@NoraHall: And it was the residents who voted these special interest clowns back in.......

Excellent points.

Exactly. And screw the water ordinances and concerns brought up early on that were swept under the rug. Additionally, Rolling Greens also was rezoned to be part of the water service area, unlike before (how much $$ were the town officials greased for this to slip through last Friday?). Furthermore, it is a disgrace how the PC/TC ignored the first consultant they brought on over a year ago who stated that the town should respect the urban service boundary of Route 4.

This whole thing played out (and still is) exactly how the developer envisioned it. He/the town got the consultant to put together 4 "scenarios" that we residents wasted our time at discussing options and giving opinions. What happened to all of that information? What happened to the overwhelming opinions from residents over 3 nights against this project? What happened to the traffic impact studies? Where are the water impact studies adding all of this development? Why was this process so rushed?

Were the local residents heard? Was all that time and effort over 3 nights with the consultant writing ideas down on posterboard a waste? Did the town officials even see those or were they thrown out with the trash?

This kind of crap makes people further distrust government and the "process." However, to another posters point, the town residents voted back in most of these fools, so we get what we deserve.

Sadly very true.

Why is everyone so concerned that the new commercial buildings that will be permitted will be vacant, that's the developers worry,not ours. Everyone should realize that banks do not lend money for speculative ventures like this one at Rolling Greens, or the others unless the developers pre-lease the buildings, and with that in mind, they only loan a portion of the money, the developer or investors put up the rest and take the risk. Look nobody likes change, but are you really happy with what exists there now, give it a chance, the developers have much more to lose than we do.

@seed and soil: Then shame on "Average Joe and Jane". People spend more time playing games on their cell phones or researching which new big screen TV to buy than they do researching political candidates. The majority of the TC members are at Sonoma once a month for the local GOP meeting. A perfect time to catch them and let them know exactly what you think about their "efforts" on behalf of our town (and you won't have a 3 minute time limit!).

What I have been saying for years! Halelujah!

To the comment @ the veracity of the article--what else is new? There has been a consistent bias toward the GOP on the Patch for quite some time. However it is only evident to those of us that follow the circus that is the TC. It is a waste of time and the last election proved it.
Compass Carrier is correct with the post above but it is nothing new. The electorate of NK & RI are brain dead. When it comes to honest government it is really only lip service by most people who basically haven't a clue about what is going on around them. Then they whine about the state of affairs in RI or NK only to repeat the same stupidity over and over.
The new TC will be no better and I believe even worse in many areas. The taxpayers better hold onto their wallets in the next 2 years.Taxes will continue to go up and the quality of life in NK will continue to go down.
Start paying attention to the number of new for sale signs that pop up as well as the for rent signs, they really tell the story.

Bravo Chuck! Thank you for your response. I am not sure if I agree or not, but I applaud that you came on here. I wish others would do the same.

I wanted to second the thank you for taking the time to compose such a well-thought out response.

I still have concerns about the project but it's nice to finally read a positive spin on the project from someone who doesn't appear to have a financial stake in the development.

Chuck, you state: "Mark Hawkins according to the existing zoning could have built new homes and put more financial pressure on the school budget with additional children in the system from those homes." If they were going to be single-family homes, exactly how would they place additional financial pressure on the school as the homeowners will be paying local taxes. Based on this erroneous statement, I am not really sure you understand how local taxes fund the school system.

@Tired - I am not sure that I understand how local taxes fund the school system either? If a family of 4 moved into a single family home, the cost to educate the 2 children would be more then the tax revenue generated on say a $400,000.00 home, would it not? If rolling greens is a restricted child community, then NK would generate new tax revenue, but not have to shell out the costs associated with educating children. Isn't that the point that Chuck is making?

Chuck,
I am concerned when I hear your statements " I voted for the Rolling Greens project because I think it is a good fit for the area and I know many people disagree with that" and "I voted against the 11 recommendations from the planning commission because I feel that they unfairly hampered the property owners." As the town council is a representative of the townpeople and you are appointed by the council, who are you to impose on the town what you think is a "good fit" for an area of town, especially when an overwhelming amount of the towns residents oppose it? Additionally, where in your job description (http://www.northkingstown.org/government/town-manager) does it say you are in your position to defend developers against recommendations that an resident-elected Planning Commission endorses?

