[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6616582,"mediaKeyId","2851688-3347230bd8707545bc600f80519f48f3","parentId",2851688,"title","Planning board approves checklist policy change and administrative items; refunds escrow and approves minutes","audioSeconds",183,"startMs",9259000,"endMs",9442000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2851688-3347230bd8707545bc600f80519f48f3&start=9259&end=9442","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2851688-3347230bd8707545bc600f80519f48f3/thumbnail_9259000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6616582/Tiverton/Newport-County/Rhode-Island/Planning-board-approves-checklist-policy-change-and-administrative-items-refunds-escrow-and-approves-minutes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616582-7b498e94f14a54c27fc8818b74adeeae/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165472&Signature=ooE0DyZxxmLEadhb00Xr1r5W1Vpy7gW~BETcJM34kAsFXM~Nnv8bOoarfm2mHxpCNtjMof~h3-7ueIisU-k5ZoV8q7ST006Sf5QY6S~UuQiFBGipkddZKgX8s6FMkyXFT3FJUsE2UDwDBvqHxMLZbUNdJh0VhJ~tpl3ajY5CAXOXEieEzjLyaG5I9RpnoqOqfKfHXy26Uejqt9CXHZAcdyf3tIXi-RRYncdPJyiLbuufhAma2JCW1znIApSp8iLSFxHk6KIPeRXH6Cb0iJH-C7z16tNhCe3ADF0~EIj8wJCbrDEnnhEZzN6-ZHbLb01cjMnxf0GJqDsZj82p1RTlTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Tiverton","date","2025-04-02T16:58:54.633Z","article","The Tiverton Planning Board handled multiple administrative actions at its April 1 meeting, including a policy clarification related to fire‑department checklist requirements, an escrow refund, and approval of minutes and meeting housekeeping items.

Fire‑department checklist policy: The board voted to interpret minor‑subdivision preliminary plan checklist item 49 so that a written confirmation from the fire department that water service has adequate volume and pressure is required for projects creating four or more units or lots; for proposals with fewer than four units or lots the administrative officer or planner may waive the checklist item. Tiverton Fire Marshal Captain Murphy explained the department typically reviews any development of more than three units/lots and said the policy should remain focused on larger projects; board members agreed the interpretation will reduce checklist obstacles for very small projects while reserving fire‑department review for larger developments.

Escrow refund: The board approved release of remaining escrow funds in the amount of $1,662.65 to the applicant Peter Brennan (1710 Eagleville Road) after staff confirmed recordation of required plans and completion of the project items. Planning staff recommended release; a motion was made and the refund was approved unanimously.

Minutes and procedural items: The board approved minutes from past meetings with a few editorial corrections and recorded one member’s abstention from the master plan vote earlier in the evening due to late receipt of material. The board directed planning staff to coordinate with the town council on pending state land‑use legislation and to schedule advertisements and hearings for forthcoming zoning/subdivision amendments and design standards revisions pending final language.

No controversial policy votes were taken beyond the checklist interpretation; the board instructed staff to draft a memo to the town council summarizing the board’s positions on several state bills of concern and to continue preparing the municipal design standards and zoning revision work for later public hearings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Tiverton Planning Board - April 1, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Tiverton Planning Board clarified a checklist requirement for fire‑department water confirmation (requiring it for projects of four or more units/lots and allowing staff waivers for smaller projects), approved an escrow refund and adopted minutes with corrections.","taxTitle","Tiverton, Newport County, Rhode Island","taxId",79581,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6616597,"Tiverton planning board approves master plan for 256‑unit 'Tiverton Commons' with 64 affordable units, 20 conditions",2202,180000,2382000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2851688-3347230bd8707545bc600f80519f48f3&start=180&end=2382","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2851688-3347230bd8707545bc600f80519f48f3/thumbnail_180000.jpg","/articles/6616597/Tiverton/Newport-County/Rhode-Island/Tiverton-planning-board-approves-master-plan-for-256unit-Tiverton-Commons-with-64-affordable-units-20-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616597-962edadd568109e037b3816a1e311cf1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165472&Signature=AfdgsmBeaRDjDPK6hrrTMnvgriLSWnXbgv8O2IUg448MqH4SpE6KNf~V6gahGQ16crb6RfVdK6n7GXtrQ0X9e4lJl8iTwMglYztFDMwSsYDR6L3VtJ-9ip4sabyvkfI9bdJ9Mtkv9faLNgaPOppbbf6tHVw8FJA5WGWfiN8e0kg0OZtaxdVV-nA0OwarKoKEfjZbp~fEtq7TfodGrF~7jjcPYl5WXyv~3xM7gPbJakFti2fycJj0Oirz12KJbg1Ihr7XZK4pQQYe1eCf~4XGY9Ndp6PyZlYIIxozm2P7p3tKiaqHAc4NMbl9YtsGWOi5Skiv8DoPeZTu-yPW-4GnyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Tiverton Planning Board voted to approve a comprehensive‑permit master plan for a 256‑unit apartment community called \"Tiverton Commons,\" with 64 units designated as low‑ and moderate‑income housing (25% of the total), subject to 20 conditions recommended by planning staff.

