Coventry Planning Commission Approves Coventry Crossings With Conditions After Contentious Hearing

The Coventry Planning Commission voted 5–1 on Sept. 25 to approve Coventry Crossings, a mixed‑use development proposed by Craig New Homes that would build 120 residential units (60 single‑unit condominiums and 30 duplexes) and a 12,500‑square‑foot commercial pad site on about 30.3 acres.

The commission’s approval includes the nine staff conditions in the planning report and three explicitly discussed addenda: the applicant may pursue either the proposed on‑site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) with required state permits or seek connection to town sewer, the use of sewer shall not increase the approved number of dwelling units, and any wastewater system must include a backup generator to power pumps during outages.

The vote followed more than two hours of public testimony in which nearby residents described recurrent basement flooding and urged the commission to prefer sewer connection over on‑site treatment when feasible. “The gold standard is to use the public sewer system if it’s available,” resident Grama Southard told the board, while others presented photographs and personal repair bills they say document repeated ponding and groundwater intrusion.

The developer’s attorney, Matthew Landry, said the application had been revised in response to technical review comments and that the project had been engineered to meet town and state standards. He reserved the right to respond after public comment. Project engineer Sam Hemingway told the commission the stormwater design seeks to replicate existing ponding conditions in identified low areas and to achieve the regulatory goal of “no net increase” in off‑site stormwater impacts. Hemingway said the OWTS septic mounding analysis was conservatively estimated to raise groundwater by under 6 inches immediately beneath leach fields and that potable‑water usage from the proposed houses would have negligible effect on the larger aquifer absent unusual circumstances.

Commissioners asked detailed technical questions about groundwater mounding, stormwater compensation basins, removal of trees in the compensation area and the model’s handling of repeated small storms versus single large events. Planning staff told the commission they had reviewed a Kent County Water Authority letter that raised concerns about wellhead protection and concluded the proposed leach fields are near but not within the named protection area; staff said DEM (the state Department of Environmental Management) will conduct the OWTS and stormwater permitting and has enforcement authority after construction.

The motion to approve (made and seconded on the record) resulted in a roll‑call vote: Mr. Reyes voted No; Mr. Price, Mr. Stonyfield (name recorded in roll call), Mr. Smith, Mr. Anderson and the chair voted Yes, yielding a 5–1 outcome. The approval was conditioned on the staff report findings of fact and the additional items noted above.

Next steps for the project include the applicant filing for final plan approval, completion of required state permits for either the OWTS or a sewer connection, and any required engineering refinements prior to construction. Planning staff said they and the applicant will continue to investigate sewer connection feasibility with town staff and any private utility owners; DEM will be the permitting authority for septic and relevant stormwater approvals.

The commission also requested clarity in landscaping and buffer details (including the composition of the 40‑foot no‑cut buffer) and sought direction on the disposition of a substantial on‑site tree that the plans currently do not preserve. Those items were left for final‑plan documentation and conditions of approval.