What an ego....

Your "Vision Statement" as Town Manager is to "To be consistent with the goals and objectives of our Comprehensive Plan and the capabilities of our land, groundwater resources, and Town services to sustain additional development." Please refer to my post and many questions above in response to Diane G. Why are you not questioning the groundwater issue with all this new development? Why are you not expressing concern of a Town Council rushing this process? Where are the traffic impact studies on all this development that will happen on these corners?

I am not impressed with you or the Town Council on how this is being handled.

Scott,

Your questions are very much appropriate. What I find troubling is:
1. The Planning Commission was asked to approve Rolling Greens with a new "Mixed Use Village Overlay District -- this was rejected.
2. Instead, we overhauled the CVD ordinance, which badly needed it. This was a good tool for future planning to allow for development of walkable villages, instead of the old pattern of subdivisions and strip malls. However, this ordinance had the curious (to me) inclusion of golf courses permitted by right in open space (which was always justified as not being specifically for Rolling Greens), and also CVDs were permitted outside the Urban Service Boundary. Some thought these last two, especially the USB, was put in specifically to facilitate Rolling Green.
3. A visioning process was proposed. The Town Council approved it, but reduced the number of members and removed one from the adjacent neighborhood, substituting a hand-picked political operative not selected by Consensus Building Institute criteria.
4. The "stakeholders" defined "consensus" according to their own terms.
5. The stakeholders were rushed to complete the process in the time set by the Town Council (per the Report).
6. "Consensus" was reached which was contrary to the overwhelming public input in the visioning process (per testimony of members of group and alluded to in report).

7. Consensus, such as it was, only permitted Rolling Greens IF Schartner piece not developed and Bald Hill limited.
8. The Town Council endorsed/accepted/adopted the stakeholder report, limited as above.
9. The Town Council then proceeded to permit Rolling Greens, but not condition it on any preservation of Schartner, got rid of the limits on Bald Hill/Corner Tavern, and did not limit Rolling Green to 32,000 square feet of commercial as agreed to by the stakeholders.

As you can see, there is a big divergence between #8 and #9, and I don't see how Chuck or anyone else can, in an intellectually honest way, justify this outcome. The Town Council ignored both the Planning Commission and the Stakeholders Group in this process. Furthermore, in my opinion, the use of the Stakeholders for political cover and as a substitute for (as opposed to an aid to) Planning, is either an abdication by the Planning Commission or a usurpation by the Town Council, or both.

CB - guessing you don't live in the area.....
Area was going to change so might as well put something there?
Possibly you should have been more involved to understand it is the commercial that has always been the objection.
You act as though you saved the schools while failing to mention that there WILL be children going to NK schools from this area.
Hampered the property owners...guess you don't care about the majority of propertyy owners in the area typically referred to as residents.
Respect your honest response, only wish you had done your homework to understand all.

Chuck I feel you voted with more info than we get from the papers. And your honest answer is refreshing.

Statements like yours makes people wonder you affiliation with the developers AND what area of NK you reside!

@ Discouraged
You have the right to agree with the rezoning. I do not agree and will give you my reasons. Change for the sake of change is pointless. Responsible change brings real benefits. Lengthy resistance to this project by the vast majority of those residents who will be most directly affected should be listened to and respected, not seen as something to be tolerated until somebody decides: OK, I’m tired of people still being against this, so “let’s build”. That is not a valid reason in my view.
I challenged the PC to tell me what benefits Rolling Greens would bring, I was brusquely told by the chairman they had already been made clear. What Chip had actually done was read out parts of Hawkins' own application. That does not meet the independent and professional PC standards NK deserves in my opinion.
You commented “Too many fingers in the pie”. Who has been involved that should not be in your opinion?
I agree we need fresh new commercial units. But the right thing is to revitalize what we already have, not sprawl out into new open space. The first consequence of this project will be the destruction of 30 acres of current woodlands. Nowadays, we must recycle everything possible, including land we have already built on. If you level most of Post Road, what happens to the asphalted-over desert you create? Will it improve NK’s appearance and attract more businesses and residents to our town?Will you agree to pay more in taxes to fund the demolition work?

