North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 2023
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 2023
The North Kingstown Planning Commission met on Tuesday, February 21, 2023, at 7:00 PM at Town Hall, 80 Boston Neck Road. The commission approved a reduced surety release for Reynolds Farm Phase 1D, discussed the path for cannabis zoning amendments, adopted a minutes-review policy, approved the February 7, 2023 draft minutes, and reviewed a Quonset Development Corporation major variance request for workforce housing. Chair James Grundy recused himself for the Quonset item.
Surety Reduction - Reynolds Farm Phase 1D (90%)
- Staff outlined a 90% surety reduction of $1,225,072.16, leaving a 10% surety of $136,624.
- A dispute was noted over five street lights shown on the approved plan but not installed. Eight street lights had been installed, and the National Grid to Rhode Island Energy utility transition left responsibility unclear because the lights were not treated as town assets.
- The commission discussed a $50,000 holdback to cover the uninstalled street lights. The final recommendation was a reduction of $1,177,028.16, with total surety retained of $189,114.24.
- Staff were authorized to resolve the street-light issue if possible; unresolved issues would return to the commission. The one-year release clock for the remaining surety can begin now.
- Motion passed 5-0.
Cannabis Control Act Zoning Amendments
- Continued from February 7, 2023. The commission did not draft an ordinance. Instead, staff will prepare amendments related to Rhode Island's Cannabis Control Act and transmit them to the Town Council.
- Under the procedure, the council will refer the proposal to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation, but the commission may waive that review. Members voiced no objection to waiving their recommendation. The matter is expected to return at the March 7, 2023 meeting.
Quonset Development Corporation Major Variance Request
- Quonset Development Corporation is seeking a major variance under Section 4.2.2B of the Quonset Development Package for proposed workforce housing on Assessor's Plat 182, Lots 9, 17, and 17 (as listed in the agenda), in the Quonset Business Park (QBP) and Quonset Mixed Use Development District (QMUDD). The land use is not currently allowed in the district.
- Staff said it was the first major variance application to reach the commission since the 2010 memorandum of understanding. QDC has not provided a specific plan; it intends to issue an RFI.
- Commission members raised concerns including: the request was too vague and could act as a "blank check"; density, heights, and unit counts should be set before approval; competition with Post Road housing developers; whether units would count toward North Kingstown's 10% affordable housing requirement; whether "workforce housing" would be genuinely affordable; and whether units would be restricted to Quonset employees.
- Members also called for a public hearing, review by public safety and school departments, fiscal impact analysis, and design safeguards such as sidewalks, pedestrian access, street trees, and buffering from industrial uses.
- Staff will draft a response to QDC reserving the commission's recommendation and listing these concerns; the draft will return for commission review at the next meeting. The commission also asked QDC to provide more information and meet with staff before further action.
Policy on Minutes Review
- The commission adopted a new policy requiring members to submit proposed minutes corrections to staff by noon Monday before the Tuesday meeting. Nonsubstantive corrections are incorporated by staff; substantive changes are highlighted for board review. The policy passed 5-0.
Minutes
- The commission approved the February 7, 2023 draft minutes. Although the agenda listed "January 7, 2023" minutes, discussion addressed the February 7 draft; no substantive corrections were raised. The motion passed 5-0.
Key Outcomes
- Approved the Reynolds Farm Phase 1D surety recommendation: $1,177,028.16 reduction and $189,114.24 surety retained (5-0).
- Agreed to allow staff to handle the street-light resolution; unresolved concerns would return to the commission.
- Agreed to proceed with a staff-drafted cannabis zoning ordinance and to waive the Planning Commission recommendation.
- Directed staff to prepare a written response to QDC with concerns and requests for more information.
- Adopted the minutes-review policy (5-0).
- Approved the February 7, 2023 minutes (5-0).
Meeting Transcript
And this is a 90% reduction. Memo addressed to Nicole from Ali Spox who is here. Um outlining the bond reduction and this would be uh reduction of the cost of 1 million 225, $72.16, leaving the 10% surety of $136,624. And there is a uh small issue with this. At the bottom of page one, there's a note that the town and developer are working together to assess the five distant street lights that are shown on the approved plan. The street lights were not included in the process in the bottom. They were not proposed as the town assets proposed as a facility-owned lights. I don't know if Ali or Nicole wants to expand on this, but my understanding is that the utility as it's transferred from national grid over to Rhode Island Energy no longer wants to be in the supplying of lights business. Right, they're no longer in the street light business. So we're sort of in a middle of nowhere land where this was not considered a public improvement because it was not something we had any responsibility for. Um there's a lot of different things that have happened in this particular phase over this time period. Um National Grid nor the developer could produce any documentation showing who should have done what, what the responsibilities were. So it is our opinion, and we've sat down with Matt on this a couple of times that at this time we have to, right? We have to get these lights in at some point. Our intention is if we can withhold, I think it's about 46,000 to install those five street lights. Uh it's at least a negotiation piece that we can work with them to to get those lights in place. Nicole these just I don't remember everything that happened about L D. The street lights were shown on the approved uh shown on the plan. So they're part of the construction plan set, they're part of the approved plan set. Um they just have they've not been installed. So the number of other ones were I think there's eight out there now. And so there's five that were not installed, but eight had been. And ultimately the developers responsible for whatever's on the approved development plan. It really wouldn't be our job to worry about how they got them or who they got them from. There's different options available to them. That's true. The issue is that we're just we're in a a tough spot because the you know, nobody's taking responsibility, they no longer do this work. Um we have we have taken over street lights for the remainder of town, so we're in a salt where we've just got to figure out we've literally just had to figure out these five lights. Well for the sake of simple math, uh my suggestion would be fifty thousand dollars to be removed from the reduction under the miscellaneous column, leaving a balance of four thousand four hundred five dollars and eighteen to be reduced. And then that would become a surety held under the miscellaneous six thousand zero forty-five oh two. Miscellaneous might be the most appropriate. Uh that would change the reduction to one million seventy-nine thousand five. Say that again. I was just gonna take fifty thousand off of the see. I would have to go up. That would become one one two zero nine seven nine above it. Uh that changes the contingency. We get fifty-six oh forty-eight ninety-six. No. Um, did you end up with one seven seven zero two eight one six? Yes. That would be the final. And that would leave us holding a grand total of one eight nine one one four two four. Yes. Never underestimate an older man in his abacus. Okay. Uh for clarity, we would be recommending a reduction in the mil in the amount of one million one hundred seventy-seven thousand twenty-eight dollars and sixteen cents with a total surety being held of one hundred eighty-nine thousand one hundred fourteen dollars and twenty-four cents. I'll make that as a motion. Motion the second. Is there any discussion?
openpublica.com