Ordinance committee rejects rezoning request for Caraway Drive parcels after residents and planning commission oppose change

The Cranston ordinance committee on Feb. 13 voted to deny a proposed amendment to Chapter 17.84 of the city zoning code that would have changed certain parcels on and near Caraway Drive from A80 (larger-lot residential) to A20 (smaller-lot residential). The committee’s roll-call vote was unanimous in favor of denying the rezoning application.

Residents from Alpine Estates and surrounding cul-de-sacs spoke at length during public comment, urging the committee to reject the change. Gary DeRaimo, who said approximately 370 Alpine Estates homes share a single entrance, argued rezoning would set a precedent and increase neighborhood traffic and school demand. “The reasons cited included primary safety,” DeRaimo told the committee, citing traffic, single egress and the neighborhood’s layout.

Speakers repeated concerns aired at last week’s planning commission hearing, which forwarded a negative recommendation by a 5–0 vote. Residents cited school capacity at Orchard Farms/Gladstone, traffic congestion at the neighborhood’s lone entrance (Scituate Avenue/Comstock Parkway), flooding and high groundwater in the area, and loss of rural character. Several speakers noted the most recent comprehensive plan update did not retain the rezoning recommendation for these parcels.

Attorney Amarico Spencio, speaking for the applicant (property owner Margaret Scoralia), and consultant Edward Pimentel addressed the committee. Pimentel said the application was not being presented as an affordable-housing development; he described the filing as consistent with the city’s prior future land-use guidance and broader housing policy work. “This is not going to be affordable housing,” Pimentel said in clarification during the hearing.

Council members cited planning commission guidance and residents’ testimony in explaining their votes. Several councilors raised infrastructure concerns: Councilwoman Graziano emphasized sewer capacity, infiltration/inflow testing and stormwater and wetland impacts; Councilman Gamboa cited high groundwater and repeated basement flooding examples from neighbors. Council President Marino, unable to attend, submitted a statement opposing the rezoning that the solicitor read into the record.

A motion to deny the ordinance was placed on the floor and seconded by Councilor Campiano; the committee then voted by roll call: Councilor Campiano — yes; Councilor Bonanno — yes; Councilwoman Graziano — yes; Councilwoman Haroyan — yes; Council Vice President Wall — yes; Councilman Andujar — yes. The motion carried, leaving the parcels at their existing A80 designation.

Planning staff materials and the planning commission memo, submitted into the record during the meeting, noted the commission’s negative recommendation and outlined traffic, school and environmental concerns. The mayor’s office, according to the solicitor, also communicated opposition to the rezoning.

The denial preserves the existing A80 zoning on the parcels at issue. Committee members did not adopt an alternative rezoning or set conditions that would allow development at the A20 density; the applicant may pursue development consistent with existing A80 zoning or return with revised materials. The record shows strong neighborhood opposition and planning commission and administrative staff caution toward the change.