I.                    CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AT THE PROJECT SITE:

Present: Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Joseph St. Lawrence, Robert Corriea, Michael Viveiros and Donna DiDonato. Absent: Gina Thurn

                  A.  OLD BUSINESS: SITE VISIT – MASTER PLAN, MAJOR LAND

DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING

Chairman DeFrancesco opened the meeting at 5:30 P.M. at the site location of 495 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, RI. The Chair noted that the site visit is part of the Board’s due diligence in order to proceed to the next step in the process. The Chair also asked for the spokesperson to conduct the tour of the site. At which time Attorney Elizabeth Noonan (Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, P.C.), for Copart, stepped forward an introduced herself and other members of the team: Timothy Behan, Commonwealth Engineering; Patrick Coyne, AP&S; John Carter, Landscape Architect; Joe Lombardo, Planner; Thomas Smith, Copart; Joshua Gaudette, General Manager Copart and Matt McGeary, Copart.

Tim Behan, Commonwealth Engineering, reviewed the site drawings with those present. He noted about a 16 percent expansion of the vehicle storage area. The group viewed what’s to be from the deck of the current building. Questions were asked about the draining of fluids from the vehicles. Copart spokesperson noted that about half of the cars are drained before they arrive on the property, but that they do have protocols in place if there is a need to drain fluids.

Walking to the rear of the property Board member William Haas asked if they were clearing from fence to fence. The answer was yes. Donna Di Donato asked if Industrial Drive would be the only access into the property. Copart reps replied yes. The Planner suggested that the Fire Marshall may be requiring a second egress. Fire access is still a concern.

Planner DePasquale reviewed with the group that the concept of the Special Use permit is to review the actual Use itself. The design in general, in consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, would be the Master Plan after a Special Use permit, if it is granted with conditions, followed by the Preliminary which would cover the design, access and other concerns the Board may have with regards to the project.    

Board member Michael Viveiros questioned the views and what can be seen from different vantage points. He noted that at the Board’s last meeting Copart had assured the Board that the vehicles would not be able to be seen and noted it is very clear that that is not the case. He pointed out how important this particular zone is to the Board and the future planning of the area. The Planner took note of the lack of care and maintenance and stated that this has become an issue on the property.

The group moved on to the northern property line for inspection. The Planner asked if the steel building, when it comes down, would/could it be donated and the engineer indicated the standard practice would be demolition. The Chairman acknowledged that there were no comments or questions from Board members.

John Carter, Landscape Architect, was recognized and pointed out the large white pines (evergreens), a variety of arborvitaes, which are fast growing (2-3 feet in a year), deer resident, indicating that this is the plant he is proposing to use in the plantings along Rt. 3, requiring little care.

Viewing the property on Nooseneck Hill Road. Board member Michael Viveiros again pointed out what is being seen as you pass by the property and that what you see is a sea of vehicles. Copart representative shared that what had been planted previously, without the guidance of a landscape architect, was a failure on their part and that they will work to correct the situation as they move forward.

                  B.  ADJOURN SITE VISIT: RECONVENE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2025 AT

7:00 P.M. AT THE TOWN HALL-CLERK’S OFFICE, LOCATED AT 675 TEN ROD ROAD, EXETER, RI

At 6:08 P.M. William Haas made a motion to adjourn the site visit at 495 Nooseneck Hill Road, Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence, All in favor. The motion passed. (Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Joseph St. Lawrence, Robert Corriea, Michael Viveiros and Donna DiDonato).

Chair DeFrancesco adjourned the group and reconfirmed that they would reconvene at the Exeter Town Hall for 7 P.M.

II.                 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AT TOWN HALL:

Present: Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Joseph St. Lawrence, Robert Corriea, Michael Viveiros and Donna DiDonato. Solicitor Stephen Sypole and Town Planner William DePasquale. Absent: Gina Thurn

III.              OLD BUSINESS – PUBLIC HEARING:

A.  Unified Development Review, Special Use Permit and Major Land Development: Copart of Connecticut, Inc., Applicant and Owner of property located at 495 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned LI and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 46, Block 1, Lot 4; for a special use permit Exeter Zoning Ordinance 2.4.1. (52) “New and used automobile dealerships” and Major Land Development with administrative merger reviewed under the Unified Development procedure, the applicant is proposing to remove the existing structures on the property identified as Assessor’s Plat 46, Block 1, Lot 4, located at 495 Nooseneck Hill Road in Exeter, RI. The site is being redeveloped to expand vehicle storage and staging operations for the abutting Copart of Connecticut, Inc., use which is located on Assessor’s Plat 33, Block 1, Lot 4 with no new buildings being proposed the major land development including the merger of Assessor’s Plat 46, Block 1, Lot 4 with Assessor’s Plat 33, Block 1, Lot 4 to unify the use under one lot. 

