The North Kingstown Planning Commission met on August 4, 2026, at 6:30 PM at Town Hall to consider several development applications. The meeting included decisions on two major land development projects by Patriot Builders Incorporated, a pre-application submission for a quick lube facility, and a development plan review modification for Gooseneck Vineyards. Public comments were heard on the quick lube proposal and the vineyard access road. The commission approved the Patriot Builders projects and the vineyard deck/pergola, while the applicant withdrew the request for a secondary access road at the vineyard.
RIGL 42466C Notice of the meeting has been posted on the Secretary of State's website. General Business Items 3A is a decision public hearing of the unified development review for the zoning relief requested of Patriot Builders Incorporated for a major land development project known as 6758 Post Road, multifamily development for 10 residential units at property located at 675 6758 Post Road, Assessors Plat 146 Lot 39, Zone Post Road continued from July 21st, 26. I would entertain a motion to open the public hearing. I'll make a motion to open public hearing. I have a second. All in favor? I did you do B also? I mean, three. I didn't do B, but you can do them together, it's one decision. Okay. And then we can do 3C and 3D together. It's one decision. We need two votes on each only first. Which are it's already in the decision. Gotcha. Okay. 3B, then, which is going to go along with 3A is a unified development review for the master and preliminary plan application of Patriot Builders Incorporated for a major land development project known as major land development 6758 post road multifamily development for 10 residential units at property located at 6758 Post Road, Assessors Plat 146 Lot 39, Zodan Post Road, continued from the 721 26 Planning Commission meeting. Did everybody get a chance to go through the decision that was emailed to us? Any comments, concerns? Changes. I know we did get uh at least one piece of correspondence today on this, and I think Becky can just put it in the file with the record. I don't have any comments on it. Yep, and it was emailed emailed to you, and I think Corey put it in the packet that you got tonight. So now I get to start reading for you, folks that have never been here before. Um for the zoning relief, the applicant is seeking a variance from 21-94 B1 ground for ground floor uses, which states ground floor uses in the post road district shall be restricted according to the following provisions. Ground floor uses in any structure located within 400 feet of arterial and collector roads shall be limited to non-residential units, with the exception of the following. I'm not going to go on with B because that talks about local roads, which this is not on, correct, Becky? And we don't have any private way in this one. And in C goes on is how that is measured. Um the Planning Commission grants the requested zoning relief based on the following findings of fact. One, the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not general characteristics of the surrounding area, and is not due to a physical or economic disability of the applicant. The applicant will utilize the existing building and provide an adaptive reuse of a long vacant structure. Without relief, the applicant would have to move the building. Two, the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant. The applicant is utilizing an existing building that was constructed long before the applicant owned the property. Three, the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of this chapter or the comprehensive plan upon which this chapter is based. The site is zone post-roads, which allows for high density multifamily use. The applicant is approving the site with a reuse of an existing vacant structure and addition of landscaping. Four, in granting the dimensional variance, the hardship suffered by the owner and the of the subject property if the dimensional variance is not granted amounts to a more than a mere inconvenience, meaning meaning that the relief sought is minimal to a reasonable enjoyment of the permitted use to which the property is proposed to be devoted. The fact that the use may be more profitable or that a structure may be more valuable after the relief is granted shall not be grounds for relief. It would be more than a mere inconvenience to have to move the building. The location of the wetlands, the OWTS, and the steep slopes would limit the ability to recode the building on site. There is one condition on this approval that all construction is done in constrict conformance with the materials reviewed and testimony provided at the June 16, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, unless minor modifications are approved administratively by the planning department. Do you want to vote on that, or you just want us to do both at all? No, you can I mean you can do them separately. Would entertain a motion to approve the zoning relief. I'll make a motion to approve the zoning relief. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?