East Greenwich residents press council to tighten noise rules for Division Road and Ridgeline Estates projects

Several East Greenwich residents told the Town Council on Feb. 3 they fear upcoming site work for two large developments will create excessive, health‑threatening noise in neighborhoods that now enjoy quiet residential and agricultural use.

At the meeting’s public‑comment period, John Holmanda, a Signal Ridge resident, asked the council to “address … town regulation 152‑4 and 152‑6,” which he said allow construction exceptions that can produce “unlimited noise levels.” He warned that rock‑crushing equipment likely to be used for site work would not be contained on the lots and could “compromise the health and safety of East Greenwich residents.”

The comments focused on two projects discussed by speakers: a larger Division Road comprehensive‑permit development and the Ridgeline Estates application. Multiple residents emphasized proximity of houses, horse boarding and equine‑therapy businesses to the planned work. Pam Steer Malouf, who identified herself as owner of Faith Hill Farm and co‑owner of Hill And Hollow Farm on Division Road, said the development “is going to affect the health and well‑being” of people and animals on her property and warned that several boarding clients were already planning to leave once construction begins. She said, “My business is not going to survive this.”

Councilors and the town solicitor described where authority lies. Solicitor Mr. Squares said both projects are currently before the Planning Board: Division Road was denied at the master‑plan stage by the Planning Board but subsequently approved on appeal by the State Housing Appeals Board, which narrowed the town’s options. The solicitor said the state decision produced concessions from the developer, including an offer to restrict 50% of the Division Road units to residents age 55 and older. The solicitor advised that “comments can be given to the Planning Board” and that “the Planning Board does have the review” during the next stage of review.

Council President Mark Schwager and other councilors said the council can consider changes to the local noise ordinance, but those changes must follow the town’s normal legislative procedures. The solicitor noted the current local exception for construction noise allows work between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and warned that projects may already have vested rights under the applications submitted to the Planning Board. Schwager added that the council had already begun targeted noise regulations (music on Main Street and the waterfront) and that the third piece would be a broader community noise ordinance covering landscaping and construction.

To give residents and councilors time to explore changes, Schwager said the council will hold a work session in the spring to consider revisions to the noise ordinance and to focus on “nuisances and exempt items” including construction exemptions. He also encouraged residents to file comments with the Planning Board while applications are under review.

Speakers urged specific remedies including engineered noise controls or off‑site rock crushing; one resident said there is an existing rock‑crushing operation in West Greenwich that could be used as an alternative. Multiple commenters raised concerns about notice: one resident said he and his neighbors near Division Road received no mailed notice and that only abutters are guaranteed mailed notice under state law. The solicitor reiterated the statutory notice rule: applicants must publish a newspaper notice and mail notice to abutters within a statutory radius (the solicitor said “within 200 [feet]” as the standard that triggers mailed notice for abutters).

Why it matters: developers’ site work—particularly heavy equipment, jackhammers and rock crushing—can generate high sound and vibration levels and has raised objections from abutters and farm owners who say the town’s current construction exception does not protect residents’ quiet enjoyment or the welfare of animals on nearby properties. Residents urged prompt consideration; the council committed to a spring workshop but emphasized that Planning Board hearings remain the formal venue for project‑level conditions while holdings and appeals may limit immediate local control.

Next steps: public comments on both projects remain open at Planning Board hearings; the Town Council plans a spring noise‑ordinance work session and advised residents to submit written comments to the Planning Board while applications proceed there.