Applicant seeks preliminary plan approval, variance for fence at Material Sampling Technologies site on Central Street

Material Sampling Technologies requested preliminary plan approval and a variance to allow a six-foot chain-link security fence in the front and side yards of a proposed 23,700-square-foot warehouse at Assessor’s Plat 1, Lot 461 on Central Street in North Smithfield.

The request — presented during a unified development review — included site plans showing a single-story building about 230 feet by 120 feet on a roughly 9.7-acre lot in the MU-2 zone; three loading docks; 12 parking spaces (four required by code); permeable pavement areas; and an 1,800-foot extension of a water main to bring domestic and fire protection service to the site and adjacent properties. Julie Sarzane, counsel for the applicant, said the project previously received master-plan approval and that the application before the board seeks preliminary-plan approval plus relief for the proposed security fence.

Why it matters: the lot contains wetlands and other resource constraints that limit developable area, and the applicant’s request to place security fencing within required yards raised visual and screening concerns among board members and neighbors. The master-plan approval for the project is due to expire this month, and the applicant said it will ask for an extension if necessary.

Planning staff and applicants described environmental and permitting status, site layout and screening. Joe Cassello, a registered professional engineer for the applicant, said the proposed fence "is going to mimic what's out there today. It's a 6-foot high chain link fence. There are no privacy slots in it." Cassello explained the fence will lie mostly behind proposed landscaping and that only about one acre of the 9.7-acre parcel would be disturbed for development.

The project team described multiple environmental encumbrances. They told the board a swamp on or adjacent to the parcel is greater than three acres and includes a 50-foot perimeter wetland; there are additional small forested wetlands under three acres (which the presenters said do not trigger certain buffer requirements); and an intermittent stream under 10 feet wide with an associated 100-foot riverbank wetland. The applicant reported that a freshwater-wetlands permit application had been submitted to the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and that, in the team’s account, DEM approval is in place through 2026 for prior wetlands work tied to the project.

Project utilities and access were reviewed. The applicant described tying to an existing force main in Central Street for restrooms and extending a water line nearly 1,800 linear feet to provide domestic and fire service, with a hydrant at the terminus. The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a physical-alteration permit for work on the water line, and the water and sewer commissions have signed off, the applicant reported.

Board members and neighbors pressed the applicant for details on visual screening and security. A board member identified in the transcript as Mister Calvi asked whether the fence would be a typical industrial chain-link design; Cassello answered yes. A different member, identified as Mister Casalevich in the transcript, asked about rear-yard security given the team’s statement that there would be "no lighting in the back or the rear of the building; none at all." The applicant said a small code-required wall pack will be located at a rear egress door and that cameras would be used for security. On lighting control, the applicant agreed that the small required door light could be tied to an occupancy sensor.

Landscape architect Diane Soule presented a landscape plan that the team said would place most screening between Central Street and the fence; the application packages included photometric plans intended to meet the town’s foot-candle requirements at property lines. The applicant said that, where possible, porous pavement is proposed to assist drainage and that stormwater measures (trenches, lined retention filters, subdrains and other controls) are intended to meet DEM standards.

Background and procedural notes: the presenters said the project received a master-plan approval in an earlier round, sought dimensional relief at the zoning board and that the Superior Court later reversed the zoning-board decision (the transcript references that court action but does not supply a case name or date). Because the project’s status and applicable rules changed while it moved through approvals, it is being heard under the town’s unified-development review process, the applicant said.

No final board action or vote on the preliminary plan or the variance appears in the provided transcript excerpt. The transcript does record an unrelated motion, early in the meeting, "that the minutes be accepted," but a vote on that motion is not included in the excerpt.

Votes at a glance: No formal vote or recorded outcome on the Material Sampling Technologies preliminary plan or variance is included in the transcript excerpt provided.

What’s next: the applicant said it would request a master-plan extension if needed and is seeking final decisions on the preliminary plan and the variance. Staff and the project team indicated additional materials and permit approvals (DEM, DOT, water and sewer commissions) are part of the permitting path before final construction approvals.