north kingstown planning commission
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 May 23, 2017
The North Kingstown Planning Commission convened at Municipal Offices Court Room, 100 Fairway Dr., North Kingstown, RI The following members were present: Chip Palmer Pat Nickles Patrick Roach Michael Annarummo James Grundy Paul Dion was excused. Also present is Director of Planning Nicole LaFontaine, Supervising Planner Maura Harrington, Town Engineer Kim Wiegand and Town Solicitors Matt Callaghan and Mark Hadden. Preliminary Plan Public Hearing of James Ferrara & Sons Inc. c/o Mr. Robert Carr of 121 Canton, MA 02021 for a proposed major land development project known as Wickford Woods, a proposed forty (40) unit condominium development being Assessor’s Plat 116 Lot 88 located on Ten Rod Rd and Tower Hill Rd in a Planned Village District (PVD) zone with a portion of the lot located within the Groundwater Two (GW2) Overlay. (continued from 5/16/17 meeting). Mr. Callaghan recused himself from this hearing; Mr. Hadden served as solicitor. Ms. Harrington gave the Commission an update and review of this proposed project. She said the since Master Plan, the two lots have been merged, the property zone change has 1
been adopted, water modeling has been approved by Town Council, a Physical Alteration Permit has been obtained, as well as a RIDEM Insignificant Alteration Permit. The plan remains for 40 units, but there is a different layout proposed from plans reviewed at Master Plan. There will now be a mix of single family and duplex condominiums. Ms. Harrington added that the applicant has not submitted designs for the duplex units. The development will be accessed from Ten Rod Rd. A revised traffic study was performed as requested at Master Plan review. She said the applicant is seeking four more (there were waivers granted at Master Plan) waivers from: Dedication of reserved strips for future street connections to adjoining undeveloped land Stormwater Drainage Systems – slopes are not to exceed 20 percent Maximum slope for detentions ponds (5:1) Buffer Areas – 50’. Ms. Harrington concluded her presentation stating the items the Planning Commission should consider in making a decision: Do they approve of the open space; is the requested waiver for slopes because of the planned density of the proposal or the lay of the land; Should the Commission see design elevations for the planned duplexes prior to a vote; Is the requested waiver of buffer areas due to the road layout (avoiding wetlands); Does the Commission want to see a new landscaping plan showing layout of proposed duplexes, decks, the pathway to Dave’s Market. Ms. Wiegand spoke about her concern on the slopes. She said the reason for the set sloping of 5:1 is safety. The applicant has revised some of the slope issues from Master Plan review but there are still 2:1 slopes shown on the plan. Mr. Grundy asked Ms. Wiegand if she would accept a fence set at the rear side of the drainage systems where sloping is planned to be more severe. Ms. Wiegand responded that for safety reasons a fence is usually never recommended. She also stated that the need for a requested waiver of 50’ buffer areas was developed because the properties were re-zoned to Planned Village District (PVD), a requirement when abutting a Village Residential (VR) district. With that, Mr. Sandy Resnick, representing the applicant introduced Mr. Dave Russo, engineer with DiPrete Engineering. Mr. Russo gave a quick basic rundown of the plan and addressed comments staff made with the submitted preliminary plan. He said that all conditions within the Master Plan Decision have been addressed. One condition still outstanding is the requirement of a sidewalk along Tower Hill Rd. (along the applicant’s property). He said that an existing culvert runs along the applicant’s property, making a sidewalk impractical; curbing would impinge on the breakdown lane of the road. He said that there is a sidewalk running the length between Dave’s Market and the Ten Rod Rd. intersection, it runs on the opposite side of the street – the sidewalk 2
the applicant is being asked to provide would run the opposite side of Tower Hill Rd. The existing Tower Hill Rd. sidewalk can be accessed at the intersection of Ten Rod Rd. and Dave’s Marketplace via crosswalks. Mr. Palmer comments that this was a condition of Master Plan. The applicant, Bob Carr told the Commission the existing sidewalk is owned by DOT – he has looked into it – there is a stream and guardrail prohibiting sidewalk construction. He restates that there is already an existing walk on the other side of Tower Hill Rd. Mr. Russo says that when all is said, after meeting with DOT there are major drainage concerns with the inclusion of a sidewalk. Mr. Palmer requests written evidence from RI DEM or RI DOT stating that a sidewalk cannot be installed. Mr. Roach reads the decision condition which states the Commission requires a sidewalk along Tower Hill Rd. Mr. Grundy agreed with some of what the applicant and his engineers were saying. The sidewalk would end as a sidewalk to nowhere. Mr. Hadden said for the record, the applicant has submitted a photograph of the side of the road where the Commission wants to see a sidewalk – the photo does not actually picture the applicant’s property front. Mr. Russo withdrew the photograph. With all said, Mr. Carr agreed to install a sidewalk on his property. Mr. Russo then pointed the Commission’s attention to the proposed walking path to Dave’s Market. Mr. Palmer asked what the wording “seasonal” path meant. Mr. Russo said it is wet in that area; it may only be accessible during drier months. Mr. Grundy asked if some sort of decking or boarding could be installed to make use of the path year round. Mr. Palmer asked what is planned for path. Mr. Russo responded field stones would be used for the path. A bridge would have to be built to traverse the path during wet season. The applicant is not willing to do this. Mr. Palmer comments he would like a path that people would use. They may be dissuaded if path is un-walkable at certain parts of the year. Mr. Carr argues that the Commission is punishing him. He should not have offered the path. Mr. Palmer saw it differently, he did not remember the path being offered; it was the Commission’s thought as part of recommending the zone change to PVD – it would connect to a village. Mr. Annarummo said that it may be a chore to install a bridge – DEM may look at this as a formal application which they may accept or not. Mr. Grundy said his thought was a path like Rome Point; people will walk it in winter. He was always thinking a simple path. Mr. Annarummo suggests they go back to DEM and ask “What is feasible” for this area. Mr. Carr answered that could take up to a year. He can’t hold this project up this long.
3
Mr. Annarummo’s answer to that is it should be brought to DEM for their input on whether the path or the bridge is doable. Mr. Russo then addressed the PVD 50’ buffer requirement from abutting lots. The applicant is proposing a 50’ vegetative buffer along most of the perimeter; this and the distance to existing abutting residences meet the intents of the ordinance. Wetlands determined the road layout, one reason buffers are undersized. Mr. Carr said that one reason for the design is too leave as many trees as possible. Otherwise trees will have to be cut for less steep slope. Mr. Palmer asked about landscaping along the two points where the road comes closer to the property line. Mr. Russo answered that along the applicant’s property – there is no room for buffer, but the surrounding properties also offer natural landscaping. Mr. Carr reminded the Commission that originally the road was going to cross wetlands. This design leaves less impact on “the world,” Mr. Russo said snow storage will be shown on final plan. He pointed out the approximate area they will be located. Regarding street parking, Mr. Russo said that it will not be allowed. The properties will have room for 4 vehicles (two in garage, two in driveway). They may put “cutouts” for guest parking. Mr. Russo told the Commission that he thought the existing cart path is a right-of-way easement to a landlocked property at the rear. Mr. Russo said they were requesting the waiver for future strips because of their interpretation of the ordinance wording. After some brief discussion, the Commission members agreed that because the road is to be private “future strips” were not required. Some soil evaluations conclude that some units will have to be on slabs. He pointed out which units will have basement and which will not. Mr. Palmer brings up the planned “decks” encroaching on the buffered areas concern mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Russo says that no decks are proposed within a buffer; any proposed deck would subject to review by Building Official at permit time. Ms. Nickles asked about markers of the buffer zone. Mr. Russo said no markers – the Homeowner’s Assoc. would police this. All Commission members objected and agreed that buffer markers must put in place. The applicant said that will be done.
4
Mr. Palmer talks about the affordable units. He would like it to be equitable – two single units and two duplexes. This was agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Carr next addressed traffic comments from the Master Plan Review. He told the Commission that as part of a Master Plan Approval condition to provide landscaping to the abutters across Ten Rod Rd. who will be subject to headlights from cars exiting the subdivision at night. He said drawings were done; he brought them to these 3 neighbors. He spoke with two of them and left drawings with a relative at the third. No one has gotten back to Mr. Carr with any objections. He said that traffic along the stretch is not great and will never get better. This is an area that people want to come to. With technology, when traffic is backed up on Rte. 4, drivers can easily find other routes. Mr. Paul Bannon, traffic engineer, came forward; he performed the traffic study for the development. He said at the last meeting, the Commission had asked for a re-study of the area during peak summertime hours. He has done that and as he stated at the time, traffic is 20-25% higher in the summer. He said that the traffic from the site will not change any of the traffic amounts to any extant. Mr. Palmer then opened the meeting to public comment. Ms. Diane McGowan came forward. She asked about the elevated roads. Mr. Russo said that what they are talking about is a wetland depression; it drops off to the wetlands. Ms. McGowan pointed out where her property abuts the planned development; she asked how far the road is from the stone wall that will serve as a boundary. Mr. Russo answered approximately 10’. She asked if there is any planting planned or is she going to be looking at the road in her backyard. Mr. Russo said that some trees can be added there. Mr. Annarummo asked Ms. McGowan if she knew anything about the cart path. She said when she was a child the path was used as a fire road. Ms. Judy Tysmans – lives beside the creek on Tower Hill Rd. She is concerned about the water, especially the cleanliness of it. Runoff and silt from construction and the septic systems be maintained. Mr. Russo – says they have to meet all DEM standards for runoff and silts must be blocked. Systems must be maintained. Ms. Tysmans asked what about the use of fertilizers from future homeowner’s? Mr. Carr says that most of the property is going to remain naturally wooded; the lawns will be small and surround the buildings. Ms. Wiegand told Ms. Tysmans that the Town does monitor Wickford Harbor which is where water from this property ends up. Ms. Tysmans commented that adding to the sidewalk along Tower Hill Rd. is a good idea. She says that the over 55 population loves to walk and it would be nice to walk around and not just back and forth. Mr. Palmer closed public comment. 5
Mr. Russo went on to address the slope issue. DEM accepts 2:1 slopes; the western side of the ponds will have 5:1 slopes. The slopes are steep in order to retain most of the existing trees. He understands the safety concerns; he believes they have met in the middle and asks the Commission to do as well. He said added landscaping would also deter people from getting to this area. Mr. Russo suggested an arborvitae buffer on the western side of the pond and natural vegetation at the eastern side. He points out the difficulty getting to the slope. Commission members are not open to approving these slopes; they asked Mr. Russo for a comparison sheet showing different slopes. Mr. Carr comments that in order to accommodate less sloping more trees would have to be cut. Next Mr. Palmer brought up the “cart path.” The submitted photograph of the path looks the path is used. Mr. Russo said it is included in the plan only because it looks like an old cart path. No one on applicant’s team is confident about the reason or use of the path. Mr. Hadden suggested a condition stating that the applicant is willing to consent to any further access. Ms. Nickles does not want to vote on any involvement in blocking easement access. She wants more certainty than the language of the proposed condition. Mr. Palmer stated that because of the amount of further information the Commission is requesting it appears no vote or decision would be made tonight. He asked Mr. Grundy for a rundown of the information. Mr. Grundy summed up information the Commission is looking for at the next meeting. Snow removal areas designated on plan. Guest parking areas designated on plan. Elevations for the duplex unit design. Three bounds shown at the northwest corner, at the corner behind and between units 17-27 and behind unit 16/17 (this would delineate the three areas that are near the 50’ buffer). Bounds are not necessary between the units and the retention ponds, they will be well defined. Written documentation that there will be no impediment to the existing “cart path to lot 6.” A condition to the acceptance of the Town Solicitor no expansion or increase in intensification of use Information of what can be done to expand the “seasonal” use of the walk path to Dave’s Market. Perhaps crossings similar to what is down at the Saunderstown walk path once any limits have been identified. Plans showing plantings in the road between stations 8-25 and 10-25. Plans showing the sidewalk along Tower Hill Rd. No basement levels below the site verified groundwater tables. Documentation showing the slopes and the impact if the ponds were extended. This will help the Commission determine if leaving the wooded area is a good trade-off for the safety of the slopes. 6
The buffer areas that will be impacted should be delineated on the plans. Additional information on the headlight mitigation. Some information on affordable units – Commission would like it varied to two single units and two duplex units. Due to the hour, it was agreed that this application had to be continued. Discussion was held on dates that would accommodate everyone. It was decided June 27 would work. Mr. Palmer entertained a motion to continue the Preliminary Plan to June 27, 2017. Mr. Grundy moved. All voted aye. Surety Reduction 90%: Reynolds Farm Phases 1A and 1B, located off Post Road Town Engineer Kim Wiegand said that this has been inspected all through construction. Everything at this point is satisfactory. Mr. Palmer asked for a motion to send a positive recommendation to the Town Council to reduce the surety of Reynolds Farm-Phase 1A by $509,733.49 and for Reynolds FarmPhase 1B by $222,192.39. Mr. Annarummo moved. Mr. Roach seconded. All voted aye.
