OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2024

Planning Commission — Tuesday, June 4, 2024
BodyNorth Kingstown, Rhode Island
SessionPlanning Commission
DateTuesday, June 4, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 56:23

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

Uh first item on the agenda tonight is a decision the preliminary plan application of Stephen Reno and for Jupiter Hill Phase 5 minor two lot subdivision uh for the property located assessors plat 119 lot 17, 80 Sassafras Road, North Kingston Rhode Island in a village residential zone.

0:22

And uh we have a decision with some comments that was sent to me.

0:26

Can you hear me?

0:27

Yes.

0:28

Um you received a draft decision and we received comments back from Pat with a couple with two things to edit.

0:36

One was a question that he thought there was a question on the coefficients used for the drainage, and the other was just a recommended word change.

0:43

So there was a new draft sent to you later today, and there's a copy of it on your desk.

0:47

The changes that were made are highlighted in the decision on pages three um and four.

0:56

Three is the information in the findings, and four is the information within the the condition itself.

1:03

Um Pat I make sure you are comfortable with the changes that were made.

1:08

Yeah, I think so.

1:09

And I just Amy, do you agree that yes?

1:14

That's fine.

1:15

The coefficients yeah, we're gonna work work on the coefficients and make sure that Allie and I communicated earlier, so we'll work on that.

1:24

And then I think the wording exacerbate.

1:27

Yeah, that's fine.

1:29

No net increase from this development.

1:32

No, it was just on the coefficients.

1:33

My take will, as I recall, I thought it was that the original, how should I say the pre-build um condition was estimated high?

1:42

Yeah, the coefficients you use in there, there's different numbers, so people use different whichever table you look at.

1:49

So Allie and I will coordinate.

1:50

I think if Ali's happy.

1:52

Yeah.

1:54

And the other one was Nancy.

1:57

Amy Son.

2:01

Okay.

2:02

Uh anyone have any other questions on this?

2:06

Uh I don't have any questions, Jim, but just for the record, I am recusing from this due to being in a butter.

2:11

Okay, and I will be abstaining as I wasn't here, so I'm simply gonna call the vote if there is a motion to approve it as written.

2:18

So moved.

2:19

Okay, there's a motion to approve as written.

2:21

Is there a second?

2:23

Second.

2:24

Motion and a second.

2:26

Um just because of the abstention and the recusal, I'll do this as a roll call vote to make it simpler.

2:32

Uh beginning with Pat.

2:35

Yes.

2:36

Meg?

2:37

Yes.

2:39

Richard?

2:39

Yes.

2:40

Tracy?

2:41

No.

2:42

Uh we have uh Steve is recusing, and I am abstaining as I wasn't here for the hearing.

2:50

So that would be three affirmative, one negative, and two not voting.

2:59

Thank you.

3:00

Okay.

3:02

Uh with that item 3B is a construction cost estimate for Pinewood Village.

3:11

And um Nicole, if you want me to take this a little bit and then okay.

3:18

We we received the original cost estimate dated uh 529.

3:23

And um I had raised a couple of concerns that the subdivision cost estimate might include some components that would not traditionally be considered public or have the potential of ever falling into the uh public view.

3:42

I had sent over a um a mock up addressing those with some reasoning behind that and uh and the what you sent over to Ali and staff was forwarded to all the plenty cushion members, so they have the same backup materials.

3:58

Okay.

3:59

Um post that memo, Allie and I had a rather long discussion, and um some of the points that I had raised were taken, and some Allie had some very good reasonings why um she felt that they some of the things should have stayed in, and we ended up almost right in the middle of the two construction estimates.

4:20

And I don't know if Allie wants to talk about it all, or if uh the biggest thing I think had to do with septic components and any portions that would remain in um more public ways or areas that potentially could be uh at some point have a potential of ever being turned over.

4:41

Sure, yeah, I guess the biggest ticket item we were looking at is I had originally included a cost estimate that included some of the portions of the septic, including a chemical shed with um blowers and control panels, uh some piping, the leech field, and the advanced um the advanced septic system, um, as well as uh there's pretty um probably I think it's close to 10,000 linear feet of uh sewer force main that's going under the road.

