MINUTES OF SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025
Place: Smithfield Town Hall
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Present:
Town Council President John J. Tassoni, Jr.
Town Council Vice President Angelica Bovis
Town Council Member Michael P. Iannotti
Town Council Member Rachel S. Toppi
Town Council Member Thomas Winfield
Town Manager Robert Seltzer
Town Solicitor Anthony Gallone
Town Clerk Lyn M. Antonuccio
At 5:30 p.m. a motion is made by Vice President Bovis, seconded by Member Winfield, to convene into executive session to consider, discuss, and act upon matters pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws Section 42-46-5(a)(1) Personnel; to interview Deana Mills, Chris Branch, Karen Catlow, Julie DaRosa, Gail Dwyer, and June Carlton for appointment to a town board or commission and to commence performance reviews of the Town Manager and Town Clerk. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
President Tassoni reported that no votes were taken in executive session that are required to be reported pursuant to RIGL§ 42-46-4.
Member Winfield presents each member with a sash for them to wear at the upcoming All Lit Up Parade. Member Winfield explains the following: The parade is a nice way to start the season, and the members of the All Lit Up Committee put a great deal of work into making this happen. The members talk about safety a great deal, and if they cannot do it safely, they do not do it. There are new and returning acts this year along with some surprises. Prior to the parade there will be story time and games. He invites all to attend. If there is bad weather, notification can be found on their Facebook page and Town website.
President Tassoni declares the public hearing open.
Town Planner Gregory Guertin gives the members a brief presentation outlined the clarification of standards, goals, and aligning with widely cited public health guidance, extension regulations, and peer municipal practice.
Planner Guertin states that the Planning Board recommends that the Town Council adopt the amendments as proposed.
Member Winfield states the following: Planner Guertin is incorrect about rats. While rats go after unsecured food, they also go for water and shelter and can feed off chicken waste. The ordinance speaks about the food being in a secure container, however, there is the human factor. He questions where the ordinance addresses the coop being rodent proof.
Planner Guertin states the following: He does not see specific language about rodent proofing the coop itself. That would be an incredibly difficult task. His home is not rodent proof, and he would hard press to say that a chicken coop is required to be. Member Winfield questions that we are not going to try to do anything about this. Planner Guertin states that he is not saying we should not do anything, however, it is a difficult ask. Planner Guertin further states that he raises chickens, therefore, he speaks from experience.
Member Winfield states that residents are not going to Planner Guertin if there is an issue, and the Town already has an existing rat problem. Member Winfield further states it is all about people leaving food unsecured. Planner Guertin states this is more of an enforcement matter, and this ordinance provides the enforcement agent with the appropriate language that is defensible. Planner Guertin agrees with the water issue, and he it thinks that this was overlooked and should be included.
Member Toppi explains the following: As Planner Guertin stated, chickens, dogs, etc., do not inherently attract rats. It can be a combination of things that we cannot control such as living in the woods or near the water. There is also human action such as hoarders and those not responsible to keep things clean and sanitary. You will get those outliers in any population. These provisions did not exist before, and now the Town can have more authority to deal with those issues.
Vice President Bovis would like clarification that this ordinance is more restrictive than the current ordinance and contains more requirements to ensure those having chickens are clean, etc. Planner Guertin confirms this. Vice President Bovis questions the “enforcement authority” and who that would be. Member Toppi states that the enforcement authority is the Zoning Official.
Vice President Bovis questions how the inspections come to be. Planner Guertin explains that the Building/Zoning Official gets calls and responds to them within a specific timeframe.
Vice President Bovis questions if the sanction schedule is the same and adjudicated in municipal court. Member Toppi references Section 10.6 of the Zoning Ordinance (Penalties and Enforcement) and this has not changed.
Vice President Bovis questions if residents who currently have chickens and/or chicken coops and do not fall within these provisions, if they are grandfathered in.
Planner Guertin states that if they have chicken coops that are compliant with the current ordinance, he thinks they would be because they would be preexisting, nonconforming. Planner Guertin further states that if they are currently noncompliant, they would still be noncompliant per these amendments, then they still are. Planner Guertin suggests that this ordinance may bring those that are noncompliant chicken owner who have fallen under the radar into compliance as well.
Vice President Bovis has concerns about enforcement and existing chicken coops. If the owners are going to know that these are now their requirements. Vice President Bovis also has concerns about how the Town will know if a coop is preexisting and complaint or preexisting and noncompliant.
Planner Guertin states the following: This speaks to the larger conversation of whether municipalities should be regulating chicken coops at this level, and there is a great deal of debate on the national level. It tends to be more of a debate between neighbors, therefore, if there is a nuisance, compliance or public health issue, like any pet, the complaint would come from an abutter.
Vice President Bovis questions if there are many complaints. Member Toppi explains the following: She requested the complaints in October 2025, and there have only been two (2) in 2025. One (1) of the complaints would be remedied, and they live on a lot less than 80,000 sq. ft., which is not currently allowed. The second complaint was about roosters, which are prohibited unless your lot is greater than five (5) acres. The third complaint involved an egg stand. The Town is not seeing huge problems.
Vice President Bovis questions why make changes when the less restrictive rules are not prompting many complaints, then why increase the homeowner’s obligations any further. Member Toppi explains the following: Currently you cannot own domestic chickens if you live on a lot that is less than 80,000 sq. ft. There are a couple of residents that want this. She makes it clear that this is not going to be a “free for all”, aside from R80 and R200, you will need to apply for a Special Use Permit.
Planner Guertin states the following: He addresses the restrictive comment. This is restrictive in the sense that it applies to more public health, animal welfare standards and can be verified through the USDA and CDC. It provides for more allowance in terms of lot size. It also adds Special Use Permit to an additional zone.
Vice President Bovis thinks that some parts of the ordinance are more restrictive to a homeowner, and some parts are less restrictive. Vice President Bovis also thinks that the changes are very vast, and the purpose seems to be conflicting. Member Toppi asks for an explanation. Vice President Bovis explains freedoms are being increased in some aspects and decreasing freedoms in others for two (2) homeowners.
