Town Council - Regular Meeting

Nelson Mfield Town Council meeting February 17, 2026. Madam Clerk, can you sat us with a prayer and the pledge, please?

Thank you for bringing us together today in a spirit of generosity. May we honor one another by keeping an open mind. May we voice our truth and listen with an open heart. May we discern your will to unite in a fruitful outcome. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Bureagod. Let the record state that Mr. Jurgot is not here this evening. Mr. Christopharo here. Mrs. O'Hara here. Mr. Punchack here. Miss Elves here. Anybody like to sign up for open forum tonight?

Anyone? Open forum pursuant to 42-46-60. Maximum three minutes per person. Mike Clifford. Mike Clifford, 489 Blackland Road. Could I just get a clarification it from somebody? It's been bothering me for some time and I I don't understand how that came to be and how it happened, but every time we've ever built anything in this town or renovated anything, we've had a building committee, MBRTF, the PBIC, the PB, you know, everything. Every building that's ever been built has had a building committee that had open meetings you you could attend and published agenda and minutes. And I don't I didn't understand how this was operating all along, but I'm really puzzled by it now, especially after finding out some of the components of this new building. So, could we get a clarification as to how this doesn't have to comply with the Open Meetings Act? Aren't we acting as the MBRTF? And we decided not to disband the MBRTF, but we're this town council is essentially the MBRTF since they all

that other committee that two of you serve on has been making decisions. I mean, it's not a committee. It's what do you call it? It's we're just meeting with the um contractors like we just have updates with the contractors and then Yeah. Every decision comes here. Yeah. every decision comes here. There's no decisions made on the um on the phone when we have our calls.

Well, I'm just going by what I saw at one of the meetings and that's when I became kind of upset about it was when you didn't have um they mentioned a new dollar amount of 6.3 million and everybody on here said, "Where'd that come from?" And nobody knew. So, obviously they're making some decisions there that you're not part of this. No, they explained the 6.3 was the original proposal from Signal Works plus some ad alternates that brought it.

The first night that that was brought up, Kim, the question was asked, where did that come from? And nobody on this committee had the answer. So I I I really did you get a written opinion from the solicitor as to whether or not this requires compliance with the Open Meetings Act because I've never seen a building committee in this town that didn't have to follow it. Well, if I remember correctly, that was a number that was presented by ECC and ECC had to connect with Signal Works to understand where that number came from. So, ECC also wasn't aware where the 6.3 came from. So, that's why we had Signal Works come in a few

I'm not really worried about that. I'm just saying there was a fact there was an issue that was raised at a meeting and no one on this board knew about it. So, obviously the subcommittee that has two I don't even know who's on it. the administrator and the two of the town council people and the architect to whomever the chief. That should be a building committee. In my mind, it does sound like a building committee to me. I mean, you can call yourselves the MBITF and say you're taking the place of, but you've created a new committee when you assign those people to meet with that on a regular basis. Mr. Glozi, can we have an opinion on that? Sure. Okay.

Have to obviously understand what the meeting about It's really just weekly updates and then they come here once a month and we explain exactly what the updates have been. There's no decisions made on during that meeting. Okay. Okay.

No town council sitting as board of licensing. Discussion by council vote other action on application for transfer of liquor victating an entertainment license from B&B RI LLC DBA it kuru ramen infusion to Kung Fu uh Kitchen Inc. DBA Kung Fu Kitchen Inc. located at 44 Eding uh Darling Village Boulevard. Is there someone here from that? Good evening, council members. My name is Keith Hu. I'm an attorney, bar number 6055. Uh my address until this week was 9808 Dolly Highway in North Smithfield, but just moved over to 132 O River Road in Lincoln. Uh and I'm here to represent Kung Fu Kitchen on the transfer of liquor license. uh we'd submitted all the paperwork and uh in addition to that I'm respectfully requesting if the council would consider possibly waving the I had submitted a letter to this but waving the transfer fee since this is essentially the same uh business just transferring the name. We tried to do this prior to the liquid license application at the end of November, beginning of December. Uh but we got held up with a paper from the state and it carried over into this year. So,

madame clerk, is everything in order? I just have one question for the clerk. So, um, in November, what was the fee paid? Is it $950 or is it a different It is 950. And one of the owners is I believe one of the owners was from the previous correct business before they changed name. So, he would have made that payment himself. So, that payment was received and Okay. Anyone have any other questions? Anyone like to make a motion?

You want to do it? I'll do it, David. Yeah. You haven't been uh back in action. Yeah. Um I will make a motion to approve the application for transfer of the liquor victualing and entertainment license from BNBRI LLC DBA Ichiu Ramen Infusion to Kung Fu Kitchen Inc. DBA Kung Fu Kitchen Inc. located at 44 Dalling Village Boulevard. Um as well as to wave the transfer fees. Thank you. That's a motion. Is there a second? Cleared. Oh, is clear. Seconded. Yeah. Second. We have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Christopharo. Yes.

Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchack? Yes. Miss Alves? Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Discussion by council vote other action on consent agenda. All items listed in this section are considered in one motion. And there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council request in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda. A town council minutes of January 20th and 22nd of 2026 and communications from animal control monthly report for January 2026. Northfield Fire and Rescue monthly report for November and is that spe November and January 2026? North Smithfield Municipal Court monthly report for January 2026. in Nusfield Police Department report for um November 2025 and January 2026. Would anyone like to remove anything from the consent agenda?

I'd like to remove both sets of minutes. Anything else? Okay. Did you want to

Okay. So, minutes from 12026 page one, two, three, page four, communications from town administrator Mr. Gibbs. Um, first paragraph, second sentence, town administrator Scott GIVV. So, just a typo. GIVV. Oh, you see that? Communications from town administrator asset management program status. The second sentence

mine says GIVV. Yeah. Yep. All right. So, that was uh January 20th. January 22nd. First page, North Smithfield Police Station project costs approximately one, two, three, third paragraph. Before the holidays, they had reviewed the design with parasol should be parasol. Next paragraph,

uh, North Smilefield Police Station project costs. Third paragraph, before the holidays, they had reviewed the design with parasol. It's parasol. Second paragraph looks like second sentence, the very end. Um, budget in comparison to the centimeters KCM estimate. I'm not sure what that is. I think it's just KCM. I'm not what sure what centimeters means there.

Uh, next paragraph, first uh, first sentence with four alternates broken out Sallyport floor. It's not just a floor, it's the whole thing. So, I would just remove floor from that. Uh, second page. Uh, let's see. After all the bulleted items, one, two, three, fourth paragraph starts with police chief Tim Laferty in that sentence. It talks about a grant sign board. I don't know that it was a grant sign board. I think it was just a radar some kind. I don't I would just go back and look at exactly what Yeah. what it was. Oh, is is that the electrical um sign they got through a grant? Yeah. Yeah.

So, it is a grant sign. It was So, it was because it was purchased with a grant. Okay. All right. That's all I had. Did you get an A+ in grammar? [laughter] My grandmother was very very um You're a stickler for big on it. Oh, I'm Yeah. And I don't even need chat GPT. [laughter] Anything else? Anyone like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mr. Christopharro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchack? Yes.

Miss Al? Yes. Discussion by council vote or other action on payment of bills? Anyone have any questions on your packet? Madam President, I would just request that we move this to the end because it's contingent upon the fire department contract. Okay. All right. Do we need a motion for that? No. No. Old business discussion by council vote other action on consideration of evidence regarding possible revocation of junkyard license for HT Auto LLC DBA Leo's Auto located at 955 and Mine Hill Road.

So is this I just have a clarifying question. Is this actually up for discussion or are we only discussing the approval of the GCA environmental contract for environmental services? Whenever I see a bullet, I just assume that we're talking about the bullet. Is it not a public hearing? No, there's no public hearing. So, um but as the l as we left the license stands that it's only um moving stuff out, correct? It is moving items and not not bringing in items. Okay. Can you turn your mic on?

And the uh fire marshall confirmed to me today.

