EMERGENCY EVACUATION AND HEALTH NOTIFICATION

Chair D’Ambra reads the Emergency Evacuation and Health Notification.

MINUTES: Discuss and approve the June 26, 2025 meeting minutes.

Member Moan states that he watched the Town Council meeting on Tuesday, July 15, 2025 and Town Council Member Rachel Toppi stated that she watched the previous Planning Board meeting from June 26, 2025 and attorney Joelle Rocha claimed that the applicant she represented could proceed with the project without the requested zoning amendment change. Member Moan states that he would like a video check of the record from the June 26, 2025 Planning Board meeting and make note of the dialogue that occurred. 

Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Rotella, to approve the amended June 26, 2025 meeting minutes. The vote on the motion was eight in favor and one abstention and the motion carried.

Voting In Favor: Members Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum

Voting In Opposition: None

Abstaining: Member Alexander

REGULAR AGENDA

OLD BUSINESS

WHIPPLE WOODS - (ID#: 22-03) MASTER PLAN REVIEW

Major Subdivision - Master Plan

AP 42 / Lot 12 - 170 Whipple Road

40.91 Acres (approx.) / 9 Lots / Zone: R-80 (Conservation)

Applicant / Owner: Louie Capital LLC & MAS Capital LLC; CAS Capital LLC & ERS Capital LLC

Engineer: Jeffrey C. Hanson, P.E. - Millstone Engineering, PC

a.      The Board will conduct the project’s annual review.

b.      The Board will vote on approval of the extension. 

Member Sleboda recuses himself from this agenda item.

Attorney Kelly Morris Salvatore of Providence representing the applicant, states that Phoenix Development is the new owner of the property. Attorney Morris Salvatore states that this property received master plan approval for a 14 lot conservation development in 2022. The applicant received it’s first by right extension on September 27, 2024, and is now seeking the second and final by right extension on the project. Since the property had been sold to Phoenix, they have been working on an amended master plan.

Member Moan questions when this project may come back before the Planning Board. Attorney Morris Salvatore states she thinks a few months before they will seek approval from the Planning Board.

Member Rotella made a motion, seconded by Member Nani, for an extension for Whipple Woods ID#22-03. The vote on the motion was eight in favor and one abstention and the motion carried.

Voting In Favor: Members Alexander, Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Nani, Rotella, and Yoakum

Voting In Opposition: None

Abstaining: Member Sleboda

NEW BUSINESS

0 CROSS STREET & SHAMROCK LANE - (ID#: 25-10)

Minor Subdivision - Pre-Application                       

AP 23 / Lots 61 & 67A - 0 Cross Road

2.92 Acres (approx.) / Zone: R-20

Applicant/Owner: Crescenzo/Shannon Conti

Engineer: Kelly Land Services

a.        The Board will review the submission with the applicant and provide input for future review

stages.

Assistant Town Solicitor Ursillo states that the Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Town Council as to whether to purchase the property. This property was reviewed with the Town Manager last month at the previous Planning Board meeting. The Town Council will hold a public hearing on the item hopefully in September.

Assistant Town Solicitor Ursillo wanted to clarify what could be built on the property owned by Mr. Conti once the land swap sale would go though. Assistant Town Solicitor Ursillo states that Mr. Conti has no plans to build a development, the pie shaped property is only 56,000 square feet and would need to be subdivided with the house that’s already on it. The other new lot would be a 20,000 square foot lot and is a single family home presentation. The Town would like the land swap deal to go through to provide the additional parking area to Olivia’s Forest.

Assistant Town Solicitor Ursillo states that this matter is a recommendation to the Town Council and does not require a public hearing. Town Council Member Michael Iannotti states that the Town Council passed an ordinance last year giving the public the right to speak on any agenda item before any board on the agenda item itself, this is in addition to the public comment that’s at the end of each meeting. The Chairperson can set limitations on time and number of people who may speak, but everyone has the right to comment. Member Rotella requests a copy of the ordinance to the Planning Department so that all members of the Planning Board have it available to them.

