Planning Board - Regular Meeting

This meeting will come to order. This is a regular meeting of the planning board. The first item on the agenda is the uh approval of minutes. We have three sets of minutes. uh one for the regular meeting of April 8th, one for the uh special meeting on April 3rd and the special meeting on May 1st. Does anyone have any comments on the um I have a comment on the the third set. So if someone would make a motion to u accept the first two. Motion made.

Second. Motion is made and seconded to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of April 3rd and the special meeting second I just special meeting of I'm sorry the regular meeting of April 8th special meeting of April 3rd there any discussion all those in favor say I

I oppose nay chair votes I those minutes are approved And um I have a motion to uh accept the minutes from the special meeting of May 1st. Motion made. Motion is made and seconded. Approve those minutes. Um thank uh the maker and seconder of the motion to consider these comments. uh at the at the very end, Ron, um that last paragraph. Sorry, what does it say? Sorry, that better. That better. Thank you. Um the last paragraph should be stricken because the meeting had been closed before that. So may I um is the maker and secondary of the motions willing to accept that change?

Yes.

Okay. So I have a motion to accept the minutes as amended from the special meeting of May 1st. There any further discussion? All those in favor say I. Oppose nay. Your votes I. Those minutes are approved. Next item on the agenda is correspondence. We have three items for correspondence. First item is a decision of the administrative officer dated April 7th, 2026. Application of Timothy and Connie Barlo combined preliminary and final plan approval for a three lot minus subdivision property located at three Wobbaso Terrace. Further identified as tax assesses plat 113, lot 21H. We have a motion to receive that correspondence.

Motion made. Motion's made and seconded to receive that correspondence. Any discussion? Those in favor say I.

Move. Nay. That correspondence is uh received. Second one is a memo of the town plan dated April 8th, 2026 concerning an administrative subdivision application of the the Natpsis Trust. I apologize if I did not pronounce that correctly. And the Terry H. Morganthaler Revocable Trust involving properties located at 738 Indian Avenue and 275 VCluse Avenue and further identified as lots 47 and 705 on assessor's plat 129. May I have a motion to receive that correspondence?

Motion made. Motion is made and seconded to receive that correspondence. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. Approved. Nay. That correspondence is received. Third is a memo of the town plan dated April 14th, 2026, an administrative subdivision application of Kuryaki Kuryakades involving properties located at 21 Casey Drive and further identified as lots 20 and 4D on assessor's plat. We have a motion to receive that correspondence. Motion made.

Motion is made and seconded to receive that correspondence. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. Those opposed? Nay. Motion passes and that correspondence is received. Next item on the agenda um our agenda modifications. Um this evening items 4B, 4 C and 4 D will be continued. So they will not be uh discussed this evening. Um I would like to um discuss these before we deal with um item 4 A. However, uh item 4B is the um uh application of Sweet Berry Farm. Um and is there someone here to represent them? Mr. Galvin.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Galvin from Sweetberry Farm. Um my understanding is that um because of the expected turnout that we um expect for this discussion that uh the planning board would like to schedule this for a larger venue in a special meeting to deal with this item only. Um I think Ron has done a poll and do we have a date? Right. So, we did pull the board um and the date that works best and also works for the applicant is July 15th. July

July 155. Yes. So, the um I've contacted the school department to confirm that the God middle school is available that night and it is. I've al also contacted our AV consultant uh who's will be doing the recording of the meeting and they are also available that night. So that is the suggestion that um tonight you continue that matter uh to July 15th 6:00 p.m. at the Gard Middle School in the cafeteria and and that is okay with you. I understand you have to agree to this as well.

Yes. No objection. And um I I also understand that um we are still expecting a document from the objectors and we expect that will be submitted by July 1st. That's my understanding. Is that correct?

Yes. The representatives for various objectors had previously indicated or or there was an understanding that they would submit memoranda by May 7th, one week in advance of this evening. Um that didn't occur. Uh, and now the representatives for the objectors have indicated that they're willing to submit um that material by July 1st. Um, I don't know if that's enough time for the applicant to respond before the 15th, but I'll leave that to uh your discretion, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jordan, I'm sorry, Mr. Galvin. Well, uh, you know, obviously that would be a submission date just before a holiday weekend. I would ask for the ability to at least have I don't think I can promise I can turn that around.

