Town of Exeter, Rhode Island
PLANNING BOARD
675 Ten Rod Road
Exeter, R.I. 02822
401-294-2612
401-294-2592
Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2024
Minutes Approved: February 27, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
Members present: Scott Millar, Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Gina Thurn, Joe St. Lawrence, Michael Viveiros and Donna Di Donato
Members Absent: None
Staff present: Stephen Sypole, Solicitor, William DePasquale, Planner, Dixie Foisy, Clerk and
Olivia DeFrancesco, Council Liaison
Chair Scott Millar called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
NONE
A. Unified Development Review, Special Use Permit Request and Preliminary Minor Land Development Project: Discipline Brewing Co., LLC, Applicant, and DAAR Bishop LLC, Owner of property located at 435 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned Light Industrial and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 33, Block 1, Lot 18; a request for a special use permit under Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.1.60 for a proposed change of use to operate a “brewery” within an existing structure.
Chairman Millar introduced this petition and acknowledged that this would be the Board’s first Unified Development Review acting as both the Zoning and Planning Boards under the recently passed new state regulations. He indicated that under the new regulations the first step would be to open the public hearing for the Special Use Permit (SUP). He then asked Solicitor Sypole for his guidance. Solicitor Sypole indicated that they should be making their decision on the SUP first, but that facts for both applications could be garnered through the public hearing.
The Chairman entertained a motion to open the public hearing, Michael DeFrancesco made the motion, it was seconded by Joe St. Lawrence; all in favor (5-0) and the public hearing was officially opened. (S. Millar, M. DeFrancesco, W. Haas, G. Thurn, J. St. Lawrence).
Chairman Millar then recognized Town Planner William DePasquale. The Planner then reviewed his Planning Memorandum: Public Hearing “Unified Development Review” request for a Special Use Permit concurrent with the request for Preliminary Approval for a Minor Land Development Project. Discipline Brewery Co., LLC; AP 33 B1 L18; 435 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, RI; Dated: January 2, 2024.
The Planner noted that in compliance with the 2024 state statutes, this application falls under the required, “Unified Development Review” policy for a Special Use Permit to operate a brew house that utilizes the existing structure and parking with minor exterior changes as well as a public well conversion and septic upgrade. He also indicated that the applicant is requesting preliminary approval for a Minor Land Development Project. He stated that as of January 1, 2024, new state laws and local ordinances now classify this project as a minor land development project, with the former DPR being altered and limited in its application by the legislature.
He then reviewed the preapplication meeting held on October 24, 2023 and that the Planning Board had provided guidance to the applicant on various topics, including the proposed OWTS
septic design. The Board had recommended to the applicant to consider merging the two lots abutting so that the proposed OWTS could be located on a single lot. The Planner indicated that the merger had taken place.
The Planner then reviewed with the Board the following topics noted in his Planning Memorandum of January 2, 2024 including: The Proposal, Merger and Zoning for a Special Use Permit. He noted that the impact of a craft brewery on the natural environment and surrounding land uses is significantly less than the impact of other uses that are approved in the district by-right.
Planner DePasquale then went on to discuss the Preliminary Minor Land Development. He reiterated that as of January 1, 2024, the subject proposal is considered a minor land development according to the new state law. That the minor land development plan project is now any one of seven decision processes. They are as follows:
1. Construction of one or more buildings for commercial, manufacturing, or industrial use with a total for all structures of no more than 7,500 square feet of gross floor area.
2. Enlargement of a commercial, manufacturing or industrial building that increases the gross floor area by no more than 50 percent or by 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is less.
3. A mixed-use development consisting of no more than six dwelling units and 2,500 square feet of gross floor area for commercial use.
4. A residential development that creates nine or fewer new principal dwelling units.
5. Redevelopment or reconstruction to change the use of a multi-family residential, commercial, or industrial building that does not propose significant exterior alteration of the site.
6. Adaptive reuse of abuilding or buildings with a total of no more than 25,000 square feet or gross floor area in a commercial zoning district that does not require extensive exterior construction or extensive exterior site redevelopment.
7. Adaptive reuse of a building or buildings in a residential zoning district that creates eight or fewer new dwelling units.
