Town of Exeter, Rhode Island

 

PLANNING BOARD

 

675 Ten Rod Road

Exeter, R.I. 02822

401-294-2612

401-294-2592

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Minutes Approved: March 24, 2026

          

WORK SESSION MEETING

 

 

Members present:   Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Joseph St. Lawrence, Norman Machon,

                                 John Toro and Michael Viveiros

                    

Members Absent:     None

 

Staff present:           William DePasquale, Town Planner

 

                       

I.                   CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

 

II.                 OLD BUSINESS:

 

A.    Site Readiness Analysis – Rt. 95/102/3 – new ideas

 

Town Planner William DePasquale stated that the Site Readiness Analysis Zoning draft has been sent to the State of Rhode Island Department of Commerce in an attempt to obtain the remainder of a grant that had been issued 7 years earlier. Mr. DePasquale stated that he has received some favorable communication with Commerce Rhode Island that he needs to follow up on. Once he receives a general understanding from Commerce RI the ordinance will have to be tweaked and vetted throughout the public, neighbors and everyone else.  

 

III.               NEW BUSINESS:

 

A.     Planning Board Recommendation to the Town Council - Draft Amendments Exeter, RI, code of ordinances: “MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TRAILERS, AND TRAILER PARKS.” All the following:

Chair Gina Thurn introduced this agenda item and asked Town Planner William DePasquale to begin the discussion. Planner DePasquale indicated that the Town Council is considering changes to the sections noted in the agenda and that they run the gambit from Appendix A: Zoning; Article I: Administration Procedures; Article III: Conforming and Nonconforming Lots and Uses; and whether or not existing manufactured homes and trailer parks can be expanded and, if they can, what are the parameters for expansion and the process. Changes will also include updates to definitions that have changed due to either State statute or simply the passage of time.

 

Planner DePasquale noted that Solicitor Sypole has written two drafts (Chapter 26 Manufactured Homes and Trailers¹ Article 1. In General; Secs. 26-1—26-30. Reserved. Article II. Trailer and Trailer Parks² Division 1. Generally), noting that one is relative to the licensing portion and the second is with regards to Chapter 26: Manufactured Homes and Trailers that updates the definitions, but also goes through a series of performance standards. The Planner noted that he has not suggested any edits to the licensing section and indicated that that is a function of the Town Council. What the Planner did suggest was several upgrades to Article III: Conforming and Nonconforming Lots regarding expansion which would set parameters around any such expansions.

 

Planner DePasquale asked Solicitor Sypole to address the licensing portion of the draft he is proposing and explain why some of the changes where necessary and what they might be. Solicitor Sypole explained that what the Town of Exeter has had for many, many years is the Licensing Ordinance, which an applicant comes in every year and renews their license to continue operating. Mr. Sypole noted that his goal was not to change the substance of the license, but to make it match what would potentially be a zoning ordinance amendment and to update definitions and outdated references to state agencies, etc. The only thing of substance he felt he changed was the very last section, Sec. 26-67. Revocation or Suspension. Solicitor Sypole noted that it indicated that the Town Council may revoke or suspend any trailer park license and he was concerned that based on that language that an owner would need to tell everyone who lives there to leave. Solicitor Sypole recommended changing the title of Sec. 26-67 to Enforcement. Which would then read: The Town Council may assess a monetary fine in order to compel compliance with these licensing requirements. That the penalty for any violation of the requirements set forth in this licensing ordinance shall not exceed $250.00 for each violation. Each day of the existence of any violation shall be a separate offense.

 

Board member Michael DeFrancesco asked about not using the word Trailer and replacing it with Manufactured Homes. Solicitor Sypole indicated that this was not about political correctness, but after reviewing other town ordinances and finding that the term manufactured homes seemed to be the terminology other places are currently using. Mr. DeFrancesco asked if by not using the word Trailer at all, does that open up the Town to any discussion in the future? Solicitor Sypole noted that what he was seeing in other towns around us was the use of the term manufactured homes within their ordinances.

