Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All set? Okay, David?

Okay, I'd like to make a motion to exit executive session, indicate that no votes were taken, and request that the minutes are sealed.

That's a motion, do we have a second? Second. That's a motion and a second, roll call please. Mr. Paragon? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves? Yes. Our next item on the agenda, open session discussion by council vote or other action on 1HT Auto LLC versus North Smithfield Town Council. David Punchak, individually and in his capacity as town council person. Rebecca DeCristofaro, individually and in her capacity as town council vice president. Claire O'Hara, individually and in her capacity as town council person. John Beauregard, individually and in his capacity as town council person. Kimberly Alves, individually and in her capacity as town council president. And Town of North Smithfield, case number PC2026-03051, appointment of legal counsel.

I would like to make a motion to authorize the solicitor to engage legal counsel at the municipal rate to represent the town and the town council members as individuals.

That's a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves? Yes.

Motion to adjourn.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Thanks, everybody.

Thank you. Is there anything that has to be said to the fact that we just took that little recess?

If there was a motion to recess, you should motion to reopen the meeting.

There wasn't. There wasn't.

No motion. There wasn't. I would just continue on with the meeting then, Mr. Chairman. We just let them invade and interrupt us. Okay. So, well, as I was saying, and fortunately I actually remember what I was saying, I was pointing out that we're talking about the Narragansett Improvement Conservation Development for Rankin Estates. That's what we're talking about. There has been a lot of conversation in previous meetings about the first project that was proposed by Narragansett improvements, the one that started 20 some years ago and all that. Went through, got master plan approval, but various reasons were suspended and this came up as a segment. But this is what we're here to talk about. unless someone can make a really good case for it I don't believe we need to talk any further about a project which is long a long time ago and not relevant to this one this one stands on its own just as the other one does okay so I just if we can do that that things will move along smoother talking about the past much like talking past 10 o'clock, doesn't improve things. So with that, we'll pick up the agenda. So we'll start with roll call. Dr. Benoit?

Here. Phil, what's your- Mr. Philip Gaspar.

Mr. Gasparo?

Here.

Mr. Hamm? Here. Mr. Menard? Here. Mr. Porter? Here. And the chair is here. We do have minutes to review from both May 14th and June 11th, so I'll give you a few moments to take a look at those. Any questions and comments? First on the May 14th. If not, I'll take a motion to accept as presented.

I'll make a motion to accept the meeting minutes as presented from May 14th and June 11th.

Both of them? Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No, okay. Next item, disclosure. Plenty board members need to disclose any potential conflicts on the matter before the board this evening.

I have to recuse because I'm a director of honor. I will take my seat in the audience and reserve the right to speak if I wish.

Thank you. Anyone else?

I reached out through the planning department to get permission to tour the estate, just to take a look at it. Since other members of the council had done this before, they gave me permission. I did that this week. I don't know if it's- Did you do that on your own? Yes, through Bobby and I got permission from the estate.

But did anybody accompany you either from- Nope. So entirely on your own? Yes. Okay. Mr. Solicitor, no issue with that? No issue.

Disclosing it is the important issue so the applicant knows that you are on the property. And if anything that you saw is going to be part of your consideration, you need to inform the applicant that that's going to be part of your consideration so they can respond to it. during the meeting. Okay.

Okay, great. Next item, disclosure notice. Any claim where members need to disclose any ex parte communications about any contested material, judicatory facts or opinions concerning the merits of the application before the board this evening. Anyone? Which is why I asked you if you had accompanied anybody, because it could have been ex parte. Okay. Okay, declaration of voting members. We do have a new member, Phil Ghisbarro. He's here as alternate one. But in as much as he has not been present for any other rank and state meetings, he will not be a voting member this evening. But Mr. Hammond, Mr. Menard, Mr. Porter, and myself will be the voting members. okay so with that we're going to continue um continue the meeting that uh from april 9th i believe um mr gorilla if you could just kind of summarize and get us back on track

Mr. Chairman, as you're aware, this is a continuation of the Rankin Estates major subdivision project. I believe it's been before the planning board. This is the fourth meeting. The board has continued the public hearing to this evening. I believe the applicants are here to continue their testimony. The project is a 126 unit single family residential conservation development, which means that the lots are generally smaller than would normally be allowed. But there is a substantial amount of open space that would be dedicated as this conservation area in relation to the development. I think I'll turn it over to the attorneys now for their presentation.

Thank you. Mr. Resnick.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Mike Resnick on behalf of the applicant owner. And as your planner just noted, this is I believe our fourth meeting on the subject. So I want to do two things this evening, two primary things in my opening. One is I want to identify for you what we've supplemented in the record from the last meeting. And then obviously, over the course of these four meetings, You've been presented with a lot of evidence, a lot of testimony, so I'd like to very briefly kind of marshal what's been presented to you. Then I have a couple discrete topics to discuss, and then I'm going to hand it over to Mr. Shevlin for his supplemental traffic report and testimony, as well as some of the deliverables that were promised by Mr. Preve, including that cut and grade plan that combined all the previous cut and grade plans, a couple other things. All right, so with that, since the last hearing, you have as part of your packet an updated supplemental traffic report, new traffic counts, updated crash review, updated no build, and build analysis and direct response to some of the concerns that were raised at the prior hearing. And of course, Mr. Shevlin is here to testify to that, and he'll come up shortly. There were also some concerns, questions raised relative to blasting, if blasting were required. And as Mr. Prive can say, at this point, we've not identified whether or not blasting would be required. But what we did do, and I'd ask that it be made part of the record, and I have copies if you'd like me to hand them up, Mr. Chairman. We submitted a fairly comprehensive letter. That letter goes through the state fire marshal requirements, the local blasting ordinance, pre-blast survey requirements, monitoring and control requirements, and basically confirms that blasting, if needed, will be regulated and controlled by state and the local ordinance. So I would suggest that I think that that memo should satisfy the board. I don't think that there's a reason for any further conditions on that. In addition, on June 23rd, we received a correspondence from Mr. Mayo. And I believe the next day we put together a fairly comprehensive response to that. I've asked the planner to make that. part of the record and I certainly have copies of that for the board if you'd like it. In short, we address Mr. Mayo's legal arguments about the recreational fields. We address his opinions on the master plan condition. And we also address grading, excavation, and the actual text of the ordinance and regulations as it relates to the earth removal activity. In addition, by way of supplemental materials, I had mentioned you have an overall grading plan exhibit. It gives the board one consolidated view of the site grading, the road layout, open space, drainage, and the field areas. And then we also have a revised HOA document. which includes all the maintenance obligations, etc. So again, that addresses ownership and maintenance of open space, recreational fields, storm water facilities, drainage structures, and common improvements. And that's been provided as part of the record. And obviously, if we were lucky to receive an approval as a conditional final, we'll work with solicitor and staff to make sure that that HOA document is as tight as possible. Let me very briefly discuss what's been presented in this preliminary record. You've got a preliminary plan set. You have engineering plans. You have grading plans. You have roadway plans. You have stormwater reports, traffic reports, environmental materials, archeological materials. You have the blasting memorandum, the HOA documents, and you've got multiple evenings of testimony and submissions. And I would suggest to the board, you've got everything that you need to render a favorable preliminary plan decision this evening. So let's very quickly talk about the required findings. development zoning consistency. So this is a conservation development. The ordinance is designed for cluster lots to preserve substantial open space, avoid conventional full spread subdivision design, create managed common open space system. And so it is our position that the record satisfies those requirements. With respect to traffic access, traffic was one of the principal concerns raised. We've responded with the updated supplemental traffic study you'll be hearing from Mr. Shevlin shortly. As it relates to storm water, drainage, infrastructure, of course Mr. Prive is here to answer any questions, but You have before you that stormwater design, that drainage system, that infrastructure layout, the maintenance framework. You've got the stormwater facilities and the drainage structures and the open space and the recreational areas spoken to in the HOA. What does that mean? We've demonstrated to this board how the system is designed. And we've also indicated through legal documents whose responsibility it is to maintain it over the long term. I'm not going to go over the blasting anymore. You have that memo. I'd like to focus very briefly on the rec fields. So there seems to be this concept that the regulations and the ordinance just contemplate the concept of a rec field. But respectfully, that's not the appropriate framing of this. Respectfully, Mr. Mayo tries to say that this is somehow outside the conservation development framework. That's not what the ordinance or the regulations say. The fields are expressly allowed by the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations. We've provided quotations with you before. I'm not going to go into any other detail other than to say this. It's not contemplated. It's an expressly allowed accessory use to this conservation development. And there is quintessential case law, which I provided on the memo, that suggests that this board has broad ability to fashion conditions on a project. What you can't do is condition a project in direct contravention to your regulations and your ordinance. So you can't say it's not a permitted accessory use if your ordinance says that it is. And so respectfully, I think that the question before the board has become a little bit modeled as we've heard public comment. This is not about whether the board likes the recreational fields. It's not about whether the community likes them. It's not about whether you could design a more appropriate project. It's simply this, do the proposed fields as designed comply with the applicable engineering, grading, drainage, stormwater, and environmental standards? Do we meet the regulations? The answer has to be yes. The answer has to be yes because there has been no expert testimony presented to this board in any discipline whatsoever. to rebut any of the opinions that our experts have put forth. In fact, the only opportunity for rebuttment was a peer review that was done by Mr. Casale's office wherein we made all the recommendations and we obviated his concerns. So respectfully, I would suggest that it's about whether these fields conform with the regulations, not if we like them or not. And unless there's something that could be presented to demonstrate to us that we're outside those applicable regulations, we believe that the rec fields are more than appropriate and they're part of this decision. Just a couple other issues before I turn it over. I'm not stating this in a patronizing way. I have to say it because I'm making a record because I have concerns about where this project is going. Your job as a planning board is to apply the regulations. You are not a town council. You are not a political body. You have the absolute right and we are more than happy to engage in the discourse that we've gone over for three or four hearings. But the job is not to pander to the crowd. The job is to apply the regulations. That's your charge, respectfully. So with that, I'd like to call up Mr. Shevlin. Mr. Shevlin, I believe you've already been. Accepted as an expert, as a traffic expert, Mr. Chairman, if we could just confirm that. And Mr. Sheldon, if you could briefly go over the supplemental materials that you put together, including any data, observations, analysis that you did, and ultimately, your conclusions.