Yeah, we need we need to get it a week before. Sorry. Well, I'm telling you, I don't know that we can do that. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Just one second. I know this is just a procedural discussion and not on the merits, but due to the ruling of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission, I should recuse myself even from this. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, Charlie. Thank you. I think the you know the solicitor can probably answer this better than I can, but I think the issue is that we cannot force the opposing attorneys to submit at, you know, at a particular date. Um, but I think we probably request that they submit um prior to July 1st. Can we can we make that request?

Yeah, absolutely. There's no the problem is there's no requirement for objectors or their representatives to submit any legal briefing whatsoever. Um they just indicated that they intended to do so and knowing that um it's very helpful for the orderly administration of the planning board's business

to have it timely and with enough time to let the applicant respond as well. And especially if we're putting this in a different venue in a special meeting date, we don't want to have to re reschedu that because of a submission that comes in only days uh before the hearing. Um, now I know that typically um the board likes all materials one week in advance, but if it's a legal filing or or a memo of legal issues, I I would be happy to get Mr. Galvin's material by July 10th, which is the Friday uh before the hearing. I don't know if that's possible. Um,

well, the planning board needs it a week ahead of time, though. Correct. But I I mean otherwise we're going to get in a situation where a filing comes in and we need uh to allow everyone the opportunity to respond to that then then we're going to need to reschedule the hearing, you know, and it's not desirable for anyone. Can you get it to uh your response to Mr. Monty by the 10th? I would request the 13th if we're going to stick to a first deadline which would give me that weekend following the holiday. Then you're not giving the planning board much time to look it over the look over these documents.

Well, I just want to point out the the objectors suggested they'd be filing legal memoranda I think about two months ago. The application hasn't changed and now there's I I understand first. Yeah. and we're talking about a week for me. Yeah, I understand. And there's going to be multiple briefs and that's just me. So,

and I I guess I'll I'll add this, Mr. Chairman. If if the document that's being filed is a legal document, if my office gets any response by the 13th before, you know, midday on the 13th, I'll be in a position to advise the board at the meeting on the 15th as to the merits of those. Um, and it's largely a document that the solicitor's office will need to review.

Are the rest of you okay with Joe? No, I just find it reasonable to maybe request if they were going to have a a document ready here in early May and now it's shifting out to mid July or early July, July 1st and that holiday week nothing gets done uh fourth of July. Um why can't why can't we request the objectors to get that mid mid June? That seems very reasonable to me. You absolutely can. It's just there's no uh particular mechanism of that. So, so we can ask.

So, I I think it would be prudent to request that the objectors representatives uh submitted earlier, but that no if it comes in on the first then I think it would also be let the applicants attorney submit by the 13th. Admittedly, that's only two days before the hearing, but I know that my office and the solicitor's office.

Okay. So, um if okay with the rest of the board like to request that um uh we ask the objectors attorney to submit it um by say June 20th. June 20th.

And u if um they cannot do that then no later than July 1st and then if you could get your comments no later than the 13th to Mr. Monty that would be okay. endeavor to do that. I'm just going to put on the record right now if there is a, you know, a title wave of briefs filed and it's clear that I'm going to need more time to respond to that than I have. I'm gonna Yeah. Well, you can let you can let um Mr. Tamonte and Ron know about that and then we would have to reschedu again.

Yeah. And also the ability for us to continue to July 15th with the cooperation of the applicant certainly needed. It's a reasonable request based on what's filed. So the the the uh continuence uh of this matter to um to July 15th is subject to the condition that there's adequate time to review legal that can't have a condition. You're you're continuing to that date. That's the date. Can't have a It's between now and

all right. So if if if it turns out that this information comes in short notice, we will deal with it then and request to and I'll communicate these directives about u requested deadlines for the filing of so-called legal memoranda whatever they are um to the objectors. Yeah. So, so either you or Ron will notify the attorney for the objectives of what we're discussing? Yes. Okay. That okay with the rest of the board? Yes, sir. Okay. Then may I have a motion to continue this to the a special meeting on July 15th? Motion made. Second. Second.

Motion is made and seconded to continue this item to a special meeting on July 15th. 6 pm at Gordai Middle School at the Gord Day at the Gord Day School. Yes. Thank you. 6 p.m. Gord or Fenway is that it's really gets big. We'll have to go to Fenway. Gord. Is there any discussion on this motion? Those in favor say I. I. Nay.

