Town of Smithfield
64 FARNUM PIKE SMITHFIELD, RHODE ISLAND 02917
March 20, 2025
Meeting Minutes
Members Present: Charles Boyd, Richard Colavecchio, James D’Ambra, Catherine Lynn, Al Nani, Joseph Rotella, Daniel Sleboda, John Yoakum
Members Absent: Michael Moan (excused)
Others Present: David Ursillo, Assistant Town Solicitor, Michael Phillips, Town Planner
Chair D’Ambra opened the March 20, 2025 meeting of the Smithfield Planning Board at 6:03 p.m.
EMERGENCY EVACUATION AND HEALTH NOTIFICATION
Chair D’Ambra reads the Emergency Evacuation and Health Notification.
MINUTES: Discuss and approve the February 27, 2025 meeting minutes.
Member Moan informed Chair D’Ambra via email in his excused absence that he had voted nay on the 245 Reservoir Road project vote. Member Yoakam made a motion, seconded by Member Nani to amend the February 27, 2025 minutes to reflect the correction. The vote on the motion was eight in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, Colavecchia, D’Ambra, Lynn, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda, and Yoakum
Voting in Oppostition: None
Abstaining: None
Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Nani, to approve the amended February 27, 2025 meeting minutes. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, with one abstention, and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: Member Lynn
OLD BUSINESS
EMILIA’S WAY (260 OLD COUNTY ROAD) – (ID#: 24-05) PUBLIC HEARING (Cont. From 2-27-25)
(Applicant had requested a continuance to the April 17, 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.
Town Planner Phillips states that attorney Tim Kane, of Putnam Pike requested a continuance until the April 17, 2025 Planning Board meeting.
Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Nani, to approve the continuance to April 17, 2025 meeting. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
RESIDENCES AT GREENVILLE FARMS - (ID#: 20-08) – PUBLIC HEARING
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 John Mancini on behalf of the applicant, West Greenville Road LLC, gives an update to the progress on the Residences at Greenville Farms. Attorney Mancini states there were previous concerns that all the units would be three bedrooms, the developer has amended the plans to offer more two bedroom units with some three bedroom units still also available. Attorney Mancini also states that the number of units has been lowered from 96 units to 74 units.
Chair D’Ambra questions what the developer did in terms of analyzing the two bedroom unit option, if any pro forma were run to determine any changes. Attorney Mancini states that the developer worked with Rhode Island Housing and using multiple factors including the layout of the site, the accessibility of the site, the feasibility of the site, and the economic factors helped determined that two and three bedroom worked best for this project.
Attorney Mancini states that by lowering the amount of units, it lowers the cost of the infrastructure, decreases the overall cost of the construction and it allows the developer to add more two bedroom units. Attorney Mancini states they also looked at the market analysis for the demand for two bedroom versus three bedroom units, coming up with an equal divide of 37 units of two-bedroom and three-bedroom each.
Chair D’Ambra questions if an impact study was done on 37 two-bedroom units and 37 three-bedroom units on the municipal infrastructure including the school system, because the project needs to be consistent with the Town’s comprehensive plan. Chair D’Ambra states that it’s the Planning Board’s job to make sure to balance the equity versus the toll on the Town. Attorney Mancini states that the developer has not done an economic impact study because the developer doesn’t have the burden to present that to the Town, under the comprehensive statute the standards that are reviewed are prescribed by state law. Chair D’Ambra states that he would prefer the developer to do an economic impact study and present the findings to the Planning Board.
Member Boyd states that he thinks this development does not fit with the aesthetic of the Town. Member Yoakum states that according to the Town Charter, the Planning Board can consider the economy of the town when making a decision. Chair D’Ambra states that Smithfield is not the only municipality struggling with the larger problem of low and moderate income statute versus the Town Comprehensive Plan and the Town Charter. Chair D’Ambra states that applicants take the position that the low and moderate income statue overrides town’s comprehensive plans and charters. Member Yoakum states that effects on the economy can be considered, Chair D’Ambra notes this point.
Attorney Mancini states that without comprehensive permit 45.53, if an applicant provides 25% affordable units in a development, and the development meets certain criteria they are entitled to a density bonus. Attorney Mancini further states that the statute trumps local zoning and that local boards and Planning become the ultimate decider to grant variances for the development.
Member Moan was unable to attend the Planning Board meeting but asked Chair D’Ambra to find out if this project complies with Chapter 12.4DX the 1% limit per year requirement, Town Planner Phillips states that it does comply.
Member Lynn asks if half the units would be low income. Member Lynn asks to see a copy of the floor plan of the two-bedroom and three-bedroom at the next Planning Board meeting.
Member Boyd asks how the development will help the low to moderate income individuals if there is no public transportation available. Attorney Mancini states that the developer is in charge of housing, and not all aspects of low to moderate income are the responsibility of the developer.
Assistant Solicitor Ursillo states the required elements for the development.