The applicant’s attorney, John Mancini, opened the applicant’s presentation to the board and told members the project was being submitted under state law: \"we are here pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws 45 53 4,\" and that the application had been the subject of multiple hearings and supplementary materials. Mancini said the team had provided additional experts, including engineer Molly Titus and consultant Edward Primantel, to address the statutory elements the board must consider for a comprehensive permit.

Why it matters: a comprehensive permit under state law allows a developer to seek waivers from local dimensional and subdivision rules in exchange for producing at least 25% affordable housing. The planning board’s approval advances this application to later review stages but attaches conditions intended to protect public health, safety and municipal infrastructure while ensuring the project meets state affordability thresholds.

Planner Susan Mara told the board staff had drafted findings of fact and a list of 20 conditions the board should require to make the required findings for master plan approval. Her memo cites the town’s comprehensive plan housing goals and concludes the board could find the project consistent with local needs if conditions are met. Mara said the record was still incomplete on a number of technical items and recommended conditions that include: submission of a hydraulic (water) model and verification with the relevant water districts and the fire marshal; an updated traffic analysis; architectural renderings and a labeled site plan identifying the location of all LMI units; stormwater design reviewed by the state Department of Environmental Management (DEM); preservation of stone walls where practicable; a community center height limit; and submission of a structural review to address nearby quarry blasting, among others.

Public concerns raised during the reopened public hearing focused on property boundaries, stormwater and traffic. Neighbor Jason Osborne told the board he had located a recorded lot‑line description he said shows the applicant’s plans \"attempt to annex about a half acre of my property,\" and asked the applicant to resolve the discrepancy before the project proceeded. Mancini responded that the applicant would \"stand by our survey\" and that any boundary dispute would be resolved but that he did not expect a few acres' difference to change the overall project.

On water and fire flow, the board and the applicant debated timing and responsibility for hydraulic modeling. Mara and the fire and water district representatives said an interconnected hydraulic model for Stonebridge Fire District and North Tiverton Fire District was necessary to assure adequate water pressure and fire flows across both systems; the applicant said it had performed localized fire flow tests and would submit an applicant‑level hydraulic model at preliminary plan but asked that tying that model into a Stonebridge district model be deferred if Stonebridge had not yet completed its system model. Board members agreed the joint modeling must be complete before any final approval, but accepted that the applicant could submit its model at preliminary plan and request a waiver from the application checklist if Stonebridge's model were not yet available.

On sidewalks, the applicant agreed to install internal sidewalks and the planner recommended sidewalks on Souza Road be required only as far as the adjacent VD property (rather than to Fish Road) unless the applicant demonstrates construction is physically or economically infeasible. On a proposed tower amenity, the applicant said it was not prepared to \"die on the tower,\" and several board members said they opposed the tower; the planner’s conditions include restrictions on the community center height and require more information before any tower would be approved.

After deliberations the board voted to approve the master plan with the staff's 20 conditions and the evening's agreed clarifications (including limiting the required Souza Road sidewalk to the VD parcel and specifying the primary entrance access). The board recorded two abstentions: one member said earlier in the evening they had not received key materials in time and chose to abstain; and Rosemary Eva specifically recorded an abstention. The approval advances the application to preliminary plan; the board emphasized this master plan approval does not guarantee final approval or building permits, which will require further detailed submissions and sign‑offs, including the joint hydraulic modeling and any required state permits.

The applicant and staff were instructed to return at preliminary plan with the technical items the board listed as conditions. The board also noted DEM will review stormwater so that runoff from the project should not be directed to neighboring properties.

Votes and follow‑up: the board made the master plan approval conditional on the planner's 20 conditions and the evening's refinements; the applicant may request checklist waivers for items that depend on third parties’ timing but final approvals will not be issued without the required hydraulic modeling and other conditions being satisfied.

