I.            OLD BUSINESS/CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 13, 2024 ZONING BOARD MEETING:

A.      Asa S. Davis III, Applicant and Owner of property located at 146 Beechwood Hill Trail, Exeter, RI; Zoned RE-2 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 77, Block 6, Lot 24.  Grounds for the appeal is based on the failure of the Zoning Inspector to fill his responsibilities per State Statute 45-24-54, Section 608 (b) of the Town Charter, and Appendix A.I. 1.6.A of the Town Ordinances, regarding the issuance of two zoning certificates and enforcement on two zoning complaints.  The applicant is also appealing fees and costs charged to prosecute this appeal.

Chair Richard Booth introduced this appeal which he stated was continued from the June 13, 2024 Zoning Board meeting. 

Asa Davis stepped forward and was sworn in.  Chairman Richard Booth reviewed why this hearing was continued stating that there are (4) four unresolved issues to address this evening. The Chair asked Mr. Davis if he had received the zoning certificates from the Zoning Inspector.

Mr. Davis stated that the zoning certificate for 146 Beechwood Hill Trail dates were wrong. He stated his original application dated January 11 is correct and signed, Mr. Morgan could have used this and filled out the same information he added, instead he changed the date to June 26, 2024, which according to Mr. Davis, will affect future legal cases.

Chairman Booth reiterated the process that Mr. Morgan uses; he sends out the certificate and asks that the applicant to sign and return to him, at which time he will sign the zoning certificate.  Mr. Davis stated that his issue with this certificate is the date and it’s not signed.

The Chair then called on Hal Morgan, Zoning Official, to speak.  Mr. Morgan stepped forward and was sworn in. Mr. Booth then asked some questions of the Zoning Official regarding the issuing of a zoning certificate for Mr. Davis’s property located at Beechwood Hill Trail.  Mr. Morgan stated that he had issued a zoning certificate as agreed upon at the June 13, 2024 meeting.  He indicated that he issued this certificate on June 26, 2024 and sent it to the applicant on that same date asking that he sign and return it to him.  Mr. Morgan stated that he does not sign a certificate until the applicant signs it and returns it to him first.  He also testified that he does not predate or backdate anything.

Further discussion ensued between the Chair and the applicant regarding how the Zoning Official handles the process of issuing zoning certificates.  Chair Richard Booth asked to check with counsel but it seems that Mr. Morgan has done what he is required to do.

Solicitor Ruggiero stated that they (the Applicant and Zoning Inspector) are having a dispute about the date on the certificate.  Mr. Morgan testified that he does not backdate anything.  The Board has to decide if the Inspector has conducted himself according to his normal routine and activity – as he has testified.  The Board then has to decide if Mr. Morgan’s testimony is credible and if found to be credible, there’s no more to do.  Solicitor Ruggiero stated you will be at an impasse and have to make a decision based on whether he’s filled his obligations or not.

At this time, Mr. Davis asked to make another comment which was allowed by the Chair.  Mr. Davis then began to read RI State Statute 45-24-57 regarding the Zoning Board of Review and stated that they “shall have the following powers or duties….” to hear and decide appeals within 65-days of the applicant filing an appeal.  He indicated that because it says “shall,” that the Board has the responsibility to make a determination and issue a zoning certificate if Mr. Morgan is not correct.  Further discussion ensued between the Chair and Mr. Davis regarding the issue that the Board was in violation of hearing his complaints before the June hearing ever happened.

Solicitor Ruggiero then interjected stating that Mr. Davis did not raise this point or contest this at the June 13, 2024 hearing, therefore it is waived.  Mr. Ruggiero stated that is the law.  Further discussion continued. 

Chair Richard Booth asked for a motion to close the public hearing.  Tom McMillan made the motion; Loren Andrews seconded.  A vote was taken and was all in favor.  The public hearing was closed.  The Board then deliberated briefly prior to making the following motion.

Board member, Loren Andrews then moved in the case of Asa S. Davis III, Applicant and Owner of property located at 146 Beechwood Hill Trail, Exeter, RI; Zoned RE-2 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 77, Block 6, Lot 24; that we go on record to support the Zoning Inspector’s method of issuing a zoning certificate and find no error in his actions, and therefore, deny this appeal.  Tom McMillan seconded the motion; a vote was taken and was all in favor.  The motion passed 5-0 (Booth, McMillan, Quattromani, Andrews, Sovet).

II.            OLD BUSINESS/CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 13, 2024 ZONING BOARD MEETING:

A.      Asa S. Davis III, Applicant and Owner of property located and listed as follows: 0 Ten Rod Road/740 Ten Rod Road/0 Estate Drive/50 Estate Drive/85A Hallville Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 36, Block 2, Lot 2.  Grounds for the appeal is based on the failure of the Zoning Inspector to fill his responsibilities per State Statute 45-24-54, Section 608 (b) of the Town Charter, and Appendix A.I. 1.6.A of the Town Ordinances, regarding the issuance of two zoning certificates and enforcement on two zoning complaints. The applicant is also appealing fees and costs charged to prosecute this appeal.

Chair Richard Booth introduced this next appeal and stated this was continued to tonight’s meeting to allow the Zoning Inspector to issue a zoning certificate.  The Chair asked Mr. Davis if he receiving a zoning certificate for this property.

Mr. Davis stepped forward and stated in this case regarding the Solicity application there were more errors than the other.  He indicated that Mr. Morgan split the project into two, in that he issued two zoning certificates.  Mr. Davis explained that Solicity is proposed as an integrated application on a comprehensive permit. By Mr. Morgan separating into two separate zoning certificates, defeats the purpose of the State comprehensive plan permit. This makes it defective.  The second error is that Mr. Morgan listed 220,000 square feet on the zoning certificate as the square footage, where in the appeal application it states 870,000 square feet.  Mr. Davis also noted he has issue with the date, as well as how the ownership of the land was noted.  The zoning certificate was made out to “Asa Davis et al,” and Mr. Davis stated that he is the sole owner.  Mr. Davis indicated that due to these errors and misrepresentations, he will not sign these zoning certificates. 

Chair Richard Booth then called on the Zoning Inspector to answer some questions.  Hal Morgan stepped forward.  The Chair asked Mr. Morgan if he had issued a zoning certificate for 0 Ten Rod Road as discussed at the June meeting.  Mr. Morgan stated that he issued two, as that was agreed upon at the last meeting.  Mr. Morgan then shared some documentation with the Board. 

The Chair asked to note in the record, he received 4-pages from Mr. Morgan to be marked as exhibit G.  Further discussion ensued regarding the different addresses listed on the application, advertisement and agenda.

Mr. Davis then distributed documents to the Board that were marked as exhibit H.  The Chair asked to clarify that the Board will now discuss 740 Ten Rod Road location, the second section. 

Asa Davis stated that 740 Ten Rod Road is a 911 address and also discussed 85A Hallville Road.  Mr. Davis then distributed more documents to the Board that were marked as exhibit I; and another set of 13 pages provided to the Board by Mr. Davis marked as exhibit J.

Once all documentation was shared, Mr. Davis went back to discuss the issues with 740 Ten Rod Road.  He stated there are multiple defects and listed the following errors: dated change, ownership change, address change, the size of the solar field and receiving two separate zoning certificates – one for the housing and another for the solar.  Mr. Davis stated that he did not agree to accepting (2) separate zoning certificates, as the State comprehensive permit has to be submitted as one application.

Chair Richard Booth then asked Mr. Morgan why he issued two zoning certificates.  Hal Morgan stated that they agreed to this at the last meeting and then referenced what was stated from the transcript dated June 13, 2024, page 30, line 20.  He noted that this was referenced again from the same transcript, page 31, line 4.

Mr. Davis then stated that he stands corrected in reference to receiving two separate zoning certificates, but he still disagrees with the address issue, ownership, dates and square footage noted on the zoning certificates, and that they are unsigned.  Further discussion ensued as Chairman Booth addressed each issue, noted above, separately. 

A lengthy discussion took place around the addresses and the ownership issue.  Solicitor Ruggiero offered his help on this.  He stated that zoning certificates are not legally binding documents; they provide guidance and reference.  If there are inaccuracies in the name of the owner, it is not a material mistake because it applies to the property.  The property is correctly listed with the assessor’s plat, block and lot.  A street address is not a legally binding designation; but it’s the property.  A street address is important for the mailing address and for 911 emergency services.  Solicitor Ruggiero then shared that that he appreciates Mr. Davis’s dilemma but suggested that this is not the place to resolve all these issues.

Mr. Davis then responded and thanked Mr. Ruggiero for his comments regarding the address not being relevant to things stating that his building permits would have never been suspended.

Solicitor Ruggiero added that this is Mr. Davis’s opinion.

Chair Richard Booth then did a brief recap of the issues that they have covered.  He then asked for a motion to close the public hearing.  Loren Andrews made the motion; Tom McMillan seconded.  Before a vote was taken, the Chair asked about public comment.  He then asked to reopen the public hearing.  Richard Quattromani made a motion to re-open the public hearing; Tom McMillan seconded.  A vote was taken and was all in favor.  The public hearing was reopened.

The Chair then asked if there was anyone from the public who wanted to make a comment.  There was no public comment.  Mr. Booth asked for a motion to close the hearing.  Loren Andrews made the motion; Tom McMillan seconded.  A vote was taken and was all in favor.  The public hearing was closed.

At this time, the Board members reviewed and discussed the issues that were before them.  Mr. Quattromani asked the Solicitor to for his input.  Solicitor Ruggiero again stated that zoning certificates are not a legally binding document and that there are a lot of other legal issues here, that will not be resolved here.  He stated that the only matter before the Board is whether the zoning certificate was issued pursuant to the zoning ordinance. 

The Chair asked if there was a motion.  Loren Andrews moved in the case of Asa S. Davis III, Applicant and Owner of property located and listed as follows: 0 Ten Rod Road/740 Ten Rod Road, et al., we deny the complaint and find that the Zoning Inspector discharged his duties as directed, and there is no further action to be done on the complaint.  Tom McMillan seconded the motion.  A vote was taken and passed 5-0 (Booth, McMillan, Quattromani, Andrews and Sovet).

Chair Richard Booth stated the next issue is regarding the enforcement on two zoning complaints.  He stated that the applicant is also appealing fees and costs to prosecute this appeal.  The Chair indicated that first, they will address the appeal for the refusal of the Zoning Inspector to act on two complaints of alleged zoning ordinance violations on the Estate Drive properties listed as lots 13 and 14. The Chair stated that the Board closed the public hearing on this matter and a motion was made and seconded to deny these appeals because the Zoning Board has no jurisdiction or authority to act on these complaints.  He stated that the motion carried unanimously, which took place at our last meeting.

The Chair continued onto the next issue where the applicant is seeking a fee and waiver reduction to file these appeals.  The appellant was informed by the Board previously, that the Zoning Board of Review has no jurisdiction to act on this request.  However, no motion was made so the Board will need to codify this with a motion.

Solicitor Peter Ruggiero suggested that the Board have a conversation about this and that Mr. Davis may want to add something. 

Mr. Davis stepped forward to state that he doesn’t’ believe he was allowed to speak to this matter at the last meeting and went on to say that on January 30, 2024, he filed a complaint for compliance with #5 of the State statute.  He indicated that Mr. Morgan did not issue any violation notices or collect any fines.  He stated that he issued a written request to Mr. Morgan for a determination and did not receive a response within 15 days.  His appeal is for a determination that 36-1-13 and 36-1-14 are not in compliance with Exeter zoning code and never have been due to lack of frontage.  Mr. Davis continued his explanation of why he is appealing this and read from the State statute 45-24-57.  He then referenced map 273, sheet 6 from the documentation that he shared with the Board earlier, that shows both of those lots do not have legal frontage.

The Chair and the Solicitor interrupted Mr. Davis and stated that the Board had already made a ruling on this; that these complaints were denied and the matter pending is about the fees.

Mr. Davis continued to speak to the frontage issues on Estate Drive, stating that he feels because the Zoning Inspector didn’t make a determination on this issue, the responsibility falls on the Zoning Board to make a decision.  Solicitor Ruggiero stated again, that the Board had already ruled on this matter and they can’t revisit it.  The only matter before the Board still pending is about the fees.

Chair Richard Booth asked the Solicitor to confirm that the Board does not have jurisdiction.  The Solicitor confirmed that the Board does not have the authority to waive the fees, reduce the fees or eliminate the fees.  The Town Council endorses the fees and recommends it at the Financial Town meeting.

At this time, Chairman Booth asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to be heard.  There was no public comment.  The Chair then asked for a motion to close the public hearing.  Loren Andrews made the motion; seconded by Tom McMillan.  The vote was all in favor and the public hearing was closed. 

Chairman Richard Booth, under the advice of counsel, stated that it is outside of the Zoning Board’s authority and jurisdiction to amend the fee structure in any way.  This should be addressed by the Town Council.

Tom McMillan made a motion that the Zoning Board has no jurisdiction over these fees and that the appeal be denied. Loren Andrews seconded the motion.  A vote was taken and was all in favor, 5-0 (Booth, McMillan, Quattromani, Andrews, Sovet).  The motion passed.

III.            ADMINISTRATIVE: