Town Council - Special Meeting

I will call the September 16, 2026 North Providence Town Council special meeting to order. Item number one, stop work order. Discussion and possible vote on stop work order for the storage facility located at 1204 Douglas Avenue. As you've all seen in the news and according to the newspapers and according to several articles from the local insider, the Valley Breeze, this council voted to for a stop work order on the property at 1204 Douglas Avenue. We learned that we ourselves could not issue a stop work order that had to come from our zoning official. so we sent a letter on our behalf to issue the order pending answers to a lot of questions we've had about this project um our zoning department has decided not to issue the stop work order so i think we're here tonight to find out why and how they've come to the conclusion that they've come to um i think There's a lot of questions as to why this has come up. I think this council represents the people of this town and this is again our state. This is absolutely not the project that was voted on and we have the right to investigate as to how this came about. That's what we're looking for. It's nothing against the company, nothing against the people that are involved. We want to know how this went from one story to three overlooking the whole neighborhood. That was not what was proposed. with that being said i'll open the floor um brent if you want to come up or sure just state your name for the record please

Well, you have an extra one.

Thank you, Mr. President. For the record, my name is Kelly Morris-Salvatore. I am here voluntarily. I currently do not represent the administration on zoning and planning matters, nor do I represent Mr. Wiegand. But I am here because my name was mentioned several times at your August and early September meetings. in connection with this development, and the role I played in advising Director Wiegand, as well as some disparaging and slanderous comments made about me by Shane Pichet, who I noticed walked into this building. I'm glad he's here to hear my responses. I want to be clear about what happened from my perspective, based on my review of the relevant documents and approvals given to the developer and the advice I gave to Director Wiegand. there are specific roles that the planning board and the town council play in a land development application. The planning board considers a three stage application for a major land development, conceptual master plan, which is the plan at issue, preliminary plan, which includes all engineering and full site design, and final plan, which is generally handled administratively by planning staff. As Brent told you last time, he was not employed by the town at the time the plan was originally reviewed by the planning board at the conceptual plan stage. In fact, then director Dave Westcott recused himself from the master plan application. So I actually stepped in to make the recommendation to the planning board, which eventually got to the council. I provided you, Mr. President, with a copy of the recommendation to the planning board for the record. The insinuation made by Shane Pichet that I directed approval is absurd. My memorandum in front of you specifically advises the planning board that those members must decide whether the project was in compliance with the comprehensive plan and met other requirements for approval. I don't have a vote. I provide good legal advice to the zoning and planning boards for about 10 years on behalf of the town of North Providence. Now, after that planning board master plan approval was granted, as well as the recommendation made to this body, the town council reviewed the petition for the zone change to allow the use by special use permit and to permit a reduced rear yard setback. The town council approved the change in an ordinance based on the plans submitted. That's what Mr. Montone is relying on. You asked Mr. Martone if by ordinance conditions regarding the development may be added. The answer is yes, but they must be clear and specific in the zone change ordinance. There is case law on this exact issue, Supreme Court case law, Town of Warren versus Frost, where the applicant was granted approval to quote, in the decision, construct a building for boat repair and other activities. The building never got built. So eventually the town issued a violation notice because people were complaining that all of the boat repair activities were happening outside of this building that was approved. Okay. The Supreme Court said that there is a fundamental principle that where there are conditions or restrictions on the use of land, they must appear as of record and be clearly stated in the documents or instruments evidencing same, i.e. your zoning ordinance. The court further said that the town may not rely on conditions that you may believe are inherent in approvals, such as based on, um the tap i'm sorry so when brent was reviewing the request for a minor modification subject to a documented zone change ordinance with conditions there are obviously no specific conditions related to the number of buildings the height of the buildings etc additionally the plans themselves do not limit the height of the buildings which appears to be the issue here uh even if brent thought there was a matter of interpretation he had no authority to seek input from the town council furthermore the town council may not approve plans the ordinance suggest that is approving plans i guess if the council thought it was approving anything it would be the conceptual master plan which was subject to two more stages of review in any case the council may not act as a planning board i would cite monroe versus east greenwich for that rule To be clear, I did not represent the Town Council. I did not provide any advice to the Town Council during its consideration of the zone change. And I also want to note that all of your zone changes in that year, 2017, included the exact same language. It's template language that you did put in every zone change. 17-004 17-005 which is this ordinance 17-013 and then again it looks like you didn't do any zone changes after that until 2020 001 exact same template language i looked at minutes i looked at the videos nobody ever talked about one-story buildings i mean you may have thought about it but you didn't say it out loud and he cannot interpret something that wasn't put in writing that's the way it works at preliminary plan stage the application was advertised so you know for a fact that they there was never any discussion for this council about one-story buildings no i don't know you want to state that on the record no i don't know that i said it was not in your minutes it was not in any writing it's right here in these planes Where does it say that?

It's in all these plans, one-story buildings.

I don't see that. What I saw was a master plan that had footprints on it. But again, it doesn't matter because it was based on plans, which you're always looking at plans, as you did in all of your ordinances.

Also, if I may, height wasn't a question because we were on an estimation that it was a one-story building, so height never would have been a question for anything.

I've seen many buildings that are 40 feet high with one story. I'm just telling you.

Again, we're inferring. You've seen a self-storage building 45 foot one floor.

That's an inference.

Come on.

No, but I just, I'm telling you what the law says. So at preliminary plan stage, the application was advertised and neighbors were all noticed by certified mail. Those plans proposed to combine three buildings into two, which was approved by the planning board. Then fast forward about seven years to July 11th, 2024, Brent sends me the request for a minor modification, the zone change, and other related documents. After reviewing all of those documents, based on what I've already summarized, I advise Brent that it appeared to be a minor change to an approved development plan under the town's regulations. Now without being an engineer, and as I reviewed these over the past past couple of weeks, it appears that the building is now sited further from neighbors with much more landscaping than originally planned. In any event, based on the records, Brent approved the modification on December 12 2024, in writing and recorded. By the way, the request for modification from the applicant included a detailed letter outlining the request, a copy of the approved plan, which is what I relied on, Mr. President, the zone change ordinance, a proposed plan, portions of the development regulations relating to modifications of approved plans, and a comparison of the approved plan with the proposed changes. I have provided that to you as well. There was nothing sneaky about the request as it was implied at the last meeting.

Now with regard to a stop work order, only those legally authorized to stop work are able to do so.

Under section 103 of the zoning ordinance, the zoning enforcement officer is charged with the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. He cannot now issue a stop work order when he approved the changes that were made. Any demand by the council for a stop work order puts the town at great risk and potentially Brent personally. unless there are zoning violations on the property he should not issue the violation notice now listen i have also heard from many of you and even at the last meeting that i don't want to defend the town in court let me be very clear again my job is to provide legal advice if the town officials don't want to accept that advice they can vote no as mr pichet does all the time I would do my best to defend that decision. The planning board reviews applications based on the zoning ordinance, which is enacted and amended by the town council. They have to apply the provisions as written, as enacted by the town council. And by the way, them, those members of the planning board and zoning board take an oath just like you do, which says something like, We're going to follow the laws of the Constitution of the United States, the state of Rhode Island, and the town of North Providence. That's what they're supposed to do. So I assume that they want to do that when I'm giving legal advice. And that's the kind of advice that I give. Again, you guys want to vote no, not listen to your counsel? You can do that and put your taxpayer constituents at risk. That's up to you. But my job is to provide legal advice. Now, let's move on to the comments made by Mr. Pichet, who actually said that I was devious because this doesn't even make sense. A zoning variance was granted, which is not true. The council included a condition for a variance. It never went to the zoning board. There's no variance. Then he said that I'd be devious if I applied it to a subsequent property owner. Well, guess what? These approvals run with the land. Thank goodness Mr. Pichet does not.

I made a statement. It runs with the land. Does it run with the owner? No. Wasn't this property sold? The land. Wasn't the property sold from the time it was? I don't know. Well, we don't know a lot of things.

