you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Good evening everyone. The time is now 7.04 pm and the day is May 19, 2025. Please stand for the Pudge Allegiance.. All right. to money agenda is a spotlight on schools. So I will turn that over to Dr. Cummings. All right. Good evening. And welcome. Good evening. Is the microphone, it may have gone up. There we go, there we go. Good evening. So good evening everyone. I will be brief, we're very proud to be here tonight. I'm Pete Cummings, the Superintendent of Schools and Narragansett. We have with us tonight, Conor McCluskey, our Assistant principal and CTE director at our high school, Zach Seroich, one of our teachers at the high school in A.J. D'Angelo, one of our teachers at the high school. They're going to speak with you tonight about one of our new career and technical education programs. We are very pleased to announce that we are starting a Marine Professions program at our high school. We've received a substantial grant from the state and so we'll reflect the needs of the community and the needs of our maritime Area so with that I'll hand it over to Connor Thank you for having us so In the beginning of the school year, the Rhode Island Department of Education established a new grant entitled the CTE for all. The criteria for the grant was to establish new unique and innovative programs that could be the basis for a new standard at the state level. In previous conversations, Zach Zeroich and AJ DiAngelo and myself, we had established kind of a want to create programs that would help students be part of our marine and coastal jobs here in Narragansett. With an emphasis on establishing a program that supported the Blue Economy and Rhode Island, we created the program you're gonna hear about tonight. AJ and Zach are far more knowledgeable on it than I, so I'm gonna turn it over to them. Hello everyone, I'm Zach Sir, which, AJ, the angel. Angel, excited to be here. Connor basically went over the sort of about and everything, but what a... Yeah, sure. So, I was science teacher at the high school. I teach physics and chemistry, also certifying general science. My family and I have been running the business here in Narragansett. I'm a water for 52 years. I hold a hundred-tonk captain's license in a Rhode Island commercial fishing license. I'm Zach Sarawitch. I teach agriculture over at the high school. I'm also certified in biology and middle school science. The nice thing about being a teacher is you can do things outside of school in the summers. So I spend my summers working in and around Newport, running private charters. I have a 50 ton captain's license and I've worked in yacht management throughout the Northeast for quite a few years. So basically, when Connor approached us with this, AJ and I put our heads together and we kind of tapped into our network. And we, after speaking to many people we were closely with, we realized that there's a need for up and coming students and people in the career. Yeah, it needs some young blood in the careers that are willing to put the work in and learn something new. So this is something that's been put out by the Rhode Island Marine Trade Association. This infographic really highlights the need for marine trades and sort of what the blue economy brings to our state. And if you look there, marine trades is highlighted and then you also have fisheries and aquaculture and we're hoping that with this program and we'll go over a little bit of the core sequence. I think it's in the next slide or the slide after, but sort of what we plan to cover so that we tackle those different areas to prepare our students to enter this workforce. And the data that we were able to pull about marine tourism in Rhode Island is really what drove the success to getting the grant from the state. So as Conor mentioned, we were very fortunate to receive $250,000 for this program. The state only awarded $2 million in this, so we were very happy with that amount. Well, I grabbed a big chunk of it, which is wonderful. So let me go back. So when it was just an idea and reaching out to people that could really provide opportunities for our students, we were welcomed with open arms. First, let's talk about full keel. Yeah, so full keel, they have three locations in the state. They have a Wakefield location, one in Exeter, and then one up in Wichford. Jonathan Mendez is the owner. When I actually, he services my boat. So I reached out to him. I said, would you be willing to be a part of this? And he just welcomed us with open arms. I mean, he said, whatever you guys need, he said, I see a huge gap in just hiring kids out of high school or people just ready to be employed. So before the grant, he said, I'm willing to provide you guys with shop space. I have a boat you can work on and he recently told us he's willing to donate a new Yamaha outboard and provide us with Yamaha specific training to then work with the kids on. Yeah, he was definitely on board. Yeah. Next, another big partner is going to be the DEM, the Department of Environmental Management here in Rhode Island. Not only did they help this year, Zach ran a boning safety course and they administered the Boater exam just a couple of weeks ago. But they're also going to be, they have a couple of state research boats and we're talking to the captain. He was, again, open arms to get the kids involved so that they can see all the different aspects of not only commercial fishing but also the fisheries research that gets done here. A lot of their catch, the actual catch that they bring in that ends up getting studied. Some of it goes to URI for aging. Some of it goes to Johnson and Wales for mercury testing and just those opportunities at the university level would be awesome. And then we have many other partners, Tuna Gois for Bar, Bluefin tuna collaborative, the American vote and yacht council which sets the standards for not only schools but also the industry. So the program, and this is a very loose outline just because we received the grant and things are moving super fast. But already we are teaching a boat safety course at the High School and a Marine Tech course. This year the students took the boat safety course, predominantly upper classmen, everyone passed. The kids now have their boat or safety card for life. They were super jazzed about it. It was a very happy day. So we envision this program to have two different pathways. There's going to be a service pathway, what you see on the left, and then on the right is the research pathway. So I'll just run through the service pathway quick. So they'll take their boat safety course freshman year, marine tech sort of just an intro to the maritime industry. Then we hope to have boat handling and service and that means that kids will get out on the water. So one of the biggest things we heard from our industry partners was that people come to us with credentials but all you have to do is take a test. So we plan to give them that hands-on experience, get them out in the water, and with all these different courses, so they'll go from general boat handling and service to advanced, they will receive industry credentials. So they'll basically have a resume to offer an employer after the programs over and there'll be a couple steps ahead of everybody else. And then we plan to close out that pathway with internships and hopefully then the kids will be higher or bold or higher upon graduation. And then on the other pathway is more of the fisheries and the research. So URI offers a course called Food From The Sea. We would love to partner up with them and teach it in the same fashion. It also comes with that seafood safety certificate. These certifications that students can earn in the service side as much more plentiful. We're still figuring out what type of certifications we can get on the science research side of it. But again, whether they're going down that science path or a service path, either way, they're going to know how to drive a boat before they leave. So all those students will also take the general boat handling course. And then that's where we can get into some of our research as well, ideally on the water. A couple of our partners, the Bluefin tuna collaborative, we've been collecting this past summer, collecting DNA samples of Bluefin tuna while fishing and to get the kids involved with that would be awesome as well as coming up with new ways to not only collect the data but to organize it. Right now everything's on paper, kids are really good at designing apps that can make it a little bit more efficient. As well as, URI obviously has a extensive research program as well and the Bay campus is right here. So to create that partnership is pretty crucial. So yeah we spoke about internships a little basically we want to set the kids up with a variety of employability skills to get them out into the workforce and when it comes to the maritime industry you either have to be a jack or a jill of all trades on your own boat. When you're out there with people or you're working, just by yourself, in the fishery side of things, you need to be able to be the mechanic. You need to have the customer service side. So we plan to sort of create an entrepreneur type kid upon graduation. Yeah, most of the local small businesses around here are just maybe one, two, three people for the whole business and everyone needs to know how to do quite a bit. So to be able to give them a variation of skills would be immense, especially at the high school level. And that's it. Thank you. Thanks for listening. Any questions? I have to say, from having served on the school committee for four years and hearing the questions from, or actually the push from previous councils as well as us on the school committee, it's very nice to see this program finally come to fruition. And really take advantage of what's on our doorstep. My question, at least my first question, is how much of this is actually in the physical classroom versus out there on the ocean, on the beach? Yeah. In the real world. We're still sorting a lot of that out. Luckily, we're super close to the water, but the plan is to be able to do as much in the classroom as outside of the classroom. Ideally, we would love to take kids out, but there are opportunities such as simulators that we can work with inside the classroom. A lot of the knowledge and the skills can be worked on within the classroom, especially on the fishery side of things. But one of our goals is to get students on the water. And at 16 years old, they can start earning their seat time. So any hours that they're on the water, they can log it. And that will, you've got to have 350 hours to get your captain's license once they turn 18. So getting that experience while they're in school and gaining those hours gives them a huge step once they enter their career because just earning those hours is really difficult if you can't get a job on a boat It's really hard to earn see time On your own and we have several it's impossible We have several visits coming up at schools and Connecticut who run very similar programs where we're going to be able to see their classrooms and figure out how they do things to then hopefully translate it to our district. Yeah, because I was going to say, you know, any kind of partnerships with like our University of Rhode Island, any other universities in the immediate area, that kind of exposure, I think that's a really great opportunity for our high school students. And you know, this is really a wonderful program to see. You know, you're in Narragansett, we have the best community in the ocean state and to have this program finally in our schools, I think, is just amazing and we should be celebrating. So really appreciate you taking the time to share this with us. And I look forward to seeing what the enrollment looks like going into 2026. But very, very exciting stuff happening here. Councillor Dirk, and do you have any questions or comments? Very excited too. I knew you grandfather. You must be Andy then, right? Yeah. So you're the third generation, right? Yeah. So Andy's grandfather came from Connecticut. He was a police officer and he opened a bait shop on Nolesway, right, over near Cumberland Phomps. And it was a place that everybody hung out and what they'd baited when fishing and stuff. Then they moved down to point you to throat and, and, uh, your grandmother, sowed all the cushions and stuff like that. So they're very successful on the ocean as well as fishing and real life. And I think it's very important for us to have that for our students. I always wanted my children to go down through the Fort Law, there's a program in Fort Law today out to be, you know, boat charter mates and captains and, you know, the amount of like education you get, being on one of those boats and traveling is just unbelievable. So hopefully you guys gonna encourage kids to do that too, right? I would think so. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good luck. If I can be of any help to you know, let me know. Councillor McNally. I just want to say teaching 35 years in a high school to have amazing teachers like you guys who are excited about these programs. And it just, your excitement will just make the excitement for the kids and so thank you for all you do and thank you for the program. It's an excellent program. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Cullenies. I'm very excited to hear about this. I don't know if you know me very well but this is near and dear to my heart. I run the education exchange and we run an aquaculture program as well. So we run an oyster for I'm training program. We run a captain's license training program. So I'm very well knowledgeable in this stuff. So if you guys ever need a wanna talk to me, feel free. Reach out. I'm here. I would encourage you to check out the Billion oyster project in New York. pretty amazing too. Councillor Torriol today. Thank you for all of the time and effort and motivation that has gone into this. I think this is an excellent program. That will be great for our Gantzits youth, especially important being in the ocean state and in our sea front community. Just a thought on the research path, maybe collaboration with Save the Bay or now River Preservation Society. Local organizations like that can further and appreciate this program into the community. Thanks. Excellent. Thank you so much, Grimman Alpicevig. Thank you. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. Good luck. All right. I think we'll move on into the next item on the agenda and that's the town manager's update. Jim. Good evening members of the council. Folks who are listening at home and those are here this evening. A few updates. The narrow river dredging project. All the documents have been submitted and we're moving forward with the permit. Rima has submitted a letter of support for funding from the Congressional Directed Spending Airmarks. We're happy to get that. We hope it'll help us. The town beach will be open full time. Seven days a week starting May 31st and this weekend it'll be open 7 30 2 5 5 p.m. with the lifeguards until 6 for the holiday weekend. There are 9 out of 218 lockers in the South Pavilion that are not least the Pox and Rex is still working on getting those remaining 9 released. The town is converted to a new utility building system and June 2025 will be the first time the builder issued their issued from the new system. The June water and sewer builds will be issued by the town, will be different in their appearance than prior bills. The new building system changes do not apply to water customers that are served and build directly by Violea. Additional information regarding this new utility building system has been posted to the town's website today and is available as a new flash under the water division and the online payment pages. The Galley Landing fee, Reptansi and Rep McInty and Senator DiMario, the house bill has already been submitted to increase the Galley Landing fee from $0.50 to $1. We are doing this in unison with the town of New Shoreham. The Galley landing fee, as you know, some of the public may not. It pays for the police, details, traffic control, trash, and beautification of the area. And the 50 cents per passenger was not keeping up with inflation. And that is about it for now. I'll speak on the budget when we get to the that section. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Nope. All right. And next onto agenda item B, approval of minutes. Is there a motion to extend the period of time for the filing of the minutes from the April 15th? April 16th, April 17th and April 28th, 2025 work sessions. Motion to extend. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Hi. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Awesome. Next, on to open forum. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for Open Forum? Anyone who has signed up? Have one name for the sign up? Jill Lawler. Excellent. Would you like to come up for Open Forum? OK. You're welcome. Would anyone else out here wish to come forward for open forum? Yes, please come forward. And as a reminder that public comment will not be taken on matters involving open litigation, and please speak only on topics not on the meeting agenda, three minute time limit per speaker. And please be orderly and respectful. Good evening. Hi. Sorry. Sue Amiruso, 111 West Bay Drive. It's kind of on the agenda, but it's not. I was just warned of voice and opinion about the article that was on the front page of the paper about our school system. It made it sound like the whole thing was just falling apart. And I said, why is this front page news? It made it sound like if we don't have more students, we can have a school system. And I just wanted to voice my opinion that larger is not always better. And our school system, although it is smaller, and maybe getting smaller, still does a fantastic job of meeting students needs. And there are school systems in this state that are smaller, and like block island for one. So, and the kids that go to school, they are survive and thrive. So I don't think we should look at, you know, our school system as being a negative because it's being smaller because I mean this is just one program we heard about tonight. I've heard presentations from others and every time I hear it I'm so impressed with not only the staff but the kids and what they're getting. So that's just something I think we should all concentrate on not how bad it is but how much we can offer the kids. So that's it. Thank you. Appreciate you sharing that feedback. Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to speak during open forum? All right. Moving on to the public hearing decision portion of the agenda. Is there a motion to open and hold a public hearing acting as the, acting as the urban renewal board of review on the application of Narragance Casino, LLC, DBA Narragance Casino. For a Class B, Victual or Limited Alcohol, Beverage License located at Assessor's Plats C. against Casino, LLC, DBA, Narragance Casino. For a class B, Victuular, Limited, Alcohol, Beverage, License, Located, Assessors, Platte C, Lot 181-1AS, 11 pure marketplace, Narragance, Rhode Island. So moved. Is that good? Thank you. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. So now we are in our open hearing. Alex, if I, yes. Make a point. I'm going to recuse myself based on prior representation of the party. So Mr. Craven's here to take my place for this item. Thank you. So we'll make notes that Sustor Calhan has recuse himself. And welcome Sustor Craven. David. Good evening, Mr. President and members of the board. John Miancini, I represent the applicant this evening now against a casino, which is seeking as you indicated a class B license at the property located at 11 Narragansett pier within the urban renewal district. It's the property that was formerly known as the Narragansett Cinema. We have submitted all of the requested documents. All the documents have been in order. We have obtained the necessary BCI checks. The town has confirmed that our tax status has been paid and all documents are essentially in order for the issuance of the license. The only thing that is outstanding, the board did receive an objection. And there's a little bit of history with this project and with this property that unfortunately has caused for much litigation to have occurred over the last several years. And I'm not sure that the members of this council are aware of it, but I do think it's somewhat relevant to the application and certainly relevant to the objection and are defense to that objection. And I want to bring the board of the council, I should say, up to speed with respect to that, just to give you a little color when you hear the objection and when you consider the objection. This property was purchased by Narraganskakasino and the purchase of this property is twofold. One is a purchase of the actual building itself and then the assignment of the groundless. This property, the building, is subject to a 99-year lease which is prepaid and also been extended from an additional 99-year. So it's essentially 190-some odd years left on this lease. Certainly, this lease will be here long, long beyond us, but it's been prepaid. And Narragansett Casino unfortunately had to endure litigation over this property because the successor and interest to the previous landlord, Beach Comer Properties, did not consent to the assignment of the lease. Litigation ensued, us arguing beachcomer properties, and specifically Mr. Holberg, was unreasonably, unnecessarily, and maliciously withholding the consent to the lease. That went through an arbitration process, which concluded in the conclusion of that arbitration process was that, Nariance at Casino is not only the proper tenant for the property, but is also the owner of the property, and most importantly, controls the lease agreement, and that the lease agreement was unreasonably but consent to the assignment of the lease agreement was unreasonably withheld. And I mentioned that because this or that issue was one of the primary reasons for which the request of this applicant, Narragansk Eccleno for a liquor license, was denied or withheld the first time. The first time that we sought that, request for a liquor license. So we're here again requesting the liquor license for Narragansk Ecclenino to be able to continue to provide wine and beer at its establishment to conduct its business as it should in that urban renewal district. There are no hindrances, there are no prohibitions with respect to the ground lease. There is no issue or any genuine issues of any type with respect to what status Narragansi Casino has with regards to this property. Now, the objection that was submitted in and be hope the council has a copy of that, but I will submit it as part of the record. We address head-on, the primary argument that the objectors have. And the objectors are three in nature. It's SAH hospitality, which runs the hotel that literally is across from this property. And JTO Connell, which runs the restaurant Celeste, which used to be the former trio. And then Mr. Holberg himself who operates the land surrounding this property who leases to other establishments. And their objection is that based upon Rural and General Laws, they as a collective body hold more than 51% interest in that general 200 area. As the board is aware, one of the requirements that an applicant has to fulfill is provide notice to a butters and neighbors within 200 feet. The objectors argue that within 200 feet of this property, they control their own 51%. And so by Brown general laws and the specific law being section 3-7-19A, they're allowed to barge this application to essentially argue that this body does not have the jurisdiction to view the application because they have that 51%. Our position to that is essentially that they misread the law. And the law does not allow them to collectively block this application. A simple read of the law without any type of law degree in common sense clearly indicates what the obligation is. And I'm going to read the law for you so that you can understand it for yourselves and make your determination. So, now in general laws 3-7-19A, which is the operable statute that the objective site states that retailers class B, C, N, and one licenses, and any license provided for in section 3-7-16.8. So, we're asking for a class B license in Narrowiancet. So, clearly the statute's applicable to our application. She'll not be issued to authorize the sale of preferences in any building where the owner of the greater part of the land within 200 feet of any point of the building files with the body or official having jurisdiction, the grant licenses, his or her objection to the granting of the license. And the most important part of this statute is the word owner. It doesn't say owners, doesn't say collectively, it says one person. So the intent behind the statute and the objective of the statute is if there is one owner who has the majority of the ownership within the 200 foot radius area, that one owner can block the license. Not a multitude of owners who have competing licenses. So it's very disingenuous for Celeste who operates a liquor license. It's extremely disingenuous for SAH who did operate a liquor license. And it's disingenuous for Mr. Holberg who operates several liquor licenses. And when you walk out the front door of this building, in either direction that you go within steps, you hit a liquor license. If you walk out a Narragantic Casino today and you go to your right, you will run into two establishes, two establishments that are either owned by Mr. Holberg or operated by Mr. Holberg but we know for a fact that their tenets of Mr. Holberg are Gave social and tsunami sushi they both have liquor licenses so why would those establishments be granted a liquor license but this establishment not be granted a liquor license. And if you go out, Narragantzik Tisino, over to your left, you're within steps, walk into Celeste, and you can buy a beer there, you can buy wine there. You can go across the street at Cool Beans, buy a coffee, and buy a beer, buy an alcohol, beverage. But you can't do it at Narragantzik Tis And yet we don't know why. Other than to say that Rhode Island General Laws doesn't give you jurisdiction because we own more than 51%. That is an argument in port taste. When you really take it all into consideration and you look at what is actually happening out there. Importantly for the town itself, this is an area that was designated as an urban development area because the town designated this area as being focused on commercial