In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council a meeting was held on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 at 6:00 PM at the Boardroom; Narragansett Bay Commission, One Service Road, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS

Mike Tikoian, Chair
Paul Lemont, Vice Chair
Jerry Sahagian
Joe Paolino
Larry Ehrhardt
Fred Vincent
Joe Shekarchi
Neill Gray
Ray Coia
Dave Abedon
Sen. Susan Sosnowski

STAFF PRESENT

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Ken Anderson, CRMC Senior Engineer
Mike Deveau, CRMC Engineer
Willie Mosunic, CRMC Application Coordinator
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel
John Longo, Legal Counsel

1. Chair Tikoian called the meeting to order at 6:11PM.

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

Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Ehrhardt moved approval of the minutes of the February 9, 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 announced that the policy and planning subcommittee met on February 17, 2004 and reported out changes recommended to Section 4.3.2, Schedule of Fees, revise Section 4.3.2.r Section 320.B.2, Inland Activities, revise Section 320.B.3; and Section 300.4, Recreational Boating Facilities, revise Section 300.4.C.4.(f) and revise Section 300.4.E.3. Vice Chair requested that the changes be received and sent out to public notice. Chair Tikoian noted that the proposed changes would go out to public notice for 30 days.

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

4. APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING AND ARE BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR FINAL DECISION:

2003-12-066 HERRESHOFF MARINE MUSEUM – Construct and maintain a 280 square foot boarding platform adjacent to an existing pier as shown on the plans. Located at Plat 16, Lot 61; 1 Burnside Street, Bristol, RI.

Bill Knowles, the applicant was present. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Anderson stated that the application was for a small accessory structure added to a large timber pier to facilitate boat docking and berthing. Mr. Anderson said staff had no objection to the application and recommended approval of the application. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2002-05-003 HERRESHOFF MARINA MUSEUM – To remove debris, to dredge 305 cy of sediment and to install a new marine railway and a travel lift within tidal waters. The dredge material will be dried on-site, and the material will be ultimately disposed of by The Town of Bristol Landfill. Located at Plat 41, Lot 16; Hope Street, Bristol, RI.

Bill Knowles, the applicant was present. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Anderson said this was part of the existing marina to rehabilitate the existing marina, add a railway and maintenance dredging. He said that staff concluded that this was consistent with the CRMC plan. Mr. Anderson stated that they had received an objection and that was why the application was before the full council. Chair Tikoian asked what the objection was and if staff did anything with the application to address the objector’s concerns. Mr. Anderson replied no. Mr. Sahagian noted that the objectors’ correspondence was almost two years old and asked if they had received any new objections from the objectors. Mr. Fugate replied no. Mr. Knowles stated that the objectors were concerned that the railway would be used for numerous boats and not by just the facility and were also concerned with them dredging. Mr. Knowles stated that the railway would only be used by the facility and they would dredge during the dredge window period. Mr. Gray asked if the dock would be used for transient docking. Mr. Knowles replied there would be loading and reloading on special request and it would not be used as a commercial dock. Mr. Gray asked if people could use the dock to visit the museum. Mr. Knowles replied yes, they keep the floats in from April to October. Mr. Gray asked why there was no marina perimeter limit required for this application. Mr. Fugate explained that marina perimeter limits was a voluntary program and this would allow marinas flexibility for maintenance work and expansion of the facility. Mr. Fugate noted that marina perimeter limits are set off from the outside structures of the marina. Mr. Gray asked if they would have maintenance leeway on this. Mr. Fugate replied no. He said everything would have to be permitted. Mr. Gray noted that the third concerns of the objectors were the lights on the dock. Mr. Knowles stated that the lights would not be used at night and only used on special occasions. Mr. Knowles explained that they would be using reflectors and they have worked out the light issue with the objectors. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Paolino moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2003-09-054 BOWEN’S WHARF – Construct and maintain extension/alteration to existing floating dock facility consisting of five 8’ x 10’ floats, one 9’ x 12’ float, five 10’ x 12’ floats, and one 20’ x 24’ float extending 130’ seaward of existing float array terminus (to Harbor Line). Also, new gangway, approx. 4’ x 30’. Located at Plat 24, Lot 352; Bowen’s Wharf, Newport, RI.

Chair Tikoian and Mr. Paolino recused themselves.

Vice Chair Lemont presided over the application.

