Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Everyone, this is a regular meeting of the planning board. Our first item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from the October 8th regular meeting. I have a motion to approve these minutes. Moved. Second. Have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the October 8th regular meeting. Are there any comments for changes, additions, etc.? Not all those in favor say I. I. Oppos? Nay. Board votes. I. Those minutes are approved.

Sorry. Do we have a do roll? We just make sure we have a quorum. Uh next item on the agenda is correspondence and I believe there is no correspondence this evening. Uh next item is uh agenda modifications and um we will be moving items 4B and 5 C to after item 5D. 4B and 5 C after 5D. First item on the agenda uh under old business is is a public hearing application of CGRI Middletown LLC for combined preliminary and final plan approval of a minor land development project for the construction of a 1940 plus or minus square ft bank with a drive-thru PTM lane parking landscaping storm water management utilities and other site improvements and including requests for waiverss from certain provisions of the commercial development design requirements of section 521 of the Middletown rules and regulations regarding the subdivision and development of land including sections 521.1B.1 521.1.e.4 521.3D.1 and 521.3D.3. The application includes requests for special use permits per Middletown zoning ordinance section 602 to allow alteration to an existing shopping center. Section 717 to allow a drive up window and section 1212 to allow a sign 26 ft in height where 10 ft is allowed and 177 square ft

where 80 square ft is allowed. and a request for variance from zoning ordinance section 1305 to provide zero loading spaces where one is required. Property is located at 1400 West Main Road, Tax Assessor's Plat, lot 53A. I have a motion to open the public hearing. So move. Motion is made and seconded to open the public hearing. Is there any discussion? going to recuse myself from this application. Understood. So, is there any discussion on the motion to open the public hearing?

All those in favor say I. Oppose. Nay. Chair votes I. Public hearing is open. Mr. Martin.

Uh yes. Good evening. Uh Mr. Chairman and members of the board. David Martin on behalf of CGRI Middletown LLC, the owner and applicant uh of uh the property located at 1400 West Main Road. Um with me uh this evening I have David Tagleanetti who is with uh CGRI Middletown LLC and the Carponado Group. Uh I also have Renee Kodega who's with VHB and is a professional engineer. Uh the matter before the board uh this evening is uh essentially a a matter or a portion of a matter that was before the board back uh three years ago actually in October of uh 22. This was the subject of a hearing. It was a larger proposal uh at that time. Uh we received a positive recommendation on on the various requests. Uh and at that time uh in that permitting um this board uh uh was not a unified permitting board. Um and so that was a positive recommendation that then went on to the zoning board. The zoning board heard the application uh thereafter and unanimously approved um the application um for a variety of reasons which Mr. Tagaliani will get into. um the uh uh the the property owner didn't proceed with uh uh implementing all of the relief uh that was provided uh in those hearings. And so we're back here to basically um seek to get approval and restore the prior approval for just a couple of portions of what was uh previously approved. Uh so we're looking to uh get approval for

the bank site um as well as the pylon sign um which had both been approved in the the prior permitting. Um because this is classified as a uh shopping center, there's a requirement uh for a special use permit. Um and so we have filed for that. Uh, additionally, uh, there is, uh, the need for the land development approval, uh, under the subdivision regulations. Uh, and there are a number of waivers requested, uh, for that. Um, in large measure, uh, the waivers are necessary because of the existing site conditions. They there are actually existing nonconformities that will continue to exist um throughout the site. Um uh they deal with where the parking is located uh the the bike racks uh and the the landscape buffer in certain areas of the property, but many of those are just the the existing condition um that uh Renee will will walk through and explain each one of those. Um and finally uh that there is the the request to renew the um not finally but there is the request to uh to renew the previously permitted sign. Um initially it had been a 30- foot tall sign and during the course of the hearings it had been reduced to 26 feet in height to replace the existing sign. Uh the final special use permit is for the drive-thru for the bank. Um, all of those were uh the same permits and and waiverss that were requested three years ago. And so we're we're here just really seeking to

renew those or just doing a portion uh of the overall project. Uh with that, I'd like to call David Tagley and Eddie uh who can walk us through sort of the history of of this a bit in a little bit more detail. Uh Uh Dave Tagalinetti with the Copenado Group and for a point of clarification my right on your right is the same plan that is on the screen just a colored rendering of what we're back Um that project consisted of an expansion device of 20,000 square ft of office space for lifespan and retail space out front and head coast bed as a no cost. construction of that project that we needed a design. and we put it out to bed on the fly. But we learned that the project on hold

could afford Unfortunately, the project laid on hold

the long and lifespan backed out of the lease deal with on hold permanently. Uh that was in 2023. In 2024, we negotiated a land sale to Riverhead or a portion of the site for a land condo project. Riverhead owns the entire site except for this front piece here where we own the land rights to build bank. Riverhead may may or may not at some point come back with their own plans to because they're only occupying the back portion of the site as as you know. We still delivery dates bank are out of out of reach. They were years ago. So delivery dates as confident that we'll either come up with an agreement with our motion to have that in place of this department's approvals to advance of this project

or a new lease. Retail waiters development Yes, I'd be happy to answer those. Any questions uh before we get the details? Thank you, Dave. [Music] Over your stuff here.

Hello, Renee Kadigga from VHB. Um as um Mr. Martin had mentioned um I'd like to go over some of the um waiverss that we need for this project. Rene, just before you proceed, if I could ask that uh may be sworn in and recognized as an expert in the field of professional engine. Okay. Any objections to her being an expert? Raise your right hand. Do you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you.

All right. Um so so one of the variances that um well the the one variance that we're seeking here tonight is relative to um loading for this property um in this development and we received the variance in the past and basically for a bank a small bank of this size 1900 square feet um and the use itself just doesn't warrant the need to have a lo a loading space provided for deliveries to a bank. So, we're requesting that um we do not um provide that loading space. So, we're we wouldn't provide any loading for the bank. Um and anything that they do need is small deliveries at any particular time throughout the day. So, it's it's just small deliveries for a bank. Um the other the other item um for waiverss is uh bike racks. So again, we're providing the same number of B bike racks that we provided uh prior on the prior submission to you and uh for the same reason the bank were providing space for two bikes rather than the required eight spaces and that's based on the the eight required per your code is based on the number of parking spaces that you're providing. We feel because it is a bank um two b two spaces for bikes um for the bank is sufficient. So we're asking for that waiver. The um another waiver we're asking for is relative to the landscape buffer along the property line. So along the southern property line um in the entrance drive, that's where the uh that's where the property line is is located. It's going right through the

access drive. There's no way to

Sure. Rene parking the uh property line is located. That's the access not exactly where the and it is an existing condition as well

that that access drive acts as a sort of a common access drive for both the stop and shop parcel as well as um the subject property. Is that

that's right? Yep. So, so um shop plaza here as well as um this and um another another waiver that we're um seeking is parking located um all amount a reduction in in the lastly have a regulation that states around the bank. You can see we of sidewalk and some areas of but where the sidewalk is it's real of years and Um Renee, you were in attendance at the technical review committee hearing. Is that correct?

That's right. And um did the the technical review committee have any uh concerns relative to uh what is being proposed?

Uh no, they did not have any concerns. They did have a comment. Um the the tree committee um requested that we actually reduce the number of trees um that we're providing. So per the zoning code, we are required to have um we're required to have nine trees and we are providing um our plan currently shows 20. So we're going to be reducing it to 17. Why they've requested that is because the location of where we were placed trees took that once those trees Those are indicated in the memo as recommended conditions of approval.

Yeah. Right. Uh other than uh these uh these uh changes and these approvals, there there's really nothing um really that there's changed between these two site plans. Is that that correct? Yeah, that's correct. Um if you really look at the two plans here, um they are in essence the same.

Mike What what was the reason you couldn't provide a a landscape buffer between parking and the building? Did BJ?

Uh, yes. I have a question. It may seem rather silly, but if you could pretend that you are a small car and you you are entering and going to the bank, could you show us exactly how you would get in and where you would park, please? Thank you. Uh, Miss Katiba, I know that um you're not seeking a waiver with respect to storm water management issues, but we you are asking for the landscape buffer um waiver and I wonder if you could since there is such a substantial um storm drain um here. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about it. I noticed in your presentation you talked about low impact development and so on. I wonder if you could tell us about that and what kind of landscape buffer is within the storm water management facility. Pointer is not going to work on the screen. Oh, you can walk over to that screen if you want.

Hold the mic. Hold the mic up, please. This uh large detention base But we're proposing forcate a sand filter in from this portion of the site. and proposing filter that's located discharge. low impact and structural warm water quality. As we're adding square footage of landscaping, we have in store.

Thank you. questions. I don't have any further questions for uh Miss Goda.

Okay. Any other questions from members of the planning board? Um excuse me, sir. Can I just ask Mr. Martin um to describe a little bit about the condominium, land condominium? What aspects of this development is Carponado Group responsible for and which aspects is Riverhead? So for example, the entire rest of the storm water basin is that Riverhead or is that Carponado?

Um now I haven't reviewed the condominium documents recently and this is going back like a year ago. Um David might have a a better understanding. Uh, good evening again, Dave Tagley and Eddie. Um, I believe, Ron, that we submitted the land condominium plans and declaration into the town for for review. So, Riverhead from a land condominium standpoint owns all of the property except for the land around the bank. G

Ron I think there may have been the land condominium unit plans in

yeah submitt that was part of the submitt Ron the plans and also the declaration but so there are access easements there are utility easements as part of the land condominium plans and then the declaration outlines the responsibility of each entity uh that's part of the land condominium who responsible for maintenance, who's responsible for taxes. Um, it's it's a 20page document, but if you have any specific questions, so the stormwater uh area out front that is owned and will be maintained by Riverhead.

So, what we just heard from Miss Katiba, it relates just to the area immediately surrounding the bank basically. I'm sorry. Can you say that again, please? Yes. The the the storm water management features described by Muscatiba are just in the immediate vicinity of the bank which Capionado will own and be responsible for maintaining. Got it. Okay. and the the balance of the larger detention area is part of I believe the a common area for the joint use of both land unit owners,

right? There's a there's a there's a drainage easement like I mentioned. There's a bunch of utility easements. is access easements kind of like a reciprocal easement agreement between two entities that have the right to, you know, passage and to run utilities over each other's properties. Not to overly complicate things, but Dave, this the stop and shop property also has an easement to discharge into that detention basin. Um,

right. I I asked about it because it's such a significant um water basin. But I understand our focus is there's not even a specific waiver here relating to it. And I guess when we get to the sign, we'll want to understand who's responsible for the sign as as well. Yeah. If David, if you can address the um what's being proposed for the sign and and those plans, you can go to the next sheet, Ron. I think that does.

Yeah. So, as um as Mr. Mlin mentioned, the original application, the previous development had a a pylon sign of 30 feet in height. And through your review and approval, um, you requested to reduce that sign to 26 ft, which we did. And that is the it's the 26-foot sign that is part of this application in front of you tonight. So, this is also part of our land condo agreement with Riverhead. Like I indicated before, Riverhead owns the balance of the site and may and probably will at some point come back and redevelop their portion of the site, including the retail development out front here, potential retail and development. So, they wanted the right to have additional um panels on the pyline to advertise for their tenants. So, the way it'll work with this sign, Riverhead will be on the top panel, Bay Coast Bank will be on the bottom panel, and the middle three panels will be reserved for future tenants uh within the Riverhead piece.

