Planning Board - Regular Meeting

This is the plane board meeting for Thursday, May 14th, 2026 is called to order at 700 p.m. This of course is a continuation from the meeting uh on April 9th. First thing, roll call. Dr. Poet here. Mr. Hammond here. Menard here. Mr. Porter here. And the chair is here. Um, do we have we have minutes from the April 9th meeting? I'll give you a moment to review those, make any questions or comments. I'll make a motion that we accept the minutes as presented. Second motion. And we have a second. Those in favor? I

opposed. The meetings uh meeting minutes from April 9th are accepted as presented. Next item, um, disclosure. Does any planning board members have anything to disclose on the matters before us this morning, this evening? Mr. Chairman, as a director, I will be recusing, but I do have a letter from the Rhode Island Ethics Commission stating that I may speak as a private citizen.

Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Uh, next item, any planning board members need to disclose any exparte communications about the any contested or material adjudicatory facts or opinions concerning the merits of any application presented this evening. No. Okay. So, with that and with Dr. Benoit's recusal, um, the voting members this evening will be Mr. Hammond, Mr. Manard, Mr. Porter, and myself. Uh, before we jump into the topic at hand, I want to set a couple of expectations for everyone that's here. Um, as you know, especially for those of you that participated or watched the the last meeting, um, there's a lot of new documentation uh, requested some much of which we've received. Uh, so there's been a lot to review. There'll be more pres more material presented this evening that will undoubtedly raise questions. the public hearing was continued and therefore will be reopened at some point this evening. Um, some of you may may not have spoken, some of you may want to speak again on on new new questions and comments. Um, lastly, the planning board is uh working on scheduling a meeting for an executive session with the uh trust attorney so that we can learn about the things that happened when uh attorney Kelly was an intern from law school and uh you know, my son wasn't born yet. Um so, uh it's important information that we get as background because it it's from decisions made uh before anyone on this board was on this board. So, we need to have that. we'd be remiss if we went forward uh without getting that information. So, as such, the first expectation I'm setting is that there will be no vote this evening and the and the meeting, you know, this

project will be continued to probably June 25th or perhaps July 9th, but it will be continued. The public hearing will will remain open and will be continued to that to that meeting as well. Uh secondly, because of all that that I just said and because we know we're not going to vote and therefore we're not continue, we're also not going to extend tonight's meeting past 10:00. I know that's very disappointing for all of you, particularly the the planning staff themselves because who doesn't who doesn't like a 14-hour day when they can get a chance, right? Um but so as such you can expect the public hearing to be winding down about 9:30 or so to give us time to wrap up any open issues, identify any any any more homework that needs to be done by anybody, etc. All right, great. So with that, I'll turn it over to the applicant. Thank you for the compliment, Mr. Chairman. I wish that was the case, but it's been 47 years practicing. Uh I there was quite a few uh questions that were raised at the last meeting concerning condo condo association versus homeowners association and I'd like to clear those up if I may and I sent some correspondence into the board. Condominium projects, as we probably all know, are controlled by condominium association pursuant to Rhode Island on general laws 34361302. And that statute identifies condominium associations uh and homeowners associations as one and the same. However, there's quite a bit of difference. There's a reason they call it a homeowners association. The members are owners of homes. condominium association the uh owners or residents only own their condo and the uh reason

the uh all the common space accessory buildings land etc are owned by the condominium association and uh condominium association or condominium project is uh established by the filing of a declaration in the land evidence records. Now, uh, condominium associations and homeowners associations have similar powers in regard to their control of the, uh, development. As I said, the condominium association owns all the land, uh, and accessory buildings and the residents only own their condominium units. Uh both associations have the authority to assess individual uh residents for maintenance and other items associated with the operation of the condominium association or the homeowners association. And both uh uh associations have the authority to assess assessments and the associations have the authority to place a lean on their units. The uh one of the largest uh differences or most substantial is that a condominium association uh owns the roads. They're private roads. I've never seen one that wasn't. And the homeowners association does not own uh roads. Uh they're always public roads. The condominium association obviously is is uh responsible for the maintenance of common areas, trash pickup, plowing, etc. On the other hand, homeowners associations are responsible uh only for such as open space or if there was a joint sewer line or or sewer pump or whatever uh which was in this in the uh development, they might be responsible for that maintenance. Both associations provide insurance coverage for applicable areas and the uh also the

common areas. Uh homeowners association is typically responsible for maintenance of any open space or common areas. As I said, it does not own the roads and is not responsible for their maintenance. Uh there was some question as to whether this uh the going to be private roads in this development or public roads. Since 2005 when this subdivision was first proposed, there has always been uh public roads for this development. There has never ever been a discussion uh concerning uh this being a condominium type development where a condo association would be in fact uh the uh organization uh maintaining the roads. Uh the open space and any recreational fields and a homeowners association would be the uh responsibility for the uh homeowners association. It would also be responsible for drainage pipes that leave the public right away, drainage ponds and other storm water facilities outside the public way and the town would have no responsibility for these items. Now, until the roadways are accepted by the town, all maintenance uh uh of the roadways will be solely the responsibility of the developer. This would include plowing, repairs, storm water management facilities both in the road and in the rightway and outside the rightway. Uh, as I'm sure you all know, after acceptance of the roadways by the town, the town is then responsible uh for maintaining roadways and other storm water facilities only in the roadway just like any other subdivision. I'm sure you've had many before you. Now, there was also some question about trash pickup. Well, the residents in uh in this uh development are going to be paying taxes to the town just like any

other homeowner. And uh it it should be of course the responsibility of the town just like any other homeowner. They're entitled to that. Now, another important thing we heard and this has been repeated quite a bit. I've been hearing this since 2005 that this is project is a gravel removal oper uh operation. It absolutely is not. The only material that would be excavated is as allowed by the zoning code and the zoning code specifically allows grading land for the construction of a lo roadway extraction of earth for subdivision in accordance with the plat plan dly authorized by the town. Uh, earth removal is also allowed for construction pursuant to building permit. And earth removal is allowed by excavation in the connection with lawful construction of a building, structure, street, driveway, sidewalk path, or other pertinance as long as it's not does not exceed the finished grade of the project as approved by the planning board. And that's exactly what we have here. That is a big difference between what will be excavated on the site and what will be removed. Uh the uh the recreational uh uh fields have also been the subject of uh discussion. I'd like to point out there's approximately 140 acres of open space in the uh this development. And this a conservation development as you know instead of two twoacre lots they're oneacre lots. And the purposes under your uh zoning code and planning regulations uh of a conservation development is to protect natural resources, streams, flood planes, and wetlands. And that's exactly what we're doing by designated those designated those areas as open space. Uh the other uh purpose of a conservation development is to protect recreational resources and

to provide greater design flexibility and efficiency in the sighting of services, infrastructure, wastewater disposal systems and to reduce reduce the length of road utility runs and amount of payment required and therefore uh storm water runoff. This subdivision accomplishes all those goals. In addition in regard to the recreational uh uh fields which have been the subject of discussion and as uh uh Mr. Prie and Mr. Resnik will tell you uh they have been significantly uh reduced in regard to the board's concerns. Now, under section 3404.51 of your zoning code specifically allows as a use by right subdivision parks, playgrounds, community centers, recreational facilities, other similar structures of a non-commercial nature designed for the use of the residents of the conservation development and their guests. There cannot be any question that that's exactly the purpose of these recreational fields for the use of the residents only. This is the recreational fields are as I just read specifically allowed as a use in this zone and in this subdivision. the uh I want to point out that uh this board uh under state law under your own uh zoning code and planning regulations does and case law uh men's case law of the Supreme Court this planning board does not have authority to prevent an allowed use under the zoning code under any circumstances. You do not have the authority to do that. And it's not a question as to whether you like the recreational fields or you have speculation that it might be a gravel operation. That is totally immaterial.

Uh the use is specifically allowed. Uh that we would uh we u were asked to take a look at uh the yardage that would be excavated and or removed uh in this subdivision. And pursuant to the current conservation development, it would be approximately 750,000 yards of material excavated, not removed. Uh, of that 750,000 about approximately 350,000 would be used on site for roadbased septic systems fill in low areas. So the total that might leave the site, this is all approximate, be approximately 400,000 uh yards. The roadways in this conservation development are 11,800 ft. If this were a conventional subdivision, the roadway length would be 22,500 ft of roadway, double the length of the roadway in this division subdivision, increasing storm water runoff, impervious surface, and the town's obligation to maintain these roadways. The frontage requirements under this the regulations for com uh conventional sub subdivision are 200 feet whereas in a conservation development they're only 120 ft. Obviously the reason is to as the purpose of the conservation development is to reduce storm water runoff etc. Additional with twoacre lots, you're going to have substantially more clearing and excavation as a result of the lots being twice as large as this subdivision and the roads being twice as long as this subdivision. Now, if this was a conventional subdivision, approximately 1.3 million yards of material have to be excavated, not removed, excavated. Approximately 400,000 yards would be used on site, which would mean there would be approximately 950,000 yards that have to

be removed from the site. double what this uh development uh will will uh cause the uh as you know the uh construction of this project and is specifically allowed uh by your zoning code and I don't think it's up for discussion that this site has substantial grade changes there are hill areas there are valleys that requires cuts and fills Now the board in the past and all of this has been discussed since 2005 believe it or not uh we were asked to try and reduce the cuts and fills which we have to the best of our ability. But there's no other way to install roads, houses, and improvements but for excavation of the earth as appropriate. And believe it or not, we're not aware of uh any way to uh flatten hills without significant excavation. It's pure common sense. Uh if anyone has an idea on how this could magically happen, we would be happy to hear about it. Now, in regard to the history, uh this is one of the most unique uh and bizarre subdivisions that I've had in 47 years. It started in 2005 and the application was filed 2005. One week later, the town council tried to block it by enacting a moratorum on the on subdivisions. We took that to court and it was immediately uh ruled illegal. We then came back to the planning board to proceed with the subdivision. The planning board at the time insisted the applicant perform an archaeological study at master plan for the entire site. That was not a requirement and it is not

a requirement now by state law or the regulations. So the requirement was in violation of state law, the town's zone regulations. And of course it's not appropriate to master plan. I think you all know that we now are at a preliminary plan and we have done that. We studied the entire site not just phase one. Now the planning board in I think it was 2012 or or 14 uh when they demanded that a archaeological study be done on the entire site uh had before it a study that had already been done by PLA a very reputable firm located in Pucket and it was done in the presence of Narroans Indians. The subject which has always been the subject of speculation is whether pile of rocks piles of rocks on this site are Indian burial grounds. They are not. PL excavated one of them with the deriggates Indians present. There were no bones or any other evidence of Indian culture under those rocks. And the rocks were piles of rocks determined to be created by farmers and other settlers piling up to get them out of the way of their activities. Uh despite the fact that study had been done previously, planning board continued to insist on an archaeological study of the entire subdivision prior to master plan. At the planning board meeting on the master plan, a so-called professor from URI, uh Mr. Mey was presented by the conservation commission. Also illegal, the town council authorized the conservation commission to engage Mr. Melly and paid for it. As you know, the town council has no participation in the approval of subdivision. It's solely the authority of this board.

uh the planning board is the only entity that has the authority to deny or re uh or approve at this point. When Mr. Melly was presented at the hearing, I inquired before he I I allowed him to testify, I asked him inquire as to his expertise. I inquired as to whether he had any experience in uh Indian culture or archaeological uh uh studies in uh of New England Native Americans. He replied, "No, his expertise was in Peruvian Indians." Now, I calculated that. I think that's about 3,000 miles away. So, he had no expertise. Despite that, the planning board accepted his statements and as a result, the subdivision was denied. Mr. Melly also said that he had excavated a pile of rocks on an adjacent property and found bones and he believed they were human bones. Well, about 8 months after the denial, they were determined to be pig bones. After being analyzed, uh, a, uh, subdivision was denied based upon the demand for an archaeological study. We took an appeal during the and we sued the town for damages for a wrongful denial. It turned out after we took depositions that Mr. Melly, who was a so-called professor at Urri, in fact, was a fraud. He did not have a PhD and was reported to the state police and he was charged with obtaining money under false pretenses from the state of Rhode Island. Uh and even worse, even more egregious, it turned out that prior to the planning board hearing on master plan, two members of the planning board, including the chairman, met with Mr. Melly, with the two uh town solicitor

for the town council and the planning board along with Mr. Smith, who is the peer reviewer, and they planned out how to deny this subdivision. I don't have to tell you that's a egregious violation of constitutional rights. Uh when this was discovered, the town immediately settled and the consent judgment, as you know, you have it. uh obviously allows this subdivision to proceed and it is subject and uh to any changes in state law or federal law and as you know those those have changed in regard to the requirements for a preliminary subdivision. State permits such as DOT permits and DEM permits are not required for an approval at preliminary and the uh state law specifically uh sets that forth. Now the chairman asked if anyone had any communications outside of the uh of the hearing uh in the process and I uh I noticed that there were a couple of members that did not respond to that. I would ask that the chairman poll everyone to make sure that doesn't happen. I don't want to run into a situation. I don't make this statement as a threat, but it's a fact. After 21 years, two generations of owners, if this project's denied, uh we will take an appeal and we'll take further action than that. Probably the same uh action we took uh in 2014. and that would be an action for damages for wrongful denial violation of our constitutional rights. Uh this uh project has been before this the planning board for 21 years and there is a strong commitment bulletproof commitment that the owner is going to go

forward with this subdivision no matter what. I don't have to tell you that a judge uh hearing this matter on an appeal is going to be fully appraised of the conduct of the town's planning board at the time. And I think it's very safe to to say uh in fact, I'll guarantee the judge will not look favorably upon what's happened to this subdivision in the past. Uh if the denial is uh if there's a denial based on recreation fields or speculated earth removal, that would constitute a complete violation of the town's zoning code. And that basically would be an intentional denial. Obviously, as others have done here be in this town, we would seek our our our fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act in in addition to an action for damages. Uh, I understand the town recently had to pay uh legal fees for an applicant whose uh project was wrongfully denied. The only thing the applicant is looking for is a fair hearing based upon competent evidence in the record. The only criteria, and this is well settled, and I'm sure your town solicitor will tell you, is whether there's competent evidence that's been presented to the board, such as experts and other uh knowledgeable individuals with experience and whether it's complied with the regulations. You cannot substitute your judgment for our experts opinions. You cannot substitute your lay opinion uh for any of the experts or or any of the uh fields of uh subjects that are uh required expert opinion. Uh addition it does not matter and you cannot take into consideration the number of objectors to this development whether they be friends