Bart Dunbar, the applicant was present. Joseph DeAngelis, the applicant’s attorney and Blake Henderson, the applicant’s engineer were also present on behalf of the applicant. Jay Lynch, attorney for the objector Ronald Futillio was also present as well as five other objectors. Vice Chair Lemont stated that the application was for an extension/alteration to an existing floating dock facility. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Anderson said the application was to extend an existing facility 130’ seaward out to an existing anchorage. Mr. Anderson said the setback requirement is three times the authorized anchorage. Mr. Anderson said a 54’ depth setback is required and the applicant needs a 54’ setback variance. Mr. Anderson said there are navigational concerns and the negative impact on navigation. Mr. Anderson stated that the float width is in excess of the CRMC regulations and staff recommend that the floats be reduced to a 8’ wide floats. Mr. DeAngelis explained that this was a unique parcel of waterway. Mr. DeAngelis gave council members a history on the land. He said this was the area where the old Jamestown Ferry used to land. Mr. Dunbar, president of Bowen’s Wharf Corporation stated that he has 60 years of boating experience. Mr. Dunbar explained that there would be public access and use on the dock. Mr. Dunbar stated that they needed to extend the dock 130’ seaward. Mr. Dunbar explained that the all their dock space is leased to commercial uses and for use of the Spirit of Newport tour boat. He said this would provide a terminus for the new dinner boat to load and off load their passengers. Mr. Dunbar said this would also allow more space for public to use. He said the 12’ float width was needed to have a ramp and stairs on the float. Mr. Dunbar said the city council referred their application to the planning boat and the Waterfront Commission which they received approvals from the planning board and the Waterfront Commission. Mr. Dunbar said the city council had no objection to the application. Mr. DeAngelis submitted a copy of the city council’s letter stating that they had no objection to the project and submitted copies of the approvals from the planning board and the waterfront commission as exhibits. Mr. DeAngelis noted that the objectors had objected to their application in 1999 as well. Mr. Dunbar explained that he had discussions with the objectors to the north and they no longer objected to the application. Mr. DeAngelis submitted a copy of a letter from the Newport Harbor Hotel dated February 2004 which stated that they had no objection to the application as an exhibit. Mr. Dunbar read the letter into the record. Mr. Lynch objected. Vice Chair Lemont overruled his objection and said the letter would stand. Mr. Dunbar said there was a comment raised by staff regarding the number of sanitary facilities. Mr. Dunbar stated that there would be public handicap access for the whole project and they would also provide a sewer pumpout for members and it could also be used by the general public. Mr. Dunbar said staff wanted the public access addressed. He said there would be continued public access and there would be no fences or gates to block public access. Mr. Dunbar explained that the size of the terminus dock as proposed and said they need 12’ wide floats to provide for a 4’ wide ramp and landing for handicap access. He said the handicap ramps do not meet ADA requirements but are the same ramps that are at Fort Adams. Mr. Dunbar said this was the smallest float size to allow dockage to let people off the Jamestown Ferry. Mr. Gray asked what the plans were for overnight docking. Mr. Dunbar replied that there would be no overnight docking. Mr. Gray asked if the areas to the west and the north would be used for touch and go use. Mr. Dunbar replied only on the western face side. Mr. Gray asked how many sanitary facilities there would be. Mr. Dunbar said there would be two handicap accessible facilities. Mr. Gray asked if two facilities were sufficient to address staff’s concerns. Mr. Anderson stated that 2-4 toilet facilities were recommended for up to 40 vessels and noted that a number of the vessels would have sanitary facilities on them. Mr. Gray asked if he is saying that they are short on the sanitary facilities and needed more restrooms. Mr. Anderson stated that it would be up to the council to determine this as some of the boats would have