Town of Exeter, Rhode Island
PLANNING BOARD
675 Ten Rod Road
Exeter, R.I. 02822
401-294-2612
401-294-2592
Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2021
Approved: January 11, 2022
REGULAR MEETING
Pursuant to Executive Orders recently 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, William Haas, Donna Pari, Gina Thurn and
Donna Di Donato
Members Absent: Michael Viveiros
Staff present: Steve Sypole, Solicitor, William DePasquale, Planner and Dixie Foisy, Clerk
Chair Michael DeFrancesco called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
None
A. Preliminary Plan-Minor Subdivision, No Street: Town of Exeter/Transfer Station, Applicant; and Clark A. Whitford, Jr. Trustee, Owner of property located at 900 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Accessor’s Plat 35, Block 2, Lots 1 & 4, for a proposed minor subdivision, no street creation.
Chair DeFrancesco introduced this application and turned over to Amy Sonder, engineer on this project. Ms. Sonder noted that many things have transpired over the year-and-a-half and that the initial proposal was to take landfill areas 1&2 (the southern portion of the site) and convey that parcel to the Town. However, through changes to accommodate the Whitfords and the Town, it had been decided to convey only parcel B-1, which is the front portion of the transfer station and the landfill area 1. This meets all dimensional requirements for that zone. Amy stated that they will be asking for waivers on the Class 1 survey; the remaining portion will be a Class 4 Survey. The entire 84 acres in the back area have not been surveyed. A right of way to the back area of the property is being proposed. Ms. Sonder requested that the final recording paperwork be done administratively if all is approved.
Bill DePasquale reviewed his memo, dated 5/18/21, covering waivers for the project which were granted 11/26/21. Mr. DePasquale stated that he has worked hard with the petitioner to ensure there are at least 4 acres of “upland area” for each parcel of land. Existing conditions, as noted on page 2, will create a single lot for the Transfer Station with the aforementioned access, in perpetuity, for testing of the closed landfill #2. As for compliance on page 3, project being compliant and the proposed applicants; propose required minimum areas, required frontage, and upgrades to roadways. Consistency with the Comp Plan is very important; how will we work with the Comp Plan and Zoning that are in place. The proposed new lot would contain 12.8 acres, purchased by the Town of Exeter. This Transfer Station Project is of great importance to the residents of Exeter and will be for decades to come. In furthering the environmental stewardship of the Town; the parcel would include a 25’ wide deeded access road through parcel A-B1, providing access to and from the capped landfill (landfill #2), for routine testing, maintenance and repair. This will also provide unimpeded access to and from the landfill area in compliance with local, state and federal regulatory guidelines. Bill DePasquale recommends preliminary approval with the final approval granted through the Administrative Officer. Finding of Facts, Findings in the Affirmative, page 5 of the above referenced memo, items #1,2,3,4 have been reviewed as well as page 6, items #5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10. The proposed development is consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan Section 5.4.7.B.5, acknowledging the Transfer Station provides adequate services to the Town. Most residents, as far as Town Officials have noted, feel that this will meet their needs. As well as 5.2 which is a land use discussion which describes the zoning ordinance and Comp Plan which preserves the rural character and natural resources of the Town. This proposal provides retaining the transfer station operations at the original site, eliminating the need to relocate a refuse transfer operation to a new parcel in town. This proposal acts as a measure of impact avoidance, which in and of itself, acts as a preservation technique. He added that a public meeting will be held on 5/25/21 before the Planning Board to hear this preliminary information.
Chair DeFrancesco had a question about the easement, not the subdivision, and asked if there was a draft easement in the packet. The Chair asked Bill if we approved this preliminary plan, would that mean we would be approving the language regarding “access easement”? Chair DeFrancesco also asked Amy Sonder if this was a generic easement or one that has official boundaries which are recorded? Bill DePasquale stated that this is not a generic easement; he wants a site-specific easement with boundaries and to work with the Town Council to make sure the final deed language is appropriate.
Amy Sonder stated that she followed the traveled path to the back of the property, but does not want to limit access to the rear of property.
At this time, Chair DeFrancesco turned the meeting over to the Board for comments/questions.
Scott Millar asked if there was any reason the Whitford’s didn’t opt to take/keep more land.
Amy Sonder stated that part of the reason may be the proposed Solar Farm and the setback to the Solar, which, when we drew the line, the Solar Farm proposed a setback that covered an area of Landfill #2. Until this is all rectified you do not want to define that line at this time.
As there were no further questions from the Board, Chair DeFrancesco asked for a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision as presented tonight. He stated that he feels we have done our due diligence, and have information and forms pertaining to regulations. Scott Millar made a motion to accept the preliminary plans based on the Town Planner’s memo dated 5/18/21. Bill Haas seconded the motion.
Chair DeFrancesco asked if there was any discussion, there was none.
Roll call was taken and voted 5-0; all in favor. The motion was passed to include final approval to be completed administratively.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Overlay District for CEA – Advisory Opinion to the Town Council
Chair Michael DeFrancesco introduced this item for review and discussion. He explained that the Planning Board is responsible for submission of an Advisory Opinion to the Town Council. Chair DeFrancesco expressed that this has been an arduous process, as there does not seem to be a time restriction for response to the application, as we expect more discussion on the matter. A site visit was conducted on Saturday, May 22, 2021. The Chair stated that what is being considered before us is a proposed overlay district and he expressed that an overlay district, in his opinion, should include multiple uses and should be able to fit multiple parcels in a town and not be something akin to spot zoning or tailored to a particular parcel. The Board had mixed comments where on the one hand the application is not in conformance with the Comp Plan and the area is not in accordance with zoning which are the two criteria we have to discuss. On the other hand, there may be articles of conformance with the Comp Plan and for the purposes of zoning. These matters need caution to proceed, and what is reported to the Town Council. It doesn’t seem there will be a decision tonight, and going forward the next workshop meeting won’t be until July 13th to discuss at further length. The Chair then turned it over to the Town Planner.
Bill DePasquale spoke about the site visit and shared that he feels that this provided a better perspective of scale and landscape. Some issues which were brought up are, thinking about the ordinance in regard to smaller greenhouses but in aggregate to allow that use as ancillary solar. What was seen in the site visit was that smaller greenhouses are put together in aggregate and then in scale they may be afforded the solar option which was only available to larger facilities. He referenced the highlighted portions of his memo, and noted the need for scope, performance, and regulations or a consensus by the Board that this is even agreeable. Bill stated there are many aspects to consider when deciding whether this is something which would fit in this community. All these aspects need to be looked into when proposing an overlay plan that is open to anyone who qualifies. This information is included in the memorandum. We cannot move forward without a consensus, as to whether or not the proposal to have a large-scale facility is something the Comprehensive Plan should support rather than having an overlay.
Scott Millar has a lot of detailed comments, which can be discussed later, but in general, he supports the concept of a CEA and other reasonable means to maintain farms and help farmers in Exeter. However, the Planning Boards legal responsibility is to issue an Advisory Opinion to the Town Council regarding the CEA. That ordinance is going to require 20 acres of greenhouse at a minimum as well as 13 acres of utility scale solar in a residential zone. The current CEA overlay would prevent some or all Exeter farmers from having a CEA because the 20-acre minimum size would be cost prohibitive. Farmers should have the size farm which suits there needs. Scott Millar stated he sent an email of a previous Planning Board advisory today regarding utility scale solar, it is a good format and may be a good starting point. As we go forward, there is a lot of information to process, but Scott suggested we first access consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, then compliance with Zoning, and then CEA. A key issue to be addressed is how do we maintain agriculture in Exeter going forward? Regardless of our advisory on the CEA, Scott believes that the Planning Board should submit to the Town Council some kind of a broad base stake holder group to evaluate ideas on how to maintain agriculture in Exeter, which could include the use of a CEA and renewable energy.
Chair DeFrancesco agreed that the sequence that Scott had suggested, to start with the Comp Plan, on to Zoning and then the final CEA overlay proposal. The argument will come that we have an expired or obsolete Comp Plan which we are comparing this to which was never contingent on a project such as this.
