Town of Exeter, Rhode Island
PLANNING BOARD
675 Ten Rod Road
Exeter, R.I. 02822
401-294-2612
401-294-2592
Meeting Minutes
January 28, 2025
Minutes Approved: February 25, 2025
REGULAR MEETING
Members present: Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Joseph St. Lawrence, Robert Corriea,
Donna Di Donato and Michael Viveiros
Members Absent: Gina Thurn
Staff present: Stephen Sypole, Solicitor, William DePasquale, Planner, Dixie Foisy, Clerk
Chair Michael DeFrancesco called the continued Public Hearing to order at 6:00 p.m.
A. Preliminary Minor Subdivision with Street Creation designed as a Conservation Development: 2299 Post Road, LLC Applicant and Owner of property located at 0 Wolf Rock Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RE-2/Business and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 79, Block 2, Lot 5; for a minor subdivision proposing the creation of a new private roadway (cul-de-sac) serving seven lots accommodating seven four-bedroom single-family dwellings, along with one lot designated as “not for development” to support a stormwater management system, designed as a conservation development.
Chairman DeFrancesco introduced this agenda item and noted that this was the continuance of a November 26, 2024 Public Hearing regarding property located at AP 79, B2, L5 on Wolf Rock Road in Exeter. He asked if someone was present to offer details regarding this application.
Robert Craven, Attorney for Jonathan Kent, stated that Samuel Hemenway, P.E., Project Manager, Garofalo & Associates, Inc., (Consulting Engineers, Surveyors, Land Planners; 85 Corliss Street, Providence, RI); would review their summary of proposed changes with regards to Section IV Preliminary Deficiencies noted from the Planner at their last appearance on November 26, 2024.
Mr. Hemenway summarized how they had tackled the list of concerns that were raised previously and had also met with Mr. DePasquale and collectively understood what their obligations were. He noted that the Planner still has some additional items that are outstanding and need to be addressed. In terms of substance, Mr. Hemenway indicated that very little of the plan had changed, that details have been documented and a revised response letter was submitted on the 18th of December 2024.
The Chair then recognized William DePasquale, Town Planner, who reviewed with those in attendance his Planning Memorandum: WOLFROCK ESTATES – MINOR 7-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH STREET CREATION; CONSERVATION OR TRADITIONAL SUBDIVISION WITH A PUBLIC HEARING; DATED: JANUARY 21, 2025.
The Planner summarized the travel of the applicant’s application and then covered the Board’s previous concerns and the action items that were required of the applicant. Mr. DePasquale’s Planning Memorandum covered 31 different features of the Wolf Rock Estates plan which included: Required Plan Changes, Concerns/Regulations and Outstanding requirements.
(The entirety of the Planner’s action items can be found on Pages 2 through 6 of his January 21, 2025 Planning Memorandum.)
During the Planners review of the above sections he noted under number 16 on page 4, Frontage Waivers, for Lots 3.2 and 3.3; that under LDR Sec. 5.7—modification of lot requirements. The Planning Board may authorize, through a request for waiver, modifications to the above lot frontage and width as provided in section 2.4.3 of the zoning ordinance. That the proposal outlines the division of two lots that do not meet the 150-foot linear frontage requirement. That, however, the local development regulations permit the Planning Board to grant waivers for this standard.
The Planner then pointed out that an affirmative vote is necessary to approve this frontage waiver for Lots 3.2 and 3.3. and that should the request be denied; the development project will forfeit one lot.
The Planner then indicated he was available to answer any questions with regards to this application. The Chairman then asked if the applicant/engineer had any questions regarding the Planner’s recommendations.
Mr. Hemenway indicated that 95 percent of the information, required by the Planner, is on the submitted drawings and that the formatting of the Planner’s memorandum, he felt, was for completeness of the process. He noted the only two items that were still outstanding are number 14—a letter of approval from the Fire Marshal or Fire Chief for the design specifications and positioning of the water tank. Mr. Hemenway indicated that the location of the cistern is still outstanding and the approval of the location by the fire department is pending. The other outstanding item was the bonding of the specific elements that are required to be bonded because of the nature of the private road that have not been ironed out, as the legal review is still being completed.
