I.                   CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

II.                 NEW BUSINESS:

A.     PLANNING BOARD Vote – 2026 Planning Board Schedule

Vice Chair Robert Corriea made a motion to approve the 2026 Planning Board Meeting Schedule, Seconded by Joseph St. Lawrence, all in favor, the 2026 PB Meeting Schedule was approved. (4-0) (Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Joseph St. Lawrence).

Chair Thurn approved hearing the agenda out of order -- New Business was conducted, followed by Administrative and then Old Business.

III.                         ADMINISTRATIVE:

A.   Approval of Minutes: September 23, 2025

 Chair Thurn called for a motion on the September 23, 2025 minutes. Michael DeFrancesco

 made the motion to approve the minutes as submitted and Joseph St. Lawrence seconded the

 motion, all in favor, the motion passed. (6-0). (Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael

 DeFrancesco, Joseph St. Lawrence, Michael Viveiros and Norman Machon).

B.   Zoning Board of Review:  Next meeting on Thursday, November 13, 2025.

C.  Future Meetings: Work Session on Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.

Regular Planning Board Meeting on Tuesday, November 25, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.

IV.                         OLD BUSINESS:

Michael P. DeFrancesco, Exeter, RI, Planning Board Member, a direct abutter of Asa Davis, 0 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI (Assessor’s Plat 36, Block 2, Lot 2) has recused himself from participating in discussion, decision-making/voting, and any other official actions relating to the below-described matter. 28^th day of October, 2025.

A.     Second Pre-Application Conference; Comprehensive Permit-Major Land  Development: Asa Davis, Applicant and Owner of property located at 0 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 36, Block 2, Lot 2; for a follow-up/update of the November 28, 2023 pre-application conference for a Comprehensive Permit Major Land Development in accordance with Title 45, Chapter 53 of the Rhode Island General Laws, also known as the RI Low and Moderate Income Housing Act (as amended), the Exeter Code of Ordinances, and the zoning ordinance, APPENDIX A - ZONING Sec. 1.4.4.E.3(b).  The project as included in the initial Pre-Application Conference, referred to as the "Solicity Project," proposed to build 120 housing units, with a minimum of 25% or more housing units being affordable units per R.I.G.L. 42-128-8.1(d)(1), (the actual number of affordable units is yet to be announced). As described in the original application the project would also include a 5MW solar project that will be owned and structured to deliver energy to the residents, and a battery system to deliver stored solar energy during off-peak periods with the development to be located on a private road and serviced by community wells, septic, and geothermal heating. The housing units are proposed to be a mix of single-dwelling units and duplexes, with the final design to be announced. The project will be built and owned by a non-profit organization and will cover an area of 109 acres. This second Pre-Application Conference regarding the Comprehensive Permit for Major Land Development aims to provide further information concerning the potential buildout alternatives for the site.

Chair Thurn introduced this Pre-application Conference and turned the evening over to Mr. Asa Davis. Mr. Davis introduced himself to the Board and gave some background information to the group. Mr. Davis noted that he has lived in Exeter since 1973 and worked on his first solar project in 1977. He noted that with him for this evening’s discussion was Frank Epps, Energy Development Partners (EDP), who is also associated with the Morris Farm and Dry Bridge Solar project(s) fame. Mr. Epps will be helping as a consultant with utility interactions.

Mr. Davis explained that his appearance before the Board was to give them an update since their last meeting with the Board in November of 2023. He explained that his background is in engineering and wanted to cover items that have changed in the solar business in the last year or two and how it may affect some of the things that they are planning to do. He wanted to cover the current progress on the designs that they had submitted previously and a final question, “What happens with this project and where are we going?”

Mr. Davis added with regards to recusals, that Gina Thurn also has a solar system and as far as competing projects, he doesn’t consider Ms. Thurn’s a competing project to theirs, that they both have contracts, and as far as a competitor or business interest point of view, he would waive any potential conflicts on those grounds, for both Mike (DeFrancesco) or her (Gina Thurn).

Mr. Davis recounts that the original proposal for “Solicity” was 120 units of housing, mixed LMI and market rate. That at least 25 percent+ would be LMI, with a mix of duplexes and single-family residences, on 109 acres total, and as was originally proposed, the first 800 kilowatts which was the initial Phase One of the “DuTemple” Solar project he had submitted to the Planning Board back in 2018-2019, which is an overlap. This 4.2 megawatt (he noted that the numbers are not AC numbers) the 800 kilowatt was Phase One and the 4.2 megawatts was Phase Two of the initial 10-megawatt proposal from 2018-2019.

Mr. Davis pointed out, in his view, access is grained from Rt. 102, Estate Drive and the right-of-way that goes out to Hallville Road on handouts to Board members. Mr. Davis then noted that they have identified three locations for wells – 1, 2 and 3. In the meantime, while that 10-megawatt project was underway, that he had also pulled permits for a house, a barn and a garage, meant for a single family. He spoke about putting in a well for that construction and identified it as a fall back well, if one of the other three did not work out. Information from the original “Solicity” proposal from November of 2023.

Mr. Davis then gave the Board his view on what has happened with solar. He stated that one of the negatives of solar is that it takes up space, but noted that the panels continue to improve. That the panels require exposure to sunlight, and because of that, output can be intermittent. He mentioned that it is hard to shelter solar panels, and you cannot run solar from inside. He noted that Exeter currently has three multimegawatt systems installed—Stamas, Morris Farm and Marshall, his position is that the use of public resources by solar systems is very low and that worldwide solar is continuing to take off, much more so than here in the United States. He believes China is by far the leader in solar deployment.

Mr. Davis believes that what is happening in the solar industry now is the need for energy storage. Mr. Davis noted that he had previously worked for APC—a battery backup system for businesses. What the batteries have allowed solar to do is the ability to move energy from the panels to a battery system, thus turning an intermittent energy source into a base load generation.

Mr. Davis noted that one of the questions often asked is what happens to the panels at end of life? Where do they go? How do you get rid of them? He indicated that the cost to remove the panels, if you have to, is already lower than the cost of changing use for pretty much anything else, such as a house, commercial building, it doesn’t really matter what it is. Every generation source degrades over time. Solar panels are no exception to that rule. Early panel replacement can still make financial sense.

Mr. Davis suggested that one of the things the Planning Board should look at is whether Exeter’s current ordinance makes sense regarding single panel deployment on the ground, currently requiring major land development approval, a bond, landscape plan and a decommissioning plan in order to deploy one panel.

Mr. Davis went on to discuss LMI housing. He noted that nationwide the average home buyer is 56 years of age versus 31 years old when he built his home in Exeter. Housing costs continue to rise. He indicated that State incentives this year for LMI housing are roughly $35 million, most of that is for housing only, but that they will have a zero energy Ocean State program, which is about $1.6 million, coming up for deployment in December. He inferred that the program will include solar, heat pump and geothermal sources, all of which are proposed for “Solicity.”

Mr. Davis understood that the LMI for Exeter was about 10 percent over the State threshold, currently at 7 percent, which would require 40 units to get back over that 10 percent number. He stated that if that is a Town target, that creates an issue. His expectation is he will be applying for some of the State LMI programs.

Mr. Davis explained that he believes the rural designation is dependent on population density. That that designation is driven by one of two measurements – one is total population per square area of the municipality, the second is by total population, divided by the buildable area of the municipality. That a big impact in Exeter is from all of the State land on the western side of Town. That by one of those measures—by buildable area, because that State land doesn’t count as buildable area, Exeter is already not rural any more. By the designation of total area, Exeter is considered rural, but not by much. He noted that by State statute the State Police have to patrol Exeter, because it is still considered a rural community. That there are only 5 or 6 towns left in the State, where that is still true. That as soon as Exeter loses that rural designation, the State Police will stop covering the Town. He noted that local police forces cost about a million dollars per year. His understanding is that the Town is paying the State Police to send additional patrols here.

Mr. Davis explained that he has owned Lot 36-2-2 since 1997, prior use of the land was for farming and logging back in the 30’s. Originally it was 146 acres, it was vacant at the time of his owning it. He referenced Planner DePasquale’s memorandum indicating that the use of the land was agricultural, but he disagrees with that designation. He believes that designation was discontinued before he purchased the property. None of the uses he proposed in the past for DuTemple Solar, which included: sheep, flower cultivation, bees or Christmas trees were established, although they were all proposed. While residence is in construction for the house, a barn and garage, those uses have not been established and will not be considered to be established until he receives a Certificate of Occupancy and his intention is to complete them, but that they will become part of the 120 units proposed in the Solicity project. 

Mr. Davis referenced Recorded Map 681 done by Dowdell Engineering, Inc., which he indicates, reflects the use of Estate Drive when they started doing it. The first surveyor, dated back before 2009, unfortunately he has passed away an unable to verify a date, but Rich Vachon did. Mr. Davis had proposed in 2018-2019 a 10 megawatt with solar in three phases with no battery. When he proposed this plan, it was a by-right use and expected to use about 29 acres total for solar with the system sizes then and showed the access routes and had a Town tax treaty, approved at the time and believes it is still in effect. But, after March of 2021, Mr. Davis claims that when he spoke against the solar moratorium, that barriers went up across his driveway.

Mr. Davis claimed the Master Plan was rejected for lack of access, the agricultural uses were rejected as new commercial and lack of elevation plans, that were properly due at Preliminary stage, also factored into that rejection. He noted that there was concern expressed about potential negative effects on abutting properties, although that did not end up in the decision. Mr. Davis reported that he did challenge the rejection legally, indicating that the Town won that challenge. But, as part of the Town’s admittance said that road, Estate Drive, had never been accepted past the edge of the cul-de-sac haven. Which has led to an adverse possession challenge over the land past that, that leads to his land, which is still in place. He believes that action is due in court sometime in November 2025.

Mr. Davis claimed that the Town and its legal counsel had enforced the injunction to block his driveway for two years and three months past the expiration and has created additional legal liability for the Town. According to Mr. Davis’s view, the Town was notified of this in a barrier claim letter, 4 or 5 months ago, and is now included in the Business Interference Case, which is also up for consideration in the courts in November 2025.

Mr. Davis indicated that as far as the 800kw with Rhode Island Energy, he has paid and completed the Transmission and Distribution study and he did receive a rewrote contract for the sale of the electricity from the 800kw, which he indicated he had lost the contact and then got it back. He also mentioned that he had completed the agreement for the interconnect and has also paid for that, including the work at the substation. He went on to say that all the gear work for the connect has been put in place along with the poles, transformer, lines and everything else, except for the meter on his property. Mr. Davis mentioned that other required permits, which included a physical alteration permit from DOT for the Rt. 102 connection, has been received; he has also received a DEM wetlands permit, which has been renewed and has filed an intent to cut, which is about 90 percent done by Bob Verrier, which uncovered some well and wetland violations on the new Town Hall site. According to Mr. Davis, as a result, the Town gave up the public well permit for that site. He has asked for a zoning certificate in order to deploy a panel on his barn for ventilation.

Mr. Davis noted that the last thing he will require is installing a pad, inverter, transformer and wiring, which is zero percent complete, and will require a Town permit. However, he acknowledged that the work does need to be started by December 15^th, the deadline in order for him to obtain the federal tax credits. Mr. Davis noted that from a legal point of view he is already in court with the Town over this application regarding the Billing Interference case, the Barrier Claims case and the Map Change Application case. Mr. Davis noted that his adverse possession case was filed because, in his view, the unimproved land at the end of the Estate Drive cul-de-sac was determined by the State Supreme Court to never have been accepted by the Town.

Mr. Davis reiterated that his original proposal was for 120 housing units, 25+ percent for LMI, to include 5 megawatts of solar, plus a battery. All planned to be behind the meter. It is proposed to be a nonprofit owned, developed, built and maintained project. The system was meant to be community owned, so the financial returns would offset the LMI construction costs and ongoing operation costs. His expectation is that the system will generate more power than used by the housing in the community and would be a net negative energy consumption community and that there would be electricity available for community solar applications. He expected to use the Comp permit process, and did expect utility connections through Estate Drive and 102 and did propose this as a backup to the new Town Hall for emergency shelter via the old connection at the back of the property. He believes that wiring still exists and he should be able to supply power to the new Town Hall if that building is designated as an emergency shelter.

Mr. Davis wanted to make clear that he had also proposed the original solar as dual use for both agriculture and solar and with “Solicity” he planned to do the same—which would possibly be one of the four opportunities previously mentioned--sheep, flower cultivation, bees or Christmas trees. He noted that he had received the Housing letter of eligibility for “Solicity” and he believes he has also received the letter of completeness from the Town. He believes that he is following the rules and regulations that were in effect at the time of this application.

Town Planner DePasquale indicated that Mr. Davis has certification for the Preapplication and there is a certification necessary for the Preliminary. That once the Preliminary is submitted, Mr. Davis would receive a certification within that time period afforded by state law. That Mr. Davis’s next step would be the Preliminary Plan Application. Followed by a Public Hearing with mandatory adjustments.

Mr. Davis noted that he has recorded the first document(s) to transition the land to a nonprofit; that they have chosen a supplier for the housing, which will be manufactured housing from out of state; with septic they will do ISDS designs on each of the residences; test holes and sampling have been completed and they have been working with Northeast Water Systems/Farrow.

Mr. Davis stated that the Hydrology report from Northeast Water Systems was completed September 2024 and by their calculations water demand on the site could support about 300 units and Mr. Davis doesn’t believe there will be any problems with septic either.

Mr. Davis mentioned that one of the items that still needs clarification is, “What does the solar inclusion in this project mean? He felt that because the solar will be powering all of the residences, that it could be included as part of the comprehensive permit application and that Planner DePasquale may see that differently.

Mr. Davis is looking for some guidance on two items: One, that because of timing and the changes with tax credits, etc., he actually only has about a two-month window to start construction on the 800kw which would include the pad, transformer, wiring, etc., which has to be started in order to hit some of the required federal tax deadlines. If he can’t do that, it wouldn’t make sense to include solar and battery in the project, which he would then scrap the solar portion of the project and then have Garofalo just do it as an LMI-type project.

Mr. Davis thought that because the 800kw was already underway and was below the one- Megawatt Town limit in Zoning, which makes it a large system, not utility scale, that he could just apply for a Special Use Permit, but has found out that is not the case for any solar application that is on the ground. His hope is to get an answer as to whether he can move forward on the “Solicity” project.

Mr. Epps asked Mr. Davis if he would scrap the solar and keep the housing, if the answer is no, that he could not do the 800kw, Mr. Davis indicated that that would be the case. Frank Epps then introduced himself as a consultant for Mr. Davis – specifically on the solar. That he has been involved with solar energy since 2006, with a number of projects in the State of Rhode Island that are operating and more importantly two very successful projects here in the Town of Exeter—the one on Nooseneck Hill Road and the Morris Farm solar project.

Mr. Epps then asked Mr. Davis if he would scrap the housing and just do the solar? Mr. Davis noted that he had proposed that idea the first time around and that it didn’t get to far with the Town. That his original intention was a house, barn, garage and solar system. However, he still needs to know within two months in order to move forward. Mr. Davis inferred that the default would be that the solar and the battery component would come off the project and it would become just housing.

Mr. Epps mentioned Safe Harbor, the investment tax credit, which helps to move solar projects forward, requires work of a significant nature to the energy property in two areas. One, construction has to be started before the end of the year and/or ordering equipment offsite and paying for that equipment offsite. The project would have to have roads that are internal to the project itself, putting foundations in for inverters or switch gears, etc. that would count as work of a significant nature. He noted that if your start is before the end of the year, you are not subject to issues concerning foreign equipment. But, if the work is started after January 1^st, you are subject to provisions that the project needs to have a certain amount of US content. All of which has to be started before the 5^th of July 2026 for the benefit of tax credits. After that your ability to safe harbor the ITC goes away.

Board member Michael Viverios asked about access to the tax credits and the need to procure certain things potentially, asking is that an opinion from tax credit accountants or where is this information from. Mr. Epps indicated that it is from the July 4^th Tax Bill passed by Congress that gives direction on how to obtain these tax credits. Indicating that the current administration is not very thrilled about investment tax credits. So, they are allowing those mature projects or those that can meet the criteria to be able to safe harbor those tax credits.

Board member Robert Corriea asked how they could be sure that tax credits would be there in four to six months?  Mr. Epps indicated that currently it is the law and he, once again, referred to the two examples he had previously stated. Mr. Corriea asked Mr. Epps if he is concerned with the current administration not being supportive of renewable energy?  Mr. Epps indicated yes and no, that he has seen tax credits come and go. He noted two things that will keep his company going in the future—one will be the cost of energy going up and he indicated that batteries are important here, because, very soon you will see, time of use, within the rate structure. That there will be different electricity prices, even for residential, based on the time of usage. Noting that batteries allow electricity to be deployed through a renewable source at all hours of the day and night. Lastly, he stated that the business will see the ending of tax credits, but that other types of financing will follow, and as soon as the tax credits go away, prices will drop.

Chair Gina Thurn asked a question regarding the square footage of the original project. She noted that the Town’s ordinance allows for up to a large-scale installation and is wondering what kind of wattage/megawattage would one get out of the space for a large-scale array without tipping over into that not permitted utility scale size? Continuing she noted that before it was just under a megawatt in the square footage, but with the panel efficiency improving, that goes up. Mr. Davis felt it would be 1.25 now. He noted that the Town’s ordinance cutoff is roughly 220,000 square feet – about 5 acres. Mr. Epps indicated 1.25-1.5 megawatts in that range.

The Planner asked, how many houses could that support? Noting his concern over 156 homes and the ability of this Town to support that size build. The Planner, looking at pure numbers, noted a plan with 156 without solar, an alternative plan that maxes out at 440, and the original plan of 120. The Planner felt the Town would not be able to support these numbers especially adding children into the equation.

Board member Vivieros asked to hear the plan options: One single-family home with barn and garage; “Solicity” 120 mix affordable singles and duplexes, plus original house, barn and garage; 240—50 percent affordable (5 units/acre) and 440—100 percent affordable (8 units/acre). The Planner asked if using the 1.5-megawatt system how many homes would that support? Mr. Epps explained that an average home using 18,000 kilowatt hours per year would be about 102 homes. The Planner was trying to find a way to build fewer homes than the proposed plans.

Mr. Davis stated that the solar was oversized on purpose, because the solar generated the electricity which would be sold in order to fund the LMI construction and the rebates and everything else. That the oversized solar did reduce the number of houses and it did generate, because it was community owned, the funds to offset the LMI expenses. He would much prefer not to reduce the size of the solar if he can avoid it. The Planner asked Mr. Davis if he would be willing to reduce the number of units and reduce the impact from the housing on the community, knowing the Town would not be able to assimilate that right away in terms of the school district, the traffic generation and the impact on abutters, etc.

Mr. Davis stated that the location of the solar was chosen because it was closer to the lines from Rhode Island Energy, indicating that the efficiency is better the closer you are and that the poles are already in place and the equipment is already there, and he has received both the DEM and DOT permits. Mr. Davis indicated that he doesn’t have any love for the affordable housing or any of the housing. That his original plan was for a solar project, one house, one barn and garage and agricultural use of the land in between and under the panels.

The Town Planner stated that the applicant is requesting a Comp Permit that includes a Unified Development and Special Use Permit for two actual uses on one lot: an LMI housing development and a large-scale solar facility. The additional density provided by the LMI state statute would allow significant development densities and multiple adjustments. Housing supported by large-scale solar to reduce operational costs is the premise. The Planner proposed consideration of a project to reduce impacts on the town's limited financial resources, which could take the form of a hybrid development or a solar-only development with a house lot. Without considering potential alternatives, the LMI statute and Comp Permit process would make it very difficult to stop a compliant LMI project.

Board member Vivieros stated that he is trying to figure out exactly what Mr. Davis is asking to do, and is there a way to get there. Mr. Davis indicated that what he honestly wants to do is put in 10MW of solar, a house, barn and garage. That this was his plan for retirement for himself and his wife, which was killed earlier by the Town. Mr. Davis stated that he has no love for doing this housing project, but he does expect to do something with his land and if this is his only alternative—then this is how it will go.

Ms. Thurn asked if the solar had to be the 10 megawatts or is there a lower number that would work? She stated that they don’t have an easy mechanism to put in a utility scale. Mr. Davis noted that the 4.2 and 800 were chosen because they would generate enough income to finance the rest of the housing project. Ms. Thurn noted that if you don’t have the housing included would a smaller solar array generate enough income to finance your retirement? Mr. Davis indicated that it would work if it were 5MW and to include a battery. It would need to be utility scale, that it doesn’t work otherwise, that he doesn’t have the need for that much electricity.

Mr. Davis indicated that if he loses the ability to go for a Comp Permit, because he doesn’t believe solar alone does that, noting he doesn’t have an issue with the house, barn and garage because he already has the necessary permits for those builds. Mr. Davis did indicate that if he could do a 5MW system with a battery, he doesn’t see the need to do the housing. But that he won’t give up the ability to use the Comprehensive Permit process in order to push this forward.

The Planner noted that the Town does not allow utility scale, but wondered if the Town Council would consider a one off for a 5MW utility scale solar field which in turn could remove 119 homes from being built on the Davis property.  Mr. Davis would still have an upper portion and lower portion for possibly future projects. Chair Thurn asked a question regarding the map of the original project which had two different sections of housing—the small loop in one section and big loop in the back, asking about a small group of houses up close to Rt. 102? She asked how many houses are there and Mr. Davis indicated that there are seven houses in the section with access off Rt. 102. They discussed future possibilities.

Special Counsel Per Vaage indicated that there is still a huge outstanding issue about access. He indicated that there are two legal accesses, not three. That the Supreme Court has consistently held that there is no access to this project through a third access. Mr. Davis disagreed with Attorney Vaage’s interpretation. Mr. Davis noted that when he first applied for this 10MW project it was a by right use at the time of the application, but got rejected by the Planning Board. Mr. Epps asked if there was an avenue here, using the original application and amending it to a 5MW/AC system? Attorney Vaage stated that that is a completely different proposal and has nothing to do with housing. That the Town Council could spot zone the project, but that he could not speak for the Town Council. Mr. Vaage indicated that the Supreme Court has to resolve the access issue in order to put the project where Mr. Davis wants to put it.

Ms. Thurn asked the question about access from Rt. 102 at the time of the original proposal? Mr. Davis then presented his opinion as to why they ended up in court. Stating that when the Green Development project was going in along with Stamas, Marshall, his and others, it was clear early on, that the Green Development proposal was not going to get approved and the others were. Mr. Davis believes, that when that happened, Green Development indicated selective enforcement and unfair treatment. Chair Thurn asked Mr. Davis if he has access to Rt. 102 today? Mr. Davis indicated that he has had access from Rt. 102 since 1997 depended on by DOT.

Board member Viveiros asked if the group could agree that there is access from Rt. 102? Board member St. Lawrence, stated that according to the court, there is no third access. Mr. Davis once again disagreed with that determination. Ms. Thurn asking, once again, if Mr. Davis has access from Rt. 102 and Mr. Davis indicated that he has had access since 1997.  Special Counsel Vaage, indicated that there are different interpretations of that, but that the question is, whether or not currently, regardless of the state of the plan in 1997, what it was in 2019, what it was in 2022 when the Supreme Court decision came out, the Board is asking very clearly, what is the state of access from Rt. 102 today?  Mr. Davis indicated that he has had 100 percent access on 102 from 1997 through the entire time period mentioned through today. That the access from 102 required no Town approval whatsoever, that it is a state road and only DOT had to approve the curb cut to 102.

Special Counsel Vaage, read from a Superior Court decision which stated that the appellant (Mr. Davis) failed to provide sufficient information that either Estate Drive, Rt. 102, or Hallville Road can serve as legal and appropriate routes of access to the project. Therefore, the Board did not error when it concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate that he had access to the project through a public street. Attorney Vaage, noted that the Supreme Court upheld that decision and then he asked what has changed from the Supreme Court decision to today?

Mr. Davis felt this was an irrelevant question, because he had access, that the Planning Board, at the time, decided he did not have access. That the Town could not take a legal position now, to say he doesn’t have access from Rt. 102, when he had already put the driveway in, using the state permit, saying it was an absurd position. Attorney Vaage stated that there are two court decisions that say Mr. Davis does not have access, that the burden, however, is on Mr. Davis to establish that he does.

Mr. Davis asked a question of Mr. Epps asking him about when Morris Farm was being built, did they have access on Rt. 102. Mr. Epps stated that they had received a RIDOT popup which is a physical alteration permit. Mr. Davis indicated that this demonstrated that Morris Farm had access from Rt. 102, which is exactly what he has from his driveway to Rt. 102. Mr. Viveiros asked if there are any wetlands between the property and 102 and do you have access to the panels shown on the plans? Mr. Davis indicated that there is an intermittent stream during some parts of the year that crosses the property. Attorney Vaage noted that he may have access to the property currently in his own right, but for a project, it is not sufficient to access according to the courts.

