Hours of public comment during the Planning Commission’s meeting on Dec. 1 made clear that significant community opposition to the proposed Cranston Crossing development remains.

But as the panel delayed its own debate, and eventual vote, on a zoning change needed for the Costco-anchored commercial project to proceed, other factors remained less certain.

Should the proposal’s applicant, as a group of citizens contends, have submitted a simultaneous master plan for the intended development at the site – or even pursued a different kind of zoning change altogether? Does the state, which once owned the Mulligan’s Island property, have designs on reacquiring it?

Some clarity has emerged since the initial hearing on the proposed zoning change, which was slated to head to the City Council’s Ordinance Committee Dec. 10 before consideration by the full council later this month.

Whether or not the Planning Commission would grant the proposal a favorable recommendation, however, remained undecided as the Herald went to press this week. The Planning Commission’s debate and decision was slated to continue Dec. 8, shortly after the paper’s deadline.

The Planning Department’s staff, in its final memo to the commission ahead of the planned vote, included “no specific recommendation,” instead urging commissioners to “weigh the merits and deficiencies of this particular application and exercise their own rational judgment to decide if this application is an appropriate future land use at this location.”

Meanwhile, Assistant City Solicitor Stephen Marsella authored a memo defending the process through which the application was being considering and giving the commission the green light to proceed.

“I would again urge this Commission to issue either a positive or negative recommendation to the City Council based upon the criteria outlined in staff memorandum and the evidence presented by all participants,” he wrote.

Litany of speakers oppose plan

The commission’s Dec. 1 hearing – held after months of delays – ran roughly five hours long. Taking place over Zoom, the proceedings at one point had 126 virtual participants, which based on the Herald’s viewing appeared to be the high mark.

Roughly 40 members of the public spoke during the public comment portion of the proceedings, which followed presentations and expert testimony from representatives of the applicant, Coastal Partners LLC, and the community opposition group Cranston Neighbors for Smart Development.

All but two of the public speakers urged the commission to reject the Cranston Crossing zoning change. Michael Friedman, managing partner of Mulligan’s Island LLC, and Adam Lupino from the Laborer’s union – which has entered an agreement for construction work on the project – were the sole public speakers supportive of the planned development.

Concerns from community echoed those expressed by abutters, elected officials, candidates and others since the proposals public emergence in the summer. Cranston Crossing was characterized as incompatible with the Mulligan’s property, and issues such as noise, traffic, aesthetic impact, lighting and stormwater were among those raised.

The developer’s alteration of the plan to include a donation of 18 acres to the city for use as recreational and open space also appears to have had little sway with neighbors in the area. That portion of the property had been designated for future residential development in the initial Cranston Crossing plan.

Rebecca DeCesaris, a Hilltop Drive, resident, said she fears “nightmare” traffic generated by the new development. She rejected the proposed land gift as a “landlocked parcel” that would be of little utility to the city.

“I’m asking for a big box store to not be built in our backyards,” she said.

Delway Road resident Debra Scott added: “This is a terrible location for Costco. Costco, have a heart, please.”

Several of the speakers questioned the potential impact of the project on both small businesses and the character of the surrounding neighborhoods.

Pauline DeRosa, founder of the Garden City Alliance, warned of “the impact Costco would have on the local independent businesses.” Of big box retailers, she said: “We have seen the wreckage they create.”

“We’re going to sell off Cranston. We’re going to be like Johnston,” Robyn Ladouceur said. Sean Sullivan, another Hilltop Drive resident, added: “We ask the [Planning Commission] to preserve the integrity and the lifestyle of our neighborhood”

Lupino, meanwhile, called Cranston Crossing a “unique opportunity for economic development.” He called Costco a “leader among big box retailers,” pointing to its relatively high wages and benefits, and said the project’s developer is “not looking for a ton of incentives.”

Raising the specter of the state moving to reacquire the land for some expansion of its existing complex, Lupino also said rejecting Cranston Crossing might open the door to “something unfavorable going forward.”

Friedman echoed that stance, saying: “This notion that the state does not want this land is a fallacy.”

He added: “This is your bigger worry … It’s creating a permanent barrier between the prison complex and your neighborhood.”

Developer, neighbors make case

The Dec. 1 presentations from the developer and the Cranston Neighbors for Smart Development (CNSD) each took more than an hour. Commission Chairman Michael Smith initially advised that each expert or speaker would be granted 10 minutes, although many went longer and no time limits were enforced on either side.

Attorney John Bolton of Hinckley Allen, legal counsel for the applicant, led the developer’s presentation, providing introductory remarks before asking questions of a number of experts utilized by Coastal Partners in areas such as traffic and land use.

The developer’s experts asserted that the site plan provides for larger buffers than required between the new buildings and neighboring properties, and that the traffic generated by the project would not adversely affect volume or safety in the area. Due to lower than usual traffic levels during the pandemic, the developer’s traffic expert said past studies and historical data from the Rhode Island Department of Transportation were utilized.

The experts also pointed to Costco’s relatively early closing times compared with other large retailers; touted the jobs the project would create and the projected increase of roughly $725,000 in property tax revenue the development would generate; and defended the consistency of the plan with the city’s Comprehensive Plan and future land use map.

Mark Marchisano, a director of development for Costco, also addressed the commission, saying the Mulligan’s site – which would be the chain’s first location in Rhode Island – was chosen due to its being centrally situated with easy highway access.

Michael DiGuiseppe, managing partner of Coastal Properties, concluded the presentation with a defense of the project and the approach taken during the application process.

“I believe in the process. I believe in your regulations. And we try very carefully to work within the guidelines … We don’t cut corners,” he said.

The presentation from CNSD was led by attorney Amy Goins from the firm Ursillo, Teitz & Rich. She and the group’s planning expert, Kevin Flynn – former Cranston planning director and associate director of the state’s Division of Planning – painted a starkly different picture.