Well, it doesn't matter. Let's assume it was sold.

Wouldn't this have to go back for replanning if somebody else bought it?

No, it runs with the land.

Not the owner.

Correct. So that's why I said it doesn't matter.

The application doesn't matter. Whoever's name was on it that put it in. Doesn't matter. The next guy coming assumes responsibility for this land because he bought it that way. And now his name is not on the application, but now it's going.

forward with that and that's why it's recorded against the property it's part of title so any approvals that you get as long as you follow certain rules and this was approved for special use based on this drawing

Well, that's what you think. The picture doesn't matter. It doesn't state in writing that there's seven buildings, eight buildings. But the picture I'm looking at does.

It doesn't matter.

So my eyes don't tell me what I'm seeing.

Did you hear what I said about the inherent? You can't imply a condition. So you're all taking the position that it was based on one level. That's not what the zoning ordinance says.

That's why I have a question. I was told as council president that this stop work order on our behalf was going to go out last Friday. You were told? I was told. Okay. My attorney was assured that this was going to go out. What changed from Friday to Tuesday?

I don't know. I mean, I know I've talked to people. My opinion I just gave to you, Mr. Wagon has no authority to issue, unless there's a zoning violation, but there's no zoning violation. So like I said, for the council to demand that he issue a stop work order, which you have no authority to do respectfully.

So you live in Cumberland, you represent Cumberland. If this happened in your backyard and you were in our position, you wouldn't be concerned? I wouldn't want. Be concerned?

Concerned? I don't know what you mean by that.

You wouldn't address the neighbor's concerns?

I don't know what you mean by that. You know what I mean. No, there's a legal process. I don't care that you're an attorney. You know what I mean by that. Do I feel bad that the neighbors don't like what's being built there? Of course I feel bad, but this is a legal issue. And again, you took an oath to follow the law. So did the planning board. They did follow the law. Mr. Wagon's following the law. The fact that, and I'm not blaming anyone. I'm going to say it this way. The fact that there are no conditions in the zone change do not give him the ability to stop the work it just there's no ability to do it it's this happened in 2017. most of you weren't even around in time i know you were i know exactly who was there i know whose council district this is in i know all about this development now because i wasn't invited on august 1st and i wasn't invited on september 1st to your meetings So I had to voluntarily ask to come and see you to make sure that I responded to you because I am sick and tired of people trashing me, not just here, but whenever you're a solicitor. So I want people to know that I did the right thing. I provided the right advice. Mr. Wagon is doing the right thing. And the fact is the ordinance doesn't say that the height should be X. What's the height? Doesn't even say. So when this was approved. Okay.

I don't want to throw anybody under the bus, but it seems to me there's a failure from the town, our attorneys, council attorney, town attorney, and the planning attorney.

No. Because the stipulation. I don't buy that.

The stipulation's not in there? Well, you just told me.

I don't buy it. I just told you that. There was no stipulation. I'm going to answer you. There were three ordinances in 2017 that said the exact same thing. It's template language. You should change that.

You should change that. This was given a special use permit based on this. What you're saying, and again, you're saying there should have been stipulations put in that when it was changed.

If you wanted a 20-foot height, it should have said.

If we wanted all the buildings one level, it should have been stated. It should have been explicit.

If I was representing you, I wouldn't have said one level because one level can be 40 feet high. I would have said, what do you want the height to be? I don't know what happened. I don't know how that particular membership.

It went from seven buildings to one building.

It doesn't matter.

I don't understand how none of this matters.

Kind of like a bait and switch as far as I'm concerned. Because the council granted a zone change. That's your role.

Based on what we saw.

Well, not what you saw.

Well, I wasn't here, but I'm going by what. Right. So you're guessing. The evidence in front of me is what I'm going by. It's the only thing I have to go by.

I see the evidence. And based on case law, there were no specific conditions of approval other than the special use permit was granted and the dimensional variance was granted. That's the law. I mean, we can argue about whether it should be the law, but that is the law. So, I mean, there's nothing to argue about.

I just, in layman's terms.

Yeah, exactly.

In layman's terms. This was approved. The storage was not approved in that area unless it was given the special use permit. The only reason why it was granted because of what was in front of us that was going to be there. Not me. Sorry, I was not here. I didn't get a vote on it because I would have voted no. Let's all get on the record saying that. I must be the most anti-storage person in the world, obviously.

it wasn't that actually wasn't that bad with the seven buildings no i but my vote would have been no unless you told me you could change it i can't get into the minds of seven council people that's why we look at the documents and that's why the supreme court has said when it comes to property rights you better be specific and clear and that ordinance again nobody's fault isn't clear and specific period counseling do you have a question i do

You just mentioned that you advised Brent Wiegand to vote yes on this. Am I correct?

No.

Brent doesn't have a vote. Okay. You advised Brent Wiggins to okay the claims that came to him.

I told him, and there's an email to this effect, I thought that he could approve this as a minor modification because of what was being presented, which was the same size footprint, a better buffer. There was nothing really different about it, less paving. so so upon your advice you thought he was correct doing what he did upon your upon my advice what he did seven months later yeah i thought it was fine i didn't see it after that i had a conversation with him on july 11 2024 and two weeks ago i was given a whole bunch of stuff so don't you think that when things changed on that project

that someone should have came to the town council, whether it be you as the lawyer for them, Brent as the planning director, whoever it may be. Don't you think someone should have came in front of this town council and says, no, we don't have the right. That's my problem more than anything. See, we approve this. You're not a planning board. You approved a zone change. I bet you're finished. Please let me finish.

Yeah.

So we... Okay then. And then we have to wash our hands from it. To me, that makes absolutely no sense.

You're not a planning board.

We are responsible for all these people who are here. Understood.

We're responsible for them. You're actually responsible for the entire zoning ordinance, including all amendments. And the planning board does not come back to you, nor does Brent, nor do I. We don't come back to you if we have a question on a zoning matter. But if there's a major change, don't you think it should come? It wasn't major. From eight buildings to a 40-foot-high one building? That's a major change. That's your opinion. It's an opinion.

I'm missing something.

I mean, I think all the people out here that, you know, I think there's people out here that agree that it was a minor change. We have a difference of opinion. That's why conditions have to be specific and clear.

To me, putting a Band-Aid on a cut is minor. If I need open-heart surgery, I think that's pretty major. I don't know. To me, you went from that to that. And we can, I agree with Samantha, you can tell me I'm stupid. From what to what? I don't know, but. From what to what? From small to big. Yeah, but again, it's all. What's our definition of big and what's our definition of small?

And I don't even know what you mean by big.

I think you're talking about height. You're talking about height. I'm not talking about height. I'm going from seven buildings to one big giant.

It's all the same square footage. it does not matter again it's your regulations your regulations say that brent is able to decide whether something is minor or major he decided this was minor with my advice i i take full responsibility and credit frankly for it but it was it based on what was given with more land it was a better project more landscaping same height well like again like i told somebody else one day you don't live next to it so for you it's a better project you want to really talk about semantics and go back and forth i could really get most of the people in the town that would tell you that's not a better project that's why there are provisions of the zoning ordinance that the council approves exactly it wasn't in there it wasn't in council your question yeah uh so

here's the problem i'm having the problem i'm having is when you read an ordinance you give all their words you're in the what when you read an ordinance yep you give all the provisions of the ordinance and their words the meaning that's laid out in the ordinance and i'm reading language that says that the amendment is approved based on the plan submitted at the hearing now i'll I'll agree with you that I didn't see a height restriction in the plans, but there were plans that were submitted that gave a layout. Now, my reading of that is that it's based on the plans as submitted. So I would say that that ordinance specifies that the layout is what was submitted at the hearing back in 2017, and I wasn't here. So what I'm having a real tough time with is If I were to read it as there are no conditions or this one particular condition doesn't apply, I don't know how you do that. There were plans that were submitted. I don't know how you just disregard the plans.

