north kingstown planning commission - AWS
Town of North Kingstown, Rhode Island 80 Boston Neck Road North Kingstown, RI 02852-5762 Phone: (401) 294-3331 Fax: (401) 885-7373 Web: www.northkingstown.org
NORTH KINGSTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 2017
The North Kingstown Planning Commission convened at Municipal Offices Court Room, 100 Fairway Dr., North Kingstown, RI The following members were present: Gardner Palmer, Jr. Patricia Nickles Patrick Roach Michael Annarummo James Grundy Paul Dion Also in attendance were Planning Director Nicole LaFontaine, Principal Planner Shaun Lacey and Town Solicitor Matt Callaghan. Pre-application of Camp Ave. Properties, LLC for a twenty unit comprehensive permit located at Assessor's Plat 138 Lots 88, 95, 96, 97, and 99 (Camp Avenue) located in a Village Residential (VR) zone. Mr. Lacey told the Commission that the application before them tonight is a PreApplication for a Comprehensive Permit Development. The plan is for 20 units in a Village Residential zone; which allows single and two-family homes. The yield plan shows six lots (as zoned, 20,000 square foot for single family dwellings and 40,000 square foot for two-family dwellings), proposing two 20,000 sq. ft. lots and four 40,000 sq. ft. lots for a total of 10 units. The applicant is using the Comprehensive Permit Development which allows more density on the condition that instead of the required 10% affordable units 25% of the units will be affordable along with setting aside 35% of developable land to conservation. Under the Comprehensive Permit Development 1
Ordinance along with qualifying multipliers (limiting the number of bedrooms or using 55 and over age restriction), this proposal will allow 17 units. Mr. Lacey said that the project exceeds the baseline density of 12 units, proposing 20. He also mentioned that part of the Comprehensive Plan re-write proposes to align the land use map with the underlying zoning. At this time, staff recommends that the project meet the density supported by the VR zoning and with the option of using density bonuses and a minimum of 35 percent of the land being set aside as open space. The Commission can waive the maximum number of units. Mr. Lacey said that the weight of additional affordable units may be recommended by staff in qualifying for the 20 units. Attorney Peter Ruggiero took the floor; he is representing the applicant Mr. Steve Moran. He introduced Mr. Moran and the project engineer Mr. Jeff Hanson. Mr. Ruggiero told the Commission that the applicant is using a special state law that allows for this type of proposal; under the Town Ordinance, the Town would never meet its state mandated number of required affordable units. He said that under this state law the local board of review (in this case the Planning Commission) can use their judgement on relieving an applicant from the town required zoning. He said more technical information will be provided on this at Master Plan review; tonight at Pre-Application the Commission’s role is to weigh in on whether they might consider the proposal. Mr. Ruggiero continued, noting that he and the Town Solicitor have to meet to discuss the Water Service area concerns. This property lies outside of the Water Service area; but the terminus is close by, there are fire hydrants nearby and the existing homes have water service from a water main running down Camp Ave. Discussion needs to take place before the applicant can fully develop a water service plan. Mr. Jeff Hanson came forward. He explained the submitted yield plan. Five hundred and twenty feet of town roadway will be built. There will be three frontage lots; two having 20,000 sq. ft. with single family dwellings and the remaining lots would consist of 40,000 sq. ft. with duplexes. He said there is enough area down at the back of the property to allow storm water mitigation, etc. This is the basis of the submitted yield plan. Mr. Hanson said that using the Conservation Development, the plan shows a private driveway accessing the condominium portion of the project (9 buildings, 2 units each), two 20,000 sq. ft. lots (2 single family dwellings) which will be achieved by modifying the existing three frontage lot lines. He said that he is still working on the technicalities of storm water mitigation and drainage; that will be presented at the Master Plan review. Mr. Palmer asked if the proposal contains the required 35% of developable land needed for open space. Mr. Hanson answered that he is still working on this. He also said that the applicant is still deciding on whether the limited bedroom count and/or age restricted qualifiers will be used. Ms. Nickles said that the Commission needs to know this.
