| | Town of Smithfield Planning Board64 FARNUM PIKE ESMOND, RHODE ISLAND 02917 June 26, 2025 Meeting Minutes -Amended |
Members Present: James D’Ambra, Richard Colavecchio, Catherine Lynn, Michael Moan, Al Nani, Joseph Rotella, Daniel Sleboda, John Yoakum
Members Absent: Gary Alexander
Others Present: David Ursillo, Assistant Town Solicitor, Christopher Carcifero, Assistant Town Planner
Chair D’Ambra opened the June 26, 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 May 15, 2025 meeting minutes.
Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Nani, to approve the amended May 15, 2025 meeting minutes. The vote on the motion was seven in favor and one abstention and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Nani, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: Member Rotella
Major Land Development – Master Plan Review
AP 35 / Lots 1, 1A, 1D & 2 - 270 Putnam Pike
8.49 Acres (approx.) / HC Zone
Applicant: Sunn Builders, Inc.
Owners: Sunn Builders, Inc. & Clover Leaf Ret, LLC
Engineer: Crossman Engineering
a. The Board will review and discuss the proposed submission with the project proponent.
b. The Board will conduct a public informational hearing to receive input on the proposed project.
c. The Board may schedule a site visit or waive the requirement.
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.
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
Attorney Timothy Kane, of 627 Putnam Pike on behalf of the applicant, Sunn Builders, requests a one year extension of master plan. Attorney Kane states that the Planning Board granted approval in June 2023. Attorney Kane further states that the applicant requested two one-year extensions which he is entitled to as a matter of law, and then after four years it’s somewhat within Planning Board discretion. The Zoning Board granted the Special Use Permit but made it conditional upon installing a traffic light on the property so that people could enter and exit the property safely. Attorney Kane states that they have not been able to get DOT to agree to the traffic light. However Churchill and Banks is in the process of a development across the street and is hoping to work with them to get a safe traffic solution, so until then, the applicant can’t really move forward, thus the request for continuance.
Member Moan questions how much contact the applicant has had with Churchill and Banks. David Loffredo of Sunn Builders states that he has spoken with Churchill and Banks in person and that they planned a new venture across the street pending approval, they would then seek to work with DOT. Mr. Loffredo states that the Town is requiring the traffic light, and he agrees that it’s necessary, but DOT states that it’s not warranted. Mr. Loffredo further states that perhaps with the Churchill and Banks development it would garner enough traffic that DOT would approve the traffic light.
Member Moan made a motion, seconded by Member Nani to grant a one year extension for Sunn Builders, ID #23-02. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
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 on behalf of the applicant, KLRS Realty LLC states that the peer review for the project was completed on June 25, 2025 and hopefully this is the last request for continuance. Attorney Kane states that there is a lot to absorb and there may be questions related to that at the next Planning Board meeting. Attorney Kane states there is still no DEM approval, as they have moved to a new online digital system that has created a nearly two month delay on applications and reviews. He further states that they expect DEM approval by the next Planning Board meeting in July and would like that approval in hand when they are before the Board.
Chair D’Ambra questions if they anticipate anything additional other than the DEM approval. Attorney Kane states that the physical alteration permit is already in process and should be done by July 17, 2025 as well.
Member Moan questions what the engineers are looking at in the latest peer review. Attorney Kane states that responses and counter responses are in the report, a Technical Review Report with final comments from the Town’s consulting engineer. Member Moan questions if the physical alteration permit had just been submitted or if the applicant was waiting on receiving the permit from DEM. Attorney Kane states that the permit application was or is being submitted this week but wanted to make sure there was a level of comfort that DEM would approve the drainage plans. Member Moan states that what the Planning Board would like to see would be the application for the physical alteration permit and the DOT comments in regards to the drainage that’s going into the road right now and how DOT views this project along with existing problems on that road. Member Moan further states that the Planning Board would like to hear how the applicant or DOT will remedy the situation.
