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 Monday, February 9, 2004 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
Jerry Sahagian
Ray Coia
Larry Ehrhardt
Rep. Eileen Naughton
Joe Shekarchi
Tom Ricci
Sen. Dan DaPonte
Neill Gray

STAFF PRESENT

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Dave Reis, CRMC Biologist
Amy Silvia, CRMC Biologist
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel

1. Chair Tikoian called the meeting to order at 6:05PM.

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

Mr. Coia, seconded by Sen. DaPonte moved approval of the January 13, 2004 minutes. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2. STAFF REPORTS

There were no staff reports.

3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

Vice Chair Lemont informed council members that they held the first meeting of the Champlin dock subcommittee this past week. He said there were some motions, which slowed the matter down, but they were able to move through them. Vice Chair Lemont said there would be six more subcommittee meetings and then they would have a public hearing on Block Island.

Chair Tikoian announced that several council members voiced concern that Monday night meetings were not a good night for them. Chair Tikoian said the executive director would look at negotiating the meetings for Wednesday nights and if this was not possible they would have to look a new location to have the meetings.

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

5. APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN OUT TO PUBLIC NOTICE AND ARE BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

2003-10-069 ALBERT QUITO – Legalize the following structures that were constructed without having received a prior CRMC assent: a 7 ½ foot x 16 foot fixed pier, a 5 foot x 20 foot floating dock both of which have to be used to dock commercial fishing vessels, and a 5 foot x 15 foot deck. Located at Plat 9, Lot 73; 411 Thames Street, Bristol, RI.

Albert Quito, the applicant was present. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Reis said the application was to legalize structures put in without CRMC approval, a 7 ½’ x 16’ fixed pier, a 5’ x 20’ floating dock and a 5’ x 15’ deck. Mr. Reis stated that staff recommended approval of the application. Chair Tikoian asked if this was a commercial facility all the way. Mr. Reis replied yes. Mr. Quito explained that these structures were already in place when his father passed away a few years ago. He said he was not aware that there was a need for a permit in 1945. Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Shekarchi moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2003-10-096 JOHN NAMIOTKA – Construct and maintain: a residential boating facility consisting of a 4’ x 104’ fixed timber pier, 3.5’ x 16’ ramp, 4’ x 6’ float, and 4’ x 37.5’ float (“T”) head). Located at Plat 91, Lot 134; 189 Steamboat Avenue, North Kingstown, RI.

John Namiotka, the applicant was present. Dan Sumner, the applicant’s attorney was also present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was to construct and maintain a residential dock to consist of a 4’ x 104’ fixed timber pier, a 3.5’ x 16’ ramp, a 4’x 6’ float and a 4’ x 37.5 “T” float. Mr. Reis said staff recommended approval of the application. Mr. Reis stated that a 39’ length variance was required to obtain a 2’ water depth. He said staff felt the applicant met the criteria for a variance due to the shallowness of the cove. Mr. Sumner was concerned with staff’s stipulation that there be no boat drawing over an 18” draft. Mr. Sumner said the dock would be used for a 24’ outboard boat. Mr. Sumner wanted to know what would happen if they have a new boat and it draws 20” of water would they have a problem. Mr. Reis said this area had a silk bottom and a larger draft would create a disturbance to the area. Mr. Reis said this stipulation came from the applicant’s narrative, which stated his boat only draws 18” of water and the applicant said the maximum draft would only be 18”. Chair Tikoian asked if there was anything in the regulations that restricted the draft of a boat. Mr. Reis replied no. Mr. Sumner was concerned with limiting the draft of a boat on the dock and felt this would limit the use of the dock. Mr. Sumner said they would not have a problem with stating that the boat would not draw more than mean low water. Mr. Reis said that no improvement dredging would be allowed in this area. Chair Tikoian was concerned with setting a president by setting the draft of a boat on a dock. Mr. Gray asked if the 18” was the draft of the hull or everything. Mr. Reis replied that the 18” is the draft of the prop. Chair Tikoian asked if there was any alternate language recommendation. Mr. Sumner suggested setting the maximum of the draft restriction to no more than mean low water. Mr. Gray felt if they had a boat with a bigger draft than the 18” they could come back to the council. Mr. Sahagian noted that there were three staff stipulations. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the application with stipulation #’s 2 and 3. The motion carried. Mr. Gray was opposed.

2003-02-11 MOUNT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC – Construct and maintain a three bedroom dwelling (36’ x 26’) with an attached deck (10’ x12’) to be serviced by RIDEM approved ISDS and town water. Located at Plat 362, Lot 2-6; Cove Avenue, Warwick, RI.

Mr. Ricci and Mr. Shekarchi recused themselves.

John Shekarchi, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Scott Rabideau, the applicant’s wetland biologist was also present. Ms. Silva gave council members a brief summary on the application. Ms. Silva stated that the application was to develop a three bedroom home with attached deck to be serviced by ISDS and town water. Ms. Silva explained that the two lots on each side of this lot were developed without CRMC approval and that enforcement action had been taken. She said that staff had found that the applicant had owned the other two lots on either side when they filed an application for this lot. She said the two lots did not meet the buffer requirements and that the applicant agreed that the single-family lot would be abandoned and put into the buffer zone for the other two lots. Ms. Silva said the two plans were put together. She said the applicant was now before the council asking to develop the lot that was suppose to be a buffer. Mr. Ehrhardt felt the council needed to address the issue of the lot being left a buffer and now the applicant was before the council to develop the lot. Mr. Shekarchi explained that the applicant wanted to build a 26’ x 36’ single family home with a deck. Mr. Shekarchi noted that the notice that was sent out was not correct as the old plan showed the ISDS and they now have a hookup to sewers. Mr. Shekarchi submitted the new plan that showed the sewer hookup as an exhibit to the council. Mr. Shekarchi said they petitioned the city council to move the road requirement so they could get away from the coastal feature. He said they now own the right-of-way but they could not put any structure in the right-of-way. Mr. Shekarchi gave council members a history on the lot. He explained that the pink area on the plan showed the condominiums, which were approved with an ISDS, and the green area showed the single family home. Mr. Shekarchi said they received a notice of violation and agreed to get CRMC assents for the single-family house and the condominiums. Mr. Shekarchi said they had an application pending on this lot before the council when they received the violations on the other lots. He said they never agreed not to build on this lot and never gave up their rights to build on this lot. Mr. Shekarchi said they were seeking a 20’ buffer variance and a 145’ variance from the wetland. Mr. Rabideau showed council members a 2002 aerial photograph of the area which depicted the condominiums, the house and this property. He explained that they wanted to withdraw the application on this lot and clear up the violations on the other two lots before they filed this application. He said they never gave up rights to build on this lot. Mr. Rabideau felt this would be overlapping the buffers. Vice Chair Lemont said he was bothered that staff had a different story about the application than the applicant. Vice Chair Lemont stated that staff is very adamant in their statement. Mr. Shekarchi said the two original assents did not say anything about a restriction on this lot. He said they always intended to build on this lot. Mr. Shekarchi submitted copies of the original assents to the council as an exhibit. Chair Tikoian asked when CRMC took over handling wetlands. Ms. Silva replied in August 1999. Chair Tikoian stated that there was a period of time from when the legislature voted and CRMC actually took over handling wetlands. Mr. Reis said at one time there were two different agencies to get approvals from and this changed all to one agency. Mr. Reis said they still would have needed to get CRMC approval. Mr. Ehrhardt asked if any other staff member was in the meeting with Amy. Ms. Silva replied yes, the enforcement staff was in the meeting as well. Ms. Silva disagreed with Mr. Rabideau’s statement that they were overlapping the buffers. Ms. Silva said the buffer zones are shown on the approved plans for the house and the condominiums. Chair Tikoian said you need something in writing that this was agreed to be left as buffer. Ms. Silva said it was in writing on the approved plans. Mr. Shekarchi said there had been a question on the jurisdiction. He said there is nothing in the assent that said they were giving up this lot as a buffer. Chair Tikoian said there were no restrictions in the assent but the assent reflects the plan. Mr. Rabideau explained that this would have had the buffer go across two other properties and they only own one piece. Mr. Ehrhardt asked if the same parties owned the entire area. Mr. Shekarchi said they never accepted or understood that this lot was part of the other two properties. Mr. Coia said the applicant filed an application for this lot and applied for sewers. Mr. Coia stated that this lended credence to what the applicant was saying. Chair Tikoian asked if there had been three separate owners of the properties would they still have the same problem. Ms. Silva replied no. Mr. Sahagian asked when they acquired the paper road. Mr. Shekarchi replied in 2001. Mr. Reis said they would have put a buffer on contiguous lots and a buffer line can go across a paper road but not over adjacent lots. Chair Tikoian asked if CRMC had the right to merge lots for a buffer. Mr. Reis said under Section 150.d.6 they could use the lot for a buffer. Mr. Shekarchi said these are not contiguous lots because of the paper road and there was a road separating the lots. Chair Tikoian asked if staff ignored the paper street and said it was contiguous. Mr. Reis replied yes. Chair Tikoian said the council needs to determine if the lots are contiguous or not. Mr. Coia said yes. Mr. Ehrhardt said he was not sure at this point and had a question on whether the buffer was laid out properly. He said they need to determine if the buffer was included in the decision. Chair Tikoian felt the paper street issue needed to be resolved. Mr. Fugate said they need to determine if it was discussed that the entire triangle piece was part of the buffer or only 75 feet was part of the buffer. Ms. Silva replied the entire triangle piece was included for buffer. Mr. Shekarchi said they never agreed that this lot would be a buffer. Chair Tikoian asked if it would help if they brought Laura in to testify under oath as to what was discussed and agreed to. Mr. Shekarchi did not feel this would help and wanted to move forward on the application. Mr. Sahagian asked if this would be basis for appeal if it was not in writing. Mr. Goldman replied that the assent refers to the approved plan and the buffer is depicted on the approved plans. Mr. Shekarchi said they were applying for buffer relief on this plan. Mr. Goldman said this was a different issue. Chair Tikoian asked what was used to determine the buffer. Ms. Silva replied that they used a 200’ buffer because of the wetland. Chair Tikoian asked if there are any changes that can be made to mitigate this. Mr. Shekarchi said they could make the house smaller. Mr. Rabideau replied that they could reduce the width of the house by 2 feet. Mr. Gray wanted to know if the house or the size of the house was the issue with staff. Ms. Silva replied no. She felt there was no possible way to get a reasonable buffer on this size lot. Ms. Silva said there has been a history of enforcement action on the other two lots because of the buffers. Mr. Gray asked when the condominium application was approved would the minutes of the meeting show what was done. Mr. Goldman said this was done administratively and there was no record. Mr. Shekarchi felt they maintained their rights to build on this lot and felt they met the burdens for a variance. Ms. Silva said it was her understanding that this lot would be a buffer. Chair Tikoian wanted more proof that this was done. Mr. Sahagian and Mr. Coia felt this needed to be in writing. Mr. Coia said by the applicant looking into hooking up to sewers it showed that it was the applicant’s intent to build on this lot. Mr. Goldman said because there was an agreement reached in the enforcement action that no administrative hearing was held and there was no enforcement. Chair Tikoian wanted to know if staff could make a conclusion on this. Mr. Fugate said he would have included the lot on the assent as a buffer. Mr. Ehrhardt asked who drew up the plan which showed the buffer lines. Ms. Silva replied the applicant’s engineer drew up the plans with the buffer. Mr. Goldman explained that there are three scenarios the council can consider: the staff’s view , the applicant’s view or that there was a mutual mistake by staff and the applicant and come up with a remedy to correct it. Mr. Goldman explained that usually if a buffer includes another lot it should be written in the assent. Chair Tikoian said if it is considered a mutual mistake they could send the matter back to the executive director and staff to review the whole file and make a determination and report back to the council. Mr. Goldman said he would sit with the executive director and Laura to see what happened. Rep. Naughton, seconded by Mr. Ehrhardt moved to send the application back to the executive director, staff and legal counsel to review the facts and the other two assents and fix any errors and report back to the council in 30 days. Mr. Shekarchi asked what his role would be in this. Mr. Goldman said he should attend the meetings. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. The matter was continued to the second meeting in March.

CHAIR TIKOIAN CALLED FOR A RECESS AT 7:20 P.M. CHAIR TIKOIAN CALLED THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 7:25 P.M.

2002-03-058 RICHARD AND JOAN JOHNSTON – Construct a three (3) bedroom, single family, dwelling with attached garage and driveway. The proposed dwelling is serviced by a DEM-ISDS approved septic system and Town water supply. The proposed dwelling is located within 25-feet of the most inland coastal feature. Located at Plat 89, Lot 192; Clinton Drive, North Kingstown, RI.

Chair Tikoian recused himself. Vice Chair Lemont presided over the hearing.

Richard Johnston, the applicant was present. Joseph DeAngelis, the applicants attorney, Scott Rabideau, the applicants’ wetland biologist and Larry Smith, the applicants’ engineer were also present on behalf of the applicant. Vice Chair Lemont made a brief statement on the application. Vice Chair Lemont stated that the application was to construct a three bedroom single family dwelling with attached garage and driveway to be serviced by an ISDS and town water. Vice Chair Lemont stated that the staff biologist and engineer both recommended denial of the application. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary of the application. Mr. Reis said this is the third time that this application is before the council. Mr. Reis explained that this is a highly restrained lot and staff had a problem with the application. Mr. Reis stated that the applicant proposed a 22’ buffer with a 33’ setback and the required buffer is 75’ and the required setback is 100’. Mr. Reis said there is a wetland on the property that has high environmental value. He said the applicants have proposed to modify the application. Mr. Reis felt this was a constrained lot and there is only so much you can do. He said if this was a degregated wetland they would have no problem with the application. Vice Chair Lemont noted that the property was in North Kingstown. Mr. DeAngelis gave opening remarks. Mr. DeAngelis stated that they had come before the council in June 2003 with an application for a 32’ x 80’ house with an attached two-car garage and the council had voted 4 to 4 to approve the application and then voted 5 to 3 to remand the application back to staff. Mr. DeAngelis said they have reduced the bedrooms from 3 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms and they have reduced the size of the dwelling. Mr. DeAngelis said the applicant agreed to give up the rights to develop lot 4 which is a buildable lot. Mr. DeAngelis said the staff biologist report dated 10/2/03 indicates the negotiations they have made that the house would be 36’ x 24’ or 864 s.f. Mr. DeAngelis said the applicant wanted a larger home. Mr. DeAngelis said the staff biologist recommended that the two-car garage be detached from the house and they agreed to this. Mr. DeAngelis said they agreed to all the staff biologist stipulations but wanted to build a second floor to the house. Vice Chair Lemont asked if this was new information for staff. Mr. Reis replied yes. He said they sent the letter to the applicant in October 2003 and never received a response to their letter. Vice Chair Lemont asked if the applicant agreed to the 864 s.f. dwelling with the detached garage would staff had any problem with the applicant adding a second floor. Mr. Reis noted that on page 3 of 6, Section C the executive director said that an 1100 s.f. house was reasonable and this was added to the report. Mr. DeAngelis submitted a packet of exhibits to the council. Mr. Johnston stated that he purchased the property in 1986 which was 8 separate lots and gave a history of the lots and the subdivision of the lots. He said they have made revisions to their plan and agreed to the 864 s.f. but they wanted to add another floor. Mr. Shekarchi asked what the dimensions of the house were. Mr. Johnston replied it is a 36’ x 24’ house. Mr. Johnston said if they were only allowed the 864 s.f. house they would only have 2-bedrooms, a kitchen, dining room and living room. He said they agreed to detach the garage from the house and they moved the garage over towards the property line and street. Mr. DeAngelis submitted a copy of the revised plan which showed the reduced size house and the detached garage. Mr. Johnston said the new proposal had 2 bedrooms not 3 bedrooms. He said lot 4 is a buildable lot and with variances and no filling of the wetlands they could put a house. Mr. Johnston said they agreed to put a conservation easement on lot 4. Mr. Reis agreed that lot 4 was a buildable lot with significant variances. Mr. Johnston stated that they had no problem with the staff recommendations but they wanted to be able to add a second story to the house. He noted that the garage would be 44 feet from the wetland. Mr. Johnston said staff recommended that the garage be on the opposite side and they did not want the garage on the westerly side of the lot because of a water main and access road. Mr. Johnston said they agreed to all other staff recommendation and conditions. Mr. Sahagian asked what the purpose was of the documents submitted by Mr. DeAngelis were. Mr. DeAngelis said this was to show that if the subdivision plan approved was recorded in 1988 that they would have fallen under the previous buffer regulations and not under the current buffer regulations. Mr. Ehrhardt said the applicant was proposing a two-story 24’x36’ house with a garage. Mr. Ehrhardt asked if they had a town building permit for this. Mr. Johnston replied no they had a building permit for the previous house. Vice Chair Lemont recommended that the application be remanded back to staff to resolve the outstanding issues so they could move forward.

OBJECTORS.

Patricia Nicholes, staff planner for the Town of North Kingstown read a resolution approved by the Town Council dated May 13, 2000 voting to object to the application. Vice Chair Lemont stated that the resolution was based on the original application filed by the applicant and noted that the structure has been since reduced. Mr. DeAngelis objected to the resolution as it related to the Conservation Commission’s being opposed to the original size of the house. John Roehn, an objector, stated that he was concerned with the applicant building in a buffer area and concerned with the size of the buffer variances requested. Mr. Roehn urged the council to deny the application. Gidget Loomis, an objector, stated that she was concerned with the health of the marsh and noted that they have been doing work to clean up the marsh. She said they had received a permit to clean out the ditch and remove the debris. Ms. Loomis was concerned with the impact to the marsh if the house is built. Ms. Loomis wanted to make sure the marsh was protected. Francis Martin, an objector and abutter to the property was opposed to the application. Mr. Martin stated that he has lived in this area for 16 years and the marsh is finally coming back to life. Mr. Martin did not think building another house would be good for the marsh. Mr. Shekarchi stated that the applicant had been before the council 6-7 months ago with a larger house and has now reduced the size of the house and is giving up his rights to build on lot 4. Mr. Shekarchi asked why he never objected before to the application. Mr. Martin replied that he was not aware of the project before now. Mr. Sahagian noted that the applicant had received planning board and zoning approval from the town. Vice Chair Lemont stated that this matter had been before the council several times and that staff recommended denial of the application and the application had been remanded back to staff. Vice Chair Lemont noted that there had been modifications to the application. He said the square footage of the house had been reduced and the garage would be detached from the house. Vice Chair Lemont asked if this was agreeable with staff. Mr. Reis felt there would still be a significant adverse impact on the environment. He said the impacts could not be eliminated but could be reduced. Mr. Reis said they tried to get the parcel to a reasonable development and the applicant was now doing that. Mr. Ehrhardt asked if the June transcript stated that in addition to a conservation easement on lot 4 did it also stated that there would be no improvements on the north end of the parcel as part of the application. Mr. Reis responded no. Mr. DeAngelis said the applicant would agree not to develop the northern portion of the lot. Mr. Shekarchi commended the applicant and staff for the work done on the plan and addressing the issues raised. Mr. Shekarchi, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the application for a two-story house with a detached 24’ x 24 garage on the southeast side of the main house with stipulation,s to be drawn up by staff, the notation that staff felt the environmental impact concerns had been mitigated, a conservation easement on lot 4, language to be worked out with legal counsel, that there be no building on the northern portion of the lot. Mr. Gray read through Mr. Reis’ letter dated October 2003 and noted that the issues raised in the letter had been addressed. Mr. Ehrhardt stated that after studying the record and walking the property he had objected to the subdivision of the lots and would vote no on the application. The motion carried. Mr. Ehrhardt voted no.

6. Enforcement Report – December 2003

There were none held.

7. Category “A” List

There were none held.

There being no further business before the council the meeting, the council adjourned at 8:18 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