Town of Exeter, Rhode Island
PLANNING BOARD
675 Ten Rod Road
Exeter, R.I. 02822
401-294-2612
401-294-2592
Meeting Minutes
September 28, 2021
Approved: April 12, 2022
Members present: Scott Millar Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Gina Thurn, Joe St. Lawrence, Michael Viveiros and Donna Di Donato
Members Absent: None
Staff present: Steve Sypole, Solicitor, William DePasquale, Planner and Dixie Foisy, Clerk
Chair Scott Millar called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
None
A. Pre-application: Ecogy Energy RI XII LLC, Applicant, and Hannibal SCT Realty LLC, Owner, of property located at 659 South County Trail, Exeter, RI; Zoned B and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 76, Block 6, Lot 13; requesting a waiver of Development Plan Review for a proposed rooftop solar project.
Chairman Millar asked Town Planner DePasquale for his findings.
Town Planner DePasquale congratulated Chair Millar on his first official meeting as Chairman.
Planner DePasquale gave an overview of the project noting that the proposed solar panels would be 12” in height and when installed the solar array would not exceed the permitted height for the zoning district. He went on to say that the facility would require a special use permit from the Zoning Board and Development Plan Review (DPR) from the Planning Board. He noted that the applicant was requesting a waiver to the DPR process and that the land development regulations do allow for waivers to development plan approval. Refer to Waivers: Sec. 4.4 Waiver of development plan approval in Mr. DePasquale’s Planning Memorandum, included with each board member’s packet entitled: Pre-Application-Rooftop Solar-659 S County Trail, AP 76 B 6 L13, dated September 22, 2021.
Town Planner DePasquale then offered his recommendations, in his September 22nd memo, stating that he found the proposal to be generally consistent with the intent of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance in particular Section 11.1.1. Solar energy facilities (C) General requirements (3) which reads “All solar energy facilities are strongly encouraged to be located on rooftops.” In his memorandum he supported the waiver to the DPR as the proposal is entirely located on the existing rooftop adjacent to South County Trail, and that in his opinion this project would not adversely affect existing drainage, circulation, landscaping, buffering, lighting and other considerations of the development plan approval.
Chairman Millar asked for any additional comments from the applicant.
Matt Nota representing Ecogy Energy RI, introduced himself to the Board and stated that he manages all construction across New England and that he would be the contact for any construction-related questions the planning board might have going forward. He noted that he is a Rhode Island resident and his offices are located in Narragansett.
Michael DeFrancesco asked what was the square footage of the proposed rooftop units. Brittany Friese, Ecogy Energy representative, stated that the square footage was 18,000sf. Mr. DeFrancesco went on to ask for the size of the rooftop. Mr. Nota stated 40,000sf, and they would be covering less than 50 percent of the actual rooftop’s square footage. Mr. DeFrancesco asked about the integrity of the rooftop. Mr. Nota stated that in Rhode Island they are required to have a third party, structural engineer sign off on all their plans. That, in fact, they had two sub-contractors review the structural integrity of the building and both came back indicating that the building had more than enough pounds per square foot to allow for snow load, rain load and that the client had also replaced the entire roof with a white TPO material which is much lighter than the building’s original tar and gravel roof. Mr. DeFrancesco suggested having supporting documentation materials with regards to the structural integrity included with their application.
Chairman Millar asked if there were any additional questions or comments.
Board member Gina Thurn asked if this was a net meter system. Mr. Nota replied no, that the energy would go back into the grid. Ms. Thurn questioned that Ecogy Energy is leasing the space there. Mr. Nota replied yes, exactly. Ms. Thurn then confirmed that Ecogy Energy acts as tenant of the property and compensates them financially rather than offsetting their electricity bill.
Solicitor Steve Sypole asked to clarify that if the Board waives the Development Plan Review tonight, then the applicant would not be required to come back before the Planning Board, is that correct? Both the Chairman and the Town Planner, replied that, yes, that is correct, the applicant would not be required to come back before this board. They would go to Zoning for their special use permit.
Board member Joe St. Lawrence asked that Ecogy Energy provide all of the paperwork that supports the upgrades completed on the roof.
Michael DeFrancesco stated that they could not approve the waiver tonight because it was not an official application, it was a pre-application. Solicitor Sypole stated that the request, on the agenda, was to waive the DPR. Chairman Millar agreed, and stated that this request was consistent with past practice. Solicitor Sypole indicated that someone could make the motion to waive the DPR. Planner DePasquale offered that the Board could give authorization for the Administrative Officer (AO) to take in an application for the DPR and have the AO issue a waiver through the Board. He stated, that then the file would have both a pre-application, and an application for the DPR. That would allow the AO to grant the DPR waiver. Solicitor Sypole stated that because of the size of this project, the ordinance considers the project to be a medium-sized facility instead of just a rooftop installation. If this had been a slightly smaller rooftop installation they would not have been required to come before the board. Chairman Millar noted that the ordinance does allow rooftop solar by right, but because of its size it falls into this other category.
Chairman Millar entertained a motion to approve Ecogy Energy’s waiver request, and noted that in the event they receive approval from the Zoning Board they would allow the Administrative Officer the authority to waive the DPR. Board member William Haas made the motion and Gina Thurn seconded the motion.
Michael DeFrancesco added that the board doesn’t vote on pre-applications. That they are merely advising the applicant on what the planning board would be looking for on their final application. He goes on to read the definition of a pre-application as stated in the Zoning Board Ordinance: A review meeting of a proposed development held between applicants and reviewing agencies as permitted by law and municipal ordinance, before formal submission of an application for a permit or for development approval. He stated that he is in favor of moving forward with the DPR waiver, but felt that tonight’s format with the pre-application was not suitable.
Chairman Millar stated that the motion was to let Ecogy Energy know that the Planning Board would grant the waiver they are requesting, after they receive the Zoning Board’s approval. He noted that the applicant would not need to get back on the Planning Board’s agenda and that approval for the waiver would be granted by the AO with their formal application.
Board member Donna Di Donato asked for the motion to be amended.
Board member William Haas amended his motion allowing the applicant to go forward to the Zoning Board, and when their application is complete, the Planning Board gives the Administrative Officer the right to grant the DPR waiver. Joe St. Lawrence seconded the motion. Voted all in favor – on the amended motion, 5-0. The motion carried.
Chairman Millar recommended that a letter be sent to the Zoning Board indicating that this application should be approved, because it is clearly consistent with the Town’s ordinance to encourage rooftop solar. Chairman Millar made the motion to send the proposed letter to the zoning board. Michael DeFrancesco seconded the motion. Any discussion, hearing none, a vote was taken. Voted all in favor, 5-0. The motion carried.
A. Zoning Board of Review: October applications (2) dimensional variance and (1) appeal
No action required.
B. Approval of Minutes: April 27, 2021, June 22, 2021 & July 27, 2021
April 27: A motion was made by Michael DeFrancesco to approve the April 27 minutes and seconded by Bill Haas. Chairman Millar asked if there was any discussion, hearing none, a vote was taken. Voted all in favor; 5-0. The April 27 minutes were approved.
June 22: A motion was made by Michael DeFrancesco to approve the June 22 minutes and seconded by Bill Haas. Chairman Millar asked that a typo be corrected on Page 4, Line 179 (change the word form to from). The Chair asked if there was any further discussion, hearing none, a vote was taken. Voted all in favor; 5-0. The June 22 minutes were approved.
July 27: A motion was made by Michael DeFrancesco to approve the July 27 minutes and seconded by Bill Hass. Chairman Millar asked if there was any discussion—Gina Thurn asked to amend Page 3, Lines 152 through 157 and asked for the following to be included in the minutes. (Per the Solar Ordinance, the definition said that the lot coverage was counted based on everything within the fence line and all access roads.) Chairman Millar asked to approve the amended minutes, and asked if there was any further discussion, hearing none, a vote was taken. Voted all in favor; 5-0. The July 27 minutes were approved.
C. Solicitor’s Report:
Chairman Millar asked Solicitor Sypole to report on his findings with regards to the rules of an open forum. Solicitor Sypole noted that the Open Meetings Act states that: No public bodies are required to have an open forum and that the public body may limit any topic at an open forum. He went on to explain that the Board does not have to have open forums. That the board could choose no public forums, or public forums only at special meetings and or workshops. He stated that the chairman has a lot of discretion, to say, for example, that the public forum will only be 10 minutes and that each individual has only two minutes for their discussion. He suggested that this topic be placed on a future agenda for the board to discuss what limitations should apply. Chairman Millar asked that this topic be placed on their upcoming agenda and stated, “Just to be clear, it’s a discussion on the wording of the public comment, that his intent is not to remove the public forum.” Solicitor Sypole also noted that the Attorney General has found that public comment has been taken too far and has turned into discussions about topics that were not on the agenda. That the board should not be commenting on public comment. Solicitor Sypole also noted that the Chair or himself could be asked to look into a topic or to have the topic placed on a future agenda.
D. Future Meeting: Work Session on October 12, 2021
1. Public Comment Guidelines
2. Letters to be sent from the Planning Board to Public Officials regarding CEA
3. Review and discuss the Planning Board making changes to the Subdivision
4. Regulations
5. Greenhouses: The Definition of and what constitutes a greenhouse
6. Comprehensive Plan
Motion by Bill Haas to adjourn, seconded by Michael DeFrancesco; voted all in favor. Motion Passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca M. Lukowicz and
M. Dixie Foisy
Planning Board Clerk