Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

months. I will never Hi guys. Like what do you want to do with like what would you rather have the road do if it doesn't go all the way through?

I think it's fine. But the problem is who wants the road to go through? Him or the neighbor? No. But the problem is makes life undevelop. If the road goes through No, no. If the road doesn't go through, it makes makes the person that has to develop those lots pick up the slide of someone not meeting the requirements. So it's like does he does does the applicant have a desire to make the road go through? No. And that's why I think he should he should merge his lot. So those are there's no question

and we can leave the road as is. So you want to build it but subdivision regulations just leave it as it's no. I I I fear that this is not going to pass because of this road issue. It all depends on how I feel about

but it's like hypothetically created. I mean this paper series is already there. someone wants to prove that they can any I don't know how I feel about it. Okay. All right. But I think leave me as it's the best situation we can do. Um we could just make everyone happy. Applicants fine with that. Yeah. Yeah. Everyone's everyone's happy with that. So I think that's a win make everyone happy and then deal with that if it just if they do decide to do something that's in the future it can be dealt with. Yeah.

Hi. Nice to see you. How are you? Good. Good. Brent, how are you? I was gonna say, don't you, but I don't think you do. I used to sit there and now uh Gary sits there. Um I thought that your article was so compelling he gave a copy to everybody. I'm so happy he did that because it is compelling. I thought it was very compelling. Yeah, it changes like how much bite we have now. A little bit. Something. It's something.

It's something. I like the fact that it changes uh couple of things I highlighted and then before the meeting starts I want to talk about something. Yes. I was just talking to Brent about the Victoria road piece Victoria Avenue piece. Um it his recommendation appears to be negative for the project but that's just like that's not the case. So I just wanted everyone to know. Oh good because I read that thing twice. It's It's kind of very I said to Brent like that up a little bit because Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I thought it was good. Yeah. Yeah. Hi. How was the honeymoon? It was excellent.

Where'd you go? Went to Greece. Oh, nice. Back to real. All the wedding I lost. We went back. I know. It's all that work for nothing. How do you eat small? The food is like amazing. Oh yeah. I'm sure quality is much better. I had the coalition.

People need to stop dying. So, you can stop eating. Um, I was just talking to Stephen. I'll filling you in on this as well. So for Victoria Avenue properties, the second one with the home going through um um Brent's recommendation appears to be negative, which is not the case. He has no negative feelings towards a little bit. Did you read Did you read this? Not this one. No, Westerly. Did you read the second to the last page on this? Of which of which of the right here? Oh yeah. Um, yeah. I read the part

and the judge is saying basically the community doesn't want it. So, this community has like no problem with it though for Victoria. She's talking about Victoria Avenue. Victoria. Yeah. It's this one right here. The second one, right? Right. for driveway. Yeah, you have no issue with that. I had I I would say let's not call it the street and just if it's a paper street, abandon the street. Okay, that's what I think as well.

Perfect. Okay. You have no issue with the project either? Oh, no. Absolutely not. I just want to make sure they want house and it's a dead end. And it's a dead end. No, the road could go through, but no, the neighbors don't want it to go through and neither does. It doesn't need to, right?

Right. Which there's no room for. That's why I say abandon it. Okay. Got it. I agree. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's what we were just That's what we were just talking about. All right, perfect. That was my But this decision for the other one is really interesting that fear um really gave gave us a little bit of power back which we didn't have for a long time. Right. And in my town in Smithfield there we have similar issues happening. So I'm very excited to see how our planning board reacts. And I I sent them this decision as well. They gonna build 2,000 condominium.

Can you believe the size of that? 2600. For it's insane. Yeah. I couldn't believe that number when I saw it. I was like 100 acres. Dude, that's like 10% of our entire Yeah. That's 10% of the entire population of Texas. 10% in economy. Exodus. Yeah. So, it's just out of control. Do I look like I gained weight or something? He goes, "You gained weight on your honeymoon?" I go, "What?" I did, Warren. I may or may not have eaten a lot.

All I'm going to say is it looks like you came back from the honeymoon. Uhhuh. All right. I'll take it. I'll take it. I have no question. Okay. I don't know what happened. All right. I'm comfortable with you guys now. I've I'm adjusted. It's been a couple months. Greece and that's it. Yeah. Two weeks. Um the island Turkey and the Aas. Nice.

My husband doesn't speak any Greek at all. I speak Greek. So it it was easy for us to get around because those islands are very um like remote where the Greeks go. There's not a lot of American or English people. Friend of he got married a year and a half ago.

Hello. How you doing? It's beautiful. Yeah, Dave. Everybody, I'll get out of Gary seat. Congratulations. Thank you. I actually Can I um I'll do pull this off. He says yes. Okay. I want to give you a thought because I sat down last on the throne and I was reading. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I figured out

and then the last Oh, you're representing everybody. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yep. I should put bearab last always in general. No, I have no idea.

What the what the appeal was? Which one?

That's small. Is that tonight? This is on tonight. These are all on tonight. Because he had made a mistake, but he corrected it. You corrected it, right, Brent? Yes. When you have the glasses on your head. Well, yeah. He said it was going to be postponed, but he made a mistake. It was Marone. Yeah. In the email, I I apologize. I uh my marone Barone is not scheduled to be two weeks not happening. Okay. No longer thoughts. So this is this is a new proposal.

There's a whole new proposal. So we're not previous neighbors have no problem. Everyone's on the same. You're going to be set.

I don't know if everyone saw, but I also printed out some uh relevant definitions for the meeting tonight. Correct. That's what they show. Yes. If you went through the 400page report, but I don't expect anybody. There was two pages. That's one option. Basically kind of tested the law a little bit that he'd have to do another

correct. So, I think that was one option that they went with. We got a corner. Gary's supposed to be coming. So, Mark said for a hockey playoff probably. So Gary Victoria

there's no room for on Victoria.

Um, I asked them to. I never got a response. Um, they did, but they sent a very basic no issues. They didn't really say they didn't have issues.

Okay. Were they seeking to aband were they seeking to abandon the roadway at one point? Yes. So he doesn't have to go that prevents him. Abandonment would make him pulled the sack. So

if it's not abandoned there at paper, we can do this. Okay. So not abandon the road then. I was I once I can Yeah. So it doesn't meet that requireable buildable. Yeah. one. It might be one building. Yeah. Yeah. But I believe he is supportive of if someone ever

It goes downhill. So this way is downhill. So the proposal is to continue. Yeah.

Yeah. So it would still remain as we permit to build. We started building it. this neighbor who maintains this road is lawn up in arms because the pins were right next to his driveway. He was now to build the road pretty much to his driveway. That's what like this is already all approved. This is essentially him trying to appease the neighbors. This varies at the request of the Yeah.

Like there's a foundation there. He was already like halfway through the process. So none of his plans. Yeah. Set up near you.

He was only going to build it to you as required. So yeah. So he's asking to build it. So the red arrow here.

Beautiful. That's what I wanted. Yep. Perfect. Yeah. So, almost like he never intended on bringing it. He intended to bring it here. Then the DPW requested that it travel past this driveway to help flood situation. They didn't want to increase surface. Okay. That's why it's remain on. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, he was going to improve it, but it it was going to be impervious instead of Okay. You know what I'm saying?

Yes. Thank you.

I know. So that was a decision from Judge Lamp here on a project that happened in Westerly in the back um just to kind of give some guidance as to where the courts have been you know up to these days regarding appeal from the planning board. and then Brett made

just kind of a little cheat sheet about definition wise and things like that because I don't see any any paperwork. I'm not sure if she's going to be Yeah, I think we're ready.

Okay. Good evening, everybody. Uh, can everybody hear me in the gallery? Thumbs up in the back. Great. All right. Welcome to uh the Town of North Providence uh planning board hearing. Uh the date is September 10th, 2025. Uh we are located at 2000 Smith Street, North Providence, Rhode Island. The time is 6 p.m. Will you please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and to the reps nationisible for all.

Thank you. Okay, we'll begin tonight's meeting by um taking a attendance via roll call. Uh Lou, can you start us off? Uh Lou Dukio, Warren Richard, David Parent, chair, Angelica Bus, solicitor for planning board. Steve Patassi,

Brown Town Planner. Okay, thank you. We are showing four active members of the planning board in attendance tonight. So we do have a quorum. Uh first agenda item of tonight is the approval of meeting minutes taken from our August uh meeting dated August 13th, 2025. I trust my fellow planning board members has have has had time to review the minutes and um I'm willing to entertain a motion. So moved.

That motion is to approve the minutes. Steve, approve the minutes. Yes. Okay. Do I hear a second? I second it. Okay. Warren second. All in favor? I. I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. You guys have it. Um we do have uh three projects being heard tonight. Um we are going to rearrange the um the order in which the projects are being heard. Uh we are going to start off with um a project that we continued from last month August 13th. The address is 0 Victoria Avenue assessor's plat 13 337 zone residential limited 10 which is RL10. The applicant is Tanya Bala, 10 East Lake View Drive, North Providence, Rhode Island. The description is a recommendation to the zoning board regarding a request for a 50-foot lot width variance under section 204 district dimensional regulations to construct a single family house. May the applicant please step forward, introduce yourself, credentials for the record, please.

Uh, good evening, Mr. Chair. Uh, my name is Louisis Duatro, attorney for the applicant, Tanya Bakala. She's not here this evening, but uh, her son is here who has power of attorney for her in the event he needs to to speak. Um, the application before you is a uh, uh, request for relief uh, from the 100 foot uh, frontage requirement for the property. The property does have 100 foot frontage and the applicant is was prepared to build a road through the end of the uh property uh to construct the home that uh she has the right to do. Uh but because of some concerns from the the neighbors in the town in connection with uh uh potential drainage issues, uh we agreed that we would only bring the road halfway on the property line and the rest of the roadway. We would uh usually crush stone uh what have you to reduce any potential, you know, drainage issues and problems in addition to what's already been presented in the plans to deal with uh drainage. Uh and again that's to accommodate the neighbors that agreed to this in in the town planner who suggested it. Uh so that's why we uh submitted the relief uh from the frontage requirement of 100 ft down to 50.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have any in addition to the drawings that we have in our packet, do you have any additional graphics to share with the board?

No, I just have what we have presented. If you want to look at uh I think C4 uh gives the best picture of the property. If you look at the uh the street view of the property, you can see where the uh uh road will be paved in uh about halfway or a little more than halfway of the frontage of the property and the rain reigning portion of that will end with crushed stone at the end of the property line. So the I I see the um on I am referencing drawing C4. I do see the crush stone being indicated. I also see a uh red um marking that's handwritten on the plan um designated and measuring the 50 foot frontage relief area. Um the the the length of crush stone and the length of the frontage relief area are not the same length. Is is that am I reading that correct? And is that the condition in which the applicant is proposing to build?

It's about It's about 50 ft. Maybe a little bit longer uh for the roadway. Say that one more time, sir. I said it's about 50 ft. It may be a little bit longer for for the paved roadway. Okay. So, the the 50 foot length of frontage relief is going to be greater than the length of crushed gravel that is going to be placed in front of the property. the the re the relief area may actually be less than that, but we figured we'd just request 50 in case we had to just go to 50. I I understand we're in relationship to the end of the crushed gravel. Oh, the crushed gravel at the end. That's the property line. That's correct. But coming coming forward.

Yep. Or coming to the plan um east of the property. That crushed gravel. Yep. appears like it stops well I say well before but it it appears that it stops maybe about a fifth before the 50 foot frontage relief area is is marked off. Mhm. Do you see how you see how the 50ft relief area extends past the gravel? Yes. Is the intent on stopping the gravel as proposed in this drawing or is the intent on extending that gravel to the um to the end of the 50ft frontage relief area? Yeah, if you hold on, I'll uh I'm going to ask Mr. Bala to address that. Thank you.

Yeah. So, the uh Oh, Ronald Bala. Yeah. So, he's talking about right here. Yes, exactly. Um Yeah. So, in relation to like where the driveway ends, the driveway actually is going to be probably a little bit past that 50 ft mark. So, we're going to go probably to the end of the driveway to meet the line where the grass is if you So, I think I'm looking at this. That's so small.

Yeah, that should be right there. Yeah. You want to go to the fifth? Yeah. Yeah. The 50 would be because that's where the driveway ends. Yeah. So, uh, so I'll correct what I said earlier. So, we want to go exactly to 50, which is not exactly the way it is presented there as you pointed out. So, the 50 would be just past the end of the driveway. So, it would be 50 foot relief. Correct. And and did I hear you correctly that the length of the crushed gravel will be that will be the same distance as the 50 foot.

Correct. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. You're very welcome. Um for the for the record, we have uh planning board uh member Gary Arasian has um enter the meeting. Get a good traffic. Okay. And um the crush gravel um you stated was a recommendation or requirement by the North Providence Department of Public Works. Yes. And that is to help um reduce the amount of uh sheet flow or water runoff.

That's correct. Okay. Um, does any of my fellow planning board members have any questions for the applicant? Lou, great. Uh, have you looked into the possibility of providing a turnaround at the end of the road? Uh, a turnaround. Uh, I don't know if you want to address it, Brent. the turnaround.

So, as long as the paper street remains, there's no requirement for a turnaround. If it's a through street, um once once that road's abandoned, then there's going to be a requirement for a turnaround. So, at this point, there is no requirement for a turnaround if it's through. Okay? Not even a temporary turnaround. Uh the fire department can require a temporary turnaround, but that's um their decision. So, Okay. Um, another question. Uh, will there be any increase in runoff from this lot to neighboring neighboring properties?

There should not be any increase at all. Uh, so we have the the property does have a uh like a rain garden in the front of the property. Uh, and again to ensure that there isn't that's why we're agreeing to just bring the road halfway uh in. So, but there should be no drainage issues at all. And and just one other comment on on the pipe in the rear of the property. Uh the invert and the finished grade, it doesn't appear as if there would be enough cover over that pipe. Are you going to be able to provide adequate cover over that pipe?

Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. We have the room to do it. So, if we do have to bring it up a little bit, then we have we have a good foot or two that we can cover if we have to. Okay. Thank you. Warren, do you have any questions for the applicant? No, I do not. Okay. Um, I'll let you still get you settled. I'll let you still get settled. Um, no question. You have questions, Steve? No. Thank you. Hey, Gary, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Yeah, actually I do. Um, so on the rear of the property, uh, I want to say on the west side where the proposed house is, could you describe, because I can't see the existing topography. Thanks, Steve. Uh, could you just just describe in what direction the existing topography flows? What was that? On the was my north on the western side of the proposed house. the backyard. In other words, could you describe currently would I because I don't have existing topography? It's C3 on our um if if that print out is in your packet.

Can you describe which way the the existing flows? Northwest to southeast. Northwest. Top top left to bottom right. top left to bottom right. All right. So, the reason why I ask if that's the case, if it goes from the top left, so which way am I holding this? So, I know which way you So, if it goes downhill this way, it goes down this way. Okay. So, you've got an outflow pipe. Is that a catch basin of that cross-hatched area in the back area? Sorry, I can't really hear you. Okay. Is that a catch basin in the backyard?

Yes, it is. All right. So, you're directing point source discharge right to the rear of your property onto the abuing property. So, um did you do an analysis of what your pre-construction and post construction runoff is? Um I don't know honestly. We I know they did a calculation at the beginning, but I'm not sure. I don't want to tell you the wrong thing right now. So, I have the storm water report if you want to read that. Oh, we do. We have it. Yeah. Mhm. Okay. All right. I'll take a look at the storm water report. Thank you. Is it Thank you. Are they the same thing?

Yeah. Okay. I'll take a look at this. Um, regarding the rain garden, um, is there a is there a planting plan for that? Is there a planting plan for that? Yes, we uh we haven't really designed the entire thing yet, but there will be one, right? No, I know there will be one. I'm asking if there is one right now. Oh, no. Sorry. It's not in the narrative in the storm water calcs. So, I guess the reason why I'm asking is um so you're going to have your discharge flow into what says a proposed rain garden, but we don't have a design of that. So, um is that something you could submit?

Yeah. Yeah, we can definitely get it if we need it. Well, we have to evaluate it. So, we got to make sure it's going to work. Yeah. Then we we will get it. Okay. All right. So, generally speaking, the way I'm reading the topography or the proposed topography on on C4 that if we start at the uh top leftand corner of the of the property as it appears on the plan, that's considered the high point of your property and the low point of your your property would, you know, existing right now would be the bottom right hand corner. Correct. Yep.

Okay. Um so, the house is more or less in the middle of your your property. You have your rain garden that's um in the front of your uh single family residence in between the house and the um the crush stone along with the proposed crush stone along Victoria Avenue. Yes. And then you have um contours on either side of your your house which will direct uh drainage from the call it like the top part of your Yep. your property down the sides of the house. Correct. Yes.

And the intention is for that that water to sheet flow into your proposed basin which is at the rear of the property and it more or less extends from one edge of the house full length of the back of the house to the other the other corner. Correct. Y

um and where I think Gary was heading with this is that it that proposed basin has a capacity to take on x amount of water and in the event that that basin um reaches capacity. My assumption is that your the catch basin, which is an overflow basin, which would be higher than the bottom of your basin, that water will then tip over into that basin, get collected in there, drain to a discharge pipe that then opens up in daylights into um what appears to be some rip wrap at the bottom corner of the bottom right hand corner of your your property.

Yep. And that discharge is going directly into um one of your and that discharge basically faces one of your um adjacent neighbors. Is that correct? Yes.

Okay. Okay. Um, so I think what um would be helpful for the the planning board to understand is what the what the the proposed capacity of not only your rain garden is but also your the the proposed basin is um to understand I think how often the overflow structure will be utilized and then dis then discharge water from your property onto your neighbor's property. I think that would be very helpful. Um I know that tonight the point of order is again the 50-foot frontage relief area for frontage is what we're what we're looking at. Um but if there are ways that you know this board can um improve development in the in the town, we always like to see we always like to seize that opportunity. Okay.

Yeah. And and Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, just and you know, prior to coming here, we we the applicant did have the right to build the road all the way to the end based on the plans that were presented here, but we we wouldn't have had to come here uh if it wasn't for uh trying to appease the town and the neighbors. Uh so, you know, I I I beg you to kind of give a little more deference to what we've done here and and not have us go through a lot of uh hoops, if you will.

Correct. But once we once we see a plan, we like to again take any opportunity we can to help help the development of the of the property. Um I guess one last question that I have is um have you have any have you had any discussions with um via butter that um appears to be 40 Samson Avenue where the that discharge is is basically daylighting to. Have you had any um conversations with that neighbor? Not. No. Okay. Um, Gary, now that you've had a little bit of a chance to read through that storm water, do you have any other questions? I didn't I didn't even open it. I didn't even open it.

Can I just ask one more followup question? Yes, Mr. Chair. So, could you verify um in the upper leftand corner of the proposed building, there's a there's a spot elevation. It says 140 149. Is that the top of foundation? And the reason why I'm asking the followup to that is you're bringing in about what 5 ft of fill. Um I don't have the exact feet of fill and everything that's going there to be honest. All right. And Gary, I'm reading the plan. It looks like the top of foundation is actually 150. It looks like the 149 and a half is the garage floor.

Okay. I see. Oh, it's 149. Oh, okay. Yeah, 149.5 is the garage. Top of foundation is 150 and the basement floor is 143. Oh, I see the What's this number here? That's what I was Oh, I'm sorry. That's 149. So, that would be a spot elevation at that corner. That's where I was. Okay. So, you're saying it's even higher. Okay.

So, it looks like, you know, at that spot elevation um there the foundation is is proposed to be a a foot and a half higher than that spot elevation. Um, okay. All right. Well, understanding the the way that the topography currently work, I know we we're hitting you hard with topography and and drainage um and water flow, which um you know, always comes up at this at at the the planning board. Um my general understanding of the way that the topography currently works is that any um water that enters your property from let's just call it plan north. the the topography naturally allows that water to um uh sheet flow down to the um plan south and then therefore um more or less enter the the um plan north of uh 36 Samson Avenue. No, that must be 39 Samson Avenue and and 40. Um, and it does appear that, you know, you you're a you're adding um imperous material um to the to the property. And it appears like you're offsetting that impervious material by um introducing some level of drainage um features um or that capture and slow the flow of water um with your proposed rain garden and your proposed basin generally speaking. Yes. Okay. I have no further questions. Do you guys have any further questions before we

discuss? I do. Go ahead.

Uh I'm looking at this here and I'm looking at the um the colored print out here and I I see where the house would be going a lot. I've also been up there and Victoria Street is a very steep grade coming in from the southeast I guess coming in that way. Um I'm just wondering what's going to happen here if there's a fire uh fire truck's coming up to a very steep grade uh with a curve on it to a dead end. Um, could the fire department get in there if there was a major house fire? Uh, I'm looking at this here and I see that the paper street goes out and probably the closest place for the fire department to muster would be on Grove Avenue and and come in that way rather than come up Vincent Avenue. Okay. I'm I'm only speculating on that. And what I would recommend is that where you're putting the crushed stone that you do not put any hedges or any fence in that area. That would impede the fire department dragging their hoses um to the to your property if you know what I mean.

Sure. I I would just ask that be that be put in there that there be no front fences or high or shrubs in the front that would impede them coming in from Grove. And how far are the nearest hygiens from here? Do you have any idea? Um I'm not sure if I can remember correctly. It is in the where you were saying on the opposite street and there street. Okay. That's that's what I'm that's what I'm saying. Um, yeah, that that's the only suggestion that I would one on that street though, like just a little bit two houses down maybe.

Yeah. I mean, you would there there's a house there AC which would be the house across the street from you. The the paper street from you. Uh, right now there's nothing there and and and the street uh it's a paper street so it shouldn't be blocked at all. So, I I would see the fire department going in there. I'm just saying that as a safety issue. Okay. Understood. Um just to add to Warren's comment there, um the the crushed stone um would that would that be suitable for a firefighting apparatus to actually um drive on to? Yeah. Yeah. It'll be packed down. It'll

It'll be crutch stone instead of rip wrap. Yeah. Yeah. It'll be real stone. It won't be. You'll be able to drive on it. Great. Brett, do we have a cross-section of that? Of the road of the the crush stump? No. Could you get us a a cross-section of that, too? Oh, what? So, you're going to submit a design plan for the rain garden? Could you also give us submit a a cross-section of that? Um, yes. area that you're going to you're proposing for Crush Stone.

Yes. Okay. Uh so again the the agenda um indicates that the uh the planning board that the applicant is requesting the planning board to make a recommendation to the town zoning board regarding request for a 50-ft lot width variance under section 204 district dimensional regulations to construct a single family house. Uh I believe I've um received enough information from the applicant to make a recommendation to the zoning board. Um I think that the the zone that information that the planning board has brought to the applicant's attention um could possibly uh be provided to the zoning board for them to render a decision um on the actual um on the actual variance. Uh we are here to make a recommendation to the zoning board. Um okay. Um so do we have any we don't have any other questions for the applicant. Um does a um planning board would you guys like to enter into a discussion? Thank you. One other one other question. Um excuse me.

Sorry to bring you back. Uh, how wide is the roadway extension? What's the width of the roadway extension? Oh, it should be 20 ft. It's 20 ft. That's same as the road. It's the same as the existing road. 20 ft. 20 ft. Yes.

Okay. Do we want to discuss or is somebody prepared to make a motion? And again, the motion is not a decision. We are not granting the applicant um any conclusion on on their request. We're simply voting or um our our job tonight is to recommendation to the zoning board regarding the applicant's request for a 50-ft lot with variance under section 204 district dimensional regulations to construct a single family house. Would any of my f my uh fellow planning board members like to make a motion at this time?

I'll make that motion. Recommendation to the zoning board regarding a request for a 50-ft lot with variance on the lot under section 204 district dimension regulations to construct a single family house in the recommendation in positive or in the negative in a positive manner. Correct. Okay. Motion is on the table for a positive recommendation. Do I hear a second? Second. said that Gary second it. Okay. Uh all in favor I I I Any opposed? I Are you any opposed? Yes. Yes. You're opposed? Yes.

Okay. We have one opposed. So we have um five we have four to one positive recommendation to the zoning board. Thank you. Okay. Next on the agenda is uh address 114 Bird Avenue, assessor's plat 24A 110. Zone is residential limited 10 RL10. The applicant is Patriot Builders with an address of 14010 Rod Road, Exiter, Rhode Island. The description is application for master plan review for an adaptive reuse development proposing the conversion of the existing large structure into 28 residential units and demolition of the smaller structure on the property with a minor subdivision which will split a 20,02 square foot lot off the southwest corner for the construction of a duplex structure.

Mr. Chairman here. Hello. May you state your name and your credentials for the record?

Uh Jack McCine. I'm the attorney for the applicant um with law offices located at 21 Garden City Drive, Cranson, Rhode Island 02910. Uh the applicant is Patriot Builders Incorporated, Arman Cord Alleso, uh being the sole shareholder. The applicant in question is lo the area in question is located in RL10 zone as you stated and consists of a single lot um identified by the tax assessor is lot uh 110 on assessive plat 24A and is located at 114 Beard Avenue. Um as you know Armen um has withdrawn his previous application um in which he was requesting the reuse of two existing buildings. Um uh the proposed larger building would have contained uh 42 units and the smaller two buildings would have uh contained six units. Uh my client has submitted a new application um for master plan review under the adaptive reuse development ordinance converting the larger existing building into uh 28 two-bedroom units um known as Riverside Apartments. Uh the second building will be demolished and Aman proposes to subdivide the property to create two lots and construct a duplex on the smaller property. Um the result is that the 48 unit count from our first proposal is being reduced by 18 units to um 30 units in total. Um when subdivided the larger lot will have 2.85 85 acres and the smaller lot will contain.35 acres. Um, under section 203Q of the North Providence zoning ordinance concerning adaptive reuse. Um, sorry if I'm repeating myself from the previous application, but we're setting a new record here. Uh, the density permitted

is not less than 15 units per acre. Um, which translates into 42 units for this project. Um, we were asking for 28 units under the adaptive reuse ordinance. Um the smaller lot will contain a duplex which is permitted in an RL10 zone. Um in support of the application, we have resubmitted um a letter from the Providence Water Supply Board um stating that there is sufficient reserve uh to service the residential development. Um, we've also submitted a sewer connection permit for the smaller building um from the Naragansa Bay Sewer Commission and um we submitted a structural engineer letter from Jeremy Page um that was asked for at the previous um on the previous application. We resubmitted that with this application for the larger building. I also submitted a letter from Commonwealth Engineers regarding the suitability for an uh on-site water treatment system for the larger building. um in in your documents that we've we've submitted and in the staff report you'll note that um the Naragansit Bay Sewer Commission actually stated that um they didn't have capacity for the larger building. So we ended out we went ended up going out and doing some testing and you'll see there's there's a letter in there um from uh Commonwealth Engineering indicating that we would be able to put an ISDS system for the lodge lot on that property. Um, also submitted um a phase one environmental from Harpen Engineering that you had requested on the previous application that we're incorporating to this one. Um, also submitting a traffic study from Crossman Engineering, which was also previously submitted with our with our prior application. Um, I asked that the previous testimony of Paul Bannon um be included uh in the record for this application. um a title policy from Conwell Title

Insurance Company showing that there are no environmental land use restrictions from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management while the US EPA was recorded on the property preventing the conversion of the larger building into um at for residential use. Um, finally, um, I submitted a letter from the Community Housing Land Trust, um, of Rhode Island stating that there is an agreement to act as the monitoring agent for the affordable units, um, on the property. Um, that being said, I have Adam Borard to come up and he can run you through the new um, plan, elevation plans. And what's that?

Go ahead. Uh, good evening. Adam Borugard from ZDS architecture architect ZDS sorry architecture. Um, yes of course. Thank you.

