158 Dwelling Units Proposed In Ross Hill Road Development
When: Wednesday, May 28 at 7 p.m.
Where: Charlestown Town Hall, 4540 South County Trail, Charlestown
What: Pre-application meeting with the Charlestown Planning Commission for this development proposal
The Ross Hill Road Proposal
Other Site and Proposal Details
- Plat 16, Lot 212; 79.99 acres; R3A Zone that allows about 20 houses.
- 158 dwelling units with 40 of the dwelling units deed restricted as “affordable.”
- 25% Low/Moderate Income, 75% Market Rate.
- Age-55+ community.
- Three public wells with two of the wellhead protection areas partly on other properties
- Access from Ross Hill Road.
- Materials submitted for this application are available in the meeting packet at the town’s website.
This will be the third pre-application conference with Brighter Visions, LLC, the developer/owner of this property. The first was for a cluster subdivision of about 21 lots, and the second was for a Comprehensive Permit for 416 dwelling units that included some affordable housing. At these pre-application meetings, the Planning Commission usually asks questions and listens to the developer and any public present, but no votes are taken.
A portion of this parcel is currently a sand-and-gravel operation with the rest forest and wetlands. The developer has said the sand-and-gravel operation will be abandoned as part of the proposal. Except for the wetlands and public well areas, most of the proposed layout is taken up with house sites, septic systems, roads, and drainage structures.
If the developer were to decide to go forward with a formal application, they would come back at the Preliminary Plan stage of review. The state’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Act has expedited review and does not require a Master Plan stage. The Preliminary Plan review is the last step before construction begins.
The meeting packet for May 28 does not contain a memo from the Zoning Department with a determination of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. None is required at this point, but there may be waivers from the Zoning Ordinance and also from the Subdivision Regulations that the developer will need to request at the next stage of review.
The developer makes the claim in the materials it has submitted that the proposed density follows Charlestown’s Zoning. They are able to make that claim because the new state legislation 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.”
The state law ignores State Guide Plans and nearly every other guide for protecting Rhode Island’s environment and adaptation to climate change; it also ignores much of Charlestown’s Comprehensive Plan enacted in 2021.
Charlestown’s previous Town Planner, members of the Planning Commission, and others have explained to state planners, state legislators, and the Town Council the harmful impacts that will eventually occur as a result of these densities. These include loss of forested lands necessary to meet the state’s climate goals and the deterioration in the quality of the town’s drinking water and the health of its saltwater ponds and other water bodies on which the town’s health, safety, and well being and the town’s and state’s economies depend.
Nevertheless, the legislation that now allows density in R3A zones to increase from 1 to up to 10 dwelling units per 3-acre lot was first submitted in the RI House of Representatives as H6081, and the legislation was enacted into law. The bill was supported by Charlestown’s State Representative Tina Spears, and State Senator Victoria Gu. South Kingstown’s State Representative Teresa Tanzi was the sponsor.
Regarding the Charlestown Town Council, although they recently held a special meeting to communicate their opposition to a bill in the state legislature that would regulate assault weapons, they have remained largely silent on the many bills that remove local control for housing and development introduced in this legislative session and in the previous two sessions. Councilor Stokes has been the lone Town Council member to express opposition to any housing legislation, but there has not been any meaningful action yet.
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.
May 26, 2025 @ 6:24 pm
If peope have an opinion about a development, they should come to the Planning Commission meetings. This one on May 28 is a pre-application meeting where the applicant proposes their plan and the Planning Commisison has an opportunity to have, hopefully, a frank and open discussion with the applicant and raise any issues they foresee that the applicant will need to address at the next stage. As is stated, there is now no major plan phase required of comprehensive permits ,where more details are shown; the next stage is preliminary where detailed engineering should be done and shown, although actual state permits such as septic approval are not required till final. No vote will be taken at this meeting. Active public engagement is needed at all stages so that, as someone stated, it is not too late, and the decision is made. The Planning Commission has specific regulations it must abide by and the state has changed a lot of these recently. It cannot base its decision on personal opinion.
