I.                   CALL TO ORDER:

Chair Chris Palmer called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.  Chairman Palmer explained the rules of the Zoom meeting and Planner Sweet explained the process of raising your hand.

II.                QUESTION POSED TO APPLICANT PRIOR TO OPENING PUBLIC HEARING:

Chair Chris Palmer stated that his packet did not include a radius map for Exeter and was concerned that all abutters were not notified and questioned if notices were sent to all concerned parties including open space within the Rosewood Estate cluster.  Chair Palmer stated that there is a parcel that has 1/42 undivided interest within the 1,000-foot radius in open space and appears that they were not notified. Elle Noordzy explained that the abutter’s lists came from the radius map encompassing the 1,000-foot radius required and that this included North Kingstown and Rosewood Estate.  Solicitor Peter Ruggiero responded to the open space aspect and states that 42 lot owners have a legal interest in that lot, and if there is a defect in the notice, all will be null and void. Attorney Robert Craven replied that all abutters were notified and feels confident to move forward. 

Chair Chris Palmer asked to open public hearing.  Scott Millar made a motion to open the public hearing; Bill Haas seconded.  Roll call was taken and voted all in favor.  Motion passed.

III.             PUBLIC HEARING:

A.    Preliminary Plan-Major Land Development - Exeter Renewables 1, LLC (Morris Farm Solar) property located at 85 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as AP 26, Block 1, Lot 1 for a proposed Solar Project.

Chair Chris Palmer introduced the above petition and turned over to Planner Sweet to give a summary of this plan. 

Planner Sweet explained that this a preliminary plan public hearing and stated that this applicant, Exeter Renewables 1, LLC, has been before the Planning Board previously for a pre-application meeting and a master plan public hearing.  She stated that she and the Board have done a site walk on the property and stated that the applicant has gone before the Zoning Board to obtain a special use permit.  Accordingly, the applicant was back before the Planning Board for the preliminary plan public hearing. 

Attorney Robert Craven gave an overview of their proposal.  Attorney Craven then introduced Chris Shea, of Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.

Chris Shea shared the layout plan of the project and reviewed this in detail.  Ms. Shea stated that since meeting with the Planning Board for master plan, the only change to the layout was a request from Mr. Morris to find a better location for the utility poles coming into the project which was coordinated with National Grid and this change was satisfactory to Mr. Morris.  Additionally, since master plan, they went through the process of getting all required State permits; RI Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) for an Insignificant Alteration Application for proximity to wetlands; RIPDES-Soil Erosion and Sedimentation, and filed a Physical Alteration permit with the RI Department of Transportation (RIDOT).  Both RIDEM and RIDOT reviewed their stormwater plan for the project and approved of their mitigation measures.

Attorney Craven thanked Chris Shea for her presentation and asked the Board if they had any questions.

Scott Millar asked if the total footprint of cleared area was 40 acres.

Chris Shea responded yes; there is about 40 acres of fencing, not solar panels.  She clarified that there is roughly 17-18 acres of solar panels and stated it is fair to say that the total project area is 40 acres.

Chair Chris Palmer asked for an explanation of the wetlands restoration that took place after meeting for master plan.

Chris Shea stated that there was a logging operation going on there beforehand and when DEM came to inspect the property for their solar project, RIDEM noticed some disturbance to the wetlands from the logging operation. 

Attorney Craven added that there was a pre-existing logging contract with Morris Farm that pre-dated this project but that all necessary repairs were made to RIDEM’s satisfaction and he believes all the logging is done or almost done.

Bill Haas asked where the wetlands issue shows on the map.

Chris Shea explained that is the black area on the upper left side of where the “T” is near the access road.

Donna Di Donato asked Chris Shea to describe the fencing surrounding the project. 

Chris Shea explained that it is a chain link fence with privacy slots on the residential side of the project; the fence is about 7-feet high with a 6-inch gap at the bottom to allow for small wildlife.

Donna Di Donato also asked about the foliage outside of the fenced area. 

Chris Shea stated there is some planting outside of the residential area and they are relocating some existing rhododendrons to that area and supplementing with evergreens.

Scott Millar asked if this has been reviewed by a landscape architect to confirm that these plantings are appropriate for this site.

Chris Shea stated that they will be and explained that these plantings have grown well in this area and expects that they will flourish in the future but we will be sure to have this checked by a landscape architect.

Scott Millar asked if there is a particular species mix of planting proposed.

Chris Shea replied nothing specific at this time.

Scott Millar feels this makes it hard to know that this will be provide an opaque screen for the residents year-round.

Chris Shea explained that the growth around the perimeter is filled with dense vegetation and that this was visible when the Board did the site walk of the property and believed at the time this was considered to be satisfactory.

Chair Chris Palmer inquired about the privacy fence noted on the plan set C5 says type to be determined, and on C11 it states a black vinyl fence with forest green slats.  Questioned why there would be a black fence with green slats.

Chris Shea stated that this was a decision made by the owner but thinks they would be open to amending.

Further discussion ensued regarding the details of the privacy fence.

Chair Chris Palmer addressed the southern wood line, in between the agricultural area and tree line, it will be hard to determine whether you were to take down more trees in the future.  Is it possible that you would monument the limit of the tree line (like RIDEM does) so if any clearing takes place afterwards, it would be identifiable in the field?

Chris Shea deferred to Attorney Craven who responded that if this is possible and is something the Board would like them to do, then they would comply.

Bill Haas added that after the current logging is completed, he doesn’t think there will any reason to do anymore.  Attorney Craven agreed with Mr. Haas and stated there isn’t any money to made there.

Scott Millar agrees with Chair Palmer’s point and thinks it’s good to make it clear where the limits of disturbance are so at some time in the future, people don’t start to remove vegetation that’s supposed to be part of the buffer.

Planner Sweet asked Chair Palmer to clarify the area on the map that he is referring to.

Chair Palmer responded that the area is located on C3 & C4.

Attorney Craven introduced Frank Epps, Principal and Founder of Energy Development Partners, (EDP) located in Providence, RI.  Attorney Craven asked Mr. Epps to give a brief overview of the size and scope of the project.

Frank Epps stated that his company has almost 30 projects in the State of Rhode Island and shared that this project is very unique in that it is sharing the inter-connection with our project in North Kingstown that is currently under construction on Drawbridge Road off of Rt.2 South.  To share the inter-connection, EDP has built an underground duct bank from the Rt. 2 area all the way down to Rt. 4 Interchange at 102 South.  This duct bank extends into the Wickford substation (across from Walmart). This will then continue back North to pole 11 which is across the street from Morris Farm.  At this point they will come above ground at pole 11 and continue down to the poles on the site.  There will not be any additional poles on Rtes. 2 or 102 to the property at Morris Farm.  We have signed inter-connection service agreements with National Grid for this project, as well as our Drawbridge project and we expect that the project will be operational and the upgrades for the inter-connection will be ready for load by December 2021.  This project will be feeding electricity into the grid and then the project itself will have a contract with a public entity.  The public entities at this point cannot be identified but stated that their projects are being used by URI, Brown University, Towns in North Smithfield, South Kingstown, Narragansett, Quonset Development Corporation and others. This project will be able to pay all of the tangible property taxes as allowed by the State, and as part of the agreement with the Town of Exeter.  That is for $5,000 per megawatt AC for the project itself in tangible property taxes.  Mr. Epps stated that they will also be paying for all of the real property taxes that are owed by Mr. Morris and his Trust and the insurances and other triple net expenses that are required through our lease.  They have a bond that is being posted with Mr. Morris for the decommissioning of the project as well.  This is not unique to other projects we’ve done in other communities within the State of Rhode Island as we pride ourselves in that we find levels of agreement within our communities and our abutters.  EDP has no lawsuits or restrictions against it, and no violations.  In regards to privacy fencing, they are open to whatever the Town thinks works – green on black or black on black.  Mr. Epps went on to say that this is a great project because it allows Mr. Morris to continue to farm all of the property that is forward and visible on Rt. 102.  Mr. Epps stated that he or any member of his team are available for any questions.

Scott Millar thanked Mr. Epps for his presentation and asked about the tax agreement with the Town; is that pending or something that has already been established and asked Mr. Epps to clarify that it’s based on the just the panels and not the entire 40 acres.

Frank Epps explained that there are two parts: the first part is the real property taxes that are paid for the property and EDP has the responsibility to pay that share Mr. Morris’ taxes for the 40 acres; then there’s the tangible property taxes.  The $5,000 per megawatt is the addition to the real property taxes; this project is approximately 10 megawatts AC and so therefore, there will be a $50,000 payment to the Town on an annual basis for the life of the project, in addition to all of the real property taxes.