their own facilities on them. Mr. Gray asked if the tenants and their guests could use the facilities. Mr. Dunbar replied yes. Mr. Gray said staff was concerned with the width of the float at 12’. Mr. Gray asked if there was any facility south of this facility that uses a wider width float. Mr. Dunbar said he was not sure. Mr. Gray stated that the yachting school has a 10’ width on their floats. Mr. Gray asked if they could use less than a 12’ width of floats. Mr. DeAngelis said if staff recommended a less than 12’ width they could do this. Mr. Dunbar explained why they were proposing a 130’ extension. Mr. Dunbar said the vessels on their dock would need this for navigation to exit out to the harbor line. He said this would allow the vessels to see activity on the water before venturing out and this would be safer for navigation. Mr. Anderson said part of their concern was the extension of the float out to the harbor line and they would be docking the ferry in the federal harbor area. Mr. Anderson stated that they wanted to bring this off of the harbor line and out of the anchorage area. Mr. Ehrhardt said the ferry was at the end of the dock and was confused whether it would be docked perpendicular or parallel to the dock. Mr. Dunbar stated that it would be parallel use not perpendicular use. Mr. Ehrhardt stated that on the N2 Map there was a line draw east to west in the middle of the page and asked what the line represented. Mr. Dunbar said this was the deeded property line from his neighbors to the south. Mr. Ehrhardt stated that there was a discrepency in the old historic photograph and the plan. Mr. Ehrhardt said the photograph showed finger piers on it. Mr. Dunbar replied that they no longer have the finger piers. Mr. Abedon said two neighbors have boats at the end of their piers and asked if they were docked for long lengths of time. Mr. Dunbar replied that the boats at the Newport Harbor Hotel were touch and go use but Aquidneck Lobster moored their boats for a long length of time. Mr. Abedon was concerned that others were overstaying at the dock and then they were asking to do the same. Mr. Anderson explained that the use at the end of pier referred to the perpendicular use by the Ferry from south to west. Mr. Lynch asked how far the restrooms were from the floating dock. Mr. Dunbar replied 300-400 yards away. Mr. Lynch asked if the restrooms were on the same lot. Mr. Dunbar replied no. Mr. Lynch said there were no restrooms on the floating dock area. Mr. Dunbar said no. Mr. Lynch asked what the size of the dinner boat was. Mr. Dunbar said 85’ long x 28’ width. Mr. Lynch asked what the number of passengers were on the dinner boat. Mr. Dunbar did not know. Mr. Lynch asked what the size of the Spirit of Newport was. Mr. Dunbar said 65’ length by 23-24’ wide. Mr. Lynch asked the number of passengers the tour boat could accommodate. Mr. Dunbar was not sure. Mr. Lynch asked if it was more than 100 passengers. Mr. Dunbar replied yes. Mr. Lynch asked about the Save the Bay educational boat. Mr. Dunbar said their boat was 44’ x 12’ and could have up to 50 passengers. Mr. Lynch said there would be no overnight dockage for private vessels on their dock. Mr. Dunbar said this was not correct during the wintertime there would be five vessels dock on their dock overnight. Mr. Lynch asked how the dock would be used in the winter months when the dinner boat was not using the dock. Mr. Dunbar said they agreed not to have more than seven vessels on their dock during the winter months. Mr. Henderson stated that he did the engineering work on this project and described the project to council members. Mr. Henderson said this was a unique site. He said they would have a public dinghy dock for loading and offloading. Mr. Henderson said an 8’ width for the float was not wide enough and they needed the landing width for the ramps and stairs which need at least a 4’ width. Mr. Henderson explained that they needed a wider platform to help with the additional use of the facility. Mr. Henderson referred to the 1995 historical photograph of the site and said it depicted the uses of water in Newport and showed how many other facilities there were in Newport. Mr. Henderson said the property lines for a number of docks used and were filed in City Hall. He said the western end of the water area was 41’ from the terminus dock and the southern property line. Mr. Henderson stated that CRMC recommended