Planning Board - Regular Meeting

But what is it called? IT'S CALLED PLANNING BOARD MEETING. IT IS CALLED PLANNING BOARD MEETING.

YOU CAN SAY IT'S A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO GO INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THAT WILL BE THE MOTION.

OKAY. THE SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING FOR THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2026 IS CALLED TO ORDER AT 6-0-3. FIRST UP, ROLL CALL.

MR. HAMMOND, PRESENT.

So now Mr. Chairman, you would read the language exactly as written, completely, and then ask for a motion. Here we go.

Okay.

Plain board executive session, closed session, discussion by council, vote, or other action.

Strike that, Mr. Chairman, that should be discussion by board.

I'm sorry, by board, vote, or other action pursuant to RIGL 42465A2. Sessions pertaining to collective bargaining or litigation or work sessions pertaining to collective bargaining or litigation or potential litigation. One item, Narragansett Improvement Company versus the town of North Smithfield, CA. Case number? Oh, case number, PC08-7468. So we need a motion to that effect.

A motion to go in. So moved.

Second.

And there needs to be a roll call vote, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Mr. Menard?

Yes.

Mr. Porter?

Yes. Chair votes yes.

Let the record show that no votes were taken and also make a motion to seal said minutes.

So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Roll call vote. Mr. Hammond?

Yes. Mr. Menard?

Yes. Mr. Porter?

Yes. Chair votes yes.

So with that, I'll look for a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Do we have a motion to adjourn? Do we have a second? Second. Those in favor? Aye. All right, the executive session, special session is closed at 7 PM. And with that, we can move on to the meeting you all came for. I need to bring up my body email.

You good? You good with me? Can I go home and have dinner with my wife? Am I good to go? Yeah. It's up to you. You tell me, Mike.

I'll stay if you want. I'm here.

His sister was at Joy.

He's going to turn four. He's just turning four.

OK, we're ready.

OK.

Thank you for coming everyone. The Planning Board meeting North Smithfield Town Planning Board meeting for Thursday, June 11th, 2026 is. Hope called the order at 701. First on the agenda. is our roll call. Here, Mr. Hammond. Here. Mr. Bernard. Here. Mr. Porter.

Here.

And the chair is here. We don't have any minutes to review at this meeting. So disclosure, do any planning board members need to disclose any potential conflicts on the matters before the board this evening? Item 10. Item 10? Okay. When that comes, you know you. Okay. Thank you. Next item, notice and disclosure. Do any planning board members need to disclose any ex parte communications about any contested or material adjudicatory facts or opinions concerning the merits on any matter before the board of the city? Okay. Hearing none. Okay. Our voting members. What you see is what you get, except for item 10.

There'll be no vote on item 10, Mr. Chairman. That's a pre-apps.

Oh, that's a pre-apps. Okay, fine. So 322 Idiot Alley Highway. Could you give us a recap, summary for this, Mr. Perlow?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is a project that was before the planning board in February 25 for a construction of a gasoline station and car wash on Route 102. The applicant, I believe, is currently before Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management getting their state permitting. And the master plan approval, I believe, was set to expire. And we had them scheduled for the last meeting. They did submit a timely letter in request for the extension. And I believe their attorney, Mr. Brennan, is here on behalf of the advocate to basically explain why they need the extension.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the planning board. Attorney Joseph Brennan here on behalf of the applicant. I really can't explain it any better than Mr. Carullo did. We're still waiting for our Rhode Island DEM and state permits, unfortunately. I THINK ALMOST EVERY PROJECT IS FACING THAT ISSUE AT THIS TIME, EVEN SO MUCH SO THAT THE STATE IS MOVING SO THAT MASTER PLAN APPROVALS WILL BE GOOD FOR TWO YEARS FROM A STATE STATUTE BECAUSE THEY REALIZE ONE YEAR IS KIND OF AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK AND WHY DO WE HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE, IT'S ALMOST LIKE EVERY PROJECT IS COMING BEFORE THE BOARD NOWADAYS FOR THAT SAME EXTENSION. IT JUST KIND OF MAKES SENSE AND I ALSO ADDED INTO THE LETTER JUST TO GIVE THE BOARD SOME EVEN MORE COMFORT IN GIVING THE APPROVAL THAT OFTENTIMES AT A MASTER PLAN STAGE WHEN THINGS AREN'T AS CONCRETE, THERE'S NOT FINANCING IN PLACE AND THE APPLICANT ASKED ME TO PUT IN THE LETTER AND LET THE BOARD KNOW THAT HE DOES HAVE FINANCING AVAILABLE FOR THE PROJECT AS WELL TO FURTHER GIVE COMFORT FOR AN EXTENSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

DO WE NEED ANYTHING BESIDES A VOTE?

Not unless you have questions for the applicant.

Does anybody have any questions for the applicant?

Did DEM give you like a timeline? No. Sorry, I thought I knew the answer, but I just wanted to ask.

You should ask the people in the back of the room that question.