Member Colavecchia asks what the soil tests will show because it’s a former orchard, and he would like a more extensive investigation. Engineer Sam Hemenway of Garafalo Associates states that phase one testing is done when there is a recognized condition present, which triggers the need to look into the sample more in depth. Mr. Hemenway further states that they test for suspected chemicals that were commonly used and see if they exceed the permitted threshold and thus be actionable. Mr. Hemenway states the testing didn’t find any concentrations at levels of concern, no evidence of concern to justify study further. Mr. Hemenway states that no conditions were shown to be unsafe, and poses no threat to working on the site or for the eventual residents.
Mr. Hemenway reviews the site plan with changes to buffers and road widths, all increased to reflect a larger distance between property lines and more landscaping has been added to the areas to properly delineate boundaries, reflected in the changes incorporated into the plan.
Member Boyd inquiries about the levy present on the property, Mr. Hemenway states that it might require more attention but did not see any failure and the condition could be improved if there is an imminent risk. Member Boyd states that the residents at Orchard Gate are concerned about runoff water towards their homes. Mr. Hemenway states there topographical survey does not indicate runoff would travel to Orchard Gate, as there is a low lying area in between the two properties.
Chair D’Ambra states that Member Moan in his absence questions if “Building 37” deck was shown into the setback too deeply. Mr. Hemenway states there is no intention and it may appear that way because of the drawing, if it shows very closely there is no intent to push into the setback, there is no encroachment.
Attorney Mancini states he will have witnesses for next meeting before the Planning Board.
Member Sleboda asks what upgrades to the municipal water and sewer in the memo are necessary. Mr. Hemenway states that the upgrade is the connection of the main water line extension to and through the property.
Assistant Solicitor Ursillo states that the public hearing is limited to the scope of the items addressed by the developer presented currently. Chair D’Ambra opens the public hearing at 7:14p.m.
Joseph D’Amico, 63 Fanning Lane, states he opposes this development because of any alterations to any wetlands, it’s unsafe, and would give free reign to future developers. Mr. D’Amico states that natural resources would be damaged, precious wildlife lost and dangerous chemicals in soil exposed. Mr. D’Amico further states that backflow of water onto his property is already happening when there is excessive rain and would like to know what will happen to his property in the future if the this gets worse as a result of the development. Mr. D’Amico asks what the responsibility of the developer is if the water causes damage.
Geraldine Moretti, 125 Smith Avenue, states that she worries about water, as there is already a collection of water in this area. Ms. Moretti states she thinks this will upset the water table for the condominiums in the area and could lead to water in basements even further.
John Tucker, 79 West Greenville Road states his concerns about the road, the need for sidewalks, as the road itself is dangerous. Mr. Tucker states that he is encouraged by the Planning Board and their hard work in pushing back on the developers.
Rich Feeley, 19 John Street, states that he has concerns regarding wetlands and soil contamination and how impactful will this be. Mr. Feeley states that this development has the potential to be a disaster as this parcel of land is not suitable for what the developers are seeking to build.
Tania Alexander, 22 Whispering Pine Terrace, states that her concerns are in relation to the impact study on local schools and local services like fire and police. Ms. Alexander states that with this development, Smithfield will lose its bucolic charm that encouraged her to move here.
Thomas Lang, 77 West Greenville Road, states his concerns of the runoff water, there is substantial flooding already, and he uses a well, not Town water and he’s unsure of what kind of affect this will have on his property. Mr. Lang states that the traffic study will show a serious impact. Mr. Lang states he is also concerned with safety issues with fire and rescue as demonstrated by a house fire last week. Mr. Lang states that on a personal note there is concerns of buffer next to his property, the plans currently show no buffer or trees, just a building that is part of the development.
Sean Kiley, 61 Fanning Lane, states his biggest concern is the health and safety of town residents. Mr. Kiley states he is worried about long term ramifications to the wetlands that will lead to damage to properties, and traffic will increase vastly.
Matthew Fague, 247 Old County Road, states that water concerns are legitimate because he works as a firefighter, the water line on Smith Avenue is old, and hard to tie into. Mr. Fague states his traffic concerns will continue as the intersection at Smith Avenue already has accidents, and will increase. Mr. Fague states he also has concerns about dam/levy and why is it in place. Mr. Fague states that responsible growth is good, and that this is not good growth. Mr. Fague states he also has concerns with the setbacks, as well as power lines, and chemicals are a problem in the area. Mr. Fague also states that the burden on the Planning Board is tremendous and he appreciates the pushback.
Cathy DeLuca, 125 Smith Avenue, states that water is a major issue to be concerned about, that continual flooding is real and disturbing the ground will create a problem with water table. Ms. DeLuca states that she appreciates reducing the number of units, but there are still too many.
Chair D’Ambra closes the public hearing at 7:41p.m. and will reopen the public hearing at the April 17, 2025 Planning Board meeting. Chair D’Ambra states that the application for a preliminary plan review for Greenville Farms is continued to the April 17, 2025 Planning Board meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
520-540 DOUGLAS PK/46-48 RIDGE RD - (ID#: 25-05) PUBLIC HEARING
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.
Town Planner Phillips states that the engineer for the ID#25-05 Douglas Pike / Ridge Road be continued to the April 17, 2025 Planning Board meeting.
Member Yoakum made a motion, seconded by Member Nani to approve the continuance to the April 17, 2025 meeting. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
20 LEVI LANE - (ID#: 25-06) PUBLIC HEARING
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.
Assistant Town Solicitor Ursillo states this development is in Smithfield Municipal Court, the case is end stage, needing variances to get this done and that all buildings are in fire compliance by fire marshal. Member Lynn states that the map doesn’t show the mall. Assistant Solicitor Ursillo states that the mall is off the provided map. Member Lynn asks if a road can be made in there to connect to the entrance to the Smithfield Commons giving additional access. Town Planner Phillips states that there have been discussions previously to make an access road but will require a bridge over the existing wetlands.
Member Boyd asks about fines paid in Municipal Court. Assistant Solicitor Ursillo states they have been paying them, they range from $1,000 to $3,000 on three to four occasions. Assistant Solicitor Ursillo states they are here before the Planning Board to continuously clean up the property and ask for approval.
Member Boyd states he would like to do a walkthrough of the property, and requests that it be cleaned up to an acceptable state. Assistant Solicitor Ursillo states the owner is asking for a special use permit and get into compliance. Member Sleboda states the owner may continue to violate and willingly pay the fees, not asking for permission but for forgiveness.
Attorney for Alba Properties LLC, Hagop S Jawharjian states the condition of the property was much worse under the previous owners and the current owners are making good faith efforts to rectify the state of the property. Attorney Jawharjian states a special use variance is being sought for storage of construction equipment and materials on the premises. Attorney Jawharjian states that the dimensional variances sought will be minor, and he thinks it will be grandfathered in as it’s an existing building, but is requesting the variance anyway to be in compliance. Attorney Jawharjian states the request for a side variance of 9.7 feet on” Building 3”, and 22 feet on “Building 4”.
Attorney Jawharjian states that the DEM issues were there before new ownership had gone in and cleaned up the property and encourages the site visit as the new owners have made lots of changes already.Attorney Jawharjian further states that this is not to excuse the state of the property, but understand that it will continue to improve. Attorney Jawharjian states that they are negotiating to allow a connection to Smithfield Commons can certainly help the situation. Member Boyd asks why the owners would have interest in adding the road connecting to Smithfield Commons. Attorney Jawharjian states that this would help the owners access their property with ease, as well as helping Smithfield Fie Department to utilize this second entrance.
Attorney Jawharjian states that A-Star Oil is zoned properly for commercial use and the special use variance sought would be for construction storage and construction materials. Attorney Jawharjian states there is no plans for oil filling or storage on site and the oil trucks fill elsewhere and make delivery of the oil and the trucks are merely stored on the property. Attorney Jawharjian states that the owners are currently working with DEM on storm water remediation and have applied for the remediation approval.
Member Boyd makes a motion, seconded by Member Nani to conduct a site visit on 20 Levi Lane on March 29, 2025 at 9:00a.m. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, with one in opposition, and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, Colavecchia, D’Ambra, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda, and Yoakum
Voting in Opposition: Member Lynn
Abstaining: None
Member Rotella made a motion, seconded by Member Nani, to continue the 20 Levi Lane development to the April 17, 2025 meeting. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
Consider, Discuss and Act Upon Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4.3 Table of Uses and 4.4 Supplementary Use Regulations.
a. The Board will discuss the legislative amendments with staff and the Town’s planning consultant.
b. The Board may make a recommendation to the Town Council on adoption of the proposed amendments
c. The Board may continue the matter for further discussion at a future meeting.
Town Planner Phillips states they are to discuss changes to zoning ordinances made a year ago for special use permits to prohibited uses, that any use category that didn’t have objective criteria would after January 1, 2024 be considered a by right use if they did not have objective criteria. Town Planner Phillips states that Ashley Sweet consulted and put together criteria for these uses that didn’t have the objective criteria. Town Planner Phillips states that the objective is to get a recommendation on these zoning ordinances to the Town Council to be put back into the table of uses a special use permits.
Ms. Sweet states the previous uses were considered no because of state law, so that the approvals are necessary so they can be recommended to the Town Council. Chair D’Ambra states that all the Planning Board members have reviewed the recommendations and if there are any specific questions or concerns they will be addressed as needed.
The Planning Board approved the recommendations by Town Planner Phillips and Ms. Sweet.
Member Rotella made a motion, seconded by Member Nani, to approve the supplemental use regulations put forth with the recommendations to the Town Council. The vote on the motion was all in favor and the motion carried.
Voting In Favor: Members Boyd, Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
PUBLIC COMMENT
Town Council Member Michael Iannotti states that the Town Planner and Assistant Town Solicitor cannot be heard on zoom and suggests a microphone for their desk. Town Council Member Iannotti states that the Planning Board packets should be made available to the public online, so that the public can view the documents ahead of time and he has made a request to the Town Manager for this to be facilitated.
Member Rotella 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 Boyd, Colavecchio, D’Ambra, Lynn, Nani, Rotella, Sleboda and Yoakum
Voting In Opposition: None
Abstaining: None
Meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 17, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Katie Closson, Recording Secretary