I.            CALL TO ORDER

The City Council was called to order at 6:33 P.M. by the Council President, Jessica M. Marino.

II.            ROLL CALL

The roll was called by the City Clerk. Stated as present: Council President Marino, Council Vice-President Wall, Councilman Campopiano, Councilman Buonanno, Councilwoman Graziano, Councilman Andujar, and Councilman Ritz. Absent: Councilwoman Haroian and Councilman Traficante.

III.            CITY COUNCIL/CITY PLAN COMMISSION WORKSHOP (no votes)

President Frias introduced Acting Planning Director Beth Ashman. Ms. Ashman provided some comments and background. The owners of the property will no longer be operating Mulligan’s Island. They are seeking a zone change. The Costco proposal was not well received, so they are starting over with a new plan. The purpose of tonight’s workshop is to present initial ideas and hear concerns. There is a historical cemetery on site which requires a 25ft buffer. It is natural to not want to see change, but we need to give the developer some reasonable use of the property. For economic development purposes, we need more tax base and more housing. The development would be primarily residential.

Tobey Arment, Housing Fellow, spoke in support of rezoning the property for residential purposes. He presented slides with historical data, median housing prices, supply & demand, median income, vacancy rates, and school impact.

Atty. John Mancini, representing the applicant/property owner, presented a conceptual design named Garden Grove Redevelopment. The property, originally owned by the state, was given to the city. The property was originally zoned commercial and was intended for the expansion of the prison and training school. The property is currently recreational. The applicant is seeking to add a residential component, which is not only viable, but a necessity for two reasons: the need for additional housing units; and, if not residential, there will likely be commercial expansion. Last heard, they were told mixed commercial, such as Costco, was not viable. The proposed plan is to permit a mixed plan district. They need the underlying zoning changed to go to market to find developers. Any multi-use project would be subject to a layered review process involving the City Council, Planning Commission, DOT, and DEM. Before a final submission, they need to confirm the city’s desire for the parcel. What’s being presented is a high-level conceptual plan; a layout of the location of residential units. Once they get a zoning determination, they will seek developers and come back with detailed proposals. He stressed the uniqueness of the parcel. It is not common to find 55-56 acres with this type of existing water, gas, and sewer infrastructure. There are not too many good parcels left without flooding, drainage or wetlands issues. There’s not a lot of wetlands at this parcel. They would be incorporated into the open space. It is located in the heart of Cranston with access to 95 and 295. In reality, the parcel will be developed. The City Council and Planning Commission need to decide what type of development they want. The state is in competition for the parcel. They have tried to buy it back. There is a portion still owned by the state, leased by Mulligan’s. Before starting the official process, they want to hear comments so they can proceed to Planning, the Ordinance Committee, and then Council.

Greg Guglielmo, DiPrete Engineering spoke. Developers like certainty. Large scale developers are okay with less certainty. They can find the political clout to make things happen. The best projects strike a balance between the developer and the community. He described what a transecting neighborhood would resemble. He showed slides of similar residential developments in East Providence.

Atty. Mancini stated the submitted zone change is for a mixed plan district with conditions. He would like to work with the city to refine the ordinance. They are asking for a residential component in addition to the recreational, with conditions to then be considered. They are not asking to do what they please. He would like to work with the city on the concept to draft an ordinance that is a win/win situation for the residents, the city, and the property owner.

Commissioner Robert Coupe asked the percentage of the 55 acres reserved for open space in the concept plan.

Mr. Guglielmo answered the plan as sketched contains 30%. Some areas need to be. It depends on what the city wants and how it is integrated.

Atty. Mancini elaborated. The open space will be done strategically including buffers and amenities like walking trails. Residents want to see a natural vegetation buffer. That can be a condition. The second buffer element is from and to the prison to avoid feeling next to a prison. Some of the open space will include the wetlands. They view the plan as a community within itself. It will not connect to the existing residential neighborhoods. New London Ave. will be the access point.

Frank Corrao, Public Works Director asked what percentage of the 55 acres is owned versus leased.

