Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic And Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Smithfield board keeps traffic-signal requirement for Sun Builders project after DOT says counts don’t warrant a light
Summary
The Smithfield Zoning Board denied Sun Builders’ request to remove a prior condition requiring a four‑way signal at a Putnam Pike driveway after testimony showed state DOT would not permit a signal because projected traffic falls below signal warrants; the applicant may submit further traffic engineering or reapply.
The Smithfield Zoning Board on the evening of the meeting denied Sun Builders’ request to remove a condition that requires a signalized, four‑way intersection for a proposed driveway on Putnam Pike.
The attorney for the applicant, Timothy Kane, told the board the condition had been tied to a larger development across the street, Smithfield Village, which he said is now dormant; without that project the state Department of Transportation told the applicant the projected vehicle counts do not meet the warrants needed for a traffic signal. Traffic engineer John Shevlin testified the study used standard Institute of Transportation Engineers projections and estimated roughly 60 peak‑hour trips on the minor street — below the engineer’s stated signal threshold of about 100 trips.
The board repeatedly raised safety concerns about adding another access on a busy stretch of Putnam Pike near ramps to Route 295. Several board members told the applicant the board lacked updated engineering or an alternative design to justify removing the original condition imposed when the development was first approved.
“I don’t see how we remove that condition without an alternative to evaluate,” a board member said during deliberations. In public comment, resident Ed DeMeo described the intersection as congested and urged limiting left‑turn movements; multiple neighbors said a new access could worsen crashes and backups.
After discussion, a motion was made and seconded to deny the applicant’s request to remove the signal condition. The motion carried on a voice vote; the meeting record does not list individual roll‑call tallies.
The board left open the procedural route for the applicant to return with additional traffic engineering, an alternative access plan, or to reapply with materially different plans. The denial keeps the original approval’s traffic‑control condition in place.
The Zoning Board moved on to other agenda items and closed the meeting after approving a separate application later in the session.
