Planning commission approves reduced master plan for Mishnock Road housing, sets conditions

The Coventry Planning Commission voted 5–1 on June 22 to grant master-plan approval for the Residences on Mishnock comprehensive-permit application, limiting the project to 16 multi-family units (four deed‑restricted as affordable) and attaching conditions addressing technical-review comments, adjustments and public‑infrastructure requirements.

The motion, made by Member Kenny and seconded by Member Studley, followed a multi-hour review in which applicant John Mulhern and engineer Pat Freeman described a proposal for five four‑unit townhouse buildings on a 2.93‑acre parcel at Mishnock Road and Hopkins Hill Road, with on‑site wastewater treatment systems and a proposed Kent County water connection that has not yet been approved. The commission recorded concerns about guest parking, dumpster placement, required buffers adjacent to abutters and septic setbacks, and overall density.

Residents who live near the site urged caution. Mary Gribbon, an abutter, asked whether any enhanced buffer plantings would be preserved in perpetuity and said she worried about long‑term maintenance if ownership changes. Robin DeLuxe and Deb Catrone described sight‑distance and traffic‑safety concerns on Mishnock Road, asking whether police or traffic studies had been consulted. The applicant said prior test holes showed adequate soils and that some design changes — moving guest parking and using individual unit trash collection — could address neighbors' concerns.

The commission's approval sets several explicit conditions. The motion limits the vested master-plan approval to 16 units (four affordable), incorporates the planning staff's technical-review comments, directs the applicant to seek reductions in requested waivers and adjustments where feasible, and requires sidewalks on the subject property with off‑site connectivity toward Hopkins Hill Road; the commission also required a traffic‑safety study and peer review, and noted a bond estimate will be required if public infrastructure (sidewalks) is accepted.

Commissioners who opposed the larger 20‑unit layout repeatedly cited density as a quality‑of‑life and public‑safety concern given the absence of sewer and the site's septic constraints. Member DeSilvia cast the lone no vote, citing density and public‑safety reservations. Other commissioners said approving a lower unit count preserves the comprehensive‑permit benefit of adding affordable units while addressing many technical concerns before preliminary plan submittal.

Next steps: the applicant will prepare preliminary plans reflecting the reduced footprint and the agreed conditions. Staff and the applicant indicated some items — including the traffic study, wetlands/DEM approvals and detailed sidewalk/bond estimates — are to be completed or peer‑reviewed during preliminary review. If the applicant needs more time, the developer may agree to extend statutory review clocks as permitted.