Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Quarrying topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing on Pound Hill quarry amendment delayed after mailing error; applicant offers to re-advertise
Summary
A public hearing on a proposed zoning change to allow quarrying on an 89-acre parcel in North Smithfield was not held after required abutter notices were not mailed. The applicant's attorney said the omission was a clerical error; the council voted to re-notice and continue the hearing.
A scheduled public hearing on an application by Pound Hill Realty LLC to create an Industrial Special Management District overlay for a parcel in North Smithfield was not held Oct. 6 after required mailed notices to abutters were not sent, the town heard.
The hearing was set to consider text and map amendments to rezone a roughly 89.44-acre property (assessor's plat 7, lot 38) from rural/agricultural designations to an industrial overlay that would allow mining, quarrying, sand and gravel extraction and related processing. The council opened the matter but then paused after it became clear required mailed notices to abutters within the statutory radius had not been distributed.
The council president said the notice issue prevented a lawful hearing because people who should have received mail notice could claim they were denied their right to be heard. Bridal Hurley, who stated he was representing the applicant, told the council the omission was his clerical error: the town had provided an email instructing the applicant's representatives to prepare affidavits and mail the notices, Hurley said, but the letters were never sent. He said the advertisement itself had been placed and that the applicant did not know about the mailing mistake.
Hurley also said the peer-review consultant, GZA, was not available that night and that the primary purpose of the scheduled meeting was to receive GZA’s presentation. Councilors and the town solicitor agreed that because both the abutter notices and the consultant presentation were missing, the meeting could not accomplish its principal purpose. Town staff and the applicant discussed options for rescheduling within statutory notice windows; the applicant offered to cover re-advertising costs.
The council moved to re-notice the hearing and table the item to a future advertised date; the motion passed on a roll call. Council members discussed possible dates between Nov. 3 and Nov. 17 and the possibility of a special meeting once GZA and the planning board were available. Town staff said they will coordinate scheduling with the planning board and GZA and will confirm a date and location before re-advertising.
The council and applicant also discussed where a future hearing would be held if attendance exceeded the council chamber’s capacity; the town solicitor advised that the council must open the hearing in the advertised location and, if necessary because of crowding, recess and reconvene at the advertised alternate location (the middle school) rather than simply shifting venues without notice.
The council directed staff to re-advertise and re-notice abutters in accordance with the statutory requirements; the applicant said it would bear the cost of re-advertising. No substantive issues on the zoning proposal were decided at the Oct. 6 meeting.
The council said it will set a date certain for a future hearing and coordinate with the planning board so that the peer-review presentation by GZA can be provided and the public can comment.
