No.   1   CALL TO ORDER: 

The Emergency Meeting of the Exeter Town Council was called to order on Thursday, June 18, 2026, at 2:10 p.m., in Council Chambers, Exeter Clerk’s Office, 675 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, Rhode Island.

No.   2    STATEMENT AS TO WHY MATTER IN EXECUTIVE SESSION

MUST BE ADDRESSED WITH LESS THAN 48 HOURS’ NOTICE:  Ms. Allen

stated the reason for calling this emergency meeting:  Council has reason to believe

there is trespassing on the property.  There have been a number of complaints.

Asa Davis, Resident:  He inquired whether he is correct that this meeting was called

regarding Estate Drive and where he was yesterday.  Ms. Allen answered in the affirmative. 

The wording on this agenda is wrong.  The ruling from Judge Taft-Carter said, at best, it is a

paper street.  He takes issue with the idea that the paper street is Town property, especially, because in multiple cases, the Town has said it never accepted the land and the Supreme Court agreed there was no acceptance of the land past the Estate Drive cul-de-sac, the unimproved land.  That is the land where he was yesterday. Without a deed, which the Town does not have and admits it does not have, it is not even a paper street.  His adverse possession case was thrown out because he did not file the claim in an earlier case.  The Town did not rule that the Town owns the land.  Since there is no deed to the Town and the Town never accepted it in any way and by its own admission, the land is not the Town’s.  It is either Assalone’s or his.  Assalone’s stipulation indicates that he does not care if it goes to Mr. Davis.  You cannot trespass on your own land and you cannot trespass if you have permission, which he has through Assalone’s stipulation.  The Town does not have standing to claim someone is trespassing on land it does not own.  The original barrier placement was on private property.  The Town claims it never accepted the land, but then claims ownership outside of court.  The Supreme Court agreed with the Town, “Thus, there has been no acceptance of the unimproved land past the cul-de-sac.”  That is what the Town has argued.  That is what the Court agreed with.  The Town cannot now say it is Town land.  In Case 2024-0638, Attorney Sypole stated that the injunction was in full force and effect when it had expired years before.  He lied to deny him permits and obstruct

and harass his surveyors in violation of State statute.  Over the winter, his survey stakes were wrecked, in violation of RIGL 11-44-1, despite the cease and desist.  There are police reports regarding blocking him from his driveway.  He issued a cease and desist against Attorneys Syliva and Sypole, Public Works Director Shappy, former Councilman Patterson, and Neighbor Iannuccilli.  The Town does not have to indemnify or defend illegal acts.  That also applies

to its attorneys.  The Town could improve and pave the end just like it is now doing for the

other short paved and unfinished roads like, Gardner, Widow Sweets, and Mockingbird.

Maybe that would put this to rest.  Public Works Director Shappy could be directed to pave

or accept the end as improved to the Town gravel standards, which it is, and better than the

gravel roads in Town.  This entire saga is exactly why the creation of paper streets was

outlawed years ago across the State, though the Town continued to create them.  He had

offered to finish the short-paved road properly to head off litigation.  That was a conversation with former Public Works Director Mattscheck, former Councilman Patterson, and former

Town Solicitor Marusak.  That did not happen because he was going to be required to give

up some of his land and donate material and funds to pay for DEM violations at the Town Garage.  He restarted site work two days ago.  He has between 48 and 60 test holes to dig. 

He is not wasting another summer.  He submitted pictures showing a tree overhanging his driveway two days ago.  He removed it and only it.  It had gotten worse and had a rotten core.

It was a danger.  If it fell, it would have obstructed even emergency vehicles from getting in.  Removing the tree was no different than the maintenance he has been doing since he purchased the property in 1997.  If the Town is going to pursue litigation, Attorneys Sylvia and Sypole should recuse because they are conflicted because of their actions with the barriers and their improper injunction enforcement.  Council should find unconflicted council.

No.   3    EXECUTIVE SESSION:

MOTION made by Ms. Allen to enter into Executive Session regarding Potential Litigation: Trespassing on Estate Drive Paper Street; seconded by Mr. Turner;

and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

Council entered into Executive Session at 2:21 p.m., moved into the Clerk’s Office Vault, adjourned Executive Session at 3:02 p.m., and reconvened in Council Chambers in open

session at 3:08 p.m.

MOTION made by Ms. Allen to reconvene in open session; seconded by Mr. Schiffer;

and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

MOTION made by Ms. Allen to seal the minutes and affirm votes taken in Executive session and confirm all votes taken, to not be disclosed at this time pursuant to RIGL

42-46-4(b); seconded by Mr. Schiffer; and voted unanimously in the affirmative.

No.   4   ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION made by Ms. Allen to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Turner; and voted

unanimously in the affirmative. 

The Emergency Meeting was adjourned at 3:09 p.m.

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Lynn M. Hawkins, CMC

Exeter Town Clerk

Approved:   July 6, 2026