Smithfield planning board continues hearing on 74-unit Greenville Farms comprehensive permit amid flooding, school and soil concerns

The Smithfield Planning Board on March 20 continued the public hearing on a comprehensive permit application for a 74-unit project called Greenville Farms, agreeing to reconvene the matter on April 17 after hearing testimony from the applicant and extensive public comment.

The applicantwas represented by attorney John Mancini, who told the board his client received a DEM permit on the day of the hearing and had provided it to the town planner. Mancini said the revised plan reduces the development from the initial 296 units presented in earlier versions to 74 units and that the project will include 37 two-bedroom and 37 three-bedroom units. "Given the land size, given the design, given the location, two bedrooms and three bedrooms are what the numbers work best," Mancini said.

Mancini also told the board his client prepared an economic analysis and a market-demand review to justify the unit mix. "We reduced the size of the overall project," he said. "By reducing the size of the overall project, it also decreases the cost of your infrastructure, decreases the cost of your overall construction. So that allows us to add more two bedrooms." Mancini said the applicant would provide a fiscal impact study and an analysis of plan consistency at the next hearing if the board wanted that information for planning purposes, but he repeatedly stated that under the comprehensive-permit statute the applicant is not required to submit a fiscal-impact analysis as a basis for approval or denial.

Sam Hemingway, the applicant's engineer from Garofalo & Associates, described site changes made since the last hearing: the plan now includes garages for each unit, narrowing of interior roads, redesigned cul-de-sacs to standard turnarounds and expanded vegetated buffers along several property lines. He said the project will tie into public water and will use a private pump station and force main to connect to existing sewer facilities. Hemingway said the project has advanced through the state wetlands permitting process and that the state issued an alteration-of-wetlands permit after an 18- to 24-month review.

Residents who live near the project delivered more than an hour of public comment, asking the board to study flooding, wetlands impacts, traffic, emergency access, and potential soil contamination at the orchard site. Joseph D'Amico of 63 Fanning Lane, whose property abuts the application site, said the area ponds after heavy rains and warned that altering wetlands could increase flooding onto neighboring yards. "Any approval to this application to build on or anywhere near these wetlands would be an unsafe, costly mistake on so many levels," D'Amico said.

Other residents said basements already flood in nearby condo developments and raised similar concerns about groundwater and runoff. Geraldine Moretti, who lives at Orchard Gate, told the board she sees standing water around the entrance to that complex and fears additional runoff from the proposed project. "This is going to further upset our area and our water levels so that it makes it pretty much an area of flooded basements all the time," Moretti said.

Multiple speakers raised questions about historical orchard uses on the property and whether surface-applied pesticides could persist in deeper soils or be redistributed when construction excavates trenches and foundations. Sam Hemingway said a Phase I investigation and targeted soil sampling had been completed under a testing program guided by standard state procedures and that those surface-level samples did not show concentrations that triggered further regulatory action. "When they did look, they did not find any conditions that indicated that there are concentrations that would be a significant concern," Hemingway said, adding that the investigation followed state guidance with an emphasis on the upper two feet of soil because surface-applied orchard chemicals are most likely to be encountered near the surface.

Several speakers asked that the applicant perform deeper or additional soil testing and requested details about how excavated material would be handled on site. The board also heard repeated requests that the applicant or the town provide a fiscal or school-impact study, with some members and residents arguing an analysis would help determine whether the project is consistent with the town's comprehensive plan. Mancini responded that while the applicant could provide such studies for informational purposes, he maintained they were not required for the comprehensive-permit decision under state law.

Board discussion focused on the question of whether a prior planning-board decision or condition limited development to two-bedroom units. Mancini said he reviewed a prior hearing transcript and a prior solicitor's summary and concluded that the prior record did not contain a mandatory condition precluding three-bedroom units; instead, he said the earlier board had expressed a preference that the developer consider two-bedroom units where feasible. Several board members said they would like to see a clearer record and asked for documentation to confirm whether a binding condition exists.

The board opened the hearing for public comment at the meeting and then closed the public comment portion for the night while leaving the application open. By agreement, the board continued the matter to April 17 and agreed there was no prejudice to applicant or public by continuing the time clock. Mancini said the applicant will return with floor plans, the promised fiscal-impact and comprehensive-plan analyses, and a representative from the environmental consultant to address remaining technical questions about the soil testing and the earthen berm noted by witnesses.

The board also asked the applicant to provide the DEM permit materials that were received that day so planning staff and the peer reviewers could examine them before the next hearing. The town planner confirmed the permit was placed on the town file and available for public inspection at the planning office.

What happens next: The Planning Board will reconvene the preliminary plan and comprehensive-permit hearing on April 17. The applicant said it would provide floor plans for two- and three-bedroom units, a fiscal-impact study and a written analysis of the project's consistency with the town comprehensive plan. Members of the public and the board also requested more documentation about soil sampling protocols and handling of excavated materials during construction.

Votes at the March 20 meeting directly tied to this item included the board's vote to continue the matter to April 17 and the decision to accept the day's hearing as public notice for the continuation. No approvals or denials of the comprehensive permit were made at this meeting.