Town Council - Regular Meeting

Yeah, you Yeah, we're definitely wellrounded.

Yeah, measured in. You did your civic duty. Then you get Yeah, you did your best.

No, we're all set. Did you take that storm water? Married life is good. The same. We have to take same but good. Yeah. I didn't I don't know anything about we have to take a storm water course. Um there's training requirements. It's not a storm water course, but there's I believe it's two hours December 29th. Is there anything you can forward to? Yeah, forward it to us. I didn't forward it to you. How did you guys hear about it? He told me he told me I got a notice to stay six months a year to work to get the job.

I didn't get anything after the holiday. Thank you. Never realized how much I didn't know anything about the whole world. I mean, I've been involved in it since I was a kid with my dad and everybody. Just being there and all the people and all the hub and it's fun. Yeah. I don't know about that. But no, that I can't do. I have no I have no I have no idea where that's I'm still I'm still I get lost going to my office. Did you get a chance to read the ordinance? I did. It's good. Yeah. Did you send it? You made all the changes that uh I didn't send them to you. I I got it at the end of the text. It's okay. Do you send Do you send it to Jack?

I didn't I didn't get a chance. But Jack, do you want a copy of this proposed ordinance? Yeah. Well, the only reason you laughing. The reason why I didn't give it Brent, the reason why I didn't give him a copy is I thought the board might want to see him rush. That's all. Oh, maybe that's because I sent to you. Thank you. You're welcome. My Gary erasation account, please. My Gary the Gmail, you have to make sure you

make sure you see some of it. Yeah. Had a doctor like his eyes, but Yeah, it wasn't season 5. Oh, good. Oh, send them my home address. My home. I try to keep them separate. Okay. It's Garyianha.com.

If you sent my office, there'll be no ready now. Gabriasiangmail.com. That's my home.

Good evening everyone. Excuse me. Um, thanks for joining us here tonight at uh, Town of North Providence Planning Board Hearing um, located at 2000 Smith Street, North Providence, Rhode Island. Uh, the date is January 14th, 2026. The time is 6 p.m. Uh, may you join me in saying our pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. To start this uh meeting off, we'll take attendance. Um, starting with uh to my right, we'll take a roll call attendance. Mark Mark Andreosi, Warren Richard, David Pari, Gary Erasian, Steven Patassi Brown Planner, Angelica Boas, solicitor.

All right. Um the first on tonight's agenda is uh approval of the meeting minutes from our December 10th, 2025 meeting. Um Mark, I believe you were absent from that meeting. So if you'd like to recuse yourself, you may abstain. I will abstain from Okay. It is noted that Mark is abstaining. Um, I trust uh my fellow board members have had an opportunity to review the minutes and prepared um for the vote tonight. Uh do I hear a um a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Do I hear a second?

I'll second it. Okay. Uh all in favor? I I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. Uh the meeting minutes from December 10th, 2025 are approved. The second item on today's agenda is address zero Manchester Farm Road Cessors Plat Plat 24C lot 5 zone residential limited RL13. the applicant owner Hovain MGN or Stephanie Drive, Lincoln, Rhode Island. The description is a public hearing which was continued from December 10th. Request for unified develop plan review consisting of a preliminary plan review for a two lot minor subdivision proposing no street creation and two lot frontage variances. One being 59.73 ft for the proposed lot to the west and 47.63 ft for the proposed lot on the east. is our applicant in attendance tonight.

Yes, Attorney Steven Certain on behalf of the applicant who is here uh seated behind me as well. Thank you.

Uh good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, thank you for your time this evening. Um I wanted to first off um address a couple of things that the board had asked us at the last meeting to um bring some more information to the table on. Uh the first one that I think is important is to as you know that this project interfaces between North Providence and Lincoln as you likely remember with regard to the drainage easement that is for the benefit of property in Lincoln that is on this parcel which is obviously in North Providence um that the applicant had actually originally come before this board and is on your board's agenda back on December 8th 2021. one. Um I think it was just might have been when you just started having inerson meetings again after COVID and everything else. Um and ultimately that was continued oh I'm sorry on the November um zoning board meeting of 2021 was then continued to December 8th. um it never made it onto your December 8th agenda because I believe that the planner and some other parties realized that the parties had to go to uh Lincoln before North Providence could weigh in on it because of the drainage easement. So, I wanted to bring that up to start because I think I want the board to understand that my client does recognize that the property is in North Providence and started here in North Providence on his journey to address this and to um utilize this underutilized lot and infill residential development on it, but was routed to Lincoln by the powers that be, but had originated and did come before this board at the start of the project back in 2021. anyone. Um, I just think that that's important so everybody understands again that it's this property is very relevant to my client

and understands the importance of it to the town. Additionally, we've supplied and it was, I believe, put on your um digital platform a copy of a wetlands delineation and a documentation from the appro from a wetlands biologist that there are no wetlands on the site. Um and that there while there is a drainage culvert and um drainage mechanics on the site. My engineer can explain them better than me. Um that it is not a wetland. It's not treated as a wetland by DEM. It's not regulated as a wetland. Even if there is water there, which there shouldn't be standing, it's not a wetland. Um, I also wanted to point out to the board that there is a provision in the documents that have been recorded that should this drainage device not be properly serviced and it need to be serviced by either the town of North Providence or more likely the town of Lincoln as it services Lincoln and likely the complaintants would be residents and properties that are in the town of Lincoln, the municip municipalities reserve the right to go in and do that work just as is if it was not part of a homeowners association or privately owned except in this case the municipalities get to get to take a bill and present it to somebody else and have it paid.

Who's that somebody else? The homeowners. The property owners, the homeown the HOA and they have to foot the bill instead of the taxpayers of either municipality

of these two properties. Yep. And that's a burden that the these two property owners will take on and we understand that. Um it's like any other easement or any other condition of the property. It's a necess it's necessary to preserve the drainage that's there and to reutilize these properties. Something your comprehensive plan talks about in great detail as well as infill. Um which is what I would suggest that this is. It's utilizing an underutilized piece of property that um can be used for residential development in a medium to high residential high density residential area. Uh and I believe it would be well above your comprehensive plan numbers with regards to parcels per acre etc. Um, that being said, I'd be happy to present our engineer if the board has any questions about the specifics of the drainage or the drainage easements. Um, and then we can um address the specifics of the variance, namely that my client, the owner, my client did not create the lot, didn't create the odd sets of sets of frontages that exist there. he uh is dealing with the way the lot is is now. Um as well as the fact that it's going to be two single family homes, which is what the development in and around this area is primarily. So it will be in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood and surrounding plans. Um, again, the hardship is not anything that the applicant created, and it's due to the unique size and shape of the lot, namely having frontage on two separate portions of a road and that road not being interconnected in any way. Um, and that it will not, from what we can tell and what your my engineer has put forth,

will not impact safety or access from either of these lots to a roadway. Um, and that it would be more than a mere inconvenience for this lot to not be able to be redeveloped or more effectively used as a residence as two residents taking into account now that the drainage area has been significantly reduced. So, I'd be happy to uh present my engineer or if I can answer questions of the board, I'd be happy. Yep. I have one question before the engineer comes up. Um, you referenced a biologist uh letter um stating that there are no wetlands present on the property. Um, I'm just scrolling through the digital.

This should be the last thing, Mr. Chair. as I look for it in the hard copy because because I I can't find it in the digital. Um was this the same uh letter that was um uh presented to the board in the last time that uh No, it's an updated by Scott.

It's an updated letter by David Aveninius. um who has taken over a lot of the work from AV I Z I N IS and uh I do have a hard copy here, Mr. Chair, if you'd like me to present it to the board.

Uh yes, please. I'm just having difficulty finding it in the um why I still like paper sometimes just to check.

And it's dated December 17th of 2025. Mr. Chair, I believe the prior letter from um natural resources was sometime back in 2021. So this would be a very much a contemporaneous letter. This was from Yeah. the 20th was 2021. It was 2021. It was the original letter was 2021. Thank you. Okay. Um yeah, I don't believe this is in our packet. Um so

we're going to be um accepting this letter um prepared by Abazinus Environmental Services Inc. um addressed the Paul Carlson PE Insight Engineer Services regarding wetland evaluation um assessors plat 24C lot 5 Manchester Farm Road North Providence Rhode Island um dated December 17th 2025 uh signed Edward Azinius um SPSS PWS. President um if if you kindly just give us a little bit of time to review this letter. Um Steve, we can start start with you. Um but last time you were here, we had asked if uh DEM had prepared a preliminary determination on the property with whether or not uh wetlands did exist on the on the property. in addition to um the biologist letter previously presented to us. Now, now we we thank you for presenting a new one, more current updated one. Um has there been any progress with receiving any sort of documentation?

We have not received that back from DEM. Um DEM's timelines right now are they have a new permit system that's been implemented and it's just taking a long time for them to get material out. Um this is something that we have submitted and will be included in part of our application to DEM. uh and we have no problem making a preliminary determination, a condition of final or something uh a final approval or something to that effect verifying that DEM agrees with our expert. But um he went out and they went out and the wetlands and walked the wetlands and did an actual site conditions and went there.

Okay. So where you guys are in the process right now with DEM is you don't have a con you don't have a determination or a conclusion from them. Correct. Right now you have opened up an application for them to determine whether or not there are wetlands on the property with the assistance and guidance from um the biologist letter here. Correct. Yes, we're working with DM on that. Okay. You guys want to read that? And I apologize that if my upload to the uh portal didn't go through, Mr. Chair, that things happen. Um my apologies. I think that's my fault. I uh I added it to a packet, but I printed out the old packets for them. So,

hey, I do have a question related to one of one of the documents that we have here in the in the packet. Um the it's document number 00005881, book 2826, page 178. Um, and it's received for record North Providence, Rhode Island, town clerk. Uh, the property address is Manchester Farm Road, North Providence, Rhode Island, Plat 24C, lot 5. Um, it basically describes to me it looks like it describes the um physical properties of the property. Um and the last sentence says that it is subject to drainage easement of record and to set back line as shown on said plat card 93. Um I don't see plat card 93 within the packet. Do you have any documentation to share with the board as far as where this subject drainage easement of record and setback line actually is on the

I believe my engineer has it right up on his plan set there and he'll he'll walked through where the prior drainage easement was and where it's been reduced to Mr. Chair. Okay. Uh which drawing number is that? I'm sorry. Which drawing number in the civil engineers packet can we find the existing setback? It's I'm going to defer to him. Sure.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of board again. Paul Carlson of Engineering Services. Uh your specific uh request as far as plaque card 93. I don't have uh you have record I don't have a record of that specific plaque card. Uh but as far as what the original drainage easement was was that this entire parcel was the drainage easement. Um and what we have uh proposed andor have accepted through the town of Lincoln is that reduction of that uh drainage easement as is proposed on sheet two of two um which indicates the new easement around that drainage easement. Uh excuse me around the drainage structure.

Okay. Excuse me Dave. I think um on sheet 12 on one of these the pink maps myar um it looks like that's the drainage easement plan is that the heritage the heritage font yes that is the heritage farm original subdivision plans

so that should be in the packets I am seeing that I don't necessarily see a line or a graphic or notation indicating the location of the easement within within the property. I I do see um uh you know indication of drainage lines and flared ends and rip wrap and limits of excavation. Um, I see contour lines and drainage direction, but I I don't, unless I'm missing something, Brent, I don't necessarily see any indication of an easement line within the within the property. So, I think what the what the project team is is is noting to the board tonight is that the property itself property line to property line was the easement or is is the easement? Excuse me. Is is that correct, Mr.

It was the easement. That is correct. The entire posel had a an easement that encompassed the entire apostle. That easement has been modified such that it is as of record of or as shown on that sheet two of two or even on sheet one of two. Okay. While I read this letter, I'll open up questions for the for the board if you guys have any questions for the civil engineer. Go ahead. I do. Um, let's start off with a question for Brent. Um, in this memo, I don't know if there's a date on it. In the opening sentence, uh, Brent, it says, "This subdivision would not need to seek planning board review without without but for the variances." Correct.

So this So if they weren't seeking the variances, this matter wouldn't even be before us. Yes. So the new state law allows subcentered laws. That's fine. That's fine. Just All right. So all this discussion about wetlands and drainage would never be before us but for the variance application. I it would still be required for the building permit not asking but it doesn't require planning board review

planning board if it wasn't for the vianes they would even be before us. Okay. So with that said I think all this discussion my confusion at least it's confusing to me about the stormwater management system the easement the wetlands I think it's all moot. So I'm going to concentrate on the question about the variance. Um so from what I read there's a letter here dated August 2023 from Mr. Carlson to Joshua Bry who was evidently the town planner back in 93. Um a letter. Um so I want to talk about that and the site plan. So from what I understand, Heritage View subdivision was approved in 1986, correct?

I would defer to you in the having the paper in front of you. The letter I'm assuming you read the letter because it was part of your package. Yes, I understood. All right. So So Mr. Carlson, at least will you answer is so the subdivision was approved in 1986. Sounds correct.

Sounds correct. Okay. Um, in this letter it says the owner of property, the owner of the North Province property, I'm assuming they mean the subject property with the snowwater basin on it, is also the owner of For Stephanie Drive. I understand for Stephanie Drive is owned by Hoves Emerg. Um, when did Mr. Emerin, who owns for Stephanie Drive, purchase the subject property. So your question is when did Mr. Virgin buy the subject property for which you're seeking two variances?

I I don't know off hand. Let me Could you find Yeah, great. Sure. approximately 15 years ago. But it was after he owed for Stephanie, right? He he it was after he purchased for Stephanie Drive. Mr. Why don't you come up here and answer?

Thank you. Thank you for coming up. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Thank you. Mian. Uh the property was purchased all at the same time. So North Providence in Lincoln is one purchase one property uh when I purchased the property. All right. So two two taxes I pay no I pay North Providence and Lincoln. Yeah. No, that's fine. Properties properties divided by town line.

So my point here is this lot has a purpose. Its purpose is for storm water management of a subdivision. Um how Mr. Merin purchased this slot is beyond me. That is the purpose of that is storm water management for 53 lots. How he purchased that I don't understand but he did. He knowingly purchased you said there's no hardship. You said there is a hardship. I argue there isn't. He knowingly purchased a lot that was non-conforming. It was intentionally non-conforming because its purpose was for stormwater management. So there's no need for it to be a conforming lot. In fact, I probably applaud the developer. Why create a a conforming lot when he or she couldn't sell it as a conforming lot? Its purpose was is stormwater management. I'm not sure how you could now come in and supplant the purpose of that basin, which is for storm water management, and just kind of simply override that and say, "Yeah, we want to create a two lot subdivision." with his purposes for subdivision for for storm water management. Moreover, he knowingly purchased knowingly purchased a lot that is non-conforming and now you're coming before the board asking for a variance pulled him out of a an investment that has no value. So, um I will urge my fellow board members um not to support this because I haven't heard anything that substantiates the merits for a variance. He knowingly bought an undersized lot.