Um, so if you look at your architecture packet on page five, this is the first level plan. Um the top of the page is the parking lot where we have a the main entry to the building um with stairs and a ramp. Um this is leading you from 85.6 grade to 89.8 uh leading into a lobby with a mail space, parcel room, and 14 units. Um each level has 14 uh two bed units. Um and there's a egress stair to the left. Um, again leading you down to a ramp and stair. Um, to the next level is also 14 units, slightly larger. Um, downstairs involve the utility room. Um, moving on to this the next page, page seven, you'll see the elevations. The top elevation is the west elevation, uh, which would be facing Bayard Avenue. Um, we're actually dropping the grade in front of the building so that there's no longer a slope from the street up to the building. Um, allowing for daylight into the first level units. So, different from our last application, we didn't have any light getting in there, so we were carving into the building. Um, here we are keeping the building as it is and just adding windows. Um the south elevation to the bottom of the page just shows the the drive aisle ramp leading from the street from the left to the right to the parking. On the next sheet is the top of the page is the east elevation facing the parking lot with your main entry into the building. Um below that is the north elevation showing your one of your egress um accesses.

Um, and then page nine just shows an elevation of our proposed plan. Similar materials as our last application. We have laps sighting, um, a band breaking up the building just because of the height. Um, and we no longer have parking in front of the building. It's all landscaping. Um, and no more access off the main street. So, all accesses are uh concealed to the rear of the building. Couple questions on the architecture. The um just regarding the floor plan on the uh the first floor um is the height of the first floor being uh raised in elevation from the call it existing first floor.

Yes, that's correct. Um, it's easy to see on the elevation such as page nine. Um, where off to the right it shows you the parking level is the access at grade and you be elevated 4.2 ft just so that you're a foot above the um the wetland. Okay. Elevation. It's the same as last time. Um, same first level, same second level. If anything, the building just shrunk by two to three feet. Um, what direction did the building shrink in? What drawing can I see that on? Sorry, what was that? You mentioned that the building building shrunk.

If it did, it would be because of the height. So, before we were showing um gable a gable roof. Right now, we're showing like a false parapit that basically just wraps around the building. Okay. So, when you say the building shrunk, you you don't mean the the the footprint did not shrink the overall height of the building. Okay. Yeah. from from previous from the previous proposal. Correct. Okay. So on the second floor plan um the the floor plate extends um the entire perimeter of the um the building. Is that correct? That's correct.

And um are the existing are the exterior walls all existing walls? Yes. So anything in gray yep is existing. And you'll see there's some party walls. They're loadbearing existing walls that are between um some of the units and just because we don't want to move them because they're loadbearing um they're remaining.

Okay. Is on on the um second floor plan or anywhere in the presentation um is there an overlay of what the footprint of the existing second floor is in comparison to the footprint of the proposed second floor. I don't have the overlay, but I do know the uh the square footage difference. One second. We're increasing it by 4,000 square feet per level. Um that's because before we were carving out a portion of the building. This time we're just keeping it as it is.

Um okay. My my question is is that the existing second floor Yep. What what is the square footage of the existing second floor? Oh, as it is right now, um the floor plate, not where the floor is, not not from exterior wall to exterior wall through double height space, the existing floor plate. I don't have that number um off the top of my head. Okay. Apologize. Can you generally describe utilizing your second level floor plan to the board where the existing floor plate of the existing second floor? Yeah, I'd be happy to utilizing the walls.

So, if you're looking at the plan on page six, basically the first twobedroom at the bottom of the plan, that's the width of the ex of the original like existing two uh second level. Right now, it's really that The there you go. Thank you. The um existing floor plate right now for the second level is this portion of the building. This skinny portion between these two load bearing walls, the exterior and the interior one. Okay. The rest of it is a double light space because it's a warehouse. Thank you. Okay. Architectural question.

Go ahead. Yes. Okay. Do you have any renderings or elevation plans of the duplex? No, we don't we don't have that at this time. Uh, okay. I'd like to see what that was that structure would look like. The duplex. You wanted to see what the structure of the duplex would look. Well, we see what this structure looks like.

This is this is the adaptive use part. That's going to be part of the subdivision of the property. And right now, other than where we intend to put a duplex on there, we we don't have we don't have elevation plans at this point in time other than we're showing where the footprint is on the plot. I don't I don't think at this point necessarily show an elevation anywhere in the applicant's packet. Is there a um site plan or a uh proposed footprint of what the duplex would be?

Yes, I can bring up Tim. He's my next witness if you don't have any questions for the architect. Uh not. Um does anybody have any more questions for the architect at this point? He's not leaving. So, yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening everyone. Uh Timothy Behan. a professional engineer with the firm Commonwealth Engineers and Consultants, Inc. in Providence, Rhode Island. I'd like to uh go over the the site plans. If you can get the civil site plans out uh just the page before that one is one. Okay. This uh is a combination plan. It shows the existing conditions as well as um some of the demolition work that's proposed. Just to go over the the site to refresh everybody's uh memory again, uh the subject parcel is the green area and we do have freshwater wetlands in the back. This is the wetland edge. You'll see back here there's a buffer associated buffer. And what else? Uh there is a a flood plane associated with this wetland and it does come behind the building and let's see the you see this hatched area here all these lines. So basically this whole area back here that's all impervious currently it's pavements back there and what we're proposing to do is only pave this gray area. This would be the new proposed parking area. The remainder would be removed and planted with loom and seed. So the entire front area here would be uh removed of the pavements you know in front of the existing building removed the pavements and planted with uh just lumen seed except for any required

walkways we have. So, there's a substantial amount of pavements which will be removed as part of this project. Uh, just going over the building sizes, Jack, what does that say? Was that 17,000? The existing building out there is 17,140 square ft. And the existing smaller building, what's that size say, Jack?

82. 1582 square feet. Those are the two existing buildings. Okay, we can go to the next sheet. The next sheet is the proposed plan and uh just globally uh maybe we should go to the subdivision plan. We'll just show them what's proposed. Maybe two more sheets or so. Another one. Uh, one more.

I know. Yep, that's the survey plan. One more. There we go. This is just cleaner to see. You can see the overall subdivision. I mean, the overall parcel. And we're proposing to chop off uh a 20,000 square foot lot at this location here. And that would be the proposed lot for the duplex. So, the duplex would be on its own parcel and the larger existing building or adaptive reuse would be on the bigger parcel. Okay, you can go back. It's just harder to see on this plan. So, I mean, you can kind of make out a little bit, but it's more difficult to see. So, the two buildings we have, this proposed building, which uh we're it's getting smaller in footprint size. We're down to what 13,02. So, we went from 17,100 down to 13,000 plus or minus. And this is the proposed uh duplex. Is there a square footage on that, Jack? Right now, that footprint is 1,320 ft. So, we have a duplex there. And this is the adaptive reuse building. Uh we have the parking area, which was similar to the previous proposals, same pretty much alignment. And we're proposing with this uh configuration 62 spaces uh for the 28 units. Uh

how do those spaces compare to the the number of um the previous proposal? Did you guys reduce the number of spaces? We may have for the dumpster. It might have went down a couple.

Okay. But um the current proposal is there's 28 units in there and we have 62 uh spaces proposed I believe. Yes, it's showing 62 parking spaces. Um so part of this proposal, what do we have? We had a comment in the staff report that the dumpster, we were going to have an easement for the dumpster. You can see the dumpster was situated here. Um, in the staff report, it it says we need to relocate that outside of this parcel and put it on on the big parcel. So, we're thinking about either placing it back here or actually just sliding this lot further east and placing the dumpster up here and we can put some arborites around it. But, we could take care of that comment. Other than that, it's it's pretty much the same proposal for except for the existing small building is going to be demolished and a new duplex will be constructed there. So, it's going from six units to two units and instead of rehabbing the old building, it's going to be a new building. And now you're just going to have a property line with obviously some easements associated that because some of the parking will be on that 20,000 foot lot. Tim, it sounds like the uh relocating of the dumpster um is is somewhat in flux right now. Um is the is it your goal to have that dumpster located on the property in a manner that will allow for a um private uh trash removal service. remove the trash from the dumpster completely on

correct. The entrance to the dumpster will be from inside the property and if there's any shielding there'd be a fence around it obviously and probably some additional arbit there'd be a fence around the dumpster area and as and a planting plan would be associated with that. Okay. But vehicular access to the dumpster will be 100% on the property. Yes. The dumpster the the vehicle that picks up the dumpster would enter the property for its removal.

Um anybody I want to start over here for questions. Okay. Go ahead. See, I guess my first question is, has Narroance uh Bay Commission approved the duplex? Yeah. No, it's just a document. Jack, we can't hear you. I'm sorry.

I'm gonna have Armen come up and talk to you about that. I think it's referred to as a transfer of an existing Go ahead. I'm in Cordalo. The building out there right now has a sewer line and has a water line. Actually, the other building has a sewer line also. And what we had to do was transfer the permit that they gave us for the six units, six onebedroom units and we had to transfer that permit because it was an office before.

So I have that per Could you say that again? Could I didn't I didn't understand what you said. the the sewer line in waterline is in an office. So they gave us a permit for six units. It's a change of use permit. So it's based on six bedrooms. So we have that permit. You you have it now. It's just a change of use. So the the large building will be all septic. Correct.

Correct. Will you be using the Elgen system for that building?

Probably not. I don't believe so. There's there's different technologies. Probably we'd look at first the GST system, which is a gravel and sand type trench system. It's an advanced treatment system, but it's really based on until we start digging into it and look at costs and things like that. I mean, there's a multitude of uh different leech fields we can use nowadays. Literally, I mean, we can pick 10 different ones, and it's really based on what we see as being the optimal for that location based on groundwater, soil textures, the amount of fill. So, there's different var variables to determine what we end up selecting.

Yeah. No, I know that. But the Elgen system is a good system. Oh, yeah. Yeah. No, we use this the a lot too. Okay.

Almost all set for right now. Okay. So, um I understand Brent has asked that you remove or relocate the uh the trash or the dumpster onto the property, but um correct me if I'm wrong. Two other observations regarding the 20,000 foot lot, Mr. McGreen, are they proposing? Could you could you put the microphone up?

I'm sorry. I just do that to you. So question, maybe I I'll start with you, Mr. McGre, and maybe we could uh um maybe meand over to uh uh Mr. Behan, but aside from the trash dumpster being relocated, correct me if I'm wrong, but I count like about eight parking spaces that's associated with the proposed development that's also located on the 20,000 square foot lot. And it seems like half the driveway into the development is also located on the 20,000 foot lot.

Correct. And there's a note that says obviously there's going to be legal documents, easements drawn to accommodate that. Okay. So why isn't that all on the 285 acre site? Well, that's the driveway location is an existing location. So is both of the buildings. We're just pretty much taking down the existing building and building a duplex and putting property lines around there. I know what you're doing, but my question is why is a portion of the parking lot that's associated with the multif family development and a portion of the driveway on another lot because of existing site conditions?

No, you're creating that lot. You're creating the 20,000 foot lot. So you have control over that. So it seems like you're kind of double dipping. So I guess if that's your answer, I'll leave it alone. But but I that doesn't look right. So I can't support that. But let let's go on to the next bigger question. So I just want for the record. It seems like you've got 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 nine off- streetet parking spaces associated with the development on another property. And you're saying that's going to get encumbered by an easement. and you've got a portion half the driveway once again on another property. And the interesting thing is you're creating that lot. So you're creating a situation. So it's not like you're inheriting that which I could then understand that's an existing constraint. Maybe we could talk about that, but you're actually creating the lot and then saying, "Well, we don't have enough room. So we're going to propose some of the improvements on the uh 20,000 foot lot." So let's move on to the next question. Well, um, well, just just I mean, can we can we address that a little? I mean, yeah, sure.

We're basically trying to mimic what's out there. We had the two buildings at two locations just to keep the neighborhood similar. I mean, we can easily put the duplex somewhere else on the site. Yeah. And have a a more conventional looking plan. I mean, but this is just an invisible lot line out there, but it might be invisible, but it's it's a fact. So, um, I would implore you to relocate those nine parking spaces. I'm not sure how you're going to handle the driveway, but that should all be on the 2.85 parcel. I I don't I think we have more than enough parking spaces. So, if that's your objection, we could just remove them. It's not an objection to the number of parking spaces. It's you you're you're splitting off the property into two lots,

right?

And that's fine. Absolutely. And you're proposing a two family. Perfectly fine. but you're also using the the lot that you're creating as overflow for the proposed development. So, in my humble opinion, as a professional planner, I think all the improvements that you're proposing for the proposed development should all be located on that subject property. I understand what you're saying, but we have the right to do it to put the easement on there and and we're also we have more parking spaces than we need, so we could probably completely remove those spaces. So there is no sharing of spaces at all and that would satisfy your concern of um of having parking spaces on this lot from the other one. So we could just get rid of them.

So Mr. How you handle it, that's up to you. I'm just expressing my objection. So let's say that that's a remedy for the parking. How then to answer the question about half the driveway for the proposed development being on um the 20,000 foot lot? Why can't you just reconfigure the lot, the proposed lot, the 20,000 square foot lot, so that no portion of that driveway is on that lot? Once again, that's the objection. I don't expect you to answer that right now, but that's So, if we can move on to the next question. I'm looking at this plant. Um Brent, is this from them or from you? That's a FEMA firm map. Yeah. So,

Gary, may may I ask a question that um stems off of your your train of thought? um for the applicant. What I'm sorry that's okay. What what's d So, um, kind of stemming off what Gary was saying, what's what's driving the um or what's the reasoning for the the proposed parcel lot be to be exactly 20,000 and two square feet um at the uh size and proportion that you're proposing. What what's driving that shape

and that square footage? I mean, 15 was the minimum and he's making it 20. I mean, he's got plenty of land there. So, it was just it was just arbitrary.

It was arbitrary. It was a minimum of 15 and squared off the lot, made it 20. Okay. And how about the lo the location of it now? Why why was that location in the So, if you're if you're tearing down the existing building and and and building a new and proposing to build a new duplex um why why that location or the on the existing property for the subdivision? It's just the neighborhood's used to a building at that spot. We we could put it on the other end of the property where there's trees now. I mean, the water I'm sorry that Okay. Or use the same water and sewer in the duplex. Okay. Well, that

that's why I put it there. So, you know, it's pluses and minuses. I mean, I don't mind moving it to the other side. I mean, okay. No problem at all. Thank you for answering my questions on the proposed subdivision lot size and location. Gary, you got more. Thanks, David. So, I'm looking at the uh the FEMA map that our county planner provided us. Um Tim, it it seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong, about 80 90% of the site is encumbered by 100year flood plane. The the flood plane there's there's actually a line on show on the plan.

