In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council a meeting was held on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 6:00 PM at the Narraganset Bay Commission Boardroom – One Service Road, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS

Mike Tikoian, Chair
Paul Lemont, Vice Chair
Jerry Sahagian
Dave Abedon
Larry Ehrhardt
Fred Vincent
Joe Paolino
Jerry Zarrella

STAFF PRESENT

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Ken Anderson, CRMC Senior Engineer
Laura Miguel, CRMC Enforcement Coordinator
John Longo, Legal Counsel

1. Chair Tikoian called the meeting to order at 6:09 PM.

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

Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Paolino moved approval of the August 24, 2004 minutes. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2. STAFF REPORTS

Mr. Fugate announced that the Army Corps was making arrangement for a preliminary set up of a golden shovel ceremony on October 29th to be held in the South County area. He will keep council members informed of the details.

Chair Tikoian announced that on Thursday, Sept. 16th at 10:00 a.m. himself, the Mayor of Warwick and Mr. Fugate will hold a press conference on upgrades of water types in Greenwich Bay at the Warwick City Hall.

3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

There were no subcommittee reports.

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

5. Presentation on Vegetated Buffer Zones

Virginia Lee, URI, gave a brief presentation on buffer zones and an update on vegetated buffer zones. Ms. Lee announced that there would be a workshop held on January 12 and 13, 2005 at URI consisting of people from around the country to see what is out there and to help develop new buffer policies.

6. CRMC Management Programs to be forward to the State Planning Council for Inclusion to the State Guide Plan:

• Providence Harbor Special Area Management Plan
• Narrow River Special Area Management Plan
• Salt Ponds Region Special Area Management Plan
• Pawcatuck River Estuary and Little Narragansett Bay: In Interstate Management Plan

Chair Tikoian noted that there was legislation in the packet (Page 5-2). Chair Tikoian stated that the statue requires CRMC to forward their special area management plans as part of the state guide plan. Chair Tikoian requested that the council forward the Providence Harbor, Narrow River, Salt Ponds Region and Pawtucket River Estuary and the Little Narragansett SAM plans to the State Planning Council. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Ehrhardt moved to send the four (4) existing SAM plans to the State Planning Council. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

7. APPLICATION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF EXISTING PERMIT BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL:

1990-06-101 JANICE M. MATHEWS – Extension of assent B1990-06-101 for dwelling, ISDS, well and earthwork. Located at Plat 7, Lot 36; Decatur Avenue, Jamestown, RI.

Janice M. Mathews, the applicant was present. Mr. Fugate gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Fugate explained the procedure for an extension of an assent. Mr. Fugate stated that he can grant a one-year administrative extension of an assent and the council can approve up to 3 one-year extensions on an assent. Mr. Fugate noted that the applicant already had a one-year administrative assent extension approval. Chair Tikoian asked what the reason for the request for an extension was. Ms. Mathews explained that the property had been up for sale and they were awaiting local approval and her neighbors approval on her plan. She noted that the neighbors would only give her approval on her application and not the previous owner. Ms. Mathews stated that the neighbors wanted her to redesign the exterior of her home which she is in the process of doing. Mr. Sahagian asked when she planed to start construction on the project. Ms. Mathews responded within 90 days if the plans were approved by her neighbors on the exterior design. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Paolino moved approval of a one-year extension of the assent. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

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

2003-12-023 STEVEN & BEVERLY CASINELLI – Construct and maintain a residential boating facility consisting of a 4’ wide x 148’ long fixed pier to a 26’ ramp to a 10’ wide by 15’ long float. The proposed structure will extend into Greenwich Bay 150’ +/- beyond the noted MLW. Located at Plat 382, Lot 260; 276 Channel View Drive, Warwick, RI.

