Ordinance committee denies Caraway Drive rezoning after residents and planning commission oppose change

The Cranston City Council Ordinance Committee voted to deny a proposed rezoning of parcels off Caraway Drive in the Alpine Estates area that would have changed land from A80 to A20. The committee acted after extended public comment and a unanimous 5–0 negative recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Residents of Alpine Estates mounted sustained opposition at the committee meeting, citing traffic safety concerns from a single entrance and exit, existing flooding and high water tables in parts of the neighborhood, school capacity questions, and the risk that approving one rezoning would create a precedent for additional rezoning requests.

The committee’s vote to deny was taken after a motion to deny was made and seconded; roll call produced the following results: Councilman Campiano — yes; Councilman Bonanno — yes; Councilwoman Graziano — yes; Councilwoman Haroyan — yes; Council Vice President Wall — yes; Councilman Andujar — yes. The motion to deny the ordinance therefore passed on a unanimous vote of the members present.

Why it matters: Rezoning would alter density and potential lot yields and may change municipal service demands (roads, stormwater, schools). Planning’s negative recommendation and the committee’s denial keep the parcels designated A80 under current zoning, preserving lower-density development expectations for the neighborhood.

Public comment and planning findings

About a dozen residents spoke against the rezoning during public comment. Common themes included: Alpine Estates already contains roughly 370–400 homes served by a single entrance and exit; residents described recurring basement flooding and local stormwater problems; speakers said Orchard Farms Elementary (and other neighborhood schools) face capacity pressures; and speakers noted the recently updated comprehensive plan did not include these parcels for rezoning.

Gary DeRaimo, a resident who addressed the committee, summarized the Planning Commission action: "The city plan commission voted 5 to 0 to forward a negative recommendation on the ordinance to the city council," he said, adding that neighbors had argued safety, traffic and consistency with the comprehensive plan.

Applicant and expert statements

An attorney for the applicant, Amarico Spencio, confirmed on the record that his client did not represent the proposal as an "affordable housing" project. Planning consultant Edward Pimentel, who submitted a report for the applicant, emphasized the applicant’s reliance on an earlier comprehensive plan designation and state law governing reliance on a municipality’s future land use map.

Committee discussion and concerns

Several council members cited infrastructure and environmental concerns as reasons to deny or to weigh the planning commission recommendation heavily. Councilwoman Graziano said she was "severely concerned about the sewer capacity" and the lack of infiltration/inflow testing and information on water pressure for firefighting. Other council members echoed concerns about stormwater, the high water table, and traffic safety on a neighborhood with a single egress point.

The committee also noted that the planning commission’s negative recommendation and the recent comprehensive plan update counseled against the rezoning. A representative of the mayor’s office asked the committee to support neighbors and oppose the rezoning.

Outcome and next steps

With the committee’s formal denial, the ordinance will not move forward as proposed. The vote preserves the parcels’ A80 designation; property owners retain the ability to develop under existing zoning. Applicants may revise plans or submit new petitions, but any future application would need to address the infrastructure, stormwater, school capacity and traffic concerns raised at the hearings.

Public records and claims to verify

Speakers made several factual claims during public comment about school capacity and costs (for example, references to recent school construction budgets). Those figures were presented by residents as part of testimony; the committee’s action rested on planning commission findings and local infrastructure considerations rather than on verified city-wide fiscal projections.