Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pippin Orchard Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer to return after clarifying access and easement issues at Pippin Orchard preapplication
Summary
Applicant for 1489 Pippin Orchard presented a preapplication to split one 5.7‑acre lot into two; staff and commissioners asked that the applicant secure legal rights to access the new lot and reconcile a discrepancy between subdivision and zoning definitions of usable area before filing a formal application.
An applicant seeking to subdivide 1489 Pippin Orchard Road told the Cranston Planning Commission that the project will return in amended form after staff and commissioners raised legal questions about access and how usable area is calculated.
Attorney Steven Antonucci said he appeared for the owner, Ted Rampini, and introduced engineer Jenna Shea to present an informal preapplication for a minor subdivision that would split an existing rear lot into two. Shea told the commission the property is about 5.7 acres in an 880 single‑family zone and that the proposal would meet dimensional setbacks and usable‑area thresholds but would need relief from the frontage requirement because both proposed lots would rely on an approximately 10‑foot wide gravel access drive in an undefined right‑of‑way.
"The only item that we would be requesting release from is the frontage requirement," Jenna Shea said, explaining that the parcel currently lacks frontage and is accessed by a private drive in an undefined right‑of‑way.
Commissioners and staff asked the applicant to confirm whether that drive is a public right‑of‑way or a recorded easement; several members stressed the board cannot approve a split if legal access is not secured. A board member told the applicant he should "secure an easement deed with description" allowing the access before the commission will consider a formal subdivision application.
Staff also flagged a discrepancy between subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance over how to calculate usable area—whether overhead utility easements are excluded or only wetlands are subtracted—and agreed to confirm the correct interpretation and provide guidance. The applicant agreed to obtain exhibits that overlay the prior approved plan and the proposed split so the commission can see where boundaries and open‑space calculations overlap.
Next steps: the applicant will return with an amended application that secures any necessary easement or property owner permission, provides the requested overlays and clarifies whether prior conditions of approval affect the proposed split. No formal application vote or variance was taken at this meeting.