 

Board member Michael Vivieros asked about the installation permit fee of $35.00 which he felt was quite low. Mr. Sypole noted that he did not change any of the specific details of the ordinance which would need to be changed by the Town Council. Members also questioned the $100.00 annual license fee. Mr. Vivieros also questioned under Sec. 26-35. Standards governing operation of Mobile or Manufactured Home Parks. (4) Roads within the trailer park Mobile or Manufactured Home Park shall be at least 30 feet in width where off-road parking is provided and at least 40 feet in width where no off-road parking is provided. The Planner is suggesting that the roads be reduced to 26 feet, but that whatever is decided in the zoning it should be rectified within all documents.

 

Mr. Asa Davis, a resident attending the meeting, asked Chair Thurn if he could make a comment. Mr. Davis indicated that by state statute the road is the right away, and 30 feet wide is the right away width and that pavement is actually called the roadway. Noting that if regulation calls for 30 feet wide, most of our subdivisions are now 50 feet wide. Solicitor Sypole stated that they are not talking about public roads, that these are private roads on private property. Planner DePasquale noted that road standards are part of the Land Development regulations.

 

Mr. Vivieros also referenced Sec. 26-35. Standards governing operation of Mobile or Manufactured Home Parks. (6) No trailer home within the trailer park Mobile or Manufactured Home Park shall be located closer than 50 feet to adjoining property or closer than 100 feet to any public highway. Mr. Vivieros felt that the 50 feet should be increased to at least 100 feet. Solicitor Sypole noted that the licensing piece has been in place for a very long time. Solicitor Sypole indicated that there are other parks such as Split Rock and as many as three others. Mr. Vivieros felt that at the end of the day the Board’s intent is to upgrade mobile parks and establish a new standard for the future. The Planner felt that the Zoning requirements should absolutely reconcile with the licensing requirements in the Town. The Planner referenced a Summary Table – Required Standards: Expansion to a Preexisting Mobile Home Park (Page 9 of 13 of Planner DePasquale’s Revisions). The Planner suggested that if you specify many of the dimensional setbacks in the licensing that they could simply say, shall comply with the nonconformance section: Article III Conforming and Nonconforming Lots and Uses.

 

(8) All roads and walkways within the Mobile or Manufactured Home Park shall be provided with lighting, etc. Questions arose around the appropriate wattage and height. Mr. Davis commented that it should be stated in lumens and the reason why is that a 100-watt LED bulb would be 10 times brighter than an incandescent.

 

Discussion continued around fire extinguishers. Solicitor Sypole noted that the only enforcement mechanism in the licensing ordinance currently, is to revoke or suspend the license. That there is nothing in the licensing ordinance that says the Town Council can fine a property owner ($50) a day until they correct the fire extinguisher requirement or any other requirement. The Solicitor noted that license renewals have happened routinely for years and years. The Planner asked if Provision 26.67 with a $250. per violation/per day fine should be increased? General consensus was to keep the current $250 amount.

 

Chair Thurn stated that as they go through the zoning piece and decisions are made as to what the new requirements should be, that it will be followed by rewriting the licensing piece to either match the zoning or refer to zoning for the requirements.

 

Michael Viveiros suggested adopting the following guidelines from the Town of North Kingstown’s Zoning Ordinance: Mobile dwelling unit parks shall be governed by a complete set of rules and regulations drawn up and enforced by the operator. Copies of these rules are to be posted conspicuously in all buildings of the mobile dwelling unit park. In the rules and regulations, the tenants must be informed that mobile dwelling unit parks are regulated by town ordinance. Solicitor Sypole suggested this should be added to the licensing requirement that the Town Council should receive a copy of the rules and regulations drawn up and enforced by the operator.

 

The Board continued with Division 2. License – Sec. 26-61. Required.

Discussion around Number (5) with regards to: In connection with any proposed expansion of a pre-existing Mobile or Manufactured Home Park, to the extent such expansion may be allowed in the Zoning Ordinance evidence of such approvals(s) from RIDEM may be deferred subject to Planning Board approval.

Moving on to Sec. 26-66. Expiration and renewal; annual fees. Mr. Vivieros asked what the $100.00 licensing fee covered? Solicitor Sypole indicated that it was the payment for the license renewal and personnel costs. Mr. Vivieros recommended increasing the renewal fee.

 

Chair Thurn asked the Board if there were any additional comments. Attorney Jeffrey F. Caffrey, (Resnick and Caffrey, 300 Centerville Road, Warwick, RI), who is representing his client, Mr. Joseph Catelli of Shoreline Properties, Inc. asked a question regarding Sec. 26-35. Standards governing operation of Mobile or Manufactured Homes: Section (2) Each home space shall contain at least 20,000 square feet per site and shall have a width of at least 25 feet. He felt this was excessive and that other existing mobile home park sites are 7200 square feet and 20,000 is about half an acre and felt that was a lot for a mobile home. Attorney Caffrey didn’t feel it was necessary to use that type of dimension. The Planner indicated that this was a way to get at density. Again, the Planner felt that the licensing piece and the zoning piece need to reconcile with each other.

 

Chair Thurn suggested tabling the licensing piece, and moving on to review the zoning regulations and that after decisions on the numbers have been agreed to, reconcile them with the licensing regulations. Solicitor Sypole’s concern was for the three current licensees and would not want to see anything change that may interfere with their ability to run their operation. The Planner suggested adding, any existing mobile home park with a license prior to the enactment of this section is considered preexisting nonconforming. Mr. Toro noted that they have an existing licensing application that could be kept in tact for anything prior to the effective date of the ordinance. Chair Turn and Mr. Toro suggested they be grandfathered in and in the future should they want to change their operation they would need to comply with the new regulations.

 

Mr. Davis wanted to note that the definition of a mobile home that previously you would need to block off the highway and drop the mobile home into place. That today you bring in sections of the mobile home to the site and assemble the pieces there. He felt the current definitions should match.

 

The Board went on to review Sec. 3.3.1 Expansion of Pre-Existing Mobile or Manufactured Home Park. The Planner, using his draft (Planning Board Revisions 1-13-2026) Covered the following: 1. Purpose. 2. Approval Procedure. 3. Minimum Design Standards and Program Requirements. A: Low- and moderate-Income Housing Requirement (LMI); B. LMI Reporting & Compliance Requirements. C. Maximum Allowable Density. D. Expansion Area Homes. Mr. Caffrey noted that the developer will own the park and each mobile home will be deed restricted. E. Mobile Home Replacement and Improvement Plan. The Planner indicated that the Planning Board and the Town Council will need a complete plan of what mobile homes will be replaced, upgraded or replaced with a manufactured home. E.1. Requirements for a Homeowners Association (HOA) or Management Enterprise. F. Contents and Implementation – Mobile Home Replacement and Improvement Plan. F.1. Purpose and Scope. F.2. Mobile Home Inventory, Mapping, and Tracking. F.2.1 Site Schematic and Interactive Map. Mr. Caffrey noted that they do not own the mobile homes, that they are privately owned, so if someone doesn’t want to vacate the park, “we’re stuck with them, trying to evict someone from their mobile home requires a lot.” He noted that they are committed to upgrading the park, but that their hands are tied in certain instances.

 

The Planner stated that the owner of the property can stipulate the conditions of the lease with the renter. Planner DePasquale felt that the expansion of the trailer park is all one sided, with the Town giving the developer a huge density bonus and hoping that they will do the right thing. 

 

Gina Thurn asked Mr. Caffrey how many of the sites in the existing park are currently empty or in the process of being vacant. Mr. Caffrey stated that of the 69 sites some sites do not have a mobile home on them, but that there are not many abandoned homes. The Planner suggested having the developer set up a homeowner’s improvement fund. Mr. Caffrey indicated that you cannot impose rules and regulations upon existing occupants, if there were no rules on when they moved in. Mr. Caffrey noted that they are upgrading the infrastructure. The Planner stated that the Town Council believes that this expansion will result in the improvement of the existing park, and that there is not one piece of paper from the developer that assures that this will occur. The Planner suggested building into the cost of the development monies that would go to rehabbing the worst of the mobile homes.  Mr. Caffrey stated that he has never had, as a condition of approval, putting 2,500-5,000 dollars into improvements for every existing property. Ms. Thurn asked how the Town deals with other properties that fall into disrepair and not maintained? Solicitor Sypole indicated that the Building and Zoning Officers have the ability to bring enforcement actions and sometimes the State Abandoned Property Act.

 

Asa Davis asked if the expansion area will operate the same way an apartment operates, where you’re renting the land and the house is owned by a different owner? Mr. Caffrey indicated that would be the intent, yes. Mr. Davis noted that the owner’s revenue would roughly be at the $500 level. Mr. Caffrey, or whatever that figure happens to be. Mr. Davis noted that by putting $2,000 into improving each of the existing trailers, you would be talking about 4 years of revenue from the new structures, in term of the numbers, it doesn’t work. Mr. Viveiros stated it is not going to be $500. The Planner asked, if the new manufactured home is going to be $500, say it for the record here. The Planner commented that the rental site for the manufactured home, he guaranteed, would not be $500, that it would be more like $2,000, and that returning some of the monies back into the park, is not unheard of. Planner DePasquale noted that just because someone asks for density that far exceeds zoning and the comprehensive plan, that (we) should look for all the different ways (we) can do it, without looking at how it benefits the Town. It just can’t be no, but offer option 1 and option 2.

 

Planner DePasquale offered his plan which would identify each trailer and the age of the trailer, and based on the existing trailers you can build your manufactured homes, but for every two new manufactured homes built, the developer would upgrade one of the existing trailers. Two/one Two/one. If someone is evicted and you replace it, you would receive credit for it and then be able to place a new manufactured home on it, you wouldn’t lose density.     

 

Mr. Davis asked, just to be clear, if someone else will be building the manufactured homes and the applicant is renting the land, if that is correct, there is an ownership question here. Mr. Davis implied that violations go to the owner, not the person who owns the underlying land. The Planner disagreed. The Planner offered the example of--if there was an oil spill, and I was leasing the land, and I had a tenant on my land, he asked legal counsel, does it go to the landowner, too? Solicitor Sypole stated that the building inspector probably has the authority to go into the park and site the owners of the trailers, if there are code violations. The Planner continued to suggest that the developer put money aside for an infrastructure improvement bank.

 

Board member Michael DeFrancesco asked the Chair to resume the Planning Board meeting. Mr. DeFrancesco noted that he has read over all the documents and would like to make a motion to approve this draft as submitted by Planner DePasquale as a recommendation of approval and to submit to the Town Council; Seconded by Joseph St. Lawrence. Discussion.

 

Mr. Corriea asked the Planner if in his experience, say a duplex that has fallen into disrepair---junk cars, overgrown bushes, all types of code violations—who gets written up for those code violations—the property owner, right? The Planner did not want to answer the example feeling this did not have anything to do with the process that he is trying to accomplish with this property. The Planner asked the Board and the developer to think outside the box and come up with some way to meet the Town Council’s direction to clean up the existing trailer park in conjunction with granting the expansion of the Split Rock property.

 

Chair Thurn noted that one of the issues for improving the park is where is the funding coming from, could it come from the density bonus of the new manufactured park, pulling some of that money out for improvements; or are there different funding sources, for example, Mr. Thurn suggested that someone in Town may need a roof improvement or repair to their home and that they may be able to apply to the Reynolds Charitable Trust Fund; that there must be something in the State or other funds in the Town—Ms. Thurn asked if there’s a way to work with matching funds? She thought possibly a loan pool that has seed money for the owner to start improvements. Mr. Viveiros felt that sometimes the property is beyond repair. He felt he doesn’t have a good understanding of the kinds of dollars it would take to make the necessary improvements.

 

Mr. Toro stated that he tends to agree with Bill (Planner DePasquale), however, he does not feel like he is ready to vote. The concern is to clean up the park. That he could not vote for it, without the assurance that the park is going to be cleaned up. The Planner explained that the draft sets out the new area and the existing area and identifies each trailer in the 69 area and assigns a value as to whether or not it will be improved or replaced. Mr. Caffrey felt that they are being forced to upgrade an individual’s property that may or may not want them to do it. Mr. Caffrey felt he could not agree to these terms without his client weighing in.

 

The Planner noted that they have timelines to meet regarding the Board’s recommendations to the Council. He did offer the applicant the opportunity to appear before the Town Council and ask them for more time in order to work out the details for this development.

 

Mr. Corriea commented that the Planner’s draft is an outstanding guide and the Board should approve this draft. That they have been talking about cleaning up the park for months. If the applicant wants to go before the Council and ask for more time, then they should do that. Regarding Lines 56 and 57: The Council will evaluate this request while considering various factors, including infrastructure and school capacity, community and environmental impacts, and fiscal implications for the community. Mr. Corriea asked how many new children are in the school district and how many children are there currently? Mr. Caffrey did not know these numbers.