Member Moan asks to outline exactly what is happening with the property, whether it will be a land swap, or if the Town is paying for the land, and is there grant money to purchase this land. Assistant Town Planner Carcifero states that AP 23 Lot 67A is the property that will be purchased by the Town. Member Moan questions if Mr. Conti is reducing the price of what the Town is purchasing it for because the Town is allowing the strip of land to be transferred. Assistant Town Planner Carcifero states that he is unaware if there is a reduced price for the property, and a DEM grant is going to pay for 50% of the property. Town Manager Robert Seltzer states that there was an agreed upon purchase price for the property dating back a year and half put together by the previous Town Manager.

Member Lynn states she has concerns about multi-family homes being built on the new property. Assistant Town Solicitor Ursillo states that from the standpoint of planning and zoning if anything was going to be developed, an application would need to come before the Planning Board as well, and would also require a zoning change.

Public Comment

Charles Boyd, 14 Sprague Street states that it could be useless space and dangerous for residents without barriers. The risk for what the Town will swap versus the parking spaces gained is not worth the exchange. And what is gained is not worth the land swap. Mr. Boyd questions who will take care of the area when it’s out of season.

Town Manager Seltzer states intent was for parking spaces, the Town plans to regrade the land, install a barrier for the river and give plenty of space to turn around and keep it open space. This would also provide more parking on Ridge Road. Town Manager Seltzer has walked the space with DPW Director Gene Allen and former Town Planner Mike Phillips, and think it should be kept natural. The DEM grant is for $117,000 that can only be used for this property.

Member Yoakum states that is a benefit to what the Town plans on doing to the area, grading and providing access for 14-20 parking spaces, which is significant considering there are none currently.

Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Nani, that the Planning Board recommend this project for approval to the Town Council. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.

Voting In Favor: Members Alexander, Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda, and Yoakum

Voting In Opposition: None

Abstaining: None

RAINFOREST REALTY LLC - (ID#: 25-11)

Major Land Development - Pre Application

AP 42 / Lots 2 & 2A 445 Douglas Pike

28.26 Acres (approx.) / Zone: PD

Applicant/Owner: Rainforest Realty LLC

Engineer: Northeast Engineers & Consultants 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 Michael Monti, of Sayer, Regan and Thayer on behalf of the applicant and owner Rainforest Realty LLC. Attorney Monti presents a concept plan review of an affordable housing development made under the comprehensive permit regulations. This allows an applicant for an affordable housing development to get a fairly substantial density bonus and submit one application to the Planning Board for nearly all municipal approvals.

Attorney Monti states this is the applicant’s opportunity to present their pre-application and ask for feedback. This property is 435 and 445 Douglas Pike, this is the current location of Twelve Acres banquet hall. The site is two lots, 14.62 acres total, the plan would be 24 individual structures that are all duplexes, 48 units total and 25% would be LMI. The affordable units would be integrated throughout the site. The land area this big actually entitles the applicant to 73 units but constrained not by regulation but by wetlands.

Attorney Monti states that adjustments sought have to do with proximity of the structures to each other, distance between structures. The applicant will be seeking waivers on those standards.  An additional performance standard adjustment would be that the site is not serviced by public sewer, they are going to need septic systems throughout the site. The minimum side yard requirements are 30 feet apart, and would seek and adjustment, these are examples of adjustments that need to be sought.

Attorney Monti states that the applicant still needs to get their letter of eligibility from Rhode Island Housing, the applicant will present a financial proforma and other materials to do an affordable housing complex on this site.

Member Lynn asks if they are two floor units and what is the number of bedrooms per unit. Attorney Monti states they are currently single story units and the number of bedrooms is still under review and would appreciate the Planning Board’s feedback on this matter.

Chair D’Ambra questions if the needed relief is due to the number of units the applicant is seeking to build. Attorney Monti states that yes they are seeking relief to allow for more units in the development.

Lynn Small, of Northeast Engineers in Middletown, RI states that they conducted a boundary survey and the existing topography. They performed class four soil evaluations throughout the site. The wetlands are located on the southern portion of the property. Public water does come in from Douglas Pike that services existing buildings on the property.

Ms. Small states that they intend to maintain the existing curb cut, with the potential to enhance the look as you enter the property. There will be a 24 foot wide driveway, with a looped roadway system that stays private and no maintenance is required by the Town. Each of the residences will have a garage and parking in their driveway for each unit. There is also some additional parking near the structures. The dimensions of the proposed driveway is 24 feet wide, national fire code is a minimum of 20 feet and in her experience this is a comfortable size but does not encourage speeding.