or neighbors. There could be 5,000 objectives to this project that cannot legally be considered in making your decision. Again, as Mr. Reszi indicated at the last meeting, the number of school children is totally irrelevant, and that's state law. I would point out that over the last several years, as Mr. uh Lombardo will point out, there's been a 100 student reduction in students in North Smithfield. I would respectfully suggest that to date we have complied with all the regulations. We've provided all of the information you've required and I I frankly haven't heard any competent evidence to suggest it's not in conformance with the regulations. the dozens of Supreme Court cases that clearly indicate that if a an application or a project meets the subdivision regulations, the planning regulations, it has to be approved. Uh the uh I'd also like to point out that in fact the only standard in regard to the uh the approval or denial is set forth in state law and your own regulations. Any decision has to be supported by competent legally competent evidence in the record. If it is not, the courts have uniformly uh in fact uh overturned decisions not based on that standard. Now I would ask that the board treat this applicant fairly like any other any other applicant. Yes, it's a large development. It's being phased. We anticipate take approximately 7 to eight years before this is built out. uh houses just don't sell that fast. You

look at the number of houses that are sold in North Smithfield, you'll see that that it could never be absorbed and it's not going to be built that way and that's why it is been phased. So, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have uh in regard to what I just stated and Mr. Resnik and uh the other experts will be addressing the items that the board requested at the last meeting. Okay. Any questions for the board? Mr. Kelly, any questions? No, we're good. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good evening, members of the board. Uh Mike Resnik again. Nice to see you again. And we're joined with three of our experts. So, we've brought back our traffic expert. Uh we have no plan on doing a presentation in Chief, but he's certainly available for questions. Mr. Prie is here, our civil engineer. He's going to go over a variety of matters. And we also have our fiscal impact expert, Joe Lombardo, who has uh provided a supplemental um uh fiscal impact statement and is going to uh uh testify in chief. So, I just want to go over a couple things for housekeeping really quick because there were many requests uh from the community as well as the board for deliverables that we provide and I just want to make sure that everybody's aware of what has been made part of the record since the last meeting. Uh and of course, Mr. Priv is going to discuss some of uh these matters in some detail with some demonstratives. There's a nutrient loading memo that's been provided. There's been a master plan yield plan to demonstrate to you the difference between the conventional and the conservation. As Mike had mentioned, there's a recreational field exhibit which we'll go through which shows uh reduced um size of the fields and and Mr. Pre's also going to discuss some augmentation of the parking that we think will be uh a benefit in uh the buffer to the neighbors uh and the disturbance of the area. Um, in addition, uh, we have some updated, uh, correspondence from the town and Rhode Island, uh, HPC. We've provided an archeological study that was revised. 922, uh, a letter from Mr. Dant specifically addressing some of the comments that were raised about one of the, uh, purported battlegrounds or the question of whether the battleground was on this property. Again, there's an updated fiscal uh, impact uh, summary uh, and report. There's a lighting plan that was requested. Uh, Attorney Kelly had referenced that in his uh uh recital of

the difference between condominium and uh HOAs. There's also a letter to that effect that was sent. There's another letter that was sent regarding your ordinance and the earth removal in the recreational fields. Um, there's some correspondence that we've received from uh one of the associations or or or groups and our response uh there too. uh as well as the history of the requests uh for approval and extensions uh for this project. So that's generally the updated materials um that you have with respect to just kind of priming the main issues that were were were raised um previously. Uh one was uh the archeology uh the archeological issue the battle of Nipashuk if I'm pronouncing it correctly. Nipichuk,

thank you very much. Uh, and anyways, um, Mr. Dantis, uh, provided us a letter April 27th, 2026. It's made part of the record. Uh, and I'd like to read it verbatim to the board. It'll be very short. Uh, and it's addressed to our office. With regards to the question of where the proposed development is in relation to the battle of uh Matili swamp, also known as the second battle of Nipseachuk, which took place on July 2nd, 1676, part of King Phillip's war, June 1675 to April 1678. Uh you'll note that the location of the battle is confirmed by the uh research C McBride at 2013. And you do have that map uh that's been uh appended to this correspondence is I quote entirely outside of the project area on the other side of Douglas Pike and that's figure one. Uh and there may be a question as to what what was that comment um from uh the state agency uh asking for that supplementation. Why was that supplementation requested? Uh and to that uh Mr. Dant responded, "We originally neglected to include the battle in our discussion of National Register of Historic Places Resources near the project area on page 13 of the above reference report dated May 2022. Although the battle was discussed in detail elsewhere in the report, we provided a corrected report revised in September of 22 that does include the battle within that paragraph. In any case, the proposed development does not include any part of that historic resource. Right? So, I think that we've addressed that satisfactory transparency reasons. But again, that that is the purview of that state uh agency. So, that was issue number one. Uh issue number two was relative to nutrient loading, groundwater

protection, septic concerns. Mr. Prieves is going to get into it in detail. I I would characterize it as concerns that nitrogen loading would have an effect on private wells, groundwater contamination and GA groundwater classification. Uh very briefly, Rym WTS program has primary jurisdiction over nutrient loading review. In fact, they have uh original and they have all jurisdiction projects. The project exceeds Rym's minimum standards for 30,000 square foot lots. Uh the subdivision Y nitrogen compliance is expressly permitted through nitrogen credit uh through land. Approximately 164 acres are preserved as nitrogen land credit. And lastly, the GA groundwater classification does not prohibit development and the project is not within any groundwater overlay district. So that's number two. And we have some demonstratives that that Mr. Prie will go over. Um, I'm not going to go any further into the recreational fields. Earth removal, I think that's been appropriately addressed. The HOA condominium concern has been addressed. We discussed um the conservation design uh the density uh related to that the concept of open space and I think that uh attorney Kelly may not have mentioned but I think the board is aware that we have uh set up a dialogue uh with the land trust to discuss uh potentially uh them taking over control of that open space. But of course it would not be open to the public. It would be true conservation land. So those are um some discussions that are ongoing. Um, one thing that I wanted to comment, uh, because I think that all the community and I think the board members are aware, there's the proliferation of comp permits in this state, right? Low and moderate housing. And I just want to give you an idea of the the the type of density that that would that that would

yield. You'd be looking at three homes uh per acre. Here you have one home uh for every two acres. So it's just an understanding that this is not a dense project compared to the density uh that this property could be susceptible for and particularly this town could be susceptible to and it's just something to understand that relatively speaking this is not a dense development. There's a there's a lot of property um with respect to Can I ask can I ask you a question on that? Um you just said one home for every two acres. Correct. I I say under a under a comp permit you could have uh

three homes and here if you do the calculation including the open space and I'll I I'll I'll leave the mathematics to Mr. pretty but but I believe uh that it would be uh I believe it is uh a half an acre. Correct. I'm sorry. 2.3 2.3 it it's 30,000 square feet, isn't it? That's 2/3 of an acre. Correct. Okay. All right.

Excuse me if I misspoke. Um just final couple items. Fire access. There there was a concern raised I believe relative to emergency access and phasing. Um I believe your planner is confirmed. The fire marshall review the plans and identify no issues with the sistern uh placement. Mr. Prie will will talk about some of the the things we're going to acknowledge. Infrastructure timing, operational conditions um and he'll discuss the emergency access route again and the knock box. There was also some comments about public process. This has been an incredibly transparent process. uh we've agreed to a continuence before we even showed up to this hearing to make sure that there was no argument or comment that the materials that we recently supplemented that there wasn't enough time for the board or the community to review them. So, we welcome this process, but as Mr. Kelly indicated, we needed to be treated fair. This is a a different project than is normally before the board. It it it comes with more baggage than just a master plan approval. It comes with something very serious and we take it very seriously. So with that, before I think Mr. Prie gets into some of the details and some of the demonstratives, I think it makes sense to have Mr. Lombardo come up and if he could go through the fiscal impact statement and and hopefully we can address all the testimony that he might need to provide this evening. And Mr. Lombardo, if you wouldn't mind uh if you could please just describe your experience uh and your credentials to the board.

Yes. Uh good evening um Mr. Chair, members of the board. uh folks here this evening. Uh my name is Joseph Lombado. Uh I'm a land use planner. I've been u practicing since 1977. I'm a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and I've been preparing fiscal impact studies for about 30 years. Um there's a variety of different ways that we do them. Um I was the municipal planner in the town of Hopington, the town of Richmond, the town of Westerly, and also I did some work in Graten, Connecticut. So, I'm familiar with working with the regulations and I'm familiar with working with planning and zoning boards and that's really my background. Mike. Okay.

And Mr. Chairman, if you would, I'd like to qualify Mr. Lombardo as an expert in fiscal analysis. It's fine. Thank you.

Okay. Good evening again. Um, so what I'd like to just explain to the board is um early on in this process, I was asked to prepare what I would call a preliminary look at this project. And this project has had several different versions of it. Um, and at the time we were asked to just look at estimating school age children and population. And I added in what the potential for um the revenue that would be collected by a project based on the number of homes, average selling price, and your current tax rate. Now that this project has progressed to the preliminary uh through your planner and through the the the client and the applicant was asked to do a more complete fiscal report which would include not only the projections of revenue but also some projections of uh cost of education and cost for municipal services. So what you see here is the result of of that request to to make it more complete. Um, I used uh data that was provided for me, some of it from the builder and the developer, some from the town, some from uh Rhode Island Housing Works, some from US census data. So, I I try to cite those sources in here and I have some information in my addendum uh to when I look at trying to estimate school age children. So, the summary of the report really says that there's estimated revenues of a little over a million dollars, a million86,000 There's estimate of 327 individuals living in this project when if it were fully built out today and that would include 75 school age children. So that's the estimate. It's as if it was in place today with current data. Now we know as uh both attorneys have explained to you and you're aware that this is going to be phased out over a number of years. So that would be a difficult process to try to estimate every year

what your budget goes up, what the school budget goes up, um how many school age children might be there, um those kinds of things. So we really just do it this way. I don't want to say it's simplistic, but it's it's the way that I've been doing these these estimates for many many years. It just gives the board an idea what it looks like. And I can explain to you a little bit about how I arrived at those numbers. The first thing is to is to understand the type of housing being proposed. If you have three and fourbedroom single family homes, there's a projection based on a variety of sources which I cite in the report of approximately 60 school age children for every hundred units. And that number is fairly well substantiated through the years and through the sources that I list in here. So if we take that number by the number of housing units, that's how we end up with um 327 individuals, 75 of which are school age children. On the revenue side, first looking at um looking at the projected sales price of these units. Now we all know uh how much housing has gone up in the state of Rhode Island everywhere uh in the last few years. The developer is estimating these units to sell at approximately $750,000 per unit. That's your current tax rate of $11.50 a,000. It generates about $8,600 per unit. And that's how we get the million8 $86,000 in revenue. Now, of course, that doesn't represent onetime fees that the town collects. the building permit, site plan review going through your board. Um, and then the and then building permits of course also generate uh income to the community as time goes on. Now, in order to project uh the school impact to the school system, we we currently have as of October 1st of 2025, every year Department of Education does a census. So I have a

table four in my report that actually shows you how your enrollment has changed over the last 11 years. Whereas you had a high of 1,734 in 2017 and in in 2025 in the current year that's ending it's 1,646. So about 90 students less than uh before. And if you look at the trend, uh, it's up and down over the last five or six years, but it's averaging somewhere around 1640 students. So, I used that current number of 1646. I look at the school budget for the current year, which is $22 million, which is the net cost to the community as you receive approximately 9,500,000 from the state of Rhode Island. So, that brings your cost per student down. But even with that, um, it's still pretty high at 13,445 per student. So that's how we're going to indicate what the total cost for your education is for this project. On the municipal side, I took uh based on some again some discussions about the types of um municipal involvement on this project site. I took some the the major uh services that the community provides, police, fire, DPW, and highway, and I took that budget number, which is approximately 13.5 million, and I divide that by the number of people that live in Northfield, 12,500. It's approximately $1,75 per resident to provide those municipal services. Now, we know that some of the municipal services won't necessarily apply here. It's been explained to you about the homeowners association taking over some of those. So, I've reduced that number down to $860

because you don't have to do fully everything in this development. So, if we multiply the 860 times the 327 individuals, that will give you the municipal expense. So what you see on the last page, table six, is a comparison of those numbers. The municipal cost at 281,000, the school cost at a million, total cost of a,289 with an estimated revenue of a,86,000, which shows us a deficit of 203,000. Um, I will comment that I've been doing these types of reports for many years and for many different types of residential developments and it's been my experience that almost without exception any single family home development will usually show a slight revenue loss to the host community. That's just a simple function of school age children primarily, but if this were two-bedroom condominiums, it would probably show quite a bit of a surplus. It's really related to that. So, with that, um I hope I answered some of the questions that were raised by the board and others uh before tonight. Um try to make this as complete as possible and give you an idea. But again, as it points out, it's a checklist item. It'sformational for the board to understand uh what it might look like if this were sitting here today 100%. Um I guess from a a point of view of that this would be phased over eight years nine years the impacts to the community would be incremental over that time and uh school age children being added would be acclimated into the school system divided you know between your your elementary your middle schools and your high schools. Um, so you get an idea really what the project might look like from that perspective. I'm happy to answer questions now or later. Um, but I

just wanted to give you that overview of the report. Thank you for your time. Thanks. Um, any questions here? I just have one. What's the target price range for the homes? Yeah, the number that was given to me uh probably within the last month is 750,000. Oh, okay. Thank you. Just just want to wrap up questions. I do I do have a question before you go ahead. Um throughout the report there's references to the town of Smithfield and to the town of North Smithfield. I'm not just assuming that that's a typo. Did you get the latest report? The one that's on the website uh references both uh Northfield and the town of Smithfield. Does it say April 2026 on it? Yep. That's

If it is, it was a mistake. I thought I I thought I corrected all of those on this. I'm looking right now. Okay. No, I I just wanted to make sure that we that we're Oh, no. It's definitely North Smithfield, but I I'm looking all the tables are all labeled. Yeah. On page two. Um, we have the town of North Smithfield will realize total estimated revenues of a million and blah blah blah. Right. And then this the third paragraph says the town of Oh, I see. I missed I missed putting down north there, right? It is it is Northfield. Yeah. Okay. And it's it it that's throughout as well. There there's the first paragraph that says the town of Northfield. So just if this is being entered into the record, I just want to make sure. Yeah, we'll make that note. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Resnik and Mr. Lombardo, with that with that correction that was brought to your attention, uh your report, your testimony today, would there reasonable degree of certainty in your expertise as a fiscal impact expert? Yes, it is. All right. And just to be clear, all of the data and that was a scrivener's era. It was meant to refer to North Smithfield. Correct. Absolutely. Thank you for pointing that out. Thank you. Great. And uh with with that, Mr. Chairman, we'll call Mr. Prieb to go over the demonstratives and some of the items I had mentioned.