Chairman DeFrancesco asked for a motion to Open the Public Hearing. William Haas made the motion, Seconded by Joseph St. Lawrence, All in Favor (5-0) the Public Hearing was opened.

(Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Joseph St. Lawrence, Robert Corriea and Michael Viveiros).

Chairman DeFrancesco asked Town Planner William DePasquale to go through his Planning Memorandum Dated: April 15, 2025; Project: Copart of Connecticut, Inc., 495 Nooseneck Hill Road; AP 46-1-4: Public Hearing Combined MLDP Masterplan/Site Visit and Unified Development Review for a Special Use Permit.

The Planner explained that the planning memorandum was broken out into three separate sections: the Project and Analysis – Brief; Master Plan – analysis findings and recommendations; and Unified Special Use permit – analysis findings and recommendations.

He indicated that in this portion of the meeting they would be covering the Project Analysis and the Unified Special Use permit. The Planner then reviewed the following Project Overview: The subject property covers 5.22 acres and is zoned for Light Industrial use, also identified as Assessor’s Plat 46, Block 1, Lot 4, and owned by QQ Estate, LLC.

It currently includes a residential dwelling and “All Are Welcome Pet Boarding," a facility offering dog and cat boarding, grooming, a training building, a kennel with fenced outdoor run areas, concrete sidewalks, and an asphalt driveway for access and parking.

The Planner noted that the applicant intends to demolish the current structures on the site and convert it into a permeable gravel lot equipped with a stormwater detention system. This development will expand the existing Copart of Connecticut, Inc., vehicle storage and staging operations located on the adjacent Assessor's Plat 33, Block 1, Lot 4. No new construction is planned as part of this proposal.

Planner DePasquale indicated that the Copart property is in a Light Industrial district, (LI) and that the purpose of the LI zone is to provide areas for future development. That areas so designated are considered to be geographically and topographically suitable for the future economic growth of the community. That the proposed use as an auto auction most closely meets the used automobile actual use code under the following category: in a Light Industrial district allowed by Special Use permit.

He continued: A Special Use is “A conditionally permitted use that may be established with a special use permit issued by the zoning board of review or the planning board. (Page 4 of the Planning Memorandum: 4-15-25).

The Planner in his memorandum noted that under the relatively new state law and local regulations, Section 6.2 of the Land Development Regulations, Unified Development Review is allowed because both a Major Land Development approval and Special Use permit are required for the proposed expansion of the present use.

In consideration of a Special Use permit, EZO Zoning Sec. 1.3 “general provisions” 3C. B. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board competent evidence that the proposed use:

1.  Will be environmentally compatible with the neighboring uses and will not adversely affect the surrounding residents’ use and enjoyment of their property.

2.  Will be constructed or established at a location in the zoning district where it will be consistent with the character and appearance of nearby uses.

3.  Will be compatible with the orderly growth and development of the Town of Exeter, and will not harm the environment.

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 that if the evidence indicates potential for soil erosion or sedimentation, impact on water quality or quantity, inadequate stormwater management, inadequate wastewater disposal, or unsafe traffic or pedestrian circulation, measures will be taken to mitigate or prevent those potential harms.

The Planner then reviewed each of the four criteria.

(Pages 11-14 of the Planning Memorandum: 4-15-25)

Under Unified Findings—Special Use permit (Page 14) the Planner states that under current evaluation, he recommends approval of the Special Use permit (SUP) under designated conditions and identified sufficient credible evidence to support the subsequent factual findings. Findings 1-7. (Pages 14 and 15 of the 4-15-25 Planning Memorandum).

The Planner followed with Conditions – Special Use permit.

(Find detailed conditions on Pages 15-17 of Planning Board Memorandum: 4-15-25)

1.  Contingent upon master plan approval.

2.  Preliminary Application—Subject to preliminary approval from the Planning Board

3.  Additive Conditions: Masterplan, preliminary and final.

4.  Merger.

5.  Stormwater drainage Fund Town’s on-call engineer.

  6.  Life/Fire Safety.

  7.  Contingent Landscape/Screening Fund.

  8.  Landscape/Screening Bond.

  9.  Stormwater Drainage Bond.

10.  Post-construction Inspection and “As Built” plan.

11.  Prohibitions on Outside Storage.

12. Access/Egress.

13.  Lighting.

14. Issuance of a CO (Certificate of Occupancy).

15. Subject to the development Impact fee ($5,289. DIF).

Chairman DeFrancesco thanked the Planner for his extensive reporting and then asked Attorney Elizabeth Noonan (Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, P.C.), representing Copart, to once again introduce herself and the other individuals who will be testifying on behalf of the Copart project: Ms. Noonan introduced Timothy Behan, Civil Engineer, Commonwealth Engineering; John Carter, RLA, Principal of John C. Carter & Co., Landscape Architecture; Joe Lombardo, Planner; and Joshua Gaudette, General Manager Copart.

Attorney Noonan wanted those present to know that all of the conditions listed within the Planner’s memorandum for the Special Use permit have been agreed to by her client. She noted that this is the third time Copart has been in front of the Planning Board for different expansions. The last time was February of 2020. The first piece was for the 14.5 acres where the main building is located, the second time for the expansion in 2020 for just over 9 acres, and the current application for the addition of about 5 acres or so. She acknowledged that the Planning Board is not accustomed to sitting as the Zoning Board, and that this was actually her first time under the Unified application process.

Attorney Noonan did want to point out a few things with regards to the Special Use criteria regarding the recently passed legislation, effective last year, where the towns had to put in very specific criteria for each Special Use permit, under R.I. General Laws 45.24.42 B3. She stated that in this case, the Town of Exeter had not completed that as of yet. She noted, for the record, that R.I. General Laws 45.24.42 C reads as follows: If an ordinance (in this case the Exeter zoning ordinance) does not expressly provide for specific and objective criteria for the issuance of a category of special use permit, such category shall be deemed to be a permitted use. She indicated that legally her perspective is that this is already a permitted use because the Town has failed to adopt the specific standards and they may not be required to go through this exercise. But will proceed.

Attorney Noonan also noted the Gateway Overlay District for Rt. 3 which is in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, but that the plan has not been adopted and put out for public hearing or review, or adopted as part of the Town’s ordinance or planning regulations. She noted that they are mindful of it, but as a matter of law it is not part of the Town’s zoning ordinance. The Chair acknowledged that the Rt. 3 Gateway Overlay District is in Comprehensive Plan as a future objective.

Ms. Noonan indicated that Timothy Behan, Civil Engineer, would detail the plans for the Copart project and offered his resume and asked that it be marked at Exhibit #1. She also noted that all resumes were handed over to the planning clerk. 

Timothy Behan was recognized and sworn in. Mr. Behan stated that he is with the firm Commonwealth Engineers and Consultants, Inc., Providence, RI. A professional engineer for more than 36 years. Mr. Behan then went through the plan set with the Board and those in attendance.

Mr. Behan did note that they had hired a biologist to review the area to make sure they would not be in any wetland jurisdictions and the biologist did not find any wetlands within 200 feet of the proposed site.

Mr. Behan indicated that the sight preparation will include the removal of the structures and existing driveway, and that two drinking water wells and two septic systems will be abandoned. Standard soil erosion controls are proposed and they will be applying to DEM for a RIPDES permit. He noted that they are working with both Susan Hawksley, Fire Marshal, and the Fire Department regarding access.

At the request of the Planning Department a peer review was conducted by Crossman Engineering and Mr. Behan indicated that they have addressed most of their concerns and will continue to resolve any issues. He went on to say that they need to obtain State permits from DEM for soil erosion (RIPDES) and a stormwater permit; and one from DOT for a slight change of use with regards to Nooseneck Hill Road. No new buildings will be installed as well as no new OWTS installations.

Attorney Noonan presented Mr. Carter’s resume and asked that it be marked as Exhibit #2. John Carter, RLA, Principal of John C. Carter & Co., Landscape Architecture, 960 Boston Neck Road, Narragansett, RI, was recognized and sworn in.

Mr. Carter stated that his primary focus with regards to this project would be to focus on visibility. He indicated that the landscape plans show the entire development and the Nooseneck Road frontage. He reviewed with those present the landscaping and fencing that currently exists on the property. He proposed to infill plant, adding additional evergreens in between the existing plantings, which are fast growing (2-3 feet in a year), deer resident, requiring little care. He noted that proper care is always required.

On the southerly side of the new property Mr. Carter pointed out the proposed berm and that they would be planting on top of it with the same plantings and behind a 6’ fence. On the northerly portion of the new parcel, he indicated that it is significantly planted along with a proposed 6’ fence would require no additional plantings. He noted that there is significant landscaping in front of the building and is well managed. Although, there will be in fill plantings in just a few locations.

Solicitor Sypole reminded the Chair that should the meeting adjourn at 9 P.M. that he not close the Public Hearing if they are not going to vote this evening.

Joshua Gaudette, General Manager Copart, was recognized and sworn in. Mr. Gaudette stated that he has been with Copart since 2014 and opened the Exeter location back in 2017. He indicated that the additional land will be used for storage purposes because the business has continued to grow. He noted that currently he has 20 employees, six of those employees live in Exeter. Mr. Gaudette specified that their vehicle auctions are held on Thursdays, with Fridays and Mondays being their busiest traffic days. Otherwise, the traffic is mostly from haulers with 20 trips coming in to the facility on any given day. Attorney Noonan acknowledged that there had been a fire on the property and asked Mr. Gaudette how it was handled. Mr. Gaudette indicated that the fire department was on scene with no access problems and that they had lost 14 vehicles. The fire had ignited due to an electric vehicle on the property.

Attorney Noonan then asked Joseph Lombardo, Planner, Westerly, RI, to step forward and be sworn in and asked that Mr. Lombardo’s resume be marked as Exhibit #3.

Ms. Noonan asked Mr. Lombardo if he was a Planner and he indicated he was certified in his field. That he has been a Planner in the Towns of Richmond, Hopkinton and Westerly, RI and also Groton, CT. Attorney Noonan indicated that Mr. Lombardo has prepared a report which has been submitted and would like the report marked as Exhibit #4. Mr. Lombardo then summarized his report for those in attendance. Ms. Noonan asked Mr. Lombardo if he had access to all of the necessary drawings and materials in order to draw his favorable conclusions. Mr. Lombardo indicated in the affirmative.

Chair DeFrancesco asked if there were any public comments?

Attorney Christopher D’Ovidio stepped forward and stated his client, James Pond Reality, LLC, owns the property directly across the way from the Copart development. In his correspondence to the Planning Board Mr. D’Ovidio stated that the proposed expansion raises serious concerns based on proximity, environmental vulnerability, and inconsistency with Exeter’s Comprehensive plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Land Development Regulations. Mr. D’Ovidio referenced the Town’s Comprehensive plan and how the Town envisioned the future of the Rt. 3 corridor. He felt it was unclear from Mr. Carter as to how they will shield the property from view. He felt there was basis for denying the Special Use permit, specifically that it is not consistent with the Comprehensive plan. He stated that there are standards that the Planning Board has to make as findings of fact, and where there are inconsistencies that the applicant has demonstrated to the Board’s satisfaction have been addressed and mitigated.

Attorney Noonan stated that Copart is not a junk yard as discussed. The Gateway provisions have not been adopted in ordinance. She noted that the Special Use criteria consistency with the Comp Plan is not one of the elements at this stage, it will be for the Master Plan. If there are any environmental concerns, Crossman Engineer can advise the Board of any additional needs to be addressed.

Solicitor Sypole suggested keeping the Public Meeting open for any future questions from the Board of the participants who have testified on behalf of Copart of Connecticut, Inc.

Attorney D’Ovidio wanted to make something very clear whether it be by the zoning ordinance itself or the statute, that a Special Use permit, to grant it, must be consistent (conforms) with the Comprehensive plan? Solicitor Sypole stated that there are four criteria, and that’s not one of them. Mr. D’Ovidio referred to a number 5 which references the Comprehensive plan, after which Solicitor noted that the new RI State laws require that this cannot be part of the SUP criteria. The solicitor then referenced RI general law 45.24.42 which states that in no case shall any specific or objective criteria for a Special Use permit include a determination of consistency with the Comprehensive plan. Followed by Mr. D’Ovidio stating that consistency is no longer a standard under the new law, but conformance is; he then stated that RI Law 44.24.42.B3, that criteria should be in conformance with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive plan. Solicitor Sypole, stated yes, with the criteria.

Attorney Noonan stated that the Town of Exeter has selected four criteria for a SUP which they believe conforms to their Comp plan and so this project is addressing those four special use criteria.

Chairman DeFrancesco asked if the Board had any questions. Michael Viveiros stated that he does not know of another area, that when completed, will be nearly half a mile of auto salvage. He was questioning the intensity of the project being proposed and he doesn’t know of anything else along the corridor that resembles this project. The Chairman asked Mr. Viveiros if there was anything specifically in the Planner’s memorandum that he objects to?  Questions arose around the criteria on the Planner’s memorandum on Page 11. Attorney Noonan noted that stating the criteria alone is not a good decision, but there needs to be a because, which is noted on Page 14 of the Planner’s memorandum. Solicitor Sypole stated that the court will look for findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

Board member Michael Viveiros felt that they had heard from an abutter that this project will adversely impact them. That there are reasons to be concerned about the visual appearance of the property and its impact on the surrounding properties and the property values in general.