Planner Sweet added that this application is under the “Green Ordinance” that was in affect at the time they applied and that ordinance required a tax agreement and language was added at the public hearing.  This applicant did go before the Town Council and the Council approved to not have a specific tax treaty but instead allowed the State law to rule over the tax agreement which is the $5,000 per megawatt.  This is under State law even though the Green Ordinance states that they were supposed to have a tax treaty.

Scott Millar asked if this is currently under the “Farm, Forest & Open Space” act paying a minimal amount of taxes, and voiced concern on how the land will be taxed going forward because it’s use is changing.

Planner Sweet explained that once the land is developed it changes the tax structure to “improved property” and will be taxed accordingly.  Only the portion that is taxed under the Farm, Forest & Open Space will retain that tax rate.  Planner Sweet will verify with our Tax Assessor, Kerri Petrarca.

Chair Chris Palmer asked if this falls under Farm, Forest & Open Space is it still under a current plan now, or has it expired and are there penalties for removing it and how does that apply?

Frank Epps stated that the Farm, Forest & Open Space or the tax treaties that Mr. Morris entered into were from many years ago and that it’s passed the 15-year time period so there’s no penalties required on the property to transfer over.

Chair Chris Palmer asked to confirm with Mr. Epps that this is out of RIDEM’s Farm, Forest & Open Space; Mr. Epp’s confirmed.

Michael Viveiros asked about the configuration of the utility poles.

Frank Epps explained that when they cross over from Rt. 102 to the access road there are three or four utility poles that will be placed on the access road and one will have a load break on it.  This is will allow a break from the utility network, and the other poles with have a fuses and meters.  From there it goes underground all the way through the access road into the project right into their pad with transformer and inverters, which is all hidden behind the fence and trees and not visible at all.  National Grid requires the inter-connections to be overhead so they can be serviced at any time.

Chair Chris Palmer asked to have the “decommissioning plan” explained to the public.

Frank Epps stated that the decommissioning plan includes the removal of all equipment from the site which include all of the racking, panels, concrete pads – some of which can be recycled. There’s a restoration plan in place to be able to restore the land to a grass field; and then will also pay for removal of National Grid poles and other equipment as well.  The key to removal of all of this material is recycling.  The panels themselves, even after 25 years that this lease is in place, most likely can be recycled.  There is a cost benefit there and we are entering into various types of bonding and cash payments for decommissioning with another town such as North Kingstown and Hopkinton. We normally take a look at the project and based on experience and along with Mr. Morris, we would post a bond from a minimum of $15,000 to a maximum of $30,000 per megawatt of the cash bond in today’s dollars to be able to decommission the project. If that happens, we would estimate between $150-$300,000 to see the bond. There is a website for “We Recycle Solar;” this is a company EDP is working with and are a part of a major waste management group. This is a straight forward process and the bond is part of the lease. This comes into to play when the lease ends or the project is abandoned (which this won’t).  The project ends when lease is up which is a 25-year lease with two 5-year extensions mutually agreed upon between EDP and the landlord.

Scott Millar inquired about a cash bond being proposed in North Kingstown and Hopkinton, and asked if this been proposed in Exeter.

Frank Epps replied that it has not been required so far, but we have done this with other Towns.

Further discussion ensued regarding the decommissioning plan.

Michael Viverios asked in time – will it become public where the power is going.

Frank Epps replied yes, in time, they will be allowed to share this information.

Chair Chris Palmer asked if there were questions from the public. 

Daye Haberek, resident from Mary Ann Drive asked about the exit area where the logs would be taken away.  Ms. Haberek also asked when the solar project would start, how long it would take to complete and also has concerns about the noise.

Planner Sweet responded that they used the existing driveway out to Rt. 102.  She also explained that the property owner had obtained a logging permit through DEM and that the land had already been logged with another contractor.

Frank Epps explained that the project will start as soon as the permits are obtained through the Town of Exeter, and stated that the inter-connection work in the process now.  Mr. Epps explained that they are hoping to start construction by March 2021. Mr. Epps stated that the construction will not be visible from the road, but there will be noise associated with installing/ramming of the poles.  He assured Ms. Haberek that they will be in compliance with the Town’s restrictions and allowed time schedule for construction. Mr. Epps added that the trenching will be done at the same time as the poles being installed.  EDP has until December of 2021 for completion.

Lynn Cragen-Conway, resident from Widow Sweets Road has concerns about pollutants leaching into the water supply and wants Mr. Epps to understand that the all water is private/well water in the Town of Exeter.

Frank Epps stated that no contaminants will leach into the ground and explained that there are no chemicals but there is a lubricant that is 98.1% vegetable oil.  There is a containment area that will catch anything in the event a panel is damaged.  The site is monitored 24/7 and EDP would be notified in the event there was any damage.

Ms. Conway also asked Mr. Epps to explain the cash bond option in the event the Town chooses that.

Frank Epps explained that EDP would come to an agreement with the Town of Exeter on the amount of cash and an account would be set up that the Town would be the beneficiary of.  The account would be funded before any of the building permits were issued by the Town.

Ms. Conway asked if the Town accepts the cash bond, do they now bear the responsibility to remove the solar panels.

Frank Epps replied that it would still be EDP’s responsibility to remove the panels and explained that the cash bond is like an insurance policy ensuring the developer will still be around to remove the panels per the decommissioning plan.

Megan Cotter, resident from Lantern Lane first asked what the setbacks were for the North Kingstown project.

Frank Epps stated this was permitted back in 2018; Chris Shea responded that they maintained a 200-foot buffer on the residential side and on the other boundaries’ ranges between 30-60 feet.  Anything that was wooded remained.

Ms. Cotter then asked about changing the setbacks to 200-feet on this project instead of the 150 feet they have now?  Planner Sweet brought up the site plan replied that there is 245 feet from the property line to the fence line, and 270 feet to the panels from the property line. Mr. Epps reviewed the site plan for Ms. Cotter and explained the cleared area and the wooded area.  There is 150- feet of undisturbed wooded and grass area.  He went on to clarify if any of the transplanting of rhododendrons were to die, they will be replaced.  Ms. Cotter asked how many evergreens will be planted and what size?  Chris Shea replied they do not have an exact number but they will be working with a landscape architect. Ms. Cotter asked about the fencing and if this will be cemented/permanent?  Frank Epps said it will be permanent.  Ms. Cotter went on to ask about the water and if EDP is willing to reimburse residents abutting the project for water testing, before the project, during the project and after?  She also asked if they encounter sediment problems, would they take responsibility and replace pumps? Mr. Epps replied yes that they are open to reimburse residents for water testing and will take care any pump replacements.  Mr. Epps does not foresee issues with this as he has not encountered any in the past.

Gina Thurn, resident from Gardner Road stated that she wants to offer support for this project.  She feels the applicant and company has gone above and beyond to provide a great plan with exceptional buffering while keeping farming sustainable and continuing in agriculture. Ms. Thurn hopes that the Board will support this project.

Maryanne Jordan, resident from Lantern Lane asked for clarification about the “laurels” or rhododendrons being removed or transplanted.  Mr. Epps stated that the “underbrush” plantings including the rhododendrons and evergreens will be replanted, but none of the planting within the 150- foot buffer will not be touched.

Lynn C. Conway, resident from Widow Sweets Road asked if there are any historical cemeteries on this property and if so, will they be impacted at all.  Elle Noordzy replied that there is a historical cemetery on this site in the middle of the corn field, but she assured Ms. Conway that it will not be impacted in any way from this project.

Mary Ellen Morris-Sutton, John Morris’ daughter was present and introduced herself and thanked everyone for their careful consideration and excellent questions about this project.  She stated that these questions are just as important to her and her family as they to the residents of Exeter.  She stated that this farm is an important part of their family heritage and this project is part of making sure that their heritage continues. She stated how important projects like these are in keeping farms viable and making it economically feasible to keep these farms operating. Their two farms have been in operation since 1950 are very important to them. She noted that this solar project has been put together with great respect and care for the community; for the aesthetics of the project, the environmental safety and all the things that are important to our family as well is going to help us maintain the character of our farm.  She and her husband have opened a farm stand on Rt. 102 near the big red barn and she hopes to keep that local farm tradition going with the help of this project.

Chair Chris Palmer asked if there were any more questions from public before they continued.

Scott Millar asked if anyone on Lantern Lane can see the logged area. 

Megan Cotter replied, as she lives on Lantern Lane and stated that during the Fall, Winter and Spring they are able to see the area that has been logged.  She also asked about the trees that are marked with blue X’s on them.  Mr. Epps stated the trees are marked so they won’t be cut down. Ms. Cotter also stated that she does not believe the logging project is completed yet.  Frank Epps and Chris Shea do not have an answer to the logging question.  However, Chris Shea explained again about the fence, evergreens that will be in place as the buffer.

Michael Viveiros inquired about getting a commitment from EDP to not interfere with the 150-foot buffer and feels that due to there being a separate entity doing the logging that there is some uncertainty with this. 

Frank Epps replied yes, there is a commitment.

