Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you for coming. The Town of North Midfield Planning Board meeting for Thursday, April 9, 2026 is called to order at 7 p.m. Um, roll call. Dr. Benoy, here. Mr. Hammond here. Mr. Porter here. Mr. Manard here. The chair is here. Um, do we have meeting minutes to review? Yes. Give you all a moment to look over the meeting minutes from the previous meeting.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Second. We have a second. Those in favor? I opposed. Nope. Hearing none. The meeting meeting minutes for the previous meeting are approved as presented. Um, I see yours. Okay. Does any any planning board member have any anything to disclose for this evening's topics? Mr. Chairman, I am no butter and I will recuse for this presentation for the rank of estates. For the rank and estate.

Yes. Thank you. Anything else? No. Uh, disclosure and notice. Does any any planning board member have need to disclose any exparte communications material to the subjects on the agenda this evening? No. Hearing none. Uh, with that then uh we'll our voting members we we're going to request a a little flip in the the agenda. So for the um if there's a vote required on the administrative uh so there's none. No Mr. Chairman that's for forformational purposes only.

Okay. So for the purpose of the ranking estates the the voting members will be Mr. Hammond, Mr. Porter, Mr. uh Manard and myself. Thank you Dr. Benoy.

All right. So with that, do you need to make a motion to to flop? No, because if it's just for information. Oh, okay. All right.

Yeah. Why don't we get it get it done? Yeah. Okay. So Mark, we for the administrative subdivision, anything that I think we're just going to flip that around just so you can quickly explain it to us. Uh and get it done. Do you have a copy of that, Bobby? So

that's just simply a one lot subdivision on um Providence Pike. The property initially was 7 acres and they cut a 1acre lot out of there fully conform. And with regard to the RS zoning district and under the new state statute, if a lot is fully conforming and it's on an existing street, it is approved administratively. So, I'm required to report any subdivision activity to the planning board. So, this evening, we're presenting you with this one lot uh minor subdivision fully conforming on an existing street. Okay, great. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Okay. Now, on to the Sorry about the fun part.

So, for tonight, tonight's topic is a public hearing preliminary approval phase for Rankin Estates. Um, it's been it's been a while since we've talked about it. So, if you could uh give us a little background, Mr. Krillo.

So, Mr. chairman. Uh Rankin Estates is a 126 lot conservation development subdivision located off of Route 7. Um this project has been around the town for quite some time, having uh been originally before the planning board in the early 2000s. Uh received a master plan approval in 2019. I believe you have a copy of the uh master plan approval and stipulations. Uh since that time it has received uh several extensions from the planning board uh with regard to uh vesting of the master plan approval and during that time uh the applicants have been performing their due diligence in applying and uh for their state permits. They did an archaeological study and assessment and that was approved by Rhode Island HPC. Uh they've done their perk testing and soil testing and that's been submitted to Rhode Island DEM. Um they performed a traffic study and did receive a ride dot physical alteration permit and as well as doing their general uh engineering and and layouts for the plan. They did submit uh their preliminary application to us in April of 2025 and we've been working back and forth with the applicant and their engineer on outstanding questions and and resolving certain issues related to the subdivision and it's here this evening for you for a public hearing um for for the subdivision. I believe the the attorney representing the applicant is here and has the engineers on hand and they'll be making a full presentation to the board. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ko. So, with that, please.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I just want to let you know I have some documents back here, so excuse me if I turn my back to you for a moment.

Um, again, Michael Resnik on behalf of the applicant owner. I'm also going to be joined here uh this evening by my project team. I have Eric Prie uh our civil engineer PE from Depre. I have John Chevlin uh from PAR PE and traffic and I also have my co-consel this evening uh attorney Michael Kelly. One of the reasons why Mike is here this evening is Mike handled the master plan approval and as your planner just said obviously it was before this board quite a quite a bit ago. So Mr. Prie as well as Mr. Hely with their historical knowledge are happy to talk about that process. The other thing is um your planner had referenced we have our uh ride dot PAP we have our state permit we have our state permit uh for archaeological preservation uh etc. Uh DM uh is still in progress as you know pursuant to state law those approvals are not required uh till till final. Um but one of the other reasons why uh attorney Kelly is here is that he'll be able to speak to that permitting with Rym. He'll be able to give an update on where that is as he's handling the part uh permitting uh and has been in direct discussions with uh the director of wetlands Marty Wick. I'll also add Len Bradley from Depre uh also professional uh engineer civil engineers here. Uh and again the reason why we have duplicative engineers from from DRI is because Mr. Bradley handled the master plan with Mr. Kelly and out of respect for the board and how long it's been, we want that institutional knowledge here. So that that that's my team this evening. Uh again, the zoning is RA RA65, 260 acres, ranking estates, 126 lots, single family, uh 10 phases uh proposed, and this is a conservation development. So, it's very important to remember while we have 126 lots, um it's 260 acres and a great deal of the property

is being preserved in conservation development pursuant uh to your ordinance and and Mr. Prie will speak about that a little bit more. Uh procedural background master plan was 3619 and there was there were many many conditions uh uh to that master plan approval. And when we get to Mr. Deprieve, your your planner had asked uh that DRI be able to put a stepbystep response to all of those conditions so that the board would uh understand uh where we are and why we've satisfied those conditions. So, you should have that from your planner, but I also have copies of that and when Mr. Prie goes into that, I'll I'll pass it up uh as an exhibit. Um let's see. Just very briefly, just generally, the project's going to be served by OWTS. Um it's going to be served by private wells. Uh the OWTS system will be completely pursuant to Rym regulations. It is within uh their jurisdiction. And I would just remind the board uh since we've been here at master there have been have changes to the regulations in state law and case law as it relates to right them. So they really occupy that field of OWTS and we've provided a memorandum to your planner that should be part of the record um related um to that item. Uh, of course we were certified complete. I just want to very briefly go over the items that are part of the record that I would ask uh be formally be made exhibits this evening. That's the preliminary plan checklist, preliminary plan narrative and supporting materials, the preliminary plan set, storm water management report, soil erosion and sediment control plan, storm water system operation and maintenance plan, contact letter relative to water quality, uh open space use plan, traffic impact analysis by Mr. Chevlin, a Butters map, letter of

transmitt application stamped April 7, 2025. Ryot PAP permit from the state of Rhode Island. State of Rhode Island historical preservation heritage commission PAP letter. No further action on both of those, the Ryot and the historical preservation. And as your planner had referenced, all of our materials relative to uh depreit, our storm water, our site plans were were reviewed by uh Casali uh Mr. Casali peer review. That's part of the packet. We responded and cured and revised our plan. So there's a formal response letter from Depre. Uh there was an ad in the Valley Breeze and obviously as the board is aware, there's notice requirements, mailings, uh advertisement. So, we've provided your planner with affidavits as well as all the certified receipts and I can represent to you that um everything was duly noticed for this evening. So, we're properly uh before the board. Uh in addition, uh there's a fiscal impact study. There was a fiscal impact study provided at master plan. There's an updated uh fiscal impact statement that's been provided uh to you. Uh, and that's from uh Joe Lombardo, who's a fiscal um uh expert. Um, final comments. We've reviewed the staff report, which is embedded in your agenda. It's a positive recommendation. Um, I don't want to slow down the hearing and getting to my witnesses. So, I'll just say this. The vast majority of the conditions we're completely fine with. We asked for a couple tweaks to the language of a couple to track your actual ordinance, but I think it would be more appropriate to get to that after after the presentation because on the whole we are amendable to the conditions. We just want to discuss a couple. Um and with that um I'll I'll I'll ask Mr. Chairman if I could present Mr. Prie on civil engineering.

And if you could also uh indulge me. I just would like to qualify Mr. Prie as an expert um and so Mr. Prie if you could briefly just list your credentials, your education and your experience testifying before boards in this state please. Sure. Uh good good evening. My name is uh Eric Py P R I Vz and Victor E. I'm a registered professional engineer with Depre Engineering offices at two Stafford Court and Cranston Rhode Island. I have been practicing for 25 years. I've been registered professional engineer for over 20 years as well. I have testified before this planning board, zoning board uh on numerous occasions as well and been as an expert previously. So,

and just very briefly, Mr. Prie, in preparing for this evening, the testimony that you'll provide and the plans that you've uh submitted, have you re reviewed all applicable state law? Uh yes, all applicable uh DEM and state regulations. Yes. Okay. and all pertinent parts of the local ordinance as well as the local um the local uh planning board regulations. Yes, that's correct. All right. And with that, uh Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Mr. Prie be uh be qualified as an expert as a civil engineer.

Good evening. Uh as mentioned for the record, my name is Eric Prievy, registered professional engineer. Uh what I'd like to do is is kind of take a breakdown and and uh Mr. Resnik, Attorney Resnik did an excellent job of giving a quick overview, but what I'd like to do is kind of break it back down a little bit. We It has been a while since we've been here. We had the master conceptual master plan and just to kind of give everybody a quick background. You know, we had the conceptual and then from there we take that and and do it into all of the engineering, get the soil testing, the the detailed surveys, all of the wetland delineations. That all needs to be done into the next phase into preliminary plan stage. So, we had a lot of work to do. Hence why we've ex uh requested extensions along the way. Uh the parcel itself is uh there's actually 17 individual parcels. I'm not going to list them all, but they're on assessor uh assessor's plat 14. It's 277 acre parcel. So it's a large parcel. Uh it is zoned RA65 and that allows for 65,000 square foot uh per lot density. Uh that's about an acre and a half if you if you round it. Uh the property is located off of uh Douglas Pike, otherwise known as uh Route 7. Uh during the time we did a we perfor performed a class one boundary survey. So that is the highest level of survey that you can do in the state of Rhode Island. That is to to accuracy uh for transmitting and transferring of land. Uh there was over five and a half miles of boundary that we had to go around. As you know, it's a wooded parcel as well. So, cutting line and getting through for five and a half miles of line. Uh there was old trails, paths, some driftways, undefined uh limits that we had to find. Uh and we also worked with a full title search because this area was interesting with uh Rank and Trail and and some of the surrounding areas. So, we had quite a bit of uh survey work that we had to do to get the boundary survey tied down and get uh get the extents of that all

pinned down and and such. We also did a freshwater wetland uh delineation. And there are freshwater wetlands that are located on the property. Again, uh there was over uh 18,000 linear feet of wetland edge. So that's 3 and a half miles of wetland edge that's on the site. Uh we placed and delineated uh flags, wetland flags on the site, located them with GPS and got them uh put on to create a base map for uh where they are and what their associated buffers are from DEM. Uh that includes also doing some hand augers to determine the extents of where that wetland edge is some upland and and uh upland and wetland side to be able to know where the hydric soils end. Uh so that took an extensive amount of time again after three and a half miles of uh of delineations on site. Over 450 wetland flags were placed on the property. Also as part of the conditions of the master plan approval was the archaeological study. Uh that took quite a bit of time. Um, we hired uh uh Chris Dant of SWCA, Environmental Consultants. Uh, and they they coordinated directly with uh Rhode Island uh historic preservation and heritage commission. So that's HPHC. I'll use that as a simpler version. Uh to first they have to obtain an archaeological permit. So they had to put together uh and review the scope and the procedures for administering the on-site investigation. for them to do that. Uh it included coordination with the narrogance at Indian tribal historic preservation office. So that was part of that process as well. That notice was given as well. The archaeological dig permit was issued in December of 2021. The study itself concluded and the report was submitted to HPHC for review in August of 2022. HPHC sent a letter of concurrence agreeing on uh August 31st of 2022 and

stating that no additional study needed to be done and that we could proceed with the soil testing on the site as well. The total archaeological timeline was one and a half years including the research and history of the land, developing the permit protocols, the HPHC permit approval, the field investigations, the report compilation, and then obtaining the letter from HPHC. So that was a lengthy step and that was one that we had to do before we could actually even really kind of get started. We couldn't even do the the uh the soil testing till then. From there we took this and did the soil testing. Um and we did that in the in fall of 2022. Again given that this area is uh is serviced by on-site wastewater treatment systems. We had 126 lots. Every lot needs to have two test pits on it for septics. We had 252 state witness tests that needed to be done. Drainage areas too, we have six drainage areas that needed to be done. And per the storm water design manual for the state, there's a certain number that need to be done per pond to make sure it gets enough coverage for infilt uh infiltration rates, we had over 44 test tolls needed for that. So again, 296 test tolls that needed to be done uh and witnessed by the state. So, we had 30 days worth of testing with the state that we ended up having to do. All of the soil testing that was performed on site was done by a DEM class 4 licensed soil evaluator and the soil testing was witnessed by DEM staff as well. Soils on site are grally sandy material and suitable for development. The tests themselves are on the site plan. You can see them all throughout and how they're kind of peppered on each lot along the light as well. Topography for existing topography. It's a moderately rolling terrain sloping generally from the north uh toward the north and towards the wetland areas. Obviously, when going down to the wetland areas, the highest

elevations within the site are located centrally and it's around elevation 498. I can actually point to about where that area is. This area is kind of Oops. Can't really see it very well. Down in this area is is the high point. And then as it goes towards the north, Rankenbrook is located right here along the left side over here as well. Thank you for the people at home. Thank you. They probably can't see that. Um, so the lower portions of the site uh are located along Douglas Pike and then along Brookside Drive as well as uh Rank and Brookke exits the site as well. And that's down around elevation 350. So you have almost 150 feet of general relief throughout the site. Again, it's a almost it's a 277 acre parcel. Uh it's important to note that this property is not located within the groundwater overlay district uh for the town. So that gave us all of the background base mapping and all of the uh due diligence that we had to do before we could even get started on the engineering, the survey, the soil testing, wetland delineations. We had to do all of that and that took quite some time. From there, uh we we went forward with doing the engineering design. Again, it's 126 lot conservation subdivision. These are all single family homes. Uh this area is serviced by on-site wastewater treatment systems. There'll be an uh an on-site wastewater treatment system and a private well per lot. There'll be no shared community systems. They're all individually per lot. There's enough room to be able to have the well radius and the septics on every lot with proper separations per DEM uh regulations. It has been designed per per the conservation regulations as well. It allows for a reduction in uh the

conservation development uh regulations allow for reduction in lot area and then the lot dimensions in order to preserve open space areas. So, it's the same density, but the lot sizes themselves can get a little smaller so that uh they don't have to be 65,000 square foot lots. They can be for uh they can be down to 30,000 square feet with frontage of 120 ft. So, the subdivision is designed with all of the lots being a minimum of 30,000 square feet. So, 3/4 of an acre give or take and a lot frontage of 120 ft. with the conservation development that requires a minimum of 50% of the site to be dedicated as open space. 50% for the RA65 zone, excuse me. Um but so 50% of the site dedicated to open space. Um the site preserves actually uh 163.4 acres out of the 277. So that's 59% of the site will be dedicated as open space. It's important to note that the 126 proposed lots over 277 acres equates to a density of 2.2 acres per lot. So that is well below what the zoning ordinance allows. So uh and below is a good thing. It's it's less than what would would be allowed as a maximum under speak a little bit to the storm water management and storm water drainage uh drainage elements. There are six drainage elements on the site as well. Uh it's a combination of infiltration basins. We try to infiltrate as often as possible. There are areas where uh we're closer to groundwater table and those are detention basins. Uh we do provide pre-treatment and water quality improvements through the use of sediment 4 bays and sand filters. Uh the infiltration basins are designed to recharge the groundwater after being treated again through the pre-treatment and the water quality enhancements. So they'll recharge the groundwater directly on uh on site. Each house is proposed with an infiltrating drywall.

So it takes the roof runoff and is able to infiltrate it right at the source. Again, as a DEM best management practice, the more you can break up the waterersheds into small areas and treat directly at the source, uh, the better off you are. So each house has a dry well directly in and recharging directly next to it as well. That also reduces additional runoff from going across driveways and such because it'll be infiltrated on site. The subdivision has been designed to DEM's best management practices and meets and uh meets the requirements of the uh storm water design and installation standards manual which is the industry standard for Rhode Island. That is the the uh requirement that we as civil engineers and environmental engineers are required to do. Uh the storm water management system provides reduction in peak runoff from pre-development de pre-development conditions to post-development for the one through 100year frequency storm. So again, how muchever runoff comes off the site to each watershed on the site has to be the same or less than what it is there today. So that's why we're able to treat that directly on site with the uh storm water mitigation measures. Uh it's important to note that the storm water calculations were reviewed and approved by the town's third party peerreview consultant, which is Joe Cassali Engineering. I'd like to speak uh a little bit about the uh Leonard Drive emergency access as well here. So is located right here. And I want to talk about that because uh in in the previous in the master plan uh the it was originally shown going right in this area right here. And in early discussions, and I believe attorney Kelly is also going to talk a little bit about it, but in early discussions with Department of Environmental Management, uh the permitting supervis permitting supervisor Marty Wick uh wanted us to look at alternatives and said, you know, do you have to cross this wetland? Can

you find another location? And so that's what we did. um this area that's north on on the more northern portion of the site here. Uh there is a biological wetland that's associated with Rank and Brook, but the brook stops and and has uh transmitted here. We're able to to go past it without going into any biological wetlands. So that is uh an alternative that we were looking at. We attended pre-application meetings with staff. We had multiple meetings with DEM um and working uh to get that in a in a new location over here. And Eric, yes, sir. Has that been reviewed by the fire department?

