Dollar General on June 27 Planning Commission agenda

Bonnie Van Slyke is a member of the Charlestown Town Council and also serves as the Town Council Liaison to the Planning Commission. Below she summarizes the Dollar General meeting on May 23. A version of this letter was submitted to the local newspapers.

---

To the editor:

The proposed Dollar General store in Charlestown is on the June 27 Planning Commission agenda. At this meeting the Planning Commission will decide whether or not to approve the applicant’s Master Plan. The Dollar General store is proposed in Charlestown’s Traditional Village District, which is also in the Historic Village Overlay District.

What: Continuation of the Dollar General hearing before the Planning Commission
When: Wednesday, June 27th at 7pm
Where: Charlestown Elementary School

The continuation of the meeting to June 27 was agreed so that the applicant’s engineer could complete the traffic study.

Those who cannot be at the meeting and would like to comment about the building and site design may email their comments to plan.comments@charlestownri.org.

Review of the May 23 meeting

Planning Commission Chair Ruth Platner stated that the Commission had received a letter from the applicant’s attorney, which she asked the Town Planner Jane Weidman to explain.

Ms. Weidman noted the letter was dated May 15 and was in regards to Commission’s ability to review the Master Plan. Ms. Weidman stated that the Commission is reviewing the project under what is called Development Plan Review. The Commission has the right to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the site plan. The use is considered a general store, and a general store is allowed by right in this district. A store that has a footprint greater than 5,000 feet requires a special use permit from the Zoning Board of Review. When reviewing such a project, the Commission reviews the site plan and also makes an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Review. The Commission relies on the Comprehensive Plan. There are two zoning districts involved—the Traditional Village District and the Historic Village Overlay District—that have very specific design standards related to buildings and their sites. All commercial buildings in Charlestown are reviewed under Development Plan Review. The Commission is reviewing the building design and site layout and site issues according to three sections of Charlestown’s code of ordinances—sections on the Traditional Village District, the Historical village Overlay District, and Development Plan Review. The standards include building and roof design, materials, and the size of the building as it relates to the district and its overlay district. Ms. Weidman concluded by saying that these standards are independent of the use and her statements were intended to clarify the ability of the Commission to review this project in terms of building and site design.

Planning Commission Chair Ruth Platner then summarized the changes that the applicant had made to the Master Plan since the April 18 meeting. The building’s size has been reduced to 7,554 square feet, parking has been reduced to meet code, landscaping has been enhanced, and adjustments have been made to signage.

The applicant’s attorney John Bolton began the applicant’s presentation and stated that the applicant is not looking to change the design of the building further. Because the traffic study had not been completed and the town had not had an opportunity to review the study in a timely manner, he agreed to an extension to the June 27th regular meeting. Mr. Bolton introduced the applicant’s representatives who were present.

The applicant’s project manager Mr. Turner provided an overview of the project. The interior driveway has been reduced to 22 feet but that the main entrance driveway would need to be wider to accommodate the swing of emergency response vehicles and delivery vehicles. The size of the delivery vehicles that would need to be accommodated is approximately 73 feet from the cab to the back of the trailer; deliveries would usually occur once a week. Ms. Platner questioned the ability of the truck to negotiate the 20- to 22-foot-wide travel lanes in the area. Mr. Turner said that the width of the lanes was adequate when the truck was driving on the road, but the swing of the vehicle when it turns needs to be accommodated. In response to additional questions, Mr. Turner replied that the turn is a 90-degree turn. The banner image in this post is a photo of a WB-67, the truck model that Mr. Turner said would make the deliveries.

Town Planner Jane Weidman observed that the maximum standard for a curb cut from RI Department of Transportation (RIDOT) is 35 feet and the width of the pavement at the property line appears to be 54 feet. Mr. Turner said discussions are underway with RIDOT.

Regarding access, Ms. Platner was of the opinion that access to the site from Narrow Lane would make more sense and be much less disruptive and safer because it would require fewer turns. Moving the driveway would also address the issue that all traffic and lighting is currently directed towards the historic homes along Old Post Road. Even though the building looks much better, it still changes the character of the neighborhood. The current driveway location is a natural drainage area, and regulations require that natural depressions along Old Post Road be maintained wherever possible. Finally, access on Narrow Lane might create synergy with the other businesses on that road.

Ms. Platner stated that corporate colors for the sign were an issue and pointed to standards in the ordinance. Mr. Turner said that he had limited control over the sign but would relay her concern.

Mr. Turner noted that the commercial density is on Old Post Road. He recognized the sensitivity of the buildings across Old Post Road and the impact of having a driveway there. He stated that flipping the plan would put the building far closer to Old Post Road with less existing vegetation. It was his opinion that if the building were rotated and tucked up against Old Post Road, it would be more invasive.

At the request of a commission member Sherry Krupka, those present were reminded that the Planning Commission is not able to review the use because of a decision of the Superior Court; the applicant would however need approval of its Master Plan from the Planning Commission and would also need a special use permit from the Zoning Board to go forward.

Other details were discussed:

• Commission member Frances Topping stated that there is a regulation that the use not disrupt the neighborhood or privacy of abutting landowners by excessive noise, light, glare, or air pollutants, and she mentioned issues such as the plate glass window. Mr. Turner replied that he could include additional vegetation to buffer the front door to filter light. Ms. Platner said that the lighting plan would need to be reviewed by a lighting expert.
• In response to a question from Commission member Barbara Heavers about business hours, Mr. Turner said the Dollar General store would be open seven days a week from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm.
• Ms. Topping posed a question about neighboring wells and the water table in this sensitive area because these are not shown on the plan. She suggested that the neighbors would be protected, should something happen, by testing in advance of the development. Mr. Turner replied the site would have a similar systems and the site plan is designed to comply with all regulations that apply.
• Ms. Platner noted that the site is in the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the coastal ponds, so the Commission is guided by Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) regulations; part of that guidance includes a requirement that parking be constructed using pervious materials.
• Ms. Topping observed that regulations are intended to preserve the rural small town character and encourage appropriate use of the land to enhance the beauty and character of Charlestown’s neighborhoods.
• Commission member Lewis Johnson said he is concerned that the lighting numbers have gone up over 50% in brightness since the last plan and with the words “actual percentage rates may vary” in the new lighting plan. Dr. Johnson said he would also need to see the fixtures. Mr. Witter stated that there would be opaque lighting above the door.
• Ms. Platner said she was of the opinion that the entrance needs to be redesigned to go with other improvements in the building.

After a short recess in the meeting, Mr. Bolton said he would like to ask Mr. Turner some questions. Mr. Turner stated, in response to questioning from Mr. Bolton, that the relocation of the driveway onto Narrow Lane and the required reconfiguration of the building would result in a greater visual impact on the properties across the street on Old Post Road versus the design that is being proposed; the storm water retention facilities have been designed to be as small as possible to meet both local and state requirements; and the plan as currently presented meets the 20-foot landscape buffer with respect to abutting residential properties

Members of the public then commented generally as follows:

• The application had been denied by the zoning board a couple of years ago and there is a Master Plan process.
• Meetings are being held when a number of summer residents were not here. Ms. Platner explained that state law has certain time restrictions on applications. The speaker also commented that trucks would have difficulty maneuvering. Mr. Bender explained how the trucks would maneuver and unload. The speaker asked whether there is a way to mandate or regulate the size of the trucks. He concluded that Benny’s had just closed, and the store could be placed in that building.
• Putting the entrance and exit on Narrow Lane is a good idea. Keeping the entrance and exit where they are on would cause an even worse traffic danger or hazard than already exists at the intersection.
• Commercial property should face commercial property and not face the historic properties directly across the street. A driveway that trucks, cars, and people would use from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm seven days a week would be an enormous disservice. The speaker, the owner of one of the historic homes, said he can move, but the properties themselves can’t move. The homes are historic, and the Comprehensive Plan and historic oversight speaks directly to that historic heritage.
• If the building were only 5,000 square feet, the applicant would find plenty of room to flip the plan and place the building where it should be.
• The building would not enhance the rural character of the town; it would destroy it. Its footprint is nearly twice that of the Washington Trust bank and the Mini Super, and the Master Plan should be denied for this reason. The economy of the town would not benefit because the jobs at Dollar General would be minimum wage jobs. There would be fewer people employed in the Dollar General than are employed in the Mini Super, which would lose its dry goods sales (75 % of its floor space) and would go out of business. We would not be taking care of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Charlestown.
• A decision should not be made without a lighting plan that is adequately defined. The building could be properly designed; it does not have to have a corporate look and the exit and entrance proposed. When told that the dimensions of the building would be 85 feet by 85 feet, the speaker observed that the building is so out of scale and just completely inappropriate. People are not going to be shopping there. She asked whether there could be a requirement that the building be taken down if the Dollar General were to fail.
• A traffic scheme for the area surrounding the site could be implemented, comprised of one-way streets that would direct traffic away from the site and the evacuation route provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The route might also increase tourist business for Cumberland Farms.
• It is unimaginable that Charlestown could put something like this in the historic district and, if the building were the right size, there would be the room needed. The applicant does not live in Charlestown. Please be considerate of the people who do.
• Seven thousand people live in Charlestown year-round and kids don’t get out of school until after Memorial Day; between then and the week before Labor Day, the population goes to 20,000 people. Therefore the traffic study is being done at the wrong time of the year. The Master Plan should be denied.
• The town is shoehorning something that does not belong here. Charlestown is being bullied by the applicant as they are telling Charlestown how to make their store here. This speaker also had questions about the traffic study, the lights, the design, and the tractor trailers.
• The proposal is awful and the site plan does not show wells and septic systems that are located within 100 or 200 feet of the site; he talked about the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and about the Zoning Board’s decision that was appealed.
• The applicant should bond out a demolition value so that picnic tables could be put there in the future.

After public comments, Ms. Weidman asked whether it would be possible for the traffic study to include the counts on Narrow Lane or compare the traffic impacts of the entrance and exits on Narrow Lane versus on Old Post Road. The applicant’s attorney responded that the traffic study would be based on its current proposal. He said that the traffic engineer would be present on June 27th to answer any questions about the traffic study and questions could be posed about Narrow Lane.

Ms. Weidman replied that she was asking about the change in impact if the entrance and exit were on Narrow Lane. She wondered if it would have different safety or traffic implications and whether that information could possibly weigh into the decision about what would be the best location for the entrance.

Mr. Bolton replied that he did not want to mislead anyone on the Commission or the public. The applicant is not entertaining putting the entrance on Narrow Lane, and therefore it is not doing a traffic study based on that. He said the traffic study would include seasonal adjustments. Further, he stated that the applicant would have loved for the project to go forward last summer and that the traffic counts could have been done then. This has been going on long past the summer season, he said.

Mr. Bolton also stated that the tractor trailer would deliver once a week; the details on the lighting fixtures are usually examined by the Planning Commission during the Preliminary Plan phase and these details would be appropriate at that time; by definition the applicant is not shoehorning a building on the site because it is not asking for a dimensional variance; and the building presented is not Dollar General’s corporate model; this is a unique building for Charlestown. He said the building is a special building for Charlestown and he hoped the Commission feels the same way.

Click to see a video of the May 23 meeting. The sound quality on the video is poor as there is a fan noise that masks the dialog at the meeting.

A review of the April 18 meeting and a video of the April 18 meeting are available in my previous post published on May 13.

Very truly yours,
Bonnie Van Slyke
Charlestown, RI

Bonnie Van Slyke is a member of the Charlestown Town Council and Liaison to the Planning Commission.