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 27, 2026
Minutes Approved: March 24, 2026
PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING
Members present: Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, John Toro, and Michael Viveiros
Members Absent: Joseph St. Lawrence, Norman Machon
Staff present: William DePasquale, Town Planner
A. Third Pre-Application Conference; Comprehensive Permit-Major Land Development - 155 residential housing units; The applicant and property owner, Asa Davis, is seeking an update on the proposed design for a Comprehensive Permit related to a major land development project consisting of 164 residential housing units at 0 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI, titled the “Solicity Project”. This property is zoned RU-4 and is designated as Assessor’s Plat 36, Block 2, Lot 2. The proposal applies Title 45, Chapter 53 of the Rhode Island General Laws, known as the RI Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Act (as amended), as well as the Exeter Code of Ordinances and the zoning ordinance, APPENDIX A - ZONING Sec. 1.4.4.E.3(b). During the initial Pre-Application Conference, a plan was presented for the construction of 120 housing units, with at least 25% of the units allocated as affordable, in compliance with R.I.G.L. 42-128-8.1(d)(1). The original preapplication also included a proposed 5MW solar project intended to provide energy to the residents, which included a private roadway, wells, septic systems, and geothermal heating, spanning 109 acres owned by a non-profit organization. The second Pre-Application Conference further examined possible buildout alternatives for the site. This agenda item will be the third pre-application meeting, which will introduce a revised proposal for 155 residential housing units, excluding the solar component, while maintaining the commitment that at least 25% of the housing units will be affordable, as stipulated by R.I.G.L. 42-128-8.1(d)(1). Similar to the previous proposals, this project will also be situated on a private road and serviced by community wells and septic systems, covering the same 109 acres.
Board member Michael DeFranceso recused himself from the above third Pre-application agenda item by Petitioner Asa Davis.
Chairperson Gina Thurn recognized Mr. Asa Davis and asked for a current project update. Mr. Davis indicated that the Preliminary Plans for the “Solicity Project,” including the 155 units may shift a little bit. Mr. Davis noted that after pulling the solar off the project, his original thinking was that they could build higher density, the incentives with the LMI percentage increase, however, after discussion with Sam Hemingway (Engineer of Record) they decided that it was not the best thing, long term, for the residents of the Town. So, instead of doing that they will keep it at the 25 percent, using the other space for other additional houses. Davis mentioned the original solar project, the DuTemple Solar, and after speaking with DEM, they have agreed to let the intermittent wetland crossing revert to natural conditions after the conduit was put in. Noting that they will not be doing any solar in full or partial, and that they will release the ascent, clearing the way to use it as a road. Mr. Davis will get a formal release recorded, rescinding the ascent that was previously recorded.
Mr. Davis noted that after meeting with Rhode Island Housing, they are okay with the changes, if the LMI housing does not go down, either in percentage or unit terms. That they would not need to do the eligibility letter, unless the Town wanted them to. Mr. Davis mentioned that during the Rhode Island Housing discussion, they spoke about the withdrawal of the solar and how that would end up hurting the economics for both the residents and the long-term economic viability of the LMI housing.
Mr. Davis indicated that he had supplied the Board with design suggestions for both the proposed homes and duplexes. Stating that the plan for the duplexes is to have two-bedrooms, on each side; and that the homes will mostly be 3-bedrooms with a few 2-bedroom single-family homes. Mr. Davis went on to say, with regards to accessing the property, that two things have happened that have cleared the way off Rt. 102. One was that DEM will release the ascent, clearing the way to use it as a road and the other is that the Town gave up the public well protection zone behind the new Town Hall, which happened about a year ago when Attorney Sylvia filed a letter with the Department of Health that the Town would not maintain or keep the well any longer. Mr. Davis questioned what will happen with the new Town Hall going forward, because, he felt, it would be very hard to get a public well, again. Mr. Davis stated that the connection to 102 will likely get wider, indicating that the grade going down over the drainage culvert will require additional work. Mr. Davis stated that there will be two access points, one from Estate Drive and the other from Rt. 102.
Mr. Davis stated that after discussions with Sam Hemingway, they will be considering clustering both the wells and septic systems in groups of about four and five units per system with the expectation that they will be maintained by the homeowner’s association. He indicated that they have also discussed with the Fire Department the required fire tanks. He noted that the design standards for the Town call for a 10K gallon tank for every 5 houses, and he did not feel this made sense for the size of his project. That after discussion with the Fire Department and the insurance company, their preference was to have a few 30-thousand-gallon tanks along with the homes being sprinklered. Mr. Davis noted that in Rhode Island a sprinkler system needs to be installed by a licensed installer, which will require putting in the piping and plumbing during the build.