See this heavyweight line? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So that's that corresponds to what uh Brent gave us. So

two questions then. Um and I'm sorry these are and I hate these four plans don't see them but on sheet just bear with me. All right. Uh sheet 507 soil erosion control plan one riverside apartments. Um, you've got portions of your storm water basin. Um, one says temporary sediment trap one C detail, temporary sediment trap 2C detail, temporary sediment trap 3, C detail. Those are all portions of your stormwater basin system. And they're all in the 100year flood plane.

That's a temporary sediment trap. Those are used for construction. Okay? you know, when there's a lot of sediment. So, the the dirty water when it rains is it's going to be dirtier. It's going to go in those sediment traps to settle out before it discharges. That's a DEM requirement. They look for those. So, that's during construction. So, those are right. So, where's your storm water basin then? I guess we don't need any for this job because we're removing so much pavement. If you look on the title sheet, the same as last time,

DM has uh regulations. If if you have so much pavement on a site, you remove it, you do uh calculations to demonstrate whether or not you need water quality recharge and storm water detention. We're removing so much pavement on this site. Remember that first plan I showed everybody how much pavement we had? Well, yes, that's going to be removed. Yeah, we don't need to do anything here to meet DM standards. And we're still need to get the permit though for it. So, DM's going to review those calculations. Um, but we're removing a lot of pavement out there. Yeah, but what about water quality? I mean, I I get it's existing conditions

that that structure and that pavement's been there, I don't know, you tell me 50, 60, 70 years. and we have an opportunity to improve water quality. So while can I let me finish? And while I understand

it kind of goes back to the last time too. It seems like as like what we're as being asked to do is just keep checking off boxes as long as you hit check off a box but goes beyond that right we're engineers and we're planners and we're trying to figure out a better product for the area. So even though that might be the case that because you're removing impervious area therefore that's less runoff so forth and so on. I get all that but we have an opportunity where you could improve the runoff. So there was no thought about maybe in improving water quality as it leaves the site.

Well, if you look at it in DM's perspective, I figure I don't know the numbers. Say we have an acre of pavement out there right now. In DM's eyes, we're going to take it down to a half acre. You improved water quality a lot because you removed a half acre of pavement. That's the way they look at it.

No, I know. I know they look at it. I'm asking you how you're looking at it as the engineer and I'm asking you you've got an opportunity here. I realize you're red you're you're you're eliminating impervious area whether or not it's a lot or a little that's that's subjective but by do it is a fact and my question is we have again an opportunity that you're proposing a product for the neighborhood which absolutely I embrace the concept but we have an opportunity to improve upon that. So again, I'm just surprised that nothing's proposed to improve water quality. Having been there for all these years, decades, we have an opportunity. It's redevelopment. And part of redevelopment as a planning tool is you try to improve the area. So um I guess your answer is no, but I'm kind of disappointed that I'm not seeing anything that's going to improve water quality in that flood plane area. My followup question is um you're proposing you said a ISDS system. Okay. Once again, I guess if you could first tell me where where you're proposing that on the site

if I'm not sure if you received copies of the soil test report. Okay. I'm asking where is that on the proposed site? Well, the test hole locations are in that in that report on the last sheet. It shows you where those test locations were performed. But I can I can call up the map and just kind of show you.

Thank you. So once again, it is shown on this last page in the soil report, but in general, they were kind of back in that area. So it's going to be under the parking lot. Partially under parking lots. Yeah. Is that in the flood plane? Is it what? That's in the flood plane. It's in the flood plane as well. Right. So, in the flood plane, you're going to have you're in a 100ear storm that's going to be flooded.

And I have to think, I don't know if you've done any borings, and whether or not you've done depth of groundwater, if you're using oxidation, doesn't matter. It means if you did it, but you've going to have high ground water there, too. So, that's what this we did, I believe, 12 test holes there. Okay. Yeah. What's the groundwater elevation?

In summary, in the in the cover letter here, it said test numbers 1 2 3 5 6 11 and 12 are sufficient for septic disposal because they have greater than two foot water tables and greater than 4 feet to any impervious surface. Those are the standards for constructing a septic system. You need those approved parameters to design a system. And we had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven of those holes past that parameter. But does that also then take into consideration of the flood plane flood plane? We need to do flood plane compensation for cuts and fills.

No, that's not what I'm asking. I I know that, but for purposes of the leeching field. Yes. Right. Portion of the leeching field is going to be in there. Yeah. Okay. So during a 100ear storm that's going to get flooded. So while I understand the standards of how to design a septic system with a leeching field um with those specifications about depth of groundwater. I totally get that.

But does that also take does this report also take into account though the next layer of constraint which is your 100redyear storm? Well, BM has standards and 100red-year septic systems can be designed in 100-year flood planes because it's a rare occurrence. They don't prohibit construction in

flood planes. But that's that's the standard we designed to, right? Like your storm water system, it's a rare occurrence, but that's what you're designed to. That's why we don't the system will be designed in accordance with DM standards, which allows construction in flood planes. I know it allows construction of the flood plane every as long as you provide compensatory storage. But I'm talking about the sanitation system here. So that's underground or your parking lot. I understand that the tolerances for groundwater elevation, but what I'm not grasping is um the fact that it's in a flood plane. So during a 100-year flood plane, that's going to be I'm not sure what the elevations are, but you're going to have water there. It's going to be standing water until the storm dissipates. So, but I'll take a look at this. I will take a look at it. Okay.

Sounds counterintuitive, but I will look at it. And at some point, I want some feedback on on what we're going to do with that driveway. At some point, I'm going to ask for additional feedback on what we're going to do with that driveway because again, it's on that 20,000 foot lot because it's on the lot. It straddles the lot. So, people driving up, people who live in the development are going to be driving on property that's not part of their development to get to their property. Correct.

Okay. So, that sounds okay. Well, I mean, that's what easements are for, but I mean, we can You'd prefer to relocate that duplex pretty much you're saying, right? Correct. I'm sorry. You'd prefer to relocate the duplex. Again, Jim, I'm leaving the answers up to you. I'm just I'm just I'm not sure if I'm in a position to Well, that's what I'm That's what I'm here. I I'm here to, you know, tweak things. So,

yeah. So, if if I mean, the question was why is the duplex there? It's because the water in the sewer connection there. That's that shouldn't be the driving force to propose a land use on that corner because there's a water service there. Water service can come in anywhere. So, I'm not convinced that that's the proper location for the two family just because there's a water service there. If there was a a rock out cropping or severe slope, I totally get that. But you can cut and snip water services and sewer services anyway and create them any place. So, um, again, my objection is that half of that driveway is on property that's not part of the proposed development and residents going in and out of fairness to the residents that might live there that are going to go in and out of that site driving on someone. I would want it. And you might say, well, Gary, then you don't have to buy that two family. I get it. But, um, I just think it's poor planning that any portion of that driveway that's going to get used a lot because it's half of it that residents, potential residents of that development are going to drive over a portion of that driveway that's on private property on someone else's property. Of course, that's up to the chair. I'm just giving my questions. No, that's

use the microphone to use the pointers. We can take the parking area out of this because we don't even need it. According to the adaptive reuse, we need one parking place per unit. We're just giving more. But we can take it out because some of the neighbors thought they should have more parking. But we can just eliminate it. We can take this driveway and run it on the other side of the building. Now we got nobody bothering that duplex lot. If that satisfy you, if that's a problem, we'll just do it.

So, I I I think and I'm going to um you know, agree with with Gary, I do find it rather odd that site amenities for one parcel um are um on another parcel that that that you guys are proposing. It it it's just a little bizarre to me that you guys would create a condition that um for two parcels that heavily relies on an easement in an agreement between the two parcels when you have um when you have the creative ability to plan and construct and develop uh site amenities for one parcel on that land and the site amenities for the other parcel.

But I am the owner of both of them. So, I don't understand. If I want to give the other lot an easement, I don't understand what the problem with that is. The problem is you're not going to own them. At some point, someone else is going to live there. Well, at some point, somebody's lawyer will let them understand and he's and if they don't want to buy it, they don't have to.

Okay. So, look, planning principles aren't related to what a lawyer might do later on. So, you're asking us to approve a site plan. We're we're sharing our objections to you. how you want to resolve them. You want to leave it as is, that's up to you. I'm not telling you what to do, but it's a public hearing. You're here to get feedback from us. I'm telling you that's a major issue for me. How you want to approach that, Mr. C, that's up to you. So, is there shouldn't be led up to at no disrespect to any attorneys. I respect all the brothers and sisters, God bless, but our decisions shouldn't be a function of what an attorney might do to let their client know what's going on. So, um I think the project if if if that's a if that seems to be a problem to you, we can eliminate it. We'll take out the parking places and we'll put the driveway on the other side of the building and everybody can be happy. That's just from Gary. I I look to my colleagues.

I think everybody would like that. Yeah. I I look to my colleagues. That's my humble opinion. If if my colleagues trump me, it is what it is. But I'm just expressing my opinion. So, I don't want to say that what I'm saying that I'm not speaking for the board. I'm speaking as a individual board member so we can hear from our colleagues. Okay. Okay. That's fine. We'll do that. And and I think just what we're trying to say is that we don't want your objections to be an impediment to the approval of this application. So if we need to do that and that would make you more comfortable um from a planning perspective rather than a legal perspective, we're more than willing to do that. Okay. Speaking about hearing from our other colleagues, Lou, do you have any questions for

Well, just one comment on the test holes. Uh you said seven of the test holes were suitable. That leaves five that were not suitable. Uh is that going to restrict your design for this on-site septic system? uh are those holes you know near other holes that were suitable that now negates whether you can uh you know design your systemic location

which way to design the system that the unsuitable holes may have had a 20-in 20-in water table which technically we could still submit a septic design to DEM because the DM standard is from 1 foot to two feet water table you submit a variance application It also get approved, but it's a variance application. Everybody around you gets notified. We'd rather just not do a variance. So once you do 2T or greater in depth for water table, no variance is needed. So if we slide the system over in one direction, we don't need a variance. The test holes closer to the wetland, getting closer to the wetland, we're getting shallower water tables. Yeah, it's just the site has, you know, some major restrictions. You have a limit of disturbance line uh that you have to uh comply with. I'm I'm just saying, you know, is there enough area on the site for uh a a septic system for the size development that you're you're proposing?

Oh, yeah. Yeah. There's there's plenty. Yes. Other questions. Okay. Warren, do you have any questions for the applicant? Not right now. You don't not right now. I do. Dave

uh Steve, go ahead. Uh in the Hoffman engineering report on page three, and I just want to read this to you and read it into the record says based on HI's observations and records re reviewed as part of this study and subject to the limitations provided by appendix X and recommendations below. HI found evidence of recognized environmental conditions. As such, further investigation is recommended as a result of phase one ESA. They go on to say that uh shallow groundwater was identified on a test pit which exe exhibited a sheen. as a member of this board, I'm not comfortable with this this environmental issue. Number two, that building to me has failed to maintain the character of the surrounding community. I would like to see something that fits in with the neighborhood and that's not it. I'm sorry, but for me it doesn't work. Steve, can you hold up the um before you respond, can you just hold up the um the page that you were referencing the pass that this way?

I want to find it. Thank you for that. I don't understand what you're saying. Wait a minute. No, I said thank you for holding.

Oh, you can you can respond. is as far as anything on the phase one dem will have its last word and whatever they say is what we do. So that's that's the first thing. As far as the building is concerned, the state of Rhode Island has passed the law and the law simply says adaptable reuse. So, it's not up to anyone. If you see a stop sign and you go through it, you can't tell me I'm okay cuz I went through the stop sign. The law says I got to stop. This is an adaptable reuse. That's why we bought it. The law says we can put 48 units there. That's the law. But you're not putting 48 because you didn't get permission from Narroance at Bay Commission.

We don't need permission from Narroance at Bay. Oh, we have Narans at Bay for six bedrooms and we put our own system in for the rest. You're putting in a septic system. Yes. I asked about the system.

I asked about the Elgen system. septic system. Tim said you're not entertaining the se the Elgen system. We're going to entertain what DEM wants. That's what's going to end up there. Not what I want, not what you want, not what Tim wants. We don't control the EM. They control us. So whatever they need is what they're going to get. So we'll be fine. We can do what we're telling to do. We have we bought a piece of property based on the law from the state of Rhode Island that says this is an adaptable reuse. So you can't sit here and say I don't want to see this or I don't want to see that.

I'm just saying you are not maintaining the character of the existing community. Want to be on record that I've said it now I've said it twice. If you want me to repeat it, I'll repeat. No, I don't want you to repeat it. I just want you to make sure that you're understanding the law. That's all I'm talking about. I don't agree with you on the law. Maybe your attorney wants to take a look at some recent reports, but that's him and that's for you to discuss at your whenever you have time. Okay. Steve, thank you. Uh Steve, any further comments right now? Uh not right now. No.

