I.                    CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

II.                   NEW BUSINESS:

A.     PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIN TO THE TOWN COUNCIL – REQUEST TO EXPAND SPLIT ROCK MOBILE HOME PARK. AP 72-2 B2 L11 PURSUANT TO EXETER CODE OF ORDINANCES, ARTICLE II, SECTION 26-36: JEFFREY F. CAFFREY, ESQ., ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT SHORELINE PROPERTIES, INC., 400 SOUTH COUNTY TRAIL, SUITE A207, EXETER, RHODE ISLAND. The current site comprises 69 mobile home units, a substantial portion of which exhibit significant deterioration. Additionally, 46 acres of undeveloped land have been identified for potential expansion. The proposal delineates plans to rehabilitate the existing mobile home park and introduce 40 new housing units, with 50% of these designated for occupancy by low- to moderate-income (LMI) residents.

Chair Gina Thurn recognized Town Planner William DePasquale, Jr., AICP.  Planner DePasquale referenced his Planning Memorandum: Town Council Referral for Planning Board Recommendation, Dated: September 17, 2025. The Planner explained to the Board the difficulty in establishing a process for this application between the Town Council and Planning Board. That the process has never taken place since the 1980’s, he references the eCode of ordinances which speaks to expansion, but indicating a question as to the zoning use, is it allowed, and what Board should be looking at it for approval or consideration.

He noted that originally the application came to him as the Administrative Officer to the Planning Board and he had issued a Letter of Deficiency, which included a number of items that were deficient, but the largest of which was that the Planning Board had no regulatory role in which to provide an approval, based on the expansion clause in the ordinance. He noted that they will later review the Code of Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance and how they may differ. The Planner suggested to the applicant that they submit to the Town Council to start the process, that the Council would consider the expansion and that the Planning Board could then give the Council recommendations to the Council on this type of development and the impacts on the Town. The Council has since sent to the Planning Board a request for a recommendation within the next two weeks.

The Planner referenced the application from Shoreline Properties, Inc., and their proposal to further develop its existing lot of record (AP72 B2 L11) with a 40-unit manufactured home development. Shoreline noted in their application that the site consists of 56.6 acres of land, with an estimated population for the proposed development of 113 people, with 14 school-aged children. Planner DePasquale in his memorandum offered the Board and outline for discussion with regards to this development. He noted that Shoreline Properties would also be upgrading the existing properties along with the new development.

The Planner then asked the Board to consider the following information when making their recommendation: (Detailed discussion topics are included in the Planner’s September 17, 2025 memorandum, Pages 6-10).

1.      Density, providing a detailed analysis of the density per acre

2.      Density compliance

3.      Comprehensive Plan consistency

4.      Manufactured home to include comprehensive construction drawings

5.      Development impacts, the effects on the town’s infrastructure

6.      Stormwater planning

7.      Landscape/Signage Plan

8.      Viewshed rendering from Route 2

9.      OWTS/Water – Details regarding the Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems

10.  Nutrient Loading Study

11.  Utilities/Heating

12.  Driveways and Parking areas

13.  Roadway details

14.  Traffic Study/Safety

15.  Fire Safety

16.  Mobility – detailed plan that includes provisions for the establishment of bus routes, stop locations, as well as for school buses, etc.

17.  LMI (Low-to-Moderate Income)

18.  Mobile Home vs Manufactured Home

19.  Land Ownership

The Planner then offered his concerns on certain topics that will require much greater detail when considering Shoreline’s application for new development.

1.       Density (too high) Given the limited review, the density of the development appears to be excessively high.

2.      Redesign – the site’s setback, which is currently designated for drainage purposes, is essentially managing stormwater and does not provide the natural characteristics of an untouched wooded buffer, such as mature trees and diverse vegetation.

3.      Tax Collections

4.      Changes from III Catalog of Information

5.      Scope/schedule proposed improvements for the existing mobile home park

6.      Phasing new build. (Old Park, New Park, etc.)

The Planner turned over the discussion to Town Solicitor Stephen Sypole. Solicitor Sypole indicated that the Ordinances that the Town currently has, are not up to the task of this development. That it might be in the applicant’s best interest to request an ordinance amendment.

