Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Sorry for the delay. The primary voting was a little bit of a surprise for all of us, I think. The planning board meeting for Thursday, August 27th, 2026 is called to order at 717, which by airline terms, because it got rescheduled, is still an on-time departure. First order of business, roll call. Dr. Benoit.

Here. Let's see, who have we got in the Skid Sparrow? Here. Mr. Hammond. Here. Ms. Benoit. Here.

Mr. Porter? Here. And the chair is here. We're full house. Next on the agenda, we do have minutes from July 23rd and August 13th meetings. If we could review those quickly and have any questions or comments.

Make a motion to approve the meeting minutes as presented.

Second.

We have a second. Those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, the meeting minutes for both July 23rd and August 13th are accepted as presented. Does any planning board member need to disclose any potential conflicts on matters before the board this evening?

that the record bar must be queued.

Yep.

Absolutely. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Benoit. Do any planning board members need to disclose any ex parte communications about any contested or material adjudicatory facts and opinions or opinions concerning the merits of the application before the board this evening? Hearing none, our voting members for this evening. Let's see, Mr. Hammond, Mr. Menard, Mr. Porter, and myself. And with that, Mr. Carrillo, if you could just give a little introduction before we get started.

Mr. Chairman, we're here this evening for preliminary approval phase one of the Rankin Estates subdivision. It's a 126 lot single family. Conservation Development Subdivision. This is the fifth scheduled meeting. The first meeting was on April 9th. There's been much testimony, many documents submitted to the board for its consideration. This evening there's an agreement with the applicant because of time frame that there will be a vote by the planning board this evening. I think it's a continuation of the public hearing. I believe you'll be taking public testimony. At this point, I would just ask if the applicant had anything to add. I did discuss with the applicant that perhaps he'd want to give a little bit of a summary of what happened at the last meeting where there was a hearing and then allow the public to speak.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Michael Resnick on behalf of the applicant owner. I can tell you that after three substantive meetings on this matter, we've made the record that we want to make. We believe we've presented all the information that we have to. At the last substantive hearing, there were a myriad of things that the board requested. I believe we've supplemented them appropriately. And I will very briefly summarize what was requested, what was supplemented. uh and of course we have brought uh our civil engineer as well as our traffic engineer uh in case the board or the public has any further questions for them um at the last substantive hearing uh as you know we we continued the last hearing for the benefit of mr hammond that was feeling under the weather so that he could vote mr hammond hope you're uh right as the rain We provided an updated traffic and accident information. We provided a Route 7 safety and speed control analysis. We provided school bus circulation and turning considerations. We provided an overall grading cut and fill exhibit. I'm sorry, that's what was requested. I'm listing what was requested. Blasting procedures and protections, further reduction of recreational field disturbance, relocation of field parking, additional buffering near Leonard Drive, clarification of emergency access construction and maintenance, consideration of permeable pedestrian areas review of phasing sequences clarification of the brookside drive over hill road ownership and access issue as a result of those requests as far as supplemental materials you were provided with an updated traffic submission a blasting memorandum that i drafted and researched you have a response to mr mao's correspondence you have an overall grading exhibit which was requested a revised recreational field plan, a revised HOA declaration document, You have supplemental historic preservation correspondence. You have the September 22 revised SWCA report, our expert. You have an April 27, 2026 letter from our expert, Mr. Donta, with a letter describing the fact that the Matitty Swamp and the associated battle is not located anywhere on this property. we responded to public submissions and i believe that we provided answers to all all the requests from the board and from staff mr chairman that's a summation of what was provided i would be happy to also summarize and i think it might be appropriate where we've come uh where we started and where we've ended up as it relates um to the recreational fields because i think that there's been a lot of feedback and there's been a lot of movement on my client i think it'd be appropriate to just summarize it very quickly so at the last substantive hearing there were three fields Mr. Chairman, you specifically questioned the Southern field. Mr. Porter, I believe you echoed that sentiment and I'm sure the rest of the members of the board felt the same way. Um, and I believe the concern was centered on the steep topography and Esker, uh, disturbance. So we responded by eliminating that field. Uh, and as a reminder, the current proposal is two fields. It's approximately 105,930 square feet, approximately 2.4 acres. So just so the board is aware of the reduction history, at the master plan, these fields occupied 317,540 square feet. That's 7.3 acres. It was three fields. Based off of feedback, May revisions brought that down to 158,850 square feet, 3.6 acres, still three fields. The current plan, which is what is before you this evening, so long as we're able to successfully get a preliminary approval this evening, is 105,930 square feet. That's 2.4 acres. It's two fields. It's approximately a 67% overall reduction in the fields that were planned. And I can tell you respectfully, my client has no further movement on those fields. So what's been presented is as far as we are willing to go. Now, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the archaeological issues are completely foreclosed. It's been the subject of master plan hearings. It's been the subject of state agency review. It's been the subject of this preliminary hearing. However, Mr. Chairman, if you would like me to go over those issues this evening, I would be happy to. But other than that, that would complete our presentation in chief for this evening.

I don't think any of us have any desire to rehash the things that have gone over the last four meetings. We did get some additional, as we had put in place, we got some additional information in or feedback from the public within the timeframe that we had set, which it had to be in by a week ago. So we did receive, I think, three or four letters and all that stuff to give you time to respond to it. So certainly if there's a response to the new information, I'll say information or new comments from THE PUBLIC, NOW WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD TIME TO DO THAT. WE DON'T WANT TO READ THOSE. WE'VE GOTTEN THEM. WE'VE READ THEM. I'M SURE YOU'VE READ THEM. WE JUST WANT TO MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE, WHICH WOULD START WITH YOUR REPLY TO IT, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING WHERE, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO BACKWARDS. WE'RE ONLY GOING TO GO FORWARDS. WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE ADDED,

um you know said in addition to what what information has been given to us we'll do that we're going to need to do it um succinctly of course but i thought if you had some of the feedback on that very briefly mr chairman we reviewed the correspondence and with due respect to those supplemental materials we believe that we've heard it before we've heard it's been the subject of previous hearings and we believe that we've appropriately responded and made the record on all those issues So I have no further response because I don't see anything in the communications that are material that were not already answered at the previous three meetings. As you know, three substantive meetings and now a fourth is quite a bit for any project, and we believe we've covered it. But certainly me and my team are ready to the extent that you, Mr. Chairman, or members of the board would like us to answer any inquiry. It's not our plan to have any kind of back and forth. with the community as it relates to their issues. However, if Mr. Chairman would like us to address anything, we certainly will. OK. Thank you very much.

Thank you. OK. So with that, I think we should go right to the public hearing.

Over.

Are you going? No, you're going to do it. I'm going to second. Oh, OK. I saw you go in.

I'll make a motion to reopen the public hearing.

Second.

Those in favor?

Aye.

Those opposed none. We're putting together a up. OK. Thank you. So the public hearing is reopened at seven twenty eight. So I do have a sign up sheet. So we're gonna go in that order. Again, I'm gonna ask you to be succinct. If you come up, be succinct in making your points. When you follow up on people, please don't rehash, repeat what other people have said. Simply you can refer to it. and say you agree to put your vote in, if you will, to add weight to it, but we don't need to have things repeated over and over again. We need to get this done, and as the planner pointed out, we are going to vote this evening, but it's not gonna be at midnight. So we're gonna do our best to be professional and succinct in this. So first up is Red Spirit from the Nipmuc tribe.

Red Spirit, R-E-D, last name Spirit, S-P-I-R-T. I'm Keyshawn Red Spirit Jackson. I'm chief of the Wabakwasa Band of Nipmucs. And I mean, I first visited this a couple of years, maybe about six, seven years ago. And the tribe has never been uh informed about taking walks up there or um before any excavation was done on the land so we did go up there probably about six years ago we've seen some burial sites and a couple of different artifacts that we were interested in not being disturbed and the tribe has never and even acknowledged or even told about anything like this. And they just continue to process without even trying to inform us about what's going on up there. I think it's a little bit of ignorance. I mean, because they're going to other people and trying to figure out what's going on on these lands. And I would like it if you guys would kind of acknowledge us and have us go on and study and do research on some of the artifacts that's up there. I know that I heard that some of the burial sites have been identified, which we do appreciate, but I mean, it's a bunch of stuff I've seen on it, like balanced stones and different other artifacts up there that, I mean, I hope that they're not trying to disturb them.

If I could just ask a question for clarification because we have had the Narragansett tribe I think has been communicated with right over the years and stuff. Could you explain for those of us and I apologize for my ignorance on where the What's the territory, if you will, for the Nipmuc tribe?

So the last battle Nipchit took was in North Smithfield, which is Nipmuc territory. So the tribes were all like only 1% of the population, so there's not a bunch of us. So every weekend we go to each other's bowels. Like two weeks ago we was at Narragansett. The week before that we were at Nipmuc. they're speaking will be asking so we're i mean we have a relationship with each other so we we're in communications all the time so the narragansett actually i did some walks up there with the narragansett but then when they realized it wasn't their tribal territory they kind of let the folks like take over and then we just disregard it after that you know what i mean and i don't know why or what's the reason they disregarded the tribe but they continue to disregard us they haven't reached out to us in any form or any fashion okay all right thanks for that clarification um

Is that it? Yes. Thanks for now. We'll come back and address things as we need to. Clayson Fox.