That has been reviewed, but so actually that was actually the next part. Thank you, Mr. Curo. Um I did meet with the fire marshall and fire chief together uh in March of 2025. Again, when we started looking at these different alternatives, uh we reviewed and discussed it. At the conclusion of the meeting, it was determined that shifting the emergency access uh northerly to the to this current location um was an it is an acceptable alternative. Um obviously they want to be as quick as they can. Um they would love to go as fast as they could there, but they also recognize that there are some environmental constraints that uh that uh you know make it make it have to have another alternative. Um just check my notes for a minute here. Uh, very important to note with this, by the way, very important to note because I'm sure I mean I see a lot of faces out here. Um, this will that emergency access road that comes, there will be a gate that is located at the end of Brookside Drive right here and there's a gate that'll be located on Leonard Drive side for emergency purposes only. So the the emergency personnel in DPW will both be given keys to be able to open and use that gate if they need to for emergency purposes only. None of the vehicles of the subdivision will be using that road. So none of these none of the residents of Ranken Estates will be coming and using this emergency road and going down Brookside Drive. None of them will be going to Leonard Drive. There will be no standard vehicular access to either of the abuing neighborhoods. So, everybody located within Rankin Estates will be exiting and entering from Route 7 Douglas Pike. Uh, Mr. Chevlin is here. Uh, John Chevlin is here from uh, PAR Corporation uh, as well to speak a little bit more. So, I'm not going to speak too much about the um the sight lines and and traffic items, but that was uh, my general overview. I again, I'd be happy

to answer any questions. I tried to be thorough but concise enough that I didn't take up all your time. So, and Mr. Chairman, just briefly before we open it up to the board, if I could just ask Mr. Prie a couple follow-up questions. Uh, Mr. Prie, the testimony that you gave this evening, is that to a degree a reasonable degree of certainty in your expertise uh, as a civil engineer? Yes, sir.

All right. And just a couple other follow-up questions. Uh, Mr. Brie, um, is it your opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive community plan? Uh, strike that that was actually a matter for for master and that's really not an appropriate matter for my civil engineer. Uh the next one the proposed development is in compliance with the standards and provisions of the municipality zoning ordinance or has obtained relief from the same or another provision of this chapter that exempts compliance with a specific provision or standard. Has that been met? Yes, it has. And uh there will be is it your opinion that there'll be no significant negative environmental impact from the proposed development as shown on the final plan at this preliminary stage with all required conditions for approval? That's correct.

All right. And also is it your opinion that the subdivision as proposed will not result in the creation of individual lots with any physical constraints to development that the building on those lots according to pertinent regulations and building standards would be impracticable. Has that been satisfied? It has. Yes. And lots and as you said, there are no lots with physical constraints such as that. Correct. That is correct. All right. And all proposed land developments and all subdivision lots of adequate physical and permanent physical access to a public street. Uh is that is that accurate? That is accurate. All right. And is the testimony that you just gave as to those factors to a reasonable degree a certainty in your expertise as a civil engineer? Yes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I turn it over to the board. Thanks. Actually, we'll move on to your your next speaker. We prefer you just I'll be here. Yeah. Bring up each person. My next uh speaker will be John Chevlin from PAR. Uh and also, Mr. Chairman, if I might, I just have two exhibits. One is that document from Tree Engineering that goes through why we satisfied all the master plan conditions. Your planner has a copy of it already. And this is just Mr. Pre's resume for purposes of the record.

All right. Thank you. I also have Mr. Chevlin's uh resume, but I ask that I be given the opportunity to qualify him. Mr. Chevlin, I know that you've appeared before this board many times, but if you could please uh list your credentials, your experience, uh please. Sure. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is John Chevlin, registered professional engineer, employee by Park Corporation, Lincoln, Rhode Island. Mr.

Oh, okay. Yeah, it sounds like there's some noise back there interfering with her. Uh, Park Corporation in Lincoln, Rhode Island. Um, graduate of UMass Ammerst. I have about 39 years experience doing transportation related work, a lot of it traffic engineering work. I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of Rhode Island and I think I testified in pretty much every community in Rhode Island throughout my 39y year career. So, and based on that, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that Mr. Chevlin be qualified as an expert professional engineer traffic. Everybody good?

All right. And for purposes, Mr. Chairman, here's a copy of Mr. Sh's resume. Um, and John, before you start, uh, could you just, um, in preparing, uh, for this evening, your testimony, the plans you presented, did you review all relevant state law, write out regulations, and any local parts of the ordinance that were pertinent to your opinions? Yes, we have. We've uh, have reviewed all those and we performed the traffic study that's pretty much based on industry standards. Understood. And before we get to the traffic study that you did in connection with your presentation this evening, you were also uh the traffic expert at Master, correct? Uh we didn't submit the traffic study till preliminary. Till preliminary.

Yeah, it was after master and it was peer reviewed at preliminary. Correct. I believe so. Yes. All right. So, Mr. Chevlin, if you could just um provide your testimony uh relative to your report and then of course if the board has any questions.

Absolutely. So, uh, Park Corporation was asked to go ahead and do a traffic study for this development. Uh, Eric went through in regards to the overall development, what's going to be. Uh, so as part of the study, we did several things. We reviewed the existing conditions in the vicinity of the project area of the roadway of the roadway system. Uh, we did a safety analysis and then we looked at traffic based on three conditions. the existing conditions as they occur today. Future no build which goes out five years from now in regards what the traffic will be like without this development place. Then we take a look in regards to the future uh development with this uh proposal in place. So what we do is we extend it out five years regards to what we anticipate the traffic going what it's going to be. Then we add on the traffic from what's going to be uh proposed to be generated from this site. Just so make that clear. So the first step that of our study was the data collection phase and there's several steps that we did. You know our study area was uh Douglas Pike uh from Farnum Pike up to Matt Road. Uh so we looked at that whole stretch of roadway. Uh we did turning movement counts during the morning and afternoon peak hours. So we did them from 7:00 to 9 in the morning then 4 to 6 in the afternoon. Those are the two heaviest times of days uh that we uh traffic seems to be current from the commuters. And then we received crash data for three years from the uh North Smithfield Police Department to review to see if there's any history in that in the area that we should be concerned with as far as uh safety. And then we did a field review of the study area to take a look at the traffic patterns, get information regards to the roadway widths, took a look at the alignments and such and look at the uh the intersections that we reviewed. And the last thing as far as the data collection is we coordinate with the planning department uh to determine if there's any other developments that are proposed in the area that we should include as part of our study. So we did contact them when we did the study at the time. There's no other developments to include in the study except for background growth. Um I think everybody knows the existing

conditions and the roadways and what's where the site is and where it's going to be coming out. So I won't get too much into the existing conditions of the roadway. I think everybody's familiar with the project area. Um but I will uh go ahead and just talk about in regards to the analysis that we performed. So the the next step that we did was a safety analysis and that was uh two things that we did with the safety analysis. We took a look at the crash data. Then we also took a look in regards to the sight lines. We look at the sight lines to make sure you can get uh clear distances as far as being able to get safely in and out of the proposed site. Uh the crash data that we obtained over a three-year period is show there's a total of 54 crashes within the stretch of roadway that we looked at. uh 35% of these crashes were single vehicle crashes with uh either wildlife or cars hitting uh black ice going off the road and such. So there's significant amount in regards to cars hitting wildlife and and just driver errors on that case. On the intersections, the Douglas Pike and Farnum Pike, uh there was uh 20 crashes over a three-year period. Six of those were rear end. So a lot of those are just driving uh in uh not being paying attention regardless of the car in front of them. And eight of those 20 again were single vehicles uh for people who went ahead. Same thing wildlife or uh black ice. Um the next intersection, Matty Road, there was 15 crashes that occurred in the area. Five of those were rear end. I think some of those in regards to cars starting, not stopping. Uh then there was five sideswipes of accidents as well. And then they had several uh single vehicle crashes. the there was some intersections uh improvements to uh to Douglas Pike and at Farum Pike with DOT when they recently did the roadway project over there. So, they did tighten up that intersection to make it less wide open. So, I think that'll help with some of the safety uh safety needs that occur in that area. In addition to the crashes and we reviewed that, we did take a look in regards to the sightelines. To do the sight lines, we went out, we uh did a traffic speed study and determine regards to what the typical speeds are that uh people drive out there. The big

number that we look at is the 85th percentile speed. That's the the 85th 85% of the speed that people are driving and that's typically what's used as the design speed in order to determine what the uh sight lines need to be at a driveway and to ensure you have safety. The posted speed limit out there is 40 miles an hour. We found that the 85th percentile speed uh going southbound is 47 miles per hour and then heading northbound is 50 miles per hour. So people are traveling uh typically at you know 10 miles over 10 miles over. We were conservative. We we designed everything based on a 50 m per hour 50 mph design speed with those distances. Uh we went ahead, we took a look in regards how far you can see up and down the roadways. Uh the requirements for the intersection the site distances are are exceeded at each of the locations for uh the site driveway in Douglas Pike. We're able to see to the north looking left about 585 ft which exceeds the 480 ft that are required. And looking south, we're able to see 635 ft. So we're able to exceed the distancing of there. There is some vegetation that's out there right there. Right now we did make a re recommendation to make sure when this development goes in that vegetation is cleared back in order to maintain those sidelines at the entrance. We um so as I mentioned before then we went into the traffic uh traffic capacity analysis. So we looked at the existing conditions uh we had those we looked at the peak hours and found out what the the peak hours were for the morning and afternoon peak hours. Then we went to the no build condition to determine what those volumes are going to be. Um, as I mentioned, there's no additional uh developments that were occurring in the area. So, we didn't add any other developments as far as our background uh traffic, but we did add a half a percent per year uh annual uh increase for traffic to take into account future growth within the surrounding area. uh that half a percent was based on census data that we obtained from the US census uh data for uh between the years and was we added that from 2010 to 2020 or that was from

2010 to 2020 and we add that annual growth from 2024 up to 2029 and after that we developed in regards to what were going to be the bill conditions and the bill conditions are based on the trips are going to be generated from this site in order to determine the number of trips generated from this site We have a manual that's called the IT trip generation manual. It's put out by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This is a manual that's used by planners, uh, engineers, architects. What is it? Studies done throughout the country. Uh, and a lot of there's, you know, hundreds, 200 uses as far as coming up with the average number of trips are, uh, generated by different types of land uses. So, the land use that we used for this was a single family residential development. and what could be anticipated from this development with the 126 houses that during the morning peak hour. There'll be a total of 89 trips that it could be anticipated to be generated from the site. That's going to be 22 trips entering the site and 67 that'll be exiting during the AM peak hour. In the afternoon, you're going to have you can anticipate 120 trips and that's going to be 75 entering with 45 exiting. Those trips once you have those, we went ahead and we distributed them based on the existing traffic patterns that are occurring uh out on the roadway. We distributed traffic based on the existing traffic patterns during the morning and afternoon peak hour. With those conditions, the three conditions, the existing, future no build, future build. We then ran our capacity uh analysis using uh software that's uh used in order to go ahead and develop what the level of services are. With this development, there's no decrease in level service. Um level service is measured uh based on level service A to level service F. Um it's based on the amount of delay that you could anticipate at a at a intersection. Like I said, none of the intersection between the future no built the future build had any significant reduction. Uh the biggest increase in delay that you could anticipate at the intersections I believe was a little over two seconds in

some of the areas. So it's very minor with this additional traffic on there. Um so based on you know the study that we did like said we had some recommendations. We talked about the overgrown growth uh vegetation. needs to be clear on each side for the driveway. We talked about adding additional signage uh to take into account the wildlife crossing and also the upcoming driveway that's uh for the site where this could be uh created for this development. And the last thing that we had in there was just adding stop bars at the mad uh road approaches at the intersection with Douglas Pike. uh based on our you know study looking at the capacity and safety you know we feel that this uh this roadway and this project can be built without decreasing uh traffic capacity or or safety in the area.

Mr. Chairman if I may briefly uh Mr. Chevlin your testimony this evening that you just provided was to a reasonable degree a certainty in your expertise as a traffic engineer. Yes. Right. And Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. I open it up to the board. Okay. Yep. Bring up your next speaker.

Mr. Chairman, as far as our our our presentation and chief, that that concludes the experts that we're presenting this evening. Attorney Kelly's available to the extent the board wants to ask any questions about status as his conversations with DEM and where we are at permanent. So, I'm sure he's happy to do that. There's one thing that I'd like to just make one comment on before I either give it to Attorney Kelly or the board. I know that from reading some of the comments from the community, some of the um some of the emails that have been provided by your planner that there has been a concern relative to the recreational uh fields for the development. Mr. Prie, could you if you have the red light, could you just

and I'll I'll try to do this right. Let's see. This is the field right here. Correct. All right. And then we have the park associated parking uh area right here. So ju just a couple things about that. One one of the conditions that was requested um asked for no cut zones to provide a buffer to the neighboring uh neighborhood and we're agreeing to that condition. More than that, it's actually already contemplated on the plan. So, there's a a 250 foot uh uh cut zone buffer um from the fields to the uh neighboring property and there's a 125 ft uh no cut zone uh for the for the associated associated parking area. And I just want to be clear when we talk about recreational fields, we are not talking about football fields, baseball fields, we're not talking about any type of organized event is to serve the members of the community. and it's really passive recreational fields where people could throw around a Frisbee, kick around a soccer ball, um that type of thing. Now, I I will tell you that our position, and obviously we're happy to discuss it, is that that right to have those recreational fields there was something that vested at master. Um but more than that, um I I just want to draw the board's attention uh to your conservation development ordinance contained in your zoning code. Um, and that's what this is. It's a it's a conservation uh uh development. And and I'm not going to go on and on, but there is one portion that I do want to cite for you. Uh, and that's section 340-4.51 subp part C subp part 2B. And I'm I'm going to summarize essentially what it says that the planning board has the ability to allow a conservation development, which has happened here. It's appropriate for single family dwellings, a conservation development. And subp part C says the open space in a conservation development shall be devoted only to conservation purposes or

for park recreation, forest management and agricultural purposes. It also goes down to that subp part two and it says in addition the following uses are also permitted as a principal use. And I'll go to subp part B. Uh the first part is conservation area, wildlife refuge, reforestation area or wood lot. And we know that u as Mr. Prie said a significant portion is in that conservation uh area. Subp part B says subdivision parks, playgrounds, community centers, recreational facilities, and similar structures of a non-commercial nature designed for the use of the residents of the conservation development and their guests. So our position is we're very happy to work with the board as to reasonable conditions on those recreational fields, but it was vested at master and it is specifically stated in your ordinance as something that we can do and it it is passive recreational space. It's really not much different than the pre-existing paths that are being retained for walking. That that's that's what it is. So I just wanted to put that out there because I I saw some concerns in the community. Mr. Prie can probably get into some more details about the no cut zones, landscaping, etc. Um, but I just wanted to put that out there.

You can hang on. If you guys don't mind, I'm going to ask a question. Okay. The parking lot seems to be on the road that is for emergency use only, which will be have a locked gate at both end in which you specifically said residents will not have the ability to go on that road. So, why do you need a parking lot? Mr. P will take that.

Um, okay. Uh, thank you. First of all, um, maybe I misspoke and I want to clarify is what I'd like to do. So, the gate would be located at the end of Brookside Drive right here and it would be located at Leonard. So I can get there with my vehicle from if I live here for instance, I can go on the road and I can go because the gate is here. I can't go to Brookside. I'm not turning to Brookside because that's has a gate there and I can come on to be able to come over to the fields and play in the fields and then it's stopped at Leonard as well. I cannot go to Leonard from there. So it is self-contained within. You stated that that residents would not have access to that road. So it sounds like you're correcting that now.

I am. I am. If if that's what I stated, then I apologize. That's not what I I meant to say. I what I meant to say is that the residents will not be connecting to the adjoining neighborhoods. They can't use it for entry or regress. Correct. Understood. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. So, Mr. Chairman, as I said, all my experts are open for questions. I am. And attorney Kelly's ready for any anything relative to DEM or any historical knowledge about master plan and the conditions. Okay. Who would like to start?

I'm gonna I'll ask one more then again in regard to the uh recre recreation area particularly the what looks like a soccer size field. Um what what will be done is it's very hilly terrain right very uneven terrain. Um, how will there how will it be limited in terms of uh cut and fill? Sure. U Eric, if you could discuss the the grading plan a little bit. Um,

yeah. So, clearly in order to make a field, we need to level it um some. We're not talking as as mentioned, we're not talking about having a uh you know a regulation soccer field that needs to have pitches and sub drains and you know how those are put together. We're talking about an open field. So yes, it would need to be uh rel relatively late uh level to be able to have for that area. So, do you have um a drawing that shows what the current topography is so that we can see like I do have an existing conditions we could probably flip to that might be helpful.

It might be helpful. Also, these are in that field is in a different location if I recall from the master plan site plan. Is that true? No, I don't believe so. We might have maybe Well, you originally showed three that for one thing you showed three fields. So,

and what we did also because one of the conditions was it did shift slightly and I'll tell you why it uh was because one of the conditions of approval also said to contour the con uh to to you know try to limit the cuts and fills of the access road to Leonard Drive. So that put in order to do that the way that the topography went it had to the the road went along the eastern side the right side from what you've been looking at to be able to go with the contours which then slightly pushed them uh the fields over. So, okay. Okay.

Ah, there we go. Okay. Um, for anybody that has plans, uh, I am on sheet seven, existing conditions, sheet seven, and that's what the the topography is showing in that area. Again, those So, to give you some reference, the um the more bold line on here is is a 10-ft contour and the uh smaller black line is a is a twoft contour as well. So, that's you asked where they were. We also you can see the uh the walking paths are designated on the existing conditions as well. So, we tried to you can see where the area where it's hold on I can point with an actual laser. That probably be a little more helpful. uh this area here seemed to be one of the areas where uh it was more more of a flatter area. So we we focused on that and then this area here as well. Um and then as you come in it comes in over here. So those those are the areas we we focused on. Again the reason for the path was see the how the the topography goes here. One of the conditions was to try to uh to limit the cuts and fills of the access road. So that's what we were doing. We're running with the contours in this area to be able to come through here and run with the contours until it connects to Leonard Drive. So,

all right. So, the intent is to use the areas that have the less dramatic changes in content. Correct. Okay. All right. Who's up? Yes, Mr. Porter. All right. Um, you might just want to be up there. Most of my questions are for you. Um, the proposed plan back up. Yeah, probably. Thank you.

So, in your narrative, you had made reference to existing stone walls on the site, and I I combed over as best I could with PDFs. Could you identify where said existing stone walls may be in plan? So along along the b I it's on all of the existing conditions plans around the boundaries and such. Um we very clearly demarcated on the on the okay I show stone walls on on the existing conditions boundary plan. Okay. I I was trying to figure out flipping between existing conditions and the proposed if there's any alterations that need to be made to the existing stone walls if you recall.

I don't I don't recall off the top of my head and I don't want to misspeak is is all. So all right there are as I mentioned there are 17 parcels individual parcels that create the 277 acres. So there are some internal boundaries that are on there. Sure. Uh I wouldn't be surprised if there were stone stone walls accordingly.

Okay. because I I just want I know in the conservation uh in our uh subdivision rags we do have notes that say you know we would prefer not to have the stone walls altered uh and that's you can say I'll direct you to us our subdivision rags uh 5.2B1 uh as one of those options. Uh, another thing that going through uh the subdivision rags, I noticed on your plans that you have listed that you have overhead power lines which are are not allowed. Understood. So, we'd like to have those be underground. Yep.

Uh, we did notice I I did notice with the uh recommendations that was one of the conditions that was recommended. So,

yep. And then uh similarly with sidewalks um I I was noticing I was a little confused between the plan seeing the the 50 uh 50 foot right of way but also in our subdivision regs we also uh state that we need sidewalks with granite curbs particularly in such this area. I would recommend that we look at at minimum having one side given the number of people given the amount of open space and conservation development that we're doing here that those be applied for uh be applied as well. And then I was hoping that somebody could speak to the amount of tree tree clearing. I understand that you guys are doing this in about 10 phases. Uh it would be a shame to be clear cutting the entirety of the property. So I would like to make sure that you're only cutting what is necessary for building and for tra uh for roadways. Uh to it's really uh sad to see these new developments go in when they just clearcut the entirety of the property. There's all the old old growth trees that bring a lot of character. I think in keeping in line with North Smithfield and our rural character that you keep the tree clearing to a minimum uh clear trees for for the road, clear it for the buildings, but leave as much as you can remaining uh without just clearcutting all these lots and letting them be barren and um quite frankly sad looking. And then um I just had a couple other questions. uh of the 59% of the total open space that is being uh that is being left for open space how much of

that is wetlands so I had approximated it as so there is a total of 35 acres of unsuitable by definition so that is wetlands andor female flood plane right um so there's 35 acres of that we have 163 3 acres. So even if you took all of the wetlands out of that, I mean, you're still uh well above what the uh requirement would be. So So the suitable is 50% of the suitable land. Is that what the the open space that would be 120 acres is what's required, right? By calculation.

And so even if you take all of the wetlands out of that, the 35, it's still above the 120 that's required. So I could get you a more exact number if that's helpful, but I can tell you that even if you take the wetlands out of it, um it is above the 50% that's required under the ordinance.

Okay. And then I think um lastly, the the one thing that would be incredibly helpful for me to understand is having an overlay of the existing trails onto this plan here that that you have a in front of us tonight. Um, I know there was some conversations with the heritage association ma trying to maintain as many plan uh trails as possible. So, I'd just like to see, you know, in relation to what's going on with this proposed development, what the trails look like um if there's any incorporation into the roadways so that people can access those trails after the fact and and going from there. Those are all the questions I have for civil.

Okay,

Mr. Chairman, if I could just briefly uh m uh Mr. Porter, as it relates to most of your comments, I I think we're acquiescing to most of those conditions. There's just one item I have to bring up relative to the the sidewalks and the granite curbing. My understanding is that if you look at the master plan set that was approved that there was a waiver um for uh sidewalks and for curbing and if you actually look at the master plan itself what's been recorded and what's on file with um planning staff. My understanding uh is that it there was a waiver granted. Now I wasn't there. Mr. Bradley was the engineer at that time. So uh Len, would you mind speaking to that? Certainly. Um, again, for the record, my name is Lennon Bradley, professional engineer with PE pre- Engineering. Eric and I have worked together on this project for a number of years. Uh, actually when I started this project, I had a full head of dark hair and no gray. It was 25 years ago.

Was it as long as mine?

No, it never. My mother wouldn't let me have it that long. I don't know how your mother does that, but um, so to answer your question, you know, um, Mr. Resing is absolutely right. When we came before the board with the master plan, um we had asked for a a waiver on the sidewalks and the granite curbing. That's and that's how we proceeded. Um one of the challenges that we as engineers have these days is, you know, managing storm water, trying to keep storm water to a minimum. So if we put sidewalks in is going to result in more storm water runoff. So, we're just trying to balance that and and we look at the the the the character of the land, the width of the pavement. Um, so that's why we didn't propose sidewalks. We asked for a waiver on it and we move forward, you know, to the preliminary plan based on the master plan approval with no sidewalks and granite curbing. Um, the other thing I wanted to just touch on is the trails. So, I I want the board to understand a lot of those trails were created by trespassers on ATVs that were running through uh Mr. Peterson's properties without permission. So when we did the design, we tried to create open space carters where the trails connected to the exist the proposed roadway so that people could walk. Um my expectation is that you know as a site is developed that ATV traffic would dissipate. Some of those trails may go back to nature, um, which is fine, but the ones that are more prevalent, I would assume would be used by the the new residents.

Okay. I'm I'm sure there'll be a few ATVs in those 126 houses. Um, well, that's something that part of the homeowners association, right? Could I I personally, if I live there, I wouldn't want to see an ATV bomb into my backyard. So, I would expect that would be a prohibited activity. There you go.

Um, just just to respond back with the sidewalks, um, I'm not looking at it more I'm looking at it more of a safety perspective there. Your impact study has said that there's 75 children or 75 children that will be in this area. I know I live on a fair much much smaller street than this and we have kids up in on 14 houses and our street is about a quarter of a mile long and uh people that live on that street do speed quite frequently. So I I'm I'm asking more of as a safety factor for those families and children that are in this development that you I understand it's vested, but I I would also request that maybe you you reook at that and re and reconsider that.

Yeah, we we can look at it. Um absolutely. It's it's a decision that's up to my client. Sure.

Um but one of the things I always argue I totally agree with the safety. you know, my responsibilities, Eric's responsibility when we stamp these plans as engineers, our responsibility is for health and safety of the public. Um, we want to create a safe environment. But in my 35 plus years of practicing, the amount of times I've designed a sidewalk in a subdivision, when I go back through that subdivision and people are pushing their carriages and rid and and walking, they walk in the street. They don't use the sidewalks. So, it's just as an engineer trying to balance the environmental impacts and the safety. Um, but we'll bring it to our our client and ask him how he wants to proceed.

All right. Even if it's as much as giving the road a little bit more width because I know you guys have a a 26 wide road foot wide road. So maybe if it's just a little bit more width for to allow for pedestrian access because I I know particularly if you're going to have an HOA, there's going to be a lot of grumpy people with walking on lawns and that's not going to be a a good thing. Yep. So what I would propose um because a lot of the roads that we're designing these days, we design it 22 feet, 24 feet. Sure. If the board was willing that we would reduce the pavement width and use that that additional width for a sidewalk, that's something we can look at. Okay.

One of the things discussed in the master plan was um and I think it speaks to your concern about runoff etc. was using like a tinder path, something like that, a soft path, but again so that people are not walking the street and yet not walking on somebody's lawn. And I and I Yes. And that's one of the things going back to the question that you add about added about the walking paths. You know, the pedestrian movement through the whole development is important. So maybe we can look at what existing paths are there, how they connect and see if there's some type of combination that we can come up with between a, you know, path parallel or walking paths parallel to the the streets and paths within the open space. Okay. Thank you.

You just had one other thing to quickly add as well. Um, you know, given it's a 50-ft rideway and with, you know, half of 26 you got a 13 foot. We still have 12 foot grass shoulders in that area. These will be graded grass shoulders just typical, right? So, you would have a, you know, a one two% pitch that's coming back. So, there will be grass shoulders for people to walk in too. It just instead of being concrete or asphalt, there would be a flat area to walk. uh you know we do have the street trees per the landscape plan but right on the back side and and that actually would provide a nice separator between the ve vehicular movements and where the the uh pedestrians are walking. So there they are there. I just want to make a point that there is grass shoulders as well. So

did did you want to get into the the other questions? No. Okay. Mr. Hammond.

Yeah. I have a quick question about the uh historical preservation. In the letter here, it mentions that the Narogansided Indian Tribal Historical Preservation Office continues to have concerns. This was they didn't reach out to you as of 2022. Have they reached out since? Well, Eric, Eric, um if you want to speak to that, but this is what I can generally say. My understanding is it was a public process. They were invited to participate uh at many occasions, and my understanding is that that they did not. Um but they were certainly given the opportunity and I think that it was not just a a public notice that there were direct communications requesting um any input. Is that right Mr. Prie? That is correct. Yes. Thank you.

All right. Did you have anything? Is the HOA going to be responsible for maintaining the grass cutting of that field and maintaining of that field and cleanup and and and the roadway going to that field. It's not going to be the roadway going to that field is not going to be a town road. Correct.

It's going to be all covered by an HOA. Um, so everything for for instance the the storm water management plan, the OWTS systems, there's going to be tools in there that that tether those responsibilities. So if the individual lot owners don't do what they need to do, the HOA would be responsible. If the HOA doesn't do anything, there'll be lean mechanisms for the town to take action. And as it relates to all the common areas, which we'll call them, um, that are outside of the lots, the conservation area, which obviously isn't going to be touched, but to specifically to your question, yes, that would be an obligation of the homeowners association, all maintenance, all repair, everything like that. Correct.

I mean, that would include insurance also, liability insurance. Absolutely. And um I've discussed with your your planner um refining those HOA documents uh as a condition to final. Uh there's some things that we want to work on. We want to get some feedback from the board. We wanted to understand some of these issues. Um and uh it's going to be a little bit more of a a com it will be a little bit more of a complicated document to draft than your normal HOA. So we want to look at it a little bit harder and and candidly we may be bringing in another attorney that we work with that kind of specializes in doing ones for a big development like this. Sure. So okay

with the HOA. So in my previous residence my development was an HOA. The biggest obstacle that we posed as residents was that we did not have control until the last lot was developed. So you have 12 26 lots and it's a staggered development. So who's going to have control of the maintenance and the and the HOA if if the if the owners don't have control?

So that would be our client. That would be the owner. Uh often referred to as the declarant in those type of documents. And you you are right. Many times those documents are stylized to provide that declarant, that developer with as much control as possible until the last lot is sold. That's legal. That's their right. There's there's a lot of reasons why that's that's a benefit. But the answer is very simple. It's the owner, it's the applicant, the HOA. Until the keys are handed over to the community, it all resides with our client. So on the same point as that, the streets were not maintained by our town that we were paying taxes to because the town had not accepted it because the HOA was not complete. So, these are some concerns I have if if there's going to be a partial development and these residents could potentially be locked in by a snowstorm as we just had these two foot snowstorms and and the streets don't get cleared. You know, they're left abandoned without any response from the town because we don't have responsibility as a town because we don't own the street as of yet.

Yeah. So all I can say to that is that there's a contractual obligation in the HOA documents that are going to be part of final that are going to be recorded in the land evidence that that place the onus on my client to do that. There's nothing more that I can say that he has a contractual obligation. He has an obligation to this board through through your decision through the land evidence record. So I I mean I don't there's a certain presumption that and I don't take any offense to it. It's objective that a developer could not do their job. I have no reason to think that my client would not do that. He's got every reason to keep uh the development happy and clean and um prepared to go on from phase to phase. But the reality is is that anybody can break the law. The question is what are the tools in place to hold somebody accountable? And I think we have those. It's going to be that HOA document and it will be the decision that this board makes. Um and we'd be happy even though it's a little bit it would probably be superfluous because we have the HOA doc. We would agree to a condition that that memorializes all of that that until the development is handed over to the community. Um that all obligations relative to maintenance as you suggested lie with the owner. So, I mean, we can we can try to hit it in in in several ways, but but the answer, frankly, is the answer that we all have to deal with. If a private party or a public party doesn't do what they're supposed to do and they owe a, you know, they owe an obligation to us, uh, then we we've got to do something about it. You enforce it through a local mechanism or you go to court. I I I'm not suggesting that that will ever happen. But all we can do is give you the tools to enforce it. Uh, and I'm very certain we're doing that. We'll work with your legal counsel, Mr. Gozi as well to make sure that he's satisfied and Mark is satisfied that the documents we put together do that.

Okay. So that that's all I can really say to that. Okay. Um I have one more question. I I believe it's for you Mr. Brief. Okay. So, um, if you could talk a bit about the development phases, um, and how that will flow and and also understanding that, uh, you're probably not going to put in your your best and finest road while you're having construction bills. Oh, so you have to make something that's solid, but it's probably not the finished product. Yep. I got to think.

Um, so even touching on what Mr. Menard brought brought up too and you know how how will the development progress and what will be done on the roadways to make sure the the uh developer can do their job.

Y um that's a that's a great thing and probably something I should have touched on was phasing. So thank you. Um so we had a couple things that were going on with this. Um one is past experience with subdivisions and de developments and such that are phased. Um, typically you end up seeing frontage lots built uh and and built straight off of the road, limiting infrastructure, having it and and working in. That's typically what you see. The issue you end up having with that is these houses are built, people are moved in, and then construction vehicles are driving in front of their house for every other phase then on. Right? So we've actually and the second part that came with that was

uh the requirement and necessity for the connection to Leonard Drive. That was important to get that emergency access done as quickly as possible. So the way that we did it is actually to work from inward out. Um so we've actually got the first phase being located right here. So you we would be building this main roadway through here, the main road including this P loop for all for these lots. This would be phase number one here. And then the emergency access to Leonard would all be part of phase one. So these lots, nobody can be occupying this area or sorry, no certificate of occupancy for any of the houses that are located in phase one would be done until Leonard Drive is also connected for emergency purposes. That was important. So if we were if we were having that come in, we also thought that we have these homes, right? And then we can work our way back out from there. that doesn't have construction vehicles going past houses. Sure. The folks that when they leave, they'll have to be going. So, typically the way that they do is they bring it to binder grade. Um, right. Right. When until you know they're not going to keep going over. So,

in order to do that, we can have the vehicles uh get phase one done. They can actually bring that to finish course in this area if they feel that they're complete with that and they want to lie that first finish course down. And then they would have binder course through here. and such and work their way out. So, it's probably different than you see in some subdivisions that tend to work their ways into things. Um, we did it for two reasons. Was for the connection for Leonard Drive and also to keep the construction vehicles out of the area. So, okay. All right. Thank you. Yep. Anything else?

