:42:24] their boats there and keep them in
undercover for the winter and just tow
[2:42:26] them out.
>> Yep.
[2:42:27] » So you don't know what the uses are
going to be. And if they abut
[2:42:31] residential zones, um you know, they're
really not helping us.
[2:42:36] » Yeah. I mean that's why the use is
popular because it offers flexibility to
[2:42:40] meet a tenants's need. I can tell you
that the use the way it's described in
[2:42:43] Coventry code and we haven't touched it.
So this is one of those uses that you
[2:42:47] know is it's just one of those old uses
we've used for this purpose. It's it's
[2:42:51] basically a it's a it's an equipment and
material storage use. Um the idea is if
[2:42:56] someone starts to do something that
looks more like hey I want to point a
[2:42:59] sale and I I want to have customers
coming in and out. We're going to start
[2:43:02] to say that's not this use then you want
to do retail. But if you're in the
[2:43:06] general business zone, they're both
allowed.
[2:43:08] » They're both allowed. But if someone
says, "I'm building this building for
[2:43:12] this use," they would need a change of
use. If they're going to say, "Now, I
[2:43:16] want to do point of sale." And we might
look at a site and say, "You developed
[2:43:20] this thing with garage doors and without
parking to accomplish a customer comes
[2:43:26] in, they park here, they come up to a
natural safe [snorts] location to meet
[2:43:30] me at the front door to review." we
would probably say, "No, I don't know if
[2:43:33] this site lends itself to that use.
Maybe there's safety concerns. Maybe you
[2:43:37] didn't give it yourself enough parking."
So, the core use of a commercial condo
[2:43:41] is really it's a storage. It's a
material and equipment storage use. The
[2:43:45] idea is if a plumber ends up banging a
hammer on a piece of pipe in his unit. I
[2:43:50] mean, we're probably not going to say
the you banged your hammer or that's a
[2:43:53] manufacturing use. But if suddenly
somehow there's 10 employees in one of
[2:43:58] these units and they're all
manufacturing something, we might come
[2:44:00] and say this is clearly beyond storage.
You're clearly doing another use and you
[2:44:05] need to do a change of use and we need
to have you reviewed under the code for
[2:44:08] that new use. It it is
>> I all the allowable uses that you
[2:44:14] described for those commercial condos,
what did you say it was? storage and
[2:44:19] » like a equipment and material storage.
>> Yeah, that in my opinion that belongs in
[2:44:24] an industrial zone, not a general
business zone, but it's allowed in the
[2:44:27] general business zone. And that's what
you're starting to see because again, it
[2:44:31] all comes down to what's the rate of the
return I can get if I can rent this
[2:44:34] thing out.
>> And people are saying, you know what, I
[2:44:36] can put one of these buildings up real
cheap. I can get a good rate of return
[2:44:39] on the rent. And now we could end up
with, you know, those right next to
[2:44:45] something else taking away a potential
retail use and taking up space because
[2:44:50] it was more profitable at the time. And
those folks don't care what it looks
[2:44:53] like when they drive down Taio Gav,
which basically is our main thoroughfare
[2:44:56] in town. We don't have a main street,
but that's it.
[2:44:59] » Yeah. Now, we're we're taking notes on
this because the idea is that that might
[2:45:03] not be related to our special use permit
work, but if it's a use I mean, it's
[2:45:07] certainly a use we've seen a lot of,
right?
[2:45:10] Um,
there's uses that weren't really I don't
[2:45:14] even think that the the the developer
meant and was shooting for that use, but
[2:45:18] they ended up building something like
it. I'm thinking about off of Harky
[2:45:22] Hill. Um, we saw an application that was
for an oil uh distributor
[2:45:29] » and uh it's an odd use and he ended up
building buildings that had sort of a
[2:45:34] flexible kind of component to them. I
mean, he was relying on that use because
[2:45:39] I think it gives him the ability to
store his buildings or store his
[2:45:42] vehicles, uh, store some equipment. But,
you know, what he's doing is he's a he's
[2:45:49] a, you know, he's an oil distributor and
he sometimes takes guys oils tanks out
[2:45:54] of their their buildings and he needs a
place to cut them up. And so, it's it's
[2:45:57] like we don't have a use that says
here's the oil tank business use. Uh, it
[2:46:02] was the closest use that fit. Um, we do
tend to see a lot of them. So, we can
[2:46:07] revisit that. That can be part of like
maybe our effort is to bring this up
[2:46:11] whether we uh ask Jim to help with it or
not. It can be a use that we revisit. Is
[2:46:16] it where do we want it? And the idea is
if we want it in the general business,
[2:46:19] fine. But maybe we add a lot of
restrictions to it along the way.
