Cranston City Plan Commission Meeting – December 9, 2025

The Cranston City Plan Commission convened on December 9, 2025, to handle two agenda items: a bond release for the Briarwoods Estate subdivision and a continued public hearing on the Natick Solar project (Native Solar). The bond release was approved unanimously. The solar project, which has been under review for several years, prompted extensive discussion and public testimony. After hearing from commissioners, the applicant, and the public, the commission voted 4-1 to continue the hearing to January 6, 2026, to allow members to review newly submitted materials and documentation.

Consent Calendar

• Bond Release – Briarwoods Estate Subdivision: The commission unanimously approved the release of a $122,500 bond for the completed road work. Motion by Commissioner Renzuli, seconded by Commissioner Coop; all in favor.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Carol Swanson (593 Natick Avenue): Abutter described the seven-year ordeal and expressed appreciation for the commission’s efforts. She pointed out inaccuracies in the transect analysis, noting that the claimed natural screening on her property is minimal (only five mature trees with no undergrowth). She raised concerns about potential damage to her well, septic system, and barn from blasting, and cited a URI study estimating 7% property value loss for homes within one-tenth of a mile. She urged the commission to protect the neighborhood’s character.
• Carol Cooney (8 Eva Lane): Realtor stated that property values will be negatively affected and expressed concerns about blasting impacts on wells and septic systems. She also questioned stormwater runoff after tree removal, citing existing flooding on Natick Avenue.
• Jan Ragno (1439 Hope Road): Questioned the screw-driven installation method and the lack of a clear noise ordinance. She criticized the vagueness of the landscape plan, the blasting testimony, and the failure to consider second-floor views. She contrasted the proposed chain-link fence with slats as inappropriate for a rural neighborhood.
• Rachel Clark (Woodcrest Court): Emphasized that solar facilities belong in appropriate locations, not residential areas. She listed concerns about property values, environmental disruption, drainage issues, and safety risks (electrical fires, glare, noise). She noted that none of the applicant’s experts live in the neighborhood.
• Dan Zivon (591 Natick Avenue): Distrusted the applicant’s representations, stating that the transect map points did not correspond to his house. He noted that Mr. Rossi received close to $1 million from the gas pipeline easement while paying only $900/year in taxes, and accused the applicant of hiding information.
• Christy Moretti (595 Natick Avenue): Raised concerns about septic systems, wells, and the danger of construction traffic on narrow, winding Natick Avenue.
• Douglas Doe (84 River Farms Drive, West Warwick): Questioned emergency vehicle access, noting only two gates and no interior road. He also asked about the status of prior submissions in the record; the chair clarified that earlier master plan comments are part of the record but suggested restating them.
• Wright Dieter (684 Natick Avenue): Encouraged the commission to visit the site in person to understand the suburban density surrounding the project.
• Drake Patton (684 Natick Avenue): Provided a detailed historical account of the project, accusing the applicant of hiding the ball. He presented four arguments: (1) the DEM stormwater permit expired December 6, 2025, and a new application has been filed as a “General Wetlands application” with claims that the project is identical to 2019, despite changes; (2) the project area has been inconsistently defined (62 acres used for a landscape waiver vs. a smaller leased area); (3) undisclosed plans for a residential dwelling on the same lot (lot 108) and other uses (excavation business, Christmas tree farm) were revealed in DEM filings; (4) the interconnection may have changed – the original ISO New England application was withdrawn and a new one filed for “1935 Phoenix Avenue”. He requested the commission deny the preliminary plan.
• Patrick Doherty (Attorney for abutters): Argued that the applicant and landowner (Mr. Rossi) have committed “fraud by omission” by not disclosing the full scope of development on the 64-acre parcel, including a planned four-bedroom house and other uses. He cited Cranston subdivision regulations requiring site plans to show all existing and proposed conditions on the entire parcel. He argued that the changes (new road, new interconnection, additional dwelling) constitute “major changes” requiring full public hearing and re-review. He urged denial or, at minimum, a demand for full disclosure.

The applicant’s attorney, Mr. Murray, and Ryan Palumbo (Revit Energy) rebutted the public comments, denying any misrepresentation. They stated that the interconnection remains on Natick Avenue, that the new dwelling for Mr. Rossi’s daughter is separate and will be submitted later, and that the changes made (road relocation, reduced panels) were minor and intended to benefit the abutters. They asserted that the project complies with all regulations and that the master plan had already been approved by the court.

Discussion Items

• Stormwater Management: Commissioner questions focused on the 2019/2020 DEM permit, which expired on December 6, 2025. The engineer, Eric Prevy, confirmed that a new permit application has been filed with no material changes. The annual maintenance cost was estimated at $23,000. Commissioners asked about inspection reports to the city; the applicant agreed to provide copies to the planner.
• Blasting and Safety: Testimony from David Punchak (construction manager) indicated that blasting would be required in areas with rock outcroppings, but would occur at least 300 feet from the high-pressure gas pipeline. Blasting within 100 feet would not be done due to economic inefficiency. The applicant stated they would follow Kinder Morgan protocols and hold insurance. Commissioner Renzuli and others raised concerns about escrow for potential damages; the applicant said subcontractors carry insurance.
• Landscaping and Buffering: Landscape architect John Carter presented 14 transects showing site lines from abutting properties. Commissioners questioned the reliance on existing vegetation (much of which is deciduous and lacks understory) and the use of 5–8 foot evergreens vs. 8–10 foot deciduous trees. The applicant noted that a chain-link fence with slats would provide 100% opacity while vegetation matures. Commissioner Lampier referenced conditions from the 2021 preliminary plan approval and asked whether they are incorporated; Mr. Murray confirmed they are carried forward.
• Project Changes and Interconnection: Commissioners grappled with claims that the project is different from the approved master plan. The applicant maintained that changes (road relocation, panel reduction, technology switch to screw-driven mounts) are minor. However, public testimony revealed that the DEM stormwater permit had expired, a new dwelling is planned on the parcel, and the ISO New England interconnection may have been altered. The commission deferred final discussion until the next hearing.

Key Outcomes

• Bond Release Approved (unanimous).
• Natick Solar Preliminary Plan Hearing Continued: The commission voted 4-1 (Commissioner Renzuli opposed) to continue the public hearing to January 6, 2026. This will allow commissioners to review the substantial new documentary evidence submitted during the meeting, including DEM filings, ISO New England records, and the abutters’ legal arguments. The public hearing remains open; no decision on the preliminary plan was made.