Town of Exeter, Rhode Island
PLANNING BOARD
675 Ten Rod Road
Exeter, R.I. 02822
401-294-2612
401-294-2592
Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2022
Approved: August 23, 2022
Members present: Scott Millar, Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Gina Thurn, Joe St. Lawrence and Michael Viveiros
Members absent: Donna Di Donato
Staff present: Steve Sypole, Solicitor, William DePasquale, Planner, Dixie Foisy, Clerk and Olivia DeFrancesco, Town Council Liaison
Chairman Millar called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
A. Preliminary Major Subdivision with waivers and zoning variances: Lisa Mumford, Applicant and Owner of property located at 269/271 Liberty Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 72, Block 6, Lot 4 for a proposed two lot subdivision of a single lot containing two preexisting legally nonconforming dwellings; the new lots having gained a SUP, area, frontage and dimensional relief from the Zoning Board of Review.
Chairman Millar introduced the above application and Mr. Earl Adams, authorized by property owner Lisa Mumford, to speak on her behalf, stepped forward and reviewed the site plan for 269 Liberty Road and the conditions for approval. Mr. Adams shared the findings of the zoning board with the members of the planning board. The approvals included the following: Zoning Ordinance Article II, for proposed Parcel A: Section 2.4.2.1, lot area relief of 1.65 acre; 2.4.2.2, minimum street frontage relief of 19 feet; and for proposed Parcel B: Section 2.4.2.1, lot area relief of 1.78 acre; 2.4.2.2, minimum street frontage relief of 182 feet; and 2.4.2.6, left side setback relief of 19 feet; for the proposed two lot subdivision of a single lot containing two preexisting legally nonconforming dwellings. The motion, by the zoning board, to approve the issuance of a special use permit and the requested dimensional variances were approved on June 14, 2022 and recorded on June 16, 2022. Mr. Adams then reviewed the required conditions of the planning board which included the following: OWTS approval from the RI Department of Environmental Management, well water test approvals from the Department of Health, Adams also made revisions to the site plan which now included the setbacks and relief that were granted by the zoning board. Approvals, of all the required testing, were distributed to each of the planning board members.
Chairman Millar recognized Town Planner William DePasquale. Mr. DePasquale reviewed his memorandum: Preliminary recommendation of a Major (reclassified minor) 2 lot Subdivision no street with waivers and ZBR approval, dated June 20, 2022. He reviewed the following dates: Preapplication, March 22, 2022; Master Plan/Conditional Preliminary (combined) Public Hearing, May 24, 2022; ROD Preliminary Master Plan/Conditional Preliminary (combined), June 7, 2022; Zoning Board, ZBR approval June 14, 2022. His memorandum included: Findings of Fact; Waivers; Recommendations; Land Development Regulations Sec. 3.5 Required Findings; and Conditions of Approval.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Administrative Final.
2. At the final stage the applicant shall provide proof of OWTS approval from RIDEM and RIDOH
approval and location of private drinking wells on both lots.
3. The Final site plan shall include any additional information, details or note(s) deem necessary by
the administrative officer to adequately review the final site plan.
4. The final site plan shall indicate the location of low impact development LID practices that retain
rain water and promote recharge into the ground rather than allowing it to run off into ditches and storm drains.
5. Shall be contingent upon receiving all pertinent federal, state and local permits prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. DePasquale also noted that the Zoning Board, in their decision, included their own set of findings of fact.
Chairman Millar asked if there were any questions? Hearing none, Mr. DeFrancesco made a motion to approve the Preliminary application before them. He stated that the applicant had met the conditions previously established, including receiving Zoning Board approval for the SUP; also, in accordance with the Town Planner’s memo dated June 20, 2022 including required findings and all conditions of approval, with the addition of the drawing/site plan to be included with the packet, and that the final be handled administratively through the AO/Town Planner. Bill Haas seconded. Voted all in favor (S. Millar, M. DeFrancesco, W. Haas, G. Thurn, J. St. Lawrence).
Chairman Millar asked if the board would agree to moving the agenda item: Discussion and/or possible action relating to the new legislative “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (ADU) State Statute to be discussed with the Solicitor’s Report. The board agreed to the agenda change.
A. Master Plan-Major Land Development Project with waivers and zoning variances: Mark and Dawn Caddick, Applicant and Owner of property located at 231 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned LB/R and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 20, Block 3, Lot 17 seeking a Master Plan approval of a Major Land Development Project that includes the construction of a new 7,000 sf. building with associated parking area and appurtenances for use as a medical marijuana cultivation center.
