Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Everybody's coming to our house. She's watching afterm husband meeting another Oh wow that's a good size kind of female address

you have grandchildren No long cook most of the cooks. I do a lot. Yeah. Good. Good. The way I There'll be a lot of submit information. Yeah, that's a good size car. Yeah, probably four. 13. We can accept any information up until approval. Not sure. There is a check. Can they get in and do a video presentation? Do you know

or should we just do the board? So, unfortunately, they can, but someone has to be here to unlock the door. So, we have to like rearrange it. That's why I want to try to avoid coming to the hearing um and there being set up the packet that was sent to

I have guests for you guys Christmas I think there's the appeal to be avenue oh no kid no I'm quaking that says that you're able to mute that. Oh, that's your name on it. Oh, it does. Oh, okay. Oh, boy. Angel from submitting revised plates before a meeting. Um, like a deadline. I mean you can continue at any time if the board feels it but for advertising purposes you want it to be

48 hours. Do you have Do you have to fill this out? No, I filled everything out. This is for your reference. Oh, okay.

This is yours. This is the appeal for bear. You guys can do nothing with it, but it's just for your reference if you want it. This what I like. I already submitted the answer. Everything's fine. I just got a whole bunch of copies. So, thank you. The attorney represents him on the board. It's It's There's two. It's him and Sean something. Okay. But yes, they hired a firm for the appeal. Okay. Yeah. I wonder if I was a boy. You're probably though. He's like a little older than me. Maybe like 35. So, that's weird. It references. The reference is Wendy's leaders. No,

she's a member of the board. No, she approval of street question at the time when two two weeks ago. No, they just been here for most of the year though. No, wait for Yeah, there. Oh, her name is Oh, yeah. No. Yeah, you guys, that's just for your reference. You don't have to do anything with it, but Okay. This summon. This is the court summon for B Avenue. You do not need to appear. You don't have to do anything with it. It's just for your reference. Can I ignore this name wrong? Yes, you can. I like your loophole, Warren. [laughter] I should start having to spell my name wrong, too.

Absolutely.

All right. Good evening everyone. Uh welcome to the Town of North Providence planning board hearing. Uh the date is November 12th, 2025. Uh we're located here at 2000 Smith Street, North Providence, Rhode Island. Um may you please join me in stating our um pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to theublic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you for that. Um, good evening everyone. Uh, we will uh begin tonight's um meeting uh with a uh roll call of attendance. Starting to my right, Lou Dukio, Warren Richard, David Parenti, chair, Gary Erasian, Angelica Bova, solicitor, Steve Patassi,

Brown Town Planner. All right, good evening everyone. Um, the first on tonight's agenda is approval of the minutes from October 8th, 2025. Um, I trust that everybody has had a chance to review those meeting minutes. Um, the agenda item is uh um to accept the meeting minutes for approval. Gary, I do know that you were not present for that meeting. So, we will um recuse you from the That was in upstate.

Yep. Um, from the vote, I believe uh Lou, Warren, myself, and Steve were all here. Um, do I have any motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Uh, Steve makes the motion. Do I hear a second? Second. Uh, Lou seconds. Uh, all in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? None. Uh the eyes have it 4 to zero. Um again for the record, Gary did not vote. Uh and the meeting minutes are approved. Uh one question for the planner. Have we seen the meeting minutes for September's meeting yet? Yeah, you should have. I believe there weren't they reviewed at the last meeting or [clears throat] did we continue them? Oh, I don't I don't think I I don't think we've received them yet. And in that case, we'll do a Surprise. Okay. What date was that? September 9th. September 9th. Yeah.

Okay. We have um one more agenda item on uh today's for today's meeting. It's agenda item number two. The address is 0 Manchester Farm Road. The platin lot number plat 24 C lot 5 zone residential limited R13 RL13 excuse me. The applicant owner is Hovven MGN uh for Stephanie Drive Lincoln Rhode Island. The description is a public hearing request for unified development plan review consisting of preliminary plan review or a two lot minor subdivision proposing no street creation and a two front two lot frontage variances. One being 59.73 feet, excuse [clears throat] me, for the proposed lot to the west and 47.63 63 feet for the proposed lot on the east. Since this is a uh unified development plan review, I do believe we need to take a vote to open the public hearing. Am I correct in that process?

You can do it now or you would do it now. We should do it now. So Gary makes the motion to open the public hearing. Do I hear a second? Second. Uh Steve uh seconds. All in favor to open up the public hearing, say I. I. Any opposed? I'm hearing none. Eyes have it. Five to zero. The time is now 6:08 p.m. Um, good evening. For the record, please um state your name and your credentials, please. We are taking meeting minutes um of tonight's meeting. Our stenographer is is remotely um viewing the um the meeting. So, if you can speak into the mic.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your time. Members of the board, for the record, my name is Paul Carlson. I am owner and professional engineer with Insight Engineering Services with offices at 501 Great Road in North Smithfield, Rhode Island. um our attorney for this project uh who probably stuck in traffic um couldn't will be here shortly but in the meantime I will uh go through the particular uh subdivision and request for this particular project as you stated Mr. chairman. Uh this is for a minor subdivision and for a unified development uh plan application for a two lot subdivision uh located at the North Providence and Lincoln Town line uh off of Manchester Farm Road. Uh the the assesses plat uh as identified as 24C lot five uh has an area of about 1.7 acres of land um located within the RL13 zoning district. Uh this particular property has a unique uh situation in that it has uh frontage uh that on two sections of Manchester Farm Road. Um, one is off of a culde-sac along the eastern side and then Manchester Farm which ties into Stephanie Drive which goes into uh Lincoln along the west edge of this property. Uh, this particular lot actually was part of uh the Heritage View Estates subdivision uh I think believe in 19 late uh '60s7s. Um and this has been in um ownership of

Mr. Engine uh for a number of years and uh his request is to create two lots uh one uh fronting on the Manchester Farm Road section on the eastern edge. Uh that would have 27,761 square ft. Uh, and the parcel B would have 46,285 square ft and that would front along the Manchester Farm on the western edge. As you had mentioned, uh, because of the subdivision and the unique features of this particular parcel, uh, we would be requesting a variance uh, for the frontage of both of these lots. And as Mr. Chairman, you had mentioned uh the lot A, which is the lot to the east, uh has an existing frontage of 52.37 ft. Uh and as the zoning requirements require 100 ft. So there therefore we'd be seeking a variance for frontage of 47.63 feet for lot A. uh under lot B uh which has just the uh 40 feet 40.27 feet uh of frontage along Manchester Farm. Uh again requiring 100 ft of frontage. Uh this would then require a variance of 59.73 feet uh for variance on this particular lot. Uh the request of these are are generally in in a situation where these present a very unique uh possible with two frontages

and uh the parcel does contain a uh detention facility uh that was part of the Heritage View estates. uh there this particular drainage structure um does not have or does not meet any of the Rhode Island DEM requirements uh for wetlands. Um this is a standalone situation and therefore does not have any uh buffers u associated with that drainage structure. So uh we have not at this time been before or submitted our um systems or designs to Rudell and DEM at this particular point. I will also note that Manchester Farm along the eastern edge does have sewer and water associated and that that would be a connection uh that we would be making for that particular home. And the lot B uh actually does not have uh septic and water along the Manchester Farm Stephanie Drive and therefore would require a septic uh system design and approval uh under Red Island DEM regulations. Uh but those would certainly be forthcoming after um and hopeful approval of this board. Uh and at this time I'd be certainly happy to answer any questions the board may have. Um, sure. I have a a few questions. Um, uh, you did you just state that Manchester from Road West does not currently have a municipal sewer system? That's correct. The uh, the Western we have not uh, Mr. Amjan has requested information uh, from DPW uh, regarding the potential connection to sewer. Uh he was made aware that the western edge does not have sewer on that

side. Okay. Um and you did state that right now um you are unaware that there are any uh dem jurisdictional um requirements or um uh uh standards for the the drainage pond. Have you have you reached out to DEM and requested a preliminary determination?

Yes, I did and I I actually spoke to the the planner. Um he had actually asked that question. I did talk with Marty Winc regarding this particular issue. Um I know Brent had asked for a letter and I will um am obtaining that particular letter from uh wetlands to state to that particular uh item. Okay. So, you have a verbal um response from DEM, but you have yet to receive anything in writing from DEM.

That is correct. But you will be submitting you you you do plan on receiving something in writing from DEM stating that they have no jurisdictional Absolutely. Uh review for the for the drainage pond and they do not will or do not consider that drainage pond wetlands. Um,

I've been, um, uh, I've had the opportunity to, you know, develop and work on projects on property where, um, wetlands, uh, don't appear on any, uh, the DEM's websites or the the GIS. Um but in in my due diligence for developing um properties, we've gone through um the exercise of actually hiring a wetlands biologist to help uh provide not only um the owner with assurance of their property and wetlands, but also to assist um with the process with TEM. Um, has a a wetlands biologist been um uh hired by the property owner to help understand um the the characteristics of the drainage pond in um determining um whether or not the drainage pond could be um considered wetlands.

Uh to answer that question, yes, Mr. Damjen had hired uh Scott Rabidu. This I'll honest this project has been uh ongoing for a number of years specifically through uh the works of going through Lincoln before we can even come before this uh this this board. Uh but as part of that process, uh Scott Rabidu from NRS was hired in order to uh review this particular site and also provide his take on this exact situation. And in his uh in his opinion, he also states that uh this is more of a we'll call it a subject area subject to flooding. um and therefore does not have any buffers uh but in itself uh meets the criteria uh does not meet the criteria from wetland but only from an area subject to flooding.

Okay. Um do you have did any um documentation that Mr. Rabidu had provided the owner? Has that been submitted to the to the planning board? Uh, I'm not sure if it has, but I I do have a copy that I can certainly provide at this point, please. Yes, that would be that would be very beneficial. Thank you.

Oops. What was that document? Uh, can you state what the document was? That is the actual just the the letter of findings and the report from Scott Rabidu uh who is uh since retired since that particular letter has gone up but his findings on his review of this particular uh area uh that that was mentioned

and what was his review of the when you say his review of the what was he reviewing? He was re reviewing it specifically to determine if there were any presence of wetlands on that particular property. And his statement is that uh while that area is defined, it is not a wetland and only an area subject to flooding and therefore it has no buffers assigned to it. So that letter was submitted to DEM and we're going to wait for that letter to come to from DEM whether or not to confirm that. Correct. Well, that I had a pre-application with with Marty Wick and that specific letter was submitted to Marty for his review and then that verbal is what he told me. But I'm obtaining the letter from Marty. Who's Marty?

Sorry, Marty Winsk is the director of wetlands at the Rhode Island DEM. Okay. Okay. So, we're going to wait for a letter that he's going to confirm that. Yeah. Fine. Okay. All right. So, Brent, once that letter gets to me, do I state that it's been submitted for the record? Okay. Okay. Give us a moment to pass the letter around. Yeah, no problem.

Okay. So, um I hear I have here a letter prepared by Natural Resource Services, Inc. uh dated November 6th, 2020, addressed to Mark Nyberg, uh PLS, Insight Engineering Services. Um and it is prepared by uh Scott Rabidu uh PWS principal and that's being um and it's regarding freshwater wetland delineation on plat 24 C lot 5 Manchester Farm Road North Providence Rhode Island. Thank you. any chance to um get through that while we open it up for um fellow I know I took the reigns there, but do I any of my photo fellow board members have um additional questions um to ask our civil engineer here?

Um Paul, can you um work us through understanding of um the drainage easement and the exact purpose of of the easement? um knowledge of you know historical knowledge of of what the easement's you know sole purpose is. Um is it just to collect water? Is it does it the drainage pond? Is there an easement there for um access to the pond to maintain it? Um can you sure

brief us on on that? Have you done your due diligence with the town on Go?

Uh as I mentioned uh this this particular parcel in its entirety uh was part of the heritage view estates. uh this parcel uh was owned uh as part of that heritage view and was the only parcel uh within the North Providence uh section. Uh everything else was in Lincoln. Um, this drainage pond is one of three drainage ponds part of Heritage View, but this particular uh drainage pond handles about um 3/4 of the Heritage View subdivision. Uh this parcel in it in its original design um encompassed the entire parcel as the drainage easement. uh it was more in general uh put on uh because there was no need from a development standpoint at that time in this in the 70s uh to create this as a as a a lot. Subsequently, in the last two years, we've been before uh the town of Lincoln uh to discuss this particular issue and the fact that this lot was encumbered completely under a drainage easement and then the necessary requirements of an easement. Um the drainage pond does not need uh for an easement is not necessary for to encumber a large area only that area that's going to ultimately flow uh andor be the part of the uh section where drainage uh gets into a large storm event. We actually went through a whole uh hydraulic design for the town of Lincoln to determine what that elevation is and how it met what the original design that was done by Mr. Ash back in

the 60s. And uh uh the town engineer Lincoln concurred and ultimately uh we were able to modify the easement as a part of record that you see on the plans before you. uh and that encompasses uh the drainage easement uh the outflow structure and also provides a access uh to that easement uh off of Manchester Farm. So there is access and is part of uh the record uh this will be maintained as part of an homeowners association and that's uh basically the history on this particular lot. So can I follow up on that? I got a bad dude. I'm sorry.

Yeah. Can you um you can you do you mind bringing the either the the site plan or the um uh the survey um closer to the board and and and maybe just with your with your finger just trace out [clears throat and cough] where the easement actually actually is. Certainly. So there's a a 20 foot easement that comes off of Manchester Farm.

Yep. And then it actually runs uh on the rear of where the proposed work is and that runs right around towards the uh there's an embankment uh that impounds the the drainage structure. There's an outlet out structure and that's encumbered and then it runs up and then ties into this. So this drainage area encompasses specifically that drainage area and its 100 slope.

Okay. And I guess to summarize the evolution of the easement at first the easement was the entire property and that this drainage pond was created as a a drainage structure for development in Lincoln. And it just so happens to be on North Providence property. That's correct. Since then, it sounds like your firm prepared drainage calculations to determine whether or not that drainage easement should encompass or encumber the entire property as it once did or if it could get smaller.

And your firm or company propri prepared those calculations in tandem had it reviewed with Lincoln's engineer and the Lincoln engineer deemed your calculations to be um adequate to reset the boundaries of the easement. That is correct. Okay. Um, understanding that the easement and the drainage structure primarily resides on North Providence land. Did you go through that exercise with North Providence at all?

The only thing as far as the exercise in reducing are you speaking? We did not from the North Providence side because the the drainage easement was part and parcel to the subdivision that was specifically in Lincoln and had the easement had no pertainance to North Providence in itself. It was only it only tied to the subdivision and therefore Lincoln had the had the uh authority to make that change uh for the drainage easement. Okay. I in theory I I would disagree with that. Um spec not only because a majority I would say probably 90% of what I can depict on the survey is the drainage pond

um is in North Providence just on the pure um I don't know geometry. Um, but the topography of this property seemed uh, and stop I'm assuming, stop me if I'm cor if I'm incorrect, but the topography of this property um, is low on the North Providence side and the existing outlet structure is on North Providence property. Correct. And that outlet structure looks like it connects to an existing coververt, which I can't tell, but it it looks like it may daylight or discharge to plan South, which is um just above lot 24 C. I'm sorry. 8 uh plat 24 C lot uh 1184 which is in North Providence. So in so just by the geography of this drainage structure most of it resides in North Providence. the topography flows towards North Providence and in the event that the drainage pond um is full, there's an outlet on North Providence property which discharges into the town of North Providence. Do am I reading all of that correctly? So far, you are absolutely correct. Okay. Okay. Uh Gary, I interrupted you. You have any?

Well, I got a few questions. Go right ahead. Um so I'm not sure if these are in any particular priority, but Mr. Carson, you said that drench calculations were prepared. All right. So I noticed on the plan you've got a PLS stamp by Mr. Mark Nyberg. I don't see a PE stamp on it, though. uh because this is a subdivision, the subdivision uh would be stamped by the uh the PLS, but I can certainly add my stamp to this particular without any problem. So, I'd like the P stamp on it also. Certainly, again, these are just softball questions. Also says on the right date, October August 16, 2024.

So, just curious why there wasn't a revised date. So, what's that date reflecting reflect? 24 was actually the dates in which these were prepared as part of the package that uh originally started with Lincoln and then subsequently those that particular uh date had not been updated to when we submitted to uh uh to the planning so that could be updated. So when you say you mean to the North Province planning board excuse me so you said it wasn't updated for the board you mean that that is for this board.

Yeah. So so two housekeeping matters. So if you could reciprocally ask if you could put your PE state up on the plan and also if you could put the updated date on that. Okay. So um you talked about the easement. So there's a fee simple question here and an easement question. So the easement can encumber whatever you want it to encumber which allows one to go onto the property without being cited for trespassing. So when this parcel that is proposed to be subdivided that in fe simple was part of the heritage view subdivision correct at some point. Correct.

So and that's perfectly fine that an easement originally encumbered the entire parcel. Um but the ownership of that is still part of the subdivision. So um and that was dedicated for a storm water management basin. whether it's encumbered completely along the entire perimeter of the property or now it's being reduced to compressed just around the basin itself and the so but in fe simple that is part of the subdivision

so how is that then being subdivided regardless of the easement the easement really has no bearing on this all that does is it gives either the town of Lincoln and the town of North Province public works to go onto it and maintain it but if that's still owned in fe simple as part of the subdivision because if you sold this then that storm water basin really goes away because it's not part of the subdivision. So how do you subdivide that parcel if it's a feasible portion of this heritage view subdivision that was built or developed in the 60s or 70s on what authority can you subdivide that when it's dedicated for storm water management notwithstanding the easement

and I I won't speak and unfortunately council is not here to answer that specific legal question on this uh I can only speak to the fact that uh our easement was reduced as you as you mentioned Minister Rian uh to really confine the easement which is just for that drainage easement. How and what happens as far as future development and who has uh specific um ownership of this? I believe this is all done under going to be handled through an HOA. Again, I don't want to speak completely to that and unfortunately legal is not here to answer that. Um, but it doesn't change the if these two apostles are split, there is an easement on either parcel A and or on possible B. It doesn't change the fact that they can still access and manage that drainage easement from both parcels.