Member Moan questions how long will it take for a response from the DOT. Attorney Kane states that if that is the concern of the Planning Board, then a continuance to August may be more appropriate. Member Yoakum suggests the continuance to August to avoid going through this again. Member Moan states that there has been repeated requests for continuances. Attorney Kane states that the continuances are born by the nature of the extensive peer review process. Member Colavecchio states that there are concerns with a one-year flood and would like that addressed at the August Planning Board meeting.
Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Nani for a continuance for Emilia’s Way, ID #24-05 to the August 21, 2025 Planning Board meeting, and extension of the timetable. The vote on the motion was eight in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Colavecchio, 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.
Attorney Mancini states that peer review has been reviewed to full extent and they have submitted a response from Sage Environmental to Lakeshore Environmental.
David Hazebrouck from Lakeshore Environmental, 359 Putnam Pike, states the Town of Smithfield contacted him to look at the phase one environmental assessment by a third party review of the findings. Sage Environmental performed soil samples of twelve locations and analyzed the soil for arsenic, lead, pesticides and herbicides, and the soil was taken from the top two feet of soil. Mr. Hazebrouck states that Sage did composite sampling and the depths aren’t clear, and that you can expect the highest concentration at top, and lower towards the deepest part. Mr. Hazebrouck states that you should look to test for worst case scenario, and test from 6-12 inches instead of going to the depth of 2 feet.
Mr. Hazebrouck states the sample locations were not taken in the orchard areas, they took samples in surrounding areas because of the wet areas, and this is not an accurate representation of the land. He further states that twelve samples, all were analyzed for arsenic, lead and herbicides but only four of the twelve were analyzed for pesticides, which is on the low side. The sample was taken from the middle of the parcel and is not an accurate representation of the whole parcel.
Mr. Hazebrouck states that concentrations were too low for an orchard of arsenic and lead. He states that professional judgment is considered as to the number of samples, however arsenic is so prevalent in New England, DEM has a specific policy to get a representative number of samples and if they don’t exceed seven parts per million, the current standard, there’s no need to believe it’s a significant contaminant. Mr. Hazebrouck believes there should have been more samples because of the levels of arsenic. As shown by pictures, not all property is orchard, shown in photographs from 1951. Then in 1970, most of the orchard is in the western portion of property. The photograph from Sage shows sample locations, and the locations of the samples outside the orchard area. Mr. Hazebrouck states that the pesticide samples taken are not near the orchard at all, they aren’t representative of the orchard areas.
Mr. Hazebrouck suggested to former Town Planner Michael Phillips that there is a need for additional sampling, he provided a map of where they should be done. The samples should be taken at a depth of 6 inches for arsenic, going to locations where there was higher levels of arsenic, the samples should be discrete samples not composite samples. He states that DEM would want the samples needed to be compared. There should also be samples for pesticides at a depth of 6 inches as well.
Chair D’Ambra questions if open space standards would be more lenient than residential standards by nature of the development. Mr. Hazebrouck states that the remedy that needs to be employed to address risk is based on the concentrations of arsenic. Chair D’Ambra states the DEM standard is minimum of eight samples per acre for open space, then one would expect more samples per acre for residential. Mr. Hazebrouck states that professional judgement is used to determine the samples to be taken. Chair D’Ambra questions if the proper number of samples was taken by Sage. Mr. Hazebrouck states that it’s not the number of samples, it’s the composition and location of samples as well as depth of samples. Chair D’Ambra questions why Mr. Hazebrouck recommended these new samples be taken. Mr. Hazebrouck states that samples were too deep, they need to be more shallow samples. Chair D’Ambra questions if the new testing should be done to ensure safety. Mr. Hazebrouck states the samples should be done because those areas weren’t tested previously or they were the highest detected arsenic or pesticide levels, the additional sampling will ensure the property is safe for its intended construction activities.
Member Colavecchio questions if testing up to 2 feet is standard, is there a document that recommends a composite of 2 feet or just hand digging with an auger down 6 inches. Mr. Hazebrouck states that he has more faith in the accuracy of a hand auger sample.
Attorney Mancini questions if Mr. Hazebrouck reviewed the testimony from Mr. Mandile from Sage Environmental to hear how Mr. Mandile performed the testing. Mr. Hazebrouck states he did not review the transcript. Attorney Mancini questions if a discrete sample at 2 feet would be an adequate test sample. Mr. Hazebrouck states that this would be an unwise sample depth if you’re trying to characterize soil for future residential use, this would be an inadequate sample as well as the sampling should have been done elsewhere. Mr. Hazebrouck states more locations for the samples are better reflective of the property. Attorney Mancini questions Mr. Hazebrouck if he believes the Sage sampling is lacking and the samples are inaccurate, that there is no industry standard on number of samples, you should use professional judgement. Mr. Hazebrouck states that Sage didn’t test in error, but to be safer, to evaluate human health risk, shallow samples would be best. Attorney Mancini questions Mr. Hazebrouck in his professional opinion if Sage is wrong. Mr. Hazebrouck states that samples should have been taken in more shallow spots and more accurate in orchard areas. Mr. Hazebrouck states that DEM standards do not recognize composite samples, core shallow samples would be the more appropriate way to evaluate the samples. It’s more likely to find a problem at a shallow depth, and it’s more accurate this way. Attorney Mancini asks Mr. Hazebrouck if Sage could be a benchmark. Mr. Hazebrouck states that more samples should have been taken in better locations. Attorney Mancini questions Mr. Hazebrouck if those recommended samples can be taken any time before construction, if the sampling could be done at final planning. Attorney Mancini questions Mr. Hazebrouck if Sage is deficient, Mr. Hazebrouck answers no.
Member Moan questions Mr. Hazebrouck if the recommendations of additional sampling would give a better characterization of the property. Mr. Hazebrouck states it’s appropriate to look for the worst case sampling and identify the problem.
Member Colavecchio questions if an auger mixes chemicals rather than using a hand auger. Mr. Hazebrouck states a hand auger will be emptying soil until you reach target depth, that a hand auger is more accurate. Member Colavecchio questions if the chemical is still present even if the orchard had not been active recently, or if top soil had been put on top of the top layers of the ground. Mr. Hazebrouck states that arsenic and lead don’t biodegrade, the concentration is higher for those chemicals at shallow depths.
Mr. Hazebrouck states that in his professional opinion of testing apple orchards, the more shallow the depth, the higher the arsenic count, and composite samples can dilute the findings. When soil is mixed together, the analysis might catch a smaller amount of concentrated chemicals, undisturbed samples in a hand auger will show a more concentrated amount. Chair D’Ambra asks Mr. Hazebrouck to state the DEM’s position on composite sampling. Mr. Hazebrouck states the DEM wants to see discrete sample analysis results because composite samples can dilute the findings. Chair D’Ambra questions if Sage did a composite sample, Mr. Hazebrouck answers yes.
Rick Mandile, of Sage Environmental is present to testify. Chair D’Ambra questions that Mr. Mandile previously testified that Rhode Island has no standard for dieldrin in ground water. Mr. Mandile states there is a standard for dieldrin for soil. Chair D’Ambra questions what dieldrin is, Mr. Mandile states that dieldrin is a form of pesticide and agrees that it’s a carcinogenic. Chair D’Ambra questions Mr. Mandile about the publication put out by DEM regarding guidelines on management for historically agricultural properties for future use dealing with apple orchards. Mr. Mandile states even when DEM gives protocol, you can use professional judgment on site samples. Chair D’Ambra questions Mr. Mandile why DEM doesn’t recommend composite samples. Mr. Mandile states that if you were to collect a discrete sample from up to 12 inches on a potential orchard the thinking is it would be a surficial application of pesticides that were sprayed on the fruit trees.
Chair D’Ambra states the DEM recommendation minimum sampling of eight samples per acre, and if above one to five acres, eight samples plus two more samples per acre. Mr. Mandile states they collected twelve samples, but only tested four for pesticides. Chair D’Ambra says eight samples plus the two samples per acre is twelve samples needed for pesticides. Chair D’Ambra questions Mr. Mandile if the policy for open space would be more lenient than residential construction. Mr. Mandile states that it’s a moving target and DEM is in the process of upping its numerical arsenic standard. Chair D’Ambra questions Mr. Mandile in his professional judgment if DEM is more concerned about residential impact versus open space impact. Mr. Mandile states that DEM is more concerned about residential than open space. Chair D’Ambra states that DEM would expect that residential use would be even more conservative.
Chair D’Ambra states that according to Mr. Mandile’s report no more testing is needed, even though that is inconsistent with DEM policy, that Sage didn’t have the proper sampling number recommended by DEM. Mr. Mandile states that scope of work was to perform a screening assessment of the property knowing that it would be redeveloped in the future that would necessitate an extreme amount of site grading and turning over soils, that for the most part is not going to be what you see there when it comes time to build houses. So in his professional judgement a first pass is to look at residential direct exposure of up to 2 feet. Mr. Mandile states that they used hand augers to collect at 6 inch intervals down to 2 feet, took those four samples together in a bucket, knowing in the future the ground will all be turned over in similar fashion when construction starts. Chair D’Ambra states he is not in disagreement with this but for the fact that this land’s agricultural use in the past and that DEM has set forth standards for this scenario. Chair D’Ambra questions Mr. Mandile that it does not appear the testing complies with those specific standards, Mr. Mandile answers that this is a fair statement.
Member Yoakum questions why in the peer review it was asked why no sampling was done in the area of the orchard. Mr. Mandile states there was three to four inches of standing water in that area. Member Yoakum questions why Sage didn’t go back to test after the standing water had dried if there was intention to retrieve samples from that area. Mr. Mandile states that the area is now overgrown with trees and vegetation and the rest of the samples were taken over a vast majority of the site. Mr. Mandile states that professional judgment dictated location of the samples, that there was no exceedances of standards, and knowing the site was to be turned over, this was sufficient in his opinion.
Member Colavecchio questions why only four of twelve samples tested for pesticides if this was an area that you knew people were concerned with. Mr. Mandile states there was some budgetary concerns and they thought they had pretty good coverage from their sample locations. He further states that when you see arsenic and lead which are typically associated with pesticides, you would expect to see elevated levels of lead and arsenic they’re co-mingled pesticides. Member Colavecchio states that the twelve samples were already taken, so this really was a cost issue. Mr. Mandile states it was professional judgement and cost were contributing factors.
Mr. Mandile states that at the previous meeting there was questions about pesticides in hemp grown there, and he spoke with the individual who grew it, and he stated no pesticides were used, it was grown organically.
Todd Greene from GZA Environmental, 188 Valley Street. Mr. Green states that the Town reached out to GZA to review the proposed storm water management system designed by the applicant. Mr. Green states that they familiarize themselves with the existing conditions of the site. There are two standards used, the DEM rules and regulations of storm water management and the town ordinances. GZA looks at the watersheds that are associated with that property, not just the watersheds on the site, the land adjacent that could contribute to storm water. GZA did an independent review, looked at the topography of the site and reviewed the storm water management plan developed by the applicant. GZA concurred with the watershed delineation that the applicant had used for the pre-development condition of the site and also did their own independent hydrologic analysis to check calculation that were done by the applicant. GZA also reviewed the conveyance system proposed to service the roadways, reviewed proposed elevations for grates, elevations for proposed ponds to make sure the water flows downhill to the BMP’s that are proposed. They also reviewed the sizing of the ponds and checked the calculations and overall design.
Mr. Green states that GZA had two rounds of comments submitted to the Town and the applicant. GZA wanted clarifications on plans, catch basins, and inverts to gain an understanding on the design elevations on the conveyance system itself. The other more significant comment on how the applicant had modeled the existing water flows from a watershed area offsite on the west side of West Greenville Road. It appeared a small portion of the storm water runoff from that area of the site discharged into that area. GZA couldn’t substantiate how the model was prepared because there wasn’t enough existing topography in that area along West Greenville Road to understand how the storm water did flow off that western lot. GZA states that Garofalo stated that an additional survey was done to help refine the hydrologic model for the storm water runoff bypass onto the site, the road elevation was lower, so more water would move that way. GZA concurred on the updated model to predict how much storm water would flow. Overall GZA had no further comments on the design or the modeling storm water management systems, and met DEM standards.
Member Colavecchio asks Mr. Green to explain what over topping is in reference to the comments made by GZA and if that’s been resolved. Mr. Green states that the western basin is not being modified as part of the project and water flow will be the same on the side. When the water elevation floods and over tops the road during large storm events, this is the reference to over topping.
Member Colavecchio questions Sam Hemenway of Garofalo & Associates if an existing condition across the street from the development will have water flow over the road in a major event. Mr. Hemenway states the initial model shows flow through culvert into the pond, however they believe it flows on the ditch line, the road was lower than lowest point of the ditch, so they adjusted the model to catch more so that the over topping of the road was the secondary discharge location for the pond. Mr. Hemenway states that DOT would need to rectify that, it’s not part of the development.
Attorney Mancini states the applicant has no objection to additional sampling at the final plan stage. The goal is to ensure safety to the satisfaction of the Planning Board. Attorney Mancini states this testing can be done at any point, final plan or building plan. The applicant believes Sage’s testing is adequate but is willing to do more sampling. Chair D’Ambra states that the Town’s expert testified that he cannot state that the property is safe from an environmental standpoint for health, safety and welfare as it stands, that Mr. Mandile conceded that he did not comply with DEM.
Chair D’Ambra opens the public hearing at 7:54 p.m.
Charles Boyd, 14 Sprague Street thanks the Planning Board for reading the article on agricultural requirements, and believes this is similar to the Matteo farm. The core samples should be done, to get as many examples done as possible and asks the Planning Board to follow through when making the decision about this development. Mr. Boyd states that an LMI committee needs to be developed to figure out which projects qualify for LMI. Mr. Boyd requests the Planning Boyd to stop being pushed around and stand up for the residents.
Matthew Fague, 247 Old County Road, thanks Charles Boyd for his passion and agrees that the Planning Board is facing difficult decisions. Mr. Fague states that hemp is farmed as a way to clean up contaminated soil, water and air. Hemp is a bio accumulator and absorbs the metals in the soil. Mr. Fague states that the soil needs to be remediated, and would like the Planning Board to address that issue. He further states that traffic is still a problem and is not being addressed.
Pamela Lang, 77 West Greenville Road, states that this farm was still being worked on in the early 2000’s and would have her children come inside because of the chemicals being sprayed over that area and finds it hard to believe that the soil is fine. Ms. Lang states that the Cavanaugh’s had twelve inches of soil on seven acres removed and had new soil brought in for a house to be built. Ms. Lang states that traffic is now exacerbated because Smith Avenue doesn’t allow tractor trailer trucks there, the traffic is out of control as is, never mind adding more cars. As a nurse, she believes this could be a cancer cluster.
Member Moan asks Ms. Lang to point out her property on the projected map.
Tom Lang, 77 West Greenville Road, states that he is concerned about the runoff because the area is already wet most of the time. Mr. Lang states he is also concerned there being no buffer zone between the proposed units and his property.
Rich Feeley, 19 John Street of Glocester, states that the amount of testing is wholly inadequate for property that size and the environmental issue is a real problem. Mr. Feeley thinks turning over the ground will be more harmful as a result. He also states the process of testing at the late stage of building permit is too far along. Mr. Feeley believes the site plan lacks a second means of egress from the development.
John Tucker, 3 James Street of Glocester, believes this a bad project for a variety of reasons, that history has a long march, and Planning Board is at the tip of the spear. He states that the Planning Board has reservations on this project, and asks them to reject this proposal.
Chair D’Ambra closes the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Attorney Mancini states that the applicant has no problem extending the timeclock to do more testing, and they are willing to do testing according to Lakeshore specifications, so no doubt is left in the minds of the Planning Board.
Member Moan states he was under the impression that after the last Planning Board meeting with comments from the board members that additional samples and analysis would have been done and presented to them tonight. Member Yoakum states that environmental study is insufficient, and there shouldn’t be any vote to move onto the next stage of this project until that is addressed. Member Rotella states that additional testing should be done and the Town consultant’s suggestions as to the locations of testing should be included before any vote is taken. Member Nani states that he is in favor of more testing as well. Member Lynn is in agreement for more time, but how much time they are willing to give is undetermined.
Attorney Mancini states Lakeshore will direct them in regards to testing and the August meeting would be best based on the quick turnaround on the Planning Board schedule.
Member Colavecchio states that it’s not just a few additional samples, he wants someone that does not have professional courtesy, and wants to see the composition of this soil from 0 to 24 inches deep. Chair D’Ambra states that he wants sampling that agrees to agricultural policy put forth by DEM, this includes the need for certain depths, each sample to be analyzed for pesticides not just four samples for pesticides, and the proper number of samples.
Member Lynn questions the configuration of two and three bedroom units, stating they could easily be turned into three bed units by utilizing the office as a third bedroom, and would like those plans reconfigured so that’s not possible.
Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Rotella to approve the continuance to the August 21, 2025 meeting as well as an extension of the clock for the Planning Board decision with the conditions of DEM guidelines for management of historically agricultural properties for future use of residential properties, including the Chairman’s comments in conjunction with the Town’s consultant, and Sage Environmental and Member Colavecchio as representative of the Planning Board as well as a reconfiguration of the two bedroom design to eliminate the office space that could be construed as a third bedroom. The vote on the motion was seven in favor and one in opposition and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: Member Moan
Abstaining: None
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.
Town Manager Seltzer on behalf of the Town of Smithfield explains the project from the Town’s viewpoint. Town Manager Seltzer states the drawing provided shows parking spots where Cross Street meets Fenwood Avenue. Town Manager Seltzer states the Town wants to purchase that land for open space, recreation and parking for Land Trust. The Land Trust property runs from Ridge Road up to the property the Town is looking to purchase, currently there are only three parking spaces on Ridge Road and this piece of property would add twenty to twenty-five parking spaces. Town Manager Seltzer states that the parking area will be used for Land Trust, and overflow from the baseball fields. Former Town Planner Phillips and DPW Director Gene Allen visited the area with the Town Manager to figure out where parking could be arranged.
Town Manager Seltzer states that after walking the area he felt the open space is such a nice area to preserve and would hate to have houses built there, it would give continuation from the area to Ridge Road. They have a DEM grant to pay for about 50% of the property and the Town has put aside funds for the remaining portion. The Town would like to get this approved and finalize the purchase of the property from Mr. Conti. Town Manager Seltzer states the Town’s plan is to keep it open space to continue the trail all the way from Ridge Road down to Cross Street and to provide parking, the area will stay natural, it will not be paved, just cleaned up and a bumper rail added where the parking area borders the river as they don’t want a safety hazard. Town Manager Seltzer states that it’s his understanding people come all the way down Ridge Road and essentially walk through Mr. Conti’s property to get onto Cross Street and Mr. Conti has been good enough to not really say much about it, and would like to avoid people doing that.
Member Lynn states that the Town has recently added thirty more spaces on the side of the baseball fields and has driven by six different times of the day and she says the lot is not even being used and people continue to park on the street. Town Manager Seltzer states that those vehicles will be ticketed now, as the police began ticketing this past weekend. Member Lynn states that as you come down Whipple and you have somebody from this new lot trying to cross the street they’re going to get killed, that’s how bad the traffic is and it’s extremely dangerous in her opinion. Member Lynn says her advice is to make it so they can’t get across or somehow you put lights up there. Member Lynn also states that in this drawing that’s labeled 2008, it shows proposed buildings, that it would give Mr. Conti more access to possibly four more buildings and probably more tenants, and that the Town shouldn’t jump on this so quickly because that could lead to yet another development. Town Manger Seltzer states that the grant is going to run out and it was specifically for that property and for parking for that area, and in addition Mr. Conti could currently put houses up on the property the Town is seeking to purchase. Town Manager Seltzer states that he agrees with the issue of walking but the people are parking all over the street now and when they walk across they’re not using the parking lot so we’re addressing that with the people who run the league, asking them to have their people direct people into the parking lot.
