Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

this for years and they never explained any of this and we just went along with them. Yeah. The other thing that you know the other problems Yeah. Yeah. Oh my good. No problem. I'm good. How are you? Hi. Hello. Hello. Yeah. So that's interesting. But I asked a few people. It is portable. Anybody good? Anybody good? Oh, yeah. They were good. They were good. That Well, at least half a dozen real good. Washington trust that were they good or they It was good. It was good. There were a lot of good for you. No, but you got to break it all down, right? He told uh Al Costa, I said, "I'll I'll have it to you by Friday, but I want to go through everything again." Yeah. And then he could summarize it and then they can give it to the planning board. Yeah. Good. I'm not planning but you should look at that oil. Yeah. When we can get out of it if we've made you know I think it paid dividend now. I think it had stopped for a while. I'm not sure. So we should look at it on figure. I was talking to Unbelievable. It's a small percentage but still it's a lot of money. You know, it's it's interesting. Oh, there's another one. There's really like no oversight of See, I'm not I'm not putting that in there unless somebody asked for it. Yeah, you we asked for it. Well, yeah. Right. Honestly, I'm not because

it's probably a big commission ro which they probably didn't. It's a hefty fee every year. probably because I said to them, "You're disclosing these fees, but how about these other fees?" Exactly. These other fees, right? I had that problem on on a board I'm on that problem. They've had hedge funds for 10 years. Okay. So, I I say to them, Bank America, I said, "Ak these hedge funds are 3% a year. We've had them 10 years, right? That's 30%." Right? We made any money, right? Who's making the money? Exactly. Well, you know, Steve, let me tell you, our firm feels like they have a place and I'm good. So, where's the performance? There's a place after 10 years, right? Has to be something. Unbelievable. It's amazing to me. So, all that stuff. But anyway, now we got to deal with all it for nonsense. Oh, there's a lot of baggage. Oh, yeah. Yeah, of course. Of course. Yeah. But you see problem, right? Right. Snowball. Keep rolling. Do you hear from anyone what they want to do? It's a shame. Usually not really. Good to see you. What I tell them as far as I work for it because

all you're going to do is submit whatever additional evidence they have and then I would what I would do is close the public. It's more just like and then have that really the next time but reserve judgment you know the decision at the next next meeting how they can put it all together. I think there's not really rulings either way as like what that means, but I think they could I think find that an appeal maybe different story, but I think they could find Steve was trying to get definitions like exist structure. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You like the statute has some definition. It's not really of anything that like helps us. Not that we need the definition. I don't know what you want to do. Did you Did you go look at the place? Yes. Yeah. Worst case law. Worst case. Yeah. But at least they can try. I mean, I think this guy just went It'll never work. Oh, adaptive reuse. Cost him a [ __ ] ton of money. Probably not the building though. Right. He tried to reach over, but nobody responded. There's a better plan. It's less units. It knocks the building down. It might behoo him to do that. But then no density bonus. I think that's what he wants. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not familiar with this oil. What's that? Oh, that's not Oh, yeah. I know. For next month. So, um, it's not on for next month anymore. No, they got they came in last year. What he did do is he agreed to go down to one bedroom. you get rid of 30 or 40 bedrooms opened then they got denied the cost. That's kind of a weird I think he tried but nobody nobody I guess

yeah but the council didn't want the council's not interested they're coming back you know they don't want bottom line is something's going there no matter what they're asking how you doing yeah that's not how that works So they just sit there. Okay. So that never Exactly. Okay. Exactly. All right. Well, then sounds sounds like next month is just gonna be this and then but he's night tonight. Good. How are you? I know. After last time. How long? I don't know. It takes about a year. Hello there Dave. How are you? Good. Good. Dave, how are you? Been more than a year. Oh, yeah. Dave, I was thinking that was crazy. Awesome. All right. Are you on this day thinking this? You don't want to be making findings. Is it right? What? She it was my fiance last month. It was my first one. So I said I got to go. And he's like, "Oh, we'll just go to dinner late." I'm like, "Yeah, that's fine. Whatever time it was, I know." Yeah. You want dinner still? I'm like, "No, I know. This actually should be How's your son doing? Am I right? Getting big ass soon. Getting big fast. Too fast. Yeah. Ridiculous how fast it happens. Yeah. Know time goes by. Yeah.

Every day or two I come home and he's like he's got a new skill that you want mocks. Oh, the visor. I got a question for you after. I have a large an old old sliding glass door. I have Do we get paid from us? Sorry, I have a screen. You want I was going to come on, but you know what? We babysat for the first time the other night. Oh, nice. and go to Foxwoods for a comedy show. So, we had the baby overnight. It was nice. You don't know what it's like to get away from you. Well, I think they enjoyed it as much as they enjoyed it. Your grandkids. That's nice. So many.

They just got married. How old was the baby now? That's funny. Turn the air conditioning. How are you? You did a very nice job last week. He always does. How was that minister? Transcript. Dave, did you get my email? Yeah. For the fence. Yeah. Yeah. It's just a recommendation So, he has a fence there already. where I wanted. So cute. It's tough to make someone do a survey though. You can ask him. Does it confirm? Yeah. No, he does. We just We generally tell

people putting up a fence without a survey is at your own risk. So cute. That's fun. Yeah, we don't require it though. So, we don't require it for Yeah, I'm just a good point. It's a good point. Yeah, it can be part of the recommendation to the zoning board. Yeah. All right, boss. Long time no see. And we have We have no meeting minutes. No meeting minutes. We got them earlier today, so I figured it was too late to send him out. Both one bedroom. Yeah, but not the number. Not the number of units, right? Who's missing? I don't know. If people want to get up again to speak, Dave, look, if you spoke to the last time, please come find your comments for the existing like the new additional evidence. They're going to get up and repeat themselves be midnight. Is Gary coming? He said he was coming. He's been known to walk in a few minutes

late. Yeah, he's got a little bit of a drive to get that he does. We should work. Start whenever you Yeah. All right. Good evening everybody. Can everybody in the gallery hear me? Want to test that these microphones are on. It seems like they are. Um, thank you for attending the town of North Providence Planning Board. We're located at 2000 Smith Street, North Providence, Rhode Island. You please join me in saying the Pledge of Allegiance. To the flag of the stand indivisible on YouTube. Okay, first on tonight's agenda is the approval of meeting minutes from our hearing on May 14th and May 21st. Um I just been made aware that the meeting minutes have been issued uh just recently earlier today. Um I myself have not had enough time to review um the

meeting minutes and don't feel comfortable on making a a decision to um approve or or disapprove. Um I'll just pull the um the board to see if my fellow board members uh feel the same way I I do. Uh Lou, do you feel comfortable or not comfortable? I haven't had an opportunity. Okay, thank you. No. All right. So, um that uh meeting agenda item will be um uh taken care of our next hearing. Do we have to vote on that? No. Um we have two projects being heard tonight. Um Oh, actually, we're going to take a roll call of um attendees. Uh we can start to my my right Lou Dukio Warren Richard David Parasian Steve Patassi Anthony Galone Town Solicitor. Okay. Thank you. We do have a quorum tonight. Um so uh the we're going to arrange the sequence of how we're going to hear the projects tonight. Um so first on the agenda uh will be uh nine Barry Court assessor's plat lot plat 19 lot 814 zone residential general applicant is Boris Mlas um of 9 Barrack North Providence. The description for the board tonight is a recommendation to the zoning board regarding a request for a twoft fence height variance under section 311D screening and fencing to install an 8ft fence spanning 151 and 1/2 ft along the

rear property line. Is the applicant present in this room? U Mr. Chair, before we get started with this, um if you wouldn't mind just um making the announcement about the take five uh withdrawing their application. Was that was that um advertised? It was. It was okay. Um it just didn't it didn't show up on the agenda. So, if anybody's here for the Take Five um project uh located on Mineral Spring Avenue, forgive me. I don't know the exact address. um that it was advertised as uh Zero Malcolm Street Mineral Spring. Okay. So, that project um is not being heard tonight. So, if you are here for uh that particular project um that project will not be heard. Thanks for reminder, Brent. Um okay, back to Nine Barry Court. The applicant uh please stand up, state your name and address. So, um, for the public record, my name is Boris Knas. This is nonbear court province. N A Kh L I S. Okay. Can you can you describe to the board a little bit about what you're you're proposing? Sure. So, back of my property face uh faces tennis court. Um, there's an existent there's an existing piece of fencing. It's 6 feet tall and there's that I want to replace with an 8ft tall fencing. There's another piece of fence and that's another section that I want to put 8 foot fence piece of that too. Okay. And um your your property borders um I believe uh Steven only park. Yes. Is that correct? And is the um existing sixoot fence on um your property? Do you know? It is. Yep. Okay. Um, have you had a um property boundary survey of your um of your property done? Defense is

existing. There's existing uh property lines visible. Um this uh permit that was put in place in 2010, which is 15 years ago, to put it to put a shed where the shed is existent. So that property line's been in place for at least 15 years. Um, additionally, that previous owner was was in litigation with a property owner that's uh that's a church that owns the property right in the back of me. Um, and then there was a litigation around the property line. So, they established the property line through that, too. Okay. But you're you don't have a um a survey of your your property. You're establishing your property line based off of existing elements that are Yep. to be on your propert about 15 years, so I think that's probably good enough, right? Okay. So, um just uh uh my own experience. I recently put up a fence on my property and um you know, lived there for maybe probably about 45 years and I knew exactly where my property line was. And um I decided that it would be um a wise investment just to have my property surveyed and get a boundary survey. And believe it or not, where I wanted to put my fence, where I thought my property line was, it was it was not. Um it was actually skewed. Um so I given the fact that your your property borders um town property, um I would strongly recommend for for you as a homeowner to um get your property surveyed, not only because you're you're putting up a a fence, but it um it may come in handy uh down the down the road. Um I appreci appreciate the suggestion. I also believe that uh there's a certain rule around if the property in if it's in existence has been clearly defined as that and has

been used as that for a number of number of years it just becomes that as well just becomes what I'm sorry if the property line has been established and it's been in place and nobody has disputed it over x amount of time I believe that becomes a property line too but I will look into all of that yeah that's position That's not necessarily the case. In order in order to establish a property line through adverse possession, you need to get a judgment superior court to actually establish the line. I will look into that. Do any of my board members have any questions for the applicant? Go ahead. Um, Mr. Nicholas, all this time that you had that sixoot fence, have you ever had to maintain the other side of it? No. I just bought a house about three, four years ago. So, my question is, if you're going to put the the 8-ft fence right on the property line, um, and you need to maintain the other side for whatever reason, um, how would you do that if it's right on the property line without encroaching on public property? I would put an access to the other side and I would put it on my side of property. Give, you know, and provide enough access to it that I can still walk on my propert. Provide what? I'm sorry. I would put a fence on my property. Yeah. with a space for me to walk on the other side and take care of it other side. So that I guess that's why I was asking I thought you said you're going to put it right on the property line. So you're going to offset it a couple of feet, right? It would be up it would be offset by Okay. That doesn't show this on the plane. That's why I was asking. So So if if if the board were to approve it, you would, as for the record, you would put it a couple of feet off the property line. Yeah, I would put it, you know, enough space for me to walk behind it to take care. Okay. All right. Thank you. Is that okay? Yeah. Thank you, Lou. I believe you had a question. Yes. Um, what material will the uh fence be made of? I haven't gotten to that point yet, but probably wood. Wood. Yeah.

Steve Warren, any questions from you guys? No, I uh grew up with no fences. I'm sorry. I grew up with no fences. And where I'm living now, when 50 years ago, we had no fences there. And it became a communal playyard for everybody. When we were having a big party, we'd let everybody know. We'd have football games back there, baseball games. When we got married, everybody went to our wedding and we had to hire the police to uh watch over the house. It was just a taste. Uh yeah, now it's all fences. I got six foot fence behind me. I hate it. The neighbors there hate it. U I'm I'm not too keen on fences, but in some cases, you need it. uh uh 8 foot, you know, the subdivision regulations say 6 feet uh 8 foot. Is that overkill? So, the problem is my property back of my property just takes, you know, dips a little bit that the court is higher up. So, that provides a perfect view in my backyard. Also, I'm getting tennis balls flying into my backyard. I don't really want my kids outside. When I bought the house, the court was a lot smaller, so that was not a problem. Now the court is a lot bigger. It's more foot traffic. The balls are flying in. There's a in the back of a court. You, you know, there was a fence put in and then there's a direct gate in the back of a court. And I put all that like application. So it encourages foot traffic. People are constantly in my yard. Um there's been trespassing. There's been a fire in my backyard. Um, so this it just creates a lot of nuisance for me and I can't when I bought my house this was not a problem.

Now it is a problem. Okay. The abuing property I'm sorry on the abuing property on either side. Are there any fences in on that same line? Yes. How high are they? Six feet or 8 feet? The pro the the land it just goes up. So just naturally they're six feet but they're a lot higher up just because of just the way the land is. Okay. Um just for clarification the the applicant determined that uh 8ft fence um would be uh preferred over the regulated sixoot fence for um privacy reasons and also to um help prevent tennis balls from entering your yard. That's how you came to that conclusion. Yes. I need I want to prevent trespassers. I want, you know, tennis balls flying around. I have two small children. I mean, actually three small three children. I don't want anything to happen to my kids. And I do not want I want to discourage people from going through my property to either retrieve balls or to lawyer around them or to think it's okay to do that. Sure. I do not want people looking into my property. So, I want to ensure to that my my house as I intended to when I bought it. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Any other questions for my fellow board members on um this application? Oh. Um, so this is a so what we have to um discuss and determine is um whether or not uh a recommendation from this board can be made to the zoning board uh who will inevitably um approve or deny uh the application's request for um the height variance. Um I don't need to open up a public.

Okay. Um, so I've heard a couple of good um uh suggestions by the um applicant. I I do see reason for your your fence. Um, I thought Gary, um, and, uh, Lou and Warren asked very good questions, um, for the applicant, um, regarding the, uh, location of the fence, um, being offset from the rare uh, property line. Um, I myself, just having gone through this exercise recently, um, do find extreme value in having the property surveyed. um uh prior to uh uh building anything. Um what you know is what you know until it becomes something that you don't know. Um and uh oh um will any of my fellow board members entertain making a motion? So moved, Mr. Chair. So moved to grant the varants. We're not granting. We're recommending to recommend. Okay. Okay. Make a motion that we recommend to the zoning board of appeals that they um grant the merits. Okay. Do you have any based on the applicant's um record that the fence will be located off of his property line? So, I thought maybe I thought you do that if it's second then we could discuss the condition. So, should I do that right now? So, I make a motion. Yeah. that the planning board make a favorable recommendation that to the board of appeals to grant the two-ft variance for the fence as shown on the plan provided that it's offset 2 ft off the property line. Okay.

Second. Okay. The motion is seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? I. Okay. Any opposed? Hearing none. You have a favorable recommendation. Thank you. Great. Thanks. Next project we are going to hear it is um the address 114 Beard Avenue um plat 24A lot 110 zoned residential limited 10. The applicant is Patriot Builders of 140 Road, exit of Rhode Island. The description is a public hearing which was continued from February 12th and again on May 22nd, 2005. The public hearing is open. Um, the applicant is uh seeking uh master plan review for an adaptive reuse development converting the existing twotory, I'm sorry, the existing two structures into 48 residential units meeting the maximum number of units per acre permitted by Wright for an adaptive reuse project under section 203 district use regulations of the zoning ordinance. Is the applicant present here tonight? All right. Take your time.

25. The year. Yeah. Make it a 25, please. Sorry. Good catch. Um um while the applicant is getting ready for his presentation, I do want to acknowledge uh MARI has has joined the the meeting. He was present for the vote for nine Barry Court. Evening Mr. Chairman. Hi, good evening. Can you state your name for the record? Uh Jack McGreen for the applicant. Um as you stated, this hearing is a continuence from the May 14th meeting of my client's application for master plan review for an adaptive reuse development converting two existing buildings located at 114 Beard Avenue. Um since the last meeting, we've submitted a revised set of plans. I assume you all have that in your packet. Um reducing the size of the larger buildings. so that it would only contain single bedroomedroom units. Um, so there are no two-bedroom units. We shrunk it down and you can see that in the plan and I have we have the plans with this to go over with you. Um, I'll have uh Adam come up and uh walk you through those plans. Um, and then Tim will come up and also walk you through the site plan. Um, we did revise the name on the project on the elevation plans to Riverside Apartments um because of the board's concerns as to whether the units are going to be uh sold or rented. As of right now, the um the applicant intends to rent the property. Um, as for the objection raised by Attorney Dysto on behalf of the North uh North Province Town Council stating that the board should have gotten a letter of

eligibility from Rhode Island Housing along with the proform, excuse me, along with the pro-former on financials. Um, I was able to do some research and contacted Amy Renown, who's the director of government relations at uh, Rhode Island Housing, and she confirmed um, my suspicion that a letter of eligibility from Rhode Island Housing is not required and will not be given by um, Rhode Island Housing for an adaptive reuse project. Um I do have a letter from Rhode Island Housing confirming that fact and I just like to submit that. Um I just got today otherwise I would have sent Thank you. Read the letter into the record for the purpose of everybody in the audience. Thank you. Um dear Mr. Mc Green, I am writing response to your question regarding the applicability of the letter of eligibility LOE to an adoptive reuse development under IGL 4255. Rhode Island Housing is responsible for writing LOE's for proposed developments utilizing the low and moderate income housing act comprehensive permit process. um which this is not the low and she cites the the statute um the low and moderate income housing act describes the requirements that developers provide an LOE at the preliminary plan review stage of filing a comprehensive permit application and then she again she cites the statute I am not aware of any requirement for an LOE associated with adaptive reuse projects you can access the statutory requirements for an adaptive reuse which we've already gone over last meeting.

So, I think that shuts the door on the need for me to get an LOE. Um, thank you, Mr. McRine. We'll accept this letter um uh for the record. Um, Mr. Chair, could I ask that the letter be signed? Letter's not signed. Yeah. Can you get the uh letter signed, please? This letter is not signed. Um, she didn't sign the letter. She She emailed it to me. So, if you need it signed, I'll I'll get it signed. I absolutely want a signed letter. Okay, not a problem. Mike, I think the mics are on. I think we'll just do a better job speaking into them. Thank you, Chuck. Can you hear us in the back? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um but nevertheless, my my client has engaged the services of uh um the Community Housing Land Trust of Rhode Island who has agreed to act as our monitoring agent for Riverside Apartments. Um I have that letter that I also like to submit. This one is is signed. Again, for the record, I just quickly read that letter into the into the record. Uh to whom it may concern, please accept the letter of as confirmation that Mr. John McGreen on behalf of Patriot Builders Incorporated has been in contact with the Community Housing Land Trust of Rhode Island with regards to the monitoring of the 10 affordable rental units that would be developed in conjunction with an adaptive reuse project known as Riverside Apartments proposed at 114 Beard Avenue, North Providence. Um, once this development be approved by the North Province Planning Board, the Community Housing Land Trust of Rhode Island will execute a formalized monitoring agreement with the

developer to serve as the monitoring agent for the newly created affordable units. Our role will be to ensure the development's initial and ongoing compliance with Rhode Island's low and moderate income housing act, enabling the town of North Providence to receive the appropriate credit towards the state's 10% affordability requirement for the proposed rental units. The monitoring scope of work will entail the setting of the maximum monthly rental rate based on the town approval AMI target. um screening of prospective tenants to determine initial eligibility, working with the appropriate parties to successfully bring the affordable units online as well as an ongoing annual eligibility of its place tenants. The um community housing land development of Rhode Island will monitor the development for compliance for the duration of the deed restricted period, including any resales of the developments. I should add probably should that occur because right now as I stated we're going to be leasing these units. CHLTRI will also coordinate with Rhode Island housing staff to provide the appropriate information in documentation to ensure that the LMIH homes created as part of this development are included in the LMIH inventory chart and submit the required annual reports to the appropriate state authority. Um then she goes on to say if you have any questions you can reach her at that phone number. So, I like to submit that as part of the record. Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Uh, pertaining to the community housing land trust of Rhode Island letter. Yes, please. Uh, yes. So, I don't know if I should direct this to Mr. McGreen or perhaps to uh speak into the mic, Gary. I don't know if I should direct this to Mr. McGrino to the town planner. But the third full paragraph says for the proposed rental units, the monitoring

scope of work will entail the setting of the maximum monthly rent rental rate based on the town approved AMI target. So I want to talk about the AMI target. So um maybe I can ask you Brent um on whose authority who who who in the town uh the CD director or who would approve that? for example, is it going to be 80% AMI, 70% AMI? So, we use the Rhode Island Rhode Island housing standard. So, I'm not sure who approves. I don't approve it. So, it's someone other than myself, but So, we looking at again an AMI, but what at 80%. 70%. Yeah, 80%. All right. That's my understanding. It's it's 80%. Yeah. I just want to make sure they Okay. Um, so, okay. And like, like I stated, ju just not to beat a dead horse, but I'm I'm going to beat the dead horse. Um, even though this in the letter from Rhode Island housing, it states that we didn't need a letter of Rhode Island housing letter, a letter from them. If you look at that statute, I took a look at the statute that she does issue the letters. Even in that it states that that letter would be due at preliminary not at master plan. It's right in the statute. Um read that statute copy of it. Um again she was referring to the requirement of the letters of eligibility that fall under 45534 which this does not. But if you go to that section, it says submission requirements. Uh preliminary plan review. Applications for preliminary plan review under this chapter shall include a letter of eligibility issued by the Red Island Housing. So that letter if it was needed, which is not, would have been due at preliminary, not at master plan.

Um at this point in time, I think I'm going to bring up Tim first just to walk you through the site plan um with the changes that were made. Um before that, can I just while you're up there, Jack, um afford the any of the pling board members to ask any specific questions regarding the letters that are just been Sure. proposed to enter into the record. So I I guess maybe not a question, but just a comment. While I understand the statute says that it's compulsory at the preliminary plan. I'm sorry, I can't I'm sorry. Okay, I know I understand that the statute says that the LOE is compulsory at the preliminary plan stage. I think as a as members of the board, nothing says that you can't submit that at the master plan. So, we had requested, but I understand the statute. There's nothing wrong with providing additional information. It doesn't hurt. So, I just want to I understand the statute, but there's nothing wrong with the board asking for that information. But, I'm I'm I'm acceptable. I'm amenable to this information at this time, right? And quite frankly, it didn't it didn't cost us any extra money to get the letter. So honestly, it wasn't a big deal. But, you know, I did educate myself and quite frankly, I think I educated Mr. Attorney at Desperido that he was referring to the statute that is not applicable to this application. Quite frankly, I don't know why it's not, you know, other than the fact that you need a pro-former because they determine under the other statute whether or not it's feasible to um have 25% or 30% or 35%. In this instance, there's no wiggle room. We're entitled to the um entitled to the uh afford the 10 the 20% based on 20%. So, there's no wiggle room as to whether or not they can say you have it or you don't have it. We're entitled to it by right under the statute. That's the difference. That's why there's no need for pro a proformer, which Rhode Island Housing does require to make that determination.

Do any other board members have any questions for the applicant regarding the um two letters just submitted to us? All right. Thank you, Mr. Mcreen. Thank you very much for your due diligence and research on that for us. Thank you. and Tim um want to come up here and just walk through the revised plan and show the changes that were made. Yes. Uh good evening. For the record, Timothy Behan, professional engineer with the firm Commonwealth Engineers and Consultants, Inc. Providence, Rhode Island. I'll just hold it. All right. This is the uh revised site plan. Uh there's not many changes to the actual drawings for the site plan. What's happened since the previous submission to this submission is the building got a little smaller in size. As you can see, the original building went all the way up there. See this part here? This has been taken out of the project and this part over here has been taken out of the project. So the building size shrunk and the the bedroom count also shrunk. Originally, we had 48 units with 73 bedrooms. The current plan has 48 units, which is the same, but we dropped it to 48 bedrooms. So, they're all single bedroom units. Other than the building getting smaller, the site plan's the same. The parking's

the same. We had 67 spaces before, we have 67 now. We did not change the parking configuration. So site planwise there's not a lot of changes. We updated all the tables, the amount of impervious, etc. Things like that. The only change here are those two items. I believe there's also a change with the garbage location as well. This was shown on the last plan. Was it all right? Yeah. And maybe I was thinking the first meeting we had garments down here, but we picked up on that. That's technically the flood zone. So, we had to move it outside the flood. Uh Tim, I got a couple of Are you I'm sorry. Are you all set presenting the changes? Okay. Uh a couple of questions um for you uh regarding the the changes um and specifically the reduction in the existing building footprint. Um can you um state what the existing building footprint, what the square footage uh approximately is currently. Currently and and by existing building I do mean the larger building on the on the property. Let's see. Uh building one is the big building is 13,02 square feet and building two the smaller one is 1,582 feet. Now currently proposed what's the exist the existing footprint the existing square footage of the building before before the proposed um demolition. I did the calculation and the so existing is 16,684

is 13. He's got it on his plan. 13,000. Go to the previous set has the numbers. Building one was 17,140. Okay. And now it is 13,000 and two 13,02 square feet. Okay. Uh second question for you regarding the the footprint when compared to the architectural drawings. It appears that the architectural drawings have a what what is uh noted as a a courtyard within what appears to be the existing footprint of the building. Um and I I cannot see that courtyard represented on your on your site plan. Um, can you or the applicant speak to what the footprint of the proposed larger building will will be? Is it per the civil drawings or is it per the architectural drawings because there there is a discrepancy between the two. Good evening. Um, Adam Borugard, licensed architect from ZDS architecture. Sure. Um, B is in boy. E A U R E G A R D. Um there's a small discrepancy between the architecture and the drawings. Um but the courtyard, it's an open courtyard. Um it's enclosed within three sides. Um but then on the lower level, it it is fully enclosed and it's roughly um I don't have the square footage, but it's 15 by um over 25 ft. Did you say on the the lower level it's enclosed? It looks like on the lower level it's it's still a courtyard. Yeah. So in on the first level which is the lower level Y there's a retaining wall. Um we're maintaining that uh because of the grade difference. Mhm. And then um

if you're looking at the plan the left the sorry west north and east are all uh like the perimeter of the building. Okay. So, the intention um for the proposed footprint of the larger building is is the architectural plan. That's correct. And slightly smaller. Okay. Um, so Tim, it just it just sounds like your plans need to be updated and and it sounds like your the proposed square footage of the building footprint on your your plans needs to get reduced by that area of courtyard. We'll take a look at that. If if that qualifies as a reduction, then we'll reduce it definitely. Okay. Okay. Um, so I'm just going to walk you through the presentation very quickly, but yes. So, yes, I'm very light speaker. Um, we'll start on the second page. Um, quickly going through the site plan. So on the right is a diagram discussing um the elevation changes. So in the rear of the the rear of the um lot is the parking lot and that's at 85 um elevation. And the current elevation of the building is just below 88.8. So we need to raise that up about a foot. Um so we have a ramp that ramp and stairs that go up about 4 foot four to the first level. Um um

then we have to raise the second level because it's not at street level. Um and so because of that uh our building is just getting a little bit taller. It's not taller than last time. It's roughly 33 um.9 ft tall. So, moving on to the rendering on the third page. Just showing an updated rendering uh with the reduced footprint. Um there's stack stone in the front of the building. Um lab siding uh trim band around the second level. This is to reduce the massing of the building to make it seem smaller um to the residential neighborhood. Uh we have residential windows and then um there's two types of roofs. There's a gable roof with a bordon batten in the upper area and a hip roof um to the right. Uh moving to the fifth page is the lower level. This is just clearly showing the access from the parking lot in the top right. Um so there's a ramp and stairs leading up to the 89.8 uh first level elevation. Uh there's about 19 units here. Again, these are all one beds, um, some studios and one bed pluses. Um, and, uh, moving up to the next level, there's 23 units. Uh, we're stacking units wherever possible. There's an access off of the main street, Bayard Street. Um, so that we have a presence um, on the main street. Um, here you can just see the outline of the building with like the opening for the courtyard. And then um the elevations on page seven. The west elevation is off of Baird Street and it shows to the right and left the drop. So there's a retaining wall that's existing. And then the south elevation showing the gray drop from Baird Street down to the

parking lot. Um the materials are consistent around the building except for the stone that's only on B a and I can go through the second building if you need, but it's roughly the same thing. Okay. Thank you. Um couple of couple of questions for you and then um regarding the architectural plans. Um if I'm reading the the plans correctly, uh you indicate uh walls in two manners. Um one manner is uh two lines that are poched uh gray. The other manner is just two lines that are poched white. Um can you clarify for the board um what the difference between those two um ways of depicting walls is I'd be happy to. The pochade grade walls are existing. Um it's mainly the perimeter walls and some of the interior walls. Um you'll see that bis sector uh their existing firewalls u made of CMU and the white walls are new um proposed walls mainly corridor walls and demising walls. Okay. On the um thank you for that. Um so gray is existing and white are new walls. That's correct. Perfect. Um on the second floor level um I see an existing gray wall. Excuse me. Um, uh, going through the middle of four, uh, of the single bedroomedroom units that are approximately, um, 415 ft or so. Um, it actually looks like there's that wall creates two two rooms. I apologize. That's a discrepancy, an issue on our part. Uh, there should be a dash line showing an opening between

them. Um once we go into uh preliminary design and lay out the units, we'll decide where that opening would be. Uh we can't have too large of an opening just because we want the existing wall to remain uh since it's supporting the structure. And that wall supporting what structure uh the roof up above the roof above? It's basically um once we have a structural engineer on board, we'll um and some light demo work to see uh the makeup of the building, we'll understand uh what walls would be able to safely come down or if they need to be remain. Okay. Um couple other questions for you, sir, while you're while you're still there. Um the I understand the the fl the first floor um is the existing first floor is a is a slab on grade and the elevation is at an elevation of such that um is lower than allowable for residential for the um compared to the existing flood plane. Um so the concept here is to build a new floor. That's correct. most likely peers and then uh wood joist for the wall for the floor structure. Okay. Um and the second floor um as you show it the second the second level. Um is there can you clarify? Is there a an existing second floor in the building? Now there is an existing second level only for the front portion which is that skinny band. So uh the outside wall which is plan south and that wall that you were just talking about that cuts through the units. Um I believe that's the only area that has um that's the second level. Everywhere else it's much taller um but not tall enough for us to

have um two units sorry two levels without um putting a new floor and roof. Okay. So in in in concept the the footprint of your of the building when we look at the second floor plan a a good majority of that second floor plan um consists of a brand new floor in inside the building shell. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Okay. And um from your general observations, can you describe the structure of the building, the existing building? Sure. Um it's a warehouse made of CMU loadbearing walls on the uh perimeter. There are walls that are shown in plan that um it's basically a bunch of different buildings that are have been added on to each other over time. Uh that mainly why we're demoing two portions because there were smaller buildings that were just added. Um it's other than that it's just a slab on grade for the inside and the there's a older roof above. Okay. Um, at this at this point, has um has there been a a structural engineer to um uh take a look at the existing structure to uh deem feasibility, whether or not the existing structure can structurally support the um new residential use and added loads to the building. That's correct. Um we've we've contracted with a structural engineer that we've worked with closely who um has done preliminary um review. We've walked the site together. He's um we've discussed how

we'd be able to raise the first floor and how we'd be uh building the second level, but he has not just like us, we have not drawn anything past uh this conceptual design and he has not started drawing anything. Has he um provided the you or the applicant with a a report based on his findings? No. Okay. Not not written, not formal. Okay. Um do you know whether or not the uh structural engineer deemed um the existing structure which is consists of a majority loadbearing walls um can be reused to support the new floor structure that is being proposed for the building or will the new Sorry, are you asking would he be able to or has he has he? Um we've discussed it. It seems very likely that he'd be able to reuse the majority of the walls um to support to support a second level and roof. Um I will just state because of the amount of openings that we're putting into the um the walls and the openings that are existing, there will be a lot of mix match. So, we'll know more once once uh construction starts and once we do some flight demo to see really what's behind everything. Okay. Um and a question came up from the board uh a few times um is regarding the architectural floor plan where some of the units um didn't in the larger building didn't seem to have um access to natural daylight and we were very curious about the um uh about that design approach and I'd be

happy to elaborate allowable per the um So on the first level floor plans and I believe in some of the second levels um there's a note indicating how we're getting daylight into the bedrooms. So some of the bedroom some of the units only have one or two windows uh that are primarily for the living room. And so it would be what we consider a buried bedroom um and sorry a buried bedroom. And um so to get a light access we would either have an opening in the wall um or a transom window of some sort. There is one unit um that's directly in the center of the building uh just because of the amount of units that we need proform wise um that we were asked to keep. And so um there is a section in the code that the building code that allows for um artificial light. So basically can lights or electrical lights to um suffice for daylight. It's not something that we typically like to do that my firm or I personally would want to do. Um but um we do know that it's an option and we try our best not to do it. Thank you for answering that. It was a question. I think that was interesting to all of us on the on the board. Yeah. You have any more presentation on the Thank you. new evidence. Thank you. No, I I think that concludes our presentation subject to any additional questions that the board may have. Yep. Um I I would like No, I'm not going to say it. Thank you. Okay. I'll open up um questions for my fellow board members for the applicant um on the uh revisions that we are um

presented here tonight uh civil site and um architectural Gary. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um I guess a question for the architect. So at the last meeting, the product being proposed to the board was a buildout of the existing footprint of the building. That's correct. Okay. It wasn't until members of the board, I think it was uh Warren and those, let's say, were in opposition question the integrity, the structural integrity of the building, um that unless that questioning came up, the proposal before the board was a buildout of the existing footprint. So, I guess there was enough questioning being had that um the proponents team agreed to say, "Hey, let's go kick the tires on that building." That was just last month. So, this wasn't like a six-month exercise we went through. So, here we are a month later saying, "Oh, gez, you know, by the way, yeah, some section of this building have to come down." Well, I didn't ask the question yet. I'm just kind of setting the stage. Okay. you said when you're when you're finished. Yeah. Well, well, I'd actually like to hear it from the architect if that's okay as well. He's not familiar with that. The answer you're asking why we reduced it and you're suggesting that was because of a architectural issue or a Okay. Well, I would think the architect would know the structural integrity of the building. So, all right. So, let me ask the question first. So, I just wanted to set the stage. So this was about a month ago and until that question that inquiry came up and kind of took some traction that it was taken seriously and said okay hey we'll come back to you and it's only

been a month now we're looking at a smaller footprint so fine you're reducing it is what it is I want to understand what the thought process was to say in miday think this building is of sound body if you may it could be fit out for 48 units that included a distribution of additional with two-bedroom units. Now, here we are a month later saying, "No, you know, you're right. We kicked the tires on it. Now the building's smaller." Cuz which then leads me to ask, okay, is is this a sufficient the building footprint that you're proposing before the board? Is that a sufficient structural integrity? So my first question then so I don't extend this too many with too many questions is I'd like to understand what the thought process was from the structural engineer from a month ago to say hey you know what those sections of the building have to come down what was the what was the technical thought process behind that not an anecdotal response a technical response right um we're not going to be able to provide you with a technical response because at the first meeting this is just a concept plan there's no engineering involved I'm going to let Mr. court alleso answer the question as to why I reduced it which has nothing to do with a structural issue but that being said and I stated at the previous meeting that we are not at preliminary stage we are at master stage and if you look at section 8 submission requirements for preliminary not master preliminary requirements for the preliminary plan and supporting materials for this phase of review shall include engineering plans depicting the proposed development project a perimeter survey all permits required by state and federal agencies for prior prior to commencement of construction including permits related to freshwater, wetlands, coastal flood zones, disposal systems, public water systems and connection to state town roads. That is the step in which we will address all structural

issues. But that being said, I'll let Mr. Ca Lasso answer the question as to why he reduced the footprint. Before you do, yeah, I was going to step in for a second. So um we're not requesting that structural drawings be submitted as part of master plan at least I am not as um chair of this board but however I think given the adaptive reuse nature of this building and the condition of the building that is clearly visible from the street um raises questions on its ability to perform structurally and be reused as structural elements for the new the two new floors that are being built inside the shell of the building. The first floor is a brand new floor and the second floor is going to be a brand new floor. So the board does have concerns that um a structural engineer like the architect had mentioned has um can produce something for the board to consider a report findings not engineer drawings but most likely a feasibility study to be performed on the building. That is not a requirement of a master plan. I respectfully disagree. That type of work, that expense is preliminary, not master. So, let let me let me butcher us if if I may, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. So, if I could just finish answering the question before you ask another question. Well, I think we digressed on this, Mr. McGre. I don't know how many times we've sat here. I I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I I apolog and I know that. I realize that's a requirement, but we're a planning board and you're just, for example, what I have here before me that you're considering a master plan with all due respect is a is a property line perimeter, the footprint of a building, and the layout of a parking lot. That's all you've given us. And you're saying

that that's a master plan. Let me tell you something that's that's not a master plan. So, as the chair and other members ask for some peripheral information to try and find reasons to approve, it seems like all you do is push back and say you can't ask for that. So, we might not have that, but I think in the spirit of cooperation to try to impress upon us why we should grant it and we're asking for some bit of information. You know, it it almost seems like, you know, as I said, I think at a previous meeting, it's the cost of doing business. If we're asking for some reasonable information, we're not asking, as the chair said, a a stamp plan, a a stamp set of uh engineering specifications of the walls, we're not asking for that. We're asking for reasonable information in my humble opinion. And I will tell you, this isn't a master plan. This is a perimeter plan with the building footprint in the parking lot. And you're saying, "Well, that's all we're entitled." So, let's say that's the case. What's wrong with us with asking for some additional information? I think I think Jack the problem the board's having is even though master plan is conceptual you need to know that the concept works and there's no we we the concept may not work if if we get an engineer out there at preliminary for example and you know my client just so you know is considering perhaps doing a septic system design rather than connecting to to to sewers. That's a possibility. Well, number one, if we go out there at preliminary and we try and design a septic system and the engineer tells us you can't put the septic system in, then the then the whole deal dies. So, this deal is going to die if we don't have a structural engineer and structural plans coming in here saying that we want to build that what we're proposing right now. This is simply simply conceptual. We will have structural plans. We will not be able to proceed beyond preliminary plan unless we have structural plans showing that the structure will support this thing that we're proposing here tonight. All right. So, can we go back to my

other first question then? Yeah, you can answer the question as to why you reduce the units. A codalo. No, I didn't ask why you reduced the units because you didn't reduce the units. I'm sorry. You bedrooms reduce the size of the building. Okay. So, what am I all set? Okay. What is it that you need an answer on? The question was, let me restate it. Is at the previous meeting, Mr. C, that the proposal before the board was to build out or fit out 48 units in the existing footprint of the building. It wasn't until I believe uh Warren asked a couple of questions about the structural integrity of the building that I think from there it got a little traction and we went down this path about um some concerns. Um and here we are a month later because that never came up during the presentation. It was where we using the entire footprint of the building. I think to a certain extent, maybe I'm incorrect, but let's see what the record reflects is I think you even spoke to the structural integrity of the building that seems like it was in good condition. I might be wrong, but I think you did. In any event, here we are about a month later and we're getting a a proposal where two sections of the building are coming down. Now whether or not that was because of a structural engineer saying those have to come down or it was a decision but until that point was raised by the board about the structural integrity of the building it seemed like we would have been here today still looking at that had that point not been risen. So my question is other than the fact that you're reducing the footprint of the building I want to understand why I want to answer both questions for you. First one is when I do a job it's can I make money or not. That's what I'm here for. When I look at 48 units and I have these two bedrooms in there, these two bedrooms cost a lot

more money to build. I'm only going to get a few hundred more for a twobedroom than a onebedroom. Onebedroom is such a demand today. I already own lots of units. I rent them in two minutes. That's for the demand. So, we need this desperately because it takes two minutes to rent a unit. I made the units onebedroom because to make them two bedrooms, the square footage for me to build is not worth the few dollars more I'm going to get for rent. So, I reconsidered everything and took it from two bedrooms to one bedroom. I thought the town would like that because we don't have a second bedroom. We don't have kids there, nobody in the school. I thought I was doing all the right thing. I still feel I'm doing all the right thing. So that's the answer. It's got nothing to do with structural. Now I did it for financial reasons because that's what I'm here for. The second thing is I've already went around I've been doing this for over 40 years. I believe I am an expert. And if you talk to people from building inspectors wherever you go in this state and talk about me, they will tell you I know what I'm doing because I know what I'm doing. Your own building inspector will tell you that he was fascinated what I did with the school on Marblehead because I got I know how to do it. So, what I'm telling you is I took that part of the building out and that part of the building out because I condensed it. Now, I went around the rest of the building with an excavator and dug on the side of the foundation to see what was holding the building up

and it's a footing under it. Secondly, that tells me all I need. But when I'm walking through a building and I don't see cracks in the concrete walls, that tells me that building's been there for over maybe 60 years, 65 years, and it's strong. Now, when other people are looking at it that are not builders, who have not rebuilt a building, until you've done what I've done, please don't tell me what I have. If I thought it was no good, I would not have bought it. So when when we get our master plan at that point now, I will go I I have I have to have master plan to take my next step. I've been doing subdivisions for 40 years. I did hundreds of them. Florida here. Let me just finish. I I let you talk. We have to know what we're dealing with. We have to have a master plan. We go to DEM. We go to Naragans Bay. We go every aspect that we have to go to the water department. Everything with a master plan. And then we spend the money with engineers to find out what we need to do for that permit, whatever permit we may need for preliminary. So when we go see I understand one day the process we have a building when we have master plan we will then take ZDS in as architects and we will have a structural engineer at that point who will have a stamp and a signature and let you know everything you need to know. Okay. But we need to know but my point is we need to know now. At least I

do. So I said I couldn't hear you. I said, "But we need to know, at least I think so. I'm not speaking for the board, but we need a little bit more information." So, I understand the process and with all due respect, I'm not questioning your expertise, your integrity, your intellect or anything, but with all due respect, that's all anecdotal to me because what you're saying to me is what I'm hearing is trust me. Okay? We answered to the Let me finish please. We answered to the public. At the previous meeting, we inquired about traffic and what did we have? We got a traffic expert. He came up and gave us testimony. But what was missing from that in my opinion was his stamp. And I asked to have that stamped because at some point if we get what what stamp is that? The traffic report. I asked to have his professional stamp on that. That's understood. I'm not sure why he didn't put it on, but he didn't. And he said he would because ultimately when we make our decision, we have to base it on empirical evidence, not anecdotal stuff. So we have to say, well, I have a report from I have a report from. So we could all agree to say, "Yeah, that's it." With all the due respect, again, I'm not questioning your integrity. I'm not questioning your expertise. I'm I'm sure you're a fine builder, sir, and you're a fine developer. I'm not questioning that. But for me to be able to make a a cogent, rational decision, I need to have evidence. And my question is what I'm hearing you say is I guess this got opened in February. Is that true? Was the public hearing in February? Correct. Public hearing for master and preliminary where this same question came up. Okay. So, just a call to order, right? I think we have a lot of smart people in the room. If we went around the table and spoke about everybody's credentials, we'd be here all night. I do believe that Mr. Aran asked a question about why you reduce the square the footprint of the building. He did make an assumption on structural um integrity of those sections of the building. You provided answers to his

question that you reduced the footprint of the building because of financial reasons that you could market one-bedroom apartments versus two-bedroom apartments. Did he answer your question? He didn't. No, I don't think so. Okay. Then what is it need? And here's why. So from February to May, we will move forward on the footprint of the existing building. Okay. You had all that time to consider market conditions and the value of a one-bedroom versus a two. But now when the question that at least my present time was when again Warren raised that question about the structural integrity. Now you're telling me since May to now June, you had this epiphany about changing the market conditions and you know what I think I'll provide a product for ones instead of twos. We've been talking evidently about the structural integrity since February. So what changed between February and LA and May where you maintain 48 units that include a bunch of twobedrooms but now all of a sudden between May and one month later the whole paradigm changes we're reducing the building not evidently based on structural integrity but rather what you want to provide as a as a product to the community. So you know what let's not go down that path. I just want to let I don't think that answer that question was answered because I got a few others and if we can move on Mr. Chair. Yes. So for the record I don't think you answered the question. I think I answered the question because it's my prerogative to do whatever I want to do with my building first of all. Y okay and you made a statement. You want a name on it. You want to know what it is and you want this and you want that. I also talked to different people in the town who said they would rather have one bedrooms and that's probably the main reason just to let you know. Okay. Okay. And as far as structural, we will have structure when we're

supposed to. I understand what you're saying, but you got to you got to let us do this the way the law says we do it. We we can't just make up rules because anything that isn't structural will be structural, okay, at the time of being built. I understand all I said for the record we're going to move on from the structure because I I will add on to that later on but because actually I'm going to do it now given the adaptive reuse nature of this project and the fact that this building current building has no floors in it I think the board does have the um obligation to ask for some structural information that this building structure can support the change in use. it can be adapted. I I'm not disagreeing with your point. The only point I'm disagreeing with is when we should provide you with that information. There's a difference between master plan which gives us the density what we can do and preliminary. We you are going to have that information. You do not need that information at this point in time in order to make a master plan determination. It's not required under your ordinance. But the master the master plan we're going to be whether or not we choose to would be granting x amount of units within within the building footprint. You have to determine if we're meeting the the requirements of the adaptive reuse statute. We met the density. So we're entitled to the density. We're entitled to it. We're staying within the footprint of the building. We're meeting all the requirements. You can't point to me one single requirement in that adaptive statute statute that we're not meeting here tonight. You don't have a You don't have a second floor. You don't have a second floor right now. You don't even have a first floor. What are you reusing? What floors are what floors are you reusing to support 48 units in this building? You have zero right now.

Andrect. I think the board wants to understand conceptually how those floors are going to be supported. So to to to make it clear, we gave you a conceptual plan. We're telling you or we're asking for the number of units based on the adaptive reuse statute. We meet all the elements of the statute. We will provide this board at preliminary all the structural requirements to show that we can do it. We will not provide that information. That's our position. We're not required. And if you're making us do that, you're in violation of the statute. That's our position respectfully. That's your position. Thank you. Can I continue? Go ahead, Gary. Thank you. So, while the calculation might be that you have you could yield that density. Sorry. I'm sorry. Keep doing I'm sorry. No, not no worries. So, you know, you said we meet the density. We're entitled to that. I disagree with you. I don't think you are entitled to that. What that is is a mathematical calculation based on your land area versus what the ordinance allows you to propose for density. Okay? Simply because you could have 48 units on it doesn't mean you could actually fit 48 units on it. Because if the site was encumbered 75% flood plane and x amount wetland, you can't actually fit all those units on it. So I just want to say for the record, I disagree with the premise that you're entitled to a number of units. So I just want to set that for the record. But let me continue with my questions. So I think you said that you were at the last meeting you mentioned about sewer availability and I said I'd like to know what the capac at the last meeting I inquired about we we talked about availability of sewer and you said well it's in the street I said yes I understand that it's available that it's physically there but I said what's of importance to us isn't to know that the sewer actually is in the street anyone can see that but as a planner that's not the point the point is what's its capacity so my question is because I think you concluded your presentation you said that's all we have for tonight

my question is did anyone did you follow up to know what the uh available capacity is in the sewer no and again I will point to section 8 under your ordinance major land development major subdivision preliminary plan not master preliminary under section two the requirements engineering plans depicting proposal development project a perimeter survey all permits required by state and federal agencies prior to commencement of construction including permits related to and I'll skip most of it. Disposal systems, public water systems, and connections to stateowned town roads. That is the point when we need to provide you with that information. Sure. No, that says to get your permit. I didn't ask you to go get the permit. I asked you a simple question. I'd like to know as a member of the North Pro Plane board whether or not there's sufficient capacity in the sewer line. I didn't say to go get a permit, but that's fine. The answer is no. We're going to move on. Mhm. Um so at so at the last meeting okay so so we we can agree to disagree Mr. C. So at the last meeting we had a letter from uh Lieutenant Sarcis Barcan uh from the fire marshall North Providence. Um and I I I just want to note that this was updated today. I got this this afternoon. Yep. Yep. Yep. So, we have another letter where before you where is that in the packet? Right after the project summary. I just pulled that up. Uh, David out of the packet. It wasn't digitally. It was digital. I got it this afternoon. So, in terms of emergency management, fire department what? One, two, three. He wrote five paragraphs in this letter. What he concludes in the letter is, and I'm going to read this, okay? In closing, the original letter, which he's referring back to last month's, the original letter was not intended to serve as an approval or endorsement of

the proposed development. Rather, it was simply an acknowledgement of receipt of the submitted plan. So, we have a letter here that just says, "Hey, yeah, we got the the plans," which is perfectly fine. I appreciate that that we got acknowledgement from the fire department, but there's nothing substantive here that talks about their opinion about fire access circulation. It just says, "Oh, what we meant to say, and this is no reflection whatsoever on the fire department, is yeah, we received the plans. Let me clarify that, sir. We received the plans." That's what they're telling the board, which is perfectly fine. So now the question is I'd like to know their opinion on some of the forensics of combating a fire in circulation. Again I know you're not prepared to answer that but again as a member of the planning board I think that's reasonable information to ask of our fire department for a proposed 48 unit development in what is otherwise actually when I made the stud visit actually a very beautiful little subdivision. So we'd like to know I'd like to know what that impact is concerned this is at the very end of the street not at not toward mineral spring but at the very end is some additional information from the fire department about their thoughts on the site plan because all this says is yep we acknowledge receipt of the that's your that's the town's employee. Um, we ask for the letter and again under master plan it says and we solicit and we get initial comments to be solicited from local agencies including but not limited to planning and community development department, fire and police departments, conservation recreation easements. So we solicited the different initial things. If you are looking for additional information, I would suggest respectfully that that would be on the town to request your police, your fire department to request for additional information. Fair enough. And and I will I think we need to know fire again a preliminary. I understand again I think it's appropriate for this board to know

fire flow. I think the board should know where the fire hydrants are. Simple planning concepts. We're not asking uh anything rocket science. Simple information. Sewer capacity, water location, hydrant location. So we're so that we're comfortable. Let me respond just let me just focus on the sewer for example. So my client may decide to go because it might be more cost effective for him not to connect to public sewer but to do an ISDS. Okay. We can't design an ESDS to say we can even have sufficient amount of sewer there until we know how many units we have because the engineer needs to know how many units what the bedroom count is in order to do his design. So we can't answer that question right now. We can only answer it at preliminary. Okay. So what you're essentially saying is we didn't do a capacity analysis which I think is a very light left. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish please. So what you're saying is please approve a project that right now we don't know what what method of sanitary disposal we're going to have because I don't know if it's going to be dispo IDIS or septic system and we didn't do a capacity announcement of the sewer. planning board as planners approve a plan and we'll figure out the sanitary sewer the sanitary disposal later on. That's what you're essentially asking. How let me finish. How would we be able to determine whether we have sufficient sewer capacity when we're doing if we're going to go septic system without knowing from you how many units you're going to approve because the only way we can make that determination is to have the number from you relative to the number of bedrooms. That is the key component in determining whether what kind of ISDs and if we have sufficient capacity. So we need the number from you then we can get that information to you at preliminary. We can't do it now. What is the what is the applicant's um concept right now for sewage. Um what's your concept?

We're we're going looking at boats. We have a civil engineer here, Tim, working on a system and we're trying to see if that system. It's it's cheaper just to put the pipe into the sewer in the road. But Naranton Bay is extremely expensive now on a commercial building. That building is going to cost without any flow on a meter just just to be connected. It's going to cost 750 a month. Now, when you put the flow through it, you're going to be around 1180. 1180 times 12 months. In 5 years, if I put in a system, I'll pay for the system and won't ever have that bill again. So, what would you do? I mean, I'm asking I'm trying we at this point, what's your concept that you're We don't know yet. We're working on it. But again, I've done at least 70 80 subdivisions in North Proidence and there's people up here who can verify that condos and houses. We get a master plan first and then everything is done after that. So, if we get our master plan like we're supposed to, then we'll take the steps. We'll get you a plan. We'll get you structural. We'll get your water, sewer. If you want something else at the fire department, I have a plan now saying this is what we got. Why don't you write everything down? So, we'll let you know everything you want to know. But we cannot go and do anything without a master plan. Now, you want me to go do a structural? No, no, no, no, no, sir. I I I believe you you are misinterpreting the request or at least theology

information on the building. I master plan is conceptual. Yes. What they want is something from the structural engineer in concept that the the the structure of the building can support the two floors. Okay. Let me put it to you this way. Very simple building. Very, very simple. You put footings in the ground, you carry the two floors. If anyone of you out there built anything, you know that already. So, that's easy enough. What we need to do is have a plan, have a master plan. That's what we need. And then we'll go out and get a plan and it'll it'll be structural and it'll it'll be civil. It it and it'll be architecturally proper. We can't do this unless we have a master plan. I don't understand what the problem is. No, I I disagree. I disagree with that. The the issue is your concept has to work. It will work by preliminary. The viability even though master plan is conceptual, the board wants to know the viability of the the plan. You're putting two new floors in the in the in the building. How does how's it going to work conceptually? Armen can explain conceptually and our architect can explain conceptually which I thought the architect did by providing you with a set of plans. Conceptually, this is how it's going to work. No, the the architect provide in my opinion the architect provided a set of plans that depicted what the exterior elevation was going to look like on a on a on a concept and he provided a space plan fit out for the new footprint of the building period. I don't have and I don't believe the board has any assurance from a structural engineer that the concept of adding two new

floors in this building is structurally feasible. I'm not asking I'm I'm not talking about structurally engineered drawings. I'm talking about a structural feasibility study of the building that can be stamped by a structural engineer that deems whether or not the existing structure can support the new structure that you're proposing to support all these units on in the spirit of adaptively reusing the building. This is an adaptive reuse project. So we are vetting out the feasibility of how the adaptive reuseness of this building can actually work feas and strictly conceptual feasibility. I'm not asking for structural stamped drawings. Um, so I'm not a structural engineer, so I can't speak um on their behalf, but I can I can say that um not all the walls that around the perimeter would be bearing the weight of the new level. So right now there's a first floor, there's a roof, so we're really just adding one additional level. Um, and with the addition of the peers to hold up the first level because it has to be raised above uh the flood plane, the majority of those would be holding most of the weight. Um the way we usually lay out our units um the demising walls and the quarter walls are all loadbearing as well as the um in some cases the um exterior walls but in other cases you can do it from corridor sorry from demising wall to demising wall. So you can actually do it without bearing on the exterior. Uh there's also a portion there's also an a way of doing it where um we can put peers on the inside. So it's like set in as if it's like a steel structure where the outside is just left as it is. But again, I'm

not a structural engineer so I can't speak u and and tell you that that will actually work. It's just what I've seen and what I've worked on in different projects. Um and if we need that reassurance from a structural engineer, they have to provide or usually they do calculations. So he our structural engineer doesn't truly know wouldn't be able to know because um we haven't started the drawings yet. He can only give a recommendation and maybe a a quick report but nothing more than that. Excuse me. So I'm I'm I'm sure all of you have a deck on your house. Your deck on your house doesn't float in the air. It's a footings and the footings hold it. It's going to be the same situation. Probably cement footings that are two to three feet wide and a foot and a half high are dug into below the cement floor that's there right now. And this floor will hold itself and that floor will hold second floor. There will be no bearing on the walls for the floors or even the furniture in it. There will be no bearing on the walls. The bearing will all be on the floor. And the floor will be bolted to the walls. So, if anything, it'll support the walls because it's already supporting itself. The floor is not going to be hanging off the walls. The floor is going to be on footings. I' I' I've already done this lots of times. I'm telling you, I I know what I'm doing. And so what you're asking me so Mr. C once again you say to the public, we have to say Mr. C knows what he's doing. That's our answer. So what with all due respect, let me finish. You're saying to us that when we leave here, we're residents and we bump into people all the time and they ask, "Mr. Asian, so what was the rationale?" So

I'm going to say, "Well, Mr. C said he's all right." So really, I'm I'm not I don't want you to believe me, but what I'm going to tell you is I have to come back here to a preliminary meeting. Well, we have to get past this real quick. I know, but when we come with a preliminary, we're going to come with a plan and the plan's going to show you footings and structural and you'll be all set at that. We're not asking for that right now, sir. So, well, that's the way we're supposed to do it. Yeah. And we're saying actually you don't have to do that right now. So, we're actually trying to make it easier for you, but we need something more than nothing right now. Um, I I don't know. So, chair, can I go on with that other question? Not to be a dead, we could have our structural engineer write a letter to you stating that um he will be able to design this in order to structurally support a second floor. Is that is that the type of letter you're looking for? short of doing engineering work just from a structural engineer saying in my 40 years of experience I've built hundreds of these things in my experience we'll be able to support that second floor by putting in footings in doing this and therefore it is a viable project is that is that the type of thing you're looking for yeah I think we're looking for clarification on what the intent of the structure will be for this project intent of Can you explain intent Yeah, he he he can put together a narrative as into what the structural system is going to be and he he Wait, hold on. He he absolutely can. He absolutely can concept that. You guys talk about your experience in the construction business. I do too. I've worked with structural engineers. They can put together a narrative like that. I think I think in the light in the fact that this is an adaptive reuse project, I think the board has an obligation to interpret whether or not

that intent for that structural system to support two brand new floors in this building is applicable for adaptive reuse. Okay. We could have a structural engineer write a narrative short of doing specific calculations. Is am I am I understanding that? Is that something that you you'd be interested in seeing? Yes. Okay. So, um I'm going to go back to this. Okay. I understood. So, I'm going to go back to the sewer. Mr. McQueen, I heard you say earlier what we're looking from the board is tell us the number. You said you want a number from us. A number of units. Didn't you say that? Yes. Okay. So, so your proposal though, you're making a proposal to the board of 48 units. In order again for me to assess the 48 units, I'm not going to randomly come up with some number to say, "Yeah, I don't know, 25 sounds good." We can't do that. That's not fair to you either. So, in order for us to evaluate what you want, what you want is 48 units. And that's fair enough because at least that's the ceiling. That's a mathematical calculation for us to determine if that is worthy. And it might be worthy of 48 units. I need to know whether what if you do an IDIS system that's a completely different but you're saying well what if it is IDS well what if it's sewer so the only information we have right now is we know a known the one known is there's a sewer line there the other known is there's a certain amount of capacity in that based on your proposal to the planning board of we want 48 units all I'm asking is one way to look at it is propose 48 units on an existing sewer system. So one way to evaluate that okay well is there sufficient capacity maybe there is and then takes the question away or if you came back and said no not 48 uh there isn't but there is sufficient capacity for 36 so now the

move now the needle moves from 48 to 36 based on available capacity you could then say hey look it's not 48 it's 36 but board we don't want to do that now because this project might not be feasible we need to look at an IDI system, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do because that could maybe Well, you keep rolling your eyes and that's not fair. I'm not rolling my eyes. You rolled your eyes at me. All right. So, what I'm going to say is my eyes are up, but I was not rolling my eyes. Okay, fair enough. I accept that. The one way us for us to determine what that number is, it being 48 is whether or not at least with what we have for information is the capacity in the sewer line. So, once again, I don't know what the heavy lift is is to work with the water department or the wastewater department or sewer department and say, "Look, here's what we're proposing. I'm sure you've already talked to them. Say, "Is there sufficient capacity? What's wrong with getting a letter from the W water wastewater department saying, "Yeah, we got sufficient capacity. We could accommodate 48 units." I don't see what the problem is with that. And it takes that away. It takes that layer of questioning away. It gives me a a a better sense that we're moving in the right direction. But right now, I don't have that information. So again, you don't have to answer that right now. I'm just saying I'm not sure what the what the trouble is is giving the board some more information. Much like this letter from the fire department. All they're saying is we received the letter, we received the plans. So, let's move on. So, let's move on. Um, here's a simp two more two more planning items. I don't see a landscaping plan. I don't see a site plan a site lighting. I don't see any photometrics. A very simple I'm going to throw you a softball. And you should knock this over the fence. Okay. There's a dumpster fence. Is it an It's an apron fence. Two feet off the side. So, I see the the dumpster right on I see the dumpster right on Beard Beard Avenue. I made a site visit. I made two site visits. I ran into some of the residents there. I'm not going to mention names. I drove by. I said, "Hello." I say that because I want to demonstrate that I went there. I didn't

go with anyone from the board. I went there with my daughter. I have to tell you, those four houses across the street from beer, from this, those are gorgeous homes. Those are beautiful homes. So, a simple site plan is I'll tell you if I live there and I'm going to have a dumpster go down to the very end of that street, have them pull around, make all that noise and that smell from a dumpster and putting that on the residents across the street. Then I would submit to you respectfully, you could easily take that dumpster and it shouldn't smell and I'm sure it's going to be screened. I would put that on your property so that the residents on your property have to deal with that potential nuisance. So I think that's a simple modification to the plan so that you don't have a dumpster going down bar where these residents at least those immediately across the street have to live there what I don't know how often the dump the the dump truck comes or the dumpster truck comes once a week once every two weeks but until they come they're going to have to live with that for 2 3 4 days maybe a week. I don't think that's fair. So, at the very least, I respectfully ask if you can re relocate that dumpster from Beard Avenue and find some place on the site plan to incorporate it there. Tim, do you have any objection or is it is it feasible to locate the dumpster somewhere else on the site other than Well, there's right on Beard Avenue. We'll have to take a careful look at the site plan, but the majority of the site on the other side of the building is in the flood zone. Okay. So, I'll tell you what. Yeah. I'd rather you find Well, first of all, I'm not going to buy that because you said at the last hearing and more so on this revised plan that you're taking out even more impervious area. So, as you take out more imperous area, I'm not going to say provide compensatory storage. I'm not saying one to one, but the fact is that you are now providing pvious area

which would absorb more rainwater. So, I see a square that's or rectangle that might be roughly 10 by 12. I'm sure you're a smart engineer, and I mean that sincerely because I know you. I would say I'm sure you could find someplace on that parking lot to come up with an area either on the existing imperous area or create a 120 foot pad that screened to take away what would be a daily nuisance from those residents. And I'm not saying to put the nuisance with the residents because it shouldn't be a nuisance, but it probably is going to be sometimes, especially in July and August, and put it on the property on on your site. I think that's an easy simple request. That's where we had it originally was in our site. I'm sorry. The original location from the first meeting was in our site, in our parking area. Yeah, but that area is technically in the flood zone. Okay. So is the parking lot. So So is the parking lot. So you don't have to put it in the flood plane. You could put it outside the flood plane. I'm sure there's enough upland here. And that we hear we we hear you. We're going to take a good hard look. We'll work with the planning department and and come up with uh I want to see a relaxed plan is what I'm saying. I'm not saying as a condition of approval. I want to see it on a site plan. Correct. Yes. Thank you. Steve, you have a question. Yeah. A couple of questions. Um, do you have the environmental study yet? No, we don't. They're still working on it. They decided to do a few test holes, Armen. They're doing a few test holes now. Okay. Uh, on the IDS system, assuming you had 48 units, where would the ID test system go? Uh, we've just been tasked with this uh to take a look at it. So, we've scheduled test holes with DEM to uh determine the soil types out there because we need to know depth of

groundwater. We need to know the soil textures to be able to determine suitable locations. So, that test has been scheduled. Uh we haven't given it haven't been given a date by DM, but it's been applied for already. So, I would imagine the next three weeks we'll be out there doing soil testing. Okay. Any more questions? N I'll go to this side. Guys, have any questions for the applicant at this time regarding the new information that we've been given tonight? Warren, how do we stand with DEM? Have you received Have you received your any word from DEM yet? He asked if you've received any update from DEM. I think I know what you guys The DM submission comes after master plan. Okay. The DEM submission comes after master plan which I believe the applicant is correct just as an aside is this statute is new this adaptive reuse statute but I had conversations with other lawyers about the issue of the structural and what they told me is th this is I'm not calling your argument ridiculous I don't know what the that's not the word I mean to say but the ridiculousness of the argument is that we could right now take this commercial building. We could fix it all up. Just pull a permit, fix the walls if they were broken, put put walls in, put footings in, all commercial, and then we come to you and say, "Oh, now we're going to build um now now we're going to ask for our master plan." Doing all that work ahead of time before we even come in here. We're going to need to do that work, but the point we're trying to make is that, you know, we don't want to spend the money until we get to preliminary. And I know you you're saying the the feasibility the feasibility of this project the structural feasibility is going to come about at preliminary plan. We're going to have to spend the money. We're going to have to give the engineering we're

going to have to show you that this can be done. Um but we're going to get and we can get a letter from the structural engineer a narrative saying what he plans to do with no guarantees, but this is what I think we can do and I think we we're going to be able to do this. I mean, we're going to get it. It's all about money. you spend enough money, you're going to be able to do whatever you want to do. Quite frankly, we all know that. So, it's going to get done. Um, and he can give you a narrative to that effect without getting into this minutiae of, you know, the the carrying weight and the load and all that until he he's able to to deal with the with the architect. Correct. And one thing I would like for the structural engineer to comment again in light of this being an adaptive reuse application is the reuse of the existing structure to support your project. Your project walls just to say in an over a narrative manner that this is something he in his opinion as an expert he thinks he'll be able to engineer. Correct. Is that okay? Correct. He But he he needs to specifically comment on the existing on the existing structure. This is a was a manufacturing building. It is the building does not have two stories that you are proposing in it at all at all. Has a very at one time limited area of a of a second floor. what you're proposing is the entire thing to be a second floor. So, there's a there's there's a huge change there. Okay. And this is adaptive reuse. Like for the engineer to weigh in on the adaptive reuse um qualities of the existing structure and your proposed plan. He can do that in Eric. Yeah, we can do that.

Um Tim, why you standing there? Um the reduction in the footprint. So the the the two areas that um are being um proposed to be demolished. What what's um what's the material that's going to be replacing them on the um grade surface? Is it Those areas are going to be landscaped. They're going to be landscaped. So, it only increases your I mean, one area had like a sidewalk now going through that to get to a door. So, a reduction of the footprint of the building only increases your pous um um the majority of it, the substantial majority would be imper uh pvious, right? Pervious. But there was a I know there was a sidewalk going through one of those areas. Yep. Yeah. So reduction of the footprint increases the amount of pvious area u material that you're adding to the property. Correct. Thank you. Have there any have there been any changes to the smaller building of the project since the last time we since the last time you were here? Have there been any Have there been any changes to the smaller building of the project? Oh no. Okay. That remained as Thank you. Lou you have a question. Yeah, just one one more question on the uh the sewer issue. Could the ISDS system be constructed within the flood zone? I mean technically yes. We do it all the time. Coastal areas, you know, the coastal area, there's septic systems all over the coast. So there's the no specific septic code about flood zones. It's more the wetland code requires flood plane compensation. We can't just fill it in without compensating the same volume somewhere else in the immediate area.

So you feel that there's enough area on this site to construct that's what we're looking into right now. We scheduled the test holes with DEM. So we're going to know where to test because we need to know water tables and the you know the soil texture to size of them. Without that information we really can't size the leech fields. So once we have that, we can uh come up with a concept. All right. Thank you. Any more questions from the board for the applicant at this time? Well, a question for the board. Um just so we're all clear for expectations for the next meeting. Um so I understand Mr. McGreen or Attorney McGraine, you're willing to submit that structural engineering letter. We'll see what that looks like. Okay. Yes. All right. So, I have five other bullets and I'd like to know whether or not we can expect these. If the answer is no, that's fine, but I want to ask. So, I want to see whether or not there's a willingness to relocate the dumpster. I want to see a phototrics uh plan for the lighting. Sorry. So, first, so actually I should ask this through the chair. Yeah, please. If that's okay, David. Right. Right. So, this is Right. So, what I'm seeing is the checklist they said yes about the structural engineering plan. Correct. uh letter. What I would also ask through the chair is five other bullets. Four of these would come from the applicant. Um a revised plan for the dumpster, a phototric analysis for the site lighting just so that there's no spill over onto the residence so it's like dark sky compliant. Yep. Um I'd like to have a sew a capacity analysis and I'd like to see a landscaping plan. for staff. I would ask if the planning board would agree to ask the town planner to get a letter from the fire department with an opinion about circulation access and a fireflow test. So, they're proposing 48 units in a in an old abandoned building. And I want to

see if there is sufficient fireflow test. It could be maybe 3,000 gallons per minute psig 4,000. It could be 1,500. One. Okay. So no no through the through the chair um what were your five bullets through the chair that um structural engineering structural engineering letter dumpster relocation willingness yep phototrics analysis you don't need I I don't I don't think they need a photometric analysis for master plan but for preliminary absolutely uh capacity analysis of the existing sewer what available capacity what available capacity yep I I would request a landscaping plan. I would request a more robust landscaping plan than was provided. Yes. And the other, Mr. Chair, through the staff. Going to write them down for us, please. Through the staff is um a letter from the fire department. I mean, again, this says we received the plans, but I'd like to understand their assessment of that plan, including a fireflow test. So, I'd like to um I I talked to the fire department and I specifically asked for them to review um the the access to the site and the the circulation. and they refused to comment on that because they said that's not their um purview or specialty. So um they they did refuse to so to write a memo for that. Okay. So just to just to be because you had two things there, right? So the the planning board did ask for the fire department's opinion on accessing Yeah. gentlemen. Gentlemen, can you quiet down, please? MC. No, the microphone's just picking you up in having a hard time. We have a very good synographer and we want to make sure the meeting minutes are kept. So, we we did ask for the fire department to uh weigh an opinion on um uh accessing the site given the fact that Beard Avenue is a dead-end street without a culde-sac and um right now Beard Avenue. One, two, three. There's four private residences on the uh west side and on the east side

right now is an abandoned commercial building that we are adding 40. the applicant is proposing 48 units for which to me I think is a is a is a valid request um that the fire department weigh in on accessing the site not specifically the access that or circulation within the site but just access to the site and they refused to do that. So essentially what they said was conditions aren't changing. They can access the site now. They'll be able to access the site when this development comes. Okay. So that that's essentially what they they told me regardless of whether or not it's a a vacant commercial manufactured building or there's it's chuck full single unit. Yeah. Residences conditions will rem remain the same. They did review circulation on site as far as parking goes and they said that was acceptable, but they they refused to comment as far as the road goes because they're not traffic engineers essentially. Okay. Uh Gary, you had another part two was a fireflow test. Part two is a fireflow test and that's to the that's to the Well, they would do the fire department would be doing that. Um or if they could get a consultant, they would submit a static report as part of their conclusion and submit it to us. We could then instead of tying up the fire department, then we could have the applicant get a consultant engineer, they could do the study, then they could submit it to us and we can just ask the fire department just to check it. Just not to tie up the fire department. Yeah. I, you know, considering the fire department's um response to accessing the site and and that this this building is reducing in size, um the the existing conditions aren't going to aren't going to change. Sure. But it was a factory, now it's going to be residences. So, I think it's a different um it's a different completely different concept. So, while

they might I don't know what their plan would have been to attack a fire if it was a um a factory, but potentially they would be 48 households. And um while the fireflow might be sufficient for a factory, it might not be sufficient for a 48 unit development. And I just would like to know what that fire flow is and then ask the fire department is this a again per square inch gauge like gallons per minute. Let him finish. I'd like to add that the uh the fire department said they are going to do a further review at the next step of uh internal fire safety codes and and whatnot. So there is going to be another fire review after this as well. So just keep that in mind. Yeah, I understand. Um I understand both your um both your comments. Um I think I think Mr. Arasian's um request is I think the request can be made to the fire department for a flow test at this point. Can you please ask them to do that? Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. So just be clear about flow. Yeah. So it's GPM and pounds per square inch gauge. Okay. PSIG. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Um, that any other questions for uh No, not at this not at this time. So, the bullets that uh I guess I allowed passed through me. Um, thanks. Of course, you shouldn't thank me. What did you um photometrics I don't think is is applicable for a master master plan. Um we will request one for preliminary if it gets to that stage. So I had just to recap um you were looking for a landscape plan. Yep. Correct. Landscape

plan. You looking for the narrative from the structural engineer. Correct. You were looking for um sewer capacity analysis or availability which I suppose we could get a letter from. Who would get the letter from? Tim Bay Commission. And what what would the letter state? the there's sufficient capacity in our system to connect the the proposed uh use and and please apply in the future when you're ready. Well, I wouldn't say use I'd say 48 units. It's not the application. It's just a generic letter we get from them stating they're aware of this project and please apply in the future. Well, it all depends having capacity issues that they would identify as a question. Yes. So I would say in the question would be we are proposing a 48 unit multif family development. Correct. They would see our site plan. Correct. As long as you ask it that way. Yeah. Whatever we get, you don't have any control over that. So that's but you got to ask the question though. Correct. And we're not subpoenaing that the fire department issue with additional information from the fire department. Yep. That's through the staff and then the um the dumpster. Yeah. in the let it be signed by Rhode Island. Let it be signed. Yep. And the traffic stamp stamped out yet. He said it was Yeah, it wasn't stamped yet. He hasn't set up the stamp plan. I haven't gotten it. Let me just finish preliminary after we do all that stuff. So just to raise the issue with timing, I know I think we gave you a 30-day, you know, they asked for a waiver because I think that the board has to make a decision within 120 days. That

is 120. It's it's 90 days. 90 days. So obviously if if the board is of the purview to continue the public hearing further, we would ask the applicant for a further extension to allow you guys to get that next. Yes. to to most likely. Is there a July meeting? Yeah. To the July meeting, I guess, would be the next meeting. Unless the applicant needs more time to for that. No, we don't. No. Hold on. Let me I'm going to ask my client whether or not there's going to be sufficient time to get what we're asking for. We're not going to be able to get a letter from next guys in the in the light of time for this this meeting. Maybe if you guys No, actually you need to be in the room because I still have to open up for public comment. We we may or may not be able to get that letter by the next meeting. We'll ask for it tomorrow. Not sure. I mean, it's kind of up to them is when they want to produce the letter. Um, we'll be able to get the narrative from the engineer. Armen, is there something else that you said you didn't think we'd be able to get within 30 days? Only I mean I mean light. No, we already talked about the lighting. We're not we're not being required to ask for the lighting at this point in time. The only thing I think is structure comments I'm gonna speak speak to me. So, this

I'm just going to let I'm I'm going to repeat myself. I have worked with tons of structural engineers. There are plenty out there that will provide this service without having to do borrowing and we are not asking for drawing. They'll give you a a narrative, okay? Saying that we can put a footing in here and it can hold first, second floor. They they can do that, okay? But they can't give you an actual um where the footings will be in and we're not we're not asking that for that. M we asking I understand what you're asking for and I'll speak make sure though that the structural engineer comments on the re applicable reuse of the existing structure. Right. I wrote that. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Just um let me just make sure I have that. So, if there's not enough time between now and the July meeting, should we continue to August or are you going to try to get it all done for July? So, I just want to I was going through the list with Armen and I um not sure on the um the letter from Naragansa Bay Sewer Commission. Um we will be able to get the narrative from the um structural engineer. We will be able to get the letter signed by Rhode Island Housing. We will be able to get the plans stamped. Um that was submitted last time. Um and um was that I think that was it right? Was that y and the dumpster? Environmental might dumpster and then you'll probably most likely have an update on the environmental study by then as well. Um and if we have the environmental phase one complete, we'll produce that. Yeah. Um, so I think that was it, right? Landscape. And yeah, he had landscaping. He had he had them though. Land landscaping. Mark just

wanted to make sure you had the landscaping plan there. Landscaping plan. Yeah. Right. I have that. Yeah. We'll be able to get a landscaping plan within 30 days. Armen. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um, so I I think that's it for now. I I just wanted to put on the record um from last meeting um that um I just wanted to put an objection on the record that we we did object to the town council through its attorney um appearing before the board because um quite frankly I think that probably is an ethics violation because this board approves um uh the I believe the mayor picks them but this board approves uh I mean the town council approves. So, I I think that just for the record that I don't I don't expect a response. I just wanted to put on the record. Okay. Can you restate it with I I have no idea what you just said. I'm saying that the town council retained an attorney to appear before this board to object to the application. I believe that violates is an ethics violation and I just wanted to put that on the record. How so? I'm just curious what your thought process is be because they appointed the board here. there's there's a conflict of interest between, you know, they're not supposed to appear if they were doing something personal on their residence. They have to go in and get a a waiver or relief and they don't they just showed up and they've appointed the board. Um that and and so I think that's a violation. I So I'm just putting it on the record um in case this thing goes sideways that I have that objection on the record. So if I need to take an appeal, that objection has been made. So you're saying that the city the town council whether they appear before the board or hire a spokesperson an attorney. So you're take so a city council a town council represents the constituents the residents of the city. You're saying

that because they confirm the appointment of the mayor that they can't appear before a municipal board. No, you confirm the appointment of this board, right? Yes. So you're saying that because they're the not the appointing authority. The mayor's the appointing authority because this town council appoints or perhaps not appoint they either confirm or not confirm the appointee that because they're the again let's call it the appointing authority that they can't appear before this board. Yes. Objecting to the application the fact that they represent the residents of this town of North Province can't appear before this board. Correct. And wow. My objection. All right, I guess. So noted. Does that conclude your presentation for tonight? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. All right, the time is 7:55. Um, do you want to do Yeah, we're going to take a five minute recess and then we'll open it up for public comment. We're gonna continue and we have to finish public. Yeah. Okay. We have fine. We have to do that. Okay. I was just Yeah, that um short meeting. That's why I didn't want to comment on that. My wife said she'll be a short on. All right.

So, like there's something colorable. Have you I believe it's Yeah. Yeah. There are there's like four colors that like when you Yeah. It's when you It's the whole point of it is when you I I don't think so. Yeah. It's been a while since I've looked at the sex standards. Very expensive. I think these things for a rude awakening and I don't know. I'm not in that business and the way you want to put it you have to put in a function. I think they are very much qualifying everything that you say with valid answers and concern like I don't think that I don't think that you guys are acting differently than you would have otherwise if the council didn't do that. So I think you say be able to defend I'll look into it double check but like I can't imagine I can't imagine you it sounds like you guys are acting as much as you would anyway whether the council's here or not. Yeah. those are little. No. No. No. So, you have the option if you want to close the public hearing, you can and just make your decision. But basically, you guys asked for a whole bunch of stuff. So, you might want to just keep it open. So, yeah. I'll try to um out and keep it keep it focused um to the new evidence presented and new request. I told the wife, right? Yeah. The fire department, they said, you know, nothing's changed. We only review change. Some findings if you guys want to deny and findings if you guys want to approve. Yeah. So, I'll send that out to

you guys and you can just see what you want to do. I feel like you're going towards one way, but it's we'll see. Would you be able to send it to you? Yeah. I don't know your email. Is it just Well, I'm on I'm on the the agenda email. You're probably on that. All right. I'll just send you directly. D7. Okay. Turn that off. I'm just going to

I know. How's it going? Good. What happened to your job? Much better for the community, for the time. Look it up. I asked a question. I don't know if I said

I don't know because Not zone. Yes. And it actually it says that it's generally discouraged and prohibitive. I don't know what he's going to build. Well, that's they got to figure that out. They don't even know they see. I thought that

I am a point. Don't worry about it. Oh, let's go. I said we listen. We have to corral all these people. Where's Gary? Gary's there. Where's our um attorney? He's in the back. I don't know. No, our our new counseling. Last time we went hopefully it's not that long. You're welcome. Do you want to introduce yourself?

Call in. Hi. Good evening. All right, everybody. Thank you for uh obliging the council um that I'm sorry the planning board um that short recess. Uh it is 8:06. We will open up the um hearing for public comment. Before we do um I would like our council to introduce herself as um attorney Glow had to step away. Good evening everyone. Angelica Boas. I'm the newly appointed counsel for the planning board and the zoning board. It was I I was stopped by a few residents uh this evening. So, it's nice to meet you all and I'll be the the new attorney moving forward. Okay. And um just a a kind reminder and um request for a public comment. Um so, tonight we heard new um modifications to the application. I kindly ask that your comments be limited to those uh revisions um and not uh repeat comments that were um discussed publicly last hearing. And if your neighbor or somebody speaks to one particular topic um and you agree to that topic and um the comment that your neighbor has made, yes, please come up and state that you agree with that um statement and I think that will be um enough for the for the board. Um

so if everybody can just oblige by those those rules um the board will greatly uh appreciate it. And in light of um Mr. Mc Green's uh uh previous objection. I do ask that the uh board here um uh not be uh colored by um any um comments uh made by uh town representatives. Thank you. Please state your name. My name is Anthony Disto. I'm the um lawyer that uh Mr. Green McGreen mentioned. My offices are at 450 Veterans Memorial Parkway in the city of East Providence. And I was hired by the uh town of North Providence not only to uh make sure that um uh this matter goes as it should uh from a procedural standpoint, but also to make sure that uh the neighbors voices are heard too. I'm not going to address uh the uh particulars of the uh uh presentation that came up and I'm not going to address the um uh so-called ethics uh issue that was raised by Mr. McGre. You know what? I'll fight that out in court because I think that was wholly inappropriate and uh if it has to be um litigated, it will. I don't think it's appropriate uh that that was said at this at this stage. whatever he does in court afterwards, we'll see. Uh but I do have some procedural issues that I think is important uh for the board to consider here. Uh last month uh there was a continuence here and now you have a new plan. That new plan did not go through the process. It should have but was not. It's a wholly new plan. And I I view that as a procedural flaw tonight. Shouldn't even be considered. That's the

first thing. The second thing is is um I heard uh through the presentation uh the word that was said the most was concept and you know uh concept is actually in the um enabling act specifically section 452335 general provisions pre-applications meeting and concept review. I'd submit to the board tonight, you don't have a master plan uh application in front of you. You have a concept plan review. What the applicant is asking you to do is go from a concept plan review where no votes are taken and jump to preliminary plan review on this. I think that's a procedural flaw. I actually don't think what you have before you tonight even constitutes a master plan application. And I'd ask the board to consider this. You have an R10 zone over there and you have three acres. You have an application for 48 units. The questions you were asking, are they appropriate? Yes, they are. For a concept like that, 48 units to me, you need to have the information for that. And I'd submit to you also, you don't have uh an application before you for adaptive reuse. On its face, the application isn't an adaptive reuse. There's a building there. It's not in good shape. You're going to have a new building. It doesn't even have the same footprint. Doesn't even have the same floors. This isn't an adaptive reuse. This is a bootstrapping for the adaptive reuse statute to allow for 48 units in an R10 zone. To me, I just don't think it can be approved on that basis. You have a very new plan here on this. It's not even the same building.

And uh finally, um I don't know how many plans you've seen for this. I I mean I I've been here uh the entire process, but it seems to me that you have a new plan now. You had another plan last month. uh it was continued so that plan could be considered but now you have a new plan. So um I'm not going to continue on but what I do think you need to do is deny this application. I don't think uh just from what I've heard in these two meetings that uh the applicant has a good grasp of what can happen here and whether or not adaptive reuse is appropriate for this building. It appears to me that it's not. And it's unfortunate because you have an R10 zone as uh Mr. Arasian pointed out. You have some nice uh homes in the area. This is an attempt um to put a uh an apartment building into an R10 zone. The building that you have there really isn't appropriate for that. And I did hear um the applicant say, "Well, you know, he's trying to make money." And of course, that's what happens with developers. But I would ask you to consider this because he also said, you know, you have to take his word for these things and I'm sure he's a fine developer and all that, but if there's problems, who's going to pay for those problems? That's one of the reasons I'm here because if there are problems here and there has to be corrections made later, the town is going to have to take care of that. The taxpayers are going to have to take care of that. The town council is going to have to consider it. The mayor's going to have to consider that, too. And that's something for you to consider on this. This is a very difficult site. That's become clear, I think, in the meetings

I've been to, and I'm sure you agree on that. If there are issues here, it's going to be the town's responsibility to fix them because the town approved the application. And I just ask you to consider that. And I ask you tonight to deny this application. And if this developer, if this applicant can come back to you with some plan so you're not constantly asking questions and you don't hear at the meetings, well, we'll come back next month with this. Next month we'll come back with this. Then it's a different story. It's difficult for these neighbors to keep coming back to this moving target. Every month there's something new. That tells me there's a problem with the site. that tells me that there's a problem with this project, I'd ask you to deny it. Let them go back to the drawing board. Let them come up with the information that they need, not for a concept plan review application, but for a true master plan application, and perhaps if a little more research is done, uh, they they'd see that this is not appropriate for adaptive reuse. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Disto. I do not have any questions for you at this time. Uh any of my fellow board members have questions, you can direct them to Mr. Disto now. Seeing a lot of head shaking. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Would anybody else from the public like to speak? Please state your name and your address clearly. Stacy s t a ce y lantane l a an n t a g n e 77 Dorman D O R M A N Avenue and North Providence. Um I just wanted

to just follow up on the adaptive reuse thing because it's a new statute and I think everybody's kind of like struggling their way through it. I mentioned last time that it seems to name a lot of much bigger buildings as the examples of what are adaptive reuse. It says offices, schools, religious facilities, medical buildings, malls. If you just look into it, these are like huge buildings. I just point that out because the high density unit math seems to be in response to yeah, you've got a 250,000 square foot mall. Of course, that high density makes sense. Here you put in 48 units, you don't even have windows in some of the units, right? because I don't think it really fits the mold. But one thing I would just add to what I'm reading this statute and it says um adaptive reuse for the conversion of any commercial building including offices, schools, religious facilities, etc. into residential use developments um shall be a permitted use. It is a permitted use. It's zoned R10. So I don't know. It's already zoned residential. We don't need this statute to convert it into residential. It's zoned residential. So, I'm not even sure why we're really talking about this statute just from the first sentence. And I don't represent anyone here. I do know how to read a statute though. So, I was just reading the statute and um I just wanted to just bring that up because I think that is why we are having such a hard time. We are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and I just wanted to have that in the record. Thanks. Thank you. Um Stac Stacy. Yep. So, just um No, that's okay. Uh just to uh comment on on some of your your comments. Um the the board did um ask uh our council uh whether or not manufacturing uh use fits into um the or is applicable for the adaptive reuse projects. And we

did get a um a recommendation from him that that manufacturing is but um not not specifically um uh size of building. So thank you for bringing that up. Thank you. Anybody else from the public like to speak? Okay, clearly state your name and address. Hi, good evening. Uh, it's Lucy Harrison. H A R R I S O N. Lucy, L U C Y. First, I want to thank you all. And obviously, I'm not going to waste anyone's time here because we all know what we're fighting for. We do not want this project in our street. We do not. And that's the reason why I'm coming to make sure that it doesn't get done. He doesn't know what he's doing. As if he did, he would have not, we wouldn't be here at this time. So, I'm asking please, please deny this. Deny it. And I will leave you with this question. You don't have to answer. If this was in your area, would you want this there? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I ask a question? Yep. Go ahead. Can you mind standing up? M Harrison, so you asked the board if it was in our neighborhood. So, let me ask you this. Um, I drove by a couple of times and it is a um a substanted bladed uh building. Um, it's decadent. It's falling apart in my humble opinion. I have good pictures. But my question to you is this. So if that was a green pasture, I'd agree. Would you want to put a multif family development at the very end of a single family dwelling uh

street? I agree with you. But I guess my question is you said, you know, if you lived here, it's an old building. It's falling apart, right? So my question would be um is the alternative better of having that building just stay there? Just from your opinion was wondering that just knock it down and maybe a park for dogs. Uh so lot of but we don't own it. The city doesn't it's privately owned so we can't just go and put something there. So I was just curious. I'm not sure where you live relative to this but uh second to the last house from where this is going to be built. Yeah. So, you're actually more comfortable leaving that the way it is than what uh Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. At this time, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great question, Gary. Anybody else from the public who'd like to speak? Going once. Okay. Uh it's 8:20. Oh, soon as I look down, can you please state your your name clearly for the record? Thank you. And address. It's Marilyn. M A R I L Y Nari. N A S T A R I. You're welcome. First of all, this does not speak. Yeah, I'm I'm the one that's complaining about people not using the microphone. I'm sorry. Um, these apartments do not go in our neighborhood. We are all single families and this is this is going to be a mess. It's really going to be a mess. And I beg of you, please deny this application. And like the other lady said, would you like it in your neighborhood? I don't

want it in mine. And the people that live in that area, they're all second and third generation families that live in these houses. And we It shouldn't It shouldn't happen. Let them build it somewhere else. Why does it have to be in North Providence? We're running out of space. Everything's going to go up when he puts these things up here. If he puts them up. Please deny his application. I beg of you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, it's 8:22. Public comment is now closed. Um the applicant come up and address any of those uh comments made by the public. You may do so now. If not can sit there. Oh, so I'm mine. I'm sorry. Good. Someone else that wanted to ma'am, are you coming up to address the board? Reopen the public comment. Yeah, we're going to reopen it. The last Go ahead. That's it. And that's it. So, okay. My name is Crystal Corno. I live at 47 Beard. Crystal Corno. C O R N E AU. I live at 47 Beard of I. I love where I live because I lived in all province my whole life. I've been here 40 years and all my family is here. That's always why I've stayed here forever. Um, but meaning to this building. I think it's not only of course I've heard I'm sure you guys heard many of times an eyes

sore stuff like that. I know you guys did the traffic study or they might have but just recently on Memorial Day my cousin parked on the street because it's in front of their house. An Amazon truck was there. A person came down the street, smashed all his side of his car. And I say that because they say there's enough room for more people to be on the street, more cars, and more stuff to be in there. I don't think that there is. I also think that the redapt to I'm sorry, uh, adapt to reuse project is not really worth it because I don't think they're really going to do that. I think what if they bought it and then Yeah, I know I'm going on a tangent with this. Um, but what if they bought it and then they were actually going to knock it down and rebuild it into a different completely different building? The building there, as we all know, everybody lives in the neighborhood. It's literally falling apart. And I've known the people that own it, stuff like that. They're wonderful people. I'd rather have an eyesore of the building than a project of all these people coming in and then you know it it changes the neighborhood as it is. I'm sure over the years every neighborhood changes but at the same token we're trying to think of all the traffic portion of it coming in as well as how everybody's going to fit in through there. I I know I park at my in front of my house and my on on our street. I can tell you just from neighbors that are in our neighborhood, ambulance try to get down the street. They will literally knock on our door, say, "Hey, can we move your car?" Stuff like that. There's just not enough room or there's not enough space for all this. And I know he says, and I'm sure it's repetitive, a lot of things I'm saying, but I know he also said, um, they're one-bedroom units. If you have 67 spots, how are you going to have You can't tell me there's nobody that's not going to have friends over. On our street alone, everybody has parties every single week and people are parking in front of our house and neighbors

houses. You try to get down that street, if any of you's been down there, it's it's literally it's like a it's like a raceway. People are swerving all around other cars to get there. That's all I'm saying in that aspect of it. But we did just go through that with my cousin's car. We're still trying to battle it through because you can't even get down our street. I know you have. So, like I said, I was not trying to take all of your time, but I I personally would not want to see this. And I know something has to go there. I'm not blind to that. I understand that. Maybe on a smaller scale, something of that nature. I was hoping anything but this many units and stuff like that. I like I get it. It's his money. It is his purpose of his building, but I think at the same time, he should take into consideration of everybody that's here. We come every single week because we don't obviously want that there or something that makes sense. Anybody can read from a piece of paper. Anybody can keep keep coming every single time. But if you keep coming and then you don't have all the stuff that's presented all the time, how how can you how can anybody trust you and say, "Hey, I came up with all this XYZ and I'm ready to show you that I'm really ready to do this." You know, I just want to say thank you. Thank you for coming up. No problem. Good evening. Chuck Pollock, Town Council, District 2. I just want to reiterate what uh our attorney stated last month. This was continued for the plan that you had last month and tonight a different plan is brought in and kind of asking you guys my

opinion to vet issues out. That's what it seems like to me. Great questions by all of you, especially you, Mr. Regent. The plan that was brought last month, the plan that was being discussed last month up until tonight with this concept being different, that's what should be voted on tonight. That's what should be denied. They want to continue forward with this plan or any other plan that should be addressed after tonight. But you guys have a responsibility. You continued the plan that we've been talking about last month to this month. That's the plan that should be denied. Not continue with a new plan. You should be denying that plan that was in front of you last month and it's been been discussed. Thank you, Councilman. All right. 8:28. The public uh comment is now closed. Closed. Um the applicant like to come up and address the board one more time. Um ju just briefly to respond to some of the assertions made by uh um the attorney representing the town council uh Tony Despair as you know but I'll say it for the benefit of the public is that until master plan until it's closed we have the right to submit additional information and we often do as you know my client's been here before this board on several occasions and we often I can name a half dozen projects that We've had six meetings at master plan approval where we come back, we hear what the board has to say, and we come back. I'd like anybody I'd like Tony to point out the statute that states that we can't modify plans and we have to start from from square one. That is just not the case. That's not how master plan works. If he has a statute he'd like to refer

to, um I'd be more than happy to look at it, but there is no statute that states that we can't modify plans during master plan review process. Number one, um I mean just like before he pointed out that we require the eligibility of the letter from Ron Housing. Not true. So in this instance, I'd like to have him point out the statute that states that we are not allowed to modify plans during master plan process. Show me the statute that prevents me from doing that. Thank you. Mr. McGre, are you asking for a response right now or statute that he he made the suggestion that the um that this town council should deny the meeting? We should start over again because you should not be considering a modified plan. And I don't know anywhere in that master plan statute that prevents us from modifying plans as we get feedback from the town or if we decide to make ch changes while the um the meeting has not been closed. It's been continued to next week. It it's not closed for additional information. So we can bring additional and we are bringing additional information. You asked for a narrative and we're doing that. You asked for several items. If we bring in a modified plan, which we I think we might do to show a relocation of a garbage, we can do that. There's nothing in the ordinance that prevents us from doing that. And if miss if the attorney for the town council wants to make that assertion, then he should point out to this uh board where he's getting his um facts from. Okay. He will do so to this board at a board's request. Go ahead. Uh 452339. This plan you have before you. Excuse me. You said what were those numbers? What are you citing? I'm sorry. Section 452339

of what? Of the Rhode Island General Laws. Okay. And um that's for master plan. I'd like to know if the plan before you was certified as complete. Oh, that would be for the plan. It was. Yeah. It was initially issued a letter of incompleteness in January. This plan uh the the original application which is this application 48 units hasn't changed. It's still 48 units in the same building on the same location, same parking, same plan, single family. It's a different plan. Just a different plan. And that's what I'm saying here. See, I don't think you can substitute in plans. This to me isn't a modification. It's a new plan. And you know what? It isn't even the same footprint that you had before. That's all I'm saying. I don't think this was certified as complete. The plan that was certified as complete has been changed so much so it's unrecognizable. That's what I'm saying here. And that to me indicates this is a problem with the with with this project. That's all I'm saying. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for referencing the um the section and um I think the board has purview on uh determining whether or not the applicant has made um significant changes um to deem it major enough to for the applicant to resubmit. Um me as chair I don't believe that the applicant has made uh significant enough changes um for resubmission. Uh the applicant is still requesting adaptive reuse of two existing structures for 48 units. Uh the applicant has made modifications um based on previous council um previous comments by the uh by the board and uh I I thank the

applicant for for doing so. Um, as chair, I personally don't believe that this uh submission that we have tonight required a uh total um uh resubmission. So, I'll open it up for discussion for the board. Um we have been presented um information tonight uh that we previously haven't been um presented and uh we obviously have heard from the applicant and um uh the butters and the um uh the citizens of North Providence um given light of the information that we took in tonight Um, I think that we're we're at a fork in the road and we can determine uh one of two things. We can um collective agree or vote on whether or not this um application uh should be continued um or if anybody uh at this present time has enough information, findings of fact to uh make a determination or a motion. um to put on the table to um make a decision. So, are you looking for a motion or you just general conversation? A general conversation first. Um I think we should table it, continue the public hearing and wait for that additional information to come in. Mr. Chairman Lu Hut is going to pull the board. I agree with that. Okay, Mark. Yeah, I think having excuse me, having the the information that we requested would be important. So, I agree with Gary. I think it should be continued.

All right. So, pulling the board um the applicant um you previously stated that you were um uh okay with uh waving the um 120day rule 90day. Why do I say 120? Additional 30 days, right? Whatever the whatever the numbers you need to make it work for you so you're not violating the statute, we agree to that. If the applicant would just would consent to continuing the public hearing to the next meeting in in July to allow for the applicant to get that additional information. Yes. And without um bump you bumping into the 90-day limitation requiring to make a decision. Yes. So, um, procedural question. So, should the board at the July meeting close the public hearing, then there's another clock that starts to run a decision and file that? So, no, if the board would have to make a decision um within the 90 days. So if the if the board closes the public hearing at the next meeting but then wants to further reserve for whatever reason to make their decision and findings of fact based on evidence presented by the applicant the the public hearing could either remain open for that one final time or be closed. The applicant can ask can ascent to an extension and then you guys can make the decision. So what's the 90 days in that's what I'm missing. So if the board were to close to make a decision for the board to make a decision on their vote for the master plan. So that's so when we close the hearing then we have another 90 days to render a decision. Is that what you're saying? No, you would the the applicant would need to allow an extension again. Oh to render that decision? Yes. Okay. And is is that extension let's say in July we closed the hearing and we asked for an extension of time because we now have to digest that information. Right. So um so we ask for continuation just to then

into August to render the decision. Right. I mean I mean technically the applicant has already consented to an extension. I I think it's more of an out of an abundance of caution that you continue to consent to an extension. You've already consented and I think based on the way this is going procedurally you understand that there's Yeah. I think I think we've run out of the 90 days, right? I I think we have right already. Yes. So, so we're continuing to the next meeting and if at the next meeting you're unable to make you decide as a group that you're unable to make the decision, you're going to look to me and you're going to say, "Uh, M. McGre, would your client consent to an additional 30 days beyond the 90 days?" Um, okay. Yeah. That's And if we said no, I mean, so let's say you did I would get a feeling pretty quickly. So, no, no, no, no, no, no. What I was going to ask is this. So, on the 30 No, I'm not going to give you a time to make a decision. I said that I to ask the chair a question. So, on that 30 days, the next one, does Brent have to file the decision in that 30-day period or is just for us to run the decision within that 30-day period? I think I think we're getting bogged down on the days. It's we the board has 90 days to make a decision after the application has been presented. the applicant has already consented to an extension based on the board's desire to get additional information. So, as long as the board makes a decision at some point, you know, within a reasonable time as as long as the applicant cons continues to consent to an extension, there's no need. There's no 30-day window or anything like that at this point. Does that help you? Is that what you mean? Yeah, that's fine.

Okay. So, um hold the board. Uh would somebody like to make a motion to um continue the public hearing? So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it. Motion to continue is passed. I'm sorry. What's that? Yeah. Oh, okay. So, um before everybody gets Hold on, folks. Hold on. Hold on. Um so, the So, it'll be July 9th. So, the next hearing is scheduled for July 9th. Wednesday, July 9th. Yes, sir. At 6 PM. Thank you. Uh do I we have any sorry do we have any staff updates? Um we are planning on getting the comprehensive plan before the town council in August just so you know. So that's great. Uh we got the state review people in the gallery. We're still having we're still conducting our meeting. If I can just kindly ask you to um lower your voices or take the conversation outside. Thank you. So, uh, the comprehensive plan, it was, uh, reviewed by the state. It was received back from us or by by us and, um, we revised it according to their comments and, um, we resubmitted. It was approved by the state. So, now the town council is going to review this in August. Uh, they're unfortunately not having a July meeting. So, um, at the next available meeting, we might have a new comprehensive plan. Okay. Um Brent, would you mind sending out the um the re the the comprehensive plan, the draft that is drafted that includes the

state's comments that has been given to the council? Can you can you circulate that to the planning board? Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What about minutes? What about what minutes from the last meeting? Oh, they were issued earlier today. Everybody we we did not vote on them. We did not vote on them. Um but I would like to um hear a motion to adjurnn. So move. Do I have a second? Second. I I I none. Motion passed. Ajourned. So am I Am I missing something? It's No, no. I I just decision to render. Okay. I did. I wasn't sure that my apologies. Nice seeing you, too. The weather will be nice. I'll take it after the com starting to