OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting – March 19, 2024

Planning CommissionTuesday, March 19, 2024
BodyNorth Kingstown, Rhode Island
SessionPlanning Commission
DateTuesday, March 19, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:53:05

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

The first thing I'd like to do is recognize that today is Ricky Thompson's birthday.

0:05

Happy birthday, Ricky.

0:11

Our present to him will be that we will not sing.

0:20

We we would have interrupted.

0:23

Thank you.

0:25

Item 3A.

0:27

This is a decision.

0:28

The application of Saundersown property LLC for Sanctuary Estates, Major 14 Lots, subdivision for property located on Assessors Plat 160, lots 91 and 92, 309 North Quidnesset Road, North Kingstown, and a neighborhood residential zone and scenic overlay district.

1:01

I believe it's page four, a simple capitalization.

1:10

If anyone has any comments or other notes and you want to jump in, please do.

1:15

There was nothing on page six.

1:19

Page 7 in findings of fact 2F was the changing of the word provision to creation.

1:33

Finding page eight.

1:35

I'm sorry, page eight, eight eight of eleven.

1:40

Finding seven C.

1:43

There is regarding the stone walls, just a change to make that wording exactly the same as it is earlier in the decision.

1:59

There'll be a couple more, but on page 10, the ones that we have.

2:04

The number eight, it said planning staff can work with the applicant, town solicitor to ensure docs are appropriate.

2:13

It seemed like we my opinion was we didn't need that, that the town staff always works with the applicant to get what we need.

2:22

Clarification that the designer of record shall be the one submitting the proof of the installation, not any designer.

2:31

And then on uh waivers 12 and 13.

2:40

And I believe was the uh was 11 granted at master plan as well?

2:45

No, that was just you did that this time.

2:46

Did that this time.

2:47

Yep.

2:48

Okay, so a clarification on 12 and 13 that those waivers were previously granted at master plan.

2:54

And I believe that there were what was it, Pat?

3:02

I wasn't Oh yeah.

3:04

Leaving my name.

3:05

Well, we we'll omit you, not the leading.

3:09

And then um for number five, Rich had originally made a good note that we should define that area somewhat so um for the landscape easement.

3:19

So whether or not I know there was some discussion maybe of 20 feet um off North Quidnesset Road.

3:26

That would be on page 10, condition five.

3:28

Yep.

3:30

I mean 20 feet is a standard that we've used in the past.

3:33

I have no objection to that.

3:35

If you come with that, Rick.

3:36

Yeah, I'm I'm comfortable with it.

3:37

It's just if you don't define it, then it it just leads to problems down the road.

3:42

And then related to that one, Jim, was um just working out what the terms of the easement would be.

3:49

We would typically do that at the final stage.

3:52

Um but I think the applicant wants to make sure there's some a little bit more detail given to what the landscape easement would include, especially concerning like maintenance or if there's a little bit of removal of dead limbs or trees or something to that effect that but we would typically work on that at the at final.

4:14

So we'd want it to be safe, you will.

4:16

I don't know if you want to add any language to that or if that's just our typical standard operating procedure.

4:21

I think addressing it at final if the applicant doesn't have a problem on my other members, give you some time to we've always had standard language.

4:30

You want to add anything to that, like terms of the easement will be discussed at final or something like that?

4:34

I think we could put that in this decision.

4:36

That that would be uh very good.

4:38

The uh we just concerned that if it gets looking a little gamey and we got dead trees or branches that want the option to clean them up, that's all.

4:47

Um then the other one was um clarifying a little bit in condition nine that you know they would have to submit a plan back to us if they're going beyond that limit of clearing that is shown on a couple of the plan sheets.

5:02

Um, but it would be, you know, and then could be approved administratively by Nicole, but that limit could go up to whatever the limit of DEM allows.

5:12

As long as they drainage calculations, and they submit stormwater calculations back to us again.

5:16

And again, that could be approved by Nicole rather than coming back to the full board.

5:21

So that would be admin subject to RIDEM and conformance of stormwater.

5:29

DEM's lim current limited.

5:31

The limit of disturbance shown on like the wetlands plans.

5:33

LOD and Stormwater.

5:40

Anyone have any concerns or comments with those?

5:47

And then the only other one um which I didn't do in track changes, I think when I initially the uh Mark Liberati reviewed this um as he was our attorney that night, and there was he thought I meant um background number nine, which is just the inclusionary section.

6:01

So he re-worded that, although he didn't realize I wanted to make sure he looked at condition nine, the one we just discussed.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning Ordinance█████████████████████████████████████████████59%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████7%
Public Engagement█████6%
Landscape Planning████5%
Procedural███4%
Public Comment███4%
Comprehensive Planning███4%
Land Use Planning██3%
Historic Preservation██3%
Summary of Proceedings

North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting – March 19, 2024

This regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 19, 2024, covered decisions on a major subdivision, a development plan review and zoning variance recommendation for a mixed-use rehabilitation, the appointment of a commission representative to the Hazard Mitigation Committee, and continued discussion on updating the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations to comply with new state laws. All votes were unanimous.

Consent Calendar

  • (None: The meeting did not have a separate consent calendar; all items were addressed individually.)

Public Comments & Testimony

  • A member of the public expressed appreciation for the reuse of an existing structure at 1175 Tower Hill Road, calling the current building an eyesore and supporting its rehabilitation. No other public comments were made.

Discussion Items

  • 3a. Decision: Sanctuary Estates – Major 14-lot Subdivision
    The Commission considered amendments to the final decision for the Saunderstown Properties LLC subdivision at 309 North Quidnessett Road (Plat 160, Lots 91-92) in the Neighborhood Residential zone and Scenic Overlay District. Edits included correcting the word “provision” to “creation” in a finding, aligning stone‑wall language with earlier language, removing a sentence stating that planning staff would work with the applicant (as this is standard), requiring the designer of record to submit installation proof, and noting that waivers 12 and 13 were already granted at master plan stage. A 20‑foot landscape easement along North Quidnessett Road was defined, and condition nine was clarified to allow administrative approval of clearing expansions up to RIDEM limits with renewed stormwater calculations. The inclusionary‑housing condition was reworded to note that two low/moderate‑income units already exist (contracted/purchased) and the third unit “shall be provided” rather than “shall be built.” The motion to approve the decision as amended passed 5‑0‑1 (Vice‑Chair Roach absent).

  • 3b & 3c. Development Plan Review and Zoning Variance Recommendation: 1175 Tower Hill Road
    The Commission considered a joint application for 1175 Tower Hill Road (Plat 073, Lot 025, Village Residential zone). The proposal is to rehabilitate the existing building for a 3,000‑square‑foot food store on the first floor and four three‑bedroom apartments (totaling 3,240 square feet) on the upper floor, along with 23 crushed‑stone parking spaces (14 required), a rear patio, a dormer, and extensive landscaping. Because the property lies in a groundwater recharge area and requires multiple zoning variances, the Planning Commission conducted both a Development Plan Review ( § 21‑284) and prepared a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Review.

    • Staff presented the site’s history and legal non‑conforming status. Traffic study discrepancies (use classified as “farmers market”) will be corrected administratively.
    • The applicant’s team (John Cooper, Patrick Freeman, Kevin Alverson) described the site plan, stormwater management (two infiltration basins), wastewater treatment (three septic systems approved by RIDEM), and landscaping mitigation. The fire marshal’s request for 18‑foot‑wide access was accepted.
    • Development Plan Review vote: The Commission found that the proposal meets all applicable standards (no hazard to water supply, traffic, privacy, etc.) and approved the development plan with conditions: obtain DOT physical alteration permit, submit updated traffic study, secure administrative lighting approval (dark‑sky compliant), and note 18‑foot fire access on plans. The vote was 6‑0.
    • Zoning Variance vote: The Commission then considered each of the nine requested variances individually (front setback, height, buffer strips, street trees, etc.) and agreed unanimously to send a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Review, with clarifying edits: specifying that certain variances apply only to the driveway/dumpster area and referencing the submitted plan set for dimensions. The vote was 6‑0.
  • 3d. Appointment of Hazard Mitigation Committee Representative
    Staff explained the need for a Planning Commission representative on the North Kingstown Hazard Mitigation Committee, which is updating the town’s Hazard Mitigation Plan with the help of a consultant. Commissioner Meg Kerr was nominated, seconded, and appointed unanimously (no formal vote recorded; consensus reached).

