Okay. Good afternoon. We will call this regular meeting of the city plan commission to order. Today is Tuesday, 03/03/2026. This is the regularly scheduled meeting that was postponed, originally scheduled for February 24.
Obviously, due to the blizzard, we couldn't meet last week. Right? We will start by taking it's 04:50. We'll call the meeting to order, and we'll start by taking a roll call.
Rachel Dunson. Sid McGinnon.
Sharon Nanticar, DVD staff.
Sharon Garner, legal counsel.
And I am Michael Gazdako, chair. Approval of the minutes. Has everyone gotten them?
No. They actually haven't been
don't think so. Because I I haven't seen them yet.
So we'll kick that to the to the next meeting. Directors report.
Okay. The just a couple of quick things. We have a couple of major zoning packages that had come through the commission in the fall, in the winter, I guess, that moved on to the city council. This included the design regulation changes that came out of that process that we ran during the summer. And then there were a bunch of technical changes to comply with state laws, comprehensive plan, and sort of general cleanup.
Those have both gotten first passage from the city council. We expect they will get second passage on Thursday night and then be signed into law. This is great for us. It'll keep our our ordinance up to date and implement even even more of the things that, we said we were gonna do in the comprehensive plan. And, they haven't even been approved, and, the speaker of the house just dropped, nine new bills on us yesterday or I don't know when.
In recent days, there are a couple that affect the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. The the one that we're keeping an eye on is a 51 page bill that has even more sort of technical amendments that would affect the way the planning board operates. So we are looking at that carefully, and and we will certainly have some comments, as that comes along. And, we expect that, this will result in yet more zoning changes that we have to do. So stay tuned for that.
Alright. That sounds great. Thank you. With that, we will roll right into our first agenda item, which is a request for extension. It's case number 23 Dash 0 66 M I 464 America Street.
Briana, are you gonna introduce that one?
Sure. So, commissioners, this was the applicant is asking for an extension to an item that you previously granted a six month extension since last year. They were their plan was originally they received preliminary plan approval back in It's pretty strange. Back in 2023, and they're asking to extend that for a second time, asking for another six month extension. And it is our understanding that it is due to procurement of state permits as well as some other issues that are related to final plan approval.
So as the applicant's here, and they can expand on that. Thank you, mister chairman and mister Ward. Last time we met on this
Can we go check? Hold Hold that. Not on.
There we go. Good evening. Here we go.
So last time I was here in this matter, we requested a twelve month extension. The board granted a six month extension. A portion of the board's direction, we presented regarding some financial concerns financial concerns in terms of project viability, specifically some uncertainties revolved around, TSA and a law issues. And while those still remain, the sports point was, to get through final plan approval until it'd be a longer term vesting so that that would not be an issue. So we took that direction.
We've updated the plan set to include the
I have an updated plan set here.
The the edit is specific to
page three. You'll see the bicycle parking as required by the preliminary plan approval. We also have a follow-up meeting with the city. We've also submitted the prop water, and, we've submitted, we've partially submitted to NGC. As part of our meeting with the city, we did, drop, a concept that was also designed to address some of the financial viability of project if you are not pursuing that change.
So since the last time we met, we've had we've continued to pursue final plan approval. We have pursued it despite some viability concerns. We are committed to the project. We saw the province water change, but specific to MVC, MVC's changes review process. This is something that I personally met with people who
It's a challenge that we are are facing sort of across the board with these sorts of projects. Two separate engineering firms, one specific to this project and one related to another project. They've had to change their scope and request additional funds in design period to deal with NBC's changes. So our projected timeline based on that is four additional weeks of design time followed by six additional weeks for, NBC review. There was some initial concern that DEM may need to be involved.
We believe that issue's resolved, and
they do not need to be involved.
So four weeks of design, six weeks of review, that puts about ten weeks out. Two weeks for buffer time puts us about twelve weeks out. At twelve weeks, in order to get an extension before this board, you need to request it least, the full month in advance in order to catch the hearing timeline. That really brings us out to September, which is sort of the full year of our original request. We appreciate the fact that, this board believe that we could, get all these issues resolved and all this permitting completed within the six month time period.
We have not been able to do that, but we have moved the project forward, moved it forward meaningfully in terms of decisions on, what the final plan will look like, dropping we're no longer pursuing financial solutions prior to completing the engineering, applications to prop water and updating all the engineering to do the to deal with the NBC changes. I have, Kevin Diamond here, principal architect of the project. He can answer questions that specific to these engineering concerns, but generally speaking, we're requesting for the six month continuance to complete the process that we've already sort of embarked upon with NDC.
Yeah, mister chair. I I might add that that in conversations with the applicant, the the original stormwater approach here was to kind of use downspouts and and green space. And Narragansett Bay Commission, has it's it's not the most transparent process when it comes to what they actually require. It's kind of a case by case basis. It depends on on your the particular location, the the existing conditions, the the sewer infrastructure that that's there.
And from what I understand, based on the correspondence I've seen between the applicant in the Narragansett Bay Commission and and their engineer, NBC is asking for much more of a a engineered solution here, and and that's different from what we've seen on a bunch of of other sites. So it it it seems to me that this this is a legitimate request based on not something they've done necessarily, but what's been imposed on them from Narragansett Bay.
Thank you. Thank you for confirming that. I know I was the one who probably put forward the six months, I remember the last time, because you were so close to it, and I didn't think you needed a year. It's good to see that you're still working in in good faith to get this across the finish line. So I have no issue with this.
Just commissioners for your information, this is not an updated set for review. This is just a progress set that we wouldn't see for final plan unless, like, there was a major change. That he's just showing us that that he's working on this, not necessarily that we need to review this in any way, shape, or form. This is closer to the final plan that'll be submitted and approved administratively based on our previous approval.
Thank you for that clarification.
Do you have any commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant?
Could you just summarize how much more time you need exactly?
The the the request is a year. Right?
a full year would be fantastic. We think our our best case scenario right now is complete prior to the September 16. Believe
but the September hearing is.
I'm okay with one year. I think if anyone wants to entertain a motion,