That isn't the So, first of all, I would suggest to you that this last purpose has and always has been residential. It's always been zoned a residential lot. It's always maintained that zoning and it currently is zoned a residential. Right. Your your comprehensive plan strongly suggests that we that your development should be done with infill development and creative use of existing cleared lots. That's what this is. No. And just because at one point in time it was used for drainage doesn't mean that it can't be converted. It's as if saying an industrial lot, a mill building can never become a residential building.

That's a that's a poor example. That's not what I'm saying. Right. The purpose of this lot is sto water and it continues to be water drains in it. Right. I would argue that's where we differ we disagree. its purpose under your current land use map and your future land use map is residential.

Yeah. It's zoned for land use to be residential, but it's being used just like any a house, there's also a driveway on it. A driveway is not a land use, but we put driveways on land. So, for this land, which is zone residential, I get it. But it's already been encumbered by a purpose. That encumbrance of the purpose is a storm water management basin. And now you're saying, well, we don't want it to be that anymore. We want it to be two house lots. We're not saying we don't want it to be a drainage for its purpose. It's still actively used for its purpose and we are maintaining. You just said it. You just said it's actively used as a storm water b a little while ago. You said it's not. Now you just said it actually is being used for Excuse me. I never said that it didn't serve the goal. It actively drains water.

I thought you said it used to. Now you're saying it is. No, we are. There's we never Okay. So, it has a purpose. Hence words we there is a drainage easement on the property, right? And its purpose is for storm water management that's been established. No, that's like saying if a if a house lot has an easement is its only purpose to serve that easement. I'm not talking about an easement, but we but it is it's a drainage easement. So, I'm asking you and taking what you're saying Yeah. and sort of playing it out. So if a h if a piece of residential property has an easement across it to get to another parcel, right, it shouldn't have a house on it, too. Of course not. You can of course have

Isn't that how is that different than this that has a drainage easement and then we want to have a residential use next to that drainage easement because the purpose of this lot's already been established, right, as a residential lot? No. has a storm water basin that serves 53 lots, but we're made that purpose is still going to be in effect and not being changed and its zone and its future use as defined by your comprehensive plan that was just updated this 2025.

I think what we're see what you're I think what we're seeing is drainage and I drainage is a huge issue across the state and especially in fully developed areas. In fact, I think it's on your agenda to put in a hard state provision Just because it has a a an existing easement, regardless of what that easement's purpose is, if you can also use it for its highest and best purpose per your comprehensive plan, a residence, and what it's zoned for, just because it has an easement of one kind, shouldn't prohibit it also being used for its highest and best purpose.

All right. So, I I have a question for the planner which goes along with um what you guys are saying, but our our town zoning ordinance does not, correct me if I'm wrong, but it it it does not have zones in there strictly dedicated for draining drainage easements. Correct. Or drainage. Generally, something like that would be zoned open space like a wet a large wetland. Um, and the town generally purchases something like that because it's unbuildable and they can't tax on it. So, no, I agree. Yeah, nothing's zoned for an easement. That's a legal term that's imposed on real estate. So, but nothing is zoned strictly um drainage. Correct.

Right. So, so, so if there's a piece of property, which which this is, and I just read the um I'm going to call it deed. It says subject to drainage easement of record to set back line shown on said plat card 93 and the um presentation today said that the existing easement line was the entire property right that property has to exist in a zone and there are no and there's the town doesn't recognize property or um the town does not have a category of zoning that is strictly called drainage. So if you have a piece of property that's uses for drainage, that piece of property more likely is going to be zoned something else. Correct.

Correct. Thank you. Um, so let's talk about the hardship. So he knowingly purchased So again, I respectfully disagree with the argument, but so your client knowingly purchased uh an unconforming lot. Sorry. So, your client purchased knowingly a non-conforming lot. Okay. All right. So, I understand I we only get yes or no unless it's conducive to your argument. So, the answer is yes. He knowingly bought a lot that So, I'll answer the question. He knowingly bought a lot that's undersized, non-conforming. I don't think it's undersized.

Well, it's it's dimensionally it's unders sized. So dimensionally it's under size. It doesn't meet the minimum frontage requirement. And so he normally bought a lot that's non-conforming. And now you're seeking the board. It depends on when you look when where you draw that line in the sand because there was recently a law that was just passed that suggests that it simply not having frontage doesn't give you the status of being non-conforming. If you also comply with regards to area, then why are you before the board asking for a variance? Then I'm sorry. Then why are you before the planning board asking for a variant?

Well, that's different than asking for a variance is different than stating a lot is non-conforming. So the so the lot is non-conforming because it doesn't satisfy a minimum dimensional requirement in this case. The existing lot or the proposed lots the existing lot. The existing lot the proposed they both don't meet frontage. Well, Gary, if if I will. Um, the new state law essentially allows any substandard lot to be built on. So, say that again. I didn't any substandard lot to be built on really without any relief? Without any relief with proportionally lesser setbacks as the law is undersized. So, this isn't setbacks. This is lot frontage.

Yes. I mean, that's just how the law I was just kind of phrasing the whole lot. He could build a single family home currently on there with no variance. The variance is to create two lots. Okay. But that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about a single family home right now. We're talking about two. Yeah. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. So, thank you. So again, so he normally bought a lot now. So he's not satisfied with one. So it

the subdivision plan should even before the board because but for the variance. Understood. That's why I'm not even going to debate Mr. Carlson on the merits of the Stonewater. going to totally let that go. Moreover, your client is entitled to to build a home on this, notwithstanding any of my concerns about the drainage easement by right, even though it's substandard, and that's not even satisfactory. So now you're coming in and saying, well, I want to take what I consider to be non-conforming, but I understand the state says that is conforming because it's on in to create two hardships. So why don't you just build one house and not even be before the board?

So what you're saying is he shouldn't utilize his right and shouldn't utilize the procedure that's built in place that come up before the board and ask for a variance because I don't think you you merit the the the the basis for a hardship. It's just it's a matter of practice. You don't think it's a hardship to it that'll be more than a mere inconvenience? What's the hardship? What's the hardship?

By legal. So when I say hardship, I don't mean financial hardship because he's paying taxes. So there are three standards. Something associated with the soils, something associated with topography, and something associated with the shape of the lot. And that shape of the lot is existing. So he bought again a non-conforming lot, which he's entitled to one house, and you're now saying, well, that's not enough. I want to subdivide, create two. So therefore, I want another variance. Right? Not another variance. He's asking for a variance on each of the two on the on where create. Well, let's if you want to phrase it a different way and we can play with the words. He's asking for to create a an additional lot. He's only asking to draw one lot, one line.

I understand. Okay. And we're asking for frontage variances because the existing lot has two frontages. So, we're asking to draw a line in the middle. And I would suggest to you that based upon your comprehensive plan, the goals of infill, the goal of redevelopment and better utilization of existing of existing land that's already in developed areas that we meet the criteria of a variance. Sure. But the variance process is not the policy by which to achieve that land use goal. the the why not where does it say so use the use of variances should not

that's right okay I I didn't see that in your comp plan so everything's not going to be prescriptive and I think we're all intelligent per people and I guess we could spin this any which way we want but the purpose of a variance is because you don't meet the a a a specific dimensional standards or standards that's why you're before the board and all I'm asking is aside from the fact that he's been paying taxes there's not a standard by which to evaluate a variance. My question is what is it about the property that is creating the hardship and I don't see anything that's related to soils or topography

the unique size shape and condition of the lot. I believe it's existing. I think the the hardship is being created by the by the client's desire to subdivide the lot.

Thank you. So the the hardship is if the lot had if those frontages were in existence were or there was a line drawn in the middle already then it would we wouldn't need the variances. The hardship is the size and shape of the lot in that it only has these two the frontage areas are smaller than what you're asking for. But we didn't create this lot. So the hardship it Yeah. The hardship is that the lot isn't at at the point where it meets the two roads isn't as big as it would be would normally be or what the board would like it to be. I get that.

Yeah. It's not that the board would like it to be. The ordinance wants it. Sorry, I I misspoke. the ordinance would like it. Correct. So the it's a that's it's the hardship is the existing size and shape of the lot. The lots are big enough to be to meet your criterion to meet the zoning requirement. We're not asking for a variance as to the size of the lot. It's just that the unique dimensions, the unique locations of the roads in the other existing structures require us to do it. And that's where I'm going to go back to my original premise is at the time this was created as part of the subdivision. Okay,

the developer he or she determined that that was not going to be a buildable lot. Therefore, created non-conforming because its purpose was going to be stormwater management. And I'm not going to go down that path again. That's why it was non-conforming. And your client purchased knowingly a non-conforming lot to which he is and I will buy it. He is entitled right now to one house. But as David said, now you're creating the hardship more so by subdividing and saying, "Okay, we need another frontage fair." And so we're not creating the hardship. The hardship exists now in that the lots frontages are undersized. If the if the if the lot's frontages were were a full size, we wouldn't have to come before you, right? So you are very much so creating the hardship. So

no, the hardship exists in that the size and shape of the lot already exists. So, so the hard the hardship is the size and shape of the lot. So, I know we could keep going back and f I'm all done with my questioning. So, I will not be supporting this application. Thank you, Gary. All right. On my right, does anybody have any questions for the applicant at this time? Yes, I do.

Go ahead. I was on this board in 1983 or 85 uh when this was originally passed and at that time we were taking retention ponds like this here and these were being quick claimed to the town. Uh my contention is this should have been quick cameded to the town as a retention pond for for drainage and somehow it fell behind the cracks or somewhere nobody has checked this here to find out. I have been after the town for years to create a list of retention ponds in this town so that they can be m maintained and that hasn't happened. But I I believe that this here is town property and somewhere along the line it did not get recorded or someone assumed that it was a develop a lot and and is trying to claim it. Okay. Either I'm not saying this owner, it could have been the previous owner, but I'm under the cont the contention that this should have been town property.

Okay. You have a response. I have some question. I That's the first I've heard of that. Um, Mr. Vistatelli, I hope I'm saying your name correct. A retention pond being privately owned uh, per se in a subdivision. Once it's subdivided, that retention pond should be de quick claim deed to the town. It looks like in this in this case it followed the path of becoming an easement.

Um I'd be happy to look into that and do some research on that issue, but I haven't I I can't speak to it in an intelligent way in any way. I I I was, you know, I was born in 1985, so I wasn't here. Um I I appreciate that you were and I and I don't want to say anything because you have a recollection that I don't have, Mr. Telly. So I I can't say good, bad or indifferent to your recollection.

Um I have a question for um uh for Mr. Collson, the engineer. Thank you for coming back up, Paul. um in your in the document um prepared by Insight dated August 9th, 2023 um addressed to Joshua Barry, the town planner of Lincoln. on the second page of your letter. Um, in the second paragraph, it states, "An outlet structure of 30 in outlet pipe controlled the flow of water from the pond. The designed elevation of the burm or spillway was at le elevation 152 152 assumed atom and the outlet structure was at elevation 150 assumed atom leaving 2 feet of freeboard. And that is a des I believe that is a description of the original design intent of the of the drainage. um of the drainage structure.

That's correct. If you go back to the original uh Heritage View uh subdivision plans, the uh the details of the outlet structure in the burm that surrounds uh to to create that detention facility um has specific elevations that are uh mandate or stated within the detail. But what we have done is just uh converted them into uh today's elevation standards. Okay,

that meet the uh elevations that we are predicting on this particular plan. Okay. And then the ne the next paragraph says that new surveys revealed that the earth berm was at 149.6 and the outlet structure at 145.6. Therefore, 4 feet of freeboard exists today. The highest elevation the water can rise to is 149.6 without overflowing the embankment. Therefore, the drainage easement would only need to cover the pond that is within 20 ft of elevation 149.6. Um so your findings saw that the um existing elevation of the earth berm uh was approximately 2 and 1/2 ft lower than than designed if originally the elevation was designed at 152 and you surveyed it at 149.6. No, what I'm saying is that the two elevations uh were and forgive me I can you repeat that what you're asking I don't have that particular document in front of me so

um

yeah the first paragraph seems to um give an overview of the the original design intent of the drainage structure, right? The basin. And then the second paragraph seems to describe the current conditions of that that drainage pond. And it seems that the elevations that the pond was originally designed at rim elevation or perimeter burm elevation at 152 and outlet structure at 150. Those were the originally designed elevations. And now there the perimeter um burm of the pond is at 149.6 and um the outlet structure now is at 145.6. So it seems like both um the perimeter berm of the pond and the outlet structure within the pond are are lower than what originally it was originally designed for. Well, I think what it what it's again you got a two different um datam elevations in there, but what I was depicting in there is that the uh the burm versus the outlet structures, two elevations, there was a difference between those two from the design perspective to what is out there today. That's that's the difference.

So the Okay. Yep. So that's fair. the the design difference freeboard was 2 feet and now the um current um freeboard would be about 4 feet. Correct. Okay. But in um either circumstance, the the height of the perimeter of the pond and the height of the overflow structure are lower than originally um designed back in the 80s.

I'd have to reference the two different datams to to to be able to answer that specific question. Um and then lastly um further God bless you. Further down the page um says these storm water controls would minimize the control of post construction flows to the detention basin. The development would not adversely impact the amount of in the development that you're referring to is the is the proposed subdivision. Excuse me. Um these storm water controls would minimize the control post construction flows to the detention basin. the development would not adversely impact the amount and flow of water to the drainage basin and or change the downstream flow characteristics. It should be noted that there have been no documented instances of flooding on the downstream side of the outlet. Um the way I I read that is that going going back to your your plans which are um graphically well done. Um that the downflow outlet is the existing covert that um spills to the plan south which is actually south of the property and um therefore presumably continues down Amanda Court.

Correct. So, in your document, um you're stating that the proposed development would not impact the way the drainage structure um currently drains. Correct. and that um with your firm's investigative investigative work um it was noted that no documented instances of flooding downstream side of the outlet occurred. Correct.

Okay. Do you know what type of um uh investigative like exercise does one firm take to determine whether or not um uh flooding on the downstream side occurred or didn't occur?

Uh basically asking DPW if of of their known knowledge of any incidents that have happened in and around that particular location. I I'll just also note that as part of our design to uh look at this easement and the change in the easement, we were to look at the overall subdivision in the area that has been contributing to this particular area. And I did mention at the last meeting is that we looked at this as today's rainfalls. It was not to reinvent what happened in 1983. It was actually to look at the optimal flows and how that drainage basin would handle today's flows. And that's where that specific notation that the current burm system would still handle today's flows and still uh outlet as it does today. and any of the two proposed uh structures uh with their additional storm water and BMPPS added to this would have no adverse or no changes to what is happening today.

Okay. Um in your in your general opinion um have have how have the drainage calculations changed from the 80s till today? I specifically can't state to the uh the hundredyear storm uh rainfall uh in 18 1983. Uh but from the time that I started working um 30 years ago uh the rainfall for 100year storm event was about six uh six inches. It's now at 8.3. So there's two inches difference um in the last 25 years.

So they've gotten greater. Yeah. Okay. So the other change since that time isn't so much how the and you may want to chime in on this, Mr. Carlson, isn't so much how the drainage is calculated or the intensity of the storm. What's really changed over the last 40 years is water quality and um reducing total suspended solids, reducing phosphorous loads. So it's really more of a water quality changes to storm water management more so than necessarily the method with which calculations are done. Quant you're talking about quant it's quality quality versus quantity.

Correct. Yeah. So it's more I'm not saying there haven't been any modifications with the calculation itself but the major change if you made with the pendulum is with respect to water quality with phosphorus loads and water quality itself suspended solids. Okay. But the quantity has has it sounds like the quantity of of water has has um increased over over the

Well, correct. And I think that's that's the main premise of of what and why understanding Mr. Reagan's uh you know statement there and I agree that that has been a pick whether Massachusetts or Rhode Island uh to change and and look at nitrates and phosphorus. But what we're looking specifically at is how much storm water this particular basin can handle even under today's current regulations. And that is what the calculations in in the hydrocads that we did prove that it still can handle under today's regulations. Thank you. Um last time you guys presented we had um I think inquired on whether or not um any calculations or uh review was done with North Providence um engineer. Has that has that occurred, Brent?

It has not has not occurred yet. Okay. So, right right now, the the town's engineer has has not reviewed um insights um proposal to decrease the size of the the easement um that was presented to Lincoln. Uh no, it was not. Okay. Is anything proposed to change the structure of the You're leaving things the way they are, correct? essentially they would be yeah nothing would change other than actually it would be cleaned up. Yeah. Right. So

and I would just state that you know the the items such as the outlet structure cover is non non-existent. So adding you know fees that should have been there would be added as part of this. But the size of the basin the pipe the V-nut whatever everything's pretty much there's no reason to change it because if you before the board you're not going to propose to change anything right. Yes. So

that is correct. for that reason. I mean, reducing if we get to that point to reduce the easement from whatever it is to something X minus one. Um, I mean, it'd be nice to hear if the the public works director thinks that it's of sufficient size, assuming we get to that point, but yeah, if nothing mechanical is being changed, then I suppose just I wouldn't think you would make any changes to it. If it's not broken, why fix it? That's correct. And that was the specific reason that uh Leslie Kish reviewed that as a PE uh through the town of Lincoln understanding this is a uh North Proidence property but as part of those calculations she was the reviewer um and she concurred with my findings.

Who concurred with your findings? I'm sorry. This was Leslie Kirish. She was the town engineer at the time. She is now director of uh public works for the town of Lincoln.

Lincoln. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um I just have one more one more question for the the presenter. Um with the understanding that this is a a storm water uh basin. Um does the does the does the applicant and that it's on the applicant's property. Does the applicant right now have um uh any um like best management practice in in place or upkeep of this this basin? Um I I'm sure like all owners he has an he goes out there and looks at it and if he sees garbage he goes and picks it up. But right now um we are he does not and from my review of it and I would I didn't review it with this specifically in mind have any there is no best management practice documentation in place because it is an easement from the mid80s. It was not common place at that time to have a best management practices methodology incorporated and recorded as part of your drainage ement. I'd be happy to make that a condition of this that we would include that. I I I don't think that's a very reasonable request. Okay. Thank you. Um and just to kind of reiterate on that particular item as part of the review from the town of Lincoln um and as part of uh that HOA that was mentioned earlier is that we did provide a full call on and M uh for this operations and maintenance uh for this basin. uh depending on if the HOA is accepted, I'd be happy to to provide that particular document that was provided to town of Lincoln uh to Brent to pass that along

as well. So there is uh a document in play to maintain this basin the way it should be. Okay. But that's not subject to um the outcome of tonight. Correct.

No. No. Okay. So that I'm sorry, Mr. Carlson, to bring you back up. So that um O and M was prepared was that prepared back in 2023 when you when you performed the or when you when you documented your your findings, all of the information and documents that we did for the town of Lincoln included an operations and maintenance plan for uh this specific detention facility. Okay. And since so since since then it's been about about three two and a half years. Do you know if the the applicant has um abided by the

I don't know if it's even if that item has been recorded. I don't know the mechanism in which that would have been implemented. Uh I don't know how that went into play. Okay. Do you know uh I I'm sorry. I I would have to I don't know exactly what's been done on the Lincoln side in that regard where it is in the record the process of being recorded, but I'd be happy to get that information for the board and and bring it to the board. Thank you. Um Steve, do you have any questions? Uh no, not at this time. Okay. Any more questions from the board? Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation,

Mr. Chairman. I would um I think I would like to address do some research and address mratelli's discussion. Um I want to know I before um the board takes a vote. think it's an important point and I would like to go back into the history of it and come back before the board and address how this lot came into private ownership that it why it if it should or shouldn't have been in private ownership and sort of the history of how we've gotten here today. Um I don't think that's something that I want to leave out there. Um so I I guess um if I could just have one more moment before I make my formal request. Just one moment. Chair, if we could have one uh further continuence to address that point and some of the other issues that have been raised tonight, I would greatly appreciate it um to come back at your next zoning board or your next planning board meeting. I apologize. I know you haven't merged them yet. I'm sorry. Can you say that one more time?

Um, I would like an opportunity to address some of the points that were raised here tonight. I but I need to do some research to do that. So, I'd like to come back at your next planning board meeting. I'd request one additional and final continuence of this matter to do that. What specific point would you like to address Mr. Gatelli's historical perspective? And um, Mr. and I apologize. I I'm going to screw up your name at least origin and it's no sign of disrespect. um some of the points that he's raised this evening. I'd like to come back and have um some prepared submissions to the board in that regard. Thank you.

So February's meeting will be the 11th if you want to continue it to a date, sir. Right. But the presented so the open up to the public public on it has to Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. All right. Thank Thank you. We'll consider that. Okay. Thank you.

Um Okay. The time is now 7 o'clock. We'll open it up for um any comment from the public. If you are in the gallery here to speak on the current um uh applicant or application, you may approach the board at this time. Can you please state your name and your address for the record?

Anthony Parent. It's uh Long Meadow Drive on a corner Long Meadow in Orlando. Uh I'm concerned about this project. I also have a letter uh excuse me, another uh property owner is concerned about this letter on this here letter. And I have some pictures and video on my phone. Okay. The the letter is not from you, sir. It's from another It's from another property owner. Okay. Can you hand it to the down planer? Is he in favor of opposition? Is he in favor of opposition? Well, let's read the letter first.

Huh? Let's read the letter first. Yeah.

Okay. Um, I'll read the letter out loud. Um, it's from Michael Pacos. Um, does not say his address. Do you know what the address of Michael Panacos is? The address? Yes. It's

Oh, yes. Okay. My name is Michael Panacos. We currently reside at 6 Long Meadow Drive, although our house is physically located on Amanda Court. Uh we live in a property that backs onto a storm drain runoff which has increasingly caused flooding issues over recent years. During periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall, the stream regularly overflows its banks, leading to excess water saturating the ground behind our home. As a result, water has repeatedly entered our basement. These flooding events have caused significant disruption and distress to our household. Water in the basement has damaged flooring, walls, and stored belongings and has created ongoing concerns about damp mold and long-term structural damage. Each incident requires extensive cleanup. Beyond the financial impact of the situation, beyond the financial impact, the situation has affected our sense of security and enjoyment of our home. We are frequently anxious during periods of heavy rain, monitoring water levels and preparing for potential flooding. Despite taking preventative measures where possible, the issue persists persists due to the stream's proximity and inadequate drainage capacity. This ongoing flooding problem is not an isolated or occasional inconvenience, but a recurring issue that continues to affect our living conditions and quality of life. Please consider the effects and ramifications of our homes and quality of living when approving these applications for new construction. Thank you, Michael Pacos. Um, pass that along to the So, we'll we'll accept this for for record as Michael's in unavailable to come.

Mr. President, where is Amanda Road in relation where is Amanda Road in relation to Manchester Farm Road? It's uh below it. Below Manchester Farm Road. And Amanda court is right below directly to the south like within how much distance like 500 feet 200 feet. Um it's the next lot is on Amanda Court. So it's it's the distance of their property which is probably 100 ft. So the snow water from here flow in that direction toward him. The overflow.

Oh yeah. That's a mark. Um, yeah, from my understanding, Amanda Court is to the to the south of the of the of the property. Um, so, Mr. Parent, on on your phone, there's a there's a video that um appears to be from Gilen Plat Facebook group that is um was taken by Mr. Panacos. Yes, it was. That That's his That's his property. Okay.

So, Mr. P, do you know if there are any that seems like a lot of water, but two questions. Are there are there catch basins on your street? There's uh a catch base on the corner of my So, there is a catch bas. So, I guess then since there's a catch basin, have you ever contacted public works to come out and do a clamshell? No, about it. Yes. They they lodged it uh two years ago. So is it it it was cleaned out? Oh, it was cleaned out. Oh, they cleaned it and enlarged it maybe once, every month. And that still happens

when the water comes down the court. It comes right into my property and floods my whole property. Yeah, there is an email um from a resident on Amanda Court with a photo of of the property and a letter uh in the packet

that can give you an idea of the the location of the property and the topographic conditions. So if the board recalls, didn't Miss Grande lives It doesn't have a house number. Um, plat 24 C lot 1191. Didn't she also offer testimony at the last public hearing? Yes. About Yeah, she about flooding, right? She did. She She lives at the end of Manchester Prom Road East.

Yeah. And in the digital package, it looks like Brent had included some photographs of um ponding in front of her house um which is at the end of Manchester Farm Road um which is elevationwise would be where the the property would start. I think um uh Mr. Panakos and Mr. parent here. They live they live downstream of the property. And from that video uh that Mr. Pacos

took, you see a considerable amount of um uh water runoff coming down the slope um onto his property and in and entering um Amanda Court and then flowing further flowing down onto Mr. Parent's property. So the video appears to be um what the what the video shows is is a significant significant amount of water entering six Long Meadow Drive from the north and spilling onto Amanda Amanda Court further further going down to Orlando. um which I can only conclude that that that water um uh is is run off presumably from the the property that's being heard tonight. Do you have any other comments for the board or does anybody have any questions?

Just uh I guess property owner. Sure. So is Mr. He gonna email that to you. Uh, Brent, he's gonna email it to Dave and then if you could email it to me. He has your email address. Take another look at it. Sure. Thank you, Dave. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Um, does the applicant want a to read this the letter that I read and see the the the photos? Do we still have his phone? No, that's it. He has it.

All right. Would you be able to show uh Mr. Certa the the video and the pictures that you just showed the board, please? It's not enough. I mean, I'm out. So, we're going to make

You're insane. That's my guess. You cut your beard off from last meeting. I did. I thought it looked different. I lost my shaving. I lost my

That was like riding. Did everybody see the video? That was something else. I hear those a lot. I take it with a grain of salt. I have literally never seen anything like that. No, never seen. I live right near um behind I live near behind. I live on that side. I've never seen in in reviewing the video. It's we were unsure as to when it occurred and the there was no date when the video was recorded. Um and it's a little bit difficult to tell the direction of the flow of water. So that's something that

we have an opportunity to review the photo the video in detail. We can try to address um with more certainty. Yeah. I don't I don't think that's I don't object to that. I I did see a a date on there um at the top of the of the video. There's a date and it has a three-year. It's like August 22 to August 25th or 2022 to August 2025. Oh, on the on the video there's there is a date.

Okay. The gentleman he didn't know and I asked him so and I couldn't see one. So, I apologize if there's something I didn't see. I believe they're going to send you the video and then we can as as the attorney has mentioned certainly review those documents. He mentioned a stream. I'm not sure where or what stream um that is. Um the what we have is a a closed drainage system um with a piping, you know, piping structure that runs down uh at least from this particular drainage structure down uh Amanda Court and then ultimately through. So I don't know exactly where that stream would be, but we can we can look into this and and address that at next meeting.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Board uh open for discussion. Oh, I'm sorry. Does anybody else from the um audience have uh would like to comment on tonight's um application? Right. We'll open up for discussion. I'm amendable if the applicant wants to continue it. I'm totally amendable to that, Mr. Chair. Okay.

I am in agreement with Gary. I think he wants to look at those videos and have a continuence and I think I'll be okay with that. Same. Right. Yeah. Want to give somebody a fair shake? I don't have a problem with that. So, do I hear a motion? Make a motion that we continue the public hearing to our February 11th, 2026 meeting. I'll second it. Okay. Uh motion. No. Sorry. Um council for the applicant. I know you requested this continuance, but if you could just on the record consent to the extension of time.

Consent to the extension based upon our request. An extension of time for the board to make a decision. Thank you. Okay. The motion is to continue the application till the uh February meeting dated February 11th, 2026. Motion is on the table and seconded. Um all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion passes that the um applicant um the application is continued. Thank you all. Have a good evening. Thank you. Thank you. Can we just have a brief recess, Mr. Chair?

Yes, we'll take a brief recess. Um staff has to do some printing and if anybody needs a um bio break, feel free. Um Brent, how much time do you think you need? 510? Okay. How was everybody's Christmas and New Year? Excellent. Yourself? Yeah. Very good. Very, very nice. I need to I need to I ate too much. No, I made a I made a prime rib. How old are you? That knocked my socks off. All right.

Did you buy that neighbor? Did you grow up in that neighborhood? That had to be Mr. Mcreen. What do you think? Right. Perfection. That's what I'm saying. What's that? Perfection. Watching it. A few comments. So, usually when you do that, the people who set it up have the coaches go on the ice and they're open and closing duck around the kids. So, the minute they started swinging, you you would have seen some guy running out. That's kind of cool, actually.

That's better than I know. So, I think they said, "Listen, go have fun with it." And and I think they would have been running out or or the people organizing would have been running out unlike anybody. Did you do any work in uh it was funny but I think it was stage oh yeah whereabouts my um my parents were divorced enough that I wish that they got along enough to even live in street. Oh, they didn't. Yeah. Oh, 40B like the 40B thing. Oh, yeah. No kidding.

