Zoning board continues review of proposed fueling facility at 44 Railroad Street

The North Smithfield Zoning Board of Review on March 25 continued until April 8 an application from M and M Transport LLC for a special use permit and dimensional variances affecting a property at 44 Railroad Street.

The board’s chair said the application and supporting plans lack critical information and raised legal and procedural problems that must be resolved before the board can decide. The property owner is listed as 4 Sons LLC, and the applicant’s engineer, Damien Dimitrick of Conoco Engineers and Scientists, attended the hearing.

The board identified multiple issues, including inconsistent lot-coverage figures in submitted materials (the application lists 24% while the town’s relevant exemption referenced in the record is 20%), removal of a required southern buffer that had been specified in an earlier special use permit, and an apparent increase in impervious area. The chair said those discrepancies affect whether the project is exempt under ordinance 6.19 and whether the Zoning Board retains jurisdiction for a special use permit under the town’s updated rules.

“The application never stopped,” the chair said on the record, adding later, “we don't have what we need,” and urging the applicant to consult the town planner and provide written guidance from the planner or planning board on whether ordinance 6.19 and the Unified Development Review (UDR) or development-plan-review process apply.

Board members and counsel discussed four procedural options: approve, deny, grant limited dimensional relief while directing the applicant to the planning board for special-use review, or continue/withdraw the application so the applicant can pursue planning-board review first. The chair said the town’s January UDR changes expanded the planning board’s authority and that the planning board may now handle special-use permits and some variances that previously were heard exclusively by the zoning board.

Dimitrick asked whether tabling the application while pursuing planning-board review would be sufficient or whether the applicant must withdraw and resubmit. Town counsel and the chair advised that either tabling to a date certain or withdrawing and resubmitting would trigger public-notice and advertising requirements, and that the applicant should secure a memorandum from the town planner or the planning board documenting whether the planning board will accept jurisdiction or whether a waiver or exemption applies.

The board also requested clearer site plans. The chair asked the applicant to explicitly show the 10-foot accessory-use setback that is relevant to the fueling pads and tanks (the application materials referenced a 40-foot setback in places), to mark whether the fueling aprons/pads are inside the 10-foot setback, and to clarify whether the accessory use area exceeds the ordinance allowance (an accessory use may cover up to 25% of the side or rear, per the materials cited at the hearing). The chair noted the previous special-use permit from the mid-1990s prohibited improvements in certain areas and said the current visible site work appears inconsistent with that prior permit.

Board members also raised technical compliance questions outside the zoning board’s direct jurisdiction but relevant to permitting, including references to Rhode Island DEM AST standards, monitoring wells shown on plans, the location and discharge of catch basins, and whether septic components on the plan had required permits. The chair said those items should be addressed with the planner and, where required, other regulatory agencies.

After discussion, the board voted to continue the application ZBR 24-02 to a date certain of April 8, 2024, and instructed the applicant to consult the town planner and submit any planner or planning-board memoranda about the applicability of ordinance 6.19 and whether development-plan-review/UDR applies. The board asked the applicant to correct and resubmit plans showing: accurate lot-coverage figures, clear setbacks and dimensions for tanks and pads, documentation about buffer removal, and any correspondence from the planner or planning board about jurisdiction or exemptions.

Votes at a glance: The board voted unanimously to continue the application to April 8, 2024. Present for the roll call were members Najarian, Boston, Benoit, MacChantonio, Gill and Savini; member Gail Burlinghoff recused herself.

The applicant may return to the zoning board after obtaining the planner’s written guidance or after pursuing development-plan review with the planning board, as the planner advises. The board did not approve or deny any relief at the March 25 hearing.