Solicitor Sypole asked to keep in mind the argument that Attorney Noonan had started with, which is that the State has changed the law that says you have to have specific and objective criteria. That the Town’s ordinance has not been updated as of yet. That the argument made, by Attorney Noonan that the applicant doesn’t have to actually be here at all because without specific criteria, it is considered a permitted use.

Michael Viveiros asked that when this is reviewed for stormwater, will it be treated as a pervious or impervious surface?  Mr. Behan indicated that it is not a simply designation and requires a number of factors. Mr. Behan went on to explain their determination of the designation and Mr. Viveiros questioned their calculations. Attorney Noonan asked Mr. Behan if they had submitted a stormwater management report? Mr. Behan indicated yes, and that it had been highly reviewed. Mr. Viveiros’ concerns were in regards to water quality in the area.

Board member Robert Corriea was recognized and asked Mr. Gaudette about what percentage of their cars came from insurance company accidents and cars that may come to Copart strictly for auction. Mr. Gaudette stated that a good many come from insurance agencies, donation companies, rental car fleets, etc. Mr. Gaudette stated that they are taking in roughly 250 vehicles a week. He noted that they try to turn everything around within 90 days. He also indicted that they do bi-weekly inspections of the grounds.

Board member William Haas was recognized. Mr. Haas asked about an access road and asked if they could add an additional fire gate that would give the fire department better access to cars in the back of the property. The representatives indicated that they are continuing to work with the fire marshal and the fire department.

Chairman DeFrancesco asked the Board if they are willing to extend the meeting? Solicitor Sypole asked if they get to a vote on the Special Use permit will all the experts be asked to return for the Master plan? Attorney Noonan indicated that yes, her experts will be returning. He noted that the statute states that once you close the public hearing, you have to render a decision within 15 days.

Planner DePasquale felt that you may agree or disagree with elements of his memorandum, but felt it was very clear in facts and how the Town meets the burden. He felt there were some inaccuracies that were brought forth in terms of the future of Rt. 3. It was an initiative to develop its own submaster plan for the future for Rt. 3. That he has placed fifteen heavy stipulations, some addressing screening, noting that this is the third phase of a development, that the majority of the 38-acre site has been approved by the Town in the past, within this light industrial district, and does not have the same baseline as a residential district. He feels that the fifteen, or any additional stipulations that may be added, are significant and may mitigate any potential problems in the area. He acknowledged the baseline condition is a 38-acre Copart facility that was approved by the Town and has existed, without incident, for years. That the addition of five acres is a small portion of the 38-acres in a light industrial district is consistent with the future land use map and zoning. For the record the Chairman agreed with the findings of Mr. DePasquale.

The Chairman made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by William Haas, all in favor, the Public Hearing is closed. (Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Joseph

St. Lawrence, Robert Corriea and Michael Viveiros).

The Chairman entertained a motion to approve the application for a Special Use permit and asked for a second. Seconded by Joseph St. Lawrence.

Discussion:  Michael Viveiros stated that he understands his obligation to follow the ordinance and regulations as presented to him and accordingly he will vote to support this application, but does not think this is a great plan as presented.

The Chairman made a motion to approve the Special Use permit in accordance with the Town Planner’s memorandum: Copart of Connecticut, Inc., 495 Nooseneck Hill Road, AP46-1-4; Combined MLDP Masterplan/Site and Unified Development Review for a Special Use Permit; Dated: April 15, 2025. Specifically including Pages 11 through 17 which includes (VI B. Conditions—Special Use Permit) the fifteen conditions under which the Special Use permit would be issued. Noting that the Number 1 condition is contingent upon approval of the master plan. 

The Chair called for a roll call vote: Michael DeFrancesco, in favor; William Haas, abstained; Joe St. Lawrence, in favor; Robert Corriea, in favor; Michael Viveiros, abstained; The motion carried and a Special Use permit was granted.

Chairman DeFrancesco made a motion to continue this Copart Master Plan—Major Land Development stage at the Planning Board meeting slated for May 27, 2025. Seconded by William Haas, Discussion, hearing none, all in favor, the motion passed.

IV.               ADMINISTRATIVE:

V.                 ADJOURNMENT:

   Motion to adjourn made by Bill Haas, seconded by Joe St. Lawrence; voted all in favor. 

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

   Respectfully submitted,  

   Rebecca Lukowicz