Charlestown planners review Carolina Farms pre-application; neighbors press for groundwater, buffer and study requirements

Developers seeking a comprehensive permit for Carolina Farms presented the project to the Charlestown Planning Commission on Nov. 20, saying they had reduced density following technical review and would provide required engineering studies before a formal submittal.

James Callahan of Callahan & Callahan, representing Michael and Jonathan Kent, introduced the proposal and identified the applicant’s team, including engineer Sam Hemmerway. Hemmerway described the roughly 30-acre parcel abutting the Sprague (preserve) area and outlined two alternatives the team explored to reduce unit counts: separating clustered units and setting aside a passive-recreation parcel. "We are very early in this process," Hemmerway said, and the team told the commission it had trimmed one cul-de-sac and associated units to move from about 83 units toward 72 under the town’s net-usable-area calculation.

The plan calls for a mix of single-level 2-bedroom, 2-bath units and two-level 3-bedroom, 2-bath units; the applicant said 20% of units would target low- and moderate-income households under the statutory program. The developer estimated condominium fees of about $275 per month and suggested market-rate sale prices in the mid-$500,000 range, while acknowledging Rhode Island Housing pricing tools would determine final affordable-unit prices.

Residents and commissioners focused much of the discussion on water and wastewater: private wells and septic systems serve the area. Dan Delaney, an abutter, asked, "What is the guarantee that it won't go dry?" and urged the commission and developer to quantify impacts. Hemmerway and the applicant said hydrology, groundwater modeling and septic permitting through the state Department of Environmental Management would be required and that the project could not proceed if those approvals could not be obtained.

Neighbors also raised the town's 100-foot landscape buffer requirement and recounted prior litigation protecting abutters' buffer rights. Commissioners asked the applicant to show exact buffer dimensions and whether replanting or markers would delineate the preserve edge. The applicant said it would "look at" maintaining a 100-foot buffer where possible and would provide CAD depictions showing buffer lines.

Other topics the commission asked the applicant to provide before a preliminary submittal included a conventional yield plan showing what the parcel could accommodate under existing zoning, a calculation of open/undisturbed common space, a soils and groundwater study, a traffic engineering report, plans showing which wells and septic systems would serve specific structures, parking counts tied to bedroom numbers, and photometric/lighting plans. Commissioners also discussed access and emergency ingress; the developer said they are amenable to a single primary entrance with a gravel, emergency-only secondary access if fire and life-safety authorities approve.

Several residents asked about ownership and long-term protections for affordable units; the applicant confirmed a purchase-and-sale agreement is contingent on approval and explained the development would operate under condominium (association) governance, with the developer managing common systems until residents assume control after sufficient unit sales. Applicant representatives said the economics of a comprehensive permit with required affordable units requires higher density to remain financially viable without large state or federal subsidies.

No formal decision or vote on the development occurred; this meeting was a pre-application session. The commission notified the public that the applicant may return for another pre-application meeting or at preliminary with fully engineered submissions and that the town will require peer review of technical studies when submitted.