Ms. Small states that the storm water system has not been developed for a full drainage design on this project yet, but know they need to have a water quality treatment for each of the units. The storm water will have to be mitigated before it discharges towards the wetlands. The current proposed drainage areas depicted are conceptual in idea and will need to be finalized before presented.

Ms. Small states that they have proposed four community septic systems, they may need to designate residences per system. There would be a pre-septic tank and pre-treatment system at each structure that would then go into what would feel like a municipal collection system.

Ms. Small states that the northern boundary is pretty steep and there are some residential homes on that side, so they decided to pull the project inwards of that boundary and provide a buffer to those homes. They also want to focus on already disturbed areas so that they’re not clearing trees to build this particular project. Ms. Small states that of the 14.5 acres, more than 7.5 acres will not be disturbed.

Member Lynn states that she would prefer to maintain the rural look of Douglas Pike, currently you cannot see the building from the road and she would like to keep it that way. Member Lynn states her preference to have a one-story structure that’s hidden from view on Douglas Pike. Ms. Small state that in the rendering there are several hundred feet from Douglas Pike before you get to the first building. Attorney Monti displays the rendering of the proposed one story structure and states that this looks similar to the West Valley site style. Member Lynn questions if the units are on slabs. Ms. Small states that they don’t have an answer yet, they would like basements for extra storage but don’t know yet. There is also a concern with elevated water tables and ledge to consider as factors before they decide on basements for the units.

Member Moan compliments the presentation put forth by the applicant and states that as the Planning Board sometimes they have to pull teeth to get answers. Member Moan further states that the one-story concept is excellent. Member Moan states that according to the rendering there is a walking trail and questions if this is a possible concept that’s doable. Attorney Monti states that Pamela Rodgers, the landscape architect will speak next.

Assistant Town Solicitor Ursillo questions how the homeowner’s association is set up in terms of the septic systems and will the LMI units pay the same homeowner’s association fees as the regular units. Ms. Small states that the other similar development she has done does not have any LMI units. Attorney Monti states that his office will investigate how this will be set up. Member Sleboda states that what usually happens with shared septic systems is that it goes to the entire homeowner’s association, and it doesn’t matter if it provides service to one unit or ten units, it all gets sent to one meter and everyone pays the electric or maintenance fee. Ms. Small states that they don’t know if that’s an equal distribution or if the LMI units will have a rated fee. Attorney Monti states they will speak to Rhode Island Housing and find out how they typically deal with this scenario. Member Sleboda states that there should also be a reserve area for these systems, they should be the same size system as the planned system because these systems are not going to last with this many people living in the development. Member Sleboda further states that the plan they are viewing currently will not be the plan that comes before the Planning Board again in a few months. Ms. Small states that she has seen residences that have a higher occupancy and some have a lower occupancy and you end up with better controlled flow of an equal waste water.

Assistant Town Solicitor Ursillo questions what the actual acreage is for the structures themselves. Ms. Small states that she doesn’t have that number at present. Member Lynn states that due to the influx of school age children her preference would be to have just two bedrooms in the units. Ms. Small states that the septic systems are sized for two bedroom units.

Pamela Rodgers, landscape architect from Verde Design in Jamestown.  Ms. Rodger states that the applicant wanted to keep the rural character of the property, it’s a unique property with an exposed ledge, trees and the existing clearings. There is not a lot of space for open space areas on the property because of the units, so that’s why the walking path could be a unique addition to the property. Ms. Rodgers states there is so much natural wooded area and a brook that runs through that space and a small path that could be nice addition. Ms. Rodgers states the center area where structures are to be built is already open space, and would like to preserve a linden tree. Currently the entryway is just a large sign and fairly basic entrance. They would like to add stone with a recessed sign, trees to make it look more aesthetically pleasing and welcoming. Ms. Rodgers presents a mock-up of the one-story residence, she states that they would like to fit these units into the landscape with trees and landscaping, showing some separation between the units and maintain the rural character.

