EAST PROVIDENCE — The Planning Board, having conducted proceedings virtually for the past year-plus because of the pandemic, returned to in-person gatherings with a flourish last week as the body once again as it has for the better part of the last 16 months discussed proposals pertaining to the potential redevelopment of the former Metacomet Country Club.

Specifically, the board considered two recommendations to be forwarded to the City Council: To amend the land use map/comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance allowing for the creation of a new “sub-district” of the Waterfront Special Development District called “Metacomet.”

After nearly four hours of feedback and deliberations, including the latest updated proposal from the developers, Marshall Properties through a new LLC named Metacomet Property LLC, the board voted 5-2 to provide the council with positive endorsements on both.

Chairman Michael Robinson along with fellow members Chris Grant, Dr. Allen D’Aiello, Burt Batty and Octavio Cunha were in the affirmative. Eric Crook and Michelle Rockwell were in opposition.

The meeting, like have so many involving the property located at 500 Veterans Memorial Parkway which has been a private golf course of a sort for over 100 years, included impassioned pleas from members of the community group “Keep Metacomet Green” and others from the area hoping to see the privately-owner, 138-acre tract remain mostly if not all undeveloped.

Those opposed to the proposal, including some new voices, repeated their concerns about the ill effects it could have on the climate, environment, wildlife, traffic and the general nature of the abutting neighborhood. A handful of speakers expressed their support of Marshall’s concept, but they were a distinct minority.

On behalf of the developers, attorney Zach Darrow told the board and the audience of a recent set of compromises he and his client came to terms on with the Planning Department (see box), represented at the meeting by director Bill Fazioli and veteran employee Patrick Hanner.

Mr. Darrow explained as part of the deal, Marshall would abide by an amended list of allowable uses approved by the city, other than what the firm could potentially build under its current “Open Space” designation, and was willing to have them written into any agreement between the sides, going to so far as to make portions of the property “deed restricted.”

Matt Mrva, New England Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture at Bohler Engineering assisting the developers, went through latest draft proposal with the property broken down into three sections: A. the portion to be redeveloped; B. a parcel bestowed to the city; and C. a golf course.

He said Marshall would “gift” the city nearly 10 acres of land (B.) in the back corner of the property along Fort Street and Lyon Avenue. The land would also serve as a buffer, which he said stretched between 240 and 290 feet in scope, between neighbors and the developable portion of the land.

The nine-hole golf course (C.) Marshall added to its plan in recent months would be open to the public and be deed restricted with a “written condition” that if the course failed for any reason it would remain publicly accessed open space. In other words, Mr. Mrva said it would be either “golf or green.”

In total, of the usable land (A.), not including environmentally sensitive acreage that abuts Watchemoket Cove exiting into the Providence River, Mr. Mrva said some 57 acres would be considered open space and the remaining approximately 60 acres would be developed.

Marshall presented the lone “expert” witness testimony at the meeting from Ashley Sweet, a former Town Planner in Rhode Island now a Project Manager with Massachusetts-based consulting firm Weston & Sampson. Ms. Sweet led the board through a discussion of how, in her professional opinion, the proposal matched or exceeded requirements for amending the land use map and the zoning ordinance.

Her words were persuasive enough for at least one member, Chairman Robinson, who cited her testimony and his continued belief Marshall’s proposal was the best possible outcome for the city under the circumstances as reasons for his affirmative vote.

Mr. Crook, himself with a background in municipal planning and who co-authored a concept for the reuse of Metacomet not considered by the owners, peppered Mr. Darrow with a number of questions highlighting some of the perceived pitfalls of the Marshall proposal. He eventually voted against the positive recommendations, saying the draft lacked analysis and details.

Mr. Darrow, in response, said his client was simply following city and state guidelines on procedure. The things Mr. Crook would like to have seen included would be akin to “putting the cart before the horse” at this point in the process.

Mr. Darrow continued, saying Marshall was not “short cutting” any steps along the way and, in fact, by asking for the project to be moved to the auspices of the Waterfront Commission was being amenable to the “more robust requirements” of that body.

In a similar vain, rebutting an oft cited claim the commission had unilateral powers over the project, City Solicitor Michael Marcello said it was the City Council who had ultimate authority on any proposal, including zone changes, and that the Waterfront Commission must abide by any edicts it issued.

Also, about concerns over the make-up and viewpoint of the commission, Mr. Fazioli, who doubles as chairman of that body, noted half of its members are appointed by the City Council while other bodies, such as the Planning Board, are appointed by the mayor with no council input.

Among the other board colleagues to provide a reasoning for their vote, Mr. Grant said while he appreciated the “robust debate” had at the meeting and urged more of it in the future, he was of the mind the matter be moved to its “rightful place” before the council for its consideration.

And Dr. D’Aiello, who expressed some sympathy for the position of those opposed, noted the Planning Board’s role on the topic at this juncture was mainly perfunctory and it was the council which had the final say on how Marshall’s proposal goes forward.

The Planning Board was only again involved in the situation by requirement. After the applicant was granted a waiver to resubmit its proposal by the council in early May of this year on the basis of the plan being deemed to have “substantial change of circumstances,” the board was required by ordinance to provide an opinion in a timely manner, some 60 days according to Mr. Fazioli at the meeting.

The recommendations of the Planning Board will now likely be taken up by the City Council at its lone scheduled meeting this month, Tuesday, July 18.