Planning board opens public hearing, then continues review of proposed zoning overlay for Pound Hill Road quarry

The North Smithfield Planning Board opened a public hearing Feb. 13 on a proposed text amendment and zoning-map change to create an Industrial Special Management District (ISM-1) for an 89-acre sand-and-gravel operation along Pound Hill Road, then continued the item to the board's March 13 meeting so the applicant can supply additional expert testimony and the board can draft recommended stipulations to forward to the Town Council.

William Landry, attorney for Pound Hill Realty, told the board the amendment would formalize oversight, require an annual submission of permits and inspection reports to the town, set hours of operation, require a development plan/site-plan approval by the planning board, and establish buffers, berms and benching requirements for the historic quarry operation. Landry described the request as an alternative to litigation and said it was intended to give the town more regulatory control than currently exists by statute or in practice. "We're proposing a special management district that allows the historic use but creates controls on how far it can go, buffering, screening and oversight," Landry said.

Several speakers raised concerns during public comment about increased truck traffic, blasting vibration, fugitive dust, forest clearing and potential impacts to the town's aquifer and nearby Superfund sites. Rebecca D'Costafaro, an abutter at 1931 Pound Hill Road, said blasting and daily processing have intensified and that the area is within an aquifer recharge zone. "I bought a farm to enjoy living in a residential agricultural area, and all I hear Monday through Saturday is the constant beep beep beep of trucks moving around the quarry," she said, adding that she and other residents worry about water quality and property values.

Other residents described cracking walls, well problems and a perceived increase in blasting and truck counts. Multiple speakers asked for tighter buffers, more frequent and rapid public notification of monitoring results or violations, quarterly or live notifications of blasting schedules, independent peer review of environmental and blasting reports, and enforceable limits on hours and truck movements. Several requested that the planning board recommend that the council require third-party peer review at the applicant's expense for expert reports on water, blasting and air quality.

Planning staff and board members raised questions about comprehensive-plan consistency, groundwater protection overlay rules and whether the proposed overlay is the correct mechanism. Mr. Porter and others listed multiple comprehensive-plan policies that appear inconsistent with the proposal, including goals to preserve rural character, protect aquifers and avoid incompatible nonresidential uses in residential neighborhoods. Attorney Landry responded that the site is already a long-standing industrial operation with nonconforming rights and that a tailored overlay could provide the town with authority and transparency not currently in place.

After extensive public comment and board questions, the board voted to continue the item to its March 13 meeting. Planning staff asked the applicant to provide the promised expert reports and to work with staff to draft precise stipulations the board could forward to the Town Council. The board also recommended, as part of its deliberations, that the council consider requiring peer review of applicant-submitted technical reports.