Good. Good evening. For the record, Eric Py P R I V is in Victor E. I'm a registered professional engineer with Depre Engineering offices at two Stafford Court and Cranston Rhode Island. Uh what I'd like to do tonight is is go through uh kind of a couple of the items that we had put together. Um I will start off with the uh nutrient loading. That was one of the items uh that was requested. Um we were asked to prepare nutrient loading of uh a general summary that wasn't highly too technical or such and and so that's what we tried to do. Um the the I'm referencing the May 5th document. I assume everybody has that document as well. Okay, thank you.

Um the three points that we had u coming in on the nutrient loading were uh based actually really on two two things and then I added some extra content uh at the end uh regarding the GA classification. But um regarding the uh nutrient loading uh obviously DEM the department of environ environmental management is the uh sole source for reviewing and approval of on-site wastewater treatment system septics as we have in uh in this area. Uh and you know with that comes the nutrient loading as well. um they have very specific conditions uh and I and I cited in here I'm not going to go through the entire uh document but uh section 6.45 which is nitrogen loading areas and on-site with on-site drinking water wells. So very specific to uh this exact area areas that have on-site drinking water wells. And section 6.5 uh uses a basis of 345 gallons per day uh for every half acre for every 20,000 square foot of lot area. Okay, that's the equivalent of a threebedroom dwelling. That's what they use as a basis. That translates and it even says directly in their regulations to uh 16th of an acre per bedroom. That is what the science has proven when they had developed the regulations of what is uh safe levels as well. So one6th of an acre per bedroom is the standard that is in the regulations for the four bedroomedroom uh dwellings that we are proposing. That is a 30,000 square ft uh per lot. So on the lot level, each individual lot has a minimum of 30,000 square ft and that is in line with what

DEM requires for nutrient loading analysis as well. So we are and again the 30,000 square feet per lot is the minimum that we have out there with many of the lots being even larger than that. So on the lot level they are already compliant. Then you put on on top of that we have 164 acres of open space that will be protected and put on with conservation easements that is also used in the next section that I added on here which was 6.45F 45F, which is nutrient credit land. And that's areas where you can uh on they recognize that in areas where you have reduced lot sizes in conservation developments, cluster developments, every municipality has a different name for what it is. Um that you can use the open space as well because it's an overall density. There's obviously large amounts of area of the open space that also are receiving rain recharge recharging the groundwater aquifer diluting and putting it as well. That's a natural part of it right as well. So on top of that we also have 164 acres of nutrient uh credit land that are also going to that calculation as well. So meets it on the individual lot level. Then adding on an extra safeguard kind of a belt and suspenders approach. We also have 164 acres of open space that also are used towards dilution without adding additional nutrients. There's no nitrogen being added in those open space areas. So that was I think that was an important first fact on there because obviously DEM is the sole authority. But then I wanted to add in also I think it's really important because I am fairly confident I was not on the board

or I was not on the ad hoc committee that developed the conservation regulations in the town of North Smithfield but the town of North Smithfield has in the conservation regulations set forth what the sizes for those are and citing directly table one of 340-43 it establishes a minimum lot area of 30,000 square ft for single family dwellings that are served by it says ISDS individual sewage disposal systems that's the old terminology for on-site wastewater treatment systems and private wells so at that time I just wanted to add because I think it's important I think the town at that time also recognized that that was you wouldn't be uh promoting and encouraging conservation developments at a level that would unsafe levels as well. So, I wanted to add that. I thought that was an important fact as well to add in there as well. The last part that I put in there was uh the groundwater classification. Not d that is not directly related to nutrient loading, but it was something that we heard several times through neighbors and abutters that were saying this is under a GA classification groundwater. Right? So, I just wanted to add some extra facts in there because I'm not sure that everybody was aware of what the GA what that even means. groundwater classification of GA. So I added those and GA. So it goes GAA is the is the highest level of drinking water. Then GA, GB, GC. So GB and GC typically are in more like landfill areas and areas uh that you would not have drinking water as much. GAA are within drinking water aquifer areas, ones that are directly supplying drinking water wells. such approximately 20% of the state is GAA

uh and approximately 70% of the site is GA. So between either being GA or GAA the two highest there 90% of the state is uh of GA or GAA quality. I think it was important to add that because, you know, it was the it felt like the inference was that this was some sort of sacred water supply. And I and I just wanted to clarify that and add some facts to that because if you look at the groundwater map for the town of North Smithfield, it is effectively all either GA or GAA quality with just a couple small little blips of a GB and I assume that was probably either a landfill area or something. So, um, I just wanted to add those facts. I thought that was important to add because there was some what I felt were almost uh misconstring what the what the land was as well. That's on the nutrient loading. If you'd like me to pause and take any specific questions on just that or I can keep going with the other things that we were doing as well.

Mr. Porter CJ, can we move this uh podium so we're not blinding? Oh, I'm good. The applicant. I'm I'm good. Thank you, though. I I've been in that spot with the council here, so I know how distracting it can be. I'm good. I appreciate it, though. But no problem. All right.

Was there anything spec I just wanted to pause in case anybody on nutrient loading before I move. Okay. Thank you. So the next part that that was was requested and I'd like to go through uh this map right here. So this is we this is a different variation of the map that we were showing uh at the last meeting. So this is the overall plan showing the entire subdivision. Again on the outside you can see all the green areas are the open space areas. Again 59% of the site over 50% of the site 59% of the site has preserved open space areas. What we added here was what we promised we would do. We added some phasing on here. So we made it color phasing so it makes it quick and easy for people to see and and such. And then what we added is we also added a key. So not just for the uh visual here. So you can see phase one are these lots right here. And then it's hard to see because it's on a big screen, but you guys have it as well. The main road is also that same color as phase one. So you can see there. And then we also just we wrote it right over here on the phasing legend as well. So that includes the specific lot numbers and the linear footage of road that is included with that in that phase. So you have phase one, phase two and such. So that was what we promised and what we provided as well. So, but this plan has other items as well that were requested. Um, the limited disturbance was requested that was asked where the tree clearing would go and where the tree cutting would go. So, this plan also has that. We felt this was the most appropriate to kind of see everything quickly. And so, this orange line and we added the label right on here too. There's right on the legend. This orange area over here, that orange line is the limit of disturbance. So, tree clearing in this area. And again that shows what we need for either storm water basins and for development of the lots and the individual lots throughout. So you can see the orange area. So that was something that was asked what is the tree clearing extents and where does

that go? But that tree clearing includes a lot more than just for the lots. Obviously you have to clear here and you know again we would hope you clear what you need and no more than that but um makes for a more attractive development anyway. Uh but along the uh emergency access road, isn't that the same orange line right here? Am I pointing in the right spot that you're talking about for Yeah, they're all all along that. Yes. So, does that imply that everything to the right of that would also be cleared to the everything within the inside and I'm looking at the I'm sorry. Yep. Take the orange line. Nope. Just this. So, it's just this

right here. This narrow area. There's an existing path today. Um and so it would be between these two are Oh. Oh, it's between the two RVs. I got it. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. So, for instance, like where I'm pointing right now in this area. Yeah. This would be cleared because there needs to be uh we need to do some storm water in this area as well. This side over here would not be. So, where I'm pointing now would be uh not cut. On this inside area is where it would be cut. So, that Yeah, I can understand how that's a little confusing as well. So, so the fields are sort of nestled within the woods, correct? Y

um and then what we did with that as well, I think it's um we also added on uh the trails. So, there's existing trails out there and then what we did is so we have two keys on here. We have what the existing trails are and then we have proposed. And the only reason I add proposed was because there was some discussions about maintaining some of the most maintaining the trails as much as possible. So, for instance, this trail right here, and I I can't actually pull on me. It's hard to read from there. Between lots 88 and 89, for instance, right here, that's an existing trail that comes in this area. So, that already we're a we were able to maintain that, but as it came through here, we we're able to we're going to sneak it through and come through and just displace it a little bit because it kind of went right through the the middle of 58, I believe. Yeah, 58. So, we're going to be able to just recreate that so we can keep that path going. you know there's development that needs to be done but can we keep it moving so we can have the continuous path coming through here. Similarly for in this area we're going to be we'll be able to off offshoot it over here come back to the road and then come back over and continue the trail. So, we tried to show areas and and that also speaks a bit to the uh the issue of um at the master plan was looking to reconfigure some of the lots around these areas and and that's how we look to address that one

similar similar to what you just pointed out on the trails. Uh one of the trails goes through one of the fields. Um will there be a referee there to blow a whistle? Maybe someone is on the trail? I I can safely say that that part of the uh yes that that part of the trail will be will not be there or you could between you could go between the two fields. Correct. Exactly. Um

that speaks to a majority. What I also wanted to show here and I'll show it on the Zoom. might have we have a zoomed in one that I'll show also but wanted to also show since the last meeting there was some discussion about providing some extra either evergreen screening or or such over in this area on on the uh recreation fields. So we have so I wanted to show that on this overall plan too uh just so everyone can kind of see it for the Leonard Drive uh folks if anybody from Leonard Drive is here how we've got that as well. It's also in the next Zoom. I'll I'll speak to it a little more uh precisely, but I just wanted to add that here. Also very important to note the size of these fields got reduced from last time that you saw when we were here last time. These fields were larger fields. Uh we heard what you said at the last meeting as far as uh providing buffers and and some of the impacts in this area. So, we were able to narrow up this field over here, pull it away and really provide a larger uh a larger um separation to the Leonard Drive folks. Um actually, can you go to the next pen? It'll be probably a good time to transition unless anybody had us. We can come back to that if you need it, but let's go. Okay, thank you. So, just to get everyone acclimated real quick because you probably haven't seen this. This uh right here is Brookside and then this is the where it would come through here. This is the access path that comes through here and then it would come and connect over I'll get out of the way here to Leonard Drive

through here. So we were able to tuck all this in this air this area here. These fields have been reduced by greater than 50% than uh previously. So narrowed up um another piece of that that was important or you requested excuse me was uh showing where that field was relative to topography. It was only shown on that overall plan that didn't have topography. So now you can see that that it's in this flatter area here. Um what ex except for the third one which is in the some of the steepest topography. Uh right here. Yes. Well, we had to have the access road come through anyway. Not I'm not questioning the access road. I'm questioning the field. Yes. Gotcha.

Because that's that's what was said is that the fields would be developed in the flattest areas and that's true for two out of the three. Gotcha. So I'm just curious why that's needed. Yeah. The the other thing I'm just curious from a design perspective, the process that went through that led to designers saying kids would love to just have some open grass. They don't want a tennis court. They don't want an half a half basketball court or, you know, or a playground even, right? So, in case you have, you know, very young children here that that they just need a lot of grass. What led to that design? because I don't know of any recreational area like Chico Park or anything that is limited to a lot of grass.

I can tell you on our end I again I I'll I'm going to stick to civil engineering world. I'm not the developer. I'm not the person that makes the decisions on what goes out here and what they think is marketable. So I make it work to what was requested of me. So that's all I can answer for you if you want to ask that you know in another way. Uh but I can tell you we don't do market research into what is you know what is being done out there. Uh but gotcha. So um yours is not the question why. Got it.

Make it make make it um one thing I noticed right after we submitted this and I and I think it's important is I noticed it right after we had we had submitted it. First of all we put the dimensions on here to show the increases in distances through here. You can see the proposed evergreen screening here. So the way that the topography is in this area, this area is higher than this area over here. So having the uh evergreen uh along here should buffer as well for the the Leonard Drive folks. Again, evergreen because obviously we live in New England, we lose trees in the uh we lose the leaves. So providing some extra buffering here to the fields. One thing I noticed uh once we had submitted was this parking area that's located right here. Um, you know, we kept it here when we were kind of going through the iterations of it and I said, why were we doing that, per se, similar to what you said from a design perspective, why were we doing that? And and I recognized it was because the trail on the master plan was coming from this direction here, it made sense to come off the trail, park, go out to the fields. But now that the path is coming over from this side here, we're going to place it. So I can take this area right here, put it directly between these two fields here, which then can tuck in my limited disturbance area in this area as well. So we can slide that over. I can take this parking and it also makes more sense to have that parking be closer to the actual field as well. So I noticed that right after we submitted. I just wanted to add that as a fact as well.

Thank you. Um, so this was the other exhibit that we provided. You had asked to look at it with this topography. Obviously we're showing you where the ponds needed to be located as well. So, um, I don't necessarily have anything more to say on that other than the reduction in sizes, the increase in buffers, so providing greater buffers, pulling it further away from Leonard Drive, folks, providing evergreen screening along this area as well. Um, you guys have any No. Am I going too fast? Okay.

Mr. Who's going to police the uh access road to make sure that only residents use it? So, so the e the emergency road is for residents only. Correct. Correct. It has a it will have a gate right here. No, but there's the the the entrance into the development itself, right? Yeah. So, this would block this right here. But so, anybody driving into the development, which is public roads, and therefore anybody can drive into it, could go out and get get onto that road.

Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yeah. So, a a a somebody that does not live in Rankin Estates could come on from the main entrance at Douglas Pike could come through the subdivision and they could come through to this in in theory they could. Yes. Okay. So, that's I mean it it it's it's a number they're not checking passes, right? Private property. So, the police Oh, so it'll be up to the residents to police themselves and then Okay, that's okay. That that's why I asked the question. Okay.

So, and just to actually that's a good point, too, because I I did testify and I mentioned it, but it's probably worth just real quickly going over while we have this exhibit as well. There's a there would be a a a gate in this area with a Knox box for uh DPW and for fire and emergency personnel to be able to do so. None of the residents are able to access. They're they're not going out Leonard Drive. It would only be opened if it was needed for emergency purposes. And same at the end of Brookside here. So the gate would be located here. So you could go back and forth between the fields and such, but the gate would be here so that nobody can go on to Brookside as well. So I just it's worth I I testified to it, but it's probably worth reminding everybody from last time as well.

Those were kind of the main points I had. Uh we did include the other two exhibits. Uh we we included the old conservation I mean the old conventional yield plan. And I thought it was helpful to remind everybody it been a long time since we had been back from that. So it's just important to to sometimes facts and and and data gets lost. So I'm not going to speak to it anymore than unless you wanted me to. But um it just demonstrates what a conventional subdivision is. I don't know that the town has probably even approved a conser uh a conventional probably in quite a while. Most people are tending to go with conservation developments preser smaller lots preserve land. I did want to clarify though when you had asked the question on the lot sizes and uh with attorney Resnick as well. I just want to clarify two things here. The specific lot size are minimum of 30,000 square feet but the density we're speaking of density when when attorney Resnick was talking he was talking about density and the density of this is 2.2 acres per unit. That's the density because that open space is still part of

it's counting the open space. Yeah, it is. And and but attorney Resnick was also speaking to comprehensive permits that are also density of the inverse of that three per one acre density as well. So I just I just wanted to clarify because it was kind of a back and forth on it. So even though the lot sizes are 30,000 square feet, the overall density of the development is 2.2 2 acres which is much larger than what is this is a 65,000 square feet right it's an RA 65 which would be a minimum lot size of 65,000 square feet so much larger than uh what the town zoning uh requires as well that was kind of my general um anything else

general what was prepared on my end of things so um I have a quick question just looking at the map it the clearing ing of the tree seems pretty tight along like there's obviously the ponds. The hounds development's great. Okay. Fields. There's a couple like random bulges across from field three and up near fields one. Could you go back to the other one, please? Yep. Thank you. Yeah. So, like if you go across from field three, it like kind of juts out there. Oh, there's a pond there. Sorry. Okay. So, I believe you're speaking of this area that I'm circling right here and possibly this area here. Okay. Okay. So, those are ponds. Those are ponds because when we're clearing trees, we do need to still do mitigation.

No, that makes sense. Just on the other one, the ponds weren't on. But why got it? But why does the slope need to be cleared? The pond is at the bottom, right? So, you see all that tight those tight topographical lines, right? So, there's a hill that's right here. In order to get to the wet, the wetland is the discharge point that we want to be at, right? The lower point. And in order to properly size this pond in this area to take this and balance the watersheds, that's the size that it needs to be. Oh, so part of the excavation is to clear and make the pond larger. Not larger, but what is needed to handle and mitigate the storm water. Yes. But what's you've got a very steep slope there.

Yes. That's the upgradient side of the slope. So what's going to be there to prevent all the you know soil erosion and all that because you're taking all the trees out of it. Sure. Yeah. I mean that's typically I mean you either have 3 to1 slopes that are stable and they would be stabilized with grass or if it's a steeper slope you would put an erosion control a permanent erosion control blanket that would also protect that and keep that from having any future erosion issues. So that's the plan for that area.

It is. Okay. And and it's important because we did, you know, we located there was some discussions, you know, about the escer in this area. You can see how the emergency access path goes around that. I mean, we we're coming around. We're utilizing the existing path. You can see it lightly on here. There's an existing path right on here. That's where the existing path is. It looks like it shows coming to here. I assume it comes to this paper street right here, uh, as well. But you could see where it comes. So we we have it coming along here and then keeping it on the outside of the esker area to to leave this kind of escer top area al together. So that was okay that was the idea. All right. Anything else? Yeah.

Just one final question. Sure. The testimony you provided this evening as well as the supplemental documents that you provided to the board, are they to a reasonable degree of certainty in your expertise as a civil engineer? Yes. Uh with that, we've uh we've completed our presentation and Chief Mr. Chevlin is here in case there were any questions relative to traffic. Okay. Other than that, we're ready for any questions or ready for the

Shall we open the public hearing? Did you have questions? I had one question. I'm not sure who it gets addressed to. Is that private road that's going to give access to the fields and it's also the emergency access road for uh EMS or DPW? That will not be a public road. So who is responsible for maintaining that road for combination of snow removal and for deterioration over time of that surface association be responsible for that?

Okay. Okay. Anything else? Need a motion to open the public hearing. Make a no motion to reopen the public hearing. Do I have a second? Second. We have a second. Those in favor? I.

The public hearing is reopened at 8 to 12. So again, please you got everyone did a very nice job of being succinct and all that. I'll be calling people up uh according to the signup sheet. One change I would like to um well request is the nice word for it. Really would like not to have the big clapping if and I realize some people are very articulate. that they put all nice and I'm glad you enthusiasm. If you feel the need to express yourself, golf clap, right? Golf clap and then allows us to move forward. It doesn't disrupt the meeting. Okay. Mr. Chairman, just one thing I wanted to add. We had received from your planner, excuse me. Sure.

I just wanted to make a note. We had received from your planner aximately 27 page, I'll call it opposition letter. I believe we got it yesterday. Um, and because of the time frame, we did respond to it. We responded to it uh today. So, there is a document that goes comment by comment uh that that we that we put forth just so you're aware of it. It probably has not been posted on the site. I'm sure, but it might be something that board members want to look at or the community prior to the next meeting. I just wanted to make a note of it. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Resnney. Okay. First up, Rich Keane from the Northfield. Heritage Association. Thank you.

Yes. Rich Keane, seven Bamford Street and I'm the president of the Northfield Heritage Association.

Ke, thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I uh sorry I missed the last meeting. I um I missed a lot of the presentation, but uh it was good to get the update today, so I um anyway um the Heritage Association typically doesn't come out and and oppose um project or developments. We we try to um we understand that property owners have have have a right to to use their property um to the to the uh best extent that they can. We try to work with them with with uh with property owners and and developers and um um as as Mr. Kelly stated u you know um I believe kind of kind of meet each other halfway and and try to resolve uh um differences um amicably. So um back in 2018 was a long time ago um we we did uh uh testify um and and provide some some proposals. I'm very happy to to to see that um a lot of those proposals were incorporated into your into your current plan. So um one of them um one of the main um concerns was the trails. Um and uh um um I I would say that that your proposal to move the um uh some of the trails onto the roadside to to get to to the remainder of the the trail is acceptable. So, you know, we don't have

a problem with that. But u u one of our biggest concerns um Carl, could you put up the the map that uh the legacy forest map? One of our biggest concerns is is preservation of our natural resources in town. Yeah. And can I can I preface that? U what I should have said right from the beginning is that the the uh the comprehensive plan and I can't I'm not going to stand here and and cite it word for word but basically um um we're trying to preserve the uh through the plan the the the town's character and um a lot of that character is is rural in the southern part of town and that's what we're uh we would hope to to do to the best extent. if you're going to approve this this plan, we would we would hope that you would try to preserve the town's rural character in that area. Um so the the um uh Rhode Island DEM in about 2020 2021 qu um uh put this map out talking about legacy forest and as you can see the the southeastern part which is the Nipachucky area of our town um is is right within what it was designated by the state as as legacy forest. So, um when you talk about conservation and you talk about open space, um recreation areas are open space. Yes. Um forests are open space, but when you're talking about conservation, every every conservation area that the town um owns in in North Smithfield plus the Ottabbon Society, it's undeveloped. It's untouched. It's preserved as a as a forest. And what we would like to see is

as much as the existing forest that that uh is there today be preserved um for uh as a as a legacy. The um the town recently uh took uh possession of the gold forest which just north of this development. There's 156 acres of of conservation land that the the the town now owns. Much of that is going to be uh uh remain undisturbed. The the 34 acres that that the solar project is is being built on is eventually in in 25 or 30 years whatever the the extent of that project goes, it's going to be reforested again and then in and it's going to remain um untouched for perpetuity. So, um um this we would ask again that that we try to preserve it um the uh the the forest to the fullest extent possible. Um so the the current plan calls for three three recreation fields. Um, two of them are are uh north of the um uh on the north end of the of the project. Um, it's that's all forest right now. We'd like to see see that preserved um um if possible. Um the the third one, I'm not sure what the numbers are, but the one to the very south is right on top of an esker. Now, those those escars are part of our natural heritage um here in town. They're some of the best escars um um that have they've been identified as some of the best in southern New England. Uh best examples of an ex

escer. So um we would like to see those preserved. I I know there was some discussion um years ago with the previous town planner um that uh um um where where we were trying to do the same thing trying to maintain the integrity of those escars. If we can if we can do that uh without the the recreation fields uh that would be great. So, um, that would be our that would be our ask. Now, um, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not going to even going to pretend to that to to know anything. Uh, I know just enough to be dangerous, I suppose, like most of the things in my life. But uh um if the planning board approves um a a plan with stipulations even though the some of the stipulations are not are not um agreeable to the developer. Um of course it would probably be appealed as Mr. Kelly mentioned. Um, but I can't imagine that that trying to trying to uh uh meet the developer halfway would would uh would open the town up to some sort of liability uh in court. Again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't I don't know. But but uh um I would I would uh I would hope that um the the developers would would consider trying to to uh preserve these uh this legacy forest and um you know we we don't even have to mention the word court. Um

I think we could we could probably do that. That' be nice. Great. So, um, so I have a I have had a list of stipulations that that I'd like you to consider. Um, but um, um, some of them were are already, I believe, incorporated. But, uh, after listening to the the presentation tonight, what I'd like to do is is, uh, revise that list and, um, um, I'll submit a letter, uh, for to the, uh, to the planning board and, uh, to the to the, uh, developers and, um, yeah, submit it to the planner. Yeah,

it'll be reviewed, distributed to whoever needs to see it. And there's plenty of time before meeting. We're we're available for discussion. Um if if uh the developer would like happily. All right. All right. Thank you so much. Well, I don't know. Do you have any questions? No. Thanks, Mr. Good. Thank you. Thanks. I'm going to pause here, Carl. Now the light in their eyes is bothering me, too. Could Could we I'm sorry. Can I

All right. There there's one that I need I do need to discuss part of the the rural character and I think you've probably heard this from me in the in the past when I was sitting with you folks on the on the board. Uh curbs and sidewalks in in Nipichuk in the Primrose area. Um I understand the need for for sidewalks and and curbs in the urban areas of town. um uh Slattersville, Forestdale. Um we we don't even have some with it when we need them in those places. However, curbs and sidewalks aren't rural and what I would ask is that is that you um eliminate those that requirement from this from this project?

I think we I think we already did. Is that correct? The only Yeah. The only thing and it was talked about at um master plan. Oh, okay. Um, we did, but we there there was some discussion about some sort of soft I believe the uh the civil engineer said something about like a tinder path, you know, something for people to walk on. And and what I would suggest is looking at a permeable uh material, you know, much like they did at the mosque for an entire parking lot because that allows you to put in a nice without people just trampling on other people's grass. It doesn't take up a lot of space. Yeah,

they have a I think it's a 50ft um right ofway with a 26ft road. So you get 14 ft on each side, but the permeable I think would be a nice alternative, easy to maintain, keep people off the street, but at the same time as to your point, right, it's not as uh much like the village as it is rural, right? and and uh similarly the the uh emergency access road um that there's only a requirement for in an emergency for one-way traffic toward going towards Leonard Estates. I would ask that that that road be as as narrow as as as is absolutely needed. That's a that's a beautiful um Yeah, I think that's a

that's probably a fire department issue more than anything else. But Well, I understand. Yeah. um fire chief of 15 years now. So I fully understand the the uh the fire departments need um but um the the trucks don't need like uh 20 ft of roadway. Right. All right. So just um whatever is uh minimally required is what I would ask. Great. Thank you, Mr. King. Thank you. If we can, it's important to have Carl move the podium because it's very sensitive electronically speaking.

That's great. Okay. Uh, next up, Mr. Kamar. Will you be speaking on behalf of the entire family this evening or um I mean it's glad to I I noticed wife's name is not on the list so I'm I'm happy to hear you two have resolved whatever differences and now you can present for everyone. Yeah. Yeah. I think the family's at home so thank you. Okay. Um All right.

What's up? Okay. Right. Well, good evening. My name is Sahil Kumar. I'm a resident of 14 LER Drive. Last night, a team of uh residents, the same group that's been behind the petition from last meeting. Um was a 27page written objection that was filed. I'm glad to hear that it made it to the developers. Um wonderful news. Thank you. One request. Can you please confirm the receipt once it makes it over to the town? Is that an option? What the the letter?

Yeah, the emails. Yeah. So, we just want to make sure that it has been received. We had requested it to be confirmed. I didn't see we didn't see a confirmation, but it's good to hear it made it to um the applicant. Mr. Gro, can you confirm receipt of that? Yes. the uh I believe the document was sent directly to the planning board members. That could be true. I think a lot of people were already Yes. Right. So, it was sent directly to the planning board members. The planning department did receive it and forwarded it to the the the applicant's attorney.

