Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2018 Meeting 1670 Flat River Road Coventry, RI 02816

Transcription

1 Jason Osenkowski Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2018 Meeting 1670 Flat River Road Coventry, RI Meeting Called to order at 7:00 pm by Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Crossman reviewed the exits in the room in case of an emergency. Members Present:,, Mr. Ronald Flynn, Mr., Mr., Mr., Ms. and Mr. Members Absent: Mr. Jason Osenkowski Also Present: Planning Director Caroline Wells, Associate Planner Brian Wagner, Attorney David D Agostino and Attorney Stephen Macgillivray. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: April 25, 2018 Minutes: A motion was made by Member Mattson to approve the April 25, 2018 Minutes. The motion was seconded by Member Polselli. All voted aye. Motion carries. Executive Session Minutes from January 31, 2018: A motion was made by Member Flynn to approve the Executive Session Minutes from January 31, The motion was seconded by Member Mattson. All voted aye. Motion carries. Planning Commission Minutes pg. 1

2 NEW BUSINESS FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION: One year extension for Heritage Estates AP 317, Lots 66 & 67, AP 323, Lot (Extension starts June 30, 2018 and ends June 30, 2019) Attorney Thomas Cronin of 1070 Main Street, Coventry came forward on behalf of Heritage Homes, LLC. He said they are here on extension of Preliminary Plan Approval. They are seeking an extension of one year. He stated this is a project that has already received Preliminary Plan Approval some time ago and has been extended by Statute and by Request previously. It is a 26 lot Residential Cluster Subdivision off Bramble Bush Road off Route 117. There has been some interest by the Town of Coventry interested in purchasing this property for conservation purposes. The Land Trust continues their deliberations on that. They have recently been discussing an appraisal. He stated they continue to be open to that possibility so they are willing to extend their Preliminary Plan and ask for permission for an extension for the Preliminary Plan Approval for one year. A motion was made by Member Kalunian to extend the Preliminary Plan Approval for one year. The motion was seconded by Member Mattson. Votes made as follows: Minor Subdivision: Pre-Application Wilkicki Plat, 700 Matteson Road, AP 329, Lot 49 (AP 329, Lot 49), Zone RR-3. Owners: Stephen and Wendy Wilkicki Mark Boyer of Boyer Associates came forward representing the owners. The property is approximately 16 acres and has a single family residence with a detached garage and a utility garage on the Western side of the property. There is a stream that is on the property that enters from the North side of the road and goes through the property to a manmade pond behind the house. The applicants are looking to subdivide the property into three lots. He gave a further description of the lots. Member Flynn asked if they fit all the setback and frontage requirements and if they are looking for any relief. Planning Commission Minutes pg. 2

3 Mr. Boyer said the only relief they may be looking for is because of the existing property line on the Eastern side of the property. A Sitewalk was scheduled for Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm. The rain date will be the following Wednesday on June 13, 2018 at 6:00 pm. At this time Chairman Crossman entertained a motion to move up on the Agenda the two Zoning Applications. A motion was made by Member Polselli to move 5.4 b, the Special Use Permit and Dimensional Variance for the In-law at 41 Read Avenue up on the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Member Kenney. All were in favor, so moved. Ms. Wells, Planning Director brought everyone up to date as far as where this was left off at last meeting. There was conversation about a cesspool and whether that would affect the application if they were adding square footage. Vice Chair Kalunian expressed his concern. He said he really didn t get a chance to see this property and the sketch that was provided didn t really show how this particular dwelling fits in with the typical lot sizes and dwelling sizes in the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Chester some questions about the driveway and if it was going to the abutter s house and what the two buildings were. Mr. Chester responded yes and responded that the abutters have two houses on their lot. Chairman Crossman questioned the side yard setbacks and asked Mr. Chester why he wanted to put the addition there. Mr. Chester replied because it would be aesthetically more pleasing and if he bumps it over 5 feet, he would have to get rid of his bay window, which he is trying to avoid. Mr. Wagner clarified the variances being requested. He is asking for the side setback. It is a non-conforming lot. He stated his concern is that given the size of the lot, there is a lot of structure on impervious surface already and now another big chunk of impervious surface on the lot that is already undersized. He stated he has no objection to people building in-law apartments, but commented that not every lot is going to be able to support additional construction like this. There are limitations. Vice Chair Kalunian questioned Mr. Chester on whether he had a cesspool or a septic system on the lot. Mr. Chester replied that he has a cesspool. He assumed he would need a new septic system. Vice Chair Kalunian then asked him where he intends to put it. Mr. Chester replied he intends to put it in the bottom half of his yard beyond his garage. Members further discussed with Mr. Chester the size of the main house and the distance between the garage and the proposed addition. Planning Commission Minutes pg. 3

4 Chairman Crossman said he personally doesn t have a problem with this. He would just recommend putting a stipulation in that he would put in a new septic system and a stipulation that he get permission and a UIC Permit from DEM to put a drywell in for the proposed impervious surface runoff from the new addition. Member Flynn said he has no issues with it and if we can get rid of a cesspool and put a septic in, he thinks it is a plus. Member Flynn made a motion to make a Favorable Recommendation to Zoning for a Special Use Permit and Dimensional Variance for an In-Law apartment at 41 Read Avenue, AP 56, Lot 54, Zone R-20 owned by Christopher and Amanda Chester with the Stipulation that a new septic system would be put in on the property. The motion was seconded by Member Lukowicz. Votes made as follows: A motion was made by Vice Chair Kalunian to move up on the Agenda 5.4 c, Special Use Permit for an In-Law Addition at 20 Hopkins Hollow Road. The motion was seconded by Member Polselli. All were in favor, so moved. The Owner Carmine Cairo came forward. He stated he wants to put an addition on the rear of the building for him and his wife. He stated he got ill, PTSD and multiple health issues. He is on disability. He can t afford his home. He stated he wants to downsize. He owns the property, lives in Johnston currently, and his son lives in the subject property. Mr. Wagner commented that it is a non-conforming lot. Vice Chair Kalunian questioned if it could be shifted slightly to make sure it is no closer to the property line than what currently exists. Mr. Wagner stated he doesn t believe he needs to because he is within the required setback. Members further discussed with Mr. Wagner how he arrived at that and he further explained. Planning Commission Minutes pg. 4

5 A motion was made by Vice Chair Kalunian for a Favorable Recommendation to Zoning to allow for an In-Law Apartment at 20 Hopkins Hollow Road, Assessor s Plat 314, Lot 49 owned by Carmen Cairo. The motion was seconded by Member Polselli. Votes made as follows: Minor Land Development: Preliminary Plan Application review of Proposed Medium Solar Project - Parenteau Solar Project, 849 Victory Highway, AP 316, Lot 157 & AP 322, Lot , Zone The Owner/Applicant Kyle Parenteau came forward. He also had with him Steve Kerr and Andrew Vardakis. Mr. Andrew Vardakis, Registered Professional Engineer from Amec Foster Wheeler came forward and gave an overview of the project. The owner is requesting to combine the two lots. The project is a 250kw DC Solar Array. It consists of about 750 panels. He gave further detail about the project. They are seeking a Variance for tree clearing to the South- seeking relief from the 20 foot vegetative buffer. They are working with the Fire Department to review the plans and address any concerns they may have. They are ultimately seeking approval from the Planning Commission and Recommendation to Zoning for a Special Use Permit. Chairman Crossman expressed his concern that the plan they were given shows the property lines floating in mid-air and there is no stamp by a registered professional land surveyor. He questioned the accuracy. He asked if there has been a professional land surveyor sent out to check and verify. Mr. Vardakis said the applicant/owner currently have the surveyors looking at the property to confirm everything. Chairman Crossman asked how he can approve a plan when they haven t confirmed it yet. He is concerned that there is a Minor Solar Installation being put on this property with no boundary survey. He further commented that he doesn t understand why if it was certified complete, why they don t have to have a Class I boundary survey like every other land development project. Ms. Wells reminded him that what the Board is doing is an Advisory Recommendation to the Zoning Board for a Special Use Permit. She also said she is not seeing it in the checklist as a requirement. Planning Commission Minutes pg. 5

6 Mr. Steve Kerr came forward and said it will be 3-4 weeks before surveyors are finished with their work and they will stamp the plans. They will also be doing a boundary survey. They will have a Class I Survey for both lots. Chairman Crossman further questioned that there is no proposed grade on the property, if there was any digging being done and if they were putting in an access road. Mr. Kerr responded that construction is very minimal. They are putting in an access road and commented that is the most intrusive construction that they are doing. Otherwise, they are driving piles and posts into the ground and building the racking off of those posts. They are not doing any re-grading, not taking any topsoil or grass off. They are going to cut some trees down. He commented there is not much site work at all. Chairman Crossman commented on the checklist where it lists appropriate benchmarks shall be indicated and the location of these benchmarks shall be tied to the RI Coordinate System where possible. He stated the plans have no benchmarks at all on them. He again commented that the property line is floating in air. It has nothing to tie it down. Ms. Wells agreed. She went on to explain to the Board that the first thing they are here for is the first level of approval. They have to have a Conditional Approval from the Planning Commission before they can be entertained before the Zoning Board and then it would have to come back to the PC. Chairman Crossman expressed that personally he doesn t feel comfortable acting on this without the survey information. Member Lukowicz agreed. Member Flynn agreed stating the buffer is a concern to him. Vice Chair Kalunian brought up that he expressed some concern about the buffer back at the Sitewalk and suggested they take it under advisement. He further commented about the additional building that he saw on the Sitewalk that had an H-Vac system attached. He said when he questioned it he was told it was a garage, but on the plans it is labeled as an existing residence in addition to the dwelling where the owner currently lives. He asked if there are two residential dwellings on that lot right now. Mr. Parenteau confirmed that. He explained that additional building is furnished and is being used for entertainment. He has a pool there. Vice Chair Kalunian further commented that there is no mention on the application that there are currently two residential structures on that property already and notes that additional residential dwelling is also absent from the assessor s records. It is currently listed as a single family residence with a garage. Member Anderson commented on the Comprehensive Plan frowning on anything Commercial and Industrial in District I and he believes this to be a Commercial Development. Planning Commission Minutes pg. 6

7 Ms. Wells clarified that it doesn t say that there should be no Commercial or Industrial. What it says is that the character of the RR5 District should be Rural. Some Board Members commented that they preferred that they come back. Chairman Crossman said he feels it is incomplete and he is not ready to act on it this evening. Attorney MacGillavray wanted to make sure that the Applicant agrees with the continuance. If he doesn t agree with the continuance, then the Board would have to rule on it now and with not being able to meet the requirements, that ruling would be a denial. He said if the applicant requests a continuance it stops the time clock. The timing of getting the survey was discussed as being two months. Mr. Kerr commented that the survey is not a requirement. He said if it was a requirement then they would have had it done. He said this is the second time they are before the Board. They have already been turned away once before. He said they have done everything the Planner has asked them to do and have submitted everything they were asked to submit. He said this project has taken a long time. They have a tariff with National Grid that expires on December 16, 2018 Ms. Wells commented that the Planning Commission has the discretion to request more information. Chairman Crossman asked if one of the requirements is that they have an Interconnection Service Agreement with National Grid. Attorney MacGillivray confirmed that proof of Utility Interconnection Approval shall be given and is required no later than Preliminary Plan Phase. Mr. Kerr said they do have a fully executed Interconnect Service Agreement with National Grid. The Board is not in receipt of that. Ms. Wells confirmed that the signed version was not supplied with the application. At this time the applicant Kyle Parenteau came forward and requested a continuance. Further discussion took place about whether continuing it to the next meeting would work considering that the survey is going to be done in 3-4 weeks. Mr. Kerr spoke and said again, he didn t know a survey was required for this meeting. Ms. Wells replied to him that the checklist says survey or engineer, however, the Planning Commission always retains the right in their Ordinances to ask for whatever information they need to make a decision and if they say they need a survey to make a decision, then you need a survey. Planning Commission Minutes pg. 7

8 Mr. Kerr then asked if they could do a partial boundary survey in the area of the array. Chairman Crossman said no, you need a Class I boundary survey of the whole parcel. Attorney MacGillivray said he can continue to the next meeting and if he is ready to advance, then it can be heard and if not, then he can request another continuance. Further discussion took place with Members informing Mr. Parenteau that he can continue it to the next month s meeting. He will need to get the following to the Staff in time: a Class I Boundary Survey, an executed agreement from National Grid, the letter from the Fire Department and their surveyor certifying the Class 4 topography as they said they had in the works. A motion was made by Member Flynn to continue this matter to the next meeting on June 27, The motion was seconded by Member Mattson. Votes made as follows: Further Discussion: Vice Chair Kalunian brought up that the continuance is for both the Preliminary Plan Application review and the Recommendation to Zoning on the Special Use Permit. Discussion and Action on Revised Planning Commission Checklist: Ms. Wells and Members discussed the checklist and shared their thoughts and suggestions. Ms. Wells said the checklist actually forms part of the Subdivision Regulations. In order to amend the checklist we have to amend the Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Crossman commented liking the 20 scale for residential and explained why. Ms. Wells will do some further research and see what other places do with this. Chairman Crossman said there is no mention of a traffic impact study. He feels it should be done at Master Plan. He also commented on reduced size plans and suggested a 12x18 instead of 11x17 because that way they would still be to scale, just ½ the scale of the larger plans. He also questioned proposed contours at 5 foot intervals for grading. He commented that is wrong and needs to be changed to either 1 foot or 2 foot contours. Ms. Wells said this is a work in progress. She commented that when we Planning Commission Minutes pg. 8

9 amend the Subdivision Regulations we have to advertise it in the newspaper for three weeks in a row which is very expensive, so we don t want to do that on a whim. We want a finished product when we are ready to advertise. UPDATES AND REPORTS: Pipeline Report: Ms. Wells gave an update. There are no new certified developments in the pipeline, but just coming in is Dollar General, who has come back with their next phase for Preliminary and there is a Minor that has some deficiencies. She will work on putting the pipeline report online. WELCOME NEW MEMBERS: Member and Member were welcomed as new Members. ELECTION OF OFFICER (SECRETARY): A motion was made by Member Polselli to nominate Member Ron Flynn for the position of Secretary. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Kalunian. A motion was made by Member Mattson to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Polselli. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm. Minutes respectfully prepared and submitted by Lori Mercier. Planning Commission Minutes pg. 9