Member Toppi states the following: If you increase the ability for people to do a previously restricted activity, you want to ensure you can account for protecting property values, public health, and nuisances. To do one (1) thing you must have the other. There is a bill in the House that will be presented again for the right to farm and is about chickens, which essentially allows people to have them.
Member Toppi thinks it is a good idea to get ahead of this and craft the ordinance in a way that works for the Town ahead of time.
Vice President Bovis questions the Special Use Permit for the R20M zones which is high density condo zoning. Planner Guertin states it is not specifically condo zoning. Vice President Bovis questions these being potentially allowed. Planner Guertin states that the owner would need to sign off on the Special Use Permit. Member Toppi reminds the members that this is based on lot size not the number of units. Vice President Bovis thinks that there is the potential for this to happen in a condo setting if all approvals are in place. Member Toppi also reminds the members that someone would not do this when they have attached neighbors, and if someone were to do this the neighbors would be notified. Member Toppi thinks that the likelihood of this ever happening would be zero. Vice President Bovis wants to ensure that the Town is protecting those that do not want chickens as well. Member Toppi explains this amendment was to add flexibility to a smaller double and triple unit if there are certain instances.
Planner Guertin states that a Special Use Permit would be required and the abutters would be notified (within a 200’ radius), so that they can attend the meeting to speak in favor/opposition to. Planner Guertin further states that if the neighbors do not care, why should the Town.
Member Iannotti questions if the condo’s by-laws would come into play. Planner Guertin thinks that the by-laws would come into play.
Vice President Bovis questions multifamily units that do not have an HOA. Vice President Bovis states that she is trying to think of the implications of chickens being forced on tenants. Planner Guertin explains that if it is a renter, the owner would have to be part of the application for the Special Use Permit, and the rules/requirements are “per lot”.
Vice President Bovis states that many times the Town creates ordinances, in general, and the application has “kinks”, and the council must make amendments. Vice President Bovis further states that this ordinance contains a great deal of changes, and by playing out different scenarios to ensure we are not creating more issues. Vice President Bovis does not think we have an issue now, as this is drafted.
Member Toppi states the following: The issue is many people cannot have chickens, and to allow for more flexibility you must put those safeguards in place, which will give the Town the ability to enforce standards for residents to abide by when they go before the Zoning Board. This ordinance is so well done, and the Planner has set the bar in terms of how it has been written, and a great deal of research has gone into this. This ordinance is based on best practices and evidence based data is included. She thinks that the members should give the ordinance a chance because it will do a great deal of good. She also does not think everyone will want chickens; however, she is aware of one person who will take advantage of this, and that does not mean they will be approved.
Vice President Bovis states that the fact she would be allowed to have chickens in her living situation is inappropriate of her neighbors. Vice President Bovis further states she does not like the potential implications on others. Member Toppi states you are not “allowed” until you receive approval from the Zoning Board. Planner Guertin states that the Zoning Board takes abutter’s concerns seriously. Member Toppi states that the Zoning Board recently denied two (2).
Member Winfield suggests putting a “sunset” in place. Member Winfield explains that the council can place a date on this for a year or two (2), and if this is not revisited, the sunset will go away. Member Toppi questions revisiting this and for what. Member Winfield explains the following: The council could pass this amendment on December 2, 2025 and on December 2, 2026 the council would revisit this. If there are issues, the council would address them.
Member Toppi expresses her concerns about people making the investment for chickens, a coop, etc., and then the council makes changes. Vice President Bovis reminds the members it would be considered a “preexisting” use, and they would be able to keep it.
Member Toppi questions what the exact concern is. Member Winfield states the following: There is no concern. If everything is perfect and works as Member Toppi explained, the council would revisit this and remove the sunset. If there is an issue, the council will be forced to address it. Member Toppi states that she is not opposed to that, and she questions how this would be different from any other thing the council does. Member Toppi does think it is a good idea to review things; however, we are dealing with humans, and humans are not perfect.
President Tassoni states the following: The Town has been spending a great deal of money on pest control because of the rat issue. He is not sure the ordinance has enough “teeth” to eradicate the rat issue. To address Winfield and Member Toppi’s issues, he suggests leaving the public hearing open and he would also like to have a conversation with the pest control company. The company can look at the ordinance, and they may have some ideas. He also suggests having further discussions at a council meeting in January.
Member Toppi questions what the pest control company would look at. President Tassoni states that he would like them to review the entire ordinance. Member Toppi questions if there is a rat issue in the Esmond section, what is being done and what the cause is. Town Manager Seltzer states the following: The Town has spent approximately $1,500, and there is still an issue. Residents have also spent money. The causes are untidy yards, fowl, and people feeding animals. The Zoning Officer has been to the locations to try to correct the issues.
President Tassoni explains that he is not against this, he would like another “set of eyes” review it. President Tassoni further explains that if the council approves this ordinance, it makes things worse, perhaps the company has suggestions.
Member Toppi states that if she worked for a pest control company she would say allow rats so that I can make money to eradicate them. Member Toppi cannot understand what the pest control company can contribute to this ordinance.
Member Iannotti states that currently the ordinance states that feed shall be stored in rodent free containers along with other restrictions, and he questions if the members feel other things can be added. Member Winfield explains that he was speaking about the coop and trying to make it rodent proof.
Member Toppi states that she sees where Member Winfield is going with this and feels it could go either way. Member Toppi further states that she stands by what she said, but she does understand where it could help.
President Tassoni questions if the members are agreeable to leaving the public hearing open. President Tassoni states that this will give the Planner an opportunity to speak with the pest control company.
Planner Guertin explains that he understands President Tassoni’s point and appreciates it, however, he would feel more comfortable deferring to farmers. Planner Guertin further explains that farmers raise them and deal with a larger number of fowl. Planner Guertin reminds the members that the Zoning Ordinance is a “living document” and changes all the time, and he appreciates Member Winfield’s suggestion about seeing how it goes over time. Planner Guertin feels, as written, it is a good step in a better direction.
Vice President Bovis is in favor of keeping the public hearing open and exploring other language.
Member Toppi reiterates that they are dealing with people and can legislate all they want, but people are going to be people.
