North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting – May 6, 2025

On May 6, 2025, the North Kingstown Planning Commission met at North Kingstown Town Hall for a 5:00 p.m. work session and a 7:00 p.m. regular meeting. The published work session agenda covered zoning and subdivision/land development regulation amendments and Comprehensive Plan implementation reporting. The regular meeting focused on the Sanctuary Estates roadway bond reduction and the Huckleberry Road Lot unified development review public hearing, and ended with approval of the April 15, 2025 minutes.

Sanctuary Estates – Carrs Lane Bond Reduction Discussion

• Project engineer Eric Prevy of DePrete Engineering stated that the Cars Lane pervious-pavement roadway is fully installed, is a private road governed by recorded HOA documents, and is not a town-maintained road. The applicant sought to move from the current 75% bond retention to a 90% release (10% retention) and begin the one-year maintenance period.
• Town Engineer and Deputy Director of Public Works Allie Sparks explained that the town’s main concern is sedimentation from nearby construction clogging the pervious pavement, which functions as the roadway’s stormwater system. She recommended requiring a contract for quarterly vacuuming/inspection and a recent inspection report before reducing the roadway bond item to 90%, plus evidence of seed growth and shoulder stabilization before reducing that item to 90%.
• The commission did not take a formal vote. Staff was directed to prepare a formal memo documenting the conditions needed to reach the 90% release threshold.

Unified Development Review – Huckleberry Road Lot

• RHC Properties LLC requested unified development review of zoning dimensional variances and a preliminary plan for a 2-lot minor subdivision at 620 Dry Bridge Road, Assessor’s Plat 079 Lot 037, zoned Village Residential (VR). The existing two-family dwelling counts as two deed-restricted low/moderate-income units toward the Sanctuary Estates affordable housing obligation; the proposal would create a third, an owner-occupied three-bedroom moderate-income home on a new lot.
• Dimensional variances requested included:
  • Lot area for the existing two-family lot: reduction from the required 40,000 sq ft. Staff cited the remaining lot at about 29,000 sq ft, while the applicant’s presentation said 25,950 sq ft; the discrepancy was not reconciled on the record.
  • Lot area for the proposed single-family lot: 14,061 sq ft proposed versus 20,000 sq ft required.
  • Lot frontage: 87.3 ft proposed versus 140 ft required.
  • Lot width: 89.19 ft proposed versus 140 ft required.
• Planning staff noted the site has no flood zone, wetlands, or groundwater issues; town water is available; and an approved on-site wastewater treatment system design exists. The town engineer recommended the project meet the 25-year storm event rather than the 100-year storm event.
• The applicant and attorney John Kupka argued the proposal fits the neighborhood context and provides needed affordable ownership housing. Attorney Kupka cited a projected sale price of roughly $380,000–$400,000 and state/HUD income guidelines of about $96,000 for one person, $110,000 for two people, and $123,000 for three people.
• Commission discussion included concerns that the hardship was self-created and that the relief may not meet the zoning variance criteria. Other members noted that the applicant could pursue by-right ADUs or a comprehensive permit producing more units, making this proposal a way to reduce potential intensity. The applicant volunteered to accept deed restrictions waiving future ADUs and further subdivision on both lots and to consider an administrative landscape buffer.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Glenn Ferguson, abutting lot 36, said he is directly impacted and was concerned about the 87.3-ft lot frontage versus the 140-ft requirement, septic system proximity, and increased development behind his property.
• Bob Phaneuf, lot 107, opposed the proposal, citing concerns about precedent for backyard subdivisions, loss of trees and quiet character, and soggy/drainage conditions near the property.
• David Remington, 84 Huckleberry Road, opposed the proposal as a bad precedent and a threat to the area’s open space and association common land.
• Lucy Poolin, property directly behind the site, opposed the proposal, citing loss of privacy, more traffic, impacts on her kids and animals, common-area insurance concerns, and the possibility of more backyard homes.
• Gary Smith, Dry Bridge Road, opposed the subdivision, saying it could create a snowball effect where many duplexes and corner lots split off backyard lots.
• Susan Woodard, 89 Huckleberry, asked whether the lot was chosen because the driveway would be on Huckleberry Road and raised concerns about common-area insurance, use, and future development.
• Richard Welch said state laws constrain the commission and that following the law protects the town from litigation and legal costs.
• John Jackman, 113 Huckleberry Road, opposed the proposal, saying he moved to North Kingstown for open space and that Huckleberry Road already preserves open space through its cluster development.

Key Outcomes

• Sanctuary Estates: No formal vote; the town engineer will issue a memo identifying steps to reach the 90% release: vacuuming contract, inspection report, and seed growth/stabilization.
• Huckleberry Road Lot:
  • Zoning relief: 4-2 consensus to grant the variances. Margaret Kerr and Patrick Roach recorded contrary findings, stating the hardship criterion was not met.
  • Inclusionary/off-site affordable housing findings: unanimous agreement.
  • Preliminary plan: 6-0 consensus to approve with conditions, including 25-year stormwater calculations, LMI deed restrictions and monitoring agent, deed restrictions waiving ADUs and further subdivision on both lots, and an administratively approved landscape buffer.
  • The formal decision and vote were continued to June 3, 2025.
• Minutes: The April 15, 2025 meeting minutes were approved with amendments noted by commissioners.