Is Mr. Cody here? He should be here. Could you just come up, Mr. Cody? CJ, I think we need to replace uh Scott's microphone. It's not working again. Does that one works? Mr. Cody, have you been back to the property since the last meeting? Yes. When have you been? That was last day today. Today. And can you give us an update on

He has made substantial progress removing a lot of cars. Um the yard is opened up. It's safe. He's he's been diligently working on fencing. So, he's I don't see any reason to not let him operate anymore. How how much of the fencing has been completed? Everywhere where he removed trees pretty much. Um he does plan on planting more trees because he's got wetlands. So, he can't go across the wetlands with the fence. So, he did indicate to me that he wants to work on vegetation. He's going to be planting vegetation in the spring.

Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Cody? Uh just also as we had discussed this does go before the municipal court tomorrow. So those two issues of both fencing and the expansion of a non-conforming use are both uh in front of the judge. Okay. Okay. And and Mr. Cody, what would you say the completion percentage is for the fence?

Well, if it's for the screening, a lot of the yard is is covered by un it's vacant woodland. So, the the fencing and screening is required, but he he's fenced probably a third of the property, which is a pretty significant amount. Mhm. The property needs to be fenced where it abuts residents or where residents can see into the property. So is has that all been completed? That that's where he got all that up. Yes. On So the 2/3 left are just wooded area pretty much. Yes. Pretty much. Okay.

I just if this can I don't think we can make a decision on this tonight. No. So, we're just providing an update. Okay.

Does anyone else have questions for Mr. Cody?

I have a question. So, our ordinance says one thing. Sounds like the conversations have occurred about him not necessarily needing to um you know abide by that ordinance 100%. I've heard you know full fencing. I've heard some fencing. I've heard some you know plantings. Wouldn't it make sense to you know take a site plan and say okay this is going to get an 8ft tall fence. This is going to get plantings because of wetlands. this is going to get nothing because you know there's no neighbor like we there's no way to say okay he is abiding by something he hasn't abided by anything as far as I'm concerned uh so like can we get a drawing can you know somebody say specifically this is what he needs to do

right why can't we do that okay I can work with him on that and then seems logical yeah well especially since we haven't seen the property Okay. I mean, I'm happy to do a field trip, all five of us, but um I think it would be helpful to actually see what's been a site plan to David's Point, a site map, and see what's been completed. And

I drove down Iron Mine Hill Road today, and you can still see the junkyard from the street. So, if the the spirit is to, you know, shield the neighbors view from this junkyard, it's not happening. It isn't. It's, you know, you can see the piles of cars stacked up over the fence. You can you can see everything. I couldn't tell if there was a gate there or not because of the way the fence is. There might have been a gate further behind the front row of fence. I don't know if there's a gate there. There is a gate back there. Gate back like it's 25 ft, 30 ft in. Can I So,

are they keeping a log as far as where any cars that are drained of oil or gasoline is supposed to be locked in and where is all this liquid being put? Well, I believe he has records of that. If I could chime, can you hear me? Um, the other issue on this agenda has to do with hiring an environmental consultant to look at these issues in more detail.

Yeah. So, um, we need to do that. Um, I think also to echo, uh, Councilman Punch's comments, and I know that the zoning officer and I have had conversations about this, and that is I believe that the, um, the standards and the requirements need to be clear, measurable, and verifiable.

And a lot of times they're not. And that applies to both the fencing as well as the issue of a expansion of a non-conforming use. I act I asked guidance from the assistant solicitor on that and didn't get much. But I think we really need to have a much more definitive expectation to know if they've in fact achieved what we wanted them to achieve. If not, it just constantly goes back and forth and that's not good for the property and it's not good for the town council.

And people may not realize that that's over the main aquifer for one sake and North Smithfield. I know when Saka's very concerned, Mr. Dagistino always says keep keep us informed and um it's a serious thing and this has went on for a long time. [cough] [clears throat] Um, not wanting saying exactly my age, but I can remember when there were only cars parked there and we could go when my brothers were rebuilding things and get the pots they needed at a premium price,

especially if they were the room for him. He let him take anything. So, uh, you know, uh, I know people have to make a living, but not at the expense of our environment. Can't be. And then one of the other items that we discussed and I believe it was in the motion was that we need to tighten up the ordinance specific to um auto salvage yards in our town. What was our next step on that? Who is responsible for reviewing the ordinance and tightening up the requirements? And

so the administration was going to look at that and also I know you said you've reached out to the assistant solicitor. So if we haven't gotten much back on that, I think we really need to have a meeting with him and and let him know what we really need regarding this. Okay. So that's one and the same. Your update was essentially the same as updating the ordinance. Okay. But but I do and it's and it's beyond just this issue. I think that there needs to be and I've spoken to the clerk about this. I think that we need to go back and look at a lot of the licensing requirements and make sure that it's encompassing all the things that we think it needs to encompass or any new licenses.

Right. I think we need an ordinance review committee similar to a charter review committee. Okay. Okay. Does anyone else have any questions for Mr. Cody? Thank you. Not at the moment. Thank you. I'm sorry. No, not at the moment. [cough]

Good evening, members of the council. Christopher Zangarry for HT Auto LLC. Uh I'm here tonight uh I think for the fourth time uh with my client who's here as well. Uh, I'm not sure. I wasn't anticipating the discussion you just had, but if your if your intention is to continue the hearing uh to a different date, I would I would just say this. We were prepared to submit uh significant demonstrative evidence to you uh regarding I think all the items that you requested specifically to Councilwoman D. Christophoro's requests regarding insuranceances regarding logs of the vehicles taken off site to show you the amount of work that's been done. We also are going to submit photographic evidence of the fences that were built. Also video evidence of the natural buffer uh between the yard uh and the street and the neighbors that's screened by the trees even in the wintertime uh which we think is substantial. So, if you're if you're going to move to another date, we'll certainly uh present that at that time. Uh but I'm not sure what exactly you want us to do this evening.

So, tonight we're basically on the agenda. We're just looking at um a GZA environmental contract um for the property. And that's really as far as it was going tonight. Okay. With with that being said though, can we receive that information in advance of a public hearing? I don't like to read it and respond in real time, so I'd like time to review. I'll send Okay. Thank you. And also along that line, um the police chief um and the state police are going over the log information as well. So, we'll have that information.

Thank you. Okay. Next item is approval of GCA environmental contract for environmental services. Did any everyone have a opportunity to review? Yes. And I'm sorry. Um Tony, this would come out of where? Please. It wasn't. Say that again. I'm sorry. Where would these funds come out of? Yeah, I just want to look at the look at the discussion.

Yeah, that's going coming out of the contingency account uh in general government that we budgeted for. Um that's not levied through the taxpayers that comes out of fund balance through the net position of the town at the end of the fiscal year essentially. Okay. What is the expectation of the outcome of this, you know, report?

The expectation is a comprehensive overview because we've had a lot of conversations of what they're supposed to be doing and what they don't have to do and it goes around and around. Not that people are wrong, but we needed a third party to come in and do a comprehensive assessment of what do they actually have to comply with in terms of state and federal regulations as a um auto junkyard, auto salvage yard, excuse me.

What are you thinking, David? I think it's a lot of money to have that, you know, compared to what we spent recently on a similar exercise.

When I read this, I get the impression that this offerer really doesn't want to do this. And the reason I say that is they've kind of already giving given us their conclusions with the way they talk about the DBR and what happened there and the way they talk about DEM and what happened there. I don't know that we're really going to get much of a different report like licensing compliance. So, okay, they're going to say something, but regardless of what they say, the DBR can say, "Oh, no, they're fine." or Leo can say, "Oh, no. I don't want a fence here." So, like what how how do we bring this thing to a closure? I just don't know that this really does that. I don't concur that they are not interested. I've had several conversations with them. Um they are one of our three on call engineers. Um there are a lot of other issues, soil erosion, sedimentation controls. We've had references to groundwater, all of those things. A lot of it references EPA regulations. Some of reference to state regulations. We just felt that for the purposes of guiding the council in their actions and discussions, they needed an independent third party to come in and give us a conference assessment. In fact, the individual that's doing this was formally uh staff lawyer uh for DEM.