Wonderful. Okay. U maybe if uh later you guys can clarify who can confirm uh because I know there's a lot of people on emails. Just want to make sure receipt is confirmed. That's all. Well, I made it part of the record. I actually referenced your correspondence in my response to it. So, it's part of the record. It It is part of the record because we filed it. I get that part. The point I'm trying to make is we would like to know when it is accepted by the town and the board. That's all. I mean, not sure what you mean by accepted as in the email has been received or not or should we wait for these meetings to file things if that's the protocol? Happy to change that. I I I believe the email was sent yesterday.

Is that correct? Correct. Last night after 5:00 p.m. Yep. was sent directly to the to the board members and to the attorney for the applicant. I'm not understanding what you're asking. He's asking whether that it has to be officially accepted or something to to make part of the record. I mean, if you're if you're saying that Okay. you bring something to a to the meeting. It was sent yesterday. Okay. Great. Just just making sure it has been received. That's all. Absolutely. Thank you. Wonderful. Absolutely.

Um All right. Also early today on behalf of the environmental scientist Sarah Hayden uh same Sarah Hayden who spoke over here last time on April 9th hearing um on wildlife and habitat. Um we also filed her separate letter on the environmental impact finding the federal and state habitat data attached. Uh both of those were submitted to the planning office and the board. Um, also tonight, um, I'm also handing a board, uh, the board a letter from Tammy Menard. Uh, she's a resident at, uh, 20 Leonard Drive. Um, she's a healthcare professional, uh, and she had to be at a hospital tonight, uh, for being on call. Uh, she's raised some some concerns about the traffic study, the blasting impacts, forest fragmentation, as well as the electricity utility capacity. I'm going to hand that out right now. one to him and one to

Thank you. Okay. All right. Um what I'd like to do is actually relatively shorter. So uh just a couple of observations and and asks. Um the first thing is I think it's pretty clear um as I'm representing the the group here. We are confused. Uh there's no denying that. So we appreciate the patience. Um the agenda for tonight has the board voting on the ranking estates and I know um chair you also mentioned that you guys will not be voting. So that confusion if there's a way to clarify that as part of the agenda that would be appreciated. Um if if that can happen because I think the way the the agenda reads right now it reads as if the voting was happening tonight. I I think I think that happens on on virtually all topics, but if something comes up during the course of that evening's meeting, y

we choose to continue. Um then we don't vote and it's just in this case we were able to make that determination prior to the meeting, notified the, you know, council for the developer and everyone agreed and so we were able to make that without without seeing that, you know, like last meeting we could have voted. Last meeting we could have voted. It said the same thing on the on the agenda. We didn't however because there was much more material that needed to be covered and all that. So I don't I don't believe anything is needed.

Mr. Chairman, may I The reason that the agenda says that there could be a vote is that it reserves the right of the board to vote if we do not include it as a vote. The board is not going to be allowed to vote. Right? So that is that is standard operating procedure so that when there's a hearing the board is able to vote. If they choose not to vote they continue the hearing. So each and every uh notice for this project and any project will include a provision for the board to vote. Right. The key word is that we may vote. We don't have to vote. Got it. Thank you. I will share that with the team. Thank you.

And Mr. Chairman I just wanted to add that my understanding was that some of the members of his informal association or some of the members of the community actually requested a continuence and so we we were amendable to it and we agreed to it. Sure. I appreciate seems I'm not exactly sure why. Yeah, I appreciate the the collaboration but I think we all independently came to the same conclusion that there's going to be we were going to need to continue tonight. So Okay, cool. Thank you. Um, okay. So, the questions the board members raised on April 9th hearing have not been fully answered. Um, I know new documents have arrived, but we'll have to review those and make sure that is tight.

Uh, new documents from the developers keep arriving every week. Um, the uh after the agenda was even published. U agenda was published, the documents were had arrived, right? Um we also understand the planning office has not issued a certificate of completeness on the application. So that sequence clearly where as I said we are confused like what is the process if

okay hang on that that no no it he has the podium right now please um Mr. Crow, do you want to address this? This this is seems like a process question. So, let's start with the planner. So, a formal certificate of completeness was not issued. However, the applicant was authorized to proceed because a determination was made by the planning office that the that the application was ready for a hearing. Okay. So, there has not been that certificate. It is not. When does that get published or certified? Mr. Curo,

there is no formal certification of completeness. It has been determined by the planning department that the project is ready to proceed and it was authorized to proceed before the board. Okay. All right. Um, doesn't make sense to me. Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I could be given the opportunity, I would elaborate on that. Let's let's do that after m when Mr. Kamar is finished. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. Um All right. So, I want to say this carefully because I don't want this to land as a shot at anyone uh in this room personally. So, please don't take it personally. Um something about this whole process which we've all all talked about at the start of this meeting as well is is complicated but at the same time it also seems a bit absurd. Um the project has been in front of the town for over 40 years I heard right 20 20 years two something like that. Yeah.

Okay cool. Um the master plan was approved a while back. There've been multiple extensions. There have been multiple revisions. There's been new filings on top of new filings. And just in the week since the April 9th hearing alone, new documents from the developer have arrived in a wave in in wave after wave. And each wave shows more gaps than the last one. We don't think this is a reflection of the experts and a bulletproof team rather probably 10,000 miles from it. If we take a step back from the specific filings and the specific inconsistenc inconsistencies for a minute and just look at the pattern, every time residents raise something, the applicants address it that one thing and then new things surface and the residents have to raise the the questions next time around the applicant is not holistically reviewing their own application. They are reacting narrowly to what gets raised in front of the board. In any professional setting where serious applications are reviewed seriously, engineering, legal, financial, others, a filing that needed that much external correction over this many rounds would have been pulled back a long time ago.

I understand, Mr. Kelly. I I'll please let me address that. Please let me address that. And I agree with you that this is um so I'll let you finish but then I'm I'm going to take the first pass at addressing your question. I appreciate that. Thank you. Um okay. So the question is actually in front of the board. At some point you have to decide whether what you're looking at is a normal back and forth on a serious application or is it something else. I'm going to pause here.

Okay. Yeah. So with that, I'll say um in agreement with Mr. Kelly, while this project is more complex and has a more complex history to it, it is following normal process. Got it. It is not for them to question their own design. It's our job. I I don't know what your background is. I'm a computer computer software engineer, software architect. We hold design reviews. The whole job of the design review, the engineer presents their design. Our job is to shoot holes in it. They should have already found holes. They should have already shot their own holes in it.

So now it's up to us to do it to make sure the project comes out right. And that is all we're doing. So you're right. And again, everyone's been very collaborative and we've provide these continuations of the meeting because new things get raised. And yes, when new things get raised and some of them are substantial, uh, then it's it's it's going to answer a bunch of questions, but it's going to raise some new on questions or concerns, in which case we go through the round again. That's completely normal. That's completely normal to me in the engineering process. That's how things are done. So, I understand iterations and I understand the part that

Oh, let let me let me add one more thing when you talk about the master plan. Yeah. This is actually the second time this developer has has gotten master plan approval. They first got master plan approval for a non conservation development many years ago and now they've gotten master plan approval. They came back years later with a completely different approach the conservation uh uh development and they got master plan that. So this we're actually on our second one. So that you know that those first number of years were all based on that and then we started essentially a new process over uh wi-i with the conservation plan. Got it. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Um okay. So uh moving on with a couple other items here I want to raise. Uh the state letter from 2022 saying the archaeological survey which we heard at length about was wrong. um residents surfaced this at the April 9th hearing. 5 days later, the planning office admitted in writing that the town file had the wrong version of the document. The corrected version finally appeared appeared on the town's record 3 weeks later. U and that's almost four years after the state had ordered the correction.

I can email you the thing. um the fourbedroom versus three-bedroom contradiction between the plan set and the fiscal study res that residents pointed out and a new engineering memo arrived this month trying to defend the inconsistencies. The 400,000 cubic yards of dirt and rock that have been hauled that have to be hauled sorry off the site admitted in a letter from the developer's lawyer this week after residents kept pressing on where the cut material was going. And in everything the developer has filed, there is still nothing on how that volume of bedrock comes out of the ground, whether blasting is required, what pre and post blast uh protections will be in place for the neighboring private wells, foundations, and pools, and who pays for the damage, if any occurs. Um the and the developer's own traffic engineer told the board on at the April 9th hearing that no residents would use Brookside Drive. Is that correct? Yes, correct. Okay.

Because it's going to be gated by the uh emergency access only.

Perfect. We think that contradicts the traffic study underneath the entire application. The study writes routes about a quarter of the subdivision trips through Brookside. The developer has walked away from their own engineering and the study has not been redone. On top of that, the traffic traffic study was conducted in August of 2024 when Northfield schools are out of session. Many residents are on vacation and commuter patterns are distorted compared to the rest of the year. The safe access finding the board has is being asked the sorry the safe access finding the board is being asked to make cannot rest on the traffic count taken at the least repres representative time of the year. At what point does the board want to look at the record here? Um, sorry, I'm just paraphrasing since we already talked about a few things here. Um, okay. I think this we already covered. I don't want to be repetitive. Uh, please bear with me.

Thank you. All right. And then before I close, there's a specific request. Um, I'd like to request the board to maybe walk the property. um not more documents you know actually actually go on the land itself. Uh this is not a normal request for this board. This board has walked over properties back in 2010 uh 2020 as well as 2022. Um there are things on the sites hundreds of pages of engineering report are are just not going to capture it. Um we did walk I I personally was part of a a walk on the property. When was that? Um 2018 18 maybe. Okay. So that was pre-COVID.

Um but but it was a uh it was a meeting public was invited because we had more than we had at least three planning board members. We had the developer and we and we walked a section of it. We did not walk the whole thing as as good as that would have been for all of our health. Uh it was, you know, but we got to see some of the steepest areas and wetlands and all that, you know. So no, it's it's a big property. I think that date is is interesting. We would still encourage you guys to go walk it again because of the buffer violation that happened when the um 17 acres of forest was cut down. If if there's a buffer violation, is that more for the um the the building inspector?

I it's a DEM issue. Okay. Okay. So, we have a plan waiting for approval. was not said it was wrong. They asked for an update which has been done. Okay. Thank you. Years ago, as long as we can keep it Let's Let's keep it brief. Yeah. No, thank you. I'm I'm I am sorry. I'm just reading through this really fast to actually We'd like to know who he indicated he represents a bunch of people. There's there's a Yeah, there was a group. There's a petition that was filed last meeting. Did you get a copy of that?

Yes. Okay. Wonderful. You have it. Is that the Does that document include the list of people that repres? Okay. So, you you should have that. We'd like to hear all the people that he represents because he indicated that he's here in the capacity of representing other people.

What he says and this same this this occurred last meeting as well. They got together and they had one per they designated one person as their spokesperson, which quite frankly is, you know, make makes a lot more sense than having each person pick up one element to talk about or risk repeating themselves over and over again. If if it's appropriate to have your group sort of sign off that, yeah, they agree with everything you said, that you properly represented them, that's reasonable. I don't think we need to have, you know, 29 people here, each one telling us something. Thank you. Would that be would that be acceptable if the if you provide something that signs off? Thank you, Mr. Okay, fair. And what purpose would that actually

He just wants it's unorthodox for someone that's not a lawyer to represent other people in the public. Uh we we've we've had this before where people come up that they speak on behalf of residents. They're not doing it in a legal capacity. They've just gotten together as neighborhood people do and gotten their thoughts together and they decide to have one person who's fairly articulate whatever represent them. We don't have any problem with it. We don't take it as a legal representation too. So not unorthodox. Totally acceptable. It is it is to us. Yes. Absolutely.

Okay. Great. All right. Um sorry. Um so the last thing I have is really for the board a request a procedural request. Um the group is actually thinking about doing a baseline well testing for private wells along their property. Um a group of residents is sorry I'm just paraphrasing this again. Uh okay. So yes, so the protocol that we're looking to follow u tracks the state of department of health owns recommended panel. We're asking the board to acknowledge the methodology. We'll be sending an email about this uh so that the final results of the case um are made uh on record of the town itself. Um it's it's no different than people collecting their own data but we believe it would probably help um in in keeping all of us um in check because if there is no issues that is also going to get proved with the the test itself and the team u plans to run these tests on an annual basis uh going forward.

Okay testimony testify about wells you would allow an expert though they should have an expert. Yes, I would I would say if you want to present the results then yes, you would need to have an expert to do that. Even I think it's fine if you want to test your own water. I mean it's your water. You test it. Sure. But it's tested by the state department's recommended methodology,

but there it's it's who's conducting the test and and whether or not they are certified, let's say, to conduct those tests properly. And they would need so that we would need to see someone like but for you to be able to sort of put these on record it needs to have it needs to have professional certification backing. Absolutely. So I want to clarify that though because our understanding is it is something that we will test in our homes. Either a human is going to come out or people will ship the tests over following the protocols. Results will come back and it usually gets emailed over there. I don't think a human is going to come out and represent and say, "Yes, I ran this test and these are the results." I think that's

Mr. Kurillo, we've we've had a number of sites where water testing was done. What What do you recommend for this? Well, I I think what the gentleman is suggesting is they're going to do their own testing, send it to a lab, they will get the results, and they're they're reserving their right to come here and present whatever result they have, and you can apply to that whatever weight you apply with or without uh an expert. You don't necessarily need an expert for him to bring in a test result. It's it's whatever weight you apply to that. True. Right. But it will it's a certified result from a sort of but it will have less weight expert representation. That's all I have. Don't you understand? And and that's fine.

The protocol is very difficult to comply with. Mhm. Doesn't know if they have Yeah. I I also you know again in our experience we have had people where where a person actually goes to decides to do it and especially say you were doing you know 15 houses on Leonard. I mean, it's they drive up there one day and they just hit every house. It's not like it's some great burden on them to do this. Great. Um, you know, so I would I would look into something like that that makes it a little better than I mailed some water out of my faucet, you know, I mean, that kind of thing. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. Something to consider. Absolutely. Appreciate it. Thank you. That's it. Yeah, that's it. Thank you, Mr. May. I ask him a question.

