I.                    CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

II.                   OLD BUSINESS:

A.     Recommendation to the Town Council – Petition for the establishment of a Farm Overlay District encompassing the properties; AP-B-L; 64-1-8, 64-1-9, 64-1-17, 64-1-19, 64-1-22, 64-1-23, and 64-1-26, as delineated on the application, property owners; Milan Earl Adams III, MEACO LLC, Glen Rock Realty LLC, Micole Realty Trust, Nilan Realty Trust the request  provided for in Article VII  entitled “Overlay Districts” of the Exeter Code of Ordinances, and more specifically Section 7(a) titled “Farm Overlay District” pursuant to Section 7(a)(9) regarding “Eligibility,” as well as Section 7(a)(11)(b) which mandates that “the Planning Board shall conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the applications for the overlay district and shall provide an advisory opinion to the Town Council concerning the eligibility criteria.”

Chair Gina Thurn introduced the above Petition for the establishment of a Farm Overly District – Sherman Farm and turned the discussion over to Town Planner William DePasquale. Planner DePasquale referenced his memorandum: Petition for the Establishment of a Farm Overlay District – Sherman Farm; Dated September 3, 2025.

The Planner noted that in the preamble he details how they arrived at this point and that the Town Council has approved Article 7(a), entitled “Overlay Districts,” in particular the creation of a farm overlay district and by state statute in the form of a floating zoning district. He noted that the district is there and with the eligibility criteria, it is up to the petitioner to petition to take that overlay district and lay it upon their base district, stating that it doesn’t change the base district, that overlays the district, and that is a floating zone.

He noted that in Sec-7(a.).9 the “Eligibility” requirements are stated. The Planner also noted in Sec-7(a).11(b), it states, The Planning Board shall undertake a comprehensive evaluation of applications for the overlay district and shall provide an advisory recommendation to the Town Council regarding eligibility criteria.

Planner DePasquale referenced his memorandum of (September 3, 2025) which includes the eligibility requirements according to Section 7(a).9 and the requirements the applicant must meet. He indicated that at the time of this document there was a question with regards to the appointment of a new Town Council representative, that may or may not have been party to the application. In consultation with the Ethics Commission, the Planner pulled his recommendation. Since that time, the presumed representative has declined his appointment to the Town Council, making the following lines within his September 3, 2025 memorandum a moot point, and he asked to strike the following sentences: It is important to note that, at the time of this recommendation, the Town Council is composed of Diane Allen, Olivia DeFrancesco, and Raymond Morrissey, along with an appointed member pending swearing-in. The current composition of this body does not present any conflicts related to appointed bodies.  Planner DePasquale noted that he will resubmit his memorandum.

The Planner then stated that the purpose of tonight’s hearing was not to consider the floating zone, which has already been approved, but to consider the application of this applicant as to their ability to apply the floating zone. Which requires the applicant to go to the Town Council, but first make it mandatory that the eligibility criteria be reviewed by the Planning Board and the Planning Board give a recommendation.  

The Planner then reviewed the following eligibility criteria with the Board:

A.    The farmland must have a minimum combined lot size of no less than seventy-five (75) acres of contiguous land under common ownership, and

The Planner’s review does find this to be fact – Sherman Farm area of proposed FOD 175 acres.

B.     The entirety of the farmland shall be located within the RU-3, RU-4 or CR-5 zoning district; and

The Planner noted the property is 175 acres and Zoned RU-4.

C.    The farmland shall have access and egress and contain the minimum improved frontage on a Town or State arterial roadways; and

The proposed FOD fronts on Hog House Hill Road, an official Town roadway in Exeter, RI. 

D.    The farmland has been in agricultural use and production for the previous five (5) consecutive years with gross sales income from farming of not less than Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) as verified by the filing of a Schedule F (Form 1040) tax filings “Profit or 296 Loss from Farming” Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service or other agricultural tax return filing based on ownership structure (Individual, Partnership. Limited Liability Company or 299 Corporation). Any documentation provided in satisfaction of this subsection shall not be deemed a public record pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws §38-2-2(4)(0); and

The Planner indicated that the Sherman Historic Farm, circa 1738; current applicant farming since 1981, IRS Form 1040 showing 2019 to 2023, all years greater than $10,000.00.