That's not my question. Okay. So, you're talking about the easement I understand for access for maintenance. The HOA, the homeowners association, that's for maintenance. That's not what I'm asking. What I'm saying is in fe simple this lot in totality was part of again the heritage view subdivision and what authority do you get to subdivide that and say I want two more house lots on it when the sole purpose is for storm water management. I think what you can do what you can do is carve out that lot is carve out the port the portion that is now an easement. I would suggest you carve that out as a separate lot and then you have three lots. the lot that still stays with the subdivision. So, it's not by easement because again, the easement is just to allow one to access it

to allow for maintenance. So, at the very least, I'm looking at you probably need three lots, but two proposed house lots, which I also have some questions about. And then because that's a fee simple transaction, okay? And also, if you made a third one that's in the center of that lot, which would be now instead of an easement would be the fee simple subdivision of that. So that continues in perpetuity as part of the approved subdivision. So you don't have to answer it, but that's that's

I I understand the point that you're making. I um I would have to on council on that particular uh question. I know that in many different subdivisions that we've done in in certainly Rhode Island there are incumbrances or what we'll call easements on multiple properties um and not just a dedicated parcel of land for purpose of drainage and then we do have easements and drainage structures on multiple lots in many subdivisions but I can certainly ask that question to the council without any problem. Of course you do but again the question is about fe simple it's just not the

and I I'm not familiar with that specific so I can ask that. Okay. Um, that's up to the mayor. Is it pertaining to the specific question? Come right ahead, please. He's the owner. Just state your name and your address for the record, please. Hold on. It's MG for Stephanie Drive, Lincoln. I also go by John. Uh, the attorney will be in about 12 minutes. He ran into some traffic issues and so forth. I own the property in Lincoln as well, so the entire property is is mine. um ju to just to address the uh question about the the development. So when you say the property in Lincoln, what is what do you mean by the property of Lincoln? Do you mean the adjacent property in

So So the when I purchased the property in Lincoln, the entire property description was one lot. What can you say specifically where because that's that's critical when you point to the Yes. Thank you, Mr. rate is directly brought into one case. So he is direct directly his particular development. So I guess my question then Mr. Carlson is how could he buy that parcel of land when that's that parcel right now without a subdivision. Okay. Is the parcel that's dedicated for the storm water management as part of the storm water management for the subdivision. So how do you how do you buy that? I own the property.

Okay. I'm not asking him to how do you how do you buy that because that's part of the subdivision because that that fossil land was and again you might go back to your fee point that this entire parcel was one and it was encumbered by that one easement. I I understand where you're heading with this but again that's a legal I guess I'll have to ask legal and that's the answer. But now I'm asking about a question about purchasing it. That lot serves a specific purpose. Again, let's forget the easement. The easement again, that could change any time. It serves a specific function of the Heritage View subdivision.

How do you just You can't just sell that lot because now if I bought that lot, I could do whatever I want with it and then it doesn't serve the purpose of stormwater management. So, um I whatever he bought I don't think you can change the easement. I'm not talking about the easement again. Let's get off the easement because we keep you keep changing the tangent of the discussion. So, let's not talk about the easement. We're talking about the attorney. All right. One at a time, please. I'm talking about the three simple interest in that land. That's has nothing to do with an easement.

If that's part of the original subdivision and its purpose is intended for that base, for that lot to have a stormwater basin, someone designed a stormwater basin that goes with that subdivision. So, how do you just then sell that? Because you can. I don't care if you just sold it. That has a purpose. So, if you want to then change the purpose of that lot. You can't do that by easement. You have to do that by a a subdivision. So, that's why I'm saying I appreciate what you're saying, Mr. Adam, but that doesn't answer my question because we keep going over the same thing. It's an eman. It's an eman. That's not the question. Yeah. The attorney should we'll be here shortly. Okay. Um, so let's put a hold on that for now. Um, you you spoke earlier. Is it okay, Mr. Chair? Yes, you can continue. Okay.

You mentioned Mr. Robert O discussed something about the 100red-year flood plane. I thought you first said there was flood plane on it. Then I thought I heard you say it doesn't have flood plane on it. So on this slot that you're proposing to subdivide for the sake of discussion. Is is that incumbent by the 100redyear flood plane? No. And I if I said flood plane, it was a 100redyear storm event is what I meant. There is no there is no flood plane on this lot.

Okay. Peace. Okay. All right. That makes a lot of sense. Um, with regard to the frontage, and I probably have a question for legal counsel here. So, regarding the frontage, you mentioned a couple of times this is a unique lot. You you peppered that if you what's unique about it? Uh, it's unique because it has actually uh two frontages on two different sections of Manchester Farm Road.

Okay. So, how does that factor in? Because when one says the word unique, that suggests implies that there's some merit or warrants a variance. At least that's the way I took it. So the fact that it has frontage on two streets of the same road, but has two front digits, which I don't really think is unique, but let's say that it is. If you have a corner lot, lots of there are lots of lots on corner lots that have frontage on two streets. I don't think that makes it unique. But but let's say for the sake of discussion, I give you that the benefit of the doubt. How does the fact that it has frontage on two streets, how does that in any way warrant the variance?

Again, I will lean on uh council. Obviously, he more versed in we'll call it the legal aspects of of of stating the particular facts for uh the variances. So, I'll lean on council when he when they show up if you don't mind.

No. So, you said the word unique. You're not exactly sure other than the fact that you're modifying the the val the validity of the or of the vance, but you're not sure why though. That's fair. Okay. So, question for council. Um I asked um the plan of the question, but I wanted to ask you too. So, on this they're proposing a frontage on lot A along the turnaround portion of the culde-sac. So, and and I'll show you too, Mr. Carlson, if you want what I'm asking, but let me ask you if you did.

Can you use the top of the road here as frontage? Cuz I always thought you have to use the sides of the road that you can't use the top of the road right here. It's right here for frontage, right? They're asking for to use that. The frontage would be here and here. You're fronting on the road, not the top of it. That's the top of the stub. So, I think that lot doesn't have any frontage. I'm not talking about access. I don't think our our bylaws say anything about that your your access to the lot have to be by the frontage. So, I'm just talking strictly whether or not that lot actually has any frontage because I don't think you could use the top. And maybe that's a question you want to look into is whether or not you could use the top of this as opposed to the sides of the rightway for frontage.

Yeah. You're referring to this edge piece, correct? Right here. Yeah. This is like the real you're referring to this piece, right? So I'm saying you can have frontage here and you can have frontage here, but I'm saying you cannot have frontage off the top of that that panel. And again, maybe if you want to take a look at at least Yeah, let me take a look at that to answer. I mean, it's part of the rightway. So I I don't see and it's every subdivision that I've designed in 30 years always included the rightway which includes part of uh the culde-sac bulb as part of its frontage. So I'm not but I certainly answer that question. Again Mr. I agree for the for the A

on the eastern side. Absolutely. You could use the circular part of the turnaround. Okay. Yeah. Absolutely. There's no problem. I'm saying on the other end that's not a turnaround. That that's a stop and I'm saying you can't. I don't think you can use the top of that. So the question is then you could still ask for a variance but then I'm saying I think you need to ask for a variance of 100 feet instead of 59.73 feet and that's something I'm asking through the chair for the if if the if legal counsel could get back to us on that. Yeah, I think that should be determined for the for the board for clarity. Um and my last question is um regarding the drainage calcs if you could submit those to Brett when you get a chance. No problem at all. sign and stamp please.

Sure. Thank you.

As part of that, I can certainly ask uh Leslie Kish to to provide a letter if she if I only have it as part of that that she reviewed it and provide that to Brent as well. What What was that? Sorry. The engineer of record, town engineer for the town of Lincoln. Yes. I can ask her to to make sure that she's inclusive of a letter that she reviewed it. Yep. I I I agree with I agree with that. That should be submitted for the No problem for the planning board's um uh review. I I Well, if we can Oh, Mr. Carson, sorry. Official Gary. Um if we could get back to um Do you have a copy of Mr. I can provide that, too?

Yeah, I know. But do do you have a copy of of this letter? we I'm okay I'm just going to read from it because I do have a question. So again, [clears throat] this this letter was written in November 6th um uh 2020 almost 5 years uh ago. It so the last paragraph says I'm just going to read it so please bear with me. It is important to note that a new state freshwater wetlands law was enacted in July of 2015. This law made changes to the jurisdictional limits currently utilized in regulations. The Department of Environmental Management DEM is writing new regulations pursuant to this statute which will require buffer zones for all freshwater wetlands. While a comprehensive timeline has not been established for the enacted for the enactment of these rules, it is anticipated that they will be in effect at some point in 2021. If you submit an application for the development prior to promaggation of these rules, [clears throat] your project would then be grandfathered under the current wetland regulations and not subject to any new standards. We are now in the year 2025 and this project is now being submitted um to this town. I'm assuming that my assumption is that uh Mr. Ravu is referring to a project being submitted to DEM in his in his letter.

It was referring to it in actuality it was to this particular project but because of the time frame that this has been in play almost 5 years.