How far away from the nearest house in Letter Drive is the new is going to be built. What's the closest house in that subdivision from the nearest house on Leard Drive? I guess that pale blue one. What's the distance? I'm going to go um I actually don't know the distance. I didn't think so. It's 1200 ft. Okay. And what's the point of that? Point of that. Your suggestion that the wells would be affected by a home that has a wellt scientifically ridiculous.

M I think there's also just concern about the rock removal and we haven't even heard about blasting or anything like that until tonight. But anyway, I think that's the concern. Um but I think we'll leave it at that for now as a as a concern and it needs to be supported um through better evidence. So yeah. If if other property owners around the development want to run a test, that is their right. You can do whatever you want, but you can't present it here unless you lay a foundation for it appropriately. Correct. Yeah. You can submit whatever you want to strike. Absolutely. Folks, let's not c Can I jump in for a minute?

Absolutely. Mr. Kelly, Mr. Resnik, I appreciate the back and forth. This group has been quiet during the entirety of your presentations. These p this right now is the public hearing. I would like to just leave it be, right? Let the public speak.

Take your notes. You can address them at the end once we final wrap up the public hearing. But this back and forth right now is really frustrating and aggravating. I get it that you're aggravated that there's some statements that are being made that are untrue. I get that. you'll have your time to address them, but the back and forth is just wasting time and I don't like to waste time. I want to hear from the public. This is their time. You've had your time now. So, let's leave it at that and move forward. Okay. Thank you. With that, Mr. Kamar. Thanks. And next up is Mr. Heert. Sorry.

Sorry. Hi, my name is Alfred Heert. I live at two Frances Farm Road in North Smithfield. I've uh I lived in North Smithfield since 1975 and I've lived in Nipsichuk Estates uh since 1987. Um I served on the North Smithfield zoning board in the past. I've also served on the uh charter revision commission. I've served on the um three building needs committees. I've served on the tax board. So, I've been very involved over the years. Um my time on zoning taught me an awful lot. And I uh I long I as well as other members um we were sued quite a few times. Uh we almost always won because we did our due diligence and the fact of the matter is we walked the area, made our own observations, listen to the expert witnesses. Most importantly, we always follow the ordinance, always follow the rules and the regs. We never deviated. We always were very concerned with precedent. Never wanted to set precedent if there was any way to avoid it. And in this particular development, uh it's the first time we've dealt with this type precedent is going to be set here. So it's vitally important that again we dot every eye, we cross every tea, and that we um utilize the solicitor to the fullest so that we can make the proper decisions. I have faith in the fact that you're going to do that. I have faith in the fact that you're going to make the correct decision based upon all the evidence. my 40 years um living where I do, I I've

walked this area so many times. Um I'm intimately familiar with it. It's it's really a living area and a lot of it's because of the beavers. You walk through there today, you're going to find a pond, you're going to find wetlands. Two years from now, it's going to move. Uh that's just the way it is. It's a beautiful area. It's a natural habitat. Supports all kind of wildlife. It's a truly unique and beautiful area with everything that the town has sought to preserve for years. And with that in mind, I'd call your attention to the town comprehensive plan, section G3.2.2, historic districts and areas. Under other historic areas, you have I'm sorry, under other historic areas worthy of protection that are included all the way back to the 1980 report, we have Nipuchuk Natural in historic area located in the extreme southwestern corner of North Smithfield, south of Lake Bair and west of Nipichuk Hill. This area was historic importance during the King Philip war in the late 1600s, but is still geologic. It is still of geologic interest due to its swamp, irregular ce and kettle topography and eskers. The comprehensive plan mentions this area as being worthy of protection. Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have this development. What I'm saying is that the area itself, especially this wetland area, is worthy of protection. This is where the brook is. This is where the water comes out of Nipichuk Swamp into Nip Nipichuk Pond, goes down the brook, goes right into um

you know the the Lake Bair area. I have friends that that live down on Brookside. And the first time I went there, I was amazed on how the stream wasn't even a foot below ground level. It's basically running at ground level right through their property. And they all have wells. So preserving this water to me is vitally important. Preserving the habitat for the wildlife is important. Now, the developer has stated that the open space would be accessible to the residents only, and that's a good selling point. Ranking estate residents are going to have to pay taxes on that property. They're going to have to obtain and pay insurance on that property. And yet if the open space were deeded back to the town, the developer and later the residents of Rank and Estates would have free access just like everybody else. No one pays for something that they can have for free. Would you? Additionally, once children of Rankin estate go to school and play sports here in town, like all the other kids, soccer, basketball, football, little league, they join teams, they make friends, they play after school with children of the other three surrounding developments in Brookside Drive just like they do today. And all those kids are going to, you know, they're going to play. They're going to play together. So now the residents of Rankin estate are paying taxes and insurance on land that's not even exclusively theirs anymore. Now add to that that the retention ponds are within the open space. Whoever is in charge of the open space must maintain those ponds or force the town to do so and then be built by the town. So again, more fees for the HOA. We just learned this evening that the

emergency road is not going to be a town road. The HOA is going to have to maintain that, which means they're going to have to plow it. They're going to have to resurface it if it needs it. I think what I'm asking what I'm asking the developer I don't believe that it's financially necessary to have to have this open space only for the residents of Rankin Estates. And as as for the um as for the fields, as was stated last time, they're not going to be open to the public. They're not going to be um aren't going to be games held there. Is for kids to go down and kick a ball or throw a Frisbee, excuse me, drive off. Now, we have fields all over town. All the kids in the surrounding developments uh go right down here to uh the turf. They go down to the middle school. It's a couple of miles down. Just go down Route 7, bang a left on Greenville Road, and you're there. So, who's going to use this? It's going to be, I assume, the little kids in the development. But little kids play in their yards or they play in their friends yards. They don't go halfway or all the way across a development and cross a brook to kick a ball or throw a Frisbee. Again, I don't see why this is advantageous to the developer. How are they going to get more money for these lots? because they have a little field over there that kids can throw a

Frisbee. I would love to see this open space just this section here. I think the open space as indicated the other areas. I think that's great. Kids can go play there. You put a swing set in there. They can kick a ball in those areas. Donate this open space back to the town. It should be in the hands of a governmental authority with regulatory controls. That way we can be more assured of the brook being protected, the quality of water being protected. Again, keep in mind, not only does this brook go down to Lake Bair, it goes down to Tarkland Pond. It ends up in the aqua in the aquifer in Slaterville. It's pristine water. Why jeopardize it? As Chief Keane said earlier, from the historical society's point of view, we should be preserving as much as we possibly can. I um I've also put together a list of stipulations for your consideration. Some of them I I think are really important. others. Uh it's uh when when I was on zoning, I did almost all of these. I'm going to give you a copy, but I'm just going to very quickly read a few.

Yeah. Because I what I'd really like you to do is submit them to the planning office because that'll give us we're going to need time to review them anyway. Absolutely. And also, we have about 30 minutes left for for the public hearing before we're going to close that down so that we can have any closing conversations and all that kind of stuff. So, I'm not trying to cut you off. They'll get much better attention as as they will in the upcoming weeks, but I I don't think we'll do much hearing a few of them right now. All right. I just want to read a couple because I one of the things I want to do is I'd like these placed on the deeds

and the reason for that is you can have a homeowners association you can have all kinds of rules but if certain stipulations are placed on the individual property deeds they're there forever. So very high level just no hunting, no trapping in the open space, no interference in any way with wildlife, resident or transitory, no destruction or damage to the beaver dams, no dumping of material. That includes construction waste, no yard waste or homeowner waste of any kind in the open space. Um, no motor vehicles in the wetlands. This is the type of thing that I I think we need to consider and actually have placed on the deeds. I also have stipulations with regard to um uh the development and how it operates. There's only one I want to point out and again we did this on zoning. Um there's an awful lot of traffic on Route 7 at certain times of the day. When school buses are transiting that area, I don't believe there should be any um trucks entering or leaving the development. the school department can inform the building and zoning inspector who can inform the developer when the buses are transient. All of the children from Lower Madity Road, from uh Log Road, from the developments up there, the three developments up there are all taking buses directly down Route 7 to the schools. All the schools are located in that one area. And with that, I'm done.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Heert. Um, Kelly writes sure save it for next. Save it for next. Okay. Um, Mike Mayo. Uh yeah, Mike Mayo me a Christina way. What's that?

Uh good evening. Um as I just stated, Mike May, Christina Wei, um I have a few additional comments to make about the fields. Um to be clear, the question of whether these fields would be approved as part of this development was not resolved at the master plan approval stage as has been suggested in past hearings. Rather, the very first condition of the March 6, 2019 decision of approval deferred that issue to this preliminary preliminary review stage. The town planner at the time and several members of this board were highly skeptical of whether these fields were consistent with the interests of this community and with the overall plan for this conservation development. And I do not believe we've seen anything in the years since that should change this board's mind. When you look at the layout of this development, the open space portion along its western border provides a much needed buffer between this proposed 126 lot construction site and the neighborhoods to the west and to the north. And right in the middle of that open space, the developer wants to construct not one, not two, but three large fields, albeit smaller than on their last plan, plus a parking lot. really for no discernable purpose. Now, the developer argues the fields are for the future recreational use of the residents of this new development. Even if that were the case, why would the construction of these fields need to be included at the very beginning of this proposed 10-phase construction project when there are not yet any new neighbor there's not yet any new neighborhood. There are not yet any new homes in that neighborhood and there are not yet any new residents in those homes to utilize these fields. Now, I would imagine the developer will say that these fields are adjacent to the emergency road that needs to be constructed and so it's more efficient to build them right up front. Well, I would say to that that just because it may be less expensive to the developer

doesn't mean that that's what's in the best interest of the town. Now, I ask this board to consider why would a developer want to construct such large open fields and a parking lot in the middle of the open space of a conservation development before anyone is living in that development to use them? And in particular, why has this developer been so persistent over the years pursuing these fields? Really, oftentimes, I feel like this whole issue is about the fields. I mean, when you look at this development, it's a huge development, and we're focusing a lot of time just on these three fields in the open space, um, these questions really get to the heart of why the community is so concerned about this development. Attorney Kelly's correct. The community is concerned about this project becoming an excavation and mining operation. And the developer does not really seem to be denying that's exactly what it plans to do. Rather, it's arguing that the code permits it to excavate the property and the code says it may build these fields and therefore this board must approve them. I believe that's overstating things. I believe this board does have some discretion on these points. Otherwise, why have a public hearing and why would you need a vote at all? And in exercising that discretion, please consider that the layout and the phasing of this plan and of the fields in particular does suggest that the developer may want to dig into the back end of this property where the most valuable gravel exists. as soon as possible. Blast it, mine it, pull out all the gravel, and leave the town with a carved up cratered mess with vertical cuts into this land of up to 30 or even 40 feet on what used to be pristine, natural, and historic land that is a critical part of this town's rural character and why so many

of us chose to live here in the first place. That use is not consistent with the town's comprehensive community plan. It does not maintain the rural character of this community and it does not protect the natural systems of this land. So I urge the board to reject the inclusion of these fields and parking lot as part of any preliminary plan approval and instead require this open space to remain just that open in its natural state. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayo. Um, Caitlyn Gonzoff.

Yes. K A I T L I N Gonzal. G O N S A L E S. Hi. Hi.

My name's Caitlyn Gonzales. I live at 420 Douglas Pike. So, I do live near where the entrance would be for Ranken Estates. I'm here tonight as a parent with concerns regarding the bus routes as the gentleman prior to me had mentioned. Um right now I I stand outside on Douglas Pike twice a day and watch the bus try to drop off my son in which cars are constantly flying through. My large concern is the amount of cars that will be coming in and out of this development. And if you travel Douglas Pike, you will notice there's actually no speed limit sign once you cross from Smithfield into North Smithfield. So cars tend to go much faster than 40 miles an hour. If we are adding say 240 garages so that you got 240 more cars coming in and out of this development over 7 to eight years, more traffic coming in and out, more cars to not stop for these buses. Um, I have skidarts in front of my house from cars flying up the hill trying to stop for the bus for other homes around me. My concern is for kids safety. Um, my concern is you're going to have 75 more students coming onto the bus. Are they going to be stopping on Route 7 the bus? So then you you have traffic backing up for couple minutes while you're loading all these kids up again, having cars flying over the hill. Um, I am just a concerned parent who would like to have some consideration about the effects of kids and the buses on Route 7.

Okay. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Um, Rob Edelman, did I get that correct? Great. Sure. Robert Edelman. R E R T E D E L M A N. I'm at 114 Pomona Street. I don't live

Pomona. P O M O N A. So I don't live near this. I came down here to support a friend. Um you know, and the reason being is this is one of those things where, you know, it doesn't matter to you until it affects you. I had no intention of talking tonight until I heard some of the things that were said. And um let's start off with some observations. I mean first and foremost you know the attorney started and you know the ask was let's have a a fair hearing open dialogue and it started with the threat of a lawsuit to to my town. Um I think one of those speakers spoke well said do your due diligence here and that protects you. So that threat should be baseless. Um, then they discredited residential input. You know, that we're not experts, that some of the things we say aren't going to matter. Um, that the relationships you have with the town and the people shouldn't matter. I disagree. Your relationship with your residents are you need to look out for our well-being. You need to, you know, there there's a there's a town charter should read the charter. It matters. Um then you know listen to what was presented you know some nice dancing on semantics some creative and aspirational math I think you know Mr. Polardi, you you did a fantastic job pointing out some significant discrepancies, you know, that that matters. Um, you know, and I took some notes today. I would say, you know, all the back and forth about population density and what that means and, you know, the that coming up a couple times to restate what that means, but the reality is that was presented originally in a context to mislead. So, I mean, it's it's hard to sit here and believe everything that was said.

