TOWN OF EXETER, RHODE ISLAND
PLANNING BOARD
675 Ten Rod Road
Exeter, RI 02822
(401) 294-2612
(401) 294-2592
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, July 28, 2026
Minutes Approved: September 22, 2026
PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING
Members present: Chair Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro,
Michael Viveiros, Norman Machon
Members absent: John Toro
Staff present: Solicitor Stephen Sypole, Planner William DePasquale, Rebecca Lukowicz, Clerk
A. OLD BUSINESS: - Petition of Avondale Real Estate, LLC (AP 71-B4, Lot 3) – Public Hearing on an application for Unified Development Review for Phase II of a Phased Major Land Development Project, consisting of combined Master Plan and Preliminary Plan review, together with a Special Use Permit, pursuant to the Exeter Zoning Ordinance and the Exeter Land Development and Subdivision Regulations (LDSR), including Section 4.3, Phasing of Major Land Developments, Land Development Projects, and Major Subdivisions, and Section 6.2, Unified Development Review. The subject property is located at 597 South County Trail, Exeter, Rhode Island, identified as Assessor's Plat 71-B4, Lot 3 and is owned by Avondale Real Estate, LLC. The property is located within the Business (B) Zoning District. The applicant proposes Phase II of a previously approved phased Major Land Development Project with a special use permit. Phase I zoning approvals were granted by the Exeter Zoning Board of Review on August 5, 2020, through the issuance of a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article II, Appendix A, Section 2.4.1.32 of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance, authorizing contractor trades, business use, and personal storage. Phase I Major Land Development approval, including associated site improvements and implementation of the Special Use Permit, was subsequently granted by the Planning Board in its Final Record of Decision dated September 10, 2024. The present application seeks approval of Phase II under the Unified Development Review procedures established in LDSR Section 6.2. as well as a Special Use Permit pursuant to the former Article II, Appendix A, Section 2.4.1.32 of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance, authorizing contractor trades, business use, and personal storage. The proposed Phase II improvements consist of three additional buildings for contractor trades and personal storage, including:
§ Building 4 – six (6) storage units;
§ Building 5 – five (5) storage units; and
§ Building 6 – four (4) storage units.
The applicant also seeks the following relief in connection with the Phase II application:
Ø Dimensional Relief - Zoning Ordinance The applicant requests dimensional relief from Article V, Section 5.1(B)(7) of Appendix A- Exeter Zoning Ordinance relating to off-street parking requirements, specifically to allow certain parking spaces located in front of Building 4 that do not meet the required five-foot (5') minimum setback between a parking space and a building. Wheel stops are proposed for parking spaces where the spaces are not located directly in front of garage doors.
Ø Waivers - Land Development and Subdivision Regulations (LDSR) The applicant may also request waivers from provisions of the Exeter Land Development and Subdivision Regulations including:
• LDSR Section 7.3 - Performance and Development Standards, subsection (11) Parking, relating to parking design and surface standards; and
• Any related provisions governing parking surface materials, including the proposed use of pervious or crushed stone overflow parking areas, where applicable.
Pursuant to the Unified Development Review process, the Planning Board will conduct the required public hearing on the issuance of a special use permit prior to taking action the Preliminary and Final Plan for the Major Land Development Project.
Chair Thurn asked the Board for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Michael DeFrancesco made the motion, seconded by Robert Corriea, all in favor, the motion carried, (6-0).
(Chair Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros, Norman Machon).
Chair Thurn asked the applicant to introduce their project. Attorney Michael D. Resnick, (KSPR Law, 128 Dorrance Street, Suite 300, Providence, RI 02903, mresnick@ksprlaw.com) speaking on behalf of the applicant, introduced himself and briefly reviewed with the Board members the items in their packets which lead to a certified, complete application. He mentioned his expert witnesses for the evening would be Patrick Freeman, Project Civil Engineer, American Engineering (400 South County Trail, Suite A201, Exeter, RI 02822); and Mark Butler, Landscape Architect, Matunuck Design Group, Inc. (PO Box 125, Wakefield, RI 02879, mark@matunuckdesigngroup.com). Mr. Resnick noted that that they (Avondale Real Estate, LLC) have included with their application the following plans: maintenance, pollution prevention, soil erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, watershed maps, DEM wastewater permit, a letter from American Engineering regarding Tech Review TRC memo, peer review from Crossman Engineering, Freshwater Wetlands Permit from RIDEM, a completed application and checklist, abutters list, a certificate of completeness and an Affidavit from Sarah Desroches, a Paralegal for the law firm of Kelly, Souza, Parmenter & Resnick, P.C., stating that she has sent the Notice of Public Hearing (Exhibit A) and the abutters list (Exhibit B).
Attorney Resnick stated that his applicant agrees with the staff report conditions (generally) and all of the conditions for all of the relief including the use conditions for the Special Use permit. He noted that this is Phase II of the South Trail Commerce Development, and that the project is now owned by Avondale, indicating that there may be some references in the documents to Jade Development, but that they are the same developers, same principals, with a change in ownership. Mr. Resnick stated that Phase II adds three additional buildings, comprising 15 additional contractor trade and personal storage units, on approximately 2.85 acres, that the concept is substantially the same as in Phase I, with some refinements.
