Town of Smithfield
Planning Board
64 FARNUM PIKE ESMOND, RHODE ISLAND 02917
February 13, 2020
Meeting Minutes
Members Present: Al Gizzarelli, Richard Colavechio, Michael Moan, Mike Pinelli, Steve Tillinghast, John Steere, and John Yoakum
Members Absent: Jennifer Hawkins, Curtis Ruotolo
Others Present: Michael Phillips, Town Planner, Scott Levesque, Assistant Town Solicitor
The February 13, 2020 meeting of the Smithfield Planning Board opened at 7:02 p.m.
Chairman Al Gizzarelli read the Emergency Evacuation and Health Notification.
Discuss and approve the December 12, 2019 and January 16, 2020 meeting minutes.
The minutes from the December 12, 2019 Planning Board meeting were reviewed.
John Yoakum made a motion, seconded by John Steere, to approve the minutes from the December 12, 2019 meeting. The vote on the motion was as follows:
Voting In Favor: Members Colavecchio, Moan, Pinelli, Tillinghast, Steere and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: Member Gizzarelli
The vote being six in favor with one abstention, the motion carried.
The minutes from the January 16, 2020 Planning Board meeting were reviewed.
Steve Tillinghast stated that the minutes reflect that he was both present and absent and that they should be revised to state that he was absent.
John Yoakum made a motion, seconded by John Steere, to approve minutes from January 16, 2020 Planning Board meeting as amended. The vote on the motion was as follows:
Voting In Favor: Members Gizzarelli, Moan, Pinelli, Steere and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: Members Tillinghast and Colavecchio
The vote on the motion being five in favor with two abstentions, the motion carried.
Minor Subdivision – Preliminary Plan Review
AP 7/Lot 4B – 13 Pleasant View Ave
0.92 Acres (approx.)/2 Lots/R-20 Zone
Applicant/Owner: Albert Gizzarelli, Sr.
Surveyor: Anthony E. Muscatelli, PLS #1718
a. Review and discuss the proposed submission with the project proponent.
b. The Board may make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Review on the requested dimensional relief.
c. The Board may approve the Preliminary Plan as submitted, approve with changes and/or conditions, deny the application, or continue the meeting to a future date.
Board Member Al Gizzarelli recused himself from the hearing of the application.
Attorney Tim Kane, having offices at 627 Putnam Pike in Greenville, represented the applicant on this request to subdivide a lot with an existing two-family home located in an R-20 zone. Atty. Kane stated that there is a fruit stand on the property that is to be demolished and the parcel is served by town water and sewer. Atty. Kane added that they are meeting the dimensional requirements to the extent as practical but that they will seek zoning relief for frontage and lot on proposed lot 2
Mike Moan made a motion, seconded by Mike Pinelli, to approve the application and being in accordance with the findings in Board’s #1 provided by the Planning Department, recommending that the relief requested be provided by the Zoning Board, RIDOT PAP approval at Final, and that Final Plan approval be handled by the Administrative Officer. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Major Land Development Project - Master Plan Review - Public Informational Meeting
AP 37/Lot 19A – 438 Putnam Pike
1.21 Acres (approx.)/Planned Development (PD) Zone
Applicant: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Owner: Janco Central, Inc.
Engineer: Core States Group
a. Review and discuss the proposed submission with the project proponent.
b. The Board may make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Review on the requested Special Use Permit and dimensional relief.
c. Discuss/schedule a site visit.
d. The Board may approve the Master Plan as submitted, approve with changes and/or conditions, deny the application, or continue the meeting to a future date.
Alan Rosco, with Core States Group, represented the applicant and stated that they are seeking master plan approval of a 3,500 square foot Chase Bank branch. Mr. Rosco stated that they require a special use permit from the Zoning Board for a drive thru with ATM and setback relief for the building location.
Richard Colavecchio questioned why the building location is so close to the intersection and Alan Rosco replied from a promotion and marketing standpoint and pedestrian accessibility and the necessity for separating the drive-thru from the parking area.
Mike Moan stated that there is a significant amount of relief being requested and questioned the existing right of way. Alan Rosco stated that there is an existing agreement between the two parcels to pass and repass which will be maintained.
Al Gizzarelli stated that it appears that no consideration was given for the property to be situated in a similar manner as the existing building is now.
Richard Colavecchio stated that he thinks the building location is too close to the intersection of the main road. Town Planner Mike Phillips stated that most of the buildings along Putnam Pike are setback from the road with parking in front but that the Town is trying to achieve buildings upfront and parking behind the buildings for a more aesthetic approach.
The public hearing was opened at 7:32 p.m. and there being no one present to speak to this application was promptly closed.
Mike Pinelli stated that he would like to some green cover and the building setback an additional 10 feet. Al Gizzarelli stated that he would like to see the building moved away from the road but noted that the building is beautiful. John Yoakum stated that he would like to see movement of the building location. Steve Tillinghast suggested moving the building more to the center of the property. John Steere stated that he likes the location where it is. Mike Moan suggested rotating the building to the west.
Alan Roscoe stated they will work with the Town to address the Board’s concerns and requested a continuance to the next meeting.
Mike Moan made a motion, seconded by Mike Pinelli, to continue the application to the March meeting. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Major Land Development – Pre-Application Review
AP 40/Lots 1-169, 179-200, 208-235, 241-271, 274-298, 300-329, 333-360, 364-382, 389-414, 416-440 and AP 42/Lot 139 – Douglas Pike & Ridge Road
42 Acres (approx.)/Zoning District: R-80, R-MED and Commercial
Applicant/Owner: Smithfield Estates, LLC; Earl Grey Estates, LLC
a. Review and discuss the proposed submission with the project proponent.
b. Provide input to the applicant regarding the necessary steps to submit a full application for further review.
Attorney Tim Kane, having offices at 627 Putnam Pike in Greenville, represented the applicant stating that this is the third pre-application submission before the Board and that the applicant has taken the Board’s suggestions and having flagged the wetlands. Attorney Kane stated that the current plan is for 139 total units, with 20 affordable units being built on site, having 58 total buildings comprised of 35 duplexes and 23 triplexes, and having 124 2 bedroom units and 15 3 bedroom units.
Ben Caito, Professional Engineer with Millstone Engineering, reviewed the wetlands locations on the property.
John Yoakum questioned what will be located in the commercial building and Attorney Kane replied that he is hoping that is will be a medical use but will be dependent on the market and in accordance with the allowable uses in the PD district.
Al Gizzarelli questioned the amount of visitor parking and Ben Caito replied that each unit has a 2 car garage with the addition of 2 cars in the driveway and that they are trying to eliminate impervious areas but that there is area onsite to add additional visitor parking. Mr. Gizzarelli added that he is not necessarily suggesting more spaces but that they be better distributed.
Major Land Development – Final Plan Review
AP 29/Lot 66A, AP 30/Lots 20, 29, 30, 30A, 31(portion of), & 31A, AP 35/Lots 13 & 21
355 Putnam Pike
27 Acres (approx.) / Zone: Putnam Pike/Esmond Street - Planned Development District
Applicant: Churchill & Banks Companies, LLC.
Owner: Churchill & Banks Companies, LLC. and Walter & Norma Paterson
Engineer: DiPrete Engineering
a. Review and discuss the proposed submission with the project proponent.
b. The Board may approve the Final Plan as submitted, approve with changes and/or conditions, deny the application, or continue the meeting to a future date.
Attorney Joelle Rocha represented the applicant stating that they are seeking Final Plan approval on the same plan that was before the Board at the Preliminary Plan approval with the only addition being that the affordable units are called out on the plan. Atty. Rocha added that they have obtained a monitoring agent as required for those units.
Attorney Rocha stated that the Preliminary Plan approval had 3 conditions required to be in place prior to recording of Final Plan approval. Atty. Rocha stated that the first was for an executed monitoring agreement to be submitted with the first building permit application. Atty. Rocha stated that a draft has been provided based on 80% median income which will not be entered into until the units are ready to be constructed and the fee will be in accordance with that schedule. Atty. Rocha stated that they are proposing that the executed monitoring agreement be sent to the Town prior to the applicant pulling any building permits. Atty. Rocha stated that there was an agreement that the applicant compensate 50% of the cost of an extended master plan study up to $17,500 at 80% of buildout but are proposing to give their half of the cost up to $17,500 at 60% buildout. Atty. Rocha stated the last condition of approval was for the actual DOT PAP permit to be in hand before recording and that they have a conditional letter from DOT ensuring receipt of the permit but, because there will be a year of site work and a bond is only good for one year, they are proposing to post bond, provide insurance and get the physical PAP in hand at the time the applicant is ready to do the infrastructure work.
Solicitor Scott Levesque stated that both he and Planner Phillips are comfortable that the check be delivered at 60% buildout and, although State law requires permits and bonds be in hand at final, it is reasonable to allow receipt at time of recording while acknowledging it is a significant amount of money to be paid and don’t want that money to be put out unduly. Atty. Levesque added that the applicant can’t proceed to project completion without having a bond which provides some assurance to the Town. Planner Phillips added that, once the Board’s decision is recorded, the applicant has a year for recording of the plans.
Len Bradley, Professional Engineer with Diprete Engineering, stated that the only modifications to the drawings were with regard to changes to the construction notes.
Attorney Joelle Rocha stated there is a plan in the Board’s access that calls out the locations of the easements that were granted to abutters.
Mike Moan questioned the need for a pedestrian crossing between buildings 2 and 3 and Len Bradley replied that they have provided stop bars but that it is something they can add, if needed, once the project is built.
Solicitor Scott Levesque reviewed the suggested conditions of approval in the modified Town Planner’s memorandum marked as Board’s #1.
John Steere made a motion, seconded by Richard Colavecchio, to approve the Final Plan based on the findings in the Town Planner memorandum marked as Board’s #1 with a modification to drawing #3 with regard to a retaining wall
Voting In Favor: Members Gizzarelli, Colavechio, Moan, Tillinghast, Steere, and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: Member Pinelli
The vote on the motion being six in favor with one abstention, the motion carried.
1. Review memo on initial meeting with Horsley Witten Group on the update of Housing Strategies.
Town Planner Mike Phillips stated that he met with Jeff Davis from Horsley Witten Group who suggested whittling the plan down to a more minimal size. Mr. Phillips stated that they also discussed the Board’s concerns with Table 24 and which sites are still viable. Mr. Phillips stated that he will come back with a draft for the Board.
Mike Moan addressed #8 on the memo and whether this Board is going to approve provisions to allow 2-family units in an R-20 single family zone and stated that he is vehemently opposed to this.
John Steere made a motion, seconded by Steve Tillinghast, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 pm. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna A. Corrao, Recording Secretary