Okay. I'll make a motion that we grant the extension of the preliminary plan as approved on January 23rd, 2025.

We have a motion. Second.

Okay.

Any roll call vote? Dr. Benoit?

Yes. Mr. Hammond? Yes. Mr. Menard?

Yes.

Mr. Porter? Yes. Chair votes yes.

Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

Okay, next item, request for reinstatement of preliminary plan approval for Village Gas. Again, a summary, Mr. Carullo?

Mr. Chairman, this is similar to the previous project. I'm not sure whether this project is tied up at DEM or if it's at Rhode Island Department of Transportation. But it is, again, in this particular instance, the applicant, I believe, and I don't want to speak for him, but I believe this has expired because he was away. He got married. Yes. And in the interim, he neglected to submit his letter of extension. His attorney is here to represent him and request for reinstatement. Okay. Yeah.

Could you explain the difference between an extension and a reinstatement?

So the extension, when applications are approved, they have typically a year or two year approval period. And if they are going to be delayed, the applicant is required to submit a request for an extension to the board. If they do not request the extension, the project officially expires and The applicant does have the opportunity to come back and request a reinstatement. There are certain criteria for the reinstatement that don't exist for the extension. The extension is pretty much just granted, but the reinstatement requires that the comprehensive plan hasn't changed since the time of the original approval. The subdivision regulations haven't changed. The zoning ordinance hasn't changed. The physical conditions of the property haven't changed, and all federal and state regulations have not changed since the original approval. I think the attorney is here to attest to that fact.

Yes, thank you. David D'Agostino on behalf of the applicant and and Village Gas as your planner has indicated. Due to some travel outside the country, my client did not get his request to extend the preliminary approval that this board granted in December. Of 2024, so we're here to ask that the plan be reinstated and just for the record, the provisions that the planner has had just mentioned are, as you know, from the Smithfield land development subdivision regulations article 7 specifically subsection 7.3. A, and then subsection 1 to 5, those are the standards that would just read out. also applying under Rhode Island general laws 4523-62B. So those are the two bases under which we're making the request. Nothing has changed. There's been no material change in the law. There's been no material change in the status. I will tell you, unlike the last applicant who has been hung up with DEM, we're hung up with DOT. So take your pick which department of state is causing some delay here. But as you know, there's the ongoing construction on Eddie Dowling Highway anyway, which is probably what's causing the majority of that delay. But everything that we had to submit to the state has been submitted a long time ago. As the board is aware and was here on the presentation of the preliminary plan, Northwest Engineering Services is the engineer of record. So respectfully just requesting a reinstatement of the preliminary plan.

Okay, any questions from the board? No? Then we'll look for a motion.

Make a motion that we grant reinstatement of the preliminary plan.

Second. Second.

Okay.

Dr. Bright?

Yes.

Mr. Hammond?

Yes.

Mr. Menard? Yes. Mr. Porter? Yes. Chair votes yes.

Thank you very much. You're welcome.

Okay. Next up, public hearing, major subdivision, combined preliminary and final plan, 566 Providence Pike. Mr. Carullo?

This is a project that was before the board, I believe. TWO YEARS AGO AND RECEIVED A MASTER PLAN APPROVAL. AT THE TIME IT WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE FORMER STATUTE SO IT HAD TO COME IN FOR A MASTER PLAN APPROVAL BECAUSE THERE WAS A A REQUEST FOR A LESTER REQUIRED FRONTAGE IN LOTWITH FOR THIS SUBDIVISION. THEY WERE REFERRED TO THE ZONING BOARD. THEY RECEIVED THEIR ZONING RELIEF. THEN THEY WERE ABLE TO GO FORWARD WITH THEIR STATE PERMITS. I BELIEVE THEY WERE IN DEM FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS TRYING TO GET THEIR DEM PERMIT. THEY NOW HAVE THEIR DEM PERMIT, THEIR OWTS PERMIT, THEIR RIPTIZ PERMIT, THEIR RIDOT PERMIT. ALL IN HERE AND SO PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS ACTUALLY RECOMMENDING A COMBINED PRELIMINARY FINAL APPROVAL FOR THIS BUT I BELIEVE THEY DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD WITH REGARD TO THIS REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY FINAL APPROVAL

Good evening, my name is Michael Darvo, I'm a land surveyor on behalf of my client Donna Carvo, who is here, the owner of the property is also here. Yeah, it's been about two years, maybe a little longer since we started this process. What we're looking to do is to take a almost 32 and a half acre piece of property and divide it into two lots. The property currently has one single family house lot on the property, which is located near adjacent to Providence Pike. We're looking to take the house and create a roughly two, two and a half acre lot surrounding the house and so forth for one property so that the current owner of the site can live there. And the remaining 30 acres or so is gonna be for one additional house lot. Are there other plans? Yeah, I think the best one would be potentially sheet five or six of nine. Should it be all same PDF that was submitted? No? And while he's doing that, in any case, the new 30 acre piece will only have 50 feet of frontage on Providence Pike. That's why we had to get the zoning relief for the width of that property. which is located in this area here. The plan set has nine sheets in it. It's quite a few plans, but there was significant engineering involved with the driveway. There was a wetland crossing. But like the planners said, we have gotten all of our approvals. Rhode Island DEM wetlands application was submitted and approved after about 20 months. which also required a RIPTE's permit because we're clearing more than an acre of land. That has been issued by DEM. We've submitted for a new septic design for the proposed home that's been approved by DEM. We've submitted to dot for the driveway location on Providence Pike that has been approved by around Department of Transportation.

