Board approves variances to allow single-family home on industrial-zoned lot at 310 Mount Dale Road

The Federal Springs Building Board of Review voted to approve variances allowing the construction of a single-family house on an industrial-zoned parcel at 310 Mount Dale Road (Plat 18, Lot 80) on Jan. 8, 2025, subject to approval from the state Department of Environmental Management and final review by the town building official.

The applicants, Edward P. Duffy and his son Edward A. Duffy, sought a use variance and multiple dimensional variances for the 1.2-acre lot, which is encumbered by freshwater wetlands and a river buffer. The board’s decision permits a modest, three-bedroom house with an attached two-car garage within the dimensional relief requested, with conditions tied to wetlands permitting and engineered foundation plans.

Attorney Timothy Kane represented the applicants; Joe Casali, a registered professional engineer, described the site constraints, and Edward P. Duffy testified as the property owner and co-applicant. Kane and Casali told the board the site is largely encumbered by jurisdictional wetlands and a 200-foot buffer measured from the Stillwater River centerline. Casali said the usable, contiguous buildable area on the parcel is substantially smaller than the ordinance’s required amount because recent state law changes removed slopes and wetland buffers from the buildable-area calculation.

The applicants asked for the following relief (approximations based on testimony): about 90 feet of front-yard setback relief so the house would sit about 10 feet from the property line (approximately 21 feet from the road pavement); an 8-foot reduction of the side-yard setback (proposing 32 feet where the industrial standard is 40 feet); relief from a provision that otherwise prohibits structures in a nonresidential zone within 100 feet of a residential zone (the proposed home would be about 32 feet from that zone, a requested 68-foot variance); and a variance from the ordinance’s contiguous-buildable-area requirement (the applicants’ engineer estimated roughly 5,000 contiguous buildable square feet vs. about 25,000 required, so they requested roughly a 20,000-square-foot variance).

Edward P. Duffy, identified himself as a Smithfield resident and longtime licensed real estate broker, and said, “We would like to build a modest single family home.” He and the engineering witness said the house footprint was planned to be modest (roughly 900–1,000 square feet footprint, with total living area likely in the 1,500–1,600 square-foot range depending on final design) and that—if needed—design choices such as crawl spaces, basements with sump systems, radon mitigation, and engineered dewatering/foundation solutions would be part of final construction plans.

Town staff and department comments were summarized on the record. Planning staff stated the parcel’s immediate surroundings are residential and that the lot is unlikely to support most industrial uses because of shape and wetlands; planning recommended that the portion fronting Mount Dale Road is consistent with residential use even though the parcel’s official zoning remained industrial on the town map. The engineering department flagged no substantive objections but noted that standard erosion-control and sewer-permit applications would be required if the project proceeds.

During deliberations board members described the parcel as unique and said they found single-family residential to be the most practical and beneficial use given surrounding development and the lot’s constraints. The board’s approval was made with explicit conditions: final approval is contingent on (1) the applicant obtaining required DEM wetlands/permitting approvals, (2) review and acceptance by the town building official of engineered foundation and dewatering plans, and (3) construction constrained to the approved building envelope (the board recorded that living-area footprint should not exceed roughly 1,000 square feet, plus the garage, as part of the approved envelope).

The board also discussed an administrative concern about the applicants’ ownership of an adjacent nonmerged parcel (AP 17 Lot 2). Members advised that any future merging or rezoning that could create conflicts with nearby industrial lots would be handled through the town’s normal land‑use and permitting processes; no additional binding condition was placed on lot‑merger decisions at this hearing.

The public portion of the hearing drew no speakers in favor or opposition. After deliberation the board moved, seconded and voted to approve the application with the conditions noted; the board’s motion specified the approvals were “pending DEM approval and the review of the building official for the design of the foundation.” The record does not identify the member who made the final motion, the second, or an individual roll-call vote tally on the record.

The board closed the matter after the vote. Next steps for the applicants include applying to DEM for any wetlands permits and submitting engineered foundation and site plans to the town for building-review and routine erosion-control and sewer permitting.