Applicant Jonathan Kent was recognized and agreed with the Planner’s review, but asked for an exception regarding the top coat of the road and the issuing of a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the building of the final four homes. Mr. Kent stated he would be fine with the Town withholding the COs until the completion of the entire subdivision, thus avoiding any damage to newly laid pavement.
The Chairman noted that no one wants to live in a subdivision that is under construction and asked the Planner if this point was negotiable? The Planner indicated that yes, it was negotiable.
The Chair then asked that this item be held off and that this will be subject to negotiation.
The Chairman then opened discussion to the Board members. He then asked about the 10,000-gallon cistern? He thought he had read the number 40,000. Mr. Hemenway noted that the
Fire Marshal alerted them that some insurance carriers require a 30,000-gallon minimum in order to alleviate their surcharge for not having water fire protection. Questions went back and forth regarding the size of the cistern for the development and how insurance premiums for the owners would be impacted. Donna Di Donato was concerned with homeowners not being able to insure their homes properly.
Sam Hemenway then read from the Fire Marshal’s letter. It stated “In addition, please note, that residential insurance underwriters do not recognize cisterns of less than 30,000 gallons when determining insurance rates for the homeowners in this development. The fire department would prefer a 30,000-gallon cistern, if at all possible.” He then indicated that the Fire Marshal also noted that without hydrants it is a challenge to maintain, however, the Town ordinance requires a 10,000-gallon underground water system.
The Planner then read Section 13.3, standards for the installation of fire water tanks - which states: An underground water tank with minimum capacity of 10,000 gallons for fire protection is required for each five homes. Precast reinforced concreter is the preferred construction material. The plans and specifications for the materials, location, and installation of the tank must be approved by the Fire Chief and the Planning Board before installation.
Questions around the drawings for the minor subdivision were brought up by Chairman DeFrancesco, followed by Mr. Hemenway attempting to explain the updated drawings and that he believed a fully revised set with clouded changes was submitted to the Town in December, to be delivered to the Board. He also indicated that a response to comments, issued in November, was also revised in December. The Planner then reviewed that he had taken the original plan and the resubmitted plan and went through each sheet by sheet. Noting the differences on C4, C7, and two plans marked 1. He stated that the plans had no landscape layout, and that all of the homes were still listed as four bedrooms, when they had previously agreed to at least three of the homes becoming three-bedroom. The Planner then asked for an updated set of plans.
Chairman DeFrancesco noted the need to vote on lots 3.2 (88.9’) and 3.3 (71.5’), at the end of the cul-de-sac, because the frontage is smaller than the required (150’). The Chairman also requested that at the end of the construction he would like to see a submission of as-builts from Garofalo or a Certified Engineer.
Board member Michael Viveiros asked about Wolf Rock Road and widening the right-of- way stating his concerns of encroaching on the abutter’s property. He also asked about mail delivery and the need for mailboxes on the road, or obtaining confirmation from the US Postal Service on the availability of mail delivery. He questioned school bus access with regards to this being a private road and suggested there should be a place where students could safely wait for the bus. The Planner noted that safety vehicles could be added to the covenant.
Michael Viveiros then questioned the order of paving within the subdivision and the wear and tear on the roadway. He asked how many would be completed before the final paving. Mr. Kent replied to the question with regards to the roadway.
Board member Robert Corriea reviewed the Homeowners Association (HOA) restrictions and the extensive list of safeguards. He asked to clarify what 2299 Post Road, LLC was or its signee. Mr. Kent replied that he owns the LLC and the land currently, but that ownership will be eliminated once the homes are sold; then the HOA will take over the responsibilities.
