No.   1:   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

 Council led the Public in the Pledge of Allegiance.

No.   2:   CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: 

The Regular Meeting of the Exeter Town Council was called to order at 6:32 p.m., on Monday, July 7, 2025, in Council Chambers, Exeter Clerk’s Office, 675 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, Rhode Island.

No.   4:   APPROVAL OF AGENDA ORDER:

MOTION made by Ms. Allen to approve the Agenda Order; seconded by

Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

No.   5:   APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA: 

A.     REYNOLDS CHARITABLE TRUST:  REQUESTS FOR APPROVAL:

1.      ANNUAL REPORT (AUGUST 1, 2022 - JULY 31, 2023) 

2.      ANNUAL REPORT (AUGUST 1, 2023 - JULY 31, 2024)

3.      RI GENERAL TREASURER, $150.00

4.      MEALS ON WHEELS, $2,000.00

5.      ALSD, LTD, ACCOUNTANTS, $353.60

The vouchers were not removed.

B.     COMMUNICATIONS:  There were no Communications removed.

C.     BILLS, APPROPRIATIONS, AND ABATEMENTS:

1.      BILL SHEET:   June 1, 2025 – June 30, 2025

2.      TAX ASSESSOR’S ABATEMENTS:  None         

3.      TAX COLLECTOR’S ABATEMENTS:  None

4.      TAX COLLECTOR’S REMITTANCES:   

         Real Estate, $7,197.69

         Tangible, $1,202.57

         See Town Clerk for details

None of the above were removed.

No.  6:   VACANCIES AND APPOINTMENTS:

A.    VACANCIES:

1.     PERSONNEL BOARD (5 MEMBERS NEEDED):   Letters of Interest are

being accepted.  Those received are being held.  Once five are received, this Board

will be activated.  These vacancies will continue to post.

2.     BUILDING PLANNING ZONING CLERK:  This vacancy will be discussed

in Executive Session.

B.     RESIGNATIONS:  There were no Resignations.

C.     APPOINTMENTS:

No.   7:   PUBLIC HEARINGS: 

A.     LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION:  CLASS F1 (SPECIAL ONE-DAY EVENT):

MATTHEW AND KARA RICHARDSON, APPLICANTS, TILTED BARN, ONE

HEMSLEY PLACE; EXETER, RAISE THE BARN FESTIVAL, SEPTEMBER 6, 2025:

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to open as the Exeter Liquor Licensing Board;

seconded by Ms. Allen; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

MOTION made by Mr. Morrissey to open the Public Hearing; seconded by Ms. Allen;

and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Brad Smith was present on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Richardson.  This is the third year for

this event.  The license is needed in order to invite other breweries and enable them to

pour at the event.  It has been a fun and successful event.

The Clerk reported:  $65.00 is owing in advertising.

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to close the Public Hearing; seconded by Ms. Allen;

and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to approve Class F1 Liquor License (Special One-day Event), Matthew and Kara Richardson, Applicants, Tilted Barn, One Hemsley Place, Exeter, Raise the Barn Festival, on September 6, 2025; seconded by Ms. Allen; and

voted unanimously in the affirmative.

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to adjourn as the Exeter Liquor Licensing Board; seconded by Ms. Allen; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Council reconvened as the Exeter Town Council.

B.     PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2, 2025):

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EXETER CODE OF ORDINANCES:

APPENDIX A, ZONING:

AMEND:

ARTICLE VII -- OVERLAY DISTRICTS

ARTICLE VII – GROUNDWATER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT

ADD:

SECTION 7.0 – GROUNDWATER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT

ADD:

SECTION 7(a)       -  FARM OVERLAY DISTRICT

                           [Floating Zone per RIGL 45-24-31(28)]

SECTION 7(a).1    -  BACKGROUND

SECTION 7(a).2    -  PURPOSE

SECTION 7(a).3    -  DEFINITIONS

SECTION 7(a).4    -  FARM OVERLAY DISTRICT – FLOATING ZONE

SECTION 7(a).5    -  BY RIGHT USES

SECTION 7(a).6    -  LIMITED USES

SECTION 7(a).7    -  PROHIBITIONS

SECTION 7(a).8    -  REQUIRES TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL

SECTION 7(a).9    -  ELIGIBILITY

SECTION 7(a).10  -  FARM OVERLAY DISTRICT – FLOATING ZONE

                                             AND SECTION 7(a).6 – LIMITED USES – APPLICATION

         SECTION 7(a).11  -  ADOPTION PUBLIC HEARING: TOWN   

                                             ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND TOWN COUNCIL,

                                             FARM OVERLAY DISTRICT FLOATING ZONE

         SECTION 7(a).12  -  OTHER PROVISIONS

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to open the Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2025, Overlay Districts, Groundwater Protection Overlay Districts, Farm Overlay Districts, Floating Zone per RIGL 45-24-31(28); seconded by Ms. Allen; and voted

in the affirmative.

