Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 2026

Planning Commission — Tuesday, April 7, 2026

BodyNorth Kingstown, Rhode Island

SessionPlanning Commission

DateTuesday, April 7, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 2:21:26

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

0:00

Pursuant to RIGL 42466C.

0:05

Notice of this meeting has been posted on the Secretary of State's website.

0:11

General Business Item 3A is a public hearing discussion, preliminary plan application of Wickford Schoolhouse LLC for the Schoolhouse condominiums at Academy Cove, a 39 unit major land development project located at 99 Phillips Street, also known as Assessors Plat 116, Lot 109, Zone Wickford Village Center, WVC.

0:36

Continued from March 17th, 2026.

0:42

Hi.

0:43

Hi.

0:44

Good evening.

0:46

We have the draft decisions ready for you for tonight.

0:49

We can start with the first one on the agenda is the um major one.

0:54

So everyone has a copy.

0:56

You're also emailed a copy.

0:57

We have one comment that we received on it so far, which was from Meg that on page 10 we used uh master plan instead of preliminary on the second line of findings of fact.

1:09

That's an easy fix.

1:10

Um and then we did receive correspondence from Amy Saunder that's included.

1:16

If it's not at your table, it was emailed to you directly from her uh yesterday or today.

1:23

With that, the decision is in front of you.

1:25

If you want to take a couple minutes to make sure that you are comfortable with what's written, and then um James, in the past couple ones we've had them speak the findings of fact.

1:34

Do you want him to do the same?

1:36

We'll do.

1:37

Um did everybody have a chance to look at this when it was emailed, and any comments, corrections, changes on pages five through the top part of ten before we get to the findings of fact.

1:56

Meg anything?

1:57

No.

1:59

Nope.

2:00

Okay.

2:00

I'll start reading.

2:04

Discuss what came in from Amy.

2:06

Uh, certainly, yeah.

2:07

I would like to do that.

2:09

Um ahead.

2:17

We got we got a letter.

2:18

I think most of what I've read here was brought up at the public hearing in public comment.

2:22

It was brought up, but it's not in the decision.

2:24

The part that wasn't, but I'm just asking whether we can talk about it and whether we have any thoughts about it.

2:29

First of all, I think it's unfair because the applicant isn't here and he already went through the preliminary through this whole hearing to go over this again.

2:36

It was discussed.

2:37

Amy had come up and talked about that.

2:39

The path was discussed, the parking was discussed, Mr.

2:43

Robot.

2:43

I went up there and explained about CRNC.

2:46

I'm not um in favor of bringing this up.

2:49

I don't think I don't know.

2:50

James, can you tell me on a legal standing?

2:52

I mean, you can impose conditions still on the applicant depending on what you decide to do.

2:58

I mean, the decision is not rendered yet.

3:00

Um the public hearings heard, but you guys are the deciders, so you can make the decisions how you feel it fits the findings of facts and the law.

3:10

So depending on your vote and your consensus, uh, you can add or take away things theoretically.

3:19

Uh Tracy, as I recall, we did discuss all these things, and we just asked that the applicant work with planning when this gets the final to address some of these.

3:30

Should that be incorporated into the findings of fact or the conditions?

3:34

I don't think I don't think it needs to.

3:36

We just asked them to work with it.

3:38

I don't think we made it a condition.

3:40

At least the consensus was we didn't give them a condition about removing parking places or some of the other things that you brought up here.

3:47

If the applicant decides to do it for cost reasons, good neighbor reasons, or they decide not to do it because they have good reasons not to, I think that's something they can work with the planning department.

4:00

But I think I can go through the findings of fact and the conditions that we have in the in here, and if we want to add some or discuss some when we get to it, I think that might be the way to do it.

4:12

No, I think I have a problem.

4:14

Personally, I think that this sets a precedence so that it comes back.

4:18

I I just just have a bad situation with that.

4:22

Start to, you know, once we write a decision that we turn around and now we're gonna pluck things in here.

4:28

Well, I didn't say we were.

4:29

I said James said we can discuss the kind of leaning towards that, and I believe it's a draft.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Zoning Ordinance█████████████████████████████████████████████47%

Engineering And Infrastructure██████████████████19%

Public Engagement██████████████15%

Procedural██████████10%

Transportation Safety███3%

Environmental Protection██2%

Affordable Housing█1%

Historic Preservation█1%

Water And Wastewater Management█1%

Summary of Proceedings

North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 2026

The North Kingstown Planning Commission held a regular meeting on April 7, 2026, at 6:30 PM at Town Hall. The primary actions included approval of the preliminary plan for a 34-unit condominium project (Schoolhouse Condominiums at Academy Cove) and a related minor subdivision, and a continued public hearing for a proposed mini-storage facility on Ten Rod Road, where the applicant was asked to revise the plan to eliminate a dimensional variance request.