2
Mr. Steve Moran came forward; he told the Commission he is fairly certain he will be limiting the condominiums to two bedrooms (he thinks the 2 bedrooms will limit the number of families with children). Mr. Dion asked if the development will be utilizing sewers and what the bedroom count is for the two single family dwellings. Mr. Moran answered that they will be tying into sewers and both homes consist of two bedrooms each. Mr. Palmer asked if any zoning relief will be needed with regard to the modified lot line proposal. Mr. Hanson said that he has not done a thorough survey but they hope to conform. Mr. Roach asked how the applicant came up with 20 units. Mr. Ruggiero said marketing determined the number of needed units. Mr. Callaghan noted that under the Comprehensive law the Planning Board and the Zoning Board become one – the Planning Commission is that one; giving the Commission the right to waive regulations if they feel this is in the best interest of the community; that more units be granted because the needed affordable units. Mr. Ruggiero said that they will show feasibility of the unit number as part of a future presentation. He said that he will have an expert testify that this increase of allowed units is supported by the Town’s need for affordable housing. He also said that economically this also works by providing 5 affordable units. The last feasible reason that will be shown is that twenty units are planned because of site restraints. Mr. Ruggiero mentioned that the Commission will also have different criteria when making a decision because of the state law the applicant is submitting this proposal under. Mr. Palmer asked Commission members had questions or comments on the proposal, on order to give the applicant a sense of the Commission’s take on the plan. Mr. Roach said that the Commission has to consider the importance of 3 additional affordable units and weigh it against the fact that there will be 3 more units that ordinance allows. Mr. Palmer said the positive take is the fact that the 3 additional units will be affordable. Mr. Grundy and Mr. Palmer want clarification on the Planning Commission’s ability to extend the Water Service Area. Mr. Grundy noted that he sits on the SHAB; he remembers a case where it may have been proved that a Town Board does have the ability to assure water usage. 3
Mr. Dion wanted assurance that 99 year deed restrictions will be placed on all affordable units. He also stated that he will not vote positively for age restricted development. Ms. Nickles asked the applicant to address the Town Engineer’s comments about the significant portion of the site being within the flood zone. Mr. Hanson said that would be part of developing a plan that conforms to Stormwater Regulations. He said that they will have to assess what the 100 year flood analysis would be on the road and the buildings. Ms. Nickles asked if this would be presented at Master Plan Review. Mr. Hanson said that these calculations do not have to be reviewed until Preliminary Plan. He added that he does not foresee the need to elevate the road. Mr. Palmer asked about the staff comment on the need for an archeological survey. Mr. Moran said that this has already been addressed. Mr. Palmer said that by hearing the Commission’s comments it appears this is something the applicant can move forward on; there may be a water service issue and an age restricted issue to resolve. Mr. Grundy asked one more question; how does billing work with sewers at properties with wells (with no meter readings on use). Ms. LaFontaine said that is a good question. She said that when the Commission considers this, she will be sure to have the Town Sewer Supervisor at the meeting. Ms. Nickles said that in other towns, metering is put on the wells to determine the water use. Mr. Dion requested that the Water Department weigh in on the extension request. Ms. LaFontaine agreed. Discussion and Recommendation to the Town Council: Amendments to North Kingstown Zoning Ordinance (map and ordinance) for Assessor's Plat 110 Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 and Assessor's Plat 126 Lot 5 by adding conditions to the CVD zoning relating to overall percentage of nonresidential to residential building coverage and total square footage of commercial building space. CVD Ms. LaFontaine told the Commission that the Town Council had reviewed a proposed ordinance at their last meeting (a first read) which sets specific a percentage of nonresidential to residential building coverage and includes a total square footage of 4