Planner William DePasquale, Jr., AICP, Administrative Officer, was recognized and referenced his Planner’s Memorandum: Phase II Unified Development Review—Major Land Development Phased Development South Trail Commerce (Jade II) Storage and Limited Wholesale Business Distribution Only. No Retail Sales, AP71 B4 L3 – South County Trail; Dated: July 20, 2026.
Planner DePasquale reviewed with Planning Board members and the applicant that this application constitutes Phase II of a Major Land Development Project and includes a request for a Special Use Permit that was originally authorized under the former Exeter Zoning Ordinance, permitting a limited use for contractor trades, business use, and personal storage. That the Special Use Permit associated with this use was originally granted by the Exeter Zoning Board of Review through its decision dated August 5, 2020. Subsequently, the Planning Board approved Phase I of the Major Land Development, including site improvements and implementation of the previously approved Special Use Permit, as reflected in its Final Record of Decision dated September 10, 2024.
The Planner noted that since the approval of Phase I, the Town of Exeter has adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance that modified the applicable use table and use classifications. However, the Special Use Permit requested as part of this development was lawfully established under the former ordinance and incorporated into the approved Master Plan and Phase I Major Land Development approvals. That the applicant is not seeking a new Special Use Permit for a new use; rather, the request is to continue implementation of the previously approved Use as part of the phased development, which is grandfathered under the approvals granted for Phase I.
Planner DePasquale referenced his memorandum of January 18, 2022 in which he outlined his concerns for the phased major land development project. A significant concern raised in his memo was the need for limitations on the “actual uses” permitted in these units, in order to avoid a slippery slope of “uses” that could become many different retail businesses rather than true contractors’ storage. That his primary focus remains the assurance that the contractor storage units do not evolve into retail spaces, auto or boat repair facilities, or any similar uses that would disrupt the intended purpose of these units.
In the Planner’s July 20, 2026 Memorandum, he detailed Issuance of a Special Use Permit, and how it was imperative to reaffirm the main intent of the development which is to serve as general storage or contractor storage units, in order to preserve the integrity and harmony of our Town’s environment.
In the July 20, 2026 Memorandum the Planner spelled out the details of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance Section 1.3(C)(B) – General Provisions: Special Use Permits: That pursuant to Exeter Zoning Ordinance Section 1.3(C)(B), an applicant for a Special Use Permit must demonstrate, through competent evidence, that the proposed use satisfies the applicable standards. The Standards are listed below and findings of fact can be found on Pages 2-5 of the January 20, 2026 memorandum.
1. Environmental Compatibility with Neighboring Uses
Standard: The proposed use will be environmentally compatible with neighboring uses and will not adversely affect the surrounding residents’ use and enjoyment of their property.
2. Consistency with the Character and Appearance of the Area
Standard: The proposed use will be constructed or established at a location in the zoning district where it will be consistent with the character and appearance of nearby uses.
3. Compatibility with the Orderly Growth and Development of the Town
Standard: The proposed use will be compatible with the orderly growth and development of the Town of Exeter and will not harm the environment.
4. Best Practices to Minimize Adverse Effects
Standard: The applicant has demonstrated that best practices and procedures to minimize adverse
effects upon neighboring property, the Town, and the environment have been considered and will be
employed where applicable, including soil erosion, water supply protection, stormwater runoff,
wastewater disposal, wetland protection, traffic limitation, safety, and circulation.
The Planner’s recommendation for issuance of a Special Use Permit, was based on the findings of fact, and he recommended that the Planning Board grant a Special Use Permit authorizing contractor trade units, wholesale and distribution operations, warehouse facilities, personal storage, and related accessory uses as part of Phase II of the approved Major Land Development Project, subject to the following conditions:
(The Memorandum of July 20, 2026, Pages 5-10, fully explains each of the following conditions).
1. Scope of Approval
The Special Use Permit authorizes contractor trade units, wholesale and distribution operations, warehouse facilities, personal storage, and uses customarily accessory or incidental thereto. The examples of permitted and prohibited activities contained in these conditions are intended to clarify the scope of the approval and shall not be interpreted as an exhaustive list. A use that is substantially similar in character, intensity, and anticipated impacts to an expressly permitted use may be approved by the Zoning Official without an amendment to this Special Use Permit.
2. Zoning Certificates
3. Permitted Commercial Uses
4. Personal Storage and Private Hobby or Project Activities
5. Prohibited Uses
6. Accessory Sales and Customer Activity
7. Office Area
8. Indoor Operations and Outdoor Storage
9. Performance Standards
10. Residential Occupancy
11. Animals
12. Hazardous and Regulated Materials
13. Fire and Life-Safety Compliance
14. Maintenance of the Site
15. Compliance with Approved Plans
16. Condominium Documents and Enforcement
17. Uses Not Expressly Identified
A proposed use not expressly identified in these conditions may be approved by the Zoning Official when it is determined to be substantially similar in character, intensity, operations, and impacts to a permitted use. An amendment to the Special Use Permit shall be required only where the Zoning Official determines that the proposed use is materially different from, or materially more intensive than, the uses authorized by this approval.
Chair Thurn indicated that they will handle the Special Use Permit, first and then continue with the Dimensional Variance. She asked if Attorney Resnick had anything he would like to add, before proceeding.
Attorney Resnick acknowledged that he and his team concur with the findings in the staff report. He asked that Mr. Freeman have an opportunity go over the existing conditions, to layout the project, allowing him to ask some questions of his experts as it relates to the Special Use Permit criteria.
