Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Maronei Redevelopment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board backs revised 22‑unit Maronei Street plan with conditions and waivers

Town of North Providence Planning Board · March 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After years of litigation and neighborhood negotiation, the North Providence Planning Board approved a revised 22‑unit condominium plan for Maronei Street with conditions requiring an enhanced landscaping plan and parking layout changes; it also approved a waiver replacing a centralized dumpster with individual trash receptacles.

The North Providence Planning Board on March 4 approved a revised preliminary plan for a 22‑unit condominium development on Maronei Street, granting several waivers and attaching conditions the board said respond to neighbors’ concerns.

The board’s approval, unanimous at 5‑0, covers the modified site layout that moves a central building to increase open space, reduces overall paved parking from 55 to 50 spaces at the neighborhood’s request, and adds garages for most units. The board also approved a waiver to permit individual curbside trash receptacles in place of a required central dumpster and a recommendation to the Town Council to abandon an 80‑foot portion of Tyler Street to square the parcel.

Attorney Jack McGreen, representing Maronei Street LLC, said the changes were the product of negotiation with neighbors and redesign work aimed at improving the project’s appearance and open space. "We reduced the number of units from 24 to 22 units," McGreen told the board, and added that the new layout "creates more open space in the middle" of the site.

Timothy Behan, the project engineer, showed the board an updated site plan and said 20 of the 22 units would have garages, which the applicant said would reduce on‑street parking pressure. "Twenty out of the 22 units will have a garage to make up for the parking," Behan said.

Neighbors urged additional protections for abutting properties during the public comment period. John Cardetti, who owns an adjacent lot, asked how the development would affect his property and emergency access. Cheryl Kasha, who said she has struggled with sewer backups on her street, warned the board to ensure any new development does not replicate past utility problems. "The day or the week after I moved in, my sewer backs up," Kasha said; she urged careful review of sewer connections.

Board members pressed the applicant on landscaping, stormwater and the placement of surface parking. The applicant agreed to relocate several surface parking spaces deeper into the site to serve two units that would not have private driveways and to submit a more detailed landscaping plan for administrative approval.

As a condition of the board’s preliminary approval, the developer must provide a landscaping proposal that includes a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees with a minimum three‑inch caliper at breast height, to be reviewed administratively by the town planner. The board also recorded its expectation that the applicant and future condominium association will address runoff from added impervious surfaces through standard stormwater management measures discussed with the town and with DEM when applicable.

The board voted separately on related items. A motion to grant the parking waiver to reduce required spaces from 55 to 50 was approved with a positive recommendation; the board also voted to recommend the Tyler Street abandonment to Town Council. The waiver to use individual trash receptacles rather than a centralized dumpster was approved as part of the unified development review.

Next steps for the project include submission of the final engineering and the landscaping plan for administrative review and the town council’s consideration of the road abandonment. The applicant also acknowledged the need to coordinate any off‑site trenching and restoration with public works if the project work affects municipal roads.

The board’s decisions are advisory where they recommend action to the council or zoning board and binding where the project falls under unified development review; the applicant said it will proceed with the next-level filings and regulatory approvals.