Discussion: Possible Modification to Phase 1 of Reynolds Farm Regarding Live/Work Units Ms. LaFontaine told the Commission that Mr. Hugh Fisher who is developing Phase 1 of Reynolds Farm is getting close to finishing his phase of the project. She said that some of the proposed live/work units have already been eliminated administratively. Mr. Fisher is here tonight asking the Commission if they would consider eliminating them entirely. Mr. Fisher spoke about the beautiful, positive work done so far. He said that live/work units do not work in some areas. He has had major interest from prospective buyers for single level homes. He would like to go back and design something at one level and not do the live/work units. He would be happy to design single level dwellings with “pocket offices.” He asks for the Commission thoughts on this. After brief discussion Mr. Palmer commented that no one on the Commission seems opposed to this and all are responsive to Mr. Fisher coming in with a modified proposal. Mr. Fisher asked the Commission if the modification could be reviewed administratively. Mr. Palmer said that is acceptable; he added that he backs the project and wants it to be successful. Members agreed. Minutes
7
Mr. Palmer called for a motion to approve the meeting minutes of March 28, 2017. Mr. Grundy moved. Mr. Roach seconded. All voted aye. The minutes were accepted into record. Adjournment Mr. Palmer entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Grundy moved. Mr. Dion seconded. All voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35PM.
Beth Gagnon-Glasberg Recording Secretary
8
NORTH KINGSTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 2017
The North Kingstown Planning Commission convened at Municipal Offices Court Room, 100 Fairway Dr., North Kingstown, RI The following members were present: Chip Palmer Pat Nickles Patrick Roach Michael Annarummo James Grundy Paul Dion was excused. Also present is Director of Planning Nicole LaFontaine, Supervising Planner Maura Harrington, Town Engineer Kim Wiegand and Town Solicitors Matt Callaghan and Mark Hadden. Preliminary Plan Public Hearing of James Ferrara & Sons Inc. c/o Mr. Robert Carr of 121 Canton, MA 02021 for a proposed major land development project known as Wickford Woods, a proposed forty (40) unit condominium development being Assessor’s Plat 116 Lot 88 located on Ten Rod Rd and Tower Hill Rd in a Planned Village District (PVD) zone with a portion of the lot located within the Groundwater Two (GW2) Overlay. (continued from 5/16/17 meeting). Mr. Callaghan recused himself from this hearing; Mr. Hadden served as solicitor. Ms. Harrington gave the Commission an update and review of this proposed project. She said the since Master Plan, the two lots have been merged, the property zone change has 1
been adopted, water modeling has been approved by Town Council, a Physical Alteration Permit has been obtained, as well as a RIDEM Insignificant Alteration Permit. The plan remains for 40 units, but there is a different layout proposed from plans reviewed at Master Plan. There will now be a mix of single family and duplex condominiums. Ms. Harrington added that the applicant has not submitted designs for the duplex units. The development will be accessed from Ten Rod Rd. A revised traffic study was performed as requested at Master Plan review. She said the applicant is seeking four more (there were waivers granted at Master Plan) waivers from: Dedication of reserved strips for future street connections to adjoining undeveloped land Stormwater Drainage Systems – slopes are not to exceed 20 percent Maximum slope for detentions ponds (5:1) Buffer Areas – 50’. Ms. Harrington concluded her presentation stating the items the Planning Commission should consider in making a decision: Do they approve of the open space; is the requested waiver for slopes because of the planned density of the proposal or the lay of the land; Should the Commission see design elevations for the planned duplexes prior to a vote; Is the requested waiver of buffer areas due to the road layout (avoiding wetlands); Does the Commission want to see a new landscaping plan showing layout of proposed duplexes, decks, the