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

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.