Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues Highlands at Hopkins Hill preliminary plan after drainage, HOA and traffic questions
Summary
DT Homes’ preliminary plan for 66 detached condominiums in the Highlands at Hopkins Hill drew detailed engineering and traffic review, public concern about stormwater maintenance and mailboxes, and a discussion of a proposed peer review. The commission continued the public hearing to June 25 to allow follow‑up work with town staff.
The Coventry Planning Commission on May 20 heard a public hearing presentation on the Highlands at Hopkins Hill, a proposed 66‑unit detached‑condominium development by DT Homes (the project owner purchased lots out of receivership). The commission continued the public hearing to June 25 to allow further coordination between the applicant and town staff on drainage and related technical comments.
The applicant’s attorney, Joelle Rocha, said the project is the final phase of the Center of New England (CNE) Highlands development and is vested under a 2003 master plan; a receivership consent order and prior approvals allow development in this area. Engineer Greg Guglielmo (Dupree Engineering) presented site conditions and a plan that largely follows the earlier approved roadway and unit layout. The 14‑acre site sits within the larger Highlands development and would rely on existing sewer and water infrastructure (Kent County Water service) and two points of access: the primary access via Dante Boulevard and a secondary access toward Stephanie Drive.
Guglielmo described drainage work done to comply with a consent order and to bring water quality to current standards: the project received a RIDEM permit on Jan. 15, 2025, and includes proprietary pretreatment units (described in the presentation as “jellyfish” filters made by ConTec) placed ahead of the existing ponds so sediment and pollutants are removed before water reaches the ponds. The engineering team reported soils testing, infiltrometer tests, and revisions to drainage details to meet contemporary RIDEM standards; they said the measures permit accounting for infiltration that was not allowed under the original 2007 design and improve long‑term pond performance if maintained.
Traffic engineer Paul Bannon (Crossman Engineering) summarized a traffic evaluation and noted this project was included as background growth in a larger traffic study covering portions of the CNE development; he said the site‑specific impacts are small (the applicant’s estimate equated to roughly 16 AM and 32 PM peak trips using site‑specific rates) and that broader, regional traffic infrastructure work remains a townwide planning question. Staff and the commission discussed a staff proposal to obtain an independent peer review of the project’s traffic study (a quoted peer‑review cost estimate of $5,300 was discussed). Following testimony and discussion, the commission indicated it would not require a project‑specific peer review at this time but requested additional coordination between the applicant and town engineering on drainage details. Staff noted that peer review remains a tool the town will use for larger or cumulative projects in the area.
Multiple public commenters — including Michelle Sheehan Pimentel, president of the Highlands condominium association, and other area residents — asked how stormwater maintenance would be handled after construction. The homeowner representatives said the existing Highlands association already performs sweeping, landscaping and pond maintenance and that the applicant intends to join the Highlands condominium association; DuBois (applicant’s representative) said he had discussed mailbox accommodations with the post office and expected to add boxes at the existing Dante Boulevard kiosk. Several speakers urged the commission and applicant to ensure clear legal and budgetary commitments for maintenance of filters, ponds and street sweeping so pretreatment systems remain effective and do not degrade downstream drainage.
Commissioner Stuttley recused himself from consideration of this application; the hearing remained quorate. The commission voted to continue the public hearing to the June 25 meeting to allow staff and the applicant to resolve technical questions around stormwater design, maintenance language to be included in condo/HOA documents, and other details.
No final approvals were granted at the May 20 meeting; the project remains under review and the record remains open for additional technical materials and any updated legal documents regarding HOA/maintenance responsibilities.
