No.    1:   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Council President Kevin P. McGovern led Council and the Public in the Pledge of Allegiance.

No.    2:   CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL:

The Regular Meeting of the Exeter Town Council was called to order at 7:08 p.m., Monday, July 9 2018, in the Cafeteria, Metcalf School, 30 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, Rhode Island.

No.    3:   PUBLIC COMMENT: 

Ted Nataly:  With respect to the update of the comprehensive plan and at the risk of being redundant, Mr. Nataly queried:  When is the comprehensive plan going to be done?  How much is going to cost? It is relevant to tonight’s public hearing regarding solar.  It does not seem to be moving forward, rather there are excuses why it is not done.

Victor Pigoga:  With respect to tonight’s public hearing regarding solar, Mr. Pigoga, 88 Brookridge Drive, Exeter, requested that if persons have already spoken at a the prior public hearing that they give others a chance tonight and that Green Development speak at the end to give the residents a chance to speak.

No.    4:   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A.   CERTIFICATE OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION FROM GOVERNOR GINA M. RAIMONDO TO THE TOWN OF EXETER FOR DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE OVERDOSE PREVENTION RESPONSE PLAN ALIGNED WITH THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND’S OVERDOSE PREVENTION ACTION PLAN:  Council acknowledged the Governor’s recognition.

B.   EXETER VETERANS MEMORIAL COMMITTEE GOLF TOURNMENT:  SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 2018 (RAIN OR SHINE), 2:00 P.M.; REGISRATION, 1:00 P.M.; DINNER RECEPTION, 6:00 P.M.; PINECREST GOLF CLUB, 25 PINEHURST DRIVE, CAROLINA, RHODE ISLAND; TO BENEFIT THE EXETER FOOD PANTRY:

Council invited the Public to participate.

C.   RHODE ISLAND RESOURCE RECOVERY:  ECO-DEPOT:  SATURDAY, JULY 28, 2018, 8:00 A.M. TO 1:00 P.M., EXETER CLERK’S OFFICE:  Council encouraged the Public to dispose of their hazardous waste at this event.

No.    5:   APPROVAL OF AGENDA ORDER:

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to approve the Agenda Order as presented; seconded by Mr. Ellis; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

No.    6:   CONSENT AGENDA:

A.   REYNOLDS CHARITABLE TRUST:  There was one voucher for Council’s consideration (Communication No. 31). 

B.   REPORTS:

1.  TREASURER’S REPORT:  Maria Lawler

2.  TOWN CLERK’S REPORT:  Lynn M. Hawkins

3.  TAX COLLECTOR’S REPORT:  Kimberly A. Robitaille

4.  TAX ASSESSOR’S REPORT:  Kerri A. Petrarca

5.  DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT: Director, Stephen P. Mattscheck

6.  IT REPORT:  Director, Michael Forlingieri

7.  TOWN PLANNER’S REPORT:  Ashley Sweet

8.  DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES REPORT: Director, Christine Heart-Skaggs

9.  EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT REPORT:  Director, E. Stefan Coutoulakis

10.  ANIMAL CONTROL REPORT:  Director, Stephen P. Mattscheck

11.  PROBATE REPORT:  Clerk, Lynn M. Hawkins

There were no reports removed.

C.   COMMUNICATIONS:  Mr. Patterson removed Nos. 38, 43, 44, and 50. Mr. Ellis removed Nos. 14, 16, 35, 49, 54, and 57.

D.   SCHEDULE OF JULY MEETINGS AND EVENTS:  The July Schedule was not removed.

E.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

1.  REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, JUNE 4, 2018

As Mr. McGovern was absent from the meeting, the minutes were removed.

MOTION made by Mr. Maher to approve the Consent Agenda as amended; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and approved unanimously in the affirmative.

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to approve the Regular Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2018; seconded by Mr. Maher; and voted as follows:

Motion passes.

No.    7:   VACANCIES AND APPOINTMENTS:

A.   VACANCIES:

1.  Personnel Board Members (Inactive)

2.  Conservation Commission (Inactive)

3.  Economic Development Commission (Inactive)

There has been one letter of interest received for the Conservation Commission. Seven members are needed.  There have been no letters of interest received for the Personnel Board or the Economic Development Commission.  These vacancies will continue to post. 

B.   RESIGNATIONS:  There were no Resignations for Council’s consideration.

C.   APPOINTMENTS:

1.    Memorial Day Parade Committee Members:  Council has one letter of interest (Communication No. 16).

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to appoint Sierra Walker as Memorial Day Parade Committee Member; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

2.    Board of Canvassers Alternate Member (ensuing six-year term):  Council awaits a recommendation from the Democratic Town Committee.  Mr. Ellis noted that there has been outreach and urged the Public to step forward.

3.    Board of Tax and Assessment Review Alternate Member:  Council has one letter of interest (Communication No. 54).

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to appoint Barbara Kennedy as Board of Tax and Assessment Review Alternate Member; seconded by Mr. McGovern.

Discussion:  Ms. Kennedy is a CPA and has an impressive resume.

Back to the Motion:  Voted unanimously in the affirmative.

4.    Public Works Worker:  Council has several letters of interest (Communication Nos. 43, 45, and 50) and Director of Public Works, Stephen Mattscheck’s recommendation.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to appoint Timothy Brayman as Public Works Worker; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

5.    Planning Board Member (ensuing five-year term):  Council has Michael DeFrancesco’s request to be reappointed.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to reappoint Michael DeFrancesco as Planning Board Member for the ensuing five-year term; seconded by Mr. Ellis.

Discussion:  Council thanked Mr. DeFrancesco for wishing to continue to serve.

Back to the Motion:  Voted unanimously in the affirmative.

6.    Planning Board Member (ensuing five-year term):  Council has a letter of interest from Planning Board Alternate Member Christopher Palmer (Communication No. 35).

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to appoint Christopher Palmer as Planning Board Member for the ensuing five-year term; seconded by Mr. McGovern; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Mr. Palmer’s appointment creates vacancy of Planning Board Alternate Member.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to post for Planning Board Alternate Member; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

7.    Zoning Board of Review Member (ensuing five-year term):  Council received a letter of interest but not in time to consider on this agenda.

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to continue to post until August Regular Meeting; seconded by Mr. McGovern; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

8.    Zoning Board of Review Member Alternate Member (ensuing five-year term):  Council has received Timothy Robertson’s request for reappointment.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to defer decision to August Regular Meeting;seconded by Mr. Maher; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

D.   EXPIRING TERMS:  There were no Expiring Terms for Council’s consideration.

No.    8:   PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE APPLICATION:  FRIENDS OF THE EXETER PUBLIC LIBRARY, APPLICANT; EXETER FALL FESTIVAL, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2018, 10:00 A.M. TO 3:00 P.M., YAWGOO VALLEY SKI AREA, 160 YAWGOO VALLEY ROAD, EXETER, RHODE ISLAND, HAY RIDES, MUSIC, FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT:

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to open the Public Hearing; seconded by Mr. Ellis; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Wanda Rose on behalf of the Friends of the Exeter Public Library was present and read the Friends’ press release:  “The Fall Festival Library Fund Raiser is a fun-filled, family event featuring hay rides, pumpkin and face painting, performers and music, a book sale, a bake sale, demonstrations by the local dance troop, and the Rhode Island State Police Canine Unit.  We have local artisan crafts, food, and raffles, and small carnival games.  It takes place on October 13 from 10:00 to 3:00 at Yawgoo Ski Area, 160 Yawgoo Valley Road, Exeter.  Admission is free.  The event is hosted by the Friends of the Exeter Public Library, a non-profit corporation. For more information, or if you wish to register as a vendor, visit exeterfallfestival.com or exeterfriends.org. 

All proceeds benefit the Exeter Public Library.”

