Town of Exeter, Rhode Island
PLANNING BOARD
675 Ten Rod Road
Exeter, R.I. 02822
401-294-2612
401-294-2592
Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2022
Approved: May 10, 2022
Pursuant to Executive Orders recently executed by
Governor Dan McKee as a result of the Covid-19 Pandemic,
this meeting was held virtually via Zoom
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
Chairman Millar called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Preliminary Application-Minor Subdivision with No Street Extension: Franklin Homestead Phase
II, Lewis E. Peck, Jr., Applicant and Owner of property located at 2 Sunderland Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 11, Block 2, Lot 1.
Chairman Millar asked if anyone was present to address this application. Michael McCormick of Alpha Associates, Ltd., East Greenwich, RI, introduced himself and stated he was representing Lewis E. Peck, Jr. in this matter. Mr. McCormick noted that the preapplication requirements had been addressed and went on to review the details of the property including the property’s history.
Mr. McCormick in his summary stated that the existing parcel contains 88 acres and is bounded westerly by Hopkins Hill Road, southerly by Stony Lane, and other land of Mr. Peck, easterly by The Chace Driftway and northerly by land of Lyles. He also noted that the site contains two cemeteries, one of them being designated as Exeter Historical Cemetery #48. He stated that the plans are to create a new 4-acre lot north of the existing residence, with a proposed three-bedroom residence. He explained that they would create two lots: record lot 1 having 84.4687 acres and record lot 2 containing 4 acres. He indicated that a 10’ wide easement to the Exeter Historical Cemetery #48, “The Allen Lot” would be provided on Hopkins Hill Road. He ended by indicating that the application required no variances or waivers from the subdivision or zoning regulations.
Chairman Millar asked Town Planner William D. Pasquale to review his findings. Mr. DePasquale gave an overview of the applicant’s proposal. He noted that the applicant is seeking a two-lot minor subdivision with frontage along Hopkins Hill Road. The subject property is zoned RU-4 which requires a 4-acre minimum land area. That the applicant seeks to create from one 88.4687-acre lot; two lots: record lot 1 having 84.4687 acres and record lot 2 containing 4 acres. That the newly created record lot 2 would contain 4-acres supporting a 3-bedroom residence, OWTS and private well for potable water. He indicated that the application required no variances or waivers from the subdivision regulations or zoning ordinance.
Mr. DePasquale’s Planning Memorandum, regarding Hopkins Hill Road, AP11 B2 L1, dated March 15, 2022 covered his findings of fact, the site features, proposed features, his preapplication comments, areas of study and concern, recommendations and conditions of approval (noted here):
Conditions of Approval:
1. Approval is contingent upon receiving all pertinent federal, state and local permits/approvals prior to final or prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The issuance of a building permit is contingent upon receiving physical alterations permit for the DPW director for record lot 2 as it will require an opening onto a town roadway.
3. Final site plan and submission shall include permanent monumentation either iron rod, granite bound or drill hole at all corners including new intersection points as well as at the offset angle located east of the intersection of the southern property line and Hopkins Hill Road.
4. The Final plan shall eliminate the note highlighting on-road parking on the shoulder of Hopkins Hill Road for access to private Historic Cemetery #48 as the Planning Board is not authorized to create a dedicated parking space on a public right away which is the domain of the DPW and Town Council. The final plan shall note the status of the right-of-way as a private Historic Cemetery #48 including referencing the deed on the site plan. The private right-of-way entrance shall include signage that reads “private right-of-way to Historic Cemetery #48 EX048”. The right-of-way shall be clearly marked to and from Historic Cemetery #48. The final plan shall depict the location of the row markers. The Plan must note that maintenance and upkeep of the private right-of-way to Historic Cemetery #48 is the responsibility of the owner of record lot 2.
Mr. DePasquale referenced Exeter’s Comprehensive Plan, Section 5.5 Natural & Cultural Resources including Sections 5.5.8: Cultural Resources (Historic Cemeteries); 5.5.10: Implementation – Historical and Cultural Resources; 5.5.10b; 5.5.10c; 5.5.10f; 5.5.10h and 5.510k and noted they were used to site his findings and recommendations. Copies of the above were included with the board’s meeting packages.
5. In order to gain consistency with the comprehensive plan the stone walls located on the southern and easterly property line of record lot 2 as depicted on the site plan entitled, “Minor Subdivision – Preliminary” The Franklin Homestead “Phase II, Existing Conditions Plan shown as Assessors Map 11 Block 2 Lot 1 Exeter Rhode Island prepared for Lewis R. Peck, Jr. Prepared by Alpha Associates, LTD, Dated July 26, 2021 revised 1/7/2022” shall be not altered, demolished or removed without first gaining approval of the Planning Board.
6. The Final site plan shall depict a “buildable envelope” that is equivalent to “lot area” “ZONING ARTICLE 1. – ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES Sec. 1.2 – Definitions” the total area within the boundaries of a lot, including at a minimum, one acre of contiguous land. The site plan must note the “lot area” on record 2 and note the square footage within the building envelope that is suitable for development reported in acres or square feet.
7. Residential single-family development on record lot 2 will be subject to obtaining a building permit and approval from RIDOH for the installation of the private drinking water well.
8. The Final plan shall include a zoning compliance table that includes required setbacks and land area within the RU-4 zoned compared to the proposed dimensional and land area configuration of record lot 1 and 2 set in a table format.
9. Final approval shall be granted by the Administrative Officer to the Planning Board.
Chairman Millar thanked Mr. DePasquale for his comprehensive analysis and recommendations. He asked if there were any questions or comments. Board member Joe St. Lawrence commented on the access to historical cemeteries. He also noted that the Town is getting very strict on water conditions.
Mr. DeFrancesco was recognized by the Chair. Mr. DeFrancesco noted that in the Planner’s Conditions of Approval #1 and #7 that all federal, state and local permits and approvals are considered standard, but he mentioned the need for the Department of Health’s well approval, the DEM approval for the onsite waste water disposal system and the Department of Public Works for the road opening permit. He questioned how the monumentation of lot line intersections would be permanently marked.
Board member Michael Viveiros stated that while he appreciates the value of historic cemeteries and the idea of providing the public access to them, he had considerable concerns of drawing a 10’ spot along a property line and putting a sign up that would invite people onto someone’s private property. Mr. Viveiros felt that the idea that the Town of Exeter would require the owner to do this is something he would have a hard time supporting. He asked, “What general access does the public have to a cemetery?”
Mr. McCormick acknowledged the great work Mr. DePasquale did on his presentation and stated that it was one of the best he had ever heard from a Planner. While he was fine with most of the Planner’s conditions of approval, he did have issues with the private right-of-way to Historic Cemetery #48. He had two documents he presented to the board, one was the actual deed that stipulated the right-of-way. Which read in part: “…. accepting a certain burying place containing one-eighth acre where the burying place now is and also the privilege of passing and repassing to and from the same at all times, when necessary, west to the road with carriages or otherwise for the purpose of burying the dead.” He stated that the cemetery is private only for the Allen heirs. He also produced a Maintenance of Private Easements and Right-Of-Way, Title 34 Property of the R.I. Gen. Laws 34-9.1-2. It stated: (a) In the absence of an enforceable, written agreement to the contrary, the owner of any residential real property (the cemetery) that benefits from an easement or right-of-way, the purpose of which is to provide access to the residential real property, shall be responsible for the cost of maintaining the easement or right-of-way in good repair and the cost of repairing or restoring any damaged portion of the easement or right-of-way. The maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, the removal of snow from the easement or right-of-way.
.
(b) In the absence of an enforceable, written agreement, the cost of maintaining and repairing or restoring the easement or right-of-way shall be shared by each owner of a benefited property (the cemetery) in proportion to the benefit received by each property; provided, that the market value or assessed valuation of each such property shall not be taken into consideration in the calculation of benefit received.
Chairman Millar asked Solicitor Sypole for his input on any legal requirements for cemetery access and right-of-way. Solicitor Sypole had nothing to add at this point in time and asked for additional time to look over the appropriate documents.