What's next: the applicant will prepare the additional material identified in the conditions (hydraulic model, updated traffic study, architectural renderings, stormwater design) for review at preliminary plan and final plan stages. The board and staff stressed the requirement that LMI units be deed‑restricted and that state monitoring will be part of ensuring those units meet affordability rules.","The Tiverton Planning Board approved a comprehensive‑permit master plan for Tiverton Commons — a proposed 256‑unit apartment community with 64 affordable units — subject to 20 conditions intended to address water, traffic, sidewalks, historic features and other technical items.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6616587,"Planning board reviews concept for 3‑lot Bogomarsh Road subdivision; access and wetlands cited as key issues",803,7664000,8467000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2851688-3347230bd8707545bc600f80519f48f3&start=7664&end=8467","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2851688-3347230bd8707545bc600f80519f48f3/thumbnail_7664000.jpg","/articles/6616587/Tiverton/Newport-County/Rhode-Island/Planning-board-reviews-concept-for-3lot-Bogomarsh-Road-subdivision-access-and-wetlands-cited-as-key-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616587-2dfe998c6ee439d51e3a9c28920861c4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165472&Signature=Q6534xoxi2aGJWpk1cTe8MT3dp8Qj7AJSCZPvTJM2gRfMlkaVBpI96L-kDRLrMahpu-yT6mFBv1ICXH-T6eQyKSGVW9lCsmErpzx2Qo30ZZXuGZOdHywLQ2n1azN5JbmqGgW0CCJkwhH1v1OthsVGmn977spUoXak81Db8Q3v0wT0YWDcSFKBSYa8amg8YVh3nYNEcOhiMzuKSkxQfKvC5BGtxtXZAuG~5lDw2zOwf92Hga-E6AC7HqwUEKn-EGNh-QaP5szWccWPiccswWASiQmS2XtMh7ywvC~q5zJ4PUm5krMo-iP~7Qy0xDX75EuN-V5qDj3QaoYV-0h6onW9A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A by‑right concept plan to create three lots with primary dwellings and accessory dwelling units at 751 Bogomarsh Road drew board attention to access, wetlands and emergency access requirements.

The applicant team (counsel Dylan Conley and Millstone Engineering principal Jeffrey Hansen) described the proposal as a straightforward three‑lot subdivision designed to avoid the need for relief. Jeffrey Hansen said the roadway alignment and cul‑de‑sac were carried forward from earlier approvals on neighboring parcels and that the proposal was intended to meet by‑right standards.

Board members and staff raised two substantive concerns. First, several members noted historical ambiguity in recorded plans: an apparent road or reserved area at the cul‑de‑sac appears to be located on a neighboring parcel (identified in the town record as owned by Jessica Tolan), and board counsel and staff said the legal entitlement for access must be clarified. One member asked the applicant to provide the recorded plan sheets and easement documentation as part of a preliminary plan package, and the applicant agreed to include those materials in the formal submission.

Second, the fire marshal (Captain Murphy) advised that because the length of the proposed street from Mary Lane to the cul‑de‑sac is roughly 200 feet, the roadway and turnaround must meet the department’s turning‑radius requirements for the ladder truck, and additional hydrants or hydrant extensions may be required to assure adequate fire protection. The applicant noted hydrants exist on Mary Lane and said they will coordinate water and hydrant requirements if moving to preliminary plan.

Board members also asked the applicant to reconsider a building located closest to Bogomarsh Road and its curb cut: while a prior curb cut appears to exist there, members expressed concern about sight distance on Bogomarsh Road and the intensity of traffic and suggested moving that lot’s access into the new cul‑de‑sac if wetlands permit. Staff reminded the applicant the property is in the mapped watershed/shoreline overlay (proximity to perennial tributaries and wetlands must be checked) and that wetland setbacks and conservation standards will control disturbance.

