Town of Exeter, Rhode Island
PLANNING BOARD
675 Ten Rod Road
Exeter, R.I. 02822
401-294-2612
401-294-2592
Meeting Minutes
October 22, 2024
Minutes Approved: November 12, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
Members present: Gina Thurn, William Haas, Joe St. Lawrence, Robert Corriea, Michael Viveiros and Donna Di Donato
Members Absent: Michael DeFrancesco
Staff present: Solicitor Stephen Sypole, William DePasquale, Planner, and Dixie Foisy, Clerk
Prior to the start of the meeting, Solicitor Sypole swore in Michael Viveiros as an alternate Planning Board
member.
Acting Vice Chair Gina Thurn called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m.
None
A. Continued Discussion and/or Possible Action: Draft Changes to the Zoning Use Table, Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Sections 1.2 and 2.4 – Including Consideration of Final Recommendation to Town Council Regarding Short-term Rental Use and Related Definitions.
Vice Chair Gina Thurn introduced this item and turned the discussion over to Town Planner William DePasquale, Jr., AICP. The Planner referenced his 22-Page Planning Memorandum entitled: PB Meeting, October 22, 2024 – Recommendation – STR Zoning Ordinance Amendment; Draft Changes to the Zoning Use Table, Exeter Zoning Ordinance (EZO) Article 11, Sections 1.2 and 2.4 – Including Consideration of Final Recommendation to Town Council Regarding Short-Term Rental Use and Related Definitions; Dated: October 16, 2024. (Planning Board members each received a copy of the Planner’s 22-page Planning Memorandum, Dated: October 16, 2024).
From his Planning Memorandum Mr. DePasquale read the following:
As a follow up to the workshop meeting held on October 8, 2024, the Planning Board voted 5-0 in favor (Motion was made by member Robert Corriea and seconded by William Haas, with all members—M. DeFrancesco, G. Thurn, W. Haas, J. St. Lawarence, R. Corriea voting in favor) of recommending to the Exeter Town Council the approval of an ordinance to amend the Exeter Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would add an actual use code for “Short-Term Rentals” (STR) to Section 2.4 of the Zoning Use Table, with Short-Term Rentals being prohibited in all zoning districts.
The Planner stated in his memorandum that the draft outlined specific changes to EZO Article II, Section 2.4 – Use Table approved by the Board on October 8th, 2024 meeting with additional related modifications to EZO Section 1.2 – Definitions.
Stating that upon consultation with the Town’s zoning consultant, Libra Planners, and subsequent comprehensive analysis of the prevailing state laws and unresolved issues pertaining to the utilization of short-term rentals within the community, and in consideration of the policies and objectives delineated in the Town Council-approved Comprehensive Plan, “Exeter 2044,” it has been ascertained that there exist significant uncertainties regarding the regulation of these rentals and their potential ramifications on the town’s groundwater and surface waters. Thus, establishing regulations that protect these crucial natural resources is essential. That without clear guidance, it is impossible to determine whether allowing short-term rentals in Exeter is appropriate.
The Planner concluded that after careful review, it was clear that there is substantial, credible, and well-documented evidence to support the formulation of the findings, facts, and affirmative determinations (Outlined in the Planner’s October 16, 2024 Memorandum) in line with Exeter Zoning Ordinance Appendix A 5.C. “Adoption: planning board recommendation.” He noted that the Comprehensive Plan 2044 vision was to strive to maintain the sanctity of our residential areas as Exeter moves into the future. That the plan covered what these residentially zoned areas should be and how land use is really important to protect the natural, cultural and economic opportunities in Exeter.
Acting Chair Gina Thurn asked Solicitor Sypole if he had any additional comments to add? Solicitor Sypole indicated that he felt Assistant Town Solicitor Kenneth J. Sylvia had informed the Board about what was presently going on with the courts. That the courts are saying this is a Statewide issue and only the State can regulate this use and the State has no regulations. Sypole indicated that you can say it is permitted but to place any guardrails on the use is nonexistent, however, you can say it is prohibited, those are the only options.
