North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 2026
North Kingstown Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 2026
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.
Public Comments & Testimony
- 6758 Post Road and 6828 Post Road: No public testimony was recorded on these items; the decisions were based on continued hearings from July 21, 2026.
- 344 Tower Hill Road (MVC Quick Lube): Several residents spoke, raising concerns about traffic safety, pedestrian access, and the character of the area. Susan Murphy (569 Annaquatucket Road) questioned the location of a crosswalk and the potential for increased traffic using the middle school to turn around. David Wren (21 Loop Drive) opposed the project, citing traffic dangers and noting that people would likely turn around in driveways. Peter Crooker (131 Ten Rod Road) questioned whether a quick lube fit the character of the village. George Brennan (70 Boone Street) opposed, stating the site is a poor fit and better suited for a four-lane highway. Richard Welch (8 Arrow Lane) supported the development, noting the site has been vacant and that the Shell station across the street handles more traffic with fewer restrictions. James Murphy (569 Annaquatucket Road) echoed safety concerns about school children and pedestrians. Another speaker (unidentified) noted the need for development and argued the use would generate less traffic than alternatives.
- Gooseneck Vineyards: Christopher Joyce (140 Village Hill Lane, homeowners association president) opposed the secondary access road, stating it was built without permission, nearly caused accidents, and that residents were not properly notified. Joe Gibblin (Shady Lee homeowner) also opposed, noting the road is narrow and blind, and that the proposal inconsistently mentioned valet and deliveries.
Discussion Items
- 6758 Post Road Multi-Family Development (Items 3A & 3B): The commission considered a unified development review for zoning relief and master/preliminary plan for 10 residential units at 6758 Post Road. The applicant sought a variance from ground floor use restrictions to allow adaptive reuse of a long-vacant structure. The commission found the hardship due to unique site characteristics (wetlands, steep slopes, OWTS) and that the variance would not alter the general character of the area. The master/preliminary plan was approved with four conditions, including affordable housing documentation and coordination with the school department.
- 6828 Post Road Development (Items 3C & 3D): The project involves adaptive reuse of an existing building into 12 units and new construction of 5 units for a total of 17 units. No zoning relief was needed. During the discussion, Commissioner Borowick noted an error in the findings regarding the building being "long vacant"; the applicant testified one commercial tenant remained. The commission corrected the finding and approved the master/preliminary plan with six conditions, including water modeling and low-wall lighting for walkways.
- 344 Tower Hill Road Pre-Application (Item 3E): The Mount Vernon Company presented a pre-application for a three-bay quick lube (MVC Quick Lube) on a corner lot zoned Neighborhood Business. Planning staff (Becky) outlined challenges: the site previously had denied applications for a coffee shop, requires parking at side/rear, and may need variances for drive-through standards. The applicant discussed traffic: 50 cars per day average, peak hour trips of 9-15. The commission expressed concerns about traffic circulation, especially the inability to make left turns and potential for vehicles to use nearby streets to turn around. Commissioner Roach noted the difficulty for southbound drivers to access the site. Commissioner Donohoe raised safety issues with slip lanes and pedestrians near the middle school. The applicant acknowledged the challenges and indicated they may seek other locations. No vote was taken; the item was for feedback only.
- Gooseneck Vineyards Modification (Item 3F): The applicant sought approval for a 30x62 foot deck with retractable pergola and removable glass sides (48 additional seats) and a secondary access road off Shady Lee Road for deliveries and valet use. The commission had concerns about the access road: Commissioner McCue noted that conditions from a prior approval (preserving stone walls) had not been followed and that the road was built without permits. Commissioner Donohoe and Chairman Lipsitz opposed the road due to traffic and scenic overlay criteria. After discussion, the applicant withdrew the request for the secondary access road to avoid a denial and a one-year waiting period. The deck/pergola portion was approved with findings under development plan review, groundwater recharge, and scenic overlay standards, with conditions that event and lounge seating not be used simultaneously and stormwater calculations verified at building permit.
Key Outcomes
- 6758 Post Road: Approved zoning relief (variance) and master/preliminary plan for 10 residential units. Motion passed unanimously (all ayes). Conditions include affordable housing documents, coordination with school department, and recording of operations manual.
- 6828 Post Road: Approved master/preliminary plan for 17 residential units (12 adaptive reuse, 5 new construction). Motion passed unanimously after correcting finding about vacancy. Conditions include water modeling approval, low-wall lighting consideration, and recording of O&M procedures.
- 344 Tower Hill Road: No decision. Pre-application discussion concluded; applicant to consider feedback and may return with a modified proposal.
- Gooseneck Vineyards: Approved the deck/pergola modification (48 seats) with conditions. The secondary access road request was withdrawn; applicant may resubmit after obtaining proper permits and addressing stone wall restoration and traffic analysis. Motion to approve the deck/pergola passed unanimously.
Meeting Transcript
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?
openpublica.com