Yes, I'm sorry to interrupt a question on the driveway. Yes, is that land part of the property or is it an easement with the 2 abutters on each side?

So currently. Our proposal is this will be the two acre piece. The house is here and some accessory buildings. This area here is an AT&T easement for all their major internet. I think it goes, I met the AT&T guy out there a couple of years ago. I think it goes to Worcester and so forth. It's a major line. They suggested we stay away from this as much as possible. This parcel A will have 50 feet of frontage. So this area here is part of the lot. So it's not an easement or a right-of-way. It is owned by this parcel A. There are wetlands that cross through this property. There's a stream, so we've gotten, through the DEM wetland process, approval to bring a driveway in, cross the wetlands, and we are proposing a cul-de-sac As you come up the driveway, there will be a cul-de-sac, basically in this area here, with a house off of that so that fire trucks can maneuver through and so forth. And the driveway will spur off of that at this time so there's still some privacy for the home and whatnot. Okay? All right. Thank you.

CJ, you want to move forward one plan? I think that shows one sheet.

Yeah. Thank you. This is the location of the proposed driveway cul-de-sac. Proposed dwelling. As you can see, there's wetlands that flow bisect this property basically. So these lots were cut out in the 50s or so along Providence Pike. There's existing dwellings here. We're looking to build in the back on the 30 acres.

How far away is that cul-de-sac driveway from the actual dwelling?

It's probably about 400 feet or so. The idea is that they wanted to still have some privacy with their home away from this cul-de-sac in case they could have delivery drivers and things like that leave packages at the cul-de-sac and so forth and not have to go to the home.

Okay. The delivery drivers certainly will get their exercise.

They plan to put in a little kiosk and so forth. I see.

In that case, the homeowner gets their exercise. There you go.

What are we using? Yeah, so the proposal is to have a open bottom, what they call a box culvert. I think it's 12 feet wide by three feet high, so that underneath is still the stream that flows through, and craters can go through there and so forth. That's always big with DEM. And on top of that will be a paved driveway, if they so choose to pave it. It's been designed to accommodate pavement.

Is that strong enough to hold a fire truck?

Yes.

A tanker truck?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? No. Okay. What are you looking for from us, Mr. Carullo?

Well, it would be a motion to grant the combined preliminary final approval. Normally, we would just do a preliminary approval pending state permits, but this project has been in the process so long that the applicant was able to secure all of their state permits in the interim, so.

This item does show public hearing.

Right, it was a public hearing, it was continued from the last meeting, that's correct.

Make a motion to open the public hearing.

Second. Those in favor?

Aye. Opposed? No. Public hearing is opened at 7.17. Does anybody wish to speak? Don't all rush up at once.

Make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. Those in favor? Aye. Opposed? And we're closing 718. We just caught it on the cusp. Okay. So with that, we're looking for a motion to approve the or not approve the combined preliminary final.

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the combined preliminary final plan based on the planning office findings and the planning office recommendation.

Thank you, Dr. Benoit. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second from Mr. Menard. Roll call vote. Dr. Benoit? Yes. Mr. Hammond? Yes. Mr. Menard? Yes.

Mr. Porter? Yes.

And the chair votes yes, so thank you.

and with that we're at item 10. the nba isn't tonight it's saturday the reason why we're going so quick i don't know maybe that's a hockey game maybe vegas okay

So item 10, symbolic meeting, pre-application, concept review, minor subdivision, Buxton Hollow Farm, 300 Buxton Street. And as stated earlier in the meeting, Mr. Menard has recused himself for this item. Mr. Carullo.

Mr. Chairman, this is a revised development for 300 Buxton Street. You may recall a couple of years ago they had Jake's Farm 1, which received a master plan approval from the planning board for, I believe, six duplex units, condo style development. The application is now back before the planning board, Jake's Farm 2, for a pre-application. So there'll be no action taken by the board this evening. It's just a presentation by the engineers and a conversation with the board for, I believe it's a nine lot, would be a conservation development type subdivision.

Okay. Good evening, members of the board. Attorney Dan Ardente from Mancini Carter for the Record on behalf of Jack's Farm 2 LLC. As we already went over, this is going to be a bit of a change from the master plan that was originally granted. This is going from six duplex units, which would be ultimately 12 units, a nine single family lot proposal. As the town knows, this was originally, this is a 25 and a half acre site where this new proposal is proposing roughly 15 and a half acres for open space with the remaining being developmental. Based on this being pre-application, there's not a whole lot for me tonight, but I will introduce our engineer, Eric Privy, and he'll give you kind of the more engineering details of this.