pathway to Dave’s Market. Ms. Wiegand spoke about her concern on the slopes. She said the reason for the set sloping of 5:1 is safety. The applicant has revised some of the slope issues from Master Plan review but there are still 2:1 slopes shown on the plan. Mr. Grundy asked Ms. Wiegand if she would accept a fence set at the rear side of the drainage systems where sloping is planned to be more severe. Ms. Wiegand responded that for safety reasons a fence is usually never recommended. She also stated that the need for a requested waiver of 50’ buffer areas was developed because the properties were re-zoned to Planned Village District (PVD), a requirement when abutting a Village Residential (VR) district. With that, Mr. Sandy Resnick, representing the applicant introduced Mr. Dave Russo, engineer with DiPrete Engineering. Mr. Russo gave a quick basic rundown of the plan and addressed comments staff made with the submitted preliminary plan. He said that all conditions within the Master Plan Decision have been addressed. One condition still outstanding is the requirement of a sidewalk along Tower Hill Rd. (along the applicant’s property). He said that an existing culvert runs along the applicant’s property, making a sidewalk impractical; curbing would impinge on the breakdown lane of the road. He said that there is a sidewalk running the length between Dave’s Market and the Ten Rod Rd. intersection, it runs on the opposite side of the street – the sidewalk 2
the applicant is being asked to provide would run the opposite side of Tower Hill Rd. The existing Tower Hill Rd. sidewalk can be accessed at the intersection of Ten Rod Rd. and Dave’s Marketplace via crosswalks. Mr. Palmer comments that this was a condition of Master Plan. The applicant, Bob Carr told the Commission the existing sidewalk is owned by DOT – he has looked into it – there is a stream and guardrail prohibiting sidewalk construction. He restates that there is already an existing walk on the other side of Tower Hill Rd. Mr. Russo says that when all is said, after meeting with DOT there are major drainage concerns with the inclusion of a sidewalk. Mr. Palmer requests written evidence from RI DEM or RI DOT stating that a sidewalk cannot be installed. Mr. Roach reads the decision condition which states the Commission requires a sidewalk along Tower Hill Rd. Mr. Grundy agreed with some of what the applicant and his engineers were saying. The sidewalk would end as a sidewalk to nowhere. Mr. Hadden said for the record, the applicant has submitted a photograph of the side of the road where the Commission wants to see a sidewalk – the photo does not actually picture the applicant’s property front. Mr. Russo withdrew the photograph. With all said, Mr. Carr agreed to install a sidewalk on his property. Mr. Russo then pointed the Commission’s attention to the proposed walking path to Dave’s Market. Mr. Palmer asked what the wording “seasonal” path meant. Mr. Russo said it is wet in that area; it may only be accessible during drier months. Mr. Grundy asked if some sort of decking or boarding could be installed to make use of the path year round. Mr. Palmer asked what is planned for path. Mr. Russo responded field stones would be used for the path. A bridge would have to be built to traverse the path during wet season. The applicant is not willing to do this. Mr. Palmer comments he would like a path that people would use. They may be dissuaded if path is un-walkable at certain parts of the year. Mr. Carr argues that the Commission is punishing him. He should not have offered the path. Mr. Palmer saw it differently, he did not remember the path being offered; it was the Commission’s thought as part of recommending the zone change to PVD – it would connect to a village. Mr. Annarummo said that it may be a chore to install a bridge – DEM may look at this as a formal application which they may accept or not. Mr. Grundy said his thought was a path like Rome Point; people will walk it in winter. He was always thinking a simple path. Mr. Annarummo suggests they go back to DEM and ask “What is feasible” for this area. Mr. Carr answered that could take up to a year. He can’t hold this project up this long.