Yep. that that particular note was referring to this particular apostle and this particular development. Okay. So, um, since he wrote the letter in 2020 and he's, um, referencing the likelihood of the freshwater wetlands law, um, being modified, I guess, in 2021. Um, I'm just wondering whether or not um the wetland law has changed and whether or not that new the current wetland laws would um provide uh Mr. Rabidu with a new perspective in how he um addresses this property and reviews it and would write this letter today. understand your question and I think that was uh the reason for the particular question of Mr. Wack on in prior to entering this application before this board understanding that any buffers could potentially uh create a wetland scenario or a wetland application scenario and or potentially hinder and that's why I asked that question of Mr. WAC as far as the today's regulations his answer was to that. So again I will provide that letter uh to the findings of today. Okay.

And the buffers. Okay. So verbally again

um the DEM's um verbal conversation with you um deems that there that there are no wetlands on this property. Um, do you know how DEM um determines determines that? Like would they would they utilize um any or have any assistance from this letter to render their conclusion or do they send their own um staff members out to the property to observe it and render their conclusion? Well, there's there's a there's a couple of options there. Uh, one and particularly that report was provided to Mr. Wack to ask his opinion on the regulations today and how this particular uh drainage pond would seek or have any particular buffers and that's number one his opinion. two, there are uh particulars or applications as you may know uh to get a preliminary determination from the Rhode Island DM in which then they would send out their own biologist to review that particularly um as whether or not they find it as uh a wetland or a drainage structure and therefore no buffers would be associated. So there's two-step process. Um but again, opinion is one thing. Um and then an actual application is a second.

Where Thank you. Where are you in that two-step process? Are you right before number one?

So one is getting that opinion from Mr. Wack and I will have that provide that. But we have not then put any other applications to the board or excuse me to DEM as far as an official findings. Okay. And can we um the official findings is that um definition the same as preliminary determination? Yes. Okay. So the preliminary determination is step two. Correct. So what we have forthcoming is just a a a preliminary letter from wetlands and then the applicant

then therefore the applicant um submits a request to DEM for a preliminary determination. That's correct. Okay. Does the applicant plan on doing that? Uh well I guess it's based on Mr. WX's uh letter or opinion, but it would not be necessary. I guess to make it official, we could certainly do that. Okay. Thank you.

I was combining the two, thinking that what you were what you had previously stated was forthcoming was a actual preliminary determination. Um, I didn't realize that it that it was not that it was a preliminary letter from DEM. Okay. Um, just for the record, Mark Andreosi is is present. I

It's okay. Um, do we have any other questions from the board? Yep. Back when the original subdivision was uh recorded, was any of this land that we're uh looking at here, the the two parcels that we're looking at, was any of that land designated as open space under that original subdivision?

Uh, no, it was not. Um and I actually have the original uh design plans from RMA Ash Associates and again I can provide those documents to uh to planning as part of record but no neither one of those particular poss were dedicated as open space.

Okay. Thank you. Um as far as the drainage you know with the increase in uh impervious uh surface will there be any increase in the runoff uh into the uh existing drainage basin. So, as part of the original design calculations, um the town engineer of Lincoln required us to design or look at the overall subdivisions that were contributing to this sub to this drainage ement under today's regulations, which were far different than that of u the 1970s. So we've met the rainfall requirements of today and we also encompassed the uh the inc the new developable fossils of these two uh into those calculations. I'll also point out that part of the reg excuse me, part of the development is also to utilize new uh best management practices which include uh underground infiltration systems, rain gardens and such that will handle the storm water flow for the developments themselves. But we've already captured that if they weren't there that this that the drainage calculations will still work.

Okay. So there shouldn't be any additional uh flow into the uh outfall that flows into North Providence. That's correct. Based on our design, uh those new BMPs will handle that new influous surfaces. Okay. Thank you. Look for questions. Mark, do you have any questions? Warren. No. Uh Steve.

Yeah. Just uh uh one or two questions. Um you worked with the town engineer in Lincoln on the drainage issue. Why wouldn't you bring in somebody from North Providence since you're here tonight before us and that makes up a large part of the area

and certainly understanding the question and certainly from Mr. Mr. chairman brought that up again. the fact that this easement um was specifically for the town of Lincoln and the drainage calculations that we were providing to the town of Lincoln, the town council, uh the planning board and uh multiple other departments uh was to show that the drainage or easement could be shrunk down because that easement was part of the Lincoln um subdivision. So that that's that's why that it only went through town of Lincoln

at this time. Thank you. Any other questions? No, that's it. Um apologies for being tardy this evening. Attorney Stevens started. Um just to follow up on your question regarding the drain discussion. Excuse me. Um, so our stenographer is remoting in. Our stenographer who writes the meeting minutes is remoting in. Can you speak clearly into the mic and just state your name one more time, please? Thank you. Certainly. I apologize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney Steven Certit Sur Du T for your synographer. Um, thank you.

I apologize for being late. And to what your board member just spoke about, when I became involved in the project, I had a um opportunity to sit down and talk with your town planner. And it's my understanding that the discussions about drainage were initially brought to North Providence. The project was then sent to Lincoln because of the easement and the legal restrictions that existed for the prior subdivisions. And when I had a conversation with him prior to the last meeting, we had that discussion about the drainage and that being one of the big concerns about this board and I tried to explain the path of travel and why we went to Lincoln first and came back. Um, we did not try, it was not an intent to hide the ball or to take North Province out of the project in any way. It was effectively a determination by the staff members and the powers that be that we had to go to Lincoln first.

And I agree with that. But I think maybe it would have been nice to have somebody from the town of North Providence pulled into that conversation. Understood. And I I can understand why you would say that, sir. Okay. Okay. Um, Mr. We have we do have another question for you, please. Um, uh, Gary, do you want to ask a question? So, um, attorney started the question. I asked, uh, Mr. Carlson a couple of questions, but let's start regarding the status of subject parcel as is without the subdivision.

So, that parcel, what is it about 1.7 acres or so, was part of the original Heritage View subdivision back in the 70s. Okay. And it was explained numerous times about the easements that the easement encumbered the entire perimeter of the lot. Um, but for purposes of the subdivision, the easement was reduced to essentially encircle the stormwater basin as it is and I guess the culverts and other pertinances to the storm water system. But that's an easement. [clears throat]

All that's doing is acknowledging one whether it's the town of Lincoln, the town of North Providence, whoever the eman is going to go is the right of access. Okay. But the purpose of that lot was for storm water management. And now it's being repurposed in fe simple that sub that lot is part of the subdivision. It continues to be part of that subdivision. So on on what basis on what legal basis if you could submit and you could look into I'm saying you have to answer the question tonight is on what legal standing do you have to now repurpose because you can I think and subdivide that for two house lots when it's purpose is for to accommodate the storm water basin. So what I suggested is this. I'm not saying you can't do that, but instead of subdividing this into two lots to two house lots and repurposing the entire purpose of that lot is create three lots is um create one for the storm water basin and then propose two other lots which I still have questions about whether or not they met meet the variance requirements. So, um, and what authority do you just get to repurpose that lot to say, "Yeah, it's been a stormwater basin lot. Now, we want to subdivide it into two house lots when it originally was not designed for that." So, again, this gets calls into question if that basin is part of that subdivision. How does your client now have ownership of that and choose to subdivide when it purpose is for the subdivision?

Well, I would couch it as that the drainage is an easement. No, drainage is not an easement. The easement is encumbered to allow one to get access to it. So that's just a way of of defining the edge and stating who may have permission to enter a pond. That's all an easement is is to give another party access over another person's land. And I'm saying how do you how do you my question is more fundamental than that. So let's not get into these with respectfully. We can also discuss that too. Okay. But my my question is more fundamental. This in be simple, let's just call it lot one for the sake of discussion. The parcel that we're going to split it to A and B 1.6 acres. Its purpose since the 1970s has been dedicated for storm water management. And now someone comes along and says, "Yeah, I want to split and make two house lots out of it." On what legal basis do you do that? Well, a property purpose changes hands and can change over time. And my suggestion to you is because of the technology and the explanation you got from the engineer about the ability to do the drainage and perform the purpose of that area in a smaller space that we are still maintaining the reason that the lot was put there, the the goals of the lot, what it's required to do under the subdivision regulation.

Okay. So, you said lots change hands. Why would somebody buy a lot that's its purpose is for storm water management for lots change purposes and lots change purposes not hands so I apologize if I misspoke or I didn't say it. Okay. So it's still it's what it's required to do under those subdivision that subdivision approval to catch all the water and to infiltrate it and to drain it. It's still performing that purpose. Yeah. But you're also having tool houses on it too. So

and I would suggest to you that there's no prohibition. I think there is. So that's why is we need to look into rather than encumbering that storm water base and and it's perfectly fine to compress it. I'm not saying you can't compress it, but you can't repurpose that lot whose sole purpose in fe simple part of a subdivision approved in the 1970s for heritage view now all of a sudden just randomly becomes repurposed for two house lots and oh by the way it still serves the purpose for storm water management. So whether you we could discuss that [clears throat] now at another date maybe I'd like to table us I could speak with council on it but I don't think you can just do that. I don't think um what happens if one of the homeowners just decides because they can I'm just going to fill that in.

