TO: North Smithfield Planning Board
CC: Robert Lowe, Town Administrator
FROM: Michael
Phillips, Town Planner
DATE: June
2, 2005
RE: Response to Comments Provided During
the May 19th Public Hearing
on the Comprehensive Plan Five-Year
Update
Below is a summary of the comments received
during the May 19th Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Five-Year
Update. Also included are proposed
revisions to the Plan or reasons why revisions have not been drafted. Should you choose to accept these revisions
(or during the meeting on June 9th propose alternative language for
inclusion), your next step will entail voting on the Plan and sending it to the
Town Council for review and adoption.
Underlined text indicates added text or verbiage; while text in Red is
to be removed.
1. Concern: Due to traffic and environmental concerns, the
Whortleberry Hill area should not be rezoned for Commercial/Office development.
Response:
Both the 1991 and 2001 industrial site surveys paid for by the Town
identified this area as having commercial/industrial potential. Coupled with the long-term need to create
jobs and improve the tax base, the concept remains as originally proposed. However, the text has been revised to better
protect neighboring land uses.
Revised Text: See
page D-21, section D-3.4.3 second paragraph: “More specifically, based on
the recommendations contained in the 1991 Industrial Site Survey prepared by
the Maguire Group, land west of the North Smithfield Expressway near
Whortleberry Hill and Greenville Road should be considered for light industry,
research and development operations or an office park. A change of zoning from RA-65 to
Office/Commercial should be considered.
This contiguous site, is mainly owned by a single entity, has access to
sewers, has good road access and is centrally located. As such, and with proper engineering and
design due to its proximity to Todd’s Pond, it could lend itself to more
intensive use.”
2. Concern: The survey results suggest 52% of respondents
didn’t want large-scale retail.
Response: Given that approximately half of the respondents
wanted retail, and half didn’t, the proposal contained within the 1992 Plan to
rezone the area near Booth Pond for additional retail activities was carried
forward to the 2005 Plan Update. The
area near Booth Pond identified as “Mixed Use B” in 1992 was reduced in size in
the 2005 Plan Update.
Revised
Text: None.
3. Concern: There is an incomplete sentence in section
D.3.2; and a grammatical error.
Response: The text has been revised.
Revised
Text: See page D-17, section D-3.2 first and third
paragraphs: “As previously noted, North Smithfield does not have a downtown
area; most retail and business uses serving local shopping needs are to be
found along Route 146A. The stores and
supermarket at Carpenter’s Corner (Slatersville Plaza) provides convenience shopping for
the Town's northern neighborhoods as well as sections of Burrillville and
adjoining communities in Massachusetts.”
Most commercial and retail development, other
than the shopping centers at Carpenter's Corner and Park Square has been small
scale and generally related to local needs and the service of transient
traffic. A regional shopping center has
recently been proposed in the Booth Pond area off of Route 146A. Development of this center would provide
residents with a greater array of choices for comparison shopping and reduce
the need to travel to nearby communities for larger ticket items. Prior
to the development of the regional shopping center in the Booth Pond area,”
4. Concern: The lead paint statistics need updating.
Response: The text has been revised.
Revised Text:
See page E-9, section E-3.1.2 paragraph titled “Lead-Based Paint
Issues”:
“According to the Department of Health’s 2005
Childhood Lead Poisoning in Rhode Island report 2000-2005 State Consolidated Plan, an estimated 66% of all
occupied units in North Smithfield contain lead-based paint. In 1998 in 2004, 3.9% of North
Smithfield children had elevated levels of lead in their blood. Any rehabilitation project involving
pre-1978 buildings must include testing for lead-based paint and abatement
where necessary.”
5. Concern: Homestead Gardens was recently identified as a
potential site for office uses, and should not be in the Agricultural Business
zone as contained in the Plan.
Response: The text has been revised.