 

Mr. Davis offered a suggestion stating that Rhode Island Housing has LMI improvement for new construction and rehabbing existing structures. Many of the structures within Split Rock probably meet the definitions, but are not included in the program today. If you are going to have a monitoring agent, they know what those grant programs are for the State. He recommended having the monitoring agent work with those owners who need to make improvements.

 

Mr. Davis offered that on Page 7, Line 231…each home space shall have an area of at least 20,000 square feet and the home space shall contain at least 50 feet of frontage on an internal roadway. Also, Line 278…which states: No internal roadway shall be narrower than 26 feet to accommodate two-way traffic—Mr. Davis indicated that this is the Town’s current subdivision standard, that the 26 feet is tied to a 50 foot road width, giving you 16 feet on either side of the end of the pavement to the lot line—allowing space for people to pull off, if they have to and for emergency vehicles—Mr. Davis felt this tied to the definition of a 30 foot road width leaves no room for people to pull off, and that’s a problem. Either the roadway needs to get skinner or road width needs to get wider—2 feet on either side is not enough. He noted that on Page 9 in the Table: Frontage on an Internal Roadway, once again we need to remove “way.”    

 

Chair Thurn noted that there is still a motion on the table to accept Mr. DeFrancesco motion and asked if there are any amendments to this motion? Mr. Viveiros asked what was driving this timeline? Why can’t this be extended? What do we need to do to do this properly?  Solicitor Sypole stated that there are two things going on—a licensing ordinance and the process which is spelled out in the charter and zoning, which is dictated by the Zoning and Enabling Act, so the Zoning Enabling Act says that once it is introduced to the Council and they refer it to the Planning Board, The Board is supposed to give them a recommendation within 45 days and then a public hearing within 60 days of the ordinance being introduced. The timeline rule exists to protect the applicant. If Mr. Caffrey and the Council agree to provide more time, then that would be fine. Mr. Caffrey noted that they are under the time constraints of a purchase and sales agreement and for each month that goes by costs the applicant and additional $5,000.

 

Mr. Corriea felt the Board should move forward and approve the Planner’s ordinance submission.

 

Mr. DeFrancesco rescinded his previous motion.

 

Mr. DeFrancesco made a motion to endorse the Town Planner’s draft Zoning Ordinance recommendations, dated: 1-13-2026 to the Town Council and recommended that the licensing ordinance be reconciled with the approved zoning ordinance; seconded by Joe St. Lawrence. All in favor (5-0), the motion passed.

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

 

 

IV.              ADMINISTRATIVE:

 

A.     Approval of Minutes for November 12, 2025:

Michael DeFrancesco made a motion to accept the November 12, 2025 minutes as submitted; Seconded by Joe St. Lawrence; All in favor, (7-0) the motion passed.

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

 

B.      Correspondence and Project updates: Planner DePasquale mentioned that both Mail Road Solar and Ten Rod Solar have comprehensive third-party reviews but are still unable to get to a development that is approved by plan. The Planner noted that our peer review process has been fantastic. 

 

The Planner noted that Wolf Rock is proceeding very well. The developer has been great. The response at Wolf Rock should be applied throughout the Town.

 

Planner DePasquale also noted that Exquisite Events on Rt. 2 has become an issue. He indicated that he will be placing a violation on the company. The violation will cost the company $500 a day for each day they are in violation and for each violation; and that he is working closely with their attorney. He noted that while the company is very successful, the building was not built large enough for the operation.

 

Mr. DePasquale noted that next month the Board can expect two comp permits. -- Mr. Davis’s project will include an update and the other is on Gardner Road, a former nursing facility (Shady Acres), and under State law you can do redaptive reuse and they want to discuss concepts with the Board.    

 

C.     Zoning Board of Review: Thursday, February 12, 2026

Two appeals: David Duarte owner of the property located at 1029 Ten Rod Road.

Scott R. Labossiere owner of the property located at 94 Bates School House Road.

 

D.     Future Meetings:

Planning Board Regular Meeting – Tuesday, January 27, 2026 at 6 p.m.

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

 

 

E.      Adjournment:

Motion to adjourn was made by Gina Thurn, seconded by Michael DeFrancesco, voted

all in favor (7-0). The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

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

 

 

                        Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Lukowicz

Planning Department