I.                   CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

II.                OLD BUSINESS:

A.     None.

III.             NEW BUSINESS:

A.      Pre-Application Conference for Comprehensive Permit Under the Rhode Island Low-

and Moderate-Income Housing Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §45-53-1 et seq. “Ten Rod Road Neighborhood” development Assessor's Plat 22, Block 3, Lot 3 (Located between 875 and 919 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, Rhode Island).

     Crossroad Capital Fund VIII, LLC ("Applicant") has submitted a request for a pre-application conference regarding the proposed Ten Rod Road Neighborhood, a mixed-residential development located on Assessor's Plat 22, Block 3, Lot 3 in Exeter, Rhode Island.

     The proposed development consists of age-restricted affordable apartment units, condominium units, and single-family residential lots, together with community amenities designed to serve an integrated neighborhood community. The development is anticipated to contain approximately 300 dwelling units, of which a minimum of thirty percent (30%), or approximately ninety (90) units, will be reserved for low- and moderate-income households in accordance with the requirements of the Rhode Island Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Act.

     The project is proposed as a Comprehensive Permit application pursuant to the Rhode Island Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-53-1 et seq. This pre-application conference is requested pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-53-4(e)(1), effective January 1, 2026, which permits an applicant proposing a low- or moderate-income housing project to request a pre-application conference with the Administrative Officer and Local Review Board prior to the submission of a Comprehensive Permit application. The purpose of the conference is to provide an opportunity for introductory discussion of the proposed development, applicable regulations, site constraints, municipal concerns, infrastructure considerations, and the Comprehensive Permit review process.

Chair Gina Thurn recognized Attorney Andrew M. Teitz, (Ursillo, Teitz & Ritch, Ltd., 2 Williams Street, Providence, RI 02903), attorney for the applicant. Acknowledging that they were appearing before the Board for a preapplication, which is an optional item under the law, to present their plan and to receive feedback from the Board.  Mr. Teitz indicated that they are planning to use the optional Masterplan, so it will not be coming from preapplication to preliminary, but that they intend to come in with a (Conceptual) Masterplan submission before moving forward to Preliminary.

Attorney Teitz recognized the Planner’s Memorandum and noted that most of the content is for the future with very little of it for tonight. He noted that all of the requirements laid out by the Planner will be addressed in their future planning.

Attorney Teitz recognized Jeffrey Saletin, Saletin Real Estate Group, 95 Sockanosset Cross Road, Suite 203, Cranston, RI. Mr. Saletin noted that their firm is in their 42^nd year, he indicated that they have developments around the State and also in Massachusetts. Mr. Saletin, explained that his firm is a Vertically Integrated Development firm. Explaining that they are developers that have their own inhouse construction division, design division (although they also work with third-party designers), and manage all the properties that they do build. He encouraged the Board to speak to other Town administrators/managers for their input on how they do business.

Mr. Saletin indicated that they are before the Board tonight in order to get feedback from the Board, the community, as well as the neighbors. That they have been working for the last nine months trying to imagine what they could do with the 118-acre parcel that they own. According to Mr. Saletin, they have been working with DiPrete Engineering and Union Studios (“great urban planners”) thinking and dreaming about how best to present a community presentation of housing that would be something that would be a real asset to the Town of Exeter.

Mr. Saletin noted the following individuals who would be presenting their ideas to the Board. Cris Crecelius, Partner, Saletin Read Estate Group; Eric Privie, PE, Sr. Project Manager DiPrete Engineering, 2 Stafford Court, Cranston, RI 02920; Jeremy Lake, Principal & Director of Community Design, Union Studios, 160 Mathewson Street, Suite 201, Providence, RI 02903.

Mr. Saletin reviewed with the Board the layout and design of some of their properties, including the Village at South County Commons and the former Carnegie Abbey, now the Aquidneck Club, where they are in the process of building 28 homes. He noted that a number of the properties they have worked on have been properties that had been left vacant for long periods of time.  He stated, “We don’t flip any of our properties, in fact we have never sold anything in forty years, we are in it for the long haul.”

Eric Prive, PE, Sr. Project Manager, DiPrete Engineering, 2 Stafford Court, Cranston, RI 02920.

Mr. Prive gave a brief overview of the 118-acre site. He explained that a professional wetlands scientist has gone throughout the property and delineated the approximately 6 acres of wetlands and that the information was submitted to the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and that they have received, from DEM, wetlands verification.