Okay. I I have a couple if we can just refer to um the letter dated uh July 2nd um prepared by structures engineering and design. Um the structural review of the um of the existing structure as it applies to the applicant's desire for adaptive reuse. The project entails repurposing an existing building into multif family residential dwelling units. Limited portions of the building will be demolished, but much of the footprint will remain. The first floor is proposed to be raised for flood plane compliance and a new elevated second floor deck is proposed. The proposed design keeps many existing bearing lines in the building footprint in place. I don't agree with that. Mostly now comprises masonry blocks. As part of the project, the masonry walls in the first floor are expected to remain to a large extent either reinforced or rebuilt as necessary. Masonry walls on the second floor are expected to remain to the extent financially feasible. In any cases, with any existing structure that remains part of the proposed new project, structural reinforcing will occur if required. So, there's a there's a couple of things that I um would like the applicant to address as I as I read this. Number one is um the substantial amount of demolition that is occurring um as part of what you're considering adaptive reuse. You guys are demolishing a significant at least this letter says that um demol that areas of the building are to be demolished that there's no adaptive reuse in in those areas period because you're just getting away you're just tearing down portions of the building. um says the first floor is proposed to be raised for a flood plane um which is creating a new floor because I think uh most of the existing first floor is slavon grade

um I know you're doing that for compliance for a flood plane however that floor structure will be new and the engineer continues by saying a new elevated second floor deck is proposed I know there was a little bit of discussion with the architect earlier on as far as what the existing floor, second floor plate is in comparison to the um proposed new. And in my general opinion, the existing second floor plate where it once existed um is far less than what the new floor plate will consist of. Um the proposed bearing the proposed design keeps many existing bearing lines in the building footprint in place. I don't understand how the building footprint will remain in place when we are or when you are proposing to demolish um portions of the building. You know, portions of the building will remain but the footprint will not remain in place um period. So I don't agree um with that statement in the structural engineers um letter here. I understand that he is intending on reusing or that the applicant is is intending on reusing existing bearing lines um to the extent feasib um sorry extent financially viable. Um so in a lot of cases or at least what I'm um assuming is going to happen would be that um the intent is to reuse a lot of masonry walls but as you go through construction um the well let me put it this way at this time right now the structural engineer can give no assurance that um that all existing masonry walls will remain period. He does say that they're expected to remain to the extent financially viable.

So I take a um exception to uh that statement there as it applies to a uh adaptive reuse project. So, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but when you initially asked for that letter, we had taken the position that um that was really more appropriate for preliminary rather than master. And then you said, well, I'm not looking for a full set of plans. I just want to know whether it would be feasible to use this building as an adaptive reuse to do what you think you're doing. And I think I don't know how that letter would be, you know, he can't go he can't say more than that without without actually doing the engineering to support I mean we'll know at preliminary whether or not we can do what we want to do. It'll be clear as day. So I'm not I'm not and I think that letter is sufficient in that engineer's opinion that we've given you enough in his opinion he thinks we'll be able to do it. But if we if we if we can't do it and we can't engineer it um then we're dead in the water at preliminary. You know certainly at this stage I I think we've provided sufficient amount of information and relative to the footprint I believe he's just referring to the footprint that we're going to be putting the building on. The fact that we're taking some of this building off doesn't mean we're still not using the existing not the entire existing footprint. And I think the statute only requires to do at least 50% of the existing gross floor area. So, we can go down to 50%. Um, the the uh adaptive reuse ordinance permits us to do that. It doesn't say we have to keep the entire building.

Understood. Okay. Understood. But in the engineers letter um it it doesn't provide me any assurance that uh the um the existing structure can support literally support the amount of program that you're putting into the existing structure. The um engineer indicates that the first floor is to be is proposed to be raised for a flood plane and that the second floor is going to be put on a new floor deck not existing. Go ahead.

Okay. When I'm doing five of these buildings right now. I'm doing five of these buildings right now. When you take an adaptable reuse, you're taking something that is there. Could have been storage, could have been a textile mill, could have been anything. We have windows, we have egress, we have hallways, and that's why they're allowing us to put stairways in utility rooms. That's the only thing that can go out of the footprint. And we have to take down walls. We're not going to take a wall that's going to have 10 windows in it and it's 50 feet long and has no windows and take that whole wall and weaken it. So, we just rebuild the wall. Our foundations and our footings are fine. So, I don't understand exactly what you're saying because I I'm I'm physically doing it. I don't know if you've ever done it, but I'm physically doing it. So, there's fire codes. Hallways can be only so long where somebody has to get out if an alarm goes off. And that's what our architects are doing. And that's why we got stairways we have to put in. So, you know, you we're sitting up here and we're talking I'm com I come in for a master plan for the amount units that I'm entitled to. The next step after this is for us to come to a preliminary to come to you with a plan to show you we got water, show you we got sewer and everything else that we need. And then we have a

plan that the fire marshall approves. And if we have to put in doors and walls and hallways and windows, that's all that letter is telling you that you're going to have to remove some stuff. You have to That's adaptable. That you're missing the word here. It's the word is adaptable. We're going to adapt a commercial building to residential. And these are the steps that have to be taken. And we have no problem doing this. I don't know why I'm having this problem here. And I'm doing preliminary when I'm asking for master. So if I can get my master plan for the amount of units that I'm asking for, which is under what I am entitled to and then we take the rest of our steps and satisfy you. I don't understand why this is the problem. You're asking me stuff about a building. They can't give me this. We don't even have an exact perfect layout yet because we don't know how many units we have. We there's nothing we can do in this plan that is going to satisfy you people until you give us master and then we come back with everything that satisfies everybody with the dem whatever they want the fire department whatever they want fire breaker alarms stairways exits and we adapt the building to the use as the law says we can and I don't understand why we're having this problem.

I'm if I'm hearing you and perhaps you could uh seek a legal opinion from from council for the town, but are you suggesting that we're not we we can't rebuild walls walls. We can't reinforce walls. We can't make them if we think they're weak and they can't support. Are you suggesting that if we do that then that falls outside the adapt adaptable? He's saying adapt. It's adaptive. Adaptive. Adaptive. adaptive uh reuse is is that what you're suggesting?

No, I'm not I'm not suggesting that you cannot um perform work on an existing element of a building for it to comply with adaptive reuse. What I am um interpreting from the structural engineers letter is that there is new construction that is going to be put in place as part of this project for this existing building to support the square footage and the program that you're proposing for it. And the word that I am using and the word that your engineers used in the letter is new.

Just because

I think the new portion is coming from the word adapt. In order to adapt, we are going to have to put new material into this building. There's no doubt about it. We we it's just we have to we will be putting new material into the building. So, I'm if you could explain yourself further as to why the word new is a problem for you. I'm trying to drill down on the It seems to me you're trying to make a legal argument that we're not meeting the definition of adaptive reuse because we're putting new new elements into the building within the envelope of the building, which we have a right to do under the statute. We're not going outside other than for mechanicals and that sort of thing that we're permitted to do under the statute as long as we stay within the um envelope of the building. We can adapt it. We can put new things in there. We can reinforce walls.

Yep. You can reinforce walls. You can create walls, right, for your for your tear down a wall and and and rebuild it if it needs to be if that needs to be done. You can tear down walls and eliminate it if that's what it is. Yeah. I It's all It's

Let me just let him finish because I'm just trying to understand. I I I don't think I don't and again I'm just one person on this board but I don't think um you and I are interpreting adaptive reuse uh in the in the same manner in which that I foresee substantial amount of construction being done to this building in order for it to physically support the program and the struct and the square footage that you are putting into this building.

See that's where at least I just want to agree to disagree. So, I just want to set the record so that if this if we don't get the approval, at least the judge on an appeal can see what your position is so that he otherwise he's going to send it back and say um you really can make findings of fact because I don't really know what you're saying respectfully. So, I'm just trying to So, this is a discussion right now, right? I I don't think we're you and I are going to come to an agreement right now. And um you know what if there is a decision that is made based on based on findings that those findings are what is going to be um justified those findings are going to justify the decision and then you can take that decision if it's in your favor. If it's not then you can take that decision and come up with a game plan.

I don't even understand what he's saying. I do. Do we have any more questions for the applicant at this time? One more. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. I just want to follow up on uh Lou's question about or comments about the uh the groundwater report. Um so Tim, will you or would you not be asking for variances when you go to DM for the proposed uh for the proposed septic system? Our intention right now is not to, but until it's fully 100% designed, I won't know. Okay. Is that it? Yeah.

I I got a question on the um one more question for you guys. Has nothing to do with adaptive reuse.

You're w you're welcome. Um but the uh the the diagram that we've been provided regarding the um the the flood the flood plane um yes it encumbers a significant amount of your of the of the property um specifically where the um proposed parking lot is going is going to go. Um what is going to happen to um well I guess my concern is is is when there when there is a flood we are creating a condition where um potential North Providence residents will have their cars within a flood plane and um their property may or may not get damaged, they may want to move their cars out of the parking lot before it gets too wet and before damage is incurred. Um, are there any thoughts on where those cars are actually going to be relocated?

We have a ton of neighbors. We have neighbors all around there in the same boat as you may call. Where are they going? Well, the yardages get flooded. Their streets get flooded. Well, there there is a small there is a small different. Yes, you do have neighbors that are their buildings are actually a lot of it within it. They are within it, but those are those are existing developments.

You you're proposing to put a parking lot within a flood plane. So, that's that that's some that's something brand new that doesn't exist right now in the context of this neighborhood. So you have a total number of about 62 spaces that you're proposing. Most of them are going to be in the flood plane. Doing a um a measurement calculation around the property on um on Beard Avenue. I'm I'm sorry I don't have the street names in front of me, but um on all the three on the three streets that surround your property, um there isn't enough length of um street for those for those cars to actually parallel parking. step to the microphone.

You go you you got you you can park a car in and parallel in 18 ft. Okay. You got four 500 ft just on ward. How much you got on ward? How much how long is the All right. So I disagree. I don't believe a parallel parking space is actually 18 ft. 18 feet is the minimum standard for a 20 straight for a straightaway. 20 is probably the standard actually 20 by 9 24 actually it's 24 so I did a quick calculation that if your each parallel space was about 25 ft long that's a truck if each parallel parking space

20t is the state law around parallel park okay you can only and this is being generous if you go to intersection to intersection which is not allowed you can only fit about 42 cars around your property over here. What's that? You proposed 62. Your plan says 62 right now. But okay, but we only need one by law.

I'm just I'm just commenting on the number. I'm just commenting on the number that you provided to this board tonight, which is 62. If that parking lot floods and I was a resident, I would want to remove my car. I'm just kindly asking, what do you think's going to happen? They want to park it to the closest spot near their house or near their near their residence which would be along the street abuing their property and there's just not enough length of road. I know how to respond to response to it very easily. If we take this whole area without parking there, we're out of the flood zone. That's not your parking lot though. The I can park there.

That's not a parking lot. That's I can make it a parking lot. Okay. That's my property. I can be out of the flood zone and make Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were pointing to the street. I'm I'm sorry. No, my apologies. On my on my own land, I can be 10 ft out of the out of the flood zone. I could I could fix anything that I have to. So, whatever you have a problem with, let me know and I can fix it. So, can we I want to piggy back up on Nate's question. During a 100year storm, Tim, what's what's the height of the flood plane? So, how much water would you expect on that pavement? 6 in, a foot, 18 in, 2 in?

It's going to vary because of the topography out there. The flood plane elevation is 88 something out there. Okay. So, what's what's the height of the water on the parking lot? Give me an average. Like 86 to 88. It would be two feet under in that spot. Okay. So, okay. Once again, on average, when we have a 100red-year storm, it's not if, when we have it. When we have a 100red-year storm, on average, I understand it slopes. On average, what would be the height of the water on top of the um the parking lot? Oh, roughly, yes. Two feet on this end and three feet on the other end. All right. So, we're talking talking two and a half feet of water. Yeah.

All right. So, someone opens their car door, it's going to fill it with water. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, you think that's a good idea? Excuse me? You think that's a good idea? Well, it's a 100-year flood plane. I mean, ideally, we'd love to not have that situation, but Okay, but you do. And I guess again, I don't have to make David's point. It's making abundantly clear, but I just wanted to quantify it. He was kind enough just to say you're in a flood plane. I wanted to quantify it. So, we're talking on even two feet, let alone two and a half feet. Two feet. So those cars. So are you going to have something out there to tell people don't park here in the flood plane? Is that what you're going to do?

We're used to flood planes. I mean there's a lot of areas in Rhode Island that are built in flood planes a lot. We deal with them. I put septic systems in all the all the time. So I'm more used to it. When a flood when a flood happens, people usually go to their friends and family to get away from these areas. I don't who's going to park their car here? Where are they going to go? So absolutely. Is there development in Rhode Island and Massachusetts and Connecticut? Absolutely. People built in the flood plane 100 years ago before we had FEMA. So a lot of that's because it's existing development. I guess we're trying to tell you as planners, this isn't here yet. Okay. We can't fix what was

that's already there. We try to mitigate that through lots of different things that we all work on trying to mitigate flood capacity so that we minimize that concerning we're going to get with with climate change increase in frequency of storms increasing the intensity of storms but what you're saying Tim of course I agree with you do we have construct development in flood of course you do but this is proposed so the question the board's asking is what's the contingency of something that doesn't exist right now that we're going to subject potential tenants in that development element to a flood situation where you're looking at about 2 ft of water in a flood plane on a parking lot. So that if you open the door, you're going to get water in your flood in your car.

And and we heard you and I think we could come back and just raise the parking lot over here. We we'll put it over there. We'll do the 28 spots up high so they have a spot. Okay. So as part of raising the site y to mitigate for the comp for that compensatory storage because you said earlier there is no storm water management system. Yeah.

So what you're then going to create is what water might flow in a certain direction by raising that you're going to have that spill out onto the sides of the roadways. So, how would we So, are you then going to say if are you suggesting that if you come back to the board and raise that out of the flood plane that you're going to have to provide compensatory storage that are you proposing to come back with a storm water management system? The the parking lot would not look like this. The parking lot I'd like to go to the plan would be situated over here because it's higher in elevation. So, it would be realigned. So we come in here with a the driveway and they'd be parking up in this area up here

and you going to eliminate the lot now. So it's not going to be a massive parking lot that above the flood plane. Oh, sorry. So are you going to eliminate that proposed lot then? Well, I envision having 28 spaces up high above the flood plane. So each unit has a space above the flood plane in accordance with the state law. And then any overflow can be down below. Yeah, but I I saw you pointing maybe your hand just went over there. I I thought I saw you pointing to provide some parking on the proposed 20,000 foot lot.