Atty. Mancini pointed to areas on the slide. One concern is the state’s intentions. There is nothing to stop the state from expanding. As far as they know there are no plans for the state to take back the leased area, but it could happen.

Council Vice-President Wall represents Ward 6, which includes the neighborhoods in the surrounding area. He shared concerns from the residents including traffic, floods, run-off, and the number of kids which would impact the schools. He takes exception to Tobey Arment’s statistic of 40 students per 100 units. He is not seeing that with the families in the area. The schools are already densely populated. What is the effect of an undetermined number of students? There is concern for the recently refurbished playground at the end of New London Ave. He likes the phrase “with conditions”. If open, he is concerned the city will lose its power.

Atty. Mancini stated Cranston is deficient 3,000 housing units. They are not proposing to add all those to this lot. Conditions to be discussed could include a density formula, a traffic study, and report with mitigation requirements. Stormwater drainage is always a concern. A proper system would be put in place with DEM guidelines that force developers to ensure there is no run-off. With regard to school-age children, they have verified there are types of residential units that are not conducive to student populations. They are not opposed to a condition of an economic impact study. This should not make the parcel residential prohibitive. They would address the issues. They have identified a second means of access; at the existing playground, with a condition they relocate it, in the same or better condition.

Council President Marino appreciates the collaborative approach taken with the two bodies. She addressed a concern to Solicitor Marsella. If a zone change is entertained, with conditions, she wants assurance the conditions are solid, generally speaking.

Solicitor Marsella provided his opinion. He disagrees with mixed use development with conditions. Mixed use with specific approvals can be done, requiring changes to be brought back before the Council and Planning Board.

Atty. Mancini explained what Solicitor Marsella is referring to is a mixed plan that is tied to a specific plan, right down to the details. That can’t be done because it is such a large parcel. It is unconventional, but it can be done within the guidelines of the law. Give them the residential, then tell them what can’t be done. The process may take multiple years. He understands that every time they have a proposal they would need to come before Planning & Council.

Council President Marino requested Solicitor Marsella convey to Solicitor Millea that further information and discussion is needed as to whether they can or cannot approve with conditions.

Councilwoman Graziano expressed concerned with police and fire response times to the houses at the far end with one way in and out. She believes police and fire would want two entrances/exits. She is concerned with soil suitability and flood issues. She would want to see a long-term stormwater plan and soil tests ahead of time to be sure the soil can handle the foundations. She sees the two detention basins on the plan. She does not consider those wetlands. She would like them to follow NOAA Atlas 14 for twenty-year stormwater and climate resiliency. She would want to see a percentage requirement of affordable housing. She asked about management of the private subdivision. Will there be an HOA? How will the city be involved? She would want a management requirement to hold them accountable after development. Open space is not lawns. She wants trees, wildlife, grasses. She supports a new playground.

Councilman Campopiano echoes Council Vice-President Wall’s concerns. He asked if they would be looking for tax stabilization.

Atty. Mancini answered no.

Councilman Buonanno is a citywide representative, but he is a resident of Ward 6. The proposal is a hard sell for him. He referred to existing traffic wait times and concerns on the traffic impact. Before the new Garden City School was built, the old school’s student population was 250 students. Waterman was 200 students. Merged, the population should be 450. At last count, the population was 537 in the new Garden City School. There needs to be balance. He is pro-business but not at the expense of the residents. He does not believe the increase in tax base will outpace the expense of the additional students.

Atty. Mancini reiterated the plan is a concept, not a development. All things discussed will be included in development. He has no issue with conditions for due diligence. The discussion now is where the city wants to see commercial, recreational, and residential. Once that is outlined, they can come back with a specific plan.

Councilman Ritz asked about idling vehicles.

Atty. Mancini replied there will not be commercial vehicles. They are divorced from the idea of commercial development. There is no current guidance, other than recreation, which they can’t develop. Making the parcel residential alleviates residents’ concerns over commercial development. They are looking for a vote of endorsement for residential development versus commercial.

