you you you you you you you you you you We're going to call to order the Narragansett Town Council regular meeting. Tonight is Monday, December 4, 2023. The time is 7-0-4. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, which is in one nation under God, individual, liberty, and justice for all. We're going to get started with the approval of minutes. Do I have a motion to accept and place on file the minutes from the October 23rd, 2023 work session meeting? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler. Seconded by Councillor Copic. Motion passes 5-0. Next we have a motion to accept and place on file the minutes from the November 6th, 2023 regular meeting. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler. Seconded by Councillor Copec. Motion passes 5-0. Next we have a motion to accept and place on file. The minutes from the November 6, 23, executive session meeting. So moved. Second. All in favor. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler second by councilor copak motion passes 5 0 Next we'll move on to announcements and presentations starting with our town managers update Good evening members of the council and public here today and those are at home a few updates for the week the town conducted AED in CPI training this morning for staff. The Nareganza Police has a recruit graduating the police academy on December 15th. And another recruit who came to us from Jamestown Police. Thanks to the newly passed ordinances that the council have adopted for hiring police officers on laterals and with the age cap removed. We currently have two vacancies remaining in the process of filling them. All of these retirement fills to staff, the department. The Nairganza Police has an awards ceremony to be held Wednesday, December 6th, at 6.30 pm at the North Beach Clubhouse. Department heads on the budget have submitted their capital improvement plans for the next fiscal year. This is what we basically call round one. It's the first wish list and then we go from there. Regarding the library, the balance of the loan of $1.5 million is down to $144,000. And they had minor damage during the construction that the contractor has said he will fix it within a couple of weeks. And I would like to recognize the Department of Public Works. At over the last year, you've probably noticed quite a bit more road projects in town. Over last year, over last year, they've done 70% more production this year than they did last year. More miles of road. By the end of this month, the construction of the $2.5 million drainage replacement and metatuxet, including Invinous States and Central Avenue, Nichols will be completed. construction of the $2.5 million drainage replacement and metatuxet, including environmental states, and central avanicals will be completed. Additional projects that continue throughout the year were the rejuvenator and the reclamite and the crack filling on the roads, homeland avenue, mumpfid, central, euston, bonnet view, bedfid, morgan. All these have done, it's a significant increase. The weather has cooperated. The staff has been fantastic. And the vendor, myozzy construction, has done a good job. And again, I cannot say enough about the staff, townwide, and this particular venture, they certainly deserve credit for that. And I'd also like to ask the council if we could have a moment of silence for Christine Beck, a long time town employee who retired and unfortunately shortly after her retirement. She was diagnosed with terminal cancer and she passed away and the services were last week. Thank you. Thank you. I guess too many losses. It's past month. Next we will move on to the open forum public comment portion of the meeting. Again, the comments of citizens addressing the council are either adopted or endorsed by the body but heard as requested. Note, their public comment will not be taken on matters involving open litigation and the rules are sign into speak. There's a sign in sheet at the back of the chambers. When you come up to the podium, please state your name and address and speak only on the topics, not on the meeting agenda and there's a three-minute time limit per speaker slash subject matter and please be orderly and respectful. Mr. Tierney who's the first speaker? There's one speaker who signed up a Clifford Taylor. Mr. Taylor? Oh no this is just for open. Okay so this is just what's not on the agenda. Okay, so is there anyone that didn't sign up that was just to speak? Okay, so we'll move on to the consent agenda. Do I do any members of the council wish to take out any consent agenda items? Yes, I'd like to pull D7. Okay, we'll take D7. And then any others? D2, please. And D2. Okay. Emotion 2 approve consent agenda. Minus D2 and D7. So moved. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler. Second by Councillor Copac. Motion passes 5-0. So D2 is a motion to approve a request from road races and events incorporated to conduct the annual Ocean State Road Race Marathon. Half marathon and 5K road race to be held on Sunday, October 27th, from 7.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., subject to state and local regulations. So my question is really on, I know the applicant may be here tonight, Michelle said, but so the person running the race, excuse me, you need to, yeah, I need a. You need a motion to open it. Yeah, yeah, sorry. I know, sorry about that. A motion. So moved. OK, second. OK, now you may speak. Thank you. I don't know if the applicant is here tonight. But my question is as far as the money that is going to be then allocated out, the road race is going to be then allocated out the road race is going to be occurring here in Narragansett and it is proposed about $4,400 will be given out to youth programs but my question is why is Narragansett only getting 1,600 of it and other towns, Carmelons getting 1,000, Middletowns getting 700, Antifichans getting 1,100. Why is a race that's a question. That's a question. Good evening. I'm Karen Zients. I'm the owner of Road Races and Events and Corporations. I'm a member of the Rural Development Committee. I'm a member of the Rural Development Committee. I'm a member of the Rural Development Committee. I'm a member of the Rural Development Committee. I'm a member of the Rural Development Committee. I'm a member of Road Races and Events Incorporated. This will be, this was the eighth year that we ran this race and this question is asked every year. We ask as many locals as we can to volunteer and make a donation to them. Narragansk at high school seems to be the biggest contributor to volunteering. It's usually the soccer team, sometimes the lacrosse team as well, and Narragans at Youth Track. So since you received that paper with the amounts for the donations they've gone up, so we had a group that an additional $700 went to Narragansett Youth Track and then an additional $200 went to Narragansett Youth Track as well for the best costume contest. So that figure is now $5,300 and we had 1,100 runners. So the math is about $5 per runner that went to donations. But is there a reason that you're not having all of that and great the donations are wonderful? But why is it all not coming back to benefit the town and Narragans said children? Because the volunteers are from other areas. So we have the Tervantilla Cross team that's volunteered. We had the Middletown High School baseball team. We've asked Narragans at high school numerous times and we just get the cross country team. I mean, they excuse me, the soccer team and sometimes the LaCrosse team. And that's all we get for volunteers. So we, I mean, we've tried. Narragans at Youth Track is a huge volunteer group, but we've tried, we've reached out to South County Museum no response there as well we've reached out to South Kingston High School no response there so it's a matter of community service they don't seem to need that anymore. One thing is probably is your appropriate profit road risk so maybe the community service is more for people that doing more for community service this is a profit. We sign up on community service projects as well. Well not just no just for that mente service. This is a profit. We sign up on community service projects as well. Well, no, just no just for that meant you but this is a you are a pro pro for profit organizations. So I think a lot of people in town actually do donate to nonprofit things more than profit. So they're time. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. All in favor? Hi. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion by Council Lawler, Second by Councilor Copac, motion passes 5-0. So D7, we're going to take that one out. It's a motion to approve the request from Vincent for Gosta, Jr. Esquire, to amend the terms of his engagement for legal services in respect to labor relations and employment matters by increasing his hourly rate to $225. So moved. Second. Okay, so I, this is, this is being removed by a separated out by Councillor Sisolan Bonanno. Any questions? Yes, so I just had a question for the manager. I just wanted to understand what Vin regosted. He was hired in 2019, right? Is that what's up the contract? I'm just trying, before we agreed to an increase in the salary, I think I just wanted to better understand what his role and responsibility has been because I know he was not hired for indefinite. So I'm just curious if the council knows or the manager what his role is. Yes, he was hired by the council in 2019 with a set rate of $200 per hour. And that was four years ago was the initial engagement. No council since then has ceased his engagement with the town. He provides legal services for, you know, labor relations and often very sensitive employment matters. And the council has been briefed on many of these during executive session and will be briefed again at a new executive session for the attorneys as was sent out to the council last week. Okay, so again, I just said some questions around the legal fees and I wasn't really sure what his role was because I know we don't use them consistently, so I was curious about that. I don't know if anybody else had the same curiosity. I have the same curiosity. I can tell you that going in the near future, he should have an intimate role in the fight apartment negotiations. Because of the, this is going to be an extremely drawn out, complicated labor relations contract with the fight apartment. Because of the grant expiring the eight firefighters that were hired under the grant the grant will be expiring at the beginning of 2025 and There's he's already done a read like a red line of the contract which was provided to the previous council We negotiated the contract that was one of the major things that he did do as well. Okay, so- You said the Peace Handle pensions, the labor pensions that we've had issues with. Yeah, so this is just the rate that we're approving. We can have discussions and executive council about any other services are going forward. But this is a discounted rate. I've been told it's a really great rate. So for his services, he has a lot of expertise in contract negotiations and I think he's an asset. So any other questions from the council before we move to vote? I would suggest that, I mean, I don't dispute anything that you're saying and I don't discount anything that you and Jim are saying on the subject, I just don't dispute anything that you're saying and I don't discount anything that you and Jim are saying on the subject. I just don't know anything about it. And so in my mind I'd rather, I prefer, I know we have to have this conversation in executive, but I'd prefer to have that conversation, table this until we do, and then go forward. I'm not sure what a discounted rate means. I mean I just don't understand some of this language and information, and I feel like I don't have enough information to say yes, this is a good idea. Can I actually ask our solicitor, Mark Davis, would you be willing to comment on the discounted rate of attorney fees? I know just the value. I think then in the open markets, probably billing at $6 or $7 or $800 an hour, then returns far more than he charges for the town. And it's not like, to my knowledge, then it's not engaged in day-to-day operations. Then handles very complex litigation like the Riley pension matter which is now concluded and other things that the town council has authorized them to look at. So I think you sent the letter out in June that I was copied on raising his rate for the first time in many years. So then to my knowledge, build a town on a regular basis. It's for very specific matters that either fall outside my expertise or Steve, my solace expertise, and would have to go to a generally a firm and outside firm. So, then on the labor stuff there's no one better and 225 is a gift, in my opinion. Thank you. And as Mr. Davis said, just maybe a memory refresher. The personnel, a board of appeals, the extensive drawn out negotiations and legal services provided during COVID with the vaccination mandate for the firefighters and the dry-out litigation on the pension from the Riley pension. Those are two examples of items that the council was fully briefed on and involved in and the contract for the fight upon the red line a few years back. So I'm just going to say I mean I have no doubt about any of those things that either of you are saying but I just I'd like to have more information and I know that can't happen here. So all I'm asking is that you know we table this we have you know we have this discussion and then we come back to it that That's, you know, I'm fine with that. If that's something that is problematic for some reason, I mean, I'm sorry, but I'd like to know what I'm doing. Deb, are you looking for more information on rates or everything? No, not rates. I just would like to see, you know, the word, I mean, you've provided some of the information, but we see a bill on a regular basis and it's not clear to me what the work is for. And I would just like to get a sense of that from, say, the past 12, I think I've already told you this, from the past 12 months. And you've already mentioned going forward, we have the, you know, we have, we have a contract to work on. So I understand all that. I mean, I just want to, I just would like to see it. That's all. Okay. I mean, that could be provided at a later date. This is just the rate increase that was submitted to us in July. And it's, to me, it's not excessive. So $25 increase. So $25 increase. So $25. So if I, I mean, I don't know why we're getting this in December from June, but, you know, had we known about this beforehand, we could probably have resolved this, you know, before now. So I'm not sure what the delay was. I'll find with this tonight. Go ahead. It's just a rate increase. And then any other issues that we have regarding attorneys and litigation, we're happy to discuss that in executive session. But for now, this is a rate that hasn't been increased since 2019 and it is a good value as our town solicitors mentioned. It's a discounted rate. And again, it's been four years since there was an increase. So all in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Only because I don't know. My answer is no. Okay. And I'm going to abstain. Okay. So motion by council law, second by Councilor Sissan-Liabonano. Three, yes, one abstention and one nay. All right, so let's see what time is we still have a few minutes before the public hearing. So next up on the agenda for new business from the information technology departments, we have a motion to approve the annual renewal of the MIME cast email filtering and archiving service with zones LLC in the amount of $18,661.53. So moved. Second. All in favor. Any discussion from the council? Anyone from the public? All in favor? Aye. Second. All in favor any discussion from the council? Anyone from the public? All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councilor Lawler, Second by Councilor Copac, motion passes 5-0. Next up from the Public Works Department. We have a motion to approve a change order for additional electrical work required for the IT renovations project with EW audit and SONs incorporated in the amount of $24,875. So moved. Second. Any questions from the council? Anyone for the public? All in favor. Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by council lawler, second by councilor Copic motion passes five zero Next up from the finance department we have a motion Excuse me. That has to wait for the public hearing The last Oh, thank you. I have to have the public hearing first. Oh yeah, thank you. All right, so let me see I think yeah yeah. So we have a few minutes until 7.30 when we start the public hearing. So we made good progress and good time. So we'll be back in about six minutes so if anybody wants to take a break, now's the time to do it. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Okay. The time is now 7.30 so we're going to get the public hearing portion of our meeting started. We do have three public hearings tonight. The first public hearing. We have a motion to open and hold a public hearing for an ordinance and amendments of Chapter 70 of the code of ordinances of the town of Narragansett, Rhode Island entitled taxation and finance. So moved. Second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Okay, so this is, I will have our finance director, Christine Wilson come up and present. Good evening. Thank you, Good evening. Thank you, Council President Drizzyzki. Tonight, I'm just submitting ordinance amendments that are submitted to meet the compliance with state law and the amendments that reflect changes to 70-4, putting a cap on tangible tax rates. The assessment date is December 31, 2023 and right now the cap is at $12.57. And we added a section 70-5 and this changes the tangible tax exemption from 35,000 to 50,000 and that's all keeping in compliance with new state legislation. Thank you. Anyone from the council should speak first, or I just have to go to the public. I have one question. I'm not sure I understand what tangible tax stuff is. If you could just explain it. You just wait right now as like businesses in their computers, they're equipping. Okay, okay, okay. Got it, thank you. the public. Thank you. Anyone from the public question a comment? Seeing no one, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? close the public hearing. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion by Councillor Lawler, second by Councillor Copac. Motion passes 5-0. Next we have a motion to open and hold a public hearing. On several text revisions to chapter 731 of the Code of the town of Narragansett entitled zoning for the purpose of complying with general assembly mandates enacted in the 2023 legislative session. So moved. Second. All in favor. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler. Seconded by Councillor Copic. Motion passes 5-0. We'll have Mr. Deluca, our committee development director, go over this for us. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor President and members of the council. I can't promise my hearing is going to be as short as Mrs. Wilson's. The additional piece of paper that you've received is an eradish sheet. You actually have two. As you know, the documents were going to be going over very lengthy and there were a few small errors that had been made in the production of those. So in compliance with state law whenever you have to make a change to something that has been advertised it needs to be brought up in hearing. I will address each of them as I get to them. Thanks. So, today we are, I am here to present to you the culmination of about 10 weeks' worth of really intense work. This work was undertaken by the Planning Board and the staff of the Planning Department with assistance from the solicitor and building inspector and others. This, what you will be seeing tonight is, there are two ordinances for me to present. This first hearing is about the mandatory regulatory changes that need to be made in compliance with the state enabling laws that were passed. So which laws were passed? The ones that you see highlighted in red, those are bill numbers that the General Assembly passed. They address H6059, 6090, 6058, 6081. Those address the mandatory changes that we need to undertake and implement in the town zoning ordinance. And so there are three ordinances is actually that need to be approved. The first two up there on the screen will be addressed tonight. And we are going to be addressing the mandatory provisions tonight, which involve required provisions, also some low-mod income housing provisions, and especially use permit criteria. There are 16 sections to this ordinance, and I'm going to hit them very quickly because there's going to be more detail later. So there are two sections on definitions, one which has amended definitions and all ours where definitions were replaced. There's a section on break order billage overlay district. There's a section on the use regulations. That's the long table if you've ever looked at the zoning ordinance. The long table of all the uses that people can put their property to. There's amendment to section 6.3, which is also part of the use regulations. Modified dimensional regulations is a large change there. Supplementary zoning regulations, there's a reference to an inclusion of a new section called adaptive reuse. We also have redefinition of the municipal subsidy program in the affordable housing section. We have changes to the inclusionary zoning ordinance. We'll be removing, suggesting that we remove the existing text and reserve that, and there's a reason for that. The comprehensive permit, which as you may recall, is the type of application that an individual can submit to the planning board for affordable housing developments wherein they would ask for a density relief in return for a specific percentage of low-mide income housing being incorporated in the plan. There's going to be some text addressing process. Substanted lots of record, the merger provision has been substantially changed. Variances will be amending processes for the variances and adding text of procedures for modifications. Especially use permits. We're going to be amending general standards of review and incorporating standards for 10 categories of use. I think it's actually 12, excuse me. And there are 16 other categories held in reserve. Development plan review, this is new to our town. It's something that has been authorized under the state enabling law, but was not enacted as was modification, by the way. Both have been optional up to now. Now they both require putting in a section on that. The final two are fairly basic housekeeping amendments to public hearings and processes and powers the zoning board of review. That's my opening outline. Now we're going to be doing the next 16 slides will be covering the details. Thanks. So the first two are covered in this slide. We have newer revised definitions. The definitions identified and read, adjustment and unified development are brand new definitions that have been added to the zoning ordinance. Adjustment is applied only to the comprehensive permit applications, the affordable housing applications. Unified development is a process whereby the planning board undertakes some of the activities that would ordinarily be undertaken by the zoning board. Those in yellow are revised. So we have definitions in the code, but these are being revised due to the changes in the state-nabeling law. The three with asterisks have been essentially completely removed and replaced. And the definitions in white are definitions that have existed within the zoning-enabling law or other elements of state law, such as adaptive reuse, but not incorporated up to this point in the town zoning ordinance. We are going to be incorporating them in. They are unchanged at the state level, but they are relevant to our zoning ordinance, so we are suggesting they be put in. So moving to the first component of change. In break order village, which I'm going to be moving along slowly here, because I've got a lot of paper to follow. The break order village regulation in section four of the code will be amended to change the format of mailing. So there is no need for certified mail for notice of zoning applications being pending. That can go, that can be changed the first class mail and that because it's going down to first class mail and after David would have to be submitted to the town to a test to the mailing. See, that was really easy, right? A little more complication as we move along. Now we're moving to something a little more complicated. That's the table of use regulations. This is just the example. This is taken right out of the current zoning book. For anyone who doesn't read the zoning book regularly, and I know most people don't, I and my staff read it all the time. This is the table that dictates what can be done on your property depending upon the zoning. And this is just the first half page of 11 pages of zoning. So just so we can understand how to read it. The column in headings. There's a code for every use, and you can see the numerical. There's a description for every use. Residential single family, residential two family, and so on. These headings up here are the zones. Our 80 is the two acre residential zone. Our 10 is the quarter acre residential zone. And quarter acre is about 10,000 square feet. So that's the reason we use those numbers. BABB and BC are our three business zones. IA and IB are our two industrial zones. And P is the public zone, which largely is just zoning properties like this, publicly owned properties. And as you can see, the chart shows what's permitted. P is permitted. X means prohibited. Most importantly, very importantly, I should say, the Reagan column is identified as comments the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public is doing the way the public section 17.2 of the code. This will become more important as we move along. But I wanted you to see that so that you can visualize what we're doing. I have two slides on changes to the table of use regulations. First of all, this is somewhat of a very giant housekeeping component. The table of use regulations has for some reason been located in Section 63 of the code, which is identified as prohibited uses. It should not be there. It was originally placed in 1987 when the zoning was rewritten completely into Section 6.1 and somewhere along the way in the last, whatever that is, 40 years, it landed in section 6.3. It really is section 6.1, news regulations. So we're lifting the entire table that I just mentioned to you. 11 pages of documentation and we're just moving it up to subsections into the proper subheading. There's nothing other than that, as I said, it's a giant housekeeping item. We are adding references, I just mentioned this, in the comment column, for special use permit standards, for several use categories, and you will see that as we go along later on. And here are some of the changes now that we have made. One of the key points to this is that the state law indicates that if we don't have, if we have anything indicated as a special use permit use, then it must have special use permit standards in the code. So there are certain things that we have either added the standards into the code, and then other uses that we have suggested either be made permitted by right or prohibited so therefore they don't need special use permit standards. Dormatory use was, exists as a special use permit allowance in our 10 and our 10 A, we're suggesting that be changed to prohibited and be allowed as an accessory use in IA and IB zones. Why would we want dormitories and industrial zones? That's the zoning of the land that the Bay campus is located on. And since that's the only school we have that could potentially be building dormitories, we thought that could potentially be building domazaries we thought that that would be an appropriate designation. I'll be moving a little quicker. We're inserting a new category for group homes and orphanages to be allowed by special use permit in five residential zones. We're changing accessory dwelling unit from prohibited to permitted in all five residential zones in anticipation of what we know is coming in the next legislative accessory dwelling unit from Prohibited to permidate in all five residential zones, in anticipation of what we know is coming in the next legislative session. We are changing taxi stand bus station heliport to Prohibited in all zones. These are things that just we have no anticipation of ever being used in our town. So instead of having to write special use permit standards for a heliport, we're suggesting it just be prohibited. Supermarkets, restaurants, these are being changed to permitted. They now have a special use permit required. And fuel deal is a oil bottle gas are being changed to permitted, but only in BB zones. BB is one of our business zones. We're also considering changing commercial or street parking structure from prohibited to being allowed by special use permit in water Waterfront Business and Industrial Zones. There's background for that. Changing Medical and Dental Labs from permitted to Special Use Permit in the BB Zones. Because the laboratories is, there's work with chemicals and that kind of thing. So the suggestion is that that might need to have some special standards. Whoops, excuse me, hit the wrong button. Code 774 is being removed. It's already covered under code 91.92 and 93. This has to do with rest, retirement, and convalescent homes. So it was a duplication. Emergency counseling services is being prohibited in all five residential zones. Prohibiting tent camps in all zones. We're changing Golf practice range, Baseball batting facilities, indoor riding academy, indoor athletic fields, from special use permit uses to prohibited in the BC waterfront business zone. And then the last one is with suggesting changing, this is a catch all at the end of the section on recreation, indoor and outdoor private recreation, not elsewhere classified, from special use permit to prohibited and in all zones, in all residential zones rather, and the BA in the public zones, that would make it still allowed in the BB zone. So those are, that's what we're doing with the table of uses. Now moving on to zone regulations. This is section five and section six. If you're following along with the ordinance as was drafted and incorporated in the packet tonight, I'm going to turn my page so I can catch up. So as I mentioned, we're deleting the table of uses from Section 6.3. It's going over to Section 6.1. We're leaving the text, the remaining text from Section 6.3 as is,.5 is our modified dimensional regulation section. Not to be confused with modification. Could use a bit of terminology, but modified dimensional regulations is something we've had in the code for years that allows for narrower setbacks and narrower setbacks mostly in legal, substantive lots of record. But the state law has superseded that with some language that allows setback, frontage and lot width to be reduced on substantive lots of record. By the same proportion as the lot area, is to minimum lot area requirements in that zone. So the easiest way to think of that low incentives is if you have a 5,000 square foot lot and a 10,000 square foot zone, all the dimensional requirements will be reduced by 50%. And it allows the maximum building coverage to be increased in the same proportional manner, but in the direction of larger versus lesser. Moving to section seven, supplementary zoning regulations. First of all, we're expanding the category of regulation for dry buck windows. It only, it didn't include bakeries and coffee shops before. It only included pharmacies and fast food restaurant. Pharmacies and banking, thank you. And we're adding adaptive reuse. This is a new section permitting the regulation of commercial buildings for residential or mixed use development. So, and there are a series of specific requirements. If a commercial building we're going to be used for a mixed use or residential development, it has to have 50% of its space used up by residential units. It cannot have any environmental land use restrictions by the state or EPA. In such a case, the density would be 15 dwelling would be up to 15 dwelling units per acre, we're limited to the existing footprint and development of 20% low-mod income housing. Has to have access to sewer and water. Other components of this regulation, the density