The Solicitor then stated that it was his understanding that mobile homes were prohibited in 1986. That the Town has a Mobile Home Trailer Park Licensing Ordinance, separate from the Zoning Ordinance, and for the last 40 years it has served the purpose of the existing grandfathered-in trailer/mobile home parks to be able to renew their licensing. That there has been no construction of anything like this request since 1986. And, so, the licensing ordinance has not been updated since that time. He noted that the current Zoning Ordinance, which has its own definitions, does not necessarily match the words of the licensing ordinance. Under the Use Table it indicates that mobile homes are not an allowed use. The Solicitor noted that he would be available to the Zoning Officer if and when he should need the Solicitor’s advice.

The Solicitor referenced information within Exeter’s Zoning Codes under Sec. 2.6 Other General Provisions: Paragraph 4. Only one dwelling structure on any lot; Paragraph 8. Temporary uses permitted. Noting: All other temporary and/or mobile facilities for residential, commercial or industrial use are prohibited in all districts. He also referenced nonconforming uses and the requirement of a special use permit for intensification of a nonpermitted use. He felt that the current ordinances are not quit equipped to deal with the applicant’s request and should be addressed before moving forward with this proposed plan.

Chair Thurn asked the applicant to explain their vision for this project and also their thoughts about the information presented by both the Planner and Solicitor. Ms. Thurn recognized Attorney Jeffrey F. Caffrey, from Resnick and Caffrey, 300 Centerville Road, Warwick, RI, who was representing his client, Mr. Joseph Catelli of Shoreline Properties, Inc. He noted that although the application appears to be minimal, that under the State statute there are very minimal requirements to get a preapplication meeting. That they are under an agreement to buy this property from the current owner of the property and they are trying to get a feel from both the Council and Planning Board as to whether they are receptive to an expansion on the property. That if the Town is not receptive to this development, that they will walk away from this deal. If, however, the Town is receptive then they would want to develop this property with the additional 40 units, which 50 percent would be under the LMI classification. Mr. Caffrey stated, with regard to school children, that historically speaking mobile home parks don’t typically generate a lot of children and that they have estimated approximately 14 school-aged children.

Attorney Caffrey noted that what he is particularly concerned about is the issue as to whether or not the ordinance permits what they are proposing to do. It was his understanding of the ordinance that the Town Council is vested with the authority, exclusively as to whether or not a mobile home park can be expanded. Attorney Caffrey indicated that they had appeared before the Town Council on September 6, 2025 for the purpose of asking the Council for permission to expand the park and that the Council remanded it to the Planning Department in order to get their input. But, that his reading of the ordinance is that the Council is vested with the authority under the ordinance; that the ordinance supersedes the Town’s Zoning Ordinances, and that the Council has the authority to grant the expansion. That the authority exists and that they (the applicant) are required to apply for a Zoning Certificate and would be happy to do that. Attorney Caffrey stated that they do have a drop-dead date for the end of September under their contract with Split Rock Mobile Home.

He noted that they are looking to see if there is a receptiveness from the Town to develop this mobile park. Mr. Caffrey noted that they are gradually cleaning up the current condition of the park and would be happy to work with the Planner going forward.

Mr. Caffrey introduced Melina Lodge, Executive Director at Housing Network of Rhode Island, as one of the more renown experts on low- and moderate-income housing. Ms. Lodge wanted to clarify the misunderstanding of how mobile home manufactured units count under the low/mod statute that addresses this topic. Under Rhode Island General Laws §45-53-3 Section 9-ii the counting of mobile home units on owned land is an alternative formula, allowing a municipality, where there are resident owned parks, to count mobile homes that don’t meet the other criteria. That criteria would be: Do not have a subsidy, (in this case the comp permit would constitute the subsidy); Do not have a deed restriction, (which these units would be deed restricted); and, Do not actually contemplate an income certification process, (in which case these units would meet that criteria, to allow municipalities to additionally count those manufactured units). Noting that there is the standard calculation of one unit, so these units would not count as half, what the applicant is proposing would, in fact, give the Town 20 fully countable units. That there is nothing in the low/mod statue that contemplates a stylistic approach to housing. If it is multifamily, it could be a duplex, single-family, modular, manufactured, it doesn’t matter the type of unit, it has to meet certain criteria—subsidy, deed restriction, income certification—the requirements for fully capturable units. 

Ms. Lodge indicated the following: That the provision under Section 9 is in response to communities coming forward and saying they have mobile home parks, and knowing that they tend to be low/mod income, and because of this housing typology, how can they count them. She noted that a compromise was made, that where there are resident owned parks, people have control over the land, that the State was willing to give a half credit, even though they don’t have any of the following: a subsidy, deed restriction, and no income certification. Ms. Lodge indicated that there are about 175 mobile homes in this alternative formula. That they also monitor about 73 mobile homes that are fully deed restricted, subsidized and income certified. She also offered that there are no children in any of those units, not that it couldn’t happen, but it is not what they typically see. Usually, they see older adults or single individuals. Ms. Lodge finished by saying that Exeter would be adding 40 units, but that 50 percent of those units will get to count. So, Exeter would go from 197 units to additional 20 getting the Town to the 10 percent requirement.

Ms. Thurn asked if the remaining 20 units would fall under the half credit provision. Ms. Lodge, indicated no, because it has to be on land that is owned by the owner of the unit. Attorney Caffrey indicated that the property would be owned by the developer. Ms. Lodge indicated that a single lot could have a mobile home on it and the Town could then receive the half credit provision on that property.

Mr. Corriea asked, if a mobile home/manufactured home is owned by the developer and you are just living there; does that unit meet the low/mod criteria? Ms. Lodge explained the differences between a mobile home and a manufactured (Prefab) home. Chassis VS no Chassis. Ms. Lodge indicated that if the individual leases the land and owns the home and they meet the criteria they could be counted.

The number of children being added to the school roles was discussed and again it was noted as minimal. Mr. Joseph Catelli, of Shoreline Properties, Inc., explained that at a previous site, Liberty Hill, he actually has no children there. 

Mr. Toro stated that given the present state of the ordinance and statute that Exeter has, Mr. Toro felt in order to protect the Board, that the Board’s legal counsel should draft an opinion letter to the Council as to whether the Board has the authority to do what is being asked to do. Solicitor Sypole noted that he was simply trying to identify issues, so that the Board has information.

Mr. Toro felt there was a conflict. Solicitor Sypole noted that there is both a Zoning Ordinance and a Licensing Ordinance, that they are separate, and the applicant would need to comply with both. Mr. Toro stated that the license could be grandfathered, but the zoning is clear, you can’t do it. Mr. Catelli didn’t agree with that assertion, because he felt they have the right to expand upon a preexisting nonconforming use, which they have here and with a special use permit they can expand upon the property by filing a comprehensive permit application, which the Board has the authority to grant the relief. Mr. Catelli indicated that previously they only had mobile homes and currently they are manufactured homes, which will be affixed to a slab. Solicitor Sypole felt a definition is needed, that describes what the applicant will be doing and did not know how the Zoning Inspector, David Thornley, would rule in this particular instance.

Solicitor Sypole recommended to the applicant to request a better ordinance. He felt there were possibly a number of issues that could arise. Mr. Caffrey was asking the Board to give them a basic nod, indicating their receptiveness to the Split Rock proposal and that the Board would be willing to work with them on the proposed plans. He indicated that it is in their best interest to clean up the current situation and build out an aesthetically pleasing “mobile” park.

Chair Thurn asked about the current 69 mobile trailers and of those occupied, is the plan to maintain the current number? Mr. Catelli said the infrastructure would need to be completed first and ideally, overtime, move some of the current tenants into the newly built area and dismantle the current park.

Board member Michael Viveiros asked about the improvements that would be made to the property. He felt that after looking at the plans, their expectations were somewhat aggressive.

