Letter: N.S. Planning Board should not delay recommendation on quarry

Why delay a recommendation from the NS Planning Board?

I’ll state up front that I am personally opposed to the proposed zoning overly by the quarry.

I attended the meeting of the NS Planning Bord on Thursday April 10^th with intention of bringing up a few concerns about the operation of the quarry off of Pound Hill Road and the prosed zoning overlay to allow continued mining by Material Sand and Stone. However, I learned upon arrival the subject was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant.

Although I was slightly frustrated after having prepared to offer some thoughts, one good thing that happened was that I got to meet Mr. Palardy, chairman of the planning board, before the meeting started. We discussed the sudden change in the agenda, and he offered to at least check with the other members that I might have an opportunity to ask questions and follow up questions his own board asked Mr. Landry, attorney for the applicant, at the February 13th meeting. I found Mr. Palardy to be friendly and approachable while maintaining a professional distance.

I was able to ask questions and follow up Dr. Roberts’ question of taxes and Mr. Palardy’s own questions pertaining to quarry hours of operation and the actual number of trucks using the road each day. Mr. Landry had already promised to obtain answers to these questions at the February meeting.

I mentioned Jason Richer sent me a video from that very morning with sounds coming from the quarry time stamped at 5:51 a.m. Mr. Carullo responded to the board, saying Mr. Landry had already stated that the quarry would not be starting early and if they did he would remind them not to.

Mr. Carullo also stated he wrote down the questions and will forward them to the quarry. There was not much opportunity for discussion, and now the planning board has postponed any recommendation on the favorability of the zoning overlay as compared to the NS comprehensive plan until at least their meeting in June.

Mr. Igliozzi, NS Town Solicitor, had previously clarified the task of the planning board regarding this issue at the February 13th meeting where he said their job is to compare this proposal with its fit to the comprehensive plan. The quarry has since on more than one occasion claimed that their grandfathered rights really preclude them from any comparison to the comprehensive plan.

Oops, we’re back to grandfathered rights, which gets back to a previous question made to NS Town Council – whether those grandfathered rights include the right to merge property that was purchased by the Pezza family after the NS zoning moratorium was put in place in 1979. If there is not a distinction, what stops them from purchasing additional parcels in the future? If you think the answer lies with stipulations attached to the proposed zoning overlay, then you aren’t looking at the history of this quarry’s performance when it comes to mining or building structures without a permit. These actions apply not only to North Smithfield operations, but also previously by the same company in the town of Johnston.

Even though the quarry disavows any need for adherence to the comprehensive plan, I can understand why TC would still ask the planning board for a recommendation comparing the zoning overlay to the comprehensive plan. Here’s where it gets interesting. Does the planning board already have enough information to decide whether to make that recommendation? It seems to me that Jeff Porter, one of their own members, made it pretty clear that this overlay proposal fails to meet more sections of the comprehensive plan than it claims to benefit. On top of that the claims from Mr. Landry that portions of the overlay proposal fit nicely with the comprehensive plan seem mostly based on economic development and the expectation or hope from the original comprehensive planners that some newly allowed businesses might provide a higher proportion of our town tax revenue. When I personally tried to look up taxes I could find no evidence to support this claim. Dr. Roberts asked about taxes at the February 13th meeting and how this quarry is to be considered an asset to North Smithfield. I also brought up those questions on Thursday.

Here is my contention: Every day that passes the quarry continues mining without oversight. If the planning board already has enough information to make a judgment on the validity of these zoning overlay proposal based on its fit to the comprehensive plan, then why delay further? I believe they should take their vote and decide upon their recommendation. At least then the focus can go back to TC where administrative authority of this proposal still needs to be sorted through.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard Grubb

Follett Street