Chairman Millar introduced the application of Mark and Dawn Caddick. Brian King from Crossman Engineering, 151 Centerville Road, Warwick, RI, was present on behalf of the Caddicks. He reviewed the property at 231 Nooseneck Hill Road, AP20, B3, L17. He stated it is a .98-acre piece of land, a little less than an acre, with an existing building (an old house, currently being used for medical marijuana cultivation. It is in an LB-R zone, which allows for this use. The Caddicks would like to expand their business with a 7,000 sq. ft. building, with a rear parking area for 20 spaces, there is also a loading zone in the rear of the building. The proposed build would include a stormwater management system according to DEM standards, an OWTS system according to DEM regulations and a private well. The water from the well will not be used by the business. Both the existing septic system and well will be replaced with a new well and septic system.
Mr. King noted that they had previously presented to the Planning Board with a preliminary plan and have since made changes based on the board’s recommendations. For example, the original plan was to build a 12,000-sf. building, it is now 7,000-sf. He noted that they have met the backyard setback, the side yard setbacks, but the front yard setback they were unable to meet the requirement and would require a variance. He also noted that of the existing neighbors’ buildings, none of them meet the required frontage of 100 feet, that the average was 39.5 feet, their building is 38 feet. He noted that the parking, which was originally in the front of the building had now been moved to the back of the property. Mr. King concluded his presentation noting that there are three things that they were requesting; wellhead protection radius, the lot area, which he noted they have no control over, and the frontage which he felt they had done their best to meet the requirement.
Chairman Millar asked Mr. DePasquale, Town Planner, to review his Planning Memorandum. Planning Memorandum, dated July 19, 2022: Masterplan—Major Land Development Caddick Proposed Medical Marijuana Grow Facility, Location: AP20, B3, Lot17, 231 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, Rhode Island.
William DePasquale, Town Planner, reviewed the planning boards’ process, for those members of the public in attendance. He noted that the Caddick’s had previously gone through a pre-application process back on June 22, 2021 and are now back for the Master Plan review, which includes a public informational meeting for the major land development project. Mr. DePasquale felt it was important, for those in attendance, to understand that the board and the planner review the box and the land and how this proposal fits or doesn’t fit from a land use prospective. It is not whether or not the proposed use is allowed here. That’s only for the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board speaks to the variances, he did note, however, that the use is allowed according to Exeter ordinances. He noted that it is not about the use, but it’s about the setbacks.
Mr. DePasquale gave a brief background summary of the plan: The Master Plan proposes construction of a new 7,000 sf building, onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), well, fire cistern, retaining wall, driveway access (curb cut), drainage, and parking lot located at 231 Nooseneck Hill Road in Exeter, Rhode Island. The proposed building would contain a Medical Marijuana Grow facility supported by the ancillary development the project in its entirety considered a Major Land Development project.
He included in his memorandum a summary of facts, proposal details, waivers, concerns/recommendations, recommendation on the proposed masterplan, land development regulations Sec. 3.5. required findings (13), and conditions of approval: master plan. (Board members received the complete memorandum.)
Conditions of Approval: Master Plan include the following:
1. ZBR approval for Section III. Waivers
2. Subject to a follow-up review and approval by the Fire Marshal.
3. At the preliminary stage of review the plans must depict fire cistern location and access with review/approval letter from the fire marshal.
4. Address all recommendations Section IV Concerns/Recommendations (respond to each concern in writing).
5. At the preliminary stage provide detailed dates and schedule of Phase I and II improvements.
6. At the preliminary stage of review provide a detail landscape and hardscape plan stamped by a registered landscape architect.
7. At the preliminary stage of review provide a detailed materials and elevation for the building designs and signage must be submitted to the satisfaction of the administrative officer.
8. At the preliminary stage of review the stormwater design that maybe subject to third party engineering peer review.
9. The internal drive isle shall be a minimum width of 24’ wide as measured from inside berm to inside berm. The plan sheet shall clearly call out all driveway widths with a detail dimension of pavement width and berm and dimensions of isles and parking stalls.
10. Increase depth of the dead-end hammer to allow sufficient turn around area.
11. Recommend providing the Planning Board with a traffic report at preliminary.
12. Preliminary plan must include specific detail of the proposed retaining wall compliant with the Building Code and designed and stamped by a State registered structural or civil engineer. A plan sheet must be included in the Preliminary plan set depicting the location of the proposed wall, all nearby structures and parking areas as well as all design details, cross sections, elevations, calculations and specifications prepared by a State registered structural or civil engineer.
13. At the preliminary stage of review provide Stormwater permit approval, OWTS permit approval, RIDOT (PAP) shall be in hand.
14. Any and all additional details, cross-sections, elevations, design, layout and plan modifications requested by the administrative officer that is necessary for processing and review of the preliminary plan.
Chairman Millar thanked Mr. DePasquale for his detailed findings. He then asked the public for any comments and/or questions.
Richard Seymour, 56 Black Plain Road, Exeter, was recognized.
Mr. Seymour questioned what the finished surface would be in the parking area and where the stormwater retention would take place. Mr. King, of Crossman Engineering, indicated that they would be grading the asphalt parking area to allow for runoff into a grass basin, under the grass there would be a sand filtration system and then a detention system underground which would be landscaped. Brian King indicated that DEM and RI DOT both have strict requirements that they would be required to meet. Discussion continued. Mr. King indicated that they are changing the grade of the property and building a retaining wall as well.
Mr. Seymour also asked about the location of the existing well. Brian King stated it gets pretty close to the existing system, but their proposed well – and part of submitting to the Rhode Island Onsite Wastewater Treatment System, OWTS, is that they also are concerned with our well, but not only our well but all the wells in the area. So, we have to make sure that this proposed septic system, sand filter system, is not within a hundred feet of any other wells, and actually there is a well on this property that’s a little more than a hundred feet away. Mr. Seymour asked the Board if they had any concerns about the well being so close to the road…i.e., salt contaminates. Mr. King indicated that the State has a closed drainage system.
The Chair recognized Stephanie Chafee, 366 Victory Highway, Exeter.
Ms. Chafee also had some questions regarding stormwater issues. Ms. Chafee wanted the planners to consider building a system that would handle a 500-year event, stating that a so called 500-year event had already happened. Her second question was with regards to how much water would this facility (Proposed Medical Grown Facility) use? She stated that she is noticing a change in water pressure already on her own property and is concerned about the impact this new facility will have on the area.
Brian King of Crossman Engineering acknowledged that a 500-year storm event is very unusual and he doesn’t know of anyone who would design a project beyond the regulations. Ms. Chafee was concerned about the pollution and Mr. King noted that the State or Rhode Island is very strict with their regulations as compared to many other states. She asked about how much water would be used by the facility. Mr. Mark Caddick, the applicant, stated that they would be using less water than if they planted a crop of corn. The only water that would be used would be for the plants. That the system they will be using to water the plants will be recirculated through the system and then when the water is tired, they will evaporate the water and then remove it as a solid.
Caleb Chafee, 366 Victory Highway, Exeter, was recognized.
Does this become a commercial/residential lot or is it one or the other? Brian Caddick indicated that the facility is only a business location.
Dawn Caddick, owner/applicant, wanted to clear up the confusion between a Compassion Center vs. Cultivation. She stated that they are only allowed to grow the marijuana and employees are the only individuals that would be allowed in the facility. Security at the facility was questioned. Ms. Caddick indicated that OCR (Office of Cannabis Regulation) and DBR (Department of Business Regulation) require that every square foot of the facility be covered by cameras 24-hours a day and that they check-in on a regular basis. If a camera goes out, they call immediately. They are very strict on lighting, doors and locks.
Lauren Beaupre, 74 Black Plain Road, Exeter, was recognized.
Ms. Beaupre inquired about the applicant’s current cultivation license and asked if that was subject to change in the future? Dawn Caddick indicated that they only hold a cultivation license. A retail license would require an entirely different process.
Jenny Lawton, 80 Black Plain Road, Exeter, was recognized.
Ms. Lawton noted that their LLC is named St. Jude’s Compassion Center and was wondering when in the future they may become a retail facility. Both Dawn and Mark Caddick indicated that their business will be strictly a cultivation facility. They did note, however, that going forward they will be able to sell to state sanctioned dispensaries.
Amy Quigley, 81 Black Plain Road, Exeter, was recognized.
Ms. Quigley asked what the increase in water usage would be with this facility. Mr. Caddick indicated 20x what they were using now, but a tenth of what they would be using in the house. They use a hydroponic system which reuses the water over and over and then the water is evaporated leaving a solid and the solid is removed from the property. We maintain bills of lading for the removal of the solids. Ms. Quigley asked how the waster would be removed. Brian Caddick indicated it would be removed once a month, similar to a regular garbage run and taken to the landfill.
