Court Overrules Town On Rt. 91 Quarry – Town Council Does Not Vote To Appeal

Property at 565 Alton Carolina Road (Rt. 91) in Charlestown is the site of a sand and gravel quarry. The property, now owned by a real estate company, Peckham Charlestown Farms, LLC, contains three lots which abut the National Wild and Scenic Pawcatuck River, the Nature Conservancy’s 1,100-acre Francis Carter Preserve, the Town of Charlestown’s Tucker Woods Preserve, and private residences.

Since July 2021, the uses on the three lots (Plat 24, Lots 4, 4-1, and 3) have been in dispute. Two cases regarding Lots 4, 4-1, and 3 were filed in the RI Superior Court in 2021. In both, the RI Superior Court overruled the town, and neither was appealed.

Unfortunately for the neighbors and for these sensitive lands, the RI Superior Court found that the extraction activities can occur on both Lot 4 and Lot 4-1, meaning that the extraction activities can occur on approximately 93 acres of the property.

On July 14, 2021, Charlestown’s Building/Zoning Official, Joseph Warner, sent a determination letter to the then-owner of the property, Charlestown Farms, LLC, and filed a notice of violation.

In his determination letter, the Building/Zoning Official noted that the extractive industry on Plat 24/Lot 4 is a legal non-conforming use since it existed before the town enacted zoning and before it was a prohibited use, but the importation and processing of broken asphalt and concrete and washing of sand are new activities and are not “grandfathered” from the time before the town had a zoning ordinance. The Building/Zoning Official also found that there was significant land clearing on Plat 24, Lot 4-1, and extraction activity on Plat 24, Lot 3, which is not grandfathered.

In the Notice of Violation, Mr. Warner said that all work on a structure being built must cease and desist until the required building permits are obtained and that inspections must be performed.

The image below from the fall of 2020 shows the extraction activities on both Lots 4 and 3. The Pawcatuck River makes up the west property edge and is seen on the left of the aerial photo. To the south are the railroad tracks and The Nature Conservancy’s Francis Carter Preserve. To the east is Lot 4-1, which has sustained some clearing since this photo was taken. To the east along the railroad tracks is a part of the Francis Carter Preserve and further east, and not shown on this image, is the town’s Tucker Woods Preserve.

According to the Rhode Island Conservation Opportunities Map, these parcels contain critical and uncommon habitats, high value/high vulnerability habitats, important wildlife corridors, ecological land units, natural heritage areas, wetlands, ponds, streams, and the Pawcatuck River.

For context, the image below shows the three lots in question in yellow, with the river to the west, the Francis Carter Preserve to the south and east, and Tucker Woods Preserve to the east.

As noted, the property contains three lots (Plat 24, Lot 3, Lot 4, and Lot 4-1).

In a decision dated September 15, 2025, the RI Superior Court found that the extraction activity on Lot 4-1 is a legal non-conforming use. The court also found that washing of sand on Lot 4 is a legal nonconforming use. The extraction activity on Lot 3 was determined not to be a legal non-conforming use.

On September 30 and October 27, 2025, the Charlestown Town Council held special meetings regarding the litigation. During each, the four-member Town Council moved into executive session, and the Councilors (Carney, Marr, Slom, and Stokes) voted to seal the minutes of the executive sessions.

What is known is that on September 30, the Town Council adjourned the executive session and took no action. Councilor Deborah Carney announced in open session that the Council was exploring options for appeal.

At the meeting on October 27, the Town Council again adjourned the executive session and took no action. In open session, Councilor Carney announced that, in the executive session, Councilor Stephen Stokes had made a motion to appeal without a stay, but his motion had not received a second and therefore had failed. Because the discussion took place in executive session, and the minutes are sealed, the public does not know why no other councilor supported Councilor Stokes’ motion to appeal.

Councilor Carney then asked one of the town’s attorneys, Sarah D. Boucher of DeSisto Law, to explain some of what the Council had considered in the executive session. Attorney Boucher stated that an appeal does not relitigate the case and that no new evidence may be submitted on an appeal. She continued that there would be a possibility of damages not covered by insurance if the town were to move forward with an appeal, and she stated that the chance of success on appeal was low.

The History

Both court cases stemmed from the Determination Letter and Notice of Violation issued by Charlestown’s Building/Zoning Official on July 14, 2021, described at the beginning of this post.

Charlestown Farms appealed the Notice of Violation to the Charlestown Zoning Board of Review (ZBR) on July 29, 2021. The ZBR held a special public meeting on September 1, 2021, which was then continued to September 7. The ZBR unanimously decided to deny the appeal as to all three parcels on September 7, 2021.

December 21, 2023, Decision (WC-2021-0434)

Charlestown Farms appealed the Zoning Board of Review decision to the RI Superior Court on July 30, 2021. Peckham Charlestown Farms was added as a plaintiff; defendants were the ZBR and the town.

In the discussion of her options, Judge Sarah Taft-Carter said, “the court may affirm the decision of the zoning board of review or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions….”

Judge Taft-Carter reversed the ZBR, finding that it exceeded its authority and prejudiced plaintiffs by making a scope and extent determination of Lot 4’s nonconforming use and making a finding on the legality of the pre-existing use of Lots 3 and 4-1.

September 15, 2025, Decision (WC-2021-350)

As in the other case, Charlestown Farms and Peckham Charlestown Farms were the plaintiffs; the defendants were Joseph Warner and the town.

In his September 15, 2025, decision, Judge, J. Licht, wrote the following:

“Plaintiffs Charlestown Farms, LLC (Charlestown Farms) and Peckham Charlestown Farms, LLC (Peckham) (collectively, Plaintiffs) challenge the zoning restrictions of the Town of Charlestown (the Town or Charlestown) and Joseph L. Warner, Jr. (Mr. Warner), in his capacity as Building/Zoning Official for the Town of Charlestown, Rhode Island (collectively, Defendants) imposed upon three pieces of property owned and/or leased by Plaintiffs, namely, Plat 24, Lot 3, Lot 4, and Lot 4-1, all of which are located at 565 Alton Carolina Road in Charlestown, Rhode Island (collectively, Subject Properties). Plaintiffs argued that the Town’s zoning restrictions cannot impair their ability to mine sand and gravel on Lot 3, Lot 4, and Lot 4-1 and to wash sand and gravel on Lot 4 as the Subject Properties’ prior owners conducted such activities prior to these zoning restrictions going into effect, making the Subject Properties preexisting legal nonconforming uses. However, Defendants maintain that only Lot 4 qualifies as a preexisting nonconforming use for the limited purpose of sand and gravel mining.”

Judge Licht continued:

“In June 2025, this Court conducted a four-day bench trial. For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds there to be a preexisting nonconforming use on Lot 4-1 to engage in extractive activities, as well as a preexisting nonconforming use on Lot 4 to wash sand, which includes the right to operate a paddlewheel washing facility. However, the Court does not find there to be pre-existing nonconforming uses on Lot 3 to engage in extractive activities.”

Regarding the processing of asphalt and concrete, a footnote states, “The Plaintiffs originally sought to process broken asphalt and concrete on Lot 4, but they conceded at post-trial argument that they were no longer seeking the right to conduct such activity.”

Bonnie Van Slyke, the author of this post, won a seat on the Town Council in the December 2, 2025 election, but she will not be sworn in to her Town Council seat until the January 12 Town Council meeting. You can learn more about Bonnie on her profile page.