Well, we already spoke about that that that 20,000 foot lot probably has to be relocated because it's in con in conflict with the driveway. So, is it fair to say that we're going to anticipate a revised subdivision plan? I I would say yes. Okay. We do have ears. We are hearing what you're saying, hearing what the chairman is saying. Um I've wr I've taken notes. Um I mean I understand this is a planning issue. I I get that. Um so we certainly can address some of those points. Um you know the flood plane issue was one. Um it the other one was the uh the parking

the parking the driveway within the you know separating the lots completely and the parking in the flood plane the driveway the driveway moving the driveway around. So I heard three issues. We got driveway. We have parking out of PL flood plane. No easements. Plane. No easements. Give me one second. Armit. Was there was there something else? Dumpster

and and a little water quality over and beyond DM standards. And Dave, your comment too about adaptive reuse about the the bill again. Yeah. Um the debate on the word new. Yeah, I really think that is it is a debate um on on adaptive reuse and how and how this building and the proposed um on this adaptive reuse

and its applic and it its applicability to this building and the proposed development. So, I I think what I'm hearing you saying is that you I think you suggested that the work we we we're going to be doing on this building falls outside the permitted work that's allowed under the adaptive reuse statute. Is that what you're telling me? That is where I'm leaning towards. Yes. Okay. Um I mean I I can give you a legal opinion, but I'm assuming that you're going to want in-house counsel to give you your own opinion because my opinion is going to favor my client. I can guarantee you that. So, I think you're probably looking for another legal opinion. I already have it.

You already have it? Yes. Okay. Could you share that with me? Sure. You can go ahead. I'm going to get it anyway. So, yeah. No, that's fine.

So, I think the chair has some remarks regarding the findings that he's making and I'm sure other people will make some findings as well. It is it is my opinion based on what I've been hearing that this construction is so substantial that it is not adaptive reuse of the building. There is significant demolition of two parts of the building. There is a raising of the first floor. The first floor doesn't exist. There is a second floor that is being significantly added on to, if you will. Um, the construction that's being proposed goes far beyond what the walls being redone as as someone suggested today or windows or hallways and following regulations. The construction that's being proposed is not adaptively reusing the property as it exists. It is basically new construction. And Tim actually earlier today in his testimony said, "Instead of rehabbing an old building, we're building an entire new one." That was a direct quote from him.

That was for the that was for the um the duplex. That was regarding the second building. Yes. Not not not the existing small building. Okay, understood. That's my opinion honestly of what's happening with this building as well. You're using finish remnants of it. It's it would be yeah it's remnants of what it was substantial improvement. So so that would be my legal opinion and I think there's going to be I mean I don't know if there's facts

you don't have to agree with me in on the board. However, based on what I'm hearing from I mean the actual substantial construction of the property from the original proposal as well as this really hasn't changed much. There's been some other changes, but the significant construction that's needed to make this project work, even at master plan level, is far beyond what I believe adaptive reuse is and the purpose for what the legislature created it to be. And that would be the the opinion of council.

So, if I could just let me just finish so I don't lose my train of thought. Thank you. Um, so I'm hearing you say significant construction. So if I were to say to you, as long as we stay within the container, in your opinion, that's not sufficient. If we're going to have significant construction, as you as you stated, even if we're in the container, that would be beyond the adaptive use statute that they're contemplating in.

So I'm I'm not sure what you mean by in this hypothetical. I the project as it stands right now, the cons it does not fall in the adaptive reuse. There's a totality of issues that I just mentioned regarding the the existence of floors, the non-existence of floors, the expansion of floors, the demolition significantly of the building, the stilts for the flood plane to just raise the building up. Is it 89 ft or 88 ft? Something like that. So that was the base flood elevation. It's not 89 ft. It's base flood 89 which was two. So it's the 10. It's the 10 foot. Yeah.

Above the flood plane. So all or 11 ft. All of those in totality goes far beyond the adaptive reuse statute in my opinion in the intent of the legislature for for that adaptive reuse within our state. If the if you guys were to present a different proposal with you know I couldn't say one way or the other but this proposal as it stands in my opinion is not adaptive reuse. Right, Jack? I think that's that's what I was looking for. That's that's what I was trying to

Yep. So, and so just you know the way the architect graphically um indicated the um second floor the second floor plate existing second floor plate that did once exist um the architect testified that that floor plate was in this small rectangle here of the second floor. Mhm. All of this, if you can follow my finger,

is new floor plate, which is in compared compared to this, which is substantially larger than the existing floor plate. And in my observations of the of the building, um, a lot of those areas were double height space. There was there was no there was just no structure within call it the container. There were there were walls and there was a roof.

Mhm. In my professional opinion as an architect, I don't see how this floor plate, this new floor plate here, which is being located within double height spaces can support or can be supported by the existing loadbearing exterior walls without a substantial amount of structure being added into the building. Okay. So, graph graphically, I think this this really summed up my stance on um the adaptive reuse not being applicable to this to this building. You guys are putting us so much program in adding extra square footage into the building that I do not believe the building structurally can support.

Okay. So, you're carving out you've pointed to two issues. when you talked about the floor plate, but that that is within the structure, right? It's not outside the it's not beyond the the the footprint of the building. Correct. Correct. All right. So, okay, I understand that. So, at least we agree that the floor plates within the structure of the building. As the architect testified, his pushed walls are existing. Yes. And that's what it appears to be on the plant. So the floor plates are within the build existing building but you're still saying that you think because of the amount of what was the word you use uh was a word you use substantial amount of structure needing to support the second floor

you're saying because of that amount of structure that we need to add within the container to support the second floor the new second floor the new second floor which is not existing right now but it's within the container but it's new um because of the amount of structure, steel or whatever we have to do to support that second floor because of that among the other things. But specifically from your perspective, that also makes it above and beyond what you would consider adaptive. You're saying basically you're building a new

correct just using just utilizing this as a graphic example. Yes. Yes. This this is the graphic example that stood out the most to me when we asked the architect where the existing second floor plate was located in uh relationship to what the proposed floor plate is. Understood. One moment, please. Give me two minutes just to speak with my client. And I I just want to be clear about something. It's it is the totality of all of the issues in my opinion that makes this not adaptive reuse. Right. you had mentioned demolition raising on the first floor. Uh this issue of of the second the creation of a second floor within the container is not solely I just want to be clear on that.

Right. That was just one of the I was just wanted to drill down on that. Um I just wanted to make sure that those floor plates were within the existing container. I I thought you were but I I just wanted to clarify that. How do they deny it? That's not what they're saying because they disagree without interpretation of the I understand that. How can you how can you deny the interpretation when you haven't seen a plan?

That's why lawyers get paid a lot of money because we have differences of opinion. I mean I have a an opinion as to how to interpret that adaptive reuse and the solicitor for the for the board has a different opinion and so does the uh so does the uh chairman. So, um, so, so even though we were to perhaps address all those other issues, you're still saying the one we're getting caught up on is the work that we're doing on this is so substantial that even if we were to come back and fix the driveway, clean up that parking lot, um, put the dumps in the right place, put all the parking spaces out of the water plane, even given that, at least that's what what you're saying. And I'm not speaking for everybody else in the board, but that would be a hang up for you.

Correct. Understood. Okay.

Well, I'm trying since I don't have consensus with everybody on the board, I don't I really don't know which way to go because I'd be more than happy to come back and try and address some of those issues, but but if I know we're dead in the water. Um, so maybe we could have a discussion as to get a feeling for the board before we try and say we'd like to come back and and make those fixes if if if it's we're just spinning our wheels. I'd rather just hear from the board um through a discussion as to whether or not this is going to, you know, no matter what we do, we're not we're not going to be successful. Well, in the standard order of of things, you guys would present, we would we would discuss, and then we would open up for a public hearing. Are you are you I I think we should stick with that and then afterwards we'll we'll discuss as a board, right?

I I I think I think we need to hear from the public. I think you guys would we need to discuss as a board and then I think we can um we can speak after if the board is is is is willing to enter into another discussion with the applicant or or if a motion is made a motion is made.

Right. Well, I I don't want to preclude my applicant from trying to satisfy its master plan. So, the whole person's master plan is the give and take to see what the board wants and then we could come back and present some modifications that would satisfy your concerns. Um but um the concern I don't think we'll ever be able to satisfy is not um engineering wise do what we need to do to make that building you know make the building buildable. So that's the one issue that we we won't be able to address. I don't think be able to address it if we had a plan.

I suppose if we had an engineering plan and we came in and saying this is what we're going to do and it's this is this will work. But then you're saying, well, that engineering plan is basically a new structure. So, more than likely, that's more than likely. I didn't see any evidence that it would not be from the um the structural engineers letter. Right. Okay. Excuse me. Is there anything that says Is there anything in that law that says what you can do and can't do inside the building? It it No, there's nothing in there that says that. That's what I thought. There's not. So, right, we have that's why we're able. Well, yeah.

Well, that's that possibly. And that and it's also possibly whatever municipalities you're doing that in, you know, they may have a they have a may they may have another take. And again, this I'm I'm just speaking on we don't have a law. We have a determination by people that may be in the field that we're looking at are not experts. Uh, no. Oh, I think that you have a I think you have a board that's the authority of jurisdiction to render an opinion on the law. That that's what I think you have. I think you have a I think you have a board that's the authority of jurisdiction that renders an opinion on the law. Right. I mean at at the end at this at this level if

Exactly. So if we disagree, we would have to take an appeal to superior court to get a determination based on the issues that you raised as to whether or not doing what we want to do still fits within the framework of what this statute was intended as an adaptive reuse. Correct. If a motion is made and findings are found, it all depends. I understand.

Yeah. So um so we'll wait till the end and then we'll Thank you, Mr. Champ. Do you have any other questions for any Okay, the time is now 8:00 PM. We'll open up for a public hearing. Um, I assume most of you are here to um speak on um regarding this project rather than the third agenda item. I do ask that um you kindly listen to everybody's um uh opinions and if um you have the same opinion that that's great. You can come up and simply state that you do u rather than um you know just sort of uh restating um what a fellow neighbor has has said just in the interest of time. We do want to hear from everybody. Um so thank you Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Anthony Disto. I'm an attorney. My bar number is 3146. My office is at 450 Veterans Memorial Parkway in East Providence. And I represent the town of North uh the uh town of North Providence Town Council on this matter. They retained me to uh protect the interests of not only the neighbors, but the town. I want to start I'll be very brief. By the way, I agree with your solicitor. I think she's correct in her uh legal assessment on that. And I think as a predicate issue, the question here is whether or not this application complies with section 45-24-37 as an adaptive reuse project. That's why it's here. The solicitor is correct. And because of that, I think think the application has to be denied on that basis. This can't go forward based upon that opinion. uh which I I I agree with and I'm not going to repeat. I'm only

going to say a few other things. Uh I was very interested in the comments that Mr. Patassi made because I read uh the report that was furnished by the applicant uh for the phase one environmental and you know the recommendation there was that further testing be done and that there are recognized environmental conditions here. uh and they had some difficulty because the site was altered by the applicant. Soils were brought in that hadn't been pre-ested. There had been some things moving around. It made it more difficult uh for them to assess some of the things that Mr. Patassi pointed out uh in that report. Now, what you're going to do on this, obviously, they're not going to be able to get uh a sufficient uh u um sewer from NBC. So, they're going to be going with this uh ISDS system. You're going to put that in a um site where uh the uh environmental consultant says further testing has to be done. I think it should be denied on that basis. The concern that I would have um because I'm a solicitor myself is what type of liability uh will attach to the town if uh uh this development is approved and later on a resident, god forbid, gets sick. Well, uh the town has liability on that and there's cases to that effect. I know your solicitor is familiar with them. I think that's another reason, too. So, for all of the reasons that we had, and I know you're going to hear from the neighbors, and they'll be uh much more eloquent than I am for the drainage that you brought up and all these other issues that you brought up, but for those two issues, in particular, your solicitor's opinion, I think it's warranted that the application be denied tonight. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Does any of the board members have uh questions for attorney Disto? No. No. Thank you very Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

Any other members of the public would like to come up and speak? Please do so now and state your name and your address clearly for the record. Jodie Olivo, 113 Garfield Street. Good evening. My name is Jodie Olivo and I live at 113 Garfield Street. The apartment complex that was be built would be behind my house. A week and a half ago, my husband and I had the opportunity to speak with Smokey. That's how he was introduced to me. I guess his name is Armond. to ask any questions that we had. The first point that I shared was my disappointment that with the lack of cleanup of the property since he bought it. The only area that has been cleaned up was across the street from our neighbors after they asked him to please clean up the area of the grass and the weeds. That was the only piece that was touched. This property is also on Ward and Dickinson, which has not been touched except by what the town has provided, which they always have. Smokeoky's response was that he would not be doing any cleanup until he begins construction. He says it looks as bad as it always did. I explained that since the neighbors now know who owns the property, we have been asking for the area to be cleaned up. It's just not happening. I then asked when would construction be started. He said at least 6 to 8 months before he could even get to this property because as he stated tonight he has so many other properties that he has to do and this construction was not his first priority. It will be continued to be an eyesore. When asked if the new units would be condominiums or apartments, he tried to explain they're the same thing. I beg to differ because tenants own

their condos and belong to a condo association to make sure rules are followed. Apartments have renters. Although tonight's new plan indicates that the complex has been downsized once again now to 28 two-bedroom units and one duplex, the number of additional cars in our neighborhood is still an issue. A two-bedroom apartment can have two people per bedroom residing in it. So, there is a potential for four people with cars to be living in each unit. With only two parking spots and now maybe only one parking spot authorized in the complex, the overflow of cars will spill over into our neighborhood. That could potentially be up to 120 extra cars. 30* 4 120. That is before holidays, parties, get togethers. Smokey actually said he only observed about three to five cars the time that he was there. That what number is nowhere near the number of cars that my husband and I walk our dog every night and see the number of cars that go by us. We have never heard publicly the results of the traffic study. I'm excited to hear them because the last meeting was postponed or we just didn't hear results. When I asked if a property manager, security cameras or gates would be on site, he also said no. The complex will only be handicap accessible on a first floor as there was no plan as as of now for any type of elevator. So because of all of these concerns, I remain remain opposed to many of these built units being built in my neighborhood. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Any other members of the public would

like to come up and speak about this project? You can do so now.

