[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6570354,"mediaKeyId","3206880-1ae6fa44ad885f4b09b361d8a4a4b0ef","parentId",3206880,"title","Planning commission reviews ordinance \"cleanup\" package, debates mail-notice method and floodplain appeals","audioSeconds",2319,"startMs",117000,"endMs",2436000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206880-1ae6fa44ad885f4b09b361d8a4a4b0ef&start=117&end=2436","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206880-1ae6fa44ad885f4b09b361d8a4a4b0ef/thumbnail_117000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6570354/Cranston-City/Providence-County/Rhode-Island/Planning-commission-reviews-ordinance-cleanup-package-debates-mail-notice-method-and-floodplain-appeals","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6570354-ac73b35bad3ab3af503b9a43fbfa0afb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437815&Signature=I0aJPJ0B7vb21AChvanNeLTQ4AUpVVIMZG6EzTcPTqJ5rbWuMeNdCtjpz0dypXqJIJ23YPUZ2y6ybTdX8GG1dg~dUl~QdS9slJ5vF4W2PWvoqEiOPyzW~-TyM8s59Os58GXUO6n~I9D6VREjzZUCnogR23b5Zf6oJJPhFgGKYVV-Yj36vMkTkX38m96C9hGkYnIfK8WisSY3C4R2hIzNE-MY0tJ1G7vlEh9BQWQM9CvUtlgOU2ULvCK-R8r1qQYDsp4tmcz4mzGXY3Rm~fHQI2iEtaVSOAI2SsyDhCyY8F7J~co0-tuU4f1f0c0z22AYsaqoTRAFNIDzvdiQY8mQfA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author"," City of Cranston","date","2025-05-07T03:06:19.327Z","article","The Cranston City Planning Commission on an agenda item on draft ordinance proposals discussed a package of mostly technical \"cleanup\" changes — definitions aligned to state law, historic‑district notice alignment, removal of certified‑mail newspaper advertising requirements and other clarifications — and debated two substantive procedural issues: proof of mail notice and which board should hear some floodplain management appeals.

The discussion mattered because the changes affect how the city notifies neighbors about zoning and planning matters, how the city handles certain floodplain variance appeals and whether applicants would face new Unified Development Regulation fees. Director Ashman described the packet as largely technical: \"What you have here are mostly what we call cleanup items,\" and said some larger measures (inclusionary zoning, accessory dwelling units) were being held for later meetings.

On notice procedures, the commission considered three options for proving that required first‑class mailings occurred: (1) a notarized affidavit from the sender (the present staff recommendation), (2) a certificate of mailing from the U.S. Postal Service (a roughly $2 additional fee per piece of mail), or (3) retaining certified mail. Commissioner Lamphere argued the notarized affidavit is typically sufficient; in reply staff noted a certificate of mailing costs about $2 per piece compared with first‑class postage (discussed in the meeting as about $0.73). The planning director told commissioners the department had sought to reduce costs and that even with a certificate of mailing the department’s overall advertising costs would still be lower than current practice.

Commissioners raised practical and equity concerns. Several said they favored the lower‑cost affidavit route to avoid adding fees that could impede implementing the city’s comprehensive plan, and one commissioner suggested augmenting mailed notice with city website and library postings that the department already uses. Solicitor Marcello cautioned the commission to consider waiting until the state legislative session ends in June before forwarding ordinance changes so the city can avoid conflicts with any last‑minute state statutory changes.

The commission also discussed a staff proposal to reassign appeals related to the special flood hazard area from the zoning board to the building board of appeals because the latter has technical expertise in building code and permits. Attorney and public commenter Robert Murray argued that the change could create statutory and procedural inconsistencies and recommended either moving the floodplain rules out of the zoning ordinance entirely or ensuring the change is reflected consistently across related code sections. Director Ashman said staff would review the comments and follow up with the solicitor.

No formal vote was taken on the ordinance package at the meeting. Commissioners signaled a preference to delay formal referral to the City Council until the state legislative session concludes so staff can reconcile any state changes, while taking the commission’s feedback on notice procedure and the floodplain appeal proposal into account.

Fiscal and procedural clarifications raised in the meeting include the certificate‑of‑mailing cost (discussed in the meeting as about $2 per piece), the option to accept a notarized affidavit as proof of mailing, and staff’s note that some charter changes (for example changes to how newspaper notice is handled in the charter) would require voter approval and therefore were not included in the immediate package.