William DePasquale, Town Planner:  Council has the revised version based on the  recommendations of the Planning Board and Town Planner and what was discussed at

the previous public hearing.  The proposed amendments create Article 7, Overlay Districts,

and would allow Groundwater Protection and Farm Overlay Districts.

John Pagliarini, Esq., representing Earl Adams:  There has been much compromise between his client, the Planning Board, and the Town Council.  He suggested that: 1) At Line 167 the word “outdoor” be added before “live performance” (the Planning Board was concerned with noise); and 2) Slaughterhouse be deleted from Section 7(a).6 as a Limited Use and be added to Section 7(a).8 as a use requiring Council approval (applicant has received numerous calls from persons wanting one in Town).

Discussion ensued:  1) The size of a Slaughterhouse would be under 10,000 square feet.  It is

a regional need.  The closest one is in Dartmouth, Massachusetts; 2) The building for events

will cap at 150 people; 3) The applicants will be profiting.  Will the Town gain revenue?  No.  Only normal taxation will apply; 4) Applicants will have to meet eligibility criteria,

go before the Planning Board, then go before the Town Council; 4) The word “arterial” at

Line 204 will be removed.

Mr. Morrissey believes in helping the farms, thinks this idea is a good one in that direction,

and commended everyone who has worked on this proposal.  Attorney Pagliarini thanked

Mr. Morrissey.  There is a big difference between a 75-acre farm and a 75-acre parcel. 

The parcel can be developed. Farmers do not intend to develop. This ordinance will help. 

He appealed to Council to approve the Farm Overlay/Floating District.

Mr. Ellis noted that there are no limit to events held.  Many people live in Exeter for the quiet and the ruralness.  The traffic and disturbance could be ongoing.  There should be limits.  Attorney Pagliarini indicated that the Planning Board looked at the economics.  What is the initial investment?  If there were limits, it would take that much longer to turn a profit.

Scott Millar, Resident:  Strongly supports the concept.  Believes large land owners should have ability to have small scale, reasonable business to help maintain Exeter’s farms and forests. 

In his career, he has reviewed these ordinances across Rhode Island.  Tonight’s version is an improvement over the first one; however, it needs work.  A good ordinance allows land owners to have appropriate businesses without negatively impacting residential neighborhoods and adjacent property owners.  The proposed ordinance allows a long list of generous uses, but falls short of the necessary standards to protect adjacent property owners’ rights.  In Town’s where there was inclusiveness as the ordinance was being developed, an ordinance resulted that really fit the town.  That process did not happen here.  Towns that rushed the process have had problems.  He urged the Town Council to not adopt the ordinance without revisions and feedback from other landowners.  Do it right.  The proposal is limited to parcels 75-acres or more, an arbitrary number.  If challenged in court, it would be difficult for Exeter to defend that size limitation. It will be difficult for Town Council members to explain to their constituents why they gave only a small percentage of farmers the right to have these businesses.  The Department of Environmental Management does not have a size limit to classify a farm.  Exeter defines a farm as five acres or more.  It is unfair to the many other landowners who should also be allowed to have these businesses.  The proposal should be revised to eliminate the 75-acre limit.  The eligibility criteria, to generate a minimum of $10,000 per year in gross farm income, is a very low bar and non-farmers would be able to meet that standard.  The proposal should be revised

to include forest land owners. The Comprehensive Plan is clear.  Small business uses should be made available to both farm and forest land owners.  The majority of undeveloped land in Exeter is forest.  Those land owners have very few, if no options, to generate revenue.  The proposed uses are not all defined in the definitions. The overlay process is the same for weddings and retail sales.  Weddings should be thoroughly reviewed.  Weddings and banquets can potentially create problems.  Attendees will be drinking, then driving dark, unfamiliar, rural roads.  An annual license should be required, limiting hours and citing other specifics.  All new business uses

are subject to standards, limitations, and a comprehensive review by the Planning Board. 

