I.                 CALL TO ORDER:

Chair Scott Millar called the meeting to order at 6:49 p.m.

II.               PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Asa Davis, 146 Beechwood Hill Trail, Exeter, RI, stepped forward to note that in a recent Rhode Island Public Works Association Newsletter it showed some of the Town’s grader equipment was being used to teach a class for RIPWA. Stephen Mattscheck, Instructor, (former DPW Director) was seen by eye witnesses using said Town equipment for the class, for which he was getting paid. Mr. Davis noted that this is a violation of State law and local statutes. He indicated that in the past he would have brought these issues to the Town Council because of past associations and ties to public works employees and council members, but had brought this to the attention of the Planning Board because now, there is a Planning Board tie to RIPWA. He stated that Karen Ellsworth, Esq., is the registered agent for RIPWA and has been since 2008 to present, including through the Mattscheck unpleasantness. He noted that she is now, or has been, a Town Solicitor for other towns and that those towns have likely contributed to the RIPWA organization. He stated that this then triggers an ethics disclosure requirement on her part, and he would encourage her to do that. He noted that if a person comes forward voluntarily, you most likely would not be fined. However, he noted, as Mr. Patterson, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Mattscheck can attest, if someone else brings it forward then you will most likely be fined. Mr. Davis also stated that in the interest of full disclosure he noted that he had previously had both email correspondence and phone conversations with Karen Ellsworth, during the investigations, but noted that the investigations themselves were not discussed.

III.             Chairman Millar asked if there were any additional comments from the public, hearing none the chair moved on to New Business.

IV.             NEW BUSINESS:

A. NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Board of the Town of Exeter, Rhode Island pursuant to the provisions of Title 45, Chapter 23 of the General Laws of the State of Rhode Island, as amended, will consider for adoption; 

AMENDMENTS TO THE TO EXETER CODE OF ORDINANCES APPENDIX B LAND DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO ACCOMPLISH CONFORMITY WITH RECENT HOUSING, LAND DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION LAWS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE THAT TAKE EFFECT JANUARY 1, 2024.

NATURE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT:

   For purposes of considering numerous changes to the EXETER LAND DEVELOPMENT AND

   SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS to correct errors/omissions and comply with newly enacted

   state statutes.

   SECTION 1.0. - AUTHORITY AND INTENT

   SECTION 2.0. - DEFINITIONS 

   SECTION 3.0. - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 

   SECTION 3.3. – FEE STRUCTURES AND REGULATIONS

   SECTION 4.0. - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

   SECTION 4.4. – SITE DESIGN REVIEW

   SECTION 6.0. - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS

   SECTION 8.0. - ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS 

   SECTION 9.0. - ADMINISTRATION OF THE REGULATIONS

     SECTION 10.0. – APPEALS  

Chairman Millar reviewed the new business item(s) and entertained a motion to open the Public Hearing. Board member William Haas made the motion; seconded by Michael DeFrancesco. The vote was all in favor (5-0). The public hearing was officially opened.

Chairman Millar asked Town Planner William DePasquale to inform the Board and the public about the amendments being proposed. Planner DePasquale explained that the amendments to the Town’s Land Development and Subdivision Regulations requires a public hearing. He stated that the submissions and drafts that are being proposed are needed in order to comply with the new laws that will be enacted by the State of Rhode Island on January 1, 2024. He noted that these modifications are the most comprehensive changes to the Land Use Subdivision Comprehensive regulations since 1992. He expressed that the Town of Exeter will be one of a few who will actually meet the January deadline. Mr. DePasquale shared that the Town Council had previously approved the amended zoning changes and now it is the land development side.

The Planner stated that the Planning Board, anticipating these changes, held a workshop on November 14, 2023, at which time they went through each and every aspect of the Land Development Subdivision Regulations that were proposed to change and how they will comport with the new State laws. 

Planner DePasquale reviewed a chart of the changes with those present.

Sec. 1.0 Authority and Intent, there were no changes or comments.

Sec. 2.0 Definitions were as proposed, required by State law. Solicitor Sypole had minor typographical corrections to be made to the definitions. Chairman Millar made a motion to accept the Town Solicitor’s comments on the definitions; seconded by Bill Haas.  All in favor, (5-0) the motion carried.

Sec. 3.0 General Requirements, the Planner noted that the language mainly aligned itself with the State statute, with a note in Sec. 3.1b - that the Chairman of the Planning Board will act as the Administrative Officer, if the Administrative Officer is absent and unavailable.

Sec. 3.3 Fee Structures and Regulations, revisions now include a solar fee schedule; also added (h.) fees for applications that cannot be classified or grouped with any other existing category—preapplication $200; masterplan $300; preliminary plan $300; final plan $250; unified development review regulation $300; plus with the unified development review application, which is new, $300; plus the administrative fee in a land development subdivision application $200; the cost of the public notice to be borne by the applicant.  

Sec. 4.0 Special Requirements, has not changed from when the Planning Board reviewed it, no changes necessary.

Sec. 4.4 Site Design Review, has not changed from when the Planning Board reviewed it, no changes necessary.

Sec. 6.0 Development Application, Review and Approval Process, several revisions were made to this section: the words “swearing in an expert witness when the Board is considering a unified development project” were added. Some discussion ensued between Mr. DeFrancesco, Ms. Di Donato and the Solicitor. Mr. Sypole explained that going forward, out of an abundance of caution, the Stenographer will swear witnesses in at public hearings. The Chair asked if there was any further discussion, hearing none, the Chair called for a vote; the vote was all in favor. The motion carried.

The Chair then recognized Mr. Asa Davis. Mr. Davis made a comment regarding signage and felt that there are properties that are only on private roads and if the requirement is to be visible from the nearest public street, that you cannot meet both conditions-if the sign should be on the property and visible to a public street. He felt it should say either at the property or at the nearest public street, giving the administrator discretion on where it should be posted.

Board member Donna Di Donato was recognized regarding 6.8a Major Land Development Projects in the definitions, which states greater than 10 lots. She asked that the sentences be set up the same way as the minor land development that states-creates 9 or fewer lots, asking that the sentence structure be changed. Solicitor Sypole indicated that he is fine with the way the copy is written. Further discussion ensued.

Sec. 7.0 Design and Improvement Standards

Sec. 7.1 – Physical design requirements, general. (No amendments)

Sec. 7.2 – Land development and subdivision design standards, specific. (No amendments)

Sec. 7.3 – (NEW) Performance and development standards. Planner DePasquale noted that Sec. 7.3 is an amended section, and within this section there were two revisions: the 12/12/23 revision date and two amendments; one that the Chairman brought forth and Solicitor Sypole’s comments. The Planner felt it would be advisable to merge Mr. Sypole’s comments with 12/12/23 revisions (that were sent prior to the meeting on December 12, 2023; LDSR Draft). His only caution was that the intent of a minor land development project is to cull out the intensity of standards that are being reviewed, and his hesitation would be applying the standards on all projects, that the performance standards that were added, may be onerous, and he questioned whether or not it legally could withstand the intent of an argument that’s saying that the standards should only be applied to major land developments and a portion of them to minor land developments.

Chairman Millar responded. He stated what he was doing was taking verbatim all of the development standards, currently in the development plan review ordinance in Sec. 2.5 of Zoning, which is now gone, eliminated by the Town Council at a recent Public Hearing. Mr. Millar stated that he added them to the land development subdivision regulations, but reminded those present that the planning board or our land development subdivision regulations allow, where zoning did not, waivers and modifications. Noting that some of the requirements that may not apply to a minor can be waived or modified.

The Planner asked if someone were reading the regulations, would they question whether the standards were guidance documents or required findings?  Are they able to be waived? Solicitor Sypole finalized the discussion indicating that the following statement should be stated at the beginning of Sec. 7.3: (as referenced in section 3.5) The following performance and development standards will be considered by the Board or the Administrative Officer as part of the required findings for the approval of the application. The Chair entertained a motion to incorporate the Solicitor’s recommendation in Sec. 7.3 as new language; seconded by Gina Thurn. The vote was all in favor (5-0); the motion passed.

Solicitor Sypole noted that instances where regulations read Planning Board, should say, Planning Board or Administrative Officer (AO). He also noted under Water Pollution it should say DEM not DAM; under Water bodies—should read--If any part of a (not the) building is located…The Chair entertained a motion to incorporate the Solicitor’s recommendation in Sec. 7.3 as new language; seconded by Gina Thurn. All in favor (5-0); the motion passed.

Donna Di Donato noted that under Municipal Services it states that the Town of Exeter has a police department and the Town does not, except for the contracted services of the State Police and suggested the statement be revised to indicate police monitoring by State Police.

Sec. 7.4 – Construction of subdivision. (No change except renumbering of sections)

Sec. 7.5 – Completion of subdivision. (No change except renumbering of sections)

Sec. 8.0 – Adoption and Amendment of Regulation. The Planner indicated that for consistency purposes the addition of Exeter would be added in front of Public Library to read Exeter Public Library.

Sec. 9.0 – Administration of the Regulations. Statutory clean-up of 45.22-59 that Solicitor Sypole noted. Second to last sentence in Sec. 9.1—Administrative Officer: This provision is provided for in R.I. Gen. Laws 45-22-5(c). The administrative officer shall be responsible for: (A-E).

Sec. 10.0 Appeals (No Changes)

Public Comment:

Asa Davis, 146 Beechwood Hill Trail, Exeter, RI stepped forward and asked that his memorandum Dated: November 21, 2023 3:17 PM; To: William DePasquale; Lynn Hawkins; and the Planning Board; Subject: Correspondence for the Council and Planning Board – Subdivision Ordinance Changes; be considered part of the evening’s record (see attached).

Chairman Millar entertained a motion to incorporate Mr. Davis’s email of November 21, 2023 into the public record; Joe St. Lawrence seconded.  A vote was taken and was all in favor (5-0). The motion carried.

Mr. Davis also noted his concerns with the new ordinances and language that talks about municipal design standards for private streets. He noted that there are currently design standards for public streets in subdivisions, but that there are no standards for paved streets and no standards for gravel roads anywhere. Mr. Davis felt there was a gap regarding a municipal standard for paved or unpaved municipal streets and should be addressed.

Mr. Davis offered his opinion regarding requirements in Section 7.0 pertaining to Ground Water Protection Overlay zones and also in Section 7.0 Well Head protection areas.

Mr. Davis mentioned his concerns regarding violations in Sec. 9.0, he felt there was a significant issue in A3 regarding violations and penalties and the language should be changed to reflect the copy he submitted in his Memorandum of November 21, 2023; (Page 5: Noted as Page 46, A3 violations). Solicitor Sypole brought to Mr. Davis’s attention the RI General Law Development Review Act, Section 45.23.59b which speaks to Mr. Davis’s concerns. Discussion ensued around financing and the approval of the final plan and the actual recording of the final plan. Michael Viveiros stated that “you can’t finance something you don’t have.” Chairman Millar interrupted the discussion and suggested contacting the author, Karen Ellsworth, land use attorney, who assisted the Board with the current language. Solicitor Sypole noted that Statute 45.23.64 is entitled Signing and Recording of Plats and Plans. The Solicitor suggested adding a placeholder stating Subsection F Recording: Final Plats and Plans will be recorded in accordance with RI General Law 45.23.64. 

At 8:05PM Chairman Scott Millar entertained a motion to close the public hearing, William Haas made the motion; Joe St. Lawrence seconded. The vote was all in favor (5-0). The public hearing was closed.

Chairman Millar moved to approve the amendments to the Exeter Code of Ordinances Appendix B Land Development and Subdivision Regulations to accomplish conformity with recent housing, land development and subdivision laws as proposed and discussed tonight including Sections 1; 2; 3; 3.3; 4; 4.4; 6; 7; 8; 9 and 10 as amended by floor amendments presented here this evening and further amended by the recommendations from our Town Solicitor; seconded by William Haas. There was some further discussion and Solicitor Sypole clarified the Board’s questions. Chairman Millar amended the motion to include the revisions of the existing sections and the addition of the new Section 7. The Chair asked for any further discussion, hearing none, a vote was taken on the amended motion, which was all in favor (5-0).

Tonya Hughes, member of the public, asked a question regrading making amendments to the proposed ordinances.  Discussion ensued between Ms. Hughes, Chairman Millar, Planner DePasquale and Solicitor Sypole explained the public hearing process.

V.               OLD BUSINESS:

A. Review, Discussion and Possible Action: Draft Comprehensive Plan Elements

Chairman Millar noted that he has had some email exchanges with Larissa Brown, Consultant for Exeter’s 2044 Comprehensive Plan, regarding his concerns with meeting the March 1, 2024 deadline. Mr. Millar noted that Exeter’s Plan is older than twelve years and that State law states-that if the municipality fails to fully update and readopt its Comprehensive Plan within the twelve years, such municipality shall not be able to utilize the Comprehensive Plan as a basis for denial for municipal land use decisions and that State law also says that all land use decisions must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Millar stated that this puts the Town in a precarious position, and the urgent need to get the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Planning Board and the Town Council by March 1. He urged the members of the Planning Board to get their comments in by January 9, 2024.

Council President Dan Patterson asked the Town Planner how many elements there would be. Mr. DePasquale indicated approximately 11 elements and noted that five have already been sent to Statewide Planning. Chairman Millar suggested that they go forward with a public hearing and that once the Town Council and the Planning Board have approved it, that it will become a legally enforceable plan.

The Planner disagreed with the Chairman’s thinking. Discussion continued. Solicitor Sypole referenced the following Rhode Island General Laws, Title 45, Towns and Cities, Chapter 45-22.2-9H, State review of local comprehensive plans. “Upon approval by the chief (State Planning) or Superior Court, the municipality is eligible for all benefits and incentives conditioned on an approved comprehensive plan pursuant to this chapter, and the municipality is allowed to submit the approved comprehensive plan or relevant section thereof to any state agency which requires the submission of a plan as part of its requirements, and the plan or relevant section thereof shall satisfy that requirement.”

Planner DePasquale stated his concerns regarding obtaining suggestions from the public and then getting back from the State numerous changes that the public would feel negated their input. The suggestion was to hold a joint public hearing in February 2024. Town Council President Dan Patterson had no objection to holding a joint public hearing.

Chairman Scott Millar made a motion to send the Exeter Town Council the Planning Board’s Exeter Comprehensive Plan letter, dated: December 12, 2023 regarding the Planning Board’s discussion today; and to hold one joint public hearing with the Town Council and Planning Board to save time and money. Recommending that the joint public hearing be scheduled for the week of February 26, 2024. Michael DeFrancesco seconded the motion, all in favor (5-0) the motion was approved. (Scott Millar, Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Gina Thurn, Joe St. Lawrence)

B. Discussion and Possible Action: State Land Use Amendments to Town Council

Chairman Scott Millar addressed his memo State Land Use Mandates, dated: December 12, 2023; and recommended that it be sent to the Exeter Town Council. The memo addressed recommendations that the Exeter Town Council should support. Those concerns included Inclusionary Zoning; Adaptive Reuse; Land Development and Subdivision Review; Zoning Act and Statutes Subject to Interpretation. Mr. Millar felt strongly that the Town of Exeter has consistently followed the State’s vision as closely as it can be followed. In the memo the Chair noted that the legislation adopted contains some broad and very unclear language.

Town Planner William DePasquale noted that rather than “poking the bear” he suggested that adding some suggestions/solutions would be a wiser decision. Chairman Millar was happy to incorporate any comments to soften the memorandum. The Planner noted that the Town has been doing what is required/expected.

Chairman Millar suggested using the statutes of last year and that they be further amended and cleaned up until any further amendments are imposed upon us. Town Council President Patterson suggested toning down the memorandum a bit. Michael DeFrancesco stated that he was not in favor of sending this memo from the Planning Board as is. He suggested getting input from Exeter’s representatives and senators.

Chairman Millar still felt the need for the legislature to hear the Town’s concerns and not have them think everything is okay. Discussion continued with the idea of including the Town’s representatives and getting their feedback.

C. 2024 Planning Board Meeting Calendar of Dates

The Planner recognized Dixie Foisy, Clerk, for her work on the revised format of the 2024 Planning Board Meeting Dates which includes: Application Deadlines; Meeting Deadlines for Certified Complete; Meeting Types and Meeting Dates.

Gina Thurn made a motion to accept the meeting dates of 2024; seconded by Scott Millar. The vote was all in favor, (5-0). The motion passed.

VI.             ADMINISTRATIVE:

A. Future Meeting: CPAC Final Meeting on Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at the Town Hall, Council

Chambers; Planning Board Work Session Meeting – January 9, 2024

VII.           ADJOURNMENT:

Motion to adjourn made by Bill Haas, seconded by Gina Thurn; voted all in favor. 

Motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,  

Rebecca Lukowicz

M. Dixie Foisy

Planning Board Clerk