In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council a meeting was held on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 at 6:00 PM at the Narraganset Bay Commission Boardroom – One Service Road, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS

Mike Tikoian, Chair
Paul Lemont, Vice Chair
Larry Ehrhardt
Neill Gray
Jerry Sahagian
Joe Shekarchi
Joe Paolino
Dave Abedon
Rep. Eileen Naughton
Fred Vincent
Jerry Zarrella

STAFF PRESENT

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Dave Reis, CRMC Environmental Scientists
Mike DeVeau, CRMC Engineer
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel

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

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

Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Zarrella moved approval of the September 14, 2004 minutes. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2. STAFF REPORTS

There were no staff reports

3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

There were no subcommittee reports.

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

5 Administrative Applications before the Full Council for Decision:

2004-09-081 INTERNATIONAL YACHT RESTORATION SCHOOL – Construct and maintain a 60’ x 200’ metal building containing an open interior area to protect the Coronet restoration efforts; also an overhead catwalk for public viewing and two-story shop area. Located at plat 32, lot 76; 449 Thames Street, Newport, RI.

Joe Paolino recused himself.

Terry Nathan, President of the International Yacht Restoration School, the applicant was present. Sheldon Whitehouse, attorney for the applicant and Gus Kruzcamp, the applicant’s engineer were 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 60’ x 200’ metal building to protect the Coronet restoration effects. Mr. Reis stated that this would be a temporary building. Mr. Reis explained that the setback variance was a minimum of 11’ and that the applicant was requesting a 39’ variance. Mr. Reis said there was no staff objection to the application. Chair Tikoian informed Council members that the Mayor of Newport called and the town’s attorney called and faxed a request for a continuance to allow the town council and Waterfront Commission to review the application. Mr. Gray stated that he had also received calls from the city solicitor and from four council members requesting a continuance on the application. Mr. Whitehouse stated that he was not aware of the town’s request for a continuance. Mr. Whitehouse felt the Waterfront Commission was only an advisory board and had no bearing on the application. Mr. Whitehouse said the application was in compliance with the Newport building and zoning codes. Mr. Whitehouse stated that the applicant was under a time schedule for the project and that they needed to commit to a contract. Mr. Whitehouse said due to the late hour of the filing for a request for a continuance from the town wanted the Council to consider the application now. Chair Tikoian stated that the Council generally works with the municipalities and town council and give them a continuance as a courtesy. Mr. Whitehouse felt the town was well aware of the application and had time to review the application and make any commits. Chair Tikoian recommended that the Council wait two weeks to allow the municipality to review the application. Mr. Sahagian felt that this was unfair to the applicant to continue the application as the City had been given two weeks notice to review the application. Mr. Zarrella stated that they received calls from four city council members and the city solicitor and no one could be present. Mr. Shekarchi noted that there were letters dated September 7 and 14 from the town to the council which stated that they were okay with the application and now at the 11th hour they were requesting a continuance. Mr. Shekarchi felt this was a large town and someone could have been present to represent the town. Mr. Gray stated that there was a document in the file from Paige Bronk, the town administrator which the town council was not aware of. Mr. Gray stated that he was not aware of the application for two weeks and that he only received the agenda on Friday. Mr. Shekarchi noted that employees of the town had written on behalf of the town. Mr. Gray felt that holding the application two weeks to allow the town to review the application would not harm the applicant. Mr. Abedon asked if there was anything the council could do tonight. Chair Tikoian responded that the Council could either continue the application or act on the application. Mr. Ehrhardt asked about Mr. Whitehouse’s letter dated 9/2/04 to the executive director and wanted to know who else was notified. Mr. Whitehouse stated that he had sent copies of the letter to the abutter’s attorney and the president of the school. Mr. Zarrella suggested that the policy and planning subcommittee should look at requests for continuances by municipalities. Chair Tikoian replied that they always allow courtesy to municipalities to make sure all parties are on the same page. Mr. Vincent noted that an email dated 9/13/04 from the town stated that all zoning concerns had been addressed. Mr. Vincent also questioned the town’s basis for a request for a continuance on the application. Mr. Vincent suggested that the Council hear the matter and have Mr. Fugate talk to the town manager and town council to see what their concerns are. Vice Chair Lemont agreed. Vice Chair Lemont asked if the Council deferred the application for two weeks what effect this would have on the applicant. Mr. Whitehouse responded that this would hold up the contract. Vice Chair Lemont asked what the date was that the contract had to be signed. Mr. Whitehouse responded October 28th. Vice Chair Lemont asked if they had received any comments from the town council or employees from the town. Mr. Whitehouse responded no. Mr. Zarrella, seconded by Mr. Shekarchi moved to hear the application tonight. Chair Tikoian called for a roll call vote:

On the motion to hear the application.

Rep. Naughton Yes Mr. Zarrella Yes
Mr. Vincent Yes Mr. Shekarchi Yes
Mr. Gray No Mr. Sahagian Yes
Mr. Abedon Yes Vice Chair Lemont Yes
Mr. Ehrhardt Yes Chair Tikoian Yes

8 Affirmative 2 Negative 0 Abesentation

The motion carried.

Mr. Whitehouse submitted an exhibit of the project to Council members for their review. Mr. Whitehouse stated that this was a layout of the cave on the water where the building would go. Mr. Whitehouse said this would have normally have been a Category A application but because of an objection they were before the Council. Mr. Whitehouse stated that staff felt that the applicant needed a variance but they felt this was a water dependent use and did not need a variance. However, Mr. Whitehouse felt the applicant meets the variance criteria. Mr. Whitehouse said the cave was less than 100’ across and this was the minimum length needed to allow for a safe working environment to construct this vessel. Mr. Whitehouse said this would be a temporary building for this project and they would take it down within a year after the Coronet was in the water. Mr. Whitehouse said staff had some technical concerns: the flood management plan, which they met; the handling of paints and solvents, which would be amended in the current CM plan they have with CRMC; and the soil removal, which they felt was not a significant issue. Mr. Kruzcamp, the applicant’s engineer, addressed the erosion and stromwater issues and felt there would be no impact. Mr. Whitehouse requested Council approval on the application. Chair Tikoian asked when the Coronet would be completed. Mr. Whitehouse stated within a 5-year period but they would like to have it done within 3 years. Chair Tikoian asked if he had any objection to bringing the application back before the council in 2 years to see where the project is. Mr. Whitehouse agreed. Mr. Nathan stated that the timeframe to get the Coronet finished and back in the water was fairly quickly because if the Coronet was kept out the water it could harm the project. Mr. Abedon said the building would be held down by screws and asked if there would be any impact to the building if there was a hurricane. Mr. Kruzcamp responded that the building could withstand hurricane force winds up to 110 mph. Bill Casey, an abutter Spring Wharf, stated that he had just received notice of the hearing today. Mr. Casey said his major concern was with the setbacks because it pushes their marina out and what impact it would have on the cluster if the applicant wanted to move it further out. Chair Tikoian asked what the distance was from the water edge to the building on Mr. Casey’s property. Mr. Whitehouse responded 12.1 feet. Mr. Casey stated that they can now walk along the water and was concerned if they expanded this further out it might block access. Chair Tikoian responded that if this happened they would have to come back to the Council for a modification of the assent. Mr. Casey asked what the height of the building was. Mr. Kruzcamp responded 44.5’ above the mean high water level. Chair Tikoian asked if the applicant would agreed to two-year approval of the assent and come back for a renewal after two years. Mr. Whitehouse said he did not have a problem with this and agreed. Mr. Shekarchi, seconded by Rep. Naughton and Mr. Zarrella moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations that the applicant come back for renewal of the assent in 3 years and if the project is finished within that time that the building come down within one year of the completion of the project. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. Chair Tikoian noted that voting to continue the application was to respect the Mayor and the town council’s request.

2004-06-075 GORDON & KIMBERLY RICE – Construct a two-bedroom, single-family residence with associated ISDS and public water. Located at plat 96-1, lot 118; Green Hill Ocean Drive, South Kingstown, RI.

Kimberly Rice, the applicant was present. Mr. Reis gave Council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was to construct a two-bedroom residential home with an ISDS. Mr. Reis stated that a 77% variance to the buffer and an 83% setback variance were needed in accordance with modification recommended by staff. Mr. Reis stated that a 25’ minimum buffer zone was required in accordance with the SAM Plan. Mr. Reis said the applicant agreed to a 25’ buffer but were concerned with the 10-15’ setback required but the applicant only wanted a 10’ setback which staff agreed to. Chair Tikoian asked if the applicant agreed to this. Mrs. Rice said they agreed to a 25’ buffer and 10’ setback. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Zarrella moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations a 25’ buffer and 10’ setback. Mr. Vincent noted that the plan in the packet was different than what is being approved. Mr. Reis stated that a new plan would be requested that reflected the changes and would be made part of the assent.

2003-06-052 PETER & JUDITH KOHLSAAT – Construct an “As Built” timber retaining wall along an intermittent stream, backfill with soil, seed and clear coastal vegetation. Located at plat 19-4, lot 10; 157 Walmsley Lane, South Kingstown, RI.

The applicants were not present. Mr. Reis explained that this matter was an enforcement issue and the applicants were willing to sign a consent agreement. Chair Tikoian held the application and requested that staff update the Council on the status of this.

6. Applications which have been Out to Public Notice for 30 days and are before the Full Council for Decision:

2004-03-099 BERNARD & TRACI MACERONI -- construct a residential boating facility to consist of: 4’ x 210’ fixed timber pier, a 4’ x 20’ ramp and a 150 square foot float. The terminus of the proposed dock extends to approximately 153-feet beyond mean low water MLW to span the existing SAV habitat requiring a length variance from the RICRMP § 300.4.E.3(k) (~ -10’ MLW). Located at plat 2, lot 70; 596 East Shore Road, Jamestown, RI.

Traci Maceroni, the applicant was present. John Caito, the applicants’ engineer was also present on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Reis gave Council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was to construct a residential boating facility to consist of a 4’ x 210’ fixed timber pier, a 4’ x 20’ ramp and a 150 s.f. float. He said the proposed dock extends 153’ beyond mean low water and a 103’ length variance was required. Mr. Reis said there is a 7.5’ water depth at the end of the dock. Mr. Reis stated that the staff biologist recommended approval of the application because the applicant was using the Burdick and Short method for the dock and the float would be extended beyond the eel grass bed. Mr. Caito said the applicant met the requirements for the length variance. Mr. Caito stated that they needed the length variance because of the eel grass. Mr. Gray asked what standard was used for the height of the dock for eel grass areas and floats. Mr. Reis explained that the float is on the top of the water and was not elevated. Mr. Reis said the dock is at a reasonable length to reach this depth of water and have a float at the end of the dock. Mr. Sahagian asked if Mr. Caito was familiar with the other docks in this area and if this dock was similar to other docks in the area. Mr. Caito replied yes. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Gray and Mr. Zarrella moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations and the length variance. Chair Tikoian noted that a lot of docks have been approved with this method (Burdick & Short) in eel grass areas. Chair Tikoian wanted to know if by using the Burdick & Short method and raising the docks was it protecting the eel grass beds. Mr. Reis replied yes. Mr. Reis said in his opinion he felt it was working. Mr. Reis noted that they were working with URI to do a study on this and hope to do a study on this next year. Mr. Reis also noted that this was an accepted practice in Cape Cod. Mr. Vincent felt a 210’ pier was large and asked if they can control the size of boats on the pier and what impact it would have on eel grass. Chair Tikoian responded that the docks are going out longer to protect eel grass beds and the boats are not approaching the eel grass beds. Mr. Reis stated that staff would not recommend using this method in ponds or small water area but Jamestown has a large water way. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2002-10-010 STEPHEN MECCA – Install a seasonal, aluminum, boat ramp system on a (rocky) coastal beach. The proposed boat ramp system is not anchored, is approximately 2’ wide, by 43’-9” long and will be located between mean low water (MLW) and mean high water (MHW) on the (rocky) beach face. This project may require a Special Exception pursuant to the RICRMP Section 300.4.D.6 and Section 130. Located at plat 2, lot 247; Conanicut Island, 5 Aquidneck Court, Jamestown, RI.

Stephen Mecca, the applicant was present. Mr. Reis gave Council members a brief summary on application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was for a seasonal boat ramp system to be placed on a coastal beach. Mr. Reis felt a special exception was required under Section 130 of the RI CRMP. Mr. Reis said staff recommended that the application be denied. Chair Tikoian asked Mr. Reis to explain the requirements of a special exception. Mr. Reis explained the special exception requirements. Mr. Reis also explained that under Section 300.4(d) ramps are prohibited on coastal beach areas. Mr. Reis said if this was manmade shoreline it was allowed but this was not a manmade shoreline. Mr. Reis stated that staff felt this was a prohibited activity and required a special exception. Mr. Ehrhardt asked Mr. Reis to explain why this temporary structure was considered an alteration of the coastal beach. Mr. Reis replied an alteration was putting a structure where it can be effected by storms and effect other structures in the area. Mr. Reis said they were putting a structure on a coastal feature not an upland area. Mr. Deveau stated that page 6 of the staff report shows the structure on the beach during mean low water and during high tide the structure would impact access. Mr. Deveau said if there was a hurricane it could cause property damage or be taken out to sea. Chair Tikoian asked the applicant to address the issue of the special exception not the application. Chair Tikoian noted that a special exception has never been approved for private use. Mr. Mecca addressed the issue of the special exception, which talked about building and constructing but did not address placing an ramp on wheels on a beach. Mr. Mecca said he was looking to launch his boat into the water. Mr. Mecca felt placing a temporary boat launch ramp was not addressed in the red book. Mr. Mecca said there would be nothing constructed on the coastal feature and this was not a typical boat ramp launch. He said the staff report referred to this as a “Roll n’ Go” and said this did not fall within the RICRMP section and felt this was a special exception. Mr. Mecca said he was not sure what feature he was altering. Mr. Mecca felt this was not a special exception. Mr. Reis stated that staff deferred to the Council for the decision. Mr. Reis said there was no definition of an alteration in the red book glossary and not part of the application review process. Mr. Zarrella asked if the land the boat launch ramp would be on is state land or the applicant’s land. Chair Tikoian stated that it crosses state land. Mr. Zarrella asked if the ramp was on public property. Mr. Mecca replied all but a portion of the ramp. Chair Tikoian asked if a temporary structure was an alteration. Mr. Fugate explained that an alteration is considered a development or construction and included temporary structures. Chair Tikoian said the staff report said this may require a special exception. Mr. Mecca felt this was an alternative to having a residential dock. Mr. Mecca did not want to build a dock. He said he received a letter from staff suggesting that he build a residential dock. Mr. Gray was concerned with lateral access across the beach. Mr. Gray felt in high tide the structure would be submerged and could have impact on public access and hurt someone. Mr. Gray felt the Council had to watch what was allowed to go across a beach area. Mr. Gray said this type of a structure would have impact on pedestrians Chair Tikoian asked the Council to address the special exception issue. Mr. Ehrhardt said an alteration is a change or use of an area. Mr. Ehrhardt stated that a line across the beach blocks access along the beach. Mr. Ehrhardt asked if the applicant would issue an easement to allow people to come up on private property to go around this and put a sign up. Mr. Mecca agreed. Mr. Mecca said from the high water edge to the dense vegetative buffer only allowed 10’ for passage. Mr. Abedon said this was a gray area and asked if the policy and planning subcommittee was looking at this and if there was a policy made to change this to determine whether this was allowed or not. Mr. Abedon said if he had to determine if this was a special exception and rule on the special exception he felt this was a special exception. Mr. Abedon suggested that they have the policy and planning subcommittee look at this and they may have another alternative. Mr. Zarrella had a problem with this and felt the applicant would be parking a boat on the beach and this would block public access. Mr. Fugate said this was a difficult decision for staff and they needed the Council’s guidance on this. Mr. Fugate felt the Council should have the policy and planning subcommittee look at this. Mr. Gray agreed. Chair Tikoian said there are two issues if this was a special exception or a new structure design and they would need to look at this. Mr. Abedon recommended that the policy and planning subcommittee look at this and make a determination and then have the application come back before the Council. Chair Tikoian noted that staff classified this area as a beach with a coastal feature and bluff. Mr. Gray agreed. Mr. Gray noted that when the boat was not being used it would be parked on the beach. Mr. Ehrhardt said there were a lot of issues that needed to be addressed and urged the applicant to withdraw his application or table the application at this time. Mr. Zarrella stated that the staff engineer said there could be a safety issue as well. Mr. Zarrella felt this would set a precedent and other people could come in for the same thing and the beach would become a parking lot for boats. Mr. Mecca stated that he had a letter from the company, which explained the boat launch ramp and submitted it to the Council for their review. Chair Tikoian requested that the applicant agree to hold the application for the time being and have the policy and planning subcommittee look at this and come back before the Council in the spring. Mr. Mecca agreed. Chair Tikoian requested that staff look at the surrounding states and see if they have any similar structures like this. Chair Tikoian tabled the application to the spring to allow the policy and planning subcommittee to look at this.

2004-03-026 CARL & DEDILIA DeSIMONE – Construct and maintain a residential boating facility consisting of a 137.5’ x 4’ fixed pier. The facility will extend 50’ (+/-) beyond mean low water. Also a boat lift will be installed on the north side of the fixed pier. Located at plat N-B, lot 48-26; 19 Searidge Drive, Narragansett, RI.

Carl Desimone, the applicant was present. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was to construct a residential boating facility to consist of 137.5’ x 4’ fixed pier and will extend 50’ beyond mean low water with a boat lift installed on the north side of the fixed pier. Mr. Reis said dinghy lifts were allowed in type 2 waters. Mr. Reis said no variances were required and staff recommended approval of the application. Mr. Sahagian asked where on Searidge this was located. Mr. DeSimone replied near the URI Bay Campus. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Vice Chair Lemont and Mr. Zarrella moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. Mr. DeSimone stated that he could not go out more than 4 ½ feet at mean low water but wanted to go out an additional 50’ to get a 6 ½’ depth of water so they can swin off the dock. Chair Tikoian noted that the application was before the council for the boat lift not for the dock. Chair Tikoian said the applicant can make this request for an additional dock length but the application would have to go back to staff for review. Mr. Reis stated that the dock was shortened to obtain a 3.4’ depth of water, which is the standard depth for a dock. Chair Tikoian suggested that they hold the application for two weeks and have the applicant come back with his engineer. Mr. Fugate said the Army Corps may be cutting them back on the dock length not CRMC. Chair Tikoian suggested that the applicant have his engineer contact Mr. Reis. Mr. Sahagian withdrew his motion and Vice Chair Lemont and Mr. Zarrella withdrew their second. The application was held until the October 11th meeting.

7. Public Hearing on Program Changes to the RICRMP:

The following changes are proposed:

Section 210.7 Dunes

Revise Section C.2 Policies as follows:

Add New Section D.3 Prohibitions:

3. No new Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be constructed within the setback area from the dune or beaches (see Section 300.6.A.2 for definition of new ISDS).

Chair Tikoian opened the public hearing. Mr. Fugate explained the proposed program changes to Section 210.7 Dunes and Section D.3 Prohibitions. Mr. Fugate stated that this was a clarification of the policy for dunes. Mr. Fugate said a special exception was required if construction was within the 75’ buffer, which consists of a 50’ buffer with a 25’ setback. He said staff looked at erosion setbacks and applied the dune setbacks to an application and this was not was intended towards erosion setbacks. Chair Tikoian asked if new ISDS’s were allowed under new Section D.3 Prohibitions. Mr. Fugate explained that this allowed for repair of existing ISDS systems. Mr. Fugate also noted that the special exception was to all setbacks not just for dune setbacks but included erosion setbacks. He said this change would not include erosion setbacks. Chair Tikoian called for public comment. There was no public comment. Chair Tikoian closed the public hearing. Mr. Ehrhardt, seconded by Mr. Vincent moved approval of the proposed changes to Sections 210.7 Dunes and D.3 Prohibitions. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

8. Enforcement Report – August, 2004

There were none held.

9. Category “A” List

There were none held.

There being no further business before the council the meeting, the council adjourned at 7:43 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Grover Fugate
Executive Director CRMC

Reported by Lori A. Field

CALENDAR INDEX