Assistant Solicitor David Ursillo states the following: He has been reviewing this to address concerns and thinks that updating this ordinance is important. The current ordinance regarding animal raising is very vague, and having more guidance and understanding going forward is important because the Town will get less people who want these types of things.
He likes Winfield’s suggestion for a sunset provision, and he thinks it is worth reviewing this in a year or two (2) because it is a living document.
He addresses Vice President Bovis’ concerns about enforcement and explains the following: This is already happening regardless of if the council changes the ordinance. There are already issues where multifamily residences that have chickens or they are in an R20 zone and have chickens. There are already ongoing issues, if they exist, and a complaint may not have been made to the Town.
To address the term grandfathered in, anyone in R20 or R20M either needed a Special Use Permit in the first place to have chickens or they should not have had them. All residents in those smaller lots are not grandfathered into anything. They are in violation, and having this ordinance come into play gives the Zoning Official more ability to enforce. He reminds the members that you are dealing with lots that are not 80,000 sq. ft. Our ordinance will be more restrictive because of more parameters, and you are doing so because you are in zones with properties that are smaller.
The Zoning Official will be able to go out and issue a warning/notice of violation, and the person will have a specific amount of time to correct the issue. If the issue is not corrected, a summons is issued to appear in municipal court. Depending on the level of health/safety, he will try to push for a quicker response in municipal court to get Orders in effect. People have spent money on coops, and we do not want Orders immediately and then withdraw their solid coops. There is always balance on the enforcement side.
For those residents in R80 or R200 zones, they are grandfathered in, in a way. Many of those lots may be two (2) acre lots, if they are truly in an R80 zone.
This is why it was changed by acreage because we have lots in Town that are zoned R80, but are only 40,000 sq. ft. By changing this ordinance and having those things in effect that talk about 80,000 sq. it becomes much more important for people to understand exactly the size of their property and what is required based on the size. Currently the Town cannot control everybody in an R80 or R200 zone that may be on a 40,000 sq. ft. lot.
He urges the council to adopt this ordinance as it will be beneficial moving forward. With respect to condos, if they are in an R20M zone, the council changes this and restrict them in this area, if it is a concern. He reminds the members that the concept is agricultural and is usually in residential zones. He also reminds the members that there are many new projects coming with Compressive Permits, and it must be contemplated because you will have people living in small areas. He thinks keeping it as a Special Use Permit, the Zoning Board is in place to hear those applications. He again urges the council to adopt the ordinance.
Michael Moan, 18 Maplecrest Drive, states the following: He was the lone negative vote on the Planning Board because he had concerns. Tonight, he is here to speak in favor of the ordinance, and this is in part because of the price of food. He is in favor of anything the Town can do to reduce future food insecurity and the increase of the residents to conduct animal husbandry. The raising of chickens and domestic fowl for human consumption adds to the ability to feed their family. This is along with domestic/residential gardening and growing vegetables and the ability to raise protein is also important.
He voted against this because of concerns about the smaller lots and particularly placing them in front yards. He does believe that there will be a growing demand for such an action. His other concern was unenforceability from a staffing point of view. He asks that this be taken into consideration.
Lastly, they have been charged as a Planning Board and Planning Department, to look at updating our zoning by adopting objective, enforceable standards. He thinks this is a good ordinance that may need a little more work.
President Tassoni would like to leave the public hearing open, address the issues, and bring this matter back before the council in January.
Member Toppi would like to know the exact issue/issues, and she is sure that the Planner would like to know this as well.
Member Toppi states that having the issues on the table will allow the members to be prepared and deal with them and present something that would be acceptable. Member Winfield states that he can call the Planner with his concerns.
President Tassoni thinks that Attorney Ursillo did a great job explaining this and after a couple more “tweaks”, the ordinance should be ready.
Motion is made by Vice President Bovis, seconded by Member Winfield, that the Smithfield Town Council continue this matter to January 6, 2026. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
INTOXICATING BEVERAGE LICENSE RENEWALS 2025-2026
CLASS B-VICTUALLER BEVERAGE LICENSE
1. Brewology, LLC d/b/a “Brewology”, 9 Cedar Swamp Road,
Unit 4 (approved for outdoor bar service)
CLASS B-VICTUALLER LIMITED BEVERAGE LICENSE
1. AKR Corporation d/b/a “Tony’s Pizza Palace”,
200 Pleasant View Avenue
President Tassoni declares the public hearing open.
Hearing no comments, President Tassoni closes the public hearing.
Motion is made by Vice President Bovis, seconded by Member Winfield, that the Smithfield Town Council approve the annual renewal of the following Intoxicating Beverage Licenses, as listed, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations, local ordinances, and a Certificate of Good Standing from the RI Division of Taxation.
INTOXICATING BEVERAGE LICENSE RENEWALS 2025-2026
CLASS B-VICTUALLER BEVERAGE LICENSE
2. Brewology, LLC d/b/a “Brewology”, 9 Cedar Swamp Road,
Unit 4 (approved for outdoor bar service)
CLASS B-VICTUALLER LIMITED BEVERAGE LICENSE
2. AKR Corporation d/b/a “Tony’s Pizza Palace”,
200 Pleasant View Avenue
Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
1. Colbea Enterprises, LLC d/b/a “Shell #36”, 370 Putnam Pike to extend hours of operation to 24/7 hours.
2. Colbea Enterprises, LLC d/b/a “Seasons Corner Market”,
947 Douglas Pike to extend hours of operation to 24/7 hours.
3. DKS Coffee, Inc. d/b/a “Dunkin Donuts”, 970 Douglas Pike to extend hours of operation to 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.
4. Greenville Donuts, LLC d/b/a “Dunkin’ Donuts”, 385 Putnam Pike to extend hours of operation to 4:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
5. Greenville Donuts, LLC d/b/a “Dunkin’ Donuts”, 471 Putnam Pike to extend hours of operation to 24/7 hours, with the stipulation that the Drive-Thru Window will be closed from 2:00 a.m. to 4:30 a.m.
6. Greenville Donuts, LLC d/b/a “Dunkin’ Donuts”,
639B Putnam Pike to extend hours of operation to 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
7. Ionian, Inc. d/b/a “Dunkin Donuts”, 259 Putnam Pike, #1 to extend hours of operation to 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.