Great, thank you.

Good evening for the record. My name is Eric Priby, P-R-I-B as in Victor E. I'm a registered professional engineer with Duprete Engineering. Office is at 2 Stafford Court in Cranston, Rhode Island. You look familiar. The property's located at 300 Buxton Street. It's known as Assessor's Plat One, lot 35. It's a 25.5 acre parcel. Again, it's zoned rural agricultural. It's a vacant wooded site. There is an existing barn slash garage. Actually, I got a pointer here. There is an existing driveway. There's an existing driveway off of Buxton that comes in right here directly across from Scott Street. And it comes in and there's a crossing with the wetland here and then this is where I'm talking about the barn slash garage area. as it comes through here and then it kind of opens up. There's actually an abutting home here that uses that driveway and shares that driveway here as well, one of our neighbors that has driveway access through this area. And then it opens up to the rear portion of the parcel actually over here that's been cleared and used for mulch operations and such. Then in the northern, sorry, this is not the northern, so this is turned sideways. We did it to make it, try to make it easier to see everything on one page, but technically this is the western side over here. So the western side or north of, or top of page here, this section over here is all completely wooded on the western side. of the wetland. So there is a freshwater wetland complex that bisects the site from a north-south direction here, so left and right on the page. And that's a forested wetland in this area. There's also another wetland that's associated right here that comes through and bisects this piece of the site. As I mentioned, there is an existing driveway here, and that was permitted for a crossing in this area. It has a 15-foot crossing area. It has the culvert pipes and such, and that was permitted through Department of Environmental Management.

Just like your previous one, with that crossing, is that set up to accommodate fire equipment?

It is, yes. Proposed is a, actually, can you go to the next one, the next page, please? Yeah, that's it. I just wanted to briefly show the previous master plan because I think it's helpful to see the difference of what it was and what we're going to and why we're doing it because there's a thought process behind it. Again, the roadway came in off of the existing drive area. There was a loop road that came in here and you can see there's six duplex units in here. going around the outside here. There was a public well that was located here as well. So there was a 12 total units, six duplexes throughout with this large loop road in here as well. I think it's just helpful to remember what that is. Obviously either some of you might not have been on the board or it was a few years ago and we tend to forget things. If you could go back now just to show comparison. So now we've reduced the unit count down to nine. We're down to nine and they're all single family units now too. Again, so that's kind of a difference of when you look at the surrounding properties in the RA, the rural agricultural district, tends to be single family homes and such. So we're back to single family homes in this area. We've got a reduced unit count down to nine. Each of these lots will be able to have its own on-site wastewater treatment system, and it'll have its own private well. So very standard, what you're probably used to seeing in town, a septic and a well on its own single family lot. The road coming in here, again utilizing that same crossing area, comes in with a standard cul-de-sac, just a cul-de-sac turnaround in this area. Still preserving this whole western portion over here. of the wetland. We don't have to cross this wetland at all. We're able to use the same area of the upland area as you come in here. Again, the roadway is aligned with Scott Street. We felt that was important for quite a few reasons. One, I mean, that's the existing location that people are used to it being. And number two, obviously when you have intersecting roadways, you want them either exactly across from each other or typically a minimum of 150 feet apart so that there's no turning conflicts between those users.

So they're aligned with each other in this area as well.

The roadway length's about 1,300 feet. We have requested reduced pavement width, and I'm sure that's something that will probably be discussed tonight as well, but we are requesting it for 20 feet, especially in this wetland crossing area where it's very important to demonstrate to the Department of Environmental Management that we are reducing pavement to the maximum width and not increasing any increasing any impacts in the wetland zone. So very important to keep that as narrow as possible in that area. Typically the 20 feet is excellent for fire safety and access and such. We do have 15.4 acres of open space, so that's 61% of the site, which is well above the 50% that's required for conservation developments. We're proposing that the open space would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. And again, it's a conservation-focused design. Each of the lots are a minimum of 30,000 square feet, with the average lot size being actually closer to 40,000 square feet. We do have two low and moderate income housing units. So that's 22% of the site. So two out of the nine will be low and moderate income housing sites. More generically, I mean, again, we're at Pre applications. I'll tell you conceptually what we're thinking at least stormwater again. We'll be taking the stormwater directly from. The roadway we have room for low impact, best management practices and being able to treat right on site. We know we have to follow both the town and the state requirements, post-development less than pre-development, water quality, recharge, all those things. So we know we'll have to do that as the stages progress. We do also know, very early in the process, we know we need a DEM wetlands permit. We know that we need a DEM subdivision suitability for septic systems. And we would need to come back to this board for other approvals, either master plan or preliminary plan. So some of the highlights that we have here, again, reduced density, nine units, nine single-family units from 12 total units, which were duplexes, different fit there as well. We've got 61% open space and conserving for this area, the large open space area as well. So that's kind of my highlight. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I wanted to give an overview without going... too long on it. I'm not sure.

Looks like Kevin, you got something to add as well?

Oh yeah, thank you.

So the barn in the front, the existing barn in the front, we wanted to keep that barn. And is there any way to actually, are you able to zoom in a little bit there? It might be a little bit, it's okay if not. I'm looking right here in this front area. I could have given you, probably given you an exhibit and made it easier. I apologize for that. That's perfect, thank you. So this is the existing barn that's located there today. Again, the driveway comes in here, comes across with the wetland, and that's an existing barn slash garage in this area. We really like that feature. If you've ever been there, and I'm sure typically this board goes for a site walk, we'll get to see it as the project progresses, but it's a really nice barn, and we wanted to keep it if we could. So we were actually requesting relief. Given where the wetlands are located, we somewhat need to keep the road where it needs to be. We can't push the road too far away from the existing barn, otherwise it goes into a wetland, this D series wetland over here. So we need to hold it in this location, and that's creating some relief of a front yard. So this barn is actually located on lot nine. I know it's difficult to see right here with this. It's actually very, very slim in this area, but it's actually a part, this piece in the front here is part of lot nine. so that it was on a lot. It'd be an ancillary lot of lot nine. And we wanted to keep it on there. So that's why we show this dimension on here. It's a 5.7 feet off the front right away, which is inside of the required front yard setback area. Again, if it's something that the planning board absolutely did not want, we could discuss whether or not we just remove it. But we think it has, again, from the visual of coming along Buxton, you have the driveway and the barn that's been there, and it has a visual when you're coming in. We wanted to keep it. And so, again, we'd be happy to hear some feedback on how you feel about that. Yeah.

So a couple things. One, it's not a historical barn. No, no, no, no, no. Because it's part of lot nine, whoever buys lot nine, therefore owns the barn. Correct. Owns all that. Yep.

We thought it'd be easier rather than putting it on a separate lot because then it becomes, it would have a different owner at that point. So it was easier to be part of nine and being an ancillary building on nine. Okay.

And that's why lot nine is 1.73 acres compared to the other.

That's exactly right. What's the arrangement for allowing for the shared driveway? uh the existing lot right here a lot 466 right here would continue to be able to use the new roadway as well what's the have they been granted some easement or something like that i believe so yeah and that would be in the deed for whichever lots it affects

which looks like um so right i we probably could actually what would be easier is to slide over lot one and just put it through the open so there's a very very if you see the piece of this there's a very small piece that's on lot one so it's probably better off to just slide this over a tiny bit and not encumber lot number one And just put it within, this is actually an open space lot, and have the easement stay strictly on the open space and go through the open space, get to the right of way, and be done. So that's a good comment.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? Of course. Would the applicant consider actually deeding the right of way over to that lot in which regard you would no longer need an easement?

I cannot connect to that. I know they're here.

I'm not saying that that's something- It's a great suggestion. But it would resolve an issue with regard to, I believe that's probably going to be common areas, part of the conservation development. It would take that encumbrance off of that area. Just a thought.

So you're saying they'd be deeding over a piece of land that eliminates lot one and the open space from having to worry about it. Correct. Yeah.

Yeah, so Kevin Morin with VP of Engineering Development with Green Development. We manage the Jake's Farm LLC entity. And yeah, I mean, essentially administratively provide some land or right away to, instead of an easement, it would just take that form.

Yeah, I think that would work. You'd carve out that little corner. There is an easement.

Yeah, yeah. Platted, there was a survey done. The driveway and the easement don't exactly line up. I think I spoke to the owners, Bianca, I don't think they're here, Bianca, and I forgot her husband's name, that we'll square away that easement as we get further, like, you know, match the driveway or, as suggested, maybe do that approach. Definitely open to that.

Yeah, that seems like a very clean way to do it.

Yep.

Anything else from the board? Dr. Gray?

I have a number of concerns. Number one, that building's within six feet of the roadway. With the kind of winter we just had, the snow plow is going to be pushed right up against that bond. I would like to see that bond moved sufficient distance. Number two, the road where it narrows across the wetlands, just how wide is that going to be? Again, with the concern- 20 feet. With the snow plow banks on both sides, would two-way traffic still be able to converse through?

Yep, we're proposing 20 feet is what we're proposing. We've had some preliminary discussions with the fire marshal, so typically for fire apparatus, two-way and also for the fire apparatus, 20 feet is usually a good number.

Now, that existing crossing of the wetlands, have any borings been done to know what in the world is under there? Is it just old swamp with a bunch of rocks and a little dirt on top? Have you done any borings or will you do any borings to find out how sound the base is for a road?

We have not. Again, we're at the pre-application stage, so putting that level of detail wouldn't necessarily at this time. But I've noted it, and that's a good comment.

And the other thing, we do have regulations for a reason. And you're asking for several waivers, especially the length of the cul-de-sac. That concerns me. That's all I have for now.

Thank you.

Mr. Crewell, I have a question. I know it's a conservation belt, but wouldn't the 26-foot rule apply here for the roadway?

It does, yeah.

You just said we have the place where it crosses the wetlands is 20 feet.

Yeah, so again, this is a pre-app, but they're contemplating requesting a waiver from the planning board with regard to the subdivision regulation. I think Dr. Benoit just mentioned that himself as to the regard to the width of that road where it would be crossing the wetland.

my suggestion would be to contemplate 26 feet. That would also address one of your concerns, at least for the snow, right, and for larger vehicles. That would be.

Even in the wetland area? I'm just trying to clarify as well.

Specifically that part that you said was going to be 20 feet. Right. Make the entire thing conform to our standard regulations, but definitely in the wetland. But it wouldn't make sense to make that wider than the rest. Just make the whole thing, visually it would probably look strange if you did.

I just want to make sure we're saying it properly, and I apologize if I'm saying it too much. So if it was to be 24 or 26 throughout, it would actually be tapered at the wetland to be able to have it be as a lot of times you see at wetland crossing you have to show reduction of impacts as much as possible and so it would actually be tapered just at the wetland crossing so i just want to make sure we're i'm properly saying and we're all hearing the same thing that's all it's it's our regulation is 26 feet for actual roadways they would be requesting a waiver for that section of the road that's going through the wetland to be able to reduce it to 20 feet i think that's what eric is presenting so to reduce the

the roadway with itself yes but it still would be 26 overall oh the right-of-way is still 50 feet the right-of-way would still be 50 feet the pavement itself would be 20 feet it'd be like a coke bottle mr chairman yeah i got it

I can tell you just from experience with DEM, that's one of the requirements of what we are required to do is look at alternatives of how are there ways to reduce the impacts to the wetland. If the planning board says that they are not going to allow, that you are not going to allow a 20-foot reduction, we can then take that to the DEM and say, we tried.

I think both ways need to be looked at. That's what it sounds like. Is that consistent with your concern, Dr. Benoit? Yes.

Okay.

One of the things as I'm looking at this plan is the westerly part of open space that you were showing. It doesn't seem like the other lots have much of a pathway. So if there were a path between lot four and five, so then that way, I know you mentioned that there was going to be an HOA. At least those other folks can be able to access that open space and there's a pathway through. I think that would be a little bit, make this a little bit more successful as well.

Gotcha. Or would you also consider five and six as long as there's an area to get through there? Yeah, yeah, either way. Something like that to get, okay, that makes sense.

And then if there's any pedestrian friendly passive recreation ability to cross over from one side to the other of the wetlands in that narrowest space. So then that way you're not mucking through wetlands and streams that are in that zone. So then that way the entirety of the open space is truly open to the HOA that would be utilizing it.

No, I agree, I think that actually adds value.

And then my other concern would be similar with Dr. Benoit with that barn. I would see it being more advantageous to have that become part of the open space as well and maybe the HOA have jurisdiction over the barn. There could be some sort of community use based out of that. But then that really eliminates this oddly shaped lot nine. And, you know, 20, 30 years from now, if somebody buys that piece of property after it's been developed, they don't even realize that that's part of their property. You know, it keeps that barn from, you know, being forgotten and deteriorating.

So are you saying, like, take the whole, like, kind of L-shaped area and just make that all part of open space?

And I can say that lot nine does have enough to stand alone. Sorry. It has enough area to stand alone with a minimum of 30,000 on its own. It does.

So that little pie shape, you know, becomes lot nine in that this, you know, quadrangle that's down as you enter just becomes the truly an open, another open space. that is managed by the HOA or however you decide to put this conservation easement. And I know you've heard concerns from this board previously about HOAs and making sure that open space is truly open to the public. So I would ask you to review that with the applicant that this not just be open space reserved just for these nine lots, but also give the benefit to neighboring parcels that are around that they can benefit this because I believe at some point I did hear that there was like a butterfly garden or something like that in this zone. Probably from a Valley Breeze article years ago, but something like that, I digress. It would probably be, like I said, beneficial just for the community and surrounding neighbors to be able to enjoy that as well.

Yeah, and similar to the planner's suggestion on the, I think it simplifies it quite a bit.

And then when we're looking at, you know, taking care of that conservation overlay, you know, that gets deeded over to, you know, the North Smithfield Land Trust or the Heritage Association or the Conservation Commission to kind of all be working in concert together.

Yep. Yep. Anything else from the board? Any other comments? Dr. Benoit? No.

I have a question for Mr. Morin. Would there be any green energy incorporated into this project?

No, there's none. If there were, it would be on the rooftops, and that would be by whoever buys the house, develops the, builds the houses.

No wind turbine. No.

No. I mean, I appreciate the feedback on the barn. It's not old. It's maybe 18 years old, but it looks pretty neat, I think. And we talked about internally whether we put it in open space or... We thought maybe putting it with lot nine made sense, but the suggestion I think is well taken.