The proposal will allow, potentially, large-scale businesses by right in residential zones with

no Planning Board review.  There are vague standards: sufficient parking must be provided and the inconvenience to abutting properties must be minimized.  Neither are clear or enforceable. 

Asa Davis, Resident:  Regarding the Groundwater Overlay, the Town needs to fix the residential single-family use relative to the zoning changes passed a few months ago and make Town garages a special use.  Regarding the Farm Overlay, 75-acres is a mistake.  If the concern is disruption to neighboring properties, do not make it based on acreage.  Make it based on setback distance from where the activity is taking place, which would alleviate the noise and disturbance concerns.  Restrictions on operation time and income levels is restraint of trade, stifles competition, and benefits existing, large, high-income farms at the expense of lower income farmers.  These restrictions should be removed.  If farm owners are not allowed to profit from these uses, their next alternative may be development.  Could frequency and other restrictions

be part of the Planning Board process?

Mr. Morrissey inquired where the 75-acre clause came from.  Not the Town Planner. 

Ms. Allen thought it was to keep the events away from neighbors. 

Mr. Ellis suggested that the proposal be revisited. Mr. DePasquale had provided a five-page memo with his concerns.  The proposal before Council is from the applicant.  Everyone

wishes to support the farms; however, more feedback and discussion, review of standards

and methodology, would be beneficial.  The Planning Board did the best it could in the time constraints put on this. 

Patricia Whitford, Resident:  Passing the ordinance tonight does not give the applicant the

go-ahead to do this?  He is going to have to apply?  Abutters will be notified within 1000 feet?  Yes.  What about the burden put on fire and rescue?  The ordinance should be given more consideration for its flaws and concerns raised. 

Rob Correia, Planning Board Member:  The Planning Board is concerned.  It tried to put

limits.  The events started out one per month.  The applicant argued that it could not turn

a profit with limits.  Do neighbors want weddings Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays?  And

other nights during the week?  How much can the neighbors endure?  Is there a break even? 

Perhaps, language should be added that would set limits and standards or language that

would give the Council the ability to modify the event. 

Lengthy discussion ensued. 

Mr. Ellis suggested continuing the public hearing to consider the recommendations, suggestions, and concerns.  Or did Council wish to continue working on the ordinance tonight?  Mr. Patterson wished to continue working on the ordinance tonight.

Discussion continued.  Regarding changing the setback to 500 feet on all sides, all parties agreed.

The following motion entered for revisions to be made:

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to take a ten-minute recess in order for the Planner

and Legal Counsel write the right language; seconded by Ms. Allen; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Council recessed at 7:45.

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to reconvene the Public Hearing; seconded by

Ms. Allen; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Council reconvened at 7:58.

         MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to close the Public Hearing; seconded by

         Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

         MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to:

1) Approve proposed amendments to Exeter Code of Ordinances for the Farm Overlay District, which covers Section 7(a) all the way through Section 7(a).12;

2) On Line 167, Section 7(a).6, Item a, Events Featuring - Live performances are limited to non-amplified acoustic acts only and must take place - we are going to cross that word out - events featuring music, outdoor performances are limited to non-amplified acoustic acts only and must take place between 11:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.;

3) Under Prohibition, Section 7(a).7, Line 178, Commercial Slaughterhouse, we are going to move that to Line 197, which is Section 7(a).8, which requires Town Council approval.

So, any Commercial Slaughterhouse would have to go to the Council;

Attorney Sylvia read language for the setbacks and variances as part of the motion.

4) Under Section 7(a).6, on Line 166, at the end of what is existing there, it will say “In no event shall any of the following limited uses take place within 500 feet of the front, rear, or side yard set back of the parcel, which may be comprised of multiple lots in common ownership defined by the applicant”;

5)  In Section 7(a).9, add Subsection G, “Notwithstanding the minimum setback required by Section 7(a).6, the Town Council may grant a variance of the minimum setbacks required by this Chapter utilizing the criteria stated in RIGL 1956, 45-24-41, as amended, for dimensional variances.”

Seconded by Mr. Morrissey.

MOTION AMENDED by Ms. Allen to strike out the word “arterial” in Line 204;

seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

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

No.   8:   PUBLIC COMMENT: 

Asa Davis:  1) The Department of Health’s file regarding the well at 742 Ten Rod Road details

sporadic, recurring coliform contamination stemming from agriculture runoff from the farm up the hill and classifies the well as non -pressurized, non-working.  The Department of Health indicates it is in communication with the Town; 2)  Regarding the Executive Session Agenda Item 12A, the $25,000.00 given to the ex-Public Works Director when he resigned violated

State statute and Town Charter because the money was misappropriated.  He looks forward

to seeing how Council recovers the funds.

