North Smithfield Planning Board - August 13, 2026
Meeting — August 13, 2026
Meeting overview
Agenda at a glance
| Item | Summary | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Disclosures | Full board present; no conflicts or ex parte communications disclosed. | None |
| 3 Greenville Road (Gas Station) — Preliminary Approval / UDR | Applicant withdrew its request for dimensional sign variances after a recent zoning ordinance amendment resolved most sign-size issues. An objector's traffic expert was unavailable this evening, requiring a further continuance; see detail below. | Continued to September 10, 2026 |
| Major Change to a Recorded Plat (Blunder's Way area) | Continued because the applicant's representative mailed notice to abutters but failed to publish the required newspaper advertisement; re-advertisement was arranged for the following week. | Continued to September 10, 2026 |
3 Greenville Road: Competing Traffic Experts
Background
The gas station project previously received master plan approval and returned for a unified development review combining preliminary approval and a dimensional sign variance request; the sign variance was withdrawn after a recent zoning amendment changed allowable sign sizes, largely mooting that dispute. The meeting had already been continued once at the applicant's voluntary request after an objector represented by counsel submitted new traffic testimony only about 24 hours before that hearing — not enough time for the applicant's own traffic expert, or the board, to review it. Tonight's further continuance was requested because the objector's traffic expert was unavailable due to illness.
The core dispute: does the analysis address the nearby school?
The applicant's attorney, Elizabeth Noonan, agreed to the continuance on the condition that the hearing be pushed to a firm date certain and that any further written materials be submitted at least seven days in advance — a condition the objector's attorney had already agreed to by email. The town planner explained the central substantive dispute: the objector's traffic engineer raised several issues, the most significant being that the original analysis didn't address the nearby school (in the City of Woonsocket, across the town line). The applicant's team has since submitted a supplemental analysis addressing the school directly, and the planner noted that Woonsocket itself has not yet formally applied to RIDOT for the required physical-alteration permit that would trigger a state-level review addressing the school, meaning the state currently isn't weighing that issue at all. He said he expects most of the other, more minor issues raised by the objector's traffic report (such as a missing delivery-vehicle turning diagram) to be resolved once both sides can review the supplemental analysis together.
Board considers, but doesn't order, an independent peer review
One board member asked whether it made sense to bring in the town's own on-call traffic consultant to independently compare the two competing studies "so we can get as unbiased of a review as possible." The town planner cautioned it was premature — he hadn't yet had the chance to compare the objector's critique against the applicant's new supplemental analysis, and thought several of the disputed points might resolve on their own once both sides review the same material. He confirmed the town has three on-call engineering firms (PAR, GZA, and Crossman), and that Crossman would likely be tapped for a traffic-specific peer review if the board later decided one was warranted, with the cost borne by the applicant and an estimate shared with all parties in advance. He also confirmed that because this continuance, like the prior one, is voluntary, the statutory decision-deadline clock is not currently running against the town.