I.        CALL TO ORDER:

Chair Scott Millar called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.

II.      PUBLIC COMMENT:

Asa Davis, 146 Beechwood Hill Trail, Exeter, RI.  Mr. Davis congratulated the ACLU on their comprehensive report regarding public speaking in local municipalities around the State, noting that Exeter was listed as fourth on the list. He pointed out that they recommended removing the restriction on speaking only on non-agenda items, saying it was poor public policy.

Mr. Davis went on to make some points regarding his hearing on a recent subdivision map change request (January 23, 2024), as well as the litigation he has pending against the Town. Chairman Millar then indicated that Mr. Davis’s three minutes were up and thanked him for his comments.                                         

III.    NEW BUSINESS:

A.     Development Plan Review: Michael and Jennifer Acton, Applicants and Owners of property located at 740A South County Trail, Exeter, RI; Zoned Business/Planned District and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 76, Block 4, Lot 7; seeking a development plan review for the purpose of operating a Bed and Breakfast (short term rental) pursuant to Exeter Code, Appendix A Zoning, 2.4.1.42.

Chairman Millar introduced the application of Michael and Jennifer Acton and then asked Town Planner William DePasquale to present his findings. Planner DePasquale reviewed his Planning Memorandum: DPR-Short Term Rental – Michael and Jennifer Acton; AP 76 B 4 Lot 7; Dated: February 12, 2024.

The Planner noted that the Acton application would be using the 2023 development plan review procedure for review of the proposed special use permit (SUP) to establish a short-term rental classified as a bed-and-breakfast. He noted that the property under consideration has a split zoning classification, with one part designated as a business district and the other as a planned district. That the parcel of land spans over 60 acres and can be accessed through a long driveway on South County Trail and that the property is situated in a private location, away from neighboring properties. That the owners are proposing a special use permit to offer short term rental of the attached in-law apartment of their home to visitors generally for weekends during the months of May-September. That the applicants have addressed all the required elements of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance section 2.5.2 Performance and Design Standards; Standards of Review including a layout and approved OWTS approval from RIDEM.

The Town Planner gave the following recommendation:

The use of short-term rentals classified as a bed-and-breakfast aligns with the intended purpose of a business district and planned district zone. Such PD Zone is designed to allow for flexibility in accommodating future businesses, industries, and mixed-use on special sites with standards specified by the Zoning ordinance and land development regulations and, therefore, complies with this objective. Consequently, I have no objection to the proposed development as presented, pending approval for a special use permit by the Zoning Board with the final DPR application being waived.

Chairman Millar asked if the applicant had any additional comments? Jennifer Acton indicated that they had included a complete overview with their application package.

Board member Michael Viveiros was recognized and asked if the land were to be subdivided in the future, what would happen to the special use permit? Solicitor Sypole noted that they are granting development plan review and that relief runs with the land, and if the land was later subdivided, he presumed that it would remain with the main parcel. The solicitor suggested that if there was a concern the Board could add a condition of approval to the effect that if the land is subdivided, they would need to come before the Board to seek relief.

Chairman Millar made a motion to accept the Planner’s recommendation and to send the

recommendation to the Zoning Board of Review indicating that the Board has no objection to

this special use permit.  The motion was amended to include a condition stating that any future subdivision of land would require the property owners to come back before the Planning

Board.  Seconded by William Haas; the vote was all in favor. The motion carried 5-0. (Scott

Millar, Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Gina Thurn, Joe St. Lawrence).

Chairman Millar asked for clarification--noting that this application came under the old ordinance, which would still require a special use permit to be granted by the Zoning Board; and that going forward this SUP would be something the Planning Board would be dealing with. The Planner indicated that the chairman was correct, stating that prior to January 1, 2024 they were in the DPR process where the Zoning Board had the authority to issue a special use permit, but that after January 1, 2024 the Planning Board now has the authority to issue that same special use permit in conjunction with what is now called, in this case, a minor land development project, since DPR is no longer in our statute.     

IV.    OLD BUSINESS:

A.     Preliminary Minor-Subdivision: Timothy Gillette, Applicant and Owner of property located at 760A South County Trail, Exeter, RI; Zoned LB-R and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 67, Block 1, Lot 7; a request for a minor 3-lot subdivision. The required special use permit was approved by the Zoning Board on 12/14/2023.

The Chairman introduced the Gillette Application and asked Town Planner William DePasquale to review his Planning Memorandum: Preliminary Minor Subdivision 3 lot minor subdivision with special use permit; AP67 B1 L7 – Gillette; Zoned LB-R-9.7 acres; Dated: February 14, 2024.

Planner DePasquale in his memorandum reviewed the Proposal which stated: This preliminary application is proposing the subdivision of an existing 9.7-acre lot Ap 67 B 1 L 7 into three separate lots for residential development. The minor three-lot subdivision is located within an LB-R Zoning district, which required the granting of a special use permit from the Zoning Board. The proposed three-lot subdivision maintains frontage on South County Trail Route-2. Each of the three lots would accommodate a three (3)-bedroom single-family residence serviced by an OWTS and private well.

In his memorandum he noted that on October 24, 2023 the Planning Board granted Conditional Preliminary approval of the minor subdivision pending issuance of a special use permit. That the Zoning Board, on December 14, 2023 public hearing, granted the SUP with conditions. The Zoning Board Public Hearing of December 14, 2023 (decision January 3, 2024 book 615 page 236) See Planner’s memorandum of February 14, 2024.

At the conclusion of the Zoning Board members’ deliberations, Mr. Robertson made a motion to approve the application of Mr. Gillette for a special use permit for each of the three proposed subdivision lots under Zoning Ordinance Appendix A, Section 2.4.1.1 to allow for the use of the subject property for one new single-family dwelling on each of the three proposed lots with the inclusion of the Planning Boards’s recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Andrews seconded the motion. The Vice Chair Mr. McMillan called the roll on the motion to approve. The motion to approve carried five in favor and none opposed.

The Planner then reviewed what remained outstanding with regards to the compliance with conditional preliminary approval. Documented in the Planner’s February 14, 2024 Memorandum.

The Planner’s Preliminary Recommendations included the following statement and conditions:

Based upon my review of the preliminary application, I find the applicant has secured approval from the Zoning Board for the issuance of a special use permit; however, the plans and supplementary information submitted is, in many cases, noncompliant with the required conditions contained within the conditional approval (see section III of memorandum). Therefore, I can only recommend preliminary approval if a final plan and application contains all the items listed in section III.

Preliminary Approval – Conditions:

1.       The final application shall be in compliance with all these conditions. In the event that the administrative officer finds the final submission incomplete, the administrative officer shall refer the application to the Planning Board.

2.       The final application must contain a legal agreement for a driveway easement that covers lots 2 and 3. This agreement should be recorded along with the final plan and provide detailed information about access, restrictions, and limitations on the usage of the shared driveway. It should also specify the responsibility for short- and long-term maintenance, snow removal, debris removal, and repairs of the driveway. It is crucial that the agreement is specific and not generic and that it is recorded on the deeds for lots 2 and 3. If the agreement lacks specific details, it will not be considered as conforming to this condition.

3.       Add two field markers on lot 1’s eastern perimeter within the limit of disturbance, with a typical drawing and type of marker in the legend.

4.       Final application shall include RIDEM OWTS approvals for lots 1, 2, and 3.

5.       Building permits will only be issued if the lots have private wells that comply with RIDOH regulations for potable drinking water.

6.       Deed restrictions must be placed on lots 1, 2, and 3, limiting the number of bedrooms in residential dwellings to a maximum of three bedrooms per lot. The final application shall note the deed restriction on the site plan.

7.       Add language to the site plan: “The Town currently has a Growth Management Ordinance in effect which may impact the ability to obtain building permits for lots shown on this plan.”

8.       Add a table to the plan showing required setbacks, a lot area of at least once acre suitable for development, and acre conformance with the underlying zoning.

9.       Additional information deemed necessary by the administrative officer to process the final application.

10.   Approval is contingent upon receiving all pertinent federal, state, and local permits prior to the issuance of a building permit. 

The Planner concluded his review of the Gillette application with his Findings of Fact (Page 4 of the February 14, 2024, Planning Memorandum). And the Required Findings in Section 3.5 of the Land Development and Subdivision Regulations (Pages 5 and 6 of the February 14, 2024 Planning Memorandum).    

Chairman Millar asked the applicant if he had any further comments to add. Mr. Gillette felt they had covered nearly all of the requirements. Patrick Freeman, American Engineering, then reviewed with the Board the few outstanding items. Mr. Freeman did ask about the two field markers on lot one’s eastern perimeter and indicated that they already had three adjacent to the dwelling and asked if the Planner is requesting two more?  The Planner explained why he was asking for two additional markers as it would give future owners a clearer understanding of property lines.

Chairman Millar asked both Patrick Freeman and Timothy Gillette if they were in agreement with the Planner’s conditions? Mr. Freeman indicated, yes, they were.

Vice Chair Michael DeFrancesco asked Patrick Freeman if the lines on the site plan–legend could be in color in order to differentiate between them.

Chairman Millar asked the Board if they had any further questions for the applicant, hearing

none, he made a motion to accept the Town Planner’s recommendation and grant preliminary

approval, stating the final plan and application contain all ten items listed in the Planner’s

February 14, 2024 memorandum. William Haas seconded the motion. The motion to approve

carried five in favor and none opposed. (Scott Millar, Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas,

Gina Thurn, Joe St. Lawrence).

B.      CONTINUED *Preliminary/Development Plan Review: Rhode Island Grows, LLC, Applicant, and Tim Schartner/Zach Schartner, Owners of property located at One Arnold Place, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-3 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 52, Block 1, Lot 4, 5 & 6; a request for a proposed Greenhouse Tier III/CEA Facility, with the following list of waivers requested from the Town of Exeter Zoning Ordinance related to the application for Development Plan Review for the Property: §6.3(B) re: Proposed lot merger administrative subdivision; and, § 12.0(B1) re: Lot merger administrative subdivision checklist. *The preliminary DPR Greenhouse Tier III/CEA Facility project preceded the new state law definition of DPR that has recently been changed in 2024.

Chairman Millar introduced this continued Preliminary/Development Plan Review with Rhode Island Grows, LLC.

For the record, Board member Michael Viveiros recused himself from participating in compliance with R.I. Gen. Laws 36-14-6 (I).

Chairman Millar asked Planner William DePasquale if he had any additional comments. The Planner stated that he had intended to add information from Crossman Engineering, the peer review design team, but apparently there was a miscommunication from the two engineering groups and that they would need additional time to work out the review of the proposal.

Chairman Millar recognized Attorney Michael Kelly. Mr. Kelly asked that the documents listed in his letter of February 27, 2024, documenting the items submitted to the Planning Department and Planning Board in support of Rhode Island Grows, LLC become part of the record. He also stated that he wanted to clarify the lot coverage, which was mentioned in the staff report exceeding 35 percent, which is not the case, it is actually 29.6 percent, stating that a table in the application clarifies that number. Mr. Kelley then spoke about requesting a waiver on the lot mergers. Stating the reason for the waiver was due to the passing of Norman J. Schartner. He indicated that there was a purchase and sales agreement in place, however probate has not been completed, so the closing cannot take place, because assets cannot be transferred out of the estate until the state tax returns have been approved by the State of Rhode Island. Mr. Kelly asked that the consolidation of the lots be completed at final.  

Chairman Millar stated that in the event that the Board grants the waiver, in no way affects the decision of the Town’s Zoning Official, who has placed a cease-and-desist order on that parcel, until such time that the property be combined into one lot. Mr. Kelly acknowledged that the cease-and-desist order was an entirely separate issue, and that this was a site plan review. Chairman Millar asked if he had additional presentations, Mr. Kelly indicated he had three experts with him this evening.

Town Planner William DePasquale felt it would be appropriate for the Board to consider the waiver. According to the new regulations that were passed last year, the applicant would need to merge the property before they came to the Board. What they are asking for is a waiver to allow them to receive final with the condition that the merger will be done before the final is recorded.

The Planner stated that he would not record a final without the merger. The Board would have to vote to grant the waiver, before Mr. Kelly has his experts speak, because without the waiver, they (the experts) could not be here.

Chairman Millar proposed that the Board grant the waiver, stating that the lots do not have to be merged until such time before the final plan is recorded. Gina Thurn seconded.

Discussion between the Board members ensued.  Michael DeFrancesco voiced his concern about the merger not taking place to date and suggested a time limit be added as a condition.  Solicitor Sypole indicated that with the approval of the preliminary plan, the approval is good for two years.

Mr. Kelly implied that he feels this merger will take place and not linger on for a long time, and respectfully asked that the Board not hold up any progress based on the merger of the lots. He stated that there is a substantial commitment of money for loans and grants tied to this project.

Board member William Haas voiced his concerns that the Board should wait until this project is “one lot.” That this is a huge project and is currently on three different lots. Mr. Kelly voiced his concern that without the waiver, financing will not be extended by the banks, and if it is not granted it will kill this project.

Mr. Millar asked Planner DePasquale if he had any concerns with granting this waiver? Mr. DePasquale stated that everything is a process.  He stated you don’t have approvals until you have approvals, and that’s why we have preapplication, preliminary, continued preliminary and final. So, a merger is a requirement that must be completed, whether it is done at preapplication or before final, the Board’s discretion is looking at the project as a whole under development plan review. If it’s subject to the merger, then that could be a condition and could be obtained at final. The question is do you want to review the DPR and the substance of the approval prior to the administrative merger of those lots and does it fundamentally change the project. Those are the questions I would be asking. Or can you look at the project and understand that it will not get a final approval unless the merger of the lots takes place. 

Michael DeFrancesco had a comment regarding the original Zoning amendment that the Town Council passed last year, and the language that stated this type of project cannot take place unless it is on one lot. The Planner stated that he wrote the amendment, and yes, it should be merged at preapplication, but that the Board sees a lot of waivers during projects. Chairman Millar noted that they have done this on a number of occasions where we have approved the project, pending either a wetlands approval, a physical alteration permit, or some other condition that must be met and shown to our administrative officer. In the event that those conditions of our approval are not met, it does not get approved. The applicant is proceeding at their own risk. So, if this merger does not happen, there is not a project, per our ordinance.

The Chair returned to the motion stating that the merger would happen before final approval.

The Planner indicated that the condition would be that the waiver would be granted to require the merger to take place before final approval is granted. The Planner stated that when they go forward with the preliminary, approval or denial, whatever it is, that that condition be added to the preliminary. 

Chairman Millar moved that they grant the applicant’s request to waive the merger requirement, so they can proceed, however, all of the lots will need to be merged before the final plan is recorded. Granting this for six months from the time the Planning Board approves the preliminary plan. Joe St. Lawrence seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows:  Scott Millar voted in favor (yes); Gina Thurn voted in favor (yes); Joe St. Lawrence voted in favor (yes); Michael DeFrancesco, abstained; William Hass, opposed.  The motion passed 3-1.

Mr. Kelly then introduced Mr. Robert F. Ferrari, P.E., President Northeast Water Solutions, Inc., 567 South County Trail, Suite 116, Exeter, RI 02822, stating that Mr. Ferrari will address the questions and concerns that the chair had regarding Queens Fort River. Mr. Ferrari introduced himself to the Board and reviewed his background and stated that his firm specializes in water resource development, engineering design of water supply treatment and distribution systems. Mr. Ferrari indicated that he is a registered professional engineer with forty-seven years of experience in this field and working in Rhode Island for slightly more than forty years.

Mr. Ferrari then went on to review his involvement with this project beginning in April/May of 2023. He reviewed the Schartner Farm property and the water systems on the property. Mr. Ferrari stated that the greenhouse roof would capture precipitation that the greenhouse would then take and use as its primary source of water for the interior greenhouse operations and support the plant cultivation hydroponic format. In addition to that he mentioned that there is a farm pond on the site, shared with a neighboring farmstand trust, a 50/50 split. That the farm pond has a gross volume of about 25 million gallons, so approximately 12.5 million gallons would be available for use by the proposed greenhouse hydroponic farming operation.

Mr. Ferrari stated that the Pawcatuck watershed is 245 sq. miles in Rhode Island and more than 300 sq. miles in total through Connecticut. Mr. Ferrari touched on the Queens Fort Brook and spoke about the different methodology that can be used to access the natural recharge on this site and that the Pawcatuck watershed and its various subbasins, are one of the most studied watersheds in Rhode Island. Mr. Ferrari’s complete report is part of the applicant’s application.

He did note that North Kingstown had, in the past, supplied water to the old Schartner Farm, but the demand, projected to be down the road, if this facility comes to fruition is actually less than the supply was before. Gina Thurn asked if North Kingstown cannot supply the water, could a well be put on the site.  Mr. Ferrari indicated, yes, absolutely they could, it would have to be a public well and would require going back through the appropriate application and permitting process with the Department of Health.

The Planner asked what happens during winter/snow droughts.  Mr. Ferrari said they assume that in the three winter months—December, January and February—they would draw 100 percent of the irrigation water from the farm pond. That the worst-case scenario would be, if we had no precipitation for three months, then there would be no recharge. The farm pond receives inflow from the Queens Fort Brook, the Queens Fort Brook receives inflow from land in the north. He indicated that what they did in the analysis of Queens Fort Brook, they used a methodology called base flow. Base flow is recharging into the brook from the ground, not sheet run-off flow. That the brook is being recharged from both surface water and ground water. The farm pond would maintain itself with groundwater from Queens Fort Brook.

Chairman Millar asked again if there would be a third-party review. The Planner indicated that the only company he was aware of was Mr. Ferrari’s company, Northeast Water Solutions, and it would be up to the Board to determine if a third-party review was necessary. Mr. Millar still felt it was in the interest of the Town to seek a third-party review.

Mr. Kelly introduced Mr. Gordon Preiss, Registered Engineer, 12 Pondview Avenue, Westerly, RI 02891. Mr. Preiss reviewed his background with the Board acknowledging more than forty-five years of construction/project management/design engineering experience including plant, facilities development engineering, design engineering, and project management in corporate, entrepreneurial and academic settings. Founder and CEO of a mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection alarm and fire protection sprinkler consulting firm. He also acknowledged that he is a nationally recognized expert in solar energy and energy conservation.

Mr. Preiss indicated that they would be using four tanks within the building to sprinkler the building, requiring no additional water supply. That each of the four tanks holds 132 thousand gallons of water, with a fire flow of 1500 gallons. He noted that both the building and fire codes do not require them to sprinkler a greenhouse. That the accessory buildings will have sprinklers.

Mr. Preiss acknowledged the Town’s Fire Marshal, Susan Hawksley, saying she was one of the best, if not the best, on fire codes and gave him a run for his money. He stated that the greenhouse itself, is one large building, that will be separated by a two-hour fire wall with a sprinkler head on the side wall. The rest of the building includes a power plant, boiler plant, sorting and packing rooms. That there is a 60’ wide technical corridor that separates the greenhouse from the outer workings of the greenhouse.

Mr. Preiss felt that they have done everything possible to minimize what could possibly catch on fire within the greenhouse facilities. He felt this was a very sophisticated operation. He noted that the facility will have a public address system which will also connect to the local fire service.

Mr. Preiss touched on having to go to the Fire Board and stated that if something is not exactly to code, in NFPA 101 versus the building codes, that they would have to find relief from that, and that NFPA 101, Chapter 5, allows for a performance-based calculation, of which they have completed two. He noted that this has been used by firms for the URI Ryan Center, Electric Boat and others. He indicated that they have certified, based on the size of the building; that people would have nearly six minutes to exit the building.

Chairman Millar asked Mr. Preiss, if Susan Hawksley, Exeter Number 1 Volunteer Fire Department, Fire Marshal, approves of their approach to fire protection.  Ms. Hawksley stated that it was not her place to approve or disapprove of the approach that Engineer Preiss is looking to do. She stated that her job is to present the code book, the code book says: storage - you must be able to exit within 200 feet, at this point the exit is a minimum of 500 feet, plus how ever long it takes to get to a door. Therefore, she could not allow this. The Code then allows the applicant to go before the Board of Appeal and Review to obtain a variance from what the code says, and that is the route they are taking on this point. Mr. Preiss noted that this is a procedure they are allowed to take. Ms. Hawksley acknowledged that, that is true.

Chairman Millar asked Fire Marshal Hawksley if she had any additional comments.  Ms. Hawksley stated that she and Engineer Preiss have come to all the same conclusions, that they have been working on the interior of the structure and that they are meeting every code requirement and the one they cannot meet they are going to the Board. She noted that they have added additional life safety measures in the interior of the building, such as the fire alarm system in the growing area, which is not strictly required by the code.

Marshal Hawksley stated that everything about the interior of the building is going very smoothly. That everything about the interior of the building is going according to code. However, she added, the comment that was made by Fire Chief Gavitt to the Planning Board concerned the exterior of the building, the approaches, fire apparatus access, and water supply in case there is a fire, and that these issues are not under the Engineer Preiss preview and that he cannot speak to those issues, and have not spoken to them at all. Engineer Preiss stated that their system is self-contained. Mr. Kelly stated that in terms of fire apparatus they are working on plans to show access and egress from the property and will be setting up an appointment to go over their plans with the Fire Chief.

Solicitor Sypole asked what is the name of the Board that considers variances such as what you need.  Mr. Preiss stated that the Building Codes Standards Committee and the Fire Board has a separate committee made up of eleven individuals, called The Fire Safety Code of Appeal and Review. Solicitor Sypole asked if you get a favorable decision on this variance request, will you submit it to the Planning Board before final.  Both Mr. Kelly and Engineer Preiss indicated that yes, they would.

Board Member Michael DeFrancesco asked what the required flow was for the building. Engineer Preiss indicated 150-200 gallons per minute. Mr. DeFrancesco stated he would like to see required fire drills for employees. Engineer Preiss indicated that his plan includes some of those aspects.

Ms. Jaklyn Centracchio, Registered Professional Traffic Operations Engineer with BETA Group, Inc., stepped forward. She indicated that she was brought on to review their traffic study and determine if there were any operational and/or traffic safety concerns in the study area. The study area included the segment between South County Trail, Long Lane and Dry Bridge Road. In 2020 South County Trail was repaved, now with a single lane in each direction, with a two-way left turn lane in the center which facilitates turns onto and off of South County Trail. Their study showed peak hours from 7-8 am – 875 vehicles and from 4-5 pm – 1150 vehicles. Speed data for that same 48-hour period showed an 85-percentile speed was 53 miles per hour, 85% of the vehicles traveling at that speed or below. Five crashes within a 3-year period, no patterns detected. Trip generation showed, based on 85 employees, 2 tractor trailers, 2 smaller trucks, 90 trips during am and pm hours. South County Trail would perform at a of service Level A (Currently A) at each driveway.

Planner DePasquale asked for clarification of tractor trailers using Arnold Place or Schartner Place and whether they are going North or South. Ms. Centracchio indicated Arnold Place. The Planner asked if both Northbound and Southbound? He asked for a clarification on the direction. Ms. Centracchio will add that to the plan. Attorney Kelly stated that both employees and truck movement would be done at off-peak times.

Chairman Millar asked Mr. Kelly if the farmstand would be cleaned up? Mr. Kelly indicated that yes, it would be as part of this project.

To be continued on March 26, 2024.

C.     Planning Office Improvements: Discuss draft memo from Chair Scott Millar dated January 29, 2024

Chairman Millar introduced this agenda item and spoke to the memo he authored. He stated that he tried to summarize what had been discussed at their work session in January. He touched on the computer capacity, that there is inadequate computer capability which is making it much harder and taking more time for the planning staff to do their jobs.

The need for technical consultants. That because of the 2023 legislative changes the Planner now has more responsibilities and less time to certify applications. That there is a need to supplement the Planner’s time with third party consultants.

The need to increase the administrative capacity of the Planning Department. That the clerk has multiple administrative responsibilities beyond the Planning Office, including the Zoning Board, Zoning Officer and Building Inspector. That with the increased responsibilities for the Planning Office, it was clear more administrative support time is needed.

Michael DeFrancesco noted the paragraph regarding technical consultants. That the Planning Board working with the Town Planner would identify a list of applicable consultants. Mr. DeFrancesco suggested the need for requests for qualifications when choosing future consultants and the need for their timely reviews.

The Planner stated that any requests for consultants could include in the RFQ or RFP a seven-day response, as a performance standard. He felt the office was lucky to have Crossman on the engineering side, but we have everything architectural services, landscape services, etc. That he would need to know more about what disciplines would help the Board the most. Chairman Millar felt there was a need for a wetland consultant, landscape architect, possibly a lighting individual, and water quality/quantity professional. The Planner asked about the budget. The Chair stated that they would not be paying for any of these consultants, siting Section 3.3.C in the Town’s ordinance for Project Review and Inspection fees, that the applicant would need to make those payments.

Chairman Millar went back to discuss the computer capacity in Town. Planner DePasquale spoke about the computer concerns and that they would need to have an RFP for Capital Improvement/project to get an analysis of our IT capabilities. Have a firm come in to do an inventory of everything we have and what we need.  The Planner felt that the Capital Improvement program is a great way to have dollars put aside for future IT upgrades.

The Chair also mentioned the need to increase the administrative capacity for the Planning Office.

That there is a need to increase the staff and carve out the responsibilities for an additional person.

The Union would need to become part of the discussion.

D.     Comprehensive Plan Update: Discuss Public Hearing on March 11, 2024

Chairman Millar had a draft of the Comp Plan distributed to each of the Board members. He indicated that the draft document is also on line: Exeter 2044.com. The Planner suggested that the Board members make their comments on this site. Chairman Millar spoke about the upcoming joint meeting with the Town Council on March 11, 2024 and the logistics of how this meeting will go forward. The Solicitor suggested that what would happen is the Council President would open the meeting followed by the Planning Board Chairman open the Planning Board meeting. The question was how voting would occur. Scott Millar asked Solicitor Sypole to speak with Solicitor Marusak regarding how this joint meeting should proceed. Karen Ellsworth’s name was suggested as someone to speak with regarding joint meetings. Robert’s Rules of Order would need to apply.

E.      Zoning Study Update

The Planner indicated that the draft Zoning update was sent to each Board member and distributed a memo/email from Libra Planners.

The introduction of the memorandum reads as follows:

To avoid the possibility of exploiting the code and stretching the meaning of uses, Libra Planners recommends the Town of Exeter (1) create a limited but coherent set of use categories, (2) specifically list desired prohibited uses, (3) specially-permitted uses should be more broadly defined, so that a similar use is more easily accommodated by the identified local officials, and less likely to result in appeals, uncertainty, delays, and additional cost, and (4) Exeter can limit similar uses through the use of criteria that cannot be varied.

The Planner then updated the Board on the progress of the work that has been done with the Zoning Official and consultant with regards to the rewriting of the outdated Zoning Table in order to comply with new State laws. The Planner asked that each Board member to send their comments and suggestions to him.  He indicated that once he has received everyone’s feedback, he would work with the Chairman to set up a workshop.

V.      ADMINISTRATIVE:

VI.    ADJOURNMENT:

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

MOTION PASSED.   The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,  

Rebecca Lukowicz

M. Dixie Foisy, Planning Board Clerk