Revised
Text: See page D-16, section D-3.1.6 first
paragraph: “The Agricultural Business area is a new district that is intended
to allow the continuation of farming and agricultural based business with
limited onsite sales of farm and farm-related products. This district includes existing farms such
as Wright’s Dairy, Goodwin Brothers Farm Stand, Smith’s Orchard, Homestead Gardens, Trout
Brook Equestrian Center, Acres Wild Equestrian Center, Marshall
Equestrian/Animal Clinic, Jacques Farm/vineyard and the Wild Wind Farm.”
6. Concern: Text identifying “Growth Centers” in Town
should be added.
Response: The State has encouraged all municipalities to
identify “Growth Centers”. However, the
State is currently in the process of updating its Land Use State Guide Plan to
include potential growth center locations consistent with desirable statewide
growth patterns. Given that the local
growth centers should be consistent with the State Guide Plan, the large effort
required to generate such text and the multiple public workshops and hearings
that would be necessary, I would suggest that this be done through the Plan
amendment process or during the 9-month period the State has to review the
Town’s Plan Update. I would suggest
that, at this point, it is more important that the Plan be completed and
submitted to the State as quickly as possible.
Revised
Text:
See page D-8 New Policy J. under Goal #3.
J. Consider Slatersville for designation as a “Growth Center”. See page D-27, section D-4.5 last paragraph:
“Beyond the updating of this Plan and subsequent revisions to the Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, the Town may need to explore other tools
to help manage its growth. The 2001
Community Survey and charette demonstrated that many citizens are concerned
that the Town is growing too rapidly and that unmanaged growth will adversely
impact the community. Zoning that
provides flexibility that leads to the preservation of historic structures and
commercial development as a way to subsidize the tax base are steps in the
right direction, but ultimately, the Town may need to consider more innovative
means to preparing for its future. Additionally,
the Town should investigate certain areas such as Slatersville for designation
as “Growth Centers”, once the State’s Land Use Guide Plan Update is completed,
in order to provide a better focus for infrastructure investment.”
7. Concern: Residential properties should be allowed to have
home-based businesses.
Response: Some home occupations are already permitted in
the Zoning Ordinance. However, the
Zoning will be revised to broaden the permitted uses in the interest of
economic development. The text has been
revised.
Revised
Text:
See page D-26, section D-4.2 last
paragraph: “It is recommended that all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be
given a comprehensive review so that the regulations will be more in line with
contemporary zoning practices regulating parking and loading, signs, special
land uses, encouragement of home occupations, district use regulations,
etc.”
8. Concern: The
area near Booth Pond contains unique, site specific bedrock fractures that
could serve as a new source of a community water supply well, and for that
reason, development in that area should be limited. Bedrock fractures are areas where infiltration is likely
resulting in an important source of groundwater recharge. Also, baseline data regarding the current
water quality in that area, and in all areas where bedrock fractures are found,
should be collected. Protection of all
areas where bedrock aquifers may be located (such as perhaps Whortleberry Hill,
as well) is important.
Response: The text has been revised. It should also be noted, in response to a
Planning Board question at the Public Hearing, that it is possible to develop
land without damaging underground aquifers.
Revised
Text: See page G-13, section G-3.1.4 the last
paragraph under Groundwater Reservoirs/Recharge Areas: “In collaboration with
the U. S. EPA and RIDEM, the Town completed a Wellhead Protection Program to
delineate wellhead protection areas and establish programs to protect water
quality. Public community supply wells
are shown on Map G-4. Studies
similar to the 2004 USGS delineation of the Tifft Road public-supply well
recharge area would be very useful in understanding the water supply capacity
at a particular site and how nearby land uses may affect the water supply
depending on a pumping rate. While
there is much data available on the Town’s surficial aquifers, there is
insufficient data and attention given to its bedrock aquifers which may also
serve as potential community water supplies.”
