‘I am not convinced the proposal before us brings the property to its best and highest use.’”

Michael Smith, chairman, Cranston Planning Commission

Editor's note: The following story has been updated to reflect developments that occurred after the Herald's print deadline for this week. 

A zoning change sought to clear the way for the proposed Cranston Crossing development at the current home of Mulligan's Island has been withdrawn from consideration, according to a Dec. 15 letter from the applicant's attorney.

The brief letter from John Bolton of Hinckley Allen has been posted as part of the City Council's agenda for Dec. 17, along with a note reflecting the project's withdrawal. 

The move comes after two weeks of lengthy public hearings before the Planning Commission and the council's Ordinance Committee.  It also brings an apparent end to a months-long debate over the planned development, which was to be anchored by a Costco wholesale club.

It was not immediately clear what the implications of the withdrawal are for any future consideration of plans for the site.

This story will be update. Below is the full story that appears in this week's print edition.

***

After months of delays and hours of public hearings, the City Council was poised this week to decide on a zoning change needed for the proposed Cranston Crossing development at the current Mulligan’s Island property to proceed.

Shortly after 11:30 p.m. Monday night, the council’s Ordinance Committee opted to send the matter to the full council’s Dec. 17 regular meeting with no recommendation. The council’s rules mandate that meetings conclude by midnight, and while suspending those rules was briefly considered, that course of action was not taken.

Monday’s proceedings ran roughly five hours after the initial portion of the panel’s hearing on Dec. 10 took approximately four hours.

The committee’s move came less than a week after the Planning Commission, by a 6-1 vote on Dec. 8, recommended against approving the request of Coastal Partners LLC and its managing partner, Michael DiGuiseppe, for a major amendment to the Mixed Use Planned District, or MPD, zoning that now governs the Mulligan’s site.

Virtually all council members have expressed skepticism over, or opposition to, Cranston Crossing in the past, but the Ordinance Committee’s hearing process – the first step in the council’s formal review of the proposal – has shed no new light on how the full body’s final vote will fall.

After lengthy presentations from the developer and the opposition group Cranston Neighbors for Smart Development, or CNSD, over the course of the two nights, as well as remarks from roughly three-dozen members of the public on Monday, the seven-member panel opted against further deliberations given the late hour.

But the Planning Commission, which held its own lengthy two-night hearing, was clear in its verdict. Members indicated they believe too many questions remain regarding Cranston Crossing’s fit at the Mulligan’s site and consistency with the city’s Comprehensive Plan for the zoning change to be approved as presented.

“It is a valuable piece of property, a key piece of property. I think one of the pieces of property in the city that has the highest potential,” commission Chairman Michael Smith said in remarks before the Dec. 8 vote. “But I am not convinced the proposal before us brings the property to its best and highest use.”

Planning’s decision

After hearing presentations from Cranston Crossing’s developer and CNSD, as well as a litany of public speakers, on Dec. 1, the Planning Commission’s Dec. 8 meeting was largely focused on the panel’s own deliberations and vote.

In the time between the two hearings, Planning Department staff had issued their final memo to the commission – making no formal recommendation, given the finding that a lack of clarity existed over whether the project, as proposed, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Planning Director Jason Pezzullo told commissioners that when the Comprehensive Plan was updated roughly a decade ago, the use of MPD zoning at the Mulligan’s site – which even then seemed likely to experience a change in use at some point – was felt to be a “good vehicle” to govern future development, providing “flexibility” given the property’s unusual dimensions.

He added, however, that the Comprehensive Plan is “inconveniently silent” in some areas relevant to the proposal – making the zone change question, in the end, a “policy question.”

“We did not know what kind of development would be submitted next. We did not know the intensity or the mix or how that would be handled. So, I can’t make a positive finding that the MPD definitely conforms to this proposal, or not.”

Pezzullo also said planning staff found that concerns raised over specific elements of the project, while “legitimate,” were not material to the recommendation because they would be addressed during later stages of review as the developer sought needed approvals ahead of construction. At issue before the commission, he said, was solely the zoning change.

When the time came for the commission’s deliberations, it became clear that members of the body had not been fully convinced by the developer’s presentation and agreed with some of the issues raised by opponents.

Commissioner Fred Vincent said while he felt the developer’s decision to remove a future single-family residential component from the Cranston Crossing plan and instead donate 18 acres of land to the city was a “major mitigation,” he agreed with CNSD’s assertion that what was being proposed constituted “far more than a major amendment” to the existing zoning.

“It’s a completely new redevelopment of the site, in my opinion,” he said.

Vincent also said the developer, in his view, had not adequately addressed why several requests from planning staff for alterations had not been included in the revised proposal.

“What bothers me is the developer’s lack of justification for not moving forward with several of the staff recommendations,” he said.

Summarizing his position, Vincent added: “This is a difficult one to judge, but has the developer taken the maximum feasible step to mitigate all of the, many of the adverse impacts that neighbors presented to us? I’m not sure he has. And that runs to the credibility of the developer in this early phase. We as a commission, I think, need to see more evidence that Mr. DiGuiseppe and Coastal Partners will be more flexible, that they recognize the proximity of the residential neighborhood, and I’m not sure we’re there yet.”

Commissioner Kathleen Lanphear said she viewed the MPD amendment as being “pretty much a tossup” in terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan – and that the “burden” was on the applicant to have made that case “to the satisfaction of the commission.”

“I don’t believe that based on all of the testimony, documentation, analysis that has been put before us, that the applicant has been able to demonstrate that this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,” she said, later adding: “I don’t believe that this is a true mixed-use development … It is taking what was a mixed use and turning it into a commercial-highway use. There’s not a mix there.”

She continued: “This may be a proposal that should proceed at some point. But right now, this evening, we need to vote on this, and I cannot find that the applicant has persuaded me that the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan, or that it is suitable for the surrounding area, based on what we know now.”

Commissioner Robert DiStafano said while he found “valid points on both sides of the coin here,” he felt the issue at hand required a “much bigger discussion.”

“It’s a policy discussion that’s probably beyond this commission,” he said, unsuccessfully proposing a motion that the proposal be forwarded to the council with no recommendation.

The final vote saw Smith, Vincent and Lanphear joined by commissioners Ken Mason, Robert Strom and Anne Marie Maccarone in the majority. DiStefano was the sole dissenter, although in remarks after the vote he said: “My ‘no’ against the recommendation is simply that I believe this should be moved to the council with no recommendation because it’s a policy discussion surrounding a zone change.”

Commissioners Robert Coupe and Joseph Morales were absent from the Dec. 8 meeting.

Council’s review

The initial hours of the Ordinance Committee’s hearing largely mirrored the proceedings that took place before the Planning Commission on Dec. 1, with attorneys for Coastal Partners and CNSD making their respective cases and offering testimony from experts.

Some back-and-forth shed additional light on specific issues that have stirred debate.

For example, the Cranston Crossing proposal involves the relocation of a historic cemetery at the Mulligan’s site. Opponents have pointed to a November correspondence from the Cranston Historical Cemetery Commission’s chairman indicating his panel is opposed to the relocation. However, John Bolton of Hinckley Allen, legal counsel for the applicant, noted that the commission’s chairman had indicated through a July correspondence that the group was supportive of the relocation.

A roughly 2½-acre portion of the site known as “parcel three” was also discussion. The owners of Mulligan’s Island would retain ownership of that portion of the site under the Cranston Crossing proposal, and it is being targeted for future commercial use consistent with the city’s C-4 zoning. The applicant has stipulated that the future use of that parcel – which it is estimated would house roughly 13,000 square feet of commercial space – would be limited to retail operations only.

Amy Goins of Ursillo, Teitz & Rich, the attorney for CNSD, reiterated a procedural objection, asserting that the developer should have submitted a master plan for approval alongside the MPD amendment.

“This is a critical issue that will certainly be presented to a court on appeal if necessary,” she said. “You need to do it anyway, so why not do it now? I mean, the point is that a council, when enacting an amendment to a zoning ordinance, needs to be fully informed about what it is paving the way for.”

Noting that the current council’s term is nearly at an end, she added: “You’re thinking about your legacy, and what will this council’s legacy be? Will it be paving the way for a development that the neighbors don’t want, the state doesn’t want, that was approved in violation of state law and the city’s own regulations? Or will your legacy be stopping this bad deal for Cranston in its tracks?”

Mark Friedman, one of the owners of Mulligan’s Island, was one of the final speakers to address the Ordinance Committee on Monday. He provided an impassioned defense of the project and his brother Michael, who is the managing partner of Mulligan’s.

Friedman specifically pushed back against testimony from Kevin Flynn, a former city planning director employed by CNSD as an expert, that the prospect of state reacquisition of the Mulligan’s property is a “red herring.” He said the state’s designs on the land – which was formerly state-owned and known as the “Cornfields” – are real, citing a July 2019 meeting between Mulligan’s ownership and representatives of state agencies.

Friedman said the site’s ownership could be forced to deal with the state if Cranston Crossing does not proceed, given limited interest from other prospective buyers.

“We have resisted [the state] for 20 years, but what other options do we have if you reject this MPD? That’s not a threat, that’s just reality,” he said.

He added: “We weighed all the proposals, all the alternatives. What’s before you, I’m telling you, is the best outcome for Cranston.”

Many members of the public who addressed the Ordinance Committee also spoke during the Planning Commission’s hearing. While a large majority of the speakers were opposed to Cranston Crossing, there were several voices supportive of the project.

Supporters spoke of the economic benefits Costco would bring and the company’s reputation as a good employer.

“It will offer jobs to a city that is losing small businesses … I feel strongly about wanting them to come to this area. I’d much rather see a Costco in this area than the prison expand,” resident Barbara Dwares said.

Opponents spoke of their fears over the development’s impact on the surrounding area.

“If you do this … it’s irreversible,” Kate Caito said. “We don’t get to go back … It’s opened a door that you cannot close.”

Two incoming members of the City Council also spoke in opposition.

“The neighbors are clearly against this, not just the neighbors in Ward 6, but throughout the city of Cranston,” Ward 6 Councilman-elect Matthew Reilly said. “You cannot close this door. This will be open and there’s no going back from it.”

Citywide Councilwoman-elect Nicole Renzulli added: “I encourage the city of Cranston to work with the developer to find a suitable location for Costco … Cranston is open for business. This proposed location is simply not compatible.”

All seven members of the Ordinance Committee voted in favor of forwarding the zone change to the full nine-member council with no recommendation.

The council’s regular meeting was scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. on Dec. 17. The proceedings were to be conducted over Zoom.