He mentioned he is familiar with the tiny home industry. That the concept of improving the current park and expanding affordable housing was a worthwhile project, but did find that the timeframe for decision making was troubling to him and that there is a need for greater input.

With regards to taxes, Attorney Caffrey mentioned that with other mobile home developments he represents, that tax collectors sell the units for nonpayment of taxes, that units go to tax sale, foreclosure the right of redemption, like all real estate would, they get sold and the town gets paid.

Density for both sections of the park are still a concern for Planning Board members.

Mr. Catelli noted that the proposed plans meet all the dimensional requirements of the zone

(RU4 setbacks). That the only relief they would be asking for is under the Town’s standards, that you need 20,000 square feet per new pad or site. Planner DePasquale reviewed density with the Board and the applicant. The Planner felt they would exceed the RU4, by how much is unknown.

Chair Thurn asked if there was a way to increase the percentage of LMI in either the new development or the existing mobile home park. Mr. Catelli was willing to entertain additional LMI options. It was suggested that the price point on these units would be conducive to affordable units, but would restrict future buyers.

Ms. Thurn asked about their drop-dead date of December. Attorney Caffrey indicated that their due diligence time frame is up at the end of September. Discussion continued on how to move forward with the project between the need for a new ordinance and decisions to be made between the Town Council and the Planning Board. Solicitor Sypole noted that this proposal is before the Planning Board because of the Licensing Ordinance that says, that in order to get the necessary license from the Town Council their application to the Council requires a written opinion from the Planning Board concerning the effect of the proposed Trailer Park on the orderly development of the Town.

Planner DePasquale noted that after reviewing Town Ordinance 26-36 it was absolutely the Town Council’s responsibility to determine if the expansion to an existing mobile home park under a license is grantable. However, they don’t have the ability to determine all of the design aspects. The design would be sent back to us for a major land development review recommendation, because we don’t have the statutory authority and the Town Council would be making the decision on the Planning Board’s recommendation. However, a Comp Permit is different, that would be a major land development and the Comp Permit would be issued under a special use permit for an expansion of a nonconforming use. Two different processes.

Chair Thurn asked Board members as to whether they could find a way to make this expansion work and to clean up what currently exists, making it an attractive and safe site.

She then indicated that if the Board agrees, the need for a letter to the Council seeking an ordinance change, and the Board’s ability to continue to work on the conditions to make this a good project. Planner DePasquale suggested to Mr. Catelli and Mr. McCaffrey that this Board needs additional information going forward.

Solicitor Sypole, again suggested, that the Zoning Ordinance be cleaned up and clearly stated—indicating what to do per expanding an existing Trailer Park. Without this change he felt it opened up objections from individuals. Solicitor Sypole then suggested that if there were something in the Zoning Ordinance that said, “Expansion of an existing trailer park is governed by Town Ordinance 26 with appropriate review by the Planning Board,” that that could be an appropriate fix.That licensing and zoning are two separate things.

Solicitor Sypole then read the following from Exeter’s Code of Ordinances:

Sec. 26-36. - Expansion of trailer parks.

Expansion of trailer parks beyond the area licensed for such use shall be permitted only upon application to the town council. Applications for expansion of trailer parks shall be governed by the provisions of this article in the same manner as applications for initial trailer park licenses.

·         Sec. 26-61. - Required.

No person shall locate or maintain a trailer park within the town without a license for such trailer park. (Ord. of 7-7-86, § 2)

·         Sec. 26-62. - Application; contents.

Application for the initial issuance of a trailer park license shall be made in writing to the    town council and shall be accompanied by the following:

(1) Name and address of the applicant.

(2) Plat of the proposed location of such trailer park prepared by a licensed surveyor showing the names and addresses of all adjoining property owners and all property owners within 200 feet of such location, and the location of the roads, trailer spaces, water, sewerage and sanitary facilities.

(3) Name and address of the owner of the proposed location.

(4) Written opinion of the planning board of the town, concerning the effect of the proposed trailer park on the orderly development of the town and making its recommendations.