No.   9:   NEW BUSINESS:

A.     SOLICITOR’S LICENSE APPLICATION :  WILLIAM VORILHON, 18 HAPPY

VALLEY ROAD, WESTERLY, RHODE ISLAND, ON BEHALF OF TRINITY SOLAR, INC.:  All requirements have been met.  The applicant was not present.  No action taken.

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to continue to August Regular Meeting for applicant’s

attendance; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

B.     JUVENILE HEARING BOARD:  REQUEST TO DISSOLVE OR PURSUE HYBRID BOARD WITH WEST GREENWICH JUVENILE HEARING BOARD:  Chair, Ed Baker, and Member, Wendy Fenner-Aubin, were present to explain.  They are getting no referrals. 

The new major in West Greenwich is claiming jurisdiction over all referrals.  State law contradicts his claim of jurisdiction.  They do not wish to dissolve the Board.  They suggest pursuing the creation of a hybrid board made up of Exeter and West Greenwich volunteers.

Discussion ensued.

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to direct the Clerk to write to the West Greenwich Town Council to discuss creation of a hybrid Juvenile Hearing Board with members from both towns; seconded by Ms. Allen; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

C.     REQUEST TO BE HEARD:  RITA CASADY, 71 ARCADIA ROAD, REGARDING STORM WATER RUNOFF ONTO HER PROPERTY:  Mr. Ellis noted the runoff is being created by excavation being done on her neighbor’s property.  Building Inspector Ron DeFrancesco cited a violation and wrote the neighbor indicating that the Town’s soil erosion

and sediment control ordinance requires a resolution plan be drafted by an engineer.  Council

has a copy of the plan.  The Town is doing what it can.

Ms. Casady:  Has lived in Exeter since 1961 and loves it.  In 2020, she was picking vegetables and watching excavation happening next door.  Her neighbor was putting in a garage to house his trucks.  She is not the only neighbor affected.  She is zoned conservation and recreation, not commercial.  It seems no one cares about her rights as an abutter.  She was never notified of the permit, issued in 2018, for commercial enterprise.  She thought she was protected by zoning laws.  Nuisance things have happened over the last five years, such as her property marker went missing, the noise is over the measurement limit, and the sill and flooding has destroyed her property and changed its topography.  Though many calls have been made to the Town and the neighbor, nothing has been done to curb the noise, the hours, the damage.  There have been no return calls, explanations, or enforcement.  Where is the accountability?  She is very disappointed in the Town.  What is she going to do?  How will she recover the damages?

Mr. Ellis would like to have the plan reviewed to determine if it is appropriate.

MOTION made by Mr. Ellis to have an engineer hired by the Town do an overview

of the plan; seconded by Mr. Morrissey; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

No.   10:   UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

A.     FIRE REMEDIATION STATUS:  700 TEN ROD ROAD:  A letter has been

served on the owners.  Council awaits a response.

B.     STATUS:  WELCOME SIGNAGE IN AND OUT OF TOWN:  Mr. Findlay

reported:  He contacted the Town of Coventry regarding their signs.  The person that

did theirs has passed away.  His business has been sold to another person.  That person

is overwhelmed.  Coventry has given him two other names.

C.     STATUS:  RI250 COMMISSION:  EXETER HISTORIC PRESERVATION

COMMISSION:  There was no report.

D.     TOWN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS:  USES AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS:

1.    742 TEN ROD ROAD (“FUTURE TOWN HALL”):  STATUS: ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES:  The request for a $2.5 million bond failed at the June Financial Town Meeting.

Should the award for the architectural services be rescinded?  What to do moving forward will

be discussed at a Work Session on July 23, 2025.

No.   12:    EXECUTIVE SESSION:

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to enter into Executive Session under RIGL

42-46-5(a)(2), to discuss: 1) Davis v. Town of Exeter, PR 25-34, OM 25-25;

2) Public Water System, 742 Ten Rod Road; and 3) Position of Building Planning

Zoning Clerk; seconded by Ms. Allen; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Council entered into Executive Session at 9:44 p.m., adjourned Executive Session

at 10:31 p.m., and reassembled in Open Session.

MOTION made by Mr. Patterson to affirm all votes taken in Executive Session

and to seal the minutes of Executive Session; seconded by Ms. Allen; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

No.   13:    ADJOURNMENT: