I.                   CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Meeting began and 6:01 P.M.

Chair Thurn asked to reorder the evening’s agenda at the request of the Town Council, starting with New Business.

II.                   NEW BUSINESS:

A.     Report to the Town Council – Recommendations for Short, Medium, and Long-Term Actions; Designation of Scenic Byways as outlined in the Exeter 2044 Plan.

Chair Gina Thurn introduced this agenda item and asked Town Planner William DePasquale to begin the discussion. Planner DePasquale acknowledged the request, through the Town Clerk, of an order from the Town Council to consider a recommendation to the Council on actions related to the Scenic Byway for Rt. 102.

Planner DePasquale referenced the information packet that he distributed to the Board and referenced Exeter’s Scenic Roadway as noted in the Exeter 2044 Comprehensive Plan, Pages 9-7 and 9-12 Transportation. He noted that there was discussion through the Comprehensive Plan process. However, he noted that in the end it is about preserving the characteristics of Route 102, the 7.3miles between Route 2 and Route 3.

Planner DePasquale noted the Scenic Highway Designation of September, 1993, and offered the following information from RIDOT’s Statewide Scenic Roads: Scenic Roadways; Route 102 Stewardship Plan. Description: The roadway traverses Exeter’s rolling topography, with elongated hills that run north to south, separated by narrow valleys. These hills are some of the highest in Rhode Island, up to 560 feet above sea level. The landscape of woodland pastures is unspoiled by commercial development.

Most of the highway follows the 18^th century Ten Rod Road and is still bounded by significant sections of the original stone walls. Located along the highway are historic structures and sites, and two historic (districts). Commonly known as “Exeter’s Main Street,” Route 102 was once used to carry goods and livestock to a market at the colonial seaport of Wickford.

The highway crosses five valleys containing the streams that constitute the headwaters of the Queen’s River watershed—the most pristine waterway in Rhode Island. A traveler along the roadway can see remarkable degrees of contrast. This includes hilltop panoramas to intimate views contained in the valleys below. Stands of pine are interspersed with red maple in the valleys and wetlands, which offer an exceptional display of scarlet each autumn. Moving east, the forest areas give way to agricultural open spaces.

The Planner noted that the Board had addressed this issue during the Ten Rod Road Solar project. And, although it was desired to have this as a State of Rhode Island initiative it did not really work that well. The mechanism in which to enforce the Scenic Byways, he found, was underdeveloped. He mentioned when the Planning Board requested things like driveway placement, telephone polls and landscaping, the Scenic Board could not meet, and when they did some six months later, they gave the Town absolutely zero, in terms of improvement alternatives that would meet the Scenic Byway standards. That the only thing that was done, was done by the Planning Board, with established stone walls, the wood gate and telephone pole locations.

The Planner noted that originally the 1999 guidebook by Gates Leighton & Associates, Inc., prepared for The Rhode Island Scenic Roadway Board, really setup the framework for the Rhode Island Scenic Roadways Stewardship Guidebook, but that it needed to be updated and the values associated with the guidebook should be taken and incorporated as specific performance standards entitled: Title 290 – Department of Transportation, Chapter 50 – Scenic Roadways Board.

Planner DePasquale stated that the values within the regulations are very broad and are not specific for each corridor. He indicated that he has specific recommendations that would resolve that. He stated some of the items the Planning Board will see, are not consistent with a typical scenic byway, referencing the placement of vinyl-sided fencing in the right away, no restriction on the removal of trees, galvanized steel guardrails instead of wood, etc. He felt a lot can be done, but questioned if it would be accepted as new regulations for scenic roadways.

Planner DePasquale had prepared a resolution regarding transportation planning and infrastructure development for scenic roadway RT 102, for the Planning Board, with the hopes that the Board would contribute their goals and ideas to the proposed resolution, which would then require a Board vote, before forwarding it on to the Town Council. Planner DePasquale noted that he put it in the form of a resolution because of state laws and the Department of Transportation who runs the board, indicating that there will be a need for State legislature support. The Planner noted that state statute indicates that the corridor should be signed, “Scenic Highway, please don’t throw your trash out.” The Planner noted that the State does not appear to comply with the laws.

In the Planner’s proposed resolution to the Office of the Governor, the Director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT), and the Rhode Island Legislature, he states the following:

We propose a formal resolution from the Town Council addressing specific matters requiring attention and action at the state level. This initiative aims to enhance collaboration and expedite necessary interventions in assessing transportation planning and infrastructure development within our jurisdiction, scenic roadway RT 102. Your consideration and support in this matter are crucial for advancing our objectives and improving community outcomes.

The Planner felt that the state should fund an updated Rhode Island Scenic Roadways Stewardship Guidebook, which was originally published in 1999. He felt there was one thing that needed to be added to the update, that was not done previously, and that is to incorporate the scenic values that is established in the actual update as required values to be preserved. Which would require them to look at each corridor and determine the scenic value that needs to be preserved. Giving local boards the basis for preserving historic sites, topography, vistas, etc. during any planning changes.

Planner DePasquale went on to include the following items in the proposed resolution:

1.    Funding for an Update of the 1999 “Rhode Island Scenic Roadways Stewardship Guidebook

      1a. Identify Scenic Value

2.    Incorporate the Standards of this document into decision-making

3.    Scenic Roadway Board

4.    Develop a strategy for the future regarding the installation, replacement, or repainting of all current Scenic roadway guardrails

5.    Drainage and Headwalls

6.    Preserving the original character—Protecting stone walls, mature trees, and existing

topography

7.    Scenic Roadway Signage

8.    Safety Improvements

9.    Driveway Materials

10.  Enhanced Regulatory Approval

Gina Thurn asked what is the end result to come from this? The Planner felt that each of the ten suggestions in the resolution will add “teeth” to future planning for cities and towns. The Planner asked for the Board’s input. Board member Michael DeFrancesco mentioned that in the late seventies, early eighties, there was great resistance, on the Exeter side, to redo Rt. 102. Mr. DeFrancesco felt that there was a need to review the application from when Exeter applied for the scenic highway designation. The application was sent to the Scenic Highway Board with the intent to preserve the historic characteristics of Rt. 102 including the horizontal geometry and the view shed. Mr. DeFrancesco asked if the Board should consider a Scenic Highway overlay district allowing for local ordinances. The Planner would like to see more Board member participation in Town Council meetings.

The Planner offered Option B suggesting that the Planning Board could ask the Town Council to fund the Scenic Roadways study to identify in the corridor those elements that are valuable to the Town and then the Town would include those findings in any future development. Gina Thurn and Michael DeFranceso felt that Option B would be a better way to go.

The Planner felt that the benefit of the State funding this project is that they would be able to use the performance and value standards throughout the State. Locally the Planner felt the Town could be more specific as to the areas and incorporate into the Land Development regulations on Rt. 102 the special considerations for development the Town would like to see.

Board member Michael Viveiros, offered an example, and noted that not too long ago Sunderland Road was a dirt road and you could barely get to Coventry and now that it is totally paved, people have found that it is the shortest way to Coventry and many new homes have been built along the road. He noted that signage and entrances off 102 can be hazardous. Viveiros suggested that any improvements in the future should include Town considerations.

Board member Robert Corriea asked if under 1a in the resolution would it include historic mills and homes and the Planner indicated everything. Mr. Corriea asked about Camp Gregory from the historic roadway and again, the Planner indicated it would be considered part of the scenic roadway.

Board member Michael Viveiros offered to go through and put together a scenic value list for the Town of Exeter. The Planner asked for a ballpark figure to do a study, the figure of $50,000 was suggested.

Robert Corriea, recommended adding No. 11 to the proposed Town Council resolution to State authorities to read: We ask that the Town Council fund a scenic value study for Rt. 102 to identify scenic structures, walls, vistas, cemeteries, and other topographies such as the historic road side park near Oakley’s junction.

Planner DePasquale noted that the only way you can get this to work is with a local value study.

Chair Thurn suggested that the Board look at each suggested line item in the resolution and determine if there are any additional changes to the proposed language. In No. 1a. the suggestion was to add cemeteries and historic structures.  No. 10 reverse the language to read: We encourage the Rhode Island Scenic Roadways Board to have greater interaction with the Town Planning Board. And, as previously noted No. 11: We ask that the Town Council fund the scenic value study for Rt. 102 to identify scenic structures, walls, vistas, cemeteries, and other topographies such as the historic road side park near Oakley’s junction.

Michael DeFrancesco made a motion that the Planning Board approve the two-part document, prepared by the Planner, with respect to the scenic highway history and that it be included in a request for resolution for action. Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence, hearing no discussion, the motion passed (5-0). Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco,

Joseph St. Lawrence, John Toro.

Robert Corriea made a motion to amend the resolution document, prepared by the Town Planner, to include No. 11 which reads: We ask that the Town Council fund a scenic value study for Rt. 102 to identify scenic structures, walls, vistas, cemeteries, and other topographies such as the historic road side park near Oakley’s junction. Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence, hearing no discussion, the amendment passed (5-0). Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Joseph St. Lawrence, John Toro.

Gina Thurn made a motion with regards to the original motion to send both pieces to the Town Council, as amended, Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence, hearing no discussion, the motion passed (5-0). Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Joseph St. Lawrence, John Toro.

III.                OLD BUSINESS:

A.     Continued Review Site Readiness Study – Draft Zoning Language; Draft Planned Interstate Highway Floating Overlay District.

Town Planner William DePasquale indicated that there was a need to take a vote on whether or not the Planning Board wants to approve the draft Zoning ordinance with any amendments they may want to add. Any amendments would require a motion and seconded, if the Board is prepared to do this. Once agreed upon it will be forwarded to the Town Council and then meet with the neighbors and share the ordinance with them.

Traffic concerns were voiced by several of the Board members. Chair Thurn questioned the types of businesses that would offer the least amount of traffic, knowing a traffic issue already exists, while at the same time balanced with the types of businesses that would bring in the most taxes. She noted that mixed use sounds great, but that it will increase the taxes and that industrial will not go over well with anyone in the Town. Ms. Thurn felt that logistic warehousing was the best-case scenario. Planner DePasquale, although agreeing, still questioned the tractor trailers and the need to address the issue with professional guidance. He mentioned the consideration of a development, on that corner, under a comp permit with 500 residential units. The Planner noted that the Town does not know if a trailer park is going to be there forever. The alternative is not, the baseline condition, it is not going to be a mobile home park on an interchange for a long time, the highest and best use is not that. That it is up to the Board to decide what is the best use.

Robert Corriea, referencing his December 9, 2025 meeting notes, mentioned Page 76, Item A Comprehensive Plan Background and Mr. Corriea asked if that page is included in the ordinance, and if not, should we make reference to the Comprehensive Plan in the ordinance?  The Planner stated that any zoning ordinance must comply with the Comp Plan, so no it does not have to, by reference, reference it. You must make a finding that the zoning is consistent with the comp plan.

Mr. Corriea stated that they had talked about the buildout being at 35 percent, he suggested, given the amount of unbuildable land, due to wetlands and slopes, should they consider a 40 percent buildout? The Planner felt this should be under consideration. Michael Viveiros strongly agreed. It was noted that parking considerations are included in the 40 percent buildout.

Michael Viveiros concerned with noise and light pollution felt there was a need for a proper noise ordinance to protect those living in the area. The Planner didn’t disagree that that would be a legitimate argument that would need to be mitigated, but at what cost?

Mr. Viveiros noted that his job as a Planning Board member is to try and protect the interests of the Town and not just because, he doesn’t happen to live there, that he doesn’t care about it. The Planner noted that as a Planning Board member you approved the comp plan and it is not up to you to rewrite the comp plan. Mr. Viveiros asked if the Town has a proper noise ordinance? The Planner indicated that there is a noise ordinance on the books, saying, is it proper, probably not. The Planner noted that changes would need to be made by the Town Council.

Robert Corriea noted that they had discussed setting aside the land fronting Rt. 3 for retail customer service businesses keeping the Town’s rural character. That looking at the map there appears to be 800 linear feet from the corner of Rt. 102 and 3 and down along Austin Farm Road. The Planner indicated that this had come up during previous discussions and he was not sure if that is where they landed. The Planner asked his Board to make a decision regarding the frontage on Rt. 3—asking, are they still considering some kind of mixed-use retail or should they just put this idea to bed. Mr. Corriea like the idea of having the mixed-use retail.

Michael DeFrancesco asked a question regarding mixed use, indicating the opposite is single use, asking if single use is by default in the law, can a property only have one use? The Planner indicated that it is in the law now, the law now says one actual use, dedicated to the zone. Mr. DeFrancesco suggested if they wanted to have more than one than the law allows, could they put the exceptions in their decisions. Planner DePasquale indicated that in the newly created overlay district, a special district just for that corner, would contain the recommended mixed-use retail for the area. Discussion around a zone change for the Rt. 3 corridor to 165 and beyond, currently zoned light business, should be changed to strictly business, allowing building along the road. Water concerns were raised for the area.

Mike Vivieros asked if they were good with Light Industrial? The Planner said it might depend on what type of Light Industrial. That they could have a special use criterion for demonstrated Light Industrial uses with performance standards that do not have an environmental noise impact for consideration.

Chair Thurn asked what does Light Industrial mean?  The Planner indicated that there are general parameters around Light Industrial manufacturing—such as what comes in the front door and goes out the backdoor (the manufacturing process) the type of equipment, but that variably someone will come in and it is neither manufacturing or light industrial, a hybrid. The Planner suggested the standard should be--whatever the use is, prove to the Board that there will not be any ill effects on the Town. Chair Thurn felt the strategy might be to craft special use parameters—noise, light, traffic, environmental impact, release of biological, economic impacts, water quality.

The Planner stated that the Board’s preferred choice is warehouse, logistics, distribution. The Planner sees the property becoming a one or two user site, about two 40,000 sq. ft. facilities. The Planner will translate that into jobs and taxes. The overlay district will be named the Highway Business Overlay District (HBOD).

The Planner asked the Board members to make a list of prohibited uses and then send them on to him. Location and size will make the best use of the property.

The Planner noted that he would like to use a Form-Based code, an alternative zoning code, which would allow the applicant to come before the Planning Board and prove to the Board that the use works.

Michael DeFranceso referenced the Board’s Work Session meeting minutes of October 14, 2025 and read several passages. From one of those sections, he read the following: The Board discussed the following options to be considered in the new district. • Multiuser B2B/TDL Industrial Park scenario • Food Hubs (water supply concerns) • Office parks (considered passé) • Food/Beverage packing, processing and wholesale distribution should be considered • Hotels are not an option for this area

• Solar panels are an option for businesses • Affordable Housing—need to offer some opportunities to the existing trailer park—housing becomes a part of the overall plan.

The Planner commented about cost sharing through the Site Ready Analysis as part of the Quonset Development Corporation, (Site Ready program part of the State Economic Development Department) has up to 40 million dollars that they can use toward the project for site prep/site ready. The program could pay for roads and infrastructure and is available to an Exeter/developer should they choose to use it.

B.      Continued review of proposed amendments to existing Mobile Home Parks; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EXETER CODE OF ORDINANCES: MOBILE OR MANUFACTURED HOME PARK and ARTICLE III, CONFORMING AND NON-CONFORMING LOTS AND USESHOME OR TRAILER PARKS.

The Planner noted that he had spoken to the soon to be buyer and did not get a lot of traction on whether he would be willing to offer some options to improve the older section of the trailer park. The Planner suggested to the applicant to come back to the Planning Board and work with them. Planner DePasquale has also alerted the Town Council that they have nothing but a handshake that the buyer will improve the mobile homes that do not belong to him.     

IV.             ADMINISTRATIVE:

A.     Zoning Board of Review: Thursday, March 12, 2026

B.      Future Meetings:

Planning Board Regular Meeting – Tuesday, February 24, 2026 at 6 p.m.

Pre-Application for a Major Land Development: The applicant RAM 576, LLC, c/o Jason Pannone, development of a warehouse, office, and outdoor storage at 576A Nooseneck Hill Road.

Planning Board Work Session – Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 6 p.m.

C.     Adjournment:

Motion to adjourn was made by Michael DeFrancesco, seconded by John Toreo, voted

all in favor (6-0). The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Joseph St. Lawrence, John Toro, and Michael Viveiros).

                        Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Lukowicz

Planning Department