There have been no complaints regarding this event in the past.  Abutting property owners were duly noticed.  None were present.  The public hearing was duly advertised.  The Friends have requested waiver of the application fee.  Advertising and certified mailing fees are owed in the amount of $165.06.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to close the public hearing; seconded by Mr. Patterson; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to grant the Friends of the Exeter Public Library an outdoor entertainment license to hold its Fall Festival on October 13 at Yawgoo Ski Valley Area; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to waive the outdoor entertainment license application fee at the request of the Friends of the Exeter Public Library for their event on October 13, 2018; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

B. PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE APPLICATION:  SAHAND NIKKHAH ON BEHALF OF KIKI’S ICE CREAM, 567 SOUTH COUNTY TRAIL, EXETER, RHODE ISLAND, TO HOLD MOVIE NIGHTS ON THE CENTER, COMMON AREA, LAWN AT OAK HARBOUR VILLAGE, 567 SOUTH COUNTY TRAIL, EXETER, RHODE ISLAND, ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHTS (WEATHER PERMITTING), JULY THROUGH NOVEMBER, 2018, FROM 8:00 P.M. TO 11:00 P.M.:

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to open the Public Hearing; seconded by Mr. Patterson; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Mr. Nikkah was present.  His “outdoor theater” will be free fun for families and will support local businesses.

Abutting property owners were duly noticed.  None were present.  The public hearing was duly advertised.  Advertising and certified mailing fees are owed in the amount of $217.12.

MOTION made by Mr. Maher to close the public hearing; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

MOTION made by Mr. Morrissey to grant Sahand Nikkah on behalf of Kiki’s Ice Cream, a public entertainment license to hold Movie Nights as advertised; seconded by Mr. Patterson; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

C.   CONTINUED:  AMENDED PROPOSAL TO AMEND EXETER CODE OF ORDINANCES AS SUBMITTED BY GREEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC; ZONING, APPENDIX A, ARTICLE II, ZONING DISTRICT USE REGULATIONS; SECTION 2.4, ZONING USE TABLE; SECTION 2.4.1.69, USE CATEGORY; AND REVISION OF SECTION 11.1 (“SOLAR”) (UTILITY SCALE SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC FACILITY):

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to reopen the continued Public Hearing; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Attorney Marusak addressed the Public.  At the Public Hearing on June 4, 2018, it was determined that there may be an issue regarding notice to abutters.  The matter was continued to tonight in order that the abutters may be noticed of the public hearing. 

Tonight, the Council will first ask the Planning Board and Applicant to state their positions for the benefit of those here tonight who have not been present before.  Council will then ask for public comments and asks that they be kept succinct and brief.

There should be no interrupting, comments, questions, or applauding.  Be courteous.

Mr. Ellis noted that the applicant did notify the abutters and that the notification had a return address of the Town Clerk and included the Town Clerk’s Notice of Public Hearing and promotional material for Green Development.  A resident asked him why the Town sent the notice on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Ellis assured the resident that it was not the Town Clerk who sent the notification.  Mr. Ellis queried:  Why was the return address that of the Town Clerk and why was there not a cover letter included?  Mr. Ellis felt the notification improper and inappropriate.

Mr. Ellis requested that July Communication Nos. 2, 39, 40, 53 be made part of tonight’s record (attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment A) and, because he felt it telling and timely, read Everett Peck’s (#39) into the record.  Mr. Maher found it interesting that Mr. Peck did not contact him or any of the other Council members directly about this issue.  Mr. Peck has always contacted Mr. Maher in the past when there was an issue that concerned him.  Mr. Maher left it to speculation.

Attorney John Mancini on behalf of Green Development reviewed:  This process was started in March of 2018.  There has been multiple and adequate advertising.  Though, he and the applicant felt that proper notice was given for last month, they conceded to having the matter continued to tonight and mailing out notification.  Regarding the return address on the notification for tonight, the Town requested proof of mailing to the abutters.  The applicant used the Town’s return address on the envelope in the event that if a piece of mail was not delivered, the Town would know that notification was attempted.  For pieces delivered, the Town received the return receipt card.  In accordance with R.I.G.L. 45-24-53, all property owners within the designated area were  advised of the date, time, and place of the hearing and the nature and purpose of the hearing.  Notice was proper.  The applicant is seeking tonight conclusion and a discussion on the merits and a decision.  It is only fair.  Council has had this matter before it for quite some time.  The proposed ordinance is in the record.  The applicant’s subsequent changes are in the record.  The applicant is not proposing a specific project on a specific property.  It is proposing a specific process.  The Town’s present ordinance is ambiguous and defective.  The goal of the changes is to streamline the process and make it clear what needs to be done and what is required for approval of a solar array project.  The Town has a due process obligation to ensure that it is doing so.  The process has not been altered significantly but clarified.  The changes do not circumvent the Planning Board.  Solar arrays are still major land development projects and will require four review processes, two of which will be public hearings.  It changes the zone on some properties to allow projects to proceed by right to the Planning Board without obtaining a special use permit.  If Council does not wish solar in Town, it should not allow it any zone.  If it is going to allow solar, the ordinance must be legal, practical, feasible, and economical.

Mark DePasquale, the applicant, reviewed:  With regard to notification, the Town advertised on March 15, March 23, and March 29 for the April 2 meeting.  Green Development, on May 22, mailed 2,509 pamphlets to all voters within the last three years.   For the June 4 meeting, the Town advertised on May 17, May 24, and June 1.

On June 22, Green Development mailed 237 notifications via certified mail at the request of the Council.  On June 29, Green Development put information on 337 doors.  There was a campaign on social media from May through July.  There were 34,000 hits.  For tonight, the Town advertised on June 21, June 28, and July 6.  With all that, Mr. DePasquale’s office received three phone calls.  Tonight, Mr. DePasquale handed out information sheets to the public and Council.

Hannah Moreni, Project Developer, Green Development presented:  Same presentation as last month with some changes to make transmittal of information clearer and keep the lines of communication open.  Green Development works with land owners to develop solar projects.  The power generated offsets energy requirements of cities, towns, quasi-publics, and non-profits.  All work, engineering, construction, management, etc., is done in house from ground up.  Green Development is currently the largest owner and operator of renewable projects in Rhode Island, has 26 megawatts of operational projects, and plans to more than double that by the end of the year.  Summary of the changes to the ordinance:  cleans up lot coverage to mirror Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management’s application of impervious structures, requires public buffering, clarifies when in the process each submission item is required; removes the requirement for financial proforma; adds requirement for landscape plans by a certified landscape architect (the intent is to screen and buffer the array using native plants, to preserve the landscape and line of sight, to assist pollinators and wildlife habitats, and to preserve rural character; pesticides and insecticides will not be used); requires that wires be installed underground; and requires site plan and equipment specifications as part of building permit process.  Fifteen parcels are cited that they meet the criteria (acreage and radius from the substation).  The number of parcels cannot be expanded, unless the same process of amendment proposal is undertaken.  Owners of some of the parcels may or may not undergo a solar project.  Mr. Peck has indicated he will not.  Projects will have to go through the major land development process, four meetings with the Planning Board, two of which will include notification to abutters.  The 65 megawatts proposed will create $41,000,000.00 in lease payments to land owners over 25 years.  During the construction process, a job fair will be held, locals will be hired.  Solar arrays add no additional traffic, noise, or pollution to the community.  Green Development is offering the Town $7,000.00 tax per megawatt or $472,500.00 tax revenue to the Town per year (State law requires $5,000.00 per megawatt) and a one-time upfront development incentive of $377,500.00 to be paid prior to issuance of each building permit.  If the parcels are developed, there could be potentially 74 house lots with potentially 63 children.  At a cost of $16,000.00 per student per year, the Town would pay $27,000,000.00 over 25 years to send those children to school.  There are minor tweaks to an existing ordinance.  The Planning Board will still have oversight of each project.  The proposal does not change zoning on the parcels.  It is a text amendment.  It allows parcels zoned RU-3 and RU-4 an additional use.  With this choice, large land owners can increase income, help paying taxes, and continue in the community.  Less than 1% of land in Town will be used. There will be a local economic benefit.  Over $12,000,000.00 in tangible tax payments over 25 years will be collected by the Town. 

Town Planner, Ashley Sweet, commented:  The Planning Board provided a thorough, 19-page advisory opinion to Council.   After reviewing the themes, goals, and policies of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Board found that the proposal is not consistent with the Plan and had other concerns.  The proposal implies spot zoning.  The Planning Board queries whether the proposal is legal considering it finds the proposal inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Another concern is precedence of approval.  State law requires that when a zone change is being requested, review by the Planning Board should first be obtained.  The applicant indicates that there are no current projects for the 15 parcels.  The Planning Board, however, presently has projects before it for four of the parcels.  The first stage of review has not been reached, which could mean a violation of precedence of approval.  The Planning Board recognizes that the existing solar ordinance is not adequate.  It has drafted the ordinance eight times.   Green Development has told the Planning Board that it has a good solar ordinance but now comes before Council with an amendment proposal. 

