Charlestown Planning Commission members heard a pre‑application presentation on May 28 for a proposed 158‑unit, age‑restricted (55+) community on Ross Hill Road that would set aside 25% (about 40 units) as low‑ and moderate‑income housing and would be reviewed under the state comprehensive permit statute.

The developer’s attorney, John Mancini, said he represented the owner and that the submission was made "pursuant to the state statute. Brown general law is 45, 45 53 1, which was the comprehensive permit statute," and described the filing as a conceptual, pre‑application step rather than a request for a vote. Town planner Sean Henry told commissioners the memorandum he supplied flagged several outstanding technical issues, "I think the most pressing of which for me is, it's not clear whether the roads were proposed to be private or public." No formal approvals were requested or taken at the meeting.

Why it matters: The project is on an about‑80‑acre parcel (assessor's plat referenced in the presentation) that has seen prior proposals, including a 22‑lot conservation cluster and a 416‑unit multifamily plan. The developer said Rhode Island Housing has issued a letter of eligibility and that the application will rely on various state approvals for wells, septic and wetlands. Neighbors said the site’s recent extractive activity and ongoing gravel operations already have produced noise, dust and groundwater stress in the area and pressed the town and developer for more environmental and water‑availability analysis before any approvals.

Proposal and required studies
The developer described the current concept as 158 detached single‑family dwellings, age‑restricted to 55 and over, arranged as condominium units with common ownership of land and shared infrastructure. The team told the commission the homes would be largely two‑bedroom units and that septic and potable water would be provided by clustered, shared systems rather than individual on‑lot septic or municipal water. Mancini said the roads are being proposed as private and that the septic systems will be "grouped" to serve clusters of units rather than each home having its own leach field.

The applicant said it will present a preliminary plan and supporting studies at later stages, including a traffic study, an economic and a fiscal impact analysis and the engineering needed for septic and well permitting. Mancini said the development will seek to meet the density bonuses and other criteria set out under the comprehensive permit law, and that the applicant will "demonstrate to the board a preliminary plan all of the elements necessary for the issuance of a comprehensive permit." The team said it has already completed wetlands delineation and soil testing in areas and that the parcel’s developable acreage was calculated in two ways: the applicant cited a figure of roughly 64.33 acres suitable for development (after exclusions) and said that, by state calculation, that area could yield up to about 192 units; the applicant is proposing 158.

Public‑safety, utilities and environmental issues raised
During the nearly three‑hour public comment period and the commission’s technical questions, recurring concerns included groundwater quantity and quality, the effects of years of quarrying and excavation on site soils and contours, septic and well design, wildlife and forest fragmentation, single‑point access, and the impact of condominium fees on low‑ and moderate‑income (LMI) buyers.

• Water and wells: Multiple residents described falling water levels in private wells and localized streams. One resident, Neil Williamson, said, "The average US citizen uses a 100 gallons of water a day," and urged the commission and developer to study system capacity and whether on‑site wells can supply projected demand without harming nearby wells and surface water. The applicant acknowledged the need for comprehensive hydrogeologic study and said drinking water wells and system layout will be determined in preliminary engineering and reviewed by the State Department of Health.

• Septic systems: The applicant clarified that the units would be served by shared/semi‑centralized on‑site wastewater systems owned and maintained by the condominium association. Mancini said those septic systems would be sized and sited based on bedroom counts and that the association—not individual homeowners—would own and manage the systems. Commission and public speakers pressed how shared systems would be protected from misuse and how special assessments or failures might affect lower‑income owners.

• Quarry/excavation remediation and site stability: The parcel includes an active/previous gravel pit and areas of recent excavation. Enrico DeGregorio, who identified himself while answering technical questions, said the looped area near existing excavation ‘‘is the area that we're going to build and remediate the same Landscape.'' Residents described ongoing dust, truck traffic and blasting and asked when excavation would stop and how the site would be reshaped for housing.

• Forest and habitat: Commissioners noted the parcel is largely part of a larger unfragmented forest and a climate corridor; at least one commissioner said much of the site contributes to a cold‑water fishery and should be protected from fragmentation. The commission asked the applicant to clarify open‑space calculations and to show active versus passive open space on future plans (the transcript records discussion about a 15% active open‑space minimum and references to a 60% open‑space requirement in local standards).

• Access and emergency services: Residents and staff asked for clarity on access—one speaker, Stephanie Billingson, told the commission she could "only see 1 way in and 1 way out in this development. And I think that's not good for safety." The fire marshal will review fire suppression and may require cisterns or other measures; the developer agreed to coordinate early with fire officials.

Regulatory framework and next steps
The applicant said the project is being proposed under the state comprehensive permit statute (identified in the meeting as R.I. General Laws 45‑53‑1) and that the review path differs from a conventional major land development application: some state approvals (wetlands, on‑site wastewater permits, well permits) can be pursued in parallel or later in the process. The applicant told the commission it will submit a preliminary plan and associated permitting materials before a final application and that, at final plan, it expects to have DEM/DOH approvals as required.

Town staff told the commission the applicant will need to provide clearer calculations of developable acreage, identify any infrastructure easements (including public wells or well‑protection areas), and indicate whether any zoning relief or variances would be requested (the commission noted local zoning treats condominium development as multifamily for buffer rules and that a 100‑foot buffer from property lines for multifamily uses is in the zoning ordinance). The planner flagged the need for clarity on whether roads will be private or public and recommended the applicant prepare the technical documentation now so the commission and reviewing agencies can evaluate environmental impacts and service capacity.

Public engagement and timing
Monday’s pre‑application meeting drew lengthy public comment from dozens of nearby residents across multiple neighborhoods (addresses were given on the record). Speakers requested peer review of hydrology and water‑supply analyses, asked for durable remediation and landscaping conditions, and urged early discussion of condo governance, reserves and deed restrictions intended to preserve the affordability of LMI units. Several residents urged the commission to require protections so affordable units are not lost through foreclosure or resale.

Commissioner and staff direction: the commission and staff asked the applicant to provide more detailed preliminary materials and signaled they would schedule a site visit; the transcript records the parties agreed to try to arrange a site walk within about 30–45 days and that the applicant expects to submit preliminary plans in the coming months. Staff also noted the commission may request peer review (at applicant expense, where permitted by regulation) for technical studies, particularly hydrology and water‑supply capacity.

Process note: This was a pre‑application conference; pre‑application sessions are for discussion only and do not carry votes on the merits of a project. Earlier routine votes at the meeting included unanimous approval of minutes and a procedural motion for the commission to sit as the local review board for the LMI review process.

What commissioners and next steps said they want to see
The commission asked the applicant to return with: clearer mapping of developable and excluded acres; a wetlands/wetland‑buffer plan stamped by the project biologist; septic and well preliminary designs sufficient to allow DEM and DOH review; traffic and fiscal/ economic impact studies; and draft condominium and deed restriction language that explains how LMI units will be monitored and protected. Staff said it may request peer review on water and septic design and will collect additional public comments for the record.

The developer repeated that the project team expects the work to be a multi‑year buildout and said it will return with preliminary plans and the studies needed under state law. The commission did not act on the project at this meeting.

Ending
The commission and applicant agreed to coordinate a site visit in the coming weeks and continue technical review. Residents, staff and commissioners said they would submit additional written comments to the planner for inclusion in the public record and asked that peer review be considered for water and environmental studies.