allowed would be maximum that meets the standard of minimum housing and must have water and soil, consider duplication. Further regulations on adaptive reuse, existing setbacks would be main, not need to be considered legally if they were not, they'd be considered legal not conforming. Same thing with height. No additional encroachments would be permitted into the setbacks though. Parking spaces would be set at one per unit. The uses would be residential. And any non-residential uses are allowed by the underlying zone. So if it's in a BA zone, but someone wanted to put in manufacturing, well, that's not allowed so that wouldn't be allowed But a store or an office space would There are design standards that would be a per regulations for that zone that comes up later The procedure would be that it's subject to either Development plan review minor or major land development Approval as determined in the subdued and land regulations. So this has to do with the size and scale of the development. If it's a fairly small development, it could go through development plan review. If it's somewhat larger, it would have to go through the planning board as a minor or major development. It would also have to provide specific information related to density. This all has to do with what the application would have to have in it to be submitted. Flow plain use of spaces, et cetera. Moving on. Oh, excuse me. I have to back up. There There was one error. This is our item number one. And all it is, this is a very simple one. We didn't write out the full title of the subdivision and land development regulations in the ordinance itself. So we've cleared that up by in paragraph G under 7.21. We've cleared that up. Same thing with paragraph H. So that's a rod and a bull. Moving on. Okay, so affordable housing. The municipal subsidy program. Okay, so affordable housing. The Municipal Subsidy Program, which is identified in Section 7A of the zoning ordinance, has been revised. And there's a great deal of text that's been changed, but one of the more important elements is that the state legislation has now dictated the density bonus formula for a comprehensive permits. And if you read that closely, you can see that if a property has water and sewer availability and the applicant is committing to 25% low-mod income housing, they will be allowed five units per acre. If they are committing to 50%, meaning 10 out of 20 or 50 out of 112 units, as low-mod income housing, and they have water and sewer available, the density would be nine units per acre. If a project were 100% low-mod income, as is clock point, which was built by Narragansett Housing in 2009-10, down on clock road, the density would be allowed at 12 units per acre with sewer or water and water. If you only have one of those two utilities, the densities go down, as you can see. Additional standards. Only one parking space required if it's up to a two bedroom unit. The town shall not regulate to less than three bedrooms per dwelling unit. This is important. We have a floor area ratio regulation in town, but the floor area ratio regulation will not be applied to comprehensive permits. And there are other types of subsidies allowed. So that takes care of that. Be with me as I move along. All right, this has been a topic of some discussion of affordable housing but not under comprehensive permit. Another way to get to affordable housing is to go through inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning is a process whereby a standard subdivision or standard lean development goes through the planning board for the normal approval process. But it commits to, at this point in time, under the current regulations, 10% of the development being affordable. The new state enabling law changes that requirement to 25%, which I think is great, and I have the planning board is very supportive. We're going to have density bonuses we should have a significant number of affordable units. Our existing content of our existing regulation does not comply with the new legislation. It has no density relief. So it needs to be updated if it's going to comply with the state law. But the new legislation requires two new standards. One, I just mentioned, 25% of the development has to be low-mod income housing. And that's deed restricted, not just something that the developer says is going to do. It has to have a deed restriction on each of the individual properties. But it also has a multiplier of two bonus market rate units for every low mod income bonus unit approved. So in order to meet these two requirements, the density would have to be increased significantly. When I ran the figures, and I run the figures on a number of different options, this one is really easy one to follow. The number is just full in place. You start with 120,000 square foot lot in a 10,000 square foot zone. That means you would be able to divide that into 12 dwelling units. 25% of 12 are very easy. It's three. But if you're going to do three units as low mod, then you have to do six mockery units. So you add the three in the six to the 12 and you get 21. But three affordable units over 21 is only 14%. If you keep adding, and we'll go all the way through it, you have to go all the way down to the bottom so that you've added 36912, you've added 12 affordable units, but you've also added 24 market rate units to get to the 25%, but you get, although we, to get to 25%, you now have to have 48 dwelling units in that area zoned for 12. Because of that and because inclusionary zoning is still optional under state law, meaning we don't have to have it. The planning board is suggesting that the inclusionary zoning text be completely eliminated from the zoning ordinance today. Leave it reserved for future amendment. I do believe that, and I'm sure the planning board chairman would say also, the planning board is very supportive of inclusionary zoning. The Plainning Board wrote the inclusionary zoning ordinance in 2008, which before it was enacted, had a density bonus drafted into it. Density bonus was taken out of it. So the Plainning Board isn't against inclusionary zoning nowhere am I. But the stringent approach that is being forced upon the town, if we opt to use it, creates this four times quadrupling of density. And I do believe that there will be an amendment made to that piece of law this year. I can't tell you that there's anything, any bills being pre-submitted, but I do know that there is legislature's aware of this condition in this, I'd call it an anomaly. Moving along. Comprehensive permit applications. This is very simple, thankfully. We've never had anything in the zoning ordinance that actually identifies the comprehensive permits are allowed by the end of town. So we're just adding a very small section that enables and authorizes comprehensive permits to be undertaken by applicants through the planning process and across references the subdivision regulations. We're in, there is a lengthy section on drafted section on how that process would be undertaken. So this is merely just a identification in the zoning ordinance. The comprehensive permit applications for photo housing are allowed in town. Item 11 is a substandard lots of record. The state enabling law now amends recently amended the merger clause and it removes merger by use or merger by zoning requirement. The new standard now is that merger is not required when the lot has an area equal to or greater than the area of lots within two of, with an area of 50% of the lots within 200 feet. And it modifies the lot coverage of the corner per the text of section 6.5, the proportional section I mentioned a few minutes ago. We're not very happy with this, but this is the way it's been approved and it's mandatory. Item 12 is variances. And there is an erotic in this one also I will get to that. There's a lot that's happening in this section. We've changed the notice requirement from placing that in the newspaper of general circulation to a newspaper of local circulation. We've been using that against the times for years anyway, so it doesn't change our approach. But the state law actually made that change so that people could, communities could save money and utilize their local newspapers. A butter notification, that again has changed to standard first class with no certification required as noted earlier for break order village. Notices, notices of public hearing now have to be posted in two public buildings. The town clerk's office, wherever that may be, and here it's in town hall but some places it's not. And one other municipal building, 14 days in advance of a hearing. The next two things are much more involved. It requires, it removes two requirements for variances and revises one, up to today, up till the end of this year. Hotship has to be proven to not be primarily from the desire for the owner to realize greater financial gain. It also has to be the least variance necessary. These are standards that the zoning boards have been employing for decades. The new legislation also revises the mere inconvenience standard to mean that relief sought is minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use. That's a standard that is extraordinarily subjective. But those are dictated to us now. It also adds a new subsection on modifications. Modification has been in the books on the law since 1991. And it says that the town can grant the zoning officer, the zoning enforcement officer, the authority to give up to 25% relief of dimensional requirements if certain procedures are followed. But it's option. And the town never exercise the option. And I believe there's reason for that. I'll get to that in a moment. The application and review standards must be met. Zoning enforcement of some must notify the direct-to-buddus who have a 14-day period to file an objection. Today, that objection period is 30 days. The zoning and phosphonosum is also granted, is granted the authorization to permit up to 15% or less of dimensional requirements if it meets four standards and these are the standards. I know it's kind of lengthy there, and Jim just ran through it. First standard is that it's reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the permitted use. The second is that the modification will not substantially injure neighboring property nor its use. It does not require flood hazard variants, it does not violate freshwater wetlands or coastal wetlands rules. This is where I have to stop. Our second erota is here. In our draft ordinance, we didn't put in the does not part for the wetlands. This does not violate wetlands the way it's drafted. It says it does. So that's a real major faux pas and suggesting that we do make that change to the ordinance, otherwise we wouldn't be in compliance with the state law. Moving on to special use permits, and I will get back to the variance. Bearing. Okay, I'll get that. Special use permits also is, indicates that we will add a section that allows applicants to attain zoning or approval of a use not specifically listed in the use table as a use requiring a special use permit. What does that mean? That means if there's, if someone wants to do something with their property that we don't have in that 11-page table that I mentioned, but it's somewhat similar to something else. They can go to the zoning board. If it's not in the table, it's considered prohibited by outright. But if they feel that it's somewhat similar to something else, they can go to the zoning board and ask the zoning board to acknowledge that. And then if the zoning board agrees with that, they can get a special use permit to do that thing. That's what that says. It also importantly, eliminates the need for consistency with a comprehensive plan as a criteria for approval. This is something that caused great consternation with the planning board. As you can imagine, we'd like to think that every application that comes in for variance or special use permit can be considered compliant with a comprehensive plan. It now is no longer a necessary requirement. It also goes on to specify that the top, the planning board has authority to approve special use permits if included in the subdivision proposal in need of zoning relief under the unified development review process. I'm going to get into details on unified development in a few minutes. Here we change 11 uses from special use permit to prohibited and six uses from special use permit to permitted. And those are listed in the ordinance that you have attached to the agenda item. So I won't about the table. For process projects that listed especially as permit projects that we didn't suggest be prohibited or permitted, We have drafted, and this is a lengthy, lengthy process. My staff and the board members worked hours on this. We drafted special use permit standards for every one of these 12 types of uses. I won't read them all to you. You can see them. So now those are in the book and they take up a great deal of the ordinance that you're reviewing. We also held 16 categories that are designated, especially use permit uses in reserve. And the only reason for that was, well there were two reasons. One is lack of time to get through all of them and also these were the types of uses that are less often seen, less popular sorts of projects of uses of land. We will be working on those in the coming months. Okay, moving to section 14, which I need to find. I have a lot of notes in here. The land development projects, development plan review and unified development review. Development plan review is a new section. It addresses developments meeting the six criteria you see there. If it's a change in use with no extensive construction, if it's in adaptive reuse in a commercial zone or in a residential zone that has fairly limited in size, you can see less than nine units in a residential zone, a development in a designated urban or growth center, which I don't believe we have either, institutional development design review for educational or hospital developments and developments in historic districts. Those are the only types of developments that would be allowed to come through development plan review, which is a somewhat abbreviated process that the planning board would undertake similar to doing land development or subdivision approval. The permitting authority can be administrative or formal depending upon the extent of that project. If it's a really small project, administratively, meaning staff could approve that development plan. Design standards for commercial and mixed-use developments and adaptive reuse would be put in place. We've added these standards into this chapter, and we've added special standards just for Boone Street. Moving along. Unified Development Review, let me kind of try to gel this in your head now because you've heard it about five times already. It's authorization and a process for the planning board to issue variances or special use permits for properties undergoing development plan review, minor or major subdivision or land development process. And this is our third erotic. We had to correct section 17.4 paragraph 1 and 17.4 paragraph four. The way we drafted it and the way it shows up on page 83 and 84 of the draft ordinance, indicates that it would only be available for minor subdivisions and lane developments and development plan review, not major. That's wrong. So we had to add the word major into several sentences and you see it there on the attachment. But I did manage to get it into the PowerPoint. Anything, even the DPRs of the minus subdivisions that seek relief under unified development must have a public hearing at the preliminary stage. Major subdivisions and land developments seeking relief will require a public hearing at the master plan stage and just to be clear the planning board has the same authority as the zoning board. So grant approval, approval with conditions or deny and it requires for relief in accordance with state law. Coming down the home stretch. Yeah, these are mostly somewhat housekeeping, updating for notice and public hearing requirements. Notice, most reported in two locations and the town, and on the town website, at least 14 days prior to the hearing. That's a new thing. Also, clarification of when an ordinance text could be shortened was provided addressing the intent and effect of the draft ordinance. You saw our advertisement in the newspaper for this. Maybe under the new law, we might have been able to condense that a little bit. And again, notification is by first class mail. I won't believe at that point. Last thing is powers and duties of the zoning board. It does set a timeline that we've never had in the ordinance before the ordinance was always kind of amorphous about this. When someone files an appeal, which is not a zoning variance application, it's an appeal of the building code, it's appeal of the zoning decision of the zoning enforcement officer. It now establishes a timeline of 65 days to hear and decide that appeal. We also acknowledge and we've incorporated this into the ordinance. This is something that was passed last year in the state law that the number of members necessary to conduct hearings and sit at the hearing have been reduced. I used to need a five person majority and now you need four. And last but not least, it requires all members of zoning board to participate in continuing and continuing education. Other than that, no changes. So I've given you my overview of this ordinance. I'm ready to take questions. Okay, I thought that was pretty straightforward. Thank you. Any questions from the council? So I have a couple of questions. First, it's very complicated. The zoning ordinances, they really are. And this is just a philosophical question. So the state passes a package, right? 10 bills and says, here's a bunch of bills that's going to help your town with affordable housing. This is the way you should go. It comes to the town, we look at it, we send it to the plan board. There are all these changes which are pretty complicated, but they're more restrictive than less restrictive, right? So it seems to me, and I don't know it well, I've read it a million times, I don't ask to get that. It seems like there are more rules, right? So it's more restrictive for homeowners, developers, and everybody. That's my perception, but that's just kind of a philosophical is I like when it can go through the administrative processes less about keeping going through the board. So I just want to say that up front, but the inclusionary zoning was a big piece of, and I know you sort of went over it, but in my mind, everybody seems to be wanting to keep that in, that was mandated by law. So how are we working around that? Okay, two parts here, Two answers to your question. First, the General Assembly by creating things like development plan review and making that mandatory, by making unified development review mandatory, are have shortened the process because the planning board now will be authorized to grant relief that would otherwise have to be sent over to the zoning board for a hearing and then sent back to the planning board. They're also with regard to development plan review is our standards trigger points where if it's going to be of a certain size it has to go to the planning board, but if it's a small enough project, it stays with the staff and the staff reviews that and issues the approval, similar to an administrative subdivision. So that's a streamlining component. Those are just two examples, there's more. In regard to inclusionary zoning, as I pointed out to, inclusionary zoning is not mandated. It has not been mandated by anything that was sent to us in the bills that were passed. So when the new formula was put into the state law, I and my 38 colleagues around the state did the same thing. We ran some numbers and figured out what did that really mean And we shared that without planning board. It's that suggested that it might be a bit excessive So again, inclusion of zoning is a very very powerful tool and it's one this town should be using But I do believe that it should only be used if that formula is changed or there's flexibility added to that formula that allows the town to, you know, flex it to be appropriate for each individual town. So those are my answers to that. Okay, I just have a couple more questions if people don't mind. So one of the other things I just want, and this actually is for Steve, all these proposed changes, will they be an any kind of violation of the law? And if so, or will the town be protected and will they still be covered because there's an awful lot of changes, and I'm just curious if we're putting the town in a situation. Well, first of all, the package that Mike went over right now are the mandatory changes. So these changes are mandated by the law. So therefore, it's my opinion that the town would be in a improper legal position if we didn't do this package in the manner that we are doing it. Okay, and then just my last question, thanks. Is what about people that are beginning the process and like with changing the rules that's happened before in the town people have the heart set on you know building a house or development or whatever it is and then all these new restrictions come and then they can't do it. So what happens to those people? Is there a grandfather clause for that group or not? I'd like to say so. Unfortunately the General Assembly gave us till December 31st to enact and make them make these regulations effective. We do not have any flexibility there. So we've given our experience with Flarey Ratio and Bugzoning, I would have gladly put in a two, three, four month delay period. We don't have that ability, we don't have that flexibility. So we can't do what we have to right away and then leave the other stuff to a longer period of time where we could go through it. I mean, that was just one thing I was wondering. Everything seems so rushed from January 1st. And so why don't we adopt what we have doing all those other changes that are kind of embedded in there, we should take some pause on and make sure we get it right. A lot of times people don't know the zoning change until it applies to them. And then a year later they call and say, oh my gosh, I can't do this. What's this bulk zoning because of the fire and stuff they don't and the people that aren't paying attention now It's gonna affect later too. So I'm just kind of worried about that piece of it too. So am I so I was just wondering the process. I know we We did it to like try to here's the mandate and we moved our numbers to meet the mandate I guess I think the exercise to me is wasn't the best way to do it. And so I just have to be on the record for saying that. The moving the numbers is the next public hearing. Okay, okay. But in regard to inclusionary zoning, if we would just leave the chapter on inclusionary zoning in the code, it would still be out of compliance with state law. It would be even more out of compliance with the state law, but inclusionary zoning is not mandated. So our suggestion is to clear the books, clear the slate, give us the opportunity to hopefully respond to an improved and revised piece of legislation that I'm hoping will come to us before June. Okay. Thanks, Mike. Any other council members? I just want to clarify that. So what you mean is that, you know, if what you hope happens, you would go back and revisit the inclusionary zoning ordinance and reinstated or not reinstated but revise it and then have and yeah in fact that's why we we we help we kept the heading in there with a reserve clause next to it so that we can fill in. I think Susan wants you to pinkie swear that I want that commitment. I'll. Yes, we absolutely want to have an inclusionary zoning ordinance in this town. Planning board I think is strongly behind having one. The conditions under which we would write one today are untenable. I get it. Any other council members? I do want it. I'll go to the public. Anyone from the public wishing to speak. Dr. Alba. I'm only swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the hope you got. I do. Please state your name and sell your last. Dr. Alba, ALBA, 24 Eagles Nest Terrace, Narragansett, Rhode Island, 02882. Thank you. Thank you. So we have a lot of information to digest tonight. I did see the provisions. We all know that affordable housing is a good thing. And they're to be exceptions so that we can have increased density in those areas. My question and concern is that we have had big time developments such as Gil Bain and Prokassiante purchase out the affordable housings. So my concern is we might have affordable housing and then what is sharing that we're going to have that down the road, these multi-billionaires are going to take over the property, retrofit it, and then make a killing on the higher density areas. So our legislator's really got to consider this. We all can see what's happening in Galilee. And I was surprised that they didn't have the different zoning. Maybe Mr. Deluca could address this. Galley fisheries, galley industry, galley business. Because I've checked those zones quite a bit. Because I've been reviewing what's been going on in Galilee and how outer compliance, the five-acre possible by our IDM and about the special use permit, which proxy anti-developers have not received from the town yet they're continuing to operate their street level parking lot. So I guess my question is, why, I think we should address the zoning across all of an area against it, and the table.nc, the galley specific zoning for those areas. I think that should be addressed. And also I hope that whatever provisions and ordinances that we impose are going to be upheld for everyone regardless of their income regardless of their statute regardless of their political influence Thank you Thank you Mr. Taren, do we have a sign in shape for the public hearing? I thought it was gonna. I saw you getting the sheet or I Just grab it to see if some people did sign for the public hearing there I saw you getting the sheet or. I just grabbed it to see if some people did sign for the public hearing. There are some names on it. I don't know if they sign for the open forum. Is it? I think we didn't have anyone for open forum. So I think I'm just going to do show of hands just to make sure. So for this public hearing, is anyone else wish to speak on this? The gentleman in the front. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so happy God. I do. Please state your name and spell your last. Clifford Tyler, T.Y. L.E.R., 30 Lambert Street nearer Gansett. I'm also a committee member of the Narragansett Affordable Housing Trust here in the town. I've been an advocate for affordable housing in southern Rhode Island for almost a decade and I also am the president chairman of the board of Habitat Humanity here in South County. So I speak with a little bit of conviction when it comes to affordable housing. I'd like to specifically talk tonight about the proposed removal of the inclusionary zoning ordinance in this entirety. I know it's reserved, but inclusionary zoning was adopted by many communities across the state of Rhode Island since 2005, and here in Narragansett, about 13 years ago, that was adopted. Of all the towns in Washington County, all have inclusionary zoning with the exception of the town of Charleston. That's the only town in our neighborhood, our neighbors, that do not have inclusionary zoning in place. Inclusion has been discussed earlier, inclusionary zoning in place. Inclusion has been discussed earlier. Inclusionary zoning was adopted by the towns to actually help increase affordable housing in their respective communities. So I recently did a review of several of the local communities and how they're handling this new ordinance. And I could not find one single town in nearby communities that are re-keeling the inclusionary zoning ordinances in their communities. They're adopting it and they're moving on. My first comment really tonight is about the legality of removing inclusionary zoning from the ordinance here in the town of Niagara Ganset. When the new legislation was signed by the governor on November 24th, the town of Naira Gansett had inclusionary zoning in its ordinances. Now six months later, since the law was passed, the town was looking to remove that particular ordinance so it doesn't need to comply with the law. Now, it's my understanding that once the law was signed by the governor on June 24th, that all towns that had inclusionary zoning were required to comply with that said and done. If the town didn't have inclusionary zoning on their books, then they weren't necessarily allowed to adopt that option. So we talk about it hearing about as in a discretionary ordinance, but the town solicitor just mentioned that we're addressing right now all the required ordinances. Inclusionary zoning is part of that. So I'm not sure why we're talking about that. So I would sincerely ask the town, this may be an area that the town solicitor may need to investigate a little bit further since when the law went in place, we had inclusionary zoning on our records and now do, are we held accountable for that? So just as a word of caution. And my second area of comments relates to the recommendations that are soon to be released from the Affordable Housing Study that the town council approved and commissioned earlier this year with crane associates. That was to the tune of $25,000. Although the final report hasn't been published yet, it's going to be published as I understand it really, really soon. Now I did have an opportunity to review the most recent draft. They did November 15, just a few weeks ago. And the number two recommendation in this study that our paid consultant is suggesting to town and the airansett is to fully embrace inclusionary zoning and completely leverage what the new legislation has to offer to help our community with their housing needs. I think it'd be a shame to prematurely dismiss those recommendations that the town has spent money on and then the loss of the benefits of inclusionary zoning that has to offer. I know the planning board and Mr. Deluca and his staff has worked extremely hard to incorporate other or include incorporate pieces of inclusionary zoning into other areas of the ordinances. But there are some areas that are not covered, that are currently in our ordinances today, and is also part of the state new laws. That most specifically is the fee and the loop portion of the new law and what that provides to the community. We're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of fees that this town could be collecting and could be utilizing to develop and create more affordable housing in this community itself. So we're pushing that to the side based on the new audiences that are being proposed here this evening. So that is my comment, so I just thank you all for your time. Thank you. I saw some other hands up. Anyone else wishing to speak? Mr. Edwards. You soundly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, I do. I do. Please state your name and sell your last. Nicolus EDWARDS, edwards, 36 crests to avenue and Narragansett, Rhode Island. You're welcome. Good evening, honor of the council. As a lifelong resident of Narragansett, and as the chair of the Narragansett Affordable Housing Collaborative Trust. I'm hoping tonight you'll exercise caution with some of these changes that are being made to the new zoning laws. First I'll start by saying I have a great deal of respect. First for all of you. And second for all of those who worked on these changes on our planning board, the town staff, and everyone else. But I'd like to remind you tonight is you consider this vote, potential vote, that Narragansett is in a housing crisis. The intent of this legislation passed by the General Assembly and now that I own General Law was to increase workforce housing municipalities across the state. Well, Narragansett is in a unique situation, I know. I still believe we are being much too restrictive with our proposed amendments to these laws. I'm not saying that this council in the planning board are against affordable housing with the record reflect. But with that said, in a town that has only achieved approximately 3.8%, if it's affordable housing goal that sanctioned by the state. And one that the cost of a median single family home is $760,000. According to Housing Works with Highland, we should be opening our arms and opportunities to make it easier for workforce and affordable homes to be built, to keep families in town year round. I do understand that one size doesn't necessarily fit all, but as far as I know, Narragansett is the only municipality in the state of Rhode Island, out of our 39 cities and towns, proposing changes to this extent. So I'm gonna be brief, but I'd like to remind the council as my colleague, Cliff Tyler, did about the consultant that was procured to conduct a housing study on behalf of the town. The draft report is nearly nearing, excuse me, completion. And one of Crane consulting's top recommendations in the draft report, as Cliff mentioned, is for now, a gantz it to adopt an inclusionary zoning ordinance, which as many of you know, is known by people nationwide as a tool for affordable housing. Instead, it's been completely removed. With that in mind, and the draft report, Rest assured is coming. I hope many of you have seen this draft report. I really think we should exercise caution tonight and going forward with these significant changes. And finally, in closing, let's work together with the General Assembly more next legislative session. Mr. Deluca has eloquently indicated that the General Assembly is working to increase affordable housing and continue legislation. I just hope that the town can, I know everyone works really hard, but let's work with the General Assembly more to have a seat at the table. And I'll ask you tonight, let's just be realistic. And you know, we have to continue to increase year-round families in this town, which leads to economic development year-round. And again, as the chair, I wasn't planning to say this tonight, but as the chair of the Affordable Housing Collaborative and a member of the committee for the past three years. I can assure you people are not lining up to build affordable homes in the town of Narrow, Kansas. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Sir. Please raise your hand. Do you suddenly swear that the testimony are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of how you got to do? Please state your name and spell your last. Nicholas Budano, BUD, ANO, 49-SHORROWED, Narragansett. Thank you for some time to speak to you guys. I live in Breakwater Village, 49 show road. I understand what the zoning board and planning board are trying to do. We went through this back in 2010. People over building on small lots. So I understand why they're trying to restrict a 10,000 square foot, a 5,000 square foot house within our 10 zoning. Back in 2010, we met with the zoning bottom, planning bottom. We already were very heavily restricted on our home sizes. If you reference, I believe it's 4-815, break water village. Our home are not 35 feet. Many of our homes are 22, 24, 26 feet, heavily restricted. Many of our lot sizes are 1200 square feet. Most of our lots are under 3000 square feet. These new dimensional regulations are gonna affect the homes that we can build many of us are already in progress in the process of Planning and spent a lot of money on on our plans and we've had a month to really digest these are these new ordinances So if you would please just look at that the regulations Some of our houses are already at 24 feet, 26 feet, and now we'll be stricter down to like, I believe some of the homes will be at 21 feet. Which may make some of our homes unbuildable the way we planned. So I guess my question is, do you need to have dimensional changes in break water as part of the state regulations? Mr. Gilligan, is he's referring to the next set of, yeah, so this isn't, this is about the required ones. So we have a separate hearing for that. So this is not the time to speak on hat actually right now. So yeah. So these changes won't be in effect. Yeah, so that. That's the next hearing. Yeah, there's two public hearings tonight. One is on the mandatory changes. The next public hearing, which is happening tonight, will be on all the discretionary changes. That's the discretion I got tonight. It is after this. So first, this first public hearing is addressing the required ones, so the other ones is discretionary, so that will be after I close this public hearing, so you can speak again. I just want to make sure that we're on the right. Yeah, but it's still no problem. So we'll, we'll, we'll have you speak at the next public hearing, because that's where you really want to be heard. Anyone else wishing to speak on this public hearing, sir? Is it the next one? OK. Yeah. So the next one I think is the one where it's the dimensional. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. OK. This one I thought was pretty cut and dry compared to the other one. Anyone else wishing to speak, sir? Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony are about to give? Will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of happy God? I do. Please state your name and scale your last. Ronald Schofe, CHO, FAY, 1430 Ocean Road, and I are against it. I'll do it, A, two way to it, thanks. I just clarification, more from Mike and just my understanding. What is the state pushing on the town relative to the merger or unmerger if you would? I just need to have 50% of this that and the other. So that was, I don't quite understand some of the stuff that the state's pushing. So I mean, I would say Mr. Chaufe has very, very, very good attorneys. I don't know why you would want to advise him on that, but I'm certainly okay. Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Mocella. I'm not going to advise Mr. Chaufe, all I will do is clarify what I said at hearing, which is today and for decades we have had a merger by use and a merger by zoning clause in our regulation. By example, what that means is if you own 2,500 square foot lots that are recorded on a plaque down in the clerks vault, psych that means is if you own 2,000 square foot lots that are recorded on a plaque down in the clerks vault, psyched by sight and you own them outright yourself. And you're in an R10 zone, they are considered merged by zoning. If you happen to own three of those 5,000 square foot lots in our 10 zone and you've got an expensive house on it that it covers a part of the left one and a part of the right one and all of the middle one those are those are considered merged by use. Those two standards are going to go away and now what we will have is a standard that says that if you own a free standing lot and you own another free standing lot and maybe your house is on one, the house isn't bleeding over the plot line onto the other one. And you own them both. If that lot is vacant is equal to 50 percent is equal to or% of the surrounding lots than it is considered not merged. So it's a case by case circumstance that we would have to look at every single time someone comes in. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak or close this poll here? Mr. Fleming Do you sound like sure that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth So I do I do. I do. Terrence Fleming, FLEMING. Thank you, folks. Chairman, planning board, I just wanted to get a little reality check here. The planning board has been very supportive of affordable housing, as you know. We probably had 10 or 11 applications over the years. We, I think, don't quote me on a percent, but we've approved probably half and rejected half. The ones we approved have a commonality. They have the density bonus of more than 50% or an excessive amount of affordable units. The ones we've rejected are the ones where the developer has come in and has given the town the minimum number of affordable and then asked for density bonuses on the market side. Draw your own conclusions about that. But that's what the planning board has been. Receptive two and opposed to. This ordinance, we love the 25% density bonus on affordable. But Mr. DeLuke's example shows you exactly what now would be mandated if you incorporate this inclusionary zoning provision, 48 units, the overwhelming majority of them being market rate units. Again, maybe that's a good trade-off to get some affordables. I think we need to have people come in and give us a better balance between market and affordable. And remember, people still have the anyone else? Anyone else? Any final comments or thoughts from the council? Hearing none. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. All in favor. Aye. All opposed. Motion by council lawler second by Councillor Copa. Camoshen passes 5 0. Next we have a motion to open and hold a public hearing on several text revisions to chapter 731 of the code of the town of Narragansett entitled zoning for the code of the town of Narragansett entitled Zoning for the purpose of adapting to and accommodating the numerous general assembly mandates enacted in the 2023 legislative session. So moved. Second. Hall in favor. I all opposed motion by Councillor Lawler, second by Councillor Copac, motion passes 5-0. Okay, Mr. Deluca. Yes. Can you send us both to these places? That's a new one, Killa. Thank you. Mr. Deluca, will you be able to send us these presentations as well? Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Sure. So will you be able to send us these presentations as well? Yes, absolutely. Okay, thank you. Sure, sure. Okay, so here we are. Hearing number two, separate ordinance. You saw this slide earlier and now instead of doing the mandatory revisions, we are going to be covering the discretionary revisions. These are revisions that are proposed that are not necessarily required by the State of Houdive. And they are in direct response to the question of modification. Now, modification, just to refresh your memory, is the authorization by the state to the building official or the zoning enforcement officer to grant relief, ordinarily, the responsibility of the zoning board, up to a certain amount. It's been on the book since the 1991 enabling law was passed. And at that time, it was optional. It still is optional for the next 26 days. And what it says is that if the town so chooses, you can put modification in place, empower your building officials, zoning enforcement officer, to grant relief up to 25%. You can choose the number. Maybe it's 5%, maybe it's 10 or 15. Of dimensional requirements. You can choose which dimensional requirements you feel are acceptable to be made available for that kind of relief. And the process as it is today is that the building official would get the application if we had it in place, which we do not. City of work does, town of Westley does, there are a few other communities that have it. The building official would get an application for permit. He would also receive an application for the modification. The applicant would notify the property owners within 200 feet of their property and wait 30 days. If there was no objection in 30 days, the building official would have the right to issue that permit part of the reason And okay, I'm gonna I think I'm getting ahead of myself. So I'm gonna get into the into the slide trail So now you know that Now you know that modification was altered. It now is not optional. It is not mandatory. And as I just mentioned, up to 15% of that 25% allowance in the state law could be handled administratively by the building official under certain circumstances. If the request is for less than 5% of relief, the issue the building official could issue the permit with no public notice required. So an example person is on a 10,000 square foot lot. The side setbacks are 10 feet, 5 percent of that would be six inches a half a foot. If someone wanted to encroach on that setback by six inches, they could apply for that relief. The building official would be able to issue that approval. From five to 15%, the official must notify direct the butters. Not 200 foot radius. And by first class mail, not certified, publish notice in the newspaper newspaper and make a decision within 14 days. If the town would have choose to go from the 15 to 25 percent, we could do so. So the standards are reviewed for modification. I think I breached over these fairly quickly a few minutes ago in the first hearing that it would be reasonably necessary for full enjoyment of the use. That the neighboring property will neither be substantially injured or substantially impaired. It does not require variance from flood hazard requirements, does not violate any rules related to well-end. The officer may apply special conditions as necessary and he has to keep public records. So this is where I was jumping ahead to this screen here. When the planning board reviewed this change from optional to mandatory, they raised concerns very early. And there are three notable concerns. First, we don't have it in place. Why don't we have it in place? Why didn't every town do it back in 1995? And this is conjecture, but I believe this is what the town I used to work in thought about it. And I believe, town of Narragansk and may have felt the same way, that it would introduce the uncertainty of neighborhood politics into the question. One single objection, in writing, ends it. It doesn't have to have a substantive reasoning. It could be, I'm Joe Blow, I lived 150 feet away, and I object. Therefore, now it has to go to full public hearing. Now we know that neighbors can express their opinions, their hearings, but they don't have veto power. Under modification a single written objection now will force that denial of that. Excuse me, even under current regulations a single injection forces the denial or the delay or the removal the deferral of In administrative approval and forces the applicant to notify the full 100 foot rate 200 foot radius for a public hearing the result And this is what my thinking is The reasoning behind so many communities not being supportive of it is if you have just one objective the behind so many communities not being supportive of it is if you have just one objective the excuse me one more time. The result is a two you know a two months long way to get your approval so who would want to risk that. Planning but also noted that there's no limit on the range of dimensional standards that could be modified. As I said, under the optional circumstance we have today, an applicant, the town can pick any number of dimensional standards they feel is acceptable for administrative modification and put it into the local ordinance. Well, the planning board reviewed the entire ordinance. They uncovered one definition at 17 sections of the code within which numerical standards are applied. That adds up to 436 individual standards. Some standards may be more important than others and other concern. As an act, the bill makes no distinction as to which dimensional requirements is intended to address and provides no latitude for local councils to designate those which should not be allowed for variants and those which should. It is written in the most general terms. It just says any dimensional standard. Building official has identified a short list of requirements he would not support for modification. I believe you see it tonight. He is and he may want to speak on this matter. The members of the Planning Board heard his concerns but in the end they felt that all dimensional standards are so important that they not be allowed for the modification process. But we don't have that choice. Modification is mandatory. So, the planning board did what they thought was the right thing. They have suggested that instead of just accepting the modifications component, as is, and seeing that 436 possible ways that properties can be developed could be varied by 15% without the need for public hearing. There is a process in place. Spoke, I, the planning board's well aware of that, but still without a public hearing, the planning board felt that this was something that needed a response. So they suggested to amend the following sections and standards, increasing the minimum standards such as setbacks and decreasing maximum standards, such as heights by 15%. So if it's a maximum standard, they're reducing it. If it's a minimum standard, they're expanding it. Now, all the rest of these items on this in the next slide should be indented as being part of examples of what that first point makes. So, for instance, building coverage. They suggest amending the open Sun Deck waiver from 15% to 13% of the adjacent residential units overall footprint. They speak to the high water table limitations overlay district to reduce maximum site coverage. These are all in the ordinance. This, you know, and you can see in the tables, numbers that are crushed out and new numbers that are installed in the tables. And I'll give you one example if you'd like. Mike, I was gonna ask about those numbers being varied. They're not all 15% right? They're rounded up and down, correct? Right, thank you for asking that. Yes, when we did the calculations, They're rounded up and down, correct? Right. Thank you for asking that. Yes. When we did the calculations, as you could imagine, taking 15% of a number like 20, you know, well, 20 is a good number, but everything winds up with a decimal point. You know what I mean? So we rounded to the nearest number. We can recalculate all those and bring them exactly to 15% in some cases we'd go out three decimal places, but it can be done. For instance, site coverage standard under high water table limitations overlay. In the R80 zone, the maximum site coverage today is 10%. That would be changed to 9%. In the R10 zone, it's 25% that would be changed to 22. With the anticipation that the applicant would then apply for 15% modification, they would get it and they would wind up with 10 and 25 respectively. I'm not gonna go through all the examples as 436. Record of bill district reducing the FAR, FAR, the building height and Sunday allowance increasing the fallout road setback. Galilee special district, as Dalbo asked about, increasing setbacks reducing height standards. In the planned residential district regulations, planned residential district is an out-of-no-valay, it's a floating zone which may be applied in certain circumstances. We suggest increasing the setbacks, reducing the height standards. On table six, four, which is the primary dimensional standard table that we all know, the R10, R20, R30, side-yard setbacks, lat coverage, height, et cetera. On table 64, increasing setbacks, reducing lat standards in lat coverage. 6.4 B is a floor area ratio. We would increase the lot size to which the FAR applies by 15% and reduce the FAR and HODScape standards. Now I'm coming up on one of the eradas, excuse me. I'm going to make sure I get this right. I'm sorry, I have to backtrack on section 6.4, the normal table that I just mentioned. The R10 resident zone under R10 resident's other permitted uses, the line there, which is on the top of, oh, I don't have page numbers here, excuse me. Well, the line for other permitted uses, those numbers were wrong, and we have provided you on the agenda the eradicate with the appropriate numbers. So we'd like to make sure that you're aware that, instead of it being a 12,000 square foot lot size, it's 11,000, and so on and so forth. Moving to height limitations, and special flood hazard areas, reduce the height standards. Again, that is some a rad of the air that has the gray shading on it. And of the 20 columns that are in that chart, column 78, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20, all are incorrect. We've provided you with the correct numbers here. And for the public, which I don't have the numbers up on the screen, these numbers are changing by one. A single digit here and there. They're not drastic numbers, number changes. Proposed in, sorry did I get through everything? Oh, accessory buildings. We would reduce the height standards for the buildings, whether they were less than 144 square feet or more. And affordable ADUs reduce the flow area allowed in primary or accessory structures. Additional proposed amendments. Industrial development standards. We would reduce maximum lot coverage, increase building setbacks, all these numbers are here in the ordinance in front of you. I'm going to backtrack one more time. My apologies on the affordable accessory dwelling units. There is one more erata and that is that the gross floor area read 26, not 30, typologies there. But moving on, gasoline service stations, increased setbacks for buildings and storage of fuels. Nursing homes reduce the maximum lot coverage, height increase building separation and parking setback. Hotel's and tourist courts, again, reduce height, increase parking setbacks, cluster developments, reduce lot coverage and tourist courts, again reduce height, increase parking setbacks, cluster developments, reduce lot coverage and maximum height, increase setbacks, landscaping standards and parking setback, multifamily dwellings, reduce the maximum lot coverage and height, increase setbacks and build, uh, building separation and parking setback. That was a red. This is all pretty straightforward in its concept. And again, I know that there are majority of people that are here, probably here for this one. So I'll step away. Yeah, just before you step away. So, Mr. Jeluga, at the 15%, I think, because you will be getting questions on that if you just want to clarify that initially. So with the state laws enacted the 15%. So it's basically what the chart was. That's the allowance correct. So if it's- Yes, you would return to- Once you got the modification, you'll return back to the dimensional standards that are in the books too. For the bulk zoning that was passed. And so the individuals that have developments or plans in place, that would have been what it was at, right? So correct, so that's not going to change anything that had been put forward with the current bulk zoning. And then there's that 15% additional that's allowed. So that chart, which was previously, if anyone has a development going forward or planned or approved, then it's not gonna affect them, correct? Correct. And also this is discretionary. This is not mandated by the state. You do not have to set the effective date as immediately or December 31. You could set the effective date 60, 90 days into the future if you wanted to grant people sufficient time to either get their plans approved and get their building permits or to make the appropriate amendments in their designs. So that is one distinction between this ordinance and the previous one. Thank you. Any discussion from the council? I can go to the same question that I asked with the legislative package that was mandated With these changes will we be putting the town in jeopardy in any way violating the state laws and would we be assured our insurance that we have? I mean, there's no there's no insurance in the law, but I can tell you that we're allowed to regulate dimensional standards there's no assurance in the law, but I can tell you that we're allowed to regulate dimensional standards. Previously in Narragansett, we had a height of 30 feet, and then it went up to 35 feet, and now under this it's going down to 31 feet. So the changes didn't not allow the towns to regulate their dimensional standards. And that's all we're doing is changing the dimensional numbers. Certain towns have a five foot setback. We have a 10 foot setback. We're moving it to a nine foot setback. That is certainly our option under the current law. Well, that's fine. But just a simple clarification. So, using the example of the setbacks, we're going from a 10-foot setback to a 9-foot setback, but without any really difficult process in place, someone who is building something, you know, they have the ability to go to the 10-foot setback with very little issue, right? It doesn't go to the planning board, it doesn't have to be, nothing has to happen. They just have to say that's what they want. Is that correct? They would have to file the application. Oh, right. Building expected would have a process to follow. Right. Because there were four standards that have to be reviewed. I mentioned those already. And of course, the process has to be undertaken. So yes, in the end they could have the 10 foot, they could have the 9 feet if they requested that really. Doesn't particularly slow the process. I won't say it doesn't slow the process. What it does is it sets a standard that will ensure a result that is similar to what we have in place today. And to meet up. But they also shorten the time period. So the review? 14. Yeah, exactly. The review, though, letters out, and have to come back within 14 days. So that actually shrunk it from 30 days to 14 days. So it's actually the process is being sped up. It's great. So it's a little bit more efficient. And there's no. I mean, at the end of the day, a person would not have a tremendous change over what we have, and wouldn't have any change over what we have in bulk zoning. That was the whole objective of that, right? Essentially, more or less. Yeah, correct. I mean, I know if they wanted to, if they were going to push the limits before, they can do that also but they have to go. Certainly and keep in mind anyone who wants to go above any of these limits can certainly apply for normal zoning variants and frankly the standards for our zoning variants have been watered down so much that's a whole nother issue for another day but it might not be too hard to get those either. So thank you. Thank you. I just want to just make sure, just put it as simply as I possibly can. So the new state mandate of the right of 15%, what this is doing is bringing our current dimensions down so that when someone wants to go and apply, they'll be given the 15% by right, almost automatically by asking for it, which will bring it right back to our current standards right now. Correct. And if they want to go above that, they can try to apply for normal zoning verage. Thank you. Are you good? Yeah, make sense. I think that's it. But it's, and I just like to applaud the planning board for having the foresight to keep our zoning intact the way it was that they've done a lot of work over the years and many people have done a lot of work over the years to try to keep it where it is. And you know, this is pretty big ass. Basically what this would have done if we didn't make any adjustments or potentially make these adjustments would be 15% variance from every dimension periods or your house is what this would have done if we didn't make any adjustments or potentially make these adjustments would be 15% variance from every dimension periods or your houses would go from 35 feet to 41 feet as of January 1st. Correct, Mike? Well, they would have to ask for the modification. Right. But if there were no objections within the 14-day time period of to the Director butters, not the 14-day time period of the direct-to-butters, not the 200-foot radius, then yes, they would get that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, before I go to the public, so I will ask you a question, Mr. Duluth. So as you're very well aware, as I am, the town in Narragansis has gotten a lot of scrutiny. I guess we are the outlier for all this are efforts. So my question to you is like, why do you feel that we are the outlier? Do you think other municipalities just didn't have the fortitude or I? Know that among my colleagues around the state it was not It was not a mist that that changed wasn't just overlooked they saw it some Don't feel as though it's going to have a significant impact on their communities I think maybe we and I'm not going to speak for the planning board and Mr. Fleming is here, so he could. But I think we as the town have seen development that has in the last, say, 25 years or so, some development that has been really pushing the, not just the building envelope, but the reasonable and the simple big, really oversized houses utilizing, you know, significant parts of, you know, significant areas of the apostles. And so maybe we're just more sensitive to it. And I think that is why the planning board responded so swiftly when they saw the sogans. The way this whole work out, hoping worked out was back in June, I sent them photocopies of the 10 bills. I said, here, read these. We have a lot of work to do and we're going to be getting started. Sometime whether it was the August meeting or the September meeting, this was topic one from the board members, and they were very, very concerned that the town would see development plans that are very onerous in terms of how significant a building might impact its property. We just passed the FAR regulation, so that was, you know, short-term memory. We felt as though FAR made sense because big lots can accommodate big houses, but small lots can't. And I think that's why they were so attentive and sensitive to it. Why no other communities have that same concern is nothing I can make conjecture about. Sure. And obviously with the planning board we do have legal counsel that's there to advise and sure that anything that's being put forward is legal in all senses of the correct. I'm just going to confirm that with our. Correct. And ever if I could just jump in. So for instance, one of the correct. I'm just going to confirm that with our correct and ever if I could just jump in so for instance One of the reasons why some cities and towns didn't need to respond is they they already had that modification in place The modification has been allowed under state law since 1991 so for instance in the city of cransden We allow they allow modifications up to 25% and they have, but they are no one's trying to build a 38, it really never comes full. It's been on our books for 30 years. So there's a bunch of cities and towns that already had it on their books, even greater than the 15% because you can go up to 25%. Other towns had it on their books for 15%. So half of the cities and towns, this new law wasn't really wasn't a change because it was already been that process was already happening. So that was certainly one of the reasons why. And I think another reason why is again with the new, with the new bulk zoning ordinance, we're more in tune to dimensional requirements because of the limited space than we would be in Exeter or other different, you know, Charlestown, et cetera. So, you know, that was certainly another reason. Yeah, and then the fact that we're doing this is not actually preventing affordable housing. It's actually helping affordable housing. So I just wanna make that statement up front because, because you know the bigger the house is the less affordable. So you know there is that you know that is that's the whole reason that we put the book zoning in place and the previous council and this council has been working really hard to ensure affordable housing or are helping with it's an important topic to all of us. So just clarifying that. And if I might dovetail with that, Council President, the bill that this came through on bill 6059 is 13 pages long, sorry, 17 pages long. So over 7,000 words, and the word affordable doesn't show up once. This modification component is not part of an affordable housing package. It is part of the housing package that was passed, but it is no relationship to development, creation, expansion of affordable housing. So with that, I will defer to you. Thank you. Okay. with that I will defer to you. Thank you. Okay, so we will turn it over. Do any members of the public wish to speak? I know we had previous, the gentleman, is he still here? Yeah, yeah, this is the time that you would speak on your concerns. No, you're fine. Just leave straight ahead. Do you sound like Sraad that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, happy God. I do. Please state your name and scale your last. Nicholas Budano, BUD, ANO. Thank you. So, I want to thank you for explaining to us real bit nervous and breakwater because a lot is so small. I have one question on the relief of 15%. Is it just one of these dimensional areas or can we have 15% each one if we request? So like, front, every, every dimensional component is available for modification. So, I'll restrict it to just one. Yeah. Okay. So, I guess that eases me a little bit. I thought we should- That's why I wanted you to hear the presentation. I- I didn't see that. And I know- That's why I wanted you to hear the presentation. I can't see that. And I know- And I know- And I know there's a lot of people here, so I just, I didn't know if like maybe if we presented and we answered some questions that- It's not that earlier. No, that's fine. No, you're fine. So does that answer your questions and concerns? Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, is anyone else, I know we have a lot, if we answer everyone's questions. All right, see Dr. Alba wanting to speak. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so if you got. I do. Please state your name and spell your last. Dr. Al-Alba, ALBA. Thank you. You're welcome. Yes, I think this is a good thing that the town is incorporating. We have all seen, we have a seaside community. We've had areas of Narragansett where people have had these monstrous size houses built to the sky. And unfortunately many of the houses behind those huge houses, their total view of the ocean was totally obstructed, has been obstructed, diminishing the value. So I think a limitation on the height in other areas, I think this here coincides with our bulk zoning. So I applaud Mr. Diluka for incorporating this. I also want to praise that there could be modifications, such as in areas such as Galilee, where God willing someday the state can work with the town, and we have to build on flood zone, then if we have to increase the height limit to have a maritime museum and all the beautiful amenities over there, that will be a workable thing. So I want to thank you very much for putting this package together. Thank you. Any other, anyone else wishing to comment? Ma'am. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the happy God? I do. Please state your name and style your laugh. It's Gail Halic, Sear, H-A-L-L-O-C-K, and then C-Y-R. Thank you. Hi. Thank you for hearing this. I think a lot of questions have been cleared up already. It's a big relief actually. And the amount of work you guys went through is phenomenal. Thank you. As I understand it, we're basically protecting the most recent bulk regulations that came out in June of 2021. I should say who I am. I'm Gail Hallock, architect. I've designed probably 15 to 20 houses in breakwater village and quite a few others in the neighboring small lot of areas. So this is near and dear to my heart to find out whether or not my clients can still build the dream houses that they've. So I think my biggest last remaining questions are number one, setbacks, height, Sunday, all of that, that is now going to be something that's the 15% that's pretty much going to be allowed. Now, what if one of those butters raises an objection, does that then go to the full blown planning variance process? Yes, okay. If there is an objection, again, it's not the radius. Right. It's just direct the butters within 14 days. It would then it goes to the normal zoning process. Okay. So they would, you know, have to. Just do what we are. Do what you normally do anyway. Okay. Because you have to come to zoning for the special use permits in the break order village. That's true. I'm already there anyway. Is it something? Just making sure. Okay. All right. Okay, all right Thank you. Okay, anyways start. Yeah Do you sound least rare that the testimony are about to give will be the truth all truth and nothing but the truth I hope you guys I do please state your name is spelled your last. Derek Bogden, Bogden, B-O-G-D-O-N. Thank you. Hello. Council, thank you very much for giving other public an opportunity to speak this evening. My comments today are a little bit myopic, and that's towards breakwater village. This gives me an opportunity to take some of the numbers that were presented and bring a little bit of a humanity in how it impacts some of the residents in that community. I currently have a 35 foot by 36 foot long and given these proposals in the event of a catastrophic event may be fire, wind damage, etc. By the current standards, I wouldn't even be able to rebuild the current property that I have with a mortgage on it. It's pretty impactful. Granted, there might be an opportunity to seek changes in regards to the 15 cent that was addressed, but that may or may not happen. The councilwoman that spoke about people that have plans and process that was speaking to me because me and my family we have plans and now I feel like I'm racing against the deadline and I might be a little bit short even if given the opportunity to apply. My current home is this built in the 50s. And I want to modernize it. I want to improve my parking. I want to make it more efficient. And given some of these changes, it might prevent me, as well as others, from the economic feasibility of doing this. Again, I thank you so much for allowing people in the community to talk. And all I could ask is as it relates to breakwater village, they may be given some time, taking an opportunity to study the impact of some of the small little postage-stides plots. And again, that's all I could ask. And thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Just can I ask a clarifying, no, I'm sorry, but I'm going to ask her solicitor. So just to clarify that statement, so if there was a house that I thought they would be able to build what they had, if it was a... Yeah, and Wayne can correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's a catastrophic event, fire, et cetera, then I believe it's a catastrophic event, fire, et cetera, then I believe it's a year. You have a year in order to apply for your permits to rebuild, and you would only be able to rebuild to the footprint that you were demolished, and then you would, if you wanted to go beyond that footprint, then you could apply for zoning variance. But you'd be able to, again, and that happens more on fires. You know, people would be able to rebuild on that footprint. As long as they don't wait, they can't come back 10 years later, but it's, I believe they have to start the product. So it's within a year and it's to the current footprint, so that would protect, you know, anything like that. But again, I know the bulk zoning's been in place for a while now. So again, this isn't changing anything that we're not changing anything. So it's the same as what had been implemented a while back. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak? Sir, in the front. Do you sound, Lisa? The testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Please state your name and spell your last. Ronald Perillo, PA RRI LLL. Thank you. First of all, thank you for this opportunity to speak. My wife and I actually own property on 36, Mollest Drive on Great Island. And actually, this property's been in the families since 1979. And we're in the process of actually designing a new home. We actually were going to renovate the house, but upon doing some structural work, realize that it just can't be reconstructed. It's just beyond. And it needs to be reconstructed. I speak to the gentleman before me sentiments. Just to have a little bit more time to put this together with dealing with coastal resources. We're dealing with DEM. Obviously, almost 9,000 square feet. But with these additional setbacks of restrictions, it kind of affects the design. And to try to get something done and in place in the short amount of time with the holidays and stuff, it's just, excuse me, it's just very, very difficult. So more time would allow us that opportunity. As I said, it's not something we bought for resale, for rental, for college students to live there. It's our own home for our future and our son. And to his sentiment, we would just like some more time to kind of put things in place. It's just a real tough time to try to put things together in such a, you know, all that has to be done behind the scenes and with design stuff. So just to clarify in question, I know because we have concerns about it. So currently, we have the bulk zoning in place. It's what you would be kind of working towards right now. So even if we didn't make the changes now, or if we prolonged it, I don't know if that would really. With the decrease, I should say with the decrease in the setbacks and the size and stuff, it affects us. So if those are put in place right now, if we had to look at it some more time, we could kind of work with it in the dimensions and stuff like that. We have to redesign something,. So we're just looking to see if you could extend the regulations a little bit further. So I suppose we're putting you into place as the end of the year could it could they give us like 90 days or some more time for that? I don't know but maybe I miss understand some going to ask Mr. Dulucca. Mr. Dulucca it's I don't understand the question or I just want to clarify. So he's asking for us to extend when we make this effective, but currently the FAR is effective right now, so anything that would have been being planned would have been to the current FAR, correct, and then this, or did the dimensions, are you? I understand the FAR has been in place since 2009 in break water village. So the folks there, and Ms.ock have designed a lot of houses to comply with that. The FAR is one of the 436 dimensional standards so we would be adjusting those FARs by the 15% in order to make certain that being granted the modification would bring them back to the allowance that we have on the books today. But so I'm not sure if that's Mr. Brillo's asking or if he's asking for you to delay the effective date. But Mike, are the dimensions changing on the far? That's the question. Because are they changing on the far other dimensions? Yes. So that's why this man is asking, because it will impact. The setbacks will be different even though the bulk's in place. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. Yeah, that's just. They won't be different. Yeah, they won't be different. They'll be the same. It's just you just have to apply for the 15%. And you know, you don't have to apply for a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very much is more time, very much is more money. That's what we're just asking for. Well, it's not a variance exactly. It's this is a slightly different process. And the other point is that we have to comply with the new state laws and so we don't have any time either. I mean that's- You said that it was discretionary, you don't have to, this isn't something you have to comply with right now. No, we do. Am I in a misunderstanding? Yes. Yeah, yeah. I just want to understand it correctly. So the law unmodification becomes effective to December 31st. So we have to accept that. We have to accept now that whether we want to implement modification or not, we do. We will. And Mr. Mental will be carrying out the duties involved in all of that. What is discretionary to your choice right now is whether or not you want to make the changes that we've shown in the second ordinance effective right away or effective at some point in the future. And if you want to make any or all of them, so this is your ordinance at this point. But if we made it now, OK, the impact of Mr. So this is your ordinance at this point. But if we made it now, okay, the impact of Mr. Prillo and his wife is that they would just, they would have to, you know, provide the appropriate action to get the 15% which takes it right back to where it was. Yes. Is that correct? So it does add something to, you know, to the work that you would have to do. But I mean the impression that I have and I could be wrong is that it's not it's not heinous, it's not difficult. So yes, I understand that it's not you know it's not what you prefer but it's not that. No, in fact Mr. Mental has spoken to his colleagues around the state who have modification in place and they've said that it works quite well for their communities. It's a process that they've grown to understand and it follows a fairly predictable process. So I think that will happen here also. Well, it's new to us. It'll take time, but that will happen for us also. Thank you. Thank you. Correct. And if it was delayed, then as of January 1st, someone could then come in for 39-foot house. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Anyone else from the public? Sir? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so happy God. I do. Please state any missed out your last. Paul Roy, R.O.Y., 25th, Holler Road, Narragansett, breakwater village. I guess the question is, if I understand this correctly for Mr. Duluca, and he knows we worked very hard in 2009 on making the changes in breakwater village, so we weren't overgrowing down there and busting at the seams. And my understanding now is that these modifications that we recently got aren't going to take place that they're going to stay the same as they were in 2009. And my second question is on Follett Road, why is it specific that their front setbacks are going back further than any other. I don't understand any. Should I respond? That's a please. First of all, Mr. Roy, the modification, as I just stated, will become effective January 1st us meaning the town has to have a modification regulation on the books. That means Mr. Pimentel will have to issue modifications based on, we'll have to consider modifications based on the regulations that are in place on January 1st. So if the current setbacks, high coverage, 434 other things, stay the same than the allowance to go 15% beyond those, as Mr. Marcello just mentioned, would be available to anyone, whether it's breakwater village or anywhere. The proposal here is to adjust maximums down and minimums up so that when if an individual wants to come in and build to the standards of 2023 in 2024, then he or she will need to go to the building official to request that 15% modification. It's an administrative process, and if no one in the neighborhood, no one in the immediate butting properties of checks, then it would be issued administratively. That is the way the process would work. Thank you. I have a question if I made a councilor. Whoever is, I'm one of the ones that Gail is very fortunate to have designed a home for me in Narragansett. So we do have a house design, but with the economic times and the interest rates that they are, it's kind of on a standstill. Are we going to be able to be grandfathered in as long as we have preliminary plans in place to move forward when the economy does come down under the old 2009 standards that the houses designed that. I think it's a very good way to go to the other side of the community. 2009 standards that the house was designed at. I don't know. Whether it's grandfather or not, it's really up to Wayne and it's an individual decision if an application's been complete, et cetera. I can't make that determination. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So the time is 930. We do need to take a break. We still have will continue. After we need to give our stenographer a rest for her fingers as she's been typing away for two hours. So we'll just we'll just recess for. Do you like five minutes? Okay. We'll we'll recess for about five minutes and then continue back with the public hearing. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you to resume the public hearing at this point. So if anyone out there wishes to speak, please raise your hand. I don't know if there's anyone else wishing to speak. Did we? Okay. Going once, going twice. Did you want to speak, sir? You're welcome to speak. Okay, well I think somebody else, okay. So Mr. Fleming, you can come up while. Every share. New sound is clear that the testimony are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the happy God. I do. Please state your name and spell your last. Terrence Fleming, FLEM, ING. Thank you from the planning board. Just to clarify and comment on a couple of things. I think Mr. Deluca and Mr. Marcella both said that this particular portion has nothing to do with affordable housing. At all. And if somebody characterizes that way, they're just selling you a bill of goods. This is about a gift to builders, developers, and homeowners to build bigger houses. The dimensional requirements that are set by the town are yours. You're the legislative body. The town council and previous town councils have set the dimensional numbers since the beginning of zoning ordinance, right? And you hold public hearings and you vet that. And it's height, lock coverage, setbacks, and FAR are the four big ones. And you set those based on public input, input from staff, input from the boards, and you decide what's the right number. This law allows them, allows people, without going to the boards to get 15% more. It makes no sense at all. And there's a provision if Councillor Lawyer described it better than I've heard, anyone, if we adjust it down, they can come in for the 15 and get back to exactly where they are today. That's what this is about. I don't understand why this 15% without going to the planning and zoning board is even in here. To bananas earlier point, which I have to take a section to, all these laws are less restrictive on people who want to build. There's this. There's the lot merger. There's the inclusionary zoning. There's the standards for review, which I'm getting off a little bit on topic, but it's in the whole realm. A lot of this makes it a lot easier for people to get more and more and more. So it's not more restrictive, it's less restrictive. If you delay this, well, first of all, I think the culprit here is the general assembly. You know, people are up in arms. The board's been up in arms since we saw this. You're up in arms. Everybody's frustrated by this. It's the general assembly that's forcing in this on us. If you delay beyond January 1, there will be numerous applications, in my opinion, that hit the street, hit the doors here on January 1, for 41 foot tall house. They're probably waiting to be submitted. Don't think you can delay this. To the point, there is a legitimate point about workload that people have made, and we're concerned about it too. But I would submit a couple of things, but first of all, if you do nothing with regard to this dimensional, really, the dimensional table, the discretionary part. If you do nothing on this, the body of these bills, the additional work that's gonna be required by the town is enormous. And you got to do it. And we have to do it. And we have to meet deadlines. And staff is going to be overburdened more than they are today. This, in my view, other people can disagree. This dimensional issue that we brought up, this discretionary thing doesn't add to that, significantly, I don't think, because the work's going to be there anyhow. To that end, and I know you have a copy. It was submitted to Janet, and she's distributed to, and I just gave her some more copies. Planning board did take a motion. A resolution that you, hopefully you have, I think you do. And I'll just read it in part. Do the requirements, planning boards asking the town in the strongest of terms to recognize a significant increase in administrative workload created by this legislation and to provide appropriate resources in added personnel. We know the Council doesn't like to go to the voters and increase the budget. This is unfunded mandates, but handed down by the Assembly to all the municipalities without money to do the job. Our staff are building Inspector Mr. Pimentel and Mr. Deluga Community Development and his team cannot possibly administer all this that's required that you have to put in January 1 without additional resources. So we're asking you in the most sincere terms that you consider that at budget time because it's going to be required. And again, it's a general assembly's fault if you want to do that. And lastly, we did recognize that this was done, I can't say enough about staff, legal counsel, and the planning board subcommittees that as soon as this legislation was passed, everyone was on to do this, to bring it to this point that you could possibly get it in by January 1. I think part of the reason some of the other towns aren't here is because they haven't expended the time through their staff and their boards to do that. But recognizing that it's been such a whirlwind and it's going to be put in and there's going to be unforeseen things that we just hadn't anticipated. So we're recommending also in this resolution that the council set down a one-year look-back just as we did for bulk zoning to see whatever the unintended consequences are and to make adjustments at that time. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Sir. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, hope you got it. I do. Please state your name and spell your last. Michael Scott, SCOT-STT, 7 Gunther Court, brick water village. Thank you. So just a quick thing, and I'm a photographer with bad math skills I wish I was my father to the accountant but looking at section three the the dimensional section on breakwater village especially just on the first line of properties under 1700 square feet. Some of these numbers don't add up to giving away 15% and getting the 15% back. Some of them are, they fall short so that even with the letter in the automatic 15%, and I'm still skeptical as to whether it can really be automatic. But let's assume that it is. But I just wonder if we could, if the intent here is we're going to roll the number down 15% or raise it 15% depending on if it's a minimum or maximum. Let's really my only point. Can I ask a follow-up? Thank you, yes, Councillor Lullar. Mike, you have mentioned before that you could go back and recalculate the math. How long would that take? How big of an issue would that be for you? It's 436 calculations. We're right now the staff has been pushed to the limit to get us where we are tonight right here. I can't tell you the number of things that are sitting on our backburners in my office, Jill's office. To be able to say I can get those numbers to you next week it could be a lie. It's going to take us a few weeks to pull that together. I wish I had a computer program that can just magically do it. But the numbers to be perfectly accurate will have to be out to three decimal places. So, you know, it's a lot of work to do. And we have a lot of other things to catch up on that are also time constraint. I'll be here asking you for scheduling a public hearing on subdivision regulations soon. Right. So you had already mentioned, those are rounded because when you're doing it, yeah, so that's the only really minor change in that where it's like you can't get it exact, so maybe it's like slightly less or slightly more. That's really, I don't think there's any mathematical errors of, you know, great proportion. There's no mathematical errors. We did round up or round're down down to the new single digit. Correct. If you were at 5.6 that went to 6. If you were at 5.3 it went to 5. Yeah. I'm sorry. So that third, so when you have that slide up earlier in regards to, well it was the 1, 2, 3. So the third part, it's like not presenting today. So we're gonna be having another public hearing on that third section. Sort of visions. Yes. Yes. Yep. Thanks so much. So would this fall under what Wayne would have the ability to take a look at, if this calculation goes out to the third desk bowl and we can't do it, I understand the constraints are on, but the gentleman's just speaking now, if he is looking at maybe six inches, whatever it might be, is this something that Wayne then has the ability to say that the math was not? I believe that's not right. Yes, I mean, a couple of things. I would caution bringing anything out to the third decimal point. Because that creates an administrative nightmare. And a zoning, I mean, if someone wants to come in for zoning variants, we'll be taking that zoning variance to the 1,000s of an inch. So, however, you could, I mean, you could recactulate to 0.1 or 0.2, you know, 9.1 feet, 9.2 feet. I would only keep it to one decimal point. That would be the first suggestion. Second thing is, Wayne only, or the building official, any building official only has that discretion within the 15%. If it goes above the 15%, then it goes to a normal zoning very entry quest. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Friday? Do you sound like swear that the testimony are about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the true so happy guy? I do. Please stay in the next cell you ask. Rupert Friday, FRI, D-A-Y. Thank you. And I leave it one-thirteen-month talk road and good evening. Town Council President and members. As you all know, a member of the planning board, my comments tonight are not as a member of the planning board, but as an individual and long time resident of New York, Kansas. And at the risk of being redundant, I want to emphasize a few points that have been made tonight. As Mr. Duluc explained the first ordinance, you discussed tonight implementing the changes dictated by the General Assembly requires a town use a provision called modification. Modification which in my opinion more accurately is called a 15% variance is the General Assembly in essence stating that every development standard in every community in the state, building height, lot coverage, distance for property lines, et cetera, is excessive and should be reduced by 15%. In other words, developers, property owners can build 15% larger houses by right. It appears to be the general assembly's view that every town's adopted development standards are just suggested standards. It's not a problem if they're reduced by 15%. With the new legislation, the only basis for turning down a request for modification, the 15% variance, is if the proposal encroaches on wetlands, violates flood hazard laws, or if a neighboring property is substantially injured. That's a pretty high standard for saying no. So modifications are essentially by-right changes to the town's development standards, asking it shall be granted. And I want to make two points first and I think this has already been made tonight. The legislation that was adopted to dictate this requirement was done under the facade of improving affordable housing. The modification provision works directly to counter the state of goal of improving affordable housing. Building larger homes, expanding houses doesn't make them more affordable, makes them less affordable. And second, most of the New Orleans development standards have been stayed tonight. They've been in place for well over 30 years. I wish we had YouTube videos of the planning board and their council's deliberation when they adopted the standards because that would help us know the thinking behind the logic that went into the town's lot coverage building high setback standards. Unfortunately we don't have those videos but I believe the town's development standards were probably given careful consideration and thoroughly vetted by residents. I believe they were not bopped with the idea that they were just suggestions for property owners. In fact, as has been discussed tonight over the last decade, the residents, the planning board and town council, found that the town's existing development standards were not adequate and needed to be tightened up. This was because houses were being built on small lots or too large for the lots and detracting from the character of neighborhoods. In response, just a couple of years ago, the floor area ratio ordinance, or far, has been called tonight, all zoning zoning was adopted to rain in the trend of bigger and bigger houses being built on small lots that were created for college communities. Since modifications authorizes a 15% variance in development standards to permit larger buildings with an ask and shall be granted standard for approval. This modification goes directly opposite to what was done to adopt the the floor area ratio. Now without the changes in the ordinance in front of you, the town will authorize houses that are 40 feet tall instead of 35 feet tall with the by-right 15 percent modification. And overall, 15 percent larger and located 15 percent closer to property lines. Without the ordinance in front of you, we'll see the character of Narragansett neighborhoods change over the next decade. That development would change the look in the feel of Narragansett forever. Once built, the change is permanent. We can't put the genie back on the bottle. The planning board is attempting to preserve the character of Narragansett neighborhoods and I urge you to adopt its ordinance to preserve the look and feel of our neighborhoods in the future of the town. Thank you. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Friday? Anyone else wishing to speak for the public? Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wishing to speak for the public? Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wishing to speak for the public? Going once. Going twice. Okay. Seeing no one else is wishing to speak. This public hearing. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion by Councillor Lawler. Second by Councillor Copic. Motion passes 5-0. Next I have a motion to receive and file the planning board's recommendations in regards to mandatory and discretionary zoning amendments responding to recent changes to the state and the abelling laws. So moved. Second. Hall in favor. Aye. Aye. I'll post motion by Councillor Lawler, second by Councillor Copic. Motion passes 5-0. The end of our public hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for participating. Next, we'll continue to the new business, which is from the Finance Department, which is the motion to introduce, read, pass, and accept as a first reading for an ordinance and amendment of chapter 70 of the code of ordinances of the town of Narragansett, Rhode Island, entitled taxation and finance. So moved. Second. Seeing as we already have the public hearing, no public comment, all in favor. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler, seconded by Councillor Copack. Motion passes 5-0. Next up from the community development department. I have a motion to introduce, read, pass and accept as a first reading. An ordinance and amendment of chapter 731 of the code of ordinances of the town of Narragansett, Rhode Island, entitled Zoning as it relates to several text revisions to various sections of the zoning ordinance for the purpose of complying with general assembly mandates enacted in the 2023 legislative session. So moved. Second. Any discussion from the council? All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by council lawler. Second by councilor Copac. Motion passes 5-0. Lastly, we have a motion to introduce, read, pass, and accept as a first reading, an ordinance in amendment of chapter 731 of the code of ordinances of the town of Narragansett, Rhode Island, entitled Zoning as it relates to several discretionary text revisions to various sections of the zoning ordinance for the purpose of adapting to and accommodating general assembly mandates enacted in the 20-23 legislative session. So moved. Again. Any discussion from the council? I just have to speak before I just wanted to thank Terry and your board. Thank you for all the time you put into this. I mean the amount of meetings that you had and the work you needed to do as you stated because of what the State House decided to throw into the towns and the cities. So I appreciate what you've done in Mike. Thank you and Steve, thank you as well. I have to also echo what the Planning Board has stated as far as that. And this is not the town saying we're opposing any type of housing or affordable housing. I found that one thing that was so eye opening for me tonight was the example of the Inclusionary Zoning Mandate that was there that would actually increase the zoning by density by 4%. But it wouldn't be for affordable units, it would be for market units. So as to what Mr. Fleming had said before, this certainly was not done for affordable housing, it was done for development. And for anyone to think not, I don't know what to say about that. So that's it. Any other comments from the council? Thank you for all the hard work. We shade it. Councillor Frandy, any final thoughts? Almost. Oh, okay. Again, I echo Councillor Lawler's comments. You know, I always say broad strokes from the state. They have significant impacts on our municipal level, and that's what we're seeing today with the amount of workload that we're going to have from these changes. So with that being said, thank you again. Thank you to the planning board. Thank you to Mr. Deluca, thank you to my solicitors for all the hard work and effort for really making it to the deadline and we'll have the second reading just in time for the January 1 effective date. So thank you, thank you. And Wayne, we'll find the money. We'll find the money for help. Yeah. Okay, so with that being said, we'll take the vote on this. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion by Councillor Lawler, second by Councillor Copac, motion passes 5-0. Thank you again and good night everyone.