Attorney Craven stated that there will be additional logging done on the property – approximately 4 acres – further west - and will not be visible from Lantern Lane. This will not be damaging to the project as that is their commitment per Mr. Morris’s wishes.

Planner Sweet brought up the site plan to review the logging area.  A further discussion regarding the logging ensued with the group.

Chair Chris Palmer asked if the Board had any more questions.

Donna Pari asked to refer to C12 on the site plan and feels there was a lot of questions about the evergreens.  Chair Palmer stated that it shows under notes#1 - 3” diameter and staking is not required for trees that are 10’ high. Planner Sweet brought the plan up on the screen to review. Chris Shea added that this is just a standard for how to plant trees.

Scott Millar moved to close the public hearing; Donna DiDonato seconded.  Roll call taken; voted all in favor to close public hearing.  Motion passed.

Chair Chris Palmer stated that the public hearing is closed.  The Chair ran through his list of items to review:

1.      Testing to wells

2.      Monitoring buffer between the farm fields and the wood line

3.      Better landscape plan showing planting details for final

4.      Adding pollinator species as ground cove the under panels

Planner Sweet made a couple of suggestions as follows:

1.      Clarify the panel height so low & high is reflected on the plan set at finish

2.      Clarify the area that remains to be logged and identify so abutters are aware

3.      Resolve the issue of the bond; how to handle and what the amount will be

4.      Suggested to have the applicant notify the abutters on Lantern Lane to offer baseline water testing and then share with the Town on what residents opt in /or opt out and what the results are

Scott Millar added that a standing practice with large projects in the past, we have asked for review and inspection fees, as we are all part-time and have no Town Engineer.  In the past, we have brought in an outside independent consulting firm in accordance with section 3.3C of our subdivision regulations.  This has worked very well as it has provided a very thorough analysis.  Mr. Millar explained that some of the areas that he feels still need to be assessed are:

1.      What will the species composition be in the buffer

2.      Suggested a deep dive into the decommissioning plan

3.      Amount of the bond and what is a reasonable ask in the industry

4.      Take a look at the change of grades; clear cutting of 40 acres will affect the hydrology and how this water run-off will affect adjacent properties

5.       

Scott Millar stated that this would be part of his motion tonight and then defer a decision this evening in order to make a more informed decision at our next meeting.

Chris Palmer deferred to Planner Sweet about a consultant list and asked if this could be done in this short period of time.

Planner Sweet knows the Town has a list of consultants that she could review and contact immediately but she doesn’t know how quickly one could respond and act on our request.

Chair Chris Palmer added that we can require this as a condition of the preliminary plan that we have to have an outside consultant review this for that final approval, and any changes that we need made would be made at the final plan review meeting.

Attorney Robert Craven stated that the special use permit received from the Zoning Board is due to expire on 8/14/2020 and will need to get on the next Zoning meeting agenda to request an extension and hopes that this Board will support that continuance.

Discussion then ensued regarding the Peer Review process that would include:

1.      Decommissioning plan

2.      Bond amount

3.      Landscape plan

Peter Ruggiero stated that approving preliminary with conditions is discretionary on the part of the Board, but advised the Board to be cognizant of the time clock, as it expires on the 10^th of August.  He feels that realistically this won’t get completed in that timeframe and should be discussed with the applicant.

Chair Chris Palmer asked if the Board can approve a conditional approval based on the final submission having a peer review completed prior to the Board hearing a final review.

Peter Ruggiero stated yes, that it could be part of the checklist requirement.

Planner Sweet added that this would be a condition of the preliminary approval in order for Exeter Renewables to come back at final, the Planner will have to check the box that those conditions were satisfied.  And in addition to all the other items discussed, peer review of these specific conditions will be part of final approval to receive a certificate of completeness.

Frank Epps agreed that they will comply and work on this as long as they’re not in jeopardy of the timeline and deferred back to Bob Craven.

Attorney Craven stated that they have (2) time clocks: one with Planning and one with Zoning. The issue of having the final approval be done administratively was raised.

Chair Palmer is not in favor of having the final approval completed this way and asked for the Board’s thoughts on this.  The Board and the Planner stated they are not in favor of this and that this needs to come back before the Board for final approval.

Planner Sweet then stated that if Exeter Renewables submit their plans on the (3) criteria mentioned above and we (the Town) can send out for peer review right away.  Once the peer review comes back, Exeter Renewables can submit final plans based on the peer review, then we can review and decide on it.

Frank Epps agreed to move forward with the peer review process, as well as agreed to make funds available to cover the cost of peer review, with his Counsel’s approval. 

Scott Millar referenced section 3.3C as there is a funding formula cited.

Attorney Craven and Frank Epps stated they will fund in advance.

Scott Millar recommended deferring any decision until the July meeting and re-visit the draft decision as there has been a lot of changes made this evening.

Planner Sweet added that she will as long as the applicant agrees to enter the peer review process right away even though the Board is not approving a preliminary with conditions tonight as stated previously.

Attorney Craven and Frank Epps agreed to allow the peer review to begin prior to next month’s meeting.

Bill Haas made a motion to continue to July 28, 2020 at 6:30 p.m., the Planning Board will meet virtually on the Zoom platform with access information to be made available at a later date; seconded by Michael Viveiros.

Donna Di Donato suggested holding this at the July 14^th Work Session instead.  The motion was then amended and roll call was taken.  Voted all in favor to continue to July 14, 2020 at 6:30 p.m., the Planning Board will meet virtually on the Zoom platform with access information to be made available at a later date.  MOTION PASSSED.

IV.             NEW BUSINESS:

A.    Pre-Application Minor Subdivision – Alpha Associates, LTD and Lewis E. Peck, owner and applicant of property located at 78 Sunderland Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as AP 24 Lot 2, Block 3 for a 2-lot subdivision.

Chair Chris Palmer introduced the next agenda item. 

Michael McCormick was present to represent the applicant, Lewis E. Peck for a minor subdivision.  He reviewed the plan that was shared on the screen. 

Chair Palmer stated that this is a simple plan that seems to meet all the requirements.  Will need to file a preliminary plan.

Planner Sweet asked the Board if they would combine the pre-application and the preliminary.

There were no concerns voiced by the Planning Board; this will be added to the July 28 agenda.

B.     Request for an Extension of Preliminary Plan Approval – Barn View Estates, property located at 106 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-3 and further designated as AP 38, Block 6, Lot 33.

Chair Chris Palmer introduced this request and asked Planner Sweet to review her memo dated 6/16/2020. 

Planner Sweet noted that the preliminary plan approval was originally issued on 2/26/2008 and this is the third extension request.

Attorney John McGreen was present representing his client Armand Cortellesso. Attorney McGreen had images displayed on the screen and explained information to the Board.

Chair Chris Palmer made a motion to extend the meeting until 10:00 p.m.  Scott Millar seconded.  Roll call was taken; voted all in favor.

Mr. Cortellesso proceeded to review the images and made his presentation. 

The Board asked Mr. Cortellesso questions about the drainage, inspections, tolling, etc.  Discussion ensued.

Chair Chris Palmer voiced his concerns with the drainage at this site and that it is not up to current standards as it dates back to 2008.

Motion made by Scott Millar with a condition that drainage design meets standards and requirements according to DEM approval.  Donna Pari seconded.  Voted 5 in favor; 1 against.  Motion passed allowing a 1-year/final extension.

At 10:01 p.m., Chairman Palmer made a motion to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m.  Roll call taken; voted all in favor.  Motion passed.

C.    Pre-Application Development Plan Review - Freedom Truck Trailer & Repair, Karen and James Brown, Applicants; and C&H Properties, LLC Owner of property located at Nooseneck Hill Road/Rt. 3, Exeter, RI; Zoned LI and further designated as AP 46, Lot 2, Block 3 for a proposed truck maintenance and repair facility.

Attorney Robert Craven was present to represent his clients and introduced Sergio Cherenzia, a licensed engineer.  Mr. Cherenzia reviewed the proposed plan of an 8,000 square foot maintenance and repair facility. 

The Planning Board reviewed the plan; discussion ensued.  The board agrees it looks like a good project and wished them well.

D.    ADMINISTRATIVE: 

A.    Zoning Board of Review – No applications

B.     Approval of Minutes – Chairman Palmer requested to table the approval of minutes until the July 14, 2020 meeting.

C.    Approval of Invoices: None

D.    Solicitor’s Report:  None

E.     Planner’s Report: None

F.     Draft Agenda – July 14, 2020 will be a special meeting to review Exeter Renewables/Morris Farm Preliminary Plan – Major Land Development.

G.    Correspondence: None

H.    Adjournment: Motion by Bill Haas to adjourn, seconded by Michael Viveiros. Voted all in favor.  Motion passed. Chairman Palmer adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,  

M. Dixie Foisy

Planning Board Clerk