8. KAC Foods, Inc. d/b/a “McDonald’s”, 445 Putnam Pike, Unit 19, to extend hours of operation to 4:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., the Drive-Thru Window portion of the restaurant will remain open with the hours of operation to be 24/7 hours Monday through Sunday.
Motion is made by Vice President Bovis, seconded by Member Winfield, that the Smithfield Town Council approve the annual renewal of eight (8) Victualling Licenses to include renewal of the extended hours of operation, as listed, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.
1. Colbea Enterprises, LLC d/b/a “Shell #36”, 370 Putnam Pike to extend hours of operation to 24/7 hours.
2. Colbea Enterprises, LLC d/b/a “Seasons Corner Market”, 947 Douglas Pike to extend hours of operation to 24/7 hours.
3. DKS Coffee, Inc. d/b/a “Dunkin Donuts”, 970 Douglas Pike to extend hours of operation to 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.
4. Greenville Donuts, LLC d/b/a “Dunkin’ Donuts”, 385 Putnam Pike to extend hours of operation to 4:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
5. Greenville Donuts, LLC d/b/a “Dunkin’ Donuts”, 471 Putnam Pike to extend hours of operation to 24/7 hours, with the stipulation that the
Drive-Thru Window will be closed from 2:00 a.m. to 4:30 a.m.
6. Greenville Donuts, LLC d/b/a “Dunkin’ Donuts”, 639B Putnam Pike to extend hours of operation to 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
7. Ionian, Inc. d/b/a “Dunkin Donuts”, 259 Putnam Pike, #1 to extend hours of operation to 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.
8. KAC Foods, Inc. d/b/a “McDonald’s”, 445 Putnam Pike, Unit 19, to extend hours of operation to 4:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., the Drive-Thru Window portion of the restaurant will remain open with the hours of operation to be 24/7 hours Monday through Sunday.
Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
1. Brewology, LLC d/b/a “Brewology”, 9 Cedar Swamp Road, Unit 4
Motion is made by Vice President Bovis, seconded by Member Winfield, that the Smithfield Town Council approve the renewal of one (1) Entertainment License, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.
1. Brewology, LLC d/b/a “Brewology”, 9 Cedar Swamp Road, Unit 4
Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
1. Brewology, LLC d/b/a “Brewology”, 9 Cedar Swamp Road, Unit 4
Motion is made by Vice President Bovis, seconded by Member Winfield, that the Smithfield Town Council approve the annual renewal of one (1) Special Dance License, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances:
1. Brewology, LLC d/b/a “Brewology”, 9 Cedar Swamp Road, Unit 4
Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
1. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC d/b/a “Chipotle Mexican Grill”, 473 Putnam Pike (outdoor seating)
2. Howley Bread Group, LTD d/b/a “Panera Bakery Café”,
473 Putnam Pike
3. J ’s Delicatessen d/b/a “J’s Delicatessen”,
285 George Washington Highway
4. Soar Restaurants IV, LLC d/b/a “Sonic Drive In #6490”,
393 Putnam Pike
5. Starry Night Café, LLC d/b/a “Starry Night Café”,
115 Pleasant View Avenue, Unit 1
6. The Breakfast Spot, LLC d/b/a “The Breakfast Spot”,
345 Waterman Avenue, Unit B
Motion is made by Vice President Bovis, seconded by Member Winfield, that the Smithfield Town Council approve the annual renewal of six (6) Victualling Only Licenses, as listed, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.
1. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC d/b/a
“Chipotle Mexican Grill”, 473 Putnam Pike (outdoor seating)
2. Howley Bread Group, LTD d/b/a “Panera Bakery Café”, 473 Putnam Pike
3. J’s Delicatessen, Inc. d/b/a “J’s Delicatessen”,
285 George Washington Highway
4. Soar Restaurants IV, LLC d/b/a “Sonic Drive In #6490”, 393 Putnam Pike
5. Starry Night Café, LLC d/b/a “Starry Night Café”,
115 Pleasant View Avenue, Unit 1
6. The Breakfast Spot, LLC d/b/a “The Breakfast Spot”,
345 Waterman Avenue, Unit B
Motion is approved by a 5/0 vote.
Planner Guertin gives the members a brief presentation consisting of an overview of the Safe Streets for All initiative.
Vice President Bovis references Page 2 of Planner Guertin’s memo and questions the number of fatalities listed is the updated number. Planner Guertin explains that is the number from the 2023 data.
Member Toppi would like to confirm this resolution does not commit the Town to do things a certain way. Planner Guertin confirms this. Member Toppi expresses her concerns about the Vision Zero mentioned in the resolution. Member Toppi states the following: There is no documentation and she questions what this means. If you look this term up it means zero car accidents, which is the goal. There is a website called Vision Zero Network which is a very vague organization, and there is nothing from the state. She is concerned about how the Town gets to zero accidents when you have cars.
She is asking, because of this vagueness, that three (3) sections are taken out (two (2) completely, and one (1) talking about Vision Zero). She does not think that the Town should be committing to a vague thing when the council does not know what it is.
President Tassoni explains that if we take out those sections, it may ruin the funding. Town Manager Seltzer explains the following: There is the potential to ruin the funding because they are trying to line up all the communities. It states that the “statewide zero efforts”, however, it is a goal. Member Toppi is correct by saying there will be zero fatalities because it is impossible. He is concerned as to whether it affects our participation and potential funding if we do not agree to do that.
Member Toppi asks for a definite answer about this and would like to hold off on this. Member Toppi would like to ensure this can be taken out without committing to it. She did research, and she is not in favor of that portion of the resolution.
Member Iannotti questions if Planner Guertin knows what Vision Zero means. Member Iannotti thinks it sounds like a program. Planner Guertin explains it is not a program; it is a goal of eliminating fatalities. Vice President Bovis explains it is zero accidents: not fatal accidents. Vice President Bovis states this is to prevent unsafe deaths and serious accidents, not accidents in general.
Member Toppi states that this resolution commits the Town to Vision Zero which is a “thing” and is an organization with no state documentation. Member Toppi further states that it is a random, global “thing”, and the Town should not be signing on to this because she sees things in the future that the members may not agree with.
Planner Guertin states the following: He understands Member Toppi’s concerns. If this were to tie the Town to a particular organization, he could appreciate and maybe agree. Though some agencies may use the terminology, they do not own that phrase. Vision Zero is a belief and an end goal. The Town would not be committing to the philosophy of a particular organization. The Town is simply stating it is committed to the idea that we are working towards eliminating traffic fatalities.
Member Iannotti questions the work “efforts”. Planner Guertin states that the Town is committed to working towards that goal of zero fatalities. Planner Guertin further states that when you look this up, and see their network, it can seem conflated. Member Toppi states it is conflated because this resolution is on their website. Member Toppi suggests changing Vision Zero to “towards zero fatalities” because it would get rid of the organization part.
Member Iannotti states that the adoption of this resolution does not commit the Town to certain projects and questions if the adoption signify support for specific proposals made by the state to do on state roads. Member Winfield references “potential recommendations” and “considers an option”. Member Winfield states that the roads referenced are mostly state roads, and they are talking about key issues and preventive measures. Member Winfield further states that he does not have an issue with changing the wording, however, the big picture is to have a consolidated effort to be safer.
Member Iannotti wants to ensure that the Town has input on anything the state wants to do. Planner Guertin states that this does not preclude the Town from its preexisting rights to input. Planner Guertin further states that nothing is mandated, it is a guide for the Town and the state.
Member Toppi asks Solicitor Gallone if there is anything that can be added to this resolution to not tie the Town to anything specific and would give them more flexibility. Member Toppi states that she is interpreting the resolution differently.
Solicitor Gallone explains that a first and second motion has been made, however, the motion can be amended. Solicitor Gallone further explains that the language could be deleted or altered to say, “zero fatalities” and remove Vision Zero.
Town Manager Seltzer states that the Town will then be out of sync with the other communities, and the Town will be flagged. Town Manager Seltzer further states that this is a concept, and it is a private organization, not a federal organization. Town Manager Seltzer thinks this was well drafted to get everyone unified to show we have the commitment to work towards these things and get funding. Town Manager Seltzer urges the council to be cautious about changing something that is not uniformly done amongst thirty-nine (39) communities.
Motion is made by Vice President Bovis, seconded by Member Winfield, that the Town Council hereby adopt the Smithfield Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan and the accompanying resolution.
Town Clerk Antonuccio takes a rollcall, and the following votes are recorded:
· Member Winfield – aye
· Member Iannotti – aye
· Member Toppi – abstain
· Vice President Bovis – aye
· President Tassoni – aye
Motion passes with a 4/0 vote.
Cherise Miller, the Executive Director of the Housing Authority, introduces herself to the council. Director Miller explains they are seeking an extension of the P & S Agreement for Gemini Housing Corporation.
Attorney Joseph Tudino states the following: He submitted a formal proposal as requested by the members at their last meeting. The current P & S Agreement indicated they could apply for an extension of two hundred forty (240) days if they were able to show that progress was being made.
Page 14
Town Council Meeting
December 2, 2025
That extension would take them to August 27, 2026, however, in lieu of this, they are asking that the extension run until May 31, 2026. If they do receive the financing, then a closing date would occur on April 30, 2027.
President Tassoni questions the timeframe because they will get the financing in 2026 and the closing will be in 2027.
Seth Sokolove of Barbara Sokolove Associates explains the following: This is a fair amount of time to close this type of transaction. It could happen a few months sooner, but they need to be able to give the funding agencies confidence if it does take that long, that they have control of the property. It takes a great deal of time because of due diligence on behalf of the tax credit investors. The is also alta surveys, title, and easements.
Solicitor Gallone questions where they currently stand with financing. Mr. Sokolove states that the consolidated application is due on December 18, 2025. President Tassoni questions what will happen if they do not receive funding. Mr. Sokolove further states that this would be up to the council and the organization itself, if they want to continue to try.
President Tassoni questions when they expect to receive an answer. Mr. Sokolove states that this will be at the RI Housing May board meeting, which is why they are asking for the initial extension to the May 31st date.
President Tassoni questions if funding is not received by May, what would happen next. Mr. Sokolove states that they would evaluate the project, submit a better application, or it is possible to abandon the project.
President Tassoni expresses his concerns about them not receiving funding, and states that there will still be a business there “rotting” away. President Tassoni suggests an extension until June 1, 2026, at which time they should know about funding. President Tassoni further states that they would come back before the council at the first meeting in June 2026.
Mr. Sokolove states the extension dates are like the date they are requesting, and he reminds the members they need to be able to say they have control of the property, otherwise, they will not receive funding.
Solicitor Gallone explains that if an extension to June 1, 2026 is granted, they will come back before the council, and they will get the funding. Solicitor Gallone further explains that if the funding is not received, the council wants the ability to decide if they want to proceed with this project.
Mr. Sokolove questions if the funding is received, the extension will be automatic. Mr. Sokolove reiterates that it is an automatic rejection if they cannot show they have control of the property long enough to close the transaction.
Member Winfield questions if they do not have control over the property, how they would be able to close. Mr. Sokolove states this is through the P & S Agreement extension that they are requesting.
Vice President Bovis questions why they cannot close on the property when they receive their funding. Mr. Sokolove explains what happens at the award in May 2026 is a preliminary commitment of the funds, the funds are not there and available. Vice President Bovis questions the funding being contingent on different things. Mr. Sokolove confirms this and states that the contingences are due diligence and process. Vice President Bovis questions why this is not done simultaneously. Mr. Sokolove explains that architecture needs to happen because it is currently in the preliminary stage, a schematic design phase is required for an application, bidding, and securing a tax investor all takes time.
Member Iannotti questions the August 27, 2026 date. Mr. Sokolove explains that was the old extension. Mr. Sokolove believes the first extension was to January then there is a two hundred forty (240) day extension in the current P & S Agreement.
Member Iannotti questions that under the current P & S Agreement they would have until August 27, 2026 to obtain the financing and permitting. Mr. Sokolove believes so. Member Iannotti questions why they need an extension until May 2026 when there is one already in place until August 2026.
Attorney Tudino explains the following: The current financing expires on January 1, 2026, and to extend it beyond that date, they would have to show progress. If successful, they would get an additional two hundred forty (240) day extension. He reiterates this is not automatic.
Member Iannotti questions if they are showing progress by applying for financing on
December 18, 2025. Attorney Tudino explains that there has been a great deal of progress.
Solicitor Gallone questions the status of the Planning Board. Attorney Tudino states that they have received Master Plan approval.
Vice President Bovis states the following: She is having a hard time getting past the contingency funding. Anytime during the period of May 31, 2026 up until April 31, 2027, the funding could “go away” if those contingencies are not met. Mr. Sokolove explains that none of the commitments that they get for the funding are contingent on doing anything that they are not saying that they are doing.
Vie President Bovis questions the due diligence period and if it were to come out unfavorable, then the funding could go away. Mr. Sokolove confirms this. Vice President Bovis states that this is just a promise. Vice President Bovis further states that the council is being given dates short dates that make it seem as though the funding could be secured in a timely manner, and that is not the case. Mr. Sokolove confirms this. Vice President Bovis states that she is not comfortable with that.
Town Manager Seltzer questions if Mr. Sokolove is applying for funding for the required remediation because there is significant asbestos remediation needed.
Mr. Sokolove states that he is aware of a barrel labeled asbestos, however, he is not aware of anything more than that. Mr. Sokolove further states that there was a Phase II investigation done by an environmental company, and their reports are in the hands of the general contractor to update their pricing. Town Manager Seltzer states that there is significant abatement, and one of the reasons it is no longer a school. Town Manager Seltzer further states that this will increase the cost of the project.
Vice President Bovis questions the electric/oil and if this has been worked out. Town Manager Seltzer states that he provided Attorney Tudino with estimates of what it cost the Town last year, and he believes the cost would be similar for this year because the use has not changed. Attorney Tudino states that this is in the proposal in consideration of the extension that they agreed to pay the electric/oil expenses. Vice President Bovis questions if these are up to date thus far and the payment. Town Manager Seltzer states that they will be billed, and the cost is approximately $10,000 for the year. Vice President Bovis questions if this will be paid promptly. Attorney Tudino states that they will find the funds somewhere and questions if this is a “going forward” thing. Vice President Bovis states that the P & S Agreement was signed last year.
Attorney Tudino reminds the members that the oil was never a part of the original P & S Agreement, and he references Page 2 where it states that the carrying costs should be defined as electricity and insurance.
Mr. Sokolove explains that the original idea was that the heat was going to be turned off. Town Manager Seltzer reminds Mr. Sokolove that the heat cannot be turned off because the building has an active sprinkler system. Town Manager Seltzer states that it was turned off mistakenly, and the repairs were made, but the heat must remain on because the building is required to have an active sprinkler system and fire alarm system.
Vice President Bovis questions if the $20,000, insurance, and backdated electricity and asks if this is realistic and will be paid. Attorney Tudino questions what is meant by “backdated”. Solicitor Gallone states this is after the feasibility period expires. Member Iannotti states that this is one hundred and twenty (120) days from the signing (September 4, 2024). Attorney Tudino agrees to pay this.
President Tassoni questions if it is realistic that they will continue to move forward because the building can be put up for sale. Attorney Tudino states that they have put in significant time and effort on this project, and they want this to go forward. Attorney Tudino reminds the members that Sokolove & Associates does not get paid if the project does not go through.
Solicitor Gallone explains the following: They must show control over the project. They will submit their application in December, and the board will act on it by May. Vice President Bovis states that if something should happen with the funding on April 29, 2026, then the Town is “out” two (2) years. Solicitor Gallone confirms this.
Vice President Bovis suggests selling the building to someone who is ready to develop it now. Solicitor Gallone reminds the members that there is an existing agreement in place that allows the council to grant them an extension.
Member Iannotti does not feel that they need an extension to the agreement because it already provides for additional extensions upon approval by the seller. Member Iannotti states the question is if the council will grant an extension under the existing agreement. Member Iannotti thinks that if the council were to grant any extensions, they would need to have a “date certain”. Member Iannotti also thinks that going to 2027 is far into the future.
Vice President Bovis questions if the council can place contingencies on contingencies. Mr. Sokolove lets the members know that the company has done forty (40) to fifty (50) of these projects, and they have never not closed on a project that was approved for funding.
Solicitor Gallone states that the council can continue this matter until December 16, 2025 to take final action, and Attorney Tudino and he will work on the final language.
Vice President Bovis states that mandate a two hundred forty (240) extension, and if the council did not act at all, there is an extension to August 27, 2026. Solicitor Gallone confirms this. Vice President Bovis further states that this issue is the control portion. Solicitor Gallone confirms this as well.
President Tassoni suggests continuing this matter to December 16, 2025. Solicitor Gallone states that they will have an addendum in place so when the council votes, they will vote on the language.
Dennis Woisard, 141 Old County Road, states the following: He questions the cost to the Town if an extension is granted. The Town needs the housing, and they will not receive financing without approval. He feels that approval should be given because they are going to get an extension anyway. There is no need to let this drag on. The building is sitting there, and they have agreed to pay for the heat and the electricity. President Tassoni lets Mr. Woisard know that there is an interested buyer. Mr. Woisard thinks their record speaks for itself. President Tassoni states that the financing is a “crapshoot”.
Motion is made by Member Iannotti, seconded by Member Winfield, that the Smithfield Town Council continue this matter until the December 16, 2025 Town Council meeting. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
Town Engineer Joshua Jelley explains that at the last meeting there were questions about the stormwater portion of this, and he feels that he did not give enough answers to the members. He has provided further documentation for the members.
Member Toppi asks for clarification about the bike path versus the flood mitigation because she is unclear about how the two (2) intertwine. Engineer Jelley explains the following:
This is a two (2) project. The first part was the linear path which has been underway and was approved before he was hired. That was awarded to BETA Group, Inc. This part is in conjunction with that. There were six (6) members and a hundred (100) point system for voting. BETA Group, Inc., ranked the highest in this portion as well. They will be working on a stormwater part to go along with the linear path that they are designing. They will design the path then implement stormwater practices.
Member Toppi questions if the council approves this are they approving the path. Engineer Jelley explains the following: There are multiple aspects to the grant funding portion of this. The SNEP grant for $340,000 is strictly for stormwater. The construction of the linear path that will be funded through RIDOT. The portion that the council will consider tonight is not for the linear path. They will be working with commercial owners to try to reduce some of the impervious areas on the road. Depending on what is done with the path there may be some new additional crosswalks and green scape. Whatever the path ends up being, the additional possibilities are outlined in the additional documentation he provided to the members. The grading or the crown on the path would slope the water down to go into bioswales or trees to vegetate to catch the water.
Member Toppi questions if the Town’s portion of the path would be required to be approved by the council.
Engineer Jelley states that he will present the design to the council, because whatever they have will be through him and the Planner. Engineer Jelley further states that they will be looking a the right of way because some sections have a good amount of breakdown lane and some do not, therefore, they do not know what the path will be in.
Member Toppi asks for clarification of a bike path versus bike lane. Engineer Jelley states the following: It is a path, however, he is not sure what it will be yet, because it depends on what cooperation is received from the commercial buildings that are there already because if so, it may need to be off the road. If not, it may need to be more in the right of way with a barrier for safety purposes. The exact path is currently unknown.
Member Iannotti wants assurance that this is all grant money and what the council would be approving is the $340,000 SNEP grant. Engineer Jelley assures the members this is all grant money, and the only thing that is funded by the Town is labor. Engineer Jelley states that the Town had to supply a match to the WRWC for the labor.
Motion is made by Member Winfield, seconded by Vice President Bovis, that the Smithfield Town Council accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee and award a contract to BETA Group, Inc. for professional engineering and stormwater design services associated with Esmond Village SNEP SWIG Green Infrastructure Project, in an amount not to exceed $340,000, representing the stormwater design, funding allocated through the SNEP grant, and authorize the Town Manager to execute all associated contract documents.
Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
Town Manager Seltzer explains the following: This grant is called a RI DEM Small Recreation Development Grant. The goal is to start building out the infrastructure at Camp Shepard. The projects affiliated with the grant are as follows:
Ø Public fishing docks
Ø Lighting
Ø Security Fencing
Ø Electrical Distribution Shed
Ø Security Cameras
This grant is $125,000, and the overall cost with the estimates is $167,000. There is a 25% match which the Town would cover with its additional costs that may be involved. The recommended cost share would be from unused/reserve capital or impact fees. This is all dependent on if the Town receives the grant.
Member Toppi questions what happened to the other dock that was removed. Town Manager Seltzer states that it was damaged/unsafe, and what remains is unsafe.
Motion is made by Member Winfield, seconded by Vice President Bovis, that the Smithfield Town Council acting pursuant to its authority approves a resolution in support of an application to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management for a small recreation grant to design and construct a docking facility at Camp Shepard. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
Town Manager Seltzer explains the following: This grant is a RI DEM Large Recreation Development Grant which will be used for upgrades and other improvements at Deerfield Park. The projects affiliated with this grant are as follows:
Ø Pickleball courts removed out of tennis courts a new courts built in the park
Ø Sitting benches on the walking trails
Ø Signage on the walking trails
Ø Replacement of playground equipment
Ø Repair to basketball court surface
Ø Repair to tennis court surface
This grant is in the amount of $500,000 and the total cost of the project is $670,000. The cost to the Town is $167,500. If the Town receives the grant, the Town’s share would come from unused/reserve capital funds or impact fees. The Town’s labor cost contributes to some of the grants as well. Grant Writer, Lisa Andoscia, confirms this.
Member Iannotti states that the Town’s cost/share is $167,000 and questions the Town’s labor cost being included in that amount. Member Iannotti also questions if that is the case, the Town may not have to put out that amount in cash.
Ms. Andoscia explains that this itemizes the cost of the pickleball courts, benches, signage, playground equipment, and basketball courts. Town Manager Seltzer states that this may have been done with Camp Shepard because there was some in-kind labor that was put into it. Ms. Andoscia states that Deerfield Park includes labor.
Member Toppi explains that there is a discrepancy on the resolution where it states that there is a desire to install four (4) new pickleball courts, however, on the memo it states eight (8). Town Manager Seltzer states that this was the information that was given to Ms. Andoscia originally. Town Manager Seltzer states that all the pricing was based on four (4) courts.
Member Iannotti questions if the $425,000 for the pickleball courts includes the resurfacing of the tennis courts. Town Manager Seltzer confirms this and explains that the basketball court is separate. Ms. Andoscia states that the basketball court’s cost was $42,500. Ms. Andoscia further states that this is a great project at Deerfield Park because it is multigenerational, near the senior center, and it is a win/win with the youth and seniors to have increased outdoor recreation.
Member Toppi questions why more pickleball courts are being added when they already exist. Town Manager Seltzer explains the following: His vision, after speaking with DPW Director Gene Allen and Recreation Director Robert Caine, is to make all the recreation activities we offer available in Deerfield Park. People already use the tennis courts for pickleball, and the pickleball players would prefer not to use the tennis courts. Another reason is because we have been expanding services at the senior center, and a putting green has been added. Pickleball courts will be near the senior center. Also, making it easier for them to use. This will make it more friendly for the over fifty-five (55) age group.
Member Toppi questions if the Willow Field courts will be moved. Town Manager Seltzer states the following: That question will have to be answered in the future. Right now there is an agreement with the neighbors and the players. The Town is working with a company that does sound barriers to determine if the level can be brought down to what they need to. If that is done, and everyone is happy, he does not see a problem. This is up to the people in that neighborhood, and he is hoping to be able to meet the needs of the players and isolate the noise. However, they have concerns, and hopefully the Town will reach that. This has been discussed as a possibility if we end up in a situation that cannot be worked out. Moving the courts would be the only other option.