So, they they're not taking any soil samples.

Uh doesn't say they are. There's no charge for the lab to test any soil samples. So, like I just don't know that what we're going to get from this is really substantial. That's my concern. It's fine. It's your call. Um the last meeting that we had uh the council asked me to go out and both get proposals for legal and environmental services. I did both and that's the environmental service proposal. Well, I think it's a good place to start. And if we need to if we I wonder if we asked them if they could take soil samples what the difference would [clears throat] be or what the increase would be.

You need the land owners approval before you do that because you'd be okay. Well, if he doesn't give us his approval, then I mean, I'll have I have no problems reaching out to get if you want further clarification on the scope, including if there's any testing, but I would have to defer to council whether or not we have the rights to require uh or to allow us to do soil samples on a private property. I think it's I find it frustrating that we need to pay um or potentially pay GCA to do a document review when these documents should be understood by our um applicant as well as our administration. $4,000.

I just don't think it's that clear, Councilwoman. I really don't. Again, I can sit here and hear all sorts of testimony from both sides about what they're not doing, what they are doing, what they should do, what they shouldn't do. Quite frankly, the regulations are not always black and white like we think they are. And I just felt that there would be value to us to have an objective third party to tell us this is what they have to do. Oh, I 100% agree. I agree with you that that there's value in GZA performing this review. But I think it's unfortunate and it's frustrating that we have to bring somebody in and pay them $4,500 to do that when again no 20,000. No, 45,500.

No, that's what I'm saying. I'm talking about the document review specific to the document review. I mean, as far as the site visit, I think there's I think there's value in the site visit. Can I can I read this for the public? Can I read this for the public just so that the public has an understanding? So, this is the scope of work and schedule and I'll I'll try to summarize where I can. Um, specific tasks to be conducted to achieve the objectives above consist of um document review. GZA will review the following documents regarding applicable RIDM, DVR, and town regulatory requirements. GCA will also consider potential impacts to storm water and groundwater quality assumptions. GCA has budgeted to provide one round of engineering reviews for the following documents. The facilities Rhode Island pollution discharge elimination system. So RIPES permit notice of intent NOI and storm water management plan which again in my mind I have I feel as though our we should have an understanding of this as well as the applicant should have a significant understanding of this. the facility zoning variance license or approval from the town. Um, which again our administration we should have an awareness of that rimfww permit number 24-0141. I'm not sure what that is but I assume that

freshwater wetlands.

Thank you. Um, and then the DBR license. Ga has assumed that the client will provide the above listed documents. So the client has to provide these documents where in turn the client should have an understanding of said documents. site visit. GZA will perform a field inspection to observe the site's compliance with regulations involving storm water and groundwater protection, outdoor storage of hazardous materials, outdoor vehicle crushing, local zoning requirements, wetlands regulations, fire access, property boundaries, and site perimeter fencing. Um, it sounds like that they would be able to at least provide the definitive understanding of some of the requirements that we've discussed and I see a lot of value in in that site visit. In addition, they would observe the property's topography, storm water runoff patterns, and the storm water management system associated with RIMFW permit number 24-0141. Our field observations will be summarized in a field report inclusive of photographs, field sketches, and member and measurements. Um, and then lastly to run through this, a report. GZA would prepare a report for submitt to the town council. The report would summarize the results of GCA's document review task one and task two. In addition, the report would address the following licensing compliance. Um GCA would compare the facility's current operational footprint and methodology to the requirements of the DBR auto salvage license and the town zoning variance license. I I'm having a hard time understanding why we need to pay somebody to compare their current operational footprint and methodologies to requirements. Why do we have to pay somebody to do that?

I assume that has to do with the expansion of a non-conforming use. Storm water and environmental compliance, wetland impact, the last thing you mentioned. Yes. No, I know. I'm I'm moving on. All right. Thank you. um storm water and environmental compliance, wetland impact assessment, and then they would provide a summary. Again, I just find it frustrating that a lot of the things that we need to essentially hire GZA to inform us on the applicant as well as the administration should have an understanding of this. Now, I see value especially in the site visit.

I can already tell you he's not in compliance with his freshwater wetlands permit. I just looked it up. There is a drawing of a driveway with a vegetated swale next to it. Now I'm looking at the plan. There was supposed to be a notice of construction submitted. That hasn't been done. There's talk here about you are required to restore altered wetland jurisdictional areas and buffers. So I drove by there today. I did not see a vegetated swale next to the driveway. So I can already tell you he's not in compliance with that. [clears throat]

So I, you know, I have a hard time like Rebecca, the town is on, you know, saying, "Okay, we're going to spend over $17,000 for this review. We didn't create this, you know, situation. We're going to pay for it and we don't have the resources to be able to, you know, come up and say, okay, he is not in compliance. So let's call DEM and say, hey, let's go look and see what he did for his freshwater per his freshwater permit. nothing

like [snorts] who is responsible from whether it's our administration or the applicant to engage DEM to understand whether or not they are in compliance with all of the appropriate requirements. As I understand they did have a letter from DEM, but it was very specific to one to one thing to one thing. Okay. I I don't believe it addressed storm water and groundwater protection. It didn't address the storage of hazardous materials and outdoor vehicle crushing, wetlands regulations. The administration does not have staff engineers. We just don't. There was a deadline in this letter, too.

And we don't and and we have an assistant solicitor who has not quite frankly given me great clarity on this issue. So we can sit here in internal staff quite frankly with maybe missing some of the qualifications to make definitive statements here and we're and I don't think we're advancing this issue to a conclusion. So if we had staff engineers and stuff like that some committees have then maybe we could handle that internally. I'm not convinced we can handle that internally. But we're saying that we need and I I don't mean to be argumentative about this, but I we're saying that we need to hire uh engineers to be able to opine on this and provide us with an understanding when the fact of the matter is if we just had somebody that was engaging the appropriate state agencies to understand whether or not this business was in compliance, we wouldn't need to hire somebody. So, I think that's been my ask all along is to understand what the regulations are and then to understand that this applicant is compliant with those regulations. So, I I mean it sounds like GZA would be a one-stop shop here, but it's also almost $20,000 to hire them when I just feel like there might be a gap somewhere. And that's why it's not being addressed. That's why we don't have the answers that we need.

It's our call. I I provided to you what you asked for. to help move this thing on. If you feel it's missing on that or it's too much money, [clears throat] we'll go back to square one. it may have value um that I could then send to uh you the uh the scope that I to GZA asking for a proposal and maybe that would clarify any of this or may amplify areas that you think are missing.

Do we have to decide upon this tonight? We can table it, but it's just going to keep moving this further down. When's our next public hearing for this? Didn't we say the end of We didn't schedule one. We closed the public hearing. No. And when did we say that we would make a decision on We gave them a timeline. I'm sorry. I had my recollection from the last time we heard this was that at this meeting it was basically have the fence done or don't get your license. this meeting. Yeah, it was actually meeting yesterday, but it couldn't Oh, no. It was Yeah, yesterday, but I think it got moved because of the holiday. So,

so why didn't that make that on the agenda then? General. Okay. Um, [clears throat] I would like to I would like time to review this. I would like some more background. Can we can we schedule our decision on this for when's our next meeting? The second. Yeah.

Who won't be here? What do we have at the state level as far as experts go? Seems like we pay their staff plenty of money. Really, you should be guiding us as well. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. And I will tell you that that has been less than a smooth process. Really, we have reached out to the state on these issues and we're not getting any real clarity that we had hoped for. And I don't think we're the only ones that are experiencing that. I think there's people in the audience have been do trying to do the same. Do we know know who you're talking to? Are they even trained in this area? Well, they're the regulator,

right? So, probably not. There's a lot of other things too. Madam President, I don't think, Madam President. Yeah. The EPA, the DEM have both been to the site. I've been in contact with both the federal and state agencies. There are no This is a public hearing. Yeah, we're in the we're in the middle of talking about this. I asked to be recognized. That's fine. Okay. In the EPA report that was provided, I believe, if I'm recalling correctly, it was reviewing one incident, not the plethora of concerns that we have.

That was the one we got in December. Yeah. [clears throat] So what's more, do you want to continue this to [clears throat] I mean I know that people would like an answer on this. I would I really would just like the time to be able to go through this understand the scope that's got provided to GZA and then to David's point having a site map and understanding what's been done to date as far as fencing what fencing needs to be completed on the site map that hasn't already been completed. We h we have no visuals. I know that the lawyer would like to provide us with his packet to understand work that's been done to date. Um, well, he can send that to the clerk and she can.

Yeah. So, I'd like time to review all of that before making any decision. So, I think having a final decision scheduled for the second. I know again that we're just prolonging this, but there's still a lot of information that we need in order to understand in order to make an informed decision. Mr. Administrator, can we have a meeting? Can we schedule a meeting with the assistant solicitor prior to this too so we can get him involved some more on this? This is something we need to get him in. Okay.

And then and one more thing and I don't know if this is like kosher but I'm going to ask I know that obviously the residents have been you know very involved in this. The public hearing is closed but they are there as eyewitnesses to this and I would like an understanding of what their experience has been before we make a decision on the second. Is there is there a way for us to if if there's a a re a resident representative that can provide us with an understanding of what's transpired to date that could further inform our decision on the second. Is that what difference have you seen? I don't think you stop picking one person. I don't think you can do that. No, no, no. I don't want to pick a person.

Well, you can't you can't ask the public to pick a person. It's either they speak in open forum or they speak [clears throat] at a open public hearing at some point. Okay. But you can't stop asking them to pick one person if you can unless they were to retain legal counsel and that's what they wanted to do. I don't think you can put that kind of burden on them. Okay.

Can you allow them if they'd like to to answer the question since you have came come here and ask for help because this is what's happening. Has there been a positive change? Has there been a positive change? Yes or no? Have you seen great things happen? I think we would have to open a public hearing that I think Yeah. Do we do we have to revertise for finite issue before this council? Do we have to re um advertise for a publicize? You could just you could at that time you could allow the public to speak.

All right. It wouldn't be officially reopening the public hearing. The public hearing is closed. The advertisement is concluded. But if you were to at that time want to ask allow the public to speak, you can do that. But I would also ask public council you should focus on the issues in the case. That's right. And not you have a lot of questions about things that have not been charged, have not been investigated. and a discussion on that is totally I give you advice at least to your decision at this moment. Right.

Okay. Um that also brings up another point. Leo, Mr. Cody, I believe we left off with one of my motions being that I'd like an understanding of any a review of the property. I know that we have the two violations, but are there any other violations based on an inspection? I believe we left off with that being one of the takeaways. There was nothing that fit our ordinance. No, nothing that fit our ordinance. So the only the only violations then pre and then post this review are the fencing and the non-conforming use. Correct. Okay. [cough]

I still would like more time. Table it to the second. To the second. Do you want to wait till you get back? Do you want to do the second meeting? It doesn't need to wait. Are you sure? Yeah. Okay. So, you want to make a motion to table it to a second? I will make a motion to table this discussion by council vote or other action on consideration of evidence regarding possible revocation of the junkyard license for HD Auto LLC DBA Leos Auto located at 955 Iron Mine Hill Road to our next town council meeting of March 2nd. Second and I appreciate everybody's patience.

That's a motion a second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mr. Christopharo. Yes, Mrs. Zara. Yes, Mr. Punchac. Yes, Miss Alves. Yes. Discussion by council vote other action on salary and wage ordinance FY July 25 through June 30th, 2026 is second reading.

And Tony, you made those changes. Yeah, that's reflective of the 17 hour $17 an hour. What is minimum wage? 17. 16. 16. 16. Did you It's 16. 16, but change it to 17. 16 still in here. Yeah. Seasonal person. No, it should say 17. Seasonal personnel for public works still says 16. That's a different one. This was uh wasn't this? Yeah. The counselors were seven or 17. Camp Phoenix. Camp Phoenix. It's I think it's page two. Page three or four. 34. Yeah, I see that. But I'm saying that's public works seasonal personnel still says $16 an hour

on page two. But that's still minimum. Are they going or is it 16 or 17? It's 16. Yeah. Season 16. Yeah, I see it. But you're still okay, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, now you just need approve. Do we have to do this anything on this? It's a second reading.

Um, this was opened. And did we did we um Yeah, we just uh we just need to pass it. I I recall this. I think we did the we looked at this um we l I looked at this for the clerk. This is the ordinance we spoke about. Um this one because it's the uh it doesn't require a public hearing. You can have the public speak on it but it doesn't. So we're just approving it as as it was. We have to say as amended since we did amend it. Okay. That's correct.

Anyone like to make a motion on the uh wage? I will make a motion to approve the ordinance of the town of North Smithfield chapter salaries and wages as amended. That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Christopher, yes. Mrs. O'Hara, yes. Mr. Punch, yes. Miss House, yes. New business discussion by council vote other action on addendum to the Nusafield fire and rescue contract July 1st 2025 through June 30th 20128. Chief Shottier

I can speak to it. Um pursuing I'm sorry. Yeah he could not be here tonight.

He could not be here tonight because when we scheduled the meeting for tonight he has a fire board meeting tonight. We apologize. Madame President, members of the council, I can just report that um I did change the prepare the amendment consistent with what Chief Chadia indicated he had um had discussions with um the administration and I believe the president and that primarily required um continuing the annual increase of 235,656 for each year. half of this year is over. So there's a halfyear increase. And then for the remaining two years of the contract, um that's what was reported to me. That's what I reduced to writing. That's what I submitted based upon the chief's representations. [clears throat] So right now there's 29.

How do we come up with the decision that we need two more? Where does that like how does that come about? It was to staff an [clears throat] additional rescue because we're because of the mutual aid. We were running so much mutual aid and with the extra rescue he had done this um this um analysis of what it would save if we had the additional rescue running um and in town. We'll go to 31 on March 9th. Um but we're going to lose another um firefighter for a serious health problem.

So is there ever a reconciliation that okay if they go down to 29 for a term or you know 6 months out of this amendment? Does the town get that six months back or is it you know oh we can't find anyone but we're going to you know the money doesn't come back to the town. How's that work? Wouldn't you have to pay the other staff overtime? Wouldn't you have to pay the other staff?

So, why would you take them? So, it wouldn't make much sense for us to take the money back if we have to pay the other because we've been at this before in prior years, but we had to provide them extra funding because they were so far under staffed that we they were ripping through a bunch of overtime within that fiscal year. So, asking for the money back, they're going to end up needing more because of how much overtime that they have. Wasn't it just last year? This was just Yeah, this is recent. Yeah.

And the chief at at that time he had provided us figures in executive session. I think eventually in public session,

you may want to change this to um reflect our current town administrator as opposed to our previous town administrator. on the last page. You gonna track them down for a signature? Oh, mine does have it. Oh, up in there. Yeah. No. And the first paragraph in the paragraph in witnessed whereof on behalf by Paul. And actually, I don't know if the president is the same because it's a different name at the bottom. I don't think that's him anymore. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't know. says, "President, but the last line in the paragraph has someone else's name." Yeah. Chris Puchetti as a chairperson and Michael. Yeah. Anyone have any more questions on this?

Anyone make a motion? I will make a motion to approve the addendum to the North Smithfield Fire and Rescue Contract for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028. Uh, subject to the couple of um modifications that were just noted. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Christopharo, yes. Mrs. Zohara. Yes. Mr. Punchack. Yes. M. Yes.

Discussion by council voter. Other action on grant of easement to Naragans Electric Company and Verizon New England Corporation Zero Madity Road Assessors Plat 10 lot 218. One, approval in support of resolution authorizing the town administrator to sign a grant easement to benefit to the benefit of the Naragans Electric Company and Verizon New England Corporation for a townowned property identified as an Osmobile Assessor's Plat 10 lot 218 grant of easement for Allen Energy Gold Property. Town administrator Scott Gibbs.

Yeah, this was previously submitted to the council accidentally a couple months ago. It was uh very vague and effectively not very descriptive. Uh I had uh a online conference conversation along with the town planner uh with them and the changes are reflected uh in the document. Effectively the uh easement pertains to I think it's three or four telephone poles that come in off of Mattity Road. That's it. But this allows them to bring the poles into the site. Okay.

So the documents we have the first one the grant of easement without the red lines that is what Rhode Island energy proposed and we have a document grant of easement with red lines. That is what you're proposing to go back to them with because it puts a term to it. You know that is correct.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure. So then um my only question then is in the resolution um I don't really like that the third paragraph public walking trails and potentially a paved bicycle path. I don't like that. Is there a paved bike path or is there not a paved bike path? Because if we leave it up to the developer to give us a paved bike path, we're not getting a paved bike path. So, can that be resolved? Let the town planner address that.

Mark Krulo, town planner. Um, I wasn't here to speak on that, but to answer your question directly, Councilman, the developer is not responsible for the paved bicycle path. As part of the project when it was approved, there is [clears throat] an easement across the property. The town is responsible for paving the path. The developer will be responsible for all of the walking trails and the cutting and the and installation of the walking trails, but not the path. So then potentially should be stricken from this. I'm not sure exactly what that uh sentence says. Um I can read it to you.

Yeah, that'd be great. Whereas the town of North Smithfield will realize the benefit of approximately 82.72 acres of passive open space inclusive of a public parking area, public walking trails, and potentially a paved bicycle path. So, we're getting a paved bic bicycle path at the town's expense.

Right. So, that resolution is related to the um easement to Rhode Island Energy or whoever it's to. Um, I think that paragraph is descriptive of what's entailed with the approval of the project and that the things that are not potentially are being paid for by the developer and the potential would be so you can you can either remove it or amend it to say to be provided by the town. That's your prerogative. Remove it, I would think. Yeah. Strike it strike it out.

And then I had one other comment on the resolution. Um fourth paragraph uh last sentence which includes overhead distribution system for the distribution of electric current and for telephone use which includes a line of poles with necessary wires, anchors, guys, equipment. I would just say how many poles is it? Four. You just was it Mark?

I'm I'm not sure that they've determined the number of poles. It's between three and four and it's going to be dependent upon the run into the site. I would like to see you get clarification because to me it seemed like I see they gave you the the you know plan from it looks like their um ISA and they've got looks to me like they're proposing three new poles. um seems a little bit underd designed as far as I'm concerned, but uh you all you got to do is

not not to walk you through the whole process that we went through, Councilman, but um you know, the first plan was not very detailed and then we had a discussion about uh uh the extent of the easement, what it entailed, what it enc you know, what portion of the property it would encumber, and then actually the location of the poles. And I think if you read the easement, it talks about the center line of the poles and

it's either 10 or 15 feet. So, so they don't until they get into the field and they start the install. They're not clear on exactly where the location of those poles will be, they know they know approximately and the number of poles. I would agree with you, Mr. Congressman. That's not very detailed, but um they had they were not very detailed in their um plans as they presented them to us.

Yeah, that that doesn't concern me as much as um if this project for some reason, it's probably way too late. But um to have only one interconnection for this project seems kind of crazy. So, what I'm getting at is there's the potential if there was, you know, technically two interconnections, you're getting double what they're showing here. I don't think we really want that because you need a metering pole for each, you know, you need to reclose it, you know, so it just gets out of control. You're a little more versed on that than I am, Councilman. I I I respect your opinion. Won't they have to come back to us in that case if they needed that addition?

Uh, the fact that they're only going with Yes and no. Because they don't give you an overall distance. So they're saying, "Okay, say I had a mile of poles. I got 15 feet from the center. So I got 7 and 1/2 ft. But if I got 10 poles in a row, nothing is stopping them from having 10 poles in a row, but certainly not consistent with the plan they provided us. Definitely is not consistent. So as long as, you know, someone down the road says drives by and sees, you know, 10 telephone polls in a Wait a minute. That's not what we agreed to. Well, well, the good thing is they're under construction now. Heard they've been clearing. This is

This is Yeah. Three polls or four. If you'd like, Councilman, I'd say not to exceed four or five polls, whatever number you you determined to be. Um I know it's between I'm not positive, right? So, so their presentation to us was between three and four. It was not precise. Um but if you wanted to give them not to exceed five, the the run is well, you probably know better. The run is to get them into the site and then they're going underground from from the terminus of the the poles into the actual um solar project. Yeah, it looks like five would probably be um reasonable. I think five.

Yeah. So, if you'd like to amend that, I would say not to. I don't think there'd be any objection from them unless they're trying to pull a fast one. That's all I got. Thank you. Any more questions? You want to make a motion?

All right. Um, I will make a motion to approve the granting of an easement to Naraganset Electric Company and Verizon New England Corporation for Zero Mattity Road Assessors Plat 10, lot 218 um, subject to two modifications in the um, resolution. One being the removal of uh potentially a paved bicycle path and uh second modification would be to includes a line of um no more than five poles with necessary wires, anchors, guys, equipment.

That's a motion. Is there a second? I second. All of that. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Christopher Varro. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. Punjac. Yes. Miss. Yes.

Discussion by vote. Discussion by council vote or other action on updated zoning regulations. Mr. Krue first reading public hearing. Yeah, after all that reading.

Yeah, I'm good. Council President, council members, I am Mark Kulo. I am the town planner. Um, [clears throat] as you're aware, we're here this evening, I think, for the first reading and public hearing on the updated Town of North Smithfield zoning ordinance. Um, as you're I'm sure you're aware, back in 2003 2004, the general assembly passed multiple uh amendments to Rhode Island general law as it relates to land use planning and zoning. And as part of that requirement, each and every community in the state is required to update their zoning [clears throat] regulations. Um, shortly after the um, passage of the amendments to the Rhode Island general law, the Rhode Island housing under their municipal technical assistance program um, put out a a grant um, for each community to apply for. Uh, North Smith applied received $100,000 in uh, grant support from Rhode Island Housing in order to hire uh, Inis Associates at the time. I think they've since become Inis Land Planning and um Inis Associates partnered with the town and helped us to um update our zoning ordinance and bring it into compliance

with um general law and the 2003 2004 um land use [clears throat] changes. As part of that process, the town also went through and did several or is recommending several other updates to the zoning ordinance. So, what we've presented uh to the town council is um a total overhaul of the existing zoning ordinance. I just wanted the town council to know that uh this public hearing has been duly advertised in the local newspaper um three times before this meeting on January 29th, February 5th and February 12th. So um we are in compliance with notice requirements to the general public. Um this is the first reading and then second passage will be at a future uh meeting of the town council. I do have uh uh Emily Inis here from Inis Consulting and she is prepared to go through a PowerPoint which I just distributed to the council members and anyone here in the general public is welcome to follow along on the overhead and I'd like to turn it over at this point to Emily and she'll walk you through the process that we went through and take you through the state required updates. This is any no questions for me at this point. I'd like to turn over to Emily.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Mark. Good evening, Madame President, counselors. My name is Emily Keys Inis. I'm president of Inisland Strategies Group and I'm going to hit the high level of the 2023 2024 updates. Next slide, please. I'm just going to follow along on mine. So, the first thing you'll see is the members of the town staff we worked with. We also had uh committee members um primarily uh town staff as well with one member from the town council um and the planning board chair to go through the different changes. Myself and my colleague Supria Kelkar were both AICP lead APD um uh assisted with the changes. Next slide please. So Mr. Kurillo went through uh the award from Rhode Island Housing um uh MTAP. Um so the MTAP uh program provided templates. Uh they took what was passed by the legislature in 2023 and 2024 and created zoning templates of those. Our job was to take those templates and work with your existing zoning structure to integrate the templates and the requirements. Um uh this also included some updates to the subdivision rules and regulations as well as the town zoning. And then um uh this the legislative amendments that were part of this in some cases gave options and that's partly what we were getting from the working group and also from the planning board as we went through is which options the town should take when there were options. Primarily um these were updates to state housing statutes. Uh they included uh some changes as we'll go through to permitting processes and also uses and dimensional standards. Next slide please. We did have public participation through this process. So we had two workshops uh one on August 21st in 2024 and the

second on May 22nd, 2025. Um the idea was to present the proposed uh amendments, receive public comments. We also had an online survey that received 170 responses. And then at the 2024 public uh pumpkin pumpkin festival, uh we were available to provideformational materials just to let people know at that time that this process was happening and give people the opportunity to comment. Next slide, please. So the following 11 sections are the ones that were updated. I'm just going to take them one by one and uh give you the highlights. Uh these are all uh sections that were already in your zoning and so these were modifications. One twist that we had is that in some cases the 2024 updates further modified the 2023 updates. So, we did have to go and backtrack a little bit and then of course we had to work with um uh town planning staff to make sure that all of the references once the zoning was changed were for both the work that we did and that the town uh staff did were consistent throughout. So, if you'll go to the next slide, please. So, unified development review allows the planning board to grant zoning relief as part of an application for land development. This was an option in 2020. It is now a required process and so that update has been made. Next slide please. Development plan review. Um originally the zoning board was the planning board of appeals. Now appeals from the planning board go directly to the superior court. You're going to see that affects the state process as well. Uh the administrative officer now has a broadened role and more than one person can be designated as an administrative officer. This is part of the permitting updates. Um, development plan review has now been streamlined and the process redefined. This includes review and

approval processes. So, again, back to the streamlining. Um, development plan review is still optional and uh the zoning has a list of the development types that can be reviewed under this and the town can no longer require both development plan review and land development projects for the same project. Next slide please. Adaptive reuse has been changed. Um uh this is to allow the conversion of a commercial building into residential uses or mixeduse developments to be permitted for by right. Uh it does have to have a minimum of a 50% residential floor area. Uh such developments are exempt from off- streetet parking requirements that are over one space per dwelling unit. uh curtails or limits the authority uh of the town to limit the density of these developments by adding conditions. Um and product projects can't be limited to a density of less than 15 dwelling units per acre if they comply with three different conditions. Uh the project is limited to the existing footprint because remember this is adaptive reuse. The development includes at least 20% low to moderate income housing and this uh statement was uh curtailed. It says development has access. It should be access to public water and public sewer. Next slide please. Comprehensive uh permit. Uh so this change the process is only available for proposals in which at least 25% of housing is low or moderate income housing. Remembering that state legislation was focused on housing. Um it provides expanded incentives for affordable and multifamily housing including density bonuses. The state housing appeals board is being phased out and appeals will go to the superior court. So that's back to the zoning board's no longer hearing them. It's the planning board then goes to the superior court and there will be a new dedicated

housing and land use calendar at the superior court to reduce administrative delays. So that's um uh dealing with the permitting and the review process at the state level. Next slide please. Technical review committee. So this is an optional provision uh but has been integrated. This streamlines the technical review and approvals by a multidisciplinary committee uh for specific land development and subdivision applications. Uh this committee uh there's the option for this committee to issue some administrative level permits uh and written recommendations that support but don't control planning board decisions. In other words, this is advisory to the planning board. And the administrative officer that I mentioned earlier is chair of the technical review committee for substandard lots. Uh um this requires that substandard lots of record have dimensional standards adjusted by either applying the standards from a zoning district where the lot would conform to the required area or if no such district exists proportionally reducing the standards based on the ratio of the lot's area to the minimum lot area required in the district. So, if the lot is um uh the lot's square footage is lower than the minimum lot area that's required in the district, but it is a lot of record, then that means that the proportions of the dimensional standards that do apply to the minimum lot of area would be reduced to meet the lot of record. Additionally, the maximum building coverage for these substandard lots is increased. Got to love zoning language. inversely proportional to the lot size relative to the district's minimum. So again, just goes back to the dimensional standards that would apply to this lot of record that doesn't meet the minimum requirements would be reduced in proportion to that slot sizes to the

minimums. Um if a development does not conform to these adjusted standards, in other words, if it still can't meet the required standards or the reduced standards, it has to seek either modification or a dimensional variance. Next slide. I need to flip this over. I'm sorry. Dimensional dimensional variance definitions and standards. So the relief granted does not need to be the lease rece relief that is necessary and it also removes the rule that hardship cannot mainly come from the applicant's wish to make more money. So it's basically uh providing a little bit more flexibility on those dimensional uh variances than on the modifications. Um, couple of different changes here. The town has to provide for the issuance of dimensional modifications that was previously optional and it also amends the standards for granting those dimensional modifications. That includes um modifications of up to 15% of the dimensional requirement must be allowed between 15 and 25% it may be allowed. Modifications of less than 5% to the dimensional requirement may be granted without notice. Standards have also been amended to remove the requirement that the modification be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. The request for modification cannot violate rules or regulations with respect to freshwater or coastal wetlands and it also reduces the public comment period from 30 days to 14 days. Next slide. Okay, the special use permit. This now allows the granting of a special per use permit in conjunction with a dimensional variance. This was previously an optional um uh for the town. It is now required. It requires including a process under which the use is that is

not listed may also be presented to the zoning board of review, local official or the agency depending on how it's set up. Again, this was previously optional. It's now required. And then there's a need for specific and objective criteria for the issuance of each use category and that has been included. Two more. Uh next slide. The inclusionary zoning. Uh inclusionary zoning um applies to affordability requirements for housing. This now applies to all subdivisions and land development projects that have 10 or more housing units. At least 20% of those units have to qualify as affordable. and a density bonus is allowed, one market rate unit for each affordable unit that is then provided. And then finally, accessory dwelling units. Um the new legislation provides uniform definition for ADUs and sets those standards. Accessor accessory dwelling units for owner occupied properties must be allowed as of right. The only requirement is a building permit. However, ADUs over two bedrooms are prohibited and ADUs cannot be used for short-term rental. So, that's a summary of the legislative changes that were made at the state level that have been integrated into your zoning. I'm going to turn it back over to Mr. Perulo to talk about the um other changes that the town is proposing. Um [clears throat] just to touch a little bit on what uh Emily just mentioned, wherever the state required um percentages, we met but did not exceed those percentages. So for example, a modification could be from 15 to 25% by the building official. We went we were very conservative and maintained whatever the minimum thresholds were did not exceed those. So within your zoning

code where there is a deviation allowed we are only meeting the the absolute minimum that the state is allowing. Um, just to be on the conservative side, a lot of these changes are um taking away um from the zoning board and the planning board um some of their discretion. So, we tried to be conservative. So, I just wanted you to understand that and if you had any questions with regard to that, we're here to answer them. Um just to [clears throat] go a little bit further in some of the other changes that we are proposing um with regard to beyond the state statutes, we went through and looked at the use table and made some revisions and changes to the use table. Um, we went through and amended the marijuana section to include um, recreational marijuana as all communities were required or had the option to have a referendum. North Smithfield had its referendum quite a few years ago and it passed, I believe, at a plurality of 60% in favor of allowing recreational marijuana. The town never went and updated its zoning ordinance. So, we're bringing that into compliance. And there is a new section on recreational marijuana. And we did make some amendments to the medical marijuana where there were errors or or um conflicts with state law. We removed um the on-site wastewater treatment and wetlands regulations out of our zoning code as Rhode Island general law does not allow local communities um to impose restrictions that are beyond uh the state requirements and state agencies. So um those sections were in conflict with state law. So we're suggesting that

those are removed. Um, we went through and revised the conservation development regulations. Uh, there was a set of regulations in the zoning code as well as a set of regulations in the um, subdivision regulations and they weren't the same. So, we went through and we brought those into compliance with each other. And um for [clears throat] those that don't know what conservation development is, it's in most communities they refer to as a cluster development where you can have smaller lot sizes with more open space but the overall density of development does not increase. It's a provision that is used to protect um sensitive environmental areas uh when when doing developments. We did also

Mark one moment madam president may ask a question. I don't want to the the special use permit table specifically. Yes, table. I lied. Hold on. Interpretation of the district use regulations table. Um I just I see that there's section D uses listed in the district use regulations table may be governed by the groundwater aquifer and historic overlay district. So does that since we're striking that from or you're proposing that we strike that from um you're in D the ordinance. Yes. Dage 18. C.

So C and D essentially it they refer to environmental constraints or the groundwater aquifer and historic overlay districts essentially governing some of the um district use regulations. If those if we're striking those from the ordinance, does that mean that they don't have any authority over where groundwater protection? Yes. Groundwater aquifer and historic overlay districts. It's lines 50 582 through 586. I don't Well, which document am I looking at? Hold on.

So, we're not So, so we're not The old ordinance had the old groundwater overlay protection. So, we're substitute we're importing the new section. Okay. So, it's not it's not being eliminated. It's being updated to reflect the ordinance that was adopted by the town council I think two years ago. Okay. I'm just not seeing that that language was incorporated into this. It's probably following that. If you're in the strike the track changes document, it probably is immediately after several pages of of eliminated track changes. I didn't want to lose sight of that. that I wanted to.

Yeah, we did we did make sure um the the document that we were working from was uh a word document that we received from uh code our code company and at the time it did not have the new overlay protection. So in order for us to bring that into compliance and have that recotified [clears throat] I actually struck that out and inserted the new section. Okay. Verbatim.

Thank you. um revised special use permit section. So, we went through and um we added special use permit, I think, for um drive-thru windows. We removed the special use permit for accessory dwelling units as Rhode Island General now requires that. We also removed the special use permit um for extraction of earth products. I just want to be clear on that. That is something that the town council back in the 70s had prohibited in the use table. However, for some reason left the special use permit requirements in the zoning ordinance, which actually creates an internal conflict in the ordinance. The use table would prohibit the use, but under special use permit, it would be allowed. So, we're recommending that that be taken out of the ordinance. Normally what would happen is if you've got pre-existing uses and then you prohibit them. They get removed from the the ordinance, the table prohibits them. And if you're going to look back at the use, you would look at the ordinance in effect at the time that you eliminated uh that use and that's how you would track what they allowed to do. So to have those two sections, have it prohibited and have special use permit could create um issues with the town. If someone was coming to apply to expand a special use permit or to um introduce a or apply for a new special use permit, the conflict would leave us open to uh potential litigation. So we've we're suggesting we take that out. Um, [clears throat] in our zoning ordinance, which I've never seen before, there were two separate solar ordinances. One was allowed by special use permit and the other one was allowed by um an overlay which is approved by the council. I understand why it is that way. However,

it's very unusual to have uh two avenues of approval for a single use. So, we combined we took elements of both the special use permit and the pre-existing uh overlay. We combined them into one um solar ordinance and we're requiring that to be uh an overlay district to be approved by the town council. So, there's no longer special use permit for solar in the town. Um, we're allowing accessory scale solar, which would be rooftops and backyard solars for residential be allowed by right by meeting standards within the zoning code. Um, we revised the accessory section um to have all the accessory uses in one section. Um, they were scattered throughout the ordinance and very difficult to find. Went through and and redid the parking, loading, and landscaping requirements. Uh if you're familiar with the current zoning ordinance, there were graphics in the middle of the ordinance that uh basically depicted what those requirements were. There were conflicts throughout those graphics as well as conflicts with other sections in the ordinance. So we revised that to have it basically a very objective defined requirements written out um so that's easily understandable. And we changed certificate of zoning compliance which doesn't exist under Rhode Island general law. We just changed that to zoning certificate to comply with the Rhode Island general law. Those are the changes we made outside of the required state changes that were being proposed to you. Um I'm sure the council has looked at at least all of the information that we provided to you. We've provided a memo from the planning office outlining these changes, a memo from Inis Associates um which is reflective of the um the PowerPoint that

Emily just went through and we've also provided a memo from the planning office with regard to um the planning board's review of each and every one of these changes that they did incrementally over time over a series of I believe five or six planning board meetings. So, we've we've um combined those into one um recommendation to the town council in support of these changes and finding them in compliance with the um the town's comprehensive plan. I did also receive a list of um questions from one of the council members. Councilman Punchac sent me a list which I responded to today. Um some of his his observations will require some changes to they're very minimal but will require some changes to some of the language which I will get to the council prior to its next meeting when it is going to vote for the adoption of the uh the zoning ordinance if that's the council's pleasure. Um Emily and I are here to answer any questions. I know this is like a 20,000 ft overview, but um I'm hoping that you did have the chance to at least go through some of the information that we provided to you. I tried to provide it early on because I know it's a lot of information to review and uh you know, I'm here to answer any questions and I can be at the next meeting if you so desire to answer any questions should they come up between now and then. Um, I think if if there are no questions and I'm I'm here to answer them, if you want to open this up to the public, um, perhaps members of the public can come up and speak. I did want to say that I did have one local developer come in and I provided him with a copy of the ordinance and, um, [clears throat] haven't heard back from him with any comments or any changes. So, I'm assuming he's okay.

So, is this posted anywhere so people can look at it? It's posted. So, there's a copy available in the clerk's office. It's been posted online since the January 29th at our first ad. It is online and available for view for anyone who wanted to go online and look at it. So, if we leave the public hearing open and we I would suggest that you you would leave the public hearing open to the next meeting. Okay. Anyone make a motion to open the public hearing? Motion to open the public hearing. Second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Christopher. Yes. Mrs. Yes. Mr. Punchack. Yes. Miss. Yes. Anybody like to ask any questions or speak?

No. Anyone else? No. This is what I live for. No one has any questions. [laughter] I'll give you one. Yeah. Can you go upstairs? Come on. Come on up. Stan Zuba 910 Iron Mine Hill Road. So in your presentation you mentioned the pre-existing non-conforming uses and how the use would be determined by the date when the use was uh eliminated from the town. Correct. Correct. So we're here for the junkyard.

Yes. So basically in you know your opinion would we have to limit the junkyard to their use when they became pre-existing non-conforming? Can't talk about a matter that's pending before the council. Okay. Sorry but notending matter. So can you make it a little bit? Yeah. So, if there was a if there was a if there's a business operating in town that I feel might be non-conforming and I can trace back to the date it became non-conforming and show what its use and size was at that date. Do you think that's how this applies and that's where this business should be operating at?

Generally, that is how it would apply. So, I'll give you an example. [clears throat] If someone had a a gas station and that gas station had two pumps

and uh the property was reszoned from business to let's say residential. Okay. Now the gas station is inconsistent with the zoning. That gas station will be allowed to function as it was at the time of the change. two pumps with the building or whatever else was there in perpetuity until until that property came into compliance with the zoning ordinance or just continue on. The gas station could not allow additional pumps, expand the building or expand its footprint with regard to the gas station. It would have to comply with what was existing at the time of the change.

And that's our current method. We don't need to pass this to have that take effect. that is that is we can I can refer to the solicitor but that is um case law and that is consistent with uh zoning since its inception but I'm a poor business and if I can't expand I'm going to go out of business I believe our ordinance says it encourages to us to close out non-conforming uses [clears throat] correct

uh typically most zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans um recommend that nonconforming businesses over time u be eliminated. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? [laughter] Anybody else? Are we going to go to a date certain? Yes. need to continue to engage certain uh and since school's got some changes to make. I would just put this for the next meeting two weeks away. Yeah.

You want to do the first week in April or you want to do the last one in March? Whatever the whatever the council desires. I've actually um gone through um question by question with Mr. Mr. Punch's um comments and uh they're very easily amended but I will do that and I will provide those amendments to you whenever you desire. You want to do the second week in March since you'll be here? Yeah, I think second week in March. So is the second meeting in March. Okay. Whatever the council chooses is fine. I want to make sure you have enough time. Is that 16th? Okay. Um 16th motion to continue the public hearing until a date certain of Wait a minute.

So I do have a concern. I I would like to see this moved as quickly as possible. I'm not sure if the planner agrees, but the money is in the budget. If we can get this done before um June and get codified, it would be Huh. So, we we're doing March. That's not enough time. I'm not sure how soon they can codify it, but I would just say it's a digital document. I think I don't know how soon they could codify it, but once the council approved it, the appeal period is 20 days uh after the ordinance is signed. And at that point, I think we should send it to the the code company um in a digital version. And I

Okay. Okay. So motion to continue the public hearing until a date certain of March 16th, 2026. Second. That's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? And also schedule a second meeting for that date. And also schedule second reading for that date. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mr. Christopharro. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. Punch. Yes. Miss Alves. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mark. Thank you for getting all those documents to us so soon, Mark.

Okay. [clears throat] All right. Discussion by council vote. Other action on payment of bills. So, the payment that you have in front of you is reflective of the January and the February payments. The January one that we missed for the fire department that we didn't pay them backdating that and then the February payment, the the increase, the $19,000 increase per month. So, everything's already in here.

Yep. Tony, the only question that I have are these vertical six payments. Were all of those anticipated? Yeah, these are all projects that they've been working on. Okay. Um, so the hosting service is just normal. The managed services is normal. The switch replacement and the firewall replacement um for DPW, those are all projects that we had budgeted and we had had them working on. They actually came in just a tiny bit under budget collectively. Okay.

Um so we've been trying to use that up for replacing other using actually switching moving that money to replace uh laptops because the cost of laptops have increased again. Right. Okay. Thank you. Um I was also curious about those. I have a question. Uh crematory inspection is that at the um the animal shelter? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, the uh new animal control supervisor officer uh she's been really great. She's been going through the whole She came from um I think Winsocket Cranston.

Cranston. Cranston. Sorry. Uh yeah, she's been doing a really good job. A lot of clean up over there. Yeah, great job. That was all I had. Anyone have any other questions? make a motion to approve the bills. I will make a motion to approve the payment of bills for February 17th, 2026 in the amount of 3,158,84352.

Second. That's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Christopher, yes. Mrs. O'Hara, yes. Mr. Punch, yes. Miss Alves, yes. Open forum pursuant to 42-46-6D maximum 3 minutes per person. Did anyone want to speak? Mike.

Mike Clifford 489 Black Lane Road. I just want to add some comments to the topic that I was discussing earlier about the building committee being a um under the open meetings act and should be under the open meeting act. And I want to point out that it's a sub you basically appointed a subcommittee and a subcommittee in the definition of a subcommittee it says provide detailed analysis research or oversight acting in a advisory capacity by making recommendations or drafting reports many boards you have advisory but the subcommittee appointed by an elected board is under the open meetings act is that correct Mr. I don't know if it wasn't so we're going to research the issue. I don't know what they did and I don't know how

well they named who they wanted on the board. I'm not going to try to ask for a written opinion as one of these meetings and contact the attorney general's department and get you a legitimate answer. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you. I didn't hear the part about you were going to get a written opinion. Sorry. Absolutely. Anyone else?

Uh, Stan Zuba, 910 Iron Mine Hill Road. Uh, guys, I don't even know if this is the proper venue to address this, but I'm a little confused about the next meeting and what's going to happen. Um, we said we in this meeting, I think that we were going to give the junkyard an answer on their license. Um, we also talked about Mr. Zangari presenting his stuff. The open forum is closed as far as I know right now. Are we going to get a chance to present our case again? I mean, this is an ongoing thing with a lot of things developing. We also tabled, I believe, the item of GZA, and you kind of wanted, you know, to study the GZA stuff a little bit regarding this license. So, it seems like we're going to have an awful lot of people that want to talk and do things at a meeting that I'm not sure we can that I don't think you can get all of this in one meeting to be honest with you. There's a ton of information here. And, you know, just talking about the GZA study and trying to wrangle all the regulations and stuff, guys, I'm four three- ring binders deep in paperwork trying to come close to understanding what they need to comply with or what's allowed, what's not allowed. It's a very complicated issue. DEM has been extremely difficult to work with. DBR has been rather unresponsive. EPA, they don't want to hear from us. There have been some few people that have responded, but it's scattered. It's broken. It's very, very difficult to do. And now I I believe we said we're going to give them an answer on their license in two weeks.

Well, we're going to we have it on the agenda next week. I mean, uh the following meeting so that we'll have some more information by then. But whether or not there's a decision made on the actual because we're going to put it for open um not not a well open like public public not is it like can we call it a public hearing or the council has a right to let the public speak, right? Public hearing is closed, right? But it's it's going to be open to the public to speak if you want to. Yeah. So if I wanted to bring an expert, I can bring an expert and he can speak.

Again, Madam President, I'm just going to again we're talking about a matter that's not on the docket and I want the be clear that although the council is talking about looking at these issues, they are not relevant to your decision. You cannot decide the license on these information. My understanding the council asked for this additional information because they were going to potentially pursue additional actions. The question before the council whether or not Mr. Cody's violation that he filed in writing is is is satisfied and abated or not. That's the question before the council, not these new issues. You can't decide this license on the [snorts] new issues. New complaints need to be filed.

They have to be filed. And if they two other sources, they're two other sources. If they're two other government entities, they're two other government entities. You had you had charges filed by Mr. Cody in this case. Those are the charges pending. You are a quasi judicial board. You're not sitting at the council. You're sitting as a board of licenses. It'll be it's improper to decide it on evidence outside charges ever filed. So the public should be aware of that. The council should be reminded of that. So it's basically defense office nonforming use.

That's well he hasn't been operating. So you know technically I would say he's rectified the non-conforming use whether he goes back to it or not. Um but right now if we were making a decision first week of March, it can solely be on whether or not we feel he is, you know, abided by what the fence should be, right? That's what I thought was going to happen tonight because that is specifically what we talked about is that and I feel like you know we basically said so you're going to have all of this fence done by our next meeting and the answer is yes. So

well I don't think we were really provided of an understanding as to whether or not that fence was done anyway but we can still decide upon GZA in parallel to our decision. Right. Absolutely. Council the council can pursue any other avenues at once but not in the context of license. Right. So we're just we're ex expanding into other areas that have been brought up that we're making sure that he's oper or a certain business is operating. That's fine. That's perfectly fine.

But the expectation too and I know that this is open forum but the expectation is and and town minister I know that you alluded to this. If we need to make a definitive decision on March 2nd to approve or not approve a license, then we need a definitive understanding as to if the violations have been completely rectified. So, we will need an understanding to David's point of a site map to say the fence is supposed to be in these areas and the fence is up in these in in said areas. I think that will help us make our decision. We don't have a definitive understanding of that. Again, you know, the applicant's not here. Their attorney's not here. We are way far a field of open form matters.

I was just reiterating that. I was just reiterating the takeway with the law. No, I know. I'm just reiterating the expectation because it seems like we've talked a lot about our expectations and takeaways and those aren't haven't necessarily been delivered upon. So, the expectation that we discussed earlier, it I expect that that will be um provided on the second Understood. One last thing. In granting a license, any license we grant would have to comply the individual that receives the license would have to re comply with town ordinance. Is that correct? I think yes.

We for the record, we have the charges pending. We have no other charges pending. That's what the council is going to decide. I'm not asking about charges, solicitor. I'm just asking uh this the if you grant me a license to manufacture something in the state of in the town of North Smithfield and I want to make silly putty and I want to make nuclear missiles does one license cover that again I'm I'm going to you know I'm saying this is way too I understand guys appreciate it thank you anyone All right. Anyone like to make a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn. Second. Yeah.