North Smithfield planning board continues Rankin Estates hearing after debate over recreation fields, traffic and blasting

The North Smithfield Planning Board continued its public hearing on the Rankin Estates 126‑unit conservation subdivision after a night of technical testimony and heated public comment over proposed recreation fields, traffic impacts and potential blasting.

In opening remarks and a packet of supplemental materials, the developer’s attorney, Mike Resnick, told the board the submission includes an updated traffic analysis, crash review, a consolidated grading plan, a blasting memorandum, and a revised homeowners’ association document. Resnick said the materials, taken together, “satisfy those requirements” and urged the board to find the proposal consistent with the conservation development regulations.

The debate centered on three issues. First, traffic: the applicant’s traffic expert, John Shevlin of Park Corporation, said investigators re‑ran counts on May 19 to capture school‑in‑session conditions and found morning peak volumes roughly 13% higher at the Matty/Mattady approach and about 7% higher at the Farnham Pike/Greenville approach versus the earlier report. Shevlin summarized the operational analysis for the Board and said the only meaningful degradation in the future‑build scenario was an approach that moves from level‑of‑service C to D — “only 3 seconds of additional delay,” he said — while other approaches remained essentially unchanged. He also said recent police crash data showed 45 crashes in the study area (the prior report listed 52–54), and that a fatal single‑vehicle crash on Aug. 25, 2024, appears likely attributable to driver error rather than roadway geometry.

Second, the proposed recreation fields: abutters and neighbors argued that placing heavily graded, excavated fields inside conservation open space violates the ordinance’s purposes. Resident Michael Mayo told the board his written submission and testimony showed these fields are “not necessary or appropriate” and urged delaying any field construction beyond Phase 1 or denying the fields entirely. The applicant’s attorney disagreed, citing the town’s land‑development and zoning provisions that expressly authorize recreational uses as accessory to conservation developments and warning that conditioning the project so severely as to deny a permitted use risks being overturned in court. “The fields are expressly allowed by the zoning ordinance,” Resnick said, adding that the board’s proper role is to ensure regulatory compliance and attach reasonable safeguards.

Third, blasting, groundwater and monitoring: members of the public and some board members pressed for conditions such as pre‑blast surveys, baseline well testing and formal monitoring to protect nearby homeowners. The applicant submitted a blasting memorandum describing state fire marshal and local blasting regulations and said blasting — if required — would be regulated under those rules. Some board members said prior projects had included project‑specific monitoring stipulations and asked staff and the solicitor to review whether similar requirements should be added here.

Procedural outcome: citing numerous late submissions and an expectation that both sides needed time to analyze new documents, the board agreed it would not make a final decision that evening. The board voted to continue the public hearing to a date‑certain of July 23 and established a deadline of July 16 (five business days before the hearing) for any supplemental materials to be filed with the planning office; submissions received after that deadline will not be considered.

Concessions from the developer: at the meeting the applicant handed out a revised drawing that removes the southern recreation field entirely, relocates parking between the remaining field areas to reduce grading impact, and adds expanded evergreen screening along the north and other abutting edges. Resnick said those changes were incorporated in response to community comments and technical review and would apply if the board grants approval.

What happens next: the public hearing remains open. The board will accept materials filed by the July 16 deadline, hear responses and additional expert testimony at the July 23 meeting, and then decide whether the preliminary plan meets the town’s regulatory findings and the conditions recommended by staff.