Steve Brusini, Chair; Michael Donegan, Vice Chair; Jason Gomez; Ben Lupovitz; Nate Ginsburg; Chris Russo; Dan Tagliatela

Transcription

1 Planning Board Minutes March 1, :00 P.M. Town Council Chambers 125 Main Street East Greenwich, RI Members Present: Members Absent: Steve Brusini, Chair; Michael Donegan, Vice Chair; Jason Gomez; Ben Lupovitz; Nate Ginsburg; Chris Russo; Dan Tagliatela Brad Turchetta Staff present: Lisa Bourbonnais, Planning Director; Aaron Lindo, Planning Assistant; Sydney Kirsh, Legal Counsel; Thomas Coyle, Town Manager Mr. Donegan, acting chair, opened the meeting at 7:05 PM and introduced those present. 1. Pre-Application Review of a 4-lot subdivision proposed by owner/applicant Melisa Church Chapin. Project involves new construction of 3 new residences and the existing house at 1008 South Road would remain. The three new lots would be frontage lots on South Road and existing outbuildings would be removed. The Zoning is F-1 Farm and the site is located at Map 9 AP 19 Lot 45. Samuel Suorsa, a land surveyor with Coventry Survey Co., represented the applicant and presented the project. The proposed subdivision is over 24 acres that would be split into 4 lots with 15 acres of open space in the rear (63%). Each parcel will be about 2 acres as a cluster. There was a discussion about the open space aspect of the project and how it will be accessed and it was determined that the type of open space would be determined at a later stage in development. There is no relief anticipated other than determining the configuration of the lots and the open space option. A traditional conventional subdivision was considered but there would be more impact on the land and would cost more due to infrastructure. Public comment was opened and closed after no member of the public wished to be heard on the matter. Board Feedback: Mr. Gomez commented that 4 houses is better than 8 for the use of land, especially with the open space. Generally in favor of the project. Mr. Russo commented that he liked the project and would like to see the Land Trust acquire the open space if possible. Mr. Brusini s feedback was overall positive and commented that a less intense use of the land is appreciated. He suggested that the lots be configured to allow the Land Trust to easily acquire the open space in the rear of the parcel should the option arise. Mr. Ginsburg echoed the previous comments made, agreeing that the ease of access to the open space would be beneficial in terms of future Town recreation sites. Mr. Tagliatela s feedback was positive as well and also echoed the preferred open space approach. Mr. Lupovitz concurred with the previous Board members. Mr. Donegan s feedback was consistent with the Board members. There is strong support for anything that accommodates future Land Trust acquisition.

2 Mrs. Bourbonnais commented that this application is procedurally straightforward. It is a minor subdivision so it can skip Master Plan and got to Preliminary but a lot more engineering must be done so it may be a bit of time before the application comes back before the Planning Board. The Board took a five minute break. 2. Pre-application Review of a 25-lot subdivision being called Princess Pines. Property is currently owned by Ray and Diane Huling and is located at the end of Taggart Court, Assessor s Map 7, Plat 19, Lots 12 and 156. Property is zoned F-2 Farm and it abuts the Town line. The Developer name is GSA Properties, LLC of Providence. Scott Spear, an attorney with Blish and Cavanaugh, came forward and represented the applicant. Mr. Spear gave a brief overview of the project. The applicants, Glenn and Scott Amore, are not realestate developers and want to create homes for their family and extended family here, but additional lots are certainly developable on the nearly 80 acres. The subdivision is anticipated to include covenants requiring at least 3,000 sq. ft. homes with at least 4 bedrooms. The property is a 79 acre site including 2 wetland complexes. It is anticipated that there will be on-site waste water treatment systems and wells. There are two access roads proposed, one being an extension of Princess Pine Drive, the other would be using an existing 44 ft. right-of-way off Taggart Court. The 25 lots will each meet the minimum buildable area requirements. The average lot is about 2.9 acres. Mr. Spear conceded the fire chief and other town staff have advocated that the project be tied into the Tipping Rock neighborhood to create a looped road system. A traffic study will be conducted at the Master Plan stage and the applicant does not have a position on the matter one way or another and would like to leave the matter up to the Town. There is an issue about the affordable units as the applicant would prefer to shift the impact of affordable units into another area of town if possible but local ordinances are in flux. Mrs. Bourbonnais stated that the first reading of the new affordable housing ordinance is slated for 3/2/17. It is expected to take 2-3 months to get adopted so there may be a new ordinance by the time the application comes to the Planning Board for Master Plan. Mr. Donegan further explained the proposed new ordinance. Mr. Spear responded to comments from the Technical Review Committee. There will be no islands in the cul-de-sacs. Responding to soil conditions, the applicant will be making a much deeper analysis in the later stages of the project. The request for 3 cisterns was acknowledged and was not seen as a problem. Pertaining to the cemetery on the property, a HoA would maintain it. There will be no-cut buffers at the perimeter to minimize adverse impacts on abutters. Mr. Spear introduced Kevin Moran, a registered civil engineer with DiPrete Engineering, to further explain the project. He commented that the wetlands were verified by DEM last year. As far as site testing, the project is further along than usual for a Pre-Application. The existing utility easement will be abandoned and another utility easement created with the extension of Princess Pine. The applicants would like to retain several lots for their families, at a minimum of 4 acres or so each, meaning there would be less than 25 for sale homes in the project. A traffic study would be provided at the Master Plan stage and include traffic analysis back to Shippee Road. The properties would be serviced by OWTS septic systems, private wells, and cisterns. Questions from Board members were invited. Mr. Ginsburg affirmed that the western edge of the property was the town boundary. Mr. Tagliatela asked for an explanation of the cul-de-sac length 2