Mr. Resnick asked Mr. Freeman to review his background with the Board. Patrick Freeman stepped forward and stated that he is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Rhode Island, Registration #13125. He has been with American Engineering for the past 12 years, a Registered Professional for the past 6 years, and is part owner of the company. He has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Rhode Island, and has done numerous jobs within the Town of Exeter and beyond.
Attorney Resnick asked Mr. Freeman to give a general description of the site and noted that Mr. Freeman was the engineer for Phase I. Mr. Freeman gave a general summary of what Avondale Real Estate, LLC is proposing to build, called “South Trail Commerce Phase II” on a currently undeveloped portion of their land. The project is located on the Town of Exeter’s Assessor’s Plat 71, B4, L3.
The parcel consists of 8.70 acres of land south of the currently developed Oak Harbor Village North. The site is generally within an area of local business along with scattered residences and large areas of undeveloped land. The site is zoned for Business by the Town of Exeter.
Mr. Freeman indicated that they are proposing to build three (3) commercial buildings consisting of 4 units, 5 units, and 6 units. The units will be served by a single onsite wastewater treatment system and public well. All paved areas are proposed to be made permeable pavement. A stormwater management system consisting of a forebay and infiltration basin are also proposed. That there is no 100-year flood plain located on this site. That the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) indicated that the site falls within Zone X which indicates an area outside the probable 100-year flood event.
Mr. Freeman referenced the peer review by Crossman Engineering, and based on their additional recommendations, they have submitted revised plans, which includes the Crossman Review suggestions.
Attorney Resnick asked Mr. Freeman if he was familiar with the Exeter Ordinance as it relates to the Special Use permit requirements governing this project? Mr. Freeman indicated he was. Attorney Resnick asked Mr. Freeman if it was his opinion that the proposed use will be environmentally compatible with neighboring uses and will not adversely affect the surrounding residents use and enjoyment of their property. Mr. Freeman stated that they are proposing a business use in a business zone and have done a number of things in order to protect surrounding properties, so yes, this development will be compatible with neighboring uses. Mr. Freeman was asked if that was his opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty in his profession as a civil engineer? Mr. Freeman, yes. Mr. Resnick asked if Mr. Freeman had had an opportunity to review the planner’s staff report? Patrick Freeman indicated yes, and do you concur with the report, Mr. Freeman stated, yes.
Attorney Resnick asked Mr. Freeman if his opinion is that the proposed use will be constructed or established in a location in the zoning district where it will be consistent with the character and appearance of the nearby uses? Mr. Freeman indicated, yes. Mr. Freeman was asked if that was his opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty in his profession as a civil engineer? Mr. Freeman, yes. Mr. Freeman was asked if he had an opportunity to review the planner’s staff report? Mr. Freeman, yes, and he agrees with the findings.
Attorney Resnick asked Mr. Freeman if he was of the opinion that the proposed use will be compatible with the orderly growth and development of the Town of Exeter and will not harm the environment? Mr. Freeman indicated that, yes, that it is the expansion of an existing use and through their work with stormwater management and erosion control it won’t have an adverse effect on the environment and they have a RIDEM RIPDES approval to support that conclusion. Mr. Freeman was asked if that was his opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty in his profession as a civil engineer? Mr. Freeman, yes. Mr. Freeman was asked if he concurs with the findings made by the staff as it relates to that standard, and replied, yes.
Mr. Resnick asked Mr. Freeman the following question regarding the final standard associated with the Special Use Permit. Are you of the opinion that the applicant has demonstrated the best practices and procedures to minimize adverse effects upon neighboring properties, the Town and the environment having been considered and will be employed where applicable, regarding soil erosion, water supply protection, stormwater runoff, wastewater disposal, wetland protection, traffic limitation, safety and circulation, Mr. Freeman replied, yes. Mr. Freeman was asked if that was his opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty in his profession as a civil engineer? Mr. Freeman, yes. Mr. Freeman was asked if he concurs with the findings made by the staff as it relates to those criteria, and replied, I do.
Mr. Resnick asked Mr. Butler for his background information. Mr. Butler stated that he graduated from the University of Rhode Island in 2003, with a degree in Landscape Architecture, licensed since 2010, worked for Gate Slantin a Landscaping Architectural Firm in Providence, RI and started Matunuck Design Group in 2015. Mr. Resnick asked that he be accepted as an expert in his profession of Landscape Architecture. Chair Thurn accepted Mr. Butler.
Attorney Resnick asked Mr. Butler to give an overview of the proposed landscaping plan. Mr. Butler noted that he has been working with the Planner on the landscaping goals for the property of the three additional buildings (4, 5, 6). Noting that there will be frontage enhancements as well as screenings and plantings as required.
Attorney Resnick asked Mr. Butler the following questions: If his testimony was, in his opinion, to a reasonable degree of certainty as a professional landscape architect? Mr. Butler, indicated, yes. Mr. Butler was asked if he was familiar with the Exeter Ordinance as it relates to the Special Use permit requirements governing this project? Mr. Butler indicated he was. Mr. Butler was asked if it was his opinion, as it relates to landscape design, that the proposed use will be environmentally compatible with neighboring uses and will not adversely affect the surrounding residents use and enjoyment of their property? Mr. Butler stated, yes. He was asked as it relates to the consistency with the character and the appearance of the area, was it Mr. Butler’s opinion, as a landscape architect, that the proposed use will be constructed or established in a location where it will be consistent with the character and appearance of nearby uses? Mr. Butler, replied yes. He was asked as a landscape architect, as it relates to his stamped landscape plan, was he of the opinion that the applicant has utilized best practices and procedures to minimize adverse effects on neighboring property, the Town, the environment, particularly as it relates to buffering and view sheds. Mr. Butler, replied yes. Mr. Resnick concluded his presentation to the Board.