Okay. So, um All right. Are we taking up the sign now? Yeah. Okay. So, so just making sure I understand the sort of um leg legal structure. This is the sign for the project that will include Riverhead and the bank and the restaurant and the office. Any potential future development? Okay. Correct.

Um here's what I would ask you to um comment on, Mr. the Teglot Teti which is the um West Main Road of course has um no posity of signage and you you wouldn't exactly call it an elegant uh street to drive down because of the large number of large signs and I believe that um this planning board and the zoning board which also addresses varian ances for signs is beginning to try to um bring it under control a little bit. Right now signs have to be big and large to scream out for attention because all the other signs are uh big and large. But the efforts of this this board and the zoning board have been to um mitigate the need for that by beginning to make them smaller and um a a little bit more elegant. We had a big discussion about that, for example, with respect to Middletown Center and the signage that would be there at the end of West Main Road where it hits um Codington. So, I'm with with that in mind, I'm going to ask you please to um comment on whether or not a sign that it has almost um three times as much um height as allowed by the uh ordinance and more than twice the square footage is really needed. And in answering that, I wonder if you would share with us some data regarding other signs in the area and their heights and and square footages

because this is part part of an ongoing show as you drive down West Main Road.

Understood. So, one of the key words that you mentioned about signage was you're looking to have something that's elegant. I believe that that was your word. Yes, sir. and and we certainly feel that the design that we have with having a uniformed black background and all white lettering. So at night when you drive by this sign, you don't even really see the panels. You just see the the white lighting. Um many signs that you see along East Main or West Main Road have all different colors and different brands from each of the tenants. and we fought very hard with our tenants for this project to have a more unformed and elegant sign. So I think we have an elegant sign as far as the the size of the sign. Um, I believe that in our original application, we did a comparison, a comp of the additional uh of the other signs along West Main Road with developments of similar size. And we believe that this proposed sign is in keeping with the existing signs of developments similar in size um with the sign that we're proposing. That said, um we certainly compromised last time when we were in front of the town with the size of the sign. Um, I can tell you that when we deal with our tenants, with our leasing team deals with our tenants, of which Joe Perrick is is our vice president of leasing, he will tell you that embedded in all of our lease agreements, um, our tenants need and want as much signage as they can out along the

frontage of the roadway, especially when the buildings are sometimes set back a little bit further. My last question, I'm going to turn it back to the chairman. Um, will the bank also have independent signage on the building itself? Yes, in keeping with town requirements without variance, the same size, no larger than allowed under the statute. Correct. The size and the number of wall signs allowed is consistent with what's allowed by zoning. Okay, Leon.

So, directly opposing this sign is the other monument sign for the stop and shop. Correct. On the other side of the entryway. Honestly, I apologize. I am not sure. It's okay. Right. So, there's Stop and Shop, GNC, all the other little um shops in that uh in the in the in the uh Stop and Shop complex around that sign. Do you have any idea how how tall that sign is in relation to what's being proposed here?

You know, offhand, I do not. But again, I I go back to our original application. Um and our proposed sign was was consistent. So I will tell you that that sign is 26 27 28 feet is the existing sign the stop and shop sign. Okay. Yes.

Um for now yes. Okay. No I I I stand corrected. It is only 23 feet and so that times 23 feet. Yep. The the in 126 square feet. Um the Aquinic Center where Shaws is located that is 34T in height and 140 square ft. And then yeah, this is the one I was thinking of the Home Depot site. that pyline uh that monument sign is 29 feet in height and 176 square feet per side in area.

So, so my opinion is that this sign, you know, is I believe it's an improvement designwise of the ex to the existing Riverhead sign. Um, however, I agree with Steve the fact that we've been discussing signage and, you know, in a larger context with other projects and around town. And I just think if anything, it shouldn't tower over the sign next to it. So, because otherwise, we're going to have the sign wars. You know, they did it, they did it, and they get bigger and bigger and bigger. And um to Steve's point as well and to the larger point, it's getting very the area is getting very commercialized with more signage and more signage and more signage. I understand the um need for signage. Obviously, these are businesses. They need some visibility. Um so I'm torn here a little bit. I do like the improvement, but maybe the scale of the sign. I'm not sure where if we've already approved. It sounds like we've there was a

that was a prior application. So consider this a new this is a new application. Yeah. Um now if we were not to approve the sign, are they able to keep the existing sign? It's grandfathered in. They would Yeah, they would be able to keep that and reface it. And reface it and just keep the same footprint kind of that weird jog that it has on the bottom one. Everything stays the same.

Okay. So, I got to think about it, but I'm I'm I'm torn here because I I would like to see an improvement of that sign. I think that is an improvement, but the sign opposing it, I'd like to keep those, you know, at the same scale so one doesn't tower over over the other. That's just my opinion.

I may Oh, I'm sorry. I I I'd like to offer uh I'd like to offer an an alternative. Instead of having one sign 26 feet tall, why not have two signs that are in compliance with the uh town ordinance? You could have one at the entrance, driveway entrance and one, you know, further up uh uh going north on um West Main Road. But that would give you the sign signage space and be in compliance with town ordinances.

Okay. I I I appreciate that. Um the thought I had because I I I understand uh Mr. Arant your your the difference in scale between two signs relatively close to each other. Um we compromised with the town last time we were here. Um we're willing to do so again. Understanding that that sign is is 23 feet, ours is 26 feet. What if we went down to 24 feet? Would you consider two signs that are in compliance? It gives you roughly I would I would not do roughly the same square footage of sign.

I know, but our our tenants always like the sign at the entry point into the facility. If it's beyond the facility entryway or or way before it, um it it's just it's just not favorable for the tenants. They they

and just to add, I don't think Riverhead would agree to that suggestion either. Um so we we can't we we we don't have any authorization to um to agree to to two signs in conformity with particularly with what Riverhead presently has. Again, understanding that the other existing signs are 20, 23 feet, 34 feet, 29 feet, um, we would compromise again and go down to to 24 ft. Well, I mean, you heard Mr. Hutler say that we're trying to bring signage more in into compliance with town ordinances.

Okay. So, just meeting what other signs have doesn't really accomplish the goal that we're trying to achieve. Understood. Understood. Those are existing signs. And I mean, are you going to ask each abuing or ask these owners to modify their signs when they already have a permit that already existing? Well, if their projects ever come up for renovation or something, we could talk with them then at at, you know, at that time about that subject. But we have this opportunity to uh discuss this with you now.

Yeah. I'd like well I guess you know I I understand your um offer um but again I' I'd like to have a discussion about what can we do at the front entrance you know the existing sign location. So I think from a signing standpoint that's where the pylon sign really wants to be. Um I think that's where our tenants would want it to be. So could we come up with a compromise this evening? If we can't if we can't come up with a compromise this evening, then I would just pull this piece of our project off the table tonight. Um, and then we will come back at some future date to discuss this.

Mr. Tagrinetti, thank you for your flexibility. I really appreciate that. I think this board uh really appreciates it. In the um interest in finding a compromise that might work for us, I I wonder if you would consider a proposal that is identical to the stop and shop signage, which is 23 feet and 126 square feet. Um what is what is the square footage of our sign? believe it was 177 square feet, right? Yes.

Okay. So, you would you would be okay with Yeah. But we're going to but we're going to look the look and feel of our elegant sign as is, but we we'll reduce the size a lot better, but it would be the same size. Yeah. Same design, but same design to kind of match the opposing sign on that entryway. Correct. Um, and do you need to get any kind of approval or from from Riverhead on this? We will have to amend our agreement with Riverhead with with Riverhead.

Okay. But, you know, they they certainly realize that um uh the agreement that we had with them is subject to the approval of of this board. And uh I will have to explain to to Riverhead that you know what the board and what the town is trying to achieve with respect to signage along East Maine and West Main Road. Um and that what we have what we achieved tonight was more than what zoning allows. it it's not what we wanted, but it is better than what zoning allows and and I appreciate your willingness to work with us as well. Any other comments?

So, just for just so I have it straight, 23 feet and what was the area? 126 126 126 square feet, correct? Just just for clarification, where is the where where are those measurements coming from? um from our sign consultant. The sign consultant who designed this sign, they went out and they measured other signs. Other signs Okay. Cops. Yes. And and the and these this was an exhibit that from the prior hearing and was submitted into evidence at that point. Um and that's what the the board took into account three three years ago. So that's

when we submit the revised sign, um I will submit a a plan of that sign with dimensions on it so you can compare it and verify that it does match what we're saying. Exactly. Beautiful. Any other comments? Um or any comments from the public? Do well, do you have any further uh to items to present? Uh no, I have nothing further. Uh Mr. Chair, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak? [Music] Nobody online. So, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Moved. Second.

Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. Oppose. Nay. Chair votes I. The public hearing is closed. Um I believe we have to um address these in a certain order. Is that we typically solicitor but I believe that we will address the variance first then the special use permits. Yeah. And then the the plan approval approval with waiverss. The conditions the two proposed conditions can be applied to

either of the first to the variance or special use permit um approvals assuming it's an approval. Okay. So with that, um, I have a motion to approve the variance request to provide zero loading spaces where one is required. So moved and subject to the findings. Subject to the findings. A motion is made and seconded. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

Opposed? Nay. Chair votes I. That motion passes. Uh on the special use permit requests, I'd like to do those uh individually. So, may I have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance? Uh uh the special use permit request to allow alteration of an existing shopping center. Moved. Second. Motion is made and seconded to approve. Are you attaching the proposed conditions from the TRC with the Yes. I'm sorry. Amend the motion to Yes. Uh do the makers of the motion and the secondary approve those amendments?

Yes. Yes. Uh in addition, this is uh subject to a sign in height of 23 feet. Oh, we have we're not there yet. We're doing the just the first special use permit. Oh, just the special use. Okay. So, we have a a motion to approve uh the special use permit request to allow alteration of an existing shopping center subject to bindings and condition.

Bindings and conditions. There any further discussion, Mike? So, uh is this to allow a drive-thru in the shopping center? Is that what we're talking about? is to allow the modification of the existing shopping center and then you're going to vote next on the drive-thru and then another vote with regard to the sign. So, this is for the the basics of the plan itself and then the drive-thru and the signage are separate votes. Any other comments or discussion? Mr.

I would just um like to comment that one of the requirements is that there be no significant negative impact to ground or surface water quality. And I want to commend uh Carpon Auto Group for their low impact plan with respect to water runoff from this uh property. And I would say in addition to that, this does meet the requirements of a special use permit in terms of no significant diminition in the vibe of the property. Doesn't create a nuisance.

Any other comments? All those in favor of the motion say I. Oppose. Nay. Chair votes I. Motion passes. May I have a motion for the special use permit request to allow a drive up window subject to findings and conditions? Second.

I have a motion that's made and seconded to approve the special use permit request to allow a drive up window subject to findings and conditions. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. Opposed? Nay. Chair votes I. Motion passes. May I have a motion to approve the special use permit request to allow um I don't have the dimensions in front of me. 23 feet tall. 23 feet tall. 126 square ft in area.

126 square ft of signage. Um, may I have a motion to approve that subject to conditions and findings? So, move. Second.

A motion is made and seconded to approve that special use permit request. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. Who's nay? Chair votes I. Motion passes. Next, may I have a motion for the appro a combined preliminary and final plan approval for this project along with requested waiverss subject to findings and conditions. So moved. Second. Motion is made and seconded. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I.

