North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting – June 3, 2025: Harbor View Bond, Retaining Wall, and Buckaroo Creek Kennel
North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting – June 3, 2025
The Planning Commission convened at 5:00 PM for a work session on zoning ordinance amendments and at 7:00 PM for the regular meeting. The regular meeting included decisions on a subdivision variance, a surety reduction for the Harbor View development, discussion of a retaining wall modification, and public hearings for a proposed animal kennel (Buckaroo Creek). The Commission also approved several site visit minutes and administrative reports.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Harbor View (Surety Reduction): Several residents spoke against the bond reduction, citing unresolved issues: surface water runoff and erosion, improper construction of bioretention basins, missing driveway infiltration trenches, rock debris from Halls Rock, and blasting concerns. Scott Peace (28 Bowline Dr.) detailed specific deficiencies. David Fuquay (24 Bowline Dr.) described dangerous rockfall from Halls Rock and called for a geological study. Jamie (owner of Lot 12) reported sinkholes, unstable ground, and unfinished conditions. Maggie Stansfield (62 Halls Rockway) provided photographs of debris and erosion. Jackie LeVec (78 Halls Rockway) noted landscaping damages.
- Buckaroo Creek Kennel (3760 Quaker Lane): Ricky Thompson (194 Plain Road) expressed concern about nitrates from dog urine in the groundwater recharge area. Chris Carowana (North Kingstown Animal Hospital) asked about previous restrictions on expansion. Steve Briggs (Ali’s Tack and Feed) raised concerns about solid waste disposal and noise from 60–80 dogs.
Discussion Items
- 3A – Decision: RHC Properties LLC (Huckleberry Road Lot, 2-lot minor subdivision): The Commission discussed whether to include background language about alternative development possibilities. They decided to retain the language for context, citing the deed restriction waiving further subdivision and ADU rights. The Commission voted 6-0 to approve the zoning variances and 6-0 to approve the preliminary plan.
- 3B – Surety Reduction: Harbor View (Wickford Harbor Estates): Town Engineer Nicole explained that the bond had been over-reduced previously and that a reduction was not recommended. A punch list of 13 items (as-built certifications, bioretention basins, sidewalk edging, etc.) was presented. The developer (Mr. Donnelly) agreed to the list and committed to completing work within two weeks. The Commission opted not to approve a reduction; instead, they will monitor progress via administrative reports and schedule a future review. Public comments highlighted numerous deficiencies, including drainage, erosion, and missing infiltration trenches. The Commission also discussed whether driveway infiltration trenches are part of the subdivision bond or individual lot responsibility; staff will research previous notes.
- 3C – Discussion: Potential Modification to Harbor View Final Approved Plan (Retaining Wall): The retaining wall behind the Chamber of Commerce was built without approval. The developer’s engineer, Craig Kerrigan, provided stamped certifications of safety, but the former town engineer had unanswered questions. The Commission decided to move forward with a minor modification request, which will be reviewed by the Commission (not administratively). The developer will need to address outstanding questions during that review.
- 3D & 3E – Public Hearings: Buckaroo Creek Kennel (3760 Quaker Lane): The applicant proposed converting an existing building into a dog daycare/kennel with three outdoor play areas. The use is permitted by right in the General Business zone, but a special use permit is required due to the Groundwater Recharge overlay. The Commission heard testimony from the applicant’s attorney, engineer, and owner. Key points: new advanced denitrification septic system, no new impervious surfaces, three fenced play areas on pervious turf, sand under turf for filtration, rigorous cleaning and waste disposal plans, and noise mitigation strategies. The Commission requested a nitrogen loading calculation for dog urine, which will be reviewed administratively. The Commission made a positive consensus (6-0) on the special use permit and development plan review, subject to conditions including the nitrate analysis, maintenance of vegetative buffers, and annual stormwater catch basin reports. A formal decision will be prepared for a vote on June 17, 2025.
Key Outcomes
- 3A – RHC Properties: Zoning variances and preliminary plan approved (6-0). The decision includes a deed restriction limiting future subdivision and ADUs.
- 3B – Harbor View Surety: No bond reduction granted. The developer agreed to complete the 13-item punch list within two weeks. The Commission will review progress via administrative reports.
- 3C – Harbor View Retaining Wall: The Commission voted to process the retaining wall as a minor modification to the final approved plan. The modification will come back to the Commission for review.
- 3D/3E – Buckaroo Creek Kennel: Positive consensus (6-0) on both the special use permit and the combined preliminary/final development plan. Conditions include submission of a nitrate loading study for administrative review, use of approved cleaning products, annual stormwater reports, and noise mitigation. The formal written decision is expected to be voted on at the June 17, 2025 meeting.
- Minutes: Approved: April 18, 2025 site visit; May 9, 2025 site visit; May 20, 2025 regular meeting minutes (with correction of Rich Lipsitz’s name spelling).
Meeting Transcript
The first item we'll be hearing right now is item 3A, a decision, unified developmental review of the zoning variances and preliminary plan application of RHC properties, LLC, Post Office Box 482, Saunderstown, Rhode Island for Huckleberry Road lot, a two-lot minus subdivision to be located at 620 Drybridge Road. Cessus Platte 79, lot 37 in the village residential zone. This is continued from May 6, 2025. And we have the decision in front of us. You should all have a paper copy of it. I guess I I have a quick question. Okay. In the um page four in the background section, number 14 is a quick summary of the conversation that we all had here about that if the applicant was coming in with different uh requests, there could have been more units. And my question is whether that was part of our conversation, but is that um pertinent to the decision that we're being asked to render here and is it in the ordinance anywhere that we can look at that this is better than other things that could happen on the property. So this is your decision, right? You you direct us to draft the decision, but you can edit in any way. Um this is in the background portion, so this is your discussion, not necessarily your decision. Um if you feel that it's it's not necessary, you can always take it out if you feel that needs to be reordered. You can do what you will with it, but that's not these are not the findings. This is just the background from the discussion that you had. Yeah, I realize that. So I guess my question is that uh is there an ordinance somewhere that instructs us to look at other uses that the applicant could be asking for that same parcel. I I don't think it's as important that there were other options. I think the important part of that uh section is 14CI, which is the deed restriction that the applicant agreed to to waive any further subdivision of the lot and to give up the rights to any ADUs, which was going to control the overall density. That would be my my feeling why it's important to be there. That was something that the applicant agreed to on the record. And it would prevent um almost a doubling of or tripling of the amount of lot. I don't object to it being in the document. I don't think that we when we when we render our decision about the zoning and about the application, that we really I don't think it's in the ordinance that we should be looking at other possible ways that that same parcel could be developed if the applicant was asking for something else, which they weren't. I I think keeping the deed restriction is very important. Um I I don't know if the what the importance of the uh explanation above it is. I don't know what the other members' feelings are, but I wouldn't want to give up that future restriction. I mean, I I don't agree with it, but I have no problem with it staying in the document. The I mean portion of it. Obviously, I I mean I don't think it justifies the uh the decision, but I don't have a problem with it being in there as part of the what was considered. Okay. Steve, yeah, I'm fine with it. I'm I'm fine with it as well, too. I think that since I think having the backup discussion of how it got there explains, gives credence to why we have the deed restriction on there. That's why we came up with that decision. So I think that it's you know, and I think the public needs to understand, you know. What options are out there? I don't think it was giving the the developer any heads up. I mean, put it this way, they've been around a long time, and he he would have known that ahead of time anyway. So I don't think it's giving any trade secrets out. But I think that it sets it up. So that I just don't think we can base our decision based on the fact that uh that there could be ways to develop this parcel that allowed more units. Well, I don't think that we did that decision based on that. I think that what happened is is that we set it up, having that in there, so that the applicant would give up that right to have the ADAU. So we kind of headed things off at the pass. Um any other questions on the decision. Uh would anyone like to make a motion to approve the decision as written. I make a motion. We approve the decision as written. This is for the zoning relief.
openpublica.com