83 Dwelling Units Proposed For Historic Carolina Village, Next To Sprague Preserve
When: Wednesday, November 20 at 7 p.m.
Where: Charlestown Town Hall
What: A Pre-Application meeting will be held with the Charlestown Planning Commission
This development is being proposed under new state legislation which requires that the “density bonus for a project which provides at least twenty-five percent (25%) low- and moderate-income housing shall be at least three (3) units per acre.”
This legislation, H6081, was supported by Charlestown’s State Representative Tina Spears, and State Senator Victoria Gu. South Kingstown’s State Representative Teresa Tanzi was the sponsor. It’s possible our legislators didn’t understand the impact this legislation would have on Charlestown, but it’s not too late for them to seek a solution.
The legislation ignores the State Guide Plans, Charlestown’s Comprehensive Plan, protection of Charlestown’s drinking water aquifers, and nearly every other guide for protecting Rhode Island’s natural and historic resources.
The Carolina Village Proposal
The proposal had a pre-application meeting with the Charlestown Technical Review Committee on November 13. The following is a summary of the proposal that was discussed at the meeting. A video of that meeting is available at the town’s website.
- Plat 28, Lot 82-1, 28.7 acres; property is zoned R40, which allows about 24 houses.
- Property is owned by Evelyn Smith, a member of Charlestown’s Affordable Housing Commission, and until recently Chair of that commission.
- A developer has contracted with Ms. Smith’s company and submitted the comprehensive permit proposal shown above.
- Project comprises 25% low/moderate-income housing, 75% market-rate housing.
- Proposal will have 83 houses – 21 affordable, 62 market rate – all for single family ownership.
- 41 single level, two bedroom units (10 affordable)
- 42 two level, three bedroom units (11 affordable)
- Proposed period of affordability is 30 years, the minimum allowed.
- Land will be owned by a condominium association.
- Wells will be shared.
- Onsite wastewater treatment systems will be shared.
- Streets will be privately owned.
- Access to development will be from Carolina Back Road (Rt. 112).
- The project abuts Carolina Village and the Patricia Sprague Forest Preserve.
- Carolina Village, in its entirety, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
- For comparison, there are about 40 houses along Rt. 112 on the Charlestown side of Carolina.
- No plans or images for the houses have been provided.
What qualifies as an affordable home under the state law? To quality, the housing must be deed restricted for a minimum of 30 years up to 99 years, during which time it can only be sold to a buyer who meets the income requirements of the RI Housing Authority; it also must be built with a government subsidy.
What will be the effect on Charlestown’s requirement for 10% low- and moderate-income housing under state law? Because there is low/moderate income housing in the development, the project will contribute to the town’s 10% affordable requirement under state law. At the same time, the proposed project will also add 83 houses to the town’s housing stock. Therefore, although the proposal has 21 low/moderate-income units, effectively the town will gain just 12.7 units towards the 10% affordable requirement because the additional 83 units proposed will increase by 8.3 units the number of low/moderate-income units the town will be required to have once the project is developed.
What effect will the proposal have on groundwater? RI Department of Environmental Management (DEM) rules allow up to 3 bedrooms per 20,000 square feet of land area (approximately 0.5 acre). The development as proposed will have 3.3 bedrooms per 20,000 square feet, which exceeds what DEM allows by a small amount. At the November 13 meeting, Matt Dowling, Charlestown’s On-Site Wastewater Program Manager / Environmental Scientist, explained that 3 dwelling units per 43,560 square feet (1 acre) is considered a high risk for potable water and, without adequate land set aside for groundwater recharge, can lead to high levels of nitrogen in the groundwater. Therefore, it appears that the new state legislation, on which the density of the proposed development is allowed, and which also provides density bonuses of 5 dwelling units per acre for developments that are 50% affordable and 8 dwelling units per acre for developments that are 100% affordable, is not based in science.
Bonnie Van Slyke, the author of this post, was a member of the Charlestown Town Council from 2014 to 2022. She was the Town Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Senior Citizens Commission. She is a former officer and member of the Board of Directors of the Frosty Drew Observatory & Science Center, a former Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Harvard, MA and a former member of the Board of Trustees of the Harvard Conservation Trust. Bonnie is a freelance copy editor, technical writer, and publications specialist. You can learn more about Bonnie on her profile page.
