ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW
675 Ten Rod Road
Exeter, R.I. 02822
401-294-2592
Fax: 267-0128
EXETER ZONING BOARD
BOARD OF REVIEW
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, 2015
Approved: April 9, 2015
A Regular Meeting of the Exeter Zoning Board of Review was held on Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 7:30 pm, in the Town Council Chambers of the Exeter Town Hall, 675 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI.
Members present: Richard Booth, Chairman; Pamela Toro, Vice-chair; Tom McMillan, member; Richard Quattromani, member; Tim Robertson, alternate; Susan Franco-Towell, alternate
Members absent: N/A
Others present: Stephen Sypole, Solicitor; and Ron Ronzio, Stenographer
Meeting called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Richard Booth.
Motion made by Tom McMillan to open the meeting. Second by Pamela Toro VOTED all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Agenda proceeded out of order.
The petition of Barbara Nowicki, owner and applicant of property located at 281 Sheffield Hill Road, Exeter, RI, Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 60 Block 2 Lot 4; a request for a dimensional relief provided under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1 (acreage);2.4.2.2 (frontage); 2.4.2.6(side setback); to construct a 10’x16’ sunroom, 26’x24’garage and a 12’x15’ connector.
Barbara Nowicki, owner, was present and sworn in.
Roland Dyer, builder, was present and sworn in.
Mrs. Nowicki stated she would like to construct a 10’x16’ sunroom, 26’x24’ garage, and 12’x15 connector.
Chairman Booth asked if any of the space would be for an in-law apartment. Mrs. Nowicki stated no.
Tom McMillan asked if this was Mrs. Nowicki’s primary residence. She stated yes since September 2013. Mr. McMillan questions the access of the driveway. Mrs. Nowicki stated it is thru the neighbor’s property and is recorded in the deed.
Mr. McMillan asked about the shed. Mrs. Nowicki stated it would be moved.
Mr. McMillan inquired why the addition was not being put on the other side of the house to minimize the setback variances. Mrs. Nowicki stated the way the house is positioned on the lot, a stone wall, and the garage would then be located off the living room and not the kitchen.
Ms. Toro asked if the style of the addition would be consistent with the surrounding area. Mrs. Nowicki stated yes.
Mr. Robertson asked about the location of the garage. Roland Dyer stated the garage would match the existing house.
There was no public comment regarding this application.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to close the public hearing, seconded by Tim Robertson; voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to grant the petition of Barbara Nowicki, owner and applicant of property located at 281 Sheffield Hill Road, Exeter, RI, Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 60 Block 2 Lot 4; a request for a dimensional relief provided under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1 –acreage relief of 1.1 acres; ;2.4.2.2 (frontage) of 300 feet
2.4.2.6(side setback) 34.2 feet; to construct a 10’x16’ sunroom, 26’x24’garage and a 12’x15’ connector. The 300 foot frontage relief is by virtue of the easement. Seconded by Susan Franco-Towell. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
The petition of Mark E. Votta, applicant and KGM Investments LLC, owner of property located at 39 Robin Drive, Exeter, RI, Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 51 Block 5 Lot 7; a request for a Use Variance to convert a storage building to a single family dwelling.
Mark Votta, owner, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Votta stated he owns a storage facility and wishes to convert it to a single family home. Mr. Booth asked if it was rented. Mr. Votta said not currently. He wants to have an in-law live there. Mr. Booth asked if there was a septic on the property. Mr. Votta stated there was not a septic currently but he has an approved septic permit by D.E.M. Mr. Booth asked about utilities. Mr. Votta stated it would have separate utilities. Mr. Booth stated Mr. Votta was before the Board in 1996 and was granted a special use permit to build a storage facility on the lot.
Mr. McMillan referred to drawing submitted with application.
Mr. McMillan asked what “BSF” meant. Mr. Booth stated “bottomless sand filter”.
Maria Votta was present and sworn in. Ms. Votta stated the well was to be relocated.
Discussion ensued regarding the location of the septic and wells indicated on the drawing.
Discussions regarding the previously issued special use permit and if a use variance was issued for this application, the special use permit would cease to exist.
There is no dimensional relief being sought because it is an existing building.
Pamela Toro asked what the style of the existing structure is. Mr. Votta stated it is vinyl siding, double hung windows, slab on grade. The 12’ overhead door will be replaced. Exhibit A-picture of house from CRC provided to the board by Richard Quattromani.
Mr. Robertson asked if Mr. Votta would be using the property for family. Mr. Votta said yes.
Mr. Robertson asked if the driveway would stay the same. Mr. Votta stated yes.
There was no public comment.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to close the public hearing, seconded by Tim Robertson; voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Pamela Toro stated the applicant is aware of the easements and the easements run with the property.
Solicitor Sypole stated the lots are in separate ownership and the lots can be sold separately.
Richard Booth read for the record from the Zoning Ordinance:
· In granting a variance, the Exeter zoning board of review shall require that evidence to the satisfaction of the following standards be entered into the record of the proceedings:
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; and is not due to a physical or economic disability of the applicant;
2. That said hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain;
3. That the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent of purpose of the Exeter zoning ordinance or the Exeter comprehensive plan, upon which this ordinance is based; and
4. That the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary.
Richard Booth stated by granting this variance would bring the property into conformance.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to grant petition of Mark E. Votta, applicant and KGM Investments LLC, owner of property located at 39 Robin Drive, Exeter, RI, Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 51 Block 5 Lot 7; a request for a Use Variance to convert a storage building to a single family dwelling; seconded by Tom McMillan. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
The petition of Ilias Zarokostas, owner and Marios and Michael Kirios, applicant of property located at 222 Nooseneck Hill Rd, Exeter, RI, Zoned LB-R and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 20 Block 4 Lot 13; a request for a dimensional relief provided under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1 (acreage); 2.4.2.2 (frontage); 2.4.2.6(side setback); and 2.4.2.7 (rear setback); for two additions already constructed.
Michael Kirios, applicant, was present and sworn in.
Attorney Jack Pitts, present on behalf of Michael Kirios.
Attorney Pitts stated the structure is an existing diner with 2 additions that have been constructed. One addition is an office/shed and a freezer area. Mr. Kirios is leasing the diner from Ilias Zarakostas. Mr. Kirios stated the office area was built by himself. The office area houses the alarm system and security cameras. Chairman Booth stated the fire department had been there several times in the past few months and Mr. Kirios son was sleeping in the office. Mr. Kirios stated he had just fallen asleep there and does not live there. Chairman Booth asked if there were building permits pulled when the addition was built. Mr. Kirios stated no permits were pulled but the Building Inspector stated it was fine.
Richard Quattromani referenced the CRC Property Record Card dated 11/21/14. Mr. Kirios indicated the shed on the drawing. Mr. Kirios stated the property record card is not accurate. Mr. Kirios referenced the drawing submitted with the application, this drawing is more accurate. Mr. Kirios indicated on the drawing an area 11’x6’.
Attorney Pitts stated they were seeking relief for side relief and acreage.
Pamela Toro stated the relief needs to be clarified and the drawing needs to be clarified.
Attorney Pitts stated they were looking for side setback of 15’ feet where the shed is and the distance between the fence. Pamela Toro stated this is the left side setback. Richard Booth stated there is a 7’ setback to the fence. Mr. McMillan asked if the fence line was the property line. Attorney Pitts stated yes. Pamela Toro inquired about the rear setback. Attorney Pitts stated the drawing is incorrect for the rear property line and they have 75 feet more of property.
Exhibit A- Aerial Photo from Exeter GIS.
Tim Robertson referenced Exhibit A- no rear setback relief required based on Exhibit A.
Pamela Toro stated the applicant also needs acreage relief. Attorney Pitts stated they need 2 acres and only have 1.75 acres.
Pamela Toro stated the lot coverage is less than 25% therefore lot coverage relief is not needed.
Richard Booth stated there is a lot of missing information on the application.
Pamela Toro asked why Mr. Kirios did not request approval before building. Mr. Kirios stated when he requested one for a sign it was too much of a problem. Attorney Pitts stated they had no excuse. Ms. Toro asked why he came in this time. Mr. Kirios stated the Fire Marshal and the Building Inspector came out to check alarm system. Mr. Kirios has nothing in writing from the inspectors.
Richard Booth stated it is clear the applicant didn’t want to come before the board because of the aggravation. Attorney Pitts stated they were told to come in from the Building Inspector.
Ms. Toro asked if in the future he would come in prior to doing anything. Mr. Kirios stated he would.
Richard Booth stated the additions may not be up to code, no permits were pulled, and no inspections were completed. Attorney Pitts asked if any decision could be conditional upon inspector approval. Mr. Booth stated it can be a stipulation if the Board decides that.
Hal Morgan, Zoning Inspector, is present and sworn in.
Mr. Morgan stated there have been multiple construction projects without permits. The shed has 1 door and someone has been sleeping in it. Mr. Morgan stated he would like the 3 structures rebuilt to code, tear down and come back with plans to rebuild.
Richard Booth asked Mr. Morgan if the structures were up to code. Mr. Morgan stated he is not the building inspector. Mr. Morgan submitted Exhibit B- picture of structure.
Pamela Toro asked if the building inspector stated the existing buildings were built to code, would Mr. Morgan be comfortable with that. Mr. Morgan stated yes.
Attorney Pitts stated the walls are still open so the building inspector so it may be inspected. Mr. Booth asked if the contractor who built the addition is licensed. Mr. Kirios stated Mr. Stedman is licensed.
Mr. McMillan stated the drawing is appears inaccurate. He is concerned that Board is being asked to forgive him and grant the application. Mr. McMillan asked if the basic building is okay since it is pre-existing non- conforming. Solicitor Sypole stated the Board has jurisdiction over the new construction.
Chairman Booth asked for public comment.
Charles L. Hill Sr., abutter at 218 Nooseneck Hill Road, is present and is sworn.
Mr. Hill stated he owns the property next door and has no issues with the additions.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to close the public hearing, seconded by Tim Robertson; voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Chairman Booth stated the drawings are a concern and there are safety concerns and would ask the Board to consider continuing the application to 3/12/15 and have the building inspector examine the additions.
Mr. Robertson stated new drawings should be submitted also.
Richard Quattromani stated the relief requested needs to be clarified.
Chairman Booth stated the zoning certificate states Mr. Kirios needs Planning Board approval also.
Solicitor Sypole stated the applicant is here to seek relief to the zoning ordinance.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to continue the petition of Ilias Zarokostas, owner and Marios and Michael Kirios, applicant to the March 12, 2015 meeting. Applicant to submit more accurate drawings and the relief being sought. The applicant must obtain confirmation from the Building Inspector that the additions are built to code in writing; Seconded by Tom McMillan. Voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
The petition of TEM Corp, applicant and C&H Properties, Inc., owner, of property located at Pole #104 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, RI, Zoned LI and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 46 Block 2 Lot 3; a request for a Special Use Permit provided under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.1.59 (industrial parks) to construct a bituminous concrete manufacturing facility and contractor’s office and storage facility.
Attorney John Pagliarini Jr. is present representing T.E.M. and C&H Properties.
Attorney Pagliarini stated the application is for an industrial park. The applicant has appeared before the Planning Board and has received a favorable recommendation from them. The final development plan review is pending the approval of the use variance from the Zoning Board.
Attorney Pagliarini stated the asphalt plant would be located on a portion of the property. The plant will be enclosed inside a 20,000 s.f. metal structure to comply with Zoning Section 4.5 (Industrial performance standards). The proposed structure is located 350 feet off the road and will be well screened. The applicant has had a conversation with Chief Franklin from Exeter #2 Fire District and he has no problems with having this type of plant in this location. There will be a common access point for the office park and the asphalt plant.
Michael McCormick, Land Surveyor, Alpha Associates, is present and sworn in.
Attorney Pagliarini asked for Mr. McCormick to be accepted as an expert.
Mr. McCormick gave an overview of the site and proposed facilities.
Tim Behan, Commonwealth Engineers and Consultants Inc., is present and sworn in.
Attorney Pagliarini asked for Mr. Behan to be accepted as an expert.
Mr. Behan reviewed the site plan for the Board.
Mr. Behan stated there would be a private well, septic system approved by D.E.M, and any wetland permits obtained from the state. Attorney Pagliarini asked if the proposed plant would meet “best practices” environmentally for the area. Mr. Behan stated yes it would meet best practices for the well, storm water, septic and erosion control.
Mr. Booth asked if the best practices would be met for the hazards of an asphalt plant. Mr. Behan stated there will be some liquid asphalt in secondary containment vessels standard for the asphalt industry. Attorney Pagliarini referred to the Zoning Ordinance Section 7.5 there is a requirement for the protection.
Pamela Toro asked how tall the silos would be. Attorney Pagliarini stated no more than the maximum allowed height of 40 feet.
James Houle, Real Estate Expert, is present and sworn in.
Attorney Pagliarini asked for Mr. Behan to be accepted as an expert.
Mr. Houle is a certified appraiser in the State of RI since 1991, past City of Newport Tax Assessor, and has served on several city/town council and boards.
Mr. Houle has reviewed the proposed project, visited the site, reviewed the Exeter Comprehensive Plan and the current site in Coventry. Mr. Houle states the plan fits within the zoning code and would not be detrimental to the community and would not depreciate the property.
Thomas E. Miozzi, applicant, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Miozzi has manufactured asphalt since 1991. Mr. Miozzi gave a detailed description of the operations of the asphalt plant process. Mr. Miozzi also described the proposed buildings and structures.
Mr. Booth asked if when the materials being loaded in to the trucks was noisy. Mr. Miozzi stated it was almost silent. The trucks have backup alarms on them.
Mr. Booth asked about night operations. Mr. Miozzi states he preferred not to do night work but needs to sometime. The last calendar year they worked 8 nights out of 365 nights.
Mr. Miozzi stated there is truck traffic but most of the traffic would be on state roads, not town roads.
Mr. Miozzi state that everything is regulated by E.P.A., D.E.M., and OSHA.
Ms. Toro asked why he was moving from Coventry to Exeter. Mr. Miozzi stated there were no homes when the Coventry facility was built in 1968 and now the development has encroached with 465 mobile homes.
Mr. Miozzi has spoken to Chief Franklin regarding the proposed plant. Chief Franklin stated the fire department is equipped with the appropriate equipment to handle a petroleum fire and has mutual aid agreements with surrounding towns.
Attorney Pagliarini stated the Town of Coventry has taken Mr. Miozzi to court and there is a consent agreement for 4 years. Mr. Miozzi acquired property in 2004 from the previous owner who had let the equipment deteriorate and he has since made improvements.
Mr. McMillan asked why the park is being separated into 2 separate lots and why did the notice to abutters not mention the asphalt plant. He feels that the residents and abutters were not informed of the proposal. Mr. McMillan stated they are referring to light industrial which is hard to define.
Mr. Miozzi stated he is his biggest customer since he installs asphalt paving.
Pamela Toro stated they are requesting an industrial park special use permit but what about the underlying use of manufacturing and processing.
Attorney Pagliarini asked Ms. Toro to read # 59 from the use table:
Industrial parks, meaning a cluster of two or more industrial businesses with communal parking facilities, planned and built as an entity or subdivision of an area within an individual district
Attorney Pagliarini stated that a bituminous concrete plant is an industrial business.
Ms. Toro asks how that gets incorporated into #59. Attorney Pagliarini stated there is no definition for industrial uses, therefore it is made. They made an application to the zoning inspector for the bituminous concrete plant under code #59 and were told to go to Planning and Zoning. There is no particular use that prohibits the use. Attorney Pagliarini stated if he was the Town Council, he would change use #59 due to the act it is sufficiently vague allowing any industrial use in an industrial park.
Ms. Toro does not see the use listed thus it is specifically prohibited. Attorney Pagliarini stated use code #59 leaves the door ajar because it says industrial use and industrial use is not defined in the ordinance. By definition in the NAICS, they are classified as a manufacturer, an industrial use.
Ms. Toro stated that if any manufacturing was included in industrial use why code #62 is available- manufacturing of cosmetics. Attorney Pagliarini says there is a difference with a single use on a single lot versus an industrial park. An industrial park has industrial uses.
Mr. Booth stated if he were to build an industrial park he could put an office park on one side and a nuclear power plant on the other. Attorney Pagliarini stated that until the ordinance is amended for clarity then yes. Mr. McMillan asked again why 2 parcels.
Attorney Pagliarini stated use code #59 is defined as having 2 parcels. Mr. McMillan stated Attorney Pagliarini has designed it to fit what they want. Attorney Pagliarini stated that his client has another person interested in the other side as a contractor office.
Mr. McMillan stated the absence of the asphalt plant in the notice is a concern of his and it is Attorney Pagliarini’s duty to meet the criteria. Attorney Pagliarini stated the experts have met the 5 standards to the special use permit.
Attorney Pagliarini stated the newspaper advertisement listed bituminous concrete plant. Susan Franco-Towell inquired if bituminous concrete is not the same as saying asphalt plant. Attorney Pagliarini stated it is the same thing.
Attorney Pagliarini asked if he wanted to store Mr. Miozzi’s paving equipment it would be in light industrial due to the size and weight of the vehicles. It would be a contractor office. Marshall and Swift states a warehouse has 8-15% of its building as an office, which is what their intent was.
Chairman Booth asked if this was classified as a light industrial operation. Attorney Pagliarini stated yes, according to the Exeter Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Toro asked how it is classified in Coventry. Attorney Pagliarini stated “I”-Industrial. Ms. Toro asked if the current operation in Coventry needed a special use permit. Attorney Pagliarini stated no because it pre-dated zoning. Mr. Miozzi stated putting it in the building makes it light industrial. Ms. Toro stated the issue the Board is having problem with is the sense of vagueness of the provision. Attorney Pagliarini stated the Planning Board gave an advisory opinion that it was within the comprehensive plan.
Attorney Pagliarini said the evidence that is in front of the Board, states the Zoning Enforcement officer said it needed a special use permit, the Planning Board stated it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the experts said it will meet the environmental standards, there will be no diminution of surrounding properties. Mr. Miozzi testified he is subject to EPA and DEM regulation and explained the process to the Board. Attorney Pagliarini stated he feels it is a permissible use in the Town of Exeter.
Mr. McMillan has considerable concerns regarding the proposal and expects their witnesses to say all those things. Mr. McMillan is not prepared to approve in a vote this evening. Ms. Toro stated the notice says industrial park and the newspaper ad said bituminous concrete plant.
Attorney Pagliarini stated the notice says the application is available for review in the zoning office.
Mr. McMillan stated the Board can only approve light industrial. Attorney Pagliarini asked what the definition of light industrial. Chairman Booth read from the ordinance the definition of light industrial:
2.1.7. Light industrial district, LI. The purpose of this [LI] zone is to provide areas for the future development of light industrial and allied uses and to provide for existing uses of this nature. Areas so designated are considered to be geographically and topographically suitable for the future economic growth of the community. All uses shall strictly comply with the established maximum building capacity of 250 persons. Each industry must contain, within its own lot, the wellhead protection for the well supplying all its water.
Attorney Pagliarini stated they meet the definition. There is no distinction for heavy industrial. Mr. McMillan stated the absence of the category states it is not permitted. Chairman Booth said the category of paper manufacturing is not permitted at all because of the fumes. If the intent of the ordinance was to allow an asphalt plant than it would be a specifically listed use. Chairman Booth asked why the difference in what was posted in the paper and the notice to the abutters. Attorney Pagliarini stated it was just the way the notice went out, there was no intent there. Chairman Booth asked if Attorney Pagliarini if that was misleading, to leave out the words “asphalt plant”. Attorney Pagliarini stated there are 7 abutters, 3 are the State of RI and does not feel the notice was misleading.
Attorney Pagliarini stated that #59 allows industrial parks for industrial uses and is a permissible use.
Chairman Booth stated that under #59 says special use permit. Therefore, it is up to the Board to decide if what the applicant is proposing is good for the Town. Attorney Pagliarini stated that is not the Boards charge. The special use permit is a degree of a permitted use with conditions by the Board, not a prohibition. Chairman Booth said it is up to the Board to decide. Attorney Pagliarini asked what the definition of a special use permit is.
Ms. Toro stated there is no permitted use by right or special use permit for jewelry manufacturing and processing so a special use could not be requested on this property but 2 could be requested. Attorney Pagliarini read section 102:
Special use. A regulated use which is permitted pursuant to a special use permit issued by the authorized governmental entity, pursuant to G.L. 1956, § 45-24-42.
The Zoning Board is the authorized governmental entity according to Attorney Pagliarini.
Chairman Booth asked where it is permitted. Attorney Pagliarini stated by definition under the consistency doctrine. The zoning ordinance must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The zoning ordinance says under #59 an industrial park where 2 or more industrial uses is a special use permit which means it is permitted by the authorized authority. The Board can put conditions on it but it is a permitted use. Mr. McMillan states only if it qualifies. The Board may approve if it meets the qualifications. Chairman Booth asked Attorney Pagliarini if a special use permit is a matter of right. Attorney Pagliarini stated yes to a degree. Attorney Pagliarini stated it was the Boards charge to put conditions on the special use permit to make sure the 5 standards are met but beyond that there is a limit on discretion. Ms. Toro stated there is an “S” in the chart.
Attorney Pagliarini stated it is confirmed by the zoning certificate and the Planning Board. Chairman Booth stated the Planning Board does not speak for the Zoning Board. Attorney Pagliarini stated the advisory opinion was favorable and therefore consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Chairman Booth states since it is not specifically called out in the ordinance it is not allowed.
Attorney Pagliarini stated the Board should approve the application and request the Town Council to cease use code #59.
Chairman Booth stated the 10:30 deadline has passed and would like the testimony to be finished.
Attorney Pagliarini stated they had concluded their presentation.
Solicitor Sypole stated Attorney Pagliarini read the definition of a special use permit.
Mr. Miozzi stated the economic value is important to the community considering the loss of jobs.
Attorney Pagliarini stated Mr. Houle is stating the definition of light industrial is the production for end users, and heavy industrial is for the production for wholesale.
Chairman Booth asked for public comment.
Hal Morgan, Zoning Inspector, inquired about the tax implications of the plant and the vehicles. Mr. Miozzi stated the plant and the land would have an approximate property value of $2.5 million and the trucks purchased this year alone are $900,000, for a total of $4 million dollars approximately.
MOTION by Pamela Toro to close the public hearing, seconded by Tom McMillan, voted all in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Chairman Booth stated he is concerned with the troubles existing in Coventry and is Exeter just inviting trouble here. He is concerned that the notice to the abutters did not specify the type of operation. He is concerned that use #59 is being interpreted as one bituminous plant is not acceptable but 2 are. The intent of use #59 is not a catch all for something to fall into if it is not spelled out specifically.
Chairman Booth read in to the record the definition of light and heavy industrial from the business dictionary:
Light Industry:
A section of an economy's secondary industry characterized by less capital-intensive and more labor-intensive operations. Products made by an economy's light industry tend to be targeted toward end consumers rather than other businesses. Consumer electronics and clothing manufacturing are examples of light industry. See also heavy industry.
Heavy Industry:
1. Automobile, mining, petroleum, and steel industries which require very large capital investment in weighty machinery and huge plants.
2. A section of an economy's secondary industry characterized by capital-intensive and less labor-intensive operations. One way of characterizing heavy industry is that one unit of currency will buy more heavy industry-produced products than it would buy light industry-produced products (for example, more steel can be purchased for $1 than pharmaceuticals). Products made by an economy's heavy industry tend are less likely to be targeted toward end consumers. Steel manufacturing and chemical manufacturing are two types of heavy industries
Richard Quattromani stated the applicant appears sincere in meeting all the environmental requirements. The issue is the definition of the light industrial, and this appears more heavy industrial than light industrial.
Mr. McMillan stated the special use is defined as “giving the person’s the right to vary from what is in the ordinance and the absence of this particular use speaks volumes. If the town were willing to have it, it would be listed as one of the uses. Mr. McMillan is concerned the Board is asked to lump something into light industrial for the convenience of the applicant when it isn’t.
Solicitor Sypole clarified the requirements for a special use permit and the use table itself. The use table allows the creation of the industrial park where the special use permit has a separate set of criteria. The ordinance says the items listed in the use table are the uses whether permitted, not permitted, or allowed pursuant to a special use permit. Anything not listed is specifically prohibited. Whether someone meets the criteria for a special use permit, the use may not be permitted. If the Board finds the use does not fit within #59, then it is a prohibited use.
Ms. Toro feels they have met the criteria for a special use permit, Section 1.3.F.C, with the testimony presented and Planning Board states it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Ms. Toro struggles with why 2 would be permitted and not 1. Mr. Houle’s testimony regarding the end user and is consistent with it being a light industrial use. Ms. Toro is not fundamentally opposed and it seems to meet the criteria.
Mr. Robertson stated his opinion of # 59 as opposed to the other specific categories 63-68. There are sand and gravel banks on Rt. 2 and concrete plants.
Susan Franco-Towell states the community has the right to know that the industrial park is inclusive of an asphalt plant and the proper opportunity for the public to know has not been given. Ms. Franco-Towell states there is ambiguity in the definitions and it is the Boards duty to serve the community.
Chairman Booth asked Solicitor Sypole, the zoning application and agenda is asking the Board to grant a special use permit for an industrial park and bituminous concrete plant. Is this 2 different things? Solicitor Sypole stated Attorney Pagliarini is asking for the industrial park. Chairman Booth stated they could approve the industrial park but not whatever the applicant wants to put there. Pamela Toro stated it was noticed on the agenda as “bituminous concrete plant”. Solicitor Sypole stated the applicant is seeking approval of the industrial park.
Motion by Pamela Toro to grant the petition of TEM Corp, applicant and C&H Properties, Inc., owner, of property located at Pole #104 Nooseneck Hill Road, Exeter, RI, Zoned LI and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 46 Block 2 Lot 3; a request for a Special Use Permit provided under Exeter Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.1.59 (industrial parks) to construct a bituminous concrete manufacturing facility and contractor’s office and storage facility.
Seconded by Tim Robertson.
Roll call vote:
Richard Booth- No
Pamela Toro-Yes
Tim Robertson-Yes
Tom McMillan-No
Richard Quattromani-No
Voted 2-3. Motion fails.
Administrative Issues:
Minutes: December 12, 2014
Clerk to review the minutes as discussed.
Motion by Tom McMillan to approve; seconded by Tim Robertson. Voted all in favor. Motion passed.
November 14, 2014
Motion by Tom McMillan to approve; seconded by Tim Robertson. Voted all in favor. Motion passed.
Correspondence-none
Invoice Approval-none
Solicitor’s Report-none
Zoning Inspector’s Report-none
Future Meeting: March 12, 2015
Michael McCormick, Professional Surveyor, submitted a memo from 2009 regarding licensed survey plans with applications. Board asked Solicitor Sypole to review and report back to the Board at the next meeting.
Motion made by Tim Robertson to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m.; Second by Thomas McMillan. VOTED: All in favor. MOTION PASSED.
Lorraine Field
Zoning Board Clerk