“See also page G-38, section G-4.1.1 under
Groundwater Overlay Zoning: “The Town responded to the 1992 Comprehensive
Plan’s call for groundwater protection by adopting Section 6-19 of the Zoning
Ordinance titled “Regulation of Groundwater Aquifer Zones, Groundwater Recharge
Areas, Wellhead Protection Areas and Water Supply Basin”. As recommended by the Comprehensive Plan,
the regulations dictating uses over these particular resources are more
stringent than in the underlying districts.
The current Overlay language ought to be reviewed for possible expansion
of the list of prohibited uses. More
specifically, it ought to prohibit excessive water drawdown for non-municipal
uses. Additionally, More resources ought to be
spent on enforcement of the Ordinance and property owner education. The bedrock aquifers and especially those
areas sensitive to brittle fracture zones ought to be mapped and baseline data
collected for the purpose of monitoring ground water quality.”
9. Concern: The vegetation in the vicinity of Booth Pond
and its wetlands serve as an appropriate buffer. Lorraine Joubert’s letter of April 26, 2005 was referenced; Ms.
Joubert, of URI, discussed the need to protect the watershed in the Booth Pond
area and how commercial and industrial uses may threaten drinking water
quality.
Response: The text has been revised.
Revised
Text: See proposed text in response to “Concern 8”
and “Concern 14”.
10. Concern: The
1992 Plan did not suggest that additional retail activities were needed.
Response: The 1992 Plan did propose the rezoning of
several areas for mixed-use commercial activities and referenced the State’s
need for additional commercial and industrial land.
Revised
Text: None.
11. Concern: The Plan is inconsistent in that it discourages
commercial activities in Uxbridge, but encourages similar commercial activities
in North Smithfield.
Response: The area in Uxbridge abuts a residential (RA-65)
district in North Smithfield, whereas the Booth Pond area was slated in 1992
for mixed-use development and abuts areas that are zoned and used for
commercial activities.
Revised
Text: None.
12. Concern: The
retail activity near Booth Pond will not generate the high quality jobs,
promote the character and environment desired, as summarized in John Mullin’s
charette report.
Response: All types and a variety of jobs are desirable. There are other areas in Town that are
proposed for rezoning that may generate “high quality” jobs. The new village Residential and Mill
Rehabilitation Zones, and proposed design standards will help protect community
character and the environment.
Revised
Text: None.
13. Concern: The
document should have illustrated all insertions and deletions.
Response: Nearly every line of the 1992 document was
revised, making the resulting product with illustrated changes too difficult to
read and twice as expensive to print.
However, a “tracked changes” electronic version does exist and is
available from the Planning Department.
Revised
Text: None.
14. Concern: The
1992 Plan called for appropriate buffering around Booth Pond; the current Plan
should include similar requirements.
Response: The text has been changed.
Revised Text: See
page D-21, section D-3.4.4 third paragraph:
“Given the project’s location in an important drinking water watershed
and the existing traffic pattern and volumes, special attention will need to be
given to the project’s design. Booth
Pond and its wetlands, as other waterbodies and wetlands in Town, ought to be
protected through buffers beyond those required by DEM.”
15. Concern:
Groundwater contamination is a potential cause for neurological
disorders in children.
Response: This may be true. The Plan includes many tasks, especially in the Natural and
Cultural Resources Element, that will help better protect groundwater.
Revised
Text: None.
16. Concern: The 2001 Survey indicated many respondents
didn’t want new multi-family dwellings, while the 2005 Plan Update encourages
the use of multi-family dwellings.
Response: The Survey results suggest a discriminatory
tendency which appears to have changed in light of the current recognized need
for more affordable housing. I have
assumed that the Housing Production Plan, prepared in 2004 and adopted by the
Council, supercedes the 2001 Survey results.
Revised
Text: None.
17. Concern: The goal associated with affordable housing on
page L-7 is inconsistent with the text on page L-30.