Member Toppi again questions there being no plans to move the pickleball courts right now. Town Manager Seltzer confirms this. Member Toppi explains that she is unsure what happened at the neighborhood meeting.
Member Toppi questions them being under the expectation that the Town is still working on this and there is no definite agreement. President Tassoni explains there was an agreement between the pickleball players and the neighbors to determine the hours and how many courts would be open.
Member Iannotti thinks what Member Toppi is asking is if they were promised that the courts would be moved to Deerfield Park. Town Manager Seltzer states the following: He did tell them that the Town would look at that possibility if we cannot reach an agreement between the neighbors and the pickleball players moving forward. We have gotten them through the Fall, and everyone cooperates in the Spring, everything is set up, and everyone is happy, there will be no need. If they push the issue, that will be a decision the council will have to make.
Member Iannotti wants to make it clear that agreeing to applying for this grant does not mean that the council agrees that the pickleball courts should be removed. Member Iannotti states especially since we have no idea what the cost would be. Town Manager Seltzer explains that you would convert them over to something else. Member Iannotti does not think it would be as easy as people may think. Member Iannotti wants assurance that if it should come to that, it would be brought before the council. Town Manager Seltzer confirms this.
Member Iannotti questions the source of the funds (capital reserves and impact fees) and how this impact those funds. Member Iannotti questions if a substantial amount will be used and how much money we have. Town Manager Seltzer explains the following: The is approximately $1.2M - $1.3M even with the $500,000 coming out. There was originally $1.7M in that account, and he knows the Town has brought in more money. Member Iannotti also questions capital reserve funds.
Town Manager Seltzer states it depends at the end of the year, but there is at least $220,000 in the capital fund.
Ms. Andoscia explains the following: The increase in pickleball courts, out of all the municipalities, in Smithfield, is a very popular sport and there are many leagues. It has grown in popularity, and it is a wonderful response to constitutes who enjoy it.
Member Iannotti states that he and his wife play pickleball and are fans, however, he wants to ensure that things are done in a cost effective manner. He reminds everyone that the council does not just represent pickleball players, they represent all the Town’s people and must always deliver the best value for the taxpayers.
Member Toppi states that the way the grant is written, it seems very specific in term of what the scope of work is. Member Toppi questions if there is flexibility if the Town decides not to move forward with pickleball courts and if the money can be used for something else.
Ms. Andoscia explains the following: When you file a grant, the project must be “shovel ready” and that is how confidence is built to get it funded. With some grants, you can repurpose it, however, you would have to work with RIDEM. Member Toppi questions this being not definite, but in the realm of possibility to repurpose this. Ms. Andoscia explains the following: The grant was for outdoor recreation activity; therefore, it would need to be something related.
Member Toppi expresses her concerns that we are adding more pickleball courts considering all the other costs they currently have on their plates as a Town. Member Toppi is not against, but it is a bit “hairy” for her.
Ms. Andoscia states that we are generating new revenue for the Town, and when you file a grant, it must be specific. Ms. Andoscia further states that you cannot say you want to expand outdoor recreation without a game plan.
Town Manager Seltzer cannot understand why there is a concern about pickleball when the players are happy to hear the Town may be adding more if fits in with what the Town is trying to build with the seniors by offering more activities. Ms. Andoscia reminds the members that if the courts ever must move, she would look for additional grants.
Member Toppi again questions if there is flexibility with this grant in terms of pickleball courts. Ms. Andoscia states it would depend on the alternative that is being proposed, and this is site specific. Member Toppi questions whether Ms. Andoscia has had success with repurposing. Ms. Andoscia states that she had one client, but they forfeited the funds.
Town Manager Seltzer states that the proper answer is no, chances are you cannot change it. Vice President Bovis states that you must draft a very specific, goal oriented grant which gives you a higher chance of getting funding. Ms. Andoscia states this is how you build confidence in them funding it.
Town Manager Seltzer explains that there is a need based upon usage, and the DPW Director, Recreation Director and Town Manager are recommending this based upon community needs.
Motion is made by Vice President Bovis, seconded by Member Winfield, that the Smithfield Town Council acting pursuant to its authority approves a resolution in support an application to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management for a large recreation grant to improvement amenities at Deerfield Park. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
Motion is made by Vice President Bovis, seconded by Member Winfield, that the Smithfield Town Council approve the tax abatements in the amount of $3,516.28. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
Member Toppi explains that she asked for this item to be placed on the agenda because she feels it would be beneficial to the council if they were updated regularly on grant activity. President Tassoni states that he spoke with Member Iannotti and there will be a workshop. Member Toppi states the following:
A workshop is good, but she thought that at one of the council’s regularly scheduled meetings the council could get a report containing standard information (status of all current grants). She knows grants are done through the grant writer, and Town employees also do some. She would like for the report to distinguish between the two (2). She knows this rapidly changes and adding this to an agenda would allow the public to be informed as well. She would like to see all the applications to learn how this gets done. This is a good learning experience and good for transparency as well. She suggests adding a section to the Town’s website to show what is being done with grants (those applied for and those awarded).
Town Manager Seltzer states the following: When he was with the fire department, he kept track of his Assistance for Firefighters Grants. He listed the received date, type of grant, period of performance, and status. He thinks this would be beneficial to do with all the grants and keep it as a “living document”. He spoke with Ms. Andoscia yesterday, and she sent him what she is working on. Keeping them there continuously, even when they are closed out, and make it a “living document” for when it changes. He, along with other departments, will put a sample together to have the council review it. This can be placed on the website as well. Member Toppi thinks this is a great idea.
Member Iannotti would still like to have a workshop because he thinks it is important for the members to know what the process is to obtain a grant. He also thinks that keeping up to date on available grants allows the members to respond to residents who are asking what is going on (project, site, field).
Member Toppi states this will allow Ms. Andoscia to know what the entire council’s priorities are.
Vice President Bovis wants to thank Senate whip David Tikioian, Representative Costantino, and Representative Santucci for advocating for the paving and advocating for the paving of 44/Esmond Street corridor.
Motion is made by Member Winfield, seconded by Vice President Bovis, to adjourn the meeting. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.
Meeting adjourns at 9:19 p.m.
__________________________
Town Clerk