E.     The Farm Overlay District floating zone (FOD) shall only apply to those qualifying parcels that the farm owner seeks application thereon.

Planner indicated that the FOD is limited to; AP-B-L: 64-1-8, 64-1-9, 64-1-17, 64-1-19, 64-1-22, 64-1-23 and 64-1-26.

F.     The agricultural operations of the farmland shall be the primary use of the farm operation.

The Planner stated Yes—as limited by the farm overlay ordinance Section 7(a).

G.    Notwithstanding the minimum setback required by Section 7(a).6, the Town Council may grant a variance of the minimum setbacks required by this Chapter utilizing the criteria stated in RIGL 1956, §45-24-41, as amended, for dimensional variances.

TBD—by Town Council.

The Planner’s Memorandum of September 3, 2025 concluded with the following Recommendation to the Town Council.

In accordance with Article VII, Section 7(a) of the Exeter Code of Ordinances, specifically pertaining to the “Farm Overlay District” and the eligibility criteria outlined in Section 7(a)(9) and Section 7 (11)(b), the Planning Board has conducted a thorough evaluation of the current application for a Farm Overlay District concerning parcels AP-B-L: 64-1-8, 64-1-9, 64-1-17, 64-1-19, 64-1-22, 64-1-23 and 64-1-26. The Board has determined that the applicant meets the specified eligibility requirements set forth in the ordinance.

Attorney John Pagliarini, Esq., was recognized and introduced himself to the Board. He then reviewed his credentials stating that he has a Master’s Degree in Community Planning, was the former Town Planner for the Town of West Greenwich and recently left his position as Director of Planning and Development for the City of Woonsocket. A former State Senator, Parliamentarian in the State Senate and legal counsel to the Senate President.

Attorney Pagliarini noted that he has two additional projects that will be coming before the Board. He concurred with everything the Town Planner stated and that that would have been his presentation, also. He had a request to amend the official document; he felt that it wasn’t prudent or fair to put the Schedule F income in the official document. The analysis should be that it was over $10,000.00, but shouldn’t be in a public record and stricken from the minutes. He concurred that the favorable recommendation be forwarded to the Town Council.

             Vice Chair Robert Corriea made a motion in support of the findings of the Administrative Officer, the applicant meets the criteria for eligibility to be designated a Farm Overlay District as outlined in Article VII, Section 7. (a)  of the Town’s zoning regulations. The Findings of the Administrative Officer and the Planning Board only address whether this application qualifies as a Farm Overly District, it does not imply that the Planning Board endorse or support any project that may be planned for the “District.” Any plans to develop within the Farm Overlay District would have to come before the Planning Board as separate applications and be thoroughly reviewed by staff and Board members. The applicant has approached this Board with conceptual plans for a slaughterhouse. If the applicant chooses to pursue such a project, he would need to file a separate application to this Board with detailed plans to include, but not be limited to, size of the building, operating model, environmental safeguards and impact on the neighborhood. A slaughterhouse in Exeter would be the first in Rhode Island and have the potential to negatively impact our rural community. We will be obligated to thoroughly vet such a project, a comprehensive review would include, but not be limited to, animal waste disposal, blood runoff during the slaughtering process, water usage, odor control, vehicle traffic to and from the site. The Board would expect to hear from professional engineers and experts versed in the arears where we have concerns. Such expert testimony would enlighten us and address concerns of the community who we represent.

        Seconded by Michael DeFrancesco. A vote was taken, all in favor, no one opposed, the vote was unanimous. (Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Joseph St. Lawrence and John A. Toro).

It was noted by the Planner that the original Town legislation had a slaughterhouse as a prohibited use by the Town Council. Which was then pulled out by the Town Council and a new section was added indicting that if the applicant is in a Farm Overlay District, that they could come before the Town Council and ask for a slaughterhouse. The details of which would be determined at the time of the application. That the decision would be up to the Town Council with a recommendation from the Planning Board. The Planner noted that when these overlay districts are created, it avails anyone who meets the eligibility criteria to come before the Council and request a slaughterhouse on their FOD.