Response: The L-7 text refers to the current proposal,
while the text on L-30 refers to the proposed District. The L-7 text (and its corresponding text on
E-30) will be revised for clarity.
Revised Text: See page E-30, Action Item 3.4 and the
Policies and Actions on page L-7: “Action
Item 3.4: Encourage affordable housing
development as part of a the current proposed mixed use
development on Eddie Dowling Highway. A
new higher density, mixed-use development along Eddie Dowling Highway is
currently being reviewed by the Town.
Water is proposed to be extended to this location from Woonsocket. This land appears to be an appropriate
location for a mix of uses. Any housing
development which takes place as part of this mixed use development will
incorporate a minimum of 20% affordable housing.”
18. Concern: There is a large marsh off of Greenville Road
in the area identified for Office /Commercial rezoning that does not appear on
Map D-2.
Response: The water, wetland, etc. GIS layers are from Statewide Planning. Map G-2 does illustrate several significant
wetland systems. The Town does not have
the resources to map and digitize new environmental layers. However, there may, in fact, be more wetland
areas on the parcel, including a marsh, that can be confirmed by the owner with
the assistance of a wetlands biologist.
The Town requires the mapping of all wetlands as part of applications
for development.
Revised
Text: None
19. Concern: The text associated with the proposed “area 50”
rezoning suggests, incorrectly, that sewers are available and land assembly is
in progress.
Response: Sewers are approximately ½ mile away from the
site from a development perspective this suggests they are “available”. Individuals have been assembling land in the
area as a result of the 1991 Industrial Site Survey. As previously stated, in response to the need to create jobs and
encourage economic activity, the Whortleberry Hill area was identified as a
potential location for increased economic activities. The proposal for rezoning responds to those issues.
Revised
Text: See text proposed under “Concern 1”.
20. Concern: The blasting for Rockcliff resulted in water in
a person’s basement.
Response: Blasting is regulated by the State Fire
Marshall. Developers typically hire
blasting firms that are required to conduct pre-blast surveys and carry
insurance to cover problems resulting from blasting. The developer for Rockcliff should have been notified of any
damage related to blasting.
21. Concern: The survey is not valid because people were not
informed as to how the information would be used.
Response: The survey was accompanied by text that did
indicate that the responses would be used to help guide the Town’s future
growth. This Plan Update is a natural
place in which to reference the survey results.
Revised
Text: None.
22. Concern: Some of the data contained in the Economic
Element are old; the population growth projections only go to 2010.
Response: Statewide Planning has not updated the report
from which the data was taken. However,
additional text was included referencing the demographics data in the Land Use
Element.
Revised
Text: See page F-6, section F-3.1.2 second
paragraph: “Considering the proposals of the Land Use Plan Element and those of
this Element to aggressively attract new industry and business to the
community, the State's projections appear to be too conservative and may have
been influenced by the significant drop from 1980 employment levels due to the
departure of Tupperware Corporation. As
discussed in the Land Use Element, population projections based on the 2001
BRVNHCC analysis, and updated with current housing projections, also appear to
suggest a more aggressive growth rate in housing unit production.
Nevertheless, based on current employment levels and the lack of readily
developable, prime industrial acreage, these employment projections may be
accurate. If the recommendations of
this Comprehensive Plan are implemented, there will be steady growth employment
over the next 5 to 10 years.”
23. Concern: Sources for traffic projections in the
Circulation Element were not provided.
Response: The text has been changed.
Revised
Text: The entire section titled “Traffic
Projections/Level of Service” was removed.
Page J-6, section J-3.1.4 was revised: “Current Traffic Volumes and Projections The
Department of Transportation compiles annual 24 hour average daily traffic
(AADT) for the major streets and highways throughout the State. In 2004, the most heavily traveled highway
was Route 146 between the Lincoln line and the 146 A turnoff; AADT was
31,000. This was followed by the
section of Eddie Dowling Highway (Route 146A) between the Route 146 and Park
Square where AADT was 18,400 and Route 146 north of the Route 146A turnoff
where AADT was 16,400. Victory Highway
from the Route 146 interchange to the Burrillville line, with an AADT of up to
14,300, was also one of the most heavily traveled local roads. The traffic counts are generally lower than
those recorded in the 1992 Comprehensive Plan because Route 99 was constructed
since the previous Plan was adopted.
