Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Providence Planning Board approves 0 Victoria Ave variance with erosion‑control and landscaping conditions
Summary
The North Providence Planning Board approved an application for 0 Victoria Ave with conditions requiring an 18-by-40 erosion-control pad, retention of a gravel area as unimproved, and planting of arborvitae along the corner, the board said.
The North Providence Planning Board approved an application for 0 Victoria Ave, imposing conditions that include an 18-by-40 erosion-control pad, retention of a gravel area as unimproved, and planting arborvitae along a corner of the lot.
Board action came after a nearby resident questioned the site plan’s drainage and landscaping. The resident told the board the erosion-control pad shown on the plans runs diagonally from the corner of their fence to a neighbor’s fence and asked that the paved road stop at that fence line so the stone and proposed erosion control remain at the corner.
Planning board members discussed drainage measures shown on the submitted plans. A board member noted the plan includes two basins: one at the front that will overflow via a swale along the left (north) side of the property and a second basin at the rear that will overflow through a riprap area once it fills. The board recorded that the grading plan is intended to retain stormwater on site and that the planning office had no objection to the proposed drainage controls. An engineer for the applicant was noted as not present at the meeting.
The board attached two explicit conditions to its approval: that the gravel area remain unimproved and that the requested plantings (arborvitae) be provided along the corner between the resident’s fence and the neighbor’s fence. Planning board member Paul Pizzi made the motion to approve; Ken Scott seconded. The board voted in favor and the chair declared "the ayes have it." The board noted that a written decision will be issued when ready and that the applicant may proceed with building‑permit steps after that decision is finalized.
The discussion on 0 Victoria Ave focused on site drainage and neighborhood interface rather than changes to the lot’s overall layout. The transcript shows the applicant’s representative (identified in the record as Mr. Bacala/Bacalar) provided the plans; the engineer was not present to answer technical questions. The board did not identify any other outstanding requirements at the time of the vote.