a 25’ setback from the property line and they have a 41’ setback. Mr. Henderson said there would be no navigational hazards to the abutters to the south. Mr. Lynch objected to Mr. Henderson testifying on navigational issues as he was not qualified to testify on navigational issues. Vice Chair Lemont sustained the objection. Mr. Henderson said a 54’ variance was needed from the harbor line. Mr. Henderson said the alterations met the CRMC plan. Mr. Henderson said there would be no significant environmental impact or use conflicts. Mr. Henderson felt that the applicable standards could be met. He said they needed the 54’ variance to go out to the harbor line to allow use of the ferry. Mr. Henderson felt this was a reasonable and the minimum variance needed. Mr. Henderson said there was no cause by the applicant for the hardship but there would be an undue hardship to the applicant if the variance was not granted. Mr. Lynch asked what the hardship would be to the applicant if the variance was not granted. Mr. Henderson replied the hardship would be that the applicant would not be able to use the water way. Mr. Lynch asked if the dinner boat could hook up to the sewer pumpout. Mr. Henderson said the sewer pumpout was a hose that can be connected and vacuums into a tank. Mr. Lynch asked if the pumpout could accommodate the dinner boat. Mr. Henderson said he would have to ask the owner. Mr. Lynch asked if there was any lighting on the plan. Mr. Henderson replied no. Mr. Lynch asked if he did a public access plan. Mr. Henderson replied no. Mr. Lynch asked about the size of the dinner boat and how it would be docked. Mr. Henderson said the dinner boat was 85’ x 28’ boat. Mr. Lynch asked how much space there was between the two properties when the dinner boat is docked. Mr. Henderson said there would be 13’ between the two properties. Mr. Lynch said there would be encroachment to Mr. Futilli’s property. Mr. Henderson replied yes. Mr. Sahagian said there was testimony that there is 12-13 feet from the southern property line to the abutters property line. Mr. Sahagian asked what the distance was from Mr. Lynch’s client’s property to this property line. Mr. Sahagian asked if there were any vessels on the other dock and what the encroachment was to this property line. Mr. Henderson said there are boats dock on the other dock and they have interferred with this property line. Mr. Shekarchi asked if these issues were raised at the planning board and waterfront commission meetings. Mr. Lynch replied no, they never received notice from the waterfront commission but they did go to the planning board meetings and objected but the planning board only dealt with the land issues not the navigational issues. Mr. Gray said there are two vessels laying on the north side of Mr. Lynch’s clients’ property. Mr. Lynch replied yes. Mr. Gray asked if one boat could go pass another boat without going into the southern water area or property line. Mr. Lynch replied yes. Mr. Gray said this would be a navigational problem for the abutters because they were using the open water ways for their navigation. Mr. Lynch said Aquidneck Lobster has used this open water way for years and it would be harmful to their commercial fishing operation if they could not use the open water way. Mr. Gray said the commercial area is used by all and at all times they go over the line but they work around each other. Mr. Abedon asked if there was no dinner boat what happens to the dock. Mr. Henderson said the dock could still be used. Mr. DeAngelis submitted two certified copies of deeds, one recorded in Book 242 Pages 441-450 and Book 242 Pages 279 to 286 from the City of Newport as exhibits. Paul Martillino, real estate expert for 28 years, said the deeds described the land area for the applicant and Aquidneck Lobster. Mr. Martillino said the land and water use in the deed for the applicant is consistent with the plan drawn by Mr. Henderson. He said the riparian lines do not apply as the land is described in the deeds. Mr. Lynch said there were discrepencies in the deed. Mr. Martillino agreed. Michael O’Hare, general manager of the Spirit of Newport and the dinner boat testified about the size of the dinner boat. Mr. O’Hare stated that the dinner boat is 82’ x 28’ and can hold up to 149 passengers, 125 guests and 23 crew members. He said the Spirit of Newport can hold up to 200 passengers and there would be about 150 guest and the rest would be working staff. Mr. O’Hare said both boats would be berthed on the south side of the dock. Mr. O’Hare said their boats would be leaving from a different point which was closest to the harbor and it would allow for easy access. He said they would only dock one boat at a time. Mr. O’Hare described the sanitary facilities and said there would be three restrooms with four toilets on the Spirit and three restroooms with seven toilets o the dinner boat. Mr. O’Hare described the dinner boat which will be completed in June and designed by Blount Marina in Warren. Mr. O’Hare said the boat would have Coast Guard approval. Mr. Lynch asked about the size of the dinner boat. Mr. O’Hare said the dinner boat would be 82’ x 28’. Mr. Lynch asked how high above the water level the boat would be. Mr. O’Hare replied he was not sure. He said there would be one level enclosed and an open air deck. Mr. Lynch asked if they have applied to CRMC under Section 300.5. Mr. DeAngelis objected. Mr. Fugate explained that CRMC required permits if a floating business is docked for long lengths of time or permenantly moored. Mr. Fugate said transcient vessels do not need a permit so no application was needed for the dinner boat. Mr. Lynch objected. Mr. Ehrhardt wanted the applicant to clarify the two vessels, the dinner boat and the Spirit of Newport boat, schedules. He asked if the boats would have to pass each other on the dock. Mr. O’Hare replied yes. Mr. Anderson asked how they would load and off load off the boats. Mr. O’Hare said they would use the ramp. Mr. Anderson asked if there were any concerns with the width of the dock to load on and off. Mr. O’Hare replied no. Mr. Lynch asked how the food would be delivered to the boat. Mr. O’Hare said it would be delivered daily and loaded on the boat in the morning. Mr. Lynch asked if there was any loading zone designated for this vessel. Mr. O’Hare replied no. Eric Ferman, captain of the Save the Bay Educational vessel, said their vessel will be docked on the northwest corner of the end float of the proposed dock. Mr. Ferman said the navigation would be easier for them because they could get a clear view to the traffic in the channel. Mr. Ferman stated that they have a sanitary facility on their boat. Casey Fasciano, captain for 14 years said he was familiar with the part of Newport and other areas in Newport. Mr. Fasciano stated that he had reviewed the plans and did not feel there would be any navigational problem and felt this would help navigation in this area because they would be able to see the boat traffic. Mr. Lynch asked if he had ever testified as an expert in navigation before CRMC or any other board. Mr. Fasciano replied no. Mr. Ehrhardt asked if he had observed the number of vessels in the area on a weekend August afternoon. Mr. Fasciano replied yes that there are small boats and boats up to 100 feet in this area. Frank Litterer, captain of the Jamestown/Newport ferry testified that he teaches a course on navigation but had never testified before. Mr. Litterer stated that he has 40 years of boating experience and was familiar with this area. Mr. Litterer stated that on the weekends the ferry makes 36 trips. Mr. DeAngelis wanted to qualify Mr. Litterer as an expert in navigation. Mr. Lynch objected. Vice Chair Lemont overruled Mr. Lynch’s objection and qualified Mr. Litterer as an expert in navigation. Mr. Litterer stated that he had reviewed the plans and the area, as well as, the operations of Bowen’s Wharf and Aquidneck Lobster. Mr. Litterer felt there would be no congestion or navigational impediments. Mr. Litterer felt this would actually help navigation and would not impede on traffic in this area. Mr. Lynch was concerned with the impact on the abutter to get his boats in and out. Mr. Litterer said he was not aware of the use of the abutters business and of their getting boats in and out of this area. Vice Chair Lemont stated that these are public waters. Mr. Lynch felt this would impact congestion and navigation in this area and create a hardship to Aquidneck Lobster. Mr. Ehrhardt asked Mr. Littterer the dimentions of the Jamestown ferry. Mr. Litterer replied it was 40’ x 18’. Mr. Anderson asked when they pull up to the float at the harbor line do they impede traffic in the water way. Mr. Litterer replied yes. Mr. Abedon asked what the federal navigation project was. Mr. Anderson explained the federal navigation project.

Vice Chair Lemont called for a recess at 8:20 p.m. Vice Chair Lemont called the meeting back to order at 8:24 p.m.

OBJECTORS.

John O’Donnell, employee of Aquidneck Lobster for 28 years, explained their business. Mr. O’Donnell stated that they have vessel on the north side of their building and three work vessels that do not have engines that are towed out to fishing sites. Mr. Lynch submitted four photographs which depicted the mother ship, the towing of the work boats, the docking of the work boats as exhibits to the council. Mr. O’Donnell explained that the size of the vessels are 77’ x 22‘ and two 64’ x 19 ½ ’ boats depicted on the plan. Mr. DeAngelis objected to the testimony as to the scale of the plan as Mr. O’Donnell was not an engineer. Mr. O’Donnell described the width and lengths of the boats on Aquidneck Lobster dock. He also explained how they are attached and moved in and out of the area. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the boats could be moved to the other side. Mr. DeAngelis asked if he was an officer in the company. Mr. O’Donnell replied no, he is an employee and Mr. Futilli is the president of the company but was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. DeAngelis asked if he discussed moving the boats with Mr. Futilli. Mr. O’Donnell replied no. Mr. Gray asked if he was correct in hearing that it was possible to flip the boats on the northwest side to the northeast side. Mr. O’Donnell replied yes. Mr. Gray asked if this was done could the get in and out without going north around the two larger vessels that are there now. Mr. O’Donnell said yes. Mr. Gray stated that there are two boats on the applicant’s dock and they have stated that they will not go around each other and they could get in and out of each other within the applicant’s water way. Mr. Gray stated that the abutter would have to relocate the location of his boats to the other side and they could be shifted to avoid navigational problems. Mr. O’Donnell stated that there is open 10 feet of open water for the boats to get in and if there are boats docked on both docks this would create congestion in the area. Mr. Gray said the abutters were asking that their boats be dock up to the property line and if this was so, the applicant would not be allowed to use their property. Mr. Lynch felt the applicant was creating a problem that is not there now. Mr. Gray asked if they were saying that they don’t want the council to grant the application so they could use this area. Mr. Lynch replied no but felt that CRMC had to look at the impact on this current business. Vice Chair Lemont asked how long their traps are in operation. Mr. O’Donnell replied from April to November. Vice Chair Lemont asked what happens when the boats are not in use. Mr. O’Donnell replied that they stayed docked on their dock. Mr. Ehrhardt asked if there were vessels dock on the west face of the pier now. Mr. O’Donnell said no. Mr. Ehrhardt asked if they planned to dock any vessels on the west side. Mr. O’Donnell said he was not sure. Mr. DeAngelis asked about the boat widths. Mr. DeAngelis stated that the Janice requires 16’ and the other three vessels were 9 ½’ , 9 ½’ and 11’ wide for a total of width of 46’. Mr. O’Donnell replied yes. Mr. DeAngelis asked if the Janice has typically been moored on the south side. Mr. O’Donnell said yes. Mr. Lynch submitted a copy of Peter Dunnings resume as an exhibit to qualify him as an expert in navigation. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Ehrhardt and Mr. Coia moved to accept Mr. Dunning as an expert in navigation. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Dunning stated that he had reviewed the application and described the activities in this area. Mr. Dunning felt granting the application would adversely affect the navigation in this area. Mr. Dunning felt it would create congestion in this area. Mr. Dunning stated that the lack of lighting on the dock could create safety issues if they used the dock at night. Mr. Dunning stated that the lack of handrails could also create a safety issue. Mr. Dunning felt the application would adversely impact the navigation in and out of Aquidneck Lobster’s dock. Mr. DeAngelis asked if he testified in opposition to this application before. Mr. Dunning replied yes. Mr. DeAngelis stated that he testified that if there were no lights on the dock it could create a safety hazard and asked where he got this information from. Mr. Dunning replied by looking at the plan there were no lights on the plan. Mr. DeAngelis asked about the handrails and asked if any other docks in this area had handrails. Mr. Dunning felt they could have handrails leading to the dock. Mr. DeAngelis asked if he was aware of any regulation or standard that there had to be handrails on a dock. Mr. Dunning replied no. Mr. DeAngelis stated that the boats on the applicant’s dock would be operated by captains licensed by the US Coast Guard and if he felt this would pose less of danger to navigation. Mr. Dunning replied yes. Shawn Walsh, a lobsterman for 30 years, testified that he has docked his boat on the north side of the Landing Restaurant for eight years. He said he has a 40’ x 14’ vessel and has to back his boat out to get into navigational waters. Mr. Walsh felt this dock would cause a problem with navigation. Mr. Walsh stated that he had a problem with the Spirit of Newport hitting his boat a couple of times. David Kilray, an objector, stated that he has over 60 years boating experience. Mr. Kilray stated that no one in the area knows about the plans for the dinner boat. Mr. Kilray felt the large boats would impact this area and felt the boats were too big for this area. Mr. Kilray submitted two photographs of the area to the council as exhibits. Liz Mathinos, Friends of the Waterfront, stated that they were concerned with the Newport waterfront and public access. Ms. Mathinos stated that there would be a large number of people in this area and felt this needed to be addressed. Mr. Shekarchi asked if she testified before the planning board and the Waterfront Commission. Ms. Mathinos replied no because people knew very little about the application. Mr. Vincent stated that she testified that the council should consider the people issue and public access to the waterfront and asked what the people issues were to be addressed. Ms. Mathinos replied whether or not public access in this area was enough for the large number of people that would be using this area. Sally Blanchette, an objector, stated that she was concerned with parking in this area. Vice Chair Lemont replied that the parking issue was outside of CRMC’s jurisdiction. Ann Twomey, an objector, stated that she was concerned with the content development of Newport water. Ms. Twomey stated that they need Army Corps approval. She felt this would cause congestion to the area and problem with parking. Ms. Twomey felt this would also create navigational problems and have an impact on fisherman. Ms. Twomey felt there should be open space in the water like there is open space on land. Daryl Paquette, Vice Chair of the Newport Water Commission, stated that the commission voted to approve this application if there was public access. Mr. Anderson stated that the parking issues require marina expansions to provide adequate parking for their marinas. Mr. Anderson said staff has recognoized the parking issue and issued variances to the parking requirements. Mr. Anderson felt the parking issues needed to be considered. Mr. Ehrhardt stated that we have heard testimony that the vessels will be boarding on the outside of the piers and asked what the policy of CRMC was to enforce docking of boats within the harbor lines. Mr. Fugate stated that this was monitored by two authorities, the Newport Harbor Master monitor the local waters and the Army Corps monitor the federal channel. Mr. Fugate stated that if the Army Corps felt they needed to scale down the facility because it would have an impact, the CRMC assent would also reflect this. Mr. Gray felt that some of the objections were valid. He said the scenic view is of concern because of the size of the boats. Mr. Gray stated that staff said a variance was needed to the setback based on the Army Corps 3 to 1 setback requirements. Mr. Gray said everyone in Newport has developed to their property line. Mr. Gray felt the issues of concern were the restrooms and he thought the two restrooms were on the pier but there was testimony that they are further away. Mr. Gray felt you need to have restroom facilities and this needed to be addressed. Mr. Dunbar said the public restroom is located on the other side and has handicap accessibility. He said he would add porta-parties during special events and he would explore with the City of Newport to construct an additional facility on adjacent land. Mr. Gray felt you need to provide restrooms for the public. Mr. Dunbar stated that he could provide a permanent porta-party until a permanent restroom was worked out with the City of Newport. Mr. Gray addressed the terminus float issue and said he had no problem with a boat docking on the federal side of the dock as it doesn’t sit there all day. He said there would be some intrusion on the line but it would not be on a permanent basis. Mr. Gray addressed the public access issue and said he personally wanted to see a public access plan submitted to CRMC and not base the public access on testimony. Mr. Gray wanted the applicant to depict the public access area and the times that public access was open. He said the applicant said there would be 24 hour public access. Mr. Gray referred to the abutter to the south and said he did not want to see fisherman pushed out and a person or entity should not be denied their rights to the water. Mr. Gray said the lines are already drawn and felt the obstacles could be worked out and be modified. Mr. Gray felt there could be a compromise and felt the applicant should not be denied the use of his property and could work out issues with the abutter. Mr. Gray said another concern of staff and Friends of the Waterfront was the number of people on this dock. Mr. Gray said they should provide lighting or something on the dock if it is used at night and felt this needed to be addressed. Mr. Dunbar replied that the docks would be lighted but would not be overlighted to affect boating. Mr. Gray asked if they would use downcast lights. Mr. Dunbar replied yes. Mr. Gray asked if there were any agreements with the tenants about boarding at the same time. Mr. Dunbar stated that they could coordinate all three boating schedules for the dinner boat, the ferry and the Spirit of Newport boat. Mr. Gray asked Mr. Fugate if the council could put a stipulation to do this. Mr. Fugate replied yes. Mr. Gray felt the traffic issue was a city issue not a CRMC issue but was still concerned about this. Mr. Gray, seconded by Mr. Ehrhardt and Mr. Coia moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations and the stipulations that the tenant put a temporary restroom close to the head of the pier until they work out a permenant restroom with the City of Newport; the terminus pier west side be used for touch and go; a public access plan is provided to staff subject to the approval of the executive director; lighting be provided and the lighting on the pier be condusive to the safety of foot traffic but not hazardous to navigation; grant the variance to the 54’ setback and that the applicant provide supervisory staff for the facility. Mr. Vincent asked if there was any condition to have a railing. Mr. Gray said that a railing would have to be in the middle of the dock because of getting on and off the boats and felt this would create a problem. Sen. Sosnowski asked about the stipulation to coordinate the three schedules of the boats. Mr. Gray, seconded by Mr. Coia moved to amend the motion to add the stipulation to coordinate the three schedules of the boats. Mr. Abedon requested that the lighting plan be approved by the executive director. Vice Chair Lemont called for a roll call vote on the motionL

On the motion for approval with stipulations:

Mr. Vincent Yes Mr. Coia Yes
Mr. Abedon Yes Sen. Sosnowski Yes
Mr. Ehrhardt Yes Mr. Gray Yes
Mr. Shekarchi No Vice Chair Lemont Yes
Mr. Sahagian Yes

8 Affirmative 1 Negative 0 Absentation

The motion carried.

Vice Chair Lemont called for recess at 10:00 p.m. Vice Chair Lemont called the meeting back to order at 10:04 p.m.

6. APPLICATIONS REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING ASSENT BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR FINAL DECISION:

2002-12-029 DONALD AND LOUISE BELANGER – Construct a 12’ x 16’ sunroom on northeast corner of dwelling recently authorized. The sunroom will extend into the minimum 50’ setback and the 25’ buffer zone setback required by RICRMP Section 140 (variance required). Located at Plat N-S, Lot 214; Colonel John Gardner Road, Narragansett, RI.

Donald Belanger, the applicant was present. Chair Tikoian stated that staff recommended denial of the application. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Anderson stated that the application was to add a 12’ x 16’ sunroom addition to be seaward of the dwelling already approved. Mr. Anderson stated that the reason staff recommended denial of the application was because this addition was negotiated off the approved permit and buffer variance. Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant was aware of staff’s opposition to the addition of the sunroom. Mr. Anderson stated that a 7’ variance was needed to the coastal setback and a 42’ variance from the coastal buffer. Chair Tikoian stated that the 7’ variance was originally before the council but they took away the 7’ variance to get Category A approval and now the applicant wanted the additional 7’ variance. Mr. Coia asked if there was any objections from the abutters. Chair Tikoian and Mr. Anderson replied no not that they were aware of. Mr. Belanger explained that this was his retirement home. Mr. Belanger stated that he had town approval and approval from the Bonnet Shores Association. He said staff was the only one to deny the application. Mr. Belanger stated that the condition of the original approval was that he had to remove the sunroom addition from his application. Mr. Coia asked if the house was completed. Mr. Belanger replied the house was almost complete and should be completed in four weeks. Mr. Belanger said they put in lightening rods already. Mr. Belanger submitted a copy of the zoning approval, the Bonnet Shores Association approval to the council as an exhibit. Mr. Shekarchi stated that this was already stated in the record. Mr. Belanger submitted pictures, an overview of the site and pictures of adjacent houses which are bigger than his house as exhibits to the council. Chair Tikoian asked if CRMC staff said the house was too big. Mr. Belanger replied yes. Chair Tikoian stated that staff did not have the right to say a house was too big only whether or not an applicant should move the house. Mr. Belanger felt the house was not a big house and was in favor of having a buffer because he felt buffers were needed. Mr. Belanger said the buffer area is huge. Mr. Belanger asked for a porch because of mostiques and ticks. Mr. Belanger submitted newspaper articles regarding ticks and mostiques to the council as exhibits. Mr. Belanger said he was asking for two things protection from mostiques and the sun. Mr. Belanger submitted a copy of a letter from his doctor as an exhibit. Chair Tikoian stated that the purposed sunroom is 12’ x 16’. Mr. Belanger submitted a colored site plan which depicted the buffer area, the coastal feature and the relief requested from the buffer as an exhibit. Mr. Belanger stated that 41% of his property is not usable. Chair Tikoian asked when the applicant purchased the property. Mr. Belanger replied five years ago. Chair Tikoian asked if the applicant was aware when he purchased the property that he had to have a buffer. Mr. Belanger replied yes. Mr. Belanger requested that the council approve the sunroom addition. Mr. Gray suggested that if the applicant moved the sunroom to the center of the house where the deck is in the middle of the house they would fall within the buffer line and would still have the sunroom and deck and it would only require a variance for a few square feet. Mr. Gray stated that the sunroom was taken off the original plan so the applicant could get approval. Chair Tikoian stated that looking at the 7’ variance, the applicant was under a time line to build and decided to go for a Category A approval rather than full council approval for a Category B application. Mr. Fugate stated that they tried to get the applicant to move the house towards the street but this was not allowed by the town. Mr. Fugate stated that Mr. Reis was concerned because of the erosion of the bluff and if this was an ordinary lot there would not have been a problem. Mr. Fugate stated that there is 43’ to the bluff from the sunroom. Mr. Gray felt there was an option to compromise. Mr. Belanger said he could put the sunroom in the middle of the house without any variance but that staff still had a problem with the roof of the sunroom. Mr. Ehrhardt stated that he was concerned with this situation. Mr. Ehrhardt stated that the numbers for the variance are relatively small and was sympathic to the applicant. Mr. Ehrhardt felt this was a self induced hardship by the applicant and felt this would open the door to other people doing what they wanted to do. Chair Tikoian felt the applicant was told it would be a quick application if he took the sunroom off the applicant and if not it could be a lengthy process. Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Shekarchi moved approval of the application as submitted with all staff stipulations and the 7’ variance. Mr. Gray stated that if the motion was based on what staff said or did not say that the council should have staff present to defend themselves. Mr. Gray felt there could be a compromise. Chair Tikoian asked if the applicant wanted to make any changes to the plan or go forward with the vote. Mr. Belanger wanted to go forward with the vote. Vice Chair Lemont stated that the sunroom juts out past the deck area and recommended that the applicant scale back the sunroom 2 feet to a 10’ x 16’ sunroom. Mr. Belanger stated that he could live with that. Mr. Coia withdrew his motion and Mr. Shekarchi withdrew his second. Mr. Coia, seconded by Vice Chair Lemont moved approval of the application as amended that the sunroom be scaled back 2’ and reduced to a 10’ x 16’ sunroom from a 12’ x 16’ sunroom and approval of the 5’ variance. The motion carried. Mr. Shekarchi was opposed.

7. Enforcement Report - January 2004

There were none held.

8. Category “A” List

There were none held.

There being no further business before the council the meeting, the council adjourned at 10:47 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Grover Fugate
Executive Director CRMC

Reported by Lori A. Field

CALENDAR INDEX