Board member Robert Corriea asked about the percentage of occupancy at the other buildings in the development? Mr. Robert Marcello, a principal, was sworn in. Mr. Marcello indicated that Phase One, comprising of three (3) buildings are 100 percent occupied. Mr. Corriea asked about the requirements placed upon the occupants of the Phase One project? Mr. Marcello noted that he has been personally involved with the buyers in Phase One and he makes sure that they thoroughly understand the conditions of the property. Mr. Corriea asked the Planner if he has had any complaints about the Phase One occupants? Planner DePasquale indicated that there have not been any complaints.
Chair Thurn asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to comment. There were no requests.
Chair Thurn indicated that the Board will move on to the Request for Dimensional Variance.
The Planner noted the following Dimensional Relief request: That the applicant requests a dimensional variance from Appendix A, Article V, Section 5.1(B)(7) of the former Exeter Zoning Ordinance pertaining to off-street parking requirements. Specifically, the applicant seeks relief to permit certain parking spaces located adjacent to the front of Building 4 that do not provide the required minimum five-foot (5’) setback between a parking space and the building. Wheel stops are proposed for all parking spaces that are not located directly in front of storage unit garage doors.
Recommendation:
The proposed development consists primarily of self-storage units that are designed to be accessed directly from individual overhead garage doors. Parking immediately adjacent to these garage doors is integral to the facility's operation, allowing customers to load and unload materials efficiently and safely. The requested dimensional relief is therefore directly related to the functional design of the proposed use and minimizes unnecessary pavement, grading, and stormwater impacts that would otherwise result from redesigning the parking layout.
Based upon the evidence submitted and the findings set forth below, the Planner finds that the requested dimensional variance is reasonable, necessary, and consistent with the standards for granting a dimensional variance under Section 1.3(3)(B) of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance.
Findings:
1. Unique Hardship. The hardship from which the applicant seeks relief results from the functional design requirements of the proposed self-storage facility. The use is characterized by individual storage units accessed through overhead garage doors, with parking intended immediately adjacent to those doors for loading and unloading. The requested relief is unique to the operational design of this land use and is not shared by typical commercial development.
2. Not the Result of Prior Action. The hardship is attributable to the practical design requirements necessary to efficiently accommodate the proposed use and to minimize unnecessary impervious surface and associated site disturbance. The hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and does not arise from a desire to create a more profitable development.
3. No Alteration of Neighborhood Character. The granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area, impair the intent or purpose of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance, or adversely affect neighboring properties. Similar storage facilities and site design elements have previously been approved as part of Phase I of this development without adverse impacts. The property is located within the Business Zoning District, where the proposed use is permitted by Special Use Permit, and the requested dimensional relief is limited to the internal parking configuration.
4. Least Relief Necessary. The relief requested is the least relief necessary to accommodate the operational requirements of the proposed self-storage facility. Denial of the variance would require a substantial redesign of the site, including additional paved areas and associated drainage improvements, resulting in increased impervious surface without providing a corresponding public benefit.
5. More Than a Mere Inconvenience. The requested dimensional variance is reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the permitted use of the property. Requiring strict compliance with the setback requirement would prevent the efficient operation of the self-storage facility as designed and would necessitate additional pavement and site alterations. Accordingly, the denial of the requested relief would amount to more than a mere inconvenience.
Attorney Resnick asked Mr. Freeman if he was familiar with the staff report, Mr. Freeman indicated yes. Asked if he was familiar with the Exeter Ordinance as it relates to the criteria for Dimensional Relief and Mr. Freeman indicated he was. Mr. Resnick asked Mr. Freeman if he was familiar with the five (5) Findings of Fact, as noted by the Planner and Mr. Freeman indicated that he was and if he concurred with those Findings and he indicated he was. And was his opinion based on a reasonable degree of certainty in his profession as a civil engineer? Mr. Freeman replied, yes.
Mr. Resnick wanted it noted that the Dimensional Relief standard under state law, changed in 2024. Their position is that they have met all of these elements as is indicated in the Town’s ordinance. However, the local ordinance should mimic state law and that factors have changed and benefit the applicant. Allowing it easier for the applicant to receive dimensional relief. The least relief necessary prong has been completely stricken. Also, Number 2, Not the result of prior action. Still a requirement. It is not a requirement that the applicant not be motived by financial gain or profit. It doesn’t matter whether they want to make money or not.
The Public was called three times – hearing none – The Chair called for a motion to close the Public Hearing on the Special Use Permit and Dimensional Variance. Michael Viveiros made the motion, seconded by Jeffrey Vaccaro, hearing no further discussion, the motion passed (5-0).
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros.)
Chair Thurn asked if there was any discussion from the Board. Hearing none, Michael DeFrancesco made a motion to grant the Special Use Permit based upon the Findings of Fact and the seventeen (17) Conditions of Approval contained within the Planner’s Memorandum of July 20, 2026, pursuant to the Exeter Zoning Ordinance: Article II, Appendix A, Section 2.4.1.32. Further, granting the Dimensional Relief based upon the Findings of Fact contained with the Planner’s Memorandum of July 20, 2026; pursuant to Exeter Zoning Ordinance: Section 1.3.(3)(B). Seconded by Jeffrey Vaccaro. Hearing no further discussion, a vote was taken, all in favor (5-0). The motion carried.