Chair D’Ambra states that he appreciates that the applicant is trying to keep the rural concept and this duly noted. The request for waivers to have the structures very close to each other and he states that’s a bit inconsistent with the rural concept, so if something can be done in terms of other options whereby that particular waiver is not needed, having the residences further apart would be better. Member Colavecchio agrees and states that Attorney Monti mentioned the square footage per unit, but what needs to be addressed is the usable acreage and not the overall acreage and the number of units based on that.

Public Comment

Matt Fague, 247 Old County Road states this plan is a better approach, and acknowledges that amount of wetlands could be hindrance. Mr. Fague states that the wetlands on the right side of the property slopes downward toward Douglas Pike, there is also more wetlands that are across the road and during the winter this creates heavy slushing conditions. Mr. Fague also states that the residences are too close together. He further states that it’s nice to see walking trail but there is no recreation available or any other infrastructure that anyone can access. Another concern is about lighting, the property will need to be better lit. There should also be soundproofing in the residences or trees would be necessary between residences and grades this a B-/C+.

Jen Shafer, 11 Maureen Drive, states she lives on the other side of the proposed development and her concern is the water levels in general, multiple homes in the area have had flooding in their basements and yards. Ms. Shafer is worried that more development would create the need for additional water remediation at her expense. Ms. Shafer further states that she is concerned about even more children coming into their schools, questioning if those children would have to be bussed to other elementary schools. Ms. Shafer notes that the historic cemetery should be properly cared for in the property as well.

Charles Boyd, 14 Sprague Street, states that this property is very wet and everything is going to flood. Mr. Boyd states that he would like to see the Town create an LMI committee, the Town is getting abused because of LMI and density bonus requirements and they are not beneficial to the Town.

Chair D’Ambra says this is a pre-application so the Planning Board is just getting feedback at this point.

ENDURANCE CLEAN ENERGY - (ID#: 25-07)

Major Land Development - Master Plan

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 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 Joe Carnevale, representing the applicant Endurance Clean Energy presents the master plan application, the first is seeking approval for major subdivision that will create two new parcels. The second is for the approval of the major development in the form of a largescale solar application. The third approval sought is relief being requested for the associated elements of zoning relief, a use variance and dimensional variances for solar development. Attorney Carnevale states that this project in total will span seven parcels, they are assessor’s plat 50, lots 9, 9A, 9B, 10, 12, 29, and 67.

Attorney Carnevale presents photographs of the land as it currently stands, and states that this an ideal site for solar, there is minimal tree and brush clearing involved and its proximity to the Davis Superfund Site. Attorney Carnevale states that there will be minimal thinning of trees to address any shade areas on the portion of the parcel to the south. The concrete pad installed by the EPA previously, they will not add or disrupt that, just setting battery storage system on top of that pad.

Attorney Carnevale states that the proposed 3.66 megawatt solar facility would be 14.91 acres and the overall property is 35 acres. The solar system will include the PV panel arrays, a battery energy storage system, transmission lines and equipment pads. There will be some lighting installed for safety, and using the existing gravel road to provide access to the property via an easement. There are no houses constructed, no impact on traffic and town utilities.

Attorney Carnevale states that this reconfiguration will create two new parcels as a result of this plan. The first new parcel is comprised of plat 50, lots 9, 9A, 9B, 10 and 12 and at present all are zoned R200.  The relief sought is a use variance to allow the non-conforming solar and a dimensional variance to allow lot coverage on the new proposed parcel to exceed the 20% lot coverage, and requesting a 41.8% lot coverage. The dimensional variances sought on frontages and lot width would require a change to the zoning ordinance that requires 300 feet of frontage. The frontage needed would be through the easement and will be the width of the access road plus a few feet each way, seeking 15 feet to be allowed. As far as setbacks sought they are increased from what the standard is for R200 is 300 feet, the applicant is seeking 15 foot setbacks on the northwest and eastern sides of this proposed parcel. In regards to the buffer requirements, the zoning ordinance on a solar development requires a 50 foot wooded buffer, 20 foot partial landscape screen or stockade fencing. The proposed site is not visible from any public roads, nor is it visible from any houses in the general vicinity and would seek to use chain link fencing around the site. The second new parcel comprised of plat 50, lot 29 would carve out 55 acres to the west of the quarry pond area leaving the 85 acres remaining on that parcel and increasing lot coverage to 28.54%.