[2:46:26] Do we want to try the corollary exercise
to what we just did and see what in blue
[2:46:32] and gray might belong in green?
>> That makes sense. And that might be, you
[2:46:36] know, I I can assume folks here are
probably ready to wrap it up.
[2:46:39] » Yeah, please.
>> Yeah. No. So, let's let's let's I think
[2:46:42] if you if green feels good, aside from
the couple comments we got, let's look
[2:46:44] at blue. I think look if there's
something in blue that jumps to you as
[2:46:48] that should be more of a green or that
feels like it's maybe even more complex
[2:46:53] and it should be in beige.
[2:47:00] » Yeah. No, these these Weston Samson guys
they I don't know how they pick their
[2:47:06] colors. They're crazy.
[2:47:11] » [laughter]
>> I didn't have any involvement selective.
[2:47:15] » They're pretty color like three
different colors.
[2:47:18] » That's good enough.
>> They work.
[2:47:21] » It should be yellow.
>> Red.
[2:47:24] » Oh, yeah.
>> Green. Green. Yellow. Red. Next time
[2:47:43] a walk-in medical clinic, treatment
center, retirement nursing home. I see
[2:47:50] two different Is this only what was the
special use permit? in what zones? We
[2:47:57] don't know.
>> Yeah, we can we can take a look. I mean,
[2:48:00] I um
>> and I'm thinking there's two different
[2:48:02] things there. I mean, a walk-in medical
clinic and a treatment center
[2:48:07] generally would be business and
industrial, but retirement nursing home.
[2:48:12] » Yeah, I think
>> would be a fit in residential. you're
[2:48:14] probably getting a mix of some uh some
of these uses uh were combined uh
[2:48:20] because it was probably maybe two
different uses in the code but the you
[2:48:24] know the consultant thought let's look
at this as
[2:48:27] you know this is similar does this
grouping of uses feel similar here you
[2:48:32] might say Doug I think uh
>> time nursing homes are are separate from
[2:48:37] the other they're kind of
>> yeah no I think that that's fair
[2:48:39] » and I think um you know the standards
It's they may be suited in some
[2:48:47] residential zones. I mean, if they can
get the water and the uh and the uh
[2:48:53] waste disposal
[2:48:58] » is is a driving range and golf course
similar or not similar enough located
[2:49:03] together sometimes.
>> Yep. Um a golf course is actually in
[2:49:10] beige,
>> right? I'm saying
[2:49:11] » and where driving range and mini golf
are here in blue. So, it's a it's a fair
[2:49:14] observation. It feels like those uses
probably driving range tends if it's
[2:49:19] good enough for a driving range, it's
probably good enough for a golf course
[2:49:24] » and vice versa.
>> They fit on small areas.
[2:49:28] » Yeah,
>> you can put a driving range. Not much
[2:49:31] many of them left. I think there's one
or two in the whole state now.
[2:49:35] » Yeah.
>> Miniature golf is more commercial.
[2:49:38] I guess that's it's like Topgolf.
>> Yeah, that's that use I I would dare say
[2:49:44] because we I was part of Cranston when
when that project was permitted in
[2:49:48] Cranston that I don't think we have a
use that covers Topgolf. I wouldn't say
[2:49:52] that a driving range inherently means
that you can build Topgolf there. Um we
[2:49:57] also know we're not going to get another
Top Golf. Top Golf isn't like they don't
[2:50:00] want to build right next to where their
other sites are. So I think the state
[2:50:03] has one. We probably got what we got for
a while. That's a whole there's
[2:50:07] basically food,
>> alcohol, driving range.
[2:50:11] » Yeah, they're they're I kind of would
>> Yeah, they're they're kind of like a
[2:50:15] major entertainment center,
>> clubs, entertainment. So, they they kind
[2:50:18] of fit under all of that. This is a
>> Yeah. Um what about uh you have uh in
[2:50:25] blue auto dealer auto dealership vehicle
sales and then you in in the beige you
[2:50:33] have boat repair storage sales auto body
repair.
[2:50:38] » That's fair. I think boat sales and auto
sales are probably similarly
[2:50:43] categorized.
>> Yeah. But I but I would caution that a
[2:50:47] lot of auto dealerships have
auto body repair shops and uh auto
[2:50:55] service in their dealership.