commercial building space. The proposal is specific to the lots – Plat 110 Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11; and, Plat 126 Lot 5. According to the Ordinance the Planning Commission must review the proposed ordinance language and pass on a recommendation to the Town Council. Ms. LaFontaine tells them the existing and proposed CVD ordinances are included in the Commission’s packets, along with ordinance procedures for ordinance and zoning map amendments. She notes that there are two parts to the proposal – the first relates to the Zoning Map (21-362); the second to Assessors Plats (21-363). She said that the proposal calls for two new conditions on these CVD parcels. The first is that the overall percentage of nonresidential to residential building coverage on these lots for the proposed development shall be no more than 5% of nonresidential building coverage and no less than 95% of residential coverage. The second is that the total square footage of commercial building space shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. She said this relates to Ordinance Section 21-95(7)(f) of Compact Village Development (CVD). Mr. Palmer said there is an outstanding flaw in the amendment draft, the two sections of the proposed ordinance are different. The Zoning Map language specifies all the lots included within the Rolling Greens development; whereas the Assessor’s Plat splits the lots to Plat 110 and Plat 126 (in other words 126/5 is broken out from the Plat 110 lots). The percentages on the Assessors map could mean Plat 110 could have 5% commercial but less than 10,000 square feet and Plat 126 could have 5% commercial but less than 10,000 square feet. This is problematic; he feels this requires a negative recommendation but he is willing to hear what Commission member think; he also asks if the Commission wants to discuss the ordinance’s merits. Mr. Roach asked if the Commission has the capacity to send a positive recommendation conditioned on changes to make the two sections consistent. The Commission could also set a percentage. In a sense make two recommendations. Mr. Dion said that if the proposed ordinance is fatally flawed, then it should just be sent back to the Town Council. Mr. Callaghan said that the advertisement for the amendment has not gone out yet, so the Town Clerk can make changes to the wording, however, if the wording is changed significantly it could mean it will go back to the Town Council as a first read. Mr. Dion said that he would really rather review this only once. He asked if the Commission should just send it back for changes rather than have a merit discussion and make a recommendation. Ms. LaFontaine said the Commission could send a recommendation along with amendments which would require the Council to have another first read and then the second read – as long as the Commission has sent a recommendation, the draft would not have to come back to them.
5
Mr. Palmer summed up the Commission’s choices. They could send the Council a recommendation pointing out the balance flaw between the zoning map and the assessor’ plats. They could discuss the merit of the proposed amendments and perhaps offer the Town Council guidance on whether the intent should be changed. He asked for member’s comments. Ms. Nickles said she neither wants to comment or vote on this. She is very uncomfortable about changing a zone on properties that are under review (the Rolling Greens project). Mr. Roach said that the Commission should make a two part vote: on the flaw with a recommendation the he sees as a reasonable intent as a whole; and whether the proposed percentages are acceptable. Mr. Palmer said he is confused on whether the introduction of these amendments is to correct the issue found with the existing ordinance’s ratio/percentage language or whether this is drafted in order to influence the Master Plan that is presently under review by this Commission. This is generally not the mechanics on how these things work – generally these emanate from a recommendation made by the Planning Commission to the Town Council – not the other way around. He asked Mr. Callaghan if this has been proposed by the Council to suggest that the Council wants the Master Plan approved with these percentages. Mr. Callaghan agreed that this is not the way things are usually done but this is an unusual ordinance. He said that the way he sees it is that the intent of the ordinance adopted in 2012 was worded to give the Town Council some say in the implementation of the zoning; this is an attempt to retain that control. Mr. Grundy said he is puzzled. He agreed with what Ms. Nickles said; the Rolling Greens was presented, reviewed and accepted under the ordinance stating commercial space between 24,000 and 40,000 square feet. It appears to almost put some punitive limitation on the application. He also said that within the ordinance, it is stated that any property over 10 acres may have up to 15,000 square feet of commercial – this draft puts a 10,000 square foot limit; this would mean amendments would have to be made to other parts of the ordinance. Saying this, he stated he would have to vote negatively on the recommendation and ask the Solicitor to explain what vested rights the application under review has and how these changes affect the vested rights. Mr. Callaghan said that the attorneys are going to have to address that. He said that state law grants a developer vested rights after Master Plan, before Master Plan….he does not know. He added that the CVD has never been his favorite ordinance; all know that this will end up in court. He would like the application through Planning Department, through Planning Commission and onto where it will ultimately end up…court. This application has been going on longer than any other land development review he has seen; he would like to see it resolved.