The Planning Board considers removal of the special use requirement or changes to the current lot coverages major amendments to the regulations and has major concerns with those requests.

Mr. Maher queried of Ms. Sweet:  When referring to the Comprehensive Plan, is she referring to the one currently being redrafted or the one that expired four years ago? 

Ms. Sweet:  It is not expired.  It remains in effect until it is replaced.  Mr. Maher:  How is the amendment proposal not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?  Ms. Sweet:  The Plan does not have a solar clause and the proposal is in inconsistent with many elements of the Plan, the introduction, vision, economic development, land use, natural and cultural resources, and the overall goal statement.  Mr. Maher:  Where in the Planning Board opinion does it specifically say that solar arrays are not allowed?  Ms. Sweet:  The Planning Board quoted specific sections of the Comprehensive Plan and provided comments why not consistent.  Mr. Maher:  So, we agree that the Comprehensive Plan is generalities with regards to the advisory opinion? Ms. Sweet:  That is not what I said. 

Mr. Ellis did not see generalities in the advisory opinion, only specifics.  He thanked the Planning Board for providing 19 pages of reasons to recommend against the proposal.

Mr. Maher noted that much of the public had not seen the opinion and suggested that parts of it be read into the record.  The opinion is available at the Town Clerk’s Office.

Council took Public Comments alternating those opposed and those in favor.

Gina Thurn, 555 Gardiner Road:  Ms. Thurn, not a large land owner or an abutter to any of the 15 parcels, addressed the concerns of those opposed to the proposal, deforestation, excessive runoff, and loss of agricultural land. Deforestation is happening by gypsy moths, storms, loss of unhealthy trees, clearcutting.  The forests pose a fire threat.  Selectively cutting for solar arrays will create firebreaks.  Excessive runoff can be avoided on permeable surfaces with properly installed drainage to promote natural percolation and will recharge the water table.  Land grading, like used when building homes to keep water from flooding basements, will encourage water to flow through the ground rather than downhill.  Agricultural lands do not generate enough income to  cover the cost to keep in production.  It is possible to grow crops under solar panels that are in demand.  To say that it is not possible, is to insult the ingenuity and the entrepreneurship of the modern day farmer.  Solar can be the pendulum to swing farming back to being profitable and preserve farmland and open space for generations. 

Ms. Thurn read from E.M. Tiffany.

Joseph Bartoshevich, 68 Pinoak Drive:  Mr. Bartoshevich has lived in Town 31 years and has never seen such a “bogus” project.  He queried:  What has Green Development done in the past?  What are they doing now?  What is their history?  He noted that Green Development did not keep promises made in a North Kingstown wind turbine project and paid abutters to keep quiet.  The property owners for the wind turbine filed suit.  North Kingstown put a moratorium on wind turbines.  Citiing a house project by Mr. DePasquale, Mr. Bartoshevich indicates that the process was a nightmare.  What Mr. DePasquale promises and what he delivers are two different things.  He does not have a history of being a good neighbor.  How will he be one here?  Attorney Marusak asked Mr. Bartoshevich to stick to what is before Council, what he speaks about is hearsay.  Mr. Bartoshevich urged Council to reject the proposal and make the projects go to Zoning per normal procedure and recommended that Council accept Draft No. 8 of the solar ordinance as proposed by the Planning Board on April 24, 2018 before it accepts this proposal.

Kelly Jo Mann, 376 William Reynolds Road:  Ms. Mann’s family lost her sister to a toxic environment (a sick building at URI which caused cancer and was finally torn down) when she was in her 30s.  Ms. Mann queried:  Why would we continue to use harmful fossil fuels?  The use of renewable energy is long overdue.  Why would we not want a healthy environment?  Ms. Mann urged Council to do the right thing and approve this renewable source of energy and put it where it is best suited, out of sight and out of mind.  What is better?  To have many homes on many acres, with more paved roads and more outbuildings, or fewer of them?  We protect our natural resources.  Use them to protect our environments and families.  This is an opportunity to approve renewable energy and do away with anything and everything that is harmful.

Scott Millar, Stony Lane:   Though he strongly supports solar development, Mr. Millar believes that large scale solar development must be accommodated carefully in order to avoid negative impacts to community character, natural resources, and property values.  Other states have experienced negative impacts from industrial scale solar development and have revised their programs to discourage development on farms

and open space and encourage it in gravel banks and parking lots.  It is new to the State, which is reassessing its program, its guidance, and its model solar ordinance. 

It may be prudent for Exeter to wait for the State.  Mr. Millar opposes Green Development’s proposal because it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Board referenced specifically why in its advisory opinion, that industrial scale solar is not allowed in residential zones; it is not adequate to protect the Town; it is unprecedented to allow developers to write the rules and select properties without any input from the Town or the public; it is not equitable (it allows only nine landowners, and maybe less because some are not interested) to have utility scale solar; it eliminates the special use requirement (which precludes abutting property owners to have input before a project is approved) and the 15% lot coverage requirement that applies to all other uses; it does not provide enforeceable requirements for vegetative buffers, earth removal, chemicals, and decommissioning; Green Development has not signed an agreement regarding their economic promises; and the school costs are inadequate (it is only extra cost when a new school room is added, not students).  In contrast, the Planning Board’s proposed ordinance would allow all land owners to have solar development with reasonable limits to protect abutting properties and the rural character of the Town.  Mr. Millar urged Council to reject the proposal and adopt the Planning Board’s, which could be one of the best in the State.

Tim Schartner, 1 Arnold Place:  As he believes in solar, Schartner supports the proposal.  Nothing manmade exhibits creation like nature.  Solar is the right direction.

Get it together, sink your teeth into it, get good practices, and get it done.  It is the future.

Mark Lyles, 86 Hopkins Hill Road:  Mr. Lyles opposes the proposal.  At last month’s meeting, he noted that abutters and even some of the 15 property owners were not notified.  He queried:  Do any Council members have a conflict of interest in this matter?  Mr. McGovern indicated that two members thought they may have.  The Ethics Commission has determined that they do not.  They are allowed to vote on the matter. 

Mr. Lyles has Mr. Peck’s authority to speak on his behalf.  Mr. Lyles did not know why Mr. Peck has not contacted any of the Council members, but Mr. Peck is “absolutely, emotionally distraught” over this matter, to the point he could not be here tonight and will decide, based on the outcome, whether he “will take action.”  Mr. Peck and many of the landowners and abutters feel they were thrust out of this process and brought in only because the question of notice was raised, leading them to question due process. 

Mr. Lyles feels the cart is being put before the horse.   There have been no agreements reached.  It is rushed and by passes the Planning and Zoning Boards, which is troubling itself.  Mr. Lyles urged Council to take a business approach when considering this proposal.

Lauren Thurn, 55 Gardiner Road:  Mr. Thurn supports solar and its benefits to agriculture.  Jason Whitford recently supported the proposal in an editorial in the Providence Journal.  A response to same suggests that Mr. Whitford is being “greedy,” that solar on his property will reduce the value of abutting properties, and that he will gain more from solar than his taxes cost.  Neighbors expect farmers to maintain their land in a way that increases property values and provides scenic vistas and wildlife habitats, without any compensation to the farmer.  Are not the neighbors being greedy?  Should not the community go forward together?  Solar will have no impact on the community or services and will help the tax base.  Solar screened from view is more desirable than housing developments, which will increase taxes.  Give farmers the option to keep their lands in agricultural and allow them to move towards new farming adventures around solar.  The farmers, who are dictated by town councils, planners,

the Planning Board, and bureaucrats, are forced to sell if they cannot continue because of zone changes or increased taxes.  If Mr. Peck can opt out of the zone change, can Mr. Thurn opt out of paying tax increases? 

Barbara Kennedy, 83 Hopkins Hill Road:  Ms. Kennedy submitted copies of her presentation and pictures to Council.  Her property abuts several of the 15 lots.