When
contacted in 2005, both Statewide Planning and the DOT stated that traffic
projections are generated for particular sites based on particular projects,
but not randomly or for all roads statewide.
As such, the Town does not have current traffic projections other than
what it receives as part of local development applications which are on file in
the Planning Department.”
24. Concern: The Plan ought to reference the need for
communications technology.
Response: The text has been changed.
Revised
Text: See page F-9, section F-4.2 first paragraph:
“The Services and Facilities Element calls for the implementation of the Water
System Plan completed in 1992 by the Maguire Group and the updating of the
long-range Wastewater Facilities Plan for sewer services. Priority is assigned to extensions of sewer
and water services to the economic development sites described above. All new developments should be required
to install the wiring necessary for access to communications technology.”
25. Concern: The Plan contains insufficient references to
the Town’s cultural needs.
Response: The Plan includes an entire Element (not
required by the State) dedicated to the Blackstone River Valley Heritage
Corridor. Half of the Natural and
Cultural Resources Element is dedicated to the identification of cultural
resources (historic, archeological, farms) and their preservation through
action and education. Additionally, the
Slatersville Area Plan is referenced throughout the document as a model for
future historic village rehabilitation efforts.
Revised
Text: None.
26. Concern: The Master Plan for the mixed-use area near
Booth Pond has been approved and therefore has vested rights pertaining to
allowed uses.
Response: None.
Revised
Text: None.
27. Concern: Developers ought to be responsible for the
contamination of drinking water supply wells.
Response: See response to “Concern 8” and “Concern 9”.
Revised
Text: See proposed text revisions associated with
“Concern 8” and “Concern 9”.
28. Concern: It appears the language regarding underground
storage tanks has become less stringent.
Response: DEM has enacted improved measures for
identifying and regulating storage tanks since 1992, so the language in the
Plan Update was adjusted accordingly.
However, Goal 1.F in the Natural and Cultural Resources Element has been
revised.
Revised Text: See page G-2, Goal 1.F (and corresponding item
on page L-12) “Lobby
Insist that the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
(RIDEM) adopt more stringent regulations for underground storage tank
installation, maintenance and testing in critical aquifer and watershed protection
areas.”
29. Concern: The Plan ought to require that the Subdivision
Regulations regulate uses over the aquifers.
The “measures” to protect groundwater, as referenced in the Plan ought
to be more specific.
Response: The Zoning Ordinance contains specific
regulations pertaining to uses over the aquifer. The Plan calls for improving that Ordinance. The text associated with the sections
pertaining to the Subdivision Regulations has been changed.
Revised
Text: See page G-39, the second paragraph under
the section titled “Subdivision and Land Development Regulations”: “The
Regulations should be reexamined to consider best management practices (BMP)
such as natural drainage, retention and detention basins and related measures
being advanced by the Land Management Project and generally included in
contemporary subdivision regulations.
Requirements that drainage flow from the site shall not exceed that experienced prior to development already
exist in some communities, as do stormwater standards for Land Development
projects and definitions and standards dictating minimum contiguous buildable
lot sizes. The Town should also
consider adopting regulations more rigorous than DEM’s current regulations
pertaining to the buffering of wetlands and waterbodies.”
30. Concern: Whether or not the Master Plan for Dowling
Village has vested rights or not should have no impact on decisions regarding
groundwater protection.
Response: None.
Revised
Text: None.
31. Concern: The Superfund Sites ought to be illustrated on
the Land Use Map.
Response: The map has been changed.
Revised
Text: See map revisions.