(5) Written opinion of the state department of health that the proposed location and proposed water, sanitary and sewerage facilities meet with its approval.

(6) Application fee of $100.00 to defray the expense of recording the application, inspecting the proposed location, giving notice of the application and inspecting the installations of the trailer park. (Ord. of 7-7-86, § 3)

Discussion continued on how to move this project forward.

Mr. Caffrey indicated that the Council has the authority to expand. He felt that they are the only body that has that authority. That the Planning Board could grant a special use permit, but he didn’t feel they would be required to have one, if the Council gave them permission to expand. He indicated that when they met in early September, the Council liked their concept, but asked that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the Council.

Board member Robert Corriea made a motion that the Planning Board is unable to determine whether this project is within the orderly development of the town based on the information provided to date by the applicant. Our legal counsel highlighted the discrepancies between conflicting ordinances governing the expansion of preexisting nonconforming uses – in this case an existing trailer park. It is counsel’s opinion that the discrepancies need to be resolved before this board can make a recommendation.

The Planning Board had extensive cordial discussion with the applicant during a public meeting 9/23/25 discussing ways we can move forward with this project. There is broad agreement that this can be a positive project for the town.

We ask the town council to give the Planning Board the opportunity to clarifying the

discrepancies by modifying the Exeter zoning ordinances to cover expansion of an existing trailer park. We ask that the applicant file an application for a Major Land Development to the Planning Board to allow for a thorough review of all aspects of the proposal.

We are in favor of the concept in principle but have too many questions to recommend this project move forward at this time. Please see the attached memorandum by Town Planner William DePasquale, dated 9/17/25.

Seconded by John Toro. All In favor, (Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Joseph St. Lawrence and John Toro). The motion carried (5-0).

III.                OLD BUSINESS:

A.    Site Readiness Analysis – Route 102 and Route 3 – Continued Discussion.

Planner DePasquale shared Rob Corriea’s outline of the Interstate 95 Interchange with Routes 3 and 102 in Exeter (9/22/25). The Planner asked if the Board had reviewed the proposed ideas and asked for their suggestions. Mr. DePasquale stated that it was important not only to list the types of businesses they would like to see on these sites, but more importantly, what they don’t want to see. The Planner suggested that Board members take the time to visit the Quonset site for additional planning ideas.

The Planner suggested thinking about something “uniquely” Exeter to be located on the Route 3 intersection. Both Mike Vivieros and Rob Correia agreed that the former Harley Davidson business would look great for that site. He asked that they continue to think about what those ideal businesses should be for this particular site. A logical use to consider is an Event Planning business, or consideration of a brewery, restaurant, etc. Mr. DeFrancesco suggested talking to Gashy Dowlatshahi, a builder in the Town of Exeter.

IV.               ADMINISTRATIVE:

A.     Zoning Board of Review:  Next meeting on Thursday, October 9, 2025.

B.     Future Meetings: Work Session on Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.

Chair Thurn asked to continue the discussion around the Route 3 & 102 Interchange.

Vice Chair Corriea requested time to talk about Recreational opportunities for the Town of    Exeter. The Planner noted that Recreational grants and matching funds would be needed and that there are considerations within the Comprehensive Plan. He then asked Board members to review the list at the back of the Comprehensive Plan where there are a series of items that are required actions; he asked that Board members to highlight those actions that mean the most to them.  He indicated that he will be required to report back, to the State, in two years on the action items that the Board has completed. He noted, that if Recreation comes out as one of the top choices, then they should ask the Council to put aside $50,000 a year in the Capital Improvement Budget and over time there would be $400,000 and then be able to match 50 percent of recreational open space.  Ms. Thurn suggested placing this on the Board’s next agenda.        

 Regular Planning Board Meeting on Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.

V.                 ADJOURNMENT:

Motion to adjourn was made by Robert Corriea, seconded by John Toro, voted all in favor.

The motion carried (7-0).  The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. (Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Joseph St. Lawrence, John Toro, Michael Viveiros and Norman Machon).

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Lukowicz

Planning Department