I.            NEW BUSINESS:

A.     The application of the Town of Exeter, Applicant, and Warfish Shark Research Center, LLC, Owner of property located at 742 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 36, Block 2, Lot 9; a request for a special use permit under Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.1.40 for proposed use as a Government Building/Town Hall.

Chairman Booth introduced this application and asked who was present to speak on behalf of this item.

Attorney David Johnston stepped forward on behalf of the Town of Exeter and explained that they are seeking a special use permit for the property located at 742 Ten Rod Road in Exeter; he asked to clarify an error on the application where the “demolition” bubble was filled in.  Mr. Johnston stated that there will be no demolition.  He gave some history of the building and explained there will be no external alterations to the building, just internal modifications.  Attorney Johnston then reviewed the special use criteria requirements and stated that the use is compatible with the surrounding area and the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.  Mr. Johnston asked if the Board had any questions and stated that Council President Dan Patterson was in attendance for questions as well.

Vice Chair, Tom McMillan asked if this was an official announcement that the Town was purchasing this building to use as the new Town Hall. 

Dan Patterson, Town Council President, stated his name for the record and shared that the purchase of this building has been in discussion for at least the past 6-8 months and has been on the council’s agenda every month.  The purchase price of this building is $800,000.00, which is contingent upon the zoning, and inspections of the building.  Mr. Patterson stated that the building is in excellent condition; the roof has been replaced, there is plenty of parking and the lot has been re-paved, has a new generator and is on a community well.  He shared that the Town had researched a plan to put an addition on this existing building and the cost of that was estimated to be in the $2 million dollar range.  The Town Council also researched the cost of constructing a brand-new building which came in the range of $6 million dollars, which the Town can’t afford.  There is Covid money available, which was approved at the last financial town meeting for this purpose.

The Chair asked if there were any other questions or public comment. 

Public Comment:

1.      Asa Davis, 146 Beechwood Hill Trail, Exeter, RI:

Mr. Davis stepped forward and was sworn in by the stenographer.  He stated that he is an abutter to the property under consideration for purchase by the Town and stated he is in favor of this project.  He indicated that his only concern is the septic system and questions if it has been updated and that the size is appropriate for the new use.  Mr. Davis also suggested that the Town should consider expanding the proposed building as the Town is in need of additional record storage and that the Town is currently not compliant with the State’s Open Records and Retention Laws.

Dan Patterson responded to Mr. Davis’s concerns regarding the septic system and stated that as part of the building inspections, an independent septic company was hired to review the system.  Mr. Patterson shared that the original septic was designed for 202 people with a 3,000-gallon tank. A flow test was conducted by running 900 gallons in a two-hour period and had no problem. He assured everyone that they are doing their due diligence prior to moving forward with this purchase.

The Chair asked if there was any other public comment.  Hearing none, he asked for a motion to close the public hearing.  Loren Andrews made a motion to close the public hearing; Tim Robertson seconded.  A vote was taken and was all in favor.  The public hearing was closed.

The Board held a brief discussion about the proposal before them.  Board member Tim Robertson then made a motion to approve the application of the Town of Exeter, Applicant, and Warfish Shark Research Center, LLC, Owner of property located at 742 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 36, Block 2, Lot 9; a request for a special use permit under Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.1.40 for proposed use as a Government Building/Town Hall.  Loren Andrews seconded the motion.  A vote was taken; all in favor, 5-0.  The motion was approved unanimously (R. Booth, T. McMillan, T. Robertson, L. Andrews, S. Sovet).

B.      The application of Meredith M. Lemek and Matthew B. Mumford, Applicants and Owners of property located at 269 Liberty Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated at Assessor’s Plat 72, Block 6, Lot 4; a request for dimensional relief under Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1 (minimum lot size, acres) for proposed replat to correct plat lines of recorded map #640.

Chair Richard Booth introduced the above petition and stated that this and the next two petitions are related but will review one at a time. 

Attorney Joe Scott approached the Board and asked Chairman Booth if he could please be heard prior to going into the public hearing as he is representing the Howard Family Trust and is objecting to these applications being heard and feels that they are improperly before this committee.  Chairman Booth allowed Mr. Scott to proceed.

Attorney Scott then presented each Board member with a prepared packet of information outlining the abutters (Howards) concerns with these petitions.  The Chair asked that this information be introduced as exhibits A-G.  Attorney Scott then explained that they are objecting to these applications being heard for a special use permit and dimensional variance, because this relief has nothing to do with what the applicant is requesting and not germane to the criteria in the zoning ordinance.  The use is not changing; this is a residential use in an RU-4 zone and both lots are existing, non-conforming lots of record.  Mr. Scott went on to say that the variance the applicant is seeking is not under this Board’s authority and stated that the Zoning Board has no authority to amend anyone’s boundaries or property lines.  He continued to review the applicant’s submission and stated that they are proposing to take 44.64 feet from the Howard’s property.

Chair Richard Booth interrupted Attorney Scott to ask Solicitor Ruggiero if he should just call this and not allow these applications to be heard.  Mr. Ruggiero stated that there are three applications and suggested that each application be heard individually; this will allow us to put a record together for each matter, and then ultimately the Board can decide on each one as to whether they believe they have jurisdiction to rule on it, and if so, how to rule on it.  Mr. Ruggiero suggested the applicant be heard first; then Attorney Scott may object to the matter at hand.

Chairman Booth again introduced the above petition and asked if the applicant was present to speak to this application.

Patrick Freeman, stepped forward and was sworn in.  He stated that he is a registered engineer with American Engineering and began to review the issue going back to 2022 when they were hired to survey and sub-divide lot 4 (AP72-B6-L4) located on the northly side of Liberty Road, and the property to the rear is Liberty Hill Condominium and Office Park.  Mr. Freeman noted that this map (#640) is recorded with the Town of Exeter and had been approved by both Planning and Zoning at that time.  Prior to that, he stated, in order to survey that property accurately, American Engineering had surveyed the rear property line to do the condominium development at which time they located a number of monuments – an iron rod and a few bounds which established that rear line. They also established the line on the northerly side of Liberty Road and the easterly side to Mortan Curry’s property, noting that this is according to the deed going back to the 1950’s.  Mr. Freeman went on to explain that they had researched the deeds for lots 7, 6, 5 & 4; based on the descriptions they found that the bounds corresponded well.  In looking at lot 4, it calls for frontage and rear property dimensions that corresponded well to an iron pipe that they found in the back left corner of the property and the tree line that went into the property from Liberty Road.  There was also an existing trailer that was located west of that tree line.  Based on that information, they surveyed lot 4.  Mr. Freeman explained that later, in 2023, American Engineering was hired to survey lot 3, a small parcel of 99’ x 70’ was cut out of lot 2.  In order to survey lot 3, they had to establish the boundaries for lot 2.  When this was done, they had to start from the old abandoned road, located remnants of wall on the westerly property line.  The initial lot 2 had 416 feet of frontage; that 416 feet of frontage brought them to when lot 2 was cut out, 99 feet of that frontage went to lot 3.  He stated this is when they discovered that this property line that was recorded for lot 4, was in the wrong place, with the frontage being established from the old abandoned road.  He went on to explain that what that did was bring the property line for lot 2, the easterly line of lot 3, off the tree line and through the existing trailer. (Mr. Freeman was presenting with the survey/site plan in front of him and explaining to the Board).

Patrick Freeman stated that accordingly, they are proposing to replat map #640, which would put the westerly property line of newly created lot 4 in the correct place, basically “swapping” the two triangles (noted on site plan dated 10/2/2023) of land which would make lot 2 smaller by 1,288 square feet, or 0.03 acres.  Mr. Freeman then noted that this would increase the frontage of lot 4 by 44.64 feet for a total of 143.64 feet.

Solicitor Peter Ruggiero interjected and asked to clarify for the record, that the “two triangles,” as referenced by Patrick Freeman, are marked as Area A and Area B on the site plan and suggested these areas be described as such and indicate what exactly is transferring to what lot and from what lot.

Mr. Freeman agreed and shared that Area A consists of 6,676 square feet, also referred to as the northern triangle, will transfer into lot 2.  Area B consists of 5,388 square feet, would be added to lot 4.

Mr. Earl Adams stepped forward to speak as the applicant, but after being questioned about his relationship to this application, the Chairman asked him to wait for public comment.

At this time, Attorney Joe Scott stepped forward to speak again.  Mr. Scott began to cross examine Patrick Freeman on his presentation.  Attorney Scott asked Mr. Freeman specific questions regarding the site plan and survey, i.e. who owns which piece of property, when the lot line was changed, etc.  Mr. Scott stated that American Engineering’s client (Lisa Mumford) was served a Notice of Interrupting Adverse Possession in November of 2022 on that property, which was never challenged.  He also stated that this boundary line has been there for 50 years, and noted that he (Mr. Freeman) said this in his own presentation.

Attorney Scott then indicated that the applicant is asking the Zoning Board to change boundary lines, which, according to the ordinance, this Board has no authority to do.  He stated that if they believe this boundary line to be incorrect, their only option is to go to Superior Court to make “equity” changes.  Mr. Scott also introduced an article from another attorney from a Bar Association article dated February 2011 that states there are only three options to change a boundary line: 1.) by adverse possession, 2.) by acquiescence, or 3.) by going to court to change the boundary line.

Chair Richard Booth then asked Mr. Freeman if they are asking the Board to move a boundary line.  Patrick Freeman stated they are not asking the Board to move a boundary line but that the survey that was recorded, had the line in the wrong place, and that this information is based on the deeds.

Board member, Loren Andrews stated that this seems to be a boundary dispute and feels that this must be rectified before the Zoning Board can deal with these agenda items.  Mr. Andrews doesn’t believe that this is in their purview to make a decision on a boundary line dispute.  Further discussion between the Chair and Board member Tim Robertson took place and they both agree with Mr. Andrews.  The Chair then asked to defer to Council.

Solicitor Ruggiero asked if this petition had been before the Planning Board or Administrative Officer.  Patrick Freeman stated that this had gone before the Planning Board and that they were directed to come before the Zoning Board.  The Solicitor stated that the Zoning Board has no jurisdiction over property ownership or boundaries. 

Matt Cotta, from American Engineering then stepped forward and was sworn in.  Mr. Cotta stated that they had gone to Planning for the re-plat and the Town Planner told them they had to go before the Zoning Board due to changing the area of lot 4 by 1,300 square feet so they needed the variance for the area from Zoning.

More discussion took place and the Clerk was then questioned as to what the Planning Board decision was – if any. The Building/Planning/Zoning Clerk, Dixie Foisy, then stepped forward to be sworn in.  She asked to retrieve the files from Planning before stating any facts.  At this time, a short 5-minute recess was taken.

The meeting was reconvened and the Clerk proceeded to read into the record, a memorandum from the Town Planner to the Planning Board, dated October 18, 2023 regarding Preliminary Replat with ZBR relief and Preliminary Administrative Subdivision with ZBR relief; location noted as AP72 B6 L4, 269 Liberty Road and read the recommendation (marked as exhibit H). 

The next document read into the record – Planning Board Meeting Minutes dated October 24, 2023 (marked as exhibit I);

Preliminary Replat: Meredith M. Lemek and Matthew B. Mumford, Applicants and Owners of property located at 269 Liberty Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated at Assessor’s Plat 72, Block 6, Lot 4; for a proposed replat of property.  The decision read as follows:

Acting Chair Micheal DeFrancesco asked the Board to grant a conditional approval subject to the Zoning Board granting a special use permit. Willliam Hass made the motion; Joe St. Lawrence seconded the motion. The vote was all in favor, 5-0. The motion passed. (Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Gina Thurn, Joe St. Lawrence, Michael Viveiros, alternate). 

Another decision from the October 24, 2023 meeting was also read into the record for:

Preliminary Administrative Subdivision: Milan E. Adams and Lisa M. Mumford, Applicants and Owners of property located at 279 Liberty Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 72, Block 6, Lot 3; for a proposed administrative subdivision.  The Planning Board Decision was as follows:

Acting Chair DeFrancesco asked for a motion to grant conditional approval for Item III. B subject to Zoning Board approval and subsequent approval for preliminary for Item III. A. Willliam Hass made the motion; Joe St. Lawrence seconded the motion.  The vote was all in favor, 5-0. The motion passed. (Michael DeFrancesco, William Haas, Gina Thurn, Joe St. Lawrence, Michael Viveiros, alternate).

Chair Richard Booth, Solicitor Ruggiero and members of the Board proceeded to discuss what was before them.  Mr. Ruggiero stated now that he understands what is being attempted, he understands dimensional relief being requested (both are undersized lots), but is struggling to understand why a special use permit is being requested.  The other issue is the Zoning Board cannot approve a replat, and suggested that this application should either be continued or withdrawn, and be reorganized and presented in a way the Zoning Board can properly hear.  He stated based on what the Planning Board has done, there is a reason for this application to be heard, but the Solicitor doesn’t believe it is properly before the Board as presented.  Further discussion ensued and the Solicitor explained to the Board it is up to them as to how they proceed.

Matt Cotta from American Engineering stepped forward again to try to explain the issue before them stating that they are just trying to place the lot line where it is supposed to be, according to the deed for lot 2.  Discussion ensued.

Attorney Joe Scott stepped forward again and asked Matt Cotta how long this particular lot line has been there (referencing the easterly boundary line on lot 2 of the Howards’ lot shown on site plan displayed).  Mr. Cotta stated since last year.  Attorney Scott disagreed and indicated that this line had just been added by Mr. Cotta.  Attorney Scott then asked Matt Cotta if he had found this same lot line on any tax assessor map or recorded map in the Town.  Mr. Cotta stated only in the deed.  Further discussion ensued with Board members.

Public Comment:

1.      Milan Earl Adams III, stepped forward and was sworn in.  Mr. Adams stated he wanted to clarify this with all the research he had done at the Town Hall.  He began by explaining the original 20 acres was purchased by a man named Etchells in 1946.

At this time, Attorney Scott objected to Mr. Adams testimony as he has not been identified as an expert regarding the documents he is submitting.  Solicitor Ruggiero stated that Mr. Adams needs to identify the documents he is referencing and where he received it to give it the weight the Board believes it deserves.

Mr. Adams then continued to give his testimony and stated that he had a copy of the original deed dated April 30, 1946 recorded in the Town of Exeter, book 25, page 562 where Mary O’Donnell sold this 20-acre parcel to Norman Etchells. Mr. Etchells owned this piece, (referencing the site plan displayed) until he sold the last piece in 1974, which was this middle piece (lot 6/cut 6).  He then presented a 4-page copy of the deed, marked as exhibit J. 

Mr. Adams continued – on October 16, 1957, recorded in the Town of Exeter, book 27, page 487, Mr. Norman Etchells sold and transferred to Paul Etchells and his wife Joan Etchells a parcel of land which is called cut 1. Cut 1 is clearly identified as a parcel of land with 416 feet of land along the front, 521 feet along the easterly side, 416 feet along the back.  This was the first cut made from the original parcel.  Prior to 1957, the only dimensions were a dirt road, the Old South County Trail and parcels of land.  Mr. Adams then submitted this deed, labeled “first cut” from 1957, as exhibit K.

Next, Mr. Adams introduced a deed from January 7, 1959, recorded in the Town of Exeter, book 28, page 12, the owner of the “first cut” Mr. Paul Etchells subdivided a parcel of land – 70 feet in depth, 99 feet on the road.  Mr. Adams then read from the deed: Beginning at the southeasterly corner of said tract herein conveyed and as the southwest corner of land of Norman Etchells, thence running northerly 70 feet; thence turning and running westerly 99 feet; thence turning and running southerly, 70 feet, to the center of a well on the northerly side of the dirt road leading from Liberty to Slocum; thence turning and running along said dirt road 99 feet to the point and place of beginning.  Mr. Adams then submitted to the Board as evidence, the deed that Mr. Paul Etchells, owner of this property, and what was cut out from this property.  To correct the record that was previously stated, the very next recording in that book, is a life lease of the person who lived in that trailer.  Mr. Adams stated that this deed that was cut out of 99’ x 70’ and stated that the trailer existed in 1957, as well as all the other trailers which was revenue for Mr. Etchells.  This deed was marked as exhibit L.

Earl Adams explained that what he has done here is captured the first cut that is 416 feet in the back and along the front.  It cut out 99 feet making the new dimension in the front, from the corner of the abandoned road to the corner of this lot, is no longer 416; it’s now 317 feet.

Lastly, Mr. Adams asked to submit a copy of a deed from Mr. Theotonio I. Brum to Gerald and Virginia Howard dated April 6, 1979, recorded in the Town of Exeter, book 33, page 143.  The deed that the Howards, the current owners of this property, took in 1979, Mr. Adams read “from the easterly side of South County Trail, and the southwest corner of the tract (he pointed to the location on the site plan displayed), which is along the abandoned road; the deed states that it will go 416 feet along the front, 521 feet in depth, 416 feet in the back, to the easterly side of the dirt road, and then 532 feet back to a point and place of beginning.” “Excepting the portion of the premises conveyed by warranty deed from Paul Etchells, et ux, to Ernest L. Chandronet, et ux, dated January 7, 1959.” This deed was marked exhibit M.

Earl Adams stated that when the Howard’s received and bought this property in 1979, they bought the exact same property from the first cut, except the corner which was the 99 feet.  The Howard’s purchased 317 feet of frontage, 70 feet deep, 99 feet back to this back boundary, across 416 and down 532 feet across the back.  This has not changed. The first cut remained the same when the Howard’s bought it.  Not one square inch of the Howard’s land are they claiming or trying to steal.  Mr. Adams stated that they are only trying to state that the Howard’s frontage is by that deed, 317 feet, at which his land, that he is the co-owner of this small lot, has 99 feet of frontage.  He stated that all of cut 1 and cut 2 was established by deed; nothing was surveyed up to that point. 

Mr. Adams then explained that when he and Lisa Mumford came before the Zoning Board for relief for the subdivision on this lot with two houses on it (267-269 Liberty Rd.), there was an error in the survey.  He pointed out the line that was recorded was in error, and now they are trying to correct this for the record. Mr. Adams then shared that approximately 6 months ago, Mr. Howard had concerns with the tenant having chicken coops in the back.  Mr. Scott served a notice of intent to dispute to the tenant that lived there.  The notice of intent to dispute had nothing to do with land boundaries; it was due to the location of the chicken coops, which have since been removed.  Mr. Adams stated that they are not here today to talk about the notice of intent to dispute, as this has nothing to do with the boundaries.

Earl Adams went on to say that that they were given a survey, deeded 9-16-22, from South County Survey, which was signed and stamped.  They took it upon themselves to locate the four corners of this lot (referenced as cut 2 or the small trailer lot). He stated that this drawing did nothing more than show the size of the lot as 99’ x 70’ x 99 x 70’, which came from Mr. Scott’s office with the notice of intent of dispute, interrupting adverse possession, which was about encroachment of chicken coops on the Howard’s property. This tenant (Mr. Adam’s step-son) has since been removed from this location.

Mr. Adams indicated that they are asking the Board to approve two things:  the loss of area on lot 4 which makes it a little more non-conforming, but will gain frontage because the line will be put where it belongs.  The SUP is necessary because they are making an already non-conforming lot, more non-conforming.

Further discussion ensued regarding the error in the survey from American Engineering, the lot lines and distribution of land between Mr. Adams land and the Howard’s.

The Chair recognized Attorney Scott who asked to cross-examine Mr. Adams.

Attorney Scott asked Earl Adams when he bought this property – lot 3.  Mr. Adams stated it was recently but didn’t have the exact date and was purchased by he and Lisa Mumford.

Mr. Scott stated it was July of last year and that the deed is in Ms. Mumford’s name.  He asked Mr. Adams if Ms. Mumford ever mentioned getting the notice to interrupt adverse possession.  Mr. Adams stated that she had not.  Mr. Scott asked Mr. Adams if he had seen this document during his research and shared it was recorded in book 403/page 190 on December 5, 2022, which was 6 or 7 months before Mr. Adams purchased the lot.  Mr. Adams stated he didn’t know when he took title of it.  Discussion continued between Attorney Scott and Mr. Adams ensued.  Attorney Scott then presented the Board with a copy of recorded “Notice of Intend to Dispute Interrupting Adverse Possession,” marked as exhibit N.  Mr. Adams then stated that he is represented by Pannone, Lopes, Devereaux and O’Gara LLC and that his attorney has been in touch with Joe Scott many times regarding the encroachment issue (noted on page 2 of this exhibit N).  Mr. Adams feels that they have adequately resolved this issue as the chickens and the coops have been removed and that this has nothing to do with why they are before the Board presently.

At this time, the Chair asked if any other member of the public wanted to speak.

2.      Virginia Howard, stepped forward and was sworn in.  Ms. Howard stated that they own the property at 289 Liberty Road and have been dealing with Mr. Adams on the small lot (lot 3) regarding the encroachment issue in the back, but also on the side.  She stated that Mr. Adams has a well which is located on their property (she referenced the location on the site plan).  Ms. Howard shared that they had discussed this issue with Mr. Adams and spoke about an easement for the well, but Mr. Adams said no because he stated he owns that land.  Ms. Howard stated that happened after Mr. Adams knew he wasn’t going to get this land (being disputed).  She then shared that Mr. Adams told them that he would be able to get this land because he’s done plenty of times before, and he would own it and bury them.  Now they’re coming up with this story that these lines are wrong.  She went on to say that Mr. Adams has submitted “this debacle” to the State and they told him to get a survey.  Ms. Howard has her own survey which she has supplied to the State/ISDS and has also had it recorded in Exeter (Town Hall). Ms. Howard went on to explain that she and her husband have owned this land since 1979 and that the lot lines have been the same since then, and long before.  She feels Mr. Adams is now trying to change these lines in order to have a septic and well installed for the new house that has been built on the old trailer foundation.

Mr. Adams stepped forward to refute Ms. Howard’s statement.  He stated that the survey the Howard’s had recorded does nothing more than mark the four points and does not tie into the 317 feet.

Attorney Scott then added that he has provided to the Board legal documentation regarding adverse possession, acquiescence, and has also provided case law.  He indicated that the court will not look at what Mr. Adams has presented – lot lines according to the deed.  The court will only go by acquiescence; that it has been this way for years, and added that it would be irresponsible for this Board to vote on this issue.

Solicitor Ruggiero was recognized by the Chair.  Mr. Ruggiero stated that there has been a lot of testimony and statements made for the record this evening.  He asked to clarify that the only request before the Board is the question of the lot size and wanted to be sure that the Board understands this.  Discussion ensued between the Board members and the Solicitor.

The Chair asked for a motion to close the public hearing.  Loren Andrews made a motion to close the public hearing; Tom McMillan seconded.  The vote was all in favor; the public hearing was closed.

Loren Andrews shared that he is not comfortable making a decision based on the fact that there is a boundary dispute.

Tim Robertson stated he understands what the applicant has proposed, however, they’re not here to dispute the engineering being valid or not.

Chair Richard Booth voiced concerns on the same applicant and engineering firm came before the Board 18 months ago and what they’re presenting today is taking a non-conforming lot and making it more non-conforming.

At this time, Tim Robertson raised a motion on the application of Meredith M. Lemek and Matthew B. Mumford, Applicants and Owners of property located at 269 Liberty Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated at Assessor’s Plat 72, Block 6, Lot 4; a request for dimensional relief under Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1 to consider a proposed replat to correct plat lines of recorded map #640, for dimensional relief of 4.0 acres to 2.32 vs. the 2.35 we had approved about a year ago.  He proposed to deny this application.

The Chair disagreed with the Mr. Robertson’s motion to deny and stated it should be to approve and asked the Clerk to strike the denial.  Discussion ensued regarding how to make the motion.  At this time, Tim Robertson withdrew his previous motion.

Board member, Tim Robertson then made a motion to deny the application of Meredith M. Lemek and Matthew B. Mumford, Applicants and Owners of property located at 269 Liberty Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated at Assessor’s Plat 72, Block 6, Lot 4; a request for dimensional relief under Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1 (minimum lot size, acres) for a proposed replat to correct plat lines of recorded map #640.  Loren Andrews seconded the motion. 

Solicitor Ruggiero asked each Board member to vote and state the reasons they are voting a particular way.

A roll call vote was taken:

1.      Richard Booth – voted yes to deny and stated there is a dispute on the lot lines and this Board has no jurisdiction to make any ruling on lot lines, and he is concerned that they will be making a non-conforming lot more non-conforming.

2.      Tom McMillan – voted yes to deny based on the uncertainty of the property lines and based on what they were presented with previously.

3.      Stephen Sovet – voted yes to deny because he is uncomfortable with the property line dispute.

4.      Tim Robertson – voted yes to deny based on information that was presented previously and that it appears there was an error made on the survey which is out of their purview.

5.      Loren Andrews – voted yes to deny because he is not comfortable with the existing boundary disputes and does not believe it is their purview to make determinations on such.

The motion to deny passed 5-0 (Booth, McMillan, Sovet, Roberton and Andrews).

C.     The application of Meredith M. Lemek and Matthew B. Mumford, Applicants and Owners of property located at 269 Liberty Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated at Assessor’s Plat 72, Block 6, Lot 4; a request for a special use permit under Zoning Ordinance Article I, Section 1.3.3.D; and a request for dimensional relief under Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1 (minimum lot size, acres); Section 2.4.2.2 (minimum street frontage); for a proposed administrative subdivision to deed 2,572 square feet and 44.64 square feet of frontage to AP72, B6, L3 to correct the lot line that cut through existing structure.

Patrick Freeman, of American Engineering, stated that upon conclusion of agenda item I., B. being denied, they withdrew this application because items C. and D. are contingent on item B.  Chair Richard Booth asked for a motion to accept the withdrawal.  Loren Andrews made the motion; Tom McMillan seconded.  The vote was all in favor, 5-0.

D.     The application of Milan E. Adams and Lisa M. Mumford, Applicants and Owners of property located at 279 Liberty Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 72, Block 6, Lot 3; a request for a special use permit under Zoning Ordinance Article I, Section 1.3.3.D; and a request for dimensional relief under Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.2.1 (minimum lot size, acres); Section 2.4.2.2 (minimum street frontage); for a proposed administrative subdivision to deed 2,572 square feet and 44.64 feet of frontage from AP72, B6, L4 to correct the lot line that cut through existing structure.

Patrick Freeman, of American Engineering, stated that upon conclusion of agenda item I., B. being denied, they withdrew this application because items C. and D. are contingent on item B.  Chair Richard Booth asked for a motion to accept the withdrawal.  Loren Andrews made the motion; Tom McMillan seconded.  The vote was all in favor, 5-0.

II.            ADMINISTRATIVE: