Smithfield board hears detailed presentation on Greenville Farms preliminary plan; public hearing continued for peer review and traffic study

The Smithfield Planning Board on Jan. 16 heard a detailed preliminary-plan presentation for the Greenville Farms project, a proposed condominium development on West Greenville Road by West Greenwich Road LLC, and agreed to continue the public hearing for independent review.

The applicant, represented by John Mancini, said the submission proposes 37 duplex condominium buildings for a total of 74 units, with a 25% affordable component, and asked the board to consider the preliminary plans while an independent traffic review is completed. “The proposal in front of you consists of 37 duplex condominium units, for a total of 74 units,” Mancini said. “Of the 74 units, 25% will be affordable, complying with the Rhode Island General laws concerning the comprehensive permit.”

Board members and residents raised a series of technical and community concerns — chiefly traffic, sewer and water infrastructure, stormwater and wetlands impacts, the project’s bedroom mix, and buffering to adjacent properties. After presentations from the applicant’s engineer and public comment, the board voted to continue the hearing to March 20 and to suspend the permit “clock” to April 12 so the town’s peer review of the traffic study can be completed.

Why it matters: The project seeks to use the state comprehensive-permit process to deliver more housing density than the local zoning ordinarily allows; if approved it would add 74 units and associated infrastructure to a largely rural area of Smithfield. The board’s decision to delay final action until the town’s independent technical reviews are complete means the project will undergo additional scrutiny on traffic, stormwater and environmental impacts before any binding approvals.

What the applicants presented: Sam Hemingway, the project engineer, described changes made since master-plan approval, including a reduction in total units from an earlier conceptual plan, reconfigured road terminals and added buffering. Hemingway said the site is roughly 40–43 acres, with about 60% open ground and interconnected wetlands on the eastern portion of the lot. He summarized stormwater measures including two larger vegetative treatment systems, individual lot-level rain gardens and rooftop infiltration for some homes, and said the design aims first to treat water quality before on-site discharge.

On utilities, Hemingway said the project will be served by new public water and sewer mains extended from Smith Avenue. The plan calls for a gravity sewer within the site that discharges to a privately owned pump station and force main; the developer has proposed the pump station and force main be private up to the point of discharge but said that could be deeded to the town by agreement. “The intent is for a gravity sewer system within the property and a privately owned and maintained pump station,” Hemingway said. He added the design includes a new 12-inch water main extension to improve fire flow and domestic pressure at the remote site.

Bedroom-count dispute: A central procedural issue at the hearing involved a prior master-plan decision that some members of the board read as limiting units to two bedrooms each. Mancini said the applicant’s review of the prior record and transcript led them to conclude that the earlier meeting only “considered” a reduction to two bedrooms and did not make it a binding condition. “Our position is ... that it was not a condition of master-plan approval,” Mancini told the board. Board counsel and several members said the recorded decision and their recollection support the view that the order imposed a two-bedroom limitation; the applicant said it reduced the number of bedrooms from the earlier submission but disagreed the two-bedroom limit is mandatory.

Infrastructure and environmental concerns raised by the board and residents: Speakers from the public and board members questioned water pressure at the high point of the system, whether neighboring properties could tie into the developer-installed sewer main, the private-versus-public status of the sewer force main (and the maintenance implications), the adequacy of turnarounds for emergency vehicles, and the age/stability of an earthen berm on the site. The applicant said RIDEM has been reviewing the formal wetlands alteration permit for many months and that stormwater and wetland impacts were part of the state submission. Hemingway noted an environmental Phase I focused on historic farm pesticide use and said no contaminant levels exceeding residential standards were found in the report provided to the town.

Public comment: About a dozen residents spoke. Concerns included flood risk and the condition of an earthen berm, possible contamination from historic agricultural uses, impacts to wells and groundwater, traffic and large-vehicle turning, proximity to existing condominium units, and potential school impacts. Matthew Fague, who lives nearby, asked about downstream risk if a berm failed and called for scrutiny of infrastructure. Kathleen Lawrence, a condominium resident, told the board she was concerned that the single entry could impede emergency access and asked that the fire department’s requirements be satisfied.

Board action: The board voted to continue the public hearing to March 20 to allow the town’s independent traffic peer review and to keep the hearing record open. The board also agreed to suspend the permit-decision timeline to April 12 to accommodate the peer-review schedule. Board counsel advised that denial at this stage for lack of a peer review would be legally risky; the board opted for further fact-finding instead.

Next steps: The applicant and town staff agreed the town will seek a traffic peer review and that the applicant will receive the town consultant’s comments at least two weeks before the March hearing. RIDEM’s wetlands review remains pending; the applicant said that application has been with the agency through multiple review steps for more than a year and is awaiting a decision at the agency level.

What remains unresolved: Whether the master-plan decision legally binds the project to two-bedroom units only; whether the sewer and force-main infrastructure will be accepted as public or remain private; final traffic impacts once the independent review is complete; and the state wetland permit outcome.

Ending: The project will return to the Planning Board at the continued hearing on March 20, 2025, after the town’s peer review of traffic and the applicant’s responses to the technical review comments have been posted to the record.