Middletown planning board approves preliminary plan and sign variances for combined middle–high school campus

The Middletown Planning Board voted to grant preliminary plan approval for a proposed combined middle–high school on the Gaudet Middle School campus and approved the applicant’s requested zoning relief for additional signage, the board said at a special meeting.

Town solicitor Peter Regan, representing the Town of Middletown, told the board the project team was asking the board “to approve the preliminary plan subject to the receipt of those state permits and any other conditions that you want to impose.” Regan said the town’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) had reviewed the submission and “unanimously gave it a favorable recommendation.”

Board members and the applicant spent most of the meeting reviewing changes to site engineering, stormwater design, signage and exterior building materials since the plan’s master-plan review in November. The application covers two lots on Aquidneck Avenue (tax assessor’s plat 113, lots 199 and 199A) for construction of a single building to serve two schools, associated parking, landscaping and related site work.

Civil engineer Steve Garvin of Samiote’s Consultants described revisions requested by state and town reviewers. Garvin said the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) asked for additional water-quality treatment for the stormwater system; the design team is preparing revised calculations and expects to obtain DEM approval after resubmission. Garvin also noted minor Department of Transportation (DOT) comments that the team is addressing.

Architect Matt LaRue reviewed changes to exterior materials, saying the design now uses four concrete masonry-unit colors to break up the building massing. LaRue said site lighting specifications have been revised so parking poles are no taller than 20 feet and color temperature will be no cooler than 3,000 Kelvin to comply with town standards.

The application requested multiple sign variances from Town Code Chapter 152, Article 12 (Signs): relief from Section 12.08 to allow roof-mounted signs where those are prohibited; relief under Section 12.12(b)(2) and (4) to allow six total signs where three are normally permitted; and relief under Section 12.12(d)(1)(a) to allow larger monument and building-mounted signs than the ordinance allows. The requested sizes listed in the plan submission included two entry monument signs of roughly 48 square feet and 5 feet 6 inches tall (where ordinance limits are smaller), two single-business monument signs of about 52 and 47 square feet, and two building-mounted letter-signs of about 77 and 74 square feet (where 32 square feet is the standard allowance).

LaRue said the team had designed the roof-edge letter signs to identify each school entrance and argued those signs function like wall-mounted identity signs because they are placed at the lower roof edge adjacent to building entrances. He described the signs as externally lit and not internally illuminated.

Several planning board members and staff pressed the project team to try to place identification signs on wall surfaces where feasible and to prefer dark-sky–compliant lighting. The board discussed limiting the hours signage lighting may operate. The applicant agreed to investigate downlighting or dark-sky-compliant alternatives and to consider operational limits.

After discussion the board voted to grant the requested variance to allow roof-mounted signs (Section 12.08) and to grant the other sign relief requests (Section 12.12 items) with conditions. The board’s conditions included a requirement that the project team make a good-faith effort to mount signs on walls where feasible, evaluate downlighting/dark-sky options, and adopt an operational lighting limit for the identification signs (default off at 9:00 p.m. unless there is an authorized event, in which case lights may remain on until 30 minutes after the event closes).

The board then voted to grant preliminary plan approval subject to conditions recommended by the TRC and additional conditions agreed during the meeting. The written conditions recorded by staff and read into the record include: - Final review and approval of the stormwater management plan by the town engineer (responding in part to DEM’s request for additional water-quality treatment). - Approval of the sewer-connection design by the Department of Public Works director. - Receipt of required state permits (DEM and DOT) prior to issuance of building permits. - Continued coordination with the Tree Commission and the Roads and Utilities Committee; the applicant will incorporate recommendations from those bodies “to the extent feasible.”

Planning staff and the applicant told the board that several waivers and variances (including parking-count and building-footprint waivers) were already granted at the master-plan stage and are not part of this preliminary-plan vote. The project team said rooftop screening for mechanical equipment was considered earlier; the board was told rooftop screening had been reviewed at master-plan stage and that screening remains an add alternate the town may fund if available in final bids.

Members of the public raised concerns during the hearing. Thomas Silvera, a resident, said: “My biggest concern is that the middle school had a very big moisture problem, and we’re building a $200,000,000 school on a spot with the same moisture problem.” The design team responded that the new building will include modern perimeter foundation drains, under-slab drainage and waterproofing measures and that the site has undergone extensive subsurface testing.

Other public comments focused on tree placement in courtyards, the long-term maintenance burden of large trees near buildings, and the historical name of the school. The landscape architect, Steve D’Ambrosio, said the team had met with the Tree Commission and incorporated most recommendations; he said courtyard plantings were being selected to provide winter structure (including evergreen material) while avoiding species that are difficult to source or inappropriate for tight spaces. The team also described a planned school garden adjacent to the auditorium and said athletic-field upgrades (football and baseball/softball) are ad alternates to be considered depending on final budget and bidding results.

On utility and resilience questions, the architect said the new building is being designed to function as an emergency shelter for the town’s needs: the base project includes a generator to serve gymnasium and adjacent shelter spaces and the building will be all-electric; backup generators will be diesel-powered (applicants and staff said natural-gas–fired emergency generators are not permitted in Rhode Island). The Federal Aviation Administration reviewed building heights and did not require aviation safety lighting, the team said.

The board closed the public hearing and approved the zoning relief and preliminary-plan motions with the conditions noted above. The approvals were granted subject to the written TRC conditions and the additional conditions about signage, lighting hours and further coordination with town advisory bodies. The project team said it expects to address the remaining DEM and DOT comments and obtain those permits before building permits are issued.

The board’s approvals allow the project to move into final-design and permitting steps; several construction items (including rooftop screening and athletic-field upgrades) remain dependent on final bid prices and funding decisions.