Goins dismissed Coastal Partners’ plans for the site as a “bargain bin proposal.”

“What the developer is selling is a faulty bill of goods, and we want to say, buyer beware,” she said.

Goins asserted that the application is “being considered under an incorrect procedure” – essentially, that a master plan for the site should have been submitted in concert with the proposed amendment to the Mixed Use Planned District, or MPD, that currently governs the property, so that the city would be “fully informed on what it would be paving the way for.” That procedural issue, she indicated, could result in legal action down the road.

Goins raised other concerns, including letters of opposition to the zoning change submitted by the state’s Department of Transportation, Department of Corrections and Division of Capital Asset Management & Maintenance. Those letters, she said, “should be a complete dealbreaker for the city.”

Flynn called the Cranston Crossing proposal a “radical departure” from what was intended at the property when the existing MPD for Mulligan’s Island was approved in the late 1990s. At that time, he served as the city’s planning director.

The proposed change in the MPD to allow for Cranston Crossing, Flynn said, is “an amendment unlike any other I’ve ever seen.” Indeed, he said, rather than an amendment, it is a “replacement” of the existing zoning.

Flynn asserted the plan does not meet the criteria to be classified as a mixed use development, and he suggested the developer should instead request an outright change from the MPD to C-4 commercial zoning. He said he views the plan, as it is currently constituted, as being in conflict with the city’s Comprehensive Plan.

“In my judgment, this is out of place with the surrounding neighborhoods … It’s a new island of commercial development very dissimilar with what’s around it,” he said. That, he added, “raises the specter of spot zoning.”

Regarding the warnings over the state’s possible designs on reacquiring the Mulligan’s site, Flynn said: “I have no idea what that is based on … I would possibly think of that as a red herring.”

Ben Caito, an engineer specializing in land development and resident of Hilltop Drive, also spoke on behalf of CNSD. He sought to highlight the visual impact of the planned Costco on the surrounding area, and provided aerial images demonstrating that the distance between residential neighborhoods and Costco stores in Massachusetts and Connecticut is significantly farther than what is proposed in Cranston.

Several members of CNSD also spoke, asserting that Cranston Crossing violates what was envisioned and promised when the Mulligan’s zoning was approved roughly two decades ago. Rachel McNally, one of the group’s organizers, additionally said the developer has ignored a number of requests from Planning Department staff to make alterations to the plan, including the location of a loading dock and the elimination of the need to relocate a historic cemetery.

If the developer cannot accommodate those requests, she asked, “why would one think they would honor any future request of them?”

Commission delays action; latest developments

Heading into the Dec. 1 hearing, Planning Department staff had recommended the commission continue the proceedings following the conclusion of public comment.

Given the late hour at which comment ended and the volume of information for commissioners to digest, that course of action was ultimately taken.

The information submitted for the record include correspondence from three state agencies urging the commission to reject the project. Planning Director Jason Pezzullo noted that two of the letters – from the Department of Corrections and the Department of Administration – arrived just before the close of business on Dec. 1, which he called a “little much” given that planning staff have “been in contact with the state agencies on this project as far back as July.”

In a Nov. 30 email to planning staff, Jill Nascimento, managing engineer in the Department of Transportation’s engineering/permitting office, wrote: “RIDOT has concerns with the current proposed access on New London Avenue as it is currently shown from both an operational and safety standpoint.”

From the Department of Corrections, Director Patricia Coyne-Fague wrote in her Dec. 1 correspondence that her agency views the Cranston Crossing proposal as a potential “public safety concern” given the proximity of the planned parking area to the prison complex.

“We believe this proximity is an issue that could lead to conveyance of contraband into the prison as well as potential facilitation of escape by Medium security inmates,” she wrote. “The current approved land use had minimal impact to the correctional facilities, and we urge the Board to reject this proposed expansion.”

Marco Schiappa, assistant director of the Department of Administration’s Division of Capital Asset Management & Maintenance, raised a number of issues in his Dec. 1 letter to the commission. Those include “serious reservations about the traffic impacts that will arise from the developer’s plans for the property,” as well as “a concern about sightlines into the prison grounds and the proximity of the development to the correctional facility security fence.”

“In closing, the state believes that the current application should be declined by the Planning Commission,” Schiappa concludes.

Commissioner Robert Coupe said he was “troubled by the fact that those letters came in … so late.”

Aside from the need for time to review available information and documents, some members of the commission indicated a desire for more clarity regarding the procedural concerns raised by opponents of Cranston Crossing.

Commissioner Fred Vincent specifically said he wanted a legal opinion regarding the CNSD attorney’s procedural concerns.

“I’m not entirely convinced, without a legal opinion … I think it’s a critical point that we as commissioners should have,” he said.

Smith agreed, saying that “litigation is not in anyone’s best interest.”

Vincent also said he was concerned with the visual buffering included in the developer’s plan and other aspects of Cranston Crossing’s presentation.

“There’s a lot that I feel the developer missed in this presentation … They’re asking for an MPD. But they’re not giving you sufficient information,” he said, addressing Pezzullo.

Outside of last week’s hearing, the has been some news related to Cranston Crossing.

Appearing on WJAR’s “10 News Conference” program with Gene Valicenti over the weekend, Mayor Allan Fung said he would like to see the proposed Costco located where it had originally been planned – in Chapel View, near the coming Topgolf facility. He said designs for additional Route 37 ramps in that area would help mitigate traffic impacts.

“I’d love to see it, you know, in that area next to Topgolf, because that’s where the ramps were already designed, Gene,” he said. “You know, it’s not near any neighborhoods, you have the traffic patterns that fit. It would be a great destination, a boon to that Chapel View development.”