[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6111968,"mediaKeyId","2749820-18352e5b391d515d9910a992b478ad7d","parentId",2749820,"title","Planning board continues review of 74‑unit Greenville Farms affordable housing proposal after residents raise water, traffic and soils concerns","audioSeconds",2271,"startMs",389000,"endMs",2660000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2749820-18352e5b391d515d9910a992b478ad7d&start=389&end=2660","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2749820-18352e5b391d515d9910a992b478ad7d/thumbnail_389000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6111968/Rhode-Island/Planning-board-continues-review-of-74unit-Greenville-Farms-affordable-housing-proposal-after-residents-raise-water-traffic-and-soils-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6111968-be8c857b6982b50044748fafbcf0e8ce/orig.mp4?Expires=1770487064&Signature=a8NZsrfgaolXlXqRVuqkky7frBJm0l5TkJNLH1qBFE9lC9R~QZnSrFYiJ5h7VRVqKtdNNeJ8tHSQy~05JZ1Ei4VyDTBoqUZ8BX-YCsvYLaV-T9ifc6~leCCZ~rGBPSCDvlo8m~1edOISClEEs0l~ogddoy7~7ZZfdQQ4L~jBcZR3vds0aSJCynUKiKKwG-WbECJmUBDO115QewkNNdCuphkn7cP2TxKTKjbUutufNOAF-tWlPI1U9HqhWljH~iWtc5FdoqK3H1GRzK9MTcG3OLh1lJCyZa1ZvXPrO3zRw1rgJ6EyR8Ki3FWMLBf6PQoFZLJk1Cz8YFS958fYd9nLGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author"," Smithfield, RI","date","2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","article","John Mancini, an attorney for the applicant, told the Smithfield Planning Board on March 20 that his client had reduced a prior scheme and now proposes 74 units in 37 buildings for a site off West Greenville Road under a state comprehensive‑permit application.

The board continued the public hearing to April 17 to allow the applicant time to provide additional materials and to permit the board to receive outstanding peer reviews. The applicant stated it supplied a DEM wetlands/alteration permit to the town the day of the meeting and said Rhode Island Housing had issued a letter of eligibility required for a comprehensive permit.

Why it matters: the proposal invokes Rhode Island’s comprehensive‑permit statute for low‑ and moderate‑income (LMI) housing (the applicant says 25% of units will be restricted as the statute requires). That statute allows developers who meet defined criteria to seek relief from local dimensional and subdivision rules; the process shifts several site‑planning and infrastructure questions — stormwater, sewer and traffic — to the planning board and to state review. Neighbors and some board members said the parcel’s wetlands, soils history (orchard uses) and limited local services warrant more study before a final decision.

Project details presented by applicant and staff
John Mancini said the current plan calls for 74 units, split evenly between 2‑bedroom and 3‑bedroom units (37 and 37). He said the applicant reduced an earlier 90+‑unit scheme and is submitting an economic analysis and a Rhode Island Housing letter of eligibility. Mancini said the project team received a DEM permit that reviewed and approved the project’s plans for state wetlands impacts and that the applicant had submitted a market/economic analysis supporting the proposed bedroom mix.

Engineer Sam Hemingway of Garofalo and Associates described site engineering that includes gravity sewers in the development (6–8 feet deep), a private on‑site pump station and a proposed private force main discharging to an existing sewer on Smith Avenue. The project also proposes a 12‑inch water main extension (about one quarter mile) from existing facilities to supply the project and meet fire flow requirements. Hemingway said DEM required and issued the wetlands permit after about 18 months of review and that the permit addressed stormwater and ecological functions in the wetland complex.

Issues raised by board members and the public
Board members asked for documentation and evidence on several topics they said were critical to deciding consistency with Smithfield’s comprehensive plan: fiscal impacts (schools, town services), traffic and pedestrian access, stormwater/drainage, and the site’s soils and environmental history. Several members reiterated that while state law preempts some local zoning, the board can and should judge conformance with the town’s comprehensive plan.

Residents urged more study. Neighbors and condo residents from Orchard Gate described repeated basement flooding and said they want assurance that stormwater controls will not increase runoff onto their properties. Multiple speakers raised soils concerns tied to the site’s former orchard use and asked whether pesticide residues or deeper contamination could be disturbed by grading and utility trenches. Sam Hemingway and the applicant said a Phase I/limited sampling program had been performed and that surface pesticides are the principal concern; Hemingway said sampling protocols focused on the upper ~2 feet of soil (the typical threshold used for direct‑exposure screening) and that results did not show concentrations that the report’s thresholds identified as an immediate health hazard. He acknowledged, however, that additional testing could be done and that the consultant SAGE would address concerns at the next hearing.