Mr. Davis went on to note that Exeter’s population hit a low of 778 people in 1910 and is now ten times that. The U.S. population quadrupled over the same period. Minus the space taken up by Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island is the second most dense state with 1,060 people per square mile. Exeter has 112 people per square mile, which is about a tenth of the state average. Indicating that even if Town population grows another ten times, this would still put Exeter at the state average. He indicated Exeter is fifth from the bottom in Rhode Island for total population and second for land area. Mr. Davis noted that it is not just Exeter, but mostly occurring in the south county area. He is hoping that the “Solicity” project is going to help with the housing shortage and will also help the Town meet its affordable housing goals. Mr. Davis indicated that his proposed project will end up looking a lot like Deerbrook and that he is shooting for late March, early April for a formal submission on the “Solicity” project.
Chair Thurn asked about the number of units indicating that in one area he mentions 155 units and then later 164 units. Mr. Davis stated that originally when he proposed “Solicity” and solar combined, it was 120, the first set of drawings sent to the Planning Board was 164 and that number did get reduced somewhat due to the design considerations, right now it is at 155, but expects that number to change. Ms. Thurn asked if that number would be up or down? Mr. Davis indicated it could be ten percent either way.
Vice Chair Corriea asked about the planned Duplexes and would they have 2-bedrooms on each side, Mr. Davis stated that was correct. Mr. Corriea asked how many single-family homes; Mr. Davis stated 75 homes and 40 duplexes, for 80 units total. Ms. Thurn noted that Mr. Davis had stated that some of the single-family homes would be 2-bedroom and others 3-bedrooms, Mr. Davis noted that the default will be 3-bedrooms. Mr. Corriea asked if the LMI properties would be the duplexes? Davis noted they would be both and placed throughout the project site. Mr. Corriea asked what percentage of the 109 acres would remain open space and what percentage would have construction? Mr. Davis did not have that information currently. Mr. Corriea asked about the costs of the duplexes? Mr. Davis indicated that he was not close to putting that answer together. Mr. Davis reviewed the RI Housing requirements. Mr. Davis noted that he will not place an age preference on the potential buyers of the properties.
Board member Toro asked about LMI—and questioned whether LMI is per unit or bedroom? Planner DePasquale indicated that if, Mr. Toro, had a duplex each would be counted as a unit and not by bedrooms, but that technically if you had a uniformed building and a unified structure with multiple beds, theoretically you could count LMI, but in this case, you have the two units and each one would be counted as LMI. Mr. DePasquale also indicated that you could do LMI in a 3-bedroom, if you wanted to, but you do not count like 2-bedrooms per unit (each unit). Mr. Davis stated that Rhode Island Housing has noted that if you have 1, 2, 3, 4 bedrooms they have a sliding scale LMI for the family.
The Planner noted that he did not see in the calculations where the open-space requirement was being met under the Land Development regulations (4.6), stating that all developments must have open space and there is a calculation or fee associated with those regulations. The Planner noted that waivers may be required or the need to reduce the number of buildings.
Board member Viveiros asked Mr. Davis what type of roads he envisioned for the project? The Planner noted that the plans show a 12/12 cape cod berm with a 30-foot right away; and a middle median at the main entrance.
Mr. Corriea asked about having a homeowner’s association (HOA)? Mr. Davis indicated that there would be one. The Planner noted that the HOA should have an infrastructure plan, a capital improvement plan, and money always going in to the infrastructure; he asked about managing the well-head and septic. He then referenced Pine View as having past issues. Mr. DePasquale would like to see on-call engineers as part of the HOA agreement to handle unforeseen problems. Mr. Davis felt there was a need to have two HOAs, one covering all the wells and septic and the other HOA covering the rest of the development’s needs. Fairness questions arose around the issue.
A. Adaptive Reuse and Comprehensive Permit – Concept and design options, Preapplication Major Land Development project (former “Shady Acres Nursing Home). The applicant and property owner, MGT410, LLC, located at 400 South County Trail, Unit A 102, Exeter, RI, 02822, is requesting a pre-application meeting to explore design options for an adaptive reuse and Comprehensive Permit associated with a major land development project situated on Plat 58, Block 1, Lots 1, 2, and 3 (415 Gardner Rd, Exeter, RI, 02822). This subject property encompasses 2.1 acres and is zoned for RU-4, aimed at redeveloping the former “Shady Acres Nursing Home.” Development Scenario One serves as the baseline and would qualify under the “Adaptive Reuse” statute R.I. Gen. Laws 45-24-37(h). This scenario proposes 21 units totaling 47 bedrooms, comprising 8 one-bedroom units and 13 three-bedroom units, within the existing buildings, which will be renovated into an apartment complex. Additionally, three new structures will be constructed to accommodate six units. At least 20% of the existing buildings will be designated as affordable housing per the RI Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Act (as amended), Development Scenario Two entails a Comprehensive Permit proposing twenty (20) units, with 2 units in 10 separate buildings uniformly distributed across the lots. These units will be individual one-bedroom, one-level condominiums. All existing structures, except the building surrounding the water tank, will be removed from the property, and at least 25% of the units will be designated as affordable housing-eligible per the RI Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Act (as amended).