The Planner stated that No. 5 fit the application for the Discipline Brewing Company that was in front of the Board for their consideration. That the review pertains to a preliminary minor land development proposal that involves the reuse of an existing building. That the applicant’s proposal seeks to change the use of the building from sales to a brew house that will utilize the existing structure and parking with only exterior changes.
The Planner then reviewed Stormwater/Parking/Trip Generation and OWTS/Potable Water. Planner DePasquale’s complete review of the above topics can be found on Page 5 of his January 2, 2024 Planning Memorandum:
The Planner, based on his review, recommended that the Planning Board grant a Special Use Permit under the unified development process. That the petitioner is requesting a Special Use Permit under Zoning Ordinance Article 11, Section 2.4.1.60 for a proposed change of use to operate a “brewery” within an existing structure. That based on his review, he found that the proposed use could be operated in a manner that is compatible with the neighboring properties and, as proposed by the applicant, will not adversely affect the surrounding area’s use and enjoyment of their property. His recommendation included the following criteria for the issuance of a Special Use Permit:
1. Will be compatible with the neighboring uses and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighbor’s use and enjoyment of their property;
2. Will as designed, presented, managed, and operated, be environmentally compatible with neighboring properties and the protection of property values;
3. Will be compatible with the orderly growth and development of the Town of Exeter, and will not be environmentally detrimental therewith;
4. That the best practices and procedures to minimize the possibility of any adverse effects on neighboring property, the Town of Exeter, and the environment have been considered and will be employed where applicable including, but not limited to, considerations of soil erosion, water supply protection, stormwater runoff, wastewater disposal, wetland protection, traffic limitation, safety, and circulation; and
5. That the purposes of this ordinance, and as set forth in the Exeter comprehensive plan, shall be served by said Special Use Permit.
The Planner, based on his review, recommended the approval of the preliminary minor land development project subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit the final application subject to approval by the administrative officer.
2. Approval is subject to presenting the OWTS for RIDEM approval at final.
3. The on-site water supply must comply with all regulations and approvals related to water supply from the Rhode Island Department of Health’s Division of Drinking Water Quality to ensure that the water supply is safe and meets all standards in Rhode Island.
4. Subject to a RIDOT approval for a Physical Alteration Permit (PAP) change of use.
Town Planner William DePasquale then read a letter from J. William W. Harsch, Esq.,
2139 Broad Street, Cranston, RI 02905; Telephone: (401) 921-5636;
Email: bill@harsch-law.com, representing abutter James Pond Realty Company, LLC.
Mr. Harsch stated, in his letter, that his clients are concerned that there be some reasonable limitation on outdoor events and that there be no prospect of large “rock concert” type events on the property. The complete letter will become part of the permanent record.
Chairman Millar then asked the applicant if he had any comments. Anthony C. Lustig, Primary Owner, Discipline Brewing Co., LLC, was recognized. He also introduced Dana Bishop, owner of the Harley Davidson Shop (Russ’ Ocean State Harley Davidson) and Daar Bishop, LLC and Matt Vienna, PC, Millstone Engineering.
Mr. Anthony Lustig acknowledged the Planner’s comprehensive review and restated that the building would not include significant exterior changes and that there would only be minor alterations to the interior of the building. He stated that it was important to note that they are not a typical bar. That their hours are limited compared to a standard bar and that there are stricter serving limits also. He expressed that a major facet of the craft beer culture, that distinguishes it from a typical bar, is providing an environment that is often family friendly. He noted that his company, “aspires to becoming a beacon of community and connectedness in Exeter.”
Mr. Lustig included with his comments a complete project narrative that covered the following information; their projected customer volume and water use; utilities, landscaping. storm drainage, signage; as well as their hours of operation and expected staffing. Mr. Lustig continued his presentation by addressing the Planner’s four required recommendations for approval of the preliminary minor land development project with specific information that will meet or exceed the requirements for approval.
