The Warwick City Council voted to hold a proposed zoning change for the former Aldrich Junior High property until September 14, after more than a dozen residents testified against a plan that could allow up to 93 housing units on the site, according to the Warwick Town Council's published meeting recording of its July 6 meeting.
The ordinance, PCO23-2026, would apply a Planned Development and Redevelopment (PDR) overlay to the property at 771 Post Road, which has sat vacant since the school closed. A PDR overlay is a zoning tool that raises the maximum density allowed on a property, giving a developer the option to build more units than standard zoning would permit. City Planning Director Tom Kravitz told the council the change was meant to make the property more attractive to bidders after two previous redevelopment attempts fell through, including one proposal for 63 age-restricted units that failed when the developer did not secure financing.
Residents cite traffic, schools and the historic building
Residents who live near the site, including several along Post Road and a side street identified in the transcript as Ralph Street, told the council the project would overwhelm neighborhood roads. One resident living next to the property said the site's main access point would sit on the side street rather than Post Road, and predicted dangerous backups for neighbors trying to turn out of their own driveways during morning commutes. Another resident argued that new family housing near the site could push more children into schools that have already been consolidated in the area, raising costs for the district.
Local sponsorWorld-class website design at a small business priceCompany 50Other speakers focused on the condition of the building itself, describing it as infested with vermin and used by trespassers, while still objecting to the scale of new construction proposed to replace it. Several residents said they would prefer single-family homes on the site rather than a large apartment building, and one asked the city to consider giving away the property at low cost to a buyer willing to clean it up quickly rather than holding out for a high sale price.
Council members push back on density, procedure
Council members raised a mix of substantive and procedural concerns. One council member argued that the 93-unit maximum might be reduced, since a PDR overlay does not require the city to set that number as high, and noted that a developer had already asked planning staff whether single-family homes would be considered on the site. He said a bidder proposing single-family homes at a lower price could still be selected if the council believes that better serves the neighborhood.
Another council member questioned whether the city had studied any use for the property other than a private sale, including whether the parcel could serve a recreational or municipal purpose instead. City staff said no such alternative-use study had been done, though the fields and tennis courts behind the school building must be preserved and subdivided from the rest of the property regardless of what happens to the school building, because they were originally improved with federal land and water conservation funding decades ago.
A member representing the ward where the property sits said he held an informal meeting with more than 25 neighbors before the hearing and found no consensus on how to proceed, and asked the council to hold the item to allow more detailed conversations with residents. Another member raised a separate procedural concern: the zoning change as drafted appeared to apply to the entire assessor's plat, including the fire station and recreational fields, before the property has been formally subdivided, and said the item was not ready for a final vote until that subdivision is recorded and the ordinance re-advertised with corrected legal boundaries.
What happens next
The council voted by voice to hold the ordinance until its September 14 meeting, with the expectation that the city will record the minor subdivision separating the school building and parking area from the athletic fields before then, and re-advertise the zoning change with the corrected property description. City staff said no active negotiations with developers are underway, and the zoning change itself does not commit the council to approving any specific project; any future bid, including one at the maximum 93 units, would still require additional planning board review and a final council vote. Residents seeking updates on the proposal can contact the council member representing the ward, per his comments during the meeting.