Committee accepts Option 3 as primary site plan for proposed senior center; Option 2 set as backup

A North Smithfield committee voted to accept site Option 3 as the primary plan for the proposed senior center and Option 2 as the secondary, moving the designs forward for further review and initial permitting.

Committee members emphasized that Option 3 keeps the building outside the DEM jurisdictional zone while placing most parking closer to the senior center entrance, which they said improves accessibility and aligns with the project master plan. A committee member moved “to accept plan option 3 as the primary and option 2 as the secondary for further review.” Another committee member seconded the motion, and the measure passed on a voice vote.

The committee framed the vote as a preliminary step to begin discussions with DEM and to prepare a recommendation to the Town Council. “This is only preliminary,” a committee member said, asking colleagues to focus discussion on the four site options so staff can take the committee’s preference to permitting officials. The member added, “If there’s one that sticks out over the other, let’s talk about that. Personally, I agree with Joel. I prefer site option plan 3.”

Why it matters: the committee repeatedly referenced the DEM permitting boundary as the key constraint. At several points members urged selecting a layout that minimizes jurisdictional impacts to simplify permitting and preserve functionality and design. One participant said the chosen approach “puts the building out of the jurisdictional zone, which makes this relatively not controversial.”

Design and program details discussed - Parking and access: Committee members noted the proposed plan provides a covered walkway from the parking lot to the building and a convenient drop-off for mobility-impaired visitors. A speaker observed that the 50 parking spaces shown are “dictated by code” and compared the site to larger senior centers that typically provide more spaces; the speaker said they were comfortable with the 50-space figure for this facility. - Multipurpose room and seating: Plans show a multipurpose room with about 200 seats in one scheme; the committee discussed options to reduce the room and still preserve program rooms. One alternative reduced the multipurpose room to about 150 seats to save square footage and cost. - Accessibility, operations and sheltering: Members discussed adding a unisex restroom with a shower (by shaving space from the janitor’s closet) so the building could serve as an EMA (Emergency Management Agency) cooling/heating center and potentially operate as an overnight shelter if needed. A committee member said adding a shower would “certainly help us with the EMA funding.” - Phasing and budget flexibility: The architects presented options to remove or combine certain program rooms if budgets require savings; the plans identify alternate rooms that could be omitted without losing core functions. - Community amenities and concerns: The committee considered keeping an existing double-court (basketball) rather than converting it to pickleball courts, citing likely noise concerns from neighbors and the low cost/value of retaining the basketball court. They also discussed a community garden location close to service access so maintenance staff can use dump trucks and equipment conveniently.

Public comment and momentum Resident Diane Martin urged faster action. “I would just like to see this really done in my lifetime,” she said, warning that repeated delays risked losing community enthusiasm and volunteer fundraising opportunities. Committee members responded by stressing the preliminary nature of the vote and outlining next steps — sharing PDFs with absent members, continuing staff conversations with DEM, and preparing a recommendation for the Town Council.

Next steps and approvals The committee’s acceptance of Option 3 (with Option 2 as backup) is a recommendation for further review and permitting discussions. Committee members said the plan will proceed to DEM for initial permitting conversations and ultimately to the Town Council for formal approval; the final site plan and any required changes will be subject to council action. Staff said they would circulate the plan documents to committee members for additional input before council submission.

Votes at a glance - Motion: “Accept plan option 3 as the primary and option 2 as the secondary for further review.” Mover: not specified. Second: not specified. Outcome: approved by voice vote; tally not specified.

Ending Committee members described the vote as a practical step to break the planning impasse and to let staff begin formal permitting discussions. They asked staff to share the plan PDFs with members and encouraged at least one follow-up online meeting to collect additional input before going to the council.