Planning board delays Greenville Farms preliminary plan after experts disagree on orchard soil testing

The Smithfield Planning Board voted June 26 to continue the preliminary-plan review of the proposed Residence Ag/Greenville Farms comprehensive-permit project (ID 2008) to Aug. 21, 2025, and directed the applicant to perform additional soil testing to address concerns about historic orchard pesticides and arsenic.

The board’s action followed more than three hours of expert testimony and public comment that centered on whether the site’s Phase I environmental screening adequately characterized contamination risks in shallow soils on portions of the property historically used as an apple orchard.

Town peer reviewer Dave Hazebrook of Lakeshore Environmental told the board he found “data gaps” in the applicant’s sampling: the consultant’s Phase I combined samples taken from 0–2 feet may dilute higher concentrations present in the top soil, and only four of the 12 samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides. “If none of them exceed 7 parts per million,” Hazebrook said of arsenic screening, “then there’s no reason to believe that it’s a significant contaminant if samples are taken appropriately and are representative.” But he recommended additional shallow, discrete samples targeted to historic orchard areas and shallow pesticide testing to reduce the likelihood of missing worst‑case exposures.

The applicant’s environmental consultant, Rick Mandel of Sage Environmental, defended the Phase I approach as a conservative screening method given the site’s planned large‑scale regrading: “We collected our soil samples using hand augers, at 6‑inch intervals down to 2 feet. Took those 4 samples, cores, put them in a clean bucket, collected the sample from that. That’s the idea of a composite. And, as a screening mechanism, we believe that’s appropriate,” Mandel said. He said all 12 samples were below current DEM comparison values.

Town peer reviewer Todd Green of GZA, who reviewed stormwater and drainage, said his firm’s comments on hydraulics had been resolved with the applicant’s engineer and that the proposed drainage design and ponds, as updated, meet the applicable stormwater guidelines. “We concur that the system as designed with the modifications made … meets the standards of the stormwater manual,” Green said.

Board members pressed both environmental reviewers. Hazebrook said discrete samples taken at shallow depths (for example, about 6 inches) are more likely to detect surface‑applied pesticide concentrations than composites that mix shallow and deeper material. He also said Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) guidance for former apple orchards calls for discrete shallow sampling and a higher minimum sampling frequency than what the applicant provided.

Mandel acknowledged the DEM orchard guidance but said the work requested of Sage was a Phase I screening, not a full remedial site investigation. He added that Sage would be willing to do additional sampling if the board requires it and that Sage’s current report could support financing and next‑stage approvals.

Following the technical testimony, several residents urged the board to require more extensive testing before any approval. Charles Francis Boyd said the town should “make them do it, the safety of the town,” and Pamela Long, who lives directly adjacent to the site, told the board she found “it very hard to believe that that soil’s fine.” Several other neighbors said they had observed orchard spraying historically and expressed concern about potential health risks.

After discussion, the board made a motion to continue the matter to the Aug. 21, 2025 meeting and to stop the vesting clock while the applicant, in consultation with the town’s peer reviewer, performs the additional testing. The motion specified that sampling follow DEM guidance for historically agricultural properties (targeting areas of known orchard use), include discrete shallow samples (surface to 2 feet, with emphasis on the top 6–12 inches), and increase the number of pesticide analyses (organoclorine pesticides) rather than limiting pesticide testing to only a few locations. The motion passed by roll call; the board recorded the result as a 7–1 vote in favor.

Board Chair and staff said the applicant agreed to perform the testing, and the board designated a planning‑board representative to observe the sampling. The applicant’s counsel said the team is amenable to additional sampling and that the applicant will coordinate with Lakeshore Environmental and the town’s peer reviewers in the coming weeks.

What’s next: The board will revisit the Residence Ag application on Aug. 21, 2025, with the new sampling results and peer‑review responses. If the additional testing shows contaminant levels above DEM criteria, the board noted that further regulatory steps — including notification to DEM and a possible site investigation plan — could be triggered under state remediation rules.