Two solar arrays currently exist on Routes 2 and 3 in zones where they are allowed.  The Route 2 one looks barren and has no landscaping.  The Route 3 one is close to the road, has no vegetative buffer, and can be clearly seen.  Ms. Kennedy is not against solar but is against this proposal.  She is against solar being anywhere but business or industrial zones.  Her property is surrounded by trees.  She would not want to see them taken down for a solar array.  Ms. Kennedy was angry when she received the recent mailing from Green Development and requested that Council in the future control such mailings and not allow a mailing that is coming from a developer appear as though it is coming from the Town.  Ms. Kennedy loves Exeter and would like it to remain rural.  She does not want to see a solar array on Sunderland Road or at Cuttyhunk Park.  Ms. Kennedy reminded Council that they are responsible to the land owners.  Mr. Patterson informed Ms. Kennedy, who has lived in Exeter nine years, that in 1997 Mr. Peck clear cut and created his open fields.

Ted Nataly, 34 Nelson Drive:  Mr. Nataly felt that if Mr. Peck had something to say you would see and hear from him directly and remembers Mr. Peck’s house when it was surrounded by trees.  Mr. Nataly was in favor of solar being put on appropriate properties.  The problem is persons moving into houses abutting farms want to control them.  There has to be a solution, a way to work it out, where farmers can put solar near houses.  The “not in my Town” mentality has to stop.  The Town should grab the tax revenue while it can.  There is no other means, such as big box business, for tax revenue.  If the lands are sold, more houses.  Those new residents will want more services and will send more kids to the schools, which will mean more tax increases to the residents.  The residents’ taxes are the Town’s biggest revenue.  Solar is a chance for relief.

Mike Cerullo 61 William Reynolds Road:  Mr. Cerullo was against the proposal, but not solar under the right circumstances and financial benefits.  The proposal ties the hands of the Planning Board.  It is about end runs and power grabs.  If a special use permit is not required, the Town’s rural character and environmental integrity will be in danger.  Unregulated solar arrays in other communities have resulted in treeless, unsightly installations that have transformed high value properties into low value ghettos.  Council should work to minimize the impacts.  One of Exeter’s most powerful tools is the professional, diligent work of the Planning Board.  Why entertain the special interest over the Planning Board?  If Council does, it will abdicate its duty to protect the interests of the citizens, the environment, and property values.  Has Council done its due diligence in studying the impacts on the surrounding properties?  Would it make sense to see what develops in other communities and stay with the current process in the meantime?  Keep options open and in the control of the current planning process. 

Tammy Lyles, 86 Hopkins Hill Road:  Ms. Lyles was opposed to the proposal.  She found removing the financial proforma disconcerting.  It tells her that Green Development is trying to hide information regarding their profitability.  Green Development is not the only solar company in town.  The town and the residents considering commercial solar development should look at other companies.

William Stamp, Stamp Farm, Route 2:  Mr. Stamp was in favor of the proposal.  When Cranston zoned him out, he came to Exeter.  Mr. Stamp has been farming since 1956 and wants to continue.  From experience, he stays away from government.  His neighbors should have a say on whether Mr. Stamp has solar and keeps his property a farm?  Because of increases in expenses and taxes, if he does not get help in some manner, Mr. Stamp does not know if he will be able to sustain his farm.  Solar is an option.  If done right, it will help him and the Town.  Mr. Stamp urged Council to approve the proposal.  Those against should be ashamed.

Frank Digregorio, 143 Hallville Road:  Mr. DiGregorio spoke as a resident and abutter, not a Planning Board Member.  It was Mr. DiGregorio’s opinion that Mr. Patterson should have and should recuse himself on this proposal because Mr. Patterson owns property abutting properties cited in Green Development’s original proposal and he owns an excavating business that has done work for utility scale solar systems.  Excavating will be in great demand.   Mr. Patterson advocates for Green Development instead of supporting the Comprehensive Plan.  At a work session on March 26, Mr. Patterson presented a draft solar ordinance, conspicuously the same as Green Development’s proposal.  There is a potential violation of the Ethics Code.  Regarding  the Planning Board’s negative recommendation to Council, detailing their rational against the proposal, utility scale solar systems should only be permitted in locations where they are not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, do not negatively impact abutters, and are appropriately regulated.  After 25 years, the properties are to be returned to their original condition.  Will they be?  The property owners or the Town could end up bearing the costs.  The argument that farms could be developed as homes is speculative and unsubstantiated.   Because solar arrays on residential properties are not allowed, it cannot be argued that rights are being taken away.  It protects the rights of abutting owners from an intrusive, commercial development.  Allowing utility scale systems in residential zones would set a dangerous precedent, opening up the possibility of other utility or commercial ventures on residential zones.  Solar systems properly regulated as allowed can still yield a substantial gain for the Town and land owner.  Eliminating the 15% lot coverage will allow for 100% of solar coverage on a property.  Spot zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Who should be writing the ordinances?  The Town or a developer?  In Mr. DiGregorio’s opinion, the notification still does not meet all requirements and may be legally flawed.  What has been the cost of the newspapers ads and who has paid them? 

In January, Mr. Patterson wrote the Ethics Commission regarding the original proposal.  The Ethics Commission did not find a violation with him participating on the matter. 

Mr. Patterson’s property does not abut any of the 15 properties listed in the current proposal.  Mr. DiGregorio believed Mr. Patterson was incorrect because he understood that Mr. Patterson had withdrawn his inquiry.  Mr. Patterson has the Ethics Commission’s letter.  Because Green Development amended its amendment, there was no reason for a hearing.  As far as he is concerned, Mr. Patterson felt he has been cleared.  With respect to working on solar projects, Mr. Patterson has worked on three for a company out of New Jersey, none for Green Development.  Because he builds roads, should he recuse himself from tonight’s requests to go out to bid for road paving?

Ann Stamp, Stamp Farm, Route 2:   To persons who have moved into the community, Ms. Stamp wished to say, when you move into a community, you do not own what others own.  You do not own the view that their neighbor’s land affords.  People who have been working farms for decades have put the investment into the property and agriculture and keeping the land what others admire.  Alternative energy options are beneficial, viable, sustainable, possible tools to keep families in farming.  Keeping agricultural in Town lends to sustainability, open space, and local farm products.

Sandra Kearns:  Ms. Kearns felt that the proposal is pitting neighbors against neighbors and urged Council to go the right way and put an end to this.

Mr. Maher requested a brief recess.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to take a five-minute recess and reconvene at 10:00; seconded by Mr. Maher; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Council recessed at 9:55 p.m.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to reassemble in open session; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Council reconvened at 10:02 p.m.

Mr. McGovern noted that Council has the room until 11:00 p.m.

Council continued with Public Comments and asked that comments be kept brief.

William Stamp III, Stamp Farm, Route 2:  Mr. Stamp would like to see farming endure.  It is his sole income.  His farm is a resource holder.  There are not many farms left. 

Given the costs to farm, solar opportunities are a tool for farms to continue.  Farms create prosperity.  This proposal is a win/win for everyone but is creating division. 

Mr. Stamp urged Council to make the right decision for the community.

Greg Cyr, 35 Estate Drive:  Mr. Cyr was opposed to the proposal.  He had a petition (with 268 signatures) opposing the proposal and read it into the record.  Mr. Patterson inquired as to who collected the signatures.  Mr. Cyr will get the names for Council.   

Martha Stamp, 49 Bedford Drive, South Kingstown:  Ms. Stamp, the elder of the Stamp family, supports the Stamp family and the proposal.  All her life, she has not trusted government.  Her family has been waiting 53 years for government to help the farmer.  Ms. Stamp hoped Council understands how important it is to help farmers and urged it to make the right decision.

Victor Pigoga, 88 Brookridge Drive:  Mr. Pigoga thanked Council for their service and trusted that they will do the right thing.  Mr. Pigoga is an environmental advocate and firm believer that industrial pollution and greenhouses are having an adverse impact. 

Although Green Development has presented itself as environmentally friendly organization pursuing sustainable energy, its goal is to generate revenue.  It has donated $70,000.00 to members of the General Assembly, including Domenic Ruggiero, Nicholas Mattiello, and Gina Raimondo.  If any member of Council has received money from Green Development, he should abstain from voting.  Mr. Pigoga supports wind and solar, but not this proposal.  He urged Council to vote against it so that a proper comprehensive plan can be put in place that will benefit all.  There are no decommission stipulations, no limits to the size of the development, and no documented payments.  Buffers may be required.  Would you enter into a contract for work to be done and then later discuss cost?  Green Development is asking to be exempted from the rules bypassing special permits.  The proposal is “economic pornography” and should be set aside until a proper plan that aligns with the Comprehensive Plan can be put in place. 

Jennifer Curry, 510 River Road, West Greenwich:  Ms. Curry was in support of the proposal.  Her in-laws live in Exeter.  Her children’s futures are in Exeter.  She understands that Council is neutral on the matter until all testimony is heard.  Mr. Ellis read Mr. Peck’s letter into the record.  Ms. Curry requested that the letters of Messrs. Whitford and Palmer be read too.  Ms. Curry queried:  Are zoning changes being forced?  Does the landowner have to have solar?  Mr. Patterson answered in the negative.  Will the Planning Board make sure buffers are put in place?  Is the Planning Board’s opinion available to the public?  Yes.

Michael DeFrancesco, 87 Hallville Road:  Mr. DeFrancesco was opposed to the proposal.  He supports solar if controlled with regulations and believes it could be profitable for the Town.  The Planning Board has proposed revisions to the solar ordinance (Draft #8).  It answers many questions raised tonight, is an alternative, and may alleviate some of the polarizing.  Mr. DeFrancesco submitted the State’s Solar Siting Guidance Information publication, which offers guidance to municipalities.  Council has 45 days to vote.  He urged Council to consider Draft #8 and the State’s Guidance Information before it votes on tonight’s proposal.   

Gregg Allen, 11 Raymond Potter Lane:  Mr. Allen loves rural Exeter.  He felt that though it may be a challenge, he supports the proposal. Solar provides vast opportunities to the Town.  He urged Council to “get it done.”

Thomas McMillan, 20 Cobblestone Hill Road:  Mr. McMillan did not believe you can only have solar with Green Development and only farms can have solar.  It is unthinkable that Council would surrender the responsibility of the Town’s ordinances by turning them over to a self-centered developer and utopian promises.  The proposal takes the Zoning Board completely out.  He believes that is deliberate.  Mr. McMillan urged Council to trust the Planning Board over the developer and defeat the proposal.

James Titus, 160 Liberty Hill Road, West Greenwich, concurs with those in support of the proposal.

Harold Blair, 44 Estate Drive:  Mr. Blair felt the notice was a joke.  Farmers should have the right to put solar on their farms.  If solar is allowed, what next, windmills?  He urged Council to “not sell Exeter for a shiny quarter that might not be real.”

Asa Davis, 146 Beechwood Hill Trail:  Mr. Davis’ land is one of the 15 possible parcels.  His land has been clear cut many times and has always come back.  When he was 14 years old, he helped put solar panels on his grandfather’s roof.  As a mechanical engineer, he has helped design and build renewable energy and distributed generation projects.  Solar power is good.  They make good neighbors.  They are quite, do not pollute, and do not burn fossil fuels.  Solar should be encouraged as opposed to alternative uses.  Mr. Davis finds the proposal an improvement to the current solar ordinance.  It is more clear, sensible, and straightforward than the Planning Board’s Draft #8.  However, the proposal centers around the Lafayette Substation.  The Town’s ordinance should not be based on facets in the control of others.  The utility could decide to close and relocate the substation at any time.  It does not make sense to require more extensive review on the Town level for small scale solar projects for backyards than utility scale.  The Zoning Code should not play favorites.  It should apply equally.  The Town Council should be looking out for the interests of all not just a select few.  It should be the same for everyone. 

Robert Fairbanks, 42 Cobblestone Hill Road:  Mr. Fairbanks was opposed to the proposal and submitted his presentation to Council.  He is a licensed, professional, civil engineer and asked Council to accept him as an expert.  He urged Council to deny the proposal.  The Zoning and Planning Boards are opposed to it.  There are many engineering questions and issues (he gave many examples) that need to be addressed. 

Andrew Teitz, Esq., 2 Williams Street, Providence, representing Stephanie Chaffee: 

Attorney Teitz disclosed that he represented Mark DePasquale several years ago. 

Ms. Chaffee supports solar and wind but not this proposal.  It is not good from a legal, land use or planning perspective, gives a blank check to the developer and renewable energy a bad reputation, and removes the Town’s control.  It singles out 15 lots for spot zoning.  It is improper notice by including the developer’s propaganda.  Attorney Teitz urged Council to consider and wait for the State’s guidelines, deny the proposal, and  go forward with the Planning Board’s #8.  He submitted the State’s guidelines and public hearing schedule, the notice, and his expert, Peter Friedrichs’s resume and report.

Peter Friedrichs, 150 Bridgham Street, Providence:  Mr. Friedrichs has reviewed the proposal, the Zoning Ordinance, the subdivision regulations, and the comprehensive plan.  He felt that the Planning Board and Planner are doing a phenomenal job in their review.  Exeter is at the forefront of making a policy decision.  The proposal excludes the public and does not set a vision for the community, which an ordinance should do.  In his report, he included considerations that he hopes the Council takes note of.

Kelly Morris, Esq., representing Frank DiGregorio:  One of the most important issues tonight is that the ordinance is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Andrew Teitz, Peter Friedrichs, and the Planning Board agree.  The applicant’s expert has not stated that it is.  This is an appealable issue.  The applicant has submitted four applications to the Planning Board.  The State Enabling Act, which sets precedence of approvals, states “where an applicant requires both Planning Board approval and Council approval for a zoning ordinance or zoning map change, the applicant shall first obtain an advisory opinion on the zoning change from the Planning Board as well as conditional Planning Board approval for the first stage of approval for the proposed project, then obtain a conditional zone change from the Town Council and then return to the Planning Board for subsequent approvals.”  The proposal waters down that process.  It is not appropriate. This is another appealable issue.  The proposal does not require Green Development to pay an extra $2,000.00 per megawatt as they have promised.  The Town does not have agreements.  There is a problem with notice.  The map included was not proper.  The propaganda piece is misleading.  There are a lot of problems with the proposal.  Ms. Morris urged Council to accept and review and consider the Planning Board’s Draft #8 and wait for the State’s guidelines.  Get it done right.  Everyone will get their projects.

With the Public Comments concluded, the following motion entered:

MOTION made by Mr. Maher to close the Public Hearing; seconded by Mr. McGovern; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

As it was 11:15 p.m. and Council has forty-five days to decide the matter, the following motion entered:

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to continue Council deliberations regarding the public hearing and the remaining agenda items to Monday, July 16, 2018, provided the Cafeteria at Metcalf School is available; seconded by Mr. Maher.

Discussion:  Attorney Marusak informed the Public that Council will deliberate and possibly render a decision on July 16, 2018.  There will be no public participation.

Back to the Motion:  Voted unanimously in the affirmative.

With the Motion, the meeting concluded at 11:15 p.m.

Council reconvened the meeting on Monday, July 16, 2018, at 7:02 p.m., Metcalf School Cafeteria, 30 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, Rhode Island, and continued with the following agenda item.  All Council members were present.

8C.  CONTINUED:  AMENDED PROPOSAL TO AMEND EXETER CODE OF ORDINANCES AS SUBMITTED BY GREEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC; ZONING, APPENDIX A, ARTICLE II, ZONING DISTRICT USE REGULATIONS; SECTION 2.4, ZONING USE TABLE; SECTION 2.4.1.69, USE CATEGORY; AND REVISION OF SECTION 11.1 (“SOLAR”) (UTILITY SCALE SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC FACILITY):

Council closed the public hearing last Monday, July 9, 2018, and continued to tonight. Council will deliberate.  There will be no additional public comments.

Because he has gotten inquiries as to why a developer is writing an ordinance for the Town, Mr. Patterson asked Attorney Marusak to explain the process to amend an ordinance.  Though it is unusual for an applicant to submit an amendment rather than  the Town Council or the Planning Board, it is not illegal.  R.I.G.L. Section 45-24-51 spells out the procedure for an amendment proposal received by an applicant.  The Council is the legislative body and it makes the final decision whether to adopt.

Mr. Patterson inquired of Town Planner Ashley Sweet:  Is it correct that no one will be notified when the projects come before the Planning Board?  Ms. Sweet:  The proposal is to remove the special use permit so that the project does not go before the Zoning Board and the public notified.  Mr. Patterson:  The projects will have to go through the major land development process which requires four meetings with the Planning Board, two of which will be public and abutters notified?  Ms. Sweet:  There is a difference between the Planning Board process and the special use permit process.  The Zoning Board looks at different standards and can make different assessments and base their decisions on different criteria than the Planning Board.   Yes, the public would be notified for the Planning Board process.  The Planning Board reviews such things as screening.  The Zoning Board reviews such things as impact on neighbors and property values.  Mr. Patterson:  Exeter has very limited commercial and industrial land, Routes 2 and 3. 