Ms. Quigley then asked how the word dispensary, used in a flyer passed out in the neighborhood, is different from a cultivation center? Mr. Caddick stated that if that designation was used to describe their business it would be incorrect. That they are not a dispensary they are a grow/cultivation facility only. Ms. Quigley stated that she is concerned that this facility will change in the future and become a
retail service.
Richard Seymour asked if there was another facility like this one operating across from Cornerstone Restaurant? Board member William Haas replied that there is one down by Rhode Island Cesspool. He asked the applicant if there would be an odor coming from the facility on a regular basis? Brian Caddick indicated that they will be required to treat the air before it will be released. He indicated that they want to keep the air as clean as possible.
Richard Seymour asked if the Town had any regulations regarding odors from these facilities. Bill Haas indicated that there were none, but Town Solicitor Steve Sypole replied that any concerns would be directed to the state. Michael DeFrancesco indicated that we may approve the site but that the Department of Business Regulation would be the enforcement arm for this matter. Brian Caddick added that the Office of Cannabis Regulation would also be a place to lodge any complaints.
Heather Golding, 78 Black Plain Road, was recognized.
Ms. Golding asked about the outside lighting and would it be bright all night long? The applicant indicated that they are required to follow the “dark sky” principal that does not allow the lighting to shine on any of the neighbors’ properties.
Chairman Millar hearing no other comments from the public, turned the discussion over to the planning board members.
Chairman Millar recognized Board Member Michael Viverios. He questioned the number of parking spaces, so he felt that the suggestion of reducing the number of spaces made a lot of sense. He wanted to make sure that there would be room for storing snow. He mentioned the porous pavement and the necessity to maintain it—to plow it and treat it in a certain way. He asked that the applicant submit a very detailed set of guidelines on how they would maintain the pavement overtime. He asked about the site lighting and the number of hours that the property would be lit. What are the expected light levels? Is the well placement acceptable due to the closeness to the highway? Mr. Viverios questioned the impact on the existing septic system with the construction of a new building and would they stay operational during construction? Brian King, stated that Mr. Viverios raised a good question and that they would need to address those concerns.
Board member Michael DeFrancesco questioned the landscape screening on the property and felt that what seemed to be indicated on the plan appeared to be inadequate. Mr. DeFrancesco felt that with regards to the applicant’s traffic plan, stormwater disposal plan, and underground disposal system he had the upmost confidence in Crossman Engineering and he would recommend to the board that there was not a need for a third-party review. Mr. DeFrancesco felt that Crossman’s had all the capabilities, experience and qualifications to address all of tonight’s questions and concerns. He was interested to learn more on how the construction would be sequenced in order to maintain their operation.
Board member William Haas felt the need for additional landscaping, removal of some of the parking spots and noted the size of the original home being noncompliant, although grandfathered, will now become a much larger building, still noncompliant and he has some concerns with the new construction.
Board member Gina Thurn asked if they would be able to harvest any of the rainwater for use in your operation? Mr. Caddick had not considered it, but thought it was a good idea, and would look into the possibility.
Chairman Millar appreciated that the applicant continues to work with the board. He felt that the biggest hurdle would be reducing the size of the building. He noted that there will be a lot of construction going on in a very small footprint and felt that the town would benefit from a third-party review. Suggesting that they have them look at the building design, stormwater issues, traffic, the landscape plan and lighting on the property.
Chairman Millar made a motion to accept our planner’s recommendation that they approve a conditional master plan subject to granting the deviation to the Zoning Ordinance listed in section II (corrected Section III) waivers, and in recommending this conditional approval of the master plan, we would make the following required findings, listed in Planner William DePasquale’s Planning Memorandum, Dated July 19, 2022, outlined in IV (corrected VI) and VII and that the town should go forward in hiring an objective third party consultant to assist with the review of stormwater, traffic, landscaping and lighting. Chairman Millar entertained a second to the motion. Michael DeFrancesco seconded the motion. Discussion. Michael Viverios asked about fencing. Brian King noted that they are not currently showing any fencing, but would review what the requirements are and once the landscaping is complete there would be adequate screening and buffering. Chairman Millar asked if there was any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, the motion passed. Scott Millar, Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Gina Thurn, Joe St. Lawrence. (5-0).
A. Zoning Board of Review: No meeting in August; next meeting on September 8, 2022
B. Approval of Minutes: June 28, 2022:
Chairman Millar entertained a motion to approve the June 28, 2021 minutes. Bill Haas made a motion, Joe St. Lawrence seconded the motion, a vote was taken, 4-0 (M. DeFrancesco was absent). The June 28, 2022 minutes were approved.
C. Solicitor’s Report: Review new State Statutes and discussion and/or possible action relating to the new legislative “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (ADU) State Statute.
Solicitor Sypole reviewed new legislation with regards to changes to procedure and education requirements. See memo dated July 19, 2022 for complete legislative changes.
A planning board decision to approve a land development or subdivision application will only require “a vote for approval by a majority of planning board members present at the time of the vote.”
45-23-63(d). What previously was required was “a majority of the current planning board membership.” In other words, approval of a land development application has always required at least three affirmative votes. Beginning in January, a project could be approved with just two votes in the event that only three board members are present.
A quorum for a zoning board hearing will now be set at 4 members, including alternates, whereas five members were previously required; however no more than 5 members may vote.
45-24-56(b); 45-24-57 (2)(i). A simple majority of the members present at the meeting is enough to reverse an administrative appeal or to grant an applicant zoning relief. 45-24-57(2)(ii)-(iii). A supermajority of four votes was previously required to approve a special use permit or variance. The requirement that a zoning board member may not vote unless they have attended all hearings on the matter will remain in place.
Solicitor Sypole then went on to discuss Continuation Education requirements. He stated that the curriculum has not been determined and still needs to be implemented. H7023 Sub B imposes continuing education requirements on Planning, Zoning, and Historic District boards. As stated in the July 19th memo it indicates that the Department of Administration and Statewide Planning Office have been tasked with developing a curriculum.
Solicitor Sypole also noted two amendments to RIGL 45-24-37 and 45-24-42.
He indicated that this new language basically allows the zoning board or the zoning officer to determine that a use is “close enough” to one of the uses listed in the zoning ordinance for it to be allowed without requiring the city or town council to amend the ordinance to allow a new use.
Solicitor Sypole then went on to discuss the Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation. Discussion ensued around amendments made to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation. Mr. Sypole noted that they amended Section 45-24-31 and Section 45-24-37 and then created new ADU statutes 45-24-73 to 45-24-76. He noted that Section 31 is the definition of ADUs and Section 37 tells them the mandatory things that are required to be permitted. He suggested that they craft an ordinance that says, “will allow ADUs for owner-occupied residences, to be inhabited only by family members” and include the state’s definition of an ADU and nothing beyond that. He believes you can still say only one ADU per lot and a square footage requirement.
Chairman Millar asked if the Solicitor would review the town’s current ordinance. Solicitor Sypole noted that he has another town he’s working with and they are crafting an ordinance and he would be happy to share this with the board as a model ordinance.
Town Planner DePasquale felt that they forgot to amend the definition. He reminded the board that the legislation requires Statewide Planning to review all ADU ordinances in the last two years. He suggested crafting an ordinance and sending it up to the state for review and await their input.
Gina Thurn asked if an ADU would count towards low/moderate housing if she added an ADU to her house and moved her mother in? Under the new act, if you comply with the act, and someone qualifies as low to moderate, by the income standards, if it is reported, it is a half toward the 6 percent equity. What happens if she dies? The reporting requirement is yearly. Could I move someone else into that unit, who is not family? Questions of who’s regulating was brought up. With additional questions of how the ordinance should be written. Chairman Millar noted that he had reviewed other rural community’s AUDs ordinances, a few years back, and found that most were grossly out-of- date and out of compliance.
D. Correspondence: Resolution Setting Fees-In-Lieu for Inclusionary Zoning
Planner DePasquale noted that this started with the Board and then on to the Town Council, and they have approved the Fee-In-Lieu for one year, from June 1, 2022 to June 1, 2023 a fee of $145,986.00; for the Fee-In-Lieu calculation should someone decide not to go forward with the low to moderate income unit. The statute states that this figure will be calculated every year.
E. Future Meeting: Work Session August 9, 2022, Regular Meeting August 23, 2022 and Tuesday, September 13, 2022 CPAC Meeting and Planning Board Work Session.
Chairman Millar recommended that the August 9th meeting be cancelled. The next meeting will be August 23, 2022.
Motion by William Haas to adjourn, seconded by Michael DeFrancesco; voted all in favor. Motion passed. Chairman Scott Millar adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Lukowicz and
M. Dixie Foisy
Planning Board Clerk