Attorney Carnevale states that this plan supports the Town and the state’s renewable energy goals and is likely to be the last solar development in this Town and possibly the state of RI as a result of recent federal legislation.  The plan reuses a previously disturbed site with minimal ecological disruption, avoids core forests and agricultural land disruption and promotes clean distributed energy in line with the Town’s comprehensive plan.  

Chair D’Ambra questions the lot coverage requirement changes sought. Attorney Carnevale states that this relief is being sought to avoid attempting to obtain more land, this would carve the lots, the land is ideal because of its already existing topography, as well as the property next to the site itself.  Chair D’Ambra questions why the applicant is seeking a variance on the setback from 300 feet to 15 feet. Attorney Carnevale states there is no buildable area if the setback was to stay at 300 feet. Chair D’Ambra states that ordinance is in place to protect people who many live or build around the particular site.  

Greg Lucini of Endurance Energy, 345 Thames Street of Bristol, RI, states that the solar panels follow the sun, this system is used these when there is less space for a solar array. In order to lay that out efficiently the vertical rows go straight up and down as opposed to what’s called tables, where the solar panels can be put in corners inside the property line, more space is needed to arrange the solar panels. Mr. Lucini states 15 feet isn’t much of a setback, the project will not be close to the 15 foot setback because of the wetlands.

Mr. Lucini states that he owns the land to the north and owns most of the land to the west, and as the abutter, he doesn’t mind the 15 foot proposed buffer. Mr. Lucini states that the land to the west is the quarry and nothing will be built there. The land to the north is blocked in and already has a solar array built there and to the east is the superfund site which will not go away anytime soon. Mr. Lucini states that to the south is a large hill and the combination of those lands will preclude any development. The 15 foot setback sought is not required on the east and west boundaries, only needed to the north, to be able to push production to the top. The southerly boundary setback can be flexible, and could be changed.  

Mr. Lucini states that the state legislature placed a requirement that they want future solar projects to include battery storage, and legislation has not been put forth yet. In good faith Endurance will meet whatever administrative requirements are put forth and the battery storage can be placed on the already existing concrete pad put in place previously by the EPA. The concrete pad was previously used to burn off waste from the superfund site. The battery storage would be in an ideal location, self-contained and will have fire prevention to extinguish itself.

Member Yoakum questions if the road needs improvement for the fire department to have access. Mr Lucini states that he doesn’t believe the road needs improvement, it was built by the EPA. Member Yoakum asks the length of the road from the entrance on Log Road to the proposed battery storage site on the concrete pad. Mr. Lucini states that it could be over 1,000 feet long and significant space to turn around once inside the space.

Member Moan states that he isn’t familiar with where the state legislature stands on battery storage but he believes the Town recently passed an ordinance and questions Mr. Lucini on how he will get around that ordinance. Mr. Lucini states what he believes the Town has in their ordinance is an AC to AC coupled battery system, where a big battery is close to transmission lines and it takes AC in and then load shift to sell power when it’s more valuable to push the AC out. Whereas the system they are proposing is DC coupled, the batteries are charged by the solar array and then energy is released as needed. This is important because the batteries are the key to grid resilience, if something ever happened to the power coming into Smithfield, the Town would have battery energy that could be discharged at will. Member Moan questions when fires and explosions occur with lithium ion batteries if these are the DC units. Mr. Lucini states that there have been issues with fires in the past and the new rules have gotten extremely stringent on how they are protected with fire suppression systems.

Member Colavecchio states that it was previously explained to the Planning Board that it’s similar to a Tesla catching on fire, that it has to burn itself out, as there’s no way to put the unit out other than letting it burn. The Planning Board was concerned about the potential of wildfire spreading as a result. Member Colavecchio states that the location is remote, but there is still a chance of wildfire. Mr. Lucini states that Endurance is still waiting for the state of Rhode Island guidelines to present a final battery design. Their plan is to use lithium ion phosphate batteries and they do not self-propagate, meaning they don’t burn on a chain. Mr. Lucini states that without the full battery design in place, they would seek to move the solar project forward and then come back at a later date with the battery portion of the plan.