5:11

We have since deleted the um the septic portion, the chemical shed, but we have kept the um the sewer force main because it's running over under the road, it requires um pressure testing.

5:24

My rationale behind that was if, say, for example, they installed a pipe and didn't do the pressure testing because we weren't holding a bond.

5:32

I assume they will, but if it were to not be tested um and then the pipe blows up or something, they would have to then take out the entire road, redig everything, reinstall.

5:42

So I was more comfortable bonding that item to make sure it's installed correctly, make sure the road goes in properly.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Planning█████████████████████21%
Procedural██████████████████18%
Water And Wastewater Management██████████████████18%
Public Comment█████████████████17%
Landscape Planning██████████10%
Public Works█████████9%
Technology and Innovation████4%
Affordable Housing███3%
Summary of Proceedings

North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2024

The North Kingstown Planning Commission met on Tuesday, June 4, 2024, at 7:00 PM in Town Hall, 80 Boston Neck Rd, North Kingstown, RI. The commission acted on the Juniper Hill Phase V preliminary plan, set a Pinewood Village construction bond estimate, took public comment and a straw poll on the Pinewood Village final comprehensive permit plan, and approved the May 7, 2024 minutes.

Juniper Hill Phase V - Preliminary Plan Decision

  • The commission considered the preliminary plan application of Stephen Rainone for Juniper Hill Phase V, a minor 2-lot subdivision at Assessor's Plat 119, Lot 17, 80 Sassafras Road, in the Village Residential (VR) zone.
  • Two edits to the draft decision were discussed: clarifying the drainage coefficient language and a word change in the findings and conditions. The commission then approved the decision as revised.
  • Roll-call vote: Pat Roach, Meg Kerr, and Richard Lipsitz voted yes; Tracy McCue voted no; Steve Borowick recused; Chair James Grundy abstained because he was not present for the hearing. The decision carried 3-1 with two members not voting.

Pinewood Village - Construction Cost Estimate

  • Town Engineer Allie Sparks reviewed the original cost estimate dated May 29, 2024. After discussion, the bondable estimate removed the individual septic system components and chemical shed but retained the sewer force main under the roadway because pressure testing is necessary to protect the road if repairs are later needed.
  • The commission approved a construction bond estimate of $3,270,115.30 on a 6-0 vote. Members also discussed the lack of a written bond-calculation policy and noted ongoing efforts to build consistency through spreadsheet notes.

Pinewood Village - Final Plan Application

  • Pinewood Village, LLC proposes an 88-unit comprehensive permit major land development at Assessor's Plat 102, Lots 6, 8, and 25, 50 South County Trail, in the Compact Village Development (CVD) zone and Groundwater Protection Overlay District.
  • Staff said the significant change at this final stage was receipt of DEM approval for on-site wastewater treatment. The project changed from one experimental MBR system to 22 individual Class II certified bio-barrier membrane systems, while continuing to meet the nitrate limit below 5 mg/L. The town engineer explained the new systems have more installation and performance data in Rhode Island and no longer carry the experimental-system demolition/replacement stipulation.
  • The town solicitor advised that the commission should not revisit comprehensive plan compliance or other issues already decided at the master or preliminary stage; final plan review is limited to technical issues and prior approvals carry vested rights.
  • One commissioner questioned the practicality of a condition requiring annual landscaper certification of fertilizer rates; the discussion noted the language could be clarified to require a yearly total.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Kathleen Garino (139 Summit View Lane) raised groundwater concerns and asked about the DEM limit of 10 installations for the new system type. Staff explained the 10-system cap serves as a performance checkpoint, each building must be certified before connection, and the conditions include a holding-tank contingency if systems fail.
  • Rich D. Maria (150 Juniper Drive) commented on agenda item one after the vote, reporting renewed basement flooding in the Juniper Hill area twice within the last year and said residents may request additional drainage easement capacity or relief.
  • Audrey Rodriguez (88 Plain Road) opposed Pinewood Village. She cited North Kingstown's 8.7% affordable housing rate from the 2023 Rhode Island Annual Integrated Housing Report, a calculated nitrate concentration of 4.92 versus the 5.0 preventive action limit, school overcrowding at Stony Lane Elementary, 176 bedrooms on a groundwater-protected area zoned for 17, and a claimed $3.2 million in town construction costs. The chair clarified that no town funds are involved in the project and the applicant would bear all expenses.
  • Ricky Thompson (194 Plain Road) supported the project, saying the developer worked with neighbors and made concessions, and that the result is a win-win for the town.
  • Richard Welch (8 Arrow Lane) said he has no problem with the project itself but does not trust the developer based on another site, and asked the town to require an engineer's certificate on a rock wall before proceeding. The solicitor said one project cannot be tied to another project's conditions.
  • A Plain Road resident (102 Plain Road) questioned whether the changed septic design amounted to a new plan requiring a fresh vote. The solicitor said the change was not a substantial alteration and the town cannot override DEM on technical wastewater matters. The resident also expressed concern about the 10-system cap, groundwater risk, and overdevelopment, suggesting the unit count should be cut in half.

