North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - December 16, 2025
North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - December 16, 2025
The meeting was held at Town Hall at 6:30 PM. The commission reviewed three major items: two pre-applications for major land developments (The Edge townhouses and Greene Farm agricultural center) and a potential modification to the Harbor View final approved plan regarding a retaining wall built without approval. The meeting concluded with approval of the December 2, 2025 minutes and a motion to adjourn.
Pre-application: The Edge Townhouses (Moran Properties)
- Proposal: A 66-unit comprehensive permit major land development with 25% low/moderate income units (17 units), asking for adjustments on density (11.4 units/acre vs. 10), first-floor commercial requirement, and average bedroom count (2.3 vs. 2.25).
- Discussion: Staff (Becky) presented the project, noting the design merges two previous applications. The applicant (Peter Rogero, attorney; Steve Moran, developer; Jeff Hansen, engineer) explained the project is roughly half the units of a previously approved plan and will be built in phases. Three access points are proposed. Parking (147 spaces) exceeds the requirement (86). Internal sidewalks are not initially proposed, but commissioners encouraged connecting pathways to Devil's Foot Road sidewalks and accommodating school bus stops. The three-bedroom units are intended to meet market demand.
- Public Comment: Richard Welch (8 Arrow Lane) asked about the town's affordable housing percentage; staff noted it is just over 9%.
- Key Outcome: The commission provided feedback and directed the applicant to work with staff on sidewalk connectivity, bus stop location, and parking lot lighting before the next stage.
Pre-application: Greene Farm Agricultural Center (84 & 100 Pleasant Valley Road)
- Proposal: A major land development for an agricultural retail center (18,252 sq ft total) including indoor/outdoor sales of soil products (bagged and bulk), a barn, storage garage, material bins, and a professional office. The property is in a groundwater recharge area. No variances are requested at this time, but a potential setback waiver for a dry well and a landscaping shade requirement waiver may be needed.
- Discussion: Staff (Becky) highlighted the history of zoning changes and groundwater protections. The applicant (John Mancini, attorney; Kevin Morin, engineer) described operations: materials are manufactured off-site (Coventry and Quonset) and brought for sale. They propose to improve Pleasant Valley Road, which is in poor condition. Parking (34 spaces) exceeds requirements (9). Testing of material safety data sheets was discussed; staff noted the water department would review. The applicant agreed to provide data sheets.
- Public Comment: Ricky Thompson (194 Plain Road) expressed concerns about groundwater contamination, recalling past denials of similar businesses in the recharge area. He urged caution.
- Key Outcome: The commission directed the applicant to include road improvement plans in the next application, provide material safety data sheets, and clarify equipment fueling and storage. The applicant will return for a combined master/preliminary plan stage.
Potential Modification to Harbor View Approved Plan - Retaining Wall (Bowline Drive)
- Background: A retaining wall was built on the Harbor View subdivision without planning board approval. The wall, constructed of dry-stacked stone (rockery), is about 9–10 feet high and supports yards for three homes. The developer (Tony Fiori) and his engineer (Craig Carrigan) assert the wall is stable. The town engineer (Allie Sparks) and commission members expressed concern about lack of documentation, unknown construction details, and potential liability.
- Discussion: Attorney Robert Donnelly and Engineer Carrigan stated the wall has stood for over five years without movement, and failure would have occurred quickly. Carrigan conceded that no formal inspection reports or data exist; his opinion is based on observation and experience. Commisioner Tracy McCue expressed frustration that the wall was built without approval and called it “bad behavior.” Commissioner Joe Donohoe noted the wall does not meet standard design criteria (e.g., geotextile fabric, drainage). Allie Sparks suggested non-destructive evaluation (LIDAR, ground-penetrating radar) as an alternative to full removal. The commission debated next steps: the developer may submit a modification application or the town could require enforcement.
- Public Comment: Woody P. (28 Bowline Drive) argued that if the wall were to fail, homeowners' insurance would not cover ground movement, and that the contractor (Scott Zervgian) had performed poorly on other subdivision work (bioretention basins). Kyle Gilroy (27 Bowline Drive), a first-time homebuyer and affordable housing unit resident with a toddler, expressed shock and concern about the wall's impact on her property; she had just spent $15,000 on a fence atop the wall.
