I.                    CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

Chair Michael DeFrancesco called the continued Public Hearing to order at 6:01 p.m.

Chairman DeFrancesco entertained a motion to open and continue the Public Hearing; William Haas made the motion; Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence; All in favor, (5-0) the Public Hearing was officially opened.

Chairman DeFrancesco noted that Board member Gina Thurn has recused herself from the Copart of Connecticut Public Hearing.

Planner DePasquale stated that he was accepting a form from Gina Thurn pursuant to a Statement of Conflict of Interest, RI General Law 36-14-6, to be placed into the record.

Solicitor Sypole and Ms. Noonan indicated that it would be appropriate for Alternate Donna

Di Donato to have a vote in this matter.  

II.                  OLD BUSINESS:

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – MASTER PLAN – MAJOR LAND DEVELOPMENT:

A.     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 Master Plan approval for a major land development, having already received a special use permit per Exeter Zoning Ordinance 2.4.1. (52) “New and used automobile dealerships” the  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 so that it may be redeveloped to expand vehicle storage and staging operations for the abutting Copart of Connecticut, Inc., which is located on abutting Assessor’s Plat 33, Block 1, Lot 4 with no new buildings being proposed; the major land development being considered includes 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 recognized Attorney Patrick Coyne, Associate, with the law firm of Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, P.C., representing the applicant Copart of Connecticut. Attorney Coyne reoriented and reintroduced the project, located at 495 Nooseneck Hill Road (AP46-B1-L4), Exeter, RI. The site is being redeveloped to expand vehicle storage and staging operations for the abutting Copart of Connecticut (AP33, B1, L4). The major land development which includes the merger of Assessor’s Plat 46, Block 1, Lot 4 with Assessor’s Plat 33, Block 1, Lot 4 will unify the use under one lot.

Attorney Coyne noted that at the Planning Board’s April 22, 2025 meeting 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 Masterplan.

Mr. Coyne then reminded those present of the individuals who had testified at the April 22, 2025 hearing. They included: Timothy Behan, Civil Engineer, who had detailed the plans for the project; John Carter, RLA, Principal of John C. Carter & Co., Landscape Architecture; Joshua Gaudette, General Manager Copart, who gave an overview of the company and Joseph Lombardo, Planner who concluded that following a thorough review of the submitted project plans and materials, approval of the Major Land Development and Special Use permit was supported by compliance with the criteria for a Major Land Development in the Land Development and Subdivision Regulations as specified in Section 3.5.

Attorney Coyne noted that at the April 22, 2025 hearing Attorney Christopher D’Ovidio voiced the concerns of his client, James Pond Reality, LLC, the owners of the property directly across from the Copart development. That since then they had shared landscaping plans and the stormwater narrative report with the owners of James Pond Reality and Mr. D’Ovidio. An additional letter was received from D’Ovidio Law on behalf of his client with additional concerns. Attorney Coyne addressed those concerns which included landscaping contingency plans, technical and environmental deficiencies and environmental and community impact. Respectfully, Attorney Coyne felt that the additional 5 acres that are proposed with this project would not have any proportional impact on the Exeter environment or community.

Attorney Coyne reviewed and answered each of the 12 Required findings of the Land Use and Subdevelopment regulations and the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Coyne was confident that they would meet all the requirements of the Land Use and Subdevelopment regulations.

Chairman DeFrancesco recognized Town Planner William DePasquale. Planner DePasquale reviewed his May 20, 2025 Memorandum: Copart of Connecticut, Inc., 495 Nooseneck Hill Road; AP46-1-4; Public Hearing – Continued; Masterplan Unified Development Review; For A Special Use Permit. Noting that this memorandum is an addendum to the original memorandum Dated: April 15, 2025. That this memorandum speaks to the Masterplan at hand. The Planner indicated that this memo would walk them through the Masterplan presentation in terms of how it complies with the Town of Exeter’s Comprehensive Plan, which was recently State approved.

Mr. DePasquale reviewed the subject property which covers 5.22 acres and is zoned for Light Industrial Use, identified as AP 46-1-4; and their plans to expand the existing Copart of Connecticut, Inc., vehicle storage and staging operations by 5 acres with the adjacent AP 33-1-4.

The Planner indicated that the required Special Use permit was granted by the Planning Board on April 22, 2025 as part of a Unified Development application for a major land development.

Planner DePasquale reviewed the Zoning District, Light Industrial District (LI). That the purpose of the LI zone is to provide areas for the future development of light industrial and allied uses and to provide for existing uses of this nature. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan has a greater vision for the Rt. 3 Corridor which would be a Gateway to Arcadia, the future of a floating overlay district. He noted that currently this is the only light industrial zoning district and the proposed use was granted with a special use permit by this Planning Board on May 22, 2025.

With regards to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planner stated that the Comprehensive Plan reimagines the Route 3 corridor with an area master plan (submaster plan) that takes advantage of the quick access to I-95 and provides for an enhanced visitor hub as a gateway to the Arcadia Management area. That this is a future plan of the Town. The future land use map has this use and is consistent with the proposal. The primary objective of implementing an overlay district is for future enhancement of the corridor.

He continued stating that the RT3 overlay concept has been formally integrated into the comprehensive plan; however, the establishment of the overlay district necessitates a tailored submaster plan and the formulation of a specific overly ordinance. Consequently, the existing Light Industrial zoning designation and the future land use map will remain unaffected until the overly plan is fully developed and subsequently subjected to review via the public hearing process.

The Planner reviewed with the Board the former approval made in 2019 with regards to the Copart facility. (Excerpts from 2019 preliminary approval Required Findings)

1.        The proposed application, as conditioned by this approval, is consistent with the Exeter Comprehensive Plan as presented and discussed in the memo from the Town Planner dated 8/19/19 and incorporated as part of this decision.

2.       The proposed development conforms to the Exeter Zoning Ordinance.

3.       There will be no known significant negative environmental impacts from the proposed development at this time. The applicant will need to provide RIDEM approval of their stormwater design to ensure no post development increases in runoff from the site occur (3.5.3)

4.       The lot in question is preexisting and has adequate and permanent access to a public street.

5.       Pedestrian and vehicular circulation is safe. Drainage provisions are proposed and will need to be approved by RIDEM.

6.       Lot frontage complies with the Exeter Zoning Ordinance.

7.       No access easement is required.

8.       The proposed development meets all the design standards of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance, as are applicable (Sec. 2.5).

He then covered the historic land use patterns. Noting that while the scale of this development is limited, it plays a significant role in diversifying Exeter’s tax base. That it was important to recognize that the current Light Industrial (LI) zoning has successfully sustained a vibrant automotive auction business in the town, which is a major source of tax revenue and ranks among the top five taxpayers. That balancing development in commercial and industrial sectors can enhance revenue for essential public services and help the town become more resilient to market fluctuations. (Page 6 of the Planner’s May 20, 2025 memorandum)

He quoted the following from Exeter 2044 – Town of Exeter, RI Comprehensive Plan – Vision Page 1-2:

“At the same time, we welcome balanced nonresidential development in designated areas that enhances our tax base and respects our natural resources and the general character of the community.”

Planner DePasquale then reviewed allowed uses by right in a Light Industrial district: Freight yards, food product manufacturing, lumber production and building materials are potential land uses that could be located in a LI district. That while certain alternatives, such as a compassion center, may offer benefits related to taxation, none of these are the right options that align with the vision for reimagined Route 3 as a mixed-use recreational center.

He noted that the Special Use permit conditions for Copart with regards to drainage, and screening (landscaping) calls for additional funds to be set aside just in case the screening measures do not align with the original design. Planner DePasquale then read from the Special Use Permit Notice of Decision the following:

7.  Contingent Landscape/Screening Fund – The landscape screening plan will be subject to a peer review process and will incorporate a contingency fund for future additional plantings, if deemed necessary. Following the installation of the initial plantings, an assessment will be conducted to verify that the screening objectives have been achieved and to rectify any oversights identified during the planning phase. A contingency fund in the amount of 30 percent of the total cost of planting and screening will be allocated for seven years from the date of installation and may be utilized should additional plantings be required to mitigate visibility gaps in the viewshed from Route 3. The fund is not intended to cover the replacement of dead, diseased, or improperly installed plantings; rather, it is specifically designated for the introduction of additional trees as needed. If no additional plantings are needed during the specified period, the funds will be returned to the applicant.

He stated that No. 7 works in tandem with Special Use Permit No. 8: Landscape/Screening Bond. That pervious conditions in 2020 had not been met and that the applicant and Board have worked together to resolve any future concerns. Also, that Stormwater Drainage is being looked at by a professional third-party reviewer, Crossman Engineering, and the fees are being paid for by the applicant.

The Planner covered subject lot locational attributes. Stating that the proposed expansion of the existing facility onto the subject lot aligns with the prevailing land use patterns and the underlying zoning district as they exist today. (Page 8 of the Planner’s May 20, 2025 memorandum)

He noted Master Plan consistency with regards to – Appropriate Visual Buffer, Stormwater Management, and Fiscal Impact Measures, and suggested that Page 9 of his May 20, 2025 be adopted into the record.

Master Plan Findings can be found on Pages 10 and 11 of the Planner’s May 20, 2025 Memorandum (Findings 1 through 19). Finally, Masterplan Conditions of Approval include the following:

1.      The Master Plan is contingent upon approval of a special use permit as part of the unified development process.

2.      Integrated all the stipulations conditions contained in the approved special use permit.

3.      Contingent upon fulfilling all terms and provisions outlined in the special use permit approval (if granted).

4.      Subject to changes, implementation of standards and alternative designs/specifications necessary to meet the fire and life safety requirements of the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief.

5.      Adhere to the review standards, plans, specifications, and any modifications, as well as address any deficiencies identified by the Town’s engineering consultant during the technical review of stormwater management and site design.

6.      The applicant will be accountable for covering the expenses associated with the Town’s consulting engineer for all follow-up reviews through to preliminary, final approval and final inspection.

7.      This proposal, along with all associated conditions and stipulations, is subject to preliminary approval from the Planning Board.

8.      The merger of lots 46-1-4 and 33-1-4 is required to be completed either prior to or as part of the process for final approval.

9.      Planning Board stipulations or conditions.

Chairman DeFrancesco opened up questions to the public. Attorney Christopher A. D’Ovidio was recognized. Attorney D’Ovidio acknowledged that his office represents James Pond Realty, LLC, which owns property within 200’ of the proposed Copart of Connecticut, Inc. expansion site at 495 Nooseneck Hill Road. 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. (D’Ovidio Law letter of April 15, 2025). 

Mr. D’Ovidio stated that on behalf of his client they thanked the applicant for forwarding the Stormwater Management and Landscaping plan and Planner DePasquale for sending the report and distributing the information. Attorney D’Ovidio stated that the principal concern of his client is the visible impact that may arise from this project. He asked for an explanation regarding the landscaping plans and bonds to assure the survivability of the plantings. He asked if the screening is durable? That the deer population love white pine and who will provide the overseeing of the screening? Chairman DeFrancesco explained that tonight’s meeting was to approve the concept of a Master Plan. That these are not detailed plans, the next stage, the Preliminary stage, is where all the engineering details will be discussed.

For the Board, the Chairman stated that what has become abundantly clear is screening from the road. Chairman DeFrancesco assured Mr. D’Ovidio that the year-round landscape screening will be high up on the Board’s list going forward.

Solicitor Sypole noted that the last landscaping bond agreement that he worked on was for a solar project and that there is a process in which the Town will notify the landowner that there is a problem, should the landowner disagree, they could present a report from an arborist. That there is a whole back and forth process to make a claim and get it corrected in order to collect on the bond.

Attorney D’Ovidio indicated that Discipline Brewery was unable to get a water supply on their property because DOH indicated that there are activities nearby, i.e. Copart, that generates pollution. So, he continued, to suggest that there isn’t a potential problem, DOH has raised it and Discipline Brewery is suffering because of that.  It is clear that this type of activity has the potential of contaminating ground water. Attorney D’Ovidio’s client is asking that the 5-acre parcel undergo an ECIS (Environmental and Community Impact Study) which would help make his client more comfortable.

Chairman DeFrancesco asked if there were any additional comments from the public, hearing none, the Chairman then asked the Board if they had any questions. Board member Robert Corriea asked a question of Copart Attorney Noonan regarding local property taxes being paid by the current owners, and of those taxes, how much will be offset by Copart? Attorney Noonan did not have current information on how the taxes would be impacted. Planner DePasquale stated that he had contacted the Tax Assessors and learned that, due to the removal of the structures on the property, vs the proposal, it shows no net gain. 

The Chairman entertained a motion to close the Public Hearing. William Haas made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Robert Corriea, all those in favor, (5-0) the motion passed and the Public Hearing was closed. (Michael DeFrancesco, Gina Thurn, William Haas,

Joseph St. Lawrence, Robert Corriea, and Donna Di Donato).

Chairman DeFrancesco entertained a motion to grant approval for the Master Plan – Major Land Development in accordance with the information that is noted in Town Planner William DePasquale’s May 20, 2025 Memorandum: Copart of Connecticut, Inc., 495 Nooseneck Hill Road; AP46-1-4; which includes the following nine Conditions of Approval:

1.       The Master Plan is contingent upon approval of a special use permit as part of the unified development process.

2.      Integrated all the stipulations conditions contained in the approved special use permit.

3.      Contingent upon fulfilling all terms and provisions outlined in the special use permit approval (if granted).

4.      Subject to changes, implementation of standards and alternative designs/specifications necessary to meet the fire and life safety requirements of the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief.

5.      Adhere to the review standards, plans, specifications, and any modifications, as well as address any deficiencies identified by the Town’s engineering consultant during the technical review of stormwater management and site design.

6.      The applicant will be accountable for covering the expenses associated with the Town’s consulting engineer for all follow-up reviews through to preliminary, final approval and final inspection.

7.      This proposal, along with all associated conditions and stipulations, is subject to preliminary approval from the Planning Board.

8.      The merger of lots 46-1-4 and 33-1-4 is required to be completed either prior to or as part of the process for final approval.

9.      Planning Board stipulations or conditions.

William Hass made a motion to approve; Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence; Hearing no further discussion, a Roll Call vote was taken: Michael DeFrancesco, yes; Gina Thurn, recused; William Haas, yes; Joe St. Lawrence, yes; Robert Corriea, yes; and Donna DiDonato, yes; (5-0). Chairman DeFrancesco stated that the motion was approved along with the Copart Master Plan.         

III.              NEW BUSINESS:

PRE-APPLICATION – MAJOR LAND DEVELOPMENT/SPECIAL USE PERMIT – UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

A.     John J. Lukowicz and Stephen M. Lukowicz, Applicants and Owners of property located at

0 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned LB/R and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 20, Block 4, Lot 19, 0.79 acres in size for the construction of a 100’ by 40’ business storage facility on the property with parking and ancillary drainage structure, septic system and potable well. The proposed setbacks and lot area are proportionally reduced in accordance with RIGL § 45-24-38 for this substandard lot of record; the project is a major land development project requiring a special use permit processed as a unified development application.

Chairman DeFrancesco introduced this application and Julie M. Raimondi, PLS,

Scituate Survey, 410 Tiogue Avenue, Coventry, RI stepped forward indicating that she is with Stephen M. Lukowicz, an applicant and owner. Based on the above information Ms. Raimondi indicated that they are not anticipating any variances over the special use permit which is required for this project.  Chairman DeFrancesco asked Ms. Raimondi and Mr. Lukowicz to explain to the Board how this proposed building will be used and does this project comply with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lukowicz indicated that this building will be one level with attic storage, the building will be used for himself and his brother, John Lukowicz. His plan is, once he retires from his current position, he will go back to his landscaping, construction and excavation business. Stephen Lukowicz indicated that he currently lives at 298 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, where his equipment is currently stored.

The Chairman then asked Town Planner William DePasquale to explain the process. The Planner indicated that the preapplication is first, the second step would be to submit to the Town an application for a Masterplan Unified Development, special use permit, followed by a site visit with a public hearing on the site, then the Board will consider the special use permit and at a later date the Masterplan.

Stephen Lukowicz then reviewed for the Board that half of the property would be used for storing his equipment, and the other half of the building is planned for a farmer’s market, selling locally grown products, such as, beef, pork, farm produce and during the holidays, Christmas trees and wreaths, etc.

The Planner restated that this was a preapplication, noting that this particular lot is relatively small, preexisting and nonconforming, which will require a proportionality analysis in terms of setback(s). The Planner indicated that the proposal includes a majority of the parking situated at the rear of the building, complemented by a design that maintains a barn-like appearance, in harmony with the established character of the town. He did, however, indicate that the trip generation of a Farmer’s Market is going to be greater than storing vehicles on the carpeting. That the parking is going to have to be calculated by square footage based on the parking requirements of a Farmer’s Market, which would be determined by a number of different factors. He also informed the applicant(s) that they will need to ask for all their variances up front with a special use permit, that if a variance is needed for parking, they would need to request that. The Planner acknowledged the applicant’s proposed layout was well done.

Planner DePasquale indicated that traditionally the Board has said no retail sales out of these storage units. That with the past two or three similar requests they have been wholesale only, but that it may be different for a Farmer’s Market. That the applicant will need to refine what they want, because they will be limited to whatever use category that the special use permit grants, if in fact it is granted. The Planner then reviewed with the applicant the information in his Planning Memorandum: Lukowicz Storage Building, Pre-Application, Major Land Development – Unified Development Review/Special Use Permit, LB/R, Plat 20, Block 4, Lot 19, Dated: May 20, 2025.

Board member Robert Corriea noted that his idea of a Farmer’s Market is an open-air area where they have vendors come in and sell their products, that this application sounds more like retail sales. Mr. Lukowicz noted that it would be somewhere in the middle. That there would not be vendors, but that individuals could consign products at their store. Mr. Corriea asked if these items would be local produce and farm raised items. Mr. Lukowicz indicated, yes, that would be the case. Mr. Corriea thought it should be considered a retail business and not a Farmer’s Market.

The Planner stated that a zoning certificate will be needed and whatever the zoning inspector decides, that their request will be based on that. That the use category being used is for mixed commercial uses, which have been limited to wholesale and not retail. Mr. Lukowicz stated that the zoning inspector was questioning that some items may be resold, his example was reselling of hay or grain.

Solicitor Sypole felt it would be helpful for the applicant to understand that the items they get permission for are given to the property, and not to you and your brother. That 30 years from now those permissions remain tied to the property.

The Planner reiterated that the mixed-use commercial has always been limited to some kind of wholesale, not retail. He explained, if resale means that you can pull into an establishment and purchase from you an arm’s length transaction, that is probably considered retail and probably not going to fly. Not because of the applicant, that this is what Exeter has done everywhere, because they do not want to poach dollars from the business district, who generally pays a higher per square foot cost, than in an LI district.

Robert Corriea stated that theoretically if you allow retail in this district, someone else could establish a storefront and the Town would not be able to stop it down the road. He was also concerned that parking would seem to be a problem.

Chairman DeFrancesco stated to the applicant(s) that they will have to decide what category of land use or combination of uses they want to propose, because once the application comes in, that is what the Board will consider and the applicant(s) would not be able to make any changes to the use later. He suggested that they seek guidance from an attorney or zoning officer as to what is the highest or best use in order to get an approval for their project.

Rober Corriea explained to the applicant that the Board is currently working on a farm overlay district which would allow for a farm store on an established farm of 75 acres or bigger.                

IV.              ADMINISTRATIVE:

A.      Zoning Board of Review: Next meeting on Thursday, June 12, 2025

B.      Future Meeting: Work Session on Monday, June 9, 2025 at 6:00 P.M. due to Financial Town Meeting.

C.     Discussion ensued around the need to complete the objective criteria for the special use permit(s) and to get the Board’s recommendation to the Town Council.  

V.                 ADJOURNMENT:

Motion to adjourn made by Bill Haas, seconded by Gina Thurn; voted all in favor. The Motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m.

   Respectfully submitted,  

   Rebecca Lukowicz