6
Mr. Palmer noted that these amendments must be to address the ratio/percentages flaw in the existing ordinance because the present application has not been approved for Master Plan as of yet. He asked what considerations have been taken in the applicant’s present proposal. Mr. Annarummo said the travel of this application and ordinance becomes increasingly uncomfortable. From his perspective there is a simpler answer the Council asked the question, they are the deciding party – we give them a simple answer. Mr. Palmer said as always the Town Council can do what it wants at will. If the Town Council votes to make these changes the question becomes how the Commission reviews the pending application. Mr. Roach said that the Commission should vote negatively because draft ordinance does not make sense as written. Mr. Annarummo said the Town Council is looking for a recommendation from the Commission, after that they can do what they want. If the Commission starts considering why the ordinance exists and needs amending we can come up with so many scenarios. Mr. Dion motioned to make a negative recommendation to the Town Council regarding the proposed ordinance. Mr. Grundy seconded. Mr. Roach suggested that the recommendation go with an explanation why the vote was negative. Mr. Callaghan noted that the proposed ordinance came with a copy of the original amendment written by the Councilor who asked for the change; it appears he has included all the Plats and Lots in both sections of the ordinance (rather than Plat 126 Lot 5 being separate). He asked if the Commission would consider reviewing that. Ms. LaFontaine said that the originally written draft was changed for the reason that the existing ordinance refers to the Plats separately; the point at which the language was changed to adhere to that separation is when the flaw Mr. Palmer brought up was created. Mr. Grundy asked which version was read at the Town Council’s first read. Ms. LaFontaine said that the draft separating Plat 126 out was but the original version was noted. Mr. Callaghan said the Commission could look at the original for recommendation. Mr. Palmer does not see it that way. He adds that he doesn’t know how this resolves itself, which is up to the Town Council. He will still vote a negative recommendation because of what Mr. Grundy brought up regarding the ordinance which states “over 10 acres-allowed 15,000 square feet by right.”
7
Mr. Callaghan said that the Planning Commission must send findings along with a recommendation. Mr. Grundy found that the proposed amendment does not demonstrate a recognition and consideration of each of the applicable general purposes of zoning, as presented in Section 21-4; nor does it meet the general consistency with the Comprehensive Plan including the goals and policy statement, the implementation program, and all other applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal has an inherent inconsistency with other areas of existing zoning. Mr. Palmer said that a motion has been made and seconded to send the Town Council a negative recommendation of Ordinance No. 17-XX which was seconded. He called for a vote. All voted aye. The motion carried. Discussion and Recommendation to Town Council: Amendments to the North Kingstown Zoning Ordinance related to Solar Energy Systems Mr. Lacey reminded the Commission that they had been looking to develop a solar ordinance in order to allow the people of North Kingstown with the ability to take part in the State’s solar energy incentive programs. The Commission had commented at the June 6 meeting that the ordinance appeared a bit too relaxed and they asked for revisions. Mr. Lacey explained that the new draft breaks solar projects into three categories: 1. residential roof mounted projects; 2. nonresidential roof mounted projects; and, 3. ground mounted projects. Commission members told Mr. Lacey that this is the 3rd revision and it appears that only two were included in there packets. They also commented that 2 revisions seemed so similar it was hard to tell what revision was where. Mr. Grundy said he would like to see this item placed on a future agenda in order for clarification on the three revisions (ordinance, land use table and definitions). Mr. Dion motioned to postpone this to a future meeting. Mr. Grundy seconded. All voted aye. The motion carried. Mr. Roach wanted to note that he is concerned with giving National Grid the control of the system(s) size. Mr. Palmer asked that all three full versions be included in the packets for the August 1 meeting. Comprehensive Plan Workshop The Commission continued their review of the Comprehensive Plan re-write draft.
8
Minutes Mr. Palmer asked for a motion to approve the May 16, 2017 Planning Commission minutes. Minor edits were made. Mr. Roach moved. Mr. Grundy seconded. All voted aye. The amended minutes were approved. Mr. Palmer then asked for a motion to approve the May 23, 2017 Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Grundy asked for some changes. Mr. Roach moved to approve the amended May 23 minutes. Mr. Grundy seconded. Mr. Annarummo, Ms. Nickles, Mr. Road, Mr. Grundy and Mr. Palmer voted aye. Mr. Dion abstained. The minutes were approved.
Adjournment Mr. Palmer called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Roach moved. Mr. Grundy seconded. All voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40PM.
Beth Gagnon-Glasberg Recording Secretary
9
NORTH KINGSTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 2017
The North Kingstown Planning Commission convened at Municipal Offices Court Room, 100 Fairway Dr., North Kingstown, RI The following members were present: Gardner Palmer, Jr. Patricia Nickles Patrick Roach Michael Annarummo James Grundy Paul Dion Also in attendance were Planning Director Nicole LaFontaine, Principal Planner Shaun Lacey and Town Solicitor Matt Callaghan. Pre-application of Camp Ave. Properties, LLC for a twenty unit comprehensive permit located at Assessor's Plat 138 Lots 88, 95, 96, 97, and 99 (Camp Avenue) located in a Village Residential (VR) zone. Mr. Lacey told the Commission that the application before them tonight is a PreApplication for a Comprehensive Permit Development. The plan is for 20 units in a Village Residential zone; which allows single and two-family homes. The yield plan shows six lots (as zoned, 20,000 square foot for single family dwellings and 40,000 square foot for two-family dwellings), proposing two 20,000 sq. ft. lots and four 40,000 sq. ft. lots for a total of 10 units. The applicant is using the Comprehensive Permit Development which allows more density on the condition that instead of the required 10% affordable units 25% of the units will be affordable along with setting aside 35% of developable land to conservation. Under the Comprehensive Permit Development 1
Ordinance along with qualifying multipliers (limiting the number of bedrooms or using 55 and over age restriction), this proposal will allow 17 units. Mr. Lacey said that the project exceeds the baseline density of 12 units, proposing 20. He also mentioned that part of the Comprehensive Plan re-write proposes to align the land use map with the underlying zoning. At this time, staff recommends that the project meet the density supported by the VR zoning and with the option of using density bonuses and a minimum of 35 percent of the land being set aside as open space. The Commission can waive the maximum number of units. Mr. Lacey said that the weight of additional affordable units may be recommended by staff in qualifying for the 20 units. Attorney Peter Ruggiero took the floor; he is representing the applicant Mr. Steve Moran. He introduced Mr. Moran and the project engineer Mr. Jeff Hanson. Mr. Ruggiero told the Commission that the applicant is using a special state law that allows for this type of proposal; under the Town Ordinance, the Town would never meet its state mandated number of required affordable units. He said that under this state law the local board of review (in this case the Planning Commission) can use their judgement on relieving an applicant from the town required zoning. He said more technical information will be provided on this at Master Plan review; tonight at Pre-Application the Commission’s role is to weigh in on whether they might consider the proposal. Mr. Ruggiero continued, noting that he and the Town Solicitor have to meet to discuss the Water Service area concerns. This property lies outside of the Water Service area; but the terminus is close by, there are fire hydrants nearby and the existing homes have water service from a water main running down Camp Ave. Discussion needs to take place before the applicant can fully develop a water service plan. Mr. Jeff Hanson came forward. He explained the submitted yield plan. Five hundred and twenty feet of town roadway will be built. There will be three frontage lots; two having 20,000 sq. ft. with single family dwellings and the remaining lots would consist of 40,000 sq. ft. with duplexes. He said there is enough area down at the back of the property to allow storm water mitigation, etc. This is the basis of the submitted yield plan. Mr. Hanson said that using the Conservation Development, the plan shows a private driveway accessing the condominium portion of the project (9 buildings, 2 units each), two 20,000 sq. ft. lots (2 single family dwellings) which will be achieved by modifying the existing three frontage lot lines. He said that he is still working on the technicalities of storm water mitigation and drainage; that will be presented at the Master Plan review. Mr. Palmer asked if the proposal contains the required 35% of developable land needed for open space. Mr. Hanson answered that he is still working on this. He also said that the applicant is still deciding on whether the limited bedroom count and/or age restricted qualifiers will be used. Ms. Nickles said that the Commission needs to know this.