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros.)
Chair Thurn entertained a motion to open the Public Hearing for the Masterplan and Preliminary Review, incorporating all of the testimony from the previous Zoning public hearing for a Special Use Permit and request for Dimensional Relief. Michael DeFrancesco made the motion, seconded by Jeffrey Vaccaro, all in favor (5-0) the motion carried.
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros.)
Planner DePasquale was recognized and walked the Board through what will be a Combined Masterplan and Preliminary Review through Pages 12-22 of his July 20, 2026 Planning Memorandum: Phase II Unified Development Review—Major Land Development Phased Development South Trail Commerce (Jade II) Storage and limited wholesale business distribution only. No retail sales memorandum.
Planner DePasquale reviewed the Record of Decision (ROD) of May 10, 2022 for the Phase I Conditional Master Plan approval. Stating that on May 10, 2022, the Planning Board granted a record of decision approving the Master Plan for the South Trail Commerce Major Land Development Project. That the approved Master Plan established the overall development concept for a multi-phased commercial project and included findings that the proposal was consistent with the Town of Exeter Comprehensive Plan, the underlying zoning district, and the Land Development and Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Board further determined that the project would preserve the rural character of the area, provide safe and coordinated access from South County Trail (U.S. Route 2), avoid significant environmental impacts, and allow subsequent phases to proceed through the required state and local review processes.
The Planner noted that the current application for Phase II, including the requested Special Use Permit and Dimensional Variance, remains consistent with the development concept, intent, and purpose established by the approved 2022 Master Plan. The proposed Phase II improvements do not represent a material departure from the approved Master Plan or alter the fundamental findings upon which the Planning Board based its original approval.
Since the issuance of the Master Plan approval, the applicant has obtained the necessary approvals from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management for freshwater wetlands and the Rhode Island Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (RIPDES). In addition, the Town's independent peer reviewer has concluded that the engineering, stormwater management, and supporting technical documentation are acceptable, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Additionally, it is important to note that the proposed use has been successfully implemented on the Phase I site without any incidents since 2022. This past performance provides strong support for the compatibility of the current proposal, demonstrating its viability and safety over an extended period.
The Planner indicated that based upon the evidence presented, the findings of the peer review consultant, and the state regulatory approvals, the Planner finds that the Phase II proposal remains consistent with the approved Master Plan, the underlying Business zoning district, the Town of Exeter Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and the purposes and intent of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance and Land Development and Subdivision Regulations. Given approval of the requested Special Use Permit and Dimensional Variance with conditions, the Planner finds that phase II of this major land development, with conditions and stipulations, will not alter the overall character or function of the approved development.
The Planner continued with the applicant’s request for waivers from the Exeter Land Development and Subdivision Regulations (LDSR), including:
• LDSR Section 7.3 – Performance and Development Standards, Subsection (11), Parking, relating to parking design and surface standards; and
• Any related provisions governing parking surface materials, including the proposed use of permeable pavement and/or crushed stone overflow parking areas, where applicable.
His review of the proposed site design found that the contractor storage units are designed with paved drive aisles and hard-surfaced access to each storage unit, and this design is located within proximity of environmentally sensitive resources, including nearby wetlands and groundwater recharge areas. As a result, stormwater management is both an operational necessity and an important environmental consideration. The proposed use of permeable pavement for designated parking and overflow parking areas is intended to reduce stormwater runoff, promote groundwater recharge, and minimize the concentration of stormwater discharges.
The Planner found that the use of permeable pavement is consistent with sound engineering and environmental planning practices, provided that the system's long-term effectiveness is ensured through proper maintenance. Accordingly, any approval of the requested waiver shall be conditioned upon the applicant submitting, for review and approval by the Administrative Officer and the Town’s peer review engineer, an Operations and Maintenance Plan for all permeable pavement areas. The plan shall establish inspection schedules, maintenance procedures, and replacement standards sufficient to ensure that the permeable pavement continues to function as designed throughout the life of the development.
The Planner’s Findings are included in his July 20, 2026 Memorandum on Pages 13 and 14. He stated that based upon the foregoing findings, the Administrative Officer recommends that the Planning Board determine that the requested waivers satisfied the standards of Section 4.4 of the Land Development and Subdivision Regulations and may be granted, subject to the conditions of his memorandum.
Planner DePasquale’s recommendation regarding the Master Plan and Preliminary Plan approval for Phase II Major Land Development to the Planning Board was that based on the findings in his July 20, 2026 memorandum, he recommended that the Planning Board grant Master Plan and Preliminary Plan Approval for Phase II of the South Trail Commerce Major Land Development Project, subject to the conditions of approval associated with the Special Use Permit, Dimensional Variance, and Waiver, along with the seventeen (17) conditions (Pages 14-18) and any additional conditions deemed appropriate by the Planning Board.
The Planner concluded that subject to the foregoing conditions and findings of fact (Pages19-20), found that the proposed Phase II development remains consistent with the approved Master Plan, complies with the purposes and intent of the Exeter Land Development and Subdivision Regulations and the Exeter Zoning Ordinance, and represents an appropriate continuation of the previously approved phased development. He further found that the application promotes the orderly development of property within the Business Zoning District, incorporates appropriate engineering and environmental safeguards, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Exeter 2044 Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, the Planner recommended that the Planning Board grant Preliminary Plan Approval for Phase II of the South Trail Commerce Major Land Development Project.
Attorney Resnick was recognized and asked to incorporate both Mr. Freeman’s and Mr. Butler’s testimony as it relates to the zoning stage. He then focused on the waiver -- LDSR Section 7.3 – Performance and Development Standards, Subsection (11), Parking. He asked Mr. Freeman if he was familiar with the regulation and the fact that the applicant has asked for a waiver. Also, that there are findings pursuant to Section 4.4 of the Planning Boards regulations (Pages 13-14/July 20, 2026 Planner’s memorandum) — the standards by which they (the Board) may grant a waiver or modification of the requirement. Mr. Freeman was aware of all of the requirements, and concurred with each of the standards as a professional civil engineer.
Mr. Resnick commented on that the condo documents, declarations which will incorporate operations, maintenance schedules as it relates to stormwater, well protection, as it relates to permeable pavement, the most important documents will be those condo and declarations, that they have requested from staff and the Board that may be a condition to administrative final, and that he will be bringing in an individual who does this work, every day, all day. The Phase I condo documents will be looked at and they will be making some modifications to the Phase II documents.
Jeffrey Vaccaro asked a question related to Dark Sky. Mr. Resnick noted that the Town has a light ordinance that requires dark sky compliance and pertains to the application before the Board. The point of dark sky is to insulate surrounding properties from a light nuisance.
Mr. Viveiros noted that there will be a glow from the property and felt it was more important to know how the lights will be controlled and how long into the night will they be on?
Mr. Marcello stated that they had done quite a bit of research and had chosen fixtures from RAB Lighting Company. After contacting the engineer for the company and sending them the site plan, they recommended the lighting currently being used—down lighting, attached to the building, with photo sensors, basically running from dusk to dawn.
Chair Thurn asked if there is a lighting system that would have less light intensity and become brighter if someone approached the building? Mr. Marcello stated that he would go back to the RAB Company and inquire about those options.
Mr. DeFrancesco asked if the buildings have video security cameras? Mr. Marcello indicated that many of the individual owners have security cameras.
Chair Thurn asked if anyone from the public had any questions? There were no questions from the public.
Attorney Resnick addressed the Master and Preliminary findings found in the Planner’s memorandum of July 20, 2026, (Pages 18-20). Mr. Resnick noted that they are agreeing to all of the conditions that came before the findings. Mr. Freeman was asked if he had reviewed the Required Findings in the Planner’s report? Mr. Freeman asked for a moment to review them. Mr. Freeman concurred with the findings and that his opinion was based on a reasonable degree of certainty as a civil engineer?
Attorney Resnick addressed number 7 of the Required Findings: The proposed design has been structured to complement the existing character of the surrounding natural environment. A comprehensive screening and landscape plan will be implemented to mitigate visual impacts from the adjacent residential property and enhance the overall appearance of the rural landscape. The proposed landscaping, buffering, and design elements are intended to integrate the development into the surrounding rural viewshed while maintaining the functionality of the permitted business use. The proposal achieves an appropriate balance between accommodating economic activity within the business district and preserving the aesthetic qualities and character of the surrounding area.
Mr. Resnick then asked Mr. Butler if he concurs with this finding. Mr. Butler replied, yes. Mr. Butler was asked if his opinion was based on a reasonable degree of certainty as a landscape architect? Mr. Butler stated, it was.
Chair Thurn asked about a starting time for the businesses within the complex. Attorney Resnick noted that there are a lot of different types of businesses within this development. Board member Corriea suggested that many businesses start very early and start times will vary depending on the business.
Chair Thurn entertained a motion to close the Public Hearing. Michael DeFrancesco made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Robert Corriea, all in favor, (5-0) the Public Hearing was closed.
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros.)
The Motion for the Waiver:
Board member Robert Corriea made a motion to approve the Waiver: The current application for Phase II, including the special use permit and dimensional variance approved by the planning board on July 28, 2026, remains consistent with the development concept, intent and purpose established by the Master Plan approved in 2022. The Planning Board finds the waiver is reasonable and consistent with the general purposes and intent of the land development and subdivision regulations and may be granted, subject to the three findings set forth by the town planner on page 13-14 of his July 20, 2026, memorandum, as well as the 17 conditions outlined on pages 14-17 in the same memorandum. Seconded by Jeffrey Vaccaro, hearing no discussion, the motion carried, (5-0).
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros.)
The Motion to approve the Masterplan/Preliminary Plan Review:
Board member Robert Corriea made a motion that the Masterplan/Preliminary Plan application promotes orderly development of the property within the business zoning district and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Exeter 2044 Comprehensive Plan. Hence the Planning Board gives its conditional approval of the masterplan and preliminary site plans proposed by this applicant with the final plan to be approved administratively, as all conditions of approval are met. It includes the findings and conditions set forth by the town planner in his July 20, 2026 memorandum. Seconded by Jeffrey Vaccaro, hearing no further discussion, the motion carried, (5-0).
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros.)