Looking ahead, staff will incorporate commissioners’ comments, check statutory cross‑references (including the state enabling zoning statute), and return a revised draft to the commission for further direction before sending any items to the City Council.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","May 6, 2025, City Plan Commission","oneSentenceSummary","The Cranston City Planning Commission reviewed a packet of mostly technical ordinance amendments and debated whether to require post‑office certificates of mailing or retain a notarized affidavit for required public notices, and whether to move certain floodplain appeals to the building board of appeals.","taxTitle","Cranston City, Providence County, Rhode Island","taxId",4549,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6570345,"Planning commission forwards zoning recommendations to zoning board review; votes summarized",4810,3161000,7971000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206880-1ae6fa44ad885f4b09b361d8a4a4b0ef&start=3161&end=7971","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206880-1ae6fa44ad885f4b09b361d8a4a4b0ef/thumbnail_3161000.jpg","/articles/6570345/Cranston-City/Providence-County/Rhode-Island/Planning-commission-forwards-zoning-recommendations-to-zoning-board-review-votes-summarized","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6570345-010d72b40dbfeb67b7e2ea0487fed739/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437815&Signature=hlUraIlfCHyaDnHal8Xh6loMKeEzNAQKq~H3Xe2-aY8UUW7rtwED4It52F8kdluX1xqd36ij0EnKgD2FcszKyxithTlwrpvJC2i03ZHKOq55HvoDcY0Jgb-EF0zIzU2zpvahfeoNC~CmabzvgrjEpNNma1~1Dp1Nd8Astu2hQHDd0z1CZF3ryMJQ~BVFPp7Dbk-CTokjPjDCHPWpjOWAgZAnDC9FiXBgB6xA7mu00mNwc65VmsH5fu3o81Y2LxJJ54IU7B7nNatVOr-h90VrPtAZdSnvooRccWENJkfOYLGns3X3dF42yEdAQulGnNhz895LXrmLaH3mtpCRC-S2oA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its meeting the Cranston City Planning Commission considered multiple zoning referrals and forwarded recommendations to the Zoning Board of Review. The commission recorded formal dispositions on a range of applications — dwelling additions, variances for nonconforming industrial uses, sign variances and use conversions — and several items drew substantive public comment or attorney argument.

Votes at a glance

- 110 Pond Street (rezoning/unenclosed porch encroachment): Planning staff recommended a positive recommendation; the commission adopted the staff recommendation unanimously. The applicant, Erica Crossman, described the need to replace nonconforming stairs for safety; a motion to accept staff’s positive recommendation was made by Commissioner Winslow and seconded by Commissioner Barreri and carried unanimously.

- 97 Amanda Street (request to remove zoning condition tied to RIDEM approvals for a previously built garage in a flood zone): Staff recommended a negative recommendation (retain the RIDEM condition). The commission voted to accept the staff negative recommendation.

- Cullin Concrete / 830 Phoenix Avenue (permit permanent maintenance structure for an existing nonconforming concrete business): Staff recommended a positive recommendation; the commission accepted the positive recommendation.

- Elmwood Avenue (1282 & 1290 Elmwood — LED message panel sign variance): Staff recommended a negative recommendation citing lack of ordinance standards for LED signage and potential traffic/visual distraction; the commission moved to accept staff’s negative recommendation. The motion passed; two commissioners recorded their opposition (Commissioner Carrero and Commissioner Coop).

- Sherwood Street (0 Sherwood — new single‑family dwelling on merged/substandard lots; and 53 Sherwood — zoning compliance for an existing dwelling): Staff recommended positive recommendations on both applications. The commission approved both positive recommendations; three commissioners recorded nays on each vote (Commissioners Barbieri, Lamphere and Mancini).

- 120 Phoenix Avenue (convert existing single family to a two‑family on a 4,230 sq ft lot): Staff recommended a negative recommendation because the proposal would substantially exceed the area’s density and the future land use designation; the commission adopted the negative recommendation unanimously.

- 0 & 14 Oneida Street (convert vacant industrial property to a martial arts studio; 16 sq ft wall sign; 10 parking spaces where 16 required): Staff recommended a positive recommendation for adaptive reuse with a condition to switch illuminated signs off outside business hours; the commission accepted the positive recommendation.