  • 3e. Continued Discussion: NK Zoning Ordinance and Land Development/Subdivision Regulation Amendments
    Town Planner Nicole led a detailed review of the work still needed to comply with new state laws (effective January 2024). Key topics included:

    • Cleaning up special‑use‑permit criteria throughout the ordinance (many existing special‑use permits lack standards).
    • Evaluating the Multifamily Residential zone, which is rarely used and may be consolidated with the Post Road District or eliminated (with a grandfather clause for existing parcels).
    • Adding criteria for the 4,000‑square‑foot building threshold in Wickford Village Center (to control formula businesses and redevelopment).
    • Revising the solar ordinance wording.
    • Removing outdated or redundant special‑use‑permit requirements.
      The Commission supported the direction and directed staff to bring back specific language for future meetings.

Key Outcomes

  • Sanctuary Estates subdivision decision approved (5‑0‑1).
  • Development Plan Review for 1175 Tower Hill Road approved (6‑0) with conditions.
  • Positive recommendation to Zoning Board of Review for 1175 Tower Hill Road variances (6‑0), with minor clarifications.
  • Meg Kerr appointed as Planning Commission representative to the Hazard Mitigation Committee (unanimous).
  • Minutes of February 20, 2024, approved (5‑0‑1).
  • Meeting adjourned without a recorded time.
  • Staff will continue drafting Zoning and Subdivision Regulation amendments for future Commission action.

Meeting Transcript

The first thing I'd like to do is recognize that today is Ricky Thompson's birthday. Happy birthday, Ricky. Our present to him will be that we will not sing. We we would have interrupted. Thank you. Item 3A. This is a decision. The application of Saundersown property LLC for Sanctuary Estates, Major 14 Lots, subdivision for property located on Assessors Plat 160, lots 91 and 92, 309 North Quidnesset Road, North Kingstown, and a neighborhood residential zone and scenic overlay district. I believe it's page four, a simple capitalization. If anyone has any comments or other notes and you want to jump in, please do. There was nothing on page six. Page 7 in findings of fact 2F was the changing of the word provision to creation. Finding page eight. I'm sorry, page eight, eight eight of eleven. Finding seven C. There is regarding the stone walls, just a change to make that wording exactly the same as it is earlier in the decision. There'll be a couple more, but on page 10, the ones that we have. The number eight, it said planning staff can work with the applicant, town solicitor to ensure docs are appropriate. It seemed like we my opinion was we didn't need that, that the town staff always works with the applicant to get what we need. Clarification that the designer of record shall be the one submitting the proof of the installation, not any designer. And then on uh waivers 12 and 13. And I believe was the uh was 11 granted at master plan as well? No, that was just you did that this time. Did that this time. Yep. Okay, so a clarification on 12 and 13 that those waivers were previously granted at master plan. And I believe that there were what was it, Pat? I wasn't Oh yeah. Leaving my name. Well, we we'll omit you, not the leading. And then um for number five, Rich had originally made a good note that we should define that area somewhat so um for the landscape easement. So whether or not I know there was some discussion maybe of 20 feet um off North Quidnesset Road. That would be on page 10, condition five. Yep. I mean 20 feet is a standard that we've used in the past. I have no objection to that. If you come with that, Rick. Yeah, I'm I'm comfortable with it. It's just if you don't define it, then it it just leads to problems down the road. And then related to that one, Jim, was um just working out what the terms of the easement would be. We would typically do that at the final stage. Um but I think the applicant wants to make sure there's some a little bit more detail given to what the landscape easement would include, especially concerning like maintenance or if there's a little bit of removal of dead limbs or trees or something to that effect that but we would typically work on that at the at final. So we'd want it to be safe, you will. I don't know if you want to add any language to that or if that's just our typical standard operating procedure. I think addressing it at final if the applicant doesn't have a problem on my other members, give you some time to we've always had standard language. You want to add anything to that, like terms of the easement will be discussed at final or something like that? I think we could put that in this decision. That that would be uh very good. The uh we just concerned that if it gets looking a little gamey and we got dead trees or branches that want the option to clean them up, that's all. Um then the other one was um clarifying a little bit in condition nine that you know they would have to submit a plan back to us if they're going beyond that limit of clearing that is shown on a couple of the plan sheets.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com