This item is continued to special meeting on July 15. Thank you. Now that uh our other two members have returned, may I have a motion to continue items uh 4 C and 4 D to the next regular meeting on June 10th? So moved.

Second. Motion is made and seconded to continue items uh 4 C and 4 D to the next regular meeting on June 10th. Is there any discussion? Those in favor say I. Oppose nay. Your votes I. Motion passes. Those two items are continued to June 10th. Next item on the agenda is item 4A, the public hearing request of Melo Realy, Inc. Owner and Codington Cove Land Condominium Association applicants for a waiver from design standard section 521.2.Ctown rules and regulations regarding the subdivision and development of land. for use of exterior building materials, vinyl siding not meeting design requirements. Property is located at 300 Cington Highway tax assessors plat. I believe the public hearing is still open. Yeah, Mr. Galvin.

Mr. Chair, members of the board, Gerard Galvin for Melo Realy Inc. and Cington Cove Land Condominium Association. speaking to the mic. Is this any better?

Yeah. Okay. I I think they've modified it. You have to be up close to the mic to work properly. Do my best. Can you hear me? Okay. So, this hearing opened in at the February meeting, and I understand that we have a few different board members present tonight than were present at that meeting. I'm not sure if those who weren't here that night have had the chance to review the testimony and the hearing that was presented um on that night. Let me ask a question. Ron uh circulated a link to the video. So, did anyone everyone watch the video? Yes, sir. I was personally at that meeting. So,

I do remember you being there. Oh, they've seen the video.

Very good. Um, out of an abundance of caution, we have Jay Grover here from Spencer Mcome's office. Spencer was here. Obviously, you've watched you were here or saw the video and he provided testimony at that hearing about the compliance or good planning practice to qualify for the waiver we discussed. I do have Jay here if there are any questions on that point or if we need to hit anything that we hit at that hearing. But I want to start tonight to you know jump ahead a little bit because we left that meeting with a task assigned to us uh to go look into a compromise that had been proposed by the chairman. That compromise was to allow the first building to remain as is, but to build out the remaining three with u fully compliant materials and on the spot we didn't know what the cost implications of that would be. You asked us to look into that. So we did. We left that meeting. Uh I I believe the compromise was to to use composite material because there are other compliant the composite material, correct? On the full building as opposed to just on the front of the facade, which is what was part of the plan and what what has been completed on uh on the first building. Our principles, members of the LLC are here, Will Lopes and Ed Lopes. They looked into that, talked about it with their contractors and and vendors. The cost of that would be about $93,000 more than to do it with the vinyl and that is cost prohibitive from their perspective on that element. So I wanted to address the compromise that you had offered right out of the gate. Uh the second thing I want to bring up is

since that hearing many I think maybe 12 or more letters of support from a butters or or occupants of the facility talking about how they much prefer the aesthetic look of what is there to what would likely go up in its place the metal vertical siding. Uh, so that's new in your file. And the last thing I wanted to address before we get into any further dialogue or questions, we can again have additional testimony if you like. At the February hearing, probably the biggest um point of contention or concern was this idea of modifying this waiver would lead to some presidential binding result on the planning. And I advocated that night that, you know, that's not the case. All of these matters when they're before you are handled on an individual basis. And we talked about hypotheticals. We talked about the facts of this case. I want to just reiterate that. I know that has been a concern and I I think particularly for the chair and since that time we've had dialogue with the solicitor as well and I I think he's prepared to opine on that and back up the proposition that there is no binding precedent from this case. you would handle any circumstance like this as you would this one hopefully which is to hear the circ facts and circumstances how we got into this position whether or not the solution that's being proposed is better than status quo which which I think the facts have borne out in this case because all of the planning board members who were here uh at the February

meeting expressed on the record they found the vinyl was more aesthetically compliant with the town standards. That wasn't the issue was the presidential value impact. And so before we dive into the merits, because I think most of the board members who were here were on board and expressed um that this is actually an improvement to the approved plans is whether we could just address that presidential issue out of the gate. Um, so to the extent that the um the board would like to hear the the opinion of the solicitor's office on this question

always

um I I did review this matter with the town's uh lead solicitor Peter Rean and um whether there would be any presidential value uh in or or or precedent created by the allowance of this waiver and future waivers for uh vinyl siding. And um the answer to that question is that you need to evaluate this particular request for modification on its own merit and and every case is different. So just because you allow vinyl in one incident under a particular set of facts, what happened here with the the mistake that was made uh which by all accounts appears to have been a good good faith mistake. Um that doesn't necessarily mean or wouldn't compel you to uh have to grant vinyl siding in any case that comes before you. It has to be on the particular facts of the case and whether the applicant has shown that they have met the standard to be granted a modification and that's a decision for this board uh to make. Um but the solicitor's office does not feel that the board needs to be particularly concerned with uh the presidential uh value of allowing vinyl under one very particular set of circumstances.

Thank you. a second. Um, that is an an opinion, not a directive. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Comments from the community. All right.

I'd like to go back to that because the issue is here. Not if it's paper shame or whatever the material is. It's the process. The normal process to get a waiver is you ask for it first and when it's given to you, you you take you do what you need to do or you don't get it approved and you don't do that. So I think that's the thing that's people here interested in. Something's being done and then we when we think about it later, we're going to grant the waiver. That's not the way it should work. Now, uh, I would ask Gerard here. You've already completed the first building and sold it, correct? The units are occupied.

Yeah. And you have tenants in them. Yes. And they're satisfied and happy with vinyl. Correct. They are. As are everybody that we've spoken to in the residential neighborhood. Okay. And stay in the real world. If the coun if we tonight decided not to allow you in the rearview mirror toh do that because we don't give you the waiver uh you would have to take down the existing vinyl and then put something else up. Correct. the case would be the metal sighting very

which in the real world I would find that kind of dumb because it's cost an awful lot of money and compromise was not to remove the vinyl from the existing bill

well and that's fine yeah I it's uh I'm not we're not talking about the compromise here Mr. And we we looked in good faith right um at at the compromise the the expense of putting the composite on the remainder it's too great in their mind. So we we return tonight and reiterate our request for the modification to the waiver and again terms of looking at it on the individual merits of this case. You know, this isn't a case where the request to modify the waiver is a request to get further away from tax. What what we think we're asking for is is a modification to the waiver to bring us closer to complying with standards. Um because as was testified to by Spencer and and Jay will reiterate this if you'd like him to, but what has been built is far closer to the New England aesthetic and style that the uh design standards of the town call for than what was previously approved in uh here with the waiver that we have metal. So So it's only in that factual context that we come and ask for the modification. You wouldn't be asking for a modification to make a lesser project.

Other comments? I got one more. Go ahead. All right. And then Joe, so the other thing the building inspector came out to inspect the the process and the finished product, didn't he?

He did. And he also reviewed the building permit u request for cos that uh or the building permit application which yes he he did inspect. Now would they have had the ability and authority to say that's not correct that's not what was in the original plan and you have to do that. But he didn't say anything about the vinyl did he? Well, the answer to that is no, and I don't want to cast Lane. No, I get that. But he did the You got the CO and the permit, correct? That's right. Okay. Thank you.

It it could have been caught earlier. There was a mistake made to do the right thing by uh correcting it, Joe. And then Charlie.

Yeah. Um, I sat here in February, I believe, and listened to the uh the um discussion about the situation that unfolded with this building. Um, and I echo some of the sentiments of our chairman and his concerns. Um, for the record, I don't necessarily agree with the path of an applicant requesting permission for for their application and then coming back and asking for forgiveness. So, that's just for the record. Um, I understand the outlooks on the precedent setting nature of this and I think I I I can um get in line with that and agree. Um, I guess the the last point I want to make is I wonder if there's some other compromise that we're just not thinking about. I think nobody's going to debate today the merits of the design aesthetics, you know, the vinyl sighting versus the metal. the aesthetics are what they are arguably better but in lie of the I guess the transgression I'm just wondering is there some other compromise that we haven't explored or that we can look at for the additional buildings that won't be a $93,000 hit to the ownership maybe it's um looking at are there other ways we can improve some of the landscaping there something that's come up since you've developed the project that we're not thinking about and I don't necessarily have the answer but I think it should be investigated further. I just understand issue

and this Is it Thank you. Um, with respect to Joe's uh, suggestion or question, I just wanted to ask Mr. Galin if the $93,000 could be put in context for us. Is 93,000 three times as much as what it would cost to do it in vinyl as was suggested at the February meeting or might it be only five or 10% more because I think that might

that impact people that's in addition to what proceeding with the vinyl would cost am I misunderstanding your question? Yes. So if um if um if vinyl for three buildings would be $50,000 and composite would be $143,000, that is compelling because it's very expensive. But if it's just a little bit more, it's less compelling.

Ask for a little more detail that break Okay. Mr. Hutler the uh lopes who who are here and they can answer any questions directly but they indicate to me that the vinyl per building basis would be about 17 to 18,000 and the composite would be in the range of that 40 to

45 so it is more than twice as expensive two and a half times okay that's I think very helpful information. Thank you.

All all I wanted to say is I I think that precedent is an important thing and I'm going to echo Charlie and and take these projects on an individual basis. You know, I think that's important to do, but I think the worst outcome that we could possibly have tonight from my personal aesthetic, you know, what do we find pleasing is going back to that metal siding. Like what do we want realistically on the side of this building? Whatever comes with this board, we don't want to go back in my opinion to metal signing because vinyl is realistically more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. Okay, these are my comments. Uh, Mr. Alman. Um, first of all, let me say when I when I put the um alternate uh approach on the table, what I was hoping for is that you would come back with some kind of a compromise between the two extremes. I gave you a pretty extreme position. You have one. I was hoping you'd come back, but you didn't do that. So, let me tell you uh how I view this. First of all, uh I don't think there is anyone who would argue that the vinyl doesn't look better than the metal siding would. But that is not the issue. The issue is not how the building looks. The issue is this. You came in requesting a waiver in order to apply metal siding. That was approved. You then went off and uh on your own or project teams decided to put a different material on one that that not only was not approved, but the material is not even allowed by Middletown ordinances. I if you wanted to go to an alternate material, you could have picked an alternate material that is allowed by the ordinance, but you didn't. You chose

one that was not allowed by the ordinance. So, um I'm uh u and in, uh in light of what uh the solicitor told us, while I agree every every case should be uh addressed independently and separately, to me, a precedent is still a precedent. It may not be binding, but it's a precedent. And there's nothing in my opinion that would stop future applicants from coming in and doing exactly what you did, whether it was intentional or not. So I will still be opposed to this. And what I really hope is that you would find some middle a middle ground to compromise on.

I'm sorry, maybe we misunderstood. What were you looking for? A different material. We Yes. I I mean there are other materials that are allowed by the town ordinances. You could have picked any one of those. They're less Some of them are less expensive than the composite material. Well, we were tasked with leaving here and getting I I understand, but in the past that doesn't prevent an applicant from coming back with a compromise suggestion. That's what I was hoping you would

I look I I'm sorry if we didn't realize you were looking for something that wasn't expressed. We went out and got the information that we were asked to get. Um and you know we're many months later they're close uh to needing sighting on number two on on building number two. And I think again we can all agree I I I think it is the issue what's best for Middletown here to go to metal or to modify the waiver that was already granted have an improved project. I think that's exactly what this is about. Well, the the the point is though, um, you were approved to put up metal siding and you put up something else and that something else is not even an allowed material.

Well, again, Mr. Chairman, you're you're we're hearing this as though this was some intentional runaround. No, no, no. I I I didn't say it was done intentionally, and quite honestly, I don't think it was. That's not That's not the issue. Well, we we we're up here charged with uh making sure that the town ordinances are compliant. That's our job.

Well, respectfully, you you have a job to review these applications and enforcement is handled by another branch. And when we uh realized that the mistake had happened, good faith mistake,

we engaged in the process that is established try to correct it. We're going to rise or fall tonight. It's going to there's going to be a vote. We've either proved that this is an appropriate waiver, which Spencer testified to at the last hearing. Everybody um who spoke on this at the last hearing expressed that this is more compliant with town standards. So, what I'm hearing is there's a vote that uh Excuse me. I I don't see this as being compliant with town standards. Why is this compliant with town standards? more compliant than the waiver that was previously granted.

I don't see that either because that waiver was approved and and a material was installed that is not even allowed by town ordinance. What the testimony is that this has what we are seeking.

