Developers seek Smithfield approval for 112‑unit Lime Rock project; board pauses amid airport, traffic, sewer and school concerns

Smithfield — Developers seeking a master‑plan approval for the Collection at Lime Rock Acres described a 112‑unit residential community on Lime Rock Road on Oct. 23, telling the Planning Board the project will include 28 deed‑restricted units — 25 percent of the total — and a mix of single‑family homes, townhouses and duplexes.

Attorney Michael Resnick, representing the applicant, told the board the package before it included a master plan set, a traffic impact analysis, a wetlands delineation and other supporting materials and that the team had received a certificate of completeness on Oct. 3. "I would note that we would be entitled to a 146 units under state law on the comprehensive permit act, but we have reduced it based off of the commentary that we've heard from the board, the community, and your TRC," Resnick said during the hearing. The applicant reduced the proposal to 112 units and seeks limited relief at master plan: allowance of multifamily housing in R‑80 in that location and a reduction of local road width from 24 feet to 20 feet.

Why it matters: The application invokes the state's comprehensive‑permit process, which is designed to increase affordable housing, but the site sits near existing neighborhoods, wetlands and North Central State Airport. Residents and several board members raised concerns about aviation safety, traffic and drainage; the project team said those issues can be addressed through peer review and standard permitting.

What the applicant presented

• Project scope: The applicant described three distinct neighborhoods within the site: Village A (12 detached single‑family homes), Village B (44 townhouse units in 13 structures) and Village C (56 duplex units in 28 buildings), for a total of 112 units — 85 market rate and 28 deed‑restricted LMI units.

• Site engineering and utilities: Civil engineer Joe Casale said the two subject parcels total about 38 acres and that roughly 26 acres are suitable for development after wetlands and infrastructure are excluded. The plan calls for service from an existing 12‑inch water main on Lime Rock Road and 8‑inch internal mains. Sewage would be routed by gravity to the Whipple Road pump station; Casale acknowledged the pump station is operating over capacity and said the applicant would coordinate with the sewer authority on capacity upgrades if the project moves forward.

• Wetlands and drainage: The consultant team submitted a wetlands delineation and said the design preserves buffers and routes runoff to a single managed outlet. Casale acknowledged nearby culverts and downstream systems are stressed; he said the project will be designed to reduce post‑development peak flow and that further, downstream hydraulic work will be coordinated with town engineers and the technical review committee.

• Traffic: Traffic consultant Herman Peralta of Parr Engineering summarized a revised study that reflects the current 112‑unit plan. The study used turning movement counts and crash data for the Lime Rock corridor; it found 43 crashes in a three‑year window and reported 65 AM and 61 PM peak‑hour site trips for the 112‑unit scheme. Peralta said, based on the analysis, the four analyzed intersections would operate at similar levels of service with the development in place. He also measured 80th‑percentile speeds on Lime Rock Road at roughly 48–50 mph and recommended vegetation trimming to meet desirable sight‑line standards at new driveways.

• Schools and fiscal impacts: Joseph Lombardo, calling his population and school‑age projections "estimates," presented multipliers by unit type and bedroom count that he used to estimate likely school‑age children generated by the project. He also provided revenue and fee projections for the board's information.

Board questions and the airport debate

Board members probed several technical issues and pressed the applicant on a prominent point of contention: the site's location in airport hazard zones identified by the Rhode Island Airport Corporation. Multiple witnesses and public commenters said large portions of the site fall within airport zones B and C, which the airport guidance describes as areas where residential development is "not recommended" or should be precluded in Zone B. Board members framed their questions around statutory finding No. 4 (whether the project will have "significant negative impacts on the health and safety" of current and future residents).

The applicant's team said the presence of prior permitted residential developments nearby — including the Oaks at Harris project — and prior FAA coordination showed residential approvals were possible with the proper aeronautical reviews and signoffs. In response to the board's safety questions, applicant counsel offered to submit FAA correspondence and to provide an aeronautics expert report as part of the next stage of review. The board noted it expects explicit evidence addressing safety and said it was prepared to peer‑review any aeronautical analysis the applicant provides.

