NORTH SMITHFIELD – Town officials have finally found a team of experts qualified to review testimony from hearings on Material Sand & Stone’s proposal for creation of an overlay district to allow mining at their quarry on Pine Hill Road.
GZA Environmental submitted a proposal offering to evaluate statements made by the business’s team of hired professionals throughout meetings in February and March for a cost of $10,000.
“After going round and round, and chasing various potential experts we ended up focusing on a consulting company,” Town Administrator Scott Gibbs told councilors on Monday. “GZA has all the experts in house.”
Gibbs also revealed this week that he approved a one year road use permit for the business unilaterally, following a process outlined in the town’s Code of Ordinances.
The news of the experts finally marks progress in a search that began in March, after councilors voted to delay further hearings on the business’s proposal for creation of a new “Industrial Special Management District 1 Overlay,” where earth extraction is allowed. The decision followed several meetings before both the Planning Board and council, where hired professionals made the case for approving Material Sand’s plan, an unconventional zone change request touted as a means to finally end decades of litigation with the town.
After three Town Council meetings filled with hours of expert testimony, the board voted to hire its own team of experts to evaluate the data. But with the members of Material Sand’s paid team each considered among those at the top of their field in their respective subject matters, the task, it seems, was easier said then done.
“We were really chasing our tails on this, trying to find individuals to serve as expert testimony,” Gibbs said.
On Monday, June 16, Gibbs told councilors he was awaiting confirmation that GZA would be ready to present their findings at the board’s meeting on Monday, July 21.
Councilor John Beauregard questioned the cost.
“The intention was to just have the experts maybe sit down and watch the testimony of their experts,” said Beauregard. “It seems like $10,000 is a lot of money.”
The administrator said that the fee was not much, considering the number of hours of meeting video the group would need to review.
“I thought it would have been a lot higher than that,” he said.
Material Sand agreed to fund the peer review back in March assuming the business agreed with the expert qualifications of those hired.
“They’re certainly not going to question the credentials of the professionals at GZA Environmental,” said Gibbs.
For the road use permit, required for trucks weighing more than 35,000 pounds to travel to and from the quarry’s operations, Gibbs noted the business submitted a request for five year renewal in January – well before the previous permit was set to expire in March. Gibbs said he instead granted a one year permit to give the town time to finish the zoning overlay hearings.
“I put together terms and conditions of the road access permit as I am authorized to do under the ordinance,” he said. “I signed that to make sure we had that on record.”
News that the permit had been secured may have come as a surprise to some. When Material Sand applied for the same document in 2024, councilors voted on the approval.
But according to chapter 310, section 17 of the town ordinance, the town administrator’s office has full authority in the process.
Resident Richard Grubb questioned why the approval had not previously been revealed publicly – particularly after resident Scott Walling inquired on the status of the permit at a meeting on April 21.
“We were told to keep questions about the quarry held off until the quarry’s authorities and representation had the chance to be here, so I was really shocked that it was on the agenda,” Grubb said of the road use issue. Grubb said that Councilor Rebecca DeCristofaro informed Walling the permit had been approved the day after the meeting.
“This is interesting because Rebecca is recused from this whole situation and yet somehow she’s the one that knew the road use permit was already signed and in place, and yet no one had the courtesy to tell Mr. Walling the night before,” said Grubb. “The town administrator has cheated the town. He has not given people the opportunity to voice their opinion.”
Gibbs responded that he consulted with the solicitor prior to approving the permit, and following assessments from the Department of Public Works regarding damage to the roadways, and from the police department about any potential issues. A note to Gibbs from police Chief Tim Lafferty notes that there had been no major probelms, and an inspection of the roadways resulted in an increase to the bond for future repair, from $100,000 to $150,000.
“All I’m doing is operating with what the ordinance says,” said Gibbs.
The issue finally became public this week because the security bond required council approval.
“We did not go publicly on this early on for very clear reasons and those reasons were we were tied up in public hearings as it relates to Material Sand & Stone,” said Gibbs. “It would have been unfair to the applicant to be subjected to this on top of that. We wanted clarity so I made sure we had the bond in place.”
Councilors unanimously approved the bond, with recusal by DeCristofaro.
I just have one further question, is it fair or even legal by the open meetings law for an elected official to withhold information concerning a public document due to his personal opinion that it could somehow be unfair to the applicant, even when specifically asked of the status by constituents? Obviously one question asked can lead to other follow-up questions. One would be if the answer is yes it’s legal and the fairness is not a consideration, then should it be legal? And another, what specifically, were the terms and conditions the administrator put together? Did he address the road use questions submitted during the public forum? Did he consider that the chief decided not to enforce the hours of operation against the oil delivery driver who arrives before hours most mornings? Apparently the chief exempted these deliveries out of the possibility that any resident could require an emergency delivery. I don’t question the decision, but I think it would be cleaner if similar issues were specifically addressed with the permit. Did the administrator address questions concerning the number of trucks allowed in a day?
If GZA does not also review evidence provided by area residents, it will only be a half hearted effort. They need to view the North Smithfield Health & safety facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1064373564628462