Member Lynn states her concern that this will burden the Town with more multi-level houses. Town Manager Seltzer states that he is unaware of what Mr. Conti’s plan is for his property. Assistant Planner Carcifero states that the drawing referenced, labeled from 2008 is not up to date and the 2024 plan shows that property as a 20,000 square foot lot. Member Lynn states that she wants to make sure the Planning Board is not giving the impression that if they agree to this that they are guaranteeing Mr. Conti the ability to build mutli-level homes. Town Manager Seltzer states that Mr. Conti has to go through the process just like everybody else would as far as getting permission to build on those lots, all the Town will do is enter into a purchase and sale agreement with Mr. Conti.
Assistant Solicitor Ursillo states that he serves as the Land Trust Solicitor and they are in favor of doing this land swap as long as they make it clear to the Planning Board they weren’t doing this or agreeing to a land swap to help promote development because they’re in the opposite obviously. Assistant Solicitor Ursillo further states the Land Trust is in the interest of doing this in part because it would help the Land Trust with respect to parking and keeping Olivia’s Forest the way it is. Assistant Solicitor Ursillo states that if you look at the 2024 plan, that little strip of land that’s shown is the portion that Mr. Conti would be receiving from the Town, it will create a new lot which is at the dead end of Shamrock Street. It also keeps the other lot, AP 2361 as one lot, and would require Mr. Conti to come before the Planning Board to for an application to subdivide that lot.
Member Moan questions if Town Manager Seltzer could have the Town look at traffic issues with respect to this new parking area for safety sake, have the traffic commission or the police department take a look and see if something could be done as far as a safe crossing. Town Manager Seltzer states that they have had discussions and the right way to do this would be to add a crosswalk on the straightaway, creating a walkway with a formal crossing point with signage.
Member Rotella states that a new traffic device was just installed near the school with a flashing light at the crosswalk, and asks if something like that could be done in this area. Town Manager Seltzer says the state of RI paid for that, no funds from the Town paid for it.
The proposed amendment involves changes to the uses allowed in the Putnam Pike/Esmond Street Planned Development District (PPESPDD), an existing zoning district in the Town set forth under Section 9.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, along with dimensional requirements.
a. The Board may vote to recommend that the Town Council adopt all, some or none of the proposed amendments or may recommend different language for the proposed amendment.
b. The Board may continue the matter for further discussion at a future meeting.
Attorney Joelle Rocha, attorney for the applicant states that Smithfield Village is the project, and latest iteration of the project was approved in 2020. The potential purchase is for 124 residential units, with over 100,000 square feet in various commercial uses, medical, office, and retail. Attorney Rocha states the reason she is here tonight is for a zoning ordinance text amendment to the overlay district.
Attorney Rocha states that at the last extension of the final plan approval, if this amendment is procedurally approved then the applicant will be back for a major change at final plan stage, allowed by law. They will present a site plan with updates from DOT, DEM, and everything else typically required for major land developments. Attorney Rocha states that this will be heard as a public hearing before the Town Council on July 15, 2025. The applicant has also started working with DOT as that was a major sticking point.
Attorney Rocha states that the current overlay in addition to the plan development uses allows for various commercial uses on the site, this amendment adds more detail on landscape plans. There are two uses in the proposed overlay district, hospital use and 124 residential units, both uses are allowed by right in the planned development district. The hospital in the Town’s code is special use permit, but because there’s no specific criteria for that use, state law says it’s allowed by right so these would be two by right uses. Attorney Rocha states that they will be relocating and flagging the wetlands so that will dictate what our limits are and what the residential development looks like. The hospital use would be constructing a three to four story modern state of the art office buildings dedicated for medical office use and each floor would contain about 20,000 to 25,000 square feet. The building will be designed for medical and health services, multi-specialty use and include an ambulatory surgical center for outpatient surgeries which patients will be discharged, not staying overnight. The emphasis will be placed on orthopedic medicine, state of the art diagnostic equipment, the building will house labs, educational facilities, and this use intends to have normal business hours.
Member Lynn questions if this building will be similar to University Orthopedics plus a residential area. Attorney Rocha states that yes it would be similar to University Orthopedics but with the residential area in the back portion of the property. Member Lynn states that this will generate quite a bit of traffic. Attorney Rocha states that they anticipate the traffic counts will be less than all the combined commercial uses but will have their traffic engineer ready to start working with the DOT.
Member Moan states that the applicant is proposing an amendment to zoning with not a lot of engineering or design done, and seems like a big ask of the Town. That this amendment will repeal the existing one which came with a master plan that the council could look at prior to approval and then repealing this and replacing it in its entirety with pretty specific exceptions and variances. Member Moan asks Attorney Rocha to explain the exemptions under 5.10 of the zoning ordinance. Attorney Rocha states that as it stands this ordinance and the development with all those other uses the residential component does not provide 33%, it provides 20% affordable on those 124 units. When the applicant talked to the Town there was a request to incorporate in lieu of that 20% affordable some age restricted units, the applicant proposed a sliding scale.
Member Moan questions what the applicant will have for the Town Council when they go before them in July and if they expect an approval that day. Attorney Rocha states that it’s their hope there would be a vote. Assistant Solicitor Ursillo states that the Planning Board will provide the recommendation to the Town Council. Member Moan states his concern about going through it again for the current special district and they’re asking for a lot and the Town Council is going to have to digest a lot, the issue will be the time allotted for review. Attorney Rocha states that without the ordinance change, the applicant won’t do the project.
Per the Planning Board the following exchange was requested verbatim:
Member Moan: “Are you expecting an approval at the July meeting?”
Joelle Rocha: “I think they would need to do it twice, I think there’s two votes for it but I don’t know. Yeah, depending on how it goes we’re expecting---we would hope for a vote.”
Member Moan: “Last time it was done they had a plan to look at prior to approval.”
JR: “There’s no planning approvals at that stage so I think you know we could do this without a zoning ordinance amendment, we’d just come back at final, we’re just looking for--to build in some of those conditions, to build in some of the conditions the planning staff recommended and move this project forward and get this buyer to actually but the property.”
Chair D’Ambra asks the opinion of the Planning Department in regards to this project. Assistant Planner Carcifero states that it predates his time in Planning, however the position from Planning would look at this favorably.
Member Colavecchio questions if there are any height restrictions. Assistant Solicitor Ursillo states that according to the dimensional regulation chart, the height is 39 feet. Attorney Rocha states the proposed height for the medical use is 75 feet and four stories for residential.
Member Yoakum states he is good with the recommendation with this because it was already approved and zoned in one way and it’s not the original plan put forth and seems more appropriate.
Member Colavecchio questions what the square footage of the previous planned development was. Attorney Rocha states that it was over 100,000 square feet combined in hotel, commercial, office and retail.
Member Lynn states that the biggest concern is going to be the traffic issue, because even now Esmond Street is backed up all the way to Putnam Pike. Attorney Rocha states that they will be very prepared to talk about that at the meeting.
Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Rotella for the Planning Board to give a positive recommendation for the zoning change proposal. The vote on the motion was seven in favor and one in opposition and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: Member Moan
Abstaining: None
Matt Fague, 247 Old County Road, states that he approves of the medical facility versus the concept of the residential development, and he agrees with Member Moan that the traffic is non-stop at all times of day. Mr. Fague further states that where he lives on Old County he can see the glow of the lights of the Smithfield Commons now and any new building will continue to change the rural quality of the Town.
Angelica Bovis, 65 Esmond Street, states her concern that the Planning Board has extended the plan time twice and has concerns about delays to extend for the applicant.
Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Nani to adjourn the Planning Board meeting. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Moan, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 17, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Katie Closson, Recording Secretary