3 and the soil condition issues. Mr. Bourbonnais replied that part of the concern about street connectivity is because Princess Pine and Tipping Rock already exceed the maximum 1000 ft. culde-sac length. Connecting the roads is an opportunity to solve both issues. Regarding the soil conditions, Mr. Moran commented that part of the project could contain RF soils (not optimal for residential development) but soil maps need to be verified. Mrs. Bourbonnais added that RF soils are worrisome when houses have basements, septic systems and high water tables. It was noted that the Planning Board did not have to pay much attention to the soil quality because DEM would set the standards for the Planning Board to adhere to. Mr. Ginsburg asked if a consideration was given to connect to Tripping Rock Drive. It was explained that the Pre-application did not include it but it is an option that could be looked into. It was also recommended at the first TRC meeting. If the connecting road were to happen, the lot size adjacent to the road would not be affected. The proposed roads would become town roads. A discussion about the additional cisterns and retention ponds was brought up by Mr. Brusini and it was determined that additional cisterns and ponds would be situated on 1 lot or perhaps straddle 2 lots. A HOA would be responsible for the maintenance of the cisterns and ponds. Mr. Russo asked about the quantity of lots and if the number was set on 25. Mr. Spear answered that the number of lots was determined because the project is proposed as a by-right subdivision that meets the standards and zoning requirements and it makes economic sense for the applicant to propose this number of lots given the front end expenses of road construction, etc. Mr. Donegan asked about the traffic flow if the roads were connected and what areas would be the most burdened. The response was that there would be a thorough traffic study conducted that would include impacts on roads, intersections, etc. After the Board s questions, public comment was opened. Steve Burbridge, 30 Taggart Court. -Likes that he lives off of a dead end. This project changes the very character of the neighborhood. -Concern about the amount of homes drawing on the same aquifer homes already on sale in East Greenwich so there is already plenty of housing supply. -Concern about the continuity of the houses that could be built in the proposed neighborhood. Alice Leaman, 15 Taggart Court. -Shares the same concerns as previous; changes the character of the neighborhood. -Would like to keep large no-cut buffer. John Duke, 65 Princess Pine Drive. -Had questions about the sale closing, impact on schools, connection to Tipping Rock, buffers, alternate entrance on west side, stone walls, sidewalks, open space, and proposed pricing. -Overall concern is space, traffic, property lines and buffer zones. Peter Hopelain, 35 David Court, Representing the Tipping Rock HOA. -Acknowledged and appreciated the thought and care about the types of home that are being proposed. -Would like to see public water because there is a fire hazard for the homes in the area already. -Would like the traffic study to consider bus routes and potential stop sign in front of Princess Pine. Susan O Connell, 25 Taggart Court. -Would like to retain a large no-cut buffer and keep the integrity of the woods. 3