Steven and Beverly Casinelli, the applicants were present. Gus Kreuzkamp, the applicants’ engineer was also 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 189’ residential boating facility consisting of 4’ x 48’ fixed pier ramp and 150 s.f. float. Mr. Anderson stated that there was no staff objection to the application. Mr. Sahagian explained that the dock subcommittee could only grant a 25’ length variance. Mr. Anderson noted that a 100’ length variance was needed. Mr. Fugate stated that the applicants made modifications to their plans as recommended by staff. Mr. Kreuzkamp explained that previously they had a much larger pier and because of comments by CRMC and the Army Corps they reduced the length of the dock and put in a boat lift. Chair Tikoian asked what the length of the dock was for the variance. Mr. Kreuzkamp replied the dock was 109’ and they needed a 59’ length variance. Mr. Zarrella, seconded by Mr. Paolino moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations and the length variance. Mr. Vincent asked what a boat lift was and if it was permitted. Mr. Fugate stated that boat lifts were permitted and they are used to lift boats out of the water. Chair Tikoian asked if the boat lift met the CRMC requirements. Mr. Fugate replied yes. Mr. Ehrhardt asked with the fixed “T” section and the boat lift what the total length of the dock was. Mr. Kreuzkamp replied 109’ beyond mean high water. Mr. Ehrhardt asked what the distance was from the terminus float to the channel. Mr. Kreuzkamp replied 40 feet. Mr. Sahagian noted that the applicants talked to staff and modified the application to address staff concerns. Mr. Sahagian said the description of application in the packet is not the same as the plan. Mr. Fugate explained that it was not just CRMC that asked the applicant to make modification but a number of agencies also reviewed the plan and recommended changes and the plan in the packet reflects the changes made. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2004-04-141 TOWN OF PORTSMOUTH – Construct a new wave fence at the existing town dock at the Sand Point Pier (Prudence Island) Portsmouth (see attached plans). Located at Plat 81, Lot A; Prudence Island, Sand Point Pier, Landing Lane, Portsmouth, RI.

Robert Driscoll, Town Administrator for the Town of Portsmouth was present on behalf of the applicant. Ernest Rabideau, the applicant’s engineer was also present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Anderson stated that the application was to construct a wave fence of timber piles south of the town pier. Mr. Anderson stated that the town redesigned the project at staff’s request. Mr. Anderson said there was no staff objection to the application. He also noted that the wave fence would not be any further seaward of the existing pier. Mr. Driscoll stated that the wave fence was redesigned to make water on the north side of the dock calm because this was used as an emergency pier. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Vincent moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2003-06-0682 JOSEPH OLIVEIRA – Construct modifications to an existing residential boating facility by installing a boat lift system. Located at Plat 1, Lot 229, 296; Conanicut Island, 1046 East Shore Road, Jamestown, RI.

Joseph Oliveira, the applicant was present. John Caito, the applicant’s engineer was also present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Anderson stated that the application was to modify an existing permitted dock to add an additional fixed pier and boat lift. Mr. Anderson explained that there was a question on the terminal float. He said the length of the dock was needed to get water depth so they would not impede on the SAV. Mr. Sahagian noted that this was previously before the council and that staff recommended changes to the application and the applicant made the changes recommended by staff. Mr. Zarrella, seconded by Mr. Paolino moved approval of the application with the changes recommended by staff and all staff stipulations. Mr. Vincent asked staff to highlight the changes made to the plan. Mr. Anderson replied that the length of the dock was extended 70’ seaward so there would be no impact on the SAV and they added the boat lift. Mr. Caito also stated that they added the Burdick & Short method design for the dock and moved the height of the dock up to allow light to filter through and under the dock. Mr. Abedon asked what the gray areas of the application were. Mr. Fugate explained that this was an existing dock that came in for modification and to add a boat lift. He said that staff thought of this as a new application not as a modification to an existing dock and therefore confusion came in as to what regulations applied to the application. Mr. Fugate said the proposal was sent to the policy and planning subcommittee to review whether it was a new dock versus an existing dock and decided the application would be based on regulations in place at the time the application was filed. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

9. CRMC Assent before the Full Council for Revocation of Assent and Request of Modification:

2001-10-32 CAROL PAYNE – Reduction of Buffer Zone. Ocean Avenue
C&D 02-3430 Beach Avenue, New Shoreham, RI.

Carol Payne, the applicant was present. Chris Anderson, the applicant’s attorney and Scott Rabideau, the applicant’s wetland biologist were also present on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Miguel gave council members a brief history on the application. Ms. Miguel stated that on 9/12/02 a C&D was issued for alteration of a required 100’ buffer zone that was not established per the approved assent. She said a fine was issued on 10/23/02 and the applicant appealed the fine on 10/25/02. Ms. Miguel stated that a hearing was held on 4/25/03 and that Ms. Payne and her attorney indicated that they never agreed to the buffer and the matter was referred to the full council for revocation of the assent. Ms. Miguel submitted photographs of the site which depicted no buffer zones on the property to the council for their review. She also noted that on page 16 (F) of the staff report it showed a buffer with a path. Mr. Sahagian asked who drew the plans for the applicant. Ms. Miguel replied Richard Greene & Associates. Ms. Miguel stated that the application was referred to the council for revocation of the assent. Ms. Miguel stated that the applicant submitted a modification application to reduce the buffer to a 25’ buffer. Chair Tikoian stated that the original buffer was not complied with. Ms. Miguel replied yes. Mr. C. Anderson explained that the original application had been for an inn and a plan had been submitted with a buffer zone but that the applicant was not aware she was giving up 100’ of property for the buffer and was not allowed to mow the area. Mr. C. Anderson said the applicant’s family has owned the property for over a century. Mr. C. Anderson stated that the applicant was not aware of what a buffer zone was. He said the applicant filed an application to modify the assent to come to a compromise and reduce the buffer to a 25’ buffer. Chair Tikoian was troubled with an assent being issued and a professional drawing up the plans and then an applicant stating that they did not understand what they were giving up. Mr. C. Anderson responded that the applicant was not aware of what she was giving up. Chair Tikoian asked if Mr. C. Anderson was resting on the testimony that his client did not understand the particulars of the assent. Mr. C. Anderson replied that the assent was never reviewed or explained to the applicant and the applicant was not aware she was giving up her rights. Chair Tikoian asked if he had seen the modification of assent application which was signed by the applicant and asked that Ms. Payne read the statement under her signature. Mr. Anderson said Ms. Payne did not understand what she was signing. Mr. Anderson felt this was regulatory taking of property. Mr. Anderson stated that if they had to allow the buffer zone to grow that it would interfere with the inn’s view and performance of the inn. Chair Tikoian asked what the distance was from the back of the inn to the coastal feature. Mr. Anderson replied there was 150 feet to the coastal feature -- 50’ plus the 100’ buffer. Ken Anderson stated that from the inn to the coastal feature there is 160’ from the deck to the coastal feature and from the inn to the coastal feature there was 185’ which was the minimum distance. Chair Tikoian stated that there are areas on the property where the buffer is larger. Mr. K. Anderson replied yes. Mr. K. Anderson stated that from the deck to the coastal feature there is a minimum of 54’ to a maximum of 80’ distance. Chair Tikoian stated that this was a fair board and that he was troubled with an assent was not being adhered to. Mr. C. Anderson stated that the reason the assent was not adhered to was because the applicant was not aware of the buffer requirement. Chair Tikoian asked when the C&D was issued why it was not complied with. Mr. C. Anderson said his recollection of the actions taken were different from staff. Mr. Sahagian asked how it was different and what was not addressed by staff. Mr. C. Anderson stated that the applicant was told to sign a document and told that the assent would be revoked. Mr. Zarrella stated that the original application was in both the applicant’s and her mother’s name and asked who signed the application. Ms. Payne replied that she signed the application. Mr. Zarrella asked how many square feet the property was. Mr. C. Anderson replied 60,000 s.f. Mr. Zarrella asked what the requirement was for a buffer zone on a 60,000 s.f. lot. Chair Tikoian replied a 125’ buffer is required. Chair Tikoian noted that the applicant had received a 25’ administrative variance to the 125’ buffer and