Dana Bishop, former owner of Russ’ Ocean State Harley Davidson, was recognized and spoke about his having the Harley Davidson business at this location for the past twenty years and feels that the Discipline Brewery Company is perfect for this location and the town. He noted that the property, surrounded by a stone wall, shields noise very well. That the property is perfect as a venue without trampling on any of the neighbor’s privacy rights. He loved the tagline, “The Gateway to Arcadia.” He stated that he would love to see the town halt the expansion of some of the scrap yards and the dirtier activity in the Rt. 3 area, in order to maintain the town’s beauty.
Chairman Millar asked the applicant if they had any further input, the applicant indicated that he had covered all the details in his project narrative.
Chairman Millar also noted that Mr. Bishop’s business was the very first ever to receive the Planning Board’s award for excellence in design.
Chairman Millar asked if there were any questions from the Board? Michael DeFrancesco asked for points of clarification, one regarding a letter of approval from the Fire Department? The Planner addressed Mr. DeFrancesco’s concerns. He then asked about the application fee which had not been noted on the application. It was noted that due to the change in the process, the fee had not been determined at the time of the application. Mr. DeFrancesco also asked to see a final site plan that showed the property after the merger had taken place and the location of the two, 600-gallon tanks. He questioned the need for specific licenses.
Solicitor Sypole noted that the Town Council is the body who grants entertainment licenses and the requirements that may go along with such events.
Donna Di Donato asked if it was a one-time granting of event licenses or were the organizers required to reapply for each event? Solicitor Sypole noted that in another town that he works with, they do grant multi-event licenses but that those requests are also the decision of the Town Council.
Christopher D’Ovidio, an associate of Mr. Harsch, was recognized and stated that he represents James Pond, LLC, the property owners located directly across from the proposed brewery on Rt. 3. His clients’ principal concern is the musical event piece. He noted that the application states all styles of music at various times throughout the year. He indicated that the narrative does not state if these events will be indoor/outdoor or both. He felt that the unclear events could result in the interference of his clients’ reasonable use and enjoyment of their property, as well as the wildlife inhabitants of the property. He noted that it is unclear as to whether these musical events will be ancillary, equal or a dominant portion of the operation’s plan. Mr. D’Ovidio questioned whether this location would become an amplified music venue destination versus a family-oriented, unamplified event where one can enjoy a beer with friends. He felt it was unclear in the applicant’s application.
He noted that while it might be the intent of the applicant today, of having the family-oriented no amplified music, that he (Mr. D’Ovidio) has been involved in protracted litigation with breweries and vineyards throughout Rhode Island. That the business model slips on the brewery side and begins to focus more on the entertainment model, causing a lot of anxiousness and leading to litigation on the part of the neighbors. He stated that music events are much different than the sounds from a motorcycle, lawnmower, etc., and can have an adverse impact on surrounding neighbors. Mr. D’Ovidio stated that their aim is to prevent that outcome here.
Mr. D’Ovidio stated, as he understands it, the Board will be issuing a Special Use Permit that will allow the property to be used for musical events, under the five standards (criteria). That the Town Council will then authorize the musical event specifically, showing exactly what they are going to do, the type of music and when and how the event will take place. He assumed the applicant is sincere and genuine when he says that he will not be having loud, large scale outside events; and that the Board and Town Council will exercise their authority appropriately.
Mr. Lustig asked to address Mr. D’Ovidio’s concerns. He stated that he is a musician by trade, a Juilliard trained saxophonist, who freelanced in New York for a decade before moving to Rhode Island. He acknowledged the tremendous difference between a jazz trio and a death-metal band turned up to 11 and how that would also be a concern for himself. He stated that his intention was to have different genres of music that might include a world-renowned jazz pianist one day and a world-famous blue grass band the next. Mr. Lustig did not want to limit what type of event could be happening in that regard, but that he understands Mr. D’Ovidio’s concerns.
Mr. D’Ovidio referenced what happened in Little Compton that began as special events on occasion, and then turned into a sound stage with Nicki Minaj and 300 people in attendance. He asked Mr. Lustig to make some commitment, in writing, regarding his clients’ concerns.
Chairman Millar asked if there were any further questions or comments, hearing none he called for a motion to close the public hearing on the Special Use Permit. Bill Haas made the motion; Joe St. Lawrence seconded the motion, all in favor, the public hearing was closed. 5-0. (S. Millar, M. DeFrancesco, W. Haas, G. Thurn, J. St. Lawrence).
Michael DeFrancesco asked what happens, “If five years down the road, there is a change in ownership?” “Does the Special Use Permit remain with the property?” Solicitor Sypole noted that in the new Unified Development Review statute, currently in place, the zoning relief that you might grant is conditional on the final plan being approved. Solicitor Sypole stated that the reason it is conditional, is that once you give someone the zoning relief it runs with the land, that the property would continue to have a Special Use Permit allowing them to have a brewery indefinitely. That the property could then be sold, turned into a dealership and then sold again and returned back into a brewery.
First Motion on the SUP:
Scott Millar made a motion to accept the Town Planner’s recommendation to include the (5) criteria listed in his memo dated, January 2, 2024, and approve the special use permit. After some discussion, the Board added (1) condition stating that the applicant must go before the Town Council for an entertainment license. William Haas seconded the motion. A vote was taken; the vote was unanimous, 5-0. (S. Millar, M. DeFrancesco, W. Haas, G. Thurn, J. St. Lawrence)
Second Motion on the Preliminary Minor Land Development:
Scott Millar made a motion to approve the Preliminary MLD with the (4) conditions in the Town Planner’s memo, dated January 2, 2024; William Haas seconded. A vote was taken and was all in favor 5-0. (S. Millar, M. DeFrancesco, W. Haas, G. Thurn, J. St. Lawrence)
A. *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.
It should be noted for the record, first alternate Board member, Michael Viveiros, recused himself from the RI Grows, LLC application/presentation.
Chairman Millar introduced this petition; and asked Town Planner William DePasquale to review his Planning Memorandum: Schartner-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 Planner reviewed the following:
Stage: The preliminary DPR* Greenhouse Tier III/CEA Facility *project preceded the new state law definition of DPR that has recently been changed.
Parcel(s): AP 52 Block 1 Lot 4, 5, & 6; Dated: January 17, 2024.
The Planner, in his memorandum, reviewed the May 3, 2023 preapplication meeting, at which time they spent a lot of time looking at the Town ordinance, and the new special provisions that were added to address Tier III/CEA facilities. He noted that they had gone through every item that had been included in the new ordinance, as well as the DPR section of the Town’s ordinance. He specified that at the time Tier III/CEAs were characterized as a DPR, and because they began in May 2023, the decision was made to stay with a DPR, and felt it was vested as such. He then noted that as of January 1, 2024 the DPR standard was changed by the legislature and that today a CEA facility, type III would come through as a major plan development.
The Planner then gave a project overview which included the following information:
The Rhode Island Grows, LLC, seeks a preliminary development plan review to establish a Tier III Greenhouse CEA Facility on 94.38 acres located on AP 52 Block 1 Lots 4, 5 & 6, to be merged via administrative subdivision in a future submission, but before final, to make one singular lot that is zoned RU-3. The application is submitted by Rhode Island Grows, LLC. The applicant is proposing to construct a 1,207,340 sq ft greenhouse building which includes 130,528 gross floor area for business operations on the site as well as associated parking and loading areas. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. The greenhouse development anticipates being operated by 80 employees and has provided associated access and parking areas.
The Planner, in his January 17th memo, addressed the following items pertaining to the applicant’s request for a Tier III/Controlled Environment Agricultural (CEA) greenhouse: Historic Use (Page 3); Proposed Tier III-CEA (Page 3-4); Local Zoning (Page 4); Waivers (Page 4); Exception to the maximum percentage of lot coverage (Page 5); Pre-application Hearing May 23, 2023 (Page 5); Pre-application Hearing May 23, 2023 – Checklist pre-application (Pages 6-16); Preliminary DRP Application – Review Table (Pages 17-26).
The Planner emphasized the importance of the checklist he had included for the Board to use in assessing each and every standard that, in the end, would aid the Planning Board in determining if the petitioner had met the burden that had been placed upon them. Mr. DePasquale acknowledged that the applicant had done a wonderful job when filling out the checklist and how they had addressed each element and that their responses were included for the Board’s perusal.
Planner DePasquale then went on to discuss Zoning Ordinance 2.5.2.2 which reads: Visual relationship of buildings and their design (also see Architectural Narrative and Landscape Plan), followed by A. The architectural design of the project, buildings, structures, and site layout shall be visually compatible with the character the Town of Exeter seeks to retain within the area and the surrounding district, etc. The Planner felt they could do better. That the landscape should/could be incorporated into the architecture and design. A facility that is integrated with the open landscape and not just be obtuse to it. He covered 2.5.2.6. Existing utilities; 2.5.2.7. Advertising features; 2.5.2.10. Municipal services; 2.5.2.15. Unique areas – There must not be any undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the project area, aesthetics, historic sites, or rare and irreplaceable natural areas.
He covered the following topics: traffic studies; public safety; stormwater system operations and maintenance; soil erosion and sediment control; hydro evaluation and groundwater availability; architectural plan; landscape plan; light, noise and air evaluation; power generation and power generation plan, etc.
The Planner then concluded his presentation with the following Recommended Limitations/Conditions: (from page 26 of the Town Planner’s memo dated 1/17/2024)
1. Limit the lot coverage for all buildings and structures on the subject parcel. The application already contains the maximum lot coverage allowed for all buildings, so no additional nonfarm-related uses, including, but not limited to, large or utility-scale solar fields are permitted on the lot.
2. Before a final application is approved, the applicant must merge through an administrative subdivision AP 52 Block 1 Lots 4, 5 & 6 provided that the planning board grants waivers.
3. The applicant must submit a revised application and plans that comply with Section IX, including table recommendation changes and those resulting from approved peer reviews.
4. The applicant agrees in writing to provide surety for the PILOT fund requirement in order to receive an exemption from complying with Zoning Ordinance ARTICLE XIII, which pertains to the maximum lot coverage of all buildings. Specifically, the annual payment-in-lieu-of taxes (PILOT) fees, as calculated and required by sections (2) and (3) of this ordinance.
5. Subject to the permits/approvals needed from the state and municipal permitting
authorities:
a. RIDEM Rhode Island Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (RIDPES) and
RIDEM Wetlands PD.
b. RIDEM approval of the project plans, Stormwater Management Report,
Operations and Maintenance Plan, and a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
(SESC) plan.
c. RIDEM Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS)
d. RIDOT Physical Alterations Permit (PAP)
e. RIDEM air source permit
f. Approval from North Kingstown Municipal system
g. State building office/commission (If required)
h. Office of the State Fire Marshal (if required)
Planner DePasquale noted the following attachments included with the Board’s
package:
A. Exeter F.D. Fire Marshal Review Letter 1/12/2024
B. Proposed Architectural Plan
C. Typical agriculture structure and landscape vs proposed concept
D. Pre-application Response to Town Planners
Chairman Millar thanked Mr. DePasquale for his detailed report. Chairman Millar then recognized Michael Kelly, Esq., representing Rhode Island Grows. Attorney Kelly acknowledged the Planner’s comprehensive review of the project. He also appreciated that there have been merger issues that have occurred with the unfortunate passing of
Mr. Norman Schartner. That with Mr. Schartner’s passing there have been probate issues that need to yet be resolved, before the property can be transferred to RI Grows.
Mr. Kelly then covered the history of the Schartner Farm noting that the site had been operational since 1902 and that the unfortunate fire in 2015 had destroyed the family business. That the proposed greenhouse facility will allow for year-round agricultural production and processing of fruits and vegetables preserving and enhancing the unique town features that support an agriculture-based economy.
Mr. Kelly noted that the site will be serviced by a combination of water sources, including rainwater collection, onsite pond water, and public water. He indicated that Northeast Water Solutions, Inc., has done an extensive report and determined that the proposed RI Grows development will have very limited impact upon the local/regional groundwater recharge.
Mr. Kelly stated that the greenhouse will have lighting from sunset to sunrise. Also, that there are shades that will be installed throughout the facility that will block 99 percent of the emitted light used in the growing process. He covered the emissions from the gas turbines that will be used to power the facility and that carbon monoxide emissions will go back into the greenhouse providing food for the plants. That the turbines will have state-of-the-art emission controls.
Mr. Kelly stated that they would be happy to work with the Board regarding any architectural issues.
Molly Titus, P.E., DiPrete Engineering, proceeded to review their Development Plan Review. Included in her review she covered stormwater design for the project; extensive soil testing to check ground water tables and depth; evaluated the soil strata beneath the project for stormwater infiltration as well as the onsite waste water treatment systems. She indicated that the operation is expected to employ approximately 80 employees and that their plan provides 80 parking spaces. Ms. Titus also touched on landscaping and the buffers that will be placed around the parking lot.
Ms. Titus then addressed stormwater management and the necessary shape of the ponds, that will completely envelope both ends of the building, off the gable ends, for excess runoff for intensity. That the site’s water source shall draw from existing on-site private wells and from the proposed irrigation pond for watering crops. That a groundwater impact assessment has been prepared by Northeast Water Solutions, Inc. (Included with the applicant’s package).
Ms. Titus then briefly discussed the landscaping design, noting the landscaping will more than likely change with any further project changes.
Board member Michael DeFrancesco asked if solar was a consideration? Ms. Titus stated that solar has been removed from the project.
Board member Donna Di Donato asked about the hydrants on Rt. 2 and noted that they are in North Kingstown, that Exeter does not have a public water supply. She asked what was being addressed with the cisterns that the fire department has recommended? Ms. Titus noted that they have not worked out exterior fire. That North Kingstown has already agreed to a connection to their system for small domestic use on the property. That they will continue to explore their options when it comes to fire safety. Fire Chief Scott Gavitt, Exeter #1, stated he is unaware of any agreement with North Kingstown and RI Grows.
Doug McLean, AICP, 2 Carriage Trail, Barrington, RI, Town Planner, Coventry, RI. He stepped forward to give background on Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA). Mr. McLean’s narrative gave a project overview; facility operations; zoning compliance and comprehensive plan. Mr. McLean’s project narrative was provided in support of Rhode Island Grows’ Development Plan Review Application for a Greenhouse—Tier III Controlled Environment Agricultural (CEA) Facility to be located at 1 Arnold Place, Exeter, (Mr. McLean’s complete report is included with RI Grows application).
In his report he noted that the proposed greenhouse is in full compliance with the “Minimum Design Standards” section contained within the Exeter zoning code. That the proposed greenhouse meets all of the standards (noted within his report). Notably, the applicant has submitted a lighting plan and a report from Sage Environmental, Inc., demonstrating compliance with town lighting standards, the applicant has sited the building/parking are 150’ back from the front of the combined property, front is preserved as open field, and separation from abutting residential uses is accomplished with the current layout.
In Mr. McLean’s final statement, he indicated that based on his review of the immediate DPR application materials and comparing it to the town’s comprehensive plan, it was his professional opinion that the proposed greenhouse is consistent with the plan, including its goals and policies statements, the implementation program, and all other applicable elements of the Town of Exeter’s Comprehensive Plan.
Attorney Kelly asked Mr. McLean about the applicant’s request that the lot mergers be a final condition of approval. Mr. McLean stated that it was not unusual, that it is a fairly standard practice, once the project has been deemed to have met the successful elements, the lot merger would be a component that would complete the project at the end of the process.
Chairman Millar noted that they had received volumes of information pertaining to this project and asked that the next presenters be as brief as possible, recognizing that there was another applicant waiting to be heard.
Mr. Kelly then recognized Rick Mandile, Principal and Lacy Reyna, MS, of Sage Environmental, Inc. Mr. Mandile indicated that their report shows the evaluation conducted by SAGE Environmental, Inc., (SAGE), of the environmental impacts as it relates to noise, light, and air emissions from the proposed RI Grows greenhouse operation at the referenced property. Using industry standards, they determined that there will be no objectional light, noise, or air pollution issues with the proposed plans. Once the facility is built all three of those media will be evaluated post-construction to confirm that they are compliant with noise, light and air issues.
Chairman Millar noted that he agrees with all of the Planner’s recommendations. (See Planner DePasquale’s memorandum: Schartner – Greenhouse Tier III/CEA Facility with the following is a 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; Dated: January 17, 2024.) and asked if there were any additional recommendations from the Board members. William Haas asked about side setbacks, and what that amount is? The Planner indicated that the side yard is 60 feet in an RU-3 zone.
The Planner’s complete list of recommendations can be found in his January 17, 2024 memo Pages 17—26.
Chairman Millar indicated that they will do their due diligence and allow time for a third-party review. He wanted to restate that this application is under the old development plan review (DPR) that does not establish any time clock.
Mr. Kelly asked that the Board’s process consider a reasonable time in responding to the applicant’s request.
Chairman Millar noted that the next meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2024.
A. Map Change Request: Asa Davis, Applicant and Owner, property located at 0 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI; and 0 Estate Drive, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 36, Block 2, Lot 2; a request to the planning board to amend Definitive Plan 4 (Sheet 6) of Map 273 in accordance with Exeter Town Ordinance Appendix B Land development subdivision regulations (LDSR) Section 9.8.B. The request is to update the plan to show the applicant's existing driveway/access starting from the end of the Estate Drive cul-de-sac pavement edge and extending to lot Assessor’s Plat 36, Block 2, Lot 2.
At this time, Chairman Millar introduced this request and then turned it over to William J. DePasquale, Jr., AICP, Town Planner, for his review. Planner DePasquale went over his memorandum: Request for Map Change – Estate Drive; Plat 36 Block 2 Lot 2; Applicant: Mr. Asa Davis, 146 Beechwood Hill Trail, Exeter, RI; Dated: January 8, 2024.
He stated that the applicant had submitted a request to the Planning Board to amend Definitive Plan 4 of Map 273 in accordance with Exeter Town Ordinance Appendix B LDSR Section 9.8.B. The request was to update the Plan to show the applicant’s existing driveway/access starting from the end of the Estate Drive cul-de-sac pavement edge and extending to Lot AP36-B2-L2. The Planner then revisited with the Board, Sec. 9.8 – Changes to recorded plats and plans.
The Planner noted that many elements of this request were initiated before his employment and have a complex history. He went on to state his understanding of the town’s position through court documents regarding the paper street that extends from the terminus of the Estate Drive
cul-de-sac pavement edge to Lot AP36-B2-L2. He stated that the town contends that the paper street that extends from the terminus of the Estate Drive cul-de-sac pavement edge to Lot AP36-B2-L2 was dedicated by the developer of the subdivision to the town so that Estate Drive could be extended past the cul-de-sac in the event that Lot AP36-B2-L2 was developed in the future.
Mr. DePasquale noted that the Planning Board is being asked to consider a map amendment that would show the pre-existing driveway/access from the end of the Estate Drive cul-de-sac pavement edge to lot AP36-B2-L2.
Chairman Millar acknowledged that Mr. Davis had submitted in writing, a very comprehensive narrative that thoroughly explained what Mr. Davis was looking for. The Chair then asked Mr. Davis, in the interest of time, did he have any additional information that he would like to add.
Mr. Asa Davis stepped forward and asked for a correction—on the Diagram—that sheet 6 is actually sheet 8. He stated that he has some additions to add to the record, and handed the Clerk a stack of information that he requested be part of the official record.
It was noted that in Mr. Davis’s application narrative he listed, and included 24 attachments. The night of the January 23, 2024 Planning Board Meeting, Mr. Davis added an additional 16 topics of information, numbered as submitted below:
25. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 22, 2001 (Approved November 26, 2001)
26. State of Rhode Island, Washington, Superior Court, Asa S. Davis, III VS. Town of
Exeter, Martina E. Baligian a/k/a Martina E. McKenna, or her Successor, Trustee of
the Living Trust Agreement of Martina E. Baligian-1966, as the same amended,
Mark R. Iannuccilli and Rosemary J. Iannuccilli; C.A. NO. WC-2019-0228.
27. Plotting Sheet (41O 34’N 71 O 34’W)
28. Out-Back Storage Invoice, Invoice#: 29486; Invoice Date: 12/27/2018
29. 15681 Ten Rod Road Map
30. American Engineering, Inc., Feasibility Study for Marcello/Davis Project
No 31 noted.
32. Robidoux VS Pelletier Map
No 33 noted.
34. Town of Exeter, RI showing Ten Rod Road, Trails, Brown Homesite, DeFrancesco
& Other properties.
No 35 noted.
36. Prior Use of Estate Drive – Eagle Scout Project (2009)
37. List of individuals (Name/Group, Company, Last Known Address, etc.
38. Photos of 2010 Logging
39. Prior use of Estate Drive – DuTemple Meadows Master Plan (2009)
No 40, No 41 noted.
42. Fire photos with content
43. Aerial from 2004
44. Exeter Examples
No 45 noted.
46. Dowell Engineering, Inc., Job #2096, 3/30/16
Mr. Davis referenced a list of definitions explaining Road vs. Roadway. He then went on to justify his request to amend Definitive Plan 4 of Map 273.
Chairman Millar asked Solicitor Sypole if the Planning Board had the authority to grant Mr. Davis’s request to update the plan to show Mr. Davis’s existing private driveway? Solicitor Sypole indicated that the Planning Board did not have the authority to give him any private control or ownership over that land.
Chairman Millar rephrased the question to the solicitor—"Does the Planning Board have the authority to change the map to show Mr. Davis’s driveway?” Solicitor Sypole referred to Sec. 9.8 of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Sypole suggested that what Mr. Davis was asking the Planning Board to recognize, was something the court had already made a determination about, and that the Planning Board could not undue a Superior Court decision. That the Superior Court had already indicated what the status of this road was. The solicitor then read from the court decision. “At best, the property south of the cul-de-sac is a paper street, not a public road, and thus may be certified as a public road pursuant to town standards, or abandoned, should the town elect to do so.” Solicitor Sypole noted that the town had not elected to do either of those things, since the decision was handed down by the Superior Court. He remarked that a pathway had been cleared through the woods, without the town’s permission, back in 2018, and his understanding is that Mr. Davis is asking for the Board’s seal of approval on his request and that the Board does not have the authority to do so.
Mr. Davis insisted that there are additional counterpoints to Solicitor Sypole’s judgement.
He went on to make his points known to the Board. Mr. Davis implied that Superior Court Judge Taft-Carter, offered four potential administrative remedies. Mr. Davis indicated that he had already tried two out of the four and that tonight he was offering the suggested third possibility. He then indicated that the fourth would be asking for an official map change. But that the only official map change he could make would be to shorten the road. He stated that if he were to proceed, it would put the town in an uncomfortable position, because they would need to take away frontage from the abutters.
Solicitor Sypole noted that when they referenced 9.8 in the memo and court decision, the entire case was about whether it was a public road, and had nothing to do with a private driveway.
Chairman Millar made a motion to deny Mr. Davis’s request to update the plan to show his existing private driveway, because the Planning Board has been advised by the Town Solicitor that they do not have the authority to do so. Board member Haas seconded the motion. Discussion. A Roll Call vote was taken: (Scott Millar, yea; Bill Haas, yea; Gina Thurn, nay; Joe St. Lawrence, nay; Donna Donato, yea. (3-2) the motion to deny passed.
Board member Gina Thurn asked how Mr. Davis could obtain access to his property legally? Mr. Sypole indicated yes, he would need to build a public road, created to town standards, if it were to be used to service a new development. Ms. Thurn suggested finding a way to facilitate the needs of Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis wanted the record to reflect that he was not allowed to finish his comments. Solicitor Sypole recommended making a petition to the Town Council to build a road to the appropriate town standards.
A. Zoning Board of Review: No applications for the February 8, 2024 meeting.
B. Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 12, 2023 (The minutes will be reviewed at the next Planning Board Meeting).
C. Planner’s Report: Discussion regarding changes to Planning Office (Due to the length of the meeting, no discussion on this topic took place).
D. Future Meeting: Work Session on February 13, 2024
Motion to adjourn made by Bill Haas, seconded by Scott Millar; voted all in favor.
MOTION PASSED. The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Lukowicz
M. Dixie Foisy
Planning Board Clerk