Key Outcomes

  • Juniper Hill Phase V preliminary plan decision approved: 3 yes, 1 no, 1 recusal, 1 abstention.
  • Pinewood Village construction bond estimate approved at $3,270,115.30: 6-0.
  • Pinewood Village final plan straw poll: 4 positive (Pat Roach, Steve Borowick, Tracy McCue, Richard Lipsitz) and 2 abstentions (Chair James Grundy and Meg Kerr). The application was continued to June 18, 2024 so staff can draft a written decision with conditions.
  • For the final Pinewood Village decision, Condition 1 will be revised to remove the experimental technology reference and require monthly nitrate and total nitrogen effluent reporting to the town for four years or as required by DEM. Other preliminary conditions will carry forward where still applicable.
  • The May 7, 2024 draft minutes were approved as amended after editorial comments; one member abstained because they had not attended that meeting.

Meeting Transcript

Uh first item on the agenda tonight is a decision the preliminary plan application of Stephen Reno and for Jupiter Hill Phase 5 minor two lot subdivision uh for the property located assessors plat 119 lot 17, 80 Sassafras Road, North Kingston Rhode Island in a village residential zone. And uh we have a decision with some comments that was sent to me. Can you hear me? Yes. Um you received a draft decision and we received comments back from Pat with a couple with two things to edit. One was a question that he thought there was a question on the coefficients used for the drainage, and the other was just a recommended word change. So there was a new draft sent to you later today, and there's a copy of it on your desk. The changes that were made are highlighted in the decision on pages three um and four. Three is the information in the findings, and four is the information within the the condition itself. Um Pat I make sure you are comfortable with the changes that were made. Yeah, I think so. And I just Amy, do you agree that yes? That's fine. The coefficients yeah, we're gonna work work on the coefficients and make sure that Allie and I communicated earlier, so we'll work on that. And then I think the wording exacerbate. Yeah, that's fine. No net increase from this development. No, it was just on the coefficients. My take will, as I recall, I thought it was that the original, how should I say the pre-build um condition was estimated high? Yeah, the coefficients you use in there, there's different numbers, so people use different whichever table you look at. So Allie and I will coordinate. I think if Ali's happy. Yeah. And the other one was Nancy. Amy Son. Okay. Uh anyone have any other questions on this? Uh I don't have any questions, Jim, but just for the record, I am recusing from this due to being in a butter. Okay, and I will be abstaining as I wasn't here, so I'm simply gonna call the vote if there is a motion to approve it as written. So moved. Okay, there's a motion to approve as written. Is there a second? Second. Motion and a second. Um just because of the abstention and the recusal, I'll do this as a roll call vote to make it simpler. Uh beginning with Pat. Yes. Meg? Yes. Richard? Yes. Tracy? No. Uh we have uh Steve is recusing, and I am abstaining as I wasn't here for the hearing. So that would be three affirmative, one negative, and two not voting. Thank you. Okay. Uh with that item 3B is a construction cost estimate for Pinewood Village. And um Nicole, if you want me to take this a little bit and then okay. We we received the original cost estimate dated uh 529.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com