therefore the buffer was 100’. Mr. K. Anderson stated that the lot was 44,900 s.f. and required a 100’ buffer for type 2 waters. Mr. Zarrella asked what relief can the executive director grant to a buffer. Chair Tikoian replied that the executive director can issue up to a 50% buffer variance. Mr. Zarrella stated that the applicant could challenge the taking of the land with the court and see how they fair or they could build the buffer up to comply with the assent and then come back to the council for a modification of the assent. Chair Tikoian had a problem with not complying with the rules and then coming in to modify what they have not done. Chair Tikoian stated that the non compliance of the assent was because the applicant did not understand the assent. Chair Tikoian felt they should address the violation issue and then the application for modification. Mr. C. Anderson stated that they would comply with the original assent and then come back with a modification of the assent to the council. Chair Tikoian suggest that this be done within 30 days that a restoration order and consent agreement be signed and the restoration plan be approved by the executive director and staff. Mr. Abedon stated that they could alter the buffer with a gazebo. Mr. Fugate explained that a pathway was already approved in the original buffer. Chair Tikoian requested that the applicant prepare a restoration plan and submit it to the executive director for review. Mr. Zarrella stated that this was a tough pill to swallow because the buffer in the assent was not complied with and then the applicant stating that they would be going to court for the taking of land. Mr. Zarrella recommended that the applicant comply with the original assent and then come back to the council for a modification of the assent. Chair Tikoian noted that there was also the issue of the $1,000 administrative fine that was issued and not paid. Vice Chair Lemont stated that he was bothered by this and the applicant thumbing her nose at CRMC and then appealing the rulings issued. Vice Chair Lemont felt the applicant should comply with the original assent and then come back to the council for any modification of the assent. Vice Chair Lemont asked when the assent would be considered in compliance would it be if the area was not mowed for one week or longer. Vice Chair Lemont wanted a certain period of time for compliance of the assent for at least two (2) years of compliance and then the applicant could come back before the council for any modification. Mr. Zarrella disagreed. Chair Tikoian stated that the Vice Chair wanted a longer length of time for compliance not just two weeks and then the applicant comes back before the council. He stated that the C&D issued had been ignored for two years and then the applicant filed an application for modification of the assent after the original assent had not been complied with. Mr. Abedon stated that the staff biologist knows what the buffer is suppose to look like and if a path was through the buffer zone it was still a functional buffer zone. Mr. Sahagian agreed with Vice Chair Lemont and felt that they should stick to what was advertised, the consideration for the penalty and act on the revocation of the assent and then act on the request for a modification of the assent. Mr. Zarrella felt the applicant should not be penalized and they should look at a plan for restoration. Mr. C. Anderson stated that the delay periods were due to both the applicant and staff for two years. Chair Tikoian stated that the fact is that the assent was not complied with. Mr. Abedon, seconded by Mr. Ehrhardt moved that the enforcement stay in place that the applicant sign a consent agreement and submit a restoration plan to staff within 30 days from today and that the restoration plan be reviewed by the executive director and staff and the mowing issue to be handled by the executive director. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Vincent asked if the consent agreement negotiated the fine. Chair Tikoian stated that there was no negotiation on the fine. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Ehrhardt moved that the $1,000 administrative fine stay in place and be paid as part of the consent agreement. The motion carried. Mr. Zarrella, Mr. Sahagian and Mr. Paolino were opposed.

10. Cagtegory “A” List

There were none held.

There being no further business before the council the meeting, the council adjourned at 7:27 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Grover Fugate
Executive Director CRMC

Reported by Lori A. Field

CALENDAR INDEX