Mr. Davis was asked if he could get to the body of the land? Mr. Davis indicated that he is using it currently and has permission from DEM. He was asked it had been approved? Mr. Davis indicates yes, it is paved, but not across the wetlands. Mr. Davis noted that he had received temporary approval from DEM in order to access the land to cut fire trails.

Mr. Viveiros asked if he is proposing housing, where is the access point? Mr. Davis, indicating on the record that he is proposing housing in his “Solicity” plan for 120 units. That there are three access points: Through the end of Estate Drive, Rt. 102 and a deeded right of way (Map 24) from the property across the DeFrancesco property. Noting in his opinion he can legally use any or all of them, in his opinion.

Board member Joe St. Lawrence noted that Attorney Vaage stated that access from Estate Drive could not be used. Attorney Vaage stated that the long and short of it is the Supreme Court decision that came out following 2022, stated that unless and until the Town either dedicates the roadway to public use or abandons it, there is no access. That the Town owns that stretch of Estate Drive, because if it didn’t, it couldn’t abandon it, or dedicate it to public use. Mr. Davis noted that the decision said at best it is a paper stream. But that decision also said that the Town never accepted the unimproved land past the cul-de-sac. He indicated that there is currently an adverse possession case for this section. Mr. Davis noted that he has used and maintained this land all the way to the cul-de-sac and if it is determined by the Supreme Court next month to be his, he stated that he has access and always did. Mr. Viveiros indicated that in order to have a development of 120, 240 or 440, you need access. He asked if there is access for 120, 240,440 units, how can it not have access for solar panels? 

Special Counsel Vaage stated that Mr. Davis would have establish legal access either through title or through permission, in this case DEM. One of the conditions of access, addressed in the Superior Court decision from 2019, was to establish access to the project over the wetlands, Mr. Davis had to provide sufficient evidence that it would not have an adverse impact on the wetlands, and that evidence was not in the record at that time. In order to get access over the wetlands to a project, Mr. Davis would need to establish this evidence.

Attorney Vaage noted that this was just a preapplication and the purpose of the preapp is to understand what the contours of the project will be and how the project will play out on the ground when a preliminary application is submitted. Which would map out the type of information that is required by statute. That the only thing the Board can do at this point is have Mr. Davis come back with an application that lays out specifically were the anticipated access will be and the permits that will be obtained. Where is it going and how is it getting access. Board member Viveiros noted the Planner’s point that the number of housing units and the Town’s inability to support that many homes.

Chair Thurn concurred that she would rather see more solar than housing units. Mr. Davis stated that he would reduce his solar from 10 to 5, but that it wouldn’t make sense to go below that and that housing would be contracted out, but that he does want to build his house, barn and garage, as previously stated.

Board member Rob Corriea asked the Planner about the 109-acre site, zoned RU4, with no LMI and solar, how many houses given the wetlands, could they build on that site. The Planner noted, that according to the applicant it was about 26 from the 109, 20 percent for roads and drainage, and then 4 acres after that, about 20 houses.

The Planner reviewed with the Board the following items. Mr. Davis has a comp permit on file. Discussion took place around the different alternatives to reduce the impact of housing on the Town, the elephant in the room—the frontage. The Planner then went over the permit process which would include one public hearing, two if it’s a special use permit; comp permit statute for the required findings to be given to Board members; he noted that many questions would need to be answered if the preliminary application comes in. The Planner noted that Mr. Davis’s comp permit includes 120 units with a 5MW solar installation. He noted that he would rather look for solutions than the burden that may be placed on the Town with the increase in housing.

Mike Viveiros asked about the battery storage.  Mr. Epps indicated that it would be a contained skid with the batteries and electronics for the interconnection as well as the fire suppression within the unit.

Robert Corriea asked what two things that they are talking about, work for the developer and the Town. He asked how they could study anything in depth until there is clarity on access points to the site. That they are not in agreement on the Estate Drive access. Mike Viveiros added that there might be a proposal on the table that shows crossing wetlands and would need state approvals in order to move forward. Mr. Davis indicated that yes, they could on the potential ruling on the adverse possession case. That if Mr. Davis lost, then it would not be his property but it would still belong to Wood Estates.

The Planner noted that one of the findings will be to have permanent access to the facility and built to a certain spec. He indicated that by recognizing a certain access and not the other, you could say that access on Rt. 102 has received, as a finding of fact, that the physical alteration permit was issued. Findings would require that access is paved to Town standard and if there is a wetland crossing that a RI DEM permit has been issued. The Planner also noted that all of the required findings will need to be addressed in the Land and Ordinance regulations.

Mr. Davis wanted it noted that solar is not a place holder. That just like any other use, once it is installed, it stays, because there is a cost penalty to take it out and convert it to a different use. Also, that it is a lot less expensive to continue it, than to establish that use somewhere else. He stated that the panels and inverters will get changed, but where ever it goes, 100 years from now, those solar panels will probably still be solar panels.

Vice Chair Corriea revisited with Mr. Davis that he was asking for approval for the 800kw project by December 15, 2025 in order for him to move forward. Mr. Davis indicated that he would like to move forward with the 800kw and is looking to get some indication if that is likely to happen. If he can’t get it the alternative would be to move forward with the affordable housing.

Mr. Epps restated a deadline – that the first deadline is December 31^st, and that the actual language of the law requires work of a significant nature. Applies to work on the site or off site, but it has to be continuous.

Chair Thurn asked if Mr. Davis could go forward with the 800kw, could that then be expanded at a later point and still fall under that time clock. Mr. Epps said he would need to put in the orders for the 800kw system quickly or give Mr. Davis the approval to do site work of a significant nature—like the internal roads, the foundations to met the requirements by the end of the year.  He would advise Mr. Davis to purchase the equipment for the 800 now, and after the end of the year purchase equipment again for the 4.2, the 800 would not be subject to the foreign equipment issue, but the 4.2 would be, and it would have to have a certain level of US content (50-55%).

Ms. Thurn stated that at this point in time they have a mechanism for Mr. Davis to go forward with the 800kw, because that falls within the Town’s ordinance. The Planner noted that the only item on the agenda is a project containing housing and solar. The Planner stated that he would be supportive of limited housing and a large-scale solar project, (special use permit), access issue aside. Whether it’s one house or maybe 20 houses, or something in between, access is required. A scaled down project, with solar, a Christmas tree farm, and some development, would pose less impact onto the
Town than a

The Town Planner continued: The LMI statute and Comp Permit process requires a minimum 25% LMI, which allows for a density bonus; however, that’s a minimum. Greater density bonuses are provided for 50% and 100% affordable units; therefore, the proposed 120 units could be much higher without the solar. If there is some middle ground here, you could still use the Comp permit to argue that solar is subordinate to reducing the operational cost of the LMI housing units, showing the kilowatt savings and how they offset the cost of daily household operations. The LMI statute allows consideration of mechanisms for financial support.  The Planner felt there needs to be an exploration of a resolution that works for both the Town and the landowner.

Mr. Davis asked if the comprehensive permit process is only available if it includes LMI housing. His first question was if he was open to reducing the housing part of the plan—could the size of the solar still remain the same? His second question was if he gets a comp permit that does include solar and housing, and the housing doesn’t get built? Attorney Vaage stated that Mr. Davis would no longer be protected by the comp permit statute and would have a zoning violation. Mr. Davis acknowledged that there would need to be a minimum amount of housing that has to get built if the solar is going to get built with the comp permit process.

Discussion and options continued to be considered. Conclusions of the Board were more solar and less housing seemed to be the general consensus of the Board. 

ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES:

Chair Thurn noted that at the Work Session on Wednesday, November 12^th Morris Farm will be making their presentation for a farm overlay district and Yawgoo Valley Ski will be present to give their concept review as to where they would like to go in the future. Ms. Thurn noted that she will need to recuse herself from both of those discussions, because she works for Morris Farm and her husband works for Yawgoo Valley Ski.

Chair Thurn also asked Board members to let her know if they will not be able to attend a future meeting in order to assure a quorum.

V.                            ADJOURNMENT: 

 Motion to adjourn was made by Robert Corriea, seconded by Joe St. Lawrence, voted all in favor. The motion carried (6-0).  The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. (Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Joseph St. Lawrence, Michael Viveiros and Norman Machon).

                             Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Lukowicz, Planning Department