Donna Di Donato asked if the covenants of the HOA are recorded. Mr. Craven replied yes. She then asked if they expire. Mr. Craven indicated that there is no expiration, that they run with the land. Ms. Di Donato also asked why they could not push back the homes on the two lots that require waivers. Mr. Kent stated that this was done to maximize the undisturbed land under the conservation development plan.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
John Majeika, 256 Wolf Rock Road, South Kingstown, RI.
Mr. Majeika asked about the 10,000-gallon tank for fire suppression required per every five homes and inquired if the development would then be required to add an additional cistern for the remaining homes within the development. The Planner stated that the Fire Marshal would be the responsible party to determine the actual need. Mr. Majeika also commented about the roadway coming out of the proposed development and the suggested improvements of 20 feet one way and 20 feet the other way to widen the road. He added that he doesn’t agree that this is the issue, but that Wolf Rock has a telephone pole and a rock on the left side going up Wolf Rock and a gully on the right-hand side. He stated that coming down from the development would create a choke point thus creating a safety issue. He asked how this could be corrected and felt it should be taken into consideration. William Haas stated that this was a Town issue and not the responsibility of the builder.
William Munroe, 195 Wolf Rock Road, Exeter, RI
Mr. Munroe reiterated the concerns of the Wolf Rock Road situation and stated that he thinks this project is very dangerous for the area.
William Haas made a motion to close the public hearing; Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. A vote was taken and was all in favor, 5-0 (Michael DeFrancesco, Bill Haas, Joe St. Lawrence, Robert Corriea, Michael Viveiros). The public hearing was closed.
Chairman DeFrancesco indicated that this matter would be continued to the Planning Board’s next meeting slated for February 25, 2025.
B. OLD BUSINESS-PUBLIC HEARING:
Unified Development Review/Preliminary-Major Land Development with Waivers: Landon Kendricks, Applicant, and The Verrier Group, LLC, Owner of property located at 0 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned LB/R and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 20, Block 4, Lot 17; a request for a special use permit under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.1. (39) and dimensional variances Sec 5.1.B.4 parking in front of the building and Sec 5.1.B.6 entrance is 20' from the other entrance (shared entrance). The applicant also seeks preliminary approval for major land development as part of the unified development review. This includes a request for a waiver from the Exeter Land Development Regulations, specifically Appendix B, Section 7.0, entitled “Design and Improvement Standards.” The waiver would allow the administrative subdivision (lot reconfiguration of the northern property) to take place as part of the final application. The proposed major land development project proposes constructing a 6,000-square-foot building that will serve as a luxury car storage facility. The project includes associated parking, new driveway access (curb cut and shared entrance), landscaping, utility connections, an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), a well, and a stormwater management system.
Chairman DeFrancesco asked for a motion to open the public hearing, William Haas made the motion to open the public hearing; Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. A vote was taken and was all in favor, 5-0. The public hearing was open. (M. DeFrancesco,
W. Haas, J. St. Lawrence, M. Viveiros, D. Di Donato).
For the record, Robert Correia recused himself from the application/presentation; Gina Thurn was absent.
The Chairman asked Solicitor Stephen Sypole to explain the process before them. Solicitor Sypole explained that the Unified Development Review, which is relatively new, was enacted by the RI legislature for towns to follow. He stated that the Planning Board is now acting as the Zoning Board would have in the past. Under the new rules the Planning Board will consider the request for zoning relief, and that portion of the agenda is open to a public hearing. The Solicitor then explained that once all the testimony has been given regarding the zoning matter, the public hearing will be closed, the Board will discuss the relief, and a vote will be taken. If the zoning relief is granted, which is conditional, then the portion of the application to be considered under the land development subdivision regulations moves forward and does not require a public hearing.
The Chairman recognized Ken McGunagle, Attorney at McGunagle Hentz, who was representing his clients, Leroy and Landon Kendricks (father and son), and that they were seeking two actions by the Planning Board. A special use permit and dimensional variance; and preliminary plan approval. He acknowledged Solicitor Sypole’s explanation of the proceedings, but explained that their presentation will cover both pieces. Mr. McGunagle asked the Board to accept his witnesses as experts. It was noted that the credentials of the witnesses should have been provided to the Board well in advance before the actual meeting.
Mr. McGunagle went on to explain that his clients are looking to build a luxury car storage facility on Nooseneck Hill Road in Exeter. He stated that after reviewing the Town Planner’s Memorandum of January 21, 2025, that they are pleased with its content and that his clients understand and accept the suggested conditions for both approvals. Mr. McGunagle noted, for the record, in order to streamline the presentation that Mr. DePasquale’s detailed analysis showed how their application fits nicely within the required findings for both actions that are requested.
Attorney McGunagle then recognized the following individuals making presentations. Samuel Suorsa, President/Principal and John Hampton, PE, Professional Engineer, from Coventry Survey Design Group; John Skank, Architect, Providence Architecture and Building Company, 244 Weybosset Street, Providence, RI; Timothy Wensus, Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Jensen Hughes, Warwick, RI; and Landon Kendrick, applicant. (The resumes presented to the Board were marked as Exhibit A).
Attorney McGunagle asked Sam Suorsa, Surveyor, to step forward and be sworn in. Attorney McGunagle then asked Mr. Suorsa a series of questions. Mr. Suorsa reviewed his education and his career as a Professional Land Surveyor in the State of Rhode Island. Mr. McGunagle then asked the Planning Board to accept Samuel Suorsa as an expert surveyor. The Board agreed and Mr. Suorsa went on to give his update on the project as follows:
1. Boundary issues on the north side of the property; decreased the lot size by about 2,000’;
2. Size and shape of building is now 75’x80’ (6,000 sq. ft. in total);
3. Entrance will be shared on the northern boundary line with an agreement for this right of way;
4. Proposed 40,000-gallon underground tank for fire suppression with the building sprinklered;
5. Proposed sign location just South of the proposed entrance.
6. All site plans are currently under review for the OWTS, the wetlands program and are at the DOT for the PAP.
7. Safety vehicles do have the ability to enter and turn around on the lower end of the proposed driveway.
Chairman DeFrancesco then reviewed the zoning hardships, with the applicants and their attorney, that are necessary for granting a dimensional variance:
1. That the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area; and is not due to a physical or economic disability of the applicant;
2. That said hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain;
3. That the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent of purpose of the Exeter zoning ordinance or the Exeter comprehensive plan, upon which this ordinance is based;
4. That the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary; and
5. In granting a dimensional variance, that the hardship that will be suffered by the owner of the subject property if the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience, which shall mean that the relief sought is reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the use to which the property will be devoted. That fact that a use may be more profitable or that a structure may be more valuable after the relief is granted shall not be grounds for relief.
Mr. Suorsa answered yes to each of the above zoning hardships that are applied in granting a dimensional variance.
Attorney McGunagle asked John Hampton, Engineer, to step forward and be sworn in. He then proceeded to ask Mr. Hampton a series of educational and career questions that would qualify him as an expert in the field of Civil Engineering. Mr. Hampton indicated that he had passed the Rhode Island Professional Engineering Bar and received his stamp in 2017. The Board acknowledged Mr. Hampton as an expert in his field. Mr. Hampton then reviewed his portion of the project, which included:
1. Drainage plan;
2. Pavement alteration plan;
3. Additional storage paint tank requirements;
4. Landscaping and screening needs; and
5. Safety vehicle turn around provisions.
Chairman DeFrancesco asked the Engineer if there were any unique characteristics to this project. Mr. Hampton noted that one of their challenges was a steep slope on the property and the need to look for relief with parking in the front of the building, in order to avoid vehicles having to go down the steep slope. He mentioned that one other item was the need to have the building set back further. The Chairman asked if the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary and Mr. Hampton confirmed this to be accurate.
Board member Michael Viveiros asked if the parking spots were more or less than before. Mr. Hampton indicated there would be five additional spots. He then asked how the site would accommodate tractor trailers for loading and unloading. Mr. Hampton indicated that a WB40 (50’ tractor trailer, a 50’ foot box with a 10’ cab) was the largest capacity for the site. He stated that the applicants have indicated, to him, that a pickup truck with a tractor trailer requiring only 40 feet, would be the most likely senecio for the type of vehicle that would be dropping off cars.
Attorney McGunagle then asked Mr. John Schenck, Architect, to step forward and be sworn in. After which Mr. McGunagle asked Mr. Schenck to review his educational and occupational experience with the Board. Mr. Schenck stated he received a Bachelor of Architecture from the University of Idaho, Moscow, ID; and has been a registered Architect since 1999. That he is registered in the States of Colorado and Connecticut and works for the Providence Architecture and Building Company in Rhode Island who oversees his work and stamps his projects. Mr. Schenck stated that he has worked around the world, from China to Lake Tahoe as well as South Carolina, and that his work experience supported this project. He stated that this project is a constrained site, meaning it is hilly, and has some drainage issues and the challenge was to have two vehicle access sites far enough apart, paired with the drainage in the back and parking in the front.
Mr. Schenck then reviewed three different views of the proposed building, marked as Exhibits B, C, and D. Attorney McGunagle asked Mr. Schenck if he had read the planning memorandum of January 21st and the required findings, and Mr. Schenck indicated he had.
Michael Viveiros asked what the building will be constructed from. The Architect indicated that the building had a concrete foundation with a metal/steel building. Mr. Viveiros asked several additional questions that were answered by Mr. Schenck.
Board member Joe St. Lawrence and William Haas added their comments regarding the ability of tractor trailers being able to pull into the parking lot and then exit the parking lot without issues. Mr. Hampton stated that the Department of Transportation would not allow a second entrance less than 150’ away from each other on the same property and that they would get denied by DEM on DOT on the PAP application.
Landon Kendricks stepped forward and was sworn in. He indicated to the Board that the types of vehicles they will be storing at the facility would have a value of $40,000 up to about a quarter of a million dollars. He stated that the Auto Chateau would not be a car dealership or a museum. That the transportation of these vehicles would likely be one vehicle at a time in an enclosed trailer, less than 40 feet long. That ninety percent of their clients will be driving their own vehicles to us.
Chairman DeFrancesco asked Mr. Kendricks if he was aware of the twelve Conditions of Approval (Pages 10 and 11 of the Planning Memorandum: Public Hearing – Unified Development Review – SUP and Dimensional Variance Preliminary Major Land Development; Dated: January 21, 2025). The Board decided to add an additional Condition, No. 13, that stipulates that there will be no loading or unloading of vehicles on Rt. 3 allowed.
Planner William DePasquale briefly reviewed his report; Action 1 the Public Hearing Request for a Special Use Permit and Dimensional Variances and Action 2 the Preliminary Major Land Development. The Planner found good cause in granting the dimensional variance. Stating that the compact nature of the site, the drainage and the topography lends itself to the dimensional variances being sought. He stated that the original requested relief for setbacks, due to a law that was recently changed by the State of Rhode Island, was no longer needed for the front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks. The parking in the front of the building is necessary due to the unique nature of the parcel and with the addition of a thirteenth stipulation, he believes, that it complies with both the dimensional and special use criteria referenced in his Planning Memorandum of January 21, 2025 on Page 9 for Dimensional Relief and Pages 9 and 10 for the Special Use permit with the proposed Conditions of approval (Pages 10 and 11) that are twelve with the addition of one--no parking or loading and unloading on Rt. 3. The Planner pointed out that it is not about the applicant, it is about the property’s approval running with the property. That while they may have a particular use, it doesn’t mean that if it is sold in the future, that someone else couldn’t come into the problems that Bill (Mr. Haas) sited and thus protects public safety. He concluded that he supports the proposal. Donna Di Donato recommended making Mr. DePasquale’s Memorandum part of the record.
The Chairman called for a motion to close the public hearing for the Special Use Permit. William Haas made a motion to close the public hearing; seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. The vote was all in favor and the Public Hearing was closed. (Michael DeFrancesco, Bill Haas, Joe St. Lawrence, Michael Viveiros, Donna Di Donato).
The Chairman called for a motion to reopen the public hearing, William Haas made a motion to reopen the Public Hearing; seconded by Joe St. Lawrence, all in favor, the Public Hearing was reopened. (Michael DeFrancesco, Bill Haas, Joe St. Lawrence, Michael Viveiros, Donna Di Donato).
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Ryan Behm was recognized and sworn in. Mr. Behm noted that he owns and operates a car detailing business in Johnston, RI and if this project were to be approved, he would have the opportunity to partner with the Kendricks. He is in support of this project.
The Chairman called for a motion to close the public hearing for the Special Use Permit. William Haas made the motion to close the public hearing; seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. A vote was taken and was all in favor, 5-0. The public hearing was closed. (M. DeFrancesco,
W. Haas, J. St. Lawrence, M. Viveiros, D. Di Donato).
Chairman DeFrancesco addressing the Board noted from the Planner’s memorandum dated January 21, 2025, recommendation for approval with conditions stipulations (Page 9):
After reviewing the new building and site design in accordance with the Town of Exeter’s zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, concluded that the proposal with conditions and limited stipulations is generally aligned with the underlying light business residential zoning district in relation to the requested special use permit. Per Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article 11, Section 2.4.1 (39) Regarding mixed-use commercial development, the proposal with the accompanying stipulations and limiting conditions—would be generally compatible with the surrounding diverse land use pattern while fulfilling the broader objectives of the Comprehensive Plan concerning moderated attractive land uses along this heavily trafficked commercial corridor. The requested dimensional relief appears reasonable and warranted, given the property’s characteristics and constraints. Moreover, the proposed boundary adjustments and the site’s drainage features support the necessity of the requested deviation.
The Chairman then read the Proposed Conditions of approval—Zoning SUP/Dimensional Relief Planner’s Memorandum of January 21, 2025:
1. This condition consolidates all stipulations and conditions of approval outlined in both the preliminary and final decisions regarding major land development.
2. Outside storage of vehicles shall not be permitted.
3. Overnight outdoor parking is not permitted.
4. The following activities shall not be permitted outdoors: repairs, autobody services, the application of paint protection film (PPF), ceramic coatings, vacuuming, and car washing and detailing.
5. Detailing and washing of vehicles shall be limited to within the building with the fluids captured in a sealed tank and hauled offsite.
6. No open drains or grates inside the building unless connected to a sealed storage tank.
7. Outdoor storage of trucks, vehicle parts, tires, and similar items is prohibited.
8. Permanent and/or temporary outdoor storage of any type, including, but not limited to, semi-trailers, shipping containers, or similar, is prohibited.
9. Portable storage units shall not be permitted.
10. The outdoor storage of materials, cleaning agents, oil, gas or similar items is prohibited.
11. Accumulation and/or storage of junk vehicles, disabled or inoperative machinery and equipment, dismantled parts of vehicles, open drums that contain liquid, empty drums, discarded car parts, tires and/or other junk and debris, shall be prohibited.
12. The dumpsters shall be screened from view on at least three (3) sides by a solid wall, opaque fence and surrounded by a compact planting screen of at least five (5) feet in height.
13. No loading or unloading of vehicles in front of building on Rt. 3 allowed (added).
Chairman Michael DeFrancesco made a motion to approve the SUP and Dimensional Variance for parking in front of the building and a shared driveway. To also include the conditions in the Town Planner’s memorandum dated 1/21/25, pages 10 and 11 conditions 1-12; adding #13. No loading or unloading of vehicles in front of building on Rt. 3 allowed. Michael Viveiros seconded the motion. A vote was taken and was all in favor, 5-0.
(M. DeFrancesco, W. Haas, J. St. Lawrence, M. Viveiros, D. Di Donato). R. Correia recused.
The Chairman recognized Town Planner William DePasquale who reviewed the second action that was before them. Mr. DePasquale stated that Action 2 considers a preliminary major land development project. For this analysis, the Planner used the original master plan approval and accompanying memorandum dated January 21, 2025, as well as the new site design and proposal, along with the supporting application documentation. The review primarily focused on two major design changes from the original master plan. The highlights of the changes were as follows:
1. A Boundary Agreement: Due to correction in the area survey a boundary agreement has been reached that reduces the current lot size from 34,720 SF to 32,396 SF. The new lot configuration reduces the subject frontage from 160.00’ to 143.61.’
2. Building Size: Proposed building is now 75’x80’ (Master Plan 60’x100’)
3. Entrance: Proposed shared driveway (reciprocal easement along the northern property line).
4. Parking: Proposed all parking in the front of the building.
5. Fire: Proposed 40,000-gallon underground water storage tank for fire suppression and sprinklers.
The Planner stated that as part of the Board’s consideration, they would first need to issue a waiver. A waiver can be granted as part of the preliminary, with the condition that the boundary agreement administrative subdivision be completed before final approval if granted by the Board.
Mr. DePasquale then made his recommendation for the Preliminary Major Land Development.
He referenced his memorandum of January 21, 2025 in which he stated that the subject recommendation is supported by several reference documents, including: the Planner’s memo to the Board for the pre-application held on May 23, 2023; the memo to the Board for the master plan meeting on July 25, 2023; the Record of Decision (ROD) for the master plan dated July 31, 2023; and the memo to the Zoning Board of Review (ZBR) dated October 25, 2023. He concluded that the preliminary Major Land Development Plan satisfied the established criteria. After thoroughly reviewing the facts and public testimony that had been presented, the Exeter Planning Board should recommend endorsing the issuance of the Preliminary Plan and Waiver with the Findings and Conditions of approval in the Planner’s Memorandum: Public Hearing – Unified Development Review – SUP and Dimensional Variance Preliminary Major Land Development; Dated January 21, 2025: Conditions/stipulations of Preliminary approval One through 11 on (Pages 14 and 15) and the Land Development Regulations Sec. 3.5, Required Findings, One through 11 as noted on (Pages 15 and 16) in the above memorandum.
Chairman DeFrancesco made a motion to approve the waiver that can be granted as part of the preliminary, with the conditions that the boundary agreement administrative subdivision be completed before final approval if granted by the Board; Joe St. Lawrence seconded the motion. A vote was taken and was all in favor, 5-0. (M. DeFrancesco, W. Haas, J. St. Lawrence, M. Viveiros, D. Di Donator). R. Correia recused.
Chairman DeFrancesco began to make a motion to approve the Preliminary Major Land Development to include conditions 1-11 on pages 14 and 15. The motion was revised as there were changes/additions made as follows:
Attorney Ken McGunagle asked to add #12 to the list of conditions that the final be completed administratively; and Michael Viveiros requested to add #13 to the list of conditions stating the second means of egress/stairway be code compliant with building and fire codes and shown on the site plans. Chairman Michael DeFrancesco made a revised motion to approve; Michael Viveiros seconded. A vote was taken and was all in favor, 5-0. (M. DeFrancesco, W. Haas, J. St. Lawrence, M. Viveiros, D. Di Donator). R. Correia recused.
A. Zoning Board of Review: The Clerk noted there are two applications for dimensional relief at the next Zoning Board meeting on Thursday, February 13, 2025.
B. Correspondence: The approved 2025 Planning Board Meeting Calendar was distributed to the Board members.
C. Future Meeting: The next Work Session will take place on Tuesday, February 11, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. The Chair asked that the following items be placed on the agenda: Update on Fire Department training; Re-visit the Planning Board Rules of Procedure; and discuss fees for applicants.
Motion to adjourn made by Bill Haas, seconded by J. St. Lawrence; voted all in favor.
MOTION PASSED. The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Lukowicz
M. Dixie Foisy, Planning Board Clerk