B. Petition of KJC Properties, LLC (AP71-B4-L10) – Public Hearing on an application pursuant to the Exeter Zoning Ordinance and Land Development and Subdivision Regulations (LDSR), including Section 1.3(3)(B) of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance (General Provisions – Variances) and Section 6.2 of the LDSR (Unified Development Review), seeking amendments to a previously approved Preliminary and Final Plan for a Major Land Development Project. The subject property is located at 597 South Country Trail, building 4, Exeter, Rhode Island, identified as Assessor's Plat 71-B4, Lot 10 and is zoned Business (B).
The Applicant seeks approval for modifications to the currently approved site plan, which includes alterations to parking arrangements, designated storage areas, landscaping features, and screening methods. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting specific dimensional variances to accommodate these changes.
Ø Section 2.4 – A dimensional variance of 96 feet from the required setback for structures from all roads.
Ø Section 2.6 – A dimensional variance to permit the permanent placement of storage containers, where the ordinance permits only temporary storage containers.
Chair Gina Thurn called for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Michael DeFrancesco made the motion, seconded by Jeffrey Vaccaro, all in favor, (5-0), the motion carried and the Public Hearing was opened.
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros.)
Attorney Michael Resnick representing the applicant/owner, KJC Properties, LLC, doing business as Exquisite Events, was recognized. Mr. Resnick apprised the Board of the items included in the applicant’s plan set. Attorney Resnick noted that his Paralegal, Sarah Desroches, had completed an Affidavit attesting to sending the Notice of Public Hearing, (Exhibit A); Notice of Public Hearing to abutters listed in a 1,000’ radius of the property, (Exhibit B); and that Exhibit A had been published in the North Kingstown Standard Times on July 2, July 9 and July 16, 2026.
Attorney Resnick stated that the purpose of the amendment is intended to make the business function better for Exquisite Events. He mentioned that Kelli DuBeau, Principal and Founder of Exquisite Events, is present and will discuss the nature of the business, the success of the business and how the business has changed over time.
Due to the success of the business, additional storage is required. The applicant will be eliminating the tractor-trailer storage bodies and after discussions with the Planner, a limited number of Conex storage containers will be allowed to remain on site, with eight (8) sheds placed in designated areas, also adding five (5) crushed stone parking spaces, revising the stormwater management plan and installing fencing and landscaping upgrades.
Kelli DuBeau was sworn in and gave an overview of the business. Exquisite Events is located at 597 South County Trail, Exeter, RI. KJC Properties, LLC, is proposing a modification to its existing Planning Board approval to allow outdoor storage, complete with screening, to support its business operation. Ms. DuBeau stated that “inseason” they have about 60 employees, year-round approximately 30 employees. That primarily the business does large tents and upscale events and specialty items, they do not do mass rentals.
Patrick Freeman, registered professional engineer, American Engineering, was sworn in. Mr. Freeman reviewed the property layout with the Board. Mr. Freeman indicated that what they are proposing is to remove the tractor trailer storage, remove a significant area of crushed stone to be replaced with loam and seed, and to designate areas where storage will be permitted. As part of the application, five additional crushed stone parking spaces are proposed. A modified wetlands/RIPDES permit will be required by the RIDEM.
The number of Conex containers as well as the size and height of the containers will be discussed.
Attorney Resnick asked Mark Butler, Landscape Architect, Matunuck Design Group, Inc. to review his landscaping plans for the property. He indicated that 8’ fencing (solid vinyl) will be installed and the existing white pines will be used, as well as, adding new as necessary. A split rail fence will be installed on both sides of the roadway and new trees will be installed.
Board member Michael Viveiros offered suggestions regarding the placement of the fencing and grouping of trees as opposed to just a row of white pines. Hoping to create a long-term natural barrier.
Chair Thurn turned the discussion over to William DePasquale, Town Planner. The Planner recognized the importance of Exquisite Events in the Town of Exeter, noting that local businesses are vital to Exeter’s economy. That the applicant’s business has experienced extensive growth, that has created storage demands beyond the capacity of their existing building.
The Planner stated that the objective is to keep this business in Exeter. That the Town of Exeter’s Comprehensive Plan encourages economic development and the retention and expansion of local businesses within appropriate zoning districts. That local businesses are vital to Exeter’s economy, providing employment opportunities and strengthening the Town’s limited commercial tax base. That the requested dimensional variance is reasonable and consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of the requested dimensional variance, subject to the proposed site improvements and conditions of approval.
Attorney Resnick asked Patrick Freeman if he had reviewed the Planner’s memorandum of July 21, 2026: Exquisite Events II—Public Hearing, Unified-Major Land Development Project Preliminary; In-House Final. Mr. Freeman indicated that he had reviewed the document.
Findings of Fact:
Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article 1.3(B) – General Provisions: Variances
Patrick Freeman, civil engineer, American Engineering, Exeter, RI was asked the following questions by Attorney Michael Resnick
1. That the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area.
Mr. Freeman replied yes, that is correct.
2. That the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant.
Mr. Freeman stated, I agree.
3. That granting the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of the Exeter Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Freeman stated it will not.
Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article 1.3(C)(1) – Dimensional Variance Standard
Attorney Resnick asked Mr. Freeman if he was able to make those same three conclusions as it relates to the dimensional criteria as it relates to Zoning Article 3 1.3(C)(1)?
Mr. Freeman indicated yes.
Waiver Request -- Section 2.4 (Structure Setback from All Roads)
Attorney Resnick asked Mr. Freeman if he was able to make those same three conclusions as it relates to the dimensional criteria as it relates to Section 2.4 (Structure Setback from All Roads)?