So, you know, what I would say is, yeah, we're not experts, but you know, as I'm sitting here and uh Mr. Kelly, I think his name is, you know, we're talking about how much material is going to be moved, 350,000 yards. Well, you know, I'm not an expert. The AIA says, you know, the impact of removing 350,000 yards of material, habitat loss. Um, it can lead to significant habitat destruction, local wildlife, plant species fragmentation, landfill waste. So, you know, it's contributing to landfill overload, exacerbation, existing waste crisis, producing toxic lee, methane, all that fun stuff, dust and air quality. So, sure, you're you're removing 350,000 yards of material, but you're moving 900,000 yards of material. So, you know, air quality, dust, water bodies, all that fun stuff. You're talking about eight years of exposing residents to that, right?

That matters. Soil degradation. We can go through all that. You have experts. I'm not an expert, but you know, in the hours I'm here, you know, this this needs a little more a little more insight. Okay, that's to say. All right. Thank you, Mr. Gentleman. Peter Rodan, did I get that right? Oh, God. God. Okay. Thank you. G 170 log road. Excuse me, sir. Could you put the second map up here that showed the fields? Yeah. Uh, slide it down a bit if you can. I I can't. It's just

All right. Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong. There are no plans right now for the for the town to sell or donate land to the development. Is that true? No. Okay. Very good. The only thing that's been suggested is the opposite. Okay. Very I'm just I'm just town doesn't usually do that, right? I'm I'm just laying the groundwork. That's uh Brookside Drive.

That's not on their property. That's the town property. That little hook going off where the road is going to go. I believe the proper name of that road there is Over Hill Road. If you look at the GIS map on the town, all those lots around it go up to those roads. They don't include those roads. the gate is going to be put further up on Brookside Drive. So, we're giving them the opportunity to use the other roads and we're not uh are we not going to be able to be on that? So, um one point of clarification, the gate needs to be on your property, correct? Well, it's not the gate.

No. Oh, okay. So, the gate is on Brookside Drive, but not on any in the public right away. every single sorry the public right away on Brookside Drive. Okay. Right. So we have we uh we as a town own that all that down you know further down and then also that hook that the path is going to be on. If that gate is up up further up to the north almost off the screen

that's basically giving them all that land. Now I know on the roads in there we it's going to be townmaintained. That means we could be driving on it. Is the path or the road whatever they whatever they want to call it that's going to go down to their fields that's going to go uh across from lot 70 between 72 and 73. Is that open to the town? No. They've stated that that's not open to the town that's res little domain. That means that the uh extension for uh Brookside Drive is going to be their domain. We can't go on there. And Over Hill Road. So, you're talking about the small piece. Yeah. That little before the blue.

If you look on the GIS maps on town, that's Overhill Drive. I I believe I have the name correctly. It's something like that. And I believe that's being incorporated into the emergency road. Is that correct, Mr. P? They're using that. Wait a minute. Excuse me. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Okay. So, how do you give one group of uh residents sole possession of town property? Mr. Solicitor, does is is this a valid point? Because that that area that sliver of blue uh that's outlined in blue is not part of the property,

right? And yet and yet it contains a small piece of Brookside Drive and the Overhill Road, I believe you called it. Overhill Road. Overhill Road. Um and and in doing in giving them private access only. There seems to be a valid point being made. Yeah, we'll we'll we'll try to look into that. Okay. Have that for the next meeting. Like I said, you look at the GIS maps, you click on all those lots, it shows you the border and they all border Brookside Drive extension. That's not, you know, that you can see on there. And also that hook, which is, you know, it goes up to a dead end.

If anything, if you don't want, if you don't want people going leaving there and going down Brookside Drive, I totally understand that. But if that's going to be their little sole possession, then that road going between 72 and 73 going down there has to be public road for everybody else. And then put it then put signs at the end of uh uh Overhill Road, no trespassing, blah blah blah blah. Okay. But you can't give one one group of citizens sole possession of town property. Your points made. Thank you. There's one one more ahead of you there, Mr. M Dr. Benoy, there's one more ahead of you. I just make a comment about this ownership. Okay. From historical records.

Could you I need you to Yeah. Lucian Benoy, 28 Ridge Hill Road. Historical records will probably show that Naragansit Improvement has owned all the roads around Lake Bair. I do not believe they've ever been deed to the town. That would be something that would have to be researched perhaps, but that's my understanding from my living there my whole life. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Bryant. All right, Frank Rezo. Yes, that's right.

If he's quick, Kelly, you're still going to have a chance to get up there tonight. R I B E Z. Good evening, everybody. My name is Frank Rubzo. I'm a resident of North Smithfield. I reside at 525 Douglas Pike. I've been living in the town for about 21 years. Um, ironically enough, my property was built in 2005, right around the time this development was proposed. Um, my driveway exits immediately adjacent to the Route 7104 uh intersection. In 21 years, I've witnessed three, four dozen serious accidents at that intersection.

Uh there's a memorial right down the street now from somebody who passed away recently there. I've seen people taken away in ambulances. Uh, one of the primary drivers, in my opinion, having pulled out onto that road for 21 years, is that the southbound lane of Route 7, uh, comes down around a slight turn down over the crest of a hill. And as one of the previous tenants uh, residents testified, um, cars travel fast. I've seen cars 60, 70 mph. They're on you fast. There's very little reaction time. So, this proposal wants to put 126 homes immediately north of that intersection. 250 cars, 300 some odd res, 350 residents or so. Uh they're all going to be leaving for work around the same time. They're all going to be coming home around the same time. There's going to be a significant increase in traffic. That's a 3% increase in the in the uh the town's population if I'm my math is correct. So my question is what um traffic considerations have been made for this particular intersection and the entrance and there is only one entrance and exit to this uh development as I understand it. what traffic control considerations, what traffic control devices will be applied to uh deal with the additional traffic. Will there be a light? Will there be traffic cameras? Will there be additional police presence there? Will there be speed bumps? So, I haven't heard anything about any considerations for that. And as I've said, I've personally witnessed three, four, five dozen accidents in that intersection over 21 years. And there's many dozens that I haven't witnessed. So, that's my major concern right now. And I just want to note that as I said earlier, I was building around 2005. There was a proposal to develop this property just prior to that. I think it was about 95 houses which was rejected and this one's about 30 houses more. So after the rejection, they increased the size by 30. I don't know if there's been any consideration for reducing the number.

To put that in perspective, if it was done before 2005, then it probably was not a conservation development. And the conservation development that this developer put together first has considerably more houses I believe. Is that true? Like two 200 something. I'm not sure. It's it's it's quite a large number. So the 90 would actually compare to that. I'm not anti-development by any stretch of the imagination. My cousin's developing property at the Pines's right around the corner. I I'm just concerned about the traffic and I'm concerned about uh safety. I I know the intersection well and you're right and it's not just limited to the southbound lane. The northbound lane has that little hill and you don't see people coming. Yep.

It's a dangerous area. So, is there any I I think there was indications that there was a traffic expert here tonight. Is he still here? Yep. He is. We'll let him address that when we close the public hearing because we'll have about 25 minutes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh next up would be Kelly Wrightson. You sure? Okay. You may. Yeah. Just say your name. Yeah. Introduce yourself and and your address. I'm Deborah Barrett. I live at 801 um Douglas

Pike. Spell your last name. B A R R E T.

Okay. and I've been in the town for 45 46 years. I'm on 801 Douglas. I am where you are. I am on that bad curve down at the bottom of where 104. I'm my house is in front of 57 and 104. You cannot imagine the traffic that is on Douglas Pike. I have been watching it for 45 years. I'm a critical care nurse in the ER 50 years. I just retired.

Okay. Miss Barrett, could you just get a little closer to the mic? Thank you.

I You can't There's more than what you're saying about deaths. I have scraped gray matter off of the pavement. My daughter who's a retired police officer now that she's in Burville, she witnessed that recent fatal. I had two kids in front of my house that I didn't even know that the car was over the crest of that. I pulled out of my driveway that morning and there was two dead people right across from my house. The amount of traffic on Douglas Pike is lethal. I cannot pull out of my driveway. It's one car after another. Initially, yes, the traffic was like maybe 7 to 8:30 in the morning till then around 4 to 5, six o'clock. We live in a bedroom town. We all sleep here. None of us work here. We live in North Smithfield for peace, tranquility. I'm a senior citizen. I just turned 70 in January. I cultivated this town to where it is. I have volunteered, mentor for the Children's Crusade. I've done it all. Douglas Pike cannot take any more traffic. And is the town going to add more police, EMS, fire and rescue to promote the amount and volume

that's going to be added to this town? I get you with the the buses. Oh, there's new families coming and going, coming and going. You you this morning now that I'm retired, I can watch all this traffic. It's ugly. And it's a state road. So maybe, and I'm I'm I don't mean to be nasty. It's a state road. So maybe I don't know if the town officials even care about Douglas Pike because the state takes care of that road. It's insane. It's I and I know I know people probably want to hear this, but somebody that lives on Douglas, there's going to be another 50 houses going up off of Douglas Pike between Rankin and my house. I just found this out when I was at yoga the other night, the other day. and the sound the towns the land has been 100 acres the land sold and they're gonna put like another 50 houses besides this whole whatever this is insane but all I'm saying is safety to me I'm a I'm a lifesaver I mean my whole life was critical care nursing 50 years my that's my passion and I worry about safety on that road because it's going to get ugly and is anybody here from material sand and stone. By the way, has anybody watched their trucks? One after another after another. They have an inlet past my house on seven to the left. They coming out on Greenville Road. Those breaks are ridiculous because they're coming down that steep hill and now they're they're in a

valley. That's where I live. And now they are they're ramping to go quick because not only they going down that steep hill, they're going to go around the corner and now they're trying to go up the other side of the hill. And I hear them both ways. There's going to be people going to be killed on that road. And I don't care about the developers and their money and all this other stuff that they put all billions and billions to me. You I can't put a price tag on a life. I can't. I never did. A life is a life. And if it's more important that money, it's it's it's disgusting. My neighbor Ricky just moved because he said he couldn't stand the road anymore. Ricky built that house with his own two hands. A great guy. He left the town. You want people leaving the town? Good people who cultivated what the town is today. Okay. We worked for decades to make the town what it is today so that people want to have that peace and tranquility in their lives. And North Smithfield is a great town and we need to keep it that way. If we allow any of this to go on, we're just destroying everything that we worked for for decades.

I appreciate I'm sorry I was late today tonight. I had another meeting, but I just and I really I'm really sorry that I came in on this. I don't know what else was said before I got here. It's okay. Okay. But thank you, M. There's a lot to be considered. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Kelly, we're going to give you one shot. You want to close close it out?

There will there will be she's going to be last, but we've got the next meeting coming up. So,

u Yeah. Um, so I I I don't have any loopholes or, you know, regulations or Kelly, could you just state your name and your address, please? Kelly Ritzer and I'm at two Leonard. Two Leonard. Thank you.

Um, I moved to um two Leonard Drive probably now just about three years ago. and I moved there for privacy and quiet and peacefulness and that sounds like that will be coming to an end if this moves forward. Um there's already a great deal of wildlife that are already roaming our our our neighborhoods. Um, so once we get rid of their neighborhood, where are they spo I mean, I just don't know where where they're supposed to go. Um, I guess they'll just be more roadkill. Um, but yes, to the last speaker's point, um, I did not move to North Smithfield for this and I I I just don't see how taking my dog for a walk in the mornings or in the evenings will be doable anymore. That's all I have to say. Thank you for hearing me.

Thank you, Miss Ritzer. So, with that, we're going to look for a motion to close up the public hearing. Uh to continue it. Yeah, we're going to continue to continue. So, uh are we planning to have the next meeting at the middle school or are we going to maintain it here? I I'm not sure it's it would be necessary to move to the middle school. It's okay. If we do move to the middle school, what I what I had mentioned earlier is we would have to renotice. Um I don't see that there's

I mean the room capacity is 82. We have we have 24 okay people here that want to speak on behalf of the project. So I I board's prerogative naturally, but Okay. No, I just wanted to make sure that we're, you know, yeah, doing what we need to do. Uh, so then in that that instance, uh, I believe we stated that we're going to continue the public I'm going to make a motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain of June 25th. Second one. That works. It works for me. So the So June 25th is an option or se Jul July 9th I think the chairman mentioned, but either one is okay. So we but we can put that in in writing that the 25th.

That's correct. I think it's important that everybody is available. We need all members available all time, right? I don't see any reason. So either one of those dates a problem with any of the members. Not for me. I'm I'm looking at you, Mr. Manard. I don't know. He's going to stay here. He doesn't plan. Yeah. Okay. So, we have a motion to um continue the public hearing to a date certain of June 25th. Um those in favor I I

opposed. None. Public hearing is continued until June 25th. And with that, now we have about 28 minutes to uh kind of summarize what we've heard, answer a few of the questions. I will ask that we not um not stretch out the answers any or or comments any further. I know there was some uh some of this raised some emotion. Let's try to keep that out of it. Um but there are a lot of questions to be answered and some of them are just I think some are simple factual questions that could be put to rest right now too. But I I know Mr. Privy's been making copious notes there. Uh so would would he be next up then to address? Do you want to start?

You had mentioned the last two speakers had raised traffic. Yes. Mr. Good point.

Absolutely. Good. Okay. I would just remind absolutely. Yeah.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Uh for the record, John Chevlin, uh S Vl, uh from Park Corporation. Um I did present at the last meeting. I know some of the concerns here uh you know, the first one I'll address is safety. Uh we as part of our studies um typically the industry standard is you go back and get three years of crash data for the study area which we did. I think we present the last time there was a total of crashes uh within the study area from Matty Drive down to Farnum. There's 54 crashes. Um 35% of those crashes were single vehicle crashes, either cars going off the road or hitting wildlife. Um, a lot of the crashes that occurred were at uh Douglas Pike and Farnum uh that had several rear end crashes. We didn't show any fatalities in the three years that we got uh our information for um

you know, so there may have been fatalities either before or after we got the information, but when we when we got the three years, uh we did not have any crash in that area. You know, the other the other item that was brought up, I think, was regards to bus traffic and such um and speeds. I mean, buses, you know, they're going to be out on the roadways. Um, you know, it's up to the drivers to go ahead and adhere heed to the buses and how they're driving and and adhere to when they put out their stop signs and everything else. And I think, you know, buses should be slowing down the traffic. The speeds that they were talked about, you know, we have the posted speed limit. We assume it's 40 miles an hour. We use a design speed of 50 miles an hour because the speeds that we found were 85th percentile speed was, I believe, 47 48 miles per hour. So, we made conservative made 50 So we did take a look in regards to these all these safety related issues.

I think in terms of the school buses, I think the issue would be more for school buses turning left into there than if they were turning right.

Mhm. because that's where I mean and and as one of the residents stated um there's no there are no speed limit signs and so even 50 might be a that might be a conservative average speed uh on that road but but particularly you know school buses don't stop and then turn on a dime you know like me my Miata does you know so uh and if you have somebody barreling down south that could be a problem so Could one of the solutions to that be that this work with the school department to only do right turns in and out of that so that they're they're working with traffic and they're putting on the brakes, not trying to cross traffic.

Yeah, we can we can coordinate with the uh school department and the and the busing just to see what the routes are and what they anticipate it being. Okay. All right. I think those are the two main ones. We ask questions. You can address them to us. Yes. Frank, my question. Yes. Y that's okay. So my question would be what period of time that those 54 accidents was over the the uh the traffic study. It was over a three-year period. Which three years? Uh it went from 20 2021 to 2024. Right.

What was your um 2021 to 2024? your source of those uh the police department. Yes, we put a request into the uh police departments and they provide us the information and you've indicated that you don't have a recommend

but is yeah is that I mean again you try to try to address everything here. can hear it but you know u we don't want to develop these absence there's a disconnect between so you feel there were fatal accidents in that in that time in that time period there was one in that time period there was one recently as well well yeah anything recent would be outside of some I don't know when in 2024 this ended but let me just double check you said was from again Matty Darn Pike yes so again okay

so that's something Um, one of my suggestions was going to be to perhaps uh update the traffic study given that it's it's now two years since then and and I can you know I I can vouch for the fact we I've seen the memorial like I drive that way to go to Smithfield all the time. So, uh, there definitely has been, it seems like there's been increased, uh, at least traffic problems, if not traffic itself, people driving worse than they did three years ago. I don't know. But anyway, yeah.

I live there is just recently. So, so wait a minute. Well, I don't know. I Let me let me go. Okay. We continued the public hearing to June 25th. I would like you all as as more things are coming up because they will as we go through this, keep track of your questions and all that. put them aside for June 25th and sign up and you get called in order. Okay, please

for this is for Mr. Chevlin. Go ahead. Recommendations for Mr. Chevlin, do you have any recommendations for and we have some signage that is going to be installed out there for uh traffic control. Um, I know when we were doing this study, the DOT was doing improvements to the intersection. Um, so they were tightening that up to go ahead and get rid of the free right turn movement that was occurring before, uh, which has occurred. Uh, because we did talk to the DOT before construction started and they made us aware of that because we mentioned going ahead and trying to

part of this study maybe look to tighten that up to get rid of that free right turn movement. DOT already had it planned and it's been constructed. So, I'm not sure if that's improved the safety out there or not since that's been completed. Their

their plan widened that intersection, made it a softer curve. It it definitely had some benefits, but I think a lot of the other concerns is around the speed, what can be done to to mitigate that, to monitor that and calm it down. Um, I don't know if there's much that can be done about visibility. I mean, you've got these hills, but I I think that's something worth revisiting. uh because uh you know as they said there there's no speed limit signs at all and you know people just that that usually means step on the gas right so we can certainly coordinate with the uh you know office of highway safety and see if uh it's a state road. Okay. So I like I said they just did the road over so we could go ahead and see if they had any issues with it. So

all right thank you. Um what else would you like to uh address in terms of the have a transcript and to begin Mr. I think what we'd like to do is we'd like to digest it. We'd like to formal response as we've done. Okay. If there's any specific questions, certainly our engineer um can answer them, but I think that we heard a lot this evening. Um fairness to everybody. It' be better if we put our answers together in one document. Okay. We've got some lead time, a little bit more than the last time for the hearing. So, I feel comfortable that we can get an ample time to the next hearing. I do have a quick question for the engineer if that's okay. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Um we have all of the you you did a wonderful job here laying out like the different like plan phases. Um though I it was brought up there isn't for like the the emergency road and the fields and anything that isn't on any of the phases. Where would that fall into the development and everything? It is actually on the phase phase. So yeah, it's um it's hard to You're right. It's not colored the same colors as phase one, but it would be put in at phase one. That was important for making the connection to Leonard Drive immediately to make that emergency access. So we didn't color it because we were keeping it as open space area. Um but that would be done in phase one as well. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome, Mr. Porter. Yeah. Uh at our last meeting, one of the requests that that we had made was a cut and fill plan. So I'm going to be of of the understanding that that's probably still in progress to present to us. A cut and fill plan. All of uh you'll you'll have I'll have to apologize. We've gotten at least 15 to 20 emails regarding this here. So, so trying to figure out the letter, the letter from uh attorney uh Kelly's office also gave the summary of that. All of the grading plans have cuts and fills all on them. Okay.

They have proposed and existing grades all throughout. So, I'm not sure if there's something else. If there's something else that you're looking for specifically, I would Okay. I it it's for for for me it's hard to grab I I know you have it parsed out with like seven or eight enlarged plans. So it's just hard for me to grasp the just the overall aspect of it. So maybe if if you guys could just provide similar to what you've done here an overall plan as opposed to one that's uh divvied up into the five six or seven sections that you have. Okay. That would that might help better my understanding. That's good. If that's okay.

Yeah. No, it's it's turning on some proposed layers and and just it's just Yeah, that's no problem. Okay. I know CAD can be a tricky beast sometimes. And you have a big CAD file here. All I was going to caution is I mean it's a 250 scale. It's a 300 scale plan. So turning on the two foot contours might get a little bit. So I'll I'll take a look at it and try and get something that makes sense that you can look at. That would be great. Thank you. because it's, you know, it would get a little blurry once it's kind of that scale. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Nothing. All right. I have a question. This is probably for you, Mr. Privy. Um, Mr. Kelly mentioned that uh in his opening statement that there it sounds like you're uh excavating 750,000 yards. Yeah. uh using 350 as Phil and 400 would need to leave the property.

Then he pointed out that uh on the non-conservation plan it was 1.3 million but with 400,000 being used. So my question is that with twice as with at least twice as much roadway because there's more houses all that

how is it that for that additional roadway uh 50% more houses from the numbers I understand that only you know 16% more fill would be needed out of the amount excavated. So we had to approximate obviously we did not do full roadway profiles and grading of the conventional that would have taken a lot of hours to do an entire development. So we had to take some approximations and what we did with that is we looked at so in the areas of where it where it's located. So for instance, you know, there are the the topography in different areas have there it's steeper in certain areas that require greater cuts in order to still have town roads that are going to be a maximum of 10% safe for instance. So and there are other areas where it's not as steep. So

in our kind of putting together where where those would be the the extra areas, for instance, there are certainly some some topography areas in this this area as well. But when we had it, the cuts and fills kind of we were able to get the roadways to work in ways that the cuts and fills somewhat balanced each other. I see. Um so that's what we Okay, that's what we did. Um we had to best again, we weren't going to put together an entire analysis numbers just do things in my head and I Yep. I have to make them all tie out. Um,

tonight there were there were a number of question concerns raised about blasting. I don't recall us having conversations about blasting on this project. Is that that that question had come up at some point? I did email the engineer and he did send back an email response that it's not contemplated but once they get into the development that there could potentially be some blasting and that they would follow all of the state regulations with regard to blasting as well as state fire marshal.

What why don't we do this? Why don't we we'll submit something relative to to blasting for the next meeting so you can have that. I mean, I it's I think you guys are probably pretty familiar with, you know, blasting protocols and such as well. You know, everything's permitted through the state fire marshall's office. Sorry, I'll slow down for you. The uh state fire marshall's office. Um depending on the distances of where people's homes are and abutters are located and how far that is from where the blast areas would be. Pre-blast surveys may be needed and if they would, they would be paid for by the developer as well as monitoring. and monitoring wells. They put probes in the ground and uh in that instance they would know they would get the seismic on that. So okay. So but right now

we'll put something together for you. Right now it's not guaranteed blasting is required. It's just it may be but I think if you put that plan together for us that'd be great. Just put a put a statement together so you can have it for the record. But we're not anticipating it. But again if it is we'll obviously follow all state protocols that we have to.

Okay. Um, a couple of people mentioned the fields today. I think a couple of dozen, but um, couple of comments on that one. I think your your comment about moving the parking area uh is a very good one. Uh, we'll move that. It makes it kind of makes no sense where it is anyway, but um, moving it to a flatter area and all that. I think that's a a good improvement. Um, I would however say that that uh the the third field, the southernmost field, uh, at least for me gives me great concern. It's in one of the steepest terrain areas on the entire property. um which means not only does it require a lot of f I mean the disruption to uh you know to the terrain and to everything that that uh affects you know wildlife water runoff you know as Mr. Keen brought up. It's it's a it's a role modeleser, you know. Uh and I I don't know what purpose it serves. You know, I'll just reiterate that. I don't know what purpose this I can see bringing in, but you know, uh unless you put in real recreational facilities. I mean, a couple of fields for kids to kick the ball around is is nice, but they're going to be, you know, three-year-olds and they're not going to be kicking the ball around with 16 year olds. So, um, but I think that third field, uh, let's just say it would go a long way if it if that yellow just disappeared off the map, you know. Um, but I do like the plan.

I've noted your Thank you. opinion and we'll talk about it. So, thank you. I'm going to echo the chairman's position on that as well. Okay. Thank you. Noted. All right. And with that, um, I I would like I I saw you take some notes when I mentioned permeable sidewalks.

So, were you saying something a specific surface that is actually per or because we what we did, we actually uh can you actually go back to the last plan? It's funny. You just changed it right over here. We we did put a cross-section on here. It was on the detail sheet as well, but we did put the cross-section showing exactly what you said as well. Um I'm looking at the right side. There's a roadway crosssection. Um and so we did we showed that 13 foot shoulder that is is that is there we showed a person. Um again there's still be some landscape there's some street trees that'll help separate that. Yeah. And I'm talking about on the correct on the lawn side of the trees.

Yep. Yeah. There's plent there is room on the shoulder. The question is, are you looking for something I'm looking for something that's not their lawn

that's that's that's more intended to be used for traffic uh rather than a lawn. I think the point about not putting in concrete sidewalks right for a lot of reasons is a good idea, but the permeable stuff which we you know I'm not take any credit for it. when the when the mosque did their expansion and renovations, they made an entire parking lot out of these this permeable service so that when they have their very rare but very large events, they could turn this area into a parking lot. They can drive cars on it, but otherwise grass grows through it and all that. And of course, it's completely permeable. And uh there's different brands of it, of course. You know, it it comes in uh you know, sections. It's a honeycomb,

you know, rigid plastic kind of thing. It can be, you know, people could bring their use their snow plows on it, whatever, you know, a small, you know, a small payloader if they have use it for fire apparatus even at some points in areas where you don't want to pave necessarily, but and and yet it'll if it's not really being worn down, it'll still look like the lawn, but I just think it's a better alternative to wearing paths on people's lawns. I'm glad you clarified because when you said permeable, I wasn't sure if you meant literally grass shoulder. Um that is permeable also or a more manufact. Okay.

I just think that could be because again in a neighborhood this size, you want to encourage people well again, especially when it snows, encourage them not walking in the road. Uh but but sidewalks also in encourage neighborhoods to grow.

I'll bring that back to our team and we'll address that by next meeting. Um and then uh my last com just I I I still struggle with the um the order of the phases. Um I understood the original argument uh as to why you would start at the one furthest from Douglas Pike. On the other hand, I think of uh that means there's going to be a less than uh standard roadway because you're not going to make it a finished roadway until it's done really. Right. Usually you bring it to binder grade.

Right. Right. Exactly. And so so they're going to have that. The town's going to have to do plowing on that. The residents are going to have to drive. Well, okay. Maybe not at first. The town wouldn't it wouldn't be a town accepted road at that time. So the town would not that would be up to the developer to plow. I just want to clarify that.

Okay. residents are going to have to drive over this essentially, you know, semifinished construction area that those initial residents for for years and years to come. Uh as opposed to the conventional way of starting at the road, they're going to drive on a finished, you know, in a much more finished way. They're not going to seal deal with construction, you know, as these residents move in and they're and they're driving to work in the morning or coming home and they they're going to be driving through constru construction zone, you know, depending on which zone you happen to be working phase you're in at the time. Um, and I I just I can't help but think that uh there's a lot more advantage to doing, you know, because what I'm thinking of now these future residents, right? because we're, you know, as as part of the planning board, you know, we're we're maintaining this uh this rural community for our future residents as well as our current residents. Uh and I'm just thinking what they're going to have to go through. And again, I know you have I'm sure you have a sound business plan and all that, but we're talking about a long period of time. And who knows when the next um international event might change things and and all of a sudden, you know, phase 8 is or or whatever it is, phase 10 is is now 20 years away or may never be built. In which case, now people have this unfinished thing. They're living here, but they're separated from Douglas Pike by something that's unfinished. And whereas if you if you finish as you go, those residents will always have a finished community, even if you if you end construction at some point for whatever reason.

So, I'd ask you to we'll Okay, we'll uh we'll we'll bring it back up and see if there's any uh modifications. So, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else have anything? want to thank uh thank all of you for uh and and I did see a little a little golf clap that was very nice everybody everybody uh probably everybody succinct and well spoken so I appreciate that so unless there's anything further we'll look for um motion to adjourn motion to adjourn no wait did we we did the motion to continue already to June 25th so we checked that box Mr. Porter. Now we need a second.

Second. Second. Mr. Hannon seconds. Those in favor? I I opposed. None. Meeting is adjourned at 9:55. 5 minutes early. Thank you for