>> Mhm.
[2:50:57] » So I guess the question would be is auto
dealership without
[2:51:04] repair facilities in one and then an
auto dealership with repair facilities
[2:51:09] in another. We actually, this is a use
that I'm a little more familiar with
[2:51:13] because we did draft and we're looking
at this code when we did gas stations
[2:51:18] because as you may recall, we did the
gas station code and we did a lot of
[2:51:21] like cleanup work around it where we
we're oddly categors
[2:51:27] for some of these uses. So, we have some
standards for auto repair and oddly we
[2:51:31] were like uh applying those same
standards for dealerships. I do believe
[2:51:35] that auto dealerships, boat dealerships
are independent uses and auto repair.
[2:51:40] It's not like there's a use that allows
both. So, we can really treat them
[2:51:44] separately. I mean, they each come with
their own nuisance issues.
[2:51:48] » So, if we did have like a
um like they have on route to we have
[2:51:56] Subaru get moved to center of New
England Subaru dealership. they have
[2:52:01] their car sales and you pull up to the
garage to get your oil changed and
[2:52:06] whatever else that would that that that
would then go under the most stringent
[2:52:11] of the two requirements.
>> We would say you're doing two uses at
[2:52:15] once, which you're allowed to do in a
commercial zone. Um, we have plenty of
[2:52:18] cases and we'd say each use needs to
meet its own independent requirements.
[2:52:23] You could say the the auto dealership is
the whole lot because hey, you're
[2:52:27] putting the cars up front. You know, all
the cars are everywhere on the site.
[2:52:31] Maybe the auto garage is in the building
and someone might say, "Oh, well, the
[2:52:36] standards for the auto garages, the auto
garage should be at least this far from
[2:52:38] residential." Great. Well, we're going
to measure that from the auto garage
[2:52:42] component of the site. And we might say,
"Oh, and but auto dealerships need to
[2:52:47] have other standards like um I don't
know what it might be uh of landscaping
[2:52:52] throughout the, you know, so like they'd
have to meet each independent code as it
[2:52:55] applies to the section.
>> I just want to make sure that it's
[2:52:57] clearly distinguished between the two
because that the way it was described
[2:53:01] here, it doesn't
[2:53:05] » Yep. No, that's fair. I'd actually would
recommend that. I do think auto body or
[2:53:12] we say here auto body repair but we're
starting in our recent code rewrite. Um
[2:53:18] we're starting to treat auto body and
auto repair is the same. There's no real
[2:53:22] need to treat them differently. Um I
think they're they're a use that I think
[2:53:26] is appropriate to put in blue and that's
mostly because we've actually now
[2:53:32] drafted a good chunk of performance
standards for them. And I think we're
[2:53:36] close and that's a use we certainly have
plenty of. It's a use that you is
[2:53:40] currently turned off across the entire
town. I'd love to put it into a category
[2:53:45] of blue where we might be just a couple
of pieces of code away from taking auto
[2:53:50] body and auto repair in general and
making that an allowed use, which we
[2:53:54] certainly have. We entertained a use
variance on an auto body expansion if
[2:54:01] you may recall. um this wasn't too long
ago and they went with a use variance
[2:54:05] because um there there was not a buy
right choice and they were just seeking
[2:54:10] a simple expansion on their property.
So, I think it is something that we're
[2:54:15] going to get people knocking on the door
pretty soon saying, you know, hey,
[2:54:20] » Exactly. Yep. That's that's the one
>> I
[2:54:25] I think some of it is also regulated by
the state. Not so much a regular auto
[2:54:30] repair, but automobile sales, you need
to go to the dealers commission and they
[2:54:35] have standards for the amount of
pavement, for the amount of, you
[2:54:38] [clears throat] know, things like that.
And the same thing with the auto body
[2:54:41] auto body shops, they have to have um
something to extract the fumes. They
[2:54:46] have to have uh you know enclosed paint
facilities now. It's not like the old
[2:54:51] days pull the car into the garage and
just stop painting and we'll hang a
[2:54:54] curtain up. They have extensive things
to protect the environment that are
[2:54:58] built in. I think the biggest drawback
is when um you have that type of
[2:55:02] operation and the person is stockpiling
cars because they think at some point
[2:55:08] they might be able to repair them when
you know there's parts available from
[2:55:12] other junk cars or whatever. So they'll
keep a lot of nonworking vehicles stored
[2:55:18] on the property. That's the biggest
thing. Y.
[2:55:20] » So again, if you're going to if we're
going to start looking at that second
[2:55:23] page where you have the X's, I think
some of the uh the aesthetics that go
[2:55:30] along with some of those types of
businesses are the problem. And then
[2:55:32] yeah, you could move boat repair,
storage, sales, and auto body repair
[2:55:35] back to the blue, but you've got to put
those protections in place. If
[2:55:38] everything is enclosed and it's
regulated by the state, it may not be a
[2:55:43] bad thing to have in in certain zones,
but you just have to be careful of that.
[2:55:47] All of a sudden, you know, there's this
big perimeter fence that you can't see
[2:55:50] through and you look and there's like
piles and piles of cars back there and
[2:55:54] old auto body parts and stuff. They
said, "Well, I don't want to get rid of
[2:55:57] it because I might be able to use it
someday."
[2:55:59] » We do have um a use that's not on this
uh probably because um I'm not sure if
[2:56:06] it was just not allowed or how it fell
within a special, but a junkyard, which
[2:56:09] is a separate use than auto repair.
Sometimes the two go together, and we
[2:56:13] would say then you're seeking both uses.
But if you're seeking to store a bunch
[2:56:16] of um non-usable vehicles, then that's a
junkyard in town and that is a use that
[2:56:22] can be nasty and we would want to make
sure we handle correctly with a lot of
[2:56:27] screening and fencing. We have code that
does that already whether it's strong
[2:56:30] enough or not.
>> This is just not allowed.
[2:56:32] » But that that use I don't think is is
allowed right now and and it might just
[2:56:36] be turned off and it's probably it may
not be on this because maybe it was
[2:56:40] turned off even before the special use
permits came along. We deal with a lot
[2:56:44] of the non-conforming existing
junkyards.
[2:56:47] Um,
>> yeah, many towns just don't allow it.
[2:56:50] And I'm not sure exactly how they define
it, whether it's like a number of cars
[2:56:53] or what what the deal.
>> We were just looking at it today. I
[2:56:57] think it was like you get to be a
junkyard. Once you have like more than
[2:57:00] three nonfunctional automobiles, once
you start to just store more than three
[2:57:05] non-functional automobiles, you're not
really repair. You're more of a
[2:57:09] junkyard. You could probably go find
that
[2:57:12] » if you just wrote down
>> certainly we we we've got some problem
[2:57:17] properties where people are thinking I
can just throw these cars around my
[2:57:20] house. So we have we have some problem
properties that
[2:57:23] » we won't we won't go into details on the
specifics.
[2:57:26] » There's some in the commercial zones I
can think of right now. Village
[2:57:28] residential village commercial.
>> So one down
[2:57:33] » street.
>> Yeah. So um do we have a question over
[2:57:38] here?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Do we have anything that
[2:57:40] addresses like um incinerators for uh
for like um p like power generation,
[2:57:49] burning of garbage or or any of waste
products? And do we have anything for
[2:57:55] crematoriums?
>> That's a question. Crematoriums came up
[2:57:59] as a recent uh state issue. I don't know
if you were involved at all. I think it
[2:58:03] was Tiverton.
>> Yeah. I I've just heard about it in the
[2:58:07] news and I think it's this is
>> Yeah. No, I don't think we have anything
[2:58:10] like that. I don't think we have a use
for a crematorium.
[2:58:14] » Um
and uh
[2:58:17] » we have mortuary and funeral home in
there. I don't know if that
[2:58:20] » mortuary funeral home wouldn't wouldn't
allow a crematorium.
[2:58:24] Um
what were the ones that you mentioned
[2:58:27] before that John? uh some kind of
incinerator or whether it's incinerator
[2:58:32] for power generation or just burning of
waste or
[2:58:36] » I'm not sure if our code has um anything
that's like a power generation. It it
[2:58:40] might have utility um substations type
of stuff, but I don't think we have like
[2:58:44] a true power plant use.
You have the zoning code with us in the
[2:58:50] box.
Yeah, that's a good question. I I don't
[2:58:54] I mean if we have it we obviously it's
not on this list. I don't actually know
[2:58:58] if we have what someone would say is a
use that allows pure just power plant or
[2:59:03] power generation. We'll have to I'll
take a look.
[2:59:06] Um, so thoughts on blue? I mean, I
circled cemetery because I don't think
[2:59:11] cemetery is a is a land use that, you
know, we're focused on as needing a ton
[2:59:16] of regulation. Um, but did others have
areas in blue that you felt were either
[2:59:22] deserved to be in green? Um, or maybe
deserved a higher level of concern.
[2:59:35] » I think they're
[2:59:38] » great. And then I guess I'll ask um if
you don't mind before we go in the beige
[2:59:45] section
um those were I we've kind of already
[2:59:49] talked about the idea that maybe boat
repair storage sales and auto repair
[2:59:53] might find its way into the blue. We do
have some good performance standards on
[2:59:56] sections of that. I'm not saying we're
done. I do think that some of the these
[3:00:00] uses might um need for me auto repair
could probably use a standard of minimum
[3:00:05] distance to residential. Um, if you're
going to do that, that's fine to do in
[3:00:09] commercial, but if there's a house next
to you, you have to be a little more
[3:00:12] thoughtful on the noise, nuisance
activity that that use brings.
[3:00:16] » I I think the top if we we're going to
include boat repair, storage, sales, and
[3:00:20] auto body repair and put stringent
regulations and move that into blue. I
[3:00:25] don't see why mortuary funeral home or
laundry, dry cleaner, and laundromat be
[3:00:29] the same thing.
>> That's fair. I think that's a good
[3:00:32] point. So, the top three categories,
maybe we kind of move those to blue. The
[3:00:36] rest of them you get a little different.
You're into something. You just don't
[3:00:38] know how big it's going to be or what
the impact's going to be or what they're
[3:00:40] going to be. We're talking,
>> you know, compassion centers, commercial
[3:00:44] animal raising, hospitals, campgrounds,
those are big operations. Yep.
[3:00:48] » They probably do belong right where they
are.
[3:00:50] » Yep.
>> Yep.
[3:00:54] And I mean, you know, the thing that I
think uh what I assume is going to be
[3:00:57] one of the primary regulatory tools
we're going to be looking at, so this is
[3:01:01] a little bit more for Jim, um is we saw
it when we brought um uh cannabis retail
[3:01:07] use. We saw it when we did gas stations.
We saw it when we did kennels. The main
[3:01:13] concern and the thing everyone seems to
be focused on is a minimum separation
[3:01:16] distance to residential. It's fine to do
this in business. Business doesn't tend
[3:01:21] to bother other businesses. I'm not
worried if the business bothers another
[3:01:24] business. You're a business, but it we
have a lot of residential. It's in and
[3:01:27] around our commercial zones and some of
these uses jump out as saying if there
[3:01:31] if you're in one of these residential,
if you're in a commercial zone and
[3:01:34] you're close to residential, these are
uses that we don't feel as comfortable
[3:01:37] as you approaching. And so that that I
assume is going to be one of the more
[3:01:42] popular performance standards that we'll
keep coming back to. And there might be
[3:01:45] a range like here, this use feels like
it's a 100 foot separation distance.
[3:01:49] This one feels more of a nuisance. So,
are we going to 150? Is that enough?
[3:01:55] Maybe there's some that we feel less. I
can tell you we did uh Dennis, what did
[3:02:00] we do for retail cannabis? What was the
minimum distance to residential on
[3:02:04] retail cannabis? Was it 100
maybe?
[3:02:08] » Maybe 150. Minimum distance on a gas
station. We said the pumps shouldn't be
[3:02:12] more uh shouldn't be less than 100 ft
from residential. Well, it's funny
[3:02:16] because cannabis retail is so highly
regulated by the state with the
[3:02:21] requirements for the security guards and
the the security that you have going in
[3:02:26] and out of those places and the number
of parking spaces. They're no different
[3:02:29] than any other retail outlet and
probably more stringent and regulated
[3:02:34] than any. Um, just to throw that out
there. I know it's case by case. I think
[3:02:39] the issue before was we're not sure we
want a whole bunch of these in town, so
[3:02:43] let's try to regulate them with a
special use permit, almost like a liquor
[3:02:47] license. But going down now, as I look
at the bottom of the list, I mean, we
[3:02:52] were only talking about these aren't
just commercial zones. I can't imagine
[3:02:55] anyone putting a campground, an outdoor
gun or archery range, or a golf course
[3:03:00] in a general business zone in Coventry.
There's just not enough space. That
[3:03:04] stuff would end up out in the rural
areas of town, either in the two or the
[3:03:07] 5 acre zone. I mean, it could be in any
residential zone, but there has to be a
[3:03:11] significant amount of acreage available
to to build any of those. And I can't
[3:03:16] see where separation to the residential
dwelling for a golf course. I mean,
[3:03:21] obviously, you're not going to have the
holes teeing off right in some into
[3:03:24] someone's backyard, but for the most
part, I mean, campgrounds, they could be
[3:03:28] compatible with a minimum am amount of
screening. I mean, I guess it depends on
[3:03:32] on how big it is and what it's going to
entertain if you're going to run
[3:03:35] electricity and have a lot of campers in
there. But
[3:03:38] » yeah, you can tell some of these uses,
campgrounds, outdoor gun, archery,
[3:03:42] range, golf course, these were probably
special use permits in a lot of our
[3:03:45] residential zones. So, I mean, while we
may not be ready to turn those uses on
[3:03:50] by right in residential, um, I can see
where the the tool of a special use
[3:03:55] permit made everyone feel safe that in
the perfect scenario, these uses might
[3:03:59] work in in a very rural residential
area. Some of these uses don't jump out
[3:04:04] as a fit in our commercial zones.
>> And there and there's license
[3:04:07] requirements for I know at least for the
they got to come up every year for their
[3:04:10] license before the town council every
single year.
[3:04:13] » And there was one year where they
weren't renewing them. And they said,
[3:04:15] "No, we don't we we don't think you you
know, you got people in there beyond
[3:04:19] October 1st. There were already
regulations in place. They could only
[3:04:22] operate from like May to October." And
people are like, "Yeah, but I got my
[3:04:27] camp here and I want to stay all
winter." So, yes, [sighs]
[3:04:33] » for their residential houses to be on
golf courses then.
[3:04:36] » That's right. Or you can have a golf
course and they're not going to operate
[3:04:40] that in the winter.
>> Yeah.
[3:04:41] » So,
we'll see. I think what you'll see next
[3:04:45] here won't just be a shuffling of uh
uses from one category to another. I
[3:04:50] think you're going to see Weston and
Samson start to develop some initial
[3:04:53] ideas around the appropriate code.
That's probably where Weston and Samson
[3:04:58] and town staff will be talking about
details. I've kind of mentioned one of
[3:05:02] the predominant uh provisions I see
being applied is a separation distance
[3:05:06] to residential. I, you know, if we're in
a general business zone, you guys may
[3:05:11] say, you know, Doug, we don't need to
slap a lot of specific regulations, but
[3:05:15] we do want to protect our neighboring
residents. Um, and we might give you
[3:05:20] guys something to reflect on um at the
next meeting. The I think the idea is
[3:05:26] it's hard to know how busy our next
meeting is going to be yet. Um, we
[3:05:29] probably we will have a major land
development at a preliminary plan scale
[3:05:32] at our September. We have two September
meetings and so staff will kind of
[3:05:36] debate maybe we put this on the agenda
of either because we don't know which
[3:05:40] meeting might go quicker and we feel we
have extra time at the end. Um I
[3:05:45] probably don't want to have Jim attend
both on the chance that what happens but
[3:05:48] we'll uh Western Samson's scope to come
to a few more of these provide feedback
[3:05:53] and uh we'll keep narrowing it down get
closer. Uh last questions on any of this
[3:05:58] code work.
Jim, did you have anything that you felt
[3:06:01] you needed to hear more on?
>> No, I don't think so. I think we got
[3:06:05] some good direction tonight and this is
uh this is going to be very helpful
[3:06:08] moving forward. Um, if we're going to
try and do the two September meetings,
[3:06:12] we should we should talk about how to
things up.
[3:06:15] » I would say we're not going to make you
do both. We're probably going to look at
[3:06:17] it and we may pick what's the better
version.
[3:06:19] » Okay.
>> Um, it's probably going to be our
[3:06:21] regular meeting. I picture the project
we're going to see in a special meeting.
[3:06:24] I don't I want to give that all the air
time we need to give it. So, we'll we'll
[3:06:30] we'll put some thought into it and at
one of the September meetings, we'll
[3:06:34] revisit with Jim here and uh we'll uh
then we have October and then the idea
[3:06:40] is after October, we hopefully we've
gotten enough input and they're able to
[3:06:44] wrap up their work.
Thank you very much everybody.
[3:06:48] » Next uh item on the agenda is to direct
>> No, we don't need to there's nothing in
[3:06:53] there we need to go over.
>> Yep.
[3:07:03] I'll second.
[3:07:08] » No, we you know what?
[3:07:21] » Yeah, right.
[3:07:30] information
[3:07:34] and I just want to make sure