Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2025

Planning Commission — Tuesday, February 18, 2025

BodyNorth Kingstown, Rhode Island

SessionPlanning Commission

DateTuesday, February 18, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 3:16:46

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:00

The agenda tonight.

0:01

First item on the agenda tonight.

0:03

This is a decision.

0:04

Unified development review of the zoning variants and land development project application of WJ Apartments LLC care of Steve Moran 1130 10 Rod Row E207, North Kingstown.

0:17

For Wickford Junction Apartments, 152 unit major land development project located assesses plat 112 lot 113 in the Wickford Junction zone and the groundwater recharge zone.

0:30

And we had closed the public comment on this.

0:33

We had taken a consensus and in front of us we have the decision that was developed based on that consensus.

0:46

And does any member of the commission have any questions on this?

0:50

I think on this had I sent you a comment, Becky?

0:52

Yep.

0:53

So it's a red what you have in front of you is a red line version that had edits from Pat Ian Meg.

0:59

And I have one other suggested edit on the under the conditions when we get to that page.

1:05

Okay.

1:07

Well, uh, until we get I'm I think that the edits, the reds that I had seen were all very minor.

1:16

Um I I did have a question regarding the 14th statement because uh the 14th condition.

1:30

Conditions, Jim?

1:31

Yes, the very last page.

1:32

Yep.

1:33

The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the stormwater system record the stormwater operants.

1:38

Okay.

1:39

I just want to make sure that we're that's strictly the stormwater sewer.

1:43

Yes, just the associations.

1:46

Yep.

1:46

Okay.

1:49

And if if I can, then since we're on the conditions, we can go back if we need to on page 13.

1:54

Um we had discussion last time that we used to say for conditions four and five, the developer, and we changed it to the condo association.

2:02

However, we don't really have the authority to make the condo association do anything.

2:08

So there was a suggestion to say at the beginning of each of those two, number four and five, the developer shall obtain from, and then for number four, it would say the work for junction condominium association in agreement to hire.

2:23

Because again, we can't make we can't make them, so the developer would have to they're the person, you know, and developer being Mr.

2:29

Moran.

2:30

Yes.

2:31

Um or we could say applicant.

2:33

I don't know if James does it matter which one we use applicant or developer.

2:40

I don't think it makes much difference, but because obviously the developer here could shouldn't be the name, it could be that could change in the future.

2:47

So I think applicant might be better because it'd be clearer, I think.

2:51

Okay.

2:52

So then on number five, that same intro, the applicant shall obtain from and then say after operator um in obligation to submit and get rid of shell.

3:04

So just to clean up the rest of the sentence, we have to add a few words.

3:08

So those are two suggested um edits in addition to the other red line.

3:13

And again, not to forget you have to vote on the zoning first and then separately vote on the land development project.

3:27

Okay, so as it relates to the zoning, do we have a motion to approve the zoning variants as requested?

3:42

I'll make that motion.

3:42

We approve as requested.

3:44

With the condition.

3:45

With the conditions.

3:47

Is there a second motion and a second?

3:49

Is there any discussion?

3:52

All in favor?

3:53

Aye.

3:54

Any opposed?

3:56

Okay, that would be unanimous.

3:58

And as it applies to the land development uh portion of this, is there a motion to approve?

4:05

I'll make that motion to approve.

4:07

Is there a second?

4:08

With the conditions with the conditions.

4:10

A second.

4:11

Okay, there's a motion and a second.

4:13

Any discussion?

4:14

All in favor?

4:15

Aye.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Zoning Ordinance██████████████████18%

Engineering And Infrastructure████████████████16%

Public Comment███████████████15%

Land Use Planning██████████10%

Procedural██████████10%

Public Safety█████████9%

Public Works█████████9%

Transportation Safety██████6%

Environmental Protection███3%

Summary of Proceedings

North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2025

The North Kingstown Planning Commission met on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, at 7:00 PM at Town Hall. The meeting addressed several development applications, including approvals for the Wickford Junction Apartments and a rooftop solar addition, a surety reduction, and continued public hearings for a proposed McDonald's restaurant and a 78-unit subdivision. The Commission voted unanimously on several items and continued two major projects to March 18, 2025.

Consent Calendar

Wickford Junction Apartments (152 units): The Commission approved the unified development review for a zoning variance and land development project for WJ Apts LLC. The decision included conditions regarding stormwater system maintenance and the applicant obtaining agreements from the condo association. The zoning variance was approved 6-0, and the land development project was approved unanimously.
North K Properties (6500 Post Road): The Commission approved the zoning variance and development plan for an addition and rooftop solar installation, with a 6-0 vote on each.
Sachem Acres Surety Reduction: The Commission accepted the 90% reduction of the surety, holding $146,798.69 as retained 10%.