Mr. Prive explained that the property is directly across from the Transfer Station on Ten Rod Road (R.I. Route 102); Zoning District RU4. Mr. Prive gave a quick history on the property.  The history included a partially constructed 18-hole golf course (September 1999) approved by the Exeter Zoning Board; May 2008 Master Plan approval by the Exeter Planning Board for 100 dwelling units as a Major Land Development; July 2021 proposed a 20-megawatt (MW) utility scale solar development, which had received Master Plan approval from the Exeter Planning Board; and in December 2025 the site was acquired by Crossroads Capital Fund VIII LLC. 

Mr. Prive briefly described the proposed development. The proposed 300 units would include: 60 Elderly Apartments/60 affordable units; 60 Condominium Units/30 affordable units; 180 Single-family Homes. He stated that there would be a boulevard entrance into the property and a number of buffer zones and that there is a natural stream on the property. He mentioned that Bob Ferrari is a member of their team from Northeast Water Solutions, who is providing comprehensive water and wastewater systems engineering. The development will have a community well in the northeast corner. Single-family homes will each have their own septic system; the condos and the apartments in the front will have a community system. Detailed reports on these systems to follow.

Mr. Prive reported that Mr. Paul Bannon, Crossman Engineering, will be providing the traffic impact statement. He reported that Mr. Bannon has already done all the traffic counts, and has requested all the safety data from the State and that site lines in both directions are more than sufficient. Mr. Prive also reported that Mr. Bannon has looked at the capacity of Ten Rod Road for future development and feels confident that the highway is able to except additional traffic.

Mr. Saletin asked Jeremy Lake, Principal & Director of Community Design, Union Studios to offer his expertise in addition to the civil engineers in order to incorporate a more community like atmosphere into their proposed development.

Jeremy Lake came forward to offer his ideas and expertise on community planning. He laid out how they might enhance the proposed development.  He mentioned that they wanted to find the balance between being visible from Ten Rod Road, but not so close to the road that it would look out of place. The proposed boulevard signifying an entrance to a residential community and offering some means of a secondary access/egress into and out of the property for the fire department. The development will offer green spaces throughout and a community center on the property. Mr. Lake offered the comparison of their current Aquidneck project to their plans for this development.

Chair Thurn recognized Town Planner William DePasquale. Planner DePasquale referenced his Planning Memorandum: Ten Rod Road Neighborhood (300 units, 30 percent LMI)-Comprehensive Permit; Plat 22 Block 3 Lot 3; Ten Rod Road (R.I. Route 102), Exeter, RI; Dated: June 2, 2026.

In his 22-page memorandum he offered a clear footprint and a pathway moving forward. The Planner wanted to temper expectations at the outset of the project. His first memorandum included his first pass at some of the items he will be looking at when assessing this project and offering his recommendations to the Board. He reviewed the Proposal-Preapplication/Concept plan. He noted that the current proposal, submitted under Rhode Island General Laws §45-53-4 as part of the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Act, requests a dramatic increase in allowable density—four times greater than what is normally permitted. He restated that there are approximately 118 acres; wetlands: approximately 6 acres; zoning district: RU4.

The Planner reminded the Board of previous development proposals in past years, and that too many times those proposals have been eliminated with the hopes that better options will come down the line. Planner DePasquale stated that with the newly revised state law it gives developers a substantial density bonus to take up the cost to provide low- to moderate income housing. That each community is required to have 10 percent. Currently Exeter has 7.59 percent, down from 7.67, trending in the wrong direction. He mentioned that this proposal provides 90 units, but they will not be counted until a certificate of occupancy is issued. That until the Town reaches the 10 percent, many comprehensive permits will be proposed.

Planner DePasquale indicated that there will be a third-party peer review of the testimony of the professionals and the information presented. The Planner noted that he knows the applicant’s work from the past and recognizes that they stand behind their work. He cautioned that there are many community concerns around how this development may impact the residents of Exeter. The Planner suggested that the developer look at the actual neighbors that have been here for 30 years, first, and factor that into their design before factoring in the potential new residents.

Planner DePasquale stated that he had provided each Board member with Rhode Island General Laws Title 45. Towns and Cities §45-53-4. Procedure for approval of construction of low- or moderate-income housing and stressed the importance of the Board knowing the law. The Planner stated that the density increase of 3 dwelling units per acre, for this particular project, is something that they have, which is availed to the petitioner. He felt that there is a need to right-size the project for the Town.

The Planner in his June 2, 2026 Planning Memorandum offered his Technical Planning Assessment and Guidance (Page 8). In which he stated: At the current stage of review, the record does not contain sufficient technical information to determine whether the proposed development intensity can be accommodated without adverse impacts to public infrastructure, environmental resources, or neighboring properties.

