EDITORIAL

Nothing 'simple' about Cranston Crossing plans

Posted 12/9/20

To the Editor: In his Letter to the Editor that was published in the Dec. 3 edition of the Cranston Herald, Michael L. Friedman called the Cranston Crossing proposal a "e;simple request for amendments to the zoning ordinance and approvals."e; Yet, it is the

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
EDITORIAL

Nothing 'simple' about Cranston Crossing plans

Posted

To the Editor:

In his Letter to the Editor that was published in the Dec. 3 edition of the Cranston Herald, Michael L. Friedman called the Cranston Crossing proposal a “simple request for amendments to the zoning ordinance and approvals.” Yet, it is the antithesis of a “simple request.”

There is nothing simple about this proposed development. It took years of discussions and negotiations for the Mixed Planned District that became Mulligan’s Island to be approved. As it should have.

The only “simple requests” associated with this proposal are the ones the city Planning Department made of the developer that were ignored.

The city made a simple request that the loading area be relocated to the other side of the Costco to mitigate any potential for issues with the residential uses. The applicant chose not to accommodate this request.

A recommendation was made that the applicant relocate the gas station to be as far away from the residential neighborhood as possible. Another simple request that was ignored.

Rather than asking for carte blanche approval of unknown future highway commercial development in Parcel 3, the planning staff recommended that the applicant revise the plan to either propose open space for that parcel or to include detailed plans for that part of the development; yet, the applicant chose not to comply.

Staff previously requested to see an alternative site plan showing the historic cemetery undisturbed or a statement addressing why it would not be possible to preserve it in its current location. Another simple request that the developer chose to disregard.

Signage details were requested, so that if approved, the applicant would not need to return to City Council to amend the ordinance for signage. A simple request to help the city that was ignored.

Both Coastal Partners LLC, the developer, and Mr. Friedman, who would retain ownership of Parcel 3, have repeatedly demonstrated a complete disregard of requests made by the city. If they choose to ignore simple requests now, before the development is approved, why would one think they would honor any future requests made of them after they already had the approvals they desired?

Rachel McNally

Cranston

Comments

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