They can't. I know they can't but they can't. That's my look.

You can't. You're not supposed to take left-hand turns. People take left-hand turns. You're not supposed to go down the runway the wrong people do. So look, I do this for a living and people do things they're not supposed to do. Most of the time because they don't know, but some of the time they do know and don't care. So that's why I'm saying is if this is cut out and and you could do it, don't get me wrong, a feast simple so that that what you're sub what you're creating and covering the smaller piece as a separate lot so that continues to be part of the heritage subdivision and then we can have another dialogue whether or not the those two proposed lots merit the variances for separate house lots. I it it I would defer a bit to your staff as to whether they're comfortable with that because there may not be frontage that create other issues that we would have to tackle and potentially other variances the board would have to grant in order to create a lot without frontage essentially

which would be a landlocked piece of land. I get it. But to serve the purpose so it continues in perpetuity to be part of that subdivision. I think that warrants that. But we'll have that discussion. I think more importantly is a question that I also raised. Isn't so much first of all I I I question what Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, no. I'm sorry. I I I apologize to you. Are you going to move off of the um easement right now? Can I add one thing? Does the property owner have a copy have excuse me have a copy of the easement deed in in their deed? and and not on hand this evening, but I'm sure we can find one of the original the original deed.

Yeah, I think I think um thank you very much to our council who's brought that to my attention. I think having a um a copy of the the the legal document that establishes the the easement would help help our board understand um the whether or not it'll just help help define what the easement actually is. Understood. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So, um, so I'm questioning when Mr. Carlson presented his, uh, testimony to the board, um, he used the word unique a couple of times and, and I get it to to modify, um, what I inferred was to rationalize or justify the variance. So, um, without getting into why it's unique, um, he had mentioned because it has frontage on and I submit probably hundreds if not thousands of lots in the town of North Province alone that has frontage on two streets. So, I'm not going to accept the argument that it's unique. But more importantly, and this is a question that I asked legal counsel, and if you want to chime in on it, not necessarily tonight, is I don't think one can one is afforded frontage off the stub end of a right of way. I understand on the both sides, but I don't think you can have frontage. So, where lot B is, turn it, where the driveway comes in on the west side, um I think it's like 49. It's like 40.27 and I'm saying that you I don't think you could use that for frontage. So I asked out a council and I'd like to get um her opinion on whether or not Yeah. Moreover, um it just looked at a GIS and I understand it's GIS GIS. I'm not perfect. I get it. But at least based on what I saw on the GIS system, that lot doesn't even have doesn't even go up to um Manchester Pond Road. Um assessor's lot 248 lot 80308. Well, it says James and Jean Salisbury. You may that lot actually comes between Manchester Farm Road and the lot that you want to create off Manchester Farm Road on the west side. So all I would

ask again GIS could be wrong. I totally understand that. Those are for tax assessing purposes, not surveyed property. I'm also going to look into whether or not the lot that you proposed to create. So there's two issues with that. Does it actually go up against Manchester Pond Road? First, we need to figure that out because I think B is probably landlocked. But even if it does have frontage so that the survey trumps the assessor's record, I get that because you got the stamp on it. So, I'll give you that. Assuming that that's the case, my next question is whether or not the stub end of that road, that 40 ft at the very end can be used toward frontage. And I'd like to get an answer from that as well. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I I'll defer to your council.

Okay. It would be my position that if the lot lines a if this particular lot that will be created lot lot A I believe right is that B lot. Yeah. If lot B the border of lot B does attach to that road I do think it would constitute frontage. Okay. However,

yeah the def I I did a little research while we were waiting for council. Thank you for being late to give me that time. Okay. Um the definition of frontage which I lost now but it's it's basically was if it abuts a road which it would do so if the lot lines allow that the there is a little bit of of disparity as to where the lot is. Okay. But my question isn't the definition of frontage. I know the definition of frontage. The question is whether or not the stub end of the road qualifies frontage. It would. Okay. It's that's my position, right? I'm not going to argue with your counsel. Uh neither am I because she [laughter] good answer. Yeah. So the exact definition.

All right. Exact definition. I would have a sidebar with her later on and I'll with the board. Of course. Of course. It sounds like there's going to be some some things that the board wants to request for future meeting anyway. So this, you know, I can give a final decision on that, but my gut instinct would be it would constitute. But I'll do some more research. So just to give the definition, um, a contiguous portion of a lot abuing a road. So a non-ontiguous frontage shall not be included when considering whether a lot meets the dimension requirement. So it's essentially access to a road. Well, access is not frontage. So that's why I said it doesn't matter to me where the access is. A budding a road, right? It's a budding road,

right? But that's the definition of frontage. I'm saying that I don't think that that stub end of the road. Well, but we we'll have that discussion as Sophie gets a research and if that's the case, then that's the case moving forward. Um, regardless, the lot line will be an issue, right? That's a separate question. That's right. So, while you're here, can you offer some commentary on justifying the variance? One is a 59.73 ft and the other one is 47.63 feet.

I I respectfully disagree. um you know, you have more experience having lit being a resident of North Providence than I do as to whether or not it's unique. Um but it is a in my opinion an oddly shaped lot. It is unique in that it has frontage on two existing roadways and it's further unique in that it's encumbered by these drainage easements and all these other things and it's an existing parcel. Yeah. But how does that affect the length of a frontage? So if the if the question was a matter of setback y

but I can't meet the rear yard setback because of the wetlands. So therefore either I'm going to fill a wetland which you can't do till board I have a hardship I have to move it closer to the street. Totally get it topography soil consistency shape of the lot but the shape of the lot isn't contributing to the fact that you don't have sufficient frontage. So that's what I'm saying is what's the hardship? the fact that on lot A you're asking for a variance of 47.63 feet merely because you didn't have enough land. So what's the hardship? Maybe you just can't develop it.

Well, the hardship is the unique shape and conditions of the site in the lot and it's not subject it's not as a result of the conditions of the neighborhood or other things. and my client didn't create the hardship and the standard now is that not being a hardship is simply something where it affects your ability to utilize the property in the best way possible. So my suggestion to you would be that single family homes are an allowed use in the property.

What we're asking for is a deviation from a dimensional requirement in order to do an allowed use on the property. And we believe that it will not that not doing so would amount to more than a mere inconvenience in that language that I won't that I'm sure you folks have heard enough times and that it is not due to one of the prohibited reasons. It's not for a financial gain. Um I'm happy to put it in writing and go through it in great detail, but we believe that those are we meet those requirements. Um so I accept everything you said. I understand it. But what I what I won't do is I won't beat a dead horse. So I made my point. I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Okay.

Um couple questions on the uh just on the structures. Um just for confirmation, they are single family, correct? Yes, they would be single family homes. And will they will they be home owner ownership or will they be rented? I don't think we've gotten that far in the process as to exactly what my client's intent is to do that to do and to do that. Um, so I can't I wish I could give you a better answer, but that's to be determined.

Fair enough. Um, and then the proposed well just uh um you know, lessons that I've learned in in recommissioning wells and also um putting new new wells in um specifically wells that are adjacent to or you know within proximity of a of a wetland. um I've had to go through um that that that process just for the the applicants um edification that that process may be different for residential um but there was a um a huge undertaking on on my part in um in designing and implementing a new well and recommissioning an existing well within proximity of a wetland that um I had to go through multiple steps in determining and proving to dem um that the well had no negative impacts to any freshwater wetlands. So um that is um uh something that I never thought I would go through in my life but I did and uh came out successful. I lost um a little bit more hair but um I but it is it is a process and uh just for the applicants um you know knowledge just just consult with um your civil engineers into what the the actual process of implementing a well um looks like and what it is. Plan for it uh specifically after you um get a preliminary determination from DEM on whether or not um you do have a wetland on your your property.

As I've encountered as you have um I'm assuming you're the chair, sir. Um Mr. that well and water access is driving development in Rhode Island across the board. Whether you're up whether you're in the cities, you're in the counties, or you're down by the coastline. Water and water access is one of the driving main driving uh drivers limitations on on development. So, I agree with you and it's an it's a process. Okay. Does anybody have any other further comments?

Okay. Um well for one for one residential project um I think you uh you heard a lot of um comments and feedbacks from from the board. Um it may not be um the board's decision to render an opinion tonight. Um it sounds like that we had come up with a call it list of items that we were um concerned or um wanted to know more about. Um I'm just going to read through that that list um as I took the notes. Um so uh Mr. Carlson stated that a um letter from DEM would be forthcoming on their on dem's um preliminary opinion on the property and um the presence of wetlands. Um, I think that it is in um the town and the applicant's best interest to um to obtain a preliminary determination from DEM on whether or not wetlands are um present on the property. Um I [clears throat] am cognizant that the um civil engineer went through the process of redeveloping the footprint of what is considered the drainage easement with the town of Lincoln.

But considering that um a bulk of the footprint of the easement, specifically what's called the drainage pond is on North Providence's property and that there's a covert that discharges or daylights into North Providence that um the um calculations that the civil engineer reviewed with Lincoln be also reviewed by the town of North North Providence's engineer and I guess at the same time that those hydraulic calculations would be submitted for for record as part of this application. Um, I think that we have um a preliminary determination from our council on the applicability or the definition of what frontage is specifically for lot B facing Manchester Farm Road West. Um however the there is a discrepancy between the survey and um the town's GIS map as into where the lot line for um lot 808 actually is whether that lot um dog legs up onto onto Manchester Farm Road which will then render their lot proposed parcel B to be landlocked. I think that that should be um uh determined for the for the board. Um, I think a copy of the easement um should be provided for for record and determining um the exact uh usage and um

qualifying uh parameters of what the what the easement actually is. Um and uh where I have the last is um the I think this may answer be answered once we do see the easement but um I guess the the question was stated and I don't know if anybody decided that what the answer was but how a um how the subdivision that's being proposed is just two properties, thus splitting the the pond in half rather than subdividing it into um three properties. Um maintaining maintaining the easement as one and um two residential properties as as separate. Um we we should talk about that one a little bit more because I had a hard time following that that um do you have a response? Well, I'm happy to speak to your staff and and work with the board to to determine what is better, what in the board's opinion and with your staff to whether to have two lots each with an easement or to have three lots, one of which encumbers the easement area. I don't we tend to to try not to create nonconformities or variances especially lots that would have um no frontage would then the only access to it would be by an easement which again bleeds into people blocking easements, people impacting easements, people doing those things. So um I'm happy to hear the concerns the board has and try to address those. My concern would be that the subdivision regulations and your comprehensive plan

and zoning regulations push us to avoid creating lots that are violative of those and that need additional relief because I would then have to ask the board for frontage relief, access relief. that lot would essentially need every kind of relief that you can dimensionally without a house because it wouldn't have it would have to have zero frontage and then its only access would be over an indust parcel. Um, so it gives me some concern, but I'm happy to work with your staff and see what their thoughts are as to whether it makes sense to have the drainage easement on those two parcels or a third parcel. I also we tend to have a theory that uh ownership breeds good stewardship and that being that people who had own a portion of that easement area would want it to be maintained and want it to continue to function versus filling it in. Um whereas if it's a third party's lot and it's not on their property, it's a little bit easier to go fill in somebody else's lot than to make uh changes that would then impact your lot and go forward.

Maybe that's a concept. Maybe, maybe not. Um and I think Mr. calls and spoke to the an HOA homeowners association who I guess this will be found in the um in the easement document but um so is is it my my understanding correct that Heritage um Estates has an established HOA that maintains the drainage pond. That's my understanding as well. Yes.

I'll just jump into that specific answer. So the heritage view estates there is not an HOA as far as the overall subdivision. Okay. As part of the application before the town of Lincoln, the town of Lincoln actually is has the responsibility under what I understand is the easement to maintain this drainage pond. Even though it's in North Province, it's a little funky, I think, and that's where you have to just double check. But the fact is is that under the agreement with town of Lincoln, the HOA would be established for these two lots only in order to to uh maintain this drainage easement.

Okay. So, you said the two lots, you mean lot the two proposed lots. That is correct. se separate from for Stephanie which is actually in Lincoln. So what you're saying is that should this project should this subdivision be approved then the town of Lincoln is going to develop a maintenance program suitable for this drainage pond that's in Rhode Island. I mean I'm sorry that's in North Providence

under the HOA. And I I'll I'll I'll step back then. is actually three lots. So it is Mr. Anjen's personal property that's for Stephanie as well as these two proposed lots are part of the HOA and they would be the ones maintaining this particular uh drainage easement they meaning they they meaning Lincoln's DPW or or the HOA HOA the HOA reprivate

so why would the new owner of for example if the board were to approve this. A and B agreed to maintain a storm water basin, which God only knows what your operation and maintenance plan is. So, they're going to go out every six months, clean out the culverts, pay for all this. What are they going to charge? $5,000 a month. So, come on. That doesn't make any sense. So, the two new homeowners are going to pay to maintain the stormwater basin that's designed and built to service a multi-lot subdivision to the north. That's that's that doesn't [snorts] make any sense. That's what it boils down to.

That's the the agreement. And again, we can certainly speak to that uh at the next hearing. But the specific agreements that the homeowner has with the town of Lincoln as part of this easement and the agreement to changing there are specific language that council or that we could provide information for at the next meeting. Okay. So, Mr. Sure. Who's who's responsible for maintaining the um the drainage pond now? Donald Lincoln. Well,

so a couple years ago when everybody was flooding out, um Amanda Court was like Niagara Falls because of the drainage basin. Mr. Chair, that's an excellent reason on top of everything else. So we get backtoback hundredyear storms. They're going to call the town of North Province or the town of Lincoln, but we're going to say, "No, call the homeowner of 16 farmer whatever road and 20. They're going to take care." Really? So, good try. I'm not I don't buy that at all. So, at least from my standpoint, but that's an I wasn't even going down that path, but absolutely. Yeah. It's it's

I mean, it's it's a it's an anomaly. Um Yeah. her heritage view estates access you asked for. We'll answer that question. Yeah, thank I have a feeling it's not quite the let me look at the language and present it to the board and explain it and work with your council because I have a feeling it works a little bit differently, but I don't want to state it without having the language in front of me and having a detailed explanation for the board. Fair enough. Mr. J, could I just add two more items to your list? Yes, you were going to ask to put a revised date on the plan. Oh, and the PE stand on the plan. Okay. First submission.

Okay. I do have one question. When you're done with your list, Mr. Chair? Yeah, we're done with the list. Okay. Um, just as long as you got those last two from G. I do. I have those things here and I was writing them down as you said it. Um, so they're important to me with regard to verification of the frontage uh for lot B.

Yep. beyond the stamp from my surveyor, what what is the board looking for specifically as an affidavit from the surveyor? Um because it it I'm happy to do it and and address the board's concern, but I don't know what type of information to provide the board because usually a survey or stamp,

you know, carries the day. I mean, one way, this is kind of one way would be to actually survey lot 808, right? And um to to prove to the board without a um shadow of a doubt that um lot 808 is what it how it depicts on on your your survey. Um and that lot 808 does not dog leg um south. um and basically render your parcel be uh landlocked other I don't know how else you would I don't know how else you would go about it and that's sort of why I asked the question Mr. here is because it what I'm going to I'm going to call the surveyor. I'm going to say, "Can you prove to me?" And they're going to say, "Well, what do you mean? My my plan speaks for itself in essence, right?" Um, so I'm happy to provide something. I'll speak to him about his ability to go out and maybe survey the end points of the road rather than going on an additional private party's parcel. Um,

I don't think that's necessary. I'm not questioning the edge of the pavement. So if your if I may, Mr. Chair, go ahead. If your surveyor says, "Hey, look, my PLS stamp is on it. I'm all set." I I respect that. Then I guess then the burden would be on us to look at the town assesses maps and see where the Salisbury lot ends, whether it's just along the straight part, if you may. Yep. The straightaway part of the road, or if it dog tales to the stub end of it. So if your survey, I get it. You don't have to do that. If he would or she would, great. If not, then we can't compel you to do that. We would just look at our own records.

And I'm not trying to be obstinate. I'm trying to just make sure I I know what I'm the standard that I'm trying to show to the board. So at some point, if you can meet, you know, just let Brent know either way if Survey is going to do that or not. If the answer is no, I totally get that and we'll just work with our assessor and take a look at the map. My plan is to reach out to to Brendan in the next day or two and come up with a plan and a timeline so we're all we're not duplicating work and speak to your solicitor as well so that we're all in agreement and we can present you with um all the information you've requested at the next meeting. Thank you and Brent's been great to work with so far. He u it's been a pleasure. So

hopefully you've had an enjoyable experience with us as well. Um, okay. So, do we does the board have any more questions for the applicant because we do have to open up for um public comment. Did Did you also want a copy of the subdivision regulations that were drafted back in the 70s when the uh subdivision was approved in need? What would we do with 50-y old rags? I It is what it is. Okay. the actual like plat plan from when it was originally designed.

Well, anything written about the uh the drainage basin and and that lot that how it was determined that the whole lot needed to be the easement. I I don't know. I think Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do you have any more comments for the board at this time? I I would just reserve the right to speak after the public comment should there be public comments.

Yes, absolutely. Okay. Uh time is 7:31. We'll open it up for public comment. Is anybody in the gallery um here to speak uh about this project? Please come forth. State your name and your address for the record.

So, Alex Billurus, uh, 10 Valley View Drive, North Smithfield. Um, [clears throat] I actually represent Mr. Mgen. Uh, consider myself a real estate expert, but, uh, beyond that, I also, uh, just so you guys know, I sat on, uh, my planning board for six years and, um, in the town of North Smithfield. So, I wanted to give you some background on this because I've been involved since the beginning. And so, did you say you represent the applicant? Yes, I do. Yeah.

Why why can may I ask why you're speaking during the time for the public rather than being a part of his team? Well, I I probably should have come up uh at that time, but I, you know, figured this would be more appropriate cuz it's just to give you kind of a you know, general background about the whole process that we've been through and some of the questions that came up. I thought it was more I'm not I'm not uh an engineer, nor am I an attorney. So, um, but if you think it's more appropriate that, you know, I be put under the record as representing Mr. Mjen, I have no problem.

I think you should speak to the council about how you should proceed. Is this So he recommends that we speak to you on when we come back. Okay. As part of my presentation, I think it'll be more appropriate to incorporate Mr. Cor's statements into our presentation and address your points. Okay. The next meeting.

Thank you. Thank you. Right. Uh, is anybody else in the public? Um, yes. Thank you. So, please state your name and address for the record. Hi, Cheryl Grandandy, 115 Manchester Farm Road, North Province, Rhode Island. I understand the applicant's desire to uh redo zoning, but I do think that it would definitely conflict with our standards that we have. The zoning variance that they're asking for is more than half of what the zoning is in my existing neighborhood. Um

so for the record, are you speaking in opposition? Yes. Okay. I didn't I didn't get that. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So, you're in opposition opposition. Um I actually appreciate the board's um question around the DEM and the drainage. I've had multiple issues since I am the land owner right at the end of the culdeac which had the you don't mind me asking that I'm on the north provenent side on the so it would be I believe against law a I'm on the north yeah okay my assumption is you're on the culde-sac of north of Manchester Farm yes thank you oh okay

um have had many drainage issues storm issues working with department of public works they've had to come the actual street itself is on a pitch It pitches towards my driveway. They've had to come and do a makeshift gully. I have pictures that I could submit to the board. Um, but definitely concerned that this development, whatever it would be, would impact the sto the easement that's there for drainage in addition to the fact that the neighborhood has a is a reason why we have a frontage of 100 ft and this variance would be almost half of that. So, I'm concerned with that as well. Do you have any other concerns or um comments you would like to add to the board, Miss Grande?

I think mostly the storm the storm management and the DEM pieces. So, like I said, I do have a lot of records with DPW. Um I have pictures with flooding on the street and you I have pictures of the the matrift area in front of my house where the the whole street gets flooded. So really concerned that this development is going to impact that. You have pictures of that. I have pictures of the um I do have pictures of the flooding and I have pictures of the makeshift um drainage that they put in front of my house. Mr. Chair, is it okay to ask her to forward those to Bunch?

She Yes. If you do wish to have them um presented to the board for record, can you email them to the the planner? It it seems like you have them on your digital on your I do I have to Can you take down the email real quick? Sure. So it's planning northprovidence.gov. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Uh, does the applicant wish to address the the board um in response to any of the public comments?

Uh, after hearing the butter speak this evening, I had um I think the board just saw me. I very briefly spoke to her and I'm going to get her contact information and reach out to her and see if there's any concerns or anything we can do to address her concerns before the next meeting. Okay. And I think having the um uh the photos submitted not only to the board but also to the applicant. Um I'll reach out to your planner and make sure I get a copy would be the thing to do. Okay. Um All right, we'll enter into discussion. Mr.

Chair, if uh whether we go as a board or individual board members, um I'm not sure what the protocol is. Um are we allowed if we to go out the site either from the west side or the east side? Um are we allowed to walk on the property or we could just view it for or to we can only view it from the street? The possible

we could do a site visit with the owner who's the applicant. You could do a site visit if the entire board would want to go. It have to be posted as a public meeting. Of course, if there's not a lot of interest and there's only um or they wanted to go in groups, it would not be be posted. I would suggest that if that's an interest of the board that if if the applicant would work with our planner to try to schedule something. Yeah, absolutely. I I would just um like an opportunity to go out there with you, if we can work that out. If not, um yeah, going to the site is always a good idea. I I have a lot of crazy hours. So, um there are times I'll make an appointment, but you know, I'll take um change it. So, um

was on my own. So, if that's okay. Um if you have an issue about indemnity on the property, totally understand view from both streets. Yes, we we'll make it work, sir. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. You're very accommodating. I appreciate it. Well, that I think that's a fair request. When it comes to property, every property is unique. Every parcel is unique, and it's I I I commend you for taking the time, you're a volunteer, to go out there and look at it. So, I I appreciate where you're coming from.

One moment. Warren has a Warren has a question for our planner. I'm going to to this is to Brent that these two portions of Manchester Farm Road were there was it ever a paper street connecting them? There's no paper street. I'm not sure if there ever was, but currently no paper street exists connecting them. I assume they must have had plans to connect them at one point and the topographic conditions of that drainage area prevented them from doing it and they abandoned it. Okay,

very good question, Warren. Why would we have two Manchester Farm roads in North Proidence? [laughter]

It was confusing to me. It was odd to start talking about it for me, too, for that same reason, but I couldn't find no record of there ever being any connection between the two. Um, it's just two Manchester Farm Roads. Two. Okay. Um, okay. So, we we do we went through a lot tonight. Um I think there's a lot of information um that's pertinent to the board's um review of the of the project. Um I'll speak beh um on behalf of the board right now. If your applicant would be um willing to if the board chooses to not make a decision tonight, would your applicant be um amendable to continuing? Yeah, we're amendable to continuing it to the next meeting and I don't think we're coming up at any decision deadline or timeline. So, I don't think we have to address that this evening, but I I defer to your staff if that's the case.

Brent, can you just confirm when the uh certification of completeness was given if you know it was like two months ago. However, there was an error in or a butter notification. Um the the applicant didn't make the deadline. So there was delay, but it was on the applicant's. Okay. So if we're approaching the 90 days, if the certification was done about two months ago, if the applicant would just consent to extending that time just in case it needs to be done, but it's possible that it won't even go past the 90 days. But yeah, I agree. Um, do you know what the date of your next meeting is? Because I believe we have to continue it to I believe it's December 10th.

Okay. Let me just make sure my the 10th 6 p.m.

Okay. So, um can open it up for discussion. Uh I think we have uh three um uh possible votes tonight. Um, one would be to um, uh, possibly approve, one would be to, uh, deny, one would be to continue. Uh, I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion that the board continue the public hearing. Uh, Gary has made the motion to continue the public hearing. Do I hear a second? Yeah. To December 10th, 2025. Okay. Second.

Uh, Mark seconds. Uh, we'll take a roll um, vote starting at Lou. uh vote voting for to continue to December continue the public hearing to December 10th and to confirm the applicant is okay with consenting. We're consenting to a continuence to the December 10th meeting and a decision being uh delayed till the December 10th meeting. Okay, Luke, you can start the vote again. Sorry. I I I I chair votes I. Um the eyes have it. We will continue until December uh 10th and your consent um to forgo any um

decision decision. So deadlines um based off the certificate of completeness. Uh thank you very much. Thank you all. Have a great evening. Sorry for my being late again.

Don't worry. Keep your time. Um so before we adjourn, I'd like to um bring two two things up with um with our with our planner. Um like to get board's feedback on it. Um number one, like to um request that uh each board member uh receive a road um a town of North Providence uh email address. um for all and any correspondences related to um your planning board responsibilities. Um this is just out of uh I think um an abundance of of caution um keeping our um planning board lives separate from our

very good suggestion personal lives. Yep. Um, and it looks like everybody's not in their head that that's okay. You don't have you don't have to manage another email. I'm assuming this is possible. This is easy enough. Okay. Well, it all right. So, we'll put that request in. Yeah. I'll talk to Ralph tomorrow.

Okay. And then um oh the second the second thing was asking for so in each applicant well what I think would be helpful Brent is um every packet that we receive to review which usually we get a week before the the the hearing um that the um the list of completeness is is provided with the with the packet. can do that

just just for for reference. And um again my my question to Brent earlier guys was can we prohibit um applicants from s submitting mater new material once the packets are distributed to us. So, we're not So, we don't come prepared to the to the board meeting um based on a review of a packet that is all of a sudden outdated by the time we sit down in the in our chair. It it sounds like we can't. So, that's a question I I want to check with Angelica.

I don't think we can. If somebody wants to submit something, we need to accept it. I think then how we take it in is this. So, let's say Brett sends everything out. We've had it for a week and this afternoon they submit a whole revised plan. I would say we move forward on the either one of two things. Have a discuss with all due respect if I may have a discussion that night on the material that Brent sent us or we don't take it up. We continue the hearing to the next meeting and right off the bat, right out of the gate. Right out of the gate. That'd be good protocol because here's what happen if Go ahead. There could be a policy set forth by the board that can be communicated to the applicant. Yeah.

Said something along the lines of listen, the board takes this very seriously. Um, you know, they want to make sure they're reviewing all of the materials properly and thoroughly. If things are submitted, you know, last minute, 72 hours in advance of the public hearing of of the meeting, it is the board's policy to remove that item from the agenda and continue it to the next meeting. Well, I would even 72 is kind of quick. So me Yeah. Me personally, what what I do

Yeah. When when I get in on Wednesday, depending on how much information it is, you usually I'm done with my review on Monday, right? And that's so getting getting new material after that would be it just it it will blow my mind. Right. And what I want to a what I would hope that this policy avoids not only it it it better prepares us. It's a policy that allows us to say all right you just submitted a whole bunch of material. We're going to we're going to vote to continue it. You knew about it. Um, I think [clears throat] this policy, if if we choose to set it, um, needs to be communicated to the to the public somehow. Um, and I'm just and I'm just bringing this up as an example. It was, um, oh, what what was it? What um, it was Beard Avenue?

