In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council a meeting was held on Tuesday, March 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
Rep. Eileen Naughton
Rep. Jan Malik
Jerry Sahagian
Ray Coia
Dave Abeon
Tom Ricci

STAFF PRESENT

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Dave Reis, CRMC Environmental Scientist
Janet Freedman, CRMC Geologist
Brian Goldman, Legal Council

1. Chair Tikoian called the meeting to order at 6:10 PM.

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

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

Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the February 25, 2003 minutes. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2. STAFF REPORTS

There were no staff reports.

3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

There were no subcommittee reports.

4. REVOCATION OF AQUACULTURE ASSENT/LEASE BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

1976-12-003 JOHN CRANDALL – Revocation of Aquaculture Assent/Lease in accordance with Stipulation “K” of Assent. Located in Ninigret Pond, Charlestown, RI.

John Crandall, the applicant was present. Mr. Fugate gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Fugate stated that there were defaults on the provisions of the assent and lease from 2000, 2001 and 2002. Mr. Fugate said a letter was sent to the applicant on September 3, 2002 regarding the default of the assent/lease. Mr. Fugate stated that there were site visits by staff and Mr. Alves reported that the site was not actively being farmed and recommended the lease and permit both be revoked as this was not a farmed aquaculture site. Mr. Crandall replied that he had a number of problems over the last couple of years and he could not put the time into this. He also said that the oysters he tried to farm died. Chair Tikoian stated that this application dated back to 1976. Mr. Crandall said his father previously owned the site. Mr. Crandall stated that the water quality in the pond was not good. Chair Tikoian stated that the performance bond had not been posted in all these years. Mr. Fugate explained the performance bonds were for adequate funding to clean up a site if there is a failure. Chair Tikoian asked if there were any apparatus’ in the water. Mr. Crandall replied no. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Rep. Naughton moved to revoke the permit and that all equipment, if any, be removed. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

5. APPLICATION REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF ASSENT LANGUAGE BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL:

2001-04-109 STARWOOD TIVERTON, LLC – Requesting Modification of Assent to remove language from Assent dealing with the termination and remove of structures on the referenced property after a period of fifty (50) years from the original approval date. Located on Main Road, Tiverton, Rhode Island.

Richard Sherman, attorney for the applicant was present. Chair Tikoian stated that this was a request to modify and remove the language in the assent for the period of 50- year requirement only for the residential portion of the application. Mr. Sherman explained that the reason for relief of the 50-year requirement was for title insurance and resale of the property. Mr. Sherman said the 50-year limitation has an adverse effect to sell the units and resell the units. Mr. Sherman said they were seeking administrative release because of the unique situation. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Coia moved to waive the 50-year assent requirement for the condominium and residential portions of the assent. Vice Chair Lemont asked if legal counsel had any opinion on this. Mr. Goldman said it was within the council’s discretion to waive the 50-year assent requirement. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

6. APPLICATIONS REQUESTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

2002-05-111 RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION – Replace existing Barrington River Bridge No. 123 and remove the existing temporary Barrington Bridge No. 1023. As part of the project, the applicant proposes to cover with riprap approximately 1,000 s.f. of coastal marsh and 4,000 s.f. of River Bottom. In order to conduct these activities the RIDOT may need to obtain Special Exceptions to the prohibitions contained in Section 210.3.C.6 and 300.10.D.3 of RICRMP.

Kelly Presley, from the RI Dept. of Transportation was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Reis said the application was to replace the existing Barrington Bridge #123 and remove the existing temporary Barrington Bridge. Mr. Reis said the water quality certification was still outstanding. Mr. Reis stated that the DEM and Army Corps permits were also needed and recommended the assent be held until the permits are received. Mr. Reis said there would be filling of tidal waters and the wetland which requires a special exception. Mr. Reis stated that the wetland had to be replaced and would occur concurrently with the work. Mr. Reis said staff suggested that some of the water activities be done outside of the peak boating time, May through November, and staff stipulations. Chair Tikoian opened the public hearing on the special exception. Ms. Presley submitted a narrative to address the requirement of the special exception in Section 130 as an exhibit. Ms. Presley said they have a commitment letter for the 2000 s.f. of coastal wetland restoration/mitigation which they will do when they do the Warren Bridge. Chair Tikoian stated that the narrative address section 1, 2 and 3 of Section 130. Chair Tikoian called for public comment. There was none. Chair Tikoian closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Rep. Malik moved approval of the special exception. Chair Tikoian called for a roll call vote:

On the motion for approval of the special exception:

Mr. Abedon Yes Mr. Ricci Yes
Mr. Sahagian Yes Mr. Coia Yes
Rep. Malik Yes Rep. Naughton Yes
Vice Chair Lemont Yes Chair Tikoian Yes

8 Affirmative 0 Negative 0 Absentation

The motion carried.

Rep. Malik, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2002-08-031 P. T. Development, LLC – Redevelop a former industrial site into a waterfront condominium complex. The applicant proposes to convert two of the existing structures into 60 condominium units. An existing metal structure is to be demolished and a structure housing 24 additional condominium units is to be erected in its place. The applicant further proposes to construct a boardwalk along the shoreline. The boardwalk will be open to the public. In order to construct the project, the applicant proposes to fill 6,285 s.f. of tidal waters. The proposed project location is Plat 9, Lots 13, 24, 35, 40-41, and 71; 325-345 Thames Street, Bristol, RI.

Kristen Sherman, attorney for the applicant was present. Peter LaCouture, attorney for Narragansett Electric was also present. Mr. Reis gave the council a brief summary of the application. Mr. Reis said the application was to redevelop a former industrial site to a condominium site. Mr. Reis stated that they would demolish and replace some of the buildings and some buildings would be new and others would be renovated. Mr. Reis said there would be filling of tidal waters and the policies for type 5 waters allow filling. Mr. Reis said the application does not need a special exception. Mr. Reis stated that it was up to the council to determine if a special exception was needed. Mr. Reis explained that a variance was needed for the fill, the building met the 50’ setback, and there would be a boardwalk for public access and a 20’ to 60’ buffer along the shoreline. Mr. Reis said the application meets the stormwater treatment regulations. Mr. Reis stated that staff recommended approval of the application. Chair Tikoian asked the applicant to address the issue of the special exception. Ms. Sherman stated that the applicant sought a preliminary determination from the council regarding the special exception and the executive director determined that no special exception was needed. Ms. Sherman explained that they were filling in two manmade slip areas and a question was raised regarding the need for a special exception in the public access area. Ms. Sherman stated that they meet the requirements of the uses for type 5 waters, they were enhancing water quality and creating a buffer zone. Ms. Sherman stated that public access was being created where there was none and that the purpose of filling was for the public access. Mr. Fugate felt a special exception was not required in this area as it was type 5 waters and allowed for commercial use and tourism in this area. Mr. Fugate stated that they would be enhancing public access by filling in the slips. Mr. Fugate said they were giving up privatized land for public access. Mr. Fugate stated that the state would not loose these properties and they would be in state hands. Mr. Fugate felt that a special exception was not needed in this area. Chair Tikoian stated that he concurred with the executive director that no special exception was needed. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Ricci moved to accept the executive director’s recommendation that no special exception was needed. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. Ms. Sherman made a brief statement on the project. Ms. Sherman said they would be enhancing public access and there would be a boardwalk with a public sitting area. Ms. Sherman said there would be site remediation and they would be removing fill and putting in clean fill. Ms. Sherman rested on the administrative record for the application. Ms. Sherman said they have all state and local approvals. Ms. Sherman stated that staff recommended approval of the application. Ms. Sherman said they addressed Save the Bay and Narragansett Electric Company concerns. Ms. Sherman stated that Narragansett Electric does not oppose the development. Mr. LaCouture submitted a letter from Ed White, senior environmental engineer for Narragansett Electric as an exhibit. Mr. LaCouture felt that their concerns had not been addressed. Ms. Sherman had no objection to the letter be submitted as an exhibit but objected to testimony on the letter. Ms. Sherman felt the remediation issue had been addressed by DEM and a remediation plan had been approved by DEM. Mr. LaCouture stated that he would rest on the letter submitted on behalf of Narragansett Electric. Ms. Sherman stated that they had responded the Narragansett Electric’s letter dated February 24th and wanted to make sure it was in the file. Mr. Fugate replied that the applicant’s letter of response dated March 7th was in the file. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. Chair Tikoian complimented the applicant on their work on the application. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

7. APPLICATION REQUESITNG ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

2002-05-111 MICHAEL AND BARBARA LEMME – Construct a three bedroom single family residential dwelling and permeable driveway to be serviced by City water and DEM approved ISDS. Located at Plat 334, Lot 238, 239 & 240; Old Mill Cove, Warwick, Rhode Island.

Chair Tikoian recused himself.

Vice Chair Lemont presided over the application.

Michael and Barbara Lemme, the applicants were present. Joseph DeAngelis, the applicants’ attorney, Joseph Friscella, the applicants’ engineer and Joe Klinger, the applicants’ geologist were present on behalf of the applicants. Armand Bastini, attorney for the objectors was also present as well as eight (8) other objectors. Mr. Fugate gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Fugate stated that this was a Category A application and the only reason it was before the full council was because of objections raised by the neighborhood association. Mr. Fugate explained that the objectors had appealed the local approvals. Mr. Fugate stated that the local approval was still in place until all the local appeals are exhausted and it was properly before the council. Mr. Fugate stated that the policy and planning subcommittee look at the issues regarding local approvals and appeals and felt that it was a legal interpretation. Mr. Fugate stated that unless a stay was issued to the local decision, the local decision was still valid. Mr. Fugate explained that when the coastal geologist visited the site they noticed an erosion problem and the barrier system out front had a low spot. Mr. Fugate said they felt this could accelerate erosion in this area. Mr. Fugate stated that the Lemme house may be undermined and riprap revetment may be needed. Mr. Fugate also stated that the application required variances. Mr. Reis explained that the application required a 50’ buffer and the applicants proposed a 39’ buffer requiring an 11’ variance, the application required a 75’ setback and the applicants proposed a 25’ setback requiring a 50’ variance and the dwelling is 11’ in the buffer and requires a 14’ buffer variance. Vice Chair Lemont stated that the application was to construct a 3-bedroom dwelling and permeable driveway to be serviced by City water and a DEM approved ISDS. Mr. DeAngelis made a brief statement on the application. Mr. DeAngelis said the applicants purchased the property in 2000 and received a building permit and they requested an extension of the permit and it was received. Mr. DeAngelis said the applicants requested a second extension of the permit and were denied and had to reapply for another building permit, which was approved, and they received the new building permit in July 2002. Mr. DeAngelis felt the local issues pending did not effect the application before the council. Mr. DeAngelis said the zoning approval expires in July 2003. Mr. DeAngelis stated that they hired a geologist to address the CRMC staff geologist issues concerning erosion. Mr. DeAngelis said the home would be constructed at the applicants’ risk and he would work out language with the CRMC legal counsel that the property would be at risk for the erosion problem. Vice Chair Lemont asked if they were proposing to indemnify the council. Mr. DeAngelis replied no but if therewa a horrific event and erosion exists it would be at the risk of the applicants not CRMC. Vice Chair Lemont asked what happens if the property is sold. Mr. DeAngelis said the assent would be recorded and the buyer would be aware of this. Mr. Bastini objected to Mr. Klinger’s testimony as no notice of his testimony was given. Mr. Fugate stated that the applicants had submitted a list of experts to CRMC and Mr. Klinger was on the list and staff had also reviewed Mr. Klinger’s comments. Mr. Bastini withdrew his objection. Mr. DeAngelis qualified Mr. Klinger as an expert in geology. Mr. Coia, seconded by Rep. Malik moved to accept Mr. Klinger as an expert in geology. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Klinger stated that he had reviewed the aerial photographs of the area, visited the site, and reviewed the site plan and staff reports. Mr. Klinger also stated that he had done geological surveys at the site and submitted a report to address the erosion issues raised by staff. Mr. DeAngelis submitted an aerial photograph dated 3/10/03 to the council as an exhibit. Mr. Klinger said the coastal feature was stabilized and in the same location on all the aerial photographs. Mr. Klinger said the inlet had changes for the southern barrier spit. Mr. Klinger said the northern spit had some erosion on the headland, which is 200’ away from the Lemme property. Mr. Klinger stated that if there was a breach there would be a creation of a new spit by sand buildup. Mr. Klinger stated that the property alteration meets the CRMC program. Mr. Klinger felt there would be no adverse environmental impacts. Mr. Klinger stated that the variances requested were standard and could be met by the applicants. Mr. Klinger said this was the minimum variance necessary. Mr. Bastini objected as this was outside of Mr. Klinger’s scope. Vice Chair Lemont sustained the objection. Vice Chair Lemont asked if Mr. Klinger was familiar with the whole file and asked where pole #17 was in the aerial photograph. Mr. Klinger stated that pole #17 was closer to the road near the drain field. Mr. Bastini asked if he had visited the property in the last month to see if there was a breach. Mr. Klinger replied yes and that there was no breach. Mr. Bastini stated that he did not review the wildlife species or shellfish in this area and it was not included in his report. Mr. Klinger replied no. Mr. Friscella said he drafted the plans for the ISDS with DEM and CRMC. Mr. Friscella said they addressed the variances requested. Mr. Friscella said the house is 15’ from the street pursuit to a variance by the City of Warwick from the 25’ setback. Mr. Friscella stated that the buffer proposed is 39 feet from the coastal feature, which is from the flag on the southern portion of the property. Mr. Friscella said he reviewed the buffers on surrounding lots and that the northwest buffer is 25 feet. Mr. Friscella stated that the proposed dwelling is 38’ by 36’ and that an 11’ setback was requested in addition to the buffer. Mr. Friscella said it is 50’ from the house to the coastal feature. Mr. Friscella felt that the variance requested was the minimum necessary for reasonable use of the property. Mr. Friscella said if the variance was not granted by CRMC that the applicants could not build on their property if they had to have the full buffers. Mr. Friscella explained that there was a 50’ buffer variance, a 25’ building setback and a 15’ setback by the City and if the applicants had to have the full buffer and setbacks they would have only 12 feet to build on. Mr. Friscella said you could not build on 12 feet. Mr. Bastini asked if there would be a denitrification system on the property. Mr. Friscella replied no he did not feel it was necessary because of the flow of the water. Mr. Bastini asked if there was any study on the impact of wildlife or the plant life. Mr. Friscella replied no, he did not feel it was warranted. Mr. DeAngelis objected because he felt this issue should have been raised previously with staff. Vice Chair Lemont overruled the objection. Mr. Bastini asked if any flooding studies had been done. Mr. Friscella said the house would be in a flood zone. Mr. Bastini asked if there would be any flooding impact on the ISDS system. Mr. Friscella replied yes. Rep Naughton asked was a problem in Warwick because of the water table and problems with septic systems submerging during storms and flooding. Mr. Friscella replied the water table was in access of 4 feet and the septic leach field was 3 feet above the water table. Mr. Friscella said the septic system meets all DEM regulations and he would oversee the construction. Rep. Naughton asked what kind of soil is on the property. Mr. Friscella replied a sandy soil. Rep. Naughton asked if it was his professional opinion that a septic system in sandy soil would be stabilized. Mr. Friscella replied yes. Rep. Naughton asked how long it would take for the septic system to go back down once it is submerged. Mr. Friscella said about a day and there would be very little impact on the system when it is below the ground surface. Rep. Naughton asked if the closing of the hurricane barrier was taken into consideration with the DEM application. Mr. Friscella replied no. Rep. Naughton asked if a denitrification system was discussed with DEM. Mr. Friscella said no. Rep. Naughton said the spits were protective toward the property but not a denitrification system and there was nothing to protect the wildlife in the future. Mr. Friscella said no. Rep. Naughton said a clean water bond had been passed to keep nitrogen out of the water and how this would effect that. Mr. Friscella felt there would be a minute proportion of nitrates going into the water. Rep. Naughton said there were a number of quality because of this. Mr. Friscella said that neither DEM nor CRMC had required a denitrification system. Mr. Lemme stated that they have been the owners of the property since 2000. Mr. Lemme said on two separate occasions they had received local approvals and the most recent approval was received on July 26, 2002. Mr. Lemme stated that they have looked into municipal sewers with the city for their property and received a letter from the City of Warwick dated 3/6/03 that stated there would be municipal sewer hookup available in 2003 for Old Mill Blvd. Mr. DeAngelis submitted a copy of the letter from the City of Warwick dated 3/6/03 to the council as an exhibit. Mr. Lemme stated that there would be 39 feet of coastal buffer which had been determined by staff. Mr. Lemme said they would tie into the municipal sewer system with the city when it became available and they would not request a certificate of occupancy until they can hook up to the local sewer system. Vice Chair Lemont requested they supply the council with a certified copy of the letter from the City of Warwick dated 3/6/03. Mr. DeAngelis agreed.

OBJECTORS.

William Derrig, an objector, submitted three (3) photographs of the Lemme land which depicted 1) the erosion of the property taken 11/6/02 which depicts the barriers totally open to the bay and underwater, 2) a photograph taken 3/8/03 from the outlet to Mill Cove (figure 3), and 3) a photograph taken facing west over the northern spit taken on 3/9/03 looking at the property (figure4). Mr. Derrig stated that the rate of erosion in this area is dramatic. Mr. Derrig stated that the erosion is continuance and at a fast pace during every storm. Mr. Derrig felt if the house was washed away it would have an impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Coia asked how this effected him individually. Mr. Derrig stated that it effected the value of his land. Mr. Derrig requested that the council deny the application. Mr. DeAngelis stated that photograph number 3 does not purport where the Lemme’s propose to put their house but depicts the 39’ buffer area. Mr. Derrig stated that the picture shows both north and south barrier spits underwater. Leslie Derrig, an objector, stated that they had looked to purchase this land in 1999 and were told a lot of work and variances from the City of Warwick and CRMC would be needed. Ms. Derrig stated that five (5) formal requests for variances for this property had been requested by CRMC and CRMC had been denied the request for the variances. Ms. Derrig felt that if the house was washed away that it would go into their home. Ms. Derrig wanted the council to deny the application for the variances. Mr. Sahagian asked if the house was constructed if it would obstruct their view. Mrs. Derrig replied that they would still have a view. Eugenia Marks, Director of Policy, Audubon Society of Rhode Island, for more than 20 years, stated that in regard to the geologist report there would be a liability to the wetland from the non-point runoff. Ms. Marks also raised the question regarding the heating system whether it was oil or gas and if the house was destroyed what the impact would be on the water quality. Ms. Marks also asked if the house would be raised off moorings. Ms. Marks wanted to know whether the issue of spring high tide at purging was data included in analysis of the staff report. Ms. Marks felt there would still be an impact on the water quality because of the landscaping and the fertilizers used even if the applicants hooked up to the municipal sewer system. Rep. Naughton asked if the Audubon Society had taken an interest in the horseshoe crabs in this area and to make sure this area remained suitable for the horseshoe crab. Ms. Marks replied yes, they would be concerned. Donna Paris, an abutter, stated that her house is directly across the street from the Lemme property but it had no impact on her view to the water. She said she had looked at this property before she purchased her house and was told the lot was not buildable. Ms. Paris said the erosion on the beach is unbearable and felt this area would be breached. She said she has seen this property flooded in the middle. Ms. Paris was worried about the impact this would have on her land. Mr. Coia asked if she had made inquires as to whether this was a buildable lot. Ms. Paris stated no, she was told by the City of Warwick that the lot was not buildable. Mr. Fugate stated that preliminary determination reports had been available at CRMC, which stated that without significant variances the lot would not be buildable. Mr. Fugate asked if the lot was at velocity zone. Mr. Friscella replied yes. Mr. Fugate stated that the house was being built on pilings with breakaway walls. Mr. Friscella replied yes. Josh Ablett, an objector, wanted the council to deny the application. Sarah Ablett, an objector, was in support of the arguments in support of denial of the application. Ray Forsburg, a shellfisherman and objector, stated that this area was closed to shellfisherman and wanted to have the area reopen to shellfisherman. Mr. Forsburg felt that building on the lot would impact shellfishing in this area. Mr. Forsburg wanted the area rededicated to shellfishing. Vice Chair Lemont asked if the applicants hooked up to local sewers if he still felt there would be an impact on the water. Mr. Forsburg replied yes, he felt that the lawn chemicals would effect the water quality. Ralph Bozzi, an objector, felt the property would be flooded during any storm but was in favor of the application. Ms. Freeman stated that she had prepared the staff geologist report on the property. Ms. Freeman felt a variance should not be granted. Ms. Freeman was concerned with the erosion problem on this property. Ms. Freeman stated that she visited the property today and since November 2002 the property had eroded approximately 2 feet. Ms. Freeman stated that Mr. Klinger used the 1997 aerial photograph in his testimony, which showed the northern spit would be protection for the Lemme property. Ms. Freeman said the point of the northern spit is no longer there and Mr. Klinger stated in his testimony that the southern barrier spit would be breached during a storm. Mr. DeAngelis replied that he testified that the northern spit would be breached and cause erosion of the Lemme property. Mr. DeAngelis agreed that the coastal feature has not moved. Mr. DeAngelis stated it was possible in the future that something would effect the Lemme lot. Mr. DeAngelis stated that if the applicants’ hook up to the municipal sewers it would address some of the staff’s concerns but they would still be concern with the erosion. Mr. Reis stated that he had prepared the staff biologist. Mr. DeAngelis objected to Mr. Bastini asking questions of Mr. Reis that it was already in his report. Vice Chair Lemont sustained the objection. Mr. Bastini stated that the 1988 preliminary determination addressed the wildlife resources in this area and the impact on them and asked if any thing had changed in his opinion since 1988. Mr. Reis replied that he had reviewed the preliminary determination in the packet. Mr. Reis stated that the CRMC regulations have changed over the years but the impact has not changed. Mr. Reis felt there would be some impact but not significant impact on the wildlife resources. Rep. Naughton stated that the Rhode Island Natural Heritage Association had designated the area of Mill Cove as a natural heritage area. Rep. Naughton was not sure hooking up to municipal sewers would address the concerns on the water quality in this area. Mr. Reis said there would be no impact on the designation on natural heritage area. Mr. Abedon stated that the lawn care materials used could impact the water quality. Mr. Reis stated that it was very hard to monitor and tell people what they could use to fertilize their lawns.

Closing Comments.

Mr. Bastini felt the application would have an ecological impact. Mr. Bastini was concerned with the potential washing away of the house and the impact it would have on the area. Mr. Bastini stated that the CRMC report raised several concerns and issues. Mr. Bastini wanted CRMC to deny the application. Mr. Bastini stated that the staff geologist report stated that there would be 6 ½ feet of erosion every five years. Mr. Bastini felt the applicants had not addressed the impact on wildlife. Mr. Bastini stated that they were appealing the zoning decision and wanted CRMC to deny the application for the variances as the applicant had not met the criteria for a variance. Mr. Bastini suggested an alternative that they wait 1 to 2 years and see what the erosion was and what impact it had. Mr. DeAngelis stated that this application was similar to the last three applications in this area. Mr. DeAngelis stated that this was a Category A application and could have been approved by the executive director and that the only reason it was before the full council was because of an objection. Mr. DeAngelis said the house would be built in accordance with the FEMA standards. Mr. DeAngelis stated that the lot is 17,500 s.f. and this was a modest size house, only 1300 s.f. Mr. DeAngelis wanted the council to approve the application. Mr. Sahagian felt the shellfisherman had legitimate concerns. Mr. Sahagian stated that the applicants agreed to have the certificate of occupancy held until the applicants hooked up to local sewer connection. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations and the variances, that the applicants tie into municipal sewers and legal counsel work on the language that the property would be at risk with the applicant’s attorney and a certified copy of the letter from the City of Warwick dated 3/6/03 for the file. Mr. Abedon commended staff for their work on the application. Mr. Abedon felt there would be no significant impact if the application was approved. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

8. PUBLIC HEARING ON CHANGES TO THE RHODE ISLAND COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND MANGEMENT PROCEDURES:

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program Section 150
Coastal Buffer Zones/Standards

Revise Section 150.E.3 (c as follows:

Section 300.5
Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Recreational Structures

Add New Definition: Section 300.3.A.5

Chair Tikoian opened the public hearing. Mr. Fugate stated that this change was to work on a natural system for buffers. Chair Tikoian stated that the policy and planning subcommittee had discussed this and wanted to have consistency on footprints for buffers and felt this change would address this. Chair Tikoian called for public comment. There was none. Chair Tikoian closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the change to Section 150.E.3 and Section 300.5 as proposed. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Section 300.9
Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal

Revise as follows:
B. Polices
C. Prerequisites
E. Additional Category B Requirements
F. Standards

Management Procedures Section 4.3.2 Schedule of Fees
Section 4.3.2(t)

Chair Tikoian opened the public hearing. Mr. Fugate explained that this was to add a fee for CAD Cell disposal. Mr. Fugate said this was a result of negotiations with the Budget Office. Mr. Fugate stated that the Marine Trades were supportive of the fee. Mr. Fugate stated that $370,000 would be generated in state revenue and this money would be used to fund a position for someone to handle the CAD cell disposal site applications. Chair Tikoian called for public comment. There was none. Chair Tikoian closed the public hearing. Chair Tikoian asked if the budget office does not allow this if there was any safeguard on how the funds are spent. Mr. Fugate said the marine trade association agreed to pay an additional $.75 per square feet specifically for this. Mr. Fugate said if this was approved the language would have to be worked out. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Sahagian moved approval of Section 300.9. The motion carried. Rep. Naughton and Rep. Malik abstained.

9. Category “A” List

There were none held.

There being no further business before the council the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Grover Fugate

Executive Director CRMC

Reported by Lori A. Field

CALENDAR INDEX