32. Concern: How will zone change meetings be
advertised? Who will receive
notification?
Response: The Hearings will be advertised in accordance
with State law.
Revised
Text: None.
33. Concern: Multi-family residential uses should not be
allowed in the Professional Service Zone.
Response: The text has been revised.
Revised
Text: See page D-19, section D-3.3 first paragraph
“Professional Service uses are proposed on the west side of Eddie Dowling
Highway in the vicinity of Hanton Road.
This area presently is in the Professional Service (PS) District. Allowed uses should include single
family detached dwellings with professional office space, hospitals and
clinics, and by Special Use Permit, multi-family dwellings
and office buildings.”
34. Concern: The status of the Woonsocket MED Zone is
uncertain.
Response: The text has been revised.
Revised Text: See
page D-21, section 3.4.4 second paragraph “The property abuts Woonsocket and Woonsocket’s Municipal Economic
Development Zone, and would be connected to Woonsocket’s
public water system. The Woonsocket
portion of the development could be is accessed through the main project
entrance at Landmark Hospital and could consists of various
retail activities.”
35. Other Items: The type of density bonus associated with Smart
Development should be determined during the discussions associated with the
Zoning Ordinance.
Response: The text has been revised.
Revised
Text: See page D-7, section D-2 Goal 2.A and page
L-3 Policies and Actions: “Concentrate
urban multifamily housing at densities of up to four dwelling units per acre in
areas currently being served by public water and public sewer systems. Provide
for This could be accomplished by providing a density
bonus of two additional units per acre, where one of the additional units is
subsidized for low and moderate income residents in accordance with the
requirements of the Low and Moderate Income Housing Act and the other is
dedicated for persons 55 years of age or older.”
36. Other Items: Fix typographical errors.
Response: The text has been revised.
Revised
Text: See page D-9, section D-2 Goal 5.A: An extra
“A” was removed and the Table E-4.3 was corrected to reflect that the homes
Slatersville Mill will total 228.
37. Other Items: Use “Business Highway” instead of “Highway
Business” as zone name.
Response: The text has been revised.
“At the intersection of Route 102 and Main
Street the present sites now located in the Highway Business Highway (BH) District are
continued in the Highway
Business Highway use area. On
either side of Quaker Highway at the State line the Business Neighborhood zone
and a portion of the Manufacturing zone are proposed to be changed to Business
Highway.”
38. Other Items: The uses associated with the new
Office/Commercial zone should be limited.
Response: The text has been revised.
Revised Text: See
page D-21, section D-3.4.3 first paragraphs:
“To take advantage of North Smithfield’s access to Route 146, a mixed
office/commercial district should be established to provide opportunities to
develop campus-style executive office complexes. There are a limited number of large acreage sites that can take
advantage of highway access along 146 and the North Smithfield Industrial
Highway that would be attractive sites for the development of corporate offices,
with associated commercial,
governmental and limited residential uses, or offices with
light manufacturing and/or research and development, retail, health care facilities,
banking, restaurants, daycare facilities, and other uses that may be considered
amenities to the main employment use.”
39. Other Items: The BN zone south of victory Highway including
the Slatersville Plaza should be changed to BH to more accurately reflect the
size and types of businesses currently located in the Plaza and planned for on
lots adjoining the Plaza.
Response: The table and map have been revised.
Revised
Text: See Map D-2 and Table D-4.1 which identifies
the zone change as Area “61”.
40.
Assessor’s Plat 8, Lot 30 at the intersection of Route 146, North
Smithfield Industrial Highway/Old Pound Hill Road was part of Zoning District
Change #39 -Agricultural Business should be changed instead to Office
Commercial. The lot is ideally located
for development of a small office complex with frontage on Route 146 and good
access to the Industrial Highway.
Response: The table and map have been revised.
Revised
Text: See Map D-2 and Table D-4.1 which identifies
the zone change as Area “62”.