| | Town of Smithfield Planning Board64 FARNUM PIKE ESMOND, RHODE ISLAND 02917 April 17, 2025 Virtual Meeting Minutes |
Members Present: Charles Boyd, James D’Ambra, Catherine Lynn, Michael Moan, Al Nani, Joseph Rotella, Daniel Sleboda, John Yoakum
Members Absent: Richard Colavecchio
Others Present: Anthony Gallone, Town Solicitor, Michael Phillips, Town Planner
Chair D’Ambra opened the April 17, 2025 meeting of the Smithfield Planning Board at 6:00 p.m.
Chair D’Ambra reads the Emergency Evacuation and Health Notification.
Discuss and approve the March 20, 2025 meeting minutes.
Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Nani, to approve the March 20, 2025 meeting minutes. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
(Applicant had requested a continuance to the May 15, 2025 meeting)
Minor Subdivision - Preliminary Plan Review
AP 43 / Lot 75 – 260 Old County Road
6.5 acres (approx.) / 3 Lots / Zone: RMED
Applicant/Owner: KLRS Realty LLC
Engineer: Joe Casali Engineering, Inc.
a. The Board will review and discuss the proposed submission with the project proponent.
b. The Board will conduct a public hearing to receive input on the proposed project.
c. The Board may approve the application for zoning relief as submitted, approve with changes and/or conditions, deny the application or continue the meeting to a future date.
d. 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.
e. The Board may authorize the Town Planner to prepare a written decision consistent with the
Board’s findings of fact and motion for signature by the Chair and subsequent recording.
f. The Board may vote to have the Final Plan approval be handled administratively.
Attorney Timothy Kane, of 627 Putnam Pike requests a continuance until the June 26, 2025 Planning Board meeting, seeking peer review before continuing. Member Moan questions how many continuances for this project have taken place, and could the Planning Board refuse the continuance. Attorney Kane states this could be the fourth, fifth or sixth continuance, the plans are under peer review and would like to be sure they are doing their due diligence on this project. Engineer Joe Casali, of 300 Post Road states there is a pending DEM shut down for an update to their computer systems and is out of their control. Mr. Casali believes June 26, 2025 would be best for the continuance to ensure there is enough time. Mr. Casali states that when they come before the Planning Board in June they will have their DEM Insignificant Alteration Permit as well as their approved peer review.
Town Planner Phillips states that the June Planning Board date was scheduled for June 19, 2025 however with that being the Juneteenth holiday, the Planning Board moves the meeting date to June 26, 2025.
Member Rotella made a motion, seconded by Member Nani, to approve the continuance to June 26, 2025 meeting. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
Comprehensive Permit Application / Major Land Development Project – Preliminary Plan Review
AP 44 / Lot 82 – 89 West Greenville Road
43 Acres / R-80 Zone
Applicant/Owner: West Greenville Road, LLC
Engineer: Garofalo & Associates, Inc.
a. The Board will review and discuss the proposed submission with the project proponent.
b. The Board will conduct a public hearing to receive input on the proposed project.
c. 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.
d. The Board may authorize the Town Planner to prepare a written decision consistent with the
Board’s findings of fact and motion for signature by the Chair and subsequent recording.
Chair D’Ambra states that the documents filed with the Planning Board in less than the 48 hour required window on behalf of the applicant were voluminous and it would not be appropriate to rule on a decision this evening. Chair D’Ambra further states that they will hear from experts and witnesses to speak on behalf of the applicant to review the reports.
Attorney John Mancini representing West Greenville Road LLC, agrees to the continuance of the decision by the Planning Board to May 15, 2025.
Rick Mandile, of Sage Environmental, gives an overview of the environmental report conducted in 2023. Mr. Mandile states that the soil tests did not exceed the normal levels for contaminants. Member Boyd states that his worry is that disturbing the soil will create airborne toxins that will affect nearby properties. Mr. Mandile states that the developer could create a soil management plan or dust management plan so that if dust is generated, it won’t find its way off site. Member Moan questions the lab results in comparison to the DEM residential standards. Mr. Mandile states the contaminants found are below the residential standards. Chair D’Ambra questions why there is no standard for this specific chemical that are comparable. Member Boyd questions Solicitor Gallone if the Town would be liable for approving this development with a known chemical present. Solicitor Gallone states that it is not the responsibility of the Town. Mr. Mandile states the contaminants are present but are below the residential standard and are not a risk to abutting properties or any of the future homeowners of the development. Chair D’Ambra questions Mr. Mandile why isn’t there a standard for testing this toxin. Mr. Mandile states that chemical is common orchard chemical and it breaks down easily in the environment and that’s perhaps why there isn’t a standard.
Town Planner Phillips states that after this land was an orchard, it was then used as a hemp farm. Mr. Mandile states they had only aerial photographs showing it as an orchard.
Paul Bannon, of Crossman Engineering reviews the traffic report conducted on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Bannon states that the findings indicate there is no significant increase in the traffic and a peer review also agreed with the findings. Member Yoakum questions the traffic report showing a dedicated right turn lane at the intersection of West Greenville and Snake Hill Road and Smith Avenue. Mr. Bannon states that this is just an option but not a requirement. Mr. Bannon states that there is only a slight anticipated increase of number of daily trips because of the development. Member Boyd questions which direction he believes the traffic will flow from the development and how that formula was determined. Mr. Bannon states they use existing patterns to determine the expected flow of traffic.
Joseph Lombardo, of JDL Enterprises, gives an overview of a fiscal impact study, and its impact on the Town. Mr. Lombardo’s report shows the impact of the development fiscally on the municipal budget, as well as the impact of the additions of school age children to the local schools. Mr. Lombardo states that number of bedroom units and type of housing effect the population of the Town. Mr. Lombardo states he expects based on the formula that it will cost the Town an additional $575,000. Mr. Lombardo states that there will be $388,000 in property taxes in revenue to the Town, leaving a deficit of $187,000. Member Lynn questions the statistics used for school aged children are from 2014 and don’t include LMI statistics.
Attorney Mancini states that Mr. Pimental will be heard again at the next Planning Board meeting
Edward Pimentel, of Cranston, provides an overview of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Pimentel states this comprehensive plan and the affordable housing portion has many nuances. Mr. Pimentel states the greatest need in Rhode Island is affordable home ownership. Mr. Pimentel states that the location of this development was appropriate, the density is also appropriate and this will achieve real growth for the area. Chair D’Ambra asks if there are any factors that are inconsistent to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Pimentel states that this location does meet appropriate standards for the density and infrastructure and there isn’t anything that doesn’t align with Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Member Boyd states that “rural character” is a reason that can be used for denial of this development based on the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Member Yoakum states that the Planning Board previously worked with the Town Planner and Town Engineer to identify areas where LMI units could be approved when the Town’s Comprehensive Plan was being updated. Member Yoakum further states that approving those areas did not mean signing off on losing the rural character of the Town. Member Lynn states she had previously requested floor plans for the two bedroom and three bedroom units, and would like those made available to the Planning Board. Member Boyd states he had previously requested a study on the dam on the property.
Chair D’Ambra states that a limited public hearing is reopened at 8:02 p.m. for the members of the public. Solicitor Gallone states that the members of the public can speak on topics related to the topics discussed tonight.
Matt Fague, 247 Old County Road, states he has concerns with the traffic study and would like to know if the Town of Glocester has been consulted as the Town line runs along the street opposite the entrance to the proposed development. Mr. Fague states he has concerns about general infrastructure including water, sewer and power.
Chair D’Ambra closes the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. and it will be reopened at the May 15, 2025 Planning Board meeting.
Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Nani to approve the continuance to the May 15, 2025 meeting. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
Major Land Development- Master Plan for Unified Development Review
AP 43 / Lot 132– 20 Levi Lane
2.7 Acres (approx.) / Zone: C – Special Use Variance
Applicant/Owner: Alba Properties LLC
Engineer: RA Cataldo & Associates, Inc
a. The Board will review and discuss the proposed submission with the project proponent.
b. The Board will conduct a public hearing to receive input on the proposed project.
c. The Board may approve the application for zoning relief as submitted, approve with changes and/or conditions, deny the application or continue the meeting to a future date.
d. 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.
e. The Board may authorize the Town Planner to prepare a written decision consistent with the
Board’s findings of fact and motion for signature by the Chair and subsequent recording.
f. The Board may vote to have the Final Plan approval be handled administratively.
Attorney Hagop S. Jawharjian states that at the March 20, 2025 Planning Board meeting Member Boyd had concerns about the state of the buildings and land and wanted a site visit. Attorney Jawharjian states the site visit took place on March 29, 2025.
Attorney Jawharjian states that the applicant is seeking a special use variance as well as the front setback and side setback. Attorney Jawharjian states that it is his belief this is already grandfathered in but because this application is before the Planning Board, the applicant wants to do a global resolution to make sure there aren’t any problems in the future. Attorney Jawharjian states 20 Levi Lane does not add any additional pressures to the infrastructures, the buildings there have already been approved by the fire department. Attorney Jawharjian states that a continuance to June 26, 2025 would be better once the full survey is completed on the abutting property owned by Global Signal.