Nicholas Goodier, Esq., was present on behalf of Green Development’s counsel.

Mark DePasquale was present on behalf of Green Development.

Mr. Patterson:  The original proposal suggested 129 lots.  Mr. Goodier:  Correct.  However based on feedback from the Town and Planning Board, the criteria was reviewed and the lots reduced to 15.  Mr. Patterson:  The Route 2 infrastructure is maxed.  National Grid has provided a package of what upgrades will be necessary.  Green Development is proposing 67.5 megawatts, the capacity of the proposed trunk line.  If there are any other proposals, would the trunk line have to be again upgraded?  Mr. DePasquale:  Correct.  The infrastructure work will cost Green Development approximately $18,000,000.00.  If another company comes forward with a proposal, it too would have to do an upgrade.  Mr. Patterson:  The State mandates that $5,000.00 per megawatt be paid to the host town.  Green Development is offering $7,000.00.  Attorney Goodier:  Prior to legislation, the projects were tax exempt.  Mr. Goodier submitted the legislation that dictates the manner in which solar arrays are taxed. 

Mr. Ellis:  Is Green Development basing what they will pay the Town in taxes on the legislation?  Mr. DePasquale: Green Development is offering 40% more than the State mandate, will pay it every year for 25 years, and will enter into a tax treaty. 

Mr. McGovern:  How will the payments be memorialized?  Mr. DePasquale:  Between now and the final process before the Planning Board for each project, Green Development, before and for approval, will sign a tax treaty with the Town for 67.5 megawatts, at $7,000.00 per megawatt.  $5000.00 will go into the General Fund.  $2,000.00 can be used as the Town sees fit.  Mr. McGovern:  Green Development expressed that it will hire 300 Exeter residents and establish a scholarship fund.

Mr. DePasquale:  Green Development will give a $5,000.00 scholarship for every megawatt developed.  Mr. Ellis:  Are the incentives part of the submission to the Planning Board?  Mr. DePasquale:  The tax treaty is made with the Council.  It is an economic benefit to the Town.  It is a money decision.  It will not go to the Planning or Zoning Boards.  Ms. Sweet:  The Planning Board has no authority to impose a tax treaty as a condition of final approval.  Mr. McGovern:  If Council approves the Planning Board’s proposed amendments to the ordinance and not Green Development’s, is the money still on the table?  Mr. DePasquale:  No.  Council can amend the proposal to include the incentives.  Mr. Morrissey:  Last month, one public comment questioned Mr. DePasquale’s credibility and Mr. Morrissey has been approached by others with concerns. Attorney Marusak:  Those comments and concerns are hearsay and cannot be defended.  The persons cannot be cross-examined.  Mr. DePasquale:  You do not enter into a tax treaty and build a project unless you are ready to pay for it.  Mr. Maher:  Will the jobs be filled by Exeter residents?  Mr. DePasquale:  More than 300 people will work on the projects, laborers, construction workers, maintenance.  A job fair will be held for qualified residents, veterans, and job corps students.  Preferential treatment will be given to Exeter and could be written into tax treaty.  Mr. McGovern:  There will be no way to verify.  Mr. Maher:  There are concerns with the construction and makeup of the panels having carcinogens and poisonous materials that could impact the environment.

Mr. Buckton, CEO, Green Development:  Green Development uses silican-based panels.  They are 75% sand.  There is no toxic runoff or other concerns of that nature.  Fifty years ago there may have been, but the panels have been improved.  Mr. Maher:  A newspaper article indicates that a project in Richmond has many problems.  There is runoff.  It was not properly installed.  Was there mitigation?  Mr. DePasquale:  The project was under construction.  There was heavy rain and wash outs.  Green Development responded.  The problems have been mitigated and stabilized.  Kevin Morin, Engineer, Green Development:  DEM and Richmond officials are happy with the progress made.  The abutters were satisfied when additional plantings stopped the runoff.  The asset is being managed.  Mr. Patterson:  The State, the Division of Statewide Planning, and Office of Energy Resources, are going to be conducting informational hearings.  Who are the shareholders?  Ms. Sweet:  The legislation requiring municipalities to adopt renewable energy ordinances did not pass.  Part of it would have created an advisory committee that would draft and implement a model ordinance.  The Office of Energy Resources has moved forward without legislation and is meeting with a stakeholder group to draft a model ordinance and guidance document.  Mr. Patterson:  Are you a member?  Ms. Sweet:  Yes, the Legislation Liaison, Rhode Island Chapter.  The list of stakeholders was read into the record.  Mr. Patterson:  Is Andrew Teitz a member?  Ms. Sweet:  No.  Mr. Patterson:  Mr. Patterson read an email obtained through open records, addressed to Ms. Sweet.  The email inquiries whether the American Planning Association would consider not assisting the Office of Energy Resources in going forward with a model ordinance?   The email was signed by Scott Millar, Grow Smart, who asked that the email not be shared.  Mr. Patterson considered this collusion, “a way to throw a wrench in the works.”  Ms. Sweet:  Ms. Sweet did not understand.  The American Planning Association is engaged and participating.  Mr. Ellis:  The list includes planners from other communities who have concerns and experience with solar arrays.  The group has concerns regarding special use permits?  Ms. Sweet:  The model ordinance will not be one size, fits all.  The guidance document will assist with policy questions.  Everyone unanimously agrees

that a special use permit is necessary. 

Mr. McGovern noted that State Law allows Council forty-five days to make its decision, until August 23, 2018, and inquired did Council wish to vote or postpone the decision?

Mr. Ellis has suggested in previous meetings that Council move forward on the Planning Board’s proposed amendments (Draft #8).  First, his motion failed and then it was decided that Council could not do a public hearing on Green Development’s and the Planning Board’s proposals on the same night (June 9).  Mr. Ellis will motion tonight under Unfinished Business,10E, for a public hearing on August 16 on the Planning Board’s proposal, for Council and the Public to consider.  It supports residential and small, medium, large, and utility solar arrays.  He suggested that the decision be postponed.

Mr. Maher’s opinion was that Council has heard proper testimony for several meetings and knows the position of the Developer and the Planning Board.  He therefore made the following motion:

MOTION made by Mr. Maher to adopt the amended proposal to amend the Exeter Code of Ordinances as submitted by Green Development, LLC, Zoning, Appendix A, Article II, Zoning District Use Regulations, Section 2.4, Zoning Use Table, Section 2.4.1.69, Use Category, and Revision of Section 11.1, Solar, Utility Scale Solar Photovoltaic Facility; seconded by Mr. Morrissey.

Discussion:  Mr. Ellis:  The Planning Board has submitted a 19-page recommendation to Council suggesting that it not support the amendment proposal.  Based on the testimony, has the Planning Board changed its mind? Ms. Sweet:  No, the Planning Board has not changed its position.  The Planning Board did not ask Green Development to pare down their application and choose less lots.  That will not be found in the minutes, record, or writing.   The Planning Board wrote its advisory opinion. 

It did not ask anything of Green Development. 

Mr. Patterson has heard concern about the tax treaty.  Contracts regarding monetary issues are not a duty of the Planning Board.  That would be a Council matter. 

Mr. Patterson wished to AMEND THE MOTION adding “As part of the application plan that the applicant, as part of the development plan review, submit its tax treaty at master plan, when all paperwork is submitted, so Council and the attorneys can review it before it goes through the entire planning process, and part of the final approval would be execution of a tax treaty between the Exeter Town Council and the applicant"; accepted and seconded by Mr. Maher.

Discussion:  Mr. McGovern preferred the Planning Board’s amendment proposal. 

He felt it may be unfair to residents whose parcels qualify for solar but are not included among the 15 parcels.  He liked the Planning Board’s five categories from building mounted to utility scale.  The process is differentiated.  For building mounted, the planning process is rather simple.  For utility scale, it is a more in-depth process, including public involvement. 

Regarding limiting the scope of the parcels, Mr. Patterson noted that residents not owning parcels included in the fifteen parcels could apply for an amendment and go through the planning process as this applicant did. Mr. McGovern felt it onerous.