Public Comments & Testimony

McDonald's (Genesis Partners): Public comment was limited to drive-through stacking and headlight mitigation. Theresa Chung (20 Sawmill Dr.) questioned the height of arborvitae near HVAC units, the type of vehicles used for headlight measurements, and potential traffic overflow onto Namcook Road. Richard Welch (8 Arrow Lane) requested handicap parking delineation, expressed concern about stacking extending onto Post Road citing issues with Dunkin' Donuts, and suggested a provision to close the drive-through if stacking becomes problematic.
WDIC Subdivision (78 lots): Multiple residents spoke. Everett Stewart (Land Conservancy) requested a wider access easement (15 feet instead of 10) and demarcation of the access way. Michael Gerzevitz (11 Ipswich) raised concerns about increased traffic, construction vehicles, and lack of a second egress. Jane Gardner (71 Somerset Circle) emphasized safety, egress, noise from the industrial park, and blasting causing basement cracks. Jan McAleer (830 Ten Rod Rd.) supported a wider access for fire vehicles. Katie Burkhout (107 Ipswich Blvd.) reported basement cracks from blasting and traffic congestion.

Discussion Items

McDonald's Drive-Through Stacking & Headlights: The applicant presented updated plans showing 10 stacking spaces from the first cash window plus two additional spaces, with signage to direct traffic. Headlight mitigation included a row of hedges, taller shrubs, and exhibits showing grade differences. The Commission discussed the adequacy of the stacking and whether conditions could address future problems. Solicitor noted that such conditions would require court action, and the town's remedy would be through modification or court. The Commission agreed the stacking plan was satisfactory.
WDIC Subdivision: Staff and applicant reviewed changes since master plan, including removal of a cul-de-sac, creation of a 2-acre parcel for Quonset Business Park, increased buffer to 350 feet from industrial uses, and 78 lots with 8 affordable units. Key issues included: street lighting (Commission directed staff to work with applicant on dark-sky compliant lights), tree spacing (30-40 ft on center required), flag lots requiring reduced frontage approval, drainage easements width, pedestrian access to land conservancy (10 ft vs 15 ft), blasting notification plan, and maintenance of boulder walls. The Commission discussed nitrate loading analysis (waived due to sewer connection) and the need for a blasting management plan. The applicant agreed to work with staff on many items.

Key Outcomes

McDonald's (Genesis Partners): The Commission developed a positive consensus on the zoning variances and special use permit, subject to conditions. The hearing was continued to March 18, 2025, for a final vote on the decision.
WDIC Subdivision: The Commission reached a positive consensus on the preliminary plan with numerous conditions, including: street lighting, tree spacing, drainage easement widths, a blasting notification plan, and further discussion on the land conservancy access width. The matter was continued to March 18, 2025.
Minutes Approved: The Commission approved the minutes from November 19, 2024, December 17, 2024, January 7, 2025, and February 4, 2025, with a clarification on a comment from the December 17 minutes.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned after extending the 10:00 PM curfew by 30 minutes.

Meeting Transcript

The agenda tonight. First item on the agenda tonight. This is a decision. Unified development review of the zoning variants and land development project application of WJ Apartments LLC care of Steve Moran 1130 10 Rod Row E207, North Kingstown. For Wickford Junction Apartments, 152 unit major land development project located assesses plat 112 lot 113 in the Wickford Junction zone and the groundwater recharge zone. And we had closed the public comment on this. We had taken a consensus and in front of us we have the decision that was developed based on that consensus. And does any member of the commission have any questions on this? I think on this had I sent you a comment, Becky? Yep. So it's a red what you have in front of you is a red line version that had edits from Pat Ian Meg. And I have one other suggested edit on the under the conditions when we get to that page. Okay. Well, uh, until we get I'm I think that the edits, the reds that I had seen were all very minor. Um I I did have a question regarding the 14th statement because uh the 14th condition. Conditions, Jim? Yes, the very last page. Yep. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the stormwater system record the stormwater operants. Okay. I just want to make sure that we're that's strictly the stormwater sewer. Yes, just the associations. Yep. Okay. And if if I can, then since we're on the conditions, we can go back if we need to on page 13. Um we had discussion last time that we used to say for conditions four and five, the developer, and we changed it to the condo association. However, we don't really have the authority to make the condo association do anything. So there was a suggestion to say at the beginning of each of those two, number four and five, the developer shall obtain from, and then for number four, it would say the work for junction condominium association in agreement to hire. Because again, we can't make we can't make them, so the developer would have to they're the person, you know, and developer being Mr. Moran. Yes. Um or we could say applicant. I don't know if James does it matter which one we use applicant or developer. I don't think it makes much difference, but because obviously the developer here could shouldn't be the name, it could be that could change in the future. So I think applicant might be better because it'd be clearer, I think. Okay. So then on number five, that same intro, the applicant shall obtain from and then say after operator um in obligation to submit and get rid of shell. So just to clean up the rest of the sentence, we have to add a few words. So those are two suggested um edits in addition to the other red line. And again, not to forget you have to vote on the zoning first and then separately vote on the land development project. Okay, so as it relates to the zoning, do we have a motion to approve the zoning variants as requested? I'll make that motion. We approve as requested. With the condition. With the conditions. Is there a second motion and a second? Is there any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com