Smithfield planning board denies Greenville Farms preliminary plan after soil tests show arsenic, dieldrin exceedances

The Smithfield Planning Board voted Aug. 21 to deny preliminary-plan approval for the Residents at Greenville Farms development after engineers and peer reviewers told the board that recent soil testing found pesticide and arsenic exceedances that trigger a state remediation process.

Town hearing testimony and lab reports presented by the applicant’s engineers said the project’s revised sampling program used 34 shallow (0–1 foot) samples across the property’s historically orcharded area. “We now know that there’s soil exceedances at the site,” said Eli Salisbury of Hoffman Engineering, who explained the sampling plan and test results and described next steps for dealing with the contamination.

The board’s denial followed extensive public comment and expert testimony. The board member who moved to deny said the application “is not consistent with the comprehensive plan” and cited health, circulation and school‑capacity concerns in a detailed list of findings read into the record. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote; the board recorded the outcome as denial.

Why this matters: testimony at the hearing said the detections of dieldrin (a persistent organochlorine pesticide often linked historically to orchard use) and arsenic trigger Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) procedures for site remediation. Under that process the landowner must submit a release notification to DEM, prepare a site investigation report (SIR) and a remedial action work plan (RAWP); DEM will assign a site remediation number, require public notices to abutters and review proposed remediation measures.

What the engineers said - Hoffman Engineering described the sampling as based on a town policy memo for open‑space/orchard sites and said it took 34 samples to cover the orchard footprint. Salisbury said the team sampled 0–1 foot below grade to avoid diluting surface concentrations and submitted each sample for pesticides, arsenic and lead testing. He told the board that at least one sample exceeded criteria for dieldrin and at least one exceeded for arsenic; none of the 34 samples exceeded for lead. - Salisbury described typical remediation options DEM allows: excavation and off‑site disposal, or on‑site encapsulation (for example, a two‑foot cap of clean pretested soil or a one‑foot clean soil layer over a geotextile demarcation barrier), and said the final remedy will depend on where the contamination footprint is determined to lie. - Hoffman and the town peer reviewer, Lakeshore Environmental, told the board that DEM requires a letter of responsibility, pre‑SIR and post‑SIR public notices to abutters, a SIR that summarizes investigation results and a RAWP proposing and justifying remedial alternatives. Lakeshore’s reviewer also said any engineered controls that remain in place will require annual compliance inspections and that financial assurance (bonding or similar) can be required to ensure funds exist for long‑term maintenance of caps or other controls.

Applicant position and board response Applicant counsel John Mancini told the board the applicant completed the sampling requested by the board and that the property owner intends to pursue the DEM process. Mancini asked the board to grant conditional preliminary approval and allow the remedial action work plan to be submitted at final plan approval, saying the environmental issue was manageable and best handled through the DEM process.

Board members and multiple members of the public disagreed about whether the matter should be resolved before the planning decision. Neighbors told the board they had been unaware of the scale of contamination until the new sampling and urged caution. Matthew Feig, a nearby resident, told the board: “Public safety is number 1, and everybody’s health’s at stake here.” Several other residents said the development scale and contamination together made approval premature.

Outcome and next steps The board concluded it could not make the required local findings for preliminary approval and denied the application. The denial does not prevent the owner from pursuing the DEM remediation process or from returning to the planning board with a revised application that addresses DEM’s requirements and any town concerns. If the owner notifies DEM, the agency will assign a remediation case, require a site investigation, and, depending on findings, approve a remedial action work plan that can include removal, encapsulation or a combination of measures. Where encapsulation is used DEM typically requires recorded land‑use restrictions and annual inspections.

Quotations “We now know that there’s soil exceedances at the site,” Eli Salisbury, Hoffman Engineering. “Public safety is number 1, and everybody’s health’s at stake here,” Matthew Feig, nearby resident. “The application is not consistent with the comprehensive plan,” Board member (mover of the motion to deny).

Context and limits - The testing and regulatory steps discussed at the hearing reference the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) notification, site investigation report and remedial action work plan procedures; the planning board and town do not set DEM cleanup standards. - The hearing record shows 34 samples were taken and that about 10 of those samples were described in testimony as “exceedances” of applicable direct‑exposure criteria (transcript testimony). The exact remedial decision — whether excavation, capping, or other measures — rests with DEM after review of a site investigation and proposed RAWP.

What residents were told to expect Engineers and the town’s peer reviewer said the next steps for the owner are to prepare and submit a DEM release/notification, complete the DEM‑required site investigation (which may include more and deeper samples), then prepare a remedial action work plan for DEM review and public notice to abutters. The timeline depends on DEM’s review workload; witnesses said it could range from a few months to longer depending on the project manager assigned and the complexity of required follow‑up work.

Contact and follow‑up The applicant can return to the planning board with a revised application after completing DEM‑directed steps; neighbors who provided contact information at the hearing asked to be notified of future filings and hearings.