The Town Planner suggested that the Board should make another motion to include the entirety of the Planner’s twenty-two-page memorandum entitled: PB Meeting, October 22, 2024 – Recommendation – STR Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Draft Changes to the Zoning Use Table, Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Sections 1.2 and 2.4 – Including consideration of final recommendation to Town Council regarding Short-Term Rental use and related definitions, dated October 16, 2024.
Board member Robert Corriea made a motion to recommend to the Exeter Town Council that they prohibit short-term rentals based on the facts and findings in Town Planner William DePasquale’s memorandum dated October 16, 2024 and to amend the zoning ordinance as subscribed. Joe St. Lawrence seconded the motion; all in favor (5-0). Donna Di Donato suggested to amend the motion to include the date of the Town Planners memorandum, October 16, 2024, for the meeting of October 22, 2024. Joe St. Lawrence seconded the motion. A vote was taken with all in favor, 5-0. (G. Thurn, W. Haas, J. St. Lawrence, R. Corriea, D. Di Donato).
B. Recommendation to the Town Council: Matthew J. Richardson and Kara N. Richardson, Applicants and Owners of Tilted Barn Brewery, property located at 1 Hemsley Place, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-3 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 39, Block 1, Lot 1; a request for a proposed amendment to Appendix A of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance Section 1.2.35—Definitions; and Section 2.4 – Zoning Use Table to allow a Farm Café within a Farm Brewery.
Acting Chair Gina Thurn recused herself from this proposal based on her occupation as an active farmer in the Town of Exeter. She turned the meeting over to Secretary William Haas, and as pro tem Chair Mr. Haas, introduced this agenda item and asked Town Planner William DePasquale to review his findings on this topic. The Planner reminded the Board of his concern for this food service café becoming a slippery slope on ordinances that affect an individual but becomes applicable to everyone. He felt guardrails will be required to meet the objective to support local farmers and that enforcement will be difficult.
In the Planner’s memorandum entitled: Farm Brewery – Farm Café Section 1.2 and 2.4; Proposed Change to the Zoning Code; Dated: September 18, 2024; the Planner reviewed the proposal to add a food service (café) kitchen at a Farm Brewery. The proposal aims to get approval for menu options or meal services and to install a kitchen facility for a fully functional café within the brewery premises. (Planning Board members each received a copy of the Planner’s 22-page Planning Memorandum, Dated: September 18, 2024).
The Planner felt it was vital to understand the intent of a Farm Brewery. That Section 1.2 defines a farm brewery as supporting the operation of farms and does not intend to be a primary use. The zoning ordinance designates specific area for restaurants and taverns within commercial districts to ensure parking and land use compatibility.
Noting that: The term “Farm Brewery” and its allowance in residential districts, as outlined in Section 2.4, was meant to support farming operations and was not intended to use as the primary location for taverns or restaurants, which are not permitted in residential areas.
Planner DePasquale stated that careful consideration must be given to changing the Town’s zoning ordinance to allow food to be dispensed in Farm Breweries.
In his memorandum the Planner reviewed the two alternatives. First, adding the food service to the farm brewery definition, which would limit cafes in a farm brewery. Alternatively, to add a café use code that could potentially allow small farms to operate cafes in the future. The Planner felt in the interest of equity and to provide income diversity to all our farms, he chose the latter. After which he reviewed both current and proposed changes to the Town’s ordinance.
Current Section 1.2 35. Farm brewery. A brewery that is located on a farm of no less than five acres and that produces beer which is manufactured with at least one primary ingredient (hops or grain) grown on the farm and whose annual production does not exceed 150,000 gallons of beer, and where customers would have the opportunity to tour the farm and try small samples (three ounces or less), and purchase bottles (of up to 64 ounces each) to take home and consume off site. A farm brewery may also sell beer at wholesale to retailers with the appropriate State license. A farm brewery must have the appropriate Sate license to operate a brewery.
Proposed Section 1.2 35. Farm brewery. A brewery that is located on a farm of no less than five acres and that produces beer which is manufactured with at least one primary ingredient (hops or grain) grown on the farm and whose annual production does not exceed 150,000 gallons of beer, and is in accordance with RI General Laws Section 3-6-1.where customers would have the opportunity to tour the farm and try small samples (three ounces or less), and purchase bottles (of up to 64 ounces each) to take home and consume off site. A farm brewery may also sell beer at wholesale to retailers with the appropriate State license. A farm brewery must have the appropriate Sate license to operate a brewery. A Farm brewery is allowed to have a Farm Café as specified in Section 2.4 of the Zoning Use Table.
Proposed Section 1.2 36. Farm Café. A type of farm-based retail engaged in the sale of food and beverages to order, prepared, and consumed on a farm and which operates as an accessory use subordinate to the farm operation. The State of Rhode Island Department of Health shall license the on-site kitchen facilities to prepare food for consumption on the premises. The kitchen servicing the café is restricted to occupying no more than 25 percent of the total gross floor area of the building housing the café, with no kitchen area exceeding 800 square feet in area. Food services authorized under this section shall be strictly “limited service” with no takeout where guests seat themselves after ordering and pay before eating. The Farm café must also prominently display locally sourced ingredients on its menu. At least 50 percent of the menu ingredients must originate from local farms, and in the event of unavailability, sourcing from farms within a 50-mile radius of the kitchen is permissible. The café must provide the Town with an annual report outlining the locally sourced ingredients procured within the calendar year.
The Use Code being proposed for 60A. Farm Breweries allowed only in RU-3, RU-4, CR-5 and GWOL.
The Use Code being proposed for 60B. Farm Café would be allowed in RU-3 (15), RU-4 (15) and CR-5 (15)
Notes: (15) shall be considered a Minor Land Development Project that is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board at a public meeting(s).
Pro tem Chair William Haas asked the applicant Matt Richardson for his input.
Mr. Richardson stated that he doesn’t have many issues at all with the proposed rules and regulations for their proposed Farm Café. He noted that they have been in business for the past 10 years and have adhered to all the previous guidelines set forth for them to follow. He did note that the farm brewery definition does have some limitations and the Board should be mindful of where they can be. He felt there were some limitations, radius wise, as to the use of locally sourced ingredients and suggested taking a look at the 50-mile limitation. Mr. Richardson did feel the kitchen size of 800 square feet maximum was more than generous.
Matt Richardson stated that they had anticipated having a separate outdoor pavilion next to the brewery so that they would be able to have a winterized kitchen for year-round service and then have a small seating area within that space. He voiced concern with the size of the kitchen relative to the size of the building, and wished they did not have to abide by the percentage of the building.
Mr. Richardson felt that the Farm Brewery definition should simply follow what is currently written in the Rhode Island General Laws 3-6-1; he feels this makes the most sense.
Discussion centered around the required licensing for the brewery café. Matt Richardson explained that they would be required to have Class B license and that they currently have a manufacturer’s license allowing them to make and sell beer out of their brewery.
Mr. Corriea asked what other similar breweries had they looked at? The applicant indicated that they had reviewed the ordinance in Gloucester, Massachusetts; the Stone Cow in Massachusetts; and a similar establishment in Maine.
Pro tem Chair Haas asked the Planner what defines a kitchen. What is the definition of a kitchen?
The Planner felt that would require investigation. Solicitor Sypole felt that the Building Code would most likely have a definition. Michael Viveiros suggested that a kitchen would include all the associated components of food preparation, such as a work station, dishwashing, preparation, cold storage, etc.
Discussion ensued around parking limitations and alternatives to the kitchen size of the facility. The Planner asked Mr. Richardson what the total square footage of their building is currently. Matt Richardson said its about 8,000 square feet, which most of this is the productions space. Mr. DePasquale stated that 25% of that is 2,000 sq.ft. It was then noted that the Tap Room is about 1,800 sq.ft. They discussed maybe between 450-600 square feet for the size of the kitchen with the building would be proportionate.