Said, "Oh, it's actually a one bedroom now." Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They changed that the day of. Yeah. That and and also um Yeah. Yes. It was it was it was Beard Avenue that where we said I'm sorry like there was the place was full and you know a lot of people got angry because we we decided to continue even though it was in I think the board and the town's best interest to continue at the time. We had a lot of angry people. They didn't understand why we just couldn't couldn't do it right. Couldn't couldn't go through the motions that night. So, so perhaps Angelica could write out some kind of like disclaimer and we can upload it on the town website as just

I was going to say how about if we write up the policy run by the so we can all take a look at it and once we give thumbs up you can just upload it on the on the city's website. Yeah, just like a quick one paragraph that we could put on the top or right above the application and we could put on viewpoint too the way they apply now. That's that's fine. I can I can write that up. I can write that up and submit that. Um, I think maybe we should put it on the agenda for a vote. Yeah. Yeah. For the board to approve the language. Yeah. That's remembered in the minutes. Put it on the agenda, the next agenda. Yeah. On the 10th for a vote, and that way the board can all be on the same page. We can tweak it, whatever. Yeah.

Um, what time do you guys think timeline you would want? A week in advance, five days. The sooner the better. I think a week works because that's when I send out the application. Are the uh daddy packets? Okay. [laughter] Brett, Brett, does that give you enough time to compile it so you could send it out? We Yeah, a week. I mean, I I send the the applica or the the packets out a week in advance. So, but when do you get the client? If the develop I get it a month before. Well, I can revise the packets. I usually do them that Wednesday and send them out that Wednesday afternoon, one week before. Well, if it doesn't come,

how about Thursday as a limit so we could compile it for Friday so we could look at it over the weekend. Well, no, I think actually we should just work backward. Yeah, it should go with the packet. You just want to work backwards that you send that packet. That's it. That's it. So, um if there's a if the board can handle on a case by case basis, if the proposed change comes in on a Friday or something, right, they'll still submit it. Brett will still take it. will still send it to you. Yes. And if the Right. If the change is something that you guys can process very easily and quickly, maybe it's something the board will take up.

If it's a large major change to the project, that would need a lot more review, then that it can be kind of unspoken for spoken policy that the board would reserve the right to to continue that without really any further discussion. That way you don't have to put on the show. Yeah. And and make the public come here when they don't want to come here. Um and feel like their time is wasted, right? So, absolutely. Will will the public know that it's not going to be heard that night? Well, no. We we would we would render a decision that night.

So, we're where So, the the the policy isn't that Brent is going to not accept anything new. It's that the applicant is at risk that if they submit anything after the packet gets put out that they are at risk that the board may dis decide either to review the new material the night of the the hearing or or the board can determine that we continue it. So the applicant is at risk. I don't know if we could refuse it. We can't refuse it. I'm not saying we refuse. I like you said Brent will refuse it. No, I say Brent will not refuse it. Oh, he has to accept the but the applicant is submitting it at risk after the the date that we may not hear it.

Yes. Yeah. I'm sorry. I thought you said K. I I didn't hear the The only thing is if if a a member of the public wants to be heard that night because they attended the meeting, uh even though they know it may be continued, at least they would be able to get their voice on record uh and not have to come back again. They would have to wait until public conference. Yeah. If they want to speak on the agenda item. I don't know about that. What if they can't come the next day? So, I would think we should let them speak. It's up to the chair. Uh, I haven't thought about it that much, you know. So, sometimes they can write letters. Sometimes they're thinking it's going to get read. So, we could think about it, but I would say we because again, yeah, we don't want to deny the public, right?

So, maybe we we take that testimony and it's based on the it is what it is. At least, you know, if we tell them he came out and we go, oh, you come. What if they can't come to the next meeting? you know, they got they needed a babysitter or you know what I mean?

No, I understand. Okay, so let's just play out the scenario for a little bit, right? Say we um well, we're still on. Do we Yeah. So, the scenario would be okay, we get a project Wednesday, everybody's good. Oh, we get something new on Monday and our hearing is on Wednesday. we all come and you know everybody can see it on everybody's faces like this is just too big of a change to swallow tonight. The process of the um the process of the public hearing still is followed through,

right? You could open the public hearing. Yeah. If you open the public hearing, you would hear testimony. Well, see, that's what we don't want to do, right? I think I think the proper thing to do would be to continue the public hearing with consent of the applicant. That they don't present. They don't present. They don't present. We just we just we just acknowledge the fact that the applicant has submitted additional information for record at their own risk that they did so after the you know, set deadline. I'll have to do a very good job in in in stating the policy so everybody in the public can hear it again and and

will be noticed by our website by Brent by all of those things that we're going to put in place. Yeah. About this policy. So Brent or myself can presumably you talk to the applicants before they come to the to the meetings. We'll say, "Hey, listen. You submitted this a little late. It's the board's policy typically to, you know, continue these things to allow for them to review. This is something I feel that the board will need additional time for. Are you okay with continuing the public hearing to the next meeting? They will have to do they would have to renotice public because the public hearing wasn't open, but that's on them. They submitted and I

that would be the way that would have to play out. I I I would think that if we scheduled a public hearing, for example, for December 11th that we advertise for that, let them come and and that's the example where they gave us a substantial amount of revised materials on the Monday before the meeting. Correct. Yeah. I would say because Brent's already advertised and we've sent out public notification, what we would do that night, respectfully, is open the hearing because we've already advertised, right? tell them please give us a continuation and then David for the residents at least for that point of view to say look we're going to continue it if you can come to the next meeting great but if you can't make it for whatever reason we'll take your testimony tonight right but they would be

public testimony applicant presenting presenting we're going to testify the purpose of of you guys trying to expedite it sounds like you're trying to make do effic efficiently make decisions that's the purpose of this right is so if you if I hear testimony before you're prepared to do so. You could recommend they send in a letter to be read in the record for the next meeting if they can't make it. Yeah, let me do some research on this and see how the way this can play out and how the public comment can be affected. But if you open the hearing, you need to allow for the applicant to testify at the hearing.

Right. Well, can't they just say tonight uh we're here to present um information, but we respectfully ask the board to continue the hearing. You just open the hearing, right? But the public would comment on what there was no there's no facts and evidence. Oh, okay. So again, but I think to to ask them because maybe some people came to the office and reviewed it. I mean, people don't always react to what's I totally understand what you're saying. So I think I think we have to kind of like I just want to make it so we're not inconveniencing of course the the public, right? They're the hurried gun. They're going to come and

they need to continue. the attorneys are going to charge where they charge the engineers out. Right? I'm just saying so that we don't have the residents think, "Oh, sure. No, I got to come out again and that inconvenience." That's the only reason. So, well, they're going I mean, they're going to in one way or another, they're going to have to, right? I mean, what we're what we're trying to do is is you I look at it this way now. Um because you guys are actually bringing up a whole lot of good points that I didn't realize, right? um they're you know they're benefiting from it as well because they're not sure they they came out to town hall for five minutes but at least they didn't come out to town hall for two hours just to go home with the same result. Yep. Okay.

So So I think the concept is great is a great idea. Let's debug it. Let's work. Yeah. Okay. Great. But those are two good points. Okay. Awesome. Um, that was it. Thank you. Motion to Do you have anything else to Do you have anything to report? Um, we're going to start a new round of zoning revisions. So, um, there's going to be some workshops coming up if anyone's interested in attending. Yeah. Yeah. Sign me up. Um, they're going to be transit oriented housing and just an increase in housing. So, we're going to address ways to do that without with with little negative effect on the town. So that's the goal. When when are these workshops tenatively scheduled for before for Christmas?

We don't know yet. We just got awarded the MTAP funds. We're working with Western and Samson. Um again, same with the comprehensive plan and the previous zoning rewrites. So um those will be announced soon. Uh probably in the next two to three weeks, but this is a several month process. It's a what? A sever several month process. Okay. So, I was just wondering if you try and jam workshops in between Thanksgiving and Christmas. They probably won't be before Christmas. Unless you do a buffet for us. Yeah, if we do, we'll do a buffet. [laughter] You know, two other questions that just popped up on me. Um, for the next meeting. Yeah, if you don't mind. We're trying to

Hey, Gary, do you want to make a motion to adjurnn? I would love to make a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? I I none oppose. Motion is ajour is 7:59. Everybody happy Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Gary. Enjoy your holiday. Yes, this is your new property going over here. Good. But I don't think that's already a lot.

That's a separate lot. Look at the That's the border. Okay. So, the town border is the problem. No. And then they That's the way I I appeal now. That's a good question. And I'm glad you brought that question. And we were trying to figure out when whe about that same thing girl. I had no idea what she said. She she was in agreement with all of us and she said that that there's a considerable amount of ponding happens. Give us the decision.

She provides photos of any evidence that a lot of ponding happens here which may come down that driveway. I don't know, but she she needs to um provide lip. I'm just wondering where you can see where I'm not comfortable. This is the wet spot. Yes, that is the spot. Okay. And I'd like to see how that drains out. Oops. It goes this way. Have a good evening. Probably goes into the street over here. Yeah, it definitely does. Um, so, uh, yeah, I live on