Back to the Motion:  Voted as follows:

No.    9:   NEW BUSINESS:

A.   PERSONNEL ISSUES/LABOR NEGOTIATIONS:  There were no Personnel Issues/Labor Negotiations.

B.   DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS:  REQUEST TO PROCEED TO BID: ROAD REPAIR PROCESSES (ASPHALT PAVING, RUBBER CHIP SEAL, REJUVENATOR):  Director of Public Works Stephen Mattscheck explained the products, processes, and savings.

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to go out to bid for Road Repair Processes (Asphalt Paving, Rubber Chip Seal, Rejuvenator); seconded by Mr. Morrissey.

Discussion:  Mr. Mattscheck explained further.

Back to the Motion:  Voted unanimously in the affirmative.

C.   DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS:  REQUEST TO PROCEED TO BID:  UTILITY VEHICLE:  The 2008 F350 will be traded in.  It has issues that are not worth fixing.

MOTION made by Mr. Morrissey to go out to bid for a Utility Vehicle; seconded by Mr. McGovern; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

D.   DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS:  REQUEST TO PROCEED TO BID:  HEATING AND COOLING UPGRADES:  TOWN CLERK’S OFFICE BUILDING:

The upgrades will be done upstairs.  It will replace wall units, supplement the existing heating and cooling, and be more efficient.  The Town Sergeant and Treasurer’s offices have been upgraded.  Next, will be the rest of the building.  The funding was approved at Financial Town Meeting.

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to proceed to bid for heating and cooling upgrades in the Town Clerk’s building; seconded by Mr. Patterson; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

E.   PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT:  AWARDING OF BID:  RANDOM CRACK SEALING BY FIBER REINFORCED METHOD:  There was one bid.  Director of Public Works Stephen Mattscheck’s recommends the bid.  The process has been used for ten years.  It works well. There has been zero problems with the company and its product.

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to award the bid for Random Crack Sealing by Fiber Reinforced Method to Sealcoating, Inc.; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

F.   EXETER RURAL LAND PRESERVATION TRUST:  INTRODUCTION, REVIEW, AND POSSIBLE ACTION:  PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING LANDOWNER APPRAISALS, EVALUATION FORM, AND LAND ACQUISITION POLICY:

Janelle Bonn, Chair, was present.  Attorney Marusak has reviewed the documents and suggested some edits.  Mr. Patterson and Mr. Findlay will attend the Committee’s next meeting to review.

G.  RUBBISH REMOVAL LICENSE APPLICATION:  STEPHEN FARAONE, DISTRICT MANAGER, WASTE MANAGEMENT OF RI, INC., 1610 PONTIAC AVENUE, CRANSTON, RHODE ISLAND 02920:  All requirements have been met.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to grant Rubbish Removal License Application to Waste Management of RI, Inc.; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

No. 10:   UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

A.    HISTORIC PRESERVATION/HISTORIC CEMETERIES:  Mr. Findlay had nothing new to discuss or address.

B.    IMPACT FEE STUDY:  Mr. Findlay is in the process of scheduling a meeting with the Department Chairs and Tischler Bise, the company awarded the bid.

C.    INTRODUCTION, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION:  AN ORDINANCE REGULATING CERTAIN SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL USES AND ACTIVITIES:  The legislative season is over. There has been no action.

D.    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES:  Funds were appropriated at  Financial Town Meeting for a consultant to give advice for moving forward to upgrade.

MOTION made by Mr. Maher to move forward with the line item that was approved and bring the consultant in to try to begin the process to upgrade the Town Hall and the Town to the point it needs to be; seconded by Mr. Ellis.

Discussion:  Does it need to go out to bid?  Mr. McGovern suggested that Council meet with the individual in Executive Session to discuss the steps going forward and his fees.

MOTION AMENDED by Mr. Maher to bring the consultant that Council has already spoken to into Executive Session to discuss the possibilities and his recommendations concerning the Town’s technology services; seconded by Mr. McGovern.

Discussion:  Council will discuss with the consultant what is expected and payment for services.

Back to the Amended Motion:   Voted unanimously in the affirmative.

E.    INTRODUCTION, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EXETER CODE OF ORDINANCES, APPENDIX A, ZONING, ARTICLE XI, RENEWABLE ENERGY, SECTION 11.1, SOLAR:

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to schedule a Public Hearing Monday, August 13, to allow for the three weeks’ advertising required by law; seconded by Mr. McGovern.

Discussion:  The Public Hearing cannot be held August 13 because it is a holiday.

Mr. Ellis withdrew his motion.  Mr. McGovern withdrew his second.

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to schedule the Public Hearing Monday, September 10, and consider not holding the Council meeting on September 4 but holding it on September 10.

Discussion:  Mr. McGovern suggested keeping the Public Hearing separate from the Regular Meeting.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to schedule the Public Hearing Monday, August 20; seconded by Mr. Patterson

Discussion:  It will be held in Council Chambers, Exeter Clerk’s Office.

Back to the Motion:  Voted unanimously in the affirmative.

F.     TRANSFER STATION STATUS:  This agenda item will be discussed in Executive Session.

G.    PERMIT PROGRAM:  CAT BREEDERS (RIGL CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4-24-4, BREEDING PERMITS):  The ordinance has been presented.  The fee schedule needs to be updated.  Dog breeders will be added to the ordinance.

H.    REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCE COMMITTEE:  Neither West Greenwich nor the School Committee have responded to Council’s communication. Mr. Maher will follow up.

I.      GARDNER ROAD ISSUES:  The basin will be installed soon.

J.     AMENDED PROPOSAL TO AMEND EXETER CODE OF ORDINANCES AS SUBMITTED BY GREEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC: ZONING, APPENDIX A; ARTICLE II, ZONING DISTRICT USE REGULATIONS; SECTION 2.4, ZONING USE TABLE; SECTION 2.4.1.69, USE CATEGORY; AND REVISION OF SECTION 11.1 (“SOLAR”) (UTILITY SCALE SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC FACILITY) (MAY COMMUNICATION NO. 16):  This matter was addressed and decided earlier this evening.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to remove Agenda Item No. 10J; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

K.    PURCHASE OF NEW PATROL VEHICLE:  The Town Sergeant is satisfied with his vehicles and did not wish to give one to Emergency Management Director E. Stefan Coutoulakis.  Mr. Coutoulakis is pursuing a grant to purchase a vehicle.

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to remove Agenda Item No. 10K. Purchase of New Patrol Vehicle, from the agenda; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

L.     REQUEST FOR SUMMER HOURS: TOWN CLERK’S OFFICE BUILDING (“TOWN HALL”):  Lengthy discussion.  The request is to change hours, Monday through Friday, to 7:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., until September 3.  The Union has indicated it has no issues with the change.  A change to summer hours for Public Works will not work from a business perspective.  The Public Works Union members had asked for summer hours during contract negotiations and were denied.  Does Council wish to change hours for one department but not the others?  There could be a grievance if one department is awarded and not the other.  It was suggested that all departments leave one hour on Fridays instead.  The Union contract states regular hours, not summer hours. 

MOTION made by Mr. Maher to grant summer hours for Town Hall, beginning July 23 through August 31, as proposed; seconded by Mr. Morrissey.

Discussion:  Mr. Ellis would support the employees’ request.  Mr. Patterson, though he supports the Town Hall employees, did not think it fair to Public Works and did not want to cause a “duel.”

Back to the Motion:  Voted as follows:

Mr. Maher felt that Public Works hard and deserves the hours too.  The rationale however is that Public Works is busy during the summer getting a lot of work accomplished.  The level of traffic during the summer in the Town Hall slows.

No. 11:   REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES:

A.   PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT LIAISON’S REPORT:  Town Council Member, Raymond A. Morrissey, Jr.:  Director of Public Works Stephen Mattscheck reported:  The salt shed foundation is completed.  The floor will be asphalted and the building erected. Road sweeping and basin cleaning is finished.  Brush cutting is two-thirds complete.  Roads are being prepared for chip sealing.  Screens on culverts to keep beavers from blocking them are being cleaned and installed.  Speed and blind hill signs have been installed on Mail Road following a resident’s complaint.  That same person has opened an access to allow trees to be taken down in the buffer zone.  Deerbrook  Association has requested that the Town plow its roads.  By court order, Deerbrook is to maintain its roads.