Yeah, I think it adds more value as part of open space because then it's open to everyone.

Yeah, and maybe that helps maintain that area too, part of the open space. And I think the building would be further, I mean, we'll have to clarify that if we come back. And I think we'll probably come back as a master plan, I think, to get some of these things solidified with respect to road width before we spend a lot of time with Rhode Island DEM. trying to permit something that one or the other disagrees with. And I think we'll probably come back as a master plan and all likelihood to try to vet that out a little bit more. But the building would be, what, six feet to the right-of-way line, then another 12 feet to the pavement, something like that. So it's probably maybe 18 feet from the road. We'll double check that. The building itself is further from the roadway surface than the right-of-way line. So that may help with the location it's in.

Yeah, I would suggest as you alluded to Mr. previous is if you could take that open space and maybe have that be an enlarged drawing for the next presentation. Really, you have three segments to this. You have obviously where the houses are as your middle one, but then even the western, if that could be enlarged, but showing where you're gonna provide public access, all those kind of things, I think it'll just be easier to look at. And CJ doesn't have to spend all this time zooming and unzooming. Don't want any carpal tunnel issues here.

One last item, and I think you could probably have read that from the Chair and Dr. Benoit, is probably the less number of waivers that you come to us, the easier it will make our decision. I think we have to analyze the merits of every application that comes before us, but when we get a laundry list of waivers asking for this and that just because it's a little bit easier. We don't take that lightly. So I would just make sure that you review with the applicants that, Is this a waiver that's truly needed or we're just trying to skirt this one regulation or something? And I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but it just makes our job that much easier. Because then that way we have conformity throughout the town. And then the one thing I hate to do is set precedents, and it's one of those things that we can easily apply across the board if there's minimal waiver requests as you come forward.

Thank you.

Okay, I believe there's, Ms. Groh, since this is a pre-application, Is there a public hearing to this?

There's no public hearing, but I mean, you can certainly ask if there's anyone here from the public that may have a comment. There was no notice.

Okay, we do. Therefore, we need a public hearing.

Make a motion to open up a public hearing.

Second. Those in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Public hearing is open at 746. Just for you.

Good evening. My name is Donna Bevin. I live at 356 Buxton Street. My concern is in this day and age, most people are allowed to put ADUs in their yard. So if they allow nine houses, that might be nine ADUs going in there too at some point. So that's my concern.

I'm going to ask the dumb question. What's an ADU?

The Accessory Dwelling Unit. So if you have an elderly person that wants to live alone and they come on your land.

You mean a secondary building?

Yeah, so it's kind of like a tiny house that can be on your land. Yeah, I got you.

Right, okay. Thank you. You had something?

Is that something we can put in as a cannot have in the future kind of comment on the deed?

ADs are authorized by right, by state statute, so I'm not really sure that you have the ability to override Rhode Island general law. I would say that you probably don't.

Okay. Absolutely.

Good evening, I'm Scott Lentz, also an abutter at 474 Buxton Street. I just wanted to point out that, and this board certainly knows except one new member, that this has already gone through the board and there were a number of waivers requested. and about 15 stipulations that were made for this particular development and I would just like to say that those existing waivers and especially the stipulations that were made should be I mean, not considered again. They should be staying the same. From my point of view, it's been through the process. If they want to change it from 12 to 9, fine, but then stay with the same waivers and the same stipulations, then I'm happy. That's it. Okay. Thank you.

Robert Bevin, 356 Buxton Street. My concern, it's also to do with the waivers. Back when it was Frank Jake's going for building on this site, he was told that he needed sidewalks. I noticed the applicant is requesting a waiver not to have sidewalks. I think in this day and age, in 2026, you should have sidewalks in an area. Going with what the board said too, when you ask for a lot of waivers, I do think it makes it tougher for you all to approve something. It adds to the precedent of future developers also wanting those same waivers just so they can do less when they apply. And I would also mention that the street, should be checked out, Buxton Street should be checked out too. Just because you'll have the additional traffic, especially if you have those ADUs also going in. You'll have many additional cars using that road. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify one thing. No one is requesting any waivers. This is not an application before the board for action. This is simply a pre-app, and the applicant is looking for feedback, and they're receiving feedback, and that's fine. But I just want to clarify that no waivers have been requested at this point.

Appreciate that. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak? Mr. Menard?

Roland Menard, 357 Buxton Street. I'm not going to reiterate the sidewalk. I know it's not up for this pot this evening, but my concern is that that existing barn, and if it's going to be part of the association, I'd like it to be made sure that it's deeded, that it's not able to be rented for any type of activities. Somebody decides, we're going to have a craft night. So now you've got 20 people going to do an event. So that's my only concern with that property.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, look for a motion.

I'll make a motion to close public hearing.

Second. Anyone have a second? Those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Public hearing is closed at 7.51.