4 Kristen Bierwirth, 35 Taggart Court. -Concern about the road, specifically of the significant impact on the property value. -Commented on the stone wall that borders her parcel. -Concern about lots left undeveloped. Experienced an extension of the cul-de-sac and there are still undeveloped lots. -Concern about the safety of the neighborhood. -Would like to know about the implications from DEM about further development of the land. Jen Suellentrop, 55 Princess Pine Drive. -Echoed previous neighbors concerns. -Deep concerns regarding affordable housing aspect and whether it will diminish property values. -Had questions about a HOA and how it would work in the proposed development. -Asked what the benefit would be to the existing neighborhood. -Question regarding how to get ahold of the plans in the future. -Question regarding an insurance issue that a neighbor had about not having enough water (i.e. fire safety). -Setback vs. buffer question. Want to make sure that the view of the woods stays intact and does not want a diminished quality of enjoyment. -Concerned about the cul-de-sacs, specifically about people loitering in the empty cul-de-sacs. Dan O Leary, 40 Taggart Court -Wanted to know if the potential buyer was aware of the shooting range nearby the property in Exter and the safety implications that would come with it. -Asked if some of the land would be developed as an estate or a compound with multiple structures on it. Erika Arcand, 75 Taggart Court -Asked about the enforcement of the no-cut buffer zones. -Asked if there would be a site visit for the proposed plan. Matt Dunbar, 20 Princess Pine Drive -Commented that he would prefer the connection to Tipping Rock. Bob Ventura, 50 Princess Pine Drive -Asked if the potential buyer has ever done a development like this in the past. -Commented that 25 homes is an excessive amount. -Commented that the entrance to Princess Pine is dangerous and more traffic would make it more dangerous. -Commented that this proposed development would have an incredible impact to the surrounding homes. After the public spoke, public comment was closed. The Board proceeded to give their feedback: Mr. Gomez commented that a good discussion was held with healthy public feedback. The small details that need to be hashed out will be at a later stage of planning. Every landowner has rights to develop consistent with zoning but there are understandable concerns. There will be plenty of time for the applicant to address the abutters concerns. Mr. Russo said that he was generally in favor and commented that the applicant is represented by a well-respected engineer and law firm to guide this project. The biggest concern would be seeing empty lots. There are no foreseen impediments. Mr. Brusini had overall positive feedback. The project is large with a lot of issues associated with it so there is more diligence that has to be done. It was thoughtfully presented with fairly advanced 4

5 work at a very early stage. In regards to cul-de-sac exceedances, it would be better to create a thruway. It is also not favorable to create a gated road. Connectivity is something that the public, the Board and the Town s public safety officials favor. If a traffic study could be done directionally it would be more helpful. If the applicant is proactive with abutters and the public it would go a long way towards getting the project to advance. The Planning Board s charge is neither to be prodevelopment nor to be anti-land development, but rather to enforce responsible land development in accordance with state and local laws. The Board can t stop development because, as previously stated, every land owner has the right to develop their land, but encourage public comment at every stage of development. Mr. Ginsburg agreed with what had been previously said and added that the public is an important part of the development process. In regards to the plan, the connections to the existing neighborhoods are encouraged. Mr. Tagliatela echoed Mr. Brusini s comments regarding connectivity and the need for a traffic study. Other than the issues mentioned, the project is favorable at this stage. The concerns from the public are certainly valid and the applicant is encouraged to talk to the public regarding their concerns. Mr. Lupovitz agreed with the previous Board members that the comments from the public are welcomed. The feedback is encouraged and it is good to hear what the public thinks. He commented that he was generally in favor of the project and would encourage road connectivity between the existing neighborhoods. He echoed that while the concerns heard by the public are well noted, the property owner has rights and a project like this can be done successfully while being sensitive to the abutting neighborhoods. Mr. Donegan commented that the project was well presented. He echoed previous comments regarding land owners having constitutional development rights. What can be done is make sure the project meets all of the requirements. Particular concerns are density, which relates to traffic and safety. A high quality traffic study will be required showing how traffic will actually flow. Another concern to appease abutters would be to commit to a start and end time for construction each day. Generally speaking, this is a reasonable project. The agenda item was closed and the Board took a 5 minute break. 3. Minutes: Approval of the January 18, 2016 and February 8, 2016 minutes. Changes were noted and subsequently made for the 1/18/16 minutes and were approved unanimously. Changes were noted and subsequently made for the 2/8/16 minutes and were approved unanimously. 4. Planning Board Member Comments: For items not on the agenda and not relating to specific applications. Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Russo, seconded by Mr. Gomez. Meeting adjourned 10:26 PM. Minutes respectfully submitted by Aaron Lindo, Planning Assistant. For further information, please refer to the recording available in the Planning Department. 5