WORK SESSION

Pursuant to Executive Orders executed by

the Governor of RI as a result of the Covid-19 Pandemic,

this meeting was held virtually via Zoom

Members present:     Michael DeFrancesco, Scott Millar, Donna Pari, Gina Thurn, Michael Viveiros, and Donna Di Donato

Members Absent:      William Haas

Staff present: William DePasquale, Planner and Dixie Foisy, Clerk

I.                CALL TO ORDER:

Chair Michael DeFrancesco called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed Gina Thurn to the Planning Board.

II.              PUBLIC COMMENT:

None

III.            WORK SESSION:

A.    PD ZONE vs. OVERLAY:

Chair Michael DeFrancesco asked the Town Planner, Bill DePasquale what application this topic of discussion was referring to.

Bill DePasquale explained that this is in reference to an application from Revity Energy, LLC who is requesting to establish an overlay district that would apply to certain properties that have been constrained by future activity and that may have limited productivity in the community and could be put to better use, such as solar.  Mr. DePasquale spoke in detail as to the purpose of a planned district; and noted specifically in the zoning use category 2.4.1 – all the uses in the use code for the planned district, half are left blank, and he stated he has never seen that in a land use table.  The Town Planner proceeded to review what is completed in this table and stated what is currently allowed in a planned district, and stated that this is less than optimal.  He added that he is not clear from a legal perspective, if there is a use that has not been assigned a Yes, No or Special Use Permit, if that would be allowed.  Bill DePasquale then reviewed what is allowed by right in a planned district according to the land use table.

Scott Millar stated that he doesn’t believe we need to be taking a deep dive into the planned district but instead should be focusing on the overlay district.  He agreed that the planned district information is confusing and believes that the remedy is to ask the Town Council, in the event the Board moves forward with this overlay district and change to solar 9, to delete the planned district in its entirety.

Bill DePasquale thanked Scott Millar for that clarification.  He stated that with an overlay district, the underlying district would remain an RU-4 and that would protect the community in the event this proposal doesn’t go forward, there would still be the residential which is a lower intensity zone.  He did state that the only caution in that the overlay should be intended for disturbed properties.  The best resolution is for 1.) conservation and restore the land to give back to the community; and 2.) avoid spot zoning.

Chair Michael DeFrancesco thanked Bill for his input.  He asked to discuss the memo from Solicitor Steve Sypole dated March 24, 2021 referencing the “precedence of approval” statute (see attached copy of memo).  The Chair specifically referenced page 2, paragraph b. and reviewed for the Board.  He stated he feels this is applicable for Revity and the discussion that took place tonight.  The other issue, Chair DeFrancesco added, is whether this would go through DPR or as a major land development application, and noted on page 1, 3^rd paragraph.  In conclusion, the Chair agreed with Steve Sypole that Revity should submit a major land development application and then go through the zoning change/advisory recommendation.

Town Planner, Bill DePasquale began to discuss the PD Zone and Overlay when Scott Millar interjected that the applicant is no longer proceeding with a PD Zone.  A discussion ensued between Bill DePasquale and Scott Millar regarding the zone change process.

Chair Michael DeFrancesco asked Scott Millar if he had a copy of Steve Sypole’s memo (mentioned above) and stated that this memo clarifies this issue for him and that for this particular applicant has to come in with a master plan application for a major land development project and request a change for an overlay district, not a planned district.

Jon Restivo asked to speak on behalf of Revity and stated that their intent is to stay in an RU-4 zone with the overlay district and not to change to a planned district.

Chair Michael DeFrancesco stated that part of the discussion tonight is the specific focus on the Revity project but feels there are broader implications to the Town as a whole and that the Board needs to come up with specific criteria to make it fair.

Scott Millar asked to review an email that he sent on 3/26/2021 that contains the draft criteria.  This was a follow up to our last meeting with Revity and stated that the Board authorized him to meet with Ashley Sweet, former Planner for the Town of Exeter, who was representing Revity at that time (but no longer is) and shared that they had a conversation about the criteria which he proceeded to review (see attached copy of email).

The Chair and the Board members then further discussed details of this memo.

Gina Thurn asked if it would be easier to do this as an overlay or as an amendment to solar 9; could we put something into solar 9 that would address solar on disturbed sites like this rather than go through the whole process of drafting an overlay district.

Scott Millar referred back to his memo and stated that he and Ashley Sweet identified (3) parcels that would qualify for this activity that are listed in Jon Restivo’s memo and listed them: the site in question that Revity wants to develop, the old landfill property and the property behind the current transfer station.

Gina Thurn asked if these three known parcels are enough for an overlay to qualify for building an overlay without it being considered spot zoning.  Further discussion ensued.

For the record, Donna Pari recused herself from the discussion if speaking specifically about the Revity project.

Bill DePasquale added that Gina raised a very good point and stated that we have to look at spot zoning of anything whether it’s an overlay and stated he’s not a fan of an overlay that doesn’t have a large number of parcels that could be eligible.  He discussed addressing this by having a “Yes” in the land use table and adding an * with a footnote defining what a disturbed site is in the ordinance. He added once the definition is there you can set up the process which would theoretically be a major land development and require a special use permit only.  Mr. DePasquale stated that this may be an imperfect solution but would be a lot quicker than an overlay and could get us away from an overlay only affecting (3) parcels.

Scott Millar asked how we want to move forward; this is on the Planning Board agenda for 4/27/2021.  In the meantime, Scott suggested asking Steve Sypole for his input and what he recommends and what is legally most sound.

Chair DeFrancesco asked Bill DePasquale to facilitate this with Solicitor Sypole.

Jon Restivo offered to draft an ordinance proposal to be reviewed at the April 27^th meeting.

Chair DeFrancesco stated he would prefer the draft ordinance comes from the Planner’s office and not from the applicant.  He added he feels it’s appropriate for the applicant to give their input.

Bill DePasquale added his comments on this process and how to move forward and expedite it.

Scott Millar suggested taking the outline that he has with the Board’s feedback; check with Steve Sypole and come back to the Board on April 27^th.

Bill DePasquale added that the long-term conservation element should be discussed as Jon Restivo is present and look at the 2 different proposals in front of us and see whether of not anything is missing on the applicant’s proposal and if they are willing to include the conservation subdivision element to it that would preserve a portion of the property long-term for the trust.

Jon Restivo replied on behalf of the applicant and stated they have talked about a portion of the property (not 50%) that could provide nice walking trails and connectivity to the Town land adjacent to it and would consider a dedication of a portion of the property for this.  An exact amount of square footage would have to be discussed further and could come back with a specific number.  Mr. Restivo added that he feels this is the only difference between the two proposals.

Chair DeFrancesco added that we can discuss these details further as we move forward.

Bill DePasquale stated that we have the element that ties the land that was previously disturbed to this long-term dedication and feels there needs to be discussion as to what that is, and not just for this project, but for the overlay.  He stated that he can’t make that determination, but the Board has to create the ordinance and that he has to put a concept together on an imperfect overlay.  Mr. DePasquale feels that the dedication is important for the Town and that he has to make that finding and tie the two together if there is long term conservation and benefit for the Town.

Chair DeFrancesco stated he would like to add this item to the agenda for April 27^th and use Scott’s memo and Jon Restivo’s draft as a basis for discussion as we go forward.  We will need time at a regular meeting in order to vote on this.  The Town Council will still have to review and make a decision.

B.    REVIEW COMP PLAN SET UP:

Bill DePasquale stated that we will be working with the Town Council to try to fund the update for the Comprehensive Plan, and prior to sending out the RFP, he asked how the Board would like to be involved in the process.  He discussed the formats the Planning Board can take: 1) being part of a technical advisory committee to include two members of the Planning Board, a Town Council member, participants from Economic Development and the farming community, or 2) a sub-committee of the Planning Board to review the sections as they come in without wordsmithing.  He stated that we are on a tight budget and needs an efficient way to move this forward.  This will determine how many meetings he will include in the RFP.

Scott Millar shared his experience with what transpired working with a technical advisory committee in the past.  He added that it’s important to bring in others but that it’s important that the entire Planning Board participates in the process so at the end none of the individual members can feel as if they don’t understand how we got to certain policies and recommendations.

Bill DePasquale added this is why he wanted to discuss this matter and stated on the flip side you also don’t want the Town Council to end up with a product that they funded and feel left out.

