North Smithfield Planning Board - May 14, 2026
Meeting — May 14, 2026
Meeting overview
Agenda at a glance
| Item | Summary | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Minutes — April 9 Meeting | Approved as presented. | Approved |
| Disclosures | The board member who recused as an abutter at the April 9 meeting again recused, noting he holds a Rhode Island Ethics Commission letter permitting him to speak later as a private citizen. | One recusal |
| Chairman's Opening Expectations | No vote would be taken; the board is separately scheduling an executive session with the town's litigation counsel on pre-2019 project history; meeting would end by roughly 10:00 PM regardless of remaining speakers. | Announcement |
| Applicant's Legal Presentation (Attorney Kelly) | Extensive account of the project's 21-year history, a 2005–2014 wrongful-denial lawsuit and settlement, HOA-vs-condominium clarification, and a warning of further legal action if the board denies the project on recreation-field or earth-removal grounds. | Presentation |
| Updated Fiscal Impact Study (Joseph Lombardo) | Presented revised study estimating $1,086,000 in town revenue against $1,289,000 in municipal and school costs at full build-out — a projected $203,000 shortfall. | Presentation |
| Nutrient Loading, Phasing Map, Recreation Field Updates (Eric Prevey) | Presented a nutrient-loading memo, a color-coded phasing map with tree-clearing limits, and a revised recreation-field layout reduced by more than 50% with added buffers and evergreen screening. | Presentation |
| Public Hearing — Reopened | Reopened at approximately 8:12 PM. Roughly a dozen residents and commenters spoke. | ~12 speakers |
| Board Follow-Up Requests | Board requested: a single combined cut-and-fill plan (rather than sheet-by-sheet), a written blasting statement/protocol even though not currently anticipated, reconsideration of the southernmost recreation field on the steepest terrain, reconsideration of the construction phasing order, a permeable-surface path alternative to concrete sidewalks, and research into ownership of the Brookside Drive/Overhill Road segment. | Requested for 6/25 |
| Continuation to Date Certain | Public hearing and application review continued. | Continued to June 25, 2026 |
Case history — the applicant's account
Attorney Michael Kelly, the applicant's co-counsel, opened the meeting with a detailed history of the project dating to 2005. This account came from the applicant's legal team and was not independently corroborated by the board or town staff during this meeting; it is presented here as testimony, not as verified fact.
The applicant's warning on denial
Attorney Kelly told the board that if the project is denied — specifically citing denial based on the recreation fields or "speculated" earth removal — the applicant would treat it as an intentional, unlawful denial and pursue an appeal along with a damages claim, including attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, referencing a recent instance in which the town paid legal fees after another applicant's project was found to have been wrongfully denied. He stated the number of objectors to the project, and the number of school-age children it may generate, are both legally irrelevant to the board's decision under state law, a point the town's legal advisor did not dispute or confirm on the record during this meeting.
Key issues and discussion
Legal Warning: Threat of Appeal and Damages
Beyond the historical account above, Attorney Kelly argued that state case law prohibits the board from denying a use the zoning ordinance specifically allows — including the recreation fields — regardless of the board's view of the applicant's underlying motives, and that any decision must rest on legally competent record evidence, not speculation or the volume of public objection. Resident and attorney Michael Mayo directly disputed the characterization that the fields' permissibility was settled at master plan, noting the 2019 approval's first condition specifically deferred that question to the preliminary stage.
Updated Fiscal Impact Study
Fiscal expert Joseph Lombardo presented a revised study projecting, at full build-out under current data: 327 residents including 75 school-age children, approximately $1,086,000 in annual town revenue, and combined municipal ($281,000) and school (~$1,008,000) costs of about $1,289,000 — a net shortfall of roughly $203,000. He noted this pattern (a modest net cost) is typical for single-family developments generally and that impacts would arrive incrementally over the project's estimated seven-to-nine-year build-out. Board member Porter flagged that the report, as initially filed, repeatedly referred to "the Town of Smithfield" rather than North Smithfield; Lombardo acknowledged the error and corrected it for the record.
Nutrient Loading and Groundwater Classification
Engineer Eric Prevey presented a plain-language nutrient-loading memo citing RIDEM's standard of one-sixth acre per bedroom for septic systems relying on private wells — a standard the proposed 30,000-square-foot minimum lot size meets for four-bedroom homes — plus an additional 164 acres of preserved open space counted as "nutrient credit land" under DEM regulations. He also addressed the site's GA groundwater classification directly, stating that roughly 70% of Rhode Island is classified GA and another 20% GAA (the highest classification), meaning roughly 90% of the state's groundwater carries one of these two classifications; he said this context was meant to correct what he characterized as an impression that the site sits over some unusually sensitive or rare water source.
Recreation Fields: Reduced and Relocated
The applicant's team presented an updated field layout reduced by more than 50% from the plan shown at the April 9 hearing, with an enlarged buffer and evergreen screening added along the Leonard Drive side, and the parking area relocated from its original position (based on an outdated trail alignment) to a flatter, more central spot between two of the fields. Board members raised two recurring concerns: first, that the emergency-access road serving the fields is technically reachable by any vehicle already inside the subdivision's public roads, meaning enforcement against outside use would rely on residents "policing themselves"; and second, that the southernmost field remains sited on the property's steepest terrain, on top of an esker the North Smithfield Heritage Association's president identified as one of the best-preserved examples in southern New England. Both the chairman and board member Porter stated on the record that they would like to see that third field removed from the plan entirely.
Earth Removal Volume Estimates
Attorney Kelly presented volume estimates for the first time: approximately 750,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated under the current conservation-development design, with about 350,000 yards reused on-site and roughly 400,000 yards removed. He contrasted this with an estimate for a conventional (non-conservation) subdivision on the same parcel — roughly 1.3 million yards excavated, with about 950,000 yards removed — arguing the conservation design results in significantly less off-site earth removal due to shorter roadways and smaller lot frontages. A resident speaking on behalf of a group of neighbors noted that this volume figure had only been disclosed this week, after repeated resident requests, and questioned why blasting protocols, pre/post-blast well and foundation protections, and liability for potential blast damage had not yet been addressed in any filing; the applicant's engineer agreed to submit a written blasting statement for the next meeting while reiterating that blasting is not currently anticipated.
Traffic Safety on Douglas Pike
Multiple residents described a history of serious and fatal accidents at or near the Route 7/Route 104 intersection and along Douglas Pike generally, citing the absence of posted speed limit signage after the road crosses from Smithfield into North Smithfield and concerns about school bus safety with additional development traffic. The applicant's traffic engineer, John Shevlin, confirmed the underlying study used three years of police-reported crash data (2021–2024) showing 54 crashes, none fatal within that specific window, though he did not dispute that fatal accidents have occurred at other times. He agreed to coordinate with the school department on bus routing (potentially limiting turns into the development to right turns only, to avoid crossing traffic) and with the state Office of Highway Safety on speed enforcement; the chairman suggested the traffic study itself may need updating given the two years that have elapsed since it was conducted.
Town-Owned Road Access Question
A resident raised a specific concern that a segment of Brookside Drive Extension and a road he identified as Overhill Road — both of which he said appear on the town's GIS maps as town-owned rights-of-way, distinct from the applicant's property — would become effectively inaccessible to the general public once the project's emergency-access gate is installed further north than the property line. He argued the town cannot grant one group of residents exclusive use of town-owned road segments. The chairman agreed this appeared to be a valid point and asked the town's legal advisor to research the ownership question before the next meeting; a separate resident (speaking as a private citizen after recusing from the board for this item) added that the surrounding roads near Lake Bel Air have historically been associated with the applicant's affiliated companies and may never have been formally deeded to the town, a claim he said would need further research.
Public comments
| Speaker | Summary |
|---|---|
| Resident President, North Smithfield Heritage Association |
Asked the board to preserve the site's "legacy forest" designation and its eskers, specifically requesting removal of the two northern fields and the southern field sited on an esker; also asked that curbs, sidewalks, and the emergency-access road width be minimized to fit the area's rural character. |
| Resident, Leonard Drive Speaking on behalf of a resident group |
Confirmed submission of a 27-page written objection; raised process-transparency concerns (no formal certificate of completeness, a pattern of corrections arriving only after residents flagged errors), questioned the timing of the 2024 traffic study (conducted while schools were out of session), requested the board walk the property again, and described an in-progress resident-led private well testing initiative following state Department of Health protocol. |
| Resident, Francis Farm Road Former Zoning Board member |
Cited the town's comprehensive plan language identifying the Nipsachuck area as historically and geologically significant; questioned the value of restricting open space to Rankin Estates residents only; proposed permanent deed restrictions on the open space (no hunting, no beaver dam interference, no dumping) and a truck-traffic restriction during school bus hours. |
| Resident, Christina Way Attorney, speaking as a resident |
Reiterated that the recreation fields' permissibility was not resolved at master plan, questioned why the fields and parking lot are scheduled for construction before any residents exist to use them, and urged the board to require the open space remain undisturbed. |
| Resident, Douglas Pike Parent — school bus safety |
Described daily difficulty with traffic near her son's bus stop on Douglas Pike and asked the board to weigh the added traffic's effect on school bus safety, noting the road has no posted speed limit signage in North Smithfield. |
| Non-resident supporter General environmental concerns |
Argued that large-scale earth removal carries general environmental risks (habitat loss, air quality, soil degradation) and urged closer scrutiny of the applicant's figures and characterizations. |
| Resident, Log Road Town road ownership question |
Raised the Brookside Drive Extension/Overhill Road ownership question described above, arguing the town cannot cede public road access to one group of residents. |
| Board member (recused for this item), Ridge Hill Road Speaking as a private citizen |
Added historical context suggesting roads around Lake Bel Air have been associated with the applicant's affiliated companies and may not have been formally deeded to the town. |
| Resident, Douglas Pike 21-year resident — intersection safety |
Described witnessing numerous serious accidents at the Route 7/Route 104 intersection near his driveway over two decades and asked what traffic-control measures (signal, cameras, police presence, speed bumps) are planned for the development's single entrance. |
| Resident, Douglas Pike 45-year resident, retired critical care nurse |
Described witnessing fatal accidents on Douglas Pike over decades, raised concerns about cumulative traffic from multiple pending developments in the area, and noted safety concerns related to existing gravel-truck traffic on the same road. |
| Resident, Leonard Drive Quality of life and wildlife |
Said she moved to the area for privacy and quiet and raised concerns about wildlife displacement and the loss of walking areas near her home. |