November 19, 2024 @ 1:19 pm
Just to clarify, the proposal is not a cluster development as allowed under the town subdivision regulations. A cluster development proposed under the town’s subdivision regulations would follow our zoning, which in this case, would mean a development of approximately 24 houses, not 83. Each of the 24 houses would be sited on at least a half acre, and the rest of the parcel would be set aside as open space.
The development is, rather, a development proposed under the state’s comprehensive permit law. According to state law, if 25% of the parcel is dedicated to low/moderate-income housing, up to 3 units per acre are allowed. Further, this increased density applies to the entire parcel, including the 75% of the parcel developed for market-rate housing. The new state legislation also does not require that open space be set aside in the development to balance the development impacts, and there is no open space set aside in this development as proposed.
November 19, 2024 @ 10:04 am
Thank you for the description of this project, and for the comments submitted by interested citizens. The project does seem large on first looking at it. Is there any means allowing a compromise which will reduce the density and make it more acceptable for water, septic and neighbors?
November 18, 2024 @ 5:51 pm
reject
November 18, 2024 @ 5:11 pm
1. Thanks Bonnie as always for keeping us informed.
2. Melissa … my understanding is that the town does not have the option of rejection .. if it does reject then the developer appeals to the state superior court who overrules the rejection … having said that I am not very knowledgeable in this area … so talk to the town planner or the planning commission (my wife Frances is the vice chair).
3. Can whoever buys these houses do so with a legal agreement with the developer that they (the developer) will pay for any and all costs involving future water supply?
November 19, 2024 @ 1:18 pm
It is important to note that, although this application before the Planning Commission is called “preapplication,” the application submitted to the Planning Commission is an actual application. Under the state law, the application will skip the master plan stage of review and next will move directly to the phase where the application will need to have all its permits, etc. That phase is called “preliminary,” but that too is a misnomer. Ultimately, it is likely that state court will have the final say.
November 18, 2024 @ 2:12 pm
Reject, reject, reject. I hope this is not already a done deal. What a shame
November 18, 2024 @ 1:03 pm
Route 112 traffic has increased signifcantly over the last 8 years, especially with large gravel hauling trucks driving from Route 1 to Exeter. The addition of 83 houses ( ~2 vehicles each dwelling) off of Carolina Back Road will increase traffice significantly along that road requiring more frequent repairs to route 112. It is better to have far fewer homes, 12 for instance, with more acreage, if any at all, to stay environmentally friendly and to the preserve the protected land nearby. In addition to environmental concerns, cluster neighborhoods like the proposed use precious resources and place a burden on schools, local services and tax payers. The amount of tax revenue from this neighborhood would not exceed the needs for services.
The plan for Charlestown is to enjoy the rural quality of the land and the pristine seashore, darkness for scientific sky study and nighttime bird migration. We tolerate and welcome a temporary rise in population for only the tourist season. Increasing the year round population is not advantageous.
I believe that this cluster neighborrhood will demand Town and State road services and individual rural mail delivery, not cluster post boxes at the beginning of the entrance of neighborhood immediately. They will argue that they are tax payers who should have those services.
The next step will be commercial development along route 2 from the split and the end of the rural character of Carolina Back Road. Consider that each 3 bedroom home will average at least 2 residents if not more. This population is likely full time and place additional pressure on the town for services.
I lived in Shrewsbury Ma for many years. The town had about 19,000 residents in 1990. By the time I moved the population had swelled to over 30,000 by 2010. Nearly all the rural land was bought by developers just like the proposal going before us now.
Let’s use our common sense and blend the town mission and purpose with some limited housing growth if necessary. Otherwise, leave this town alone in terms of housing and work on the improvments we need to make in general. Improvements to existing properties to welcome our summer visitors with more afforable options for staying and accessing the beautiful shoreline and trails is the best endeavor of the town. Keep Charlestown Natural and Rural! Rejct this current proposal.