In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council a meeting was held on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 at 6:00 PM at the Department of Administration – Conference Rooms B & C – One Capitol Hill, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS

Mike Tikoian, Chair
Paul Lemont, Vice Chair
Neil Gray
Joe Shekarchi
Jan Reitsma
Dave Abedon
Jerry Sahagian
Rep. Eileen Naughton
Sen. Susan Sosnowski
Pam Pogue

STAFF PRESENT

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Ken Anderson, CRMC Senior Engineer
Brian Goldman, Legal Council

1. Chair Tikoian called the meeting to order at 6:08 PM.

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

Mr. Sahagian stated that he was not present at the last meeting and requested that the minutes be amended to reflect that he was not present. Vice Chair Lemont seconded by Mr. Shekarchi and Mr. Abedon by moved approval of the May 27, 2003 minutes as amended. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2. STAFF REPORTS

Mr. Fugate informed council members that CRMC provides a book on coastal activities and coastal awareness to the school system, grades K-6, and they give out about 1000 copies a year. Mr. Fugate said the book is dated to the early 1970’s and they needed to update the book. Mr. Fugate stated that they updated the book with the universities and also created a teacher’s activity guide. Mr. Fugate passed out copies of both books to council members to look at.

3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

Vice Chair Lemont stated that the subcommittee had several hearings in Newport on the Waite’s Wharf application. Vice Chair Lemont gave council members the highlights of the subcommittee report. Vice Chair Lemont requested that the council receive the report and sent it out to public notice to be heard at a future meeting. Chair Tikoian asked if the subcommittee report would be available for the last meeting in June. Mr. Goldman replied yes

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

5. CONTINUANCES:

2002-08-056 ALFRED TOSSELI – Reduction of a previously authorized coastal buffer zone from 50-feet to 15-feet; resulting in a reduction of 70%. Located at 1052 East Shore Road, Jamestown, RI.

The applicants were not present. Chair Tikoian stated that they had received a request for a continuance within the 24-hour rule and that a continuance had been granted.

6. APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OUT TO NOTICE AND ARE BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

2001-11-075 SANBROEK, LLC (Pappa Realty) – Add a boatlift to a previously authorized residential boating facility. The applicant has decided to seek to construct the boatlift on the north side of the facility. Located at Plat 179, Lot 140; 182 Poppasquash Road, Bristol, RI.

Robert Davis, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Anderson stated that the application was for a boatlift to be constructed on a CRMC approved boating facility. Mr. Anderson said no variances were required. Mr. Anderson said staff recommended approval of the application. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Shekarchi moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2003-04-122 EASTERN RESORTS CO., LLC – Expand existing marina, per plan. Construct new seawall/bulkhead seaward of existing deteriorated bulkhead (Approx. 135 linear feet total length). Located at Plat 16; Lots 158, 139, 143.4; the “Inn at Long Wharf”; 128 Long Wharf, Newport, RI.

Robert Gentry, Vice President of Eastern Resorts Co., LLC, the applicant was present. Blake Henderson, the applicant’s engineer was also present. Chair Tikoian stated that this application was previously before the council and that it was back before the council to address the following issues: 1) the public access plan; 2) whether this was the minimum necessary for filling; 3) local approval; and 4) whether water quality certification has been received from DEM. Mr. Anderson also stated that a variance was requested from the federal channel. Mr. Henderson said he faxed over a narrative on the variance criteria to Ken for his review. Mr. Henderson stated that the water quality certification application was faxed to DEM on 5/27/03. Mr. Henderson responded to the filling issue and said there was discussion on the minimum work required for sheeting piling and addressed why 6 feet of filling was the minimum necessary. Mr. Henderson explained that they were putting sheet pilings along the side of the property and this would not allow for public access across the property. Mr. Henderson said there would be no headroom to walk under this for public access. Mr. Henderson submitted three (3) photographs of the site as exhibits to the council. Mr. Anderson said he had not seen the photographs before tonight but that he was aware of how the sheet piling is done and he did not have a problem with this. Mr. Henderson addressed the public access plan and said they would leave access to walk along pier and water as it is now. Mr. Henderson felt they were enhancing the public access by making it safer. Mr. Henderson said local approval was in the file. Mr. Shekarchi stated that staff recommended the council either deny or modify the application and asked if the staff position changed after receiving this new information. Mr. Anderson said their recommendation for denial or modification of the application was based on the variance requested from the federal navigation project. Chair Tikoian said the marina is being mirrored from one side to the other side and if the commercial use does not change and if there is no change in use this does not apply. Mr. Anderson said the applicant was not grandfathered out to the federal navigational channel and the new regulations fell into place. Mr. Henderson stated that there have been floats and boats there for recreational and commercial use and they had a 1992 aerial photograph, which showed this. Mr. Gentry said he has used this dock for recreational and commercial use and the harbormaster also uses the dock. Mr. Anderson said staff went by what was permitted and what was there. Mr. Anderson stated that at present there are no approvals for floats in this area. Mr. Anderson said the fixed pier was not permitted by CRMC for commercial use. Vice Chair Lemont asked what staff’s solution to the problem would be. Mr. Anderson said he deferred to the council for the variance criteria. Mr. Fugate explained that if the structure encroached the channel, the Army Corps would not dredge until obstacles were removed out of the channel setback area. Vice Chair Lemont asked if in 15 years the Army Corps decides to dredge if it would have an impact on the applicant and others in this area. Mr. Fugate replied yes. Mr. Gray stated that he agreed with staff on identifying the conflict. Mr. Gray stated that the Army Corps could dredge up to a certain line and he had no problem with this. Chair Tikoian stated that the council could approve the application pending water quality certification and that the issues of the variance criteria had been address and local approval had been received. Chair Tikoian asked if this addressed Mr. Gray’s concerns. Mr. Gray said he still had a problem with filling 6 feet of tidal water. Mr. Gray said the issue was how does CRMC and to what degree do they allow fill to take place without any compensation to the public. Mr. Gray stated that the applicant was repairing wall damage. Mr. Gray wanted to make sure there was a benefit for the public for the fill needed and lateral access. Mr. Gray wanted lateral access to address the public access issue and justify filling. Mr. Goldman replied that filling of tidal waters does not allow ownership, the applicant would have to lease from the state, as the state owns tidal waters. Mr. Goldman said lease fees could be forgiven if public access is given. Mr. Gray felt there was no public access available unless the bulkhead is extended and wanted these issues to be worked out. Mr. Henderson said there is a parking spot next to the bulkhead with a ramp and there is no lateral access because of mechanical reasons. Mr. Henderson stated that the city asked for public access by having a dinghy dock. Mr. Henderson felt they met the burden for public access. Mr. Gray disagreed. Chair Tikoian felt the burden had been met. Mr. Reitsma agreed with Mr. Gray and said he felt uncomfortable making a decision on the application with loose ends not addressed. Vice Chair Lemont asked what solution Mr. Gray had to keep this a viable enterprise. Mr. Gray felt the applicant could accommodate public access. Mr. Gray felt waterfront access could be enhanced. Mr. Gray said he had no problem with anything else in the application but wanted to make sure there was public access. Mr. Henderson said they would have to extend the fill area to accommodate this but it would not be a very pleasant view through this area. Chair Tikoian said the applicant would have to fill in two (2) more feet to accommodate public access. Mr. Gray stated that they could cantilever it without having additional fill. Mr. Henderson said they would have to do a new plan to accommodate this and submit it to Ken. Mr. Gray asked if the local stipulations had been addressed. Chair Tikoian responded yes but that the riparian lines were not a CRMC issue. Mr. Gray, seconded by Vice Chair Lemont moved to approve the application with all staff stipulations, the city stipulation for a public dinghy dock being established, the applicant establishing public access along the front of the building and eastside of building, pending water quality certification from DEM and the applicant submitting a marina plan. Mr. Reitsma said the city had two (2) conditions on their approval and was concerned with the council only approving one of the conditions and not the other. Chair Tikoian stated that the council does not have to base their approval on the city’s recommended stipulations. Mr. Gentry felt it was up to the council not the city to place stipulations on the application. The motion carried. Mr. Reitsma abstained.

2002-06-054 ROCCO D’ANGELO – Construct and maintain a single family dwelling to be serviced by municipal sewer and water. A minimum 12’ buffer zone is requested therefore a variance of 38’ is required to the 50’ buffer zone standard (ref. RICRMP Section 150 Coastal Buffer Zones). Also variances to RICRMP Section 140 Setbacks is required. Required setback is 50’ minimum from the coastal feature and 25’ from coastal buffer zone. (Proposed dwelling is 17’ from coastal feature and 5’ from the coastal buffer zone). Located at Plat N-E, Lot 3, 4, 5; Circuit Drive, Narragansett, RI.

The applicant was not present. Bruce Licht, an attorney and partner of Douglas DeSimone, the applicant’s attorney stated that Mr. DeSimone was in the emergency room with his daughter and could not be present. Mr. Licht requested that the application be continued two (2) months to address issues of the house being built in a certain location as the town zoning board would be making a change on special use and this may have an impact the application. The application was continued until September 9th.

1989 –04-025 SUNNYBROOK FARM LANDOWNERS – To construct “as built” modifications to an existing residential boating facility to consist of: increasing the dock over all length from 134-feet beyond mean low water (MLW) as previously approved, to a 150- feet beyond MLW and increasing the float dock area from 270 square feet to 360 square feet. Additional variances will be required for the dock length and float size. Located at Plat Y, Lot 1-17; Point Judith Pond, Narragansett, RI.

Chair Tikoian recused himself.

Vice Chair Lemont presided over the application.

David DiMaio, the applicant was present. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Anderson said the application was to extend an approved CRMC association dock. Mr. Anderson stated that two (2) variances were requested a 16’ length variance and a 90 s.f. float area variance. Mr. Anderson said the original dock had a float and length variance on it. Mr. Anderson stated that staff recommended approval of the application with all staff stipulations with a four (4) boat limit and that there be no future expansion of the facility. Mr. DiMaio stated that the application is to extend the float out and to get additional depth on the inside of the dock. Mr. DiMaio said they have 2’ depth inside and a 4’ depth outside the dock. Mr. DiMaio said they would also put in two (2) pilings on the inside floats to use as support. Mr. Anderson stated that the dock already extends into the Town of Narragansett mooring field and that a 50’ setback is required from an approved mooring field. Mr. Anderson said the applicant had made a resolution with the town for relocation of the existing mooring at the applicant’s expense. Mr. DiMaio agreed. Mr. Reitsma was concerned with allowing further encroachment into an approved mooring field and whether this was appropriate. Mr. Anderson said he deferred to the executive director on this. Mr. Reitsma suggested an additional stipulation that if there is any conflict with the town regarding the mooring field it had to be resolved. Mr. Gray said there was an agreement with the town that if there was any interference with the mooring field it would have to be resolved at the owner’s expense. Mr. Goldman felt the council could approve the application with this stipulation and amend the harbor management plan for the mooring field to reflect this. Mr. Fugate stated that most of the harbor management mooring field plans were up after 5 years, which is almost here, and they could address this upon renewal of the harbor management plan. Mr. Abedon, seconded by Rep. Naughton moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

7. APPLICATION REQUESTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL:

2002-12-067 – RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT/DIVISION OFPLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT – A floating courtesy dock adjacent to existing Mule Shed boat ramp, consisting of 6 ‘ x 15’ concrete “landing” (abutment) and 6’ x 52’ float. (No overnight dockage to occur; transient use only to assist in boat launch ramp use); also, minor drainage improvements to alleviate stormwater ponding in parking lot area. The proposal requires a “Special Exception” (RICRMP Section 130) to install floats in a CRMC “Type 1” waterway. Project located at Fort Adams State Park, Mule Shed Area, Newport, RI.

Chair Tikoian and Jan Reitsma recused themselves.

Vice Chair Lemont presided over the application.

John O’Brien and Jay McGann, DEM and Gary Powers, attorney for DEM were present on behalf of the applicant. Susan Cooper, Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Newport was also present. Paul Ryan, attorney for the objector was also present. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant was to extend a boat launch ramp at Fort Adams by adding a 6’ x 52’ float. Mr. Anderson said the ramp predates CRMC Type 1 waters and the application requires a special exception. Mr. Anderson stated that staff had no objection to the application and recommended approval of the application. Vice Chair Lemont opened the public hearing. Mr. O’Brien stated that the application was to install a small courtesy dock in Fort Adams Park at the request of local residents. Mr. O’Brien said there was a problem with the ramp because it was a single lane ramp. Mr. O’Brien stated that the ramp is 24’ wide and there is ledge on one side and rubble on the other side and this causes a problem with launching boats. Mr. O’Brien stated that the solution was to install a courtesy dock for launching. Mr. O’Brien gave a description of the addition to the dock and said it would be a 6’ x 15’ long concrete landing. Mr. Sahagian requested that the applicant address the criteria for a special exception. Mr. Goldman stated that the applicant had submitted written testimony to address the criteria for a special exception. Mr. Anderson said the criteria points for the special exception for Section 130 are in the packet. Mr. O’Brien addressed the criteria for a special exception and felt that they met the special exception criteria. Vice Chair Lemont called for public comment on the special exception. Mr. Ryan submitted a copy of the City of Newport City Council resolution to the council as an exhibit. Mr. Ryan said Brenton Cove may have been designated Type 1 waters but it is now Type 2 waters in the resolution and if this was Type 2 waters he had no problem with the application. Mr. Ryan said in the plan submitted there is only a minimum number of parking spaces serving a handful of fisherman. Mr. Ryan felt this would change the ascetics of the area by putting in a 6’ x 52’ dock. Mr. Ryan felt recreational boating facilities were prohibited in Type 1 waters according to the CRMP. Mr. Ryan felt a compelling public purpose was not met by the applicant therefore the requirements for a special exception were not met. Ann Conner, an objector, was concerned with the ecological impact issue and the impact on water quality. Mr. Ryan submitted a photograph of the site taken by Ann Conner approximately two (2) years ago to the council as an exhibit. Ms. Pogue asked if she would be testifying as an expert. Mr. Ryan stated no only as a neighbor. Mr. Cooper objected and said she could only testify regarding the special exception. Mr. Cooper felt that whether birds are there or not was not relevant to the special exception. Ms. Conner stated that she has lived in Brenton Cove Condominium for 17 years and the water has always been Type 1 waters. Ms. Conner stated that she was concerned about pollution to the water by the boats and trailers. Ms. Conner was opposed to the special exception. Susan Cooper, Director of Park and Recreations for the City of Newport, stated that they were in favor of the application. Ms. Cooper stated that the resolution of the city council said it needed to be determined whether this was type 1 or type 2 waters. Ms. Cooper said the city council knew the courtesy dock was in type 1 waters. Ms. Cooper felt an overwhelming safety issue would be addressed by putting in the courtesy dock and felt a special exception was needed. Ms. Cooper said this would allow for handicap access. Tom Bandonite, a Newport boater, stated that he was in favor of the special exception and felt the dock was needed. Mr. Bandonite felt the dock needed to be on the southwest side for protection from the southwest wind. Mr. O’Brien addressed the issues raised by Mr. Ryan and said the size of the courtesy dock was a 6’ x 15’ concrete dock with a 52’ x 6’ float at the end. Jay McGann stated that they referred to the California GuideBook regarding launching ramps and it said the ramp should not be less than 6’ wide and the float should not be less than 50’. Mr. O’Brien felt this was a public benefit as there are not enough public boat ramps throughout the state. Mr. O’Brien felt the ascetics of the cove would not be impacted because this is a developed waterfront. Mr. Ryan said thier only objection was because this was Type 1 waters. Mr. McGann stated that a water quality certification had been issued for this project. Mr. Fugate said type 1 waters prohibited residential boating facities. Mr. Fugate said the council’s goal is to remove residential boating in Type 1 waters not recreational boating. Rep. Naughton asked if this was an ADA required design and if this would help the handicap. Mr. O’Brien said this does not met the slope for ADA requirements design but would help people with mobility movement problems. Rep. Naughton asked if the dock could be made ADA handicap accessible. Mr. McGann said the ramp is at 15% and ADA is 8.75% and they could not make ramp shallower because it would not be function as a boat launch ramp. Mr. McGann stated that they used the national standard to design the dock. Mr. Abedon asked if the courtesy dock matched the slope of the ramp that was already there. Mr. McGann replied yes. Rep. Naughton asked if there was other public access in Colt Park. Mr. O’Brien replied there is public access at Sail Newport, which has been approved a handicap accessible to boaters. There was no further public comment. Vice Chair Lemont closed the public hearing. Mr. Sahagian felt the applicant met the special exception criteria. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Abedon moved approval of the special exception. Vice Chair Lemont called for a roll call vote:

On approval of the special exception.

Mr. Gray Yes Senator Sosnowski Yes
Ms. Pogue Yes Mr. Abedon Yes
Mr. Sahagian Yes Vice Chair Lemont Yes
Rep. Naughton Yes

7 Affirmative 0 Negative 0 Abesenation

The motion carried.

Mr. O’Brien addressed the application. Mr. O’Brien said that DEM had worked with the local communities and received their approvals for the application. Mr. O’Brien felt they addressed and met the local concerns. Mr. O’Brien stated that there would be no impact on the water quality certification. Mr. O’Brien said there wold be no increase to activity on the dock. Mr. O’Brien said they worked with the historical society to preserve the wreckage at the end of the dock. Mr. O’Brien wanted CRMC approval for the dock.

OBJECTORS.
Ms. Conner was concerned with the birds in the area and the impact this would have on them. Ms. Conner was also concerned with water quality certification. Ms. Conner felt the level of pollution and noise level would be raised. Mr. Ryan stated that there is a stipulation in the water quality certification, which stated that the dock could not be used at nighttime. Mr. Ryan wanted the council to put a restriction on the dock that it could only be used from sunrise to sundown during the summer. Vice Chair Lemont asked what the scheduled hours were for the dock. Mr. O’Brien said they had no schedule of hours for the dock but that there is no overnight dockage. Vice Chair Lemont asked if a fisherman wanted to go out at 9:00 p.m. and come back at 3:00 a.m. if he could do this. Mr. O’Brien replied yes. Mr. Goldman stated that there was a stipulation on the water quality certification that there could be no overnight docking but fishermen could still use the dock. Mr. Ryan requested that there be no overnight use of the dock. Mr. Ryan submitted a copy of a DEM sign, which said there could be no personal use of watercraft after sunset. Mr. O’Brien said this referred to jet ski use. Mr. Abedon said staff felt there was no adverse impact. Mr. Abedon felt the time use of the dock could be addressed at another time. Mr. Bandonite stated that he was in favor of the application and felt this would enhance the operation of the facility. Rep. Naughton asked if there was anyway to change the design to meet the ADA requirements. Mr. O’Brien said they have come very close to doing that but they will have to go back over the overall plans and grants. Mr. O’Brien said they have an alternate location for the handicap at Shake-a-Leg at Sail Newport. Mr. Gray asked if there was any compelling reason why the dock is on one side rather than the other. Mr. O’Brien said they talked to those who use the dock and they felt the dock would be better on the west side not the east and this was the preferred location by input they received. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Senator Sosnowski moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations and the special exception. The motion was approved on a unanimous voice vote.

Vice Chair Lemont called for a recess at 8:10 p.m. Vice Chair Lemont called the meeting back to order at 8:17 p.m.

8. APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OUT TO NOTICE AND ARE BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

2003-10-004 HARBOR ISLAND IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION – Construct a residential boating facility (Association dock) to consist of a: 4’ x 48’ fixed timber pier, a 2’ x 15’ ramp and three (3) floats (4’ x 36’) totaling 144 square feet. The proposed (Association) dock will extend to 48-feet beyond mean low water (MLW). Located at Plat Y-1, Lot 238; Wheatfield Cove Road, Narragansett, RI.

Chair Tikoian and Mr. Sahagian recused themselves.

Vice Chair Lemont presided over the application.

Stewart Mason, President of the Harbor Island Improvement Association and Carol Mason were present on behalf of the applicant. James Lawless, the applicants’ engineer was also present. Attorneys Jeff Mega and Irving Waldman, attorneys for the objectors were also present. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Anderson stated that the application was for an association dock to service a four-(4) boat maximum. Mr. Anderson said no variance is requested and staff recommended approval of the application. Mr. Anderson stated that the objections received were regarding boat emissions and use in the cove area. Mr. Mason stated that the dock would be a 4’x48’ fixed timber pier and that no dwelling was proposed. Mr. Mason said there would be sufficient parking for users. Mr. Mason felt the dock for four (4) people would alleviate boating problems on Harbor Island and benefit the town. Mr. Lawless said they would construct a fixed pier, gangway and float. Mr. Lawless stated that this was the only vacant lot in the cove and it would only be used for a dock. Mr. Lawless stated that they would be mid-point between two (2) abutting docks with approximately 50’ between the docks. Mr. Lawless stated that parking would be provided and there was plenty of room for parking. Mr. Lawless felt the dock would be within the riparian lines. Mr. Mason stated that there are 400 homes on Harbor Island but not all of them are waterfront. Mr. Mason said this was an opportunity to extend the boating activity on Harbor Island. Vice Chair Lemont asked if there are presently eight (8) docks in the cove. Mr. Mason replied yes. Vice Chair Lemont stated that this has generated a great deal of opposition to put another dock in the cove. Mr. Lawless felt the dock fit the area. Mr. Mega, representing objectors Don Greco and Edith Kraha, wanted the applicant to explain how the four-(4) docking spaces would be allotted and assigned. Mr. Mason stated that the association had sent a survey to homeowners on the waiting list for slips and that four (4) owners fit the bill for a dock. Mr. Mason said the dock would be owned by the Harbor Island Association and maintained but paid for by the four (4) occupants of the dock. Mr. Mega asked if those allocated to the dock would use the four-(4) parking spots. Mr. Mason replied no others could also use them. Mr. Mega asked what the dimensions were of the four parking spaces. Mr. Lawless stated two (2) are 15’ x 10’ and the other two (2) are 17’ x 10’. Mr. Mega wanted to know if he was familiar with the Narragansett Building Code for parking spaces. Mr. Lawless replied no. Mr. Mega stated that the code required that the parking spaces were 8 ½’ wide and 18’ long and felt that the applicant did not comply with the town parking space requirement. Mr. Lawless stated that they don’t have to comply with zoning because it is not a commercial use dock. Mr. Fugate stated that there are no parking standards for residential boating facilities. Mr. Mega disagreed and felt the parking space code applied to the application. Mr. Mega said it was impossible to put four (4) cars here and it would be hard to get them in and out. Mr. Lawless stated that he could draw the parking spaces larger. Mr. Mega was concerned with the discrepancies in the contour map and the profile map. Mr. Mega asked if there were any specks on the stairs and the slope. Mr. Lawless replied no, this was left up to the builder. Mr. Mega asked how he determined the mean high water tide and the mean low water tide. Mr. Lawless stated by frequent visits to the site. Mr. Mega asked if the discrepancies in the profile map and the contour plan would not change the length of the dock. Mr. Lawless replied yes. Mr. Waldman asked if he did a title search on the property and if he had seen the deed restrictions. Mr. Lawless replied no that he was only hired to design the dock. Mr. Waldman asked if he was aware of the land and deed restrictions. Mr. Mason replied no. Mr. Waldman submitted a copy of the deed with the deed restrictions recorded in Book 49 and Page 50 with the town. Vice Chair Lemont asked if this was a certified copy of the deed. Mr. Waldman replied no. Mr. Goldman said the council could review the deed subject to certification. Mr. Waldman felt the dock would be a possible violation of the deed restrictions. Ms. Mason said she was not aware of any deed restrictions on their property or other property in Harbor Island. Vice Chair Lemont asked what he was purporting with this document. Mr. Waldman felt the deed restrictions might prohibit the use of a dock because no building is allowed and they would need local approval. Vice Chair Lemont asked if the applicant was planning to put a building on the property. Mr. Reitsma felt this document was not relevant to the application. Joseph Friscella, the objector’s engineer, stated that he had reviewed the proposal for the parking but had not reviewed the application. Mr. Friscella stated that he had visited the site and the parking area is adjacent to a steep slope to the beach and water. Mr. Friscella said he observed the parking space area and felt that you could not accommodate four (4)-parking spaces but three (3)-parking spaces could be easily accommodated. Mr. Friscella felt there were discrepancies in the contour map and the profile map. Mr. Friscella said he was not sure where the MSL, MLW and MHW marks were on the plans. Mr. Friscella stated that the profile figures do not correlate to the plans. Vice Chair Lemont asked staff when they had looked at the dock design designed by Mr. Lawless if they felt there was any problems with the design. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not do the engineering review that it was reviewed by Mr. Deveau and he did not list any discrepancies.

In Favor of Application.
Joseph Markstein, a resident, felt that the parking was not an issue as people can walk to this area and felt this would benefit the island to have a dock and use the property. John Cardi, Vice Chairman of the Harbor Island Association Dock Subcommittee, said they were in need of additional dock space and the dock subcommittee recommended approval of the application. Mr. Cardi said the proposal would afford controled access, which is not there now. Dennis DiMato felt there is plenty of space to park and move around. Mr. DiMato stated that people are always parking on this stretch of land. Mr. DiMato was in favor of the application.

Objectors.
Edith Kraha stated that she had a number of concerns regarding the environmental impact on the cove. Ms. Kraha said this is a dead end road and the cove is shallower here. Ms. Kraha was concerned that the dock would cause more pollution to the cove. Matthew Brawnbeck felt the parking was impossible and the bank was steep on the other side and could cause a problem. Mr. Brawnbeck was opposed to the application. Mr. Brawnbeck stated that the road was only 20 feet wide and not wide enough to have parking. Dr. Stanley Simon stated that he has owned property on the island for 42 years and that parking is a problem in this area. Dr. Simon was opposed to the application. Vice Chair Lemont stated that the parking issue was not park of the application that the council is only looking at the dock. Don Greco stated that he was concerned with the parking and felt the parking space area could only accommodate 2-3 cars. Mr. Greco felt this was not a residential dock. Mr. Greco was opposed to the application and stated that he wrote a letter of his objection to the association. Vice Chair Lemont stated that the council had no jurisdiction over the parking spaces and that the main objection to the application was the parking issue. Vice Chair Lemont asked if the applicant limited the parking spaces to three cars if there would still be an objection. The objectors replied yes. Bob Loffredo felt there were two (2) safety issues, the parking and the safety on the water. Mr. Loffredo felt the dock would impede use of his dock. Mr. Loffredo objected to helping 4 people out of 49 to have a dock. Mr. Loffredo wanted the applicant to reduce the number of boats on the dock from 4 boats to 2 boats and he would be in favor of the application. Mr. Loffredo stated that he was concerned with navigation in the cove. Harold Ray stated that he was opposed to the application and was concerned with trash being dumped and the increase in the number of visitors to the dock. Mr. Reitsma stated that it was his observation that the applicant needed to respond to the issue of congestion in the cove. Mr. Reitsma stated that there are already a number of docks in this small cove. Mr. Reistma said the dock was not to benefit people on the water but for others in the area. Mr. Reitsma was concerned with setting a precedent that if you have a small parcel of land and cannot develop it you could put a dock on it. Mr. Reitsma was concerned whether this is the right way to go with coastal properties. Mrs. Mason felt the congestion issue was addressed by their engineer and the staff engineer. Mr. Gray stated that the dock would be paid by the four occupants of the dock but were turning ownership of the dock over to the association. Mr. Mason replied yes. Mr. Gray asked if the association was taking over maintenance and repair of the dock. Mr. Mason replied yes. Mr. Abedon said this same situation has been before the council before and that it was not a unique situation. Mr. Fugate stated yes. Mr. Reistma, seconded by Ms. Pogue moved to deny the application based on policy concerns and setting a precedent for other coastal pond areas and the impact on the coastal area. Mr. Gray asked if the plan prohibited this. Mr. Fugate replied no. Vice Chair Lemont called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny the application:

On the motion to deny the application.

Mr. Gray No Mr. Abedon No
Ms. Pogue Yes Mr. Reitsma Yes
Rep. Naughton Yes Vice Chair Lemont No
Sen. Sosnowski No

3 Affirmative 4 Negative 0 Absentation

The motion failed.

Mr. Abedon, seconded by Sen. Sosnowski moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. Vice Chair Lemont called for a roll call vote:

On the motion for approval of the application.

Mr. Gray Yes Mr. Abedon Yes
Ms. Pogue No Mr. Reitsma No
Rep. Naughton No Vice Chair Lemont Yes
Sen. Sosnowski Yes

4 Affirmative 3 Negative 0 Absentation

The motion passed.

Mr. Reitsma requested that the policy and planning subcommittee look at this issue further.

9. Enforcement Report – April 2003

There were none held.

10. Category “A” List

There were none held.

There being no further business before the council the meeting, the council adjourned at 9:26 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Grover Fugate
Executive Director CRMC

Reported by Lori A. Field

CALENDAR INDEX