Hi there, Clayson Fox, that is C-L-A-Y-S-O-N, last name F-O-X. I would just like to express my concern with development upon what is- Could we have your address please? My address would be 8 Dewey Ave, North Providence. I would like to express concerns about the building and development upon sacred land as has been identified by our friends within the Nipmuc tribe. I cannot in good conscience stand aside while that land gets developed upon while they have expressed concerns and frustrations about their disregard, their lack of involvement, et cetera, et cetera, what has just been said before me by Red Spirit. I would also just like to express that there are many local groups within Rhode Island as a whole state. I am a member of several. All of these groups do stand opposed to any development on sacred land and are willing, able, and eager to stand in solidarity with the indigenous peoples of Rhode Island.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you. Halen Hunt? Halen Hunt?

My name is Halen Hunt. Halen is H-A-L-Y-N, Hunt, H-U-N-T. Could we have your address, please? 65 Hyatt Street, Providence. So I'm here to also voice my concerns about the Rankin Estates Development Project. The project is using sacred land that belongs to the Nipmuc tribe. This has belonged to them since before we got here, and they've used this land to respect their ancestors. Narragansett Improvement Company wants to disrespect this by destroying this land for what I believe and I think others would agree is unnecessary land development. So I am asking that you unequivocally and publicly reject this development and stand in solidarity to protect this land from senseless destruction. Thank you.

Thank you. Please, please. Many of you, this is your first time, but we did have an agreement a few minutes ago. Applause, like a golf match. Okay. Hope O.

Hi, Hope Oliveira, H-O-P-E-O-L-I-V like Victor, E-I-R-A. Yep, 51 Chapin, Providence. I would just like to echo the sentiments of the people who have spoken before me and point out that the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and heritage commission um did not perform an archaeological excavation they surveyed the site and advised north smithfield to work directly with the tribes and it sounds like from red spirits testimony that has not happened um so echoing everything that everyone said before me i would urge you to reject this project out of respect for the indigenous peoples that came before us thank you

Winnie Butler.

Good evening, Winnie Butler, that's spelled W-I-N-N-I-E-B-U-T-L-E-R, 97 Drum Rock Avenue in Warwick. I am a concerned ally of the Wabakwas at Nipmuc Tribe. I'm asking the board to deny preliminary approval or to continue this vote until the record is complete. I'd like to echo what was just said about the Heritage Commission review. According to reporting corrected this week, the same commission neither confirmed nor denied the significance of above ground or subterranean features of Possible cultural significance and while I haven't seen that letter My question is whether the consultation with the tribes ever happened and how we can ethically move forward without it I just wanted to briefly mention Historian Lisa Brooks who wrote a book about the land we're standing on tonight. It's called ours our beloved kin and And she mentions that this land is at the historical center of King Philip's War, at the meeting point of Nipmuc, Narragansett, and Wampanoag country. In August of 1675, so 351 years ago this month, Metacom's people came here as refugees seeking shelter with relatives and were attacked by the colonists. In 2016, the federal government listed this battlefield on this land that we're talking about on the National Register I just wanted to ask that you consider that the matter before you is an act of theft of sacred native lands and to not continue to allow this violence to occur. Thank you.

Thank you. Again, Melody O'Brien.

M-E-L-O-D-Y-O-B-R-I-E-N, 46 Miami-Nomi Avenue on Aquinnick Island. I decided to talk tonight because as Americans, we would never go to Arlington, we would never go to Gettysburg, we would never go across this parking lot and dig up the cemetery. This gentleman in the houndstooth jacket made the comment that he's heard it all he's heard our public comments and he's ready to move on and he feels his employer has cut back what they feel is necessary i don't feel that's necessary this is sacred land we would never bulldoze over gettysburg we would never bulldoze over Manassas, any battlefield, yet we're going to do it where it's indigenous sacred land. And that's a shame. That truly is a shame. And it's just a continuation of colonization, which we should have already moved on from. Have respect for the people who have been here. Have respect for their land. And if you can't, you need to move on. This gentleman needs to move on because it's not, it's not right. And I have a lot more to say, but I'm gonna keep it short and I'm gonna try not to have an attitude about this because I'm very upset. Indigenous people have been punished long enough They have been colonized long enough, and it's not their responsibility to change you. There's no diversity on your board, which is very sad to see. and anyone who continues to keep the colonizer mindset is poisonous, not only to the people, but to this land. Have a good evening.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Please, please. Oh, goodness. Okay. Michael Mayo. By the way, I do want to make one comment based on that. Let's leave out any personal references in here, OK? Whether it's to the applicant's attorney or anything else, there's no room for personal pointed comments. OK? Understood? Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. Michael Mayo, M-E-O. I live at 8 Christina Way. The detailed report previously submitted to the board by North Smithfield Concerned Residents refers to me a few times as Attorney Mayo. At these meetings, I have been addressing the board not as Attorney Mayo, but as Concerned Citizen Mayo. But I am an attorney. I've been litigating real estate disputes across the country for the past 30 years. One thing you learn in litigation is that when a party does not have a good answer to a legal question, They deflect the question and try to make the discussion about something else. And when it comes to the recreation fields, that is exactly what the applicant has been doing in these hearings. First, at the April 9 hearing, they tried to argue that the issue of the fields was resolved at the master plan approval stage. But of course, we all know it was not. Then at the May 14 hearing, they tried to argue that since the town zoning ordinance contemplates recreation fields, this board has no discretion to deny or limit them in any way, a point they eventually conceded in their council's June 23 letter to the board. At the June 25 meeting, they tried to argue that there has been no expert testimony that the fields should not be permitted. But as I explained in my July 14 letter to the board, under established Rhode Island law, expert testimony is not required. The question the applicant has not clearly addressed, and which it does not want this board to focus on, is whether these particular fields in this particular proposed conservation development satisfy the town's comprehensive community plan and subdivision regulations. They don't want the board to focus on this question because the answer clearly is no. Ask yourselves, does the construction of these fields maintain the rural character of the community? No. Does it protect natural systems in rural areas? No. Does it preserve the natural features of the site? Of course not. Does it avoid areas of environmental sensitivity? No. Does it minimize alterations of and negative impacts to natural features, historic and cultural resources, and scenic areas? No, no, no, and no. Even if you focus on the applicant's own stated justification for these fields, which supposedly is to provide passive recreational use for the future residents of Rankin Estates, they don't even satisfy that Look at where these proposed fields are located, in the far northwest corner of this 270-acre development. They are nowhere near the majority of the house lots. Instead, they are in the backyards of the Christina Way abutters. Residents of Rankin Estates will need to trek through the woods and traverse hilly, rocky terrain just to get to the fields. I urge the Board to strongly consider the suggestion made by David Mitchell in his July 12 email to relocate any recreation fields to the interior of the residential development to ensure that they are easily accessible, utilized, and monitored by Rankin Estates residents. By any criteria you choose to apply, the town's comprehensive community plan, the subdivision regulations, the applicant's own stated purpose for the fields, or just common sense. These fields fail. The town administration's own July 16 memorandum on the fields advises passive recreation under a conservation easement more closely aligns with the regulatory preference for minimal disturbance. As required by Rhode Island General Laws 452360 and referenced in the town's July 16 memorandum, any proposal involving recreational fields must be supported by competent evidence demonstrating compliance with these criteria. Here, there is no competent evidence demonstrating these fields satisfy the criteria of the town's comprehensive community plan or subdivision regulations. Rather, this board has all the evidence and all the legal authority it needs to exercise its discretion to deny these proposed fields or at a minimum limit their size, location, and phasing. Thank you.

Thank you. Mike Zara.

can you please speak into the microphone yes um at 60 gentian avenue providence gentian g-e-n-t I want to echo the statements of almost everybody who spoke before me.

Could you maybe pick the microphone up a little bit?

I'd like to echo the statements of almost everybody who spoke before me. We are colonizers. We are settlers. The Wapakwasit and Nipmuc people have been stewarding this land since long before our ancestors got here. To build over and destroy something that carries so much pain is beyond an insult. And I know, I know you said don't make anything personal, but it is deeply personal when it's your family. It's your family. So I do hope, I wanna keep this short because you did ask not to repeat things and I wanna respect that. But I do hope that you can show the Wabakwas and Nipmuc people the same respect and not destroy their lands, please. Thank you. Thank you.

just just to clarify my statement about not making things personal i mean not i thought i was clear but not to direct any comments at an individual here personally that's all i realize it's a very emotional issue for many of you and a very personal one but we should not be engaged in like finger pointing and name calling that's that's my only point there garrett donnelly Okay.

hello uh garrett donnelly g-a-r-r-e-t-t d-o-n-n-e-l-l-y 91 abbott avenue warwick um i just wanted to add to the record that i went to pontagansa high school and a few years ago that nitmuck tried to get the high school not to use the chieftain logo anymore but they were denied then. So this isn't the first time that the Nipmuc in recent history has been ignored and not part of a process that relates to sovereignty over their own land. Check.

Thank you. If I'm reading this correctly, Stephen Gilmette.

Did I get that right?

OK. Hi, everyone.

Steven Gelmet. Steven with a V. Gelmet spelled G-U-I-L-M-E-T-T-E. Live at 555 Log Road, Harrisville. First meeting, have not been to the last three meetings. Was notified of the meeting heading to physical therapy on a billboard on a telephone pole. Looked into it and not too happy about what's going on in my neighborhood. living there for 20 years and it's sacred land um what it's going to do for the schooling obviously is going to just decimate our school systems with too many individuals route 7 is going to be a mess as it is already um i feel as though it should be left the way that it is with land being open, no fields. We don't need any other fields for the town to take care of, for more fertilizer to be put down to contaminate wells, or we don't need another 126 wells drying up the aquifers. And we don't need the riffraff of out-of-towners coming in if we do have these fields in 126 housing areas. doing estates and we just don't need it. We really just don't need it. Okay.

All right, thank you. All right, Nick Kotkovich. How am I doing on names tonight?

All right.

Only all right, all right.

Hey, I'm Nick Kakovich, K-A-T-K-E-V-I-C-H. I live in Poconocha Territory, 45 Division Street in Bristol, Rhode Island. And I just want to firstly comment on something I believe I heard earlier, that the vote has to happen tonight because the developer is on a timeline. I just want to make the board aware that I called the DEM the other day. There's a freshwater permit that the developer needs to get before they can start construction on this project. In May, the DEM deemed that permit insufficient, and they haven't heard from the developer since. So the developer clearly isn't in some rush that y'all have to vote tonight if they're in three months not making any motion on this permit with the DEM that was deemed insufficient and the DEM rejected it. So at the very least, plead with y'all to not vote tonight, not approve the project tonight. I think you should reject it. But at the very least, take your time, consult with the tribe. And there's actually no rush to approve it tonight because the developer's clearly not in any rush with the DEM. Secondly, just a little bit more about this company. And also, you know, I know for a local planning board, it might feel hard to say no to a company like this when they bring in all their lawyers. But I want y'all to know that I think You can see people from across the state will support North Smithfield and will support this planning board if and when you say no to this developer. If you all ever drive on 95 by the big blue bug and you smell that asphalt smell, there's asphalt there, that's what this company does, Narragansett Improvement Company. They're an asphalt company. Local residents in the Port of Providence started organizing against them and the city of Providence, after years of organizing, finally said no to this developer and started rejecting permits to them. The law firm representing the developer in the town I'm from, there's a very controversial development that would destroy wetlands. The same lawyers are representing that project as well. So people in Bristol, people in Providence are upset with this company and with this law firm. So if you say no, you will be supported by people from across the state. The last thing I want to say, and I'm not going to make it personal, one of the lawyers for the developers at the previous meeting, I walked by him and I casually said, human to human, this is blood money. This is destroying burial grounds. This is blood money. And he looked at me and said, I don't care. I love all money. Are these the type of people, these companies and this law firm that North Smithfield wants to invite into your town?

I do want to remind all of you, we have a role to play here. Okay, we're not a jury, we have a role to play. We have to support the residents, well, the town of North Smithfield, the current residents of Butters, etc. Future residents, in this case, it's a residential thing. That's who we're here to support, and we have to follow our rules. We don't need anyone's, we're not. We're not people that need approval from people. We need to follow our rules. That's what we need to do. And as such, however comments are made between people that may or may not be offended, that has no bearing. I understand that you're passionate about it and it's fine, but I understand it has no bearing on how we make our decisions. And it can't. That would be wrong of us to use personal feelings to make decisions, and that would actually make us bad, okay? So understand that we will look at all the evidence, we will listen to it, and we will apply the ordinances, the laws, et cetera, to make a fair decision within the rules. That doesn't mean everyone's gonna like the decision.

because sometimes the rules themselves are a little confusing or even conflict with each other but we have to go that way okay well yeah thanks for sharing that i guess i would just say that at least my comments like take with a grain of salt what this company's saying as i said with the dem permit there's actually no rush despite the fact it sounds like they're pressuring you all to make a vote tonight and based on those personal interactions you know i think that's in a testament to this character of this company and i would just urge the board to take everything they say with the grain of salt

All right, thank you. I'm going to ask the solicitor just to give a clear definition as to why we are going to make a vote tonight.

The board has to make a vote tonight because the law requires them to make a decision in 90 days. The 90 days has expired. If they don't make a decision, it's automatically approved. Um, the only reason why it hasn't been decided in 90 days is because the applicant has agreed to the extensions. The state law provides not this board that if they don't make a decision in 90 days is automatically approved and they move on to the next step. So it's not a decision of if it's either they make a decision or the decision is approved.

Right. So I want to be clear. It has nothing to do with pressure. It has to do with following the law. And as the solicitor pointed out, we're beyond that 90 days, but only because the applicant has approved of that. So I see you have your hand up.

I wanted a clarification, if possible. This has been going on since at least 2007. When did 90?

Could you answer that? When did the 90 day clock start?

we don't want to relive the history that was presented early on in the hearing this case goes back to 2007 with a major lawsuit in which the town lost and then came back as a reduced plan i don't want to relive the history the facts are on the record uh when that new plan came on master plan was approved which was the first step so they've got vested rights and then next step is preliminary plan which they filed i don't know the exact date but more than 90 days before today and the extension was granted by agreement of the applicant right so it's the 90 days from when they filed to to start the preliminary process okay thank you I just want to correct that. The lawsuit got resulted as, I believe it was a mediation with retired justice of the Supreme Court. But it was reduced and represented by attorneys on both sides. I think the lawsuit got reduced by mediation of a judge, not a jury.

Okay, thank you. And someone known to all of us for his consistent attendance here, Mr. Kumar. Now I'm surprised that didn't get applause. Only one, thank you. Thank you. There we go.

Sahil Kumar, S-A-H-I-L-K-U-M-A-R, 14 Leonard Drive. Okay, good evening. Section 452360 asks five findings of this board, which is also on tonight's agenda. And each must rest on legally competent evidence in the record. Applicant's counsel told us this evening that the applicant has, quote, made the record that we want to make. The resident's 42-page report that was filed on July 16th is posted on the town's document center. Attachment two is a licensed professional engineer's review of this record. I have not seen a filing from the applicant that answers to that report or the submission. So the record is complete by their own words and everything residents have raised tonight sits somewhere under those five findings. Before any motion, I ask the board to take the findings one at a time and name the record evidence under each. And as you do so, notice what the 21 stipulations themselves say. State permits move to final. Soil testing scheduled for later. Instruments to be executed later. the access road to be built later. All conditions that schedule evidence for later are telling you the findings cannot be made tonight. One example, finding one, rest on policy 2.b. Road systems of adequate carrying capacity, and the applicant's own June revised study reports level of service F can't get any worse, 76 seconds of delay rising to 126 seconds. Where the evidence is there, the finding is easy. Where it is not, and on the environment and access, I believe you will find it is not. The sound course is to decline the finding and deny the application as presented. That protects this town, its taxpayers, and the applicant alike. Thank you.

And Erica Millett, how did you know?

I knew I was following Mr. Kumar. Erica Millett, E-R-I-C-A, last name M-I-L-L-E-T-T-E, address 15 Taylor Drive, this town. 15 Taylor, T-A-Y-L-O-R. I'd just like to echo some of the comments that have already been made, specifically Mr. Mayo's. Certainly the traffic. I think the school is a major sticking point for me. I know we've had some preliminary reviews by the superintendent. I know it's not a requirement. to consider for the board but um we're definitely kicking the can down the road as far as the amount of space that we have in our schools for 50 70 students so i just wanted to bring that up and certainly i think that needs to be looked at in totality with the other developments going on in town the pines the tupperware mill everything and the volume that that will bring to our schools so i know i mentioned this before i just want to reiterate it it's not part of the official process but definitely a concern And I think the last thing I'll say is, I won't pretend to be an expert on this at all, but I think the more single family units we're bringing into the town, the further we get from our low, medium income housing requirements. If my math is right, we're about 96 units away from the target now. This will add maybe another 12 units required. um for our town to have the the proportions that we need on this and that's to me kind of losing ground in terms of our control over the the types of developments that we put into this town and and how much catch-up we have to do so just wanted to again raise that to you all and thank you for your time

Thank you. Mr. Carullo, just a clarification on that last point. How many affordable housing units are part of this? What's the requirement?

This is exempted. It predates the requirement for the LMI.

I think what I saw is we have about 436, last I checked, and we need 532 units. So we're at a deficit.

Yeah, but the chairman's question was how many are included in this development?

yeah this would by adding more single family units it raises the number of low moderate income units that we need to meet the state thresholds so therefore we have to approve more tupperware and more pines developments to meet those targets yep correct thank you all right that's the end of the list um so okay

We take walk-ins. Sure.

Thank you.

My name is Nathan Smith, 18 Indigo Farm Road. Mailing address Harrisville, but it's North Smithfield. I just wanted to speak a little bit about the accuracy of the archaeological findings associated with this. I'm not an archaeologist. I'm not an expert. I have run around those woods since I was 10 years old or so. So I know a lot of the stuff that's out there. I do have a degree in history and a hobbyist interest in Native American history and archaeology. And I worked with the Northfield Heritage Association as part of their research team for quite a bit of time. We haven't done any research projects in that area. We weren't allowed to do so, but we had a lot to do with the Whortleberry Hill area and some of the other neighbors around the Blunders neighborhood, all that. I can say when I first joined the team, one of the members had found an artifact in a mound in his backyard, a very conspicuous mound in his backyard that had certain identifying characteristics. That artifact was brought to, I don't want to speak too much in detail, it's a little bit culturally sensitive to speak about, but it was brought to Brown and it was identified as being a burial artifact roughly 3,000 to 5,000 years old, supposedly the oldest artifact ever found in Rhode Island. The reason I bring it up, this was not found on the property of this development. It was found very nearby. The reason I bring it up is when the person who found it showed me the mound in which he found it, it reminded me very much of a mound that we used to party at when we were teenagers. No one has, for the best of my knowledge, dug into that. And from the satellite mapping, it doesn't look like, unless maybe somebody's gone over it with a three-wheeler in the last however many years, it looks like it should still be intact. But it is within the development area. I don't know for sure if there's anything in that mound, but it looks exactly like the one that was shown to me where this artifact was found. And the only other thing I wanted to mention is, yes, their archaeologist has stressed repeatedly that the battlefield site of the Second Battle of Nipsey-Chuck Hill is not on this property. The Second Battle of Nipsey-Chuck Hill. He doesn't say a word about the first.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. If there is no one else to speak, we will...

My name is Janine Jagera-Gagnon, J-E-A-N-N-I-N-E G-I-G-U-E-R-E hyphen G-A-G-N-O-N. My address is 60 Oxford Avenue, Woonsocket, Rhode Island. I just want to say that I support everything that was said for the indigenous people. I don't believe that the development should be built on sacred ground. I believe the burial grounds are sacred and should be treated as sacred. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, are you looking for a motion to close the public hearing?

I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second.

Those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, the public hearing is closed at 8.06. I do want to thank everyone for being brief. Mr. Kumar, you set a record for the shortest time you have spoken here. I commend you for that. And thank you. So we did get a few things out. If we could, does the board have some questions before we're going to want to get some clarification from the solicitor? But I have some questions, at least I do, for the developer. Is that all right? Attorney Resnick, if you could. And this would be more for you than Mr. Preeti. We've covered a lot in the previous meetings on the Narragansett and all that stuff, but it appears this land is really Nipmuc land. So what has been done, and I know, as you've said, there was some process going to the state to kind of clear any issues with that.

But that was in regards to the Narragansetts, so- No, that was as to any Native American tribe. So we are relying, Mr. Chairman, on the findings. We are relying on the findings not only of our expert, SWCA, Mr. Donta, we are relying on the findings of RHPHC, who is the state agency who respectfully has sole jurisdiction on that issue. So it's our expert, but it's also the state agency, their experts. And as we've discussed previously, there are certain jurisdictional issues that lie with RIDOT. There are certain jurisdictional issues that lie with RIDEM. These issues, in our opinion, have been foreclosed by the findings of our expert and the state agency. Now, of course, we've presented them at master. We've presented them at preliminary. I offered to go through the entirety of the RIHPC letter, but I think it would be redundant because it has been the subject of discussion. So respectfully, it's not my opinion. I don't know anything about it.

Right.

My client hired an expert, my client submitted the appropriate materials to the state agency that has jurisdiction on it, and the determination was no archeological findings.

Okay.

Does the, do any of the reports reference the Nipmucs? Do they mention the tribes at all, specifically? Or is it a generic statement?

I would have to take a look at the document. I'm not sure what specific tribes are mentioned. I do know, as you noted, and as I think as everybody is aware, there was consultation and coordination with the Narragansetts. Now, I'm not trying to suggest that there are not other tribes that have a right to speak up, to say whatever they believe. We are solely relying upon our expert and the state agency. Had different findings been made by the state agency, additional work, additional due diligence would have been done. The reason why no further work was done was because the sole agency charged under Rhode Island law to make those determinations said no further work was required. I'm not casting aspersions on anybody's testimony, anybody's opinion. I am sure they know a lot more than me or anybody in this room on the subject, but we hired an expert and we relied on the state agency.

Okay. Well, I think that, at least to the point where you're saying the state agency, I'll say is tribal agnostic, which does make the assumption of the hope that they had the knowledge to know exactly which tribes owned which land. But that's not for you and I to answer.

I wouldn't wade into that because I don't know anything on the subject.

Understood. OK. I just wanted to get that out. So I would like us to, unless there's anything else from the board, I'd like to ask for a 10 minute recess so I can consult with the solicitor. And then we'll move forward from there.

So moved. Second. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I have to make one final comment. I'm not going to respond to any of the testimony that was provided today, but there is one item that I do have to reference to protect the record. Mr. Kumar had mentioned the 42-page correspondence.

Hold on. We had a motion.

But before that happens, I'd like to say this.

It's not too late. We can do that after we take our recess.

Absolutely.

All right. So we have a motion. We have a second. Those in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. We are in recess for 10 minutes starting at 8.11.

Alright.

All right, everyone apologize for taking much more than the 10 minutes, but thank you for your patience. Oh yeah. So we'll wait for Mr. Porter to come back. But as you know, we're going to be taking a boat this evening. And so as a result, we, we asked, uh, we, we were going to be over overseen by one of North Smithville's finest, um, what happens when you overfill a room i guess um Yep. Yep.

OK, so that's been done.

all right uh do we have to do something formal to come out of recess i make a motion that we come out of recess okay second those in favor aye opposed no we're out of recess at 8 36 just to make it legal i always liked recess though um okay so um Attorney Resnick, you said, did you want to make any comments towards anything that was said this evening?

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to report that I have nothing further to add.

Again, again, applause. Okay. This is great. Okay. So for the board, what questions and comments do we have? And either Mr. Resnick or Mr. Priebe will address them. I'm letting you guys go first okay well nobody else has that I do have a couple of questions so first one is probably for you Mr. Resnick attorney Resnick and this could be something that I missed but early on there was it was unclear as to what the definition of

the condition at which the street or streets become town roads.

And it was anywhere from right on day one, this is around the conversation around snow plowing, trash recyclable pickup, all that kind of stuff. Have we come to resolution of when the roadways would become town roads and therefore town responsibility as opposed to HOA or developer responsibility?

My understanding is we would have to go before the town council and petition the town council to accept of the public roads.

But at what point would that be done.

That would be when the development is complete.

Okay, so it's not for 10 or 1210 years from now.

No. And during during during the interim period, the developer who would be known as the declarant, all responsibilities under the HOA documents that we've provided would would lie with the developer.

So snow plowing, trash, recyclable pickup, etc.

I'd have to take a look at the document, and I can bring it up with respect to the trash issue. Eric, do you have a recollection of that? I can tell you that it's a fairly robust document, so it's hard for me to remember the whole thing. I know that it has been provided to staff. It has been provided to your attorney as well. that's the document that would guide that process okay so i mean certainly like any other um community member like any other taxpayer ultimately it will be the town's responsibility uh to pick up trash but that i i don't believe that that would be until uh the point that the town uh accepts uh the road and any other responsibilities yeah it's kind of an all or nothing

That's my understanding. Mr. Carillo, it might make sense for us to add a stipulation stating that, even though it may be stated similarly in the HOA document, but something that says that all these functions are the responsibility of the applicant until such time as it is the development of the roadways are accepted by the town council as town roads.

So you're looking, just so I understand is that the board is requesting or we're looking for clarification with regard to town services within the development.

What would be town services if it was town roads?

If they're town roads, they would have full services, obviously. We've had situations where development is bonded and the roadway is publicly accessed sanitation is provided however maintenance and snow plowing is not because of the condition of the road in that there are raised manholes catch basins and things like that and the town will not assume the responsibility for any damage to snow plows other cleaning, but as far as sanitation services, if a resident is in a home and they are paying their taxes, they're entitled to sanitation.

So you're saying the stipulation would really only be about the plowing?

It would really be about plowing and maintenance. Plowing and maintenance, okay. And that the town would not accept that responsibility because we would risk damage to our plow vehicles and we don't own the road so that the town would not maintain it.

Okay, so I would like to see us add a stipulation then to cover that, to cover what is the applicant's reason. And then you can review your documents on it over time, but it sounds like you're in agreement with that, so.

Yes, and I may have misspoke slightly. I think that the question is what portion of the property is still under declarant control, a developer control as to what portion is now with a homeowner that's bought a single family home. So I think my position would be consistent with your planner in that if an individual buys a home, they have the right to the sanitation. Obviously the roads will be treated differently and the declarant, whatever refuge or trash would result from whatever they're doing to develop the property would be their obligation to take care of that trash. But a single family homeowner would have the right to those services.