Steven Surdut stated he submitted a potential new CEA with potential revisions based upon the meeting this weekend. He stated he agreed with Scott Millar about the size restrictions and that they have removed those as well as several other changes. He also stated that they added that the facility needs a Farm Forest Open Space Tax ID number from the State which has very specific requirements defining what a farm is.
Bill Haas stated that he does not believe it’s fair to the Planning Board to have to review something that was sent/received today and be expected to render an opinion on it.
The Clerk stated that she did not forward the revisions from Steven Surdut to the Board as of yet as it came in late.
Bill Haas stated that he was unable to participate in the site meeting on Saturday and has not seen the new proposal. He stated he does not believe that what he has read is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan as we have a building footprint restriction of 40,000 square feet, and voiced that this is totally against the work put into the Solar 9 ordinance. He also believes that this is a major land development and not a development plan review. Mr. Haas also noted that greenhouses are tax exempt; this is a 20-acre greenhouse that will not be on the tax rolls, as well as the fact that this is spot zoning.
Chair DeFrancesco shared at the site meeting on Saturday the applicant stated that they’re offering a pilot program in lieu of taxes. Again, this is not the time to make a resolution until all information is in.
Bill DePasquale noted that the maximum square footage is by definition for retail. In the ordinance, this is all pertaining to retail.
Gina Thurn asked if there is anywhere in the ordinance that states maximum or minimum for the size of a greenhouse.
Solicitor Steve Sypole stated that he doesn’t believe so, but will follow up on this question.
Gina Thurn then asked if the maximum square footage only applies to retail, if there isn’t a maximum square footage applied to greenhouses, the retail square footage would not apply to this project.
Scott Millar stated that if this is the way the ordinance is written yes, but he will have to look into this further.
Gina stated she does not feel that we can use that 40,000 square foot argument as a way to say that the greenhouse is too big.
Steve Sypole will review.
Bill Haas argues that most greenhouses are not a permanent structure, and once a concrete foundation or footing is used, he considers this permanent. No one would build a 40,000 square foot building that was not permanent.
Scott Millar reviewed the Comp Plan piece that established the 40,000 square feet as follows: “focus attention on small-scale, clustered, architecturally sensitive development consistent with the rural character of the Town.” He stated that a 20-acre greenhouse is not what he considers small-scale.
Gina Thurn asked someone to define what is meant by the term “rural character.” She stated that she hears the term “rural character,” “sense of place,” and “scenic vistas” as three pieces of terminology that are thrown around a lot when it comes to the Comp Plan. These terms are extremely subjective in regard to definition. As seen throughout the Comp Plan - farms are important, agriculture is important, and that we want to protect a farm’s ability to continue farming. Gina stated that this project would allow the Schartner family the ability to farm into perpetuity. The Schartner Family has tried many different farming strategies over the years to continue to be viable and to take away that option from them, in and of itself, would be going against the fact that we want to help agriculture in this town. In the long run, it makes more sense to establish one 20-acre greenhouse as opposed to four 5-acre greenhouses. As far as permanence, most greenhouses are not taken down, and are semi-permanent structures even though it is not taxed as such. Also, as it has not been on our tax base, it cannot come off of it. Historically, agriculture is considered tax positive as it provides more service than it uses as compared to other developments, especially residential developments. Keeping a farm viable and moving forward is tax-positive for the Town. When looking at this greenhouse proposal, it is important to note that it would take four times the amount of land to grow as many field tomatoes as this greenhouse can produce in its 20-acre area. The greenhouse also provides a year-round growing season – we would actually have to quadruple the amount of field to produce the same outcome in one growing season. From an economic standpoint, traditional agriculture provides seasonal opportunity for jobs, where as the greenhouse would provide year-round, steady employment with steady salary and benefits. It is difficult to maintain a seasonal workforce as employees want desirable jobs with consistency, year-round employment and job security. A CEA offers the opportunity for year-round employment, and better profit margin. A CEA is a good way to bring farming into the future and make farming a good job that can sustain an economy and the residents in this town. Gina also stated because a CEA is year-round you are creating a skilled workforce instead of training and retraining seasonal help. There have been so many changes in agriculture over the years, and if we are not open to other options our farms will die. There are so many examples throughout Comp Plan about saving farms, keeping agriculture going and making farming be a vibrant part of the economy.