Chair Thurn introduced this agenda item and John A. Pagliarini, Jr., Esq., co-owner of MGT410, LLC, stepped forward to review their plans. Mr. Pagliarini noted one correction from to the above information. That there are three parcels, the parcel that the nursing home sits on is 2.1 acres, but in totality it is 3.72 acres. He noted that the property has multiple wells that service up to 77 people and additional wells are permissive, and an existing septic system that can service 55 bedrooms and 25 employees.
Mr. Pagliarini offered two development scenarios.
Development Scenario 1: Adaptive Reuse and companion comprehensive permit. This baseline plan would include twenty-one units with a total of forty-seven bedrooms (eight one-bed, 13 three-bedroom units). The property would maintain its current shape and bulk and would be renovated as an apartment complex for tenants. A minimum of twenty percent of the existing buildings would be affordable housing. Mr. Pagliarini also noted that under this scenario you could add about 20 children to the school system. He stated that if the second scenario is chosen, he believes no children will be added to the school roles.
Attorney Pagliarini indicated that after speaking with a RI Housing monitor, there is going to be some shifting in the State in the next couple of months with the Secretary of Housing becoming the decision maker and that they are looking for housing for families more than age restricted properties and that they would place a penalty on age restricted. Attorney Pagliarini stated that a one-bedroom unit in the Town of Exeter, would sell, age-restricted, would be capped at $291,000.; not age restricted would be capped at $335,000.
Development Scenario 2: Comprehensive permit. This plan is for 20, one-bedroom, one-level condominium units. All existing structures except the building around the water tank will be removed from the property. Ten, forty feet by forty-two feet, duplexes (20’x 42’ – 850 sf per unit) will be constructed. A minimum of twenty-five percent of the units will be affordable eligible. Noting that this scenario addresses several sections of the Comprehensive Plan as small, one-level housing is greatly needed in the town: both market rate and affordable.
Attorney Pagliarini noted adaptive reuse pluses and minuses, and if they were to go with duplexes, they would not need to include sprinklers and that the whole fire and safety codes are different in a big building versus duplexes. He notes that from a planning point of view the existing nursing home is to much bulk for the area and does not belong.
Mr. Viveiros asked with regards to the single duplexes, he asked what drives the setbacks? Mr. Pagliarini indicated that they will need relief, which is still to be determined. Mr. Viveiros noted a development out in Plymouth, Massachusetts which is very attractive and very successful and noted that there a section of small individual houses and there is a company out there, called the Cottage Company, offered around a green space. Suggesting ideas to make this project successful. The Planner felt the concept was good, but there is a need for a more holistic plan. Attorney Pagliarini is leaning towards the Scenario 2 development.
Board member Michael DeFrancesco asked the Planner regarding the Town of Richmond being across the street, and asked if they have a right to weigh in, the Planner replied, yes, they have standing and would need to be notified. Mr. DeFrancesco also asked about a future site visit. He also liked the idea of having new opportunities for the elderly who may be considering a move. Mr. DeFrancesco asked about a timeline? Mr. Pagliarini hopes to move ahead very rapidly.
Michael Viveiros made a motion to authorize Planner William DePasquale to write to the Rhode Island Housing authority on behalf of the Exeter Planning Board in support of the initial concept of 20, one-bedroom, one-level condominium units as proposed by MGT410, LLC to be located at 409-415 Gardner Road, Exeter, RI (AP58 Lots 1, 2 & 3). John Toro seconded the motion, all in favor 5-0, the motion passed. (Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, John Toro, and Michael Viveiros)
A. Discuss and consider modifications to Planning Board Rules and Procedures.
B. Vote on Changes to Planning Board Rules and Procedures:
Chair Thurn entertained a motion to accept the changes to the Planning Board Rules and Procedures, seconded by Michael DeFrancesco, all in favor 5-0, the motion passed.
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, John Toro, and Michael Viveiros)
C. Approval of Minutes for December 9, 2025:
Michael DeFrancesco made a motion to accept the December 9, 2025 minutes as submitted; Seconded by Robert Corriea; All in favor, (5-0) the motion passed.
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, John Toro, and Michael Viveiros)
D. Correspondence and Project updates:
Chair Thurn indicated that going forward project updates should be listed due to open meeting requirements. Solicitor Sypole will be consulted.
Planner DePasquale is working with the attorney for Exquisite Events and they are working on an alternate plan to make the necessary changes to the property.
E. Zoning Board of Review: Thursday, February 12, 2026
F. Future Meetings:
Planning Board Work Session Meeting – Tuesday, February 10, 2026
Planning Board Regular Meeting – Tuesday, February 24, 2026
Motion to adjourn was made by John Toro, seconded by Michael DeFrancesco, voted
all in favor (5-0). The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco John Toro, and Michael Viveiros).
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Lukowicz
Planning Department