The board did not vote on the concept; the applicant was told to supply recorded subdivision plans, deed/easement records for the shown access, more precise setback and wetland mapping and confirmation from the water authority and fire department on hydrants and turning radii if the project proceeds to preliminary plan.","A developer presented a by‑right concept to subdivide a property on Bogomarsh Road into three lots each with an accessory dwelling unit. The board raised questions about deeded access from Mary Lane, cul‑de‑sac turning radii and proximity to mapped wetlands and the Stafford Pond watershed overlay.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6616592,"Longplex expansion concept reviewed: ice rinks, indoor/outdoor golf bays, car storage and hotel proposed at Timberland Industrial Park",1338,4173000,5511000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2851688-3347230bd8707545bc600f80519f48f3&start=4173&end=5511","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2851688-3347230bd8707545bc600f80519f48f3/thumbnail_4173000.jpg","/articles/6616592/Tiverton/Newport-County/Rhode-Island/Longplex-expansion-concept-reviewed-ice-rinks-indooroutdoor-golf-bays-car-storage-and-hotel-proposed-at-Timberland-Industrial-Park","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616592-82bffa81ee95f3be7afe084d8b2ed00e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165472&Signature=oAFmfmhVJqjfN4JN1DHkV8Qcqrpw6U6iE4dr6CpFi9RDhhwI3hfCFydgDnbrbfuJ7mXiupasBoVYlAnGfhm2GcbQ8J2daWm3gPq11ioMIJ9eQs~i2mHsBd48DUfozHeplL~64cmY-tmdbHBVVVgVIAv3AxBBvQsSWUtC42wC5f0UiU96wPQlC9OvXDNGNCgpIv-yM2IF2LsA-264VyMev4IwsUzC-MUma2S6Md2xmqr0dD1lbzupXCOPA1Vrl1bpXXT04BkR1oGZO36hXJ7qZgkZX8mtpaGvbA5DAW2ThM6Cv9k8Xpv4KEu~husQY81mmYQzRv6vYltCk5pKyNV1ZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Developers seeking to expand the Longplex family of facilities presented a concept plan for three coordinated projects in the Timberland Industrial Park: a “street legal” car storage and display building, a 99,000‑square‑foot recreation complex with two ice rinks, a 12‑court pickleball area, indoor and outdoor golf driving bays, and restaurant/bleacher seating; and a 20‑room, three‑story hotel.

Attorney for the applicants (Riley Legal/representative) described the submission as a pre‑application presentation for three separate but adjacent parcels, each proposed to advance on a separate timeline. Engineer Chris Duhamel (DePrit/Depreet Engineering) walked the board through conceptual site plans, parking counts and building programs. Owner/developer James Long explained the intended uses: a private car‑storage club and showroom with member amenities and display space, a large recreational “ice house” intended to attract tournaments with locker rooms and 1,000 spectator seats, and a hotel to serve events and visiting teams.

Board concerns focused on circulation and parking. Several members and staff said Industrial Way and Progress Road already experience heavy traffic during events at Longplex and urged the applicants to present detailed traffic mitigation measures and a plan for safe pedestrian connections and internal circulation. The applicants said they had begun talks with the Rhode Island Department of Transportation and Tiverton police about restoring a traffic signal and managing ingress/egress, and that internal sidewalks and circulation improvements would be part of future submissions. The board recommended applicants consider shuttle service or direct pedestrian connections between the proposed hotel and the recreational buildings to reduce vehicle trips.

On water and sewage, the applicants said they have identified public water and sewer proximate to the industrial park and have submitted domestic demand estimates to the municipal water authority; staff noted large daytime demand because of restaurant and spectator uses plus separate water use for rink construction and resurfacing. The board asked the applicants to confirm the water demand calculations, including the substantial one‑time fill volume and recurring resurfacing water needs for each ice surface.

Other topics discussed included building height, visual impacts of driving‑range netting and poles, lighting design (dark‑sky‑compliant fixtures suggested), the potential for solar arrays and EV charging, low‑impact pervious parking for overflow lots, and preservation of stone walls and other site features. The applicant said Longplex structures were designed to support rooftop solar and that state financing or incentives would be needed to make large installations feasible.

The board did not take any votes on the concept; members generally expressed support for the concept while asking for more detailed traffic, parking, water and stormwater analysis before formal applications (administrative subdivision, site plan, PDP/rezoning items where applicable) are filed. The applicant said the priority is the ice facility and the applicant is trying to coordinate timing to meet commitments from potential tenants (colleges and sports programs). The board noted any approvals will need to account for parking permanence and recorded access if overflow parking will be shared across lots under separate ownership.","Developers presented a concept plan for three related projects at the Timberland Industrial Park — a 29,000‑sq ft car storage and display building, a 99,000‑sq ft recreation complex with two ice rinks and 12 pickleball courts, and a 20‑room hotel — and received board comments on traffic, parking, lighting, stormwater and site design.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board approves checklist policy change and administrative items; refunds escrow and approves minutes

Tiverton planning board approves master plan for 256‑unit 'Tiverton Commons' with 64 affordable units, 20 conditions

Planning board reviews concept for 3‑lot Bogomarsh Road subdivision; access and wetlands cited as key issues

Longplex expansion concept reviewed: ice rinks, indoor/outdoor golf bays, car storage and hotel proposed at Timberland Industrial Park