3
Mr. Annarummo’s answer to that is it should be brought to DEM for their input on whether the path or the bridge is doable. Mr. Russo then addressed the PVD 50’ buffer requirement from abutting lots. The applicant is proposing a 50’ vegetative buffer along most of the perimeter; this and the distance to existing abutting residences meet the intents of the ordinance. Wetlands determined the road layout, one reason buffers are undersized. Mr. Carr said that one reason for the design is too leave as many trees as possible. Otherwise trees will have to be cut for less steep slope. Mr. Palmer asked about landscaping along the two points where the road comes closer to the property line. Mr. Russo answered that along the applicant’s property – there is no room for buffer, but the surrounding properties also offer natural landscaping. Mr. Carr reminded the Commission that originally the road was going to cross wetlands. This design leaves less impact on “the world,” Mr. Russo said snow storage will be shown on final plan. He pointed out the approximate area they will be located. Regarding street parking, Mr. Russo said that it will not be allowed. The properties will have room for 4 vehicles (two in garage, two in driveway). They may put “cutouts” for guest parking. Mr. Russo told the Commission that he thought the existing cart path is a right-of-way easement to a landlocked property at the rear. Mr. Russo said they were requesting the waiver for future strips because of their interpretation of the ordinance wording. After some brief discussion, the Commission members agreed that because the road is to be private “future strips” were not required. Some soil evaluations conclude that some units will have to be on slabs. He pointed out which units will have basement and which will not. Mr. Palmer brings up the planned “decks” encroaching on the buffered areas concern mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Russo says that no decks are proposed within a buffer; any proposed deck would subject to review by Building Official at permit time. Ms. Nickles asked about markers of the buffer zone. Mr. Russo said no markers – the Homeowner’s Assoc. would police this. All Commission members objected and agreed that buffer markers must put in place. The applicant said that will be done.
4
Mr. Palmer talks about the affordable units. He would like it to be equitable – two single units and two duplexes. This was agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Carr next addressed traffic comments from the Master Plan Review. He told the Commission that as part of a Master Plan Approval condition to provide landscaping to the abutters across Ten Rod Rd. who will be subject to headlights from cars exiting the subdivision at night. He said drawings were done; he brought them to these 3 neighbors. He spoke with two of them and left drawings with a relative at the third. No one has gotten back to Mr. Carr with any objections. He said that traffic along the stretch is not great and will never get better. This is an area that people want to come to. With technology, when traffic is backed up on Rte. 4, drivers can easily find other routes. Mr. Paul Bannon, traffic engineer, came forward; he performed the traffic study for the development. He said at the last meeting, the Commission had asked for a re-study of the area during peak summertime hours. He has done that and as he stated at the time, traffic is 20-25% higher in the summer. He said that the traffic from the site will not change any of the traffic amounts to any extant. Mr. Palmer then opened the meeting to public comment. Ms. Diane McGowan came forward. She asked about the elevated roads. Mr. Russo said that what they are talking about is a wetland depression; it drops off to the wetlands. Ms. McGowan pointed out where her property abuts the planned development; she asked how far the road is from the stone wall that will serve as a boundary. Mr. Russo answered approximately 10’. She asked if there is any planting planned or is she going to be looking at the road in her backyard. Mr. Russo said that some trees can be added there. Mr. Annarummo asked Ms. McGowan if she knew anything about the cart path. She said when she was a child the path was used as a fire road. Ms. Judy Tysmans – lives beside the creek on Tower Hill Rd. She is concerned about the water, especially the cleanliness of it. Runoff and silt from construction and the septic systems be maintained. Mr. Russo – says they have to meet all DEM standards for runoff and silts must be blocked. Systems must be maintained. Ms. Tysmans asked what about the use of fertilizers from future homeowner’s? Mr. Carr says that most of the property is going to remain naturally wooded; the lawns will be small and surround the buildings. Ms. Wiegand told Ms. Tysmans that the Town does monitor Wickford Harbor which is where water from this property ends up. Ms. Tysmans commented that adding to the sidewalk along Tower Hill Rd. is a good idea. She says that the over 55 population loves to walk and it would be nice to walk around and not just back and forth. Mr. Palmer closed public comment. 5
