North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2026
North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2026
The North Kingstown Planning Commission met on May 5, 2026, to consider a preliminary plan for the Franklin Commons 66-unit residential project and a unified development review for a ministorage facility at 915 Ten Rod Road. The commission also approved minutes and heard an administrative report.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Franklin Commons (Item 3a): An abutting property owner, Mr. Crockett, testified about several concerns. He stated that recorded deeds show his property has a deeded easement for access and maintenance of a carport encroaching on the applicant's land, contrary to the developer's earlier claim of encroachment. He raised issues regarding blasting (asking for site-specific vibration thresholds and real-time monitoring), stormwater management (a proposed infiltration system 15 feet from his building, a retaining wall that would direct water toward his foundation, and a sedimentation basin placed uphill), roadway placement near his elderly tenants, and lighting. He emphasized that he is not opposed to the project but expects the easement and access issues to be addressed.
- Franklin Commons – Applicant's Response: The applicant's attorney objected to the timing of Mr. Crockett's testimony, stating that these issues were raised and addressed at prior hearings (master plan and preliminary plan). He submitted an exhibit showing a recorded termination of the first easement (for septic/propane) and argued the remaining easement is limited to maintaining the carport, not driveway access. He displayed a rendering showing ample access to the carport. The applicant's executive director, Jeff Swanson, also commented that the carport appears accessible.
- 915 Ten Rod Road (Items 3b/3c): After new information (landscaping changes, easement clarifications) was presented, the commission reopened public comment, but no members of the public spoke.
Discussion Items
- Franklin Commons – Decision and Conditions: The commission reviewed a draft decision with redline edits incorporating commissioner comments. Edits included clarifying that the defeasible easement is already extinguished, rephrasing a water quality statement to reflect maintaining pre-development levels, specifying maximum lighting fixture height (15 feet), clarifying energy code requirements, adding that the 42-unit affordable housing count exceeds requirements, and adding language about working with the conservancy. The commission agreed to include the current affordable housing percentage (9.01% based on 2024 data). A motion to approve the preliminary plan with 18 conditions was made and seconded; the commission voted unanimously in favor.
- 915 Ten Rod Road – Staff Clarifications and Updates: Staff reported that the requested dimensional variance for 50,000 square foot maximum ground floor area was determined to be inapplicable (the ordinance applies per structure, not per site). The groundwater overlay concern about gasoline storage was addressed: the water director was comfortable because fuel would remain inside vehicles and no floor drains are proposed. The applicant's engineer, Michael Zavalia, updated that the DEM RIPDES permit would not require modification due to the switch from public to private wells. A dimension from the northern building to Rodman Lane (173 feet) and to the nearest house (159 feet) was provided.
- 915 Ten Rod Road – Landscaping Enhancements: Landscape architect Kevin Alverson presented revised plans that increased evergreen and shrub buffering along residential abutments, removed a fence portion (at the abutter's preference), extended the buffer along the access road, and filled gaps. The design aims to make the facility not visible from Ten Rod Road, which was noted as beneficial for the scenic overlay district.
- 915 Ten Rod Road – Findings and Conditions: Commissioner Roach led a review of development plan criteria (Section 21284), groundwater overlay criteria (Section 21186), and scenic overlay criteria (Section 21189). He found the project consistent with each. Staff recommended 10 conditions, including vegetative buffer maintenance, stormwater plan recording, adherence to groundwater ordinance, no floor drains, submission of legal documents, coordination with utility and emergency services, no vehicle maintenance or hazardous storage, and administrative approval of minor landscaping changes. The commission discussed and favored the project, noting the applicant's cooperation with neighbors.
- Motion to Continue: Commissioner McCue moved to continue the public hearing for the 915 Ten Rod Road application to June 2, 2026, to allow time for the written decision. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Key Outcomes
- Franklin Commons (Item 3a): The commission approved the preliminary plan comprehensive permit for Franklin Commons, a 66-unit residential project at 7259 Post Road, with 18 conditions as amended during the meeting. The vote was unanimous.
- 915 Ten Rod Road (Items 3b/3c): The public hearing was continued to June 2, 2026. No final decision was made; the commission will reconvene to approve a written decision based on the findings discussed.
- Administrative Actions: The manager reported approval of a road abandonment plan and associated land swap in the Allen Harbor Road area.
- Minutes: The minutes from the April 21, 2026 meeting were approved unanimously.
Meeting Transcript
Professional witness type status. That's all. Yeah, and I would just for the record, I would I would object to Mr. Crockett being identified. Yeah. Sorry. Uh Brett Yadley, Chase Rottenberg, and Friedman on behalf of the applicant. Um I would object to Mr. Crockett being identified as an expert. Um to the timeliness. The the public hearing on the presentation was last month, and it's at that time we would have been able to assess Mr. Crockett's credentials. It it doesn't fit in to the purpose of tonight's hearing, which is a public hearing on the decision itself. And James, I I agree. If extensive resume, yeah, I think the board can take your knowledge for what you present to us, but I think recognize you as an expert would be beyond. Totally fair. Again, I'm not here to argue that point or just again present that knowledge to the board for information. All right. Um, with all of that in mind, and again, excluding what we just talked about, um, I'm just here to follow up on a couple points. Mostly what we talked about last time. I'm not bringing in any significant new information except one major detail, um, and it clarifies something that uh the developing party said last time. So first and foremost, uh, with respect to the shared frontage of the property, we have confirmed through recorded land evidence that our property benefits from deeded use of the developer's land. Last time they specifically said that we are encroaching on their property, which per the recorded deeds available through the town. That doesn't appear to be the case. Uh they actually have an encumbrance on their property. That's uh an easement for us. Excuse me. Before you get off that point, do you have a copy of that? I do have three copies of it. Yes. One again, I have it in triplicate, one for file and then two to pass around. Or one for as well. So again, uh that DD's Ded Easement does permit the existing carport encroachment and it provides access onto the adjacent lot for the purpose of specifically maintaining, repairing, and replacing that structure. From a practical standpoint, that driveways and that circulation pattern are the only functional means of egress for those rights. Based on the current plan, it's still not clear to us that the roadway layout preserves sufficient clearance to maintain that access or accommodate the working space necessary to utilize the easement or replace the building. The subdivision of those parcels clearly relied on the use of the recorded easement to accommodate existing conditions and site constraints. The condition was formally incorporated into the land records, and is part of how those lots were configured to operate. Moving on to my next point, blasting. Last time we did quickly talk about some of the requirements for blasting, and we were told by the developer that they would meet minimum state requirements, and I do truly believe that they will do their best to do that under their construction means and methods. But those are just construction minimum standards that are set. Again, I would ask whether design is considered site-specific factors such as anticipated peak particle velocity at our foundation, potential prop uh potential fracture propagation within the ledge, and whether a project-specific vibration threshold has been established based on structural sensitivity of our building. In addition to the bleak preplast, excuse me, pre-blast survey that we talked about last time. I'm just curious if any real-time vibration monitoring with trigger thresholds and contingency provisions if those thresholds are exceeded are at all considered in this design. Third, stormwater management and groundwater. This is something I also talked about last time. The proposed infiltration system on that plan is 15 feet from our building, if not closer. 15 feet. I want to understand the system's performance under reduced infiltration conditions, such as partial clogging, seasonal groundwater variation, and what overflow or failure pathway would be considered in those scenarios. Again, I can no longer testify as an expert witness. I know you guys presented some hydraulic calculations previously.
openpublica.com