Councilman Andujar stated the land will eventually be developed. He feels we should come together and get the land from the state so we can decide what happens in that area.

IV.            PUBLIC COMMENT

At 8:10 P.M. the floor was opened to public comment from the audience.

John Hill, 19 Bradford Rd., Chair of the Historical Cemeteries Commission. Their charge is to make recommendations for the preservation of historic cemeteries. As long as the 25ft buffer is in the final version, the commission should have no objection.

Larry Poplow, 36 Roslyn Ave. supports the rezoning to residential. Cranston needs more housing. This is the perfect plot of land. He advocates for an affordable housing component.

Annette Bourne, 51 Community Dr. addressed the need for more housing options in the city and across the state. She provided statistics from the RI Fact Book. Where and what kind of building causes discomfort. She encouraged residents to think about how, where, and what kind of additional homes can fit in their neighborhoods. The state released a plan to add 15,000 homes across the state over the next ten years. Cranston has been identified as a strategic growth community. She looks forward to the development moving forward.

Martha Cussler, 50 Community Dr. knows we need more affordable housing. It is a tight market. We need a more fluid market that is more affordable for average Rhode Islanders with more choices of types of homes.

Gail Harvey, 455 Meshanticut Valley Pkwy. is a renter and widow that lives in fear of rent increases. Garden City is saturated with commercial development. The cost of construction (steel and concrete) will rise. We need responsible and smart residential development.

Pauline DeRosa, 97 Cypress Dr., has skin in the game as founder of the Garden City Alliance. No decision needs to be made this evening. This needs to be well thought out. The plan needs to be viable. She expressed concern with congestion in the New London Ave area. She warned against commercial development allowed with conditions. Office space and retail will intensify traffic. She shares the concerns with student population.

James Muro, 105 Concord Ave is all for residential. We are in a housing crisis. We need to prioritize affordable housing.

Kate Caito, 97 Hill Top Dr agrees with Council Vice-President Wall. Whether or not she supports the plan depends on the number of people. She prefers residential development over large commercial. She is worried about bait and switch with the amount of housing. She does not want to see the playground removed. For secondary access, she suggested the east side of the Howard Industrial Complex. They both have traffic lights already. She would rather see the 3-4 story apartments by the Howard Complex. A 50ft buffer is not as much as you think. That needs to be increased.

Joe Magrino, 11 Beekman Ave lives right next to the access point. He supports more affordable housing. Another thing to consider will be rodent control.

Anthony Melillo, 44 Harvard St., Vice Chairman of the School Committee, is concerned about the potential impact of the overburdened schools. Garden City and Western Hills are at capacity. This needs to be carefully assessed before moving any proposal forward. An impact study must be done. He encouraged transparency and collaboration with the School Committee.

Marcus Stephenson, 87 Garden Hills Dr is not saying Cranston doesn’t need more housing. Mulligans isn’t the place for it. The schools in the area cannot handle more children. Taxes do not cover the cost of education. The area has proven able to handle large volume for hours, but not 24 hours. An indoor sporting facility would generate revenue.

Hilda Riccio, 144 Woodstock Ln agrees with the traffic and school concerns. She does not recommend multi-unit buildings. There are enough rentals in Cranston. They are costly to build. Put in an over 55 community to avoid overwhelming the schools. She does not agree with businesses on the parcel. We have enough businesses.

Christopher Paplauskas, 14 Highland St., Representative, District 15 heard many of the same concerns from residents of Oak Hill, Lower Circle, and Garden City. Also, the height of buildings overlooking the neighborhoods. This seems like a good faith effort, but they are kind of asking for a blank check. He urged both bodies to do their due diligence.

Matt Souza, 4 Grove Ave told a story about an interaction with an unhoused individual. We need to do everything to increase affordable housing.