How commissioners framed decisions

Commissioners repeatedly referenced consistency with the comprehensive plan’s Future Land Use Map when evaluating density and lot‑size requests. Several commissioners signaled concern about increasing density where the proposal would materially exceed the plan’s recommended density; others noted existing neighborhood lot patterns and long‑standing, nonconforming uses and favored granting relief where the proposed use matched historical use patterns. For LED signage the planning staff cited crash‑risk and visual‑clutter studies and noted the city lacks detailed standards; commissioners urged the legislative branch to adopt a sign ordinance with clear criteria and left the immediate decision to existing variance and review processes.

Formal motions

Motions reflected the staff recommendations in nearly every case; when motions were opposed commissioners recorded dissenting votes in the minutes (for example, 2 nays on the Elmwood sign matter; 3 nays on both Sherwood items). Where applicants withdrew (Chapel Associates), staff did not hear the application.

Next steps

Each recommendation will be transmitted to the Zoning Board of Review or otherwise acted upon per zoning board schedule. Applicants may appear before the Zoning Board where staff recommended a position; in cases where staff urged denial, applicants retain the option to present additional evidence to the zoning board.","The Planning Commission processed multiple zoning referrals and forwarded recommendations to the Zoning Board of Review, including unanimous support for a porch variance at 110 Pond Street and mixed votes on sign, density and conversion requests.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6570349,"Commission signs off on community survey approach for Comprehensive Plan Phase 2; asks for edits by May 16",640,2440000,3080000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206880-1ae6fa44ad885f4b09b361d8a4a4b0ef&start=2440&end=3080","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206880-1ae6fa44ad885f4b09b361d8a4a4b0ef/thumbnail_2440000.jpg","/articles/6570349/Cranston-City/Providence-County/Rhode-Island/Commission-signs-off-on-community-survey-approach-for-Comprehensive-Plan-Phase-2-asks-for-edits-by-May-16","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6570349-00d98ff7fb7e37eec237e4dff8efdd55/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437815&Signature=EFMSeVLjVO3DRGdQpD6ZfRyQ6b5oNQhEjzeCIopmGGx7pMKLw5rGPv~N065dR7l-m1OhxM-1qOz~YniZ2Ec8txL~3TdeACaJZnlYVpQUzsHnOyKm9WW8Lpm9MjiGKW-3BvKCDAZptfyaui3X0SfCvec2MikdN86PJAnv5b~LA9aboY7OUinQtFfPPq1gYExT2a56RJBHZa53YEtuTIylPbLlM2NOc3p~h56bAzrgqeOSVxA7QC00t8hN6J1ilKhS0wyNZPzXXFYRCe6w1ULNwUxnoVweLqN1rD6ZSpu7Y0AtjGEftcwwXk7UW1sBTc5zw5N0rC2qMiciK4lh1UwuYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cranston City Planning Commission reviewed a draft community survey intended as part of phase two of the city’s comprehensive plan update and agreed to a brief public comment window for commissioners to propose edits.

Director Ashman told the commission the survey platform will be web‑based and promoted over months through workshops, posters, QR codes and events such as farmers’ markets and library postings. Ashman said the survey is intended to broaden outreach beyond routine planning meetings: \"This is just one tool to reach beyond people who come to planning meetings,\" and staff asked commissioners to submit suggested edits.

Commissioners and staff discussed outreach and question wording. Commissioner Renzulli flagged several questions as potentially leading and suggested adding ranking/rating mechanics rather than simple “select three” responses; she also asked for safeguards to avoid repeated submissions from the same IP address. Commissioner Mancini suggested working with Cranston Public Schools to place a notice in the district’s weekly parent bulletin; Commissioner Renzulli named Assistant Superintendent Norma Cole as the staff contact who can coordinate distribution. Director Ashman asked commissioners to submit any written comments by the end of the week and set a firm deadline: submissions due by May 16.

Ashman and staff told commissioners the survey is not a statistically representative poll but a self‑selected outreach tool; results and respondent demographics (age, ZIP code) will be presented to the commission after the survey period closes so the commission can assess sample skew and weigh survey input against other outreach results.

Next steps: staff will publish the survey on the consultant’s web platform, promote it at scheduled engagement events and return aggregated results and a summary of respondent demographics to the commission for consideration.

","Planning staff presented a draft web survey and outreach plan for the Comprehensive Plan Phase 2 update, and commissioners suggested wording changes, broader outreach methods and a firm date for commissioners' comments: May 16.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission reviews ordinance "cleanup" package, debates mail-notice method and floodplain appeals

Planning commission forwards zoning recommendations to zoning board review; votes summarized

Commission signs off on community survey approach for Comprehensive Plan Phase 2; asks for edits by May 16