I ask you this uh what I would really like is to come to some compromised position. So the the question is do we vote on this tonight or would you like to consider a further compromise? I don't question my clients told me they they don't have time. They they are in process. They need to continue this process deciding on building number two.

Well, we have a planning process also that we have to follow. I understand, but we've made I think let me know. They're ready to put the metal on because that's where we're at. They have to keep moving with their project. Take the metal off the existing one if that's where we are. But we we've gone through this process of trying to correct this. I think we've established the criteria for it Spencer's test and respectfully we're we're asking that it be granted. If it can't be then we'll have to take other action.

Well, I I would like him to if if if you do not want to consider a further compromise, then we will vote on it. If you do not want to consider a further compromise, then we'll take a a vote. I think we have to take a vote. Okay. So, may I have a motion to approve the waiver as requested? Mr. Chairman, have that motion, please? I I have a second. Second. There any discussion?

Yes. I would like to modify the motion to that we approve the application of Melo Realy Inc. for the waiver of the design standards to allow vinyl siding on the remaining three buildings. with the stipulation and understanding that it is due to the unique circumstances in which we find ourselves and that no precedent should be inferred there from.

Just to be clear, the waiver that's requested is for all all four buildings. Oh, you you said the three are remaining. It's actually all all four. Okay. Excuse me. I'd like that motion. Hold on a second. Hold on. We have a motion that has been requested to be amended.

Well, one person so far. You were the second. Okay. So, okay. So, the uh since the motion maker and the secondary have accepted the amendment, we have a motion to approve the waiver request as amended. By the way, even know that it's acceptable to them. Is that acceptable to you? Okay. So, we have this motion. Um, is there any further discussion?

The only thing I would say uh Steve is that um I don't know how you can how you can ignore just by saying this one is not a president. It's still a precedent. We're we're making clear to future applicants and uh misbehaved parties or whatever that these circumstances are unique. We view them as unique and we certainly do not intend to say simply because Melo was able under these circumstances to get vinyl too. We're saying we don't accept that and we're clear because it's part of the vote. Well, if um you just use some wording that I wish you would put into the amendment that what is being done is not that makes a big difference to say that further discussion Yeah, I'm disappointed nobody's picked up on my hint for a remedy of, you know, to uh follow along with Steve's good, you know, recommendation, but can there be some remedy that addresses maybe some additional landscaping? I'm not talking again about $93,000. I'm not talking about $50,000. I'm talking about a good faith effort to try to bridge the transgression as it's been described.

We have a motion before us any further discussion. So I'm going to ask you to repeat the condition that we put on here.

It's a motion to approve. So the so the motion is to approve the request of Melo Realy Inc. for a waiver from section 521.2. C of the Middletown rules and regulation to allow the use of exterior vinyl siding on the four buildings. Um notwithstanding that they do not meet uh current um Middletown uh rules and regulations, um with the further understanding that it is due to the unique circumstances of this application surrounding this application and that the board intends no inference of a president with respect to any future applicant. Is that

I would I would just reason if you make that decision reason because of the evidence. Okay. We we preface the motion with uh based on the um testimony heard in the case from the applicant and the expert and based on the site visit dot dot dot

absolutely I I think that you know you're making it clear and issuing decision that it's very unique circumstances in this request for modification and the evidence that was before you and you're charged with making decision based on the evidence for you and evaluating that against that second

that so we are voting on this motion as amended Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Oppos? Nay. Nay.

And the chair votes A. Motion passes 42. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is item 5A. Public hearing. application of 50 enterprise residence residences LLC for master plan approval for a major land development project involving proposed construction of seven office buildings totaling 9,380 square ft of office space and including associated site work such as redesign of on-site parking, storm water management and landscaping and uh and landscaping. The property is located at 50 Enterprise Center and identified as lot 15F on tax assessors plant 113. We have a motion to open the public hearing.

Motion granted. Motion is made and seconded to open the public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. Oppos? Nay. Public hearing is open. Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Jay Lynch on behalf of the uh the owner and applicant of this project. Uh this evening I do have our engineer Molly Titus who is here to answer any questions and also Mr. Bisho the principal of the project is uh on line somewhere so he's available to answer any questions as you may have he's there he just needs to unmute if he wants to speak.

Okay. Um this is a project 50 uh 50 Washington Square 50 Enterprise Circle uh right around the corner uh to construct a two triplexes in a separate single building in the uh west parking lot of the existing property. Uh it's all black topped. Molly will go over that this is going to uh decrease the imperous surface area on the subject site. Uh the additional proposed use is for office space which is permitted by right. Uh we comply with all the parking requirements under the Middletown zoning code for the office use. As everyone's aware that ultimately this will be converted down the road uh to an adaptive reuse project. Um the process that we have to go through to get to that point. So even when we get to the adaptive reuse stage, the parking requirements are going to be even less than what's being proposed right now. But there is ample parking on the site for the office use and then for the ultimate residential use. I know we had a site visit uh or so ago. There were many questions. I rather than listening to me, I have Titus here who can answer any questions that you may have about storm water. There is a uh narrative that was submitted with this application. Mr. Bich was also available to answer any questions that you may open it up to questions from the I have some comments and questions.

Um, first of all, am I correct in saying that the U technical review committee will do this again during the preliminary stage? Um, on the master plan narrative, Jay, um, I have some comments. Would you like Miss Titus to address those questions that you have? I can bring her up. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry.

Please identify yourself.

Molly Titus Depre Engineering. um on the master plan narrative document. page two in the third paragraph the statement that the uh site is currently zoned GBA and on um page 10 it says it's zoned OBA which is Oh. Um,

I really should be asking Ron. It's OBA. Say based on our site plan, it says OBA as well. This plan on the top right corner, but I'm sorry. Could you speak up?

It says OBA on the plans as well, but I'm not confident as to which one is correct. Please note the discrepancy in that report on page um 11 where you're talking about water demand uh the statement is made that um water usage is roughly the same as sewer usage but in other studies that come before us we're told that water uh sewage is typically 80% of water usage. So that would increase the amount of water usage if we apply that rule to what you're saying here. Is that is that a potential problem?

Um we can review with the water department. We did review um the demands for both this use and the potential future use and the water usage for the future use is considerably higher and that was acceptable as well. Newport water has approved. Yeah, we have a well- served letter for this project. I'm drawing C5. Bring that up. Run. G5. That's G5.

Yeah, that's one that's on the screen. Okay. Okay, up in the um up in the upper leftand corner it says that the uh existing pavement and curbing is to be removed. Yes. What will take its place?

The area arounding around the buildings around the perimeter will also be um landscaped in grass. Um, after the technical review committee, I did review with the fire chief and we're going to have an access on the southern border. Yeah, I don't can't get any closer. Going to eat the thing. Um, after the technical review committee, we reviewed with the fire chief and we're going to have an access along the southern property line. The existing arborites will remain. It's probably going to be a grass pave strip. So, the whole area will still look to be grass, but there'll be reinforced turf behind for fire. Yes. But what reinforced turf for fire? Reinforced turf. Yes. So

what is that? Um it's called grass pave and it's um reinforced plastic beneath grass that gets mowed and maintained like grass, but the fire department can drive on it. So they'll have a safe passage to that rear building. So presumably when you um come in for preliminary that'll be specified. Correct. Yes. And will there be any mechanicals on the roof these buildings? I'm being told yes. They'll be shielded.

They'll be shielded. Are they on the roof though or or or are they interior? You know. Well, there will be one or the other. Is that correct? Okay, Joe,

I do have some questions for the engineer. I have three. First of all, under sewage disposal, you talk about a total of a maximum of 126 employees. Understanding this is going to pivot to residential. Um what is what's the difference between the proposed this 126 at maxity and what's contemplated for you know residential shift to residential? That's question number one. My second question is regarding the existing storm water management. Is anything going to be done or you just going to tap into what's there and call it a day? And the third question is regarding the um the landscaping. Can you describe if any uh differences between an office use and pivoting to residential? Does that result in any change in landscaping coverage, pvious and perous areas, etc.

Okay. Um question one I will have to get back to you on. I don't know off the top of my head. Question two was the stormwater system is existing. There's catch basins throughout the parking lot. We're actually locating the buildings to not interrupt the existing drainage. Um but the existing stormwater basin will now be about twice the size it needs to be based on the reduction in impervious. And thirdly, um a planting plan will be provided during preliminary. And I could have the landscape architect speak to that probably better than me.

And I do have a couple more questions. Um, in the U narrative document again on page 12, you refer to uh the proposed dwellings. I assume you mean the proposed offices. I sure do.

Uh also um in the second paragraph under water quality um you talk about um residues and sediments will be allowed to settle out of the storm water and then be collected during maintenance. Who does that maintenance? Yeah, I mean there's the deep sumps and the catch basins. The catch basins have sumps, so sediment collects in those and those are maintained by the site owner as they are now. I mean, right now during construction, there's um

who cleans it out? Oh, who do they hire? I don't know who they specifically hire, but there's someone Yeah, they have vac trucks that they vacuum things out with. And um will these buildings be sprinklered by a sprinkler? I don't believe so. I don't think this they're large enough to warrant it. I could be wrong. I assume you will follow the codes. The other question,

I just wanted to follow up to Joe's question with respect to storm water management. So I understand your testimony that what was constructed many years ago for this u project should be sufficient. But there have been a lot of um upgrades and improvements in storm water management in the decades since this was uh built along the way of low impact best management practices um rain gardens and the like. When we get the um preliminary plan, my hope is that we will see that it has been updated to reflect current practices. We can look into um improvements. I mean, the existing basin has sufficient capacity and how it's functioning today. we can certainly review prior to preliminary and see if any improvements can be made, but stormwater basins are still used today. Um, it would just be pre-treatment items that we could certainly investigate.

Right. In terms of how it's filtered and so on, I think you'll find this board is um very sensitive to water quality issues relating to storm water runoff.

Thank you. Two quick question. Two quick questions. The roof is flat, correct? In the Yes. And then the drainage is going to be through down spouts in the center with a slight slope, or is it going to be on gutters on the exterior just Okay. Okay. It's not decided. And then the second question I have, and you may not have an answer now, for that grassy patch, is it going to be a step down into it or is it going to be flat and flush with I just don't want the residents tripping, you know, onto that grassy patch?

Right now, this is graded that sidewalks, front doors, and that grass area all flush. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion to give master plan approval to this project. Have that motion. Motion for master plan approval. Motion is made and seconded to give master plan approval. Is there any before you go further? The public hearing is open. You may wish to ask if there's anyone in the public. Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing?

No. No. That you need to invite public input. I'm sorry. Members of the public who wish to speak, please come forward. Anyone online, Ron? Just just just the applicant is online. No public speakers. No. No. Anyone? No. Okay. So, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Thank you. Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. Public hearing is closed. May I have a motion to give master plan approval to this project? Subject to the findings.

Subject to the findings. Yes. Thank you. Motion is made and seconded to give master plan approval subject to the findings to this project. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Oppos? Nay. Your votes I. Motion passes. You all thank you. The next item on the agenda is item 6A, the status report. Does anyone have any comments on the status report?

I have not. Next item on the agenda is committee reports. Recommission BJ is not here. Open space and fields. Charlie. Um, thank you. Um, Conservation Commission, Matt,

um, our plan was to reschedule our meetings that was approved last time to the third Wednesday of the end of the month. Um, I think Melissa is still getting votes on that to make sure we can meet and I will update accordingly, but the goal of that is to have our vote and get the amount of information before we come to this meeting.

Thank you. Middletown Center Citizens Advisory Committee is uh any well the new plan has been presented to um okay I will find out is going to continue that's Melissa also okay I will do Okay.

Um, our uh, next scheduled meeting is the regular meeting on June 10th. And at this point, I usually ask if there are any other items to bring before the board. Um, I have one. Um, you know, recently we had our joint meeting with the town council which I thought went very well. Thank everybody in that. again. Um, I met with Ron afterwards to discuss some action and um, according to Ron, in order to act on these action items, we have to present them to the planning board formally for so that will happen at the next meeting, the June 10th meeting. Uh, and then we can to give you an idea of what uh, we're thinking about. Um you all heard that Matt has a presentation to give on housing. Um there are a couple of items inclusionary zoning and um storm water or wastewater management for which I will be requesting subcommittees and I'll be making appointments to those um at the next meeting. Uh there and there also are um um Ron is uh working on updating. We actually did a onepage sheet for the his preservation of historical re last time. Ron is going to update pager. Any questions on those? Okay. So I have a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion is made and seconded to adjurnn. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. Oppose. Nay.

Meetings adjourned.