05/04/2026
🙏 thank you for your support Thy Back Door
Faith Hill Farm Fight Moves From Fear to Public Record
EAST GREENWICH — The fight over Faith Hill Farm is no longer only a question of what residents fear may happen next. Public records and reporting show that several of those fears have a real foundation, even if the most serious impacts have not yet fully arrived.
At issue is Ridgeline Estates and Condominiums, a proposed development at 2000 and 2020 Division Road, directly next to Faith Hill Farm. East Greenwich public notice materials describe the proposal as four single family house lots and 39 condominium units, with at least 25 percent of the units deed restricted as affordable housing. The land is zoned F1 Farming.
Faith Hill Farm supporters have warned for months that the project could bring blasting, noise, clearing, vibration, water concerns, and construction disruption close to an active horse farm. Those concerns are sometimes dismissed as emotional opposition to housing. The available record does not support that simple dismissal.
Town review materials show the site includes wooded upland and wetland. The same materials list a stormwater management report, a soil erosion and sediment control plan, a stormwater operation and maintenance plan, test pit data, Kent County Water Authority plan submission, RIDEM permits, a freshwater wetlands permit, and a preliminary subdivision suitability letter. The project also proposes onsite wastewater treatment systems, with the condominium units served by a common OWTS system and water supplied through an extension of a 12 inch main in Division Road.
In other words, the environmental questions are not imaginary. They are part of the project file.
The blasting concern is also not baseless. NBC 10 reported after the Planning Board approval that both sides had agreed there would be no rock blasting on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. Town review materials also state that a rock crusher, if needed, would be placed on the opposite side of the property to limit exposure to Faith Hill Farm.
That does not mean blasting has started. It does not mean a blasting permit has been issued. It does not mean a blasting schedule exists. Based on the public materials reviewed, the project has received preliminary approval, and the farm owner has appealed the Planning Board decision. A currently available court update says the appeal is before Superior Court, with the judge reviewing what was presented to the Planning Board during public hearings.
The farm and its supporters are not reacting to a fantasy. They are reacting to a development record that already contemplates rock work, noise controls, buffers, water infrastructure, wetlands review, stormwater management, clearing, and construction next to an equestrian operation. At the same time, some of the most important questions may not yet have matured into final documents because the project has not reached every later stage of construction approval.
The public question now is narrower and more concrete. Before blasting, heavy construction, or additional disruptive work proceeds, what specific protections will be required for animals, riders, workers, neighbors, water systems, and the farm itself?
That includes basic questions. Will there be a blasting plan? What vibration limits will apply? Who will monitor those limits? Will there be preconstruction surveys of nearby structures, wells, barns, paddocks, and water systems? What notice will the farm receive before blasting or rock crushing? What happens if animals are injured or if riding operations become unsafe? Who is responsible if the farm loses business because conditions next door make normal operations impossible?
Those are not anti housing questions. They are public accountability questions.
The concern has intensified because impacts are no longer entirely theoretical. NBC 10 reported last year that crews had already begun cutting trees after the Planning Board approval. Farm owner Pam Maloof told the station that the noise had affected horses, that some boarders had left, and that a staff member sought medical care after a horse was spooked by the sound of falling timber. East Greenwich News also reported that the farm owner appealed the approval and that the Planning Board vote was 4 to 2.
The farm’s supporters are now pushing the issue beyond the original land use dispute. A recent public statement from a concerned resident who said they attended Planning Board meetings and a Faith Hill Farm information session asked whether the full record has been examined, whether expert concerns were properly considered, and whether the public has seen all relevant information.
That is the responsible follow up. Not every fear has become reality. Not every question has an answer yet. But the record already shows enough to justify continued scrutiny.
The next phase should not be handled through rumor, dismissal, or political pressure. It should be handled through documents. The public should be able to see the final conditions of approval, any blasting related requirements, construction limits, stormwater approvals, water and septic records, environmental permits, and any communications or filings that explain how the town weighed the farm’s safety concerns.
Faith Hill Farm supporters are asking whether the process has fully accounted for a working agricultural and equestrian property already on the land next door. The available record shows that concern has merit. The unresolved question is whether the protections will be strong enough before the feared impacts become real.