Absolutely. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, for the record, my name is John Shevlin from Park Corporation. The traffic study for this proposed project, which you received and we talked about at previous meetings. Based on the last May meeting and some of the discussion points that came up for that, we did do a supplemental report that was submitted on June 18th, 2026. So I just want to go over some of the items that were included as far as responding to some of the comments that were made. So amongst the comments and the items that were made, we were asked in regards to when our traffic counts were done. There was a comment made that we did them in June of 2024, and those thoughts that the counts were done after the school session, so the volumes may not be accurate in regards to what's there. So we went out in May, About five weeks ago, on May 19th, in order to get additional counts for the peak hours. So we did the morning peak hour counts at Matady Road intersection and also the Farnam Pike intersection. We did them during the morning and afternoon peak hours. What we found from the counts is that, oddly enough, in the morning peak hour, the traffic volumes were higher than what we had in the previous report. At the Matady Road intersection, it was about 13% higher, the volumes. And then at the Farnam Pike Greenville Road intersection, it was about 7% higher. Meanwhile, in the afternoon peak hour, the volumes were less during the peak hours. So the Manatee Road intersection was 9% less, and the Farnam Pike intersection was approximately 15% less. So it kind of shows that traffic does vary, but we weren't that far off in regards to what the traffic volumes were in June. But we wanted to get something that nobody can argue in regards to when they were done, what school in session, nobody was on vacation, everything else. So that's why we went ahead and we did the additional counts. There's also a question in regards to the crash data that we had. Our original report had three years of crash data information that we provided. I think the big thing that came up was in regards to fatalities that occurred out there. And our crash data from the previous study that we did with the three years showed no fatalities out there. So we did reach out to the North Smithfield Police Department to see if we can get updated information, which they provided information that extended from January 1 of 2023 to May 26 of 2025. The crashes were similar types of patterns as far as numbers or so. There was 45 crashes in the study area. I think our study showed it was 52 or 54, I believe. And then it broke down in regards to the type of damage. There was many, there was five that had no damage, there was 22 that had minor damage, then there was some that had some functional damage, meaning that they could still operate the vehicles. And then there was about 20 that had some disabling damage as far as the vehicles. We got information in regards to persons that were involved in crashes. There was 78 out of 95 that had no injuries, and there was 15 that complained of pain or injury in the crashes. One crash I want to focus on is that, as I mentioned before, there was one fatality that was noted. That occurred on August 25th, 2024. Our report previously was submitted in early August 2024, so obviously it wasn't included in our study. It was nothing that was omitted or left behind, but it was not included in the time period that we did our crash data for. And the information that we got on the crash, I think is worth noting, it occurred at 1.07 AM. The car was heading northbound at the southeast of the Greenville Road Douglas Pike intersection. There's a single vehicle crash on Douglas Pike where the driver crossed the center line, crossed the southbound lane, spun out of control and struck a tree. The report did not say the reason for the driver losing control of the vehicle, but from the report does not seem to be related to any kind of roadway conditions. It was more of a driver error, I believe. We also did ask the police department when we got the crash data if they had any information in regards to is there any bus traffic related issues that we should be aware of as far as safety issues. And the response to us was that there's none that we are aware of. So there's nothing that they were aware of in regards to buses causing any safety hazards out there. So I just want to go back to the counts that we performed last month. We took those counts, we reanalyzed the intersections with those volumes, so we looked at the three conditions that we looked at last time, the existing conditions using the 2026 counts. We looked at the future no-build, which is the 2031, five years out, and we added a 5% growth rate factor onto those to get the future no-build, that's without the development. And the last condition we looked at was the future 2031 build conditions, which added trips from the proposed development. I'd like to pass, I noticed yesterday when I was looking at our report that we submitted that the figures that were in that report were not the latest figures that we have in here as far as the crash distribution, I mean the crash, the vehicle distribution. But the analysis that was done includes that are related to these figures here. So it just shows you in regards to what the existing volumes are on this one, what the future no-build are, the site generated trips, and then the proposed trips.

thank you I know it's four sheets each they're clipped

These are also easier to read, 11 by 17, which I don't know if you printed out the report and in that by 11, they're hard to read. So I just want to note in regards to the future traffic conditions, when we did the analysis, we took to account the 126 units. And also our analysis that we performed at all the site traffic entering and exiting on the Douglas Pike driveway. The use of the second access is on our fault. When we had the plans back in 2024, we saw there's a second access and we thought there may be some secondary traffic going out that way. We learned out after the fact, after the project's sitting idle for two years, so that there was only emergency access. So we did revise our analysis to take into account that all the traffic's going out that driveway. So the results indicate that the only decrease in level of service we're comparing the future no-build to future build conditions is the approach from Matty Road on the east side of Douglas Pike, which results in a level of service change from C to D. However, this increase in delay from the C to D is only three seconds of additional delays, and everything else pretty much stayed the same. Like before, our previous analysis at the Farnum Pike Greenville Road intersection, that approached Greenville Road and Farnum Pike. There's level service F. There is an increase in delay as there was similarly before. This is something that we did discuss with DOT in the past as far as this intersection when we were doing the original study. And they, at the time, say that there's no desire to put a signal there at the time. They didn't feel like the delays and the approaches were significant throughout the day. They thought it was short periods. The last item that I want to talk about that came up at the main meeting is looking for ways to improve safety on Douglas Pike by trying to attempt to maintain traffic speeds at the posted speed limit or in the vicinity of the posted speed limit. So we have had discussions with the Ride Out Highway Safety Office And the preliminary agreed to go ahead without having to submittal two of them as far as having speed driver feedback signs, which will alert the motorists in regards to what the speed limits are and how fast they're going, which have shown in the past that this provides real speed information to drivers to promote safer driving. A study has shown that these signs could reduce speed and improve overall safety. The signs have enhanced driver awareness and speed limits in critical areas, and the signs have led to a decrease, found to lead to a decrease in crash and traffic violations. So DOT was, it's nothing that I haven't really seen them do on a lot of state highways, but they said they would be open to go ahead and get something on that to go and review. So we'll work with the DOT as far as signage and putting those types of signage in place. So that's really a summary in regards to what we pulled together and what we have submitted. We'll continue to work with DOT as far as getting the improvements off-site for any of the driver's feedback signs, and I'm open for any questions.

Anyone on the board with any questions? Mr. Chairman? No? No? Thank you very much.

Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shetland, your testimony this evening, the supplemental report, the supplemental data, and the opinions that you provided, all to a reasonable degree of certainty in your expertise as a PE, civil engineer, and traffic.

Yes, yes. And I will say the results are similar to what we testified last time. We feel this could be developed without having a significant impact on any safety or capacity issues.

We appreciate you taking a second pass on it in a different time frame. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Resnick, you had one other thing you wanted to cover?

Yes, a couple other deliverables that you had asked for. First, the overall grading plan. Mr. Prevey, if you'd like to come up and discuss that, if there's any questions. And then, of course, if there's any other questions relative to the stormwater management, et cetera, certainly Eric can take them.

Good evening, for the record. Eric Privy, P-R-I-V as in Victor E. I'm a registered professional engineer with Duprete Engineering. Go to the second page, actually. We were asked to take and try and show the overall plan for proposed and existing grades. So you have the existing topography. And we did our best, again, it is a 250 scale plan. We do also have individual sheets at 40 scale that do have all of the proposed and existing. But the idea was can we get it on one plan so we can see it all cumulatively. And we did our best. I hope we did a pretty good job. It's hard when there's two-foot contours everywhere on a 250 scale plan. But that's what we did with this plan. And that's what we provided. That was asked of us, and we provided. One of the other things that we did, actually, I have a pocket here. um we we had a discussion at the last meeting originally the parking for the rec fields were located over in this area and uh we realized that we could we could shift those over and so we tucked the parking in between the recreation fields which allowed us to tuck this whole limited disturbance the grading that kind of the proposed grading that was over in this corner as well and the grading that came around this corner here so we were able to tuck the limited disturbance in all in this corner by moving and relocating the parking to between the recreation field so that's also shown on here as well so folks that that are directly adjacent on leonard drive that were over in this area that limited disturbance is tucked in so that can stay as a as a treed area the forested area and there as well so that's the uh kind of one of the other highlights that was on this plan as well. Other than that, I didn't necessarily have anything extra tonight.

All right. Well, one of the things we had asked about was, which is, well, maybe it's appropriate to this. You can decide. Had asked you to consider permeable sidewalks, because we had given the, obviously at Massey you did get the waiver not to have the granite curbing, but I don't believe that waiver extended to not having sidewalks. Is that correct?

Is that correct? The waiver was for no curbing and no sidewalks.

Oh, okay. Sorry. But did you give some consideration? It's a different approach that doesn't have the runoff issues.

Again, we had demarcated where there is still a 13-foot shoulder that's there. And we can continue to look at that and see if there's a way to be able to accommodate something like that.

Okay.

Great. Thank you.

Is there anything else from Mr. Priebe from the board? No. Okay. Thank you.

So Mr. Chairman, Just very briefly, we've gone over the staff report. In particular, page three, excuse me, starting on page two of the report, it's a positive recommendation from staff as to the findings relative to this conservation development. One, generally consistent with the comprehensive community plan. Two, compliance with the zoning ordinance. Three, that there will be no significant negative environmental impacts from the proposed development. And four, that the development will not result in the creation of individual lots with such physical constraints. to development the building on those lots according to pertinent regulations and building standards would be impracticable. And finally, five, that the proposed development possesses adequate physical access to a public street. So obviously our experts have all presented on those issues. We concur with staff's findings. Staff goes on to recommend a grant with 19 conditions. We have no issue with all but one condition. And I had discussed this with your planner, and this had been discussed at several meetings. And that's condition one. And that's relative to the earth removal activity. And the language that you see is the first incantation that uses that commercial language. And if you remember the discourse, I think I don't want to put words in the board's mouth of the community, but I thought we kind of collectively decided it was better and more efficient to just go to the ordinance. So I've suggested that the language really be that all earth removal activity will be in accordance with that particular section of the ordinance. And today your planner had sent to me that ordinance number in that draft. I think that's appropriate. There's an ordinance on it. I think we get a little bit hung up when we try to turn ordinance language into a condition so i think it would just read better that way that's for number one for the other 19 uh we have no no issue with any of them we're agreeable to all the conditions and then i want to make sure i've stated this right there was also a request for a condition uh that all 126 lots be certified by our engineer when it comes to the build out of those individual lots. And we'd be happy to agree to that. That's very common practice. I know that Mr. Preve has done that many times and would be happy to do it for this project. So that's really it. We're fine with the conditions, albeit that one fix, and we've added one on that we're totally fine with. And with that, our presentation, Chief, is over. Obviously, we're here to answer any questions, but that's it for us.

Okay, just briefly, do you agree with that change on the first?

So Mr. Chairman, I believe it was at the first meeting this item came up and there was some suggested language. There was discourse back and forth. And the recommendation was that the language reflect the earth removal ordinance that is currently in place. I do have alternate language for consideration by the board. which I will hand to you, but it says stipulation one would read that all earth removal activity be subject and in compliance with chapter 156, earth removal as contained in the North Smithfield Court of Ordinances. There is a section that addresses that. So they're requesting that in the alternative to the language that I recommended at the beginning, that this language be adopted by the board. I have no objection to that, but it's the board's prerogative.

And I do agree that, as we've seen in plenty of other times, that when you try to rewrite what's in the ordinance into the, it gets blurry. I think it was just a cleaner way. It gets blurry at best.

We're just changing the intent.

Have everything documented in one official place and that generally works better. Okay, before we- Mr. Chairman, just one more thing. Sure.

I think what the attorney is referring to is a question I had posed to them regarding 128 certifications that are authorized through the building code. And I believe that they're agreeing to have the project certified by their design engineer, their onsite engineer, incrementally.

As it relates to each lot, right?

Yeah. The 128 isn't the count. 126 is the count. Yeah. Oh, great.

128 is the form, yes.

Thank you. Okay. The 128, however, wouldn't be for each individual house lot. It would be for the entirety of the project.

Right. All right. So before we open the public hearings, anybody on the board have any questions or comments to make? No? So with that, I'll take a motion to open the public hearing. So moved. Well, I'm looking for a motion. So I moved it. All right. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Those in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Public hearing is open at 7.53. Again, I'll remind you to please be brief. Please don't repeat what people said. Before you may make reference to it, of course, to say that you also agree with that, but then move on to whatever your topic is, whatever new topic you want to bring up. And we'll go in the order of the sign-in sheet. So, Peter, go down. Nice color shirt, Peter.

I know. You got the memo. Okay, Peter Golden, 170 Log Road, Harrisville. Last time I was here, I don't think I went to the June 11th meeting. I was not aware of it. I asked about the gate that's going to be on Brookside Drive, and it's blocking public access to public land, the roads. You guys were going to look into it. Any results on that?

So what Mr. Gordon's referring to is what is referred to as a paper street. A paper street is just that, it's a street that's laid out as a map. It's owned in the public domain, but it is not public property, so to speak. I mean, I'm sure our solicitor could address that also. But until it is approved and accepted by the town,

public street so it's public land and it's in the public domain it is not public land I just want to be clear on that I understand that the pret engineering is an extremely talented group of individuals and they did all their research on what they own and what they don't own that's showing that it's the town land

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into a debate on this. The applicant, North Dupree Engineering, owns that street. That is a paper street platted on a map that is in the public domain.

It may be helpful to explain the difference between public land and in the public domain. Right. Because that may be causing some confusion.

So until that road is improved and accepted by the town, it is not public land. The fact that it's in the public domain means it's generally available for the public or in a butter or somebody to approve after a public hearing with the town to extend or create a roadway. I don't know if that's clear enough.

Okay, I'd still like to know is the gate going to be going over Public land domain, however you want to say it, not property. Is it going to be blocking access by car and or by foot? Going past the gate that's public land domain.

So you're asking if the gate, where the gate will be positioned in terms of property boundary?

Right. When I spoke last time, I pointed that it was over that, and there was further land behind that that was not theirs. Okay. It was owned by the town.

Okay. Is there something quick that Mr. Priebe could answer? Is that right? Yeah, so the- Do you want to go to one of your?

Yeah, it might be, Carl, if you could go maybe two ahead. there we go so the gate this is uh brookside drive right in this area the gate's going to go at the end of brookside drive yes it is in the paper street and it is located to be located here so that vehicles cannot so again if there was any any vehicles from the residents here they're not able to go onto brookside drive so it'd be located right here it is for the emergency access that also helps Leonard Drive folks. It'll also help Brookside Drive to be able to get fire trucks down. They would be able to come through this road also and help Brookside Drive if this was a more efficient, faster route for them to get to as well. So it is providing a public access to be able to get for faster emergency access purposes as well. I think that's important to note. It's not for our residents as well. It's an emergency access to benefit both adjacent communities.

But the area between the blue lines. Is a paper street. Paper street which eventually will be a public street if approved or?

It would not be a public street until such time that someone petitioned the planning board and constructed it and it was approved by the town. I don't want to belabor the fact, typically, that paper streets like that are available for abandonment. And when a street is abandoned, so to speak, the town declares it to be of no use to the public and no intent to improve it. And when it is abandoned, half of the street goes to each abutting property owner. I mean, I don't want to get into a situation where I'm advising an applicant about something.

Understood. Okay, thank you.

Let me take a stab at it, if I would please. The Map Street is located on a property that is owned by Narragansett Improvement. It's a map street, and as Mr. Carullo indicated, it could be improved if one wanted to do that. If we wanted to do it, we could do it. But it is owned in fee simple by the applicant.

So is it owned but not part of the Rankin Estates property?

No, it is part of it.

Because that's what I'm not... It looks like it's outside...

Correct. No, it's not. This piece right here is the extension of Brookside Drive. When it was originally platted, it did have a larger plat to it. And the actual road... Sorry. The actual surface of the road stops back here, though. So...

And that land is not owned by- It is not. Okay.

It is not.

It is not owned by Dupree.

Correct. That would be Narragansett Improvement. You're right.

The correct way to say it is it is not owned by Narragansett Improvement, as was initially kind of put out there. So it is not owned, so therefore it's not subject to or Narragansett Improvement doesn't have the ability to just say, well, I want to make it a – I want to abandon it or whatever, right?

See, there's a process for street abandonment, there's a process for street extension and creation. That is a public process. Street creation comes to the planning board for creation and extension. It requires a public hearing. Street abandonment goes to the town council for a declaration that it's no longer of use or will not be intended to be improved or used by the public. At which point, if it is abandoned by the town, each abutting property owner divides the street and

Possession of half of the street. In which case a good portion of this would go.

In which case the abutters are the same.

Right. Now, but in terms of currently the current status and putting a gate across it, where are the regulations on someone as part of a development putting a gate across land which they don't own?

Well, as part of the subdivision approval, you can certainly authorize a gate to provide public safety emergency access. The intent of the paper street is to be improved as a public street. I think what's happening here is a portion of it is being used for public safety purposes. Legally, I'm not really sure how That would work out, but I think the alternative is to build it to an extent and make it a public street. I don't think that would be a benefit to anybody in this particular instance.

All right. similar you might see it on on other subdivisions in town and such if if for instance if when when Leonard Drive was put in that if if this area here if they were to put an emergency access in they would then deed that over at the same time, right? It would be a new road and they would put an end to it. And it's a good planning practice to do that on an adjacent piece of land that might be connected to in the future. That's hence why there are two of them here. There's one here and the one that we're connecting to here. Again, we are not using it for a house. We're not putting our houses on it. We're not putting our public, I mean, we're not putting our improvements on it. We are using it for what it's meant to be used for, which is for a passage across it.

Gotcha. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Breving. Yep. Did you have anything else, Mr. Gordon, before I hand?

If the gate's there, is it for to stop vehicle use only, or is it to stop people

Mr. Prevy, the question is, is it to prevent people from walking there or is it only for vehicles? It's only for vehicles. Okay, there we go. Great. Next up, Harley Mitchell.

My name's Harley Mitchell, I live at 474 Greenville Road. Harley, like a motorcycle, H-A-R-L-E-Y. 474 Greenville Road. I just have a question. Will the document that was just provided be put on the website as well from the traffic study, that big one?

If that was changed- I would assume so. This will be put on the website as part of the record? What, we received the CV?

Yes. Yeah, we would upload that to the website.

Okay, thank you. So I just came with a couple questions and statements just regarding phasing, instead of starting from the back, starting from the front. So one of those is regarding. student transportation to and from school, and then municipal services. So it is 126 lot development, and when it's fully developed as it's phased through, there might not be as many kids. I talked with Leslie Fourgette, who is the director of dispatch at DATCO, which is our town bus company, and she directed me to Rhode Island Department of Ed, office statewide transportation standard operating procedure number RIDE SOP.012, which dictates that students, when there are road intersections, whenever possible, that there be bus stops at those intersections and to ensure maximum visibility and safety. And with a project of this scale, just from my estimate, they would probably need at least six bus stops once it's fully completed. During each phase still the potential for obviously individual pickups until it's all completed. I think it would be great if the developer could designate safe waiting areas for students and also so that they are not then trespassing on someone's private property or accidentally causing damage and would keep students out of the roadways as well. And also consulting with DATCO about that as well, about where their thoughts that would be good locations. supporting by doing it front phasing to the back, because then those buses would not have to worry about road construction or heavy equipment or what might be in the way where the bus is going. And then also regarding trash collection, For residents, moving it from the front to the back would help ease transportation of the trash trucks so that town residents would have an easy time and have that access to those services without any potential issues with plowing or the way the road is for them to be able to have those services. And I just think this will help with logistical issues and safety issues for students and these taxpayers have equal opportunity. So if possible, consulting with DPW, because I wouldn't want to if I lived in the back if DPW said you have to roll your trash all the way down here when I've just bought a really nice house. So just some things I think the developer should consider. so that the taxpayers for trash removal are getting what they need and our students are able to get to school safely. And I did speak with Leslie also. She said whether it's turning, I know it was talked about the last meeting, about them only turning right. She said it wouldn't matter because Mattity Road, they turn left and right. So thank you so much. Mr. Schitt, can I just agree if I wanted to? Sure.

As it relates to that idea about coordinating with respect to the bus stops, we would agree to that as a condition. We think it's a very good idea. And as it relates to working with DPW to make a plan for trash pickup, we would agree to that condition. We think they're both good ideas.

Okay, next up, David Mitchell, once again, You know, I'm sensing there's a problem in North Smithfield with husbands and wives talking about these things prior to these meetings, but that's another topic.

David Mitchell, 808 Farnham Pike, North Smithfield.

Good evening, members of the planning board.

I'm gonna touch on a couple of items that we've already spoken on briefly. My first one is I wanna talk about the traffic impact coming out of this new development. And I also wanna talk about the preservation of the green space. Those are the two topics I have. I reviewed the supplemental traffic engineering services for RankinPath prepared by Parry Corporation dated June 18th, according to the report. I know he just gave us an update on some of that stuff. Local police department crash data was collected for three key intersections, Douglas Pike, Farnham Pike, Mattity Road, Douglas Pike and Greenville. However, when the actual traffic study was conducted, it only evaluated Douglas at Farnham, Douglas at Mattity, and Douglas at the project's site entrance. It entirely omitted the intersection of Douglas Pike and Greenville Road. If you've ever driven Greenville Road to get on Route 7, either north or south, they come up over that hill pretty quick. I found the admission of that highly concerning. According to the police crash data that was submitted, I also wanted to talk about it's a very high risk. And the only thing it's gonna change, we are at a class, I believe it's F rating right now, which makes it very difficult to pull out from Farnam Pike to take a left to get down to Route 7. It's also very difficult to take a left out of Greenville Road to go south on Route 7. And that's only going to be impacted worse. The data that was collected from the levels of service, the LOS, both of those areas have an F rating, and it's only going to get worse. They're saying it's 126 homes. Of those 126 homes, normally there's an average of two cars per home. Could be more if you've got a 16-year-old or a couple. The peak hours that he just redid the study for, sorry, I thought you were gonna say something. The peak hours he did for the morning was actually an LOS of an F of 75.8 second delay, and I believe it's Fountain Pike, and there's also a 49 second delay on Greenville Road. Of that, those numbers are gonna almost double with the 126. The speed coming around those corners or trying to get on that road, I don't care how many signs you put up, they're going to speed. They do it anyway. If you go there someday, if you've ever driven Greenville Road to go south on Route 7, it's a nightmare. I live right there, and as I get older, there's going to be more involved traffic, which is going to make it more difficult to get on and off that road. That's basically my first thing. The second thing I wanted to discuss, we've discussed quite a bit here in the meetings, and they've also touched on it again about this so-called green space. My second concern centers on the proposed recreation fields. Because this is a conservation development, we should focus on minimizing our ecological footprint, unnecessarily disrupting the natural landscape which threatens local wildlife and natural resources that this develop is meant to protect. Additionally, this proposal provides no tangible benefit to the town. Much of the community discussion has focused on these fields and I strongly advocate for leaving the land entirely in its current undisturbed state. So if you want to call it a conservation area, don't touch the property, which will minimize the blasting, the excavation and all that. Leave the forest green. I know that green space is supposed to benefit the residents of the new development, but there's no benefit for the town to even have those because we won't have access to it from what I've heard. Okay. Thank you very much for your time and considerations of the data points. And thank you gentlemen here for an arrogance and improvement. Thank you. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Michael Mayo's next.

Good evening, Michael Mayo, M-E-O, 8 Christina Way. I'd like to thank the board for allowing me to speak this evening. I know I've spoken several times already about the proposed recreation fields. I don't want to wear out my welcome, so I will do my best to be brief. I do want to note for the record that I did submit a letter Tuesday morning to the town planner of the board with a copy to developers council who obviously received it. I hope the board and the town planner have had an opportunity to review that letter. I'm going to say a few more words about that in a few minutes, but I would like to highlight a few points. First, a specific condition of the master plan approval in 2019 is that the town planner and the planning board would review the zoning and subdivision regulations related to conservation developments. How those regulations apply to approving or denying these proposed fields. and whether a conservation easement should be placed on this land instead of the fields. And in reviewing those regulations, I point the board's attention to the town's subdivision regulation 5.2, which states, to the maximum extent practicable, development should be located to preserve the natural features of the site to avoid areas of environmental sensitivity and to minimize alterations of and negative impacts to natural features, historic and cultural resources, and scenic areas. As many people have discussed over these past three hearings, including Mr. Mitchell just a few minutes ago, these proposed recreation fields are contrary to each and every one of those goals of the subdivision regulations. That regulation 5.2 further states, excavation of material including gravel, sand, and rock is prohibited unless it is necessary to accommodate the construction of subdivision roads, drainage and utility structures, driveways, sidewalks, septic systems, and houses with reasonable yard areas. Excavating the area of these proposed fields is not necessary for any of that. This is an enormous 126 lot proposed development encompassing 270 acres of land. There is more than enough material in the areas of the proposed house lots to support their construction. It is completely unnecessary to disturb these three relatively small portions of open space to support construction of the rest of the development. Now, earlier, Mr. Resnick, Attorney Resnick, speaking about my letter, I believe he said that I was trying to argue that recreation fields such as this are outside the permissible scope of a conservation easement. That's not what I said and that's not what I'm arguing. Remember, the question here is not whether the town's zoning and subdivision regulations permit recreation fields such as these. at all in any conservation development. That's not the question. The question rather is whether these particular fields in this particular conservation development are necessary and appropriate. And the answer to that question is no. They are not necessary or appropriate and the board should exercise its discretion clearly given to it by Rhode Island law and the town regulations to deny approval of the fields. Now, Attorney Resnick argued that the board does not have discretion to make that determination. I respectfully disagree. The letter I submitted on Tuesday lays out the law that establishes that discretion. Attorney Resnick said he has a letter that he submitted that states the contrary and has contrary law. I have not seen that letter. I was not provided a copy of that letter before today. And I request that there's an opportunity for the entire community to see that letter before this board takes any vote on the fields. Now, Attorney Resnick also said that there has been no expert testimony on why these recreation fields are not appropriate for this conservation development. Well, I don't think there's been any expert testimony on how these fields are appropriate for this conservation development. All I recall hearing from the developer at these hearings and in its letters to the board is, this is our property, we can do with it what we want, and if the board does not permit the fields, we'll sue you. Now, moving on, at a minimum, if the board were to allow any of these fields, their construction should not be permitted in phase one, but should be delayed to a later phase of construction. This development is proposed to be done in ten phases spread out over several years. We do not know when or if There will be any new neighborhood here, any new homes in that neighborhood, or any new families in those homes to use these proposed fields. It makes no sense to disturb this pristine, natural, and historic land at the very start of this development to create artificially created open space for use by future residents who may not use these fields for many years, if ever. My final point, if the board were to allow any of these fields at any time, which again I strongly urge it not to, more must be done to protect the abutting homeowners. The irony of this entire issue is that the proposed fields are much closer to the Nipsitchuck and Matty Estates neighborhoods than to any of the proposed lots in Rankin Estates. I could literally play catch from my backyard with someone standing in the northernmost field. Specifically, while a limit of disturbance line of approximately 250 feet exists between the fields and the Nipsuchuk neighborhood, less than half that distance exists between the fields and Mattity Estates. Furthermore, while a line of trees is shown to be built on the western edge of the fields to provide privacy for the Nipsuchuk abutters, there is nothing similar planned on the northern edge to protect the privacy of the Mattity abutters. If any fields are allowed to be constructed here, which again I strongly urge against, then additional limitations should be placed on them to protect the safety and privacy of all abutting homeowners. Thank you.

Okay. Should I stay up here? Golf clap, golf clap.

I would just say this, as it relates to the alternative request, which I understood to be vegetative buffering and working something out, we agree to that. So obviously I understand that that's not your argument in chief, but if we were lucky enough to receive an approval, we would certainly work with you and the abutters to develop a landscape plan that was satisfying to everybody. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. Just a couple quick comments. I think that I can address Mr. Mayo's letter very briefly for the benefit of the board and the community in the letter that I wrote. A little bit verbose. I think that I can bring it down into a nutshell. Just give me one moment. Article 4 of the Land Development and Subdivision Regulations expressly identifies recreation as one of the purposes for a conservation development. And I'm going to quote. Among the stated purposes are to protect recreational resources And to quote, provide for the maintenance of open land set aside for active or passive recreational use. The regulation further requires applicants to evaluate recreational opportunities during conservation development design processes. Specifically contemplates the existence of recreation areas within protected open space. Article 4 also expressly provides the conservation development open space may be devoted to park and recreation purposes. Likewise, the North Smithfield zoning ordinance expressly authorizes. It says subdivision parks, playgrounds, community centers, recreational fields, and similar structures of a non-commercial nature designed for the use of residents of the conservation development and their guests. Article 1 expressly provides that the land development and subdivision regulations are not intended to supersede, abrogate, or interfere with any provision of the town's ordinances. Article 7 further provides that the planning board determinations must remain consistent with the North Smithfield Comprehensive Plan and the North Smithfield Zoning Ordinance. The board therefore must exercise its authority in a manner consistent with the regs and the ordinance. So there's two cases, and I cite to them in my brief, but I want to give them to everybody here for their benefit. In Perron v. Zoning Board of Review of Boroughville, that's our Supreme Court, Supreme Court held that a board exceeded its authority when it effectively administratively vetoed a use that the ordinance expressly permitted. The court explained that the concerns regarding potential impacts should ordinarily be addressed through reasonable safeguards and conditions rather than prohibition of an otherwise permitted use, which is the very reason we would agree to a condition to work with the abutters on a vegetative buffer. Similarly, in Preston v. Zoning Board review of Hopkinton, another Rhode Island Supreme Court case, where it was recognized that where a use is expressly permitted by an ordinance, conditions that effectively negate that permission are generally inappropriate because the legislative body has already determined that the use is lawful and compatible with the zoning framework. So we're not suggesting that this board doesn't have any authority over recreational fields. What we're suggesting is your authority is to work with the applicant on the design. And the fields that were presented to you at Master and the fields that were presented to you at our first hearing and our first submission are not the fields that are presented to you now. They've been substantially reduced based off of your comment, based off of comment from the community. We worked on the parking, et cetera. We're agreeing to further vegetative buffers. So while I agree with Mr. Mayo's resuscitation that this board has broad discretion to condition a project, it ends where it contravenes a town ordinance. And that's exactly what this is. This is an accessory used to a principal use. And to suggest that this board or a zoning board has the ability to say, no, no, we don't like that accessory use connected with this principle use. It's just not right. Now I understand that this is a much more grandiose plan, but it can be boiled down into something very simple. If you have a home and you can make it dimensionally conforming, you have a right to have accessory structures like a garage. You have the right to have an accessory like a pool. It's not any different. A board zoning planning has no ability to veto this because your town council established this ordinance. They expressly allowed it. So that's our position on that. Okay.

Thank you. Can I read the response please?

Keyword brief.

First of all, I would really like an opportunity to see this letter and to see this case law that Attorney Resnick is referencing and have time to respond.

Before you go on with that, when was the letter received? Was it just like two days ago or something?

I think it might have been yesterday. I'd have to go back and look.

Oh, it was this morning or yesterday? Yeah, I think we got it this morning. Right. So the ink isn't even dry yet. I understand.

I'm just saying I think this is an issue that is concerning enough to the community that I and others, not just me, should have an opportunity to read this letter and analyze it and respond accordingly. I think... the rebuttal will be something along the lines of this. Just because the zoning ordinances permit recreation fields of some sort within a conservation development does not mean that this board must approve any recreation fields that this developer submits, that would take away the board's discretion completely. That seems to be the argument that the developer's making here is that any recreation fields that we present to you, you have to approve.

I would say that wasn't exactly the argument that Mr. Resnick just stated, but you're correct. And as you had pointed out the first time you spoke, there does seem to be some, and I'm going to look to the solicitor for this. I won't say conflict, but while the ordinance says that recreational fields are allowed, There's the, you cited a different, I don't know if it was land use regulation or whatever, that said that you must show the value to the necessity and value of having them. of whatever development that is. That's right. So is that something you care to address at this point? Because it seems to me to be, again, it speaks to, as you said, we have, and as Mr. Resnick said, we have the ability to guide how it's done. We are not restricted. Our hands aren't tied to just accept whatever is presented.

I think that's... true to the point of you have discretion other fields environmentally safe, you have to focus on elements of importance that are not arbitrary and capricious. It can't be because you think they're too big. Why? You think they're too close to a road, why? It's got to be something more substantial than that. When uses are permitted by the zoning, as you know, as a general rule, when that comes before you, you don't even rule on it. A house can be built. Right. These fields can be built. The question is, you've got to evaluate the engineering information, the applicant's information, the objections of the abutters, and I think there's... That's where your discretion lies.

Thank you.

I think if, and I addressed this in my letter, I think if the proposal here was for open space fields that were available to the residents of this new community that were just in their natural state and fields where people could go and hike and explore and they were left alone. They weren't gone in and they weren't excavated and material taken out of them and really significant substantial earth moving. I mean that just seems completely contrary to the whole notion of a conservation easement that in the open space you would be doing all of this construction and all of this excavation. I think it flies in the face of all of the regulations of the town regarding the purpose And the consideration is that the board should factor into a conservation development proposal. So I'll leave it at that. And again, I would like an opportunity to respond to this letter once I have a chance to see it.

I'm sure it'll be up on the website within a few business days. I don't know what the time frame is for getting things up on the site. Okay, so I would look for it to be early next week available, so it's not to require that they get it done first thing in the morning. Absolutely.

Just following up on that discussion point, could I invite Attorney Reznor, could you address the question that he raised about phasing? Is that relevant to discussion of fields? because I believe there's ten phases that are here. Is the fields linked to any one of those phases or can they be constructed at the first phase? Can you address that point?

Okay, all right, last on the list, Selena Kumar. Mr. Kumar, you look familiar.

I sure do, and I have a one pager I'm going to try to be quick today, so. Okay. All right, good evening everyone. Sahil Kumar, S-A-H-I-L-K-U-M-A-R, 14 Leonard Drive. Okay. All right. So I'm going to paraphrase my one pager here the best I can. I'm going to start with FIRST THING HERE. OKAY. SO THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL IS THE BOARD'S DECISION TO MAKE. TO MAKE IT, THE BOARD HAS TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE PLAN THAT ACTUALLY WORKS ON THE LAND THAT IT SITS ON. THE SOIL, THE WATER TABLE, THE SLOPES. AND THAT IT MEETS THE TOWN'S OWN RULES AND ORDINANCES. A group of neighbors hired a water resource expert, Alyssa Richardson, to look at the project. And the expert flagged a specific set of questions. Separately, the town's own peer reviewer reviewing the applicant's plans, not our expert report, independently flagged the same land and water issues and said that they should be resolved at the preliminary stage. And in that reviewer's own report, the applicant's engineer agreed those issues belong there. Now we're at that stage. And most of these answers are still not on record and unanswered. So I'm gonna pass two documents I'd like to put on file. along with the report as well from Alyssa Richardson. This should be on file, but this can be a little refresher as well.

Have you received this? Have you received this document? No.

And just one other item. Mr. Chairman, with respect to submitting this report from an individual that's not here, that we don't have an opportunity to cross-examine, I would ask that it not be made part of the record, and I would ask that it be stricken. If that professional wants to come here and testify, lay the foundation, and admit that, and subject yourself to cross-examination, that would be fine. That's not what's been done. All of my experts have been here to be cross-examined.

Mr. Iglesias, what do you think?

Again, I've got to look at the report. Generally speaking, the board accepts all information and then determines what weight they'll give it. Mr. Resnick is raising some valid points about the board should question what kind of weight they should give a report that's presented by somebody who didn't write it and is not here to present it and justify it. That's a valid consideration in weighing the value of that report.

Right, this seems like essentially almost like a piece of research being given to us. Obviously, Mr. Kumar is not the author or anything.

Right, and I'm saying that the general rule, the board accepts everything but gives it the weight they determine. Now, the board, for the record, has not accepted this person as an expert and cannot do that without them being present here. So the public is aware of that. You can't submit an expert report without the expert coming in and being accepted as an expert by the board.

And Mr. Chip, just to be very clear, in addition to the cross-examination right that I believe we enjoy, and I understand it's ultimately your decision whether you'll accept it or not, and the weight that you'll attribute to it is your decision. The only comment I would make, and No reason to believe this, but I have nothing in front of me to dispel the concept. I don't know that that's a real document. There's nobody here to authenticate it.

But nonetheless, I think that's less of the issue than the fact that, as Mr. Easley, as you point out your own points, that this person has not been recognized as an expert by the board. The only way that can happen is for them to be here. So while the report can go Into the box with all the other information It's kind of putting the cart before the horse and is what I'm hearing is that everyone seems to agree with that No, I I understand. And if you'd like a copy, I'm sure the planning office will give you one. But nonetheless, I think the key is to get, if you wish this to carry some weight, then you need to get the person here. And they'll go through the same process that all the other experts have gone through. That's something we do with every project we have. When the experts are brought in, they must be validated, all right?

So a couple of clarification questions here then. So the report was submitted at the previous stage of the same subdivision application. Does that mean every stage you're going to require experts to keep coming up and re- Are you saying it was submitted at Master Plan? Correct.

Like back in 2019?

2019 in February. So this should already be on record in a previous submission. In addition to it, there was also a, I believe from Crossman, there was a report, a peer review report, which again, not the report that I handed out right now from Alyssa Richardson, but the report from Crossman is the one that included recommendations for the planning board to consider, and it was agreed upon that these would be reviewed and agreed upon at this point. Okay. So this is still the same paper trail, the same application we're looking at. And I would recommend giving it some thought.

Then I think we'll have to look at if it was submitted at master plan, that's different. Okay. Submitted and accepted. You're saying currently it's not part of the record.

That is not a part of the preliminary approval record. It is not in front of you. With due respect, I understand that the purview of my board is to probably take this and apply whatever weight you see fit. My only point is this. The record for the master plan and that decision is not the record before you. It's the master plan decision and the conditions. It's merged. That's it.

However, and this is for the solicitor, if someone came to present as an expert during master plan, they come back to make the same report part of the preliminary plan, do we actually have to recertify them as an expert as if they were an expert for master plan but they're not an expert for preliminary until we talk to them? Aren't they, once they're an expert, they're an expert?

There's a couple issues going on here. First and foremost, are we talking about the master plan for this conservation development? Yes, we are. And not the master plan or the master plan for the original development?

No, we're talking about the conservation, 2019. And that's what it relates to? Yes.

Okay, so the master plan has been presented, it's been evaluated, and it's been decided on.

Right.

If that person wants to prepare a new report for preliminary, they're certainly free to do so, and they can present it to you.

So they can't use the same report that they presented during- Well, they could if they want to come here at preliminary and say it's the same report. Okay, but they would have to present it again.

I'll give you an example. I don't believe Mr. Prevy's testimony for master plan is the same as his testimony for preliminary.

But either way, even if it was the same report, they would need to present it. That's the key.

I'm still saying the board should accept it for the record, but give it whatever weight it is. Very simply, Mr. Chairman, nobody on this board, I believe, was there except you at master plan. You were there. If you remember what this person testified and you believe that you want to give it some weight, then do that. But I don't think we're getting into a really form over substance issue. You have a record of information in front of you. We don't want to discard anything. Mr. Kumar wants this in. I suggest you accept it, but you have to consider it very carefully.

Sure.

You have nobody sworn in that presented it to you.

Right. So it does make sense that it needs to be presented again or modified and presented because, you know, we're talking about six years ago. Sure. More than six years ago.

I don't recall that lady testifying.

You do or don't?

I do not.

Well, I don't either. I mean, it was a long time ago. So that's why we would need to- It would need to be presented- Okay. No matter what. Now, the subject of being an expert, if the person's previously been recognized an expert, then that's a kind of a- Sure. That's a formality. Okay. That takes about 30 seconds, not to be concerned. No, that's fine.

We'll put Alyssa Richardson's situation to the side.

What about the- I don't mean to interrupt. I know you have some stuff to say. Given the fact that once again we're receiving information days before hearing and things we want to be able to give both applicant and the public time to respond accordingly. I'm going to say tonight we're not making a decision. We have new information that's being presented. We have Mr. Mayo asking for Mr. Resnick's letter so he can respond to that. Tonight to make a decision would be inappropriate. So already I want this board to start thinking about dates for a continuation because The fact of the matter that we continually get responses and information two to three days before meeting, whether it be from the applicant or the public, is quite frankly overwhelming. And I would really like to make sure that this board is giving the appropriate time and analysis of all these documents that are being thrown at us for this project. There are way too many things flying back and forth. And I just do not feel comfortable making a decision tonight.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, just to say very briefly, Mr. Mayo, and I understand that he probably had a lot to review. I got the communication from him 48 hours in advance of this hearing. And there was a correspondence sent to the planner, sent to you 24 hours in advance. I'll make a suggestion, strike his letter, strike my letter, strike both of them, because it should have been submitted. If we, the applicant, were submitting materials, we would have been held to a higher regard than that. Strike both of them. I just put on the record what I need from my letter. So with all due respect, Mr. Porter, the reason why you got a correspondence from me 24 hours ago is because we got a correspondence 48 hours ago. And I'm going to respond to anything that's written to this board, no matter if it's five minutes before or three weeks.

That's great, Mr. Resnick.

No, I'm just saying that's going to happen.

You also have an engineer that we got this engineered plan 24 hours beforehand.

The cutting grade fill plan, which is a collection of all the cutting grade plans you already have. I understand, but that was an item we requested. That you had no questions on this evening. You had no questions on the plan.

That's correct. I didn't have any questions. Because I asked for that, but you provided it to me, which I could finally understand. Because I'm an architect and I know how to look at plans.

The other thing is that we haven't had any questions that we wanted to go to the public hearing before. It doesn't mean the board is not going to have further questions. As we often do, we go to the public hearing first. let them have their say, and then the board carries forward.

Right, but then all of a sudden, during the public hearing, Mr. Porter interceded and said, I want to continue this thing. And I would just like to say, before we discuss that, let's find out what the timetable is on this project. Sure, we're not- No, no, excuse me. Before we discuss the continuance, I'd like to know when the decision has to be made by the board, because we're at four hearings now.

Would you like us to take a recess so he can go check the calendar?

Mr. Commander, if you could, are you near the end of that one page or?

I am. Excellent. I am. Talking about experts, though, so I'd like to call Richard Sarney over here, please. Richard, I'll let you introduce yourself with your background and certifications, please.

Sure.

Good evening, everyone. Richard Sarney. I live at 2 Leonard Drive. S-A-R-N-I-E. So I'm here, I wrote a letter a day or two ago, I haven't submitted it yet, but I'd like to. But I'd like to at least qualify myself as an expert. I'm actually a degree chemical engineer, went to University of Mass Lowell. I'm actually a professional engineer. My PE license is actually in safety engineering through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, because Massachusetts recognized safety as an engineering discipline. I'm also a board certified safety professional, as well as other credentials that I carry. So I have reviewed the plans, and I'd like to review the things that were submitted tonight to probably refine my letter. But I stand in opposition of this development, and it's clear in my letter, which I will make clearly public for you. But I'd like to at least acknowledge I did put my bio as part of the letter, so hopefully I can be qualified as an expert.

No, I haven't submitted it yet. Can I just ask for clarification, is this gentleman within the notice area?

I live at 2 Leonard Drive.

So you're an affected party?

Yes, I am.

Okay. I think the solicitor's looking it up, but I think as an individual who's an affected party, there's a clear conflict.

Right. That's fine, it doesn't dispute my expertise.

It's just Okay, yeah, that's I mean, it's the same as Dr. Benoit. I believe he's he can't It was the overall I haven't seen it.

No, it was the overall project I'm just going to suggest and obviously your wife's insurance your business, but If you have a conflict, you may want to look at your ethical rules to be able to present expert testimony in a hearing where you're an effective lawyer.

Yeah, that would be something to take up with the various certification boards or whatever that you work with. And I would recommend that. We occasionally have to go. Occasionally we have topics where we have to go individually to the Rhode Island State Board of Ethics to make sure we're not in conflict. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Kelly.

Correct.

I would respectfully suggest that we not qualify him in any way, shape, or form to testify as an expert.

And what it sounds like he's really declaring his expertise in, and as an expert in, that he could talk about is safety. Correct. Because that is where he has professional, as a professional engineer in some other board. Certified safety professional. Certified safety professional. That is where he has recognition that would be at the level of an expert. I agree with you that had I actually finished college with my degree in computer engineering, sorry mom. You know, it wouldn't make me an expert to, you know, testify on just anything to do with computers. So I agree with that, but it's really safety. And I believe that's what the letter has something to do with safety.

It does.

I don't know what it says. We didn't either. Obviously. I believe it was not actually.

Maybe we should determine if we're going to consider the letter after we've done it.

We haven't gotten the letter, and there's really nothing to be considered this evening. Correct. Thank you for that, but it does raise a question that it would be good for you to look into. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard.

It was not submitted. Yes.

Maybe.

If he is, he's as a resident, though, not as an expert. Right? He doesn't lose the ability to get up to the podium. I think that's, we'll get that clarified, but I tend to agree with everyone that if you're in a butter, then, you know, that creates a conflict. Yeah.

All right, I'll try to finish it this time.

Okay.

Okay, last thing I have is actually around blasting. So we did read the memo which says the blasting may be necessary. And it asks the board to impose no project specific conditions on the view that the fire marshal and the town's ordinances are already covered, are covering it. I'd ask the board to confirm if it keeps its own authority here to require conditions like a pre-blast survey, a filed blasting plan, baseline well testing for the nearby homes, independent of the fire marshal's role over here. The protection costs the applicant nothing if the blasting is done carefully and it gives the neighbors a record to stand on if something was to go wrong. That's it, thank you.

Mr. Carullo, this is similar to another project where we did have stipulation about measurement monitoring of, I don't remember whether it was wells or foundations, things like that, but there was some stipulation that went beyond, of course, adhering to, you know, uh the applicant being required to adhere to all uh state and local regulations so we could I'm just asking Mr. Cruella to look at what we did on a recent project that may have gone beyond that because we did add it to stipulations. But it's in the same genre of water testing and all that kind of stuff.

I'm sure that we could probably come to an agreement on a condition. My only point is this. It is superfluous, and the reason why is that local regulations, state laws speak to it. It all goes through the state fire marshal. They're going to decide everything. They decide if there's pre-blasting surveys. They decide it all. We're going to do whatever they say.

Excellent.

So if the board had an appetite for a condition that will comply with all state and local ordinance relative to blasting, of course.

So I'm thinking similar to the first stipulation where you say, we're going to comply with this. We're not going to try to rewrite it. Exactly. Okay. There's nobody left on the list. Therefore, I'll be looking for a motion to close the public hearing.

I motion to close the public hearing.

I have a motion to close the public hearing. Second. We have a second? Second for discussion. Is there a discussion? Mr. Porter?

I'm just concerned if we're going to continue. Before we make this vote, we should find out when our deadline is exactly to make a decision. That's right. We shouldn't close the public hearing. We may need to continue. We should not close the public hearing. We should continue it to a date certain. So long as that we are within the time constraints that we require.

That's a good point.

Because again, information has been coming from both parties. We want to give both parties the ability to respond accordingly and go from there.

So with that, I believe Mr. Menard has to rescind his second, and Mr. Hammond, you have need to rescind your motion.

I will rescind the second.

Motion rescinded.

Thank you. Mr. Chancellor, would I make a suggestion in my name?

Certainly, Mr. Kelly.

As the board said, a hard and fast deadline in advance of the next meeting that will give the board sufficient time

So a hard fast deadline for when can we receive new information?

After that deadline will not be considered and will not be part of the record.

Mr. Kelly, that's one area that you might agree with. That's a very fair statement, very fair request. And I agree, because it doesn't do our planning department any good. It doesn't do any of us any good. You get this, so I agree. Yep, absolutely.

So Mr. Krueger, do we need to take a five, ten minute recess so that we can figure out the deadline for this particular application? Or do we have an actual date?

We do not have a date. I would have to go back and look for the email correspondence that I forwarded to Duprete Engineering. That would be the date where it's arguably that it was certified. I think that the applicants have been acquiescing to continuances, and we are likely beyond the date. We can check that. They have regularly agreed to allow a continuance. But if you want to take a ten minute recess, that'd be great.

I'll make a motion that we take a ten minute recess.

Have a second? Second. No. Okay. Those in favor? Aye. Okay. We are in recess. Okay, if everyone could get back in their seats and even. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so meetings call back to order from our recess at 9.05. Sorry for the three-minute delay. Okay.

Just some housekeeping matters as you deliberate. So just based upon information that was presented tonight, I just want to state a couple things for the record. We dug through the file and the report, Mr. Kumar. presented was introduced at the master plan. So the issues are still relevant about whether or not they're appropriate now and whether the board did that, but just so that the record's clear that it's not something that wasn't presented. That's number one. Number two, the gentleman here, I'm sorry sir. Mr. Sani, Mr. Sani came up to me and he lives at 2 Leonard Drive. Yes. We could not find him at this moment. We're going to confirm that he may not be in the abutters list. So that may be something for the board. He may not have a conflict and he may want to be testifying before the board at the next meeting.

Yeah, and just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, it's not a notice issue. It's if he's not in a butter, then the conflict would be cured.

Right, yeah, so it's not a notice issue. I wasn't saying this. I just wanted to put those on the record because there's a lot of discussion about those items. And then the third item, I believe I spoke with Mr. Resnick and Mr. Kelly, and we're talking about scheduling a date. We're not going to worry about the time frame, the statutory time frame by agreement. That's right. But it has to be the last date. And the public should know that there's always a time frame that the board, if they don't give a written decision, or not a written decision, a vote within 90 days, then it's automatically approved. So that's always the time clock that the General Assembly puts, the hatchet they put over town's heads, that we can't keep continuing things. So I just wanted to put that on the record, sir. Questions go to the board. I'm just trying to put this on the record because everybody's been hearing all this talk. So when the board takes over and decides to make their decisions, I think you know where you're going, right? You're going to decide a date. You're going to decide who's going to present what.

Doing that, I mean, I don't want anyone to think that we've been trying to extend these and have more and more meetings. We have job security whether we have this project in front of us or not. We're fine. And I know you would like to move forward, we all would like to move forward.

Yeah, and Mr. Chairman, the point of it was this. I wanted to establish what we're doing for our business here. We are not seeking to have an aha moment or default the town or anything like that. What we're trying to do is just make an expectation that if we're going to continue this to a date certain, which we're going to. Let's make it. We're going to give you an extension, but the extension is going to be to that date. Because at this point, unless something happens, we're not going to agree to more than one more hearing. It would be the sixth hearing.

Understood.

But we want this to be decided on the merits, not in an aha, so we have an agreement. The only thing that I would like to just put on the record is that there's also an acknowledgement that The application is complete, meaning that it was certified complete, but we're agreeing to extend and continue to the next date certain. That's all I'd like. Okay, great, thank you. And then Mr. Kelly has something to present to everybody.

This is one of the blown up sections. Relative to the seals.

Okay, thank you.

And while Mr. Kelly's handing that out, I think the board should think about some sort of deadlines for presenting additional evidence so that nobody's coming in at the last minute either way. You should get everything that they got. I know Mr. Mayo wants that letter that Mr. Resnick submitted.

I haven't seen- Michael, before you present that, maybe we should just finish that one piece of business. So Mr. Chairman, if we're going to pick a date certain and just let us know when you want any supplemental materials for from the community of the applicant.

Yep. Do you want to pick that date now? I mean, we do want you to look ahead at the planning schedule.

Chairman, you have to pick the date this evening, because there's going to be a date certain, and everybody here has to receive notice. So, I mean, we've got to plan.

Well, I'm just saying we can do it right now if you'd like, and just you guys looking ahead at your planning board schedules to see when we- As opposed to having it be at the next regularly scheduled meeting, because that would be the 9th.

It can't be on the 9th.

I know. Instead of, do we take our alternate day of July 23rd, because that's typically our alternate day, two weeks after our typical.

Boy.

I know that's pushing.

That's a Thursday, it works here.

Yeah, they're all Thursdays.

And then- What's prerogative? So if it's amenable to the applicant for the July 23rd- I'd like to- Does that work for the rest of our team?

Solicitor has it. Does it work? Everybody here good? All right.

Then I will make a motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain of July 23rd. Second.

We have a second. Those in favor?

Aye. Aye. I would also like to make a motion that any material for this application be submitted to this board and the planning department by July 16th, five days prior to the hearing.

Five business days. One week, five business days, anything received after that- Will be null and void. Will not be considered.

We're going to do our best to get it to an anticipation of that.

So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Those in favor? Aye. Aye. So moved.

Okay. Mr. Chairman, I think that- I'm sorry.

Just in the hopefully Remote possibly is any kind of emergency. Then we better make an alternate date the very next day. Just in case there's an emergency that- I think we would have to do it. You could have two dates.

Yeah, we could have two dates.

If there's an unforeseen emergency event, we will provide another extension. That's not what we're doing. Thank you. Thank you. And then the only other item is I think that it would be important that the board and the community consider what was just handed up to you. And it's an additional concession and reduction of the fields. And in particular, I'll let Mike get into it, but it is the elimination, the complete elimination of the southern fields. I just want to make one comment before I turn it over to Zichelli. At the beginning of this thing, we had a certain size for the fields, right? We had three. We lost them, we moved them, we made them smaller, and now we're removing the southernmost. I'm not saying this adversarially. I just want to make sure we're clear on this. All of those concessions from day one were based off of an approval. So what we're presenting to you today is another reduction in the removal of the southern field. That is something that we will do if we're approved. If we're denied, we're going back to the field orientation from the very beginning. I just want to make that clear because I think the community needs to know that too.

I wish you guys could find a way to talk more without telling you about it. And if you don't do that, if you could just leave that part out of it, that'd be great. I will say elimination of that field was brought up at the last meeting. So I appreciate that you listened to that.

You specifically asked and we delivered? No, that's what I mean. I appreciate that you did that. My point was just that we are not telling the town that you've got no ability to design or regulate this. in total conformance with the argument I made in response to Mr. Mayo, and I think that that's what's happened here. I think if you look at the feedback and what's going back and forth, you have had an influence. You have used your discretion. I think we've met you in many ways, and the other thing is I just want to add on. In addition to the elimination of the southern field, there was another condition that was agreed to tonight, and that was vegetative buffer with Mr. Mayo and his fellow abutters. So we are doing our best.

Do you have this, what was handed out to us, available to project?

No, we're working on it.

Oh, okay. That's what we're trying to do.

I was gonna say, you don't have like an 11 by 17 printer in your car that just created these, do you?

Last ten minutes.

We should call recesses more often then.

Yeah, we get a lot done during recesses. So, yeah, I just think it'd be important to have everybody see it. Hey, look at that. Very impressive. Right, so you extended the vegetative buffer, right? Because it was on the west side or whatever side that is, right? Yeah. Okay.

And they moved the parking lot, too.

Right, the parking lot had been moved. Right. Okay. Okay. Mr. Priby, do you want to just talk to this briefly? If all of you in the back would give Mr. Priby your attention, he's going to walk through that drawing with you right now. Or not. Hello? I know. Don't make me use it twice in the same day. He's going to review this drawing right now.

So the drawing that has just been handed out at the last meeting was requested specifically for this. There was a southern recreation lot that was located down here as well. And the concern was, again, a piece of this, you know, this grating in this esker area. So we're able to, we've eliminated the southern one completely over in this area. So again, the access path still comes along, same location. it's the same plan as before with the full elimination of the southern recreation area as we heard at the last hearing and then the grading that tucks in with that so again there's a little bit of grading that needs to catch in this area just because of that road to be able to sneak by in this area we're trying to keep it at the bottom of the esker but we have to stay outside of the residential uh sorry the uh wetland buffers as well so we're We're getting that by there. Again, this whole limited disturbance is tucked in in this area. We've got screening along evergreen screening along both the parking and the field area. And because this was just prepared recently, we were able to see Mr. Mayo's memo from Tuesday and incorporate some additional evergreen screening on the north side that helps for the Christina Way residents. I believe this is Mr. Mayo's property right here. So again, we've now got evergreen screening all along this northern side as well to be able to take care of those also. That was kind of, that's a summary of it.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

I'm still wondering, did you print these in your car or something during the break?

Mr. Chairman, thank you. We just wanted to present that so everybody could think about it.

Absolutely, yep. Very helpful. So we've continued, we've got our date certain, and it's gonna be the last meeting, unless there's, barring some emergency, but we've continued the public hearing, so the public hearing will still be open when we convene that meeting. Is there anything left that the board would like to discuss this evening on this project? No? Okay, hearing none, then I think we're looking for a motion to adjourn.

So if there's nothing else, I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second.

Those in favor? Aye. Meeting's adjourned at 918. Thank you all.