Public comment: traffic, drainage, schools, character

Dozens of residents spoke during the public‑comment period. Recurring themes included:

• Lime Rock Road capacity and safety: Multiple speakers described Lime Rock Road as narrow, shoulderless and used by pedestrians and cyclists without continuous sidewalks. Several residents noted observed speeding (consistent with the traffic study's measured 80th‑percentile speeds), blind curves near proposed driveway locations, and concerns about school buses and pedestrian safety.

• Drainage, wetlands and sewer capacity: Neighbors and the applicant both noted downstream capacity problems. The applicant's engineer said the Whipple Road pump station and a Lime Rock Road culvert are known constraints; residents pointed to periodic flooding and ongoing municipal studies (Beta Group watershed work) and urged careful hydrologic review.

• School capacity and fiscal effect: Speakers raised questions about the number of school‑age children the development might bring and about whether property tax revenues would cover long‑term education costs. The applicant presented its projections as an informational estimate; board members said they would review district data and may request more detailed enrollment analyses.

What the board did next

After public comment the applicant asked for time to assemble additional material, including an aeronautical review. The board voted to: 1) require a peer review of the traffic analysis, to be paid for by the applicant; and 2) continue the matter to its next regular meeting, Nov. 20, to set a date certain for the subsequent hearing once the town confirms facility availability and peer‑review timing. No final votes on waivers or the application were taken at the Oct. 23 master‑plan hearing.

What's next

The Planning Board has authorized a traffic peer review and will expect the applicant to supply any aeronautical correspondence or reports it says will be provided at or before a preliminary plan submission. The board's continuation to Nov. 20 will allow time to identify a date certain for a future public hearing once peer‑review and FAA or aeronautics material are scheduled. If the applicant later seeks approvals, the board will be asked to make the statutorily required findings (including the health/safety finding) at future hearings.

Quotes

"I would note that we would be entitled to a 146 units under state law on the comprehensive permit act, but we have reduced it based off of the commentary that we've heard from the board, the community, and your TRC," attorney Michael Resnick said when describing why the applicant chose 112 units instead of a higher state density allowance.

"My professional opinion is that this development is clearly consistent with both the plan's intent and implementation direction," land‑use expert Doug McLean testified when describing how the project fits Smithfield's housing objectives.

Local reaction

Residents told the board they support affordable housing but said the Lime Rock site raises safety, drainage and school concerns that require stronger evidence and peer review before the board can weigh the application. Several speakers urged the board to deny the project or to insist on major modifications.

Key details (as presented at hearing)

• Units: 112 total — Village A (12 single‑family), Village B (44 townhouses in 13 structures), Village C (56 duplex units in 28 buildings). 28 units proposed as deed‑restricted LMI (25%).

• Waivers/requests (master plan stage): multifamily in R‑80 (zoning relief), reduced road width (24' to 20'), density modification relative to Comprehensive Permit Act calculations; applicant removed previously shown 5‑unit buildings to conform with local multifamily limits.

• Utilities: water to be served from a 12‑inch main on Lime Rock Road; sewer via gravity to Whipple Road pump station (applicant acknowledges pump station is over capacity and says it will coordinate upgrades with the authority).

• Traffic: revised impact analysis projects roughly 65 AM and 61 PM peak‑hour trips for the 112‑unit project; measured 80th‑percentile speeds on Lime Rock Road were near 48–50 mph.

• Environmental/permit path: wetlands delineation filed; forthcoming permits expected from DEM (freshwater wetlands), RIDOT, sewer authority, state and local agencies; applicant anticipates returning with a preliminary plan if master plan is approved.

Bottom line

The Planning Board paused the master‑plan review to allow technical peer review and more documentation on airport safety and downstream infrastructure. The applicant has agreed to provide an aeronautics review and the board authorized a traffic peer review; the next procedural date is Nov. 20, when a date certain for the next hearing will be set.