An additional discussion ensued around Tilted Barn holding the Farmers Market during the summer season and whether to allow outside vendors/food trucks serving food. Michael Viveiros suggested maybe they could have both but not at the same time. Solicitor Sypole stated that this sounds more like a condition on their business license, than a zoning issue. Then the Solicitor also suggested they could go before the Town Council to request an Entertainment License for a special event. Planner DePasquale added that this would necessitate a change to the definition of a farm brewery and would have to change the original legislation to include that they obtain a special use permit that contains criteria and performance standards, stating they can only be allowed on an arterial roadway. Further discussion ensued on how to regulate this.
Bill DePasquale stated that he put “farm café” but said you could tie it just to the definition of what a farm brewery is, and then you are only limited to the 5-acres and everything else, just to be cautious. He referenced the Comp Plan and the need to be cautious because of possible conflicts. The Board has to consider – almost two options: you can only have a farm café in a farm brewery that has defined what a farm brewery is; or you can have a farm café anywhere; or somewhere in between – a farm café could be a special use permit in certain areas if they have the criteria that Michael Viveiros mentioned earlier. Individual uses relative to individual properties-that would have to come through the special use permit criteria and the criteria would have to be equal to all. This would be a total overhaul of this because currently farm breweries are allowed in RU-3, RU-4 and CR-5, by-right.
Solicitor Sypole agreed that the special use permit would probably be the best way, with the specific and objective criteria. The Planner stated except that we have a brewery that is a Yes in the Zoning Use Table – and the applicant is the only one doing this. This will involve addressing the special use criteria such as parking, etc. and with the new legislation we have to be very specific on these criteria. The Planner also noted we would essentially be going backwards and making this a pre-existing, non-conforming.
Acting Chair, William Haas reiterated that we are dealing with a farm café here and thinks if we take the percentage out, and make the square footage 600 rather than 800 (for the kitchen) we should be all set. Further discussion ensued around specifications for only being allowed on an arterial road, limited service with no take, no seating, payment process, etc.
The Planner asked Solicitor Sypole to give him some language in accordance with RI General Laws, Section 3.6. noting licensing information. Solicitor Sypole stated that it must be properly licensed by the DBR.
Some final thoughts included: 35% maximum; 600 sq. feet; RI farms first or then within a 125 miles radius; farm café’s ok everywhere; properly licensed by the Department of Business Regulation; and the definition of a “kitchen.”
Discussion continued with no final decisions being made and the need to bring this topic back for discussion at the Board’s next Work Session on November 12, 2024 at which time Planner DePasquale will offer a revised ordinance, based on today’s discussions, for the Board’s review.
A. Request to add a “Supplementary Driveway Drawing” into the Map 273 Plan set, as recorded with the Town Clerk in accordance with Section 9.6.B of the Land Development Regulations entitled “Changes to recorded plats and plans:” 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 add a “Supplementary Driveway Drawing” to the Map 273 Plan set, as recorded with the Town Clerk, in accordance with Section 9.6.B of the Land Development Regulations entitled “Changes to recorded plats and plans.”
Let it be noted for the record, that Mr. Asa Davis was in attendance for his presentation along with his attorney, John Mancini.
Acting Chair Gina Thurn introduced this next application and then asked Town Planner William DePasquale to review his memo: Supplemental Map; Sec. 9.6. – Changes to recorded plats and plans. – Estate Drive; Plat 36 Block 2 Lot 2; Dated: October 15, 2024.
(Planning Board members each received a copy of the Planner’s 6-page Planning Memorandum, Dated: October 15, 2024).
The Planner then stated the applicant has submitted a request to the Town Planner as Planning Board Administrative Officer to add the attached sheet to the Map 273 plan set, pursuant to subdivision regulation 9.6.B (Changes to recorded plats and plans), to reflect driveways, as the applicant states were originally required by Town Subdivision Design Standard 7.2.B.8 when the plat was recorded in 1995.
The Planner, as Administrative Officer, stated that he has examined the regulations, definitions, and statutes that apply to the applicant’s request and with the outmost respect for the authority granted to him as the Administrative Officer, by the public, he requested that the Planning Board thoroughly evaluate and provide their advice on this request.