Sure. Really? Yeah.

You have? I've never seen you. I've been there for 40 years. I've never seen you. Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah. No, that's sufficient. The videos are the videos. Oh, sure. Okay. That I And the fact that it came from a person who heard it from a person, you guys can give that the weight that you want to give it. Oh, okay. Sure. It does. Yeah. It float through that fence. Is it It is that Southshore that's very very pretty. There was like you think about the Northshore

but you know Matapo area if you go down to like Ducksberry Cahass Marshfield Situ. No way. That's So when I had when I first started, there was a a workshop was at Mesoy College. I thought it said I'm driving around. I'm driving around. I'm driving around. Like where really? No, there's no GIS back. GS. No cell phones back then.

So I stopped at the local police station, called my office. I said, "Where is it?" I forgot whatever the address was was Massoy. I'm like, "No wonder. I'm in Maois. I went to the wrong town. I was so late. I didn't I I wound up just driving back. It was like I was an hour late. I'm like, "What's the point? By the time I get there, it's going to be over, you know?" So, guess we used to have those maps. There's another That's the retention plan, but there's another one. Gary asked if there was a retention but he said yes

my compartment I've got I have maps my daughter opens it up one day she said

I'm not sure what's so I wonder if at the time or if the people on the other side of Manchester are still feeling north and I the yellow small so I know where it is. That's how I would remember where I'm going.

No, the car drives itself, too. You can take a nap. Thank you, Brett. There's not one up there.

Where is this? I'm not very bothered. I was steering it just lighting on and off all night long. Oh, that's insane. See, keep all your stuff. How's the family, buddy? Good. He's combining a lot.

Oh, this two lots.

This one. Ready? Got everybody I never together. 4200 together.

It's It's one of those two lots together. All right, everybody set to come back from recess. Um, we'll start we'll start back up. Uh, I never said the time at the time of recess, but

it's 7:21 now. Um, next on the agenda, item number three is recommendations to the town council regarding requests for a zoning text amendment to section 203 district use regulations to create a use code allowing daytime dog daycare in all commercial zones by right. See, good evening. Can you state your name for the record, please? Uh,

Jack McGreen for the applicant. Um I I did um I was handed this to me, but I I did have some time to uh quite a bit of time actually to review the uh the draft. Um just before we get into that and I know we discussed the possibility of not requiring a special use permit, but rather coming up with some objective standards, making it a permit of use, but with some objective standards. Um, if you go with the special use permit, that's going to require uh someone to come in that maybe is just a landlord and wants to rent like my client and rent the property. Um, they'd have to go through the process of applying for a special use permit. Um, I think perhaps um if we had a set of objective standards in there, then that would satisfy um the requirements without having them to come before this board. um that that that's up to you, but that that's my suggestion on that score. Um even if you do go with a special use permit, the standards have to be objective. They can't they can't be subjective according to the new state law. Um things like um good for the public benefit, too subjective. It needs to be like X and Y can't be subjective. So, when I was running through some of these standards, um, just starting off with the definition of a daycare, um, I I I happened to go on to the while we were waiting, I I did some AI research. Um, but just going on the definition of the doggy daycare, it says uh, the definition you're suggesting is maintain and supervised on a single premises. I'm not I'm not sure what that means. On a single premises?

Yeah. on a on a lot by itself.

Um what happen if it's a shopping center? For example, I have my dog happens to go to a doggy daycare in South Kingston or exit and it it's comprised of several freestanding buildings and they they have restaurants. Um so that was the other issue I'll bring up. You didn't want it to be near food facilities. Um they had like two or three restaurants. stay at a Chinese restaurant, but like probably 100 feet or 200 feet away is another little strip within the same center and that's where the doggy daycare is. Um, so there there are or if you had a stopping a stop and shop for example and the the building's here and you have a 300 foot parking lot and then you might have another building that abuts it but it's it's a block away. um the way it's drafted right now that would be prohibited because it would be contiguous to a um something that's selling food. So I I think that need I I think that should be narrowed or Okay. Um that was my thought on the food. Um on the uh I know we're calling it a doggy daycare, but I I looked up uh I know um I know uh South Kingston has a has a definition and they call it rather than a doggy daycare, they refer to it as a pet daycare facility and their definition doesn't limit it to dogs. It says a facility providing daycare and associated services for domestic pets. I'm not sure if we were drafting this. I mean, what happens if somebody wanted to have daycare for something other than dogs, cats? I don't know if we wanted to include that. I don't really care. my client's looking for the dogs, but I just threw that out there as a possibility. Um,

so David, I framed this around what Brent wrote and I thought it was going to be specifically for dogs. That's why I followed lead. Correct. And that was my understanding of the um

that that was fine. I just threw that in there because I I saw that in the South Kingston ordinance and they made it more universal rather than just limiting it to dogs. Um moving on to um you're you're prohibiting it if it's within uh the 100 ft of any residential zone, but if it abuts uh shall not be established that absuts a property with existing that was the food. That's number three. Um no portion of any lot containing dog daycare shall be used or located within 100 ft of a lot containing a principal residential use. Um, again, that was what Brent had written. So, I was just again framing the language I have.

I can't even tell. I haven't had a chance. I don't even know if my client off the top of my head, the facility that we're looking at is within 100 ft of a residential zone. Do you know? I'm not sure. I know all of Smith Street is generally C, right? But how is it behind it? Is is there is there

It only goes up off the road, the commercial zones on the course. Um, I just don't know that. I would have asked my clinator ahead of time if I knew that was something that was on here. Um, the food issue I talked about. Uh, um, oh yeah. Um, number five, the operator of a doggy daycare. Um, you shall provide an outdoor fence and play area. um my client is isn't going to have an outdoor play area. It's all contained within a building. And as again, as a matter of fact, the place I bring my dog to, there is no outside. It's a big space, but it's all inside. So perhaps you could insert the word if is outside if there's outside area rather than requiring them to have outside area because if if you require outside area, my clients, you won't be able to have a dog in daycare at his facility. So I think for the health of the the dogs, I think the default should be for anyone new coming in that there be outdoor. You could always ask to modify a requirement. You can always ask to require I mean if the front yard if the frontage is 100 ft, you don't have it, you come in and ask for a variance. So this is the this is what I'm suggesting with the board minimum requirement. You could always ask to vary that. Can you ask for a variance for an objective criteria of the special use preference?

No, this is No, wait. This is I'm sorry. Let me back up. This is Oh, never mind. It does say by special. Well, that's only because that's what we had suggested. Um Brent suggested special permit. So, again, I I I took I didn't want to deviate from his premises. So, we should check the I'm sorry, Gary. We we should check the minutes. I I I remember a discussion about special use permit or by by right with with specific design criteria and I really thought we landed on by right on by right with specific design criteria. I don't believe we landed on a special use permit because all special use permits would would have to come before the board.

So if you make it a special or not a special use permit, they're able to get a variance under that standard. Correct. So, come back. We could use these standards as just uh guidelines, you know, general guidelines for the correct. And that and we should check the minutes, but that that was that was my recollection of of last time when we met last time that we were going to allow it by right, but specific design criteria language in the ordinance. I completely agree, but like I said, I didn't want to because staff wrote it. I out of courtesy and respect to Brent, I took it from that path, but okay, we could easily modify this to drop this. We could get rid of the special use permit and just use these criteria in the definition.

Are are you was there a was it just a misunderstanding that you that you thought we were looking for a special use permit design criteria or or did you have another? No, initially that was my recommendation when Jack initially wrote it. My recommendation was to make a special use permit, but after the last meeting I was in agreement with the board. Okay. Your report recommended special permit. That's what I went by. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

And as far as the So, if we're if we're going to try and work on the objective criteria, matter of right, but objective criteria, if you say that it shall provide outdoor shall, that would eliminate the possibility of my person in particular being able to um um have a doggy daycare at his facility. Um, and there are many day doggy daycarees that don't have outside. I know the one my dog goes to does not have an outside facility. It has a it has a fairly large interior area, but they clean up the dogs inside. They don't they don't go outside at all. So, what's fairly large? That's not a size.

Um, I don't know. I couldn't tell you what the size was, but it it was pretty big. It was half the size of a basketball court. Yeah, it's good size. Yeah. Well, it is.

It is. I I I do want everybody here to um understand that that I think the this exercise that we're going through improves the um the opportunity um for this type of use in in North Providence and and that's how it should be written. Um, it should be written for the improvement of of this type of use in North Providence. Um, without um without without looking at it through the perspective of a of a specific um property in mind, which is obviously, you know, kind of where you're coming from. Um but I I do think that if we if we do write what is adopted um cannot in in your specific client doesn't meet the design criteria that this board um inevitably decides upon that the opportunity for variance always always does exist.

Right. I I can appreciate that. So the way I approached this task was to do the ordinance for the entire town. Figure I didn't think I'd run into this. Not difficulty, but it's a bigger there's more issues than I kind of initially thought about when I was asking for this. I mean, I could go in the direction of just looking for relief from the town council just for my particular spot rather than the entire town. Um because if I don't think my client would move forward on the since he's the one that's sponsoring and has to pay for all the advertising. This isn't a town sponsored or a planning board sponsored change in the ordinance. He has to pay for the ad. He has to move the thing forward through the town council. Um, I'm just thinking out loud if if you're going to tell me that you're going to require an outdoor facility. Um, I think I might change my tactic and just go for my particular um, location rather than the try and help the, you know, I'm here for my client, not for the entire town. The last the last

craft an craft anance for a specific person. We have to do something for the entire community. No, no, I understand. But I I can I can make a request for a specific loca location specific when I ask for the relief or the text amendment could apply just to just to my client. I could ask for that to the town council. If the use is not allowed, if it's not recognized in the ordinance, um I I can make the change specific to my I could ask for the specific location. I believe I think the use isn't regulated by the ordinance. How could you how could you you could propose a use that's not regulated? So it's essentially a zone change with special exceptions they call them

and you can ask for exceptions for any number of things and it's specific to that one law administered by the council. By the council. Yes. Okay. So there so it sounds like there's an avenue for the board to adopt something tonight. It may or it it it will improve North Providence's um land use. It it may not 100% conform to your property, but when is the town when's the next council meeting? Uh it's the first Tuesday of the month. So, it's the third if I'm not mistaken. Yeah.

So, then Mr. agree then that then then the avenue for you would be to approach the council and request um request the the council for a specific for relief for that specific property. Um if if what if something is passed tonight that doesn't doesn't correlate to your specific property. Right. Am I

right? Well, you're you're just making a recommendation to the town for the language that you would support and then town has to make the decision. But what I'm saying is if you make a recommendation tonight that says you must have an out you might you you're required to have outdoor space then I'm not going to present that to the town council. I will just withdraw my application and go in a different go in a specific lot you know site related request. I'm not saying that by way of threat. It's just that why should my client spend all the money on the advertising for a townwide when he's not benefiting from it? He should just go and ask for specific relief in in the under that venue. Go ahead.

Um if I may, Chairman, I think attorney McGre in an effort to better our ordinances in general while he was doing this made an effort to not just help his client but to help the entire town. Is that fair to say? Correct. like I did on the la the last time I had a change to permit a karate studio. Yes. Um I didn't realize that a doggy day kid would have more elements to it than a than a karate studio. Yeah. And I think I think the purpose of of you doing this was to help us as a town and to help your client simultaneously. Correct.

So I don't know if the board would be able to come to language that would accomplish both of those goals. This is something that is very popular and I do think the town needs to address as soon as possible. Yeah, we're not we're not I don't think Angelica was saying that we're close to it. Yeah, I'm just I'm just saying if we can address all goals at once from for efficiency purposes, I think that would make sense.

Yeah. So So my my point on the requirement I don't I don't think there should be an absolute requirement of outdoor space. I think the the um person should be allowed if they can demonstrate that they can handle these dogs on interior space in a healthy and managed way then they they should be able to do that. Um otherwise that that would eliminate a lot of people in town from opening up these facilities because they don't have outdoor space. Um so I'll just I won't beat a dead horse, dead dog with that so to speak. I'll move on to the next one. Um, so, um, and again, I was just going through and I was trying to make sure that they were objective standards and not subjective. So, if you look at number six, um,

unaware of Mr. Green, I'm going on page two of three. Um number six it says a business plan demonstrating qualifications of the doggy daycare operator operator proper staff to dog ratios. Um you should set the ratios. You have to say specifically what the ratio should be. Just prop what's the word prop is subjective proper to you might be something different to me. So, if you're going to call it out in the ordinance, you should say, um, there should be x amount of staff per every five dogs or something. We could probably say by some national standard,

whatever. Yeah, whatever that is. But it should be it should be a number, not just proper. Can I can I just ask if if if six is even appropriate for um for the for the planning board's review. Wouldn't wouldn't six be um for review for um a a state license that the business would have to apply for if there is such a license. Is there a license in I'm not familiar with uh you know dog law not to but then there's going to be some some type of licensing that needs to be had by the person for health and safety like some type of licensing. So

like Massachusetts has a law that requires you know one dog per certain amount of square footage and I believe there's a staffing requirement but I'm not sure about the state of Rhode Island. I couldn't find any when I searched but but we could we could replace proper was fair again it wouldn't it wouldn't have been like you know your opinion versus a person you know a board member's opinion there would be a national standard I thought that was implied but we could certainly change proper to a national standard

right yeah or a standard whatever that whatever standard you come up with whatever that may be um in number seven you're talking about written certification from a professional acoustics engineer that the retrofit of the building shall include sound dampening materials where needed such as in walls. Um would I mean we do have a zoning ordinance. Wouldn't it be simpler just to state that um you know the facility shall not create noise in excess of a certain noise decibel rather than having someone to you know hire an expert to come out and give them an an opinion as to whether the building would emit noises above a certain sound level. I'm not I agree with that. If we do have a noise ordinance, that should that should drive um that should be the the reference that is referenced. I mean, obviously, if they're in violation of the noise ordinance, then they're going to have to go in and hire somebody to do some noise dampening so they're not in violation. But to just say that they need to hire a professional profession upfront that might be a little overburdenome to the to the person. But that was my comment on that. Uh uh yeah number eight um

same thing I guess. Say that again. Same thing. Yeah. Number eight where it says not plainly auditable. Again that's a little bit subjective. Um, I think we should rely on the noise ordinance of the town rather than putting that language in as an objective standard. Well, they both say plainly audible. So that's what I'm saying. So you have the same comment for both.

Yes. Um, when you go down to number C where it says to be submitted by the applicant when in the opinion of the special. So if we're not if this isn't going in the direction of a special use permit, I I won't comment on that. But if you're going to go by special use permit, if you say when in the opinion of the special uh permit granting authority, such elements are necessary, that's not an objective standard. That's an that's a subjective standard. So opinion isn't permitted in a special use permit. It has to be an objective standard. But um I would that that would only be necessary if it was a u a special use permit. Well, before we go down this road, um if if if we came to consensus, which we did last time, that this would be by right um in us setting up certain design criteria, do we do we need to continue with C in discussion?

Um well, you find things in C need to be brought up to Yeah, I think B C brought up to be okay. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we went I I thought they were kind of different because I think all right well that's fine. Um so to me B are minimum standards you need to have walking in but if you think we could just do B and go from number nine and then change C1 C2 to like 10 12 keep moving just list it all out. I don't have a D on mine. Is there mine stopped?

Is that what you mean Dave? No, I I wanted to know whether or not section C was worth discussion if we came to consensus that we would we would allow a doggy daycare by right with with certain design criteria because section C says minimum standards for granting of a special permit. Right? And what I'm suggesting is we take out section C the first paragraph. take all that out and where you where I listed 1 2 3 4 5 that could be 10 11 12 13 14 just continue to list that out as my point. Okay. So So okay thank you.

So in section C item number one is not is not a repeat of not at all any of yeah so one would be 10 two would be 12 so forth and so on. Is that okay with her? Yeah. Yeah. So, on number one, if we're trying to come up with some objective standards, you're saying individual stalls, curb cuts, driveways. Are are you going to have objective standards for how many stalls, how many curb cuts, uh type of driveway, offloading facility, that would all have to be called out.

Well, I would think not. The standard is whatever the parking standard is required. So depending on the size of the footprint of the building, that's how you would back into the number of uh parking spaces. Um to curve that in driveway, Mr. Green, depending on the size of the lot. If you've got one that's I'm exaggerating the ex the example. If it's three acres, right, you have to appropriate number. If you have a 4,000 foot lot, it's probably going to be one. So So would that need to be in there if it's already addressed in the other section of the ordinance? Pardon me. Would that need to even be addressed on the objective standards if if parking is already addressed in the other sections of the zoning ordinance?

Yeah, this would imply that if it said the appropriate number of parking space, it's not based on what we think is appropriate. It would be if I don't have the I didn't have the section of the parking requirement in front of me. So that would be for example, if section two of the ordinance calls out what the parking requirement is, that's what that would be based on is whatever the parking requirement is. It wouldn't be a separate it wouldn't be a separate standard, right? So, one, Brent, are you reading C1? Isn't C1 um part of your your plan um completeness review before before the board sees a um a project?

Yeah. In order to get a trade name certificate in this town, they have to uh in order to what? in order to get a trade name certificate in the town. Um if it's going into a just an empty space in like let's say a strip mall um they just have to prove that they have the parking. So they do have to submit a site plan proving to us that they meet that. Correct. But does does it it it states that in in the general ordinance. Correct. Yeah. We have we have standards for dumpsters. We have standards for um driveway widths and curb cuts um and fences. So, a lot of that is already addressed. A lot of that is already addressed. Is all of it addressed?

Uh everything except for outdoor play area, setbacks from abuing residence for the play area. It's pretty much it. Everything else is addressed.

Okay. So I make the recommendation to couch outdoor play area in yard setbacks from abuing properties because we do have to come back to number five and if our ordinance addresses um everything else in number one that we we strike everything else out in number one because it's redundant. If it if all that is already addressed in our in our ordinance, I think this is this is a well-written paragraph that helps um somebody under understand it kind of consolidates and put all the information in one spot. But if it's already in our ordinance and they're um they're corresponding with you, Brent, in order to understand to complete their package in order for the planning board to see it, then that's what you do.

Mhm. Okay. And then going on to number three, there's um they mentioned reception area, rest quiet areas, feeding areas, grooming areas, isolation room, staff and storage areas. Um why did we skip two? I'm sorry. That's I went to number three on the next page. No, I know, but why did we skip C2? Did we Oh, did I I thought that's I thought they were kind of the same. They were plans site plans. We already talked about the sound dampening in number two. Yeah. So you can almost combine one and two, right?

So do we have screening standards on? So we don't have screening standards for dog yards as of now, but we have screening standards for parking areas, dumpsters. Okay. Okay. So, two is applicable since we don't have any screening requirements for an outdoor dog area and should the board decide if a dog outside dog area is necessary or if it is a good thing to have, we should have screening areas if there is an outdoor dog area provided. Yeah, we should include the F.

Well, take a step back because we I think we have to come I don't know. I think we have to come back to five unless I missed an agreement on five. Yeah, I I think back to it. Yeah, we have to come back to it. So, an outside dog area exists. I think we should have screening requirements for the outside dog area and should that be included? I think that's fine with the setback requirements. Let's just talk about the screening. I think two is fine. But what we'll do is we'll put a period after the word giant because the rest of that would take you out. Right. Correct. Yeah. Giant.

After the word giant, it's going to instead of a comment, it's period. Then we're going to delete the rest of that sentence after that because there's no special permit. Right. Right. Thank you, Gary. Yeah. Okay. All right, Miss McGre, now you can go to number three. Okay. So, um, thank God.

And maybe that should be made part of actually if we're talking about specific criteria for just from for draftsmanship, maybe that should be lumped in with A through J, you know, a the outdoor screening area shall be X amount of feet in height and not, you know, that sort of thing. And then you reception area is that going to be requception area. Um that's a question I had. And do you have to have a rest or quiet rest or quiet area? Do you have to have a separate feeding area? All these items are listed, but are they a requirement or um why not? I'm not I'm just asking the question.

I would I would say I mean you know people invest so much in dogs. I it's it's amazing what people do with dogs. So why not? That would at least that's my advice to the uh the board. If we're going to do this, let's do it right. Yeah. Okay. And plus, if we're going to do it by right, as a matter of right and such that any of these provisions are subject to a variance, then let's just set the bar high and if anyone wants to deviate from it, you can ask for relief. But

I can tell you again when my I bring my dog, they do have a reception area. They do have a rest and quiet area. They do have a feeding area. I mean, they don't have I don't know the sizes. I don't know if you want to put specific sizes on these rooms. That's probably not necessary, but you said to be prescriptive. So, this being prescriptive. What's that? A little while ago, you said it's not prescriptive. So, now something's prescriptive. And well, having a rest area, I think saying having a reception area, that's objective. You shall have it, but you don't have to go on to say how big it has to be as long as you say a reception area shall be required. And it doesn't say what size it should be. The reception area. Where does it say what the size should be? A reception area. Entry point. Yeah. It doesn't give a size.

No, that's No, I was just making the comment that you don't need to. Oh, yeah. It doesn't. Then the only the only one I like to address again is the outdoor access. It says location of the access from the building to the outdoor play area. Um, all I'm suggesting is that I think you know if you have an outdoor area then you have to do this but I would suggest that you make that an option not a requirement. So change that and to an or.

Well I think we need to go and mechanically modify the previous language that where it says you know it's required. We need to soften that if that's the incentive of the board to not have it as a requirement. So, we need to change that language. And if we keep that, but it's it's it's um um what's the word I'm looking for? Um it it's a it's a preference. We should then we can leave the other language in there because it's a preference. Yeah. Yeah.

All right. Um let me get a crack at at item three in the in the letter the corresponding letters. So, um I think this is a great way to to design a doggy daycare. Um I'm not necessarily sure this is a a good way to implement land use for a doggy daycare in the respect that what's happening. I I think what we need to focus on is is is land use and what's what's happening inside versus what's happening outside. Um I do think it's great for a doggy DK to have a reception area. I just don't know if it's our board's responsibility as a land use um authority to en ensure and that a reception area is provided. I ju I just don't like when we allow for doctor offices, we we don't we don't have we're not we don't regulate whether or not that doctor's office has a reception area.

That's a fair point. It's not a land use, right? We're not designing it, right? Correct. So if that's a fair point. So I I think I think A and J we're gonna we're gonna do this tonight. I'm just letting everybody know we're doing this tonight. I just think A and A through J I think we just should look at it through through a land use perspective and kind of eliminate anything that is um

not Yeah, that's not not land use. I think we should look at it whether or not it's going to be indoors or or out outdoors. So, um, we can either start here or we can go back and and so we can go through A through J now and then kind of re-review the whole thing and get consensus with the with the applicant. I think that's what we should do. Yeah, why don't we do that? All right. Did we get any input from animal control?

Okay. That's a bummer. Okay, so a reception area. Let's just take it out. Um, actually, I think you take them all out then. I I don't even think we need a floor plan. Yeah, I think I think but but I I do think that we should look through a A through J to see if there's anything in there that should be in here that we specifically want inside or want outside. No, there isn't. It's all It's all interior. All right. So then scratch it. Yeah. I think Bless you. So scratch the entirety of number three.

Yeah. Yeah. I think four is great. I think five is great because I would want to know those things about daycare. Do we have ordinances or things for like ventilation and climate control in normal businesses that open? But that's building code. No, we don't. We don't. So building that's building code. Building code requires ventilation and what? So, a storage area is under building code like for all of these are. Yeah, we're scratching three. Scratching whole thing. Scratching three. Um, I think the question mark is do we have a or do we already have an ordinance in place regarding odor suppression?

No. So, we're keeping four. I think a detailed narrative is good to have. I've seen that in other ordinances I looked at around the country. What have you seen order suppression written narrative? Yeah. Okay. Od suppression. Okay. Yeah. Because each one of those would be unique for that purpose. I think so. I think so too. And and number five, I I don't think we have a ordinance for waste collection and and disposal regarding doggy doodoo, do we? We don't. I've seen that as well in other ordinances. But you've seen you haven't seen an ordinance dictating what the waste collection and disposal consists of. You've seen the requirement for that.

Okay. So, four and five stay. Three get shake. Three gets crossed. All right. So really back to five. Are we back to So what I heard you David the first full paragraph on the C. So C's gone, right? C is gone. Yeah. Can we take it from the top though? Oh no. We got to go back. Okay. Yeah. So So definition of doggy daycare. Doggy daycare business where who did the blue and who did the red? I did. So, so the original up top doggy daycare. Mhm. Um,

so everything in black was staff and then blue was added by you and red is was was black and it was struck out. Correct. That's was my recommendation to the board. Got it. Okay. So doggy daycare business where a collection of dogs are maintained and supervised on a single premises for play, exercise, feeding, grooming, training in Are we keeping on a single premise? No, no. I think you just read. All right. So we're scr single premises scratched, right? Right. So of dogs are supervised are maintained in not on a single premises. Take that out. What's the difference between maintained and supervised?

That there were dogs on the premises that Oh, dogs are are maintained. Okay. Uh dogs are supervised for play, exercise, feeding, grooming, training, and the retail sale of related dog. And the reason why I inserted the word exclusively so that there isn't any question because in the version that um Brent wrote, no breeding, right? There was um no overnight boarding. Mh. So that's why I I said to affirm that, let's put in the word exclusively, which means all you can do there is play, exercise, you know, eat, groom, blah, blah, blah. Where do you see I don't see exclusively under? Right here under the word on tracking. Oh, you're on the next You're on the next one. Yeah.

Okay. So, well, the second paragraph is the first paragraph just without the tracking. Y that's why I tried to make it easier. So, can I can I ask you a question though? the re are we are we making the doggy daycare sell related dog products. So that was my recommendation only because if you take a dog there you might see a product to wash. You might see clippers or so that's why I suggested if you're going to have a doggy daycare you might have a small area set aside for retail just for dog products. I I think it's a natural to have that. That's why I think that it's um a good idea to allow it. I'm I'm just my question is are we are we making them have it? No, it's not a require. Absolutely not.

Okay. And and with your experience um Gary, the way this is written is the retail sale of related dog products is yada yada yada is not a requirement. Absolutely not. The definition you don't have to even do all of those. For example, they could just you could just do it for grooming and you don't have to train them. So these are all the uses that you could do in a full boat. You could do any one of these, but you can't do any more than that. Okay. But yeah, you're not you're not required to do all of those. Okay. It's just the the spectrum of what's allowed by by the definition. What if somebody wanted to open a place for a dog to stay for longer periods of time because people go away? Yeah. Do overnight.

Currently, kennels are prohibited use in the town. And I think that would be considered a kennel. There we go. Answered. Yeah. All right. Great. So, there's no out the way definition I had put together. I I said specifically um where was it? Does not include overnight boarding. Warren, hold on. Oh, I'm sorry. Can you start it all over again? I had put in my definition. This use does not include overnight boarding or veterary services which are regulated separately. So, you don't want to say what you don't do. You just say what you're going to do. That That's why But the overnight might be But you're putting hours of operation in there, aren't you? I think you were going to do that. Well, yeah. Well, yeah. Um I think that should be in there.

Hours of operation. Yeah, we did. Yeah. Well, we're going to get there, but Right. Um so, so we're out of My gosh. So, we're out of paragraph one and what I see in front of me, we struck out on a single premises. Correct. Got it. Correct. Exactly. Right. What is paragraph number How is paragraph number two different from paragraph number one? Um, so it says the word temporarily cared. And the reason why they want to say temporarily cared, it's it could suggest that you could it's within those hours of operation. That's temporary. Oh, paragraph two is just a rewrite of That's what I said. Yeah, rewrite.

You took out all the corrections. I just took out all the so that you could just read it pure as it as the way I suggested. That's the same thing. Exactly the same thing. David, understood. Except you add except exclusively it shows up in the second paragraph where it didn't show up blue in the upper paragraph. Uh I'm sorry. Good catchy. I didn't Okay. Yeah, you're right. That should have been blue up above. I apologize. Okay. Yes, you're right, sir. Sorry about that. All right, sir. You probably turned off your track changes and then you I'm sorry. Yeah, you're right.

All right. So, the definition of doggy daycare, I'm going to read it from the second paragraph. A business where a collection of dogs are maintained and supervised exclusively for play, exercise, feeding, grooming, training, and the retail sale of related dog products such as leashes, bowl, food bowls, grooming products, and twice. So, should the word or be in there? Where? Instead of and I think

and or andor. Yeah, I Mark's picking up on what I had previously mentioned, but again, this do a few of a complete menu of what you could do. So, it could be an and right. You could do all of those and sell or you could just do grooming, right? Or you're saying you could do this. You could you could play or exercise, right? You But you don't have to do play and exercise. Yeah. So that's why I'm asking I'm just asking if to me the way you re the way I read this exclusive for play exercise feeding and retail. So it's like I have to do all of those.

So you're saying put in andor that that's the way in order to say if you're trying to if for me if you're trying to tell me I'm gonna open a doggy daycare and I read this I'm going okay I need to play exercise feed groom then you have to do all of them right? Yeah. Like I'm looking I have do or if you throw the word if you have ore in there then you're saying exactly what you stated. I can play and feed or I can exercise or groom. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. No problem. Point well taken. Thank you, Mark. All right. Table of use regulations. Um so that's going to say by right. That's going to be right. Is that correct?

Oh, it's um Well, no. a table of use regulations would be so I Oh, no. It's going to it's going to it's going to be added to our So, he already had that on his original in the all the zoning districts. So, I didn't I didn't repeat that. So, I just thought across the board whatever Brent puts in for a piece. So, instead of being by special permit, we're going to just say change it to by right. It was going to say why. Yeah. Under in commercial, general, and village zones. So, all commercial zones. Yeah. So again, I won't by what you had in your table of those uses. I thought they were all commercial or business zoning districts, correct? Yeah.

Okay, great. So standards for granting a special of a special permit, we'll say standards for the doggy daycare, right? Yeah. What do you want to label that? Yeah. Standards for doggy daycare. That's That's fine. Yep. Right. A is minimum requirements. So the paragraph completely comes out. Right. If the paragraph So if if the paragraph is specific language for special permit granting then yes it should comes out. Okay.

Okay. Um I think B gets removed because A is now minimum requirements of doggy daycare. Correct. Yep.

Okay. One, no portion of any lot containing a doggy daycare shall be located within 100 ft of any residential zoning district. Distances shall be measured by a straight line. So again, one and two were exactly the what Brent had recommended. I just split them out. So, if there's a commercial, if there's a property zoned commercial with a residential budding, then they lose out on on having the ability to to have a doggy daycare.

Want to say that again? If what if there's a lot that's commercial, a budding a lot that is zoned residential or a lot containing principal residential use, they lose out on on doggy daycare. And again, that's what Brent had recommended. So, okay. Um, I wanted to honor that and just wrote it that way, Brent. Right. Isn't that what you had to suggest? Yeah, that was my Yeah, both in terms of land use and zoning district, at least some kind of buffer. Um, you know, you can play around with the number 100. That's essentially one lot anyway. It's not like, you know, five or six lots. I mean, then you're you're narrowing it so much you're probably not going to be able to even find a lot. So, yeah, just at least one house, one lot away. That's essentially what that is.

I mean, it could be two. My intent was the building to the property to the res. We could rephrase it as from the the unit, if you will, to the closest residentially used structure. it. Would that make more sense? So, you're talking from building to building. I did is from property line to property line. Yeah, we could do building to building which makes more sense because the dogs will be in the building. That's how like a liquor license they'll say on a liquor license no closer than 200 feet of a church or something like that. So, yeah. But is it the church? Is it the building or is it the property line?

It's it's the building. They I mean the liquor license usually say built within 200 feet of a church or a school or something like that. So if we went by the building that would make it actually closer. So if it's 100 it's not in my humble opinion it's not excessive. So if we were going to go from building to building then I would say then let's increase the distance something greater than 100 ft. Then

I think what what if we do this right? So, if we don't do building to building and we do the building that the doggy daycare is in to the property line of a residential um zone, I think that's um giving the um occupant or land owner of the residential zone um uh used to enjoy their property um versus used to restricting their use to enjoy just their their structure.

Yeah. So I I think that that the that the buffer should be from the doggy daycare structure to a resident to the to the property line of a residential zone district or a lot containing principal residential use. So, so let's just take out the word use after doggy daycare and call that building. So, no portion of any lot containing Oh, no. No portion of a building no portion of a building containing a doggy daycare use and then the rest stays. Right. that that's a that's a uh real um setback has nothing to do with the residential lot in that particular occasion. You got to have a backyard that's 100 ft from the building to the fence to the property. Right. I think what Dave was saying is that like if someone wants to go on their back patio, let's say, um it would provide them more protection from the noise. So they wouldn't be as affected by the the noise from

But this will make it more effective because now you're measuring from the building. So that shortens the distance, right? Yeah. So if you had a set if the house was set back for example 50 feet from the back property line and then if we went with what the way it was written then that's 150 ft from the building. But now if we reduce it from the rear of the building from the property line 100t you just knocked off 50 ft. That's what I'm saying by cons by saying no portion of a building instead of any lot containing a doggy daycare that actually shortens the distance.

Correct. And I'm not I'm I'm going to even ask if we should if we should say the building any lot any building containing a doggy daycare because if it isn't a strip mall and the doggy daycare is on one end of the building and there's commercial there's there's all commercial butters on that side and let's just say the building's 100 linear feet, right? And there's a 5-ft set back on the other side. And then there's the next property is residential. Then you only have 5T from the building that contains the doggy daycare to the res to the residential property line. But the doggy daycare itself is 105 ft from that residential zone. So I think what we're trying to do is we're trying to determine what the buffer is from the dogs

for the resial unit itself. So I get your example, not the I get your example, not the building. Okay. Well, you want the building separation on the residential side and you don't really care what it is on this side, but the total of the two of them would be 100.

But it depends what comes first though, right? So really what I think we need to decide is um I would like for the doggy daycare location. I know that's we need to wordsmith it but the location of the doggy daycare where the dogs are to have the buffer from a residential lot or a residential zone. not not the building that the doggy daycare is in because you could have an extremely long strip mall with a residential zone on the left side. Commercial to the right. The doggy daycare is on the right hand side, but that building is, you know, that close to the residential zone, which would prohibit that strip mall from having a doggy daycare in it without seeking a barrier. Okay. You follow me?

I follow. Yes. So, how would we how would we word how would we write that then? So, change lot to unit because that would address the actual unit the doggy daycare is in instead of the entire Can't say premises because that includes a lot, right? Yeah. Right. You can't say premises. Can can we just stop on this one here for a second because I just I'm just relating this to another um dog care center that we have in town and I don't believe they they've come before us twice and asked for outside playards and we've said no. Okay. Okay. I don't I don't anybody here.

Uh I there might be I'm not sure. There might be a house adjacent to it and they didn't want any odors or they didn't want any noise. Who's they? The neighbors. Yeah. Okay. Uh I think we got to look into that too. Okay. Find out what what we did for that and that had that went to the council and the council I believe it went to the council and the council said no. So the where I think we're heading even though we're not there just yet would be that having an outdoor play area is going to be optional and if you do propose to have one then there are standards there and what that setback needs to be correct along with screening. So this would take care of that when we get there that is

right. Okay. So no how about no port but they had to go to the council. So we had to we didn't have to go we couldn't use it by right by special exemption. So, you're saying the edge of the building, right? From where the where where the doggy daycare resides. It's not the edge of the building. It's It's the It's the It's No, but if you But if you say the exterior wall of where the getting wordy, but if you say the exterior wall where the doggy dick here resides, then you're you're then you're accomplishing that that that example you gave.

Yeah. I think it's the um the area Yeah, the area that the doggy daycare the area of use of the doggy daycare the area of use and and that to me is is How about this Dave? Dave, how about this? Yeah.

No portion of a of a doggy daycare use without getting into building and walls or units and anything like that. No portion, at least for number one, no portion of a doggy daycare use shall be located blah blah blah. So whether or not that's inside that unit, right? Because your example was what if the doggy daycare is on the left side and the right side of the uh Yeah. Right. Yeah. So it's just no portion of the doggy daycare use without getting the building structure walls or anything. Yeah. No, that's that's how that Yeah, that that's it.

Okay. So, no portion. We're going to get rid of any lot containing just it's going to say any portion of a doggy daycare use blah blah blah. Yeah. Right. Yep. All right. So, thank you. Yeah. No problem. So, let's fix number two. Are you going to give a 50ft bumper on the other side? On the on the side on the other side of the fence. Let me say the fence. So, we haven't gotten there. So, we haven't gotten there yet. So this is right now separating the two perceived incompatible land uses a doggy daycare to a residential. Okay, that's just the separation. Then we got to get to that yet Warren. Okay. Yeah.

So the same thing maybe no portion of a date of a shall be located within 100 ft of a lot containing a principal residential use. Right. Distances shall be measured by a straight line. Yeah, that's funny. Same edit, right? Yes. You would say the same, right? No portion of a doggy daycare use shall be blah blah blah. Correct. Correct. Okay. Yeah. And you know how it says distances shall be measured by a straight line?

Can you also add, and this is just for thought, distances shall be measured from the doggy daycare use to the property line of the residential zoning district. and and the the same terminology in number two just change um it to um distances shall be measured from the doggy dayc care use to the principal to the property line of a principal residential use. Yeah, but or or but I think he needs to say straight line because somebody might say

No, no, no. I'm not saying get rid of straight line. Just I'm just I'm just do you do you think the first the the first sentence truly people will truly understand what they're measuring from doggy daycare use to the property line of a residential zone? Well, let's read it again. So, let's take the first one. No portion where the dog you shall be located. Sure. So, you want to say the distance measured shall be between as measured by a straight line. Okay. The distance shall be measured. I'm just going to write from and to right as measured by a straight line.

Yeah. Measured from the doggy daycare use to property line for the residential zone district and then to the property line of a lot containing principal residential use. So here's what I'm going to do. If it's okay. So after we cement this tonight, first thing tomorrow morning while I was fresh on my mind, I'll write rewrite this. You want me to redline it, too, or just the way we're agreeing to it tonight? Bang it out. All right. I'll bang it out. I'll email it to you right away so that way you get it to the whole board. How's that? Okay. All right. But so I'll take a little off your plate. And uh it is what it is. So I'll take I'm taking very careful notes. Same thing here. Okay.

So this next one again I wrote only be again given what Brent had said and I agree that it shouldn't be next to any foodie place. And I I had given you the example of where I take my dog and it's in a big uh shopping area right just south of Shartner Farms if you know where that is and you probably don't. You're from Massachusetts. It's not even there anymore though. No. No. But if you go south there's a Dunkin Donuts on the right hand side and

Mr. Green let me tell you I'm born and raised in Rhode Island. I just happen to work in mass so I know. I went to URI so I know where you're talking about. So just uh heading south go past Chartner Farms on the right hand side. There's a new shopping center there and there's a Chinese restaurant. There's a gas station. There's another food facility. Salt Salt Marsh Plaza. Might be called Salt. No, that No, that's on Route One. That might be Salt. It goes down. Is it salt? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. So in the very back there, is that where Twisted is? Twisted Pizzeria.

Yes, that is where it is. So there's Twisted Pizzeria. There's a Chinese restaurant. all these buildings that but then in the back there's a strip that has the doggy daycare and then maybe maybe they sell guitars over here or something like that. There's a few things in there but what I'm saying is there are food facilities within Yeah, but that building that it's in, how far is it away from the foodie thing? Oh, it it it's it's far Well, it's probably 60 or 80 feet. So it's almost a part but but it's on the same it's on the same Could we then change the language to a certain footage instead of a budding? Can we just copy number one and number two basically? Yeah. Just feed

because within that plaza he's pro you said the the building in which it resides in that part of the strip because it's all broken up. Yeah. It's probably 100 feet away. Yeah. Yep. Consensus over there. Let me let me just think of that. So the way number three is written is that this would be on two separate properties. But the example you guys are talking about is that it's on a in a plaza on the same property. Yes. Right. But therefore by saying a but right if we but where it sits in that plaza is still footage away from the eeries.

Okay. So you could like my suggestion would be to add some type of footage from the ery, right? Because then we'll we'll accomplish the same thing unless I'm confused. So let me let me ask this. So could we put three as a placeholder for a second? Let's look at number four because that's where I talked about a multi-tenant commercial. Oh, okay.

Okay. How's that? So let's take a look at that. So the first one is let's just take North Proidence right now. You've got uh Ricatis. You can't put a doggy day that ab butts that property. That's example under number three. So let's take a look at number four to see if that is what you're talking about Mark because now this talks about a a multi-tenant commercial. You could say lot I just wrote building right now but I think it combine them and say the same thing. Yeah, you could combine them and say no single premises or multi-tenant shall be x amount of thing away.

Yeah. Basically, you have whether it's multi-tenant usage or different lots. You have a food establishment and you have dogs here and they they need to be 100 feet apart. So, two, three, and four could be combined into a single sentence because you're talking about uh maybe, but I don't I think that I'm just trying if you wanted to consolidate and go 100 feet, principal residents, food establishments. I don't know if we should combine three and four because three and four. Three and four could be within 100 ft. I'm sorry. Number three could be within 100 ft. It could be outside of 100 ft. I mean, let's take again um Ricatis.

Mhm. Um it's the abuing lot. It could be right on the the closest point of the lot to Ricottis or the furthest point. The fact is it's on an abuing lot. And I think what we're saying is categorically we don't want to have that whether it's further away from the sideyard or closer. Number two is somewhat different. I think it's a different animal. We're talking about that shopping plaza that has tons of facilities there. You mean number four? Yeah, I'm sorry. Number four. Okay. Making sure. Look, I'm totally in agreement, but I think we should keep those as two separate. Okay.

It just it's just the language is going to be simpler. The first one is an abiding property. You can't do it. The next one is a multi-tenant. Now, I wrote building. It could be, you know, a multi-tenant uh plaza lot that has numerous commercial buildings. Um, the only thing I would ask of the board is what do you think that minimum distance should be? 100 ft, 150 ft, or what do you think? Well, I'm just going to say I think it should be 100 feet, right? Because All right.

I'm just using the logic. You you can you can if a dog gets loose, you can sway a dog back within 100 feet, right? Whether or not that holds water, I don't. But um I I just don't know why we wouldn't apply 100 feet to three to three as well. So what if you're in a budding lot? So you're what you're saying that essentially is you could have an abuing lot as long as you place that building 100t away from it. The the doggy daycare use. Yes. 100t away from

the food establishment. I I'm just thinking for purposes of hygiene. You know, the lots aren't that big in North Province to begin with. So, we're not talking about you're going to establish the Ricottis is on an acre and the next building's an they're all what 5 6,000 4,000t lot. So, they're small to begin with. So, I'm not sure if you could even get a building that's 100t away from the property line. So, given the size, I mean, we all drive up and down Middle Spring Avenue all the time, right? I mean those buildings are boom boom boom boom boom boom boom.

I don't think you're going to achieve anything by saying as long as it's 100 feet. The fact that I'm driving by and I see a ricottis and there's a dog daycare next door and let's say the people bring the dog dogs out and they start walking around on the lot. It's getting closer to the use. I'm just saying categorically let's just not have a doggy daycare on a lot that's a that abuts a a food related site. I'm not sure what the distance the other one I can understand. You need to have a distance and that's a good point. You're going to have multiple uses, multiple commercial uses on a plaza and we're going to say no, you can't have, of course you should, but that's a reasonable standard to say as long as you're not within 100 ft of the next food establishment. So, you could be next to a Claire's jewelry uh next to a Barnes & Noble. You could be next to an Ulta beauty salon. anything, a Yankee candle store, all those are reasonable. We're just saying stay away 100 feet away from a food place inside of a plaza that contains multiple buildings, multiple tenants.

