Appeal vowed on assisted living facility

Posted 3/18/14

John C. Revens, an attorney representing Richard Miga, Jr., owner and operator of Brentwood Nursing Home and Sunny View Nursing Home, both in Warwick, and who wishes to build a four-story, 74-room …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Appeal vowed on assisted living facility

Posted

John C. Revens, an attorney representing Richard Miga, Jr., owner and operator of Brentwood Nursing Home and Sunny View Nursing Home, both in Warwick, and who wishes to build a four-story, 74-room assisted living facility on Post Road overlooking Greenwich Bay, expected to gain Master Plan approval for the project when he appeared before the Warwick Planning Board last Wednesday because “the applicant meets every single requirement of your ordinance that you can rule on,” however when the motion to grant approval fell short of the five votes needed for approval, it failed.

The Planning Board voted 4-0, with two abstentions, in favor of granting Master Plan approval. Voting in favor were Cynthia Gerlach, Vincent Gambardella, James Desmarais and John Mulhearn, while Lisa Pisaturo and Sue Stenhouse abstained, saying they weren’t satisfied with what was presented and felt they didn’t have enough information to make a proper decision. However, Revens explained that a majority is not enough to gain approval.

“When you have a Planning Board of nine members, like Warwick does, you need five votes in favor to gain approval, and since three members weren’t present and two members abstained, we only got four votes, so it failed,” Revens said following the vote.

Revens said his next step is to appeal the decision to the Zoning Board, which can determine if the project receives Master Plan approval, which Revens expects to happen since it meets all requirements of the ordinance, even though residents of the Sea Watch Condominium Complex, located next door to the site of the proposed facility, aren’t happy with the project and would prefer to see it scaled back and undergo some design changes.

Wednesday’s meeting got off to a rocky start, as there was confusion about whether or not to proceed with the presentation prepared by Revens and architect Donald Powers, of Union Studio, the firm hired to design the facility, and the ensuing public hearing to allow constituents a chance to speak. The reason for the confusion was because the attorney Sea Watch hired to represent them, Sean O’Leary, was not present at the meeting.

“There’s no basis for the attorney to send in an email at 3:35 this afternoon and have no representative show up [to tonight’s meeting],” Revens said. “The firm has been retained by the residents of Sea Watch, but there’s no one here. The letter [email] referenced a phone call to me on Monday, in which I told O’Leary I wouldn’t agree to a continuance. I’ve received no further communication from O’Leary since then.”

Reading from the letter O’Leary emailed, Revens said, “…further complicating matters is the fact that the undersigned has unfortunately, un-movably, committed to something else.”

“He never communicated it to me or anyone on the board until today,” Revens said. “If O’Leary wanted to present evidence, he should be here.”

After establishing that O’Leary was not present to represent Sea Watch, it was debated whether or not to move forward with the public hearing since there was confusion as to whether the residents in attendance would be allowed to speak.

City Solicitor Peter Ruggiero explained that if the condo members were part of a condo association, then they could speak as individuals but not as a representative of the association as a whole; if the condo members were part of a corporation, then they wouldn’t be able to speak without legal representation.

Stenhouse asked Revens if he had received communication from other constituents or abutters. He said he hadn’t.

“I’ve been doing this for 40 years, have been part of 1,000 to 1,500 hearings in 30 of the 39 cities and towns in the state and I’ve never seen a stunt like this,” he said. “This is a very simple, straightforward application, it’s cookie-cutter.”

Stenhouse disagreed.

“I think there are legitimate concerns,” she said.

Revens said the board has no authority over the architecture of buildings.

“The board or the ordinance doesn’t have the authority to determine that,” he said. “If façade was the only issue, I’m sure we can work something out.”

Stenhouse said she felt Revens was being disrespectful, adding, “we’re all here for a planning meeting,” in reference to the residents that filled the lower conference room at City Hall.

“I don’t mean it to be disrespectful; I’m just telling you what the law says,” Revens said. “It’s unprofessional and irresponsible to request a continuance at the last minute.”

Pisaturo countered.

“This board has the authority to hear a proposal from the applicant, hold a public hearing and listen to concerns, and we could choose to continue the public hearing if we want to,” she said.

Revens said Miga hopes to get the facility built this year and is dealing with a volatile interest rate.

“The paperwork takes months and we would like to proceed judiciously,” he said. “The substantial delay would be costly. I understand in the case of an emergency and the attorney isn’t able to attend, I’m sensitive to that, but there’s been no such indication here.”

Revens said if O’Leary couldn’t attend the meeting, Sea Watch should have looked for another lawyer.

“It’s not my problem; we’re here and we gave the proper notice.

Appropriate use

This is a perfect, appropriate use for the property and the regulations are in order,” he repeated. “To come in and sandbag this at the last minute is disrespectful to you.”

Revens said there would be two additional hearings following Wednesday’s meeting, if approved, the first of which would be before the Zoning Board and then again before the Planning Board for final approval, providing opportunities to address concerns.

“If you don’t vote tonight, we can’t appear before Zoning in April, pushing it to May,” he said. “If we agree to change the façade or move it a few feet within setbacks, we can do that.”

Stenhouse motioned to continue the public hearing, and while it was seconded by Desmarais, Pisaturo said she was concerned with a continuance out of respect for the applicant and the delays it would cause. Ultimately, the decision was made to hold the public hearing.

Prior the public hearing, Revens and Powers gave a presentation describing the proposed facility. Revens said it would employ 50 people, have approximately 75 beds and be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He said 13 staff members would arrive by 7 a.m. for the morning shift, 10 would arrive prior to 3 p.m. for the afternoon shift and the late shift would arrive prior to 11 p.m.