Acting Chair Thurn asked Mr. Asa Davis for his input on his application request. Mr. Davis wanted the record to show that the Exeter Land Development Regulations, Sec. 9.6.B. Changes to recorded plats and plan, as stated in the Planner’s memorandum, states that the Administrative Officer shall have the authority to approve minor changes to a recorded plat. Minor changes shall include, but are not limited to, changes equivalent to an administrative subdivision. That his understanding was that the Administrative Officer has the authority to handle changes that do not meet the definition of an administrative subdivision.
Mr. Davis noted that his request was not made to the Planning Board, but to Mr. DePasquale as the Planning Board officer in accordance with the Town’s ordinance. Mr. Davis felt that the Planner was asking the Board to confirm his authority, or not, when it comes to his request to add a, “Supplementary Driveway Drawing” into the Map 273 Plan set, as recorded with the Town Clerk in accordance with Section 9.6.B of the Land Development Regulations entitled “changes to recorded plats and plans.”
Mr. Davis went on to say, that if in fact, Mr. DePasquale does not have that authority then he (Mr. Davis) would come back to the Planning Board for a minor change, but that he didn’t feel it would be considered a major change, because there are no lot line changes, no new lots, no new roads. He then reviewed several exhibits (16) with the Board.
He continued to explain his position using past maps, memorandums and plans and read from a prepared statement. (Mr. Davis did not provide the Clerk with his prepared statement).
Board member Joe St. Lawrence stated that all applicants are required to submit any and all documentation ten days prior to meetings, as voted on by the Board. Mr. Davis indicated that his attachments had been supplied with his application to the Town Planner.
Acting Chair Thurn asked Solicitor Sypole if the Planner has the authority to make this requested change. Solicitor Sypole stated that the application, in front of him, had a lot of question marks on it from the applicant, and that the plan was not made by a surveyor or engineer and it says that the land is his driveway and it is not his driveway.
Ms. Thurn asked about the current legal status of the injunction, asking if anything had changed. Solicitor Sypole stated that the injunction was still in full force and effect. That the status of the land is in a Supreme Court Decision: Supreme Court of Rhode Island, December 1, 2022, decided; December 1, 2022, Opinion Filed; No. 2021-81-Appeal. (This was a case in which Mr. Davis asked the Court to declare that the land was a public road, which he now says is his driveway.) In 2022 the Supreme Court wrote, “In the case at bar, plaintiff has failed to even apply for the necessary permits that would allow him to excavate the undeveloped property between the cul-de-sac and his property line. At best, the property south of the cul-de-sac is a paper street, not a public road pursuant to town standards, or abandoned, should the town elect to do so.
Solicitor Sypole went on to say that it is the town’s property, it has always been the town’s property, the clearing of the trees was trespassing, this property is not his driveway, it has never been his driveway. It is the town’s land and he has never had permission to do anything there.
Solicitor Sypole indicated that the Supreme Court decision is clear, the land is the town’s land. If the town decided to give Mr. Davis permission to make a public road, then he could make it a public road, those were the options the court gave us (Town of Exeter).
When the Board was asked if under 9.6 -- Changes to recorded plats and plans, does the administrative officer have the authority to approve minor changes to a recorded plat. The Board answered no.
Vice Chair Gina Thurn entertained a motion to dismiss the request for the Administrative Officer to make the requested change to recorded plats and plans. William Haas made the motion, seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. A vote was taken and was all in favor, 5-0. The motion passed (Gina Thurn, William Haas, Joe St. Lawrence, Robert Corriea, Donna Di Donato).
A. Zoning Board of Review: Next meeting on Thursday, November 14, 2024 to hear one application for a dimensional variance.
B. Future Meeting: Work Session on Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. The following items were discussed for the agenda: Planning Board Rules of Procedure, Farm Café, and discussion for “Fire Department Training Session.”
Motion to adjourn made by Bill Haas, seconded by Michael Viveiros; voted all in favor.
Motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Lukowicz and
M. Dixie Foisy