I agree with Gary because the purpose of that when I wrote it was to protect diners from noise, smell, and potentially health health. Uh, you know, everyone's not adult. I mean, in as much as I know pe the vast majority, there are people who will like, you know, I'm not a doggy person, so just not to have it next to a restaurant, I don't think that's excessive. So, that one I'm going to fight on. I I think we should say if it's on the budding lot, leave it at a budding lot. But, I'll totally agree with everyone on number four to establish a 100 foot buffer. So, that at least is not a complete preclusion.

Yeah. Yeah. Let's say you have a restaurant and a doggy daycare moves in next door. Then suddenly their dining room is is loud. It smells or could smell. Um and you know all the health issues that come with dogs and their excrements and whatnot.

I get it. I just I just don't I just don't see how you're if I just don't see how you're achieving something in three that you're that you're that you're not achieving in four or vice versa. it it's either you're you're 100 feet away or you like you're or you're I think because number four is a little tricky because you got multiple tenants on a single lot and it's hard to say to keep you can't have anything on the abuing lot. It's just because going back to your original example on the first point, what if the the the Delgi daycare is on the opposite side of the plaza?

So it's an unreasonable and I didn't think of that. It's a very good example. So applying that logic here too is rather than trying to say the unit where it's located just to say simply leave it 100 ft away. Um I just don't think we could just to have a lot next to it have a doggy daycare not withstanding the distance I just think is not a a a very hygienic um um position. Sure. I I think 100 feet I would probably advocate 150 ft, but if if we're going to go by the standard, let's be consistent, I'm perfectly fine with 100 feet. Sure.

Yeah. The way I read it, the difference is uh one addresses the same lot, different structures, and one addresses same lot, same structure,

mall versus like village development. You do can you just do this? Can you just do me a favor? You you can see how um you could have in number three, you can have two lots right next to each other, okay? And let's just say they're they have frontage three 300 ft each. Okay? And the buildings are on opposite ends of the lot. Okay? And let's just say that those buildings are 100 100 feet wide,

200. You already you have 200 f feet in between the ery, okay, and the doggy daycare. You have more distance between those two structures than you than you do in allow number four. So my I right I just want to acknowledge that that you you could you could be prohibiting a doggy daycare from being in use with number three with a with a a distance further from the doggy daycare use the the structure in the outdoor area from the abuing property line that has a metery on it.

Completely completely agree. If we were in the town of North Kingtown, if we were in Coventry, we're putting into context. I would agree with you. I'm putting it David practical context. Yeah. Again, um Middle Spring Avenue, Charles Street, right? Um Branch A, uh it just we're on and and I think that's part of the charm of North. I love it. Right. So, be I'm putting in practical content. I got it. But as a as a land use policy, if that was the case, I would agree with you. But we don't have those spot, you know, those large lots. So, okay, I'd be hardressed to find a lot in in North Pro. Maybe the former Andors lot might have that kind of frontage, right? That's the framing place. Now,

you don't come across lots with two 300 feet of frontage. So, that was the case, I would agree with you, my friend. I just It's for that reason. Yeah. Thank Thanks for I'm not trying to be draconian. I'm just trying to literally putting in context. Yeah. I was just I was approaching it from No, absolutely. I would agree. Yeah, stands out because stands out because it's so large. It's one of the only locks that size on the spring probably. Lowe's. Okay. But I know there are little Right. You'll get a low. Sure. Right. You get an anomaly, but that's certainly not the uh the standard. Right. You seem a little partial to your colleagues though. Is there anything you're saying? No, not me. I like it.

They have great things. Well, well, shout out to the Pucket House of Pizza, too. So, you So, we are not We have come to consensus. We are not making a change to three. Correct. Agreed. And for number four, we're going to weave in that 100 foot separation much like number one and two. Right. Okay. Great. Number five. Number five. Yeah. Can can we just stop that one second? Do we need that that line there? A gasoline station convenience uh store uh foods is not considered food establishment. Do we need that line?

So for number three, I think so because look, if you're going to if you're going to put a doggy daycare next to a gasoline station, I'm not going to say, "Oh, the food in there is so specially different." So, I think it's fair to say you could have a doggy daycare next to a gasoline station that's got hot dogs or potato chips. So, I don't have any problem with that. Well, can we go back to But for number four? Yeah. And number one, um, and go back to training because there are facilities in town that do dog training. Oh, you mean back to the definition? Yes. Okay.

Okay. Uh, I sent my dog and I sent my wife to to get trained. The dog got trained. My wife didn't, you know. So, but that's besides the point. But I'm sure that's not what she just heard, but that's okay. You're in trouble. They're going to be in the doghouse tonight. Get that right.

I may breeze. This would be um I would exclude um dog training with I would say owner present. It's usually an hour two hour program or something. But you get the word training in here and this might be so if I wanted to open up a school just to do dog training. So you know heel fetch and all that good. Yeah. But a school is separate. That's protected by the a you could do a school uh a school anywhere. So So you a school you can't preclude a school anyway that those are allowed by right anywhere.

So what's the difference with this thing that if as part of their got 30 dogs there are getting trained together you know. Yeah. You have a collection of dogs. I I don't see when I I take your point. I just don't see any any any difference. It's a collection of dogs. No matter no matter what what's happening on a on a temporary basis. Y it's a collection of dogs on a temporary basis. That's the way I look at it. Whether they're playing, pooping, exercising, sniffing each other's butts, getting trained, it's a collection of dogs that we're we're focused on here. Okay. Whether but that's a collection of dogs, too. And they're doing the same thing. So So what if they are So let's say that one is just

But they're with their own usually they're with their owner. I'm missing your point. Difference. What's I'm missing your point. I'm sorry, Warren. I I worked all day. I bring my dog. I got a new dog and I'm taking him to training tonight. Okay. For one hour. Okay. He goes in there. He's with 30 other dogs the same way. Yeah. The only difference is there's a trainer in there. The dog is getting trained. Yeah. It's a collection of dogs that reads the same criteria. Yeah. But doesn't exclude um a strictly training facility. But a strictly training facility would be a school which is allowed by right anyway. I see.

Okay. I I I never heard it classified as a a doggy training school. Yeah. Okay. I see differing. I I think if it's a collection of dogs and they're I actually think if it's a collection of dogs that are being trained,

it's even more important that they meet some specific design criteria because who knows what those dogs. So, I think training should be in there. I don't think we should make a difference whether the owner is is present or not. Um, and I personally I don't see a a a doggy training school being um classified as as a school. I see I see it I I see it specifically now being classified as a doggy daycare because you can training is allowable in a doggy daycare. I agree. I I'm just missing the part about the trainer the person being there. I'm not sure what what ripple that it's not a daycare. Okay. So, it's just training. Okay. Yeah, I don't think

that would be the difference. Yeah, I I get it. I just even if the owner is there, I still think we need to regulate when there's a collection of dogs. Okay. Yeah, specifically if they get trained. All right. Thanks, Lauren. Um five, how about this? Instead of shall the operator of doggy daycare use is encouraged to provide. Yeah, it's recommended that you have a thing, but it's not required. Yeah, it's recommended or is encouraged. And if you do do one, here are the requirements that you need to follow. Perfect. So, which word do you want? Recommended or um encouraged? Recommended.

I think recommend is a little stronger than encouraged, but that's just me. Yeah, I'll leave that to the lawyers to to say what word is the planning board members. I I'm not even sure we need the operation of a doggy daycare use. It it should be okay. It it's it's recommended that a doggy daycare use provide an outdoor area. If the outdoor area is provided, it shall include or it shall be fenced in, include a play area for dogs. Back up. It is recommended that a doggy daycare use

what? Provide provide an outdoor fenced in play area for dogs. An outdoor use. Outdoor outdoor play area. Outdoor area for the dogs. Period. Oh, not even play area. Just an outdoor area, right? Yes. All right. Provide an outdoor area. Period. For dogs. For dogs. Yep. Okay. Period. Now what if an outdoor area is provided the following recommendations are no it's not those won't be recommended. All right. So the following protocol yeah it shall be of sufficient size and blah blah blah. Yes. Okay. Okay.

Um I don't know if we need it to be certified in writing by a certified special dog trainer. Well, then it it goes back to I guess attorney McQueen's question is then you know what's the definition of sufficient? So that's what I'm saying is leave that to a professional. Oh, I see what you're saying. Right. At least that's the standard. I understood. So it's going to say, let me read it. Okay. It is recommended that a doggy daycare use um provide an outdoor area.

Yeah. That a doggy daycare use. Yeah. Provide an outdoor area for dogs. Period. If an outdoor area is provided, it shall be of sufficient size. It shall be of sufficient size. Get rid of the word in. Blah blah blah. You want to put in fenced in, right? It shall be fenced in. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Shall be fenced in of sufficient size with sh from raining from sun and rain as certified by Mhm. Yeah. I forgot the fenced in part. Yep. Okay. Yep. Mr. McGregor, do you want to put the word in screened as well?

Yes. I think fenced in is is implied, but you could fence it in with the chain link fence and then now put the tree be screened. Thank you. Fenced in and screened. Yep. They shall be fenced in, screened. Yes. So, should we bring in that language I had for Abuite there about the screening? I forgot where I put that. Yeah, it's down below. It's it's the under sea the original number two. Yeah.

So, bring that you could put that in that area. Yeah, I could put that language about the arborite up the screen with or screened um with by thickly planted arborite or similar fast growing evergreen so forth and so on. Yes. I'm looking I'm sorry. Yeah, I think you can I think the screening could be either or. I mean, I'm sorry. Like, you can achieve screening with with uh um like a monolithic fence. You don't have to necessarily screen plantings.

So, we could say either by a stockade fence at least that's opaque, right? As opposed All right. So, fenced in. Let me just write this down. So, it needs to be fenced in by a stockade fence or and screened with either vegetation or

opaque. shall be fenced in by an opaque fence or screened. No, the play area shall be fenced in because the fenced in part. Okay. Fenced in contains the dogs. Yep. And then the second criteria is that it needs to be screened. Yeah. But the screening can consist of either um vegetation.

Yeah. Or the fence can be the screen if the fence is opaque. Or the fence can serve. Yeah. Right. Conserve as the screen provided it is opaque. Correct. All right. Hold on. Let me get this down, guys. Okay. And ladies, provided it is opaque. All right. I'm not going to reread it, but I got all my thoughts. I know what to do. The rest already did, right?

We nixed six, right? Business plan demonstrated qualifications of the dog probably regulated by the national standard, right? DVR. We have a DVR. Not in our No, we said the national standard. Didn't we say the national standard the number six?

No, then we're excluded number six. That's that's not regulated by land use. That's reg that's going to be regulated by the department of um business regulations. And then seven and eight we're going to strike because we're relying on our noise ordinance. And then whatever nine is now the days of oper I just made that up. I just made that up. The days and hours of operation.

I think my doggy daycare is from 6:00 a.m. to 7. Um a lot of people, you know, workers, for example, need to be on site by 7. So So we said 6:30 to 6:30. Come on. He's I work till it's 12 hour window. Come on. I mean seven is not I mean you're running out and you're trying to get there by you know like my wife works for Washington Trust and she doesn't get out of work till 5:30 quarter 6 and she's rushing to get there before. So here's why. Let me set put it this way. If someone shows up there at 7 6:45, right? The building inspector, the zoning enforcement agent isn't going to run out there.

So if you do 6:30, so you go 5 or 10 minutes later. I don't I don't blame him or her not to run out there every time someone complains and says, "Oh, it says 6:30." They they were there at 6:30, too. And that, I'm going to tell you, comes out of experience. I've gotten those. So that's why if we leave it at 6:30 so you come by 10 20 minutes late at least because if you go 7 then it's going to go towards 7:30. I think the 12-h hour window is fine. Yeah, I think the 12-h hour window should be applicable on Saturdays and Sundays and holidays. I I don't think we should prohibit um the hours of operation on Saturdays. And I definitely don't think we should prohibit the hours operation on Sunday and holidays if the business so chooses to. I agree. People go on vacation a lot on the weekends. Yeah, but they're not boarding.

Oh yeah, that's true. Yeah, but you could be going to grandma's house. He's extremely alert. So, let's not mention So, let's not mention any days, just the hours. Just the hours. You got it. All right. How about during the equinox? Should be no third Saturday of June on odd years. What about Leapia? I'm just getting punchy now. All right. All right. So, we nixed C. All right. David,

we nixed all of want to exception of out yard setbacks from abing properties. David, right? Oh, got David. Started David. Yes, we started there. Number four and five. So, I'll get these out um ASAP tomorrow morning. number four and five, right? You're keeping it. Yeah. Yeah. If just just from a Yeah. Once that's done, it's gonna have to be put in this format and we're gonna So, I'll send this to you in Word format. Yeah. Yeah. So, he's going to build this into that. So, you just you'll take that and I'll send it to you. We're going to call it the McQueen ordinance. There you go. Mcream. It's McGre.

I'm sorry. I Well, I was That's a compliment. I was thinking of Steve McQueen, I guess, right? Everyone says I love dogs. Was that I'm sorry. I meant So that was great collaboration. It was

I I I I mean that um so what we have order of business here is recom Where am I? The recommendation to the town council regarding requests for a zoning text amendment to section 203 district use regulations to create a use code allowing doggy daytime dog care daytime dog daycare in all commercial commercial zones by right with design criteria as oh um which we have done collectively as a council or a board. Um, I just lost my train of thought. I was trying to I was trying to get us all moved. Um,

thank you. Yeah, that's cool. And I request a motion as amended daycare by right subject to the amendments discussed this evening. Yeah. Yes. So the the recommendation is to the recommendation. Yeah. Right. No, it's not a positive recommendation. Go ahead.

Recommendation to the town council regarding request for a zoning tax amendment to section 203 district use regulations to create a use code allowing daytime dog daycare in all commercial zones by right as amended. Do I hear a motion? So moved. Do I hear a second? Motion is seconded. We'll take a roll. Mark I. Hi I. Warren. Gary. Yes. Steve. Yes. Uh chair votes I. The motion passes. Uh do I hear any nays? I hear no nays. The motion passes. Thank you very much. No. Oh, sorry. No worries.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Elliot, I need a dial break. I'm sorry. I was blowing my nose during the uh vote. Who first and seconded that? Uh Gary um made the motion and Steve seconded. And I'm just going to take a quick five minute recess. Sorry.

