Skip to ContentSitemap

YouTubeFacebookTwittereNewsletter SignUp

CRMC Logo

RI Coastal Resources Management Council

...to preserve, protect, develop, and restore coastal resources for all Rhode Islanders

In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council a meeting was held on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 at 6:00 PM at the Administration Building, One Capitol Hill, Providence, RI, Conference Room C, 2nd Floor.

MEMBERS

Mike Tikoian, Chair
Paul Lemont, Vice Chair
Jerry Sahagian
Ray Coia
Dave Abedon
Joe Shekarchi
Turner Scott
Neill Gray
Tom Ricci
Rep. Jan Malik
Senator Susan Sosnowski
Rep. Eileen Naughton

STAFF PRESENT

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Ken Anderson, CRMC Senior Engineer
Dan Goulet, CRMC Dredge Coordinator
Brian Goldman, Legal Council

1. Chair Tikoian called the meeting to order at 6:04 PM.

Chair Tikoian welcomed new council member, Rep. Jan Malik.

Chair Tikoian brief statement of clarification on the council’s permitting process.

Mr. Scott requested that page 6 of the minutes be amended to show that he voted “no” on the motion. Mr. Coia seconded by Mr. Shekarchi moved approval of the January 28, 2003 minutes as amended. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2. STAFF REPORTS

There were no staff reports.

Mr. Fugate announced that meetings with the Corps for the Providence River Dredge Project will start in March.

3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

There were no subcommittee reports.

4. Chair Tikoian read through the agenda to see which applicants/attorneys were present.

5. CONTINANCES:

1999 –01-033 KENNETH SANDSTROM, BRIAN MONAHAN & LYDIA PASTOSZEK – Modification to include extending an existing residential boating facility 30’ seaward, add one (1) tie-off pile and relocate three (3) existing piles. Facility will extend 103’ beyond mean low water. Located at Plat I-J, Lots 65-7, 65-9; 1195 Succotash Road, Narragansett, RI.

The applicants were not present. Chair Tikoian stated that the application had been continued.

6. APPLICATION REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL:

02-09-92 RI ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION – Application consists of construction of 750-linear feet of new (single lane, two-way) roadway and related utilities to consist of a new water line system, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, telephone and electric. Located at Plat 179/180, Lots 25-29, 20-25; Kiefer Park – Quonset Point, Whitecap Drive, North Kingstown, RI.

John Reindeau, RI Economic Development Corporation, the applicant was present. Chair Tikoian made a brief statement on the application. Chair Tikoian stated that this was an application for reconsideration for public access. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Scott moved approval of the application for reconsideration with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

7. APPLICATION WHICH HAVE BEEN SENT OUT TO NOTICE FOR 30 DAYS AND ARE BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR FINAL DECISION:

2002-10-023 MOTIVA ENTERPRISES – Dredge 57,850 CY of maintenance material from its berths located in the Providence River. The material is to be disposed of in the CAD cells that are part of the Federal Dredge Project. Located at Plat 55, Lot 17, 18; 520 Allens Avenue, Providence, RI.

David Sullivan, Motiva Enterprises, the applicant was present. Jeffrey Oaks, the applicant’s engineer was also present. Mr. Goulet gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Goulet stated that this was a non-federal application for the Providence River Dredge Project for maintenance dredging. Mr. Goulet said they would be dredging 57,850 c.y. on the south side of the berth. Mr. Goulet stated that the dredge material would be disposed of in the CAD cell. Chair Tikoian asked if the applicant had read the staff stipulations. Mr. Sullivan stated yes and he agreed to them. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Ricci moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2002-10-024 ST. LAWRENCE CEMENT – Dredge 11,800 CY of material from the berths. The material shall be disposed of in the CAD cells for the Providence Harbor Project. Located at Plat 56, Lot 273; 139 Terminal Road, Providence, RI.

Frank Poirier and Barry Nugent, the applicants were present. Jeffrey Oaks, the applicants’ engineer was also present. Mr. Goulet gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Goulet stated that this was a non-federal application for the Providence River Dredge Project to dredge 11,800 c.y. of maintenance dredge material to be disposed of in a CAD cell. Chair Tikoian asked if the applicants had read the staff stipulations. They replied yes. Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Scott moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2001-05-083 US GENERATING CO., NEW ENGLAND – Perform maintenance dredging in the Cooling Water In-Take canal of approximately 3,000 c.y. and dispose the material in the CAD Cells as part of the Providence River Dredge Project. Located at Plat 22, Lot 354; 40 Point Street, Providence, RI.

Jeffrey Brenner, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Goulet gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Goulet stated that this was a non-federal application for the Providence River Dredge Project to dredge 3,000 c.y. of dredge material to be disposed of in a CAD cell. Chair Tikoian asked if they had read the staff stipulations. Mr. Brenner stated yes and they agreed to the stipulations. Mr. Scott, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2002-12-009 PROVPORT – Perform maintenance dredging of berths 1-6 for a total of 39,400 c.y. The material will be disposed of in the Federal Providence River & Harbor CAD facility. Located at Plat 56, Lot 281, 312, 333, 336; 35 Terminal Road, Providence, RI.

William Brody, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Goulet gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Goulet stated that this was a non-federal application for the Providence River Dredge Project for maintenance dredging. Mr. Goulet said they would be dredging 39,400 c.y. of dredge material from six berths and the dredge material will be disposed of in the CAD cell. Chair Tikoian asked if the applicant had read the staff stipulations. Mr. Brody stated yes and they agreed to them. Mr. Shekarchi, seconded by Mr. Scott moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Chair Tikoian commended staff for the work they did on the dredging applications. Chair Tikoian stated that the CAD cells would be available in 8-10 months.

8. APPLICATION REQUESTING ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

2002-07-074 DENNIS & MARIE BAILLARGEON – Installation of an 8 foot stockade fence along property boundary on the coastal headland and install snowfencing along the property boundary on the coastal dune. Located at Plat 93-4, Lot 7; 991 Matunuck Beach Road, South Kingstown, RI.

Dennis Baillargeon, the applicant was present. Leslie Castrovillari, attorney for the objector and Jeffrey Cooper, the objector were also present. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Anderson stated that this was an application for an accessory structure and 8’ stockade fence on top of a coastal feature seaward and to install snow fencing. Mr. Anderson stated that the staff geologist had no objection to the application. Ms. Castrovillari stated that Mr. Cooper, the abutter, was opposed to the application. Ms. Castrovillari stated that Mr. Cooper objected to the application because he would have to install a new access path on his property to the water and he was concerned with the storm damage to the area a new path would cause. Ms. Castrovillari said the objector’s view would be blocked by the fence. Ms. Castrovillari also stated that he was concerned with channel surge on his property if he put a new path in. Mr. Sahagian asked staff if the application was approved if the objector could file for a Category A application or a FONSI application for the path. Mr. Anderson stated either and the application could be handled at staff level. Mr. Anderson said if the application was approved the objector would have to put in their own path. Mr. Cooper stated that he purchased his property in 1973. Mr. Cooper stated that since he has owned his property he has lost 260-280 feet of property because of the sand dune. Mr. Cooper said his property is not on stilts like the applicant’s property. Mr. Cooper stated that he has lost approximately 40-44 feet of distance and 4 feet in elevation during the last storm, which was 4 or 5 years ago. Mr. Cooper felt the fence was unnecessary. Mr. Cooper explained that the applicant had purchased his property five years ago and put the path in the common walkway for both properties. Mr. Cooper said the 8’ stockade fence would be perpendicular to his property and about 3-4 feet away from his house. He also stated there would be a 4’ fence down to the sand dune and this would block his view to the water. Mr. Scott asked what the height of the fence to the left-hand side of his property was. Mr. Cooper replied the fence is about 6’ high. Mr. Baillargeon stated that the objector has a pathway to the beach on his property already and was now using their boardwalk since 2000. Mr. Baillargeon said the objector’s path was overgrown. Mr. Baillargeon said there is a stockade fence on the other side of the objector’s property. Mr. Baillargeon said he did not want the objector to use his boardwalk anymore. Mr. Baillargeon stated that the objector rents his property out during the summer and his renters have been using his boardwalk and he was concerned with the liability this would be to him. Mr. Sahagian asked if the 8’ fence was the minimum height necessary to keep the tenants off his property. Mr. Baillargeon said the height of the fence is the same height as the fence around his property. Mr. Sahagian stated that most fences in this area are 3-4 feet high. Mr. Baillargeon submitted three (3) photographs of the objector’s property which depicted the path on the objector’s property taken in March 1998, the fence on the other side of the objector’s property taken in June 2002 and a picture of the bush on his property which showed how the boardwalk goes around the bush taken in June 2002. Mr. Baillargeon said the boardwalk is close to the property line because of the bush on his property. Mr. Shekarchi said the objector’s letter mentions litigation and asked if there was any pending litigation. Ms. Castrovillari stated that there was no pending litigation. Mr. Shekarchi stated that the objector’s letter also stated this was a spite fence and asked if they thought it was a spite fence. Ms. Castrovillari replied there was no evidence of a spite fence. Chair Tikoian felt the two parties should come up with a compromise on the fence and suggested a 6’ height for the fence and shortening the length of the fence. Mr. Scott asked why the applicant needed a 8’ fence. Mr. Baillargeon stated that the height of the fence was the same height as the other fence on his property. Mr. Scott asked how far the 8’ fence was from the road. Mr. Baillargeon stated the 8’ fence was from the road and turned around the house. Mr. Scott, seconded by Mr. Sahagian moved approval of the application and that the stockade fence be 6’ high not 8’ high and all staff stipulations. Mr. Cooper said that it was his intent originally to move the walkway on his property over but the applicant and he agreed to have one walkway between both properties and this was why he closed his walkway. Mr. Cooper said he had no objection to a 2’ fence and he would make sure his tenants did not go over the fence and keep them off the applicant’s property. Mr. Baillargeon said the replacement boardwalk was not significantly relocated it was built around the bush. Mr. Baillargeon said he just wanted the renters off his property and asked the objector to do this but he ignored his request. Mr. Baillargeon felt the fence was necessary. Mr. Gray asked how high the snow fence was. Mr. Baillargeon replied 4 feet. Mr. Gray felt that a 4’ high fence was adequate to keep people from walking over his property. Mr. Baillageon agreed. Mr. Gray asked if the stockade fence was to keep people off his property and to delineate the property. Mr. Baillargeon stated yes. Mr. Gray felt a 4’ fence would do the same thing as a 6’ or 8’ fence and it would still delineate the property. Mr. Coia agreed with Mr. Gray. Mr. Scott, withdrew his motion and Mr. Sahagian withdrew his second to the motion. Mr. Scott, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations and that the height of the fence be reduced to 4 feet. The motion carried. Senator Sosnowski and Mr. Shekarchi were opposed.

9. Category “A” List

There were none held.

There being no further business before the council the meeting was adjourned at 6:44 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Grover Fugate
Executive Director CRMC

Reported by Lori A. Field

CALENDAR INDEX

Stedman Government Center
Suite 116, 4808 Tower Hill Road, Wakefield, RI 02879-1900
Voice 401-783-3370 • Fax 401-783-2069 • E-Mail cstaff1@crmc.ri.gov

RI SealRI.gov
An Official Rhode Island State Website