Member Moan questions what is necessary to move forward with DEM. Attorney Jawharjian states that acquiring the abutting parcel will allow the applicant to put the storm water drainage controls in a more feasible area.
Member Rotella asks why the survey is being done now. Attorney Jawharjian states that the applicant wants to know exactly what is in the property and is consistent with the listed meets and bounds on the deed to the property.
Member Boyd states that he wants to be sure the municipal court fines will be paid in full. Attorney Jawharjian states the applicant is responsible for the municipal court fines on their property.
Member Rotella made a motion, seconded by Member Nani to approve the continuance to the June 26, 2025 meeting. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, D’Ambra, Lynn, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
Minor Subdivision - Preliminary Plan for Unified Development Review
AP 45 / Lots 6 & 7 – 520 & 540 Douglas Pike & AP 45 / Lots 138 & 138B – 46 & 48 Ridge Rd
19.59 Acres (approx.) / Zone: R-MED / C - Modification of 4 Lots
Applicant/Owner: Torre Holdings, LLC, 520 Douglas Pike LLC, SJ Irrev. Trust, KR Irrev. Trust
Engineer: Joe Casali Engineering, Inc.
a. The Board will review and discuss the proposed submission with the project proponent.
b. The Board will conduct a public hearing to receive input on the proposed project.
c. The Board may approve the application for zoning relief as submitted, approve with changes and/or conditions, deny the application or continue the meeting to a future date.
d. 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.
e. The Board may authorize the Town Planner to prepare a written decision consistent with the
Board’s findings of fact and motion for signature by the Chair and subsequent recording.
f. The Board may vote to have the Final Plan approval be handled administratively.
Attorney Timothy Kane, of 627 Putnam Pike represents the applicants of the development. Attorney Kane states that four lots need relief on frontage to redraw the property lines. Attorney Kane states the applicants would give up a one acre buildable lot in exchange for this relief. Attorney Kane states the four lots have their own structure on them and evens out the use of the land. Engineer Joe Casali of 300 Post Road presents the four lots and the redrawing of the lots.
Chair D’Ambra opens the public hearing at 8:34 p.m., no comments are made and the public hearing is closed at 8:34 p.m.
Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Nani for the approval of 520-540 Douglas Pike and 46-48 Ridge Road, the recommendation of the Planning Department is of the opinion that the condition of the preliminary plan approval has been satisfied. The requested frontage and setback relief of 150 feet and the Planning Board grant preliminary plan approval of the minor subdivision. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, D’Ambra, Lynn, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
Comprehensive Permit Application / Major Land Development Project –Pre-Application
AP 48 / Lot 5, 34 Rocky Hill Road
3.6 Acres (approx.) / Zone: Highway Commercial/EGO
Applicant/Owner:
Engineer: : Joe Casali Engineering, Inc.
a. The Board will review the submission with the applicant and provide input for future review stages.
Engineer Joe Casali of 300 Post Road, gives an overview of a pre-application for the Residences at 295. Mr. Casali states this development is in the EGO zone, commercial and residential and will be mixed use on Rocky Hill Road, in the northern most point of Smithfield, near Route 295 and Harris Road.
Mr. Casali states that there are small wetlands but will have a small buffer of 25 feet and an application to DEM will be necessary. Mr. Casali states this land is in the highway commercial zone and in the economic growth overlay district. Mr. Casali states that setbacks are different in the EGO zone, a 10 foot maximum setback from Rocky Hill Road and they would seek relief for that setback. Mr. Casali states the only other setback is a 25 foot rear setback, nothing along the sides. Mr. Casali states that in the EGO district, 35% must be mixed use development, and the remaining 65% can be residential use.
Mr. Casali states that the applicant is proposing 20 units per acre, density of 46 units, plus the density bonus allows for 11 more units, so there are 57 units are allowed, and 15 units are required to be LMI. Mr. Casali states the applicant is asking for 86 units and 22 of them as LMI units. Mr. Casali states that the layout will be one building, with four stories, and will be similar to the Meadows development in North Smithfield. Mr. Casali states that the type of architecture, gable structure, cupolas and a clock tower lend to a pleasing asthetic. Mr. Casali states there are 78 one-bedroom units and 8 two-bedroom units. Mr. Casali states the commercial use will be flex space units, garages with man doors and overhead doors and the entrance will be from Rocky Hill Road only, not through the storage facility. Mr. Casali states they will have conventional drainage basins at the peripherals of the lots, interconnected and ultimately making their way into nearby wetlands. Mr. Casali states there is a 12 foot water main running right through Rocky Hill Road, and that will provide domestic and fire protection to the four story building. Mr. Casalsi states they are going to require a pump station to connect into a gravity line that exists but not until Harris Road and Rocky Hill cross over.
Member Lynn questions if this would be the tallest residential building in town. Town Planner Phillips states that the EGO zone does allow for a four story structure, and yes it would be the tallest residential building in town. Mr. Casali states they checked for FAA flight plan in regards to the height of the four story structure to be sure they were not in the flight path. Member Lynn questions how many units would be in the development if they eliminated the 4th floor or the building. Mr. Casali states that this would be 63 units, with each floor housing 23 units each, and the applicant could change the style of plans.
Member Boyd questions the width of Rocky Hill Road. Mr. Casali states he thinks it could be anywhere from 18 to 22 feet wide as an estimate and the fire chief will probably request it be made wider. Member Boyd questions if it will require moving stonewalls. Mr. Casali states he does not know if stonewalls will need to be moved until they get better topography of the area. Member Boyd questions what type of commercial use would occupy the garages and can the road handle this traffic. Mr. Casali states that if there is less than 100 trips per day they are not required to do traffic study. Member Boyd questions the type of lighting in the parking areas. Mr. Casali states there will be wall packs on the buildings and stanchion lights in the parking lots.
Member Yoakum questions the flex building dimensions. Mr. Casali states they will be conventional sizes ranging from 26 to 30 feet, similar to the commercial buildings on Cedar Swamp Road next to Thirsty Beaver. Member Yoakum states that it’s good to see this possible development in the EGO zone, that’s the intention of this zone.
Member Rotella questions if there is any thought to installing a sound barrier facing Route 295. Mr. Casali states there is no sound study yet but the height of the building may make a sound barrier ineffective. Mr. Casali states the developer might over insulate the building for sound to help with an expected ambient noise.
Member Lynn questions if there is any designated play space for children in the development. Mr.Casali states that there hasn’t been any play space for kids planned but that plans could be updated to reflect that addition.
Member Moan states that this development is what the Planning Board has been looking for in terms of developments in mixed use zones as well as allotted LMI for the area.
Major Land Development- Pre-Application
AP 50 / Lots 9, 9A, 9B, 29, 67 – 0, 167, 171, & 175 Tarklin Road & 512 Log Road
25 Acres (approx.) / Zone: R-200 –Use Variance
Applicant/Owner: Endurance Clean Energy LLC
Engineer: GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc
a. The Board will review the submission with the applicant and provide input for future review stages review stages.
Attorney Joe Carnevale, gives a brief overview of the proposed development, including redrawing boundary lines, and permitting a new solar development in southern portion of land. Mr. Carnevale states that the solar array will be adjacent to superfund site and no other viable buildable structures can be put there. Mr. Carnevale states that the applicant is seeking relief on use of parcel after solar install. Mr. Carnevale states that they would be seeking to allow solar in R200 zone, as well as relief on lot coverage requirements. Mr. Carnevale states that the conceptual plan would be a 35 acre parcel, with 14 acres being used for solar array, and that would require relief on setback requirements.
Member Lynn inquires how much tree clearing will be done as a result of this solar array. Mr. Carnevale states that some tree cutting or shortening will happen but no clear cutting will take place. Member Lynn requests the exact number of trees that will be cut.
Member Lynn questions the need for battery storage site. Mr. Carnevale states the battery storage is currently in pending legislation with the state and at some point may be required. Member Lynn questions the process if there is no battery storage, what happens with the generated power created by the solar array.
John Friend, of Endurance Clean Energy states that power can’t be sent directly to the grid, battery storage is necessary.
Member Boyd questions if fencing is required around the solar array. Mr. Friend states that fencing is required because of the high voltage.
Member Rotella asks if Endurance Clean Energy operates in any other states. Mr. Friend states they are operating in Maine currently, and also responsible for the solar arrays on the landfills in Cranston and Coventry. Member Rotella questions if there is any state oversight on any of these solar developments. Mr. Friend states that they sites are inspected a few times a year in person and they are also monitored online by Endurance Clean Energy.
Member Moan states that this could be a very good use of the land, and would likely grant a use variance.
There is no public comment.
Member Rotella made a motion, seconded by Member Lynn to adjourn the Planning Board meeting. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
Meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 15, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Katie Closson, Recording Secretary