B.   TRANSFER STATION LIAISON’S REPORT:  Town Council Member, Raymond A. Morrissey, Jr.:  Director of Public Works Stephen Mattscheck reported:  There has been an increase in metal dumping.  Extra containers have been put in place.  Processed gravel has been put down and is an improvement.

C.   ANIMAL CONTROL LIAISON’S REPORT:  Town Council Member, Raymond A. Morrissey, Jr.:  Director of Public Works Stephen Mattscheck reported:  The number of dogs and cats is down.  State mandated Animal Control Officer training is scheduled for September.

D.   TAX COLLECTOR’S OFFICE LIAISON’S REPORT:  Town Council Member, Francis T. Maher, Jr.:  Mr. Maher reported:  Collections for the month of June were $965,754.22.  Fourth quarter taxes are being collected.  Delinquent notices are being mailed. Delinquent tax blocks are being removed on a daily basis through the Department of Motor Vehicles.

E.    EXETER-WEST GREENWICH SCHOOL DISTRICT LIAISON’S REPORT: Town Council Member, Francis T. Maher, Jr.:  As school is closed for summer vacation, Mr. Maher did not have a report.

F.    TAX ASSESSOR’S OFFICE LIAISON’S REPORT:  Town Council Member, Calvin A. Ellis:  Mr. Ellis reported:  The tax roll has been certified.  The request for reimbursement of the state-mandated statistical revaluation has been made.  If granted, partial reimbursement of $35,748.00 could be received.  Tonight’s abatement for $11,000.00+ is for a corrective bill.

G.   EXETER JOB CORPS ACADEMY LIAISON’S REPORT:  Town Council Member, Calvin A. Ellis:  Mr. Ellis reported:  Job Corps continues to make progress.  Facility security upgrades are being made.  Sixty-five students graduated.  Seventy-four students have earned their GED.  The welding program is expanding.  Off-site CNA training continues. There have been staffing changes.  The facility continues to strive to regain its status. 

Students walking the roads and crossing Route 2 but being difficult to see is still a concern.  Council has written Job Corps but has not received a response. 

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to send a letter to Center Director Adam White and indicate Council’s continued concern for the safety of the students; seconded by Mr. Morrissey.

Discussion:  This is a perennial issue.  What can the school do when the students are off school grounds?  Council suggests that the students be addressed about their safety and the communities concerns.

Back to the Motion:  Voted unanimously in the affirmative.

H.   WASHINGTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE’S REPORT: Town Council Member, Calvin A. Ellis:  As there have been no meetings, Mr. Ellis did not have a report.

I.      PUBLIC SAFETY/DISASTER PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE/TOWN SERGEANT/TOWN CONSTABLE LIAISON’S REPORT:  Town Council Vice President, Daniel W. Patterson:  Mr. Patterson did not have a report.

J.    EXETER RURAL LAND PRESERVATION TRUST COMMITTEE LIAISON’S REPORT:  Town Council Vice President, Daniel W. Patterson:  This agenda item was addressed previously this evening.

K.   EXETER PUBLIC LIBRARY LIAISON’S REPORT:  Town Council President, Kevin P. McGovern:  Mr. McGovern reported:  The Summer Programs continue on Wednesday nights.

L.    NORTH KINGSTOWN PRESERVE AT ROLLING GREENS PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE’S REPORT: Town Council President, Kevin P. McGovern:

Mr. Patterson attended last month’s meeting.  A civil suit for $10,000,000.00 in damages was filed against the Town because of the vote to deny the project.  Through meetings with the Federal Judge, a compromise was formulated.  The developer scaled back his original commercial square footage.  Against the advice of the Town Solicitor and Manager, the North Kingstown Town Council rejected the compromise.  It is back in the Federal Judge’s hands. 

M.   TOWN COUNCIL ASSISTANT’S REPORT:  Town Council Assistant, Kenneth G. Findlay:  Because of the magnitude and cost of the project, Mr. Findlay inquired whether Council wished to appoint a liaison to provide updates on the statewide e-permitting process in order that Council can keep track of the project.  Town Clerk Lynn Hawkins reported that the beginning steps of the process have been implemented.  She and Building Clerk Lorrie Field have been providing information as requested. 

            MOTION made by Mr. McGovern E-Permitting to the agenda under Unfinished Business; seconded by Mr. Patterson; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

N.   SOLICITOR’S REPORT:  James P. Marusak, Esquire, Gidley Sarli & Marusak:

Attorney Marusak will discuss Browning Mill Pond, Transfer Station Lease/Purchase, and Security Discussion/State Police in Executive Session.

No. 12:   BILLS, APPROPRIATIONS, ABATEMENTS:

A.   BILL SHEET:

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to approve Bill Sheet dated July 3, 2018; seconded by Mr. Patterson; and approved unanimously in the affirmative.

B.   TAX ASSESSOR’S ABATEMENTS:

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to approve Tax Assessor’s Abatements in the amount of $12,068.26; seconded by Mr. Ellis; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

C.   TAX COLLECTOR’S REMITTANCES AND ABATEMENTS:

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to approve Tax Collector’s Remittances in the amount of $4,608.03 and Tax Collector’s Abatements in the amount of $1,862.56; seconded by Mr. Maher; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

No. 13:   OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES:

Social Services Director Christine Heart-Skaggs has been unable to find someone to serve as liaison for the Summer Meals Program.  She suggests that it run in conjunction with the Library Summer Day  Programs.  No action taken.

No. 14:   COMMUNICATIONS:

No.  14.  06/07/2018    Letter of interest from Michael P. DeFrancesco requesting reappointment to the Exeter Planning Board:  Addressed previously this evening.

No.  16.  06/08/2018    Letter of interest from Sierra Walker to be appointed to the Exeter Memorial Day Parade Committee: Addressed previously this evening.

No.  35.  06/19/2018    Letter from Christopher G. Palmer, Planning Board Alternate Member, for appointment as Planning Board Member:  Addressed previously this evening.

No.  38.  06/26/2018    Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District: Allotment of Municipal Solid Waste CAP Request:  The Town did not give it last year.  The tonnage is based on calendar year.  Council would not want the Town to come up short at the end of the year because it gave away some of its cap.  The Town pays a municipal rate for its cap.  If it was short, it would have to pay the commercial rate. 

No action taken at this time.

No.  43.  06/28/2018    Letter of interest from Todd Greene requesting appointment to the vacant position of Public Works Worker on the Department of Public Works:  Addressed previously this evening.

No.  44.  06/28/2018    Letter from Susan Littlefield informing Exeter Town Council that she will not be seeking reappointment to her position on the Planning Board:

Addressed previously this evening.

No.  49.  06/28/2018   Letter from Tomas S. McMillan regarding the Animal Shelter Study Committee Report:

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to put Animal Shelter Study Committee Report on the agenda under Unfinished Business; seconded by Mr. Maher.

Discussion:   Council will review the report and possibly take action.

Back to the Motion:  Voted unanimously in the affirmative.

No.  50.  06/28/2018    Letter of interest from Timothy J. Brayman requesting appointment to the vacant position of Public Works Worker on the Department of Public Works:  Addressed previously this evening.

No.  54.  07/02/2018    Letter of interest from Barbara Kennedy for the position as Alternative Member of the Exeter Board of Tax and Assessment Review:  Addressed previously this evening.

No.  57.  07/03/2018    Green Development, LLC: Notice of Continued Public Hearing of Proposed Public Hearing to Amend:  Addressed previously this evening.

No. 15:   EXECUTIVE SESSION:

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to enter into Executive Session to discuss Agenda Item Nos. 15A (Current/Future Litigation: Browning Mill Pond/Arcadia),

D (Transfer Station Lease/Purchase), and G (Security Discussions: State Police) pursuant to RIGL Sections 42-46-5(a)(2, 3, 5); seconded by Mr. Patterson; and voted as follows:

Council entered into Executive Session at 9:24 p.m. 

Council adjourned Executive Session at 9:53 p.m. and reassembled in open session.

MOTION made by Mr. McGovern to seal the minutes of the Executive Session; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

No. 16:   ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION made by Mr. Maher to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

The Regular Meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m.

The next Regular Meeting of the Exeter Town Council is scheduled for Monday, August 6, 2018, at 7:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lynn M. Hawkins, CMC

Exeter Town Clerk

Approved:  September 4, 2018