Well, I cited the case that specifically says you have to be specific and clear and that based on when i read that i'll tell you what i think when i read it and you guys are sitting in a different place than i am you're you're trying to figure out how to fix this i'm just giving you the law so when i read that provision based on the plans every zone change is based on plans at a conceptual level at master plan They're all based on plans. In fact, you put it in every ordinance that it's based on plans. Those plans always change at preliminary and final.

They always change unless there are conditions put in place before they can change.

I mean, i i there's a condition here that says that's based on those plans just based on plans that's not specific that were submitted we have the plans we can argue about what that means all day but i i cited you a case that i think is incredibly clear where the the zoning board actually approved a building to go up and they never put the building up Based on plans is incredibly broad and vague, and there's nothing about height. You just told me there's nothing about height on the plans.

So if they built nine 40-foot high buildings, then I think there's a real argument saying they're complying with the plans.

Okay.

It's one building now. Okay. The plans show a site layout.

So you'd rather have the setbacks encroaching more into the neighbor's area? they were 40 feet lower again it it really doesn't matter it's all of our opinions I prefer I would prefer them less pavement away from me but that's just me and that's my opinion it's your opinion it's not what the ordinance says okay well we can agree to disagree on it um

Now, I also listened to all of the meetings. Did you hear the part where they came in and presented that there was going to be 40,000 square feet of storage space?

No.

Okay. So that was part of the plan, 40,000 square feet. It was part of the plan? It was presented to the council when they... Okay. I'm just saying. I want to ask a second question.

Does that matter, Mr. Martone?

Well, what I want to know is now that it's 121,000 square feet, that's not a major change? no because it's it wasn't on the plans and it wasn't in the approval okay so let me ask you this brent and and you made the determination that it was a minor modification that he could what's the definition of a minor modification you don't have one in north providence okay You don't have one. We don't have one. That's a problem. So how is he able to determine what's a minor from moderate? It's up to, it's in his discretion. I disagree. There's, it's not in his discretion. If it's, he can refer to the planning board. He could. Yes. It's in his discretion. There's no definition. So how so how is he able to determine what? Yes, I agree with you. So if there's no definition, he doesn't have anything to determine whether it's a minor modification or made him.

No, it's in his discretion.

Where does it say that?

Well, it's. Yeah.

Yep. Five seconds.

I want to get.

So unfortunately, our subdivision regulation section twenty nine of the subdivision regulations. If you look at the state enabling act, the subdivision review at. There were provisions in that ordinance that talk about minor modifications and it says. Minor Shelby at the discretion of not at the discretion, but it should be determined by our local rules.

Yep.

When you go to our subdivision regulations, which have been around since 1992. 9595 they there's no definition. There's no definition of minor. And when you look at the definition of minor change, it says subject to local rules. Well, we're not ordinance. Does it define it? It doesn't. I mean, in our subdivision regulations, there's no definition, but it says a minor change may be determined by the administrative officer. Once the administrative officer makes that decision, he also has the ability to refer it to the planning board. Don't we think that should have been the optimum decision on this? You need an amendment to the subdivision regulations to define what minor and major is, too. So you eliminate that discretion.

I want to read from it. minor changes as defined in the local regulations to a land development or subdivision plan may be approved administratively by the administrative officer so we don't have a definition of what a monitor is

so how can he administratively approve something if we don't know what a minor change i can tell you in my experience what usually happens in zone in uh regulations is that major modifications are defined and minor modifications are defined as literally everything else That's what happens in most communities.

Can you just give me a hypothetical minor to me?

Mr. President talks about Cumberland. Not that I know it by heart, but I know there's one that says if in a subdivision you're creating an additional lot, that would be a major modification.

So if I gave you plans for a dog house and then I built a three-story house, he could interpret that as minor?

Well, under your regulations, yes, but I don't think you would.

Oh, but this was. It went from this and then this big construction thing.

It's the height. You keep doing this. It's the height that you're.

No, no. Well, I'm just saying it's one giant building. When you drive by, you go like this. You go, what's this monster? Versus if you drove by and everything was here, your eye level, even driving in a regular truck, you wouldn't see anything. Which to me is minor and major. I don't care if you tell me it's because this is what was submitted.

There was nothing on there. It says 40 feet on the plans. It says 40 feet right on the- I want to, I want to, I'm sorry.

I don't want to get off topic here for a second. I want to go back. What the regulations say and what the state law says is that minor modifications may be approved administratively by the administrative officer, but minor changes have to be defined in the local regulatory. So I don't know how Brent can make a decision that something is a minor modification when we don't have what a minor modification is in our regulations. And it's not in state law.

Well, again, in my experience, a couple of things. In my experience, it's usually the major modifications that are defined. And then in our just exactly. That's a problem. Yes. But but that's what he's working with.

I understand that. But but so but I think the way to do that is considering they're not defined and considering this was a change from 40,000 square feet of storage to 121,000 square feet.

see i disagree with you should have went to the planning board you can always default by going to the planning board the planning board can make any modification that they want so that would have been the at least the the more careful way to do it right so the premise is what i happen to disagree with is that you're saying that it was more gross floor area than what was in the ordinance and there's nothing in the ordinance about gross floor area that's what he had to look at he did not go back i i don't know what he did but i'm assuming he did not go back and read and review videos and We look at, when we're reviewing zoning ordinances, zoning changes, we're looking at documents. We're not going back to look at presentations and what the applicants said. That's what we're looking at.

There was a statement made by Brent that the reason he also made this decision, because the developer came in and said it wasn't financially feasible to do the other project anymore. Yeah. What does that have to do with the price of apples?

I do not agree with that.

why was that even considered i don't know what oh okay all right well i just wanted to say again that was that also was a premise to why this machine but that's not but it doesn't those things if he considered them he still came to the right conclusion i just wanted to i didn't consider that that was just the reasoning for it um you know the reason for that change but so it didn't factor into why we decided to help them out

yeah so what factored in is 40 000 square feet 121. this received preliminary which was a different plan than what you looked at before me and then it received final administratively before me from dave westcott and both of those plans were different than what this board reviewed

Um, so again, so right was the final plan the same as the, the 1 that was approved the primary plan that was different too.

Oh, it was slightly different, but it was relatively the same layout of 7 buildings.

Because I know in the preliminary.

Yeah. So, um, in that packet, I have, you have the final approval that was recorded. I believe on the last your 2nd to last page. And essentially, by all the metrics, they've reduced the requirement for a variance. They increased the residential buffer, moved the development away from the residential zone towards the actual access road into Shaw's. The height was allowed by Wright with the zone change.

An ml zone gives that right so that's the one yes but the the final plan that was recorded back in 2018 was the one on the left the left correct the one that you approved in 2024 or 2025 on the right and the original one that was done in 2017 were there engineering plans or anything submitted with those seven buildings and everything that was in the original plan when an application

was there anything civilly done between water runoff things and all that stuff because of what I'm I just did in my own life now I know what what everybody's going through and I could feel for some people going through it was anything done and then was anything changed on that so there was a stormwater report not from Master but for preliminary they did eventually from this original one that got the special use was anything submitted with this no nothing well i wouldn't expect there to be because it's a conceptual master plan so it never even made it past just to say back of a napkin like that all right so they got approval then they all of a sudden things happened in the world that was 2017. 2024 they decide now we want to build we want to build storage but they submit another they submitted another plan now with everything

Well, can I, so in 2017 and maybe into 2018, they submitted their engineering plans, which would have been a whole stack.

Okay. With, with, with this project or what did it look like when they did that?

It looks similar to the left side of.

It was for seven buildings instead of nine.

Yeah. Okay.

So it was, it was for seven buildings instead of nine.

Yes.

And that was had an engineering plan.

Yeah.

What a runoff. And now the one, now the one building. Did they have to go back and redo the whole thing again? Because now the roof angles are different. The water's different. The runoff's different. I took a civil engineering course this year. It cost me a lot of money to go do it.

Right in.

So you're telling me the engineer didn't have to do anything else?

They did have, for a preliminary plan, they had to do that. Did it change?

From the nine buildings to the seven, did it change?

Yeah, it had to have.

It was designed for the seven buildings at preliminary plan.

Not the nine. So then they had one for nine and then they changed it for the seven. So they had to go for two of them.

So they never designed it for the nine. They just did the concept for the nine.

So now they went to the seven. They did a civil engineer plan for that. Applications in, everything's done, right? Now they just changed it to one building. Did the civil engineering change at all?

I believe they do have a stormwater report submitted, yes, and Mike Campagnon enforces that.

So that was changed, too? So a whole other application was done? Was that a minor change, too?

Well, that was part of the minor change. That's not, I mean...

I know one thing. So I should, I can build a, I should have just built a house then and did what I had to do and then just tell you, well, it's done now, so who cares? I put that application in for the doghouse and I built the three family. Now what are you going to do?

You get, but you get... What?

So when the violations start, no.

Because it's not... You know what?

I'm not trying to be funny with this. This is serious, and it's affecting people's lives. And the stuff that people go through to get it right, sometimes they have to go through twice the stuff. And something this major went through with just... And I'm not blaming Brent to say he did anything devious or anything like that. But I'm sorry. That should have never been done like that. And maybe I'm speaking out of turn, but that's going to be unacceptable to the people sitting behind you that live over there.

So I do just want to add that the preliminary plan approval was conditional that final approval be done administratively. So that was designated by the planning board itself.

And who made that decision? Who wrote that and who did that? That's state law. Okay.

It's not required. No. Hold on. Hold on.

Let me be very clear. I read the decision. So in this particular case, when the preliminary board, a preliminary plan decision was made at the planning level.

When you take case, this was just the planning board, not a case. No, no.

So the planning board at preliminary issued a number of conditions for approval of the preliminary plan. And the last condition was that final approval shall be administrative.

But I want to be clear that's redundant. It is required by state law that unless he finds that there are changes. That are significant enough to go back to the planning board at final plan. So it's to the planning board could have put it as a condition, but they didn't have to because final plan under state law is administrative. Unless he finds that there's, um, you know, a substantial change where it has to go back to the jump on that one.

You know, I'm just.

I'm going to change it a little bit. When it went from 40,000 square feet to 121,000 square feet, who approved that?

Again, that's a premise that I don't accept. It did not go from 40 to 120. There's nothing in the documents that we read that said it was 40,000 square feet or whatever the number was.

Where did 40 come from?

Someone mentioned 40,000 square feet. The building footprints are 40,000 square feet. And I understand the footprints. And at the special meeting back in May, the representation was made to the council that there was going to be 40,000 square feet of storage space, which makes sense because It was supposed to be 1 story. Now. I know everybody's saying it wasn't supposed to be. It was just supposed to be less than 40 feet. But what was presented was it was going to be 40,000 square feet of storage space. Which was on the footprints on the survey plan and.

makes sense because 40 000 square feet is one story now what makes sense also makes sense is if you go up three stories now it's 120 000 squares right so which which by the way tripled their revenue and i took math class so i can figure that one out what i'm trying to figure out is who okayed that or no one did and you guys took it upon yourself to say just clear go ahead but it's not the pr again the premise is is just a false premise

Again, first of all, it doesn't matter if I was at the council meeting or not, but I never heard that. I know everyone's going to say, oh, Kelly, you were involved with this from the beginning. Well, not everything. So I wasn't at the council meeting. I didn't watch the videos because we're not, by the way, we're not really authorized to look at videotape about a presentation. We have to look at the document. zoning is a derogation of property rights and all interpretations are are to be interpreted in favor of the property owner that is the law and that is what we base all of these decisions on including the case law that i've read to you um it just it's unfortunate it's unfortunate that the neighbors um you know don't like what's being built but that's but brent had no choice

Why couldn't you sit, wait, and then go back?

This is Monday morning quarterbacking. No, it's not. Yes, it is. Of course it is. Of course it is.

I'm going to make one comment. Who here from the town, who's here that lives near the project? I know I spoke to most of you, and I'm glad you're all here because you can see, as I've said to all of you individually, how hard the town is working against us on this matter. This is ridiculous.

Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

You've done a great job. I got to give it. No, I'm giving you credit.

You want to put your staff at risk of personal liability?

It's not my staff.

Oh, so you want to put the town staff?

You guys are working against us on this. This is ridiculous.

No, we're not working against you.

Yes, you are.

No, what we're doing is we're protecting our decision based on law. Can I finish? Because I have a lot to say about- No, we're not going to get into that. Oh, yes, we are.

Yes, no, you're not. I make the rules here. Well, wait a minute. No, we're not.

Okay, then I'm going to have a big press conference. Mr. Pichet slandered me and you allowed it. I think I should have- I did not allow that.

I did not allow- Yeah, no, no, no. We're not going to get into it. I'm going to give you a few minutes to if you want, if you want to address your concerns about that. But we're not going to get into a back and forth.

No, I don't think we should. He had his say and I'm going to respond to it. So back to what I was saying, he doesn't understand the law. That's why he generally voted against things that he just didn't like. That's why we always had six to one votes. He called me incompetent. He said that there was nefarious activity. He challenged my ethics without any basis whatsoever. the best part is when he said that other developers are pillaging the town let's talk about mr pichet for a minute because this is rich coming from a guy who ignores state and town legal procedures oh no no i get i get to respond who has been cited for violations including failure to obtain a building permit for continuing to work on property when he was ordered to stop A court order notes that the court was concerned with safety issues relating to a foundation. The court required permanent barriers installed as soon as possible. He fails to appear at municipal court when required. There are violations that... Stop you for one moment.

I'm going to just recommend on the advice of legal counsel, the purpose of today's meeting is a discussion and possible vote on the stop work order for the storage facility located at 1204 Douglas Avenue. I think we're going far afield. from the purpose of today's meeting. I appreciate your desire to advocate. For myself. And for yourself.

Yeah.

But as it relates to your comments, I'd ask to keep them specific to.

Sure, if I can respond, why didn't you have the same advice for the council last time when he was going off the record talking about me?

Attempted to.

But it didn't go anywhere.

It was a lot shorter.

I have like two more sentences, two more sentences. There are violations that he doesn't maintain safety fencing. The municipal court said that the property is not legally safe. Apparently the town was permitted to do the repairs with costs of those repairs, the responsibility of Pichet. Meanwhile, there's a huge hole in the ground right across the street from Town Hall. How long has that been there? I haven't been around for a couple of years, but probably been a couple of years.

I have a question for you.

And how do you let somebody get up and talk about somebody like that without any basis in fact? It's called slander, Shane. And I'm going to sue you.

All right. Come on, guys.

So I have a question for you.

Yes.

So did you advise Brent about the 120,000 square foot building that's in now that he had to do it? Did you advise that?

No.

So you were against it?

No. That didn't even come up. Because there was no increase. It was 40 feet. There was no increase to these buildings. The buildings were proposed at 40 feet or less. That's what they were proposed at. We didn't even have that conversation.

So 40,000 square feet was never submitted as a plan for storage. That number, that number would never existed.

I mean, not based on the plans, not based on my, by the way, these plans have been 10 years ago. This would have been 10 years ago.

That doesn't matter. It's what's happening to these people right now.

But that's why, that's why documents matter. Mr. DeLorenzo. That's why written ordinances matter.

So can I, can I ask, uh, Go ahead. So when you were attempting to determine whether it was a major change or a minor change that Brent could approve administratively, do you remember what it is exactly that you looked at?

Yeah. I have an email, and I think I may have put it in the document, but there's a letter, detailed letter, from either Ms. Azar or Mr. Moses. There's... A copy of the approved plan.

The approved, the final plan?

I can send it to you.

Yeah, I mean, I would like to.

I think you have a copy of it, Mr. President. A copy of the approved plan, the zone change ordinance. the proposed plan portions of the development regulations relating to modifications of approved plans and a comparison of the approved plan with the proposed changes that's what i looked at and i have an email uh to brent i may have talked to him i don't remember when you just came up to me in the parking lot i had no memory of this i had to dig through everything so but i wanted to after what has happened and what was said about me. So yeah, I mean, everything that we needed, we looked at. Any other questions for me?

No, you do agree with there's no definition of what a minor modification is in our regulations. Correct?

Well, absolutely there is no definition. Correct. Thank you.

Anything else is there any other questions from the council?

Thank you.

Is there any residents that would like to comment? Uh, my legal counsel is going to make a few comments and I'll have you.

Yeah. And I don't know, perhaps. Brent could answer these questions, but I'm just going back through the timeline that you provided Brent. And thank you for this. I, I think it's helpful. Um. But so, up until through the final plan approval process under. Planner, when Scott in 2018, throughout that process, there were 7 buildings by the time there was final approval by what Scott in 2018.

Yeah, so if you look in that packet on the 1 on the left side is the final approval that was recorded. Okay.

So, then, and that was the same plan that we had on record until. 2024 when they came back to you with the plan modification. Is that right?

That's correct.

All right and then in 2024, the plan modification was to go. From 7 buildings, 7 to 1 building. Is that right?

Yes.

Okay. Do you know at the time that the final plans were approved for back under Planner Winscott, the square footage of each of the buildings that was approved on that final plan?

I don't off the top of my head. Okay. Do you know if they were 40,000 square feet a piece? I don't. Okay. I know the footprint.

The footprint?

Yeah. So the footprint between the seven units or the seven buildings and the one building is the same lot area, 23%.

if can i just jump in but in order to get preliminary plan approval they would have had to provide plans that show the buildings themselves correct yes including the square footage of the buildings not just the footprint yes that's somewhere that's in a file somewhere yeah that should be somewhere i haven't seen it i have four files that i found in the previous planners files yeah so i mean that's all i can really work off of um you know i don't know where he kept other things maybe so you all right so i want to so the there was a master plan approval went to the council and and if you can stay up here i got a lot of questions done so um there's a master plan approval went to the council then there was a preliminary plan approval As part of the preliminary plan approval, you said that they have to give you a whole bunch of stuff more than what they need to give you a master plan, correct?

Correct. They need to supply all state, local, and federal permits and approvals, including the period when the zone change happens. And they would have to do all the engineering, drainage, landscaping. There's a lighting plan included.

So at that time, the preliminary plan approval stage they would have given you a what is it what's the right word a architecture drawing including the floor plan of the buildings they would have provided that to dave westcott okay and you're not sure if you have that i haven't seen any architectures anywhere in any files okay uh i mean your way we have to keep these records forever right yes uh are you con i mean so i guess my question is All right, and then there was a final plan approval that was before me as well. Yeah, I'm not saying you start working your 1.

2020 yeah, this was fully permanent.

Got in 18, but there was a. Final plan approval in 2018. Yes, so presumably. You do need to take into consideration. what the final plan approval was including looking at documents that were submitted i'm assuming when you're making a determination as to whether you can accept something as a major modification or minor modification uh yes so so my question is yeah how did you make that determination if you don't have a file with all the plans site plans i have all the site plans all the recorded approved site plans

so but generally floor and elevation plans are approved in substantial conformance with them because people do change their taste they'll change colors they'll change

Well, that's different though. I mean, I get people can change color, but you know, you're talking about a plan that shows what the building is going to look like, at least structurally. And so I'm not sure. Well, for one, I don't think you can, I don't think because based on our regulations and I'll blame, you know, the town on this. I don't think you can make a minor modification cause it's not defined, but even if you could, I don't know how you did it because you didn't have the underlying documents from the final plan approval to compare with the new plan.

I had a site plan and that's the only plan that's recorded for decision generally.

Okay. All right. Uh, and so you had a site plan, so you based. your decision off of the recorded site plan and then whatever new stuff they provide. When they come in for the amendment, do they provide you with a whole new packet of stuff that they would have provided you with at the preliminary and final plan approval stage?

So they provided that to Mike Campagnone for the building permit. The final approval was to the site plan.

Okay. when you're making a determination as to an amendment you don't look at anything other than the site plan the comparison of the original site plan and the new site plan so yeah I look at the setbacks I look at the

You know, the dimensional regulations I look at, if it conforms with the conditions of all previous... You're telling me it's a site plan.

How can you even tell? The site plan, I just... We have a site plan that everybody's telling me we can't use as a condition because it doesn't show dimensions. So how are you making that determination if you're looking at a site plan? A site plan doesn't show height, right?

Well, I looked at the maximum height for the zone allowed by right.

Yeah, but you have a site plan in front of you that doesn't show you what the height of the building is going to be. well they it confirms on the plan that it's under 40 feet so we hold them to that okay all right um so you make the minor modification or you determine it's a minor modification and In a normal circumstance, how do you determine what's a minor modification? What's a major modification?

So I would say a major modification is where it requires more relief. And a minor would be if it requires less relief. And this required one less zoning variance.

Where'd you get that from?

Sorry, what was it?

Where'd it come from? Where'd you come up with that?

Well, generally, you can approve things that are less intense than what is approved in planning law.

and when you approve that do you go do you go to the uh uh planning board chair and get them get their sign off uh or get their signature on anything not if it's administrative no okay because because they've deemed you the person designated by the board to sign off on that

That is how I understood the conditions of preliminary plan.

Because you know, Section 28 of the planning regulations say that all minor land development or subdivision plans or administrative plot shall be signed by the planning board chairperson and secretary.

You said minor. Is that for major as well?

Yes. Actually, it's more stringent for major. You're telling me it's minor, so I'll go with that for right now. But you signed it.

I did sign it, yeah, as the administrative officer.

All right. If you don't mind, can I go back? I want to make sure I understand exactly how the process played out.

All right.

So, and I know we went into a lot of this, but I think it's important enough for us to go through. So, based on your letter that you sent us back in 2017, Douglas Avenue Associates and US Development filed an application for a major land development and I I know you weren't here but you're the guy now so unfortunately you're standing there all right uh and at that point the planning board approves a master plan with certain conditions yes are you aware of what was submitted to the planning board at that time was it the submission that we have from Garofalo

So I believe the original master plan submission was Gara Gara.

And we can agree that at the very least the submission at that point was nine buildings, correct?

It was all right. We don't have to get into whether the one story or not, but it was nine buildings. Yes.

And one of the conditions I noticed in the, in the master plan approval was that an easement for a driveway to Shaw's market. remain open to the public and set easement to be provided to counsel to the planning board. Was that ever provided?

It must have been for them to proceed to preliminary. Do you know if that was provided? I didn't check on that. It was? Okay.

All right. And then, so at that point though, they needed, essentially the project needed three things from the council.

Change to the comprehensive plan,

a zone change yes and a special use permit okay yes and we agree that the council has the ability when they pass his own change to impose conditions yes and based on your letter the zone your opinion is that the zone change ordinance did not include any conditions limiting building height design or specific site layout I'm reading right I'm reading off your letter so essentially yeah okay so your opinion is that when the council passed the ordinance that said based on the plans presented. That was not a condition on the design. Forget about height. I'll put that aside for a second. But that was not a condition on design or specific site layout. I don't think...

The planning board is the one that approves the actual buildings and layout preliminary plan and then final plan after they meet those conditions at preliminary. So... I'm not really sure how to answer that.

All right. Listen, I think that the ordinance as it's passed, and I know we can disagree. If you if we want to disagree about height, because it says it's got to be less than 40 feet. I mean, I think that design very clear or that plan very clearly shows a design or specific site layout, but that's me.

So So the thing is, you go to master plan for a concept. Yep, they vest you in to the use. you proceed to get your state local federal permits um that is when they went to you yep and and they received that and i generally zone changes are are changed that's what they are they're changing the zone to allow for different uses and different dimensions based on what that zone allows

And by the way, I totally agree with you. I don't do a lot of this stuff, but I understand that plans change between master and preliminary and sometimes even final. What I don't agree with is that that can happen if there's an intervening zone change. I know that happens all the time if I'm coming in for a major land development project as of right. i want to change it i get that but i think there was an intervening act that was required that the council had to pass his own change i think it put a condition on that we can disagree with disagree on but that limited the ability for the developer to do anything other than at the very least that design and that site layout and and if they were coming in and they didn't need zoning relief From the council that I think they could have changed that all day long and they would have been, but that's that's just my opinion. So I want to let me let me keep going. So. So, I know you said that. In the plans, both at master plan, and I think preliminary plan, and I think even final plan, you say it says it right on the. On the plan that it's going to be less than 40 feet in height. yes all right and you you use that as part of your guiding you know part of your decision making with regard to well i mean it's on the plan it says it's going to be less than 40 feet in height well i use that and the general rights provided by the zoning ordinance for ml zones yeah and i get that what i what i don't understand is why we're using certain things on plans and taking them at face value and we're not using other things on plans so Again, not to beat a dead horse here, but I don't know why I would look at the plan from Garofalo and I would say, okay, it says right on the plan it's going to be less than 40 feet in height. That's obviously a condition and it's part of the general right, so I get that too. But why would we look at that, but we wouldn't look at the site design or the site plan?

So I think the answer to that is that there's, they run into engineering issues when they're figuring these things out. Let's say you plan on sewer for your master plan. Can't attach to the sewer because you get denied your state permit to attach. You then have to redesign completely, maybe move the building, create a septic system. That changes the entire project.

I totally understand that. And my position is they should have came back for an ordinance amendment.

Yeah, they designated it to the administrative officer. So I took that at face value.

Mario, wouldn't that be a minor? You're turning a building a little like 45 degrees on a different angle to allow the sewer and everything. You didn't put up a whole different house.

But you can change the location. You can change the design of the house.

I'm still dealing with something this size. I'm not dealing with something this size. All I did was pivot it.

But when the rights allow it.

you can't prevent that because i'm not but to me the zoning ordinance major let me get that right let me let me ask you let me ask you another question if as and i know this is we're dealing in hypotheticals but i want to go there just for a minute if the ordinance that was passed in 2017 instead of saying as based on the plans instead said nine buildings and said um a height limit like 2015 tall they change the plans at preliminary plan no that'd be too specific yeah all right so so i mean i think what we're really arguing is that the condition wasn't specific enough all right all right i mean at least we're i think we're at least we're narrowing things down here so uh the other thing that i wanted to get into is so you go on in your letter and you say that

uh the preliminary plan proposal which was advertised and subject to public hearing with notice to neighbors uh do you have copies of the advertisement and the uh green cards i believe they are in the file yeah i saw i don't we don't save the green cards but i believe the advertisement is in there and there should be something certifying that the mailings were done all right i'd like to see that so if you can provide that to me generally they only keep the green cards for uh during the appeal period

right they take up a lot of space so you know they're like pretty thick in those files no no i got you so now at that time the plan had changed it went from nine building i mean nine buildings to seven buildings correct correct all right and i'm sorry seven buildings in an office i think it said in the uh in the master i mean the preliminary plan of provost was confused so and at that point because the they could do that because the council ordinance wasn't specific enough well um at that point i think that the family's council wasn't specific enough so they could make that change that's the position here all right and So, let's just take for for for a 2nd, that going from 9 buildings to 7 buildings. Is a minor change, right? Yes, I'll accept that premise for a 2nd.

Okay.

Let's say 3 months down the road they come in and they want to go from. 9 building, I'm sorry, 7 buildings to 5 buildings. That's a minor change.

Yes, because it's less than what was approved.

So, my question is. If I keep coming in for minor changes, at what point does it turn into a major change?

I think if you increase any of the metrics, if you require more variances or zoning relief.

But not square footage. That's not a metric that you look at.

Not if they are within their rights in their zone.

Okay.

Mario, one question.

um did they need any frontage relief for anything from the original preliminary I don't think so I think they have the frontage on that road well if you have separate buildings right now what I was told when I was building something was I had a lot that was so long that frontage was all because it was one building had to be a certain thing if I had two buildings it still would have been different right no so in residential zones um

The more units, the more furniture you require.

So nothing was changed. You went from those multiple buildings to one.

Something had to change. The frontage remained the same. I believe the lot got larger after the abandonment of Terran Street, and that's the only change in the actual lot. They wanted to need more frontage. There was no change in anything. No.

Okay.

I'm trying to get an education as I go through this. It's tricky stuff.

No, no, no. She wasn't here. Brad, I have two or three more questions. Yeah, I'll jump in after you if you want. Yeah, I just have two more. So, you know, I understand your responsibility and your position is you have to enforce the zoning code, right? Yes. Do you consider a condition placed upon a zone change as part of the zoning code, or is it a separate ordinance for purposes of your responsibility?

So it depends. Not all zone change.

include zoning relief but I would say that is it's a zoning task completed by the town council okay yeah and maybe I can state it differently so that I can make sure I understand but if the council places a condition on their zone change but that condition you know whether it's in the existing zone or the former zone Um, would be permissible in either, but they condition the change on that specific requirement. Would you consider that now part of the zoning code for that particular property? So that, you know, the building had to be green because that's what it was in the submitted plans that the council were to place that condition on their approval of the zone change and the building were no longer green. Would you find that to be a zoning violation or would you just find it to be a violation of the ordinance?

I think it's it's a simple so the zoning map includes an official sorry the zoning ordinance includes an official zoning map so any map changes which this was has to be put on the official zoning map now I can't tell you how that happens maybe Marianne can I don't know who does it could be a different department typically if it's paper maps You would write in, uh, the change what was a CV to ML and then. Because there were conditions, including the special use permit and the dimensional variance, you would say, see ordinance. Uh, 17 dash. Okay, and then that would direct you to to the ordinance so that you would know what any conditions of approval were if there were conditions related because otherwise they'd be writing in all the different. So, so I just want to be clear, like if I think what Brett was saying you've this Council has approved zone changes that are text amendments those get caught up well they're supposed to get codified into the larger document and become the zoning ordinance. But map changes are different only because they specifically relate to the map. Does that right?

I think it does. So. On this particular map, does the map reflect any conditions as it relates to the ordinance?

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that, you know.

I don't know if it's a map you can find online. It's still showing it as a CV zone with with no notation regarding it.

You could have paper map still you did for a long time. Um. But there's an official zoning map somewhere in the town.

Which is kind of the question that I was kind of getting to. Thank you, Kelly. I think for purposes of the notice. So, you know, if there's no notation on the map, right, how and was the ordinance recorded in the chain of title as it relates to this property that carries with the land?

The ordinance was recorded. I'm not sure if it was in the chain of title. It was in the file. It was... it's recorded with the properties so i imagine it's with the title but i don't know the exact answer and would you know so you don't know if it's reported in the actual land evidence records of the town the zoning map change the the zone the ordinance itself that condition the zone change you don't the ordinance itself is recorded okay yes in the land evidence records of the town yes i believe i have a copy of is signed and uh dated with a a date of

approval and a date of recording okay but what's important is it has to be on the official zoning map to be effective there's case law on this so it it doesn't have to be recorded on the property title but it should be recorded or noted on your official zoning map okay that's what's important and in this case it's not right so the zoning map that we have doesn't reflect either the ordinance or any conditions placed upon the actual zone change by the ordinance

most likely so if you know if a new planner were to start today and they were to look at the map they wouldn't necessarily know to go and check the ordinance and see if there were conditions that's correct and you didn't start until 2020 and you know this ordinance was passed back in 2018. did you and you obviously didn't see anything on the map that would lead you to go check the ordinance no did you know about the ordinance prior to making the determination that it was

Yes, I was provided a copy by, uh.

Okay, and that did she do that when they submitted the application for the plan change for the, uh, excuse me for the change in plans. Yes, sorry.

Kelly, I had a question actually, you said something. So, when you say, if it's not recorded on the map, it's not effective. What do you mean by that?

So there's cases where property owners would apply for something. And there's a famous case, the gas station across from the old Holiday Inn in Providence.

We're familiar with that gas station.

They demolished the gas station and made it a parking lot. We argued that The there was there's no notice because it wasn't on the official zoning map so it's really important for you to put all your zone changes on your official zoning map is what i'm saying. it's also important for the reasons what Mr Rogerio just stated so that you know subsequent staff knows what's going on, but, but we were provided with the actual ordinance from the applicant. But, but that doesn't mean somebody else, maybe wouldn't have done it.

Brent, just my own knowledge, Douglas Avenue is the address of this specific storage, right? It's 1204 Douglas. Is the frontage go from the Douglas Avenue side or the private road in between? Or is it because it's on its own property? It's really not road and it doesn't matter. What they do inside that it's our furniture.

North province is kind of odd. Um, if you're on a corner, don't I know that if you're on a corner, the smaller of the 2 frontages is considered your frontage. Is that a corner? yeah it is so why is that a corner when it's just an entrance to the offices there's a little sliver that goes out to douglas and that's considered the frontage because it's the smaller of the two lot lines under on a road frontage okay i guess i got more knowledge i just have a couple more questions i want to just go to the uh special use change do you know

So I looked at the use matrix. The only category that I could see that comes out close to this is mini storage facility.

That's what we're considering. Yes.

Okay. What's the definition of that?

I don't even think we have a definition of mini storage facility.

Okay. So is it your opinion that Again, you know, part of the problem that I'm having is we're choosing to ignore a lot of words that are on paper and I don't care for that. So, presumably many has some connotation. If not, it would have just said storage facility.

Right? I would imagine it means many storage units. I don't think there's a definition for that interpretation.

So when something doesn't have a definition, how do you define it?

Generally, I look at the state zoning code, see if they have a definition. If they don't, then I look at the planner's handbook, which is like a... Handbook have a mini storage facility?

They don't.

It's kind of an odd term.

No, the state doesn't. The state has storage facilities. They don't have mini storage facilities.

yeah and in my reports i've referred to it as mini storage purposely because that's the exact verbiage in our zoning ordinance but everywhere else is referred to as you know storage facility self-storage you know are you aware of any other storage facilities in north california i can only think of one i can't think of any well there's one near stop and shop on the middle square oh yeah there is yes you know how many stories that is

I don't know. It's one. So listen, I mean, the definition is not in the in the code. I mean, I don't know. Is it a fair reading? We only have one storage facility in town. It's one story. I mean, maybe that's what many storage facilities I don't know. Just thinking about things. And you did not. Well, I would like to see whatever plans were submitted at the preliminary plan or final plan approval stage.

Absolutely.

I'm curious as to what the square footage was. I can get you that. I can tell you I listened to, and it may mean nothing, but I listened to the hearing, and it was by audio, which we shouldn't do that anymore, by the way, Marion. And it said 40,000 square feet of storage. The other thing that I thought was interesting is Kelly Coates from Capianato said, This is not a speculative development. Now, I mean, take that for what you will. But I take that to mean is like, you know, this is our plan. This is not something that, you know, we're putting something in front of you to as a, you know, to think about this is what we're planning. And by the way, I think that's what they intended back then was nine one story buildings. I think something changed. And I mean, I get that. I just think they should have come back to the council and ask for an amendment to the zoning ordinance. I don't have any more questions.

Okay. Is there any questions from the audience? You can speak on the topic.

Good evening. Tanessa Azar from Moses Ryan on behalf of TAC North Providence LLC, who is the developer of this project and also its affiliate Montar Group. I just want to address, obviously a lot's been said about the timeline and the history. First, I want to address what the council can and can't do here. You guys, like you've admitted, don't have the ability yourselves to issue a stop work order. I want to make sure that's very, very clear. That's our position. Like I said, there's no action you can take tonight yourselves to stop work on this project. I hope that's clear from what's been said. And separately, this has turned into seeming to look at to revisit approvals that have been granted. My client has relied on an amendment that was properly approved, a building permit that was properly approved. You might have things you need to change about your ordinances or your subdivision regs related to minor changes. My clients operated under the law that was existing at the time these projects were approved. And in reliance on that, they've constructed a project to try to go back now when appeal periods have passed is inappropriate to try to undo, to unring a bell that's been properly handled. Like I said, I can go a little bit into the history. We've done that kind of to a great extent. If there's any clarifications, I'm happy to respond to the extent that we're talking about whether the zone change was linked to a plan number one it didn't have any specifics about what that plan was also submitted with the application was a plan that showed a change to the zone which of the Lots were changing to the zone all very unclear but but separately from master plan that was approved prior to the zone change then the zone change by preliminary plan the project layout had already changed it was only months later um so to say that it was like there we have something around like a planned development like a planned district it's zone change specifically to a plan that is not what happened here um so it was you know it was it was never that way starting in in 2018. Separately, your regulations give very broad authority to your planner and your administrative officer to grant changes. I understand that people sitting up here might have made different decisions if they were sitting as that official, but it was extremely subjective and Brent had the authority to make the decision that he did. Whether you'd like to make a change to your subdivision regulations and make it much more concrete as to what's a minor change or a major change and make it very objective, then that's something future looking. It really should not impact our client's project as a matter of fact. So as mentioned, the project itself, It meets all the setback requirements of the zone. It meets the height of the zone. All the regulations in the ML manufactured limited zone have been met by this project. There was nothing approved that was beyond what was allowed in the zone. um so separately there's never been any violation issued to our client they've been in fact they weren't even noticed about this meeting to to talk about their their project so from their perspective they've done everything by the book and suddenly like i said we're looking at decisions from years ago from months ago the appeal periods have run and our clients have have relied on them um so like i said we've met all of it in a stop work order would would cause substantial damages and and and really impact our client in a way that's not justified by the law. And I did submit written comments, which I hope you received earlier today, that kind of outlines this. But like I said, I could go more into the history, but it's been well covered. The law's been well covered. I just hope that the council remembers your position. Like I said, if you want to take future action to make changes, that's fine, but it shouldn't impact our client. And everything was extremely subjective to try to

rehash what decisions the planner made it was within his discretion he had huge discretion to do so so I'll take any questions and other comments I have a question so I know you said that this is going to be you know very financially impactful yeah and you say that in your letter the date your clients have spent approximately 30 million in connection with this project

The project is nearly, you know, the construction of the building is well underway. This is not, we're not early in this process. The building's well along. That's a number, a figure provided to me by the client.

You know what they put to get the building permit?

I don't know the exact number, no.

I can tell you. It's, well, actually, I'll give you the exact number. Oh, hang on. Well, I can tell you, it's, I have it in front of me somewhere, but it's $7 million. So what I'm curious about is, is your client, lying uh here it is i think it could be total 850 000 is what they put for the building permit so just so you know and i'm sure 30 million is not what the labor materials cost is but you know the difference in permit fees one would be a hundred thousand the other one would be five hundred thousand

Like I said, I can find out exactly what that encompasses. I'm sure that encompasses all project costs, both soft and hard. You know, there's more that goes into it than just that. But that number was provided to me.

Yeah, $23 million in soft costs seems like a lot. The other thing is, so you say that our regs give Brent broad authority. Yes.

So does Rhode Island general law, to be fair. It leaves it to the municipalities to decide what a major or minor change is. And for many years, your subdivision regulations have left it widely open. He has discretion to decide that pretty much anything is a minor change based on the regulations as written.

Well, I mean, I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I don't think it provides broad authority. In fact, I would say that the way it's written right now, everything should be going to the planning board because minor changes as defined in the local regulations plans approved. Now, I'm reading from the state law. At any stage may be approved administratively by the administrative officer. My problem is, we don't have any definition of what a minor changes. So. I don't know how we can say the administrative officer can issue any. Think administratively when we don't know what a minor changes. I think the default should be everything should go to the, the planning board.

But, yeah, we can, that's like I said, if that's a future change that needs to be made to the regulations, but as it's, it's very broad right now. Yeah, I don't know how many changes you issue and how often it comes up. I can only speak to find out. I can only speak to this 1. I can only speak to our project. I appreciate that. Thank you.

have a question that's still a uh a situation if i'm not mistaken of the street that was abandoned the retaining wall and then the shrubs and things that were supposed to be in place that are not right now

so firstly the street was abandoned the so there was a prior owner when the street was abandoned that owner purchased the half of the street from the town as as is the procedure with rhode island general law um so they fully own half of terrace street and then as part of a later administrative subdivision it was merged in so now it used to be multiple lots here as part of merging all the lots together half of the abandoned street that abuts this property was merged in that was all completed properly from the perspective of the subject property so that was recorded there was a quick claim deemed recorded which merged the lots the town was paid um all that was was done the other half and its relationship to the neighbors is totally separate from uh from this applicant and from the property owner so what was the landscape that's supposed to be there so there's a landscape buffer that is proposed part of the the issue here i think is posed are going to be done it's going to be on the project is still under construction so it's not complete um but there is going to be like part there's still vegetation but i think perhaps part of the confusion is there's there's a grade change so the work is done on this subject property not on the parts of terrace street that are not owned by my client so there's going to be a landscape buffer on the former terrace street in my client's property but like i said work is still ongoing

Actually, I had one other question, and I'm just curious. So one of the conditions that was part of the 2017 ordinance that I don't think anybody disagrees about is there shall be appropriate fencing and landscaping so that the premises is conducive to the abutting neighborhood said landscaping and fencing to be approved by the town of North Providence building and planning officers. I'm asking this because I don't know the answer to the question. Considering that's a condition of the zone change. Do you think the zone has changed already or is it once all the conditions are finalized? So, like, does this have to be done before the zone officially changes?

No, the zone has changed, especially because there's a there's like a savings clause in the ordinance. So even if parts of the ordinance. the ordinance aren't applicable the rest stands but regardless the zone has changed to ml in in my opinion and um also a landscaping plan was provided with the updated final plan so in that sense the the landscaping has been approved by planning and building there is a buffer proposed like i said but it is on our client's property so it's at a lower grade but that's the they're they're limited to what they can do on their own property One more question.

So one of the other things that I listened to the special meeting back in 2017 and what Kelly Coates said was that his company was going to hire a landscape architect to walk with all the neighbors, pick out landscaping, fencing, whatever they want for their property. Do you know if that is something that your client is still planning on doing?

I was gonna say two points. I don't know if that was done during the prior final plan. It might've been, I don't know. Kelly Coates is not involved in this project any longer. I'm not sure if that was done here. I don't know if they even knew that that was promised because like I said, it was never in the, I don't think it was, but I can't say for sure if it wasn't done back in 2018 or before, but.

So you said that the landscape,

architecture is going to be at a lower grade so that means the people that live on cushion street will see the building like i said that's just by the nature of uh the site layout our client's property ends where the grade begins to increase so they can only plant on their own prop like buy right on their own property so the site plan has to include landscaping on their property minor change that was true regardless The grading has not been changed as part of it. The landscaping was always going to be low. You do know it's eroding, right? So there is an erosion plan in place and all of that has been monitored. I understand by an outside party and it's going to be met with Rhode Island, you know, with Rhode Island requirements.

So where your grade is in the grade on Cushing street, it's got probably a 10 foot slope and that's all deteriorating down, but you don't care about that part. You just care about your life. Is that what you're saying?

We can only control what's on our property. Not that we don't care about other property, but we can only control what's on our client's property. Thank you. Anything else? We remain available for any questions or anything that the city, we've made ourselves available. I've reached out to your solicitor. They have our contact information. Like I said, we want to be involved in the process. We've reached out multiple times. to address any concerns you have we wish it didn't come to this with with the threats of a stop work order we're trying to be a good neighbor and and address this and we hope that you involve us on an ongoing basis and don't take any action that will be beyond your authority because we we will preserve our rights so we think i thank you oh i'm sorry i i have one other question and i apologize it's hypothetical you could tell me to go pound stand if you want uh

let's say that the instead of the condition that we have the condition was for was nine one-story buildings it was spelled out no no not conditional on any plan and the planning board um approved a change would you say that's outside of the planning board scope

If it explicitly said nine buildings, and then we went back for preliminary plan, and it was some different plan. Yeah, I think you would have to amend the plan, but that's not what happened.

No, no, I got it.

Yeah. And like I said, we never, we fully provided all the materials. There was never anything hidden from the planning department. We provided the zone change. We provided everything. Like I said, it says what it said, but I don't want to get too much into hypotheticals. If it were very specific, that'd be a different story, but it's not. Thank you.

is there any neighbors that like to speak you guys good yes i know you must be aggravated but if you want to talk it's better to get it out now so we know it's i get the hesitation uh douglas mormon prospect street so it's looking like

Legally, we're kind of screwed. Looks like everyone followed all the steps they were supposed to. It looks like the town kind of, I don't want to use the word drop the ball, but just things happened. You know, I keep hearing the word discretion at someone's discretion. Did that, was the word diligence ever brought up? And I understand you look at a project and you say, oh, this is smaller, but And maybe the rules say that you don't need to look at a building plan. You don't need to see that the scope is changing, but maybe those rules should change. And I'm going to preface what I'm about to say, and with that, this is all opinion. But to hear statements like, I have seen a 40-foot, one-story building, or that these nine buildings could be 40 feet, 40 foot each. I work as a finished carpenter. I build buildings. There is no way in hell. Absolutely not. Where is this single-story, 40-foot building? That's a grand ballroom of a huge hotel. There's 0% chance. Like to be able to look at that and not say that this is a major change is at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous. Thank you. Thank you. I couldn't agree more.

It doesn't look like I can do much about here, but I have some questions. I have the original site plan from 2017. it includes no retaining wall abutting terence street the current site plans have what is considered an existing retaining wall so what is the maximum height retaining wall can be without requiring a stamped engineering print does that existing HAB-Jacques Juilland, Stone retaining wall is that higher than that maximum height. HAB-Jacques Juilland, or minimum height and when there is a surcharge where the land is greater than the natural angle of repose. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Of the soil. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Does that retaining wall also still require a stamped engineering print. HAB-Jacques Juilland, If it were to exist. at any height because it holds a surcharge. And my last question is, do we have that print on file as I have asked to see it and yet no one has been able to produce it? And if that is true, is that not a violation? Do those violations carry over since all of these zoning I don't even know what this is at this point. Just so we know, do you know who you asked that hasn't provided that to you? I've asked Brent for the retaining wall. I've asked Mike.

Wouldn't that be on the site plan? I'm going to assume that it would have to be on a site plan, no?

Okay.

The exact question is 24 inches.

But with 24 inches, you need to have a generic one. So, I'm assuming they got an engineering plan on that site plan certificate of occupancy until they, until they apply. Uh. Until they submit a final, uh, 128 project certifications on all civil and structural. I will not give a certificate of occupancy.

I'm assuming that's on the submitted plans right now that retaining wall that's there because the ones that were given to me.

Yeah. So, like, I get everything after planning its own. So, you know, I'm like, deal with the construction. I got you. I got you.

You can make sure everything's approved and but that's not when it gets to. Yes. Because I know when I did my site, that plan that wall had to be in there. So the foundation, everything and everything that was there. Is put in place before you can even do the civil engineering. Correct? Yeah. Okay. So it's part of the civil engineering plan.

The stone retaining wall that was put in place.

is what's still there. Is there any other questions? Any other comments by the council? Okay, I'm going to make a motion to continue this matter to the October meeting where this council will consider retaining outside legal counsel to look into this matter because, frankly, I don't think we're satisfied with what we've been provided here tonight. So that's in the form of a motion. So moved. Motion to be made and seconded. All those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. Is there a motion to dismiss? So moved. Thank you.