John Flaherty

10 Green Street, P.O. Box 458, Slatersville, Rhode Island 02876 Phone: 401.766.4981 john.flaherty@cox.net

MEMORANDUM

Date: December 16, 2004

To: North Smithfield Town Council

North Smithfield Town Administrator

North Smithfield Planning Board

North Smithfield Zoning Board

North Smithfield Historic District Commission

From: John Flaherty

Re: Proposed Ordinance to Guide Redevelopment of Slatersville Mill Complex

Attach: Flaherty Op/Ed – 11/14/04

Providence Journal Editorial – 9/3/04

Palisades Mill Study: Implementation Strategy

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you may know, I have appeared before the Town Council and Planning Board on several occasions over the last six months to comment on a proposed ordinance that would set standards for the redevelopment of the Slatersville Mill Complex.

At this time, I would like to summarize my comments for the benefit of those who may be new to this issue and to clarify the vision for which I have been advocating. I also understand that the Planning Department anticipates that the proposed developer may imminently file an application for a “land development project” under section 17 of the existing zoning ordinance, instead of proceeding under a mill rehab ordinance. That notwithstanding, I believe it remains in the best interest of North Smithfield to proceed in developing a set of site-specific mill rehab ordinances that encourage highest and best uses for each unique site.

· First, it is good that a capitalized developer is eager to redevelop the Slatersville Mill Complex. Many similar projects throughout Rhode Island are now being redeveloped primarily as a result of the statewide Historic Preservation Investment Tax Credit program that provides more financial incentive to do so. Every effort should continue in building a win-win public-private partnership between the Town and the developer.

• As an informed resident, my interest is in seeing this nationally significant historic site become a local destination providing a balanced mix of economic development, housing, office commercial, neighborhood retail, restaurants, municipal and other appropriate uses in compatible proportion and that reconnects this site with the existing urban fabric of the village. These uses should create a synergy with a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts and that provides a social as well as economic benefit to North Smithfield residents.

• The only practical way this can be achieved is through regulations and incentives that set standards and encourage desired uses within the redeveloped mill. It is recognized that the regulation of the mixture of uses needs to remain flexible enough so that redevelopment is economically viable and sustainable. In short, the ordinance needs to effectively balance profit with community benefit. That can only be achieved if the Town occupies an informed and equal seat at the decision-making table.

• I have pointed out what I believe to be the shortcomings of the proposed mill rehab overlay district ordinance that was first proposed several months ago and amended several times since. These shortcomings include its failure to be site-specific, its inability to set relative quantities of desired uses within the complex and its delegation of final decision-making authority to a non-elected town board. More recently, the “overlay district” approach has been identified as being inconsistent with Rhode Island state law as explained on page 6 of the accompanying document.

• I would like to be clear that my public critique has been directed solely at the current draft ordinance and not toward any potential developer or their proposed plans. Also, when I have spoken, I have made it clear that I have done so on my own behalf - as an informed resident and taxpayer of North Smithfield without regard to any particular developer or purchaser.

• I believe that smaller towns sometimes forfeit the full potential benefit of development projects because they often lack the planning staff, capacity and/or expertise of their larger municipal counterparts to adequately represent the interests of the community.

• North Smithfield is fortunate that a similar community in Rhode Island has already taken a proactive leadership role in planning for a major redevelopment of a very similar mill complex. The Town of South Kingstown hired the Newport Collaborative Architects (NCA), an architectural and planning firm, to facilitate an almost year long redevelopment study of its mill complex located in the center of the village of Peace Dale. Its contract with NCA included the drafting of a vision statement and development guidelines that were accepted by the Palisades Mill Reuse Committee. The contract also required the consultant to prepare the recently published (10/2004) “Implementation Strategy”, including a zoning ordinance to achieve the town’s goals.

• I believe that North Smithfield should give serious consideration to this redevelopment strategy and corresponding zoning ordinance (attached) that was crafted for a similar town with a similar mill complex and that aims to achieve the goals identified in bullet #2. To that end, I hereby petition the Town Council to remand the existing draft ordinance back to the Planning Board and ask that they consider the relative merit of the zoning strategy developed by the Town of South Kingstown.

· Discussion of zoning ordinances often raises questions of landowner rights vs. town rights. It is important to remember that the current zoning for the Slatersville Mill Complex is “manufacturing”. In adopting a mixed-use ordinance to encourage redevelopment, the Town would in fact be lifting restrictions, not imposing stricter ones than currently exist. The question then is how far should restrictions be lifted? I believe the town reserves the right to exercise its authority in influencing a redevelopment that effectively balances profit with community benefit.

· As I have pointed out in past public communications: In the interest of full disclosure, I formed a nonprofit redevelopment corporation (Blackstone Valley Community Redevelopment Corporation, BVCRC) in March 2004 to help facilitate redevelopment of this site (and others) into mixed-use centers of diverse activity. I took this action with the support of the only party who held a purchase agreement at the time (Gorwood Business Services). I did this because the town itself had not taken a substantive leadership role and because I have the requisite professional experience. A purchase dispute ensued between Gorwood and another party and Gorwood eventually relinquished any claim to purchase the site. With a capitalized developer in place as the sole purchaser, there was no longer a need for BVCRC to be involved.

· My goal was, and continues to be, influencing the redevelopment of this site in a way that balances developer profit with maximum community benefit as described in bullet #2.

I hope this clarifies any confusion about my past or present involvement. I remain available to members of any town board or commission for further discussion if it would be helpful in any future deliberations. Thank you.