Q:How is that different than any other single-family home in NK?
A: No difference
So explain the "additional" burden? By your logic, there should be no single-family homes in NK

Really Tired? The difference is 106 housing units! It's not a couple of single-family homes here and there. 35.7% of North Kingstown households have children under 18. The cost to educate 37 students would equal $481,000. The cost to educate no new students from the 106 units = zip, nada, zilch, zero

CB - how can you comment no impact to the schools, this developement WILL be an impact to the schools!!!!!! Suggest you check the facts before you comment.

Hey it - how or why are you saying that the town council choice avoids putting a burden on the school system?
Seems like you're the one putting words in others mouth!

@RG2102
Exactly how is that putting words in someones mouth..."Hawkins according to the existing zoning could have built new homes and put more financial pressure on the school budget with additional children in the system from those homes" It's literally what he said.
And its pretty obvious that having a development that is 55+ restricted would not add burden to the school system.

@ It Is
Those of us who attended the PC and TC meetings on this fiasco know that all this talk about Rolling Greens being 55+ restricted is totally false. Let's clear this up once and for all for everybody. I stood up at a recent PC meeting and specifically asked the PC to confirm that this development would be 55+ restricted and enforced. I also specifically asked them to confirm that such a restriction is legal in RI. No confirmations were forthcoming and others saw Mark Hawkins shaking his head behind me. I had also spoken at a previous PC meeting where they INSISTED a 55+ restriction was not only possible, but would be enforced. When I reminded the commissioners of that at the recent meeting, there was lots of staring at the floor, BUT NO CONFIRMATION. Also bear in mind this development plans to have some single family homes, so there WILL be children. If you attended these meetings you will agree my post is true and accurate and if you did not attend, then I hope I have helped to inform you of the real situation.

I also attended many of the meetings and my recollections and notes are the same as those stated by Mr. O'Sullivan. Much of the "professional studies and data" presented in support of the project were like a piece of Swiss cheese, full of holes and self serving conclusions for the developer. That's normal.
I am not anti-development. I am opposed to the bait and switch tactics that have been used during this whole process. The incestuous relationships between TC members and the developer, as well as certain PC members, is a prime example of how the people of NK short changed themselves on Nov 6th.
The restrictions imposed by the rezoning to CVD may be viewed as a plus, in that they constrain the size of the commercial development. Judicial reality is that an owner's rights can't be taken away because adjacent property owners disapprove.

@Mr. Brennan, with all due respect, I believe that you have been duped by the bait and switch tactics. The population of NK and RI is clearly changing. The process of bringing in low income housing (by your TC) was a well disguised smoke screen to open up the playing field for projects like RG. Unfortunately the fallout from that tactic outweighs any (presumed) lack of impact financially on our town.
The cost in our schools as well as our neighborhoods has been dramatic. The shift in population demographics fly in the face of the RG assertions.
RI is losing population, see the last census.

Saying children place a "burden" on the school system is like saying shoppers place a "burden" on Malls or vehicles place a burden on the highway system. That statement alone is suspect and anyone that supports it is suspect as well as far as I am concerned.

Correct. children dont place a burden on us they are our future. But the cost to educate them does and that has to be managed as well as we can.

NKGOP Watch or Politics whatever name you want to use doesn't matter.
You really need to get off the tired old news angle. You sound like an old 33 rpm record with its needle stuck in a groove. The Halley thing was and is what it was end of story years ago. It obviously did not phase the voters on Nov 6th.

The fact remains that voters don't care on a local, state and national level. Reality is that honest government is only talk for most this is not news. True representation of and for the people gets marginalized or demonized by both parties. Self interest is the bottom line for most in any election.

We have become a second rate nation because we no longer value those qualities that built this country. Government handouts are prized above anything else. When 50% of the population is on the entitlement train in one form or another there is no possible way to redirect the trend. We have exceeded the tipping point. We are living in the era when history will show the great USA experiment died under its own burdensome weight.
I suggest reading Pavlov and Saul Alinsky both encapsulate what has and is happening to this country.

@PSofNK, you state: "[I have]No idea who NKGOP watcher is or was"
Really??? You don't expect any of us to believe that do you?...and you wonder why you are not taken seriously.

You speak for the entire NK Patch audience? You know what each and every are thinking and knowing? I guess this is a place where you cant hold a similar opinion or else you're the same person or persons? I dig through old posts to see where people are at and agree with a lot of whats already been said.