To expect town services for that. Yep, that's fine. So OK, that'll cover that. OK. Well, one of our favorite topics, of course, is the recreational fields. So why don't we cover that now? We do feel that we have an obligation to, obviously, as I said, we serve the town, we serve the current residents that abut in the general neighborhood. And of course, we have responsibility to the future residents of the development. So with that in mind, you've heard a lot of PUSHBACK, RECEIVED A LOT OF PUSHBACK ON THE FIELDS. OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE CAN STIPULATE. I THINK THE POINT WAS MADE PERHAPS DURING ONE OF THE MEETINGS BY THE BOARD AS WELL AS BY ONE OF THE RESIDENT CONTRIBUTORS ABOUT THE USEFULNESS OF THE FIELDS AND THE IDEA OF PUTTING RECREATIONAL USAGE sort of, I don't mean to say scattered, but strategically located within the development. There's a number of places for that. You have the different circles where there's maybe 20 houses on the circle and there's free space, there's open space in between. The types of fields would be put in there. My own recommendation would be to put in things that are actually useful, that will be used by people, as opposed to soccer field size expanses of grass. In terms of the acreage that you brought up, a tennis court takes up 7,200 square feet. A half basketball court is about 3,000. playgrounds are typically about 3,000 square feet when you put it all together you could put in eight to ten different recreational uses like that you know a tennis pickleball court here another one up here of that so people can just come out their door and have it you know all that you can put all that in for around a half an acre of land within those other open spaces um and obviously probably at uh at lower costs of course it needs to be maintained by the hoa as time goes on but i think that's um I think that's what we'd like to see in terms of just a different usage. You definitely have the right to have recreational field use within a conservation development. We're just looking at how it's being implemented and looking at its usefulness to actually to the future residents mostly. There was a comment made, and I'll just address this, there was a comment made about, I'll paraphrase and say, about other people coming in to use these. It's understood that in a neighborhood, people are gonna have guests. The guests don't all live there. So there's no, it's not reasonable to assume that something can only be used by the residents in that neighborhood.

They would have to be an invitee of the residence.

Sure, right, right, right. I mean, kid's birthday party, whatever. They want to have friends over to play pickleball. That's the kind of thing that's going to happen. So it's understood that there will be people coming in and out of this neighborhood regularly, if it's built this way, to have those. And I think everybody just needs to accept that, just like any other neighborhood. It's true in my neighborhood.

Mr. Chairman, could I briefly respond to your comments about the tennis fields, et cetera? So certainly, as we've acknowledged, the planning board has more than a role in working with the applicant on the design. as it does in any development the overall design the layout and the design of what we're speaking about now the recreational fields respectfully what i i don't think the planning board has the ability to do is to unilaterally redesign my client's project so respectfully we have taken the feedback and I understand and I respect the fact that there are members of the community and there may be members of the board that don't believe that the modifications that we've made are satisfactory but those are the modifications that were made and that's what's been presented and that's the plan that's before you So I think that where we've come, and I'm not going to go through the 7.3 to the 2.4, but my client controls how this project is redesigned. You control whether you vote to approve it or vote to deny it and reasonable conditions that are upon it. But that doesn't mean the redesign of the project. and so we would object to that and and and respectfully it's within the board's purview to approve that this project with conditions that do just what you suggested however we would object to it and and i have to be candid with this board i don't know for certain but it is highly likely that we would take an appeal. And the problem, and I understand that this could be viewed as a threat, but it's not. I'm being academic for a moment. This project is approved with illegal conditions and it goes up to the superior court.

What was that word?

Illegal conditions. Illegal. If there are conditions that we believe are outside of the jurisdiction of the board and we take an appeal of an approval with those conditions and we go to the superior court and the superior court agrees, there are no conditions. There are no conditions. So I think that that's something that has to be stated here. And the other thing that has to be stated, and I said this in the beginning, and I said it at the last hearing, and when I said it, I knew that it, I don't want to say it angered you, but I knew that you didn't want me to go there. But the reality is that all the movement that my client has made, going from 7.3 to 2.4 acres, was conditional on us receiving a preliminary approval. So I have to state for the record, and I've said it many times, that if we are denied this most recent incantation of the field and we're approved or we're denied, we will likely take an appeal on that um and that appeal will not be to return to the current plan that we've presented this evening it will be exactly what was before you at the beginning of these preliminary hearings those three or four meetings ago it will be the 7.3 because no developer is going to do what my client did and shrink something that he believed that he had a right to under the ordinance by 67% and take an appeal for the 67%, he's going to go for the 100%. So that's the reality of the situation. I can't say what my client will do because it would be speculative. But I do have a lot of information. I've dealt with my client. I've had discussions with my client about these issues every time. And I can tell you right now, I feel pretty certain that that will be an issue. So I have to make the record clear on that.

I'm going to look to the solicitor now. Attorney Resnick has put out that potentially we'd be putting an illegal stipulation in our plan. Do you feel we'd be putting something in that's illegal?

It's not a matter of whether it's illegal or not. It's whether it's within your discretion of the code, whether it's based upon competent evidence. That discussion hasn't occurred yet. Okay, so then Mr. Any condition that you put on this project or any grounds in which you support the project has to be based upon competent evidence. You need to point to the record. Okay. You need to pull evidence out of the record. So I haven't heard that, so I'm not going to speculate about the outcome of a legal matter until the evidence is briefed. Okay.

so then mr igliozzi i have um i'm just going to read from our subdivision regulations for a moment and this is section 4k6 the planning board shall specifically authorize plans for the use ownership management and maintenance of all open space areas within any conservation development Areas proposed to fulfill the minimum open space requirement with a conservation development shall not be excavated or regraded except as permitted by the planning board. Disturbance to the natural contours of the land shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Existing natural vegetation in any significant natural or man-made features shall be preserved except as permitted by the planning board to create or enhance areas of landscape, parks, recreation, conservation, forestry, or wildlife habitat. These disturbances shall be specifically shown on the open space use plan. So by that definition in our subdivision regulations, we have authority to approve or deny fields that are proposed by the applicant.

under those conditions and, again, based upon competent evidence that addressed the questions, the information that you raised.

Right. So, I mean, when the fields that have been presented to us show significant regrading, you know. Well, I'm not going to debate the evidence with you. No, I'm not trying to debate with you.

But, you know, what would the process be then? Because, as you said, you know, we have to present proper evidence. When would that occur?

I think it has to happen, I think the applicant's position is they have presented proper evidence. Okay, but- So it's up to the board to determine whether that proper evidence is before you.

Okay.

I mean, clearly your code allows recreational fields in a conservation easement. You're focusing on open space, but you have a specific code that you required us to generate a memo on. It's in your record, it's been provided, it's posted, and you have an ordinance that specifically addresses this. I would ask you to follow your ordinance. Okay. That would be my advice to the planning board. Okay. And that ordinance was adopted by the council, that's the law of the town. Right. Your regulations are adopted by you and are subject to town law.

Right.

Mr. Chairman, if I just- Certainly. Very briefly, and that is the bright line legal rule that I don't think that can be contested. you have regulations, the zoning ordinance trumps your regulation. So if there's an inconsistency with your regulations and the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance controls and the zoning ordinance doesn't with respect to the opinions that have been put forth by lay people and by lawyers, it permits them and it doesn't permit a tennis field solely. It doesn't permit a soccer field solely. It permits recreational fields. And so the question really becomes a question of reasonableness. And I would suggest that the reduction of these fields by 67 percent since the infancy is more than reasonable. And to deprive the applicant of those fields with that reduction and that redesign, which was not just based on our engineering thoughts or opinions, but based off of specific feedback from this board during the process. I would suggest that what has been presented is reasonable, and I would respectfully state that I believe that what you're suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is unreasonable based off of what your zoning ordinance says.

OK, that's different than illegal. Well, it does come down... That's how this part of the conversation started because you said you were concerned we were going to be taking illegal action.

Illegal to me is a fairly lay way to say that you don't have jurisdiction. If that term has a connotation, I'll withdraw it. The question is, do you have the jurisdiction under your regulations to trump your zoning ordinance... And I believe that that is the question. So excuse me for the term illegality. It would be, but again, not having jurisdiction and acting as such is unlawful.

Fair enough. I do. Just for my own edification, a point of clarification from Mr. Resnick that I'd just like to hear from our own solicitor. He made the statement the zoning ordinance trumps our subdivision land use regulations. Is that a correct statement?

In this context, it certainly has priority. Okay. Because don't forget, your subdivision regulations are referring to open space. Your zoning ordinance is referring specifically to a conservation development. Okay, thank you. So they could be found to be consistent, but you can understand the specific relationship to a conservation development.

Okay, thank you.

And that's because your zoning ordinance allows the conservation development as an alternative to a full blown development and it tries to encourage developers not to develop all the property. That's a policy that your town council put down into law.

Mr. Porter, back to the point you raised, where does this last part of the conversation leave us with the stipulation on the fields?

I think with the clarification that we've gotten,

No stipulation as such?

Yeah.

Okay. That's what I wanted to get to. Okay. Did you have something you wanted to add?

I was just simply going to add, because I think your solicitor had mentioned the conservation aspect, and certainly my engineer can give you the specifics, but I do think it's important to consider that over half the property is preserved as open space. Wetland, watercourses, major natural areas are all protected. The fields were reduced. And we believe that the revised design balances that active recreation, passive recreation, forest preservation, and natural resource protection. It is, of course, a balancing act. But as Mr. Preve could tell you in greater particularity, a lot of this property is being preserved. More property is being preserved than is required under your regulations by a lot.

So could you, there was a comment made about DEM permit or something. Could you just address that, the timing of that, something that you?

Sure, so as it relates to the particular status of the DEM permit, I am gonna defer to Mr. Preve because he's been dealing with DEM. I have not, I will say this. um there is no requirement that we have that permit as a condition to our preliminary we certainly need it as a condition to our final so as as was spoken by one of the gentlemen yeah there's absolutely no right there's no doubt that if this project is approved this evening we are not in any position to put shovels in the ground that is an absolute accurate statement but the one thing i will say is We've been transparent about that. That has been the subject of discussion before this board. If you recall, for the first time in my career, I did a hearing with my partner and he came here for the specific purpose because He has been dealing with DM, the director, Marty Wenzig, the chief of that department, and Eric in dealing with these wetland issues. So it was discussed at length. Again, Mr. Prouvé can tell you about the most up-to-date discussions, but from a pure legal basis this evening, and again, it's a jurisdictional issue, is we don't need that permit at this time, but we do need this permit to build this project.

absolutely right absolutely yeah but the comment was made about yeah so so about the time period um that's lapsed

I there's there is nothing that is lapsed in by way of anything that has been approved to date by by right on and I there is no information that I have or that I could imagine why my client would delay in obtaining those permits I can tell you I've had a lot of projects that have been delayed a long time because respectfully the DM it is not always the most efficient program

Yeah, we're well aware of that.

But I have no doubt that if my client has all rights and entitlement in hand, he wants to move forward with the project, and I have no doubt that he will seek any state agency approvals he needs as a condition to final as diligently as possible. And again, if you want some detail, Eric can give that to you.

That's fine. Thank you. I've got my last topic, unless anybody else has theirs. Okay. So, what's that? I don't know. Okay. So I think we raised this at least at the last meeting, if not prior to, and that is, I mean, again, there's a long time period for this project. It's a very large project. As you mentioned, DEM alone is going to add to this time period on the front end, right? You know, I helped design a project management class for Microsoft some years ago, and one of our tenants was, if you're learning to be a project manager, is that you hope for the best, but you plan for the worst because the pessimist is rarely disappointed. So with that in mind, What happens if, not that there's any indication that we could have economic unrest and instability in the country and the world, but between economic downturn, real estate marketplace fluctuations, and even just financing. I mean, there's a lot that goes into a project like this over a long period of time. You start developing and things go south. after you've put in three phases. Well, now you've got this unfinished, very much unfinished project with an unfinished roadway, no landscaping, especially given the phasing where you're starting furthest away from Route 7. It's not going to present well to the town. It's going to detract value from the town. We need to have some assurance that the project can be closed early. It doesn't go all the way through to completion, but it gets closed early. leaves a product that the town is satisfied with. That again addresses the needs of the town. As it's been pointed out, that's a very busy section of Route 7. And a lot of people there are not from North Smithfield. It needs to look good. It needs to give a positive impression of North Smithfield. The people that live around there are going to see it every day. The people that live in it are going to see it every day. So what can we do to assure that should something change in the plans and it's going to be cut short or whatever, that it will be brought to a level of completion that is acceptable to the town.

Sure. So, I mean, this isn't, I don't think that this is an item of surety, but I can tell you that my client has the financial wherewithal to see this project through. And given the current market in Rhode Island, as I'm sure we all know, It's one of the hottest markets there is. And so I don't see that going anywhere anytime soon. But as far as a surety, there's bonding requirements. And I will tell you, I have a feeling that your planner knows a lot more about bonding requirements of this town and probably every municipality than I do. but what I think when I hear that is performance bonds surety bonds to ensure that those public improvements are built correctly that the landscaping is done correctly and I think what you suggest that if for some reason the entire development were not going to be built and not all the lots were going to be developed ultimately all of the things that you've approved relative to landscaping and public infrastructure and other infrastructure my understanding would be subject to a bond uh and my my understanding of the process normally is that our engineers would put together estimates for what those bonding uh requirements are across the board and that ultimately it would be reviewed by staff your planner and this board and i believe it would be set by the board I haven't looked at that part of your ordinance it can be a little bit different in different municipalities but I ultimately believe that but with obviously with information from professionals our own and otherwise and candidly I don't think that we would object to a peer review if there wasn't staff involved for that to make sure that what we're doing for bonding is appropriate. But that would be my answer. But again, Mr. Carullo has been doing this a lot longer than I have.

Yeah. You're good with that? Do we already have a stipulation in there about for bonding?

It's required by statute. They either have to build the road or they have to bond it.

And they're supposed to... Well, what's the definition of build the road? Well... I mean, you can put a bunch of asphalt down even if it's nice finished asphalt.

The way the statute reads is that... the developer has the option of choosing to build the road completely before they record the final plan. In which they couldn't record the final plan unless the road was built completely, as if it was going to be accepted by the town, or they would need to bond it. And then in the statute, the town has to have three options for bonding. So it would be cash bond, it could be insurance bond, or it could be a surety bond. Those are spelled out in our new subdivision regulations, but it's standard operating procedure for a community. One of the things that I might suggest, and if the applicant was amenable that when the bond is established, Maybe it comes back before the planning board every two years for review because this project is going to be so long out. It's so many phases, so many years per phase that whatever bond gets established early on, and if the intent is to bond the full length of that road rather than construct it, the cost is going to increase as the project moves forward. We would agree to that.

Yeah, because again, as I said, the definition of finished to me would be not only the asphalt, the appropriate berming, etc. But it's supposed to be tree lined, it needs street lights. It would be fully, you're exactly correct. Some level of sidewalk or however you're going to do that. Okay, all right. But I think that's a good idea, the every two year review, because we're talking about if you can see ahead 10 years accurately on the financial condition of this country, I'll turn my stock brokerage over to you.

You don't want to do that.

No, I don't. You're right.

So then for the purposes to continue this discussion, we do have a stipulation. It's number 15. For each construction phase, the applicant shall provide a bond estimate for construction of all necessary infrastructure prior to final approval, and said bond shall be issued prior to initiating construction. I think we should add subject to peer review and said bond shall also be presented every two years.

No objection.

But what did you just say about at each phase?

For each phase, for each construction phase.

So if we're doing, and right now I think there's ten phases defined, doesn't that sort of, does that negate the need for the two years if we're doing it at each phase?

Well, it wouldn't, Chairman, because the intent here, I think, is to construct the full length of the roadway into the development, including the emergency access roads. And then phase one would be at the far end. So phase one, I think it's 10 or 15 house lots, which is a circle. When that's complete, I think the intent is, so the intent would be to bond the full road in phase one. Once phase one is complete, my understanding is, and speaking with the engineers, there would be a finished coat applied to that. Those trees, street lights, and the things that you're talking about would be installed in that section. That section would then be reviewed and potentially accepted by the town, and then they'd move down. So that main road in and of itself would be continually reviewed every two years for reassessment as far as the cost.

Okay, so and my understanding from our conversation is that if there's inactivity, if for whatever reason the developer pauses, they can't, we don't want them to pause for five years and leave this thing unfinished. There has to be a point at which we say the bond kicks in now, time to finish it, where it is. Is that all stuff that we'll leave into the bond language to put the criteria at which the bond kicks in? rather than getting into some nuanced you know the app the developer saying we're done you know things went bad we're not going to finish they certainly can do that that's their business decision but if they simply pause and it gets to be a year out and there's been no activity to me you know the town now is sitting there with this unfinished and potentially eyesore. So how would we, is that all stuff that goes into the bond language?

The bond in and of itself is simply And the amount would be tied to performance. So when you say bond language, that would be language that would have to be included in a stipulation. With regard to time frames, I defer to our legal counsel whether we would be allowed to do that or not. I've never heard of that.

My understanding is phasing is the only, is the process, you don't tie it to timing, you tie it to phasing. Okay. I think that's what the statute provides. So where we're going to... You can't predict timing.

Right, so where they're going to come before us for F, the completion of each phase. But if... i think it's reasonable the town has a reasonable expectation of this to be continuous and so at the completion of phase one well phase two gets underway yeah you know they meet with us phase two gets underway then phase three not phase three is completed and we're going to wait a few years for phase four again that's you're predicting an outcome that we can't well i just want to cover this is where i'm just covering for

I think what would be helpful in that case is if they've agreed to come back every two years for a review, let's say of the- A bond. Cost of the bond, you can address that each and every time. And if they come back and they haven't constructed, let's say they come back every two years, they started the project. They complete phase one after three years, but they've come back in the interim, and then they come back with a year of inactivity. At that point, I think the board can say, hey, you've been inactive for a year and a half or whatever. What is your intention? You need to proceed. There's always that conversation.

So at that point, when we're doing that two year review, we vote on that each time?

You'd have to vote on that each time. So is that a point where we heard that- There's a potential, I just want to be clear that there's a potential in the two year review or any time intermittent, when they complete a section of this, they can come back and ask also for relief. If the conditions are such that they've built beyond what the bond, they've built such a cost that the bond is too much, they can ask for a reduction.

But could we say, again, so we're at the two-year review.

You can inquire to them what their intent is and where they are. But unless they went defunct, I think, it's very difficult to call a bond. A bonding company is not going to release a bond to an active developer who's making the payments on the bond. Because a bond is almost like they have to make payments on that. It's not something that...

well yeah it's essentially insurance it's a form of insurance right um but you're saying that the town couldn't the board or whoever could not say you haven't done anything for a year and a half that's it time to can't do that okay the board can't call the bond that's your question that that's where it is calling the bond okay okay just wanted to clarify that so um But so you were already aware then of the per phase coming for the board, right? Absolutely. We're agreeing to that. And you're comfortable with the two-year bond review?

Yep, absolutely. I think that's pretty standard. Great.

OK. All right, so if that's what we can do to protect the town and the residents around it, then that's what we can do. I just want to make sure we're doing everything we can. Anything else? Did you have some other corrections? Of course I did. Of course you did. Your pages are always filled with notes. Yeah. And he uses the most fine pen so he can fit more notes on it.

So in review of the planning office recommendations for stipulations, I've gone through it enough. You know, there are 21 22 of them um and there were i have some comments within a few of them it's just more again protecting the town um and just some additional coverage for uh for for us on number seven it says um that the proposed emergency access roadway at the westerly side of the development shall be constructed i'd like to add and completed prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for phase one number eight that the applicant shall provide a street lighting plan that shall be dark sky compliant to be approved by the director of public works and planning board i'd like to add and planning board on number 10, that the applicant shall provide a plan for the proposed recreation fields to be designed and stamped by a Rhode Island registered landscape architect prior to final approval. I'd also like to add the wording that the plan shall also be coordinated with direct abutters to ensure privacy is maintained. We've already gone through number 15, the subject to peer review. Number 20, that the applicant shall coordinate school bus stops, stations, and sanitation services with the North Smithfield School Department and Department of Public Works. I'd like to add, each phase will provide updated logistics plan for review by the planning board. understand um i'll get to another stipulation that kind of further was that it was that at each phase review yes okay uh for for um i believe this is number 22 the formatting screwed up a little bit um for this one that the installation and construction of the project infrastructure including but not limited to utilities and drainage yada yada subject to the 128 project certification At the end of that sentence, I'd like to add on a biweekly basis, complete with photographs. 21. At the very end. In town planning office on a biweekly basis, complete with photographs. I know doing 128s myself, there's either a weekly, biweekly, or monthly option to check off. I'd like to see that be biweekly. And then this one, I know we've alluded to it, but I don't think we've specifically called it out. This would be a new stipulation that each phase is to come before the planning board for final approval, at which point the applicant can also provide a progress report of previous phases. And then that leads me to one of my questions as well. Since this project is 10 phases, we've seen plenty of developments come through, clear cut, nothing happened. What is the plan for preparing for each phase? Are you going to be clear cutting the entire entirety of the property to plan for that? I understand you need to do it for the road. Totally get that. But for the structures, i don't think that clear cutting is necessary until you're ready for it i know i've also voiced in past meetings that i would like to see no clear cutting because obviously i want to maintain this as a conservation development And just to come through, cut everything down and then replant what's already been there is somewhat useless. And it really detracts from, as some people have said, our rural character. And it just creates a lot of environmental problems along with drainage. So I don't know if this is a question for you, Mr. Resnick, or for the engineers. I'd like to understand a little bit more about that as well.

Sure. Mr. Purvey, could you answer that? And also, Mr. Porter, after Mr. Purvey and you are satisfied with that, I just have a couple quick comments about your conditions, not major at all.

Sure. Good evening. For the record, my name is Eric Prevy, registered PRIVE. I'm a registered professional engineer with the Preet Engineering. So speaking into that, I think the way to address that and what we've seen in other municipalities is have a pre-construction meeting before that phase starts. That's typically, and then you put together the soil erosion and sediment control plan, show what you're going to do, where your stockpiles are going to go, where your entrance pad's going to be, because it changes per phase, right? The entrance pad's here and then when you move in it moves to a different so typically the way we see it is a pre-construction survey that's done before each phase and i think that's the best way to capture that because i can't tell you means and methods of phase eight right this moment you know depending on what phase seven where it was needed and such because we also want to you know use materials in the site as well so if the limited disturbance needs to use a little the material rather than hauling in some material that's what we want to do as well so i that's the way that we've captured that as a pre-construction meeting before each phase okay i don't know if that's satisfactory but that's that seems to work it gets everybody on the same page again it's a it's a check dam to kind of stop for a minute take a look where are we at how are you doing the next phase how's it going about we're not going to clear this all right we're doing the roadway and daylighting to get to the to the existing grade and such so okay

so you essentially say you're coming in for phase one for final approval you would have all that information for phase one specifically correct for the cutting and there would be no cutting for phase two or phase three until you get approval final approval for phase two final approval for phase three you would aside from the roadway let's leave the roadways out of it but for the areas of structure there wouldn't be any clear cutting until those get the final approval

and if there's material that's needed a little bit into phase two that you need to use then that would be disclosed and shown and discussed when we come and have that at phase one so effectively it's all of phase one but i i don't want to say it's just roadway and that lot only because sometimes you have drainage structures and you have parts that you want to make sure that Even the topography. The topography we include to have going to that pond. If any site condition changes that all of a sudden there's a dip and we need to pick that up, we need to get that in there. So that's usually how we handle it with other municipalities as well. Just- Okay.

But the impact. ON THE LAND FOR THE NEXT PHASE, LET'S SAY, WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE PREVIOUS PHASES. CORRECT. EXACTLY.

IF A PIECE OF PHASE TWO IS BEING USED TO HELP CONSTRUCT PHASE ONE, THAT WOULD BE DECLARED AND DISCUSSED AT PHASE ONE.

BUT WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT LEAVING PHASES THREE THROUGH TEN, LEAVING THAT LAND ALONE, SHORT OF THE ROADWAY. CORRECT. THAT'S THE INTENT. AND ONLY MODIFYING IT AS NEEDED. OKAY.

Okay. So, Mark, I might need your help on this one. So how, is that a, would that become a stipulation or are we covered, or do you think we're covered with the each phase coming for final approval?

I think at this point you'd be covered. Okay. Because when there come, this is preliminary approval, preliminary approval of phase one in the main road, to be clear, so that what Eric is saying, when they come back for the final approval of the phase one, he may be cutting into phase two somewhat, depending on the engineering of phase one. And one of the things that I was concerned about personally is this is a very intricate drainage system, in that when you build that road up, there may be areas At the beginning of the road and intermittently where they either are going to have to construct temporary drainage or they're going to have to actually construct the drainage.

earlier on because it all has to be integrated i'm not an engineer but the water's got to go somewhere that's correct as as you mentioned some of the detention basins the drainage basins for phase one may be located behind a lot of phase two because that's where it's routed to or even at the access right right okay and then i and then i i do have have one more

please and then um and then this one i i know there are there's the rhode island fire marshal that has jurisdiction over this completely understand but i would like to have some level of stipulation that calls for notification of a butters if there is in the event of any blasting that's required. I know we've done that for previous applications before, just setting up a notification system. I really would like to say no blasting, but I understand that we can't do that. that's not within our purview but um i would like to see i know the state fire marshal mark you've told me that the state fire marshal regulates all that with all the notifications but i just think having another layer of notification to the town residents who may be affected by this whether it gets an email blast through the town newsletter or through any other means and methods of how we can communicate with our town that needs to be taken care of

I mean, we've gone further than that where there's also monitoring to make sure there's before and afters to make sure there's no damage as a result of blasting.

no objection objection i guess just to clarify though as well would be just the method for that right um what's the radius or who gets notified um what's the method like you said we're not we're the more information the better but it we're not doing are we doing certified mailings to everybody with it so i think we can work out those details and figure that out i don't know if you

have done that on another subdivision? If you're not following North Smithfield news, there is a quarry in town that does coordinate with the town not very well when there's some blasting situations going on. And I would like to see that avoided. Like I said, I'd really like to see no blasting. I understand that's not in our purview to regulate. BUT I THINK JUST BETTER INFORMATION TO EVERYBODY WOULD JUST SERVE EVERYONE MUCH BETTER.

NOT OBJECTED TO IT, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ARE WE TALKING ABOUT MAILINGS, E-MAIL, SOCIAL MEDIA? THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH.

PLEASE NOT SOCIAL MEDIA.

That's how some people get their information that way.

I think coordinating with the town for the town email and post it on the town website. That's fine.

Is that fair enough?

Mr. Carullo, does that make sense?

Yeah. We do get notice, the town does get notice pre-blasting. We get emails, the clerk's office is notified, we get notice. I'm not sure that the clerk's office or whether the town posts those on our town page, but we certainly could do that. So if there was to be blasting, and we're not saying there is going to be blasting, but potentially if there's going to be blasting, the applicant could agree to notify the town pre-blast. the town to post on its website so that anyone interested can see it. And we'll go from there. Agreed.

And I think the town clerk's office also sends out something, because I've received emails that the city's going to be blasting.

I don't want to go too far afield here, but when we're talking about working with the quarry, one of the discussions was for them to establish whoever might be inclined to want to get a notice for blasting an email list. It's voluntary. The onus is on the person looking for the blasting to contact the developer to get on the email list.

Fair enough. OK. Did you have anything else, Mr. Porter?

No.

Sure. I see a lot of red there.

There's always a lot of red. I did believe Mr. Resnick wanted to respond.

Just very briefly, with respect to the dark sky compliance, we are very happy to work with staff My only concern is really not that we care about coming back before the planning board for approval. I can tell you that we don't. But I don't know that you can retain jurisdiction over something like that. I'm just raising, it's simply to protect the record for everyone. And I would, in part, defer to your solicitor. I'm not used to that type of retention of an issue once there's been an approval.

it's not a problem in theory i'm just concerned about it more like i can't take my lawyer hat off because i can't help myself no that's fine i in with the intent with that was to assist the director of public works if he's looking to us for a recommendation if these lights are compliant with what our goals and objectives are to have something dark sky compliant that that way he could rely on us this is another level of information you've heard me say this before i want everything out on the table i want all the information i can get so that way everyone's making informed decisions so i i believe in mark feel free to jump in but i think the director of public works would rely on us a little bit

I think when you frame it as a recommendation, I think that that's completely fine. It was just the concept of like a decision of vote on retaining jurisdiction. That's where my spider sense went off. No problem with the recommendation.

So we can change the wording on that? Yeah. So then we'll add in planning board approved by the director of public works and planning board recommendation.

that's fine okay thank you um just one other item obviously as it relates to the vegetative buffer with the neighbors we want to coordinate we want them to be happy i get a little bit concerned when there's conditions in a decision That rely on a 3rd party only because what happens if there's a dispute about the level of coordination? I'm not suggesting that there's going to be an issue. I think there's a lot of good reasons to make the neighbors. Happy in that regard. I might suggest that we say reasonable coordination. I'd also be happy any other ideas, staff, solicitor, yourselves. It's just when you have a condition that's relying on a third party, it can get a little bit interesting as far as enforcement because we all want the conditions and the stipulations on this project to be enforceable. Right. And it's not an argument against it, it's a question if we could make it tighter.

Mm-hm. Mr. Agliozzi, thoughts on that one?

I was thinking about that, maybe perhaps to, I don't know if you could put the burden to have the landscape architect consult with the director butters.

Absolutely. Okay.

Does that make sense?

Yeah. Let's adjust the wording then.

You could say you're coordinating, but I think they could consult.

The plan shall also be consulted with direct abutters.

Do we need to put some scope on that? I mean, do they have to consult with each and every abutter? Do the abutters put together, say, a small community group to represent all abutters? I'm just thinking.

I would think that each abutter would want to have that discussion. Okay. That's what I would think if I lived there.

Okay.

And we would be fine with that. Okay.

Okay. Was that it?

That's it.

Okay. That's all I have.

That's it? Surprisingly, yes. Okay.

Mr. Hammond. Just to put it on the record since we have a lot of guests here. Mark, can you go over what happens if during construction something were to be found? I know we've already had a study done, but I just want to make everyone aware that there is a process in case something is found.

Under Rhode Island general law, I don't have the law in front of me, but should an excavation project or a construction project reveal a burial, it's required to stop immediately. The building official's office is notified. The town then notifies medical examiner, police department, other appropriate state agencies. And until a plan, until the remains are identified, and determined and a plan is developed, there can be no further activity. So if it was found that there was a burial ground there, there would be, you know, Rhode Island Historic Preservation Commission and any affected party would be notified and a plan would be established. That plan could be that there's either an archaeological dig or there could be because of the extent that property could be stopped and just not developed if it's found to be a burial ground.

So it's consistent with the stories we see that happen all over the world.

When I was in Warwick, this happened in a section of Coesan. The project was shut down for like five years.

Okay. Just for purpose of the record, it's Rhode Island general law, section 23-18-11, subpart C. Thank you. Great.

Okay. So, Mr. Igliosi, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, I just think we should provide the residents just a, and I mean a very brief rehash of where we are today. And I'll start and you shut me off if I'm wrong. So just for those of you that haven't been here, because especially there's a bunch of you who are not from North Smithfield, maybe you haven't been to these meetings. I think as Attorney Resnick pointed out and maybe someone else, this development project started around the time my son was born. He turns 24 in November. And that was a traditional development. I think it was for about 250 homes. And it used up all of the 270 acres, or as much as it could, subtracting out wetlands. Went through a whole bunch of stuff. I think it was denied master plan approval by the town. that was challenged in court it was found the town was at fault and therefore they they received master plan approval they still have that master plan approval for that first design however they chose for whatever reasons to come back to us years later with a different plan this conservation That was something I think we didn't even have at the time of the original one. So these conservation developments is a way to preserve more open space while still making it available for developers to move forward and to do that. giving some leeway to developers, maybe a little less frontage required per lot, things like that. Um, minimum lot size is another one. Um, so, and, and of course they've received master plan approval for that. That was only about five or six years ago. Is that about right? 29.

It was pretty COVID master plan approvals in 2019.

Yeah, 2019, that's what I thought, so pre-COVID. Interesting that that's now a time period. So that's where we are now. So this is the first time they've come before us for the next phase, which is preliminary. And in this case, I think as it's been pointed out, it's preliminary approval for the development of phase one. and all that that encompasses. So that's what we're voting on this evening. Understand the implications of that. If we were to deny, well, they obviously have different options. They can appeal. They can also go back to their original. The other master plan approval, if I understand right, is, I mean, that's water under the bridge. It's there. and you can pick up the project that way. So this is the kind of stuff that's, I think understanding the history is helpful to people. So you see the whole picture of where it is with the town. So is there anything you wanna add to that? that's accurate other than the 90-day discussion that we had right right yeah and so um yeah and then there there wasn't 98 but again we clarified that for everyone to understand why we are voting this evening uh um and it's not a matter of pressure or anything else it's it's just we've got to get it done we're required to by law so that's where we are and so uh with that i'll i think uh take a motion

for uh mr chairman you did request an additional stipulation yes which one with uh i i penciled something down and i'll read it and you can accept it or not accept it uh the developer shall be responsible for all roadway maintenance including snow plow and snow removal services until roadways are complete and formally accepted by the town

That's fine, thank you for reminding. Everybody good with that wording? Okay, so we did add that one stipulation. So I'm looking for a motion for approval or denial of the plan with the appropriate stipulations. Who wants to make that? There's your chance. I'll make it. So I'm going to make a motion that we accept the proposal as stipulated and amended this evening to include all edits and additional stipulations that we've added this evening.

You want to formally adopt the planning department's findings, Mr. Chairman?

Yes.

Second.

So we have a second roll call vote. Mr. Hammond.

Yes.

Mr. Menard. Yes. Mr. Porter.

Can I make a statement before I- You absolutely can. I've been agonizing over this vote quite a bit since I was on the board back in 2019 when this was before the board, and I've heard a lot of emotional testimony. And I truly have heard every one of you that has spoken before us. I also want everyone to understand that this planning board needs to be within the legal guidelines that are set by law. and whether we like an application or not we can't vote based on how we're feeling we have to vote on if the applicant checks all of the boxes within the subdivision regulations and while i know that is tough to hear that is what our responsibility is legally Emotionally, I am right there with all of you. I agree with you. I don't like this project. You've probably heard me say that within the context of all of my comments throughout this hearing, multiple nights. Having said all of that, it pains me that i have to vote yes on this one so no no i i can say no but that also puts us at a legal risk as the chairman has put forward that we could go back to a 260 plus development If there are challenges to the land, there are other legal ways that you go through. But I get it. But it's not our jurisdiction. We can't decide that for you. That's right. So I'm sorry that I can't vote the way you need me to vote or you'd like me to vote. However, I need to stay within the guidelines of law and the legalities of this. So that's why I have to vote yes this evening.

All right. So I'll say that along with Mr. Porter, I can't speak for the other members, but all of us have a bad taste in our mouths with this. You've heard us talk. We have explored with the solicitor what every avenue, what can we take, for example, on the fields, et cetera. We were prepared to put two rather tough stipulations in, but we don't have the jurisdiction to do it. So we just don't. we can't um so we need to move forward with it i think also mr porter touched on another point and this might be particularly true for the nipmucs there are they're getting this preliminary approval does not as attorney resnick said they're not taking shovels out tomorrow and bulldozers and starting they can't they need and all that, and additionally, there are other ways to, the only other ways to clear up who has jurisdiction over the land and ownership of the land, and that's Superior Court, Rhode Island Superior Court. We're not a court, you know? So for those of you, and obviously there's many of you that have these feelings, you know pursue them to uh you know follow your passions and and pursue them and and do what you believe is right you have avenues to do that exercise your rights to do that um but but we need to to do the right thing and also not as mr porter also said we could we could go down a path based on our emotional feelings and open up the town to a lawsuit and and one we would likely lose and that doesn't help anybody right because again then what happens automatic approval so um so that's where we are and um but along with uh mr porter um everything he said i feel the same way um and but as a result i also vote yes so the project is approved with a 4-0 vote Okay, but I do thank you all for. But I thank you all for your civility and your very thoughtful comments. Obviously, many of you have done a lot of intelligent research. And so I wish you the best as you pursue this further. The vote. No, no, it was 4-0. Yes. No, no, because we did roll call. We have people fighting over a second. Those in favor? Aye. We are adjourned at 9.46.

Mr. Brunner.