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

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.