So gimme a break, or, as you put it...
"and you wonder why you are not taken seriously."

@NKGOP Watch or Pol or whatever
I doubt that your sophomoric posts are taken seriously by anyone on the Patch. Why don't we test out the theory that no one listens or believes you.
Let's have an informal poll. How many do not believe the Pol or NKGOP Watch and how many do?

I'll vote first----a major thumbs down on your bull.

Some of us that know who you are also know why you continue with the same old tired crap. Maybe you should focus your myopic attention span in the town where you actually live instead of pretending to be in NK.

ru, your just in the nkgop so of COURSE you fantasize such things. My posts have been dead-on so far. The NKGOP (old crew) is like a cancer to NK as the body. Thats it.

@Pol
I despise the NKGOP and the DEMs. They are both useless on all levels. I don't disagree with your Halley comments I'm just tired of hearing the same old broken record.

@ru, really? then why do you accuse me of not living in NK? why do you care so much what I and others say? so spiteful. let it go, man.

With all these new residences, maybe NK shouldn't be so quick to sell off these schools or move the SD into them. We just may need to re-open them in the near future.

Your points lead me to more questions. How vocal will residents of NK be concerning Reynolds Farm? Or is it just about how it affects everyone individually, especially those that purchased high priced houses? Will those of you that opposed Rolling Greens, also oppose Reynolds Farm with the same fervor? Will the ground water, sprawl, bed room community arguments exist this time around? Is the SC ready for an influx of 200+ students upon the completion of these projects? Has a traffic impact study been done regarding Post Rd, with the addition of 574 units?

@MeanE Reynolds Farm was already approved in November 2011. The major difference is Reynolds Farm adds mostly residential units to a commercial district. What business is going to complain about excess traffic or looking at the back of someone’s residence? Rolling Greens rezoned 130 acres of residential property (rural open space), to establish a new commercial center in a populated bedroom community outside the Urban Service Boundary. The sewer project starts at Reynolds Farm alleviating ground water issues. Building in the center of town infrastructure is the opposite of sprawl. But it was brought up numerous times at town meetings that for some reason there were no fiscal concerns about school kids when approving the 574 residential units at Reynolds Farm, so why would single family homes at Rolling Greens be so devastating? And if so important, then why was the 55 age restriction not required for either of these projects?

Reynolds Farms' density is permitted by the Post Road Zoning -- i.e., that project did not require a zoning change or a comp. plan change The Town, years ago, established zoning for Post Road seeking to steer development/density to the Post Road District. So there really was not a 'place' for people to oppose Reynolds Farm, which is virtually all permitted as of right. Rolling Greens, on the other hand, required both a zone change and a comp. plan change, which gave an appropriate place for people to voice their opposition or support.

PSoNK - Not sure where you are hearing this bad news regarding the Patch?

http://streetfightmag.com/2012/12/06/patch-adds-coo-as-leadership-change-continues/

All this talk of single family housing development, the net burden on the school system, 55+ housing has me thinking: instead of fighting about it, why doesn't this town create an incentive to attract homebuyers who are past the family-rearing stage? Make it a bit more tax-friendly for these folks -- say knock a third off the property tax rate. They'd still be contributing significant support to the school system without actually using it, and being residents of the town, would still shop and hopefully work locally. Say you're a couple living in East Greenwich, paying high property taxes, and your kids are done with school. Wouldn't it be attractive to move next door to NK, live in a community that is just as nice (I think nicer) and pay less property tax? In business, we call that pricing.

@ OrangesPoranges
The tax rate in EG is 17.49/thousand. In Nk it is 17.26/thousand. 2011/2012 data. I doubt that .23 cents makes a difference.
NK has a lot of negs Which EG does not. We have received mutiple black eyes over the years with the SC and TC bs and bad press. NK has an anti-business reputation and little has been done to curb that opinion. The latest stick it to you antics by the TC and PC has not curbed any of that sentiment.
As long as the people of NK are unwilling to curb the incestuous relations of its commissions and boards, with the TC, the town will continue its downward spiral.
Your taxes will continue to go up in support of all the riff-raff that this and the preceding TC has brought into town.
Don't hold your breath for any type of outside the box thinking that might improve the situation. That avenue would only derail the insider deals that the taxpayers sanctioned on Nov 6th.