Hello. My name is Gino Marini. It's spelled G I N O, not G E N O. That's the only way we did it last time. Please, this is not Gino State Philadelphia. I live in 94 Beard Avenue. I live directly across the street from this complex. Okay. Smokey Army Codles approached me three weeks ago and told me that he's going to go from 48 to 30 units. 28 across me from my house. This only applies to me, not to my neighbors, to me and the three houses next to me. We got the direct hit. Not somebody that lives halfway down Beard Avenue, Ward Avenue, or Garfield Street. Be only in front of me. That's number one. He's He dropped down 18 units. To me, that's 36 less people, 18 less cars, depending if you're one, two cars per people, whatever. and the rent. He's going to have all two bedroom and the rents are going to go from 22 to $2500, not $1,300 a month. It's a different type of people. I don't want to discriminate, but it's a different type of people that are going to be in there in comparison to 48 units. Okay. Now, it works for me because the way he did the they changed the blueprint is a directly across the street from my house. The building is going to have all windows with a brand new roof with two peaks but no doors to get in. The the only access to get into that apartment is from the back. And he's going to have no doors. And and the asphalt that's there now that I will soon to be blocking is going to be ripped out. And he's going to put all trees and grass that goes all the way around. So for Gino Marini, this works both in compared to my neighbors. It works for me and it works for my two

houses after me. They're both on my side. They did they they agree with what he's doing. It's a good thing. You really can't deny it's a good thing. Now um all the tenants. Now you got to understand one thing. If he had a 48 unit here, he would have two entrances. The entrance that stand out that goes down the hill and he would have to put a another one at the end of the building where I had my shop before because I was down there. So that means before and when the 48 cars will be going by my house going 50 miles an hour. I'd be in jail right now because I'll kill them because I don't want to see that. I don't want to see it. Nobody going fast in front of my house. I'll either end up fighting with them. I'll be in jail either one because I can't tolerate that. But now because he changed it with only one entrance going down and not the second entrance. They come down be they stop. They take a right and they go down. I don't see nothing. I don't see no cars. All the people going from the back. So when I look out my front window, my house, I don't see nothing. The cars come, they take a right, go down the hill. So as far as I'm concerned, the only thing I see is windows in apartments. You got that, David? That's what I see.

I understand.

Okay, I'm not done yet. Uh, let's face reality here. This is a formality. You know it, and I know it. I I'm not a a developer like him, but I know a little bit about what he's trying to do. This guy's been doing this for 40 years. He's He knows what he's doing. If you reject it or the planning or the zoning board reject it, he's going to go to court and he's going to go to superior or supreme court to try to get you know it and I know it. He's going to get this permit whether you like it or not. He didn't spend over a million dollars not to get a permit. Not to have a vacant building that that's not going to make him any money. He's a developer. That's what he's in the business for. To make a long story short, he bent he bent this way. I'm bending because it's a reality. It's going to happen whether you like it or not. It's gonna happen. He knows a lot of people. He's been down this road many a time. He owns a lot of units. This is going to happen. Not now, but in the future. So, I me and my wife accepted it to say, "Listen, this guy's going to build whether I like it or not. I got to accept it because they're going to be apartments across street from my house. either I move, sell my house, which I'm not because I paid my mortgage 25 years ago. I don't want another mortgage. I'm too old for that. I'm gonna stay where I am. And plus, it's the people, okay? When you got a dirt I got two Guatemalans that live on Western Avenue off of Union Avenue that pay $1600 for third floor, and they work for me right now. They're working for $1,600 third floor. That's crazy money. And he was going to rent them at 48 units for 1300. Do you now without being discriminatory? This is just a lower the people across the street. It's not it's not a good thing for me. I don't want to live near them type of people. I'm not going to discriminate. I don't want it. If he had stayed at 48, I would have been against

him, but he changed. So, he bent a little bit. So, I'm pending. So, um he owns this building. He's got to do what he's got to do to get permits or whatever he's got to do for the fire department or whatever the thing he he's got to do what he's got to do. He's been around. He's been down this road. This is not his first rodeo. And I accepted that. That's all I want to say. Thank you. Thank you. Uh just for the record, I uh encourage my fellow planning boards to um uh not consider uh Gio's sorry Gio's comment regarding um other types of people in any of the decision-m uh that occur as a part of this project. Thank you. Anybody else from the PL from the uh public would like to come up and speak on this project? You may do so now. Good evening. Uh, my name is Mary Lou Petruchi. I live at 80 Meadow Road, North Providence. I wasn't planning to come up and say anything tonight, but very briefly, I just want to thank the board for being so diligent in asking all these questions with regards to um any specifics that seem to be uh maybe not quite in line with what needs to happen. uh once a building is built or development is made, it's very hard, almost impossible to go back and to reconfigure something. Um it it what's done is done. So I do appreciate your uh taking the time and asking the questions often times difficult questions and um you know where this all goes I'm not

really quite sure. I myself have a lot of questions just in general about this whole thing about adaptive reuse development. Um, and not just North Providence, but I've also seen across the state that a lot of people have been kind of almost blindsided by plans to, you know, build things that they in no way had any knowledge could possibly happen. And I do plan to take that up with the people who represent me because I'm curious. But I just wanted to thank you very much for your diligence.

Anybody? Thank you. Um, anybody else from the public would like to come up and speak on uh about this project? You may do so now. It doesn't look like it. Um, close the public hearing. Um, nope. I want to speak public. Go ahead.

Um, so I did speak just just so so we're on the same uh sheet of music. I did speak with my client. Um, we heard all of the suggestions. We would like an opportunity to continue the meeting to address those three or four issues that several of the board members brought up. Um what issues? Um the three or four uh the um driveway, the Let me just get my notes here. So I have a list going. I think it's the driveway, the parking, the subdivision, and the trash. The dumpster. Um the um

the split driveway. Yeah, the split driveway, removing everything from that drive to make that a lot, a clean lot, completely separated from the other property. Um, taking all of the parking out of the flood zone. I think that was an issue. Um, no easements. Um, removing the dumpster, perhaps doing something about water quality above and beyond what the state requires. Um and uh yeah, those are those I think those were the other than the the our our um disagreement between you and me relative to the um definition of adaptive reuse. I'd like at least an opportunity to address all those issues.

So you're so you're asking to continue with to address those three or four comments and come back with a revised plan. With a revised site plan. Yes. However, the um the units within the existing structure and the proposed um demolition to the existing structure will remain the same.

Yes. Yes. But just so so also clear, we're agreeing right now to address all those other issues. Um we will do that to to to satisfy the concerns of the other board members. Thank you for your input. Uh the time is 8:18 p.m. close the uh public hearing open for discussion. So, what we just heard was um that the applicant uh would like to revisit the development of the site and address the location of the dumpster, the location of um any site amenity or site amenities for one parcel and putting them on one on um parcel that those site amenities are for. uh reducing the uh or eliminating the need for an easement. Correct.

And as long as we're coming back, I I'm thinking perhaps it would be worthwhile to bring the engineer in that actually um did that letter about the adapter reuse. um he might be able to shed some additional light and answer some of those questions that you had concerning the feasibility of um and the extent of the work that might need to be done that may satisfy your concerns. Okay. Um so the applicant is asking for to continue in order to address some of the site um uh the site concerns that our board had. Um so But

what what are they?

So, um, members of the board, from a procedural standpoint, there's a couple options here. The board could after discussion make a motion to continue to the public hearing to allow whatever information the board is seeking to be provided by the applicant. Or alternatively, the board could make a decision to either accept or deny the project at master plan level as drafted here with that with those inputs to be considered. Um, if anyone's asking for my opinion, I tend to agree with um actually something that was said during public comment that whether or not this is an adaptive reuse project is a predicate issue. before you get to any of these other environmental impact issues, the comprehensive plan, all the standards that you need uh to find to accept or deny this project at master plan level. The question is, is this even an appropriate plan at this point regardless of those other of those other issues? So, that would be my opinion, but the board is of course those are the two options that the board would have at this point.

Thank you for summarizing that. Um, you know, I encourage the development of the property to be residential. Um, as manufacturing andor even if you can consider this building uh commercial, it's just not a conducive use of the land within the location of this this residential neighborhood. Um, in my opinion, the applicant's proposal to develop the property by means of the adaptive reuse regulation applied to the existing structure is just not convincing uh for master plan approval. So, can we just jump in?

Yep. Um, so I have to agree with the city solicitor. I think not to minimize the all the issues that we discussed tonight in terms of the site plan, but I think respectfully I think those are somewhat secondary because I think the first um threshold we have to get by is whether or not they're standing for the permit or the application itself. So based on your comments, Mr. Chair, and um what the city solicitor said, I don't think they passed that test. So if they don't pass that test, I don't think it's necessary that we have the applicant um spend any more further money on a site plan um to try to remediate the site planning issues if uh the project itself or the application itself doesn't have any standing. So, um, I'm in support of your position and that of the city solicitor that we should take probably a vote on whether or not the application has standing and if not that we take a vote on that and everything else is unnecessary at this point.

Thank you, Carrie. Um, anybody else want to add any comment? I just agree with what has been stated. Okay. Uh, sounds like the board is in position to make a motion. Do I hear a motion? Miss, if I could have one more word before uh we'll close the meeting. We're all set. You're not going to let me speak. We We gave you a lot of time today. I I just I just just I mean chair spoke. We're about to make a motion. We I would like to just The chair spoke, but I I'm speaking I'm saying I would like I would like to put some additional before you close the meeting. I would like to put on some additional testimony.

I think we had enough from your from your team tonight.

No, from me. I I I would just like to point out to you that the reason why I asked that we be permitted to address those other issues in addition to your issue by bringing in an engineer back in is to take those issues off the table if it's possible. Because if you were to deny us then if we took an appeal the issue would be a narrow focused appeal just on our disagreement as to what an adaptive use is. So it would I think it would narrow the issue for the town and would narrow the issue for my client. And also I also asked if I were to bring in an engineer to give additional testimony as to whether or not he agrees or disagrees with you or I I could bring in a professional engineer to talk about the extent of this. I mean, I didn't think that was necessary at master plan. Like I said before, I thought that was more appropriate for preliminary, but my client's willing to do that if you're willing to allow us to bring in another expert so that we can complete our application. Um, I don't I don't see how coming in a second time for this application and and addressing the site issues um would would narrow um a a decision that this this board could potentially make tonight. We could we could potentially make the issues that we've brought to your attention

um and incorporate them possibly into a decision which would then allow for you and your applicant to you know formally address those those items in a in a second um I don't know what the correct term is but in in a in another um uh round of uh request or or relief from another from or another entity.

Yeah, it would be continuation of the master plan so that we could address the issues which we do on a regular basis. I'm I'm not sure. Conversely, I'm not sure what the downside would be to the board or the town by allowing me at my client's expense to come in and spend additional funds to to to Mr. Chairman to do that. Very uncomfortable at this point. Right. I I mean, we we've let him speak and now it's getting to a point that every time we want to make a decision, he's going to keep having an opportunity to try to get us to change our mind. So, I'm not trying to make you change your mind.

No. So, okay. So, um thank you for coming up and and and and um suggesting that you guys uh do address most of our comments. Um, but I I think I think those comments could I I don't see us making a decision tonight that would render our our comments um unapplicable for a future development of this site.

Again, I want to encourage the development of this property to be residential. It's it's it's beyond me how the manufacturing building um is there um to begin with. It's just not a conducive use of the land within the location of the the residential neighborhood. um complete support in developing this land to be residential. I just don't see how um uh this this project is applicable to the adaptive reuse uh regulation. So, we're back to where we were. Um do I hear a motion from the board? So the motion is respectfully that we deny the master plan application predicated on the interpretation or legal opinion of our city solicitor that the proposed application does not have standing as an adaptive reuse project.

Yes. I I believe that is correct. Yes, sir. So, we're going to second that. Oh, did you I thought you were clarifying what the motion could be. You are making motion. That is the motion. Oh, I'm sorry. That is the motion. Thank you, Gary. Do I hear Clear enough? Yes. Is that okay, buddy? All right. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay, we'll take a roll call. Um, starting with Lou on your your vote, yay or nay to the motion to decline. Motion to decline. So, yes, vote would be to vote to no. Correct.

Yeah. Vote vote yay if you're in favor of that motion. Nay, if you are not in favor of that motion. Yay. In favor of the motion to decline. Other. So, sorry. The motion on the table is to deny the project at master plan based on the fact that it's not an adaptive reuse. It's the opinion of the board that's not an adaptive reuse. So, yay or nay? Yay. Yay. Yay. Chair votes yay. The a's have it. The uh motion is declined. Thank you very much. Thank you. See the motion is declined. one just correct.

Sure. Can you correct that for the record that the motion has been approved five to zero? The application as presented has been declined. The application as presented has been declined. Mr. Chair, would you mind if we had a brief Would you mind if we had a brief recess while the audience clears out and I go to the bathroom? Thank you. Uh just so everybody knows, we do have a third item on the agenda tonight. So if you could um please take your conversations out of the council chambers, we greatly appreciate it. Thank you for for understanding.

Yeah, we'll take a five minute recess. Uh the time is 8:29. Thanks, Rob. Well, thank you for putting this together so well. Well, not for taking this and verbalizing. I um I I wasn't actually planning to speak, so I'm hoping it came across okay, but um nice job, everyone. Oh, you did. I thought Warren did. So, last night I get home. And my daughter's like, "Dad, look at that." I said, "Oh, Angelica, that looks like a subpoena." I said, then when I picked up and read, I said, "I thought Warren." Yeah, it was on my on my uh I don't want to like step on your toe yourself. Well, okay. I'll

just wanted to make sure that I was not approving. No, we I just I just wanted to make it clear that they're gonna they're going to appeal it. So, I just want to make sure it was I understand. Yeah. But anyways, I wanted to be clear that I wasn't voting. You prove something then favor. Angelica asked you to redo it. Just

yes to the motion. You know what we did? I'm the one that was project that was Thank you for making that. Thank you for making your back. Anytime we'll be prepared to say so. Uh that that was do I hear do I hear a do I hear that was a simple simple motion without need to complicate it

without you're not used to right now.

Yeah. Question. So, um we're trying to address our dispensary uh legislation. Yeah. Marijuana dispensary. Yeah. Or is it South? The original South. That's just the section of Oh, really? Yes. It's not a political. No, there's the town of North Attboro. That's a political separate political subdivision and then there's the city of Ador

and the reason why there's a South back in the day north was one community. So that made sense to call that that was South right but um there was a split we made town of North Aro the city of Ado that kind of kept its name of South if you look at a map of it doesn't make sense in North I'm not sure I don't want to say uh yeah so the section of that's kind of sitting south is essentially wherever the seven mile river is one of that but it's all one city so that's the town where all those you see the billboards on 95 actually don't actually because there was a proposal I'm coming

in alley do you do yeah yeah yeah no but in in in Attboro about a year and a half ago two years ago there was a proposal to reszone to have billboards and I went and I typically don't speak at public hearings because I I'm of the opinion that it's for the public

and I get an opportunity to speak at the city council like at a committee meeting but that was one I picked my my spots and that one actually wasn't spoken in opposition and evidently my comments resonated with the council some people that wrote the you know letter to the editor absolutely said we ultimately denied it. So there aren't any the only two billboards that are in Attboro are uh grandfathered so you don't see any uh billboards in the 95 corridor any billboards. So I'm looking for model ordinances. Is that something that you have online?

Absolutely. I hate to interrupt. One quick question. Did you talk to your friend in Adelaide in um supposedly Lincoln about the 99 year owner occupy? I haven't got a chance yet. I heard that they're on 146 they're building condos. Oh yeah. Part of the stipulation was that they have to be home occupied 99 years. So you can't buy it and rent it out. Oh, is a sub, right? So you have to be there or sell it to Oh, don't worry.

Did you hear about that? So you want to call the link? I have to call the template. Yeah. Yeah. She had a conversation with her about that. She's wonderful. I was so excited to see she worked with me in that vacant area. Since I've been there with 19 years. 19 years. Wow. She started back in. How long have you been there? Wow. As a director or did you start off as a Well, actually the position started the top position department city planner. And then uh 2001 um the mayor and city council brought I wonder how

we know the block grant was administered by aa who live in Lincoln and want to maintain. So they pull that into the city and they said look let's put that over you Gary and then they create a federal director development doing 2001 when brought into the city and not by 50 that I know the position director of planning and development look for you guys. Yeah, I don't believe

you said you said actually I mean the way I see it later basically to make these I got to say one of my No, I think it's basically that to make these lots with right now they're not in compiance because they're in like a residential area. So they want to make us Yeah. trying to say. So I think they want to make it legal now. The planning community we're all kind of the planning community is going this way where they I think so I think so. So it's kind of like just you know let's let's make it legal and you know move on because basically

I love this. Yeah. Great. I'm literally gonna text our solicitor who's also your sol and see that Smithfield. Yeah. What do you think? He's kind of too. No, I know. But he does he makes he makes enough. Have you ever had burn yourself? It's all right. He makes up his own. Okay. That's what we You know what? You know what? That's what we all do. I'll tell as long as you say it in a convincing voice, right? confident enough about it to sell it to anyone. He is unbelievable. It's like Josh Castanza's mom. He said, "It's not a lie if you really believe in it." Right. Remember that line.

Yeah. I do think that in this situation I don't think it's even gray though for this after I Oh, no. You you so you spoke very crossing the line I think a lot and this guy he's trying to lock us in. So one thing is the problem. Not one thing is everything together at least is you come here with one problem and I don't blame him. That's his job, right? So, you know,

but let's be honest, there's no way Armen's other buildings are on a flood plane, have no floor like there's no way those others he's doing reuse is give me uh adaptive reuse North King that he's doing as an example in the last meeting and I called North Kingtown and they were like, "Yeah, that was a mistake. We shouldn't approve that. That was illegal." It wasn't adaptive reuse. They said they laughed. Yeah, we shouldn't have laughed.

Oh, yeah.

I saw I heard you quoting that. Be a nice Christmas present. That allows you. They don't want to find out what it is. They're not. Oh my god. Is that a baby picture of you? My grand. I'm only kidding. Oh, what a handsome little kid. That'll be black and white. What's that? Black and white. His baby pictures. Your what? I know. I heard she's pregnant. That's amazing. I saw her post on Instagram about it. Yeah. I don't have saw her post because I don't I don't see her that regularly. I would have probably saw in court. I just have

And I saw your son today actually at um we were at like a CL for to maintain our license, you have to go to classes or whatever. So, he was at it. Yeah. Yeah. January. Congratulations. Now, how old is your is it your daughter? My daughter-in-law. Daughter-in-law. How old is your son? 38. 38. Oh, I didn't know that. I thought they were I thought he was my age. And Caitlyn is younger though. 32. Yeah. and you

so that means you've been an Ira for 40 years. I can remember I can remember when you were studying right now. Well, she came a few times here with me for the summer and uh I I worked so she was kind of disappointed. She said that you know I want to go with you tonight but I got a lot of study. I'm like yeah don't worry about it. So did uh I worked for a private consulting firm but did a lot of DOT work you know highways bridges that Yeah, I played with the same company. Um, what do you do for it? He goes, I don't have to do 100% of the footprint. I can just be 50%. I'm like, that's not true.

I mean, no, it's not true. It's it's 50% minimum residential, but 100% with mixed use. Like it has to it has to amount to 100% at some point. Yeah. At least I can cut the footprint down. Oh, is that what you said? Yeah, I understand that. Oh, he's like, "No, I can just do 50% of the building if I want." No, you could not. I mean, you do 50% rest. You got to use the rest. Yeah. Unfortunately, it could or do nothing, I guess. But the first time was Yeah, I thought that was going on here. I maybe I'm not looking at the property line, right? I go, "No,

you have the trash on the separate line." I was like, "Maybe the driveway." Yeah, I've seen split driveways, but from from eliminate that parking. It's part of your parking lot. Yeah. Right. Snow plowing. What if What if you What if the guy on the two field left his car in the driveway there? No, nobody wants He's got a nice because of the driveway issue. Nobody starts off.

Well, the issue is what he's trying to he was actually trying to set us up make his point to say there's 10 issues clarify when we go to court. It's just one, you know, it's funny in Kentucky. We're about uh 200 Main Street, right? You can't even get there. Right? Right across the street from Well, it used to be Yeah. Brand Watch out just down the street from the city hall. Okay. Lou, would you mind? We back on.

Hey, eight. The time is 8:42. We'll uh uh reconvene the the um meeting. Thank you. So, I lost my um I got it. I got it. So third on the agenda is recommendation to the town council regarding a request for a zone change spanning from 936 to 990 Mineral Spring Avenue including lots 1445 146 147 148 150 1664 163 162 2, 160, 159, 158, 155, and half of lots 214 and 218 from residential general to commercial village zoning designation. The applicant is the town of North Proidence Planning and Zoning Department, which is located at 2000 Smith Street, North Proidence, Rhode Island.

Excuse me. Um, I just want to make a clarification. Since the sending of the packets and the printing, a half a lot was uh it was realized half of lot 167 was actually supposed to be in there. Um, and it was identified as a shared lot on the plan on the map I was looking at. So, it appeared as a fully zoned lot, but it was actually half. So, um, half of lot 167. So, do we have a map of that, Prince? Yes. Okay. a map on this.

I also provided a map of Pucket since uh this zone change would directly abut uh the Pucket line. Brent, are the printouts any are are they different than the digital copy that you forwarded? The agenda is the only difference. Okay. Okay. And the uh I added the Pucket map today. Got it. So, it should be the last few pages um before the the large plants in the back. Okay.

Yeah. Make sure I don't have so Oh, wait a minute. So, the So, this is the map that we should be referring to. No, that is just the tax map. You should have a separate map. Oh, this. So that's Pucket. This guy. That is the map. Yes. Okay. And it's colorcoded. So the highlighted sections are the proposed zone change. Highlighted in what color?

So on the far left of that there's bright yellow that is not part of it. That is currently CV. Yep. So, or sorry, that's not CV. No, that's that's um that's where the printers are. Oh, sorry. Yeah. The light blue is CV. Um the yellow isn't part of this at all on the left side. The highlighted blue portion on the right side is the request. So, yeah. So, from half of this law, sorry, I gave the last copy away. Um but Just hold yours up real quick. So from this section on the southern portion, okay,

this section on the northern portion. And what and what's the impetus? What are we trying to achieve? So what brought this request is we have several business owners um have their properties are sitting vacant um commercial buildings in residential zones non-conforming. The pre non-conforming. Yeah. Yeah. So I think I believe it was 10 out of 13 of the the buildings are commercial buildings. The rest are multif family, three units

or more. So the proposals to essentially bring all the non-conforming commercial buildings into conformance to bring business into town so they can have an easier time finding tenants. Okay, Richie, construction is residential right now. It's all residential. That's an RG zone along Mineral Spring. Okay. So, we're basically on the south side. We're going from Richie Construction all the way to Dorma. Yes. Or depending on um Dorman or Dora. Okay. All the way to the town line, which is Dor. And then on um the the north side of Minr Avenue, it's the um we're going from Beard to Dickinson.

Dark green ones. Yeah, the dark green ones. Yes. The ones the darker green ones with the yellow hue are the proposed lots being changed. Yep. Yeah. So, Mineral Spring is identified as the commercial corridor for town. Sure. Um I don't think there's going to be people building single family homes on Mineral Spring anytime soon. It's not ideal for it. Makes sense. We're looking to create more commercial business in town. So um this kind of accomplishes all that. Okay. I have a question. Oh, Juan, do you have a question?

But right over the line in Pucket, they've just put some single family on the right hand side. There are and there's there's also a large heavy commercial. Um if you look at the the map, the red, I believe it's red on the Pucket map is a Dollar General. There's large box stores on that property. So there is some heavy commercial in the area. There's some residential. Um but most of the all the properties that we have chosen do not have any single family homes on them. Okay. It's all multif family and commercial already. So we're bringing it into conformance.

So they're multi-use right now. Commercial's on the first floor and then and then possibly residential on the second or third floor in the Yeah. So that would allow that in the future, but it would also bring anything that currently exists like that, which there are a few in conformance as well as um so like there's a a California taco shop there. They had a hard time finding tenants because they had to be very similar to like a sub shop which was there before um the wise guys was there. So they couldn't find anyone besides like a sandwich, a deli. Oh, because they had to conform to the existing use that was before. But now they could like rent it out to like a cell phone repair shop. Exactly. Okay.

And then there's um a tanning salon gift shop. So I mean it where you going to find a tanning salon gift shop? So that's I know where I'm going Christmas shopping now. So uh that's been sitting vacant for a while and you know it's it's tax dollars being thrown out the window. We're not collecting taxes on buildings that should be full that could be full

but aren't allowed to be because of our laws. So, well, from a planning perspective, it kind of sounds like we're we're um asking to make a recommendation to the council to change something that currently already is in place to to m to to alter the zoning to match the existing conditions that are

Yeah. to bring everything into conformance essentially. So, I have two I have questions on how on lots Oh, I should just go back to the the lots that we're that are being lots 214 and 218 that we're um changing half of them, half of those lots because those lots span from Mineral Spring back to Vince consent.

Yes. So the the reasoning behind that was we didn't want commercial uses extending into the residential neighborhood. So if there is a use that they do want to propose in that area, they have the option to request a special use permit to expand the commercial zone to the entire property. But that would be reviewed on a case-by case basis. Right. if they make whatever um uh specific design if they meet specific design criteria. Exactly. Yeah.

Okay. I'm just remembering you know past experiences where we would be reviewing um a project and the piece of property um was actually in two different zones and took I think some of the res the results of those types of projects um we determined to quote unquote clean it up and make the whole property the um one zone

one zone. Um but I that's just a statement. I'm not I'm just thinking out loud here. I I do agree that the commercial village should not extend back to Vincent with the only exception of whether or not residential is put on the back of the um lot 214 or or 218. So they would have that option. They would have that option. It's residential. So but would they have that option if it was commercial village?

Not for single family homes. they would be able to for multifamilies allowed in commercial village. Okay.

I don't know if anyone um saw the last few pages of the packet, but there's probably 20 different line items in the comprehensive plan that would support the approval of this. Yeah. Both policy and goals. has a good job on that. I saw that. Yeah.

Takes a while to read all those regulations. I don't have any questions. So, okay. The description of the summary again is to rec it's a recommendation to the town council regarding request for a zone change spanning from the zone the um I'm just going to say the the addresses that the um town planner has uh referenced um in his report all located on Mineral Spring Avenue. um in half of lots 214 to 218 from residential general to commercial village zoning designation. That's that's what is being um proposed for our board. It's a recommendation of the town council.

So, uh you calling for a motion? Um just want to remind everybody what we're what we're here for. Sure. Nobody has any further things to discuss. I think think it's a good idea. We're in a position to make a motion. All right. I make a uh a motion uh that the planning board recommend to the town council um to approve the resoning of the lots. I'm not going to go over those again. The lots um outlined on our agenda from residential general to commercial village.

Okay. Motion is on the table for a positive recommendation. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. Okay. We got two. You can you can pick which one. Uh all in favor of the positive recommendation say I. I. Any opposed?

Hearing none. The eyes have it. Five to zero. The motion passes for positive recommendation. Um do we have any administrative? So, uh, for the administrative report, I just wanted to, um, I gave I I I gave everyone a two-page or three-page document from the Superior Court. Um, it's a decision from Westerly regarding a a 2600 something odd um, development that was shot down because it didn't fit the character. So, I figured you might read that. Um it gives the board or the towns a little backing to um deny projects if they don't feel it it meets the character of the neighborhood. So uh if you want to take a look at that and um you know just consider that going forward.

It's hard to think 2,300 units would be in keeping with the is a town but that wouldn't even be keeping in New York City. I don't think that's a hard one. But they did cite in that uh the decision that you can deny it master plan if it doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood and for environmental reasons. It's all in that decision. Ironic that those were the two comments that you really hit home today. Beard Avenue. So Brent, this this was this was a a project heard in Westerly. It got denied and it by the planning board and

at master plan at master plan and that's it or they or the applicant appeal and this is the applicant appealed and the court shut down the appeal and this is to confirm. Oh, this is great. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much, Brent. Uh, Laor, sorry. Sorry the name wrong. Lampier. Oh, Wind is wind properties. Is that um casino? They're big.

They're big. Wind's big. They're national. They're national. I don't know. They must have been so mad they get denied. Yeah, they probably were. All right, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. They can bring a lot of second. All right, Lou made the motion. Did you second it, Warren? Warren seconded. Meeting adjourned. 857. Oh boy. Okay.

Yeah. feel something I