Mr. Freeman said that is correct.
Attorney Resnick asked if the testimony as it relates to these factors for dimensional relief to a reasonable degree of certainty in Mr. Freeman’s expertise as a civil engineer. Mr. Freeman stated, yes.
Chairperson Thurn entertained a motion to extend the length of the meeting as needed in order to finish this tonight? Robert Corriea made the motion, seconded by Norman Machon, the vote was (5-1) in favor of extending the meeting.
Chair Thurn asked if there were any comments from the public. Mr. Asa Davis, 46 Beechwood Hill Trail, Exeter, RI stepped forward. Mr. Davis stated that Ordinance 9.6A Changes to Recorded Plats and Plans—states, change to a recorded final plan must be approved before building permits are issued for construction on the property platted. Any such changes shall be recorded as an amended final plan. He stated that the agenda references Section 6.2 of the LDSR (Unified Development Review), seeking amendments to a previously approved Preliminary and Final Plan for a Major Land Development project. Mr. Davis does not believe that changes anything in the 9.6A requirements. He then referenced that in a judgement against him the 9.6A rules were used, stating that he had not completed the necessary requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Davis indicated that three applications, that he knows of, have been approved without meeting that requirement. He asked if this requirement is required for this application? If it does, he believes that that requirement should be changed, because it impacts a lot of other projects.
Planner DePasquale indicated that this is a new site plan not a revised site plan. That they have addressed everything that a new plan would address. From stormwater to landscaping. Attorney Resnick also noted that this is a new application and was noticed appropriately.
Mr. Davis stated that he does not have issues with Exquisite Events, but has issues with the Town Planning Board issuing approvals for some applications that have had building permits issued and denying others for that very same reason, that it sets a very bad precedent, and the ordinance should be changed.
Chair Thurn called for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Michael DeFrancesco made the motion, seconded by Robet Corriea, all in favor (5-0) the motion carried.
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros.)
Dimensional Variance Request:
Robert Corriea made the motion that The Planning Board approves the dimensional variances requests from Sections 2.4 and 2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance made by Exquisite Events for commercial property at 597 South County Trail, subject to the proposed site improvements and conditions of approval set forth by the town planner in his memorandum dated July 21, 2026. The dimensional variance from Section 2.4 will permit a 96-foot reduction from the required setback from structures from all roads. The dimensional variance of Section 2.6 will allow the permanent placement of six 20-foot-long containers 8 feet wide and 8 feet tall and one 40-foot by 8 feet wide and 9 feet tall, and eight storage sheds in a business zone. Seconded by Michael Viveiros. The original motion was withdrawn and replaced with the above. All in favor, the motion passed (5-0).
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros.)
Preliminary approval for the proposed Major Land Development:
Motion made by Robert Corriea. Furthermore, The Town of Exeter’s comprehensive plan encourages economic development and the retention and expansion of local businesses within appropriate zoning districts. The requested storage containers and sheds are accessory to the principal commercial use and are necessary to support the day-to-day operations of a rapidly growing small business that has proven to be a boon to the community as both an employer and commercial taxpayer. Therefore, the planning board grants preliminary approval for the proposed Major Land Development project, subject to the conditions set forth by the town planner on pages 8 to 11 and the findings of facts pages 11-12 in his previously referenced memorandum of July 21, 2026. Seconded by Gina Thurn. Amended by Michael Viveiros. The motion is amended to include final landscaping and fence location to be decide by the town planner in conjunction with the applicant. Seconded by Robert Corriea, all in favor of the amendment,
(5-0). (Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros.)
The original motion was made and seconded by Michael Viveiros, all in favor, the motion passed (5-0).
(Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros.)
A. Approval of Minutes – May 26, 2026
Michael DeFrancesco made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted,
Seconded by Robert Corriea, hearing no discussion, the motion passed (6-0).
(Gina Thurn, Michael DeFrancesco, John Toro, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael
Viveiros and Norman Machon).
Approval of Minutes – June 8, 2026
Michael DeFrancesco made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted
Seconded by Robert Corriea, hearing no discussion, the motion passed (6-0).
(Gina Thurn, Michael DeFrancesco, John Toro, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael
Viveiros and Norman Machon).
B. Administrative Officer approved Projects/Decisions and Correspondence
Zoning Ordinance Rewrites: Planner DePasquale reported on the due diligence of the Planning Board, brought to a Town Council Workshop and then sent on to Karen Ellisworth, legal counsel, who recrafted the information into a much more modern zoning ordinance. Then brought to a Town Council Public Hearing and the Town Council felt, after listening to the public, that the ordinance would need additional work in order to have a draft ordinance that is consistent with the public demands made to the Town Council. Noting that nothing has been scheduled at this time.
C. Future Meetings:
Planning Board Workshop – Tuesday, August 11, 2026 - 6:00 P.M.
Planning Board Regular Meeting – Tuesday, August 25, 2026 at 6 P.M.
--Request for extension (Schartner) Rhode Island Grows, LLC
Motion to adjourn was made by Michael DeFranceso, seconded by Robert Corriea, voted all in favor (6-0). The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
(Gina Thurn, Michael DeFrancesco, John Toro, Jeffrey Vacarro, Michael Viveiros and Norman Machon).
Respectfully submitted, Rebecca M. Lukowicz, Planning Department