North Smithfield council continues public hearing on Pinehill quarry zoning; agrees to peer review of company experts

The North Smithfield Town Council on March 17 continued a public hearing on a proposed zoning map and text amendment that would create an Industrial Special Management District 1 overlay to allow mining, sand and gravel extraction, crushing and material processing on an 89.44-acre parcel owned by Pinehill Realty LLC.

The measure matters because it would change the permitted uses of land described in the petition as Tax Assessor's Map/Plot 7 Lot 38 (14 Pine Hill Road / area near Old Oxford Road and Pound Hill Road), potentially allowing quarrying activities closer to existing homes and the town aquifer.

Attorney William Landry, representing Pinehill Realty LLC, opened the company's presentation and outlined the applicant's plan for further technical testing and mitigation proposals. "We agreed that during this process ... we'll have a complete water-quality test conducted and a mitigation proposal from a firm that deals specifically with dust and silica testing protocols," Landry said, describing work the applicant expects to provide before the planning board’s next meeting.

The council heard extended public comment from residents who live near the existing Palm Hill Road quarry and from independent technical witnesses. Mike Hammond, who described himself as a former Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) inspector and now a trainer with Independent Safety Associates, testified about how MSHA conducts noise and dust (silica) surveys and described typical sampling methods. "What I would do is... I do the inspection and I look... who's going to be the most at risk for noise and dust," Hammond said. He described personal-sampling pumps and cyclones used to collect respirable dust over an 8-hour shift and said most of his sampled operations were below the then-applicable MSHA permissible exposure limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter averaged over an 8-hour shift. Hammond also told the council that MSHA planned to align with OSHA’s lower limit — 25 micrograms — beginning in April 2026.

Richard "Rick" Grohl, a consulting seismologist/geologist who testified for the applicant, told the council that much of the respirable particulate matter that affects houses in the area often originates from paved road traffic and other local sources rather than the quarry itself. "There is very little potential for dust coming off of this project to affect these homes the way that the roads around affect these homes," Grohl said, explaining that respirable fractions (PM10 and PM2.5) are invisible and travel on air currents.

Multiple residents described long-running quality-of-life issues they attribute to quarry operations on nearby properties. Dominic Rigganese, who said he lives a short distance from the facility, described sustained noise and truck traffic and warned of property-value impacts. Robert Bellamy and other residents said blast-related vibration had damaged wells and houses in the past and expressed concern about continued operations near homes and the town’s aquifer.

Council members and the applicant discussed next steps. After public comment and technical testimony, the council voted to continue the public hearing to May 5, 2025, to allow time for the planning board work and for the town to obtain an independent, peer-review evaluation of the technical testimony already in the record. The council also approved a separate motion accepting Pinehill Realty’s offer to reimburse the town for the peer-review experts, subject to the town planner and the town agreeing on qualifications, scope and cost before any contract is finalized. Council members said the selection of experts would be managed through the town planner’s office and that reimbursement would follow ordinary town procurement and contracting policies.

The council emphasized the limited scope of the actions taken on March 17: no zoning change was approved and no final permits were issued. The hearing remains open and the council asked that any technical reports be submitted in time for the May 5 meeting so they can be included in the public record and reviewed by the town’s peer reviewers.

The council also asked the applicant to provide the promised dust-control mitigation proposal and any water-quality testing results before the continued hearing. Planning and legal staff advised the council that state statutes govern the planning board recommendation process and that the council’s ultimate zoning decision will be guided by the municipal zoning ordinance and the hearing record.

The council’s actions on March 17 were procedural: continuing the hearing to a specific date and approving a process to obtain independent review of technical materials. The zoning amendment will return for further public hearings and deliberation after the town’s peer-review work and subsequent planning-board activity.