Two more agendas. Two more. Two more. Um, Heartscapes and um, Elliot Avenue. What was your prediction?

Tom design stands for residential creating heartscape requirements standard. You know, since we last time to be quite we don't Brent, am I correct in saying there's nothing related to the design standards change in the packet? Talks about hardcape requirements. Hardscape requirements. Yeah, I'm correct that there's nothing in the packet regarding that. Right. There is not mine either. The last two pages. Oh, wait a minute. Yeah, they're in the packets. Oh, jeez. I got a copy right here. It looks like this. Yeah, I see.

It It starts back because it's Yeah. Sorry. There's the packets are like over 100 pages now. So, I'm printing double-sided to conserve paper. Yeah, that's Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I must have it, but we'll just take a look. We got a chip in this. Yeah, they showed up. He must have not been able to make it. Continue that one. Well, in situ.

I know. and and and I know a guy that's got goats and situate wants to move to North Proidence because he wants to do this. I think so. What do you think that Joe has? So, how far will they um 15 months now? A little less than two. It'll be just It'll be 23 months. Yeah, that's awesome.

That's going to be tough for a few years. 2002 is

Yeah. It gets us like the bandaid off. Yeah. My my son bought a house halfway between his mother-in-laws and our house so that it's equidistance for the baby.

So now the other one two of them. And so it's going to double over there. and

six months old. Yes. Yeah. Oh, what? She goes to Brian. Um, do we have an agenda number four? Item number four. Yeah, we do. Okay. So, agenda, sorry.

Agenda item number four, address 30 Elliot Avenue, Assessor's Plat Plat 9, lots 461 and 462. The applicant owner is Lee Sufi, 30 Elliot Avenue, North Providence, Rhode Island. description recommendation to the zoning board regarding a request for an 8.1 left side setback variance to construct a two-story garage with storage space above. Is the applicant here to present? What do we do? Continue it. Papers if you choose, but I think the applicant

it's a recommendation. So, they still have to go to the zoning board to get a decision. We should still come here and make a presentation here. Okay. I let them know what day it was. Uh David Ursilo is representing them. So you don't think they might have had another meeting tonight? David. David Ursilo. Oh, they might have David usually um appears I feel like. So let's give them let's give them a continuence if that's okay with the board. I don't have a problem with that. I'd like to see who it is and what they're asking for. How about a poll over here? How are you guys feeling about continuing it? I'm fine with it.

Okay. Um can I So, the applicant is not here. Uh the recommendation is to um continue the um the agenda item to the February 11th, 2026 meeting. Do I hear a motion? So moved. Second.

Motion is seconded. Uh all in favor? I. Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes to continue to February 11, 2026. Item number five, recommendations of the to the town council regarding a proposal to amend the zoning ordinance to create design standards for residential zones creating maximum hardscape requirements for both standard and substandard residential lots. Brent, I believe you're presenting this tonight. Yes. So, this was drafted uh by the request of the town council uh in response to complaints about parking on lawns, largecale residential parking lots,

and flooding. Now, this is written to address all three of those.

Um this is already seen by the ordinance committee. Uh they approved it and forwarded it to the town council. Um, so it just needs a recommendation before then. Um, and the way it's written is it kind of goes by categories. Um, I only went up to one acre because that addresses pretty much most of the lots in this town. Um, and you know, over an acre. If someone's building a a house or a parking lot on, you know, over an acre, I I just don't see it happening. So, um, we only went up to an acre. Uh we're doing it kind of like on a sliding scale um where it goes up as the lot gets smaller because there's less area and we don't want to interfere with people's property rights and ability to enjoy their property. Um what else here? It limits the front yard paving to 40%. It allows 100% of side paving, so they can bring a driveway to the backyard to increase parking in the back. However, they're limited to that sliding scale that is on the first page in section one.

Um, and I excluded pools and retaining walls in this um because it it it's supposed to address the parking areas and the flooding issues. So, there it is. Any questions? I I guess one, why not expand this to non-residential zones too? All residential zones? No, non-residential as well. Hey, this is a very good idea. Why not? So, I think residential should be addressed separately, but yeah, that that Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Not mean that we should do that right now, but I think as part of the recommendation is that to support this. Yeah. I imagine

for a suggestion that we also consider applying similar standards for non-residential uses as well. Noted. I agree. I think the commercial we'd probably allow for a little bit more paving because we do require Yeah. So, we'd have to, you know, separate ordinance, but I agree. Yeah. For storm water management, they don't have to always have a um, you know, catch base in a hardcape or a grayscape. They could do bio retention facilities, uh, grass swailes, a variety of changes. So, but yeah, I'm not suggesting to hold this up, but maybe part of the recommendation is to also have them ask maybe we could craft something to generate something for non-resident uses as well. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.

All right. Um, let's start with section two for a second. Section two creates a definition of hardscape which includes all man-made features but excludes retaining walls in pools. Are we excluding the main structure of the property as well? No, it includes the structure sheds, garages and part paved areas, uh sidewalks, uh walkways and driveways. Perfect. So, I don't know if we should include sidewalks because sidewalks are going to be within the public right of way. Yeah. When I said sidewalks, I was I was trying to think of the word walkway. Absolutely.

Yeah, it says it says walkways there. Okay. Yeah, I'm fine with that. Okay. Okay. And I agree. I think pools should be excluded. I mean, you want to have a pool, you have a pool, right?

All right. Now, Bren, can you can you walk us through the table? So, there's two category or yeah, two categories for substandard laws. Uh 60% and 50%. So that the reason those are higher is because the state has the law that you're allowed to equally proportionate lesser setbacks as your law is under size. So by nature of that law, those lots are going to have more impervious surface because the structures are going to be larger or take up more of a percentage of the lot I should say, not larger necessarily. Um and then three is when you get to the sub or the the standard size lots and that is 8,000 to 12,000 which is single family size lots and 12,000 to 19,000 gets to the duplex size lots and then the 20,000 and above is for multifamily size lots. So I kind of did it by uh the way the the dimensional tables laid out for single family, duplex and multif family.

Okay. So the percentages for one and two, first of all, one and two are substandard lots period just by the the lot area indicated in the table. Correct. And the maximum hardcape for one and two was determined by we're adop we're basically referencing or adopting state state law. Correct. So is that what you said? So it accounts for the state law. Okay. It's not It doesn't like mirror any state laws with the percentages, but it accounts for a larger percentage of the law being developed because the new state law allows it.

Understood. Okay. And then so then blanket statement for all these percentages. These percentages um are a result of a study of um setbacks for each lot size. and the ability for somebody to construct a standard size structure of the of the type that the zone allows plus additional hardscape for standard hardscape areas of that use.

Yeah. So, let's say um you have a 20,000 square foot lot and that allows you the maximum of 7,000 square ft of house or footprint I should say. You can have you know two stories, three stories up to 35 ft. Okay. Plus paving a driveway and and garage shed. So what you're effectively doing is sometimes there are maximum building coverage and sometimes maximum lot coverage. You're combining the two into one. Exactly. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

And that's always subject to a variance. If for whatever reason you feel that's a hardship and you want to go more than 35% and you want to buy for a variance just like anything else. It's a dimensional requirement, right? Not. One suggestion in section three, just add a comma in between structures and driveways.

Oh yeah, thank you. Yep. What happens with the duplex? So they'd fall under the uh 12,000 to 19 or category 4 or tier 4 I should say as it is on the ordinance and they'd be allowed 35% which is 8 to 12.

So duplexes are this I believe the smallest zone allows duplexes on lots 12,000 and then others go up. So I believe RL13 allows them on 16,000 foot lots. uh RL10 allows them on 15,000 square foot lots I believe. Don't quote me on those numbers, but I I believe that if I remember correctly, um those are roughly the numbers. So, it depends on the zone what the duplex lot size would be,

if that makes sense. Could you have a is it possible to have a typical duplex with a double width driveway on either for each unit? Yes. If you're not paving over 40% of the front yard. So let's say you have a 100 width, you can pave 40 feet. That's 20 foot driveways, two of them. So it doesn't matter. You could have a double width or triple width on the other side of single width as long as the collective is no more than 40%. Imperous area is no more than 40% have at it.

Yeah. So that's the front yard. So that's meant to sort of beautify areas, keep cars and paving from the front yards, allow vegetation. It, just for the record, it it also makes our streetways safer as well where you don't have multiple vehicles um side by each coming out into the street. Absolutely. Um it it does I just want to state that it also improves the safety of our roadways. Yep. So, how do we prevent cars from parking on lawn though? Um so, that is part of this. Um where is it? Section two.

Yes. So insert parking shall be limited to surface that meet the paving requirements for parking areas as described in section 704 which requires you know a certain amount of gravel and Yeah. Yeah. But how do you how do you how do you enforce a cart to park there? So I I build a parking area all meets all the specs. I just want to park on the lawn. That's what I'm saying. You're an animal. You have inspectors. So would that be something so that you you could get fined for that? So if somebody drives by the inspector and says you need to park that vehicle, get it off the lawn. Yeah. You know, has that authority to do that? Correct. Who has that? Who has that authority? Oh, I would think the zoning enforcement agent, right?

Yeah. Okay. And the way you become aware of it is by either driving by or you get a complaint. Yeah. So generally it's a by a complaint basis. Um, but a lot of times when our staff members are driving around town, they notice stuff. It's like the trailer, right? It's like the trailer ordinance. Exactly. Right now. Yeah. Yeah. Trailer ordinance, fence ordinance, that kind of thing. Sure. Okay. He's going to be quite busy. He already is. I mean, some communities have the grass can't be any taller than two and a half inches. Like, how do you go and start measuring that all over the place? I mean that that's a full-time job for a we're not doing that

whole No, no, no. Not here. I'm just saying is like how do you enforce that? Places like Lexington and Conquer, they have maximum height and if you don't cut your lawn, you get fine. But I'm just saying we have a maximum height. Who goes out there and starts measuring stuff? We have we have people that do that, but it's by a complaint basis because we would need, you know, 100 people that that's a full-time job for 100 people driving around all day long, you know. Yeah. Okay, that's when it pays to rent. Yeah, I suppose. All right. Does anybody have any other questions for Brent? I'm good. No,

regarding this. Okay. Um, again, this is a recommendation to the town council regarding proposal to amend the zoning ordinance to create design standards for residential zones creating maximum hardscape requirements for both standard and substandard residential lots as amended. Adding that comment to section three. Do I hear a motion? Do I hear a motion? Bill moved. Oh, wow. Everybody, do I hear a second? Second. We have a second. All discussion Just one quick question regarding the recommendation that the city or the town consider developing time out.

Time out. Actually, let's rewind this. Um, I was stating that it's a recommendation. Um, nobody indicated whether or not it was a positive or a negative recommendation in there. So, moving the motion. Oh, okay. So I thought it was implied. My apologies. Yeah. Whoever made the motion if they want to amend their motion to include that. I'll in the positive or that including Yeah, I'll amend I'll amend my the motion to be in a positive recommendation. Okay. Before we second it, you have a question.

Yes. is we discussed that we also consider adopting similar requirements for non-residential use. Should that be part of the recommendation or should that be separate? Should that be part of the motion? Do we have to advertise that if we make that a um separate? I mean, I don't I don't I think it's bid. I I So, why don't we do this? Why don't we just make this noted? I don't think Yeah. And could we just ask Brent to send a letter to say planning board also thinks that we should do the same thing for non-residents who use as a separate matter?

Well, why can't Let me ask you this. So, why why can't we recommend that you pursue um writing that why does it have to can't we ask you to write um you can a change to the zoning? Yeah. I'm just not sure if it can be discussed at this meeting per se, can it? Why not on the agenda? So we could actually write a draft report and put it on the agenda. We discussed the draft report which is a draft recommendation on how to regulate the same thing for non-residential use. So as long as it's on the agenda.

Yeah, we can do that. I will say um I do have an ordinance written to require a 15% landscape requirement for commercial. Yeah. Instead of the 5% that's currently required. So that is coming down the pipeline shortly. Okay. Well, it sounds like you've already gotten started. Yes, I I can add it to that. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Design standards for commercial. Yeah. Okay. So, we So, that doesn't have to be added to the motion. Correct. So, we have a motion uh positive recommendation. Do I hear a second? Second. Second. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion passes. Um do we have any staff report, Brent? Not this month. All right, great. We are uh working with Weston Samson again to revise our zoning ordinance. Um we got MTAP funds and we're going to MTAP MTA and uh we're going to be well the focus on it is supposed to be to increase densities around transit oriented areas. Um so we're going to be focusing on that but we're also going to try to clean up as much as we can that kind of fits the bill. if you will. So, um, so yeah, that's you pay them. I think it was a h 100,000.

So, let me just throw this out there. We we adopted our transit oriented development in in my city. We did that all in house. Why are we paying these folks $100,000? It was uh MTAP funds. They uh they gave it to us for free. So, they didn't even give us money. They just gave us the $100,000 worth of work for free. Yeah. Right. So, it's a pass through. So they pay them directly and they work. Correct. That's what we did with the uh the comprehensive plan, too. That I can understand. I mean, there's a lot to that. But to write an ordinance, $100,000 for an ordinance. That's ridiculous. That is absolutely ridiculous. That's what we did it all in house.

That's what the state said was the price of the project. So that's what they paid him. It wasn't our decision on how much. Yeah. No. No. I No. As long as I mean it's still taxpayer money, but it is long as it's not a local appropriation. That's ridic Oh my god. I know Sims is probably going to hate me for saying that, but it is what it is, right? Ridiculous. There's certainly a lot of stuff that can be done in house that I don't take that the wrong way. I'm just saying. Um but anyway, all right. The time is 10 9. I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. Second. Oh, you're rusty. So moved. Yes. Yes. Do I hear a second? Second.

All in favor? I. Any opposed? None. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned. There's not clock. Yes, please. The file. How do you put a video on file? I've never had that happen. You should You should You can upload a video to the portal, correct? Yeah. Should I just have him do it on the portal? I would have either him upload it to the portal or if he wants to give you a flash drive. All right. Or whatever. And then you upload. So Dave, he's gonna send it to you and he'll send it to me. Yeah, he's leaving for Florida. And by uploading Dave, you can upload it. I'm just send

um and then I would also just Does the does the applicant get notified about the portal? Like did they would they be able to see what's in there? It's so new to me. I don't know if they see it. I would just also send them the letter. And the video. Yeah. So they have it like they can view it. All right. Yeah. Nice work on the work, Gary. Yeah. Thanks a lot, Gary. That really walk over and see and uh talk to you later, brother. You see what see what he's talking Mark.

Bye Steve. Hi everyone. Bye Mark.