Mr. Russo went on to address the slope issue. DEM accepts 2:1 slopes; the western side of the ponds will have 5:1 slopes. The slopes are steep in order to retain most of the existing trees. He understands the safety concerns; he believes they have met in the middle and asks the Commission to do as well. He said added landscaping would also deter people from getting to this area. Mr. Russo suggested an arborvitae buffer on the western side of the pond and natural vegetation at the eastern side. He points out the difficulty getting to the slope. Commission members are not open to approving these slopes; they asked Mr. Russo for a comparison sheet showing different slopes. Mr. Carr comments that in order to accommodate less sloping more trees would have to be cut. Next Mr. Palmer brought up the “cart path.” The submitted photograph of the path looks the path is used. Mr. Russo said it is included in the plan only because it looks like an old cart path. No one on applicant’s team is confident about the reason or use of the path. Mr. Hadden suggested a condition stating that the applicant is willing to consent to any further access. Ms. Nickles does not want to vote on any involvement in blocking easement access. She wants more certainty than the language of the proposed condition. Mr. Palmer stated that because of the amount of further information the Commission is requesting it appears no vote or decision would be made tonight. He asked Mr. Grundy for a rundown of the information. Mr. Grundy summed up information the Commission is looking for at the next meeting. Snow removal areas designated on plan. Guest parking areas designated on plan. Elevations for the duplex unit design. Three bounds shown at the northwest corner, at the corner behind and between units 17-27 and behind unit 16/17 (this would delineate the three areas that are near the 50’ buffer). Bounds are not necessary between the units and the retention ponds, they will be well defined. Written documentation that there will be no impediment to the existing “cart path to lot 6.” A condition to the acceptance of the Town Solicitor no expansion or increase in intensification of use Information of what can be done to expand the “seasonal” use of the walk path to Dave’s Market. Perhaps crossings similar to what is down at the Saunderstown walk path once any limits have been identified. Plans showing plantings in the road between stations 8-25 and 10-25. Plans showing the sidewalk along Tower Hill Rd. No basement levels below the site verified groundwater tables. Documentation showing the slopes and the impact if the ponds were extended. This will help the Commission determine if leaving the wooded area is a good trade-off for the safety of the slopes. 6
The buffer areas that will be impacted should be delineated on the plans. Additional information on the headlight mitigation. Some information on affordable units – Commission would like it varied to two single units and two duplex units. Due to the hour, it was agreed that this application had to be continued. Discussion was held on dates that would accommodate everyone. It was decided June 27 would work. Mr. Palmer entertained a motion to continue the Preliminary Plan to June 27, 2017. Mr. Grundy moved. All voted aye. Surety Reduction 90%: Reynolds Farm Phases 1A and 1B, located off Post Road Town Engineer Kim Wiegand said that this has been inspected all through construction. Everything at this point is satisfactory. Mr. Palmer asked for a motion to send a positive recommendation to the Town Council to reduce the surety of Reynolds Farm-Phase 1A by $509,733.49 and for Reynolds FarmPhase 1B by $222,192.39. Mr. Annarummo moved. Mr. Roach seconded. All voted aye.
Discussion: Possible Modification to Phase 1 of Reynolds Farm Regarding Live/Work Units Ms. LaFontaine told the Commission that Mr. Hugh Fisher who is developing Phase 1 of Reynolds Farm is getting close to finishing his phase of the project. She said that some of the proposed live/work units have already been eliminated administratively. Mr. Fisher is here tonight asking the Commission if they would consider eliminating them entirely. Mr. Fisher spoke about the beautiful, positive work done so far. He said that live/work units do not work in some areas. He has had major interest from prospective buyers for single level homes. He would like to go back and design something at one level and not do the live/work units. He would be happy to design single level dwellings with “pocket offices.” He asks for the Commission thoughts on this. After brief discussion Mr. Palmer commented that no one on the Commission seems opposed to this and all are responsive to Mr. Fisher coming in with a modified proposal. Mr. Fisher asked the Commission if the modification could be reviewed administratively. Mr. Palmer said that is acceptable; he added that he backs the project and wants it to be successful. Members agreed. Minutes
7
Mr. Palmer called for a motion to approve the meeting minutes of March 28, 2017. Mr. Grundy moved. Mr. Roach seconded. All voted aye. The minutes were accepted into record. Adjournment Mr. Palmer entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Grundy moved. Mr. Dion seconded. All voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35PM.
Beth Gagnon-Glasberg Recording Secretary
8