2
Mr. Steve Moran came forward; he told the Commission he is fairly certain he will be limiting the condominiums to two bedrooms (he thinks the 2 bedrooms will limit the number of families with children). Mr. Dion asked if the development will be utilizing sewers and what the bedroom count is for the two single family dwellings. Mr. Moran answered that they will be tying into sewers and both homes consist of two bedrooms each. Mr. Palmer asked if any zoning relief will be needed with regard to the modified lot line proposal. Mr. Hanson said that he has not done a thorough survey but they hope to conform. Mr. Roach asked how the applicant came up with 20 units. Mr. Ruggiero said marketing determined the number of needed units. Mr. Callaghan noted that under the Comprehensive law the Planning Board and the Zoning Board become one – the Planning Commission is that one; giving the Commission the right to waive regulations if they feel this is in the best interest of the community; that more units be granted because the needed affordable units. Mr. Ruggiero said that they will show feasibility of the unit number as part of a future presentation. He said that he will have an expert testify that this increase of allowed units is supported by the Town’s need for affordable housing. He also said that economically this also works by providing 5 affordable units. The last feasible reason that will be shown is that twenty units are planned because of site restraints. Mr. Ruggiero mentioned that the Commission will also have different criteria when making a decision because of the state law the applicant is submitting this proposal under. Mr. Palmer asked Commission members had questions or comments on the proposal, on order to give the applicant a sense of the Commission’s take on the plan. Mr. Roach said that the Commission has to consider the importance of 3 additional affordable units and weigh it against the fact that there will be 3 more units that ordinance allows. Mr. Palmer said the positive take is the fact that the 3 additional units will be affordable. Mr. Grundy and Mr. Palmer want clarification on the Planning Commission’s ability to extend the Water Service Area. Mr. Grundy noted that he sits on the SHAB; he remembers a case where it may have been proved that a Town Board does have the ability to assure water usage. 3
Mr. Dion wanted assurance that 99 year deed restrictions will be placed on all affordable units. He also stated that he will not vote positively for age restricted development. Ms. Nickles asked the applicant to address the Town Engineer’s comments about the significant portion of the site being within the flood zone. Mr. Hanson said that would be part of developing a plan that conforms to Stormwater Regulations. He said that they will have to assess what the 100 year flood analysis would be on the road and the buildings. Ms. Nickles asked if this would be presented at Master Plan Review. Mr. Hanson said that these calculations do not have to be reviewed until Preliminary Plan. He added that he does not foresee the need to elevate the road. Mr. Palmer asked about the staff comment on the need for an archeological survey. Mr. Moran said that this has already been addressed. Mr. Palmer said that by hearing the Commission’s comments it appears this is something the applicant can move forward on; there may be a water service issue and an age restricted issue to resolve. Mr. Grundy asked one more question; how does billing work with sewers at properties with wells (with no meter readings on use). Ms. LaFontaine said that is a good question. She said that when the Commission considers this, she will be sure to have the Town Sewer Supervisor at the meeting. Ms. Nickles said that in other towns, metering is put on the wells to determine the water use. Mr. Dion requested that the Water Department weigh in on the extension request. Ms. LaFontaine agreed. Discussion and Recommendation to the Town Council: Amendments to North Kingstown Zoning Ordinance (map and ordinance) for Assessor's Plat 110 Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 and Assessor's Plat 126 Lot 5 by adding conditions to the CVD zoning relating to overall percentage of nonresidential to residential building coverage and total square footage of commercial building space. CVD Ms. LaFontaine told the Commission that the Town Council had reviewed a proposed ordinance at their last meeting (a first read) which sets specific a percentage of nonresidential to residential building coverage and includes a total square footage of 4
commercial building space. The proposal is specific to the lots – Plat 110 Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11; and, Plat 126 Lot 5. According to the Ordinance the Planning Commission must review the proposed ordinance language and pass on a recommendation to the Town Council. Ms. LaFontaine tells them the existing and proposed CVD ordinances are included in the Commission’s packets, along with ordinance procedures for ordinance and zoning map amendments. She notes that there are two parts to the proposal – the first relates to the Zoning Map (21-362); the second to Assessors Plats (21-363). She said that the proposal calls for two new conditions on these CVD parcels. The first is that the overall percentage of nonresidential to residential building coverage on these lots for the proposed development shall be no more than 5% of nonresidential building coverage and no less than 95% of residential coverage. The second is that the total square footage of commercial building space shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. She said this relates to Ordinance Section 21-95(7)(f) of Compact Village Development (CVD). Mr. Palmer said there is an outstanding flaw in the amendment draft, the two sections of the proposed ordinance are different. The Zoning Map language specifies all the lots included within the Rolling Greens development; whereas the Assessor’s Plat splits the lots to Plat 110 and Plat 126 (in other words 126/5 is broken out from the Plat 110 lots). The percentages on the Assessors map could mean Plat 110 could have 5% commercial but less than 10,000 square feet and Plat 126 could have 5% commercial but less than 10,000 square feet. This is problematic; he feels this requires a negative recommendation but he is willing to hear what Commission member think; he also asks if the Commission wants to discuss the ordinance’s merits. Mr. Roach asked if the Commission has the capacity to send a positive recommendation conditioned on changes to make the two sections consistent. The Commission could also set a percentage. In a sense make two recommendations. Mr. Dion said that if the proposed ordinance is fatally flawed, then it should just be sent back to the Town Council. Mr. Callaghan said that the advertisement for the amendment has not gone out yet, so the Town Clerk can make changes to the wording, however, if the wording is changed significantly it could mean it will go back to the Town Council as a first read. Mr. Dion said that he would really rather review this only once. He asked if the Commission should just send it back for changes rather than have a merit discussion and make a recommendation. Ms. LaFontaine said the Commission could send a recommendation along with amendments which would require the Council to have another first read and then the second read – as long as the Commission has sent a recommendation, the draft would not have to come back to them.
5
Mr. Palmer summed up the Commission’s choices. They could send the Council a recommendation pointing out the balance flaw between the zoning map and the assessor’ plats. They could discuss the merit of the proposed amendments and perhaps offer the Town Council guidance on whether the intent should be changed. He asked for member’s comments. Ms. Nickles said she neither wants to comment or vote on this. She is very uncomfortable about changing a zone on properties that are under review (the Rolling Greens project). Mr. Roach said that the Commission should make a two part vote: on the flaw with a recommendation the he sees as a reasonable intent as a whole; and whether the proposed percentages are acceptable. Mr. Palmer said he is confused on whether the introduction of these amendments is to correct the issue found with the existing ordinance’s ratio/percentage language or whether this is drafted in order to influence the Master Plan that is presently under review by this Commission. This is generally not the mechanics on how these things work – generally these emanate from a recommendation made by the Planning Commission to the Town Council – not the other way around. He asked Mr. Callaghan if this has been proposed by the Council to suggest that the Council wants the Master Plan approved with these percentages. Mr. Callaghan agreed that this is not the way things are usually done but this is an unusual ordinance. He said that the way he sees it is that the intent of the ordinance adopted in 2012 was worded to give the Town Council some say in the implementation of the zoning; this is an attempt to retain that control. Mr. Grundy said he is puzzled. He agreed with what Ms. Nickles said; the Rolling Greens was presented, reviewed and accepted under the ordinance stating commercial space between 24,000 and 40,000 square feet. It appears to almost put some punitive limitation on the application. He also said that within the ordinance, it is stated that any property over 10 acres may have up to 15,000 square feet of commercial – this draft puts a 10,000 square foot limit; this would mean amendments would have to be made to other parts of the ordinance. Saying this, he stated he would have to vote negatively on the recommendation and ask the Solicitor to explain what vested rights the application under review has and how these changes affect the vested rights. Mr. Callaghan said that the attorneys are going to have to address that. He said that state law grants a developer vested rights after Master Plan, before Master Plan….he does not know. He added that the CVD has never been his favorite ordinance; all know that this will end up in court. He would like the application through Planning Department, through Planning Commission and onto where it will ultimately end up…court. This application has been going on longer than any other land development review he has seen; he would like to see it resolved.
6
Mr. Palmer noted that these amendments must be to address the ratio/percentages flaw in the existing ordinance because the present application has not been approved for Master Plan as of yet. He asked what considerations have been taken in the applicant’s present proposal. Mr. Annarummo said the travel of this application and ordinance becomes increasingly uncomfortable. From his perspective there is a simpler answer the Council asked the question, they are the deciding party – we give them a simple answer. Mr. Palmer said as always the Town Council can do what it wants at will. If the Town Council votes to make these changes the question becomes how the Commission reviews the pending application. Mr. Roach said that the Commission should vote negatively because draft ordinance does not make sense as written. Mr. Annarummo said the Town Council is looking for a recommendation from the Commission, after that they can do what they want. If the Commission starts considering why the ordinance exists and needs amending we can come up with so many scenarios. Mr. Dion motioned to make a negative recommendation to the Town Council regarding the proposed ordinance. Mr. Grundy seconded. Mr. Roach suggested that the recommendation go with an explanation why the vote was negative. Mr. Callaghan noted that the proposed ordinance came with a copy of the original amendment written by the Councilor who asked for the change; it appears he has included all the Plats and Lots in both sections of the ordinance (rather than Plat 126 Lot 5 being separate). He asked if the Commission would consider reviewing that. Ms. LaFontaine said that the originally written draft was changed for the reason that the existing ordinance refers to the Plats separately; the point at which the language was changed to adhere to that separation is when the flaw Mr. Palmer brought up was created. Mr. Grundy asked which version was read at the Town Council’s first read. Ms. LaFontaine said that the draft separating Plat 126 out was but the original version was noted. Mr. Callaghan said the Commission could look at the original for recommendation. Mr. Palmer does not see it that way. He adds that he doesn’t know how this resolves itself, which is up to the Town Council. He will still vote a negative recommendation because of what Mr. Grundy brought up regarding the ordinance which states “over 10 acres-allowed 15,000 square feet by right.”
7
Mr. Callaghan said that the Planning Commission must send findings along with a recommendation. Mr. Grundy found that the proposed amendment does not demonstrate a recognition and consideration of each of the applicable general purposes of zoning, as presented in Section 21-4; nor does it meet the general consistency with the Comprehensive Plan including the goals and policy statement, the implementation program, and all other applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal has an inherent inconsistency with other areas of existing zoning. Mr. Palmer said that a motion has been made and seconded to send the Town Council a negative recommendation of Ordinance No. 17-XX which was seconded. He called for a vote. All voted aye. The motion carried. Discussion and Recommendation to Town Council: Amendments to the North Kingstown Zoning Ordinance related to Solar Energy Systems Mr. Lacey reminded the Commission that they had been looking to develop a solar ordinance in order to allow the people of North Kingstown with the ability to take part in the State’s solar energy incentive programs. The Commission had commented at the June 6 meeting that the ordinance appeared a bit too relaxed and they asked for revisions. Mr. Lacey explained that the new draft breaks solar projects into three categories: 1. residential roof mounted projects; 2. nonresidential roof mounted projects; and, 3. ground mounted projects. Commission members told Mr. Lacey that this is the 3rd revision and it appears that only two were included in there packets. They also commented that 2 revisions seemed so similar it was hard to tell what revision was where. Mr. Grundy said he would like to see this item placed on a future agenda in order for clarification on the three revisions (ordinance, land use table and definitions). Mr. Dion motioned to postpone this to a future meeting. Mr. Grundy seconded. All voted aye. The motion carried. Mr. Roach wanted to note that he is concerned with giving National Grid the control of the system(s) size. Mr. Palmer asked that all three full versions be included in the packets for the August 1 meeting. Comprehensive Plan Workshop The Commission continued their review of the Comprehensive Plan re-write draft.
8
Minutes Mr. Palmer asked for a motion to approve the May 16, 2017 Planning Commission minutes. Minor edits were made. Mr. Roach moved. Mr. Grundy seconded. All voted aye. The amended minutes were approved. Mr. Palmer then asked for a motion to approve the May 23, 2017 Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Grundy asked for some changes. Mr. Roach moved to approve the amended May 23 minutes. Mr. Grundy seconded. Mr. Annarummo, Ms. Nickles, Mr. Road, Mr. Grundy and Mr. Palmer voted aye. Mr. Dion abstained. The minutes were approved.
Adjournment Mr. Palmer called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Roach moved. Mr. Grundy seconded. All voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40PM.
Beth Gagnon-Glasberg Recording Secretary
9