Further discussion ensued.

Chair Michael DeFrancesco added that he does not agree with only two Planning Board members participating as he doesn’t think that will be affective.  In addition, he agreed with Scott that we should lean on the consultant as much as possible and would like to see a number of workshops scheduled within the community to solicit their input and have the consultant summarize this information.

Bill DePasquale noted that we have to have some common ground and feels it’s important to note that we won’t get everything we want with this budget.  He spent a lot of time on his memo presented and went through all of the elements, and maybe 2 out of 11 were close to being completed by State standards.  He suggested having the consultant focus on going into the community and getting feedback which could then be shared with all the participants.  Then this feedback can be put into these elements.

A lengthy discussion ensued between the Town Planner and Board members.

In conclusion, the group agreed to host a series of charrettes, with the Planning Board as the host and include the public at the same time.

C.    AMEND ROOFTOP SOLAR ORDINANCE:

Chair Michael DeFrancesco asked if the Board would agree to asking Steve Sypole to draft something.

Bill DePasquale discussed rooftop solar being “by-right” and asked if there is a limit to that and questioned if there should be some checks and balances.  He added, for example, if someone comes in with a 10-acre greenhouse and wants to put solar on that greenhouse.  He asked is there any point at which you say rooftop is allowed by right up to whatever the number may be or is the Board just ready to allow rooftop by-right – anywhere.

Scott Millar stated that small and medium scale should be allowed “by-right.”  He shared that medium goes up to 40,000 square feet and that in Exeter you’re not allowed to build a building any larger than 40,000 square feet.  Mr. Millar added that in the event someone began to cobble roof tops together, we could go to a special use permit and waive the DPR.

Bill DePasquale stated that greenhouses are allowed by-right and someone could theoretically have 14 greenhouses; not sure they could support solar panels but wanted to throw it out there.

Michael Viveiros added that he agrees this should be limited somehow and have some restrictions out of an abundance of caution.

Chair Michael DeFrancesco added that the comment Scott Millar made about the maximum footprint of 40,000 square feet is valid for a single building, but also stated he feels Bill DePasquale raised a good point and, in the event, there is some type of “campus” with multiple buildings; do we want to regulate the cumulative amount of cobbling roof tops together.  He then questioned the definition of rooftop and that “canopy” solar is being encouraged and would that qualify as a roof.

Scott Millar stated that canopies is something different and are defined differently in the ordinance and wouldn’t want to include canopies because someone could propose a large utility scale field someplace, which would be an unintended consequence.  Mr. Millar again stated that if we keep it to medium scale, that would address 99.9% of issues that might ever come up in Town.  He added if there was a “campus” like Oak Harbor for an example, we could treat them as separate buildings.

Gina Thurn asked about rooftop – are we talking “net meter” rooftop or potential production for income and mentioned Yawgoo Valley that has a huge electrical use in season.  She asked if we would want to prohibit them from potentially utilizing solar to offset their electrical expenses.

Scott Millar added that the only rooftop the State allows right now are net meter.  He also stated that canopies are allowed and can be utilized over a parking lot (that is in the ordinance).  When referencing Yawgoo Valley, he stated that even if the entire building is 40,000 square feet, they could only place solar panels on the south side, cutting that number in half.

Michael Viveiros discussed the land that’s available along Rt. 95 and thinks that the better uses for that land may be some large industrial buildings or warehouses, which in order to be productive today could be much larger than 40,000 square feet.  He added that buildings like this can often have large solar arrays.

Bill DePasquale stated that if you look at the distribution curve, we’re at the end here and thinks if we change it to “by-right” it’s probably less than 1%.  The issue can really be about the aggregate numbers taking you over the 40,000 square feet.

Further discussion ensued.

Chair Michael DeFrancesco stated he believes we should be limit somehow and simplify the process for rooftop that would require DPR and Special Use Permit (medium scale).  All were in agreement.

Further discussion ensued.

IV.            ADJOURNMENT:

Motion by Michael Viveiros to adjourn, seconded by Scott Millar; voted all in favor.  MOTION PASSED.   Chair DeFrancesco adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.

Further discussion ensued.

Respectfully submitted,  

M. Dixie Foisy

Planning Board Clerk