Member Lynn questions that with a road over 1,000 feet long with a few feet of snow, how will the fire department get up the road. Mr. Lucini states there are two entrances, one off Tarklin Road that is shorter or from Log Road, and the EPA requires that the road be maintained and Endurance will maintain the road plowing any snow to maintain access to the solar array.

Mr. Lucini states the reason he is suggesting bifurcating the process to present the overall concept is that federal legislation that ends the investment tax credits is occurring very soon and the date to start construction is less than a year from now. Member Rotella states he would like to clarify that Endurance is not requesting moving forward on the battery potion of the project tonight. Mr Lucini states that this is correct, the object is to move forward with the idea that approval for the battery portion would require additional planning and time. Member Colavecchio states that the Planning Board would like to have an expert speak on the battery specifics.

Member Rotella questions if the existing solar array that borders the proposed project is associated with Endurance. Mr. Lucini states that he developed the solar in place and sold it to Kearsage Energy and they are the current owner/operator, but he is the landowner where the solar array sits.

Member Colavecchio questions how that current solar array is operating. Mr. Lucini states that it has been working well, and the recent easy winters help.

Mr. Lucini states he has developed solar projects in Coventry, Cranston, Burrillville, Tiverton and Richmond, those sites are also landfills and superfund sites, that his specialty is using useless land for new solar arrays. Mr. Lucini states that based on experience the requested zoning change for setbacks is necessary for the space needed to build the solar array.

Megan Elwell, 73 John Dyer Road, Little Compton, is an environmental scientist at GZA. Ms. Elwell states that she participated in field visits associated with the wetlands delineation as well as topographic surveys that were conducted on the site and did investigations into the environmental portion of the project. GZA reviewed the project to see where the developable areas were on the property, and doesn’t foresee any wetlands impacts on this property. Ms. Elwell states that solar use would be the only viable option for this land.

Chair D’Ambra questions Ms. Elwell in her testimony that there is no other useable option for this land, and would like to know how she got to this opinion and how she was able to rule out other potential beneficial uses, if any. Ms. Elwell states that her experience is also in policy and is familiar with DEM regulations, that she sees no way this could feasibly be used for residential purposes safely especially with the constraints the wetland boundaries provided. Chair D’Ambra questions Ms. Elwell that based on her testimony this land has no use other than solar. Ms. Elwell states that based on factors she has considered, she would agree that there’s no practical beneficial use other than solar.

Member Colavecchio asks Ms. Elwell who is appealing the wetlands designation that runs through the property. Ms. Elwell states that GZA is in the process of discussion with DEM, to get it modified with FEMA, as this was done previously. Member Colavecchio asks what happens if DEM doesn’t agree with the appeal. Mr. Lucini states there would need to be heavy modification to where the panels would be, raising them out of the flood zone designated by the EPA.

Chair D’Ambra opens the public hearing at 8:22 p.m.

Town Council Member Rachel Toppi states that the Town Council did completely ban battery storage facilities in Smithfield in 2023, and asks Attorney Carnevale if the legislation is going to require battery storage or will there be an option. Attorney Carnevale states that this is a moving target and won’t have final guidance for another month or more. Town Council Member Toppi asks for the size of the proposed battery storage. Attorney Carnevale states they don’t have an exact number yet, the existing concrete pad is 90 feet by 100 feet. Town Council Member Toppi would like to know at a later date the distance to the nearest house.

Assistant Town Solicitor Ursillo questions the letter from ISO New England if the solar array was approved or if this was with the battery energy storage system included. Mr. Lucini states they have not applied for the battery storage yet. This project is grandfathered in based on when they applied for this solar, so this project would not be subject to a study.

Matt Fague, 247 Old County Road, questions how much voltage the battery bank hold versus kilowatts or megawatts, as there is concern about thermal runoff. Mr. Fague states that this a great place for this, but is it possible to not have the battery storage and just to have the solar array. Mr. Fague also questions if there is no battery storage how would electricity get to the power company and how much noise will this generate when the panels rotate. Mr. Fague states that there are piles of gravel by the property, and questions if those are contaminated and if they will be used to redress the road or if in the event of a thermal fire would they use those piles to bury the battery storage. Mr. Fague questions if the battery storage can be monitored remotely and if they burned and created fluids, would this send toxic fluids near residential areas.

Charles Boyd, 14 Sprague Street, states that he likes the idea of solar, but is worried about battery storage, and asks if fire suppression is inside the shipping container that holds the batteries. Mr. Boyd further asks if the fire trucks cannot get to the battery storage could a pumping station be built.

Chair D’Ambra closes the public hearing at 8:35 p.m.

Mr. Lucini states that power can be sent to RI Energy without battery storage, the project is still viable, but the state says you have to have battery storage as part of the solar project. Chair D’Ambra states that overcoming the ordinance on battery storage is the hurdle. Mr. Lucini states that there is a scenario where Endurance moves forward, builds the solar array and the battery can be added later. The problem with that approach is that this project is called solar plus BES, the design plan would need to change if the battery is added later.

Member Rotella states that he sees this as a major problem, especially in terms of state versus local governance. Member Rotella further states that he would not approve the project with the battery storage as part of the plan as there is an ordinance that states battery storage is banned in Town.

Attorney Carnevale states that endurance will withdraw the portion of the requests on the master plan that consists of battery storage and would like to ask for approval on the other components. Chair D’Ambra questions the requested setbacks, would Endurance agree to the Planning Board’s request to 50 feet instead of the 15 feet requested by the applicant. Member Yoakum states that he is satisfied with 50 foot setbacks based in the remote location of the solar project. Member Rotella states that he is also satisfied with 50 foot setbacks given the fact that the EPA site borders the property on one side and that Mr. Lucini owns the other property that borders the project. Member Moan states that he has no problems with the suggested setbacks and would like to see this site. Member Lynn states that she believes this vote should be done as one and not separate them. Member Nani states that he agrees with Member Lynn and that waiting would allow more time for resolving the conflict of law issues that Member Rotella referenced. Member Yoakum states that they should be separate approvals because the solar project in it of itself appears to be a good plan and they are willing to withdraw the battery portion.

Mr. Lucini states that waiting for a vote when the battery issue would be resolved by the state will kill the project as construction needs to start in less than a year.

Member Rotella questions if the Planning department’s recommendation is a typo, as it states that the master plan approval has not been satisfied. Assistant Town Planner Carcifero states that this is a typo, and the Planning Department states in their memo that master plan approval has been met. Assistant Town Solicitor Ursillo states that the memo doesn’t address the battery storage system as it was not outlined to be discussed.

Member Colavecchio asks if there is a decommissioning plan in place and what would that entail. Mr. Lucini states that decommissioning plans are required by the state and it requires the money is put in a bond or a checking account, and it’s based on the size of the system.

Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Rotella to approve the master plan for Endurance Clean Energy solar array with no battery storage or equipment as part of the plan. Also confirmation of the FEMA flood zone changes would be part of future going forward, the zoning relief of 15 feet for the northern portion and 50 feet for everywhere else for zoning variance of use. The vote on the motion was six in favor and three in opposition and the motion carried.

Voting In Favor: Members Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Moan, Rotella, Sleboda, and Yoakum

Voting In Opposition: Members Alexander, Lynn, and Nani

Abstaining: None

APPOINTMENT TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

Assistant Town Planner Carcifero states that a member of the Planning Board needs to fill the open position on the Technical Review Committee. Member Yoakum states that he would like to fill the position unless someone else is interested.

Member Rotella made a motion, seconded by Member Colavecchio, that Member Yoakum be appointed to the Technical Review Committee. The vote on the motion was eight in favor and the motion carried.

Voting In Favor: Members Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Rotella, Sleboda, Yoakum and Alexander

Voting In Opposition: None

Abstaining: None

Member Nani was not present for this vote.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Member Moan made a motion, seconded by Member Rotella to adjourn the Planning Board meeting.  The vote on the motion was eight in favor and the motion carried.

Voting In Favor: Members Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Rotella, Sleboda, Yoakum and Alexander

Voting In Opposition: None

Abstaining: Member None

Member Nani was not present for this vote.

Meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m.

The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Katie Closson, Recording Secretary