I. Oppose. Nay J votes I motion passes. Thank you.

Good luck. Next item on the agenda is item 5A, a public hearing, request of Saltwood Farm Homeowners Association, Inc. Modify the approved plan for the subdivision open space of the Saltwood Farm subdivision fronting on Bailey Avenue and Sachu Drive to eliminate a portion of an existing gravel driveway through the open space parcel and provide an alternative route for maintenance of storm water treatment facilities. Uh I have a motion to open the public hearings.

So move second. Motion is made and seconded to open the public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Nay. Public hearing is open.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is Peter Gallipo at 135 Bailey Avenue. Uh my home is the original home on the on the property that has become a a 12 lot development. Uh and uh uh the home was originally served by a driveway uh that uh begins on uh the Satch Drive Culdeac and uh then swung eastward along the east side of the property back to my home. uh since the uh uh plan proposed uh lots along the east side of the property became necessary to either relocate or abandon my driveway uh to the house from from Satress Drive. Uh the plans also called for an extension of Bailey Avenue which we have since done and brought pavement up to the uh to the back of my home but the the home faced the culdeac and face towards St. George's and my thought in maintaining a driveway from Sashwood Drive was that uh I could have a approach to the front of my home like most homes have. Um but uh having lived there for a few years now, I came to realize that the gravel drive is is a bit of an eyesore. Um it's it's a bit of a going to be a bit of a maintenance headache. We've got weeds popping up through the gravel and and uh it also encourages uh other vehicles to to drive through the open space. Uh, I think in my letter uh requesting this modification, I mentioned that there had been two vehicles through the property driving right through the open space in

the weeks before my letter. And uh just yesterday I had a a uh a UPS truck it was come through the property. Uh but the uh the main impetus for this was I had Mark Hin is the builder who's purchased four lots in the development already. he has a contract to purchase two more and uh he came to me with a request that we we eliminate uh the gravel drive and u after reviewing it I decided to submit a plan to uh uh get rid of most of the gravel drive about 80% of it but keep a section just off the culdeac that would uh bring a truck to the uh pond 202C which is right right near the the culde-sac in case it were need any work was needed at that point. We have a couple of culverts that run under the u under the driveway. But but from that the point of that uh uh uh retention basin all the way up to my house we proposed to eliminate and uh aluminum seat it restore it to the way it was. Now, the DEM had specified on the plan um they wanted the ability to get to the other pond on the property in the uh in the northwest uh without encountering any vegetation. So, they specified a travel path for light duty maintenance vehicles to get to that pond and they specified that there be no uh uh uh you know growth of trees and so forth. So, they wanted to keep an area clear, but I don't think DM wasn't really concerned that there'd be a whole gravel driveway to that pond or or our plants would show it. So, it was uh simply indicating an area where we would uh keep clear of vegeta vegetation, but in

fact, that whole field is wide open. Uh there are very few trees and the alternate path that we've we've designated in our proposal uh is really, you know, clear sailing. uh like the other route. Um if anything, it's it's a little it's superior because it avoids crossing a small swale on the property, which the other one did. I don't want to make too big a deal about that. It's a small swale, but you know, does tend to get wet. And any uh maintenance I envision is, you know, typically done in the summer months when the property is dry and there's there's no problem, you know, traversing any part of that upper field. So I I don't I can't suggest to you that there's any negatives with our proposal, but you know, the real three main things uh that we're considering in relocating it is the first of all the eyesore uh the m maintenance issue and the and the true the through traffic which I've been unable to really completely arrest. Uh I'm here in my capacity as president of the homeowners association. uh it's a nonprofit nonprofit corporation which is charged with the management of the open space on behalf of the uh the owners. The open space is actually owned in common by each of the owners of the individual lots. Uh this whole idea was presented at our annual meeting in June uh to the members present and and in correspondence to them. And I did canvas all of the other lot owners and I've heard from all but one uh who's and they all you know in support of the idea. Um and I guess that's my my presentation to you. I'm happy to answer any questions you or the members have. So So in essence, Mr. Gallopo, you are requesting

to eliminate um the gravel path where you have it crossed out and add the gravel path that goes to the west side of the property. Is that correct? Uh the gravel path will only it will follow the original plan, but then a a uh a new travel path that will not be graveled. Okay. Will just be overland is the one is the one that swings out to to the west. Okay. So, there'll be no construction in that section. What What is to the west of your property there?

Um, uh, the the home that you see see there on the left side of the screen is owned by, uh, Pam and Ben Haru who access their property off I believe it's Anchor Drive off Bailey Avenue. I think I think Anchor Drive may be may be uh, private. And the just to the north of that property are a Bob and Nancy grazing. Uh, so it's residential property to the to the west. Residential property. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Any any comments, Mr. Chairman?

Um, I've had a very hard time following this um because Mr. Gallipo is pointing, but it doesn't compute for me from that distance. So, I wondered, Mr. Gallipo, if you could go take your microphone and go over and kind of walk us through a a cliffnotee summary of what what you're proposing. I'd be happy to to do that on the east side.

Mr. Gallipo, could you Mr. Gallipo, could you frame the property right now? Where's Where is Bailey Avenue? What's northwest and east? Yeah. Okay.

My home is located along the north side of property. I I I have one. Excuse me. I have I have a question too. Uh so I see prop uh see I see lots along uh is that on the right side there? What's what street is that there?

Open space begins here and runs all the way to the west side. But it's all okay. All open space then.

Okay. Would have been good for a site visit if we had a chance to see this. It's hard to visualize some of this stuff, you know. So, but okay.

All the payment was no right to traverse my property. people have a throughout all this construction here really to the but I'm thinking here that we have some here. It wouldn't hurt to have some up to this point yet just pass so much I think Mr. concern and I can certainly test my home looking this way that I prefer not

question. Uh yeah, so what is that horseshoe looking structure there? Nope. Down right there. Yep, there. Bas.

That's a retention basin. are fine. It's easier and there's no need for that uh gravel road anymore because you have access off of looks like Bailey Avenue to your house. So my own 500.

Okay. And you're just proposing to remove that gravel driveway, that gravel road

and then seated. It'll be it would be grass. This would be stored as grass. Restored as grass. And then are you proposing creating another like moving that? I don't understand. What's the purpose of the road that where the arrows pointing? Is that a new that that one, right?

Does it need maintenance? Okay. So, that's that would be the access to that area for Okay. And just to be clear, he's not proposing creating a new gravel driveway. That's just identified as the access way to get to that pond. Nothing's going to change on the ground. That's going to remain grass. So that would be a grassy area and they but they can drive over the grass. That would be the way they could drive. Good size tractor. I had no trouble getting all the spaces. a couple times a year. There's no real concern that

this is all private land. This isn't town owned. You're responsible for the maintenance of or the homeowners association. These are responsibility for this whales. Okay. people that follow that

right but the risk doesn't care as much as it used that this bill did some we wouldn't be touching this we wouldn't necessarily be following even one anywhere they needed to get

and just to pick up on on that question from Leon even though the homeowners association is going to be responsible for maintaining all the drainage infrastructure this idea this concept of removing that driveway was also reviewed by the Department of Public Works for the town because if something should happen in the future where the homeowners association did not do the maintenance that they're required to do, the town would basically go in there and do the work necessary and then bill the homeowners. So, we asked DPW to look at this concept uh just to ensure that they were comfortable that they were going to be able to get in there should they ever need to. Um, and the DPW director did review it as well as I believe the town engineer and they're comfortable with this idea.

Okay, Steve, Mr. Gallipo, you show the five homes or lots on Saltwood. Those are not built yet, are they?

They're not built. access country lane that's built on lots or five lots along this side. Okay. And I just wanted to and you mentioned two homes on the other end, grazings and one other. I I just wondered these neighbors are they aware of your plan and have and are they okay with it? right next to it in a bit of a hollow. I did not get that.

I'll just I'll just add to that that under the requirements for modification to approve subdivision plant, we have to notify all the abuters well all the property owners within the subdivision and all the abutters within 200 feet which I did. Okay. And the two on the top, you've spoken to them as well.

I've spoken to everybody else. and these three contract these as well. 7 12 homes and I think the idea of having the homeowners association manage the open space was didn't have to get all 12 homeowners together and all agreed to the legal documents that the at which by the way in the annual meeting in June management of the homeowners association was opened up for a ball I have was reelected by default nobody else was by the rules we explained that once of the loss were sold to as a whole. Prior to that, I I was appointed those appointed by

Any other comments? BJ? Yes. I just have a question which is not totally relevant to this, but I understand there's a tombstone on your on the property that you maintain. BJ, move BJ, move the mic up closer to Oh, sorry. A tombstone on your property that you have been taking care of, I understand. And this is has been your responsibility. And when you first bought the property and took care of it, that was one of the requirements, I believe, and I think you've done that.

I've probably 200 And this is proposed to conventional district and that was master plan level. Uh immediately after the chairman approached me and requested that I consider sheling the conventional subdivision and resubmitting it once the town adopted. The comments the comments.

There anyone from the public who wishes to speak? Nobody online. We have a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. Here votes I. Motion passes. The public hearing is closed. Uh may I have a motion to um approve the modification that Mr. Gallipo is requesting?

Second. Motion is made and seconded to approve the modification this plan to remove the uh gravel driveway. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I nay. Chair votes I. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is item 5B, a public hearing, request of Newport National Real Estate LLC for a waiver from design standard section 521.2.C. The Middletown rules and regulations regarding the subdivision and development of land for the proposed construction of a golf cart storage structure, including proposed use of exterior building materials not meeting design requirements. Property is located at 425 Mitchell's Lane, Assessor's Plat 124, lot 29. May I have a motion to open the public hearing?

Second. Motion is made and seconded to open the public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

Oppos? Nay. J votes I. The public hearing is open. Uh yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. David Martland. On behalf of Newport National Real Estate LLC in connection with the uh the request for the design waiver this evening. Um this is uh related to the property located at 525 Mitchell's Lane Assessor's Plant 124 lot 29. Um this is the uh the additional uh nine holes and clubhouse for the Newport National Golf uh course that is uh presently under construction. Uh this matter had come before planning board as well as the uh zoning board I believe back in 2022 um for um the appropriate land development u approvals for for the clubhouse and all the associated u improvements and detention basins um and even the uh cart tenant that is the subject uh this evening. The original plans um that were approved note that there is a uh cart tent parking and indicated it's a softsided tent structure on the approved plans. Um there was basically essentially an oversight at that period of time in that a waiver should have been requested for the softsided tent. um that was overlooked at that time and even though it's on the plans. And so we're here before you this evening uh to request that waiver for for the tent uh under which the all the golf carts will park. Uh I have with me uh tonight uh Sean Burns who is both a u an

architect, a registered architect and a u uh and a representative uh for Newport National Real Estate to provide testimony with respect to this um and to um you know walk through the site plan and show you uh where this structure is located as well as um uh how it is constructed. You know, I think and when you look at this in totality, it is it is well beyond the the roadway. It's something like 800 feet from Mitchell's Lane. It is behind the the clubhouse structure. It is a low profile uh and is the same color as the as the proposed structure or the as the clubhouse. So, if I could ask uh Sean to to come up and ask that he be sworn in.

Good evening. Would you identify your name and affiliation, please? Uh I am Sean Burns, a registered architect here in Rhode Island. I work for Combined Properties, uh who is the property manager for New England uh real estate. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Um, any objection to recognizing him as a an expert? So noted. Thank you.

Thank you. Sean, could you u sort of explain your relationship to this project and your um what you did in connection to permitting for this property? Uh, so I was uh the um architect uh for the owner um in conjunction uh with uh Spencer uh who's the local uh architect here, CDA architects. Uh we brought the project uh through a design plan repro review with you guys. Um talked about a lot of things uh the uh clubhouse building, drainage, uh parking, how carts would get from one side to the other. Uh and during that time um the uh cart tent uh which was shown on the plans as it is now um uh was approved. Um but we weren't specific to uh the materials uh that would make up the cart tent uh since they're not a natural material which uh is required. Um we at this time would like to um get a um a waiver of that um requirement. We did have a waiver on the clubhouse for um the trim material which is not a natural material. Um, could you approach the screen and just sort of to orient the board indicate where the the clubhouse is and the the cart um parking tent uh in relation to that

And um what are the parameters of that tent? The size and height. And if I if I might just uh clarify, even though the applicant keeps referring to the structure as a tent, it's actually not a tent. Um it's a permanent structure, a permanent steel frame with fabric sides. Um they had uh initially recently applied for a tent permit uh to put up the structure and that was uh not acceptable uh to the building official because it's not a tent. A tent is a temporary structure. That's why they've been asked to come through this process uh to get the waiver for the construction of a permanent steel structure with fabric sides. It's terminology. Just want to make sure you understand it's not a temporary structure. Ron, could you pull up um sheet A2? This one. This is sheet two. No, I'm I'm sorry. It's

the architectural. Yeah, it's the architecturals. It's

and the next one that's [Music] and Sean, could you just so sort of just uh walk walk through that um architectural And if you could scroll down just a little further. And Ron, if you could um please go down two more slides to A4 We got section

structure. behind us. This is a little bit further again. And are there going to be any plantings between the that that um structure and Mitchell's pain. And

as an architect um in your experience, you know, looking at the the structure from from the public right of way. Would you be able to tell whether or not there were synthetic materials or or clabards or

uh I would suspect Dave. Dave, do you want to pass that along? And this space is not a conditioned space.

Okay. It's it it's simply for storage of of golf carts. Okay. You have anything else? Uh Dave? No, I don't I don't think we have anything further. I think um you know it's pretty self-explanatory.

Yeah. My question is what is the height of the uh golf cart storage structure? 16 And and what is the height to the to the sidewall?

Um and Mr. Burns, was this uh fabric selected because it's the optimal choice for the purpose of of storing golf carts or is it financial considerations? I would say that probably Right. And and just this is a sub sub subjective question, but the clubhouse itself is very gorgeous, very beautifully designed, and you have a somewhat pedestrian building right right next to it. Is is that of any concern? is intentional. here.

You just curious why is it an industry standard to have you mentioned uh building code issues?

If you do a permanent building So there is that was one of my questions too. I was going to ask if there is a sprinkler system. No sprinklers. That's not required by building code. How many golf carts are going to be in that? and all battery operated with no requirement by building code for sprinkler systems. That's one of my concerns is the material while it's flame retardant. There's a if there is a fire in there that

concerning It does. Okay. Are the panels on the side removable? Is that one of the reasons why fabric is used?

Is it a functional um is it is it a is there a functional reason to use fabric to you know raise the panels and drive the carts in and out or is that not the intent? Okay. Mike, uh, is is this the only waiver required, the material that's used, uh, for this building? I mean, don't our commercial design standards say that, you know, if if you have a building, you know, that's so so wide that there has to be some architectural detail as if it's visible from the public way.

Okay. Okay. Other comments? I just

So, uh, are these golf courts, uh, the is there a similar type, uh, structure over across the street, you know, on the other part of the, uh, golf course where they I'm sure they have, uh, golf carts over there as well, right? Okay. On the other side, right? Okay. Will this um fabric be used for the roof also? kind of fun. Um, I look at um the memo that Ron prepared for the planning board and the the last paragraph says waivers may be considered where one the literal enforcement of one or more provisions of the regulations is impracticable and will exact undue hardship because of the peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question or where such a waiver and or modification is in the best interest of good planning practice and or design as evidenced by consistency with the municipality's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. I I don't see how those relate to this. Could you elaborate?

Yeah, I right out of the gate, I would first point out that un unfortunately this wasn't requested at the the initial set of hearings, right? um on those site plans, it clearly indicated that this was going to be a softsided um structure. Um and unfortunately that waiver wasn't requested and dealt with then. So we're we're here um tonight now trying to sort of clean that that issue up. With respect to the particular request this evening, I would I would point out that this is some 800 feet from from the public roadway. And so I think that is a particular condition. Um when this clearly really isn't visible from the public roadway at that distance, I think that gives you know latitude to grant these waivers appropriately. I mean it um you you've got the the structure the the clubhouse structure itself in front of that. You are going to have landscaping. You have got the topography. So, this is in a location that isn't visible from from that public right of way. And so, I I think given all of that that to to impose those those standards is impractical. Um, with respect to this building, if this building were, you know, up close to Mitchell's Lane, 100 feet, 200 feet, 300 feet from Mitchell's Lane, um, you know, without screening around it and things of that nature, I, you know, I would, you know, certainly agree with the chair, um, and and totally understand that given given its proximity, um, that, uh, how far it is away and the, you know, natural um, uh, constraints with this property um and

lack of visibility. I think this is a totally appropriate um request comments. Is this meant to be a permanent material used on a permanent structure? This is a permanent structure, correct? This isn't this isn't like a He just said it wasn't a temporary. Is the Is the material intended to be used on a permanent structure.

Guess just from a practical standpoint, using this on the roof, how how long do you think this will last on a roof in New England? It's the other cart barn or which which other side on the other side of Mitchell's is you the it it uses the same material for the roof and the sides. Oh, okay. Is there is there a concrete floor inside this structure?

Okay. Now, are you running uh utilities in there like lights and uh charging, you know, stations? Are they going to run in under the floor? Other comments? I have a comment, Charlie.

So, um, you've said a few times, so in relationship to the topography and the distance from Mitchell's, um, you don't think the building is really viewed from Mitchell's Lane? other neighbors that can view it. Start finish line. Okay, thank you. Other comments? Um, you you mentioned there was a fire detection system in there. Could you describe that, please?

So, it um it alerts people in the clubhouse that there could be a fire in there.

And the fire department, it goes to the fire department as well. Any other comments? Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak? Joseph Lopes, 345 Mitchell's Lane, Nutter. Um I'm to the south uh to the north of Gormley and the parking lot is in my back yard. Um the clubhouse is enormous. This building compared in comparison to the clubhouse 170 ft long. Um I can view the entire clubhouse and the parking area. So now we'll be looking at another building. Um the tree buffer is little to none in back of me. Um, oh. Okay. Other comments from the public?

Nobody online. Nobody online. Have a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. Motion's made and seconded to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. Nay. Votes I. Motion passes. The public hearing is closed. Um I have a motion to uh grant the requested waiver. Moved discussion. I have a motion. I need a second. Second. Uh I have a motion. It's made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Please, Charlie.

Uh I just want to be sure that we can attach a condition that the golf course is willing to accommodate the neighbors concern that was raised. Yeah, I think that's a totally appropriate condition. Thank you. Maker of the motion willing to amend the motion. Second. Who second? Who seconded the motion? Charlie did. Amendment. I do. Okay. So, we have an amended motion. Any other discussion on the amended motion? What is the amendment to the motion? Just to be clear,

that we approve the waiver. uh request subject to the condition that the applicant uh meets uh the requirements of the neighbor or additional vegetation or additional screening. I I'm okay with that. I just that's kind of open-ended. Is there is there any specifics to that? Well, I thought what they said that they would talk to each other and agree on something.

Okay. Yeah, we would um work cooperatively with Mr. Lopes to develop a a landscape screening plan uh along that uh common boundary uh to mitigate the visual of the parking lot as well as the the tent structure and that's going to be up to Mr. Lopes's discretion. it would be subject to a a mutual agreement relative to that. Okay. You might want to add that the that a landscape plan be submitted prior to the issuance of permitting to demonstrate the whatever the agreement is.

I would like some kind of like procedure that is formalized in that in that respect because just want to make sure that there's communication and an agreement prior to anything. There should be a mechanism to make sure that done before the plan proceeds,

right? and and it would have to be also compliant with the planting requirements associated with the land trust easement and um then the the existing easement um over Mr. Lope's property. There's an access easement o over the property I I believe on the the far end. Um

and what I'm saying is that that would have to be complied with as well.

This the first time hearing about this. Could you elaborate on that? Um probably about 20 years ago, there was an easement negotiated with the prior owner. Um in anticipation of this um second course, which was back then thought thought it was going to be an 18hole uh golf course. Uh there were two access easements. One was over the um the Lopes property, which would allow for maintenance vehicles, I believe it was. And then there was a second easement over property of Mr. Ashworth uh for cart access. Um and uh there are requirements relative to um um you know putting those into a certain condition um pursuant to those

and and you're saying those easements have not yet been finalized. The improvements to those easements like they they they weren't used for for years, right? come to the mic, please.

The easements have been installed. Um, but the northerly one for the carts has not been completed. The landscape is not completed on it. The path is there. Um, it's occasionally used by a cart, but the plantings in the buffer have not been completed at this point to that one. So, um, c can we vote on this subject to a condition that the, uh, requirements of the easement be satisfied or Well, I think that's what I was trying to indicate and and I may have done so in artfully. Peter,

do you want David, do you want to maybe sort of restate what your understanding of what it is you're agreeing to is? Yeah, we're agreeing to to make certain that uh we uh collaborate with M Mr. Lopes in developing a landscape plan to the mutual satisfaction of the parties. uh that provisions of that landscape plan would also have to reflect any requirements of that uh required by the aquitic land trust also to also be in compliance with the existing requirements of the access easement over Mr. Lope's property which have have those um certain landscape requirements in there. So, I was trying to

and and that the landscape plan will be to mitigate the visual impact of the parking lot and the tent structure. That's correct. That's not a tent. Yes. Yes. That that plan will be submitted to the town prior to issuance of building permits. Yes. So, do we need to um modify yet again uh the motion that we have before us? I think that's the condition what David just said. I think I think I think that was a clarification as opposed to an amendment. So I think you're good. So the motion we have um as amended is still okay. Yes. Thank you. But was there any discussion on that moted motion?

Um I I I would just like to make a comment. Um I I I'm really torn on this one. Um, I I don't see that you satisfy the reasons for requesting the variance. Uh, I'm sorry, the waiver. Um, I like the fact that your fire system is tied into both the clubhouse and the fire station. That's good. But I still think you have potential fire trap there. And for that reason, I will vote against this. So, any other comments? I would just like to say uh I certainly appreciate the cooperation between the uh Butters uh in uh resolving this uh this this issue.

Any other comments?

Yes, just to just to opine on the fire um risk I guess. Um that's the reason I was asking about the building code. I think the as long as the building code this is compliant from a building code perspective, I'm okay with it. Um I think maybe the building code should, you know, be reviewed because this does seem like a a high-risisk environment for a for a fire. Um there's a lot of electric in there, electrical in there. There's a lot of batteries in there. And I'm I'm surprised that that a sprinkler system is not required at this point, especially with uh Rhode Island's stringent fire codes, but I'm okay approving it because I don't think we can override that. Well, I I will tell you this, having sat on NFPA fire committees, the NFPA rules are the lowest possible level of protection that's considered safe. The lowest possible. So, uh, I I consider I I take into account that it meets the code, but I think there are other considerations in this case. So, I will still vote against the the the uh request. Of course, you can respond. Uh so we when we undertook the review of a uh fabric structure which is what this is uh we enlisted the the help of a fire protection engineer who's a registered engineer that looks at problems just like this uh we did a a deep dive uh into the building code also uh and uh for this size building uh for the health risk uh a sprinkler is not required uh

monitoring of uh smoke detection systems uh exits signs, uh, exit doors, things like that are certainly required. Emergency lighting, uh, but at this point, uh, the code does not require, um, sprinklers in this building. Understood. Other comments? All those in favor say I. I. I.

Oppos? Nay. Votes nay. Motion passes. Good luck. Uh, next item on the agenda is item 5D, review of proposed guidelines for traffic studies submitted to the planning board for development project applications. And um this is um Elizabeth Mcchznney, a registered professional traffic engineer who works for Crossman Engineering who um developed these guidelines. So uh the floor is yours, Liz.

Okay. Um so I have eight slides I'll I'll try to quickly go through to summarize the Middletown guidelines we developed. And this is for traffic consultants to follow when writing a traffic impact study for private development. Um, and this first slide just kind of is is what I'm going to be looking at. First, we'll be looking at what thresholds um require a traffic impact study. Um, the study scope approval memo. I'll explain what that is. Um, the methodology, the data and software requirements, and then just the contents of the traffic impact study. Okay. Um, generally most most people when they when they look at when a traffic impact study is required, the general rule is if there generates a 100 or more new trips and that includes entering and exiting vehicles. Um, but we look at some other things and and based on the needs for Middletown, we've added a few other things. Um, we'd also look at it when we increase the pedestrian activity such that pedestrian improvements are necessary, when a traffic signal is proposed, changes to lane configuration or to the traffic signal. And then, you know, if there's a specific area where there's an existing traffic congestion or safety issue, we would look at that. And specific to Middletown, we're requiring a traffic impact study be done for any developments on East Main Road, West Main Road, Valley Road, or Quidneck Avenue.

Are those all state roads? I'm sorry. Are those all state roads? Those are state roads.

Why not Cington Highway then? I think the concern was just that there's already a lot of congestion and a lot of development on those roads and it's it's something that you know is is a concern and actually you know this is the next step that I'm going to be talking about the memo you you could decide at this point you know in in the memo stage that maybe it's not necessary. So, for the initial memo, we're asking the um the traffic engineer who's doing the report to determine with the town if there's a need for a full traffic study based on and that would that would define what the limits and the scope of the study would be. Um that would include a project description, um a trip generation, and the trip generation is just the number of new trips generated by the proposed project. um which kind of guides how big the study area is going to be. Um then based on that information, an initial initial assessment of the traffic impacts. Um if the board agrees that traffic impacts will be minimum, no traffic impact study will be required. If there's significant impact expected and it's determined that a traffic study's needed, um they would want to include the in intersections to be included in the study, the peak hours that they'd be collecting data and the days of the week that they'd be collecting that data. And that would be reviewed by the board. And then, you know, if if you have a study that maybe only um generates five trips or something like that, they could make you could make a decision that the scope could be limited to just looking at the access driveway. But it's kind of a first step to trying to get on the same page as to what's needed for a project.

Just one question. Sure. You mentioned earlier that sort of that threshold of a hundred or more new trips. Is that what you would consider to be sort of a significant impact? That would be significant. But I mean, a lot of times towns will ask for I I do traffic studies for a lot less than 100 trips, but um but that's that's the general rule. And then that would be the trigger.

That's generally the trigger for DOT and for other guidelines. But again, they they do take into consideration some of the things I've talked about. Um thank you. So methodology um this is just what's what data is required and software that we're asking them to use. Um for the data we generally do traffic um manual turning movement counts which are just manual counts at an intersection. Uh we try to look at average conditions so non-h holiday weeks on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. And for most studies, you're looking at weekday 7 to 9:00 a.m. and 4 to 6:00 p.m. And you want generally want to collect it when school's in session. Um, there are some land uses where you might need to collect weekend counts if it was like a car dealership or car wash, something that generates a high number of trips on the weekend. But that's, you know, only only when appropriate. Generally, the AM and PM during the weekday is what is collected. um for the traffic volumes as well as the speeds that are collected. Um you want to collect it during typical conditions when there's no weather conditions, construction or unusual traffic events occurring. Um the traffic counts should be less than one year should well less within a year. They should be one no less no more than one year old. Um when automatic traffic recorder ATR counts are used, those are the hoses across the roadway. That's generally just for roadway segments, but um when those are collected, they should be two directional 48 hour continuous counts. Um and and for all of the data um for existing conditions, no build site generated trips, and build volumes, we ask that they provide um a diagram

showing those volumes. For analysis software, Synchro is a preferred software to use, but um highway capacity software can be used for unsalized if if if that's their preference. And for roundabout analysis, HCS should be used. And then I just kind of listed some of the measures of effectiveness, which are just the results that can be quantified that would be presented in a table. And that would include the level of service, vehicle delay, volume to capacity ratio, and 95th percentile Q. Um the level of service is just a qualitative measure describing the operational conditions and it's based on delay and it's um ranked from A being very low delay to F being high delay. um volume to capacity ratio and 95th percentile Q is also um so volume to capacity ratio gives you an idea of um whether that roadway is reaching capacity. If if there's a volume to capacity ratio of one, it's at capacity. Um and then the 95th percentile Q is the Q length that will not be exceeded 95% of the time. So that's generally what we look at as the maximum Q. So the contents the contents of the study we'd ask that they do a project description. Um again mention the study areas and you know discuss and and those would be determined as discussed before in the memo. For existing conditions, we ask them to describe the intersections, roads, any pedestrian and transit facilities and if there's any observations um specific to the site or that are of concern. Um there to describe the existing traffic counts and give dates, times,

information for that. uh speed study would be done and that can be done using a radar gun or or a 48 hour ATR can be used and that data we'd get the 85th percentile speed, 50th percentile speed and the 10 mph pace speed. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or which 85% of the vehicles travel. So only 15% of the traffic goes above that and that's used as a guideline when we set speed limits. So stopping site distance um that will also be measured and that's the distance required by a vehicle traveling at the design speed of a roadway to stop prior to reaching an object in its path. Um and any deficiency in that um should be noted that would be compared to the ashtoe minimum. Um, for crash analysis, we will ask them to review a five-year crash data provided by Middletown Police for each of the intersections. Um, they will request if if there are any uh fatal crashes that occurred within the study area in the past 10 years and that will be noted. Um, and you know they'll they'll provide a lot of information in the summary table showing number of crashes, crash type, weather conditions, time of day for each intersection. So that's existing conditions. For future conditions, um, what what what they'd be doing is they'd be looking at no build conditions and build conditions. So how that's determined is they say we're talking about 2025 existing traffic volumes. They would increase they would increase those to five years in the future with forecasts

developed for two scenarios. One is no build without the project in place and then build conditions with the project in place. Um, for no build, those are calculated by applying a historic annual growth rate. Often that's 1% over five years. Um, so you grow those trips. And if there are any other future projects that are, you know, planned that are definitely going to be happening in the next 5 years, that would be added to those trips as well. Um for build condition those are determined by taking the site generated trips and just adding those to the no build volumes and the site generated trips are determined by um published rates from the latest IT trip generation manual and that's it's just the industry standard and it has statistics from similar land uses. Um and then once you have the number of trips you would distribute that often often you use the existing traffic patterns and for for most projects. So you take those trips and and determine how that's being distributed among the intersections. So next slide. Thank you. So the traffic operations analysis um we'd expect them to describe what the level of service means and what the different values are, how each level of service relates to traffic flow. Um define the criteria for signalized and unsalized for appropriate for the project and again provide those levels of effectiveness, those values in a table. Um in addition to providing that

information in the table, there should be um some narrative describing how the operations have changed between existing no build and build and whether the future operations are satisfactory. Um there would also be discussion of the site access. As for parking, they would identify the number of proposed parking spaces and they would compare that to the minimum required by Middletown zoning ordinance. If there's no minimum in the ordinance based on that land use, we would ask that they um compare it to the standards listed in IT parking generation. And then for conclusions, we would have them summarize the major findings including 85th percentile speed, uh, stopping site distance, the crash analysis data, um, summarize the number of trips generated, the results of the analysis. um if a statement can be made about bicycle or pedestrian traffic that should be included and just summarize the scale of the traffic impacts and provide a conclusive statement about the impacts based on those parameters. In some cases, not always, there'll be recommended mitigation. Say if they are proposing a signal, they would provide that as analysis as well. So they would describe the deficiency, quantify the deficiency and describe how the mitigation will improve those. And then we asked them to have an appendix with the data as backup for traffic counts, the site plan, speed study, stopping site distance,

crash data, it trip generation, pretty much everything that we calculated in the report should be included in the appendex. So, do you have any questions?

So, I I just want to make a comment, Liz. Thank you for the presentation. Um the reason we requested this study is so that um we would uh receive traffic studies that the planning board could look at and have the information they need to make an informed decision. Most in fact almost all of the traffic studies that we have received fail to do that. they they do a lot of the analyses that you described, but when it comes to presenting conclusions or recommendations, they just fall flat. And uh what I want to point out uh that is significant here um is uh under the conclusions, the last bullet states that they must make a conclusive statement about each of the above parameters. And those above parameters include all of the analyses that they do. Uh crash analysis, impact analysis, speed analysis, um site distance analysis and so on and so on. And also within the um you know one of one of the um comments that we often heard was that the studies we receive are always incremental. You know this project adds a small amount and therefore it's not a problem. But included in the analysis there will be volume to capacity ratios which compare the meas the measured traffic volume to the capacity of the road rather than just the incremental uh increase over the current traffic level. So that too will be an important parameter to look at when we evaluate these studies. I just wanted to point that out.

Yes, I have a series of questions. Okay. Um the volume to capacity ratio does that is the requirement for the applicant to include all of the development on the road that has been proposed as well as the as as well as as well as the traffic that their uh development will add to the to the road. So you're saying for future Yes.

Yes. So so what they'll do is well they're going to collect existing traffic volumes. They're going to do analysis of existing conditions and then for no build conditions the you know the volumes are um projected out five years 1% whatever whatever is determined to be the historical growth. And then if there are developments in process that that will be built in the next five years, that information will be added to the no build. Okay. So So that volume to capacity ratio, that's a that's a that's a quantitative measurement, right? That's a number.

And it go it it ticks up to one. And one meaning when it gets to one, that's it, right? Right. I mean, most most of the most of the most of the time you're not at one. But if you're if you've got a level of service F where everything's in gridlock, it would be the overc would most likely be one or more. It feels like some of these roads are at one, right? Which is part which is part of the reason we've included that statement about certain roadways would be looked at.

So, um, is this data p can that be found publicly? Like what is Aquinic Avenue's current volume to capacity rate ratio or East Main roads or main road? bond to capacity ratio is not something that I mean that's something that's yeah that information if if someone ran an analysis that would be available but you could f I mean you can get what the average daily you might be able to get the average daily traffic online or something like that right but if if two firms run that ran that analysis today would they come up with the same number

depending on I mean if they were if they were looking at different times of the year they might not have the same exact number. There could be some other event happening. I mean, yeah, I mean, ideally, if they're if they're inputting the same information, they should have the same. So, it goes into some agreed upon algorithm and then it spits out a right a number. Is that how how this all works?

That's my concern. My concern has always been I mean we travel these roads, we live here and the traffic seems to be anecdotally getting worse and worse and worse. Obviously there are there is uh some of that has to do with road work and different times of year where different things on in the island are happening and you know traffic flows around. So I know that it could be a moving target,

right? Um, I think it's going to help us make a, you know, informed decision that I keyed in on that because, you know, I'm always looking for something that's not subjective and that seems like a pretty good um, you know, direction to go in. It's also it's also important when you're comparing to be comparing future no build to build so you have a control of you know this it's going to be it's going to be higher in the future just because traffic will grow but then you're comparing how much is this project adding to that. So

yeah and we're at the you know we unfortunately there isn't especially on East Main Road there isn't really much room to expand that road. Um we're kind of limited in that in that sense. Um, moving on from that, so in the opening statement here, it says there's a threshold that would trigger uh more in-depth analysis and that threshold is 100 and and Mr. Rean mentioned this too, 100 or more new trips to the adjacent roadway, etc., etc. Who makes that determination? Who decided who decided 100 was the

No, no, no. who would who would who would who would estimate what the number of you know initi what the chip generation's going to be so that whoever is writing the report is going to use information from chip generation um from it trip generation and if I'm reviewing it I would check that I agree with what land use they're using that I agree with their calculation okay so but that's after the traffic study has started

well the I mean The first step was going to be the memo. So before they submit a traffic study, they'll have a memo saying this is what we expect based on trip generation, based on the size of the project and based on this we expect to need a traffic study and these are the things we're going to include or if we have five trips or something we don't expect this to have significant impact and that's the first step. The town looks at it. I look at it and determine does that seem reasonable? So to that point, you you identified certain streets that this would apply to.

I No, I I identified four streets that were of cons concern to the town because they're it's it's already pretty developed and pretty busy. But it it applies to anything. It's not just for those four streets. was just I think that was one of the things we added. You know, the the main threshold that most DOS and it use is 100 trips. But again, I write a lot of reports myself where the town wants it. If there's concern, you know, we might do one where there's 50 trips or 20 trips or um you know, if if the town determines there's a need for that, but hundreds what is sort of the standard. Okay. And what type of development would you ever like like what is the threshold for the type of development that you assess initially to see if a traffic study is required? What kind like would a single family home

right what they'll do for a single family home they would look up in the IT trip generation that land use coast for that specific type you know two stories this number of units and make that calculation and I would check that I agree with the calculation they made it's it's a standard that's taken from uh you know my concern is you know we don't want It's a two-ed double-edged sword here. We don't want massive developments, you know, creating a ton of traffic um and you know, congesting our roads. We also don't want to slow development down of more reasonable single family like housing. So,

and I was just having that conversation with Ron as to what the, you know, what's the what is the entry point for this? Is it every land development project or every subdivision or every project on one of these roads? But there there needs to be sort of an offramp for someone who's subdividing a small residential lot. Uh, right. I mean, I think it's a need from one lot from one house into two, obviously, we're not going to require them to go out and do a traffic assessment.

Yeah. I mean, you you can certainly decide ahead of time, but if if someone was doing 10 10 units or something and that's only going to maybe generate five trips during peak, you'll have a the memo will be a short memo just saying this is how many trips we expect. Most likely, if it's five trips, I'll say it doesn't we don't think this is going to have significant impact and there's no need for study. But I think we might need to soften the language in the last statement, the last sentence under section one, which basically states that any development on those four roadways is going to be required to do a traffic study. That's that's not what we I think want. I I think there needs to be some discretion on the planning board's part. So maybe softening that language to allow for that discretion would be appropriate. Could we like because because we anything less than a minor uh development would not trigger this assessment or even requiring a traffic study. Is what is what do we currently when do we currently what triggers the requirement of a traffic study currently? Not every development has is required to

well most developments are required to give you an impact statement a development impact statement or within that there's supposed to be a statement regarding minor land developments or major land developments.

Almost every development is required to do a an impact statement. So this is the general discussion of impacts on sewer impacts on fire impact. So and there's supposed to be a statement in there about traffic impacts. So that's what we require. Now for larger projects, typically the board, and it may not be explicitly stated in the submission requirements, the board is going to expect to see a traffic study. It's not written in black and white necessarily, and I think that's what this is hoping to get to is having that more defined requirement. But, you know, as as you brought up, if someone's doing a two lot subdivision on a Quitnick Avenue, the way this is written, they're required to do a full traffic study. So, I think that I I

Yeah, I think I think what we could do is maybe myself, Ron, maybe Paul, because I know you have an interest in this, we can sit down and and try to um just sort of put some additional wording in there to better define the threshold. Yeah. What what trigger what triggers the need for this? And then yeah, I'd like I'd like that just to get a little clearer. Yeah, it's a good idea because point is correct. We don't want to uh overly burden projects that that don't need this, but we want to make sure that we're capturing the ones that that

Oh, there any precedent for this type of ordinance in other municipalities? Um, I don't know if it's been put in ordinance. I did I did do some research in other cities, you know, in other areas. I think for for in this area this is pretty extensive. I think I've seen in ordinances like a paragraph. So this is pretty extensive. Um and so I've I've seen extensive uh guidelines like this for major cities in in other areas or up in the Boston area or something like that. So there are there are other examples of it

in your experience because you do this kind of work. Um I if are the requirements that we're putting in here and the the sort of data and analysis that's being required is that something that you would expect, you know, if you were if you were doing a Yeah, I mean a medium to large size project.

A lot I mean a lot of this is what I what I do when I put it in. So, it's it's just um it's spelled out exactly what's needed and and I mean from what I know and from doing peer reviews in most cases I I see most of these things. It's just that and now it's listed and and if there's any there there are some things that are different in this that we don't generally see in Rhode Island. think for accidents um we were asked to look at maybe consider what the compare accidents to what the volume is on that road and they don't do that in Rhode Island but for Massachusetts they do come up with uh a crash rate based on that. So I've kind of adopted some of that information and and put it in here. So that's that's a little different than you'd see in other Rhode Island places. So

Peter, if I if I can add, we have had um traffic studies submitted to us that were very detailed and had most of the analyses that Liz is recommending here. The problem the problem has been that uh when they come to making drawing conclusions or making recommendations, they they just fall flat. They don't make any conclusive really conclusive statements about all this data that they've analyzed. And and and that's what uh I hope this last section will do. It'll force them to make some conclusive statements about their analysis rather than just make a wimpy statement like it's safe when they don't even define what that means. That's what we've seen.

And just from Sorry, go ahead. I was just gonna say that, you know, from a standpoint of just being curious that volume to capacity ratio if we start seeing that over and over again on the same road like say like Aquinic Avenue, West Main Road, let's say there's development, you're saying if you see like a one or No, no, no. like in the in the report as as the volume to capacity ratio is always it's always one of the things that should be when you have a level of service table you have level of service delay volume to capacity ratio and and that that's

I just want to compare one to the other over time to make sure that that that data that that that that uh metric is you know consistent and it should be increasing over time with the developments that are coming in. Is that not Well, you're saying I mean when someone's looking at this, they're just looking at one singular development. There's not what you're describing isn't something where someone's holding the view overseas for this road. It's it's for this particular development and it'd be great if Rhy dot kept that information. They get a lot of information from a lot of different engineers and it's not I don't know that anybody is tracking that,

right? I don't know of anyone tracking that. It's a metric. But but in fact it could go down if a development comes in and produces fewer trips than what was there. Oh sure it's not always going up. That's true. Some and some projects depending upon the type of use uh the the time of day when you're going to see the most trips or the or the least amount of trips is different than the project that might be going on across the street. Um so I I I think it's going to be the situation where uh the more studies we see we will get a sense of how this number is varying. Of course. Yeah, it's it's I never even considered that

metric until you pointed it out tonight and I think maybe we all most of us didn't know what what that was. So I think a little education to the board and future board members too on that I think is helpful because you know these these studies come in we're not engineers or most of us aren't and you know it's a lot you know we're reviewing a lot of material so it starts getting like your eyes start glossing over and I feel like a lot of times the these reports are just a checkbox. I don't know if I've ever seen a a traffic analysis from a, you know, from a a development proposal that says that it's going to cause too much traffic,

right? So, I mean, so in that standpoint, it's always just here's here's my I don't think you're going to even with these guidelines, you know, you can find someone that's going to, you know, give you the study you want. That's just like every I think anytime um an engineer is looking at this

they're they're comparing what the no build condition is going to be to the build and that's all you can do if you if you start with a level of f you're not going to improve it unless you're bringing in a signal or or doing something that's that yeah so I mean it's it's it's it's a comparison to what the existing condition will be in five years without this project.

Sure. Sure. But this these types of studies do you know that the um the state wants you know more development more housing built. Um the problem is especially with areas like Middletown and Aquinic Island is we don't have land to build on. So we have an existing infrastructure that can only take so much. So, um, you know, to that point, if the if the state wants more housing developed on Aquinic Island and we don't have the roads to support that, especially the state roads, maybe this is um information that we can go to the state and say, "Hey, listen, you need to improve our roads because we can't handle any more traffic." So, I I I love the direction this is going in. I just think it needs to be simplified so that we can we can draw long-term conclusions from these reports as we start accumulating them. That make sense?

Um when you say simplified by me by by whom? No, I think the I think this can Okay. I think the the conclusions that you have here are good. Okay. Um I just maybe maybe a more simplified metric of maybe something like a volume to capacity or how much more can this handle. Maybe that's not something that the that the developers required to do, but maybe occasionally the town does a study. That's like an add-on to what so we'll start getting data as these studies come in. Right. Yeah.

And does like a meta analysis of what's been delivered to the town and then compares it. I mean there's great uh tech, you know, AI and machine learning that we can put this data through kind of give us some answers to. I know it's it's a lot of I mean volume to capacity is it's going to be input for every single if you have five intersections on the roll and signalized you're going to be getting it by approach. You're going to have V over C for this approach and this approach and this approach. Super complicated. Yeah. Okay. No, I I get it. So, it's not unless it's a signalized intersection, you're not going to have an overall view over C. Um, but

so you're saying um well, one one thing we could do is pull out the um the volume to capacity ratio and just highlight that as a parameter. I think that would help simplify it because right now it's going to be embedded in those tables and we could we could extract that. Maybe we could put some words in there, Ron, to do that. Well, I mean, if if you had 10 intersection, you could have it it might be very confusing because you might have these are all the V over ratios for all of the Oh, you're saying that that's so for a single development in one in a particular location? Is there a volume to capacity ratio for like the entire No, okay.

No, it's it's by by approach at every intersection. at every intersection. Each approach has their own V overc ratio is what I'm saying. What's an approach? Every if northbound, southbound, and each approach to Yeah. Every every group of of cars traveling in that direction is going to have a V V over C ratio. It just sounds so complicated. But I think really the only the important thing to know for V over C is just if you're at one or approaching one, you know, you're approaching capacity. Sure. Yeah. And is there a specific um for each project? Would there be is there a specific area um or

Yeah. There's a study area that's going to be defined at the beginning of the project based on based on what the trip generation is. If you have a big trip generation, you're going to have to expand the area. Okay. And are there guidelines and how how we would do that in ter because I have seen um some regulations or some some municipalities where they have a requirement that you analyze the impact on intersections within X feet.