I have a couple of questions on the uh traffic study. So one's pretty minor and then uh two are a little bit more substantive. Uh so you there was you mentioned the recommendation of additional signage and the clearing of u lines of sight. So is that something that the developer will take care of while they're putting this in or who does that fall to? Yeah, that'll fall on the developer. So he'll be responsible to make sure the sight lines are clear at the uh adjacent to the to the roadway.

Okay. And then the minor thing is I noticed that the evaluation was done on 122 units, but all the other documents say 126. Does that really impact it a lot? It's it's going to add maybe one trip uh for the other four. When we originally did this at mass plan, it was 122. I think it go to 126, but it's only going to add like maybe one vehicle an hour. Okay. So it's have no no impact on the amount of delays or or anything else. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Anything else? Should be Okay, Mr. Porter. Yeah.

I wanted to spread the wealth a little bit. Um, I have some questions about the the I know you're saying that you've had the you're going to have an HOA uh lawyer assist you in this situation. Currently, the the way that it's been described in in the narrative is that the HOA is only going to be responsible for the uh maint maintenance of the open space in the fields. Is that correct? No. Okay. So then the narrative that we've been supplied is needs to be adjusted to reflect.

Sure. And and and we can we can deal with that if if there's not going to if there's a vote tonight, then we can make it a condition to final. If we're lucky enough to get a vote of approval. If there's going to be another hearing, we we can probably take care of it before before we come back. And I just want to be clear, myself and attorney Kelly have a lot of experience doing HOA documents. This is a large one. There's some nuance to it. Just in the same way that the engineers, you can tell given a lot of thought to how we phase that. That's what we're doing. We're really kind of trying to make sure that this document is is really tight.

Okay. So, so just for for my clarity then the HOA is going to be responsible for all the open space in the fields, the streets, the trash, everything that goes that's associated from that property line in it's not the streets once accepted by the town. Okay. So, so yeah, you had you had said but the developer is responsible until the last house is sold

depending on how the HOA documents are stylized. He he he would have the right to give the keys over before then, but that's very rarely how it's done. My assumption is that it will be at the last lot. So yes, it will it will be with the owner till that time and until the town accepts the road, it will be his responsibility. Okay. I I I take issue with that because if you're going through this conservation development, you're giving access to the open space only to those residents and there that's their only responsibility. You're having an HOA. HOAs, as I'm familiar with them, typically take care of your trash, your roads. Oh, an HOA can be many, many different things.

So, I if if it's a contract, so just to be clear, it's a contract and and I'll say this, we we will work with the town on on mandatory requirements of it, but generally speaking, it it really is something that the the applicant, the owner has a lot of discretion in in a lot of the items in that.

Well, let let me finish where I have my issue then. if the town is going to be responsible for storm water management, the the basins and everything after it gets released over. So then I guess I'm hearing two things from from both of you. It is what is the HOA going to be responsible for and what is it not going to be responsible for? Because my issue is that as it's been presented tonight, the HOA is only responsible for open space. the town will then eventually be responsible for all the roadways, all the drainage, and all the trash and all that. So, I I'm trying to find the balance of what I understand the town is getting uh the impact statement has provided that we're getting financial services here. Well, everybody's paying taxes,

but and then so while this is a conservation development, the town's people are not allowed to use any of this open space, but yet you're getting services by the town. Let's just be clear.

So, but but one moment. Any anybody that owns a lot in a town pays taxes, right? Just like everybody else here, they they have the right to public services, right? Whether it's trash, whether it's fire, water, there's no reason to treat them any differently. The the reality is that there's a misnomer in the concept of a conservation easement. Respectfully, a planning board, a zoning board, the town council, nobody has the right to provide an easement to third parties or to the town. It's not something that you can require. There's a lot of good reasons for it. Um, let me give an example and and I don't mean to make it personal, but do you want to give anybody here an easement across your lot without an indemnification if they're going to get hurt or injured? So, what I'm suggesting to you is there's no right to the public to use that area and that's generally speaking how conserv conservation developments are done. Um, we're not going to get an indemnification from anybody that goes on there. There's liability concerns. You can't do it.

Mr. Chairman. Um, in stipulation number 12 from the planning department, we're recommending that the HOA include because of the complexity and the size of the drainage system that the HOA include maintenance of the drainage system as well as the open space. And Mr. Porter, I think that I think that Mr. Bradley can can give a little bit of background.

If let me let me just add a little bit on to what Mr. Porter said too. The other thing to keep in mind, you know, when we're talking about when the town accepts the plan takes over, you know, this as a public road, etc., well, we're talking about a long period of time before that during the phase development. And as you stated, the developer will be responsible that. So again, trash removal. It's not just about clearing out snow. It's about trash removal and anything else that to maintain the infrastructure and a re, you know, uh the types of services that the residents expect because they won't be getting from the them from the town. No disagreement. Okay. Okay.

Yeah. And maybe if if from a from from a land development, land use perspective, um what I've seen and what we anticipate here is that these will be town roads, but they won't become town roads until they built to the town standards. We perform as builts and the town the town council accepts them. Um that's and that typically doesn't happen to the roads are all a lot of the homes are built. Um and it will happen in phases. So, you know, the main trunk line that Mr. Prey explained, the main road, that may get accepted first once it's built and paved and and homes are most of the homes are built. Um, what I've seen typically with homeowners associations is the homeowners associations will maintain the drainage within the subdivision. They will be responsible for, you know, mowing them, cleaning them. Should they fail to do that, the town will have the right to come in and do that and back bill the homeowners association. Homeowners association would be responsible for the open space and the fields um and the walking paths, but the the roads would be public. the road. So, but um the the the maintenance and the ongoing maintenance until they're turned over to the town, which could be years, will be our client's responsibility and that will be documented in the homeowners association. So, uh as Mr. Resnick said, these these folks will be paying taxes. So, I think the the expectation that when it the roads all built and done and turned over the town that they will get services just like any taxpayer and and I've seen this in many subdivisions that there is a certain amount of coordination that has to happen. You know, like the snow plowing, I expect that Mr. Everson will have the development plowed up until the time that the town takes responsibility for it. trash. I've seen trash pickup within

these developments before they're town roads, you know, accepted as town roads. I do see trash pickup happening. Um, so I I think again those are things that can be spelled out in the homeless association, but I think it it's it's a I'll say like it's a complex agreement that has to be made and kind of spelled out, you know, the steps along the way. And I hope that that answers your your question.

Yeah. and and we're willing to workshop it with legal counsel, with your planner. I mean, I would just suggest that um we go around the state, we do a lot of subdivisions. We do draft a lot of HOAs. Um I've never seen an HOA that's responsible for trash pickup because it's it's always uh for the most part publicly accepted roads. Obviously, there's a trigger time when that responsibility goes to the public. But I just don't understand the concept of of treating these homeowners any differently than anybody else. They have a right to trash pickup and any other service that anybody else gets in this town. And I candidly, there's an underpinning for it. It's called the equal protection clause of the Rhode Island and United States Constitution. You can't treat people differently without a rational basis. It's all the same. It's all the same. I I have a Can we Oh, go ahead.

I got one more question for for our team over here. You guys have been a little quiet, so want to make sure we we I know in past projects we have also requested bonding for streets. So, I would also request that if I missed this in the conditions, my apologies, but I also would like to see as part of the conditions that we have the applicant carry a bond for the completion of the main road. So, in the event that we do need to come in as the town, we put that in there. If it's already in there, then it it is okay. I'm you got 16 things in here.

So, so this will be coming back in phases. So this is the this is the preliminary approval of the whole project. However, final approval of phase one as Mr. Mr. Prevy mentioned would be the main road coming in the P loop as well as the fire access. All of that will be part of the bonding as well as any of the drainage related to that main road coming in the P loop as well as any fires which would be installed as part of that coming in too. So, okay,

once that's complete, you know, the if the P loop, let's say, for example, a P loop is finished and it reaches it gets its final coat and the and the town looks at it and accepts it, whatever phase two is working its way down will be also bonded and the main road will remain bonded until such time that it's complete and it's turned over to the town and accepted. Okay. So, so with each phase, they're going to be coming back in front of us. Uh depending it's it's possible possibly not depending on how the planning board approves it. Okay.

I mean just to make clear I mean we we would request the final be administrative because that is kind of the normal process but it's at the discretion of the board. It's just a request that we're making. And then um last two things. Uh, we heard that you had conversations with the fire chief and the fire marshall. I would just like to have written confirmation from them that they're accepting of what's been presented tonight. I have the email and the file. I can provide that to you. Great. I knew you did. Thank you.

And then um given the fact that we have the impact summary just this evening, it does outline um I believe I just saw some things about the school. Can we have the superintendent review that to make sure that we're good? We got space. May I? We can have the superintendent review it. I guess that's your prerogative. However, um this the fiscal impact that you have is for the whole development in total. And I don't know what the timeline for this project is. I'm going to speculate it's 10 years for a buildout. Um so that you know the focus would be phase one which would be the first 20 lots.

Yep. And so the question to the superintendent or anyone in the school system would be what would be the effect of phase one on your school system over the next couple of years. Yep. I I mean I I would like to say that to say that they're going to bring in whatever I think it was 75, you know, 75 students into the school system immediately. That's not correct.

You're right. Yeah. But I would I would just like them to review that with the the um trends that are going on. I understand that we've been going down. We I've also heard from the superintendent because I've chatted with him on for other projects for Howell Community Center and stuff like that making sure that the student population is staying steady even or increasing. So I would just like some level of confirmation that we don't have to as a town start to plan in the next 10 years with population increases, decreases, the trends and everything. I would just like some level of confirmation.

Sure, we can we can forward that. I'll do that tomorrow forward to the superintendent. But you know for for for the information of the board today when the master plan approval um went came before the board the enrollment in the school system was approximately 1,700. Today it's 1,600. Mhm. Right. Just so we're clear. Yep. I totally understand.

Mr. Ch Mr. Chairman, may I briefly on that subject? So, just along with what Mark said, I I can represent we do a lot of sizable developments in communities and and we often uh do apper requests relative to ride data. You really don't have to go to the locality. You go to the department of education and and across the board, you you do do see decreases in in enrollment. Um, we have no objection to anything that was just discussed about talking to the superintendent. What Mr. Kruella just said about it being phased out over 10 years. So the 75 is is really a trickle is absolutely right. But I I just have to say one thing because I I do have an obligation to protect the record. So I I don't want anybody to take this the wrong way. It's been a great proceeding. I appreciate all the attention. The reality is is that our position and it is backed up um and we've we've had this discussion in other communities. We give the fiscal impact statement because it's a checklist item. Uh there is the school age children is part of that analysis. We do it for transparency purposes. We're happy to talk about it. It is our position that it is illegal to deny a project based off of the the concept of the amount of children that it would produce. and even even even the concept of uh the concept that a town would have to do uh you know a um an addition on to a school. Now again I don't want

I'm going to I'm going to pause you. Yeah, that's not my insinuation at all. So so I I'm objecting to your your comment Terry right now that I would I would take that as as a reason. I know exactly what my role is as a planning board member. I know where my legal limits are, but I want that information because I am a planning board member. I am a member of other building committees on this board in this town and I want to make sure that this town is properly prepared for future and that is why I'm asking the question

and I and again that's why I I preface what I said by saying we don't have any issue discussing it or you going there. I just understand this is not direct excuse me Mr. Chairman this is not directed at Mr. Porter. We have a record here. It's very important that the decision is in comport with the law. So, I'm just raising the concept. I'm not saying that was your intent, but I go all over the state and anytime there's a larger development, that is one of the major poisons that is discussed about, oh my god, school age children, what's going to happen? Respectfully, that consideration is fine, but to make an adverse finding is not okay. So, I'm not I'm I have no intent in providing any type of legal dissitation. I have a document. I'm going to make it an exhibit.

I I can assure you as chair of the board that I wouldn't allow it. And it wasn't the intent. The intent, as Mr. Porter stated at the beginning of what he said was simply to say, let's get the superintendent to take a look at this so they can do proper planning just as everyone else is, right? DPW has to do proper planning. Um, you know, DEM of course is working with you on their stuff. You know, there I mean even the people that do trash removal, they need to do proper planning. That's all this is. Understood. Then let's leave it at that. Yep. Understood. Okay. Mr. Hammond, did you ask you ask question?

I just had a quick This is just on the overall um uh financial impact just because we are trying to be transparent. Is there a reason why because as you mentioned these will all be taxpaying citizens. they will have access to road maintenance, snow removal, trash, police, fire, parks, and wreck. Is there a reason why none of those were included in the fiscal assessment?

So, I I I'm I don't feel comfortable speaking about the content of the assessment without without the author of it. Um, and I've discussed with Mr. Carulo, if there's an appetite to ask those kind of questions, we've already discussed with our expert, Mr. Lombardo, being available for the next meeting. I I would suggest that it's appropriate. It was certified complete. I think it meets all the prongs, but this board has the right to examine any witness that presents to it. So, that's not an issue. I just out of respect for him, it would be inappropriate for me to certainly to go into that. Yeah, fair enough. That's it, Miss Manard.

I think this might be directed to either one of the Depreatives. Um, part of my lifetime career has been life safety. So, I pay attention to the systems that are on this plan. Question is, what is the sizing of those systems? Just out of curiosity, I'm sure that they meet the requirements and at the phasings of this project, how many systems will be in place? Because a system is only to hold a certain amount of volume of water. And if you have one of these structures that are going to be pretty sizable and very valuable, that system is not going to be enough to put out one structure. So I want to know how many systems will be in place um at the initial phasing and operational. Not just in place, but operational.

Sure. Um the answer to the specific question of phase one, I don't know without going through the plans um and telling you which ones would be on the main strip. I can tell you that uh we did meet with the fire chief and the fire marshall for their placement, where they're located, the sizes of them, meeting all the ordinances. Again, fiberglass versus concrete. Every jurisdiction's different in what they want and and how that system is and what the hookups are and left turning, right turning, right? So, I completely agree with you when it comes to if the fire chief said that he needed 12 sistns, who am I to tell him differently? I'm not right. The fire chief thinks they need that in order to properly service that. So, when it comes to to safety, welfare, I I don't question that at all. Um, so the locations that we put them were reviewed and and and agreed upon. If there are more that are needed for whatever reason for safety purposes, I'm not going to question that. So I I can get you the direct answer and count them up of how many

No, I' I've counted them. My question is not the volume of systems that are on the plan. My question is how many systems will be active when the first phase is populated. Okay, I will that's my question. I will try to get you that answer. I'm sure there'll be some other discussion. I'll try to get you that answer while I'm sitting down if that's okay. Thank you. I do have a quick question while you're up there.

Can we hold up one thing, Mr. Chairman? Stipulation number six says that the number of location installation of proposed fire assistn shall be improved by although the fire marshall approved the plan overall generally in the location of sistns. We're reserving the right to have the marshall go out per phase and if if need be add, subtract or move sistns prior to approval of each phase of the process. So that would probably address your concern. Um so that whatever phase one comes in, fire department has to sign off on that number and location of sistns to be installed and active prior to the issuance of building permits and we agree to that condition. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead.

I'll still get you the answer. Sorry, I did have a quick question. Um so you mentioned that the area is quite hilly. So, is this going to be a thing where where we're starting in the back, we're going to level it, we're going to flatten like how what's going to happen with all like the excess dirt and stuff. Is that just going to get shipped out? Uh what's going on with that?

So, depending on each phase. So, that was a good question. It was actually something Mr. Porter had asked is of tree clearing and overclearing and such. And and I think that is important to note as well. When there's materials, it's more than just those immediate lots right here. Right. So if these are the lots that are getting worked on, there still needs to be area to balance those cuts and fills because otherwise we'd be exporting and then bringing back in for the next phase. So there is extra areas that need to go for staging areas in order to to separate your lom your you know and you put stockpile the loan somewhere. So there would be extra areas but yeah the obviously we'd be starting on phase one in this area um and and coming through here and then with the roadways as you're tying those roadways in as well. I mean, obviously, they need to grade into what they're doing. So, they'll have a 3 to1 tie-in slope and such like that. As mentioned, too, because the main roads coming in, some of the basins that that are picking that up will need to be developed as well. Like, we have a basin located like right here. So, we'd have to make sure that the drainage that gets to that. So, it's not the intent to overclear. Obviously, it costs money to clear, too, right? It costs money to have somebody go clear trees. So, um it's not our intent to overdo, but at the same point, um we need to be able to build that phase one infrastructure and we want to keep as much of it on site as well. So, we need to be able to have a little extra staging and stockpile areas to be able to move that dirt and and and restage without trucking it off, trucking it on, trucking it on. Right. So,

right. So, the goal then is to take if you have an area that's extra hilly to take that, fill it in an area that might need a little bit more dirt and keep as much of it on property as possible. That's the intent. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. In our in the peerreview report from uh Casali, it does ask to uh indicate site lighting design and phototric plans. Can we expect to see those?

Yeah, we we hadn't proposed uh site lighting and we were told by uh Mr. Kurulo that um site lighting would be required. So, we can get that to you if that's if that is going to be a requirement to have sight lighting. Typically in more rural committee communities, we don't typically too much. At intersections, it's good to be able to see at the intersections, but not typically all throughout the entire development. We don't necessarily see it, but um yes, we can we can do that and we know it needs to be dark sky compliant with cut offs and LEDs and luckily the LED technology is really good now that it keeps it a lot cleaner than before. But um yeah, we can we can provide that.

Thank you. You you've been here been here before because we ask that every time. Thank you. And can I just ask as a followup to that, is the appetite for the board to keep it to those areas or to go throughout the development just so Eric would have a little understanding and what he should do before he comes back here for a proposal? I would follow best practices for this area. You, you know, you're in rural Rhode Island. Uh, we don't want a lot of light bleed. Um, we want to be able to see the stars at night. So, you know, pretty standard best practices would be best. Thank you. Right.

Very good. Thank you. it. I mean, the dark sky helps a lot with that. Um, I will say though that dark streets are not conducive to people going for walks at night. So, there needs to be some lighting. Yeah. Some happy medium. And I'm sure we can hit that. Yeah. Anything else before we open up? All right. So, Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a motion that we open up the public hearing. Okay, we have a motion to open the public hearing. Do we have a second? A second. We have a second. Those in favor? I opposed. Nope.

All right, the public hearing is open at 8:37. Um, a little bit of ground rules. Um, anybody who comes up and I'm I'm I have a the signup sheets, which you're not if you came in later and you're not on the signup sheet, it doesn't mean you can't speak. It's just I'm going to go by the people that were here first. um come up, be brief, uh succinct, I think is a better better word. Um if someone speaking in front of you, covers one of your points, please don't repeat the point. It's fine to refer to it and say, "Yep, put another vote in that column." But that way, we're not just repeating the same thing over and over again. It'll move along a lot more quickly. We'll go as we'll go as far as we can this evening if we need to. um continue to a date certain uh as we get late and and I'll say once it gets to after 9:30 like around 9:40 that's when we're going to assess that all right so that we're not here not here and then extending to 10:15 and 10:30 and whatever you know okay so with that I'll call them up I'll call people up in the order they've signed in and the very first one I hope I get the name correct Lee Samuel Kumar.

Oh, I couldn't tell if it was an M or an H. I went back and I went back and forth on that like five times. I I I appreciate it. Yeah. So,

yeah. Okay, cool. Um, so my name is Silk Kumar. I live on Leonard Drive and Chairman, I'm going to apologize in advance. I'm going to be a little bit verbose just cuz I'm teeing things up for some of the others, but your point is valid. Where I can, I will try to tap dance, but I'm not an expert. So, please, that's okay. Bear with me. Thank you. We don't even have any music playing, so All right, good. And for good reason.

So, yeah, my name is spelled S A H I L and my last name is Kumar. K U M A R. Thank you. All right. So, um, before I get into the substance, so I'd like to submit two items for for record here. Um, there's two copies. So, do Yeah, I was going to say yes because Right. because certainly council needs it as well. Um, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, certainly. I I think that what we could do is if there's not sufficient copies, your planner can give us uh copies at a a later date. Would you like

if if there's an extra one? Well, you can look at mine for now. That's fine. Thank you. There you go.

All right. Um so the first thing you'll see it's a petition signed by about 225 plus people uh from this city, this town, right? Um the second is a formal cover letter documenting our specific concerns, references to the documents and in in record to the board can verify every point independently. So I just want to acknowledge one thing again here. You'll notice there are not 200 people in here. I wish there was. There is an event going on in the school right now, a talent show. So those parents I hope will be joining us shortly here as they exit. But not everybody could make it today. So I just want to make sure they are represented. And I'm trying my best to represent a pretty large group here. And I'm not a lawyer.

And and we have a capacity limit of 82 people in this room. Excellent. Which we're really close to right now.

It's all coming together. Everything's meant to be. All right. Um so yeah, these you know one thing so many things going on my mind. So I am going to be a little bit redundant and I know some of the topics that you guys are the experts and you've talked about it. If those are squashed, that's totally fine, right? The intention and the objective that this group has, the 200 plus people is really just asking the right questions because that's all we can go off of. We are not planning experts. We are not lawyers. There are some experts on the team who are going to be speaking up, but majority of us are not. So, please bear with us with with our lack of knowledge, right? Um, so everyone who's going to be standing up here tonight is is also going to be putting their ego to the side on on that context, right? Including myself. If something's wrong, I would say we're going to welcome it. That's okay. You can tell us that's that's not valid. It makes no sense cuz I've also noticed like there's some documents that are being discussed over here which we did not have access to. And I think the chairman, you opened up with the the perfect opening there, like this project is a very large and a historic project in many ways where it's extremely hard for residents like us to keep up with all the details, right?

Um all right. So the first thing that we have on on um our list is the master plan conditions. So the recorded master plan decision which was book 806 page 231 established binding conditions. Condition number three requires a comprehensive archaeological analysis approved by RIHPHC submitted with the preliminary application. The condition appears unsatisfied to us. We could be wrong. Totally fine. Like I said, um it says conditionally approved the the phase 1 survey in August 2020 2022, but flag two issues that we think are still open. Um the NITHO's concern about uh ceremonial stone features. Um a condition needed to include the Nipchuk battlefield. Neither of these we thought were addressed. Uh the developers own surveyor document that we saw did mention burial burial grounds on sheet four and note 6. Okay. Um I'm sure most folks are here already aware that the Rhode Island Supreme Court did upheld the board's denial of this same applicant on the same property in 2011. Right? So because of these burial grounds. So we are giving that importance. We want to make sure you guys make the right decision and again please have the legal team review it as necessary. Right? Second thing is on the groundwater. Um the site does sit we think on the GA classified drinking water quality uh groundwater. The applicants proposes 20 126 septic systems we heard about. Those are really cool. Um but there's zero independent analysis or nitrogen loading studies that we saw. Okay. Um from what we understand the lord the the board must find no significant negative environmental impacts under section 432360

A3. So we think we can't make this decision right. Um applicants 45page narrative does not mention groundwater protection once. Okay. Um I also want to share something with the board that you guys are already aware of. This morning, North Smithfield Elementary School issued a do not drink water, right? Um, most of us get our water from the wells. The school school's well tested um at 2.04 milligrams per liter for manganesees. That's nearly 7 times the EPA's health advisory level. RIH DOH required a tier one public notice. That's how the email was formed by the school. That's the most urgent category that an urgency can have. Our children cannot drink water at their own school right now. Maganese is naturally occurring. Great. It moves through the same highly per permeable soils this development sits on. And we're asking tonight to approve 126 I take it back. And we're being asked tonight to approve 126 septic systems over drinking water quality groundwater with no independent study of what will this do to the aquifier. So please consider that. Okay. Third, the fiscal impact. And and I heard there was an updated fiscal impact. So again, apologies if we're looking at the wrong document, but what we saw is was was a back of the knack in math. It was a three paragraph fiscal study which would did not make a lot of sense. Seems like we've already hit that one. So just want to support that idea. We do need a fiscal study for all the reasons you all mentioned and then one of us is going to speak come and speak about it as well in terms of some more impacts that we want to make sure you guys are considering. Fourth is is for the legal team um to

please review. From what we understand is the vesting authority. the statute that governed master planned vesting extensions extension number two in February 2025 over a year after the the law was repealed. The developer's own attorney cited the repealed statute as legal authority in the extension request letter. We we would respectfully ask the town solicitor review whether this extension has valid legal authority before the board votes on it to protect this town again from another legal battle which was extremely expensive for all of us over here. Fifth, the state highway access Douglas Pike is a state highway under Rhode Island Department of Transformation Department of Transportation. Um I know I heard there have been some um permits that have been issued from our research. We could not find that. So this might be a gap on our side, but again something to definitely look at. Um based on research that we did as of this morning, we could find a permit application PA 2565 that is sitting with the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, but it's sitting in an accepted status. What we are unsure about is does that mean it is granted because it comes across to us as this permit has not been issued. It is pending bond insurance as well. It says bond and insurance. So as of tonight we don't think that there is a permit unless I think you guys should see it. If you've seen it, wonderful. You've checked that box. And oh just to emphasize a little bit more what we understand the laws of the town says. It says that the board cannot make a finding under section 452360A5 that there is adequate physical and

permanent access to a public street without it. So something to consider there as well. Okay. Um okay I'm going to be paraphrasing here um in terms of what's on or again the same application that we saw for Rhode Island Department of Transportation. an archaeological study was performed and no previous recorded archaeological site was located. That's what is sitting we think with the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. But members of of this of this board, you have before you the developers own plan set check sheet 4 note 6 dated January 2025 where their own licensed survey documented burial grounds on this property. Those two statements cannot both be true. They're contradicted. So we ask the board to again please reconcile make sure this is looking right. Just something to review. From a conservation density perspective, the proposed lot averages 31,840 ft. That's less than half the 65,000 ft² required under RA65 zoning. The developer is relying on article 16 conservation development density bonus which requires a permanent conservation easement on the open space. The current plan shows HOA management not a recorded easement on HOA and HOA can dissolve and we kind of have already beat this one to death but another perspective here for you guys to also consider if the HOA is is dissolved at some point point in the future without it the legal basis for the 128 lots do would not have the standard size and and would not exist sorry without it the legal basis for 126 lots at half the standard size doesn't exist so that is again something to look at and I think it's only a few of the the houses, not not all of them. Seventh is a 17 acre clearcut that has happened. Um, and I'm I'm glad to hear the board did ask about it. We just want to add a

little bit more color to it. Um, in August 2024, 17 acres of forest were cleared on the site. The RIM intent to cut file confirms Seni Corp. cleared the acreage on behalf of Naragans improvement. This was charact characterized as testing but percolation test pits are small holes. You don't clear cut 17 acres for them. From what we understand, when you go test, you need a need to make multiple holes the size of a shovel. But they've cut down 17 acres. makes makes very little sense to us residents and people who are driving by every single day. The developer is an asphel paving company. The related entity is also runs a gravel operation in town. The proposed phasing starts at the back of the site, the highest elevation with the best gravel deposits. Residents will have more to say on this. And finally, the planning office's own recommendation. This includes 19 stipulations, 19 things that still we think need to happen. RIDM permits, fire marshall approval, I heard that that probably is is checked. Uh emergency access, we kind of touched on that as well. Conservation easement, fiscal analysis is is a little repeat as well. The plan set the plan set itself shows a future access road from Leonard Drive, a future parking area, and the future recreation fields. We beaten that one to death death as well. Um, we did not see any grading plans. We did not see any design. We did not see any engineering behind all of them. Aren't these signs of a complete These aren't signs of a complete application? They're admissions that the application isn't ready. Granting preliminary

approval with 19 open items under design areas locks the town into a development framework before the critical questions have been answered. All of this is documented in the cover letter I just submitted with source references board to verify. Again, we're here to we're here asking to say no forever. We're asking you to say just not yet. and to require the applicant to do the homework that your own ordinances and master plan conditions demand. You'll hear from the residents on on some of these points now. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Um let's let's it's not a performance. Okay. Let's keep it under control. Mr. Chairman, may I ask what's your preference? Would you like us my to respond to the questions or we do have a scenario for here. We're taking notes, we can study it and we we typically will gather up a lot of the notes, you know, and then we can answer it all at once because there will be invariably there will be some if not repetition, but there'll be related items where one answer can pick off three of them, you know, that kind of thing. It moves a lot moves a lot more smoothly. Thank you.

And actually, that's a really great question. So, thank you for for asking that. Just to keep us sane, there's again a lot of information and stuff we are still learning and we'll keep learning. It would be great if we can actually get a documented response for these and it's totally fine if the entire response is all of these have been resolved from from the board. We're okay with it. Bobby, what what's what's normally provided? I mean, because obviously there's this this is all being recorded. Okay. Um are there are are there actually a document or a transcript that is produced?

Most of these have documents related to them like the archaeological analysis that is in the file. So we can provide that document. Great. The the the physical alteration permit is in the file. We can provide that document. Sign off from fire is in the file. Can provide that document. I don't want to go through them each one individually, but maybe we could put most of these items um are addressed and there's a place where we can just put these in a repository that we can we can try to create a uh Google Docs, put them on the website or something. Yeah, that'll be great. And Mr. Chairman, I would just add it is our intent to study the transcript and put together a written response also go over it with you, but I think it would help,

but that'll also be part of the public record. So, yes, thank you. I appreciate it. It will be Yep. That's fine. So, Mark, the the new exhibits that we've received tonight, we can pop those up on the website, too. Perfect. Great. Okay. Um Al Herbert, I got that right. All right. Could be Heert. All right. Good evening. My name is Al Heert. I live in North Smithfield uh for the last 50 years and I've lived on Francis Farm Road in the NIPS. Mr. We need your address, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh two Francis Farm Road. Thank you.

So again, I've lived in North Smithville for 50 years. I've lived um on to Francis Farm Road for 40 years. Um, we're actually the first house in there and for 40 years we have walked this land. Uh, I have, my children have, and my grandchildren have. I'm here tonight because I have serious concerns about the 126 home subdivision. By the way, I'm also a former member of the North Smithfield zoning board. Um, not to be an obstructionist, but as someone who understands land use, regulation, environmental vulnerabilities, um, I want to share what I've learned both as a board member and as someone deeply familiar with this property. The site sits directly over a GA classified groundwater. That's drinking water quality groundwater. 126 homes will need 126 septic systems to the best of my knowledge unless that's changed. All discharging into the soil. I need to tell you about the high permeability. The property is mapped as HKD Hley gravel so uh sandy lom 15 to 25% slopes. Hley soils are known for rapid permeability. Nitrogen from septic systems migrates through these soils very rapidly. We're talking about an estimated, depending upon the number of people in the home, an estimated 3600 to 5,000 pounds from those 126 homes. That's 2 to 2 and a half tons of nitrogen. The nitrogen turns into NO3 which quickly travels from surface water into the groundwater. It's considered environmentally hazardous. In large quantities, it will activate, you know, algae blooms. This

whole area in here is extremely sensitive. Everything seems to pour, all the water pours out of Nipuchuk swamp. That's the headarters. Verankin stream runs all the way through. Diva Bams are regularly built in there. They're in there now. Actually, they're causing a slight problem down at the very bottom um in the Brookside area. They're also in here pretty much shown as is a goodiz pond, but these migrate. They change as the beavers build dams. One of the things that concerns me about this whole area is that Rank and Brookke runs down, goes under Matty Road, continues on down to Tarkland, and from there eventually ends up in this ladiesville reservoir. So this is again very clean water. We need to protect it. We need to keep it that way, not just for us in the area, but for the town as a whole. What um again what concerns me both as a former board member and as a resident who depends on groundwater. I don't see a hydraologic study in the record. I don't see an analysis of nitrogen loading impacts and the regulations are clear on this point. Section 452360A subsection 3 requires the board to find no significant negative environmental impacts. A property of the a project of this size I think demands such an impact study. I'm not asking the board to say no to anything. I'm merely asking that the hydraologic study be completed um and that proof of the level of septic discharge is safe. Again, Beaver Dams

and storm water management um a number of the neighbors in Nipuchuk in fact uh down at the very end on the other culde-sac have um had flooding issues at times because of the beaver activity. storm water management plan on file was designed for precondition pre I'm sorry pre-clearing conditions but since the plan was submitted 17 acres have been cleared 17 acres is a lot of land that changes the drainage pattern the site has a 148 ft of elevation change this isn't a level piece of land where storm water behavior is predictable with 17 acres of forest is removed. The hydraology is fundamentally different. The board needs to see a current storm water analysis that accounts for those cleared acres and the presence of actor beaver dams. The original plan is outdated. Earth removal, environmental ga uh gaps. One of the conditions imposed on this project, no commercial removal of soil from the property. That's good. But I want to raise a question that needs to be answered before approval. Once this land transfers to the HOA, an HOA control is established. And what prevents the HOA from voting to remove soil under a non-commercial exemption? The ordinances don't clearly, as far as I can tell, address this scenario. In my experience on the zoning board, we learned that vague conditions create loopholes. The site has a 48 148 ft of elevation change. That means massive cut and fill operations during construction. And I should note for the board, the applicant is an arrogance improvement company. Again, as stated by Mr. Kumar, um an asphalt paving company and DZero

brothers operates a gravel crushing operation in North Smithfield. But here's what the plan actually shows. I'd asked the board to look at the road profile sheets 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 40. These sections show cuts of 20 to 30 plus feet. Sheet 33 shows a cut approx of approaching 40 feet. This is an enormous volume of gravel and material being excavated. Now compare that to sheets 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, and 39, which show road sections that follow the existing grade contours as required by the town's building ordinances. The contrast is clear. Some parts of the site follow the rules. Other parts are more invasive, their excavation. That's a lot of material perhaps leaving the property. And here's the part that concerns me most. The developer's own demol de I'm sorry, the developer's own demolition note five on the plan states, and I'm quoting, "The contractor is responsible for removing and legally disposing of material including, and I quote, gravel and excess soil. The developer's own plan explicitly authorize, I assume, reading this, the removal of gravel from the site on a 276 acre property where town removal restrictions exist. I expect a balanced site design that keeps material on site. I don't believe this is one. Again, the soil extraction ordinance is very clear. You do not

remove soil from the site except for a cellar hole and a septic system. All of the material must be moved around on site. As a zoner, I was faced with this a number of times. Always always did we apply this ordinance and apply it directly. We defended the ordinance. We defended the town. I'm not making any accusations. I'm saying the board should think carefully about enforcing the plan that shows 22 to 40 foot cuts. The demolition notes authorized gravel removal and once this land transfers to an HOA, what prevents again the HOA from voting to remove additional soil as a non-commercial exemption? This needs to be clarified before approval. How much material is being removed? Is the site balanced? If not, will a town be granted and monitoring an earth removal permit with volume limitations? Define commercial versus non-commercial, specifically who has authority to enforce and hand off to the HOA because in my experience, conditions that aren't crystal clear on enforcement get tested. In closing, board me board members, I respect the work you do. I understand it. I've done it. These decisions are complex and I hear from many voices. I'm here as someone who has sat in your chairs, maybe not on planning, but on zoning. I've approved aspects of some divisions as they apply to uh the zoning board. And I've also had to deny some. Before the board approves a 126 home over drinking water, groundwater, I'd ask you to require a hydraologic study showing nitrous nitrogen impacts,

current storm water analysis accounting for cleared land and beaver dams, and clear enforcement language on earth removal that the that closes the H OA loophole. This is not obstruction. It's due diligence. That's what the statue requires. Thank you very much. I do have one of the things I I have a question. It is normal with a development for the developer to give back open space to the town. And I don't see that taking place here. Um what I see is open space that is all retained by the developer and by the HOA. Why hasn't, as in every other development in town, why hasn't land, open space land be deeded back to the town? And I'll tell you why I think that's important. This is an extremely sensitive area. I would much rather have that under the protection of the town than a private entity. So it does anybody have an answer as to why property wasn't handed back? Well, when you say many, I' I've been on the board now for 10 years. I can think of one or two projects which resulted in Am I am I missing something? In which land was deed back to the town, right?

Yeah. And was made as part of special requirements. So, it's it's still it it actually is an item on my on my list. Good. Um, but it didn't, you know, in fact up in this area both Nipster and Rolling Acres had to deed land back to the town. Sure. All right. Thank you very much, M. Mr. Heert, to answer your question, because I had that same question. Why isn't land being deed back to the town? What what I don't There's a section um in our subdivision regulations under article 4, special requirements.

Um, let me get you the right one. It is Just for everyone's edification, make sure I'm doing this right because this is so clearly laid out very well. But it is under um article 4.1K open space. So this the uh and then it's section one where open space provided by a conservation development for public or common use shall either one be conveyed to the town and accepted by the town for park open space agricultural or other permitted uses or two be conveyed to a nonprofit organization da da or three be conveyed to a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of the lots within the conservation development. So that gives them the ability to do so

because I had that same question and that and again that's what I'm referring to. I don't know how much you can ask or demand that be turned over to the town but assuming that you contemplate that. Please take into account the most where the wetlands exist the most. I I'm not looking, you know, for walking trails and such. I'm looking to protect this water source. And again, not just for us. This goes all the way down to Slaterville. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could I just briefly respond to one item. Okay. I don't think I could stop you anyway. Thank you.

I know he learned from you.

Just just to that comment about the open space, there's no legal ability for the town to require that. So, that that is an issue. It's going to be conservation space that's owned by the HOA. Here's the real point that I wanted to address as it relates to the earth removal. We actually also have a issue with the language of condition one. And I had said at the beginning of this that most of the conditions we're fine with in theory. We're fine with that in theory. But we shared the sentiment that actually the word commercial doesn't belong in it. And the reality is you have an ordinance. you have a very specific ordinance that talks about what's required and what's allowed and our position is that the condition has to actually mimic that ordinance because that's where your authority comes from. So I but I just want to read one thing because it's an important exception that respectfully um um I'm sorry sir what's your last name?

Heert.

He Mr. He did not know. Um, and again, this is from section 156-2 subp part C. And it talks about exceptions to that that overall uh section that that that stops or a a de developer or anybody from removing earth removal activity. And I'll just quote it really quick. for a subdivision in accordance with a plat plan or plans approved in accordance with an ordinance of the town or any duly authorized board of authority thereof or for the construction of a building for which a building permit has been issued. Provided, however, that the removal of such material necessarily excavated in connection, and here's the important part, with lawful construction of a building, structure, street, driveway, sidewalk, path, or other appertenants does not exceed that actually displaced by the portion of such building, structure, streets, driveways, sidewalks or paths or other appertenences below finished grade. So, we agree to that. But we agree that that is a condition. That's the law. And I think that that condition does have to be massaged. We have no intent of trying to set something up where an HOA that's not commercial figures out a way to get more earth off. That's not an issue. So I'm happy to work with Mr. Kulo. I'm sure that you can see the drafts that we present. We we'll provide them to the planning board. They'll be public record. That does need to be worked on. Our position is it should echo the ordinance. We should not make up language at all.

I agree. So, just to say we have some agreement in that regard. Okay. Uh Sarah Hayden.

Good evening to the board. My name is Sarah Hayden. I'm not currently a resident of North Smithfield, but I did grow up here, so I was wondering if I am permitted to speak. Absolutely.

Thank you. Um, as I said, my name is Sarah Hayden and I'm an environmental scientist with professional experience in storm water management, GIS mapping, and environmental regulatory review. I grew up in this town. I have a lot of love for it. I have a personal stake in the community, and I'm here tonight because there are some aspects of this project that concern me as an environmental scientist. Um, Mr. Heert touched upon a few of these, so I will try to be very brief when going over them. The first issue is the impact of septic systems on groundwater supply. The applicant proposes 126 individual septic systems um over GA classified groundwater. That's drinking water, quality groundwater suitable for consumption without treatment. Um in these neighboring developments and in this development itself, 126 drinking wells potentially impacted and without a nitrogen loading analysis, we don't know the cumulative impact that potential nitrogen um will have on these systems or the groundwater supply. The next issue is the Leonard Drive emergency access. Um the master plan decision condition five requires a fire chief report on emergency access to Leonard Drive submitted with the preliminary application. As of January 2026, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management has stated in the developers wetland permit application correspondence that they have not yet received any plans for an emergency access road. This may have changed in the past three months. I'm just going off of publicly available information here. Um, however, any construction of a road may require item approval if it runs through freshwater wetlands. The next issue is potential habitat or wildlife impacts on site. The applicant's preliminary plan narrative states that quote, "The site is not located in an area which is inhabited by rare species as delineated on the Rym GIS website. However, Rym's natural heritage mapping which shows state listed rare, threatened, or endangered species for both plant and animal has an area directly overlaying the proposed

development. Furthermore, data from the US Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that the project area falls within the known or expected habitat range of 10 migratory bird species of conservation concern, including the bald eagle, which is a federally protected species, as well as theric-colored bat, a proposed endangered species, and the monarch butterfly, which is a proposed threatened species. If present, these animals rely on the forested wetland habitat that characterizes the 277 acre site, which would undergo a 10-phase yearslong process of habitat alteration from both clearing and construction. Section 45-23-6A3 requires the board to find quote, no significant environmental impacts, end quote. No wildlife survey has been conducted. Comprehensive I'm sorry, comprehensive environmental review should be completed before the board makes that determination. In closing, I am just here to advocate for the further environmental analysis that the impacts of this site will have. A nitrogen loading study, wildlife survey, and ridem review of the Leonard Drive crossing. These are unreasonable asks. They're reasonable requirements for a project of this scale with potential impacts to ground and surface water and also wildlife habitats. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Lindseay Kumar. I don't suppose you're related. Okay. I didn't want to see a family double dipping here on the question. MD dy, last name Kumar, K U M A R. Uh, Mr. Chairman, can I request something um before we go on? We have a lot of neighbors. Excuse me. Could we please have your address? Uh, 14 Leonard Drive. Thank you. Yep. It's the same address. Um, don't you guys talk to each other? We have a lot of No, I was kidding. We're We're married. That's my husband. I don't and I and I find it fascinating that you have independent sets of questions, comments.

Um, can our neighbors finish before our um the applicant here got a lot of time and we have a bunch of people that would love to speak tonight. So, can we finish before they interject again? Is that a possibility? Um, well, I I don't mind going The plan is to go through them in order and uh in half an hour or less, we're going to assess whether we need to to just continue this to another meeting. Yes, sounds good. She's asking Oh. Oh, I see. Yes. You good with that? I know you I know you learn from Mike Kelly. I have little kids. I have glue. I can put some on your chair if we need to. I'm just kidding. No, he he won't.

Yeah, I'll do my best. Yeah, let's let's leave everything till we're done. Thank you. I was told to slow down. I I speak fast. I'm sorry. I'm very nervous. I've never done this before. Um, so for our education purposes, we were just wondering when you guys obtained the Rhode Island DOT access permit. Was that today, Mr. Kurillo? the DOT access the you're talking about the when when the town received it. Um when was um the access the Rhode Island DOT access permit when was it obtained? Yes, the town. When you say obtained, are you saying issued by DOT or received by the town?

So do we can we have both? Well, it was it's dated February 16th, 2026. Okay. So, from my we'll be making documents available. I don't want this to become in a document exchange meeting. So, okay. So, that's that. Um, and that's it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? Is there anyone else from the Kumar family that needs to come up and talk? All right. Just just want to make sure. Um Erica Millet,

please give an address different than 14 Leonard Drive.

Good evening. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm just kidding. Uh my name is Erica Mallette. That's E R I C. Last name Mlette M I L E T E. Excuse me. and my address is 15 Taylor Drive in Northfield. Uh so uh thanks first of all for the privilege of um speaking in front of you. I just wanted to address a few things that Mr. Porter already started to allude to um that I think every uh taxpayer in the room should be concerned about and that's the fiscal impact study. Um I know it's a document exchange. Um, we read all of the premeating materials, did not see um, an updated fiscal impact study. So, we'll definitely catch up on the latest and, um, you know, bring some additional questions to the next meeting. Um, as it pertains to the previous version of the fiscal impact study that was submitted, um, we did review that at the master plan stage. Um, it was about a page and a half. Um, I I would say it, you know, classified as sort of back of the napkin u, math on fiscal impact. So I would hope that with the new study we would see in there updated um census references. Some of the some of the data is based on 2010 data. Our town certainly grown a lot of things have changed. Um I also hope that we would see in there some of the cost estimate assumptions going up. I'm going to cite a few of them for you. So um previously it was noted about 4,800 households in the town. I think based on my research we're closer to about 5,000 households. What I see in those numbers is net 2% lift in number of housing units or family households and 5% lift in the number of students when you take that 75 figure in number of students. So the um you know I'm questioning whether the uh tax math if you will actually result in uh a cost to our town and what that uh

magnitude of that cost looks like. I also want to touch upon um the impact to our schools in particular um and how we might get some feedback from the superintendent on this. Uh at the time of the original uh master plan, the town had reported a 3% decrease in school enrollment year-over-year. We were trending down and then COVID happened. And since then, we've been increasing. Just this last year, our kindergarten enrollment was 136 students over a typical annual average of 90 students. Almost a 45% increase roughly in kindergarten enrollment. So, I'd love to see us project those numbers out more methodically in charts and tables um and really do our homework, so to speak, on what the burn rate is going to look like going into the future of this project and also see that lined up with the schedule of the phasing. As Mr. reporter pointed out uh where you know we're going to have 20 houses in phase one, how many students are we projecting? Um what does the tax revenue look like and see a time schedule um on that as well for planning purposes for the school. I also want to acknowledge um again not having seen the the new fiscal impact study um the previous version used a lot of round numbers like average uh expenditure per pupil. That's a figure that's also trending up. So even though enrollment's down a little bit, 1,700 to,600 in the past few years on a whole, it seems like the trend's going back upward and also the cost per student is going way up. So one of the the original study cited about $10,000 roughly cost per student. I've seen figures from Rhode Island Department of Education, the LEA report card, as close as $19,000 per student. So, um, you know, in insurance, we call that frequency is going down, severity is going up. Uh, so I'd like to just dig into those numbers a little bit more and

make sure we're doing our due diligence there. Um, as uh, Sahill pointed out, we have some, uh, I should I say, um, limitations in the quality of our school. The projections that I saw in the previous fiscal impact didn't include for improvements. Those could be fixed costs, not variable costs per student. But if we need to add a classroom, add a full-time uh employee to balance the student teacher ratio because of the additional students, all of those things are going to be fixed costs that raise the cost per pupil across the board, not just the costs of the additional students coming in. Um, so again, just uh reiterating, we urge um a little bit more uh clear homework on that, a little more due diligence and um specificity with what that looks like over the next few years. Um so we're not contesting that that's been done. We haven't seen that that latest copy, but those would be my hopes for how we dig in on that.

Okay. All right. Great. That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hey. Um, Mike Mayo.

Uh, good evening. I'm Mike Mayo. I live at 8 Christina Way and Mayo Meo. Thought everyone in town knew that. Um, I'd like to talk about uh the fields. And before I begin my remarks, I do have a question for the developers. Uh, camp. Um, what phase of this development are the proposed fields the construction of the proposed fields in? Um, if it can be answered in five seconds or less. Eric, what phase? Phase one. There you go. Phase one. Okay. That's

that's what I thought. You get you get you get two in the bank now.

So, as this board knows, throughout the history of this proposed development, the community has been concerned that one of the developers main objectives is to extract as much gravel and earth materials as possible from this land, essentially turning the development into a mining operation under the guise of a residential conservation development. And one of the best examples of why that concern exists is the three proposed recreation fields in the northwest corner of the site that we saw earlier which are directly adjacent to the Nipichuk and Matty estates neighborhoods. When this project went through the master plan approval process back in 2019, I believe it is fair to say that the board and the town planner at the time, Tom Kravitz, also were skeptical of these fields and in granting master plan approval, included the following specific condition. Applicant and town administration, meaning the town solicitor and town planner, shall review both zoning and subdivision regulations as related to conservation development and how said regulations apply to the creation or removal of the three proposed soccer fields. The notion of conservation easements for public passive recreation in place of the fields shall also be analyzed in the context of said regulations. The administration shall provide a report with the preliminary review application. Has this required report been completed? I have not seen it. Perhaps that's part of the process we're going through right now. In any event, the board and the public should see this report before any action is taken on the preliminary approval application. As you review this issue, I urge the board and the town planner to be consistent with the thinking on this from seven years ago and find that these fields are not consistent with the town's comprehensive community plan, do not maintain the rural character of the community, and do not protect natural systems in rural areas. It made no sense

seven years ago to build multiple soccer fields deep in the woods in a partially constructed private development. And it similarly makes no sense now to clear, level, and grade supposed open space for possible future recreation fields. This land, as we've been discussing today, is among the hilliest and rockiest in the entire town. The site has about a 148 foot elevation change. Clearing, leveling, and grading it will require a tremendous amount of excavating, blasting, crushing, and earth moving. All to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhoods and the entire town. Excavating these three fields for recreational use of future residents of this community makes no sense. If the goal is pass is public passive recreation as noted in the conditions of the master plan approval that is best achieved by allowing residents to hike, explore, and enjoy this land in its natural state. This is supposed to be a conservation development. That means as much of the natural land as possible should be conserved. Development of this open space is completely contrary to that goal and should not be permitted. Rather, this open space should be protected by the same conservation easement that will apply to the rest of the open space in this proposed development. Now, briefly, one other example of why the community believes a main objective of this development is to extract the stone and gravel is the proposed phasing of the construction. Ordinarily, for this type of residential subdivision, as we've heard, one would expect construction to begin on the lots closest to the main road, in this case, Douglas Pike, and work towards the back end of the development. here. However, the proposed phase one is at the very end of the development in the northwest portion adjacent to Brookside Drive and

right next to these proposed recreation fields I've been discussing. Now, why start there? Well, we heard earlier from the developer engineer that they're doing this in part so that the owners of the lots at the front of the development do not have construction vehicles passing by their homes every day. Well, of course, the flip side to that argument is that by starting in the back, those homeowners will be driving through a construction zone for years as they navigate their way to Douglas Pike four or five times a day. Of course, the more logical and plausible reason the developer proposes to start at the back end is because that has the highest elevation and the best gravel deposits. Now, as Al Hebert said earlier, the developer plans show cuts of over 30, even 40 feet in places, and the demolition notes on the plans explicitly authorize the contractor to remove the gravel and any excess soil. That does not sound to me like normal residential grading. That sounds like mining. The phasing plan together with the recreation fields supports the concerns of this community. That's what's really going on here is that the developer, which operates an asphalt paving company that uses stone and gravel on its business, is trying to turn this residential conservation development into a commercial mining operation to the detriment of this town and its residents. I urge the board to carefully review the application to ensure that all requirements for a conservation development have been met and appropriate conditions are put in place, including requiring actual open conservation space in place of these fields. Now, I also just want to briefly respond to a couple of the comments that Attorney Resnik made during his presentation. First of all, he mentioned that it's his

belief that uh the recreational fields vested the right to build those fields vested at the time of the master plan development. I believe that's incorrect. As I mentioned, the very first um condition of the master plan approval specifically said that the notion of conservation easements for public passive recreation in place of the fields in place of the fields shall be analyzed in the context of the regulations at this preliminary review application stage. So, I believe the question of whether these fields are permitted is still very much in play and within the board's discretion. The other comment that surprised me uh that Attorney Resnick made was that these fields are not very different from the pre-existing paths that exist back there. That's outrageous. Nobody's excavating the paths. Nobody's leveling the paths. Nobody's going to be blasting rock and ledge out of the paths as they will be to level and grade these fields. That's all I have. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. again please clarify something. Did you misspeak? Yes. Nothing that was spoken on. All right. Was that Lindsay? Come on. Um yeah, like I said, I'd like to clarify, put something on the record after reading this which to my knowledge from um was not we do not have the permit. This says right here, a permit will not be granted until all, sorry, all of the documentation requested above has been received and accepted. So, they need insurance. They need a bunch of different things. So, this is not the permit that I was just handed. I just wanted to put that on record.

Um, that's correct. That was just a response. You had asked about what we heard regarding the permits that I asked for the permit and was handed this. Mr. Chairman, just it's standard operating procedure that DOT does not issue the permit until a bond is issued. That is an authorization and a permit approval, not actually the permit. That is their standard practice. Okay. Thank you. So, yeah, I just want to challenge that we don't have the permit and put that on record. This is not the permit. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Next up, Liz, who apparently requires no last name like Madonna. Where is Liz? Oh, here she comes.

Eug L. Sorry, I don't have a voice. Could you could could you repeat your name and address? Yes. Liz Ulow. E U G L O W. Thank you. And I'm at three Indigo Farm Road. Great.

And I'm sorry I don't have a voice. I was I'm sick. But I was also at the fourth grade talent show and it got it got wild. So lost my voice. All right. Um good evening. I'm Elizabeth Ulo. Um I'm looking around the room and so many of you are familiar. I've been in this town for 36 years. uh born and raised. Um my husband was born and raised and now we're raising our three children here and we are taxpayers and we own property. So this is something that I have had the liberty of watching actually from my living room as my neighbors have fought this since I was a child. Um which is incredible to me that we are still here having similar conversations. I thank you so much for your time. I know that your time is precious. I know some of you have your own responsibilities at home. So, thank you for listening to us and for hearing us and for just for genuinely taking this information and doing something with it um and not being dismissive with it. So, I I just so appreciate that. I'm here because I have concerns regarding the unresolved tribal consultation on this project. This is not an accusation. I'm dealing with the public records that were made available um online as well as through the town. The archeological study and the Rhode Island HPHC consultation, a condition of moving forward, was made in the master plan decision. I've reviewed the public records and I'd like the board to help me understand what I found on the condition. So, in February 2019, I'm going to kind of go through a timeline here. In February 2019, the RIHPHC, which is the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission, wrote to the town identifying three ceremonial areas in this region. One of them is the Buffon property, which is the property, the project site. That letter was CCed to the Narroansit tribe at that time. In March 2019, the project's attorney, Keith Kravitz,

confirmed in writing what the master plan was indeed conditioned upon some level of an archaeological study and that the settlement agreement requires analysis by an archaeological firm before the preliminary application. A phase one survey was done in May of 2022 by SWCA environmental consultants and the RIHPHC conditionally approved it in August 2022. But here's the issue and this is in the the Rhode Island Heritage letter itself. They flagged two unresolved problems within that letter. Number one, NITHO continues to have concerns regarding ceremonial stone features in the project area. RAHPC advised the town to contact NIT HPO directly. So my question is was that outreach ever made?

I spoke with John Brown personally. Okay. And what did he say? He he never followed up. He basically there was a there was a tribal person who supervised the archaeological dig. I don't know what the relation was between the two. There was a disagreement, misunderstanding. John Brown called our office. I offered to have him come in and review all of the material and he never followed up. Okay. Did you reach out again? Excuse me. Did you reach out again? No, I did not.

Okay. Thank you. Um Okay. So, a phase one survey was done by the consultants. The second issue is that the phase one report needed to be corrected to include the second battle of Nipuchuk battlefields which has now been added to the National Register of Historic Places since 2016. So after the project had started but it was a requirement of that letter. That letter was conditional and my understanding of the wording conditional means until something is done you are not given approval. Okay. Um, so here's what's particularly important and interesting, and I'm not citing historical research or tribal oral history. I'm reading directly from the developer's own survey, Robert Babcock, a licensed Rhode Island surveyor, RIPLS number 25504. On sheet four of the plan set dated January 12th, 2025, Mr. Babcock notes, "There are cemeteries, grave sites, andor burial grounds observed within the limits of the survey." Okay, this was the surveyor that's licensed in Rhode Island from the developer. He included those comments in his report. Note eight on the same sheet says, "A phase one archaeological survey has been completed for the project area, but investigation is needed to determine those boundaries of those sites. So, as of January 2025, as of last month, boundaries have not yet been determined. And again, I'm working with the information I have. Under Rhode Island law, title 42, section 455, the town shall not license any activity that will encroach upon, damage, or destroy a site on the state register without the RIHP PHC advice advice. And the settlement agreement that governs this pro this project

explicitly states the developer cannot claim hardship if a archaeological findings require the master plan to be modified. Um so my questions I I I already had one answer so thank you for that. Has a corrected phase one report one that includes the second battle of Nipuchuk battlefield has that been submitted yet to the board? We simply have the report that was submitted. So not the not with the addition of the battlefield site. I'm I I'm not aware of the addition of the battlefield site. I I am aware that the battlefield site is not on this site. It's adjacent.

It's there is an overlay based on my notes. Is that something we could further research? We can reach out to RHPC, but my understanding is the battlefield site is adjacent. Okay. All right. So, I think we're on the record that I might not agree with that, but I hear you. Um, it sounds like it just needs to be confirmed so to be confirmed.

Perfect. Um, so I I do have a question though. So, if the boundaries have not been determined and that hasn't been worked back into the plan and the date has passed for the extension, are you actually able to approve this project to move forward? I I'm not really understanding the question. You're you're talk you're I think you're co-mingling two two issues. One is the archaeological assessment and one is a declaration on a survey that there may be a burial ground. Now, yes,

the the burial ground may be uh not not related to the um assessment as far as uh Native Americans. I'm not really sure. I'm looking at the plan right now. I'm not seeing I'm seeing the note, but I'm not seeing the burial ground. Okay. There there's a difference between a burial ground cemetery and Native American burials and they're treated differently. So, if there is a burial ground on here and it's not Native American, the buffer around the around the cemetery required by state laws, I believe, is 25 ft. So, you can't disturb anything within 25 ft of a burial ground.

Right. So, Mr. Babcock noted that. That's great. But then that in the same note it said that the the second battle of Nipuchuk battlefield had to be the report needed to be corrected to include that. So that's the question was that correct we we were going to reach out to RIHPC to determine whether that was in fact the case or whether that is in fact on this site or adjacent too. Okay. Thank you so much. Um, so I think in conclusion, just thank you so much for your time and for considering the facts that were put before you tonight. Um, you know, obviously we're working with the documents we have and it's a string of neighbors just coming together trying to do what's best for our town and there are more documents to come. Excellent. You know,

thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Um, all right. As I stated at the beginning, it is now a little past 9:40. We still have five people on this list and there may be more that came in after the lists were handed out. So I think it'd be best at this time that we we kind of wrap this up to continue to date certain. Would you agree?

Uh Mr. Chair, what I would what I might think and suggest is that we let the remaining five people speak this evening because they may have questions that the applicant can then take and acknowledge, but certainly continue this hearing, the public hearing, and the review of this application to a date certain of whatever uh is amendable for our team and and the applicants team. Okay, fair enough. Um then I'm going to ask you to keep it moving people. You want me to extend the make a motion to extend for 15 minutes so we don't cut anybody off? We should do that. All right. I'm going to make a motion that we extend the meeting till 10:15. Second. We have a second. Those in favor?

I opposed. No. Meetings extended to 10:15 if needed. Uh Michael Black. I'll be brief. Michael Black, 19 Leonard Drive. Drive. Leonard Drive. Correct. Just a couple questions. Very, very brief. Is um the current clearcut that we cut to 17 acres that we heard about. Can anybody point out where the clearcut is right now on this map right here? Do do we need that done tonight? You just want to know is this going to affect other questions? It it could. Okay.

If if it's not available, I can I can we can look for it. I can look for it. We have these aerial, but it's not. Is is it where the houses are? Because I'm familiar. So, I'm going to butter where the road directly comes out. So, when I can come down and I can I'm just curious if it's where the housing is. And just to move it, I can I can move to my next question real quick. Go right with your permission. I I I believe I believe it's where the P is at the end of the Let's Yeah, you can see it right there. I'm sorry, sir. Pete. Yeah. To the left up there a little bit. Thank you. I appreciate your help with this. That's that's approximately where I believe that's approximately where phase one of the development would be. Correct.

Thank you very much for that. That gives me a much much better idea. Thank you, Mr. Thank you for your help. The HOA side of things that we were talking about in regards to the reserved land in the parking lot. Once that's built, that's going to be initially built in stage one. Who's responsible for the tax aspect of that? Because it's not being handled over the HOA and it's going to be CJ land. We go back to the It's going to be land that that has been cut and done. So, there's going to be a different tax base. I'm just curious who's who is responsible for that? Who's We can hold off on that one too just for movement of time. I'm I'm sorry. What was the question? So, as we were talking before up here, and I don't have the pointer, but the plot of land with the parking lot.

Yeah. That's up in the conservation, that's part of stage one is what I understand. Yes. Once that gets developed, Yes. that changes the tax structure of it. Correct. The following year, it would change. When you say the tax structure that it's it's more of a developed land than an underdeveloped land. Well, it's open space. Okay. Does that change the tax structure? Uh it would it well the tax structure generally overall is is what it is. Okay. So um in effect if you were only doing that it would actually lower the tax structure because it would be it would be open space which is lower than residential. It wouldn't increase I I think what your question would it increase the value? No.

No. But but the tax structure wouldn't say. So where it is an open space once it gets developed the tax structure doesn't change. Is it still that would be taxed? So, so, so that so you understand how that works, sir. That would be land owned in common by by the homeowners association. It would be taxed equally by all of it would the tax would be assessed at a value, a lower value because it would be non-developable land, some of its wetland. And then the the tax bill on that would either be divided by the homeowners equally or it would be taxed separately to be paid by the homeowners equally under the association once the homeowners association was created.

And if it's prior to the homeowners association, the developer would be responsible.

That that was my question. U one other thing that I I do have to say just and it's going to be brief. Uh I'm right here so I have the butter where the road comes in on Leonard Drive. If you go to this part of my property, just to give you an idea for the people who don't know, before you even enter into this this piece right here, I'm about 27 feet up of where the road is. And if you look at that land of where they're trying to put the road and where the development is, there's going to be about 27 feet difference on that. What they're trying to transpire in regards to that ridge that comes around there where the Mandaville property is and then goes up on the odd side of Leonard Drive. That is almost a consistent side of land that goes up and then will go down and then goes back up again. I just want to let it get on record that I'm testing my water now. So, I'm going through a third party and getting this tested. I am concerned because one, my leech goes into my backyard which is going to cover right into that property. So, when you cut, you're going to be cutting right next to where my leech field is. and secondary. I don't know how you're going to be able to put a 25 ft tunnel in between two homes. I I'm sure they're smart people and I've got this figured out, but if you sit on my land and if you see the divvy that's going to come down with the leashfield going down and the angle of that, I got to believe that the leech side of things is going to go and follow the path of the road.

Fair enough. I thank you so much.

Thank you, Michael. Michelle Taylor. Good evening. My name is Michelle Taylor and I live at 39 Brookside Drive. I'm going to take a somewhat different perspective on this project. Like so many, I moved to North Smithfield because nature is important to me. I love watching the beaver swim across Belair Pond and I don't care if he floods the road. He can do it as many times as he wants. Um, before coming here though, I was sitting on the Rhode Island uh continuum of care board and the continuum of care is responsible for helping people who are unhoused access um shelter and access affordable housing. And that's what I'm here to talk about today. Whatever iteration of this project goes forward, I am hoping that there's going to be some stipulation for affordable housing. Rhode Island is literally 50th in the entire country in terms of its housing inventory right now. Every day I am looking at people who are literally dying, who are living on the street because there isn't enough place for them to live. So, while there's a piece of me that looks at this and goes, "Oh my god." Um, not in my backyard. I also know that in this state there is not enough affordable housing and we have a responsibility to look to our neighbors and be part of that solution. Um the state literally needs tens of thousands of additional housing units by 2030. At the same time, Housing Works Rhode Island reports that only about onethird of households can actually afford the medium home price statewide. Here in North Smithfield and across Providence County, the pressure is very real. Median home prices in this region have climbed into the $400,000 plus range,

putting home ownership out of reach for many working families. Renters are also burdened, many spending 30% or more of their income on housing, which is considered costbururdened. At the same time, North Smithfield remains below the state's 10% affordable housing benchmark, meaning there is both a need and an opportunity to thoughtfully expand access. Whatever direction this project goes in, maybe it won't be 126 units. Some aspect of that needs to be affordable housing. We cannot turn our backs on other people in this community who have no place to live. And don't tell me there's no homeless in North Smithfield because I have an outreach team that is here tending to people who are living in their cars. Adding housing at every level of affordability at this point will ease the the burden on the community. People are being forced out of their apartments because landlords can charge five, six, seven, $800,000, $800 more a month because there are people who are probably going to move into these places who are able to pay that. So, I'm not arguing against this, although certainly there are plenty of arguments in this room as to how this development needs to be tailored to be as responsible as possible. Um, not only to the environment, but also we need to look to our neighbors. So, I am asking that um we look at incorporating affordable housing into this project. It's not just a social benefit. It's smart planning. Mixed income communities help sustain local businesses. They support schools. They allow essential workers, teachers, first responders, and health care staff to live in the communities that they serve. And importantly, affordable housing today can be designed to blend seamlessly with market rate homes, preserving the character and quality that residents expect. This is a chance for North Smithfield to

take a proactive, balanced approach to growth. And that means real housing needs or meeting real housing needs while strengthening the community in the long term. I do respectfully urge the board to work with the developer to include a meaningful percentage of affordable units in ranking estates. I thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration. Thank you, Jean Mayo.

Hello, I'm Gene Mayo, 11 tall timber trail and I am the vice chair of the school committee. I'm sorry. 11 Tall timber trail. Thank you. Um I spell my name MO. Okay. Thank you. Um I'm not representing the school committee, but I am speaking for myself as a resident and a taxpayer who has a vested interest in our schools. And it appears that my comments are uh addressing a subject that is illegal to consider based on what I've heard tonight. Um, and I realize that the school system is not the planning board's perview or responsibility or even something that you can take into consideration. Even though this project will be phased in over 10 years, um, it will have an impact and I appreciate Miss Mallette's fiscal um, comments on the fiscal impact of the schools. So, I will not go into repeating that, but her points are very relevant. So, I hope you will take them into consideration. Um, in 10 years, there's a possibility that 250 or more students in our system will be there. That's a 15% increase over our current population. And that would necessitate a new school or at the very least additional space being built somewhere as a band-aid approach. Even a small number of children per year will have an impact on space, services, and staff. Most importantly, space. because at the elementary and middle schools right now they are at or near capacity and those additional students equate to additional funding needed or a lessening of the qualities and opportunities that make our school system so successful and noteworthy. So I just want you to know that there will be impacts to the town and the schools and it should be a concern and thank you very much.

Thank you and again and again. Peter, we might have Goden. There we go. You might have worse handwriting than me and I'm left-handed. Sorry. Peter Goden. Yeah. G O N 170 Log Road.

Okay. First of all, I'd like to say there's a 50ft right away for the roads, but there's only 26 feet in pavement. I'm sure other developments, Rolling Acres, Nippachuk Estates, Mattity Estates, the pavement is a lot wider than that. You're going to have all those houses over there. They're going to be new houses, some cash there. People are going to have landscapers. They're going to come. They're not going to be able to park in their driveway. They're going to park on the road. They're going to have their big truck. They're going to have their trailer. It's going to be very dangerous getting around that. No paved sidewalks. Kids are going to be riding their bikes in the street. They're going to be coming around the bend, have to go out in the middle of the road to get by these trucks. Somebody's going to come, kids are going to get killed. Second, supposed to be uh open areas, but only for HOA members. I know like in rolling acres, if you look at lot map 14, lot 200, that's deed to the town. in NP Nippachuska estate map 14 lot 209 that's deed to the town there's no way that we shouldn't be able to get the some of that open space to be deed to the city that way if people get hurt it's not the HOA's responsibility of you know somebody get hurt on the property they don't own it the town does no problem there and also they that we're supposed to be as the taxpayers we're supposed to be guarant guaranteeing their work for the road. So if it needs maintenance, we have to fix it. Drainage, we have to fix the drainage if there's a problem. And detention ponds, not on public land, on their own private land. Why are we on the hook as the taxpayers to maintain those detention ponds that is not part of the town property, but their little

homeowners association? Seems like they want to have both sides of the aisle. They want a private little compound. All this area is just for us. Nobody else can use it. But oh, you got to plow this, you got to plow that. To me, it should be one thing, one one or the other. It's all private. You maintain the roads, you plow the roads, or you give up some land for open space for the rest of the town to use. Shouldn't be any problem with that. And then they said, you know, the the question was asked about, you know, how they're going to build it in in order. Oh, yes, we're going to build it in order. Well, if you look at section 8-0 out of what they have us here, it says can be taken out of order. They can build it whatever they want. They say they're going to do it in that, but we all agreed section 8 can be taken out of order under construction. can't have both ways. And also like equal protection. Oh, schools, everybody can have their kids in school. It's equal protection. Well, right now there's 16 lots involved in this. 16 deed lots. They want 120 126. Well, that's not equal protection. If they want to put a house on each of those 16 lots and put the kids to school, no problem. But they want more than that. So now we got to make some deals. Just what I thought on all of this.

Thank you. And the last person of the evening, Joan Bet.

Hi, I'm Joan. J O N Bet. Bet E S T. I live We need a big finish here, Joan.

Okay. All right. I actually have just two really quick questions. I live at 354 Mattity Road. So I abut uh Christina Way and Tony Circle and the neighborhood has had the joy of listening to them build Douglas solar for weeks now with heavy machinery beeping constantly. Uh wood chippers, chainsaws. This isn't going on from Monday through Saturday from 7 in the morning till 3:00 in the afternoon. So my first question is very simple. If they build this, they have to adhere to a certain law in the town where they can't build because it's going to be loud nail guns and bulldozers. We're going to hear this all of us that live there. So they have to play by the rules, right? that there's a certain time frame where they can build. Yes. Okay. I have a question for the engineer. Um um

it was mentioned there's going to be a 250 foot woodland um strip or something. I'm sorry. Um, you mentioned that there's going to be like a 250 foot strip of woods between this and us or can you explain that a little better because I'm looking for quickly. I think she's talking about you. You I'm looking for noise abatement is what I'm looking for. No cuts. Yes. To clarify the Let me go near microphone so they can pick it up out there too.

Um, the the fields are 250 ft off. The actual fields are 250 ft off. There's a little bit of grading that needs to happen with that for the fields. So, it's not a no cut of 250 ft, but there will be a no cut along the Leonard Drive side. All right. So, between Matt Estates and this, they're going to cut right up to that border. That's not what's proposed. No. What What is proposed? We have We have the no cut along the outsides of those there on on the the western and the northern side. Is it along along the blue line? Along the blue line. Safe to say

we can depict it and bring it. That would be great because if you have woods, it's going to help the noise abatement. And that's all that I that's my big concern. Um, this neighborhood was written up by the Providence Journal several years ago as being one of the finest neighborhoods in the state of Rhode Island. And it's very quiet there and listening to Douglas Solar is no fun. But that's got a very short lifespan to be built. this 10 years. I don't want to hear this for 10 years. So that's what I'm looking for is noise abatement. Okay. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. So for the next meeting, besides showing the the no cut, if we could also get that drawing that takes this and has some sort of overlay for the topography because personally I where your fields I went the the other the other slide you' put up which did show topography and I'm looking at the location of the access road. They don't seem to jive with the flatter spaces. So anyway, but that it'll clarify a lot if we can and and I mean literally just pop on the overlay, take it off, you know, that kind of thing.

The other thing, Mr. Jim, is one of the conditions uh that that your planner had put in was the concept of I I believe creating some vegetative offers as a reference to a landscape plan. So that that's something that we had not presented because we viewed it as passive recreational fields, but we're considering it. There's a landscape architect on staff with So before we come back next time, we could also look into that concept. It's customary to provide a landscape plan which you'd have to do for the rest of it anyway.

So what I'm just further buffering and I think um obvious you're right there is there is something there street trees. So yeah. Yeah. You know it that'd be make it more complete. I guess that that'd be it. Very help. Great. Thank you. So I got a I got a list. Oh yeah. We've got lists. Mark and David. Please tell me if I am out of line from what I've heard from the residents concerns of what they've requested to date.

Uh one of the things that I've heard is the hydraological study of the property. Is that something that we can ask request for the next meeting? So, so I I think the hydraological study was related to nutrient loading and that's a that's a DEM issue. I I think when DEM is dealing with them, they they're reviewing the nutrient loading and you know the the the average overall uh density of the development is 2 and a half acres per house lot. May perhaps the engineer can address that, but Okay.

Yeah. I I can and matter of fact there's very specific regulations in DEM septic regulations as well for sizes of units for nitrogen loading and such. Uh you and I I think I when I look at the way that the conservation development is actually written it's written for you know the RH65 zone and for septics and wells as 30,000 square feet. That's somewhat for a reason in my mind as well because it uses that model that other folks use in that that allows for proper separations, treatments, and general, you know, kind of uh, you know, dilution, natural dilution that you get from groundwater and such as well. So that mimics the town's ordinance for the conservation mimics really well what DEM's has a nutrient loading, you know, section in it that talks about what that is as well. So I can put a statement of a letter or something.

I was going to ask, could you put together for everyone's education? Sure. Like a brief narrative. Yep. In simple language of what that means. I can't promise the simple language, but as simple in layman's terms. So then that way we can all get a full understanding of it. I know you're we're all professionals in our respective fields. Yeah. But I think that will certainly go a long way to help help everyone's understanding. Thank you. Also on my list, um I have a cut and fill balancing plan. Is that is that something we can get readily available?

Ber no. Um the cut and fill balancing plan for the for the property. Is that something that we can get? Okay. Um, I've also heard for a wildlife survey and environmental study. Is that something that's going to be back with Rhode Island DEM? That's that's DM's jurisdiction. Okay. Yeah.

And and I would just comment I I don't want to go I'm not citing to anything, but your planner does have a memo from me relative to DM's jurisdiction over a bunch of these issues. Sure. No, what I'm what I'm looking for this evening is I've heard a lot of concerns. I want to make sure those concerns are addressed because if they're not addressed, obviously we're in this position. There's going to be there's going to be some folks that are h aren't happy either way this goes. And I want to make sure that everyone in this room and everyone that's listening on on YouTube is well informed, well educated, and has the information that they need so that that way you guys aren't getting torched and pitchforked. We're not getting torched and pitchforked. But I want to make sure that everyone is just educated because then that way when everyone's educated, there's a level of understanding that comes with that. So if you can provide the narratives, the information that we're that's been asked this evening, that makes this project that much better and it makes the process go that much smoother.

Right. Yeah. And and and obviously Mr. Bradley and Mr. Prie can provide all that information. That's why uh there were two attorneys here tonight because we brought the attorney that's dealing with the permitting for questions. Although

nobody asked him any questions, but he's been dealing with the permitting. So we have no problem doing that. But just in the same vein and and I don't again, Mr. Porter, I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I also have an obligation as a lawyer to say, "Yeah, we'll give it to you. Let's talk about it. Let's give the information to the public, but I also have to tell you where the town's jurisdiction and DM jurisdiction begins and ends." So, it's not about being opaque. It's not about blocking the information. We'll give you whatever you want. But I have to say that the board has to understand that when this project was before you at master, DM had a lot of a lot of difference to DM. The world has changed since then. Now there's a lot of case one and statutes that really particularly narrow the jurisdictional issues that we're discussing right now to DM. And Mr. Bradley and Mr. Pre deal with DM every day. They can discuss in greater detail, but that's the 30,000 view. So, we'll provide you everything, but I have to put that on the record.

No, that's fine. I I'm just looking for a level of understanding and a level of education. That's all. We We our the four members that are here sitting here, we've been at this for quite a while now. So, we know exactly where our our lane is, and that's the lane that I intend to stay in. But I want to make sure that if there's people are asking for a certain level of information, I want to make sure that they have that information and they'll have it,

right? And if if I could add to that, um the a lot of the the the items regarding septic systems, nutrient loadings, wetlands, habitat that lies that responsibility in the law replies applies 100% to DEM. So I think one of the best ways to help clarify that is all the items we can say like the nutrient septic that is going to be reviewed by DEM.

Um the towns have no authority with regards to septic or wetlands and what your what you can rely on 100% and this is a state law. Mr. Kurulo can attest to this is the the permits from DEM. So if you all the comments that you have they're all very good comments. I mean, the absor asked a lot of great questions, and I think the easiest way to answer a lot of those is tell you, you know, how they're being addressed as part of the application, what DEM is reviewing, and they can if they have questions on the environment, they can reach out to DEM. Yeah. I I just know, and I'm sure the two of you know, that getting a hold of DEM sometimes takes quite a bit of time.

Well, they actually that it is not that case anymore. They have an office at DEM for customer and technical assistance. you will walk right in and talk to someone. Okay, so it shouldn't for all if you have any information any requests, but rest assured a lot of the comments will be addressed by DEM. Okay, great. Thank you. Anything else you want to add to their Yeah, I got a few I got two more. And this is this is really for items to be addressed by the the next meeting. Y Okay. Um heard about the battle site location to be confirmed. Heard that uh comment. So, what uh that's on my list here. Um the battlefield site battlefield. Yep.

Uh the comment about the affordable housing. I know when we have a development, we have to have is that different with conservation developments. Th this is a project that was vested in 2019 and prior to that and there was no requirement for this development to comply with uh LMI which would normally be 20%. Sure. Gotcha. Okay.

Um just while while we're discussing there was a mention about a cemetery on the site. It's not of a not a Native American cemetery. I did find it on the plans. If we look on that plan, the green strip where the open space is down towards the bottom there's a little cross there. Len, can you help me with that? Yeah, right there, that's the cemetery. So, that cemetery is going to be included in the open space. The requirement under state law is a 25- ft buffer around the cemetery. That's being resolved by the fact that that cemetery is included in the open space and that area will not be disturbed. Okay. Does does the heritage association get involved with that? I know they've been tracking No, it does. down. Oh, okay.

Okay. And then the last on my list was the uh no cut plan. So, let's I'd like to get B even initially with my my comments when we we first started, I'd like to get a better understanding of the level of clear cutting or the lack thereof, which I I as I said would like to really keep that to a minimum to streets and where buildings are going to be. Yeah. Uh if I can address that and that a lot of that information is in the planet just it's the detailed sheets. Yep.

As we go through the DEM process, we actually demarcate a limit of clearing around each house because you have have to have enough real estate to build the septic, install the wells, build the house, driveways. So there is a limit of clearing that is shown on the plans that was submitted with with regards to each of the homes. Um there there is as was talked about there is a lot of terrain reveal. So when you start doing your cuts and fills to build the roads and lots to to meet the subdivision requirements you know there is a certain amount of clearing that has to happen. So um most of our clients try to avoid the massive clear cutting. Um but they will come in and and I'll say they like when they do phase one they're not going to just cut one lot at a time. It's just it's inefficient. They'll basically do a strategic area, but that is all going to be shown on the plans. Well, it is shown on the plans that you have and that DEM has, and they will review and approve that.

Three minutes. All right. I'm going to make a motion to extend a meeting for 15 more minutes. Second. Sorry, I jumped a gun. No, you're good. We need got a motion. We got a second. Second. Yep. I Mr. Porter. I I miss Porter. Could I just get clarification because I I think I misunderstood what you said. You said a no cut plan and I was understanding that as the area of the no cut zone towards the wreck fields. That's what I understood it. You're looking for the limit of the limit of uh of clearing internally and then also the cut and fill for the for the site work. Oh, that was a different one. That was number two. No, no, I got that one. I was more talking about what the no cut. Thank you.

No problem. Just want to get the clarity. Nope, not a problem. That was my list. I didn't mean to step on anybody's toes. If anybody else had a list, um, you covered my items. Thank you. I guess just go back to the tape and rewatch things. Yeah. For the, you know, if in your spare three and a half hours that everybody has, I do have two other quick things for the next time. Okay. um for next time. I mentioned this earlier, but if we could get the person who did the uh financial impact, if we can just get

a little bit more information than just on the school, especially because in 2016 there was a tax abatement granted and that isn't included in the projection. So, I would think that that would be included. Um and two, it said it was going to be done in phases. Are we able to see get like a hey, it's going to be like phase one is going to do this and it's going to take this long, phase two is going to do this, take this long, just because it was mentioned an overall project plan. Yeah, I think that'd be very helpful. I mean, obviously it'll vary as you go through the project, but you you must have some plan, right? Yeah, I I believe that's on the plans that we submitted. We did have a phasing sequence on our plan sequence, but we didn't necessarily have approximately because market conditions we don't know when we're looking at

specifically, you know, which sections, what needs to be done, etc. Section 8.0 of the narrative. There was a construction stage that's on there which are are relative to that. Okay, we can probably I can take it and put it right on this plan to make it even easier so everyone can visually see. I can color code it. Oh jeez. Please color code it. Lombardo the fiscal impact. He is going to come for the next meeting and we are taking notes. We've got a transcript. Okay. Oh, I got one more thing. Mr. As I was do do you folks have um architectural plans of what these buildings are going to look like

at this point? I'm going to make a request. Please avoid the contractor specials. There is we we have a very particular mill setting architectural rural you know colonial capes and colonials. Yeah. Just please make sure that they're not contractor specials. That that that's my own personal request. Do with it as you will, but we need to have some if if this goes forward, we need to make sure that we're within the aesthetic of the town and not having these McMansions popping up throughout the point where you have say half a dozen home designs that you're looking at.

I'm not aware of those. I I'll specifically discuss this with our good prepared to discuss it. And also whether is is it I I think that maybe let's not workshop it live, but maybe there's like that. Sure. Yeah, that'd be great. Nope, that's again that's just the architect and me asking for that sort of thing. Yeah, exactly. Because I saw a different couple different footprints, so I figured there was a couple different options. Variety is nice. Yep, it sure is. It sure is. Makes for a better neighborhood. Yeah. So, shall we discuss semantics next? Sure.

Okay. for our uh obviously we're going to make a continuation to a date certain uh Mr. Kuo what is or I should ask the applicant what is a date that you would be feel comfortable committing to with everything that's been discussed tonight I think the next meeting I think we can 30 days okay I think 30 days is fine as far as the date we'll make it work we'll be here okay Mr. Kulo. So that day would normally be May 14th.

Okay. Does that given the level of audience that we've had this evening and knowing the future a little bit with your crystal ball, is that agenda going to be sufficient enough to address any other applications that come before? Well, we we would likely end up having uh an additional meeting in May then. So we have two other projects that are pending. Um, so but I don't I don't suggest that we load the agenda that this be the only item on the agenda. I agree and and I would say work with the applicant as to whether the May 14th or the alternate meeting is the one that's best for we're continuing the public hearing. It has to be to a date certain. Yeah, we got to do a date certain.

Oh, that's you got to pick that tonight. I'm sorry. a suggestion that we continue it to that date certain of your next meeting and then if for some reason I could show up and we continue that's fine. Yeah, but I definitely agree this should be a dedicated meeting. I will also ask that we look at having the u perhaps the middle school cafeteria or at least some venue that has enough seats. You know, that'd be I think that'd be good. But I my understanding is I mean we're I didn't even finish doing a head count because you know far Marshall 56. Yeah. 56. Yeah. 56.

So um that I know that there's another event if there's more people attending next time because there maybe there isn't a school event. You know let's just be prepared for it. All right. So then our next regular meeting would be on May 14th. So, I'll make a motion that we continue this hearing and the applicant review till a date certain of April uh May 14th. Second. Those in favor? I opposed. No. No. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.