Board requests and applicant commitments
Board members asked the applicant to provide:
- A fiscal impact analysis and a written analysis of how the project does or does not conform with the Smithfield Comprehensive Plan (applicant agreed to provide both);
- Floor plans for the 2‑ and 3‑bedroom units, with clarity about whether “bonus” spaces could be converted into bedrooms (applicant agreed to submit);
- Any peer‑review responses on traffic and stormwater that the town’s consultants produce (peer reviews were pending at the time of the hearing); and
- Additional environmental/soil sampling documentation from SAGE addressing neighbors’ questions about deeper soils and stockpiling of excavated material.

Regulatory context noted in the hearing
Counsel and the applicant repeatedly cited the state comprehensive‑permit statute governing LMI housing and told the board that while fiscal impacts or school enrollment projections may be useful for municipal planning, state law limits the town’s ability to deny an otherwise compliant comprehensive permit for purely fiscal reasons. The applicant referenced Rhode Island Housing eligibility requirements and the DEM wetlands permit as prerequisites and milestones that had been satisfied or submitted.

Action, next steps and public comment
The board continued the hearing on the Residence at Greenville Farms application to April 17, 2025, and directed the applicant to submit the documents above before that date. The board opened and then limited public comment to items discussed at the meeting; more than a dozen residents spoke, primarily about flooding, wetlands, traffic safety on West Greenville Road, and historic pesticide use on the orchard site. The board recorded no roll‑call vote tally in the transcript; the chair announced the motion carried.

What’s next: the applicant said it will present a fiscal impact study, a comp‑plan conformity analysis and additional environmental responses at the next hearing. The town’s peer reviewers are expected to issue comments on traffic and stormwater before the April 17 meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","03/20/2025 Smithfield Planning Board Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","John Mancini, an attorney for the applicant, told the Smithfield Planning Board on March 20 that his client had reduced a prior scheme and now proposes 74 units in 37 buildings for a site off West Greenville Road under a state comprehensive‑permit application.","taxTitle","Smithfield, Providence County, Rhode Island","taxId",79585,"location","Rhode Island","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6111958,"Planning board forwards draft zoning amendments to Town Council to restore special‑use review for several commercial uses",962,8529000,9491000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2749820-18352e5b391d515d9910a992b478ad7d&start=8529&end=9491","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2749820-18352e5b391d515d9910a992b478ad7d/thumbnail_8529000.jpg","/articles/6111958/Rhode-Island/Planning-board-forwards-draft-zoning-amendments-to-Town-Council-to-restore-specialuse-review-for-several-commercial-uses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6111958-e2d340524a9d197fca8e310805aea37a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770487064&Signature=Zob-K0TiAE5tiNrPVAjCYaB1kaytj6mFlr6IXYhlRFAuXJIAhSXvK5H1xr9aFs1KkwL6GVCHLaICgxwp-D56J5RZ8lLWY0J5ll72qZmpUWbjhJ9aWf7XoqJtAeUMupGrbcux80ftEoL7Oc6uwl36WWAYrIPNkfhp3nPaYPu-KdZbcqJNbKXlqmDkoVqEKZfmouQF-bKX~tu9zgDoSwZvQXMRdDRqJM6IZqv6paWsuIDppPxVF1gwgaKf1SfPBeuR-KzTQ7zKiupQi3g34VI0mZvaVPA9jRLHRAFSOd2-Qgu3vS1~uvssJs9GaOm1LxDfzN5HWqBujwTbM59cbxN5Bw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the March 20 meeting the Planning Board reviewed proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance (Article 4.3 table of uses and 4.4 supplementary use regulations) intended to reintroduce special‑use review for categories that no longer had objective criteria following a state law change. Consultant Ashley Sweet presented draft objective criteria and asked the board which items required local numeric or measurable limits.

Board discussion and decisions
Board members discussed two policy approaches: (1) restore special‑use permits with specific, objective criteria so the planning board retains discretion when criteria are not met, or (2) convert the uses to permitted uses and manage them by performance standards. Several members favored reinstating special‑use review for the listed categories so projects that do not meet objective criteria come before the board.

Specific items and numeric guidance
The board and consultant discussed recommended numeric limits in the draft for certain uses. The group agreed on a 5,000 square‑foot cap (approx.) as a reasonable upper threshold for a greenhouse structure where the draft had left a blank. For light‑industrial/manufacturing uses the board discussed and settled on limiting any single building footprint to 10,000 square feet (the draft records aggregate and per‑building options; the board chose the per‑building limit to avoid multi‑story circumventions).