Chairman Millar acknowledged that there are still some questions going forward on the cemetery and access to it and suggested completing this process through the AO (Mr. DePasquale). Mr. DePasquale was not comfortable with moving forward until these questions had been resolved. Chairman Millar entertained a motion to defer this preliminary application until the April 26th meeting. William Haas seconded; a vote was taken, and were all in favor, 5-0. The motion passed.
Preapplication-Major 2-lot Subdivision, No Street Extension with Wavier; (two pre-existing dwellings on one lot), with the two new lots having less than required frontage and lot area: Lisa Mumford, Applicant and Owner of property located at 269 Liberty Road, Exeter, RI; Zone RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 72, Block 6, Lot 4.
Chairman Millar asked if anyone was present to address this application. Mr. Earl Adams was recognized and stated he was representing Lisa Mumford, applicant and owner of 267 Liberty Road, Exeter, RI.
Mr. Adams reviewed the history of the 267-269 Liberty Road property. He stated that the property comprised 4.6 acres with two residential dwellings serviced by two separate driveways, separate electric services, wells and septic systems. He noted that the property record cards show that these two dwellings have existed since before 1976 on the same lot. That the owner was applying to separate these two dwellings into two separate taxable lots, one with each dwelling. When complete each lot would be approximately 2 acres+. The first lot would be 96,000 sq. ft. and the second lot would be 103,000 sq. ft. He also noted that existing houses on either side of the street were 2 acre lots. He stated that a variance for the lot size and frontage would be needed from Zoning.
Chairman Millar asked for Town Planner William DePasquale to review his findings. Mr. DePasquale referenced his 3-page memo: Pre- Application – Major two lot subdivision no street with waivers less than required frontage and area (two (2) preexisting dwellings on one lot) AP 72 B 6 L4, dated March 16, 2022.
Mr. DePasquale noted that the application is proposing a two-lot major subdivision created from a single lot that contains two preexisting dwellings. That the owner seeks to subdivide the single lot of 4.58 acres into two separate lots each one containing a dwelling. He noted that Ms. Mumford’s petition would require at least waivers for less than required lot area and lot frontage.
Mr. DePasquale’s comments included that the preexisting non-conforming nature of the lot lends positive consideration to the instant request because the proposed subdivision will not change the overall density of the existing condition. That the request will simply allow each of the two preexisting dwellings to have their own lot.
The Planner did ask the petitioner to provide the following on the site plan before any consideration of a master plan.
1. Depict all structures on the lot as well as what the structures uses are so that we may reconcile the property tax records with the petition.
2. The petition must be clear that there will be only one dwelling on each lot.
3. Any ancillary structures noted on the plan must be assigned a use or demolished. If there are structures to be demolished a cash bond that represents the cost to raze and remove the structure shall be required to be posted with the Town.
4. Provide proof of OWTS approval from RIDEM and RIDOH approval and location of private drinking wells.
5. The site plan shall depict all setbacks of the building OWTS and private wells expressed in feet.
6. Include a zoning table that depicts the required zoning land area, buildable area and dimensional requirements compared with that proposed for Parcel A and Parcel B. Clearly list all the required waivers and dimensional/area variances required.
7. Present an alternative property line located between Parcel A and Parcel B that runs perpendicular to the north east property line so as to create lot lines that are more parallel and corresponding with that of a rectangle.
8. Indicate on the site plan 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.
Board member Michael DeFrancesco noted his concern for the proposed property lines and suggested asking the Zoning Board for an additional variance to divide the lots into more rectangular lots. He noted that Parcel A may become slightly smaller and Parcel B slightly larger. But that lots would be much better served for future owners. Chairman Millar concurred with Mr. DeFrancesco that straightening out the lot lines would be the right thing to do.
Chairman Millar had one question regarding the rebuild on the property in 2019. He asked who in the Town gave the permission and were there any conditions placed on that approval? Mr. Adams indicated that the Zoning officer authorized the rebuild of the existing rear dwelling. That the building permit was issued by the Town building official. He noted that the footprint of the existing structure is very similar in size to the original structure. Mr. Adams also noted that American Engineering had drawn up the plans and had also obtained all the required approvals for the property and the inspections on the septic systems.
Chairman Millar asked if the septic system they were trying to circumvent was the one connected to the older home? Mr. Adams stated that Parcel A (the older home) has an approved ISDS and that Parcel B has the upgraded septic system, completed in 2022.
Board member William Haas also shared his concern for the layout of the lot lines.
Process questions were discussed. It was decided that the Planning Board would give Conditional Approval for the Master Plan, requiring conceptional engineering. After which the application would then go on to the Zoning Board for the approvals of the required variances and the applicant would come back to the Planning Board for both the preliminary and final approvals. Chairman Millar explained that this would be the most economical way for the applicant to proceed. Mr. Millar noted that because this was a major subdivision it required a public informational meeting. Mr. DePasquale reviewed the next steps that the applicant needed to complete.
A. Zoning Board of Review: April 14, 2022
Dimensional variance for an above ground swimming pool and dimensional variance for a single-family dwelling on Boone Lake.
B. Approval of Minutes: August 31, 2021
Chairman Millar asked to approve the August 31st minutes. William Haas made the motion to approve the minutes as submitted, seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. Michael DeFrancesco abstained as he was not in attendance. A vote was taken; all in favor. The August 31, 2021 minutes were approved.
Approval of Minutes: October 12, 2021
Chairman Millar asked to approve the October 12th minutes. Michael DeFrancesco made the motion to approve the minutes as submitted, seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. Vote was taken; all in favor. The October 12, 2021 minutes were approved.
Approval of Minutes: November 9, 2021
Chairman Millar asked to approve the November 9th minutes. William Haas made the motion to approve the minutes as submitted, seconded by Gina Thurn. Vote was taken; all in favor. The November 9, 2021 minutes were approved.
C. Approval of Invoice: Esquire Deposition Solutions $300.00 from 2-22-2022
Chairman Millar asked for a motion to approve the invoice. William Haas made the motion to approve the Esquire Deposition Solutions invoice for $300, seconded by Michael DeFrancesco. Vote was taken; all in favor. The invoice was approved.
D. Future Meeting: April 12, 2022
Chairman Millar noted that the Town Council would be appointing the new members to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) at their April 1, 2022 meeting. He asked if it would then be possible to meet with both the consultants and the CPAC members at the Planning Board’s April 12th meeting. Town Planner William DePasquale indicated that they did consider that, and that it would be too difficult to put in place the required public meeting notices. He shared that both he and the consultants felt that the April 12th meeting would be better served by considering the Comprehensive Plan survey questions that would be asked in the many individual interviews planned by the consultants. He suggested that the Board consider reserving their May 10th meeting for the CPAC members. Chairman Millar agreed with Mr. DePasquale’s suggested plan.
Board member Michael DeFrancesco asked what was the extent of the Governor’s Emergency Executive Order—does it go past April 12, 2022? The Clerk noted that she only knew the order to be through March 31st. Mr. DeFrancesco asked about an option for zoom meetings? Both Ms. Foisy and Solicitor Sypole had no additional information on whether or not the Governor’s order would be extended. Mr. DePasquale inquired of Solicitor Sypole whether the Planning Board could convene as a body and have a consultant via zoom addressing the board and not be in violation of the Open Meeting Act? Solicitor Sypole’s guess was that “hybrid” type meetings would be allowed going forward. He didn’t feel that having people live on screen or in person would be considered a violation of the Open Meeting Act. The Clerk noted that the library offers this type of set-up. Town Council member Olivia DeFrancesco also noted that she had been notified that IT equipment, necessary for zoom-type meetings, had been ordered for the Town Hall and should be up and running relatively soon.
Motion by William Haas to adjourn, seconded by Michael DeFrancesco; voted all in favor. Motion passed. Chairman Scott Millar adjourned the meeting at 9:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Lukowicz and
M. Dixie Foisy
Planning Board Clerk