- Key Outcome: The commission directed the developer to work with town staff and attorney to resolve the issue. Options include submission of a modification request with supporting data (e.g., LIDAR) or third-party review. The town may explore professional engineering evaluation if the developer does not act. The commission expects resolution within a few months.
Administrative Actions & Minutes
- Administrative Actions Report: None reported.
- Minutes: The December 2, 2025 minutes were approved (motion, second, all in favor).
- Adjournment: The meeting adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2026 (with a continued cannabis decision).
Meeting Transcript
Meeting of the Planning Commission. Pursuant to RIGL 42466C. Notices been posted on the Secretary of State's website. We'll move on to general business item 3A is a pre-application submission of Moran Properties LLC for a 66 unit. Major land development comprehensive permit pre-application submission, known as the Edge Townhouse Development, located off Devil's Foot Road. On Assessors Plat 147. Lots 30, 34, 37, 67, 68, and 79. And assessor's plat 181, lots 13 and 28 in the post-road zone. For those that have not been here before, this is a pre-application, not a public hearing. Okay, thanks, Rich. Again, I'm not going to repeat the platinum lot for the application before you, but it is a pre-application comprehensive permit major land development project. The property probably looks familiar to you guys. The applicant has been before you for two separate applications. One was the edge. I think I can't remember the number of units. I'll let the applicant address that if necessary. But he got preliminary stage review for the previous edge application, and then he did a pre-application for 165 Namcook. So now this application before you tonight is combining all of those lots starting fresh with a totally new design concept. So generally the you'll be familiar with the property, but it is a new design concept. And as most of you know, um, the comprehensive permit process allows for a more streamlined review process whereby the planning commission can grant both any adjustments from the zoning ordinance as well as the major land development project application. Um as you've seen in the past, we do consider these um land development applications when they are comprehensive permits. Um in order to qualify um as a comp permit, they have to have provide 25% of low MOD units, which they are. They're proposing um 66 units total with 17 of those being low and moderate income deed restricted. Uh they are proposing several buildings on the property um multifamily with six sixplex units buildings for 36 units, one five plex, which is five units, four quadplexes, which will be sixteen units, and then three triplex for nine, again totaling out at that sixty-six and the post-road zone. Um you're allowed 10 units per acre with 20 percent affordable. Again, this is a comp permit. They're proposing 25% affordable, and they are asking for an adjustment on the density which um to have 11.4 units per acre. Again, having that five percent more low mod and a little bit more density seems reasonable for this application, especially considering they're gonna have water and sewer um capabilities for the site. Um let's see. Um speaking of adjustments, in addition to the density adjustment, they are asking for an adjustment on the first floor commercial requirement within 400 feet of post-road. You've seen this one before as well. Typically for other applications, um, we've kind of had an inclination to look at the corridor as a whole. So if one site cannot include commercial on the first floor, there's a lot of commercial in this area and in the corridor, and we kind of take a more comprehensive approach on reviewing that first floor commercial requirement. And then the third adjustment is on the average bedroom count. Um it's 2.25 for the post-road district. This is slightly over at 2.3. So the applicant can um either add that as an adjustment or if they wanted to reduce, take one unit out. Again, they have options. It's pre-app, they'll get better direction from you. Their design concepts may change and they can address um whether they want to move forward at with a little bit of an adjustment from that or reduce the number of units. There are a few um buildings on the property now. The applicant intends to raise all the buildings and start from scratch. You might recall also from the previous applications that the little lot that used to be the state right-of-way that they've obtained has no zoning or comprehensive land use designation. The town will be the ones to address that, not the applicant. That was discussed during a previous during the edge application master plan. Um let's see. And yep, I already have gone over the history. It's um generally consistent with a comp plan. Obviously, it's gonna provide a range of housing options in keeping with town character and having a diversity diversification at the housing stock. This does include some three bedroom units, which we have not seen lately.
openpublica.com