Public comment and procedural items
Town Councilor Michael Iannotti urged the board to make the planning docket and applicant materials more accessible online and suggested improving microphones so remote viewers can hear solicitor and planner remarks. The board voted to recommend the amended supplemental use regulations to the Town Council; the motion carried and staff will forward the draft and an advisory opinion on consistency with the comprehensive plan to the council for consideration.

What happens next
The Planning Board’s vote forwards the proposed 4.4 language (with the objective criteria and the numeric limits discussed) to the Town Council for amendment of the zoning ordinance. If the council adopts changes, the affected uses will return to special‑use review with objective standards, and applicants that do not meet the standards would need a special‑use approval rather than a by‑right permit.","The board voted to forward proposed changes to Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the zoning ordinance to the Town Council; consultant Ashley Sweet presented draft objective criteria to permit the board to reintroduce special‑use review for several uses that had become effectively permitted after recent state law changes.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6111963,"Board schedules site visit, continues Levi Lane automotive site hearing after cleanup and zoning concerns",1106,7283000,8389000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2749820-18352e5b391d515d9910a992b478ad7d&start=7283&end=8389","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2749820-18352e5b391d515d9910a992b478ad7d/thumbnail_7283000.jpg","/articles/6111963/Rhode-Island/Board-schedules-site-visit-continues-Levi-Lane-automotive-site-hearing-after-cleanup-and-zoning-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6111963-f230b7662926c97f8c86111650efb44e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770487064&Signature=dlLUL0zozons34KQkP13XmPsEBr6wvKyGBvwsHAxt5m5uO87FBPAWoS3YsYdAg639cnu0nOHUm7MZ1gbsevjTP0bwof0U6bSCTDqOx9gOQurjiZHRTzHRzMGBX56v67-ckTuy9nQa1AtYIDZI2N-k76TIF4Lbpa4sPdMqxniCCyShLDFSYJdWa5920zOi68b7yB8ubBgdp0XSJfa7MOq-8FjzKM2dIx7c2bvUSTlgiIFb0nWVXsSPkbtBM6n9eMCPZF0SwQy~EPhKUziiNzyNxUxytHCj9lYdDNQnyI0NoYE50Vmi80zr3Ca0yvAa01TX2MRa-uwqcFdNy~bDkrykw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Attorney Hagop Joharjan appeared for Albert Properties and said his client seeks special‑use and minor dimensional variances for a mixed commercial/vehicle service site at 20 Levi Lane. Joharjan said the property contained a number of preexisting buildings and that some dilapidated structures and materials were on site when his client purchased the parcel in 2016; he said his client performed cleanup and had been engaged in municipal‑court proceedings and fines related to past violations.

Board action and site visit
The board voted to conduct a site visit at 9:00 a.m. on March 29 and continued the hearing to April 17 (time‑permitting) so members could inspect the property in person before acting on special‑use and dimensional relief. The motion for a site visit carried with a majority; one member recorded opposition to in‑person site visits as a practice but the board directed staff to plan the visit.

What the application would change
Counsel said the applicant seeks to regularize four existing buildings (including one eastward building counsel described as preexisting) and to obtain a special use permit to store construction equipment and materials. Joharjan stated there are no current plans to store fuel on the property; he said oil‑delivery trucks using the site leave empty and do not refuel there.

Resident concerns and enforcement history
Several residents and board members said the site had a history of unpermitted structures, tires in wetlands that required DEM involvement, and apparent accumulation of construction debris and vehicles. The attorney said some fines (municipal court penalties in the low‑thousands) were imposed and some cleanup occurred as part of the court and enforcement process; he also said the applicant is negotiating to acquire adjacent parcels (GlobalSignal property) that could enable a future connector road, although any connection would require separate engineering and permits.

Permitting and outstanding items
The applicant and staff said a DEM stormwater/alteration application has been submitted and remains under review. Joharjan said his clients were willing to work with the town and would present updated drawings if they acquire the abutting parcel. The board emphasized that any approvals could be conditioned on full cleanup, DEM stormwater approval and specific conditions addressing storage, setbacks and site management.

Next steps
The planning board will inspect the site on March 29 at 9:00 a.m.; the public hearing was continued to the board’s April 17 agenda for further testimony and possible action after the visit.","The board set a March 29 site visit and continued the public hearing to April 17 for a property at 20 Levi Lane where the operator (Astar Oil/Albert Properties) seeks variances and special‑use relief; residents and board members raised concerns about prior unpermitted activity, fines, stormwater and potential contamination.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board continues review of 74‑unit Greenville Farms affordable housing proposal after residents raise water, traffic and soils concerns

Planning board forwards draft zoning amendments to Town Council to restore special‑use review for several commercial uses

Board schedules site visit, continues Levi Lane automotive site hearing after cleanup and zoning concerns