It's I mean the standard is following IT guidelines and and for it guidelines I think for under 200 trips you want to make sure that you have within a th00and feet of the approach. any any major intersection within a thousand feet and then you know when the trips go up the it expands further out and includes so many signals and so is that that guideline referenced um it's not it's not referenced here but uh wait a minute it might be might I'm just trying to come up it might not be in the slides but I I think it is in the guidelines so

have some specific reference that people can look at rather than Iran trying to decide on a project by project basis what the you know what the applicable study area should be and and but it it sounds to me like there there's sort of a standard that you would follow um under the industry guidelines that would determine that. I can I can add something to that. I I think I said it has to follow it trip it guidelines but um okay the trip generation shall be calculated

No that's fine I just because if if the if the study there is guidines But I if that hasn't been clear in here, I can add something to that effect. We can add something just indicating that the study area is going to be a per it guidelines based on the rightated number of trips that may be. So the the what you recommended is that we send this to to to the solicitor to look at proceedings. But if the three of us meet, we can I would suggest maybe that we have a meeting just to talk about how just as a practical matter

some additional wording in especially with respect to uh uh threshold level. Yes. A little more on volume to capacity or something once it's been determined that uh a traffic study is going to be required then I think got all the details that you need here. But I think it's how do we decide who gets into what queue here? Y okay. All right. That okay with the other members of the board? Yep. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Liz, very much. Thank you. Thanks, Liz.

So, the action here is um that uh we will meet to uh do some word smithing on this document, adding in some uh additional information. We don't need a motion for that, do we? No, I don't think so. Okay. Can I? Yeah, sure. So, uh does he say this is just guidelines we're providing for uh applicants that come before us for traffic studies, right? Yes. Do they but we're going to, you know, make it part of the ordinance or the regulations. will figure out where to put it and and and how to adopt it so that it's something that's going to be does DOT look you know look at local things like this local local guidelines

only if it's only if it's on a state road and something that would require a physical alteration permit from DOT you know because she she highlighted roads that are basically state roads you know and they they're not just in Middletown you know there are future projects that you know down the road that might be in Newport or up the road that might be in Port and they're they're There certainly would be projects and there are projects now that come before you where you you want to see a traffic study, but where they're also going to need to get a permit from DOT. Yeah. I'm trying to think of what the the burden is on the applicant and just how hard it is going to be for him to meet this uh you know, meet these guidelines, you know, and uh

well, I think that's that's going to be part of the process that we talk about is is how where's that where is that line? How do we uh make sure that we're not overburdening someone with a small project, but you're getting the right information you need for a project that might have a bigger impact. That's that reasonable reasonable threshold that you're referring to. Yeah. Everyone okay with this? So, this would this is going to come back? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Excellent. All set. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Liz.

Thank you. Okay. The uh next item on the agenda is item 4B, discussion of excuse me, discussion of and recommendation to the town council on proposed design requirements and other restrictions for multifamily residential development, including proposed amendments to Middletown zoning ordinance section 1508, building design and location, and recommendation to the town council on proposed amendments to the use table in the Middletown zoning ordinance section 602 schedule of district regulations uses and districts multif family dwelling structure and multifamily dwelling project section 603 regarding dimensional requirements for two family dwelling multif family dwelling structures and multif family dwelling projects and section 1504 regarding allowable density for multif family dwelling structure and multi family dwelling projects. Um this is coming back because um the town council when they were considering uh our recommendation felt that um well their biggest concern was that multifamily uh uh buildings would not be uh compatible with neighborhoods. And uh so what uh was discussed and what the town council agreed to was to send it back to the planning board so that we could put in some additional guidelines on appropriate uh building design and other restrictions such as no flat roofs u uh and then send it back to them for their consideration. So that's what we're looking at now. Ron

prepared some modifications and added some some u photographs to serve as guidelines for suitable uh architecture. And uh that's what we're looking at.

Yeah. And the photographs are actually provided by Melissa Welch. She um had some examples of existing multifamily structures in the East Point neighborhood. So she just provided some examples. she was at the hearing and and spoke uh to the council um more or less in support but recognizing and I think at the end of the conversation with the council I think everyone recognized and and perhaps agreed that there's concern over the impact of this type of change on existing established uh residential neighborhoods and the desire to at least address the design aspect and I don't know that that even if we were to the planning board were to put forward some variation of what I provided to you in draft form for design requirements. I don't know that that gets over the hump in terms of getting town council support. Um I think there was some some significant concerns still on at the town council level for allowing multifamily development in in these zoning districts. But that was one issue that did come up, the design aspect and and impact on um on residential neighborhoods. One thing that you know we did stress um you know Paul and and others who spoke during the meeting is that there are limitations. It's not like every 10,000 foot lot can have a multif family building on it. In fact, what's been proposed by the planning board would require a minimum 40,000 square foot lot to even be eligible for a multif family structure and then the number of units in that multif family structure is limited further by this the size of the property. So you're you're required to have a minimum square footage of land per dwelling unit in the structure. So there are some checks that

and all of it requires special use permit.

Well, that's that's the other thing. There are some checks into you know over what could happen there. It's not I think you know when this so this is the second time it's been referred back to the planning board. Um one of the issues that that was raised I guess during that prior discussion was this. I think there was a a feeling or maybe a misunderstanding that it was going to be a much more permissive allowance for multif family than than what it actually is given that minimum lot size requirement. We you know we had and I I may have talked to you all about this last time. Um, we did do a rough analysis uh across the town in the R10 and R20 districts and there's about 120 total properties in town where this might um be a potential option for folks. Um, most of those are in the R20 zoning districts. There are about a dozen lots that are at least 40,000 square feet in the R10 districts. So, I try, you know, we we tried to give that information to the council. uh again to sort of lay out and we we did produce a map which I think I included in the packet.

I was going to actually inquire on that very point. Um, I think this planning board is in favor of the concept and I understand there are citizens who are fearful and town council members who may be opposed. And I wonder if by saying that our recommendation applies in the R20 zone only and not in R10, we can't pull a victory out here because there are so few lots anyway. I think from your from your uh map that you show on the back I counted nine R10s and all the rest are R20s. So I wonder if we limited it to R20 if we would have a greater chance of success. It's a possibility. I think the their biggest concern was about the R10 district where there were small lots even even though we require 40,000 square feet. I mean, it's

I I I don't understand the I I understand what they were saying, but I I don't think they they understood exactly what this the the requirements here because it's going to be still kind of prohibitive unless you have one of these lots. And I think the one the lots you outlined are the ones that apply like by the letter of this, right? They still need a special it's not this isn't by still special use permit, correct? and a special use permit does, you know, require them to submit plans and there's a review and then you have all the opportunity to opine in the design and the siding and everything else. So, special use permits a pretty high hurdle.

Yeah. To to to to get through to begin with. So, um, the question I had on this too though was why isn't it why aren't we expanding this to the other residential districts are 30 or 40 or 60? Why didn't we do that?

Well, that's that's up to the the board. I mean, if you wish to do that, you certainly could. You know, that question while the question came up during the hearing specifically about our 40 and our 60 districts with the thinking, well, you've got a lot more open land in this district. Um, but that's also the parts of town with with less access to public sewer and water. So, in the more rural, you know, the more rural um character of of the town in those areas. So, that that's one issue. If you wanted to go to R30, yeah, I mean, that's a that's a policy discussion. it changes slow at least with regard to I think one of the other concerns that they had is um ability even though you're setting some of these area requirements going and getting variances from those requirements 40,000 pressing varian a lot less Right. But then they'd have to get a variance and then also a special use.

Yeah. Correct.

And there and there are thing there are ways that you could um draft around that. Um if if it is a if it requires a special use permit and a variance, you can uh draft the ordinance in a way that says you that you have the ability in the in the code to say you could get a special use permanent variance together or you can't get both at the same time. Um you could have uh so for example, Newport when it comes to density their provision is that if a two family requires a special use per and 10,000 square feet. You don't have the 10,000 square feet. It's not a dimensional variance. It's a use variance. Oh, there would be a way we could say that we could draft it that way and maybe give the comfort that the size requirements that you've put in there will would hold at least at least for example, it's saying the R10. So, so, um, are you suggesting then that maybe we should revise, uh, what Ron has drafted and and bring it back to the planning board?

Well, if you're if you're suggesting, for example, I mean, so Steve's got one approach, which is saying just pull the R10. um if if they're concerned about that. The other option in the R10 would be to say would be to craft that so that um if you don't have that required lot size can't get variance for that have to go to a full use variance standard which which very very difficult I don't I don't think they'd have an issue with a two family house

40,000 feet. Yeah. Multif family on 40,000 square feet. Yeah. Was it was that concern about getting relief, getting if we if we drafted that if we changed the R10 to draft it such that you can't if you don't meet that that once again very similar to Newport. If you don't meet that standard, you can say, "Well, I want to do two family, but I've only got 5,000 square feet instead of 10." Charlie's probably seen this. no longer dimensional bearings. It's a use fair. So, um I could work I could work with Ron on this.

Yeah. I I was going to say, why don't why don't the two of you get together, d come up with another draft, and send it back to us. Yeah. And I also want to maybe work with Peter more on these design standards because there's at least as I was writing them and um thinking about it there. They're not as specific I think as they might need to be um be implemented. So I'll work with Peter on those as well.

I have a opinion on that too. Why would we just why would we impose design standards on like like multifamily not two family like because of the number of units that are in the building there would be a design standard applied I would I would think more it should apply more to the size of the building. So interestingly um all multi all multif family buildings are considered for for design and review purposes are considered commercial properties. So there are so subject to the commercial design. So but why would we unbel Why would we put that in? Why would

these are these are going above and beyond. Yeah. So for example, our commercial design standards have a preference for a pitched roof but allow for a flat roof. This says no flat roof. Period. Yeah. I I Why would we Why would because this is going to be as a practical matter. It gives you a better chance of getting passed. of the council adopting that. There's that. And I think to your I think I understand your question. Why aren't we requiring that for everybody? Well, why would we put a more stringent request on a on a residential house versus a commercial?

The these are developments in residential districts. So these we're talking about the R10 and R20 residential districts whereas most of the other multi either multif family developments fair or commercial developments are not in residential. But philosophically, someone builds a single family house, there are no require no design requirements. So the single family can look like whatever you want, but the multif family has to look a specific way. So if that if that rationale applies, these are these are residential areas, then apply it to every house. I think the rationale is that the multif family structure is going to be larger and have more

impact. So, so maybe you maybe that maybe the design standards are triggered on a size threshold, a massing threshold or something like that because again someone can come in and as a single family home build some modern looking house next in in a you know colonial neighborhood and nobody can stop them. That's a whole different animal when you start trying to regulate design for single family houses, right? But I guess I have a problem with with trying to regulate it in this case and not in other cases. If if if the intent is to keep some kind of uniformity, which I disagree with too, I think go to the historic district commission in Newport couple and you'll uh you'll probably feel different.

No, no, I get it. But we don't have a historic Yeah. No, you know what I'm saying? like if we did it would, you know, I'd understand that, but I I just don't understand how the how the logic, it just falls apart when you start thinking about it like that. It's how the town council is going to assure people it's going to protect the character of the neighborhood. That's all. And I think that's a fair thing to do. Yeah. But also, that's been kind of the reason why why we have such a huge housing crisis. That's that's statistically proven. All right. So, um research.

Moving along. Is everyone okay with uh Ron and Peter? I had one other thing that they might add. We have the design standards we've added. We didn't specifically articulate that it would not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood or on traffic in the neighborhood. I think those we maybe they're encompassed in the special use permit analysis. We those are already those are already baked in.

Yeah, but I was just saying if we made it explicit here, but if it's purely redundant, then we don't need it. Well, we'll let Peter and Ron uh come up with some additional wording and bring it back to the planning board. Okay. Okay with everyone. Sounds good.

Very good. The next item on the agenda is um Item 5C, request of the town council for review and recommendation on a draft complete streets ordinance. Everybody has a copy of the draft open for comments.

So just to be clear, the draft that you have before you is based on the draft prepared by the solicitor's office. The red line changes are those that have been recommended by the bike and pedestrian advisory committee and I'll let Peter speak to whether or not he agrees with their recommended revisions. Um and then board planning board so so the BPAC has given this or will give this to the council as their recommendation. and the planning board's been asked to also give a recommendation to the town council. Um, you may or may not agree with what the BPAC is suggesting. So, just you're aware of that.

I I have a question. Uh, I have a lot of trouble with this. Um, primarily because most of what they're saying we do already. I mean, I I read through this and the the only thing I could find that we don't currently do is require bicycle pads on all roads. Everything else we do already. So, I'm saying why why are we doing this? That's my problem. So, we don't we don't have a an ordinance specific to that to this topic. of complete streets. So the council

we don't have ordinance on a lot of topics. I mean that's not the purpose of ordinance.

The council adopted a policy I don't know what a year or two ago the complete streets policy. Um the bike and pedestrian advisory committee and and others in the community requested that the council go the next step and adopt an ordinance like this um that would I guess spell out more clearly and in one place what folks are are required to do in terms of creating and and uh providing these streets. So that's why it's been uh drafted by the solicitor at the request of the council and that's why you're getting it as a review and recommendation. Um I'd like to get a sense of the board on this because I mean I personally I have a lot of trouble with this draft but I would like to hear comments from the other members of the board. comments down here. Anybody?

Mike, are we just talking about the uh you know pedestrians, bikes, cars? Are we talking about landscaping the roads or the the side sidewalk areas or is that another issue? What your question? This this is I'm just wondering what this covers, you So

any anytime a road is reconstructed or a new road is being proposed, it would have to comply with these um goals or guidelines in the design process. So sidewalks, I think definitely um opportunities for for bicycle facilities, whether it's a a shared use path off the road or or bike lane on the road, would have to be considered in that design process. Um, we already we already require sidewalks for it's in our town roads. Well, we don't we don't control the state roads.

Well, you do. If development is proposed on a state road and our standards, our regulations call for installation of a sidewalk, you can require the installation of a sidewalk. Um, you remember that standard that Karen Walk proposed several years ago about uh, you know, the sidewalk and then there sort of like a like a grass buffer between that and

between the curb and the sidewalk. Yep. So, that's that's in place. Um, it kind of I guess you would say that this is building on that effort. It's it goes beyond just having a planting strip that that makes the sidewalk more pedestrian friendly and uh, more attractive for for folks to use. It's uh again it's going to that bike transit um and and pedestrian amenities and facilities and the you know the goal is to encourage these alternative modes of transportation to try to get cars off the road um particularly for short trips. If someone can safely and conveniently walk a short distance to do what they need to do rather than getting in their car, that's that's a bene benefit to everybody.

You know, one of the that's the goal. I wonder on that Middletown Center Citizens Advisory Committee that I was on, you know, the big one of the big issues was connectivity, you know, from certain areas in town to other areas in town. And would this address that too? Well, this this gets there because if every project that comes in, every road project that comes in is required to provide in that in the within the scope of that project, whether it's a bike lane or a sidewalk where there's no sidewalks, eventually that connectivity is going to be created. Will that be sort of a, you know, sort of a concept in this ordinance, a connectivity or somehow promoting connectivity between

Well, that's that's the intent. That's yeah okay that that's that's the purpose. Okay, then that is in there. It's you know it is um in certain respects. I think it's a good thing to have. Yeah.

But you know the council had drafted a policy. They then at the at the request of the bike committee asked us to prepare uh the ordinance which we did. It then was went to the bike committee. They made some of their revisions. I I guess the only comment that I would make on the changes that they had suggested is there was a provision and this this is not dissimilar to the provision that's in the the esplanade sidewalk ordinance where there's sort of an out if it just doesn't make sense. Um we had a provision that included I know I've lost it there. I bet it's number two. Um include you have to include required to include measures developed by vulnerable

exceptions. No, this was on section four. The exceptions and one exception was where the cost of a new accommodation would be excessively disproportionate to the safety need or probable use. So if it just, you know, if if it didn't make right sense, if if it, you know, there there are requirements that you can put that just aren't potentially viable for a particular project. I agree with that. That there would be an that the board can make an exception for that and and the the bike committee suggested removing that exception. I think that exception should remain in there.

So that's saying that if it's cost prohibitive that can't Yeah. And it's just not or or if it's going to Yes. If it's going to cost a tremendous amount of money, but it's not going to necessarily be very effective or actually be used, then um you have the ability to make an exception there.

Yeah, I think it should go back in. And the point that I was uh making on the prior page um is number two requires inclusion of measures developed by vulnerable roadway users or vulnerable users that respond directly to their particular needs. I would say it has to be consideration of measures that are developed by vulnerable roadway users. Yeah, this whole document is like that though and that's why I have a problem with this. What is a vulnerable roadway user?

There's a pedestrian bicycles or bicycles. Is there a standard definition for that? It's defined. They added a definition for that or rollers pedestrians or bicycles. Um but yeah, I mean including measures that are developed. I I I yeah, you know, I would like to sit down with you and go through this because I have a lot of problems. We're going to have a long meeting. As soon as we're going to have a long meeting, well, we can split it up. No, I I don't I don't disagree with you. I'm happy to sit down and uh try to come up with something that makes sense. Yeah, these things

I'm very I I appreciate uh the motivation behind this. Yes. Okay. It's just a lot of issues within it that and one issue I think these are all very forwardlooking and good good things but they will make development more expensive and that affects affordability issues and I think we also have to be sensitive to that. Well, I mean I'll give you one just one example. Uh if you look on on p the pages are not numbered.

It's it's the third page of the of the draft ordinance and it's the first paragraph that's in red. Item one underneath it says ensure safety and maximize maximize. I mean I mean do you know what that word implies? maximize. I mean, who's enforcing this?

Well, that was one thing I talked to Peter about also needing to get into the ordinance because it does talk about when you when you get into the exceptions that the planning board's going to decide. The problem with that is the planning board never sees a road project unless it's part of a development like a subdivision. So there needs to be a procedure, a mechanism that gets these projects before the planning board. So that's but that's at least the way it's drafted now. I think the intent is that the planning board is going to be taking the lead on um reviewing and enforcing the ordinance. Well, are you willing to sit down and discuss this?

Always. So I I I suggest then we table this until we have a chance to review it. Yeah, I agree. And I'm reassured by you having that meeting where the tenor changes from mandate to a aspirational goals. Yeah, there's a lot in here that's mandated without considering practicality. Yeah, that's one of the problems though and I'm not sure how from a practical standpoint is how some of this would actually be applied. Yeah. And that's, you know, we Ron's got a lot on his plate already. So, Oh, I understand. But he's got to help him now. He has a helper now, right? Yeah.

Any other comments on this?

I I I agree. I think I think this just layers. It creates additional layers and additional costs. I think we have a lot of um safeguards already. But anyway, we'll we'll talk about it. Yep. Good enough with everyone. Okay, good. Uh, next item are the updates. First is the status report. Anyone have comments on the project status report? Um, I just have one. Could you elaborate on the situation with the airport zoning? What is happening with that? So, nothing's moved recently. So, we had worked with um we had requested from Ryak some information on the easements that they have in place and what they've been working with property owners to acquire. Um because the thinking was and and this goes back to it being pulled um when this was scheduled for a hearing with the town council with the feeling and Peter can probably speak better to it than I can, but this feeling that really these issues that Ryak has raised and and what they've said is a reason for the need for zoning. It really goes back to their responsibility to work with property owners to acquire the easements that they feel they need to protect the airspace and and the the zoning provision really should be a last resort.

If if you look at at federal policy on this, the the the primary means of of ensuring that they've got room to operate safely is to acquire easement rights or navigation easements and things of that sort. Uh zoning is as Ron said the last resort and the zoning really should just um conform to what they've already put in place. So we don't want to be rather than us um enacting a zoning ordinance that prohibits someone next to the airport using their property. If they don't want someone to use the property, the airport corporation needs to go out and and basically

So the burden is on them. The burden is on them at this point. Absolutely. The burden is on them and so we're just waiting for them to go. So we asked them to say get if give us a detailed list of all the easements and rights that you hold around the airport and we're fine enacting zoning that that is sort of mirrors what you already have in place. But we don't want to be responsible for taking because number one, the town's going to get sued if we go in and essentially remove someone's development rights without compensating. Yeah. Right. Um that's the airport corporation's job is to So the burden is on them at this point. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments from anybody?

Okay. Uh committee reports, comprehensive plan update. Next meeting is tomorrow. We're getting close close to the end. Um, yeah,

we're looking to review the uh entire plan, summaries of the entire plan tomorrow at the at the meeting and and invite further comment. And then at the December regular meeting, we expect to ask the committee to formally vote to transmit the draft plan to the planning board um for further consideration. And then once that happens, the planning board will hold the formal public hearing um before forwarding it to the to the council early next year. So it's it's moving. Um little bit behind schedule, but not not terrible. Pretty good though. Pretty good. Yep. Yeah. Pretty good. Any comments?

Pre-commission? Uh there was a meeting by the gentleman that was discussed at the last uh time we got together uh and he was discussing trees in Rhode Island and the destruction of forests by the DEM and by groups of people who uh didn't really realize what they were doing buring these trees. You say destruction by DEM.

DEM had had uh agreed to some of them. Not all of them, but some of them. Yes. Not necessarily on this island, but throughout uh like uh Coventry, West Greenwich, that area, there's a lot of forest, a lot of trees. Very interesting. Anything going on in Middletown? Oh, not about not in that vein at all. That's goodness. That's good. Yes, that was that was very important.

Open Space and Fields. Okay. The last meeting we didn't have a quorum, so we didn't have any official meeting. Conservation Commission, there was a meeting. I unfortunately missed it. Um, but uh I don't I don't have a summary of that meeting or minutes from it yet. Um, but we do have a new member, Matthew Skerzenski, young guy. Yes. Yeah. Um, so I'm looking forward to meeting him and, um, Brian Hoffman, the current chair, uh, will be stepping down. He's stepping down. Yeah. So, we're gonna, um, I thought he was the new chair.

He was the new chair. And according to uh the correspondence here, he has been he was stepped down and so I think we have a new chair, but I have to get an update from the committee. So I don't have that yet. I will get the update for the next for next month. Uh Middletown Center Citizens Advisory Committee. So uh so any further meetings have been put on hold until there's uh more definition as to uh what's going to happen, you know, what the project. Okay. Okay, you see the upcoming meetings. Does anyone have anything else to bring before the board? I have a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second.

Motion is made and seconded to adjurnn. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. Oppos? Nay. Meeting is adjourned.