Chair DeFrancesco asked Gina to “wrap it up.”
In closing, Gina stated that this matter hits close to home.
Chair DeFrancesco stated that there are pros and cons to the concept of the CEA/Schartner Farm project. However, some of the details are in question. The applicants have been making changes to the plan to address issues raised by the Board.
Steve Sypole stated that as Gina was speaking, he took the opportunity to review the Zoning Ordinance. He found only two references to greenhouses: Section 4.1 which addresses accessory uses, as this would be a primary use it does not seem this Section would apply. Use Table #20, as the zoning area for the proposed greenhouse is an RU-4, states that a greenhouse is allowed as a Special Use Permit in RU-4. Otherwise, it would be subject to the dimensional table in an RU-4 district.
Chair DeFrancesco would like to move on at this time, there doesn’t appear to be enough information to make a proposal to the Town Council.
Bill DePasquale stated there is a 45-day limitation from the newest revised proposal. Any new revisions made as a result of the site visit on Saturday would start the 45-day period as of today.
Steve Surdut disagrees with the 45-day period starting today and believes that it should begin when the application was submitted.
Donna Di Donato voiced concerned with concluding the meeting without clearing up the issue with the 45-days. There seems to be only two options, rendering a decision tonight or get an agreement from the applicant’s attorney that an extension is acceptable.
Bill DePasquale has an email that states that the original petition was removed on 4/13/21, which starts the 45-days. If in fact the petitioners claim that this is when the 45 days start, this would put the 45 days as Friday, May 28th. Bill raised the questions, if in fact the 45 days ends this Friday, would the Planning Board have the opportunity to provide its advisory opinion before the Town Council has a public meeting? Is the Town Council able to reject the advisory opinion if not submitted in 45-days?
At this time, former Planning Board member, Frank DiGregorio spoke to the time limitations and offered advice as to how this has been handled in the past.
Chair DeFrancesco proposed that the Board submit a preliminary advisory opinion and continue discussion because of the size and importance of this project. The Council can take this and know that there may be supplemental information coming further on. He is concerned about forfeiting the ability to offer an opinion due to the time limit.
Gina Thurn asked when the next Town Council meeting? It was stated that the next meeting will be on the 7th of June. Gina stated if this could be put on the July agenda as this would give the Board time in June to iron out the details for the Town Council.
The Chair and the Board members continued to discuss the pros and cons of this project.
In conclusion, Chair Michael DeFrancesco called for a motion to send an Advisory Opinion to the Town Council that the CEA before us now, is not compliant with the Comp Plan or Zoning.
Scott Millar made a motion to send the Town Council an Advisory Opinion that the proposed CEA ordinance is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or with Zoning, due to the excessive size of a million square foot greenhouse and 13 acres of utility size solar in a RU-4 zone. The footprint is approximately the size of the Warwick Mall.
Bill Haas seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken. Voted 4 in favor (Michael DeFrancesco, Scott Millar, William Haas, Donna Pari); 1 against (Gina Thurn) Motion passed.
It was noted that Scott Millar will draft a memo (based on the memo from May of 2018) and will send to Bill DePasquale and the Board to review.
A. Approval of Minutes:
Minutes of March 9, 2021 (two meetings) - Motion by Scott Millar to approve minutes as submitted; seconded by Donna Di Donato. Roll call taken; voted all in favor (3-0) Michael DeFrancesco, Scott Millar and Donna Di Donato were present at the 3/9/21 meeting and voted to approve the meeting minutes, while William Haas, Donna Pari were not present, Gina Thurn was not on the Board at the time. Motion passed.
B. Next Meeting: No meeting on June 8, 2021 due to the Financial Town Meeting; discuss items for next Regular Planning Board meeting on June 22, 2021 also to include Work Session. Discussed items to include on next agenda – CEA, Revity and Morris Farm Decommissioning Agreement.
Motion by Bill Haas to adjourn, seconded by Scott Millar; voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED. Chair Michael DeFrancesco adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Dixie Foisy and Pam Coutoulakis
Planning Board Clerk