Public Comments & Testimony

Michael Murnick (177 Rodman Lane): Expressed concern about the visual impact, construction noise, light pollution, stormwater runoff, and potential pests from the proposed mini-storage facility. Requested sufficient landscaping and screening.
David Darlington (24 Rodman Lane): Questioned the accuracy of site plan depictions, the placement of driveway access, potential future use for car storage with bathroom facilities, and hours of operation. Expressed concern about headlights and noise.
Peter Hayes (161 Rodman Lane): Asked about building setbacks, the 25-foot landscape buffer, fencing, and specific plantings. Questioned building height relative to Rodman Lane and signage.
Paulette C. Slack (192 Rodman Lane): Objected due to past clearing of mature trees that eliminated her property's buffer. Asked for immediate tall landscaping.

Discussion Items

3a & 3b: Schoolhouse Condominiums and Minor Subdivision – The commission reviewed a draft decision for the preliminary plan of a 34-unit (reduced from 39) major land development project at 99 Phillips Street, involving adaptive reuse of a historic school building. Correspondence from Amy Saunder raised concerns about parking, pathways, and CRMC modifications, but the commission concluded these had been fully addressed at the prior public hearing. After reading findings of fact and 20 conditions, the commission unanimously approved the preliminary plan and the related 3-lot minor subdivision (reconfiguring lot lines for the schoolhouse, library, and playground).
3c & 3d: 915 Ten Rod Road Mini-Storage Facility – Staff presented the unified development review for three 16,000 sq. ft. mini-storage buildings (48 units total) on a 5.14-acre parcel in the General Business zone, also within Groundwater Recharge and Scenic overlay districts. The applicant requested a dimensional variance to exceed the maximum 50,000 sq. ft. ground floor area (proposed total 51,927 sq. ft. including existing structures). Commissioners expressed concern that the variance was self-created (could remove existing barns to meet the limit) and indicated they could not support granting relief. The applicant’s engineer and owner (Richard Storti) stated they could demolish two existing barns to bring the total under 50,000 sq. ft., removing the need for a variance. Additional discussion covered stormwater management, lighting, landscaping buffers, hours of operation, and enforcement of storage-only use.
Administrative Actions Report – No items.
Approval of Minutes – The minutes of March 17, 2026 were approved unanimously.

Key Outcomes

Schoolhouse Condominiums Preliminary Plan (3a): Approved unanimously (voice vote) with 20 conditions, including provision of 4 low-to-moderate income units (10% of total), coordination with CRMC, preservation easement for stone wall, and shared parking arrangements.
Minor Subdivision (3b): Approved unanimously (voice vote), creating three lots for the schoolhouse, playground, and library uses.
915 Ten Rod Road Mini-Storage (3c/3d): Public hearing continued to May 5, 2026, date certain. The applicant was directed to return with a revised plan that either eliminates the dimensional variance (by removing existing barns) or provides further justification. Staff will also clarify groundwater overlay restrictions on fuel storage and tenant change procedures.

Meeting Transcript

Pursuant to RIGL 42466C. Notice of this meeting has been posted on the Secretary of State's website. General Business Item 3A is a public hearing discussion, preliminary plan application of Wickford Schoolhouse LLC for the Schoolhouse condominiums at Academy Cove, a 39 unit major land development project located at 99 Phillips Street, also known as Assessors Plat 116, Lot 109, Zone Wickford Village Center, WVC. Continued from March 17th, 2026. Hi. Hi. Good evening. We have the draft decisions ready for you for tonight. We can start with the first one on the agenda is the um major one. So everyone has a copy. You're also emailed a copy. We have one comment that we received on it so far, which was from Meg that on page 10 we used uh master plan instead of preliminary on the second line of findings of fact. That's an easy fix. Um and then we did receive correspondence from Amy Saunder that's included. If it's not at your table, it was emailed to you directly from her uh yesterday or today. With that, the decision is in front of you. If you want to take a couple minutes to make sure that you are comfortable with what's written, and then um James, in the past couple ones we've had them speak the findings of fact. Do you want him to do the same? We'll do. Um did everybody have a chance to look at this when it was emailed, and any comments, corrections, changes on pages five through the top part of ten before we get to the findings of fact. Meg anything? No. Nope. Okay. I'll start reading. Discuss what came in from Amy. Uh, certainly, yeah. I would like to do that. Um ahead. We got we got a letter. I think most of what I've read here was brought up at the public hearing in public comment. It was brought up, but it's not in the decision. The part that wasn't, but I'm just asking whether we can talk about it and whether we have any thoughts about it. First of all, I think it's unfair because the applicant isn't here and he already went through the preliminary through this whole hearing to go over this again. It was discussed. Amy had come up and talked about that. The path was discussed, the parking was discussed, Mr. Robot. I went up there and explained about CRNC. I'm not um in favor of bringing this up. I don't think I don't know. James, can you tell me on a legal standing? I mean, you can impose conditions still on the applicant depending on what you decide to do. I mean, the decision is not rendered yet. Um the public hearings heard, but you guys are the deciders, so you can make the decisions how you feel it fits the findings of facts and the law. So depending on your vote and your consensus, uh, you can add or take away things theoretically. Uh Tracy, as I recall, we did discuss all these things, and we just asked that the applicant work with planning when this gets the final to address some of these. Should that be incorporated into the findings of fact or the conditions? I don't think I don't think it needs to. We just asked them to work with it.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com