development. There's not a lot of commercial development in the town and so there's not a lot of competition for restaurants or different areas but this area is particularly of concern to the town and particularly of interest to the town. You know better than I do what your focus is and what your your your your guidance is with this type of issuance. So in essence We argue that their quest to apply renown general law of section. our guide-inses with this type of issuance. So in essence, we argue that their quest to apply Rinalin General Law Section 3-7-19 is really a misinterpretation of the law. It's an incorrect reading of the law, and simply not fair reading of the law. And finally, our argument is that it's this ingenuous for them to claim that there are any issues with respect to the issuance of the license, because there are not. You may hear that there's not enough parking for the operation of this facility. Again, there's no evidence to substantiate that this facility used to operate a cinema. There was plenty of parking to not only accommodate the use of the existing facility but also to accommodate the other facilities. And if we really want to go down the roadway or the rabbit hole of parking none of those businesses in that area have adequate parking. So there's no sense to single out this owner and punish this owner by withing a legal license to this owner. But there is an advantage obviously to Mr. Holberg who's in litigation with this owner to continue to harass the owner, to ensure that the owner doesn't have the economic ability to sustain itself so that he see their force to sell or forced to settle litigation. And I think it's unfair that what is going on in the court system, what's going on in arbitration, needs to spill over into this arena. It's simply not part of the process and I'm hopeful that the council will recognize that. So my thought to the council, my conclusion is, I asked the council to simply apply its ordinances. Look at your requirements. Look at what the applicant have submitted. Determine whether or not the submission of the applicant satisfies your prerequisites. Look at what you're done in the past. What the precedents have been of this Council and past Councils with respect to the issuances of licenses. And decide this applicant based upon the merit, based upon the need, and based upon the vision that this Council has for businesses in the urban renewal area. Do not let the noise, do not let the arguments of those that have an agenda influence what your decision is. Their argument will be vetted out in the proper forum. And my suggestion in my position and argument is that this is not the forum for that. This is the forum for you to determine and to weigh your ordinances vis-a-vis the application. So with that, I have Mr. Riley available. He's the owner and the operator. He can answer any questions that you may have with regards to our processes, how we intend to operate, what we intend to serve. Again, our position is that we will have people who are certified to do the services. We will conduct our business in no manner different than the current businesses that are operating there that are issued, that have issued licenses, like Celeste, like Agave, like tsunami. Those are all our neighbors. We're fine with those neighbors. And we will conduct ourselves in the same manner as they have. I'm very hopeful that this council will give us the opportunities to provide business in this community and to flourish for the community. So with that, if there's no questions, I just want to reserve my time to be able to address whatever arguments that my brothers have. Well, thank you very much. I had a question for, oh, can we ask? Yeah, I was gonna actually, if you would like to ask any questions. I love questions. Mr. Mancini, just so we're all very familiar with the area you're talking about. I think maybe we might not be familiar with the history of how it all came to be. Like why it's so there's a ground lease which one person owns and then the building someone owns as in a lease, right? Or does he own the building? He owns the building for 200 years, right? Yeah, and let me break that down because it's unusual. Normally when you look at a plaza like that, the common thought is that it's all you own by one owner or it's subject to a condominium where there are several owners but they own their respective portions of the property. This was somewhat unique. For whatever reason, the initial developer of this site decided not to subdivide that parcel by doing an actual subdivision which would create a separate parcel by meets and bounds, and then sell that parcel, or operate that parcel separately. Rather, what the developer decided to do was to lease the ground to an owner operator of the building. So when you look at that building, that building is owned by a different entity or a different party than the dirt underneath the building. And the building was ultimately sold by Beach Street Realty to Narragansett Casino, I think in 2021 or 2022, I don't remember offhand. But what was specifically sold is only the building. The land underneath the building is subject to a land construction of the land was built in the construction of the land that was built in the construction of the land that was built in the construction of the land that was built in the construction of the land that was built in the construction of the land that was built in the construction of the land that was built in the construction of the land that was built in the construction of the land that was built in the construction of the land that was built in the construction of the land at least at any point for an additional 99 years, which was exercised. So what you have out there at the site now is a building that is sits on land which is leased to the building for a period of 198 years, all of which has been prepaid. So it's probably it's similar to having a fee simple ownership except that you're missing one of the sticks of the bundles of rights in the basket of real estate, if you will. So that's the situation. And then that situation has created an emosity between the owner of the ground lease and the owner of the building. The owner of the ground lease doesn't want to assign that lease to the owner of the building. And so that initiated litigation. That litigation is concluded. We now have a decision which says that the landlord has to or should have agreed to the assignment of the lease. So, Nariantzakasino now is the proper party who owns the building that was never in dispute, but more importantly, it is the proper party who is the tenant of the ground lease. And so, they control the ground. And the deed, the deed that is in the land records that Mr. Holberg has for that plaza specifically excludes this parcel of land. So that lease, I'm sorry, that deed demonstrates that the property that is subject to the lease and houses the building is not part of what they own. So they don't control that from an ownership perspective and they don't control it from a lease perspective other than the land whatever prepaid lease. So I remember having a beer or a wine or something in that theater like not too long ago. Yeah that theater had a liquor license. The prior to theragance Acoceno buying the property, the hotel, which is now owned by SHA Hospitality, was essentially combined with the Narragance Theater. It was one owner. It was kind of essentially operated as one entity. So there was a liquor license that operated for or accommodated both the hotel and then arrogance at theater. That probably operated probably to the mid-2000s, maybe 2015, 2017. There are between 2015 to the present. There's been on and off single occasions where they've received one day single licenses. Okay. So this applicant actually did receive a one day special off license. It was granted by the town council for an actual URI facility. It was appealed by Mr. Holberg to the Department of Business Regulations. That appeal was overturned. I was denied which allowed the applicant to go forward. So you probably could have had a beer there as recent as a year or two ago or 18 months ago. And from my understanding there were no issues with regards to parking or crowds that were on Rally or no craziness that took place that we were no up. So there's no evidence of any type of issues that have arisen because of a liquor license at this premises. At these premises, I should say. Thank you. Councillor Vignale, any questions? I'm just going to wait and finish sharing it out. Councillor Collinio, is this Councillor Torelli? Would you just be able to go over the 51% argument again? Yeah, absolutely. So the objectives have provided you a map which takes the 200 radius that we've submitted and outlines within the 200 radius those owners who own more than 51% of the total area. And so we can get into semantics and begin arguing what is the actual number that should be shown that comes up to 51%. But my position is you don't even get there because the simple read of the statute that they cite, which is the Rhode Island General Laws, the Rhode Island General Law's 3-7-19A, is really designated for one single objector. So the statute doesn't allow or doesn't provide for what they're doing, which is pooling their ownership collectively to try to block the liquor license. And the intent behind that is common sense. It says that, well, if one owner within that 200 radius has 51%, then that owner has a significant interest in that area, such that if the liquor license is offensive to that owner, then it makes sense for that owner to try to block it or try to jurisdictionally deny it. But the statute's not meant as a vehicle to block or deny or allow competitors. It's not a shield, I should say, it's not a spear to be used by competitors to harpoon others who are trying to open up a business in that same radius and that same zone. And that's simply because when you read the statute, it says owner. It doesn't say owners. It doesn't say that collectively owners. It doesn't say owners plural. And it doesn't say that owner of property collectively can gain 51%. And as you review ordinances, as you draft ordinances, as you vote ordinances, you know the language that you decide to put into those ordinances is very important. And then this is not an oversight by the General Assembly to have left out. The S, it's not an oversight of the General Assembly to pick owner over owners. Nor would it be an oversight by this council, if it made an ordinance that said that, you know, you're required to have a 30 yard front setback or 35 foot height setback, right? There's no kind of mistake on that. And I think that's very clear in this statute. It's being used obviously to create a little confusion, to create a little anxiety, and to cause you to delay and stall your decision. But in this case, there is no reason to deny the application. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to invite Mr. Riley up for a couple of questions then we'll turn it over to the opposition. Do I have to swear I'm with somebody? Yes, please. I do. I'm having trouble here. Michael Riley, M-I-C- R-I-L-E-Y. Thank you for coming up to answer a few questions. So just to confirm the hours of operation are 9 AM to 11 PM. Yes, but we've actually seasonally adjusted those. In the winter, We have very little traffic flow and the summer it's different. So, okay. So does that mean you will open later, then 11? So we have been opening at like noon recently, but we also, as a result of the damages we've taken, haven't been able to hire or have the traffic flow to conduct the business that we've been trying to conduct since 2021. Okay. Now, if this liquor license should be approved to what would you propose serving at your establishment? Beer and wine. Beer and wine. And, you know, the the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, the flavors, and you know the seltzers, the flavored seltzers, whatever is appropriate for the beer and wine license. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Dirk and you have any questions? Do you going to be serving any kind of food or anything like that? Yes. We currently are serving food and snacks but they're more concession-type food, chicken fingers, hot dogs, small pizza slices, you know, that sort of thing. We can make sandwiches, I've made pastrami sandwiches, and so forth. But it will pick up dramatically, and we do have a plan once we get real traffic flow and a reason to hang out there for adults, especially. Our main goal here was family-oriented fun in the pier to reinvigorate the pier. My landlord doesn't want that. Thank you. Councillor McNally, any questions?eannies. I just want to ask one more time. So in the future for serving alcohol, you would want to go till what time? To what time for serving alcohol? I can work with anybody, but I would say that I wouldn't want to serve it before noon and close. I mean yeah, and Up until I'd say 11 o'clock at or 10 o' 30 at night. I don't want to serve it after that We specifically didn't want to serve hard alcohol like it a gov a social or anything like that We want we want the thing under control Okay Any other questions? Councillor Torello. Presently, what is the environment inside the casino? You should come it's a gaming environment. So retro gaming environment with pinball machines going back to the 1950s. We have music, constantly playing. We have over 2,000 games inside from electronic games, the old Nintendo systems, things like that, and we have a working movie theater where we are showing free movies all the time. And, you know, that's part of the attraction. All we want you to do is buy concessions. Now, we can't make a living doing that, obviously. Our game plan originally was to have a liquor license to attract the college cows in the dating community to want to have a nice night. To have the parents come by with their kids, the kids can go play in one room while the moms have a bottle of wine together. That really doesn't exist anywhere in Narragansett. And that's something we want to exist. I think it's a great place for families in Narragansett to wanna hang out with. Thank you. I'm just curious. I guess that sort of answered my question. So it wouldn't be a bar setting. It wouldn't be everyone has to sit at the bar to receive their drinks. They could take it into the theater if they wanted to or if they're playing a game, they can have it in their hand. I guess that's the idea. And actually the first time I, not the first time, but I think a few times when I was going to the theater in the last six or seven years I own two businesses in the area right across from where this was But when we went we were one of the few people going into the theater We were allowed to order a beer at the concession stand and bring it into the theater That was happening. That's already been happening in this building and we want the same thing to happen. Thank you. And just as a reminder, there are currently 42 active alcohol licenses and air gants, should this application be approved? It'd bring the total of to 43. Mike, just one final question. In regards to the influx of potential crowds to the area, and that's not a bad thing necessarily. We want all of our local businesses to be supported, but it is also a concern with parking. And you guys, it sounds like there's a plan, and I was just curious. So the way that you guys are the arbiters of that area, the urban renewal and you should very well know what the rules are with shared parking and easements and so on. I think you have control over the parking. My landlord does not. Okay. Thank you. So now, unless there's another representative from the Nareanskisino, I will like to open the floor up to the opposite side. So I don't know who it please come forward. Good evening again, long time no see. Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Patrick Dordy and I'm here representing two clients this evening, the first of which is the JTO Connell Realty and also Beach Comer Properties LLC. Just a couple of things that I'd like to address. Again, my brother Mr.. Mancini, does one heck of a job in his cellos advocacy of his clients, but I do disagree with the characterization of the state of the arbitration and the litigation. I think a lot of what he said is yet to be proven and decided. One of the other things that came about was Mr. Manciniini talked about an appeal. There wasn't appeal of a temporary liquor license that was granted to this for the URI function. We appealed that to the DBR, but by the time DBR had acted on it, the event had already taken place. So the appeal was rendered moot. It wasn't decided on the merits. It was moot. So there was no prevailing on the part of Narragansica, Sena on any of their legal arguments that they raised in defense to our appeal. Another thing is the landlord does have a say over parking. There is a set of restrictions and easements that are recorded in the land evidence records and the land war certainly has plenary authority over the parking in this area and parking is a big thing as well We talk a lot in the you know in the preamble leading up to this about how other Activities were taking place on the site beforehand and there were in fact a liquor-related events, and there was, you know, the movie theaters in full operation. But since that time, 130 spaces have been taken away from the use of the people within the peer marketplace, including but not limited to the pure cinema building. 58 spaces were deeded over to the town and the liquor store and connection with that purchase and that carving off of that condominium property. In addition to that with my cliente JTO Connell Realty, there were 72 spaces that were dedicated. So 58 plus 72 equals 130 less spaces. One thing that I would note in this, in that whenever there's an application before you, your redevelopment ordinance has a very mandatory language in this. And it says all applications. And this is in subsection C of section 7.1 urban renewals on. In subsection C of 7.1 it says that all applications submitted to the town council for review and approval pursuant to either 7.1 B or any other provision of the redevelopment plan referred in subsection 7.1 A, shall be referred to the planning board for their review and recommendations to the town council. I don't know why this application hasn't been referred to it, but I can suspect that the issues have not been resolved. In a prior proceeding in 22 and 2023, in 2023, it did go before the planning board. I appeared there, I objected. And I might note as well that my client does have rights in this property. He owns it. It's subject to a land lease. I agree that it's subject to a land lease. However, there is no fee ownership in that land lease. If there had been, then my client wouldn't have, there would not be a lease for that premises to a landlord. So to say that my client has no rights whatsoever in the land is misleading, and it's absolutely not true. With regard to the objection, and again, I haven't seen what was filed at five o'clock today, I had left my office without checking my email, went home, changed back into my suit, after changing out of it from court this morning to come back here before you. So I haven't seen it, but I've heard Mr. Mancini's arguments about the own nerve versus own ERs. And I can tell you that when we were at DVR in 2024, I believe it was with regard to this same issue that came up where Narragansi Casino appealed the denial of the ability to have a liquor license issue to them based upon the objections of greater than 51% of the property owners within the 200-foot radius. And we were given cases, and I wish I had that particular file now, but we were given cases cited on remonstrants by the Catherine Warren, who was the hearing officer who was going to take up this issue. And in it, we're examples of multiple owners getting together to make the 51% or greater in the remonstraints, which would render the licensing board. In this case, you're sitting as the liquor licensing authority, basically without any jurisdiction to grant the license. And that's exactly what we have here. My clients have filed their objection. I know that you're going to hear from another objector within the 200-foot circle. And I believe you have been provided in your materials that I filed with the town clerk, or I hope you have been. A map, radius map with calculations done by the surveyor, and it shows clearly and unequivocally that there's 77% comprising three objectives that you're gonna hear before you tonight. Now, not only were the cases that I don't have a copy of indicative that you don't need to be one owner. But I think if you look in your packet as well, I had provided you on the last page of the materials that I filed on May 16th, the copy of the relative statute. And if you look at the, and this is a road-on-general laws, 3-7-19. And if you look in bold at the top of that statute heading, it says objection by adjoining property owners with an S on the end of it. So this statute has been used in multiple instances by multiple remonstrants who come together to form an objection. And there's simply no jurisdiction under Rhode Island General Law in order for you to have the authority or the jurisdiction to move forward here tonight. There are many, many reasons. Again, parking is a chief concern here. One of the recommendations of the planning board that was made early on in prior iterations of these repeated applications was that number one, there wasn't a signature from the owner on the application. In every instance that you have had in this urban renewal and redevelopment zone, there has always been something in the file. I checked the file at the Department of Community Development and Planning in the years past when these issues have come up and in every single instance it requires the owner's signature or a letter of a scent going forward. Narragansett Casino is a clearly at war with the landlord. My client has never been asked to ascend to any of this. Perhaps if they had, there may have been some way to work out something here with regard to parking or use or a means of limiting the exposure to hurting the other tenants in this area. The arguments made byraganskisino don't really make any sense, and this is why. If you have now 130 fewer spaces in that area, and if you drive by there on any given time, you can see parking is at a premium, it's difficult to find parking spaces during the peak hours and in the evening when the restaurants are operating. Just because there are a number of liquor licenses in very close proximity to this, doesn't mean that you should just be able to grant another one. You're just going to harm the other parties and the other business people that are exercising their rights under their liquor licensing and inviting patrons into their space to make it that much harder to have a place to park and to make it convenient for them. So again, I disagree with Mr. Miancini's characterization of my client. I disagree with regard to his mischaracterization of the law. There are cases arising out of the DBR where it has been interpreted as multiple remonstrants combining to add up to 51% or more, which is a situation where you have right here. You don't have the owner's signature on it, and if you check the files at the office community development planning, every single application that took place before then had the predecessor and interest signature, the Gilbane entity on those applications or a letter supporting the application for whatever change was incurred or was sought to be done. So again, I just have a couple more things. Yes, with regard to the parking on this. Now, in prior appearances before the planning board, there's in the files, there's Mr. Diluka, the former director of community development and planning, where he opined that this would require 168 to 173 parking spaces. You'll also see that the planning board had recommended an engineered parking plan and study to be provided along with the owner's signature on the applications. They haven't done this. They're still just trying to stuff it down the piping, get their liquor license and the process be damned and the wishes of the owner and the abutting businesses that are going to be armed let those be damned as well. That's not a very good way to start off with regard to being a holder of a license in an area that's as congested as this. And God knows, you know, the parking right now between the Coast Guard House, between Celeste, between Aqua Blue and its, you and its hotel operations. We're in a horrible space with parking. And what they had tried to do in previous iterations of this application process is to try and use all the parking spaces across from Aqua Blue on the street near the post office, across both sides of the street in front of cool beans and Celeste they've tried to use every available parking space that's already being used. So again I don't think you have the jurisdiction to move forward with this application. I think it flies in the face of the prior planning board recommendations. they haven't done anything to remedy these glaring issues in the time that they've had to come before you with yet another, the third application for oligolysis. But I urge you not to be distracted by a pretty novel approach to the law, and it would have been an interesting argument on appeal, had that it not already been decided at DBR, that multiple remonstrants can combine to get to 51% or better. So again, I think I've given you the legal arguments right now. One of my clients would like to come up, I'd like to have Mr. Ken Kusan of JTO Connell Realty come up and have a few words. Good evening. I do. Kenneth, KENN and ETH, Kusan, CUSS-O-N. Good evening. I'm the corporate secretary of JTO Conno Realty and Newport Restaurant Group. We've been operating trio there since about 2009. In 2019, we purchased the property from GP Retail, the Gilbane folks. And from the very beginning, parking has always been an issue. We have always had to have security to monitor the parking, to make sure that people were using the proper sign spaces. We have 72 deeded spaces to us when we purchased our parcel for the now restaurant operating Celeste. It was very important for us to make sure that we had that parking because we understood how important that would be to have a successful business. So I would, our objection is clearly parking always has been and you know we would hope that the consideration for all the needs of all the tenants that are already existing there are recognized and that to grant a license to an establishment that has applied for 302 seats. I think a planning board was spot on when they recommended 160 spaces to serve 103 people. You need to have a lot of parking. you probably have to have anywhere from 30 to 40 employees who also have to park. So it's only going to exacerbate the issues that have existed for years. So I would hope that you would consider these counts. Any questions? Anyone from the council have any questions, Councillor Dr. Durkin, any questions? Anyone from the council have any questions? Councillor Durken. Any questions? Councillor Zwicknelli. My initial thought is when, quite honestly, when I read the law, I also too just saw that it said owner and didn't say owners. So that was something I had put in my notes. I was just wondering if Mr. Craven is it, like how does this work? I could say you make it up as you go along but you wouldn't be happy with that. You're required to look at this in its plain and ordinary text in front of you. So the word owner and the word owners are used in the same section of the very first part of this state law. And there's a, I'm being told now there's a body of law from the Department of Business Regulations that has accumulated over years interpreting what this means. In other words, is there an ass missing or is it intended that a single owner would be, if they were to object and you would lose your jurisdiction to grant this license, that have to be an owner that owned 51% of the property within that 200-foot radius, which would be unusual in Rhea, especially in a commercial zone. But Mr. Mansini filed a brief little late tonight. I'm not blaming him. I'm sure he had things that he had to do. But that body of law would give us an interpretation by a court or in this instance, an administrative judge that would answer that question. It's not in front of us now. And I would suggest that if you want to be certain that that be continued to a date at a later time where that case law would be brought before me and I would be able to interpret to all of you what the Department of Business Regulations has decided in similar cases in the past. Lawyers call that precedent, and that would be precedent for this problem. I hope that answers your question. Yes, it does. Thank you very much. Councillor Collin,, any questions or comments? Councillor Torrell, are they? I would also have a further question for Councillor Craven just regarding the laws and logistics of the urban redevelopment zone, urban renewal zone that they mentioned, just further explanation there with what we can and can't do. Well, I'm not sure that that is the top of the nail that you got to hit here. This is a liquor license and the state law mandates to you what you can. And in this instance, if there's an S there, it means that you can't do it. But there's no S in the body of the statute. So that creates an ambiguity. I think we have to answer that question first, which if it is 51% collectively, then you don't have the jurisdiction to grant it to begin with. So we'll be going down a path that if we answered it with the urban renewal questions, it's still you wouldn't have the power to grant the local license. If that's helpful. It is. Thank you. Thanks. So I guess, so sir Craven, under these circumstances where we're addressing this ambiguity. Do you have a recommendation at this time as to how the council should go about interpreting that ambiguity? I would tell you if I had a wish, I would say let's find out where the Department of Business Regulations where the Lick of Control Administrator is in all the L control licenses are granted in police. Let's find out what that body of law means. I happen to know the administrative judge that was referred to here and I take Mr. Daredi is word that there is a body of law, continue it to a later time, because let's say we didn't do that. And there's an appeal. It's entirely possible that the judge would say, send it back to the board and have them interpret what this case law or administrative law means. I'm trying to hopefully have some sense of efficiency. And maybe these folks will pay less money for lawyers because we'll do it the right, the one time we do make a decision. Okay, thank you. It's all the questions I have. Sorry to take up your time. Before I give it up, I'd like to know if you have any questions of me and also just to say one more thing. And that is that the capacity that is listed on their application is 305 people for the events. And that's an awful lot of parking. And if you just take a look at what's out there, the operations again, it took place years ago, had another 130 parking spaces available to the owner and the lessy of this premises that are no longer available there. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any questions. Good evening. I represent the other 200 foot of butter. S.A.H. the hotel. Thank you. Please, Mr. President Menzies and the rest of the council. My name is Vincent Indalia from Indalia and Associates and some of you may know the hotel is aqua blue. I represent it's actually called SAH Hospitality LLC. There are a couple of things that I would like to file in support of that company's objection. I don't know if I bring it up to the clerk. Clerk will market. Yes. The first item is a call number one for SAH, which is a radius map of 200 feet of a button, who were noticed and given an indication to appear here before you. The second thing is number two. As A.U. can check number two, which is a certified letter for me, physical engineer, identifying on the radius map the exact percentages, owned by the different chapters or two or three of these property owners from the other location. Third on mark as number three, a checklist number three, which is three pages of a letter, the first page is from a principal of my client, indicating that he had a chance to copy a D to show that SAH is actually the property of one in that sort of a radius. Those are the volumes if it's mind just reiterating in the microphone what you just submitted to our? Certainly. The three filings that I've made on behalf of the objector, SAH,H consisted of objectives number one, which is a two-scale radius map of the real estate where the licenses proposed showing the 200 feet radius from all four corners of the property, the building, identifying all of the different owners there. 77% of the owners consist of three owners. One was Beach Comer LLC, which owns approximately 37% of the land, a budding JT's, who you You just heard from owner, owning 17% and my client owning 27.5% for a total of 27%. Objectors number two on behalf of SAH is a letter from a physical engineer identifying those exact numbers to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty that those three owners own 77%. And the fourth, the third was my clients letter indicating that he has an objection to the granting of the liquor license and a copy of his deed indicating that they are, in fact, the owners of the property for SAH, which is the hotel. You know, out of the people sitting here, I know me, I was a younger child and Jim Durkins, so everybody knows he's older than I am. But he and I were here when they did the urban redevelopment. Jim graduated from Narragansett before. I would have graduated, but my class, which was interesting to see, we had the whole thing about the school this evening. My class, which was a class of 81, I was the first seventh grade class to start at that school and go through it. And I was always reminded by a teacher that was a legend there, Maxine Mason, who always said, champ, the numbers don't lie. And in this case, the statute before you doesn't lie, contrary to the reading that was given by Mr. Mancini, it couldn't be more clear that when you are required to give 200 foot radius notice it says objection by adjoining property owners very first in big bold so that everybody knows what it means. Mr. Craven, who I've had the luxury of practicing with over different types of law besides just municipal activities like this, is correct. There is a body of law. One of the more recent cases from the direct appellate body is a case called 305 cigar bar and lounge versus the Providence liquor board. And the Department of Business Regulations issued a decision directly on point to that. and what they were doing there was they were counting the number of owners in a condominium association who abutted the property and when you added up the condo association properties along with three other abutters the totality of that amounted to more than 51 percent and so it was not just one single owner. That was a decision that was issued in 2014. However, even better to know that you're in sound, sound reasoning and ground is the fact that that case and subsequent cases all go back to the state Supreme Court, interpreting that very section, three dash, seven dash, 19 A1, and the State Supreme Court in 1951 determined that the majority of owners within the 200-foot radius accounted for what they call remonstrants. And if the majority of over 51% of remonstrants within 200 feet objected, that was the end of the story. It didn't matter what their rationale was, it doesn't matter the reasons for it. The fact was that if you have more than 50% of your budding neighbors who object to a liquor license, the buck stops there. I can tell you the name of that case for Mr. Kraven so he doesn't have to go crazy looking for it. Is Elmwood Tap versus Daniker, D-A-N-E-K-E-R, 82-A-Second-860, Rhode Island's 1951. That was continued to be followed in 1961, in Edward Smith's States versus O'Dowd, and it's been used by the Department of Business Regulations since the department took over from the old liquor board before the liquor bo was in charge of it but the department takes the same exact responsibilities and the department has relied on that regularly and all of its decisions on whether or not there's 50% of an objection for a remonstrance and they stop right there they don't even go into all the other issues of capability, purpose, et cetera. My client also has the same objections with regard to parking. And as you're all well aware, the hotel has the lovely bridge that it shares with the Narragansi Casino. My client has always been concerned about the sharing of that bridge since he's acquired the property. If you recall, again, Jim you'll recall, the hotel always owned the movie theater. They were owned by the same parties for a long, long time when Mr. Patel bought it. And then when he connected it with the bridge, and Kimmer who brought it up, but it's absolutely correct that when Mr. Paiush Patel was the principal of all of that property, he was able to get both a BH beverage hotel license and then also have a license over on the other side where he could have his parties and he would be able to farm that out to a vendor under a different license. But he always controlled the same thing. So there were, you probably did have a, you probably had a glass of water with a were just having a cocktail, but you were probably correct. You were over there having a good time. The, besides the concern over that sharing, there's also the concern over the parking. Finally, when you take a look at this exhibit that I just gave to you, there is a significant issue with regard to this ownership of land. Mr. M. Insini, I will tell you, gilded a lily like no lily has been gilded with gold before when he described to you all of the events. But he is correct. And arbitrator did determine that consent to the assignment should commercially reasonably have been granted to assign the ground lease, the dirt, so to speak, to Mr. Riley. However, you'll recall when that building was first built by Gil Bain, it consisted of two movie theaters, not three. Years later, Mr. Paiush Patel wanted to add a third cinema on thinking that he would be able to compete, and he did for a period of time with other movie theaters that were moving into the area. And when he did it, he owned the hotel property and he had that long-term ground lease and the two buildings. Well somehow, some way when he added on, he put a significant portion of that building on to an adjacent lot that he's owned, he owned, which was the hotel's lot. In 2019 he sold that property to my client and now a significant portion of that building sits on my client's land. It's not on land owned by the land lease and my client objects to even having that building on his land. So if you're in between Celeste and the movie theater and that space in between the two, that side of the movie theater actually sits on land owned by the hotel. And it's been that way for the six years since my client bought it. So now you have a situation where, and it shows it right on the survey, that that building is on somebody else's land. So those are a number of the reasons for the objection. I can also tell you having been a quasi-lifer here since I was at least 10 and having served civically with the planning board in years past. I think recognize some of the older or the previous members of the planning board, Mr. Glazer sat there with me. Any time there was an application for a liquor license or a change of use or a special use in the urban renewal district, Mr. Daredy is right and I don't often agree with him, we just haven't been on the same side today. But he was absolutely correct that it's always referred to the planning board for a important recommendation before those grants are given. I know that when we sat there, Terry Fleming was the chair there at the time. We would hear a number of them. So I suggest that you may want to consider that before you take the next steps because as the council is aware, if things get appealed and you are supposed to take a step such as sending it to the planning board for a report and recommendation before you pass a zoning ordinance and you don't do that, the Superior Court automatically sends it back after years of litigation. That doesn't be who the applicant in this case, it doesn't be who the objectors in this case, certainly doesn't be who the town and its budget on solicitors. So I think you need to take a look at that as well before you even act on this. I've probably provided more information than you wanted to hear, but I think some of it is cautionary so that a mistake isn't made unnecessarily. Secondarily, I think it's important that probably one of the largest single owner buildings in there, maybe wrong, the library may own more space, but we're vertical, you're flat. You know, has a significant vested interest and it's just on the verge of starting its economic recovery and reopening and plans for, you know, redoing new rooms as well as getting its restaurant going. I think they have a vested interest in making sure that they're safety with parking and that is a significant concern over there. They have a significant concern because the description of clientele I heard tonight is kind of all, I don't say all over the place, that's an exaggeration. But it's a broader, wider use of alcohol serving in the restaurants that were mentioned that are housed in the land in the property zone by beach comor LLC, which, which I don't think Mr. Hallberg's owned a lot of things that I've seen. I've never seen him on a restaurant. So you- property is owned by Beach Comer LLC, which, I don't think Mr. Hallberg's owned a lot of things that I've seen. I've never seen a monorestron. So he owns the land and the buildings, not the restaurants. But those restaurants there, you come in, you sit down at the table, you have a drink with your dinner. The hotel has the area specifically designed for where its guests will drink. I heard tonight that, well, we want to have the URI crowd in, we want to have people that can take their beers into the movie theater part. We want people that beer and wine when they're going in with children walking and running around. That's a whole different scenario than a smaller controlled area. and you're going to have people trying to jockey and look for parking. And as we all know, December 27th, 28th, 29th, we're not getting a rock and rolling crowd of people coming into drink or service in that area or in the area of the place in Narrow Gansettett that is serving alcohol. It's the times from this coming weekend, all the way to the weekend at the end of September, where we try to get our biggest bank for our buck and our tourist community. And that area gets very packed and the parking is tight. I'll answer any questions anybody has, but those are the cases, that's the law. I'll take it to the bank and that's my word I'm sticking to it. Thank you. Councillor Dirkin. So Ben, I don't have a good memory of all that stuff that went down in the pier. You know, I, we should never happen that it was like it was, but it is what it is. Jack Domeo still have his meat market there. The pier, pier pharmacy would still be there. Sure. But how did, how did that little, so I'm looking at a site plan, it's showing the hotel, what, um, Scott owns, um, so less. It's the radius map. The radius map. Yeah, and it's, you know, I think what Mike owns or Lease is from Scott is the pink square, right? It's like a perfect square. He rents and leases what is in the red in the red lines gym. Right. Okay. It's not quite a perfect square but you see the bridge going across the road. No. I don't see the bridge. I'm looking at the site plan. All right. The tax assessor's map. Oh, you're looking at the tax assessor's map. Yeah. So we provided to you a radius map that gives you a detailed version of what's there. And it's not all in pink. The building stretches over on to land known as Lot 181-2-C, which is the hotel property. sitting sits the hotel's land and on the area specifically identified of the dirt that it leases from sky to the next 186 years. So you're calling that the butter PMF 200 foot radius PDF or is it the site plan? Because we have of these attachments. I haven't seen that stuff that you brought up, but I'm just looking at it. I'm trying to ask, is how did that piece of property get subdivided with all these seats in no parking? Like, how did that happen? Well, that original grant of allowing for them cinema to be constructed. At that time, there was no JT's building. In fact, the Sanoco station that sat there for years didn't exist. In the police department. And all of that parking in the back, which is now either, which is a substantial portion is owned by Beach Comer that they've leased or sold to JT's. I don't know what their financial arrangement is, but all those parking areas that face the police station are all solely dedicated to JT's. If you remember back then, Jim, was the Pitten patio. Mr. Durfy's hotel wasn't the activity that you have going on there. And so the urban renewal folks allowed for Gil Bain to engage an operator to run the cinema and, you know, Kau'le and Haxi, God bless your soul. I mean, those are the folks that all voted on it at that time to allow even though there wasn't a lot of parking. Oh, so because it wasn't owned, it's just a lease and that's the dotted line in a bigger lot. I see what you're saying. So, and you got to remember, Gilbayne owned it all at the time so that they could say, with part, Kierpart, they could direct it. It was 100% by then. It wasn't subdivided or condoed out. I don't even know if that's proper English. It was not condominiumized in the way that it is or it has evolved over the last 50 years. Right, so how many parking spots are actually assigned to the theater property? If you look at your site map and you look at this map, directly to the south, I'm sorry, directly to the backside of the cinema, attached to the cinema between the cinema and the police station. There are... The cinema and the police station. Okay. Yeah, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. About 12 or 13 parking spaces. So that's the only spaces that they can call them their own? On their own, I believe that's the case. Then where the, if you go to the north, as if you were going to walk up toward the condos or towards a gavi, where the hair salon is, there's that little pocket of spaces. Those are kind of all open spaces. First come first serve. It's cross-easement, it's allowing everybody to use them. If you go along in between the residential condos on your right-hand side, not the newer ones, but on your right-hand side, and then the rest of the stores on the left-hand side. And I think on the first level, you have like the frame shop and the glasses shop. Those parking spaces are cross-eased and open to just about everybody in the public. But once you get to the back where the liquor store is, those are dedicated from the liquor store. The library is garnered, it's own share, I think Patrick was indicating it might be 75 if not more. So yeah, there is a shortage of parking to establish for everybody in there. Now, I do believe that the founding fathers of the urban renewal development recognized that. I don't think they anticipated that it was gonna be grow as it did, but it allowed for that level of parking to service what was there at the time, because if you remember what it was before, there wasn't even that much parking then before, right? Because it was all criss-cross streets, and people were parking and people's yards over there. It was little honky-tonk. So then, I guess my next question is, who, who said they don't want the legal license in total? Is it just the three people that you're talking about, the three parties that you're talking about or is it more than that? So there are three parties, my client, the hotel, Mr. Hallberg's where he's up just happens to be the manager. He's not the owner of Beach Commer. It's a conglomerate. And then JT's, which owns this parcel, where the old Sonoco used to be and where Celeste today. They own 77% of the total land within 200 feet. The balance of it is the condominiums across the street where Nana's ice cream is. That's a condominium association of its own. And that association owns the remaining 32 So, ownership. They only count as one. No, I don't think so, because I don't know what the break up in there is of different condominium units. I just don't know. Oh, so it's the land area is the controlling factor. Well, it's the, what they call the property owners. I mean, if you look at the statute, it says a budding own nurse. So if not as is its own condo, and it's got a delineated footprint, I guess they would be one owner. They would own, I don't know, 0.08% of the total land. Somebody else might own three units over there on the first level. They could own, you know, whatever 2% of the total land of butters. So it's not the number of butters. It's the number of land mass that you count for the percentage. And then there's the condo association across the street where the circle goes and touches that. Right, yeah that's that's where I'm talking about like I said I don't know if the ice cream is its own separate condo or if they're part of the association I don't know enough about that you know but I know where the mass is. I just think the whole thing's a mess. It's just too bad. I mean, it's just going on and on and on. And it's like arguing at courts. I mean, yeah, the parties, the four parties there have not been able to see eye to eye. And it is still in the courts, Jim. I can tell you that I represent a party. It's still active litigation. We were in front of our homegrown judge, Sarataf Carter just two days ago. Mr. Mancini and I, in fact, even congratulated me, told me I did a good job arguing against him. But it was, yeah, it's litigious, Jim. I don't, you know, I heard earlier that, you know, it seems like you guys could work it out, but you're at an impasse. And is it possible that you could just walk out into that carter and go work it out and 10 minutes and come back with a solution? Or is that impossible? Yeah, 10 minutes would be a little tough. These guys have spent a lot of time. They've had very good mediators working with them. I've sat down in a room with Mr. Riley for more hours than he probably wants to remember. All of us trying to hash it out. We get close. We come apart. It's almost like a union negotiation, Jim. Well, maybe Donna should be involved. There you go, there you go. Well, anyway, that's what I feel. I feel like the whole thing is a mess and it sounds like it's going to be another legal question. So I'm willing to wait until this extension of time to make a decision. I think that's the way it's forced to do that. I just hate to see, I just hate to see this happening. You know, I... It's a mess. Councillor McNally, any questions? I'm good. Councillor Collins. No, but I do agree with Jim. I think it's a mess. I would love to see a resolution that works for all parties. I really would. Councillor Airtori, sorry. Would you just mind touching on the case that you believe sets precedent here? Sure. Give me one second. Excuse me, Mr. President. In the meantime, I'd just like to correct for purposes of having a totally correct record here. Just one of the things. Can you just talk to the mic please? Sure. Mr. President, I'd just like, for any interest of having a correct record, I'd just like to you ask Mr. Andalia a couple of questions I think probably should have been asked to me. There are zero dedicated parking spaces to the Narragansica Sino-Sinema property, zero. And there is recorded in the land evidence records that book 156 starting on page 22, where there are, what is termed the decoration of restrictions and common covenants for this particular area. And section four of that document that's recorded, which is book 156, page 125 and our land evidence records here in there against it. Section four describes the non-E's minareas, including parking and doesn't include those areas that are ease, that were available to all the tenants to park in. Section four, however, gives the developer, namely my client, is a successor and interest to Gilbane. The right to delete, modify all parking or other facilities located within the shopping center parcel and condominium parcel and not within any easement areas. So and furthermore section 18 of those restrictions as well and this is the last comment I'm going to make. Section 18 states that any rights that anyone may have in any non-Easement areas expires in 2033. So there's a big mess coming eventually down the plate. And this was all in the context of pre-130 spaces going away, being dedicated and sold off. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Dordor, question real quick. How many spots are dedicated to Celeste? How many are dedicated to Sonoma, et cetera. Celeste has 72 spaces that are dedicated to them. Some are exclusive easement and others are deeded parking spaces. And those were part of the proceedings before the council. We've in the record in the prior applications, there are diagrams of those parking easements that are there. But basically, these Celeste easements are the parking spaces that are adjacent to their building. And in addition to that, they have just about the entirety of the row going all the way from the back of their building reaching down the entire length of the parcel behind the police station and the fire stations over there, going back over there on both sides of that aisle that have but the former library property, the police station, the entirety of everything. You know there are two lanes that go down there. One and they have both have parking on both sides of the lane. The lanes that are further to the west are exclusively by deed dedicated to Celeste as well as all of the parking spaces except yeah actually all the parking spaces that are adjacent to their building on that front entrance when you come in from Kingstown Road and you make a left behind Celeste. They have all those spaces on the left and some of them off to the right as well. And a couple more spaces that are also on the inside of that other lane that aren't running all the way down to what the library building is. And these are all part of the record in the office community development and planning. Again, it's a mess. And again, there's been no effort to try and come to some kind of a consensus or some kind of a work out on this. I mean, we're coming here. No one's asked us to sign anything. My client, no one's asked us to engage in anything. It's just more of a, we're going to do whatever the heck we want to do. And stop us if you can. It's unfortunate. I agree with you. To answer your question, briefly. Yes. The case name is, well, the cases are all written from the department's point from by Catherine Warren, who's the hearing officer you referenced. And her cases begin with 305 cigar bar and lounge versus Providence Board of Licenses, Department of Business Regulation, case number, 14, L is in Larry, Q is in Queen, 058. And that's a 2014 decision. And then the other cases were from the Rhode Island Supreme Court. I can send them in or I can read them to you if you want them. Send them in, please. Yeah. Thank you. But yeah, that was the body of work. Thank you. Thank you. And Councillor Mancini, since we gave a Mr. Dirty a moment to clarify if there's any final thoughts before we open it up to the public. Oh, excuse me, absolutely. I thought you guys forgot about me. No. I was pleased to see that Mr. Dirty didn't call me any names. He didn't refer to me as a keyboard warrior or anything else. And he's called me far worse in the past. So I'm very pleased that most, that both Vin and Mr. Dirty kept it clean. I appreciate it. But you did a phenomenal job of testifying. And I hope that the board now is going to give me an opportunity to both Mr. Dirty and Mr. Indaleo in the roles where, can cross examine them because they're referred to documents that are not in the record and they're referred to documents that are not part of the application that's before you, that you have to consider. Mr. Daredity said that there are many, many reasons why you should deny this application, but he only gave you one which was parking and that's the only one that they seem, they can, that's the only issue they seem to be able to beat to death. But that's not the issue for which this board can utilize to deny the application. If that's the case, then there would be out of the 42 or 43 licenses that you have in town you probably not issue any of them. My interesting is that Boone Street market only has 23 parking spaces, so someone should tell them that they should be out of business because there's not enough parking to accommodate that facility. The other huge pretext that you heard was that the parking spaces at the pier have been dedicated or assigned. That's simply not true. The only spaces which have been dedicated to those that were deeded to JTO Connell when JTO Connell purchased them through Goulbane. The rest of them have never been assigned. They're not dedicated. There are no evidence or any documents that demonstrate any type of assignment or dedication of parking spaces. Remember this is a single facility that runs and operates as a single facility with multiple tenants. The only difference here is that the property which is the subject of the application before you is part of a ground lease and that ground lease is the ground that houses the building. The building utilizes all of the parking spaces that are with it in conjunction with the existing parking spaces. The other major, I think, disconnect here is the idea that this is somehow novel, that this building just dropped from the planet Mars last week and we're just talking about something new. And that's not the case. This is not a new use. This is an existing use. It's an existing building. It's been occupied previously. It had a liquor license for many years. Without issue with respect to the chaos that's being described there. The other important point that I think you have to consider that was provided and that was misrepresented to use. The idea that also we're opening this area to an entire different element that is not been introduced to present it to this area. The idea that this liquor license is going to bring more people or different people to the peer area. It's simply not true. I mean, the purpose of the liquor license is in a combination of existing customers. This is not going to be a destination location for purposes of drinking. The applicant does not, nor does it intend to have or build a bar. The existing establishments that are there do have a bar. If you look at Celeste, it has a bar. And I'm sure that a large percentage of its revenues derived from that bar. If you look at Agave social, they have a bar. If you look at tsunami, they have a bar. This is not a bar. This is an ability. It's a way to provide the operator, the ability to accommodate its customers by offering them a beer or wine. This is not a slugfest for a non-stop drinking. And it's not going to lead to mass confusion such that people are going to walk out of the narrow-hands at Casino building not knowing where they parked, not knowing what is happening or what is going on. I mean, it's just, it's comical and it's very, it's enjoyable to watch, Mr. Indalia and Mr. Daredi here try to sidestep the issues and pretend they represent different clients. When I've seen them in court they both represent Mr. Holberg who is the owner of Beach Street I'm sorry Beach Comer properties. Beach Comer properties is the landlord of this parcel who has now been determined as acting unweasenable and withholding consent. So facade of what he represents him and I represent her and I don't know, this is I know Jim from going back to the 1950s. That's a show. You guys are better than that. You know better than that. Look at the law. You wanted to lay this to look at the many precedents that my brother had brought before you then, but they don't have it now. They Googled it as they were sitting. You can do that, but that just hurts this applicant. Look, the process here is very simple. You review your ordinances in conjunction with the state statute. You determine whether or not the applicant met the requirements, submitted the necessary documents for the issuance of the license. You look at your past precedence to determine what you've done in the past and how you've issued those licenses, juggling the concerns of safety, juggling the concerns of adequate or inadequate parking, and then you weigh that all into a decision. Whatever decision you make clearly is going to be appealed to the Department of Business Regulations. They do a denovo hearing, which means that this starts all over again there. Let them deal with what the particulars are with regards to the law. Let the superior court unwind that process. But you should not hurt this applicant by delaying the decision that is his livelihood. This is not a question of where parking is or where it's not. This is a question of a property owner in the town and arrogance that's seeking to operate its business, being bored from doing that because of semantics or pretexts or games or other types of game and ship, by successful, wealthy, well-dressed lawyers. Let's not do that. Let's be better than that. Let's look at our ordinances and let's apply our ordinances. That's what we're asking you to do. If you are going to give us more time, then I also want the ability to analyze the exhibits that have been provided, specifically SAH Ex number two, which is a certification of the land. We want to look at that. We want to have our own survey or look at that because we question whether or not there's truly 77% ownership or 75% that they're talking about. But bottom line clearly, you have the prerogative. We're asking you to exercise that prerogative. And in the manner that is more sensical, and consistent with your past practices, and consistent with your town ordinances, as well as the state law, and not look at documents that are not part of the record, not look at what other property owners agenda may be and not look at legal gainsmanship rather focus on the idea that this is a business owner who has a livelihood who wants to conduct his business and should have every right to do so. And frankly, in summation, that's the message you want to send to the residents of the town of Narrow-Gance today. You're going to look past the games that are played by lawyers, and you're going to simply apply what is right and just for businesses in the town of Narrow-Gance. And let your decision be appealed and be heard by DBR, but at least you can go on the record as being the council who made a decision based upon what's right or what's wrong for the town's businesses based on your own regulations. And Mr. Riley is available for any further questions. He can address his parking plan and he can address his need for parking and he can also address the planning board's review of this project. And finally, he can confirm to you, because he's the only witness who has been testified on the road here tonight. He can confirm for you the fact that this is not a changing use and this is not something that is new or different to the peer. It's an existing building where it's being reopened to be a movie theater in collaboration with Casino Games. And it's a banan use. And it's going to cater not only to people who are going to a gauvet or going to Celeste, but people who are strolling in the area. You know, anyone who has young children or teenage children who's going to the beach already may have parked somewhere else and go to this facility to spend an hour or two there before it goes anywhere else. And what's wrong with that? That's what you have to ask yourself. What's wrong with this liquor license being there? And is it truly obnoxious and offensive as being purported or being presented to you. And the answer to that is, it's not. Thank you. So with that being said, I know that we're now two hours into our meeting. I just want everyone to be mindful. We are going to open it up to open form, but we do again have just I'm reminding everyone that we have another public hearing and agenda to get through so just be mindful that's all. With that being said,, Jesse Pugh, J-E-S-S-E, P-U-G-H. Hello, everyone. I just Just to come up and speak in support of Mr. Riley and the Naragantza casino. I can tell you that this was on the agenda way back when I was on the town council. I think it was like 2021. Just when the tail end of that term. And we were not able to get anything done with this license. I know the last council wasn't either, which is, I think, very unfortunate, as the business has been, I think, probably hanging on for the last four years somehow without a liquor license that any business in town really needs. So that was the first thing, I just wanted to say I'm definitely in support of what they're trying to do. And I'm disappointed in a couple of businesses in town here that I think it's kind of clear are colluding in an attempt to make this business fail. They know that you can't operate forever without that liquor license. It was everything that they do, especially the events that they do at night really require some sort of beer wine. And right now it's BYUB. So although the patrons can enjoy themselves, the business doesn't make any profit off of that. The other thing that I wanna clarify in case it's not clear for the council is that you don't need to be involved and you don't need to consider anything in the case that they have. The case that they're fighting about has nothing to do with your decision. What you need to decide on is, are you allowed to grant the license? That's the thing you have to think about. There are fights over the land, whether the buildings encroaching on land. That's not, they can work that out. That's not part of what you guys are deciding. So there's no need to wait and see how that all shakes out because that can go forever. That license will never come. Their plan, that plan is to hold out as long as possible and maybe Mr. Riley works out a deal, right? That's what they're looking for. That's not what you guys need to worry about. So, again, we have a couple of businesses that are denying the residents of the town and the people that visit and are against it. The ability to enjoy a facility that's different than anything else that we have in town. So, I like to go there. I like to bring my kids there. I like to go see a show there. But it's not feasible without that liquor license. So instead of, you know, the businesses in town helping each other out, supporting each other, what we see are businesses trying to hurt another business. That's what we're seeing. And it's not really providing a service for anyone in town here. So my recommendation would be to not wait and see all things shake out, but to either make the decision tonight, as Mr. Mancini said, let DBR deal with that or direct your solicitor, Mr. Craven, to come back to you in two weeks with his opinion on whether you're allowed to do it, the owner versus owner's debate. If he says you could do it, you'll have your public hearing scheduled for two weeks from tonight. You can grant that liquor license because you know there's enough parking when you consider the library spots at night when the library is not open. You got the old library, you have the shared spots, you have the street, you have plenty of businesses in town that have less parking than that. You have businesses in this complex that are less parking. And also, they've received liquor licenses recently without any introduction. So this could be done in two weeks if Mr. Cramon tells you you're allowed to do it. And you'll be helping on a business that's. they've received liquor licenses recently without any introduction. So this could be done in two weeks if Mr. Crabin tells you you're allowed to do it. And you'll be helping on a business that's local, that's trying to bring something different to town. And that's my opinion on this. So thank you, appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, in the back. I do. Stephen with a PH, Gla, G-L-A-Z-E-R. OK. I live in Oceanside condominiums. I'm within the 200 foot circle. And I've been there since 1984, so I have a lot of history. I'm probably older than Vinnie. I don't know know about you Jim. I don't know. I don't know. Anyway, I really am a strong support of the application for the license and have been, every time there's been some effort to do something in those spaces. We have lived in, periodically lived in a desert over there. When that market died out and the movie theater stopped operating, it was depressing. Anything that brings life there is something we wanted. The previous hotel owner, when he owned the movie theaters, applied for liquor license there. And I supported it then. And the council at that time agreed and granted it. And there was no fuss about parking and the reason there shouldn't be a fuss about parking is that there is no activity in that urban area that has enough parking and there never was and I think one of the council over here made that point but it was done with that knowledge. This is a center of town. There are uses that come in the night and in the day and in the morning and there are seasonal uses. And people share and they share alike and it works pretty well. Pretty well. There's been some fusses, and I've been part of those fusses. Our association wants to have what we're entitled to as others do too. But when I heard the discussion of how many spaces have been taken out, 130 spaces, first of all, they're not deeded out, so they're not taken out. Somebody put a sign on it and says, this belongs to then Trio, now Celeste. But they're still there, those spaces are there. But if you actually take Trio, or sorry, Celeste out of the equation and said, it's got its own spaces and take, I forgot the other one, they have their own spaces. It's not fair to say that the entire, the entirety is sharing a lesser number of spaces. Celeste isn't part of that anymore. They have spaces. The hotel isn't part of it anymore. They have spaces. So let's look at what's unallocated and what people don't have given to them. It's not the same number. We function there quite well. And I suggest that that shouldn't be a problem. In addition, I served on a number of boards and committees of one of them was the planning board, where I served with Viddy and DeGlea for a number of years. And one thing that I can tell you is that underlying all of our decisions, whether we set it out loud, or we just knew about it, is we looked at the benefit to the community of the thing we were deciding. We didn't just do it in a vacuum. We didn't just decide based on 1%, or 70%, was a good for the community. It could be make an exception. Can this work? When I look at what Mike is trying to do with the free movies and revitalizing those movie theaters that by the way before he took them over, the roof was failing. You walked in, tarps recovering it because the rain was coming in, it was pretty disgusting. That's a good thing for the community. It creates life and activity and that's what we need there, every bit of it that we can get. We've been wanting that for years and years. And I've got to be honest with you, I don't see any community benefit from the objection. I haven't heard a word from any of the very competent and very skilled attorneys saying, here's what we're doing for your community by blocking this license. Benefits of the community, frustration and vexatious lawsuits. I really believe you are entitled to make your decision and if there's some fuss over the word owner and owners, that's for the courts to decide someday. And while I'm not gonna pretend I'm a lawyer anymore, it's been 30 years, captions are not as important as the body of a statute. That's just a matter of interpretation Thank you Thank you Anyone else from the public course. Oh, sorry. Yeah, Dr. Alba I do. Dr. Albert Alba, 24 Eagles and S. Terrace, Nair Gansett, Rhode Island. So at the last town council, when Mark Davis was a town solicitor, this was brought up at that time. I guess it went back to you when Jesse Peu was president and Mark Davis recommended we do the town council not rule in favor of going to the liquor license. Now I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the legalese and I don't know the haven't examined any of the case presidents, these lawyers brought forth. So it'd be ignorant for me to say one way or the other. But I do feel, we do have a planning board. I don't know, they have ever, in the past, examined the information themselves. It was brought out that this wasn't brought for the planning board. Where both parties could possibly bring the information. You know, we have a lawyer over here saying that the stuff that the other lawyers brought for us was not truthful. And we have it going back and forth. So I think it would be premature for you guys to say this set of lawyers is telling us false. This gentleman is telling you the truth of vice versa. For you guys to be able to do that without looking at the case president, without you guys doing your own background, I think that would be premature for you to make that willing tonight. So all I would want to say is do due diligence. You know and you know. Speak out speak to our town solicitors. But to make a decision today I tonight I think will be premature. Um and not put it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to comment on this. I know we have a lot to cover. Okay, with that being said, I will turn to the council for their thoughts and comments starting with whoever wants to speak first. Councilor Wignelli. So I think one thing I've learned and have heard is that process is really an important part of this. And I think if we're going to do this, we should make sure we're doing it correctly. And I know they talked about the planning board and we talked about owner versus owners. I was just wondering, solicitor Craven, do you think if we were to do this tonight that I would hate to see it be appe a member of the committee. So, I would like to ask you to be a member of the committee. So, I would like to ask you to be a member of the committee. So, I would like to ask you to be a member of the committee. So, I would and I'll do it as definitively, that definitively, sufficiently definitive, that you can make a motion from it. I would suggest you continue it to your next meeting which I understand is two weeks from now. And that you direct me to do the research on the two questions of the interpretation of the statute one would allow you to go forward. The other would prohibit you from even making the decision because it's beyond your authority. And then bring it back and then give notice right now to the public that this will be back on your agenda. And therefore, there'll be no need to re-advertise and you would have an opportunity on that night with my advice to make a decision. That's my suggestion. Thank you. I'm good with that. I'm muted myself. Councillor Dirk in your all set. Did you want to express your final thoughts or are you good? Councillor Colleys. I just want to clarify one thing. This went to the planning board back in 23. Did it not? It did, right? So it has gone through the planning board process. I mean I would take your advice a hundred times a times, so I will do that, but I am in support of this. I just want to make sure I'm pretty clear about that. Councillor, thank you. No, sorry. Councillor Collinies, any other comments? Sorry. Councillor Tari other. Were we to approve this and were this to be appealed? What would come back on the town? You mean mean if you approach it tonight? Yes. Well then there would be the competing question as to whether or not you had the authority at all. Under one interpretation of this law, you have no authority. And the other interpretation you do in that it's a misnomer to read the statute the way it's being read by the of others. My suggestion would be that a court would look at that and say you got to go to the planning board but you're going to figure out whether you had the jurisdiction to make the decision in the first place. So they'd send it back to you or because they couldn't make a definitive finding if you didn't have jurisdiction because you didn't have the right to make the decision. It would probably make it more complicated. It seems like this question is, come up tonight, is really kind of seminal. This is the tipping point to go one direction or another. Either it's no a yes and then maybe some additional discussion litigation. And Jim, your suggestion is good. Maybe there'll be some hallway conversations if they know that the sort of damacles might be on one side or the other. So my suggestion is that we continue to a couple of weeks and find out the answer to the single question. to, sometimes I have to apologize for lawyers, but I represent at the town of Charleston in the Narragansett Indians case involving annexation of land, and whether that would become tribal lands. In the United States Supreme Court, in that case, went to the US Supreme Court over one word, the meaning of one word. And it was fascinating to watch the nine justice do that and wrestle with it. So we can all say, these lawyers are crazy, but the US Supreme Court wrestled with it. So I think it's worthwhile based on my experience to say, let's continue in a weeks give notice to the public and we'll be back here Thank you So of course I'm mindful of The missed opportunity for Memorial Day weekend coming up That would be a good support for this business obviously if the council's decision is to continue at two weeks We'd be be looking past that. So we have to be mindful of that, but at the same time, it sounds like there is an agreement across the board that it doesn't, if the council decided to approve this tonight or approve it two weeks from now, it's gonna be referred back to Department of Business Regulations. So I guess my question is, if the council decided to approve it tonight or delay it two weeks from now and then reconsider it at that point, what is the likelihood that we would even get an interpretation knowing that the state isn't fast? But is the likelihood that we would even get an interpretation on that particular word, owner. that the state isn't fast. What is the likelihood that we would even get an interpretation on that particular word, own versus own errors, by June 2nd? Well, I will prepare you for that. And one of the things I'll do in the next two weeks is I will look at the law that has come out of case law precedent with the Department of Business Regulations and particularly the lawyer, the hearing officer, her name is Warren, read those decisions and interpret for myself having been before her and many other occasions how she would look at this issue given, given the facts of our case, and then give you my legal opinion as to whether Catherine Warren would shoot you down or whether or not she would say he had the authority and the jurisdiction to do this. So if we again, if in the scenario that we approved it this evening, and it was appealed. Would the Niagara-Anthacusino during the time in which it's being appealed be prevented from serving alcohol? Likely, because the hearing officer frequently says I'm gonna give the opposing party party or whoever ends up being in the opposing party to stay on the on the using of the license until such time is she has an opportunity to receive briefs and then conduct a hearing. Okay. Okay. Miss Arale since this is your I'll try to rip it up. I think I'm the only one in this room that has any risk. They're happy with the length. They want me to go out of business. So the longer it takes for me to get a license to happier they are, you're not at risk as a town, right? They come back to you and they say you either made the right decision or you didn't. You don't lose a lot of money like I do. Do they lose a lot of money? No. Why are they doing it? Why are they doing it? So do what you think is right as a town council and your role in this urban renewal district. And make a decision. Thank you. Thank you. So with that being said, where does everyone's final thoughts? I know we got the final comments, but I need to know where we stand to build a consensus here. So who wants to start? Councilor Birken? I mean, you know, it's the time of year. That's the problem. It's, you know, this whole license always keeps coming up. You know, I always remember it. It always comes up in May. And I wasn't on the council, but I would hear it. I always feel bad, you know, and it never gets resolved. And now I'm thinking, you know, as being a business person, it's gonna be another two weeks for the guy that's a holiday in between, you know. I just, I think we should go with our solicitors. He's telling us to wait two weeks. I think Mike can hold on two weeks. But I'll go with the majority. Whatever you guys think. Great. Making a good point. Councillor McNally. Again. I'm just trying to stir up the fact the fact, kid. You're stirring up the pot. I am, but I'm just trying to be mindful of the local business. Yeah. I mean, once again, I mean, my thing is I want to do it correctly. Because I want to do it right by you. And if there's any possibility that it's just going to be thrown out because of a procedural thing. That's my only concern. I feel like this has been going on for years. Two weeks, you know, I mean to get it correct is what I really am looking for. I mean, I don't know again. That's just how I feel. But I'm willing to listen to what you guys have to say. Okay, Councillor Collinies. Again, this is something similar to happened a couple of weeks ago for us. I respect the solicitor and when the solicitor says that we should wait two weeks, I think we should listen to our solicitor. Okay, Councillor Tory, I'll do it. I share that opinion. the case law and make immediate notice that this will be on the agenda in two weeks to avoid the re-advertising. Well, you just articulated that. Would you like to move that motion? I will move that motion. Is there a second? I'll second it. OK. Any additional final thoughts, comments? All those in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0 to be continued to June 2nd. Do we need a time on that? Thank you. All right. And with that being said, now that we've continued, we are moving on to item C4. Is there a motion to schedule a public, huh? Now it's continued. Is there a motion to schedule a public hearing on the application of GBC, LLC, DBA, the Docside for a new Class B Victualing Alcohol Beverage License at Assessors Platt, IG, Lot 214-S, 290-294, Great Island Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island scheduled for June 16th, 2025. It's not a little jump at once. So moved. Second.ved by Vignale, seconded by Torielde. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. All right. Should we just jump right into it? Is any on the council have to take a quick recess? All right. We're going to take a three minute recess. Thank you. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to have to go back to the question. I'm going to have to go back to the question. I'm going to have to go back to the question. I'm going to have to go back to the question. I'm going to have to go seventh inning stretch in the third inning. All right. All right, welcome back everyone. We're now on to item C5. Is there a motion to hold a public hearing on an ordinance and amendments of, sorry, an amendment of appendix A of the code of ordinances of the town of Narragansett, Rhode Island entitled Zoning to allow am I reading this wrong? Am I on the correct agenda, because that's how this printout reads. No, that's all right. We already scheduled the oxide was Councillor Colleany's question. So item C5 is there a motion to hold a public hearing on an ordinance and amendment of Appendix A of the code of ordinances of the town of Narega answer Rhode Island entitled zoning to allow mixed uses in BB general business zones. So moved. Second. Discussion. So just as a quick start here, I just want to provide some historical context that this was brought to us. Council President, just take the vote please. Oh, thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. We just live in public hearing sometimes. And just Mr. Brady before I wasn't expecting you to come up just yet. We do want to have a quick discussion reviewing and just to provide some historical context for the residents that this didn't just come out of the blue. It is a coincidence of timing that this comes right after the council voted down the 14 amendments to workshop everything. But just to provide some historical context, this was brought to the town council, the previous town council's attention based on June 2024 bills that were passed by the state. And then we as a new council took this up at the first public hearing that we addressed it was February 18th, 2025. And then we had a response regarding a clarification on whether or not sellers should be included in FAR and we asked for clarification. Wrong one? Sorry. This is mixed use. I apologize. Those are my notes for next time. So now never mind, Mr. Brady, I'll welcome you up and you can give us a give us the background. Sorry about that. They all look the same after they do. You certainly size or challenge They all start to sound the same after. Thank you. Sorry about that. So we actually sent this vote. Yes I do Mark M.A.R.K. Brady BR ADY the chairperson the planning board. So we had a workshop with you folks, I think back in December maybe. And at that point in time, we all got frustrated with the verbiage. And the rationale behind that is that this has been evolving back at least three years. We came forward and asked you for a continuance to try to work through that verveage. It is our belief that it is because it has been just a maturation of so many versions that it's just not manageable. So rather than ask for the continuance, we're going to ask you to deny this and send it back to us to start from scratch. And it's not going to take a lot of time because we have put a lot of work into this. But the reason being that we're going to request this is the fact that one for the sake of transparency and continuity. This proposal has been going on at least three years, it's gone through two town councils, and it's just the same old verbiage that is just trying to be ring and molded into something that it just can't be. Legislative changes that came last year and the legislative changes that are gonna come this year that won't be out until probably the end of June, the beginning part of July, are going to have direct impact on this. The existing ordinance proposal is cumbersome and onerous, as I said, as it's been evolving. Affordable housing initiative is absolutely a passion of the planning board. It is that passion of this town council and the community as a whole. And we want an ordinance that developers are gonna say, I want to do this. And this is something that we can embrace. Think by sending it back to us, we can make it simple to understand, concise in its incentives for affordable and its requirements, easily interpreted and implemented by developers and understood by the planning boards, zoning boards and staff. The community can realize affordable, accessible units and it would afford the developer's an income stream to help support the development of affordable. The sad thing in this situation in our not only our need but the state's need of affordable is the legislation is being pushed, the mandates are being pushed but no money is there. And we're all piling it on, we're all turning to the developers and saying, well, you need to fix this. Well, why? They didn't break it. So it is costly to do an affordable unit. So what we're looking to do is create something that would be simple, that they would embrace, that they would actually use, and that would benefit the community and the developer as a whole. So we're asking you to rather than continue with this, is to actually deny this, send it back to us, and allow us to come back to you with something that we all can use and the community can benefit. Thank you. Thank you. Would you mind if I just ask you a quick question? No, please. Just procedurally for the council. I would appreciate if you could just articulate, these changes were made June 2024. We're going into June 2025. The reality is the state does not work fast. And I understand that there's a lot of roadblocks and the planning board has a lot of work on their plate, on a regular basis. So would you mind just sharing a little context, a little background as to why? We're almost in June of 2025 that this wasn't considered and approved already. If you remember, we had a work session. Between the council, that was our first foray, which is usually what we do. We bring something forward to you, bring it to us and we sit down in a workshop. And we were coming back and forth and back and forth with ideas. But we kept hitting a stone wall and that basically was the ordinance itself. And primarily because the ordinance originated so long ago and has gone through so many gestations. And we're also looking at legal changes. What we would like to do, I mean, even if the legal changes weren't coming, I'd be asking you to do this. I just want to get something on the books that is simple, concise, that is actually an incentive for affordable housing that is easily implemented by both the community and the town side of the community but also the development side of the community. We want and we desperately need affordable. Yep, and I don't disagree and I appreciate you sharing that general background. You did mention that even if the legal changes weren't coming that you would make this recommendation to go back to the planning board. So I'm just, again, I'm just trying to figure out if we were to refer this back to the planning board, you know, what would be different procedurally this time that we could, you know, hopefully act on this because I don't think the town is benefiting from us continuing public hearings or, I don't think the town can benefit from this ordinance, the way it is worded, and because it's had so many parents along the way, and everybody has twisted and turned it, that it's not even manageable within our workshop. And we'd like to come something forward that is fresh, that is new, that is up to date as we can, because we know state changes all the time, but we're used to that. But something that we can bring to you, that's fresh and new, that we can look at, and you can understand it, the public can understand it, developers can look at it, understand it, and see the incentives to them, and we can all see the benefit to them. And that's why we're asking you to do this. So, and my final question, and I appreciate your willingness to answer these questions. If the council should vote to send this back to the planning board, I assume it would be to wait until legislation is over in June. So I'm just trying to get the town and the council on a realistic time frame and also being mindful of the amount of work that's the planning board has to do is when can we expect to see the first proposed? We would expedite this, but realistically, we've got to wait until June and June to see what is actually put into place and law before we can do it. The last thing we want to do is come forward to you and say, hey, we came forward, but now we got to change this again. So I'd actually defer to Jill if, I mean, we would get it in as soon as September, October, October. We want to get this back. We want this. The planning board wants this. You guys want this. The community needs this. And so we would look to get it back as soon as possible. I don't have the calendar, so I'm going to ask Jill to step forward. Thank you. Good evening. Oh, I think she works for the town. I do. Jill Savo, a planning director. Yeah. Thank you. So, would the question, Council President, was when it would come back at its early? Yeah, just so that the Council can get, and the town residents can get a better understanding that, you know, with the likelihood that state legislations that could pass at the end of June, when can the council see the first draft of the proposed changes? Sure, so there are notification requirements as you know for your council, and that's three weeks, I think it all in all, it's about a month between when the planning board is finally done with it and the scheduling and your hearing. So you would, if you're going to continue it, the staff would ask that you continue to October 20th again which seems really far out but it's a month prior to which the planning board has to be done and it really only gives the planning board approximately two months to work it through, to work out any, I think of the 11 or 12 new bills pending, six of them either directly or indirectly relate. So depending upon how many of those actually come live at the end of June, it could take the planning board a couple of meetings just to work through those changes. So that would put them at about September and then think that's a good thing to do. It's a good thing to do that soon. It could take the planning board a couple of meetings just to work through those changes. So that would put them at about September. And then it's about a month notification for you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else have any questions for Jill or Mark Brady while they're up here? Sorry. If I could, Mrs. Jardin, just procedurally. Sure. I would proceed is that we would send it to you and then have a workshop with you. Right. Go through it. Uh-huh. And then start to proceed from there. Thank you. Okay. So, Jill, you just mentioned if we continued it, you would ask for October 20th. Correct. Okay. And if we were to return it to you, return to the planning planning board are we expecting you would expect something about the same time is about the same time It just doesn't incumbent or us if you kill it it doesn't incumbent We're gonna just start from scratch and go okay with the planning board has been attempting to do through a subcommittee Is work through the existing draft of which you saw at your workshop with them. And in light of the changes, you know, some of the changes that went by the way the dodo last week, but also the, you know, the six or seven state to bill changes that may occur. The working with that draft is becoming untenable. And so if it were to be removed, you know, if this were to not be continued again, we would start fresh. And honestly, I think we might end up starting with something as fresh as we can, even if it were continued, because it's difficult to work with a red line on a red line. I think Mr. Brady said it pretty well. There have been a lot of parents do it. Thank you. Councillor Tarelli, any other questions? Yes. Mr. Grady, you mentioned incentives. Yeah. Are they going to look similar to what's presently in the audience or do you have new thoughts on what may be presented? Nothing I would give here. It's something we would go through. And that's part of our procedure. And then we would actually bring it to you and have discussions with you as to what we can, you know, what you're comfortable with, what we can do. So there's tools that we use. They're pretty much a give and take negotiation, but what we wanna do is make that as simplified as possible. We don't want this to be complicated where you need to bring it in account and some PhD in math to figure out what it's all about. And that's really the gist of this. Okay. So we haven't worked through that yet. We'll get it to you. All right, as fast as we can. Thank you. Councillor Cullen, is there any questions, comments? Any comments from Councillor Dirkin? I just, I hope that it, if this council sends you more amendments to already complicated zoning ordinances that they will take precedence in, you know, in the lineup, I guess. Yeah. So we don't hear that this delays. Just to address that, and I know we're kind of taking a left. And we have a, we have our meeting tomorrow night. You know, we've heard your concerns. We've already had discussions about that. And my direction to the board will be for them to start individually Looking at all of those see where we can improve things So for example one of the things with a research found and working with the Building Department is there more than 90% of what comes in they handle It's the 10% that come to us and And usually those are complicated because they have multiple things. So it's a very efficient process, but the question then becomes, does all of it really have to go this way? Are there things that can be looked at, say, by some sort, and we've got to look at the legal mechanism about, that's because as you've heard with the legalizing things get challenged. But are there things we can do within that to even lessen the burden, keep the efficiency, but less of the burden to people, less to other items that could be just handled administratively? And that's some of the things that we're looking for. So we're already moving down the road with you. This didn't come to an end for us. This is just the beginning. And when we get together on any individual thing, I want everybody to be ready and ready to go. So we're already working on that. So thank you. Appreciate it. So I guess that's a yes. Yeah, absolutely. I'm sorry. It was a long yes. But actually, no, actually I wanted to let you know that we haven't just put that aside. We're moving forward. We've heard your concerns. We've had concerns. We try to do things on an annual basis to look at things. We have been deluged last year and this year with state stuff, but that doesn't mean we can't sit down and take a pause and really look at our system and how we do things. And that's what we're going to do. We're committed to that. Councillor McNally. No, I just want to say thank you for hearing us because basically this is what we were trying to do from the beginning is to streamline things and make it easier for the residents. So I thank you for hearing us. And whether we continue this or vote it down, I'm just really happy that word now all on the same page. Let's figure it out. Thank you. We'll figure it out. And you know, procedurally, and I'm sure council will direct you, you have a hearing, whatever you're gonna do, you still need to hear people through and then send it back. We would then come forward, we'd have workshops, and we have to have a hearing again on the new. But it'll be something that we can all actually use. And I'm not really sure that this thing is usable at this point. Thank you. I've already asked my questions and I think there were some nice sentiments that were shared. And you know, either way, you know, we're a council that's looking forward to continuing to build this relationship with the planning board as well as the residents and appreciate your guys' willingness and transparency with us throughout the process because we want to help each other. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. And with that being said, we still have the general public. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to get up to speak? Dr. Alba. I do. Dr. Albert, Alba, 24 Egos Nest Terrace. So I do want to applaud you. I see upcoming. We're going to have also a motion for our hearing on 19th. For Mr. Brady comes up and continues this line of working with the council so that we can have these work sessions. We can work collectively. We can have transparency. That's so, so important. That's why we all voted you in. Each of you, you all voted on the platform of transparency. Not to rush step 14 on this is down or push that through, this is too, too important. All that you might have seen today in the Providence Journal, the speakers of the House. They were pushing through, saying, this is what we need to do for the entire state to bring forth more affordable housing. I said to myself, one size fits all in the entire state of Rhode Island, North Smith Field is the same as near against it. Providence is the same as central falls. Who would think that? Well, based on the article in the journal, I guess the speaker in the legislators think that. Or you can recognize that near against it, is unique. We're a tourist town, and many of our developers here develop for the sake of making money. We've seen the Doron style houses, the two or three deck of houses. Some of the neighbors, a living about this, we don't need to have this anymore. Some people say, well, this has been allowed in the past. Well, just because it's been allowed in the past, are livid about this. We don't need to have this anymore. Some people say, well, this has been allowed in the past. Well, just because it's been allowed in the past, we have to put a stop to it now. We all want to do the right thing for nearer against it. None of you will want to have a dorm style house next to your properties. I certainly will not. So we have to go forward, use our system of checks balances, work with the planning board, work with the zoning board. And let's not have something approved just because it's a friend of a friend. So we have to go forward, use our system of checks and balances, work with the planning board, work with the zoning board. And let's not have something approved just because it's a friend of a friend, or someone's related to someone. Those times are over. Let's do what's best for the town, all of our residents. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Celebrita. celebrato. I do. Catherine celebrato, C-A-T-H-E-R-I-N-E-C-E-L-E-B-E-R-T-O. And keeping with the tradition of people coming up here and speaking about everything except what's the matter before you, let me continue that tradition. We have very small areas in this town that are BB, mixed Jews we've been talking about this for years. As Mr. Brady said, I don't care what you do. You are not going to get people to build affordable housing on Boone Street or in these other little areas. There is one big area though that is BB and that's the sole PAN Plaza. Now Costco has been building apartments above their stores for workforce and it's something we probably should think about. That's a big area. It's a potential. I know people are probably saying, but that's you're talking about. I'm telling you, we could build a couple hundred apartments above those stores in the Seoul Palm Plaza. And I don't think anybody would be offended, you know, by it if it was workforce or affordable. But that requires money. I thought, do we still have that part-time grant writer? Do we have a, we still, okay, now this is a good project for this person. Get out there and get some federal money to make this happen. I think it's a great proposal, even though I came up with it myself. And I think that's a great spot where you could put quite a few apartments but we need the money but we have people in town that we hide to right grants so I think that maybe that could be an assignment for that person just thrown it out there I just don't think this like a apartment here and a house there and it's never going to make any progress. Never. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? OK. With that being said, oh, I'm sorry. I put my reading glasses on and I didn't say thank you. Thanks for the opportunity. David Bird. David Bird. I do. We do the low income housing. Oh, sorry, David Bird, BYRD. Here we go. Okay, we do need long co-rovesing. We have town housing right across the street for me, lovely families for years and years. But we need to do something about the area. You had consultants or a group come in, talk about between Rodman and South Pier, is not safe. We've got bike stop texting all of our Facebook people who belong saying watch my parking lot. People are speeding through my parking lot. Some of them almost got hit. We had a neighbor recently called up the leaving late at night yelling and screaming threatening people in the street. I went out a couple nights ago. Very noisy checking checking from my backyard, which are butts. It is over the decimal limit. As I'm walking for young people walk down the street, they stop up my neighbors and urinate on the street. Young families are not going to move into Boone Street. She's right, there are better places,, but they could, but they can't with the safety limit that they're now. The accidents, the inability to even ride your bike on the street, you talk about kids going to the middle school, the high school, it should be a primary for families, but not with the traffic. Someone was telling me they're trying to get their child to ride the bike, and car is open to the door and the child's scared to be on Boone Street Writing their bike. It's just not gonna happen. So let's not talk about what's not gonna happen Make it happen if you wanted to happen. I'm all in favor You're finally fixing up the house across the street. It looks great long overdue. We all appreciate it But I know the family appreciates it too. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? All right. Time to develop some consensus, Councillor Durkin. What are your thoughts on what you would like to proceed? It seems like we need a motion to... Oh yeah, but do you think we should, I think we should develop some consensus before we make a motion? I'm good. Go ahead, Doug. Are we talking about whether we're... This isn't a vote, it's just not. No, I know what we're saying, whether we are going to vote it down or we are going to continue it. Is that what we're talking about? when I'm trying to develop before I put it. Oh, I thought we already had agreed to. No, I don't know if we're agreeing to continue it or if we're agreeing to withdraw. And again, I guess my thought is if we withdraw, we could like, it allows for workshops. So that's just where my thought processes to, whereas if we continue it it? I don't know if we can workshop. Wasn't it referring it back to the planning board? Well, the recommendation would be to withdraw it. It would go back to the planning board for review. And then they would get their recommendation back to us sometime in October. Or we would continue as written and would go back to the planning board to be rehered as proposed October 20th. But again, I guess procedurally the issue that we ran into the roadblock with the 14 amendments, at least as I recognize was our inability to workshop. And my concern is, as this is something that's already been in review for a year and the planning board has, you know, there's been like a lot of back and forth with the planning board, I'm just trying to procedurally recognize, would this make more sense to withdraw, send it back to the planning board so that we can workshop? Right, I think the best way to go about it at this point probably is to close-up hearing vote to deny this amendment That way it goes back to the planning board. They can start the process over you can workshop it You can workshop it in advance, you can't really withdraw this one because this isn't one of your, that came from the planning board itself. Only the applicant can move it with draw. I guess, well, they've been voted on that. Theoretically, they could say town council, please withdraw, you could say yes or no and then go forward there, but that's not an option. It's just a either referral back to the planning board or denial and let them start over. So I just like to say that I think if what Mr. Breedy said is correct. I mean the time frame is the same either way and if we could just not withdraw, no that wasn't the word. What would we just sayorello. I didn't mean to say that. I'm not going to vote it down. And get it so that it's more simplified and a better format for everyone to understand. Then I think if the time is the same, then why not go with that option? I think that's what the recommendation was as well. Councillor I appreciate you for providing that clarification, procedurally. Sorry, Councillor Torello, they didn't mean a common deer year. I'll go time there. Any other comments or questions? I would like to have something on the book, but if they say they can get us a better cleaner ordinance in a similar time frame as the continuance, then's go ahead let's let's refer back to them by denying it by denying it yes okay and council colonies any other final thoughts so okay is there first of all we need a motion to close motion to close the public hearing second any discussion all All those in favor Hi any opposed motion passes 5 0 Is there a motion to? Wait just a quick clarifying question for Sarah The voting item is under community development is at the moment where we would deny That's that's the other public hearing we have after this one I think we just need a motion to deny Can I holding the public hearing right and I'll make motion to deny the amendment did I the amendment? Okay, so Councillor Dirk is making a motion to deny the amendment. Did I deny the amendment? Okay. So Councillor Dirkian is making a motion to deny the amendment. Second. Any final discussion? All those in favour? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Sorry. Nope, that's all right. Seven. Yeah, yeah. So Sarah and correct if I'm wrong, we're on to consent agenda based on my copy. So unless I'm looking at it. I'm C7. C7. Oh, thank you. Appreciate everyone's patience. I was re-reading the same thing. And finally, is there a motion to hold a public hearing on May 19, 2025 on an ordinance and amendment of appendix A of the Code of Ordnance, of the town of Narragance of Rhode Island, entitled zoning, specifically amendment related to the 2024 General Assembly Legislative Session. So moved. Second. All those in favour? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. All right. So here we are. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this? Yes. Sure. I can give a little background as Sarah put in the back up. The latest changes are in blue text. And the only blue text changes are taking out section four basements. There's three lines there in page two. And then adding sellers as defined in RIGL, 45-24.3-5. This way, the calculation for basements and sellers, whether it's above grade, below grade, the majority, both are removed from far. That way there's no dispute as to what your intent was there. And I think that was the direction you gave the last meeting, and this is the text that resulted. And that's the only change since the last meeting. Thank you. Welcome. Does anyone from the Council have any initial comments or thoughts before going to the public? No, I just, I just, Dan is going to put up something that with just some terminology that we're going to be some of the things we're going to discuss. And so I had said last meeting that I would try to define things so that people are more clear on what we're trying to do. So I put that together and I just wanted to let you know that I'll try to do that whenever possible. Thank you. Councillor Dirk, in any questions, comments? No, we're going to the public. Councillor Culleny's, Torielde. Nope. All right. So we'll go to the general public for comments. Mr. Brady. Thank you. So right now excuse me does he have to be resworn in for this hearing? Okay. I do. Mark M. E. R. K. Brady. BRADY. The chairperson. I do. Mark, M. E. R. K., Brady, BRADY, Chairperson of the Planning Board. Thank you. So right now, the law takes out basements and the Council wants to use the and Abling Act also adds sellers. In working with the building inspector, we were talking in the process of our hearings before. He said that this was a concern of people and of frustration. I asked him if we eliminate sellers, you're going to add 900 to 1,000 square feet to the living space above. So right now, on a 10,000 square foot lot, under existing situations, you can get 2,900 to 3,100 square feet. So now you're going to take your house up to 3,900 to 4,100 square feet. So in talking to the billing inspector, that gives family flexibility at a family room. It takes to five bedrooms, which is important for a sector of this community. So understand that. You're going to add anywhere from 900 to 1,000 square foot on a 10,000 square foot lot. So that takes you comfortably to a five bedroom house or you add a great room or something like that. In our discussions and our hearing and I met again with the building inspector, he was very firm and that he felt that if the basins were finished, that they should be included in FAR, that unfinished basements, sellers rather, should be excluded, but finished sellers should not be excluded. And that was coming from him and I'm sure you can call him to speak for himself. But I just wanted to give you some information. That's one of the things we've talked about, we need to communicate better. So I just want to give you an idea of what happens. You're going to take 900 to 1,000 square feet. You're going to allow it to the living space. You're going to go from 2,900 to 3,100 square foot homes on a 10,000 square foot lot to 3,940, 100 square foot homes. And that is comfortably a five bedroom home. And any questions? That makes sense? Yes. So is that the most extreme situation? No. Well, I mean, could it be more extreme than that? You'd have to get variances right now. So that's the most you could do. Yeah, yeah. So why do you think everybody's going to do that? They have the capacity to do that. I'm not here judging it, saying it's good or bad. I'm just saying, in our meetings with the building inspector, he was saying the frustration is basements and sellers and that it restricts people from adding a game room or a bonus room for the family, et cetera, so forth and so on. So we talked about, okay, what happens if we take it out? Not just to take it out to take it out, but what is the benefit? What is the ramifications of that? So it takes a home from 2,900 or 3,100 to about 3,941 hundred square feet. That is comfortably a five bedroom house. If somebody has three children or four children and they want to get three children and they want a master and they want to get a room, that gives them the flexibility of that. It gives them the flexibility of putting in a family room. So that's what's returned to someone coming in for a proposal. Not a proposal. Not a judgment, just saying, but the benefits are to somebody if you take this out. That's all. I didn't mean to cloak it anyway. No. I mean, my thoughts are the laws that you don't include basements. I mean, why are we including basements or sellers or partial basements? So we don't, I mean, so right now the law states that basements are not included. We don't include basements. The question here is, what about sellers? Those are included. So if you take sellers out, which is what you're talking about doing, what comes with that? So okay, so if you take sellers out because that seems to be a frustration of people coming into the building department. If you take it out, they gain in living space anywhere from 900 to 1000 square feet. So now they can add a bonus room, a family room, an extra bedroom. There's not every lot in our cancer can have a basement. Most of them are slaps. Yeah. I think the existing houses is what we were thinking about mostly like people that have a basement, they want to put on an addition. They don't have to include the basement that they already have. That might be dilapidated. It might have panel and that's like rotted from the moisture in the ground. So you're taking it out. So yeah, that was the idea right there. And what it does is it gives back that family 900 to a thousand square foot. What's wrong with that? There's nothing wrong. Oh good. I've been telling you. I'm not here making judgment. I'm just telling you what happens. Well, I like judgment. Thank you. So based on that, somebody can have a put a family room on. They can add an extra bedroom. I'm not telling you it's good or bad. That's not my job. My job is it to tell you good or bad. My job is to give you the facts, give you what the positives could be, what the negatives could be. And then you take that. It may not always, I mean, you may not always like what I have to say, but I'm always gonna be objective and I'm always gonna be honest with you So if for some people this will upset them that somebody can have 902,000 square feet to other people that would be like great. I can put that other bedroom on it. I can put the family room on So it's your perspective. I'm just telling you by removing sellers, you came back 900 to a thousand square feet. Just benign statement. It's not intended as any kind of judgment either good or bad. I don't have the luxury of that. I'm my job. Do you have any other questions, Councillor D'Allio? All right. Councillor Vigna, any other questions? Councillor Colleys. Any other questions? Are you sure? No. Councillor Torello, any questions? All right. My one question is, are there not currently mechanisms in place that I know that there's a lot of voices on both sides of the table and one of of them is the idea of like finish basements, but and that's not currently defined. So it is my understanding, at least based on what's been reported by some of the town employees is that there are mechanisms in place that should have finished basement be considered finish seller A seller that those can be handled on an individual basis I'm gonna let the building inspector talk to you about how to handle that. I'm just relaying our conversation No, I appreciate it. We sat down together and said okay, you know if we come before you this is what you want to do I Need to give you the information is what you want to do. I need to give you the information you can make a sound decision on. I appreciate that. I'll give you that. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. That's all the questions I have. Thanks. Thank you. OK. Oh, I forgot your next. Thank you. Sorry. I do. Name is Carl Valentine. C-A-R-L, V-S-N-V-S-N, A-L-E-N, ST-E-I-N. I live in Isle Point, Narragansett. I'm here to address my concerns with the amendments relating to ADUs. My modest proposal is that, and I want to thank the council for listening to the residents on the 10, the 14 ordinance and pulling that. But I also think here there are a lot of unanswered questions around ADUs and how they could be used by investors and developers to build dormitories that I would suggest that whether you're denied or pull it, that you also workshop these amendments as well to answer these questions before proceeding. And let me explain some of the concerns here. If you approve these, you're creating the right to build an ADU as of right, meaning no planning board, no zoning, it's just a question of building inspector. And there are a lot of questions about what you can build. And I know one thing for sure that investors and developers and their lawyers will find a way to exploit this opportunity since the 14 amendments are not going forward right now and may not be going forward to build what they can build in order to get that high profitable use from dormitories. So the real question, and let me go through some of these questions that I can't answer, and I don't think you're in a position to answer, and I think this is why we need a workshop. Could someone under the AD rule, ADU rules tear down an existing structure, rebuild it to the maximum permitted, and then build another ADU, and essentially create a duplex with four to five bedrooms here, and then lease it out to students. The one thing about the ADU law that, and I realize this is coming from the state, and so we have to implement the state law, but that doesn't mean there aren't areas where the town council under Home Rule can do this is, what are the limits on doing that? So there's no requirement of owner occupancy. There's no requirement of relationship between the owner and the ADUs. These are not granny sweets, in-laws sweets, you know, children coming back from college. This is fair game for development. And I think that the reality is someone could exploit that. The other thing that's not clear is how does this relate to other ordinances? You have on the books a three student ordinance. For some reason I don't know what it is even though it's been upheld in in Providence in litigation, not chosen not to enforce that. Can you enforce that if you decide in the future with respect to an ADU or is that overridden by the ADU statute? Other think questions that I have that are not answered and I think requiring a workshop. The state law allows you to require up to one off-the-street parking per bedroom, but it doesn't say what you have to do. I can't tell whether you're requiring off-the- all street parking for additional bedrooms in an ADU. I think that needs to be addressed. If you don't address that, you've created real traffic problems in the city. So again, it's not answered. The state statute also prohibits short-term rentals of less than 30 days in an ADU. Now this town council has an issue, whether it's through litigation or whatever, with the short-term rental provision, but you're going to, has a matter of law, have to impose a short-term rental restriction on ADU. So how's that gonna work? If you have a short-term rental restriction on the ADU, but it doesn't apply or doesn't apply to the house. I don't think anyone has thought through how this works. The other thing that the ADO law creates is potential conflicts with homeowners association covenants regarding that restrict this. Now my understanding, I'm not a Rhode Island lawyer, is that those state law will invalidate homeowner restrictions. But what about historic district and there against it? Is it still subject to review by the historic district? A lot of unanswered questions about how this is going to get implemented and how it's actually going to affect the town. And finally here, really important issue, has anyone really thought about how many ADUs are going to be built and what is the effect on town parking, sewage, water, and other infrastructure? I think that the reason this needs to be workshopped is I think we need to understand before we approve these and create the right to build this and whether it's only subject to building inspector review and really figure out what is the impact on the town because I think we're not careful. This will be exploited by investors and developers and we'll have the problem that we are trying to avoid with the 14 zoning amendments which is creating dormitories that can't be leasedering the summer, but people are gonna really abide by that rule. Is there gonna be any enforcement mechanism? And the reality is until the University of Rhode Island chooses to build housing for students, that they're looking to the town to solve the problem. And if we continue to solve it for them, we're not putting any pressure on the university to deal with this issue. And the opportunities for investors to exploit these things will be there. So I urge you to think about this and not move hastily forward and actually take this off the agenda and workshop it to address these issues, because I think there's more complexity to this than the discussion so far has limited. The other thing I want to mention and I hate to be a dead horse last time I was up here two weeks ago is the issue of conflict of interest. I think it's very important for the integrity of the process that the town council review this in an open and transparent process and that no council member have a conflict of interest. I raised this issue and I don't bear any personal animosity to councilman Durkin. I don't know him and I would do this if it were anybody. But I think it's very important for you and for the town to make sure that whoever's voting on these and whoever's participating in this discussion be free of conflicts of interest. Now I know Councilman Durkin, you've requested an ethic or your council has requested an ethics opinion on the short term ordinance. I don't think it's ever come back. Now they tried to claim an exemption based on you know you're being similarly other people though, it's hard to understand how that's factually correct when you own more, you know, property than just about anybody. I think you're in a class of one. But you didn't request one with respect to either the 14 amendments or the, these amendments. And I think you have a conflict of interest. And I think I just urge you to do the right thing and recuse yourself as you did with the short-term rental or get an advisory opinion because I think it casts some legitimacy on the process. And I don't think it's in your interest or in the town's interest to have that appearance of conflict on this. And again, I think so in conclusion here, I would really not move quickly on this. I would take this off the agenda, whether it's denying it or withdrawing it and workshop this further to answer those questions before moving forward. I think consistent with the thinking behind taking the 14 amendments off, the lot of the same concerns apply here. And so I urge you to do that. So thank you for the time here. Thank you. Dr. Albert, I'm trying to remember this so many hearings back to back, so thank you. I do. I, Dr. Albert Alba, 24 Egos Ness Terrace. I echo what this gentleman just spoke about, although he had valid points. Also, my concern also would be about the FAR in regards to if someone has a basement, you know, if we are going to exclude that, then that house can be built up higher, larger. And it was brought up where maybe if someone has, you know, a family, a growing family, well that's understandable, but how about if it's solely used for the investment purposes? So, it's an investor who's going to buy that property. He's going to hear the new rule. Wow, you know what? We can build another story on that and make a killing on the money. Also with the ADUs. You know, in today's paper, as I said, one size is not fit all. The speaker says in one of the legislators, oh, let's build ADUs across the state. That's going to increase the affordable housing. There's a shortage of housing. Well, you got to be kidding me and never against it. We know what the ADUs are going to be used for. So we might want to put restrictions that if the ADU is going to be built, it's going to be for families only, not for investment, not for investment. We can do this. We have a home rule. We can speak to the speaker. We can get the crowds that we're here at the last meeting to go to the capital and explain why we're against these AD.D.U.s being blossoming like flowers and spring. With no restraint, that's a dangerous situation. It's dangerous for all of an arrogant for my sewer systems. I for one don't want to have to take a shower which has bacteria in the water or have to boil my water. I don't want to have to go to, not be able to go to the beaches because of the excrement. It's a crappy situation for all of us, just because of the greed of these people, these developers. People wanna say, well, they're not greedy. Well, all we gotta do is see these dorm style houses in these neighborhoods where they shouldn't have been put in the first place. This greed out there. And we can all see the Mr. Prokasyati and Mr. Paley and Mr. Gilbain what they did to the affordable housing. Well, yeah, there was plenty of hotels out there that were affordable. Houses out there. And what did they do? They bought it up. They didn't make it affordable, did they? Did they care? Did they care about those families that they displaced? They didn't care. You are recognized that. So we have to keep this in mind. So we can put forth restrictions. We don't have to listen to the speaker and have the speakers say, yes, A to U we have to get these ADUs, we have to comply because we can put our own restrictions saying that you have to be owner occupied, they cannot walk into rentals. That could be a requirement. So I strongly recommend we table this, we have work sessions, we think this through because we want to preserve the beauty of Narragansett. We all want to live here for many more years because if our sewer system goes, then we're all gonna be up a creek without a paddle, and that'd be a sad situation. And who's going to pay for that sewage system? So maybe if someone does have real estate, which they're investing in seasonally, seasonal rentals, why don't we give them a surcharge? They are obviously taxing our sewer system much greater than a family of two or three or four. If they're going to be having those people flood in to those rooms like Sardines during the summertime, we all can go on my South County Rentals page which I create as over 5,500 members. They have rentals being promoted, but 8, 9, 10, 12 people. They'll put two or three bedrooms, four beds, two or three beds, and one room. It's no secret. So obviously they're taxing our sewer system, a heck of a lot more than a family of two or three in that two or three bedroom. So maybe I feel that I actually feel there should be a surcharge. They can write it off. They're making $34,000 a week, $500 a night. You see these all the time. Simple mathematics, $3,500, and one week. They can obviously be charged a search charge and that can go into a fund for our sewer and preservation. So if contingency does occur we have this fund available. They'll gladly comply believe me. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, Miss Celebrato. I do. I do. and celebrato C-A-T-H-E-R-I-N-E-C-E-L-E-B-E-R-T-O-L-I-E-S. Catherine, sorry to interrupt. I want to extend the meeting by motion. Thank you. Is there a motion to continue the meeting? Motion to continue the meeting to... Do I have to give it a time usually in the past, it's like 15, 30 minutes? Okay. Till... That's a good idea. Till the agenda is completed. It's a motion to continue the meeting until the agenda is complete. All those in favor? Hi. Any opposed? Motion passes, 5, 0. Thank you. Okay, before I start speaking about this, I need to know, are you going to continue this, do you think tonight? Are you going to vote on it? Are you going to continue it? Are you going to mend it? Because I can speak another time, you know, if you're going to continue this hearing, and we're going to have more testimony in the future. I need some kind of indication what's going on here. I don't think we can give a general consensus at this time, unfortunately. But, let me tell you that. I think initially, you know, we've shown that we're willing to workshop based on the previous, but again, we, based on procedure here, you can't give that consensus. Great, now the ADU, that's before you, somebody interjected in the ADU, it defines a household and a dwelling unit. And the state ADU says three people. Somebody crossed that out and put five. And I think that's an attempt to amend the unrelated ordinance using this ordinance to do it. I've read the, I've read the state law minimum, you can't rent for less than 30 days, but there is absolutely nothing in the law that would prevent you from setting an annual rental period on an ADU. You can't make it affordable. There's a lot of different things you can't do, but you can send a longer period than 30 days. You just can't set a period less than 30 days. And I urge you to do that, because otherwise these ADUs would just be more rentals, more student rentals, more summer rentals. 30 days, I've said this before, is no deterrent. I've lived in home owned associations where they've had 30 days. And you know, they do. They'll write the lease for a month and somebody will use it for two weeks or two couples will sign the lease and then one will use it two weeks in the air. There's so many ways around it, it's absurd. We don't need more student rentals. We don't need more summer rentals. We need annual rentals. And here's the bottom line. You people seem to think that you can just keep robber stamping a school budget $37 million. And we have like 800 kids, okay? It's, the crap's gonna hit the fans sooner or later. We need to get families in this town. This is a good way to do it. This is being sold to us as increasing housing and allowing more people to have a place to live. But this isn't going to help that. In this town, if you write it, the way the state has it. And as I said, maybe you can research this, but I wanna know what precludes you from setting a year rental period on any ADU. Also it's important that the seller be included because if not, we have like 6,900 lots that are under 10,000 square feet in this town. If you don't count the seller in the FAR, then these 5,000 square foot lots are going to be maxed out. Maxed out. Plus they can go up three stories if you don't count the seller. So you really have to think about keeping the seller in when you calculate the FAR. The rest of it, among all that recreation stuff, that's like off the subject, honestly, it's off the subject. We don't want to overload small lots. We want people to be able to say you have a raised wrench and you want to put a little apartment downstairs, you know, maybe rent it out. Okay, that's fine. But annually, annually, not a people coming in and out, you can't do two things at once. You can't rub a stamp that school budget and then set up conditions where families are gonna keep leaving this town. And that's what's happening here. I mean, rental loans are selling, it's weird, but rental loans is a sell-ins. They're kind of like cash and out weird. If you follow any of the affordable housing, we hired a company. What they said was between 2019 and 2023, 53% of the houses that sold that were not rentals before became rentals. We have to stop the profit motive, that's all that is to it. We don't want to add to the profit motive. Good grief. That's the last thing we want to do, and that's what this does. This probably would work in potato, providence, or wherever. It's not going to work the way. It's intended to work here, and you just have to face that reality, so you have to make some strong decisions about this. So that's pretty much my spill. You've really got to set limits on ADUs. I'm fine with them. I don't care. You know, Bill, one next door to me, and it doesn't matter. As long as the family, I wake up every day, and I see the same people every day. I don't want to wake up every day. I have a house next door to me, rents it week to week, although I think he's doing it by weekly now, $11,500 a week. Every day you wake up as different people, and it's sometimes it's a mixed crowd. Let me tell you, trailers and boats, and you're like, who the heck are these people? Anyway, so, you know, it's not, it's not, is this conducive? These people on this house, they move out of the house so they can rent it in the summer. That's what they do. This is not forcing any type of community. People never did this in the past, they really did. They had rentals, people always had rentals. And you know you buy a house, you lived in Pescom, so you bought a little house, and you rented a year-round. Mr. Haymes rents his house year-round to somebody with a housing choice voucher. And I was discussing it with him the other day, I'm like how can you support what's going on here? You have a house, you're renting it to somebody with a housing choice voucher. His mother had a house on Lambert. She lived on Lambert. She rented it annually. This is what people used to do. But we're getting so... House, you're wrenching into somebody with a housing choice. Well, his mother had a house on Lambert. She lived on Lambert. She wrenched it annually. This is what people used to do. But we're getting so far away from that, it's absurd. And this will just add more to it. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, please come forward. Yes. Christina Decomas, DICOMES. What I want to say about the ADU amendment to the ordinance, as you've heard from other people here, there needs to be a lot of thought put into this and a lot of restrictions. A lot more discussion needs to be had on this. Everybody talks about affordable housing. What happens when you bring in more units of housing? And you're chasing that goal down the road. You're supposed to have 10% of your housing stock as affordable housing in this town. What's the percentage of this townhouse now? 2%, 3%, you're chasing an unattainable goal. The other thing with the ADUs, you need to have the restrictions. The proponents of the ADUs is supposedly so people can age in place. They can bring family members in. They can make it affordable for other families to rent. Get the families back in town. If you just whitewash this and just rubber stamp it as it's written, there are zero restrictions to accomplish the goals that this town council said that they've set forth. You are not going to accomplish any of your goals. The transparency that you need to have with the residents, you need to send this back and it needs to be reworked. And it's present state, it's horrible. There are so many unanswered questions and more questions will come forward. Once you vote this in, it's fair game for the developers. And if you're willing to be the council that does that, good luck. Thank you. Before moving forward, I just want to make one clarification. And I appreciate, again, all of the thoughts and feedback from the residents. But I just want to make it very clear that the timing of this particular hearing item is unique. It is right after the 14 amendments. I want to make it clear if you read the suggested action. This town council did not bring this item forward. The planning board consulted since June of 2024 and voted to present these recommended changes to us. And Jill Sabah, please correct me if I'm wrong. The only item on here that this council has added is in blue and that is to remove, at least proposed, is to remove sellers and basements from far. And Jill, if you wouldn't mind Mr. Brady Brady, I just want to speak with Jill just real quick. I know that I think there's some confusion here because again, of the timing of this particular item, as it's written under the suggested actions and even reviewing again the recommended changes only the items in blue are being proposed as changes by the town council. Everything else has undergone an extensive review before it came to the town council as presented. Correct. Correct. And the changes in blue are from this council at the last public hearing. Everything else had been vetted. It was vetted by our legal council at the time in July of 2024, and it was also reviewed by our current council as well. Excellent. Thank you. That's all I wanted clarification on. At this time, I might call you back up. So with that, do you have another question? Sorry. Not, not, not. Well, maybe for Jill, but I do notice, and I was under the impression that all ADUs are going to be restricted to year-round use. And Jill, is there specific language in the audience that says that? Because I always thought, I just assumed that's the way it was. No, there isn't language regarding that. It was that actually was vetted at the planning board level. A couple of our planning board members brought that up and it was advised at the time that that was not legal. You can defer to your own council for an opinion on that. I'm not sure if he's read the, sure, I'm not sure he's ready. Right, so if we, if we decided to do something with this tonight and said, you know, we want to amend it to include ADUs for only year-round use. You know, one year or less, at least for one year or more. Then I mean I don't maybe James can say something but I don't know if I've seen anything where you're restricted from doing that. Rail. I'm sorry. Could we get that? Did you were you asking the solicitor? Are we restricted from doing that, James? Well, it just says in one of the sections, ADU shall not be offered a wrench for a turf, or transient use, or through a hosting platform, as such terms of finding general laws, doesn't say much about year round use, I don't believe. Well, I'm sure that was the intent. basically they're saying they don't want it to be short term so I'm sure the town can say we Around you, so I'm sure like that was the intent, you know basically they're saying they don't want it to be short-term So I'm sure the town can say we want it to be long term. I mean I I just assume that's what we're doing The whole time yeah, just to give you a seat. We wrestle with this Because we have that we had the same image of what an 80 you was The difficulty is what came down and what we were really instructed by council, number of council, is that a lot of what went into this is defined by the state. And one of the key things is that, because we looked at doing things like owner occupied, the only time that comes into play is if it's a disabled person. Otherwise you cannot require owner occupied. You can't require that it's a family member. And the municipalities that says are not allowed to impose dementia requirements or other development standards or on EDUs that in any instance exceeds the requirements of an accessory structure in the same zone as the district. But just some feedback. Yeah. It's the difficult part is our hands were tied. We have to comply with state law. We do. We ask vigorously, can we do this, can we do this, can we do this? It came back, no. It is very cut and dry, very clear. Most of this is by right. If it's within the footprint of an existing main dwelling, it's by right over 20,000 square foot or under 20,000. It's within a footprint of an existing secondary structure. It's by right, whether it's a 20,000 square foot larger or 20,000 square foot or lower. A new detached unit is going to be 20,000 or if the family member is disabled. And it doesn't have to be. In addition to an existing home, again, 20,000 square foot or higher unless it's a disabled family member. And in the only case where you have to have owner occupied is in the case of a disabled person. As far as ADU is on short term, it specifies that ADU shall not be offered or rented to tourist or transient. And we jumped on transient because we felt students were transient through a hosting platform. They said, but they defined transient the state did as transient used in defined by less than 30 days. And students are there more than 30 days. So everywhere we turned to try to look at, and again, I talked to you before about the powers to use the enabling act, you have to stay within the intent of the law and you can't weaken it. And these are pretty defined for us. And both council that we had prior and the new council, and I'm sure James has gone through this with a fine tooth comb. We got the same answers back. No, you can't do that. Thank you. I just wanna make sure that we're getting other people to speak to you. I'm not trying to rush you that. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. We were frustrated issues. No, I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Mr. Pat. that we're getting other people to speak to. I'm not trying to rush you. I appreciate it. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. We were frustrated issue. No, I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Mr. Precichelli. Yeah. I'm sorry. OK. Mr. Friday. I do. It's Rupert Friday and it's RUP-RT and Friday like the day of the week. And I have some handouts. I want to. Good evening. As you all know, I'm a member of the planning board, but my comments to later as a resident. And I want to talk about the proposal being discussed by Council to remove sellers from FAR. And first I want to make a process point. For the record, the proposal to remove sellers from FAR hasn't been reviewed or discussed by the planning board. I was not involved in the planning board when FAR was developed adopted and revised. I've learned about it and have seen how important it is to our neighborhoods and our talent character. In abstract, it sounds reasonable to not count sellers and basements, why consider development below the ground and the bulk of a building. In application, it has a real impact. And what I shared with you is two houses that are under construction right now, two large additions. People know that I'm on the planning board, they stop me, ask me questions that I've had neighbors of both houses under construction ask me how they go to prove. Both are very large compared to their lot and compared to neighboring houses. A person I know in town refers to them as trophy houses. They're not being built for large families who will have kids in schools here. And they're being built with no variance to the far and no variance to the development standards such as yards, setbacks, lot coverage, building height. And these houses show that the existing far and development standards are not preventing people from expanding their houses has been assertive by folks. Even with the existing building standards in place, you can still build houses that are too large for their lot, too large for the neighborhood. Both the houses I'm talking about have sellers. If sellers weren't included in the FAR, the houses would be even larger. I ask you to visit these houses under construction. One's 114 Montauk Road was a family house. Three sons were raised there. The other is 49 Robins and bought a block from here. And you can see from the pictures before both of them were probably affordable for families. When you look at them now, there's no way that a family's ever going to be able to afford those houses again. When you visit, you'll see how large they are and how scale they are with it a lot. And they're being built, as I said, under current zoning and forest standards with no variances. And when you visit them, ask yourselves what would happen if every house on that street is built to that size. I think you will agree it would totally change the character of their neighborhood and the character of an arrogance. In abstract, taking sellers out of far sounds reasonable. And reality has a big impact on a size of houses being built in the character of our neighborhoods. And it will detract from housing affordability and the lead to the loss of more of the town's housing stock for families. There's no reason to take sellers out of far except to permit bigger McM me anxious on small lots Thank you Thank you anyone else Mr Oh, no, sorry. at point, you So, might as me of a song, way back, so I remember the song, Ball of Confusion. That's where I think I am, because last Wednesday, the council agreed to have workshops on all these ordinances, which I thought was a good thing. Now, one could argue on whether you did that because you saw it was like 195 people one way with maybe five in opposing view or maybe you did it because of the pending recoil. I haven't decided which I hope to genuine. But I'm looking at tonight and I'm looking at this started as recommendations addressing his own text amendments to address state law changes. And I looked at the planning board's memo and the one thing in the planning board's memo, as you said, that your changing is adding sellers. Well, and I may be wrong here, but I doubt it when the state set forth its mandate, its mandate, within the definition and the general laws, as you have up there, there are definitions of basement and there's definition of cellar. The state mandate only addressed basement. It didn't say cellar. So I'm wondering why, if we're only trying to enforce state laws by these changes, why you're adding cellar. It seems disingenuous to me. Also going back to Las Wensby and the 14 amendments, the very paragraph that you're striking tonight is a paragraph in the ordinance that you struck as part of the March thread debacle. So I'm asking myself why aren't we including that paragraph as part of the things going to have the workshops on and have people speak to that and take their view on it. Now certainly the cleaning board, and I don't know what it was, had some rationale when they were looking at the state law to say, okay, basements, apparently we have no choice, but sellers, we have a choice. And they chose to include that in here. Now, I don't know the background on that, but I do know that from the 14th Amendment, I went to all those cleaning board meetings, and I found that they are a very unappreciated group, but they usually pretty well spot on. And I probably wouldn't agree with everything they do, but nobody should. But they pretty well spot on. So they made that change knowingly. And just one other mention here of things that are coming up that were in those 14 amendments is I did notice that you made no change to the household definition as suggested by the planning board. Where the state came out and said no more than five unrelated and the planning board changed that I believe to no more than five unrelated, but no more than one per bedroom. That particular section of the ordinance, in your 14 back in March, didn't agree with the planning board on that issue. So that means you're taking that issue off the table and you're going with the No more than one per bedroom Or are we going to revisit that As part of these workshops So the inconsistency of what's going on? Yes, hot of what is killing me here. Yeah, I am I am you got too many balls in here Yeah, Yeah. And you're really gonna get that under control because we'll all look like fools. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the public? Yes. I do. Carol Spaziano, 12-Virginstrom Road. I just, SP, AZ, IA and O. I just want clarification on the ADU. Does it have to be 20,000 square feet? So, 5,000 square feet, 10,000, it has to be 20,000. That's all I wanted was clarification on that. Thank you. I appreciate it, thank you. Anyone else who hasn't spoken yet? Who hasn't? No, sorry, it doesn't have to be 20,000. Please. No, no. No. No. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who hasn't spoken yet who wishes to do so? Yes. God. Yes, I do. My name is Kevin McKenna, K-E-V-I-N. McKenna is MCK-E-N-N- It's getting kind of late. To be honest with you a few minutes ago my apple watch went off and told me you should be getting ready for bedtime. And all honesty, I think everybody in here should be getting ready for bedtime. That said, I believe strongly, that these amendments or this talk on the ADUs should be tabled and rescheduled for future workshops. That said, I'm in favor of ADUs with restrictions that will help narrow against it improve the number of affordable housing units in our town. So I'm for ADUs. However, in terms of tonight's agenda, I have several concerns like many of the people who have already spoken that I believe are vitally important to address. Some of those questions might be, can any size ADU be built on any size lot? Are there any setback restrictions for an ADU? Has any study or data been analyzed in terms of the impact on sewer and water capacity along with traffic? What are the occupancy requirements for an ADU? Will the ADU restrictions require a full-time property owner on the premises? And what would be the rental restrictions for the ADU? Would students, college students be able to rent for nine months, or maybe less than 31 days, a little bit more than the definition of a short term rental? I agree with Mr. Durekin that if you did have ADUs, the rental period should be a year, if not longer. That might help us address some of the problems with year-round residents, and then also our school system. Since the council promised that workshops would be held, I look forward to hearing the discussion of these matters that will have a long-term impact on the quality of life in our reganets. So in other words, let's workshop this information. Let's define what, in fact, we want in our rodents. That's going to help everyone in our against it and also address the problem with affordable housing. Thanks. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Pacheli. I do. Carolyn Petra-Seli, PETROCELI. Well good evening, it's very late. After hearing all of these people behind me say it so eloquently, what I had written to you, I had composed a long list here of things and questions I had for you, but I'm not going to go over them because they said it better than I could. I just want to weigh in on the fact that this really should be brought, uh, tabled and included with the 14 amendments to discuss at workshops. And if you're really listening to the residents and if you really want to be transparent, you need to do that. Otherwise, I have to question, what is this all for? Is it the investors? I mean, wherever I've lived, and I've lived in many communities in Rhode Island, it's the voting residents that take priority. They listen, and we get results. But this here, it just doesn't make sense. I have so many questions of like, why would you want to do this? It doesn't appear to be for affordable housing. It doesn't appear to be to lessen the burden for yearly rentals. So I was heartened to hear that Mr. Durakin does seem to want that. But I hope you're listening, and you actually take the right actions. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who hasn't spoken who wishes to do so? I know it's, and we still have a first reading on the budget waiting patiently over there. Anyone else? Okay. So again, to reiterate, yes, Mr. Brady. Just... And I apologize for keeping getting up. I just wanted to dash things as they came up. I just want to give you a historical perspective on the definition of unrelated. The state law says no less than one person per bedroom, a max of five. People interpret that as one per bedroom. It is not. It's no less than one. So you can put five people in a one bedroom house, and that's legal. Now you can sit here and laugh and say, what it is gonna do that? Well, bachelor party might happen, but I've seen two ads already for next year's student rental that have three bedroom houses listed for four students. So somebody's anticipating the state law. It would also allow people to get around a special permit for five bedrooms. You could build a four bedroom house, you could put four people in five people in there. So what we did was again looking the enabling, we felt we strengthened the definition, we kept certainly with the intent of it, and we said one person per bedroom a max of five. That way a three bedroom house has three people, four bedroom house four has four people. I just wanted to give you that. Thank you. Would you mind if I just ask you one quick clarifying question? Can you just again reiterate for the general public? Again, I think there's a misunderstanding into miscommunication here that again, as it's been presented to this council, it was reviewed by the planning board on multiple occasions before being presented to the town council. In fact, we've even discussed this with the planning board previously, that everything as proposed to this town council, the only change that this town council has proposed is to remove sellers from the consideration of FAR. Can you please confirm that? Yes. Thank you. And to the point, you know, this is, this was not what we envisioned sending to, but based on the review of both the attorneys to the planning board and I'm sure Tom Counsel has looked at it. State law is pretty well defined and we can't, we can't just arbitrarily walk around it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I will pass it over to Councillor Durkin to kick us off with comments or questions. And then I'll go to Councillor Vignelli. I just feel that we've gone through this at least twice as a public hearing. It's been brought to us and we've continued it twice. I have no problem with, I think we all assumed they were year round annual rentals for ADUs. Well, my, yeah, if that was the thing, we'd probably should clarify that. And I'll make an amendment to the ordinance to clarify that. But other than that, I mean, we've, you know, this has been before the planning board. It was brought before the planning board because of state law. And this is what came out of it from another council, not our council. So I don't have any problem. Right, the final decision is, of course, this council. Yeah, I know that. Thank you. So I, what I'm saying is, I have no problem. Yeah, it never it never came to the previous council. Council of Agnalli. I just have to say quite honestly the only thing we are asked was sellers be removed moved embalmed from far other than that everything else has been presented to us from the planning board. It was also my assumption that it was year round. moved, embassments from far. Other than that, everything else has been presented to us from the planning board. It was also my assumption that it was year round. So if a motion is made to be year round, I would support that. And I guess that's what I have to say. Councillor Collinies. Yeah, I too assumed that it was year round. So I would support a motion to amend that as well. But it did come from the planning board and the only thing that we did change was sellers. So I would support it as well. Councillor Torello. Question for our solicitor. Can we do year-round rentals? I think heard from the planning board that we cannot under the state law. What is the interpretation? That's a good question. If you do, I have to look into that to be sure. If you do make an amendment or a motion of a man who So you have that review and sort of the public in advance. You can't just make that motion right now and have it approved. So in that case, we could make amendments. You would propose amendments, and then we'd go back for additional review. Correct. Well, I mean, in this situation, I mean, again, we're on the cusp of the end of another legislative session. And again, I'm not trying to delay or belabor anything here. I'm just asking a general question. Does it make sense to continue this and consider it with the rest of the 14 or just as another, again, hypothetical here? Since the only thing that was in here and how I understand the planning board was felt like restricted, which is why they presented it to us. They very cut and dry as it was interpreted and sent to us. If we were to remove the sellers from the proposal right now that the council had presented. If we remove that part, could we then vote on the remaining proposed changes since they've been thoroughly vetted by the planning board for now a year just as a general question. Or if we take out that consideration, would it still have to go back? Probably. That's probably too complicated. Not following the question. Sorry. I'm sorry. Again, the only proposed change from this council has been for the consideration to exclude sellers from FAR. Correct. If we were to remove that exclusion for now and reconsider that later on with the 14 amendments. Everything else would then therefore be as proposed by the planning board and having been heavily reviewed, could that then be voted upon as such? Are you talking about the seller basement and the ADUs or separate? Well, ADUs, again, the only thing that this council has proposed to change is removing sellers from far. And I'm not trying to overcompicate, this is all complicated as it is. But again, everything else with the discussion of ADUs, that could all be again taken up when the 14 amendments get addressed separately. But this planning board did present this to us as having been heavily vetted and in favor. Right, and the text here is literally cut and pasted from the state law. It's not like there was any adjustments there. These are the demands. And what then they consider is if somebody comes in here and tries to get an ADU past that has some variance here. You can apply for a variance for an ADU. If you don't have these standards, then it's kind of the wild west. of the wild west. The zoning offense is in a difficult spot unless you have some standards here to go by. you. If you don't have these standards, then it's kind of the wild west. The zoning office is in a difficult spot unless you have some standards here to go by in your ordinance. Okay. Can I ask a question? Yes. So if we were to pass this as stated tonight removing the sellers, ADUs as is, if we decided that we wanted to add that it needs to be here make a motion that it needs to be year round rentals in the future we can do that. We could do that at the next meeting to say we would like to amend it or no. I'd rather just amend it now. You'd have to direct direct staff including me to look into the year round rental issue or-round, whatever you want to call it, and then draft text based on that decision that presented to you at the next meeting. Okay, perfect. Perfect. Thank you. So, would it be out of the question to continue this and workshop it? Sorry, I can't process is we vote it through and then we instruct the solicitor solicitor to look at a year round rental and then we amend it once that comes forward. Or we or we workshop it while we propose the amendment. Is that just trying to use the workshop that we kind of came up against this with the 14 amendments where we have a public hearing open. We tried to workshop it while in progress, but that was deemed not effective or possible. Right. At this point, the public hearing is open to have a workshop. You've got to workshop within the public hearing like we discussed kind of like tonight with back and forth, but I don't know how you want to do it. I think we've already had a workshop on this, though, with the planning board previously, but again, correct me if I'm wrong. Not this one? Okay. Thank you. Well, my opinion is, I think, again, we, there's, I don't think there's any harm in continuing this workshopping it and reconsidering this in June. But again, I can't, that's my opinion. I know our solicitors saying that we can't workshop it, but that's the solicitor's recommendation. Could I make a motion? Well, it's going to be based on the consensus of this council one way or another. So I'm just stating my opinion, but again, what is your feedback? I would like to make the motion that we approve the ordinance as is. No, you have to close it first. My motion is to close the public hearing. So your opinion would be to continue the, or I'm sorry to vote in favor, because I'm trying to develop consensus before putting this to a vote to close. So I understand where your feedback is. What is yours? I already told you. To, yeah. I said I would make the emotion to make the ADU a year rental or a 12-month rental. But in order to do that, we'd have to continue it. That's why. Okay. So Councillor Collinese. So I would ask that that get put in and we continue it. Okay. Doesn't need to be continued to a date certain. Okay. Break out the calendar. All right, Sarah. What do we have available then to continue this July? Well the reason why I'm saying July is we've already got a lot of public hearings in June scheduled so Pulling the sellers that's why I was saying. No. That's a substantial change. Like Jim, can I ask you a question? So adding the tenants to be around, that's a substantial change. Any amendment that you guys make that substantial has to come back. It's not going to be re-avertised, it has to come back as draft language in text on paper or online, so the public can see it and you guys can see it. No, I know, but I'm looking at the state law, like state law like the you know the What is it getting confused here? But it has all of these things after ad use in the statute Yep, and nowhere it doesn't say that you can't restrict The rental to the annual lease. No, it doesn't I think that says you can't do short term or hosting black. Right. I think you're probably right there, but I think we should have that language, the exact language you want to approve, written down and readable for you at a public hearing. That allows the public to weigh in, allows you guys to have it in front of you. I know it's a pain. I think Sarah said there's no public hearings, maybe in next meeting. June 2nd. Oh, sorry, June. When you said July, it's all right. I thought that we had a lot to review. But yeah, there's a few already. But again, all right, so what is, so would anyone like to make it? Is the motion either June 2nd or would you guys like to continue it to a later date than that? June, just... No, we can do June 2nd. Okay so that is their motion to continue continue this public hearing until June 2nd I'll make that motion it also to direct the staff to thank you. Please Is there a motion to continue this public hearing until June 2nd and to direct the staff to add The amendment proposed by mr. Durkin which was Sorry for the ad used to be for only an annual lease Only an annual lease no less than an annual lease, only an annual lease, no less than an annual lease. Okay. Does anyone want to move that motion? I'm going to move that motion. Anyone second? Second. All right. Any final discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed motion passes 5-0. Thank you. And thank you for your time. And with the meaning of on to consent agenda, is there a motion to approve as presented consent agenda items D1 and D2. So moved. Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Next, on to the fire department. Is there a motion to accept a grant modification? Number 5 to the Rhode Island Department of Health Center for Emergency Medical Services, Mobile Integrated Healthcare, Community Parametizen MIHCP Program awarded to the Narragansett Fire Department in the amount of $52,500 and to extend the period through September 29th, 2025. So moved. Second. Discussion. Anyone from the town? Wow look everyone left. Anyone from the town council? Have any questions or comments? Anyone out in the public? Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Sarah did you get the first and second on that? Sorry about that. No, if you know what, I'll take it from you. Who? I'm moved. I'm moved. Durgan, second. Thank you. Thank you. I thought so, because I didn't even have time to write it down. All right, on to Parks and Recreation Department. Is there a motion to approve the 2025 contract agreement for the 48th annual concert on the beach with the Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra, in the amount of $32,944 and authorize the town manager to sign the contract after review by the town solicitor. So moved. Second. Discussion. Anyone from the council have any questions or comments? I just think that it's a yearly event that our residents eagerly week for. And I know I have friends already planning and excited about it. So I'm really happy to see that it's happening again this year. Excellent. Anyone else? I too echo that sentiment. It's a really wonderful community event that brings a lot of residents together. I know because I worked with a lot of those residents at the town beach and all of our families were there in present every year that I worked there for seven years during the summers and I think this is a wonderful tradition that brings the community and families and outside town of Narrowianza together. So anyone from the public, we're just a comment on this. Seeing none? All those in favor. Oh, hi. Hi, sorry. Right. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Next onto, oh, next next agenda. F2. Is there a motion to approve the 2025 contract agreement for production support services with JB theatrical productions LLC formally billed bracket theatrical productions LLC for the 48th annual. Concert on the beach in the amount of $14,450 and authorize the town manager to sign a contract after review by the town solicitor. So moved. Second. Discussion. Anyone from the council have any questions or comments? Anyone from the public have any questions or comments? Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Mr. President. Yes. We'd like to pull F4 for now, please. Any opposed? No, no, no, no, no, no. Motion passed, it's 5-0. And consideration for Mr. Tierney, to move item, remove item F4. Is that correct? Motion to remove F4. Is that all we have to do is just move the motion, or can I just unilaterally pull Item F4 from the agenda. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the sponsorship agreement with bank Newport as per attached for the 2025 Rhode Island from Amana concert sponsorship. So move. Second. Discussion.cussion. Anyone from the council have any questions or comments? Anyone from the public? Miss Celebrita. Catherine Celebrita, 40 years. Court, I just want to commend Michelle for squeezing another $5,000 out of the sponsor. Citizens was only given I think 10 grand a year and they just didn't want to come up with it. So she found somebody else so that's a good thing. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, I just again want to thank Michelle for her efforts and the entire Parks and Rector Department for putting on this incredible performance every year and for the Bank of Newport for agreeing to their sponsorship this year. So looking forward to that. Without being said, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. And we've F-4 was pulled from the agenda. Item F-5 is there a motion to approve one new contract with East Landing Rhode Island to participate in food truck at the food trucks at the town beach on Monday and Wednesday nights from the third Monday of June through Labor Day from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. subject to state and local regulations. So moved. Second. Sorry. Moved by Tori Alde, seconded by colonies. Any discussion? Anyone from the public? Yes. Thank you. Thank you for keeping a pulse out there. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Onto Public Works Department is their motion to approve the construction services to rebuild the rock wall located along Colonel John Gardner Road in Bonnet shores to be completed by George Sherman Sand and gravel company in the amount of $125,820, utilizing the miscellaneous repair and construction contract. Motion to approve. Second. Discussion? Anyone from the Council have any questions or comments on this item Anyone from the public yes to come to some time. They have money. They have a big budget. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from the audience? Anyone from the Council have any other final thoughts? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. On the community development, this was already continued. So do I pull this item as well? This one should be continued to the same date, June 2nd. OK. is there a motion to continue? Some moved. Hold on. Is there a motion to continue the motion, H1, the motion to introduce, read, pass, and accept as a first reading, an ordinance and amendment of appendix A of the code of ordinances of the town of Narragansford Island entitled Zoning to amend texts and compliance of the state. Statute changes from 2024 to June 2nd. So moved. Second. Any discussion? Anyone from the public? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. On to the engineering department. Is there a motion to approve the filling of one vacancy within the wastewater division due to a retirement? So moved. Second. Any discussion from the council? Anyone from the public? Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. On to the Finance Department. Is there a motion to adopt a resolution approving the capital improvement plan? Motion to adopt. Second. Discussion. Anyone from the Council have any questions or comments? Anyone from the public? Well, I'm surprised. No. All those in favor? All right. All right. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Onto item J2. J2? Is there a motion to award the bid for tax sale title search to the sole bidder taft and McSally LLP at their quoted bid prices $89 per title exam? $125 per collector's deed and $10 per postage notice for the 2025 tax sale. Motion to award. Second. Discussion. Anyone from the council have any questions or comments? Anyone from the public? Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Onto J3, is there a motion to approve the contract extension for general electrical services with EW audit and SONS Inc. for one year period at their hourly rates for regular and emergency services and at their percentage markups. and the community. The community is in the community. The community is in the community. The community is in the community. The community is in the community. The community is in the community. The community is in the community. The community is in the community. The community is in the community. The community is in the community. The community is in the community. The community is in the community. The community is in the community. materials and equipment under the same terms and conditions as the original contract. Motion to approve. Second. and at their percentage markups for parts, materials, and equipment under the same terms and conditions as the original contract. Motion to approve. Second. Discussion. Anyone from the council have any questions or comments? Anyone from the public? Say you none. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. On to human resources, is there a motion to adopt the resolution establishing the proposed wages for seasonal part-time and temporary employees for fiscal year 2025 to 2026? Motion to adopt. Second. Any discussion from the council? I do have a question. Yes. So we have it has an event planner and a assistant event planner. And we have another full time. So is it two full time event planners on and one assistant during the summer? Is that how it works? And I'm just curious because the beach manager's salary is less than the event coordinators. And I just don't know how that works. It seems to me like the beach manager should make a little bit more than the the average. The range is the beach manager is 23 to 28 and the I don't know if Jim, correct or if it was maybe a mistake. I don't know if Jim if you want to speak to that or Michelle. Oh, Michelle. Quick question. The actual law was there putting in for the. Yeah, I just I'm just curious if that's that's the correct or if that may have been an error, would the beach manager making less than the events coordinator? I just wasn't sure. So the bridge for the event coordinator, which is a full-time position, that would be with the event coordinator who would be working for the first time, 20 hours a week, schedule. So there's, I'm sorry very much. I think that's the right answer. I think that's the right answer. I think that's the right answer. I think that's the right answer. I think that's the right answer. I think that's the right answer. I think that's the right answer. I think that's the right answer. I think that's the right answer. I think that's the right answer. I think that's the right answer. what Michelle said is that the Beach Manager has started at one wage and has been working his way up to that range and the events coordinator and I'm not really quite sure I even understood is a full-time employee but is on as a seasonal employee during the summer. Is that what you said? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, said? No, no, no. Is that in four meters full-time point? The event coordinator is a full-time point. So, so it's listed here as another event coordinator and an assistant. So there's three. I'm just, I'm just confused. Appreciate it. Thank you. No worries. Thank you. Previously the event coordinator was a part time position that we hired a full time person for. We did leave this on just in case that we did go back to a part time position or in the case of for instance like, like the towers, decides they need an event coordinator to assist with dawn and stuff. So this covers Kinney Bungalow, North Beach Clubhouse, and the towers. So it would be any event coordinator in any of our facilities. Currently like Michelle said that our event coordinator is a full time position, but we like to leave them on there too, just in case something happens and we do need to get either a temporary event coordinator in or something of that nature. So right now they're not employed. We don't have part time or seasonal event coordinator in here. Thank you. That's where I was confused. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the council's and beasts? Anyone? Nope. All those in favor? Hi. Hi. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. On to the town manager One could argue the last exciting one, but maybe there's another exciting agenda item later on here. Is there a motion to introduce read pass and accept as a first reading the appropriation ordinance for the 2025-2026 fiscal year? Well, don't ever want to jump at one. So she is. Wow, you quick, quick, this late. I just want to say, again, extend a real warm thank you to you, to Jim, to all the department heads. The extensive budget review process, the headaches that I'm sure we've given you are very much appreciated and you know again we can't thank you guys enough. I know we came with a lot of questions during those budget reviews and your patience with us is very much appreciated. With that being said, I will turn the floor over to the council for any final questions, any particular items that you have any questions about. This is your time to speak up. I will reiterate to the council and to the remaining audience members. Mr. President. Yes. Oh, could I make a few comments before it goes to the council? As you stated, thank you for recognizing the staff that worked so hard on this. We spent countless hours with staff preparing and justifying the needs of each department so that we could provide the essential and even enhanced services in the most efficient manner to the taxpayers of this town. The town council had four work sessions, two public hearings, and it resulted in a budget of approximately $73.5 million. There were cuts made from capital, very difficult decisions to make of the over $3 million from capital and from operating another $330,000 or so. The budget was really lean during COVID. Things were cut back and we still are pretty lean. And this budget is a good budget. It's been reviewed by the staff. Obviously, she had to counsel through work sessions and public hearings. And I encourage passage as presented. Thank you. Thank you very much. With that being said, who would like to ask any clarifying questions? Christine's waited until 1135 at night to answer them. Maybe Councillor Torialde, any questions or comments? Oh, we're starting with me this time. Yes. Thank you. I'm not sure if that. Presently, I don't have any questions at the moment. With an extensive review process. And I just want to extend a big thank you, Christine, finance staff, and really all who worked on this and getting into it. State that it's in. So thank you. Councillor Colleys. I just have one quick thing to ask. ask, it understanding that the $70,000 built into this budget if we were to enact the $3 million affordable housing bill. Is that correct? If we had a plan. It would come from contingency at this juncture. Oh, what? We have contingency funds. Which we do have the funding. So if a project ever would develop a development with ever proposed or project was ever proposed, if the council chose to issue bond funds, then we'd be able to do that. Okay, I'm just going to make sure we have the capacity that's with that. Okay. Councillor Dirkens all set. Councillornelli. I'm good too. I just want to say thank you very much. I mean the process is amazing and Thank you for all your hard work. You and the staff. Thank you. I didn't mean to not say thank you. Nope. I think the budget as presented, I think you took a lot of our feedback to heart. You've trimmed it down. You've honestly trimmed the fat down so much. I don't know how much of a stake there is left to eat after this, but I appreciate the amount of work and the reminder to this council as this is our first town budget that we're passing and realizing how difficult it is to answer every request. And to, in our conversations and in our conversations throughout the budget workshops, I felt that this council's voice was heard and recognized and I hope that all of the department heads felt like their interests were being recognized as well as we really appreciated the work and the transparency throughout that process. And we hope to continue to build that rapport and that relationship with all of our town department heads, our town officials and our town residents moving forward. So with that being said, I don't have any final questions, but just again a heartfelt thanks. Introduce, read, pass. Okay, so we have a motion to introduce, read, pass, and accept as written. There's a first and a second, any final thoughts or comments? Nope, anyone from the public? Great, all those in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi, any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. On to L-2, is there a. 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. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Ayeett on each passenger over the age of 12 arriving in the port of Galilee to be increased to $1. Motion to adopt. Second. discussion anyone from the council have any questions or comments? Thank you. Thank you Brian and Andrew again and more illusions Yes, and thank you Jim you know answering my questions that this is a partnership with between Narayana and Block Island and that this is a mutual agreement. That's, and that's basically, oh, that's correct. Upon passage. Upon passage. Once it's passed, the contract will be coming before the council between us and Interstate. Has Block Island approved this already? No, it's, the bill has been filed. So, sorry. Our bill's been filed as well. It's late. I just wait down the resolution. They've already introduced it. Thank you. Thanks. Any other questions or comments? Anyone from the public? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. On to the town clerk. Is there a motion to approve a holiday license for traveling gypsy ink DBA, something something salty, 34 A, peer marketplace, an area in Suror, Ireland, subject to state and local regulations? Motion to approve. Second. Discussion. Anyone from the council have any questions or comments? Anyone from the public? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Is there onto M-2? Is there a motion to approve a victorial license application for DJK SLLC DBA Smoothie Booty, 134 Boone Street, Narrow against the Rhode Island subject to state and local regulations? Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion? Anyone from the public? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Well, is there a motion to approve a vicar license and a holiday license for a surf exchange company, LC, DBA, surf exchange, cafe? 75.Judith Road, Naree Gansard, Rhode Island, Subject to State and Local Rake. I'm going to go to the public. I'm going to go to the public. I'm going to go to the public. I'm going to go to the public. I'm going to go to the public. I'm going to go to the public. I'm going to go to the public. I'm going to go to the public. I'm going to go to the public. I'm going to go to the All those in favor, I just want to make sure I heard everyone. Hi. Any opposed? I just want to make sure I heard everyone. Any opposed? Councillor Durkin abstains. So there is motion passes with four in favor and one abstention. Last item on the agenda, what a relief. Is there a motion to approve the planting of a Peace poll by the Wakefield Rotary Club in Gazebo Park at the corner of Ocean Road and Memorial Square, Narragans, and Rhode Island? Motion to approve. Second. Discussion. So I would just like to say the Wakefield Rotary Club is actually made up of members of Narragansett and Wakefield and they're curing people from both both communities and Peaceful is an internationally recognized symbol of hope and dreams. The Peaceful beers the message may piece prevail on earth in languages, representative of our town. There will be one also planted in Wakefield on Main Street. So it'll have six sides and or four sides and it will be in different languages. They estimated that there are about 250,000 mapped Peace Polls in every country in the world. And it's dedicated as a monument to Peace. A Peace Pole is planted as a way to remind us that peace starts in our own community and within ourselves. A Peace Pole will be planted again on Main Street in Wakefield. So thank you and the Wakefield Rotary, thank you. And it's going to be a really beautiful symbol. And we're gonna be mapped, and so people can go on and find out that Narragansett now has a Peace Pull. And I believe we're the fifth one in Rhode Island. Excellent. That was gonna be my question, actually. Is there anywhere else in Rhode Island? Just for the general public, the three now people who are probably online. How big is a Peace poll? The Peace poll is, oh my God, I believe it's eight feet tall. It's not like a telephone poll. No, no, no, it's just a fence, yeah. Similar to a bouncing marker. Thank you, Jim. And it's four sides are six sided and it'll be we're looking at Braille. Um, nice. And we're looking into the near a Gansett tribe language to be part of it and different languages which will be part of the near Gansett community. And what the costs for this? The cost wayfield rotary is absorbing and doing all that is. And the planting of it as well? The planting. We will be having a dedication ceremony once it's done. We plan on having a ceremony to, you know, the dedication of the peaceful. And it will be, there will be flowers and shrubs around it and they will be maintained by the wayfield rotary.. Excellent and this is a plan that's already been approved and approved and reviewed Jim. We just notified Dixay for us we have to make sure we can put it exactly where we want to put it and we'll work with them to get it done. Excellent so my final question because we need to get out of here. Do you know approximately the end of June to actually start the process. We have two fundraisers coming up. We have the children's festival, which is one of our main fundraisers. We also have the arts festival, which is right also down near Gazebo Park. And so once those two fundraisers are over, we're going to start the process on the piece. Excellent. I might just make a quick pitch at the next meeting. Maybe share some of those updates to let the community know what's coming. So awesome. I don't have any questions or comments. Does the public? I didn't think so. All those in favor? Hi. Hi. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Is there a motion to adjourn at 11.45 pm? So moved. Second. All those in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi. Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. have a great night.