No.   1   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 

Town Council President Daniel Patterson led Council and the Public in the Pledge of Allegiance.

No.   2   CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL:

The Special Meeting of the Exeter Town Council was called to order at 6:30 p.m., on Monday, February 27, 2023, in Council Chambers, Exeter Clerk’s Office, 675 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, Rhode Island.

No.   3   PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A.     PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXETER CODE OF ORDINANCES:  APPENDIX A, ZONING; ARTICLE XIII, MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF ALL BUILDINGS:

MOTION by Mr. Lefebvre to open the Public Hearing; seconded by Ms. Allen; and

voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Diane Allen, Council Member: The first line of the proposed ordinance reads:  “As an exception to the maximum percentage of lot coverage in Zoning District RU-3, the  maximum lot coverage for greenhouses used  for agricultural purposes and/or agricultural activities for the production of food products for both animal and human consumption shall be thirty-five percent (35%), subject to the requirements set forth below…”  Definition of a greenhouse:  A greenhouse “[provides] sufficient heating…[is] a structure with walls and a roof made chiefly of transparent material in which plants are grown in regulated climatic conditions…range in size from small to industrial size…[and] the interior is exposed to sunlight and is significantly warmer than exterior temperatures” to aid in protecting plants.  Ms. Allen believes in Exeter’s rural character of Exeter, wants to maintain the few farms Exeter has left, and wants to save as much open space and as many farms as possible. 

Daniel Patterson, Council President:  Regarding a flyer sent in the mail concerning tonight’s meeting, Exeter Democratic Town Committee Chair, Megan Cotter, contacted Mr. Patterson

to inform him that though the return address on the flyer was the Democratic Town Committee, she did not know about the flyer and did not know who sent it.  The flyer is false and misleading.   in that it references solar.  Solar is not being considered in tonight’s proposed ordinance. 

Calvin Ellis, Council Member:  Mr. Ellis submitted the Planning Board’s advisory recommenda-tion dated February 6, 2023, in response to Council’s request for same, as part of the record (attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment B).  The Planning Board unanimously found that the proposed ordinance is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, should be withdrawn because it is narrow and not all inclusive, that the Council should work collabora-tively with parties of interest such as agricultural groups, and should follow the Town Planner’s recommendation dated January 26, 2023.

Council heard the Public’s comments.

Ray Morrissey read for Gina Thurn, 555 Gardner Road, who was absent from the meeting: 

Ms. Thurn owns Our Kids Farm at the same address.  Our Kids Farm grows produce hydroponically inside greenhouses and via CEA, Controlled Environmental Agriculture, outdoors under nets with a solar array.  Farming, full time, is what she does and who she

is.  Farming is not about how it looks, but about sustainability. As a Planning Board Member,

Ms. Thurn voted with the Planning Board to recommend against the ordinance, not because she is against the ordinance, she fully supports the concept of greenhouses, but because she agrees that modifications, discussion, revision, and compromise to the ordinance are necessary for the good of the Town and its farmers.  The motion by the Planning Board on January 31, 2023, was “to respond…to the Town Council to withdraw the proposal to amend Article XIII, Maximum Lot Coverage, and to form a group…to craft a more definitive set of regulations.”  The mailer sent in the mail was lies presented as facts. 

William Haas, 1581 Ten Rod Road, Planning Board Member:  Not for or against the ordinance, but did not think an opposing lawyer should write the Town’s ordinances.  It should be worked on by the Planning Board and the Town Council.  Some of the ordinance is good, some is not.

Dave Wallace, 22 Lantern Lane:  Approves the ordinance.  Exeter resident 39 years.  Has known Schartner for over 40 years.  Is a seventh-generation farmer in New York and has two farms in Rhode Island.  Agriculture is constantly evolving with new technology and new innovations. 

If a farm cannot keep up with new technologies, it will not be sustainable and will fail.  This ordinance would allow Rhode Island Grows to participate in CEA, Controlled Environment Agriculture, which changes production for northern vegetable producers from only six months

to twelve months.  The weather cannot be predicted, but with a CEA, production sequence and yield can be, and gives farmers the chance to be competitive.  Council has received two letters from the Department of Environmental Management endorsing the project. 

Frank DiGregorio:  Not present.

Earl Adams, 55 Glen Rock Road:  Has a farm at the same address. His family has been in agri-culture for over 250 years.  He wants to preserve land and farms and is concerned the Town is losing its agricultural lands.  It is his understanding that if this project does not go through, that Grow Smart Rhode Island is proposing 150 to 200 dwelling units, triplexes and duplexes.  That would mean approximately 400 to 600 children.  At $22,000.00 for each school age child, that

is eight to ten million dollars more to the school budget.  The residents cannot afford their taxes doubling. 

Robert Leonard, 47 Cobblestone Hill:  Opposed.  How can 150+ homes fit in 80 acres, in an

RU-3 zone, with setbacks?  Wishes to preserve Exeter as rural.  The project should align with

the comprehensive plan and the developers should work in conjunction with the Planning

Board.  Should not be forced through.

Daniel Patterson, Council President:  It is State mandated that each city and town should have 10% affordable housing.  At Liberty Hill, thirty condominiums, eight being affordable, were put on 18 acres and at Pine Ridge, thirty-six apartments, 100% affordable, were put

on 9½ acres using the density formulas. 

Robert Leonard, 47 Cobblestone Hill:  Acknowledged that is happening and could, but  it

should be done the right away.

Milan Adams, Glen Rock Road:  Finished Gina Thurn’s letter.  Regarding the mailer, put forth by the Exeter Democratic Town Committee, get the facts straight.  It was aimed at “stirring people up.”  Promoting lies does nothing to help.  It only drives people apart.  If it was not the Committee who sent it out, find out who did because it damaged the Committee’s reputation and is dirty politics.  There is nothing in the ordinance regarding solar.  There never was.  Solar in the Schartner proposal was removed long ago.  This ordinance, as written, would prohibit ground-mounted solar on any property that opted their right to build a large greenhouse.  The only solar option is a roof-mounted array.  Her suggested changes to the ordinance (not the Planning Board’s because they have not had the opportunity to work on it) are:  1) open the option to

RU-4 zoning; 2) ground water should be by special use; 3) include performance standards for

traffic; and 4) mitigate fire safety.

Scott Millar, Planning Board Chair, works for Grow Smart Rhode Island:  There is no truth to Grow Smart promoting development on Schartner Farm.  As required by State law and local ordinance, the Planning Board reviewed this proposed amendment.  The Planning Board supports the concept.  Several years ago, the Planning Board asked Schartner to work with him to develop this new use.  Mr. Schartner unfortunately went in a different direction.  The Planning Board determined unanimously that the proposed ordinance is inconsistent with the compre-hensive plan, inequitable, and has numerous flaws and no reasonable standards.  The Planning Board respectfully requests Council to withdraw the amendment and establish a non-partisan stakeholder group to assess best ways to accommodate large greenhouses while establishing reasonable and appropriate standards to avoid impacts to health, safety, and property values.

Kevin Robishaw Jr.:  Inquired of Mr. Millar: Grow Smart is not proposing low-income housing all along Route 102 to Route 138?  Mr. Millar:  No.  Allow the tomato farm or it will be houses.  Keep Exeter rural and housing out.  Greenhouses have never been done before.  The Town is going to be on the cutting edge.  Will bring economic development and a tax base.  To Mr. Ellis and Mr. DeFrancesco, Exeter Democratic Town Committee Members:  No one knows who sent the flyer?  It was malicious and lies.

David DeFrancesco, 85 Hallville Road:  Friend of the Schartners.  Owes them for his experience in farming.  Is not against them or their project.  The Planning Board rejected the proposal because more time is needed to study the impacts to the Town.  Would like to learn more about large, greater than two-acre structures, used for horticulture  Does the ordinance account for existing structures, roadways, plans, developments of solar, or other accessories?  Does that all count towards the 35%?

Ted Nataly, 34 Nelson Drive:  In favor of the greenhouse.  At a previous meeting, Ms. Allen proposed the idea of expanding the amount of land that could be used for a greenhouse.  Another Councilperson said no.  It took some discussion for her to agree to send it to the Planning Board for their opinion.  Ms. Allen is not concerned about Schartner, but the rest, the smaller farms, that this could benefit.  The Planning Board has not updated the Comprehensive Plan in order that they can control things.  It is embarrassing that nobody knows who sent out the flyer. 

Why isn’t the Democratic Town Committee finding out?

Diane Allen, Council Member:  RU-3 zones were chosen because they are low density, three acres, have reduced environmental constraints, and are outside the aquifer or tributaries.

Dale Levasseur:  Not present.

Timothy Burke, 210 South Road:  Has been a resident 20 years.  Has twenty-two acres.  Farms ten.  He abuts Schartner.  Has never had a problem.  Schartner deserves it.  He has contributed

to the Town.  The project will mean jobs and less taxes.  Housing will cost the Town and the residents.  Farming has changed and has to move forward.  Schartner should be allowed and there should be more of it.  Why such a fuss?  Hopes the ordinance gets approved.

Rosamund Fisher:  Regarding the flyer, there are many unanswered questions.  The population

is growing.  They have to be fed.  Greenhouse production will help, but Exeter should not supply the country.  Opposed to the ordinance.  Agrees with Mr. Millar.

Elaine Rasmussen:  In favor of the ordinance.

Manfred Renner, 300 Liberty Road:  Thought he was going to be against the ordinance.  Has listened to the farmers.  He is “blown away” by tonight’s discussion  His concerns:  the amount of trucks on Route 2 and water consumption.

Daniel Patterson, Council President:  When the greenhouse is fully operational, 40 to 42,000 pounds of tomatoes will be picked per day.  One tractor trailer holds 44,000.  Small box trucks would be five or six per day.  There will be a roof water collection.

Rob Fleischbein, South Road:  Greenhouses are a new way of farming and making a living.  Land is not growing.  People have to eat.  Wishes Schartner the best of luck

Gregory Hartnett, 58 Pinecrest Drive:  Resident 40 years.  Borders Schartner property.

Believes in farmers’ rights, but abutters have rights too.  Concerned about Exeter’s dark sky,

a mega greenhouse in rural Exeter, and impacts on ground water and wildlife.

Olivia DeFrancesco, Council Member:  Not against the greenhouse.  Against the ordinance

as presented.  Needs work.  Light pollution is one reason. 

Asa Davis, 146 Beechwood Hill Trail:  Ordinance is bad as written.  Uses zoning to restrict benefits to a select few.  If greenhouses are good, they are good for everyone and the whole Town.  Rural status is based on population density.  The faster space is used for housing, the faster the Town loses its rural status.  If want to stay rural, should want more greenhouses

in all districts.  Land is finite.  Mr. Davis addressed the travel of his Calls for Investigation forwarded to Council.

Jennifer Cragen, 206 Widow Sweets Road:  Opposes fearmongering.  “A well thought out

plan doesn’t need to be jammed down somebody’s throat.”  Not having solid facts makes it

hard to make a proper decision.  The public is not informed.  What happens if the ordinance

is in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan?  It is being presented as a fait accompli but

there are a lot of unanswered questions. 

Daniel Patterson, Council President:  The ordinance is not site specific.  It is an amendment

to lot coverage.  The project will go to the Planning Board for development plan review,

where all the questions would be reviewed and answered.

Olivia DeFrancesco, Council Member:  To Attorney Marusak:  Is this amendment as written

legally sound?  Are there loopholes for unintended consequences?

James Marusak, Esq., Town Solicitor:  Whether an ordinance can be better is for Council,

at its discretion, to decide and debate whether it is proper to adopt.  It is not a legal question. 

As a matter of law, cannot say it is a faulty ordinance.

Randall Souza, Esq., RI Grows:  Council has his report.  Doug McLean, Certified Planner, will testify that he believes the ordinance is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.  The Plan

is meant to “preserve and enhance the Town’s support for a recreational and agriculturally based economy.”  The ordinance does that.  It is for a RU-3 zone, not specifically for the Schartner property.  It is controlled environmental agriculture, the future of farming, horticulture use for food only.  It is a “ticket to the dance.”  It will go through the Planning Board for lighting, buffers, landscaping, and stormwater, etc.  This is not a fait accompli. 

Doug McLean, RI Grows:  Council has his report.  Professional and certified planner in Rhode Island for over fifteen years.  Municipal planner, six years, Town of South Kingstown. Currently, Municipal Planner, City of Cranston.  Mr. McLean presented a lengthy overview of what the ordinance is proposing relative to large scale greenhouses and controlled environment agricul-ture, reviewed his finding that the ordinance is consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, and supported his professional assessment and opinion that this proposal adequately considers the Town’s zoning and code.   He is available as a resource for any questions.

Olivia DeFrancesco, Council Member, to Mr. McLean:  If capturing twenty-five acres of stormwater that normally goes into the ground to recharge the aquifer, what happens to that water that people depend on and what happens to the wetlands that will not be getting that

water?  Have any environmental studies been done?  Sounds like a good idea, but the ground

is dependent on the water that is going to be captured.  Mr. McLean: Not speaking to the

details of specific environmental studies, this zone is specifically identified as outside the

aquifer and outside the aquifer recharging areas and would have reduced environmental

concern. Environmental experts will be brought to the Planning Board.

Calvin Ellis, Council Member:  Council has Town Planner William DePasquale’s multi-page report indicating that he supports the proposal, but points out that modifications are needed.

William Munroe:  Passed on comment.

Franklin Linton:  Passed on comment.

Joseph Flynn:  Passed on comment.

Stephen Darris:  Not present.

Eric Moberg:  Not present.

Bill Orzamarski, 84 Mail Road:  Resident for over 30 years.  Have you ever tasted a tomato

out of a greenhouse?  You need an axe to cut it.  Water and light pollution should be considered.

Has anyone checked outside of Rhode Island how effective and efficient greenhouses are? 

End of Public’s comments.

Council entered into discussion.

William DePasquale, Town Planner:  Town Planner for thirty-six years, the last few for Exeter.  Council has his memo.  Cautioned Council to listen to all sides, determine a consensus, and

move forward cautiously so as not to suffer unintended consequences.  The community and government should work together to support the farmers and Exeter’s rural character.   Agricul-ture is traditionally open field production and traditional greenhouse, but is now also Controlled Environment Agriculture.  As in his memo, gave Council a lengthy review of the CEA concept, how it relates to the Town’s ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, things Council should be aware of and consider, the pros and cons, etc.

Daniel Patterson, Council President:  The ordinance is written for an exception to maximum percentage of lot coverage in RU-3 zones.  Should it be amended to facilities located on a

State highway and for any other facility in RU-3 a special use permit would be required? 

Janelle Bonn, 350 Summit Road:  Agreed on principle but not implementation.  Council should have done its homework to facilitate this meeting. Tonight’s debates should have been hashed out prior.  Why did this happen?  Where is the breakdown? The documents referenced should have been provided to the Public, via the website or a repository, and there should have been better notification, so the Public could have reviewed prior to attending tonight.  The Planning Board and Town Planner were not given the opportunity to discuss this amendment with Council and “hammer out some of the details” and provide the best possible amendment to this ordinance before coming to this meeting.  Use the staff’s professional opinion.  Generally, everyone wants the same goals for the community.  The ordinance should not be amended on the fly tonight.

Diane Allen, Council Member:  From the Comprehensive Plan: “Farmland Preservation:  The maintenance of existing farmland and agricultural use in open space is critical to the preservation of the Town’s rural character.”  “To do so will require the availability of incentives to local farmers that are finding it harder and harder every year to support their families from the revenue that is generated from farming.”  “…control development in the future in such a way as to make such growth compliment the rural character of the community.”  “…supports fostering economic growth for the Town in the future that is consistent with its rural character, is purposeful while complimenting the positive elements of the community.”  “Economic Development Implementa-tion Program:  The focus of this program should be used to foster positive economic growth for the Town in the future that is consistent with its rural character.”  “It is purposeful while compli-menting the positive elements of the community.”  “There are four major elements to this

program…economic diversification, expanded services to Town residents, supporting develop-ment that is consistent with the historic and rural nature of the community, support for  agriculture and … industries that exist in the community.”  This ordinance is, for the most part, compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and is a tool that a farmer could use to build a large greenhouse. 

Calvin Ellis, Council Member:  At the February 6, 2023, Council meeting, Council had received the Town Planner’s memo.  Mr. Ellis suggested that Council not hold this meeting tonight in order to allow more time to consider the amendment.  Per Town ordinances, it was forwarded

to the Planning Board.  The Planning Board and Planner had only a short time to respond to Council after receiving the amendment.  The Town Planner’s memo, as a result, acknowledged consistency with the Comp Plan, but allowed that time constraints prohibited further analysis of items such as parking, the CEA design, water use, light mitigation, and performance standards.

Olivia DeFrancesco, Council Member:  Debate of this amendment “is not picking on the Schartners.”  Wants to help them to be successful.  Items such as size, configuration, and suitability, things not addressed in the ordinance, need to be considered.  Council needs time

to review and digest.  Should listen to the Town Planner and Planning Board, not just push
this through.

Milan Adams, Glen Rock Road:  Looking at something to pave the way for agriculture to be successful.  Can’t all this be done after the ordinance is changed?  There are more steps after

this that have to be taken.

Olivia DeFrancesco, Council Member, to William DePasquale, Town Planner:   Why

is it important not to pass this amendment open-ended?  Mr. DePasquale:  A well-written

ordinance should not bring about unintended consequences and later require mitigation.  

One size sometimes does not fit all.

Calvin Ellis, Council Member, to William DePasquale, Town Planner:  If tonight’s meeting

is continued approximately sixty days, would that be enough to review and adjust based on tonight’s discussion?  Mr. DePasquale:  The questions is really how deep want to get into ordinance when know Schartner project is time sensitive?  Modify to have limited scope,

then work on larger one for the rest of the Town.

Michael Lefebvre, Council Member:  Supports the project, but does not want to pass an ordinance that will have unintended consequences. Does not want to stall this, but does

not want to “force a round peg in a square hole.”  Can we do this tonight or should we

continue for thirty or forty days? Wants the ordinance written right.  Can we give it time

for the Council to review with the Town Planner’s assistance?

Daniel Patterson, Council Member:  Proposed language amendment:  “As an exception to maximum percentage of lot coverage in Zoning District RU-3, the maximum lot coverage

for CEAs used for agriculture purposes shall be 35% for facilities located on State highways.  Any CEA facilities located on Town roads will require a special use permit for an increase

in lot coverage.”

Olivia DeFrancesco, Council Member:  Would it be smart to pass this ordinance with

Mr. Patterson’s amendment tonight?  Should take time to digest and process.  Does not

want to be in a position of being forced to push this through.

Pamela Toro, New Road, Rural Land Preservation Trust Member:  Had submitted a letter

to Council.  Will a parcel of land or a fee in lieu be paid to the Land Trust?  Will there be

an approval process?  Will it require Council approval or a special financial town meeting? 

Be careful.  Do not get into a position where this will come back.  Do not be driven by

someone.  Give your time and attention to this.  Work with the Town Planner. 

Earl Adams, Glen Rock Road:  Currently, he could build a 105-acre greenhouse, as long as

he meets the percentage, the use is approved, and goes through the development plan review process. 

Mr. Patterson:  Continue the meeting for one week?  Ms. DeFrancesco:  No.  Need longer

than a week.  Mr. Patterson:  Not going to drag this out.  It is two pages and simple. 

MOTION by Mr. Patterson to continue the Public Hearing one week, until next Wednesday; seconded by Mr. Lefebvre.

Discussion:  Mr. Ellis:  Two weeks to give Town Planner more time?  Mr. Patterson: 

It is two pages.  Discussion as to continuation date.

MOTION AMENDED by Mr. Patterson:  Continue the Public Hearing to Thursday, March 9, 2023, at 6:30 p.m., at Metcalf Elementary School; seconded by Mr. Lefebvre;

and voted as follows:

No.   4   REQUEST OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

ESTABLISHMENT OF A QUORUM:

 Town Planner, William DePasquale reported:The Comprehensive Plan is on schedule.  The number of members in attendance at the

meetings is inconsistent.  He requested that a quorum of five members be established.

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to grant Town Planner William DePasquale’s request

to  reduce the quorum for the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee to five

members; seconded by Ms. DeFrancesco; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

No.   5   USE OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS:

A.     TOWN HALL ADDITION V. NEW TOWN HALL V.  POSSIBLE PURCHASE

         OF 742 TEN ROD ROAD

B.     AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDING PROGRAM

The time limit for the room did not leave enough time to enter into this discussion.

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to schedule Agenda Item No. 5A and 5B to a

future meeting date; seconded by Ms. Allen.

Discussion:  Mr. Patterson asked Council to review their calendars and be prepared

with a date at next week’s Council meeting.

Back to the Motion:    Voted as follows:

Daniel W. Patterson                Yes

                                    Michael A. Lefebvre               Yes

                                    Diane Bampton Allen  Yes

Olivia DeFrancesco                 No

                                    Calvin A. Ellis             Yes

No.   6   OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES: 

There were no Other Administrative Issues.

No.   7   ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION made by Mr. Lefebvre to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Ms. Allen;

and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

The Special Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                    Lynn M. Hawkins, CMC

                                                                                    Exeter Town Clerk                                        

Approved:  July 10, 2023