Mark, I have one question for you. When this comes back for a preliminary, or I'm sorry, master, could you provide us with the previous stipulations of waivers? So then that way we have a record of it?

Yes, we can actually present to you the decision, the recorded decision, which would have all that in it. Another thing I just want to be clear on, I believe this is a different applicant and this is a different application. It is not an alteration or a change to the prior application. Sure. I'm happy to provide any past history on the project as well as that decision letter for consideration of the board. But I just want to clarify again, this is a separate and distinct application from a separate and distinct applicant.

Okay, thank you. But also as such, this is pre-application, it's under the new rules. Correct. And therefore, there is no master. We'll go straight to preliminary after this, correct?

Well, this would be a major subdivision. No, it is a minor subdivision with a new road, so yeah, you're correct. I would suggest that if they desire to submit a master plan application, You can allow them to do that, but that is not required. It would be a preliminary.

We'll weigh that just in light of the discussion about waivers and feedback that we got tonight. So we'll revisit that and be in touch. Great.

The comments from the public, at least for me, raised some additional ideas. Did any of you have any other things that you'd like? Okay, I would like to, I think the comment about sidewalks in particular is a good one. And again, it's not clear what you're proposing. So my first question is, Mr. Krueger, would this be considered part of the village where we require granite curbs, et cetera?

So the subdivision will require sidewalks in curbing, that is correct. Okay. Where right now the planning board is working through, and we haven't brought it back to the planning board currently, but the revised subdivision regulations and whether that is in effect. Whether that gets adopted by the planning board and is in effect at the time of the application or they're going under the current when the current regulations do require granite curbing and sidewalks.

And then as far as the question about putting restrictions on the usage of the barn, is that within our authority to put stipulations such as that?

I would say that it is. In particular, related to what was stated here this evening, that would be like an event. And that is something that is not normally allowed in a residential zone. So it would actually be contrary to zoning anyway. And I would think that when the homeowner association documents are prepared, Should this come forward and present it to the board, that would be something that would be contained in those documents as a restriction on the property, as well as any other terms and conditions with regard to the open space that would be commonly owned and commonly maintained.

Yeah, particularly if the open space has no parking for it or anything like that.

Yeah, I think that's something- It's not a use that's allowed in a residential district. Yeah, okay. It would be a non-residential use.

Dr. Benoit?

Will this be a town accepted public road?

I believe, well, I don't know the answer to that question, but I believe that's the intent.

We did propose it as a public road, yes we did. Yep.

Okay. And one last thing on everyone's favorite topic, sidewalks. Given the, again going back to where the road crosses over the wetlands. how do we accommodate sidewalks to have contiguous sidewalks along that road if it narrows down to 20 feet with no room for sidewalks? Sorry.

Well, who else? There's a couple ways you can do it. I mean, typically the sidewalk isn't right on the edge of pavement, first of all. Like through the rest of the subdivision, there's a couple ways you can do it. Sometimes you can still put it tight up against the back of curb in that area to at least narrow it so you don't have... Back a curb, a small island, then a sidewalk. That starts making you much wider. So I've seen one way where you put it right up against the edge of curbing in that area. That's one way to keep it narrower. The other is to actually just, you actually do just stop the sidewalk just in that one portion and people just, you know, go on. But then you...

well you still need a graph yeah it's it's a little interesting because you still need a grass shoulder of some nature anyway you don't go from edge of pave to retaining wall so right so it it's i think it needs to be considered because again you you know you'd have two sections of sidewalk but they're you gotta cross through some wetlands to get them from one to the other here's what i'll do i've noted the concern and we'll put more details into it for the next stage so yep that's that's all we can request So if there's anything else from the board, then I guess we can move on. Do we need, we're all set with this?

There's no action necessary, Mr. Chairman. You can ask the applicant to sum, or if they have nothing further to say, you can move on to the next agenda item.

I was going to say, I appreciate the feedback tonight. I think we got some excellent things out of it. I've noted such things as getting the butter driveway on a separate lot, putting a new access through either between lots four and five, or five and six. Some sort of way to make sure that everybody in the subdivision can get access to that open space. barn on the open space extra details on the rest of the of the items including you know how it would go across the wetlands and such so excellent very good feedback and i think will make for a better design altogether so thank you thanks for your time tonight thank you okay would you like to rejoin us mr menorah okay item uh uh

Mr. Chairman, can I make a motion to adjourn?

We do have one other item.

We have one more item.

Go again.

Administrative separation?

No.

Is that the only other item?

The final item is consideration of an amendment to the- Right. zoning ordinance to update the flood maps so that the town, FEMA has updated and revised the flood maps. The town is required to address those flood maps in their zoning code. And the planning board needs to make a recommendation to the town council that it's compliant with comprehensive plan.

So moved. Second. Second. We'll do roll call on that. Dr. Benoit? Yes. Mr. Hammond? Yes.

Mr. Menard?

Yes. Mr. Porter?

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Second. Those in favor? Aye. We are adjourned.