* Public Comment was taken from the following individuals via Zoom:

Rachel McNally, 113 Hill Top Dr questioned the stance of “divorced from commercial”. The first slide talked about commercial development. She is a realtor. She understands the housing crisis. If you think this is the solution, you are wrong. These won’t be affordable. In response to a previous speaker’s comment to hire more teachers, she referred to an email from the school indicating they were facing layoffs.

Daria Brashear, 1900 Broad St agrees the development will not solve the housing crisis, but it will contribute to the supply.

Dan Meuse, 60 Hill Top Dr is a direct abutter. He is thankful for the chance to provide input on the plan. His initial reaction is that residential would be preferred to squeezing a large commercial development in to the parcel. Egress is a challenge. It is unclear whether the single-family units will be subdivided for ownership or will be on leased land. Who will be responsible for the buffer? The open space on the west side is filled with boulders and trees. Oak Hill Terrace suffers basement flooding. The water table is high because of ledge. That topography will extend to this parcel. It was referred to as “Slate Hill” for a reason.

* Public Comment was closed at 8:56 P.M.

Planning President Frias provided comments without need for response. He has a significant problem with the ordinance wording. In his time, Planning has granted MPD’s for specific plans, never carte blanche. He would argue their right to do so with conditions. Usually, you go out to market and come forward with the best plan. A zone change proposal before a plan is putting the cart before the horse. We’ve heard skepticism from the City Council and the Solicitor. An MPD zoned recreational is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to improve recreational facilities. Residential versus commercial has been explained. Why has there been no mention of recreation, like an indoor recreation facility. The parcel is zoned for recreation. The owner purchased the parcel in 1997. Every few years they’ve tried to rezone commercial. Now they want to rezone residential. He would like an explanation why recreation is not viable. To consider residential, he will want a reliable fiscal impact study. Residential housing is perceived to be net negative. The potential for 300-400 units is a huge number. This goes against the recreation goal. Usually, you don’t put housing next to a nuisance. Prisons would be regarded as a nuisance for noise, light, and safety. He would like to see data showing what housing next to a prison looks like. He would guess deteriorated. He questioned the compatibility of residential housing and a prison. People would complain, even if they knew the prison was there when they purchased. The constant friction would make them incompatible. If we moved forward with multi-family units, he would want 15% affordable. He does not understand why there can’t be a recreational facility there.

Atty. Mancini explained the ordinance is unconventional on purpose. The parcel is unique. The points have been well taken. He is not saying recreation is impossible. They have not abandoned the concept. An indoor recreational facility is commercial. Research shows a dire need for housing. People will rent near the prison because the pluses of convenience overwhelm the negatives. Any proposal will include a credible fiscal impact study, applicable to the city. There is a legal process to do this, and do it right, to find middle ground. They do not have site specific plans. Cranston does not have inclusionary zoning. They do anticipate 15% affordable units.

Planning President Frias does not think the residents would consider an indoor recreational facility commercial. They would consider it consistent with the original intent from the 1998 plan.

Commissioner Kathleen Lanphear addressed the proposed ordinance language “residential uses, including multi-family housing, permitted by right”. The City Council and Planning Commission dealt with a similar statute that made them weary of this language. There are court cases that show once “permitted by right” it limits the City Council and Planning Commission. Pointing to Mr. Guglielmo’s comment that the developer seeks certainty, the City Council, Planning Commission, and residents seek certainty as well. The Solicitor will review and come back with recommendations.

Commissioner Nicole Renzulli would like to hear other options. Another incompatible nuisance to consider would be Harrington Hall. She believes this evening’s conversation will help the owner know what the city would like to see developed. If we were going to approve more housing units, we should have built another school. The increased state reimbursement rates are now gone.

V.            ADJOURNMENT  (vote may be taken)

MOTION made by Councilman Buonanno, SECONDED by Council Vice-President Wall to adjourn at 9:16 P.M.                                        All Ayes

Minutes approved as written March 24, 2025

Attest:___________________________________ Tracy A. Nelson, City Clerk

U/Tracy/Minutes/2025-03-04 Joint Planning Workshop_Mulligans                                                                            Page 6 of 6