The Planner stated that under number 3—Groundwater Resources and Potable Water Supply, he will be suggesting a full-blown peer review by an integrated engineering company that has a hydrogeologist, a stormwater engineer and traffic expert, to provide the Board with more peer review guidance.

Covered on (Pages 8-17) of the Planner’s Memorandum:

1. Purpose; 2. Site Capacity and Development Intensity; 3. Groundwater Resources and Potable Water Supply; 4. Wastewater Treatment and Onsite Wastewater Systems (OWTS);

5. Transportation and Emergency Access; 6. Stormwater Management and Environmental Resources; 7. Municipal Service Impacts; 8. Consistency with Community Planning Objectives; 9. Fiscal Impact Statement; 10. Traffic Impact and Public Safety Evaluation; 10a. School Bus; 10b. Fire and Police Review; 10c. Pedestrian Safety; 11. Community Impact Study (ECIS) Land Development Regulations Sec. 3.4. – Project Description and Impact Study; 12. Design Compatibility; 13. State and Federal Permits.

The Planner noted that when protecting the Town’s interests, the Planning Board’s comments at the preapplication stage should not be interpreted as a determination regarding the merits of the proposal. Rather, the purpose of these comments is to identify the technical information necessary for the Board to evaluate the application and make the findings required under the Rhode Island Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Act and other applicable provisions of state and local law.

Planner DePasquale concluded his Planning Memorandum with guidance for the applicant. He noted that until the applicant submits additional technical information for professional review, it is premature for the Planning Board to determine whether the proposed development is appropriate for the site, whether the requested density can be adequately supported without unacceptable impacts, or whether the statutory findings required for approval can be satisfied. He offered the following guidance:

1.       Density and Site Capacity

The proposed overall density appears excessive relative to the site’s physical carrying capacity and the constraints imposed by applicable zoning regulations. A reduced-density, more efficient, and context-sensitive site plan should be explored. Any revised layout should better align with surrounding land uses, underlying zoning, and environmental limitations, while maintaining feasibility for the provision of LMI housing.

2.       Site Design and Neighborhood Compatibility

The following design considerations are recommended to improve compatibility with surrounding land uses and the rural character of the community

• Increased buffering and transitional landscaping along all abutting residential

    properties to reduce visual and functional impacts.

• Exploration of a conservation subdivision design approach in lieu of conventional

    small-lot configurations.

• Construction of higher-density senior rental or age-restricted residential components,

    potentially utilizing reduced frontage or 40-foot lot configurations where appropriate,

    within a conservation subdivision framework that better reflects site constraints and

    community character.

3.       Infrastructure Capacity and Utilities

Early and definitive confirmation of available water supply and wastewater treatment capacity is required to evaluate project feasibility. In particular, groundwater yield and potential impacts on abutting properties, along with the design, performance, and regulatory compliance of the proposed onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), must be clearly established and reviewed prior to further advancement of the application.

4.       Recreational Amenities

The applicant should provide additional details regarding the design, location, functionality, and long-term maintenance of proposed recreational amenities. Such facilities should be appropriately scaled to serve the projected population and, where feasible, connected to adjacent neighborhoods and integrated into the overall site layout and surrounding open space network.

5.       Development Footprint and Visual Impact

Opportunities should be explored to reduce the overall development footprint through a conservation subdivision design that enhances open-space preservation while allowing for smaller-lot single-family development at a lot size larger (½ or ¾ of an acre) than the current concept. These measures could also integrate higher-density LMI housing and senior-restricted or rental housing in a manner that is more harmonious with the town’s overall development pattern.

6.       Phasing and Infrastructure Load Management

Phased development should be evaluated as a strategy to reduce short-term impacts on local infrastructure, improve constructability, and allow for incremental assessment of environmental and community impacts over time.

7.       Public Safety and Traffic

Early and definitive confirmation of the site access configuration, including all entrance and exit arrangements, is essential to ensure adequate provisions for public safety. The final circulation plan must be developed in coordination with a comprehensive traffic and access strategy addressing emergency response requirements, school bus circulation, and overall site traffic operations. Particular attention should be given to ensuring:

• Unobstructed emergency access routes for fire and rescue services;

• Safe accommodation of turning movements for all vehicle types entering and exiting

    Ten Rod Road;

• Provision of a permanent secondary emergency access point;

• Efficient and conflict-free school transportation operations; and

• Safe integration with the surrounding roadway network.

8.       Planning Recommendation

The Planner stated that the successful completion of all elements identified in Sections IV and V (Planning Memorandum – June 2, 2026) will require a comprehensive and coordinated review of each individual component of the proposal. Including a detailed evaluation of all associated data, supporting information, and technical studies to ensure that each aspect of the application is fully and appropriately addressed. It will also be necessary to verify that the proposal complies with all applicable local, state, and federal permit requirements. Only upon completion of this comprehensive review and confirmation of regulatory compliance can the adequacy and completeness of the submission be fully assessed.

Chair Thurn gave her Board the opportunity to list the top three priorities/concerns they may have regarding this proposed development.

Secretary Michael DeFranceso offered his insights. He noted that he likes the Development team approach and that this team doesn’t flip projects. High on his bullet list are: 1. Where is the water going to come from; 2. Fire suppression; 3. Rezoning; 4. Alternative layouts; 5. Senior Center working with the Town; 6. Drill test well(s); 7. Community Impact study—10-year performa.  Mr. DeFrancesco asked how many gallons per day can be taken out of the aquafer without depletion (safe yield).

Vice Chair Robert Corriea had several questions, his main concerns—water and sewer.

He asked what their due diligence entailed. If there would be any commercial development and the applicant responded, no. Mr. Corriea asked about K-12 impact on the Town and questioned the applicant on numbers.

Board member John Toro spoke on behalf of the neighbors in the vicinity of this proposed development and offered his concern for how they may be feeling. He referenced Deer (Run) Ridge which is 126 acres with 100 homes indicating that this development is roughly the same size as the proposed development of 300 units/homes placing strain on the Town’s resources and felt the number of homes should be reduced.

Board member Michael Viveiros acknowledged the team working on the development and their professionalism. Mr. Viveiros questioned the formality of the proposed entranceway and the density of the development, indicating that this is something the Town of Exeter is not used to. He questioned the design team about using fencing and street lights, parking considerations and traffic concerns on Ten Rod Road.

Board member Jeffrey Vacarro indicated that his questions had been covered by each of the previous Board members.

Chair Gina Thurn asked for information regarding amenities; water (number 1 priority); buffering; connecting trails around the property; the number of wells on the property; fire safety concerns as well as parking considerations. She recognized the concerns of the neighboring home owners, who had purchased their homes in a RU4 4-acre zone, now living near a 300-home development. She felt that 300 homes/units is a really high number for this property. She asked about fire cisterns, fire hydrants, and the need for a secondary exit. The need for Peer Review.

Cris Crecelius, Partner, Saletin Real Estate Group, stepped forward to introduce himself and thanked Mr. DePasquale on his detailed planning memorandum and the Board for their insight. He noted that they are here at an optional preapplication and will attend an optional conceptual master plan with the hopes of coming up with a concept that the Board, the Community, and his company can live with. That they are part of the community, a family business, and have estimated and budgeted about 7,000 hours of consultants’ time, between architects, engineers, attorneys and consultants to come up with a concept that meets everyone’s needs. He stated that it is their job to prove to the Board, and all the authorities that have jurisdiction here, that the water works, the septic works, the traffic works, everything that we have discussed this evening.

Mr. Saletin added that this is exactly why they were here and will explore the feedback from tonight. That more work will be done before they return with their revised conceptual plan.

Chair Thurn recommended to the group that they spend some time driving around Exeter exploring the different communities within the Town. Certain members have spent time doing just that. The engineer noted that they have garnered information from the previously proposed golf course and solar field during their due diligence for this project.

IV.              ADMINISTRATIVE:

A.      Approval of Minutes:  April 14, 2026

 Michael DeFrancesco made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, Seconded by John Toro, voted all in favor (6-0). The motion passed. (Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, John Toro, Jeffrey Vaccaro, Michael Viveiros).

B.     Correspondence:  Nothing to report.

C.    Zoning Board of Review: Thursday, June 11, 2026

D.    Future Meetings:

• Planning Board Regular Meeting – Tuesday, June 23, 2026, at 6 p.m.

   Comp permit – Public Hearing Exeter/West Greenwich High School

   Auditorium.

• Planning Board Work Session – Tuesday, July 14, 2026

V.                 ADJOURNMENT:

 Motion to adjourn was made by John Toro, Seconded by Michael DeFrancesco,

 voted all in favor (6-0). The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m.

 (Gina Thurn, Robert Corriea, Michael DeFrancesco, John Toro, Jeffrey Vaccaro,

 Michael Viveiros).

Respectfully submitted, Rebecca M. Lukowicz, Planning Department