“This will have absolutely no impact on traffic service on the road,” he said. “There’s no use other than farming to generate less trips.”

Powers said his firm was designed to work in communities and recognizes the rights of abutters. He described the west side of Post Road as “decidedly residential,” while the east side is “of a larger scale.”

“There’s a wide variety of architecture, large footprint, multi-family, multi-story [structures], multiple styles, multiple orientations – there’s no clear context to it,” he said. “We have already moved the building back in anticipation of not blocking views of the condos prior to being asked to.”

He continued, saying a grove of trees between the site of the facility and the condos prevents views for nine months of the year.

“The building meets the 35-foot height limit. A pitched roof will exceed the height limit,” he said. “We’re not building a mill, but referencing some of the other architecture in the area.”

He said the outside of the building would consist of a brick veneer and cast stone.

“We recognize that not everyone will like the architectural style, just like you won’t like the color yellow, but this will help the neighborhood and reflects the area,” he said.

Referencing the center of the building, which includes a column that rises above the flat roof level, Powers described it as an easily visible decorative piece that signals the entrance of the building from the street.

Revens explained one of the reasons the project needs to go before the Zoning Board is due to Warwick’s ordinance, which he described as outdated because it measures from the average grade around the building instead of from the front-yard setback to determine the height limit.

“The facility is three stories from the front and four-stories in the back with a walkout basement due to the sloping site,” he said.

Neighbors have issues

Concerns from condo association members centered around the architectural design and size of the facility, which was described as “an ugly building” and an “eyesore” as neighbors feel it resembles a mill or factory, as well as surrounding property being devalued as a result of it.

Charles McNamara, a member of the Sea Watch Condo Association, began his comments by defending O’Leary.

“We need to update the units at thousands of dollars, and Mr. O’Leary agreed to generously work with us at a reduced rate at the last minute,” he said. “We couldn’t afford anyone else.”

“Is there anyone here that would approve of a mill-like property next to their home?” McNamara asked, looking around the room. “This eyesore will devalue the properties around it.”

McNamara continued, describing the rooms on the inside as “shoe boxes.”

“I wouldn’t want to live there or want my family to live there,” he said. “It looks more like a nursing home … there are no balconies. This is a factory by design; there’s no curb appeal.”

McNamara wanted to know why neighbors weren’t contacted sooner about the proposal.

“Why weren’t we contacted sooner to discuss this, so we’re not here arguing,” he said. “We feel this is being shoved down our throats.”

Referencing Powers’ comment about the grove of trees, McNamara said there’s only one tree, not three or four, and it needs to come down.

Robert Watt, who lives on the west side of Post Road, said nobody on the west side of the street knew about the proposal until the certified mailing went out.

“I think the board should change the Master Plan,” he said. “I think they should put the parking in the back and put plantings in the front to hide the ugliness.”

Julie LeBlanc, a condo owner, was curious of the parking situation, as she was concerned about traffic.

“Cars are parked up and down Post Road during the holidays and it becomes a major traffic issue,” she said, in reference to holiday events held at Brentwood Nursing Home. “How many spots are you providing?”

Revens assured her the design meets the code, which calls for half a space per bed, resulting in 39 spaces for 74 beds, 18 of which will be for visitors. He added that residents of the assisted living facility would not be driving.

“Parking overflow will still happen and be twice as much with events,” LeBlanc said.

Revens said if events are held at both the nursing home and the assisted living facility, perhaps they could be staggered and held at different times to avoid traffic overflow.

Eileen Peduto, who purchased one of the end units at Sea Watch in June, said if she knew about the assisted living facility going in next door, she wouldn’t have bought the condo.

“You’re affecting where I live, changing where I live. My property value just dropped living next to a 24-hour [facility],” she said. “Post Road is still a special place to live, even with the train track behind us and traffic in front, but if you build this, it won’t be a special place to live.”

Dennis Gay, a neighbor who lives across the street from the site of the proposed facility, said he wasn’t aware a vote was taking place at the meeting, since the letter that went out only said “an informational meeting.” He talked of concerns about traffic and parking, saying cars sometimes even block the entrance to Sea Watch when parking on the street.

Tim McCarthy, one of the condo owners at Sea Watch, said a plan for the site needs to come forward that is sensitive to the impact on the neighborhood.

“No other single building on Post Road resembles the scale of this building,” he said. “I would like to see something in proper scale, or think of a more inventive way to utilize the space.”

Revens said the applicant would consider changing the architecture, and even offered to meet with residents to talk about it, but reiterated the size and dimensions of the building would not change, nor would the parking location.

Miga said in order to get the proper amount of staffing for the facility, “certain economies of scale” need to be achieved, adding he would need about 20 units per floor.

“If I build all studios and no one uses them, I lose,” he said. “The rooms will have small kitchenettes, with a microwave and sink area, and their own bathroom. I don’t want to have a problem in the neighborhood, but we need to maintain certain efficiencies and economies of scale.”

Revens said if the project were to gain Master Plan approval, the next step would be to go before Zoning, then the Department of Environmental Management and the Warwick Sewer Authority, before coming back to the Planning Board for preliminary plan approval.

“It would take at least 60 days,” he said.

However, since the proposal failed to gain Master Plan approval, Revens said the next step is to appeal the decision to the Zoning Board, which he expects to grant approval since the project meetings all requirements of the ordinance.

“All you’ve done is handed the decision to the Zoning Board, and if they find we’ve complied, they have no choice but to approve the Master Plan,” he said to the Planning Board. “There will be no more hearings.”

Revens said he hopes to appeal the decision at the April Zoning Board meeting.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here