The North Smithfield Planning Board used part of its Oct. 9 meeting to discuss an ongoing charter review committee outreach effort, public education needs about planning and zoning, cross‑board coordination and the operational impacts of the state’s Unified Development Review changes.

A planning board member who also serves on the charter review committee introduced the item as an initial outreach seeking input on what has been working, what needs change and how to prioritize charter amendments so voters are not presented with an excessive number of questions. The board heard planning‑department staff describe the transition under state law from separate planning and zoning reviews toward unified review and said the board’s adjustment to the new responsibilities has been “very smooth.” The planner noted applicants have generally adjusted to the change and that, when projects formerly went between separate boards, the process sometimes resulted in conflicting decisions and litigation.

Board members and staff raised several recurring concerns and proposals: more proactive resident education about the comprehensive plan and planning processes (several members suggested workshops or a short online handbook), periodic joint meetings or training across boards and commissions to reduce siloing (for example with conservation, parks & recreation and the senior commission), renewed engagement with the conservation commission and exploration of an open‑space plan that would cross multiple boards, and confirming whether the planning board has produced required annual reports to the town council (members reported they had not seen recent annual reports). A member offered that Rhode Island Housing Works has a presenter (named in the meeting) who can provide local education about low‑ and moderate‑income housing.

Planning staff raised staffing and workload concerns should the town choose to merge zoning and planning into a single “super board.” Staff said a combined board would increase application processing and likely require at least one additional planning‑department staff person; the planning department currently is stretched to keep up with existing work. Board members discussed alternatives, including clearer role definitions (major vs. minor projects), renaming to reflect function, and periodic coordination between the two boards rather than full consolidation.

Members encouraged expanded civic outreach such as workshops, boot camps, or collaborative charrettes to improve resident participation and to foster cross‑commission coordination. The board did not take formal votes on charter changes or staffing; the discussion was recorded for the charter review committee and for future meetings.