Public input can be useful in providing information about local situations such as wells, traffic, services, property concerns etc. This meeting is not a public hearing, which would be at Preliminary, and people may not be able to speak as much as they might wish, but they will get the full content of the meeting. Letters or emails can be sent to the planning office at town hall.
May 26, 2025 @ 12:02 pm
Stupid state law forcing extra housing in the extremes! Imagine 3 houses per acre! As I have driven through new developments in SK I feel like a fish in a fish bowl, no trees in between, no backyards, minimal front yards. As a Dem who believes in protecting the environment, having sane moderate policies to all issues that face us I’m very disappointed in our rep’s vote for this. Wish I knew ahead of time before it was too late! I was previously in favor of solar and wind power until I saw them wrecking large swaths of land and sea to install them! There has to be sane solutions. But let’s not blame just one party, as the one in charge is opening up billions of acres in federal ( formally protected) lands to gas and oil drilling, development. And they are very much on the “take”.
We all need to work together to solve our problems, that respects all sides of the issues, not make problems worse.
May 26, 2025 @ 11:53 am
First and foremost that sticks out about this article is the comment the author has made about the special Town Council meeting on ” regulating assault weapons”! The term “assault weapons” is a term that was made up by a corrupt government, with a political agenda of disarming our country and dismantling the Bill of Rights as laid out in the United States Constitution. The same corrupt government–deep blue state–that does not have any respect for this town’s zoning ordinances. This meeting was not about “ASSAULT WEAPONS” it was about losing a constitutional right. Some of us are as passionate about the 2nd Amendment as you are (the author) about conservation and the conservation of this town. This meeting was not a frivolous as you/one might think to many of us!!
And…yes do I believe that this Town Counsel could/should have taken a stronger stance on the zoning changes that the State has put into place, ABSOLUTELY! But they didn’t and shame on them for not doing it. The potential for anyone’s property values is ever present due to these changes in zoning. If someone were to put up a house 40 feet from my home its value would be depreciated by 20-30%; just like that!! As for the “ching-ching” statement, I would suggest looking at higher-up the money chain, and not at the local government. Many of the votes the current deep state administration gets are from the skilled labor unions, and there is where the “ching-ching” is at. The same motivation, votes, as the current “assault weapons” law that has been proposed.
As for this proposed dwelling site, I hope someone also takes a strong and comprehensive impact road study. And.. an impact study upon what a strain it will put upon our public safety departments (police/fire/rescue), then the DPW and then the school system, and………then the property tax increase?
May 26, 2025 @ 10:27 am
NO NO NO
May 26, 2025 @ 9:06 am
…the Charlestown Town Council have remained largely silent.
-my hunch is they have connections to the developers – ca-ching!
These include loss of forested lands necessary to meet the state’s climate goals and the deterioration in the quality of the town’s drinking water and the health of its saltwater ponds and other water bodies on which the town’s health, safety, and well being and the town’s and state’s economies depend.
-Just like the Dems in California whose extreme policies led to the out of control environmental damage done during the wildfires, these folks will eventually ruin Charlestown. Stupid is as stupid does.
-Gu & Tanzi don’t live in this community so they could care less, but Tina Spears? Why would you be in favor of promoting the deterioration in the quality of the town’s drinking water and the health of its saltwater ponds and other water bodies on which the town’s health, safety, and well being depend?
Tina, please post your reasoning here so the rest of the community can understand why you don’t care about our community.
May 26, 2025 @ 9:14 am
For the record, there is no evidence that members of the Town Council have financial ties to the developers. That is a common assumption, but their support or disinterest is more likely philosophical.
May 27, 2025 @ 10:32 am
At the 2nd Amendment Counsel meeting I was pretty disappointed with Tina Spear’s response when she stood at the podium. She essentially said that the state is going to get some kind of a ban so accept the fact that some form of a ban is coming and accept it. I would have liked to have heard her say that she was doing all that she could to prevent any gun restrictions whatsoever!!